REPORT OF A MEETING OF THE EVALUATION PANEL UNIT 4A1: MSc PLANNING AND CITY RESILIENCE (FT/PT) (JN/DL)
30 January 2020
PRESENT:
Professor Ruth Fee, Associate Dean Education, Faculty of Art, Humanities and Social Sciences, Ulster University (Chair) Dr John Sturzaker, Discipline Lead for Planning, Department of Geography & Planning, University of Liverpool Dr Neil Harris, Senior Lecturer, School of Geography and Planning, Cardiff University Dr John Cathcart, Lecturer, School of Health Sciences, Ulster University
IN ATTENDANCE:
Mrs A Guarino, Academic Policy and Standards Officer, Academic Office, Ulster University
1 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
The Panel was convened to consider the provision of Master of Science in Planning and City Resilience. The proposed course is a new specialist programme primarily focused on the role of planning in terms of strengthening the ability of society to adapt to, and mitigate for, the anticipated impacts of contemporary social (e.g. demographic change), economic (e.g. enhancing city/region competitiveness) and environmental (e.g. climate change) challenges. In doing so, the programme embraces a range of topics that relate to the conceptual and practical issues involved in building resilient cities.
The MSc Planning and City Resilience programme was designed to appeal to both the local and international markets and will be delivered in both distance learning and campus-based blended learning modes to help widen access and participation. The provision was designed to be equally appealing to those working in allied or unrelated professions and will provide a genuine postgraduate option for a wide range of graduates from the Belfast School of Architecture and the Built Environment and across the university. The course team have liaised with the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and will be seeking accreditation of the programme as a ‘combined’ postgraduate planning degree programme.
The proposed provision will be delivered in Jordanstown and fully online in full-time and part time modes and will be offered from September 2020. The full-time mode will normally be taught over 3 semesters of study and the part-time mode over 6 semesters of study. Each student will complete six 20 credit point modules (five of which are compulsory and one optional from a choice of four) and a compulsory 60 credit point Dissertation module.
1 | Page
There are two exit awards associated with the programme. A PgCert may be awarded to students who successfully complete 60 credit points. A PgDip may be awarded to students who successfully complete 120 credit points. The MSc would be awarded after subsequent satisfactory completion of the 60 credit-point dissertation (180 credit points total).
Assessment Rubrics The Panel noted that assessment rubrics were not provided in the course document.
Minimum and Maximum Student Cohort Size Projected Intake as presented to the Panel in the meeting:
Year of 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Course Year 1 15 (0DL) 26 (10DL) 40 (16DL) 50 (18DL) 53 (24DL)
2 DOCUMENTATION
The Panel received the following documentation:
• Agenda and programme of the meeting; • Course submission; • Guidelines for Evaluation Panels; • Curriculum Design at Ulster; • QAA Subject Benchmark statement: Town and Country Planning (2016) • RTPI Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education (2012); • Preliminary comments from panel members; and • Reports from central University departments on Library and IT resource matters.
3 MEETING WITH SENIOR MANAGEMENT TEAM
The Panel met with the Senior Management Team comprising: Dr Michaela Keenan, Associate Dean (Education) of the Faculty of Computing, Engineering and the Built Environment, Professor Neil Hewitt, Head of Belfast School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Dr Neale Blair, Associate Head of Belfast School of Architecture and the Built Environment, and Dr Linda McElduff, Chair of the Course Planning Committee.
3.1 Provision Context
The Panel expressed how impressed they were with this interesting and unique provision and with how it met real market needs, and asked how the provision sat within the Faculty and the School’s context.
The senior team discussed the structure of the Belfast School of Architecture and the Built Environment, explaining that although it was currently located on the Jordanstown campus it was expected to move to Belfast within one and a half years. The senior team described the student composition of the school, emphasising that around 90% of their over 1,300 students were undergraduate MaSN students. The senior team mentioned the School’s vast experience in running postgraduate programmes, many of which were fully online and 2 | Page
explained how distance learning was well established within the Faculty, which had extensive experience of delivering online programmes dating back many years. The senior team advised the Panel of numerous programmes which were being offered fully online and of the mechanisms for online delivery (such as the use of e-tutors, online work groups etc.) which have been well tried and tested.
The MSc Planning and City Resilience was described by the senior team as timely. The senior team had recently looked at offering provisions in the areas of planning, environmental health and energy storage as these sat well with staff expertise, employer’s demand and the University’s internationalisation agenda.
3.2 Projected Student Numbers
In response to the Panel’s query regarding student numbers, the senior team discussed the decision made by the School not to offer the distance learning mode in the first year of the programme due to marketing considerations.
