THE SENATE
PATHWAY APPROVAL REPORT
(Franchised Provision)
A confirmed report of the event held on 1st May 2009 to consider the
approval of the following pathways:
HNC Construction
HND Construction Management
HNC Civil Engineering
HND Civil Engineering
Faculty of Science and Technology
Delivery of Pathways at University Centre Peterborough
Quality Assurance Division
SECTION A – OUTCOME SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The purpose of the event was to consider the franchise of the HNC Construction, HND
Construction Management, HNC Civil Engineering and HND Civil Engineering pathways for
delivery at University Centre Peterborough.
1.2
The pathways will be located in the Construction Programme within the Department of the
Built Environment in the Faculty of Science and Technology.
2.
CONCLUSIONS
2.1
The Panel recommends to the Senate the franchise of the following pathways:




HNC Construction;
HND Construction Management;
HNC Civil Engineering;
HND Civil Engineering.
Approval, once confirmed, will be for an indefinite period, subject to Anglia Ruskin’s
continuing quality assurance procedures.
The mode of attendance for each pathway will be full-time and part-time. Minimum and
maximum student numbers for each intake to each pathway will be 12 and 20 respectively.
2.2
The following pathways have been accredited by the listed professional or statutory body:

HNC Construction – Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB)

HND Construction Management – Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB)

HNC Civil Engineering – Joint Board of Moderators (JBM) acting on behalf of ICE,
IstructE, IHIE for the Engineering Council UK

HND Civil Engineering – Joint Board of Moderators (JBM) acting on behalf of ICE,
IstructE, IHIE for the Engineering Council UK
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
Details of Condition
Deadline
Response to
be considered
by
The Proposal Team [Anglia Ruskin and
University Centre, Peterborough] shall address
the issues detailed in the technical report and
submit electronic final versions of the Pathway
Specification Forms (PSFs) to include separate
structure diagrams for both full-time and parttime delivery at University Centre, Peterborough
[see paragraph 8.1];
11th June
2009
Chair
Executive
Officer &
Technical
Officer
Quality Assurance Division
2
Confirmed
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.4
The Proposal Team [University Centre,
Peterborough] shall provide written confirmation
that the specialist learning resources required for
the delivery of the pathways, subject of a capital
bid to the College, will be purchased and
available to students at the commencement of
the pathways in September 2009 [see paragraph
6.2];
The Proposal Team [University Centre,
Peterborough] shall provide electronic final
versions of all staff CVs and tables showing the
final allocation of staff to modules for each
pathway for inclusion in the Register of Teaching
Staff [see paragraph 6.9].
11th June
2009
Chair &
Executive
Officer
11th June
2009
Chair &
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 5th October 2009:
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.5
Details of Recommendation
The Panel recommends that the teaching team at University
Centre Peterborough pursue membership of the Higher
Education Academy through the staff development process [see
paragraph 6.8];
The Panel recommends that the Proposal Team [Anglia Ruskin
and University Centre, Peterborough] further develop the Student
Handbooks for each pathway, taking account of the following:
 Further Anglia Ruskin guidance on the content of Student
Handbooks following the Quality Enhancement Audit of
Student Handbooks;
 The points raised by the Panel in the checklist of issues [see
paragraph 8.2].
Deadline
7th September
2009
7th September
2009
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 Construction, Technical and Professional Department of Peterborough Regional
College, in conjunction with the Joint Venture Company, University Centre Peterborough
(UCP), seeks approval to deliver HNC/D provision to replace the existing Edexcel Higher
National Construction and Civil Engineering qualifications. The Proposal Team expressed
confidence that the local/regional market, that has for many years supported HE provision
in Construction and Civil Engineering at Peterborough, will welcome the new provision
through University Centre Peterborough as a positive move in continuing to offer and
expand good quality HE provision in the Greater Peterborough area. The Proposal Team
also intended to seek approval to deliver the BSc in Construction Management from 2010
to provide progression from HNC/D to honours degree level for current students and for
those in the area who had previously gained such qualifications.
3.2
The Construction, Technical and Professional Department of Peterborough Regional
College has a long standing tradition of offering the Edexcel validated Higher National
programmes. HNC Construction programmes currently offer students a two year grounding
in a range of Construction professional and technical related disciplines, including;
Management Principles, Technology, Design Principles, Site Surveying, Health and Safety,
Science and Building Services. The current HNC Civil Engineering programme offers a
similar grounding, with the addition of Geology and Soil Mechanics and Structural Analysis.
3.3
The Panel discussed the level of recruitment that UCP expected to the pathways and the
number of existing Edexcel students that were due to complete their pathways at the end of
the 2009/10 academic year. The Team informed the Panel that the current target for
recruitment was 16 students to both HNC Construction and HNC Civil Engineering. There
would also be approximately 14 students continuing on each of the Edexcel Construction
and Civil Engineering courses. The Team further informed the Panel that the intention was
to recruit approximately 12 students per HND pathway via the accreditation of student’s
prior learning.
3.4
The Team planned to market the HND pathways to the previous three cohorts of students
who had graduated with HNCs in Construction or Civil Engineering at UCP. The Panel also
learned that the Team had received interest in the full-time routes from students currently
on National Diploma courses and others who had lost jobs as a result of the economic
downturn. The Panel enquired why the decision had been made to change from the
Edexcel Higher National courses to the Anglia Ruskin pathways at this time. The Team
responded that UCP was seeking approval from Anglia Ruskin for a range of pathways
from Higher Nationals to Foundation Degrees and Honours Degrees which would provide a
structure within which students could progress seamlessly through to Honours Degree at
UCP. The Panel welcomed the additional information provided by the Team.
4
CURRICULUM DESIGN, CONTENT AND DELIVERY
4.1
The Panel was interested to learn whether the Team intended to recruit to both the HNC
and HND pathways in September 2009 and the arrangements for progression from HNC to
HND. The Team informed the Panel that new students would only be enrolled on the HNC
pathways initially, due to the removal of Government funding for equal or lesser
qualifications. Those students would, however, be able to progress seamlessly to the HND.
The Team further explained that the HNC pathways had been designed with 90 credits at
Level 1 and 30 credits at Level 2; students wishing to progress to the HND would receive
APL for the 30 Level 2 credits that had already been studied for the HNC.
Quality Assurance Division
4
Confirmed
4.2
The Panel continued the discussion by enquiring whether the HND pathways would
commence in September 2009 if all students were due to be enrolled on HNC pathways.
The Team responded that the HND pathways would only be available to students entering
with APL initially, until the first cohort of students had completed the HNC pathways and
wished to progress to HND. The Panel was interested to learn whether the delivery of the
HNC pathways, potential delivery of the HND pathways and continuation of the Edexcel
courses would mean a marked increase in student numbers for the teaching team at UCP
to manage. The Team responded that an initial cohort of approximately 30 students was
anticipated for the HNC pathways with approximately 27 students completing Edexcel
courses, meaning 45-50 students overall for the 2009/10 academic year. This would be an
increase of approximately 25-30 students on existing provision but was considered to be
manageable by the existing staff team. The Panel was reassured by the information
provided and was satisfied that the staff base was sufficient to manage the increase in
student numbers and support the delivery of the pathways.
4.3
A discussion took place regarding the selection of modules to be offered to students at
Peterborough from those available on the HND pathways at Anglia Ruskin. The Team
informed the Panel that modules had been chosen on the basis of staff expertise and the
size of the staff base at UCP. The modules chosen would, however, meet the criteria for
students to progress to Honours Degree level and the Professional Body requirements for
both Construction and Civil Engineering. The Panel was reassured that the choice of
modules was appropriate and that due consideration had been given to student
progression.
4.4
The Panel discussed the relationship between Anglia Ruskin and UCP in the development
of curriculum delivery. In particular, the Panel was interested to learn about the discussions
that had taken place prior to the submission of the approval documentation. The Team
explained that discussions regarding the franchise of Construction and Civil Engineering
pathways had been ongoing with Anglia Ruskin during 2008. The Programme Leader
(Construction) at Anglia Ruskin had visited UCP to discuss the pathways and their content
and delivery, approval documentation had subsequently been written by UCP in close
collaboration with the Programme Leader. During the visit to UCP by the Programme
Leader it was agreed that the physical resources would need to be improved before the
pathways could be franchised (see paragraph 6.2 below). PSFs and MDFs were provided
to UCP and documentary requirements for the approval process along with learning,
teaching and assessment strategies were discussed. The Panel also learned that Module
Guides and their role in the learning and teaching process and the importance of ensuring
comparability of delivery for the pathways at both Anglia Ruskin and UCP was also
discussed. The Panel welcomed the explanation provided and was reassured that
appropriate discussions had taken place.
4.5
In terms of the delivery of individual modules the Panel enquired how the Team intended to
ensure the comparability of the teaching programmes. The Team responded that modules
would be delivered identically at Anglia Ruskin and UCP to ensure that the student
experience and quality of education was comparable. The Panel was provided with a draft
document entitled; ‘Guidelines and procedures to be followed by Anglia Ruskin and
Regional Partners for Built Environment provision’. It was explained that the document had
been developed to clarify the responsibility of collaborative partners and the Department at
Anglia Ruskin for specific administrative and quality assurance processes. The Module
Leader at Anglia Ruskin was responsible for providing the Module Leader at each
collaborative partner institution with the module guide, teaching timetable and assessment
details. Students would be able to access all Anglia Ruskin library services, Web-CT and eVision. Teaching materials would also be added to Web-CT by Anglia Ruskin staff for use
by student’s at all collaborative partner institutions. The Team further informed the Panel
that the Faculty of Science and Technology hosted a Discipline Network Group (DNG)
meeting which acted as a forum for academic staff at partner institutions to discuss
curriculum and assessment matters with colleagues at Anglia Ruskin. The Department of
Quality Assurance Division
5
Confirmed
the Built Environment also held a separate meeting following the Faculty DNG to discuss
more specific issues with colleagues from partner institutions. The Panel welcomed the
mechanisms outlined by the Team to ensure the comparability of delivery and teaching in
particular.
4.6
The Panel enquired about the mechanisms in place for the evaluation of module delivery
by students. The Team explained that UCP students would complete the same module
evaluation questionnaire as core Anglia Ruskin students. UCP staff were familiar with the
Anglia Ruskin module evaluation process having recently overseen the completion of the
questionnaires by Engineering students. The Team further explained that the links with
collaborative partners were supported by a dedicated administrator within the Department
of the Built Environment which was considered crucial to the effective delivery of the
pathways and provided partners with a single point of contact. The Administrator ensured
that all partner institution staff received copies of relevant Codes of Practice, Academic
Regulations and would oversee processes such as module evaluation. The Panel was
reassured by the explanation provided.
5
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
5.1
The Panel enquired about the process that would be adopted for the internal moderation of
assessment tasks undertaken by students at UCP. The Team responded that moderation
procedures would follow those detailed in the Procedural Document to the Senate Code of
Practice on the Assessment of Students, also conforming to existing practice at other
collaborative partner institutions. Assessment tasks would be moderated internally at UCP
and then sent to the Module Leader at Anglia Ruskin where the sample would be checked
for comparability with marking standards at other locations of delivery before being sent to
the External Examiner. The Panel was satisfied that the proposed moderation procedures
accorded with the Procedural Document to the Senate Code of Practice on the
Assessment of Students.
6
STAFFING, LEARNING RESOURCES AND STUDENT SUPPORT
6.1
The Panel was provided with a full tour of the physical resources to support the delivery of
the pathways at UCP. The Panel viewed construction and engineering laboratories, a brick
workshop and equipment including compression testing and concrete testing equipment,
vibrating table, CBR testing apparatus and surveying and structures equipment. In addition
the Panel also viewed teaching rooms, computer rooms, including computers installed with
AutoCAD software, and the College library.
6.2
During the tour of physical resources the Team informed the Panel that various items of
equipment and software required for the delivery of the pathways were the subject of a
capital bid to the College, including soils and hydraulic equipment and surveying software.
A decision was expected from the Vice Principal of Finance and the Board of Governors in
June 2009. The Panel was reassured by the submission of the bid but agreed that the
availability of the resources was fundamental to the delivery of the pathways and the
quality of education provided to students and therefore set a condition requiring written
confirmation that the specialist learning resources would be purchased and available to
students at the commencement of the pathways in September 2009 [see Condition 2.3.2].
