Learning and Teaching Committee

Summary report of Subject Advisers’ Visit to BUE April 2009

from Dr David Twigg, AD(T) BUE

1. This report is a summary of the subject level visit to BUE on the 5th and 6th April 2009. The main purpose of the visit was to review semester 1 work but the opportunity was taken to meet staff, meet students and tour BUE facilities. Full reports and module review forms for each of the subject areas are available as separate documents and a summary of the review forms is given as BUEVSC09-P4b.

2. LU visiting staff were: Dr John Calvert, Business Administration SA; Dr Jon Seaton, Economics SA; Dr Maurice Fitzgerald, Political Science SA; Dr Philip Lawson, Informatics and Computer Science SA; Mohamed Osmani, Architectural Engineering SA; Dr Peter Robins, Civil Engineering SA; Dr Rob Edwards. Electrical and Communications Engineering SA; Dr Peter Willmot, Mechanical Engineering SA; Dr Gilbert Shama, Petroleum Engineering and Gas Technology SA; Dr David Twigg, Associate Dean (Teaching) for BUE; Chris Dunbobbin, Assistant Registrar.

External Examiners for programmes with students graduating in 2009 were also visiting BUE for the first time: Prof Abby Ghobadian, Business Administration; Prof Philip Arestis, Economics; Prof Richard Whitman, Political Science; Prof Frans Coenen, Informatics and Computer Science.

3. The effort required in collecting and structuring all the material for reviewing by SAs and EEs was greatly appreciated, as was the location of material in separate faculty rooms. However, considerable variability of information provided in the module files/boxes was noted. Requests for further information, such as missing data, missing files or explanations, were generally speedily answered but some requested information never materialised.

4. Although the individual reports and feedback sessions that took place during the visit highlight many positive developments that have taken place since the previous visit in March 2008, there was an overwhelming sense of frustration that little action has been taken on previous recommendations and that the same issues are resurfacing whenever assessed work is reviewed or discussions take place with students. This is undoubtedly due in part to staffing problems but there is also a need for strong leadership at university level with regard to learning and teaching as faculties and departments are being allowed to develop without any overall strategy or corporate standards.

Meetings with students

5. All the SAs (apart from the one for ICS, whose visit was delayed by 2 days) and the EEs met with groups of relevant students. There were fewer students at these meetings than on previous occasions, despite three cohorts for each programme, but it was generally agreed that all the students present were very articulate, that they were generally very enthusiastic and supportive of their programmes and full-time staff, and that they appreciated the improvements to the programmes and learning resources such as e-learning, the labs and the library that had taken place.

6. However they did voice many concerns, all of which are detailed in the individual subject reports. Common themes occurring, particularly in the BEPS Faculty, were reliance on part-time staff, lack of UK staff, impact of low admissions standards on the quality of provision, repetition of taught material, the burden of assessment, variable feedback, variable marking standards, restricted option choices, lack of careers guidance, limited library resources for later stages of the programmes and variable dissertation supervision.

Meetings with BUE programme staff

7. All the SAs and EEs met with groups of relevant staff and all the meetings with the exception of that for Petroleum Engineering appeared to be very positive. Common concerns were the full-time staff workload levels, problems with the use of part-time staff, entry standards and failure rates, lack of research time, an understanding of the British system and a need for more regular interaction with LU staff. There were specific problems with Petroleum Engineering staff who do not appear committed to a British style of education.

Library visits

8. SAs noted the improvements that had taken place since the previous visits in April 2008 and appreciated that the library resource problem is being taken seriously by BUE with the continuing appointment of a UK Library Adviser, the commitment to new resources and the commitment to a new library building. However there are concerns that the limited resources are affecting students in their final year of study and specifically with regard to the impact on their dissertations.

Laboratory visits

9. The engineering subject SAs, with the exception of Petroleum Engineering, were impressed with the many improvements that had taken place since the previous year. The Petroleum Engineering lab has some equipment delivered but not commissioned, students are still working in large groups and use is made of commercial labs where students see demonstrations but gain no hands-on experience.

Module reviews

10. Full details of the module reviews [were presented to the BUE Validation Sub-Committee on 13 May 2009 as appendices to this report]. These highlight many positive aspects of the modules and the work presented but there are some common issues/concerns, all of which are repeated from the previous year’s report; a lack of clarity in some coursework briefs, variable feedback to students, summary data needed for the student feedback forms, samples supplied for review not always representative, averages and standard deviations needed on the CW and exam results, a standard template needed for exam papers, a need for marking schemes, not just model answers and a need to take account of SA and EE comments on draft exam papers.

11. The summary of individual module reviews shows satisfaction (Y) or dissatisfaction/uncertainty (N or ?) with certain criteria. Brief comments are provided for non-satisfactory items.

Summary

12. The visiting team noted the developments that have taken place over the past 12 months and encourages BUE to continue to enhance its programme provision. The team appreciated the module information that was provided for review and welcomed the opportunity to tour facilities and meet with staff and students.

13. It is important that programme teams develop action plans to respond to the many detailed comments and issues that are covered in the individual programme reports but some of the issues are common across many programmes and need to be addressed at institutional level.

14. General issues that need to be fully addressed before the re-validation visit in 2010 are:

· reliance on part-time staff

· quality of student intake

· exam paper review comments from EEs and SAs not being acted upon

· modules not delivered and/or assessed according to module specifications (especially ICS Faculty)

· allocation, supervision and assessment of final year dissertations

· marking standards

· repetition of material in different levels

· over-assessment in some modules

· variability of feedback to students

· evidence of acting on previous recommendations

· variability of information provided in module files/boxes (especially ICS Faculty)

Recommendations

15. A very critical report has been received for the Petroleum Engineering and Gas Technology programme. It is obvious from this and the APR report in 2007, the non-submission of semester 2 work for review in 2008 and the totally unacceptable APR submission in 2008 that the management and delivery of the programme are not of the required standard for the award of Loughborough degrees.

It is proposed that the validation of the programme be suspended with immediate effect, and that validation should not be reconsidered until at least the institutional re-validation visit in 2010, following close monitoring of programme developments.

16. It is suggested that the subject visit in 2010 should be at least three days duration, to allow sufficient time for the assessment of output standards and discussions with staff, students and graduates, and that it should take place at least four weeks before the institutional level review visit to enable subject reports to be fed into the process.

Attached documents [circulated to BUE VSC but not included for LTC]

Summary of module review forms

Summary reports for:

Business Administration

Economics

Political Science

Informatics and Computer Science

Architectural Engineering

Civil Engineering

Electrical and Communications Engineering

Mechanical Engineering

Petroleum Engineering and Gas Technology

Author - D.R. Twigg

Date - May 2009