UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON€¦ · H. Abdalla and Carl Callaghan 73. Membership and Terms of Reference The Committee noted the Membership and terms of reference. The Committee welcomed

Confirmed

Page 1 of 40

UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON

School of Architecture, Computing & Engineering

Minutes of the Meeting of the School Quality Standing Committee held on Wednesday 24th April 2013

Present:

M Marriott (Chair), M. Harries (QAE), N Herrington (CASS), S W Lee, S. Alexis, I. Hyslop, W. N. Bailey, S. Martin, R. Latham, C. David, S. Shwani,

Present for an item: Mike Kretsis, Aloysius Edoh, Andres Baravalle and Shareeful

Islam, S W Lee Present to observe: Michael Hatherly and Adam Thompson (Combined Honours)

Officer: Karren Boast

72. Apologies H. Abdalla and Carl Callaghan 73. Membership and Terms of Reference The Committee noted the Membership and terms of reference.

The Committee welcomed Shorish Shwani (Civil Engineering Student) who has been appointed Student Rep to SQSC, Neil Herrington (CASS) acting as our Internal External and Mike Hatherly and Adam Thompson (Combined Honours) who were observing our SQSC process.

74. Quoracy It was noted that the meeting was quorate, with a member of staff from

Quality Assurance, M. Harries in attendance and N. Herrington (CASS) present.

75. Minutes of the Previous Meetings 75.1 SQSC held on the 6th March 2013 It was noted that the minutes from the Committee meeting held on 6th

March 2013 were confirmed as a true and accurate record. These minutes will be published on Moodle and will be sent to QAE.

Confirmed

Page 2 of 40

76. Matters Arising 76.1 Actions Actions from the previous meeting were reviewed and the following

actions were confirmed as completed or superseded. Action 42: Paul Lighterness – To report back to SQSC on the 6th March (research skills). Complete (SQSC 23/04/13) ACTION 61.1.1: Solomon Alexis - To resubmit revised mapping and site visit (TARC) to SQSC April 24th. Complete (SQSC 23/04/13) ACTION 61.1.2: K. Boast – To obtain signatures of Dean and SQSC QL and forward to QAE for VCG approval. (Electrical). Complete 20/03/2013 ACTION 61.1.3: K. Boast - To obtain signatures of Dean and SQSC QL and forward to QAE for VCG approval. Complete 13/03/2013 ACTION 61.1.4: K. Boast – Minute (short courses to be forwarded to school Board. Complete 18/03/2013 ACTION 61.1.5: K. Boast – To obtain Signatures of Dean and SQSC QL and forward to QAE for VCG approval (Architectural Design & Technology, at AKMI Thessaloniki). Complete 13/03/2013 ACTION 61.1.6: K. Boast - To obtain signatures of Dean and SQSC QL and forward to QAE for VCG approval. (Civil Engineering and Construction, at AKMI Thessaloniki). Complete 13/03/2013 ACTION 61.1.7: K. Boast – To obtain signatures of Dean and SQSC QL and forward to QAE for VCG approval. (Electrical and Electronic Systems, at AKMI, Thessaloniki). Complete 13/03/2013 ACTION 61.4: J. Hodgson - To update programme approval schedule. Complete 14/03/2013. ACTION 63.1: J. Hodgson - To send out reminders to Subject Area Heads and the Dean. Complete 18/03/2013 ACTION 63.2: J. Hodgson – To inform subject area heads that they need to contact the Externals. Complete 18/03/2013 ACTION 63.3: J. Hodgson – To chase up relevant staff regarding outstanding responses. Complete 18/03/2013 ACTION 63.5: J. Hodgson to send revised forms to QAE. Complete 15/03/2013. ACTION 64.1: K. Boast – To notify QAE (Prog Spec Arch). Complete 14/03/2013

Confirmed

Page 3 of 40

ACTION 64.2: K. Boast – To notify QAE when the corrections have been made (prog spec ICSF). Complete 18/03/2013 ACTION 64.3: K. Boast – To notify QAE (prog spec Com Net). Complete 14/03/2013 ACTION 64.4: K. Boast - To notify QAE (Prog spec Civil Eng). Complete 14/03/2013 ACTION 64.5: K. Boast – To Notify QAE (Prog spec BIT). Complete 14/03/2013. ACTION 68.1: J. Hodgson – To chase people for missing REP‟s. Complete 18/03/2013 There are no outstanding items 77. Approval Business 77.1 Approvals 77.1.1 Articulation – Tunku Abdul Rahman College (TAR College)

The mapping and site visit for TAR College previously presented at SQSC (on the 3rd of October 2012), had been referred back to the school by VRSC. VRSC requested a clearer report and mapping using the new proformas. VRSC also commented that correct procedure was not followed as the mapping was considered before initial approval had been given. Initial approval has now been granted by VCG and S. Alexis has completed the mapping and site visit report on the new proformas. The documents also adhere to the new local qualifications framework. The Committee reviewed the documents and some minor corrections were agreed. The Committee approve the proposal. The site visit report and mapping will be submitted to QAE who will forward to VRSC for formal validation. ACTION: S. Alexis to incorporate all agreed points and send a revised version of mapping to K Boast, who will forward to QAE

77.2 Re approvals 77.2.1 BSc (Hons) Business Information Systems (A. Baravalle) 77.2.2 BSc (Hons) Computer Networks (M. Kretsis)

Confirmed

Page 4 of 40

77.2.3 BSc (Hons) Computing (S. Islam) 77.2.4 BSc (Hons) IT (A. Edoh) 77.2.5 BSc (Hons) Software Engineering (S.W. Lee)

The Committee noted that the meeting was quorate for the purpose of approval, with the Quality Assurance Officer, Merlin Harries and a member of staff from another school, Neil Herrington present.

The programme proposers were all present to address any issues. The Committee noted the documentation concerning the programme which had been circulated prior to this meeting.

The Committee were presented with the following documents:

Final Programme Specifications

Final module specifications (Appendix one)

Staff CV‟s (appendix three)

Validation document for each programme

Completed proforma with all external advisors comments

Manual of general regulations Part 1 description of our University‟s awards

University Quality manual part 4 – quality criteria.

The team gave a brief explanation of the structure of the proposed programmes. At present the Computer Science and Informatics area within the school offers five undergraduate programmes. These are BSc (Hons) Software Engineering, BSc (Hons) Computer Network, BSc (Hons) Information Technology, BSc (Hons) Business Information System, and BSc (Hons) Computing. All programmes are requesting approval to be re validated. The first year is broadly similar across all five programmes, with the students taking characterising modules from their second year. The Committee were informed that as all programmes are being revalidated at the same time the impact on all programmes will be minimal. As the programmes are delivered in the same school there will be quite a few similarities with regard to documentation. It was explained that the programmes share not only modules but facilities and staff. The Committee reviewed each programme separately and considered each of the quality criteria in turn, noting comments raised by the External Advisors and the team‟s response.

77.2.1 BSc (Hons) Business Information Systems (A. Baravalle)

a) Academic Climate and Resources

Members of the Committee thought that the staff were appropriately qualified with suitable expertise and that there was appropriate and up to date specialist equipment to support the programme and that the library, computer and other educational technology would support the students‟ learning needs.

Confirmed

Page 5 of 40

Neil Simpkins (EA) was satisfied on the basis of the documentation provided that there appears to be an adequate provision of qualified staff and with both business and information services background.

Professor Stephen Furnell (EA) commented that details in the validation document referred to resources in the school he would have liked to see a programme-specific supplement to indicate the resources of relevance to this programme and the specific expertise that staff have within the area, but aside from that was also happy that the School in which the program is located has sufficient resources to deliver the proposed programmes (including mention of networking-specific software and hardware provision). The Programme Leader amended the documentation adding programme specific details as requested. Professor Stephen Furnell also thought that the documentation could have given more details concerning competitors The Programme Leader updated the documentation giving more detail on the following competitors: University of Greenwich, Westminster, London Met and South Bank.

The Committee and the External Advisors approved all issues under this category.

b) Philosophy and Principles

Members of the Committee agreed that the aims and objectives of the programme were clearly articulated, consistent with the UEL vision and would meet the needs of the students. Neil Simpkins (EA) thought the programme was in line with UEL‟s strategic and school plans and made reference to the programme having a good employability focus whilst also requiring an appropriate level of academic achievement.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) The revalidation is clearly expressed, and the resulting programme still maintains genuine topic focus and skills. The Committee and the External Advisors approved all issues under this category and are happy with the development of the programmes.

c) Admissions The Committee asked for clarification on the IELT‟s requirements and were informed that the minimum would be 6.0 overall with 6.0 for writing and speaking and 5.5 for reading and listening. The Committee thought this appropriate.

Confirmed

Page 6 of 40

Neil. Simpkins (EA) thought the programme had appropriate entry requirements and procedures which also ensure an appropriate level of prior learning or industrial experience. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the tariff of 200 UCAS points seemed rather low and recommended that this level should not drop during clearing. The External also mentioned that as BIS shares modules with the other four programmes and that class size may be greater than anticipated. The Programme Leader explained that the entry tariff is as currently agreed centrally by the University and is not envisaged to alter during clearing. In terms of the lectures, tutorial and practical sessions, students on shared modules will be attending the same lecture at lecture room or lecture theatre that is appropriate for the full cohort of students on a particular module. The size of tutorial and practical sessions will not normally be more than 25 students per group in order to provide a more personal and interactive learning environment to the student. The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

d) Structure Neil Simpkins (EA) was happy with the structure; each module was well specified with clear learning outcomes. He commented on the transitional arrangements saying they were well thought out.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the structure of the programme suggests fully relevant material across both taught semesters. He raised a point concerning students who begin studies in Sem B and whether or not they would be disadvantaged by not completing skills modules in their first semester. The Programme Leader informed the External that the programme had been running for the two previous years, with skills modules delivered in semester A. The team had not seen any decrease in student performance. He added that to deliver the skills modules twice per year would put a strain on resources and be quite demanding logistically. The Committee discussed the legal, social ethical and professional issues relating to computing. As this programme is seeking accreditation it must cover and assess these aspects. The team informed the Committee that CN2041 (professional issues) and CN3070 (project research and implementation must be taken by single honours students. Students that gain direct entry for level 3 would have to take a bridging module (Ethics, safety and legal issues in computing) to cover the relevant issues. The Committee were satisfied that these issues had been covered.

Confirmed

Page 7 of 40

The Committee recommended that reference to the placement module should be in the programme spec but in the text rather than in the table and consistent with the other computing programmes up for re validation today. The Committee were happy to see that the programme proposal team have addressed the issues raised by the BCS relating to project reports lacking an “in-depth treatment of design and critical analysis”. They have achieved this by increasing the word count to 10,000 in addition to the required demonstrations and software development activities in module CN3070. The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

e) Content

Neil Simpkins (EA) thought the programme benchmarks and the content of the modules making up the programme appear appropriate and current. The External suggested modules that could have been included and seemed relevant to the programme. The Programme Leader responded to the suggestions giving reasons as to why certain modules were or were not included in the final document. He also explained that specific guidance to students regarding each module will be written in the module handbook. The External was happy with the explanation.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the range of module topics looks very suitable to the programme theme, but from the module description it would seem that IM2042 (Information Systems Modelling and Design) would be very appropriate as a core module for this programme rather than an option. The External also recommends that reading lists are reviewed and updated where necessary. He also mentioned that the language used in the module is not made clear in the main topics of study. The Programme Leader addressed the Externals comments as follows: IM2042 is now a core module. Module Leaders have been asked to review their reading resources. Learning outcomes are not directed to a specific language but is clarified in more detail in the module guides and provides a more flexibility.

The Committee pointed out some corrections required in the validation document, the map of modules to BCS benchmarks p52-57 needs to be done on a programme basis. (P15) SD13xx should be SD1132. (P16) SD10xx appears twice. Programme spec p8 – CN20xz is missing. Also to alter the wording on the Programme spec p2 Programme structures “If you want to change to one of our specialised degrees, rather than the computing degree” add the word usually. And “you will study a combination of core and optional modules” change to 2, 20 credit

Confirmed

Page 8 of 40

modules. Remove any details of professional accreditation from the programme spec until it has been gained. Re word section how the teaching year is divided with regard to part time students. The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

f) Learning and Teaching Methods Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues with learning and teaching methods and thought that there was an appropriate mix of contact hours as well as time for preparation and self-directed learning. Professor Steve Furnell (EA) had no issues with learning and teaching methods. Although does mention that there are a small number of modules across all five programmes (SD3042, in the case of BIS) that are not specific about the breakdown of activities between tutorials/practicals/seminars etc. The Programme Leader says that this is intentional and provides a level of flexibility. The Committee had no issues here either and thought the descriptions of student/tutor contact time suggest a good balance of lectures, workshop and practical activities and are well suited to the needs of the students. The Committee and External Advisors approved all issues under this category

g) Assessment

Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues and thought that there was a good range of assessment types mentioned including presentations and substantial project work, both individual and in groups. The External pointed out that there does not appear to be an indication of the split between formative and summative. The Programme Leader informed the External that formative assessment did take place within the modules and that it is not the university policy to specify that level of detail within the module specifications.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the modules contain an appropriate mix of coursework and examination based assessment and also had no issues.

The Committee are satisfied that the programme follows the UEL assessment policy and had no issues.

The Committee and External Advisors approved all issues under this category

h) Guidance and Support

Confirmed

Page 9 of 40

External Advisors and the Committee are satisfied that an appropriate support structure is specified in terms of programme and module leaders, personal tutors, and the surrounding administrative processes. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) added that it would have been useful for the documentation to specifically identify the name of the programme leader. The Programme Leader has added his name to the validation document.

