Upload
lyquynh
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Programmatic Review 2012-2013
Phase B - Programmes
School: Health and ScienceDepartment: Applied Sciences
Programme Title NFQ Level Award Type Award Class ECTS Credits Exit Award Parent Programme Approval Status
Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Biopharmaceutical Science 8 Honours Bachelor Degree Major 60 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Environmental Biology 8 Honours Bachelor Degree Major 60 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Sustainable Agriculture 8 Honours Bachelor Degree Major 60 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Diploma in Agri-Food Business Excellence 8 N/A Supplemental 60 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Diploma in Biopharmaceutical Processing 8 N/A Supplemental 60 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Certificate in Food Supply Chain Management 8 N/A Special-Purpose 30 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Diploma in Food Supply Chain Management 8 N/A Special-Purpose 60 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Certificate in Agri-Food Business Excellence 8 N/A Supplemental 30 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Certificate in Agri-Waste Management 8 N/A Minor 27.5 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Bachelor of Science in Agriculture 7 Ordinary Bachelor Degree Major 60 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Bachelor of Science in Applied Bioscience 7 Ordinary Bachelor Degree Major 180 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Bachelor of Science in Pharmaceutical Science 7 Ordinary Bachelor Degree Major 180 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Certificate in GMP in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 7 N/A Supplemental 20 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Bachelor of Science in Veterinary Nursing 7 Ordinary Bachelor Degree Major 180 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Higher Certificate in Science in Applied Bioscience 6 Higher Certificate Major 120 Y
Bachelor of Science in Applied
Bioscience Accredited for 5 years
Higher Certificate in Science in Pharmaceutical Science 6 Higher Certificate Major 120 Y
Bachelor of Science in
Pharmaceutical Science Accredited for 5 years
Higher Certificate in Science in Agriculture 6 Higher Certificate Major 120 N N/A Accredited for 5 years
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/8
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of Science (Honours) Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical Science Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Honours Bachelor Degree Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013 (16 – 20)
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee IT Dr. Colin Conway Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT School of Natural Sciences, NUI Galway
Mr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Ronan Bree Dr Sinead Loughran Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr Gerard Seargent Dr Mark Holywood Mr Richard Crowley Dr Annamarie Rogers
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/8
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical Science The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical Science
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/8
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/8
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): The entry requirements for international students should specify an English language
requirement at IELTS 6.0 or equivalent. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes.
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/8
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Were Green Belt / Yellow Belt capability built into this programme, it would represent a
unique selling point as would consideration of lean manufacturing.
Minor awards might be developed arising from this programme, for example, a Certificate in GMP / Lean Manufacturing. Such a programme might be suitable for on-line delivery.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes, these strategies are well developed and are examples of best
practice. Condition(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/8
Recommendation(s): None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: The Department is using available resources to a maximum level.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/8
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation:
More space for cell culture should be provided if possible.
Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may be greater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/8
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): Repeat arrangements for CA assignments should be documented.
Recommendation(s): The CA assignments require substantial work on the part of the learner. An assessment
matrix should be drawn up.
5.2 Other Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
___________________________________________________ Dr. Michael Hall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th May 2013
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9
Response to the Report of theProgramme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of Science (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical ScienceExit Award(s): Not applicableAward Type: Honours Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60First Intake: September 2013 (16 – 20)
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee ITDr. Colin Conway
Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT
School of Natural Sciences, NUI GalwayMr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical IrelandMs. Ann Campbell Secretary to
PanelRegistrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology(DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Ronan BreeDr Sinead Loughran Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr Gerard SeargentDr Mark Holywood Mr Richard Crowley Dr Annamarie Rogers
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/9
1 Introduction
The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panelof assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute ofTechnology to design the following programmes:
Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical Science
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaginggenerously and openly with the review process.
The report is divided into the following sections:
Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality oftheir submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day ofthe validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programmedevelopment team, the validation panel recommends the following:
Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Biopharmaceutical Science
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmaticreview, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations XRe-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additionaldevelopmental workNot Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takesaccount of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response documentdescribing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendationsmade by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used toindicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must beundertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory ifthe programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to whichthe Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an earlystage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings
This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations:
Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidencebeen provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/9
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy andare the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability andinternationalisation embedded in the proposed programme asappropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clearand appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
The entry requirements for international students should specify an English languagerequirement at IELTS 6.0 or equivalent.
School Response:
The English language requirement for foreign students (IELTS 6.0 or equivalent) is alreadypresent for all international applicants and is considered as they are admitted through theinternational office. It shall be included however in the Programme documentation.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures foraccess, transfer and progression that have been established bythe NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entryrequirements?
Overall Finding: Yes.
Condition(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/9
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required awardstandards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e.conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can befound at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can thestated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employmentskills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Were Green Belt / Yellow Belt capability built into this programme, it would represent aunique selling point as would consideration of lean manufacturing.
Minor awards might be developed arising from this programme, for example, aCertificate in GMP / Lean Manufacturing. Such a programme might be suitable for on-line delivery.
School Response:
The above recommendations were considered at the Programme Board meeting dated 23rd
October 2013. Discussions are on-going to include Green Belt / Yellow Belt (leanmanufacturing etc.) into the programme. The ‘Recombinant Drug Manufacturing &Engineering’ module may be a suitable module for this inclusion. Any major changes to themodule will be proposed for the next Programmatic Review. The development of a part-
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/9
time / on-line minor award, based on GMP / lean manufacturing is being considered.However, this year’s part-time course in GMP (‘springboard’) was not viable due to lowstudent numbers. The School is currently developing its Blended Learning ImplementationStrategy.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been providedfor the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes, these strategies are well developed and are examples of bestpractice.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies beenprovided for the proposed programme (as outlined in theQQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards andshould form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programmevalidation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33).Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009)Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) :
Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability andauthenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system.
The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/9
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.10Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessaryto deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: The Department is using available resources to a maximum level.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
More space for cell culture should be provided if possible.
Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may begreater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
School Response:
The recommendations indicated above were discussed at the Programme Board meetingdated 23rd October 2013. More space for cell culture would be desirable if space andfunding allows. The need for a ‘contingency fund’ to update equipment and facilities on arolling basis is a priority for the Head of School. Commonality with other programmes hasbeen addressed through Programmatic Review (any additional ‘overlap’ between coursesshould be identified before the next Programmatic Review).
4.11Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’squality assurance procedures have been applied and thatsatisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring andperiodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic QualityAssurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic reviewof Programmes.
Condition(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/9
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.12Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included inthe proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
Repeat arrangements for CA assignments should be documented.
School Response:
Repeat arrangements for CA assignments have been documented in each module in AkariDocument (programme design and development tool). An example of one module is shownin Appendix 1.
Recommendation(s):
The CA assignments require substantial work on the part of the learner. An assessmentmatrix should be drawn up.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/9
School Response:
CA assignments are documented in an Assessment Schedule which are agreed at the startof each Semester by the Programme Boards which include student members. An exampleof such an Assessment Schedule for the current academic year is shown in Appendix 2.
5.2 Other Findings
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
Signed on behalf of the School
_________________________________________Dr. Edel Healy,Head of School of Health and Science.
Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panelreport have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council atDundalk Institute of Technology for ratification.
moduleResearch Design, Statistics & Ethics
Page 1 of 5
RESA S8002: ResearchDesign, Stats & Ethics
Module Details
Short Title: Research Design, Stats & Ethics PENDING APPROVAL
Full Title: Research Design, Statistics & Ethics
Module Code: RESA S8002
ECTS Credits: 5
NFQ Level: 8
Valid From: Semester 1 - 2013/14 ( September 2013 )
Module Coordinator: Breda Brennan
Module Author: Arjan van Rossum
Description: The aims of this module are: - To increase student awareness of research design and the main ethicalissues associated with modern research. - To stimulate discussion on ethical issues. - To enable students toperform and evaluate statistical tests used for experimental design and data analysis.
Learning Outcomes:
On successful completion of this module the learner should be able to
Describe, discuss and evaluate a range of methods employed in the design of experiments and the analysis of data1.Describe and critically analyse the main ethical issues associated with current and future developments in biotechnology,2.medical research and/or environmental researchArticulate and argue their personal, informed viewpoints on research-related ethical issues.3.Discuss and evaluate the importance and relevance of intellectual property (IP) within a scientific context4.Perform and evaluate statistical tests commonly used for data analysis5.
moduleResearch Design, Statistics & Ethics
Page 2 of 5
RESA S8002: ResearchDesign, Stats & Ethics
Module Content & Assessment
Indicative Content
Values, beliefs and virtues used in applying ethical and regulatory frameworks; the application of national and internationallegislation, agreements conventions and guidelines; decision making and whistle blowing.
Design of laboratory experiments and clinical trials. Evaluation of reliability and validity; data storage, statistical analysis andconfidentiality of results.
International and national ethical and regulatory frameworks and their relevance.
Intellectual Property (IP): Differences between artistic (copyright) and industrial property (inc. trademarks, patents, etc.).Overview of the importance and application of industrial property in the area of Biopharmaceutical Science.
Experimental designs for process improvement
Data Protection
Project planning tools (e.g. MS project, Gantt charts).
Simple comparative experiments.
The ANOVA model
Randomisation, blocking, replication and comparison
One factor at a time versus multi-factor experiments
Factorial designs
Assessment Breakdown %
Course Work 100.00%
Course Work
Type Description Outcomeaddressed
% oftotal
AssessmentDate
GroupProject
Students will be divided into groups (3-5 students) and write a researchproposal and/or case study to be explained and presented orally to a 'mock'Research Ethics Committee. The study will involve current researchmethodologies and ethical issues (and statistical analysis methods whereappropriate). Marks will be allocated for the written report, the presentation,keeping a (group) journal and a questions and answers session.
1,2,3,4,5 75.00 Sem 1 End
Other An individual statistical data analysis assignment will be used to assessstudents on statistical experimental design and/or the analysis of scientificresults. Use of the statistics package Minitab will be an integral part of thecourse.
1,5 25.00 Sem 1 End
No End of Module Formal Examination
moduleResearch Design, Statistics & Ethics
Page 3 of 5
Reassessment Requirement
No repeat examinationReassessment of this module will be offered solely on the basis of coursework and a repeat examination will not be offered.
DKIT reserves the right to alter the nature and timings of assessment
moduleResearch Design, Statistics & Ethics
Page 4 of 5
RESA S8002: ResearchDesign, Stats & Ethics
Module Workload & Resources
Workload Full Time
Type Description Hours Frequency Average WeeklyLearner Workload
Lecture No Description 1.00 Every Week 1.00
Tutorial No Description 2.00 Every Week 2.00
Directed Reading No Description 1.00 Every Week 1.00
Practical No Description 2.00 Every Week 2.00
Independent Study No Description 3.00 Every Week 3.00
Total Weekly Learner Workload 9.00
Total Weekly Contact Hours 5.00
This course has no Part Time workload.
moduleResearch Design, Statistics & Ethics
Page 5 of 5
Resources
Recommended Book Resources
Dawson, C. 2009, Introduction to research methods: A practical guide for anyone undertaking a research project, 4th ed. Ed.,How To Books Ltd.
Mullins, E. 2003, Statistics for the quality control chemistry laboratory, Royal Society of Chemistry
Denscombe, M. 2010, The good research guide, 4th ed. Ed., Open University Press
Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. 2002, Principles of medical bioethics, 5th Ed., Oxford University Press,
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. 2010, How to research, 4th ed. Ed., Open University Press
Goddard, W. and Melville, S. 2007, Research methodology: An introduction, 2nd ed. Ed., McGraw-Hill
Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.G. and Hunter, J.S. 2005, Statistics for experimenters, John Wiley & Sons
Helsel, Dennis. R. and Robert M. Hirsch 2002, Statistical Methods in Water Resources, Techniques of Water ResourcesInvestigations, Book 4 Ed., A3, USGS
Other Resources
Website: Data protection commissionerhttp://www.dataprotection.ie
Website: Health and Safety Authorityhttp://www.hsa.ie
Website: National Advisory Committee on Bioethicshttp://www.dohc.ie/issues/nacb/
Website: National Research Ethics Servicehttp://www.nres.nhs.uk/
Website: Nuffield Council on Bioethicshttp://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/
Website: Wellcome Trusthttp://www.wellcome.ac.uk/
Website: StatSoft electronic statistics textbookhttp://www.statsoft.com/textbook/
Website: Minitab: Software for Quality Improvement.http://www.minitab.com/en-IE/default.aspx
Website: Bioethics web,http://www.intute.ac.uk/healthandlifesciences/bioethicsweb/
B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience and B.Sc. in Pharmaceutical Science
Year 1 - Semester 1
Module Biology (Year Long)
Health & Safety &
Academic skills (Year
Long)
Physics through PBL
1 Fundamental Chemistry Mathematics 1
ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA Sem 1: 100% CA 100% CA 50% : 50% 40% : 60%
Lecturer(s)
B. Moloney,
S. Mc Carthy,
V. Mc Carthy
A. Rogers,
N. Dreeling,
A. McHugh T. Lennon N. Cunning S. Bellew
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct) lab assessment (5%)
Week 6 (21 Oct) Class Assignment (15%)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov) 4th Nov theory exam (5%) 6th Nov.CA Exam (10%)
Week 8 (11 Nov) Report (10 %, ND)*
Week 9 (18 Nov) H&S Inspection (20%)
Week 10 (25 Nov)
Week 11 (2 Dec) Class Assignment (15%)
Week 12 (9 Dec) lab assessment (5%) H&S Exam (10%)
Week 13 (16 Dec) 16th Dec theory exam (5%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.) practical write-ups (5%) Attendance (10%, ND/AMcH)
PBL Reports Weekly
(100%) Practical reports (40%) Tutorials (10%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Stage Convenors: Pharmaceutical Science: Tony Lennon
Applied Bioscience: Siobhan Mc Carthy
B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience
Year 2 - Semester 1
Module
Molecular Bioscience
(Year Long)
Analytical Instrumentation &
Techniques 1 Fundamental Microbiology
Introduction to
Organic Chemistry
ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA 50% : 50% 50% : 50% 50% : 50%
Lecturer(s) R. Bree S. Loughran,N. Cunning O. Sherlock C. Hanlon
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Oct 3rd 3pm: News
Article (2.5%)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov) Class Exam (10%)
Week 8 (11 Nov)
15th Nov CA Exam
(10%) *
Week 9 (18 Nov)
21st Nov 3pm: CA
MCQ/short answer
exam (10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov) CA Exam 27th Nov (10%)*
Week 11 (2 Dec)
Week 12 (9 Dec) Class Exam (15%)
Week 13 (16 Dec) w/c 16th Dec Group Project (10%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly lab practicals
(15%)…..Christmas
Group Project due Feb
2014 (7.5%) Weekly Lab practicals (30%) Weekly Lab Result Sheets (25%)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (40%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum
B.Sc. in Pharmaceutical Science
Year 2 - Semester 1
Module
Molecular Bioscience
(Year Long)
Analytical Instrumentation &
Techniques 1
Pharmaceutical
Microbiology
Marketing (Replacement
module 2013-2014 only)
ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA 50% : 50% 50% : 50% 50% : 50%
Lecturer(s) R. Bree S. Loughran, N. Cunning O. Sherlock H. White
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Oct 3rd 3pm: News
Article (2.5%)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov) Class Exam (10%)
Week 8 (11 Nov)
Week 9 (18 Nov)
21st Nov 3pm: CA
MCQ/short answer
exam (10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov) CA Exam 27th Nov (10%)*
Week 11 (2 Dec)
Week 12 (9 Dec) Open Book Lab Exam (15%)
Week 13 (16 Dec) w/c 16th Dec Group Project (10%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly lab practicals
(15%)…..Christmas
Group Project due Feb
2014 (7.5%) Weekly Lab practicals (30%) Lab Report Sheets (25%)
From 3rd October, weekly
assignment and
presentation (50%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Chiara Hanlon
B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience
Year 3 - Semester 1
Module
Biotechnology (Year
Long)
GMP & Regulatory
Affairs Applied Microbiology Project Elective: Immunology
Elective: Aquatic
Science
ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA 30% : 70% 50% : 50% 100% CA 40% : 60% 50% : 50%
Lecturer(s)
W. Higgins,
S. Mc Carthy A. van Rossum B. Kelly R. Bree B. Kelly S. McCarthy
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
23rd Oct, 12noon: Lit.
