Subject Benchmark Statement Computing 2007

Background Revised version of the original statement which was published in 2000 Revision process overseen by QAA as part of the periodic review of all subject benchmark statements published in 2000 Involved full consultation with wider academic community and stakeholder groups

Review Group Lawrence Brooks, Brunel University Graham Gough, University of Manchester Alastair Irons, University of Northumbria Gerry McAllister, University of Ulster Andrew McGettrick, University of Strathclyde Keith Mander, University of Kent

A Comparison 2000: some 2 400 computing programmes of study on offer 2006, April: 3 344 programmes in computing, plus 394 in software, plus 1 434 on information, plus 860 on multimedia First meeting of the review team was May 2006. Not asll these courses necessarily fasll under Computing but the trend is clear.

Findings Original proved robust Changes are largely a result of some re-organisation of material an updating of content, e.g. body of knowledge Levels now called threshold, typical and there is provision for excellence Concept of computational thinking included In the original we had been told just threshold, but we inserted two medial level, and also included mention of excellence. Now there was a requirement for what we have done which is gratifying.

Consultation process Review team asked the community through the HEA (Computing) in Ulster for help and advice on updating the body of knowledge QAA itself carried out the main review All comments received a response which is lodged on the QAA web site Information Systems community needs addressed So thanks to those who responded

Web site address http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/statements/computing07.pdf

On Masters Benchmarking Background is that we have produced and agreed a document which is used by the community We have now been asked: do we wish to have this go through the formal processes with QAA? In terms of benchmarking individual disciplines at M level, we will remain responsive to requests. We would be happy to re-examine the former proposal to benchmark Computing at M level against the original thoughts of the Steering Group if the subject community still feels the case for an M level statement is clear. I wasn't, as you know, with the Agency at the time but would be happy to re-surrect the files and see whether we might identify a way forward should the subject community wish to pursue this.