QMC 24 February 2010 Paper 3.1
ANNUAL FACULTY ACADEMIC QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT REPORT FOR SESSION 2008/09
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
The Annual Faculty Academic Quality Assurance and Enhancement Reports are the mechanism for providing the Quality Monitoring Committee with assurance that robust quality assurance and enhancement procedures are in place in each of the five faculties. The information provided in these reports informs reports to Senate and Court as well as the Quality Assurance Agency and the Scottish Funding Council. The Reports also form part of the documentation provided for Enhancement-led Institutional Review.
The revised template for session 2008/09 has been restructured into five sections: Section A seeking responses for which information can be gathered early in session 2009/10, Section B seeking responses that will be dependent on information from the Planning Office and the Careers Service, Sections C and D to give an opportunity for the Faculty to provide more up-to-date information and Section E for the conclusion.
SECTION A
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Please provide an overview of the Quality Assurance structure at Faculty Level.
The Faculty monitors the quality of provision through a system of committees, annual reports, quinquennial departmental reviews and monitoring of annual central performance statistics.
The Academic Administration Committee (AAC) is the main committee responsible for quality assurance. It scrutinises regulation changes, new course proposals and course withdrawals before submission to the Board of Study. It also makes recommendations to the Board of Study on policy issues, for example, amendments to assessment procedures and progress regulations.
The new Board for the Graduate School of Engineering (GSEB) considers proposals for all new PGI courses to ensure that financial and marketing aspects have been addressed by the department and that the courses align with the overall Faculty Academic Strategy before proposals are progressed to AAC.
As part of the process to progress the Academic Strategy, the Faculty Teaching and Learning Forum meets on an ad hoc basis to consider Teaching and Learning from a strategic position and facilitate the exchange of good practice in this area throughout the Faculty.
Course reviews for all undergraduate and PGI degree courses are conducted annually. Outcomes are reported to AAC and the Board of Study. This facilitates monitoring of developments, tracking of statistical performance and stakeholder feedback and creates opportunity for the dissemination of good practice across the Faculty. A new process was introduced in 2007/08 where feedback was obtained at the end of each session via individual Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
meetings with the Vice Dean Academic, Assistant Faculty Officer, Heads of Department and Course Directors.
Departmental reviews, conducted every five years, involve a comprehensive examination of Departmental activities including research, teaching, internationalisation, management and resources. Review reports are presented to the Faculty Planning and Resources Committee (FPRC). Departments provide an action plan to FPRC on the recommendations from the review and provide annual updates to FPRC of progress against the action plan until all of the recommendations have been addressed satisfactorily.
Central statistics for admissions and progress are monitored at Faculty level through course review and by the Undergraduate Recruitment Group. Pass rates for individual classes are monitored by the Vice-Dean Academic through the QMC and any generic issues reported to AAC and the Board of Study. The Vice-Dean Academic also makes annual reports to these committees on External Examiners’ reports (making use of summaries compiled by the Faculty Office) and accreditation reports, sent by departments to the Faculty Office.
The Faculty’s position is mapped against the Strategic Objectives in the Academic Strategy in Appendix 1.
1.2 Please comment on how the actions identified in the Faculty’s last Academic Quality Assurance and Enhancement Report have been carried forward and on the impact these have had on the academic quality of the Faculty’s programmes.
Action: Establish a Working Group to address issues surrounding feedback to students. The Faculty and Departments are working together to enhance student feedback. A Working Group was established to address issues surrounding feedback to students at departmental and Faculty level. The Group will monitor student attitudes to feedback throughout the duration of their course to allow departments to take targeted action before students reach final year and seek to manage student expectations with respect to feedback. This should ensure that students know the different forms of assessment and feedback and the respective benefits of each and ensure that staff deliver to student expectations.
The Student Experience Champion in DMEM set up a Working Group to identify ways to improve student experience in DMEM. Nine identified priority areas and eighteen agreed actions were addressed by an Implementation Group from Semester 1 in 2008/09. The Group prioritised the recommendations and piloted the simplest, most practical solutions that could be put in place quickly with maximum impact. These included feedback, student workload, PDP, exhibition of student work and the formation of a graduate network (DMEM Reunited) which will be rolled out in the Department in 2009/10. The Faculty is monitoring this work with a view to identifying good practice which can be adopted by other departments.
The NSS 08/09 survey results for the feedback questions were disappointing and the Associate Dean, appointed in August 2009, will work with CAPLE to take forward a Faculty wide initiative on feedback in 2009/10.
Action: Conduct an academic audit of undergraduate teaching delivery and rationalise teaching where possible, especially at first and second year level. All undergraduate courses were reviewed by departments in 08/09 as part of the restructuring to the 20 credit framework. A special meeting of AAC was held in April 2008 to discuss preliminary departmental plans for the restructuring and implications for the Faculty. The extent of restructuring and rationalisation of teaching varied between departments. Accrediting bodies were also consulted.
Action: Conduct an academic audit of postgraduate instructional teaching delivery and rationalise teaching where possible.
2 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
The Director of the Graduate School has been tasked with auditing PGI teaching. He reported at the Graduate School of Engineering Board in May 2008 that the best use of resources would be to develop a small suite of generic modules which are attractive and useful to students and employers and can be incorporated within any MSc course. These should include accrediting bodies’ requirements for ‘soft’ skills. The review will continue in 2009/10 to agree the portfolio of generic classes, examine commonality in current provision to avoid duplication across departments, and consider guidelines for how these can be assessed. Feedback from existing generic modules showed that students like working in cross-disciplinary groups.
All PGI courses will be restructured during 2010/11 to the University’s new 20 credit framework, providing an opportunity to revise content and incorporate generic modules.
Action: Continue to monitor the problems of attendance and motivation which appear to be experienced by some second year students following the introduction of first year initiatives. The progression rates for both 2007-08 and for 2008-09 produced by the Planning Office following standard HESA procedures do not indicate any major progression problems. However there is a concern across the Faculty that some of the initiatives introduced as part of the First Year Experience exercise has shifted a subset of problems into second year. It was decided not to investigate this in 2008-09, but wait until the impact of the new 20 credit 2nd year curriculum in 2010-11 could be assessed.
Action: Review the operation of undergraduate Boards of Examiners and provide more input into PGI Exam Boards. The Assistant Faculty Officer attended the PGI Board of Examiners in Civil Engineering in September 2009. This highlighted the benefit of improved consistency in applying the Exam Board guidelines across the Faculty. From 2009/10 a Faculty Officer will attend each PGI Board in addition to the undergraduate examination and Honours boards. In order to make this practicable, the number of examination boards will be streamlined in 2009/10 and some current operating procedures changed. The key changes are: Departments should, where possible, have a single Board to consider all of their PGI courses A new Board should be introduced for the Sustainable Engineering programmes Registry schedules to be used for all PGI Boards A reduction in the number of General Boards from nine to five The introduction of a General Board for the Engineering Studies degree The introduction of a Faculty Committee to review all medical and personal circumstances held on central files prior to the Boards of Examiners The introduction of a Faculty template for the recording of degree award decisions for Honours Boards.
Action: Monitor the progress and activities of the new Graduate School of Engineering. A new MSc in Power Plant Engineering was launched in collaboration with Doosan Babcock, with over 40 part time students enrolling in 08/09. The Graduate School of Engineering Board has the authority to scrutinise the business cases of all proposals for new PGI courses to make certain that there is a market for each course and a sound rationale for its introduction. Funding was obtained to install video recording facilities into two teaching rooms so that lectures could be recorded for online viewing. The pilot will be rolled out to more teaching rooms in 09/10.
Action: Review the Faculty’s portfolio of collaborative agreements with a view to terminating any non-active agreements. An audit of collaborative agreements began in July 2009 and a significant number of non- active agreements were identified. The audit will continue in 09/10 and it is anticipated that the final number will be reduced from 133 to around 45 live collaborative agreements, most of which are articulation arrangements.
3 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Action: Introduce an additional meeting of AAC to review the minutes of SSC meetings in order to identify any Faculty-wide issues that require to be addressed and any areas of good practice that could be rolled-out more widely across the Faculty / University. AAC met at the end of April 2009 to discuss the outcome of the DMEM feedback project, common issues arising from Staff-Student Committees and External Examiner reports. This practice will continue.
A problem affecting the wider Faculty related to level 5 MEng and MSc students sharing classes. MEng students are generally high achievers who are accustomed to the university and departmental teaching style, but most MSc students are new to the university and from overseas. Some MEng students feel they are held back because the year 5 teaching is to the lowest common denominator. The Faculty will continue to monitor feedback on this issue.
DMEM recommended an area of good practice in pastoral care: Year Coordinators stay with the same cohort throughout their course, moving from year to year with them. Students like having the same person concerned with their progress and welfare, and build good rapport with their year coordinators. Staff have commented on the benefits of becoming familiar with the full course curriculum. After five years, each year coordinator gets one year off. This is separate to the role of the four Course Coordinators, each of whom looks after one course, taking a long term view of content.
1.3 Please provide details of the course and class approval and renewal procedures operated by the Faculty
Each Department has a Committee for learning and teaching issues which regularly reviews the need for new courses and updates to the curriculum. They are required to submit detailed documentation for course changes or proposals to AAC, including a proposal, regulations, detailed module descriptor forms for any new classes and Programme Specification. New course proposals must state the rationale including evidence of need and fit with strategy as well as resource implications, academic and operational details. Module descriptor forms for all new classes including electives must be approved by AAC and the Board of Study.
The AAC sets strict deadlines for new courses and regulation changes which are to be included in the University Calendar for the following session. The AAC representative must be fully briefed on proposals coming from their department. Once these have been approved by AAC, and any corrections made, they are submitted for approval by the Board of Study.
1.4 Please provide details of the link between quality assurance at departmental and faculty levels.
Departments monitor quality of teaching provision through class and course review, departmental teaching committees and ongoing monitoring of feedback from students, external examiners, industrial liaison groups and employers. The outputs from departmental level processes feed into the AAC meetings, Faculty course reviews and quinquennial departmental reviews. This includes annual reports from Exam Boards and Registry which go to AAC in September and summaries of External Examiner reports which are considered by AAC in January.
2 CYCLICAL REVIEWS
2.1 Please confirm that the 5-year rolling plan of Departmental and other Reviews is accurate and provide an explanation for any drift in the proposed timetable.
4 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
The plan is accurate.
2.2 Please list the Departmental and other Reviews (e.g. Strategic and Excellence Reviews) carried out in session 2008/09 (Reports in full should be forwarded to GMAP; the Recommendations should be attached as an Annex to this Report).
The first phase of a Strategic Review of the Department of Bioengineering was conducted in June 2009. The Executive Summary is attached in Appendix 2.
A Departmental Review of the Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering was carried out in January 2009. The Executive Summary is attached in Appendix 3.
A Departmental Review of the National Centre for Prosthetics and Orthotics was carried out in February 2009. The Executive Summary is attached in Appendix 4.
2.3 Please detail any significant developments or issues other than those in learning and teaching (which should be dealt with under section 5) arising out of Departmental Reviews or Excellence Reviews conducted in session 2008/09, including any follow up and the Faculty’s proposed response to these.
Department of Bioengineering A Strategic Review of the Bioengineering Unit took place in June 2009. The Department has delivered excellent RAE outcomes in successive exercises, consistent with its postgraduate- only remit, and is at the heart of the Faculty’s and University’s strategy to grow its research and other activities at the Health interface. However, the review was held in recognition that there are long-standing operational and strategic issues that the current Department management and Faculty identified as restricting the department from achieving its full potential and ambitions. Fundamentally, staff research performance was uneven; research funding was characterised by low-FEC sources; PGI student recruitment had fallen over a number of successive academic years and, marketing strategies have been weak. Collectively, these issues resulted in the creation of a fragile economic position which if not addressed would have exacerbated the department’s current budget deficit and led to an inability for the department to invest the resources required to allow it to remain competitive in training and research. The Head of Department fully recognised that the immediate leadership and financial challenges facing the department were such that external Faculty and University guidance and backing were required to assist in the revitalisation of the department. Accordingly, the Head of Department requested a Faculty ‘Strategic Review’ to help identify a new structure that would allow the department to realise its full potential. Biomedical engineering has been recognised by many other institutions as an area for investment and growth. Within the UK this has resulted in the establishment of a much more competitive teaching and research landscape to which the department was slow to respond. The primary purpose of the review was to facilitate changes that would allow Strathclyde’s brand of Bioengineering to remain internationally significant.
A wide-ranging list of recommendations was made and the department was advised to:
Undertake a review of the department’s management structures to include a review of operational processes which had already been initiated in some areas of the department. A reconfiguration and refocusing of these structures and processes should facilitate driving forward the necessary changes identified in the recommendations of the review and ultimately free up staff time for other strategically targeted activities. Organise a series of away days or events for staff to provide an opportunity to ‘think outside the box’ about strategic issues and to improve communications. This would hopefully invigorate staff, improve communications, generate new ideas and engender a greater sense of shared responsibility for the department’s future.
5 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Discontinue the current income-based staff performance indicator with immediate effect. Give consideration to the development of more holistic metrics for reviewing staff performance in order to strengthen the overall performance of the department. Establish a more robust mentoring programme for early career academics. Adopt a managed ‘team’ approach to drive forward a step-change in the department’s portfolio of research activities. This would require a change in culture away from the individually driven ‘silo’ approach to research that was evident in the department. Refocus the department’s research vision to identify cognate areas in which the department has strength and from which it could build critical mass. This might require a reduction in the number of research groups and research themes that exist currently. Encourage staff to engage in activities that would increase their visibility on the research landscape and contribute to restoring the esteem and international reputation that the department previously enjoyed. Ensure the department’s academic and research staff begin proactively to target external sources of funding in a more coordinated way to reduce the over-reliance on DTC and SFC resources and to bring new funding streams into the department. In broadening the department’s research funding portfolio, consideration should also be given to the formation of strategic partnerships with other universities and external organisations to target high value income streams. Given the unique research focus of the department, diversification of research income streams is critical to the department’s future sustainability. Take a much more strategic approach to the selection of doctoral research project topics. Projects should align with the research priorities identified in the department’s new research vision. This would facilitate the development of critical mass in strategically important research areas and support the development of external research funding proposals in these areas. Ensure staff capitalise on the research opportunities offered via the collaborations that have been forged through the DTC. In particular, project findings should be developed in partnership with collaborators into external research grant proposals. Encourage senior academic staff to mentor early career academic staff in the development of research funding applications. Undertake a root and branch evaluation of the department’s marketing activities. This should encompass a market analysis to determine whether the department is currently offering the right products to meet market needs and at the right price and to identify opportunities for new provision. The findings from this review should be drawn on to develop a marketing strategy for the department. Channel unsuccessful DTC applicants towards other postgraduate study opportunities in the department where studentships are available for PhD or MRes courses as this could provide an additional mechanism for improving recruitment. Drives forward a healthcare technology initiative as a matter of urgency drawing together the multidisciplinary expertise that exists across Strathclyde to support the development of this vision. This will require a project champion to lead this development. Establish an internal Implementation Group, chaired by the Dean, to work with the department to implement the recommendations of stage 1 of the Review. The Group will also liaise with the external members of the Review Panel as appropriate.
