THE SENATE
PATHWAY APPROVAL REPORT
(Core and/or Franchised Provision)
A confirmed report of the event held on 10th December 2008 to
consider the approval of the following pathways:
MSc Construction Management
MSc Project Management
MSc Sustainable Construction
Faculty of Science and Technology
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 MSc Construction Management
and the revision and re-approval of the MSc Project Management and MSc Sustainable
Construction pathways.
1.2
The pathways will be located in the Programme areas of Construction and Surveying in the
Department of the Built Environment in the Faculty of Science and Technology.
1.3
Significant changes were proposed to the MSc Project Management pathway modules at
the Curriculum revisions Committee 14th October 2008. It was decided that, due to the
nature of the revisions, a full approval panel should give consideration to them.
1.4
Minor changes to the MSc Sustainable Construction pathway were also considered at this
event, including the splitting of a 30 credit module into two 15 credit modules and revisions
to the PSF in order to attract more potential students.
2.
CONCLUSIONS
2.1
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of the following pathways:



MSc Construction Management
MSc Project Management
MSc Sustainable Construction
Approval, once confirmed, will be for an indefinite period, subject to Anglia Ruskin’s
continuing quality assurance procedures.
2.2
The Panel recommends to the Senate the approval of 12 new modules for delivery. The
full titles of all new modules are provided in section D of the final 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:
Details of Condition
Deadline
Response to be
considered by
2.3.1
The Team shall review the assessment strategy
and give more detail in the PSF, if appropriate,
but more specifically in box 6A of the MDFs.
13th January
2009
Chair, Technical
Officer,
Executive
officer
2.3.2
The Team shall submit electronic versions of the
definitive PSFs and MDFs amended in
accordance with the Technical Report (e.g.
inclusion of consistent, accurate and
comprehensive referencing of texts.)
13th January
2009
Chair, Technical
Officer,
Executive
officer
2.3.3
The Team shall submit final versions of the
Student Handbooks ensuring that they are user
friendly, informative, inspiring and grammatically
correct.
13th January
2009
Chair, Technical
Officer,
Executive
officer
Quality Assurance Division
2
Confirmed
2.3.4
2.4
The Team shall review the entry requirements in
box 17 of the PSFs to ensure consistency in
admission criteria.
13th January
2009
Chair, Technical
Officer,
Executive
officer
Recommendations
The following recommendations for quality enhancement were made by the Panel. A copy
of the responses to the recommendations listed below must be lodged with the Executive
Officer. The Faculty Board for the Faculty of Science and Technology will consider the
responses at its meeting of 2nd February 2009:
2.5
Details of Recommendation
Deadline
2.4.1
The Team should consider whether the new research course
could be used to enhance the current research study module.
13th January
2009
2.4.2
The Team should ensure that the Student Handbooks reflect the
inspiring and marketable aspects of the courses.
13th January
2009
2.4.3
The Team should clarify how they will ensure the curriculum of
the pathways will remain current and relevant and how links with
industry will be developed and maintained.
13th January
2009
Issues Referred to the Senate (or appropriate standing committee)
The Panel did not identify any institution-wide issues which require 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 Team explained that the proposed new pathway had been designed to fill a gap that
had been identified in the market. Professional body frameworks and requirements had
been taken into account in the curriculum content and once approved by Anglia Ruskin,
accreditation would be sought from the CIOB and RICS.
4
CURRICULUM DESIGN, CONTENT AND DELIVERY
4.1
The Team confirmed that the QAA MSc descriptors for master’s level qualifications were
used as a starting point for the development of the proposed curriculum, together with the
professional bodies’ educational framework documents.
4.2
The Panel enquired as to whether links with industry existed and if these had been utilised
in the design of the pathway. The Team explained that contacts had been approached and
that flyers had been sent round to employers to gain their feedback on the proposed
pathway. It was also noted that the CIOB had commented on the structure of the new
pathway and new modules and this feedback had been built into the design.
4.3
The Panel asked the Team whether research being carried out within the Department had
been used to inform the curriculum. The Team responded that, while much research was
ongoing within the Department of the Built Environment, this subject area was still being
developed. As such any future updates to the pathways would be able to take advantage of
work currently being carried out. It was noted that the new research strategy for Anglia
Ruskin would mean that the Department was moving towards a more research focused
position. The Team confirmed that the pathways as presented for approval were, however,
well versed and up to date.
