Programmatic Review 2012-2013 Phase B - Programmes · Programmatic Review 2012-2013 Phase B -...

Programmatic Review 2012-2013

Phase B - Programmes School: Business and Humanities Department: Management and Financial Studies

Programme Title NFQ Level

Award Type Award Type

ECTS Credits

Exit Award

Parent Programme Programme Title

Master of Arts in Accounting 9 Masters Degree Major 75 N Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner

Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in Public Relations and Online Communications

8 Honours Bachelor Degree

Major 240 N Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner

Bachelor of Business (Hons) 8 Ordinary Bachelor Degree


Bachelor of Business Studies (Hons) 8 Ordinary Bachelor Degree


Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in Accounting and Finance

8 Higher Certificate Major 180 N Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner

Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in Marketing 8 Higher Certificate Major 240 N Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner

Bachelor of Arts in Public Relations and Online Communications

7 Higher Certificate Major 180 Y Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in Public Relations and Online Communications

Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner

Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9

Report of ProgrammeValidation Panel

Panel Visit: 8th May 2013

Named Award: Master of ArtsProgramme Title(s): Master of Arts in AccountingExit Awards: Not applicableAward Type: Masters DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 9ECTS / ACCS Credits: 75First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

Ms. Maebh Maher Chair Head of School of Business and Humanities,Institute of Technology Carlow

Mr. Alan Wilson

Ms. Anne Burke

Academic Department of Accounting, University ofUlster (UU)

Lecturer of Accounting, Letterkenny Instituteof Technology (LyIT)

Ms. Karen Coulter Industry FPM Chartered AccountantsMr. Gerry Gallagher Secretary to

PanelCentre for Excellence in Learning andTeaching (CELT), Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (DkIT)

Programme Development Team

Mr. Shane HillMr. Brian Morris Mr. John MorrisonDr. Brian Boyd Mr. Michael O’MurchuMr. Pat O’Neill Mr. Pat Fitzgerald


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 programmes:

Master of Arts in Accounting

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 panel would like to commend the programme development team for their engagementand commitment which was evident on the day of the validation panel.

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):

None.

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. The Panel found strong evidence to support the strategicthemes of Entrepreneurship, Sustainability andInternationalisation. These themes are embedded in theprogramme.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.4 Entry Requirements

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

Overall Finding: See recommendation below.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

The Panel recommend the programme team to review the wording of the entryrequirement for CAP 1 exemption as discussed.

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?

Overall Finding: This is a Masters Level 9 Programme where access can befacilitated through RPL.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

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?

Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel were satisfied that the programme meets the Level9 award standard requirements.

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):

None.

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?

Overall Finding: Yes. The programme structure is both logical and well defined.The programme outcomes meet the professional bodyrequirements. The Panel particularly commends the Programmeteam on the inclusion of the International residential multi-disciplinary Business Simulation.

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?

Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel congratulates the programme team on theinnovative aspects of the programme and its delivery.

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)?

Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel found that there was good evidence to supportthis.

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):

None.

4.10 Resource Requirements

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


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.11 Quality 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?

Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was satisfied with the quality assuranceprocedures for this programme.

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.


4.12 Programme Management

Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was impressed by the team approach to managing

the delivery of this programme.

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):

All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy is outlined andthat there is consistency across the modules.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

The Panel suggests that the programme team explore the possibility of offering somemodules as CPD and the programme as a whole in part-time mode. The Panel alsodiscussed the possibility of introducing a Post-graduate exit award.

Validation Panel Report Approved By:

Signed:

_______________________________________________________Ms. Maebh Maher, Chairperson.

Date: 8th May 2013

School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9

Response to theProgramme Validation Panel

Report


Named Award: Master of ArtsProgramme Title(s): Master of Arts in AccountingExit Awards: Not applicableAward Type: Master DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 9ECTS / ACCS Credits: 75First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members


Mr. Alan Wilson

Ms. Anne Burke






Mr. Shane HillMr. Brian Morris Mr. John MorrisonDr. Brian Boyd Mr. Michael O’MurchuMr. Pat O’Neill Mr. Pat Fitzgerald


1Introduction





Background to Proposed ProgrammeGeneral Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level FindingsModule-Level Findings

2Background to Proposed Programme


3General Findings of the Validation Panel

The panel would like to commend the programme development team for their engagement andcommitment which was evident on the day of the validation panel.





Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes accountof the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing theactions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the


programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action oramendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to thecommencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to beapproved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board shouldgive serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subjectof on-going monitoring.

4Programme-Level Findings



4.1 Demand



Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.2 Award


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

The Panel recommend the programme team to review the wording of the entry requirementfor CAP 1 exemption as discussed.

RESPONSE:The programme team have now deleted the CAP 1 entry requirement as discussed at panelmeeting.



Overall Finding: This is a Masters Level 9 Programme where access can befacilitated through RPL.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel were satisfied that the programme meets the Level9 award standard requirements.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. The programme structure is both logical and well defined.The programme outcomes meet the professional bodyrequirements. The Panel particularly commends the Programmeteam on the inclusion of the International residential multi-disciplinary Business Simulation.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel congratulates the programme team on theinnovative aspects of the programme and its delivery.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.








grading system.


Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was satisfied with the quality assuranceprocedures for this programme.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was impressed by the team approach to managing

the delivery of this programme.

Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.

5Module-Level Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):


RESPONSE:All syllabi have been reviewed to ensure that the assessment strategies detailed in the submissiondocument are applied across all modules. The scheduling of assessments is also co-ordinated toensure students are not unduly over-loaded. Programme Board meetings are a further opportunityto check that the assessment strategy is being applied consistently and in a balanced manneracross modules.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

The Panel suggests that the programme team explore the possibility of offering somemodules as CPD and the programme as a whole in part-time mode. The Panel alsodiscussed the possibility of introducing a Post-graduate exit award.


RESPONSE:The programme development team welcomes this recommendation and has heldpreliminary discussions on CPD with Life Long Learning at DkIT. Furthermore, thepossibility of introducing a post-graduate exit award will be explored and market researchconducted (involving relevant stakeholders) in this regard.

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.

Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel

______________________________________Ms. Maeve Maher, Chairperson.

Date: 13th November 2013.




Named Award: Bachelor of Arts (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Public Relations and Online

CommunicationExit Awards: Bachelor of Arts in Public Relations and Online

CommunicationAward Type: Honours Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8, 7ECTS / ACCS Credits: 240

180First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

Dr Oliver Haag Chair Director of Corporate Law, HochschuleKonstanz

Dr Debbie GingDr John Gallagher

Academic Dublin City University (DCU)Public Relations Academic, DIT

Mr Tony McQuillan Industry Site Director, XeroxMs Breffni Gorman Union of Students of Ireland (USI)Mr Gerry Gallagher (Secretary to

Panel)Assistant Registrar, Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (DkIT)


Shane Hill Ciara O’Connor Bernadette CassidyEileen Murphy Maeve McArdle Martina O’NeillTara Kinny Paula Brown Sarah McCannLuz Englishby Glenn Doyle Colin CooneyDave Coggans Bobby Arthur Siobhan DuffyPaula Reilly

1 Introduction



Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Public Relations and Online Communication Bachelor of Arts in Public Relations and Online Communication (Exit Award)







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.


Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Public Relations and Online CommunicationBachelor of Arts in Public Relations and Online Communication (Exit Award)







4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Yes – Supported PRII.

Condition(s):

None

Recommendation(s):

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

4.2 Award

Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: The award is appropriate. Compares well to other institutions.

Condition(s):

None

Recommendation(s):

None




Overall Finding: All embedded in the programme.



Overall Finding: They are appropriate. The requirement of a C3 in higher levelEnglish is highly commended.

Condition(s):

None

Recommendation(s):

None



Overall Finding: Yes. The procedures are in place.

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 1st semester need to be addressed locally.




Overall Finding: Yes





Overall Finding: Yes. The programme reflects a range of current issues particularto the Irish situation.

Condition(s):

None

Recommendation(s):

None



Overall Finding: Yes. There is also significant use of technology in learning &teaching approaches. This is to be commended.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and shouldform a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validationpanel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly theassessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment andStandards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) :

Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures. Thisshould address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability andauthenticity;


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.


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. Much of thiscan be done through Moodle.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

It is essential that appropriate IT infrastructure be in place for programmes such asthis.





Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.


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

programme development team. This is to be highly commended.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




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.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):


None

Recommendation(s):

None



Report


Named Award: Bachelor of Arts (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Public Relations and Online

CommunicationExit Awards: Bachelor of Arts in Public Relations and Online

CommunicationAward Type: Honours Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8, 7ECTS / ACCS Credits: 240

180First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

Dr Oliver Haag Chair Director of Corporate Law, HochschuleKonstanz

Dr Debbie GingDr John Gallagher

Academic Dublin City University (DCU)Public Relations Academic, DIT

Mr Tony McQuillan Industry Site Director, XeroxMs Breffni Gorman Union of Students of Ireland (USI)Mr Gerry Gallagher (Secretary to

Panel)Assistant Registrar, Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (DkIT)


Shane Hill Ciara O’Connor Bernadette CassidyEileen Murphy Maeve McArdle Martina O’NeillTara Kinny Paula Brown Sarah McCannLuz Englishby Glenn Doyle Colin CooneyDave Coggans Bobby Arthur Siobhan DuffyPaula Reilly


1Introduction


















4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Yes – Supported PRII.

Condition(s):

None

Recommendation(s):

Greater degree of tracking of graduates and graduate feedback would be extremelyuseful in addition to the 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 now develop a “linked in” presence which facilitates easier on-goingcommunication with participants post graduation

Yearly programme destination survey augmented to include sector/programme specificfeedback

Comprehensive institute - wide destination survey will now be distributed to learnersat Graduation

The programme development team will work very closely with the new DkIT AlumniAssistant (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: The award is appropriate. Compares well to other institutions.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: All embedded in the programme.

Condition(s):

None

Recommendation(s):

None



Overall Finding: They are appropriate. The requirement of a C3 in higher levelEnglish is highly commended.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. The procedures are in place.


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 1st semester needs to be addressed locally.