The department has begun to embrace change and is determined to drive forward an implementation programme in 09/10 that will serve the best interests of the discipline and its place within Strathclyde. A further review meeting will be held to address the remaining areas outlined in the remit for the strategic review. A quinquennial review was scheduled for 2008/09 but in view of the Strategic Review, the University agreed that the departmental review could be postponed to December 2009 and that this would focus on the areas that were not reviewed in detail in step 1 of the strategic review, i.e. Teaching and Learning, Quality Assurance and Knowledge Exchange.
6 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
National Centre for Prosthetics and Orthotics The Faculty undertook a Quinquennial Review of NCPO in February 2009 with the additional remit to investigate: (1) How the NCPO could operate more like a ‘conventional’ Department, particularly with respect to developing a strong research profile; and (2) How the NCPO would cope with a reduction and change in its funding arrangements, which had been signalled by SGHD. The review resulted in a number of significant recommendations, particularly with respect to research performance. An Implementation Group, chaired by the Dean, was established to progress the recommendations and to develop the options appraisal for the future direction and structure of NCPO.
The action plan included that the Centre should: engage more widely with the other Allied Health Professions, particularly with regard to the development and operational models for its teaching programmes take care to ensure that the strong sense of community does not create an insular department or detract from the student experience encourage greater integration of its students with students elsewhere in the Faculty and University develop a research strategy as a matter of priority. The Departmental Research Committee (DRC) should take a pro-active approach to planning research activities within the department against the priorities in this research strategy take a more radical approach to the management of research in the Centre, with strong leadership review the remit and membership of the DRC to empower the Committee to drive forward change in the department’s research culture and to distribute ownership of research ideas more widely across the department encourage staff to engage with relevant research seminar programmes on offer elsewhere in the Faculty and University sharpen the business models for the CPD courses to maximise the benefits that flow to the Centre.
The biggest single challenge facing the Centre is the move to a new funding model that will be imposed by the SGHD. It is anticipated that there will be a move towards a more conventional FTE-based funding model which will reduce significantly the level of funding that the Centre receives. This will require a new and radical approach to the financial management and business models of the Centre to absorb this reduction in funding whilst continuing to deliver a high-quality Prosthetics and Orthotics undergraduate education programme and develop a research profile.
The recommendations from the review were discussed at FPRC in May 2009. The department was broadly accepting of the review’s recommendations. The Centre reports directly to Parliament and a copy of the report was also submitted to the Chief Executive of the Scottish Government Health Directorate. The Centre’s governance arrangements require that it undergoes a quinquennial Policy and Financial Management Review (PFMR). However, as the SGHD was represented on the review panel they agreed to adopt this report in the interim period removing the need for an imminent PFMR review.
Discussions are continuing with SGHD to confirm the support that they will provide for the NCPO. Once this position has been confirmed the University will be able to reach a final decision as to which option should finally be adopted for the future of the NCPO.
Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering The quinquennial Faculty Review of Electronic and Electrical Engineering was a valuable exercise in which a number of issues were highlighted. An action plan presented a number of recommendations which the department has implemented. These included that the department should
7 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
consider ways of optimising current activities as well as developing a balanced strategy for future growth review the volume of technical support required and consider appointing additional staff continue engaging with Estates Management to develop the current facilities and prevent planning blight and press for investment in the building to allow it to carry out its work better consider applying for funding for new equipment to allow better use of technician time and that also would be of use to other departments and fill gaps in current provision continue to review regularly the necessity of running a separate IT system with independent IT support in light of perceived benefits to the Department.
These actions were followed up at FPRC in June 2009 and January 2010 and all recommendations have been addressed satisfactorily.
2.4 Please list any accreditation visits/reviews by Professional and Statutory Bodies that took place during session 2008/09 and report the outcome. If these have made any recommendations in respect of improvements to learning and teaching, how are they to be addressed? If these have highlighted areas of good practice which might be applicable elsewhere in the University, please note these below. (Reports in full should be forwarded to GMAP)
The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) visited the Department of Architecture in May 2009 and granted accreditation of the MSc in Urban Design backdated to the 06/07 intake. A number of conditions were made which are to be met by May 2010. These include adjustments to the curriculum and development of formal links with the RTPI. The Department has made the appropriate changes in advance of the deadline.
The Health Professions Council visited the National Centre for Prosthetics and Orthotics in May 2008, and granted accreditation of the BSc and new MSci in Prosthetics and Orthotics in March 2009 after a comprehensive list of conditions had been met. The programme has now moved to open-ended approval subject to satisfactory completion of an annual written report.
Due to the redevelopment of courses to the 20 credit framework during 08/09, several accrediting bodies agreed to postpone visits planned in 2008/09 until 2009/10 so that they could review the content and delivery of the new courses.
3 UNIVERSITY GUIDELINES, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
3.1 Are there any areas in which Faculty practice was not consistent with the University’s Policies and Procedures for Teaching and Learning or with any of the supplementary Guides listed below? If so, please give details and the reasons for deviating from normal University practice in each instance.
Academic Strategy 2006-09 (May 2006) Policy and Code of Practice for Collaborative Courses leading to Award or Joint Awards of the University and Flexible and Distributed Learning (including e- learning) (June 2005) Procedures and Guidelines for Course and Class Approval (December 2003) Dealing with Applications from Students with Criminal Convictions (November 1999) Dealing with Instances of Possible Academic Dishonesty (November 2001) (update approved by Senate in June 2009) Procedures and Guidelines for Faculty Board Reports to Senate (March 2004) Departmental Reviews (October 2008)
8 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Guidelines and Procedures for the Management of Support for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Disabled Students (March 2005) Policy and Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Programmes (May 2005) (currently being updated) Procedures and Guidelines for Postgraduate Instructional Programmes (December 2003) Guidelines for Examiners of Research Degrees (October 2005) Policy, Procedures and Guidelines for Summative Assessment (May 2005) Framework for Professional Doctorates (December 2005) Procedures and Guidelines for External Examiners of Instructional Courses (October 2005) Student Complaints Procedure (May 2007) Policy on Students’ External Engagement (November 2006)
The Faculty believes that its practice is compliant with University procedures.
3.2 Are there any aspects of the guides to policies and procedures which the Faculty believed required reviewing? If so, please give details.
Several Engineering Departments have recently been approached to set up agreements with European universities, particularly in France, who are in favour of awarding double degrees. This would allow Erasmus students, who have done well during their exchange year, the possibility to spend a further year at Strathclyde with a view to obtaining a Strathclyde degree award and then an award at their home University. Students would be able to go from Strathclyde to France in the same manner. Although few students want to study French for four years and go to France in fifth year, more European universities now teach in English so this trend could change in future. Many European university collaborations include a French partner and consequently faculty participation is being compromised. The revised Charter allows for the University to award double degrees if desired.
Current University policy is not to allow such practice. Some other British universities are now reviewing and amending their position with respect to allowing the award of double degrees and Strathclyde may be disadvantaged by not considering such arrangements.
Recommendation: The Faculty believes that a review of the current University policy on the award of double degrees would now be timely.
4 FEEDBACK FROM STUDENTS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
4.1 Please comment on any significant issues raised by external examiners at class/course level in their 2007/08 reports and the actions taken in 2008/09 in response to them.
Most External Examiner Reports are complimentary and raise only minor points for consideration. Some constructive comments were made in 2007/08 reports which were addressed in 2008/09.
Three External Examiners reminded examiners that they should endeavour to use the full range of marks available, particularly when marking projects, as they seemed reluctant to give very high marks for excellent work. The departments in question asked staff to ensure they use a wider range of marks particularly at the top end.
External Examiners for the BSc Architectural Studies suggested some improvements to the third year curriculum. The department initiated widespread restructuring of all four years of the course including personnel, classes and design projects. Each year cohort has a new
9 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010 head: a practicing architect on a 0.4 FTE post. The academic content has been reviewed and redesigned and new appointments made where necessary. This significant exercise has been key to addressing all the concerns raised by the External Examiner. The department will seek to develop good practice through more careful selection of design tutors and staff responsible for setting the studio agenda each year. This is now in place and is having wide-reaching positive effects on the course and its output.
The External Examiner for the BSc Nautical Science noted that there was some disquiet amongst the student cohort that their views and concerns were not being taken into account. Discussions with the Head of Glasgow College of Nautical Studies (GCNS) and staff at Strathclyde assured the Examiner that this aspect was treated very seriously. The department took steps, in consultation with the EE and the Dean, to improve support and communication for these students with more focussed counselling and encouragement to participate in departmental activities. A new 20 credit second year class was introduced to target more specifically the needs of Nautical Science students and the third year Business class was delivered jointly by NAME and GCNS staff. The Staff-Student Committee Convener encouraged regular attendance and participation by GCNS students. This course was withdrawn in May 2008 and the last cohort will complete in 2010/11.
One NAME External Examiner reported that some materials were not received in time and model answers, marking schemes and assessment arrangements were not clear enough. The department reviewed the schedule of activities relating to exam papers and solutions, including internal checking. Coursework details will be provided for more classes. All students are given the University's guidelines to assessment at the beginning of each year. For the small number of classes assessed solely by coursework and class tests, lecturers were advised to award grades based on published bands of marks. The External Examiner also suggested that the courses would benefit from more industry contact. The curriculum is supported by honorary lecturers from industry and helpful feedback is regularly obtained. A dedicated marine engineering laboratory was being established with the assistance of some industrial funding.
The External Examiner for Environmental Health commented that the discipline was in transition and the knowledge and competence of those involved would need to undergo rapid change in the coming years. The changing role of Environmental Health professional activities is under ongoing scrutiny by the teaching team and the team engages in regular dialogue with the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland. Strathclyde is represented on a Scottish Government chaired working group to evaluate contemporary issues that relate to evolving environmental health provision in Scotland. The External recognised that staff were succeeding in broadening student perspectives on the wider discipline, as opposed to focusing on specific local authority Environmental Health Officer remits. This effort in broadening perspective continues.
One postgraduate DMEM External Examiner mentioned procedural issues concerning a lack of coursework assignment specifications, marking schemes and criteria, and moderation. In response to these issues, class registrars were reminded to present all assessment specifications and marked coursework before the exam board meetings. The Department established theme leaders who are responsible for explaining and preparing paperwork for External Examiners. The feedback method was standardised and additional feedback sessions were introduced for students. Departmental workshops were organised to create a common understanding of marking criteria and ensure consistent marking in the future.
One postgraduate NAME External Examiner suggested that the project theses should include more mathematical substance and that delivery of raw information from various sources such as the internet should be discouraged. He advocated the promotion of engineering measurement and data analysis in experiment design. In response, the Department revised the course content and produced clearer guidelines on the use of the internet for students. The Department continues efforts to enhance the group project
10 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
In his report, one External Examiner for MSc Rehabilitation Studies proposed that the curriculum be reviewed against the needs of the profession every year, and that a further review of practical clinic work be undertaken. The Department engages with the professional body through staff representation on the Education Committee to ensure the course meets industrial requirements.
4.2 Please comment on any significant issues raised through the 2008 National Student Survey, Pyramid discussions and the three First Year questionnaires (Induction (wks 5-6,), Engaging in Learning (before Easter), What’s it like so far? (term 3).
Please comment on actions to be taken the way in which the Faculty has responded to students.
National Student Survey A key issue for the Faculty as a whole was assessment and feedback which were criticised in the National Student Survey by students from all departments. Staff believed that one reason for this was that students did not have a good understanding of the different forms of assessment and feedback mechanisms and did not always consider it to include peer feedback, computer-based feedback or feedback without a mark. There was a need for the Faculty to educate them in the different forms that feedback might take.
During 08/09, departments initiated their own responses to try to improve NSS scores. The two departments with the lowest NSS scores (Civil Engineering and DMEM) were additionally required to submit a feedback action plan to the Faculty.
In Architecture, the NSS identified the two weakest areas as being organisation and assessment methods. The department established two formal feedback sessions each year with all students in years 1-3 which focus on topics raised by the NSS. There are new lines of communication in years 1-3 through weekly director surgeries where students can drop in to discuss any matter. It is also a forum for meeting weekly with year representatives. There is now a much clearer distinction between the formative review process and the summative examination process with associated assessment and feedback sheets for each.
Chemical Engineering provides considerable written feedback to full time students and staff try to ensure it is targeted. For distance learning students there is a well-established regime for providing and obtaining student feedback, via (i) written comments/guidance provided on assignments, (ii) anonymous paper/ electronic questionnaires issued in S1 and S2 and (iii) face-to-face ‘course round-up’ sessions at the end of each semester.
In Civil Engineering in the Head of Department now meets with all student cohorts during each term for direct feedback, and along with other staff has weekly student office hours with an 'open door' policy. The Department policy and practice on Feedback for coursework was examined and new forms for submission of coursework (with carbon copy feedback sheets for return to students) and working practice on the return of coursework or feedback sheets was phased in during 08/09. As a pilot, detailed instructions and feedback specifications were produced for implementation in 09/10 of the final year project. There are plans in 09/10 to implement a new mentoring system in level 1 and 2 that will be based on small group tutorials and integration with level 4 and 5 for peer mentoring similar to that which takes place in industry. In 10/11 there will also be mentoring with IAB members from year 3 to provide a mentoring programme for all years.
DMEM set up a Student Experience Group which focused particularly on student feedback. The department introduced a Feedback Week where students could see any of their lecturers and receive feedback on their exam performance, coursework and progress in general. This formalised the structure to ensure best practice and a uniform experience
11 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010 across the department. The outcomes were presented to a special meeting of the Faculty’s AAC. Further initiatives are planned for 09/10. Posters were produced to highlight ways in which the department was engaging with students to provide different kinds of feedback and to explain what the feedback mechanisms were. Results of the NSS carried out in January 2009 showed an improvement in the overall satisfaction score from 58% to 70%. The survey also highlighted the fact that a small subset of students had not appreciated the engineering content of the course when they applied. This has been addressed at Open Days by making the content more explicit, particularly with the Sports Engineering degree. In response to the survey, substantial changes were also made to the nature of the Sports Engineering course to increase the Bioengineering content from 09/10.
There is an ongoing issue of Mechanical Engineering NSS results being aggregated with those of DMEM. There is evidence that this aggregated result caused Mechanical Engineering to drop out of the top 10 in one important league table, with a consequent fall in overseas recruitment. Use of the disaggregated figures would place the department ninth in the UK. The disaggregated result showed 91% overall satisfaction and even in feedback areas the department outperforms the university average.
NAME students felt that feedback from some staff could be improved in range, quality and response time. This has been an ongoing difficulty, and the department has introduced timetabled Adviser of Studies slots is improve student interaction. NAME has also implemented a plan for 09/10 including consolidation weeks, feedback posters, an increase in student representatives, purchase of a web based student feedback system and regular feedback meetings with final year students.
