University of Salford by wuxiangyu


									Summary report on Annual Programme Reviews reports within
the Faculty of Science, Engineering and Environment for the
academic year 2006/07
Prepared by: Dr Gai Murphy, February 2008
Considered within the Faculty at: Faculty Council, 19 February 2008

School Summaries and Annual Programme Review reports considered:
Summary School Annual Programme Review (APR) reports were received from the two Schools
in December 2007.

Computing, Science and Engineering
A total of 18 reports considering 51 undergraduate programmes and 19 reports dealing with 19
postgraduate programmes were received (see Page 9). The APRs and the School Summary
were considered at a School Teaching and Learning Committee meeting on 23 November 2007
and the School summary was presented to School Council on 28 November 2007. The minutes
confirm a thorough and detailed consideration of the APRs and School Summary. Last year
problems had arisen within the School relating to the production and consideration of the APRs.
These issues were addressed by the School and no problems arose this year. There were no
missing APR reports.

Environment and Life Sciences
A total of sixteen reports considering undergraduate programmes and ten reports dealing with
postgraduate programmes were received (see Page 11). During 06/07 six programmes were
withdrawn by the School. The APRs were considered at the School Teaching and Learning
Committee (TLC) meeting on 28 November 2007 and the School‟s summary report will be
considered at School Council on 12 March 2008. The minutes from the school TLC and the
supplementary notes relating to the detailed internal review of the APRs demonstrate a robust
review process within the School. There were no missing APR reports.

Faculty processes
All APRs submitted by the programme teams were reviewed to ensure that the ADT was able to
be informed about the operation of the Programmes offered within the Faculty. The standard of
the APR reports continues to improve and demonstrates the care and attention with which the
Programme leaders and the Schools undertake this task.

The minutes of the Staff-student sub-committee (SSSC) meetings held during the first semester
of 07/08 were also examined. These minutes confirmed a good relationship between staff and
students and a commitment to clarify and resolve issues raised by the student representatives at
the earliest opportunity and to report on progress on previous issues. The minutes confirmed
robust discussion of the Module Evaluative Questionnaires (MEQs) and the results of the
National Student Survey (NSS). Not all the SSSCs had discussed the APRs and EE reports, but
the AHTs confirmed that this would take place during the Semester 2 SSSC meetings. Only one
discipline area within the Faculty had failed to convene a SSSC. The Chair of this Committee,
despite, repeated attempts, had been unable to get student representatives to attend as most of
the programmes were offered on a part time basis, with students attending only one day per
week. She had consulted cohorts when they were in attendance at the University and had dealt
with specific issues they had raised.

The School APR summaries were also informative and provided detailed information on the
common and specific issues within the schools. The action plans generated at School level
confirm an iterative process promoting continuing improvement/enhancement and highlighting
new and recurring areas of concern. The action plans provide important information which the

  SEE APR summary report/Gai Murphy/February 2008                                    Page 1of 11
schools are using to inform both strategic and operational planning. These school summaries
have also been instrumental in planning Faculty initiatives to support students and staff.

Overall commentary/Faculty matters
On the whole the APR reports were very good and demonstrated a thoughtful and iterative
process at programme and school level. I endeavour to attend a school meeting where APR
reports are discussed and this year attended the meeting in the School of Computing, Science
and Engineering. I was impressed by the detailed discussion relating to issues which were
pertinent at programme/discipline/school level and the commitment of the staff to the student
experience and the continuing enhancement of the programmes offered within the school. At
undergraduate level the programme level data generated centrally continues to improve and on
the whole matches with the local programme knowledge of the students. There were many calls
from post-graduate programme leaders for programme level data to be extended to postgraduate

Student satisfaction via the NSS/Student Experience Survey (SES), module evaluative
questionnaires, staff-student consultative committees and the APR confirm general satisfaction
with the overall quality of their programmes. However, both feedback and assessment and the
organisation and management of the programmes continue to score poorly. Improvements in
feedback and assessment have been apparent although there is a continuing need for further
improvements. Many of the APRs and the SSSC minutes confirm a reflective and receptive
response to student issues raised via a number of methods of gathering student views, ensuring
continuing review and enhancement. There were however an increasing number of reports
raising concerns about the poor state of many of the teaching rooms in Newton, Peel, and
Maxwell Building and the impact of poor timetabling on the student (and staff) experience. This
matter is referred to later in the report.