4.4
The Panel asked the Team to highlight some of the innovative aspects of the pathways
which could be used to sell the courses to potential students. The Team explained that the
pathways aimed to be contemporary and cutting edge without forsaking the principles,
practices and recognised and proven approaches to the subject area and as such would be
attractive to both employers and students. However, the reflective learning portfolio module
was cited an example of an innovative learning.
4.5
The Panel enquired where students would gain transferable skills required by employers.
The Team confirmed that the lectures would provide students with the knowledge base
required to then develop and apply skills during workshop, seminar and tutorial sessions.
4.6
The Panel noted that there are to be two standard entry points on to the new MSc, January
and September, and enquired whether all modules were stand alone and if the order they
were taken makes a difference to students. The Team confirmed that the modules do not
have pre-requisites and as such the order taken would not be problematic.
4.7
Discussions took place regarding the lack of teaching on the areas of Company Finance
and Contracts within the course. The Team explained that these areas were not necessary
as in practice financial experts would be used and so project managers would not be
expected to have this knowledge. However, students progressing from undergraduate
pathways would already have studied these areas. The Panel suggested that more thought
be given to including these areas in future revisions of the pathway as it may prove useful
to employers and students.
4.8
The Panel asked the Team why a Health and Safety module had not been included within
the pathways. It was noted that the Team had considered this option but as most students
Quality Assurance Division
4
Confirmed
would have studied H&S at undergraduate level and/or within the work place it was decided
to covered the relevant topics across several modules rather than creating a specific
module.
4.9
The Panel enquired as to how long students would spend at Anglia Ruskin on a typical day.
The Team confirmed that each module would require a three hour session each week (one
hour lecture and a two hour workshop/seminar). Therefore students would spend six hours
on campus in a day covering two modules. However, it is intended to timetable the pathway
during the afternoon and evening for employer convenience.
4.10
The Team confirmed that although approval for full time, part time and block delivery for the
new MSc Construction Management pathway was being sought it was likely that only the
part time version would run in the first instance. It was also noted that all delivery methods
would fit in with the timings of Department Assessment Panels and all other university
processes.
5
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
5.1
The Panel noted that since the submission of the proposal documentation the Team
wished to add more exams to the assessment strategy for the pathways as professional
body (RICS) preference is that 50% of taught modules should be assessed by
examinations. As such the MDFs will be revised accordingly for the final submission.
5.2
The Panel commented that the range of assignments was very traditional, incorporating
essays, exams, reports and a portfolio. However no further detail was provided on any of
these. The Team explained that other types of formative assessment would be used,
including presentations, reflections and role play interaction. The Team agreed to include
more detail in the final version of the MDFs.
5.3
The Panel noted that the minimum qualifying mark had been set at 35% in order to satisfy
professional body requirements.
6
STAFFING, LEARNING RESOURCES AND STUDENT SUPPORT
6.1
The Panel enquired as to whether the IT software currently in use in industry would be
purchased and made available to students. The Team explained that there were no
immediate plans to buy licences as only populated sources would really benefit students.
However, the Team explained that students would be made aware of what is available and
visitors would be encouraged to provide demonstrations to students on live systems where
appropriate.
6.2
Discussions took place regarding the use of WebCT by the Department. The Team
confirmed that the resource was used by several members of staff for three main purposes.
Firstly to provide a comprehensive information base, including week by week study guides
and web links. Secondly to provide a learning community with open communication, to be
used in the place of emails. Thirdly to provide immediate feedback to students.
Assessments were submitted on-line, multiple choice tests were taken there and marks
and comments could also be viewed there.
6.3
The Team confirmed that students would all be appointed a Personal Tutor who they would
meet with at least twice per semester on both a group and an individual basis. Additional
appointments could also be made as required.
Quality Assurance Division
5
Confirmed
6.4
The Panel suggested to the Team that sessions be set up with the Student Advisor,
Subject Liaison Librarian etc at the beginning of delivery to ensure that students were
aware of the different support and advice available to them.