Departmental ‘Feedback Coordinators’ have been identified to take responsibility for overseeing feedback mechanisms in their department and meeting with students to discuss the different forms of feedback they can expect and when. Feedback Coordinators will report to the Associate Dean (Academic) on initiatives that departments implement as a direct result of student feedback. The Associate Dean (Academic) will then meet with fourth and fifth year students towards the end of semester 1 to invite their views on feedback and to inform them of the steps being taken by departments to respond and to manage student expectations. The Vice-Dean (Academic) contacted all students at the start of the academic session to inform them of the proactive approach that the Faculty is taking with respect to student feedback. Feedback Coordinators will also meet to share good practice across the Faculty.
Pyramid Discussions Pyramid discussions took place in Civil Engineering, DMEM, EEE and NAME. Comments from students were generally positive and constructive but discussions raised similar concerns to the NSS. DMEM reported that the discussions influenced the development of the 20 credit structure. EEE staff commented that the discussions may have encouraged complaints from students. Discussions in NAME showed that students weren’t quite sure what University life entailed so the Department ran some additional social events which were helpful in drawing students closer together.
Departments commented that it would have been helpful to receive a report summarising the results from the pyramid discussions rather than a full list of comments spanning twenty pages.
First Year Surveys All Departments have implemented enhanced student induction programmes and undertaken redesign of the first year teaching as the 20 credit standardisation was introduced in 2009-10. Consequently the 1st year student surveys applied to a first year experience that was different to the one being introduced in 2009-10. All Departments have discussed the surveys in the appropriate committees and have reassured the Faculty that
12 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
teaching, assessment and pastoral practices will be questioned in light of the responses to the surveys and further changes made in academic year 2010-11.
4.3 Please comment on any significant issues raised through the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) which are relevant to the Faculty’s Departments.
Please comment on actions to be taken the way in which the Faculty has responded to students.
4.4 Please comment on any significant issues raised through the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) which are relevant to the Faculty’s Departments.
Please comment on actions to be taken the way in which the Faculty has responded to students.
4.5 Please comment on any significant issues raised through the IGrad Survey which are relevant to the Faculty’s Departments.
Please comment on actions to be taken the types of feedback and responses to students
Across the whole Faculty there was limited appreciation that the PTES, PRES and IGrad surveys had taken place in academic year 2008-09. Many Heads of Department and Course Directors questioned whether any of their students also knew about these surveys. The publicity for these surveys and the dissemination of the results will have to be improved before Faculties and Departments can meaningfully answer questions 4.3 – 4.5.
4.6 What steps did the Faculty and its Departments take in session 2008/09 to obtain effective student feedback? Did student feedback in the Faculty identify any issues that had implications at University level or areas of good practice which might be applicable elsewhere in the University? If so, please detail.
See section 4.2 above.
Students on residential courses during the summer complain that they are unable to access the library for extended hours.
4.7 How did the Faculty monitor issues arising out of Staff/Student committees? How were actions communicated back to the student body?
All Staff Student Committee (SSC) minutes for 08/09 were reviewed at the AAC meeting in May 2009. They were also discussed at the Course Review meetings. It is the Faculty policy that minutes of SSC meetings are made available to staff and students electronically. However, feedback from final year students given to the Associate Vice Dean (Academic) in the first semester of 09/10 indicate that this may not be implemented satisfactorily in some instances. The Faculty intends to follow this up and ensure that all students have access to these minutes. The student year representatives also have a role in relating SSC discussions back to their fellow students.
4.8 Please note any specific follow-up action and monitoring arrangements in relation to feedback from students and other stakeholders such as employers.
In the current economic climate, not all undergraduate Architecture students were able to secure placements with architecture practices in their year out after third year, and some had
13 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
to take part time instead of full time placements. The Department made extra effort to counsel students and provide support where necessary. The accrediting body (RIBA) were pragmatic in their interpretation of ‘industrial experience’ and in view of the circumstances are accepting a wide variety of work experience.
Civil Engineering undergraduate student feedback on the development of the new framework led to the redesign of assessments to fit better into the academic year and avoid bunching of assignments at Christmas. Study periods were also set up near to the exam diet to improve access to staff.
There had been some operational problems with the Civil Engineering June PGI Exam Board. To improve procedures, the Department held a pre-Board meeting in September and a member of Faculty Office staff was invited to attend the September Board of Examiners to clarify regulations and procedures. The practice of Faculty Office attendance at PGI Exam Boards will be rolled out across the Faculty in 09/10 to ensure consistency of approach.
In DMEM, the External Examiner who covers design courses reported that assessment was consistent and fair but raised a concern about the project assessment of one part time project where the marking did not take into consideration the level of difficulty and the extent of the project. This was addressed at the Exam Board and was an example of the external examination process working correctly
Several departments have encouraged students to socialise to improve engagement with the course and University and to help the integration of overseas students. In DMEM the department supported students to revitalise the DMEM Society and students organised company visits, social events and designed a DMEM ‘hoody’ jacket. It has been observed that this has improved the esprit de corps of the students. In Civil Engineering the student experience was enhanced by upgrading the social and study facilities in two rooms and increasing student society activities to promote collegiality.
EEE postgraduate students requested a common room and work will be undertaken to ensure that this is addressed in 09/10. Some EEE students complained that they could not always understand lecture notes because of difficulties with the English language. The Department will emphasise the availability of sessional English classes early in semester 09/10. There were complaints about the class on Computer Technology and Modern Programming Concepts because some students did not have sufficient background in programming to cope with the content. This will be addressed in 09/10 by reviewing the module content and the manner of its presentation.
The NAME Course Team had two major concerns in 08/09: the poor performance of first and second year students from Greece, and general disappointment in the second year cohort who showed poor attendance in spite of attempts by staff to overcome this. The background of these students will be investigated and, if appropriate, more stringent entry requirements will be imposed.
NCPO changed the focus of the first year induction to include more on academic matters and increase the Health and Safety content. More role play was also included in the first year curriculum to build the students’ communication skills with patients, and building on the success of this, role play was also introduced to the second year curriculum.
4.9 Has the Faculty introduced any other initiatives for feedback other than the above?
The Student Experience Champion in DMEM coordinated a Working Group to identify ways to improve student experience in DMEM. Nine identified priority areas and eighteen agreed actions were addressed by an Implementation Group from Semester 1 in 2008/09. The Group prioritised the recommendations and piloted the simplest, most practical solutions that could be put in place quickly with maximum effect. These included feedback, student
14 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
workload, PDP, exhibition of student work and the set up of a graduate network (DMEM Reunited) and will be rolled out in 2009/10.
Students did not consider anything other than one-to-one comment on individual performance in each assessment as legitimate feedback. A pilot was run at the end of semester 1 with years 4 and 5. Timetabled over one week after the January exam results were published, each Class Registrar held an optional 1 hour slot where they were available to discuss coursework and assessment feedback sheets and how students could improve. Students were told it was not a forum for negotiating marks but to discuss improvement strategies. The arrangement was popular with students although it was generally the better students who attended.
A general drop-in feedback session was also run for students in years 4 and 5 where several members of staff were available to discuss individual credit totals, average marks from each year and the effect of these on final degree outcome. The session was very well attended and useful in addressing ambiguity and rumours about the calculation of marks.
After these pilot studies and in advance of the NSS, a poster was displayed around the Department to advertise that the sessions had taken place, highlighting that this was feedback, and informing other year groups that the feedback sessions would be rolled out to them next session. The poster was produced by the Academic Office to match the wording and format of the University’s NSS posters.
In both semesters of 2009/10 there will be a one hour drop-in module feedback session for every class in every year group, and a one hour slot for general feedback, advertised as ‘Feedback Week’. Every Module Leader has been asked to include on the MDF the dates when feedback will be provided so that it’s clear when students go over the MDF in class at the start of the semester. As well as this formal mechanism, they get informal feedback in classes, labs, private meetings etc.
The pilot showed that Feedback Week could be timetabled into a teaching week. Feedback slots did not clash with other classes for that year, and students who couldn’t attend session could make a private appointment. There might be scheduling complications if the teaching timetable included options from other departments or faculties.
4.10 Has the Faculty taken any steps to address any generic issues raised by the Departments?
The Faculty is working with Estates to mitigate the effects of planning blight which has widely affected departments. Due to the evolving Estates plan, plans for a Bioengineering PGI student study room have been put on hold until the detailed aspects of the Estates Development Framework (EDF) are known. The ongoing uncertainty over the detailed aspects of the EDF has been highlighted by Mechanical Engineering as potentially problematic as this may restrict opportunities for investment in teaching lab infrastructure. Uncertainty about the fate of the Royal College and its possible replacement has led to some disquiet within EEE that future estate issues will be subjected to planning blight.
The Faculty Office met with Registry to discuss the need for the Registry schedules to be adapted to suit PGI Exam Boards. There were considerable problems relating to Exam Board schedules and results processing resulting from the change in Registry from Faculty- facing to team-based working. For example, Mechanical Engineering has assessed many classes by continuous assessment for many years. The formal examination diets in January and May have been used to provide students with a second attempt. Consequently, Mechanical Engineering do not have any resit examinations in August. Some students in June were therefore awarded “Proceed” decisions since they had the appropriate number of credits and no further attempts until academic year 2009-10. Although the exam board schedules were annotated correctly, Registry changed these “Proceed” decisions to “Resit”
15 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
and caused a considerable panic amongst a sub set of students. The Faculty Office has met with Registry to address these problems and will continue to work with Registry to ensure these difficulties are resolved for the coming diet of Examination Boards.
The Faculty has adopted a set of guidelines for PGI Examination Boards that insists that Registry schedules must be used: this ensures that PGI marks are submitted to Registry in a timely manner. However, unlike undergraduate degrees, it is the September Boards that require the calculation of an overall average mark and this becomes problematic if the marks for January/May exam passes are replaced by a ‘+’ on the September schedules.
5 TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT
Through the work of the Joint APC/QMC Working Party, the following courses were given permission to be at variance with the 20-credit Framework for Undergraduate and Integrated Master’s Study as approved by Senate. (List to be inserted)
BEng and MEng Electrical and Mechanical Engineering – these courses carry dual accreditation and therefore require a higher credit load to meet professional accreditation requirements.
5.1 Does the Faculty have any high level reflections on the impact of the introduction of the 20-credit framework?
Where 20 credit modules are timetabled over both semesters, some special 10 credit class codes were created for students taking these modules for one semester and studying abroad for the other, or for those coming to Strathclyde on exchange for one semester.
The structuring of language teaching into 40 credits per year (one 20 credit module per semester) has resulted in the withdrawal of Engineering courses ‘with European Studies’. It was not possible to offer courses which still fulfilled accreditation requirements without requiring students to study 160 credits per year. Departments have replaced these courses with ‘International Study’ versions which include a period of overseas study but have no requirement to take a foreign language.
The Faculty was permitted to use superclasses made up of 10 credit subclasses, which meant that it was possible to continue with shared teaching of key modules across departments, and to offer flexibility of choice to fourth and fifth year students. It also ensured that the international student market was not affected as they are generally attracted by a wide choice of modules. Chinese students in particular want a long list of subjects detailed on their transcripts. Registry schedules for Engineering need to be adapted to show superclass and subclass marks for the Exam Boards. The Faculty Office is working with Registry to achieve this.
There are concerns within the Faculty that the 20 credit structure will impede the desire for greater flexibility and multidisciplinarity in teaching.
5.2 Please describe any changes to the Faculty’s portfolio of degree programmes that were implemented in session 2008/09 (additions/deletions). Please outline the rationale behind any such changes.
New Undergraduate Degrees approved in 2007-08 (i) BSc in Production Engineering and Management (DMEM) DMEM introduced this degree in response to industrial needs. During the 20 credit restructuring, the department rationalised its undergraduate courses down to four, and will no longer recruit to the MEng/BEng in Design Computing, MEng/BEng in Engineering and
16 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Enterprise Management, BSc in Enterprise and Technology Management and MEng/BEng in Manufacturing Engineering and Technology.
(ii) BEng in Engineering Studies (Faculty Degree) The regulations for the BEng in Engineering Studies were substantially revised to address the problem of students failing compulsory classes in early years after four attempts. As an alternative to withdrawal, students may be transferred to the Engineering Studies degree which is an exit qualification only. The existing regulations were modified to remove the Honours year and allowed for flexibility in electives and options. A CertHE award was included to cover Prosthetics and Orthotics students, as there is no specific award below Honours otherwise available to them.
Withdrawn Undergraduate Degrees (i) BSc in Environmental Protection and Pollution Control (Civil Engineering) This course was withdrawn due to small numbers and staff retirals. Enrolment had been suspended in 2005 and there were no students on the course.
(ii) BEng in Chemical Engineering with Process Biotechnology (Chemical Engineering) This course was withdrawn because of falling demand.
(iii) BEng Civil Engineering with European Studies (Civil Engineering) The course had not attracted sufficient students to ensure viability and it was difficult to timetable the language classes. It may be replaced with a BEng Civil Engineering with International Study.
(iv) BEng Electronic Engineering (EEE) The course was set up in anticipation of collaboration with Singapore Polytechnic which had not progressed. The course had never run and any future collaboration would be based on a new thematic degree that would be developed.
New Postgraduate Degrees approved in 2007-08 (i) MRes Building Design and Management for Sustainability (Architecture) Architecture developed this course in response to demand from existing undergraduate students, practicing architects and others involved with the built environment, particularly from overseas who are looking for educational and research opportunities in this area.
(ii) MSc Ship and Offshore Structures (NAME) This course was developed in recognition of the demand for specialised courses in Naval Architecture, particularly from overseas students.
(iii) MSc Power Plant Technologies (Mechanical Engineering) This is a full time version of the successful MSc in Power Plant Engineering introduced in September 2008. There was demand from overseas students for a full time version.
(iv) MRes Wind Energy Systems (EEE) This course was set up as the first step for students accepted to study a new EPSRC-funded PhD in Wind Energy Systems. The students study for four years and undertake intensive taught training as well as research. Since there are no regulations for a four year PhD at Strathclyde, students take an MRes in the first year and then progress to a PhD for the remaining three years.
(v) MSc Geotechnics (joint with Glasgow University) (Civil Engineering) This course replaced one of the same name awarded solely by Strathclyde. The University of Glasgow had been contributing to the teaching and the academic content of the new course renained unchanged. The joint agreement formalised the existing collaboration between the Civil Engineering Departments creating a joint degree under the umbrella of Glasgow Research Partnership in Engineering.
17 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
(vi) MSc Global Water Sustainability (joint with Glasgow University) (Civil Engineering) This course is administered by the University of Glasgow and draws on the complementary expertise of staff at both universities.
Withdrawn Postgraduate Degrees (i) MArch Advanced Architectural Design (Architecture) This was superseded by another course with the same name and different course code. There were no students on the course, which had not run since 2004/05.
(ii) MSc Applied Biomechanics (Distance Learning) (Bioengineering) The Course Director had left the University and recruitment had been falling since 2003.
(iii) Masters in Technology Management (DMEM) This course had failed to attract sufficient numbers and the staff members who had developed it had left the University.
(iv) MSc Architectural Computing Studies (Architecture) This course only ran for one year in 2004/05 and had since not attracted any students.
(v) MSc Integrated Building Design Studies (Architecture) The course had attracted small numbers in 2003–2006, and had not enrolled any students since.
