UCL QUALITY REVIEW FRAMEWORK - ANNEX 6.1.3:
ASER EVALUATIVE REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT & ENHANCEMENT PLAN
Academic
Session:
Department:
Faculty:
2014-15
Mechanical Engineering
Engineering
EVALUATIVE REPORT
Overview
Academic year (AY) 2014-15 was a double first for the Department of Mechanical Engineering. The first year of the IEP and also the first year for the “with
business finance” programmes (wBF) being supported by Management Science and Innovation Department (MS&I) in UCL. The old programme was in
conjunction with the London School of Economics. The Department had its Internal Quality Review in March 2015 as part of this exercise a new teaching
and learning strategy document was created for the Department. The IQR panel raised no serious items of concern nor points that the Department was not
already aware of. The Department was last accredited in June 2012 and this accreditation is valid up to and including the intake for AY 16-17. To ensure
continuous accreditation an EAB visit is planned for Oct/Nov 2016.
Year 1
Thanks to significant hard work by many members of the Department the first year of the IEP was a success. There were the inevitable teething problems
but nothing major. The first year is being refined for its second iteration. There is still plenty of room for improvement but the priory activity has been
preparation of the second year of IEP and Minors.
Our new Teaching Fellows have been well received by the students with good feedback. Congratulations go to Dr Tim Baker for winning the Provost
teaching award this year. We have as made extensive use of PGTA – all of whom have received training. One concern is that we may not have enough
PGTA within the Dept of necessary standing and willingness to cover all our requirements across all years of IEP. Creating the role of PGTA Coordinator
was suggested (separating out this aspect of the role of Graduate Tutor) to help with this.
The switch to the new “with business finance” programmes has been very smooth. Two points are of note. Because of the structure of the outgoing
programme we had a one-off extra teaching load. Year 2 business finance students take a pair of first year modules. We therefore had to teach the full IEP
first year range of modules and two of the old first year modules. There was also some dissatisfaction amongst some of the new intake who were under the
impression that they would be taking lectures at LSE. We had been very careful to remove all reference to LSE from our literature for Sept 2014 intake.
For the decommissioned modules the Moodle pages still had to be maintained and exam papers still had to be set and marked for those students who had
failed and opted to re-sit the exam. While this is only a handful of students in any module, it is a not insignificant extra load.
1
Year 2
Academic year 2014-15 was the last year of running for most second-year modules as next AY (2015-16) they will be replaced by a new Integrated
Engineering programme (IEP) with one module (maths) shared across the Engineering Faculty and one optional module in T2 forming the first part of a
“minor”. This has provided an excellent opportunity to review and refresh the material during 2014-15. Thus each module coordinator was able to review
their module and adapt as necessary to fit into the revised 2nd year programme paying particular attention to design of coursework (CW) and how their
module integrated with the 4 one week scenarios.
The organisation, timing and manner in which laboratory classes were conducted was a major cause for concern as the space available was totally
inadequate and due to class sizes it could take as much of 8 weeks to cycle a whole cohort through on lab. Two consequences of this were that the lecture
and labs were not tightly connected and timely feedback was difficult to provide in a way that is fair to all students. Next year with the IEP the concept of a
lab week will be introduced. In lab week students have no lectures only lab classes. A student would have 3 or 4 labs in lab week. Lab week will replace
reading week which has never been recognised in this Department.
The roll out of the IEP will be an issue for students on the “old” programmes who fail to progress to the third year. The use of referrals will be helpful here.
As with 1st year students who were in a similar situation this year it will be treated on a case by case basis. An acceptable solution was found for all
students who failed 1st year.
Year 3
Standard modules were run effectively with similar issues mentioned elsewhere. In particular, the efficiency of feedback to students has been targeted,
through streamlining assessments and adjusting the timetables of deadlines. 3rd year individual projects involve a large effort from our teaching staff, but the
organisation has been efficient this year. AY 15-16 is the last time that the third year modules will run and they will all be replaced by new modules as the
IEP rolls out. The individual project is the exception to this and apart from re-branding will have no major change.
Year 4
As the majority of the 4th year modules are common with the MSc students it makes more sense to deal with these in the PGT report. However two points of
note are worthy of mention here.
Students are increasingly becoming involved in competitions and our Formula Student team is improving each year. How we as a Dept . mange students
and student competitions needs to be reviewed and formalised as it is rather ad hoc at present. See also external examiners’ comments. As part of the
Departmental teaching and leaning strategy we want to grow this and build them into our Minors and generally integrate a few key competitions into the
curriculum across earlier years as well as 4th year.
2
The 4th year modules are shared with MSc students which sometimes results in large class sizes (120-150) and diverse backgrounds, which is a challenge
for teaching. There is a mismatch in a priori knowledge between our 4th year students and the incoming MSc students. The result is that the first few
lectures in the 4th year are levelling material aimed at the MSc intake which our 4th year students find frustrating. We have attempted to address this by
producing a set of revision notes (a starter pack) for our incoming MSc students. The group projects have been successful but we are developing the
methods of assessment to ensure they remain fair and transparent across a diverse set of project remits, and we are looking into industrial input in the
project specifications.
External examiners
The external examiners would prefer an exam board which was not anonymous, but they understand the requirement. The External examiners have made
very positive comments regarding the content and structure of the course, and the appropriateness of the exams. To quote one,
“…the examiners and administrators have carried out an excellent job of maintaining quality and consistency. I believe that the UG programme
in UCL is competitive and very high in quality.”
Both examiners noted that the exam papers have generally been of a very high standard and appropriate for the level being examined, but with worked
solutions to all papers and that we implement a more rigorous internal scrutiny of examination papers before they are sent to the external examiners.
They suggested that the coordinator of group projects to obtain industrial supervision from willing engineers within industries keeping academic staff within
the department as the main supervisors of the group projects.
Last year the external examiners suggested an all-staff preliminary exam board to identify any issues spanning across programmes, this was implemented
successfully this year.
Learning & resources
The Department has one of the highest student-to-staff ratios in UCL, as a consequence we tend to focus on the core activity of programme delivery to the
detriment of activities such as programme development, QA etc. Preparation for IEP and IQR put an extra load on staff in AY 2014/15. The Department
has recruited new staff including three Teaching Fellows (part time) to help address the student-to-staff ratio. We are designing the new modules for the IEP
to reduce staff load while improving the student experience.
The two areas of concern for resources are lecture rooms (size and quality) and lack of space for laboratory classes. Lecture quality is variable,
some of it is high quality whilst some less than good. Where poor teaching has been identified this has been dealt with and is generally associated with new
lecturers usually PDRAs who may be intellectually able but lack maturity and knowledge compared to previous years this problem is declining due to
compulsory training for all PDRA. Feedback is good for experienced staff. Unfortunately there are also a few isolated instances of senior staff appearing to
be disinterested in teaching and undergraduates. This is being addressed by HoD.
3
Feedback
In the NSS survey, our lowest marks are for timeliness & effectiveness of feedback and over the last 3-4 years we have been tackling this issue with highest
priority. We are making slow but steady progress. A designated coursework coordinator (academic staff) has undertaken a review of all assessments and
made changes to rationalise the timing of deadlines. We have publicised the UCL policy on return of feedback within 2 weeks (or 4 weeks for very large
classes) and agreed to that as a Department. An administrative assistant has updated and maintains the record of deadlines for all modules on their Moodle
page and uses that timetable to send reminder emails to staff when feedback is due. Where necessary the HoD will chase overdue items. We still hear
some instances of feedback being late or absent, e.g. in our Staff-Student Committee and the HoD has clearly asked students to bring examples of this to
him so that he can take action. The majority of staff engage in this process but there are still a few who are effective “black holes”. A complete review of our
marking and feedback processes are planned for AY15-16.
The use of lecture cast is another repeated request from UG students. There is significant resistance to its use by many members of the Department and
supportive, gentler nudge approach need to be used. Two members of staff agreed to trial lecture cast in AY 14-15 but unfortunately one of them was
allocated a lecture theatre that did not have the facilities. The other will present his experiences at the next Dept meeting and act as a lecture cast
champion with the aim of encouraging other members of staff to take it up.
A third common feedback theme is the desire for more tutorial sessions. With the current student-to staff ratio – the least favourable in UCL - this is a
challenge, and we are making efforts to make more effective use of Postgraduate Teaching Assistants in this regard as a recognized contribution to the
teaching team. The role and (limits of) responsibility have been formally defined and publicised and we introduced a full day training session which is now
compulsory for PGTAs to ensure standards of awareness of policy and practice.
Estates
The students’ most frequent comments are regarding the estates & facilities, including locations and suitability of lecture theatres. Sometimes these are
easily fixed (e.g. poor audio facilities in a lecture theatre), but there is a significant issue of space which is becoming more pressing as student numbers rise.