A campus-based cohort will be taught in Jordanstown in the first instance, with expected recruitment of students from the United Kingdom and Ireland, and a modest number of one or two overseas students. The Panel noted that the student numbers presented by the course team were conservative and were expected to grow over the first five years of delivery. The senior team assured the Panel that due to that fact that many of the modules in the provision would be shared with other programmes, efficiency of delivery was assured.
The senior team reached the student number estimates using market intelligence provided by the University along with consultations with the Industrial Liaison Panel of the undergraduate provision, which specifically showed interest in the part-time and distance learning modes. Student numbers would also be supported by the provision’s uniqueness, with only one similar programme currently offered in the United Kingdom by the University of Kent.
Following a request for further clarification by the Panel, the senior team explained that they would only expect one or two overseas students to come to Northern Ireland in the first year of delivery, and that they would rely on Ulster University's marketing department to promote the provision internationally once it is approved, adding that the title had been revised to be attractive within the international space.
3.3 International Study Visit
The Panel asked for further information regarding the international study visit, which was part of the assessment of the International City Planning and Development Module. The senior team explained that although distance learning students would have the option of participation, they would not be required to join, assuring the Panel that the module contained an alternative piece of assessment to accommodate this. The Panel were assured that any additional cost incurred by students participating in the visit would be clearly advertised.
3 | Page
4 MEETING WITH COURSE TEAM
4.1 Student Experience
The team assured the Panel that the course was designed to ensure all cohorts would have an engaging and positive experience, with specific attention given to ensuring alignment of the experience of both the distance learning and the campus-based cohorts. The team provided the Panel with examples to illustrate how this synchronised experience would be achieved. The lecture content for both modes of delivery will be the same, both followed by discussions. While in the distance learning cohort, lectures will be followed up with online discussion using such technologies as live chats and discussion boards, the campus-based cohort’s discussions will take place pace-to-face. The team described their active student society, which provides a strong sense of identity and community within the University’s planning programmes. The campus-based students would be able to join the society which would allow them to meet regularly with other members as well as attend events and talks at their dedicated space, the Urban Planning Studio. Distance learning students will be invited to join the society and participate in planned events, which will also be recorded and made available online. The team will also provide the distance learning cohort, which will not normally have access to the Urban Planning Studio, with an online virtual studio, where notifications, posters and events will be shared.
4.2 International Study Visit
The team confirmed, in response to the Panel’s request for further information relating to the international study trip, that students would have to pay for their participation. The team explained that a similar international study visit was already successfully conducted as part of an existing UG programme, explaining that they have always been upfront with the students regarding additional personal cost, giving the example of this year’s study visit to the Netherlands. The team assured the Panel that typically, based on previous experience, the additional cost would not pose a barrier for participation provided that it was clearly advertised.
The team added that, in order to ensure the distance learning cohort would also benefit from the international study visit, live broadcasts such as Vlogs would be broadcasted. In addition, students’ experiences from the visits would be catalogued and made available, along with the discussion following the visit.
4.3 Course Design and Curriculum Design Principles
The Panel commended the team on their evident use of Ulster University’s Integrated Curriculum Design Framework and asked the team to expand on the design process. The team explained the design of the programme was informed by engagement with various stakeholders. Extensive consultations were conducted with existing undergraduate students on the MSci Planning, Regeneration and Development programme and with professional adviser units at the University such as ADDL and the Career Development Centre in addition to consultation with external stakeholders such as the Industrial Liaison Panel and the RTPI. They had also collaborated with the course team of the recently evaluated MSc Global Strategy in Environmental Health and Sustainability, which was also due to be offered from September 2020.
4 | Page
The Panel noted that all teaching staff were fellows of the HEA and were well versed in constructive alignment. The provision was designed to use appropriate teaching methods to position the students at the heart of the learning experience and provide them with an experimental explorative experience.
In relation to the provision’s modules, the Panel noted that in addition to the creation of new modules specifically for the provision, all of the pre-existing shared modules in the provision were reviewed and redesigned in preparation for the evaluation event. The team explained that this was especially beneficial as the undergraduate provision was due to go through revalidation in the next academic year.
4.4 Employability
The team explained the programme was designed as a conversion programme to provide a pathway into a career in planning. The programme would benefit undergraduates of Ulster University and other UK or Irish institutions who would be looking to step onto a professional pathway as well as employers looking to upskill their staff. The team assured the panel they had specifically focused on embedding employability throughout the programme, working closely with the University’s Career Development team.
