PERIODIC
PROGRAMME REVIEW –
ELECTRONIC AND
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
1.
Title
of report: Periodic
Programme Review
2.
Date
of report: October 2004
3.
JACS
codes: H600, H601, H604, H605,
H611, H612, H613, H614, H624, H625, H641, H660, HG64, HGCK, HGQ4, HGP4, J910,
J911 (TBC)
together with all taught
postgraduate programmes
4.
Department: Electronic and Electrical
Engineering
5.
Objectives
of review:
All departments undertake a ‘periodic programme
review’ of this kind once every five years.
The review is conducted by an independent review panel and covers a
department’s complete portfolio of undergraduate and postgraduate
programmes. A self-evaluative
commentary forms the focus of discussions between the department and the review
panel, whose report and recommendations are intended to assure the University
of the quality of the department’s programmes and the standards being achieved
by its students. The review panel will
also report on the effectiveness of the department’s arrangements for managing
quality and standards in relation to learning and teaching.
6.
Conduct
of review:
The Panel comprised the Dean of
the Faculty (Chair), the Faculty Associate Dean (Teaching), two senior
academics from other departments, the Head of Academic Practice and Quality
within Professional Development, an External Assessor from outside the
University, and a Secretary.
The Panel met members of
Departmental staff and a representative group of undergraduate
and postgraduate students, and recent graduates; these included
students from all years, one who had completed the placement year, and
international students.
The Panel did not conduct a formal
tour of Departmental resources, but saw one teaching laboratory and one seminar
room while holding its meetings, and received staff comments on learning
resources.
The draft report was circulated to all Panel
members and their comments incorporated in the final version.
7.
Evidence
base:
Documentation provided to the
Panel more than one week in advance was very useful and provided a good basis
for discussion. Documents
included standard PPR proforma as required in the University’s Academic Quality
Procedures, ie:
Annual Programme Review forms for
2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004
External Examiners’ reports for
2000/01, 2001/02 and 2002/03
Staff-Student Committee minutes
for 2000/01, 2001/02 and 2002/03
Departmental commentary (self
evaluation)
Programme specification for each
programme under review
Learning, Teaching and Assessment
Strategy
Statement
on the effectiveness of the Department’s personal tutoring system over the
last five years
Statement
on the effectiveness of the Department’s handling of student feedback
over the last five years
Information on the Department’s
approach to producing PPR documentation
Future portfolio developments: outline of the Department’s plans
8.
External
peer contributors to process:
The University’s Academic Quality Procedures
require that the Review Panel include an External Assessor who is not a recent
nor serving external examiner for the department. The External Assessor for this Panel was currently head of an
engineering research educational service,
an Emeritus Professor and a
part-time Research Professor at two other universities, who had not been
an external examiner at Loughborough.
Along with other Panel members, the External Assessor reviewed the
documentation provided, took a full part in all discussions, and contributed to
the report.
9.
Overview
of the main characteristics of the programmes covered by the review
- The
Department had a number of notable strengths, including a strong
industrial input into both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, and
research-led teaching which was especially notable in Parts C and D of
undergraduate programmes and in postgraduate programmes. Graduates confirmed that the value of
their degree was enhanced by the industrial connections, including the
placement year and supplementary teaching by industrialists.
- The
Department had done well to stay abreast in an area of rapidly-changing,
expensive technology and subject matter.
Its efforts to maintain undergraduate numbers in a highly
competitive environment had been rewarded.
- The
Department had shown initiative in developing Distance Learning (DL)
versions of its postgraduate programmes.
- MEng
students benefited from the opportunity to be taught together with MSc
students.
- The
Department showed appropriate caution about over-reliance on the currently
buoyant international postgraduate market, and was seeking to increase the
proportion of postgraduate students taught by DL.
10.
Conclusions
on innovation and good practice
- The
Panel commended recent changes in both curricula and in teaching, learning
and assessment policy, notably:
(a) discontinuation of Semester 1 examinations in Part A, currently
being extended to Part B; (b)
University piloting of 15-credit modules in undergraduate programmes; (c) introduction of ‘virtual labs’ to
support learning experiences in traditional laboratories, (d) increased
integration of undergraduate programmes including greater commonality of
Part A curricula, which enabled easier transfer of students between
programmes.
- The
Department had successfully managed a change in entry requirements which
enabled the admission of a small number of undergraduates without
Mathematics A-Level. This involved
staff working closely with the Mathematics Learning Support Centre (MLSC)
to provide both pre- and in-sessional support for students, and to a
closer integration of Mathematics teaching with subject specialist
teaching in Part A. Data showed
that these students progressed well.
- With
support from the University’s Engineering Education Centre (EEC), the
Department had developed a range of DL materials, initially for the MSc
Renewable Energy Systems Technology programme, and latterly for the
Digital Communications Systems suite of postgraduate programmes. Students currently studying these
programmes on-campus appreciated that the DL materials were also made
available to them to support their learning. This expertise in DL development provided a strong
foundation on which the Department could build in future.
- The
development of the BEng Systems Engineering programme, based on the
highly-regarded MEng programme, enabled a wider group of students to
pursue this popular subject by either a three or four-year route.
- The
Panel found the Department’s preparation and support for undergraduates
considering taking the placement year, which included early input from the
Careers Service, to be a model of good practice. Students confirmed the helpfulness of this preparation.