The External Examiner reports provide a vital external reference point in ensuring the quality and
standards of the programmes offered. They continue to highlight the dedication of the
programme teams, the robust links with PSRBs and the excellent specialist teaching facilities
within the Faculty (these specialist teaching facilities were also highlighted by students in the
SES). The external examiner reports continue to confirm the currency of the programmes on
offer, the suitability of the assessment methods and the quality of the feedback provided. Many
have commented on the usefulness of being able to meet students during their visit and again
confirm the positive views of the experiences these students report. Two external examiners did
raise concerns about quality and standards and the Heads of School, in consultation with the
Faculty, have put measures in place to ensure improvements were made before his next visit.
The External Examiner comments on the quality and usefulness of the feedback appears to be at
odds with the relatively poor scores highlighted within the NSS for feedback and suggests that
there may be issues with student translation and interpretation of the feedback they receive. The
Schools and Faculty are committed to improving feedback and assessment and the organisation
and management of the programme. The appointment of the Learning Technology Fellow will
also contribute to improvements in these key areas.

The 05/06 session was difficult for the Faculty and because of the severity of the budgetary
position, the Faculty was forced to offer voluntary severance/early retirement to staff. As a result
many of the APRs mentioned the impact of VER/VS on the delivery of programmes and the
pressures this had exerted on staff attempting to maintain programmes which had been directly
or indirectly affected. Since then, improved recruitment and retention within the Schools has had
a positive impact on the financial health of both Schools. Although some APRs and External
Examiner reports for the 06/07 session continue to highlight staff shortages, it is hoped that
further appointments in key areas will address the issues raised.

Within the School of Environment and Life Sciences a significant improvement in both
continuation and progression for first year students has been made (Continuation: from 71% in

  SEE APR summary report/Gai Murphy/February 2008                                       Page 2of 11
02/03 to 03/04 to 82% in 05/06 to 06/07; Progression: from 62% in 02/03 to 03/04 to 76% in 05/06
to 06/07). This is a remarkable achievement and the School should be proud of such a
turnaround. The School has been able to recruit new staff in key areas of activity and is actively
expanding its portfolio of programmes. Within CSE, although the statistics for first year
continuation are good (University: 81%; CSE: 80% for 05/06 to 06/07) progression remains well
below the University average (University: 72%; CSE 64%).

Retention remains a focus of activity within the Faculty. The Faculty and Schools have examined
the statistics carefully and have put measures in place to support students during their time at
Salford. In addition to longer term strategies, the Faculty continues to organise revision week
sessions in August for Level 1, 2 and 3 students and staff within the schools provide revision
sessions at key points in the academic year. Both schools are maintaining attendance registers
and following up students who have not been attending.

There are interesting patterns emerging from the student surveys which have been undertaken.
The exception reports produced by AQSU are providing crucial information on the student
experience within the Faculty and are also helping to focus on areas of good practice and
facilitating the dissemination of this good practice to other areas within the Faculty. The reports
are also enabling more focused support in areas where performance is poorer than expected.
The common themes arising from the SES survey within both schools relate to the availability of
Blackboard materials and issues around placements. The Faculty will develop action plans to
support the schools in addressing these issues. The NSS survey has facilitated a greater
understanding of the student experience within the schools. There are interesting patterns
emerging – the Computer Science discipline has shown an impressive 13% improvement overall
and it is important that the good practice developed is disseminated to other groups within the
school and the faculty. Mechanical Engineering did not achieve sufficient returns in the 2006
survey and little information was therefore available. The 2007 results for this survey were poor
and within the lower quartile for the subject nationally.

