Coláiste Uí Gríofa

Leinster School of Music and Drama

Programmatic Review Report of Expert Panel

April 2014

ContentsPart 1 General Information........................................................................31.1 Details of the Programmatic Review.......................................................31.2 Summary................................................................................................3Part 2 Report of the Expert Panel.................................................................42.1 Introduction.............................................................................................42.2 Background to the Programmatic Review..............................................42.3 Panel Review Process............................................................................42.3.1 General Institutional Issues.................................................................52.3.1.1. Delivery of Programmes outside of Dublin..........................................52.3.1.2 Status of Leinster School of Music and Drama within Griffith College..52.3.1.3 Entry numbers and sustainability of programmes.................................52.3.2 School and Programme Review processes and issues......................62.3.2.1 School and Programme Management Structure..................................62.3.2.2 The Review Process.............................................................................62.3.2.3 Standards and Regulation in Music and Drama Education..................72.3.2.4 Entry Requirements..............................................................................82.3.2.5 Progression and Retention Rates.........................................................82.3.2.6 Marketing..............................................................................................92.3.2.7 Management and Assessment of Teaching Practice...........................92.3.3 Staffing, Programme Outcomes, and Modules....................................92.3.3.1 Staffing and Staff Development Opportunities.................................92.3.3.2 Programme Outcomes and Award Standards.................................92.3.3.3 Modules.........................................................................................102.4 Meeting with current Learners..............................................................112.5 Panel Conclusions................................................................................122.5.1 Programmatic Review process and objectives..................................122.5.2 Revalidation of the programmes........................................................132.5.3 Commendations................................................................................142.5.4 Conditions.........................................................................................142.5.5 Recommendations............................................................................15Appendix 1: College Staff who met panel during programmatic review visit. 16Appendix 2: Visit Schedule............................................................................17Appendix 3: Proposed Programme Schedule – Music Programmes...........18Appendix 4: Proposed Programme Schedule – Drama Programmes.........21

2

Part 1 General Information

1.1 Details of the Programmatic Review

Provider Griffith College Dublin

Date of Review 2nd April 2014

Programme(s) under review

Code Title NFQ Level

Credit number

GC527 Higher Diploma in Arts in Drama Education

8 60

GC18 Higher Diploma in Arts in Music Education

8 60

GC701 Certificate in Music Teaching 8 20

GC702 Certificate in Music Teaching 8 40

GC709 Certificate in Drama Performance 8 20

GC708 Certificate in Drama Education 8 40

Table 1: Programmes Under Review

Membership of Expert Panel Group

Mr Stephen McManus, B.Sc.(NUI), M.Sc. (Dub.) Former Registrar DKIT (Chair)Dr Mary Lennon, PhD, Med, Dip Mus, FTCL, FLCM, LRAM, LGSM, LRSM, Senior Lecturer, Dublin Institute of TechnologyMr Conor Hanratty, BA, MA, MFA, Lecturer in Trinity CollegeMs Caroline Hill, BA Fine Art, HDip Drama in Arts in Ed, LLSMD Graduate of Griffith College

Ms Angela McDonnell, Observer from QQI

Rapporteur: Ms Treasa Dempsey, Quality Assurance Officer Griffith College

1.2 Summary

Note: Ms Heather Cassidy, The Cassidy Academy of Music, who had been a part of the panel, contacted the College on the evening before to say she was ill and could not attend on the day.

The Expert Panel, having reviewed the documentation presented by Griffith College and considered the responses of the programme team during the

3

course of the programmatic review meetings, and having evaluated the programmes against the validation criteria, is recommending the re-validation of the programmes outlined, for delivery in Dublin, with conditions, and with some recommendations.

The attached report addresses issues raised by the Panel the context of the review.

Part 2 Report of the Expert Panel

2.1 Introduction

Griffith College (GC) is an independent provider of higher education and professional training. It also provides a range of programmes leading to the examinations of professional bodies, including those in accountancy and law. The College has campuses in Dublin, Limerick and Cork. Griffith College has been providing programmes in since the late 1990s and currently provides programmes from Level 6 to Level 9 on the National Framework of Qualifications.

