Report of Programme Validation Panel

Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9

Report of Programme Validation Panel

Panel Visit: 8th May 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)

Programme Development Team

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.

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. 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.

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


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

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


Condition(s): None

Recommendation(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).

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: 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


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?

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.

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

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

descriptive language is used to express the module learning outcomes.

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


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: 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.

4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies

Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided

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.


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 panel found that there was satisfactory evidence for this.

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): 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.

4.10 Resource Requirements

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

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

Condition(s): None.


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: 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-

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

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

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


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

Condition(s): None.


4.12 Programme Management

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.


5.1 Assessment Strategies

Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in

the proposed programme? Overall Finding: See recommendation below.

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

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


for assignment/class test deadlines.

5.2 Other Findings

Condition(s): None


Validation Panel Report Approved By:

Signed:

_______________________________________________________ Ms. Maebh Maher, Chair.

Date:

8th May 2013.

School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9

Response to the Report

of the Programme Validation Panel

Panel Visit: 8th May 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)

Programme Development Team

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

descriptive language is used to express the module learning outcomes.


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.

4. Programme Structure

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.

5. Assessment Strategies

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.


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.


Signed on behalf of the School

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

I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation 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.


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.

Group Work Evaluation Form

GROUP WORK ATTRIBUTES:

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)

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 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.

Documents

Report of Programme Validation Panel