Programmatic Review School of Informatics and Creative Arts Report of Expert Panel March 2014

1

Introduction In its 2010 policy document, Provider Monitoring Policy and Procedures, HETAC notes that Programmatic review is a quality review process whereby a provider conducts a critical evaluation of all programmes within a School. It is an opportunity to review a suite of programmes developed and delivered over a period of time and to streamline them. As a core statutory obligation under Section 28(4) of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training Act) 2012, it forms part of the quality assurance policy agreed with HETAC under Delegated Authority and is part of a process of continuous improvement embedded within the structures of the institution and resulting in the production of a five year plan in respect of the specific provision under review. The 2014 Programmatic Review of the School of Informatics and Creative Arts took place against the backdrop of the system reconfiguration initiated through the Hunt Report (2011) and subsequent HEA publications: Towards a Future Higher Education Landscape, (2012) Institutional Responses to the Landscape Document and Achieving the Objectives of the National Strategy for Higher Education, A Gap Analysis, (2012) and Completing the Landscape Process for Higher Education, 2013. The Programmatic Review took place on 10th, 11th and 12th March 2014. A core panel of external experts was invited by the Institute to conduct the Programmatic Review. Membership of the Panel is detailed in Appendix A. During the site visit, the Panel met with School Management, Staff and Learners. See Appendix B for a list of staff with whom the Panel engaged. The Terms of Reference for the Programmatic Review were agreed by the Academic Council and published in a Handbook for Programmatic Review in November 2012. This Handbook was made available to the External Panel and is available for download at www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/handbook-programmatic-review The Core Programmatic Review Panel1 received the Self Evaluation Report (SER) prepared by the School of Health and Science and submissions in respect of each programme proposed by the School in advance of the site visit using Dropbox facility. These documents are available at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vkob65ktk56qryg/zUqjeKG3k5

1 The Core Programmatic Review Panel is referred to as ‘the Panel’ throughout Volume 1 of this Report.

2

Format of the Review The Programmatic Review Panels met at Dundalk Institute of Technology over the three day period. On March 10th, the Core Panel evaluated the SER in dialogue with the School management, staff and learners. This was Phase 1 of the review process. During this phase, the Panel clarified and verified the details in the SER against the objectives set out in the Handbook for Programmatic Review and considered how well the identified aims and objectives of the School are being met. It also considered the School’s strategy for the coming five years. Under Phase 2, which took place on 11th & 12th March, a number of additional discipline experts joined the core panel as required to ensure sufficient and appropriate expertise was available to adequately consider each individual programme. This allowed for the formation of programme validation panels, each of which was chaired by a member of the core programmatic review panel itself. Membership of these panels is detailed in Appendix C. The programme validation panels considered individual programmes and examined the programme changes in the context of all the information provided by the School and the quality assurance arrangements which affect the delivery of these programmes. The Chair of each programme validation panel has agreed a report with his/her colleagues on the panel, in respect of each programme evaluated. This report is in two volumes. Volume 1 provides the findings of the Panel arising from Phase 1 of the process described above and set against the terms of reference detailed in the Handbook for Programmatic Review. Individual programme reports are available in Volume 2. This report is agreed by all Panel Members for submission to the Academic Council for ratification.

3

Programmatic Review Report: School of Informatics and Creative Arts Volume 1

4

Executive Summary

The School of Informatics and Creative Arts was formed in 2004. It comprises the following academic departments, sections and affiliated research centres/group: Department of Computing and Mathematics Section of Music Section of Creative Media Regulated Software Research Centre Ionad Taighde Ceoil Creative Media Research Group. The documentation prepared for the programmatic review process was of an excellent standard both in terms of the SER and the individual programme submissions. The SER itself was presented in five volumes, a volume dealing with the School as an overall entity, and one volume respectively for each academic unit, i.e. the Department of Computing & Mathematics; the Section of Creative Media and the Section of Music. A fifth volume contains general background detail. A set of documents for each programme undergoing revalidation was also produced, including a main programme document, programme schedules, programme learning outcomes and module descriptors. Staff engaged actively in the programmatic review process and participated in an open and wide ranging discussion with panel members during the site visit. The Panel wishes to acknowledge this very strong engagement with thanks.

The Panel also acknowledges with thanks learner engagement during the site visit and is appreciative of the learner perspective generated through an equally wide-ranging discussion.

The SER provided a critical evaluation of the School and presented its strengths and weaknesses in a commendably honest and very detailed appraisal.

The School of Informatics and Creative Arts has been in existence since September 2004. Since the last programmatic review in 2009, the School has re-located into the impressively refurbished P.J. Carroll Building allowing staff and learners to work and learn using state-of- the-art facilities. The Panel congratulates the School on its facilities and commends the Institute on its investment in this regard.

The School delivers programmes from levels 7 – 10 on the National Framework of Qualifications with 983 registered students in the School in 2013. This represents a growth in student numbers of 105% since 2007. The Section of Creative Media has seen the strongest growth in this period, at 169% although the total number of learners in this section represents just 30% of the learner cohort in the School. This is followed by the Dept. of Computing and Mathematics which has grown by 92% in this period and the Section of Music which has grown by 73%. Notwithstanding this growth, the staff-learner ratio remains healthy with staff numbers standing at 98 (equating to 88.2 whole-time equivalents), of which five provide administrative support, three technical support and seven work as researchers. 40% of the staff hold a PhD demonstrating a growth in this respect of 19% since the last programmatic review.

5

Fifteen new programmes have been validated in the School over the past five years, four of which are funded under the Springboard Programme. Among the newly validated programmes, are three programmes at honours degree level, one at master’s level and a highly successful Higher Diploma in Computing, which is a conversion programme funded by Springboard and targeting skills’ shortages in the ICT sector of the economy. Part-time provision in the School is still relatively modest.

There is strong evidence of inter-disciplinary collaboration in programme design and though there appears to be no formal strategy in place to support this cross-disciplinary approach, it is effective and the Panel strongly endorses this activity. While it is clear that industry engagement is a strong part of the culture in the department, the industry engagement wasn’t formally reported upon. Staff engage actively in innovative learning and teaching initiatives, supported by the Centre for Learning and Teaching. The staff demonstrate commitment, enthusiasm and dedication to learners. The Panel wishes to commend the staff on their dedication to their work and on their engagement with new approaches to learning and teaching. Learners spoke highly of the staff and indicated that they are very helpful and approachable. There has been a focus on enhancing the first year experience for learners with corresponding successes achieved in relation to student retention. Over the past five years, research activity has grown in the School and the integration of research activity with undergraduate teaching has significantly increased. Programmes offered in the School were systematically reviewed. The rationale for change is evidence based and due consideration has been given to embedding the Institute’s Strategic Themes of Entrepreneurship, Sustainability and Internationalisation in the curricula. The programme documents provide detailed teaching, learning and assessment strategies. The Panel approves all programmes for validation for five years from the September 2014 intake, subject to the respective conditions and recommendations contained in the individual programme validation reports. The Panel acknowledges the significant work of the programme directors, year convenors and Programme Boards. In terms of its structure, the School has a School Management Committee which deals with operational and strategic issues. A 21-member School Board is representative of the faculty and focuses on School strategy and policies, assisting in effective communication and information-sharing as well as fostering participation and a sense of collegiality. It is clear to the Panel that these School structures are working very well, and the Panel commends the School for this very democratic approach.

