APPENDIX 1 HERIOT-WATT UNIVERSITY REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC REVIEW TEAM ACADEMIC REVIEW OF: Petroleum Engineering DATE: 14 th and 15 th May 2018 LOCATION: Enterprise Building, HWU, Edinburgh Campus 1. INTRODUCTION An Academic Review of Petroleum Engineering took place on 14 th and 15 th May 2018 by a team comprising: Review Team: Prof Moira Storey, Edinburgh Business School (Chair of Review Team meetings) Dr Jim Cameron, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences Dr Mohamed Hassan-Sayed (Portsmouth University) Dr Cathy Hollis (Manchester University) Christina Nikolova PGR Student, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences Adeseun Aromolaran, PGT Student, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences Review Advisors: Mrs Helen Crosby-Knox, Academic Review Manager (Chair of Private Review Team meetings) Ms Emma Cessford, Academic Review Coordinator Views from independent distance learning students were sought through a survey launched specifically for the Academic Review. Sixty-seven IDL students were surveyed; 100% responded. 2. REVIEW TEAM CONCLUSION The Review Team concluded that processes were, in place and, being effectively managed to ensure: • that academic standards were being maintained • that programmes, and the student learning experience, were of an appropriate quality and there was an agenda for enhancement 3. PROGRAMME RE-APPROVAL The Review Team will recommend to the University Committee for Quality and Standards, that programmes should be re-approved for ongoing delivery. 4. GOOD PRACTICE AND POSITIVE FEEDBACK 4.1. The Field Development Project is a very positive feature of the programmes and works as an integrative tool across all modes. The requirement for students to sign up to a contract is an example of good practice for managing group projects.
Transcript
APPENDIX 1
HERIOT-WATT UNIVERSITY REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC REVIEW TEAM ACADEMIC REVIEW OF: Petroleum Engineering DATE: 14th and 15th May 2018 LOCATION: Enterprise Building, HWU, Edinburgh Campus 1. INTRODUCTION
An Academic Review of Petroleum Engineering took place on 14th and 15th May 2018 by a team comprising:
Review Team: Prof Moira Storey, Edinburgh Business School (Chair of Review Team meetings) Dr Jim Cameron, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences Dr Mohamed Hassan-Sayed (Portsmouth University) Dr Cathy Hollis (Manchester University) Christina Nikolova PGR Student, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences Adeseun Aromolaran, PGT Student, School of Engineering and Physical Sciences Review Advisors: Mrs Helen Crosby-Knox, Academic Review Manager (Chair of Private Review Team meetings) Ms Emma Cessford, Academic Review Coordinator
Views from independent distance learning students were sought through a survey launched specifically for the Academic Review. Sixty-seven IDL students were surveyed; 100% responded.
2. REVIEW TEAM CONCLUSION
The Review Team concluded that processes were, in place and, being effectively managed to ensure:
• that academic standards were being maintained • that programmes, and the student learning experience, were of an appropriate quality
and there was an agenda for enhancement
3. PROGRAMME RE-APPROVAL
The Review Team will recommend to the University Committee for Quality and Standards, that programmes should be re-approved for ongoing delivery.
4. GOOD PRACTICE AND POSITIVE FEEDBACK
4.1. The Field Development Project is a very positive feature of the programmes and works as an
integrative tool across all modes. The requirement for students to sign up to a contract is an example of good practice for managing group projects.
APPENDIX 1
4.2. Positive feedback was provided by students on their experience of the projects.
4.3. The students learning experience with the distance learning programme is being enhanced by the inclusion of webinars and these should continue to be developed and rolled out across all campuses.
4.4. The use of discussion forums is a positive element that should be commended, in terms of
providing a continuous link with the students.
4.5. The use of VISION and consistent provision of common learning materials by programme across all modes is positive practice.
4.6. The management of the PGR student experience was viewed as excellent and the students
commented on the value of their induction experience.
4.7. The student representation system is effective (for on-campus and ALP students).
4.8. The ALP arrangements were highly effective and well managed in terms of communication and execution.
4.9. The Review Team recognises the reputation of the Institute and this is reflected within its
extensive links to industry.
4.10. All the students met by the Review Team demonstrated high standards of competency, communication and engagement with high motivation.
4.11. Incorporation of research links via the individual project that facilitates student choice is an
example of good practice.