2.2 Background to the Programmatic Review

The College is seeking re-validation of the programmes listed in 1.1 above and seeking confirmation that an adequate review of programmes in the Leinster School of Music and Drama was carried out.

2.3 Panel Review Process

The panel was provided with documentation outlining the process of the review, the outcomes of that process, a synopsis of the changes to the programmes and the amended proposed programme schedules and module details. They were also provided with CVs of staff and with sight of the physical facilities available to staff and learners.

The panel met for a private meeting and discussed the requirements of a QQI programmatic review and any issues which should be discussed. The Chair outlined the broad purposes of a programmatic review as specified in HETAC (now QQI) Provider Monitoring Policy and Procedures. October 2010. The panel had a number of meetings with college personnel.

It met the College management team to discuss general college issues including those involving strategy, resources or sustainability issues. It met with the Faculty Management Team to discuss programme management, entry requirements the review process and outcomes. It met with the programme delivery team to discuss delivery assessment and module design and change issues. This meeting was also attended by academic support staff from the Library and from the Centre for Academic Excellence.

4

Finally it met learners from the programmes. The personnel involved in all of these meetings are listed in Appendix 1.

2.3.1 General Institutional Issues

2.3.1.1. Delivery of Programmes outside of Dublin

The senior management team met the panel to discuss general issues in relation to the programmes. The management team were asked if there were plans to deliver the programmes in Cork as there have been Orders of Council for doing so. The College team explained that the programmes have not run in Cork and it is not planned to do so at present. However the College wishes to have the option of running these programmes at other sites if circumstances change. This is a commercial decision and should it change then a separate application will be made to QQI for such delivery.

The panel stressed that the validation process involved the programme, the college QA and delivery systems, the staffing and learner facilities. As such a separate process would be required if the programme were to run outside the current location in Dublin.

2.3.1.2 Status of Leinster School of Music and Drama within Griffith College

The issue of the place of the School within Griffith College was addressed. It was explained to the panel that the Leinster School of Music and Drama is fully owned by Griffith College, but has a long history in its own right before it became part of Griffith. In existence since 1905 it is a very strong brand in its field and the College chose to maintain the name when it became a constituent part of the College. All its programmes are managed under normal Griffith QA policies and procedures. Any validation received would be for Griffith College and the school was treated academically, organisationally and commercially as any other school in the College. The management fo the school reported to senior management in the same way as the management of other schools.

2.3.1.3 Entry numbers and sustainability of programmes

The question of minimum learner numbers on the programme was addressed. The College explained that the only criteria is that a programme is financially viable and although numbers on some of the programmes have been small, there has been growth in recent intakes and the College is confident that the programmes are viable.

The programme is run part time, two evenings a week and six full Saturdays during the semester. Resources in the College are adequate to deliver this.

5

2.3.2 School and Programme Review processes and issues

2.3.2.1 School and Programme Management Structure

The school academic leadership team were asked to explain how the School is managed within the College and the Manager of the school outlined the structure of Programme Directors and lecturers. The programme director is directly responsible for the academic integrity of the programme. Although the programme directors are not full time they are permanent employees. Their contracts specify the duties associated with the role in a similar way to full time staff.

The learners are assigned to tutors and the Programme Directors are available for additional support when required. There is also support from the Centre for Promoting Academic Excellence and regular meetings with programme directors from across the College.

The Team also asked that the title of the 20 ECTS Special Purpose Certificate in Music Teaching be changed to Special Purpose Certificate in Musicianship. They felt that this reflected the nature of the 20 credit programme and differentiated it from the 40 ECTS Special Purpose Certificate in Music Teaching.

2.3.2.2 The Review Process

The programme team were asked about the conduct of the review. They explained how the process started in 2013 and developed through a series of meetings. The programmes and modules were reviewed in terms of their ‘health’ and some changes have been made to reflect feedback from the industry and from graduates. Focus groups were set up to review both the Music and the Drama programmes.