Review planning
document (10%);
Screencast (10%); Lit.
review resource file
(5%)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)
Week 8 (11 Nov)15 Nov: written project
(20%)
Week 9 (18 Nov) 18 Nov CA Exam (10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov)29 Nov: Written Report
(18%)
Week 11 (2 Dec)
4th Dec, 12noon:
Literature Review
Submission (50%)
Week 12 (9 Dec)9/10/13 Dec:
Presentations* (12%)
13th Dec : Project
report
Week 13 (16 Dec)Date TBC; Oral
Presentations (25%). 17th Dec: Presentation
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly lab practicals
(30%)
Weekly lab practicals
(30%)
Weekly lab practicals
and class presentations
after week 7/8 (40%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum
B.Sc. in Pharmaceutical Science
Year 3 - Semester 1
Module
Pharmaceutical
Biotechnology
GMP & Regulatory
Affairs Immunology
Preformulation of
Pharmaceuticals
Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing
ACS = CA% : Exam% 50% : 50% 30% : 70% 40% : 60% 50% : 50% 40% : 60%
Lecturer(s) W. Higgins A. van Rossum B. Kelly C. Hanlon R. Crowley
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)8 Nov: In class exam
(20%)
Week 8 (11 Nov) 15 Nov: Project (20%)
Week 9 (18 Nov)18th Nov CA Exam
(10%) *
Week 10 (25 Nov)29 Nov: Written Report
(18%)
Week 11 (2 Dec)2nd Dec CA Exam
(10%)
Week 12 (9 Dec)9/10/13 Dec:
Presentations* (12%)
Week 13 (16 Dec)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (40%)
Weekly lab practicals
and class presentations
after week 7/8 (40%)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (40%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Chiara Hanlon
B.Sc. (Hons) in Biopharmaceutical Science
Year 4 - Semester 1
Module
Research Design,
Statistics & Ethics
Biopharmaceutical
Processing (Upstream)
Biomolecular Therapeutics
& Bioinformatics
Biopharma Research
Project (Year-Long)
ACS = CA% : Exam% 100% CA 40% : 60% 50% : 50% 100% CA
Lecturer(s)
A. van Rossum, A. Watters,
K. McDaid R. Bree A. van Rossum
A. van Rossum
(co-ordinator)
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct) 14 Oct Journal review (0%)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)
Week 8 (11 Nov)17 Nov: Stats assignment
(25%)
14 Nov: Lit review
presentation (15%)*
Week 9 (18 Nov)
Week 10 (25 Nov)
Week 11 (2 Dec) 6 Dec: Plan of Work (15%)*
Week 12 (9 Dec)11 Dec: Research Proposal
(22.5%)
10 Dec: Bioinformatics
assignment*
(in-class: 15%)
Week 13 (16 Dec)
17 Dec:
Presentations* (22.5%) &
interviews* (18.75%) &
final journal (11.25%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory practical
sessions / video project
(40%)
-Weekly laboratory practicals
(25%) -
Weekly paper presentations*
(10%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum
B.Sc. (Hons) in Environmental Biology
Year 4 - Semester 1
Module
Research Design,
Statistics & Ethics Soil and Water Management Environmental Field Studies and GIS
Environmental
Review and Critque
Environmental
Research Project (Year-
Long)
ACS = CA% : Exam% 100% : 0% 40% : 60% 100% : 0% 70% : 30% 100% : 0%
Lecturer(s)
A. van Rossum, A.
Watters, K. McDaid S. Murnaghan E. Jennings (Field) S. Murnaghan (GIS) S. McCarthy E. Jennings
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)Field test (6%) Group presentation (15%) Field
notebook (15%)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)14 Oct Journal review
(0%)
Field project individual report Friday 18 1pm
(24%)
Week 6 (21 Oct)24/25 Oct Class presentations
(5%)22 Oct GIS mapping assignment 1 (10%)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)4 Nov Desk Study
(20%)
Week 8 (11 Nov)17 Nov: Stats assignment
(25%)Literature review (25%)
Week 9 (18 Nov)21st Nov Presentation
(10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov) 25 Nov GIS CA exam (16%) Plan of work (15%)
Week 11 (2 Dec) 3 Dec Lit review (5%)2nd Dec Presentation
(10%)
Week 12 (9 Dec)11 Dec Research
Proposal (22.5%)
Presentation 13th Dec
(10%)
Week 13 (16 Dec)
18 Dec:
Presentations* (22.5%) &
interviews* (18.75%) &
final journal (11.25%)
19 Dec GIS mapping assignment 2 (14%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory practicals
(30%)
Regular journal reports
(20%); attendance &
press coverage (10%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Eleanor Jennings
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of Science (Honours) Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Environmental Biology Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Honours Bachelor Degree Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee IT Dr. Colin Conway Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT School of Natural Sciences, NUI Galway
Mr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Caroline Gilleran Dr Siobhan Jordan Dr Valerie McCarthy Dr Eleanor Jennings Dr Arjan Van Rossum
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Environmental Biology The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Environmental Biology
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: While the low numbers of students who opt to take this programme would suggest an issue in relation to its viability, the Panel is strongly of the view that there is much potential to exploit this programme. There are excellent opportunities for graduates of this programme in industry.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Highlight the entrepreneurship and compliance themes on this programme as a means
of encouraging the best level 7 graduates to enter. Summer research projects and links with postgraduate research can also stimulate demand. The research contribution to this programme should be highlighted in this respect.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes. This programme has potential to lead to career opportunities in a variety of areas.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Visiting speakers can contribute to the programme and demonstrate the range of career
opportunities available to graduates.
Consider collaboration with ERASMUS and other international partners to develop the internationalisation theme in the programme.
Emphasise water re-cycling in the curriculum.
Consider developing this programme as an ab-initio level 8 programme.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided for the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes Condition: None. Recommendation: None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may be
greater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation: None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: There are 26 assessment components in the first semester.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Develop an assessment matrix for the programme and review number of assessment
components to avoid over assessment.
5.2 Other Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
_________________________________________________ Dr. Michael Hall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th May 2013
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9
Response to the Report of theProgramme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of Science (Honours)Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Environmental BiologyExit Awards: Not applicableAward Type: Honours Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 8ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60First Intake: September 2013
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee ITDr. Colin Conway
Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT
School of Natural Sciences, NUI GalwayMr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland
Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary toPanel
Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology(DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Caroline GilleranDr Siobhan Jordan Dr Valerie McCarthyDr Eleanor Jennings Dr Arjan Van Rossum
1 Introduction
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/9
The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panelof assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute ofTechnology to design the following programmes:
Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Environmental Biology
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaginggenerously and openly with the review process.
The report is divided into the following sections:
Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality oftheir submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day ofthe validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programmedevelopment team, the validation panel recommends the following:
Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Environmental Biology
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmaticreview, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations XRe-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additionaldevelopmental workNot Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takesaccount of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response documentdescribing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendationsmade by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used toindicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must beundertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory ifthe programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to whichthe Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an earlystage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
4 Programme-Level Findings
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/9
This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations:
Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidencebeen provided to support it?
Overall Finding: While the low numbers of students who opt to take thisprogramme would suggest an issue in relation to its viability, thePanel is strongly of the view that there is much potential toexploit this programme. There are excellent opportunities forgraduates of this programme in industry.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Highlight the entrepreneurship and compliance themes on this programme as a meansof encouraging the best level 7 graduates to enter. Summer research projects and linkswith postgraduate research can also stimulate demand. The research contribution tothis programme should be highlighted in this respect.
School Response:
Summer internships are offered each Summer by the Centre for Freshwater andEnvironmental Studies and most of the students carry out their final year research projectin this Research Centre.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/9
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy andare the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability andinternationalisation embedded in the proposed programme asappropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clearand appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition:
None.
Recommendation:
None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures foraccess, transfer and progression that have been established bythe NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entryrequirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.Recommendation(s):
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/9
None.
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required awardstandards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e.conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can befound at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can thestated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employmentskills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes. This programme has potential to lead to careeropportunities in a variety of areas.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Visiting speakers can contribute to the programme and demonstrate the range of careeropportunities available to graduates.
Consider collaboration with ERASMUS and other international partners to develop theinternationalisation theme in the programme.
Emphasise water re-cycling in the curriculum.
Consider developing this programme as an ab-initio level 8 programme.
School Response:
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/9
Visiting Speakers are invited on a regular basis to speak to the students.
Erasmus opportunities shall be further explored.
The School is currently developing this programme as an ab-initio level 8 programme hopingto offer it to 2014 CAO applicants.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been providedfor the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies beenprovided for the proposed programme (as outlined in theQQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards andshould form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programmevalidation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33).Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009)Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) :
Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability andauthenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system.
The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/9
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.10Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessaryto deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may begreater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
School Response:
There is some shared delivery with other Level 8 add-on Programmes but due to thespecialist nature of the Programme no further commonality is feasible.
4.11Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’squality assurance procedures have been applied and thatsatisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring andperiodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic QualityAssurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic reviewof Programmes.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/9
None.
4.12Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included inthe proposed programme?
Overall Finding: There are 26 assessment components in the first semester.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Develop an assessment matrix for the programme and review number of assessmentcomponents to avoid over assessment.
School Response:
An assessment matrix is currently used and reviewed by the Programme Board eachsemester. A copy of the CA Schedule from the current semester is included as an example inAppendix 1.
5.2 Other Findings
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/9
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________Dr. Edel Healy,Head of School of Health and Science.
Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panelreport have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council atDundalk Institute of Technology for ratification.
B.Sc. (Hons) in Environmental Biology
Year 4 - Semester 1
Module
Research Design,
Statistics & Ethics
Soil and Water
Management
Environmental Field
Studies and GIS
Environmental
Review and Critque
Environmental Research
Project (Year-Long)
ACS = CA% : Exam% 100% : 0% 40% : 60% 100% : 0% 70% : 30% 100% : 0%
Lecturer(s)
A. van Rossum, A.
Watters, K. McDaid S. Murnaghan
E. Jennings (Field) S.
Murnaghan (GIS) S. McCarthy E. Jennings
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)Field test (6%) Group
presentation (15%) Field
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)14 Oct Journal review
(0%)
Field project individual
report Friday 18 1pm
Week 6 (21 Oct)24/25 Oct Class
presentations (5%)
22 Oct GIS mapping
assignment 1 (10%)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)4 Nov Desk Study
(20%)
Week 8 (11 Nov)17 Nov: Stats
assignment (25%)Literature review (25%)
Week 9 (18 Nov)21st Nov Presentation
(10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov)25 Nov GIS CA exam
(16%)Plan of work (15%)
Week 11 (2 Dec) 3 Dec Lit review (5%)2nd Dec Presentation
(10%)
Week 12 (9 Dec)11 Dec Research
Proposal (22.5%)Presentation 13th Dec (10%)
Week 13 (16 Dec)18 Dec:
Presentations (22.5%)
19 Dec GIS mapping
assignment 2 (14%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (30%)
Regular journal reports
(20%); attendance &
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
Programme Director: Eleanor Jennings
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of Science (Honours)
Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Sustainable Agriculture Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Honours Bachelor Degree
Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013 (20 - 35 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Dr Siobhan Jordan Ms Aoife Watters Dr Breda Brennan Mr Felix McCabe Mr William Byrne Mr Richard Crowley Dr Caroline Gilleran Mr James Neon (?) Dr Chiara McDonagh Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr John Doherty Ms Tara Fitzsimmons Mr Joe McKeever Mr Gerry Dunne Mr Eamon Mullen Mr Oliver Tierney
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Sustainable Agriculture
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Sustainable Agriculture
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, but existing resources are insufficient to meet demand. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Explore all possible avenues to increase resources for this programme, including
possible international initiatives and co-operation with industry.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9
Recommendation(s): None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): See section 4.1. above.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
___________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th June 2013.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9
Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of Science (Honours)
Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Sustainable Agriculture Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Honours Bachelor Degree
Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013 (20 - 35 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Dr Siobhan Jordan Ms Aoife Watters Dr Breda Brennan Mr Felix McCabe Mr William Byrne Mr Richard Crowley Dr Caroline Gilleran Mr James Neon (?) Dr Chiara McDonagh Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr John Doherty Ms Tara Fitzsimmons Mr Joe McKeever Mr Gerry Dunne Mr Eamon Mullen Mr Oliver Tierney
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Sustainable Agriculture
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Sustainable Agriculture
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, but existing resources are insufficient to meet demand. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Explore all possible avenues to increase resources for this programme, including
possible international initiatives and co-operation with industry.
School Response: The School together with its partners in Ballyhaise Agricultural College shall explore all possible mechanisms to increase resources for this Programme.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/9
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/9
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/9
Recommendation(s): None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/9
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): See 4.1. above.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/9
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/9
School Response: There are some international students now registered in the Programme. Their progress
shall be reviewed over the course of the current academic year to ascertain the suitability
of the Programme for the International Market. The School shall discuss the demand for
these Programmes with the DkIT International Office. The School is currently actively
promoting part time programmes in the Agri-Food area with Industry. Through this
activity and also the School Industry Advisory Forum it is hope to develop closer links with
relevant Industry Partners which may lead to the exploration of the Initiatives
recommended above.
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________ Dr. Edel Healy, Head of School of Health and Science. Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panel report have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at Dundalk Institute of Technology for ratification. Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel
___________________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chair. Date:
16th December 2013.
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Diploma in Agri-Food Business Excellence Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Supplemental NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013 (30 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Mr Eamon Mullen Dr Breda Brennan Mr Joe McKeever Dr Niamh Dreeling Mr Tony Lennon Dr Caroline Gilleran Mr Richard Crowley Dr Siobhan Jordan
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Diploma in Agri-Food Business Excellence
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
This is an amendment of an existing programme. See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Diploma in Agri-Food Business Excellence
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, but intake has been poorer than anticipated. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): This is an exciting course which requires innovative marketing strategies to maximise
student intake. Different cohorts of potential candidates and corresponding recruitment strategies are required in this context, e.g targeting the unemployed cohort and those currently or recently in employment in the food sector and seeking up-skilling. Also people made redundant in other industries who want to transfer into this sector.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation: None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9
Recommendation(s): Maximise campus resources for marketing and recruitment using mutli-disciplinary
teams.
Bring industry partners in to participate in programme design and evaluation.
Allow students to make use of other learning opportunities in Insititute, eg. Blended learning.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation: None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Strengthen course content on market commercialisation of ideas, e.g IP, Marketing.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): More marks required for innovation section of agricultural entrepreneurship
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
__________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th June 2013
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/10
Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Diploma in Agri-Food Business Excellence Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Supplemental NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013 (30 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Edel Healy Mr Eamon Mullen Dr Breda Brennan Mr Joe McKeever Dr Niamh Dreeling Mr Tony Lennon Dr Caroline Gilleran Mr Richard Crowley Dr Siobhan Jordan
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/10
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Diploma in Agri-Food Business Excellence
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
This is an amendment of an existing programme. See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Diploma in Agri-Food Business Excellence
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/10
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, but intake has been poorer than anticipated. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): This is an exciting course which requires innovative marketing strategies to maximise
student intake. Different cohorts of potential candidates and corresponding recruitment strategies are required in this context, e.g targeting the unemployed cohort and those currently or recently in employment in the food sector and seeking up-skilling. Also people made redundant in other industries who want to transfer into this sector.
School Response: The School has assigned resources for marketing of this Programme in the current academic year including increased use of social media for this purpose. A particular focus has been on establishing contact with relevant Industries in the Region.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/10
Recommendation(s): None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/10
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/10
Recommendation(s): None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/10
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Maximise campus resources for marketing and recruitment using mutli-disciplinary
teams.
Bring industry partners in to participate in programme design and evaluation.