4.12. The Society of Petroleum Engineering student chapters were active and provided an extra platform for the students to engage with employability and industrial links.
5. FORMAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
5.1. The Review Team recommends that the Discipline Team reviews the allocation of field work to each of the programmes, in the context of the programme learning outcomes and accreditation requirements, ensuring there is appropriate balance for the programmes concerned.
5.2. The Discipline Team should undertake a review of formative assessment and feedback available to students, in the context of a 100% examination system, to ensure sufficient and consistent support to students across all modes and locations.
5.3. There needs to be a review of the strategy for the format and presentation of learning materials
to support consistent provision across all modes and more extended and efficient use of e-learning resources which in turn will facilitate a manageable, formal process for review and update.
5.4. There needs to be a continued review of the IDL student experience particularly in light of
feedback provided by students for this review. This should address academic and administrative support, operational and procedural issues, feedback on learning and measures, such as the webinars, which provide a supported distance learning experience.
6. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
6.1. Look at a process to bring about the strategic changes associated with managing
contextualisation and bridging the gap across the three campuses.
6.2. The Discipline Team should review advice provided to PGT students during induction and prior to semester 2 on effective mechanisms to manage workload on an intensive one year masters’ programme.
APPENDIX 1
6.3. Other campuses should have the opportunity to undertake field visits (for example, core viewing facilities).
6.4. The School should consider the PGR second year progress review arrangements, particularly
the process for discipline specific reviewer assignment.
6.5. In the vision of a global University, there is a need to ensure that resource allocation to support the operational of global teaching teams and staff mobility accords with the University Strategy and the needs of the Institute.
7. UNIVERSITY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
7.1. The timing of the course feedback survey should allow full participation to ensure it fits with the
teaching schedule of all PGT programmes.
8. REVIEW TEAM'S COMMENTARY
8.1. STUDENT LEARNING EXPERIENCE
8.1.1. Teaching and Learning Delivery and Support Learning Materials and Resources The MSc PE programme is currently delivered via multiple modes (on campus, via ALPs and distance learning) using a unified presentation pack and comprehensive course notes that are all available online via VISION. Overall, feedback on study resources from students was good, with some comment on the need to update some areas; all felt that they had sufficient access online and in the library to academic texts/journals and all felt that they had suitable access to IT facilities and software. Although there has been some problem with software loading at ALPs in the past, this issue is now resolved. The MSc APG and MSc REM are currently only delivered on campus in Edinburgh, but they will both be rolled out across other campuses and via the IDL programme in the next few years. A new programme, MSc Mature Field Development, will start in Edinburgh in September 2018. The learning materials for these programmes differs from the MSc PE and there are also variations between them. The Discipline Team recognised the need to update the MSc PE materials and the resource intensive nature of doing so given their format and coverage. It was considered that the current position presented an opportunity to conduct a strategic review of all learning materials with a view to establishing consistent, suites of resources which would be effective in supporting students’ learning across all modes. The mechanism for achieving this was discussed at the Enhancement Workshop. Through discussions with on-campus students on the MSc REM programme it became apparent that the intensity of the course material and delivery methods had created an overly-intensive study experience in some cases; the more mature students with work experience were better able to manage this intensive workload. The pressure was particularly in the second semester. Students receive the same comprehensive learning materials designed to support distance learners alongside class contact and may feel overloaded. There is a need to ensure that students are fully prepared at the induction stage and prior to the second semester to support them in understanding and managing the workload. The Review Team recommends the incorporation of consolidated revision webinars offered through VISION to all delivery modes as courses taught at the start of the semester can be revised and reviewed with Teaching Teams Laboratories A concern of the Review Team was that the current mechanism of delivery does not allow for hands-on practical laboratory experience during the taught component of the MSc PE and REM. Although the PE programme is largely a conversion course, designed to equip students with a UG degree in Engineering and Physical Sciences for a career in an oil and gas company, the Team felt that knowledge of the practical aspects of data analysis and measurement are fundamental to Petroleum Engineering practice. Given the
APPENDIX 1
apparent financial, logistical and HSE constraints to laboratory classes, the Teaching Team could consider more innovative e-learning demonstrations, for example using short videos. Independent Distance Learning While the on-campus and ALP students received a high level of academic support, there was a concern by the Review Team that IDL students were not able to receive the same quality of provision in aspects of their studies. A particular issue related to the Field Development Project (8.1.2 below). Additionally, the Review Team was concerned about some of the comments from IDL students about the level of support and the provision of feedback from staff being below expectations. While on-campus students had excellent access to staff for discussion, communication with IDL students appeared more of an issue, based on some of the survey responses which fed back that students do not feel that they have sufficient contact with academic tutors during their programme. The Teaching Team has already begun to address this issue through the provision of fortnightly webinars, which have been well received. The webinars are topical, led by an academic member of staff on the Edinburgh Campus, and combine short demonstrations/presentations and Q&A sessions. Roll out of the webinars to on-campus students has been requested and is recommended, and it is also suggested that delivery of the webinars could be increasingly shared between the campuses to ease the workload on staff in Edinburgh. Postgraduate Research PGR research students reported few pportunities to teach primarily due to the fact that there are no undergraduate programmes. However, they were happy with other training opportunities made available by the Institute and University. Some of these include soft skills (e.g communication skill) and more technical skills (scientific writing, publishing papers, specific software etc). Students felt like they have sufficient support from their supervisors and institute to participate and present in conferences, seminars and public engagement events, as well as publishing papers. A clear, seamless process that allows students to take time out from their research to undertake an internship was reported.
