HH66 Programme Specifcation UG TQSD/14.15 1 of 15 Programme Specification Undergraduate Applicable to all non-clinical undergraduate programmes* Please click here for guidance on completing this specification template. *Excluding Integrated Master’s degrees. Part A: Programme Summary Information 1. Title of programme: BEng (Hons) Computer Science and Electronic Engineering 2. Programme Code: HH66 3. Entry Award: Credit: Level: ☐ BA (Hons) 360 120 credits at Level 4 120 credits at Level 5 120 credits at Level 6 ☐ BSc (Hons) ☐ Other (please specify below): 4. Exit Awards: Credit: Level: ☒ Diploma in Higher Education (Dip HE) 240 120 credits at Level 4 120 credits at Level 5 ☒ Certificate in Higher Education (Cert HE) 120 120 credits at Level 4 5. Date of first intake: 1985 6. Frequency of intake: Annually in September 7. Duration and mode of study: Full-time 3 years
15
Embed
Programme Specification Undergraduate · Programme Specification Undergraduate ... Formal exam and assignments Maths 6. ELEC222, ELEC340, COMP390 Laboratory work and project assignments
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
HH66 Programme Specifcation UG
TQSD/14.15
1 of 15
Programme Specification
Undergraduate
Applicable to all non-clinical undergraduate programmes*
Please click here for guidance on completing this specification template. *Excluding Integrated Master’s degrees.
Part A: Programme Summary Information
1. Title of
programme:
BEng (Hons) Computer Science and Electronic Engineering
ELEC320 Neural Networks 7.5 6 2 100:0 Options totalling 45 credits from Lists A, B and M 45 6 1~2
i) No more than 30 optional credits to be studied in semester 1. ii) At least one optional module in List M to be studied. iii) No more than 7.5 optional credits in List B to be studied. iv) Modules totalling at least 30 credits must be completed by the end of Semester 1.
Optional modules list A and B All modules at Level 6
HH66 Programme Specification UG
TQSD/14.15
9 of 15
A B Prerequisite/
Co-Requisite
Crt
Sem Exam:
CW
ELEC370
Embedded Computer Systems
ELEC211 15 1+2 100:0
ELEC372 Integrated Circuits – Concepts and Design
ELEC212 15 1+2 45:55
ELEC373 Digital System Design ELEC211 15 1+2 0:100
ELEC311
RF Engineering & Applied Electromagnetics
ELEC210 7.5 1 100:0
ELEC313
Photonics & Optical Information Systems
15 1 100:0
ELEC317
Electronics for Instrumentation and Communications
ELEC271 15 1 100:0
ELEC319 Image Processing 7.5 1 100:0
ELEC324 Organic Electronics ELEC212 7.5 1 100:0
ELEC331 Drives 7.5 1 100:0
ELEC362
Application Development with C++
15 1 0:100
ELEC377
Digital and Wireless Communications
ELEC202 ELEC270
15 1 100:0
ELEC301
Power Generation, Transmission & Distribution
ELEC209 15 1 100:0
ELEC303
Digital Control and Optimisation
ELEC207 15 2 100:0
ELEC309
Signal Processing and Digital Filtering
ELEC270 15 2 80:20
ELEC312 Antennas 7.5 2 100:0
ELEC320 Neural Networks 7.5 2 100:0
ELEC382
Electromagnetic Compatibility
ELEC107 7.5 2 100:0
MNGT352
Advanced Modern Management
7.5 1 70:30
Lists M Note 1: all modules are weighted at 15 credits and are level 6 Note 2: selection subject to approval by the Programme Director Note 3: students must ensure that they have studied the required pre-requisites/co-requisites
Code of Practice on Assessment The University has a Code of Practice on Assessment which brings together the main institutional policies and rules on assessment. The Code is an authoritative statement of the philosophy and principles underlying all assessment activities and of the University's expectations in relation to how academic subjects design, implement and review assessment strategies for all taught programmes of study. The Code of Practice includes a number of Appendices which provide more detail on the regulations and rules that govern assessment activity; these include:
The University marks scale, marking descriptors and qualification descriptors;
The model for non-clinical first degree programmes;
The system for classifying three-year, non-clinical, undergraduate degrees;
The system for classifying four-year, non-clinical, undergraduate degrees that include a year in industry or a year abroad;
Information about students’ progress, including guidance for students;
The procedure for assessment appeals;
Regulations for the conduct of exams;
The University’s policy on making adjustments to exam arrangements for disabled students.
