university quality enhancement committee … coin.pdf · ds/qs : quantity surveying . bsc(hons) ......

UNIVERSITY QUALITY ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE UNIVERSITY QUALITY PANEL (07-08) ACADEMIC APPROVAL RECORD REFERENCE – 1403

CONFIRMED Recommendation to University Quality Enhancement Committee The University Quality Panel was asked to review and revalidate the undergraduate Construction and Infrastructure pathways (including new validations and deletions) for the School of Engineering and the Built Environment and is pleased to recommend to the University Quality Enhancement Committee approval of the following proposals: REVIEW AND REVALIDATION

Pathway Code

Pathway Title Final Award Intermediate Awards

Modes of delivery

DS/BLDSV Building Surveying BSc(Hons) BSc, DipHE, CertHE

FT /SW /PTD /PTDE

DS/CIVE Civil Engineering BSc(Hons) BSc, DipHE, CertHE

FT /SW/PTDE

DS/CMQS Commercial Management and Quantity Surveying

BSc(Hons) BSc, DipHE, CertHE

FT /SW /PTD /PTDE

DS/CONMG Construction Management BSc(Hons) BSc, DipHE, CertHE

FT /SW /PTD /PTDE /PTE

DS/QS Quantity Surveying BSc(Hons) BSc, DipHE, CertHE

FT /SW /PTD /PTDE

FS/CONS Construction † FD(Science) CertHE FT / PTD / PTDE HS/BLDS Building Studies HNC None PTD / PTE HS/CVES Civil Engineering Studies HNC None PTD / PTE

† validated for home delivery and in collaboration with City of Wolverhampton College and Stourbridge College REVIEW AND DELETION Pathway

Code Pathway Title List all

Awards to be deleted

Modes of delivery

Last recruitment date

Final completion date for students

HS/BLDS Building Studies HND All September 2007 Note 1 HS/CVE Civil

Engineering HND All September 2007 Note 1

DS/CVEM Civil Engineering Management

BSc (Hons) BSc

DipHE CertHE

All September 2007 Note 1

DS/PP Property Asset Management

BSc (Hons) BSc

DipHE, CertHE

All Note 1

Note 1 – subject to resit and retake arrangements for full and part time students as applicable VALIDATION

Pathway Code

Pathway Title Final Award Intermediate Awards

Modes of delivery

FS/AUCT Auctioneering & Valuation FD(Science) CertHE FT /PTD DS/CEE Civil and Environmental

Engineering BSc(Hons) BSc, DipHE,

CertHE FT/ SW/ PTDE

DS/PROP Property Management BSc(Hons) BSc, DipHE, CertHE

FT/ SW/ PTD/ PTDE

DS/REST Real Estate BSc(Hons) BSc, DipHE, FT/ SW/ PTD/ PTDE

of 41

CertHE MODULES FOR VALIDATION / REVALIDATION Semeste

r New

Module Module

code Module Title Credit

s Core / Core option or elective

Delivered by

2 CN1002 Construction Business skills

15 Core for FS/CONS DS/REST

UoW CoW College

Stourbridge Coll 1 CN1008 Construction

Economics & Statutory Control

15 Core for FS/CONS FS/AUCT

UoW CoW College

Stourbridge Coll 2 CN1012 Construction Project

Management 15 Core for

FS/CONS UoW

CoW College Stourbridge Coll

2 CN1014 Principles of Valuation 15 Core for DS/BLDSV FS/AUCT DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

1 CN1017 Procurement & Practice 15 Core for FS/CONS

UoW CoW College

Stourbridge Coll 2 CN1018 Professional

Development (WBL) 30 Core for

FS/CONS FS/AUCT

UoW CoW College

Stourbridge Coll 1 CN1019 Auctioneering Methods

& Techniques (WBL) 30 Core for

FS/AUCT UoW

2 CN1021 Transactions in Real

Estate 15 Core for

FS/AUCT DS/REST

Elective for DS/PROP

UoW

1 CN1022 Real Estate Numeric Skills

15 Core for FS/AUCT DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

1 CN1023 Urban Real Estate Economics

15 Core for DS/REST

UoW

1 CN1024 Construction Methods (WBL)

30 Core for FS/CONS

UoW CoW College

Stourbridge Coll 2 CN1074 Contractual Procedures

‘A’ 15 Core for

HS/BLDS DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

DS/CONMG DS/QS

UoW

2 CN1075 Property Economics 15 Elective for DS/CMQS Core for

DS/CONMG DS/QS

DS/PROP

UoW

1 or 2 CN1076 Built Environment Control

15 Core for HS/BLDS

DS/CONMG Elective for DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

DS/QS

UoW

1 CN1077 Communication & Key 15 Core for UoW

of 41

Skills DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

DS/CONMG DS/QS

DS/REST Elective for DS/PROP

1 CN1078 Construction Technology ‘A’

15 Core for HS/BLDS

DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

DS/CONMG DS/QS

DS/PROP

UoW

2 CN1174 Construction Technology ‘B’

15 Core for HS/BLDS

DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

DS/QS DS/PROP Elective for

DS/CONMG

UoW

1 or 2 CN1175 Pre-contract Studies I 15 Core for HS/BLDS

DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

DS/QS DS/PROP DS/REST

Elective for DS/CONMG

UoW

2 CN1176 Pre-contract Studies 2 15 Core for DS/CMQS

UoW

1 CN2001 Conversion & Refurbishment of Buildings

15 Elective for FS/CONS HS/BLDS

UoW CoW College

Stourbridge Coll 2 CN2005 Project (Civils) 15 Core for

HS/CVES UoW

2 CN2006 Group Project 15 Core for

FS/CONS HS/BLDS

UoW CoW College

Stourbridge Coll 1 CN2022 Residential Property


DS/PROP Elective for DS/REST

UoW

2 CN2027 Applied Valuation 15 Core for FS/AUCT DS/REST


UoW

1 CN2030 Real Estate Investment Appraisal

15 Core for DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

2 CN2033 Environmental & Sustainable Practice

30 Core for FS/CONS

UoW CoW College

Stourbridge Coll 2 CN2034 Site Management 15 Elective for

FS/CONS UoW

CoW College Stourbridge Coll

Year CN2035 Project Portfolio (WBL) 30 Core for FS/CONS FS/AUCT

UoW CoW College

Stourbridge Coll

of 41

Year CN2037 WBL Research Project 30 Core for FS/CONS FS/AUCT

UoW CoW College

Stourbridge Coll 2 CN2038 Commercial Property


DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

2 CN2039 Computer Applications in Real Estate Analysis

15 Core for DS/REST

UoW

2 CN2040 Housing 15 Elective for DS/BLDSV

Core for DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

2 CN2041 Sustainable Construction Practice

15 Core for DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

DS/CONMG DS/QS

UoW

1 CN2042 Construction Design Principles & Procedures

15 Core for DS/BLDSV Elective for

DS/CONMG

UoW

2 CN2043 Principal-Agent Relations

15 Core for FS/AUCT

UoW

1 CN2044 Sales and Marketing 30 Core for FS/AUCT

UoW

Year CN2046 Industrial Placement 15 Elective for DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

DS/CONMG DS/QS

DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

Year CN2047 Professional Project 1 (WBL)

30 Elective for DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

DS/CONMG DS/QS

DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

2 CN2067 Construction Human Resource Management

15 Elective for DS/CONMG

DS/QS

UoW

2 CN2068 Integrated Project 15 Core for DS/BLDSV DS/CIVE

DS/CMQS DS/CONMG

DS/QS DS/CEE

DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

1 CN2069 Construction Technology ‘C’


DS/CONMG DS/QS

UoW

2 CN2070 Contractual Procedures & Practice

15 Core for DS/CONMG Elective for DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

UoW

of 41

DS/QS 1 CN2071 Conservation &

Preservation of Buildings

15 Core for DS/BLDSV

DS/CONMG Elective for DS/CMQS DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

1 CN2072 Quantity Surveying Techniques

15 Elective for FS/CONS HS/BLDS

UoW CoW College

Stourbridge Coll 1 CN2073 Building Services

Engineering 15 Elective for

HS/BLDS UoW

1 CN2074 Construction Health &

Safety 15 Core for

HS/BLDS DS/QS

Elective for DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

DS/CONMG

UoW

1 CN2249 Quantity Surveying Practice (Building)

15 Core for DS/CMQS

DS/QS

UoW

1 CN2250 Estimating 15 Core for DS/CMQS

DS/CONMG DS/QS

UoW

1 CN2253 Building Surveying Practice

15 Core for DS/BLDSV DS/PROP

UoW

2 CN3000 Leadership Development


DS/CONMG DS/QS

DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

Year Long

CN3029 Dissertation 30 Core for DS/BLDSV DS/CMQS

DS/CONMG DS/QS

DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

1 CN3030 Project Planning & Control

15 Core for DS/CIVE

DS/CMQS DS/CONMG

DS/QS DS/CEE


UoW

1 CN3031 Valuation Law & Regulations

15 Core for DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

2 CN3032 Commercial Management (Building)

15 Core for DS/CMQS Elective for

DS/QS

UoW

2 CN3033 Commercial Management (Civils)

15 Core for DS/CMQS DS/CEE

UoW

of 41

2 CN3034 Applied Construction Technology

15 Core for DS/BLDSV Elective for

DS/CONMG DS/QS

DS/PROP

UoW

2 CN3035 Construction Management

15 Core for DS/CONMG

DS/QS

UoW

1 CN3036 Contractual Procedures ‘B’


DS/CONMG DS/QS

UoW

2 CN3038 Construction & Property Finance

15 Elective for DS/CMQS DS/PROP Core for

DS/CONMG DS/QS

DS/REST

UoW

1 CN3039 Development Economics Project


DS/CONMG Core for DS/QS

DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

2 CN3040 Corporate Real Estate Strategy

15 Elective for DS/BLDSV

Core for DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

2 CN3041 Building Pathology 15 Core for DS/BLDSV DS/PROP Elective for DS/REST

UoW

Year CN3042 Professional Project 2 (WBL)


DS/CONMG DS/QS

DS/PROP DS/REST

UoW

1 CN3043 Energy Conscious & Sustainable Developments

15 Core for DS/BLDSV Elective for DS/REST

UoW

1 CV1000 Structural Mechanics 15 Core for HS/CVES DS/CIVE DS/CEE

UoW

2 CV1001 Basics of Structural Design

15 Core for HS/CVES DS/CIVE DS/CEE

UoW

2 CV1002 Contractual Procedures (Civils)


UoW

of 41

1 CV1003 Mathematics for Technologists


UoW

1 CV1005 Civil Engineering Technology


UoW

1 CV1006 Environmental Science in Construction

15 Core for HS/BLDS

UoW

1 CV1007 Civil Engineering Skills 15 Core for DS/CIVE DS/CEE

UoW

2 CV1103 Fundamentals of Geotechnics


UoW

1 or 2 CV1105 Site Surveying 15 Core for HS/CVES DS/CIVE

DS/CONMG DS/QS

DS/CEE Elective for HS/BLDS

UoW

2 CV2000 Geotechnical Applications

15 Elective for HS/CVES Core for DS/CIVE DS/CEE

UoW

1 CV2001 Highway & Streets Design

15 Elective for HS/CVES Core for DS/CIVE DS/CEE

UoW

1 CV2003 Structural Analysis 15 Elective for HS/CVES Core for DS/CIVE DS/CEE

UoW

2 CV2004 Structural Design 15 Elective for HS/CVES Core for DS/CIVE DS/CEE

UoW

1 CV2005 Land Surveying 15 Elective for HS/CVES Core for DS/CIVE DS/CEE

UoW

2 CV2016 The Civil Engineer and Society

15 Core for DS/CIVE DS/CEE

UoW

1 and 2 CV2202 Quantity Surveying Practice (Civils)

15 Elective for HS/CVES

DS/QS Core for DS/CMQS

UoW

1 CV2203 Hydraulics 15 Elective for HS/CVES Core for DS/CIVE DS/CEE

UoW

of 41

1 CV3002 Geotechnical Design 15 Core for DS/CIVE

UoW

1 CV3003 Structural Engineering 15 Core for DS/CIVE

UoW

2 CV3004 Advanced Land Surveying

15 Core for DS/CIVE

UoW

2 CV3005 Water Supply 15 Core for DS/CIVE DS/CEE

UoW

1 CV3006 Environmental Engineering

15 Core for DS/CEE

UoW

2 CV3007 Civil Engineering Design


UoW

Year CV3008 Civil Engineering Project


UoW

2 CV3011 Water Management 15 Core for DS/CEE

UoW

OTHER MODULES CONTRIBUTING TO THE PATHWAYS Semester New

Module Module

code Module Title Credits Core / Core

option or elective

Delivered by

1 AT1016 Architectural Detailing and Technology 1

15 Elective for HS/BLDS DS/BLDSV DS/REST

UoW

MODULES TO BE DELETED

Module code

Module Title Semester Credits Date to be deleted

NONE EXEMPTIONS TO THE ACADEMIC REGULATIONS BSc(Hons) Civil and Environmental Engineering and BSc(Hons) Civil Engineering have no elective modules in order to comply with PSRB requirements. Note Further to this review and revalidation being closed, the new academic regulations no longer require pathways to include elective modules. Furthermore, it has been agreed that all level 1 COIN modules shall retain the 16 point grade scale. All other year 1 modules will adopt the new 6 point scale. PROFESSIONAL, STATUTORY, REGULATORY BODY (PSRB) INVOLVEMENT CIOB accreditation will be sought for BSc(Hons) Quantity Surveying, BSc (Hons) Construction Management and BSc (Hons) Property Management. RICS accreditation will be sought for BSc (Hons) Building Surveying, BSc (Hons) Commercial Management and Quantity Surveying and BSc (Hons) Real Estate. ICE accreditation will be sought for BSc (Hons) Civil Engineering. ICE (Institute of Civil Engineers; ICE, along with the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Institution of Highways and Transportation and the Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers jointly form the Joint Board of Moderators (JBM). CIWEM (The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management) accreditation will be sought for BSc (Hons) Civil and Environmental Engineering.

of 41

COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FD(Science) Construction is validated for home delivery and in collaboration with City of Wolverhampton College and Stourbridge College. In support of these recommendations, the Validation Panel provides appendices of supporting evidence including records of meetings, external and other reports and an action checklist The Validation Panel is aware that the University Quality Enhancement Committee reserves the right to review all decisions made by the University Quality Panel, to ratify approvals and to follow up on any issues identified in the AAR as the Committee sees fit. DATE OF THE NEXT REVIEW The next review of the undergraduate Construction and Infrastructure pathways is scheduled to take place by the end of the 2013-2014 academic year. Summary of process:

Date Activity See appendix 11/06/07 10/03/08 09/06/08

Proposal for validations of new pathways considered at Planning Approvals Sub Committee

19/11/07 Initial planning meeting Appendix 1 January 2008 Review closed by school

10/04/08 Submission documentation received 26/04/08 30/04/08

Pre-meeting comments received from the external adviser Appendix 2

30/04/08 UQP meeting with students Appendix 3 30/04/08 Revalidation meeting Appendix 4 14/08/08 Review and revalidation closed. Appendix 5

Academic Approval Record Summary of findings SEBE proposed the review and revalidation of their undergraduate portfolio during 2007-2008. In consultation with the school, UQP agreed to undertake the revalidation as three distinct events, one for each of the school’s departments. This report covers the revalidation of the Construction and Infrastructure pathways including some new validations and deletions. In line with the new process, the school undertook the review part of the process, with UQP overseeing the revalidation stage. Pre-meeting feedback was produced by the external advisers and some UQP members and this was forwarded to the Key Proposer in advance of the revalidation meeting. Unfortunately, neither external adviser was able to attend on the day, however they both presented extremely detailed feedback which the staff team responded to following the revalidation meeting. In addition, UQP incorporated some of the issues raised by the external advisers into the discussion at the revalidation meeting and where necessary, incorporated any ongoing concerns into the agreed actions. The Chair requested a meeting with students and the issues raised during this were incorporated into the revalidation meeting with staff. The various professional body accreditations require different approaches, all of which were discussed in detail at the revalidation meeting. Furthermore, it was agreed that the pathways would not have elective modules in order to meet the requirements of the various professional bodies. Aside from responding to the external advisers and incorporating their comments and the Panel’s housekeeping issues into the revised documentation, this revalidation was very straightforward. The only significant concern was around the late submission of proposal plans for the proposed new and deleted pathways. Following the revalidation meeting, the staff team were tasked with addressing the actions identified by UQP and resubmitting the amended documentation. This was done as required and in good time and the

of 41

revalidation was closed. At the end of the process, both the staff team and UQP spoke positively of the new process. Best Practice / Enhancement for dissemination The Panel wish to highlight the appointment of Ms Corbett to the role of Student Support and Enhancement Officer as an area of quality enhancement. Issues that have institutional implications for consideration by the University In order to complete the planned work during the academic year in which this review and revalidation was due, the validation of new pathways and deletions continued through the UQP process despite proposal and deletion plans not being submitted to and/or approved by the Planning Approvals Sub Committee (PASC). At the end of the process, the UQP Officer advised the PASC Officer regarding the pathways added and deleted so that the necessary follow up between the school and PASC could be addressed. Action checklist for ongoing monitoring throughout the lifetime of the pathway(s) Responsibility Action Date Action to be closed by Staff team To revisit the MoC for FD(Science)

Construction to ensure that it remains current.

01/09/08 SEBE SQEC

Staff team To keep under review, through annual monitoring, the level 2 portfolio to ensure it is distinctive enough across the various pathways but in line with PSRB needs.

Ongoing SEBE SQEC

Date the draft AAR was approved for submission to the AAR Sub Group for ratification by the Validation Panel Chair.

11/12/08

of 41

of 41

VALIDATION PANEL RECORD Details of Panel and Participants Chair: Dr Andy Bridges (until March 08) Officer: Rachel Ford Ms Jill Williams (from March 08) Panel members designated to review, revalidate and validate the provision: Mr Phillip Begg (SoH) Ms Claire Jolin (SAD) Ms Della Moore (SoH) Independent External Adviser for the revalidation / validation: Mr Steven Garrity Prof Sarah Sayce Subject/Pathway Team Representatives from SEBE for the review, revalidation / and validation: Dr Chris Williams (Key Proposer) Ms Pauline Corbett Dr Paul Lister Dr David Proverbs Prof Bob Sarsby

Appendix 1

Notes of the initial planning meeting for the review and revalidation of the SEBE Construction and Infrastructure UG portfolio held on 19th November 2007 from 11.30 a.m. Present Dr Andy Bridges (Chair of UQP for this provision) Dr Chris Williams (Key Proposer) from 12 noon Dr Paul Lister (SEBE) Dr David Proverbs (SEBE) Ms Rachel Ford – QASD The meeting had been arranged to discuss the review and revalidation of the SEBE Construction and Infrastructure (COIN) UG portfolio, to also include any associated validations. Dr Bridges explained that he had hoped to group the review, revalidation and validation work together logically so that the majority of work could be covered by one validation event for each department. It was agreed that one event would be held to cover : • The review and revalidation of the undergraduate COIN portfolio to include :

o BSc (Hons) Civil Engineering o BSc (Hons) Civil Engineering Management o BSc (Hons) Building Surveying o BSc (Hons) Commercial Management and Quantity Surveying o BSc (Hons) Construction Management o BSc (Hons) Quantity Surveying

• and to include the validation of sandwich mode for all these pathways; also • the review and revalidation of HND/HNC Building Studies and HND/HNC Civil Engineering Studies; • the validation of BSc(Hons) Real Estate Management. Under the new guidelines, the review process will be undertaken solely by the school with the outcome of the review feeding into the revalidation document and associated submission documentation. Work on this is well underway as the school had already agreed internal deadlines for this before this activity was devolved to UQP. It was noted that meetings with students are planned. Also, a meeting with the professional bodies is due to take place in the near future, at which it is expected there will be a discussion about the review and revalidation activity. It was agreed that the staff team would ask about any proposed PSRB involvement in the process and advise UQP accordingly. Dr Bridges noted that review and revalidation can be seen as a good opportunity to bring university processes in line with PSRB accreditation deadlines. Dr Proverbs thought that the only PSRB accreditation due in the next year or so was the Singapore pathway which is outside the scope of this review, so it was unlikely that there was any scope to pursue this at this time. Dr Bridges noted that the review of the majority of the school’s UG portfolio was also a good time to consider whether they needed to apply for any exemptions from the university’s academic regulations to address professional body needs. Where no new exemptions were needed, it may still be helpful to submit a document to the Academic Regulations Sub Committee confirming that the current exemptions will still apply to the revalidated pathways. It was confirmed that, at this time, it was not envisaged that any of the existing pathways would be re-titled during this revalidation. With regard to holding a revalidation / validation event, Dr Bridges noted it would be helpful if three meetings (one for each department) could be held over the period of about a week, perhaps one every other day, subject to the availability of the external advisers. Dr Lister noted that two of the three departments had so far submitted draft review documents in line with the original submission deadlines proposed (see workflow diagram) for consideration by the critical reader(s). He was keen to incorporate the school’s Equality and Diversity agenda into the review documents, so would be raising this with the report writers for inclusion in their final drafts. Since the workflow was first proposed, the school had recognised, however, that it was going to be difficult to meet the deadlines previously proposed for the remainder of the process. It was agreed that the school would still aim to close the review process by Christmas, however the remaining dates would need to be reconsidered. Dr Bridges added that the Panel would prefer the proposed deadlines to be realistic in terms of being met and a discussion followed on revised submission deadlines.

of 41

Appendix 1

As a result of the discussion the revised deadline dates were agreed (see below), but Dr Bridges did note that there was no scope for slippage with these new dates and the documentation must be received well in advance of the revalidation / validation event if the department expected to receive feedback prior to the meeting. Dr Bridges had undertaken a review and revalidation of his own school’s undergraduate provision during 2006-2007 and he encouraged the various SEBE staff teams to take this opportunity to make the changes they needed to make to address school issues, such as assessment and professional body needs. CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTATION Review and revalidation documentation required as agreed with the University Quality Panel chair at the initial planning meeting.

Documents Submission Date Comments 1. Proposal plan approved by the

Planning Approvals Sub Committee (PASC)

N/A

2. Review Document To school -17/12/07 3. Revalidation Document To school –14/03/08

To UQP Officer -28/03/08 Initial feedback to be provided by

Panel during w/c 14/04/08 if documentation received to

deadline 4. Pathway specifications UG To school –14/03/08

To UQP Officer -28/03/08

5. Module specifications for all new modules contributing to the pathway

To school –14/03/08 To UQP Officer -28/03/08

6. Module guides for existing modules to be revalidated to contribute to the pathway


Module leader to append revalidation cover sheet to each

module 7. Module guides for modules from other

subject areas which contribute to the pathway


8. Staff CV To school –14/03/08 To UQP Officer -28/03/08

Either electronic copies or published for Panel and externals

to consult 9. Other None identified at the initial

planning meeting Validation documentation required as agreed with the University Quality Panel chair at the initial planning meeting.

Documents Submission Date Comments 10. Proposal plan approved by the

Planning Approvals Sub Committee (PASC)

N/A Already received direct from PASC

11. Validation Document To school –14/03/08 To UQP Officer -28/03/08

Initial feedback to be provided by Panel during w/c 14/04/08 if documentation received to

deadline 12. Pathway specifications UG To school –14/03/08

To UQP Officer -28/03/08

13. Module specifications for all new modules contributing to the pathway


14. Module guides for existing modules to be revalidated to contribute to the pathway


Module leader to append revalidation cover sheet to each

module 15. Module guides for modules from other

subject areas which contribute to the pathway


16. Staff CV To school –14/03/08 To UQP Officer -28/03/08

Either electronic copies or published for Panel and externals

of 41

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/Review%20temp.doc

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/Reval%20temp.doc

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/UG%20PST.doc

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/MST.doc

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/Revalidated%20module%20cover%20sheet.doc

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/Validation%20temp.doc

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/UG%20PST.doc

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/MST.doc

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/HPGandT/templates/Revalidated%20module%20cover%20sheet.doc

Appendix 1

of 41

to consult 17. Other None identified at the initial

planning meeting The review and /or revalidation and /or validation documents are likely to make reference to school and subject documents such as : • School annual monitoring report to UQEC • Placement guides • UQEC annual monitoring audit reports • Project guides • Assessment handbook • School strategy documents • Handbooks for students with disabilities • Staff development programmes • Induction and welcome week documents • Study skills support documents • Information about any school policies

relevant to the Race Relations Amendment Act (RRAA), Special Education Needs Disability Act (SENDA) and the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)

• Relevant professional, statutory or regulatory body reports and correspondence

The UQP do not require any of these to be submitted, however they reserve the right to request copies, if necessary, to clarify any issues raised. Proposed meeting dates / arrangements

w/c 28/04/08 subject to external advisers’ availability. UQP Officer to confirm meeting arrangements.

External adviser(s)

The staff team identified that they felt 2 external advisers would be needed to cover the COIN portfolio. Dr Bridges noted that he would be looking for both subject and quality experience from the nominations proposed. It was agreed that Dr Williams would forward the two nominations to the Officer by 7th December 2007.

Other

See also notes arising from EAT and APD initial planning meetings for information. The Officer will advise how many electronic (CD) and hard copies of the submission documentation are required in advance of the submission deadline.

http://asp2.wlv.ac.uk/registry/qasd/toolkit/documents/Appointment%20of%20External%20Advisers.doc

Appendix 2

REVIEW AND REVALIDATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON’S COIN UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMMES

Comments by External Adviser (Prof. S.W.Garrity)

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The comments presented in this report are concerned with the review and revalidation of the

Construction and Infrastructure (COIN) related undergraduate programmes run by the School of Engineering and the Built Environment (SEBE) at the University of Wolverhampton.

1.2 External Adviser: S.W.Garrity

The comments are provided by Prof. S.W.Garrity who was appointed to the role of external adviser by the University’s Quality and Academic Standards Division in March 2008. Prof. Garrity is a chartered civil and structural engineer who specialises in the teaching of civil and structural engineering design. He currently runs his own civil and structural engineering consultancy but is also a visiting professor and civil engineering consultant to the School of Engineering, Design and Technology at the University of Bradford where he was previously Head of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (1997 – 2002). At Bradford he runs several modules with a civil or structural engineering design focus for the JBM accredited BEng(Hons) and MEng programmes in civil and structural engineering. He is also a part-time senior lecturer in structural engineering at the University of Leeds where he contributes to the project-based teaching of civil and structural engineering design on the BEng(Hons), MEng and MSc courses. Prof. Garrity was also a member of the ECUK working party on the UK-SPEC output standards and was a member of the full board of the Joint Board of Moderators (JBM) between 1999 and 2006. He continues to serve the JBM as a member of the Panel of Moderators. He has acted as a specialist consultant to a number of civil engineering schools and departments in the UK providing advice on course development and accreditation matters.

Given Prof. Garrity’s experience, his comments are related primarily to the civil engineering, civil engineering studies, building studies and civil and environmental engineering programmes. It is assumed that the other programmes under review will be considered in detail by other members of the review and revalidation team.

1.3 Report Structure

The remainder of this report is structured as follows: Section 2: Comments on the Introductory Document Section 3: Comments on Programme Specification Templates Section 4: Comments on Level 1 Module Specification Templates Section 5: Comments on Level 2 Module Specification Templates Section 6: Comments on Level 3 Module Specification Templates Section 7: Comments on Academic Curriculum Vitae Section 8: General Comments 2. COMMENTS ON THE INTRODUCTORY DOCUMENT 2.1 The Proposal

It is encouraging to note the positive trend in student recruitment. It would be interesting to see the breakdown in recruitment to the existing individual programmes as this may lend support to the proposed new courses. Many schools and departments have run variants of existing courses with mixed success. Common examples are Civil & Environmental Engineering or Civil Engineering with Management courses that differ very slightly from a parent course in Civil Engineering (or similar). Such courses are often developed for marketing reasons but experience shows that, in many cases, they are not particularly successful in terms of attracting large numbers of students.

of 41

Appendix 2

In the case of the proposed BSc(Hons) course in Civil and Environmental Engineering, the School evidently has expertise in water, geotechnical and environmental engineering related topics and there is no doubt that the environmental aspects of civil engineering have grown in importance. It is noted, however, that the proposed new course only differs from the BSc(Hons) course in Civil Engineering by 3 final year modules, one of which is shared with the current BSc(Hons) course in Commercial Management and Quantity Surveying. This implies that there should be little problem with academic (and financial) viability even if recruitment to the new course does not meet expectations but does a change of only 3 modules warrant a change in title from Civil Engineering to Civil and Environmental Engineering? The statement concerning the guiding principles for the review and revalidation exercise is very welcome and illustrates the cohesive approach adopted by the School when developing new programmes. It is particularly encouraging to see reference to work based learning at levels 2 and 3, although no reference seems to have been made to this in the programme or module specifications for the BSc(Hons) courses in civil or civil & environmental engineering. Consultation with various employers and professional bodies such as CIOB and RICS is noted but no mention is made of consultation with civil or structural engineering contractors and/or consultants. Does the School have a Civil Engineering Industrial Advisory Board or similar? Even if there has not been a great deal of consultation with local and regional civil engineering industries, there is a clear need for civil engineering courses that are accredited at IEng level and the School is to be encouraged to maintain and support such courses. The substitution of HND courses with FD courses is logical given the overlap between the two types of programme. The focus on enhancing the experience for level 1 students is to be applauded. It is suggested that increased links with industry through an industrial mentor scheme may help in this regard (see 7.4, later). Other initiatives to engage 1st year students with learning and to enhance student commitment such as the use of student mentors (using final year BSc(Hons) students) may also be worthy of further consideration.

2.2 Professional, statutory and regulatory body involvement

This part of the document states that “The Joint Board of Moderators and Institution of Civil Engineers currently jointly accredit the BSc(Hons) Civil Engineering course …”. This is not strictly correct. Accreditation of the BSc(Hons) course in Civil Engineering (and, presumably, the proposed new course in Civil and Environmental Engineering) is by the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), the Institution of Highways and Transportation (IHT) , the Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers (IHIE) and the Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE). These professional bodies act under licence from the Engineering Council (ECUK). Accreditation decisions are based on the recommendations of the Joint Board of Moderators (JBM) which acts on behalf of the ICE, IHT, IHIE and IStructE.

2.3 Entry requirements / procedures for admissions

The decision to raise the minimum standards for entry to the School’s degree courses is to be applauded. Unfortunately, this may raise an issue that requires some further consideration. There is a great deal of overlap between level 1 of the BSc(Hons) degrees in Civil Engineering (CE) and Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) and the HNC in Civil Engineering Studies. This is to be expected. The potential problem arises with the difference in entry qualifications. If the minimum entry to the degree courses is 180 UCAS tariff (e.g. a ‘B’ and a ‘C’ at ‘A’ level) and the entry to the HNC courses remains at “One ‘A’ level, or equivalent vocational ‘A’ level” (which could be a UCAS tariff as low as 40 for a grade E pass), there could be a significant difference in the ability of students studying the same series of modules. This has probably always been the case but any such differences may be increased if the entry to one course is raised without any change to the entry requirements of the other course. The performance of students enrolling on the HNC courses will need to be monitored, particularly during the first semester. This may prove to be difficult because of the part-time mode of study, however, it is acknowledged that the School has been running HNC courses for some time and should have the experience necessary to deal with this issue.

It is a little surprising to note the lack of reference to the new 14-19 Diplomas in the review and revalidation documents. The School’s view on these new qualifications should be reflected in the list of accepted entry qualifications.

of 41

Appendix 2

2.4 Curricula The opportunity for students to transfer between courses during or on completion of level 1 is a positive feature of the School’s courses. The statement that “two modules at Levels 2 and 3 have been developed specifically for each course.” Does not seem to apply to the BSc(Hons) CE and CEE courses as Level 2 is the same for each pathway. From an external perspective this is perfectly satisfactory and may help both courses to be accredited by the JBM. The slightly negative feature of this is the lack of difference between the CE and CEE programmes. However, as the JBM guidelines for accredited courses require sustainability to be a continuous thread through an accredited course and water engineering is considered to be a core subject, it is not particularly surprising that CE and CEE are similar.

As stated previously, the introduction of work based learning is considered to be a very positive move, however, is seems to be limited to the Building Surveying; Commercial Management and Quantity Surveying; Construction Management and Quantity Surveying courses. The limited introduction of work based learning to the curriculum may be a deliberate strategy, i.e. carry out a trial within some of the School’s courses initially then extend the philosophy to other courses. This relatively cautious approach is recommended particularly as difficulties with work based learning tend to occur as a result of differences in academic/industrial expectations and problems encountered in ensuring that opportunities exist for the students to meet the specified learning outcomes.

Brief reference is made to unclassified degrees in section 4 of the introductory document. It would be helpful to know the university’s academic requirements for an unclassified degree (is this an ordinary degree?) as they may be sufficient to meet the minimum standards required for IEng accreditation. The School should also consider making arrangements via a “top up” course (or similar) for Further Learning (as defined in UK-SPEC) for existing students with an HNC or HND in Civil Engineering to achieve the minimum academic requirements for IEng. This should prove to be easy to organise and implement as all the modules are available as a result of the BSc(Hons) CE and CEE courses. It is recommended that the School considers developing a top up course and that such a course could be included in the forthcoming JBM accreditation submission.

Further comments on the curricula are given in section 3 of this report.

2.5 Teaching, learning and assessment

As noted previously the statement “A 30-credit work based learning module has been introduced as an option at both Levels 2 and 3 for students that either prefer or require this mode of study.” does not seem to apply to the BSc(Hons) courses in CE and CEE. It is very pleasing to note that a Placement Office has been established to help students to establish an industrial placement. It appears that the new module “COIN Industrial Placement” which has a credit rating of 15 is additional to the 360 credits required for the award of any one of the School’s degrees. It is presumed that completion of this module is required for the award of a sandwich degree and this is the only difference between a sandwich degree and a non-sandwich variant. There seems to be an anomaly in the module specification in that in the marking scheme it is stated that the module is “NOT credit bearing” yet in Part A (the Module Definition Form) the module is given a credit rating of 15. It seems a pity to require your students to complete a diet of assessment but not award any credit for such work. For the BSc(Hons) CE and CEE programmes, the students should be advised that they can complete some of the ICE’s development objectives for Incorporated Engineer (and possibly Chartered Engineer) whilst they undertake their industrial placement. This will also serve as a useful introduction to Initial Professional Development which should stand them in good stead once they graduate. The COIN Industrial placement module appears to require just one visit from the academic tutor in December. This is at variance with the JBM guidelines (see www.jbm.org.uk ) which require a minimum of two visits. With placements starting in June there is considerable scope for things to go wrong, well before December. Should an initial visit be undertaken after, say, 1 month to ensure that the student/employer relationship is working well? Does the School have a duty of care in this regard, particularly as the students will be paying a fee (albeit reduced) to the university during their period of industrial training? Although the preparations and support prior to the placement seem to be satisfactory, the arrangements for academic support during the placement seem to be a little light. A further review of the arrangements for industrial placements is recommended.

of 41

http://www.jbm.org.uk/

Appendix 2

The statement “Professional bodies still expect to see a significant proportions of examinations at Levels 2 and 3.” is noted and, in the case of the JBM, is correct. There seems to be an acceptable balance between the assessment of the learning outcomes by coursework (of various forms) and by examination at Levels 2 and 3 of the BSc(Hons) CE and CEE programmes.

