S/09/4/M

Page 1 of 19

THE SENATE

Minutes of the meeting of the Senate held on Wednesday 14 October 2009in the Old Lecture Theatre

Present:

1) Ex officioMr Martin Bean, Vice-ChancellorProfessor Brigid Heywood, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise)Professor Alan Tait, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Curriculum and Awards)Professor David Vincent, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Strategy and External Affairs)Dr Sharon Ding, Dean, Faculty of Education and Language StudiesProfessor Chris Earl, Dean, Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and TechnologyProfessor James Fleck, Dean, Open University Business SchoolProfessor Dot Miell, Dean, Faculty of Social SciencesProfessor Phil Potts, Dean, Faculty of ScienceMr Jeremy Roche, Alternate for Dean, Faculty of Health and Social CareProfessor David Rowland, Dean, Faculty of ArtsMs Anne Howells, Director of Learning and Teaching SolutionsMr Will Swann, The Director, StudentsProfessor Josie Taylor, Director, Institute of Educational TechnologyMrs Nicky Whitsed, Director, Library Services

Appointed

2) Central Academic Units

Faculty of ArtsProfessor Richard Allen Dr Lynda PrescottDr Richard Brown Dr Robert WilkinsonDr Graham Harvey Professor John Wolffe

Faculty of Education and Language StudiesMr Uwe Baumann Dr Frank MonaghanDr Jane Cullen Mr Pete SmithDr Regine Hampel Dr Peter TwiningProfessor Mary Kellett

Faculty of Health and Social CareMrs Sue Cole Dr Verina WaightsDr Sandy Fraser Dr Jackie Watts

S/09/4/M

Page 2 of 19

Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and TechnologyProfessor Anne de Roeck Dr Tony NixonDr Judy Ekins Dr Toby O’NeilDr Joyce Fortune Dr Sally OrganDr Uwe Grimm Ms Linda RobsonMr Anthony Meehan Dr Helen Yanacopulos

Faculty of Social SciencesDr Timothy Jordan Dr Diane WatsonDr Bob Kelly Professor Sophie WatsonDr Martin Le Voi

Faculty of ScienceMr Robin Harding Dr Payam RezaieProfessor Simon Kelley Dr Peter SkeltonDr Andrew Norton Professor Ian Wright

Open University Business SchoolDr Jacky Holloway Ms Lin SmithMs Carmel McMahon

Institute of Educational TechnologyDr Robin Goodfellow Mr Alan WoodleyProfessor Eileen Scanlon

Other Central UnitsDr Derek Child

Regional CentresMs Celia Cohen Mr Gordon LammieDr Rosemary Hamilton Dr Liz Manning

3) Associate LecturersMr Paddy Alton Dr Meg HopkinsDr Isobel Falconer Mr Dave HoranMr Bruce Heil Dr Michael Isherwood

4) Students Appointed by Open University Students AssociationMs Marianne Cantieri Mr Sandy GibsonMrs Roz Evans Mr Carey Shaw (Alternate)Mr Sandy Garrity (Alternate) Mrs Barbara Tarling

5) Academic-related StaffMs Pat Atkins Mr Ian RoddisDr Juliet Bishop Mrs Gill SmithMrs Lynda Juma Ms Beverley StewartDr Christina Lloyd Mr Michael StreetMrs Bethan Norfor Ms Elaine WalkerMs Hilary Robertson

6) Co-opted membersMr Andy Harding Mr Peter SymeMr Rob Humphreys Mrs Helen WildmanDr P Scott

S/09/4/M

Page 3 of 19

In attendanceMr Fraser Woodburn, University SecretaryMs Jane Duffield, Senior Assistant Secretary (Central Secretariat)Mrs Julie Tayler, Assistant Secretary (Central Secretariat)Dr Sally Crompton, Head of Open Broadcasting UnitMiss Alison Nash, Manager Quality, Strategy Unit, Curriculum and TeachingMs Anne Gaskell, Asst Director, AL Support and Development, Student ServicesDr Sheila King, Head of Vice-Chancellor’s OfficeMiss Kathryn Harris, Graduate Management Trainee, Human ResourcesMiss Bhavika Jessani, Graduate Management Trainee, Human Resources

Apologies:

1) Ex officioProfessor Denise Kirkpatrick, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning, Teaching and Quality)Professor Shirley Reveley, Dean, Faculty of Health and Social Care

Appointed

2) Central Academic Units

Faculty of Health and Social CareDr Sarah Earle

Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and TechnologyMr Derek Goldrei Professor Hazel Johnson

Faculty of Social SciencesMr Robert Clifton Dr Troy Cooper

Faculty of ScienceDr Terry Whatson

OU Business SchoolMr Richard Wheatcroft

4) Students Appointed by Open University Students AssociationMr Derek Naysmith Mrs Nicki Hadjipanteli

5) Academic-related StaffMrs Carole Baume Mrs Sheran BurgeMr Ray Brown

6) Co-opted membersMrs Veronica Summers

In attendanceDr Kate Clarke, Director, Open University Validation Services

S/09/4/M

Page 4 of 19

1 INTRODUCTION AND WELCOME

The Chair, Mr Martin Bean, thanked colleagues for the support he had been given in his first few weeks as Vice-Chancellor. One of the key differences that he had noted in his transition from the private sector to a UK academic institution was the way in which the university governed itself. The Senate had an important role, with a critical responsibility and set of accountabilities to the University. As a group, it was the conscience of the University, making sure that it stayed true to its founding principles of openness and social justice. The quality of the student experience was defined in this forum and the way in which the Senate considered the University’s future and the changes necessary to keep pace with the challenges presented by its community, society and the economy were fundamental to the OU’s success or failure. The Senate had to continue to challenge the OU to innovate methods and ideas: if it was conservative and did not ensure that the University continued to embrace new thinking, then the institution would stand still. The distinctive characteristic of OU research and scholarship was that it not only contributed tosociety, but that it also informed the University’s learning and teaching. The Senate had an important role in helping to shape the size, balance, objectives and outcomes of research and scholarship and to ensure that the OU got the most out of it both within and outside of the University. Mr Bean reassured members that he would ensure that its thinking wascaptured and fed in as appropriate to the rest of the governance structure.

The Chair welcomed some new members to their first meeting of the Senate: Mr Bruce Heil, Dr David Horan and Dr Michael Isherwood were associate lecturers (ALs); and Ms Bev Stewart was an academic related member of staff from Student Services.

2 MINUTES S/09/3/M

The Senate approved as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 25 June 2009, subject to the following addition to Minute 9.2:

The Chair asked the Senate whether or not there was a consensus that the removal of this measure should be reconsidered.

The Senate agreed that the decision should be reviewed.

3 REPORT FROM AND QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR

3.1 National Teaching Fellows

On behalf of the Senate, the Chair congratulated Professor Pam Shakespeare (Faculty of Health and Social Care) and Ian Fribbance (Faculty of Social Science) who had received their National Teaching Fellows awards at a ceremony in London on 23rd September 2009.

