report of programme validation panel _response... · report of validation panel page 4/8 4.3...
TRANSCRIPT
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/8
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
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/8
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.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/8
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.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/8
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.
Recommendation(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?
Overall Finding: Yes.
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/8
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
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
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?
Overall Finding: Yes
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.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/8
Recommendation(s): None.
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)?
Overall Finding: Yes
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.
Recommendation(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.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/8
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?
Overall Finding: Yes
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.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/8
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
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
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/9
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.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/9
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?
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.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/9
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?
Overall Finding: Yes.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clearand appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
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?
Overall Finding: Yes.
Condition(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/9
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)?
Overall Finding: Yes
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?
Overall Finding: Yes
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-
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/9
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.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies beenprovided for the proposed programme (as outlined in theQQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
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.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/9
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?
Overall Finding: Yes
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.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/9
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.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included inthe proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
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 to Validation Panel Report Page 9/9
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.
moduleResearch Design, Statistics & Ethics
Page 2 of 5
RESA S8002: ResearchDesign, Stats & Ethics
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
moduleResearch Design, Statistics & Ethics
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
moduleResearch Design, Statistics & Ethics
Page 4 of 5
RESA S8002: ResearchDesign, Stats & Ethics
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.
moduleResearch Design, Statistics & Ethics
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/
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
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%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
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%)
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).
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%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly lab practicals
(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%)
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).
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
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly lab practicals
(30%)
Weekly lab practicals
(30%)
Weekly lab practicals
and class presentations
after week 7/8 (40%)
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).
Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum
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)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (40%)
Weekly lab practicals
and class presentations
after week 7/8 (40%)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (40%)
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).
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%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory practical
sessions / video project
(40%)
-Weekly laboratory practicals
(25%) -
Weekly paper presentations*
(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).
Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum
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%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory practicals
(30%)
Regular journal reports
(20%); attendance &
press coverage (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).
Programme Director: Eleanor Jennings