6

Recommendations: 1. There is evidence that engagement with industry is taking place. However in the

view of the Panel, such engagement needs to be more systematic. Integration with Institute supports such as the Placement Office should be more clearly defined. A re-implementation of the School’s industrial forum should be accelerated at school and department level. The Panel recommends that industry engagement be strengthened through a defined strategy, which is substantial, meaningful and relevant. The School is to be commended for incorporating placement on its programmes.

2. As a result of the Programmatic Review process, the programmes offered have been comprehensively updated. From student feedback, it is clear that students were anxious to access the updated versions of the programme. There was evidence of clear learner engagement with the review process. The Panel recommends that where feasible, such improvements to programmes should be incorporated into current delivery. This could be done through a transitional mapping process.

3. The Panel notes the Minister’s call for all HE providers to engage with the Transitions’ agenda and reduce the denominated entry offerings at level 8. The Panel is of the view that the Institute needs to articulate its position on the Transitions’ agenda with the subsequent alignment of the School to the Institute’s policy.

4. The Panel recommends that the relevance, currency and sustainability of the

curriculum be kept under constant review, particularly in relation to content. 5. The voice of the learner is clearly heard at programme board level. However not all

learners appear to understand the School structures or how they might feed into these. The Panel recommends that these structures be explained to learners. Training for class representatives should be reviewed at Institute level to ensure that Institute feedback mechanisms are included.

6. The Panel acknowledges that learner feedback is occurring within the School in a

number of forms. Practices are inconsistent however, and a more consistent implementation model needs to be applied to ensure feedback is received and is actioned accordingly. Such actions should occur through the Programme Board, where they can be recorded and reported upon at central level through the Registrar and the Academic Council.

7. The Panel recommends that the School devise and implement a dedicated strategy

for inter-disciplinary teaching to formalise current practices. The Panel notes existing informal collaborations, which could be enhanced and supported were a formal strategy or framework in place.

8. The Institute’s alliance with Dublin City University and its participation in the

Leinster Pillar II Cluster can provide opportunities for joint delivery of programmes or programme pathways and these options should be explored by the School in order to maximise resources and increase student intake.

7

9. Learner progression rates have improved significantly in the period since the last

programmatic review. The School should, however, continue to monitor its retention figures and take appropriate measures to support increased progression. The progression rates in year 2 and year 3 should also be reflected upon in a formal manner as non-progression in later years has a cumulative effect reducing the overall success of the programmes.

Objectives of Programmatic Review Programmatic Review requires the School to undertake a self-evaluation process with inputs from staff, learners, and other internal and external stakeholders. The self-evaluation is required to reference national strategy for higher education and its role in delivering to the needs of society and the economy. The process is intended to involve programme board deliberation including programme evaluation, modification and redesign; SWOT and data analysis; evaluation and planning. Consultation with internal and external stakeholders, including employers, learners, staff and peers is considered essential to the process. 1.1 Programmes All programmes in the School were evaluated and following consultation with internal and external stakeholders were modified and updated where necessary. A series of submission documents in respect of each programme were prepared and provided the detail outlined below: Rationale and demand for the programme Admission Criteria Stakeholder Feedback Development and Review of the Programme, including Programme statistics,

including advanced entry, retention and pass rates Programme Changes Learning Outcomes Learning and Teaching Strategies Assessment Strategy Embedding Strategic Themes in Curricula Placement arrangements where appropriate Graduate Profile Career Opportunities Resourcing Programme Structure Quality Assurance Mapping of Learning Outcomes to the NFQ Framework Module Descriptors The Panel commends the excellent quality of the programme submission documents.

8

1.2 SWOT Analysis The School undertook a series of SWOT analyses in March 3013 at School level and in each of its academic units. These are discussed in Chapter 8 of Volume 1SC Part 1 of the SER. The SWOT analysis focused on: Programme Provision Research Opportunities Student Services Engagement with Enterprise/Society and the Community.

All staff members were asked to complete a template in advance and each meeting was facilitated by a staff member. At Department/Section level, the teams were asked to reach consensus on four to five themes emerging from the discussion and to forward these to the School meeting to set the agenda for the latter. Two staff members from each unit participated in the School meeting to act as representatives of and not for their discipline. This was to emphasise that the School meeting was not a negotiation but rather an opportunity to allow the diverse perspectives within the School to be discussed. Other team members at Section or Department level could participate in the School meeting provided they had signalled their intention to do so in advance. The SWOT analysis resulted in a set of 60 questions leading to actions, allocated to the School Management Committee, the School Board, the School Research Programme Boards, the Department, Sections and Research Centres/Group. Volume 5 of the SER details these questions and actions, which have been incorporated into the School’s Strategic Work Plan, detailed under 8.3ff in Volume 1SC Part 1 of the SER. The actions have been classified under the following broad thematic areas: School Identity Promotion and Recruitment Student Supports Staff Supports Resources Interdisciplinary Collaboration Programme Provision. 1.3 Specific Objectives The Academic Council noted the specific objectives of a programmatic review as defined by HETAC and published these in its Handbook for Programmatic Review. These objectives are listed below and the Panel findings are provided in respect of each. 1.2.1 Analyse the effectiveness and efficiency of each validated programme,

including details of learner numbers, retention rates and success rates. Access, progression and transfer are discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.4 of Volume 1 SC Part 1 and additionally Chapter 4 in Part 1 of each Volume 2CP, 3CM and 4MU detail the student profile in relation to current and planned intake by programme. Chapter 5 in

9

each of these latter three volumes presents a review of progression and transfer in respect of individual programmes. The analysis presented is commendably detailed both in terms of student profile at intake and the review of progression. A steady increase in student recruitment is evident both at undergraduate and at postgraduate levels. Intake is however comparatively low on some programmes, for example a cap of 36 has been set for intake to the B.A. (Hons) in Applied Music; an anticipated cap of 5 -8 for the first intake for the MA in Traditional Music Studies, rising only to a maximum of 20 students in the longer term; a cap of 20 students set for the B.A (Honours) in Communications in Creative Multimedia; a cap of 20 students on both the BSc (Honours) in Games Development and the BSc.(Hons) in Interactive Design and Development. The Panel notes by contrast that an intake of 100 students is possible for the BSc. in Computing and that intake on this latter programme stood at 118 in 2012/13. The Panel is aware of resource constraints but suggests that such resources can be maximised through module sharing and other strategies to allow for higher learner intakes. Chapter 3 in Volume 1 SC Part 1 discusses the staffing levels which support overall growth in student numbers. Staff numbers have grown apace in the past five years with the whole-time equivalent (WTE) of 73.9 academic staff employed in the School in 2013/14 as opposed to the WTE of 60.3 in 2007/08. This allows a wide range of electives to be offered to students throughout programmes. As resource constraints bite deeper and the School is challenged to increase student intake both to meet skills’ shortages in the workplace and to achieve efficiencies, programmes with low intakes are vulnerable and their long-term sustainability may be in doubt. This is particularly true where national higher education strategy seeks to rationalise programme provision through cluster partnerships. A rationalisation of elective choice might allow for greater access to these very desirable programmes and support their longer term sustainability. The Institute’s alliance with Dublin City University and its participation in the Leinster Pillar II Cluster can provide opportunities for joint delivery of programmes or programme pathways and these options should be explored by the School. There has been an increase in the progression rates for learners in the Department of Computing and Mathematics from 60% in 2010 to 79% in 2012/13. Similarly progression rates for music programmes rose from 66% to 83% in the same period, while progression Creative Media programmes fell from 78% to 73% over the same period. In the latter case however progression in 2011/12 stood at 84%. That the overall change is positive is due, according to the School, to a number of factors. The introduction of first year co-ordinators and programme directors is regarded as being significant, as is a dedicated induction week for first year learners. The decision of the Academic Council to reduce the maximum number of modules per stage from 12 to 10 is an initiative designed to further support retention over the next period. Retention at stages 2 and 3 stands at an average of 74% and 73% respectively and progression at stage 4 is at an 83% average for the School with figures for music at a very positive 97%. Further efforts are required to support post-first year retention in

