Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: Report of a Validation Panel on Proposals from RAF College Cranwell for the Revalidation of an MSc Programme in Aerosystems Engineering

Origin: David Wolfe, Secretary to Validation Panel

Background

1. The MSc in Aerosystems Engineering at RAF College Cranwell was originally validated by the University in 1981. The most recent Revalidation was approved by Senate in June 1997 for the period 1 September 1997 – 31 August 2002. A further extension until May 2003 was agreed by correspondence between the immediate past Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) and the Director of the College.

Process

2. A Revalidation Panel was established by Learning and Teaching Committee in accordance with the University’s standard validation procedures.

The membership of the Panel was as follows:-

Professor Morag Bell, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) – Chair

John Dickens, Associate Dean (Teaching), Engineering

Dr Peter Render, Member of Senate

Dr Jane Horner, Member of Curriculum Sub-Committee (in lieu of a member of Learning and Teaching Committee)

David Wolfe, Assistant Registrar (in lieu of PDQ Team Manager)

Dr Sarah Dunnett of the Department of Systems Engineering was nominated by the AD(T) to provide subject specialist advice to the Panel.

3. The Panel received advance documentation from the RAF College Cranwell comprising an overview, programme and module specifications, student and staff information, facilities and support arrangements, an overview of quality systems, and student feedback.

A copy of the Submission is filed with the Secretary to the Faculty of Engineering, and is available to members of LTC and Senate on request.

4. The panel visited RAF College Cranwell on 16 June 2004. Discussions took place with the following personnel:

Wing Commander David Griffiths

Mr Lew Paterson

Mr Nigel Reese

Mr Chris Carpenter Lecturers on the Programme

Flt.Lt. Richard Sidney

Flt.Lt. Mark Barker

The Panel also met the current cohort of ten students.

5. The Panel’s recommendations and observations were conveyed informally to Wing Commander Griffiths and Mr Paterson at the end of the visit.

Summary of Discussions

6. The course, known within the RAF as Advanced System Engineering but by Loughborough University as Aerosystems Engineering, was the RAF’s senior and most academically demanding engineering programme. Entrants to the programme were usually graduates from engineering disciplines. There were normally up to ten places per annum, taken up as part of their professional development by RAF personnel, and by officers from the American, Canadian and Australian air forces. There was no equivalent course in any of the partner countries. Students on the programme were normally expected to remain within the Air Force for at least three years after completion.

7. One other programme at the College was accredited by the University of Lincoln as contributing towards a BSc in Engineering Management.

8. The programme comprised 180 modular credit units divided into Parts I, II and III. In order to pass the programme candidates had to achieve a pass mark in at least 150 credits, and a minimum level of performance in the other 30 credits. There were 36 hours contact per week. Whilst staff teaching the programme felt that the small cohort meant that lectures were in practice tutorials, the view from the student body was that, except for Project work, most of the contact time was spent in being lectured at. A Distance Learning Mathematics package was available prior to the commencement of the programme, but was not mandatory. Students who had taken the package spoke highly of it.

9. There was no doubt that the student effort required in the programme was greater than for other MSc programmes, and that the overall contact time and coursework requirements were likely to restrict the time available to students for autonomous learning. To some extent this reflected the key role of the programme as an in-service training programme or APET (Advanced Pre-employment Training). The output standard for the programme was the input standard for the students’ next posting. The Panel respected these aims, but identified a number of issues to be addressed in order to satisfy University requirements as outlined below.

Recommendations

10. Recommendations to the College:

· A review of assessment methods, to include coursework requirements in module specifications, particularly where substantial effort was required in Project work (TTP100 and TTP107) which carried little weighting towards the overall assessment

· Clarification in module specifications of coursework requirements

· Consider using an industrial supervisor to co-assess industry based projects

· Formal reference in the Programme Specifications to the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ)

· The conduct of a critical review of programme content, with a view to addressing overload, and to ensuring that the workload within individual modules was consistent with their credit weighting

· The introduction of formal feedback on coursework

· The clarification and consolidation of reassessment rights

· The specification of indicators of quality (vide page 8 of the Revalidation Submission)

· A review of the practice whereby immediate post graduates of the programme undertook teaching duties

11. Recommendations to the University:

· Formal inclusion of the programme in the Department of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering’s Annual and Periodic Programme Reviews, with immediate effect

· Review of the validation fee, in particular to consider whether there should be a distinction in the per capita fee between home and international students.

12. Summary Proposals

· That the University’s validation of the Programme be renewed for the period 1 June 2003 – 31 July 2008 with no prior conditions.

· That a formal Memorandum of Understanding, and a Financial Agreement, be signed between the two Institutions.