Report of Programme Validation Panel€¦ · commendation. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team; the validation panel

Report of Validation Panel Page 1/8

Report of Programme Validation Panel

Date: 25th March 2014

Named Award: - Programme Title(s): Certificate in Technical Entrepreneurship Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Minor Award Class: - NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 40 First Intake: September 2014

Panel Members

Ms Maria Kyne Chair Head of Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, Limerick Institute of Technology

Dr P.J. Purcell External Academic Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering, University College Dublin

Mr Des Walsh External Academic Head of Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, Cork Institute of Technology

Mr Gerry Carty Industry Representative

Managing Director, RPS Galway

Ms Ann Campbell Secretary to Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology

Programme Development Team

Mr Pat McCormick Mr Dermot Clarke Mr Paul Durcan Mr Eamonn McMahon Mr Barry Evans Ms Catherine McCloskey Ms Angela Hamouda Ms Siobhan Duffy Mr Patrick Fitzgerald


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the School of Engineering at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programme: Certificate in Technical Entrepreneurship 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 See programme submission for more detailed information.

3 General Findings of the Validation Panel The Panel commends the programme board for its open engagement in discussions during the site visit. The Panel also considers the inter-disciplinary nature of the programme worthy of commendation. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team; the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in Technical Entrepreneurship

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

Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work

Not Accredited 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 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: This minor award is a subset of the Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Engineering Entrepreneurship. Demand for this programme is not discussed in the submission document.

Condition(s): The rationale and demand for this programme should be articulated in the programme

document in line with Institute requirements for programme submissions. Recommendation(s): None.

4.2 Award

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

Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.


4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment

Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and engagement (local and international) embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?

Overall Finding: The strategic themes are not referenced in the programme document

Condition(s): It is necessary to demonstrate how the Institute’s Strategic Themes of sustainability and

local and international engagement are embedded in the curriculum. Recommendation(s): None.

4.4 Entry Requirements

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

Overall Finding: Yes Condition(s): None.

Recommendation(s): None.

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. Recommendation(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)?

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.

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?

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

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


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: The programme assessment strategy as outlined in Section 3.2 of the Programme Document does not comply with Institute and HETAC Guidelines as outlined below.

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): The Assessment Strategy should be revised to comply with Institute requirements as set

out in Section 2.10 in the Handbook for Programmatic Review [available at https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/handbook-programmatic-review].

Re-assessment must be clear and explicitly articulated in all module descriptors. Assessment and re-assessment strategies should be reviewed. It is critically important that the

students are offered a second opportunity to catch up on missed coursework. There should be a

second chance to repeat the coursework elements of modules. Individual lecturers should not

decide whether elements of coursework are recoverable or not. This should be a programme

board decision. Opportunities should be provided to re-assess 100% continuously assessed

before the Summer Break. In order to ensure continuity of learning, learners should be required to complete

appropriate civil engineering assignments in respect of all ‘year-long’ modules in linked time space between winter and spring semesters for submission in the first week of the spring semester.

https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/handbook-programmatic-review


Assessment and re-assessment requirements should be detailed in the module descriptor for the Individual Project.


4.10 Resource Requirements


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


4.11 Quality Assurance


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 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. Recommendation(s): None.


4.12 Module-Level Findings Condition(s): Class contact hours for New Venture Development should be reduced from 7 hours per

week to 3 to be delivered as 2 x lecture and 1 x tutorial/practical. Recommendation(s): None.



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

Overall Finding: See below. Condition(s): Re-assessment strategies must be included in all module descriptors including the

articulation of clear parameters for re-assessment. Recommendation(s): None

4.14 Other Findings Condition(s) None. Recommendation(s): None. Report


Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel

Date: 25th March 2014

Named Award: - Programme Title(s): Certificate in Technical Entrepreneurship Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: - Award Class: Minor NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 40 First Intake: September 2014

Panel Members

Ms Maria Kyne Chair Head of Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, Limerick Institute of Technology

Dr P.J. Purcell External Academic Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering, University College Dublin

Mr Des Walsh External Academic Head of Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, Cork Institute of Technology

Mr Gerry Carty Industry Representative

Managing Director, RPS Galway

Ms Ann Campbell Secretary to Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology

Programme Development Team

Mr Pat McCormick Mr Dermot Clarke Mr Paul Durcan Mr Eamonn McMahon Mr Barry Evans Ms Catherine McCloskey Ms Angela Hamouda Ms Siobhan Duffy Mr Patrick Fitzgerald


1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the School of Engineering at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programme: Certificate in Technical Entrepreneurship 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 See programme submission for more detailed information.

