Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and ... College Dublin... · Final Report 8 Institutional Review Methodology The Institutional Review process was carried out

i

HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING AWARDS COUNCIL, IRELAND

Comhairle na nDámhachtainí Ardoideachais agus Oiliúna, Éire

Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and Training

Institutional Review of IBAT College Dublin

23 – 25 April 2012

Report of Expert Panel

Version Date of Approval

Final 12 October 2012

www.hetac.ie

http://www.hetac.ie/

IBAT College Dublin –April 2012 Report of the Expert Panel

Final Report

ii

Contents

Introduction iii

Report of the Expert Panel - Executive Summary 5

Background to IBAT College Dublin 6

Institutional Review Methodology 8

Findings in relation to Objectives of Institutional Review 12

Appendix A Terms of Reference 41

Appendix B Panel membership 51

Appendix C Supporting documentation received before the site visit 52

Appendix D Documentation requested by the panel 56

Appendix E Index to additional documentation provided to the panel 58

Appendix F Agenda for site visit 59

Appendix G List of people met by the panel 61

Glossary of terms and abbreviations 67


Final Report

iii

HETAC Institutional Review

Introduction

Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC) is the qualifications awarding body

for third-level educational and training institutions outside the university sector in Ireland. All

providers offering HETAC awards are subject to external quality assurance review of their

institutions. HETAC carries out such reviews as part of its Institutional Review process. This is

the Report of the Expert Panel, appointed by the HETAC, which carried out the Institutional

Review of IBAT College Dublin (IBAT) in April 2012.

The Expert Panel was chaired by Dr Annie Doona and its membership reflected a wide range of

expertise and experience, in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the review. HETAC

wishes to record its thanks to the members of the panel for accepting this task and for their

generous and professional commitment to the review.

IBAT College Dublin will submit a follow-up report to HETAC not more than 12 months after

the publication of this report. The follow-up report will outline how IBAT has implemented the

recommendations, as set out in its response to the Institutional Review, and evaluate the initial

impact of such implementation. The follow-up report will be considered by the Academic

Committee of HETAC, and a commentary by the HETAC Executive will be included. The

Academic Committee may adopt the Institute‟s follow-up report and may consider further

conditions. Following adoption by the Academic Committee of HETAC, the follow-up report

will be published on the Council‟s website.

iv

Note

HETAC‟s Institutional Review process is designed to address only those objectives described in the Terms of

Reference included in Appendix A.

The Expert Panel points out that it cannot make any findings regarding:

1. The financial standing and commercial viability of the institution reviewed

2. The institution‟s compliance with its general statutory obligations

or

3. The general fitness of the institution‟s systems and arrangements for the governance and management of

financial matters.

The Report of the Expert Panel contains no assurances, warranties or representations, express or implied,

regarding the aforesaid issues, or any other issues outside the Terms of Reference.

While HETAC has endeavoured to ensure that the information contained in the Report is correct, complete and

up-to-date, any reliance placed on such information is strictly at the reader‟s own risk, and in no event will

HETAC be liable for any loss or damage (including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage)

arising from or in connection with the use of the information contained in the Report of the Expert Panel.

A glossary of terms and abbreviations used in this report is available on page 67.


Final Report

5

Report of the Expert Panel - Executive Summary

This is the Report of the Expert Panel appointed by HETAC to undertake the Institutional

Review of IBAT College, Dublin in April 2012. The review process was carried out in accordance

with HETAC‟s Policy on Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and Training, 2007.

Findings

The following is an Executive Summary of the Expert Panel‟s key findings:

The effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by IBAT College

Dublin has been assessed and the arrangements have been found to be substantially

effective in accordance with the seven elements of Part One of the European Standards

and Guidelines for Quality Assurance 2009, Helsinki, 3rd edition, and the HETAC Guidelines

and Criteria for Quality Assurance Procedures, 2011.

IBAT College Dublin has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications

(NFQ) and procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression as determined by the

National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI).

Commendations and Recommendations

The Expert Panel made a total of 9 commendations and 25 recommendations. These relate to

the Objectives for Institutional Review and are identified in the body of the Report.

Acknowledgments

The panel wishes to thank the College for the courtesy and openness of all those who it met and

particularly to those external stakeholders, students, and members of the College‟s Executive

Management Board who made time to meet the panel.


Final Report

6

Background to IBAT College Dublin

IBAT College Dublin was founded as the „Institute of Business and Technology‟ in 2004 and

became known as „IBAT College Swords‟ in 2009. In 2011, following its acquisition and

development of a second campus in the Temple Bar district of Central Dublin, the College

adopted its present name „IBAT College Dublin‟. For brevity it is referred to throughout this

report as „IBAT‟ or „the College‟.

IBAT is an independent for-profit private higher education institution and offers programmes of

study in Business, Information Technology, Accountancy, Management, and English Language

that lead to awards at several levels by eight separate awarding or accrediting bodies. At the time

of the review more than 1,300 full-time and part-time learners were registered to study with

IBAT. It has one major shareholder (its Director) and a number of smaller institutional

shareholders. At the time of the review the College was noticeably changing from an organisation

led by its Director, supported by a small management team, to one in which management

responsibilities were becoming more differentiated. An Academic Council has been established

to be responsible for overseeing the academic portfolio, academic regulations, and the work of

programme teams.

IBAT‟s first campus was established in the town of Swords where it is the only locally-based

higher education institution. IBAT‟s Swords campus is approximately 15 kilometres from Dublin

city centre. In June 2011, IBAT acquired its Temple Bar campus on Wellington Quay and

undertook substantial works to fit it out to a high standard for learning, teaching, and

administration. The two campuses are now joined by a high capacity data link that enables the IT

facilities on each campus to serve as the backup to the other, and students and staff to use

electronic learning resources across the two campuses. IBAT has secured recognition from each

of the awarding and accrediting bodies with which it works to offer its programmes on each

campus and refers to this as „dual recognition‟.

IBAT agreed Quality Assurance procedures with HETAC in 2006 and subsequently commenced

year 1 of the Higher Certificate in Business in September 2006. In January 2008, HETAC

approved a programme leading to a Level 7 Bachelor of Business award through a one-year „add-

on‟ programme to the Higher Certificate programmes, and a three-year programme. In

September 2008, HETAC approved a programme leading to a Level 8 award (the Bachelor of

Business (Honours) with three sets of group electives. Since September 2008, entry to IBAT‟s


Final Report

7

HETAC-validated programmes is through the Central Applications Office (CAO1). IBAT has

been a member of Ireland‟s (private) Higher Education Colleges Association (HECA) since 2010.

In 2010 the College discussed with HETAC and the University of Wales the possibility of

offering a taught Master of Business Administration (MBA) programme to be validated jointly by

the two bodies to lead to a HETAC/University of Wales joint award. The proposal did not

develop beyond this initial stage and in January 2011 the University of Wales validated and

approved an MBA programme. The College formally became an „Institution of the University of

Wales with Validated Provision‟. In November 2011, following the announcement by the

University of Wales that it was to cease the validation of programmes at partner institutions

outside Wales, IBAT submitted a proposal to HETAC for the validation of a Level 9 programme

leading to a HETAC MBA award. This MBA proposal was reviewed in the same month by a

HETAC validation panel and was undergoing a second iteration of evaluation. At the time of the

Institutional Review site visit IBAT was preparing to participate in a full HETAC validation

exercise for a resubmitted MBA proposal. IBAT‟s plans to manage the consequences for it of the

withdrawal of the University of Wales from the external validation of programmes outside Wales

are noted later in this report.

IBAT College Dublin is approved by the Further Education and Training Awards Council

(FETAC) to offer FETAC awards at Levels 5 and 6 on the National Framework of

Qualifications (NFQ) in Business Studies, Information Technology, English Language and Law.

In August 2011, FETAC undertook a scheduled monitoring exercise of the College‟s provision at

its Swords campus that continued its approval of the College.

Accounting Technicians Ireland (ATI) first licensed IBAT as a provider of accountancy

technician programmes in August 2004 and the College has since been annually reviewed by ATI.

In December 2011 both the Swords and Temple Bar campuses were successfully reviewed by

ATI. IBAT was first approved to offer programmes of the Association of Chartered Certified

Accountants (ACCA) in 2006. In June 2009 the College was awarded ACCA „Gold Status‟ as a

provider of accountancy programmes. The College is recognised as an ACCA Computer Based

Examination (CBE) centre. IBAT has been a Registered Education Provider of the Project

Management Institute since September 2009.

A full version of this summarised profile of IBAT is set out in the „Terms of Reference‟ for the

Institutional Review in Appendix A.

1 The higher education institutions in the Republic of Ireland have delegated to the Central Applications Office (CAO) the task of processing centrally applications to their first year undergraduate programmes.


Final Report

8

Institutional Review Methodology

The Institutional Review process was carried out in accordance with HETAC‟s Policy on

Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and Training, 2007. The process consisted of the

following six phases, with the Report of the Expert Panel coming at the end of phase 3.

1. HETAC set the Terms of Reference following consultation with IBAT.

2. Self-evaluation carried out by IBAT, followed by the production of a written Self

Evaluation Report (SER).

3. Visit of the panel appointed by HETAC, followed by the written Report of the Expert

Panel.

4. Institutional response to the panel‟s report, including its implementation plan.

5. Publication of the Report of the Expert Panel and IBAT‟s subsequent response.

6. Follow-up report submitted by IBAT.

The Terms of Reference for the Institutional Review were discussed in meetings between

HETAC and IBAT and were set in January 2012. The objectives of IBAT College Dublin were

set by HETAC as follows:

1. To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the

College and the standards of the awards made.

2. To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the College with the

following special consideration for IBAT College Dublin:

IBAT College is a privately funded independent for-profit college. In August 2011 IBAT College

opened an additional campus in Dublin city centre, described by the College as „State of the Art‟. All

programmes available in the Swords Campus are also available in the city centre. As a result of this new

expansion the College has almost doubled its capacity in the provision of all programmes, many of which

are now available to learners in both locations - Swords and the city centre. As part of its expansion

plans the College has hired additional staff and changed its name from IBAT College Swords to IBAT

College Dublin. The panel is requested to examine the impact on the College of this significant

expansion in the context of the strategic planning, governance and management structures.

3. To assess the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by the

College with the following special consideration for IBAT College Dublin:


Final Report

9

The Institutional Review should consider the quality assurance arrangements in place for both centres

provided by IBAT College Dublin – the new Dublin city centre location in Wellington Quay and the

established Swords campus location.

4. To confirm the extent to which the College has implemented the National Framework

of Qualifications (NFQ) and its procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression.

6. To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training

provided by the College.

[Objective 5: To evaluate the operation and management of Delegated Authority where it has been granted does

not apply to IBAT College Dublin and is therefore not included in this review.]

For the complete Terms of Reference for IBAT College Dublin, see Appendix A, page 41.

The Panel of Experts

HETAC appointed a panel of experts to carry out the Institutional Review on its behalf. Chaired

by Dr Annie Doona, the membership of the panel reflected a wide range of expertise and

experience, in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the review. Panel members were

asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to their appointment and there were no

such declarations. In advance of the site visit, panel members received induction training from

HETAC on the conduct of Institutional Reviews. The membership of the panel is outlined in full

in Appendix B, page 51.

IBAT‟s Self-evaluation Report (SER)

Prior to compiling its Self-Evaluation Report (SER), IBAT undertook a self-assessment of its

quality assurance arrangements that was described in an Appendix to the SER. Compilation of

the SER itself was overseen by an Institutional Review Steering Group, led by the Director and

other senior staff. The SER set out to provide „as holistic a picture of the College as possible‟ (SER, p6),

and to identify successes and areas for enhancement. It was structured in line with the five

relevant objectives of HETAC‟s Terms of Reference for the Institutional Review, the analysis for

each of which covered: the approach IBAT had taken to deal with that element; the definition of

its objectives; IBAT‟s own findings; its recommendations for further enhancements set out as an

action plan; and its conclusions.

The SER drew on a number of specially-commissioned surveys, some of which were undertaken

by third parties for the College. IBAT adopted a business process mapping as part of its

preparations for the SER and included a copy of the process map in the supplementary and

supporting information that it made available to support the Institutional Review. A listing of


Final Report

10

the documentation submitted by the College to support the SER submission is provided in

Appendix C (page 52).

Reviewing the SER as an evaluative and comprehensive account of how the College works as a

higher education institution, the panel noted that much of the SER was devoted to describing the

methods that had been employed to gather information and particularly feedback from

stakeholders on each of the five relevant elements in the Terms of Reference for the review.

Findings with respect to the feedback for the five elements were then presented as the College‟s

evaluation of its performance in each element.

Planning the site visit- Advance meeting

An advance meeting was held on 22 March 2012 between the Review Chairperson, the Review

Secretary, HETAC officers (including the Head of Institutional Review) and senior

representatives of IBAT, including its Director. This meeting provided an opportunity for IBAT

to provide further information and a discussion of the following items:

a background to the establishment of the College;

clarification on the roles and responsibilities of management staff in IBAT;

further details on the overall strategic direction and future for the College and

evolvement of the strategic planning process:

discussion of the outcomes of a recent Programmatic Review relating to the

College‟s programmes validated by HETAC, together with the College‟s

response to the recommendations arising from that review.

confirmation of panel composition by both HETAC and IBAT College and

noted there were no declarations of any conflicts of interest.

The advance meeting also provided opportunities for the Review Chairperson to discuss

emerging themes and request clarifications, on behalf of the panel, that had been prompted by

their reading of the SER. Additional documentation was requested of the College, to be

provided to the panel during the site visit, the list is shown in Appendix D (page 56). It was

agreed that an index to this documentation would be supplied to the panel before the visit, this is

provided in Appendix E (page 58). The Review Chairperson and Secretary, IBAT‟s

representatives, and HETAC officers also discussed practical arrangements for the site visit,

including the location, site visit agenda and logistics. It was subsequently confirmed that, as

almost all teaching staff and many support staff worked across both campuses, the visit should

be based at the Temple Bar campus on Wellington Quay, with the participation of students based

at the Swords campus who would join the panel at the Temple Bar campus.