Allow students to make use of other learning opportunities in Institute, e.g. Blended learning.
School Response: The School has assigned resources for marketing of this Programme in the current academic year. A particular focus has been on establishing contact with relevant Industries in the Region. The School Industry Advisory Forum shall be expanded to include representation from an increased number of companies in this field so that their input to programme design can be sought. The School is currently developing its blended learning implementation plan which includes provision of training to relevant staff in these modes of delivery.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/10
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation: None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Strengthen course content on market commercialisation of ideas (e.g. IP, Marketing).
School Response: The team shall review how this could be included in relevant modules. Consideration shall also be given to organising guest lectures from the Technology Transfer Office in DkIT.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): More marks required for innovation section of agricultural entrepreneurship
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/10
School Response: The module leader shall consider this recommendation.
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
School Response: There are some international students now registered on the full time undergraduate
agriculture programmes. Their progress shall be reviewed over the course of the current
academic year to ascertain the suitability of the programme for the International Market.
The School shall discuss the demand for these Programmes with the DkIT International
Office. The School is currently actively promoting part time programmes in the Agri-Food
area with Industry. Through this activity and also the School Industry Advisory Forum it is
hoped to develop closer links with relevant Industry Partners which may lead to the
exploration of the Initiatives recommended above.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 10/10
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________ Dr. Edel Healy, Head of School of Health and Science. Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panel report have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at Dundalk Institute of Technology for ratification. Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel
___________________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chair. Date:
16th December 2013.
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/8
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Diploma in Biopharmaceutical Processing Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Supplemental NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013 (15)
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee IT Dr. Colin Conway Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT School of Natural Sciences, NUI Galway
Mr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Ronan Bree Dr Arjan Van Rossum Mr Richard Crowley Dr Anna-Marie Rogers
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/8
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Diploma in Biopharmaceutical Processing The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Diploma in Biopharmaceutical Processing
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/8
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Demand for the programme can be enhanced if delivery is scheduled to suit local
industry. Consideration should be given to on-line delivery.
Network more regularly with employers and graduates to determine the appropriateness of modular content while ensuring the interaction is specific to this programme.
Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may be
greater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/8
Recommendation(s): None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/8
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/8
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/8
Recommendation(s): Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may be
greater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5 Module-Level Findings
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/8
Condition(s): None
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Modules: Other Findings Condition(s): Employers should not grade the Student Diary (Work Placement)
Recommendation(s):
Ensure the work undertaken on placement delivers to level 8 learning outcomes. At
level 8, this should include a supervisory capacity, e.g learners might study an aspect of the company and develop a business plan arising from their research.
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
_________________________________________ Dr. Michael Hall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th May 2013.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9
Response to the Report of the
Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Not applicableProgramme Title(s): Diploma in Biopharmaceutical ProcessingExit Awards: Not applicableAward Type: Not applicableAward Class: SupplementalNFQ Level: 8ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60First Intake: September 2013 (15)
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee ITDr. Colin Conway
Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT
School of Natural Sciences, NUI GalwayMr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland
Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary toPanel
Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology(DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel HealyDr Ronan Bree Dr Arjan Van RossumMr Richard Crowley Dr Anna-Marie Rogers
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/9
1 Introduction
The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panelof assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute ofTechnology to design the following programmes:
Diploma in Biopharmaceutical Processing
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaginggenerously and openly with the review process.
The report is divided into the following sections:
Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality oftheir submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day ofthe validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programmedevelopment team, the validation panel recommends the following:
Diploma in Biopharmaceutical Processing
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmaticreview, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations XRe-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additionaldevelopmental workNot Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takesaccount of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response documentdescribing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendationsmade by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used toindicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must beundertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory ifthe programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to whichthe Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an earlystage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings
This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations:
Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidencebeen provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Demand for the programme can be enhanced if delivery is scheduled to suit localindustry. Consideration should be given to on-line delivery.
Network more regularly with employers and graduates to determine theappropriateness of modular content while ensuring the interaction is specific to thisprogramme.
Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may begreater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
School Response:
The School is currently developing a blended learning implementation strategy whichincludes provision of training for staff in same. Consideration will then be given to offeringthis programme in online mode. The School shall be increasing the membership of itsIndustry Advisory Forum this academic year and hopes to use this forum to get networkfurther with Industry and gain their feedback on module content. An increased use of socialmedia such as LinkedIn shall be used to maintain contact with graduates.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/9
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy andare the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability andinternationalisation embedded in the proposed programme asappropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clearand appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/9
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures foraccess, transfer and progression that have been established bythe NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entryrequirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required awardstandards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e.conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can befound at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can thestated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employmentskills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/9
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been providedfor the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies beenprovided for the proposed programme (as outlined in theQQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards andshould form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programmevalidation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33).Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009)Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) :
Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability andauthenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system.
The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/9
4.10Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessaryto deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may begreater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
School Response:
The team queries if this recommendation is applicable to this Programme as it is a part-time programme.
4.11Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’squality assurance procedures have been applied and thatsatisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring andperiodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic QualityAssurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic reviewof Programmes.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.12Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/9
Recommendation(s):
None.
5 Module-Level Findings
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included inthe proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None
Recommendation(s):
None.
5.2 Modules: Other Findings
Condition(s):
Employers should not grade the Student Diary (Work Placement)
School Response:
The employer does not grade the Student Diary. This is marked by the AcademicSupervisor. The employer does however mark a student work placement report. See themodule descriptor in Appendix 1.
Recommendation(s):
Ensure the work undertaken on placement delivers to level 8 learning outcomes. Atlevel 8, this should include a supervisory capacity, e.g learners might study an aspect ofthe company and develop a business plan arising from their research.
School Response:
This recommendation shall be brought to the attention of the work place co-ordinator andthe academic workplace supervisor.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/9
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________Dr. Edel Healy,Head of School of Health and Science.
Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panelreport have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council atDundalk Institute of Technology for ratification.
moduleIndustry Work Placement
Page 1 of 4
Industry Work Placement
Module Details
Short Title: Industry Work Placement PENDING APPROVAL
Full Title: Industry Work Placement
Module Code: n/a
ECTS Credits: 30
NFQ Level: 8
Valid From: Semester 1 - 2013/14 ( September 2013 )
Module Coordinator: Breda Brennan
Module Author: Breda Brennan
Description: The aims of this module are to provide students with experience in a relevant industrial or businessenvironment and to give them the opportunity to apply, develop and integrate the skills and knowledgeacquired during their academic programme.
Learning Outcomes:
On successful completion of this module the learner should be able to
Describe and outline the nature and organisational structure of the work environment and of the demands that such an1.environment makes on an employee.Identify the communication and personal skills necessary to work within such an environment.2.Participate fully as a member of a team in a manufacturing or business environment3.Apply knowledge and skills from their programme of study to the work environment.4.Appreciate the importance of good manufacturing practices and quality management systems in the manufacturing5.environment.Apply the manufacturing and/or business protocols and the regulatory obligations of their employer6.Accept responsibility for their own work, exercise independent technical or business judgement and behave ethically in a7.work environment
moduleIndustry Work Placement
Page 2 of 4
Industry Work Placement
Module Content & Assessment
Indicative Content
Organisation and Management of PlacementA placement co-ordinator will be responsible for assisting students in acquiring suitable work placements. They will also provide supporton interview skills and the production of high-quality CVs in a standardised format. Students must attend a minimum of 70% of sessionswith the work placement co-ordinator. Students who do not avail of work placement opportunities provided by the co-ordinator are notguaranteed a placement. Students will be visited by an academic supervisor on at least one occasion during their placement.
Learning EnvironmentWhile it is evident that the work placements for individual students will differ significantly from each other, it is expected that eachplacement will:· Give the student an understanding of the basic science and/or business methodologies involved in the processes and of the proceduresapplied;· Give the student a range of experience of the manufacturing sector, rather than focus entirely on a single task or process;· Inform the student of the relevant safety issues associated with the workplace and, if relevant, to the end-consumer;· Inform the student of the relevant GMP, regulatory issues and quality protocols associated with the workplace;· Give the student a working knowledge of the business or issues associated with the area of work.It is expected that the placement will be primarily in the scientific (including production) or business aspects of the organization, whicheveris of most relevance to the programme.
Assessment Breakdown %
Course Work 100.00%
Course Work
Type Description Outcomeaddressed
% oftotal
AssessmentDate
ReflectiveJournal
The student must keep a work placement journal/diary, which issubmitted to the placement co-ordinator at the end of the placement. Thediary must contain information regarding the position held, nature ofduties and responsibilities and experience gained from the placement,with due consideration to issues of employer confidentiality. The studentmust also submit a report (2000-3000 words) in which they should reflecton the value of the placement in the context of their personal andprofessional development. Templates for the diary and report arecontained in the Department Work Placement Manual. This work isexamined by the Academic Supervisor.
1,2,4,5,7 60.00 End of Year
PerformanceEvaluation
The employer must provide a work supervisor’s report to the placementco-ordinator at the end of the placement period, demonstrating that thestudent has satisfactorily completed a work placement of at least 12weeks. In addition to a one-page report, the work supervisor is asked torate the student’s performance under the following headings (4 excellent,3 good, 2 fair, 1 poor): Attendance; Technical skills; Punctuality; Initiative;Co-operation with employer; Level of interest; Co-operation with co-workers; Compliance with health and safety standards; Communicationskills; Overall quality of work.
3,4,6,7 40.00 End of Year
No End of Module Formal Examination
moduleIndustry Work Placement
Page 3 of 4
Reassessment Requirement
ReattendanceThe assessment of this module is inextricably linked to the delivery. Therefore reassessment on this module will require the student toreattend (i.e. retake) the module in its entirety.
DescriptionStudents must pass both the work supervisor's evaluation and the reflective report/journal. Students who fail the employer's evaluationmust re-sit this module in it's entirety in a different host organisation. Students who fail the reflective report/journal will be given anopportunity to re-submit these documents for the following examination sitting.
DKIT reserves the right to alter the nature and timings of assessment
moduleIndustry Work Placement
Page 4 of 4
Industry Work Placement
Module Workload & Resources
Workload Full Time
Type Description Hours Frequency Average WeeklyLearner Workload
Practical Minimum duration of Work Placement 420.00 Once per semester 28.00
Total Weekly Learner Workload 28.00
Total Weekly Contact Hours 28.00
This course has no Part Time workload.
Resources
Other Resources
n/a: DkITIndustry Work Placement Manual
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Food Supply Chain Management Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Special Purpose Award NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013 (30 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Mr Eamon Mullen Dr Breda Brennan Mr Joe McKeever Dr Niamh Dreeling Mr Tony Lennon Dr Caroline Gilleran Mr Richard Crowley Dr Siobhan Jordan
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in Food Supply Chain Management
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident. This is an exciting programme.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in Food Supply Chain Management
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, however intake has been lower than anticipated. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Consider innovative strategies to improve intake.
Identify different potential markets for this programme and develop corresponding
recruitment strategies.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation: None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
_______________________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th June 2013.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9
Response to the Report of the
Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Food Supply Chain Management Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Special Purpose Award NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013 (30 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Mr Eamon Mullen Dr Breda Brennan Mr Joe McKeever Dr Niamh Dreeling Mr Tony Lennon Dr Caroline Gilleran Mr Richard Crowley Dr Siobhan Jordan
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in Food Supply Chain Management
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident. This is an exciting programme.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in Food Supply Chain Management
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, however intake has been lower than anticipated. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Consider innovative strategies to improve intake.
Identify different potential markets for this programme and develop corresponding
recruitment strategies.
School Response: The School has assigned resources for marketing of this Programme in the current academic year. A particular focus has been on establishing contact with relevant Industries in the Region and the increased use of social media. The intake to the Springboard Programme was good for the current academic year 2013/2014.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/9
Recommendation(s): None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/9
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/9
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/9
Recommendation(s): None.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation: None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/9
Recommendation(s): None.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/9
School Response: There are some international students now registered on the full time undergraduate
Agriculture Programmes. Their progress shall be reviewed over the course of the current
academic year to ascertain the suitability of the programme for the International Market.
The School shall discuss the demand for these Programmes with the DkIT International
Office. The School is currently actively promoting part time programmes in the Agri-Food
area with Industry. Through this activity and also the School Industry Advisory Forum it is
hoped to develop closer links with relevant Industry Partners which may lead to the
exploration of the Initiatives recommended above.
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________ Dr. Edel Healy, Head of School of Health and Science. Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panel report have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at Dundalk Institute of Technology for ratification. Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel
_______________________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chair. Date:
16th December 2013.
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Diploma in Food Supply Chain Management Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Special-Purpose NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013 (15 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Dr Caroline Gilleran Dr Breda Brennan Mr Tony Lennon Dr Niamh Dreeling Mr Joe McKeever Dr Siobhan Jordan Mr Richard Crowley Mr Eamonn Mullen
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Diploma in Food Supply Chain Management
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
This is an amendment of an existing programme. See programme submission for more detailed information
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Diploma in Food Supply Chain Management
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, but intake has been lower than anticipated. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Consider innovative strategies to improve intake.
Identify different potential markets for this programme and develop corresponding
recruitment strategies.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation: None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
__________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th June 2013
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9
Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Diploma in Food Supply Chain Management Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Special-Purpose NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013 (15 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Dr Caroline Gilleran Dr Breda Brennan Mr Tony Lennon Dr Niamh Dreeling Mr Joe McKeever Dr Siobhan Jordan Mr Richard Crowley Mr Eamonn Mullen
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Diploma in Food Supply Chain Management
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
This is an amendment of an existing programme. See programme submission for more detailed information
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Diploma in Food Supply Chain Management
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/9
and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, but intake has been lower than anticipated. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Consider innovative strategies to improve intake.
Identify different potential markets for this programme and develop corresponding
recruitment strategies.
School Response: The School has assigned resources for marketing of this Programme in the current academic year. A particular focus has been on establishing contact with relevant Industries in the Region and the increased use of social media. The intake to the Springboard Programme was good for the current academic year 2013/2014.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/9
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/9
Recommendation(s): None.
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/9
Recommendation(s): None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/9
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/9
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/9
School Response: There are some international students now registered on the full time undergraduate
Agriculture Programmes. Their progress shall be reviewed over the course of the current
academic year to ascertain the suitability of the these Programmes for the International
Market. The School shall discuss the demand for these Programmes with the DkIT
International Office. The School is currently actively promoting part time programmes in
the Agri-Food area with Industry. Through this activity and also the School Industry
Advisory Forum it is hoped to develop closer links with relevant Industry Partners which
may lead to the exploration of the Initiatives recommended above.
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________ Dr. Edel Healy, Head of School of Health and Science. Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panel report have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at Dundalk Institute of Technology for ratification. Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel
__________________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chair. Date:
16th December 2013.
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Agri-Food Business Excellence Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Supplemental NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013 (30 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Mr Eamon Mullen Dr Breda Brennan Mr Joe McKeever Dr Niamh Dreeling Mr Tony Lennon Dr Caroline Gilleran Mr Richard Crowley Dr Siobhan Jordan
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in Agri-Food Business Excellence
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
This is an amendment of an existing programme. See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in Agri-Food Business Excellence
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, but intake has been poorer than anticipated. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): This is an exciting course which requires innovative marketing strategies to maximise
student intake. Different cohorts of potential candidates and corresponding recruitment strategies are required in this context, e.g targeting the unemployed cohort and those currently or recently in employment in the food sector and seeking up-skilling. Also people made redundant in other industries who want to transfer into this sector.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9
Recommendation(s): Maximise campus resources for marketing and recruitment using mutli-disciplinary
teams.
Bring industry partners in to participate in programme design and evaluation.
Allow students to make use of other learning opportunities in Institute, e.g. blended learning.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation: None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Strengthen course content on market commercialisation of ideas, e.g IP, Marketing.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): More marks required for innovation section of agricultural entrepreneurship
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
_______________________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th June 2013
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/10
Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Agri-Food Business Excellence Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Supplemental NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 30 First Intake: September 2013 (30 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Mr Eamon Mullen Dr Breda Brennan Mr Joe McKeever Dr Niamh Dreeling Mr Tony Lennon Dr Caroline Gilleran Mr Richard Crowley Dr Siobhan Jordan
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/10
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in Agri-Food Business Excellence
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
This is an amendment of an existing programme. See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in Agri-Food Business Excellence
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/10
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, but intake has been poorer than anticipated. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): This is an exciting course which requires innovative marketing strategies to maximise
student intake. Different cohorts of potential candidates and corresponding recruitment strategies are required in this context, e.g targeting the unemployed cohort and those currently or recently in employment in the food sector and seeking up-skilling. Also people made redundant in other industries who want to transfer into this sector.
School Response: The School has assigned resources for marketing of this Programme in the current academic year including increased use of social media for this purpose. A particular focus has been on establishing contact with relevant Industries in the Region.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/10
Recommendation(s): None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/10
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/10
Recommendation(s): None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/10
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Maximise campus resources for marketing and recruitment using mutli-disciplinary
teams.
Bring industry partners in to participate in programme design and evaluation.
Allow students to make use of other learning opportunities in Institute, e.g. blended learning.
School Response: The School has assigned resources for marketing of this Programme in the current academic year. A particular focus has been on establishing contact with relevant Industries in the Region. The School Industry Advisory Forum shall be expanded to include representation from an increased number of companies in this field so that their input to programme design can be sought. The School is currently developing its blended learning implementation plan which includes provision of training to relevant staff in these modes of delivery.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/10
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation: None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Strengthen course content on market commercialisation of ideas, e.g. IP, Marketing.
School Response: The team shall review how this could be included in relevant modules. Consideration shall also be given to organising guest lectures from the Technology Transfer Office in DkIT.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): More marks required for innovation section of agricultural entrepreneurship. School Response: The module leader shall consider this recommendation.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/10
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
School Response: There are some international students now registered on the full time undergraduate Agriculture Programmes. Their progress shall be reviewed over the course of the current academic year to ascertain the suitability of the Programme for the International Market. The School shall discuss the demand for these Programmes with the DkIT International Office. The School is currently actively promoting part time programmes in the Agri-Food area with Industry. Through this activity and also the School Industry Advisory Forum it is hoped to develop closer links with relevant Industry Partners which may lead to the exploration of the Initiatives recommended above.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 10/10
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________ Dr. Edel Healy, Head of School of Health and Science. Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panel report have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at Dundalk Institute of Technology for ratification. Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel
____________________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chair. Date:
16th December 2013.
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in Agri-Waste Management Exit Awards: Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Minor NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 27.5 First Intake: September 2013 (16 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Dr Caroline Gilleran Dr Breda Brennan Mr Tony Lennon Dr Niamh Dreeling Mr Joe McKeever Dr Siobhan Jordan Mr Richard Crowley Mr Eamonn Mullen
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in Agri-Waste Management
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
This is an amendment of an existing programme. See programme submission for more detailed information
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in Agri-Waste Management
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, but take up has been low. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Develop better recruitment strategies to increase intake. Consider a change of title to re-brand the programme.
A new title should however give a good indication of what the course entails. A suggestion might be to replace the word 'waste' with the word 'resource'.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): Increase credits for programme to avoid half credits Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Consider more innovation in recruitment strategies.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation: None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9
Recommendation(s): None.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation: None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s):
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9
In terms of content, cover use of industrial and municipal waste products in agriculture,
e.g. bio solids from sewage treatment, or human food waste for incorporation in animal feed.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
_______________________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th June 2013.
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of Science
Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science in Agriculture Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Bachelor of Science
Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013 (40 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Dr Siobhan Jordan Ms Aoife Watters Dr Breda Brennan Mr Felix McCabe Mr William Byrne Mr Richard Crowley Dr Caroline Gilleran Mr James Neon (?) Dr Chiara McDonagh Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr John Doherty Ms Tara Fitzsimmons Mr Joe McKeever Mr Gerry Dunne Mr Eamon Mullen Mr Oliver Tierney
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Science in Agriculture
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
This is an amendment of an existing programme. See programme submission for more detailed information
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science in Agriculture
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, but existing resources are insufficient to meet demand. Condition(s): None
Recommendation(s): Explore all possible avenues to increase resources for this programme, including
possible international initiatives and co-operation with industry.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None Recommendation(s): None
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9
internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): See 4.1. above.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
__________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th June 2013.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9
Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th June 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of Science
Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science in Agriculture Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Bachelor of Science
Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2013 (40 students)
Panel Members
Professor Patrick Wall Chair University College Dublin (UCD) Dr. Tony Woodcock Academic Course Director in Agricultural Science,
Waterford Institute of Technology Dr. Patrick Murphy Industry Teagasc Ms. Tara Westby Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology (Sligo IT) Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Dr Siobhan Jordan Ms Aoife Watters Dr Breda Brennan Mr Felix McCabe Mr William Byrne Mr Richard Crowley Dr Caroline Gilleran Mr James Neon (?) Dr Chiara McDonagh Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr John Doherty Ms Tara Fitzsimmons Mr Joe McKeever Mr Gerry Dunne Mr Eamon Mullen Mr Oliver Tierney
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Science in Agriculture
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
This is an amendment of an existing programme. See programme submission for more detailed information
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel and a high level of team work was evident.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science in Agriculture
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, but existing resources are insufficient to meet demand. Condition(s): None
Recommendation(s): Explore all possible avenues to increase resources for this programme, including
possible international initiatives and co-operation with industry. School Response: The School together with its partners in Ballyhaise Agricultural College shall explore all possible mechanisms to increase resources for this Programme.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/9
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/9
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/9
Recommendation(s): None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/9
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): See section 4.1. above.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/9
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Other Findings
In the light of the Governments Harvest 2020 report, which highlights agriculture as a indigenous industry that could make a significant contribution to the economic recovery, investment in the education of young people to work in the sector is crucial.
The unique relationship between Dundalk Institute of Technology and Teagasc Ballyhaise is unique and is a point of differentiation between Agriculture courses here and elsewhere and is being undersold. The suggestion that the staff restrictions that are limiting expansion might be addressed through joint appointments needs to be explored. As is the idea that some of the major agri-food industries in the North East such as Lakelands, Glanbia Virginia, Town of Monaghan, Abbotts Cootehill etc. might be approached to fund posts or to act as advocates to get the recruitment restrictions relaxed.
The idea of expanding the agriculture courses to take in students from the emerging
markets in Asia for Irish produce is worthy of exploration as these graduates could end up as: 1) ambassadors for Ireland and Irish products when they return home, 2) working for Irish companies to help them develop business in their home countries or 3) working in the regulatory authorities of their home countries where they could facilitate trade with Ireland.
The educational experience on the campus could be enhanced if students had the
opportunity to take modules from other courses (timetabling permitting).
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/9
School Response: There are some international students now registered in the Programme. Their progress
shall be reviewed over the course of the current academic year to ascertain the suitability
of the Programme for the International Market. The School shall discuss the demand for
these Programmes with the DkIT International Office. The School is currently actively
promoting part time programmes in the Agri-Food area with Industry. Through this
activity and also the School Industry Advisory Forum it is hope to develop closer links with
relevant Industry Partners which may lead to the exploration of the Initiatives
recommended above.
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________ Dr. Edel Healy, Head of School of Health and Science. Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panel report have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at Dundalk Institute of Technology for ratification. Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel
_______________________________________________________ Professor Patrick Wall, Chair. Date:
16th December 2013.
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of Science Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science in Applied Bioscience Exit Award(s): Higher Certificate in Science (Level 6; 120 credits) Award Type: Ordinary Bachelor Degree Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180 First Intake: September 2013 (40)
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee IT Dr. Colin Conway Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT School of Natural Sciences, NUI Galway
Mr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Ronan Bree Dr Sinead Loughran Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr Valerie McCarthy Dr Brid Maloney Mr Seamus Bellew Ms Ann-Marie McHugh Dr Niamh Dreeling Mr Richard Crowley Dr John Dallat Dr Siobhan Jordan Dr Caroline Gilleran Dr Chiara McDonagh Mr Tony Lennon Dr Orla Sherlock Mr John Walters Ms. Noelle Cunning Dr Eleanor Jennings Dr Letizia Cocchiglia Dr Annemarie Rogers
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Science in Applied Biosciences Higher Certificate in Science The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science in Applied Biosciences
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Higher Certificate in Science (Exit Award)
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9
Note:
Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for the higher certificate as appropriate.
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes. However the panel notes that the employer’s survey is not linked to any one programme and can only be interpreted in general terms. There is a demand from school leavers for the programme.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Review methodology of employer survey.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Under the strategic theme of sustainability, the sustainability of the programme should
be taken in to account in terms of student numbers and resource requirements.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Progression is based on elective choice and a 50% requirement to progress to level 8 is appropriate. The new electives will determine eligibility for the programme to which the student progresses. This is aimed at improving numbers in the Environmental Biology programme.
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): Career information should be provided in a timely manner to students to inform their
choices, i.e., towards the end of the second year.
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: The programme structure is appropriate and is supported by student, employer and programme board feedback. The level of
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9
interaction between staff is to be commended in this respect. The Panel notes that there is no work placement or laboratory based project on the programme.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Monitor the impact of the programme as it progresses in the absence of work placement or
laboratory based projects.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: The teaching and learning strategies are appropriate. The Panel
commends the PBL approach and the willingness to apply this further where appropriate. In addition, the graduate grading approach addresses the improvement in learning and report writing skills.
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes.
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies;
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9
Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules, including recognition of prior learning;
Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): An assessment matrix should be provided in the document to monitor the number of
assessments required.
Recommendation(s): The team should collectively review the number of independent assessment
components.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: The Panel is of the view that practical programmes are designed in line with the facilities available. This constrains development of the programme.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): There should be strategic purchase plan in place to update facilities and equipment on a
rolling basis.
All possible arrangements should be put in place to ensure students have appropriate access to laboratory practical equipment.
Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may be
greater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9
satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: There are mechanisms for employer student and faculty feedback which are satisfactory. The first year convenors contribute positively to the first year experience and establish practice for students going forward.
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Benchmark student feedback mechanisms against other institutions.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: The programme management structure is very solid.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: The module assessment strategies are appropriate, but there may be an excessive number of independent assessment components.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): See above. Ensure that both formative and summative assessment components are
incorporated.
External examiners should view the CA matrix, assessment strategies, major assignment instructions and marking schemes.
5.2 Other Findings
Condition(s): The academic skills module should be renamed to better reflect its strategic
importance.
Recommendation(s):
The Panel encourages the development of an ab-initio level 8 programme in this space.
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
_____________________________________________ Dr. Michael Hall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th May 2013
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/11
Response to the Report of theProgramme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of ScienceProgramme Title(s): Bachelor of Science in Applied BioscienceExit Award(s): Higher Certificate in ScienceAward Type: Ordinary Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 7
6ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180, 120First Intake: September 2013 (40)
Named Award: Bachelor of ScienceProgramme Title(s): Bachelor of Science in Applied BioscienceExit Awards: Higher Certificate in Science (Exit Award)Award Type: Bachelor of ScienceAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 7
6ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180
120First Intake: September 2013 (40)
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee ITDr. Colin Conway
Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT
School of Natural Sciences, NUI GalwayMr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland
Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary toPanel
Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology(DkIT)
Programme Development Team
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/11
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Ronan BreeDr Sinead Loughran Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr Valerie McCarthyDr Brid Maloney Mr Seamus Bellew Ms Ann-Marie McHughDr Niamh Dreeling Mr Richard Crowley Dr John DallatDr Siobhan Jordan Dr Caroline Gilleran Dr Chiara McDonaghMr Tony Lennon Dr Orla Sherlock Mr John WaltersMs Noelle Cunning Dr Eleanor Jennings Dr Letizia CocchigliaDr Annemarie Rogers
1 Introduction
The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panelof assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute ofTechnology to design the following programmes:
Bachelor of Science in Applied Biosciences Higher Certificate in Science
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaginggenerously and openly with the review process.
The report is divided into the following sections:
Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality oftheir submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day ofthe validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programmedevelopment team, the validation panel recommends the following:
Bachelor of Science in Applied Biosciences
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmaticreview, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations XRe-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additionaldevelopmental workNot Accredited
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/11
Higher Certificate in Science (Exit Award)
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmaticreview, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations XRe-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additionaldevelopmental workNot Accredited
Note:
Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for thehigher certificate as appropriate.
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takesaccount of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response documentdescribing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendationsmade by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used toindicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must beundertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory ifthe programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to whichthe Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an earlystage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
4 Programme-Level Findings
This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations:
Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidencebeen provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes. However the panel notes that the employer’s survey is notlinked to any one programme and can only be interpreted ingeneral terms. There is a demand from school leavers for theprogramme.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/11
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Review methodology of employer survey.
School Response:
This recommendation was discussed by the Programme Board (9th October 2013 and thefollowing agreed:
The employer survey could be improved in the future by using both ‘general’ andcourse specific questions.
Linked-In (Applied Sciences Department page) is used as a way to connect with currentstudents and this should prove beneficial for distributing employer surveys in thefuture.
A yearly survey may be a way to improve responses (and track student employment).
Further collaboration with the Departmental Industry Advisory Forum should alsoimprove employer response levels.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy andare the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability andinternationalisation embedded in the proposed programme asappropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/11
Recommendation(s):
Under the strategic theme of sustainability, the sustainability of the programme shouldbe taken in to account in terms of student numbers and resource requirements.
School Response:
This recommendation was discussed by the Programme Board (9th October 2013 and theBoard were unsure as to the issue being raised here by the panel.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clearand appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures foraccess, transfer and progression that have been established bythe NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entryrequirements?
Overall Finding: Progression is based on elective choice and a 50% requirement toprogress to level 8 is appropriate. The new electives willdetermine eligibility for the programme to which the studentprogresses. This is aimed at improving numbers in theEnvironmental Biology programme.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Career information should be provided in a timely manner to students to inform theirchoices, i.e. towards the end of the second year.
School Response:
This recommendation was discussed by the Programme Board (9th October 2013). Theintention is to inform students of the possible electives towards the end of Stage 2.Information sessions will be held during timetabled lectures to ensure (and improve)
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/11
attendance of students at these information sessions to ensure they are adequatelyinformed to make their choices.
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required awardstandards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e.conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? YesFor exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can befound at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can thestated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employmentskills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: The programme structure is appropriate and is supported bystudent, employer and programme board feedback. The level ofinteraction between staff is to be commended in this respect. ThePanel notes that there is no work placement or laboratory basedproject on the programme.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Monitor the impact of the programme as it progresses in the absence of workplacement or laboratory based projects.
School Response:
This recommendation was discussed by the Programme Board (9th October 2013). TheseB.Sc. programmes have been completed without laboratory based ‘Project’ module for the
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/11
last few years. The possibility of providing an accredited ‘summer placement’ opportunityfor some students could be explored further. This would provide the students withadditional credits over and above their award.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been providedfor the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: The teaching and learning strategies are appropriate. The Panelcommends the PBL approach and the willingness to apply thisfurther where appropriate. In addition, the graduate gradingapproach addresses the improvement in learning and reportwriting skills.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies beenprovided for the proposed programme (as outlined in theQQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes.
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards andshould form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programmevalidation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33).Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009)Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) :
Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability andauthenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system.The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/11
Condition(s):
An assessment matrix should be provided in the document to monitor the number ofassessments required.
School Response:
This condition was discussed by the Programme Board (9th October 2013). - An assessmentmatrix is available for each year (CA schedule), showing the number and timing of eachassessment. The number of CAs has been reduced in recent years. See Appendix 1 forexample of an assessment schedule for the current academic year (2013/2014).
Recommendation(s):
The team should collectively review the number of independent assessmentcomponents.
School Response:
See above.
4.10Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessaryto deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: The Panel is of the view that practical programmes are designedin line with the facilities available. This constrains developmentof the programme.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation:
There should be strategic purchase plan in place to update facilities and equipment on arolling basis.
All possible arrangements should be put in place to ensure students have appropriateaccess to laboratory practical equipment.
Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may begreater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
School Response:
This was discussed by the Programme Board (9/10/13). The Head of School shall discussthe budgetary requirements for such facilities and equipment with the President.Commonality with other programmes has been addressed through Programmatic Review
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/11
(any additional ‘overlap’ between courses should be identified). Additional income may begenerated through additional programmes (e.g. part-time or Masters level) which can beused to upgrade the existing equipment.
4.11Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’squality assurance procedures have been applied and thatsatisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring andperiodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: There are mechanisms for employer student and faculty feedbackwhich are satisfactory.The first year convenors contribute positively to the first yearexperience and establish practice for students going forward.
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic QualityAssurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic reviewof Programmes.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Benchmark student feedback mechanisms against other institutions.
School Response:
This was discussed by the Programme Board (9/10/13). The idea of a feedback mechanismagainst other Institutions was queried. Current feedback mechanisms are identical acrossthe IoT sector i.e. QA1/QA2 system.
4.12Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: The programme management structure is very solid.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 10/11
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included inthe proposed programme?
Overall Finding: The module assessment strategies are appropriate, but there maybe an excessive number of independent assessment components.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
See above. Ensure that both formative and summative assessment components areincorporated.
External examiners should view the CA matrix, assessment strategies, majorassignment instructions and marking schemes.
School Response:
A table of formative and summative assessments has been compiled and alreadyprovided in the documentation provided to the Panel.
The role of the external examiner is stipulated by the Institute.
5.2 Other Findings
Condition(s):
The academic skills module should be renamed to better reflect its strategicimportance.
School Response:
The ‘Academic Skills’ module has been re-named ‘Health & Safety and Academic Skills’ toreflect its academic content and importance. See Appendix 2.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 11/11
Recommendation(s):
The Panel encourages the development of an ab-initio level 8 programme in this space.
School Response:
This is currently being examined by the Programme Team.
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________Dr. Edel Healy,Head of School of Health and Science.
Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panel reporthave now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at DundalkInstitute of Technology for ratification.
moduleHealth and Safety and Academic Skills
Page 1 of 5
Health and Safety andAcademic Skills
Module Details
Short Title: Health and Safety and Academic Skills PENDING APPROVAL
Full Title: Health and Safety and Academic Skills
Module Code: n/a
ECTS Credits: 10
NFQ Level: 7
Valid From: Semester 1 - 2013/14 ( September 2013 )
Module Coordinator: Breda Brennan
Module Author: Niamh Dreeling
Description: This module aims to enhance the ability of the student to be ready for the world of study and ultimately forthe workplace.It will develop the personal communication skills required for working in groups andcommunicating science effectively. It also concerned with studying the impact of science in modern life andinto the future. The module will also provide students with a knowledge of health and safety legislation,regulations, codes of practice and safe laboratory working procedures.
Learning Outcomes:
On successful completion of this module the learner should be able to
Describe and explain the nature and importance of scientific discoveries from the past, present and into the future1.Recognise personal and professional skills required for studying and for entering the working arena inclusive of methods2.of personal effectiveness such as goal setting and time management.Communicate science effectively using oral and academic writing methods.3.Recognise the importance of groupwork and learn how to work as part of an effective team.4.Understand the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.5.Recognise chemical and biological hazards, risk assessment and management according to the Chemical Agents6.Regulations 2001, Biological Agents Regulations 1994, 1998 and Carcinogen Regulations 2001.Identify chemical agent hazard symbols, associated risks, usage and disposal according to the Chemicals Act7.(Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation) 2011; Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction ofChemicals (REACH) Regulation 2006.Identify the risks associated with gas usage and fire safety. Understand the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General8.Applications Regulations) 2007 with regard to use of electrical equipment and manual handling.Use appropriate software to design spreadsheets to fulfil a range of tasks, including the analysis of sets of numeric data9.using calculations, formulae and charts.
moduleHealth and Safety and Academic Skills
Page 2 of 5
Health and Safety andAcademic Skills
Module Content & Assessment
Indicative Content
Employability skillsAppraise and develop skills which will allow them to be organised for the world of work.Students will learn how to give effectivepresentations.
Study SkillsDevelop key skills for effective study such as planning,listening, reading,sourcing information and note taking.
Personal effectivenessStudents will be taught the concept of goal setting and time management.
GroupworkStudents will be taught how to work in a group effectively. Communication within groups will be covered and students will apply thelearnings in a practical group exercise.
Academic Writing in ScienceAcademic writing - planning, style, quality, coherence of written work, plagiarism, referencing (Harvard referencing).
Importance of Science in our livesThe impact of science in our lives; the relevance of scientific discoveries from the past; the Scientific Method; characteristics of goodscientists; scientific disciplines/selected fields; communication of Science - research papers, newspapers; future of science - careers inscience/research in science (possibly with guest speakers), potential scientific applications.
Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005Identify the employers and employee's role with regard to health and safety in the laboratory. Know the essential components of a SafetyStatement. To understand the role of competant persons. Identify hazards (Chemical, Biological, Physical, Human and Health Factor) andtheir associated risks. Calculate risk factors and prepare a risk assessment. Discuss the principles of risk management using the 9principles of Prevention as stated in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.
Chemical Agents Regulations 2001; Biological Agents 1994, 1998; Carcinogen Regulations 2001.Identify the employers and employee's duties for the safe handling, usage, storage and disposal of chemical and biological agents.Personal protective equipment. Chemical and Biological risk assessment and control measures according to the relevant legislation. 2011Code of Practice for Chemical Agents Regulations 2001. Health surveillance. Emergency procedures for chemical burns, chemicalsplashes, eye injuries. Reporting and recording of accidents.
Chemicals Act (Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation) 2011; Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation andRestriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation 2006.To recognise the 9 categories of chemicals and associated hazards. To locate and interpret Material Safety Data Sheets for chemicals.
Gas usage, Electricity (General Applications Regulations 2007) and Fire Safety.Safe use and handling of gas cylinders. Use of electrical equipment according to the Safety Health and Welfare at Work (GeneralApplication Regulations) 2007. Classification of fire (Solids, Liquids, gas and Metal), Protection (Fire alarms, Fume hoods) and Extinction(Fire extinguishers - Water, Carbon dioxide, Foam and Powder; Fire Blanket).
Use of SpreadsheetsEntering and editing labels and values in Excel – formulas and functions – relative & absolute cell addresses – formatting a worksheet –creating charts – formatting and annotating charts – use of names ranges – use of statistical, text and logical functions– integrating wordprocessing and spreadsheets
Assessment Breakdown %
Course Work 100.00%
moduleHealth and Safety and Academic Skills
Page 3 of 5
Course Work
Type Description Outcomeaddressed
% oftotal
AssessmentDate
Written Report Independent work on chosen science topic 1,3 10.00 Week 7
Presentation Presentation on a chosen science topic 1,3 10.00 Week 8
ExhibitionEvaluation
Shared groupwork poster conference assignment on a chosen science 1,2,3,4 20.00 Week 26
ContinuousAssessment
Participation/assignment in lectures (attendance/contribution) 1,2,3,4 10.00 Every Week
Multiple ChoiceQuestions
Ongoing assessment of students understanding of Laboratory Health &Safety module content. Short MCQ exams in-class.
5,6,7,8 5.00 EverySecondWeek
Class Test A 1 hour in-class exam to examine Laboratory, Health and Safety modulecontent.
5,6,7,8 10.00 Sem 1 End
Practical/SkillsEvaluation
A 1 hour Risk Assessment of a Chemical Laboratory and Report. Thisinspection provides students with the opportunity to identify all hazardtypes in the laboratory (Chemical, Physical, Biological, Human and Healthfactor), calculate the associated risk factor and suggest control measuresaccording to the 9 Principles of Prevention (Safety, Health and Welfate atWork Act 2005) to reduce the risk factor.
5,6,7,8 20.00 Week 8
Practical/SkillsEvaluation
Practical examination in Excel 9 15.00 Week 27
No End of Module Formal Examination
Reassessment Requirement
No repeat examinationReassessment of this module will be offered solely on the basis of coursework and a repeat examination will not be offered.
DKIT reserves the right to alter the nature and timings of assessment
moduleHealth and Safety and Academic Skills
Page 4 of 5
Health and Safety andAcademic Skills
Module Workload & Resources
Workload Full Time
Type Description Hours Frequency Average WeeklyLearner Workload
Lecturer Supervised Learning Lectures, tutorials and practical classes in Excel 4.00 Every Week 4.00
Independent Study No Description 4.00 Every Week 4.00
Total Weekly Learner Workload 8.00
Total Weekly Contact Hours 4.00
This course has no Part Time workload.
moduleHealth and Safety and Academic Skills
Page 5 of 5
Resources
Recommended Book Resources
Stephen S. Carey 2004, A beginners's guide to the Scientific Method, Cengage Learning [ISBN: 05234584500]
ebrary Inc. 2008, The Brittanica guide to the 100 most influential scientists, Encyclopedia Brittanica Inc. [ISBN: 1845298640]
Charles Mollan 2007, It's part of what we are: Some Irish contributors to the development of the chemical and physical sciences, Royal Dublin Society Dublin, Ireland [ISBN: 9780860270553]
McMillan Weyers 2006, The Smarter Student,, 1st Ed. Ed., Pearson Prentice Hall UK [ISBN: ISBN: 978-0-273-71449-1]
Stephen Covey 1989, The 7 habits of highly effective people, Running Press London [ISBN: 0762408332]
DkIT Customised Text 2008, Microsoft Office 2007 – Essential Overview, Cengage Learning
Supplementary Book Resources
Burns, Tom 2012, Essential Study Skills:The Complete Guide To Success At University, SAGE London [ISBN: 1446203255]
Richard N.Bolles 2010, What color is your parachute ?, 2010 Ed., Ten Speed Press USA
Other Resources
Website: DkIT 2009, Credit where credit is due, DkIT, Dundalk, Ireland
Website: n/awww.futureforall.org
Website: n/awww.futurescience.org
Website: n/awww.sciencedaily.com
Website: n/awww.jobhuntersbible.com
Website: Annamarie RogersLecture notes and further resources, DkIT Moodle
Website: DkIT Health and Safety Commitee 2012, Safe Work Practice Sheets, DkIT, DkIT
Website: DkIT Health and Safety Committee 2011, DkIT Safety statement, DkIT, DkIT
Website: Health and Safety Authority 2005, Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/Acts/Safety_Health_and_Welfare_at_Work/SI_No_1 0_of_2005.pdf
Website: Health and Safety Authority 2001, Chemical Agents Regulations 2001, HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/
Website: HSA 2001, Carcinogen Regulations, HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/
Website: Health and Safety Authority 2011, Chemicals Act (Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation) 2011, HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/
Website: Health and Safety Authority 2007, Safety Health and Welfare at Work act (General Applications Regulations) 2007,HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/
Website: Health and Safety Authority 1998, Biological Agents Regulations 1994, 1998, HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/
B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience and B.Sc. in Pharmaceutical Science
Year 1 - Semester 1
Module Biology (Year Long)
Health & Safety &
Academic skills (Year
Long)
Physics through PBL
1 Fundamental Chemistry Mathematics 1
ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA Sem 1: 100% CA 100% CA 50% : 50% 40% : 60%
Lecturer(s)
B. Moloney,
S. Mc Carthy,
V. Mc Carthy
A. Rogers,
N. Dreeling,
A. McHugh T. Lennon N. Cunning S. Bellew
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct) lab assessment (5%)
Week 6 (21 Oct) Class Assignment (15%)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov) 4th Nov theory exam (5%) 6th Nov.CA Exam (10%)
Week 8 (11 Nov) Report (10 %, ND)*
Week 9 (18 Nov) H&S Inspection (20%)
Week 10 (25 Nov)
Week 11 (2 Dec) Class Assignment (15%)
Week 12 (9 Dec) lab assessment (5%) H&S Exam (10%)
Week 13 (16 Dec) 16th Dec theory exam (5%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.) practical write-ups (5%) Attendance (10%, ND/AMcH)
PBL Reports Weekly
(100%) Practical reports (40%) Tutorials (10%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Stage Convenors: Pharmaceutical Science: Tony Lennon
Applied Bioscience: Siobhan Mc Carthy
B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience
Year 2 - Semester 1
Module
Molecular Bioscience
(Year Long)
Analytical Instrumentation &
Techniques 1 Fundamental Microbiology
Introduction to
Organic Chemistry
ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA 50% : 50% 50% : 50% 50% : 50%
Lecturer(s) R. Bree S. Loughran,N. Cunning O. Sherlock C. Hanlon
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Oct 3rd 3pm: News
Article (2.5%)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov) Class Exam (10%)
Week 8 (11 Nov)
15th Nov CA Exam
(10%) *
Week 9 (18 Nov)
21st Nov 3pm: CA
MCQ/short answer
exam (10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov) CA Exam 27th Nov (10%)*
Week 11 (2 Dec)
Week 12 (9 Dec) Class Exam (15%)
Week 13 (16 Dec) w/c 16th Dec Group Project (10%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly lab practicals
(15%)…..Christmas
Group Project due Feb
2014 (7.5%) Weekly Lab practicals (30%) Weekly Lab Result Sheets (25%)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (40%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum
B.Sc. in Pharmaceutical Science
Year 2 - Semester 1
Module
Molecular Bioscience
(Year Long)
Analytical Instrumentation &
Techniques 1
Pharmaceutical
Microbiology
Marketing (Replacement
module 2013-2014 only)
ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA 50% : 50% 50% : 50% 50% : 50%
Lecturer(s) R. Bree S. Loughran, N. Cunning O. Sherlock H. White
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Oct 3rd 3pm: News
Article (2.5%)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov) Class Exam (10%)
Week 8 (11 Nov)
Week 9 (18 Nov)
21st Nov 3pm: CA
MCQ/short answer
exam (10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov) CA Exam 27th Nov (10%)*
Week 11 (2 Dec)
Week 12 (9 Dec) Open Book Lab Exam (15%)
Week 13 (16 Dec) w/c 16th Dec Group Project (10%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly lab practicals
(15%)…..Christmas
Group Project due Feb
2014 (7.5%) Weekly Lab practicals (30%) Lab Report Sheets (25%)
From 3rd October, weekly
assignment and
presentation (50%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Chiara Hanlon
B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience
Year 3 - Semester 1
Module
Biotechnology (Year
Long)
GMP & Regulatory
Affairs Applied Microbiology Project Elective: Immunology
Elective: Aquatic
Science
ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA 30% : 70% 50% : 50% 100% CA 40% : 60% 50% : 50%
Lecturer(s)
W. Higgins,
S. Mc Carthy A. van Rossum B. Kelly R. Bree B. Kelly S. McCarthy
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
23rd Oct, 12noon: Lit.