The Committee approved all issues under this category.

I) Progression and Completion

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the transitional arrangements for existing students were appropriate.

Neil Simpkins (EA) thought that Progression and completion appear to be kept adequately under review through annual review, statistical information and feedback. The Committee are satisfied that progression and completion will be suitably monitored through the stated quality management procedures. The Committee approved all issues under this category.

J) Information

Both External Advisors and the Committee had nothing to add under this category and thought there to be suitable provision of information via student handbooks and module specifications, with the scheduled induction sessions providing explicit opportunity to convey information, answer student questions, and provide any other guidance required to students.


K) Students and Employers Views

Neil Simpkins (EA) and Professor Steven Furnell (EA) Understood that views of Students had been sought both via module feedback, meetings with representatives and via representation within the programme committee. Whilst the formal consultation with employers has not taken place, the revalidation has been formulated to take account of feedback from the recent professional body (BCS) reaccreditation visit.

The Committee had no issues under this category and thought appropriate means are proposed for students to provide input via module feedback and via representation within the programme committee.

Confirmed

Page 10 of 40


L) Regulations and Validating Bodies

Neil Simpkins (EA) understood that the modules are mapped to both QAA and BCS criteria. However, for the BCS it might be better and clearer to map awards to the criteria rather than individual modules. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the proposal is set in a relevant

professional context, with the appendices providing clear and complete mappings to the relevant QAA and BCS benchmarks.

Conclusion The Committee duly APPROVE the BSc (Hons) Business Information Systems

ACTION: A. Baravalle to incorporate all agreed points and send a revised version of the programme specification to K Boast. A. Baravalle will formally notify the Externals of the outcome of the process. Andres was thanked for his efforts

77.2.2 BSc (Hons) Computer Networks (M. Kretsis)


Neil Simpkins (EA) thought that the documentation suggests staff will be able to support the programme and provide an up to date perspective both now and in the future and that there are adequate resources such as IT facilities, library and educational infrastructure. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) commented that the proposal clearly identifies the associated computing resources available (including mention of networking-specific software and hardware provision). The details in the validation document referred to resources in the school he would have liked to see a programme-specific supplement to indicate the resources of relevance to this programme. Specific mention is made of 6 full-time members of staff with the necessary background and experience, it would have been helpful to name the staff and saved time having to cross-reference module specifications and staff CVs. It would also have been useful to name the Programme Leader. The Programme Leader amended the documentation adding programme specific details as requested. Members of the Committee thought that the staff were appropriately qualified with suitable expertise and that there was appropriate and up to date specialist equipment to support the programme and that the library,

Confirmed

Page 11 of 40

computer and other educational technology would support the students‟ learning needs. The Committee and the External Advisors approved all issues under this category.


Members of the Committee agreed that the aims and objectives of the programme were clearly articulated, consistent with the UEL vision and would meet the needs of the students. Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues with this section and thought the programme appeared to be meet required equality and diversity requirements. He could see that specific support is provided for students with disabilities, weak English and from other under-represented groups. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the proposed programme to be topical and linked to the needs of industry.

The Committee and the External Advisors approved all issues under this category and are happy with the development of the programmes.

c) Admissions Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues with the admissions criteria and thought it similar to other peer institutions. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the tariff of 200 UCAS points seemed rather low and recommended that this level should not drop during clearing. The External also mentioned that as BIS shares modules with the other four programmes and that class size may be greater than anticipated. The Programme Leader informed the external that the tariff is as currently agreed centrally. The tariff has remained at 200 points during clearing. In terms of teaching delivery, all students on a module, which is shared amongst programmes, will attend the same lecture in a room of an appropriate size. The number of students allocated to each tutorial and practical session is however limited to a maximum of 25 thereby facilitating a more personal and interactive learning environment. The Committee commented that the entry requirements are clearly presented. Minimum would be 6.0 overall with 6.0 for writing and speaking and 5.5 for reading and listening. The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

Confirmed

Page 12 of 40

d) Structure

Neil Simpkins (EA) was happy with the structure; each module was well specified with clear learning outcomes. He commented on the transitional arrangements saying there has been excellent attention given to pathways and pre-requisites for progression. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the structure of the programme suggests fully relevant material across both taught semesters. He raised a point concerning students who begin studies in Sem B and whether or not they would be disadvantaged by not completing skills modules in their first semester. He suggested making CN3044 (Network Programming as an optional module enabling the retention of a stronger programming route through the programme for those candidates that are motivated towards it. The Programme Leader informed the External that the programme had been running for the two previous years, with skills modules delivered in semester A. The team had not seen any decrease in student performance. He added that to deliver the skills modules twice per year would put a strain on resources and be quite demanding logistically. Also CN3044 will be offered as an option at level three. The Committee discussed the legal, social ethical and professional issues relating to computing. As this programmes is seeking accreditation it must cover and assess these aspects. The team informed the Committee that CN2041 (professional issues) and CN3070 (project research and implementation must be taken by single honours students. Students that gain direct entry for level 3 would have to take a bridging module (Ethics, safety and legal issues in computing) to cover the relevant issues. The Committee were satisfied that these issues had been covered. The Committee were happy to see that the programme proposal team have addressed the issues raised by the BCS relating to project reports lacking an “in-depth treatment of design and critical analysis”. They have achieved this by increasing the word count to 10,000 in addition to the required demonstrations and software development activities in module CN3070. The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

e) Content

Neil Simpkins (EA) thought the content of the modules at all levels appeared appropriate and current. Although he would have liked to see more specific details of what might be covered in the network aspects of CN30XX. He commented that the module covers preparation for PG

Confirmed

Page 13 of 40

study and recent developments in networks but no candidate areas are listed. The EA understands that this might be problematic if a significant proportion of presentations are from external speakers, but does applaud the outward looking use of externals. The Programme Leader has now updated the module specification for CN30xx and now gives an indication of the areas which might be covered.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) commented that though the programme shares a good deal of commonality with the other programmes being considered for re-validation, there are 80 credits of programme-specific content. This would allow a student to emerge with expertise that differentiates them with topic specialisation. The External asks how Practically-focused CN30xx is, and the relevancy of the aim “preparing students for study at postgraduate level‟ The CN30xx has been updated to include indicative content, to allow for the possibility of practical sessions and to change the emphasis away from postgraduate study to lifelong learning. The External also recommends that reading lists are reviewed and updated where necessary (e.g. the relevance of CompTIA‟s Security+ in CN20xx). The reading lists will be reviewed and updated by module leaders. With regard to the relevance of CompTIA‟s Security+ in CN20xx, the team say it provides a good introduction to and overview of the subject of computer and network security. The external also mentioned that the language used in the module is not made clear in the main topics of study. Learning outcomes are not directed to a specific language but is clarified in more detail in the module guides and provides more flexibility.