(vi) MSc Strategic Urban Design (Architecture) The course had only one student in 2004/05, and none since. It was no longer running.
(vii) MSc Urban Design (Architecture) This course had been superseded by a new MSc in Urban Design with a different course code. There were no students on the old version of the course.
(viii) MSc Sustainable Development of the Urban Environment (Civil Engineering) This was part of the Faculty package of Sustainable Engineering courses. The course had not attracted any students in the last three years and was no longer viable.
(ix) MSc Geotechnics (Civil Engineering) This course was replaced by a similar degree of the same name run jointly with the University of Glasgow. The course attracted ten students in 2008/09.
5.3 Please highlight any major external factors (government initiatives, policies of specific client groups) that impacted in 2008/09 on the Faculty’s degree programmes and indicate how the Faculty dealt with them.
The current economic circumstances have affected the availability of industrial placements and summer placements.
The Architecture department made extra effort to counsel students and provide support where necessary as fewer undergraduate students were able to secure placements with architecture practices, and some had to take part time instead of full time placements.
Organised by the Department’s Industry Liaison Officer, Chemical Engineering has run a very successful and long-standing placement scheme. The department can no longer guarantee an industrial placement to all undergraduate students, and now offers year 5 students an industrial placement, Socrates placement or departmental research project, to carry out their final project work. Obtaining industrial group projects for postgraduate students has also become much more difficult. As an alternative, some students were given an industrial-focused group project which is based in the department.
18 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Only 38 Civil Engineering students went on summer placements in 2009, which was much lower than in previous years. Development of placement opportunities for students in years 1 and 2 was also limited by the economic climate, but work on this will continue.
The DMEM Careers and Placements Coordinator has a role to enhance links with companies to develop placements and internships, which sometimes lead to sponsorship in final year or job offers before they finish their degree. Summer placements after years 2, 3 and 4 are encouraged. Despite the economic climate, there were 44 students on summer placement in summer 2009. It was still possible to offer group projects in industry where students learn to apply their knowledge in a real context, communicate with professionals and meet a brief. Four students also completed a 6 month placement in industry.
5.4 Please comment on any significant changes in Teaching Learning and Assessment (for example in curriculum design and/or modes of delivery/assessment) in session 2008/09.
Postgraduate Architecture students undertake a design project in which reviews include invited experts in particular design and client fields subject to the student project theme. They attend initial and interim presentations as well as the final examination. This is an example of a department enhancing the level of feedback given to students, since feedback from external professionals may be common in other areas, but feedback from potential ‘customers’ is rare.
Architecture is refocusing on self learning to develop undergraduate student independence, which was identified as a key issue throughout the cohort. A series of initiatives was introduced to bring this about. The clarification of assessment criteria has resulted in students working to these criteria and there was a general improvement in the standard of work. New studio director posts (part time) were introduced and this was very successful. They act as year advisers and spend much of their time teaching in the studio. There was more coherence in the team running the courses.
In Chemical Engineering there was reinforcement and broadening of the introduction to design in year 1. Extensive use was made of LearnOnline and online quizzes were extended across several years. Classes involve guest lecturers from industry to provide relevant real-life experience to reinforce what is learned in lectures and tutorials. There were various site visits for third year students and the major fourth year design project was redesigned to incorporate BEng students. A new 20-credit model in fifth year was developed for delivery from 09/10 to give students experience of advanced topics in chemical engineering. A meeting of all staff was arranged in May 09 with CAPLE to discuss teaching development. There have been regular meetings of the teaching committee since, covering all elements of teaching delivery.
Civil Engineering developed a postgraduate air pollution control case study with input from SEPA and Inneos Ltd. Three modules had direct engagement with the Commonwealth Games, Scottish Water and SEPA, including site visits and case studies. Laboratory facilities were upgraded to include sophisticated trace/ organic/ isotope detection and molecular biological methodologies. These facilities are available to students for their project research and were used in the Environmental Forensics module giving students training and exposure in the lab to state-of-the-art-techniques. This is an example of students benefitting from research funded equipment.
DMEM invested in a new Digital Design and Manufacturing studio. This created a step change in the facilities available and a number of modules are now taught using the new equipment. New teaching methodologies are now possible as students have direct access to the design side and instant creation of components and products enabling extremely rapid product development. New equipment to support teaching and project work was purchased,
19 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
including a new laser cutter purchased jointly with Mechanical Engineering for the Digital Design and Manufacture Studio, and a £100,000 Objet printer. EEE, Architecture, NCPO and external bodies have also benefitted from the use of this equipment.
The department also revised the teaching of the Design, Management and Manufacturing modules to make them more stimulating and link them better with practical workshops. These will be introduced in 09/10. Visiting ‘Innovation Champions’ (young designers from companies) taught some first year workshops to enhance the design content and introduce more critical thinking. The Advanced Forming Research Centre was launched in 08/09, and already some final year projects are coming from companies involved in this initiative. It is anticipated that more linkages will come from the Centre as it develops.
EEE continued its investment in new teaching labs and opened a new energy lab (R4.20) in 08/09. Provision of the new lab has improved undergraduate lab teaching with state-of-the- art equipment enabling new project work to be undertaken. A EEE postgraduate class in Renewable Energy Technologies was piloted in semester 1. Following feedback the class has been moved to semester 2. The high quality research done in the department informs the content and the delivery of the teaching; a particular example is the Electronic and Multimedia systems module in which laboratory and practical work is derived from current research activity in multimedia communications. A new wind power technology module was introduced as a result of the department’s high profile expertise in wind energy and the launch of the DTC in wind energy.
Additional group activities were introduced into year 1 of Naval Architecture courses to improve engagement between students and staff and to highlight practical applications and the relevance of the course in earlier years. Attendance by first and second year students increased, leading to corresponding improvements in marks and pass rates; some group exercises were particularly beneficial. The introduction of additional mathematics support involving senior students appears to have been successful.
NCPO developed online tutorials on spinal and upper limb anatomy teaching via WebCT. To increase the quality of delivery of classroom based teaching, the department invested in four new smart boards and a portable interactive response system.
5.5 Please comment with respect to 2008/09 on
the Faculty’s approach (other than through the revision of courses for the introduction of the 20-credit framework) to embedding employability in the curriculum and in its teaching, learning and assessment strategies, and generally to developing graduate attributes
The accreditation criteria of the Engineering professional bodies require aspects of employability to be built into the curriculum. There are numerous examples of activities and teaching to develop graduate attributes in the Faculty’s courses. All courses allow students to participate in Erasmus or IAESTE exchange programmes if they are performing to a satisfactory standard in their studies. International study broadens the students’ experience and is attractive to employers.
A number of engineering students won prestigious prizes in 2008/09, which was a further indication of quality and development of graduate attributes. A few examples are listed below: A fifth year Building Design Engineering student won the IStructE International Design Competition. A 2007 BDE graduate was second in the same competition in the under 30 category. A third year BSc Architectural Studies student won the Scottish Women in Architecture prize.
20 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Two third year Architecture students won second prize in the Nationwide Sustainable Housing Competition. Four third year students from EEE were awarded Engineering Leadership Advanced Awards from the Royal Academy of Engineering. These prestigious awards provide extensive personal and financial support for enhanced professional experience, before and after graduation. A Naval Architecture student received a prize from SUT/BP for the best MSc project in subsea engineering in the UK. Another Naval Architecture student was awarded a prize by SUT/Fugro Geos for the best undergraduate project in subsea engineering in the UK.
any new initiatives in relation to the Faculty’s engagement with the quality enhancement themes and other developments in Learning and Teaching.
The studio environment in Architecture was restructured to encourage peer learning across the five years of the Part 1 and Part 2 course by introducing themes to the two floors of production and reflection. MSc Urban Design and MArch students work together bringing their different expertise which is proving very successful and is a great reciprocal enhancement. The team work across the year, incorporating swaps to maximise the learning experience, is a new and successful teaching innovation. There was positive feedback from Glasgow City Council and the Glasgow Institute of Architects for the standard of postgraduate Architecture studio work and engagement with community and public groups.
Work done by the Urban Design Research Unit is embedded in the MSc in Urban Design and students learn innovative approaches to analysis and design as well as new software and platforms.
Chemical Engineering plans to expand its Visiting Professor complement from 1 to 3. They serve to inform students and staff about current industrial practice and provide invaluable advice and support to teaching. Guest lecturers provide significant industrial input to courses and further input is provided through employers’ contributions and feedback to the distance learning undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Industrial partners offer informal advice to students on careers and personal development at the annual Careers Day hosted by the Department. Direct careers advice (including CV preparation) is provided by the Careers Service at departmental information sessions to each year group on the first day of the session and through year-specific, targeted careers sessions each semester. The Department offers a number of summer placements for undergraduate students to work with research staff on a full-time basis for 8 weeks, to give them a ‘taster’ of research activity. The students give presentations to staff and students at the end of the placement.
Civil Engineering introduced a Level 5 module in Recycling Urban Land which involved problem based learning with mixed groups of students from 13 different undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses. The module was rated poorly by students, but after graduation, many Masters students commented that it had turned out to be very useful preparation for working in industry with multi disciplinary teams. The module will be revised to take into account feedback received and offered again in 09/10. There is involvement from students and staff in Engineers without Borders. The Careers Service ran a one day event in the department for all PGI students (also open to PGR students) which covered CV preparation and creativity in job searching. Students found the event very helpful and it will be repeated in semester 2 of 09/10.
DMEM runs industrial group projects for fourth and fifth year undergraduate students. Twenty-eight companies were involved in 08/09. The companies prepared industrial briefs and the students reported back regularly to the companies which helps students learn to apply their knowledge in a real context and communicate with professionals. Project Coordinators and the Careers and Placements Coordinator work with industrial contacts to
21 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010 ensure the students’ experience prepares them for work so they are ready for their first job after graduating. All DMEM Masters courses also include an industry based group project where the company sets a task, students work as a team and the company reviews progress and the final result. This is another example of students getting feedback from industrial partners on their work throughout the final year. To enhance employability the Department ensures engagement with industry starts early. Integrating Studies lectures include CV preparation and aim to give students a background in preparing for employment from first year. Transferable skills are also covered throughout the courses.
The EEE undergraduate Professional Studies and Integrating Studies modules cover CV preparation, careers advice and personal development and these are discussed further in first year small group tutorials. Fourth year students provide a CV to their supervisors when submitting their interim reports and they are then given feedback on it. Application for the Power Academy and other scholarships includes CV submission and interview, which gives the students valuable experience in making applications. For the Scholarship Programmes, students attend assessment centres both in the department and externally.
Some EEE postgraduate classes started using Turnitin software for assessments in an attempt to help educate students as to what constitutes plagiarism. A new weekly learning and assessment seminar series was introduced for EEE postgraduate students. This included a session from the Careers Service, report writing, tips on exam preparation, plagiarism, assessment criteria and presentation skills. Feedback on these classes was very positive and the series will be developed further for 09/10.
NAME runs a Marine Careers Fair every year for all students. This is supported by a third year class on professional development and guidance from the Careers Service. Marine companies set up displays in the Department for one day and students were able to meet company representatives. Rooms were available for interviews. Students appreciate the industrial lectures and visits, both for the technical content and the opportunity to make contact with various companies. This is particularly important for the overseas students who want to work in the UK after graduation. NAME received £250K funding for a new Marine Fuel Cell laboratory which will be used for teaching and research.
any changes made in respect of learning and teaching arising from the recommendations of departmental reviews undertaken in the previous two sessions (i.e. 2006/07 and 2007/08) and evaluate their success in addressing the issues raised by the review.
Chemical Engineering (Review May 2008) The Department now allocates more teaching responsibilities to PhD students, Post Docs and Research Fellows, with the necessary training provided beforehand. This has released more time for academic staff to undertake research. A Director of Teaching has been appointed with excellent success.
DMEM (Review April 2007) The Department has rationalised its undergraduate course portfolio to develop more commonality and improve teaching efficiency. Course development teams reduced the number of undergraduate courses from seven to four and developed a set of common core modules during the 20 credit restructuring process. The Department has enhanced its policy for returning marks and feedback – see item 4.9 above. Students are fully informed of PDP requirements by year advisors and Integrating Studies registrars, and a statement on PDP is included in student handbooks and web pages.
NAME (Review April 2007) The Department was advised to consider carefully the place of the BSc in Nautical Sciences within the course portfolio, particularly with regard to the quality and volume of future intakes. From 08-09 there were no further admissions to the first year of this course. There were
22 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
problems relating to undergraduate student satisfaction which related to the availability of staff who were involved in teaching in Singapore. Teaching at overseas institutions was terminated in 07/08.
The Department organises weekend sport and social activities and mixes students with different backgrounds in group project work. This has improved the integration of student cohorts including those articulating from international and other sources.
the steps taken in the Faculty to enhance teaching, learning and assessment in accordance with the strategic aims identified in the Academic Strategy?
The Faculty’s new Course Review process highlights more effectively the good practice in departments which will be disseminated to the Faculty through Teaching and Learning Forum events.
A new training course for PhD students on Writing for Peer Reviewed Journals was developed by members of the Faculty Research Committee in partnership with CAPLE and piloted in 08/09. This was successful and 12 research papers were published as a result. Following feedback, the course will be revised and delivered again in 09/10 as part of the Faculty’s portfolio of training for PhD students.
how the 12 assessment principles have been used to review and improve assessment?
The Faculty has ensured that all Heads of Department and Course Directors are fully aware of the 12 principles of assessment. It is anticipated that there will be changes to assessment throughout the Faculty as the 20 credits structure becomes implemented, and it is intended that the module descriptor forms will be edited to include a section on how the new principles have influenced the assessment criteria outlined for the module.
5.6 Please provide examples of good practice in teaching, learning and assessment that came to light in session 2008/09 through annual monitoring which might have relevance to other parts of the University.
DMEM have found that KTP projects not only provide equipment for wider use in the department but the industrial linkages generated often provide opportunities for student industrial projects.
DMEM Research Methodology teaching developed for research students is made available to Masters students before they undertake their individual projects, which is beneficial.
5.7 What issues arose from annual monitoring? What actions were taken to deal with them?
As indicated in the NSS, a key issue for students in all departments was that they had to wait too long for feedback on assessments. Departments took action as outlined in section 4.2 above. The Faculty will continue to address this issue in 09/10 through the appointment of departmental Feedback Coordinators and meetings with students to discuss feedback, conducted by the Associate Dean Academic who will take up office as Vice Dean Academic from 1 August 2010.
The DMEM Course Team is rationalising the postgraduate course portfolio to enhance efficiency of teaching administration as well as marketability. The postgraduate course review will be completed in 09/10 and will examine the content of management modules and clarify the topics within them so that gaps and overlaps can be identified. The depth of some modules will also be improved.
23 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
5.8 Did the Faculty identify any issues to do with undergraduate, postgraduate instructional or postgraduate research programmes which might have implications at University level? If so, please detail.
There are problems with accredited degrees which usually contain a high proportion of compulsory classes. Now that the award criteria are fully SCQF compliant, there are problems for students who carry compulsory classes to the next academic year. If these classes are not passed, the student cannot get 360/480 credits “from the course curriculum” and the Faculty has had to introduce a non-accredited Engineering Studies degree.
