Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report of Validation Panel Page 1/10
Report of Programme Validation Panel
Date: 25th June 2014
Named Award: Master of Arts Programme Title(s): Master of Arts in Learning and Learning Exit Awards: Postgraduate Diploma in Arts in Learning and Teaching
Certificate in Arts in Learning and Teaching Award Type: Masters Degree Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 9 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 90, 60, 30 First Intake: September 2014
Panel Members
Dr Marian O'Sullivan Chair Registrar, Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology (IADT)
Dr Marian McCarthy External Academic Teaching and Learning Centre, University College Cork (UCC)
Ms Linda Carey External Academic Head of the Centre for Educational Development, Queens University Belfast (QUB)
Professor Linda Clarke
External Academic
Professor of Education, Institute for Research in Social Sciences, School of Education, University of Ulster
Dr Brendan Ryder Secretary Assistant Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. John Dallat (Head of Teaching and Learning, DkIT)
Mr Gerry Gallagher
Dr Moira Maguire
Dr Bernadette Brereton
Ms Angela Short
Report of Validation Panel 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 Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) at Dundalk Institute of Technology to re-design the following programme(s): Master of Arts in Learning and Learning Postgraduate Diploma in Arts in Learning and Teaching Certificate in Arts in Learning and Teaching
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 on the quality, in terms of comprehensiveness and coherence, of the documentation presented, and for the open and enthusiastic engagement in discussions during the site visit. It is clear that the programme is contributing significantly to the continuing professional development (CPD) of staff within the Institute, which in turn enhances the quality of the overall student experience. The panel would also like to commend: the student-centred, the teacher as a researcher and the constructionist philosophy
underpinning the programme. The teacher as a researcher is evidenced by the fact that students are required to produce a research paper on the findings in the masters research project.
the supports provided to students, particularly the inclusion of a critical friend. the clear guidelines provided on assessment. the excellent retention rates. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following:
Report of Validation Panel Page 3/10
Master of Arts in Learning and Learning Postgraduate Diploma of Arts in Learning and Teaching Certificate in Arts in Learning and Teaching
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited Note: Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for the
exit award(s) 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
Report of Validation Panel Page 4/10
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.
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, with recommendation(s) Condition(s): None.
Report of Validation Panel Page 5/10
Recommendation(s): The programme development team needs to clarify the entry requirements in relation to
the teaching hours required, the duration of those hours across the year and the nature of that teaching.
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)? For parent award? For exit award (if applicable)?
Overall Finding: Yes, for all awards proposed 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, with recommendation(s)
Report of Validation Panel Page 6/10
Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): The programme development team should ensure that elective choices are constantly
reviewed.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided for the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes, with recommendation(s) Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): Training for the role of critical friend should be provided by the Centre for Excellence in
Learning and Teaching (CELT). This training should include the following: role, boundaries, selection, and orientation.
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.
Report of Validation Panel Page 7/10
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, with recommendation(s) Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): The programme development team should consider developing a full cost model for the
programme, which will be particularly important when the programme is offered externally to the Institute.
Consider identifying champions across the schools, particularly in the School of Engineering.
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 8/10
Recommendation(s): None.
4.12 Module-Level Findings Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): Effective Research Supervision:
o The panel commend the book created by the programme team.
Enhancing Learning Through Technology:
o Include the following text in the recommended reading list:
Harasim, L. (2011). Learning Theory and Online Technologies, Routledge.
o Review the introduction and management of student collaborative learning in an
online environment.
Assessment and Feedback:
o The term feedback should appear earlier in the module indicative content.
Research Methods in Education:
o Consider changing the title of the module (e.g. Research Methods for MALT).
Masters Research Project:
o The panel commend the use of the publishable paper model as an assessment instrument.
o Extend recommended reading to include scholarship of teaching and learning journals (see list provided on pg. 10).
4.13 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 9/10
Recommendation(s): None.
4.14 Other Findings Condition(s) None. Recommendation(s): None. Validation Panel Report Approved By: Signed: Awaiting signature
_____________________________________________ Dr Marian O'Sullivan, Chairperson.
Date:
Report of Validation Panel Page 10/10
SoTL links *
* means that you don’t have to sign up for the journal/resources open source/creative
commons
Active Learning in Higher Education http://alh.sagepub.com/content/current
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning www.tandfonline.com/loi/vchn20
College Teaching www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20
*International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching
www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/
*Insight – a Journal of Scholarly Teaching: http://www.insightjournal.net/
* Inventio: Creative Thinking about Teaching and Learning-Randy Bass
http://www2.okcu.edu/cetl/randybass.pdf
Journal on Excellence in College Teaching: http://www.celt.muohio.edu/ject
*Learning and Teaching in Higher Education
http://insight.glos.ac.uk/tli/resources/lathe/Pages/default.asp
*Randy Bass: Resources : https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/bassr/resources
*Craig Nelson: http://www.fctl.ucf.edu/researchandscholarship/sotl/whatissotl/kindsofprojects.php
*The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching , Resources :
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/learning-teaching
* CASTL Annotated Bibliography
http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/sites/default/files/CASTL_bibliography.pdf
* Illinois State University Resources: http://sotl.illinoisstate.edu/resources/materials/
Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 1/11
Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel
Date: 25th June 2014
Named Award: Master of Arts Programme Title(s): Master of Arts in Learning and Learning Exit Awards: Postgraduate Diploma in Arts in Learning and Teaching
Certificate in Arts in Learning and Teaching Award Type: Masters Degree Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 9 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 90, 60, 30 First Intake: September 2014
Panel Members
Dr Marian O'Sullivan Chair Registrar, Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology (IADT)
Dr Marian McCarthy External Academic Teaching and Learning Centre, University College Cork (UCC)
Ms Linda Carey External Academic Head of the Centre for Educational Development, Queens University Belfast (QUB)
Professor Linda Clarke
External Academic
Professor of Education, Institute for Research in Social Sciences, School of Education, University of Ulster
Dr Brendan Ryder Secretary Assistant Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology (DkIT)
Programme Development Team
Dr. John Dallat (Head of Teaching and Learning, DkIT)
Mr Gerry Gallagher
Dr Moira Maguire
Dr Bernadette Brereton
Ms Angela Short
Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 2/11
1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a response to the validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) at Dundalk Institute of Technology to re-design the following programme(s): Master of Arts in Learning and Learning Postgraduate Diploma in Arts in Learning and Teaching Certificate in Arts in Learning and Teaching
The school/unit responses are found under the relevant sections below. 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 on the quality, in terms of comprehensiveness and coherence, of the documentation presented, and for the open and enthusiastic engagement in discussions during the site visit. It is clear that the programme is contributing significantly to the continuing professional development (CPD) of staff within the Institute, which in turn enhances the quality of the overall student experience. The panel would also like to commend: the student-centred, the teacher as a researcher and the constructionist philosophy
underpinning the programme. The teacher as a researcher is evidenced by the fact that students are required to produce a research paper on the findings in the masters research project.
