THE SENATE
PATHWAY APPROVAL REPORT
(Core Provision)
A confirmed report of the event held on 28th May 2009 to consider
the approval of the following pathways:
MSc Financial Management Practice
MSc International Management Practice
MSc Management Practice
MSc Marketing Management Practice
Ashcroft International Business School
Delivery of Pathways at Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford campus
Quality Assurance Division
SECTION A – OUTCOME SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The purpose of the event was to consider the approval of the MSc Financial Management
Practice, MSc International Management Practice, MSc Management Practice, and MSc
Marketing Management Practice.
1.2
The pathways will be located in the Chelmsford Programme in the Chelmsford Department
in the Ashcroft International Business School.
1.3
The pathways will be delivered in a traditional taught mode, work-based mode, and a
hybrid mode of delivery.
2.
CONCLUSIONS
2.1
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of the following pathways:




MSc Financial Management Practice;
MSc International Management Practice;
MSc Management Practice;
MSc Marketing Management Practice.
Approval, once confirmed, will be for an indefinite period, subject to Anglia Ruskin’s
continuing quality assurance procedures.
Cohort numbers are confirmed as:




MSc Financial Management Practice: 8 min.; 150 max.;
MSc International Management Practice: 8 min.; 150 max.;
MSc Management Practice: 8 min.; 150 max.;
MSc Marketing Management Practice: 8 min.; 150 max.
The minimum cohort numbers were agreed as the compulsory modules are common
across these pathways and the specialist designate modules are shared with other
pathways within the Faculty’s portfolio.
2.2
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of seven new modules for delivery.
The full titles of all new modules are provided in section D of this report.
2.3
Conditions
Approval is subject to the following conditions which were set by the Panel. A copy of the
response must be lodged with the Executive Officer by the date(s) detailed below:
2.3.1
2.3.2
Details of Condition
Deadline
Response to
be considered
by
The Proposal Team shall submit electronic
versions of the revised Module Definition Forms
(MDFs) and the Pathway Specification Forms
(PSFs) ensuring clarity between the pathways
(paragraphs 4.4-5 & Appendices 1-2);
The Proposal Team shall resubmit the Student
Handbooks in accordance with the latest
guidelines and with particular reference to the
work-based delivery pattern (paragraphs 9.1-2);
12th June
2009
Panel Chair &
Executive
Officer
12th June
2009
Panel Chair
Quality Assurance Division
2
Confirmed
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.4
The Proposal Team shall review the entry
requirements for each pathway to ensure
specificity in the applicant profile anticipated for
successful completion of the pathways
(paragraph 4.3);
The Proposal Team shall review the designate
modules include within the MSc Management
Practice to ensure differentiation between the
pathway and the specific pathways (paragraph
4.4);
The Proposal Team shall identify a recognised
management team for the pathways, in particular
(a) designated Pathway Leader(s) (paragraph
6.3).
12th June
2009
Panel Chair
12th June
2009
Panel Chair
12th June
2009
Panel Chair
Issues Referred to the Senate (or appropriate standing committee)
The Panel did not identify any institution-wide issues as requiring the attention of the
Senate or the appropriate standing committee of the Senate.
Quality Assurance Division
3
Confirmed
SECTION B – DETAIL OF DISCUSSION AND PANEL CONCLUSIONS
3
RATIONALE
3.1
The MSc Management Practice suite of pathways is proposed to meet the growing demand
in both international and corporate markets for a core degree in the ‘practice of
management’ with an inbuilt flexibility and option to specialise in either sector-specific or
specialist business functions. The model offers a common set of compulsory modules
across all pathways with each pathway also offering its own specialist modules. Such an
integrative core allows both access and flexibility and economies of scale to meet the
needs of diverse domestic, corporate and international marketplaces and indeed for
meeting demand for generalist, specialist and sector-specific needs.
