Report of Programme Validation Panel _Response... · Report of Validation Panel Page 4/8 4.3...

Report of Validation Panel /8

Report of Programme Validation Panel

Panel Visit: 13th May 2013

Named Award: Bachelor of Science (Honours) Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical Science Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Honours Bachelor Degree Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013 (16 – 20)

Panel Members

Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee IT Dr. Colin Conway Dr. Gavin Collins

Academic School of Science, GMIT School of Natural Sciences, NUI Galway

Mr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to

Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)

Programme Development Team

Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Ronan Bree Dr Sinead Loughran Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr Gerard Seargent Dr Mark Holywood Mr Richard Crowley Dr Annamarie Rogers


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical Science The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings

2 Background to Proposed Programme

See programme submission for more detailed information.

3 General Findings of the Validation Panel

The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel.

Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical Science

Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner

X

Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work

Not Accredited

Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.


4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.

4.1 Demand

Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?

Overall Finding: Yes Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): None.

4.2 Award

Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes

Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.


4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment

Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?

Overall Finding: Yes.

Condition(s): None.


4.4 Entry Requirements

Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?

Overall Finding: Yes

Condition(s): The entry requirements for international students should specify an English language

requirement at IELTS 6.0 or equivalent. Recommendation(s): None.

4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression

Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?




4.6 Standards and Outcomes

Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?

Overall Finding: Yes The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm


4.7 Programme Structure

Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?


Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): Were Green Belt / Yellow Belt capability built into this programme, it would represent a

unique selling point as would consideration of lean manufacturing.

Minor awards might be developed arising from this programme, for example, a Certificate in GMP / Lean Manufacturing. Such a programme might be suitable for on-line delivery.

4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies

Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided

for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes, these strategies are well developed and are examples of best

practice. Condition(s): None.

http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm



4.9 Assessment Strategies

Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?


Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.

This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;

Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,

including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional

grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.

Condition(s): None.


4.10 Resource Requirements

Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?

Overall Finding: The Department is using available resources to a maximum level.

https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology

https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology


Condition(s): None.

Recommendation:

More space for cell culture should be provided if possible.

Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may be greater potential for commonality than is currently identified.

4.11 Quality Assurance

Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?


The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.

Condition(s): None.


4.12 Programme Management

Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes

Condition(s): None.


https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual

https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual


5 Module-Level Findings

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?


Condition(s): Repeat arrangements for CA assignments should be documented.

Recommendation(s): The CA assignments require substantial work on the part of the learner. An assessment

matrix should be drawn up.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

Validation Panel Report Approved By:

Signed:

___________________________________________________ Dr. Michael Hall, Chairperson.

Date:

13th May 2013

School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9

Response to the Report of theProgramme Validation Panel

Panel Visit: 13th May 2013

Named Award: Bachelor of Science (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical ScienceExit Award(s): Not applicableAward Type: Honours Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60First Intake: September 2013 (16 – 20)

Panel Members

Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee ITDr. Colin Conway

Dr. Gavin Collins

Academic School of Science, GMIT

School of Natural Sciences, NUI GalwayMr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical IrelandMs. Ann Campbell Secretary to

PanelRegistrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology(DkIT)

Programme Development Team

Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Ronan BreeDr Sinead Loughran Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr Gerard SeargentDr Mark Holywood Mr Richard Crowley Dr Annamarie Rogers


1 Introduction

The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panelof assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute ofTechnology to design the following programmes:

Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical Science

The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaginggenerously and openly with the review process.

The report is divided into the following sections:

Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings

2 Background to Proposed Programme

See programme submission for more detailed information.

3 General Findings of the Validation Panel

The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality oftheir submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day ofthe validation panel.

Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programmedevelopment team, the validation panel recommends the following:

Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical Science

Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmaticreview, whichever occurs sooner

X

Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations XRe-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additionaldevelopmental workNot Accredited

Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takesaccount of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response documentdescribing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendationsmade by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used toindicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must beundertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory ifthe programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to whichthe Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an earlystage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.


4 Programme-Level Findings

This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations:

Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.

