AAR template version 3
UNIVERSITY QUALITY COMMITTEE
SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SQC VALIDATION PANEL 2006/07
ACADEMIC APPROVAL RECORD REFERENCE –
1357
CONFIRMED
Recommendation to University Quality Committee
The SCIT SQC Validation Panel was asked to Validate MSc Information Technology and is pleased to recommend to the University Quality Committee approval of the following proposal:
VALIDATION Pathway
Code
Pathway Title Final
Award Intermediate Awards Specialist /Joint Modes of delivery PS/INFT MSc Information Technology MSc PgCert
Information Technology
PgDip Information Technology
Specialist Full time, Part-time (day and evening) MODULES Semeste r New Module (9)
Module code Module Title Credits Core / Core option or elective Delivered by 1&2 CP4017 Systems Development and HCI 15 Core SCIT 1&2 CP4043 Research Methods 15 Core SCIT 1&2 SV/Year 9 CP4008 Postgraduate Information technology Project 60 Core SCIT
Core Option Modules Group A – Select minimum of 30 credits
1&2 CP4011 Database
Concepts & Techniques
15 Core Option SCIT
1&2 CP4012 Programming
Concepts & Techniques
15 Core Option SCIT
1&2 CP4013 Information
Systems Analysis & Design
15 Core Option SCIT
1&2 CP4014 Internet and
Communications Technology
15 Core Option SCIT
Core Option Modules Group B – Select minimum of 30 credits
2 CP4015 Methodologies
for Systems Development
15 Core Option SCIT
AAR template version 3
Page 2 of 14 Systems Quality
1 CP4020 Visualisation and
Image Processing
15 Core Option SCIT
2 CP4022 Research Topics
in Nets & Dist. Systems
15 Core Option SCIT
2 CP4023 Advanced
Databases
15 Core Option SCIT
2 CP4024 Multimedia
Technology
15 Core Option SCIT
2 CP4039
Object-Orientated Programming in .NET
15 Core Option SCIT
2 CP4040 Internet and
WWW Based Research Topics
15 Core Option SCIT
1&2 CP4041 Advanced Topics
in Computer Science
15 Core Option SCIT
1 CP4044 Programming for
Systems & Networks
15 Core Option SCIT
1&2 CP4046 Operating
Systems & Architecture
15 Core Option SCIT
1 CP4049 Programming for
Games and Animation
15 Core Option SCIT
2 CP4050 Games Design
and Development
15 Core Option SCIT
In support of these recommendations, the Validating Panel provides appendices of supporting evidence including records of meetings, external and other reports and an action checklist
The Validating Panel is aware that the University Quality Committee reserves the right to review all decisions made by the Standing Panel, to ratify approvals and to follow up on any issues identified in the AAR as the Committee sees fit.
DATE OF THE NEXT REVIEW
The next review of MSc Information Technology is scheduled to take place by the end of the 2007-2008 academic year.
Summary of process:
Date Activity See appendix
May 2007 Validation devolved to SCIT SQC by Standing Panel
18/04/07 Considered by Minor Modifications Sub Committee 1 – Extract from Minutes of Meeting
16/05/07 Discussed at full SCIT SQC 2 – Extract from Minutes of Meeting
08/06/07 External Advisor report received 3 – External Advisor Report
19/06/07 Comments received from Dr. Phillips of the Graduate School 4 – Comments from Dr. Phillips
AAR template version 3
representative
28/06/07 SQC Validation Panel Actions for Closure of recommendations 6 – Action Checklist
Academic Approval Record
Summary of findingsThe SQC Validation Panel fully supported the proposal and recommended an approval period of one year subject to the re-submission of particular sections of the submission documentation and Course Guide. Appendix 1, Minutes of the Meeting 18/04/07 and Appendix 5, Minutes of the Meeting 28/06/07, outlines the relevant discussions that took place. Appendix 6, Action Checklist, gives details of how and when the actions were closed.
The SQC Validation Panel identified the following strengths through its discussions:
• The MSc Information Technology Pathway would satisfy the demand for a more general computing Masters course and would appeal to students that want flexibility in the choice of topics that they study. • There would be no resource implications for the School as the course entirely used the existing
portfolio of taught modules.
