The University of Edinburgh Teaching Programme Review Electronics and Electrical Engineering 28 February & 1 March 2006 1. Introduction 1.1 The Teaching Programme Review (TPR) of Electronics and Electrical Engineering at the University of Edinburgh is part of the University s quality assurance (QA) procedures, and is complemented by the Senatus and College Quality Assurance Committees monitoring and reporting, and by the External Examiner system. 1.2 Electronics is one of four disciplines which make up the School of Engineering and Electronics within the College of Science and Engineering. 1.3 The Teaching Programme Review consisted of: the subject-specific remit for the review; the Analytical Report prepared by Electronics. This was supplemented by additional background material; a visit by the review team to the discipline of Electronics; this TPR Report produced by the review team. 1.4 The remaining stage of the TPR is the subsequent action taken by Electronics, the School of Engineering and Electronics and others in the University as a result of the Review, upon the commendations and recommendations listed in this Report. 1.5 In addition to the Analytical Report, the review team received the following information in advance of their visit: A remit for the Teaching Programme Review of Electronics and Electrical Engineering. Programme Specifications for the programmes under review: BEng Electronics and Electrical Engineering BEng Computer Science and Electronics/BEng Electronics and Software Engineering BEng Electronics and Electrical Engineering (Communications) BEng Electronics and Engineering (Microelectronics) BEng Electronics and Engineering with Management BEng (Hons) Electrical and Mechanical Engineering BEng Electronics BEng Mobile Communications and Multimedia Engineering MEng Electrical Engineering MEng Electronics and Electrical Engineering MEng Electronics and Computer Science MEng Electronics and Electrical Engineering with Management MEng Electronics and Software Engineering MEng (Hons) Electrical and Mechanical Engineering MEng Electronics MEng Mobile Communications and Multimedia Engineering A sample set of copies of the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Student Handbooks for all years of all programmes. Lists of the courses offered in both the undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. 1
Statistical information relating to entry requirements for programmes, programme statistics (gender breakdown, domicile, progression data etc.) and career destinations of graduates. The QAA Benchmark Statement for Engineering. External Examiners Reports for 2002/03, 2003/04, 2004/05 IEE documentation and report The 2000/01 TPR Report for Electronics and Engineering 1.6 During their visit, the review team consulted a range of further material, including: Examples of students work. The full range of printed course materials Feedback on students work 1.7 The review team visit took place on Tuesday 28 February and Wednesday 1 March 2006. Its membership comprised: Dr Stephen Sharp, Convener of the Review Team, Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh Dr Jamie Cole, Internal Member, School of Physics, University of Edinburgh Dr Scott Roy, External Member, Department of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, University of Glasgow Mr Frank Fisher, External Member, Selex Sensors & Airborne Systems, Edinburgh Ms Rhona Harrington, Review Team Administrator, Policy and Planning, University of Edinburgh 1.8 During the visit, the review team met various groups of staff and students including: The Head of School, Head of Discipline and Head of Teaching Organisation Course Organisers Teaching Organisation Staff Other Academic Staff Technical Support Staff Directors of Studies Current undergraduate students on all years of the programme Writer in Residence 2
2. Report Summary 2.1 The programmes considered under the TPR had recently undergone accreditation by the Institution of Electrical Engineers (which has, since March 2006, reincorporated as the Institution of Engineering and Technology). The review team was pleased to note that the programmes had been successfully re-accredited, and that the Institution of Engineering and Technology was satisfied that they maintained a high standard of quality. 2.2 The review team felt that Electronics offered a good balance and range of courses for its students and had found ways to introduce new and supplementary material (as required by changes in technology or the requirements of accreditation bodies), while still adequately covering the core material. A good example of this approach was the fourth year dissertation course. 2.3 The review team found that all staff within Electronics were very committed to providing a positive student learning experience and this was noted and appreciated by the students. This has ensured a good level of pastoral care across the subject area, and although most pastoral matters are handled by the Directors of Study (DoSs) the students were keen to point out the approachability and helpfulness of all staff in Electronics. 2.4 Staff within the subject area have made considerable effort in tailoring learning and teaching to the needs of their students through the use of cohort analyses and analyses of intake vs. output qualifications. These efforts have also helped Electronics to improve overall student retention rates. 2.5 The reviewers found that the students were, without exception, positive about the subject area itself. The only negative comments from the students related to centrally specified policies, such as the restructuring, the curriculum project and the academic year project, over which the students had concerns. The review team found that there was excellent dialogue and interaction between staff and students as students appeared to be fully aware of the pressures facing the School as a result of centrally specified policies in recent years. 2.6 The reviewers were particularly impressed by the calibre and the diverse mix of the students. Those who met with the review team spoke highly of their peers, the teaching staff, and the first class reputation of Electronics at Edinburgh, which for many had been a deciding factor in choosing the University. 2.7 The final year MEng students all spoke very positively of their experiences on industrial placements which many had found to be invaluable. The review team was impressed by the number and range of placements available to these students and the subject area s efforts to maintain these links between the University and industry. 3