4.5 Programme Title
The team was asked to explain their rationale for the proposed retitling of the programme to ‘Planning and City Resilience’. The team advised that they had discussed various titles before reaching an agreement. The team had consulted with various stakeholders throughout the process, including academics, practitioners and the RTPI, adding that the use of ‘planning’ in the title was guided by the plan to seek accreditation from the RTPI.
The team described how the use of ‘resilience’ in relation to planning had grown since its introduction in the mid-2000s, now appearing in both UK and worldwide policies relating to planning. The team further explained that the use of ‘resilience’ in the title would enhance the potential for partnership and collaboration with national and international networks, such as with the 100 Resilient Cities Network.
The team were of the opinion that the terminology sat well with the international market. Intelligence received from the University’s Global Engagement department indicated that the use of resilience would be understood by international prospective students, explaining that although there were currently very few similar courses being offered with the word ‘resilience’ in the title, many courses on offer did include modules with ‘resilience’ in their titles.
In response to the Panel’s query, the team acknowledged that although the title was contemporary, such terminology does tend to change over time and agreed to keep the title under close review.
4.6 Revised Healthy Communities Module
The team were commended on revising the Level 6 Healthy Communities module to a Level 7 module and were asked to clarify how the group work element within this module would be assessed. The team described the module as having two pieces of assessment. The first would require the students to work as a group to produce a research-informed evidence- based strategy focusing on either age friendly cities or child friendly cities. In the second, 5 | Page
students would produce an individual presentation to apply this strategy to a particular site. The team explained the groups would meet on a weekly basis to work on their projects. To ensure synchronised experience of both cohorts, the team had collaborated with ADDL to maximise the distance learning cohort’s use of VLE for this purpose.
The Panel expressed concern relating to possible scheduling difficulties students might encounter when trying to plan group meetings outside of the official timetable. The team pointed out that students would use Blackboard Learn as well as alternative venues such as WhatsApp to facilitate conversation. The Panel suggested the team consider the practicalities of dedicating scheduled times for students to work together, and that they should consider seeking advice regarding the group work assessment from potential employers.
4.7 Research Methods and Project Module
The Panel queried how the team would guide dissertation choice in the Research Methods and Project Module. The team explained that students would have a dedicated study advisor which will advise on topic choices. Decisions will be made based on a combination of alignment with RTPI to ensure the topic would include planning, personal interests of the students and the research expertise of the staff.
4.8 Assessment and Feedback
The Panel expressed concern about the high risk of having only one item of assessment in two of the provision’s modules: Environmental Protection and Sustainable Technologies and Inclusive Engagement.
Environmental Protection and Sustainable Technologies Module The team assured the Panel that although it is presented as one item of assessment, the assessment for this module includes two parts which will be submitted separately. A formative and summative assessment of the first part will be provided to the students prior to the commencement of the second part.
Inclusive Engagement Module The team explained that this was a successful existing module, pointing out that this had not proven to be an issue in the past. The team added that from the second week of the semester the students would submit drafts and receive feedback on their work which assured that by the date of the final submission the written assignment would be of good standard.
The team were asked to clarify how they would ensure all students, including those who were not employed and had no links to a workplace, would have access to case studies. The team described pre-designed case studies for students who were not at work, explaining that, where possible, students would be linked to existing live projects or, where this would not be possible, students would be linked to realistic fictional ones. The Panel was of the view that this practice would not only greatly benefit the students but also the relevant organisations themselves.
6 | Page
5 CONCLUSIONS
The Panel commended the team on the following aspects evident from the evaluation:
• The coherent course team that have clearly worked together throughout the curriculum design process. • Very positive framing of the programme's design around the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and evidence of these mapped clearly to programme-level learning outcomes. • The design of a course that clearly resonates with an international agenda and a high- profile theme of resilient cities. The course sounds exciting, relevant and engaging. • Good evidence of engagement locally and more widely with policy and practice organisations on the theme of resilience.
The Panel agreed to recommend to the Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement Committee that the provision be approved for a period of one year (intake 2020/21), to align with the revalidation schedule for Unit 4A1 Planning, Property & Environment, subject to the conditions and recommendations of the Panel being addressed and a satisfactory response and a revised submission being forwarded to the Academic Office by 12 March 2020 for approval by the Chair of the Panel.
Conditions
i) That matters of detail and clarification as identified in the notes by Academic Office to the Panel are addressed.
Recommendations
i) That the course team work with the Associate Dean of Education to create module assessment rubrics for the first semester’s modules and share those with the Industrial Liaison Panel for feedback.
6 APPRECIATION
The Chair thanked the Panel members and, in particular, the external members, for their valuable contribution to the validation process.
Ref: AGu/panelreport/11/2/20
7 | Page