ACBEE Phase 3: Loughborough University/15 large construction organisations – BSc Construction Engineering Management
Accelerating Change in Built Environment Education (ACBEE) Phase 3 Level 4/5 Case Studies
Loughborough University/15 large construction organisations BSc Construction Engineering Management
Summary of Case Study This case study describes the partnership between Loughborough University and 15 large construction organisations to promote organise and deliver a Bachelor of Science Honours Degree in Construction Engineering Management (CEM). The course originated as an initiative by the ten companies who adopted the title of 'The Loughborough Construction Consortium' ('The Consortium'). They wished to enter into a partnership with an academic institution to design and run a new honours-level degree course in building management, which would provide a sound educational foundation for future senior managers of their projects and companies.
Basic Information Name of Main Author(s): Julian Mackenzie
Industrial/Professional Collaborators: Currently consortium consists of 15 large construction organisations:
(Amec, Balfour Beatty, Bovis Lend Lease, Carillion, Costain, Galliford Try, HBG, Kier, Laing O’Rourke, Norwest Holst, Shepherd Construction, Skanska, Taylor Woodrow, ROK, Water Lilly)
Department: Civil and Building Engineering Department
Institution: Loughborough University
Email: [email protected]
Contact Telephone Number: 01509228794
Case Study Title: BSc Construction Engineering Management
Theme: Sponsored Degree Programme to develop transferable and personal skills in accordance with the needs of employers
Teaching Context Subject Area Covered/Module Title: Degree programme in Construction Engineering Management
Keywords: Construction, Management, Engineering
For how long has the engagement run? Since 1994, first graduates in 1995
Subject area: Architecture/Planning/Building/Surveying/Housing/Engineering
ACBEE Phase 3: Loughborough University/15 large construction organisations – BSc Construction Engineering Management
Participants Number of Students: 35 per academic year
Staff Involved: Key Staff: Programme Director, Year Tutors & dedicated administrative staff. Along with the involvement of most of the departments multi-disciplinary academic staff and external professionals.
Level/Year: Four year Sandwich Undergraduate B.Sc. honours degree - with Diploma of Industrial Studies.
The Author(s) Please provide brief details of the Before starting an academic career ten years ago Julian worked for a building developer Author(s) prior experience in this field: as a quantity and building surveyor for eight years and a self-employed energy surveyor for two years. Currently I am Deputy Programme Director & Part A Year Tutor on the Construction Engineering Management programme.
Learning Methods & Resources Objectives/Learning Outcomes: There are eight main themes to the course:
Management Principles and Practice (Management) The organisation and practices of building firms and projects, and the effective use of human and other resources.
Construction Engineering Technology The principles used in design and construction of modern buildings and the plant, equipment, materials and techniques necessary for their construction.
The Process of Building The way in which buildings are conceived, procured, designed and constructed, with special emphasis on the construction phase.
Construction Management Systems Management information systems, computer systems and the analysis of managerial data. Practices and procedures for the specification and measurement of building work and the estimation and control of costs.
Building Services Factors that create a comfortable internal environment, and the necessary systems and equipment Electrical and communication systems.
Legal Principles & Practice The English legal system, including company, contract, planning & employment law, and law specific to construction. European and international law.
Economics and Finance The construction industry in the national economy, macro and micro economic theory applied to the construction industry. Economics of land and property. Financial and cost accounting principles, sources and control of finance.
Development of Professional Skills Skills development in oral, written and graphical communication, through practical exercises, and also professional management skills (during sandwich placements).
ACBEE Phase 3: Loughborough University/15 large construction organisations – BSc Construction Engineering Management
Outputs: The structure of the course is based on a four year, two semesters a year programme as shown in the table below.