3. The Quality of Teaching Provision and Student Learning Experience 3.1 The enthusiasm of both lecturers and technical staff is to be commended. The review team is particularly impressed by staff commitment to teaching, under the constraints on time and resources characteristic of a research-led university, and also under the additional significant disruption to a carefully honed course structure imposed by semesterisation and the adoption of the University s curriculum model. 3.2 The students noted that the Electronics staff were often more willing to help them with problems than colleagues in other areas of the School, which further emphasises the commitment of staff. The review team commends the subject area as a whole in this respect. 3.3 The pastoral care within the subject area appears to be of a particularly high standard, not just in terms of the traditional Director of Studies (DoS) role, but also the commitment of all teaching, technical and administrative staff, to the well-being of their students and this is to be commended. The quality of the DoSs in particular does seem to ensure that a high level of pastoral care is available to those students who wish to take advantage of it. 3.4 The review team wishes to commend the subject area for its reputation, which was discovered to be a deciding factor for many students when choosing a university. A number of students noted that open days confirmed their choice, and the reviewers commend the ability of the staff to enthuse students at these types of events. 3.5 The Analytical Report numbers suggest that EU and overseas have held up well over the last couple of years and meetings with students suggested that the quality of that intake has remained high. The review team feels that the discipline s ability to attract these students should be commended. 3.6 A number of students, particularly in the later stages of their degrees, spoke of their bursaries and sponsorships, but the majority of students in the earlier years were unaware that such financial help might be available to them. While the review team recognises that the pool of bursaries and sponsorships in Electronics is diminishing, and that students need to be more proactive in identifying and seeking them, it nevertheless recommends that the College makes more of this in recruitment activities as other universities are beginning to advertise their industrial sponsorship to significant benefit. 3.7 The review team was pleased to note that the views of the Staff Student Liaison Committee were taken into account and this is to be commended. It was refreshing to hear that students felt they were listened to and that their feedback had a direct effect on the quality of their teaching. The reviewers recommend that the Teaching Organisation investigates the use of automated systems which can read feedback questionnaires and automatically compile reports from the results. This should provide a consistent and robust system for obtaining and analysing course feedback. 3.8 The only real major student concern was the quality of feedback on formative assessment exercises and coursework. The review team recommends that Electronics provides more useful and timely feedback for students, perhaps through the use of a feedback sheet. 3.9 The reviewers commend the work of the Teaching Organisation which has proved to be an effective force in harmonising the disparate approaches to the organisation of teaching across the School. The Teaching Organisation noted that, of all the subject areas within the school, Electronics was particularly cooperative and this should also be commended. 3.10 The breadth and depth of research within the subject area are impressive. Some students noted however that although they were aware that research was taking place at the 4
University, they did not know what the research involved and would appreciate some more information on this. The reviewers commend the strong links which exist between research and teaching within the subject area, but recommend that more effort is made to publicise to students the different research activities being undertaken by the subject area. 3.11 The reviewers commend Electronics staff for finding appropriate and novel ways to include, for instance, material on legal, ethical and environmental issues in the curriculum for all students without significantly increasing the loading on staff and students, or significantly reducing the emphasis on core Electronics material. The review team recommends that the subject area builds on this by pursuing plans to introduce these issues into the dissertation. 3.12 The review team notes that the third year laboratories are of important value to the degree programmes, but recognises that semesterisation has had a negative impact on the structure of these laboratories. However, the review team recognises that the subject area has made significant efforts to rectify this and notes that the laboratories are now getting back to equilibrium. The review team recommends that the School continues to hone the laboratories in all years within the constraints of the present timetable. The review team also recommends that Electronics should consider moving courses, which are perceived to be more challenging, into the second semester to better balance the overall load on students. 3.13 The work of laboratory demonstrators was praised, but there was some confusion and concern among both students and demonstrators about postgraduate marking of undergraduate material, where formal training has not taken place. The review team therefore recommends that all postgraduate demonstrators attend formal training before taking part in any teaching or assessment. 3.14 There appeared to be less formal staff training than in peer universities some require new staff to obtain a Professional Certificate in University teaching. The review team recommends the subject area considers more formal staff training and/or compulsory attendance at courses such as those run by the TLA Centre for all new staff. 