Review planning
document (10%);
Screencast (10%); Lit.
review resource file
(5%)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)
Week 8 (11 Nov)15 Nov: written project
(20%)
Week 9 (18 Nov) 18 Nov CA Exam (10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov)29 Nov: Written Report
(18%)
Week 11 (2 Dec)
4th Dec, 12noon:
Literature Review
Submission (50%)
Week 12 (9 Dec)9/10/13 Dec:
Presentations* (12%)
13th Dec : Project
report
Week 13 (16 Dec)Date TBC; Oral
Presentations (25%). 17th Dec: Presentation
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly lab practicals
(30%)
Weekly lab practicals
(30%)
Weekly lab practicals
and class presentations
after week 7/8 (40%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum
B.Sc. in Pharmaceutical Science
Year 3 - Semester 1
Module
Pharmaceutical
Biotechnology
GMP & Regulatory
Affairs Immunology
Preformulation of
Pharmaceuticals
Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing
ACS = CA% : Exam% 50% : 50% 30% : 70% 40% : 60% 50% : 50% 40% : 60%
Lecturer(s) W. Higgins A. van Rossum B. Kelly C. Hanlon R. Crowley
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)8 Nov: In class exam
(20%)
Week 8 (11 Nov) 15 Nov: Project (20%)
Week 9 (18 Nov)18th Nov CA Exam
(10%) *
Week 10 (25 Nov)29 Nov: Written Report
(18%)
Week 11 (2 Dec)2nd Dec CA Exam
(10%)
Week 12 (9 Dec)9/10/13 Dec:
Presentations* (12%)
Week 13 (16 Dec)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (40%)
Weekly lab practicals
and class presentations
after week 7/8 (40%)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (40%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Chiara Hanlon
B.Sc. (Hons) in Biopharmaceutical Science
Year 4 - Semester 1
Module
Research Design,
Statistics & Ethics
Biopharmaceutical
Processing (Upstream)
Biomolecular Therapeutics
& Bioinformatics
Biopharma Research
Project (Year-Long)
ACS = CA% : Exam% 100% CA 40% : 60% 50% : 50% 100% CA
Lecturer(s)
A. van Rossum, A. Watters,
K. McDaid R. Bree A. van Rossum
A. van Rossum
(co-ordinator)
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct) 14 Oct Journal review (0%)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)
Week 8 (11 Nov)17 Nov: Stats assignment
(25%)
14 Nov: Lit review
presentation (15%)*
Week 9 (18 Nov)
Week 10 (25 Nov)
Week 11 (2 Dec) 6 Dec: Plan of Work (15%)*
Week 12 (9 Dec)11 Dec: Research Proposal
(22.5%)
10 Dec: Bioinformatics
assignment*
(in-class: 15%)
Week 13 (16 Dec)
17 Dec:
Presentations* (22.5%) &
interviews* (18.75%) &
final journal (11.25%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory practical
sessions / video project
(40%)
-Weekly laboratory practicals
(25%) -
Weekly paper presentations*
(10%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum
B.Sc. (Hons) in Environmental Biology
Year 4 - Semester 1
Module
Research Design,
Statistics & Ethics Soil and Water Management Environmental Field Studies and GIS
Environmental
Review and Critque
Environmental
Research Project (Year-
Long)
ACS = CA% : Exam% 100% : 0% 40% : 60% 100% : 0% 70% : 30% 100% : 0%
Lecturer(s)
A. van Rossum, A.
Watters, K. McDaid S. Murnaghan E. Jennings (Field) S. Murnaghan (GIS) S. McCarthy E. Jennings
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)Field test (6%) Group presentation (15%) Field
notebook (15%)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)14 Oct Journal review
(0%)
Field project individual report Friday 18 1pm
(24%)
Week 6 (21 Oct)24/25 Oct Class presentations
(5%)22 Oct GIS mapping assignment 1 (10%)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)4 Nov Desk Study
(20%)
Week 8 (11 Nov)17 Nov: Stats assignment
(25%)Literature review (25%)
Week 9 (18 Nov)21st Nov Presentation
(10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov) 25 Nov GIS CA exam (16%) Plan of work (15%)
Week 11 (2 Dec) 3 Dec Lit review (5%)2nd Dec Presentation
(10%)
Week 12 (9 Dec)11 Dec Research
Proposal (22.5%)
Presentation 13th Dec
(10%)
Week 13 (16 Dec)
18 Dec:
Presentations* (22.5%) &
interviews* (18.75%) &
final journal (11.25%)
19 Dec GIS mapping assignment 2 (14%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory practicals
(30%)
Regular journal reports
(20%); attendance &
press coverage (10%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Eleanor Jennings
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of Science Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science in Pharmaceutical Science Exit Award(s): Higher Certificate in Science in Pharmaceutical Science Award Type: Ordinary Bachelor Degree Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 7, 6 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180, 120 First Intake: September 2013 (40)
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee IT Dr. Colin Conway Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT School of Natural Sciences, NUI Galway
Mr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Ronan Bree Dr Sinead Loughran Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr Gerard Seargent Dr Mark Holywood Mr Seamus Bellew Ms Ann-Marie McHugh Dr Niamh Dreeling Mr Richard Crowley Ms Noelle Cunning Dr Keith Thornbury Dr Caroline Gilleran Dr Chiara McDonagh Mr Tony Lennon Dr Orla Sherlock Mr John Walters
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Science in Pharmaceutical Science Higher Certificate in Science in Pharmaceutical Science (Exit Award) The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science in Pharmaceutical Science
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Higher Certificate in Science in Pharmaceutical Science (Exit Award)
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9
Note:
Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for the higher certificate as appropriate.
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes. However the panel notes that the employer’s survey is not linked to any one programme and can only be interpreted in general terms. There is a demand from school leavers for the programme.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Consider capturing employer feedback through the industry advisory forum rather than
through surveys, which tend to provide feedback on graduates in general rather than on DkIT graduates in particular.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): The title of the Exit Award should be Higher Certificate in Science in Pharmaceutical
Science. Recommendation(s): None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Intake stands at between 30 -40 students per year and there have been some retention issues in the past which are now showing improvement.
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): Consider embedding continuous assessment in class activities with a view to improving
attendance and retention.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9
Consider telephone follow-up with learners who leave the programme early to assist in improving retention statistics.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? Yes For exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes. However this is a fast changing industry and there is a need to keep abreast of developments in the industry, e.g. drug manufacture using biotechnologies.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): The programme team should seek feedback from employers and graduates on an annual
basis to keep the programme informed by industry developments. Setting up a LinkedIn page for alumni might be helpful in this respect.
The programme team should be mindful of the need for developing better written communication skills throughout the programme.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes. The panel is impressed with the range of strategies
employed. Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes. These strategies are very well developed.
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced;
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9
Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: The Department is utilising existing resources to their maximum.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): A new instrumentation laboratory would be a valuable addition to this programme.
Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may be
greater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): Include Health and Safety in the title of the ‘Academic Skills’ module. The themes of
entrepreneurship and communication can be developed in this module.
Ensure resources are adequate to deliver the module ‘Pharmaceutical Processing.’
Recommendation(s): In ‘Academic Skills’, ensure that all learners gain competency in Microsoft Word. Include
Health and Safety in the title.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes. These are very well developed.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9
5.2 Other Findings
Condition(s)
None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
_____________________________________________ Dr. Michael Hall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th May 2013.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/11
Response to the Reportof the Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of ScienceProgramme Title(s): Bachelor of Science in Pharmaceutical ScienceExit Award(s): Higher Certificate in Science in Pharmaceutical ScienceAward Type: Ordinary Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 7, 6ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180, 120First Intake: September 2013 (40)
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee ITDr. Colin Conway
Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT
School of Natural Sciences, NUI GalwayMr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland
Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary toPanel
Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology(DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Ronan BreeDr Sinead Loughran Dr Arjan Van Rossum Dr Gerard SeargentDr Mark Holywood Mr Seamus Bellew Ms Ann-Marie McHughDr Niamh Dreeling Mr Richard Crowley Ms Noelle CunningDr Keith Thornbury Dr Caroline Gilleran Dr Chiara McDonaghMr Tony Lennon Dr Orla Sherlock Mr John Walters
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/11
1 Introduction
The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panelof assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute ofTechnology to design the following programmes:
Bachelor of Science in Pharmaceutical Science Higher Certificate in Science in Pharmaceutical Science (Exit Award)
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaginggenerously and openly with the review process.
The report is divided into the following sections:
Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality oftheir submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day ofthe validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programmedevelopment team, the validation panel recommends the following:
Bachelor of Science in Pharmaceutical Science
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmaticreview, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations XRe-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additionaldevelopmental workNot Accredited
Higher Certificate in Science in Pharmaceutical Science (Exit Award)
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmaticreview, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations XRe-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additionaldevelopmental workNot Accredited
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/11
Note:
Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for thehigher certificate as appropriate.
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takesaccount of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response documentdescribing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendationsmade by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used toindicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must beundertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory ifthe programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to whichthe Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an earlystage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
4 Programme-Level Findings
This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations:
Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidencebeen provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes. However the panel notes that the employer’s survey is notlinked to any one programme and can only be interpreted ingeneral terms. There is a demand from school leavers for theprogramme.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Consider capturing employer feedback through the industry advisory forum rather thanthrough surveys, which tend to provide feedback on graduates in general rather than onDkIT graduates in particular.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/11
School Response:
This recommendation was discussed by the Programme Board (9th October 2013) and thefollowing agreed:
The employer survey could be improved in the future by using both ‘general’ andcourse specific questions.
Linked-In (Applied Sciences Department page) is used as a way to connect with currentstudents and this should prove beneficial for distributing employer surveys in thefuture.
A yearly survey may be a way to improve responses (and track student employment).
Further collaboration with the Departmental Industry Advisory Forum should alsoimprove employer response levels.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
The title of the Exit Award should be Higher Certificate in Science in PharmaceuticalScience.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy andare the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability andinternationalisation embedded in the proposed programme asappropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/11
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clearand appropriate?
Overall Finding: Intake stands at between 30 -40 students per year and there havebeen some retention issues in the past which are now showingimprovement.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Consider embedding continuous assessment in class activities with a view to improvingattendance and retention.
Consider telephone follow-up with learners who leave the programme early to assist inimproving retention statistics.
School Response:
This recommendation was discussed by the Programme Board (9th October 2013 and thefollowing agreed:
CA is already embedded in a number of classroom activities (See Appendix 1 forexamples of same in the CA Schedule)
The First Year Convenor and Programme Director monitor attendance on a regularbasis and try to ascertain if students are having difficulty and reasons for same. Anumber of initiatives have been put in place to improve retention statistics and theProgramme Board shall continue to review this issue.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures foraccess, transfer and progression that have been established bythe NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entryrequirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/11
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required awardstandards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e.conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: For parent award? YesFor exit award? Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can befound at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can thestated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employmentskills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes. However this is a fast changing industry and there is a needto keep abreast of developments in the industry, e.g. drugmanufacture using biotechnologies.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
The programme team should seek feedback from employers and graduates on an annualbasis to keep the programme informed by industry developments. Setting up a LinkedInpage for alumni might be helpful in this respect.
The programme team should be mindful of the need for developing better writtencommunication skills throughout the programme.
School Response:
This recommendation was discussed by the Programme Board (9th October 2013) and thefollowing agreed:
Linked-In (Applied Sciences Department page) is used as a way to connect with current
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/11
students and this should prove beneficial for distributing employer surveys in thefuture. The Department shall work with the Alumni Association to use social media tokeep in touch with graduates also.
A yearly survey may be a way to improve responses.
The Departmental Industry Advisory Forum shall be expanded to include a number ofadditional companies and is a useful forum for seeking Industry feedback.
The team shall further review how written communication skills are developed duringthe Programme. The first year module ‘Health and Safety and Academic Skills’ set thefoundation for written communication skills. Students are given regular feedback ontheir written skills during their submission of laboratory reports etc. The support ofthe Student Learning and Development Centre can also be made available to studentswho have difficulty in written communication skills.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been providedfor the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes. The panel is impressed with the range of strategiesemployed.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies beenprovided for the proposed programme (as outlined in theQQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes. These strategies are very well developed.
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards andshould form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programmevalidation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33).Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009)Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) :
Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability andauthenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning;
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/11
Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system.
The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.10Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessaryto deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: The Department is utilising existing resources to their maximum.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
A new instrumentation laboratory would be a valuable addition to this programme.
Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may begreater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
School Response:
This was discussed by the Programme Board (9/10/13). The Head of School shall discussthe budgetary requirements for such facilities and equipment with the President.Commonality with other programmes has been addressed through Programmatic Review(any additional ‘overlap’ between courses should be identified). Additional income may begenerated through additional programmes (e.g. part-time or Masters level) which can beused to upgrade the existing equipment.
4.11Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’squality assurance procedures have been applied and thatsatisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring andperiodic review of programmes?
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/11
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic QualityAssurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic reviewof Programmes.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.12Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s):
Include Health and Safety in the title of the ‘Academic Skills’ module. The themes ofentrepreneurship and communication can be developed in this module.
Ensure resources are adequate to deliver the module ‘Pharmaceutical Processing.’
School Response:
The ‘Academic Skills’ module has been re-named ‘Health & Safety and Academic Skills’ toreflect its academic content and importance. See Appendix 2. The themes of entrepreneurshipand communication are developed across the Programme. As outlined in the response toQuestion 4.10 the School shall continue to identify mechanisms to obtain additional funding toupgrade existing equipment.
Recommendation(s):
In ‘Academic Skills’, ensure that all learners gain competency in Microsoft Word.Include Health and Safety in the title.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 10/11
School Response:
‘Academic Skills’ module has been re-named ‘Health & Safety and Academic Skills’ to reflectits academic content and importance. See Appendix 2. Most students are now competentin the use of Microsoft Office. However where it is felt that additional support is neededthey shall be referred to the Student Learning and Development Centre.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included inthe proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes. These are very well developed.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
5.2 Other Findings
Condition(s)
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 11/11
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________Dr. Edel Healy,Head of School of Health and Science.
Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panelreport have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council atDundalk Institute of Technology for ratification.
B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience
Year 1 - Semester 1
Module Biology (Year Long)
Health & Safety &
Academic skills (Year
Long)
Physics through PBL
1 Fundamental Chemistry Mathematics 1
ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA Sem 1: 100% CA 100% CA 50% : 50% 40% : 60%
Lecturer(s)
B. Moloney,
S. Mc Carthy,
V. Mc Carthy
A. Rogers,
N. Dreeling,
A. McHugh T. Lennon N. Cunning S. Bellew
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct) lab assessment (5%)
Week 6 (21 Oct) Class Assignment (15%)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov) 4th Nov theory exam (5%) 6th Nov.CA Exam (10%)
Week 8 (11 Nov) Report (10 %, ND)*
Week 9 (18 Nov) H&S Inspection (20%)
Week 10 (25 Nov)
Week 11 (2 Dec) Class Assignment (15%)
Week 12 (9 Dec) lab assessment (5%) H&S Exam (10%)
Week 13 (16 Dec) 16th Dec theory exam (5%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.) practical write-ups (5%) Attendance (10%, ND/AMcH)
PBL Reports Weekly
(100%) Practical reports (40%) Tutorials (10%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Stage Convenors:
Applied Bioscience: Siobhan Mc Carthy
B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience
Year 2 - Semester 1
Module
Molecular Bioscience
(Year Long)
Analytical Instrumentation &
Techniques 1 Fundamental Microbiology
Introduction to
Organic Chemistry
ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA 50% : 50% 50% : 50% 50% : 50%
Lecturer(s) R. Bree S. Loughran,N. Cunning O. Sherlock C. Hanlon
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Oct 3rd 3pm: News
Article (2.5%)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov) Class Exam (10%)
Week 8 (11 Nov)
15th Nov CA Exam
(10%) *
Week 9 (18 Nov)
21st Nov 3pm: CA
MCQ/short answer
exam (10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov) CA Exam 27th Nov (10%)*
Week 11 (2 Dec)
Week 12 (9 Dec) Class Exam (15%)
Week 13 (16 Dec) w/c 16th Dec Group Project (10%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly lab practicals
(15%)…..Christmas
Group Project due Feb
2014 (7.5%) Weekly Lab practicals (30%) Weekly Lab Result Sheets (25%)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (40%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum
B.Sc. in Applied Bioscience
Year 3 - Semester 1
Module
Biotechnology (Year
Long)
GMP & Regulatory
Affairs Applied Microbiology Project Elective: Immunology
Elective: Aquatic
Science
ACS = CA% : Exam% Sem 1: 100% CA 30% : 70% 50% : 50% 100% CA 40% : 60% 50% : 50%
Lecturer(s)
W. Higgins,
S. Mc Carthy A. van Rossum B. Kelly R. Bree B. Kelly S. McCarthy
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
23rd Oct, 12noon: Lit.