This has not proved popular with students, especially company-sponsored mature students on the BSc in Environmental Health who now find themselves unable to obtain a professional qualification.
5.9 Please comment on the Faculty’s approach to monitoring Continuing Professional Development/Lifelong Learning and highlight any significant issues that arose in session 2008/09.
Bioengineering launched an online MRes in Medical Technology in 08/09 which was developed because the number of junior medical staff in full time PG education was falling. The degree offers a real alternative to the conventional research degree for junior doctors, enabling them to study a formal qualification without taking time out from their career path. The course is also be suitable for those in para-medical specialities and fits with the University strategy of widening access and flexible delivery. In developing the online elements of the course, the Course Team drew on expertise in the Science Faculty which was already delivering a web-based MSc degree.
The Industrial and Power Association were heavily involved in defining the curriculum and also deliver industrial lectures for the MSc Power Plant Engineering, a part time course delivered to 134 Doosan Babcock employees and 6 other students. Not all generic modules are available for block delivery but this is being addressed by the Graduate School of Engineering.
A new post of Vice Dean Knowledge Exchange was created, and appointment was made from 1 August 2009. An audit of Knowledge Exchange activities in the Faculty is underway.
5.10 Please comment on examples of good practice in Continuing Professional Development/Lifelong Learning that might have relevance to other parts of the University.
The Faculty will develop an MRes in Engineering in 09/10 which it is hoped will increase the uptake and completion of research degrees in time for the next REF. The generic course will allow any Engineering department to select students with the approval of the Vice Dean Research. It is anticipated that the course will be of interest to people working in industry who do not want to commit three years for a PhD.
6 RESOURCES
6.1 Was the University’s provision of learning resources (library/IT provision, teaching accommodation etc) adequate? If not, were improvements sought and effected?
The variable quality of the Faculty’s estate is potentially a major impediment. The Faculty welcomes the investment that will be made in Engineering facilities through EDF2 and will work closely with Estates management on the detailed planning aspects of EDF2. The Faculty has seen continued growth in its UG and PG recruitment numbers, particularly within
24 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Chemical and Process Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. This has created some timetabling difficulties as departments are having to seek alternative rooms in which to teach their classes to accommodate these increased numbers.
EEE reported that student numbers have been growing in the Electrical and Mechanical Engineering degrees and the fourth year cohort is now larger than ever before. This raises issues regarding space requirements for projects and common room areas. The department is addressing this in conjunction with Estates.
Mechanical Engineering reported that support has been adequate, although services such as timetabling, room bookings and Registry were stretched in 08/09, and a larger that usual number of errors and delays occurred.
6.2 Were there any potential challenges that might be of interest at an institutional level?
The shorter opening hours of the library during the summer vacation may also be affecting part time students from other Faculties.
6.3 Were any specific staff development challenges highlighted?
The introduction of Moodle as the centrally supported VLE may necessitate training of staff.
DMEM has started to provide 6 month sabbatical leave to allow for staff development.
7 GRADUATE EMPLOYMENT
In completing this section, Faculties should refer to the standard annual datasets produced by the Careers Service and the Management Information Profiles
7.1 Please comment on any developments in respect of the employment of the Faculty’s graduates (undergraduate, postgraduate instructional and postgraduate research).
For the Faculty as a whole, 68% of first degree UK and EU graduates from 2007 had entered employment within six months of graduation. This is 3% less than in 2007. There was an 8.5% increase in those entering further study, to 22.5%. Unemployment rates rose considerably from 4.5% to 14%.
Of first degree graduates who entered employment, 71.5% were working in Scotland, including 28% in Glasgow. There was an increase in the rate of under-employment to 13%, which had been only 7% in 2007. The under-employment rate of those who chose to work in Glasgow was higher at 19%, which was double the rate of the previous year.
Among postgraduate UK and EU students, there was a further decrease in those entering employment from 76% in 2007 to 71% in 2008. Uptake of further study decreased from 15% to 10%, and unemployment trebled to 14%.
The High Fliers Survey 2009 showed that 13.5% fewer graduates will start work with the UK’s leading employers in 2009 than did so in 2008. Competition for places with engineering and industrial employers has almost doubled.
The Faculty is concerned that companies are placing growing emphasis on voluntary placements and internships, which is detrimental to students. More employers are recruiting directly from third year and fourth year placements. Some graduate vacancies are not being published as they are taken by interns and not open to other applicants. Departments are emphasising to students that they should see a summer placement or internship as essential if they want to join companies which recruit in this way.
25 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
8 ACCESS FOR DISABLED STUDENTS
8.1 Please comment on the ways in which the Faculty progressed with the duty to provide access to the curriculum for disabled students and on the Faculty’s strategies for implementing the Disability Equality Scheme.
In Architecture, the Departmental Disability Coordinator (DDC) briefs all new students on the support and services available in the University and encourages students to drop in to discuss any issues in confidence. Academic staff are directed to the Teachability website for information on creating accessible teaching sessions, field trips, exams/assessment and course/curriculum design. Students have high contact time with Studio Leaders and Studio Tutors and can establish relationships in which they are encouraged to discuss any issues. The contact time includes weekly surgeries, small group meetings and regular reviews of design work.
Bioengineering is situated in the Wolfson building which has no safe disabled refuge areas in the event of a fire. Physically disabled students cannot be safely evacuated from the building which makes the level of risk unacceptable. Estates are aware of this problem. There are not currently any wheelchair users studying or working in the building. The building is fully accessible, but in the event of a fire, evacuation above the ground floor is not possible for someone in a wheelchair. No work is therefore carried out with mobility- impaired patients above the ground floor. A workshop on the use of assistive technology for teaching was delivered by Disability Services to the Bioengineering Department in June 2009. This was very useful in raising staff awareness of the available teaching aids.
In conducting the Teachability Review, Chemical Engineering held an open forum for staff to discuss knowledge and experience in teaching disabled students. A discussion centred on what constituted ‘reasonable adjustments’ led to some positive suggestions which influenced departmental plans for improving accessibility.
Following some issues arising from students not disclosing a disability until the end of semester 1, from 09/10 the Disability Coordinator in Civil Engineering will introduce herself at the induction day so that students know who to contact if they have special needs, particularly if they had not previously disclosed them.
DMEM has a Disability Equality Team headed up by the DDC. This provides ongoing attention to the needs and provision for disabled students.
In Mechanical Engineering some classes were video streamed and put on the web. Video streaming offers new opportunities to help disabled students to study. The Department’s web site is being revised to provide more information to existing and prospective students. Records of the academic performance of disabled students will be tracked.
NAME installed 50 large screen monitors in the main computer laboratory, with priority booking and relevant software for disabled students. All lecture/tutorial material is available in pdf format and the installation of audio loops in project areas is under investigation.
NCPO will continue to implement web based learning in 2009, putting more module teaching online.
8.2 For all academic departments within the Faculty, please note those that completed Teachability reviews of access to the curriculum for disabled students in session 2008/09 and summarise the main action points which emerged.
26 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
The Architecture Teachability Review was completed in July 2009. The main action points from the Review were: Training session(s) for staff to be arranged in conjunction with the Disability Service. Suggest training includes raising awareness of mental health issues. Further promotion of the Teachability web site to all staff. DDC and Course Directors will discuss with Studio Leaders and subject conveners at monthly meetings. Student Handbooks and materials to be made available online. Arrangements will be in place for the start of the 09/10 session. Member of academic staff be appointed to work closely with DDC. Increased contact between DDC and disabled students to ensure that needs are being met. Meetings timetabled in Semesters 1 & 2 in 09/10 session. DDC to continue to promote the use of Pegasus for information on disabled students to all academic staff at start of each semester. DDC to obtain data on usage from the Disability Service and contact members of staff who are not accessing the information to offer assistance. All staff will be reminded that usage is monitored. A disabled student representative will be included in the Department’s Student Staff Liaison Group which meets once per semester. Statistics will be compiled on numbers of disabled applicants, (including offers and acceptances) and progression of disabled students. All recruitment and marketing material will be reviewed to ensure competence standards and reasonable adjustments are stated.
The Bioengineering Teachability Review Report was submitted on 12 September 2008. The main points requiring action were: improve awareness of DDC to staff and students define competence standards for student entry utilise text captioning on teaching videos revise course marketing media to explicitly include applicants with disabilities (subject to competence criteria).
The Chemical Engineering Teachability Review Report was approved and accepted by the University in May 2009. The main action points were: The Department will in future review and monitor accessibility of teaching and assessment for disabled students on a regular basis, via a number of routes. Annual reviews of overall teaching and assessment already take place but future discussion will include a greater focus on accessibility issues, with plans made for resolution of any issues identified. The DDC will continue to meet regularly on an individual basis with disabled students currently registered for classes within the Department as they prefer this ‘non- threatening’ forum where they can discuss any issues important to themselves. A group meeting could be initiated in future if students request it. Any issues raised will, with the student’s permission, be relayed to the next Departmental Management Group meeting and Departmental meeting for discussion; or by email if requiring immediate attention. Disability considerations will become a standing item on the agenda of Teaching Committee and general Departmental meetings. The Department will from 2009 begin to keep records of applications from disabled students. Disability information in the Staff Handbook will be re-written and expanded for the next edition. Staff will be encouraged to consider the needs of disabled students when revising teaching materials/exploring new assessment practices; the Department will continue to provide lecture materials in advance on WebCT. The PDRA/PG laboratory demonstrators training session will include extended and expanded training on disability aspects from 2009-2010. Two dedicated computer laboratories are provided by the Department for student use; future provision will take note of any special requirements for disabled students.
27 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
The Study Abroad Co-ordinator will keep records of any disabled students participating in a study placement abroad and will monitor their performance and collate information. As part of regular visits to partner institutions in Europe the Co-ordinator will start to build up knowledge of partners’ arrangements for disabled personnel, including safety aspects, to ensure comparability with Strathclyde protocols. The Industry Liaison Manager will keep records of any disabled students who embark on an industry-based placement to complete their final project. Discussion regarding a student’s needs will be initiated with the company, in consultation with the student prior to the placement and appropriate monitoring put in place to ensure that proper facilities and supports are available and the correct risk assessments undertaken, to ensure comparability with Strathclyde protocols. Staff responsible for the Department website, UG/PG Handbooks and the production of publicity materials will ensure that all information is available in alternative formats if required, and that this is publicised. Staff responsible for information sessions will ensure that information is available in alternative formats if required, and that the website offers a discreet opportunity to request special arrangements if necessary. Wherever possible the Department will involve disabled students in relevant issues associated with the teaching/study environment in future and will ensure that any proposed refurbishment of Departmental areas is mindful of disability issues. The Department will from 2009 begin to keep records of student performance and will compare disabled students’ performance with that of their peer group; this information will be collated and recorded.
The DMEM Teachability Review Report was completed on 28 July 2009. The main action points were. Establish a top down structure for disseminating information about students with disabilities (e.g. year coordinators, course coordinators, staff mentors, class registrars, class teaching staff, other departments). Run at least one disability session per year for staff (e.g. briefing for teaching staff in September, discussion of experiences later in the year) and ensure new staff attend. Construct a knowledge base of best practice, building upon generic recommendations as appearing in PEGASUS. This includes teaching staff leaving reasonable time at the start and end of class to allow students with mobility problems to arrive on time, putting handbooks online in accessible format, encouraging multiple media/methods of delivery (e.g. digital, printed) where possible so as to allow students best choice. Add/update sections of student handbooks to describe department procedures including sections on Accessibility and Well-being, providing guidance for students with disabilities as well as mental health issues. Current plans to redesign the department’s studio offer an opportunity to look at the physical learning environment. The studio renovation working group will consider accessibility/disability issues. Module Review Forms currently used for the end of session review will have a section added for disability related issues. Class learning outcomes will be reviewed to ensure all students have the potential to meet them (with or without teaching adjustments), and adjusted appropriately whilst maintaining expected competence standards. DDC or DDC assistant to interview all students registered with Disability Services at the beginning of the academic session to clarify individual needs and ensure PEGASUS records are current. Follow this meetings at the end of Semester 1 will identify any problems or changes required. Develop a system for recording statistical data regarding students with disabilities (i.e. numbers, disability, adjustments made).
Mechanical Engineering is revising its Teachability Review Report following feedback received from the Disability Service and will resubmit it in 09/10.
28 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
The NAME Teachability Review was carried out on 15 December 2008. Suggestions from student staff committee meetings were reviewed. Large screen data projectors will be introduced to support all laboratory classes. PDF lecture presentation materials will be made available on request. PDF reading/writing software will be made available in the NAME computer lab.
The main action points for NCPO were: ensure all staff are aware and updated on the legislation and departmental policies on Teachability from the University as well as the Disability Equality Scheme and the HPC’s newly published guidelines. Introduction of an ongoing individually signed record by all staff to show their awareness, commitment and involvement in the processes set out by the University and the department including regular updates and meeting by the DDC.
8.3 Was the Faculty confident that information regarding the needs of disabled students was being conveyed to relevant staff and dealt with appropriately?
The DDCs are responsible for monitoring departmental responses to the needs of disabled students. Members of staff are reminded by email of their responsibilities regarding teaching and assessment of disabled students. Issues relating to disability are also raised at regular departmental Teaching and Learning Committee meetings.
Architecture staff reported ongoing problems with students with mental health difficulties who cannot get sufficient support to be able to proceed successfully with their degree. Currently, there is no University guidance on how to help these students and they often end up in and out of suspension and struggling to complete the course. The department is establishing procedures to deal with extreme pastoral issues
The NAME DDC recently retired and a new coordinator was appointed in January 2010. The Head of Department will deal with disability issues in the interim.
NCPO does not screen students for mental health issues as yet. The issue will be re- examined in 09/10, in relation to students’ coping mechanisms in a potentially distressing line of work. To ensure information on disabled students is disseminated properly and that the response to their needs is uniform and appropriately proactive, the DDC and Director of the undergraduate course held staff meetings and are initiating a log of all documentation being read and signed by all staff involved with students to ensure a unified approach.
8.4 For each department within the Faculty, note the arrangements that were in place for seeking feedback from disabled students about accessibility of teaching and teaching materials, and summarise the key points made by disabled students.
In 08/09 all 14 Architecture students who had disclosed a disability were contacted by the DDC and invited to meet to discuss the accessibility of teaching and assessment. The DDC met with the 8 students who responded. The question “If you have a disability, please comment on the accessibility of teaching and assessment for this class (course information, lectures, seminars, field trips, reviews, etc.), identifying any barriers” was included in the student feedback form issued to all students at the end of each class.
Feedback from disabled students has generally been very positive and constructive and included the following general comments: I have a disability but never felt inconvenienced by the course Excellent (comment on Dissertation feedback from) Staff support excellent in most classes
29 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Bioengineering circulates a course questionnaire to all students in June via the Staff- Student committee. The questionnaire asks for responses to the accessibility of teaching media, study facilities and work environment. In 08/09 there were no students with disclosed disabilities
The Chemical Engineering DDC has a good relationship with each student and arranges regular meetings with individuals to seek feedback about accessibility of teaching/teaching materials and obtain their opinions, to ensure their needs are being met. Feedback is then highlighted to the Head of Department and other staff and advice sought from Disability Service if appropriate. Individual students indicated their satisfaction with current arrangements for teaching and learning. They particularly like LearnOnline and appreciate this mechanism.