4.1 Demand

Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidencebeen provided to support it?


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.2 Award

Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: Yes

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment

Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy andare the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability andinternationalisation embedded in the proposed programme asappropriate?


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.4 Entry Requirements

Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clearand appropriate?


Condition(s):

The entry requirements for international students should specify an English languagerequirement at IELTS 6.0 or equivalent.

School Response:

The English language requirement for foreign students (IELTS 6.0 or equivalent) is alreadypresent for all international applicants and is considered as they are admitted through theinternational office. It shall be included however in the Programme documentation.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression

Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures foraccess, transfer and progression that have been established bythe NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entryrequirements?


Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.

4.6 Standards and Outcomes

Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required awardstandards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e.conform to QQI Award Standards)?


The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can befound at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.7 Programme Structure

Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can thestated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employmentskills and career opportunities be met by this programme?


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

Were Green Belt / Yellow Belt capability built into this programme, it would represent aunique selling point as would consideration of lean manufacturing.

Minor awards might be developed arising from this programme, for example, aCertificate in GMP / Lean Manufacturing. Such a programme might be suitable for on-line delivery.

School Response:

The above recommendations were considered at the Programme Board meeting dated 23rd

October 2013. Discussions are on-going to include Green Belt / Yellow Belt (leanmanufacturing etc.) into the programme. The ‘Recombinant Drug Manufacturing &Engineering’ module may be a suitable module for this inclusion. Any major changes to themodule will be proposed for the next Programmatic Review. The development of a part-


time / on-line minor award, based on GMP / lean manufacturing is being considered.However, this year’s part-time course in GMP (‘springboard’) was not viable due to lowstudent numbers. The School is currently developing its Blended Learning ImplementationStrategy.

4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies

Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been providedfor the proposed programme?

Overall Finding: Yes, these strategies are well developed and are examples of bestpractice.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies beenprovided for the proposed programme (as outlined in theQQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?


Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards andshould form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programmevalidation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33).Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009)Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) :

Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability andauthenticity;

Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,

including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional

grading system.

The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.10Resource Requirements

Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessaryto deliver the proposed programme?

Overall Finding: The Department is using available resources to a maximum level.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

More space for cell culture should be provided if possible.

Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may begreater potential for commonality than is currently identified.

School Response:

The recommendations indicated above were discussed at the Programme Board meetingdated 23rd October 2013. More space for cell culture would be desirable if space andfunding allows. The need for a ‘contingency fund’ to update equipment and facilities on arolling basis is a priority for the Head of School. Commonality with other programmes hasbeen addressed through Programmatic Review (any additional ‘overlap’ between coursesshould be identified before the next Programmatic Review).

4.11Quality Assurance

Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’squality assurance procedures have been applied and thatsatisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring andperiodic review of programmes?


The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic QualityAssurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic reviewof Programmes.

Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.

4.12Programme Management

Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

5 Module-Level Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included inthe proposed programme?


Condition(s):

Repeat arrangements for CA assignments should be documented.

School Response:

Repeat arrangements for CA assignments have been documented in each module in AkariDocument (programme design and development tool). An example of one module is shownin Appendix 1.

Recommendation(s):

The CA assignments require substantial work on the part of the learner. An assessmentmatrix should be drawn up.


School Response:

CA assignments are documented in an Assessment Schedule which are agreed at the startof each Semester by the Programme Boards which include student members. An exampleof such an Assessment Schedule for the current academic year is shown in Appendix 2.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

Signed on behalf of the School

_________________________________________Dr. Edel Healy,Head of School of Health and Science.

Date: 25st November 2013

I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panelreport have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council atDundalk Institute of Technology for ratification.

moduleResearch Design, Statistics & Ethics

Page 1 of 5

RESA S8002: ResearchDesign, Stats & Ethics

Module Details

Short Title: Research Design, Stats & Ethics PENDING APPROVAL

Full Title: Research Design, Statistics & Ethics

Module Code: RESA S8002

ECTS Credits: 5

NFQ Level: 8

Valid From: Semester 1 - 2013/14 ( September 2013 )

Module Coordinator: Breda Brennan

Module Author: Arjan van Rossum

Description: The aims of this module are: - To increase student awareness of research design and the main ethicalissues associated with modern research. - To stimulate discussion on ethical issues. - To enable students toperform and evaluate statistical tests used for experimental design and data analysis.

Learning Outcomes:

On successful completion of this module the learner should be able to

Describe, discuss and evaluate a range of methods employed in the design of experiments and the analysis of data1.Describe and critically analyse the main ethical issues associated with current and future developments in biotechnology,2.medical research and/or environmental researchArticulate and argue their personal, informed viewpoints on research-related ethical issues.3.Discuss and evaluate the importance and relevance of intellectual property (IP) within a scientific context4.Perform and evaluate statistical tests commonly used for data analysis5.

ryderb

TextBox

Appendix 1


Page 2 of 5


Module Content & Assessment

Indicative Content

Values, beliefs and virtues used in applying ethical and regulatory frameworks; the application of national and internationallegislation, agreements conventions and guidelines; decision making and whistle blowing.

Design of laboratory experiments and clinical trials. Evaluation of reliability and validity; data storage, statistical analysis andconfidentiality of results.

International and national ethical and regulatory frameworks and their relevance.

Intellectual Property (IP): Differences between artistic (copyright) and industrial property (inc. trademarks, patents, etc.).Overview of the importance and application of industrial property in the area of Biopharmaceutical Science.

Experimental designs for process improvement

Data Protection

Project planning tools (e.g. MS project, Gantt charts).

Simple comparative experiments.

The ANOVA model

Randomisation, blocking, replication and comparison

One factor at a time versus multi-factor experiments

Factorial designs

Assessment Breakdown %

Course Work 100.00%

Course Work

Type Description Outcomeaddressed

% oftotal

AssessmentDate

GroupProject

Students will be divided into groups (3-5 students) and write a researchproposal and/or case study to be explained and presented orally to a 'mock'Research Ethics Committee. The study will involve current researchmethodologies and ethical issues (and statistical analysis methods whereappropriate). Marks will be allocated for the written report, the presentation,keeping a (group) journal and a questions and answers session.

1,2,3,4,5 75.00 Sem 1 End

Other An individual statistical data analysis assignment will be used to assessstudents on statistical experimental design and/or the analysis of scientificresults. Use of the statistics package Minitab will be an integral part of thecourse.

1,5 25.00 Sem 1 End

No End of Module Formal Examination


Page 3 of 5

Reassessment Requirement

No repeat examinationReassessment of this module will be offered solely on the basis of coursework and a repeat examination will not be offered.

DKIT reserves the right to alter the nature and timings of assessment


Page 4 of 5


Module Workload & Resources

Workload Full Time

Type Description Hours Frequency Average WeeklyLearner Workload

Lecture No Description 1.00 Every Week 1.00

Tutorial No Description 2.00 Every Week 2.00

Directed Reading No Description 1.00 Every Week 1.00

Practical No Description 2.00 Every Week 2.00

Independent Study No Description 3.00 Every Week 3.00

Total Weekly Learner Workload 9.00

Total Weekly Contact Hours 5.00

This course has no Part Time workload.


Page 5 of 5

Resources

Recommended Book Resources

Dawson, C. 2009, Introduction to research methods: A practical guide for anyone undertaking a research project, 4th ed. Ed.,How To Books Ltd.

Mullins, E. 2003, Statistics for the quality control chemistry laboratory, Royal Society of Chemistry

Denscombe, M. 2010, The good research guide, 4th ed. Ed., Open University Press

Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. 2002, Principles of medical bioethics, 5th Ed., Oxford University Press,

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. 2010, How to research, 4th ed. Ed., Open University Press

Goddard, W. and Melville, S. 2007, Research methodology: An introduction, 2nd ed. Ed., McGraw-Hill

Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.G. and Hunter, J.S. 2005, Statistics for experimenters, John Wiley & Sons

Helsel, Dennis. R. and Robert M. Hirsch 2002, Statistical Methods in Water Resources, Techniques of Water ResourcesInvestigations, Book 4 Ed., A3, USGS