Quality Assurance Division
6
Confirmed
6.3
The Panel also enquired about the availability of computers for students, particularly parttime students, whilst they were on campus. The Team explained that computers were
generally available on an open-access basis, except when scheduled AutoCAD classes
were taking place. In addition, day release students were not on campus on Fridays which
enabled greater access to computers. The Team considered the number of available
computers, 77 over 3 rooms, to be sufficient for the needs of students, including the
additional students from September 2009. The Panel was satisfied by the explanation
provided.
6.4
In terms of the library stock the Panel enquired whether it would be increased in line with
the expansion in student numbers in the subject areas. The Team responded that the
Academic Director at UCP had confirmed that there would be funds available to purchase
the additional texts. The Curriculum Team Manager (Construction) at UCP had been
identifying the required texts from the module guides supplied by Anglia Ruskin. The Team
further explained that students would also have access to Web-CT, the Anglia Ruskin
Digital Library and IHS (formerly Technical Indexes) as additional resources. Anglia Ruskin
Digital Library also had access to the Construction Information Service through the
database although it was noted that there were currently software licence issues that the
Academic Director at UCP was attempting to resolve with Anglia Ruskin to ensure that
UCP students could access the resource.
6.5
The Panel further enquired about the library opening hours and whether students,
particularly those on day-release, would have sufficient time to access the library. The
Team informed the Panel that the library was open from 8.30am to 7.30pm on MondayThursday and from 8.30am to 5pm on Friday. During vacation periods the library was open
from 9am to 1pm and 2pm to 4.45pm daily. The Panel learned that students enrolled for
HNC pathways would finish their teaching at 6pm but that there would also be other
periods during the day when they would be able to visit the library. The current library
opening hours were not considered inimical to the needs of students by the Anglia Ruskin
Programme Leader.
6.6
The Panel also enquired about Wi-Fi access in the library. The Team informed the Panel
that Wi-Fi access was not currently available but that the new University Centre building,
due for completion by September 2009, would have Wi-Fi capability and computers with a
direct link to the Anglia Ruskin servers to improve access. The Panel thanked the Team for
the information provided during the discussions about library resources and access and
was reassured that both were appropriate to provide the necessary quality of education to
students.
6.7
The Panel asked the Team to confirm whether students would have access to a Student
Adviser at UCP as at Anglia Ruskin. The Team confirmed that Chris Todd was the
appointed Student Adviser for UCP who retained close links with his counterparts at Anglia
Ruskin.
6.8
A discussion took place regarding staff development activity at UCP. The Panel enquired
whether any of the staff team at UCP had achieved membership of the Higher Education
Academy (HEA). The Team responded that there were no members of the HEA at UCP
currently. The Team further informed the Panel that lesson observations were conducted at
UCP as part of College quality processes. Observations were carried out by trained
observers who taught both at FE and HE level. The observation outcomes included
developmental targets. Prior to the formal observation Curriculum Team Managers
conducted a developmental lesson observation. The Panel also learned that the College
encouraged and funded staff in further academic study. Two members of Construction staff
were currently being funded by the College for Masters Level qualifications. The Panel
enquired whether there was commitment from UCP to allow staff to attend staff
development events at Anglia Ruskin. The Team confirmed that UCP staff had already
attended a number of staff development events at Anglia Ruskin including Academic
Quality Assurance Division
7
Confirmed
Regulations and APL and Admissions training. Collaborative partner staff were also invited
to attend staff away days where curriculum delivery, research and assessment was
discussed. The Panel welcomed the staff development opportunities available to UCP staff
and their inclusion in Anglia Ruskin staff development activities but considered it beneficial
that staff pursue HEA membership to support their professional development. The Panel
therefore recommended that the teaching team at UCP pursue HEA membership through
the staff development process [see Recommendation 2.4.1].
6.9
The Panel enquired whether all staff within the teaching team would teach on both the
Construction and Civil Engineering pathways. The Team responded that some specialist
part-time staff would also contribute to the teaching of the modules for the individual
pathways. The Panel further enquired whether there were plans to increase staffing levels.
