Summer Programme-Engineering Honours Top-up

KINGSTONUNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING

In partnership with

WEST LONDON LIFELONG LEARNING NETWORK

Final Evaluation Report

November 2008

Report prepared by: Denis Marchant

Principal Lecturer & Director of Automotive Engineering,

KingstonUniversity,

London

21stNovember 2008

Contents

Page

1. Background to the Project3

1.1 Key requirements for success3

2.Outline of the Project4

2.1 Funding & Implementation process4

3. Aims of the Project4

3.1 Actions - KingstonUniversity5

4.Evaluation Methodology & Outcomes5

4.1Objectives of the evaluation

4.2Methodology5

4.3Outline of the programme6

4.4Evaluation Outcomes & Key Messages6

5. Quality Assurance7

6. Conclusions8

7.Recommendations8

1.0Background to the project

The Summer Engineering Honours Top-up programme was a pilot project developed through a partnership between Kingston University (KU) and West London Lifelong Learning Network (WLLLN).

The aim was to investigate the viability of providinga mechanism for HND and Foundation Degree students entering level six of the BEng suite of Mechanical Engineering Design degrees,to achieve BEng (Hons) in a reduced period of time.This was to be achieved through a summer top-up course carried outat KingstonUniversity’s Roehampton Campus, over a delivery period of approximately sixteen weeks during the period August to December.

Currently,“direct entry” students entering the mechanical field final year, level six of BEng (Hons), from BTEC, HND and Foundation Degree routes are enrolled onto the BEng Design non-honours,unclassified degree, and undertake their major individual Honours project, spread over two semesters of an additional final year. Thus the minimum period for the achievement of the BEng (Hons) degree for direct entrants to level six is currently two academic years.

The Mechanical Field (Mechanical, Automotive, Motorcycle and Motorsport) within the Faculty of engineering ran the pilot for twelve students during the period August – December 2007. Exceptionally, and only for the purposes of the pilot, the Top-up Individual Project was included in the 2006 – 2007 fee structure, thus participants were not required to pay the usual module registration cost.

Participating students originally obtained their HND / Foundation Degree qualifications from BrooklandsCollege, FarnboroughCollege and KingstonCollege. Students from other colleges who were enrolled at KingstonUniversity on any of the BEng Mechanical Design programmes and who had similar circumstances were eligible to participate.

Findings in this report are drawn from the responses of staff and students and formal evaluation processes.

1.1Key requirements for success of the project

The project had several key requirements that would determine its success:

  • Good programme planning.
  • Significant overall management to ensure that appropriate resources, equipment and staff were available during the summer in light of staff holidays and planned maintenance.
  • High level commitment from learners.
  • Firm commitment from staff within the Faculty.
  • Allocation and availability of academic supervisors with specialist knowledge in the chosen topic area.
  • Agreement and full participation of the external examiner.

2.0Outline of the project

  • The project was approximately 14 weeks in duration, running at the University during the summer break, August/December 2007.
  • Each student was allocated a supervisor with whom they were required to meet on a regular basis (normally weekly).
  • Students said they were happy to be monitored throughout the programme and agreed to be part of a follow up survey to assess the suitabilityand success of the programme.
  • All students on the Summer Top-up programme were full-time students.
  • The programme was delivered as level six; with30 credits awarded.

2.1 Funding and implementation process

The LLN recognised and acknowledged that Faculty staff were stretched in terms of time and resources. The STEM Sector Co-ordinator therefore prepared the funding support application, removing administrative burden on Faculty staff. Faculty staff edited and approved the final document, completing the ‘matched’ funding section before submission.

The project funding applicationwas taken forward to a WLLLN Project Review Meeting. Total project costs were £22,200, with LLN funding subsequently approved for £11,100 and KU providing the balance as matched resources.

Once the LLN’s funding was confirmed all students within the target category were identified and subsequently invited to apply, although this had to be done after the July examination boards. Numbers were capped to a maximum of twelve in order to ensure that adequate support could be provided.

During informal discussion with students, the faculty staff mentioned that the top-up would be a ‘pilot’ to test if such a programme would be beneficial in the future. It was suggested to them that it was essential that they gave high commitment if the programme was to be successful.

The Faculty staff member responsible for organising and managing the pilot sought appropriate support within the Faculty and from the Examination Board. This was to allow the results of the course to be included as part of the assessment process.

3.0Aims of the Project

The primary aim was toprovide HND students and Foundation Degree students entering level six of the BEng Mechanical Engineering Design fields to achieve BEng (Hons), rather than an unclassified degree, through a summer top-up course.

The project received one-off funding from the WLLLN and KingstonUniversitywould, dependent on the outcomes, consider the issue of sustainability.

The project sought to reduce the time and cost to each student of completing the Honours top-up and to overcome the barrier preventing them fromapplying for jobs, during this period, at an appropriate level for an Honours graduate, particularly those offered through company graduate schemes.

3.1Actions - KingstonUniversity

3.1.1KU will formally discuss the programme at senior management level, with a view to determining if it is feasible and cost effective to offer the programme to future cohorts.

3.1.2KU will inform the WLLLN in due courseif thesummer top-up programme or similar will form part of the course provisionin the future.

4.0Evaluation Methodology & Outcomes

This is the final evaluation report for the programme, incorporating results from the formal examination board, together with comments from staff and students involved in the project.