Input was sought from the industry and from learners. Due to the small class sizes it was not necessary to conduct formal surveys of learners’ ideas for change. Learners were accustomed to interacting directly with programme leaders and with module leaders. A good example of a learner led change was the reduction of material in the Psychology module.

The links with Industry were provided by staff many of whom are active in Music and Drama activities. Graduates, many of whom run their own schools are also source of input. There are links with stakeholders which include many primary schools and also private schools. Focus groups with persons involved in Music and Drama education were held. The SER provided detailed feedback from the focus groups. These were generally positive and constructive comments were made.

A graduate survey in 2013 was carried out and the responses were again generally positive. However respondents were less than enthusiastic aboiut the use of MOODLE. However staff indicated that MOODLE was used mostly

6

for the passive delivery of material and the more extensive use as an assessment tool or as a site for “chat’ room was not extensive.

A notable absence from this was links with other HE Music and Drama providers. This was explained by the fact that the private providers were competitors and that no other private provider ran Higher Diplomas in these areas. It would be useful if the School could benchmark itself against Schools providing similar programmes elsewhere.

Much of the review was carried out by the programme leaders, with the teaching staff concentrating on the module design. However the major changes in the music programme reflected a move towards a learner centred approach to music education. This involved a broadening of the music genres to include jazz and popular music as well as classical music. The assessment strategy was changed to reduce over assessment in line with the QQI Assessment policy.

An important input to the review was from the extern examiners whose opinions were sought on the proposed changes.

In addition to the formal review process the SER contained details of Course Committee meetings which showed an ongoing commitment to the implementation of minor changes to improve the quality of the programmes.

2.3.2.3 Standards and Regulation in Music and Drama Education

The overall issue of regulation of this area was discussed. Music education training and drama education training is not at present a regulated area. However, early childhood education is an area of increasing attention by policy makers and regulators. The 1999 primary school curriculum includes both music and drama as part of the arts element. This has resulted in trained primary teachers looking to add additional skills in drama and music to their professional qualifications. The NCCA Aistear programme seeks to address a wide range of issues in early childhood education.

Outside of the primary schools, in community facilities and private schools the whole area of child protection is a live and important issue.

The question of Teaching Council approval was discussed. The team do not seek Teaching Council approval and make it clear to applicants that the programme does not give this. The music programme is aimed at music teachers who work from home or in the community. The drama programme is aimed at primary school teachers who wish to add a qualification to their skillset. Issues of Garda clearance and child protection were important parts of the programme.

The panel noted that in some areas of Early Childhood Education there were emerging standards for the minimum professional/work experience necessary to establish competency. It would be prudent of the college to be cognisant of developments in this area.

7

This is not an area which is regulated by professional bodies. One of the purposes of the Higher Diplomas was to increase the level of professionalism in the area.

2.3.2.4 Entry Requirements

Entry criteria were then addressed. There are two separate requirements for entry unto these courses. These are the standard academic requirements and also the music/drama performance competency.

A level 8 award or equivalent is necessary to meet the academic entry requirements for the programme. As the programmes are Higher Diplomas designed to provide additional skills there is no requirement that the Level 8 qualification be cognate. Experiential learning can also be assessed in this context under the College QA APEL policy. Normally those with a Level 7 qualification would be required to demonstrate experiential learning at level 8.

The Leinster School of Music has a long history of measuring competency in music performance. It recently aligned its ‘grades’ with the QQI framework. The highest level was set at Level 5. This is normally the highest formal grade achieved by persons applying for the programme. This is usually augmented by experience in performance or in the general field of music. The panel felt that all applicants should be auditioned / interviewed to demonstrate their level of competence in music performance / music education.

In the case of Drama there are less formalised training processes in place and most applicants must be auditioned.

The panel was of the view that it would be inappropriate to be overly prescriptive in the area of performance at this stage. However there was scope for increased formalisation of the entry processes. This would lead to improved institutional memory on these issues. This would allow for more structured auditions and possibly to the emergence of measurable entry standards in the future.

