National University of Ireland, Galway An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2008 ­ 2009 REVIEW OF B. Sc. (Biomedical Science) NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND, GALWAY Final REPORT (4 th March 2009)
This report arises from a visit by a review team to NUI Galway to review the Biomedical Science (B.Sc.) programme on February 9 th and 10 th , 2009. The Programme Board had already prepared and submitted a 'Self Assessment Report' together with other documentation that was made available, to the review team in advance of the visit. The review team consisted of: Professor Jane Calvert, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Newcastle upon Tyne (Chair); Professor Valerie McKelvey­Martin, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster; Dr. Kathy O’Boyle, School of Biomolecular and Biomedical Science, University College Dublin; Dr Conor O’Byrne School of Natural Sciences, NUI Galway; and Mr Brendan Kennelly, of the J. E. Cairnes School of Business and Economics, NUI Galway acting as Rapporteur. The review team met staff from all of the main contributing disciplines and were impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of key staff. The review group would like to highlight in particular the positive contribution made by Dr. Leo Quinlan in directing the programme over a long period in the face of the challenges presented by an interdisciplinary programme spanning three colleges and five disciplines. The review group also met several current students in each year of the programme, as well as a group of students who had graduated from the programme who are now in various stages of postgraduate research at NUI Galway. The report is structured to cover the following main topics: 1. Aims and Objectives 2. Organization and management 3. Programmes and Instruction 4. Scholarship and Research 5. The Wider Context 6. Summary and Concluding Remarks 1. Aims and Objectives The B.Sc. in Biomedical Science is a multidisciplinary denominated degree encompassing the core biomedical disciplines of Anatomy, Biochemistry, Pharmacology and Physiology, together with Information Technology. It is delivered by disciplines in the Colleges of Medicine and Health Science, Science, and Engineering and Informatics. Applications were first invited in 1998, with the initial class size limited to 20 students with a cut­off entry level of 510 points. Since then the numbers have increased with the result that in 2008­09 61 students were admitted with a cut­off of 440 points. Thus over the 11 years it has been running this degree has grown significantly in popularity while maintaining a comparatively high­point entry. Following graduation approximately 50% of students go on to study professional healthcare degrees in medicine, pharmacy, physiotherapy and dietetics while almost 20% of graduates go into full time research.
2 The stated aims of the Biomedical Science programme, as outlined in the Self Assessment Report, are as follows: 1. To produce high quality graduates in the key disciplines that underpins Biomedical Science, with relevant information technology skills. 2. To equip students with a sound knowledge of biomedical sciences, experience in biological experimentation, training in transferable skills including information technology, excellent communication skills and life­long learning habits. 3. To maintain the high standard of the course while providing innovative elements that reflect changes in modern Biomedical Science. 2. Organization and Management The programme committee is composed of one academic from each of the core disciplines. For the past 8 years the programme committee was chaired by Dr. Leo Quinlan from the Department of Physiology. Dr. Maura Grealy from the Department of Pharmacology took over as Programme Co­ordinator in September 2008. Members of the programme committee also serve as year co­ordinators for the programme. Particular emphasis is placed on having course co­ordinators in years one and two who act as contact points and advisors to students. The programme board meets at least once a year or more as required. All general administration, including interactions with both the College of Science and the public, is carried out by the Programme Co­ordinator in the first instance. Issues in any one specific year are dealt with initially by the year coordinator, if necessary in consultation with the programme coordinator. The programme board should be expanded to include student representation as well as representatives from related disciplines not currently involved such as Bioinformatics and Microbiology. The programme board should meet more frequently (at least once per semester) and the minutes of these meetings should be copied directly to the Dean of the College of Science. An annual one­to­one meeting between the programme director and the Dean of Science is also suggested to ensure adequate communication of resource and course development issues. We were unable to find a dedicated page for the programme on the NUI Galway web site. In addition the information in the undergraduate prospectus about the programme is very limited. Both of these issues should be addressed immediately. We recommend below a comprehensive review of the curriculum in the programme. If the curriculum is changed following such a review, the programme brochure should be revised to reflect these changes and so that certain issues are clarified. For example, it should be made explicit that the programme is not accredited and that it does not lead to a professional qualification in medical laboratory work.
3 We also recommend a number of mechanisms to improve student feedback. For example, feedback sought from students should be more comprehensive and it should be discipline specific. The year co­ordinators should meet student representatives each year and actions taken should be communicated in a timely fashion to students. Students should be consulted and their agreement sought before introducing major changes that will affect the content and/or delivery of their programme. Crucially, student feedback should be formally considered by the programme board in a timely manner, and actions arising minuted and communicated back to the student body. The review group recommends that the Biomedical Science Blackboard site be used more extensively by all lecturers and tutors associated with the programme. This should help to improve communication (in both directions) and help to strengthen the sense of identity that students have with the programme. 3. Programmes and Instruction The programme board should agree and document a clear statement of teaching objectives and learning outcomes for the B.Sc. (Biomedical Science) programme. This document should form the basis for a full review of the curriculum, which should involve both existing stakeholders, and interested parties in other cognate disciplines at NUI Galway. The programme currently contains a large contribution from the Information Technology discipline representing 41.5 ECTS over the four years. The review group thought this was too high particularly given that the relevance of some of the modules delivered by Information Technology was not clear to many of the staff or students consulted and received extremely poor student feedback. We suggest a reduction in the contribution from Information Technology and that the modules that are delivered by Information Technology are more focused on the core objectives of the Biomedical Science programme. We would advocate in particular a reduction or removal of the IT component in the crucial final year of the programme. However, if the Information Technology Project remains more attention must be paid to ensuring that all projects are germane to the study of biomedical science. The review group was surprised to learn that students taking essentially the same courses in different programmes received different ECTS weighting for these courses. For example the second year courses are worth 15 ECTS in the biomedical science programme whereas many of the same courses are worth 20 ECTS in the undenominated science programme. The group strongly recommends that where the same courses are taken by students of different degree programmes the same ECTS weighting should apply to all students. The programme does not have a dedicated External Examiner at the moment. We recommend that an External Examiner for the programme be appointed. There are many similar undergraduate programmes in other universities and it should be possible to find an experienced academic whose role would be to ensure that the overall standard and design of the programme is in line with international best practice.