10

addition to the initiatives already taken in respect of first year progression. The Panel is confident that the School will continue to monitor its retention figures and take appropriate measures to support increased progression. 1.3.2 Review the development of the programmes in the context of the

requirements of employers, industry, professional bodies, the Irish economy and international developments.

Chapter 9 in Part 1 of each Volume 2CP, 3CM and 4MU addresses community engagement and external stakeholder input to the development of the programme. While it is clear from the documentation that the School engages in a wide variety of community engagement projects which are worthy of commendation, the involvement of employers and industry is not articulated at a strategic level in the School. This is not to infer that employers are not consulted when programmes are designed. They are. There is evidence of collaboration with external stakeholders, for example through the Regulated Software Research Centre; through FUSION and Honeycomb projects and through industry master classes. However in the view of the Panel, such engagement needs to be more systematic. Industry stakeholders are valuable partners who can assist with resources and facilitate development. A re-implementation of the School’s industrial forum should be accelerated at school and department level. The Panel recommends that industry engagement be strengthened through a defined strategy, which is substantial, meaningful and relevant. Integration with Institute supports such as the Placement Office should also be more clearly defined. 1.3.3 Evaluate the response of the provider/school/department to market

requirements and educational developments The School is actively involved in continuous professional development. 40% of staff hold a PhD qualification and a further 55% of staff hold Master’s degrees. Only 21% of staff held a PhD at the last programmatic review. Staff are supported by the Centre for Learning and Teaching (CELT) to up-skill either by taking a Master’s degree in Learning and Teaching or individual modules from that programme. Additionally CELT makes a number of modules and supports available on-line to all staff. Entrepreneurship is a strategic theme embedded in the School and learners have many opportunities to engage with industry; for example, those taking the module ‘Entrepreneurship for Creative Industries’ work directly with industry on live projects. The Regional Development Centre supports student engagement with industry through the VITAL project. Through the interface with entrepreneurship throughout the curriculum, students learn to be self-starters. Students have opportunities to pitch ideas to local industry and to work with venture capitalists on occasion. Final year projects are often based on work commissioned by SMEs. Lecturing staff have developed close links with industry often through work on joint projects, such as FUSION. The Section of Music has close links with local performers and organisations and has also developed a relationship with RTE, whose North-East studio is located in the PJ Carroll building.

11

Chapter 10 in Part 1 of each Volume 2CP, 3CM and 4MU details the impressive research activity and associated funding in the School. It is evident from discussions with staff that research feeds into undergraduate teaching and that undergraduate learners are encouraged to consider postgraduate options following graduation. External stakeholders assist to inform programme development in line with industry and market requirements. The Panel is confident that market requirements and educational developments are incorporated into the programmes. However it recommends a closer alliance with industry partners as indicated in 1.3.2 above. 1.3.4 Evaluate the feedback mechanisms for learners and the processes for

acting on this feedback Learner feedback mechanisms are described in Sections 4.3.5.3 and 4.3.5.4 of Volume 1 SC Part 1 and in Chapter 7 of Part 1 of each Volume 2CP, 3CM and 4MU. Learners are represented on all significant fora in the School. Representatives sit on all Programme Boards and there are three representatives on the School Board. The School is confident that learners have a voice in respect of day-to-day issues arising in relation to programmes and also on School strategy. Learners too report that they are listened to and that staff are available and willing to discuss issues on an informal basis. However not all class representatives are clear as to how they might raise an issue effectively and have it actioned. Some do not appear to understand the School structures or how they might feed into these. The Panel recommends that these structures be explained to learners. Training for class representatives should be reviewed at Institute level to ensure that Institute feedback mechanisms are included. Of equal importance is reporting back to learners on how issues raised by them are actioned. Such actions should occur through the Programme Board, where they can be recorded and reported upon at central level through the Registrar and the Academic Council. 1.3.5 Evaluate the physical facilities and resources provided for the provision of

the programme(s) The physical facilities in the School are summarised in Section 3.4 of Volume 1 SC Part 1 and are detailed in Chapter 6 of Part 1 of each Volume 2CP, 3CM and 4MU as appropriate for the Department of Computing and Mathematics and for the Sections of Creative Media and Music respectively. Through the refurbishment of the PJ Carroll Building in 2010, 11,500 square metres of space became available to the School and this space has been equipped with state-of-the art facilities for all disciplines involved. The Panel inspected these facilities during the site visit and can confirm that they are of an excellent standard. Students are afforded the opportunity to work with the latest technologies in an attractive and creative learning environment. 1.3.6 Evaluate the formal links which have been established with industry,

business and the wider community in order to maintain the relevance of its programmes

12

As discussed under 1.3.2 and 1.3.3 above, there is evidence of much engagement with business, industry and the wider community by the School. In each Chapter 9 of Part 1 of each Volume 2CP, 3CM and 4MU, the community engagement is detailed and includes initiatives ranging from CoderDojo to engagement with transition year pupils and public performances and exhibitions. The School involves itself with local and national voluntary bodies. Chapter 8 in each of these volumes details how industry was consulted through the programmatic review process. It is a requirement for programme validation that industry and business are consulted to assist in the development of the programme. Informal links are many and include collaboration in work placement and student engagement in ‘real-life’ projects. The Panel is satisfied that informal links have been established with industry, business and the wider community and that these help to maintain the relevance of programmes delivered in the School. However it recommends that such links be formalised as discussed in 1.3.2 above. 1.3.7 Evaluate feedback from employers of the programmes’ graduates and from

those graduates Chapter 7 of Part 1 of each Volume: 2CP, 3CM and 4MU details feedback obtained through graduate surveys. Response rates from graduates were relatively high and informed the review process as detailed in these volumes. 52% of graduates from Creative Media programmes are working in the sector, with over 70% of music graduates indicating that their employment is related to the programme they studied. Over half of these latter respondents are self-employed. Of those respondents who had studied computing programmes, most are either working in the ICT Sector or are engaged in post-graduate studies. Although employers do not appear to have been surveyed in respect of their satisfaction with DkIT graduates, some have been asked to detail the qualities they desire in a graduate. This is a worthwhile exercise, but it would be important to assess and document employer satisfaction with DkIT graduates. 1.3.8 Review any research activities in the field of learning under review and

their impact on teaching and learning. Chapter 6 of Volume 1SC, Part 1 provides an overview of research activity in the School. Chapter 10 in Part 1 of each Volume: 2CP, 3CM and 4MU provides an overview of research activity by discipline. Research is a major priority in the School and activity has increased over the period under review. The School has two research centres and one research group as follows: Regulated Software Research Centre Ionad Taighde Ceoil Creative Media Research Group.

The research vision of the Institute is to be the leading Institute of Technology in Ireland in its research areas by 2015. To achieve this vision, the Institute’s Research Strategy (2013-2015) identifies six strategic imperatives with associated actions and key performance indicators. These include:

13

1. A focus on research led by global needs that has societal and economic impact; 2. Driving research excellence in prioritised areas and supporting emerging research

areas; 3. Engaging and supporting researchers 4. Ensuring that the learning and teaching agenda is research informed; 5. Development of strategic partnerships 6. Enhancing the visibility and impact of research through regional and community

engagement. Research is supported by a number of initiatives which include: PhD transfer fund to assist postgraduate students to transition to the PhD register; Research Travel Grants; Master’s Scholarships; Summer Undergraduate Research Programme which provides funding to research

centres to support short-term research projects during the summer months for third and fourth year undergraduate students.

Seed Fund for emerging researchers. Through its two research centres, the School has graduated 15 master’s students and 5 PhD students since 2008. Research in the Department of Computing and Mathematics is focused primarily through the Regulated Software Research Centre (RSRC), which is widely regarded as a world-class centre in its engagement with regulatory focused software engineering research. The RSRC has a staff of 11 academics, 7 post-doctoral researchers, 4 researchers and 2 part-time administrators. Three students have graduated with PhD qualifications from this Centre. It is currently supervising 10 PhD candidates. Its research focus is detailed in Section 10.3 of Part 1, Volume 2CP. A key objective of the RSRC research is to improve teaching and learning at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. This is discussed in Section 10.7 of Part 1, Volume 2CP. The Section of Music has research approval to register learners on research degree programmes at levels 9 and 10 in the areas of: Late 19th and 20th Century music; Composition; Irish Traditional Music. Since its establishment in January 2010, Ionad Taighde Ceoil has pro-actively contributed to research across a wide range of music disciplines including musicology, composition, ethnomusicology, Irish traditional music, music technology, music education and community and performance practice. Its research related activities and thematic areas are detailed in Sections 10.1 and 10.3 of Part 1 of Volume 4MU. A key objective of music research is the improvement of teaching and learning at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels with research and teaching being mutually informing. This is discussed in Section 10.8 of Part 1 of Volume 4MU.

14

All staff in the Section of Creative Media are actively involved in research. The Creative Media Research Group was set up in 2009 with the aim of supporting staff to use their multidisciplinary skills to advance new knowledge and initiatives in creative media. Research in this Group is characterised by a blend of theory and practice and the Group has hosted a regular series of seminars, workshops and master classes since its establishment. The links between research and teaching is discussed in Section 10.5 of Part 1 of Volume 3CM. In all the School has generated €3,563,573 in research income from thirteen different funding programmes since 2008. Publications are detailed in the appendices to the SER volumes. In conversation with staff and in the review of programmes, it became clear to the Panel that undergraduate teaching is informed by this research activity. Undergraduate students are actively encouraged to consider undertaking a research degree after graduation. A number of undergraduate initiatives introduce learners to research. The Panel commends these initiatives and congratulates the School on its research record. The Panel notes the impediments to research detailed in the SER and in conversation with staff. Research activity is greatly impeded by the increased teaching schedule, requiring assistant lecturers to deliver 20 hours teaching per week. The Panel acknowledges the national framework, within which the IoT Sector must operate but notes the difficulty this poses for staff. Striking the balance between teaching and research is difficult in this regard. This is an issue which must be addressed nationally and the Panel advises the Executive to make representations at national level, where appropriate. This should include addressing the issue of allowing buyout of teaching time in national research funding programmes. 1.9 Evaluate projections for the following five years in the programme(s)/field

of learning under review Chapter 8 of Volume 1SC, Part 1 discusses Future Planning in the School and this is elaborated on in Chapter 15 in Part 1 of each Volume: 2CP, 3CM and 4MU. Future plans are linked to the Institute’s strategic plan. Target dates are set, actions identified and responsibilities assigned. Actions are informed by the SWOT analysis discussed under 1.2 above. Staff are aware of the Institute strategy for its alliance with DCU and through the Leinster Pillar II Cluster but are unfamiliar with the detail. They consider progress on these alliances to be slow and are not involved themselves. They are aware that collaboration on programme provision is possible through these strategic alliances, but are not involved in any discussions with partners in this regard. Staff are familiar with programme provision in DCU and consider that the programmes offered there are complimentary to those offered at DkIT. Communication on the progress of the strategic alliances is important and the Panel encourages the senior management of the Institute to provide updates to staff on a regular basis.

15

It is clear to the Panel that the School has a vision for its future development and has identified strategies to attain its goals. The Panel wishes the School well in its endeavours and is confident in its abilities to achieve its targets.

2. The Site Visit During the site visit to the Institute, the Panel met with the President, School management, teaching staff and learners. 2.1 Meeting with President and Head of School The President, Mr Denis Cummins and the Head of School of Informatics and Creative Arts, Dr Gerard (Bob) McKiernan met the Panel, who began by congratulating the School on the quality of the documentation provided. The SER documentation is very detailed and informative, as are the individual programme documents. 2.1.1 Strategy In relation to the National Strategy on Higher Education, the President outlined to the Panel that DkIT is not seeking Technical University (TU) status. However, the Institute aims to achieve the required metrics for TU status so as to maintain its position in relation to other IoTs. The Institute examined a number of options under the Landscape Process, including collaboration with GMIT, LyIT and IT Sligo. A consultative process with staff, students and stakeholders established that a link with DCU was the preferred option. The Institute has a range of well-established existing relationships with DCU particularly in research. Both institutions serve a region extending from Dublin to Belfast along the M1 corridor and together both institutions can enhance the education and research provision within this region. Areas proposed for collaboration include: teaching and learning, research, internationalisation and shared services. DkIT is working with DCU to achieve DCU accreditation for its research awards at level 9 and 10 from September 2014. DkIT will also work with DCU towards the development of a complimentary suite of programmes to serve the skills’ needs of the region. The Dublin-Belfast corridor has the highest demographic increase on the island with the 5-12 year old age group growing at double the national average. At the same time, a recent study by the All-Ireland Research Observatory (AERO) for DkIT showed that the level of qualification attainment in this region is below the national average. DkIT is participating in the Leinster Pillar II Cluster and has received €1million in the Strategic Innovation Development Fund (SIDF) funding. This funding will be used to map programme provision across the cluster; develop access pathways from providers of further education and share expertise in learning and teaching. The Institute’s Strategic Plan identifies a number of initiatives to promote the development of transferable skills among students, including entrepreneurship, internationalisation and sustainability. These strategic themes are embedded in programmes as illustrated in the programme documents. Additionally, the School seeks validation of a civic engagement module which can be offered on an extra-curricular

