Learning and Teaching Committee
Curriculum Sub-Committee
CSC06-M3
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Sub-Committee held on Wednesday 24 May 2006
Membership: Professor
Simon Austin (Chair), Professor Morag
Dr Anne Goulding (ab, maternity leave), Dr Jane Horner, Mr Phil Sawdon
By invitation: Dr Paul Byrne, Professor John Dickens, Dr Martin Harrison, Mr Ian Murray
In attendance: Dr Jennie Elliott
Apologies for absence were received from Becky Dicks
06/42 EngD Systems Engineering: Revised New Programme Proposals
CSC06-P47
42.1 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.
42.2 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.
42.3
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:
42.3.1 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.
42.3.2 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.
42.3.3 There would need to be a formal mechanism for determining and
recording decisions on the form that the research submission would take.
42.3.4 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.
ACTION: Research Committee
42.4 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
42.4.1
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’.
42.4.2 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
42.4.3 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.
42.4.4 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.
42.4.5 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.
42.4.6
42.4.7 Paras 2 and 7 were insufficient and required expansion. The existing
MSc in Advanced systems Engineering might provide some guidance.
42.4.8
42.4.9 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
42.4.10 All module specifications
required checking to ensure that the semester taught aligned with the proposed
EngD regulations.
42.4.11 ELP061: The ILOs presented were aims
and objectives and required revision.
42.4.12 ELP072: Coursework percentages required
differentiating.
Assessment Matrix
42.4.13 This required full completion.
42.4.14 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.
42.4.15 In view of their inclusion
in existing programmes, a statement was required that the proposed modules
would be available at the intended times.
ACTION: JEME, JGD, SAA
42.5
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.
ACTION: JGD
42.6 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.
ACTION: JGD
42.7 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.
ACTION: JEME
06/43 Date of Next Meeting
Thursday 19 October 2006
Author: Jennie Elliott
Date: May 2006
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved.