The background to this is:
• The benchmark for honours in MSOR is available here
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/default.asp
• The annex refers to MMath programmes, this is out to consultation until 21 Nov 2008
and is available here
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/review06.asp
For internal use
Pro forma for comments on draft revised subject benchmark statements
Respondents are invited to use this pro forma for submitting their comments on draft
revised versions of subject benchmark statements published in 2000. The revised
drafts can be found on QAA’s website at www.qaa.ac.uk/news/consultation/
Original versions of the subject benchmark statements can be found at
www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/
Please use a separate pro forma for each subject benchmark statement you wish to
comment on.
Please provide the following information:
Name of respondent:
Stella Dudzic responding on behalf of MEI
Home institution/organisation:
Mathematics in Education and Industry
Position/responsibilities:
Programme Leader (Curriculum)
Responsible for
• Development of new examination specifications in mathematics
• Support for existing examination specifications
• Contributing to national discussions about mathematics education
Address:
Stella Dudzic
MEI
Monckton House
White Horse Business Park
Trowbridge
Wiltshire
BA14 0XG
Email:
stella.dudzic@mei.org,uk
Please give the name of the draft revised benchmark statement upon which
you are commenting:
Mathematics, statistics and operational research (Annex: Programmes of MMath
type)
Q1 Overall, does the revised subject benchmark statement continue to fulfil its
original intention in defining the nature of the discipline and the academic standards
expected of an undergraduate in the subject area? If it does not, please describe the
changes you would see as necessary for the revised subject benchmark statement to
continue to fulfil its original intention.
Yes.
The annex builds on the 2007 main benchmark statement about MSOR honours
degrees in an appropriate way which shows clearly how the MMath programme is
related to and builds on the bachelor’s degree to provide progression within MSOR.
It is entirely appropriate for this subject area.
We welcome paragraph A8 in the annex, which points out that there are other routes
to master’s level in MSOR and paragraphs A10, A11 and A12 which cover
admissions to MMath and transfers between MMath and bachelor’s programmes.
Q2 Does the information in the introductory section(s) successfully describe the
nature of the discipline and its defining principles? If it does not, what additional
aspects might be included, excluded or elaborated? (for example, is there sufficient
indication given to the existence of additional reference points such as the
requirements of professional, statutory or regulatory bodies, or the existence of
European standards?)
Yes
This is covered in the main benchmark statement which seems to us to be very clear
and comprehensive in its coverage of the distinctive nature and scope of MSOR.
Q3 Does the section on subject knowledge and understanding continue to describe
successfully the core aspects of an undergraduate education in the subject area? Are
there any areas of knowledge that should be included to reflect newly-emerged areas
of teaching/research? Are there any areas that have become redundant? Please list
these as appropriate.
Yes
This is covered appropriately and clearly in the main benchmark statement.
Paragraph A15 in the annex is an excellent general statement of the knowledge and
understanding which can be expected of graduates from MMath programmes. It
takes account of the nature of MSOR and allows for newly-emerging areas of
research to be reflected in such programmes.
Q4 Does the section relating to subject-specific skills continue to cover adequately
the skills expected of an undergraduate in the subject area? If it does not, which
particular skills should be added or omitted?
Yes.
This is covered in the main benchmark statement and covers subject specific skills
which all MSOR graduates can be expected to have as well as highlighting skills
which are to be expected from particular branches of MSOR.
Q5 Is the coverage of generic skills expected to be acquired by a graduate in the
subject area adequate and appropriate? If it is not, which particular skills should be
added or omitted?
Yes.
This is covered in the main benchmark statement.
Q6 Does the section on teaching, learning and assessment continue to provide the
user with an appropriate indication of the types of teaching and assessment relevant
to an undergraduate education in the subject area? If it does not, how might this
section be improved in terms of the level of detail provided, and the types of teaching
and assessment defined?
Yes.
This is covered in the main benchmark statement. In addition to the section on
teaching learning and assessment, section 5 of the main benchmark statement
provides a clear and thoughtful overview of particular characteristics of assessment
in the MSOR area.
Q7 Does the standards section successfully articulate what is expected of a graduate
in the subject area in terms of a threshold level of attainment? If its does not, what
changes would you see as necessary?
This is covered appropriately and successfully in the main benchmark statement.
The annex covers standards for a “typical” level. This is entirely appropriate since it
is related to the typical level for a bachelor’s degree.
Q8 If the standards section includes attainment levels further to that of threshold
(typical/excellent), are these successfully articulated in the revised subject
benchmark statement? If they are not, what changes would you see as necessary?
Yes.
The “typical” standard in the annex is clearly stated and demonstrates an appropriate
level of progression from the “typical” standard in the main benchmark statement. It
is an accurate summary of what can be expected of graduates at this level.
Q9 Is the content and wording of any individual section sufficiently clear to the
reader? Are there any sections that would benefit from further revision to add to their
clarity/interpretation?
The wording is clear throughout the main statement and the annex.
Q10 How has the original subject benchmark statement been received and used by
the subject community based on your own experience in your home
institution/organisation?
MEI does not make use of the subject benchmark statement directly. However, as a
mathematics curriculum development organisation which works with universities as
well as being heavily involved in school curriculum development, we have an interest
in this area.
Q11 Were you aware prior to this consultation that the original subject benchmark
statement was under review? Have you been directly involved in the process of
review and revision?
No
Q12 Please use this space to add any further observations relating to the revised
subject benchmark statement that are not covered in the questions above.
Thank you for taking the time to comment on the draft revised subject
benchmark statement as part of the periodic review of all subject benchmark
statements published in 2000.
January 2007