2.3.2.5 Progression and Retention Rates

Progression and retention rates were addressed and the panel noted that completion rates appeared particularly high in some cases. The team explained that learners are ACCS learners attaining credits over a period and so tend to register only for what they will complete. Non completion tends to be concentrated among those who only register for part of the programme. Those who attempt the whole Higher Diploma tend to be well motivated and to complete the programme. Overall the progression rates to date have been very positive due to this self-selecting nature of the learners.

8

2.3.2.6 Marketing

The panel asked how the issue of graduates marketing themselves was addressed. The team explained that this is dealt with in the Professional Practice module, but that the networking within the programme was also beneficial to them in this regard.

2.3.2.7 Management and Assessment of Teaching Practice

The panel asked about the teaching practice element of the programme. This is the responsibility of the learner to source, although the school has a network of contacts and does assist. Many learners have the placement agreed before coming to the programme. The minimum teaching practice required is 75 hours. There is a standard MOU in the course handbook that makes clear the responsibilities of the learner and the teaching practice overseers.

The panel suggested that the observation element should be scheduled prior to the teaching practice as this might benefit the learner with less teaching experience prior to entry. The panel also felt that at least one other observation should be included during the teaching practice.

Also, learners must be made aware of the guidelines with regards to the teaching of children and minors. They should also be made aware, formally, of the protocols which exist at their professional practice site.

2.3.3 Staffing, Programme Outcomes, and Modules

2.3.3.1 Staffing and Staff Development Opportunities

The panel had been supplied with the CVs of the staff teaching on the programmes in Dublin. The panel noted the range of expertise available to the programme. The panel also noted that many staff had considerable experience on this and on similar programmes. The team is a part time one but they receive the same supports and resources as full time staff.

The Centre for Promoting Academic Excellence runs a series of support seminars and workshops which are of benefit to lecturers. Many of the lecturers had attended these support activities. These seminars cover assessment, delivery, QA processes and the outcomes based approach to programme and module design. Staff had access to MOODLE and to training on its use. It‘s use, for most staff was limited to delivery of material.

2.3.3.2 Programme Outcomes and Award Standards

The panel had noted that the submission did not explicitly align the programme outcomes to the award standards. The Academic staff demonstrated a broad understanding of the QQI levels. The major characteristic of a level 8 programme, they felt, was the ability to reflect usefully on their discipline and on their practice. The team explained the

9

benefits of the Teaching Portfolio which allows the learners to reflect on their practice and how it might be improved. These reflections are discussed at the start of each class. The panel highlighted that this reflection is not referred to in the programme learning outcomes and that some of the learning outcomes are quite ambitious.

The panel is happy that the Programmes are at Level 8 on the QQI framework. However, the panel felt that the programme development process would have benefited from an alignment of the Award standards to the programme outcomes to the module outcomes to the assessments. This top down approach, leads in practice to a clearer focus on essentials and a more robust and efficient assessment strategy.

2.3.3.3 Modules

Each module was then discussed in turn. In most cases the panel felt the structure and content was strong.

The Performance Education module is central to the music programme. There is a tension between primary instrument competence and the versatility which keyboard skills bring as a second instrument. This module contributes strongly to the first three programme outcomes. These outcomes are reinforced by the Composition and Musicianship Skills module. The lecturer noted that there was an issue with this latter module in that there were wide differences between learners in their exposure to composition prior to entry. Conducting was assessed through the LSMD concert.

The Pedagogy and Music Teaching Placement module required learners to be specialist in their own instrument. The relationship with the pupil was important and this was reinforced in the psychology module. The panel felt that it would be useful if lesson planning was included in this module. The panel also felt that an observation prior to the teaching practice should be included along with at least one other observation during the teaching practice.

The Professional Practice module and its management had been discussed with the management team. Staff agreed that a period of observation of practice would be beneficial to learners.

The Music Technology module benefitted greatly from the link with Windmill Lane Studios. Industry quality software was available to learners.