Matters to be referred to the University
Issues which could be dealt with either by the School or Faculty and were not considered to be a
University matter have already been considered and work is continuing to resolve these issues
locally. The information provided by individual APRs is, by its nature, detailed and the Faculty
has attempted to summarise the main concerns. More detailed information is held within the
Faculty and is available if required. The matters referred to the University via Programme and
School APRs have been classified under 5 main headings:

1.      Poor state of teaching rooms
Many of the APRs raised concerns about the poor quality of the teaching rooms. Examples
included rooms being too small for the number of students in the cohort; poor positioning of
equipment (e.g. wide, narrow rooms with screens located at one end, making it difficult for
students to see the screen; no working blinds; small reflective boards making data
projection/OHP projection problematic; too few rooms with data projectors; white boards and
projector screens positioned over each other, so only one can be used at a time; white boards so
dirty that they cannot be used). Within CSE, there is an urgent need to complete the
commissioning of the large scale structures lab – this is the fourth year that the programme teams
have had to operate without this facility.

In addition concerns were raised about the poor state of the Newton Building, both externally and
internally and the poor levels of cleaning in communal areas and lecture theatres. Staff were
concerned about the impact this could have on recruitment and in establishing links with industrial
partners and professional bodies. All programme leaders who have raised concerns via the APR
have been contacted to seek specific information and this list will be forwarded to Estates. There
is some level of frustration about the lack of progress in improving teaching space and it is
imperative that staff are fully informed about the timetable for improvements. There is a

  SEE APR summary report/Gai Murphy/February 2008                                      Page 3of 11
frustration that academics who teach in these rooms do not appear to be consulted when rooms
are upgraded/refurbished, resulting in rooms that are not really fit for purpose. The Faculty
remains concerned about the impact of poor teaching facilities on its students and staff.

2.   Poor timetabling arrangements
There are a number of APRs continuing to report the impact of poor timetabling on the student
(and staff) experience. Programme leaders report the negative impact of having student cohorts
timetabled in different buildings, giving students little time to transfer between lectures (thus
reducing opportunities for networking etc.) and the problems this raises for staff in having to get
laptops/data projectors/handouts etc. to different locations between lectures. The ideal would be,
where possible, that cohorts are based in the same room/same building. The lack of progress
and the ensuing frustrations are captured in the following statement:

Last year, as Programme Leader, I wrote in this section of the APR:

’The University remains unable to arrange for a day release group such as HNC, (undertaking, as
a group, the same modules throughout their day with us) to be allotted the same room for all
classes. Such a request is always made by the Programme Leader to the central timetable unit.
Giving a group like this different rooms for each class (or even worse rooms in different buildings)
gives students the impression that the University is at best disorganised and at worst uncaring
and unprofessional.’

May I, this year, repeat these words verbatim?

Although this did seem to have been resolved for the 07/08 session – the room in Maxwell (822)
assigned for this cohort was too small for the group. The module leader and the school
administrator managed to relocate the lectures to 3 different rooms in Peel (331, 202 and G9).
Whilst not ideal, the students were pleased at last to be located in Peel Building (the School

In reviewing the issues raised by staff, it may be necessary to undertake another audit of teaching
rooms to ensure that the stated capacity is correct.

The Faculty would request that where possible, lectures are based in Peel and/or Newton, the
home of the two schools. It is important that the „programme‟ is the focus when considering
timetable and NOT the module and that movement between buildings for consecutive lectures is
kept to a minimum.