The code of practice relating to external examining
The Academic Integrity Policy, which covers matters such as plagiarism and collusion and includes guidance for students;
The policy relating to mitigating circumstances which explains what you should do if you have mitigating circumstances that have affected assessment; and
The policy on providing students with feedback on assessment. Please click here to access the Code of Practice on Assessment and its appendices; this link will also give you access to assessment information that is specific to your cohort: A summary of key assessment information is also available in the ‘Your University’ handbook. Marking criteria: Assessment elements: the nature, weighting and timing of each element of assessment are given in the module specifications. Full details of the requirements are given in the assessment brief. The University’s Lateness Penalty scheme applies to all coursework (see The University’s Code of Practice on Assessment, Section 6). Assessment of Projects Each department provides detailed guidelines to students on the planning, implementation and assessment of major projects (those worth 22.5 credits or more). Staff use standard mark sheets for each assessment element (one or more of: report, log book, oral presentation, viva) at each stage of the project (typically Proposal, Interim and Final). The weightings of each element of each stage are tabulated. Descriptive criteria are provided that indicate the features of an excellent submission. Each mark sheet lists assessment features for each element; the examiner selects a descriptive grade (eg. ‘Very Good’) and/or writes a short descriptive evaluation before arriving at a mark for the element. Administrative staff collate the assessment elements to arrive at the module mark. If the overall project mark is a marginal fail, the examiners and moderator will carry out a detailed review before approving the mark (since a failure means that the student’s degree may be unaccredited by
100% The best answer that could be expected from a student at that level of study under the prevailing conditions (i.e., exam or coursework)
90-99% ‘Outstanding’
Total coverage of the task set. Exceptional demonstration of knowledge and understanding appropriately grounded in theory and relevant literature.
Extremely creative and imaginative approach. Comprehensive and accurate analysis. Well-argued conclusions. Perceptive self-assessment.
Extremely clear exposition. Excellently structured and logical answer. Excellent presentation, only the most insignificant errors
80-89% ‘Excellent’
As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses or gaps in knowledge and understanding.
As ‘Outstanding’ but slightly less imaginative and with some minor gaps in analysis and/or conclusions
As ‘Outstanding’ but with some minor weaknesses in structure, logic and/or presentation.
70-79% ‘Very Good’
Full coverage of the task set. Generally very good demonstration of knowledge and understanding but with some modest gaps. Good grounding in theory.
Some creative and imaginative features. Very good and generally accurate analysis. Sound conclusions. Some self-assessment.
Generally clear exposition. Satisfactory structure. Very good presentation, largely free of grammatical and other errors.
60-69% ‘Comprehensive’
As ‘Very Good’ but with more and/or more significant gaps in knowledge and understanding and some significant gaps in grounding
As ‘Very Good’ but analysis and conclusions contain some minor weaknesses.
As ‘Very Good’ but with some weaknesses in exposition and/or structure and a few more grammatical and other errors.
50-59%
‘Competent’
Covers most of the task set. Patchy knowledge and understanding with limited grounding in literature.
Rather limited creative and imaginative features. Patchy analysis containing significant flaws. Rather limited conclusions. No self-assessment.
Competent exposition and structure. Competent presentation but some significant grammatical and other errors.
40-49% ‘Adequate’
As ‘Competent’ but patchy coverage of the task set and more weaknesses and/or omissions in knowledge and understanding. Just meets the threshold level.
As ‘Competent’ but probably without much imagination. Shows barely adequate ability to analyse and draw conclusions. Just meets the threshold level.
As ‘Competent’ but with more weaknesses in exposition, structure, presentation and/or errors. Just meets the threshold level.
35-39% ‘Compensatable
fail’
Some parts of the set task likely to have been omitted. Major
No creative or imaginative features. Analysis
Somewhat confused and limited exposition.
HH66 Programme Specification UG
TQSD/14.15
13 of 15
gaps in knowledge and understanding. Some significant confusion. Very limited grounding. Falls just short of the threshold level.
and conclusions rather limited. Falls just short of the threshold level.
Confused structure. Some weaknesses in presentation and some serious grammatical and other errors. Falls just short of the threshold level.
20-34% ‘Deficient’
As ‘Compensatable Fail’ but with major omissions and/or major gaps in knowledge and understanding. Falls substantially below the threshold level.
As ‘Compensatable Fail’ but analysis and/or conclusions may have been omitted. Falls substantially below the threshold level.
As ‘Compensatable Fail’ but with more serious weaknesses in presentation and/or grammar. Falls substantially below the threshold level.
0-20% ‘Extremely
weak’
Substantial sections of the task not covered. Knowledge and understanding very limited and/or largely incorrect. No grounding in theory.
No creative or imaginative features. Analysis extremely weak or omitted. No conclusions.
Largely confused exposition and structure. Many serious grammatical and other errors.
Further information on the assessment policies and procedures can be found in the department handbook. https://www.liv.ac.uk/intranet/media/intranet/electrical-engineering-and-electronics/studenthandbooks/UG_Handbook.pdf
38. Student representation and feedback:
The departmental Staff-Student (Undergraduate) Liaison Committee has been
established in accordance with the University Code of Practice on Student
Representation (a copy of the code can be accessed at: