Recommendation to University Quality Committee

Transcription

1 AAR template version 2 UNIVERSITY QUALITY COMMITTEE SQC Validation Panel ACADEMIC APPROVAL RECORD REFERENCE 1288 Recommendation to University Quality Committee CONFIRMED SQC was asked to revalidate three top up pathways in Computer Studies, Business Information Technology and International Information Technology Management and is pleased to recommend to the University Quality Committee approval of the following proposals: REVIEW Pathway Code Pathway Title NONE Final Award Intermediate Awards Specialist /Joint Modes of delivery REVALIDATION Pathway Code Pathway Title Final Award Intermediate Awards Specialist /Joint Modes of delivery DS/CST Computer Studies (Top up) BSc (Hons) None Top up Full time Sandwich DS/BIT Business Information Technology (Top-up) DS/IITM International Information Technology Management (top up) Part time (D/E) BSc (Hons) None Top up Full time Sandwich Part time (D/E) BSc (Hons) None Top up Full time Sandwich Part time (D/E) VALIDATION Pathway Pathway Title Code NONE Final Award Intermediate Awards Specialist /Joint Modes of delivery DELETION Pathway Pathway Title Code NONE List all Awards to be deleted Modes of delivery Specialist /Joint Last recruitment date Final completion date for students MODULES CONTRIBUTING TO THE PATHWAYS (not submitted for this revalidation) Semeste r New Module ( ) Module code Module Title Credits Core / Core option or elective YEAR CP2230 Industrial Placement 15 Core option for all pathways 2 CP3015 Rapid Application Development YEAR CP3026 Strategic Information 30 Core option for Systems Management 2 CP3027 Managing Computer Systems Projects Delivered by 15 Core for CS BIT and IITM 15 Core option for BIT and IITM Core for CS Page 1 of 11

2 AAR template version 2 2 CP3033 Business Process Design and Systems Integration 1 or 2 CP3034 International Comparative Systems Methodologies 1 or 2 CP3035 International IT Management Dissertation 1 CP3317 Organisation and Control of Computer Operations 15 Core for BIT Core option for IITM 15 Core option for BIT and CS Core for IITM 15 Core for IITM 15 Core for BIT and IITM Core option for CS 30 Core option for BIT 15 Core option for YEAR CP3331 Business Computing Project 1 or 2 CP3333 Business Computing Project (30 Credit) BIT 1 or 2 CP3341 Database Design 15 Core for BIT and CS Core option for IITM Year CP3343 Computer Science Project (30 Credit) 1 or 2 CP3348 Computer Science Project (15 Credit) 1 or 2 CP3349 Social Legal and Professional Aspects of Computing 2 CP3397 Network Design and Security 30 Core option for CS 15 Core option for CS 15 Core for all pathways 15 Core option for BIT and IITM Core for CS 2 EC3047 Global Business 15 Core option for IITM 1 or 2 IM3015 The Information Age 15 Core option for BIT and IITM UWBS UWBS MODULES TO BE DELETED Module code Module Title Semester Credits Date to be deleted CP3021 Software Case Study 15 September 2007 In support of these recommendations, the Validating Panel provides appendices of supporting evidence including, where appropriate, the review AAR produced for publication on the TQI website (HERO) plus records of meetings, external and other reports and an action checklist The Validating Panel is aware that the University Quality Committee reserves the right to review all decisions made by the Standing Panel, to ratify approvals and to follow up on any issues identified in the AAR as the Committee sees fit. DATE OF THE NEXT REVIEW The next review of Computer Studies (Top up) and Business Information Technology (Top-up) is scheduled to take place by the end of the academic year with International Information Technology Management (top up) scheduled to take place by the end of the academic year. VALIDATING PANEL RECORD Details of Panel and Participants Page 2 of 11

