Programmatic Review 2012-2013 Phase B - Programmes · the next programmatic review, whichever...

Programmatic Review 2012-2013

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

Programme Title NFQ Level

Award Type Award Type

ECTS Credits

Exit Award

Parent Programme Programme Title

Master of Business in Entrepreneurship and Marketing

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

Postgraduate Diploma in Business in Entrepreneurship and Marketing

8 Postgraduate Diploma

Major 60 Y Master of Business in Entrepreneurship and Marketing

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

Master of Business in Business Administration 9 Masters Degree Major 90 N Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner

Certificate in Business in Internationalisation 8 N/A Special-Purpose

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

Higher Diploma in Business in Business and Marketing

8 Higher Diploma Major 60 N Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner

Higher Diploma in Business in Enterprise Development

8 Higher Diploma Major 60 N Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner

Bachelor of Business in Business and Management

7 Ordinary Bachelor Degree

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

Bachelor of Business in Business and Technology

7 Honours Bachelor Degree

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

Certificate in Website Content Development 7 N/A Special-Purpose


Certificate in Digital Marketing and Digital Media Management

7 N/A Special-Purpose


Certificate in sales and Marketing 7 N/A Minor 30 N Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner

Certificate in Lean Six Sigma (Green Belt) 7 N/A Special-Purpose


Higher Certificate in Business and Management 6 Higher Certificate Major 120 Y Bachelor of Business in Business and Management


Higher Certificate in in Business and Technology 6 Higher Certificate Major 120 Y Bachelor of Business in Business and Technology


Report of Validation Panel Page 1/8

Report of Programme Validation Panel

Panel Visit: 8th May 2013

Named Award: Master of Business Programme Title(s): Master of Business in Entrepreneurship and Marketing Exit Awards: Postgraduate Diploma in Business in Entrepreneurship and

Marketing Award Type: Master of Business Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 9 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 75, 60 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

Dr. Oliver Haag Chair Director of Corporate Law, Hochschule Konstanz

Mr. Aidan Payne Ms. Edel Griffin

Academic Institute of Technology Tallaght (ITT) International Business, University of Ulster (UU)

Mr. Ray Bowe Mr. Tony McQuillan

Industry IDA Ireland Site Director, Xerox

Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to Panel

Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)

Programme Development Team

Mr Cathal Kearney Ms Maeve McArdle Mr John Sisk Mr John Morrison Mr Mario McBlain Ms Anne Kierans Dr Brian Boyd Ms Liz Englishby Mr David Coggans


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Master of Business in Entrepreneurship and Marketing Postgraduate Diploma in Business in Entrepreneurship and Marketing (Exit Award)

The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings

2 Background to Proposed Programme

This is an amendment of an existing programme. See programme submission for more detailed information.

3 General Findings of the Validation Panel

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

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

Master of Business in Entrepreneurship and Marketing Postgraduate Diploma in Business in Entrepreneurship and Marketing (Exit Award)

The Panel recommends validation of the MBA in Business in Entrepreneurship and Marketing and its Exit Award, Postgraduate Diploma in Business in Entrepreneurship and Marketing, for five years subject to the conditions and recommendations contained in this report. However given that the overall finding of the Programmatic Review is that the process itself is incomplete at this time, the validation of the programmes cannot be finally confirmed until the SER has been fully reviewed. In that respect the Panel approves the programmes on an interim basis pending completion of the overall SER by 31 December 2013. When the SER is complete the full five-year validation will be confirmed. Validation is not to extend beyond the next academic year in the absence of a completed SER. The Panel does not require any further programme documentation to be re-submitted to it for completion of this process beyond the School response to individual validation reports as required by the Institute’s regulations on programme 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, notwithstanding the requirement to resubmit a revised SER.

In this report the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage 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 evidence been provided to support it?

Overall Finding: Yes. Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): Feedback from graduates and learners should be evaluated and actions taken as a result

should be documented.

Tracking of alumni is crucial and the department should ensure mechanisms are put in place to track graduates e.g. this could be a student project.

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 and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?

Overall Finding: Yes. Explore incentives to encourage Irish students to spend a semester in Heilbronn.

Condition(s): None.


4.4 Entry Requirements

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

Overall Finding: Yes they are clear and appropriate.

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

The department should track performance of students from non-cognate disciplines to

inform entry criteria.

4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression

Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?

Overall Finding: Yes.


Condition(s): None.


4.6 Standards and Outcomes

Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards 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 awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm

Condition(s): None.


4.7 Programme Structure

Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?


Condition(s): Amend the programme schedule to provide a clear overview of the structure of the

programme.

Recommendation(s): Consider inserting more digital marketing content in the programme.

4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies

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


http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm


Condition(s): None.


4.9 Assessment Strategies

Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been

provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?

Overall Finding: Yes

Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should 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 and procedures.

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

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

Condition(s): It is a condition of validation that the programme development team design a policy for

the assessment of group work and in particular to encompass peer review and individualisation of marks. The policy should also include a strategy for dealing with students who do not engage with group assignments.


https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology



4.10 Resource Requirements

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


Condition(s): None.

Recommendation: The panel would encourage staff to engage in research to inform teaching. Best

practice.

4.11 Quality Assurance

Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?

Overall Finding: Yes, subject to condition(s) and/or recommendation(s)

The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.

Condition(s): There is a need to close feedback loops. Anti-plagiarism software should be used by all

staff. Establish written protocol for supervision of dissertation.


4.12 Programme Management

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

Condition(s): None.


https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual



5 Module-Level Findings Condition(s): None.



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


Condition(s): All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy is outlined. In

addition the continuous assessment schedule should be reviewed to avoid bottle necks for assignment/class test deadlines.


5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s): None.


School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/5

Response to theProgramme Validation Panel

Report


Named Award: Master of BusinessProgramme Title(s): Master of Business in Entrepreneurship and MarketingExit Awards: Postgraduate Diploma of Business in Entrepreneurship &

Marketing (Exit Award)Award Type: Master of BusinessAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 9ECTS / ACCS Credits: 75First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

Dr. Oliver Haag Chair Director of Corporate Law, HochschuleKonstanz

Mr. Aidan Payne

Ms. Edel Griffin

Academic Institute of Technology Tallaght (ITT)

International Business, University of Ulster(UU)

Mr. Ray Bowe

Mr. Tony McQuillan

Industry IDA Ireland

Site Director, XeroxMs. Ann Campbell Secretary to

PanelRegistrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology(DkIT)


Mr Cathal Kearney Ms Maeve McArdle Mr John SiskMr John Morrison Mr Mario McBlain Ms Anne KieransDr Brian Boyd Ms Liz Englishby Mr David Coggans


Introduction

This report contains a response from the Department of Business Studies to the Programme PanelReport for the Master of Business in Entrepreneurship & Marketing.

The programme team welcomes the positive and constructive Panel Report, and addresses the specificconditions/recommendations under the relevant headings below.

1. Demand

Condition(s):

None

Recommendation(s):

Feedback from graduates and learners should be evaluated and actions taken as a resultshould be documented.

Tracking of alumni is crucial and the department should ensure mechanisms are put inplace to track graduates e.g. this could be a student project.

RESPONSE

Feedback will be gathered from programme participants at the end of each semester, withcomments on specific modules relayed to staff. A ‘you said, we did’ approach will be adopted toaddressing student concerns. This will be discussed at the next programme board meeting, with theaim of capturing feedback via survey monkey.

Tracking of alumni is done in an ad hoc fashion, but it is hoped that this could be managed in amore structured fashion through the school’s administration. This too will be discussed at the nextprogramme board meeting.

2. Entry Requirements

Condition(s):

None

Recommendation(s):

The department should track performance of students from non-cognate disciplines toinform entry criteria.

RESPONSE

This will be discussed at the next programme board meeting. Faculty members already havevaluable insights into the performance of some categories of students (i.e. international, mature,accounting vs business, etc), but the team acknowledges that this needs to be captured moresuccinctly.


3. Programme Structure

Condition(s):

Amend the programme schedule to provide a clear overview of the structure of theprogramme.

RESPONSE

The amended course schedule now presents a clear structure of the programme in bothsemesters. In Semester two, students have the option of either studying in DKIT or at our partnercollege in Heilbronn University, Germany. This is reflected in the layout of the group electiveson the schedule.

Recommendation(s):

Consider inserting more digital marketing content in the programme.

RESPONSEThis will be considered at the next programme board meeting.

4. Assessment Strategies – group work

Condition(s):

It is a condition of validation that the programme development team design a policy forthe assessment of group work and in particular to encompass peer review andindividualisation of marks. The policy should also include a strategy for dealing withstudents who do not engage with group assignments.

RESPONSE

Since the 2013 Programmatic Review, including the submission of the MBS Programmedocument, the School has adopted further guidelines/policies developed by the Institute’sCELT Department. With specific regard to assessment, the programme team has adoptedCELT’s guidelines on group work, and these are attached as an appendix to this report. Theprogramme team will adopt a combination of approaches ii and iii in the attacheddocument to ensure fairness and transparency in relation to the assessment of group-based projects and assignments. Students who do not engage with the required groupassignments will need to discuss the reasons for this with their lecturer (as per theattached guidelines). Only in exceptional circumstances, and in consultation with both theProgramme Director and Head of Department, might students be permitted to submit anindividual piece of work.

Recommendation(s):

None.


5. Resource Requirements

Condition(s):

None.

Recommendation(s):

The panel would encourage staff to engage in research to inform teaching. Bestpractice.

RESPONSE

Faculty members are very much encouraged to engage in research activity, however, heavyteaching loads often make this very difficult. Faculty do, however, continuously updatetheir teaching content, reading lists, and other material that informs delivery. Severalfaculty members have successfully completed the Institute’s Masters in Learning andTeaching programme, which includes several pedagogical research projects linked to theirspecific discipline area. The School of Business & Humanities has recently developed a newResearch Strategy geared towards encouraging and supporting staff in their researchendeavours. Within this strategy, a School Research Day has been scheduled for 20th

November 2013 with the objective of sharing the valuable research scholarship that istaking place within the School, and inspiring others to engage in research activity.

6. Quality Assurance

Condition(s):

There is a need to close feedback loops. Anti-plagiarism software should be used by allstaff. Establish written protocol for supervision of dissertation.

RESPONSE

To help overcome plagiarism we have adopted two approaches. All MBS students areprovided with plagiarism training as part of their Research Methods module. In addition,from this current academic year all MBS dissertations have to be submitted in two formats–a soft copy to submit to ‘turnitin’, and three hard copies.

In order to help ensure consistency with student supervision we have developed a set ofguidelines which explain the supervision process from both the student and supervisorperspective. In addition to our own MBS guidelines we also use the guidelines provided byCELT on ‘The role of the Student and the Supervisor.’ These clearly state what is to beexpected from both parties. Finally the minutes of each meeting between the student andsupervisor are documented using the standard pro-forma developed within the Institute.Supervisors are also provided with training on different matters concerning effectivestudent supervision, from both internal and external sources.

Recommendation(s):

None.


7. Assessment Strategies - general

Condition(s):

All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy is outlined. Inaddition the continuous assessment schedule should be reviewed to avoid bottle necksfor assignment/class test deadlines.

RESPONSE

The assessment strategy for each module is indicated in the respective module descriptors,and is also summarised in the course schedules. The programme team further clarifies thisto students by way of a C/A schedule, which is issued at the beginning of each semester.The latter, in particular, ensures that assessment bottle necks are avoided. This aspect will,however, be further reviewed at the next programme board meeting.

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/or recommendations contained in the validation panelreport have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council atDundalk Institute of Technology for ratification.

Assessing Group Work:

All of the basic principles of assessment that apply to individual work apply to group work aswell; however, assessing group work has added dimensions as often both the process andproduct-related skills must be assessed, and group performance must be translated intoindividual grades – which raises issues of fairness and equity. Complicating both these issues isthe fact that neither group processes nor individual contributions are necessarily apparent inthe final product, thus a method of finding ways of obtaining that information is required.

When effective group management processes are employed, with clear assessment guidelinesdeveloped and communicated to the group members, and valid and fair grading processesemployed, the likelihood of positive learning outcomes and student satisfaction with groupactivities should increase. Alternatively, if students cannot see the objective of group work andare unsure of what is expected of them, or believe the assessment methods are invalid orsimply unfair, the educational benefits are reduced and tensions can emerge.

Habeshaw et al. (1993) note that when the product of group work is the only element assessed,the unintended effect can be that students tend to work individually and then combine theircontributions for the final mark. This discourages collaboration and can lead to some of thegroup members not contributing equally to the final assignment and complaints about ‘free-riders’ not contributing to the final product. They suggest a scheme in which the studentsdistribute the total pool of marks between themselves (ibid.). Gibbs (1992) provides a variationof this peer assessment factor in which all students receive the average group score plus a peerallocated score.

Three main approaches toward group-work assessment are considered here – (i) independentobservation, (ii) evaluating individual contributions and (iii) peer reviews.

(i) Independent observation requires that an observer (i.e. the lecturer who set theassignment) attends team meetings or other activities and assesses individualperformance against established criteria. While this can provide an unbiased assessmentof performance, the fact that the team members know that they are being observedmight influence their behavior. This approach is also limited since observation is onlypractical for activities such as group meetings. Group work involves much more thanwhat goes on in meetings. Although this is certainly a useful tool in assessing groupworking skills, it is not sufficient.

(ii) The second approach involves evaluating the evidence of the individual team member’scontributions. One method of doing this is to require that each team establish, on‘Moodle’, an online discussion group for communication among its members. Thelecturer can then monitor the contributions to the discussion group and evaluate thecontributions of each individual based on the performance criteria established. Otherevidence of individual contribution can also be examined, such as documents produced.However, this approach is limited since not all team skills can be assessed based on theartifacts produced by the individual students.

(iii) The third approach is to conduct peer reviews. In this approach each team memberevaluates the performance of the other members of the team based on criteriaestablished for this purpose. To be most effective, these evaluations should beanonymous. This approach has several advantages. First the team members are in thebest position to evaluate the performance of their teammates since they work withthem continually during the course of the team project. The main disadvantage of thisapproach is that students are often reluctant to negatively criticize other students andthere can be a central tendency in the ratings, thus the reliability of this measuresuffers. See Figure 1 below for a sample peer observation form that can be used. Thelist of attributes is not exhaustive and can be added to.

In spite of the limitations of each of these methods, when used together, they can provide anaccurate picture of each student’s individual performance with respect to the identifiedteamwork skills. Furthermore, if students know more precisely how group work is defined andevaluated, they will strive to learn and practise the identified skills.

GROUP WORK ATTRIBUTES:

Did the group member….1. Attend nearly all team meetings? YES/NO2. Arrive on time for nearly all team meetings? YES/NO3. Ever introduce a new idea? YES/NO4. Ever openly express opinions? YES/NO5. Communicate clearly with other team members? (never) 1 2 3 4 5 (always)6. Share knowledge with others? (never) 1 2 3 4 5 (always)7. Consider suggestions from others? YES/NO8. Generally tried to understand what other team members were saying? YES/NO9. Generally complete individual component(s) on time? YES/NO10. Generally complete individual assignments with acceptable quality? YES/NO11. Do a fair share of the work? YES/NO12. Seem committed to team goals? YES/NO13. Show respect for other team members? (never) 1 2 3 4 5 (always)

Group Work Evaluation Form

DkIT Code of Practice on Group Work and Group Assignments

1. Group members must accept the group that is allocated by the lecturer and cannot seekto have someone removed from, or added to, the group except in exceptionalcircumstances, and only with the written approval of the lecturer who has set theassignment.

2. Group members are expected to complete group assignments on time and to a passstandard.

3. Group members are expected to organise their group so that all group members canplay an active role within the group.

4. All group members are expected to contribute actively and equitably to the group workand to be able to show the contributions of each group member should this benecessary.

5. Group members should respect all other group members and elicit, listen to, andrespect the views of all participants.

6. Group members should respect, and seek to respond effectively, to diversity within thegroup.

7. Each group member should be open to compromise and be willing to co-operate withothers; keep an open mind and be prepared to vote on disagreements and acceptoutcome of the vote.

8. All group members must engage with peer reviews if the lecturer has stated that it willbe part of the process and all contributions to peer reviews must be honest and fair.

9. Any member of the group who is concerned about any issue within the group should, inthe first instance, make his/her concerns known to the group with a view to having thematter resolved within the group. Should a team member feel that their concerns arenot being addressed within the group, they should then take the matter up with thelecturer who set the group assignment. The lecturer will mediate a resolution betweenthe individual and the group and this mediation will be accepted by the group.

Reference List:

Beckman, M. (1990): Collaborative Learning: Preparation for the Workplace and Democracy.College Teaching, 38(4), 128-133.

Chickering, A. W, and Gamson, Z. F (eds.) (1991): Applying the Seven Principles for GoodPractice in Undergraduate Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 47. SanFrancisco: Jossey Bass.

Crosby, Mary (2001): Working with people as an informal educator. In L. D. Richardson and M.Wolfe (eds.) Principles and Practice of Informal Education. Learning through life. London:Routledge Falmer.

Felder, R. M. & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfallsand payoffs. Eric Document Reproduction Service Report ED 377038. www location:http:/www2.ncsu.edu/uni...c/Papers/coopreport.html

Forsyth, Donelson R. (2006): Group Dynamics 4e [International Student Edition]. Belmont CA.:Thomson Wadsworth Publishing.

Gibbs, G. (1992): Assessing more students, Teaching more students. No. 4, Oxford: The OxfordCentre for Staff Development.

Habeshaw ,S.,Gibbs, G. & Habeshaw, T. (1993). Interesting Ways to Assess your Students, 3rded. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1991): Co-operative Learning: Increasing CollegeFaculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-FRIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.:School of Educational and Human Development, George Washington University.

Poole, M. S., Keyton, J., & Frey, L. R. (1999): Group communication methodology: Issues andconsiderations. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of groupcommunication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Further Reading:

Johnson, David W. and Frank P. Johnson (2009) Joining Together. Group theory and group skills10e. Boston: Merrill. 660 + xii pages. An excellent starting point for an exploration of groupwork practice. It begins by providing an overview of group dynamics and experiential learningand then looks at key dimensions of group experience and the role of the leader/facilitator.




Named Award: Master of Business Programme Title(s): Master of Business in Business Administration Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Master of Business Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 9 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 90 First 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 Vecor Aerospace Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to

Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)


Ms Anne-Marie McHugh Mr Mario McBlain Mr John Morrison Ms Anne Kierans Mr Frankie Watters Mr Anton Barrett Mr Patrick Fitzgerald Mr David Coggans Dr Brian Boyd


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Master of Business in Business Administration The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously 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


See programme documentation for more information.


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


Master of Business in Business Administration

The Panel recommends validation for five years subject to the conditions and recommendations contained in this report. However given that the overall finding of the Programmatic Review is that the process itself is incomplete at this time, the validation of the programmes cannot be finally confirmed until the SER has been fully reviewed. In that respect the Panel approves the programmes on an interim basis pending completion of the overall SER by 31 December 2013. When the SER is complete the full five-year validation will be confirmed. Validation is not to extend beyond the next academic year in the absence of a completed SER. The Panel does not require any further programme documentation to be re-submitted for completion of this process beyond the School response to individual validation reports as required by the Institute’s regulations on programme 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 takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions 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 or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.


4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: This programme hasn’t been delivered for the past five years and demand at the current time is unproven. The Panel notes that MBA programmes are offered by many other providers.

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The rationale for offering this programme at a time of low demand, and where it is clear

that the programme duplicates offerings by other providers, should be re-considered. The School should consider developing alternative tailor-made programmes as required by executives in the region.

4.2 Award

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

Condition(s): None.






Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes Condition(s): None.




Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?

Overall Finding: Yes The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm

Condition(s): None

Recommendation(s): None



Overall Finding: The Panel commends the inclusion of Babson residential week. The programme appears somewhat unfocused at present and might be revised around integrated themes. The class contact hours proposed are very low.

Condition(s): Class contact hours should not be further reduced.

Recommendation(s): Consider increasing class contact hours.

Revise the programme to align modules around themes which can be integrated and

developed over the lifetime of the programme. Modules should be designed from a business process point of view.



Overall Finding: An integrated teaching and learning strategy has not been demonstrated



Condition(s): A strategy should be devised for those learners who cannot attend the second

residential.

Recommendation(s):

The Panel notes that the programme hasn’t been delivered for five years and that the programme has not therefore developed as it might otherwise have done, if in receipt of learner and employer feedback during this time. The programme board should revisit the learning and teaching strategies proposed to ensure an integrated approach, which unifies disparate elements into a coherent whole. A unique selling point should be identified for the programme.










Recommendation(s): The Panel recommends the use of integrated assessment strategies in the programme.

Second readers should be used where feasible to ensure best practice. See HETAC

Assessment and Standards (2009).




The volume of assessment should be re-considered.




Condition(s): None.






Condition(s): None.



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

Condition(s): None.






Recommendation(s): Consider replacing the research dissertation with an applied project. Update the

reading list.

Ensure all texts are appropriate to level 9 in the module: Managing People and Organisations and update to include modern perspectives on organisations. This module should be re-examined to avoid overlap with ‘Change Management’.

Reconsider title of ‘Identifying Market Opportunities’.

Reconsider the inclusion of historical background in ‘Economics- Environment and

Policy’.

‘Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice’ is very content driven and is undergraduate focused. This module should be revised to ensure its relevance at level 9.

Reconsider the title ‘e-Business and Digital Media Strategy’, to reflect the module

content more appropriately.

Update the reading list in the module: ‘Business Management and Strategy’.


Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in

the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes

Condition(s): None.



5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s): None.



Response to the Programme Validation Panel

Report


Named Award: Master of Business Programme Title(s): Master of Business in Business Administration Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Master of Business Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 9 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 90 First 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 Vecor Aerospace Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to

Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)


Ms Anne-Marie McHugh Mr Mario McBlain Mr John Morrison Ms Anne Kierans Mr Frankie Watters Mr Anton Barrett Mr Patrick Fitzgerald Mr David Coggans Dr Brian Boyd


Introduction This report contains a response from the Department of Business Studies to the programme Panel Report for the Master of Business in Business Administration. The programme team welcomes the positive and constructive Panel Report, and addresses the specific conditions/recommendations under the relevant headings below.

1. Demand Condition(s): None

Recommendation(s): The rationale for offering this programme at a time of low demand, and where it is clear

that the programme duplicates offerings by other providers, should be re-considered. The School should consider developing alternative tailor-made programmes as required by executives in the region.

RESPONSE: The programme team acknowledges the Panel’s comments in relation to low demand and potential duplication. With particular regard to the former, the team believes that the recent economic downturn has had a significant impact. However, the School has a long tradition in MBA delivery, which originated from a partnership with the University of Ulster, and subsequently developed into the current stand-alone offering. With this in mind, the programme team are keen to retain the MBA within their postgraduate/executive portfolio, and will endeavour to explore the market with a view to securing a new intake of students in the current academic year. Notwithstanding such efforts, the team also acknowledges the need to explore new and potentially shorter tailor-made programmes to meet the needs of local industry. This will be further discussed at the team’s programme meetings over the coming months.


Condition(s): Class contact hours should not be further reduced. RESPONSE: The team do not intend to reduce class contact hours at this time. Recommendation(s): Consider increasing class contact hours. Revise the programme to align modules around themes which can be integrated and

developed over the lifetime of the programme. Modules should be designed from a business process point of view.


RESPONSE: Mindful of current internal resource constraints, as well as feedback from students in previous cohorts, the programme team does not envisage increasing class contact hours. However, the team does see opportunities in augmenting the class contact allocation in both residential sessions, and also maximising usage of on-line facilities and virtual learning environments to create more opportunity for learner contact. The programme team will revisit the sequencing of modules at their next programme board meeting to ensure better integration of themes and alignment of modules from a business perspective.

3. Teaching and Learning Strategies

Condition(s): A strategy should be devised for those learners who cannot attend the second

residential. The second residential is a core part of the programme, and participants are made aware of its relevance and importance from the outset. Thus, the intention is for all participants to attend this residential. However, the programme team acknowledges that participants are typically busy executives, with many work and family commitments and may, in exceptional circumstances, and despite their best efforts, be unable to attend the second residential. With this in mind, the following strategy will be applied: ‘Those participants who are unable to attend the second (overseas) residential session may, in exceptional circumstances and with the approval of both the Programme Director and Head of Department, be permitted to complete an alternative project in lieu of the residential. In such cases, the project will be research-based and action-oriented, and the specific topic will be agreed between the student and the Programme Director. The project will take the form of a written report of around 3,500 words, and the presentation of same to a small panel led by the Programme Director.”

Recommendation(s):

The Panel notes that the programme hasn’t been delivered for five years and that the programme has not therefore developed as it might otherwise have done, if in receipt of learner and employer feedback during this time. The programme board should revisit the learning and teaching strategies proposed to ensure an integrated approach, which unifies disparate elements into a coherent whole. A unique selling point should be identified for the programme.

RESPONSE: Although this programme has not been delivered in the past four years, the programme team is mindful of changing trends in delivery mechanisms. Members of the MBA delivery team are involved in other masters programmes and part-time offerings, and have been gathering insights from those experiences, amending their teaching approach accordingly. In addition, several faculty have participated in the Institute’s MALT programme, which has also helped to enhance their teaching approach. This programme team will revisit learning and teaching strategies at their next programme board meeting.


With regard to the programme’s unique selling point, the team feels that this is represented by two key elements: 1) the Babson residential and 2) the (now significantly more) applied/practical orientation of the programme course work and dissertation; the latter elements in particular should help highlight the applied ‘problem-solving’ and potential ‘process enhancement’ value of the programme to corporate participants and their respective employers.

4. Assessment Strategies Recommendation(s): The Panel recommends the use of integrated assessment strategies in the programme.

Second readers should be used where feasible to ensure best practice. See HETAC

Assessment and Standards (2009).

The volume of assessment should be re-considered. RESPONSE: The programme team welcomes the suggestion to use more integrated assessment

strategies in the programme, and will discuss this at their next programme board meeting. In particular, some of the semester 2 and 4 modules could potentially be reconsidered in this regard.

A policy for using second readers in dissertations has already been introduced in our

other masters programmes, and this will be applied to the MBA.

Integrating assessments across modules should also help reduce the volume of assessment components currently contained within the programme.

5. Module-Level Findings Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): Consider replacing the research dissertation with an applied project. Update the

reading list.

Ensure all texts are appropriate to level 9 in the module: Managing People and Organisations and update to include modern perspectives on organisations. This module should be re-examined to avoid overlap with ‘Change Management’.

Reconsider title of ‘Identifying Market Opportunities’.

Reconsider the inclusion of historical background in ‘Economics- Environment and

Policy’.


‘Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice’ is very content driven and is undergraduate focused. This module should be revised to ensure its relevance at level 9.

Reconsider the title ‘e-Business and Digital Media Strategy’, to reflect the module

content more appropriately.

Update the reading list in the module: ‘Business Management and Strategy’.

RESPONSE:

The programme team welcomes these valuable suggestions, especially in relation to the dissertation. As a result of the Panel’s report, the team will, at the next available opportunity (and prior to the intake of next cohort of students):

Amend the research dissertation so that it has more of an applied/practical orientation.

As indicated above, it is felt that this constitutes one of the programme’s key USPs, and will be of immediate value to participants and their respective employers.

Update all the reading lists, ensuring they are appropriate to level 9 learning. Check for potential overlap between the Managing People and Change Management

modules. Reconsider the titles of the two modules ‘Identifying Market Opportunities’ and ‘E-

Business’. Remove and/or reduce the historical background contained in the Economics module. Revise the ‘Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice’ module.


______________________________________________________ Dr. Patricia Moriarty, Head of School of Business and Humanities Date: 31st October 2013

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

Date:

1st September 2013.




Named Award: Certificate in Business Programme Title(s): Certificate in Business in Internationalisation Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Special-Purpose NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

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

Ms. Adrian Payne Academic Institute of Technology Tallaght (ITT) Mr. Don O’Kane Industry Xerox Dr. William Lyons Secretary to

Panel Lecturer, School of Engineering


Cathal Kearney Shane Hill


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in Business Studies in Internationalisation



See programme submission for more detailed information.



Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in Business Studies in Internationalisation

The Panel recommends validation for five years subject to the conditions and recommendations contained in this report. However, given that the overall finding of the Programmatic Review is that the process itself is incomplete at this time, the validation of the programmes cannot be finally confirmed until the SER has been fully reviewed. In that respect the Panel approves the programmes on an interim basis pending completion of the overall SER by 31st December 2013. When the SER is complete the full five-year validation will be confirmed. Validation is not to extend beyond the next academic year in the absence of a completed SER. The Panel does not require any further programme documentation to be re-submitted to it for completion of this process beyond the School response to individual validation reports as required by the Institute’s regulations on programme 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 takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions 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 or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.


4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was satisfied with the demand of the programme. Condition(s): None.


4.2 Award


Condition(s): None.





Overall Finding: Yes, the panel found strong evidence to support the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation. These themes are embedded in the programme.

Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: This is a 30 credit Springboard minor award programme therefore there is no progression opportunity.

Condition(s): None.





Overall Finding: Yes, the programme meets the required standards for special purpose award for Level 8.

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

Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes, the panel discussed the module ‘Identifying Market Opportunities’ which is designated at Level 9 and the panel is satisfied that the module is appropriate for this programme.

Condition(s): None.



Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided

for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was satisfied that appropriate teaching and

learning strategies are being utilised.



Condition(s): None.





Overall Finding: Yes, the panel found that there was good evidence that appropriate programme assessment strategies are being utilised.






Condition(s): None.







Overall Finding: Yes, this programme is Springboard funded.

Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was satisfied that quality assurance procedures were applied.


Condition(s): None.



Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was impressed that DkIT employs a careers adviser

who exclusively advises Springboard learners.

Condition(s): None.









the proposed programme? Overall Finding: See recommendation below.

Condition(s): That the title of module ‘International Competence and Language’ be amended to read

‘International Competence and Mandarin’. Recommendation(s): The panel recommend that the assessment details be reviewed and that all modules

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

The panel suggests that the programme team should review all modules to ensure that all fields on the AKARI Book of Modules are completed.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

The panel suggests that the programme team should review all modules to ensure that

all fields on the AKARI Book of Modules are completed.


Validation Panel Report Approved By:

Signed:

_______________________________________________________ Ms. Maebh Maher, Chairperson.

Date:

9th May 2013.



Report


Named Award: Certificate in Business Programme Title(s): Certificate in Business in Internationalisation Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Certificate in Business Award Class: Special-Purpose Award NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members





Cathal Kearney Shane Hill


Introduction The report contains a response from the Department of Business Studies to the programme Panel Report for the programme Certificate in Business in Internationalisation. The programme team welcomes the positive and constructive Panel Report, and addresses the specific conditions/recommendations under the relevant headings below.

1. Assessment Strategies

Condition(s) That the title of module ‘International Competence and Language’ be amended to read

‘International Competence and Mandarin’. RESPONSE The module title will be amended accordingly, and referred to as such throughout the revised document. Recommendation(s) The panel recommend that the assessment details be reviewed and that all modules



RESPONSE The assessment strategy for each module is indicated in the respective module descriptors, and is also summarised in the course schedules. The programme team further clarifies this to students by way of a C/A schedule, which is issued at the beginning of each semester. However, this will be discussed at the programme team’s next meeting with a view to ensuring consistency. At their next programme board meeting, the team will review all modules in Akari Document to ensure completion.

2. Other Findings

Condition(s) None.

Recommendation(s) The panel suggests that the programme team should review all modules to ensure that

all fields on the AKARI Book of Modules are completed.


RESPONSE At their next programme board meeting, the team will review all modules in Akari Document to ensure completion.


_______________________________________________________ Dr. Patricia Moriarty, Head of School of Business and Humanities. Date: 3rd November 2013

I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panel report have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at Dundalk Institute of Technology for ratification. Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel:

____________________________________________________ Ms Maebh Maher, Chair. Date:

15th November 2013.




Named Award: Higher Diploma in Business Programme Title(s): Higher Diploma in Business in Business and Marketing Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Higher Diploma Award Class: Major Award NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members






1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Higher Diploma in Business in Business and Marketing





The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel. The panel was impressed with the level of commitment and enthusiasm exhibited by the team in the design and delivery of this programme.

Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Higher Diploma in Business in Business and Marketing





4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Yes, there was strong evidence given to the panel which included international and Irish students.

Condition(s): None.


4.2 Award


Condition(s): None.





Overall Finding: Yes, the panel found strong evidence to support the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation.

Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

The panel suggests that the programme team consider eligibility of applications from

non-business backgrounds who hold a Level 7 or equivalent qualification for entry.








Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was satisfied with this Level 8 programme. It does meet the required standards.


Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes, the programme structure is logical and well defined.

Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was satisfied that appropriate teaching and learning strategies are being utilised.



Condition(s): None.





Overall Finding: Yes, the panel found that there was good evidence to support this.





grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted. Condition(s): None.








Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was satisfied that the quality assurance procedures were applied.


Condition(s): None.



Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was impressed with the team approach.

Condition(s): None.










Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy as outlined and

that there is consistency across the modules.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s): The panel is satisfied to recommend the changes proposed by the programme team as

detailed in the programme document.

That research skills and methodologies be expressed within the module content and learning outcomes in the ‘International Business’ module, Semester 1, and ‘Doing Business in Emerging Markets’ module, Semester 2.

That the programme document be amended to include details of the embedded 30

credit minor award to include Programme Outcomes, Schedule and LO Mappings and Book of Modules as amended.




Signed:


Date:

9th May 2013

School Response to Programme Validation Report Page 1/4

School Response to the Programme Validation

Report


Named Award: Higher Diploma in Business Programme Title(s): Higher Diploma in Business in Business and Marketing Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Higher Diploma Award Class: Major Award NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members






1 Introduction The report contains a response from the department of business studies in the school of Business and Humanities to the programme validation report for the programme Higher Diploma in Business in Business and Marketing. The Programme Team welcomed the positive Panel Report from the Validation Panel visit of 9th May 2013, and the decision to validate the programme for an initial one year, with an extension to four years subject to completion of the Programmatic Review Process. The Programme Team note that the Panel have requested some minor amendments to the programme, and these have now been dealt with in the revised programme document (attached). The details of the specific revisions made are detailed below under the relevant points highlighted in the Panel Report.


Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear

and appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes.

Condition(s): None Recommendation(s): The panel suggests that the programme team consider eligibility of applications from

non-business backgrounds who hold a Level 7 or equivalent qualification for entry.

Response: The entry criteria have now been changed to: a level 8 qualification in any discipline OR a level 7 in any discipline area*

*those in the latter category whose degree is not in business or a related field will also be required to complete pre-entry foundation level business modules which can be taken during the summer period at DkIT. The modules in question are entitled ‘Introduction to Business’ and ‘Management Studies’; these are already validated and are available at DkIT as part of the Institute’s Certificate in English Language and Western Society & Culture (level 6) and Bachelor of Business in Business & Management (level 7), respectively. English entry requirements will remain unchanged, i.e. IELTS 6.0 (or equivalent). Students who do not meet this level of English language proficiency will be required to take English language training programmes at DkIT before commencement of Higher Diploma programme and meet this standard before progression. [See section 1’Entry Requirements’ in the revised programme document].





Condition(s): None.


that there is consistency across the modules. Response:

The assessment strategies detailed in the submission document are applied across all modules, where appropriate. The scheduling of assessments is also co-ordinated to ensure students are not unduly over-loaded. Programme Board meetings are a further opportunity to check that the assessment strategy is being applied consistently and in a balanced manner across modules. [See revised course schedules, as well as module details in the ‘Book of Modules’ in the revised programme document].

1.3 Other Findings Condition(s): That research skills and methodologies be expressed within the module content and

learning outcomes in the ‘International Business’ module, Semester 1, and ‘Doing Business in Emerging Markets’ module, Semester 2. Response: The content and learning outcomes of these two modules have been amended accordingly. [See revised modules in the ‘Book of Modules’ section in the revised document]

That the programme document be amended to include details of the embedded 30 credit minor award to include Programme Outcomes, Schedule and LO Mappings and Book of Modules as amended.

Response:

By way of background information, the programme submission document referred to a ‘minor award’. This ‘minor award’ constituted the entire original programme, which was developed in 2008 as a level 8, one semester 30 credit programme. However, the new


submission document sought to replace this programme, upgrading it to a 60 credit level 8 major award. Thus, the revised programme does not include an embedded award.

School Response Report Approved By: Signed:

_______________________________________________________ Dr. Patricia Moriarty, Head of School of Business and Humanities.

Date:

3rd October 2013.

I confirm that the conditions and/or recommendations contained in the programme validation report have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at Dundalk Institute of Technology for ratification.

Signed:

___________________________________________________________ Ms. Maebh Maher, Chair.

Date:

10th October 2013.




Named Award: Higher Diploma in Business Programme Title(s): Higher Diploma in Business in Enterprise Development Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Higher Diploma Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members




Prof Colm O’Gorman Academic Dublin City University


Shane Hill Maeve McArdle Helen White Mary Kennedy


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Higher Diploma in Business in Enterprise Development





The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel. The panel was impressed with the level of commitment and enthusiasm exhibited by the team in the design and delivery of this programme.

Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Higher Diploma in Business in Enterprise Development





4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Yes, there was strong evidence given to the panel which included a summary of Industry needs for the region.

Condition(s): None.


4.2 Award


Condition(s): None.





Overall Finding: Yes, the panel found strong evidence to support the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation.

Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.









Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was satisfied with this Level 8 programme. It does meet the required standards.


Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes, the programme structure is logical and well defined. The panel noted the module ‘Identifying Market Opportunities’ which is designated at Level 9 and the panel is satisfied that the module is appropriate for this programme.

Condition(s): None.






Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was satisfied that appropriate teaching and learning strategies are being utilised.

Condition(s): None.











Condition(s): None.








Condition(s): None.






Condition(s): None.



Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was impressed with the team approach.

Condition(s): None.










Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy as outlined and


5.2 Other Findings


detailed in the programme document including the proposed title change.

Assessment break down to be corrected in the modules LAW B8005 (CA 100%), FNCE B8003 (CA 70%; exam 30%), PROJ B8002 (CA 100%) to reflect the actual position.




Signed:


Date:

9th May 2013.



Report


Named Award: Higher Diploma Programme Title(s): Higher Diploma in Business in Enterprise Development Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Higher Diploma Award Class: Major Award NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members






Shane Hill Maeve McArdle Helen White Mary Kennedy


Introduction The report contains a response from the Department of Business Studies to the programme Panel Report for the Higher Diploma in Business in Enterprise Development. The programme team welcomes the positive and constructive Panel Report, and addresses the specific conditions/recommendations under the relevant headings below.

1. Module-Level Findings Assessment Strategies Condition(s): None.



RESPONSE: The assessment strategy for each module is indicated in the respective module descriptors, and is also summarised in the course schedules. The programme team further clarifies this to students by way of a C/A schedule, which is issued at the beginning of each semester. However, the programme team will review all of the modules at their next programme board meeting to ensure that a clear and consistent assessment strategy is outlined across the modules.

2. Other Findings


detailed in the programme document including the proposed title change.

Assessment break down to be corrected in the modules LAW B8005 (CA 100%), FNCE B8003 (CA 70%; exam 30%), PROJ B8002 (CA 100%) to reflect the actual position.

RESPONSE:

The Panel’s approval for the proposed changes is gratefully acknowledged. The Assessment break down will be corrected in the revised programme document.




_______________________________________________________ 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 panel report have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at 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 Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Business in Business and Management

(changed from Bachelor of Arts in Business and Management)

Exit Awards: Higher Certificate in Business in Business and Management Award Type: Bachelor of Business Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 7, 6 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180, 120 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members

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

Ms. Anne Burke Ms Edel Griffin

Academic Lecturer of Accountancy, Letterkenny Institute of Technology (LyIT) International Business, University of Ulster (UU)

Mr .Ray Bowe Industry IDA Ireland Ms. Caroline O’Sullivan Secretary to

Panel Senior Lecturer, Section of Creative Media, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)


Mr. Colin Cooney Mr. Brian Woods Mr. Cathal Kearney Mr. Alan Kelly Mr. Karl Mernagh Mr. Vicky Leahy Mr. Mario McBlain Ms. Mairead McKiernan Dr.. Deirdre Mc Ardle Ms. Ping Cao Ms. Cathriona Connor Mr. Pat O’Neill Dr. Bernie Breereton Mr. John Sisk Ms. Miriam Vaqueuro Ms. Bernadette Cassidy Ms. Angela Hamouda Ms. Larry Murphy


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Arts in Business and Management Higher Certificate in Business in Business & Management (Exit Award) The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously 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 The BA in Business & Management replaces the existing Bachelor of Business in Management & Administration. Feedback from past, current and prospective students indicates that the Management and Administration title was not attractive and caused confusion. Students are unclear regarding the difference between this programme and the new Level 8 Bachelor of Business programme. The departments research suggests that the existing title was not appealing and seen as very traditional and may be a contributory factor in the 40 reduction in demand for the programme in the last two years. The current title has been in existence for more than 20 years and is viewed by many staff as outdated. Renaming the programme as a BA award allows the School to differentiate this programme and provides some flexibility to offer some educational broadening modules as well as a greater emphasis on creativity & innovation, entrepreneurship, starting a business and graduate life skills. The BA in Business and Management will complement our existing BA (Hons) in Accounting and Finance.



