Purposes and outcomes of the review
The programme reviewed
Section A Framework
Section B Overall educational aims of the programme
Section C An evaluation of the emerging standards of the programme and the emerging achievements of students
Section D An evaluation of the quality of students' learning opportunities
Section E An evaluation of the monitoring and enhancement of quality and standards
Section F Good practice and/or innovative features
Summary of the main review outcomes
The Higher Education Funding Council for England has commissioned the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education to carry out a second programme of reviews of a sample of Foundation Degrees (FDs) in England in the academic year 2004-05. The major purposes of the review process are:
The findings from the reviewers' lines of enquiry result in a published report containing two threshold judgements. In the case of programmes where there are students who have graduated, the report contains judgements on the confidence, or otherwise, the reviewers have in:
In the case of recent programmes where no students have graduated to date, the report contains judgements on the confidence, or otherwise, the reviewers have in:
The report also comments on the maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality, and on the examples of good practice and innovation which may be worthy of wider dissemination.
Each review looks at one FD programme. It covers the entirely of that programme and includes, as applicable, the provision at all sites of delivery, all pathways, sites of work-based learning and modes of study.
The review takes place within a framework that includes a range of activities common to all reviews. Each review is structured around a series of 11 key questions to be considered by the provider in preparing its self-evaluation and by the reviewers when summarising evidence to be used to reach the two threshold judgements. The same questions form the structure of the report.
‘The provider has addressed the concerns set out in the report of the review of the Foundation Degree in Project Management of May 2005 and has implemented an action plan to enhance the quality of the students’ experience and to assure the standard of education. The effectiveness of the impact of the action will be considered during the next Institutional audit and will contribute to the evidence base that auditors use to make their judgements’.
Foundation Degree (FD) in Project Management
1 The FD in Project Management is an award of the University of Wolverhampton (the University) and is delivered as a collaborative programme with two further education (FE) colleges. Level 1 is delivered at the City of Wolverhampton College (CoWC) and Telford College of Arts and Technology (TCAT). Level 2 is delivered on the Wolverhampton, Compton Park and Telford Campuses of the University, through the School of Engineering and the Built Environment (SEBE) and the Business School (UWBS). The first groups of students were admitted to the programme in March 2003, September 2003 and September 2004. There are 48 students on the programme at the time of the review, with no students having yet graduated.
2 The FD is aimed at students who are currently in work and who seek to enhance their career opportunities by developing the generic skills associated with project management. It caters for students from a wide variety of businesses including large and small employers from the private sector, engineering, production and the public sector, for example, the National Health Service and the armed forces. All students are part-time and all but one are in related work. Their workplaces form the sites of work-based learning (WBL) for the programme and are widely distributed across the region, particularly the Black Country and Shropshire.
3 The programme reflects a commitment to lifelong learning and a commitment to contribute to the development of a skilled regional workforce. It addresses an identified skills gap in project management among employers in the region. The FD was developed from an Advantage West Midlands initiative to encourage lean manufacturing practices and from market research by both SEBE and the UWBS in 2002 and 2003. The programme is designed to address this skills gap and to set learning in the workplace within an academic context. This is consistent with the Foundation Degree qualification benchmark (FDQB), published by QAA, and the Intermediate level descriptors of The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ). The award also draws on the Subject benchmark statement for building and surveying, and for general business and management. The consortium is organised to meet the good practice identified in the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 2: Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning). The programme team is currently seeking accreditation from the Association of Project Managers (APM). On completion students are able to progress to the BA (Hons) Business Management and the BSc (Hons) Construction Management. The validation of a third route, the BA (Hons) Project Management, took place in March 2005.
4 The programme is normally taken over two years and consists of five 10-week blocks of study, each comprising two taught subject modules. In addition, three Spine modules run alongside the taught component over the two years. Spine modules aim to enable students to carry out a substantial self-managed work based project, applying knowledge and skills within the workplace and developing the capacity for self-audit and reflection. Students plan their chosen project over the first two Spine modules, and carry out the project during Spine 3. Assessment provides an opportunity for them to review the process and outcomes. Although the Spine modules are not formally taught, students are supported by on-line material, weekend workshops, a Learning Contract and the active involvement of employers.
5 Initially, within the University, the management of the programme was the responsibility of SEBE but in August 2004 this responsibility was transferred to the UWBS. This followed concerns with the management of the programme identified by the University through its quality management processes during the first year of operation.