Year in Academic University Semester / Academic Degree University Period Industry Placement Credits Weighting 1st Year Part A University Semester 1 120 Credits University Semester 2 Summer Vacation 2nd Year Part B1 Industry placement University Semester 2 60 Credits 20% Summer Vacation 3rd Year Part B2 University Semester 1 60 Credits 20% Industry placement Summer Vacation Final Year Part C University Semester 1 120 Credits 60% University Semester 2
The knowledge and skills required by the graduate will be developed progressively. Thus, technically, the course proceeds from simple buildings to major and complex urban developments and in other subjects progresses from an exposition of simple principles to a comprehensive analysis of complex issues and procedures.
The course contains realistic practical exercises that illustrate the integration of other subjects within the building process. In addition, students are taught in an environment and through exercises that develop independence, initiative and confidence, within a professional context.
Teaching Method(s): Learning and Teaching Methods A brief description of what you actually did. Modules taught on the programme still demonstrate excellence in teaching with very What activities & interaction occurred? good student feedback. One aspect worth mentioning is the swing towards and slightly away from presentations and peer assessment. This may be due to the fact that these methods were being introduced into many modules in the early and mid 1990s, recognised (quite rightly) as exemplars of teaching best practice. However, in the last year or so we have seen a slight reduction in such methods. It is considered that this is because there were probably too many being employed and the staff has responded to student feedback in seeking to maintain an overall balance in L&T methods. A number of innovative teaching and learning methods used on the programme were documented in the HEFCE funded, FDTL Phase 3 ‘Best Practice in Building Education’ Project (http://www.cebe.ltsn.ac.uk/BPBN/index.htm).
Assessment Procedures: Assessment of Student Performance Currently the distribution of assessment methods is 40% by examination and 60% by coursework, some of which uses peer assessment. We consider this to be a reasonable allocation at present.
An example of coursework is a design and build exercise, where multidisciplinary teams design a concrete lintel and then pass their design to a different 'build' team. These exercises mimic the real-life situation of multidisciplinary teams and also explore the traditional problems of co-ordination between the design and build teams. This and other examples of assessment procedures used on the programme can be found on (http://www.cebe.ltsn.ac.uk/BPBN/index.htm).
Support requirements: Administration of the Sponsorship For you and/or the students. The arrangement is administered between the Course Director and the Chairman of the Funding/costs. Consortium. With the exception of the circulation of information about successful Did you or the participants require applicants, no direct communications are made between the individuals of the two technical support? parties. This is good management discipline, but also emphasises the different roles of the partners.
The Consortium and University meet on a regular basis. The meetings discuss all matters of current importance, and also review the progress of each applicant during the recruiting stage. Student representatives join the meeting for a regular discussion of student issues, under which they can raise any matters of their choosing.
ACBEE Phase 3: Loughborough University/15 large construction organisations – BSc Construction Engineering Management
Other Industrial Liaison In addition to the support received from the Consortium, members of the teaching staff draw also on the broad base of industrial relationships of the Department.
Drivers for the Engagement a. Collaboration between education, The Consortium companies had recognised the need to foster adequate numbers of industry &/or professional bodies. competent and qualified staff to manage their companies in the future, within the context of a rapidly changing industry, using advanced construction techniques and management practices. One element of their strategy for satisfying this need was to promote first-degree courses, which would reflect their anticipated needs, within a sound educational and professional development framework. They would sponsor students throughout the course, and also augment the university tuition fees so that additional facilities and tuition could be provided to enhance the delivery of the course. They expected to enter into a partnership which - without in any way constraining the independent academic conduct of the course – would result in strong linkages between the development of academic knowledge and skills, practical applications, and professional career development. b. What explicit business needs/ The course was initiated by nine major building firms in the UK (Balfour Beatty Building strategic business objectives have been Ltd., Beazer Construction Ltd., Henry Boot & Sons PLC., Fairclough Building Ltd., Kyle identified and set down? Stewart Ltd., Lovell Group, Monk Construction Ltd., Norwest Holst Holdings Ltd., and Tarmac Construction Ltd.). These firms had a very clear need for very able and professionally qualified staff to manage their building projects, some of whom would be expected to progress to more senior, general management positions. There was (is) a general shortage of such staff, so sponsoring a degree course was considered to be a means of finding a long-term solution to the problem. A further important consideration was the acceptance of a broad range of entry qualifications and disciplines, thereby maximising the probability of attracting sufficient applicants at a high standard. c. What is the process by which these Principles of agreement were drafted between the University and the Consortium of shared objectives were identified and set Sponsoring Firms. At the date of this agreement much of the detailed development of down in a formal partnership the course remained to be done. However the agreement stated the general objectives agreement/alliance agreement? and principles of the course and sponsorship arrangement, and delegated further development to an Advisory Committee and a Working Party.