The Committee pointed out some corrections required in the Programme Spec. Mode of delivery should be, on campus. Remove any details of professional accreditation from the programme spec until it has been gained. Remove word „education‟ and replace with „level students‟ (banner box). In the placement section write many students have been offered (remove – „are‟). Remove the word „together‟, how computers are networked (is this programme for me section) The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

f) Learning and Teaching Methods Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues with learning and teaching methods and thought that the Learning and Teaching methods cover an appropriate range of activities consistent with the programme objectives, structure and content.

Confirmed

Page 14 of 40

Professor Steve Furnell (EA) had no issues with learning and teaching methods. Although does mention that there are a small number of modules across all five programmes (SD1042, in the case of CN) that are not specific about the breakdown of activities between tutorials/practicals/seminars etc. The Programme Leader said that this was intentional so as to allow a level of flexibility. The Committee had no issues here either and thought the descriptions of student/tutor contact time suggest a good balance of lectures, workshop and practical activities and are well suited to the needs of the students. The Committee and External Advisors approved all issues under this category

g) Assessment

Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues and thought that there was a good range of assessment types mentioned in the validation document. The External pointed out that there does not appear to be an indication of the split between formative and summative. The Programme Leader informed the External that formative assessment did take place within the modules and that it is not the university policy to specify that level of detail within the module specifications. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the modules contain an appropriate mix of coursework and examination based assessment and also had no issues. The Committee are satisfied that the programme follows the UEL assessment policy and had no issues.



External Advisors and the Committee are satisfied that an appropriate support structure is specified in terms of programme and module leaders, personal tutors, and the surrounding administrative processes.



Confirmed

Page 15 of 40



J. Information




Neil Simpkins (EA) and Professor Steven Furnell (EA) Understood that views of Students had been sought both via module feedback, meetings with representatives and via representation within the programme committee. Whilst the formal consultation with employers has not taken place, the revalidation has been formulated to take account of feedback from the recent professional body (BCS) reaccreditation visit. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) added that it was not clear whether the specifics of the proposed changes have been communicated to existing students A meeting was held on 10 April with the current Level 1 students. The

proposed changes were discussed in detail as were the transitional arrangements. The response received was very positive. Details of the changes will also be made available on-line so that students affected will have a further opportunity to prepare themselves for the transition.

The Committee had no issues under this category and thought appropriate means are proposed for students to provide input via module feedback and via representation within the programme committee. The Committee approved all issues under this category.

Confirmed

Page 16 of 40

L) Regulations and Validating Bodies Neil Simpkins (EA) understood that the modules are mapped to both QAA and BCS criteria. However, for the BCS it might be better and clearer to map awards to the criteria rather than individual modules. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the proposal is set in a relevant

professional context, with the appendices providing clear and complete mappings to the relevant QAA and BCS benchmarks. The Committee approved all issues under this category.

Conclusion The Committee duly APPROVE the BSc (Hons) Computer Networks

ACTION: M. Kretsis to incorporate all agreed points and send a revised version of the programme specification to K Boast. M. Kretsis will formally notify the Externals of the outcome of the process. Mike was thanked for his efforts

77.2.3 BSc (Hons) Computing (S. Islam)


Neil Simpkins (EA) was satisfied on the basis of the documentation provided that there appears to be an adequate provision of qualified staff and resources. The specification confirms that the appropriate software tools, labs, network facilities are in place as well as access to literature and technical and library support.

Professor Stephen Furnell (EA) had no issues with this section and was happy that the School in which the program is located has sufficient resources to deliver the proposed programmes (including mention of networking-specific software and hardware provision). A programme-specific supplement to indicate the resources of relevance to this programme and the specific expertise that staff have within the area would have been a helpful addition to the documentation. The Programme Leader amended the documentation adding programme specific details as requested. Members of the Committee thought that the staff were appropriately qualified with suitable expertise and that there was appropriate and up to date specialist equipment to support the programme and that the library, computer and other educational technology would support the students‟ learning needs. The Committee and the External Advisors approved all issues under this category.

Confirmed

Page 17 of 40

b) Philosophy and Principles Members of the Committee agreed that the aims and objectives of the programme were clearly articulated, consistent with the UEL vision and would meet the needs of the students. Neil Simpkins (EA) thought the programme was in line with UEL‟s strategic and school plans and made reference to the programme having a good employability focus whilst also requiring an appropriate level of academic achievement. He comments that the programme appears to be meet required equality and diversity requirements.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) The rationale for the revalidation is clearly expressed, and the resulting programme still maintains genuine topic focus and skills. The Committee and the External Advisors approved all issues under this category and are happy with the development of the programmes.

c) Admissions The Committee asked for clarification on the IELT‟s requirements and were informed that the minimum would be 6.0 overall with 6.0 for writing and speaking and 5.5 for reading and listening. The Committee thought this appropriate. Neil. Simpkins (EA) thought the programme had appropriate entry requirements and procedures which also ensure an appropriate level of prior learning or industrial experience.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the tariff of 200 UCAS points seemed rather low and recommended that this level should not drop during clearing. The External also mentioned that as the Computing programme shares modules with the other four programmes the class size may be greater than anticipated and asks what impact this will have on the student experience. The Programme Leader explained that the entry tariff is as currently agreed centrally by the University and is not envisaged to alter during clearing. In terms of the lectures, tutorial and practical sessions, students on shared modules will be attending the same lecture at lecture room or lecture theatre that is appropriate for the full cohort of students on a particular module. The size of tutorial and practical sessions will not normally be more than 25 students per group in order to provide a more personal and interactive learning environment to the student. The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

Confirmed

Page 18 of 40

d) Structure Neil Simpkins (EA) was happy with the structure; each module was well specified with clear learning outcomes. He commented on the transitional arrangements saying they were well thought out and assumes that the arrangements will be equally applicable to part- time students

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the structure of the programme suggests fully relevant material across both taught semesters. He raised a point concerning students who begin studies in Sem B and whether or not they would be disadvantaged by not completing skills modules in their first semester. The Programme Leader informed the External that the programme had been running for the two previous years, with skills modules delivered in semester A. The team had not seen any decrease in student performance. He added that to deliver the skills modules twice per year would put a strain on resources and be quite demanding logistically. The Committee discussed the legal, social ethical and professional issues relating to computing. As this programmes is seeking accreditation it must cover and assess these aspects. The team informed the Committee that CN2041 (professional issues) and CN3070 (project research and implementation must be taken by single honours students. Students that gain direct entry for level 3 would have to take a bridging module (Ethics, safety and legal issues in computing) to cover the relevant issues. The Committee were satisfied that these issues had been covered. The Committee were happy to see that the programme proposal team have addressed the issues raised by the BCS relating to project reports lacking an “in-depth treatment of design and critical analysis”. They have achieved this by increasing the word count to 10,000 in addition to the required demonstrations and software development activities in module CN3070. The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

e) Content

Neil Simpkins (EA) thought the programme benchmarks and the content of the modules making up the programme appear appropriate and current. He thought the content very much mainstream and a little less exciting. He would have preferred to see the Internet carried forward as a subject area into Level 3.

