TO INSTITUTION COMMITTEES
Report on the visit to: University College London
Date: 15/16 February 2006
Degrees for review:
Designation and Title
/ UCAS Code /Mode
/ Duration of Programme1. 1 / BSc(Hons) Computer Science / G400 / FT / 123
2. / MEng(Hons) Computer Science / G401 / FT / 1234
3. 2 / MSc Data Communications, Networks and distributed Systems / N/A / FT / 1
4. 3 / MSc Intelligent Systems / N/A / FT / 1
5. 4 / MSc Software Systems Engineering / N/A / FT / 1
6. 5 / MSc Vision, Imaging and Virtual Environments / N/A / FT / 1
Academic Unit: Department of Computer Science
Head of Department: Professor Anthony Finkelstein
Panel: IEE Professor Victor Maller (Chairman)
Professor Andy Downton
Dr Dennis Nyong
Mrs Marilyn Comparetto (IEE Staff)
BCS Mr Alastair Irons (Chairman)
Dr Les Neal
Mr Peter Russell-Jones
Dr Kevin Waugh
Mrs Samantha Chaffey (BCS Staff)
SECTION 1 General InformationBackground
i. The Department of Computer Science was visited by the IEE in February 2001. Following the visit the BSc (Hons) Computer Science was awarded five years accreditation and the MSci was initially awarded four years interim accreditation. This was later converted to four years full accreditation in November 2003.
The present visit
ii. Programmes 1 to 6 were put forward for consideration. The Panel noted that programme 2, MEng Computer Science, was formally known as MSci Computer Science.
iii. Appendix 1 contains a copy of the Visit Issues presented to the Head of Department for discussion during the visit.
iv. This report is based on the information, grades and recommendations recorded in the Accreditor’s Report Form.
v. The Panel graded the topics in Sections 2 – 10 thus:
1 Unacceptable
2 Unsatisfactory in many areas
3 Satisfactory in most areas
4 Acceptable.
vi. Please note that the scores awarded to individual criterion are not intended to be linear and that the total of each section is therefore not an average. The overall score of each section reflects the weighting accorded to each criterion by the Visit Panel.
vii. Before consideration by the Academic Accreditation Committee, a draft of this report will have been sent to the Head of the Department for factual confirmation.
viii. The Panel thanks the staff from the Department for their hospitality during the visit and for their willingness to discuss matters in an open and frank way.
SECTION 2 Aims and Objectives of the Degree ProgrammesBSc / MEng
Overall score: / 4 / 4
Commendable Aspects
a. The Panel applauded the Department for the clearly defined and developed Aims and Objectives.
SECTION 3 Outcomes from last IEE Accreditation VisitBSc / MEng
Overall score: / 4 / 4
Commendable Aspects
a. The Panel was impressed by the Professional Studies course that was well planned and included challenging content.
b. The Panel was pleased to note evidence of the overall improvement in pastoral care since the last visit.
SECTION 4 The ProgrammesBSc / MEng
· / Underpinning Mathematics and Science / 4 / 4
· / Engineering Analysis / 4 / 4
· / Design / 4 / 4
· / Economic, social and environmental context / 4 / 4
· / Engineering Practice / 4 / 4
· / General Transferable skills / 4 / 4
· / Programme structure: technical & non-technical, balance, breadth and scope / 4 / 4
· / Standard, appropriateness and Challenge of examination papers / 4 / 4
· / Standard, appropriateness and Challenge of Continuous Assessment / 4 / 4
· / Balance between Examination papers and Continuous Assessment Results / 4 / 4
· / Laboratory and Continuous Assessment Criteria / 4 / 4
· / Weighting of Continuous Assessed work towards the final award / 4 / 4
· / Level of Industrial input and influence / 4 / 4
· / Sponsorship and Training / 4 / 4
· / Research Activity / 4 / 4
Overall score: / 4 / 4
Commendable Aspects
a. The Panel praised the Department on the breadth, depth and balance of the examination papers that were both well structured and challenging.
SECTION 5 Admission, Progression, Award & DestinationBSc / MEng
· / Entry Profile / 4 / 4
· / Progression conditions / 4 / 4
· / Number recruited / 4 / 4
· / Failure rates / 4 / 4
· / Degree classification / 4 / 4
· / Student support / 4 / 4
· / Graduate employment patterns / 4 / 4
Overall score: / 4 / 4
SECTION 6 Major Individual Project
BSc / MEng
· / Selection & allocation / 4 / 4
· / Management of Student Projects / 4 / 4
· / Standard & appropriateness / 4 / 4
· / Marking and Moderation / 3 / 3
· / Implication of Project failure / 4 / 4
Overall score: / 4 / 4
Commendable Aspects
a. The Panel congratulated the Department on the quality of the projects produced by the students. It was noted that the top project was an exceptional achievement with fully justified marks.
b. The Panel was pleased to note that Project Demonstrations will be used in the future.
Items for the Action Plan
c. The Panel would like to see the project marking guidelines followed consistently and suggested that the form be redesigned to allow comments to be inserted by examiners in order to justify the marks awarded.