7
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
7.1
The Panel was satisfied with the information provided by the Team on Quality Assurance
and Enhancement and as such did not raise any further issues on this subject area.
8
NATIONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND STATUTORY BODY REQUIREMENTS
8.1
It was noted that accreditation from the CIOB and RICS would be sought following the
Anglia Ruskin University approval event.
9
DOCUMENTATION
9.1
Discussions took place regarding the way in which the PSFs had been written, specifically
the very long sentences. The Panel offered to pass on annotated copies after the event in
order to assist with final revisions before submission as a condition.
9.2
The Panel commented that the admissions criteria for the three pathways appeared to
differ. The Team confirmed that the discrepancy was an error and that it would be
corrected in the final draft of the PSFs.
9.3
The Student Handbook was discussed with the Team. The Panel commented that the draft
presented was not particularly student friendly and that grammatical errors were also
present. The Handbook was to be revised before final submission.
10
MISCELLANEOUS
10.1
The Panel approved the proposed split to the 30 credit module ‘Environmental
Management and the Built Environment’ into the following two 15 credit modules
‘Environmental Management Issues’ and ‘Policies and Environmental Management
Systems’. However, it was noted that the references included within the MDFs had not
been updated during the split. The Team suggested that this be done before final
submission.
11
CONFIRMATION OF STANDARDS OF AWARDS
11.1
The Panel confirmed that the proposed MSc Construction Management, MSc Project
Management and MSc Sustainable Construction pathways 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
6
6th January 2009
15th January 2009
26th January 2009
Confirmed
SECTION C – DETAILS OF PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND PROPOSAL TEAM
Internal Panel Members:
Steven Wood
Head of Department, Mental Health and Learning Disabilities
Faculty of Health and Social care
Caroline Strange
Director, Research Support
Research, Development and Commercial Services.
External Panel Members:
Nicholas Fowler
Business Improvement Manager
Denne Construction Ltd
Sam Wamuziri
Senior Lecturer and Teaching Fellow in Construction Project
Management
Napier University
Executive Officer:
Ellen Langford
Faculty Quality Assurance Officer (Science and Technology)
Academic Office
Technical Officer:
Alex Toole
Academic Regulations Officer
Academic Officer
Observer:
Vicky McCormick
Faculty Quality Assurance Officer (ALSS)
Academic Office
Members of Proposal Team:
Mike Coffey
Director of Taught Post Graduate Studies
Department of the Built Environment
David Reid
Head of Department
Department of the Built Environment
Peter Crabtree
Programme Leader, Construction
Department of the Built Environment
Stephen Fenton
Programme Leader, Surveying
Department of the Built Environment
Chris Hogg
Senior Lecturer
Department of the Built Environment
Ljiljana Marjanovic-Halburd
Senior Lecturer
Department of the Built Environment
Stephen Mugliston
Senior Lecturer
Quality Assurance Division
7
Confirmed
Department of the Built Environment
Barbara Vohmann
Senior Lecturer
Department of the Built Environment
Quality Assurance Division
8
Confirmed
SECTION D – OUTCOME DATA
Programme
Department
Faculty
Collaborative Partner
New/amended Awards
Approved
Construction (MSc Construction Management)
Surveying (MSc Project Management)
Surveying (MSc Sustainable Construction)
Built Environment
Faculty of Science and Technology
N/A
Title(s) of Named Pathway(s)
Attendance mode
and duration
MSc
Construction Management
Full time, Part time
and Block Release
MSc
Project Management
Full time and Part
time
MSc
Sustainable Construction
Full time and Part
time
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)
N/A
To be sought separately after event
Mike Coffey
January 2009
January and September
Minimum =5, Maximum = 20
February 2011
N/A
2014
N/A
NEW MODULES APPROVED
MSc Construction Management
Procurement and Supply Chain Management
Sustainability and Environmental Management
Reflective Learning Portfolio
Project Analysis and Strategy
MSc Project Management
Management Theory
Management Practice
Project Management
Procurement and Supply Chain Management
Project Production Management
Risk and Value Management
MSc Sustainable Construction
Environmental Management Issues and Policies
Environmental Management Systems
Management Theory
Management Practice
Quality Assurance Division
9
Confirmed