Confirmed

Page 19 of 40

The link from level 1 and 2 to level 3 of Internet as subject has been carried out now by including IM3802. The content of the programme emphasizes the broader issues of computing and availability of resources at UEL.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) was concerned that the students taking this programme could potentially end up with a mix of topics that are not likely to be as useful to them as the combinations offered on the theme-specific programmes. He also recommends that reading lists are reviewed and updated where necessary. He also mentioned that the language used in the module is not made clear in the main topics of study. The Programme Leader informed the Committee that Students studying on the programme will have a focus on the 5 themes, i.e., Computer Network and Security, Information Systems and IT planning, Database, Programming, and Skills. Reading lists will be reviewed and updated where necessary by the module leaders. The Programme Leader informed the Committee that learning outcomes are not directed to a specific language but is clarified in more detail in the module guides and provides more flexibility. The Committee pointed out some corrections required in the programme spec. The banner box needs to be more informative and distinguish Computing from other theme- specific computing programmes. This will also apply to the section „what is this programme designed to achieve‟. Remove any references to FTMS from the programme spec (p2 entry req and p3 placement opps). Bonus factors section change the word aproximity to say „being located in London‟. Also in the same section acronyms should be spelt out in full. Programme spec p8 - IM2043 is not a skills module and CN3xxx has an incorrect title. The minor route was referred to, as looking very much like a BIS programme.

f) Learning and Teaching Methods Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues with this section. As identified in the Programme Specifications, Learning and teaching methods cover a range of activities and he thought that there was an appropriate mix of contact hours as well as time for preparation and self-directed learning. Professor Steve Furnell (EA) had no issues with learning and teaching methods. Although does mention that there are a small number of modules across all five programmes (SD3042, in the case of Computing) that are not specific about the breakdown of activities between tutorials/practicals/seminars etc. The Programme Leader informed the Committee that this was intentional so to provide a level of flexibility.

Confirmed

Page 20 of 40

The Committee had no issues here either and thought the descriptions of student/tutor contact time suggest a good balance of lectures, workshop and practical activities and are well suited to the needs of the students. The Committee and External Advisors approved all issues under this category

g) Assessment

Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues and thought that there was a good range of assessment types mentioned including presentations and substantial project work, both individual and in groups. The External pointed out that there does not appear to be an indication of the split between formative and summative.

The Programme Leader informed the External that formative assessment did take place within the modules and that it is not the university policy to specify that level of detail within the module specifications.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the all modules contain an appropriate mix of coursework and examination based assessment and also had no issues.




External Advisors and the Committee are satisfied that an appropriate support structure is specified in terms of programme and module leaders, personal tutors, and the surrounding administrative processes. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) added that it would have been useful for the documentation to specifically identify the name of the programme leader. This information has since been added to the documentation. The Committee approved all issues under this category.

i) Progression and Completion


Confirmed

Page 21 of 40


j) Information



k) Students and Employers Views

Neil Simpkins (EA) and Professor Steven Furnell (EA) Understood that views of Students had been sought both via module feedback, meetings with representatives and via representation within the programme committee. Whilst the formal consultation with employers has not taken place, the revalidation has been formulated to take account of feedback from the recent professional body (BCS) reaccreditation visit. Professor Steven Furnell adds; the bonus factors section of the programme spec, makes specific reference to UEL being “ideally places for developing links with a wide range of well-established, prestigious and innovative employers”. This claim ought to be supported by indicative examples of such relationships within this topic area. The bonus factors section has been removed from the programme spec.


l) Regulations and Validating Bodies

Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues but thought for the BCS it might be better and clearer to map awards to the criteria.

Confirmed

Page 22 of 40

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the proposal is set in a relevant professional context, with the appendices providing clear and complete mappings to the relevant QAA benchmarks. Mapping to the BCS is missing. The Programme Specification suggests that „Professional Body Accreditation‟ is Not Applicable The Mapping is now in the validation document.

m) Conclusion The Committee duly APPROVE the BSc (Hons) Computing

ACTION: S. Islam to incorporate all agreed points and send a revised version of the programme specification to K Boast. S. Islam will formally notify the Externals of the outcome of the process. Shareeful was thanked for his efforts

77.2.4 BSc (Hons) Information Technology (A. Edoh)



Neil Simpkins (EA) was satisfied on the basis of the documentation provided that there appears to be an adequate provision of qualified staff and that the resources in areas such as IT facilities, library and educational infrastructure seem adequate. The documentation confirms that the appropriate software tools, labs, network facilities are in place as well as access to literature and technical and library support.

Professor Stephen Furnell (EA) commented that details in the validation document referred to resources in the school he would have liked to see a programme-specific supplement to indicate the resources of relevance to this programme and the specific expertise that staff have within the area, but aside from that was also happy that the School in which the program is located has sufficient resources to deliver the proposed programme. The External also thought that the documentation could have given more details concerning competitor institutions that have IT programmes The Programme Leader amended the documentation adding programme specific details as requested and more details on the following competitors: University of Greenwich, Westminster, London Met and South Bank.


Confirmed

Page 23 of 40

b) Philosophy and Principles Members of the Committee agreed that the aims and objectives of the programme were clearly articulated, consistent with the UEL vision and would meet the needs of the students. Neil Simpkins (EA) thought the programme was in line with UEL‟s strategic and school plans and made reference to the programme having a good employability focus whilst also requiring an appropriate level of academic achievement. He commented that the programme appears to be meet required equality and diversity requirements

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the revalidation document is clearly expressed and the proposal is placed suitably in the context of BCS requirements, with the Programme Specification indicating that accreditation is being applied for. The Committee and the External Advisors approved all issues under this category and are happy with the development of the programmes.

c) Admissions The Committee asked for clarification on the IELT‟s requirements and were informed that the minimum would be 6.0 overall with 6.0 for writing and speaking and 5.5 for reading and listening. The Committee thought this appropriate. Neil. Simpkins (EA) thought the programme had appropriate entry requirements and procedures which also ensure an appropriate level of prior learning or industrial experience. The External remarked that other peer institutions have similar admissions criteria. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the tariff of 200 UCAS points seemed rather low and recommended that this level should not drop during clearing as the likely result would be students that would struggle with the demands of a bachelors degree. The External also mentioned that as BIS shares modules with the other four programmes and that class size may be greater than anticipated. The Programme Leader explained that the entry tariff is as currently agreed centrally by the University and is not envisaged to alter during clearing. In terms of the lectures, tutorial and practical sessions, students on shared modules will be attending the same lecture at lecture room or lecture theatre that is appropriate for the full cohort of students on a particular module. The size of tutorial and practical sessions will not normally be more than 25 students per group in order to provide a more personal and interactive learning environment to the student.