RESPONSE

The programme development team recognise this institute-wide issue and will introducecognate 5 credit electives specifically for one semester learners. This change to approvedcourse schedule will be introduced for September 2014 and is primarily aimed at Erasmusstudents attending DkIT for one semester – Where these students are attending for one fullacademic year, the approved 10 credit module/s will remain mandatory.








Overall Finding: Yes. The programme reflects a range of current issues particularto the Irish situation.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. There is also significant use of technology in learning &


teaching approaches. This is to be commended.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and shouldform a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validationpanel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly theassessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment andStandards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) :

Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures. Thisshould address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability andauthenticity;


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.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation:

It is essential that assessment schedules, assessment criteria and timely feedbackmechanisms be put in place for all modules and available to all students. Much of thiscan 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 affected before commence of assessment work. Finally, a school policy onassessment feedback is currently being formulated. This will ensure that written feedbackis given within a standardised period of time and learners are afforded the opportunity toask questions at a prescribed feedback session. Where possible, faculty will provide writtenfeedback through the Moodle VLE.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

It is essential that appropriate IT infrastructure be in place for programmes such asthis.

RESPONSE

Investment in software continues to be a priority within this programme. The programmedevelopment team works with school management and Computer Services at DkIT toensure that IT infrastructure is appropriate in terms of sustaining graduates in theircareers and complying with sector norms and expectations. The programme’s IndustryForum and graduate feedback mechanisms are critical in this regard.






Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


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

programme development team. This is to be highly commended.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

5Module-Level Findings




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.

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 evaluate


the 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.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


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

Date: 31st October 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)


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)

















4.1 Demand



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



Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. All embedded in the programme.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




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.






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.”




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.








grading system.


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



Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.11Quality Assurance



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.



Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




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.




Report


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



Mr. Tony McQuillan

Ms. Karen Coulter





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 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.





4.1 Demand



Condition(s):

Recommendation(s):


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


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):


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.






Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):



RESPONSE

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




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.









grading system.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):


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.




Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.






Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):


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.









Named Award: Bachelor of Business (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Business (Honours) in Business StudiesExit Awards: Not applicableAward Type: Honours Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members



Mr. Tony McQuillan

Ms. Karen Coulter





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


Bachelor of Business (Honours) in Business Studies









Bachelor of Business (Honours) in Business Studies

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 31 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 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.





4.1 Demand



Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):


4.2 Award



Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):







Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.








grading system.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):






Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):


5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Report


Named Award: Bachelor of Business Studies (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Business Studies (Honours)Exit Awards: Not applicableAward Type: Honours Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members



Mr. Tony McQuillan

Ms. Karen Coulter





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


1 Introduction


Bachelor of Business Studies (Honours)









Bachelor of Business Studies (Honours)



Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takesaccount of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document


describing 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.




4.1 Demand



Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):


ResponseThe 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 facilitates

easier 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


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):


ResponseThe programme development team recognise this institute-wide issue and will offercognate 5 ECTS electives specifically for one semester learners. This will not require achange to approved course schedule as existing 5 ECTS electives will be offered to onesemester learners (primarily aimed at Erasmus students attending DkIT for one semester).Where students are attending for one full academic year, the approved 10 ECTS module/swill remain mandatory.






Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):



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




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.









grading system.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):


ResponseThe 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 school policy on assessment feedback is currently being formulated. This willensure that written feedback is given within a standardised period of time and learners areafforded the opportunity to ask questions at a prescribed feedback session. Where possible,faculty will provide written feedback through the Moodle VLE.




Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):


ResponseThe 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 Assignments’. This documenthighlights three forms of group-work assessment; independent observation, evaluatingindividual contributions and peer reviews. Independent observation requires that an observer(i.e. the lecturer who set the assignment) attends team meetings or other activities and assessesindividual performance against established criteria. The second approach involves evaluating theevidence of the individual team member’s contributions. One method of doing this is to requirethat each team establishes, on ‘Moodle’, an online discussion group for communication amongits members. The lecturer can then monitor the contributions to the discussion group andevaluate the contributions of each individual based on the performance criteria established. Otherevidence of individual contribution can also be examined, such as the documents produced. Thethird 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 that assessment modes are visible.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



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



Date: 8th November 2013




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

Panel Members


Mr. Alan Wilson

Ms. Anne Burke






Brian Morris Michael O’Murchu, Pat O’Neill, Pat Fitzgerald,John Morrison Dave Coggans, Anne Kierans, Alan Kelly, Frank Watters,

Mairead McKiernan, Cathriona Connor, Ciara O’ConnorBrian Boyd,Larry Murphy

Liz Englishby, Helen White, Fionnuala Dullaghan


1 Introduction

The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expertpanel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities atDundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programme:

Bachelor of Arts in Accounting and Finance

The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team forengaging generously and openly with the review process.











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 to


indicate 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.




4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was satisfied with the demand for the programmeand there was strong evidence to support this.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.2 All Award


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. There was good evidence of students transferring into theprogramme from other programmes and through Internationalpartnerships. The graduates from this programme can progressonto the Level 9 Masters Programme.

Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.




Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was satisfied that this Level 8 programme doesmeet the required standards.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. The programme structure is logical and well defined. Theprogramme outcomes meet the requirements from the relevantprofessional bodies.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was satisfied that appropriate teaching andlearning strategies are being utilised.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.








grading system.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was satisfied that the quality assuranceprocedures were applied.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was impressed with the role of Programme

Director and Stage Convenors in managing the programme.

Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Overall Finding: Yes (see recommendation below)

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy is outlinedand that there is consistency across the modules.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

That a section be included in the programme document setting out theprofessional body exemptions available to graduates.


Validation Panel Report Approved By:

Signed:

_______________________________________________________Ms. Maebh Maher, Chairperson.

Date: 8th May 2013.


Response to the ProgrammeValidation Panel Report


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

Panel Members


Mr. Alan Wilson

Ms. Anne Burke






Brian Morris Michael O’Murchu, Pat O’Neill, Pat Fitzgerald,John Morrison Dave Coggans, Anne Kierans, Alan Kelly, Frank Watters,

Mairead McKiernan, Cathriona Connor, Ciara O’ConnorBrian Boyd,Larry Murphy

Liz Englishby, Helen White, Fionnuala Dullaghan


1 Introduction














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 to


indicate 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.




4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was satisfied with the demand for the programmeand there was strong evidence to support this.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

4.2 All Award


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. There was good evidence of students transferring into theprogramme from other programmes and through Internationalpartnerships. The graduates from this programme can progressonto the Level 9 Masters Programme.

Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.




Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was satisfied that this Level 8 programme doesmeet the required standards.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. The programme structure is logical and well defined. Theprogramme outcomes meet the requirements from the relevantprofessional bodies.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was satisfied that appropriate teaching andlearning strategies are being utilised.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.








grading system.


Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was satisfied that the quality assuranceprocedures were applied.

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 andperiodic review of Programmes.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes. The Panel was impressed with the role of Programme

Director and Stage Convenors in managing the programme.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Overall Finding: Yes (see recommendation below)

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):


RESPONSE

All syllabi have been reviewed to ensure that the assessment strategies detailed in thesubmission document are applied across all modules. The scheduling of assessments is alsoco-ordinated to ensure students are not unduly over-loaded. Programme Board meetingsare a further opportunity to check that the assessment strategy is being appliedconsistently and in a balanced manner across modules.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

That a section be included in the programme document setting out theprofessional body exemptions available to graduates.

RESPONSE

This has now been completed and inserted within the programme documentation.





I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panelreport have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Councilat Dundalk Institute of Technology for ratification.

Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel:

_____________________________________________________Ms Maebh Maher, Chair.

Date: 13th November 2013.




Named Award: Bachelor of Business (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Business (Honours) in MarketingExit Awards: Not applicableAward Type: Honours Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8ECTS / ACCS Credits: 240First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

Dr. Derek O’Byrne Chair Registrar, Waterford Institute of Technology(WIT)

Dr. Oliver Haag

Mr. Michael Gannon

Academic

Dublin City University (DCU)Mr. Mark Lowth Industry Vector AerospaceMs. Ann Campbell Secretary to

PanelRegistrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology(DkIT)

Ms. Breffini Gorman Vice President for the Border, Midlands andWest Region, Union of Students in Ireland


Mr Shane Hill Mr David Coggans Ms Fionnuala DullaghanMr John Sisk Mr Pat Fitzpatrick Dr Brian BoydMr Mario McBlain Ms Mary Kennedy Ms Irene MakayMr Alan Kelly Ms Catriona O’Connor Ms Fiona OsterMr Larry Murphy


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:

Bachelor of Business (Honours) in Marketing







The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality oftheir submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day ofthe validation panel.






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.




4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Although there has been a low student intake to this programmein recent years, the Panel considers the revised programme to berelevant and pertinent to the needs of the Irish economy at thistime.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

The Panel acknowledges the challenges involved in persuading students of the value ofthe semester abroad and encourages the Programme Board to show leadership tolearners in this respect by emphasising throughout the programme, the importance oflearning a language and spending a study period abroad.

4.2 Award

Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?



Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

It is recommended that a schema or table be inserted into the programme submissiondocument, outlining how the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability andinternationalisation are embedded in the programme.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.






Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: The Panel is unconvinced of the value of the year-long moduleson this programme, particularly in relation to the module inSemester Two: Study Research and Communication Skills andManagement and Marketing. In the view of the Panel, the firstmodule should be revised to be delivered in one semester as afive-credit module and Management and Marketing should beseparated out into two modules.There is a need to show how the programme themes aredeveloped in tabular or schematic form.Further detail is required around the Study Abroad optionincluding module descriptors with learning outcomes aligned tothe programme learning outcomes.


Condition(s):

The rationale for including 10 credit modules in the programme should bereconsidered. Where a decision is taken to retain these modules, the rationale shouldbe made explicit and the quality assurance framework around the management of thesemodules outlined. This should include the supporting pedagogies and learningexperience to take place between semesters and the arrangements for repeatassessments. The QA framework in this respect should also ensure that the learner hasa learning experience of equivalent duration as pertains for all other modules.