3.2 National Student Survey

The Chair acknowledged the University’s excellent performance in the National Student Survey, which was fully reported in the paper S/09/4/15. The OU had been ranked 3rd behind two small specialist institutions and had maintained an overall satisfaction rating of 94%.

S/09/4/M

Page 5 of 19

3.3 Implementation of the Learning and Teaching Strategy

Since the Senate meeting in June, the Learning and Teaching Strategy had also been approved by the SPRC and the Council. Initial meetings had been held with stakeholders to discuss their contribution to the achievement of the strategy. Their responses were being consolidated and contributions would be mapped to ensure that all areas were addressed and to identify any additional action or projects. This information would beshared via a Wiki. The final approved version of the Learning and Teaching Strategy was available on the Learning and Teaching Office website (http://intranet.open.ac.uk/strategy-unit/offices/lto/policy.shtml)

3.4 US Foundations Visit

The University was preparing for a summit on 2/3 November for a number of major US Foundations who shared the OU’s goal of opening access to education both formally and informally. The summit would aim to showcase a number of OU projects and capabilities which could help address the issue of ‘at risk’ children within the US dropping out of their educational system. Attendees would include representatives from organisations that represented much of the philanthropic work in this area: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The Lumina Foundation and The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

3.5 BBC

The Chair had recently participated in a special reception, hosted by the BBC’s Director-General, Mark Thompson, and other BBC Controllers, to celebrate the University’s 40th anniversary. The reception had signalled the Corporation’s desire for an on-going relationship with the University, as the OU commenced negotiations for the 6th Agreement with the BBC.

3.6 International Strategy

During its Residential Weekend on 25/26 September, the Council had considered issues pertinent to the OU’s international growth strategy. The discussion had been eye-opening and the Council had gained a better appreciation of the issues concerned.

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Strategy and External Affairs), Professor David Vincent, was nowleading a programme of work to identify the actions required to deliver an International Strategy. A paper would come to the Senate, SPRC and the Council in the New Year, and would provide an opportunity for discussion and feedback.

3.7 Faculty of Social Sciences

The Faculty of Social Sciences had been shortlisted, through its Financial Services curriculum, for the Times Higher Widening Participation Initiative of the Year award and also for the Scottish Financial Enterprise (SFE) Innovation Award.

The theme of the SFE Innovators 2009 was 'recognising new thinking' and the OU had been short listed, not only with other universities such as Herriot Watt, but also with some of the biggest names in the financial services industry, such as Standard Life and Clydesdale Bank.

S/09/4/M

Page 6 of 19

3.8 Student Recruitment

The Director, Students, Mr Will Swann, reported that the latest forecast (October) predicted that overall registrations would be 6.3% above target for 2009/10. With the registrations for October almost complete, recruitment for these courses was predicted to be 10.4% above target, which was on top of a planned growth of 14.6%. This outcome had entailed much work in the regions and nations, for which Mr Swann expressed his gratitude.

There had been growth across all geographic areas: 6.3% in England, 3.9% in Scotland, 7.8% in Wales, 16.7% in Northern Ireland, 7.5% in the Republic of Ireland and 6.9% in the rest of Europe.

A member noted that the recession had helped the University achieve its target for student numbers, but wondered what protection this gave the University as the recession continued. Mr Swann responded that it was uncertain how long the impact of the recession would result in increased student registrations. The proportion of students seeking registration who were unemployed had risen considerably. The number of studentsseeking financial support had continued to rise, and now constituted 50% of all applicants. Further details about the extent to which the demographic profile of students had changed would soon be available, and much depended on the patterns of employment, but it was assumed that there would be a continuing impact into 2010/11. Professor Vincent added that the increase in student registrations was positive but so long as the University’s funded numbers did not go up, the situation would not impact on the University’s grant income. If demand continued to be buoyant, then the OU would be able to take more radical steps with regard to improving its systems and practices to make them more efficient and effective. If the numbers went down, then the University’s freedom of manoeuvre to modernise and develop its processes would also be reduced.

Another member commented that many students did not pass their first course and that many aspired to do a second course but then did not. The University had a wardrobe of interwoven strategies that were attempting to address this. There was an immediate opportunity to review the extent and nature of support for the current intake of new students, in order to have some impact on the problems of retention and progression.

Mr Swann said that there were currently two broad strands of work to address the problem of progression. The first was a long term strategy to focus attention on students’ study goals. The Award Based Services programme was trying to identify and support thesegoals consistently and continually, and it was intended to implement the new system by July 2010. In the short term, there was a lot that could be done in the course based modular structure. A pilot project had taken place, engaging ALs in calling students before and after their exam to discuss progression, which had resulted in an improvement of over 5%. The intention now was to extend this activity to selected large population Level 1 courses. Not only was this good for students, but it would also save the university money in reducing the expenditure on recruiting new students. Student Services had targeted a budget reduction of £2 million, mainly in respect of the advertising costs needed to recruit 30% new students every year.

3.9 University Locations Feasibility Study

The Director, Students, Mr Will Swann, reported that Student Services had issued a statement that morning about the outcomes of the University Locations Feasibility Study. Ithad been sent to the deans, students and associate lecturers (ALs). The study had been established in late May 2009 as part of a wider exploration of opportunities to reduce costs

S/09/4/M

Page 7 of 19

across the University. The study investigated the scope of cost savings by reducing the number of locations from which the University provided services to students and associate lecturers. It covered all ten English regional centres, the national centres in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the offices in Dublin and Brussels, and Student Services at Walton Hall.

The analysis showed that over five years, all of the options would incur net additional costs to the University. After ten years, only two of the options would yield net savings, but all would do so after twenty years. On 1 October 2009, VCE had agreed that the study should be concluded and would not proceed to a second phase.

The future for the University was still financially challenging. Student Services and CAUs must continue to look for savings in providing services and support to students and ALs.

A member asked whether ALs would have the opportunity to contribute their knowledge to the search for more efficient ways of delivering the quality of service and support to students. Mr Swann welcomed this offer and noted that part of the review of the AL representative structure was to ensure that the University got the full benefit of the ALs’experience.

3.10 The Party Conferences

The Chair had attended all three party conferences and had met the influential members of each political party. The clear message from each was that the sector faced very significant challenges ahead. The harsh economic climate would undoubtedly have a negative impact on public spending post-election, whichever party won: it was no longer “if it happens” but rather “by how much”? Consequently, the OU activity around cost savings continued to be crucial.

4 STRATEGIC PLANNING & RESOURCES COMMITTEE (S/09/4/1) Meeting held on 1 July 2009

The Senate noted the unconfirmed minutes from the meeting of the Strategic Planning and Resources Committee held on 1 July 2009.