Confirmed

Page 24 of 40

The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

d) Structure Neil Simpkins (EA) was happy with the structure; each module was well specified with clear learning outcomes. He commented on the transitional arrangements saying they were well thought out. He thought that the statement indicating the programme is „backward compatible‟ indicates that the existing modules are suitable as precursors to the new programme modules. He assumes that the arrangements will be equally applicable to part-time students.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the structure of the programme suggests fully relevant material across both taught semesters. He raised a point concerning students who begin studies in Sem B and whether or not they would be disadvantaged by not completing skills modules in their first semester. The External thought that section 4.1.1 of the validation document did not need to include specific timetabling issues. The Programme Leader informed the External that the programme had been running for the two previous years, with skills modules delivered in semester A. The team had not seen any decrease in student performance. He added that to deliver the skills modules twice per year would put a strain on resources and be quite demanding logistically. Section 4.1 has been amended and the precise times removed. The Committee discussed the legal, social ethical and professional issues relating to computing. As this programmes is seeking accreditation it must cover and assess these aspects. The team informed the Committee that CN2041 (professional issues) and CN3070 (project research and implementation must be taken by single honours students. Students that gain direct entry for level 3 would have to take a bridging module (Ethics, safety and legal issues in computing) to cover the relevant issues. The Committee were satisfied that these issues had been covered. The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

e) Content Neil Simpkins (EA) thought the programme benchmarks and the content of the modules making up the programme appear appropriate and current. The External also mentioned that IM2xxx may be less of an extension to CN1041 than might justify a complete second level module. The module IM2xxx has now been updated.

Confirmed

Page 25 of 40

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought that although the IT programme shares a good deal of commonality with other programmes being considered for re-validation. It does include some distinct modules and can reasonably be considered as a distinct offer. The External also recommends that reading lists are reviewed and updated where necessary. He also mentioned that the language used in the module is not made clear in the main topics of study. Reading lists will be reviewed and updated where necessary by the module leaders. The Programme Leader informed the Committee that learning outcomes are not directed to a specific language but is clarified in more detail in the module guides and provides more flexibility. The Committee pointed out some corrections required in the validation document, remove any details of professional accreditation from the programme spec until it has been gained. Remove any references to FTMS from the programme spec (p2 entry req and p3 placement opps). Add the word „usually‟ in the programme structure section when referring to how many modules students take per semester. Correct the spelling of Moodle (Learning Environment section). The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

f) Learning and Teaching Methods Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues with learning and teaching methods and thought that there was an appropriate mix of contact hours as well as time for preparation and self-directed learning. Professor Steve Furnell (EA) had no issues with learning and teaching methods. Although does mention that there are a small number of modules across all five programmes (SD3042, in the case of IT) that are not specific about the breakdown of activities between tutorials/practicals/seminars etc. SD3042 has been updated to include the breakdown of the activities, however in other cases it is intentional so as to allow a level of flexibility.


g) Assessment

Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues and thought that there was a good range of assessment types mentioned including presentations and

Confirmed

Page 26 of 40

substantial project work, both individual and in groups. The External pointed out that there does not appear to be an indication of the split between formative and summative. The Programme Leader informed the External that formative assessment did take place within the modules and that it is not the university policy to specify that level of detail within the module specifications. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the modules contain an appropriate mix of coursework and examination based assessment and also had no issues.




External Advisors and the Committee are satisfied that an appropriate support structure is specified in terms of programme and module leaders, personal tutors, and the surrounding administrative processes. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) added that it would have been useful for the documentation to specifically identify the name of the programme leader. The details concerning the Programme Leader have now been added to the documentation.

The Committee approved all issues under this category .


Professor Steven Furnell (EA) asks what happens with previous level 2 students now moving to placement. Will they still receive the existing level 3 provision?

The students on BSc IT are all now in level 2 therefore there are no previous level 2 students on placement. However, the programme has taken into consideration your suggestion and transitional arrangements for placement students have been incorporated into the validation document.

Neil Simpkins (EA) thought that Progression and completion appear to be kept adequately under review through annual review, statistical information and feedback.

Confirmed

Page 27 of 40

The Committee are satisfied that progression and completion will be suitably monitored through the stated quality management procedures. The Committee approved all issues under this category.

J) Information



k) Students and Employers Views



l) Regulations and Validating Bodies



Conclusion The Committee duly APPROVE the BSc (Hons) Information Technology

ACTION: A. Edoh to incorporate all agreed points and send a revised version of the programme specification to K Boast. A. Edoh will formally notify the Externals of the outcome of the process. Aloy was thanked for his efforts

Confirmed

Page 28 of 40

77.2.5 BSc (Hons) Software Engineering (S. W.Lee)



Neil Simpkins (EA) was satisfied on the basis of the documentation provided that there appears to be an adequate provision of qualified staff in the area. The specification confirms that the appropriate software tools, labs, network facilities are in place as well as access to literature and technical and library support.

Professor Stephen Furnell (EA) commented that details in the validation document referred to resources in the school he would have liked to see a programme-specific supplement to indicate the resources of relevance to this programme and the specific expertise that staff have within the area, but aside from that was also happy that the School in which the program is located has sufficient resources to deliver the proposed programmes (including mention of networking-specific software and hardware provision). Professor Stephen Furnell also thought that the documentation could have given more details concerning competitors The Programme Leader amended the documentation adding programme specific details as requested. The Programme Leader updated the documentation giving more detail on the following competitors: Greenwich University, City University, London Metropolitan University, Portsmouth University, Kingston University, East Anglia University



Members of the Committee agreed that the aims and objectives of the programme were clearly articulated, consistent with the UEL vision and would meet the needs of the students. Neil Simpkins (EA) thought the programme was in line with UEL‟s strategic and school plans and made reference to the programme having

Confirmed

Page 29 of 40

a good employability focus whilst also requiring an appropriate level of academic achievement.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) The revalidation is clearly expressed, and the resulting programme has a relevant topic with clear industry needs.

The Committee and the External Advisors approved all issues under this category and are happy with the development of the programmes.

c) Admissions The Committee asked for clarification on the IELT‟s requirements and were informed that the minimum would be 6.0 overall with 6.0 for writing and speaking and 5.5 for reading and listening. The Committee thought this appropriate. Neil. Simpkins (EA) thought the programme had appropriate entry requirements and procedures which also ensure an appropriate level of prior learning or industrial experience. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the tariff of 200 UCAS points seemed rather low and recommended that this level should not drop during clearing. The External also mentioned that as BIS shares modules with the other four programmes and that class size may be greater than anticipated. The Programme Leader explained that the entry tariff is as currently agreed centrally by the University and is not envisaged to alter during clearing. In terms of the lectures, tutorial and practical sessions, students on shared modules will be attending the same lecture at lecture room or lecture theatre that is appropriate for the full cohort of students on a particular module. The size of tutorial and practical sessions will not normally be more than 25 students per group in order to provide a more personal and interactive learning environment to the student.