3.2
From the Ashcroft International Business School’s (AIBS) perspective this is a bold attempt
to bring practice-based education to the mainstream away from its traditional dependence
on part-time and corporate client-led marketplace. The proposal seeks to make practicebased education mainstream and ‘popular’, in alignment with the Faculty’s vision to be a
leading practice-based Faculty. From an internal perspective the Chelmsford Department
has relied heavily on the part-time, professional product offering for several years and this
proposal seeks to capitalise upon the ‘practice’-orientated expertise that resides in the
Department but which has to date only been applied in limited ways in the professional
education marketplace. By introducing a suite of practice-orientated pathways that align
the Department’s expertise and research base with its product portfolio the management
aims to reinvigorate the Department, moving it towards an identity of Management
Practice, Praxis and Innovation, distinct yet synergistic to the Cambridge Department with
its academic and research base in International Business and Strategy.
4
CURRICULUM DESIGN, CONTENT AND DELIVERY
4.1
The Panel queried the Proposal Team’s anticipated market and student profile(s). The
Proposal Team explained that the pathways are designed for delivery in a:
i.
taught mode for recent graduates who are not in employment. This mode of delivery
would be marketed for open access applications;
ii. work-based mode corporate clients with an identified cohort. This mode of delivery
would not be available to the open market and would be built up gradually; and
iii. hybrid mode of the previous two delivery modes. It was intended that recruits to this
delivery mode would be recent graduates in employment but who did not hold a senior
management role nor have the experience which would recommend them to an MBA
pathway.
4.2
The Panel noted that pathways were explicitly designed to be practice-based and queried
the extent to which the Proposal Team had consulted employers and how any feedback
received had informed the design of the pathways. The Proposal Team explained that the
Faculty had developed a strong network of senior HR practitioners through its long and
successful delivery of CIPD-accredited pathways. This network provided the Faculty with
regular feedback on developments in the workplace and employers’ requirements of their
employees. The Faculty’s delivery of the MA Leadership for Barclays, delivery of the PG
Cert and PG Dip Dip Management for Crawfords & Co, and discussions with Basildon
Hospital for a professional development programme had informed the Proposal Team in
the requirements of corporate clients and employers and this had directly informed the
proposal development. Additionally, our University’s Faculty of Health & Social Care is
particularly knowledgeable in practice-based delivery and our University’s broader
experience had been used in the pathways’ design.
4.3
The Panel noted that the pathways’ entry requirements did not specify a business-related
first degree. There was discussion regarding non-specialists’ ability to understand
Quality Assurance Division
4
Confirmed
business theories and concepts sufficiently to succeed from the outset at Masters level. It
was debated whether the proposals were extension or conversion awards. The learning
would be within the framework of management practice with an emphasis on the issues
and challenges within it. However, it was queried whether non-Business graduates would
have the mastery of knowledge although they had an appreciation of its applications. The
Panel strongly recommended a tightening of the entry requirements and that these could
be sub-divided into study modes, which may each benefit from slightly different entry
requirements. It was proposed that a Bridging Module could be developed for later cohorts
for non-Business graduates. It was noted that our University had established processes for
Accredited Prior Certificated Learning (APCL) and Accredited Prior Experential Learning
(APEL) for applicants who had been in employment for some time.
4.4
The Proposal Team confirmed that the pathways were Type 2 Masters pathways under the
QAA’s Subject Benchmark Statements as they were generalist in nature. However, the
pathways had management practice added to it. The designate lists determined the
specialist award title conferred. The Panel queried the designate lists stating that students
studying the Management Practice pathway could undertake the same module diets as a
student studying either of the other specialist pathways as the Management Practice had
an amalgamated designate list. The Proposal Team explained that the designate lists were
as extensive as proposed to fulfil the various requirements of corporate clients.
Additionally, the Panel noted that the pathways could conclude with the same Postgraduate
Major Project module. The Proposal Team explained that specialist students would be
expected to undertake a specialist major project within the framework of the generalist
Major Project MDF. The QAA requires that 40% of a pathway provides its specialism and
the Proposal Team argued that this was provided through the designate modules. The
Panel discussed this matter at some length with the Proposal Team to ascertain how the
differences between the awards conferred could be evidenced if students had undertaken
exactly the same designate modules. The Proposal Team agreed that the MSc
Management Practice structure should be amended to restrict the designate choice to one
from each specialist list, i.e. students must undertake one finance module, one marketing
module, and one international management module, thereby ensuring that students may
not develop a finance specialism, for example, under a Management Practice registration
but instead is compelled to undertake a generalist learning experience. The Management
Practice Pathway Specification Form (PSF) should be revised accordingly.
4.5
The Panel noted that the pathways’ Learning Outcomes were, with one exception, the
same across the pathways. The Panel requested that the Proposal Team review the
Pathway Learning Outcomes to ensure greater distinction between the pathways, in
particular in the Knowledge and Understanding which would be gained through the
pathways. The Panel believed that this would provide further distinction between the
pathways, in addition to the requirement to study a designate module from each specialism
within the Management Practice pathway [c.f. paragraph 4.4]. The PSFs should be revised
accordingly.
4.6
The Panel noted that the content of Postgraduate Certificate stage was common across all
the pathways. The Proposal Team confirmed that the Management Theory into Practice
module was designed to bring the different business disciplines together to explore their
interaction with and impact upon each other. The Proposal Team agreed that it was
anticipated that students may transfer to another pathway within the Management Practice
suite at the end of the Postgraduate Certificate stage. Due to the common content of the
Postgraduate Certificates, it was agreed that an intermediate award of Postgraduate
Certificate in Management Practice only could be conferred regardless of which specialist
Masters pathway a student may have been registered upon. The PSFs should be revised
accordingly.
4.7
The pathways’ proposed award of MSc was debated at length by the Proposal Team. Our
University’s Academic Regulations suggest that Masters of Science are awarded to
Quality Assurance Division
5
Confirmed
mathematical and science-based pathways. However, our University’s senior managers
have suggested that MScs receive greater interest from international applicants. The
Panel agreed that the award of MBA should be reserved for applicants with employment
experience and thus there was more justification for an MSc on the basis of students’
application.
4.8
The Panel queried the opportunities for practical application of management theory for the
taught-mode to ensure a parity of experience with the work-based students. The Proposal
Team explained that the Action Learning for Managers module would be delivered in
liaison with the Faculty’s network of companies who would provide students with live
projects. The learning log completed within The Reflective Practitioner module required
reflection and students’ analysis of the work environment. Guest lecturers from industry
were to be used within the teaching strategy also. The Proposal Team believed that
taught-mode students were provided with opportunities to consider and experience the
actual business environment. Additionally, the Proposal Team intended that all taughtmode students would undertake the more applied Management Practice Portfolio module
rather than the more traditionally academic Postgraduate Major Project.
4.9
The Panel queried the inclusion of Personal Development Planning (PDP) within the
pathways. The Proposal Team confirmed that PDP was included within The Reflective
Practitioner module. The Panel continued by enquiring how the students’ objectives set
within this module would be tracked through the pathway. The Proposal Team confirmed
that the students’ objectives would be returned to in the Management Practice Portfolio
module. The Proposal Team agreed that PDP will be easier to articulate within the workbased route where students’ line managers would be involved in students’ study and would
be able to link the pathway to their appraisal process.
5
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
5.1
The Panel considered the mix of assessment methods to be experienced during the
pathways. The Proposal Team confirmed that project work would be undertaken within the
Insights into Management Practice and the Management Practice Portfolio modules, one of
which would be studied by all students.
5.2
The Panel drew the Proposal Team’s attention to the Management Theory into Practice
module, which had a 20% weighting with an experimental assessment. The Panel
encouraged the Proposal Team to consider the psychological implications upon students of
such low weightings for assessments. Students were unlikely to take such a low-weighted
assessment as seriously as the delivery team may wish.
5.3
The Panel noted that the Module Definition Form (MDF) template on captured the
summative assessment requirements of modules. However, the Panel discussed the
importance of formative assessment in alerting both students and tutors to difficulties in
individual’s progress and potential success, particularly where students may have
registered from a non-Business background [c.f. paragraph 4.3]. The Proposal Team
confirmed that formative assessment would be used. Summative assessment details are
usually published to students by Week 3. The Proposal Team acknowledged that the
hand-in dates for the summative assessments were concentrated upon the end of the
semester. However, due to the nature of the reflective portfolios and project work of the
modules’ assessments the end of the module is the most practicable submission date.
6
STAFFING, LEARNING RESOURCES AND STUDENT SUPPORT
6.1
The Panel enquired about the industrial experience of the proposed delivery team and its
currency of their experience. The Proposal Team confirmed that the delivery would be
Quality Assurance Division
6
Confirmed
supported by the Faculty’s Professors of Management Practice who would bring their
current experience to the delivery of the modules. An incubation centre was evolving and
there was a commitment both at University and Faculty level to developing
entrepreneurship within our students. The Panel recommended that a business start-up
would be a good vehicle for the students’ study.
6.2
The Panel queried the support network for students registered on the work-based mode.
The Proposal Team explained that work-based students would have an academic mentor
and a business mentor. The Faculty has operated this tripartite support network
successfully for several work-based pathways already.
The business mentor will
encourage the student and discuss issues regarding their business application issues,
while the academic mentor supports the student through their academic experience
including assessment and module choices, etc. The mentors which each be provided with
a Mentors’ Handbook which outlined the Faculty’s requirements of them and details of the
pathway delivery. Action learning sets are also being experimented within the Faculty.
6.3
The Panel noted that (a) Pathway Leader(s) had not been identified within the proposal
documentation. The Panel felt that this was a key role in the establishment of the pathway
and in ensuring the student experience. The Proposal Team confirmed that the
Programme Leader (Chelmsford) or Head of Chelmsford Department would undertake the
role in the interim. New tutors and administrative posts had been included in the
Department’s budget for next academic year. £1,000,000 would be available next year and
the delivery team would involve a judicious mix of existing and new colleagues. The Panel
recommended caution with regard to the appointment of the Pathway Leader ensuring that
the individual had sufficient time to develop and support the pathway appropriately.
6.4
The Panel continued to pursue the time available to tutors involved in the pathway delivery.
The Panel queried how staff keep up-to-date with management practice. The Panel felt
that the CVs submitted did not highlight any resident experience within the Faculty. The
Proposal Team explained that research is aligned to staff development and, in respect to
the Ashcroft International Business School, is more aligned to management practice than
traditional research. Colleagues are engaging with organisations and with corporate clients
identifying issues within their organisation. These issues are often explored further as live
projects for students’ assignments. The Faculty has a strong 3rd Sector team and a strong
HR Managers Network, both of which would be accessed to inform development of the
pathways. Internships, if required, would be facilitated through these contacts. Faculty
colleagues are also working with senior managers to modify the Faculty’s modules to
explore clients’ current issues, where appropriate. The Faculty’s senior managers will also
join the team teaching of modules. It was noted that the Faculty’s Dean intends to expand
the number of Professors of Management Practice, who would also support the delivery of
the pathways.
6.5
The Panel considered The Reflective Practitioner module and in particular the key texts
recommended for the module. The broad nature of the module content had led the
Proposal Team to a similarly broad list of texts. The Panel suggested that students,
particularly international students, may regard this list of texts as a purchase list which
would be expensive and potentially misleading. The Panel recommended that alternatively
the Proposal Team consider developing custom texts. The Proposal Team agreed to
consider the suggestion but did feel that custom texts can be difficult for students to
purchase and are generally not well-received by students.
6.6
The Panel queried how the Proposal Team would support a work-based student who lost
their job mid-study. The Proposal Team confirmed that the Faculty would have a
relationship with the company as a corporate client so was confident that it a termination of
a student’s employment would not be a surprise to the Faculty. However, should a
student’s employment be terminated the student would be offered a transfer to the hybrid
route to complete the pathway.
Quality Assurance Division
7
Confirmed
7
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
7.1
The Proposal Team confirmed that the pathways would align with the Faculty’s standard
quality assurance and enhancement processes.
8
NATIONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND STATUTORY BODY REQUIREMENTS
8.1
It was confirmed that the pathways were not subject to the requirements of any national,
professional or statutory bodies.
9
DOCUMENTATION
9.1
The Panel had considered the Student Handbooks closely and how they provided students
with clear and comprehensive advice on the delivery of their pathways. The Panel felt that
this was of particular importance to the work-based students who would not have the ease
of access to Faculty colleagues as traditionally-taught students would. The Panel required
that the Student Handbooks be revised to provide greater details of the delivery pattern and
support systems available for the work-based route. The Panel’s concerns were alleviated
in part by the Proposal Team’s explanation of the Mentors’ Handbook [c.f. paragraph 6.2]
but felt strongly that reciprocal details should be provided to students. The Panel also felt
that the Student Handbooks could be strengthened by providing examples of the
management practice issues which would be considered within the pathway delivery.
9.2
The Panel recommended that the Panel consider the international dimension of the
anticipated student body within its revisions to the Student Handbooks. The Proposal
Team confirmed that individually-contextualised Student Handbooks would be developed
for each corporate client.
10
MISCELLANEOUS
10.1
The Panel commended the Proposal Team on the innovative design and nature of the
pathways.
11
CONFIRMATION OF STANDARDS OF AWARDS
11.1
The Panel confirmed that the MSc Financial Management Practice, MSc International
Management Practice, MSc Management Practice and MSc Marketing Management
Practice satisfied the University’s Academic Regulations with regard to the definitions and
academic standards of Anglia Ruskin awards and, hence, the QAA’s Framework for Higher
Education Qualifications.
DRAFT
UNCONFIRMED
CONFIRMED
FILE REF
OFFICE FILE REF
Quality Assurance Division
8
15 July 2009
16 July 2009
10 August 2009
J:\Services\Academic Office\Quality Assurance
Division\Events\2008-09\AIBS\BU16 Masters
Suite for Chelmsford\Reports\MScs Management
Practice - report.doc
AIBS/PG/89/MScs in Management Practice
Confirmed
SECTION C – DETAILS OF PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND PROPOSAL TEAM
Internal Panel Members:
Mike Smith (Chair)
Department of Computing & Technology
Faculty of Science & Technology
Mary Northrop
Senior Lecturer
Faculty of Health & Social Care
External Panel Members:
Dr Andy Adcroft
MSc Management and MSc International Business Management
Programme Director
School of Management
University of Surrey
Prof. George Stonehouse
Professor of International Strategic Management and Dean of
Business School
Edinburgh Napier University
Executive Officer:
Claire Moorey
Faculty Quality Assurance Officer (Ashcroft International Business
School)
Quality Assurance Division, Academic Office
Members of Proposal Team:
Dr Sonal Minocha
Head of Chelmsford Department
Ashcroft International Business School
Prof. Roger Jeynes
Professor of Management Practice
Ashcroft International Business School
Hermione McIntosh
Placements Co-ordinator
Ashcroft International Business School
Prof. Martin Reynolds
Pro Vice Chancellor and Dean of Faculty
Ashcroft International Business School
Jon Salkeld
Director of UK/Corporate Partnerships
Ashcroft International Business School
John Webb
Director of Studies (Essex)
Ashcroft International Business School
Quality Assurance Division
9
Confirmed
SECTION D – OUTCOME DATA
Programme
Department
Faculty
Collaborative Partner
New/amended Awards
Approved (nb intended awards
Chelmsford
Chelmsford
Ashcroft International Business School
Not applicable
Title(s) of Named Pathway(s)
Attendance mode
and duration
only, not intermediate awards)
MSc
Financial Management Practice
International Management Practice
Management Practice
Marketing Management Practice
Validating body (if not Anglia Ruskin University)
Professional body accreditation
Proposal Team Leader
Month and Year of the first intake
Standard intake points
Maximum and minimum student numbers
Date of first Conferment of Award(s)
Any additional/specialised wording to appear on
transcript and/or award certificate
Date of next scheduled Periodic Review
Awards and Titles to be deleted (with month/year of last
regular conferment)
Full-time – 1 year
Not applicable
Not applicable
Dr Sonal Minocha
September 2009
September and February
8 min.; 150 max.