6 The aims of the FD in Project Management are to develop:
7 The programme was developed following a needs analysis undertaken in the region. It is designed to fill the skills gap identified by this analysis and this is an example of good practice. The programme's aims were stated at validation and appear in the Pathway Guide and the programme specification. These take account of the defining characteristics of FDs and are appropriate to them. The programme's intended learning outcomes (ILOs) reflect the aims and reflect both the interdisciplinary nature of the award and the defining characteristics of a FD. The programme will prepare students for a career in the management of projects within a range of sectors in private, public and voluntary organisations.
8 The ILOs for each module and pathway are clearly defined for students. They are mapped appropriately onto programme outcomes and appear in the programme specification. The learning outcomes are related to a number of external reference points, including the FDQB, the Intermediate level of the FHEQ and the Subject benchmark statement for general business and management. The 'Learning through Work' Generic Level Descriptors of Ufi [University for industry] were also used as benchmarks. The West Midlands Construction Best Practice Group was consulted following the development of the programme. The curriculum has been mapped against the emerging professional standards of the APM. Accreditation is to be sought from the APM once it has agreed its accreditation policy for all awards, including FDs. The programme aims and learning outcomes generally reflect current occupational standards and practice. Employers confirmed the relevance of the programme to their staff.
9 The award offers student progression to the BA (Hons) Business Management, the BSc (Hons) Construction Management and (from March 2005) the BA (Hons) Project Management. The aims and ILOs of the FD provide students with an appropriate basis for success in the articulated programmes with, in the case of the business awards, an additional bridging module taken in Research Methods.
10 The curriculum for the programme comprises 240 credits deriving from 13 modules, of which eight are at level one and five at level two. The WBL element of the programme is explicitly accommodated by two level one and one level two Spine modules which account for 90 credits and about 40 per cent of the course in total.
11 The curriculum is coherent, with the nature and range of modules permitting the delivery of a largely generic programme of project management, which is appropriate to the aims of the programme. The programme was planned with the assistance of local employers in order to achieve integration of academic and vocational workplace skills and this includes some provision for personal development planning. The curriculum broadly meets the needs of employers and students in a range of industries for the generic skills of project management. However, there has been little continuous employer contribution to design and review since the beginning of the programme. This may affect the ability of the programme team to ensure the continuing currency and relevance of the curriculum, although vigorous efforts are being made by UWBS to address this by engagement with employers in relevant industries.
12 Both students and staff consider that the programme provides a good flexibility of locations and modes of attendance which makes use of day release, evening and some Saturday sessions covering all the sites of delivery.
13 The curriculum provides opportunities, within individual modules, for students to engage in realistic project work and to develop teamworking and communication skills through presentations and class discussions. In these they are encouraged to share their workplace experience with their colleagues. However, these broader approaches that are taken to WBL across the curriculum, are not reflected in the delivery of the Spine modules, which students report as being confusing in their early stages.
14 Progression paths into honours level programmes are a well planned part of the curriculum, although students did not explain clearly to the reviewers their detailed understanding of these opportunities. The newly validated BA (Hons) in Project Management, referred to in paragraph 9, is designed exclusively as a top-up programme for students graduating from the FD.
15 There is a wide range of assessment methods including written assignments, in-house tests, presentations, practical exercises, learning logs and case-studies, used on the programme and these are generally well matched to the assessment of the student achievement of the ILOs for both the programme and the modules. The majority of assignments provide the students with opportunities to develop and apply their technical skills in a range of contexts. The assessment requirements are explained in the pathway guides and assignment briefs and are clear to students.
16 Comprehensive assessment maps are included in the programme specification. The UWBS has an assessment policy that clearly articulates the differing levels of student achievement. A single tutor is tasked with ensuring consistency of UWBS standards at all sites. Students take the same assignments, irrespective of their study sites, to ensure consistency of approach. Cross-marking and sample moderation procedures are in place and these are applied consistently across the modules. A standard student feedback form is now used and recent student work indicates that all partners in the Consortium are adhering to the assessment policy and that early inconsistencies in feedback to students are being addressed. The assignments seen by the reviewers, particularly those at level 2 are consistent with, and appropriate to, the Intermediate level of the FHEQ.
17 Employers are not involved in the assessment of students. Assessments generally allow flexibility so that students can use their diverse work-related experience and case-study material. Peer assessment is used during presentations by students and gives further opportunity for cross-industry dialogue. However, the students reported to the reviewers that they were unclear about the application of assessment criteria in the assessments within the three Spine modules. The reviewers shared this concern.