5 CURRICULUM, AWARDS AND VALIDATION COMMITTEE S/09/4/2Meeting held on 30 June 2009

5.1 A member referred to Appendix 1, points 2 and 3 of the revised code of practice for student assessment, noting that the wording of SA1.5 might be interpreted by students to mean that they could only submit an assignment once, whereas they could submit revisions up until the cut off date. He thought that the point would have greater clarity if the text “once a mark has been recorded” was added. With reference to SA1.2.1.4.4 regarding the removal of stationery, he believed that the current practice was not to allow the removal of question papers and that this should be explicitly added to the code. Professor Tait remarked that these items were not among those that had been revised, but agreed that the wording could be improved. As these matters were not substantive, but nevertheless required confirmation of current practice with the examinations department, he suggested that the rewording of these points were not agreed at this meeting, but were reported back to a future meeting of the Senate.

S/09/4/M

Page 8 of 19

5.2 The Senate:

a) agreed to reconsider the revised code of practice for student assessment at a future meeting;

b) noted the report of the meeting of the Curriculum, Awards and Validation Committee held on 30 June 2009.

6 RESEARCH COMMITTEE S/09/4/3Meeting held on 30 September 2009

6.1 A member remarked that the paper had been put forward as a report from the Research

Committee, but that a formal meeting of the committee had not been held on 30 September 2009. Instead, a workshop had taken place, which had included participants who were not members of the Research Committee. The workshop had been valuable for sharing views and achieving a consensus, but as it was not a meeting of the Research Committee, it had not discussed committee business and should not therefore have been presented to the Senate. This paper had also appeared on the Research Committee intranet pagesdescribed as minutes. The rubric of the paper and the entry on the website should be revised to make clear that it was a report on a workshop, not the minutes of a meeting of the Research Committee.

6.2 Professor Heywood agreed that the paper should be amended. She would investigate what had appeared on the website and ensure any necessary alterations were made.

Action: BH

7 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE S/09/4/4Meeting held on 15 June 2009

The Senate noted the report of the meeting of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee held on 15 June 2009.

8 SENATE MEMBERSHIP PANEL S/09/4/5Meeting held on 14 July 2009

The Senate noted the report of the meeting of the Senate Membership Panel (SMP) held on 14 July 2009, and the action taken by the chair of the Panel following the meeting.

9 CENTRAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT S/09/4/6

9.1 The Director, Students, Mr Will Swann, requested permission to withdraw the paper aserrors had been found in the data in the report that had not been resolvable in time for the meeting. Comments on the paper could be sent to Mr Swann informally.

Action: WS/All members

9.2 The Senate agreed to the withdrawal of paper S/09/4/6.

S/09/4/M

Page 9 of 19

10 SPECIAL APPEALS COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT S/09/4/7

The Senate noted the findings of the report of the Special Appeals Committee of the Senate (SAC) for the period April 2008 to May 2009. No further action was considerednecessary.

11 FEES 2010/11 S/09/4/8

Confidential Minute.

12 QAA INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT S/09/4/9

12.1 The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Curriculum and Awards), Professor Alan Tait, introduced the paper on behalf of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning, Teaching and Quality), Professor Denise Kirkpatrick. The University should be delighted that the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) had confidence in the management of academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities, which were the two key criteria that supported the OU profile in the UK and across the world. A number of recommendations had been made, action on which was desirable, but not essential or advisable: there were no matters that put the University’s quality or standards at risk. The recommendations would now be followed through by the Learning and Teaching Office. On behalf of the University, Professor Tait thanked the project team, particularly Professor Kirkpatrick, Professor Richard Allen and Dr Diana Stammers.

12.2 Referring to the recommendation in paragraph 4.1.iii, a member asked whether the Director of Information would have the role of a Chief Information Officer (CIO), who would look across the whole of the University to see how information was gathered, synthesized and used. The University Secretary, Mr Fraser Woodburn, thought that the title of CIO could mean many things, but confirmed that the focus of the role would be across the institution, to set standards and advise colleagues on how to improve the quality of data analysis. This was not to imply that the Director of Information would do the analysis or solve all the problems in interpreting data.

12.3 Another member commented that the steps outlined in paragraph 4.1.iii to address the need to “consistently analyse in greater depth the extensive management information” focussed largely on the provision and analysis of data, rather than on the soundness of decision making. The University had plenty of information, but the challenge was to have it available for the right person, at the right time to make the right decision. The paragraph did not address this issue.

12.4 A member referred to the praise for the Stage Gate process mentioned in paragraph 3.1.i. of the paper and commented that his own experience had been different. Paragraph 14 reported that the committee processes required for course and award approval were ”ponderous and lengthy”. The member urged the University to review the committee structure.

12.5 Professor Tait commented that the University invested much capital in its courses and it was appropriate that decisions should be made with due regard to estimates of the audience, staffing and other resources required. The Stage Gate process was now fully embedded and the University had learned to use it more flexibly, engaging with the process according to the needs of the particular project. With respect to simplifying governance, a proposal would be coming to the Senate to reduce the process between the Awards Committee and the Curriculum Awards and Validation Committee (CAVC).

Action: AT

S/09/4/M

Page 10 of 19

12.6 A student member said that OUSA was delighted with the report and considered the recommendations regarding students highly desirable, particularly with regard to enabling student representatives to see the external examiners reports and to enabling, supporting and training students to engage in the full range of appropriate University committees, including programme committees. For example, representatives on the Central Disciplinary Committee (CDC) required training that the OUSA executive did not feel qualified to provide and they would welcome assistance in this area.

12.7 A member remarked that the steps described in paragraph 4.1.vi to “advance the implementation of current proposals to ensure that students embark on courses and awards at appropriate levels” underestimated the importance of this particular recommendation and the difficulty of addressing it, as it created tension with the University’s open access policy and placed a lot of importance on improving student progression and retention. It would be worth elaborating further on this point.

12.8 Another member said that there seemed to be a debate within the QAA about what their own code of practice meant with regard to the publication of external examiners’ reports. Such reports on courses were a vital part of quality enhancement and quality assuranceand the University should use them as part of the general information flow.

12.9 A member commented that many ALs came from industry where quality assurance was an integral part of business practice and their experience should be used.

12.10 Professor Tait said that the feedback from the Senate would now go back to Professor Kirkpatrick and her team and would inform how the response to the recommendations was driven through the University.

Action: DK

13 SCHOLARSHIP IN THE OPEN UNIVERSITY S/09/4/10

13.1 The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Curriculum and Awards), Professor Alan Tait, introduced the paper, which had been jointly written by him, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise), Professor Brigid Heywood and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning, Teaching and Quality), Professor Denise Kirkpatrick.

13.2 The Senate had discussed the issue before, which had its origins with the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Some 40% of the academic community had work submitted to the RAE, but this raised questions about how the University should value, support and align the scholarly activity of those colleagues that were not entered into the RAE. The paper picked up on some issues that were already being discussed across the University, but offered a vehicle to take that discussion forward.