16

basis to learners. Entrepreneurship is promoted through a number of initiatives including ACE (Accelerating Campus Entrepreneurship) and student interns who promote entrepreneurship in each School. The Head of School of Informatics and Creative Arts informed the Panel that the strategy for the School includes a convergence of creative and technical disciplines which is facilitated by the proximity of the staff and students to each other in the newly re-furbished PJ Carroll Building. The Panel notes that were funding restrictions to lift, valuable areas to target in this regard include animation, music and maths, visual communications, photography. Additionally more collaborative programmes in business and engineering also have potential to attract students and deliver to the skills requirements of the workplace. 2.1.2 Resources

The President outlined the challenges currently facing the Institute, which include a 30% cut in its annual budget and the restrictions on recruitment arising from the Employment Control Framework (ECF). Dr McKiernan outlined the challenges facing the School which include the tension between balancing teaching and research, where the teaching workload has increased significantly. Nonetheless, 26 research students are currently registered in the School and supports are in place to assist staff pursuing a PhD. Dr McKiernan reported that the physical capacity of the School is 1200 students. The Panel are sympathetic to the challenges facing the School and encourage staff to seek industry support in terms of providing or assisting with resource provision. In relation to the restrictions imposed by the ECF, the Panel considers that collective representation through IOTI would be useful to raise these matters at national level. 2.1.3 Research and Community Engagement 40% of staff in the School currently hold PhD qualifications. In addition to the research centres discussed in 1.3.8 above the School is involved in the following cross-border initiatives: Accelerating Campus Entrepreneurship (ACE) Initiative: A joint collaboration of

Blanchardstown Institute of Technology, Cork Institute of Technology, Sligo Institute of Technology and National University of Ireland Galway led by Dundalk Institute of Technology.

ICE: An enterprise programme developed and led by DkIT in partnership with the University of Ulster, the University of Glasgow and Glasgow Caledonian University.to increase participant company turnover by over €56 million, generate 300 new jobs and take nearly 40 companies into new export sales.

17

VITAL: A partnership between Dundalk Institute of Technology, Queen’s University Belfast and Dublin City University. The 2.56m VITAL initiative funded by the EU’s INTERREG IVA Programme and Northern Ireland and Irish governments has created a pool of evaluated ideas and technologies and is actively identifying companies and seasoned entrepreneurs that might be in a position to bring these to market.

HONEYCOMB: A new business support programme targeted at digital content

creators across the six border counties of the Republic of Ireland, most of Northern Ireland and the west of Scotland.

2.2 Meeting with School Management Team Following an introductory presentation by the Head of School, the Chair commended the staff on the quality of the documentation provided and on the attention to detail. The School structure was discussed with particular reference to the operation of the School Board. This Board is designed to be a unifying strategic body within the School and meets four times a year. It is not formally aligned to Academic Council, but does drive policy throughout the School. Programme Boards report directly to the School Board. Three student representatives sit on this Board. Although membership of the various boards within the School demands commitment from staff, such is readily given. There is an opportunity to share best practice at School Board level and academic staff know they have a voice. The Board facilitates interdisciplinary programme discussion.

. The School Management Team is aware of the strategic direction of the Institute but have no direct involvement in progressing the strategy. The team look forward to identifying areas for collaborative programme provision with DCU and Cluster partners in the future.

The Chair queried the School’s view on the Transitions debate currently under discussion at national level and observed that the School’s plans for level 8 provision appear to be out of line with national policy. The team responded by outlining that they have moved towards un-denominated entry at level 7 for Computing programmes and that Music programmes are excluded from the need to comply with the transitions’ policy. The team also noted that there is a common core already in its level 8 provision. In response to a query from the Panel on engagement with industrial partners, the team confirmed that though many such links exist, no formal strategy has been formulated in this respect. The team cited a number of examples where they engage or have engaged with industry. These include: Higher Diploma in Computing was developed with industry to deliver the

transferable skills required in the workplace. The programme is funded by Springboard;

Research in the RSRG occurs in collaboration with industry;

The staff from the Department of Computing and Mathematics are involved in FUSION projects;

18

Music students have access to RTE rehearsals for the ‘Voice of Ireland’; The Section of Creative Media has hosted 60 master classes delivered by industry

partners; The School works with industry partners through the Work Placement Office.

Entrepreneurship is embedded in the curriculum and student interns promote entrepreneurship among the student body. The School has been involved in the ACE initiative described above. Learners have access to the Regional Development Centre, where supports are available to develop business ideas. The team believe that public confidence in DkIT awards is clearly demonstrated through graduate and employer feedback and through the success of its graduates. The team confirmed that learners were engaged in the programmatic review process through their representation on Programme Boards and on the School Board. They were also surveyed by questionnaire and through focus group participation.

2.2.1 Response to 2009 Programmatic Review The response of the School to the 2009 programmatic review is outlined in Section 2.4 of the Volume 1SC, Part 1 of the SER. The Panel notes that each of the recommendations have been taken on board and congratulates the School in particular for its move to the PJ Carroll Building and the attendant upgrading of its physical facilities.

2.3 Meeting with Staff The Chair commended the work of the staff in producing a very comprehensive documentation set for this review Queried about their views in relation to Institute strategy to develop a formal alliance with DCU, staff were positive in their response. They view the alliance as an opportunity to develop already strong links with colleagues in DCU and at least in the case of music, to take a lead role in the further development of the discipline, given the excellent facilities at DkIT. Staff are supportive of the School policy in relation to the transitions’ debate discussed under 2.2 above. They defend their decision to move out of the level 7 space in their offering of creative media programmes by pointing out that the demand from students is for level 8 programmes and that applicants are suitably qualified for entry to honours degree programmes. Staff support the strategy to embed the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and internationalisation into the curriculum. The Panel commended the staff for their research profile. In response to a query on how they manage to balance their teaching and research workloads, staff reported that this is becoming increasingly difficult due to the Haddington Road agreement, which has

19

seen an increase in the teaching load. Internal and external funding has helped fund a number of PhD students. However SFI funding does not cover lecturer time buy out, which poses challenges when seeking to engage in research. The School has a strong track record in research which it seeks to maintain. The RSRG is leading spin out companies as a result of its research and is also developing three new international standards arising out of its work with research students. Staff noted that the reduction of hours allocated for research supervision from 3 to 2 is impeding this work and contend that the workload issues challenge the sustainability of research in the future. They highlighted also their active participation in research into learning and teaching, which has informed teaching practice quite significantly. An example of this is the healthcare software module which is offered as an elective on the Higher Diploma in Computing. In relation to their engagement with industry, staff confirm that each unit has determined its own strategy for engaging with industry, but that this is not consistently done. The structure of the industry liaison committee in the Dept. of Computing and Mathematics changed after the last programmatic review but it has been decided to revert to the former structure again. They agree that the industrial liaison committee needs to be reformed with specific terms of reference and objectives. Environmental scanning is used in conjunction with advice from industry partners to inform the curriculum. Staff share modules and collaborate to develop an interdisciplinary approach to programme development. However, there is no formal strategy for this within the school. Students also work together on projects for example; Computing and Music students may work on a joint project. An example of successful collaboration is the BSc in Interactive Applications, Design and Development. Staff are currently exploring the development of a Master’s programme in digital humanities. When challenged in relation to non-progression of students at post first year on some programmes, staff commented that learner decisions to leave programmes are often not based on academic reasons, but may stem from personal or financial issues in their lives. It was noted that many students who defer often return at a later date. Staff welcome the introduction of 10 credit modules and the possibility to offer 2 ‘year-long’ modules at each stage. Project work in particular lends itself to an extended research period. Staff denied t any implication that the modularisation framework is under threat.