The submission of assessments and the receipt of feedback online is in line with current developments in information technology. Provision should also be retained for students to meet with individual members of staff for more detail feedback, should the need arise. This is considered to be particularly important for part-time students whose access to staff will normally be more limited than would be the case with students studying on a full-time basis.

2.6 Resources

Comments on staffing levels are made in section 7 of this report. The request to the University Executive for more academic staff is noted and encouraged, particularly in the case of staff with a civil and/or structural engineering background and appropriate professional qualifications.

The comments relating to laboratory space in relation to the growing numbers of civil engineering students are noted. Experimental work is an important form of learning and is embedded within the requirements of UK-SPEC for accredited engineering degree programmes. It is encouraging to note that some modules on the BSc(Hons) CE and CEE programmes include laboratory work and it is hoped that students are encouraged to carry out investigative work in the laboratories as part of their final year 30 credit projects. Such laboratory facilities can also be used to underpin research activity and to help generate additional income for the School via specialist commercial testing for local and regional industry. It is assumed that the laboratory provision includes civil engineering materials, soil mechanics & geotechnics; hydraulics and structures and that there is sufficient surveying equipment to service the site and land surveying modules that form part of the HNC CE Studies and BSc(Hons) CE and CEE courses.

There is little reference to the library provision or to the provision of computing facilities in the review and revalidation documents. The lack of access to the university/faculty/school library is often a major concern cited by part-time students. It is assumed that access for all students, including part-time students, is satisfactory. Perhaps some reference should be made to this in the review and revalidation exercise?

The stated commitment to build on the 2001 RAE rating of 3A is encouraging. Consideration needs to be given to facilitate research and similar scholarly activity, in particular for new staff, in order to inform the teaching, generate enthusiasm and to aid staff retention. It is noted that the School runs an MSc in Civil Engineering; it is expected that the School’s civil engineering research should be reflected in many of the MSc modules and that final year projects (and other parts of the BSc curricula) should also reflect the School’s CE research.

The impression gained from the Academic CV document is that there are comparatively small numbers of staff teaching civil engineering related modules. As a result, they may be overloaded with teaching, assessment and administrative duties, particularly if the recruitment of civil engineering students is increasing. In such circumstances it will be difficult for staff to carry out any significant research activity. This situation may be heightened if recruitment to the new BSc(Hons) course in CEE is successful. It may be necessary for the senior staff of the School to address such concerns in their research strategy, if this has not already been addressed.

As stated later in this report, the structural design related modules do not appear to account for the new suite of structural Eurocodes that will come into force by 2010 (or 2008 in the case of the concrete Eurocode). It is likely that significant staff development time will be required by the School’s structural specialists to help them to base their teaching on these new codes of practice. It is strongly recommended that this matter is acknowledged and addressed in the very near future. Many other universities in the UK are already running (or have plans in place to run) structural design modules that are base don the Eurocodes.

2.7 Student support and guidance

This part of the review and revalidation document does not explain how the appointment of a PL in Student Experience and Sustainability will “ensure the enhancement and maintenance of student sustainability to afford a successful and vibrant learning environment and a quality experience for students.” Although the appointment of the new PL is to be welcomed as a step in the right direction, it is the bulk of the academic, secretarial and technician staff who will be in contact with the

of 41

Appendix 2

students and who will influence the student’s experience and environment. Perhaps the strategy developed by the PL and the proposed means of implementing the strategy might be worthy of further exploration by the review and revalidation team?

No mention is made of support and guidance for part-time students whose needs are often quite different from their full-time classmates. Experience often shows that part-time students feel less supported than their full-time colleagues and it can be difficult to get their views from the usual SSLC arrangements as they cannot always attend such meetings because of work commitments. It is generally accepted to be good practice to meet with part-time students and their employers so that specific issues can be addressed. Given Wolverhampton’s experience in running courses with a part-time mode of study, it is likely that support and guidance for part-time students will have been addressed. Nevertheless, it might be worthy of at least brief consideration by the review and revalidation team.

3. COMMENTS ON PROGRAMME SPECIFICATION TEMPLATES 3.1 In general the specifications for the civil engineering, building and construction management

programmes are what would normally be expected of such programmes. In particular, the curricula of the BSc(Hons) programmes in Civil Engineering and Civil and Environmental Engineering appear to satisfy the JBM guidelines. There appears to be a diet of modules that have health and safety and sustainability threads running through them and there seems to be a design thread in each of the courses.

3.2 It seems that the intention is to submit the BSc(Hons) course for JBM accreditation at IEng level. As

the BSc(Hons) course in Civil and Environmental Engineering is very similar to the Civil Engineering course, it is suggested that both BSc(Hons) courses are submitted for JBM accreditation (see 3.3, below). It is also suggested that a top up course for Further Learning could be developed and marketed by the School for local and regional people with HNC or HND qualifications. Such a course could also be submitted to the JBM for accreditation.

3.3 The philosophy adopted for the Civil Engineering (CE) and Civil and Environmental (CEE) degree

courses is noted. There is a great deal of merit in allowing students to develop their discipline specific interests with a view to selecting a slightly specialist pathway in their final year of study. The implication in the programme specifications is that by selecting either the CE or CEE pathway, the student will be aiming at either membership of ICE/IStructE/IHT/IHIE (for the CE pathway) or membership of CIWEM/CIWM (for the CEE pathway). This is unlikely to be the case. As there is very little difference between the CE and CEE courses it is likely (although not certain) that the JBM will accredit both qualifications. It is suggested that the School adopts a more flexible policy and seeks accreditation of both the BSc(Hons) CE and BSc(Hons) CEE programmes at the forthcoming JBM visit.

3.4 The BSc(Hons) courses in CE and CEE all seem to meet the Output Standards for IEng as stated in

UK-SPEC and therefore appear to be in line for accreditation by the JBM. It is important to note, however, that accreditation will be based (in part) on a judgement made by the visiting JBM team on the quality of the output. This will take the form of an inspection of samples of coursework, design projects, examinations papers and candidate’s answers, laboratory reports, etc. If the School has not done so already, it is strongly recommended that samples of all student output should be retained for inspection by the JBM when they next visit in March 2009. At the very least samples should be retained from the poorest, middle and top quality output.

3.5 Site visits. There seems to be little reference to site visits in the review and revalidation documents,

particularly in the BSc(Hons) CE and CEE programmes. Although some students will visit site (or be based on site) as part of their industrial placement or work (in the case of part-time students), consideration should be given for full-time students to visit construction sites (the JBM will expect this!).

3.6 The following comments concern the information presented in the programme specification template

document rather than any matters of strategic importance:

a). The mapping exercise for Learning Outcomes for the HNC CE studies (level 2 modules) seems to be incomplete.

b). Page 11 of the HNC CE specification refers to HNC Building Studies.

of 41

Appendix 2

c). The HNC CE studies reference points refer to SARTOR 3rd edition; this has been replaced

by UK-SPEC. 4. COMMENTS ON LEVEL 1 MODULE SPECIFICATION TEMPLATES

The curriculum for level 1 of the BSc(Hons) Civil Engineering/Civil & Environmental Engineering is as expected for a JBM accredited programme. Similarly the curriculum for the HNC in CE Studies is also as expected for a course of this type.

No further comments to report.

5. COMMENTS ON LEVEL 2 MODULE SPECIFICATION TEMPLATES 5.1 The curriculum for level 2 of the BSc(Hons) Civil Engineering/Civil & Environmental Engineering is

as expected for a JBM accredited programme. Similarly the curriculum for the HNC in CE Studies is also as expected for a course of this type.

5.2 In module CN2068 (Integrated Project), the assessment methodology should take into account the

likely different contributions (in terms of both quantity and quality of work) by different members of the team in the group-based project work. If not done so already, consideration should also be given to the inclusion of an element of peer assessment. This comment applies generally to any modules in which there is an element of group-based activity.

5.3 The references quoted in the specification for CV2004 are based on BS8110, BS5950 and BS5628.

These codes of practice are due to be phased out by 2010 and replaced by a suite of European standards known as the structural Eurocodes. Students being taught in 2008/09 will graduate in 2010 when the Eurocodes are likely to be in use. The structural engineering related modules should be updated to reflect the impending introduction of the new Eurocodes. This comment also applies to some of the Level 3 modules.

5.4 CV2005 (Land Surveying). It is common practice to include fieldwork exercises in a module of this

type. Such exercises may be campus-based or can form part of a residential field course. It is not clear from the module specification if this module involves any fieldwork exercises. It may be worth identifying such activity in section 6 of the module specification covering “Learning Activities and Assessment”. (It is noted that there is a field exercise in CV3004).

5.5 A number of module specifications refer to level 1 pre-requisite modules. What happens if students

enrol directly to year 2 of the course? Should any references to pre-requisite modules from the previous year state “or equivalent”? This might provide a measure of flexibility necessary to prevent you having to make a special case to admit students transferring to Wolverhampton from other courses. A similar comment also applies to Level 3.

5.6 There seems to be a good balance between independently completed assignments and timed

assessments/examinations. This comment also applies to Level 3. 5.7 There appears to be an inconsistency with module CV2202. It is referred to as a core module for

BSc Civil Engineering in the module specification but there is no reference to it in the programme specification (it seems to be part of the HNC programme in CE Studies).

5.8 CV2003 cited as a prerequisite for CV2004 but availability not shown as semester 1. 5.9 The module specifications for CV2203 (Hydraulics) does not seem to have been included in the

review and revalidation documentation 5.10 It is encouraging to see reference to laboratory work in CV2000 and CV2003; it is assumed that

there will be some laboratory work included in CV2203. 6. COMMENTS ON LEVEL 3 MODULE SPECIFICATION TEMPLATES

of 41

Appendix 2

6.1 The general comments given in section 5 for Level 2 also apply to Level 3. The curricula for Level 3 are as expected for JBM accredited courses (at IEng level) and the UK-SPEC output standards seem to have been addressed in the course development.

6.2 It is a little surprising to see reference to the use of finite element analysis software in the new civil

engineering design module for an IEng level course. If such software is to be used by the students, it is assumed that it will be used as a design tool and that the students will not be expected to have an in-depth understanding of the basic principles of FE analysis. If this is the case, it is recommended that the students be required to submit simple supporting calculations to show that the output is of the correct order of magnitude. This suggestion also applies to other modules making use of software.

6.3 The document contains some blank pages; these should be removed from the formal reference

documents that will be retained on completion of this review and revalidation exercise. 7. COMMENTS ON ACADEMIC CURRICULUM VITAE 7.1 General Comment

The information presented in this volume of the review and revalidation submission has not been presented in a consistent manner. Different fonts, un-edited text, variations in paragraph spacing and an inconsistency in the data presented for each member of staff make it difficult for the reader to extract the information required to evaluate the experience and qualifications of some members of staff. Similarly some members of staff listed in the module specifications were not included in the CV document (e.g. B.J.Kite). Where information was unclear, attempts were made to gain additional information from the SEBE website; unfortunately some members of staff are not listed (e.g. Billingham, Khatab and Kite).

It is suggested that the Academic C.V. information is revised using a consistent format for the forthcoming accreditation visit by the JBM and that it is extended to include all staff, listed alphabetically. It is also recommended that the SEBE website is revised to include all academic staff.

7.2 Comments on Academic Staff Experience and Qualifications

The general impression gained from the document is that the staff seem to be appropriately experienced and qualified to teach the building, surveying, construction and management based courses. However, there seems to be very few staff with civil or structural engineering experience and/or professional qualifications in civil or structural engineering.

Indeed, based on the information provided, of the 20 staff for which details have been included, it appears that only 3 have a professional qualification in civil engineering. These are Mr. Billingham (CEng, MICE); Dr. Khatib (CEng, MIEI) and Prof. Sarsby (CEng, FICE). Of these, Dr. Khatib is a reader in civil engineering materials, Prof. Sarsby’s specialism is geotechnical engineering and Mr. Billingham appears to specialise in education and management. Only 1 member of staff (Dr. Khatib) has a postgraduate qualification in structural engineering and, based on the information provided, few members of staff have gained much practical experience in civil or structural engineering. Mr Kite is listed in several module specifications to teach many of the modules with a structural engineering focus or element but he is not a chartered or incorporated structural engineer (according to the IStructE members directory).

7.3 Comments on Staffing Levels The general impression gained is that there are barely sufficient staff available with appropriate experience in civil and structural engineering to deliver an accredited BSc(Hons) degree programme. Of particular concern is the apparent lack of academic staff with experience in structural engineering. This will, almost certainly, be an issue of concern raised during the March 2009 JBM visit. It is strongly recommended that consideration is given to appointing 1 or 2 additional staff with a background in civil engineering and that at least one of these appointments should have a background in structural engineering. Experience of the JBM indicates that if appointments (or commitments to appoint) are made by March 2009, it may be the difference between gaining a 2-year period of accreditation with a further review and a full 5-year period of accreditation. This issue ought to be drawn to the attention of the senior management for further consideration.

7.4 Links with Industry

of 41

Appendix 2

Given the aforementioned apparent lack of staff with civil or structural engineering experience, it is particularly important to establish, maintain and exploit strong links with local and regional industry to help introduce a practical context for the teaching and learning. Although most academic schools running industrial placements will normally have established good links with industry, there is little reference to such links in the review and revalidation documentation. (It is acknowledged that the documentation may not necessarily be an accurate reflection of such links). If such arrangements are not already in place, it is strongly recommended that a civil engineering industrial advisory board, or similar, is established by SEBE. The success of such a board is very highly dependent on the commitment of the academic staff and the industrial members of the board. Experience indicates that in some cases industrial advisory boards can be highly effective in: a). Providing specialist lectures by industrial practitioners, particularly cases studies, that can

reinforce the teaching and learning. b). Contributing to (or leading) project work, particularly design projects, where an industrial

supervisor can work in tandem with the academic supervisor. c). Providing support as industrial mentors. Usually recently chartered (or about to be

chartered) graduates from industry (not necessarily the industrial advisory board) can act as very effective mentors and role models for students, particularly at Level 1. Mentors not only offer guidance on careers but they can also provide opportunities to visit sites and design offices. In the most successful cases, students can be offered industrial placements and sponsorships by their mentoring organisation.

d). Providing advice on curriculum development. e). Assisting with the assessment of project and design work. f). Assisting with arrangements for site visits.

8. GENERAL COMMENTS Overall, the proposals for review and revalidation appear to be very satisfactory. There are no major concerns regarding the curricula. The following suggestions are made for further consideration: a). The BSc(Hons) CE and CEE programmes should both be submitted to the JBM for accreditation at

IEng level. b). A top up course should be prepared for Further Learning (to bring HNC and HND qualified people up

to IEng level). Such a course could also be submitted for accreditation by the JBM. It is suggested that the JBM secretariat should be contacted for further advice.

c). Consideration should be given to appointing 1 or 2 new professionally qualified academic staff with

experience in civil engineering and, in particular, structural engineering. d). The structural design related modules should be updated to accommodate the new Eurocodes.

Staff teaching such modules are likely to need support for Eurocode training. e). The links with the civil and structural engineering sectors of the construction industry do not appear

to be very strong, based on the review and revalidation documentation. It is recommended that such links are strengthened. This may be done most effectively through a Civil Engineering Industrial Advisory Board with a membership drawn from local and regional industry.

S.W.Garrity,

April 2008

of 41

Appendix 2

COMMENTS ON THE COIN (RE)VALIDATION DOCUMENTS Professor Sarah Sayce

In these comments I have provided comments volume by volume. As my professional expertise lies within Real Estate, Valuation and Property Management primarily and as these are the areas in which the greatest new provision is to be offered, I have concentrated on these element of the documentation. I apologise if many of my comments seem negative. This is entirely due to time constraints and a desire to constructively [point to areas where I feel improvement would benefit the provision. Many of the questions I raise I am sure can be satisfactorily addressed by the Team but I am concerned as to the core staffing to support such an ambitious programme. I also consider that the lack of appropriately focused staff revealed by the CVs supplied has resulted in lack of focus in some of the curricula. CVs You have submitted a document with 20 CVs. I have attempted to analyse these against the overall provision to be offered with especial emphasis on the new programmes that you are seeking to validate. I found it difficult to do this as CVs were:

• not in alphabetical order • not in standard format • did not necessarily correlate to the names supplied in the Module Templates • in many instances clearly out of date (e.g. Williams, Corbett, Ndekugri, Chinyio, Proverbs).

From the list of staff given and their particulars, I surmise that the information supplied may be incomplete both in terms of the number of people and their skill base and professional qualification. If this is not the case then I have extreme concerns about the orientation of the staff to the programmes under consideration. This is not to say that members of staff are not well qualified or experiences: many are. There is also a balance between those who are research orientated and those with a more practice-based focus. However of the 20 staff submitted to me several are engineers, 6 people have full CIOB membership and only 4 have RICS qualifications. Of the 4 who are RICS, all are construction orientated so none holds professional real estate qualification to support the existing and proposed new programmes. I also checked through the CVs for evidence of practice experience and/ or research outputs related to real estate, property management and valuation and auctioneering; I found no such research and very little practice. I note from the overarching document (p.9) that the Department has made 3 appointments and I assume that these people have RICS qualifications and are real estate based. If they are not staffing is insufficient to support the courses to be validated and will require strengthening. I am very aware, as I suspect the Team are, of the current difficulties in staff recruitment in this area as revealed by recent research of which Prof. Proverbs was part of the Steering Group. I also note from the overarching document that sustainability has been identified as a cross-cutting theme and from a staffing perspective; I would have expected to see evidence of knowledge and publications in this area to support this endeavour. For the event might I suggest that the Team be asked about:

• professional qualification and experience match to the new provision • staff development or/and expertise in relation to sustainability • the process by which the documentation in relation to staffing was produced as t appeared to fall

short of that of other volumes and normal expectations. Over-arching Introductory Volume In general I found this to be both a useful and well constructed document. It talks extensively about a review process that has taken place which has shaped the new programmes and sight of the report would have been helpful contextually. I have a few comments as follows:

of 41

Appendix 2

• The decision to withdraw HNDs and replace with FDs seems very sensible and the Team are to be applauded in deciding to introduce an FD in Valuation and Auctioneering if the market demand is there.

• The applications trend does not specify which courses have enjoyed growth in particular or whether it has been an overall trend. Given current uncertainty within the real estate markets and the sharp downturn in construction consequent on this, combined with the overall economic climate, I assume that UofW is confident of continuing growth to support these new programmes.

• The principles set out on pp 4-5 appear sound, though the reduction of assessment in Level 1 (do you mean Level 4?) could produce ‘knock on’ effects in subsequent levels if it results in students progressing with less knowledge understanding and skills assured.

• Entry requirements (pp 6-7) appear low against national trends. Is there a reason for this and what strategies do the team have to develop students to cope with the rigours of honours degree work with such low entry standards? I particularly note that “resource constraints make it unrealistic to avoid large class sizes” though it is noted that some tutorials are proposed (p:8).

• General curricula shape and development of specialism is a sensible premise though first year route identity may also be regarded as important.

• I note (p:8) that the Team intend to increase greater variation in assessment methods to meet varying skills, abilities and competencies of students. Surely the teaching should address this and assessment should meet the needs of the programme?

• The proposal to reduce to a single assessment task per 15 credits at Level 1 (4) (p:8) is noted. This appears to run counter to the idea of variety in assessment modes and the philosophy of assessment to accommodate a range of learning styles. A single assessment per module may result in a greater number of re-assessments.

• It is noted that the Department has appointed a PL in Student Experience and Sustainability (p:10). From the description provided it would appear that this is not a teaching post and that the person appointed will not be able to support the introduction of sustainability as a cross-cutting theme across the provision.

Programme Specifications The Programme Specifications used are of a format which leave much room for questioning in terms of specialism, philosophy of delivery etc so I am sorry that I will not be with you to tease out the thinking behind the curricula etc. The standard template used is very specific in terms of match of modules to learning outcomes and these in general appear to have been carefully thought through; I have not however done a detailed cross referencing exercise of every module to learning outcome to specification as I assume that this check is done internally as an administrative exercise. Instead I have concentrated on the overall shape of programmes and their aims. In looking at the programme specifications I have paid attention to the new programmes, as I note that the existing programmes are recently reviewed and within the new programmes, to the three with which I have subject expertise, namely Fd in Valuation and Auctioneering, BSc Property Management and BSc Real Estate. General comments are supplied in this section as follows. I am unable to supply page numbers as this document lacked any page numbers of an index!

• As a general point on your Fds I note that entry qualification is set at below degree entry level (i.e. 1 A level or equivalent) and at the same level of HNC. However students on both HNC and Fds are expected to work at Level 1 (Level 4) immediately with no foundation level modules. What support is supplied to students to enable them to study at degree level when they come in without appropriate level qualifications? Also the aim for an Fd is that students should move straight to Level 6 (still referred to as Level 3 in your documents) - so in effect students with sub-A level are expected for Fd route to achieve honours standard in 3 years. Is this your norm?

• I also noted a wide variation in the way in which course teams have expressed aims. Some have

taken the opportunity to provide a rationale for their programmes; other have not. Some give a series of detailed outcomes; others are written very generically.

• I do not know whether UofW has a standard approach to use of the templates but it would be helpful

to those interpreting them if some consistency was achieved.

• In general all programmes appear to have a low emphasis on projects and inter-disciplinary working. I would have been interested to hear how the course team instil in students the ability to work together in what is an increasingly interdisciplinary environment.

of 41

Appendix 2

• Elective choices listed are often not real – i.e. 90 credits are prescribed and only 30 credit choices

listed. Would it not be better to be prescriptive- or does real choice exist? Fd Auctioneering and Valuation

• The course aims include law, yet I cannot easily see where this fits within the modules listed. • Employment prospects appear misleading: local authorities and central government and corporates

would not normally recruit people from auctioneering – they would go for people with a real estate qualification so this might be misleading.

• I was interested in why this course does not include business skills (as per Fd Construction) as this would appear appropriate for people who go into the world of auctioneering.

BSc (Hons) Property Management

• It is noted that this course is geared to CIOB rather than RICS- presumably due to the entry grades required. If this is the case, the programme could usefully have a slant towards maintenance management and facilities management and this would perhaps be more appropriate to the needs and career prospects for graduates than modules in investment appraisal. The area of law is also thin within the curriculum

• Overall I think the curriculum could benefit from clearer definition and a more appropriate pathway through the modules available to have clearer distinction from Real Estate

• The pathway learning outcomes details a Chartered Property Manager – what is this? Chartered Builder I recognise – Chartered Surveyor yes- but Chartered Property Manager?