13.3 There were a number of key points to highlight. The OU should take a plural view of scholarship: it should value and support a range of scholarly activity. The paper drew on Boyer’s classification of scholarship, as the most influential means of identifying differenttypes of scholarly activity. Scholarship should be aligned with both faculty and university priorities, and there should be iteration between the two. Scholarship should not only be seen as an activity, but should be pursued and managed for high quality outcomes, with peer recognition as a significant measure of quality across the range of activity. The University should not leave individuals to manage alone, but should support and reward scholarship and its achievements. Finally, the overall approach to scholarship, if agreed by the Senate, would require further actions to be implemented and these were set out in Appendix 1 to the paper. Central Academic Unit (CAU) agendas would require further

S/09/4/M

Page 11 of 19

development, including the iteration with institutional priorities, workload planning would have to be adjusted, and promotions criteria reviewed and developed.

13.4 Many members welcomed the overall approach to scholarship in the paper. Some expressed concerns or requested clarification.

13.5 A member commented that the paper’s most valuable contribution was in realising the discussion that had taken place over the past few years and in enabling what would previously have been difficult conversations. This approach to scholarship gave people permission to do work that was in the University’s interests, which was not necessarily genesis research. The University also needed to address how it managed the coherence of the OU scholarship effort, as this was not dealt with in the paper.

13.6 A member welcomed the fact that the paper had been jointly written by the three CAU facing Pro-Vice-Chancellors. She also thought that it represented part of a process of institutional change that should continue to move forward and be kept on the agenda. Much of the work could be done in the faculties, but continued input from the three Pro-Vice-Chancellors was needed.

13.7 Another member agreed that the paper was the start of a process, but it was fitting for the University to explore that process to the full. Boyer had opened a debate, but it should not stop there. There were different types of knowledge generation and the onus should be on colleagues to justify the quality of their contribution. In fields such as computer science, new contributions had frequently come from the struggle to get things to work in practice. The OU was uniquely placed to exploit this, by inventing new quality measures, rather than relying on what had gone before.

13.8 A member commented on the complicated nature of the scholarship issue. She was keen to see scholarship recognised appropriately, but thought it would be difficult to produce clear and transparent guidelines across the full range of activity. It was not always obvious where a particular activity might appear on Boyer’s classification or whether a piece of research might be submitted to the Research Excellence Framework (REF), until the work was underway.

13.9 A member was concerned that in agreeing the concept of scholarship, the University did not end up setting too firm a boundary between scholarship and REF type research activities, as the inter-relationships were quite subtle. REF research involved more than Boyer’s scholarship of discovery, but also aspects of integration and application.

13.10 Another member said that he was uncomfortable with the practical application of a strategy where scholarship was seen to be everything that an academic did. It was unhelpful in driving culture change in the productive use of academic time. Research was a discipline that was known and understood, and was directly related to scholarship in the way that it should be subject to peer review and should lead to outcomes that gained external recognition. The real issue in sustaining research, however, was the availability of external funding to pay for the necessary staff costs and infrastructure. The OU should now seek every opportunity to gain external funding for scholarship.

13.11 A student member said that she had attended the Making Connections conference, where she had seen the variety of scholarship taking place across the University. OUSAendorsed the approach to scholarship outlined in paper and welcomed the commitment to staff development across the whole range of scholarly activities.

13.12 The Chair of the Associate Lecturers’ Committee (ALC) remarked that when considering the definition of scholarship, evaluating and recognizing scholarship, and the reasons why a

S/09/4/M

Page 12 of 19

wider approach was needed, it was clear that ALs were included. However, the sections regarding facilitating scholarship and issues and matters to be considered during implementation, appeared to exclude ALs. The ALC wanted to see those sections expanded to include the facilitation, implementation and development of AL scholarship. When the revised AL role was used to develop performance indicators, some of these should recognise AL scholarship and be used as a way of encouraging it and the benefit that the OU would derive from it.

13.13 Professor Tait responded that it was important to be clear that scholarship that involved outcomes was not considered to be part of the AL role. ALs were highly valued in the teaching system of the OU as a whole: the scholarship expected and demonstrated by ALs was primarily to keep abreast of their subject knowledge and to develop their skills in teaching and learning. This was primarily done through the professional development that was the shared responsibility of Student Services and the CAU’s. Professor Tait believed that there was also a central fund to support ALs in attending conferences and giving papers. However, scholarship for teaching was different to the scholarship of teaching thatwas set out by this paper. It was important to keep the definition clear.

13.14 The Director, Students, Mr Will Swann, said that scholarship admitted a broad definition of activities. The paper focussed on scholarship that led to outcomes that were subject to peer review. Both the existing and the revised AL role created expectations that ALs would behave in scholarly ways in order to do those things required by both the University and the students. There was a range of ways within the role, both now and in the future, which would require the University to support ALs in maintaining a scholarly approach to their work. Through the work of the Centres of Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs), it was recognised that ALs, outside their existing role, had contributed significantly to the scholarship of teaching. The University was going into a future where both the scholarly attitude required of ALs within the AL role and the opportunities for a contribution to wider scholarship beyond that role would be there for the OU to exploit.

13.15 A member remarked that he worked with colleagues on institutional research, which aimed to improve the way that the University worked. This type of work did not sit comfortably with the RAE and he sought clarification as to whether it would fit with the model identified in the paper. If so, it should be acknowledged that scholarship was not just undertaken by academics, but also by academic related staff who were engaged in discovery and building new knowledge. Professor Tait agreed that whilst the paper related primarily to the academic community, scholarly activity did take place in other units such as the Institute of Educational Technology (IET), Student Services, Learning and Teaching Solutions (LTS) and the Library. The approach outlined in the paper should also apply to those activities, including institutional research, as they developed.

13.16 A member recommended that the Senate approved the proposal in the paper, so that a start could be made on implementation. However, it was important not to lose sight of the issue regarding ALs. As well as a progress report to the Senate in the autumn of 2010, a discussion paper should also be brought forward that considered the circumstances required in order to ensure that the policy could be applied to ALs, thereby achieving a uniformity of approach across a range of staff. It was important that this was discussed further and not simply presented to the Senate as a matter for note.

13.17 Professor Heywood said that, having taken note of the debate at the Senate, and in view of the discussions at the Making Connections conference and the dialogue with the deans in the development of this paper, a look at scholarly activity in a broad sense as it applied to all staff would seem in the first instance to be an appropriate and fair approach to take.

S/09/4/M

Page 13 of 19

13.18 A member commented that he had previously been critical of the top-down, institution-driven approach, which seemed to focus more on staff appraisal and less on career development. He welcomed the overall tone of this paper, which supported the idea of recognising, encouraging and facilitating various acts of scholarship. However, this was not reflected in Appendix 1, particularly bullet point 1, which implied that the top down approach would dominate. The bullets should reinforce the need to negotiate with staff and to encourage them to play an active role in what scholarship they should undertake.