In 08/09, DMEM held meetings with disabled students to discuss provision of an appropriate teaching and learning environment. These are ongoing.
In Mechanical Engineering a questionnaire is sent in December to all students inviting them to provide feedback on teaching and assessment issues with respect to disability and results are collated for the start of semester two. This questionnaire is aimed at students who are disabled in some way but choose not to declare their disability via Pegasus.
With the low number of disabled students in NAME it is felt that informal discussions provide adequate feedback. Nevertheless these issues are now to be included as part of the new online student feedback system in NAME. In 08/09 there were no particular points raised by disabled students.
All NCPO students were happy with arrangements made for them by the department for accessing teaching and teaching materials. The department is designed to allow patients with disability to access it. Feedback was unrelated to disability and will be dealt with by the new department feedback co-ordinator.
9 STUDENT APPEALS/STUDENT COMPLAINTS
9.1 Please provide summary information on student appeals and student complaints dealt with at Faculty level in session 2008/09 (number of instances, outcomes).
July 2009 Appeals Committee Undergraduate: 33 appeals received, of which 61% were upheld Postgraduate: 18 appeals received, of which 28% were upheld
September 2009 Appeals Committee Undergraduate: 53 appeals received, of which 30% were upheld Postgraduate: 2 appeals received, both of which were upheld
Late Appeals received in 2009 Undergraduate: 3 appeals received, of which none were upheld Postgraduate: 8 appeals received, of which 25% were upheld
The Faculty did not receive any formal complaints during this period.
9.2 Is the Faculty aware of any trends in the number and content of cases?
The number of submitted appeals rose by 52% from 77 in 07/08 to 117 in 08/09.
Undergraduate Appeals
30 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
44% were appeals to proceed to the next year of the course carrying more than 20 credits – these are normally rejected 17% were to reattend the year 17% appealed against a decision of withdrawal from the course
Postgraduate Appeals 75% of appeals were against the award of PgCert or PgDip, requesting to continue to MSc project following failure to meet progression requirements
9.3 Does the Faculty have any reflections on issues arising out of student appeals/complaints?
10 INTERNATIONALISATION
10.1 Please comment on any issues specific to the internationalisation agenda.
Please provide details of specific initiatives to assist with integration of international students.
EEE introduced sessions on plagiarism and progression within the Learning and Assessment seminar series given to undergraduate overseas students. A new weekly learning and assessment seminar series was also introduced for EEE postgraduate students. This included a session from the Careers Service covering advice specific to overseas students on entering the UK jobs market and where to find advice on CV preparation and job advertisements. These weekly seminars help students to feel more included as they gather together and give them the opportunity to meet one of the course directors.
In NAME, 40% of undergraduate students are from overseas. The department again sent two students (one year 1, one year 2) to Harbin in China for one month in the summer to mentor and develop relationships with the incoming articulating students. This proved very helpful in integrating the students into third year as the students who went to China continued to help the Chinese students when they came to Strathclyde.
Are there any particular challenges or problems with the internationalisation of learning that the University should be aware of?
More guidance is needed from the IGO on the quality of foreign institutions and qualifications from them, so that weaker applications can be more easily identified and rejected without risk of rejecting acceptable candidates.
The large Chinese cohort can cause specific issues in EEE. The large number of students coming into third year do not all integrate easily with the existing cohort. Group working can be difficult because of language barriers. The department is developing the induction course to address these specific problems. The student run EEE Society is intending to run social events, with Department support, specifically to integrate incoming overseas students with UK students.
Have there been any particular initiatives to encourage the Faculty’s students to undertake part of their curriculum abroad?
In Architecture there was an increase in students going on exchange: 34 went abroad during the session. The department has reviewed procedures for studying abroad in the light of the introduction of the 20 credit framework and the new degree pathway with International Study.
31 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Chemical Engineering continues its involvement in the Socrates/Erasmus exchange scheme, actively encouraging third year students to take the opportunity to spend a semester or academic session in Europe and outgoing student numbers have expanded considerably. North American and other exchange programmes are also strongly supported.
In 08/09, 42 Mechanical Engineering students went abroad; 20 to Europe and 22 outside Europe. Students compete for places outside Europe with students from the rest of the University, so some exchanges are competitive and not all students are able to go. The fifth year group project to Japan has expanded to two groups and the Mechanical Engineering Department is discussing with EEE how this initiative can be expanded to include EME and EEE students.
Have there been any specific developments to enhance the international dimension in the curriculum?
As well as the Socrates and IAESTE exchanges, the Faculty encourages other internationalisation initiatives. For example:
Postgraduate Environmental Health students have opportunities for international research projects primarily through the university’s links with the university in Malawi.
In DMEM the fifth year Global Design Project is conducted with universities in Australia and the USA.
EEE students undertook solar power projects in the Gambia and Malawi. They were also involved in fund raising projects to support these initiatives.
Two NAME students spent the summer on the Lloyds Register vacation placements scheme. One student had subsequent confirmation of a job after graduation. Three fourth year and two third year students were selected in July 08 for summer placements at Samsung shipyard in Korea, sponsored by Samsung and the IMarEST John Blackburn Main Scholarships. The latter also provided support for a third year student to study at Fincantieri Shipyard in Italy. The Marine Technology Foundation also supported three student placements in the UK and USA.
The third year NCPO students and a member of staff attended the annual visit to Germany to visit the head office, manufacture, design and research facilities of Otto Bock plc, one of the largest rehabilitation companies globally. Otto Bock funded the travel, accommodation and hospitality for this whole visit. Several companies provided sponsorship for the third year summer trip to China. Some students also went to MIT and some to New Zealand on trips organised by smaller groups. Fourth year placements are offered in Norway, Sweden and Eire.
10.2 Have there been any specific issues relating to progress arising out of academic dishonesty on the part of international students.
Cheating in exams was a concern for the EEE course team, and the Department has responded by increasing the resources available to the third year to change assessment practices and increase the number of invigilators in formal examinations to twice the number required by the University. Staff recognise the need to take steps to prevent opportunities for academic dishonesty, especially in view of the large number of international students, and assessment methods will be reconsidered to minimise or remove completely opportunities for academic dishonesty.
32 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
SECTION B
11 ADMISSIONS
In completing this section, Faculties should refer to the standard annual datasets produced by the Planning Office. (Note: GMAP is exploring alternative ways of taking forward analysis of ethnic origin and disability)
11.1 Please comment on trends in respect of Undergraduate and integrated master admissions. Within this analysis please comment specifically on the following for session 2008/09:
- the breakdown of entrant students (mature, overseas, gender balance, intake from non-standard backgrounds – i.e. Wider Access programmes/FE colleges etc);
- changes in mode of study (ft/pt/dl) required by students;
- general entrance standards.
Home/EU Admissions The data supplied for session 2008/09 for intake has been based on the figures supplied on the Planning Team’s webpages.
HE institutions in the UK continued to experience difficulty recruiting to Engineering courses. However, the Faculty exceeded its home undergraduate intake target of 710 with an intake of 773 FTEs without entering clearing and whilst improving entry standards. This is in contract to the previous year when the faculty’s intake fell short of target. At departmental level most departments met their 2008 intake target with only one department falling short and with Chemical Engineering significantly exceeding its intake target.
Breakdown of Entrants It is difficult to report on trends in breakdown of entrants as the data published by the Planning Office that has been prepared using the new reporting methodology is only available from 2007/8. However, the following is noted:
As in previous years, 80% of the intake to the Faculty continues to be male. The percentage of male entrants is slightly lower amongst overseas entrants at 70%. Where ethnicity is known the majority of entrants continue to be white at almost 93%. This represents a small increase from the previous year. 96% of entrants had no known disability, 1% higher than the previous year. Of the 4% of entrants with a declared disability 2.25% had a specific learning difficulty such as dyslexia which is broadly similar to the previous year.
Many departments continued to offer undergraduate scholarships as reported in previous FAQER reports. However, a number of new scholarships were introduced in 2008-09 including in Chemical Engineering: 2009-2013 Poyry Scholarship: 1 student each year awarded £2000 p.a. from Year 3 to graduation. 2009-2019 Stalker Scholarship: 3 students each year awarded £800 p.a. in Years 3-5. BP sponsorship scheme for Chemical Engineering students: £19,000 p.a. in total awarded to students in Years 2, 3 and 4. 2009-2013 Peru scholarship: 1 Year 2 student each year, £2000 p.a. each, for the remainder of their course. EPSRC and Nuffield student bursaries awarded in 2008 and 2009. Air Products plc offer Scholarships annually, together with vacation employment and industrial year placement.
33 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
The Faculty was approached by BP to offer student sponsorship. There are currently 4 Mechanical Engineering students receiving scholarships, together with similar numbers in EEE and Chemical Engineering. Strathclyde is one of only nine universities included in this scheme.
International Admissions The Faculty had had a successful year in terms of international student recruitment. Intake to the University has increased by 4% with Engineering accounting for most of this increase. Demand was most evident from China, India Malaysia and Pakistan. The Faculty had substantially exceeded its undergraduate (UG) target due in large part to recruitment via the Faculty’s articulation links with China, but even excluding the China link students the Faculty has still exceeded is target by 100%. The pool of nationalities from which the Faculty recruits its UG students has, however, shrunk this year. The Faculty performed well in securing UG Prestige Scholarship awards in 2008/9: of the eight awarded four of them were in engineering.
Issues specific to mature students and students from non-standard backgrounds are not reportable from the current data sets provided by the Planning Team.
General Entrance Standards General entrance standards to the Faculty increased in 2008-09, based on average UCAS tariff as reported in the MIPs, with the Faculty having the highest entrance standards in the University.
11.2 Please comment on trends in respect of Postgraduate Instructional admissions. Within this analysis please comment specifically on the following for session 2008/09:
- the breakdown of entrant students (mature, overseas, gender balance, intake from non-standard backgrounds – i.e. Wider Access programmes/FE colleges etc);
- changes in mode of study (ft/pt/dl) required by students;
- general entrance standards.
Home/EU Admissions The Faculty also exceeded its PGI intake target of 136 with an intake of 199 FTEs. Particular growth was noted in Civil Engineering which significantly exceeded its target. the downward trend in Bioengineering’s recruitment continued with its intake numbers falling significantly short of target. The Faculty had conducted a mini-Marketing review for department and have identified some short-term measures that could be put in place to reverse this trend.
International Admissions In contrast to the previous two years the Faculty exceeded is postgraduate instructional (PGI) recruitment target. There continued to be a strong nationality mix in the PGI community. Nigeria was now a key market for the Faculty moving to second position in the table of top PGI supplier countries. It was noted that students that had entered UG programmes via the China links were now progressing to Masters and doctoral level study.
Breakdown of Entrants It is difficult to report on trends in breakdown of entrants as the data published by the Planning Office that has been prepared using the new reporting methodology is only available from 2007/8. However, the following is noted:
34 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
As in previous years, the majority of new entrants to the Faculty continues to be male at 73%. The percentage of male entrants is the same across home/EU and overseas students. The number of students with a declared disability remain exceptionally small at 2% compared with 1% in the previous year. The ethnicity of almost 50% of PGI students is unknown (54% unknown in previous year) and, therefore, it is difficult to draw any conclusions from the data presented on ethnicity. Where ethnicity is known the majority (65%) are white.
Issues specific to mature students and students from non-standard backgrounds are not reportable from the current data sets provided by the Planning Team.
11.3 Please comment on trends in respect of Postgraduate Research admissions. Within this analysis please comment specifically on the following for session 2008/09:
- the breakdown of entrant students (e.g. home, overseas, gender balance)
- changes in mode of study (ft/pt/dl) required by students;
- general entrance standards.
11.4 Please note any specific proposals or initiatives on admissions at Departmental and/or Faculty level that arose following experience in 2008/09 (i.e. increasing/lowering entrance requirements).
In Architecture, demand for undergraduate course remains high. Home and international undergraduate targets were exceeded in 08/09. The tariff was raised for undergraduate entry in 08/09 and interviews and portfolio reviews were introduced for all applicants who meet/are expected to meet entry requirements. The Department intends to continue with this process for future applicants.
Bioengineering had suffered from poor recruitment to the MSc course. To address this in 08/9, one academic staff member was assigned to process all MSc, MRes, MPhil and PhD applications. Better processing and follow up resulted in significantly higher recruitment for 09/10.
Chemical Engineering has twice raised entrance requirements and has succeeded in increasing the intake even further, attracting very well qualified applicants.
DMEM continues to interview all applicants and provide them with an introduction to the Department including a seminar, hands-on activity, and a tour of the Department’s facilities. The entrance requirements are as currently recommended by the Faculty.
Mechanical Engineering increased entry requirements from A-level to ABB (BEng) and AAA (MEng), and increased BEng entry requirements for SQA Highers to AAAB. For MEng it remains AAAAB.
NAME admission requirements have been increased substantially in line with the Faculty position. SQA Higher qualifications are now AABB for BEng first year entry and AAAA for MEng first year entry.
The entrance requirements for the NCPO BSc were raised from BBBB to AABB in 08/09 and applications and admissions also rose. There are plans to raise the admission requirements further to AAAB in 10/11 in line with the Faculty. It is hoped this will improve retention from first to second year.
35 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
12 PROGRESSION/COMPLETION
In completing this section, Faculties should refer to the Management Information Profiles (MIPS) produced by the Planning Office.
12.1 Please comment on trends in respect of Undergraduate and Integrated Master progression and completion.
The Faculty’s Year after Entry and overall retention rates are unchanged from the previous year but both remain lower than they were in 2006/07.
Trends in respect of UG completion are not reportable from the current data sets provided by the Planning Team.
12.2 Please comment on trends in respect of Postgraduate Instructional progression and completion.
Trends in respect of PGI progression and completion are not reportable from the current data sets provided by the Planning Team.
12.3 Please comment on trends in respect of Postgraduate Research submission and completion.
Trends in respect of PGR submission and completion are not reportable from the current data sets provided by the Planning Team.
36 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
SECTION C
13 COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
13.1 Please confirm that the information contained in the summary spreadsheet of all active collaborative agreements active in 2008/09 by type (validated, jointly delivered, articulations) is up to date.
A list of all active collaborative agreements as at December 2009 is attached in Appendix 5.
13.2 Please confirm that all collaborative agreements were reviewed during the summer of 2009 as required by Senate.
The Vice Dean Academic and Assistant Faculty Officer met with a key contact in each department to ascertain which of their collaborative agreements were current, which needed to be renewed and which could be archived as they were no longer active.
At the start of the review the Faculty log of Collaborative Agreements contained 134 entries with corresponding documents, many of which were out of date or no longer active. The audit led to a major reduction in the number of active agreements to 40. This figure also includes some agreements which had recently expired and are currently in the process of being renewed. Almost all of the agreements are for articulation into undergraduate or postgraduate courses in the Faculty. Most departments have now completed a Collaborative Checklist for each active agreement.