As many of our classes are over 120 (intake in 2014 was 147 +10 affiliates) there are very few lecture theatres in UCL that are large enough. We have
procured new laboratory equipment which is portable and can be temporarily installed and removed to allow the space to be used for several purposes
through the academic year. The facilities in Birkbeck come in for the most criticism from students and staff.
Staff
We use some external teaching staff in parts of modules and often this is very effective but this does raise issues of the staff not being available and
occasional differences in style and awareness of regulations. We are seeking to reduce our use of external lecturers by recruiting more permanent
4
academic staff and teaching fellows.
The professional services office are now in single site bringing the team together physically for more efficient operation and a clearer hub for staff and
students to approach. This includes a new reception desk which is a focus for students, staff and visitors. This has been a significant impact as student
now have a clear end effective first point of contact.
Peer observation of teaching
In AY 13-14 we had a very poor take up and a major effort was made to improve this for AY14-15. Two actions to improve this were for support staff
to monitor and remind staff about peer observation. The other was to create a list of experienced staff to act as observers – this proved successful and
was identified as an item of best practice in our IQR visit. However while 25 peer observations were recorded (up from 3 the year before) as
completed 18 staff involved in teaching did not have a peer observation of teaching.
Degree classification.
We are very satisfied with the distribution of final awards for the UG programmes, at first sight the BEng results might look poor but this is because the
majority of the stronger students are on the MEng programmes, this pattern is seen nationally for pre 1992 universities offering UK Mechanical
Engineering at BEng. A significant proportion of our better BEng students apply for our MSc programmes. Overall we have a higher percentage of 1st
class awards than the UCL average and a lower percentage of 2A class awards than the UCL average . Looking at just the MEng programmes our
award distribution is slightly higher than the national average (2012 data) for Mechanical Engineering degrees.
Table 1. Distribution of degree classifications
Route Name
1st
2i
2ii
3rd/Pass
Total
1st
2i
2ii
3rd/Pass
BEng Mech Eng
12
8
8
2
30
40%
27%
27%
7%
BEng EBF
7
6
8
21
33%
29%
38%
0%
MEng Mech Eng
12
11
23
52%
48%
0%
0%
MEng EBF
7
9
16
44%
56%
0%
0%
38
34
16
2
90
42%
38%
18%
2%
UCL in total
1345
1944
361
42
3692
36%
53%
10%
1%
UK MEng*
341
409
34
3
787
43%
52%
4%
<1%
TOTAL
*2012 Data for all pre 1992 universities in UK Mechanical Engineering MEng(1)
Table 2 shows that for all designations of student we have a higher percentage of 1st class awards than the UCL average and a lower percentage of 2A
5
class awards than the UCL average. However as with UCL data our BME students are performing less well than our White students. Note that for some
designations of student our sample size is very low so % values should be treated with caution. A similar picture i s shown in Table 2. Note that the
females outperform the males. This is often the case in engineering due regrettably to the tougher road they have taken to enter the programme. Again due
to low numbers the data should be treated with caution.
Table 2. Dept UG award ethnicity and domicile comparison
Ethnicity
UK domicile
BME
1
2A
Mechanical
Engineering
35%
43%
Mechanical
Engineering
8
UCL
UCL
Overseas
White
2B/3/P
BME
White
1
2A
2B/3/P
1
2A
2B/3/P
1
2A
2B/3/P
22%
45%
45%
9%
43%
39%
18%
75%
0%
25%
10
5
5
5
1
21
19
9
3
30%
60%
10%
37%
58%
5%
37%
50%
13%
45%
46%
9%
14
625
103
560
875
79
324
437
118
164
170
33
1
Table 3. Dept UG award ethnicity and gender comparison
Gender
Ethnicity
Male
Female
BME
White
1
2A
2B/3/P
1
2A
2B/3/P
1
2A
2B/3/P
1
2A
2B/3/P
Mechanical
Engineering
42%
40%
18%
47%
33%
20%
40%
40%
19%
53%
33%
13%
Mechanical
Engineering
30
29
13
7
5
3
29
29
14
8
5
2
UCL
37%
53%
10%
35%
58%
7%
33%
55%
12%
38%
56%
6%
UCL
678
977
187
712
1191
154
638
1062
221
724
1045
112
Admissions and recruitment
As is typical for the discipline in the UK we have a high male to female ratio, but is similar to many other Mechanical Engineering Depart in the UK. We
would like to see it reduce.
