report of programme validation panel - dkithons)_in... · report of programme validation panel...

Report of Validation Panel /8

Report of ProgrammeValidation Panel

Panel Visit: 9th May 2013

Named Award: Bachelor of Arts (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Humanities with DramaExit Awards: Not applicableAward Type: Bachelor of Arts (Honours)Award Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

Ms. Marian Coy Chair Higher Education Consultant (FormerPresident of GMIT)

Dr. Marian FitzgibbonDr. Liam DoonaDr. Edward ColemanDr. Lionel Pilkington

Academic Athlone Institute of Technology (AITIADTUniversity College Dublin (UCD)NUI Galway

Dr. Brendan Ryder Secretary toPanel

Assistant Registrar, Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (DkIT)

Programme Development Team

Dr. David Getty Dr. Kevin HowardDr. Martin Maguire Mr. Karl MernaghDr. Fiona Fearon Dr. Mark FearonDr. Conor Brady Ms. Annaleigh MargeyMs. Eileen Murphy Mr. David Cranny


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 Business and Humanities at Dundalk Instituteof Technology to design the following programme(s):

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Humanities with Drama

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

This programme would be an additional strand to the existing BA (Hons) Humanities with aseparate entry through the CAO. When the BA (Hons) Humanities was approved in 2008,the elective strand in Drama and Performance was approved, but has never run to date.This programme proposes to allow students to choose through the CAO to specialize inDrama as their major subject in the BA (Hons) Humanities, and to take minor subjects inHistory, English, Archaeology or Politics. This programme would replace the existingprovision in drama and theatre studies provided by the BA Performing Arts (Acting), in theevent that that programme should cease.

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 their engagementand commitment which was evident on the day of the validation panel.

The panel would like to congratulate the department for the establishment of theHumanities and Social Science Research Centre and encourages further Institute support tocontinue its development. Strong links between teaching and learning and research areclearly evident. They would also like to commend the department’s attention andresponsiveness to the changing social, economic and cultural environment within theregion. The panel note the strong ethos of social entrepreneurship within the Institute.


The Panel recommends that the programme not be accredited at this time.

The panel are referring this programme for a full validation panel as this is a newprogramme and there was insufficient time for full consideration (in accordance withguidelines laid down in the programmatic review handbook).


It is acknowledged by the panel that there is potential in this programme. It would besubstantially strengthened by re-considering the programme and addressing the followingissues:

Programme structure and coherence Relationship with School of Informatics and Creative Arts (section of Creative Media). Graduate profiles Programme Management

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 if theprogramme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which theProgramme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stageand 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?

Overall Finding: Not applicable at this time

Condition(s):

Not applicable at this time.

Recommendation(s):



4.2 Award

Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: Not applicable at this time

Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):


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):


Recommendation(s):


4.4 Entry Requirements

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


Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):



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):


Recommendation(s):


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)?

For parent award?For exit award (s), if specified?


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

Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):


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):


Recommendation(s):



4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies

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

Overall Finding:

Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):


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)?


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):



Recommendation(s):


4.10Resource Requirements

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

Overall Finding: Not applicable at this time.

Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):


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):


Recommendation(s):


4.12Programme Management

Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Not applicable at this time.

Condition(s):



Recommendation(s):


5 Module-Level Findings


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


Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):


5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):


Validation Panel Report Approved By:

Signed:

____________________________________________Ms Marion Coy, Chairperson.

Date: 9th May 2013.

School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9

Response to theProgramme Validation Panel

Report

Panel Visit: 9th May 2013

Named Award: Bachelor of Arts (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Humanities with DramaExit Awards: Not applicableAward Type: Bachelor of Arts (Honours)Award Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

Ms. Marian Coy Chair Higher Education Consultant (FormerPresident of GMIT)

Dr. Marian FitzgibbonDr. Liam DoonaDr. Edward ColemanDr. Lionel Pilkington

Academic Athlone Institute of Technology (AITIADTUniversity College Dublin (UCD)NUI Galway

Dr. Brendan Ryder Secretary toPanel

Assistant Registrar, Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (DkIT)

Programme Development Team

Dr. David Getty Dr. Kevin HowardDr. Martin Maguire Mr. Karl MernaghDr. Fiona Fearon Dr. Mark FearonDr. Conor Brady Ms. Annaleigh MargeyMs. Eileen Murphy Mr. David Cranny


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 Business and Humanities at Dundalk Instituteof Technology to design the following programme(s):


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

This programme would be an additional strand to the existing BA (Hons) Humanities with aseparate entry through the CAO. When the BA (Hons) Humanities was approved in 2008,the elective strand in Drama and Performance was approved, but has never run to date.This programme proposes to allow students to choose through the CAO to specialize inDrama as their major subject in the BA (Hons) Humanities, and to take minor subjects inHistory, English, Archaeology or Politics. This programme would replace the existingprovision in drama and theatre studies provided by the BA Performing Arts (Acting), in theevent that that programme should cease.

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 their engagementand commitment which was evident on the day of the validation panel.

The panel would like to congratulate the department for the establishment of theHumanities and Social Science Research Centre and encourages further Institute support tocontinue its development. Strong links between teaching and learning and research areclearly evident. They would also like to commend the department’s attention andresponsiveness to the changing social, economic and cultural environment within theregion. The panel note the strong ethos of social entrepreneurship within the Institute.


The Panel recommends that the programme not be accredited at this time.

The panel are referring this programme for a full validation panel as this is a newprogramme and there was insufficient time for full consideration (in accordance withguidelines laid down in the programmatic review handbook).


It is acknowledged by the panel that there is potential in this programme. It would besubstantially strengthened by re-considering the programme and addressing the followingissues:

Programme structure and coherence Relationship with School of Informatics and Creative Arts (section of Creative Media). Graduate profiles Programme Management

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 if theprogramme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which theProgramme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stageand 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):


Recommendation(s):



4.2 Award

Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: Not applicable at this time

Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):


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):


Recommendation(s):


4.4 Entry Requirements

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


Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):



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):


Recommendation(s):


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)?

For parent award?For exit award (s), if specified?


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

Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):


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):



Recommendation(s):


4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies

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

Overall Finding:

Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):



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):


Recommendation(s):


4.10Resource Requirements

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


Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):


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):


Recommendation(s):


4.12Programme Management

Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Not applicable at this time.


Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):


5 Module-Level Findings

Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):



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


Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):


5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):


Recommendation(s):



Signed on behalf of the School:

_______________________________________________________Dr. Patricia Moriarty,Head of School of Business and Humanities.

Date: 1st September 2013

Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel:

Signed:

____________________________________________Ms Marion Coy, Chairperson.

Date: 8th September 2013.

report of programme validation panel - dkithons)_in... · report of programme validation panel...

Documents