2.5 Meeting with Learners: The Learner Experience

Learners reported that they were kept aware of the programmatic review process and had had a number of meetings with staff regarding the changes in curriculum. Class representatives were more actively involved through their participation on Programme Boards and on the School Board. Many students present had participated in surveys or focus groups. When asked if they considered that their feedback was acted upon, a

20

number of students indicated that they were unsure or unaware of any actions taken arising from their intervention on Programme Boards. Class representatives reported that they were not provided with any dedicated training when appointed, to assist them in serving on School Boards. Learners reported however that staff are generally approachable and responsive. The learners are aware of significant changes to programme design proposed through this programmatic review and argue that proposed updates should be included in the current versions of their programmes. They are especially anxious to work with the most up to date technologies and consider that in some instances technologies still being taught such as Director and Adobe Flash are obsolete. They would welcome the integration of certified training into the curriculum. They reported that availability of equipment outside of class time is an issue and expressed concern that PHP, MySQL are not being taught across the curriculum. They reported that collaboration across departments works well from their perspective. While aware in a general sense of the Institute’s alliance with DCU, they see no level of engagement at a programme level. Learners are supportive of work-placement modules, provided the work is relevant. They argue for an extension of work placement opportunities to all programmes. In summary, the students are very positive about staff and facilities in the School. Staff are supportive and approachable. As well as physical resources, Institute clubs and societies are excellent.

See Appendix B for a list of staff and students who engaged with the Panel.

3. Conclusions and Recommendations The documentation prepared for the programmatic review process was of an excellent standard both in terms of the SER and the individual programme submissions. There was rigorous attention to detail in all documentation and the Panel is cognisant of the effort of all staff in producing this material. The SER provided a critical evaluation of the School and presented its strengths and weaknesses in a commendably honest appraisal.

Staff and stakeholders actively engaged in the entire programmatic review process and participated in an open and wide ranging discussion with panel members during the site visit. The Panel wishes to acknowledge this very strong engagement with thanks.

Programmes offered in the School were systematically reviewed. The rationale for change is evidence based and due consideration has been given to embedding the Institute’s Strategic Themes of Entrepreneurship, Sustainability and Internationalisation in the curricula. The programme documents provide detailed teaching, learning and assessment strategies. The Panel approves all programmes for validation for five years from September 2014 intake, subject to the respective conditions and recommendations contained in the individual programme validation reports. The Panel acknowledges the significant work of the programme directors, year convenors and Programme Boards.

21

Recommendations: 1. There is evidence that engagement with industry is taking place. However in the

view of the Panel, such engagement needs to be more systematic. Integration with Institute supports such as the Placement Office should be more clearly defined. A re-implementation of the School’s Industrial Forum should be accelerated at school and department level. The Panel recommends that industry engagement be strengthened through a defined strategy, which is substantial, meaningful and relevant. The School is to be commended for incorporating placement on its programmes.

2. As a result of the Programmatic Review process, the programmes offered have been comprehensively updated. The Panel recommends that where feasible, such improvements to programmes should be incorporated into current delivery. This could be done through a transitional mapping process.

3. The Panel notes the Minister’s call for all HE providers to engage with the

Transitions’ agenda and reduce the denominated entry offerings at level eight. The Panel is of the view that the Institute needs to articulate its position on the Transitions agenda with the subsequent alignment of the School to the Institute’s policy.

4. The Panel recommends that the relevance, currency and sustainability of the

curriculum needs to be under constant review, particularly in relation to content.

5. The voice of the learner is clearly heard at programme board level. However not all learners appear to understand the School structures or how they might feed into these. The Panel recommends that these structures be explained to learners. Training for class representatives should be reviewed at Institute level to ensure that Institute feedback mechanisms are included.

6. The Panel acknowledges that learner feedback is occurring within the School in a

number of forms. Practices are inconsistent however, and a more consistent implementation model needs to be applied to ensure feedback is received and is actioned accordingly. Such actions should occur through the Programme Board, where they can be recorded and reported upon at central level through the Registrar and the Academic Council.

7. The Panel recommends that the School devise and implement a dedicated strategy

for inter-disciplinary teaching to formalise current practices.

8. The Panel acknowledges the national framework, within which the IoT Sector must operate but notes the difficulty this poses for staff. Striking the balance between teaching and research is difficult in this regard. This is an issue which must be addressed nationally and the Panel advises the Executive to make representations at national level, where appropriate.

9. The Institute’s alliance with Dublin City University and its participation in the Leinster II Cluster can provide opportunities for joint delivery of programmes or

22

programme pathways and these options should be explored by the School in order to maximise resources and increase student intake.

10. Learner progression rates have improved significantly in the period since the last programmatic review. The School should, however, continue to monitor its retention figures and take appropriate measures to support increased progression.

11. Communicating with staff on the progress of the Institute’s strategic alliance with

DCU and within the Leinster Pillar II Cluster is important and the Panel encourages the senior management of the Institute to provide updates to staff on a regular basis.

23

Appendix A

Core Panel Members

Institute

Mr Michael Hannon Registrar, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology Dr Barry Feeney Head of Department of Computing, Institute of Technology,

Tallaght Prof. Fionn Murtagh Head of Computer Science & Informatics, De Montfort

University, Leicester Prof. Marie Redmond Centre for Creative Technologies, Trinity College, Dublin Dr Gordon Munroe Head of Music, Dublin Institute of Technology Mr Kieran Deegan IBM Ms Ustane Probst Graduate, Institute of Technology, Sligo Ms Ann Campbell Secretary

Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology

Dr Brendan Ryder (Rapporteur)

Assistant Registrar Dundalk Institute of Technology

Appendix B School Management

Head of School Dr Gerard (Bob) McKiernan Head of Department of Computing and Mathematics

Dr Christian Horn

Head of Section of Music Dr Adèle Commins Head of Section of Creative Media Ms Sarah McCann

School Board

Dr Gerard (Bob) McKiernan

Prof. Dr Christian Horn Dr Adèle Commins

Ms Sarah McCann Ms Caroline O’Sullivan Dr Fergal McCaffrey

Mr Niall McGuinness Mr Pat McCaul Dr Cornelia Connolly

Mr Derek O’Reilly Dr Fiona Lawless Dr Eibhlís Farrell

Mr Kieran Nolan Dr Bride Mallon Dr Philip McGuinness

Mr Fiachra Ó Cuinneagáin Mr Niall Coghlan

24

Academic Staff

Mr. Shane Dowdall (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Bride Mallon (Section of Creative Media)