8.1.2. Field Work and Site Visits Field Development Project As mentioned earlier in the report, there were concerns by the Review Team that IDL students were not able to receive the same quality of provision in aspects of their studies A particular issue related to the Field Development Project which is a much praised group activity, for on-campus students but is run as an individual project for IDL students. The Review Team noted that IPE was planning to create ‘virtual groupings’ from AY 2018-19, in order to build in the team work element, however the Review Team believed this will need to be managed carefully to allow for equivalence of opportunity for the IDL students. For on-campus students the process for field project allocation is very clear, and they were aware of the process of signing ‘group contracts’ and accessing computational packages needed for the projects. Field Trips and Site Visits Currently the MSc Petroleum Engineering (PE) in Edinburgh has 3 field days, in order to introduce students to geological concepts. A field trip is undertaken at the start of Semester 1 at the ALP in Lisbon, and no field work is undertaken from the Dubai Campus. The MSc Reservoir Evaluation and Management (REM) conducts a multi-disciplinary, residential 10 day field trip to Spain towards the end of Semester 2. This field course aims to consolidate the concepts that are taught during Semesters 1-2 and acts as both a revision tool and preparation for the group project. In contrast, the MSc Applied Petroleum Geoscience (APG) only conducts a 5 day residential field course to the Wessex Basin. Although there are sufficient field days with the MSc APG to satisfy the accrediting body (Geological Society of London), it is anomalous that the number of field days is lower within the APG compared to REM. The amount of field work within the APG programme is also low in comparison to other MSc Petroleum Geoscience programmes in the UK, which typically offer ~7-10 days residential field work overseas as part of the taught
APPENDIX 1
component of their programme. Student feedback provided a clear indication that students across the programmes welcomed and valued field work. In particular, APG students feel that the opportunity to develop practical geological field skills is a limitation of the programme. The Review Team concurs with this opinion and recommends that the Teaching Team undertakes a full review of field work provision and aligns the length, content and location of field courses, appropriately with the objectives of the programmes. Access to rock samples and/or core material is provided on campus to students in Edinburgh and Lisbon. This is an essential part of the training programme for all Petroleum students, allowing them to become familiar with different reservoir rock types and to understand how reservoir data is collected and analysed. A visit to core viewing facilities is not part of the MSc PE programme in Dubai, and it is therefore recommended that Course Leaders on the Dubai Campus use their industrial network to arrange a 1 or 2 day visit to a core shed (e.g. via ADNOC or Weatherford laboratories in Abu Dhabi). A similar recommendation is made to other campuses or ALPs not currently offering the opportunity to view core or rock specimens.
8.1.3. Assessment, Supervision and Progress Review Feedback on Assessment Through discussions with the students it became apparent that there was a variety of assessment feedback mechanisms being used, primarily verbal in Dubai and written in Edinburgh. Whilst verbal feedback is to be encouraged, there should be consistency across all campuses, with written feedback being the basic requirement and the option for verbal feedback included over and above this. The Review Team heard positive comments from the taught students in relation to expectations and experience of the assessment process. Formative Assessment The Review Team commends the Teaching Team on the use of webinars to consolidate knowledge primarily to support the distance learning student experience; a recommendation is that these webinars should be available to all modes of delivery (IDL, ALP, on-campus). The Review Team also recommend the incorporation of a formative feedback process within the delivery of the programme and it was noted that staff are in the process of developing different online tools that will facilitate revision and formative feedback through on line MCQs and other platforms. PGR Supervision and Progress Review Process In terms of supervision, the PGR research students were generally happy with their supervisor involvement and support. It was apparent that they were clearly aware of the progress review process but expressed concern that a non-subject specialist undertook the second-year review process. The students also provided positive feedback on the induction process, lectures and the day-to-day contact with research teams.