• The learning outcomes are not specific in relation to valuation but instead emphasise the physical building as the core concern. This again leads me to think that the course team should be asked to provide a more robust rational for the curriculum and be clearer as to whether the programme is effectively related to building surveying – or is more geared towards real estate asset management. If the former then I might suggest that they reduce the valuation/ economics and increase the emphasis on dealing with dilapidations maintenance and facilities and that they ensure than the issue of sustainable buildings is well covered. Perhaps they could consider using the modules on construction human resource management and sustainability within the diet.

BSc (Hons) Real Estate

• The Level 1 option of Architectural Detailing and technology is entirely inappropriate –yet appears to be essential as only 2 options are given and 90 credits prescribed

• Pre-contract studies is inappropriate in my view for real estate • There is no construction technology provided in the curriculum yet this is required in preparation for

RICS APC • There is a lack of basic legal training which is necessary to underpin level 2 work • Throughout the curriculum I can find nothing on planning or development or investment funding or

finance. Is there a reason for this? • Housing seems curious as a core module • Good to see Computer Applications woven into the curriculum • I am surprised to note that investment is not carried through to final year studies • Unless students are prepared to pay for the leadership development, effectively if they are full-time

they have no final year options – the 2 electives – building pathology and energy conscious and sustainable developments are interesting but peripheral to their needs.

• I do appreciate that this is a new programme and that resource constraints may to some extent impact on curriculum but given that there is no real estate person listed in your CVs I am concerned that the curriculum may not have the focus and resource required for graduates to succeed in what is currently a very competitive market place where the employer expectation is on a high level of investment literacy and computer skills.

• The learning outcomes talk of a Chartered Real Estate Surveyor. There is no such designation. Unlike Chartered Building Surveyor or Chartered Quantity Surveyor, Real Estate is not an alternative designation.

Module Directory I have looked at the new modules – and again with specific reference to those for which I have specific subject knowledge. Once again it would have made the task far easier had the volumes been indexed

of 41

Appendix 2

and page numbers and the new modules clearly so labelled or colour coded. Also the modules were not even in alphabetical order so going through them in random order was tedious and time-consuming! I make some general comments as follows:

• The approach of matching learning outcomes to specific assessment vehicles is useful –but in many instances the learning outcomes are very general (often only 1 or 2 per 15 credit module

• Most work is only submitted at the end of the Semester – and with only one piece of work for each Level 1 module it is difficult to see how the student gets feedback during the semester. What form (if any) does formative assessment take?

• Generally there is no rationale that I can pick up for the assessment strategies – apart from an almost total reliance on coursework in Level 1

• No guidelines as to length of coursework or Dissertation etc – is there a general expectation? • Some modules are 50/50 exam coursework – others have different split – why? • How long are exams? Do they vary between levels? • Very little emphasis on presentation or project work or team work – how does this map with

overall programme specification outcomes? • Learning outcomes seem to have little if no progression as you move through the levels. I would

have expected to see knowledge and understanding in Level 1 leading to critical analysis in Level 3 – but sometimes it is the other way round and very little critical thinking development

• Where are research skills taught and assessed other than in the dissertation? If they are not introduced until the final year where do students learn about using Journals and academic writing in general?

• Modules reveal that the Real Estate programme is very dependent on one member of staff whose CV was not provided.

• The following new modules were not included in the Directories: Level 1:

Transactions in Real Estate Auctioneering Methods & Techniques Real Estate Numeric Skills

Level 1 Urban Land Economics

• Challenging module in content for people with no economics background. The syllabus and reading lists are commensurate with those typically included at level 6. Will students with no appropriate background knowledge cope?

• Very vague as to assessment – simply says coursework and I don’t see how this assures the learning outcomes.

Principles of Valuation

• A learning outcome of ‘critically evaluating’ real estate markets appears very over ambitious at level 1.

• Why a session on real estate economics when students take a whole module in it? • 2 weeks on investment method does not provide a firm grounding to move to level 2. • As assessment is submitted in Week 8 – how is attendance thereafter assured? How are

subjects covered in lectures after this period assessed? • Book list is not aimed at level 1 – Rees and Hayward is about to be republished and is aimed at

advanced students and practitioners! International Valuation Standards are practitioner level Built Environment Economics

• This module is much better placed in terms of level for first years students. Much of its content is relevant for real estate. Could there not be combining with Urban Land Economics?

Communication and Key Skills

• Covers useful ground. What is the rationale that RE and PM students do not take it?

Construction Technology & Materials • What is the rationale for an exam in this module- it seems unusual given the other modules…

Pre-Contract Studies

of 41

Appendix 2

• Does not list RE as a programme taking this module- yet it is so listed in the programme specification. Course content shows it is entirely inappropriate for real estate!

Level 2 Residential Property Management

• Course content is restricted and does not cover leasehold enfranchisement, common hold, private buy-to-let and finance arrangements; RSL;

• The course content seems to assume some level of knowledge of e.g. law of contract- but where do students learn this? Without a fundamental knowledge of law students are learning a set of facts without foundation.

• Residential property management requires a large knowledge of negotiation and people skills – where are these learned?

• IT is assumed to meet learning outcomes; where is this skill acquired? • Nature of coursework not specified

Real Estate Investment Appraisal • Course aims state that this is an introductory module (which with very little valuation and no

investment at level 1 it must be. However the module attempts to cover a wide curriculum and within the time only a limited surface knowledge will be achieved. However the book list is that which primarily would be for students who are in final year having done 45- 60 credits before reaching that point!

• Content does not attempt to place property within the investment spectrum – yet this is what industry requires.

• No comment as to what coursework will be.

Construction HRM • This module appears to be very appropriate for Property Management given the overall aims of that

programme. T • Why is the exam weighted at 60% when most other modules it is a 50/50 split?

Integrated Project • I would have been curious to ask the Team about their experience with this – are team subject

specific or do they mix the students up? What benefits emerge? Any site visits here? • Note that a large classroom is required- seems odd for this type of module. Principal Agent Relations • The course content is very much a detailed examination of a very narrow branch of contract law- yet

these students have done no law whatsoever! • A missed opportunity not to include some elements of negotiation here • Nothing on the practice of estate agency in the wider sense – ethics, negligence etc • What form will the coursework take? • I assume that it is an error to give a micro-economics book as the set text! Sales and Marketing • Very general module- could be a business school module • Nothing on the practice of estate agency in the wider sense – ethics, negligence etc • Why 100% coursework? • Textbook choices seem curious Placement • Stated as 15 credit in one place- which seems low for 48 week placement (long!) yet elsewhere it

states it is not credit-bearing. Needs resolving. Applied Valuation • Covers a lot for 15 credits as so little valuation covered in Level 1. • Assumes students have a knowledge of law which they won’t have (Commercial property

management is studied concurrently) • Text book is very old and lacking relevance today

Commercial Property Management

of 41

Appendix 2

• Covers a lot for 15 credits for students with no contract background so knowledge likely to be superficial

• Content is out of date- Commercial Lease Code changed in 07 • Looks at the subject from a very legalistic landlord driven perspective not reflective of the current

market • What is the nature of the coursework? • Textbooks are barely related to the subject- some apply to property investment others to corporate

real estate or economics- the residential management texts would be more appropriate Computer Applications in Real Estate Analysis • Good to see a module on this • Why ARGUS – surely students first need to learn Excel –otherwise they are simply users of a

package and effectively can do data entry- not understand investment analysis • If an industry package is to be used – what about Circle which is much more widely used. • Should they not be introduced to SPSS ready for dissertation work? • How is a report an appropriate assessment vehicle- why not a test using the machines to solve a

problem? Housing • Nice module but quite peripheral to all except Property Management students, who also do

residential property management with which there is an overlap. • Reconsider who module is for – can’t see building surveyors really appreciating it! Level 3 Leadership Development • Why not available to Real Estate which is a course likely to attract ambitious people • Nice module! Would have been interested to hear more

Valuation Law and Regulation • Good to see rating and CPO kept in to the programme – too often excluded these days • What sort of coursework? • Modern Methods too outdated • No mention of Red Book in the book list

Construction and Property Finance • Module content would make it very suitable for property management students • Module content doesn’t cover sources of finance (debt equity, PFI, PPP etc – it is really a financial

resource management module not a finance module at all • What sort of coursework? • Book list confirms this is accounting and financial management for construction students’ module! Development Economics Project • Nice module- might it not be suitable for Real Estate? Corporate Real Estate • Very appropriate to have this within the curriculum • The sole technical learning outcome is knowledge and understanding of the concept of business

strategy – no mention of relationship with real estate. • The course content is vague and the learning activity of ‘workshops in valuation’ is clearly wrong! • Reading: clearly wrong – residential auction trends belongs to the module on auctioneering. Why is

Edwards and Ellison no given here? Energy Conscious and Sustainable Development Issues • From the title I was expecting a wide ranging module around TBL issues as well as energy

conservation. In reality this is FM with an energy and sustainability bias. Appropriate for property management as well as Building surveying probably – but not really what the title implies – this is an FM module

• Book list is dated –and confirms it is an FM module - nothing in book list to ensure currency on SD issues – why is there a 25 year old book on Valuation and Development Appraisal?

of 41

Appendix 2

of 41

Professor Sarah Sayce April 2008

Appendix 2

REPLY TO COMMENTS FROM THE EXTERNAL EXAMINERS REPORTS ON THE COIN SUBMISSIONS for REVALIDATION

These comments are made in response to the comments made on the revalidation submission by External Advisors. The subject experts concentrated their remarks on their own specialist areas but the more general issues where relevant have also been responded to in this reply. Comments were received from the following: Professor Sarah Sayce (Real Estate, Valuation and Property) Professor S.W.Garrity (Civil Engineering and Civil and Environmental Engineering) The responses are addressed in the order they were received from the External Advisors under the following headings: Staffing Student Recruitment Industrial Relevance Programme Specification and Content Assessment Conclusions

Staffing A question was raised as the range of experience and specialism in particular in the property related subject areas. The Construction and Infrastructure (COIN) department within the School of Engineering and the Built Environment (SEBE) has a five year history of the successful delivery of built environment, property based and related courses. It is impossible on economic grounds alone to fully resource a course to the ideal standards but the department has a track record of successfully developing courses as the economic justification is realised. An example of this is with the first property course provided in the department five years ago - Property Asset Management - as it has grown in popularity resources have been made available to improve and enhance delivery. Increased staff resources are already in place for the property and civil engineering related profile. A new senior lecturer, RICS qualified, has been recruited with a property/industrial liaison brief to assist in the delivery of the foundation degree and there is a vacant post doctoral post to which a valuation specialist will be recruited in the next month. A new appointment has just been made in the area of Civil Engineering of a qualified Structural Engineer and plans are in place for the development of further succession planning in this area. There are two existing staff in place with PhD’s in property related subject areas and the range of property related experience of staff includes RICS Education Partnerships in Real Estate (RICS Grants), Research, Conference Chair, Publications, Reader Web Journal and RICS memberships. Further professional body partnerships in the property field include the National Association of Estate Agents, NAEA, and the National Association of Valuers and Auctioneers, NAVA, both of which are promoting and helping in the delivery of work based experience for the Foundation Degree in Valuation and Auctioneering. Student Recruitment The University of Wolverhampton has achieved great success with the Widening Participation Agenda and is rightly credited with having strong links and partnerships with schools and colleges within their network to the extent of sharing deliveries on foundation courses to ease students into higher education. Projects such as those under the LLN and other Education Partnerships initiatives are in place to provide tasters of the University experience to potential students. With regards to recruitment, it is anticipated that numbers on new courses will initially be low but that they will strengthen as courses matures. The range of resources to deliver the courses will improve in parallel with the growth of the student numbers.