6
Our admission numbers are strong with a significant number of overseas students. There is also concern that he overseas is dominated by Chinese
students. We are keeping an eye on long term trends to see if we can identify any impact of the IEP or the switch from LSE to MS&I but with so many
variable at paly it is difficult to identify cause and effect.
Table 4 shows a summary of the recruitment pattern for our students, more detail is shown in in Figures 1 and 2, Table 5 shows a breakdown
by fees status. Nearly half our intake is now non EU much higher than the UCL average, conversely our UK intake is much lower than the UCL
average. The proportion of non EU students has been steady increasing and 50% is probably our limit. In the AY 14-15 from our total intake of
147 students 48(33%) were from state schools and 40 from independent schools (27%). We are pleased with our gender split with 117 (80%)
male and 30 (20%) female, this may appear low for females but nationally Mechanical Engineering only attracts 8% females the lowest of any
engineering discipline(1).
Table 4. Recruitment summary
Route Name
Applications
Offers
Acceptances
Intake
Affiliate Mechanical Engineering
15
11
10
10
BEng Engineering (Mechanical)
596
257
117
59
MEng Engineering (Mechanical)
593
393
107
55
BEng Engineering (Mechanical w Business Finance)
181
59
35
22
MEng Engineering (Mechanical with Business Finance)
155
69
27
11
1525
778
286
147
Total (ex affiliates)
Table 5. Breakdown by fees status
Mech Eng*
UCL
UK
Other EU
Non EU
37% (55)
15% (22)
48% (77)
50%
15%
35%
*Excluding affiliates
Over the past 5 year the number of applications for the Mechanical Engineering programmes has more than doubled from 561 to 1210. In
comparison the business finance applications have only risen 30% from 265 to 349. Hence the proportion of business finance entries is
dropping from over a third 5 years ago to les then a quarter now. The intake for the Mechanical Engineering programmes has increased by just
50% from 73 to 114 while the intake of the Business Finance programmes has seen a slight decrease from 42 to 33. The current Dept policy is
7
to have about 40 on this programme. We will try to raise the number back to the 40 mark for AY 16-17 intake.
Figure 1. Mechanical Engineering recruitment data
Figure 2. Business Finance recruitment data
Reference
1.
“Pathways to success in engineering degrees and careers” Pub RAEng July 2015 ISBN: 978-1-909327-12-2
http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/pathways-to-success
8
Academic Partnership Activity:
Programme Name:
BEng Engineering With Business Finance
Programme Name:
MEng Engineering With Business Finance
Priorities for Action:
Historically some modules for Y1 and Y2 of these programmes have provide by the London School of Economics.
These two programs are being phased out and replaced by the IEP which makes use of modules provided by MS&I.
AY14-15 was the last time that our Y2 students took modules from the LSE, no problems or issues were reported.
Our Y1 students are on the IEP.
A few students will be taking resits of LSE modules next year.
So far the winding up of our academic partnership with the LSE has gone smoothly.
9
Source
Issue
Action
DEVELOPMENT AND ENHANCEMENT PLAN
Source
Issue
Action
Person
Responsible
Progress
Implementation
Evidence
Date
Comments/
Issues
*NSS – National Student Survey, EE – External Examiner Reports, DS –
Data Set, PTES – Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey
UGT – UG tutor, DoS – Director of Studies, DM – Dept manager
Person
Implementa
Comments/
Progress
Evidence
Responsible
tion Date
Issues
Organisation and Management
[NSS, EE,
etc*]
SSCC
and staff
[Identify key issue]
Laboratory timetabling
was a Cinderella
exercise leading to
confusion and poor
arrangements.
[Identify agreed action for resolution]
A member of T&L staff has been
dedicated to this task but it is
complicated by the roll out of the
IEP
[Identify
responsibility]
T&L PS team
have taken this
on board.
[identify start
date, or mark
complete]
On going
Submit initial documentation
DoS
Accreditation
Review of syllabus and
benchmarking against QAA
descriptor
Preparation
started Sept
2015
DoS
Accuracy of exam
papers
Create subject review panels to
review exam papers for accuracy
and consistency across subject
Academic
responsible for
exam papers with
support from
DoS, UGT tutor
and T&L PS team
Teaching
10
Approved at
DTC 20/10/15
[Identify evidence that
issue has been
resolved i.e. NSS etc*]
Aug 2015
Initial
documentation to
be submitted by
Nov 2015
Full submission
June 2016
Prepare for visit in Oct/Nov 2016
EE
[Identify date of
implementation]
From Nov 2015
EAB visit to
cover UG and
MSc
programmes.