The External Advisor, Dr. Richard Cooper, supported the proposal but expressed the following reservation: • “As someone who has taught on such a course for many years, the downturn in numbers attracted to
such courses since 2001 has been dramatic. This is despite the fact that the industry is crying out for graduates. It would not, however, be sensible to be overly optimistic on the numbers in the early years of the programme”.
The validation of the MSc Information Technology pathway was intended as an interim measure and would be subject to review and revalidation along with all other SCIT Postgraduate provision in 2007/08.
Good Practice / Enhancement Non Identified
Issues that have institutional implications for consideration by the University None
Action checklist for ongoing monitoring throughout the lifetime of the pathway(s)
Responsibility Action Date Action to be closed by
Proposal Team & SQEC
A review of the educational aims currently included in the Course Guide to be undertaken when revalidating the Postgraduate provision during 2007/08
During 2007/08 SCIT SQEC
Date the draft AAR was approved for submission to the AAR Sub Group for ratification by the Standing / Validation Panel Chair.
AAR template version 3
Page 4 of 14 VALIDATING PANEL RECORD
Details of Panel and Participants
Chair: Prof. Robert Moreton Officer: Ms. J. Stanton Panel members designated to Validate the provision:
Validation panel Presenting team
Prof. R. Moreton (Chair) Dr. M. Garvey Ms. A. Ashdown (SCIT)
Dr. A. Latham (SCIT) Mr. J. Singh (SCIT)
Dr. R. Sutton (external School representative) Independent Internal Adviser for Validation:
Name: Dr. Raul Sutton Position: External School representative (SAS) Dr. J. Phillips Graduate School (by correspondence) Independent External Adviser for the Review / Revalidation / Validation:
Appendix 1
Extract from the Minutes of the Minor Sub Committee Minutes held on Wednesday 18th April 2007 at 10.00 a.m in MI307, City Campus.
MSC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
The MSc Information Technology was a new Pathway that had been devolved to SQC for validation from the Standing Panel.
Dr. Garvey reported to the committee that the rationale for the introduction of the new Pathway was to offer a more general MSc computing course where students can have more choice in the topics studied. The current specialist awards require students to study a fairly technical set of core modules. However, the introduction of a general computing course would allow students to study non-technical modules that were nevertheless intellectually challenging. No new modules were to be validated for this award, as it was proposed that it would draw upon the existing portfolio of modules.
The pathway would comprise of two taught core modules, CP4017 Systems development and HCI and CP4043 Research Methods. The module CP4025 60 credit Postgraduate Computing Project would need to be revalidated for use on this award. The remaining core option and elective modules would be selected by negotiation with the module leader.
Noted Ms. Barclay asked Dr. Garvey to clarify when it was proposed that the new award would be introduced. Dr. Garvey reported that there was currently one student who could retrospectively be registered to this new award and potentially five further students who had expressed an interest. Therefore validation was sought for 2006/07.
Noted Dr. Sutton reported that the proposal revealed no evidence of external marketing and that it appeared to rely on existing students requirements for postgraduate study. He recommended that a marketing exercise be undertaken to determine if there was actual demand for this award. Dr. Sutton asked dr. Garvey if it was possible for current students to study these general modules on another award and achieve a different title. Dr. Garvey reported that it was not possible, all of the specialist awards included technical core modules.
Action Ms. Ashdown to forward new Submission Document to the QASD Officer, Mrs. J. Stanton.
Action Dr. Garvey to nominate an External Advisor and forward their CV to the QASD Officer, Mrs. J. Stanton.
Action Ms. Barclay to advise Ms. Ashdown on the validation status of module CP4025 postgraduate computing project.
Agreed The validation of this new award was inappropriate for this committee and that the revised documentation should be submitted for consideration to the next full meeting of SQC on 16th May 2007. Introduction would be for 2007/08 and not 2006/07 as initially requested.
Page 6 of 14
Appendix 2 Extract from the minutes of the School of Computing and Information Technology School Quality Committee held on Wednesday 16th May 2007 in MC232, City Campus.