3.15 Students and laboratory demonstrators were, on the whole, very happy with the laboratory facilities and the general teaching facilities although noted three exceptions as follows: Classroom 10 in the Alrick building was felt to be adequate for tutorial work, but the acoustics and layout made it unsuitable for lectures; Lecture Theatre 2 was considered to have inadequate insulation and varied from too hot to concentrate in lectures to too cold; It was felt that the air conditioning in the main SUN laboratory was still not performing properly meaning it was often too hot to work in there for any period of time; The students felt that all of these problems were a significant impairment to student learning. The review team therefore recommends that Estates and Buildings consider possible solutions to the first point, and carries out the necessary repairs from the last two points. 3.16 Undergraduate students attending lectures in the Daniel Rutherford building noted that access to the building was not adequate as it had to be gained via the Michael Swann and Darwin buildings. This was particularly problematic for students in a hurry. The review team recommends that Estates and Buildings consider alternative, more direct access arrangements to the Daniel Rutherford building. 5
3.17 Students also noted that it was not always easy to gain access to rooms and laboratories for study after 6pm. The review team recommends that Electronics considers extending the opening hours of the buildings. 3.18 The review team noted considerable worries about the attempt to timetable examinations according to the lecture timetable. This was particularly relevant in semester one where examinations take place over a shorter period of time. The reviewers felt that this anomalous timetabling was considerably more severe than in peer institutions and for no obvious substantive benefit. The review team therefore recommends that the University considers ways in which this situation might be prevented in the future, thus eradicating undue stress on students. 6
4. Standards: Student Progression and Achievement 4.1 The reviewers were particularly impressed with the calibre of the students in Electronics. The review team commends the obvious work undertaken by the subject area to attract and foster student cohorts of appropriate quality. The cohort analysis undertaken by Electronics and the subsequent efforts to flag struggling students and provide the necessary support to keep students on course and increase retention rates is also to be commended. 4.2 The reviewers also wish to commend the amount of work spent analysing intake qualifications against output qualifications. While this activity requires a great deal of time and effort, there are clear benefits for the subject area in informing the way in which it tailors its teaching to meet the needs of students. 4.3 Often the sign of a struggling student is one who stops attending classes. While Electronics currently has a system in place for flagging such students, the trigger for initial contact with the student does not usually take place before week eight of the semester. The review team feels that this is too late and recommends that the subject area introduces a trigger much earlier, for example after the second missed class. 7
5. The Sharing of Good Practice: Quality Enhancement 5.1 The review team commends the subject area s links with industry. Students undertaking industrial placements have a huge range of different organisations and industries to choose from, affording them the opportunity to experience their preferred subject. The review team also commends the ongoing work of Electronics to ensure a good range of placements are available, but appreciates that this task is made more difficult by a diminishing pool of organisations from which to choose, resulting in a number of students unable to find placements and undertaking internal projects instead. 5.2 The reviewers noted that Electronics had made some attempts to carry out peer mentoring, in line with the University s Peer Observation of Teaching scheme. Although it appears to have been met with little enthusiasm so far, the review team recommends that Electronics should encourage the adoption of Peer Observation of Teaching, possibly structured around groups of three members of staff in order to foster a degree of objectivity. 5.3 The review team commends the actions taken by Electronics, in conjunction with Chemistry, in obtaining the writer in residence. Although this was a relatively new appointment, the review team were pleased to note a high awareness of this support mechanism, with some students already having used it. The review team recommends additional use of the Writer in Residence, such as lunchtime lectures on technical reports and essays. The review team also recommends that the Director of Quality Enhancement disseminates this practice around the University and encourages similar activities in other areas. 8
6. Audit Monitoring Arrangements: Quality Assurance 6.1 The reviewers commend the subject area for their success in the recent IEE Accreditation procedure, noting that this is proscriptive in its analysis of benchmarking by assessing and auditing each possible student curriculum in detail against benchmarking standards. For this reason, the review team felt satisfied that it need not carry out any further analysis in this area. 6.2 The review team was satisfied that the subject area was meeting the standards as set out in the QAA Engineering Benchmark statement. 9