8.1.4. Student Representation and Feedback Opportunities
PGT students were positive about student representation methods; worthy of note is the Society of Petroleum Engineers which has a functional chapter across all campuses. Students also reported an open-door policy, which was operated by most lecturers; this was highly valued. Staff pointed out the effectiveness of the VISION forum where students could post questions and receive feedback. PGR students are well looked after, and their interests are taken into full account right from induction. Examples were given of instances where a lecturer makes his calendar available for students to make appointments and another where a member of staff was assigned to the student during their induction period. Also, they pointed out that an event organized by the PGR representative was one such thing that should be encouraged to promote interaction with other students as well as exposing them to opportunities within the industry.
Students on-campus reported that the timing of the CFS was not optimal for their participation, in that it opened just as they were very busy preparing for exams and in completing assignments, leaving no time for completion of the CFS. When they had
APPENDIX 1
time, after their exams, they found that the survey had closed. The Review Team recommends that the opening and closing times of the survey is reviewed, to allow maximum opportunity for student engagement with this aspect of the feedback process.
8.2. ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND QUALITY
8.2.1. Assessment Setting, Marking and Moderation Taught courses are assessed by 100% examination, with only reservoir simulation having an element of coursework (20%). The Teaching Team highlighted that for consistency in delivery and due to different modes of delivery, summative assessment is 100% examination for most courses. The Review Team discussed this with the Programme Leaders, and Teaching Team, who gave a clear and detailed description of the way in which summative assessments were set, moderated, and marked. IDL and ALP scripts are marked at the Edinburgh Campus, whilst Dubai and Malaysia are marked locally and sent to Edinburgh for moderation; marks are agreed at an Examination Board following which feedback is given to students. There is little participation in the examination setting process by staff based at the Dubai and Malaysia Campuses. The Review Team recommends that good practice is where staff at all campus locations contribute to a pool of questions from which the final paper may be constructed by the Course Leader.
8.2.2. Quality of Learning Materials
The format of learning materials varies among the programmes. The MSc PE is a long established programme with comprehensive self-study materials designed for distance learning delivery. The other two programmes have more varied sets of supporting materials. The format of the MSc PE materials can create challenges with regard to maintaining their currency and both ALP and distance learning students commented on the need for updates. The provision of past papers and solutions is good practice but was found to be inconsistent in implementation with past papers not being always being aligned with the current exam format.
Advice from the subject externals was that the materials were UK focussed and that this might make the content less relevant in certain locations. Feedback from the Dubai students confirmed that there could be greater contextualisation to increase regional geographic relevance. In practice this was achieved by the teaching team and the FDP topics. The Discipline Team had recognised the need “to upgrade the content and layout of all materials used on the MSc programmes” as stated in the Reflective Analysis and this was also discussed as part of the Enhancement Workshop. The MSc PE materials are based on a historic print-driven model. It is considered that the team has an opportunity to develop a new approach to learning materials which draws on the capabilities now available through VISION. There was support for a new approach which would be more resource efficient and produce materials which were more easily updated. A key consideration for the team and the School is a need to define the process to support this aim.
An important principle in developing the revised and updated learning materials is the need to ensure an appropriate learning experience across all modes. There is also an opportunity to involve staff from all campus locations in the development of materials. This would enrich and contextualise the content.
8.3. QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
8.3.1. Global Development and Management of Programmes
The hard work and difficulties in setting up the programme at three distinct sites as well as ALPs is now paying dividends with respect to growing student numbers at each of the locations and enhancing the global reputation of the Institute as a leader in teaching and research. However, the Review Team felt there were lost opportunities to use the multinational and multicultural aspects of these cohorts to better advantage. This was especially evident as the academic ability and practical ability differed greatly across the
APPENDIX 1
three campuses so opportunities to share best practice in both directions were being missed. Dubai and ALP students expressed the need for more involvement from material developers in Edinburgh to provide assurance for the exam and the consistency of delivery.