The panel noticed that Module 4A was almost identical in outcomes and content to Module 4. However the input was half and there were only 5 credits allocated to this. Module 4A is part of the Certificate. It will be necessary to reduce the outcomes for 4A and the content.

The Psychology of Teaching and Learning module is common to both Higher Diploma Programmes. Content on this module had been reduced.

10

The Pedagogy and Drama Teaching Placement module has similar issues to its music equivalent. The distribution of marks at present is incorrect.

The Creative Process module allows everyone in the group, usually a class of 14, to have directing experience. This module has been completely restructured. Part of the learning was achieved through the learners been directed and reflection on that process. This module was extensively restructured.

The theatre history content of the Application of the Creative Process module was reduced. This was the only major change to the modules. Also the unseen written examination was removed.

2.4 Meeting with current Learners

The panel met with three previous learners from the programme. Issues discussed included knowledge that the programme is not a Teaching Council recognised award, expectations, experience on entry, supports and the teaching practice. The feedback from the learners was very positive.

The learners confirmed that interaction with the lecturers was facilitated by the size of the class groups. They did not use MOODLE for this purpose but when necessary relied on email. The programme leaders were similarly available to them when necessary. They were always clear that the programmes did not lead to recognition by the Teaching Council.

The three learners had come to the programmes with different expectations. They felt that these had been met by the programmes. They were challenged by the material and the assignments. They felt that there was adequate support from the staff.

They all reported that their practice had changed in a positive way as a result of the programme.

Their major criticism of the programme was the size of the psychology module. This issue was addressed by the review.

The panel felt that the claims made in the programme document in relation to special needs children might give the impression of a level of skill and judgement which is not warranted. The language of the document and any associated outcomes should be amended accordingly.

11

2.5 Panel Conclusions

2.5.1 Programmatic Review process and objectives

The objectives of a programmatic review are outlined in section 2 of Provider Monitoring Policy and Procedures, HETAC October 2010.

Overall the panel is of the view that the programmatic review was carried out diligently and sufficiently.

Overall the panel is of the view that the programmatic review was carried out diligently and sufficiently. The programme leaders and staff are obviously conversant with the changes in the area and the proposed changes to the programmes will strengthen them and improve their quality. It would be useful if the school had stronger links with other HE providers of Music and Drama education and also of education training itself.

Programmatic Review Objective Panel CommentAnalysis of effectiveness and efficiency of each programme, including learner numbers and retention rates and success rates

This was done sufficiently and included in the SER

Review the development of the programmes in the context of the requirements of the employers, industry, professional bodies, the Irish Economy and international developments

This was adequately done through networks of stakeholders and graduate surveys. In future it might be useful to include evidence of cognisance of international developments

Evaluate the response of the School to market requirements and educational developments.

This was achieved comprehensively

Evaluate the feedback mechanisms for learners and the processes for acting on this feedback.

The SER gave thorough description of these processes and the adequacy of the processes was confirmed by Learners.

Evaluate the physical facilities and resources provided for the provision of the Programmes

These were viewed and are adequate.

Evaluate the formal links which have been established with Industry, business and the wider community in order to maintain the relevance of the programmes

Most links are informal and organic.

12

Evaluate the feedback from employers of the graduates and from those graduates

As most graduates are self-employed the graduate survey fulfils this role. However a more structure interaction with graduate placement sites (primary schools) might be useful.

13

Review any research activities in the field of learning under review and their impact on teaching and learning

There was no explicit evidence of any review of research. A closer involvement with the education colleges and attendance are conferences might address this issue.

Evaluate projections for the following five years in the field of learning

The SER indicates that the intention is to continue with the same level of activity. This is sustainable and resources are available for this.

Table 1: Objectives of the Programmatic Review

2.5.2 Revalidation of the programmes

The review of the programmes were conducted in line with the Core Validation Policy and Criteria HETAC October 2010 document.

As this is a revalidation the panel paid attention to the modifications proposed to these programmes. As the programmes have run successfully for some time there were no issues over the overall structure or thrust of the programmes.

In the table below the panel comments on the programmes in terms of the outline or high level programme validation criteria as listed on page 6 of the QQI ( HETAC) policy document.

