BCS Academic Accreditation Briefing 2

  • 207 views
Uploaded on

Overview of Academic Accreditation process for university departments

Overview of Academic Accreditation process for university departments

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
207
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Core requirements common to all accredited programmes eg S2.2 Then additional requirements for specific accreditations

Transcript

  • 1. Academic Accreditation Briefing for Institutions 9 May 2011
  • 2. Introductions
    • Rob Neil
      • Head of Business Change & Technology, Ashford Borough Council
      • Chair, Academic Accreditation Committee
    • Paul Hanna
      • Head of School of Computing & Mathematics, University of Ulster
      • Vice-chair, Academic Accreditation Committee
    • Elizabeth Friend
      • Head of Education, BCS
  • 3. Agenda
    • Overview of Accreditation
    • People and Processes
    • The Submission
    • The Visit
    • Post Visit
    • Typical Problem Areas
    • Q & A
  • 4. Overview of Accreditation 01
  • 5. How academic accreditation fits with Breadth of Knowledge and UK-SPEC COMPETENCE Education Experience Application of knowledge in the ‘real world’ Includes accredited Exemplifying Qualifications
  • 6. Overview of Accreditation
    • BCS can accredit programmes for:
      • Chartered IT Professional (CITP)
      • Chartered Engineer (CEng)
      • Incorporated Engineer (IEng)
      • Chartered Scientist (CSci)
    • Level and content of programme (and learning outcomes) determines what accreditation is appropriate
    • Programmes may be accredited as fully meeting the educational requirements, partially meeting or providing the further learning element
  • 7. Exemplifying Academic Qualifications CITP Accredited honours degree in the computing field along with further learning beyond graduation IEng Accredited bachelors degree in the computing field, or a higher national diploma or foundation degree in computing, plus appropriate further learning to degree level CEng & CSci Accredited honours degree followed by an accredited masters programme or appropriate further learning to masters level; or through an integrated masters programme
  • 8. Overview of Accreditation
    • Accreditation is about:
      • Showing that courses meet the requirements for giving students the educational basis for Chartered status
      • Identifying specific learning outcomes – it’s not only about educational quality of the degree experience
      • Being concerned with minimums – guaranteeing that ALL qualifying students can demonstrate learning
  • 9. Overview of Accreditation
    • The Panel is trying to:
      • Check that the department has the necessary resource and processes to deliver appropriate degrees
      • Verify that degrees meet the appropriate learning outcomes for the accreditation sought
    • That’s it….
  • 10.
    • To do this, Panels look for evidence that:
      • The programme is up to date
      • Programme design & review are based on the appropriate computing benchmark
      • Departmental reviews base their findings on the relevant benchmark and involve external experts
      • EEs use the benchmark in making their judgement
      • The programme learning outcomes suitably reflect the abilities & skills defined in the appropriate benchmark
      • There is sufficient computing content
    Overview of Accreditation
  • 11. People and Processes 02
  • 12. The People
    • Academic Accreditation Committee
      • Up to 25 members, academic and industrialist
      • All Chartered
    • Register of Assessors
      • 90 people, again academic and industrial representation
    • BCS Education Department
    • Panels maximum of 5 assessors (depending on number of courses being considered)
      • 2 members of AAC (1 chair)
      • 1 industrialist
      • Secretariat
  • 13. The Process
  • 14. The Process
    • BCS will contact institutions the year before a visit is due
          • What has been done about points raised in previous visit
    • Dates agreed mutually
    • Can postpone in the case of major restructures etc in discussion with Education Department
  • 15. Timelines
  • 16. The Submission 03
  • 17. What to include
    • Part A
      • Departmental information
        • Ethos
        • QA,
        • Resourcing
    • Part B
      • Programme specific
        • Programme & module specs
        • Exams & Coursework
        • EE reports & departmental responses
        • Sample projects & marking sheets (maximum of 16)
  • 18. Accompanying CD
    • Part A and Part B as before
    • Supplementary documents
    • Should be
      • Easy to navigate
      • Self contained (no hyperlinks to websites)
      • Platform agnostic
      • CD not DVD
  • 19. How we use the forms – Part A B.Sc(Hons) Computing Science  
    • Overview of department
    • Quality Assurance regime
      • Internal/external reviews
      • EEs
    • Feedback mechanisms
    • Currency of material
      • Research areas
      • Industry links
    • Learning resources
      • Staff
      • Library / IT
  • 20. How we use the forms – Part B
    • One Part B per programme
    • Programme specification
    • Module specs (showing core/compulsory/optional)
    • Any sandwich/franchise/DL arrangements
    • LSEPIs – where taught and assessed
    • Project guidance
  • 21. How we use the forms – Part B
    • Admission & progression stats
    • Assessment regulations, exam papers, assignments
  • 22. Core Module Mappings
  • 23. The Visit 04
  • 24. Example Visit Timetable 0850 – 0900 Panel arrives at University   0900 – 0930 Panel meets students on the courses under consideration. The Panel may request that students be split into groups.   0930 – 0945 Private Panel Meeting   0945 – 1015 Meeting with Head of Department and Senior Staff.   1015 – 1130 Panel discussion with undergraduate course team   1130 - 1215 Panel discussion with postgraduate course team   1215 - 1245 Tour of departmental laboratories (optional)   1245 – 1315   Lunch 1315 – 1445 Private Panel meeting   1445 – 1500 One-way Feedback to Head of Department and Senior Staff   1500 Panel departs  
  • 25. Presentation to insert name here
  • 26. Possible Outcomes
    • Four possible outcomes (Panel recommendations at this stage):
      • 90 Day Response
      • Maximum Period
      • Reduced Period
      • Not accredited
  • 27. Post visit 05
  • 28. Post visit
    • Report is compiled
      • Sent to Panel & Institution for accuracy check
    • Report is presented to next AAC meeting for discussion of findings and approval
    • Result of visit formally notified to Institution
    • For any 90 Day response, time starts on receipt of Decision Letter following AAC meeting
  • 29. Typical Problem Areas 06
  • 30. Typical Problem Areas – the documentation
    • Research & industrial input
      • How do both feed in to programmes (particularly at levels 3 + M)
    • General mapping of LO’s
      • Map to core modules
    • LSEPIs
          • Where taught AND assessed
    • Projects
          • Do ALL meet BCS requirements?
          • Project guidance for students
    • Areas of change (e.g. information security)
  • 31. Typical Problem Areas – the documentation
    • Information not in the submission
    • Difficult to find things in the submission
    • Meaningless mappings between modules and LOs
    • Unclear as to what is core and optional
    • Correct people not in the meetings
  • 32. Making it go smoothly
    • Make sure that Part A and B answer the matched questions on the assessment form
    • Where you don’t understand something, contact the Education Department
    • Answer the questions you are asked
    • Tell BCS of major changes to your department or programmes as they happen , not at the next visit
  • 33. So what should we ask for?
  • 34. So what should we ask for?
  • 35. CEng or CSci?
    • Accreditation in partial fulfilment for CEng and CSci will normally be considered together.
    • If a programme places particular stress on an engineering ethos and compensatingly light stress on a scientific ethos, panels may approve CEng and not CSci
    • The converse would apply in the event of a high scientific stress.
    • HEIs are at liberty to only request one of these.
    • Should a programme be accredited in partial fulfilment of CEng, graduates will automatically be eligible for full IEng accreditation.
  • 36. Accreditation Requirements Core requirements CITP CEng CSci
  • 37. Q & A 07