Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: EngD Systems Engineering: New Programme Proposals

Origin Unconfirmed Minutes of the Meetings of Curriculum Sub-Committee on 4 and 24 May 2006

4 May 2006

EngD Systems Engineering: New Programme Proposals

1. The Sub-Committee considered proposals from Electronic and Electrical Engineering for a new full-time programme with effect from October 2006. A tabled paper was received presenting the responses to some queries posed to the proposer. It was noted that the programme was being developed in conjunction with four other collaborating institutions. The Sub-Committee was concerned that two elements of the proposal, namely the intention for the MSc to be an exit award only rather than a dual award with the EngD and the submission of a thesis for the research element rather than publications, were at variance with the general regulations for the EngD as contained in para 17 of RHDR and the existing EngD programme in Civil & Building Engineering. These were matters that were the remit of Research Committee and the Sub-Committee therefore felt that it could not approve the proposals in their current form until such time as any agreement had been made to change the general regulations and the existing EngD programme as appropriate.

2. It was AGREED that revised paperwork should be provided to Research Committee on 18 May and to the Sub-Committee at a reconvened meeting on 24 May (with the unconfirmed minute of Research Committee’s discussion and a statement from Dr Brigette Vale that matters had been resolved) covering the following matters:

2.1 Until such time as the new generic MSc in Systems Engineering had been approved, the title of the MSc proposed as the exit award should be revised so that it was not the same as the existing but different MSc in Advanced Systems Engineering.

2.2 Clarification of how the general competences outlined in para 17.22 of RHDR would be met.

2.3 Clarification of whether all students would receive their EngD award from Loughborough, or just those registered here.

2.4 Clarification in the Programme Regulations that the Semester 1 & 2 modules would be undertaken in different years, and clarification of the years in which the specialist modules would be undertaken.

2.5 Clarification of what each group of students would be doing, where and in which study mode (eg block v semester).

Prior to this a meeting should be convened between representatives of Research Committee, Electronic & Electrical Engineering, Civil & Building Engineering and any other interested departments to discuss those matters raised in .1 above.

3. It was commented that it might in the future be sensible to remove from the regulations for the curriculum element of the EngD any text relating generally to the EngD which could be found in RHDR para 17. In addition to shortening the programme regulations this would help to ensure consistency between all EngD regulations and the general EngD regulations.

24 May 2006

EngD Systems Engineering: Revised New Programme Proposals

1. Further to minute 06/26 of the meeting of 4 May 2006, the Sub-Committee considered revised proposals together with the minute of Research Committee’s discussion on 18 May 2006. Research Committee had agreed that for EngD programmes commencing in October 2006 a taught qualification should only be made available to those eligible students who left the programme before successful completion of the research element, requiring revisions to para 17 of the Regulations for Higher Degrees by Research. Research Committee had also agreed that RHDR should be revised to accommodate a more flexible approach which would enable a research thesis to be submitted in lieu of publications. The Sub-Committee was informed that a meeting of interested parties held prior to the Research Committee meeting was advised that the proposed exit award for the EngD Systems Engineering programme would for the immediate future be the existing MSc in Advanced Engineering and subsequently an MSc in Systems Engineering when this was up and running. A response to the Sub-Committee’s earlier concerns was included in the papers, and whilst some matters were considered to have been satisfactorily addressed, there remained matters to be resolved.

2. The Sub-Committee felt that greater clarity was needed concerning the responsibilities relating to EngD awards. Although taught awards on the programme would become exit awards only, the normal scrutiny by the Sub-Committee would still be required to ensure the appropriateness of these awards. The research element of the EngD was clearly the responsibility of Research Committee. It was AGREED to recommend to Learning and Teaching Committee that the Sub-Committee should continue to receive proposals on the curriculum element of EngD proposals, and any like proposals with a research and curriculum element leading to a taught award, but that it should make its recommendations to Research Committee in addition to Learning and Teaching Committee, requiring a response from Research Committee before proposals were ultimately submitted to Senate.

3. Whilst understanding that the research element of the EngD was the remit of Research Committee, the Sub-Committee wished to offer the following comments to that Committee on some concerns regarding the current and proposed wording of RHDR which had implications for the proposal under consideration:

3.1 Students were currently permitted to submit technical reports in lieu of published papers where the research programme was subject to a confidentiality agreement. The Sub-Committee considered that confidentiality agreements were common and did not preclude publishing the work. The Sub-Committee would therefore advise revised wording of RHDR para 17.20 that would allow the submission of technical reports only where the nature of the work made the possibility of publication unlikely. It was unclear whether submission of a research thesis in lieu of published papers would also come into this category.