An added
benefit will be
development of
subject themes
through the
years for the
programme.
Source
Faculty
Faculty
Faculty
Issue
IEP
IEP
IEP
Person
Responsible
Progress
Development of new modules
for Y3 of IEP
DoS with
nominated IEP
strategy team
On going
Development of Maritime minor
for IEP
Dr Bradbeer (Y2
T2 module) and
Prof Thomas (Y3
T2) module
Action
Module for Y3 T1 of
Regenerative Minor
Module Coordinator
Implementation
Evidence
Date
Comments/
Issues
Ongoing,
Oct 2016
UPC due Dec 2015
Preparation
started Oct
2015
Significantly
delayed and at
risk
Jan 2017
Ongoing, UPC due
Dec 2015
June 2015
UPC twice rejected by
DTC. The Module Coordinator still has not
provided outline
syllabus.
Mod Coord is
failing to engage
with process.
Consider an
alternative or
abandon?
Assessment and Feedback
NSS
IQR (# 3)
UCL
NSS
EE
UCL
NSS
Clarity and
Accessibility of
Marking Criteria
Quality and
Promptness of
Feedback
NSS Assessment
and Feedback
UCL Mandated Action: You are
asked for explicit confirmation that
all modules and programmes have
clear assessment and marking
criteria and that these are available
and clearly publicized to students.
DM, Comms,
Marketing &
Events Manager,
Senior T & L
Administrator
UCL Mandated Action: You are
asked to develop and approve
minimum standards for feedback
within the department for
implementation during this
academic year.
UGT and DoS for
communicating
responsibility of
Module Co-ords
in process to
academics.
You are asked to confirm explicitly
that effective mechanisms exist to
ensure that feedback on
assessment is returned to students
within four weeks in line with UCL’s
service standards document.
T&L PS team for
sending
reminders and
chasing emails
UCL Mandated Action: you are
asked to benchmark your practice
Required for
accreditation
Ongoing
complete
21/9/15
Approved DTC
20/10/15
HoD if issues are
escalated.
ISLE and
11
Action point 1 from
the Improving the
Student Learning
Experience (ISLE)
meeting 21/9/15
Nov 2015
Source
UCL
Issue
Benchmarking
Staf
SSCC
Project guidelines
DoS
students
HoD
IQR (#3)
Review of CW
Loading
Student
assessment
Action
against the NUS Assessment and
Feedback Benchmarking Tool and
take immediate action where
needed, paying particular attention to
this year's finalists in the first
instance.
Create clearer guidelines for staff
and students on what is expected for
3rd year individual projects and 4th
year group projects in terms of
outcomes. Both for students to
assist with writing final reports and
for staff when marking.
Rolling review of what the labs entail
in order to refine them with a view to
maintaining learning outcomes but
eliminate non useful output and
streamline marking. ISLE to report
back to DTC on this
Transforming the Experience of
Students Through Assessment
(TESTA) audit by CALT
Person
Responsible
Progress
Implementation
Evidence
Date
Comments/
Issues
DTC
3rd yr indivudal
project module
coordinator
4th yr group
project module
coordinator
UGT to lead
Not
started.
Ideally in
place by Feb
2016
Started
21/9/15
Audit
requested,
CALT have
recommended
that we wait
until next term.
DoS
UGT
DM
Spring 2016
Learning Resources
Everyone
Many lecture rooms are Keep complaining! We provide
?
12
Getting
?
?
I know everyone
Source
Students
SSCC
IQR (#2)
SSCC
IQR (# 8)
Issue
Action
substandard and do not
have the facilities we
require especially some
of those in Birkbeck.
Overcrowding is also an
issue especially in the
first few weeks of term.
advance warning of class size
growth but this is ignored.
Lecture cast:
Person
Responsible
Progress
Implementation
Evidence
Date
worse
Comments/
Issues
is fully aware of
this bit must be
repeated.
Limit student numbers?
Double teach classes but that would
add a significant teaching load and
increase demand on rooms.
Need to win over staff and
encourage them to use Lecture
Cast
Concerns raised by
Year 4 students
registered for the MEng
programme who at
times have had to
repeat elements of the
curriculum already
covered in modules
undertaken earlier in
their programme.
An induction pack has been
designed and the use of this will be
introduced for the 2015 intake. Its
effectiveness will be monitored from
analysis of student performance
and feedback. The induction pack
will be updated as a consequence.
Promote greater and
more consistent use of
Moodle across subjects
to all module convenors
within the Department.