The general development and management of the course was the responsibility of the Advisory Committee, comprising one member of staff from each of the companies of the Consortium and up to six members of staff of the University.
Teaching, course content and maintenance of academic standards would remain under the ultimate control of the University.
The Advisory Committee would meet once during each University term. The Committee elected a chair from the members of staff of the Consortium members. The Course Tutor acted as the Secretary.
The Working Party comprised of four members of the Advisory Committee, and four members of staff from the University. The Working Party elected a chair from the members of staff of the Consortium. Again the Course Tutor acted as the Secretary.
The Working Party was responsible for all matters relating to the development and running of the course, subject to general guidance from the Advisory Committee, and the conditions to the Principles of Agreement.
The Working Party met at least once per term in advance of the meeting of the Advisory Committee, and as required. d. What evidence exists to demonstrate The main evidence to demonstrate that the engagement is meeting it’s objectives is the the engagement is meeting the explicit fact that the course is continuing after 15 years and is as strong now as it’s ever been. shared/strategic business objectives? There are more sponsors on board, student numbers on the course have steadily increased year on year, and that there are now three sponsored courses within the Civil and Building Engineering Department at Loughborough.
There is regular communication from past graduates who maintain contact with the programme, many of whom have stayed with their sponsoring company. A number of these students have reached junior director level. ACBEE Phase 3: Loughborough University/15 large construction organisations – BSc Construction Engineering Management
e. What process exists to ensure the A Periodic Industrial Review with the consortium focuses on reviewing the course on a engagement is continuously reviewed module by module basis. and updated to align with the business needs/strategic business objectives of Industry providing key lectures: through continued contact, graduates in junior-middle all partners/alliances? level of management are invited back to deliver key guest lectures on relevant issues from their industry practice, e.g. Channel Tunnel rail link terminal at St Pancras, dealing with unexploded ordnance from the 2nd World War, etc. In some instances the material from these guest lectures also form part of the student assessment.
The course has a dedicated core module to deliver Health & Safety training. This was originally delivered by a specific H&S arm of Henry Boot. They also organised a practical session at a training depot where students spend time in practical issues associated with H&S such as erecting and testing mobile scaffolding, using cable detection equipment, lay out of traffic equipment/furniture for street works, etc.
Recruitment meetings held with representatives of the consortium informally discuss the future needs of the programme.
Formal Evaluation Procedure 1&2 (applicable where business needs are the driver for engagement) a. What formal evaluation procedure is in The formal evaluation procedures are laid down under the Universities quality place? framework. The aims of the University's quality framework are to:
advise Senate on Matters of policy relating to learning and teaching;
keep under review and monitor, in the light of agreed institutional aims and objectives, the structures and mechanisms in place for quality assurance and control, to receive relevant statistical indicators and to promote measures to improve the quality and effectiveness of learning and teaching in the University;
encourage and monitor good practice and innovation in learning and teaching; and in the assessment of student performance;
keep under review Regulations relating to the conduct of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes;
keep under review the operation of the University's modular, credit-based curriculum framework, the semesterised academic year, and the associated assessment processes, and to advise Senate on potential areas for development;
receive reports and recommendations from the Programme Development and Quality Team and the Curriculum Sub-Committee;
keep under review the activities of the Quality Assessment Unit and to receive annual reports there-from;
receive reports from Associate Deans (Teaching) on appropriate Faculty matters including annual and periodic programme reviews;
consider such other issues related to learning and teaching as may be referred to it by Senate;
report to Senate and offer advice as appropriate after each meeting.
these aims are endorsed at departmental level with the additional requirement that the University's systems should be adapted to reflect the nature of the department's programmes and students.
