INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY TALLAGHT VALIDATION REPORT FOR MASTERS IN ENGINEERING IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Transcription

1 INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY TALLAGHT VALIDATION REPORT FOR MASTERS IN ENGINEERING IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING NATIONAL FRAMEWORK OF QUALIFICATIONS (NFQ) LEVEL 9

2 INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY TALLAGHT EXTERNAL REVIEW PANEL REPORT PART 1 SCHOOL DEPARTMENT GENERAL INFORMATION Engineering Mechanical Engineering DATE OF VISITATION 16th January 2014 PROGRAMME EVALUATED Masters in Engineering in Mechanical Engineering NATIONAL FRAMEWORK QUALIFICATION LEVEL 9 PROGRAMME APPROVED PANEL Engineering Engineer Masters in Engineering in Mechanical Engineering Dr. Austin Hanley (Chairperson) Head of School of Engineering Institute of Technology Athlone Dr. Jim Morrison Head of Department of Mechanical Letterkenny Institute of Technology Dr. Nicola Anderson Department of Mechanical Engineering Letterkenny Institute of Technology Mr. James Kearney Intel Ireland Mr. Stephen Quinn Pfizer, Grange Castle BioTech Plant Secretary Dr. John Ó Néill Head of Lifelong Learning IT Tallaght Institute of Technology Tallaght 2

3 INSTITUTE STAFF Mr Pat O Donnell Head of School of Engineering Ms Fiona Cranley, Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering Dr Gerry Ryder, MEng, PhD Dr. Yanyi Blake, BE (Materials), MSc, PhD Dr. Jim Dwan, BE, PhD Dr Noel Gorman, BA, MSc, PhD Dr Paul Robinson, BA, PhD Paul Dillon, BE, MEngSc Colm Costello, BE, MBA Mark Connolly, BE, MEng Brian Smyth, BE, MEng Lucy McAuley BSc (Eng) Paul Dillon, BE, MEngSc Dr Fiona McEvoy, BE, PhD Tony Tansey, BSc, MEngSc Dr Ken Moloney, BE, PhD Dr Eamonn Quigley, BE, MIE, PhD Stephen Tiernan, BSc, MEngSc Owen Sinnott, BE, MEng Design, MBA Hugh Claffey, BE, MEng Design, MPhil Dr. Ed Carey, PhD 3

4 PART II RECOMMENDATION/COMMENT 2.1 Recommendations: The External Review panel recommends the validation of the programme: Masters in Engineering in Mechanical Engineering for the purpose of the award of: Masters in Engineering Subject to the conditions and recommendations set out below. Conditions 1. Remove reference to potential for programme to be delivered by distance. 2. Rename the module titled Bio-Medical Design to reflect the detail of the content and context of the programme. To this end, incorporate the term orthopaedic or equivalent in the title. The module should be an elective rather than a mandatory module. 3. Remove reference to senior management from the programme outcomes. Recommendations 1. Provide detail of credits to be awarded for the programme in Section 4, Page Check verbs and language in each module descriptor for appropriateness at Level Module titles need to be consistent across the documentation. 4. Provide clarity on academic and professional aspects of entry requirements, with reference to Engineers Ireland. There is a need to provide clarity regarding policy in respect of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL). 5. Intake of students should be linked to the institute s capacity to provide and supervise the projects as described in the submission document. 6. In the future consider providing a follow-on Nanotechnology and Bio-Medical Design modules as further electives to deepen knowledge and skills in the area. 4