Programme Validation Criteria

Panel Comment

Standards: The minimum intended programme learning standards must be consistent with the with the relevant award standards and the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) award type descriptors

The panel is satisfied that the programme outcomes match the requisite award type descriptors. In an exercise which was done post the review and presented to the panel on the day, there was a comprehensive, alignment of award type descriptors with programme outcomes through to module outcomes and to assessment.

Access Standard: The prerequisite learning for participation in the programme and any other assumptions relating to the target learners must be explicit.

The panel is satisfied that the access standard in practice is appropriate for the Higher Diplomas. With regard to performance the School is working in an area which is relatively uncalibrated and the panel has suggested mechanisms to address this. With regard to the Certificates which have the high uncertificated leaving rates

14

the incoming competence in performance should be an area of attention.

Learning: The programme must enable its target learners to attain the minimum intended programme learning outcomes reliably and efficiently .

The panel is happy that the programme will enable well intentioned learners to meet the minimum intended learning outcomes.

Table 2 Overall Programme Validation Criteria

15

The panel agrees that the programmes listed in 1.1 above should be revalidated for a period of five years starting in 2014 or until the next programmatic review whichever is the sooner. This is subject to the conditions listed below and on the understanding that the school will consider seriously the recommendations made by the panel.

The panel is satisfied that the programmes are in line with, and enhance, the vision and mission of Griffith College. The panel is recommending that QQI revalidate the programmes referred to in the terms of reference for five intakes beginning in September 2014. The recently validated programmes outlined in the terms of reference were not reviewed as part of this process.

The panel is recommending that the programmes be validated for delivery at the Dublin campus and any extension of delivery to Cork or elsewhere should be the subject of a separate application to QQI.

The panel also agrees with the proposal to change the name of the 20 ECTS Certificate in Music Teaching (GC701) to Certificate in Musicianship.

2.5.3 Commendations

The panel wish to commend the programme team on:

1. The quality and thoroughness of documentation supplied.2. The open and professional engagement with the panel.

2.5.4 Conditions

The panel are recommending revalidation of the programmes subject to the following conditions:

1. The School must formalise further the admissions process to ensure that all learners have adequate academic and professional backgrounds and introduce an audition / interview process whereby learners will demonstrate their performance and academic competence.

2. The School must include a programme learning outcome involving the learner being a ‘Reflective Practitioner’

3. The School must state in the documentation and the promotional material that the programmes do not lead to recognition by the Teaching Council.

4. The School should amend module 4A to ensure that the outcomes and context are appropriate to a 5 credit module.

16

2.5.5 Recommendations

The panel recommends that the team consider the following:

1. In relation the Pedagogical Placement possible increased supervision. The team might consider an element of observation before undertaking formal teaching.

2. The inclusion of lesson planning in Module 1 of both programmes.

3. On the Drama programme, review the wording of learning outcome 3 in Module 2 to better reflect the actual outcome in relation to special needs.

4. On the Music programme module Performance Education, reconsider the balance and focus in order to ensure that learners are given guided opportunities to develop their principal instrument alongside developing their general musicianship skills and expanding the range of musical genres.

5. That the School develops explicit processes for benchmarking against other HE providers in Music and Drama education either in Ireland or abroad and acquaints itself with relevant developments in primary teacher education and curricula in Ireland.

6. That the school includes in its preparation for professional practice a mechanism to ensure that learners are aware of the protocols in force for dealing with minors and vulnerable adults in the practice site.

