i. The overall approach to the assessment of the taught component to the Integrated Master’s should be clear and coherent. The marking scheme should make it clear what students have to demonstrate in their work in order to be awarded the relevant marks/grades.
ii. The examination and assessment process must rigorously test students’ understanding of the topics shown in Appendix B.
iii. The external examiner should have the appropriate technical background and his/her report must provide a positive picture of the Integrated Master’s Degree under assessment. iv. The progress to any follow-on actions suggested by the external examiner should be made
clear.
5 Individual cyber security projects and dissertations
This section applies to the individual cyber security project and dissertation undertaken by students at level 6 or level 7.
Please ensure that you cover the following points:
a. Please confirm the level and credit value of the individual cyber security project and
dissertation. If the credit value is less than 20 credits, please describe how students are able to gain sufficient understanding and experience of undertaking individual project work in cyber security. If the credit value is more than 50 credits, please clarify the value of having such a large individual project and dissertation in cyber security.
b. Please describe the guidance the HEI provides to Integrated Master’s students before they embark on their projects, for example: research methods, undertaking literature reviews, etc.
c. Please describe the process for allocation of project topics to students, for example: is it up to students to come up with topic ideas?
do members of staff identify possible topics?
does the HEI have links with industry partners who suggest topics?
d. Please describe the process for monitoring the progress of students on their projects. e. Please describe the process for assessing projects and dissertations. Please indicate whether
the HEI provides students with guidance on what is expected in a project and dissertation to achieve first, 2/1, 2/2 etc.17
f. For each of academic years 2014 – 2015 and 2013 – 2014 (if any), please provide a list of Master’s dissertations undertaken by students. This should include the dissertation title, a short (one paragraph) abstract, an identification of the Security Disciplines in Appendix B to which the dissertation applies, and – if appropriate – whether there was any external involvement in the dissertation (e.g., from industry).
17
This information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may be subject to exemptions under other UK information legislation. Refer disclosure requests to GCHQ on 01242 221491 x30306, email
Page 46 of 63
OFFICIAL
Where there were more than 20 students undertaking individual projects and dissertations in an academic year, please provide information for a representative sample of 20 dissertations only.
g. For academic year 2013 – 2014, please provide one anonymised and representative copy18 of a dissertation for each of:
a dissertation that achieved a first (if none in 2014 – 2015, try 2013 – 2014; else state none)
a dissertation that achieved a 2/1 (if none in 2014 – 2015, try 2013 – 2014; else state none)
a dissertation that achieved a 2/2 (if none in 2014 – 2015, try 2013 – 2014; else state none)
a dissertation that achieved a 3rd (if none in 2014 – 2015, try 2013 – 2014; else state none)
Because of their length, the dissertations themselves should be placed in an appendix at the end of the application.
h. For each of the dissertations in point g above, please provide: the overall mark awarded
the components of the overall mark, for example:
o mark awarded to viva (including any demonstration) o mark awarded to dissertation plan
o mark awarded to dissertation key comments from the internal examiners
any additional information that you feel would be helpful for the Assessment Panel to be made aware of as part of its job to determine whether the grade awarded to each dissertation is appropriate
5.1 Criteria to be applied
i. The individual project and dissertation should be undertaken at level 6 or level 7. If the number of credits is less than 20, it should be clear that students are still able to gain sufficient understanding and experience of undertaking individual project work in cyber security. If the number of credits is more than 50, then the value of having such a large individual project in cyber security should be clear.
ii. There needs to be a well-defined process for the allocation of individual project and dissertation topics to students and for monitoring the progress of students.
iii. There needs to be a well-defined and rigorous process for the assessment of projects and dissertations.
18
Please include electronic versions of the dissertations as part of the email submission. It is not possible to download dissertations from external web sites.
This information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may be subject to exemptions under other UK information legislation. Refer disclosure requests to GCHQ on 01242 221491 x30306, email
Page 47 of 63
OFFICIAL
iv. It should be clear that the individual project and dissertation topics are within the scope of Security Disciplines A to H listed in Appendix B.
v. The grade awarded to the representative dissertations should be appropriate.