3.        Issues relating to the academic regulations/policies and procedures

Many programme leaders and external examiners have repeated their view of the need to
purchase software to detect plagiarism, so that a policy of screening all submitted work could be
introduced which is fair to all students. Programme leaders believe this will help internal
examiners to spot plagiarism before it is spotted by external examiners. Such software can also
be used as a teaching aid to show students how to avoid plagiarising (and recognise when they
are doing it).
                                   Undergraduate and Postgraduate programmes across the Faculty

Many of the programme leaders for Post-graduate taught Masters programmes voiced concern
about the „4 attempts rule‟. This was also raised by external examiners, particularly in relation to
the dissertation. There was a suggestion made that following two attempts (i.e. a submission,
then a re-submission) the student should submit a dissertation on a different topic (i.e. attempts 3
and 4). There was also concern that weaker students may eventually accumulate enough credits
to allow automatic progression to the dissertation, when it was unlikely that they would be able to
undertake such a major piece of work. The External Examiners were concerned that this
automatic progression was not always in the best interests of either students or staff.

     SEE APR summary report/Gai Murphy/February 2008                                    Page 4of 11
                                                                  PGT programmes in both schools

Several programme leaders and External Examiners raised the issue of problems with the
operation of Gradebook at the final exam boards.
                                          Undergraduate and Postgraduate programmes in CSE

„The regulation which requires 20 as minimum module mark will lead to some students having an
entire year lost to redeem one module.‟
                                                                  BSc (Hons) Aquatic Sciences

„Scheduling of semester 2 examinations and deadlines for Boards of Examiners meetings to allow
sufficient time for marking and moderation.‟
                                                             BSc (Hons) Environmental Health

„Disciplinary procedures with regard to plagiarism should be reviewed. Current procedures are
extremely slow and the decisions appear to demonstrate a complete lack of support for academic
staff trying to encourage the concept of academic honesty in students. If the Disciplinary
Committee does not like the consequences of its decisions at M level then the University should
adjust the penalty, not the decision‟.
                 MSc Databases and Web-based systems/ MSc Data Telecommunication Networks

„The statistics template for this APR for postgraduate courses should be substantially reviewed. It
should be more detailed, differentiate between full-time and part-time students, as these
represent quite different markets, and there should be a separate table for dissertation
submissions as these are not awarded within the same year as registration‟*.
*Note: The APR process and forms are currently being reviewed and these issues have been
passed on to the Chair of the Working Group.

„The “Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes” need to be reviewed to find a better way of
managing top-up degrees of 1.5 year duration (for FD top-ups and for pass-profile HNDs). The
current regulations have damaged the top-up programmes in a way that is impossible to justify to
the students and applicants‟.
                                                         Computer Science Top Up programmes

„There is a need to revisit University procedures affecting Exam Board decisions in terms of
allowing students who fail more than say half of the modules to retake them in the summer (in
cases where there is not a good reason for the poor performance during the year)‟.
                                                      Undergraduate Civil Engineering programmes

„The unacceptable delay in receiving resit exam papers from overseas which is causing
unnecessary disruption to the process of Exam Boards and has an impact on the re-registration
process with the University‟.
                                                   Undergraduate Civil Engineering programmes

„For overseas students requiring extensions for their visas, the requirement by the Home Office is
to have accurate records of attendance (in %) which in most cases is not possible to obtain and
the University may have to devise a way of obtaining this information centrally or inform the Home
Office that this is not a requirement for the University‟.
                                                       Undergraduate Civil Engineering programmes

„Current procedures for the registration of students, the issuing of Identification cards and
application for interruption of studies do not explicitly take into account the special circumstances
of distance learning students. Many of these procedures assume that students will attend
Induction Events held at the University and that students are resident in the United Kingdom, this
is not always the case with Distance Learners. In order to be able to offer distance learning

  SEE APR summary report/Gai Murphy/February 2008                                       Page 5of 11
courses successfully it would be useful to have procedures in place to take account of the unique
situation/requirements of these students. The adoption of more online procedures may well be
one solution‟.
                                                                         UNIGIS programme, ELS

„This course recruits on the basis of a very „hands-on‟ approach to applicant liaison by the course
tutor. This must not be disturbed by centralised MSc admissions – it is central to our success in
maximising enquiry conversions into course registrations‟.
                                                                              MSc Audio Acoustics