The consortium is kept up-to date with any development via the Periodic Industrial Review and Recruitment meetings. Industry sponsors undertake regular reviews with their sponsored students. b. How was the procedure formulated, The procedure has been formulated as part of an ongoing commitment to quality across tested and validated? the university. Quality Assurance Procedures are continually improved at both departmental and at University level.
ACBEE Phase 3: Loughborough University/15 large construction organisations – BSc Construction Engineering Management
c. What does the procedure evaluate and The department's Quality Assurance Procedures fit within the overall frame work of the produce? University system. Key procedures include: student survey feedback forms, module review procedures; annual and periodic programme reviews; a coursework code of practice; a departmental code of practice for staff/student committees; a procedure for amending module specifications and programme specifications; student tutorials; and a code for module assessment which includes procedures for the second reading of examination papers, double marking of examination scripts and examination performance feedback.
Student Feedback: Forms, Module Review Procedures1 Student feedback survey forms were initially used within the department in 1990. These were survey forms with a few simple questions. The results were processed by hand. They were used to gather information on key issues relating to the delivery of teaching sessions. These forms were developed at departmental level in conjunction with a later university wide survey system. Three different types of survey forms were introduced: Module Survey Sheets; Annual Programme Survey Sheets and Degree Programme Survey Sheets. Students complete these forms and the quantitive data is analysed centrally. The feedback is read electronically using an optical mark reader (OMR). A five- point scale is used and each respondent asked to indicate a response to each question ranging from 'strongly disagree' through 'neutral' to 'strongly agree'.
Module Survey Sheets contain both questions set by the University's Teaching and Learning and questions set at departmental level. This allows feedback from students across all the modules and all the programmes in every department to be compared.
The general questions included on the Module Survey Forms focus on both the content and delivery of the module, e.g. 'The academic content of the module was interesting and challenging,' and the formal procedures relating to delivery, e.g. 'The coursework and assessments were well co-ordinated scheduled.' The quality of the resources available, ranging from the teaching rooms, computer facilities etc. and including the provision of library materials is assessed. Feedback on all the staff involved in deliver teaching material is obtained. The questions seek to gain the student's evaluation of the lecturer's knowledge in the subject area, whether each teaching session was used to cover a well defined topic, the quality of handouts, and whether the person was helpful in answering questions and providing adequate feedback on coursework assignments. All staff who contributes to the module is assessed including visiting lecturers.
In addition to the quantitative data collected students are invited to explain in more detail their responses and to contribute more fully to the feedback by responding to open ended questions such as, 'What did you like about this module?' and, 'How could this module best be improved? The responses, whether succinct or effusive are good indicators of how the module was delivered.
All the questions used on the forms were developed on an iterative basis over a number of years to reflect the changing needs of both the University and the department. To obtain the feedback in an efficient and effective manner procedures were developed to cover the issue, collection, analysis and storage of the survey documents. After discussion between the academic staff members it was decided to survey the views of all students and all modules taught within the department each year. This was to ensure consistency of data and provide the ability to identify trends across different academic years. Responsibilities for the preparation, issue, return, analysis and storage of the survey sheets involved the Head of Department; the Quality Co-ordinator; the Department Executive Officer; the Internal Examiner of each module; the University Computer Centre and the Programme Tutor.
The module survey forms are issued to all students by the Internal Examiner for the module, (module leader), at an appropriate teaching session before the end of the module concerned. Guidance is given to the students on how to complete the forms and the students asked to record their responses clearly and accurately and inviting them to add additional comments to the open ended questions on the rear of the forms.
The forms are collated and reviewed by the Internal Examiner who checks for any issues that need immediate review with the students. They are then forwarded to the University Computer Services for processing. Results in printed and electronic form are analysed. Summary results across individual programmes and each year of the programmes are produced to enable common issues or trends to be identified.
ACBEE Phase 3: Loughborough University/15 large construction organisations – BSc Construction Engineering Management
A memo is sent to the Head of Department by the Quality Co-ordinator summarising the results from the module surveys and highlighting any module where particular action is required. Action may be precipitated by a number of low scores, either at individual or module level, or the unsuitability of resources, e.g. rooms.
A Coursework Code of Practice2: Coursework is an important part of student assessment and needs to be carefully managed. It is essential that detailed briefs are provided to students with clear statements of what is to be produced, when and how the marks to be gained will be awarded. The code of practice is provided to each student annually as a reminder of how to manage this important part of their studies. It also acts as a reference point to all staff and students should queries arise. A copy of the latest version of the code of practice is available on the department's intranet.
The department's Coursework Code of Practice provides a clear statement to staff and students of the practice regarding issue, submission, assessment and return of coursework. To enable students to plan their work the Internal Examiners, (Module Leader), for each module provide students with information about the timing of coursework assignments. There is an important role for the Programme Tutor to review the coursework assignments across the entire programme with respect to both content and timing. (It is too easy to inundate students with different assessments over the same time period). Information on the coursework assignments for each programme is provided in the Programme Handbook at the start of each academic year. These details are also provided to students via the department's intranet.
Annual Programme Reviews2 An Annual Review is made of all undergraduate and postgraduate programmes within the department. For each programme data are collected on proforma sheets which provide a clear summary of recruitment, awards, withdrawals, career statistics, student feedback, issues raised by staff and the actions taken to implement changes.
The Annual Programme Review is the responsibility of a departmental review body including the Head of Department, Programme Directors and Quality Managers. These persons are responsible for reviewing all aspects of the programmes and identifying key actions on both a programme and a departmental basis.
A programme review meeting of the review body is held with the Associate Dean, (Teaching) who then prepares a report for the Faculty Board. This highlights any cause for concern. A report is made to the University's Teaching and Learning Committee if institutional attention is required.
Period Programme Reviews2 Periodic Programme Reviews are held every five years, or at other times to align with specific changes within the department's portfolio or programmes or organisation. Data for each programme is collated for each of the previous five years. This comprises summaries from the Annual Reviews, i.e. details of recruitment, progression and completion, withdrawals, degree classifications, and employment of the students who have completed the programme, etc. Feedback on the programme is obtained from students, staff, External Examiners, External Assessors, Advisory Committees, Accreditation Boards and sponsors, former students and employers.
The department is then required to provide reflective feedback on the effectiveness of the handling of student feedback on each programme, and issues raised by staff and external bodies. A self critical and analytical commentary under the reading of the External Subject Review/Self-Evaluation Document is produced highlighting strengths and weaknesses and accompanying this with strategies to overcome them. Account is taken of Subject Benchmark Statements, National Qualifications Framework, Professional/Statutory Body Requirements, the validity and relevance of programme aims and intended learning outcomes.
As with Annual Reviews a meeting is held with the Faculty Associate Dean, Teaching who reports back to Faculty Board and where necessary the University's Teaching and Learning Committee.
A Code of Practice for Staff Student Committees2 A staff student committee meeting is held for each programme in each term. The committee is chaired by the Programme Tutor and includes members of staff and student representatives for each year of the programme. (Student Representatives are ACBEE Phase 3: Loughborough University/15 large construction organisations – BSc Construction Engineering Management
chosen by their peers and then receive training from the Student Union to prepare them for their role on the committees.) Full minutes are kept of each meeting. These are retained by the department's Executive Officer. Key actions are agreed and then implemented by the Programme Tutor. Where necessary issues are raised at Staff Meetings.
A Procedure for Amending Programme Specifications and Module Specifications2 The learning and teaching outcomes of each programme together with the objectives of each module are reviewed annually to meet the changing demands of staff, students, accreditation bodies and employers. Minor changes to programmes and modules may be authorised by the Faculty's Associate Dean, Teaching. Substantial changes, including the withdrawal of a programme and the introduction of new programmes and new modules have to be reviewed by the University's Learning and Teaching Committee. New Programmes, i.e. new titles in the University's portfolio of programmes are automatically designated as 'strategic' even if they merely involve the reconfiguration of existing modules. These demand review and approval at Directorate level and by Operations Sub-Committee.