The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel. The panel was impressed with the level of commitment and innovation demonstrated by the team in the delivery of the current programme and in the design of the proposed programme.



Bachelor of Business in Business and Management Higher Certificate in Business in Business & Management (Exit Award)




4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: The panel was satisfied that there was a demand for the programme and there was evidence to support this.


Condition(s): None


4.2 Award

Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: The proposed title BA in Business and Management does not

reflect the programme content. Condition(s): The title to be changed to Bachelor of Business in Business and Management with a

Higher Certificate in Business in Business and Management (Exit Award).




Overall Finding: The panel found strong evidence to support the strategic themes of entrepreneurship and sustainability and internationalisation are embedded in the programme. The sustainability element could have been better emphasised by articulating for example the graduate lifelong learning attributes.

Condition(s): None






Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: The panel was satisfied that there was a progression route for the level 7 graduates onto the add on BBS Honours Level 8.

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The panel would recommend that this is expressed in the documentation.



Overall Finding: The panel was satisfied that the proposed programme did meet the level 6 and the level 7 award standards.


Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): The panel recommend that all modules are reviewed to ensure that appropriate

descriptive language is used to express the module learning outcomes.





Overall Finding: The programme structure is both logical and well defined and the programme outcomes meet the skills requirements from industry.

Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): The panel recommends that the programme development team considers moving the

work placement module from semester 6 back to semester 5.



for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: The panel was satisfied that the school through their strong links

with CELT had appropriate teaching and learning strategies embedded in the programme.

Condition(s): None.





Overall Finding: The panel found that there was satisfactory evidence for this.







Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The panel recommend that the programme development team design a policy for the

assessment of group work and in particular to encompass peer review and individualisation of marks. The policy should also include a strategy for dealing with students who do not engage with group assignments.



Overall Finding: The panel were assured that no additional resources were required to run this programme.

Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: The panel was satisfied with the quality assurance procedures.

The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-





manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.

Condition(s): None.



Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: The panel was impressed with the stage convenors and

programme director’s roles in managing the programme.

Condition(s): None.


5 Module-Level Findings

Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy is outlined. In

addition the continuous assessment schedule should be reviewed to avoid bottle necks



for assignment/class test deadlines.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s): None



Signed:

_______________________________________________________ Ms. Maebh Maher, Chair.

Date:

8th May 2013.


Response to the Report

of the Programme Validation Panel


Named Award: Bachelor of Business Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Business in Business and Management

(changed from Bachelor of Arts in Business and Management)

Exit Awards: Higher Certificate in Business in Business and Management Award Type: Bachelor of Business Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 7, 6 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180, 120 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members


Ms. Anne Burke Ms Edel Griffin

Academic Lecturer of Accountancy, Letterkenny Institute of Technology (LyIT) International Business, University of Ulster (UU)

Mr .Ray Bowe Industry IDA Ireland Ms. Caroline O’Sullivan Secretary to



Colin Cooney Brian Woods Cathal Kearney Alan Kelly Karl Mernagh Vicky Leahy Mario McBlain Mairead McKiernan Deirdre Mc Ardle Ping Cao Cathriona Connor Pat O’Neill Bernie Breereton John Sisk Miriam Vaqueuro Bernadette Cassidy Angela Hamouda Larry Murphy


Introduction This report contains a response from the Department of Business Studies to the programme Panel Report for the Bachelor of Arts in Business and Management - now with the new title of Bachelor of Business in Business and Management. The programme team welcomes the positive and constructive Panel Report, and addresses the specific conditions/recommendations under the relevant headings below.

1. Award Condition(s): The title to be changed to Bachelor of Business in Business and Management with a

Higher Certificate in Business and Management (Exit Award).

RESPONSE This has now been changed and is reflected in the revised programme document.


2. Access, Transfer and Progression

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The panel would recommend that this is expressed in the documentation.

RESPONSE These details are now included in the revised programme document, namely, that participants successfully completing this (NFQ Level 7) programme and gaining an overall average of 50% or more can transfer to the add-on level 8 honours degree programme – BBS.

3. Standards and Outcomes

Condition(s) None. Recommendation(s):

The panel recommend that all modules are reviewed to ensure that appropriate



RESPONSE: The descriptive language used to express the learning outcomes of the modules is in keeping with the overall style of module descriptors within the School. However, the programme team will review these to ensure they adequately reflect both the content and LOs of the relevant modules. This year’s Open Day and School Visits represent a further opportunity to monitor this.


Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): The panel recommends that the programme development team considers moving the

work placement module from semester 6 back to semester 5.

RESPONSE Both the ‘work placement’ and ‘studies abroad’ options have now been moved back to semester 5, as requested, and this change is now reflected in the revised programme document and related course schedules. However, when the programme team met to discuss this and make the relevant change, an anomaly was identified in the total number of credits available to students. Specifically, the team needed to ensure that those students availing of either the work placement or studies abroad options could appropriately pick up their studies in the final semester and not be disadvantaged by, for example, year-long modules. Thus, minor adjustments have also been made to the sequencing of modules and their relevant credits in the award year to accommodate this change. Relevant ‘knock-on’ changes have also been made to the module assessment details where necessary. Reflecting on the above, the programme team have also felt it necessary to make a minor adjustment to the sequencing of the year 1 modules so as not to unduly overload the student in their critical first year. This has resulted in the year-long ‘Creativity for Innovation’ module being delivered over one semester (semester 1) rather than 2, while retaining its 10 credit weighting. This change is being made both in response to general student feedback and in an effort to enhance the overall student learning experience; it will take effect from next year only.


Condition(s): None.




RESPONSE Since the 2013 Programmatic Review, the School has adopted further guidelines/policies developed by the Institute’s CELT Department. With specific regard to assessment, the programme team has adopted CELT’s guidelines on group work, and these are included in Appendix 1 of this report. The programme team will adopt a combination of approaches ii and iii in the attached document to ensure fairness and transparency in relation to the assessment of group-based projects and assignments. Students who do not engage with the required group assignments will need to discuss the reasons for this with their lecturer (as per the attached guidelines). Only in exceptional circumstances, and in consultation with both the Programme Director and Head of Department, might students be permitted to submit an individual piece of work.

6. Module-Level Findings Assessment Strategies

Condition(s) None. Recommendation(s) All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy is outlined. In

addition the continuous assessment schedule should be reviewed to avoid bottle necks for assignment/class test deadlines

RESPONSE The assessment strategy for each module is indicated in the respective module descriptors, and is also summarised in the course schedules. The programme team will clarify this further to students by way of a C/A schedule, which is issued at the beginning of each semester.





_____________________________________________________ Ms Maebh Maher, Chair. Date:

13th November 2013.


Appendix 1: Assessing Group Work

All of the basic principles of assessment that apply to individual work apply to group work as well; however, assessing group work has added dimensions as often both the process and product-related skills must be assessed, and group performance must be translated into individual grades – which raises issues of fairness and equity. Complicating both these issues is the fact that neither group processes nor individual contributions are necessarily apparent in the final product, thus a method of finding ways of obtaining that information is required.

When effective group management processes are employed, with clear assessment guidelines developed and communicated to the group members, and valid and fair grading processes employed, the likelihood of positive learning outcomes and student satisfaction with group activities should increase. Alternatively, if students cannot see the objective of group work and are unsure of what is expected of them, or believe the assessment methods are invalid or simply unfair, the educational benefits are reduced and tensions can emerge. Habeshaw et al. (1993) note that when the product of group work is the only element assessed, the unintended effect can be that students tend to work individually and then combine their contributions for the final mark. This discourages collaboration and can lead to some of the group members not contributing equally to the final assignment and complaints about ‘free-riders’ not contributing to the final product. They suggest a scheme in which the students distribute the total pool of marks between themselves (ibid.). Gibbs (1992) provides a variation of this peer assessment factor in which all students receive the average group score plus a peer allocated score. Three main approaches toward group-work assessment are considered here – (i) independent observation, (ii) evaluating individual contributions and (iii) peer reviews. (i) Independent observation requires that an observer (i.e. the lecturer who set the

assignment) attends team meetings or other activities and assesses individual performance against established criteria. While this can provide an unbiased assessment of performance, the fact that the team members know that they are being observed might influence their behavior. This approach is also limited since observation is only practical for activities such as group meetings. Group work involves much more than what goes on in meetings. Although this is certainly a useful tool in assessing group working skills, it is not sufficient.

(ii) The second approach involves evaluating the evidence of the individual team member’s contributions. One method of doing this is to require that each team establish, on ‘Moodle’, an online discussion group for communication among its members. The lecturer can then monitor the contributions to the discussion group and evaluate the contributions of each individual based on the performance criteria established. Other evidence of individual contribution can also be examined, such as documents produced. However, this approach is limited since not all team skills can be assessed based on the artifacts produced by the individual students.

(iii) The third approach is to conduct peer reviews. In this approach each team member

evaluates the performance of the other members of the team based on criteria established for this purpose. To be most effective, these evaluations should be


anonymous. This approach has several advantages. First the team members are in the best position to evaluate the performance of their teammates since they work with them continually during the course of the team project. The main disadvantage of this approach is that students are often reluctant to negatively criticize other students and there can be a central tendency in the ratings, thus the reliability of this measure suffers. See Figure 1 below for a sample peer observation form that can be used. The list of attributes is not exhaustive and can be added to.

In spite of the limitations of each of these methods, when used together, they can provide an accurate picture of each student’s individual performance with respect to the identified teamwork skills. Furthermore, if students know more precisely how group work is defined and evaluated, they will strive to learn and practise the identified skills.



Did the group member…. 1. Attend nearly all team meetings? YES/NO 2. Arrive on time for nearly all team meetings? YES/NO 3. Ever introduce a new idea? YES/NO 4. Ever openly express opinions? YES/NO 5. Communicate clearly with other team members? (never) 1 2 3 4 5 (always) 6. Share knowledge with others? (never) 1 2 3 4 5 (always) 7. Consider suggestions from others? YES/NO 8. Generally tried to understand what other team members were saying? YES/NO 9. Generally complete individual component(s) on time? YES/NO 10. Generally complete individual assignments with acceptable quality? YES/NO 11. Do a fair share of the work? YES/NO 12. Seem committed to team goals? YES/NO 13. Show respect for other team members? (never) 1 2 3 4 5 (always)


1. Group members must accept the group that is allocated by the lecturer and cannot seek

to have someone removed from, or added to, the group except in exceptional circumstances, and only with the written approval of the lecturer who has set the assignment.