Review planning
document (10%);
Screencast (10%); Lit.
review resource file
(5%)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)
Week 8 (11 Nov)15 Nov: written project
(20%)
Week 9 (18 Nov) 18 Nov CA Exam (10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov)29 Nov: Written Report
(18%)
Week 11 (2 Dec)
4th Dec, 12noon:
Literature Review
Submission (50%)
Week 12 (9 Dec)9/10/13 Dec:
Presentations* (12%)
13th Dec : Project
report
Week 13 (16 Dec)Date TBC; Oral
Presentations (25%). 17th Dec: Presentation
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly lab practicals
(30%)
Weekly lab practicals
(30%)
Weekly lab practicals
and class presentations
after week 7/8 (40%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum
B.Sc. in Pharmaceutical Science
Year 3 - Semester 1
Module
Pharmaceutical
Biotechnology
GMP & Regulatory
Affairs Immunology
Preformulation of
Pharmaceuticals
Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing
ACS = CA% : Exam% 50% : 50% 30% : 70% 40% : 60% 50% : 50% 40% : 60%
Lecturer(s) W. Higgins A. van Rossum B. Kelly C. Hanlon R. Crowley
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)8 Nov: In class exam
(20%)
Week 8 (11 Nov) 15 Nov: Project (20%)
Week 9 (18 Nov)18th Nov CA Exam
(10%) *
Week 10 (25 Nov)29 Nov: Written Report
(18%)
Week 11 (2 Dec)2nd Dec CA Exam
(10%)
Week 12 (9 Dec)9/10/13 Dec:
Presentations* (12%)
Week 13 (16 Dec)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (40%)
Weekly lab practicals
and class presentations
after week 7/8 (40%)
Weekly laboratory
practicals (40%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Chiara Hanlon
B.Sc. (Hons) in Biopharmaceutical Science
Year 4 - Semester 1
Module
Research Design,
Statistics & Ethics
Biopharmaceutical
Processing (Upstream)
Biomolecular Therapeutics
& Bioinformatics
Biopharma Research
Project (Year-Long)
ACS = CA% : Exam% 100% CA 40% : 60% 50% : 50% 100% CA
Lecturer(s)
A. van Rossum, A. Watters,
K. McDaid R. Bree A. van Rossum
A. van Rossum
(co-ordinator)
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct) 14 Oct Journal review (0%)
Week 6 (21 Oct)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)
Week 8 (11 Nov)17 Nov: Stats assignment
(25%)
14 Nov: Lit review
presentation (15%)*
Week 9 (18 Nov)
Week 10 (25 Nov)
Week 11 (2 Dec) 6 Dec: Plan of Work (15%)*
Week 12 (9 Dec)11 Dec: Research Proposal
(22.5%)
10 Dec: Bioinformatics
assignment*
(in-class: 15%)
Week 13 (16 Dec)
17 Dec:
Presentations* (22.5%) &
interviews* (18.75%) &
final journal (11.25%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory practical
sessions / video project
(40%)
-Weekly laboratory practicals
(25%) -
Weekly paper presentations*
(10%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Arjan van Rossum
B.Sc. (Hons) in Environmental Biology
Year 4 - Semester 1
Module
Research Design,
Statistics & Ethics Soil and Water Management Environmental Field Studies and GIS
Environmental
Review and Critque
Environmental
Research Project (Year-
Long)
ACS = CA% : Exam% 100% : 0% 40% : 60% 100% : 0% 70% : 30% 100% : 0%
Lecturer(s)
A. van Rossum, A.
Watters, K. McDaid S. Murnaghan E. Jennings (Field) S. Murnaghan (GIS) S. McCarthy E. Jennings
Week 1 (16 Sep)
Week 2 (23 Sep)
Week 3 (30 Sep)Field test (6%) Group presentation (15%) Field
notebook (15%)
Week 4 (7 Oct)
Week 5 (14 Oct)14 Oct Journal review
(0%)
Field project individual report Friday 18 1pm
(24%)
Week 6 (21 Oct)24/25 Oct Class presentations
(5%)22 Oct GIS mapping assignment 1 (10%)
Reading Wk (28 Oct)
Week 7 (4 Nov)4 Nov Desk Study
(20%)
Week 8 (11 Nov)17 Nov: Stats assignment
(25%)Literature review (25%)
Week 9 (18 Nov)21st Nov Presentation
(10%)
Week 10 (25 Nov) 25 Nov GIS CA exam (16%) Plan of work (15%)
Week 11 (2 Dec) 3 Dec Lit review (5%)2nd Dec Presentation
(10%)
Week 12 (9 Dec)11 Dec Research
Proposal (22.5%)
Presentation 13th Dec
(10%)
Week 13 (16 Dec)
18 Dec:
Presentations* (22.5%) &
interviews* (18.75%) &
final journal (11.25%)
19 Dec GIS mapping assignment 2 (14%)
Ongoing (Practicals,
Projects etc.)
Weekly laboratory practicals
(30%)
Regular journal reports
(20%); attendance &
press coverage (10%)
Note: This a draft CA Schedule. While it is the lecturer's intention to use these dates and methods of assessment, there may be some changes.
* CA is recoverable: Marks available for the assignment may be recovered or the deadline for the CA extended (only with a legitimate, verifiable reason for absence)
+ CA is repeatable: You may be allowed to repeat the CA to achieve a maximum mark of 40% (without legitimate, verifyable reason for absence).
Programme Director: Eleanor Jennings
moduleHealth and Safety and Academic Skills
Page 1 of 5
Health and Safety andAcademic Skills
Module Details
Short Title: Health and Safety and Academic Skills PENDING APPROVAL
Full Title: Health and Safety and Academic Skills
Module Code: n/a
ECTS Credits: 10
NFQ Level: 7
Valid From: Semester 1 - 2013/14 ( September 2013 )
Module Coordinator: Breda Brennan
Module Author: Niamh Dreeling
Description: This module aims to enhance the ability of the student to be ready for the world of study and ultimately forthe workplace.It will develop the personal communication skills required for working in groups andcommunicating science effectively. It also concerned with studying the impact of science in modern life andinto the future. The module will also provide students with a knowledge of health and safety legislation,regulations, codes of practice and safe laboratory working procedures.
Learning Outcomes:
On successful completion of this module the learner should be able to
Describe and explain the nature and importance of scientific discoveries from the past, present and into the future1.Recognise personal and professional skills required for studying and for entering the working arena inclusive of methods2.of personal effectiveness such as goal setting and time management.Communicate science effectively using oral and academic writing methods.3.Recognise the importance of groupwork and learn how to work as part of an effective team.4.Understand the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.5.Recognise chemical and biological hazards, risk assessment and management according to the Chemical Agents6.Regulations 2001, Biological Agents Regulations 1994, 1998 and Carcinogen Regulations 2001.Identify chemical agent hazard symbols, associated risks, usage and disposal according to the Chemicals Act7.(Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation) 2011; Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction ofChemicals (REACH) Regulation 2006.Identify the risks associated with gas usage and fire safety. Understand the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General8.Applications Regulations) 2007 with regard to use of electrical equipment and manual handling.Use appropriate software to design spreadsheets to fulfil a range of tasks, including the analysis of sets of numeric data9.using calculations, formulae and charts.
moduleHealth and Safety and Academic Skills
Page 2 of 5
Health and Safety andAcademic Skills
Module Content & Assessment
Indicative Content
Employability skillsAppraise and develop skills which will allow them to be organised for the world of work.Students will learn how to give effectivepresentations.
Study SkillsDevelop key skills for effective study such as planning,listening, reading,sourcing information and note taking.
Personal effectivenessStudents will be taught the concept of goal setting and time management.
GroupworkStudents will be taught how to work in a group effectively. Communication within groups will be covered and students will apply thelearnings in a practical group exercise.
Academic Writing in ScienceAcademic writing - planning, style, quality, coherence of written work, plagiarism, referencing (Harvard referencing).
Importance of Science in our livesThe impact of science in our lives; the relevance of scientific discoveries from the past; the Scientific Method; characteristics of goodscientists; scientific disciplines/selected fields; communication of Science - research papers, newspapers; future of science - careers inscience/research in science (possibly with guest speakers), potential scientific applications.
Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005Identify the employers and employee's role with regard to health and safety in the laboratory. Know the essential components of a SafetyStatement. To understand the role of competant persons. Identify hazards (Chemical, Biological, Physical, Human and Health Factor) andtheir associated risks. Calculate risk factors and prepare a risk assessment. Discuss the principles of risk management using the 9principles of Prevention as stated in the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.
Chemical Agents Regulations 2001; Biological Agents 1994, 1998; Carcinogen Regulations 2001.Identify the employers and employee's duties for the safe handling, usage, storage and disposal of chemical and biological agents.Personal protective equipment. Chemical and Biological risk assessment and control measures according to the relevant legislation. 2011Code of Practice for Chemical Agents Regulations 2001. Health surveillance. Emergency procedures for chemical burns, chemicalsplashes, eye injuries. Reporting and recording of accidents.
Chemicals Act (Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation) 2011; Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation andRestriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation 2006.To recognise the 9 categories of chemicals and associated hazards. To locate and interpret Material Safety Data Sheets for chemicals.
Gas usage, Electricity (General Applications Regulations 2007) and Fire Safety.Safe use and handling of gas cylinders. Use of electrical equipment according to the Safety Health and Welfare at Work (GeneralApplication Regulations) 2007. Classification of fire (Solids, Liquids, gas and Metal), Protection (Fire alarms, Fume hoods) and Extinction(Fire extinguishers - Water, Carbon dioxide, Foam and Powder; Fire Blanket).
Use of SpreadsheetsEntering and editing labels and values in Excel – formulas and functions – relative & absolute cell addresses – formatting a worksheet –creating charts – formatting and annotating charts – use of names ranges – use of statistical, text and logical functions– integrating wordprocessing and spreadsheets
Assessment Breakdown %
Course Work 100.00%
moduleHealth and Safety and Academic Skills
Page 3 of 5
Course Work
Type Description Outcomeaddressed
% oftotal
AssessmentDate
Written Report Independent work on chosen science topic 1,3 10.00 Week 7
Presentation Presentation on a chosen science topic 1,3 10.00 Week 8
ExhibitionEvaluation
Shared groupwork poster conference assignment on a chosen science 1,2,3,4 20.00 Week 26
ContinuousAssessment
Participation/assignment in lectures (attendance/contribution) 1,2,3,4 10.00 Every Week
Multiple ChoiceQuestions
Ongoing assessment of students understanding of Laboratory Health &Safety module content. Short MCQ exams in-class.
5,6,7,8 5.00 EverySecondWeek
Class Test A 1 hour in-class exam to examine Laboratory, Health and Safety modulecontent.
5,6,7,8 10.00 Sem 1 End
Practical/SkillsEvaluation
A 1 hour Risk Assessment of a Chemical Laboratory and Report. Thisinspection provides students with the opportunity to identify all hazardtypes in the laboratory (Chemical, Physical, Biological, Human and Healthfactor), calculate the associated risk factor and suggest control measuresaccording to the 9 Principles of Prevention (Safety, Health and Welfate atWork Act 2005) to reduce the risk factor.
5,6,7,8 20.00 Week 8
Practical/SkillsEvaluation
Practical examination in Excel 9 15.00 Week 27
No End of Module Formal Examination
Reassessment Requirement
No repeat examinationReassessment of this module will be offered solely on the basis of coursework and a repeat examination will not be offered.
DKIT reserves the right to alter the nature and timings of assessment
moduleHealth and Safety and Academic Skills
Page 4 of 5
Health and Safety andAcademic Skills
Module Workload & Resources
Workload Full Time
Type Description Hours Frequency Average WeeklyLearner Workload
Lecturer Supervised Learning Lectures, tutorials and practical classes in Excel 4.00 Every Week 4.00
Independent Study No Description 4.00 Every Week 4.00
Total Weekly Learner Workload 8.00
Total Weekly Contact Hours 4.00
This course has no Part Time workload.
moduleHealth and Safety and Academic Skills
Page 5 of 5
Resources
Recommended Book Resources
Stephen S. Carey 2004, A beginners's guide to the Scientific Method, Cengage Learning [ISBN: 05234584500]
ebrary Inc. 2008, The Brittanica guide to the 100 most influential scientists, Encyclopedia Brittanica Inc. [ISBN: 1845298640]
Charles Mollan 2007, It's part of what we are: Some Irish contributors to the development of the chemical and physical sciences, Royal Dublin Society Dublin, Ireland [ISBN: 9780860270553]
McMillan Weyers 2006, The Smarter Student,, 1st Ed. Ed., Pearson Prentice Hall UK [ISBN: ISBN: 978-0-273-71449-1]
Stephen Covey 1989, The 7 habits of highly effective people, Running Press London [ISBN: 0762408332]
DkIT Customised Text 2008, Microsoft Office 2007 – Essential Overview, Cengage Learning
Supplementary Book Resources
Burns, Tom 2012, Essential Study Skills:The Complete Guide To Success At University, SAGE London [ISBN: 1446203255]
Richard N.Bolles 2010, What color is your parachute ?, 2010 Ed., Ten Speed Press USA
Other Resources
Website: DkIT 2009, Credit where credit is due, DkIT, Dundalk, Ireland
Website: n/awww.futureforall.org
Website: n/awww.futurescience.org
Website: n/awww.sciencedaily.com
Website: n/awww.jobhuntersbible.com
Website: Annamarie RogersLecture notes and further resources, DkIT Moodle
Website: DkIT Health and Safety Commitee 2012, Safe Work Practice Sheets, DkIT, DkIT
Website: DkIT Health and Safety Committee 2011, DkIT Safety statement, DkIT, DkIT
Website: Health and Safety Authority 2005, Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/Acts/Safety_Health_and_Welfare_at_Work/SI_No_1 0_of_2005.pdf
Website: Health and Safety Authority 2001, Chemical Agents Regulations 2001, HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/
Website: HSA 2001, Carcinogen Regulations, HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/
Website: Health and Safety Authority 2011, Chemicals Act (Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation) 2011, HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/
Website: Health and Safety Authority 2007, Safety Health and Welfare at Work act (General Applications Regulations) 2007,HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/
Website: Health and Safety Authority 1998, Biological Agents Regulations 1994, 1998, HSA, HSAhttp://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/8
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in GMP in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Supplemental NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 20 First Intake: September 2013 (15)
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee IT Dr. Colin Conway Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT School of Natural Sciences, NUI Galway
Mr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Ronan Bree Dr Arjan Van Rossum Mr Richard Crowley Dr Annamarie Rogers
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/8
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in GMP in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in GMP in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/8
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, although take up to date has been disappointing. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Demand for the programme can be enhanced if delivery is scheduled to suit local
industry. Consideration should be given to on-line delivery.
Network more regularly with employers and graduates to determine the appropriateness of modular content while ensuring the interaction is specific to this programme.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/8
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/8
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/8
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/8
Recommendation(s): Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may be
greater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/8
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Other Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
___________________________________________ Dr. Michael Hall, Chairperson.
Date:
13th May 2013
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/9
Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Not applicable Programme Title(s): Certificate in GMP in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Not applicable Award Class: Supplemental NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 20 First Intake: September 2013 (15)
Panel Members
Dr. Michael Hall Chair Registrar, Tralee IT Dr. Colin Conway Dr. Gavin Collins
Academic School of Science, GMIT School of Natural Sciences, NUI Galway
Mr. Michael Gillen Industry Senior Executive, PharmaChemical Ireland Ms. Ann Campbell Secretary to
Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr Breda Brennan Dr Edel Healy Dr Ronan Bree Dr Arjan Van Rossum Mr Richard Crowley Dr Annamarie Rogers
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Health and Science at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Certificate in GMP in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality of their submission. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Certificate in GMP in Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/9
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes, although take up to date has been disappointing. Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): Demand for the programme can be enhanced if delivery is scheduled to suit local
industry. Consideration should be given to on-line delivery.
Network more regularly with employers and graduates to determine the appropriateness of modular content while ensuring the interaction is specific to this programme.
School Response: The School is currently developing a blended learning implementation strategy which includes provision of training for staff in same. Consideration will then be given to offering this programme in online mode. The School shall be increasing the membership of its Industry Advisory Forum this academic year and hopes to use this forum to get network further with Industry and gain their feedback on module content. An increased use of social media such as LinkedIn shall be used to maintain contact with graduates.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/9
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/9
Recommendation(s): None.