7. Conclusion: Commendations and Recommendations Commendations 7.1 The enthusiasm of both lecturers and technical staff is to be commended. [3.1] 7.2 The review team commends the subject area as a whole for its commitment to its students. [3.2] 7.3 The pastoral care within the subject area appears to be of a particularly high standard, not just in terms of the traditional Director of Studies (DoS) role, but also the commitment of all teaching, technical and administrative staff, to the well-being of their students and this is to be commended. [3.3] 7.4 The review team wishes to commend the subject area for its reputation, which was discovered to be a deciding factor for many students when choosing a university. A number of students noted that open days confirmed their choice and the reviewers commend the ability of the staff to enthuse students at these types of events. [3.4] 7.5 The review team feels that the discipline s ability to attract a high quality of home, EU and overseas students should be commended. [3.5] 7.6 The review team was pleased to note that the views of the Staff Student Liaison Committee were taken into account and this is to be commended. [3.7] 7.7 The reviewers commend the work of the Teaching Organisation which has proved to be an effective force in harmonising the disparate approaches to the organisation of teaching across the School. The Teaching Organisation noted that, of all the subject areas within the school, Electronics was particularly cooperative and this should also be commended. [3.9] 7.8 The reviewers commend the strong links which exist between research and teaching within the subject area. [3.10] 7.9 The reviewers commend Electronics staff for finding appropriate and novel ways to include, for instance, material on legal, ethical and environmental issues in the curriculum for all students without significantly increasing the loading on staff and students, or significantly reducing the emphasis on core Electronics material. [3.11] 7.10 The reviewers were particularly impressed with the calibre of the students in Electronics. The review team commends the obvious work undertaken by the subject area to attract and foster student cohorts of appropriate quality. The cohort analysis undertaken by Electronics and the subsequent efforts to flag struggling students and provide the necessary support to keep students on course and increase retention rates is also to be commended. [4.1] 7.11 The reviewers also wish to commend the amount of work spent analysing intake qualifications against output qualifications. [4.2] 7.12 The review team commends the subject area s links with industry. [5.1] 7.13 The review team also commends the ongoing work of Electronics to ensure a good range of placements are available, but appreciates that this task is made more difficult by a diminishing pool of organisations from which to choose, resulting in a number of students unable to find placements and undertaking internal projects instead. [5.1] 10
7.14 The review team commends the actions taken by Electronics, in conjunction with Chemistry, in obtaining the writer in residence. [5.3] Recommendations 7.15 While the review team recognises that the pool of bursaries and sponsorships in Electronics is diminishing, and that students need to be more proactive in identifying and seeking them, it nevertheless recommends that the College makes more of this in recruitment activities as other universities are beginning to advertise their industrial sponsorship to significant benefit. [3.6] 7.16 The reviewers recommend that the Teaching Organisation investigates the use of automated systems which can read feedback questionnaires and automatically compile reports from the results. [3.7] 7.17 The review team recommends that Electronics provides more useful and timely feedback for students, perhaps through the use of a feedback sheet. [3.8] 7.18 The reviewers recommend that more effort is made to publicise to students the different research activities being undertaken by the subject area. [3.10] 7.19 The review team recommends that the subject area builds on the supplementary courses in ethics, etc., by pursuing plans to introduce these issues into the dissertation. [3.11] 7.20 The review team recommends that the School continues to hone the laboratories in all years within the constraints of the present timetable. The review team also recommends that Electronics should consider moving courses, which are perceived to be more challenging, into the second semester to better balance the overall load on students. [3.12] 7.21 The review team recommends that all postgraduate demonstrators attend formal training before taking part in any teaching or assessment. [3.13] 7.22 The review team recommends that the subject area considers more formal staff training and/or compulsory attendance at courses such as those run by TLA Centre for all new staff. [3.14] 7.23 The review team recommends that Estates and Buildings consider possible solutions to the first point, and carries out the necessary repairs from the last two points, raised in paragraph 3.15. [3.15] 7.24 The review team recommends that Estates and Buildings consider alternative, more direct access arrangements to the Daniel Rutherford building. [3.16] 7.25 The review team recommends that Electronics considers extending the opening hours of the buildings. [3.17] 7.26 The review team recommends that the University considers ways in which the examination timetabling problems in semester one might be prevented in the future, thus eradicating undue stress on students. [3.18] 7.27 The review team feels that an eight week trigger for non-attendees is too late and recommends that the subject area introduces a trigger much earlier, for example after the second missed class. [4.3] 11
7.28 Although it appears to have been met with little enthusiasm so far, the review team recommends that Electronics should encourage the adoption of Peer Observation of Teaching, possibly structured around groups of three members of staff in order to foster a degree of objectivity. [5.2] 7.29 The review team recommends additional use of the Writer in Residence, such as lunchtime lectures on technical reports and essays. The review team also recommends that the Director of Quality Enhancement disseminates this practice around the University and encourages similar activities in other areas. [5.3] Recommendation Responsibility of 7.15 College of Science and Engineering / School of Engineering and Electronics 7.16 Engineering and Electronics Teaching Organisation 7.17 Discipline of Electronics 7.18 Discipline of Electronics 7.19 Discipline of Electronics 7.20 School of Engineering and Electronics / Discipline of Electronics 7.21 School of Engineering and Electronics 7.22 School of Engineering and Electronics 7.23 Estates and Buildings 7.24 Estates and Buildings 7.25 School of Engineering and Electronics 7.26 Vice-Principal (Learning and Teaching) 7.27 Discipline of Electronics 7.28 Discipline of Electronics 7.29 Discipline of Electronics / Director of Quality Enhancement 12