2. Group members are expected to complete group assignments on time and to a pass standard.


3. Group members are expected to organise their group so that all group members can play an active role within the group.

4. All group members are expected to contribute actively and equitably to the group work and to be able to show the contributions of each group member should this be necessary.

5. Group members should respect all other group members and elicit, listen to, and respect the views of all participants.

6. Group members should respect, and seek to respond effectively, to diversity within the group.

7. Each group member should be open to compromise and be willing to co-operate with others; keep an open mind and be prepared to vote on disagreements and accept outcome of the vote.

8. All group members must engage with peer reviews if the lecturer has stated that it will be part of the process and all contributions to peer reviews must be honest and fair.

9. Any member of the group who is concerned about any issue within the group should, in the first instance, make his/her concerns known to the group with a view to having the matter resolved within the group. Should a team member feel that their concerns are not being addressed within the group, they should then take the matter up with the lecturer who set the group assignment. The lecturer will mediate a resolution between the individual and the group and this mediation will be accepted by the group.

Reference List

Beckman, M. (1990): Collaborative Learning: Preparation for the Workplace and Democracy. College Teaching, 38(4), 128-133.

Chickering, A. W, and Gamson, Z. F (eds.) (1991): Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 47. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Crosby, Mary (2001): Working with people as an informal educator. In L. D. Richardson and M. Wolfe (eds.) Principles and Practice of Informal Education. Learning through life. London: Routledge Falmer.

Felder, R. M. & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls and payoffs. Eric Document Reproduction Service Report ED 377038. www location: http:/www2.ncsu.edu/uni...c/Papers/coopreport.html

Forsyth, Donelson R. (2006): Group Dynamics 4e [International Student Edition]. Belmont CA.: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing.

Gibbs, G. (1992): Assessing more students, Teaching more students. No. 4, Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Habeshaw ,S.,Gibbs, G. & Habeshaw, T. (1993). Interesting Ways to Assess your Students, 3rd ed. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1991): Co-operative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-FRIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.: School of Educational and Human Development, George Washington University.


Poole, M. S., Keyton, J., & Frey, L. R. (1999): Group communication methodology: Issues and considerations. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Further Reading:

Johnson, David W. and Frank P. Johnson (2009) Joining Together. Group theory and group skills 10e. Boston: Merrill. 660 + xii pages. An excellent starting point for an exploration of group work practice. It begins by providing an overview of group dynamics and experiential learning and then looks at key dimensions of group experience and the role of the leader/facilitator.




Named Award: Bachelor of Business Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Business in Business and Technology Exit Awards: Higher Certificate in Business and Technology Award Type: Bachelor of Business Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 7, 6 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180, 120 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members


Mr. Adrian Payne Ms Edel Griffin


Mr Ray Bowe Industry IDA Ireland Ms. Caroline O’Sullivan Secretary to



Mr Cathal Kearney Ms. Paula Reilly Mr. Karl Mernagh Ms. Ping Cao Ms. Lisa Muldowney Ms. Marie Bouquet Ms. Martina O’Neill Ms. Paula Browne Ms. Lisa Cranny Dr. Deirdre McArdle Mr. Seamus Rispin Ms. Fionnula Dullaghan Ms. Tara Kinney Ms. Cathriona Connor Ms. Miriam Vaquero Ms. Angela Hamouda Mr. Colin Cooney Ms. Siobhan Duffy Ms. Bernadette Cassidy


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Business in Business and Technology Higher Certificate in Business in Business and Technology (Exit Award) The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously 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


The Bachelor of Business in Business & Technology will facilitate the development of learners’ interpersonal and intellectual capabilities and will assist learners in their academic, intellectual and personal development to enable them to work as business and technology professionals. The programme will produce graduates with a broad knowledge and understanding of business and technology concepts. It will: Provide graduates with a framework and understanding of business and technology. Produce graduates with the communication, technical skills and knowledge to work in a

business organisation Prepare graduates for a dynamic and ever-changing business environment and to

develop their entrepreneurial and adaptive skills. Develop graduates power of evaluation and problem solving skills. Foster capable, resilient and self-confident graduates and provide a basis for long- term

employability. Provide the necessary theoretical and practical foundation for those learners who wish

to progress to further academic or professional education. The Bachelor of Business in Business & Technology replaces the Bachelor of Business in Business Information Systems. The current title is viewed by many staff as outdated and feedback from current and prospective student indicates that the Business Information System title was not attractive and was unclear. A decline in applications in recent years suggests that students are unsure what the programme is about and this is borne out with feedback from students at open day and school visits. See programme submission for more detailed information.


The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of


their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel. The panel was impressed with the level of commitment and innovation demonstrated by the team in the delivery of the current programme and in the design of the proposed programme.


Bachelor of Business in Business and Technology Higher Certificate in Business in Business and Technology (Exit Award)



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


Overall Finding: The panel was satisfied that there was a demand for the programme and there was strong evidence to support this.

Condition(s): None.


4.2 Award

Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: The proposed title in BBS in Business and Technology level 7 and

the Higher Cert. in Business in Business and Technology is appropriate however see recommendation below.

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

The panel suggests that the word ‘Technology’ in the title could cause confusion for CAO

applicants. It is recommended that the programme development team consider pre-fixing the word ‘Information’ to ‘Technology’ in the titles.



Overall Finding: The panel found strong evidence to support the strategic themes of entrepreneurship and sustainability and internationalisation are embedded in the programme.

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):


None.




Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: The panel was satisfied that there was a progression route for the level 7 graduates onto the add on BBS Honours Level 8.

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The panel would recommend that this is expressed in the documentation. In addition,

the panel suggests that a review be carried out to ensure that electives at level 8 are compatible with those taken on these programmes.



Overall Finding: The panel was satisfied that the proposed programme did meet the level 6 and the level 7 award standards.




Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

The panel recommend that all modules are reviewed to ensure that appropriate




Overall Finding: The programme structure is both logical and well defined and the programme outcomes meet the skills requirements from industry.

Condition(s): None.




for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: The panel was satisfied that the school through their strong links

with CELT had appropriate teaching and learning strategies embedded in the programme. The panel commend the programme development team for the innovative teaching practices.

Condition(s): None.






Overall Finding: The panel found that there was satisfactory evidence for this.






Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

The panel recommend that the programme development team design a policy for the




Overall Finding: Yes. The panel was assured that no additional resources were required to run this programme.

Condition(s): None.







Overall Finding: The panel was satisfied with the quality assurance procedures.


Condition(s): None.



Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: The panel was impressed with the roles of stage convenor and

programme director in managing the programme.

Condition(s): None.








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

Overall Finding: Yes, subject to conditions and/or recommendations

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy is outlined. In


5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None. Validation Panel Report Approved By:

Signed:


Date:

8th May 2013.


Response to the Report Programme Validation Panel

Report


Named Award: Bachelor of Business Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Business in Business and Technology Exit Awards: Higher Certificate in Business and Technology Award Type: Bachelor of Business Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 7, 6 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180, 120 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members


Mr. Adrian Payne Ms Edel Griffin


Mr Ray Bowe Industry IDA Ireland Ms. Caroline O’Sullivan Secretary to



Cathal Kearney Paula Reilly Karl Mernagh Ping Cao Lisa Muldowney Marie Bouquet Martina O’Neill Paula Browne Lisa Cranny Deirdre McArdle Seamus Rispin Fionnula Dullaghan Tara Kinney Cathriona Connor Miriam Vaquero Angela Hamouda Colin Cooney Siobhan Duffy Bernadette Cassidy


Introduction

This report contains a response from the Department of Business Studies to the programme Panel Report for the Bachelor of Business in Business and Technology. The programme team welcomes the positive and constructive Panel Report, and addresses the specific conditions/recommendations under the relevant headings below.

1. Award Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The panel suggests that the word ‘Technology’ in the title could cause confusion for CAO

applicants. It is recommended that the programme development team consider pre-fixing the word ‘Information’ to ‘Technology’ in the title.

RESPONSE: The programme team feels that any potential confusion caused by the current title is fully off-set by the detailed programme description. To this end, a brochure has been produced by the programme team fully explaining the programme content. The team feels that adding the word ‘Technology’ to the title at this stage would unnecessarily elongate the title and could, potentially, cause further confusion at a critical time in the programme’s development. The team would, therefore, like to retain the current title until the next programmatic review. In the interim, however, the team will ensure that participants’ reaction to the programme title is monitored.

2. Access, Transfer and Progression Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The panel would recommend that this is expressed in the documentation. In addition,

the panel suggests that a review be carried out to ensure that electives at level 8 are compatible with those taken on these programmes.

RESPONSE: Those successfully completing this programme, and gaining an overall average of 50% or higher, may progress directly to the one year add-on level 8 BBS programme. Alternatively, graduates from the PR stream who gain in excess of 50% may progress to the final year of the 4 year level 8 BA in Public Relations. This information is now included in the revised programme document.


At its recent Programme Board Meeting (22nd October 2013), the programme team discussed the current electives offered in the programme to ensure compatibility with level 8 progression options. As indicated above, the current options available in the programme offer a strategic fit with the E-Business/Technology, Marketing and Language options available on the level 8 BBS add-on programme. In addition, the year 4 of the level 8 PR degree offers a more specialised fit for those students following the PR elective stream. This information is now included in the revised programme document.

3. Standards and Outcomes Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The panel recommend that all modules are reviewed to ensure that appropriate


RESPONSE The descriptive language used to express the learning outcomes of the modules is in keeping with the overall style of module descriptors within the School. Further details on module content is provided in the new programme promotional brochure, where specific learning outcomes are also highlighted. However, the programme team will review these to ensure they adequately reflect both the content and LOs of the relevant modules. This year’s Open Day and School Visits represent a further opportunity to monitor this. In reviewing the modules, the programme team have also felt that it would be beneficial to the student to make a minor adjustment to the sequencing of the year 1 modules so as not to unduly overload the student in their critical first year. This has resulted in the year-long ‘Creativity for Innovation’ module being delivered over one semester (semester 1) rather than 2, while retaining its 10 credit weighting. This change is being made both as a result of general student feedback and in an effort to enhance the overall student learning experience; it will take effect from next year only.


Condition(s): None.