_______________________Stephen McManus Chairman

__________Date

17

Appendix 1: College Staff who met panel during programmatic review visit

College Management Team Members:Professor Diarmuid Hegarty, President Griffith CollegeMr Tomás MacEochagain, Director of Academic ProgrammesMr Eamonn Nolan, Head of Academic Programmes

Faculty Management TeamMs Karen Casey, Head of Leinster School of MusicMs Melanie Eggleston, Programme Director DramaMs Suzanne Binley, Programme Director MusicMs Mary O Toole, Projects Manager

Programme TeamMr Jan de Vries, Music LecturerMs Kay O’Sullivan, Music LecturerMr Rory Pierce, Music LecturerMs Anne Simpson, Drama LecturerMs Sharon O’Doherty, Drama LecturerMs Sarah Brennan, Drama LecturerMs Geraldine McGing, Business LecturerMr Robert McKenna, College LibrarianMs Fiona O’Riordan, Head of Centre for Promoting Academic ExcellenceMs Ailish Finucane, Head of College Adminstration

Learners who met PanelMr Joe HarteMr Rob VickersMs Maeve Miller

18

Appendix 2: Visit ScheduleGriffith College

Leinster School of Music

Programmatic Review

Expert Panel Visit

Agenda – 02/04/2014

9.00 Arrive Griffith College

Coffee on arrival

9.15 Private meeting of Panel

10.00 Meet with College President

Overview of College

10.15 Meet with Faculty Head and Programme Directors

Presentation of Rationale for Programme changes

11.15 Meet with Faculty Team

Focus on rationale for change at module level

13.00 Lunch

14.00 Tour of College facilities

14.30 Meeting with Students

15.00 Private meeting of panel

16.00 Feedback to Faculty

16.30 Close

19

Appendix 3: Proposed Programme Schedule – Music Programmes

Name of Provider Leinster School of Music and Drama

Programme Title Higher Diploma Arts in Music Education

Award Title Higher Diploma in Arts

Stage Exit Award Title Higher Diploma in ArtsModes of Delivery (FT/PT): Full-time / Part-time

Award Class Award NFQ level

Award EQF level Stage

Stage NFQ Level

Stage EQF Level Stage Credits Date

EffectiveISCED Subject Code

Major 8 6 1 8 6 60 Sept 2014 2122

Module Title SemesterModule

ECTS Credits

Total Student Effort Module (hours)

Allocation of Marks (from the module assessment

strategy)

Status NFQ Level

Total Hours

Contact Hours

Hours Independent

WorkC.A.%

Proj.%

Prac.%

Final.%

1 Pedagogy and Music Teaching Placement 1,2 M 8 20 400 36 364 25 25 25 25

2 Psychology of Teaching and Learning 1,2 M 8 10 200 36 164 50 50

3 Professional Practice 1,2 M 8 5 100 18 82 100

4 Performance Education 1 1,2 M 8 10 200 36 164 30 20 50

5 Music Technology 1,2 M 8 5 100 18 82 60 40

6 Composition and Musicianship Skills 1,2 M 8 10 200 36 164 60 40

20

Proposed Programme Schedule Certificate of Musicianship

Name of Provider Leinster School of Music and Drama

Programme Title Certificate in Musicianship

Award Title Special Purpose CertificateStage Exit Award Title Certificate in MusicianshipModes of Delivery (FT/PT): Full-time / Part-time

Award Class

Award NFQ level

Award EQF level Stage

Stage NFQ Level

Stage EQF Level Stage Credits Date

EffectiveISCED

Subject Code

Minor 8 6 1 8 6 20 Sept 2014 2122

Module Title Semester

ModuleECTS

Credits

Total Student Effort Module (hours)

Allocation of Marks (from the module assessment

strategy)

Status

NFQ Level

Total Hours

Contact Hours

Hours Independent

WorkC.A.

%Proj.

%Prac

.%

Final.%

4 Performance Education 1 1,2 M 8 10 200 36 164 30 20 50

6 Composition & Musicianship Skills 1,2 M 8 10 200 36 164 60 40

Proposed Programme Schedule Certificate of Music Teaching

21

Name of Provider Leinster School of Music and Drama

Programme Title Certificate in Music Teaching

Award Title Special Purpose CertificateStage Exit Award Title Certificate in Music TeachingModes of Delivery (FT/PT): Full time / Part time

Award Class

Award NFQ level

Award EQF level Stage

Stage NFQ Level

Stage EQF Level Stage Credits Date

EffectiveISCED

Subject Code

Minor 8 6 1 6 5 40 Sept 2014 2122

Module Title Semester

ModuleECTS

Credits

Total Student Effort Module (hours)

Allocation of Marks (from the module assessment

strategy)

Status

NFQ Level

Total Hours

Contact Hours

Hours Independent

WorkC.A.

