BCS Academic Accreditation Briefing 2


Published on

Overview of Academic Accreditation process for university departments

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

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

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