13.19 Referring to the promotions criteria, another member said that the University should be careful about linking the notion of scholarship with the need to meet OU strategic goals and objectives. The framework for evaluating the outcomes of scholarship could be too narrow and too changeable if it was only based on the achievement of University strategic objectives. Other criteria, such as social or intellectual value or usefulness or value might be relevant. There was work to be done by Academic Staff Promotions Committee (ASPC)on promotions criteria, but the committee should try to avoid being too limited in what theseencompassed. Another member commented that changes to promotion criteria should be progressed as soon as possible.

13.20 With regard to the review of the rewards and promotions criteria, a member thought that point 10 overstated the situation as the criteria did refer to research and/or scholarship. However, if the criteria were revised, she requested that an academic should still be allowed to present a coherent case across teaching, research, scholarship and outreach. The member also referred to the bullet point 1in Appendix 1, which stated that academic units would frame agendas for scholarship, saying that it was also desirable for CAUs to be involved in developing clear guidance on academic career profiling and the professional development of scholarship (bullet point 5).

13.21 Professor Heywood responded that ASPC had had two workshops looking at how the acceptance of a broader definition of scholarship by the academic community could be incorporated into its promotions criteria. The committee recognised that it had to provide broad guidelines and that a different balance would be required at different times and for different profiles. A wide range of scholarly activity was currently recognised and valued by the ASPC, but it had not been captured in its formal guidelines and processes, which might have deterred some people from putting their cases forward. It was still important to recognise that investment made in any kind of scholarship had to be linked to the business of the University in an appropriate and fair way.

13.22 A member particularly welcomed the broadening of the paper to include scholarship based in disciplines and not just the scholarship of teaching and learning, as well as the directly practical points relating to HR matters as outlined in Appendix 1. Prompt action was required as there would be workshops in December to brief Heads of Department and other staff about the next year’s promotion round. The member also asked whether there had been further developments in the documentation regarding study leave, as it would be helpful to get all the underpinning documentation for work load planning up to date.

13.23 Another member was confused about some detailed aspects of the policy. Professor Tait had referred to peer recognition in his introduction, but not peer review, whereas Mr Swann had spoken about peer review and not peer recognition. Point 9 was not clear about what form peer recognition or review would take. It was possible to interpret it as being required to list one’s scholarly contributions in such a way that they were transparent and recognisable to one’s peers as being of value. In the case of research, however, each piece of work had to be peer reviewed. If this was the interpretation of peer review for all scholarly work, then it would stifle the ambition to free staff to engage in innovative activity that was in line with the University’s strategic objectives.

S/09/4/M

Page 14 of 19

13.24 Professor Tait responded that the point was intended to suggest that there should be some kind of external validation across all types of scholarship. The nature of the external validation required for REF type research was familiar, but currently it was difficult to define what form such validation would take for other types of scholarly work. For example, professional work might be validated through professional publications. The principle was that quality standards should be externally validated, but that they were likely to be different for different types of scholarship and different subject areas. Professor Heywood endorsed these remarks, saying that if the University was to acknowledge the breadth of scholarship, then it also had to recognise that there were different modes of evaluating andbenchmarking that scholarship. It was reasonable to expect that those being supported to engage in scholarship would produce outcomes or outputs that had a measure of appropriate external validation.

13.25 A member commented that scholarship as a discourse was very subtle and nuanced, but that this document provided a good basis from which to work. It was now necessary to develop good practice that was relevant to all types of work. With reference to the final bullet point of the Appendix, she suggested that the Professional Development Co-ordination Group, co-chaired by IET and HR, should be named. The group included members from Student Services and from all units that provided professional development for staff of all types. Within the group there were representatives of all the differentconstituencies, so the group could work together to ensure that it met needs of all those involved in scholarly activity.

13.26 A member said that the strength of the paper was in the way in which it weaved across the remits of all Planning and Resource Officers (PRO’s) that affected academic life and the lives of academics. However, academics had competitive career structures that required them to exercise their academic freedom and take risks in order that they could be rewarded for what they did. This should be taken into account, so it was surprising that in the implementation plan the frameworks for the professional development of scholarship did not appear to include those with significant experience of managing academic careers, even if the Professional Development Co-ordination Group was included. Professor Tait drew attention to bullet point 1, which stated that academic units would frame an agenda for scholarship and bullet point 5, which said that Heads of Department would be supported in their engagement with and planning of scholarly activities. However, the member argued that whilst their involvement in implementing the framework was clear, it was not clear that they would be involved in setting it up. Professor Heywood assured the Senate that academic input would be sought and there was no intention to exclude academics from this process.

Action: BH

13.27 A member expressed concern about two words that were used in the paper. The first was “approval” and the second “core”. Did “approval” imply that there would be have to be prior approval before someone could embark on a piece of scholarship, or was it about the way in which the contribution was valued and acknowledged in terms of career progression? A definition of where core values and objectives were, as opposed to non-core, would be helpful; otherwise the word might usefully be eliminated. Professor Tait, acknowledged that the word “core” did not add any value. With respect to approval, the paper encompassed both definitions: the way in which colleagues contributed to scholarship in the OU should be valued and supported; but that, via the allocation of resources, should also be approved as being in line with faculty objectives.

13.28 The member then raised the issue of academic freedom, which was not about the OU’s relationship with its employees in the management of scholarship, but about its relationship with the society that gave the University public money. Historically, the concept of academic freedom was to allow a professional community of scholars to pursue scholarship

S/09/4/M

Page 15 of 19

and research on behalf of the public. Consequently, the approval of scholarship sat outside the university, not within it. Those who wished to undertake scholarly activities should indeed discuss their work with a variety of people, including their peers, but the idea that such work should require prior managerial approval went too far. Professor Heywood,observed that when the Senate had discussed the Research Strategy, it had agreed a definition of academic freedom for these purposes. The OU valued the role of academic freedom and its place within the university community, and approval in this context did not overstep the mark, but directly accorded with the formal UNESCO (United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) definition and the responsibilities of an institution in that respect.

13.29 Professor Tait thanked colleagues for their support. The approach to scholarship represented an important step forward for the University and would provide validation and support for the full range of scholarship that had been set out in the paper, both for the academic community and other areas of the OU where scholarly activity took place. The implementation phase would go forward, taking account of the advice that had been received from colleagues, and with further discussions about how it should be executed.

13.30 The Chair thanked the Senate for some excellent feedback, which would be incorporated into the implementation. The points of clarification would be included in the minutes.