13.3 Was the Faculty satisfied with the continued validity and viability of its collaborative agreements? If not, what was done to address any concerns?
The main outcome was confirmation of those collaborative agreements to be discontinued with immediate effect, thereby reducing significantly the number of active agreements, and confirmation of the process going forward with regard to renewal of contracts with collaborative partners. The paperwork for Faculty approval of collaborative agreements has been revised as indicated in section 13.4 below.
13.4 Did the Faculty identify any issues arising from these collaborative agreements which needed to be addressed at Faculty level?
As ongoing collaborative contracts require to be renewed, the new University templates will be used to ensure consistency and transparency across agreements within the University.
The audit also led to the development of a new Faculty Collaborative Agreement proposal form which must be completed for all new agreements for consideration by AAC. Completion of this form confirms that full consultation has taken place within the relevant department(s) and the proposal has the endorsement of the relevant Head of Department prior to submission to the Faculty for approval.
Through this process, the Faculty of Engineering has confirmed that all collaborative agreements with partner institutions listed in Appendix 5 are live and valid, or are being renewed. The audit is continuing in order to review the detailed aspects of each agreement to ascertain that all of these adhere to the University of Strathclyde policy and procedures in this area.
Concerns were raised at an AAC meeting over the perceived poor performance of some students articulating from Malaysia. A review was conducted of the performance of all students entering directly into third year from Malaysian institutions via ‘2+2’ articulation
37 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
agreements. Qualifications on entry and subsequent performance were examined from sessions 06/07, 07/08 and 08/09, to ascertain whether a more direct Faculty policy was needed for these students. The study showed that most of the students had performed well including those who entered with diplomas. Three EEE students had performed poorly, but this appeared to be due to individual lack of engagement with the course. Malaysian students entering Architecture courses performed exceptionally well with very high levels of attainment across all of the classes undertaken.
13.5 Did the Faculty identify any issues arising from these collaborative agreements which needed to be addressed at University level?
No
13.6 Are there any issues of note for the quality monitoring of provision that has come out of the negotiations for new and renewed.
A review of the Faculty’s package of support for international students will be undertaken early in 2009-10. As significant numbers of international students now enter the Faculty via 2 + 2 articulation arrangements there may be recommendations that emerge from this review that will inform the negotiation of new and renegotiation of existing collaborative agreements.
SECTION D (OTHER INFORMATION)
14 Please provide any current observations on information provided for session 2008/09
There are no additional comments to make other than those articulated in the body of the report.
15 Please outline the Faculty’s priorities for session 2009/10.
These are articulated in the Faculty Strategy Update Statement submitted to the University in March 09.
16 From a quality assurance perspective, please outline any issues in the Faculty’s Strategy Statements that might usefully enhance the work of Quality Monitoring Committee and/or Educational Strategy Committee.
No.
SECTION E
17 CONCLUSION
Please summarise all required follow-up action for the session under review and any additional academic quality assurance and enhancement actions required to align with the Excellence Agenda.
(i) The Faculty will continue to conduct and monitor the effectiveness of initiatives aimed at improving student feedback and results in the NSS.
(ii) The introduction of undergraduate courses redesigned under the 20 credit framework will be monitored.
38 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
(iii) The Faculty’s package of support for international students will be reviewed, including student induction and in-sessional support, particularly in relation to English Language teaching.
(iv) The undergraduate General Boards of Examiners will be restructured to streamline the process and allow time for Faculty Office staff to attend PGI Exam Boards in addition to Honours Boards.
(v) The Faculty Module Descriptor Form will be edited to include a section on how the 12 principles of assessment have influenced the assessment criteria outlined for the module.
(vi) An audit of Knowledge Exchange activities in the Faculty will be conducted.
(Vii) A review of PGR monitoring procedures will be conducted as part of a wider research audit process that is already underway across the Faculty.
GLW/GW/RC 16/02/10
39 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Appendix 1
Faculty of Engineering’s progress matched against the Strategic Objectives in the Academic Strategy
Academic Strategy Action Plan – Session 2007/08 – Strategic Objectives
1. To promote opportunities for students from all backgrounds (including the expansion of international student numbers) Sections 5.3, 5.5, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 10.1, 11.1, 11.2, 11.4
2. To deliver a quality learning experience (which also addresses the issue of undergraduate student retention) Sections 1.2, 4.2, 4.8, 4.9, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 8.1, 8.4, 10.1
3. To support student development Sections 1.2, 4.2, 4.8, 4.9, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 10.1
4. To expand professional development programmes Sections 5.9, 5.10
5. To provide effective learning support Sections 4.2, 4.8, 4.9, 5.4, 5.5, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 10.1, 10.2
6. To revitalise the campus environment and ensure maximum accessibility for all students Sections 4.10, 8.1, 8.3, 8.4
7. To support staff in the pursuit of excellence in learning, teaching and assessment Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 4.2, 4.9, 5.4, 5.5, 8.3, 8.4
40 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Appendix 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF STRATEGIC REVIEW DEPARTMENT OF BIOENGINEERING
Date of Review: June 2009 Presented to Faculty Planning and Resources Committee: October 2009
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Panel thanked the department for its positive approach to, and engagement with, the review exercise. In order to realise the department’s full potential staff recognised that the status quo was unsustainable and a collective desire for change has emerged from the review process.
.1 Management and Operations The Panel resolved that the department’s current leadership structure has been unable to drive forward the necessary change within the department. The Faculty has pledged its support to developing a refocused management structure to implement the process of change but it is critical that all staff in the department take a shared responsibility for delivering change.
With regard to the management and operations of the department the panel
RECOMMENDS to the department that:
.i A review of the department’s management structures be undertaken. This should include a review of operational processes which has already been initiated in some areas of the department. A reconfiguration and refocusing of these structures and processes should facilitate driving forward the necessary changes identified in the recommendations of this review and ultimately free up staff time for other strategically targeted activities. .ii A series of away days or events be organised for staff to provide an opportunity to ‘think outside the box’ about strategic issues and to improve communications. This will hopefully invigorate staff, improve communications, generate new ideas and engender a greater sense of shared responsibility for the department’s future. .iii The department should give consideration to the creation of a Teaching Directorate headed up by the Director of Teaching to drive forward the recommendations outlined in section 7.4 below. The Director of Teaching should henceforth be a member of the refocused DMT.
.2 Staff development With respect to Staff development and mentoring the Panel
RECOMMENDS to the department that:
.i The current income-based staff performance indicator be discontinued with immediate effect. Consideration should be given to the development of more holistic metrics for reviewing staff performance in order to strengthen the overall performance of the department. .ii The department establishes a more robust mentoring programme for its early career academics.
.3 Research The department’s international reputation whilst still strong is in danger of diminishing and therefore requires to be strengthened. Aside from publications and numbers of PGR students the University Management Information Profiles indicate that some of the department’s other research metrics have been in decline. The decline is principally due to too few staff obtaining grants and taking on external activities. However it is interesting to note that despite this the per capita research spend per member of staff is the third highest in the Faculty (source: MIPs). The panel is of the view that the department’s international reputation can be reinvigorated through a managed team approach to research that is guided by a cohesive research vision that differentiates the department from its peers. With external competition now fierce an identifiable niche/market focus will be critical. A revamped marketing strategy will also be essential for increasing the visibility of the department’s research activities and strengths.
41 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
.3.1 The Doctoral Training Centre (DTC) The DTC has provided significant opportunities for the department but in parallel its success has contributed to some of the problems in other areas. The resources available from the DTC have perhaps contributed to the low number of external research funding proposals submitted by some staff in the department. As a result, the drive to target external funding has not been a priority for a significant proportion of the staff cohort. This presents a major risk to the department as the DTC resource is a diminishing funding stream.
A much more strategic approach to the development of postgraduate research project topics within the DTC is required. Currently, this process is influenced by student choice. Project topics should support the department’s key research themes to ensure that project outcomes boost the department’s research outputs in the form of funding applications, publications and possibly commercial opportunities and staff must participate more in project generation and attend the networking events held for this purpose.
With respect to the overall management of research within the department the panel
RECOMMENDS to the department that:
.i A managed ‘team’ approach be adopted to drive forward a step-change in the department’s portfolio of research activities. This will require a change in culture away from the individually driven ‘silo’ approach to research that is currently evident in the department. .ii The department’s research vision requires urgent refocusing to identify cognate areas in which the department has strength and from which it can build critical mass. This may require a reduction in the number of research groups and research themes that exist currently. .iii Staff should be encouraged to engage in activities that will increase their visibility on the research landscape and will contribute to restoring the esteem and international reputation that the department previously enjoyed. .iv The department’s academic and research staff must begin to proactively target external sources of funding in a more coordinated way to reduce the over-reliance on DTC and SFC resources and to bring new funding streams into the department. In broadening the department’s research funding portfolio consideration should also be given to the formation of strategic partnerships with other universities and external organisations to target high value income streams. Given the unique research focus of the department diversification of research income streams will be critical to the department’s future sustainability. .v A much more strategic approach should be taken to the selection of doctoral research project topics. Projects should align with the research priorities identified in the department’s new research vision. This will facilitate the development of critical mass in strategically important research areas and support the development of external research funding proposals in these areas. .vi Staff must capitalise on the research opportunities offered via the collaborations that have been forged through the DTC. In particular, project findings should be developed in partnership with collaborators into external research grant proposals. .vii Senior academic staff should be encouraged to mentor early career academic staff in the development of research funding applications.
The panel strongly encourages the department to build on the findings of its review of research and, in concert with the recommendations from the strategic review, develop an action plan for change. A newly constituted departmental Research Committee might provide the vehicle for overseeing the implementation of the research-specific recommendations. A key objective through implementation of the recommendations will be to improve the department’s overall performance in the research environment and esteem metrics that are likely to feature strongly in the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework (REF). However, with the REF census date only three years away there is an added urgency to implementation of these recommendations to maximise the potential impact that these changes might make on the department’s REF performance.
.4 Student Recruitment and Marketing The predominant focus within the department on the DTC and the recruitment of postgraduate research students has diverted staff attention away from taught postgraduate matters. As a result, student numbers are in decline with worryingly low numbers of students registering for taught postgraduate study in the department. This needs to be addressed urgently. Student recruitment to non DTC activities must be a priority in light of the fact that DTC funded studentships have an uncertain future past the current EPSRC grant. Energy and effort must be exerted into developing strategies to mitigate against the potential loss of funded studentships from the EPSRC.
42 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
The department’s marketing activities are also weak which has exacerbated the decline in student recruitment. The mini-marketing review conducted by the Faculty has provided a good foundation for addressing some of the department’s immediate marketing issues, but a robust long-term marketing strategy is now required.
With respect to the overall management of recruitment and marketing within the department the Panel
RECOMMENDS to the department that:
.i The department take forward the recommendations from its review of teaching as a matter of urgency. A departmental team (Teaching Directorate) should be established to take this forward under the direction of the Director of Teaching and drawing on support from across the Faculty as required. .ii A root and branch evaluation of the department’s marketing activities should be undertaken. This should encompass a market analysis to determine whether the department is currently offering the right products to meet market needs and at the right price and to identify opportunities for new provision. The findings from this review should be drawn on to develop a marketing strategy for the department. .iii Unsuccessful DTC applicants should be channelled towards other postgraduate study opportunities in the department where studentships are available for PhD or MRes courses as this may provide an additional mechanism for improving recruitment. .iv The department should monitor the success of its new online Masters programme as this model may also present new opportunities for the future development of postgraduate provision.
.5 Strathclyde Healthcare Strategy The panel would like to emphasise the importance of the University developing a strong presence in the healthcare technologies sector and the panel agrees with the department’s Research Review that Bioengineering should play a central role in this agenda. However, a Strathclyde healthcare strategy is still in the embryonic stages of development and is not yet well defined. There is a real opportunity for Strathclyde to differentiate itself in the sector, particularly from those institutions that have a medical school, by identifying and targeting key market niches. The University’s excellent links with the NHS and the formation of new strategic partnerships will serve to grow the University’s strengths in this area. The panel therefore
RECOMMENDS to the University that:
.i It drives forward a healthcare technology initiative as a matter of urgency drawing together the multidisciplinary expertise that exists across Strathclyde to support the development of this vision. This will require a project champion to lead this development.
.6 Managing the Change Process This first stage of the review, captured within this report, has identified issues associated with the management, operations and activities of the department and recommended actions that can be taken to address these issues to improve the department’s overall performance in these areas. It is now imperative that an Implementation Group be established to drive forward the implementation of the recommendations that have emerged from stage 1 of the review and the panel
RECOMMENDS to the Faculty that:
.i An internal Implementation Group be established, chaired by the Dean, to work with the department to implement the recommendations of stage 1 of the Review. The Group will also liaise with the external members of the Review Panel as appropriate.
There is now a need to move to stage 2 of the review which will examine in detail issues concerning the long-term sustainability of the department and whether it should continue to operate as a stand-alone unit. The Panel, therefore,
RECOMMENDS to the Faculty that:
A further review meeting be held to conduct the final stages of the review and to make recommendations to the university with respect to bullet point iv of the remit for the strategic review. The second stage of the review should take place from October – November 2009 with final recommendations to the University by December 2009.
43 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Appendix 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Date of Review: January 2009 Presented to Faculty Planning and Resources Committee: June 2009
SUMMARY The Panel acknowledged the helpful and extensive documentation provided. The Department is successful and well-managed and has been in financial surplus for the last three years. It has strengths in research and teaching, a balanced portfolio and good diversity of income. The large size and ethos of working together enables staff to balance resources and take up opportunities. There is a strong research culture and a wide range of research opportunities. The Panel advised the Department to examine its strategy for growth to ensure continued diversity of income for financial stability. Therefore, the Panel recommends that the Department should consider ways of optimising current activities as well as developing a balanced strategy for future growth.
The Department has undergone significant growth in recent years. The team structure provides an integrated approach across the Department and there is a clear and fair workload model. Staff development is fundamental and there is recognition of the importance of building up early career researchers and other staff in preparation for the next Research Assessment Exercise. There is a lack of community among Research Assistants because of the Department’s size, but they mixed well in their research groups.
As a result of the increase in research staff, administrative and secretarial staff reported a substantial increase in their volume of work. Technical staff were also struggling to meet the conflicting needs of undergraduates, postgraduate students, and researchers and the Panel recommends that the Department review the volume of technical support required and consider appointing additional staff.
The Panel observed that the outstanding laboratory facilities are connected by rather dilapidated corridors in an unsuitable building but was concerned that estates development must be ongoing so that the building did not fall into disrepair while its longer term future was considered. The Panel recommends continuing engagement with Estates Management to develop the current facilities and prevent planning blight and press for investment in the building to allow it to carry out its work better.
The equipment and facilities available to students are excellent, but there is scope for better use of resources by sharing throughout the Faculty. The Panel encouraged staff to bid for equipment that could be used by several departments and recommends that the Department consider applying for funding for new equipment to allow better use of technician time and that also would be of use to other departments and fill gaps in current provision.