6 Student numbers and grades achieved
Where the data are available, for academic year 2014 – 2015 please provide the following information:
a. for students with UK nationality
the qualifications required to enter the Integrated Master’s – by way of example,
ABB at A level (or the equivalent number of tariff points)
the number of UK students in all four years of the degree – please indicate the number of full-time and part-time students
for UK students in year 4 (final year), the distribution of their qualifications at A level and, where applicable, at the end of the year before they entered the Integrated Master’s (usually at the end of year 2 or year 3)
for UK students in year 4, the distribution of their final Integrated Master’s degree classification
b. for students with EU nationality (excluding UK nationals)
the qualifications required to enter the Integrated Master’s
the number of EU students in all four years of the degree – please indicate the number of full-time and part-time students
for EU students in year 4, the distribution of their qualifications at A level (or equivalent) and, where applicable, at the end of the year before they entered the Integrated Master’s (usually at the end of year 2 or year 3)
for EU students in year 4, the distribution of their final Integrated Master’s degree classification
c. for students without EU nationality
the qualifications required to enter the Integrated Master’s
the number of non-EU students – please indicate the number of full-time and part- time students
for non-EU students in year 4, the distribution of their qualifications at A level (or equivalent) and, where appropriate, at the end of the year before they entered the Integrated Master’s (usually at the end of year 2 or year 3)
This information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may be subject to exemptions under other UK information legislation. Refer disclosure requests to GCHQ on 01242 221491 x30306, email
Page 48 of 63
OFFICIAL
for non-EU students in year 4, the distribution of their final Integrated Master’s degree classification
d. the results of the National Student Survey and any actions that have been taken by the HEI as a result
6.1 Criteria to be applied
i. It would be expected that the majority of UK students should have the equivalent of a tariff points score of 300 points or above at A Level in 3 STEM subjects.
ii. It would be expected that the majority of EU (excluding UK) and non-EU students should have the equivalent of a tariff points score of 300 points or above at A Level in 3 STEM subjects.
iii. It would be expected that the majority of students formally entering the Integrated Master’s degree would have achieved a minimum of the equivalent of a 2/1 at level 5 or level 6. iv. It would be expected that the distribution of first, 2/1, 2/2 etc. achieved at Integrated
Master’s level should to some extent reflect the entry qualifications of the student intake at A Level and the grades achieved at level 5 or level 6. In this regard, the external examiner’s report will be referred to in case she/he has raised any concerns.
v. The HEI should encourage its students to participate in the National Student Survey. The results of the survey should paint a largely positive picture of students’ learning experience on the Integrated Master’s and the HEI should be able to demonstrate progress on any key issues raised.
7 Assessment of Applications
7.1 Assessment Panel process
Each application will be read and scored independently by a minimum of three members of the Assessment Panel using the criteria above; as far as possible, there will be one representative from each of GCHQ, academia, industry/government/professional bodies. At the Assessment Panel meeting, the relevant Panel members will present their scores and the rationale for their scores. The Assessment Panel will agree a consensus score for each application.
Each application must include document 1) (Institution’s Letter of Support) – without it, the application will be rejected as non-compliant.
In terms of providing evidence to meet the criteria, each of sections 2) to 6) of each application will be scored using the following scale:
This information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may be subject to exemptions under other UK information legislation. Refer disclosure requests to GCHQ on 01242 221491 x30306, email
Page 49 of 63
OFFICIAL
0: no evidence 1: very little evidence 2: some evidence 3: good evidence 4: excellent evidence
Each of the sections 2) to 6) must achieve a threshold score of 3.
If the application includes a letter of support and the consensus score is at threshold or above in each of sections 2) to 6) then the application will be deemed to be successful overall.
7.2 Applications with a borderline fail on only one criterion
If an application is a ‘borderline’ fail on only one criterion – namely, a score of 2.9 is achieved on one criterion with all other criteria scoring 3.0 or higher – then at the discretion of the Assessment Panel the HEI will be contacted by GCHQ after the Panel meeting and given 20 working days to re-submit a revised version of the relevant section. The Panel will then consider the new information provided by the HEI with the aim of responding to the HEI with the Panel’s decision within a further 30 working days. It must be stressed that the Panel’s decision is final and there will be no further opportunity to consider the application until the next Call for applications is issued.
This information is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may be subject to exemptions under other UK information legislation. Refer disclosure requests to GCHQ on 01242 221491 x30306, email
Page 50 of 63