18 It is a policy of the University to provide students with transcripts of achievement on graduation. This policy will apply to the FD. There are arrangements for the accreditation of prior learning (APL) and some students had been awarded exemption from some modules. However, students did not understand clearly the availability of APL or the accreditation of prior experiential learning (APEL).
19 Student work from all modules indicates that the students have achieved the threshold requirements for the award and that this is consistent with the defining characteristics of FDs as expressed by the FDQB. This view reflects that of the external examiner for the FD, who also notes some inconsistency between student performance on some modules between the CoWC and the Telford College sites of delivery.
20 Overall, the students' work indicates that they are encouraged to be reflective and independent learners, to develop their analytical skills and that they are able to apply what they have learned to their work practice. There is also evidence of intellectual progression from level 1 to level 2. Students considered that this is reinforced by the movement from the partner colleges to the University for level 2. Although no students have yet graduated from this programme, there is every indication that programme outcomes will be achieved.
21 Students expressed a significant concern that the content of some modules lacked currency, judged by their own experience of practice in the workplace. In this respect, students were particularly critical of the modules in Project Risk Assessment and Project Tools and Techniques. Their concerns at the relevance of elements of the programme were exacerbated, they felt, by the lack of clarity in the application of assessment criteria in the three Spine modules where the focus of WBL is placed. The student work seen by the reviewers reflects the development of the appropriate current generic skills of project management. However, the reviewers consider that the lack of effective involvement of employers in continuing curriculum design, assessment, programme delivery and review of the programme, as well as a lack of work-based staff development, is likely to make it difficult for the programme team to maintain currency in a fast changing sector of industry and thus to meet the students' concerns.
22 The award was established in response to regional skills shortages and to contribute to regional regeneration. Employers were consulted during the original design of the programme, and at its validation, and this is reflected in the relevance of the programme. However, since validation, there has been little continuity in the employer partners. The programme team recognises the need to strengthen employer involvement and indicated recent initiatives to this end, such as the relaunching of the Employers Forum in a series of breakfast meetings, the offer of site visits and guest lectures and the development of the mentoring role for employers, including finalising learning contracts with the students that they sponsor.
23 The programme team, under the management of the UWBS, is working hard to address inconsistencies in the student experience of the WBL element of programme design and delivery by establishing a minimum level of engagement by employers and ensuring that student involvement in related employment is a requirement of entry to the programme. These initiatives have yet to prove their effectiveness for the programme. Employers stated that the main existing mechanism for maintaining contact with the University is through the medium of the students recruited to the programme. This was a point confirmed by the students in relation to their employers.
The reviewers have confidence in the emerging academic standards and emerging achievements of students.
24 Student learning takes place through a variety of activities including interactive workshops, laboratory-based workshops, classroom-based lectures, seminars, group work and technology-supported learning. All modules are now led by University staff to address inconsistency of delivery and assessment practice identified during the first year of operation. Students report that teaching is of a generally high standard, with some inconsistency in the quality of teaching between the College and the University tutors.
25 There is evidence of increasing use of tutor-led discussion that draws upon student work-based experience. However, little use is made of existing contacts with employers to ensure the currency of case-study material within the modules. Students were particularly critical of three modules, Project Risk Assessment, Project Tools and Techniques, and Project Operations Management, for using out-of-date software and project management techniques. Teaching of the programme is not fully supported by staff research and industrial collaboration.
26 Although the Spine modules are intended to form a coherent structure for WBL, by encouraging students to reflect on events and issues associated with their work so that they might learn experientially, they do not deliver this in practice. This is an element in which workplace support for learners is particularly important since these modules involve students in devising a project in a context relevant to both student and organisational needs. While these modules are seen as a feature of good practice by the programme team, students saw them as disorganised in their management and confusing in practice. The students report that the Spine modules are not yet fully integrated into the student learning experience. The programme team recognises that the early stages of the Spine need to be strengthened and better integrated into the learning of students. Students who had experienced the third and final Spine module were less critical and recognised that ultimately there is an underlying purpose and coherence. However, students from all cohorts felt that the Spine modules lacked a direction and that this had a significant impact on their learning.
27 There is evidence of the effective use of information and learning technologies in the classroom, to support learning, and particularly to explain and illustrate difficult concepts. However, the programme team has been slow to use the opportunities available through the University's virtual learning environment to support the learning opportunities of this group of dispersed part-time students. Personal development planning is well embedded into the taught modules at level 1 but there is less evidence that this continues in level 2.