the supports provided to students, particularly the inclusion of a critical friend. the clear guidelines provided on assessment. the excellent retention rates. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following:
Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 3/11
Master of Arts in Learning and Learning Postgraduate Diploma of Arts in Learning and Teaching Certificate in Arts in Learning and Teaching
Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner
Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work
Not Accredited Note: Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for the
exit award(s) 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
Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 4/11
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.
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, with recommendation(s) Condition(s): None.
Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 5/11
Recommendation(s): The programme development team needs to clarify the entry requirements in relation to
the teaching hours required, the duration of those hours across the year and the nature of that teaching.
School Response: The programme is focused on supporting and improving teaching practice. The
requirement to be teaching at least 8 hours in order to be admitted to the programme was included to ensure that students had sufficient practice in order to be able to participate fully. We would like to thank the panel for a very useful discussion on this matter and we accept that this stipulation is unclear. We have clarified as below: The programme is practice focused so applicants must be engaged in sufficient teaching to allow them to meet the programme learning outcomes. For example, in the IOT sector an average of approximately 8 hours teaching per week across two semesters typically would be sufficient. Applicants are not required to teach at any particular level but the nature of their teaching should be conducive to meeting the learning outcomes, for example, involving the assessment (formal or informal) of learning. Applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
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)? For parent award? For exit award (if applicable)?
Overall Finding: Yes, for all awards proposed
Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 6/11
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, with recommendation(s) Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): The programme development team should ensure that elective choices are constantly
reviewed. School Response: We welcome this recommendation and will review the electives on an annual basis. We
will seek input from participants on the Programme Boards and other student feedback mechanisms. In particular, the proposed participation of staff from FE and other sectors may generate demand for other electives related to their specific CPD needs, and this is something that we will actively monitor.
4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies
Validation Criterion: Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided for the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes, with recommendation(s) Condition(s): None.
Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 7/11
Recommendation(s): Training for the role of critical friend should be provided by the Centre for Excellence in
Learning and Teaching (CELT). This training should include the following: role, boundaries, selection, and orientation.
School Response: We welcome this recommendation and will provide training in the form of a workshop
and written guidance.
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.
Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 8/11
4.10 Resource Requirements
Validation Criterion:
Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes, with recommendation(s) Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): The programme development team should consider developing a full cost model for the
programme, which will be particularly important when the programme is offered externally to the Institute.
Consider identifying champions across the schools, particularly in the School of Engineering.
School Response: A full-cost model for the programme will be developed over this academic year 2014-15
The recommendation to identify champions is welcome and complements
recommendations in the DkIT policy ‘Transforming learning through technology: A policy for DkIT’. It will be considered by the Academic Council Teaching & Learning sub-committee although future implementation will have resource implications that will be considered by senior management.
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.
Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 9/11
4.12 Module-Level Findings Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): Effective Research Supervision:
o The panel commend the book created by the programme team.
Enhancing Learning Through Technology:
o Include the following text in the recommended reading list:
Harasim, L. (2011). Learning Theory and Online Technologies, Routledge.
o Review the introduction and management of student collaborative learning in an online environment.
Assessment and Feedback:
o The term feedback should appear earlier in the module indicative content.
Research Methods in Education:
o Consider changing the title of the module (e.g. Research Methods for MALT).
Masters Research Project:
o The panel commend the use of the publishable paper model as an assessment instrument.
o Extend recommended reading to include scholarship of teaching and learning journals.
School Response: We welcome these recommendations. We have: Added the Harasim (2011) text to the reading list.
Altered the indicative content for ‘Assessment and feedback’ so that feedback appears
earlier. Adopted the recommended title change for the research methods module. Included SOTL journals as recommended reading.
Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 10/11
4.13 Assessment Strategies
Validation Criterion:
Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme?
Overall Finding: Yes Condition(s): None. Recommendation(s): None.
4.14 Other Findings Condition(s) None. Recommendation(s): None. The programme development team would like to take this opportunity to thank the panel members for generously sharing their expertise to provide very constructive feedback. We found the process very beneficial.
Response to Report of Validation Panel Page 11/11
Response Report Approved By: Signed:
________________________________________ Dr Moira Maguire, Head of Teaching and Learning.
Date: 12th September 2014
Signed: Awaiting signature
_____________________________________________ Dr Marian O'Sullivan, Chairperson.
Date:
