Senate

Subject: Review of the Science and Engineering Foundation Studies Programme

Origin: Teaching and Learning Committee of 3 June 1999

The Committee considered the report of a review group chaired by the PVC(T).

The group had concluded that the Programme was satisfactorily meeting its aims and objectives and had recommended that it continue with a further review in three years' time (at the end of session 2001/02). It was RESOLVED to recommend accordingly to Senate

It was also RECOMMENDED that Dr Mustoe be invited to continue as Programme Director and that the Department of Mathematical Sciences be asked to continue to 'host' the programme.

A number of other recommendations were made to sharpen up administrative arrangements, concerning the appointment of the Programme Director, the Management Committee, the extension of the Programme to other subjects and possible franchising overseas. The Committee RESOLVED to endorse these recommendations and forward them to Senate for approval.

ANNEX

1. On 7 May 1999, the following group met to undertake a review of the Science and Engineering Foundation Studies (SEFS) Programme: Professor J P Feather (Chair), Dr D R Green, Dr R B Wilcockson, Mr D Blease, Mr R A Bowyer and Mr H E Jones, with Dr L R Mustoe, as Programme Director, in attendance. The Programme was last subject to University review in 1996.
2. The review group received the following documentation:

• Aims and Objectives of the Programme
• Current Programme Regulations
• 1996 Review Report
• Statistics and Commentary in Periodic Programme Review format
• Progression Statistics for 1991 and 1992 entry cohorts
• Annual Reports to the Faculties for 1997, 1998 and 1999
• Minutes of the last three Programme Management Committee meetings
• Minutes of the last three Staff/Student Committee meetings.

1. The group was able to explore issues with the Programme Director and discuss procedural matters, such as the admissions process and progression criteria, in some detail.

Student Recruitment and Progress

2. Admissions have been at around the same level for the past three years, with intakes of 107, 111, 99 in 1996, 97 and 98. Approximately one third of the admissions originate from direct applications, the remainder from transfer recommendations from candidates’ chosen departments and changed course offers. Approximately one half of the admissions come from changed course offers after the publication of A-level results. Admissions Tutors in the participating departments are consulted about direct applications before offers are made.
3. The departmental progression criteria which have evolved over time are considered appropriate and operate satisfactorily.
4. Students have no right of transfer to a department other than that named at the time of entry, but transfers of affiliation are permitted during the Foundation Year. The receiving department is the final arbiter. The student has to meet the appropriate progression requirements. Some transfers take place at the end of the year when students fail to reach the progression criteria requested for their first named department. It is suggested that the Management Committee should monitor any problems over the acceptance of such students into an alternative department whose progression requirements they have fulfilled.
5. A relatively high proportion of students fail to pass all the Foundation Year assessments at the first attempt. Many fail in Semester One assessments, indicating some difficulty perhaps in adjusting to University in the first instance, as well as improvement during Semester Two. Many fail only marginally and in one module only. The end failure rate (i.e. June/July plus SAP) is just over 10%. The group considers this figure very creditable and a matter for commendation.
6. A significant number of concessionary offers are made to students who narrowly fail to meet their department’s specified criteria for progression from the Foundation Programme. The Management Committee is advised to monitor this situation carefully.
7. Statistics showing the eventual degree outcomes of SEFS entry are considered satisfactory. For example, 67% of the 1992 entry cohort gained 2.2 degrees and above. The Management Committee is advised to monitor the progress of SEFS students beyond the Foundation Year on a regular and systematic basis.
8. In terms of student numbers, the Programme is considered to be essentially self-regulating. The balance currently achieved between ex-SEFS students and direct entrants is broadly satisfactory to the participating departments, at least in Engineering. In Science, the importance of the programme as a source of recruitment is lower.

Discussion of other aspects of the Programme, including recommendations made in the 1996 review

9. Dr Mustoe has continued as Programme Director and administrative responsibility has remained with the Department of Mathematical Sciences. The group feels there is a need for a mechanism to appoint a successor to the current Programme Director when required and to assure the department from whence the Director comes that it will be appropriately recompensed for the loss of this resource. It is the group’s understanding that Mathematical Sciences receives the 10% load credit for assuming administrative responsibility for the programme and that this alone serves to recompense the Department for the Director’s time. (The Director estimates that he spends about one day per week on duties associated with the programme.) The group feels this arrangement is adequate, provided that the Director’s contribution is recognised by the Department in the allocation of workload, and it is recommended that it should continue in the event of a change in the Directorship and host department. It is recommended that the appointment of a new Director, when the need arises, should be by the Deans of the two Faculties concerned, by whatever mechanism they consider appropriate.
10. The integration of SEFS students into the participating departments is not seen as a problem. It has not been raised as an issue of concern by the current students themselves. The students’ early affiliation with a named department is reinforced through the appointment of a Personal Tutor, and this is a feature welcomed by the students.
11. The programme has received good support from the Mathematics and Physics Learning Support Centres. A Learning and Communication Skills module has been introduced. There are good links with Flexible Learning and some web-based materials are being used.
12. The possibility of appointing an External Programme Assessor for the programme has been explored, but no appointment has been made. One difficulty is that the range of subject material requires the participation of more than one individual. The appointment of an External Examiner has not been raised in any TQA/ESR which has touched upon the Foundation Programme, nor by accrediting bodies insofar as they have considered the Programme. The group considers the Foundation Year akin to Part A where External Examiners are not required to be involved: it does not lead to a free-standing award. The issue might need to be revisited in the context of SARTOR as that develops.
13. The Programme Review material shows action being taken in response to particular positive and negative feedback. The group has urged that students be informed of the action being taken in response to feedback, but it is recognised this is not always possible before the students move on to their various degree programmes at the end of the year.
14. The group thought it helpful that a meeting of the Management Committee had been opened to representatives of all the participating departments, to review the operation of the programme. The constitution of the Management Committee comprises, with the Director as Chair, representatives from Chemistry and Physics, as key contributors to the curriculum, plus two Engineers. It is recommended that in order to reinforce Faculty ownership of the Programme the Management Committee members should in future be nominated by the respective Deans.
15. A few students transfer from the Foundation Programme into ‘non-participating’ departments. It is recommended that departments which wish to take students from the Foundation Programme should devise and publish progression requirements, and that if they are serious about taking students from this route, they should consider contributing additional optional modules to the Programme.
16. The group believes there is scope for actively pursuing the possibility of franchising all or some part of the programme to suitable institutions overseas and recommends that the Student Recruitment and Admissions Team be invited to explore this. (This was also suggested in the 1996 review report but it has not come to fruition.)
17. The Director has been advised to open discussions with the Director of Flexible Learning to secure delivery of the Learning and Communication Skills module for 1999/2000.

Conclusions

18. The Programme is meeting satisfactorily its aims and objectives and it is recommended that it continue, with a further review in three years’ time (at the end of 2001/02). Dr Mustoe should be invited to continue as Programme Director and the Department of Mathematical Sciences asked to continue to ‘host’ the Programme.
19. Approval is also sought for specific recommendations set out earlier in the report concerning:

• Programme Director (§11)

• Management Committee (§16)

• Extending to other subjects (§17)
• Franchising overseas (§18)