Students reported satisfaction with learning materials but noted a lack of contextualisation with materials being UK centric. The ALP and the Malaysia Campus are addressing this matter by facilitating both projects to cover this; the Dubai Campus needs further support in this matter.
8.3.2. Industrial Links and Employability
All three programmes have been ‘technically accredited’ by the Energy Institute, and a similar decision is pending from IM3; formal accreditation cannot be attained without visits to all campuses that deliver the programme. Both MSc APG and REM are accredited by The Geological Society of London. The Institute of Petroleum Engineering is widely recognised externally for its industrial partnerships for both teaching and research. The teaching programmes have an overarching Industrial Advisory Panel, which operates across the programmes. Attempts are being made to roll this out globally so that there is international membership of the board. The longevity of the MSc PE ensures that there is a strong alumni network that can be accessed for project support and derivation of datasets. Both PGT and PGR students recognise the value of the industrial partnerships that are in place and see it as beneficial to their employability.
8.3.3. Enhancement Workshop
The School facilitated an enhancement workshop, the primary aim of which was to provide a forum for staff discussion (across different modes) on proposals for enhancing the student learning experience. Members of the Review Team have individually provided commentary on their experience of the workshop, as provided below.
Reviewer 1 The Enhancement Workshop was well facilitated; it generated a number of interesting ideas on the enhancement of the PGT programmes offered. There was an openness and willingness of staff to discuss what developments were needed to further enhance the offerings. The session encouraged full participation from the Review Team in the discussions rather than simply observers, which was refreshing.
Reviewer 2 The enhancement workshop focused upon how delivery of the teaching programmes and the student experience could be enhanced by a more unified global partnership between HWU campuses. In particular, discussion focused upon: • The opportunity to review and modernise programme and module content through
combined curriculum review and planning across campuses, setting in place a supportive framework whereby local content and contextualization could be streamlined without impacting student performance in examinations.
• The opportunity to use staff from all campuses to prepare online material, including digital material, removing the pressure on course material development on staff at the Edinburgh campus.
• Mutual support in the setting and marking of examinations. • It was recognised that to facilitate this, management systems would need to be put in
place, perhaps with a formalised system and timeline for curriculum review and update. It was also deemed important that staff could meet for dedicated workshops in a single location periodically to cement relationships and discuss content, intending learning outcomes, delivery mode and assessment.
Reviewer 3 The workshop explored opportunities for improvement within the Institute, addressing important issues that have raised concerns and, in some cases, planning for the near future. Topics such as “Go-Global” in terms of mobility as it pertains to student and staff, reviewing of course content, interaction of staff across campuses as well as ALPs. The
APPENDIX 1
workshop was very productive, with the exchange of ideas which were documented for further action.
Reviewer 4 The workshop was very well organised with enthusiastic participation from all staff. Staff were not afraid to comment on some of the weaknesses of the programmes and were receptive to suggestions for improvement. In general, the workshop was good and captured most campuses views and interests.
Reviewer 5 The Review Team viewed the workshop as an effective and innovative method for generating a discussion between the different delivery teams, and staff across all three campuses, allowing for discussions that represented all sides. It was also seen as an effective way of communicating plans as recommended by the Discipline Team. However, the operation of the workshop did also highlight the inherent practical problems in working across three campuses, with access to Skype interactions limited at best; a requirement for a better video-based communication system is paramount if the innovation in shared teaching is to be developed; alternatively an annual retreat in Dubai for all Course Leaders from all the campuses to facilitate collaboration and discussion on developing taught syllabus and exam questions. Individual members of the Review Team provided detailed feedback on the discussions and outcomes of the workshop, which will be used by the Discipline Team for developing and taking forward actions to progress this development. Reviewer 6 The workshop was well prepared and staff were open and engaged. It was clear that the staff involved perceived good opportunities to make more of the multi-campus offering. There was an awareness of the benefits that would follow by creating more joined up and integrated programme and course teams. The programmes have their origins in the core team in Edinburgh, but staff seemed positive about evolving to a more equal multi-campus approach. Whilst this was clearly an aspiration, there is a need to develop processes to bring about greater integration.