of 41

Appendix 2

Entry standards have been raised in the revalidation exercise but to maintain the success of the University in the Widening Participation Agenda strategies for attracting alternatives to the mainstream student have been developed. This includes attracting the more mature student, either in work or wishing to develop a particular career. The range of courses now proposed will address the broad profile of student applications received for property courses. For example these include the proposed RICS accredited Real Estate course - intended to cater primarily for the full time student, to the proposal for the CIOB recognised Property Management course for the more mature, experienced student wishing to progress their careers from the world of work through part time sponsored study. The Foundation Degree is seen to be the course that will feed into the Property Management course. The same strategy has been applied to the development of Building and Civil Engineering courses. Whilst these courses are targeted for specific types of students they will not be exclusive; full time and part time modes will be available to all the degree courses. Recent market research would indicate that viable numbers for the proposed courses will be achievable from the course commencement which for the new foundation degree will be February 2009 to bring it in line with the Foundation Degree in Construction. Industrial Relevance The strategic linking of all course provision to professional body recognition gives added value and these stronger professional linkages have recently resulted in the NAEA and the NAVA promoting and helping in the delivery of work based experience for the Foundation Degree in Valuation and Auctioneering. The development of stronger links with professional bodies through accreditation has resulted in the University of Wolverhampton receiving visits from the National Presidents of CIOB, RICS and ICE within the last year. These visits enhance the profile of the University to students but also influence the development and currency of themes within the curriculum in being consistent with professional body current thinking. The links with the civil and structural engineering sectors of the construction industry will be strengthened by the involvement of local and regional industry in the curriculum. Assessment It is intended to build on the existing diverse assessment regimes used in the department. The policy of the university in supporting staff through PGCert qualifications provides a new and innovative knowledge base for staff to exploit in their modules. Good work is already being undertaken in piloting new areas of development such as CAA testing, electronic submission and marking of assignment work and in the use of mobile texts and pod-casting within modules. Whilst the University Regulations will require a reduction of the level 4 (1) testing regime diverse mechanisms of testing will ensure that the assessment of the work through the module will be rigorous, appropriate for the programme and fit for purpose. Programme Specifications and Content Cross referencing across every module has been completed as part of an internal process and the module learning outcomes are mapped against the courses outcomes to ensure they are fully met. In terms of content a question was raised with regard to the use of sustainability as a subject theme that been embedded within the new curriculum. It is one of the key areas of emphasis in subject and professional benchmarks and frameworks and together with health and safety issues has quite correctly been given a high profile. The department has significant specialist research in a range of sustainability themes including flooding (Professor D. Proverbs), construction materials (Dr J. Khatib), geotextiles (Professor R Sarsby) and soil technology (Dr C. Booth) to name just a few. Staff and student already engage with the topic through projects and dissertations and a number of additional staff have begun to develop their own research in the subject area which will be supported by the department. Emphasis within the revalidation exercise has been on the creation of course cohort identities with extra resources being provided for course teams to develop the subject ethos. This was previously felt to be missing and the opportunity of strengthening this directly at level 4 (1) through the use of course teams is seen as a significant benefit. Whilst it is important to develop distinct cohort identities within the built environment, the industry increasingly relies on interdisciplinary working which involves teams with differing

of 41

Appendix 2

of 41

roles and responsibilities knowing what others do. At each level of study opportunities are given to students to study in interdisciplinary groups. For example the Integrated Project module and Development Economics Project both rely on interdisciplinary group profiles. There is a move towards more prescription in curriculum design by some professional bodies which restricts real choice and where accreditation relies on a complete diet. For example the property management course will seek CIOB accreditation (Chartered Builder, Property Manager) which relies on accrediting out-puts (rather than inputs as does the RICS). The CIOB is far more prescriptive than the RICS in what must be studied on a course but where personal choices are exercised by a student, they will do so in consultation with the course team. In the Real Estate course the option of the architectural detailing and technology module has been included as a basic level of building knowledge provision together with developing technical skills. From previous experience this is a necessary requirement for the students on this programme and enables them to gain a solid foundation in built environment technology and prepare for the RICS APC. In the Civil Engineering subject area of structural design related modules will be developed to include the new Eurocodes. The appointment of new staff and training for existing staff teaching these modules will be supported by the Department. The introduction of work based learning is challenging to the department both in terms of developing linkages with the world of work and assessing in the work place. Some skilled and experienced resources have already been put in place to deliver this increase in workload but the benefits of student progression and relevance of the curriculum to industry will make it worthwhile. Assessment The assessment regime for modules is based on and is consistent with the SEBE School assessment tariff – a School wide guidance document. Whilst this is not set in stone it provides a benchmark for consistency to the expectations of students. Modules will vary in the extent of formative assessment adopted but with the increasing use of technology supported learning within the department continuous consistent feedback can be gained. Increasingly members of staff have to be innovative to ensure that students can benefit from participation in formative work early in a module to enable improvements in performance to be made. The developments of academic skills are embedded through the module delivery. Assignments are prepared with a full assignment brief which includes the requirement for the development of skills progressing to level 6. For example research referencing and reporting skills are included in level 4 (1) modules and developed through the course. A closer liaison with the Departments learning resource co-ordinator will develop a further programme of skills development and use of learning resources. Conclusions A number of external advisor comments have been made in relation to specific modules or programmes. These comments were very helpful and have been considered and revisions made as necessary. The Department would like to thank the external advisors for their helpful, positive and constructive advice in the scrutiny of the revalidation documentation. Chris Williams May 2008

Appendix 3

UNIVERSITY QUALITY PANEL Meeting Meeting with students for the revalidation of the SEBE Undergraduate Construction and

Infrastructure (COIN) portfolio

Date / Time 30th April 2008 from 11.00 a.m.

Venue MI310, City Campus

Present • For the University Quality Panel – Ms Jill Williams (Chair), Mr Phillip Begg – both SoH, Ms Claire Jolin (SAD) and Ms Rachel Ford (Officer - QASD).

• For COIN – 6 final year students; one full time; 4 male, 2 female; 5 degree; 1 HNC.

Apologies Ms Della Moore, Mr Steven Garrity and Prof Sarah Sayce.

Ms Williams welcomed the students and advised them of the purpose of the meeting. • UQP began by asking if the students were aware of PSRB involvement on their awards.

One student noted that Civil Engineering Management was not accredited. There had been some talk that accreditation may be sought, but this had not come to anything. This student noted, that while it would have been beneficial to have this accreditation as part of the pathway, there were still opportunities to pursue professional accreditation afterwards through employment routes. This student was concerned this would impact on fellow students who were not in employment and who may be disadvantaged when seeking employment. It was noted that the professional route took longer to achieve than did the academic route. Another student had had a similar experience in that their pathway had been accredited by RICS -Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors when they joined but the accreditation had subsequently been withdrawn. In order to fulfil their employment needs, they had transferred to another pathway. One student who was not currently employed was aware that their pathway was RICS accredited. This was seen as very important for future employment. Another student noted their pathway was CIOB - Chartered Institute of Building accredited. • UQP asked why the students had chosen to study at Wolverhampton.

One student noted that location had been a factor for them, but Wolverhampton had also offered the better course. One student had been recommended the University of Wolverhampton by a colleague and another by a family member. Two students noted that the university was well thought of by employers and they came here because they got support from their employer to study here. • UQP asked if they felt the content of the pathways was what they had expected.

One student noted that they had not previously considered themselves to be particularly academic, but through studying their pathway it had made them more rounded professionally. Both clients and employers had recognised a change for the better in the student. Another student agreed that the pathways met the needs of industry and employers. One of the students had taken a complete career change and had not known what to expect, but, now at the end of their studies, felt they had gained a wide range of experience. • UQP asked if the pathway content was considered by the students to be relevant to further study and

prospective employment. The students agreed that this area was a buoyant market at the moment. One student had chosen their pathway to fulfil very specific requirements and recognised that this had opened doors for them in terms of future employment. The Civils area was felt to be particularly buoyant. One students noted that while they could have done well with an HNC, taking the degree had increased their employment opportunities still further.

of 41

http://www.rics.org/

http://www.ciob.org.uk/home

Appendix 3

One student commented that this was an industry where experience and academic qualifications were seen as equally important. Another student disagreed slightly noting that local government will always look slightly more favourably on applicants with a degree. • UQP asked if the students had been involved in the review process.

None of the students had contributed to the review, but they provided routine module feedback. One student noted that the student group had met with staff when they were on the HNC pathway, but these meetings had not continued on the degree. The students were not aware of any opportunities to make comments at the pathway level. • UQP asked about the management and organisation of teaching.

One student noted that the staff were generally good. This student had experienced some problems recently around the modules contributing their pathway, but these now appeared to have been resolved. Another student commented on the interdisciplinary nature of the pathways; they shared lots of modules. While students thought this was positive, they did feel there was much less sense of pathway identity. One student noted they had never received a pathway guide, while another commented that their pathway organisation seemed okay and their pathway leader was always available. • The students were asked to comment on skills for practice.

One student felt that their modules contained a lot of theory with less application to practice. Another student commented that their pathway provided enough practical experience for their needs which helped to contextualise what they learned in the classroom. In terms of module delivery, one student felt the lectures could be unstructured and that some lecturers did not seem to give much thought to the different levels the students may be at (depending on their experience prior to coming on the pathway). Another student agreed with this and noted that sometimes there appeared to be an overlap of module content. This had been particularly noticeable when one lecturer had left and another had taken over a module. It was noted that module groups could vary from around 30 – 130 students. One student noted that some staff have very valuable professional experience which they bring into the classroom, • UQP asked about work experience placements.

One student noted that there were currently no opportunities to take a sandwich year on their pathway but they fully supported the move to incorporate one into the revalidated pathways. This student had some concern that their lack of employment experience would affect their employment opportunities now they were in a position to apply for jobs. Another student supported the move to sandwich delivery noting that their employer took sandwich year students from other universities. It was accepted that not all sandwich students achieve a positive outcome, but for the better students, there is often a job offer at the end of their studies. Sometimes students are employed before completing their studies, with the employer sponsoring them to complete their pathways part time. • The students were asked to comment on assessment.

The students appeared to be clear about how assessments worked, including formative assessments. It was noted, however, that some students choose not to complete the formative assessments; they cannot see the point if the assessment does not contribute to their module grade. • UQP asked about feedback on assessments both in terms of timeliness and quality.

Some students noted that feedback was received too late to make any difference to them and others felt there could be inconsistencies in the marking. The students noted that some module leaders made the assessment criteria available well in advance.

of 41

Appendix 3

Students knew they could look up their module grades on e:vision. Sometimes they receive written feedback sheets. They noted that the later in the module the assessment was handed in, the less chance there was of them getting their feedback returned. They did, however, accept that the reason for this may be logistical, with students not collecting their feedback once they had completed a module. It was also noted that some module leaders provided feedback in lecture sessions and some students were aware that feedback could be collected from the school office. • UQP asked about study support.

Study support was felt to be good, especially dissertation support and particularly for part time students. Students felt able to discuss study skills with lecturers / module leaders. One student felt it may be helpful to have a WOLF forum and another student noted that this was available on some of the modules. Students had become aware of PebblePad during the last semester, but had not had the opportunity to use it. None of them were aware of the work done by the SEBE Student Support and Enhancement Officer. • UQP asked about the students’ perception of module progression.

One student was not clear regarding progression through the modules, but did note that the progressive scale of referencing was a major expectation on the part of teaching staff. Another student felt the modules developed their critical and analytical skills over time and had developed them into independent thinkers and learners. One other student agreed there was a change of tempo throughout their studies. They could clearly see the difference between studying at HNC as compared to degree level and now looked forward to progressing onto post graduate study. This student had felt encouraged and supported throughout their studies. One of the students noted they had been offered an opportunity to undertake post graduate research and another had been invited to come back and guest lecture. UQP congratulated the students on these recognitions of their achievements. One student was concerned that, despite obtaining a good degree, they would not obtain employment; this student felt they had received limited careers advice. Another student recommended they try the SEBE notice board. A student who had taken the HNC felt that progression through their pathway was obvious and now that they were completing their studies they felt it had all come together nicely at the end. • UQP asked about university support outside of that provided by SEBE.