The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

d) Structure Neil Simpkins (EA) was happy with the structure; each module was well specified with clear learning outcomes. He commented on the transitional arrangements saying they were well thought out.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the structure of the programme suggests fully relevant material across both taught semesters.

Confirmed

Page 30 of 40

He raised a point concerning students who begin studies in Sem B and whether or not they would be disadvantaged by not completing skills modules in their first semester. The Programme Leader informed the External that the programme had been running for the two previous years, with skills modules delivered in semester A. The team had not seen any decrease in student performance. He added that to deliver the skills modules twice per year would put a strain on resources and be quite demanding logistically. The Committee discussed the legal, social ethical and professional issues relating to computing. As this programmes is seeking accreditation it must cover and assess these aspects. The team informed the Committee that CN2041 (professional issues) and CN3070 (project research and implementation must be taken by single honours students. Students that gain direct entry for level 3 would have to take a bridging module (Ethics, safety and legal issues in computing) to cover the relevant issues. The Committee were satisfied that these issues had been covered. The Committee were happy to see that the programme proposal team have addressed the issues raised by the BCS relating to project reports lacking an “in-depth treatment of design and critical analysis”. They have achieved this by increasing the word count to 10,000 in addition to the required demonstrations and software development activities in module CN3070. The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

e) Content

Neil Simpkins (EA) thought the programme benchmarks and the content of the modules making up the programme appear appropriate and current.

Professor Steven Furnell (EA) pointed out Section 1.2 refers to the programme consisting of “seventh” 20 credit modules. He also recommends that reading lists are reviewed and updated where necessary. He also mentioned that the language used in the module is not made clear in the main topics of study. Reading lists will be reviewed and updated where necessary by the module leaders. The Programme Leader informed the Committee that learning outcomes are not directed to a specific language but is clarified in more detail in the module guides and provides more flexibility. The Committee pointed out some corrections required in the programme specification. Mode of delivery should be „on campus‟. Remove any

Confirmed

Page 31 of 40

details of professional accreditation from the programme spec until it has been gained. Banner box should say specific to programme (not specialist). Linton method of delivery should be FT/PT. The Committee agreed to approve all issues under this category

f) Learning and Teaching Methods Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues with learning and teaching methods and thought that there was an appropriate mix of contact hours as well as time for preparation and self-directed learning. Professor Steve Furnell (EA) had no issues with learning and teaching methods. Although does mention that there are a small number of modules across all five programmes (SD2xx1, in the case of SE) that are not specific about the breakdown of activities between tutorials/practicals/seminars etc. The Programme Leader says this was intentional as to provide a level of flexibility


g) Assessment

Neil Simpkins (EA) had no issues and thought that there was a good range of assessment types mentioned including presentations and substantial project work, both individual and in groups. The External pointed out that there does not appear to be an indication of the split between formative and summative. The Programme Leader informed the External that formative assessment did take place within the modules and that it is not the university policy to specify that level of detail within the module specifications. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) thought the modules contain an appropriate mix of coursework and examination based assessment and also had no issues.


Confirmed

Page 32 of 40



External Advisors and the Committee are satisfied that an appropriate support structure is specified in terms of programme and module leaders, personal tutors, and the surrounding administrative processes. Professor Steven Furnell (EA) added that it would have been useful for the documentation to specifically identify the name of the programme leader.





J) Information





Confirmed

Page 33 of 40


L) Regulations and Validating Bodies



Conclusion The Committee duly APPROVE the BSc (Hons) Software Engineering

ACTION: S.W. Lee to incorporate all agreed points and send a revised version of the programme specification to K Boast. S.W. Lee will formally notify the Externals of the outcome of the process. Sin Wee Lee was thanked for his efforts

77.3 Modifications 77.3.1 EE2004 – Employability Skills and Group Design (H. Hakimazari) Hamid Hakimazari (Module Leader) has proposed the changes to

EE2004 and has submitted the required documentation. It is proposed to change the pre-requisite from EE1004 to EE1008. The module runs on BEng (Hons) Electrical and Electronic Eng and is a core module.

The Committee APPROVE the modification to EE2004. This modification does not count towards the 25% limit.

77.3.2 SV2033 – Legal Framework for Geomatics (J. Dickson) Jason Dickson (Module Leader) has proposed the changes to SV2033

and has submitted the required documentation. It is proposed to change the component percentages to better align the module. The module runs on BSc (Hons) Surveying and Mapping Sciences (core) and BSc (Hons) Civil Engineering Surveying & Mapping Sciences (option)

The Committee APPROVE the modification to SV2033. This modification does not count towards the 25% limit.

Confirmed

Page 34 of 40

77.3.3 Various (Linton) The Committee noted and approved the updated module specifications

with the name Legenda Education Group amended to Linton Education Group.

The Committee APPROVE the modification to these modules This modification does not count towards the 25% limit.

77.3.4 ME1609 – Project (P. Lighterness) The changes to the learning outcomes will bring this module into line

with the University‟s new skills curriculum.

The Committee APPROVE the modification to ME1609. ACTION: K. Boast to inform QAE (N. Makinwa)

77.4 Programme Approval Schedules (to note)

The Committee discussed the programme approval schedules and agreed some updating. Planning meeting dates for the revalidation of Architecture can now be added (25th April 2013 with approval 22nd May 2013).

ACTION: J. Hodgson to update programme approval schedule 78. Programme Withdrawal/Suspension 78.1 Cyber Crime

Cyber Crime does not have any currently enrolled students, so no transitional arrangements are required. It is proposed that the programme may run from September 2014/15 The programme was previously suspended for six months (39.1Feb 6th SQSC)

The Committee agree that the form may be submitted to VRSC for approval of the extended suspension

78.2 Enterprise Architecture

Enterprise Architecture does not have any currently enrolled students, so no transitional arrangements are required. It is proposed that the programme may run from September 2014/15 The programme was previously suspended for six months (39.3Feb 6th SQSC)

The Committee agree that the form may be submitted to VRSC for approval of the extended suspension.

Confirmed

Page 35 of 40

78.3 International Foundation Programme The Committee noted the following Emergency request to suspend entry

onto the International Foundation Programme has been completed and implemented. Current applications strongly suggest that the number of students likely to enrol for IFP over the summer will be very low. Hence the programme is not financially viable.

79. External Examiners

The Committee noted the following reports from QAE:

79.1 Externals due to complete their term It was noted that all Externals due to complete their term of office still need to be replaced. Subject Area Heads and the Dean will be reminded to submit a nomination form to the school quality office. ACTION: J. Hodgson to send out reminders to Subject Area Heads and the Dean.