September 2010
None
2009/10
None
NEW MODULES APPROVED
BB430003S
BB460001S
BB430004S
BB445001S
BB460001S
BB430006S
BB460003S
BB430005S
Challenges of Management in Practice
Insights into Management Practice
Management Practice Portfolio
Management Practice Portfolio
Management Practice Portfolio
Management Theory into Practice
Performing Management Practice
The Reflective Practitioner
Quality Assurance Division
10
Confirmed
Appendix 1
Pathway Specification Form (PSF)
Award
Pathway Title
Required amendments
MSc
Financial Management
Practice
International
Management Practice
Management Practice
Marketing Management
Practice
7.
8.
10.
15.
Confirm the Pathway Leader;
Replace with Chelmsford;
Insert Chelmsford;
Consider revising the aims to differentiate the pathways from each
other;
16. Consider revising the Learning Outcomes further, particularly in
Knowledge and Understanding, to differentiate the pathways from
each other;
17. Is a First Degree in a specialist subject desirable?
24.1 Complete 60 credits from either Insights into Management Practice,
Management Theory into Practice and The Reflective Practitioner.
MSc
Financial Management
Practice
International
Management Practice
Marketing Management
Practice
24.2 Complete 60 credits from either Action Learning for Managers, list of
designate modules or Performing Management Practice;
24.3 Complete 60 credits from either Challenges of Management in
Practice, list of designate modules, Management Practice Portfolio ×
3, or Postgraduate Major Project × 3.
MSc
Management Practice
24.2 Complete 0 credits from either Action Learning for Managers or
Performing Management Practice;
24.3 Complete 0 credits from list of finance designate modules;
24.4 Complete 0 credits from list of international management designate
modules;
24.5 Complete 0 credits from list of marketing designate modules;
24.6 Complete 60 credits from either Challenges of Management in
Practice, list of designate modules, Management Practice Portfolio ×
3, or Postgraduate Major Project × 3.
Claire Moorey, Executive Officer
Quality Assurance Division, Academic Office
19 May 2009
Page 11 of 15
Appendix 2
Specific report: for insertion into section 2.2.2 Specific individual module conditions of report
templates.
Module Definition Forms (MDF)
** Please re-submit modules by 12 June 2009**
Check that all existing modules meet the requirements of the pathway e.g. delivery pattern,
assessment pattern. If not, please liaise with the appropriate department.
Level 4
Module
Code
Module Title
New/Existi
ng
Approv
ed Y/N
Required Amendments
BB430***S
Challenges of Management in
Practice
New
3b. Replace with Standard;
5. Employment or access to an
organisation should be identified as
a pre-requisite rather than a corequisite. Students will presumably
have to demonstrate their access to
a work environment before they
register for the module;
5. Remove the restriction to
postgraduate. As a Level 4 module
it is restricted implicitly;
6a. Include details of the assessment;
8. Reconcile the Learning Outcomes
with Section 7;
9. Reconcile the number of Learning
Outcomes with those in Section 7;
10. Should detail the module delivered
over one semester and not two, as
illustrated in the PSFs’ Section 26;
12. Maximum word count is 8,000
words;
12. Remove the statement regarding
compensation;
13. Insert N2 Management Studies.
BB460***S
Insights into Management
Practice
New
2a. Identify one Module Leader;
3b. Replace with Standard;
5. Employment or access to an
organisation should be identified as
a pre-requisite rather than a corequisite. Students will presumably
have to demonstrate their access to
a work environment before they
register for the module;
7. Maximum number of Learning
Outcomes is six;
10. Should detail the module delivered
over one semester and not two, as
illustrated in the PSFs’ Section 26;
12. Insert ‘FG’ for the presentation and
question panel;
12. Remove the statement regarding
compensation;
13. Insert N2 Management Studies.
Claire Moorey, Executive Officer
Quality Assurance Division, Academic Office
19 May 2009
Page 12 of 15
Appendix 2
BB430***S
Management Practice Portfolio
New
5. Employment or access to an
organisation should be identified as
a pre-requisite rather than a corequisite. Students will presumably
have to demonstrate their access to
a work environment before they
register for the module;