3 AAR template version 2 Chair: Prof. Rob Moreton Officer: Ms Rachel Ford Panel members designated to revalidate the provision: Ms Avtar Athwall () Ms Ros Hampton () Dr Rupert Simpson () Dr Mary Garvey () Internal Adviser for the revalidation Name: Ms Helen Ashdown Quality Champion () Independent External Adviser for the Review / Revalidation / Validation: (delete if not applicable) Name: Dr Jenny Gilbert Position: Anglia Ruskin University Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body representatives None Subject/Pathway Team Representative(s) from for the revalidation Ms Sue Gill (Key Proposer) Summary of process: Date Activity See appendix 14/06/06 Validation meeting 1 12/06/06 External adviser report received by school 2 03/07/06 Resubmission deadline 09/08/06 Resubmission documentation received 22/09/06 All actions closed 3 Academic Approval Record Summary of findings The proposal plan submitted to ADP gave the following rationale for this revalidation, which was devolved to SQC. Computer Studies & Business Information Technology These awards have been running as top-up awards for a number of years and are currently validated such that students transferring from an HND or equivalent must take three level two modules plus eight level three modules in order to gain an honours degree. This programme was put in place at the time of original validation because historically, HND modules counted as 12 credits rather than 15 credits. It was also felt that HND students needed some bridging modules in order to cope adequately with level 3 material. International IT Management The International IT Management route is a relatively new award that was introduced to provide a route mainly for overseas students who had an HND in either Computing or Business IT. It was designed to match the Computer Studies award and therefore has the same requirement of a three semester programme. The current norm for the sector is that HND students take a standard level 3 programme of eight modules for an honours degree. Our programme is therefore out of line with the current sector strategy, and in order to compete in the expanding market for top-up awards we need to amend our awards. The proposal for these three awards is to remove the requirement of the three level 2 modules, and to confirm a suitable set of core modules for the awards to ensure that the Learning Outcomes of the awards will continue to be met. There is little evidence to show that good top-up students who take a level 3 module in their first Page 3 of 11

4 AAR template version 2 semester of study on this award do significantly worse than other students from non top-up awards. However, the School believes that for some weaker students, a transfer directly into level 3 modules may not be in their best interests. The awards will therefore require students to have attended a suitable access course before starting their level 3 study. This access course will be either taken in a two week block mode prior to the start of level 3 study, or may be taken during semester one, with a semester two start for level 3 study. For students with a Foundation Degree, or for those with at least 6 Merits or Distinctions from level 2 of the HND, this requirement would be waived. At the validation meeting, the Panel considered the concerns raised by the external adviser regarding the number of English as a Foreign Language modules students were being asked to take. Specifically, the external was concerned as to whether students would be studying sufficient Information Technology Management at level 3 if they were required to take 30 credits of EFL modules. After discussing the matter, the Panel agreed that 15 credits worth of EFL modules could be included in the level 2 bridging course, with the other 15 credits being included in the core option modules of the top up year. The external would have liked to have seen staff CV. The school agreed to consider this in future Validation Panel work. Good Practice / Enhancement No items were raised. Issues that have institutional implications for consideration by the University The Panel noted that where modules contribute as core or core option modules to other schools pathways, it would be expected that there would be some consultation with the using school before the module was amended or withdrawn by the owning school. Action checklist for ongoing monitoring throughout the lifetime of the pathway(s) Responsibility Action Date Action to be closed by NONE Signed (Panel Chair)... Date... Note - the draft AAR submitted to the AAR Sub Group for ratification should have been approved by the Standing / Validation Panel Chair, however no signature is required until the AAR has been confirmed. Page 4 of 11

5 Appendix 1 Notes of Validation Meeting SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY VALIDATION PANEL RECORD OF VALIDATION PANEL DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF Draft Proposal Validation of three top up pathways Date / Time 14 th June 2006 from 11:30 a.m. Venue MI307, City Campus Present For the Validation Panel Prof. Rob Moreton (Chair), Ms Avtar Athwall, Ms Ros Hampton, Dr Rupert Simpson and Ms Rachel Ford (Officer) For the top up pathways Ms Sue Gill (Key Proposer) Ms Helen Ashdown Quality Champion () Apologies Dr Mary Garvey Introduction The validation of the three top up pathways took place alongside a minor modifications meeting. Comments had been received by correspondence from external adviser Dr Jenny Gilbert. Meeting with staff team The Panel worked through the external adviser s comments, adding in issues of their own as necessary. 1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PROGRAMME TITLE AND CURRICULUM CONTENT Neither the Panel nor external adviser raised any issues of concern with regard to the relationship between the programme title and curriculum content. 2. APPROPRIATENESS OF PROGRAMME AIMS AND OUTCOMES Ms Gill confirmed that recruitment to the BSc (Hons) International Information Technology Management is expected to be strong. There has been a lot of interest for next year. 3. Programme design, content and organisation The external adviser had concerns regarding the number of English as a Foreign Language modules students were being asked to take. Ms Gill noted that students are counselled regarding their need to improve their levels of English during their studies. This assessment is based on the results of their internal English test results. The external was concerned as to whether students would be studying sufficient Information Technology Management at level 3 if they were required to take 30 credits of EFL modules. The Key Proposer and Panel discussed the need for students to take 30 credits. It was agreed that 15 credits worth of EFL modules could be included in the level 2 bridging course, with the other 15 credits being included in the core option modules of the top up year. It was agreed that the Key Proposer would amend the pathway specification so that year 3 of the pathway only includes 15 credits of EFL modules in the core option modules for the top up year. The external was concerned that the project modules were not core modules. It was noted that the project modules are core option modules which means students have to take a project module, but have some choice over which project module they take. Students are required to take a project module in order to achieve the honours degree. 4. Appropriateness of assessment The Panel noted that the external adviser had written that it would have been useful to have had a mapping of the modules to the type of the assessment. The Panel agreed with this comment and felt it would be useful to consider this in future validations. 5. Learning and teaching methods Neither the Panel nor external adviser raised any issues of concern with regard to learning and teaching. Page 5 of 11