1129 Review and Validation Activity
The committee were to consider for approval the proposed MSc Information Technology pathway. However, Ms. Ashdown advised the committee that although they would look at the papers, it was planned to consider the proposal via correspondence before arranging a dedicated validation event.
1129.3
Noted Ms. Ashdown advised that the rationale for the introduction of the proposed MSc Information Technology pathway was to offer a more general MSc computing course where students would have greater choice in the topics studied. The current specialist awards require students to study a fairly technical set of core modules, but the proposed pathway would include non-technical core modules. The pathway would draw upon the existing portfolio of taught modules, with the exception of a new 60 credit project module, that was to be validated. The introduction of this pathway was intended as an interim measure only, because all of the postgraduate provision would be undergoing review and revalidation in 2007/08.
Agreed The date for the validation event would be set after the key proposer, Dr. Garvey, returned to School.
Action Ms. Ashdown to forward the revised version of the submission document to Mrs.. J. Stanton.
Action Mrs. Stanton to forward the contract and validation documents to the External Adviser for consideration.
Appendix 3 External Advisor Report.
Proforma for External Adviser comments
for the validation of an MSc Information Technology
in the School of Computing and Information Technology
1
Relationship between the programme title and curriculum content
The curriculum content includes a full set of modules consistent with a degree called MSc Information Technology.
2
Appropriateness of programme aims and outcomes
The programme not only includes a wide range of modules each presenting a useful aspect of information technology theory and practice, but the programme also focuses on group working, presentation skills and other aspects of working practice which are essential for the IT industry. Any student performing well on this programme would be eagerly sought by an industry increasingly desperate in its search for able employees.
3
Programme design, content and organisation
The programme seems to have been designed with a good set of modules well balanced between the semesters and leading as gently as is possible from basic material to masters level modules in a very short time.
4
Appropriateness of assessment
In all of the modules specifications the module content seems to match well with the intended learning outcomes and the assessment methods seem appropriate for the difficulty of the material and the level of ability of the likely students.
One issue that I cannot see identified concerns reassessment and retaking modules. Is there any limit to the number of resubmissions and is there any capping of grades of resubmitted or retaken modules? This should be clearly spelled out in the course documentation.
5
Learning and teaching methods
The modules all seem to be being taught by the traditional mix of lecture, tutorial and lab work which has long been held to be most effective for a practical subject such as this.
6 LEARNING RESOURCES / SPECIALIST RESOURCES
I can't find any details on lab provision, but the reference to on-line learning environments encourages me to believe that the students will be situated in a healthy learning environment.
7
Comments relating to the Modules
I do not intend to comment in depth on each module, but merely note that every module seems relevant and useful to current IT practice and that the material taught in each module seems appropriate to present needs. This is, however, an area in which continuous evolution of the set of modules provides and the material presented in each module is absolutely vital.
8 Staff
CVs
I haven't been able to find any staff CVs, but a quick look at the departmental web site and personal knowledge of the reputation of some of the staff convince me that the staffing of the course is more than adequate to produce a good learning experience.
Page 8 of 14
9
Any other comments
This seems like a well designed and organised programme, making relatively little extra burden on the department and is likely to attract a number of students.
I have only two reservations. Firstly, as someone who has taught on such a course for many years, the downturn in numbers attracted to such courses since 2001 has been dramatic. This is despite the fact that the industry is crying out for graduates. Hopefully this message will get through to potential applicants in the near future. It would not, however, be sensible to be overly optimistic on the numbers in the early years of the programme.
Secondly, it has become common (and has recently been adopted practice in my own university) to have a level of award, usually called "MSc with merit", placed between a plain passing masters and a distinction. This award would be for students performing at the B level and is valuable in distinguishing those who barely get through the course from those who have performed very well. I imagine this might require a university wide change of practice, but was adopted in Glasgow on a piecemeal basis at first.
10 Recommendations
I think that this is a well thought out and coherent programme of study which should attract students and provide a valuable education to those who attend it.
Finally, I would like to apologise for the delay in getting this report to you which was due to a combination of examining pressure and personal bereavement.