28 Peer observation of teaching takes place on each site of delivery and is carried out by specialist staff from the University's Centre for Learning and Teaching. Staff workshops are being developed in order to share good practice.
29 The self-evaluation gives an indication of the early difficulties experienced from January 2003 when the programme was approved, to August 2004, when the decision was taken to move the responsibility for its management from SEBE to UWBS. The self-evaluation claims that 'this move allowed significant progress to be made quickly to address issues which emerged in the first year'. The self-evaluation identifies issues such as high withdrawal rates; and poor levels of use of the University's on-line learning system (WOLF) by academic staff in supporting students. Overall, the self-evaluation claims that the UWBS had now successfully identified and addressed the issues such that, 'the third cohort is enjoying a more cohesive and well-structured programme'. However, the meeting with students from all three cohorts leads the reviewers to consider that the progress claimed in putting right acknowledged areas of difficulty has not yet made a measurable impact on their experience.
30 There remain significant issues with student support. The reviewers considered that the information given to students was generally poor. Students report that they receive contradictory information about the articulation arrangements and are confused about the opportunities for APL. Students also find the induction process extremely confusing.
31 The programme team recognises that the drop-out rate on the programme is high. Of 44 students who have registered for the programme, 14 have withdrawn to date. The SE related this to students' employment workloads and personal circumstances. Students continuing with the FD related this to insufficient support available to some students at work and to poor communications within the programme between staff and students.
32 The University WOLF system has the potential to support part-time students in employment. However, this facility is currently underused by staff and students of this FD and the intention, at validation, to make three hours on-line support available to students has not been achieved in practice. Students reported good relationships with staff and they praised the informal individual support that was provided when requested by students. However, students felt that the underlying framework of communication upon which the programme was based was inadequate to meet their needs as a part-time, geographically dispersed group. Their mode of study means that they generally feel isolated and that this is particularly marked in their experience of the three Spine modules.
33 The staff who teach on the FD have relevant qualifications and many possess higher degrees and professional qualifications. However, as a team they lack relevant recent workplace experience at an appropriate level in project management. Currently, this significant gap is not being addressed effectively by the staff development programme.
34 Teaching accommodation and workshop areas and computer laboratories are of a good quality in all sites of delivery. The programme is effectively supported by a student support administrator from Registry and a departmental administrator.
35 The University learning resource centres are open seven days a week during the academic year and are well used. They are well equipped with a wide range of technical and administrative support and resources which are readily available. Students have remote access to a wide range of electronic learning materials through intranet systems such as WOLF.
36 Students report that they have good access to a wide range of resources in the workplace including current journals, trade magazines, specialist documentation and electronic materials relevant to their employment.
37 The self-evaluation claims that employers support students by paying fees, providing time for study and an active involvement in the Spine modules, through the allocation of appropriate projects, on-the-job coaching, Learning Agreements and mentoring. In practice, the experience of students frequently fails to reflect this ideal situation. Some employers are extremely supportive of students and encourage the workplace application of skills and knowledge derived from the programme. However, many students are not sponsored by their employers and report that their employers are not involved in the FD in any way. The programme team reported that they could not visit some sites, or liaise with some employers, since some students do not wish their employers to know that they are participating in the programme. The failure to establish a consistent level of employer engagement for students on the programme continues to undermine the students' experience of WBL, despite claims in the self-evaluation that these matters have now been addressed.
38 Even the more supportive employers reported that they had insufficient communication with the programme team to enable them to support students to the full. They indicated that, until recently, communications with the University had been minimal and that they were not fully aware of the course content or the employers' role within it. Because of its recent introduction, employers do not fully understand their role in finalising learning contracts with students.
39 Most of the employers who were consulted in the development of the programme have not retained any input to the delivery of the programme. Overall, the position acknowledged in the self-evaluation that, 'no coherent group of employers who are active partners in this programme', represents a significant weakness in the delivery of the FD, preventing students from benefiting from current practices. Overall, the typical form and levels of employer engagement do not reflect the role of the employers that is expected in the defining characteristics of an FD.
40 In comparison to scholarship and educational matters, the extent to which staff development opportunities are used to develop and extend contact with employers is minimal. However, staff did indicate an intention to engage in industrial updating in the 2005 summer vacation.
The reviewers have no confidence in the quality of the students' learning opportunities.