The Team informed the Panel that additional staffing had been discussed with the
Academic Director and a bid had been submitted for an additional full-time member of staff
for September 2009. Despite the bid for an additional member of staff the Team considered
the current staffing levels sufficient to deliver the pathways from September 2009. The
Panel was satisfied that the staffing levels were appropriate and was reassured by the
submission of the bid for an additional member of staff. The Panel was able to formally
approved the suitability of staff at UCP to deliver the specified Anglia Ruskin modules but
determined to set a condition requiring the submission of final versions of all staff CVs and
the final allocation of staff to modules for inclusion in the Anglia Ruskin Register of
Teaching Staff at collaborative partner institutions [see Condition 2.3.3].
7
QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
7.1
The Panel was interested to learn about arrangements for student representation at formal
Committee meetings at UCP. The Team confirmed that there were student representatives
for all part-time programmes who were invited to course team meetings, although
scheduling meetings when part-time students were on-site was sometimes problematic.
The Panel welcomed the attendance of student representatives at course team meetings.
8
DOCUMENTATION
8.1
It was noted by the Panel that the PSFs supplied in the proposal documentation did not
contain separate structure diagrams for full-time and part-time delivery at UCP and it was
therefore not clear in the PSF which modules would be delivered at UCP. The Panel
agreed to set a condition requiring the Proposal Team to address the issues detailed in the
technical report and submit electronic final versions of all PSFs including separate structure
diagrams for full-time and part-time delivery at UCP [see Condition 2.3.1].
8.2
The Panel had highlighted some minor issues with regard to the Student Handbooks both
during the event and in the checklist of issues. In general, the Panel felt that the handbooks
should be specific to the pathways, take account of Anglia Ruskin guidance on the content
of Student Handbooks following the Quality Enhancement Audit of Student Handbooks,
and make appropriate references to Anglia Ruskin’s Academic Regulations. The Panel
therefore recommended that the Proposal Team further develop the Students Handbooks
for each pathway [see Recommendation 2.4.2].
9
CONFIRMATION OF STANDARDS OF AWARDS
9.1
The Panel confirmed that the proposed HNC Construction, HNC Civil Engineering, HND
Construction Management and HND Civil Engineering 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.
Quality Assurance Division
8
Confirmed
DRAFT
UNCONFIRMED
CONFIRMED
FILE REF
OFFICE FILE REF
Quality Assurance Division
9
6th August 2009
7th August 2009
20th August 2009
Confirmed
SECTION C – DETAILS OF PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND PROPOSAL TEAM
Internal Panel Members:
Sarah Fitt (Chair)
Programme Leader (Languages & Intercultural Communication),
Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences
Dr Penny English
Principal Lecturer (Law), Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences
Jon Svensson
Principal Lecturer (Radiography), Faculty of Health and Social Care
External Panel Members:
Dr Philip Westwood
School of the Environment, University of Brighton
Executive Officer:
Richard Monk
Deputy Head of Quality Assurance, Quality Assurance Division,
Academic Office
Technical Officer:
Alex Toole
Academic Regulations Officer, Quality Assurance Division,
Academic Office
Members of Proposal Team:
Peter Crabtree
Programme Leader (Construction), Faculty of Science and
Technology, Anglia Ruskin University
Paul McDermott
Academic Director, University Centre Peterborough
Barbara Mehew
Company Human Resource Manager, Princebuild Ltd,
Peterborough
Tim Moseley
Programme Leader (Construction, Engineering & Therapies),
University Centre Peterborough
Praveen Payyambali
Course Co-ordinator, HNC Construction, University Centre
Peterborough
Gary Thomas
Curriculum Team Manager, Construction, University Centre
Peterborough
Quality Assurance Division
10
Confirmed
SECTION D – OUTCOME DATA
Programme
Department
Faculty
Collaborative Partner
New/amended Awards
Approved (nb intended awards
Construction
Built Environment
Faculty of Science and Technology
University Centre, Peterborough
Title(s) of Named Pathway(s)
Attendance mode
and duration
only, not intermediate awards)
HNC
Construction
Full-time – 1 year
Part-time – 2 years
HNC
Civil Engineering
Full-time – 1 year
Part-time – 2 years
HND
Construction Management
Full-time – 2 years
Part-time – 4 years
HND
Civil Engineering
Full-time – 2 years
Part-time – 4 years
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
See paragraph 2.2 above
Peter Crabtree / Tim Moseley
September 2009
September
Min: 12, Max 20 (per pathway)
HNC – July 2010
HND – July 2011
None
To be confirmed
N/A
NEW MODULES APPROVED
None.