Student Tutorials2 All students are allocated a Personal Tutor by the department's Senior Tutor when they begin University. Each semester the Departmental Executive Officer identifies a one hour slot on all student timetables for Personal Tutor-Tutee meetings. Tutors use this time tabled slot or arrange a new slot for meeting their tutees on a regular basis. Tutors are expected to meet with their personal tutees at least twice per term. These meetings can be formal or informal but they must be recorded on the Faculty Tutorial Record System. This database allows access to meeting records by all authorised staff, and is monitored by the Departmental Senior Tutor.
Examination Performance Feedback2 Double checking of all examination scripts is undertaken before the scripts are presented to the department's Executive Officer for forwarding to the External Examiner. Double marking of the examination scripts is undertaken by selective sampling. This applies to all sets of examination scripts. The Internal Examiner selects appropriate scripts for double marking based on the following criteria: borderline cases, grade exemplars, other unusual cases, paper marked by probationary staff.
Examination Performance Feedback may be given by students who have under performed in order to help them focus their efforts on weak areas of performance. Students may review their script individually at an arranged meeting with the Internal Examiner for the module. This feedback should include both summary information on the individual's performance and the performance of all the students who undertook the examination.
The Periodic Industrial Review The Periodic Industrial Review focuses on University processes for programme review and amendments (internal QA system), the CIOB reaccredidation process, review of programme contents on a theme basis, e.g. management, technology, process and systems, etc., review of industrial placements, and feedback from students (via industry partners). The result of the review process is suggestions for improvements and amendments by the industry sponsors, which in turn are discussed and agreed.
The Recruitment meetings formally discuss recruiting new students, progress of existing students, and informally the progression of past students. d. How often is the formal evaluation Continuous evaluation of the system is provided at departmental level, Faculty level and procedure conducted? by the University's Teaching and Learning Committee and Senate. Outside evaluation is also provided with input from External Examiners and Accreditation Committees.
In terms of the internal QA procedures, Student Evaluation and Module Review take place at the end of every module, Staff-Student Committee are held twice a year specifically for the programme and a third for all undergraduate programmes within the Department and a Programme Review occurs annually with the final year students.
The Periodic Industrial Review takes place approximately every four years, initiated by Loughborough University informing the consortium of the time for undertaking an industrial review.
ACBEE Phase 3: Loughborough University/15 large construction organisations – BSc Construction Engineering Management
Four Recruitment meetings are held usually in November, December, February and early March. e. Who undertakes the formal evaluation As described previously, formal evaluation is undertaken by many members of staff procedure that is conducted? across the University. The Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) has overall responsibility under Senate for strategies and procedures for maintaining and enhancing quality in learning and teaching through the University. It is supported by a Programme Development and Quality Team and the Curriculum Sub-Committee. A Quality Assessment Unit (QAU) is responsible for the University's Internal Teaching Assessment Scheme. Other specialist units such as Staff Development, etc. provide support both to University and departmental initiatives. Within individual departments the resources provided to ensure the effective deployment are the decision of the Head of Department.
In the department of Civil and Building Engineering an early decision was to appoint a member of academic staff as Quality Co-ordinator to champion the development implementation of new systems for Quality Assurance. This person was assisted by the department's Executive Officer who co-ordinated the administrative aspects of the system. Individual members of staff were allocated to specific tasks on an ad-hoc basis. Overall the Head of Department had responsibility for the running of the system.
The Periodic Industry Review and Recruitment meetings involve representatives from all of the industry sponsors/consortium. A select number of students are also invited to provide feedback through the Periodic Industry Review.