- The
Department’s intention to encourage MEng students to take the placement
year after Part C rather than Part B should benefit students, employers
and the University.
- Students
confirmed that they were satisfied with their contact time.
11.
Conclusions
on quality and standards
- The
Panel noted that all undergraduate programmes were accredited by
appropriate professional bodies, and that the Department’s placement
students and graduates were held in high esteem by industry.
- Recruitment, progression and
achievement data were monitored through Annual Programme Review
meetings with the Associate Dean (Teaching) for the Faculty.
- External
examiners’ reports were positive, and demonstrated that students achieved
the intended learning outcomes for their programmes.
- The
Department’s good relationship with the University Careers Service (which
itself had for many years been highly regarded by employers, and been
highly placed in league tables of university careers services) was
evident, inter alia, in preparation of students for the placement
year.
12.
Conclusions
on whether the programmes remain current and valid in the light of developing
knowledge in the discipline, practice in its application, and developments in
teaching and learning.
- Evidence
that programmes remained current and valid included: development of new programmes at both
undergraduate and postgraduate levels, the development of distance
learning materials, the placement year, professional accreditation, input
from the Industrial Liaison Committee, and high graduate employment.
- Staff
were clearly open to change;
evidence for this included their response to the recruitment of and
adaptation to teaching students without A-Level Mathematics, and the
introduction of ‘virtual labs’ to accompany traditional hands-on practice,
which widened students’ experiences.
- Students
benefited from the high quality of staff research and scholarship (the
Department received the excellent rating of 5 in the most recent
government Research Assessment Exercise) that informed teaching,
especially in Parts C and D of undergraduate programmes, and all
postgraduate curricula.
- The
currency and validity of the Department’s programmes was clear in student
recruitment: some students had
carefully researched a number of HEIs before selecting Loughborough,
partly on the basis of its reputation;
it was also evidenced by high rates of graduate employment.
- Forward-looking
recommendations for actions to remedy any identified
shortcomings,
and for further enhancement of quality and standards.
- The
Panel expressed concern about the transparency of some documentation:
-
Programme specifications needed to make clearer the intended
learning outcomes (ILOs), to distinguish more clearly the differences between
MEng and BEng programmes, and to reflect in the Aims the fact that not all
graduates became chartered engineers but followed a number of careers.
-
ILOs should be mapped more clearly to benchmark statements
and UK SPECS, to demonstrate they were being delivered and assessed, and to
ensure there were no unnecessary modules.
-
The Learning and Teaching Strategy should identify the range
of assessment.
-
Decisions made in meetings of key staff, outside of formal
Teaching and Learning Committee meetings, should be recorded to provide an
audit trail.
- The
Panel appreciated that the Department’s formal responses to External
Examiners’ reports were not required as a discrete item in the
documentation supplied, but their omission meant there was limited
evidence to show that issues raised had been dealt with, and the quality
assurance loop closed. The Panel
encourages the Department to ensure that all External Examiners receive
timely responses to their reports, including interim responses if this
meant avoiding delays caused by waiting to report that issues had been
dealt with. It also recommends
that the responses be required in future PPR documentation.
- The
Panel endorsed the students’ suggestion that they be provided with a
coursework schedule, in line with good practice in other departments.
- These
recommendations will be followed up in the next Annual Programme Review.
14.
Further
observations and recommendations
(for internal use only, this
section will not be published in the TQI summary)
- Students confirmed that they were
able to consult a range of staff regarding personal and academic problems,
and were content that they knew who to approach with any
difficulties. However, the Panel
had some concerns about the Department’s tutoring policy:
-
While it appreciated
the rationale for a short delay in allocating personal tutors to Part A
students, the Panel wondered if, during this time, this put too much pressure
on a small number of key staff, perhaps especially the Teaching and Learning
Co-ordinator, and whether some students were disadvantaged by not having a
personal tutor in their first three weeks.
-
Not all students
realised that, in addition to their being able to consult project
supervisor(s), they retained their personal tutor from Part A throughout their
programme.
-
Members had some
reservations about use of the Departmental Administrator as an alternative
source of personal tutoring.
-
Recent increases in
the number of taught postgraduate students meant that programme tutors could no
longer act as personal tutor to all.
The
Department is therefore encouraged to clarify to students its tutoring
arrangements, and to revisit its policy to see whether students might be better
served by a clearer definition of roles.
It is also encouraged to ensure its induction for taught postgraduates
meets the needs of mature students returning to HE.
- Although
there was strong evidence of industrial input in the Department, the
minutes of the Industrial Liaison Committee were insufficiently clear to
demonstrate a direct link into curricula development.
·
The Department is encouraged to consider responding to
student suggestions that it: (a)
extends its excellent preparation of students for the placement year into Part
A, and (b) collates placement offers made through the Department and via the Careers
Service into an electronic bulletin.
·
The Department is encouraged to investigate the
possibility of providing more hands-on practice, separate from assessment, and
to ensure that students receive sufficient support in laboratories.
·
The Department is encouraged to ensue that coursework
is returned on time, with sufficient feedback, and, where appropriate, the
overall grade broken down into components.
- These
recommendations will be followed up in the next Annual Programme Review.
mk
November 2004