%Proj.

%Prac

.%

Final.%

1Pedagogy and Music Teaching

Placement1,2 M 8 20 400 36 364 25 25 25 25

3 Professional Practice 1,2 M 8 5 100 18 82 100

4A Performance Education 2 1,2 M 8 5 100 18 82 30 40 30

6 Composition & Musicianship Skills 1,2 M 8 10 200 36 164 60 40

Appendix 4: Proposed Programme Schedule – Drama ProgrammesName of Provider Leinster School of Music and Drama

22

Programme Title Higher Diploma in Arts in Drama Education

Award Title Higher Diploma in Arts

Stage Exit Award Title NoneModes of Delivery (FT/PT): Full time/Part-time

Award Class Award NFQ level

Award EQF level Stage

Stage NFQ Level

Stage EQF Level Stage Credits Date

EffectiveISCED Subject Code

Major 8 6 1 8 6 60 Sept 2014 2122

Module Title SemesterModule

ECTS Credits

Total Student Effort Module (hours)

Allocation of Marks (from the module assessment

strategy)

Status NFQ Level

Total Hours

Contact Hours

Hours Independent

WorkC.A.%

Proj.%

Prac.%

Final.%

1 Pedagogy and Drama Teaching Placement 1,2 M 8 15 300 39 261 50 25 50

2 Psychology of Teaching and Learning 1,2 M 8 10 200 27 173 50 50

3 Professional Practice 1,2 M 8 5 100 18 82 100

4 Preparing the Performer 1,2 M 8 10 200 36 164 25 75

5 The Creative Process 1,2 M 8 10 200 27 173 25 25 50

6 Application of the Creative Process 1,2 M 8 10 200 36 164 100

Proposed Programme Schedule Certificate in Drama Performance

23

Name of Provider Leinster School of Music and Drama

Programme Title Certificate in Drama Performance

Award Title Special Purpose Award

Stage Exit Award Title NoneModes of Delivery (FT/PT): Fulltime/Part-time

Award Class Award NFQ level

Award EQF level Stage

Stage NFQ Level

Stage EQF Level Stage Credits Date

EffectiveISCED Subject Code

Minor 8 6 1 8 6 20 Sept 2014 2122

Module Title SemesterModule

ECTS Credits

Total Student Effort Module (hours)

Allocation of Marks (from the module assessment

strategy)

Status NFQ Level

Total Hours

Contact Hours

Hours Independent

WorkC.A.%

Proj.%

Prac.%

Final.%

4 Preparing the Performer 1,2 M 8 10 200 36 164 25 75

5 The Creative Process 1,2 M 8 10 200 27 173 25 25 50

24

Proposed Programme Schedule Certificate in Drama Education

Name of Provider Leinster School of Music and Drama

Programme Title Certificate in Drama Education

Award Title Special Purpose Award

Stage Exit Award Title NoneModes of Delivery (FT/PT): Fulltime/Part-time

Award Class Award NFQ level

Award EQF level Stage

Stage NFQ Level

Stage EQF Level Stage Credits Date

EffectiveISCED Subject Code

Minor 8 6 1 6 5 40 Sept 2014 2122

Module Title SemesterModule

ECTS Credits

Total Student Effort Module (hours)

Allocation of Marks (from the module assessment

strategy)

Status NFQ Level

Total Hours

Contact Hours

Hours Independent

WorkC.A.%

Proj.%

Prac.%

Final.%

1 Pedagogy and Teaching Placement 1,2 M 8 15 300 39 261 50 25 50

3 Professional Practice 1,2 M 8 5 100 18 82 100

4 Preparing the Performer 1,2 M 8 10 200 36 164 25 75

5 The Creative Process 1,2 M 8 10 200 27 173 25 25 50

25