Industry partners are responsible for undertaking the reviews with their sponsored students. This is undertaken by the students’ line management and Human Resources Department within each company. f. How are the outcomes of the An efficient, effective framework for quality assurance is imperative for the development evaluation procedure used/applied? and enhancement of high quality academic programmes. This demands considerable input from all stakeholders within the university. It has to be produced on an iterative basis with a commitment to both improvements and the monitoring and control of existing systems.
The benefits of the system are that it:
provides the department with a comprehensive method of planning and monitoring the continuous improvement of the learning and teaching across the campus; is a framework for quality assurance which enables the demands of staff and students across the campus to be identified and compared; enables all stakeholders in the university's programmes to have input to the both the content of the programmes and their delivery.
The agreed amendments resulting from the Periodic Industrial Review are discussed with the module leaders who then take responsibility for ensuring their implementation. Any amendments that are made to the course are then fed back to all the parties that formed part of the Industrial Review, which in turn feed back through to their HR managers.
The graduate monitoring information gathered from regular communication with past graduates is used for recruitment and also provides industry key lectures. g. How do you ensure the evaluation The system is continually improved at both departmental and at University level. At procedure is continuously reviewed and departmental level, adjustments of the system are initiated by feedback from staff and updated? students. Suggestions are discussed at staff meetings and then, if appropriate, introduced. Current consideration is being given to simplifying the system and focusing on the elements important for current issues and initiatives, e.g. widening access.
Changes at University level are initiated by the Learning and Teaching Committee, ratified by Senate and then implemented in the departments.
ACBEE Phase 3: Loughborough University/15 large construction organisations – BSc Construction Engineering Management
Attributed Improvements From an Industry perspective, what improvement would you attribute the engagement provides in terms of:
Average recruitment costs as a There are fifteen sponsors/industrial partners all of whom have different results and percentage of starting salary? ways of recording data.
Turnover of staff as a percentage of all There are fifteen sponsors/industrial partners all of whom have different results and staff? ways of recording data.
Percentage of staff with first degree, There are fifteen sponsors/industrial partners all of whom have different results and professional qualification, post- ways of recording data. qualification specialism? From an Academic perspective, what improvement would you attribute the engagement provides in terms of:
Average UCAS tariff points? The minimum entry requirement is currently 260 A-Level points from 3 A-Levels not including General Studies. There are no pre-requisites. There is a potential 20 points increase but it is an arbitrary figure and therefore the relevance is considered insignificant.
Percentage of course places filled? Student numbers are determined by the consortium of sponsors (dependent upon their projected workload). The attraction of sponsorship increases student applicants to the course.
Student completion rates (number of Student completion rates are very high for the sponsored course in the region of 90- students going straight through to 95%. Student dropout normally occurs within the first year of study. Student progression graduation)? is very high after year one.
Percentage of department at Over 70% of academic staff charted by professional institutions. professorial level and with professional qualification(s)? Over 80% of academic staff with doctorates.
As a multidisciplinary department (both academic and industry professionals) all members of staff contribute to the course.
Percentage of graduates employed Varies from 92 - 100% as the graduates are industry sponsored. Those students who within three months? choose not to accept a sponsor’s offer invariably find work quickly, as the course is rated highly as are graduates from Loughborough.
What other improvements would you Ultimately the speed at which graduates become charted. In addition, the engagement attribute to the engagement? develops partners for research collaboration.
Good Practice Tips Further advice and pointers – incl. The key is to gain consistent industry support and sponsorship. A core of industrial enablers/barriers/proposals for collaborators needs to be prepared to maintain support even during a severe downturn improvement. in the industry.
How can other staff/partners adopt this A crucial aspect is to ensure that industry and sponsor require the product/course. technique/method?
Additional Information Any other factors/information you feel The section on Formal Evaluation Procedure was written by Professor Andrew N Baldwin are important? (Former Head of Department Civil and Building Engineering Department Loughborough University). The material was derived from two HEFCE FDTL Ph.3 case studies:
A framework for Quality Assurance1. Completing the circle (ensuring effective student feedback)2
http://www.cebe.ltsn.ac.uk/BPBN/casestud.htm