„Students should not be permitted to join a programme after the end of week 2, unless the
programme leader gives explicit approval‟.
                                                          Postgraduate programmes in CSE

„Course modules as CPD and credit accumulation: A small number of potential students wish to
take isolated modules as a „CPD‟ mechanism, some while working in important industrial partners
of the Acoustics Research Centre. No mechanism is currently available for the accumulation of
M-level credits from isolated modules. This is a missed commercial opportunity, as some in
employment want to „dip their toes in‟ before committing to the full course of study – our current
policy is an active disincentive to taking the plunge‟.
                                                                               MSc Audio Acoustics

4.      Social Space
A number of programme leaders have raised the issue of the lack of social space in both Newton
and Peel buildings. The lack of catering facilities in these two buildings also means that both staff
and students must go elsewhere. The Faculty is concerned about the impact of these two issues
on both student and staff experiences and would urge the University to prioritise the provision of
social space (and if possible catering facilities) within Peel and Newton Buildings.

5.      Other issues
„MSc students who accept a university accommodation offer are obliged to leave at the end of
August or to renew their contracts until December. Since our MSc courses run officially until the
end of September, arrangements should be made to allow a continual University accommodation
contract until this time. This matter was first raised in 04-05, and although some discussion has
taken place, apparently no firm conclusion has been reached‟.
                                                                                MSc Audio Acoustics

Billing arrangements for MSc programmes have proved problematic. Currently, Salford charges
students a „per-module‟ fee of (total course fee) / 8 – with the implied result that the 60-credit
project is „free‟. This arrangement works in the sense that when students „upgrade‟ from the
PGDip to the MSc, no additional fee arrangements needs to be made – but it does not work for
those who withdraw before the project or who never intend to progress that far. These students
have made the point that they have paid for staff time and resources that they have not
consumed. This has caused considerable dissatisfaction amongst a small number of students.
                                                                            MSc programmes in CSE

A process for feeding back responses to programme leaders should be devised, with regard to
the points raised in this section.
*Note: The School and Faculty summaries and the Institutional responses are available on the
Faculty Website. The Faculty will continue to ensure that responses are fed back to programme

Good Practice
At University level, the statistical data generated by AQSU and PESU continue to provide
important information and are central to the strategic and operational planning processes at both

  SEE APR summary report/Gai Murphy/February 2008                                       Page 6of 11
School and Faculty level. The recent publication of Exception Reports has been very useful. The
ADT/AHT networks continue to provide an important mechanism for disseminating good practice
and ensuring a consistent approach across the Schools and Faculties. The introduction of the
Student Liaison Reps (SLRs) has been somewhat problematic within the Faculty. Nevertheless,
the Faculty is fully supportive of this initiative and is working to improve recruitment. The Faculty
has a supportive ISD team who provide effective advice and guidance to staff and students.
Mathscope continues to provide support to a large number of students within the Faculty.

Both schools have identified many areas of good practice. The improved recruitment and
retention rates, particularly within ELS, have been achieved by the hard work of staff and the
Faculty wishes to acknowledge these efforts.

Both schools have identified areas of good practice:

From ELS:
Many programmes reported positive student feedback relating to the caring attitude of academic
staff and the personal tutorial system.

Modules on many programmes were perceived as varied, interesting and relevant. A variety of
teaching and learning approaches, including fieldwork, was also perceived as a strength.

Some programmes also benefited from good links with employers and accreditation by
professional bodies e.g. CIEH and IOSH.

The introduction of specific degree programmes with foundation years has proved to be very
good for recruitment. Specific overseas targeting of potential students and bursary schemes are
also viewed as a successful approach.

From CSE:
Excellent link between research and teaching, particularly for MSc programmes, such as MSc in
Data Telecommunication Networks, MSc Data Bases and Web Based Systems, MSc Vacuum
Engineering, MSc in Acoustics.

Development of Enterprise knowledge and skills in most UG programmes

Strong links with Professional Bodies, with accreditation for further learning towards C.Eng for
several programmes, such as MSc in Transport and Engineering.

