Learning and Teaching Committee

 

Subject:     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.  

 

13. 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

 

 

Response to the Periodic Programme Review Panel Report for The Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering

Background

The Periodic Programme Review (PPR) for Electronic and Electrical Engineering was conducted on October 21^st 2004 after having been postponed from earlier in the year because of the QAA Institution Audit in March. The formal report on the exercise was received by the Department on November 25^th 2004. This document constitutes the Department’s formal response. The report and this response were discussed at a Departmental staff meeting on January 19^th 2005.

General Observations

The Department welcomes the positive overview and conclusions, in particular those on innovation and good practice, and would like to formally record that some of the more recent and unusual developments could not have been made without considerable support in the Engineering Faculty and at University level. In particular, the move towards year-long modules, the removal of first semester examinations and the introduction of 15-credit undergraduate modules have attracted considerable discussion.

Since the PPR was completed the Department has undergone an accreditation visit, on November 24^th and 25^th 2004, with a panel of some twelve assessors assembled from the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the Royal Aeronautical Society, the Institute of Measurement and Control and the Energy Institute. The visit was very successful, with the panel recommending that all of the Department’s undergraduate programmes be accredited by the relevant institutions for five years. The rigour of the PPR process, completed only a few weeks before the visit, undoubtedly helped to make the visit a success.

Specific Observations

The report includes in Section 13 some recommendations for action and in Section 14 some further observations and recommendations. Each of the points raised is repeated below with the Department’s response.

Section 13:

13.1  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.

The Department accepted this comment as valid and will make changes for 2005.

13.2  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.

A mapping was constructed prior to the Accreditation visit in November 2004. The assessors seemed content with what they saw, however, this will be developed more fully in future.

The Department is a little concerned that the possibility of unnecessary modules had even been considered by the Panel since it had been Departmental policy for several years that module redundancy and duplication would be rigorously avoided.

13.3  The Learning and Teaching Strategy should identify the range of assessment.

The next review of the Learning and Teaching Strategy will include more details of assessment and assessment strategy.

13.4  Decisions made in meetings of key staff, outside of formal Teaching and Learning Committee meetings, should be recorded to provide an audit trail.

The Department is considering a range of options that will allow key staff to keep commonly accessible records of extra-committee decision making without interfering with the dynamism of the current management approach.

13.5  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 Department will accept that its formal response to External Examiners reports has not been as timely as it could have been, however, informal communication with External Examiners has always been good and the relevant staff will be encouraged to develop the formal process more fully.

13.6  The Panel endorsed the students’ suggestion that they be provided with a coursework schedule, in line with good practice in other departments.

A complete list of coursework requirements for all current modules has been and is available to students in printed and electronic form via the Intranet. Students are told of this, however, it is evident that it has not been advertised well enough. The Department allows, and in some cases encourages, flexibility in coursework requirements within the confines of the module specifications, consequently, the coursework lists need updating quite often. In future the paper versions of the list will be withdrawn and the electronic version updated regularly; the facility to make updates automatic will be investigated. In addition, the availability of the list will be advertised more widely.

Section 14:

14.1  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.

The Department arrived at the current system of tutor allocation after several years of attempting to allocate tutors on day one. Because personal tutors are involved in the supervision and assessment of group coursework exercises it is highly desirable that group membership is stable before any tutor allocation is decided; the disruption and confusion caused by reassigning students to form viable groups must be avoided. However, the Department is considering a more formal pastoral support structure for use in the first few weeks.

14.2  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.

Students are told this when they first arrive and it is in the student handbook. However, the wording in the handbook will be modified to make it clearer.

14.3  Members had some reservations about use of the Departmental Administrator as an alternative source of personal tutoring.

Since the Department has no female academic staff (located in the Sir David Davies building) it is difficult to see an acceptable alternative for pastoral support for female students. In addition, it is well known that many men find it easier to talk to a woman about personal problems. The Department is fortunate to a have an Administrator who is popular with students and, perhaps more importantly, seen as approachable. It is seen as entirely appropriate that the Administrator should have a role in pastoral student support.

14.4  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.

The Department is considering introducing a better defined personal tutoring system for taught postgraduates. In addition a review of the induction procedures will be considered.

14.5  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 Industrial Liaison Committee is a forum for formal reporting and general discussion on required graduate competences rather than a vehicle for detailed influence on the curriculum. The curriculum is influenced significantly by the programme and subject area groups that have relevant industrial membership.

14.6  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 Industrial Tutor is considering these suggestions.

14.7  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.

A staff-student ratio of about 15:1 is typical in supervised laboratory sessions although this can be exceeded in large groups. In smaller groups the ratio can be as low as 2:1. The majority of laboratories are open for student use outside normal supervised periods and in some cases students are given personal copies of software used in laboratory exercises. It is not seen as productive to run formal laboratory exercises divorced from assessment; where this has been tried in the past student take up has been minimal.

14.8  The Department is encouraged to ensure that coursework is returned on time, with sufficient feedback, and, where appropriate, the overall grade broken down into components.

The Department encourages its staff to provide, where possible, rapid and informative feedback and to this end more use is being made of electronic submission and assessment and “real time” laboratory and coursework assessment, either electronically or using viva-voce exercises. However, it should be recognised that many students have inordinate expectations of when feedback can be delivered, whilst others seem to have little interest in it. Student criticism is often particularly evident with laboratory work where exercises cannot be assessed until a whole module cohort has completed them (to minimise migration of experimental results and conclusions). With some modules it can take the majority of a semester to get a group through the laboratory.

Keith Gregory (Learning and Teaching Co-ordinator)

January 2005