Appendix 4
THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON GRADUATE SCHOOL
COMMENTS ON VALIDATION DOCUMENTATION – MSC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
1. This appears to be a repackaging of existing modules into a professional programme rather than one with a technical focus. However, I feel that the presentational emphasis is wrong – this is for validation as a postgraduate award but it gives the impression of a less demanding programme. A better approach may be to align the course to employment opportunities in IT (management) rather than Computer Science.
2. I note the inclusion of research methods, plus the dissertation and one other module as core. There is a strong case for more core modules to define the programme as a specialist postgraduate award. Are all the modules listed currently viable as stand alone modules?
3. A more satisfactory structure might be a defined PGCert (with core modules), a PGDip with a choice of core options, then the 60 credit dissertation as core for the MSc.
4. Are any of the level 4 modules taught in common with undergraduate modules? If so has the school taken account of the agreed UQC position (2007) on “common teaching” at level 3 and level 4?
5. From the PST, section 10: given the non-technical focus are the listed employment opportunities all realistic?
6. PST, section 11: there are generic level 4 QAA descriptors that should be used to inform programme design, level descriptors and outcomes.
7. PST, section 13: the very limited programme outcomes reflect the limited range of core modules
8. PST, section 13: In the research project/dissertation module, what is the purpose of the viva and how is this standardised to ensure equity?
9. PST, section 17: there is a need to revisit the level 4 assessment criteria and the appropriateness of these. The criteria for the Distinction (A) grade appear to be quite modest – more aligned to the threshold expectations for a programme at M level.
10. In the Pathway/Course Guide, there is a need to check all modules. Where D5 is given as the pass grade this should be altered to align with the postgraduate 6 point scale.
11. Pathway/Course Guide, page 4: the educational aims are weak (read more like undergraduate aims).
12. Pathway/Course Guide, pages 15,16,19: Delete all reference to undergraduate programmes + needs mention of postgraduate regulations.
13. Pathway/Course Guide, page 21: assessment criteria in this guide do not match those in the PST. Course Guide version appears more robust, but appear to have been derived from those in use in UWBS (please delete reference to business and management).
14. Pathway/Course Guide, page 24: there is reference to ethical guidelines, but omits to say where these can be found.
15. Pathway/Course Guide, page 26: is the statement on “discipline” intended for staff or students?
J.D.Phillips Graduate School June 2007.
Page 10 of 14
Appendix 5 SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL QUALITY COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 28th June 2007 at 11.00 a.m. in room MC322, City Campus to consider the validation of MSc Information Technology.
PRESE NT:
Deputies
Prof. R. Moreton. (Chair) 9
Ms. A. Ashdown 9
Ms. A. Barclay, Registry X
Dr. R. Cooper, External Advisor C Ms. R. Hampton, School Administrator A Dr. M. Garvey, Key Proposer 9
Dr. A. Latham 9
Dr. J. Phillips, Graduate School C
Mr. J. Singh 9
Mrs. J. Stanton, QASD Officer 9 Dr. R. Sutton, External School Representative 9
KEY 9 = Present A = Apologies X = Absent C = Correspondence
Background
The School currently offers a range of specialist awards catering for those students that wish to specialise in specific technical computing areas, but now seeks to add a more general computing Masters course to their existing portfolio. This proposal results from student enquiries received by the School, demonstrating a demand for a general computing Masters course. It is anticipated that this Pathway will attract students from a variety of backgrounds, including:
• Students that have completed an undergraduate Computer Science course and wish to study topics that were not offered at undergraduate level.
• Students who have completed a joint degree course and wish to study further computing subjects to compliment their previous study.
• Overseas students that wish to further their study in a particular computing area.
The MSc Information Technology pathway was devolved to SQC for validation from the Standing Panel. The Minor Modifications Sub Committee first considered it on 18th April 2007, where it was agreed that it should be re-submitted to a full meeting of SQC on 16th May 2007, due to some documentation being unavailable. However, although it was discussed at SQC it could not be formally considered as documents were still outstanding and the Key Proposer was not present. The minutes of these two prior meetings can be viewed on the QASD web site at http://asp.wlv.ac.uk/Level6.asp?UserType=6&Level6=3332.
The introduction of this pathway is intended as an interim measure only, because all of the SCIT postgraduate awards will be undergoing review and revalidation in 2007/08.