Quality Assurance Division
11
Confirmed
FOR FRANCHISE APPROVALS ONLY: LIST OF MODULE TUTORS AND MODULE CODES & TITLES
(FOR INCLUSION IN THE REGISTER OF TEACHING STAFF)
Name of Teaching Staff
Module Code & Title
HNC Construction
Module
Level 1:
EB130001D An Introduction to
Technology and Design
EB130003D Built Environment
and the Economy
EB130004D Contextual Skills
for the Built Environment
Level 2:
EB230009D Civil Law and
Management
Module Leader
Supporting Lecturer
Gary Thomas
Gary Thomas
Howard Shipp, Andrew Stubbs &
Matthew Gallichan
Matthew Gallichan
Robert Farquhar
Andrew Stubbs
Robert Farquhar
Andrew Stubbs
HND Construction Management
Module
Level 1:
EB130004D Contextual Skills
for the Built Environment
EB130001D An Introduction to
Technology and Design
EB130003D Built Environment
and the Economy
EB115001S Site Management
and Safety
EB115005S Introduction to Civil
Law and Legislation
Level 2:
EB230003D Environmental
Services and Construction
Technology
EB215011S Construction
Project
EB230002D Construction
Resource Management
EB230005D Measurement and
Analysis of Prices
EB215026S Project
Administration
Module Leader
Supporting Lecturer
Robert Farquhar
Andrew Stubbs
Gary Thomas
Gary Thomas
Howard Shipp, Andrew Stubbs &
Matthew Gallichan
Matthew Gallichan
Andrew Stubbs
Praveen Payyambali
Robert Farquhar
Howard Shipp
David Raymond
Gary Thomas
David Raymond
David Raymond
Gary Thomas
Gary Thomas
David Raymond
Continued overleaf
Quality Assurance Division
12
Confirmed
HNC Civil Engineering
Module
Level 1:
EB130001D An Introduction to
Technology and Design
EB130004D Contextual Skills
for the Built Environment
EB115001S Civil Engineering
Mathematics
EB115004S Geotechnics 1
Level 2:
EB230011D The Management
of Civil Engineering Works
Module Leader
Supporting Lecturer
Gary Thomas
Robert Farquhar
Howard Shipp, Andrew Stubbs &
Matthew Gallichan
Andrew Stubbs
Robert Farquhar
Praveen Payyambali
Nigel Coombs
Matthew Gallichan
Gary Thomas
David Raymond & Andrew
Stubbs
Module Leader
Supporting Lecturer
Robert Farquhar
Andrew Stubbs
Gary Thomas
Gary Thomas
Howard Shipp, Andrew Stubbs &
Matthew Gallichan
Nigel Coombs & Howard Shipp
Robert Farquhar
Praveen Payyambali
Andrew Stubbs
Praveen Payyambali
Nigel Coombs
Matthew Gallichan
Nigel Coombs
Matthew Gallichan & Howard
Shipp
David Raymond
HND Civil Engineering
Module
Level 1:
EB130004D Contextual Skills
for the Built Environment
EB130001D An Introduction to
Technology and Design
EB115002S Civil Engineering
Works
EB115001S Civil Engineering
Mathematics
EB115001S Site Management
and Safety
EB115004S Geotechnics 1
Level 2:
EB230014D Structural Method
and Analysis
EB215016S Group Project
EB215028S Site and
Engineering Surveying
EB215017S Hydraulics and
Drainage
EB215007S Concrete
Technology
EB215004S Applied
Mathematics for Civil Engineers
EB215042S Work Related
Learning Module
EB215046S CAD for Civil
Engineers
Quality Assurance Division
Praveen Payyambali
Robert Farquhar
Howard Shipp
David Raymond
Matthew Gallichan
Robert Farquhar
Praveen Payyambali
Gary Thomas
Andrew Stubbs
13
Confirmed