Management and Marketing in Semester 2 should be delivered as two separatemodules.

The thematic structure of the programme should be detailed in tabular or schematicform showing its development from first year to final year.

The Study Abroad Semester should be sufficiently detailed to include moduledescriptors and the learning outcomes from these modules should be aligned to theprogramme learning outcomes.

Recommendation(s):

Consider revising Study Research and Communication Skills to be delivered as afive-credit module over one semester.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies beenprovided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the HETACAssessment and Guidelines, 2009)?

Overall Finding: An assessment strategy has been developed for this programmewhich is substantially in line with the above Guidelines and withInstitute policy. However further clarification is required for therepeat assessment arrangements for 10-credit modules and formodules which are 100% CA assessed.

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 programme


validation 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) :




grading system.


Condition(s):

Clarify Repeat Assessment arrangements for 10-credit modules and for modules whichare 100% assessed through CA.

The programme development team should articulate the policy for the assessment ofgroup work, encompassing in particular, peer review and individualisation of marks.The policy should also include a strategy for dealing with students who do not engagewith group assignments.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.





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 review ofProgrammes.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Condition(s):

Management and Marketing should be delivered as two modules.

Management Accounting should become a mandatory module.

Financial Accounting 1 and Financial Accounting 2 should be amalgamated.

Marketing Changes should be re-titled. Consider ‘Contemporary Issues inMarketing’ as an alternative title. Digital Marketing should be included in thismodule.


Recommendation(s):

Consider revising Study Research and Communication Skills for delivery in onesemester as a 5 credit module.

Consider a new title of Essential Office Applications

Consider new titles for Technology and Information Management 1 and 2.

Revise the learning outcomes in MarCom Management and Marketing Changes tostate what the learner will be able to do as a result of the learning activityassociated with these modules.

Ensure that all learning outcomes used are SMART, i.e. specific, measurable,attainable, realistic and time-bound. Note Kennedy, 20071 in this respect: “Verbsrelating to knowledge outcomes, e.g. ‘know’, ‘understand’, ‘appreciate’ tend to berather vague or to focus on the process students have gone through rather than thefinal outcome of that process.”

In relation to Product and Brand Development, the focus should be on customerrelationship rather than on brand.



Overall Finding: See 4.9 above

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

1Kennedy, D. (2007). Writing and Using Learning Outcomes. A Practical Guide. Cork.




Report


Named Award: Bachelor of Business (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Business (Honours) in MarketingExit Awards: Not applicableAward Type: Bachelor of Business (Honours)Award Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8ECTS / ACCS Credits: 240First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

Mr. Derek O’Byrne Chair Registrar, Waterford Institute of Technology(WIT)

Dr. Oliver Haag

Mr. Michael Gannon

Academic

Dublin City University (DCU)Mr. Mark Lowth Industry Vector AerospaceMs. Ann Campbell Secretary to

PanelRegistrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology(DkIT)

Ms. Breffini Gorman Vice President for the Border, Midlands andWest Region, Union of Students in Ireland


Mr Shane Hill Mr David Coggans Ms Fionnuala DullaghanMr John Sisk Mr Pat Fitzgerald Dr Brian BoydMr Mario McBlain Ms Mary Kennedy Ms Irene MakayMr Alan Kelly Ms Catriona O’Connor Ms Fiona OsterMr Larry Murphy Ms Maeve McArdle Ms Helen White,

Mr Bobby Arthur


1Introduction









The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the qualityof their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on theday of the validation panel.





Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document thattakes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response


document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions andrecommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the termCondition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of thevalidation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme.Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The termRecommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should giveserious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be thesubject of on-going monitoring.




4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Although there has been a low student intake to this programmein recent years, the Panel considers the revised programme to berelevant and pertinent to the needs of the Irish economy at thistime.

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

The Panel acknowledges the challenges involved in persuading students of thevalue of the semester abroad and encourages the Programme Board to showleadership to learners in this respect by emphasising throughout the programme,the importance of learning a language and spending a study period abroad.

RESPONSE

The Programme Development Team is fully aware of the importance of the StudyAbroad Experience, and is in complete agreement with the Panel. A close relationshipexists between the Programme Development Team and the International Office at


Dundalk Institute of Technology. The Programme Director has been instrumental inpioneering the Exchange Programmes that DkIT currently enjoys across the EU. Thisprogramme encourages learners to see the Study Abroad Experience as an opportunityto enhance their career prospects. Regular Workshops are held in association with theInternational Office at which learners are encouraged to ask questions on matters thatare of concern and interest to them. Relevant technology is used to ensure thatlearners are kept in touch with updates on the study Abroad Experience ( the micro-blog TWITTER is used a means of integrating all 4 years of this Programme, thusensuring that all students are informed). Practitioners when invited to present tolearners are encouraged to emphasise the critical importance of the Study AbroadExperience in terms of career opportunity and development. Furthermore, final yearstudents are encouraged to formally present to second years on their experience andadvice with regard to studying abroad.

4.2 Award

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

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

It is recommended that a schema or table be inserted into the programmesubmission document, outlining how the strategic themes of entrepreneurship,sustainability and internationalisation are embedded in the programme.