APPENDIX 3
ACADEMIC REVIEW: Petroleum Engineering, 14 and 15 May 2018 Action Plan
5. FORMAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION Action Target Date for Completion
Responsible Person
5.1. The Review Team recommends that the Discipline Team reviews the allocation of field work to each of the programmes, in the context of the programme learning outcomes and accreditation requirements, ensuring there is appropriate balance for the programmes concerned.
The discipline team will review the allocated field works across all programs. This will allow the team to confirm that the field trips not only support the programme LO and accreditation requirements, but that they continue to enhance the student experience in a cost effective way. The initial review results of Applied petroleum geoscience suggested that the program requires more field trips for accreditation. A new field trip has been designed and proposed to enhance students experience and comply with the accreditation recommendation.
December 2018 Uisdean Nicholson and program leaders
5.2. The Discipline Team should undertake a review of formative assessment and feedback available to students, in the context of a 100% examination system, to ensure sufficient and consistent support to students across all modes and locations.
The discipline team will review the formative and assessment and feedback to the students to ensure students will get a good level of support. We will also review the self-assessments tests available to the students to make sure it is up to date and effectively introduced and used by students and enhancements are in place.
Work through 2018-2019
Course leaders with PGT online team and
5.3. There needs to be a review of the strategy for the format and presentation of learning materials to support consistent provision across all modes and more extended and efficient use of e-learning resources which in turn will facilitate a manageable, formal process for review and update.
Course leaders will review the overall learning and teaching materials for more consistency and cross check them with the program leaders. There will be a review of the learning materials as part of new PGT Online initiative to ensure that there is an integrated and consistent approach to the provision of learning materials across modes. The IPE team has the opportunity to work with the newly appointed learning technologists to develop innovative approached to e-learning in the coming months.
Work through 2018-2019
Course leaders, Guy Walker and course leaders
5.4. There needs to be a continued review of the IDL student experience particularly in light of feedback provided by students for this review. This should address academic and administrative support, operational and procedural issues, feedback on learning and measures, such as the webinars, which provide a supported distance learning experience.
There will be on-going review as part of new PGT Online initiative to address the issue of student experience with the help of new PGT online team. The IPE and PGT on-line teams will work collaboratively to review and feedback on those aspects of delivery and support that continue to be highlighted as requiring intervention PGT online team is working with the admin support to review and improve the efficiency of the procedures.
Work through 2018-2019
PGT online team, David Baskil.Guy Walker and course leaders
6. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Action Target Date for Completion
Responsible Person
6.1. Look at a process to bring about the strategic changes associated with managing contextualisation and bridging the gap across the three campuses.
This will be addressed by distributing the responsibilities between three campuses for various course and programmes.
December 2018
Urve Patel, James Somerville and Matt Smith
6.2. The Discipline Team should review advice provided to PGT students during induction and prior to semester 2 on effective mechanisms to manage workload on an intensive one year masters’ programme.
We will review current practices at the different levels and provide more support:
1- We will provide advice in the induction sessions which is also available in the organization on vision. We will encourage students to use these resources and make sure they are aware of these support.
2- We will have a strategic workshop for students to cover: • Study skills specifically oriented toward the
one year MSc Programmes • Time management • Preparing for the exams
November 2018 SDOS and program leaders
6.3. Other campuses should have the opportunity to undertake field visits (for example, core viewing facilities).
Work is being progressed on providing these opportunities. The teams have developed outline plans including the following arrangements: 1- Malaysia
a- Core store viewing (Petronas geo-sampling centre) for 1 day end October/early November to view 3 or 4 cores from a variety of depositional environments
b- 4 day field trip to Miri, Sarawak at the beginning of January (first weekend)
2- Dubai a- The Schlumberger training center and go on the
training drill rigs, wireline tool b- Core labs to see how they acquire the data c- We will review the possibility of arranging at least
one short geological field trip in Dubai.
December 2018 SDOS Matt Smith and Urve Patel
6.4. The School should consider the PGR second year progress review arrangements, particularly the process for discipline specific reviewer assignment.
At the moment students submit a report in the second year. We will review the current procedure and try to find a suitable enhancement plan to address this issue and will submit possible suggestions to the School Research Committee for consideration.
December 2018 Jingsheng Ma
6.5. In the vision of a global University, there is a need to ensure that resource allocation to support the operational of global teaching teams and staff mobility accords with the University Strategy and the needs of the Institute.