5 7. Produce a schedule showing the overall timing and shape of the assessment strategies. 8. Remove reference to entrepreneurial approach in programme objectives or alternatively identify suitable learning outcomes that are assessed within the programme. 9. Change focus of the Sino-Irish Enterprise module to Globalisation and increase emphasis on IP. Amend the module title accordingly. 10. Consider the provision of a more formal support structure for students in the third semester. 11. Lean Six Sigma & Project Management: Following completion of this module the appropriate skill level should be specified at Yellow Belt. 12. Control & Simulation: Explicit mention should be made of digital control in the assessment. There appears to be over assessment. 13. Biomedical Design: See main recommendations. Pattern of assessment needs to be reviewed since as written all learning outcomes appear to be unrealistically assessed in one piece of work. 14. Pharmaceutical Operations Management: Either remove Learning Outcome 2 or specify that a risk assessment will be done or understood. 15. Research Methods & Innovation: Set a more realistic assessment date, towards the end of term. 16. Systems Modelling: review of learning outcome three in respect of developing mathematical models across multiple domains. 17. Nanotechnology: Reconsider the timing of the CA assignment in Week Pharmaceutical Technology & Quality Systems: Consider renaming the module to Pharmaceutical Operations for Engineers. 19. Advanced Engineering Materials: Reconsider the appropriateness of the level of the textbook for Level 9 students. 20. Robotics and Control: Suggest the use of Galileo software. 21. Sino-Irish Enterprise: See general recommendations re titling and focus. 22. Research: Remove reference to placement in the module. 23. Include details of the survey in the submission document. 5

6 24. Entrepreneurial is mentioned as one of the programme learning outcomes, yet corresponding assessments are not to be found. PART III FINDINGS OF THE VALIDATION PANEL 3.0 INTRODUCTION The panel was welcomed to the Institute by the Head of Lifelong Learning, Dr. John Ó Néill who acted as secretary to the panel. The programme documentation was sent to the panel members prior to the meeting. The panel used the external review template as per the Quality Assurance Manual to assist in their deliberations. The panel met in advance of the meeting to discuss the submission document and plan for the meeting with management and staff of the department. The Panel under the chairmanship of Dr. Austin Hanley met formally in the Institute at 9.00 am on the morning of Thursday, 16 th January The Panel met initially in closed session. The Chair led a discussion on the role of the Evaluation Panel acting under the guidance issued by the Institute on Programme Evaluation. Dr John O Neill, secretary appointed by the institute provided guidance in this respect. The Panel then discussed the proposal including the desired awards, the structure, delivery and overall programme learning outcomes in relation to the National Framework of Qualifications. Considering the diversity and number of modules and subject matter embedded in the programme, the Panel felt that this should be particularly queried in discussions with the school management and development team. Each member of the Panel agreed to take the lead on selected modules in discussion with the Programme Development Team (PDT). 3.1 MEETING WITH MANAGEMENT AND STAFF The Panel welcomed the opportunity to review the programme submission and met Mr Pat O Donnell, Head of School of Engineering, ITTD, Ms Fiona 6

7 Cranley, Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering, ITTD and Dr Gerry Ryder, Assistant Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering, ITTD. Based on the documentation provided to the Panel and the subsequent interaction with both the management group and the teaching faculty, the Panel is satisfied that the capability exists within the School of Engineering to offer this programme subject to three conditions set out in this report. It is further satisfied that the programme is in line with the institute s strategic plan both in an overall organisations perspective and in relation to the aim to have the programme recognised by the engineering professional body Engineer s Ireland. The Panel felt that it will have a positive impact on the host department within the institute. The case for a need for the programme was well articulated by school management and further backed up by the programme development team, who produced more detailed information on the market survey conducted. It is, by design, a broad based programme and some concerns were raised about the diversity and consequently the perception that it may lack focus on the real and current industrial requirements. These concerns were well addressed although the Panel laid out some recommendations in this respect. The entry mechanisms were fully discussed and were deemed to be satisfactory. The Panel made a number of recommendations for the School to consider with regard to the Programme roll-out. The Panel commends the Programme Design Team on the innovative and timely offering, which stems from identifying a clear gap in the market (both national and international) and in the manner in which the input and support of industry has been invited and harnessed from the outset. The Panel congratulates the School Management on the initiative and wishes the Institute well in the marketing and delivery of this programme. The Panel does however emphasise the importance of a successful delivery of the programme and the necessity to continuously monitor its implementation, particularly in the light of the busy schedule that students will face. 7