RESPONSE

The Programme Development Team welcomes this comment. A graphic illustratinghow the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisationare embedded in this programme has now been inserted into the programmesubmission documentation.





Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.






Condition(s):

None.


Recommendation(s):

None.



Overall Finding: The Panel is unconvinced of the value of the year-long moduleson this programme, particularly in relation to the module inSemester Two: Study Research and Communication Skills andManagement and Marketing. In the view of the Panel, the firstmodule should be revised to be delivered in one semester as afive-credit module and Management and Marketing should beseparated out into two modules.There is a need to show how the programme themes aredeveloped in tabular or schematic form.Further detail is required around the Study Abroad optionincluding module descriptors with learning outcomes aligned tothe programme learning outcomes.

Condition(s):

The rationale for including 10 credit modules in the programme should bereconsidered. Where a decision is taken to retain these modules, the rationaleshould be made explicit and the quality assurance framework around themanagement of these modules outlined. This should include the supportingpedagogies and learning experience to take place between semesters and thearrangements for repeat assessments. The QA framework in this respect shouldalso ensure that the learner has a learning experience of equivalent duration aspertains for all other modules.

Management and Marketing in Semester 2 should be delivered as two separatemodules.

The thematic structure of the programme should be detailed in tabular orschematic form showing its development from first year to final year.

The Study Abroad Semester should be sufficiently detailed to include moduledescriptors and the learning outcomes from these modules should be aligned tothe programme learning outcomes.

Recommendation(s):

Consider revising Study Research and Communication Skills to be delivered as afive credit module over one semester.


RESPONSE

The Programme Review Team has considered these comments and has decided to retainthe 10 ECTS year-long mode on two modules per year. The team believes that the newstructure of year-long 10 ECTS modules (offered on some ten Business programmes withinthe School) facilitates student learning in two important ways. Firstly, a greater degree ofseamless continuity is available and learners have a real opportunity to see module contentand delivery as a holistic, unbroken whole. This will help in achieving ‘deep learning’(talked of below). Secondly, the number of exams taken by students is now reduced fromtwelve (on average) to ten examinations per academic period. This perspective is stronglyendorsed by the Centre for Learning and Teaching at DkIT. Within their document‘Learning and Assessment: Guidelines for Dundalk Institute of Technology’ CELT (2010),they suggest that exams alone may be incapable of addressing the diverse range of learningstyles and preferences. Furthermore, CELT highlight the core importance of the concept of‘deep learning’ where learner workloads are balanced, assessment is balanced andmanageable, and student learning is independent and flexible. In essence, student learningis experiential and applied while assessment modes are varied. These concepts werecentral to the programme teams’ decision to introduce two year-long modules per year.This opportunity when balanced with the remaining 5 ETCS modules will facilitate ‘deeplearning’ by greater involvement, student interaction and time to reflect on the learningexperience. The specific assessment activities and pedagogical techniques pertaining toyear-long modules include diverse methodologies such as projects, seminar papers,literature reviews, online exercises/computer-facilitated assessments, journals, diaries,data interpretation, essays, business plans and simulations. Many of these assessmentmethodologies go beyond what would be achievable within the confines of one semester.

Furthermore, the assessment strategies detailed in the submission document are appliedacross all modules, where appropriate. The scheduling of assessments is also co-ordinatedto ensure students are not unduly over-loaded. Programme Board meetings are a furtheropportunity to check that the assessment strategy is being applied consistently and in abalanced manner across modules. All assessments are conducted in line with the currentassessment policy within the school. Typically, students with year-long modules will havefour terminal examinations at end of their first semester (four 5 ETCS modules) and sixterminal exams at their summer sitting in May (four 5 ETCS modules and two 10 ETCS). Allstudents will have a repeat opportunity at the autumn examination sitting (both 5 ETCSand 10 ETCS modules). The current practice of twelve teaching weeks per semester, areading week and two weeks of examinations will continue. In the first semester, learnerstaking year-long modules will have a similar learning experience to those taking 5 ETCSsemester-long modules which use 100% continuous assessment, i.e. there is no end ofsemester examination but CA work is undertaken throughout. In the second semesterterminal examinations are taken in all modules specified within the programmedocumentation.

The Programme Development Team has considered these comments and the moduleMarketing Management will now be delivered as two separate modules in semesters 1& 2.These modules are titled Management, taken in semester 1, and Marketing taken inSemester 2

The thematic structure of the programme is now detailed in tabular/schematic form andpresented within the programme document. It graphically illustrates the programmes’


development from first year to final year.

The Programme Development Team welcomes the panels’ comments with regard tothe year long Study Abroad Experience. In this regard, the team is currently workingclosely with the International Office at DkIT to ensure that all module descriptors areobtained from Erasmus partner colleges (approximately 20 colleges in total). Oncesecured, the learning outcomes of relevant modules will be aligned to the overallprogramme learning outcomes of the Bachelor of Business (Hons) in Marketing.