Final Report

11

The site visit

The site visit by the panel to IBAT took place on 24 and 25 April 2012 and followed an agenda

agreed between HETAC, IBAT and the panel before the visit. The agenda for the site visit is set

out in Appendix F (page 59). In the course of the visit, the panel met members of IBAT‟s

academic, administrative and support staff and learners based at the Temple Bar and Swords

campuses. The panel also met former learners, stakeholders and members of IBAT‟s Executive

Management Board. Lists of those who met the panel, meeting by meeting, are provided in

Appendix G (page 61).

As noted in the Executive Summary to this report, the panel wishes to express its gratitude,

through IBAT, to all those whom it met and particularly to those external stakeholders, students

and external members of the Executive Management Board who made time to meet the panel.

Their courtesy and openness, and IBAT‟s readiness to provide additional information and

clarifications on request, is greatly appreciated.


Final Report

12

Findings in relation to Objectives of Institutional Review

Objective 1 — Public Confidence

To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the

College and the standards of the awards made

This overarching objective covers all areas of the College‟s activity. The quality of the

Institutional Review process is a critical part of this, as is the publication of the Self-Evaluation

Report; the Report of the Expert Panel; and the College‟s own response and action plan. The

information provided by the College to the public is part of this objective.

IBAT‟s Self Evaluation Report

As noted earlier in this report, the SER that IBAT provided to support the review was planned

and drawn up by a small group of senior members of the College. The SER had been received

and approved by IBAT‟s Academic Council and formally approved and „signed off‟ by the

College‟s Senior Management Team. It had not been submitted to IBAT‟s Executive

Management Board for approval.

To support the production of the SER, the College undertook a review and assessment of the

effectiveness of its quality assurance arrangements („the Assessment‟) the report of which was

included with the supporting documents IBAT supplied for the panel. As with the SER, much of

the text of the Assessment was devoted to describing in detail the methodology the College had

followed to produce the report. The extent of the descriptions of the methodologies it had

followed helped to mask the conclusions that the College had drawn from its own analysis. The

prominence given to feedback from stakeholders, not all of which was directly relevant or

persuasive, also reduced the impact of the College‟s own analyses and critical evaluations.

In each of the meetings it conducted with IBAT staff and students, and with external

stakeholders, the panel asked the participants whether they had contributed to the SER or seen

its contents. From the responses it appeared to the panel that some academic and administrative

staff had been asked to provide information for the SER but that staff who were not members of

the Senior Management Team, programme leaders or members of the Academic Council were

not aware of the contents of the SER, nor did it appear that IBAT had shared the SER with its

students. This seemed to the panel to represent a missed opportunity for IBAT to have

communicated its academic and wider vision to its staff and students (and, perhaps, other


Final Report

13

stakeholders) and to engage them more closely in an important stage in the development of the

College.

Overall, the panel found that the production of the SER had been treated by IBAT as a serious

undertaking and that it had been produced with integrity. The panel also found that the SER had

omitted to comment on recent and significant developments in its relations with HETAC and

that, while it contained much honest commentary, it also contained assertions that were not fully

grounded in evidence, for example with respect to the level of support available for learners with

disabilities. The SER (and the Assessment) had not identified what seemed to the panel to be

some of the College‟s real strengths and its achievements, for example its practical arrangements

for risk management and the general effectiveness of its arrangements for gathering and

responding to feedback information from its students. Overall, the panel found that some of the

systematic and critical self-evaluation that the College had undertaken as it compiled its SER, and

the Assessment that supported it, was overshadowed by extensive accounts of the methodologies

the College had followed.

IBAT‟s view of public confidence

In its SER, IBAT set out its definition of public confidence which it described as „how the key

stakeholders of the College perceive IBAT College Dublin with respect to the quality of the education and training

provided, the standards of the awards made and the regulatory standards to which it must comply‟ (SER, p11).

As part of the process of preparing for the Institutional Review, IBAT had gathered feedback

information from those it had identified as its stakeholders through correspondence, meetings,

and on-line survey questionnaires, the outcomes of which were extensively reported in the

supporting documents that IBAT provided for the review and that were summarised in the SER.

The College had also commissioned an advertising agency to produce a report on „public

confidence‟ and institutional performance and activity in IBAT‟s marketing that largely dealt with

recognition of the IBAT „brand‟ among staff and students.

In terms of public confidence, the stakeholders that had been surveyed by IBAT included

learners, graduates, staff, employers, accrediting bodies (such as ACCA and ATI) and, more

widely, community representatives in Swords and County Fingal in Dublin. A number of the

stakeholders interviewed included staff and professionals who provide commercial and other

services to IBAT. Stakeholders‟ comments had been reported under the following headings:

quality assurance; programme level; personal level; and marketing/advertising. Feedback on these

matters was digested and reported in the SER in two sub-sections: „Quality of Education and

Standards‟ and „Broader areas of Public Confidence‟.

The sub-section „Quality of Education and Standards‟ was further broken down to cover:


Final Report

14

the recognition IBAT had achieved from awarding and accrediting bodies;

IBAT „benchmarking‟ against other higher education institutions;

IBAT‟s academic monitoring through external reviews;

reports from IBAT‟s external examiners, and awareness of their contributions to

safeguarding the standards of IBAT‟s programmes and the awards they lead to;

the suitability of the College‟s quality assurance policies and procedures and

their contributions to the protection of learners‟ interests;

the calibre of IBAT‟s staff and their opportunities to contribute to

developments at IBAT;

learners, in terms of the numbers of students recruited and their achievements

and contacts with alumni; and

collaborations with other higher education institutions and professional,

regulatory and awarding bodies.

In this part of the SER, the sub-section on „Broader areas of Public Confidence‟ covered:

brand protection/promotion of the IBAT brand;

perceptions of IBAT‟s financial stability and its management of financial risk;

the reputation of the College‟s leadership and of its management;

IBAT‟s operating standards, including safety and compliance with relevant

legislation, including arrangements for students with disabilities;

community engagement; and,

public affairs including communication with media organisations and the general

public.

The panel noted with interest the care that IBAT had devoted to surveying and reporting on the

stakeholders it had identified, and the recommendations for enhancement that the College had

compiled from its own analyses of this information. These largely took the form of opportunities

for making the College, and aspects of its work, better known and to a wider range of

stakeholders. The panel encourages IBAT in its endeavours to widen awareness of its work and

its contributions to Ireland‟s mix of higher education providers.

In the site visit the panel was able to discuss IBAT‟s work to engage public confidence with

members of the College (staff and learners) and stakeholders, with a view to improving its own

understanding of how IBAT benchmarked its activities and performance against that of other

higher education providers, how it worked with its alumni, and how the College worked with the

employers of its graduates. The panel was told that IBAT plays a full part in the work of the

Higher Education Colleges Association (HECA), of which its Director is Vice-Chair, and that


Final Report

15

IBAT benchmarks some aspects of its performance, including the achievements and progression

rates of its students, against that of other members of HECA. IBAT benchmarks other aspects

of its performance against performance in the higher education sector more generally, drawing

on statistics reported by the Higher Education Authority (HEA). From its discussions with

senior members of IBAT the panel also learned that such benchmarking activities were not

undertaken on a regular or systematic basis. The panel congratulates IBAT on the soundness of

its recognition of the importance of establishing benchmarks against which to measure its own

performance, congratulates it on its work with HECA and recommends that, as it develops its

management systems, the College should work towards undertaking such benchmarking in key

areas of its academic and business performance regularly and systematically.

As noted above, IBAT was founded in 2004 and has been offering provision leading to HETAC

awards since 2006: consequently its opportunities for gathering feedback from HETAC alumni

and their employers has been limited by the relatively small number of students that have

graduated from the College‟s HETAC programmes. Nonetheless, the College has worked hard to

gather feedback from its existing students and from those of its alumni with whom it has been

able to maintain contact. During discussions regarding contact with former students, the panel

were informed by IBAT staff of the College‟s commitment, as stated in the SER, to establish an

alumni network. The panel agrees with IBAT that the development of a database of alumni and

an alumni network would now be valuable. Such a database and network would enable the

College to keep former students informed about proposed developments, to draw on their

current experience for the development of the curriculum, and seek their assistance in locating

placement and internship opportunities for current students. The development of an alumni

network would also provide IBAT with a valuable channel through which to communicate news

of its activities and its successes to a wider public.

In late 2011 IBAT established a „Business Advisory Group‟, as one of its responses to the report

of a Programmatic Review of the College‟s HETAC-validated provision. The purpose of the

Group is to provide IBAT with advice on programme development, programme design, and the

continued relevance of programmes; it is chaired by a former IBAT lecturer and supported by an

experienced member of the College‟s staff. At the time of the institutional review site visit this

Group had met once. The panel met the Chair of the Business Advisory Group and learned that

it had agreed to be involved in the early stages of future programme developments. As IBAT

continues to grow the panel recommends that it should establish a forum in which it can meet

the employers of its graduates and consult them on matters such as curriculum content and

development and their experiences of employing IBAT‟s former students.

In terms of „Broader Areas of Public Confidence‟, the panel again noted the prominence given to

„branding‟ and a focus on communicating to the public the qualifications offered by IBAT, the


Final Report

16

recognition it had achieved from accrediting and awarding bodies, and its compliance with

legislative requirements. Stakeholders from the community who met the panel told of how the

College had worked with a local secondary school in Swords to promote the importance of

higher education and life-long learning to students while others spoke of IBAT‟s good standing

with the local business community, also in Swords. A representative from a small charitable body

that was developing as a private higher education institution spoke of the advice and support

IBAT had provided and its general helpfulness.

In the course of the visit the panel explored IBAT‟s risk management arrangements with senior

members of staff. They reported to the panel that to manage the risks that might arise from

adverse operating conditions, of any kind, the College had made arrangements with specified

members of HECA such that, in case of a serious disruption to its operations, IBAT‟s learners

would be able to transfer to comparable institutions to complete their studies and gain their

awards. This measure – which was mentioned but not described in the SER – seemed to the

panel to represent a most responsible and commendable approach to safeguarding the interest of

learners and should be recognised as contributing to the level of confidence that the public can

place in IBAT.

Commendations — Public Confidence

In relation to Objective 1, Public Confidence , the panel commends:

1 The measures the College has taken to safeguard the interests of learners in the event of

any serious disruption to its operations (page 16).

Recommendations — Public Confidence

In relation to Objective 1, Public Confidence, the panel makes the following

recommendations:

1 IBAT should work towards undertaking regular and systematic benchmarking in key

areas of its academic and business performance (page 15).

2 IBAT should develop an alumni network (page 15).


Final Report

17

Objective 2 — Strategic Planning and Governance

To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the College

This objective aims to contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in IBAT. It

addresses the coherence of institutional mission, vision and values and overall institutional

strategic planning.

As part of its consideration of this objective, IBAT specifically asked the panel to examine the

impact on the College of its „significant expansion‟, with the opening of its second campus, in the

context of its „strategic planning, governance and management structures‟ (SER, p18).

IBAT‟s approach to Objective 2 in the SER

IBAT‟s SER dealt with Strategic Planning and Governance by reviewing its approach to strategic

planning and governance, the principles which underlay this, and the inputs that are used. The

College also reviewed the planning, implementation and monitoring of strategies and governance

to ensure that the approach and processes that are in place are effective. In its account of

strategic planning and governance in the SER, IBAT chose to address „strategic planning‟ and

„governance‟ separately. The College‟s view of strategic planning in the College context was stated

as „the process of defining the College‟s strategy and making appropriate resource allocation decisions to effectively

pursue the agreed strategy‟ (SER, p18). It defined „governance‟ (again in the context of the College) as

„the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented) within the

organisation. The principles that IBAT College Dublin follows in defining good governance include ensuring that

activities are legally compliant, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, responsive, transparent and

accountable‟ (SER, p19).

Strategic Planning

The SER described four stages of development through which strategic planning at IBAT had

passed, corresponding with the start of its operations and successive stages, which it

characterised as owner/entrepreneur-led, leading to the present and its operations across two

campuses which it saw as becoming stakeholder-led. The SER described IBAT‟s strategic

planning process as beginning with the collection of data from stakeholders and requiring a

„thorough environmental analysis … to define strategy‟ (SER, p18). The College‟s rolling Strategic Plan

covers three years; it is reviewed annually in March and updated. This annual review includes an

analysis of the environment within which the College operates and recommendations and

suggestions from the Academic Council. These are reviewed by the Senior Management Team to


Final Report

18

„identify constraints, enablers and opportunities for the College for the forthcoming three year

period‟ and presented to the Executive Management Board for its comments and advice. An

updated version of the document becomes the College‟s Strategic Plan, which is subsequently

„signed off‟ by the Senor Management Team and the Executive Management Board (SER, p19-

20). As yet there is little to show that the Board engages in strategic planning.

College Management in the context of the development of IBAT‟s second campus

Since its foundation in 2004 the College has been led by its Director with the support of a small

management team. The organisational chart the College provided with the SER named

individuals with their responsibilities and one group: the „Management Team‟. The panel learned

that until the development of the second campus, the College‟s compact size and the single

campus had enabled IBAT‟s management to respond quickly to matters raised by staff and

students, with the Director often dealing with matters personally. The Senior Management Team

meets frequently, which enables it to continue to respond rapidly to emerging needs and

opportunities and is consistent with the entrepreneurial management style the College has

followed since its foundation.

With the opening of its second campus, IBAT has begun to adapt its previous less formal but

effective ways of working to enable it to operate robustly over two campuses and with an

increasing population of learners and growing academic and administrative staff groups. For

example, IBAT has begun to develop more formal communications practices. In terms of day-to-

day arrangements the College has arranged for almost all of its academic staff to teach on both

campuses, with the aim of continuing to offer largely identical programmes on each campus and

with the same staff teaching the same modules on both campuses. Academic staff travel regularly

between the campuses and the College has developed hot-desking2 and IT arrangements that

enable staff to work on either campus with telephone and email access arrangements that follow

them. The College has also developed an internal newsletter and electronic bulletin boards to

share information between staff managers, administrators and with students. The panel

considered these to be sensible and commendable developments. Overall, the College continues

to maintain a commendably tight focus on the provision of business education.