3 General Findings of the Validation Panel The Panel commends the programme board for its open engagement in discussions during the site visit. The Panel also considers the inter-disciplinary nature of the programme worthy of commendation. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team; the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in Technical Entrepreneurship

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

Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work

Not Accredited 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 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: This minor award is a subset of the Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Engineering Entrepreneurship. Demand for this programme is not discussed in the submission document.

Condition(s): The rationale and demand for this programme should be articulated in the programme

document in line with Institute requirements for programme submissions. The programme document has been amended as conditioned.


4.2 Award

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



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 engagement (local and international) embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?

Overall Finding: The strategic themes are not referenced in the programme document

Condition(s): It is necessary to demonstrate how the Institute’s Strategic Themes of sustainability and

local and international engagement are embedded in the curriculum.

The programme document has been amended as conditioned. Recommendation(s): None.

4.4 Entry Requirements

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

Overall Finding: Yes Condition(s): None.


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?



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)?

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.

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?

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

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




Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?

Overall Finding: The programme assessment strategy as outlined in Section 3.2 of the Programme Document does not comply with Institute and HETAC Guidelines as outlined below.

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): The Assessment Strategy should be revised to comply with Institute requirements as set

out in Section 2.10 in the Handbook for Programmatic Review [available at https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/handbook-programmatic-review]. The assessment strategy has been revised and is updated in the programme document.

Re-assessment must be clear and explicitly articulated in all module descriptors.

Assessment and re-assessment strategies should be reviewed. It is critically important that the students are offered a second opportunity to catch up on missed coursework. There should be a second chance to repeat the coursework elements of modules. Individual lecturers should not decide whether elements of coursework are recoverable or not. This should be a programme board decision. Opportunities should be provided to re-assess 100% continuously assessed before the Summer Break..

The form of reassessment has been more clearly articulated in all relevant module descriptors. Students shall be offered appropriate alternative assessments in place of recoverable elements of coursework. Elements of coursework which the programme board have agreed are non-recoverable are clearly communicated to students.

https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/handbook-programmatic-review


In order to ensure continuity of learning, learners should be required to complete appropriate civil engineering assignments in respect of all ‘year-long’ modules in linked time space between winter and spring semesters for submission in the first week of the spring semester. The programme board regrets to inform that it is unable to implement this condition at present, as to do so would mean non-compliance with current Institute policy and procedures. This matter will be brought to the attention of Academic Council. In due course should Council amend the relevant policies and procedures, the Programme Board will comply accordingly. The programme board also notes the requirement for a civil engineering assignment and presumes this is an error.

Assessment and re-assessment requirements should be detailed in the module descriptor

for the Individual Project. There is no Individual Project module on this programme and this condition may be an error. This may otherwise refer to the New Venture Development Module where re-assessment requirements are already clearly stated.


4.10 Resource Requirements


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


4.11 Quality Assurance


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 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.



4.12 Module-Level Findings Condition(s): Class contact hours for New Venture Development should be reduced from 7 hours per

week to 3 to be delivered as 2 x lecture and 1 x tutorial/practical.

The timetabled hours for this module have been reduced as conditioned. The programme board has expressed reservation about both the reduction of hours on this module and the prescription of the delivery format within the revised contact hours. The programme board wish it be noted that the hours were originally set as this module introduces a significant body of knowledge, with which most students entering the programme will have no previous experience. The change will have an impact on the support available to students and on the capacity to involve the Regional Development Centre, and the local Business Development Agencies who are currently involved.




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

Overall Finding: See below. Condition(s): Re-assessment strategies must be included in all module descriptors including the

articulation of clear parameters for re-assessment. All modules have been reviewed and the re-assessment descriptions have been updated where necessary.

Recommendation(s): None


4.14 Other Findings Condition(s) None. Recommendation(s): None. Response Report Approved By: Signed:

_____________________________________________ Mr. Eugene Roe, Head of School of Engineering.

Date: 29th May 2014

Report of Programme Validation Panel€¦ · commendation. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team; the validation panel

Documents