Adoption of Scrutiny panels that ensure parity and consistency of assessments across levels.

Staged final year project assessment process that enables more rapid feedback and improves
consistency of assessment across assessors.

World-class equipment in Acoustics and CVE

The richness of the information contained within individual APRs is, by the nature of the process,
diminished at each stage of the APR process and it is important that this detail is not lost. To aid
this, the Faculty is continuing to maintain an archive of all APRs and summary reports within
Faculty Office. The Schools and Faculty continue to promote the importance of the APR process
as a management tool to improve and enhance the student and staff experience. The responses
to Institutional issues which were presented and considered at the May 2007 meeting of the
Teaching and Learning Committee were copied to the AH(T)s. Whilst some of these responses
were helpful, at times the „silo mentality‟ meant that issues which did not have straightforward

  SEE APR summary report/Gai Murphy/February 2008                                       Page 7of 11
ownership were not always dealt with and that problems which had been raised in previous years
by Programme teams remained unresolved. This lack of resolution to what appears to be fairly
straightforward issues has led to frustration amongst programme teams and staff within the
Schools and Faculty. Whilst the APR process is useful in raising significant issues, a more
reactive/proactive mechanism, such as a bulletin board for reporting problems with teaching
rooms/AV equipment etc. which need rapid resolution if they are not to impact on student/staff
experience would be useful. This was suggested last year, but the Faculty is unaware of any
progress in this issue. A report to the May T and L from, for example, Estates could then
feedback on issues raised and progress and/or timeframes for resolution.

Employability remains an important feature of the student experience at Salford. The processes
of APR production and final destination statistics are undertaken at different times and although it
would not be possible to present the employability statistics for the cohort in question, it may be
useful to present the previous year‟s statistics, particularly if this could be generated centrally and
provided for inclusion. Peter Ireland has responded in the past to this point, but there remains an
issue in getting the necessary information filtered down to programme teams.

There is an urgent need for a data management system to assist with the flow of information up
and down from programme to University level. A tracking system to follow issues raised and
resolution would ensure the APR is viewed as a dynamic tool in contributing to enhancement.

  SEE APR summary report/Gai Murphy/February 2008                                         Page 8of 11
Qualification  Title of programme
HND             Audio and Video Systems
HND             Professional Sound and Video Technology
FDSc            Computer Science
FDSc            Internet Computing
BSc (Ord)       Computing
BSc (Hons)      PSVT (top up)
BSc (Hons)      Acoustics
BSc (Hons)      Audio Technology
BSc (Hons)      Audio & Video Technology and Associated Programmes
BSc (Hons)      Computer Science
BSc (Hons)      Computer Science and Info systems
BSc (Hons)      Computing
BSc (Hons)      Computing (top up)
BSc (Hons)      Computer Science (top up)
BSc (Hons)      Internet Computing
BSc (Hons)      Internet Computing (top up)
BSc (Hons)      Intelligent Systems
BSc (Hons)      Mobile Computing
BSc (Hons)      Multi-media and Internet Technology
BSc (Hons)      Software Engineering
BEng (Hons)     Aeronautical Engineering
BEng (Hons)     Aircraft Engineering with Pilot Studies
BEng (Hons)     Civil and Architectural Engineering
BEng (Hons)     Civil Engineering
BEng (Hons)     Civil Engineering with Foundation Year
BEng (Hons)     Mechanical Engineering (Aerospace)
BSc (Hons)      Aerospace Business Systems
BSc (Hons)      Aeronautical Engineering
BSc (Hons)      Aeronautical Engineering (L0)
BSc (Hons)      Aviation Technology with Pilot Studies
BSc (Hons)      Civil Engineering
BSc (Hons)      Mechanical Engineering (Aero) (L0)
BSc (Hons)      Mechanical Engineering (Aero)
BSc (Hons)      Physics
BSc (Hons)      Pure & Applied Physics
BSc (Hons)      Physics with Aviation Studies
BSc (Hons)      Physics with Acoustics
BSc (Hons)      Physics with a Foreign Language
BSc (Hons)      Physics with a Foundation Year
BSc (Hons)      Physics with Lasers and Photonics
BSc (Hons)      Physics with Pilot Studies
BSc (Hons)      Physics with Space Technology
MSc/PGDip       Audio Acoustics
MSc/PgDip       Computer Science
MSc/PgDip       Databases and Web-based systems
MSc/PGDip       Data Telecommunications and Networks
MSc/PGDip       Databases and Web-based systems