2 Hot desking involves multiple workers using a single physical work station or surface during different time periods.


Final Report

19

Governance: roles of the executive and the deliberative parts of IBAT‟s arrangements: a) academic governance

As part of the College‟s development of more formal communication practices (and academic

governance arrangements) it has sought to separate more clearly the roles and responsibilities of

the Academic Management Group and the College‟s newly established Academic Council. Both

are currently chaired by the College‟s Academic Director, with the Academic Management Group

being responsible for the day-to-day operational management of programmes, through its weekly

meetings. The Academic Management Group is also the source of academic advice for the

College‟s administrators on matters such as recognised prior learning, qualifications and

assessment.

The College‟s Academic Council was established in the 2011-2012 current session. It has replaced

IBAT‟s former „Academic Committee‟ and is responsible (among other matters) for overseeing

the academic regulation of the College, the development of the academic portfolio and making

recommendations on these to the Senior Management Team. The SER stated that the „role of

Academic Council is independent and separate from the executive management of the College despite the

commonality of some of its members‟ (SER, p10). The Quality Assurance Manual stated that the

Academic Council was chaired by „an independent Chairperson‟ whereas at the time of the

review the Chair was stated to be the College‟s Academic Director. The panel recommends that

the reference to the independent status of the Chairperson of the Academic Council in the

Quality Assurance Manual and the SER should be brought into alignment.

IBAT‟s establishment of the Academic Council seemed to the panel to be a significant

development, as the College itself recognises. What was less clear to the panel was whether, as

yet, IBAT had thought through how its Executive Management (groups and individuals) and its

newly emerging internal bodies, such as the Academic Council and the Executive Management

Board, should work together. For example, the panel found it unusual in a higher education

institution for the minutes of an ostensibly academic body, such as the Academic Council, to be

treated as wholly confidential. The panel recommends to IBAT that, as soon as possible, it

should make available to the College‟s staff and students, the agendas, minutes and supporting

papers that are generated for, and by, Academic Council, with the understanding that they would

be subject to the normal arrangements for redacting commercially sensitive and personal

information.

One of the areas of IBAT‟s present management and quality assurance arrangements that would

benefit from further development is its capacity for reflecting more deeply on outcomes of the

various external reviews in which the College has participated. Reports from such external

reviews are received and it is clear that IBAT takes action to deal with their findings. What


Final Report

20

appears to the panel to be lacking, however, is evidence of the discussions that have taken place

about such findings and why particular choices and responses have been made.

IBAT has formerly operated as a small, tightly knit and harmonious organisation. With the

opening of its second campus the College has started on the path of institutional development

that will make it into a different organisation, in which a larger body of staff (and students) will

need to understand why certain policies and procedures have been adopted and need to be

followed. IBAT has wisely identified these developments itself and has decided to deal with them

through the adoption of greater formality in its communications. At the same time the panel is

mindful that the College is a higher education institution as well as a business organisation and

needs to learn how to undertake deeper institutional reflection on its development as a higher

education institution, a process that the panel recommends should be located with the Academic

Council (see below).

The panel recommends that IBAT should create opportunities for its Academic Council to

identify the lessons the College has learned from internal and external reviews.

Roles of the executive and the deliberative parts of IBAT‟s governance arrangements: b) establishment and role of

the Executive Management Board

The SER described the responsibilities of IBAT‟s Executive Management Board as „overseeing the

College‟s operations‟. Its membership comprises „the most senior staff in the organisation along with

outside parties‟ who include „two non IBAT College Dublin staff with considerable relevant oversight and

governance experience‟ (SER, p 9). The Board is chaired by the College Director, who is also the

Chief Executive Officer of IBAT and its chief accounting officer. The Executive Management

Board is referred to as the Corporate Management Board in the Quality Assurance Manual and

the panel recommends that for clarity of communication IBAT should harmonise and stabilise

the names of its internal bodies across its documents.

The panel met members of the Executive Management Board during the visit who told it that the

Board was able to oversee the work of IBAT through the reports it received from the College‟s

Senior Management Team. These include reports on the progress of each department and a

report on the College‟s annual strategy review (conducted by the Senior Management Team). The

Board does not receive regular reports from the Academic Council or copies of its papers. The

panel asked members of the Executive Management Board how effectively it was able to exercise

its oversight role, given that it was chaired by the College‟s Chief Executive and Director, and

received almost all of its information and briefings (other than information in the public domain)

through the Senior Management Team.


Final Report

21

Members of the Executive Management Board told the panel that the role of the Board was

developing and that combining the roles of Director/Chief Executive with that of Chairman of

the Board had been appropriate for a small organisation in its start-up phase but that the

intention was to increase the number of independent Directors. The panel recommends that as

IBAT develops as a higher education institution the Executive Management Board should review

how the roles of Chair of the Executive Management Board and Director of the College might

be made separate.

IBAT‟s Executive Management Board and its Directors are ultimately responsible for the

operation and good governance of the College. At the time the panel met members of the

Executive Management Board they had yet to decide how it could routinely discharge its

responsibilities for all aspects of the College‟s work. For example, the Board had yet to develop a

scheduled programme of reviews of IBAT‟s policies and strategies, to decide how the academic

dimension of the College‟s work will be brought into its work, and how the Board will hear the

voice of the College‟s students. The panel therefore recommends that the Board should routinely

review the College‟s policies and strategies; that it should discuss and agree how it will seek out

the views of the College‟s students, and how it will respond to them; and that it should discuss

and agree how the academic dimension of the College‟s work will be brought into its own work,

so that it can satisfy itself that the Academic Council is discharging the responsibilities it has been

assigned for the quality assurance of the College‟s educational provision and the academic

standards of the awards for which IBAT has responsibilities. At the same time the panel

recommends that the Executive Management Board should commission formal advice on its

legal and financial obligations with respect to the College and the individual responsibilities of

Board members.

The Institutional Review took place at a formative moment in IBAT‟s development and the

panel took the College‟s request that it should comment on IBAT‟s strategic planning,

governance and management structures in the context of the opening of the second campus, as a

sign of IBAT‟s confidence in the soundness of its educational and professional offerings to

learners and commendable evidence of its commitment to enhancement. The panel therefore

recommends that IBAT should revisit the relations between its deliberative and executive bodies,

particularly the Academic Council and the Executive Management Board. This should not be

seen as a criticism of emerging structures but as a response to the College‟s own invitation.

Learner representation and participation in academic governance

The College‟s Quality Assurance Manual requires that each class or group of learners should elect

a „class representative‟, through whom they can make representations to the person coordinating

the programme they are following. Programme coordinators are expected to meet class


Final Report

22

representatives before each programme team meeting, to gather their feedback and to report

back to the class representatives after the programme team‟s meeting. Learners also participate as

members of Programmatic Peer Review panels. For IBAT programmes that have been approved

by HETAC, a learner representative also attends meetings of the programme teams. A recent

development has been to invite a learner representative to join the Academic Council, where they

see their role as to raise matters with the College on behalf of other learners.

Class representatives who met the panel, including the learner representative on Academic

Council, were satisfied that IBAT generally responded promptly to their comments and feedback

but pointed out that not all programmes had systems of class representatives. For example

FETAC learners and learners studying for ACCA qualifications did not have class

representatives. Overall, however, the panel came to the view that IBAT‟s arrangements for

learners to contribute to the College‟s academic governance were working satisfactorily.

University of Wales Master of Business Administration

The College‟s management of the taught postgraduate programme that it had designed and that

the University of Wales had validated to lead to an MBA Award in early 2011 falls outside the

remit of this institutional review. Nonetheless (and recognising the formal bounds of the terms

of reference for this HETAC Institutional Review) the panel sought and received clarification

from IBAT about its exit strategy and how it proposed to protect learners‟ interests as the

College runs out the University of Wales MBA programme.

Commendations — Strategic Planning and Governance

In relation to Objective 2, Strategic Planning and Governance the panel commends:

2 IBAT‟s creative development of a range of electronic tools and publications to support the

sharing of information between managers, teaching and administration staff and learners

(page 18).

3 IBAT‟s maintenance of a tight focus on the provision of business education (page 18).

4 IBAT‟s commitment to the enhancement of its work, as shown in its request to the panel

that it should comment on IBAT‟s strategic planning, governance and management

structures in the context of the opening of the second campus (page 21).

5 IBAT‟s commitment to the enhancement of its strategic management and governance

(page 21).


Final Report

23

Recommendations — Strategic Planning and Governance

In relation to Objective 2, Strategic Planning and Governance, the panel makes the following

recommendations:

3 The reference to the independent status of the Chairperson of the Academic Council as

stated in the Quality Assurance Manual and the SER should be brought into alignment

to provide clarity to the conflicting statements in each document (page 19).

4 IBAT should make available the agendas, minutes and supporting papers that are

generated for, and by, Academic Council to the College‟s staff and learners, as soon as

possible, with the understanding that they will be subject to the normal arrangements for

redacting commercially sensitive and personal information (page 19).

5 IBAT should harmonise and stabilise the names of its internal bodies across its

documents for clarity of communication (page 20).

6 As IBAT develops as a higher education institution the Executive Management Board

should review how the roles of Chair of the Executive Management Board and Director

of the College might be made separate (page 21).

7 IBAT should revisit the relations between its deliberative and executive bodies,

particularly Academic Council and the Executive Management Board (page 21).

8 The Executive Management Board should routinely review the College‟s policies and

strategies (page 21).

9 The Executive Management Board should discuss and agree how it will seek out and

respond to the views of the College‟s learners (page 21).

10 The Executive Management Board should agree with the College how it will bring

consideration of the academic dimension of the College‟s work into its own work (page

21).

11 IBAT‟s Executive Management Board should commission formal advice on its legal and

financial obligations with respect to the College and the individual responsibilities of

Board members (page 21).


Final Report

24

Objective 3 — Quality Assurance

To assess the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by the College

This objective assesses the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by the

College and is based on Part One of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (QA)3.

By including this in the Institutional Review process, the statutory requirement for the review of QA

is met. How IBAT reviews the effectiveness of its quality assurance for the seven elements of the

European Standards and Guidelines should be explicitly addressed by the review process, including:

1. Policy and procedures for Quality Assurance

2. Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards

3. Assessment of learners

4. Quality Assurance of teaching staff

5. Learning resources and support

6. Information systems

7. Public information

In addition to the above, HETAC requested that the Institutional Review should consider the

Quality Assurance arrangements in place for both centres provided by IBAT College Dublin – the

new Dublin city centre location in Wellington Quay and the established Swords campus location.

1. Policy and procedures for Quality Assurance

IBAT‟s SER stated that from „its inception the College has promoted the ideal of quality (across all levels of the

institution) being everyone‟s responsibility to ensure that, from admissions through to graduation, every student receives a

first class experience. QA is managed and implemented centrally through the Academic Department (led by the

Academic Director) in conjunction with the Registrar‟s office‟ (SER, p29). The Quality Assurance Manual

states, however, that „the College Director takes responsibility for the overall delivery of a quality service to our

stakeholders – students, staff and Irish employers.‟

According to the SER, the College‟s policies and procedures for the quality assurance of its education

and training provision are set out in its „Quality Assurance Handbook‟. The title of this document in

the supplementary documents provided to support the Institutional Review was „Quality Assurance

Manual‟, the title that is used throughout this report. IBAT‟s view is that the [Quality Assurance

3“Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area”. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2009, Helsinki, 3rd edition.


Final Report

25

Manual] „reflects recent good practice initiatives within higher education, including HETAC developments since the

last publication and the European Standards and Guidelines for Internal Quality Assurance within Higher

Education Institutions‟ (SER, p28). The SER stated that the „update of [IBAT‟s] quality assurance activities,

the [Quality Assurance Manual] and the relevant College policy and procedural documentation is driven by the

Academic Director and is undertaken at institutional level within the College in accordance with Section 8: Procedures

and Policy for Evaluating Quality Assurance in the [Quality Assurance Manual]‟ (SER, p28).

In preparing for its Institutional Review, the SER stated that IBAT had evaluated the operation,

implementation and effectiveness of the College‟s quality assurance policies and procedures by

applying „the audit process detailed in the HETAC Supplementary Guidelines for the Review of the Effectiveness of

Quality Assurance Procedures, 2008‟. The audit process followed appeared to the panel to be based on

the collection and analysis of feedback on the College‟s quality assurance arrangements from staff;

learners; recent graduates; employers of recent graduates; awarding and accrediting bodies; and

industry representatives. This information led the College to the view that the „regular and systematic self-

review of QA needs to continue to reflect organisational developments and best practice‟ (SER, p30). The College

might wish to consider what weight it should give to such a finding when based on feedback from

stakeholders unfamiliar with the quality assurance framework within which the College operates.

2. Approval, periodic review and monitoring of programmes and awards

The SER did not comment directly on the College‟s procedures for approving and monitoring

programmes and awards, and for their periodic review, but the College had undertaken an

assessment of the effectiveness of its quality assurance arrangements as part of its preparations to

write the SER („the Assessment‟) and this was provided as part of the College‟s briefing information

for the panel.

Design and development of new programmes

IBAT‟s Quality Assurance Manual describes the College‟s procedures for developing new

programmes. It notes that IBAT works with several awarding bodies and that each has its own

procedure for approving programmes. The process of developing new programmes for validation

and approval is conducted by IBAT. HETAC, as the College‟s Irish awarding body carries out the

validation of such programmes. Members of the College told the panel that proposals for new

provision might originate with an individual, be subjected to scrutiny by their subject team and then

go to IBAT‟s Academic Management Group for further consideration. In a new development,

completed proposals are in future to be put to the Academic Council for its consideration and

support prior to presentation for validation.


Final Report

26

For new HETAC programmes the Quality Assurance Manual states that proposals must conform to

HETAC‟s General Programme Validation Manual (2010) and sets out, briefly, the information the

proposal must include. The Quality Assurance Manual does not, however, refer to HETAC‟s Core

Validation Policy and Criteria (2010) which sets out the criteria that a proposal must pass if it is to be

validated by a HETAC-approved panel, or other important HETAC policy and procedures

documents, such as Assessments and Standards (2009).

One section of the Assessment dealt with „New Academic Programme Approvals‟. It set out the

sequence in which new programmes had been developed by IBAT from 2004 onwards and used the

College‟s most recent programme development – a taught postgraduate programme with

intermediate exit awards (all at Level 9 on the NFQ) to lead to a HETAC MBA award – to exemplify

IBAT‟s approach to such matters. The process had involved „extensive consultation with existing

(prospective) students, significant business/industry engagement, development of creative teaching,

learning and assessment strategies, consultation with the validation body, and internal meetings and

reviews with the Programme Team‟. The initial outcome of the process suggested to the panel that

IBAT needed to become more familiar with the contents of HETAC‟s General Programme Validation

Manual (2010), Core Validation Policy and Criteria (2010), and Assessment and Standards (2009) [see above].

