Programmatic Review Phase 2 Programmes

Transcription

1 Academic Council Meeting No. 138 June 20th 2014 (AC:DOC:138:13:01) School: Department: Informatics and Creative Arts Mathematics and Computing Programmatic Review Phase 2 Programmes Programme Title NFQ Award Type Award ECTS Exit Parent Approval Status Level Class Credits Award Programme Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing 8 Honours Bachelor Degree Major 240 N Accredited for 5 years Bachelor of Science in Computing 7 Ordinary Bachelor Degree Major 180 Y Bachelor of Science (Hons) Accredited for 5 years in Computing Higher Certificate in Science in Computing 6 Higher Certificate Major 120 Y Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing Accredited for 5 years Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing wit 8 Honours Bachelor Degree Major 240 N Accredited for 5 years English Language Bachelor of Science in Computing with English Language 7 Ordinary Bachelor Degree Major 180 Y Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing with English Accredited for 5 years Higher Certificate in Science with English Language Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing with French Bachelor of Science in Computing with French Language 6 Higher Certificate Major 120 Y Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing with English Language Accredited for 5 years 8 Honours Bachelor Degree Major 240 N Accredited for 5 years 7 Ordinary Bachelor Degree Major 180 Y Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing with French Higher Certificate in Science with French 6 Higher Certificate Major 120 Y Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing with French Accredited for 5 years Accredited for 5 years 1

2 Academic Council Meeting No. 138 June 20th 2014 (AC:DOC:138:13:01) Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing in Commercial Computing Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing in Information Technology Management Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing in Games Development Bachelor of Science in Computing in Games Development Higher Certificate in Science in Games Development 8 Honours Bachelor Degree Major 60 N Accredited for 5 years 8 Honours Bachelor Degree Major 60 N Accredited for 5 years 8 Honours Bachelor Degree Major 240 N Accredited for 5 years 7 Ordinary Bachelor Degree Major 180 Y Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing in Games Development 6 Higher Certificate Major 120 Y Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing in Games Development Accredited for 5 years Accredited for 5 years Master of Science in Computing 9 Masters Degree Major 75 N Accredited for 5 years Postgraduate Diploma in Science in 9 Postgraduate Diploma Major 60 Y Master of Science in Accredited for 5 years Computing Computing Higher Diploma in Science in Computing 8 Higher Diploma Major 60 N Accredited for 5 years 2

3 Named Award: Programme Title(s): Exit Award(s): Report of Programme Validation Panel/ Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel Award Type: Award Class: NFQ Level: 8, 7, 6 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 240, 180, 120 First Intake: September 2014 Panel Members Date: 11 th March 2014 Bachelor of Science Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing Bachelor of Science in Computing Higher Certificate in Science in Computing Honours Bachelor Degree Major Dr. Barry Feeney Chair Head of Department of Computing, Tallaght IT Prof. Fionn Murtagh Academic Head of School of Computer Science & Informatics, De Montfort University, Leicester Mr. Kieran Deegan Industry IBM Smart Cloud Performance Manager Ms Ustane Probst Student Representative BSc(Hons) in Systems & Networking, Graduate Sligo IT Dr. Brendan Ryder Secretary to Panel Assistant Registrar, DkIT Programme Development Team Prof Dr Christian Horn Dr. Derek Flood Mr. Andrew Wright Mr. Niall McGuinness Dr. Kevin McDaid Dr. Fiona Lawless Ms. Anne Leacy Dr. Fergal McCaffery Dr. Cornelia Connelly Dr. John Loane Ms. Paula Keane Mr. Martin McCourt Mr. Derek O Reilly Ms. Frances Byrne Ms. Cathriona Connor Mr. Enda Finn Mr. Stephen Larkin Ms. Vicky Leahy Mr. Peter Gosling Mr. Kilian Logan Ms. Mary Kennedy Mr. David O Keeffe Dr. Michelle Graham Mr. Joe McPhail Mr. Shane Dowdall Dr. Frank Keenan Mr. Dermot Logue Dr. Philip McGuinness Ms. Audrey Nugent Dr. Gerry Coleman Mr. Peadar Grant Mr. Peter Morris Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9