4 Given the recent appointment of a new Chair in Bioinformatics the review group feels that there is an opportunity to introduce a new module in this area. The group notes the recent decision to move the biostatistics module from third year to fourth year and is concerned that this will make it more difficult for students to use appropriate statistical analysis in their final year projects, which are typically completed in the first semester of their fourth year. The programme board should consider the inclusion of modules in microbiology, genetics, immunology, pathology, and bioethics. In this regard, the programme board should not let the relatively large size of existing modules (>10 ECTS) be a barrier to selecting only those elements of other courses that are of particular relevance to the study of Biomedical Science and omitting those that are not relevant. The review group notes the recent decision to introduce a specialised biomedical science module in 3 rd year and would recommend similar initiatives in other years of the programme. This would have the additional benefit of enhancing the identity and sense of ownership of the programme from the students’ perspective. The review group recommends that the programme board consider broadening the type of final year projects that the students are asked to complete bearing in mind the professional destination of many students and the diverse range of research labs in the university and the hospital. This would have the added benefit of reducing the burden on existing staff, which in some cases was felt to be excessive and unsustainable. 4. Scholarship and Research The review group was impressed with the quality of research being carried out by the members of the programme board. We were also impressed by the large number of graduates who go to PhD level research in one of the core disciplines in biomedical science. We felt that there could be greater interaction between students on the programme and the research units in biomedical science in the University. 5. The Wider Context A recurring issue that arose in our conversations with students is that many of them identified themselves more with individual disciplines rather than with Biomedical Science. To overcome this problem the review group recommends that the programme board encourage students to establish a Biomedical Science Society, with the support of the NUI Galway Student’s Union. Student representatives from all 4 years of the programme, and postgraduate students of the programme, could participate in the steering committee of the society and help with running relevant events. As well as fostering identity this will also strengthen communication between the different classes taking part in the programme. Students also expressed concern at the quality of information that they receive on career prospects. More effort should be made to liaise with the Career Development
5 Centre so that the students are briefed on the various career and postgraduate opportunities that are open to them. This could be considered as part of the overall curriculum review. 6. Summary and Concluding Remarks The review group was impressed that the Biomedical Science B.Sc. programme has attracted such high quality, highly motivated students who have achieved excellent results in their degree and was also impressed with the high proportion of students who have gone on to pursue postgraduate research in the contributing disciplines. The programme remains unique in Ireland and deserves the high profile it has within the University and the College of Science in particular. The programme’s close alignment with the biomedical research thematic priority of the University’s Strategic Plan is also a significant strength. The Review Group was particularly encouraged to hear the Dean of Science express a strong commitment to the programme as a key undergraduate programme in the College of Science, while acknowledging the contribution of many disciplines from the College of Medicine and Health Sciences. Notwithstanding the success of the programme to date, the review group felt that there is scope for considerable improvement in a number of areas. In particular we feel that the programme lacks coherence and identity with the result being a mismatch between the potential of the programme and what is currently being delivered. The programme consists mainly of courses that have been developed by the various disciplines for students majoring in those disciplines in the ‘undenominated’ B.Sc. Programme. This approach ensured efficiency of delivery to small numbers of students in the early years of the programme. In the light of increasing student numbers it is now timely for the programme board to consider the ideal structure of a degree in biomedical science and to see how it can be best delivered by the faculty at NUI Galway. An ideal curriculum should ensure that students acquire an appropriate breadth of knowledge across the core biomedical disciplines and a sound appreciation of the science of human disease. The approach should include (a) harnessing in whole or in part existing modules in other key biomedical disciplines and (b) the development of new modules in biomedical science that would only be available to students on this programme. Our 5 main recommendations are: (i) the programme board should prepare a clear statement of the goals of the programme and its learning outcomes; (ii) the programme board should engage in a wide ranging curriculum review to see how the goals of the programme could best be realised from the resources available in NUI Galway; (iii) the Information Technology (IT) component of the programme should be reduced and the IT that is retained should be made more relevant to biomedical science; (iv) specific steps should be taken to ensure a stronger identity for the programme and (v) individual modules on the programme should be weighted in the same way as they are on other programmes.
6 Professor Jane Calvert, (Chair) Professor Valerie McKelvey­Martin Dr. Kathy O’Boyle Dr. Conor O’Byrne Mr Brendan Kennelly (rapporteur) 4 th March 2009 Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process We would like to thank everybody at NUI Galway who made our visit an enjoyable and productive one particularly all those involved in compiling the self­assessment report and all the staff members and students who gave freely of their time to meet us. We have a few minor suggestions that could be considered: 1. We would have benefited from the presence on the review group of a representative from an organization that has employed one or more recent graduates of the programme. Similarly it would have helped us to talk to some graduates who were not PhD students. 2. We did not receive adequate information on the biostatistics course taken by the students. 3. We spent a considerable amount of time walking from one venue to another and it would have been more productive if we had been located all day in one venue that was large enough for all the various meetings. The time lost in this way contributed to some of our meetings (notably the one with the Registrar) being somewhat rushed.
7