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided
for the proposed programme? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/9
Recommendation(s): None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/9
Recommendation(s): Examine commonality with other programmes to free up resources. There may be
greater potential for commonality than is currently identified.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/9
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5.2 Other Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/9
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________ Dr. Edel Healy, Head of School of Health and Science. Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panel report have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council at Dundalk Institute of Technology for ratification.
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of Science Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science in Veterinary Nursing Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Ordinary Bachelor Degree Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 7 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180 First Intake: September 2013 (30)
Panel Members
Dr. Gertie Taggart Chair Head of School of Science, Letterkenny Institute of Technology (LyIT)
Prof. Patrick Wall Ms. Lisa Geraghty
Academic Associate Professor Public Health, University College Dublin (UCD) Department of Life and Physical Science, Athlone Institute of Technology (AIT)
Mr. Padraic Brennan Industry Lisburn Veterinary Clinic Dr. Brendan Ryder Secretary to
Panel Assistant Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Ms. Marina Bellini Dr. Beda Brennan Ms. Karen Dunne Mr. Eamonn Mullen Ms. Siobhan Duffy Dr. John Dallat Ms. Catherine Jacque Ms.Doireann Dowling Dr. Mark Hollywood Ms. Fionnuala Power Dr. Keith Thornbury Dr. Gerard Sergeant
Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programmes: Bachelor of Science in B.Sc. in Veterinary Nursing The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality and comprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment of the team was evident on the day of the validation panel. The panel would like it noted that the full employment of graduates from this programme is a significant achievement for the department and the Institute. It is clearly evident that the department has engaged in a significant level of review and reflection.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science in B.Sc. in Veterinary Nursing
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9
the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements?
Overall Finding: Yes, subject to conditions and/or recommendations
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s):
In order to allow for flexible transfer and progression the science components of the programme should be included as recognisable core science modules. It is not evident what progression paths to NFQ Level 8 are possible in the current programme configuration.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes, subject to conditions and/or recommendations
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): The programme development team should explore the possibility of elective modules to
maximise the educational experience for the student (and avoid “stove-piping”).
Consideration should be given to the addition of a Counselling (of client) module in the programme structure.
Consideration should be given to introducing the following modules earlier in the
programme:
o Surgical Nursing o Aesthesia and Analgesia o Diagnostic Imaging.
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided for the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
The panel were impressed with the high levels of engagement with the scholarship of learning and teaching and the application of innovative practices contained therein. Best practice approaches were adopted in order to enhance the learning experience for students. Significant developments have taken place in relation to the promotion of active learning in the classroom and also the use of classroom assessment strategies and other innovative assessment practices. There was also evidence of application of innovation in relation to the first year experience as evidenced by the introduction of programme convenors, a new induction programme and supports provided to all students, including first years, through the Student Learning and Development Centre (SLDC). It is clear that the M.A. in Learning and Teaching had played a significant role in developing new pedagogies and a range of excellent strategies (including flexible and blended strategies) across the curriculum.
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been
provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.
This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy;
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9
Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional grading system.
The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation: None.
4.11 Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes. Detailed documentation was presented to the panel which included the following: Records of programme boards Interactions with external examiners Student feedback
Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation: None.
4.12 Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate? Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had a significant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programme management structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s): None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s):
The programme development team should consider introducing a module to allow
students to attain credits in recognition of their contribution in peer-assisted learning (PAL) activities.
Module descriptors are very detailed in some instances, particularly the indicative contents section. These should be reviewed accordingly.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9
Recommendation: None.
5.2 Other Findings
Condition(s): None.
Recommendation(s):
Consider how students will be prepared for Level 8 if the supply and demand changes
for the programme.
The programme development team should explore other career options in this veterinary nursing area. This would include multi-disciplinary interactions.
Validation Panel Report Approved By:
Signed:
_______________________________________________________ Dr. Gertie Taggart, Chairperson.
Date:
13th May 2013.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 1/10
Response to the Report of theProgramme Validation Panel
Panel Visit: 13th May 2013
Named Award: Bachelor of ScienceProgramme Title(s): Bachelor of Science in Veterinary NursingExit Award(s): Not applicableAward Type: Ordinary Bachelor DegreeAward Class: MajorNFQ Level: 7ECTS / ACCS Credits: 180First Intake: September 2013 (30)
Panel Members
Dr. Gertie Taggart Chair Head of School of Science, LetterkennyInstitute of Technology (LyIT)
Prof. Patrick Wall
Ms. Lisa Geraghty
Academic Associate Professor Public Health, UniversityCollege Dublin (UCD)
Department of Life and Physical Science,Athlone Institute of Technology (AIT)
Mr. Padraic Brennan Industry Lisburn Veterinary ClinicDr. Brendan Ryder Secretary to
PanelAssistant Registrar, Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. Edel Healy Ms. Marina BelliniDr. Beda Brennan Ms. Karen DunneMr. Eamonn Mullen Ms. Siobhan DuffyDr. John Dallat Ms. Catherine JacqueMs.Doireann Dowling Dr. Mark HollywoodMs. Fionnuala Power Dr. Keith ThornburyDr. Gerard Sergeant
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 2/10
1 Introduction
The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panelof assessors on a proposal from the School of Business and Humanities at Dundalk Instituteof Technology to design the following programmes:
Bachelor of Science in B.Sc. in Veterinary Nursing
The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaginggenerously and openly with the review process.
The report is divided into the following sections:
Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings
2 Background to Proposed Programme
See programme submission for more detailed information.
3 General Findings of the Validation Panel
The panel would like to commend the programme development team for the quality andcomprehensiveness of the documentation submitted. The engagement and commitment ofthe team was evident on the day of the validation panel. The panel would like it noted thatthe full employment of graduates from this programme is a significant achievement for thedepartment and the Institute. It is clearly evident that the department has engaged in asignificant level of review and reflection.
Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programmedevelopment team, the validation panel recommends the following:
Bachelor of Science in B.Sc. in Veterinary Nursing
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmaticreview, whichever occurs sooner
X
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations XRe-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additionaldevelopmental workNot Accredited
Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takesaccount of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response documentdescribing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendationsmade by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used toindicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must beundertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if theprogramme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 3/10
Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stageand which should be the subject of on-going monitoring.
4 Programme-Level Findings
This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations:
Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance.
4.1 Demand
Validation Criterion: Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidencebeen provided to support it?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.2 Award
Validation Criterion: Is the level and type of the award appropriate?Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 4/10
4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment
Validation Criterion: Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute’s strategy andare the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability andinternationalisation embedded in the proposed programme asappropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.4 Entry Requirements
Validation Criterion: Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clearand appropriate?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures foraccess, transfer and progression that have been established bythe NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entryrequirements?
Overall Finding: Yes, subject to conditions and/or recommendations
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
In order to allow for flexible transfer and progression the science components of theprogramme should be included as recognisable core science modules. It is not evidentwhat progression paths to NFQ Level 8 are possible in the current programmeconfiguration.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 5/10
School Response:
The Programme Board discussed this recommendation at its meeting dated 10th October2013. The team are of the view that this Programme is not a Science programme in thetraditional sense and that progression to a Level 8 Laboratory Science Programme wouldnot be appropriate. The team are currently all progression options available to itsgraduates.
4.6 Standards and Outcomes
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme meet the required awardstandards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e.conform to QQI Award Standards)?
Overall Finding: Yes
The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can befound at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.7 Programme Structure
Validation Criterion: Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can thestated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employmentskills and career opportunities be met by this programme?
Overall Finding: Yes, subject to conditions and/or recommendations
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
The programme development team should explore the possibility of elective modules tomaximise the educational experience for the student (and avoid “stove-piping”).
Consideration should be given to the addition of a Counselling (of client) module in theprogramme structure.
Consideration should be given to introducing the following modules earlier in theprogramme:
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 6/10
o Surgical Nursingo Aesthesia and Analgesiao Diagnostic Imaging.
School Response:
The team discussed these recommendations at its Programme Board meeting dated 10th
October 2013. Elective modules shall be considered by the team, areas such as EquineNursing or Laboratory Science were suggested. However the ability to offer such electiveswould be resource dependent. The team were of the view that counselling is adequatelycovered in the ‘Client Care’ module. In relation to the modules suggested above fordelivery earlier in the Programme the team did not agree that their delivery would beappropriate earlier in the Programme. They are of the opinion that the applied nature ofthese skills are more relevant later in the Programme. This would also be the feedbackfrom work placement sites on this issue.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been providedfor the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
The panel were impressed with the high levels of engagement with the scholarship oflearning and teaching and the application of innovative practices contained therein. Bestpractice approaches were adopted in order to enhance the learning experience forstudents. Significant developments have taken place in relation to the promotion of activelearning in the classroom and also the use of classroom assessment strategies and otherinnovative assessment practices. There was also evidence of application of innovation inrelation to the first year experience as evidenced by the introduction of programmeconvenors, a new induction programme and supports provided to all students, includingfirst years, through the Student Learning and Development Centre (SLDC). It is clear thatthe M.A. in Learning and Teaching had played a significant role in developing newpedagogies and a range of excellent strategies (including flexible and blended strategies)across the curriculum.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 7/10
4.9 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies beenprovided for the proposed programme (as outlined in theQQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)?
Overall Finding: Yes
Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC’s Assessment and Standards andshould form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programmevalidation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33).Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009)Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) :
Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures.This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability andauthenticity;
Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules,
including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme’s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional
grading system.
The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute ofTechnology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-and-learning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.10Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessaryto deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 8/10
4.11Quality Assurance
Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute’squality assurance procedures have been applied and thatsatisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring andperiodic review of programmes?
Overall Finding: Yes
The Institute’s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic QualityAssurance Manual available at: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-quality-manual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic reviewof Programmes.
Detailed documentation was presented to the panel which included the following:
Records of programme boards Interactions with external examiners Student feedback
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
4.12Programme Management
Validation Criterion: Are the programme management structures adequate?Overall Finding: Yes
The introduction of programme directors (including first-year convenors) has had asignificant impact on the efficiency of and communication within the programmemanagement structure. This should be retained into the future.
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
5 Module-Level Findings
Condition(s):
None.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 9/10
Recommendation(s):
The programme development team should consider introducing a module to allowstudents to attain credits in recognition of their contribution in peer-assisted learning(PAL) activities.
Module descriptors are very detailed in some instances, particularly the indicativecontents section. These should be reviewed accordingly.
School Response:
The students already get ECTs awarded for these activities. This is the module entitled‘Personal Effectiveness and Peer Support’. This included in Appendix 1.
Module descriptors shall be reviewed by the team.
5.1 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included inthe proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
None.
5.2 Other Findings
Condition(s):
None.
Recommendation(s):
Consider how students will be prepared for Level 8 if the supply and demand changesfor the programme.
The programme development team should explore other career options in thisveterinary nursing area. This would include multi-disciplinary interactions.
School Response to Validation Panel Report Page 10/10
School Response:
The team shall review progression opportunities for the graduates including the feasibilityof the development of a suitable Level 8 add-on programme in DkIT.
Signed on behalf of the School
__________________________________________Dr. Edel Healy,Head of School of Health and Science.
Date: 25st November 2013
I confirm that the conditions and recommendations contained in the validation panelreport have now been met and recommend this programme to the Academic Council atDundalk Institute of Technology for ratification.
Signed on behalf of the Validation Panel
____________________________________________________Dr. Gertie Taggart, Chair.
Date: 17th December 2013.
modulePersonal Effectiveness and Team Support
Page 1 of 4
PRPF S7001: PersonalEffectiveness and TeamSupport
Module Details
Short Title: Personal Effectiveness and Team Support PENDING APPROVAL
Full Title: Personal Effectiveness and Team Support
Module Code: PRPF S7001
ECTS Credits: 5
NFQ Level: 7
Valid From: Semester 1 - 2013/14 ( September 2013 )
Module Coordinator: Breda Brennan
Module Author: Fionnuala Power
Description: This module will provide students with the knowledge and skills to work effectively both on their own and aspart of a team. They will undertake a basic piece of research into a contemporary issue in veterinary nursingand work as part of a team to devise and plan a marketing programme or client event. They will alsodevelop personal responsibility through the provision of peer support to a first year veterinary nursingstudent.
Learning Outcomes:
On successful completion of this module the learner should be able to
Demonstrate an ability to manage his/her time effectively.1.Demonstrate an ability to set personal performance targets and work towards the achievement of these targets through2.the provision of peer support to a first year colleague.Reflect upon and evaluate his/her work.3.Work effectively as part of a team to research and plan an event relating to an aspect of veterinary nursing and client4.care.Create and deliver a high standard multimedia presentation of this research.5.
modulePersonal Effectiveness and Team Support
Page 2 of 4
PRPF S7001: PersonalEffectiveness and TeamSupport
Module Content & Assessment
Indicative Content
Setting personal goals and performance targets
Time management skills
Developing effective listening skills
Communication skills on both a one-to-one and group basis
Reflective practice and writing skills
Mentor first years in study skills, Harvard referencing and avoiding plagiarism
Compilation of advice/information sheets e.g. in relation to work placement
Team working
Integrated marketing communications
Creativity and lateral thinking
Assessment Breakdown %
Course Work 100.00%
Course Work
Type Description Outcomeaddressed
% oftotal
AssessmentDate
ReflectiveJournal
A piece of reflective writing (electronic format using Mahara e-portfolio)concerning the student's experiences in the provision of peer assistedlearning and support to a first year veterinary nursing student.
1,2,3 50.00 Week 9
GroupProject
Students will produce a communication plan to inform pet owners, thegeneral public, clients or students about an aspect of veterinary nursing orclient care. They will present their findings.
4,5 50.00 Week 12
No End of Module Formal Examination
Reassessment Requirement
No repeat examinationReassessment of this module will be offered solely on the basis of coursework and a repeat examination will not be offered.
DKIT reserves the right to alter the nature and timings of assessment
modulePersonal Effectiveness and Team Support
Page 3 of 4
PRPF S7001: PersonalEffectiveness and TeamSupport
Module Workload & Resources
Workload Full Time
Type Description Hours Frequency Average WeeklyLearner Workload
Lecture Research & preparation of marketing communicationsplan
3.00 Every Week 3.00
Lecturer-SupervisedLearning (Contact)
Peer-assisted learning and support (PALS) sessionwith first year students (for 8 weeks)
1.00 Every Week 1.00
Independent Study Preparation for PALS sessions and compilation ofreflective journal
2.00 Every Week 2.00
Independent Study Group project research and preparation 2.00 Every Week 2.00
Total Weekly Learner Workload 8.00
Total Weekly Contact Hours 4.00
This course has no Part Time workload.
modulePersonal Effectiveness and Team Support
Page 4 of 4
Resources
Recommended Book Resources
Hargie, O 2010, Skilled Interpersonal Communication: Research, Theory and Practice, 5e Ed., Routledge
Rogan, D. 2011, Marketing – An Introduction for Irish Students, 4th Ed., Gill & Macmillan, 2001, 2nd ed.
Supplementary Book Resources
Moon, J. 2004, A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: theory and practice, Routledge Falmer
Bolton, G. 2010, Reflective Practice: Writing and Professional Development, 3e Ed., SAGE
Denscombe, M. 2010, The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects, 4e Ed., Open University Press
Bell, J. 2010, Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education, Health and Social Science, 5e Ed.,Open University Press
Belch, G.E. 2012, Advertising and promotion : an integrated marketing communications perspective, 9th Ed., McGraw-Hill/Irwin
Chris Hackley. 2010, Advertising and promotion : an integrated marketing communications approach, 2nd Ed., Sage
Other Resources
Online resource: DkIT Library 2009, Credit where Credit is Due: A guide to referencing in DkIT using the Harvard referencingsystemwww.dkit.ie
VLE: DkIT 2013, Moodle
Website: Association for Learning Development in HE 2013, Learn Higherhttp://learnhigher.ac.uk/Students.html
VLE linked: Vet Logic resources
E-Portfolio: DkIT 2013, Mahara
Link: Library Cataloguehttp://tinyurl.com/mh45947