4 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 Computing and Mathematics in the School of Informatics and Creative Arts at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programme(s): Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing Bachelor of Science in Computing (Exit Award) Higher Certificate in Science in Computing (Exit Award) 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 information. 3 General Findings of the Validation Panel The panel would like to congratulate the programme development team on the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation presented for the programme. They also commend the openness, enthusiasm and engagement of the staff on the day. It was evident that a significant amount of self-reflection was conducted by the programme team as part of the programmatic review process. The panel would also like to commend the programme development team on the incorporation of placement in the programme. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited X Bachelor of Science in Computing Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work X Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9

5 Not Accredited Higher Certificate in Science in Computing Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited X Note: Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for the exit awards as appropriate. 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 Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it? Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9

6 4.2 Award Is the level and type of the award appropriate? 4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment 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? 4.4 Entry Requirements Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate? Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9

7 4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression 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? Recognised Prior Learning (RPL) procedures need to developed at a programme level (in line with Institute procedures). 4.6 Standards and Outcomes 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 (if applicable)? The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at Programme Structure 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? Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9

8 The programme development team must ensure that the number of modules per stage on the programme is in line with Institute policy. Section 2.2. Module Size and Credits in the Programmatic Review Handbook (pg. 7) states programmes leading to major awards shall have a maximum of 10 modules per stage. A maximum of 2 year-long modules per stage is permitted (Academic Council September 28th 2012, Motion 128.3). Also, modules will be offered 5 credit units or 7.5 credit units and multiples thereof. Modules weighted at 2.5 credits are allowable in exceptional circumstances (Academic Council September 28th 2012, Motion 128.2). The panel has a concern regarding the breadth of elective choice on offer in the programme. The programme development team should (re)consider the breadth of electives being offered in Stage 4 of the programme. The department has to consider how best to prioritise their resources within the current constrained resource environment. There is tension between the broad range of electives that appear to be on offer and other priorities the department has identified such as staff development, research and other activities. The programme development team should further consider commonality between the different levels. 4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided for the proposed programme? 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)? 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) : Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9

9 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) ( should also be consulted Resource Requirements Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme? 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? The Institute s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes. Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9

10 4.12 Module-Level Findings The programme development team should consider ensuring that students on the security stream are prepared to undertake one of the certification standards in the area. This is because certifications are considered especially important for those considering a role as a security specialist Assessment Strategies Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme? The panel acknowledges and commends the innovative team approach being applied to the project in the final year of the programme. Final year project is a key element in determining the quality of computing graduates both in its contribution to the level of award and in employers use of project as a yardstick for the individual strengths of graduates. As such the reliability of project work and grades is a key metric for the reputation of a computing programme. The panel recommends that assessment strategies, both individual and group, need to be monitored closely and discussed with external examiners over the first two years of the programme Other Findings Condition(s) Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9

11 The panel were of the view that the department should consider identifying additional high quality placements and placement partners beyond local placements. The expectations of students should be managed such that they consider travelling or moving to obtain high quality placements as normal. The panel commends the existing work being put in by the placement co-ordinator but the support of this activity by the programme team needs to be broadened and should include appropriate interaction with the Institute placement office (this was not evident on the day). A work placement handbook detailing all aspects of the placement should be produced and made available to the students. The panel recognises and commends the engagement with industry which members of the department displayed. The panel suggests that this work needs to be more formally captured and reported. An industry engagement strategy needs to be developed and implemented within the department as a whole. The programme board needs to reflect on 2nd and 3rd year retention figures. The panel recommends the formation of a working group to examine retention issues, formulate appropriate action plans and monitor them accordingly. While the fall in the female participation rate in computing is a national issues the panel recommends that the department continues to support efforts to recruit females into the computing profession. Validation Panel Report Approved By: Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9