Students were aware of the various central services available and noted that this information was available through notices and WOLF. All of the students would recommend the University and their pathway to other people. Two of the students commented they would recommend, but with some reservation due to the administrative difficulties they had experienced during their studies. • UQP drew the meeting to a close by asking if the students had any other comments they wished to

make. One student noted that they had noticed a distinct improvement in the quality of lecturers recently; some were very passionate about their subject area, There were some very good lecturers who were highly knowledgeable. Another student commented that the staff seemed aware of the issues which concerned the students and it was obvious that they were taking steps to make improvements.

of 41

Appendix 3

of 41

UQP thanked the students for their comments and noted the issues they had raised would be discussed with the staff team at their meeting later in the day. The Panel wished the students well in the future.

Appendix 4

UNIVERSITY QUALITY PANEL

Meeting Revalidation of the SEBE undergraduate Architecture and Product Design (COIN) portfolio

Date / Time 30th April 2008 from 1.50 p.m.

Venue MC326, City Campus

Present • For the University Quality Panel – Ms Jill Williams (Chair), Mr Phillip Begg – both SoH, Ms Claire Jolin (SAD) and Ms Rachel Ford (Officer - QASD).

• For COIN – Mr Chris Williams (Key Proposer), Ms Pauline Corbett and Prof Bob

Sarsby

Apologies Ms Della Moore, Mr Steven Garrity and Prof Sarah Sayce. Prof David Proverbs

In the morning session, members of the University Quality Panel (UQP) had met with a group of COIN students after which Mr Begg had been taken on a resource visit by members of the proposing team. During this, the remaining Panel members had met to plan the meeting with the staff team. Following lunch the Panel were joined by the staff team who gave a presentation on the background to the revalidation. As part of the presentation, the Panel were able to clarify a few queries they had had following their reading of the documentation and the staff team were thanked for this helpful session. Ms Williams asked the staff team to work through the various pathways being presented for revalidation noting progress with PSRB accreditation. HNC Building Studies and HNC Civil Engineering Studies It was noted that these are University of Wolverhampton pathways. Next year Edexcel are moving to 8 module courses, so these may need to be revisited at a later date. FD (Science) Construction There had been some confusion about this pathway, but from what the Officer had been able to find out in QASD, this had been validated in 06-07 for delivery at various partner colleges. The staff team had been able to confirm that this had not recruited at the partner colleges, however it had been delivered in house. It was agreed that this would be revalidated in line with the original validation and to include delivery at the university. The staff team were advised to revisit the memoranda of cooperation with the various partners to ensure it was up to date should delivery commence at any of the colleges. BSc (Hons) Construction Management and BSc (Hons) Property Management (both CIOB) The university is a CIOB accredited centre and this includes accreditation of a number of the current pathways. CIOB are due in to visit again next year to review and accredit the pathways it recognises. The staff team noted that Wolverhampton is the only institution which all of the CIOB national presidents have visited. BSc (Hons) Building Surveying BSc (Hons) Commercial Management and Quantity Surveying and BSc (Hons) Real Estate (all RICS) The staff team explained the difference between CIOB centre accreditation and the process for RICS recognition. RICS have no specific requirements on curriculum content and are content to abide with the University’s outcome of review and revalidation. Continuing RICS accreditation is based on • An entry threshold onto pathways of 230 UCAS points; • Teaching score (QAA score now replaced with assessment score); • Minimum RAE standards and • Exit velocity and student employability.

BSc (Hons) Quantity Surveying (CIOB) The staff team noted that the PSRB which will be approached to accredit this pathway will be decided after the first cohort have completed their studies. They have been careful to note in all their publicity materials that accreditation is pending. BSc (Hons) Civil Engineering (ICE/JBM) This has ICE (Institute of Civil Engineers) accreditation which remains valid until 2009 when they will revisit the accreditation. ICE, along with the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Institution of Highways and

37

http://www.ice.org.uk/homepage/index.asp

http://www.istructe.org.uk/

http://www.iht.org.uk/

Appendix 4

Transportation and the Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers jointly form the Joint Board of Moderators (JBM). BSc (Hons) Civil and Environmental Engineering The validated submission documentation will be presented to the professional body; if the application is successful the pathway will receive provisional accreditation. After 3 years the professional body hold a two day visit at the university after which final approval may be granted. If the staff team decide to apply for accreditation by CIWEM (The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management) this also involves the submission of documentation for approval. FD (Science) Auctioneering & Valuation This new pathway will top up to BSc (Hons) Real Estate. Progression from FDs and HNCs It was noted that RICS do not accept a Foundation degree as an appropriate entry requirement onto the final year of a degree. In line with their entry requirement for 230 UCAS points, students with a Foundation degree would be accepted onto year 2 of RICS accredited pathways. The Officer advised she would raise this with QASD as this appeared to be outside of the university’s regulations and may need to be recorded by the Academic Regulations Sub Committee. Students who have completed the HNC with the appropriate grades (RICS require merits overall) may also progress onto level 2 of degree pathways. HNC Civil Engineering students who move onto level 2 are not required to repeat contributing modules if they have already taken them. The Panel noted how complex the various professional body accreditations were and stressed the importance of taking care not too mislead students by any means about the status of accreditation on any of the pathways. It was agreed that providing clear information on accreditation was very important. The Panel confirmed that the staff’s presentation and responses here in relation to accreditation and entry requirements had addressed the concerns they had identified from the submission documents.

• The Panel noted the concern raised in one of the external adviser’s report regarding the differences

between the Civil Engineering and Civil and Environmental Engineering pathways. Mr Williams noted that at levels 2 and 3 students work in groups and fulfil their own role in the group. This allows the teams to work in an interdisciplinary manner, with each student working to their own work related strength. It was noted that this external had also advised that two visits would be required for the Industrial placement module; the staff team would be happy to accommodate this requirement. The Panel noted that some of the issues raised by the students at their meeting earlier in the day could probably have been addressed if the staff team had held student forum meetings (or similar). The staff team noted that they are planning to incorporate more opportunities for group feedback in their new processes - this is part of the work being done by Ms Corbett in her new role as Student Support and Enhancement Officer. Mr Williams observed that students like to work with academics who have professional experience. They think if you can build it you can talk about it. • Mr Begg noted it was evident from speaking to the students that they had confidence in the staff’s

expertise and the scale of the building projects they had been involved in. • UQP asked how assessment feedback was presented to students.

The staff responded that this was handed back or lodged with the School Office. Ms Corbett noted that she posts group feedback on WOLF, which often prompts students to seek their individual feedback. • Ms Jolin asked about student diversity on COIN pathways and how the staff dealt with the varying

needs of the students.

38

http://www.iht.org.uk/

http://www.ihie.org.uk/

http://www.jbm.org.uk/index.aspx

Appendix 4

The staff team had found completing the SEBE Equality and Diversity grid a very useful exercise. As well as having a diverse student body, the staff team were also diverse including life-long academics and those who have only recently moved from full time practice. One way of addressing the students’ needs is by delivering evening only pathways. Mixed ability students tend not to like group work. The staff make a conscious effort to mix full time and part time students for group work. Mr Williams is undertaking some research on the composition of small groups and the outcome of their working together, but so far it appears that the most successful groups are those which are constituted by staff mixing full and part time students. Mr Williams expects one of the outcomes of this research to result in a strategy to address the weak points identified. • The Panel asked how students are engaged, including through TSL.

Students use WOLF forums and undertake formative web chases at level 1. Students also seem to particularly like laboratory sessions. • Mr Begg, who had accompanied the staff on the resource visit, commended the team on the student

learning environment. It had felt like a safe place in which students can learn. Ms Corbett noted the importance of introducing commercially available software to students at all levels. This was good for students who did not currently work in the industry and those who work in smaller companies, who may not normally be exposed to these opportunities. • Ms Jolin asked if the staff had considered making any modules available for CPD.

They had and would consider this during the lifetime of the modules. • UQP felt the team should also move away from references to 15 week semesters in their modules.

The Chair thanked the team, asking them to return after the Panel had held their debrief. When they returned, the team were congratulated on a very useful meeting. UQP acknowledged the work undertaken by the staff team; it was obvious they were an innovative and committed team. The school is obviously financially stable but managers will need to keep on top of staffing and resources in line with PSRB requirements. The learning resources were felt to be commendable. UQP felt it was important for the subject team to continue working on enhancing student support and recommended the use of student forums. It was also important not to lose sight of the issues faced by students on deleted and amended pathways, particularly for the next few years. The Panel agreed to revalidate the COIN undergraduate portfolio for 6 more years, subject to the following actions being addressed :

Person(s) responsible

Action Deadline date

Outcome

Staff team To respond to the remaining housekeeping issues (listed below) and resubmit any documentation amended as a result of addressing these actions.

04/06/08

Staff team As Profs Garrity and Sayce were unable to attend the revalidation meeting, to respond to the issues raised in the two external advisers’ reports.

04/06/08

Officer To follow up the issue of progression of students from FDs and HNCs onto accredited degree pathways and any implications this might have for University academic regulations.

04/06/08

Staff team To revisit the MoC for FD (Science) 04/06/08

39

Appendix 4

40

Construction to ensure that it remains current.

Staff team To keep under review, through annual monitoring, the level 2 portfolio to ensure it is distinctive enough across the various pathways, but in line with PSRB needs.

Ongoing To be included as an ongoing action in the Academic Approval Record.

The Panel supported the principles behind the rationale for the revalidation and commended the staff team on the following: • The clear, logical revalidation document which contained evidence of strategic planning; • The evidence of strong research and external income and links with the professional bodies; • Good, varied assessments; • The decision to have PSRB accreditation for the pathways which can only be good for the students; • Their recognition of the need to develop the first year experience and strengthen the pathway / subject

identity. On behalf of the subject team, Mr Williams thanked UQP for their input. The meeting had been enjoyable as well as making them think. With regard to the new process, the team noted that receiving feedback in advance had been helpful and it had helped them to plan their initial presentation to address some of the issues raised in the feedback. A Housekeeping Appendix was included.

Appendix 5

Person(s) responsible

Action Deadline date

Outcome

Staff team To respond to the remaining housekeeping issues (listed below) and resubmit any documentation amended as a result of addressing these actions.

04/06/08 All housekeeping closed with the exception of confirming the receipt of proposal and deletion plans by PASC. Rachel Ford to advise PASC Officer so that they can advise the school directly if any further action is required.

CLOSED 31/07/08Staff team As Profs Garrity and Sayce were

unable to attend the revalidation meeting, to respond to the issues raised in the two external advisers’ reports.

04/06/08 Report submitted to Officer 03/06/08 and forwarded to Chair 05/06/08. Garrity response received 22/07 and forwarded to Chair. Sent on to Key Proposer and Associate Dean 14/08/08.

CLOSED 14/08/08Officer To follow up the issue of

progression of students from FDs and HNCs onto accredited degree pathways and any implications this might have for University academic regulations.

04/06/08 It was confirmed that progression to Foundation degrees and HNCs may deviate from the standard requirements if this is necessitated by a professional body.

CLOSED 31/07/08

Staff team To revisit the MoC for FD (Science) Construction to ensure that it remains current.

04/06/08 To be included as an ongoing action in the Academic Approval Record.

CLOSED 31/07/08

Staff team To keep under review, through annual monitoring, the level 2 portfolio to ensure it is distinctive enough across the various pathways, but in line with PSRB needs.

Ongoing To be included as an ongoing action in the Academic Approval Record.

CLOSED 31/07/08

41