Programmatic Review

In 2011 the College undertook a Programmatic Review of all its HETAC provision, as part of the

quality assurance procedures agreed between IBAT and HETAC, and in line with HETAC‟s Provider

Monitoring Policy and Procedures (2010). Programmatic Review is „a quality review process whereby a

provider conducts a critical evaluation of its programmes, or all programmes within a

unit/department, or all programmes within a field of learning. It is an opportunity to review a suite

of programmes developed and delivered over a period of time and to streamline them.‟ The scope of

IBAT‟s Programmatic Review in 2011 extended to all the programmes that had been validated by

HETAC in Business and Management.

A Programmatic Review self-evaluation report (SER) produced by the provider forms the basis for a

Programmatic Review together with the validated programme documents for the provision that falls

within the scope of the review. The SER for a Programmatic Review is developed with reference to

priorities identified by the provider and the „strategy, learning outcomes, modules assessment,

resources etc.‟ of the provision to be reviewed. Providers are also required to address nine detailed

objectives laid down by HETAC. The SER for a Programmatic Review is analysed by a group of

expert peer reviewers who read the SER, formulate enquiries, visit the provider to meet staff and

learners and report on their findings to the provider and HETAC.


Final Report

27

The report of IBAT‟s 2011 HETAC Programmatic Review was provided as one of the supporting

documents for the 2012 Institutional Review. The Programmatic Review report commended the

„open and frank manner of the discussions‟ between the College and the Programmatic Review panel

and the College‟s „strong growth and development‟. The report also recommended continuation of

HETAC‟s approval of IBAT programmes leading to a range of awards [a Higher Certificate in

Business Studies; a Bachelor of Business; a Bachelor of Business (Honours); and a Certificate in

Business (Minor Award)] and the development of part-time modes of delivery, including through

blended learning.

The Programmatic Review report attached four conditions to its report and made 15

recommendations for improvements to IBAT‟s educational and quality assurance arrangements. The

conditions included giving priority to the professional development of teaching staff; providing

training in the use of „Moodle‟ (the College‟s virtual learning environment); enabling learners to make

a direct contribution to IBAT‟s academic governance at programme and college level; and converting

the existing provision for training in research methods into a mandatory stand-alone module. The

recommendations made by the Programmatic Review report included:

the establishment of a Business Advisory Group;

the clearer presentation of programme and module learning outcomes and

assessments, to show the links between them;

the development of a policy for group work;

the enhancement of learner support through the provision of career guidance;

the intake of learners studying part-time to be limited to one cohort of 25 learners;

the provision for learners of an assessment calendar; and

other recommendations intended to enhance the College‟s provision.

The College‟s SER (produced for institutional review) referred to the outcomes of the Programmatic

Review and the supporting documents submitted with the SER included a tabular analysis of the

conditions and recommendations made in the Programmatic Review report, with brief but helpful

comments on how each was being dealt with. This noted that each of the Conditions set down in the

Programmatic Review report had been met.

Through its meetings with IBAT staff and learners, and through reviewing the College‟s documents,

the panel was able to check the progress that the College was making to deal with the

recommendations made in the Programmatic Review report. The panel was able to confirm the

College‟s seriousness of purpose in engaging with the recommendations and with the College‟s own

findings in the SER it had compiled for the Programmatic Review. The panel was also able to

confirm that an IBAT learner had been a member of the panel for the Programmatic Review.


Final Report

28

Given the hard work and resources that the College had evidently devoted to the Programmatic

Review and into following-up its outcomes the panel was surprised that IBAT had not included its

reflections on the Programmatic Review and what the College had learned from the process in the

SER for the Institutional Review. As IBAT continues its development as a higher education

institution the panel recommends that it should take the opportunities presented by external and

other reviews of its provision and of itself as an institution to enhance its collective capacity for

critical self-evaluation and that overseeing responses to the reports of all such reviews should be

added to the existing responsibilities of the Academic Council.

Periodic review of programmes

The panel explored IBAT‟s arrangements for the periodic review of its programmes and more

routine monitoring with the College‟s staff. It was told that the College had used the opportunity of

the Programmatic Review to make changes to its programme arrangements and have them approved.

For example, it had changed the assessment regime for some modules to course-work based

assessments and amended others. The panel was told by IBAT staff that changes to modules that the

College considered desirable needed to be agreed with HETAC hence IBAT had preferred to wait

for the Programmatic Review before putting forward any such changes. For the future, the panel

recommends that IBAT should agree procedures with HETAC for making changes to modules so

that it does not need to delay making changes to module contents assessment or delivery modes it

considers necessary.

Monitoring

In its Assessment IBAT noted that „on-going monitoring‟ of modules and programmes was

undertaken through programme team meetings and listed the range of „mechanisms‟ the College

relied on to gather information about its programmes and modules. These include its class

representative system; assessment results; learner progression data; analyses of learner feedback

questionnaires; reports from external examiners; and reports on the delivery of support services such

as the Library and Information Technology. The Analysis noted that „Annual Course Evaluation,

through the compilation of the Annual Course Monitoring Report‟ was not yet fully implemented

across the College for all programmes and that this needed to be systematised „to optimise the

benefits from engaging in this activity‟. The panel agrees with the College‟s analysis and recommends

that the College should implement annual programme monitoring across all its educational and

training provision.


Final Report

29

3. Assessment of learners

When addressing IBAT‟s arrangements for the assessment of learners, the SER for the Institutional

Review referred to the findings of the Programmatic Review, in which four of the recommendations

made by the Programmatic Review panel were linked to assessment. The panel also referred to the

Assessment of the effectiveness of its quality assurance arrangements that the College had

undertaken to support the Institutional Review. This stated that assessments „on HETAC accredited

programmes at IBAT College Dublin are conducted in accordance with HETAC’s Assessment and

Standards (2009) policy document, which has been used as the basis for developing assessment

practices that are demonstrably fair, valid and consistent‟. The SER also noted that as part of the

College‟s measures to ensure that learners at the Swords and the Central Dublin campuses experience

identical learning, teaching and assessment regimes:

- the same programmes operate on the two campuses;

- learners on each campus take the same assessments (set by the same tutors) at the same time;

and

- the same external examiners oversee assessments and academic standards for the two

campuses.

Commenting on the findings of the Programmatic Review, the College‟s Assessment of its quality

assurance arrangements stated that IBAT was investing in staff development „around the design of

appropriate assessments, aligned to learning outcomes at module and programme level‟ and that one

instance of such investment was the participation of IBAT staff in training for academic staff

through the Academic Support and Development Unit of Griffith College, Dublin, with further such

training events planned for later in the 2011-2012 session.

The College uses group work assignments to develop team working skills. Learners who met the

panel that conducted the Programmatic Review complained that the way in which group work was

organised and assessed by IBAT was unfair; other learners complained about the volume of work

that was assessed through group assignments. Members of the teaching staff discussed IBAT‟s group

work arrangements (including assessment arrangements for group work) with the panel. Some staff

thought that the College had a „Group Work Policy‟, others that it was under development. The

panel encourages the College to press ahead with the development of a policy for group work that

encompasses advice on suitable assessment strategies.

The College‟s Teaching and Learning Strategy was made available as part of the supporting

documents it provided for the institutional review. This describes the principles the College

advocates for curriculum development, including matching learning outcomes with appropriate

learning and teaching strategies that are assessed appropriately. The Strategy states that „the

curriculum, teaching and learning, assessment, and support systems at IBAT … are student-centred‟,


Final Report

30

advocate a „mix of teaching styles and practices, methods of assessment, and organisation of course

components‟ and the „development of students as autonomous learners … through the diverse range

of assessments deployed, [that] are detailed in the assessment strategy for the individual

programmes‟. The panel found much to support in the College‟s Learning and Teaching Strategy,

which sets out the links between learning outcomes and assessment – as can be seen above. The

panel recommends, however, that in its next iteration of the Strategy IBAT should re-title it the

„Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy‟ and update its contents accordingly.

Newly-appointed members of the College‟s teaching staff and those new to assessing the work of

higher education learners are linked with an experienced member of staff (often a programme leader)

who moderates their marks initially and gives them feedback on their marking and the written

feedback they have provided for learners. For a small institution such mentoring is a sensible

arrangement and is consistent with what is widely accepted as good practice.

The College‟s Quality Assurance Manual emphasises the importance of providing feedback to

learners on their assessed work. Programme coordinators are responsible for checking that staff have

provided feedback on assessed work within the specified timescale. Assessment results and feedback

are available to learners through the College‟s Portal, the alternative title it uses for its Moodle virtual

learning environment.

External examining

IBAT has appointed external examiners for each of its programmes that lead to HETAC awards.

Senior members of the College told the panel that the external examiners had been identified by

IBAT from names provided by HETAC and that the appointment of the external examiners had

then been formally approved by HETAC. It is IBAT‟s view that the external examiners it has

appointed ensure that it is adhering to HETAC‟s requirements with respect to learners‟ assessments.

The panel noted that in one case an external examiner had remained in post for six years. Members

of staff told the panel that IBAT had understood that HETAC regulations allowed the College to

appoint an external examiner for up to five years, with appointment for a further year a possibility in

exceptional circumstances. The panel considers that extending the appointment of an external

examiner to such an extent is not good practice and not in accordance with HETAC Effective Practice

Guideline for External Examining (2010). The panel recommends that IBAT should ensure that it has

robust arrangements for monitoring the duration and expiry dates of the appointments of its external

examiners and that it should make arrangements for appointing successors in good time for any

hand-over arrangements to take effect. The panel also recommends that the College should develop

its own criteria for use in appointing external examiners that are based on those approved by


Final Report

31

HETAC guidelines but which allow for the appointment of suitably qualified external examiners

from outside Ireland.

IBAT staff told the panel that the College customarily sends draft copies of all assessment papers,

marking schemes and solutions to the external examiners for their approval and that following each

summative assessment, the external examiner was sent a sample of completed and marked

assessments that included all failing and borderline assessments, high and low performing

assessments. The panel discussed these arrangements with academic and administrative staff and was

able to confirm that for assessments that are to be undertaken by examination the arrangements

described above were followed.

The panel also learned, however, that summative assessment tasks to be undertaken by learners as

coursework were only sent to the external examiner where the particular assessment task contributed

more than a set percentage of marks for a module. This arrangement has the potential to limit the

capacity of the external examiner to achieve a fair overview of how the range of learning outcomes is

addressed in the overall assessment mix. The panel recommends to the College that all summative

assessment tasks are sent to the external examiner for their comments and approval, so that the

external examiner is able to comment on the overall assessment mix. Likewise, IBAT must continue

to ensure that external examiners are able to comment on samples of learner work that represent all

elements of assessment.

Members of the College‟s teaching staff who met the panel confirmed that they had met the external

examiners and had access to the external examiners‟ reports.

4. Quality assurance of teaching staff

In its SER, IBAT stated that the „quality of its people‟ was a „critical success factor‟. Senior members

of the College (including the Director) who spoke to the panel emphasised the importance IBAT

placed on recruiting, appointing and developing teaching and support staff „with the necessary talent

and expertise‟.

There is a substantial section dealing with the selection, appointment appraisal and development of

teaching staff in the College‟s Quality Assurance Manual. The College seeks to employ staff, to

deliver its programmes of study, who have extensive and up-to-date experience as managers in

business and commerce as well as formal academic qualifications. As noted above, since beginning to

deliver a taught postgraduate programme for the University of Wales and the College‟s submission of

a proposal to HETAC for the validation of a programme to lead to an MBA award, IBAT has

committed itself to appointing staff to act as dissertation supervisors for its Level 9 students who are

themselves qualified to at least that level.


Final Report

32

Several recently-appointed members of the College‟s teaching staff who met the panel described

being interviewed by members of IBAT‟s senior staff, including the Director. Other members of

staff described their brief inductions to the College and arrangements to supervise their teaching. The

panel was satisfied that the College‟s appointment arrangements for its teaching staff were suitable

but encourages the College to develop its induction arrangements further than the provision of

folders of „lecturers‟ forms‟. Staff who met the panel provided differing accounts of how their

performance was managed and whether they had the opportunity to participate in regular appraisal

interviews. The panel recommends that IBAT develops a more systematic approach to the appraisal

of its teaching staff.

The College has recently begun to develop its provision for English language teaching and the panel

was able to meet the academic member of staff leading this area and several of his newly-appointed

team. This area has developed peer-observation of teaching and peer reflection with provision for

some team teaching. The panel commends these developments and encourages the College to apply

these approaches (where appropriate) more widely.

Following IBAT‟s recent Programmatic Review it considers that it is investing more substantially in

staff training and development. It has arranged for staff to attend training sessions offered by other

members of HECA in Dublin and senior members of staff told the panel that the College had funds

to support members of the teaching staff to attend conferences and workshops relevant to their

work with IBAT, including events organised by HECA. Reflecting on these developments and gaps

in the College‟s appraisal arrangements, noted above, the panel recommends that the College should

develop arrangements to gather and analyse the staff development needs raised through appraisal

interviews that will enable it to take a more strategic approach to planning its support for staff

development.

As noted previously, to teach its taught postgraduate provision IBAT seeks to recruit staff with

substantial experience in industry and of teaching at Level 9; it views the employment of research

active staff as desirable but not essential, and considers that it is not in a position to support staff to

undertake research. As the College‟s provision develops and it needs to oversee the supervision of

more dissertations by taught postgraduate students it will need to keep this position under review.

5. Learning resources and learner support

IBAT‟s SER, and its Assessment of the effectiveness of its quality assurance arrangements described

the learning resources the College makes available to learners on the Swords and the Temple Bar

campuses. The College Library operates across its two campuses. Purchasing by the Library is

organised around the module outline and bibliographies developed by the teaching staff. The College

is acquiring e-books that are made available to learners via its Moodle virtual learning environment.


Final Report

33

In time, the College aims to be able to monitor the use of its Library resources in real-time. The

College seeks feedback from its learners on their experiences of using the Library via paper-based

and web-based questionnaires. The Library has invested in text magnification and audio

arrangements to support partially-sighted learners.