Ms Yvonne Igoe (Section of Creative Media)

Mr Kieran Nolan (Section of Creative Media)

Mr Donal Beecher (Section of Creative Media)

Dr Paul McGettrick (Section of Creative Media)

Mr JJ Quinlan (Section of Creative Media)

Dr Una Hunt (Section of Music)

Mr Fiachra Ó Cuinneagáin (Section of Creative Media)

Dr David Connolly (Section of Music)

Ms Emma Hogan (Section of Creative Media)

Mr Seán Keegan (Section of Music)

Mr Glenn Doyle (Section of Creative Media)

Mr Derek O’Reilly (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Matt Green (Section of Creative Media)

Mr Enda Finn (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Frank Keenan (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Aisling Kenny (Section of Music)

Mr Kenneth Sloane (Section of Creative Media)

Mr David Stalling (Section of Music)

Mr Gabriel Matthews (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Paul McIntyre (Section of Music)

Dr Éamonn Crudden (Section of Creative Media)

Dr Peadar Grant (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Daithí Kearney (Section of Music) Dr David O’Keefe (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Mr Martin McCourt (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Michelle Graham (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Ms Audrey Maguire (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Mr Pat McCaul (Section of Music)

Ms Anne Leacy (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Mr Niall Coghlan (Section of Music)

Mr Peter Gosling (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Damien McNamara (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Ms Bernie Brosnan (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Mr Marcos Dias (Section of Creative Media)

Ms Elizabeth Rooney (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Fiona Lawless (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Mr Dermot Logue (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Ms Karen Daly (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Ms Jackie Jolliffe (Dept. of Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Ms Paula Keane (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Fergal McCaffery (Computing and Mathematics)

Ms Frances Byrne (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Derek Flood (Dept. of Computing Dr Cornelia Connolly (Dept. of Computing and

25

and Mathematics) Mathematics)

Mr Joe McPhail (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr John Loane (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Mr Niall McGuinness (Dept. of Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Neil O’Connor (Section of Music)

Mr Tony McCarron (Dept. of Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Helen Lawlor (Section of Music)

Mr Stephen Larkin (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Mr Kilian Logan (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Mr Andrew Wright (Dept. of Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Kevin McDaid (Computing and Mathematics)

Mr Peter Morris (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Ms Margaret Ryan (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Gerry Coleman (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Dr Philip McGuinness (Dept. of Computing and Mathematics)

Learners

Lee Mullally Computing and Mathematics Ronan Fitzpatrick Computing and Mathematics Malachy Burns Computing and Mathematics Natalia Salmanova Computing and Mathematics Tiernan Marron Computing and Mathematics Shane Gavin Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc. in Games

Development) Kevin Duffy Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc. in Games Development,

Year 2) Pádraig Carroll Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc (Hons) in Computing,

Year 2) Dylan Bates Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc (Hons) in Computing,

Year 2) Seán Stringer Section of Music (B.Sc. (Hons) in Applied Music, Year 3) Ling Wei Chua Section of Music (B.Sc. (Hons) in Applied Music, Year 3) Shane Keeley Section of Music (B.Sc. (Hons) in Applied Music) Rececca Sillery Section of Music (B.Sc. (Hons) in Applied Music, Year 1) Sebastian Marquez Blanc Section of Music (B.Sc. (Hons) in Applied Music, Year 1) Sarah Blacoe-Dyas Section of Music (B.Sc. (Hons) in Applied Music, Year 2) Suzanne Kierans Section of Music (B.Sc. (Hons) in Applied Music, Year 2) Eoghan Ryan Section of Music (B.Sc. (Hons) in Applied Music, Year 4) John Clarke Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc. in Games Development,

Year 1) Georgijs Sidorovs Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc. in Games Development,

Year 1) Síobhan Denton Section of Music (B.Sc. (Hons) in Applied Music, Year 4) Ciara Moley Section of Music (Research Masters) Goh Wei Jing Section of Music (Research Masters) Thomas McConville Section of Music (Research Masters) Hardik Natavaral Computing and Mathematics (Higher Diploma in

26

Thakkar Computing) Barry Faulkner Computing and Mathematics (Higher Diploma in

Computing) Bróna Howard Section of Music (BA in Music and Audio Production, Year

2) Michael Pender Section of Music (BA in Music and Audio Production, Year

3) Tsok Kharm Hoe Section of Music (BA in Music and Audio Production Year

3) Stephanie Caffrey Section of Music (BA in Music and Audio Production, Year

3) Sean Maguire Section of Music (BA in Music and Audio Production, Year

2) Tommy Fegan Section of Creative Media (Masters by Research) Francis McCabe Section of Music (BA in Music and Audio Production, Year

1) Colm Slattery Section of Music (BA in Music and Audio Production, Year

1) Cathal Lilley Section of Music (BA in Music and Audio Production, Year

1) Alannah Hayes Section of Music (BA in Music and Audio Production, Year

1) Ciaran Carragher-Smith Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc. in Computing in

Networking and Support, Year 3) Pascal Treanor Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc. in Computing in

Networking and Support, Year 3) Gary Owens Computing and Mathematics (Higher Diploma in

Computing) Gilbert Regan Computing and Mathematics (PhD by Research) Rónán Lynch PhD by Research Mary Johnson Section of Creative Media (BA in Video and Film, Year 3) Ultan Hodgers Section of Creative Media (BA in Video and Film, Year 3) Ryan Gaffney Section of Creative Media (BA in Video and Film, Year 4) Mark Pepper Section of Creative Media (BA in Video and Film, Year 3) Eoin Madden Section of Creative Media (BA in Video and Film, Year 3) Joy McKeown Section of Creative Media (BA in Video and Film, Year 3) Emma Flanagan Section of Creative Media (BA (Hons) in Communications

in Creative Multimedia, Year 4) Pauric Martin Section of Creative Media (BA in Communications in

Creative Multimedia, Year 3) Ji Ling Computing and Mathematics (PhD by Research) Anita Finnegan Computing and Mathematics (PhD by Research) Silvana MacMahon Computing and Mathematics (PhD by Research) John Toal Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc. in Computing in

Software Development, Year 3) Lech Jankowski Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc. in Computing in

Software Development, Year 2) Leon Smyth Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc. in Computing in

27

Software Development, Year 3) Ann Osborne O’Hagan Computing and Mathematics (PhD by Research) Lynsey Toner Computing and Mathematics (Masters by Research) Nicola Disley Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc. in Games Development,

Year 3) Conor Pendelbury Computing and Mathematics (B.Sc. in Games Development,

Year 2)

28

Appendix C

Programmatic Review 2013/2014

School of Informatics and Creative Arts

Schedule March 10th 2014March

10th Phase 1: TK Whittaker Boardroom (TK Whittaker Building)

Chair Mr. Michael Hannon, Registrar, Galway Mayo Institute of Technology

Academic Dr. Barry Feeney,Head of Department of Computing, Tallaght Institute of Technology