8 3.1.1 Programme Title and Award Title. The panel was satisfied that the title of the programme is clear, accurate and fit for the purpose of informing prospective learners and other stakeholders. The programme has an underlying general mechanical engineering theme although there are opportunities to deepen selected themes by offering module extensions (see Recommendations). The standards of knowledge, skill, and competence, determined by QQI are appropriate to the programme Justification for the Programme. The Chairman communicated the shared welcome of the proposal from the Panel. The School was complimented on the strength of the proposal, having identified a clear niche in the marketplace, and the manner in which it had comprehensively responded to the issues raised by the Panel throughout the proceedings. The Panel is also satisfied with the Institute s case on the rationale for the development of the programme and with the consultation undertaken with industry, prior to the proposal of the programme by the Institute Conformance with Institute s Mission and Strategy. The panel was satisfied that the proposed programme conformed to the Institute s mission of providing learners with flexible higher education opportunities which are of the highest quality Access, Transfer and Progression Arrangements. The panel where satisfied with the arrangements stated for access, transfer and progression. The Panel was concerned, though, that there may be some confusion for the applicant if he/she believes that this programme alone will satisfy the educational requirements for the title Chartered Engineer. Assurances were given that this would not be the case. The Panel noted that RPL access to the programme might be made more explicit. 8

9 3.1.5 Programme Structure and Design The programme design is consistent with guidelines on Accumulation of Credits and Certification of Subjects (ACCS) Programme Learning Outcomes and Award Standards. The Learning Outcomes descriptions are consistent with QQI standards pertaining to a Level 9 award Teaching and Learning Strategy Some concern was raised by the Panel in relation to supervisory capacity, most particularly in respect of Term 3, where it is currently not planned to have any formal academic support available to students. The Panel urged the institute to revisit this arrangement Learner Assessment The Panel noted that with so many modules to complete there is a danger of over assessment and of overloading students. An overall assessment schedule was not provided to the Panel but it is clear that there are opportunities to reduce the assessment load while ensuring that all programme outcomes are addressed. The institute is urged to revisit the schedule and to monitor the load on students particularly in the first year Quality Assurance The panel was satisfied with the procedures that were applied to the development of the proposed programme and that the quality assurance mechanisms are in place to ensure its provision, monitoring and review Information Provision. The entry requirements for the programme are to be made clear to potential students particularly for those applying with cognate awards from other institutions. 9

10 Library and Physical Facilities / Resources. The panel was also satisfied that the physical resources were available to deliver the proposed programme Learner Support Services. The panel was satisfied with the Learner Support Services available to learners Academic Staff and Qualifications. The panel was satisfied that the lecturing and support staff is available within the Institute to deliver the content of this programme. It recommended continual monitoring of the competencies required to deliver the programme and that appropriate staff training plan is developed as the programme evolves. 10

11 Programme Schedules Programme Schedule for Year 1 Name of Provider Programme Codes TA_EAMEC_M Programme Title (i.e. named award) Master of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering Award Title (HETAC named award) Masters Degree Stage Exit Award Title Modes of Delivery (FT/PT/ACCS/BLENDED/OC etc), Stage 1 Number of Stages 1 Award Class Award NQF Level 9 Award EQF Level 7 Stage Credits (ECTS) 0 Stage NQF Level Stage EQF Level Date Effective 14/09/14 ISCED Subject Code Ref Module Title Semester Module ECTS Total Student Effort Allocation of Marks Status NQF Credit Total Contact Independent Course End of Module Formal Total (M/E) Level Number Hours Hours Learning Work % Examination % % 1.1 Research 1 M Methods and Innovation 1.2 Lean Six Sigma 1 M & Project Management 1.3 Engineering 1 M Computation 1.4 Control & 1 M Simulation 1.5 Design with FEA 1 M

12 1.6 Pharmaceutical 1 E Operations Mgt. 1.7 Heat Transfer 2 M Computational 2 M Fluid Dynamics (CFD). 1.9 Robotics and 2 M Vision 1.10 Global Business 2 M Research 2 M Project 1.12 Systems 2 E Modelling 1.13 Biomedical 2 E Device Design 1.14 Sustainable Energy 2 E Nanotechnology 2 E Special Regulations: None 12