RESPONSE: Since the 2013 Programmatic Review, the School has adopted further guidelines/policies developed by the Institute’s CELT Department. With specific regard to assessment, the programme team has adopted CELT’s guidelines on group work, and these can be found in Appendix 1 of this report. The programme team will adopt a combination of approaches ii and iii in the attached document to ensure fairness and transparency in relation to the assessment of group-based projects and assignments. Students who do not engage with the required group assignments will need to discuss the reasons for this with their lecturer (as per the attached guidelines). Only in exceptional circumstances, and in consultation with both the Programme Director and Head of Department, might students be permitted to submit an individual piece of work.

5. Module-Level Findings Assessment Strategies Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy is outlined. In


OUR RESPONSE:

The assessment strategy for each module is indicated in the respective module descriptors, and is also summarised in the course schedules. The programme team further clarifies this to students by way of a C/A schedule, which is issued at the beginning of each semester.





________________________________________________________ Ms Maebh Maher, Chair. Date:

13th November 2013.


Appendix 1: Assessing Group Work

All of the basic principles of assessment that apply to individual work apply to group work as well; however, assessing group work has added dimensions as often both the process and product-related skills must be assessed, and group performance must be translated into individual grades – which raises issues of fairness and equity. Complicating both these issues is the fact that neither group processes nor individual contributions are necessarily apparent in the final product, thus a method of finding ways of obtaining that information is required.

When effective group management processes are employed, with clear assessment guidelines developed and communicated to the group members, and valid and fair grading processes employed, the likelihood of positive learning outcomes and student satisfaction with group activities should increase. Alternatively, if students cannot see the objective of group work and are unsure of what is expected of them, or believe the assessment methods are invalid or simply unfair, the educational benefits are reduced and tensions can emerge. Habeshaw et al. (1993) note that when the product of group work is the only element assessed, the unintended effect can be that students tend to work individually and then combine their contributions for the final mark. This discourages collaboration and can lead to some of the group members not contributing equally to the final assignment and complaints about ‘free-riders’ not contributing to the final product. They suggest a scheme in which the students distribute the total pool of marks between themselves (ibid.). Gibbs (1992) provides a variation of this peer assessment factor in which all students receive the average group score plus a peer allocated score. Three main approaches toward group-work assessment are considered here – (i) independent observation, (ii) evaluating individual contributions and (iii) peer reviews. (i) Independent observation requires that an observer (i.e. the lecturer who set the

assignment) attends team meetings or other activities and assesses individual performance against established criteria. While this can provide an unbiased assessment of performance, the fact that the team members know that they are being observed might influence their behavior. This approach is also limited since observation is only practical for activities such as group meetings. Group work involves much more than what goes on in meetings. Although this is certainly a useful tool in assessing group working skills, it is not sufficient.

(ii) The second approach involves evaluating the evidence of the individual team member’s contributions. One method of doing this is to require that each team establish, on ‘Moodle’, an online discussion group for communication among its members. The lecturer can then monitor the contributions to the discussion group and evaluate the contributions of each individual based on the performance criteria established. Other evidence of individual contribution can also be examined, such as documents produced. However, this approach is limited since not all team skills can be assessed based on the artifacts produced by the individual students.

(iii) The third approach is to conduct peer reviews. In this approach each team member

evaluates the performance of the other members of the team based on criteria established for this purpose. To be most effective, these evaluations should be


anonymous. This approach has several advantages. First the team members are in the best position to evaluate the performance of their teammates since they work with them continually during the course of the team project. The main disadvantage of this approach is that students are often reluctant to negatively criticize other students and there can be a central tendency in the ratings, thus the reliability of this measure suffers. See Figure 1 below for a sample peer observation form that can be used. The list of attributes is not exhaustive and can be added to.

In spite of the limitations of each of these methods, when used together, they can provide an accurate picture of each student’s individual performance with respect to the identified teamwork skills. Furthermore, if students know more precisely how group work is defined and evaluated, they will strive to learn and practise the identified skills.



Did the group member…. 1. Attend nearly all team meetings? YES/NO 2. Arrive on time for nearly all team meetings? YES/NO 3. Ever introduce a new idea? YES/NO 4. Ever openly express opinions? YES/NO 5. Communicate clearly with other team members? (never) 1 2 3 4 5 (always) 6. Share knowledge with others? (never) 1 2 3 4 5 (always) 7. Consider suggestions from others? YES/NO 8. Generally tried to understand what other team members were saying? YES/NO 9. Generally complete individual component(s) on time? YES/NO 10. Generally complete individual assignments with acceptable quality? YES/NO 11. Do a fair share of the work? YES/NO 12. Seem committed to team goals? YES/NO 13. Show respect for other team members? (never) 1 2 3 4 5 (always)


1. Group members must accept the group that is allocated by the lecturer and cannot seek

to have someone removed from, or added to, the group except in exceptional circumstances, and only with the written approval of the lecturer who has set the assignment.

2. Group members are expected to complete group assignments on time and to a pass standard.


3. Group members are expected to organise their group so that all group members can play an active role within the group.

4. All group members are expected to contribute actively and equitably to the group work and to be able to show the contributions of each group member should this be necessary.

5. Group members should respect all other group members and elicit, listen to, and respect the views of all participants.

6. Group members should respect, and seek to respond effectively, to diversity within the group.

7. Each group member should be open to compromise and be willing to co-operate with others; keep an open mind and be prepared to vote on disagreements and accept outcome of the vote.

8. All group members must engage with peer reviews if the lecturer has stated that it will be part of the process and all contributions to peer reviews must be honest and fair.

9. Any member of the group who is concerned about any issue within the group should, in the first instance, make his/her concerns known to the group with a view to having the matter resolved within the group. Should a team member feel that their concerns are not being addressed within the group, they should then take the matter up with the lecturer who set the group assignment. The lecturer will mediate a resolution between the individual and the group and this mediation will be accepted by the group.

Reference List

Beckman, M. (1990): Collaborative Learning: Preparation for the Workplace and Democracy. College Teaching, 38(4), 128-133.

Chickering, A. W, and Gamson, Z. F (eds.) (1991): Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 47. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Crosby, Mary (2001): Working with people as an informal educator. In L. D. Richardson and M. Wolfe (eds.) Principles and Practice of Informal Education. Learning through life. London: Routledge Falmer.

Felder, R. M. & Brent, R. (1994). Cooperative learning in technical courses: Procedures, pitfalls and payoffs. Eric Document Reproduction Service Report ED 377038. www location: http:/www2.ncsu.edu/uni...c/Papers/coopreport.html

Forsyth, Donelson R. (2006): Group Dynamics 4e [International Student Edition]. Belmont CA.: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing.

Gibbs, G. (1992): Assessing more students, Teaching more students. No. 4, Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Habeshaw ,S.,Gibbs, G. & Habeshaw, T. (1993). Interesting Ways to Assess your Students, 3rd ed. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1991): Co-operative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. ASHE-FRIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.: School of Educational and Human Development, George Washington University.


Poole, M. S., Keyton, J., & Frey, L. R. (1999): Group communication methodology: Issues and considerations. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Further Reading:

Johnson, David W. and Frank P. Johnson (2009) Joining Together. Group theory and group skills 10e. Boston: Merrill. 660 + xii pages. An excellent starting point for an exploration of group work practice. It begins by providing an overview of group dynamics and experiential learning and then looks at key dimensions of group experience and the role of the leader/facilitator.




Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Website Content Development Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Special-Purpose NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members





Seamus Rispin Colin Cooney


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in Website Content Development





The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel. The panel was impressed by the level of commitment and innovation exhibited by the team in the design and delivery of the programme.

Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in Website Content Development





4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Yes, panel was satisfied with the demand of the programme. There was evidence to support this.

Condition(s): None.


4.2 Award



Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes, the panel found strong evidence to support the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation and these are embedded in the programme.

Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: This is a Springboard programme not leading to a major award.


Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes, the programme structure is logical and well defined. The programme outcomes meet the requirements from industry.

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

The panel recommend that the programme team monitor the industry skills/needs on

an annual basis to ensure that the programme remains fit for purpose. This monitoring will also include a review of graduate destinations.





Overall Finding: Yes, the panel is satisfied that appropriate teaching and learning strategies are being utilised.

Condition(s): None.











Condition(s): None.




Recommendation(s): The panel concurs with the programme development team adjustment of the

assessment breakdown for the module image editing and design theory so that the module is assessed as 100% continuous assessment.



Overall Finding: Yes, currently Springboard funded.

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation: Due to the dynamic nature of this discipline area the panel would encourage that staff

involved in the delivery of this programme actively engage in relevant CPD. Evidence to be provided in the next review.





Condition(s): None





Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes. The panel was impressed that the Institute has appointed a

careers adviser who focuses on the Springboard students.

Condition(s): None.






the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes, see recommendation below.

Condition(s): None

Recommendation(s):

All modules should be reviewed to ensure that a clear assessment strategy is outlined

and that there is consistency across the modules.


5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s): None

Recommendation(s): The panel recommend that the total weekly learner workload be reviewed for the 5

credit module ‘Interactive Multimedia Authoring’ to include a rationale in the module descriptor.

The programme team to review all modules to ensure that all fields on the AKARI Book of Modules are completed.


Signed:

_____________________________________________________ Ms. Maebh Maher, Chairperson.

Date:

9th May 2013.



Report


Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Website Content Development Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Special-Purpose NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members





Seamus Rispin Colin Cooney


Introduction This report contains a response from the Department of Business Studies to the programme Panel Report for the Certificate in Website Content Development. The programme team welcomes the positive and constructive Panel Report, and addresses the specific conditions/recommendations under the relevant headings below.

1. Programme Structure Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s) The panel recommend that the programme team monitor the industry skills/needs on an annual basis to ensure that the programme remains fit for purpose. This monitoring will also include a review of graduate destinations. RESPONSE The programme team will discuss this at their next programme board meeting with a view to determining an appropriate mechanism for monitoring industry needs annually. A mechanism will also be determined for monitoring graduate destinations.


Condition(s) None.

Recommendation(s) The panel concurs with the programme development team adjustment of the


RESPONSE The programme team gratefully acknowledges the Panel’s approval for this adjustment.

3. Resource Requirements Condition(s) None.

Recommendation(s) Due to the dynamic nature of this discipline area the panel would encourage that staff

involved in the delivery of this programme actively engage in relevant CPD. Evidence to


be provided in the next review. RESPONSE The programme team will discuss CPD requirements at their next meeting with a view to availing of both internal and external training programmes.


Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s) All modules should be reviewed to ensure that a clear assessment strategy is outlined


RESPONSE The assessment strategy for each module is indicated in the respective module descriptors, and is also summarised in the course schedules. The programme team further clarifies this to students by way of a C/A schedule, which is issued at the beginning of each semester. However, this will be discussed at the programme team’s next meeting with a view to ensuring consistency.

5. Other Findings

Condition(s) None.

Recommendation(s) The panel recommend that the total weekly learner workload be reviewed for the 5

credit module ‘Interactive Multimedia Authoring’ to include a rationale in the module descriptor.

The programme team to review all modules to ensure that all fields on the AKARI Book of Modules are completed.

RESPONSE The weekly learner workload (which includes 5 class contact hours) for the module Interactive Multimedia Authoring has been reviewed and a rationale is now included in the module descriptor. At their next programme board meeting, the team will review all modules in AKARI to ensure completion. Signed on behalf of the School


_______________________________________________________ Dr. Patricia Moriarty, Head of School of Business and Humanities. Date: 3rd November 2013

I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panel report have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at Dundalk Institute of Technology for ratification. Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel:

__________________________________________________ Ms Maebh Maher, Chair. Date:

15th November 2013.




Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Digital Marketing and Digital Media Management Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Special-Purpose Award NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members





Colin Cooney Seamus Rispin


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in Digital Marketing and Digital Media Management





The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel. The panel was impressed by the level of commitment and innovation exhibited by the team in the design and delivery of the programme.

Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in Digital Marketing and Digital Media Management





4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Yes, panel was satisfied with the demand of the programme. There was evidence to support this.

Condition(s): None.


4.2 Award



Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes, the panel found strong evidence to support the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation and these are embedded in the programme.

Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: This is a Springboard programme not leading to a major award.


Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes, the programme structure is logical and well defined. The programme outcomes meet the requirements from industry.

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The panel recommend that the programme team monitor the industry skills/needs on

an annual basis to ensure that the programme remains fit for purpose. This monitoring will also include a review of graduate destinations.





Overall Finding: Yes, the panel is satisfied that appropriate teaching and learning strategies are being utilised.

Condition(s): None.











Condition(s): None.




Recommendation(s):

The panel concurs with the programme development team adjustment of the assessment breakdown for the module image editing and design theory so that the module is assessed as 100% continuous assessment.



Overall Finding: Yes, currently Springboard funded.

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): Due to the dynamic nature of this discipline area the panel would encourage that staff





The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes. Condition(s): None.



Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes. The panel was impressed that the Institute has appointed a

careers adviser who focuses on the Springboard students.




Condition(s): None.






the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes, see recommendation below.

Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): All modules should be reviewed to ensure that a clear assessment strategy is outlined


5.2 Other Findings Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s):

The panel suggests that the programme team should review all modules to ensure that

all fields on the Akari Document Book of Modules are completed.


Validation Panel Report Approved By: Signed:


Date:

8th May 2013.



Report


Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Digital Marketing and Digital Media Management Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Special-Purpose Award NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members





Colin Cooney Seamus Rispin


Introduction This report contains a response from the Department of Business Studies to the programme Panel Report for the Certificate in Digital Marketing and Media Management. The programme team welcomes the positive and constructive Panel Report, and addresses the specific conditions/recommendations under the relevant headings below.

1. Programme Structure Condition(s): None

Recommendation(s): The panel recommend that the programme team monitor the industry skills/needs on

an annual basis to ensure that the programme remains fit for purpose. This monitoring will also include a review of graduate destination.

RESPONSE: The programme team will discuss this at their next programme board meeting with a view to determining an appropriate mechanism for monitoring industry needs annually. A mechanism will also be determined for monitoring graduate destinations.


Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The panel concurs with the programme development team adjustment of the


RESPONSE: The programme team gratefully acknowledges the Panel’s approval for this adjustment.

3. Resource Requirements Condition(s): None.


Recommendation(s): Due to the dynamic nature of this discipline area the panel would encourage that staff


RESPONSE: The programme team will discuss CPD requirements at their next meeting with a view to availing of both internal and external training programmes.


Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): All modules should be reviewed to ensure that a clear assessment strategy is outlined


RESPONSE: The assessment strategy for each module is indicated in the respective module descriptors, and is also summarised in the course schedules. The programme team further clarifies this to students by way of a C/A schedule, which is issued at the beginning of each semester. However, this will be discussed at the programme team’s next meeting with a view to ensuring consistency.

5. Other Findings Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The panel suggests that the programme team should review all modules to ensure that


RESPONSE: At their next programme board meeting, the team will review all modules in Akari Document to ensure completion.





_________________________________________________ Ms Maebh Maher, Chair. Date:

13th November 2013.




Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Sales and Marketing Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Minor NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members





Mr. John Sisk Mr. Cathal Kearney Mr. David Coggans


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in Sales & Marketing





The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel. The panel was impressed with the level of commitment and innovation demonstrated by the team in the design and delivery of the programme.

Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in Sales & Marketing





4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was satisfied with the demand for the programme. Condition(s): None.


4.2 Award


Condition(s): None.





Overall Finding: Yes, the panel found strong evidence to support the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation. These themes are embedded in the programme.

Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: This is a 30 credit Springboard minor award programme therefore there is no progression opportunity.

Condition(s): None.





Overall Finding: Yes, the programme meets the required standards for a minor award at Level 7.


Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.




for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was satisfied that appropriate teaching and

learning strategies are being utilised.



Condition(s): None.





Overall Finding: Yes, the panel found that there was good evidence that appropriate programme assessment strategies are being utilised.






Condition(s): None.







Overall Finding: Yes, this programme is Springboard funded.

Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was satisfied that quality assurance procedures were applied.


Condition(s): None.



Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes, the panel was impressed that DkIT employs a careers adviser

who exclusively advises Springboard learners.

Condition(s): None.










Condition(s): None

Recommendation(s): The panel recommend that the assessment details be reviewed and that all modules



5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s): The panel approves the proposed changes in relation to the inclusion of two new 5

credit modules entitled ‘Marketing’ and ‘Practical Sales Techniques’; and also the inclusion of additional 5 credit language electives.

Recommendation(s): The panel suggests that the programme team should review all modules to ensure that

all fields on the Akari Document (Coursebuilder) Book of Modules are completed.



Signed:


Date:

9th May 2013.



Report


Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Sales and Marketing Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Minor NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members





Mr. John Sisk Mr. Cathal Kearney Mr. David Coggans


Introduction This report contains a response from the Department of Business Studies to the programme Panel Report for the Certificate in Business in Sales and Marketing. The programme team welcomes the positive and constructive Panel Report, and addresses the specific conditions/recommendations under the relevant headings below.

1. Assessment Strategies Condition(s): None

Recommendation(s): The panel recommend that the assessment details be reviewed and that all modules


The panel suggests that the programme team should review all modules to ensure that all fields on the Akari Document Book of Modules are completed.

RESPONSE: The programme team will ensure that assessment details are reviewed across all modules, and that all fields are checked for completion in Akari Document. This will be done at the next programme board meeting.

2. Other Findings

Condition(s): The panel approves the proposed changes in relation to the inclusion of two new 5

credit modules entitled ‘Marketing’ and ‘Practical Sales Techniques’; and also the inclusion of additional 5 credit language electives.

RESPONSE: This approval is gratefully acknowledged. Recommendation(s): The panel suggests that the programme team should review all modules to ensure that


RESPONSE:

As indicated in the previous point, the team will discuss this at their next programme board meeting and make the relevant additions where required.





________________________________________________ Ms Maebh Maher, Chair. Date:

13th November 2013.




Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Lean Six Sigma (Green Belt) Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Special-Purpose NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 10 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members






Mr. Cathal Kearney


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in Lean Six Sigma (Green Belt)



Enterprise Ireland held a Lean Six Sigma briefing at their head office in Eastpoint Business Park, Dublin in Spring 2012. The briefing comprised of a cross-section of representatives from Higher Education, Certification bodies, Standardisation bodies and private sector consultants along with Industry representatives. What emerged from the meeting was an Industry driven need for new and existing graduates to be educated in Lean Six Sigma tools to enable them to enter a lean workforce (Food/Pharma/Medical Device/Manufacturing) and increasingly, the software & services industries. Currently a number of third level institutions are offering a range of courses to satisfy this need but they are primarily southern based e.g. (CIT & UL). Through the provision of Lean Education courses the institutes have built up successful relationships with multi-nationals in the local area which has in turn led to the facilitation of work placements and the success rate of local employment for graduates has been high. In addition to this they have found that the demand for professional educational course (evening/part-time) has increased to facilitate those already employed in the aforementioned industries to allow them to up-skill. The School would envisage a similar scenario growing in the North East area between DkIT and the various locally based multi-nationals. See programme submission for more detailed information.





Certificate in Lean Six Sigma (Green Belt)




4.1 Demand


Overall Finding: Yes, industry feedback showed a strong demand for the course.


Condition(s): None.


4.2 Award


Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.




Overall Finding: See recommendation below.

Condition(s): None.


Recommendation(s):

The panel suggests that the entry requirements section of the document be revisited to clarify the entry requirements with respect to required work experience.



Overall Finding: Not applicable as this is a special purpose award. Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.







Condition(s): None.


















Condition(s): None.





Condition(s): None.






Condition(s): None.



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




Condition(s): None.






the proposed programme? Overall Finding: See comment below.

Condition(s): All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy as outlined and

that there is consistency across the modules. Recommendation(s): None.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s): None.




Signed:


Date:

9th May 2013.



Report


Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Lean Six Sigma (Green Belt) Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Special-Purpose NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 10 First Intake: September 2013

Panel Members






Mr. Cathal Kearney


Introduction This report contains a response from the Department of Business Studies to the programme Panel Report for the Certificate in Lean Six Sigma (Green Belt). The programme team welcomes the very positive and constructive Panel Report, and addresses the specific conditions/recommendations under the relevant headings below.

1. Entry Requirements Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): The panel suggests that the entry requirements section of the document be revisited to

clarify the entry requirements with respect to required work experience.

RESPONSE: These will be clarified in the revised programme document.


Condition(s): All modules should be reviewed to ensure a clear assessment strategy as outlined and

that there is consistency across the modules. Recommendation(s): None. RESPONSE: The programme team will review all of the modules at their next programme board meeting to ensure that a clear and consistent assessment strategy is outlined across the modules.





_______________________________________________ Ms Maebh Maher, Chair. Date:

13th November 2013.

Date post:	04-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Programmatic Review 2012-2013 Phase B - Programmes · the next programmatic review, whichever...

Documents