41 There are clearly defined programme approval and annual monitoring procedures. These are managed by the University and are designed to maintain and enhance quality and standards on the programme. Staff members are well aware of the procedures and their responsibilities in the process, including those in partner colleges.
42 The validation process provided a robust framework for the operation of the partnership between the University and the two FE colleges involved and to ensure the consistency of delivery across all sites. The procedure also identified the skills gap to be addressed by the curriculum and the support, in principle, for the FD from a range of employers and their organisations. However, it did not establish a secure framework for continuing employer contact with the programme.
43 There are well-defined lines of responsibility relating to module and programme monitoring and evaluation procedures. These lead to an annual Undergraduate Award Report (UAR). The quality of module reports varies from superficial to comprehensive, but in many cases, they make effective use of data, and contain a helpful evaluation from the tutor, together with an action plan. There is no provision in these reports for any employer input, nor has the UAR identified significant concerns with employer liaison.
44 The FD Project Management Working Party, comprising representatives from the three partner institutions, meet regularly and issues are incorporated into the UAR. The students were clear that the management of the programme, by UWBS over the five months prior to the review, had enhanced the efficiency of routine procedures.
45 The programme was developed to meet a regional skills gap that has been clearly identified and with a curriculum that focuses on the generic skills of project management. This means that students from a variety of commercial and public enterprises and sectors can be drawn together to share experience and best practice.
46 The self-evaluation claims eight examples of good practice and innovative features. The review confirmed the claim made for the operation of the partnership between the University and the two FE colleges involved. This is based upon close cooperation between staff. As claimed, it has adopted structures to ensure the consistency of the delivery of taught modules across a number of sites of delivery and is an example of good practice in partnership between the two sectors. Students verified that staff were helpful and accessible, providing one-to-one support when requested. However, the reviewers were unable to confirm as good practice the three claims which relate to WBL.
The Foundation Degree (FD) in Project Management validated by the University of Wolverhampton (the University) and delivered at the University of Wolverhampton, Telford College of Arts and Technology and City of Wolverhampton College was reviewed in the academic year 2004-05. Judgements were made about the emerging academic standards and the emerging achievement of students and of the quality of the learning opportunities provided.
The programme was developed to support regional regeneration by addressing an identified skills gap in project management across the private and public sectors. It is delivered through a strong partnership between the University and two further education (FE) colleges. The curriculum is coherent and meets the needs of employers and students in a range of industries. Progression paths into honours-level study include a 'top-up' BA (Hons) in Project Management. The programme uses a wide range of assessment methods and these are well matched to the assessment of student achievement. Students are encouraged to become reflective practitioners and student work indicates that threshold standards are being achieved.
The self-evaluation gives a frank indication of the early difficulties experienced in delivering the programme from its approval in January 2003 to August 2004, when management responsibility moved from the School of Engineering and the Built Environment to the Business School. However, progress in addressing these difficulties was insufficiently advanced by the time of the review. In particular, employers continue to have little involvement in the ongoing design and delivery of the programme, nor do they have a formal and consistent role in the work-based support for students. In addition, the support currently provided through the University virtual learning environment (WOLF), for cohorts of part-time students dispersed throughout a wide area, does not represent an effective means of creating a coherent experience.
Overall, the reviewers have confidence in the emerging academic standards and emerging achievement of students.
Strengths of the programme include:
Areas for development include:
Overall, the reviewers have no confidence in the quality of learning opportunities provided for students.
Areas for immediate development include:
Other areas which would benefit from development include:
Strengths of the programme include:
The programme was developed to meet a regional skills gap that has been clearly identified and with a curriculum that focuses on the generic skills of project management. This means that students from a variety of commercial and public enterprises and sectors can be drawn together to share experience and good practice.
The partnership between the University and the two FE colleges involved in the FD is based on a close cooperation between staff. It has adopted structures to ensure consistency in the delivery of taught modules across a number of sites of delivery and is an example of good practice in partnership between the two sectors.
There are clearly defined programme approval and annual monitoring procedures which are managed by the University. The validation process provided a robust framework for the operation of the partnership between the University and the two FE colleges involved and to ensure the consistency of delivery across all sites. The procedure also identified the skills gap to be addressed and the support, in principle, for the FD from a range of employers and their organisations. However, it did not establish a secure framework for continuing employer contact with the programme.
There are well-defined lines of responsibility relating to module and programme monitoring and evaluation procedures. There is no provision in these reports for any employer input, nor has the process identified significant concerns with employer liaison.