SECTION 7 Group Working Skills (including MEng Group Project)BSc / MEng
· / MEng Group Projects(if appropriate): selection and allocation / 4 / 4
· / MEng Group Projects (if appropriate): Management of Student Projects / 4 / 4
· / MEng Group Project (if appropriate): Marking and moderation / 4 / 4
· / Implication of MEng Project failure (if appropriate) / 4 / 4
· / Group working skills / 4 / 4
Overall score: / 4 / 4
SECTION 8 Staffing
BSc / MEng
· / Staff development and training / 4 / 4
· / Use of teaching fellows, postgraduate tutors, demonstrators and visiting staff / 3 / 3
· / Technical staff numbers / 4 / 4
· / Student – staff ratio / 4 / 4
· / Subject expertise of academic staff / 4 / 4
· / Professional activity, e.g. with a professional institution or as an External Examiner / 4 / 4
Overall score: / 4 / 4
Commendable Aspects
a. The Panel praised the Department for the subject expertise and high calibre of the staff and noted that the SSR is enviable compared to many other Departments.
Items for the Action Plan
b. The Panel noted that there seems to be limited evidence of clearly designed and consistently developed training for post graduate tutors.
SECTION 9 Resources and FacilitiesBSc / MEng
· / Planned expenditure / 4 / 4
· / Overall provision of laboratory facilities / 4 / 4
· / Overall provision of library facilities / 4 / 4
· / Overall provision of computing facilities / 4 / 4
Overall score: / 4 / 4
General Comments
a. The Panel noted that the planned expenditure to upgrade the equipment on the three year replacement cycle is rather modest.
SECTION 10 Quality AssuranceBSc / MEng
· / Design, review and improvement mechanisms / 3 / 3
· / External Examining arrangements / 4 / 4
· / Internal QA Management and the relationship to university-wide arrangements. / 4 / 4
Overall score: / 4 / 4
Items for the Action Plan
a. The Panel commended the lightweight processes for design, review and improvement mechanisms and recommended that these be formally specified.
SECTION 11 Overall Scores SummarySection /
Heading
/ BEng / MEng3 / Outcomes from last accreditation visit / 4 / 4
4 / The programme(s) / 4 / 4
5 / Admission, progression, award & employment / 4 / 4
6 / Major Individual Project / 4 / 4
7 / Group Working Skills (including MEng Project) / 4 / 4
8 / Staffing / 4 / 4
9 / Resources and facilities / 4 / 4
10 / Quality assurance / 4 / 4
SECTION 12 Recommendations
Subject to the production of a satisfactory Action Plan, the Panel make the following recommendations to the Academic Accreditation Committee:
· degree programme 1 is awarded five years accreditation from the 2006 intake to the 2010 intake;
· degree programme 2 is awarded five years accreditation from the 2006 intake to the 2010 intake backdated retrospectively to 2004;
· degree programmes 3 to 5 have not yet been ‘approved’. The panel, however, will make a recommendation after receiving and studying outstanding documentation.
Please note that all issues raised within this report under “Items for the Action Plan” and any response to “General Comments” should be reported in the Action Plan.
2
ACTION PLAN
Department of Computer Science, University College London
IEE Comments and Paragraph Number / Proposed Action / By Whom / Planned Completion DatePlease note that all issues raised within this report under “Items for the Action Plan” and any response to “General Comments” should be reported in the Action Plan.
2
CONFIDENTIALUniversity College London:
Accreditation Visit - ISSUES
DATE 15/16 February 2006 / / Appendix 1
Audit Trails
A. Programme content, delivery, relevance, input and assessment.
B. Admission, progression, award and graduate destination
C. Projects
D. Staffing: academic, technical, management, appraisal, research & industry.
No / Issues
A / Programme content, delivery, relevance, input and assessment
1. / Please can you clarify where are the opportunities for design and engineering are?
2. 1 / Please can you justify the 100% overall marks for the Computer Architecture programme?
3. / Please can you describe the industrial involvement?
B / Admission, progression, award and graduate destination
4. / How is the formative feedback provided for those who are assessed by 100% examination?
5. / What additional assessment methods do they apply other than the A level results?
6. / Please describe your methods of progression for students in years 1-2 and 3-3 as the University appears to allow the progression of students when they have not passed the core modules?
7. / What is the University’s policy towards overseas students?
8. / We have noted that failure rates are falling but please can you explain why there are still a high number of failure rates considering the calibre of students?
9. / Please can you clarify how the student feedback loop is closed?
C / Projects
10. / We note your very comprehensive marking and moderation process. Can you please justify the added value of the reading party?
11. / Is the University aware that the students must pass the project at the first attempt otherwise they will not receive an accredited degree?
12. / Please can you clarify what mechanisms are in place to encourage students to answer the feedback questionnaires?
13. / What methods does the University have in place to stop plagiarism?
D / Staffing: academic, technical, management, appraisal, research & industry.
14. / We note that the student/staff ratio is favourable is this due to the low student intake? Please comment.
Please provide the following as soon as possible – preferably at 9 am:
1. Please can you provide some samples of group projects?2. Please can you provide more information on the Management of Student Projects
3. Please can you provide the minutes of the industrial advisory committee? What elements of the programmes we are accrediting are provided by staff at Astral Park
4. Please can you provide further information regarding the rolling programme for provision of computers and software?
5. Please can you provide further information regarding the training process available for research students both inside and outside of the department?
6. Please can you give an overview of the QA procedures in particular does the department have annual monitoring process and have the results of the internal audit been implemented?
7. Please can you provide graduate employment patterns?
2