6 Appendix 1 Notes of Validation Meeting 6. Learning Resources / Specialist Resources The external adviser did not raise any issues of concern with regard to this area. The Panel asked the Key Proposer to talk about the bridging element of the pathways. The Key Proposer advised that students will be required to undertake either no bridging element, a two week or a one semester course depending on their entry qualifications (i.e. the number of merits achieved). The only additional resources are around the two week intensive bridging course, however this can be seen as a net gain as the current bridging arrangements will not continue. The Officer asked if the requirement to complete a bridging element would have any effects on students visa requirements. It was noted that if a students entry qualifications indicated they needed to complete the two week course, but they subsequently failed it, they would then be required to complete the one semester bridging course. It was noted that of the three pathways, International Information Technology Management recruited the most overseas students with Business Information Technology and Computer Studies recruiting mainly home based students. 7. Comments relating to the Modules The external adviser noted that while she had not received the module specifications, she had previously considered these modules on another validation and was aware they had been running successfully in the past. The Chair noted that page 31 of the pathway guide did not list information on module CP3349. Also, the staff list was not up to date. Ms Hampton agreed to update the pathway guide to address these issues. 8. Staff CV The external noted that it would have been useful to see how research activity maps onto individual level three modules. The Panel accepted this comment and noted the school should seek to address this issue at next years review and validation. 9. Any other comments In response to the external s query, the Key Proposer confirmed that applicants who had completed HNDs or Foundation Degrees from other universities would be subject to the school s APL processes. The Panel advised the team to ensure that this was reflected in marketing materials and that the appropriate processes were in place in the University s admissions system. The performance of non-university of Wolverhampton entrants will be considered through annual monitoring. Dr Simpson felt there were some inconsistencies across the module assessments with regards to coursework word limits and examination lengths. The Panel accepted this, but noted that these were existing modules. It was agreed that this should be considered as part of next years review and validation. Ms Gill noted that one of the UWBS modules which contributed to the International Information Technology Management pathway had been withdrawn and would now be replaced with EC3047 Global Business. The Panel noted that where modules contribute as core or core option modules to other schools pathways, it would be expected that there would be some consultation with the using school before the module was amended or withdrawn by the owning school. CONCLUSION The Panel thanked Ms Gill for attending the meeting and confirmed they were happy to approve the new pathways subject to revised pathway specifications being submitted. It was agreed that all resubmitted documentation would be sent to the Validation Panel Officer. Once received it will be circulated to Panel members and closed by Chair s action. ACTION CHECKLIST Action Person(s) arising Responsible Action Deadline date Outcome Page 6 of 11

7 from Validation Panel meeting 14/06/06 Validation Panel meeting 14/06/06 Key Proposer To submit revised pathway specifications for the three top up pathways to the SQC Validation Panel Officer. Key Proposer To resubmit any other documentation amended as a result of the discussions at this meeting to the SQC Validation Panel Officer. 03/07/06 03/07/06 Appendix 1 Notes of Validation Meeting Page 7 of 11