Other Resources

Website: Data protection commissionerhttp://www.dataprotection.ie

Website: Health and Safety Authorityhttp://www.hsa.ie

Website: National Advisory Committee on Bioethicshttp://www.dohc.ie/issues/nacb/

Website: National Research Ethics Servicehttp://www.nres.nhs.uk/

Website: Nuffield Council on Bioethicshttp://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/

Website: Wellcome Trusthttp://www.wellcome.ac.uk/

Website: StatSoft electronic statistics textbookhttp://www.statsoft.com/textbook/

Website: Minitab: Software for Quality Improvement.http://www.minitab.com/en-IE/default.aspx

Website: Bioethics web,http://www.intute.ac.uk/healthandlifesciences/bioethicsweb/

http://www.dataprotection.ie

http://www.hsa.ie

http://www.dohc.ie/issues/nacb/

http://www.nres.nhs.uk/

http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/

http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/

http://www.minitab.com/en-IE/default.aspx

http://www.intute.ac.uk/healthandlifesciences/bioethicsweb/

B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience and B.Sc. in Pharmaceutical Science

Year 1 - Semester 1

Module Biology (Year Long)

Health & Safety &

Academic skills (Year

Long)

Physics through PBL

1 Fundamental Chemistry Mathematics 1

ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA Sem 1: 100% CA 100% CA 50% : 50% 40% : 60%

Lecturer(s)

B. Moloney,

S. Mc Carthy,

V. Mc Carthy

A. Rogers,

N. Dreeling,

A. McHugh T. Lennon N. Cunning S. Bellew

Week 1 (16 Sep)

Week 2 (23 Sep)

Week 3 (30 Sep)

Week 4 (7 Oct)

Week 5 (14 Oct) lab assessment (5%)

Week 6 (21 Oct) Class Assignment (15%)

Reading Wk (28 Oct)

Week 7 (4 Nov) 4th Nov theory exam (5%) 6th Nov.CA Exam (10%)

Week 8 (11 Nov) Report (10 %, ND)*

Week 9 (18 Nov) H&S Inspection (20%)

Week 10 (25 Nov)

Week 11 (2 Dec) Class Assignment (15%)

Week 12 (9 Dec) lab assessment (5%) H&S Exam (10%)

Week 13 (16 Dec) 16th Dec theory exam (5%)

Ongoing (Practicals,

Projects etc.) practical write-ups (5%) Attendance (10%, ND/AMcH)

PBL Reports Weekly

(100%) Practical reports (40%) Tutorials (10%)

Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.

* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)

+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).

Stage Convenors: Pharmaceutical Science: Tony Lennon

Applied Bioscience: Siobhan Mc Carthy

ryderb

TextBox

Appendix 2

B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience

Year 2 - Semester 1

Module

Molecular Bioscience

(Year Long)

Analytical Instrumentation &

Techniques 1 Fundamental Microbiology

Introduction to

Organic Chemistry

ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA 50% : 50% 50% : 50% 50% : 50%

Lecturer(s) R. Bree S. Loughran,N. Cunning O. Sherlock C. Hanlon

Week 1 (16 Sep)

Week 2 (23 Sep)

Week 3 (30 Sep)

Oct 3rd 3pm: News

Article (2.5%)

Week 4 (7 Oct)

Week 5 (14 Oct)

Week 6 (21 Oct)

Reading Wk (28 Oct)

Week 7 (4 Nov) Class Exam (10%)

Week 8 (11 Nov)

15th Nov CA Exam

(10%) *

Week 9 (18 Nov)

21st Nov 3pm: CA

MCQ/short answer

exam (10%)

Week 10 (25 Nov) CA Exam 27th Nov (10%)*

Week 11 (2 Dec)

Week 12 (9 Dec) Class Exam (15%)

Week 13 (16 Dec) w/c 16th Dec Group Project (10%)


Projects etc.)