Introduction
Dr. Garvey reported that the rationale for the introduction of the proposed MSc Information Technology pathway was to offer a more general MSc computing course where students would have greater choice in the topics studied. The current specialist awards require students to study a fairly technical set of core modules, but the proposed pathway would include non-technical core modules. The pathway would draw upon the existing portfolio of taught modules, with the exception of a new 60 credit project module, that was to be validated for this award. The proposed MSc Information Technology Pathway would appeal to students who want more flexibility in the choice of topics that they study, but still equip them with the skills to successfully enter the I.T. industry.
Dr. Phillips queried that given the non-technical focus of the course whether the job opportunities detailed in the PST, section 10, were realistic. He suggested that a better approach would be to align the course to employment opportunities in I.T. (Management) rather than Computer Science. The panel responded that they were confidant that the employment opportunities they had identified were achievable and were of the opinion that it was difficult for an advisor unconnected with the industry, to fully comprehend the scope of computer science. Entry Requirements
A lower second-class honours degree would be required for direct entry on to the Pathway. However, students with a lower degree would be admitted onto the Postgraduate Certificate programme. Successful completion of which, may allow a student progression to the Master’s programme.
Curriculum Design
The Pathway would use the School’s existing provision of taught modules, with the exception of a new 60-credit postgraduate project module that was to be validated for this award. The current portfolio of level four modules were wide ranging and reflected not only the research interests of staff, but also maintained currency with the rapid changes in the IT industry. The structure of the Pathway would be as follows:
• Postgraduate Certificate in Information Technology (60 credits)
30 credits of core option modules from group A and remaining credits from core option modules in Group B.
• Postgraduate Diploma in Information Technology (120 Credits)
Minimum of 30 credits of core option modules from group A: minimum of 30 credits of core option modules from group B, plus CP4017 Systems Development and HCI and CP4043 Research Methods. • MSc Information Technology (180 credits)
Minimum of 30 credits of core option modules from group A: minimum of 30 credits of core option modules from group B, plus
CP4017 Systems Development and HCI CP4043 Research Methods
CP4008 Information Technology Project (60 credits)
The core option modules would be selected by negotiation with the module leader.
Dr. Phillips commented that there was a strong case for more core modules to be included to define the programme as a specialist postgraduate award. He suggested that a more satisfactory structure might be a defined PgCert (with core modules), a PgDip with a choice of core options and then the 60 credit dissertation being designated as core for the MSc. The proposing team advised that the flexibility of the proposed study structure was to allow students to focus on particular areas of interest and reported that all of the modules listed were viable as stand alone modules.
The External Advisor, Dr. Cooper, noted ‘The programme seems to have been designed with a good set of modules, well balanced between the semesters and leading as gently as possible from basis material to Masters level in a very short time’.
Assessment
The External Advisor noted ‘In all of the module specifications the module content seems to match well with the intended learning outcomes and the assessment methods seem appropriate for the difficulty of the material and the level of ability of the likely students’. Dr. Phillips questioned the purpose of the Viva as an assessment task in the project module. The panel advised that this was included in all SCIT Masters projects and was considered appropriate as it utilised the expertise of a professor.
Learning and Teaching
The External Advisor noted ‘The modules all seem to be taught by he traditional mix of lecture, tutorial and lab work which has long been held to be the most effective for practical subjects such as this’.
Page 12 of 14
Ms. Garvey reported that teaching and learning practices within the level four modules allow students to develop both practical and research skills, with staff facilitating independent learning through a variety of case studies, exercises and seminar sessions.
Dr. Phillips had asked for clarification on whether any of the level four modules were taught in common with undergraduate modules. Prof. Moreton reported that the School was not involved in teaching modules across consecutive levels simultaneously.
Learning Resources
Dr. Garvey advised that there were no resource implications for the School as the course entirely used existing taught modules. However, extra tutorial/workshop groups may be required if the Pathway proves successful. Research and Staff Development
The External Advisor reported that he was unable to locate any staff CVs, but he had viewed the School web site. This together with his personal knowledge of the reputation of some staff was sufficient to satisfy him that the course was ‘more than adequate to produce a good learning experience’.