5. Remove restriction to Postgraduate.
As a Level 4 it is restricted implicitly;
7. Renumber Learning Outcomes from
1.;
8. Reconcile Learning Outcomes to
Section 7;
8. Learning activities should be
recalibrated to total 300;
9. Reconcile Learning Outcomes to
Section 7;
10. Should detail the module delivered
over one semester and not two, as
illustrated in the PSFs’ Section 26;
12. Remove the statement regarding
compensation;
13. Insert N2 Management Studies.
BB445***S
Management Practice Portfolio
New
5. Employment or access to an
organisation should be identified as
a pre-requisite rather than a corequisite. Students will presumably
have to demonstrate their access to
a work environment before they
register for the module;
5. Remove restriction to Postgraduate.
As a Level 4 it is restricted implicitly;
7. Renumber Learning Outcomes from
1.;
8. Reconcile Learning Outcomes to
Section 7;
8. Learning activities should be
recalibrated to total 450;
9. Reconcile Learning Outcomes to
Section 7;
10. Should detail the module delivered
over one semester and not two, as
illustrated in the PSFs’ Section 26;
13. Insert N2 Management Studies.
BB460***S
Management Practice Portfolio
New
5. Employment or access to an
organisation should be identified as
a pre-requisite rather than a corequisite. Students will presumably
have to demonstrate their access to
a work environment before they
register for the module;
5. Remove restriction to Postgraduate.
As a Level 4 it is restricted implicitly;
7. Renumber Learning Outcomes from
1.;
8. Reconcile Learning Outcomes to
Section 7;
Claire Moorey, Executive Officer
Quality Assurance Division, Academic Office
19 May 2009
Page 13 of 15
Appendix 2
9. Reconcile Learning Outcomes to
Section 7;
10. Should detail the module delivered
over one semester and not two, as
illustrated in the PSFs’ Section 26;
12. Remove the statement regarding
compensation;
13. Insert N2 Management Studies.
BB430***S
Management Theory into
Practice
New
Has written agreement been received
from the Head of Cambridge
Department to archive BC415055S and
for it to be replaced by this larger
module?
What implications are there for the
pathways in which BC415055S is a
constituent module if it is replaced by a
larger, 30-credit module?
6a. Include details of the assessment;
6c. Reduce the list of texts to key texts
only. Further reading can be
detailed in the annually-updated
Module Guide;
9. The breakdown of the 80% individual
assignment may be better articulated
within the Module Guide and tutors’
marking scheme;
9. Reconsider the psychological value
of an element carrying 20% of final
mark and whether it should be
increased;
12. Dependent upon the decision
regarding recalibrating the weighting
of the assessment elements, you
may need to revise the word lengths,
etc appropriately;
13. Insert N2 Management Studies.
BB460***S
Performing Management
Practice
New
2a. Identify one Module Leader;
3b. Replace with Standard;
5. Employment or access to an
organisation should be identified as
a pre-requisite rather than a corequisite. Students will presumably
have to demonstrate their access to
a work environment before they
register for the module;
5. Remove the restriction regarding
postgraduate. As a Level 4 module
it is restricted implicitly;
8. Reconcile learning outcomes to
Section 7;
9. Reconcile learning outcomes to
Section 7;
10. Should detail the module delivered
over one semester and not two, as
illustrated in the PSFs’ Section 26;
12. Amend the duration of the
presentation;
12. Remove the comment regarding
Claire Moorey, Executive Officer
Quality Assurance Division, Academic Office
19 May 2009
Page 14 of 15
Appendix 2
compensation;
13. Insert N2 Management Studies.
BB430***S
The Reflective Practitioner
New
3b. Insert Standard;
6c. Reduce the list of texts to key texts
only. Further reading can be
detailed in the annually-updated
Module Guide;
10-13. Include these sections
completed appropriately.
Claire Moorey, Executive Officer
Quality Assurance Division, Academic Office
19 May 2009
Page 15 of 15