We are reviewing the operational tasks and workload models to support the teaching teams in all three campuses, more distributed operational system will be implanted to optimise the procedures and support the global teaching. To begin with we plan:
- UG courses will be mainly led by Malaysia. - Both Dubai and Malaysia will become increasingly
involved in preparing exams and marking the papers.
- Both campuses will have more responsibilities in supervising individual projects and marking FDP projects.
- Programme leadership in one of PG programs will be located in Dubai.
December 2018
Urve Patel, James Somerville and Matt Smith
7. UNIVERSITY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
ACTION
7.1. The timing of the course feedback survey should allow full participation to ensure it fits with the teaching schedule of all PGT programmes.
The University Committee for Learning & Teaching (UCLT) is leading on overall review of the student survey process, and the timing of the CFS will be considered as part of this review.
Academic Review Enhancement Workshop Institute of Petroleum Engineering May 15th 2018
Background The MSc petroleum engineering has expanded to meet student demand from an essentially UK base in 1975 to a global base in 2018. The programme has undergone regular reviews and audits in terms of several key issues (as exemplified by the University major review during the RAY process) including the main learning outcomes and student employability. With the development of the MSc into Dubai and Malaysia campuses (in addition to ALP development in Tomsk and GALP, and not forgetting the IDL mode) as well recently established UG program in Malaysia, there is an opportunity to appraise the global resources available to the MSc and to develop methods of working to enhance student learning needs in all campuses.
Aim The aim is to discuss the main elements of the current resources and identify how they can be enhanced to be more effective over the 3 campuses and thus more effective in addressing student expectations.
Objectives The aim will be addressed by: 1. Identifying the opportunities of developing a global approach to the MSc and UG (framework);2. Identify areas of integration between the campuses with more efficient use of resources(operating procedures);3. Identify methods to enhance the learning processes across the campuses (L&T objectives.)
Schedule The schedule will be divided into 5 parts:
1. Introduction to the MSc and a summary of the current resources and deployment of them,ownership and operating practices.
2. Go Global: identify the opportunities to set the multi-campus framework of the UG andpossibly PGT students.
i) Multi campus framework – what does it look like, how would staff takeownership and interact as a coherent discipline? What would be theresponsibilities for effective communication and management of theprogramme?
ii) Programme leadership – what are the responsibilities and how are they sharedacross a network?
iii) Course leadership – what are the responsibilities and how are they sharedacross a network?
iv) Enabling student migration across the network – responsibilities and reportingrequirements – keeping track of student experiences (academic and pastoral).Allowing virtual teams for the field development project – responsibilities,management, assessment, reporting? Meeting local student aspirationsregarding reservoir type and operational practice.
v) Teaching innovation – same timetable everywhere to coordinate and make useof “best” teaching practice everywhere?
3. Resource Integration: identify a common set of resources, tuned to specific campus andstudent aspirations.
APPENDIX 4
i) Throw the MSc out and start again or detailed review of resources? Where toget industrial input to alignment of the MSc and its courses, what should be in –fundamentals or latest oil and gas techniques (shale gas, CBM etc.)?
ii) Staff opportunities – nice to visit other campuses or a resource to be allocatedas needed?
iii) Detailed course development – how to change the model from a singleresponsibility to a shared team effort – staff reward and staff responsibilities?How does that fit with HWU policies (exams preparation, coursework marking,project supervision etc.)?
iv) Responsibility for ALP and IDL courses, marking, project work etc. – how is thatoperated between campuses?
4. Enhance Engagement: identify region specific data, define and capture knowledge and waysof transferring within campuses
i) How to identify local learning outcomes that fit with the specific course learningoutcomes and still keep coherence? Separate sub- domains of a course withineach campus? Overall high level objectives served by local sub-objectives?
ii) How to share data? Is it restricted by local companies? Can it be sharedeffectively by students in each campus? Are there industry champions that allstudents irrespective of location can be exposed to (virtual seminars etc.)? Cantraditional teaching methods work between campuses?
iii) How to foster spirit of enhancement within courses and programme – whoinitiates and who leads? Sub-teams from campuses? How is staff effortrecorded?
iv) How to resolve differences in student feedback on same course but fromdifferent campuses? Management dictate or self- learning course teams?
5. Summary of findings, priority of possible ways forward, agreed action plan.
I. By the end of workshop we will find where the strength and weaknesses of thecurrent state of resource integration are, Go global and Enhance engagement.