Weekly lab practicals

(15%)…..Christmas

Group Project due Feb

2014 (7.5%) Weekly Lab practicals (30%) Weekly Lab Result Sheets (25%)

Weekly laboratory

practicals (40%)




Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum

B.Sc. in Pharmaceutical Science

Year 2 - Semester 1

Module

Molecular Bioscience

(Year Long)

Analytical Instrumentation &

Techniques 1

Pharmaceutical

Microbiology

Marketing (Replacement

module 2013-2014 only)

ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA 50% : 50% 50% : 50% 50% : 50%

Lecturer(s) R. Bree S. Loughran, N. Cunning O. Sherlock H. White

Week 1 (16 Sep)

Week 2 (23 Sep)

Week 3 (30 Sep)

Oct 3rd 3pm: News

Article (2.5%)

Week 4 (7 Oct)

Week 5 (14 Oct)

Week 6 (21 Oct)

Reading Wk (28 Oct)

Week 7 (4 Nov) Class Exam (10%)

Week 8 (11 Nov)

Week 9 (18 Nov)

21st Nov 3pm: CA

MCQ/short answer

exam (10%)

Week 10 (25 Nov) CA Exam 27th Nov (10%)*

Week 11 (2 Dec)

Week 12 (9 Dec) Open Book Lab Exam (15%)

Week 13 (16 Dec) w/c 16th Dec Group Project (10%)


Projects etc.)


(15%)…..Christmas

Group Project due Feb

2014 (7.5%) Weekly Lab practicals (30%) Lab Report Sheets (25%)

From 3rd October, weekly

assignment and

presentation (50%)




Programme Director: Chiara Hanlon

B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience

Year 3 - Semester 1

Module

Biotechnology (Year

Long)

GMP & Regulatory

Affairs Applied Microbiology Project Elective: Immunology

Elective: Aquatic

Science

ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA 30% : 70% 50% : 50% 100% CA 40% : 60% 50% : 50%

Lecturer(s)

W. Higgins,

S. Mc Carthy A. van Rossum B. Kelly R. Bree B. Kelly S. McCarthy

Week 1 (16 Sep)

Week 2 (23 Sep)

Week 3 (30 Sep)

Week 4 (7 Oct)

Week 5 (14 Oct)

Week 6 (21 Oct)

23rd Oct, 12noon: Lit.

Review planning

document (10%);

Screencast (10%); Lit.

review resource file

(5%)

Reading Wk (28 Oct)

Week 7 (4 Nov)

Week 8 (11 Nov)15 Nov: written project

(20%)

Week 9 (18 Nov) 18 Nov CA Exam (10%)

Week 10 (25 Nov)29 Nov: Written Report

(18%)

Week 11 (2 Dec)

4th Dec, 12noon:

Literature Review

Submission (50%)

Week 12 (9 Dec)9/10/13 Dec:

Presentations* (12%)

13th Dec : Project

report

Week 13 (16 Dec)Date TBC; Oral

Presentations (25%). 17th Dec: Presentation


Projects etc.)


(30%)


(30%)


and class presentations

after week 7/8 (40%)





B.Sc. in Pharmaceutical Science

Year 3 - Semester 1

Module

Pharmaceutical

Biotechnology

GMP & Regulatory

Affairs Immunology

Preformulation of

Pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceutical

Manufacturing

ACS = CA% : Exam% 50% : 50% 30% : 70% 40% : 60% 50% : 50% 40% : 60%

Lecturer(s) W. Higgins A. van Rossum B. Kelly C. Hanlon R. Crowley

Week 1 (16 Sep)

Week 2 (23 Sep)

Week 3 (30 Sep)

Week 4 (7 Oct)

Week 5 (14 Oct)

Week 6 (21 Oct)

Reading Wk (28 Oct)

Week 7 (4 Nov)8 Nov: In class exam

(20%)

Week 8 (11 Nov) 15 Nov: Project (20%)

Week 9 (18 Nov)18th Nov CA Exam

(10%) *

Week 10 (25 Nov)29 Nov: Written Report

(18%)

Week 11 (2 Dec)2nd Dec CA Exam

(10%)

Week 12 (9 Dec)9/10/13 Dec:

Presentations* (12%)

Week 13 (16 Dec)


Projects etc.)