Action: BH, DK, AT

13.31 The Senate approved the overall approach to scholarship in The Open University.

14 ANNUAL EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW – THE SENATE S/09/4/11 & 12ANNUAL EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW – THE SENATE SUBSTRUCTURE

14.1 The University Secretary, Mr Fraser Woodburn, introduced both papers together. He observed that the new Senate had been introduced in 2006 and at the same time the structure of the committees reporting to the Senate had been substantially revised. At that time, it had been agreed that the structure would be given time to bed down before a substantial review was conducted. The academic governance review would now take place in the autumn of 2010 and proposals for the framework of that review would be presented to a later meeting of the Senate. In the interim, it was agreed that a light touch review would be conducted on an annual basis, and these papers represented that light touch review.

14.2 Paper 11 provided background information to support members of the Senate in responding to the issues raised in 1.2 of the paper. Paper 12 reported on the outcomes of the annual effectiveness review (AER) for some of the committees in the Senate substructure; the remainder would come back to a later meeting of the Senate.

14.3 In respect of the Senate sub-structure, the QAA had expressed some concern about the effectiveness and transparency of some of the committees reporting to the Senate. The University should not wait until the substantial review to consider this issue: the chairs of those committees should already be thinking about the problem and the University Secretary would meet with them to discuss it. Mr Woodburn also noted that a number of faculty committees had not been quorate. This fact should have been incorporated in the reports and was a matter that should be highlighted in any future reviews. The chairs of inquorate committees should take the issue seriously both now and in the major governance review in 2010.

Action: FW/Committee Chairs

S/09/4/M

Page 16 of 19

14.4 A member remarked on the issue of attendance at the April meeting of the Senate, which was always the lowest. He predicted that the attendance at the meeting in April 2010 would be even lower, as it was scheduled to take place two days after Easter Monday. He requested that Easter week and, ideally, the week before be avoided. Mr Woodburn responded that moving the meeting away from Easter presented a challenge, as it had to fit in with a schedule of meetings of other committees in the business cycle, namely the Strategic Planning and Resources Committee (SPRC) and the Council. The scheduling was reviewed annually, but it had not been possible to avoid Easter in 2010.

14.5 Another member asked that the timing of the October meeting of the Senate be considered in the light of the examination period. A number of colleagues were absent because of examinations and this had also affected the attendance at the AL Senate Reference Group.

14.6 A member congratulated those involved on a comprehensive piece of work. Sherecognised that there were a set of criteria against which the effectiveness of the Senate was judged. However, Appendix 1 reported a significant number of occasions on which the Senate had simply “noted” a paper and she wondered how much information this provided. In the light of the Vice-Chancellor’s remarks at the beginning of the meeting, the Senate should be assuring and enhancing the quality of the products and services that the OU delivered to its students. The major review should consider how effective the Senate was in meeting these objectives.

14.7 Another member remarked that the paper reviewed the performance of the Senate against its remit and in respect of attendance, but it did not consider its effectiveness in relation to how the work of the Senate influenced the performance of the University. She had previously been challenged to propose a means of measuring effectiveness, but despite giving the matter significant consideration, she was unable to suggest an appropriate solution. If it was not possible to find another way, then perhaps the report should be renamed. Mr Woodburn agreed that the Senate’s effectiveness had to be judged against how it improved the operation of the institution. The AER was one measure of effectiveness and looked at whether the Senate had met the objectives that it set itself when it approved its terms of reference. The substantial review should look at the extent to which the Senate achieved the objective of enhancing the effectiveness of the institution. There were ways of approaching this that the full review should adopt.

14.8 A member requested that the punctuation in the paragraph concerning the role of Senate members (Appendix 2, page 24, paragraph 1) be amended to make it easier for new members to understand their responsibilities.

Action: FW

14.9 Another member commented on the varying weight of the agendas for the Senate meetings. For example, the April 2009 agenda had been relatively light, whereas the agenda for June 2009 had been heavy, with some important items for discussion, such as the Future Organisation of Student Support. If such items ran late, either the discussion was curtailed or members had to leave before the discussion was completed. Mr Woodburn explained that VCE considered the scheduling of future items on the Senate agendas, but that in this case some key strategies intended for discussion at the April Senate had been delayed.

Summarising, Mr Woodburn said that the scheduling of the Senate meetings, particularly around Easter and examination periods, would continue to be reviewed. The way in which the effectiveness of the Senate could be measured would be addressed in the substantial review, but consideration would also be given as to how it could be improved in the light touch review. The executive would continue to work to improve the scheduling of major items on the agenda. Action: VCE

S/09/4/M

Page 17 of 19

14.10 A member expressed concern that much of the Senate sub-structure was groaning under the weight of business and thought that anything that could be done to streamline business and decision making would help to improve effectiveness. Referring to paragraphs 2.24 –2.28 regarding the Research Committee, she remarked that the paper (S/09/4/12 RC AER on the Central Secretariat website) did not reflect the discussion that took place on 10 June. The points raised at that meeting of the Research Committee had been incompletely minuted and the review paper had not been updated to take the comments into account. This raised a question about the way in which the effectiveness review had beenimplemented and reported to the Senate. Members’ concerns should be lodged, responded to and reported to the Senate, if the Senate was to have confidence that the issues raised in its sub-structure were being handled effectively. She requested that the report should be referred back to the committee and that a revised AER for the Research Committee be presented to the January 2010 meeting of the Senate. Professor Heywood responded that she had been advised that all the issues raised had been reflected in the report, but that she would review this and report back to the next meeting.

Action: BH

Mr Woodburn observed that QAA had identified some of the issues around committees reporting to the Senate and that ways of improving this should be considered in the short term, as well as in the substantial review.

14.11 A member commented that in the light of the adoption by the Senate and the Council of the Four Nations Strategy, it was necessary to change some terminology to reflect the distinction between regions and nations. He proposed that membership category 8 of the revised constitution for the Awards Committee should be amended.

Action: FW

14.12 The Senate approved the constitutional changes arising from the annual effectiveness review for the following committees:

i) Strategic Planning and Resources Committeeii) Awards Committeeiii) Learning, Teaching and Student Support Committee

The revised constitutions are attached as Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to these minutes.

15 CHANGES TO OU TERMINOLOGY S/09/4/13

With regard to the proposed changes to the terminology currently in use within The Open University, the Senate:

a) approved the change from award to qualification and from points to credits;

b) approved the recommendations made about the timetable for implementation:

i) that these changes are implemented alongside the implementation by Student Services of the Award-based Services Programme Strane One –Managing Qualifications Intentions;

ii) that, with the exception of PLANET (PLAnning on the NET) screens under re-development, changes to CIRCE (Corporate and Individual Records for Customers and Enquirers) and PLANET are scoped and implemented when the outcome of the consideration of the changes to course and levels is known.

S/09/4/M

Page 18 of 19

16 MIDDLE STATES RE-ACCREDITATION S/09/4/14

The Senate noted the report on preparations for the re-accreditation of the University by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.

17 NATIONAL STUDENT SURVEY S/09/4/15

The Senate noted the report on the results of the 2009 National Student Survey.

18 THE COUNCIL S/09/4/16Meeting held on 21 July 2009

The Senate noted the report on the Council’s discussions on the following items at the meeting held on 21 July 2009:

1. Annual Review of Institutional Performance2. Action Planning for 2013/143. Draft 2009 Financial Forecasts4. Budget for 2009/105. Four Nation UK Strategy6. UK Nations Fees7. Learning and Teaching Strategy8. Research Strategy9. Forecast Outturn10. Finance Committee11. The Senate12. Student Recruitment Report13. Times Higher Education article – “dumbing down” of Science14. Additional Student Places15. Partnership with the British Medical Journal (BMJ)16. Reception at No.10 Downing Street

19 ACTION BY THE CHAIR S/09/4/17

The Senate noted the report on action taken by the Chair since the last meeting of theSenate.

20 FUTURE SENATE ITEMS S/09/4/18

The Senate noted the list of potential items for discussion at the meeting of the Senate in January 2010.

21 DATE OF NEXT MEETINGS

Meetings will be held on the following dates:

Wednesday 27 January 2010Wednesday 7 April 2010Wednesday 16 June 2010

S/09/4/M

Page 19 of 19

22 FAREWELL

On behalf of the Senate, the Chair said goodbye to Helen Wildman, Regional Director, The Open University in the East of England, who would be leaving the University in January to take up a post at Wolverhampton University.

Julie TaylerAssistant SecretaryCentral Secretariatj.d.tayler@open.ac.ukOctober 2009

Attachments:

Appendix 1: Strategic Planning and Resources CommitteeAppendix 2: Awards CommitteeAppendix 3: Learning, Teaching and Student Support Committee

Actions:

BH Professor Brigid Heywood, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise)DK Professor Denise Kirkpatrick, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning, Teaching and Quality)WS Mr Will Swann, Director, StudentsAT Professor Alan Tait, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Curriculum and Awards)DV Professor David Vincent, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Strategy and External Affairs)FW Mr Fraser Woodburn, University Secretary

VCE Vice-Chancellor’s Executive

S/09/4/MAppendix 1

S/09/4/12Appendix 1

Page 1 of 2

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

CONSTITUTION – UPDATED 01.10.200614.10.2009

Terms of Reference

1. To recommend, for approval by the Council, the broad strategy and priorities for the University having, where appropriate, taken account of the view of the Senate.

2. To approve planning proposals for strategically significant developments and business opportunities and to ensure that the proposals are viable in terms of the staff and non-staff resource available to support them.

3. To advise the Senate of the financial and planning assumptions influencing the academic plans and priorities of the University.

4. To recommend, for approval by the Council, the allocation of resources.

5. To recommend for approval by the Council University Fee and Financial Support Policy and guidelines, having taken account of the comments of the Senate, and subsequently to approve the University fees on behalf of the Senate and the Council.

6. To monitor performance against agreed plans and budgets.

7. To exercise such powers as may be delegated to the Committee by the Council or the Senate.

87. To set the strategic framework and priorities for the University’s broadcasting activity, to make recommendations as appropriate for approval by the Senate and broadcasting strategy for the University, and to maintain oversight of the Broadcasting strategy.

8 To recommend, for approval by the Council, the redundancy of:

a) academic-related staff, where the recommendation is agreed by SPRC;

b) academic staff, where the recommendation is agreed by a redundancy sub-committee of SPRC (Mode of Operation 6 sets out the membership for this academic staff redundancy committee).

79. To exercise such powers as may be delegated to the Committee by the Council or the Senate.

Membership

1. The Vice-Chancellor, Chair, ex officio.

2. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Strategy and External Affairs), Deputy Chair, ex officio.

3. The other Pro-Vice-Chancellors, ex officio.

4. The Secretary, ex officio.

5. The Director, Students, ex officio.

S/09/4/MAppendix 1

S/09/4/12Appendix 1

Page 2 of 2

6. The Pro-Chancellor, ex officio.

7. The Treasurer, ex officio.

8. A dean, to be nominated by the deans.

9. Two members of the Council, who shall not be members of staff or students of the University, appointed by the Council.

10. Three members of the Senate, elected by the Senate.

In Attendance

11. The Finance Director.

12. The Director of Strategy Unit

Mode of Operation

1. The Committee is a joint committee of the Council and the Senate and will report to the Council and the Senate as appropriate. Where issues being considered by the Committee require the approval of the Council, the Committee will, where appropriate, take account of the views of the Senate in making its recommendations.

2. Subject to the University's rules on the confidentiality of committee business, the Committee shall take appropriate steps to keep members of the University informed about its work.

3. The Committee shall normally meet three times a year.

4. The Committee shall be quorate if five members, of whom at least one from categories 6, 7 and 9 are present.

5. The Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee shall have executive authority to act on its behalf in consultation (as appropriate) with other university officers and with the secretary of the Committee.

6. The academic staff redundancy committee is a Council-appointed sub-committee of SPRC and will meet when necessary. Its membership consists of the Vice-Chancellor or nominee from SPRC as Chair, two lay members of Council and two members of academic staff from Senate, all from SPRC.

Secretary: A member of the Futures Office

S/09/4/MAppendix 2

S/09/4/12Appendix 2

Page 1 of 2

AWARDS COMMITTEE

CONSTITUTION – UPDATED 15.10.200814.10.2009

Purpose

On behalf of the Curriculum, Awards and Validation Committee (CAVC), to provide detailed scrutiny of proposals relating to individual awards, to approve amendments to existing awards, toapprove credit transfer schemes and to make recommendations to the CAVC on the approval of the introduction or withdrawal of awards.

Terms of Reference

Legislation: setting policy and strategy frameworks, agreeing plans and priorities

1. To approve amendments to existing awards and their regulations.

2. To approve the award of general and specific credit, specific credit transfer schemes and, in consultation as appropriate with the Curriculum Partnerships Committee, collaborative credit agreements with other institutions, for the University’s taught awards, which do not require regulatory changes.

Monitoring, and reviewing, actions and institutional performance

3. To monitor the demand for the University’s taught awards and to receive an annual report on the number of awards made of each type.

4. To monitor the process for the annual review of awards.

5. To have oversight (on behalf of the Senate) of the award of credit to applicants and students towards the University’s taught awards based on study undertaken outside the University in accordance with established regulations.

6. To receive regular reports on the approval of awards of general and specific credit and to monitor the annual review process for such awards,

Assuring quality and standards, including approving regulations

7. To monitor the University’s procedures for the approval and review of its awards, ensuing that they are in accordance with the current guidance from the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA).

8. To keep under review the credit structures and requirements for the University’s taught awards, having regard to the relationships between such awards, their comparability with the University’s validated awards and the relevant national qualifications frameworks.