12 Named Award: Programme Title(s): Exit Award(s): Award Type: Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel Award Class: NFQ Level: 8, 7, 6 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 240, 180, 120 First Intake: September 2014 Panel Members Date: 11 th March 2014 Bachelor of Science Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing Bachelor of Science in Computing Higher Certificate in Science in Computing Honours Bachelor Degree Higher Certificate Major Dr. Barry Feeney Chair Head of Department of Computing, Tallaght IT Prof. Fionn Murtagh Academic Head of School of Computer Science & Informatics, De Montfort University, Leicester Mr. Kieran Deegan Industry IBM Smart Cloud Performance Manager Ms Ustane Probst Student Representative BSc(Hons) in Systems & Networking, Graduate Sligo IT Dr. Brendan Ryder Secretary to Panel Assistant Registrar, DkIT Programme Development Team Prof Dr Christian Horn Dr. Derek Flood Mr. Andrew Wright Mr. Niall McGuinness Dr. Kevin McDaid Dr. Fiona Lawless Ms. Anne Leacy Dr. Fergal McCaffery Dr. Cornelia Connelly Dr. John Loane Ms. Paula Keane Mr. Martin McCourt Mr. Derek O Reilly Ms. Frances Byrne Ms. Cathriona Connor Mr. Enda Finn Mr. Stephen Larkin Ms. Vicky Leahy Mr. Peter Gosling Mr. Kilian Logan Ms. Mary Kennedy Mr. David O Keeffe Dr. Michelle Graham Mr. Joe McPhail Mr. Shane Dowdall Dr. Frank Keenan Mr. Dermot Logue Dr. Philip McGuinness Ms. Audrey Nugent Dr. Gerry Coleman Mr. Peadar Grant Mr. Peter Morris Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 1/11

13 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 Computing and Mathematics in the School of Informatics and Creative Arts at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programme(s): Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing Bachelor of Science in Computing (Exit Award) Higher Certificate in Science in Computing (Exit Award) 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 information. 3 General Findings of the Validation Panel The panel would like to congratulate the programme development team on the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation presented for the programme. They also commend the openness, enthusiasm and engagement of the staff on the day. It was evident that a significant amount of self-reflection was conducted by the programme team as part of the programmatic review process. The panel would also like to commend the programme development team on the incorporation of placement in the programme. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited X Bachelor of Science in Computing Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work X Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 2/11

14 Not Accredited Higher Certificate in Science in Computing Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited X Note: Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for the exit awards as appropriate. 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 Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it? Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 3/11

15 4.2 Award Is the level and type of the award appropriate? 4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment 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? 4.4 Entry Requirements Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate? Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 4/11

16 4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression 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? Recognised Prior Learning (RPL) procedures need to developed at a programme level (in line with Institute procedures). RESPONSE This will be dealt with once the Institute s procedures are finalised. 4.6 Standards and Outcomes 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 (if applicable)? The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 5/11

17 4.7 Programme Structure 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? The programme development team must ensure that the number of modules per stage on the programme is in line with Institute policy. Section 2.2. Module Size and Credits in the Programmatic Review Handbook (pg. 7) states programmes leading to major awards shall have a maximum of 10 modules per stage. A maximum of 2 year-long modules per stage is permitted (Academic Council September 28th 2012, Motion 128.3). Also, modules will be offered 5 credit units or 7.5 credit units and multiples thereof. Modules weighted at 2.5 credits are allowable in exceptional circumstances (Academic Council September 28th 2012, Motion 128.2). RESPONSE We note that the common core is in line with the Institute policy. Problems could only arise under certain situations when students choose a particular set of electives. The following changes are suggested by the programme development team: 1. The year long elective module Rich Web Applications in year 2 is split into two semester long modules Rich Web Applications 1 and Rich Web Applications The year long elective module Mobile Computing in year 4 is plit into two semester long modules Mobile Development and Enterprise Mobility that are already provided as part of the BSc (Hons) in Computing in Commercial Computing. 3. The year long elective module GUI Programming in year 4 is removed. The panel has a concern regarding the breadth of elective choice on offer in the programme. The programme development team should (re)consider the breadth of electives being offered in Stage 4 of the programme. The department has to consider how best to prioritise their resources within the current constrained resource environment. There is tension between the broad range of electives that appear to be on offer and other priorities the department has identified such as staff development, research and other activities. The programme development team should further consider commonality between the different levels. RESPONSE The proposed set of electives was from the very beginning designed under the assumption that elective streams would only run subject to student numbers and other priorities as they will present themselves in the future. With the currently anticipated number of students it is expected that all electives in year 2 will be offered. The elective choices for year 3 and 4 will be curtailed. Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 6/11