The four levels of Kirkpatrick's evaluation model were broadly used. These essentially measure:

  • reaction of students - what they thought and felt about thecourse
  • learning - the resulting increase in knowledge or capability
  • behaviour - extent of behaviour and capability improvement
  • results –environmental effects resulting from their performance

4.1 Objectives of the evaluation

Key objectives of this report are to:

  • Outline the need for the pilot and the funding process by the LLN.
  • Evaluatethe experience of the students during and after the course.
  • Evaluate the experienced of staff involved in the project supervision.
  • Ensure the original objectives of the project, as stated in the project support application, were met.

4.2 Methodology

During the regular one-to-one meetings between the individual academic supervisors and their students, ongoing feedback was obtained. In December 2007 the project manager met with a representative sample of students in order to gain feedback relating to the implementation, operation, achievement and general success of the pilot. The project manager also obtained verbal feedback from the academic supervisors via informal interviews.

4.3Outline of the programme

  • The programme ran throughout the summer period from mid August with the report submission being set for the 14th December.
  • All participantswere full-time students.
  • The Individual Project Module was managed by a module leader and each student was allocated an academic supervisor with specialist knowledge in the chosen topic area.
  • Students met with their supervisor on a regular basis (normally weekly).
  • Students prepared a project plan outlining the main activities and identifying necessary resources.
  • Appropriate technical support was provided by specialist technical staff to ensure compliance with University and Health & Safety regulations and to maximise the student experience and outcomes.
  • Academic supervisors marked the interim reports, final dissertations and facilitated the project presentations.
  • Second readers were appointed to comply with University Internal Verification / Quality Assurance requirements.
  • The module leader collatedand presented the marks at a special examination board held in January 2008.

4.4Evaluation Outcomes

The following is a synopsis of the key outcomes of this evaluation.

4.4.1Key messages from students:

The greater majority of participants felt that completing the project during the summer was less desirable than undertaking it as part of the scheduled activities.

The main advantages of the summer top-up where summarised as;

  • A quicker way for a student to complete the honours by not having to wait a year.
  • An opportunity to carry on with learning rather than having the
    summer off.
  • The fact that the pilot was offered cost free

The main disadvantages where summarised as;

  • The condensed nature of the pilot meant that a year’s work had to be accomplished in a few months.
  • Regular student / supervisor meetings were disrupted due to staff / student holidays.

4.4.2Key messages from staff:

The following comments were provided by the project supervisors.

  • The length of time for execution of the project was too short when compared to the normal time span of September – June when following the traditional model.
  • Student motivation seemed to be variable and inconsistent when compared to students following the traditional top-up programme.
  • Regular communication between some supervisors / students was interrupted due to holiday’s thus potentially delaying or disrupting progress.
  • Some disruption caused as a result of planned maintenance to laboratories and computer facilities.
  • Negative impact caused through restricted opening hours of the Learning Resource Centre.
  • Reduced peer support and other formal learning support mechanisms normally available.
  • Failure of some students to appreciate the enormity of the individual project often demonstrated through poor planning and time management.
  • The need to apportion significant amounts of academic time for assessment and organising / attending special examination boards whilst teaching was problematic.
  • Organising the project presentation seminar was difficult due to the restricted availability of staff and students. This resulted in several events having to be held. On two occasions students had to conduct their presentations solely to the panel. Normally there would be a larger audience comprised of other project students and staff.

.

5.0 Quality Assurance

The pilot outline was approved by the Associate Dean of Faculty, appropriate boards and external examiners. It was agreed that extraordinary Module Assessment and Programme Assessment boards would be held in January 2008 to consider the individual student performance and resultant awards.

TheModule Assessment Board is responsible for the assessment and standards of the modules within a subject group. It considers the marks or grades for each module, agrees the grades achieved within the modules, and makes recommendations to the Programme Assessment Board(s) about the most appropriate means of reassessment where failure has occurred

The Programme Assessment Board is responsible for the overall assessment of students and for the standards of awards, for deciding the progression of each student; and for recommending the nature and classification of awards. The Board does not have the power to alter module grades but is empowered to compensate failure, agree reassessment requirements, recommend awards, and terminate registration in the case of poor performance.

The process is entirely transparent and records are kept via the usual Quality Assurance mechanisms operated by KingstonUniversity.

In accordance with KingstonUniversity requirements the Learning outcomes were made clear to students at the outset and they were informed of the proposed timescales.All Individual Projects were subject to a second marking process and scrutinyvia a moderation committee and sampling via the external examiner.

6.0Conclusions

In general the pilot was successful in-so-far as all student participants who completed their projects passed and were awarded honours classifications. Consideration of the feedback confirms the view that a summer top-up programme is not particularly practical or educationally sound and could potentially hinder some participants, thus not allowing them to perform to their maximum potential. Additionally, the disruption caused through summer maintenance and building works would vary from year to year with an obvious knock-on effect to students. The activity was very staff intensive due to the diverse range of project topics and there was real concern that this could not be sustained every year due to staff availability and the numbers required.

7.0Recommendations

It is recommended that the Faculty of Engineering consider offering “Direct Entry” students wishing to enter the final year (level six) of the Mechanical Field suite of Design courses, the opportunity to undertake the two bridging modules prior to the commencement of the academic year (during the summer period) and then join the main student body on the Honours route. This would afford all the educational benefits and avoid the problems associated with staffing and provision of adequate laboratory / support facilities. The bridging modules could be run economically and results could be considered at the September resit boards thus avoiding the need to hold special Module and Programme Assessment Boards.

This recommendation will be formally presented for consideration by the Faculty via this report.

1