79.2 Outstanding reports

Heather Cruickshank (EE) has not yet submitted a report. She has been reminded by both QAE and the school quality office. ACTION: J. Hodgson to seek advice from QAE.

79.3 Outstanding responses

It was noted that a number of the responses to external examiner reports had now been received since this report. Overall the School was relatively up-to date with external examiner activity. Only one external response was now outstanding (A. Nix). G. Ford is in the process of writing a response. ACTION: G. Ford to write response for A. Nix

79.4 Re-allocations

All Examiner re-allocations forms below were vetted and agreed by SQSC. Harry Evorides (Eng) Ivor Spence (CSI)

ACTION: J. Hodgson to send to QAE who will send out contracts 79.5 Nominations

Confirmed

Page 36 of 40

The External Examiner nomination form below were vetted and agreed by SQSC

Dr Reza Sahandi (Eng) ACTION: J. Hodgson to send to QAE who will send out a contract

80. Programme Specifications 80.1 Business Information Technology (Amin Mousavi)

The programme spec is not changed, just tidied up. All reference to CITE removed and replaced with ACE. The order in which awards appear has changed too. The Committee APPROVE the programme spec for Business Information Technology by Distance Learning. ACTION: K. Boast to notify QAE

80.2 MSc Information Security and Computer Forensics

It is requested that the programme spec be updated. Progression onto the dissertation module of the programme needed more clarity to avoid any confusion. The Committee APPROVE the programme spec for ISCF.

ACTION: K. Boast to notify QAE

81. Matters Arising from QSC/VRSC 81.1 Exchange Agreement Proposal Form

Further to the discussions at Academic Board relating to study abroad and international exchanges, a form for submitting proposals to SQSC has been developed. The new form was noted by the Committee.

82. Matters Arising from ACE Collaborations Sub Committee Solomon Alexis informed the committee that the ACE collaborations

Committee had met during February and April 2013 (confirmed minutes February noted by SQSC) and would be holding their next meeting on May 29th 2013. Confirmed minutes will be received at SQSC in June

83. Periodic Academic Reviews, Professional Accreditation Visits and

Other Action Plans

Confirmed

Page 37 of 40

83.1 Action plans updated (The following have been forwarded to K. Dale QAE) 83.1.1 Information Technology & Digital Media – Jawed Siddiqi 83.1.2 Computer Networks – Rebecca Strachan 83.1.3 Architecture - FionnStevenson 83.1.4 Computing – Academic Review 83.1.5 FTMS Malaysia – Collaborative Review 83.1.6 JBM 83.1.7 ARB 83.1.8 RIBA

84. Review and Enhancement Process 84.1 REP Tracking Sheet The following REPs were confirmed as having been received and

finalised:

BSc (Extended) Computing International Foundation Programme in Computing, IT & Engineering BSc Software Engineering

MSc Business Information Systems, MSc Technology Management, MSc Data Mining &Knowledge Management MSc Computer Systems Engineering MSc Architecture: Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies (CAT)

BA Product Design Futures, BSc Product Design CE/SV Field Architecture Field

MSc Renewable Energy & the Built Environment (CAT) BSc Software Engineering, BSc Business Information Systems (Linton)

The following REPs were confirmed as received and not yet finalised BSc Information Technology –auditor’s comments received BSc Computer Networks –auditor’s comments received BSc Information Security Systems –auditor’s comments received MSc Information Security & Computer Forensics –auditor’s comments

received MSc Business Information Technology (online) –auditor’s comments

received MSc Computer Systems Engineering (Integrated Systems, Software

Systems, Control Systems) (Linton) - awaiting response to EE and comparative data

Confirmed

Page 38 of 40

MSc Civil Engineering (Linton) – comparative data to be sent to CMSC

BEng Civil Engineering (Linton) – comparative data to be sent to CMSC

MSc Architecture: Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies (Distance Learning) (CAT) – revised REP required

REPs which have not been received were noted as follows:

EE/ME Field

ACTION: J. Hodgson to chase people for missing REP’s 85. Planning Items None at this time 87. Date of Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on Wednesday 22nd May 2013 at 2pm in

room EBG29A All paperwork to be submitted no later than 8th May 2013 Dates for SQSC meetings in 2012/13 are as follows:

19/06/12

DRAFT 1st May 2013

UNCONFIRMED

CONFIRMED 22nd May 2013

Confirmed

Page 39 of 40

ACE School Quality Standing Committee Action Sheet

Minute No.

Name Task Deadline

77.1.1 S. Alexis To incorporate all agreed points and send to K. Boast who will forward to QAE

Complete 29/04/2013

77.2.1 A. Baravalle To incorporate all agreed points and send a revised version of the programme specification to K Boast. A. Baravalle will formally notify the Externals of the outcome of the process.

Complete

77.2.2 M. Kretsis To incorporate all agreed points and send a revised version of the programme specification to K Boast. M. Kretsis will formally notify the Externals of the outcome of the process.

Complete

77.2.3 S. Islam To incorporate all agreed points and send a revised version of the programme specification to K Boast. S. Islam will formally notify the Externals of the outcome of the process.

Complete

77.2.4 A. Edoh To incorporate all agreed points and send a revised version of the programme specification to K Boast. A. Edoh will formally notify the Externals of the outcome of the process.

Complete

77.2.5 S.W.Lee To incorporate all agreed points and send a revised version of the programme specification to K Boast. S.W.Lee will formally notify the Externals of the outcome of the process.

Complete

77.3.4 K. Boast To Inform QAE that ME1609 is now updated to include skills lo‟s

Complete 10/05/2013

77.4 J. Hodgson Update programme approval schedule

Complete 10/05/2013

78.1 K. Boast To notify QAE cyber crime suspension

Complete 1/5/2013

78.2 K. Boast To notify QAE Enterprise Architecture suspension

Complete 1/05/2013

78.3 K. Boast To notify QAE IFP emergency suspension

Complete 1/5/2013

Confirmed

Page 40 of 40

79.1 J. Hodgson To send out reminders to Subject Area Heads and the Dean Externals due to complete

Complete 10/05/2013

79.2 J. Hodgson To seek advice from QAE Heather Cruikshank

complete 8/05/2013

79.3 G. Ford To write response for A. Nix

79.4 J. Hodgson To send to QAE who will send out contracts (H. Evorides & Ivor Spence)

complete 30/04/2013

79.5 J. Hodgson To send to QAE who will send out contracts (R. Sahandi)

complete 3/05/2013

80.1 K. Boast To notify QAE (BIT Prog spec) complete 8/5/2013

80.2 K. Boast To notify QAE (MSc ISCF) complete 8/5/2013

84.1 J. Hodgson To chase for missing REP’s complete 10/5/2013

Documents

UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON€¦ · H. Abdalla and Carl Callaghan 73. Membership and Terms of Reference The Committee noted the Membership and terms of reference. The Committee welcomed