18 The programme development team acknowledges that there may be room for further common modules between level 7 and level 8 programmes. With the proposed programme structure key modules, for example in Mathematics, have already been aligned. With the experience of the common first semester the programme team will consider stepwise further integration of level 7 and level 8 programmes. 4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided for the proposed programme? 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)? 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) ( should also be consulted. Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 7/11

19 4.10 Resource Requirements Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme? 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? The Institute s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes Module-Level Findings Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 8/11

20 The programme development team should consider ensuring that students on the security stream are prepared to undertake one of the certification standards in the area. This is because certifications are considered especially important for those considering a role as a security specialist. RESPONSE Will be considered Assessment Strategies Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme? The panel acknowledges and commends the innovative team approach being applied to the project in the final year of the programme. Final year project is a key element in determining the quality of computing graduates both in its contribution to the level of award and in employers use of project as a yardstick for the individual strengths of graduates. As such the reliability of project work and grades is a key metric for the reputation of a computing programme. The panel recommends that assessment strategies, both individual and group, need to be monitored closely and discussed with external examiners over the first two years of the programme. RESPONSE Accepted. The programme team has already many years of experience with both final year individual as well as group projects. Based on this experience we do not expect problems, but we will continue to involve external examiners in the monitoring of the final year project Other Findings Condition(s) The panel were of the view that the department should consider identifying additional high quality placements and placement partners beyond local placements. The expectations of students should be managed such that they consider travelling or moving to obtain high quality placements as normal. Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 9/11

21 RESPONSE Noted. The panel commends the existing work being put in by the placement co-ordinator but the support of this activity by the programme team needs to be broadened and should include appropriate interaction with the Institute placement office (this was not evident on the day). A work placement handbook detailing all aspects of the placement should be produced and made available to the students. RESPONSE The department expects the number of students on work placement to grow within the next 3 years from currently 15 to about 50. This can only be managed by the Institute placement office. The department plans to grow the placement capacity and to transfer responsibility incrementally. The panel recognises and commends the engagement with industry which members of the department displayed. The panel suggests that this work needs to be more formally captured and reported. An industry engagement strategy needs to be developed and implemented within the department as a whole. RESPONSE Noted. The programme board needs to reflect on 2nd and 3rd year retention figures. The panel recommends the formation of a working group to examine retention issues, formulate appropriate action plans and monitor them accordingly. RESPONSE The programme team had already analysed the 2 nd and 3 rd year retention figures and identified two major contributing factors: One problem was that the core computing degree didn t had a clear identity. The programme team tried to compensate this with the introduction of topical specialisation streams. The other problem was the softening up of the first year, which was successful in improvingthe first year retention rate, had howeve the unintended side effect of transfering part of the problem into 2 nd and 3 rd year. We plan to stabilise retention in 2 nd and 3 rd year through the early transfer of students from level 8 to level 7. With the newly introduced common first semester we hope to create a strong identity for the programme and attract students early to computing. While the fall in the female participation rate in computing is a national issues the panel recommends that the department continues to support efforts to recruit females into the computing profession. RESPONSE The existing programme structure with a common core of 20 credits in each semester leans itself to the introduction to a variety of programmes that may be more attractive to Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 10/11