The SER stated that the College has a „defined disability policy … in place to ensure that reasonable

accommodation is provided to students with disability‟ (SER, p15) and that it „has the necessary infrastructure for

learners with disabilities and its relationship with this community is supportive and constructive‟ (SER, p14). The

College‟s leaflet on „Disability and Learning Support‟, which was provided for the institutional review

as part of its briefing papers states that „The Disability & Learning Support Service may put in place a range

of support services to ensure that students with disabilities (for example: dyslexia) have full access to the same facilities

for study and recreation as the rest of the College community, including examination assistance.‟

The panel discussed the College‟s arrangements to identify and support learners with disabilities with

members of staff. They told the panel that the College had some experience of making adjustments

to learning and assessment arrangements for learners but where a learner with a disability did not

report this when they applied to the College, or when it was subsequently diagnosed, IBAT relied on

its small class sizes and the alertness of its staff (both teaching and administrative staff) to identify

where a learner might need or benefit from additional learning support measures. The College had

recently provided some training in equalities matters for staff but the panel was told that where

learners with disabilities support needs had been identified they had been dealt with informally,

usually by the relevant programme leader, possibly with the Academic Director. Staff also told the

panel that they were not aware of any formal arrangements to conduct disabilities assessments but

anticipated that this area would come into the remit of the Student Experience Manager, who was

currently on maternity leave.

The panel was in no doubt that when IBAT was a small College operating on a single campus the

close links between staff and learners had made its arrangements to support learners with disabilities

reasonably effective. Neither is the panel in doubt that the College is determined to support any of its

learners who have disabilities. Now that the College has grown and acquired a second campus,

however, the panel doubts that IBAT‟s present informal arrangements will suffice. The panel

recommends to the College that it should clarify which senior manager is responsible for managing

IBAT‟s support arrangements for learners with disabilities and arrange for teaching and support staff

to be given training in identifying and supporting learners with disabilities.

The College‟s SER described the „career orientated nature of the awards offered at IBAT College Dublin‟ as „a

core value since the College‟s foundation‟, noting at the same time that further work needed to be done to

forge better links between the College‟s „programmes and students with industry and employment‟ (SER, p49).

The report of the 2011 Programmatic Review had identified a need for enhanced learner support in

career guidance and this has been identified by the College as a priority for the newly-appointed


Final Report

34

Student Experience Manager. More immediately, IBAT has involved external consultants to give

learners guidance in compiling their resumés, interview techniques and completing applications. The

panel encourages IBAT to press ahead with the systematic provision of career guidance and support

arrangements for all its learners.

6. Information systems

The College‟s Information Systems arrangements, including those to support teaching and learning,

have benefited from a substantial investment in Information Technology (IT). This includes a high

capacity digital link between the two campuses that enables the IT departments on each campus to

provide mutual support and makes it possible for lectures to be shared across the campuses when

appropriate. Other investments include the provision of a virtual learning environment, Moodle, also

referred to by the College as its „Portal‟, a service through which learners have on-line access to

College resources and services (such as from the Library). IBAT has worked hard to gather feedback

from its learners on their use of services provided through the Portal and has used that feedback to

enhance services and their presentation, although learners who met the panel suggested that

improvements were still needed. Nonetheless, the panel commends IBAT on the effective way it has

developed its Portal in line with learner feedback.

The College‟s hardware and software systems provide the means through which it gathers and

processes data about its performance and the progress of its learners for further analysis through its

management information systems. Central to these is the College‟s Student Database, which holds

data on learner enrolment, registration, payments, module choices and assessment outcomes. Other

Information Systems support the timetabling for the College and financial management. The College

does not, as yet, collect a full range of data on the background of its learners. This means that data is

not available that would help the College to identify learners with special needs – for example, for

additional English language tuition. The panel recommends that the College should take steps to

broaden the categories of data it collects on its learners in order to identify where curriculum and

learning support may need to be directed.

7. Public information

The College‟s SER identified IBAT‟s website as its principle outlet for public information, together

with printed materials such as its prospectus and programme documentation, since this is published

(that is, made widely available) through the website.

The College provides information for international applicants and those who are recruited through

the College‟s agents through a variety of leaflets and brochures. The panel was able to see the outline


Final Report

35

for the induction and training programme the College provides for its agents which appeared to the

panel to be rigorous and well-planned.

The College‟s own review of the effectiveness of its quality assurance arrangements concluded that

its arrangements enabled it to publish information that was „accurate and up-to-date‟. The panel

broadly shares this view but recommends that the College should regularly and routinely check the

accuracy of the information it publishes. Learners and third parties rely on this information to make

judgements about the College and the facilities it offers to its learners.

Special consideration: IBAT‟s quality assurance arrangements in the context of operating in two centres

The terms of reference for the Institutional Review invited the panel to „consider the quality assurance

arrangements in place for both centres provided by IBAT College Dublin – the new Dublin city centre location in

Wellington Quay and the established Swords campus location.‟

The panel found that the College had adopted ways of working that focused on ensuring that

learners at each of the College‟s campuses had access to identical learning opportunities – tuition, the

learning environment, and learner support arrangements – delivered the same curriculum; were

subject to identical assessment arrangements; used the same administrative and procedural manuals;

and that the campuses were administered along the same lines by managers and administrators who

frequently visited each site and managed across campuses. The College‟s dedication to achieving its

object of ensuring an identical learning experience for the two campuses cannot be doubted. Equally,

the College has made strenuous efforts to support the staff who are working to deliver this identical

learning experience.

The panel urges the College, however, to consider how – if necessary – it might achieve the same

outcome without needing its staff to make frequent journeys between the two campuses and move to

more sustainable ways of achieving the objectives of its present arrangements (page 28).

Commendations — Quality Assurance

In relation to Objective 3, Quality Assurance, the panel commends IBAT College for:

6 Its practice of linking newly-appointed members of the College‟s teaching staff and those

new to assessing the work of higher education learners with an experienced member of staff

who moderates their marks initially and gives them feedback on their marking and the

written feedback they have provided for learners (page 30).

7 The way in which IBAT‟s newly established English Language Section has developed peer-

observation of teaching and peer reflection (page 32).


Final Report

36

8 The effective way that IBAT has developed its Portal, Moodle, in line with learner feedback

(page 34).

Recommendations — Quality Assurance

In relation to Objective 3, Quality Assurance, the panel makes the following recommendations:

12 As IBAT continues its development as a higher education institution, it should take the

opportunities presented by external and other reviews of its provision, and of itself as an

institution, to enhance its corporate capacity for critical self-evaluation and that this should

be located as a responsibility of the Academic Council (page 28).

13 IBAT should agree procedures with HETAC for making changes to modules so that it does

not need to delay making changes to module contents assessment or delivery modes it

considers necessary (page 28).

14 IBAT should immediately implement annual course monitoring across all its educational and

training provision (page 28).

15 In its next iteration of its Learning and Teaching Strategy IBAT should re-title it the

„Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy‟ and update its contents accordingly (page 30).

16 IBAT should ensure that it has robust arrangements for monitoring the duration and expiry

dates of the appointments of its external examiners and that it should make arrangements for

appointing successors in good time for any hand-over arrangements to take effect (page 30).

17 IBAT should develop its own criteria for use in appointing external examiners that are based

on those approved by HETAC but which allow for the appointment of suitably qualified

external examiners from outside Ireland (page 30).

18 All summative assessment tasks should be sent to the external examiner for their comments

and approval, so that the external examiner is able to comment on the overall assessment

mix, and that IBAT continues to ensure that external examiners are able to comment on

samples of learner work that represent all elements of assessment (page 31).

19 IBAT should develop a more systematic approach to the appraisal of its teaching staff (page

32).

20 IBAT should develop arrangements to gather and analyse the staff development needs raised

through appraisal interviews that will enable the College to take a more strategic approach to

planning its support for staff development (page 32).


Final Report

37

21 IBAT should clarify which of its senior managers is responsible for managing IBAT‟s

support arrangements for learners with disabilities and arrange for teaching and support staff

to be given training in identifying and supporting learners with disabilities (page 33).

22 IBAT should take steps to broaden the categories of data it collects on its learners in order

to identify where curriculum and learning support may need to be directed (page 34).

23 IBAT should regularly and routinely check the accuracy of the information it publishes that

learners and third parties rely on to make judgements, about the College and the facilities it

offers to its learners (page 35).


Final Report

38

Objective 4 — Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and

Progression

To confirm the extent to which the College has implemented the National Framework of

Qualifications (NFQ) and its procedures for access, transfer and progression

This objective has two main strands:

1. Review of the Institution‟s activity in implementing the National Framework of

Qualifications.

2. Procedures for access, transfer and progression.

The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI) has produced guidelines in relation to

these two strands.4 These include issues such as credit, transfer and progression rules between levels

and award types, entry arrangements, the types of information provision on programmes, and

policies and procedures for the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL).

Qualifications framework

To prepare for the Institutional Review the College had carried out a „desk based review‟ to assess

how well its policies, procedures and regulations are aligned with the requirements of the National

Framework of Qualifications (NFQ). The review had found that IBAT‟s arrangements were closely

aligned with those of the NFQ, that the College‟s academic credit system „met NQAI awards

standards‟ and that the way credits were allocated to learning, modules and programmes was

consistent with the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS). The report of the

College‟s Programmatic Review in 2011 had recommended the revision of credit weightings given to

modules across the IBAT programmes validated by HETAC which the College was implementing

for the current session.

Access, transfer and progression

The College seeks to enable learners from its FETAC programmes or who have followed

programmes leading to the awards of professional and regulatory bodies to progress to higher

4 “Policies, Actions and Procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression”. National Qualifications Authority of Ireland.

2003. www.nqai.ie

http://www.nqai.ie/


Final Report

39

education. It has developed a scheme and guidelines for the accreditation or recognition of prior

experiential learning but does not, at present, offer entry to its higher education programmes through

this route. According to the SER, IBAT has a detailed policy on the Recognition of Prior Learning

(RPL) and an application process in place to facilitate non-standard applications and applicants

seeking advanced entry or subject exemptions. Members of the College, with whom the panel

explored these arrangements, confirmed that all admissions decisions that required the application of

academic judgement were taken with the advice of suitably qualified members of the teaching staff.

Members of staff also confirmed that no learners had yet been admitted to programmes leading to

HETAC awards through the recognition of prior experiential learning.

According to the SER, in September 2011, the College had linked its Bachelor of Business

programme to the HETAC scheme for the Accumulation of Credits and Certification of Subjects

(ACCS). This allows learners „to gain credits for each module successfully completed in part-time mode, and to

accumulate those credits, over time, towards the nationally recognised award of Bachelor of Business (Honours)‟.

The panel explored the College‟s arrangements to admit learners from under-represented groups in

Irish higher education in the context of the College‟s arrangements to collect and analyse admissions

data. Members of the College told the panel that it had yet to develop a policy for recruiting learners

from under-represented groups. The panel recommends that IBAT should develop such a policy.

The panel‟s recommendations for the more systematic collection of admission and progression data

can be found on page 34, above.

Recommendations — Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression

In relation to Objective 4, Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression the

panel recommends:

24 That IBAT should develop a policy for recruiting learners from under-represented groups in

Irish higher education (page 39).


Final Report

40

Objective 6 — Recommendations for Enhancement

To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by

the College

This includes both the recommendations arising from the external peer review process and the

recommendations arising from the internal self-evaluation process.

The panel noted the extensive list of recommendations for enhancement that IBAT had identified in

the course of producing the SER, these included:

under Public Confidence- five suggestions for enhancements, several to do with

publicising the College and its work more effectively;

under Strategic Planning and Governance- four suggestions for enhancements,

two of which were for publicising the College‟s work more effectively;

under Quality Assurance- ten suggestions for enhancements;

under Access Transfer and Progression- three suggestions for enhancements.

Additional recommendations for enhancement arising from the external peer review process are

included within Objectives 1-4 of this report.

Commendations – Recommendations for Enhancement

In relation to Objective 6 – Recommendations for Enhancement the panel commends the

College for:

9 Its evident determination to respond effectively and promptly to feedback from its learners

and the outcomes of its Programmatic Review and to safeguard the learner experience across

its two campuses as it develops.

Recommendations — Recommendations for Enhancement

In relation to Objective 6 – Recommendations for Enhancement the panel recommends that:

25 The College attends to the enhancement of its governance arrangements (including its

academic governance) and the other recommendations made in this report and in addition to

the recommendations the College has made in its own SER.


Final Report

41

Appendix A Terms of Reference

Higher Education and Training Awards Council TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF

IBAT College Dublin, April 2012

STATUS: SET

Section 1. Purpose

The purpose of this document is to specify the Terms of Reference for the Institutional Review of IBAT College Dublin in April 2012. The HETAC Institutional Review policy applies to all colleges providing HETAC accredited programmes, or programmes accredited under Delegated Authority. These Terms of Reference are set within the overarching policy for Institutional Review as approved in December 2007 and should be read in conjunction with same. These Terms of Reference do not replace or supersede the agreed policy for Institutional Review. The Terms of Reference once set may not be amended and any significant revision required to the Terms of Reference will result in a new Terms of Reference to be set by HETAC following consultation with the College. These Terms of Reference should be read in conjunction with the supplementary guidelines for Institutional Review.

The objectives of the Institutional Review process are

1. To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the College and the standards of the awards made;

2. To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the College; 3. To assess the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by the College; 4. To confirm the extent that the College has implemented the National Framework of

Qualifications and procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression; 5. To evaluate the operation and management of Delegated Authority where it has been

granted; 6. To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided

by the College.

It is possible that, within the objectives outlined above, Colleges may have specific sub-objectives to which they will attach particular importance and wish to emphasise in their TOR. To maximise the benefits of the review process, Colleges may also consider including additional objectives relevant to its context.

The approach taken by HETAC to Institutional Review will:

Acknowledge that Colleges have ownership of and responsibility for their activity;

Be conducted in a spirit of partnership with Colleges, with a view to improvement and enhancement, whilst acknowledging statutory requirements for accountability;

Be conducted in a manner which adds value to the College, minimises overhead and assists in building Institutional capacity;

Be flexible, adaptable and scalable in order to meet the needs of diverse Colleges;

Be conducted in an open, consistent and transparent manner;

Be evidence-based in accordance with established criteria;

Promote learning and development for all involved;

Reward innovation and experimentation when it seeks to enhance our understanding of good practice;

Promote collaboration and sharing of good practice between Colleges;

Take cognisance of international best practice and contribute to European and international developments in this area.


Final Report

42

Section 2. College Profile

IBAT College Dublin (formally known as the Institute of Business and Technology & IBAT College Swords) was established in Swords in May 2004 by Shane Ormsby. The College is a privately funded independent for-profit college, with one major shareholder and a number of smaller Institutional shareholders. The College offers programmes in Business, Information Technology, Accountancy, Management & English Language. IBAT College Dublin has over 1,300 full-time and part-time learners. The College was initially known as the Institute of Business & Technology; it changed its name to IBAT College Swords in July 2009 and updated this to IBAT College Dublin in July 2011 to better reflect the delivery of similar programmes with identical Quality Assurance arrangements across two campuses.

The initial campus continues to be located in the town of Swords, Co Fingal (an administrative county in Ireland, which is one of the three such counties formed from the former County Dublin). Swords is approximately 15 kilometres from Dublin City centre. Fingal had a population of 239,813 at the census in 2006, a 22% increase from the 2002 census; nearly 6% of the country‟s population now live in Co Fingal. In June 2011, the College acquired a second campus in Dublin city centre investing over €1 million on this new development. The College applied and received dual campus recognition from the relevant Awarding Bodies to run its existing programmes in the new campus commencing September 2011. The building is located in Dublin city centre at 16-19 Wellington Quay, Temple Bar, Dublin 2 and consists of five floors and basement parking. The Swords campus is located at IBAT House, Forster Way, Swords and consists of three floors with underground car parking.

The Dublin city centre campus has been modified to include accommodation for both learners and staff members including an auditorium, MBA debating chamber, breakout areas for learners, library, classrooms, Information Technology labs, printing room, coffee dock areas, learner meeting rooms, reception area, staff canteen and staff offices. The Swords campus facilities also include classrooms, Information Technology (IT) labs, student hub area, coffee dock area, library, reception area, learner meeting room, staff canteen and staff offices. With the backing and support of its investors the College has more than doubled its facilities and capacity over recent years.

The College says it has invested considerably in the very latest Information Technology (IT) resources to facilitate the flow of information between staff and learners and between both campuses regardless of physical location. There is a 100MB LAN connection between the Swords and Dublin city centre campus allowing full access to all the College‟s online resources, policies and data. IT facilities for learners in the city centre campus comprise of two teaching laboratories consisting of 50 and 18 workstations within each IT lab. The Swords campus consists of 22 and 17 workstations within each lab and 9 workstations in the student hub area. In both campus locations, the College provides wireless networks to facilitate learners and all lecture rooms are equipped with a projector, personal computer, multimedia and sound facilities. All learners studying in the Dublin city centre campus (400 learners in December 2011) have the same on-line learning support facility as learners in the Swords campus (950 learners in December 2011).

IBAT College made a fifty person job announcement in August 2011 and as of December 2011 practically all of those positions have been filled. The College has been structured to ensure there is a blend of new and existing staff at both locations and an adequate mix of skills and experience in both campuses. Full-time and part time staff have been appointed throughout the organisation. Full-time appointments include an Academic Director, Student Experience Manager, Marketing Manager and Librarian.

According to the College, it strives to create the best learner-centric environment for all its learners, irrespective of location and aims to provide a rounded quality education that maximises learners‟ career opportunities. Since its establishment the College says it has been keen to differentiate itself as a provider of high-quality accredited higher education with a strong career orientation, and works


Final Report

43

with a range of awarding bodies, employers, professional bodies and other higher education providers to achieve this aim.

IBAT College has accreditations from the following Awarding Bodies:

Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC) Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC) University of Wales (UoW) Accreditation and Co-Ordination of English Language Schools (ACELS) – Awaiting confirmation of approval by ACELS in 2012 Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) Accounting Technicians Ireland (ATI) Project Management Institute (PMI) Institute of Commercial Management (ICM)

IBAT College Dublin agreed Quality Assurance procedures with HETAC in 2006 and subsequently commenced year 1 of the Higher Certificate in Business in September 2006. In January 2008 IBAT received approval to offer the Level 7 Bachelor of Business, 1-year add-on and 3-year ab initio programmes. In September 2008 the Bachelor of Business (Honours) Level 8 (with three sets of group electives) was accredited by HETAC. The College is listed as a member of the Central Applications Office (CAO)5 and since September 2008 the College utilises the CAO system to facilitate learner application and admission to its HETAC-accredited programmes.

In January 2011 IBAT College Dublin formally became an „Institution of the University of Wales with Validated Provision‟ for its MBA programme. According to the College, it had entered this arrangement with the intention to seek joint validation for the programme with HETAC. In 2010, IBAT College Dublin initiated discussions independently with each awarding body with a view to seeking the joint validation of the MBA programme by the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC) and the University of Wales (UoW). IBAT engaged in dialogue with HETAC and sought an understanding of quality assurance issues and subsequently presented quality assurance documents for evaluation to HETAC relating to collaborative provision and joint awards. Taking the pending HETAC amalgamation and recent University of Wales developments into account a mutual decision was reached with HETAC that the College should pursue a standalone HETAC validated MBA programme. This was considered to be in the best interest of all parties including learners.

The College sought validation from HETAC in November 2011 for a Level 9 Masters of Business Administration programme. IBAT is in the process (December 2011) of resubmitting the proposed MBA document based on addressing the panel‟s recommendations and hopes to secure validation during 2012.

IBAT College Dublin is a Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC) accredited College offering FETAC awards at Levels 5 and 6 on the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) in Business Studies, Information Technology, English Language and Law. In August 2011, FETAC visited the Swords campus to undertake a scheduled FETAC monitoring exercise and a positive outcome was received by the College.

In 2006 IBAT College was approved to offer ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) programmes. In June 2009 the College was awarded the ACCA Gold Status as a provider. In June 2010 IBAT College met the ACCA‟s Platinum pass rate targets. IBAT has had a number of prize winners including First in Ireland on paper P1 last year. IBAT College is also an ACCA CBE (Computer Based Exam) centre.

5 The higher education institutions in the Republic of Ireland have delegated to CAO the task of processing centrally applications to their first year undergraduate programmes.

http://www.cao.ie/

http://www.cao.ie/

http://www.fetac.ie/

http://www.accaglobal.com/

http://www.accaglobal.com/


Final Report

44

IBAT has been a licensed provider of Accounting Technicians Ireland (ATI) since August 2004. It recently underwent a successful ATI annual review (December 2011) in both campuses. In September 2009, IBAT College Dublin became a Project Management Institute (PMI) Registered Education Provider. In 2010, the College became a member of HECA (Higher Education Colleges Association)6.

HETAC Programmes currently offered at IBAT College

Named award and its level on the National Framework of Qualifications: Higher Certificate in Business (HETAC) Level 6 Bachelor of Business (HETAC) Level 7 Bachelor of Business (Honours) (HETAC) Level 8 Programme Delivery: Provider based, Full-time and Part-time Location(s) of Delivery: IBAT College IBAT College IBAT House 16/19 Wellington Quay Forster Way Temple Bar Swords Dublin 2

Non-HETAC Programmes currently offered at IBAT College

Programme Titles: Accreditation Duration of programme

Graduate Diploma in Management ICM 1 Year (ft) 2 years (pt) MBA University of Wales 1 year (ft) MBA University of Wales 2 years (pt) ACCA Professional ACCA Various English Language FETAC* Various Supervisory Management FETAC* 16 weeks (pt) Project Management PMI/FETAC* 12 weeks (pt) Computerised A/Cs & Payroll FETAC* 8 weeks (pt) Accounting Technicians Ireland ATI 2 years (pt) ECDL7 ICS 10 weeks (pt) Web Design FETAC* 9 weeks (pt) Adv Web Design FETAC* 12 weeks (pt) DeskTop Publishing FETAC* 14 weeks (pt)

*denotes FETAC Component Award

Overview of Learner Profiles for all Programmes 2011

School Student Numbers

Business 887

Professional 358

English 130

Total 1375

6 The Higher Education Colleges Association (HECA) is a self-regulating association of independent third level colleges formed in 1991 to represent the interests of its member colleges and their students.

7 ECDL: European Computer Driving Licence- international computer skills certification programme.

http://www.pmi.org/

http://www.heca.ie/

http://www.heca.ie/


Final Report

45

Category Full time (#) Part time (#) Male (#) Female (#)

Number of Students 560 815 700 675

Evening Students - 815 355 460

Day Students 560 - 345 215

Online Delivery - - - -

Students Aged (17 – 22) 150 40 105 85

Students Aged (23+) 410 775 595 590

Nationality Breakdown

Country Full time (#) Part time (#) Male (#) Female (#)

Ireland 70 570 290 350

EU 28 57 33 52

UK 3 1 0 4

Europe (Non-EU) 5 17 15 7

China 83 4 48 39

India 37 4 36 5

Other Asian 87 7 80 14

Russia 0 3 1 2

Brazil 96 4 54 46

Other South America 11 1 3 9

North America 2 0 1 1

Other 138 147 139 146


Final Report

46

Target Learner Groups IBAT College says it targets the following categories of learners: Domestic Applicants - Learners completing Second Level education and proceeding to higher education. IBAT College Dublin is a registered institution with the Central Applications Office (CAO) of Ireland. This provides IBAT College Dublin access to learners who are completing their second level studies and planning to proceed to higher education. - Mature Learners/Adult and Continuing Education. Mature applicants who are hoping to return to education and may have completed their second level education but did not progress directly to higher education. These candidates can apply under the direct entry application process to IBAT College. International Learners Currently Residing in Ireland and who are looking to progress with their studies in higher education. International Applicants are actively recruited by IBAT College from overseas; those who are interested in coming to Ireland for their studies. International learners are targeted through collaborations and partnerships with overseas educational Institutions, educational agents (where applicable) and direct marketing campaigns to candidates residing overseas.

Staff Breakdown Directors 2

Operations Manager 1

Student Experience Manager 1

Accountant 1

Marketing and Admissions Department 8

International Office (Including International Learner Support) 4

IT Department (Including IT Learner Support) 3

Academic Administration (Including Exams Office & Learner Support Services) 12

Library 2

Business Faculty 8

Associate Lecturers (Business Faculty) 45

Associate Lecturers ( School of English) 7

Associate Lecturers (Professional School ) 16

Quality Assurance IBAT College Dublin agreed an initial set of quality assurance procedures with HETAC in 2006. The College says it has recently (2010) revised and published an updated Quality Assurance Handbook (QAH) to ensure that a coherent approach towards the Colleges‟ quality assurance is reflected throughout the document. Updates on the QAH include the insertion of University of Wales (UoW) policies, procedures and examination regulations and the inclusion of Further Education and Training Awards Council (FETAC) documentation. A recent review of the academic structures, roles


Final Report

47

and responsibilities within the academic department including library changes and the pastoral care of learners are also detailed in the revised QAH. The College says it is committed to working continuously on updating and enhancing its QA policies and procedures. The College has recently undergone several QA assessments:

Process Date Monitoring/Inspecting Body

Purpose

Programme validation January 2011

University of Wales MBA Programme validation

HETAC Programmatic Review carried out by IBAT College

May 2011 HETAC agreed a panel appointed by IBAT

HETAC Programmatic Review

FETAC Monitoring July 2011 FETAC FETAC Monitoring

HETAC Monitoring visit to new campus

September 2011

HETAC New campus approval

FETAC Inspection September 2011

FETAC New campus approval

University of Wales Monitoring visit to new campus

September 2011

University of Wales New campus approval

Accreditation and Co-ordination of English Language Services (ACELS) School Accreditation Inspection

November 2011

ACELS ACELS School of English Recognition

Programme Validation by HETAC

November 2011

HETAC Appointed Panel MBA Programme validation

ATI Inspection December 2011

ATI Annual monitoring New campus approval

Mission and Strategy The mission and strategy of the College is articulated as follows: “IBAT College Dublin mission is to become a renowned Business Learning Centre. The College‟s vision is to fuel the Irish and International economy with world class business graduates. The strategic plan for the college while not published for confidentiality reasons always aligned with the core values of the College which are as follows:

Our Students come first: a deep commitment to our students sits at the heart of everything we do. Integrity: we hold ourselves to the highest standards of fairness, honesty and transparency in everything we do. Empowerment: we set challenging goals for our employees so that they can take initiative to decide, act and be accountable for results. Respect: we treat everyone with dignity and honour the global diversity of our students and employees. We work as a team and encourage an open participative culture. Win and have fun: we are motivated by a passion to compete and win.

Medium to long-term strategy within the organisation is formulated by the senior management team on a bi-annual basis, typically culminating in a day-long session. Ongoing implementation of this


Final Report

48

strategy is managed through monthly board meetings and communicated to staff through weekly management meetings and regular staff meetings.”

Section 3. College’s Team

Head of College – Shane Ormsby, Director, [email protected] (01) 2461503

Executive Assistant – Michelle Cullen, [email protected] 01 2461559

Academic Director & Project Manager / Liaison for Institutional Review – Linda Moran, [email protected] (01) 2461506

Registrar – Geraldine Nolan, [email protected] 01 2461511

Academic Manager – Rosemary Deneher, [email protected] 01 2461513

Marketing and Admissions Manager – Fiona Renolds, [email protected] 01 2461526

Operations Manager - Thomas Russell, [email protected] 01 2461504

Student Experience Manager – Joan Connolly, [email protected] 01 2461505

Section 4. HETAC objectives for Institutional Review There are six prescribed objectives for Institutional Review as outlined below. Five of these objectives apply to IBAT College. Colleges may wish to highlight any areas of specific importance to the Institution within each of the objectives. HETAC may also wish to highlight any areas of specific importance to the Institution within each of the objectives. Objective 1: To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the College and the standards of the awards made This objective is to enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the College and the standards of the awards made. This is an overarching objective which covers all areas of the College‟s activity. The quality of the Institutional Review process itself is a critical part of this as is the internal self study, the publication of the Self Evaluation Report and Panel Report. The information provided by the College to the public falls within this objective. Special considerations for IBAT College None Objective 2: To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the College This objective is to contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the College. The review may address the coherence of institutional mission, vision and values and overall institutional strategic planning. For recognised Institutions with Delegated Authority this objective also includes the Operation and Management criterion of the review of Delegated Authority (governance, management, administration, planning and evaluation) and the Objects of the Qualifications Act criterion relating to national contributions etc. Special consideration for IBAT College IBAT College is a privately funded independent for-profit college. In August 2011 IBAT College opened an additional campus in Dublin city centre, described by the College as „State of the Art‟. All programmes available in the Swords Campus are also available in the city centre. As a result of this new expansion the College has almost doubled its capacity in the provision of all programmes, many of which are now available to learners in both locations - Swords and the city centre. As part of its expansion plans the College has hired additional staff and changed its name from IBAT College Swords to IBAT College Dublin. The panel is requested to examine the impact on the College of this significant expansion in the context of the strategic planning, governance and management structures.

mailto:[email protected]









Final Report

49

Objective 3: To assess the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by the College This objective is to assess the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by the College. This will be based on Part One of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance. By including this in the Institutional Review process the statutory requirement for review of QA is met. How the College manages its QA for the “seven elements” of Part One of the European Standards and Guidelines should be explicitly addressed by the review process including: Policy and Procedures for Quality Assurance; Approval, Monitoring and Periodic Review of Programmes and Awards; Assessment of Learners; Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff; Learning Resources and Support; Information Systems; Public Information. Special consideration for IBAT College The Institutional Review should consider the quality assurance arrangements in place for both centres provided by IBAT College Dublin – the new Dublin city centre location in Wellington Quay and the established Swords campus location. Objective 4: To confirm the extent that the College has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications and procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression This objective is to confirm the extent that the College has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications and procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression. The National Qualifications Authority has produced guidelines in relation to this. For example, this includes issues such as credit, transfer and progression routes between levels and award types, entry arrangements and information provision. As part of this objective, HEA-funded institutions should be mindful of the goals of the HEA‟s National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education (2008-2013) and pay particular attention to the objectives relevant to Higher Education institutions. Special considerations for IBAT College None Objective 5: To evaluate the operation and management of Delegated Authority where it has been granted- [Not Applicable] Objective 6: To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by the College This objective is to provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by the College. This will include both the recommendations arising from the external peer review process and recommendations arising from the internal self study process. Special considerations for IBAT College None

Section 5. College-specific objectives

In addition to the prescribed HETAC objectives and the special considerations noted in relation to them, there is an option to include additional objectives to maximise the benefits of the review process. Additional Institutional Objective None


Final Report

50

Section 6. Schedule for IBAT College As outlined in the Institutional Review policy, the process consists of six phases

1. HETAC sets the Terms of Reference following consultation with College; 2. Self-study by the College; 3. Visit by expert panel appointed by HETAC and written panel report; 4. College response including implementation plan; 5. Panel report and response published; 6. Follow-up report submitted by the College.

The major milestones in the timeframe for the Institutional Review of IBAT College are outlined below. This should be read in conjunction with the supplementary guidelines for Institutional Review.

Relative Timeframe Actual Date Milestone

At least 6 months before panel visit

May 2011 College indicates timeframe for Institutional Review as per overall HETAC schedule of reviews

Approx. 6 months before panel visit

October 2011 Terms of Reference set following consultation with College and post on HETAC website

3 to 6 months before panel visit

Up to December 2011

College undertakes self study process and produces Self Evaluation Report (SER)

Approx. 12 weeks before site visit

30 January 2012

Submission of SER and other supporting documentation

1 week following receipt of SER

6 February 2012

HETAC Desk based review of SER and feedback to College

Approx. 4 weeks before site visit

22 March 2012 Advance Meeting between Chair, Secretary and College

Panel Visit 24 - 25 April 2012

Site visit by external peer review panel (2-3 days approximately as determined by TOR) Preliminary (oral) feedback on findings

Approx. 12 weeks after site visit

24 July 2012 Draft report on findings of panel sent by HETAC to College for factual accuracy

Usually 4 days following this

1 August 2012 Reply from College regarding check of factual accuracy

Usually 4 days following this

10 August 2012

Final report on findings of panel sent by HETAC to College

6 weeks following receipt of report

10 September 2012

Response by College to HETAC including plan with timeframe for implementation of any changes

Next available HETAC Academic Committee meeting

12 October 2012

Consideration of report and College response by HETAC Academic Committee Publication of report, response and SER on website once adopted

12 months after adoption

October 2013 Follow up report by College to HETAC on implementation of recommendations


Final Report

51

Appendix B Panel membership

Chairperson Dr. Annie Doona President of IADT (Institute of Art, Design & Technology) Dun Laoghaire in Dublin Secretary Dr. David Cairns Director, Quality Assurance Research for Higher Education Ltd. Formerly of Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) and Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) Ms. Anne Breakell Former Vice President, Academic and Administration, at the National College of Ireland (NCI) Mr. Hugh Sullivan Currently undertaking a Master of Arts in International Higher Education at the University of Nottingham. Former Education Officer in the Trinity College Dublin Students‟ Union and the Union of Students in Ireland (USI) Dr. Jacques Kaat Academic Director for Webster University in Leiden, the Netherlands Mr James Casey Management Consultant


Final Report

52

Appendix C Supporting documentation received before the site visit

IBAT Self Evaluation Report IBAT Quality Assurance Manual 2011 IBAT Academic Prospectus List of supporting documentation made available on the IBAT web portal

Folder Title Description Approach Obj 1 Obj 2 Obj 3 Obj 4 Obj 5

Approach IR Doc Structure Flow Chart

Flow chart used to manage to coordination of the report

X

Approach IR Research Approach Flow Chart

Flow Chart Describing the Research Approach

X

Approach List of Supporting Documents

Lists documents referenced in the SER

X

Feedback IBAT Stakeholder feedback

Stakeholder Feedback Reports, including output of surveys conducted to support the review

X X X X X

Feedback Atomic - Brand Position IBAT College 2011/12

Details the market positioning approach taken by IBAT

X

Feedback Gaffney McHugh - Advertising Campaign Review

Details the Marketing approach to communicating the IBAT Mission and values

X

Internal Documents

IBAT Quality Assurance Handbook (2011)

Quality Assurance Handbook

X X X

Internal Documents

Dual Campus integration report

Analysis of Dual Campus Integration

X

Internal Documents

Collaboration Review Report

Review of Collaboration management

X X


Final Report

53


Internal Documents

QA Effectiveness Report

Report on the review of IBAT College Dublin QA Operations against the criteria listed in Part 1 of the European Standards and

X

Referenced Documents

Guidelines for Quality Assurance document

Guidelines for Quality Assurance document

X


Guidelines and Criteria for Quality Assurance Procedures in Higher Education and Training HETAC (2009)

Guidelines and Criteria for Quality Assurance Procedures in Higher Education and Training HETAC (2009)

X


Supplementary Guidelines for the Review of Effectiveness of Quality Assurance Procedures HETAC (2011)

Supplementary Guidelines for the Review of Effectiveness of Quality Assurance Procedures HETAC (2011)

X


Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area ENQA- 3rd ed. (2009)

Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area ENQA- 3rd ed. (2009)

X


IHEQN - Provision of Education to International Students

Provision of Education to International Students: Code of Practice and Guidelines for Irish Higher Education Institutions

X


Core Validation Policy and Criteria HETAC (2010)

Core Validation Policy and Criteria HETAC (2010)

X


Assessment and Standards HETAC (2009)

Assessment and Standards HETAC (2009)

X


Final Report

54


Internal Documents

IBAT College Dublin Examination Regulations (2011)

IBAT College Dublin Examination Regulations (2011)

X

Internal Documents

IBAT College Dublin Policy on Deferral (2011)

IBAT College Dublin Policy on Deferral (2011)

X

Internal Documents

IBAT Access Transfer and Progression Report

IBAT Report on review of Access, Transfer and Progression

X

Internal Documents

IBAT Extern Reports

External Examiners Reports

X

Internal Documents

IBAT Higher Certificate in business (L6)

IBAT Higher Certificate in business (L6)

X X

Internal Documents

IBAT Bachelor of Business (L7)

IBAT Bachelor of Business (L7)

X X

Internal Documents

IBAT Bachelor of Business Hons (L8)

IBAT Bachelor of Business Hons (L8)

X X

Internal Documents

IBAT Bachelor of Business Hons (L8) - Abinitito

IBAT Bachelor of Business Hons (L8) - Abinitito

X X


Effective Practice Guideline for External Examining. HETAC (2010)

Effective Practice Guideline for External Examining. HETAC (2010)

X


General Programme Validation Manual HETAC (2010)

General Programme Validation Manual HETAC (2010)

X


Award Standards HETAC (2005)

Award Standards HETAC (2005)

X


Policies, Actions and Procedures for Access, Transfers and Progression for Learners NQAI (2003)

Policies, Actions and Procedures for Access, Transfers and Progression for Learners NQAI (2003)

X X


Final Report

55



Principles and Operational Guidelines for the Recognition of Prior Learning NAQI (2005)

Principles and Operational Guidelines for the Recognition of Prior Learning NAQI (2005)

X X

Internal Documents

HETAC Programmatic Review Report (2011)

HETAC Programmatic Review Report (2011)

X X X


Final Report

56

Appendix D Documentation requested by the panel

Minutes of meetings 1. Notes/minutes from the two most recent meetings of the IBAT Academic Council. 2. Notes/minutes/action points from the two most recent meetings of the Executive Management

Board. 3. Notes or action points from the two most recent meetings of the Academic Management Group. 4. Minutes and action points from the two most recent Programme Board Meetings for each

programme. 5. Notes or action points from the most recent meetings of two programme teams. Strategic Planning 6. IBAT‟s detailed strategic plan and associated strategic planning documents. 7. Instances of inputs made by Academic Council into the Annual Strategy Review. Evidence of Analysis 8. Response by IBAT to the Report of the Programmatic Review (in detail); how the response was

compiled and by whom. 9. IBAT papers or notes from meetings to show how it considered and implemented the Principles

set out by the IHEQN statements on student participation in governance, quality and curriculum development.

10. Material to show how IBAT benchmarks itself as an institution, what in, and against what institutions or bodies?

11. A worked through APEL application for an Ireland-based student and an international student. 12. How IBAT has responded to the findings and recommendations of the HETAC MBA panel. Quality Assurance 13. Teaching and Learning strategy. 14. The IBAT complaints process. Anonymised examples of the most recent complaint dealt with

under the procedure described in the QA Handbook. 15. Glossary of terms (and explanation) e.g. academic committee, academic management group. 16. The guidance notes provided for moderators appointed to review academic appeals. Programme documentation 17. For all programmes. Student admission numbers by programme and cohort for the last four

cohorts, together with the progression data for each cohort at each internal progression stage and the completion and attainment data for each of those cohorts.

Please provide the following information for a selection of programmes:

Programme validation documentation

Minutes of programme committees -2009/2010/2011

Follow up issues relating to student input, retention etc. - 2009/2010/2011

Documentation relating to follow-up by IBAT on the external examiner reports

Programme review documentation

Programme evaluation forms/ reports of evaluation results

Staff qualifications – summary

Other appropriate QA documentation indicating follow-through of issues raised

Sample exam Board minutes

Student feedback evaluations and programme statistics External Examiners 18. The information and terms of reference for newly-appointed external examiners.


Final Report

57

19. For the external examiners reports for 2009 and 2010, the detailed responses (trail & action) made by IBAT to the comments and the actions taken.

20. The full text of each external examiner‟s report for the last three years. Student Supports 21. Information on IBAT‟s standard diagnostic arrangements for newly registered students that

enable it to identify whether the student has additional learning support needs and how these are to be met.

22. The material (including web-based material) used to support student induction, including any additional material used to support the induction of international students.

23. Data on the number of students receiving regular additional learning support from IBAT; the information provided to IBAT students that tells them under what circumstances they can access additional learning support and the nature of the support that IBAT can and does provide

24. Student handbooks for each of the programmes that are within the terms of reference of the review.

25. Two anonymised case studies showing how IBAT identified the need to provide the relevant students with additional learning support and how that support was implemented.

Staff 26. Job descriptions for each of the named individuals on the IBAT organigram provided for the

review, together with the standard or template document for the employment of part-time members of staff.

27. The anonymised materials used by IBAT in recruiting members of a) teaching and b) administrative staff. To include the job and person specifications used and the criteria against which applications were filtered.

28. The IBAT Staff Handbook(s). 29. The programme for the most recent training and induction programme provided by IBAT to

„agents‟ in the recruitment of students, together with the support pack provided for the most recently-recruited agent. The report of the due diligence process conducted by IBAT for its most recently recruited agent.

30. Staff development policy. 31. A list of the staff development sessions provided by IBAT for its staff in the past two years. The

support materials provided for the participants at the last such session. 32. The programme pack for the induction programme given to the staff recruited to teach at IBAT

Dublin. Risk Assessment 33. IBAT‟s Risk Assessment procedure (including its procedures for academic risk), and its own

statement of its „risk appetite‟. 34. IBAT‟s exit strategy for the cessation of University of Wales validation, showing how the

experience of learners will be safeguarded.


Final Report

58

Appendix E Index to additional documentation provided to the panel Documentation provided on the web portal and in hard copy during the site visit 01 & 07- Academic Council Minutes 02 - IBAT Executive Management Board 03 - Academic Management Group Minutes 04 & 05 - HETAC Programme Team Minutes 08 - Programmatic Review Response and Implementation Plan 09 - Student Participation 11 - APEL Applications 12- Response to HETAC MBA panel 13 - IBAT Teaching and Learning Strategy 14 - Complaints Process 15 - Glossary of Terms 16- Review of Academic Appeals 17 - Additional Information for a selection of programmes 18 - Newly Appointed External Examiners 19 - Response to External Examiner Issues 20 - External Examiners Reports 21 - Diagnostic Arrangements 22 - Student Induction 23 - Additional Learning Support for Students 24 - Student Handbooks 25 - Demonstrating additional learning support provided to students 26 - Job Descriptions 27 - Recruitment materials for Lecturer & Admin staff 28 - IBAT Staff Handbook 29 - Agents 30 - Staff Development Policy 31 - Staff Development Sessions 32- Induction of lecturing staff 33 - IBAT College Risk Assessment Documentation provided in hard copy only during the site visit

- IBAT College Dublin Strategic Plan - Collaboration Report - Benchmarking Report - Learners statistics


Final Report

59

Appendix F Agenda for site visit

Agenda for the Institutional Review of IBAT College Dublin 23-25 April 2012

The format of each session was a discussion in question and answer format unless otherwise indicated. Dr. Annie Doona, Review Chairperson chaired all the sessions unless this is otherwise indicated.