Dr. Garvey reported that the Pathway would use the current portfolio of modules that were underpinned by the research activities of the staff.
Student Support and Guidance
It was reported that no additional support or guidance mechanisms were required for the Pathway other than those currently in use within the School.
The panel considered the appropriateness of the Pathway Guide submitted with the validation documents. It was recommended that a contents list be included in the guide. Furthermore, there were also a substantial number of amendments identified that required updating.
Quality Management and Enhancement
It was reported that monitoring would be undertaken within the scope of the existing School Annual Monitoring process.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The External Advisor supported the proposal and reported ‘that this is a well thought out coherent programme of study which should attract students and provide a valuable education to those who attend it’. However, he expressed two reservations based on his own personal experience and these were:
• Not to be overly optimistic on the number of students recruited in the early years of the programme as the downturn in numbers attracted to such courses since 2001 had been dramatic.
• To consider introducing a level of award, usually called an MSc with merit, to distinguish those students who pass with distinction rather than a bare pass at Masters level.
The validation panel fully supported the proposal and recommended an approval period of one year subject to the re-submission of revised documentation. The MSc Information Technology Pathway would be subject to review and revalidation along with other Postgraduate provision in 2007/08.
SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL QUALITY COMMITTEE VALIDATION PANEL
Meeting held on 28th June 2007 to consider the Validation of MSc Information Technology
Outcomes
The SQC Validation Panel fully supported the proposal and recommended an approval period of one year subject to the re-submission of revised documentation. The Pathway would be subject to review and revalidation along with other Postgraduate provision in 2007/08.
Recommendations
The SQC Validation Panel outlined the following recommendations that were required for immediate implementation/amendment:
• The Submission Document to be updated to show both intermediate awards, PgCert Information Technology and PgDip Information Technology. All reference to the course entirely using existing modules is to be changed to reflect that the 60 credit project module is new.
• Update the Module Specification Template for the MSc Information Technology Project to show the designated module code, CP4008. The Pathway Specification Template should also be updated to reflect this information.
• Module Specification Form for CP4008 Shows minimum pass grade for assessment tasks as D5. This should be amended to align with the postgraduate 6 point scale.
• Pathway Specification Template, Section 11: confirmation required that Level 4 QAA Qualification Descriptors have been used and reference to Undergraduate Qualification Descriptors is removed. • Assessment criteria detailed in the Pathway Specification Template do not match those shown in the
Pathway Guide. Section 17 of the PST to be updated to reflect the detailed assessment criteria shown in the Pathway Guide.
• The Course Guide is to be redrafted taking in to account all of the changes identified by the panel during the meeting and with the addition of a contents list.
Deadline: Prior to 20th July 2007. Amended copies to be forwarded to the SQC Officer. Future Consideration
• A review of educational aims included in the Course Guide to be undertaken when re-validating postgraduate provision during 2007/08.
• The addition of Module Leaders names to be included in the Module Guide
Professor R. Moreton SQC Validation Panel Chair 28th June 2007
Mrs J. Stanton SQC Validation Panel Officer 28th June 2007
Page 14 of 14
Appendix 6 SQC Validation Panel Action Checklist
Responsibility Action Date Action to be closed
by: The following amendments were
identified as requiring immediate attention:
• Update the Module Specification Template for the MSc Information Technology Project to show the designated module code, CP4008. The Pathway Specification Template should also be updated to reflect this information.
• Module Specification Form for CP4008 Shows minimum pass grade for assessment tasks as D5. This should be amended to align with the postgraduate 6-point scale.
• Pathway Specification Template, Section 11: confirmation required that Level 4 QAA Qualification Descriptors have been used and reference to Undergraduate Qualification Descriptors is removed
• Assessment criteria detailed in the Pathway Specification Template do not match those shown in the Pathway Guide. Section 17 of the PST to be updated to reflect the detailed assessment criteria shown in the Pathway Guide
SCIT SQEC
Revised documentation received 19/07/07 Proposal Team
• The Course Guide is to be redrafted taking in to account all of the changes identified by the panel during the meeting and with the addition of a contents list Prior to recruitment in September 2007 Revised documentation received 03/10/07.