3.2 If submission by published papers, technical reports or research thesis were to be options, where would the decision about the route that students would follow be taken? It could be argued that on the basis of the likelihood of publication this decision should be taken within the first year of study rather than at the outset. It could also be argued that the decision should be taken on a student by student basis rather than a blanket programme basis and the students themselves should be involved in making that choice. It could be considered unfair to preclude a student from submitting by discourse and papers when this was permitted for EngD students elsewhere in the University.

3.3 There would need to be a formal mechanism for determining and recording decisions on the form that the research submission would take.

3.4 By changing the taught award to an exit award the nature of the EngD had changed, and a debate was needed as to whether the taught element should include more in terms of research capability.

4. In regard to the revised proposals submitted, the Sub-Committee expressed its discontent at the extent of revision that would be required to the proposals and the issues that needed to be resolved. If a recommendation was to be submitted to Learning and Teaching Committee on 8 June, which would be necessary to ensure an October 2006 start for the programme, the revisions would need to satisfy the AD(T) and the Chair of the Sub-Committee in advance of that meeting and would need to be received by the AD(T) by 31 May. The revisions were:

Programme Regulations

4.1 Para 2: reference to semester-long modules should be revised as this was misleading;

As paras 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 were options, ‘either/or’ should be inserted for clarity;

‘The EngD thesis’ in para 2.3 should refer instead to ‘the research embodied in the EngD discourse/thesis’.

4.2 There were several references to credit totals in the taught element, none of which could be achieved with module weightings as they stood. The range of credits should be amended to between 118 and 124 and a footnote should be included to the effect that eligibility for the MSc as an exit award for a student taking only 178 credits overall would be subject to a waiver of Regulation XXI, on the grounds that different credit weightings within the partner institutions were difficult to accommodate.

Programme Specification

4.3 The Programme Specification should be for the curriculum component of the EngD and titled accordingly. There should be one statement of explanation that the curriculum component was a pre-requisite to the research element of the EngD award.

4.4 Aims and ILOs required revision to ensure that they covered all aspects of the taught element as approved by EPSRC. If this then incorporated outcomes related to research capability/skills from the taught element, the resubmission would need to indicate in which core modules these outcomes were being delivered.

4.5 The Aims were weakly expressed and required strengthening. The fifth aim should be replaced with the aim of developing research capability and the ability to undertake research in association with an industrial partner.

4.6 Para 3: delete ‘appropriate’ for each item and instead include in the first sentence.

4.7 Paras 2 and 7 were insufficient and required expansion. The existing MSc in Advanced Systems Engineering might provide some guidance.

4.8 Para 6: Required revision regarding credit weighting and should not refer to submission of the research thesis.

4.9 It needed to be made clear in the Programme Specification that the MSc was available as an exit award and that the taught element of the EngD served as preparation for the research element.

Module Specifications

4.10 All module specifications required checking to ensure that the semester taught aligned with the proposed EngD regulations.

4.11 ELP061: The ILOs presented were aims and objectives and required revision.

4.12 ELP072: Coursework percentages required differentiating.

Assessment Matrix

4.13 This required full completion.

4.14 The title of the MSc award could either be unique or an existing title. If the latter, the contents of the existing MSc and the EngD curriculum component needed to be aligned, and in this case the MSc in Advanced Engineering would need to be modified accordingly.

4.15 In view of their inclusion in existing programmes, a statement was required that the proposed modules would be available at the intended times.

It was AGREED that the AD(T) would table a report at Learning and Teaching Committee on the position of the proposals at that time.

6. In regard to Minute 26.3 of the previous meeting, it was AGREED that the generic changes suggested to EngD programme regulations should await the proposed revisions to RHDR. It was questioned who should be responsible for ensuring that changes made to the programme regulations in due course were satisfactory and it was AGREED that in this instance the AD(T) would approve the changes.

7. It was AGREED that the proposal form for new programmes be revised to include the name of the proposed Programme Director in addition to the name of the person co-ordinating the proposal.

Author – Jennie Elliott

Date – May 2006