Weekly laboratory

practicals (40%)


and class presentations

after week 7/8 (40%)

Weekly laboratory

practicals (40%)




Programme Director: Chiara Hanlon

B.Sc. (Hons) in Biopharmaceutical Science

Year 4 - Semester 1

Module

Research Design,

Statistics & Ethics

Biopharmaceutical

Processing (Upstream)

Biomolecular Therapeutics

& Bioinformatics

Biopharma Research

Project (Year-Long)

ACS = CA% : Exam% 100% CA 40% : 60% 50% : 50% 100% CA

Lecturer(s)

A. van Rossum, A. Watters,

K. McDaid R. Bree A. van Rossum

A. van Rossum

(co-ordinator)

Week 1 (16 Sep)

Week 2 (23 Sep)

Week 3 (30 Sep)

Week 4 (7 Oct)

Week 5 (14 Oct) 14 Oct Journal review (0%)

Week 6 (21 Oct)

Reading Wk (28 Oct)

Week 7 (4 Nov)

Week 8 (11 Nov)17 Nov: Stats assignment

(25%)

14 Nov: Lit review

presentation (15%)*

Week 9 (18 Nov)

Week 10 (25 Nov)

Week 11 (2 Dec) 6 Dec: Plan of Work (15%)*

Week 12 (9 Dec)11 Dec: Research Proposal

(22.5%)

10 Dec: Bioinformatics

assignment*

(in-class: 15%)

Week 13 (16 Dec)

17 Dec:

Presentations* (22.5%) &

interviews* (18.75%) &

final journal (11.25%)


Projects etc.)

Weekly laboratory practical

sessions / video project

(40%)

-Weekly laboratory practicals

(25%) -

Weekly paper presentations*

(10%)





B.Sc. (Hons) in Environmental Biology

Year 4 - Semester 1

Module

Research Design,

Statistics & Ethics Soil and Water Management Environmental Field Studies and GIS

Environmental

Review and Critque

Environmental

Research Project (Year-

Long)

ACS = CA% : Exam% 100% : 0% 40% : 60% 100% : 0% 70% : 30% 100% : 0%

Lecturer(s)

A. van Rossum, A.

Watters, K. McDaid S. Murnaghan E. Jennings (Field) S. Murnaghan (GIS) S. McCarthy E. Jennings

Week 1 (16 Sep)

Week 2 (23 Sep)

Week 3 (30 Sep)Field test (6%) Group presentation (15%) Field

notebook (15%)

Week 4 (7 Oct)

Week 5 (14 Oct)14 Oct Journal review

(0%)

Field project individual report Friday 18 1pm

(24%)

Week 6 (21 Oct)24/25 Oct Class presentations

(5%)22 Oct GIS mapping assignment 1 (10%)

Reading Wk (28 Oct)

Week 7 (4 Nov)4 Nov Desk Study

(20%)

Week 8 (11 Nov)17 Nov: Stats assignment

(25%)Literature review (25%)

Week 9 (18 Nov)21st Nov Presentation

(10%)

Week 10 (25 Nov) 25 Nov GIS CA exam (16%) Plan of work (15%)

Week 11 (2 Dec) 3 Dec Lit review (5%)2nd Dec Presentation

(10%)

Week 12 (9 Dec)11 Dec Research

Proposal (22.5%)

Presentation 13th Dec

(10%)

Week 13 (16 Dec)

18 Dec:

Presentations* (22.5%) &

interviews* (18.75%) &

final journal (11.25%)

19 Dec GIS mapping assignment 2 (14%)


Projects etc.)

Weekly laboratory practicals

(30%)

Regular journal reports

(20%); attendance &

press coverage (10%)




Programme Director: Eleanor Jennings

Report of Programme Validation Panel _Response... · Report of Validation Panel Page 4/8 4.3...

Documents

Transcript of Report of Programme Validation Panel _Response... · Report of Validation Panel Page 4/8 4.3...