The Programme Review Team has reconsidered these comments in light of the panelfeedback and has decided to retain the 10 ECTS year-long module on Study Researchand Communication Skills. The team believes that the structure of year-long 10 ECTSmodules (offered on some ten other Business programmes within the School)facilitates student learning (particularly for first years) in two important ways. Firstly,a greater degree of seamless continuity is available and learners have a realopportunity to see the year as a holistic whole within the context of taking thesemodules. This will help in achieving ‘deep learning’ as explained earlier in Section 4.7above. Secondly, the number of exams taken by students is now reduced and this isvery much in adherence with CELT (2010) guidelines on the ‘First Year Experience’.CELT stress the importance of avoiding assessment overload and too manyexaminations in Year 1 (‘Learning and Assessment: Guidelines for Dundalk Institute ofTechnology’ CELT (2010)).




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies beenprovided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the HETACAssessment and Guidelines, 2009)?

Overall Finding: An assessment strategy has been developed for this programmewhich is substantially in line with the above Guidelines and withInstitute policy. However further clarification is required for therepeat assessment arrangements for 10-credit modules and formodules which are 100% CA assessed.

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 programme


validation 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 andprocedures. This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity,reliability and authenticity;


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 DundalkInstitute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) shouldalso be consulted.

Condition(s):

Clarify Repeat Assessment arrangements for 10-credit modules and for modules whichare 100% assessed through CA.

The programme development team should articulate the policy for the assessment ofgroup work, encompassing in particular, peer review and individualisation of marks.The policy should also include a strategy for dealing with students who do not engagewith group assignments.

Recommendation(s):

None.

RESPONSE

The Programme Development Team has considered these comments. For 10 ECTS modulesthe Repeat assessment procedure is commensurate with the School Assessment Policyhighlighted below. All assessment elements in which the learner fails to achieve the desiredstandard or was absent, are made available for repeat. For modules which are 100%assessed through CA, the repeat procedure is commensurate with that experienced bylearners in other programmes and modules.

At the start of the semester each lecturer will provide students with a written statementdetailing:

A breakdown of the division of the assessment between continuous and finalexamination.

Whether the assessment(s) are repeatable or non-repeatable.


Details of how the subject is to be assessed and the proposed date(s) . Assessment regulations and penalties for non-compliance Opportunity to Undertake Repeat Assessment (RA) An opportunity to undertake a Repeat Assessment is available to:

o Those students who have missed any elements of CA with a valid reasono Those students who have failed to achieve a pass mark in their overall CA

Students who have missed any elements of CA with a valid reason are afforded anopportunity to take a Repeat Assessment for the full CA marks. The mark achieved in theRA will be applied to each validly missed element. Valid reasons should be limited toillness, bereavement, involvement in official college activities, or other circumstancesbeyond the student’s control which have prevented attendance. The student must apply inwriting to the lecturer, on a standard form and with substantiating documentation, statingthe reason for not taking the assessment. This must be submitted not later than 7 workingdays after the date of the assessment. The lecturer will confirm in writing (section 2 ofstandard application form) the outcome of the application and the date of the RepeatAssessment. The Lecturer’s decision is final.The assessment may be scheduled in the lastweek of the semester or for assignment/project based assessment may be scheduled overthe Summer holidays. This is at the discretion of the lecturer.

Students can fail to achieve a pass mark in overall CA either by failure in an element, or bymissing an element without valid excuse and thus being marked zero for that element.Such students will be afforded a concession in the form of an opportunity to improve theiroverall CA mark - up to a maximum of 40% by means of undertaking one RepeatAssessment. Students scoring 40% or more in the RA will be given a final overall CA total of40%. Students who achieve a lower score in the RA than their existing CA mark keep theexisting mark. Thus, a student cannot be disadvantaged by sitting the RA.

When the repeat opportunity takes place prior to the semester examinations, this repeatmark will be combined with the semester exam mark to arrive at a total mark. This markwill be available to be combined with the Autumn repeat exam mark. A second opportunityfor these repeat students to take another repeat CA over the Summer period will not beavailable.

Autumn Examinations & Repeat Assessments

Continuous assessment marks must be carried forward to the Autumn examinations andall lectures should advise their student groups that failure to take the continuousassessment opportunity will adversely impact their chances of progressing on theirprogramme. Once examination results are finalised each lecturer will identify thosestudent groups who have not been given the opportunity to take the repeat assessment inthe semester. These groups will be ones where the designs of the assessments do not lendthemselves to class tests but require a substantial assignment or project work.

In these cases the lecturer will:

Load the repeat CA on Moodle. Specify the submission date for the repeat assessment.The deadline set for students for the submission should normally be the last week of

August. If agreed, semester 1 repeat assessments can be set for a date during semester


The repeat process must be completed in time for the repeat examination board. Identify the students who are required to attempt the repeat CA over the Summer months

and provide a list of Repeat Students to the Administrator.An email will be sent by the relevant Administrator to inform the repeat students that

they should access their Moodle account to check if they are required to take the repeatassessment. Where a student fails a module and the module has an end of semesterexamination then the repeat examination must be taken in the Autumn sitting.