9. To make recommendations to the Curriculum, Awards and Validation Committee for new or revised general regulations, including credit transfer regulations, for the University’s taught awards.

Advising other governance bodies or management

10. To provide detailed scrutiny of proposals for the introduction of individual taught awards, taking into account the QAA requirements relating to programme specifications, learning outcomes and subject benchmarking, the balance in such awards between Open University originated credit and credit originated outside the University, and taking account of the University’s validated programmes and awards; where appropriate, to refer proposals for

S/09/4/MAppendix 2

S/09/4/12Appendix 2

Page 2 of 2

classification schemes to the Assessment Policy Committee; and to make recommendations to the CAVC on the approval of new individual awards.

11. To give initial consideration to proposals for the withdrawal of individual taught awards, ensuring that students are given reasonable notice of any changes, and to advise the CAVC on the withdrawal of awards.

12. To identify and consider credit accumulation and transfer issues particularly those involving the status and recognition of the University’s courses and awards arising from discussions with other institutions and from national and international developments, to co-ordinate the University’s response to consultative documents and reports on such issues, and where appropriate to propose the introduction of new types of award or changes to existing curriculum policy to the CAVC.

Membership

1. A Chair appointed by the Curriculum, Awards and Validation Committee.

2. One associate dean or equivalent with a relevant portfolio from each central academic unit (or the dean/director’s nominee if no suitable portfolio exists).

3. The Director, OU Validation Services, or nominee.

4. The Director, Centre for Outcomes-based Education (COBE) or nominee, ex officio.

5. The Head of Assessment, Credit and Awards or nominee.

6 Head of Product and Service Development, or nominee

67. Two members of Student Services support staff, nominated by the Director, Students.

78. One member of staff based at the regional centre in Scotland, nominated by the Regional Director in Scotland.

89. Two registered students, one of whom should be a postgraduate student, appointed by the Open University Students Association.

910. One associate lecturer appointed by the Associate Lecturers Committee.

1011. Two members of the Validation Committee, nominated by that Committee.

Secretary

Mode of Operation

1. The Committee shall meet as and when required, and shall report at least annually to the Curriculum, Awards and Validation Committee.

2. The Chair of the Committee shall have executive authority to act on its behalf in consultation with its Secretary.

3. The Committee shall delegate to the Credit Rating Panel the authority to approve and review awards of general and specific credit.

S/09/4/MAppendix 3

S/09/4/12Appendix 3

Page 1 of 3

LEARNING, TEACHING AND STUDENT SUPPORT COMMITTEE

CONSTITUTION – UPDATED 15.10.200814.10.2009

Purpose

Learning, Teaching and Student Support Committee is responsible to the Senate for strategy, policy and standards relating to the student experience in the University, including learning, teaching, and student support. The Committee’s remit covers enquirers, clients, sponsors and alumni as well as registered students. Its responsibility for teaching spans centrally-produced resources and regional activities including the work of associate lecturers.

Terms of Reference

Legislation: setting policy and strategy frameworks, agreeing plans and priorities

1. To promote the strategic objectives and priorities relating to learning teaching and student support.

2. To determine policies and guidelines within the agreed strategic objectives and priorities relating to learning teaching and student support.

3. To approve proposals for new methods and forms of teaching delivery and student support, having assessed their impact on all stakeholders.

4. To formulate and interpret contractual and other non-academic policies, regulations, and practices relating to the admission and progress of students, including the consideration of exceptions to policies.

Monitoring, and reviewing, actions and institutional performance

5. To monitor the quality of students’ experience of the University in comparison with the experiences offered by other providers, to identify areas of the student experience requiring attention or development, and to refer these to the appropriate officers and committees.

6. To contribute to the Senate’s annual academic review of the University.

Assuring Quality and Standards, including approving regulations

7. To ensure that standards are set for services provided to enquirers, students and clients within the Committee’s remit, to ensure that performance of such services is monitored against the standards set, and to consider reports on performance against those standards.

Advising other governance bodies or management

8. To advise relevant areas of the University on the collection of evidence about the experiences of OU enquirers, students and alumni, about the student support potential of resources and networks beyond the University, and about the experiences offered by competitor institutions.

9. To advise the Senate and/or its other committees on new developments in the University, in particular assessment policy and strategy, and on developments in the external environment.

S/09/4/MAppendix 3

S/09/4/12Appendix 3

Page 2 of 3

10. To advise the Strategic Planning and Resources Committee, via the Senate, on all matters concerned with course fee policy and guidelines, and financial support to students.

Judicial: deciding individual cases

1110. The power to decide individual student exceptions to general policies has been delegated.

Membership

1. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning, Teaching and Quality) and the Director, Students, ex officio. Joint Chairs: each shall take the Chair for a year, with the other as Deputy Chair.

2. The deans of faculties and schools or their nominees, and the Director of the Institute of Educational Technology or his/her nominee, ex officio.

3. The Chair of the Student Experience Advisory Group reporting to the Committee.

4. The Director of Learning and Teaching Solutions, ex officio.

5. The Director of Library Services, ex officio.

6. The Director of Marketing, ex officio.

76. The Director, Learning Innovations Office, ex officio.

87. The Head of Teaching and Learner Support, ex officio.

98. The Head of Student Recruitment and Financial Support, ex officio.

109. The Head of Assessment, Credit and Awards, ex officio.

1110. Two regional directors nominated by the regional directors.

1211. Four members of staff, elected by the Senate, of whom at least two shall be members of regional staff.

1312. Two associate lecturers appointed by the Associate Lecturers Committee.

1413. Two registered students appointed by the Open University Students Association.

1514. Such others as the Committee may co-opt up to a maximum of three, to include members with expertise as necessary in HE issues in Scotland, Ireland and Wales if not otherwise elected or nominated.

Secretary

S/09/4/MAppendix 3

S/09/4/12Appendix 3

Page 3 of 3

Mode of Operation

1. The Committee shall meet in accordance with the University's Committee Timetable, not less than three times a year, and on such other occasions in the year as have been approved by the Senate. It shall report to each meeting of the Senate.

2. It shall be permitted to delegate tasks to a duly constituted executive committee or committees of itself; or to specific individuals; and may make rules relating to its own procedure, but should not further delegate powers delegated by the Senate without the Senate’s agreement.

3. The Committee should designate a Deputy Chair. The Chair shall have executive authority to act on behalf of the Committee and any of its executive committees, in consultation with any body designated to assist in this capacity by the Committee.

4. The Committee shall review each year according to agreed University criteria how efficiently, effectively and economically it is working in respect of participation, the conduct of business and production of high quality decisions, the schedule of the review to allow for implementation of improvements from the beginning of the next committee year.

5. The Committee shall ensure that strategies, policies plans and priorities within its remit are compliant with relevant University-wide policies implemented or being developed, particularly those relating to equal opportunities, environmental management and health and safety.

Secretary