 SEE APR summary report/Gai Murphy/February 2008                     Page 9of 11
MSc/PgDip          Virtual Reality and Games Technology
MSc/PgDip          Aerospace Engineering
MSc/PgDip          Gas Engineering and Management
MSc/PgDip          Infrastructure Management
MSc/PgDip          Manufacturing Systems and Management
MSc/PgDip          Structural Engineering
MSc/PgDip          Sustainable Development, Energy and Management
MSc/PgDip          Sustainable Infrastructure
MSc/PgDip          Transport Engineering and Planning
MSc/PgDip          Water, Energy and Waste
MSc/PgDip          Materials Physics
MSc/PgDip          Vacuum Engineering
MSc/PGDip          Robotics and Automation
MEnt               Master of Enterprise (Technology)
MEng               Aeronautical Engineering
MEng               Civil Engineering
MEng               Mechanical Engineering (Aerospace)
MPhys              Physics
MPhys              Pure and Applied Physics
MPhys              Physics with Acoustics
MPhys              Physics with Lasers and Photonics
MPhys              Physics with Study in North America
MPhys              Physics with Space Technology

SEE APR summary report/Gai Murphy/February 2008                     Page 10of 11

Qualification Title of programme
HNC                 Environmental Health
HNC                 Housing Studies
HND                 Environmental Health
FdSc                Applied Microbiology
FdSc                Wastes Management
FdSc                Regeneration
BSc(Hons)           Aquatic Sciences
BSc(Hons)           Environmental Health
BSc(Hons)           Environmental Management
BSc(Hons)           Environmental Studies with Fd Year
BSc(Hons)           Wildlife & Practical Conservation/Wildlife Conservation with Zoo Biology
BSc(Hons)           Environmental Geography
BSc(Hons)/BSc Ord   Community Governance
BSc(Hons)/DipHE     Housing Studies
BSc (ord)           Biological Science
BSc(ord)            Biochemical Science
BSc(Hons)           Biochemical Sciences
BSc(Hons)           Biological Sciences
BSc(Hons)           Biological Sci with Std in USA
BSc(Hons)           Biochemical Sci with Std in USA                             Composite
BSc(Hons)           Biological Sci with previous studies in France              report
BSc(Hons)           Biological Sci with Foundation Yr
BSc(Hons)           Environmental Bioscience
BSc(Hons)           Human Biology & Infect Diseases
BSc (Hons)          Physiology with Biochemistry
BSc (Hons)          Biomolecular Science
BSc(Hons)           Biomolecular and Bioarchaeological Science
BSc(Hons)           Biological and Bioarchaeological Science
BSc(Hons)           Biomolecular and Pharmaceutical Science
BSc(Hons)           Human Biology & Health Sciences
MSc/PGDip           Analytical Bioscience & Drug Design
MSc/PGDip           Environmental and Public Health
MSc/PGDip           GIS (with variants)
MSc/PGDip           Applied GIS and Remote Sensing
MSc/ PgDip          Environmental Protection
MSc/ PgDip          Housing Practice
MSc/ PgDip          Molecular Parasitology & Vector Biology
MSc/ PgDip          Occupational Safety & Health
MSc/PgDip           Planning Sustainable Environments
MSc/PGDip           Safety, Health and Environment

SEE APR summary report/Gai Murphy/February 2008                                 Page 11of 11

To top