Student representatives
noted differences
between modules
The Department introduced a
Moodle baseline for all modules
and all pages were redesigned.
Many staff are avid Moodle users,
but some are less so. The
department is now addressing the
issue of wanting to develop its use
of Moodle within the context of
DoS, UGT,
Dr XXX
Dr XXX tried
lecture cast in
AY14-15. He
is to present at
next Dept
meeting about
his
experience.
Students are
keen on this but
there is
significant staff
reluctance
UGT, DoS
Graduate Tutor
(Taught)
HoD, DM, UGT,
Senior T & L
Administrator
Completed
Phase 1 to be
completed by
March 2016
Moodle
content will be
continually
13
Sept 2015
The effectiveness of
the induction pack
will be kept under
review.
Source
Issue
Action
whereby some failed to
provide relevant
information, including
assessment criteria,
samples of previous
assessments and model
answers.
different levels of engagement and
different needs of individual
teaching staff. No one wants to
hold back those making good use
of Moodle just so that their courses
are uniform with those who use it
less, but we do understand
students are finding the very
different feels difficult. Moreover,
we feel strongly that it is important
to allow academics to decide how
much they feel engaging with
Moodle is appropriate for the
content of their modules and their
own teaching styles. So whilst a
consistent approach to using
Moodle will not be achieved, or
even strived towards in a rigid
manner, the department is
instigating the following steps to
improve the current situation and is
fully committed to increasing the
use of Moodle within the
department. The HoD has
instigated a review of teaching
materials used across the
department to allow for them to be
pulled into a uniform template, so
that the documents uploaded to
Moodle will have a branded and
uniform appearance, are error-free
and are typeset at very high
professional standards, giving a
feeling on consistency for students.
Person
Responsible
Progress
monitored and
kept up to date
14
Implementation
Evidence
Date
Comments/
Issues
Source
Issue
Action
Person
Responsible
Progress
Implementation
Evidence
Date
Comments/
Issues
These will remain working
documents so that the academics
will be able to update them when
necessary. A publishing
professional is already hired and in
place (on a temporary basis) in
order to facilitate hands-on this
transition.
The use of Moodle will be
championed by academic staff with
senior teaching positions and good
examples, such as the MSc Naval
Architecture pages, will be shared
as examples to encourage
development.
The Professional Services staff will
retain an overview of Moodle
content and ensure that it remains
up to date and relevant and report
anything out of date to module
coordinators initially.
Personal Development
ISLE
IQR (# 4)
Personal tutoring, and
ways of encouraging
both sides to engage
more, and to make it
as useful as possible.
Plan the discussion points and
relevant times of year – create a
schedule for these.
Communicate this with students and
staff.
UGT, Comms,
Marketing &
Events Manager,
Senior T & L
Administrator,
Year coordinators
BME Progression and Achievement
15
Ready to go
AY 15-16
Y3 students now
have their
project
supervisor as
their P tutor.
Source
Issue
Action
Person
Responsible
Progress
Implementation
Evidence
Date
Comments/
Issues
No issues identified
Widening Participation
IQR (#9)
Enhance
communication and
engagement with
prospective students
who have been offered
a place on a
programme
Review methods of
communication and
support provided for
affiliate students by
considering what
IQR (# 10)
improvements could
be made to enable
greater interaction
between the Dept. and
the students
Comms, Marketing & Events
manager & Senior T & L
Administrator have designed a keep
warm series of events and
communications to new students to
help them stay connected to the
department and to instigate the
feeling of belonging before they
commence their studies.
DM, Comms,
Marketing &
Events Manager,
Senior T & L
Administrator
This has been identified as a
problem caused by a lack of
vigilance when building the mailing
lists for the programmes.
Professional Services staff have
been sensitised to this issue and
have included tracking of affiliate
students taking modules as a
process for maintaining
departmental student mailing lists.
DoS, Affiliate
Tutor, UGT, DM,
Senior T & L
Administrator
Creation of new post : Enterprise &
Projects Industrial Liaison
Administrator
New appointee
Completed
July 2015
Completed
Academic Support
SSCC,
EE
Lack of support and
focus for student –
industry links including
internships
DATE OF SUBMISSION TO FACULTY TEACHING COMMITTEE: 25 Oct 2015
16
appointed
1/10/15
Students will be
canvassed for
feedback on both
points with a view to
analysing success
and identifying
improvements for
future intakes.
Measures in place,
but under continual
review as part of
maintaining mailing
lists
The keep-warm
series will be
reviewed and
renewed by the
department on
an ongoing
basis.