22 female applicants. The department is considering to expand the language and business options. Response Report Approved By: Signed: Gerard (Bob) McKiernan Dr. Gerard (Bob) McKiernan, Head of School of Informatics and Creative Arts. Date: Signed: Registrar s Office awaiting signature Dr. Barry Feeney, Chairperson. Date: Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 11/11

23 Named Award: Programme Title(s): Exit Award(s): Award Type: Award Class: NFQ Level: 8, 7, 6 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 240, 180, 120 First Intake: September 2014 Panel Members Report of Programme Validation Panel Date: 11 th March 2014 Bachelor of Science (Hons) Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing with English Language Bachelor of Science in Computing with English Language Higher Certificate in Science with English Language Honours Bachelor Degree Ordinary Bachelor Degree Higher Certificate Major Dr. Barry Feeney Chair Head of Department of Computing, Tallaght IT Prof. Fionn Murtagh Academic Head of School of Computer Science & Informatics, De Montfort University, Leicester Mr. Kieran Deegan Industry IBM Smart Cloud Performance Manager Ms Ustane Probst Student Representative BSc(Hons) in Systems & Networking, Graduate Sligo IT Dr. Brendan Ryder Secretary to Panel Assistant Registrar, DkIT Programme Development Team Prof Dr Christian Horn Dr. Derek Flood Mr. Andrew Wright Mr. Niall McGuinness Dr. Kevin McDaid Dr. Fiona Lawless Ms. Anne Leacy Dr. Fergal McCaffery Dr. Cornelia Connelly Dr. John Loane Ms. Paula Keane Mr. Martin McCourt Mr. Derek O Reilly Ms. Frances Byrne Ms. Cathriona Connor Mr. Enda Finn Mr. Stephen Larkin Ms. Vicky Leahy Mr. Peter Gosling Mr. Kilian Logan Ms. Mary Kennedy Mr. David O Keeffe Dr. Michelle Graham Mr. Joe McPhail Mr. Shane Dowdall Dr. Frank Keenan Mr. Dermot Logue Dr. Philip McGuinness Ms. Audrey Nugent Dr. Gerry Coleman Mr. Peadar Grant Mr. Peter Morris Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9

24 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 Computing and Mathematics in the School of Informatics and Creative Arts at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programme(s): Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing with English Language Bachelor of Science in Computing with English Language (Exit Award) Higher Certificate in Computing with English Language (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 See programme submission for more detailed information. 3 General Findings of the Validation Panel The panel would like to congratulate the programme development team on the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation presented for the programme. They also commend the openness, enthusiasm and engagement of the staff on the day. It was evident that a significant amount of self-reflection was conducted by the programme team as part of the programmatic review process. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing with English Language Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited X Bachelor of Science in Computing with English Language Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9

25 Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited Higher Certificate in Science with English Language Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited X Note: Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for the exit awards as appropriate. 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 Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it? Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9

26 4.2 Award Is the level and type of the award appropriate? 4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment 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? 4.4 Entry Requirements Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate? Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9

27 The panel note the discussion regarding International English Language Testing System (IELTS) requirements for the programme (pg. 2 of SER document). The panel does not consider that it can make specific recommendations on this issue and refers to the Institute Academic Council rulings on such matters. For Level 7 programmes prospective students should have attained IELTS 5.5 and for Level 8 programmes IELTS 6.0 should have been attained. 4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression 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 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 (if applicable)? The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9

28 4.7 Programme Structure 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?, with condition(s) The programme development team must ensure that the number of modules per stage on the programme is in line with Institute policy. Section 2.2. Module Size and Credits in the Programmatic Review Handbook (pg. 7) states programmes leading to major awards shall have a maximum of 10 modules per stage. A maximum of 2 year-long modules per stage is permitted (Academic Council September 28th 2012, Motion 128.3). Also, modules will be offered 5 credit units or 7.5 credit units and multiples thereof. Modules weighted at 2.5 credits are allowable in exceptional circumstances (Academic Council September 28th 2012, Motion 128.2). 4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided for the proposed programme? 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)? 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): Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9