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 Assignments’. This documenthighlights three forms of group-work assessment; independent observation, evaluatingindividual contributions and peer reviews. Independent observation requires that anobserver (i.e. the lecturer who set the assignment) attends team meetings or otheractivities and assesses individual performance against established criteria. The secondapproach involves evaluating the evidence of the individual team member’s contributions.One method of doing this is to require that each team establishes, on ‘Moodle’, an onlinediscussion group for communication among its members. The lecturer can then monitorthe contributions to the discussion group and evaluate the contributions of each individualbased on the performance criteria established. Other evidence of individual contributioncan also be examined, such as the documents produced. The third approach is to conductpeer reviews. In this approach each team member evaluates the performance of the othermembers of the team based on criteria established for this purpose. To be most effective,these evaluations should be anonymous.

These group-assessment modes are increasingly being used by the programmedevelopment team and will form the basis of a faculty – wide seminar, which will bedelivered by the Centre for Education and Learning over the coming semester. Studentswho do not engage with the required group assignments will need to discuss the reasonsfor this with their lecturer (as per the CELT guidelines). Only in exceptional circumstances,and in consultation with both the Programme Director and Head of Department, mightstudents be permitted to submit an individual piece of work.




Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s


quality assurance procedures have been applied and thatsatisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring andperiodic review of programmes?



Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.


Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

None.

5. Module-Level Findings

Condition(s):

Management and Marketing should be delivered as two modules.

Management Accounting should become a mandatory module.

Financial Accounting 1 and Financial Accounting 2 should be amalgamated.

Marketing Changes should be re-titled. Consider ‘Contemporary Issues in Marketing’ asan alternative title. Digital Marketing should be included in this module.

Recommendation(s):

Consider revising Study Research and Communication Skills for delivery in one semesteras a 5 credit module.


Consider a new title of Essential Office Applications

Consider new titles for Technology and Information Management 1 and 2.

Revise the learning outcomes in MarCom Management and Marketing Changes to statewhat the learner will be able to do as a result of the learning activity associated withthese modules.

Ensure that all learning outcomes used are SMART, i.e. specific, measurable, attainable,realistic and time-bound. Note Kennedy, 20071 in this respect: “Verbs relating toknowledge outcomes, e.g. ‘know’, ‘understand’, ‘appreciate’ tend to be rather vague or tofocus on the process students have gone through rather than the final outcome of thatprocess.”

In relation to Product and Brand Development, the focus should be on customerrelationship rather than on brand.

RESPONSE

The Programme Development Team has accepted the comments made underConditions regarding the modules Management and Marketing being delivered as twomodules.

The Programme Development Team welcomes the comments made under Conditionsrequiring Management Accounting becoming a mandatory module. Learners will nowtake this module in semester 4.

The Programme Development Team has accepted the comments made underConditions requiring Financial Accounting 1 and Financial Accounting 2 to beamalgamated.

The Programme Development Team has made the required alterations with regard toMarketing Changes. It is now re-titled ‘Contemporary Issues in Marketing’ and DigitalMarketing is now included in this syllabus.

The Programme Review Team has reconsidered these comments in light of the panelfeedback and has decided to retain the 10 ECTS year-long module on Study Researchand Communication Skills. The team believes that the structure of year-long 10 ECTSmodules (offered on some ten other Business programmes within the School)facilitates student learning (particularly for first years) in two important ways. Firstly,a greater degree of seamless continuity is available and learners have a realopportunity to see the year as a seamless and holistic whole. This will help inachieving ‘deep learning’ as explained earlier in Section 4.7 above. Secondly, thenumber of exams taken by students is now reduced and this is very much inadherence with CELT (2010) guidelines on the ‘First Year Experience’. CELT stress theimportance of avoiding assessment overload and too many examinations in Year 1(‘Learning and Assessment: Guidelines for Dundalk Institute of Technology’ CELT(2010)).

The Programme Development Team will reconsider the title Essential Office

1Kennedy, D. (2007). Writing and Using Learning Outcomes. A Practical Guide. Cork.


Applications over the course of the year as it is a module that impacts on all level 8Business programmes within the School.

The Programme Development Team will reconsider the title Technology andInformation Management 1 and 2 over the course of the year as it is a module thatimpacts on all level 8 Business programmes within the School.

The Programme Development Team has considered comments regarding MarComManagement and Marketing Changes: “ to state what the learner will be able to do as aresult of the learning activity associated with these modules”.and will act upon themas suggested.

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

The Programme Development Team welcomes this feedback and has considered itaccordingly. The team notes that the module Product and Brand Development takesplace in Semester 7. The module entitled Customer Relationship Marketing takesplace contemporaneously and includes the material set out in the panel commentsregarding the Product and Brand Development.



Overall Finding: See 4.9 above

Condition(s):

None

Recommendation(s):

None.

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


Subject to the satisfactory completion of the self-evaluation report (SER), I confirm that theconditions and recommendations contained in the validation panel report have now beenmet and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at Dundalk Institute ofTechnology for ratification.

Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel:

Date: 1st September 2013.

Date post:	26-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Programmatic Review 2012-2013 Phase B - Programmes · Programmatic Review 2012-2013 Phase B -...

Documents