Academic

Academic

Academic Dr Gordon Munro Head of Music, Dublin Institute of Technology

Industry Mr. Kieran Deegan, IBM Smart Cloud Performance Manager,

Student Ms Ustane Probst, BSc(Hons) in Systems & Networking, Graduate Sligo Institute of Technology

Secretary Ms. Ann Campbell, Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology

8.15am Tea/Coffee available

8.30am Private panel meeting

10.30am Tea/Coffee

10.45am Meeting with President, Head of School

11.15am

1.00pm Lunch in Syndicate Room

2.00pm Meeting with Academic Staff in Whitaker Theatre

3.00pm Meeting with Learners in Whittaker Theatre

3.45pm Tea/coffee in Boardroom

4.00pm Tour of School

4.45pm Private meeting of Panel in Boardroom

5.00pm Feedback to School Management Team

6.30pm Depart for Dinner (The Brake Restaurant, Blackrock)

Prof. Fionn Murtagh, Head of School of Computer Science & Informatics, De Montfort University, Leicester

Professor Marie Redmond, The Centre for Creative Technologies, Trinity College Dublin

Meeting with Head of School, Head of Department, Heads of Section, School Board.

29

March

11th Phase 2: Room P1102 (Carroll Building)

Dept of Computing and Mathematics

8.30am Chair: Dr. Barry Feeney,Head of Department of Computing, Tallaght IT

Panel meets

Academic: Prof. Fionn Murtagh, Head of School of Computer Science & Informatics,

De Montfort University, Leicester

Ms Ustane Probst, BSc(Hons) in Systems & Networking, Graduate Sligo IT

Mr. Kieran Deegan, IBM Smart Cloud Performance Manager,

Secretary: Dr. Brendan Ryder, DkIT

9.00am Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Computing

Bachelor of Science in Computing (Exit Award)

Higher Certificate in Science Computing (Exit Award)

Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing with English Language

Bachelor of Science in Computing with English Language (Exit Award)

Higher Certificate in Science in Computing (Exit Award)

11:30am Break

11.45am Chair: Dr. Barry Feeney,Head of Department of Computing, Tallaght IT

Academic: Prof. Fionn Murtagh, Head of School of Computer Science & Informatics,

De Montfort University, Leicester

Mr. Kieran Deegan, IBM Smart Cloud Performance Manager,

Secretary: Dr. Brendan Ryder, DkIT

Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing with French

Bachelor of Science in Computing with French (Exit Award)

Higher Certificate in Science in Computing (Exit Award)

1.15pm Lunch Lunch in area of Canteen

2.15pm Chair: Dr. Barry Feeney,Head of Department of Computing, Tallaght IT

Academic: Prof. Fionn Murtagh, Head of School of Computer Science & Informatics,

De Montfort University, Leicester

Industry: Mr. Kieran Deegan Performance and Systems Test Manager IBM.

Secretary: Dr. Brendan Ryder, DkIT

BSc(Hons) in Computing in Commercial Computing (Level 8 1 year add on)

BSc(Hons) in Computing in Information Technology Management

(Level 8 1 year add on)

4.00pm Close

30

March 11th Room P1056 (Carroll Building)

Section of Creative Media

8.30am Chair: Mr. Michael Hannon, Registrar, GMIT

Panel meets Academic: Professor Marie Redmond, Centre for Creative Technologies, Trinity College Dublin

Academic: Dr BrianVaughan, Digital Media Centre DIT

Academic: Mr Donald Taylor Black, Head of Dept Film & Media IADT

Industry:Mr. Kevin Cummins, Television Executive Producer/Director, RTE

Secretary: Mr. Pat McCormick, DKIT

9.00am

Bachelor of Arts(Hons) in Communications in Creative Multimedia (Level 8, 1 year

add on)

Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in Video and Film Production (Level 8)

11.15am Tea/coffee break

1.00pm Lunch in area of Canteen

2.00pm Chair: Mr. Michael Hannon, Registrar, GMIT

Academic: Ms Sue Reardon, Course Co-ordinator, IADT

Academic: Professor Marie Redmond, Centre for Creative Technologies, TCD

Industry: Mr Simon Cowan, Prometric

Secretary: Mr. Pat McCormick, DKIT

Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Interactive Applications Design and Development

Bachelor of Science in Interactive Applications Design and Development (Exit

Award)

Higher Certificate in Interactive Applications Design and Development (Exit Award)

4.00pm Close

31

March

11th Boardroom (TK Whittaker Building)

Section of Music

8.30am Chair: Dr Gordon Munro Head of Music DIT

Panel

meets Academic: Mr Hugh McCarthy, Course Co-ordinator MA Music & Technology, CIT

Academic Dr Brian Bridges Lecturer in Creative Arts/Creative Tecnology, UU

Industry: Siobhan NíChonaráin, Music Consultant

Secretary: Ms. Ann Campbell, Registrar, DkIT

9.00am Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in Applied Music

Bachelor of Arts in Applied Music (Exit Award)

Higher Certificate in Arts in Applied Music (Exit Award)

11.00am Tea/Coffee Break

11.15am Chair: Dr Gordon Munro Head of Music DIT

Academic Dr Brian Bridges Lecturer in Creative Arts/Creative Tecnology, UU

Academic Mr Hugh McCarthy, School of Music CIT

Industry: Mr Joe McGrath, Hellfire Studios

Secretary: Ms. Ann Campbell, Registrar, DkIT

Master of Science, Master of Arts in Music Technology

Postgraduate Certificate in Arts in Music Technology (Minor Award)

Postgraduate Diploma in Arts in Music Technology

1.15pm Lunch in area of Canteen

2.15pm Chair: Dr Gordon Munro Head of Music DIT

Academic: Dr Martin Dowling, Lecturer in Traditional Irish Music, Queens University

Industry: Siobhan NíChonaráin, Music Consultant

Ms Ustane Probst, BSc(Hons) in Systems & Networking, Graduate Sligo IT

Secretary: Ms. Ann Campbell, Registrar, DkIT

Master of Arts in Traditional Music Studies

Postgraduate Diploma in Arts in Traditional Music Studies (Exit Award)

4.00pm Close

32

March

12th Phase 2: Programmes TK Whittaker Boardroom

Dept of Computing and Mathematics

8.30am Panel meet Chair: Dr. Barry Feeney,Head of Department of Computing, Tallaght ITAcademic: Prof. Fionn Murtagh, Head of School of Computer Science & Informatics,

De Montfort University, Leicester

Ms Ustane Probst, BSc(Hons) in Systems & Networking, Graduate Sligo IT

Industry: Mr. Kieran Deegan Performance and Systems Test Manager IBM.

Secretary: Dr. Brendan Ryder, DkIT

9.00am Bachelor of Science(Hons) in Computing in Games Development

Bachelor of Science in Computing in Games Development (Exit Award)

Higher Certificate in Science (Exit Award)

Certificate in Games Design (Minor Award)

11.30am Tea.coffee

11.45am Master of Science in Computing

Postgraduate Diploma in Science in Computing (Exit Award)

Higher Diploma in Science in Computing (Exit Award)

1.45pm Lunch & Depart