29 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) ( should also be consulted Resource Requirements Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme? 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? The Institute s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes. Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9

30 4.12 Module-Level Findings 4.13 Assessment Strategies Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?, with recommendation(s) The panel acknowledges and commends the innovative team approach being applied to the project in the final year of the programme. Final year project is a key element in determining the quality of Computing graduates both in its contribution to the level of award and in employers use of project as a yardstick for the individual strengths of graduates. As such the reliability of project work and grades is a key metric for the reputation of a computing programme. The panel recommends that assessment strategies, both individual and group, need to be monitored closely and discussed with external examiners over the first two years of the programme to ensure that the grades arrived at reflect the appropriate standards of quality and reliability Other Findings Condition(s) Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9

31 The programme development team should give consideration to the incorporation of potential subject areas such as computational linguistics in the programme as these have the potential to lever off the combination of language and computing skills. Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9

32 Named Award: Programme Title(s): Exit Award(s): Award Type: Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel Award Class: NFQ Level: 8, 7, 6 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 240, 180, 120 First Intake: September 2014 Panel Members Date: 11 th March 2014 Bachelor of Science (Hons) Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing with English Language Bachelor of Science in Computing with English Language Higher Certificate in Science with English Language Honours Bachelor Degree Ordinary Bachelor Degree Higher Certificate Major Dr. Barry Feeney Chair Head of Department of Computing, Tallaght IT Prof. Fionn Murtagh Academic Head of School of Computer Science & Informatics, De Montfort University, Leicester Mr. Kieran Deegan Industry IBM Smart Cloud Performance Manager Ms Ustane Probst Student Representative BSc(Hons) in Systems & Networking, Graduate Sligo IT Dr. Brendan Ryder Secretary to Panel Assistant Registrar, DkIT Programme Development Team Prof Dr Christian Horn Dr. Derek Flood Mr. Andrew Wright Mr. Niall McGuinness Dr. Kevin McDaid Dr. Fiona Lawless Ms. Anne Leacy Dr. Fergal McCaffery Dr. Cornelia Connelly Dr. John Loane Ms. Paula Keane Mr. Martin McCourt Mr. Derek O Reilly Ms. Frances Byrne Ms. Cathriona Connor Mr. Enda Finn Mr. Stephen Larkin Ms. Vicky Leahy Mr. Peter Gosling Mr. Kilian Logan Ms. Mary Kennedy Mr. David O Keeffe Dr. Michelle Graham Mr. Joe McPhail Mr. Shane Dowdall Dr. Frank Keenan Mr. Dermot Logue Dr. Philip McGuinness Ms. Audrey Nugent Dr. Gerry Coleman Mr. Peadar Grant Mr. Peter Morris Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9

33 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 Computing and Mathematics in the School of Informatics and Creative Arts at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programme(s): Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing with English Language Bachelor of Science in Computing with English Language (Exit Award) Higher Certificate in Science with English Language (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 See programme submission for more detailed information. 3 General Findings of the Validation Panel The panel would like to congratulate the programme development team on the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation presented for the programme. They also commend the openness, enthusiasm and engagement of the staff on the day. It was evident that a significant amount of self-reflection was conducted by the programme team as part of the programmatic review process. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing with English Language Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited X Bachelor of Science in Computing with English Language Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9

34 Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited Higher Certificate in Science with English Language Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited X Note: Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for the exit awards as appropriate. 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 Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it? Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9

35 4.2 Award Is the level and type of the award appropriate? 4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment 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? 4.4 Entry Requirements Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate? Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9

36 The panel note the discussion regarding International English Language Testing System (IELTS) requirements for the programme (pg. 2 of SER document). The panel does not consider that it can make specific recommendations on this issue and refers to the Institute Academic Council rulings on such matters. For Level 7 programmes prospective students should have attained IELTS 5.5 and for Level 8 programmes IELTS 6.0 should have been attained. RESPONSE The programme development team will seek clarification from Academic Council. 4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression 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 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 (if applicable)? The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9