For historical reasons the Department runs its own IT system so that in-house custom applications and adapted software are available for research. Although some integration with the University IT system has taken place, the current arrangement should be subject to regular review. The Panel recommends that the Department continues to review regularly the necessity of running a separate IT system with independent IT support in light of perceived benefits to the Department.
44 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
There is a clear recruitment strategy and student numbers have been increasing since 2004/05 with a current total student population of around 900. Further growth of home and international student numbers is planned. Undergraduate recruitment is strengthened by a successful industrial and department scholarship scheme.
The Department has reviewed all its undergraduate courses in preparation for the new 20 credit curriculum structure which will be rolled out from 2009/10. Some new teaching methods such as problem based learning and project based learning have been introduced in the first three years of study. The new structure will create problems at 4th and 5th year level which have not yet been fully addressed. The use of superclasses has assisted in creating the necessary flexibility in final year classes but there are concerns about the effects on mobility across departments and faculties.
The allocation of teaching duties is fair, most staff are research active and there is an ethos of sharing duties to enable staff to released for particular duties as required. The Panel warned against becoming too introverted in teaching and commended the collaboration with the Maths Department in delivering jointly-taught undergraduate mathematics classes which included specific engineering applications. The Panel recommends that the Department should regularly review the balance of internal and external teaching.
Teaching and learning are well managed, courses show good pass rates, and much of first year experience is an exemplar for the rest of the University. The Department faces a challenge in cascading similar support to the second and third years of the course to increase retention. The Panel recommends that the Department should use some of the first year support methods to improve the support given to second year students.
Department staff work hard to provide a good student experience and students were generally very satisfied with their courses, facilities and feedback mechanisms, however, the Department faces a challenge in ensuring that the whole student group is looked after. The Panel was concerned that the articulating international students were not integrating well with the existing student body. Although staff had developed a one month induction programme and addressed various academic issues that had arisen in the early years of the programme, the perspective of the UK students on the course was that the Chinese students do not generally mix with the rest of the cohort and tend no to attend social events. There is a significant language barrier and their lack of experience in group working is also a problem. The Panel suggested setting up a focus group with the Chinese students to gather their views and find out if they are getting the ‘Scottish experience’ they expected. The Panel recommends that the Department should set up a focus group to assess the Chinese students’ perceptions, with the aim of addressing the integration issues from the student perspective.
The Panel also recommends that the Department give home students a more formal role in introducing articulating students to the University, and ensure that lab and project groups include a mix of home and overseas students.
There is a lack of international culture among the students in the Department and few EEE students take the opportunity to study abroad. The Panel recommends that the Department find ways of encouraging more EEE students to go participate in exchange programmes.
PGI students found the transition to postgraduate study more difficult than they had expected. They found the first semester exams difficult and felt insufficient time was given to answer the questions. They had not received any feedback from coursework prior to exam and thought that tutorials had not prepared them for the complexity of the exam questions. The Panel recommends that the Department ensures PGI students receive feedback on first semester coursework before the January exams.
The Department has a diverse and well-funded research portfolio which is important in sustaining income. It is well-connected nationally and internationally and collaborates widely. Investment
45 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010 from companies has assisted in the creation of high quality research facilities. Although 50% of the RAE outputs were at 3* and 4* in the RAE 2008, the Department is placed relatively low on related UK league tables. The Department therefore faces a challenge in marketing its capabilities and outputs to industrial and academic partners. Early career researchers and other staff will be supported to increase their contribution at the next REF. There is a drive to increase journal publications and build an ethos of publishing research.
The Department has been very successful in commercialising research and currently has twelve spin-out companies. Knowledge transfer is achieved through strategic partnerships with industry and government agencies. Experts from the Department are involved in agenda setting at all levels of government and industry.
46 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
Appendix 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW NATIONAL CENTRE FOR PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS
Date of Review: February 2009 Presented to Faculty Planning and Resources Committee: April 2009
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
.1. The Panel welcomed the view from the Scottish Government Health Department that there was a continuing need for the Prosthetist and Orthotist undergraduate education programme provided by the Centre. This is of clear importance to Scotland and should continue to be supported.
.2. The Panel commended the Centre on the strength of its undergraduate teaching and the reputation of the BSc (Hons) in Prosthetics and Orthotics programme which is held in high regard nationally and internationally. However, the Panel was concerned that the recent restructuring of the course had been conducted without sufficient regard to developments in the education of other Allied Health Professions (AHP). The Panel was also concerned about the programme’s low retention rates, particularly in first year. Additionally, the Panel questions whether there might be scope to reduce the volume of material in the current programme as students were subject to a particularly heavy timetabled commitment across each academic year. Therefore, the Panel recommends that:
a. The Centre should engage more widely with the other Allied Health Professions, particularly with regard to the development and operational models for its teaching programmes. b. The Centre should further review the BSc programme material to determine whether the volume of the current course content was still appropriate whilst ensuring that the needs of the profession continue to be met. c. The Centre should monitor retention rates and the impact that recent measures taken to address this issue have on improving retention rates. The Centre should also monitor whether there is any link between the mathematics qualifications of entrants and drop-out rates.
.3. A real strength is the Centre’s strong sense of community and the enthusiasm amongst its staff, both of which impact very favourably on the student experience. However, the Panel also detected some feelings of isolation from the rest of the Faculty and University amongst the Centre’s staff and, in a few cases, a unwillingness to engage in change and moving forward. The Panel also noted that, whilst students received good year-round mentoring and support from within the Centre, there was almost no integration of the Centre’s students with other students outside of the department. As a result, students do not have a sense of belonging to the University of Strathclyde. The Panel recommends that:
d. Care should be taken to ensure that the strong sense of community does not create an insular department or perpetuate any feelings of isolation that is evident amongst the staff. e. The Centre should encourage greater integration of its students with students elsewhere in the Faculty and University.
.4. The Panel was encouraged to see a real enthusiasm for research amongst some of the Centre’s staff. However, the overall research performance of the Centre is weak by comparison
47 Annual Faculty AQER for Engineering – February 2010
with the rest of the University: no staff were returned to RAE 2008 and, without radical change, there is little realistic prospect of achieving an RAE-equivalent research profile over the next few years. Overall research leadership, strategy and vision are weak and, despite the efforts of the Director of Research, there remains little engagement and commitment from some staff to plan or deliver research. While the Centre’s new research appointments clearly have research potential and will help catalyse a more research orientated culture, a more radical approach to the management of research in the Centre is now required. If this is not undertaken there is a real danger of separate teaching and research factions emerging within the department. The Panel, therefore, recommends that: f. A radical rethinking of the role of research, and how research is managed within the Centre, be undertaken as a matter of priority. i. Strong research leadership will be critical to the success of this process. ii. A research strategy for the department be developed. iii. The DRC should have a pro-active approach to planning research activities within the department against the priorities in this research strategy. g. The remit and membership of the DRC should be reviewed to empower the Committee to drive forward change in the department’s research culture and to distribute ownership of research ideas more widely across the department. h. Staff should be encouraged to engage with relevant research seminar programmes on offer elsewhere in the faculty and University.
.5. The Centre’s CPD programmes are a strength and there is evidence of strong external demand. However, the business models for these courses could be sharpened to maximise the return of benefits to the Centre. Conversely, the Panel had significant concerns regarding the Centre’s Masters-level provision. The MSc programme in Rehabilitation Studies is weak with poor progression and retention rates: only 5 students have graduated with an MSc award since the programme was introduced in 2000. The Panel saw significant opportunities at Masters-level and was disappointed that these were not being actively exploited by the Centre. With respect to postgraduate provision the Panel recommends that: i. The business models for the CPD courses be sharpened to maximise the benefits that flow to the Centre. j. A radical overhaul of the management of the MSc in Rehabilitation Studies programme be initiated. k. The Centre investigate opportunities to expand Masters level provision.
.6. The biggest single challenge facing the Centre is the move to a new funding model. It is anticipated that there will be a move towards a more conventional HE funding model in future which will reduce significantly the level of funding that the Centre receives. It will, therefore, be imperative to diversify the Centre’s income streams to cushion against this reduction in funding. The Panel considers that, against this background, the Centre’s existing structures and activities would not be capable of absorbing this change in funding. Consequently, the Panel recommends that a new and radical approach to the financial management and business models of the Centre is now required for the Centre to meet these new challenges. The Panel or Faculty does not currently have the answers as to what this approach might look like. However, the Faculty is committed to working with the Centre to achieve this.
.7. There remains an issue of the ‘fit’ of the Centre within the Faculty of Engineering or with the University more widely. The activities of the Centre are more closely aligned with the AHPs than with the Engineering disciplines. The Panel, therefore, recommends that an options appraisal exercise be conducted to identify and assess possible future models for the Centre.
.8. The Faculty of Engineering will establish an internal Implementation Group, chaired by the Dean, to work with the Centre in implementing the recommendations of the Review. The Group will also liaise with the external members of the Review Panel as appropriate.
48 Appendix 5
COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENTS: FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
Department / Faculty Collaborating Institution Type of Agreement Valid From Valid To Chemical Engineering, Beijing University of Chemical Collaborative Agreement for 2+2 articulation DMEM, Mechanical Eng, May-07 May-12 Technology (note: titled as an MOU) CIS Articulation to 3rd year of named BEng/MEng Oct-09 Shanghai University of Electric programmes; 4+1 articulation into MSc EEE Paperwork currently Oct-16 Power programmes; joint PhD supervision; visiting being renewed academics North China Electric Power Trilateral agreement for 2+2 articulation to either EEE University and University of Jan-07 Jan-12 Strathclyde or Manchester University Manchester Articulation to 3rd year of named BEng/MEng Oct-09 North China Electric Power EEE programmes; Articulation to MSc; joint PhD Paperwork currently Oct-14 University supervision; visiting academics being renewed International Co-education Articulation into NAME undergraduate courses NAME College of Harbin Engineering Oct-05 open ended (2+2). University (HEU) Harbin Engineering University Monitoring of teaching in CICE - preparation of NAME and College of International teaching materials for students who will articulate Mar-07 open ended Cooperative Education on 2+2 agreement. NAME Harbin Engineering University Articulation into 3rd year of BEng courses Apr-09 Apr-17 Jiangsu University of Science Collaborative Agreement - 2+2 articulation; 1.5+1 NAME Aug-09 Aug-14 and Technology (JUST) MSc programme; 4+1 MSc programme Dalian University of Collaborative Agreement - 4+1 articulation into NAME Aug-09 Aug-14 Technology (DUT) Masters programmes. Articulation into 3rd year of undergraduate Nov-09 Northeast Dianli University EEE Programmes and 1st year of postgraduate courses; Currently being Nov-14 (NEDU) joint PhD supervision and academic visitors renewed Jan-10 Harbin Institute of Technology NAME Collaborative Agreement with NAME Currently being Jan-15 in Weihai renewed Sept-08 Collaborative Agreement - Erasmus Mundus DMEM Hamburg-Harburg; Aalborg Currently being Sept-14 Masters course updated EEE INSA, Rennes Reciprocal Study Arrangement 1994-ongoing ongoing
49 Department / Faculty Collaborating Institution Type of Agreement Valid From Valid To University of Technology, Won’t be signed Erasmus Mundus joint degree – currently at DMEM Troyes & University of Malta unless application is proposal stage (Erasmus Mundus) successful EEE HTWK Leipzig Articulation agreement Mar-09 Mar-14 NAME AMET University, Channai Collaborative Agreement Mar-09 Mar-12 PG Course Delivery leading to MSc - students NAME Tolani Maritime Institute, India 01-Jan-08 Jan-13 study 2nd semester at Strathclyde Institute of Environmental Civil Management & Studies Articulation into MSc in Environmental Engineering Mar-09 Feb-14 (IEMS), India Indian Institute of Technology, NAME Institutional Partnership Agreement with NAME Aug-09 Aug-14 Kharagpur Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Universitat Autonoma de Joint Masters in Environmental Process Control for delivery from renewed automatically EEE Barcelona, Universitat de Engineering 2008/09 every year Girona Agreement of Cooperation for promotion of Student Faculty of Engineering Tokyo Institute of Technology Feb-08 15-Feb-13 Exchanges Architecture Taylor's College, Malaysia Articulation Agreement 01-Sep-08 Aug-13 01-Sep-04 EEE INTI College, Malaysia Collaborative Agreement - Articulation Currently being Aug-09 renewed Kuala Lumpur Infrastructure EEE, Mechanical, Civil Collaborative Agreement - 2+2 Articulation Jan-08 Jan-13 University College (KLIUC) Universiti Teknikal mara Sdn. Collaborative Agreement for 2+2 articulation Faculty - DMEM, EEE, GHD - Universiti Kuala Lumpur Mar-08 Mar-11 (note: titled as an MOU) NAME (UniKL) Joint programme/supervision of students in EngD Heriot-Watt University, St Currently being EEE Optics and Photonics leading to an award of one of Andrews, Glasgow renewed the collaborating institutions Course still running – EEE/Computer and Glasgow, Heriot-Watt, Joint programme leading to a joint award of EngD in 2001 current paperwork Information Services Edinburgh Systems Level Integration being sourced Course still running – EEE/Computer and Glasgow, Heriot-Watt, Joint programme leading to a joint award of MSc in 1999 current paperwork Information Services Edinburgh Systems Level Integration being sourced
50 Department / Faculty Collaborating Institution Type of Agreement Valid From Valid To Agreement terminated Glasgow College of Nautical Joint programme – final students completing in NAME Sep-03 but covers completing Studies 09/10 students July 2011 (covering Partnership agreement - financial arrangement for 2010/11 cohort which Mechanical Engineering Doosan Babcock Jul-08 employees to undertake part time study will complete in 2012/13) Joint programme leading to a joint award of MSc in Civil Glasgow University Sept-09 Sept-12 Geotechnics Joint programme leading to a joint award of MSc in Civil Glasgow University Sept-08 Sept-11 Global Water Sustainability Joint programme leading to a joint award of MSc in NAME Glasgow University Sept-09 Sept-12 Ship and Offshore Structures Oct-06 National University of Memorandum of Understanding - UG student Architecture Currently being Sep-09 Singapore exchange renewed Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow University, Stirling University, UWS, HealthQWest Project - collaborative research Bioengineering Jun-06 Jun-11 Nursing Midwifery & Allied project Health Professions Research Unit, NHS Scotland Nov-07 The Glasgow Health Technology Cooperative - Current Bioengineering NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde collaborative research project and KT documentation to be sourced Reviewed annually Loughborough, Bath, Queens SEDC Collaborative Agreement for EngD in DMEM Aug-2007 (Belfast), Leicester Systems Engineering Collaboration Agreement for EngD in Non- EEE Various UK Universities Mar-09 Destructive Evaluation Ford Motor Company, Scottish Collaboration Agreement to conduct research in the EEE & Southern Energy, London Jul-09 Jul-13 development of a battery powered car Borough of Hillingdon Hogeschool voor Wetenschap EU-US student exchange programme: "Actions for Architecture en Kunst, Sint-Lucas, Transatlantic Links and Academic Networks in Session 2009/10 Session 2013/14 University of Cincinnati Training and Integrated Studies (ATLANTIS)"
51