Monday 23 April

4.00pm – 8.00pm – Panel Induction and planning (evening before) HETAC presentation on Institutional Review criteria and background to Higher Education and Training in Ireland. Panel planning and Review of questions/issues for each session with the College.

Tuesday 24 April

IBAT College – City Centre campus 8.30am-10.30am - Panel planning and finalising agendas for each session - Review of questions/issues for each session with College – proposed questions and assignment of roles – highlight areas that need further clarification. 10.30am – 11.30am - Demonstration by IBAT of learner support provided online to students / Documentation Review – Answering questions with documentation provided - Assign panel members to documentation review. Panel members review supplementary documentation provided and highlight any areas where further clarification is required. 11.30am – 1.00pm - Session One with College Representatives - Objective 2: Strategic Planning and Governance. Brief presentation by Director Setting the scene - an overview of the College context, mission, and vision. Clarification on structure and roles and overall activities the College is engaged in. Environmental factors including competitive position. Update on strategic planning and governance issues. Links between internal reflection and strategic planning decision making. The session will also consider the special consideration. 1.00pm-1.35pm Lunch at College– Panel private lunch and meeting 1.35pm – 2.30pm - Session Two- Objective 1: Public Confidence –Overarching objective. Demonstrating evidence of public confidence in the quality of education and training and standards of awards made. Information provided by the College; Stakeholder interaction. Overall approach taken to self study for Institutional Review (outline of self study process etc). 2.30pm – 3.15pm – Break for panel discussion 3.15pm – 4.45pm - Session Three- Objective 3: Quality Assurance - Overview of Quality Assurance system/framework in place in the College (Brief presentation by IBAT) and management of change to QA system. The “seven elements” covered by the European Standards and Guidelines and the stage of development of the Colleges QA system in each area; evidence of performance of QA system in each area; evaluation of effectiveness of QA system in each area; improvements identified; integration between processes and strategic planning etc. The session will also consider the special consideration. 4.45pm – 5.05pm - Break for panel discussion 5.05pm – 5.50pm - Session Four – Meeting with Learners and Graduates

(Two parallel sessions)


Final Report

60

5.50pm– 6.10pm - Break for panel discussion 6.10pm – 6.40pm- Session Five - Meeting with External Stakeholders 6.40pm -7.30pm – Panel meeting

Wednesday

25 April

8.30am–9.30am Session Six- Objective 3: Quality Assurance - Meeting with Staff of Learner Support Services- Library/ Welfare/IT/International office and others as appropriate. This session will deal with the “seven elements” covered by the European Standards and Guidelines and the stage of development of the College‟s QA system in each area; evidence of performance of QA system in each area; evaluation of effectiveness of QA system in each area; improvements identified; integration between processes, governance, management and planning etc. 9.30am – 10.00am - Break for panel discussion 10.00am – 11.15am Session Seven - Objective 3: Quality Assurance - Meeting with non-committee/non-management lecturing staff. This session will deal with the “seven elements” covered by the European Standards and Guidelines and the stage of development of the Institutions QA system in each area; evidence of performance of QA system in each area; evaluation of effectiveness of QA system in each area; improvements identified; integration between processes, governance, management and planning etc. 11.15am -11.50am - Break for panel discussion 11.50am – 12.35pm - Session Eight - Objective 4: Access, Transfer and Progression: Review of Implementation of the National Framework of Qualifications and procedures for access, transfer and progression. Learning outcomes, learner assessment, RPL, implementation of HETAC Assessment & Standards etc. 12.35pm – 12.45pm – Break for panel discussion 12.45pm - 1.15pm - Panel private lunch and opportunity for panel members to review supplementary evidence – documentation. 1.15pm – 4.05pm - Private meeting of panel to consider its findings and recommendations. 4.05pm – 4.20pm Meeting with Director, Registrar and College‟s Senior Management team to provide preliminary feedback on findings and recommendations.


Final Report

61

Appendix G List of people met by the panel

Tuesday 24 April 2012

11.30am – 1.00pm - Session 1: Strategic Planning and Governance

Name Department/Job Title Committee Membership

Shane Ormsby Executive Director Executive Board of Management Senior Management Group Academic Council

Thomas Russell Operations Manager Executive Board of Management Senior Management Group

Paul Devine Board Consultant Executive Board of Management

Jim O‟Hara Non-Executive Director Executive Board of Management

Edward Walsh Non-Executive Director Executive Board of Management

Andrew Bourg BDO – Board Consultant

Executive Board of Management

1.35pm – 2.30pm - Session 2: Public Confidence


Shane Ormsby Executive Director Executive Board of Management Senior Management Group Academic Council

Linda Moran Academic Director Senior Management Group Steering Group - Chair Academic Council – Chair Academic Management Group - Chair

Thomas Russell Operations Manager

Senior Management Group Executive Board of Management

Fiona Reynolds Admissions and Marketing Manager

Senior Management Group Steering Group

Michelle Cullen Executive Assistant / Careers Services

Senior Management Group

Cara Shields Marketing Executive

Grainne Hurley MBA Admissions Manager

Aoife Fitzpatrick Admissions Officer

Rory Byrne MBA Programme Director

Academic Management Group Academic Council Steering Group MBA Programme Team - Chair


Final Report

62

3.15pm – 4.45pm - Session 3: Quality Assurance (Overview)


Linda Moran Academic Director & Project Manager

Senior Management Group Academic Management Group - Chair Academic Council - Chair Steering Group - Chair

Rosemary Deneher Academic Manager

Academic Management Group Academic Council Steering Group

Fiona Reynolds Admissions and Marketing Manager

Senior Management Group Steering Group

Ger Nolan Registrar Senior Management Group Academic Management Group Academic Council Steering Group

Rory Byrne MBA Programme Director Academic Management Group Academic Council Steering Group MBA Programme Team - Chair

Joe Fitzpatrick FETAC Programme Leader Academic Management Group

Lisa Donaldson HETAC Programme Leader Academic Management Group HETAC Programme Team - Chair

Brian O‟Neill Exams Officer Academic Management Group

Niall O‟Riordan Director of English Studies English School Programme Team - Chair

Jeff Taylor HETAC Programme Leader – January Intake

Academic Management Group Academic Council HETAC Programme Team

Mark Dean IS Development Manager Academic Management Group

Colette Casey Professional School Co-ordinator

Academic Management Group

5.05pm – 5.50pm - Session 4 – Meeting with Learners and Graduates (parallel sessions) Group A

Name Programme Stage Campus Representing

Mei Mei Chen Bachelor of Business Studies

Year 2 Swords Full-time (International)

Ademiyi Kehinde Bachelor of Business Studies

Year 3 Swords Mature - Full-time (International)

Patricia Brankin ATI Year 1 Swords Mature – Part-time

Jim Lynch MBA Year 1 City Centre Mature – Part-time

Mark Smith MBA Year 1 City Centre Mature - Full-Time


Final Report

63


Kiran Beesoony MBA Year 1 Swords Mature - Full-time (International) Class Rep & Academic Council

Shane Briggs MBA Year 1 City Centre Mature - Full-time

Lucas Scheleder MBA Year 1 Swords Mature - Full-time

Alexandre Gomes Batista

Bachelor of Business Studies

Year 1 City Centre Full-time

Sundar Thapa Bachelor of Business Studies


Agnes Matiki Bachelor of Business Studies

Year 3 Swords Full-time (International) HETAC Programme Team – Student Class Rep

Alan Ruigrok Bachelor of Business Studies


Carmel Flanagan

ICM Diploma Graduate Swords Work Experience

Bryan Leonard Bachelor of Business Studies

Graduate Swords Full-time Student

Group B


Margarita Zuravlova

ACCA N/A Swords Mature - Part-time (International)

Yousaf Irfan Bachelor of Business Studies

Year 3 Dual Campus

Mature - Full-time (International)

Philip Chibwana ACCA N/A Swords Mature - Full-time (International)

Brian O‟Neill MBA Year 1 City Centre Mature – Part-time

Matt Tisdall MBA Year 2 Swords Mature – Part-time Class Rep

Glenda Stevens MBA Year 1 City Centre Mature - Full-time (International) Class Rep

Michael Tope MBA Year 1 City Centre Mature - Full-time

Kevin Knox Bachelor of Business Studies


Samuel Howie Bachelor of Business

Year 1 Swords Full-time


Final Report

64

Studies

Harneet Kaur Bachelor of Business Studies


Tania Garcia Bachelor of Business Studies

Year 3 Swords Full-time (International)

Vidya Gupta Bachelor of Business Studies

Year 3 Swords Full-time

Deirdre Forde Advanced Diploma in Legal Studies

Graduate Swords

Adam Casey Business Studies Level 5

Graduate City Centre Graduate - Full-time

Xiaomei Year 3 City Centre Full-time

The above session was chaired by Ms Ann Breakell 6.10pm – 6.40pm - Session 5- External Stakeholders

Name Position/Title Organisation Collaboration/link to college

Paddy Lonergan Business Manager Bank of Ireland Fingal County Enterprise Board – Bank Manager to College

John Ryan Partner P Ryan & Co IBAT College Auditor

David McHugh Director Gaffney McHugh Marketing / Brand Advisor

Aine Neeson Lecturer Clanwillliam Institute

Worked in an advisory capacity with Clanwilliam prior to their Programmatic Review

Paula Daly Hayes

Finance Analyst at Primark

Primark Past Lecturer Chairperson of Business Advisory Group

Katherine Moore

Senior Student Advisor

Associated Chartered Certified Accountants

Accreditation Body

Gillian Doherty Director of Education

Accounting Technicians of Ireland

Accreditation Body

Frances Trainer Career Guidance Counsellor

Fingal Community College

Feeder College, School Visits

Craig Caffrey Maintenance Manager -

City Jet Developed and delivered a number of intact Supervisory Management course for City Jet Staff.

Cormac O Brien

Business Development Manager

Wall 2 Workstations

Completed IBAT College fit outs 2005 – 2012


Final Report

65

Wednesday 25 April 2012 8.30am – 9.30am - Session 6 - QA: Staff of Learner Support Services

Name Position/Title Committee Membership

Full-time /Part-time

Campus

Louise Hill Librarian and MBA Administrator

Academic Management Group Academic Council (Takes minutes)

Full-time Dual Campus

Michelle Cullen Executive Assistant / Career Services

Senior Management Group


Amy Clough Admissions Officer


Maggie Silva International Student Officer


Siobhan Berg Student Support Full-time Dual Campus

Arthur Castro Network Support Engineer

Full-time City Centre

Mark Dean IS Development Manager

Academic Management Group

Full-time Swords

Michelle Glynn Student Support Full-time City Centre

10.00am – 11.15am - Session 7- QA (non committee/ non management lecturing staff)

Name Position/Title Committee Membership Full-time / Part-time

Campus

Darren Devereux

Marketing Lecturer

Academic Council Academic Management Group, HETAC Programme Team


Anna Dayman

English Language School Tutor

English Language Programme Team


John Murtagh Management Lecturer

HETAC Programme Team Full-time Swords

Philip McGovern

Strategic Leadership Lecturer

MBA Programme Team Part-time Dual Campus

Ciaran Hayden

Operations Management Lecturer

MBA Programme Team Business Advisory Group

Part-time Dual Campus

Lorraine Ryan

Accounting Lecturer

HETAC Programme Team Part-time Dual Campus

Jackie Kennedy

HRM Lecturer HETAC Programme Team Part-time Dual Campus

Gay White Strategic HRM Lecturer


Colm Dunne Management Lecturer

HETAC Programme Team FETAC Programme Team


Brendan Barrett

Management Lecturer

HETAC Programme Team Part-time Dual Campus


Final Report

66

Name Position/Title Committee Membership Full-time / Part-time

Campus

Matt Murray International Business context Lecturer


Joe Fitzgerald Marketing Lecturer

Academic Management Group FETAC Programme Team


Karolina Knera

English Language School Tutor

English Language Programme Team


11.50am – 12.35pm - Session 8 – Access, Transfer and Progression

Name Position/Title Committee Membership

Full-time / Part-time

Campus

Rosemary Deneher

Academic Manager

Academic Management Group Academic Council Steering Group


Ger Nolan Registrar Academic Management Group Academic Council Steering Group Senior Management Group


Grainne Hurley MBA Admissions Manager


Aoife Fitzpatrick

Admissions Officer


Elaine Shanshan Su

International Admissions Officer


Amy Clough Admissions Officer


Jeff Taylor HETAC Programme Leader – January Intake

Academic Management Group Academic Council HETAC Programme Team


Lisa Donaldson HETAC Programme Leader

Academic Management Group HETAC Programme Team - Chair


Brian O‟Neill Exams Officer Academic Management Group


Juliet Emezie Exams Officer Academic Management Group

Full-time Swords

Linda Moran Academic Director & Project Manager

Senior Management Group Academic Management Group - Chair Academic Council - Chair Steering Group - Chair


Final Report

67

Glossary of terms and abbreviations

Contraction or abbreviation In full

ACCA Association of Chartered Certified Accountants

ACCS Accumulation of Credits and Certification of Subjects

Assessment, the „IBAT College Dublin – Self Evaluation Report Preparation

Assessment of the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance

arrangements operated by the College (HETAC Institutional

Review: Term of Reference, Objective 3)‟

ATI Accounting Technicians Ireland

CAO Central Applications Office

ACELS Accreditation and Co-Ordination of English Language

Services

ECTS European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System

ESG Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European

Higher Education Area. European Association for Quality

Assurance in Higher Education, 2009, Helsinki, 3rd edition

FETAC Further Education and Training Awards Council

HECA Higher Education Colleges Association

HETAC Higher Education and Training Awards Council

NFQ National Framework of Qualifications

PMI Project Management Institute

SER The Self-Evaluation Report prepared by IBAT to support

the Institutional Review

UoW The (Federal) University of Wales