8 Appendix 2 External Adviser Comments Validation Panel PROFORMA FOR EXTERNAL COMMENTS FOR THE VALIDATION/REVALIDATION OF TOP- UP BSC (HONS) INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, BSC (HONS) BUSINESS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BSC (HONS) COMPUTER STUDIES FOR 1) Relationship between the programme title and curriculum content As these are revalidations to remove level 2 study and replace with a bridging course, where necessary, there are minimal changes to the original programme. For all three programmes the core content and the range of options reflect the title. The three programmes are clearly differentiated. 2) Appropriateness of programme aims and outcomes define and communicate the philosophy/ethos and nature of provision, together with the intended learning outcomes for the programme of study outcomes of programme in relation to preparing students for employment and in meeting employer and industry needs The programme aims map clearly to the programme learning outcomes and to the selection of modules in the case of each course. BSc (Hons) International Information Technology Management: This course is clearly aimed at the international market and for a perceived vocational demand. It would have been useful to have some information about the success in recruitment to date, given that this is a recently validated course. There is a statement indicating that recruitment to next year is strong. BSc (Hons) Business Information Technology: the selection of core modules reflects the aim of developing IS solutions to business problems. BSc (Hons) Computer Studies: This is a non-specialist final year where students have no opportunity to specialise which fits the studies title. 3) Programme design, content and organisation currency and coherence of the programme appropriateness in relation to intended learning outcomes BSc (Hons) International Information Technology Management: The only concerns I have on the structure of the course are with regard to the volume of English as a foreign language which could be included. While obviously relevant to this group of students it could leave only 90 credits to define the title of the degree. I note that a 15 credit dissertation is included and assume that this credit volume has been chosen because 30 credits of entirely autonomous learning might not provide sufficient support for this group given the language and cultural differences. BSc (Hons) Business Information Technology: the selection of core and option modules map clearly onto the learning outcomes of the programme. I am, though, surprised to find that the Business Computer Project (15 or 30) is not a core module as this is normally a requirement for an honours degree. I am unclear on the rationale for this. BSc (Hons) Computer Studies: the selection of core and option modules map clearly onto the learning outcomes of the programme. Once again I am, though, surprised to find that the Computer Science Project (15 or 30) is not a core module. 4) Appropriateness of assessment consider the relationship between assessment tasks and learning outcomes Page 8 of 11

9 Appendix 2 External Adviser Comments effectiveness of assessment design and practice The assessment methods were discussed in principle but there was no mapping of modules to the type of assessment, this would have been useful. 5) Learning and teaching methods These were described in general terms and it seems that there is a wide range of methods to suit individual contents and learning outcomes. 6) LEARNING RESOURCES / SPECIALIST RESOURCES consider whether the resources match the requirements of the curriculum and intended pathway outcomes? As there are no additional modules to those already running this issue has been dealt with at earlier validations. Reduction in modules also eases the demand on some resources. 7) Comments relating to the Modules As I was the External Assessor for the earlier validation of two of these top-ups I studied the modules at an earlier date and the recommendations given at that time resulted in a number of changes. The modules have now all been running for at least a year and many for much longer so will be subject to the normal module review process. I did not receive the module descriptions to comment on this time. 8) Staff CVs to what extent is the staff skill mix appropriate to the delivery of the pathway? Staff CVs were not included in the material I received but as the modules are already running for a number of routes, including the three under discussion, they will have been considered at earlier validation events. Details of staff research activity and staff development were included in the pack of information. This provided evidence of developments to underpin the third year curriculum. There are a large number of staff enrolled on PhDs showing a commitment to up-skilling staff. It would have been useful to see how research activity maps onto individual level three modules. 9) Any other comments Query with regard to admissions. Will you only be accepting students who have University of Wolverhampton Foundation Degrees or will you be accepting students with any Computing Foundation Degree? If the latter the how will you ensure that they are equivalent? Also HNDs from some institutions are very similar to Foundation Degrees without the work based learning element so there may occasions where the admission regulations could be relaxed for some applicants. The alternative bridging programmes have been devised carefully to reflect the nature of students from different courses with varying levels of performance. The decisions have been based upon experience gained with students progressing to the awards to date. The proposed alternative bridging programmes for international students take into account the need to build a cohort identity, to support the students during the early stage as they adjust to a different culture, and also the need to support their language development. It will be necessary to monitor the performance of different groups in order to assess whether the bridging programmes prove to be suitable and whether the criteria for allocating students is appropriate. 10) Recommendations Consider whether there should be a compulsory project in BSc (Hons) Business Information Technology and BSc (Hons) Computer Studies and document the rationale for excluding it should that be the decision. Monitor the performance of different groups in order to assess whether the bridging programmes are suitable and whether the criteria for allocating students is appropriate. Explore how research activity maps onto individual level three modules, especially the new modules with an international flavour. This should inform further staff development activity. Page 9 of 11

10 Appendix 2 External Adviser Comments Signed: (External Adviser) Date: PRINT NAME : Dr Jenny Gilbert INSTITUTION : Anglia Ruskin University Page 10 of 11

11 Appendix 3 Final action checklist FINAL ACTION CHECKLIST Action arising from Person(s) Responsible Action Validation Panel meeting 14/06/06 Key Proposer To submit revised pathway specifications for the three top up pathways to the SQC Validation Panel Officer. Deadline date Outcome 03/07/06 Received from KP 09/08/06. Closed by Chair s action 22/09/06 Validation Panel meeting 14/06/06 Key Proposer To resubmit any other documentation amended as a result of the discussions at this meeting to the SQC Validation Panel Officer. 03/07/06 Received from KP 09/08/06. Pathway guide received 16/08/06. Closed by Chair s action 22/09/06 Page 11 of 11