report of programme validation panel · report of validation panel page 4/9 condition(s): none....

Report of Validation Panel /9

Report of ProgrammeValidation Panel

Panel Visit: 8th May 2013

Named Award: Bachelor of Business (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Business (Honours)Exit Awards: Not applicableAward Type: Honours Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

Dr. Oliver Haag Chair Director of Corporate Law, HochschuleKonstanz

Ms. Anne Burke Academic Lecturer of Accountancy, LetterkennyInstitute of Technology (LyIT)

Mr. Tony McQuillan

Ms. Karen Coulter

Industry Site Director, Xerox

FPM, Chartered AccountantsMr. Gerry Gallagher Secretary to

PanelCentre for Excellence in Learning andTeaching, Dundalk Institute of Technology(DkIT)

Programme Development Team

Larry Murphy Alan KellyAnne Kierans Pat O’NeillSeamus Rispin AnnMarie McHughMaeve McArdle Irene McKayJohn Sisk Brian BoydMary Kennedy Miriam ViquiroFiona Oster


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 Business (Honours)

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 documentation for more information.

3 General Findings of the Validation Panel

The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validationpanel. It is very evident that this programme is a collegial effort on behalf of theprogramme team.

Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programmedevelopment team, the validation panel recommends the following:


The Panel recommends validation for five years subject to the conditions andrecommendations contained in this report. However, given that the overall finding of theProgrammatic Review is that the process itself is incomplete at this time, the validationof the programmes cannot be finally confirmed until the SER has been fully reviewed. Inthat respect the Panel approves the programmes on an interim basis pending completionof the overall SER by 31st December 2013. When the SER is complete the full five-yearvalidation will be confirmed. Validation is not to extend beyond the next academic year inthe absence of a completed SER. The Panel does not require any further programmedocumentation to be re-submitted to it for completion of this process beyond the Schoolresponse to individual validation reports as required by the Institute’s regulations onprogramme validation.

The programme teams are encouraged to complete the requested changes, detailed inthis report, in time to implement the programmes for the 2013/4 academic year.


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.

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):

Greater degree of tracking of graduates and graduate feedback would be extremelyuseful in addition to current mechanisms.

4.2 Award

Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: Yes.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

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. All embedded in the programme.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.4 Entry Requirements

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


Condition(s):

None.

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?


Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

Issue of students on year-long modules and the assigning of credits for those who maywish to exit at the end of first semester needs to be addressed locally.

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):

None.

Recommendation(s):

That the individual modules be reviewed to ensure the learning outcomes areappropriately worded in accordance with the QQI. For example, the use of the word“understand.”

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):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies

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



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)?


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):

None.

Recommendation(s):

It is essential that assessment schedules, assessment criteria and timely feedbackmechanisms be put in place for all modules and available to all students. Assessmentcriteria for qualitative-type assessments should be made available in advance. Much ofthis can be done through Moodle.


4.10Resource Requirements

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


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

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 Quality AssuranceManual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual andinclude approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.12Programme Management

Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes. There is a significant level of collegiality evident among the

programme development team.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


5 Module-Level Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


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


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

Where group assessment is used strategies such as peer assessment, self-assessmentand individual marking should be considered in line with the policy on group learning.Individual Module Descriptors should be reviewed to ensure that all details ofassessment strategies are visible.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/10

Response to theProgramme Validation Panel

Report

Panel Visit: 8th May 2013

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

Panel Members

Dr. Oliver Haag Chair Director of Corporate Law, HochschuleKonstanz

Ms. Anne Burke Academic Lecturer of Accountancy, LetterkennyInstitute of Technology (LyIT)

Mr. Tony McQuillan

Ms. Karen Coulter

Industry Site Director, Xerox

FPM, Chartered AccountantsMr. Gerry Gallagher Secretary to

PanelCentre for Excellence in Learning andTeaching, Dundalk Institute of Technology(DkIT)

Programme Development Team

Anne Kierans,Larry MurphyBobby Arthur

Anne KieransPat O’NeillBrian Woods

Alan KellyPat FitzgeraldTony LennonMairead McKiernan

Maeve McArdleIrene McKayJohn SiskBrian Boyd

Seamus RispinAnnMarie McHugh

Ciera O’ConnorDavid Coggans


Mary KennedyMiriam ViquiroFiona Oster

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

See programme documentation for more information.

3 General Findings of the Validation Panel

The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validationpanel. It is very evident that this programme is a collegial effort on behalf of theprogramme team.

Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programmedevelopment team, the validation panel recommends the following:


The Panel recommends validation for five years subject to the conditions andrecommendations contained in this report. However, given that the overall finding of theProgrammatic Review is that the process itself is incomplete at this time, the validationof the programmes cannot be finally confirmed until the SER has been fully reviewed. Inthat respect the Panel approves the programmes on an interim basis pending completionof the overall SER by 31st December 2013. When the SER is complete the full five-yearvalidation will be confirmed. Validation is not to extend beyond the next academic year inthe absence of a completed SER. The Panel does not require any further programmedocumentation to be re-submitted to it for completion of this process beyond the Schoolresponse to individual validation reports as required by the Institute’s regulations onprogramme validation.

The programme teams are encouraged to complete the requested changes, detailed in


this report, in time to implement the programmes for the 2013/4 academic year.

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.

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):

Greater degree of tracking of graduates and graduate feedback would be extremelyuseful in addition to current mechanisms.

RESPONSE

The programme development team endorse this recommendation and fully appreciate thecritical importance of continually developing graduate tracking/feedback modes. In thisregard the team are pursing the following:

All learners will now be encouraged to develop a “linked in” presence which facilitateseasier on-going communication with participants post graduation

Yearly programme destination survey augmented to include sector/programme specific


feedback Comprehensive institute - wide destination survey will now be distributed to learners

at Graduation The programme development team will work very closely with the new DkIT Alumni

Assistant (post advertised October 2013) to ensure continual contact with alumni.

4.2 Award

Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: Yes.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

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. All embedded in the programme.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.4 Entry Requirements

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


Condition(s):

None.

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?


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

Issue of students on year-long modules and the assigning of credits for those who maywish to exit at the end of first semester needs to be addressed locally.

RESPONSE

The programme development team have considered this issue and the possibility ofintroducing cognate elective 5 ECTS modules for those learners attending DkIT for onesemester only. It was decided however that such one-semester students would be Erasmusvisitors and, accordingly, are catered for on other programmes. This situation will bemonitored and reviewed should the need arise.

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):

None.

Recommendation(s):

That the individual modules be reviewed to ensure the learning outcomes areappropriately worded in accordance with the QQI. For example, the use of the word“understand.”


RESPONSE

The programme team have reviewed module learning outcomes to ensure they areappropriately worded in accordance with the QQI.

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):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies

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


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


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):

None.

Recommendation(s):

It is essential that assessment schedules, assessment criteria and timely feedbackmechanisms be put in place for all modules and available to all students. Assessmentcriteria for qualitative-type assessments should be made available in advance. Much ofthis can be done through Moodle.

RESPONSE

The programme team will continue to develop its use of Moodle, and with particular regardto assessment schedules and criteria. A faculty – wide seminar will be delivered by theCentre for Education and Learning over the coming semester focusing very specifically onthis.

Assessment schedules are provided to students at the commencement of each semesterand from this academic year will be placed on Moodle. Furthermore, the programme teamwill ensure that assessment criteria and detailed marking schemes are placed on Moodleand high and low performance indicators are provided to learners so that cleardiscrimination is effected before commencement of assessment work. Finally, a schoolpolicy on assessment feedback is currently being formulated. This will ensure that writtenfeedback is given within a standardised period of time and learners are afforded theopportunity to ask questions at a prescribed feedback session. Where possible, faculty willprovide written feedback through the Moodle VLE.

4.10Resource Requirements

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


Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.

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):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.12Programme Management

Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes. There is a significant level of collegiality evident among the

programme development team.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

5 Module-Level Findings


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



Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

Where group assessment is used strategies such as peer assessment, self-assessmentand individual marking should be considered in line with the policy on group learning.Individual Module Descriptors should be reviewed to ensure that all details ofassessment strategies are visible.

RESPONSE

The programme development team further endorse this recommendation and will followinstitute guidelines as articulated within the CELT (Centre for Education, Learning anTeaching) document ‘Managing Group Work/Group Assignmnts’. This document highlightsthree forms of group-work assessment; independent observation, evaluating individualcontributions and peer reviews. Independent observation requires that an observer (i.e. thelecturer who set the assignment) attends team meetings or other activities and assesses individualperformance against established criteria. The second approach involves evaluating the evidenceof the individual team member’s contributions. One method of doing this is to require that eachteam establishes, on ‘Moodle’, an online discussion group for communication among itsmembers. The lecturer can then monitor the contributions to the discussion group and evaluatethe contributions of each individual based on the performance criteria established. Otherevidence of individual contribution can also be examined, such as the documents produced.

The third approach is to conduct peer reviews. In this approach each team member evaluates theperformance of the other members of the team based on criteria established for this purpose. Tobe most effective, these evaluations should be anonymous.

These group-assessment modes are increasingly being used by the programme development teamand will form the basis of a faculty – wide seminar, which will be delivered by the Centre forEducation and Learning over the coming semester. Finally, module descriptors have beenreviewed to ensure, as far as possible, that assessment modes are visible.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Signed on behalf of the School

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

Date: 31st October 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.

report of programme validation panel · report of validation panel page 4/9 condition(s): none....

Documents