HETAC Institutional Review

Report on Implementation Plan

January 2012

2

Contents

Introduction Page 3 Objective 1 – Public Confidence Page 4 Objective 3 – Quality Assurance Page 5 Objective 6 – Recommendations for Enhancement Page 16 Objective 7 – Incorporation of Portobello College Page 19

3

Introduction This document comprises the Dublin Business School (DBS) follow up-report to the response to the HETAC IR Expert Panel Report and the DBS implementation plan submitted on the 12th of January 2011. It sets out how DBS has implemented the Quality Improvement Plan and includes an evaluation of the initial impact of the projects and actions resulting from that plan. The Institutional Review Expert Panel site visit took place on 4th-5th October 2010. The panel report was received by DBS on 16th December 2011. The Panel made three commendations and ten recommendations. The progress relating to each recommendation is outlined in this document. Dublin Business School acknowledges the thoroughness of the Panel’s engagement in the process and notes that the implementation of recommendations arising from the Expert Panel Report has provided an opportunity for continuing reflection and enhancement to the provision of programmes of education in the College.

4

Objective 1 - Public Confidence Recommendation 1 In future DBS should ensure wider stakeholder involvement in self-evaluation processes. Response submitted in January 2011 In future DBS will use more formalised focus groups whose membership is drawn from a wider selection of relevant stakeholders, who will be made aware of the process they are engaged in and will have the opportunity to review any output and reports benefiting from their involvement. Actions implemented during 2011 DBS has set up a database of External Stakeholders drawn from a diverse range of backgrounds, including employer organisations, professional bodies, current and former external examiners, and former students. The purpose of the database is to facilitate regular communication between DBS and a broad cross section of stakeholders and, in particular, to enable DBS to secure wider and more informed stakeholder involvement in planning, review and self-evaluation processes. Stakeholders on the database will be provided with regular updates about significant developments in DBS and, in turn, they will be consulted about developments in the pipeline, such as new academic initiatives, new programme proposals and programmatic reviews. The database will facilitate the use of Focus Groups to harness the views of stakeholders in self-evaluation processes and guidelines have been prepared for staff on the management and facilitation of Focus Groups. All stakeholders on the database have been formally written to and will receive a copy of this report, as well as regular updates on DBS initiatives and developments. The database will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Evaluation The response from stakeholders to this initiative has been positive. To date, Focus Groups abstracted from the stakeholder database have participated in programmatic reviews and development of new programmes for validation. The more structured and more streamlined process has worked more efficiently, has generated a broader range of feedback, and has facilitated wider and more effective stakeholder involvement in self-evaluation processes.

5

Objective 3 – Quality Assurance Recommendation 2 DBS should review policies, structures and systems to ensure that the development of pedagogical practices is in line with its mission as a teaching-led institution. Response submitted in January 2011 DBS has commenced a review of the policies, structures and systems that support the development of pedagogical practises. This review will focus on:

The positioning of the Learning and Teaching committee within the organisational structure of DBS.

The function and effectiveness of the Learning and Teaching Committee, and other pedagogical support mechanisms.

The effectiveness of the current academic performance management and development system, to ensure it adequately identifies academic staff development needs in learning and teaching.

The College will also exploit its position within Kaplan to seek support for research and development in learning and teaching as part of the greater Kaplan goal of becoming the world’s best educator by 2020. Actions implemented during 2011 The Learning and Teaching Committee undertook a review of learning and teaching in DBS in the first half of 2011. The review included a benchmarking exercise conducted through review of HETAC IR reports for other third level institutions and review of learning and teaching structures, roles and activities in DBS. The Committee submitted a report to the July 2011 meeting of the Academic Board. The report put forward recommendations to broaden the role of the Committee, to establish a resourced Learning and Teaching Unit, and to introduce an accredited programme in Learning and Teaching. Prior to the start of the 2011/12 academic year, the senior academic management team was further strengthened by the creation of two new senior posts, Director of Academic Affairs (DAA) and Executive Dean, to take over the responsibilities of the Academic Director. The Academic Director transferred into the new DAA post, taking on an academic leadership role in DBS, including overall responsibility for learning and development. The DAA, in conjunction with the Chair of the Learning and Teaching Committee, has reviewed the recommendations submitted by the Committee, with a particular focus on its function and effectiveness, its pedagogical support mechanisms, and the positioning of the Committee within the organisational structure of DBS. The remit of the Committee has been extended to

provide a forum for presenting a coherent, practical college-wide learning support system that makes best use of existing physical, electronic and human resources

support teaching through a range of activities and dissemination of good practice throughout the College.

6

The theme of the Learning and Teaching Committee for 2011-12 will be in the area of eLearning and use of technology in DBS. This would complement Kaplan, DBS and School strategies. It is recognised that the investment required for implementation of a full eLearning provision is substantial. However, progress is being made. For example, significant progress has been made over the past academic year in both the extent and effectiveness of Moodle usage throughout all programmes. Following a review of Moodle, and a presentation by the IT Manager, the Schools Executive Board has set up a Sub-committee to identify how the full potential of technology can be harnessed more effectively in learning and teaching. The DAA working closely with the Heads of School has also undertaken an important initiative focused on level appropriate teaching, learning and assessment. This has been identified as a priority project and steps taken to date include

Level appropriate teaching, learning and assessment has been highlighted at School meetings and with programme teams

Level grade descriptors have been circulated to all lecturing staff, supported by a staff workshop at the beginning of the current semester

The role of the Internal Moderator has been reviewed and more clearly defined

All programmatic reviews scheduled for the current academic year will be required to give explicit consideration to the level appropriateness of programme design

Learning and teaching continues to be the main element of the in-house staff development programme

The academic management team has participated in a review of the academic Performance Management Development System that has been undertaken by the HR Manager. A particular focus of the review was on the effectiveness of the current system in identifying academic staff development needs in learning and teaching. The review included analysis of various staff feedback mechanisms, including staff engagement surveys. The following were the main priorities highlighted by the review

engagement with Kaplan initiatives in pedagogy

engagement with the new Kaplan HR system

a more active role for the Research Committee in staff development

a more coordinated approach to identification of staff development requirements through closer liaison between academic managers in the Schools and the DAA.

Some important progress has been made to date with implementation of the above

DBS staff from the Academic Schools as well as support staff have engaged in the Kaplan Academic Excellence Summit. This is to be sustained by engagement with the Kaplan Learning Architects Community.

7

Kaplan Academic Training Academy ‘Presenting with Purpose’ will be hosted by DBS in February 2012. This course will be adapted for HE requirements by DBS staff.

The Research Committee has secured some funding to support subject staff development. This has been accessed by staff from all schools and to date staff have engaged in

Research Conferences CPD with Professional Bodies Teaching Courses.

Evaluation The initiatives taken during 2011 have had an immediate positive impact. The profile of learning and teaching has been raised throughout DBS, there has been a corresponding increase in the level of support activity, and there is a stronger sense of identity with the core vision of DBS, Excellence through Learning. More importantly, feedback from the student questionnaire conducted in November, which surveyed student opinion across 595 modules, was overwhelmingly positive. The initiatives have also promoted greater interaction between DBS and Kaplan and have enabled DBS to gain additional benefit from utilisation of Kaplan resources. While there has been immediate positive impact from the initiatives taken to date, the main benefits are expected to be realised over the next two to three years.

8

Recommendation 3 Review the variety of strategies used to capture, review and report on student opinion fully across all levels of provision, and utilise the outcomes to enhance opportunities for student feedback. Response submitted in January 2011 DBS finds student feedback to be a particularly important source of information to inform enhancement. We have commenced a review of the variety of strategies used to capture, review and report on student feedback. The focus of the review will be on:

The range of strategies and mechanisms being used

The effectiveness of those mechanisms

Support for the implementation of those mechanisms

How the Schools address issues raised by students

Communication with students about measures taken in response to feedback

Enhancement of opportunities for student feedback. Actions implemented during 2011 Dublin Business School, as an inherent part of its student-centred approach to learning, has always taken the views of students seriously. The following are the main mechanisms used to capture student opinion in DBS

a) student surveys, conducted through student feedback questionnaires that are distributed to all students half way through the first semester and again before the end of the academic year

b) the class representative system c) student participation on boards and committees d) feedback generated through the interaction of Student Services with student clubs and

societies and with students generally e) feedback generated through day-to-day interaction between lecturers and students and

between other front line staff and students f) student opinion consulted mainly through focus groups organised as part of self-evaluation

processes, for example during programmatic reviews and institutional reviews. Information about the actions taken in each of these areas is outlined below. a) A preliminary review of student surveys was undertaken during April and May 2011 by the

Registrar’s Office and Student Services. The student feedback questionnaires have been designed primarily to capture student opinion about the teaching, organisation and learning support provided for each module. They have been a valuable source of feedback for module leaders, programme leaders and academic management. However, administration of the survey, from distribution of forms to analysis and collation of responses, is a time consuming exercise – for example over 8,000 thousand questionnaires covering 595 modules were completed in the most recent survey. The review in April and May identified a number of efficiencies which have

9

helped to achieve a quicker turn around period and have facilitated more timely review and response to the feedback received in the November 2011 survey. A response rate of just over 80 per cent was achieved in the survey. A more comprehensive review of student surveys has been initiated in the current academic year by a sub-committee of the Schools Executive Board. The sub-committee is chaired by the Head of Academic Operations, a new post filled through external recruitment before the start of the year. The sub-committee includes representatives from the Academic Schools, the Registrar’s Office and Student Services and the review is covering all aspects of the survey, including objective and benefits, questionnaire design, administration of the survey and arrangements for analysis, reporting and responding.

b) The effectiveness of the class representative system has been under review for some time and the need for such review has been confirmed by responses to the student feedback questionnaire. The following initiatives have been taken to date

The role of Class Representatives has been reviewed, more clearly defined and communicated to students.

The process of appointing Class Representatives has been promoted more actively to give them a higher profile among the student community.

Induction training has been provided for Class Representatives.

Class Representative meetings have been integrated more into the DBS committee structure and minutes of these meetings are reviewed as a standard agenda item at meetings of the Boards of Studies in each school.

Class Representatives have been used as a more regular channel of communication in responding to students about issues they have raised.

c) The most significant development during the past year has been the co-option of a student

representative on to the Academic Board. The student representative made a distinctive and valuable contribution, but was unable to attend all meetings due to his study commitments. With effect from the start of the current academic year the Academic Board will include two student representatives and it is anticipated that this will ensure that student opinion can be represented at every Board meeting.

d) and

e) Student Services, lecturers, and all front line staff provide an invaluable source of student opinion. The informality of the process is important if not essential in capturing feedback across a wide range of topics of direct relevance to students. The review has focused on getting the right balance between maintaining this informality and introducing a more structured system of review and response.

f) The review of wider stakeholder involvement in self-evaluation processes (see Recommendation

1 above) has included review of arrangements for student involvement, which has been achieved mainly through the use of student Focus Groups. It is anticipated that the guidelines that have been prepared for staff on the management and facilitation of Focus Groups will be beneficial in

10

capturing more directly relevant and more usable student opinion and enable students to make a more substantive contribution to self-evaluation processes.

Evaluation There has been a positive reaction to the quicker turn-around of responses to the feedback generated from the student survey in November 2011. The class representative system now has a higher profile throughout the student body. Feedback from the student survey in November indicates that further work is required to realise the full potential of the system. Even greater priority is now being given to the initiatives outlined under b) above. The student representative on the Academic Board has made a distinctive and valuable contribution. Getting the optimum balance between the advantages of informality in day–to-day interactions with students and the benefits of a more structured system of review and response is a continuing challenge. Students have always made distinctive and substantive contributions to self-evaluation processes in DBS. They continued to do so during 2011. The Schools have included student feedback outcomes and actions as part of their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) since mid-2011, as well as setting these out in the School Annual Reports. Elements of good practice identified are circulated to the other Schools through the AMR and the Schools Executive Board. Actions taken in response to student feedback are communicated to students through the student representative system and through the involvement of students on relevant Boards and Committees.

11

Recommendation 4 Give serious consideration to including elected staff representation on the Academic Board. Response submitted in January 2011 This recommendation has been implemented. Three staff representatives have been elected as members of the Academic Board. The staff representatives, representing both the academic and support staff, took their place at the Academic Board meeting on December 9th 2010. The new arrangements will be reflected in the revised Quality Assurance Handbook (QAH) 2011. Actions implemented during 2011 The newly elected members of the Academic Board, having sat through a full cycle of meetings, (December 2010, March and July 2011), were canvassed after the July 2011 meeting to seek their views on the operation of the Board. The new members were unanimous in their views that they found membership of the Academic Board to be positive; that they had an opportunity to contribute; and, that the procedures and reporting mechanisms into Academic Board were transparent and facilitated open discussion. Evaluation The new members have introduced new perspectives and made a valuable contribution to the deliberations of the Academic Board.

12

Recommendation 5 Ensure that its new quality assurance procedures align with the HETAC policy on Assessment and Standards, 2009 in respect of all aspects of assessment. Response submitted in January 2011 The DBS assessment regulations in the 2010 edition of the QAH align with the HETAC policy on Assessment and Standards, 2009. The College will continue to ensure its quality assurance procedures align with the HETAC policy, in respect of all aspects of assessment. This will be reflected in the annual revisions of the Quality Assurance Handbook. Actions implemented during 2011 An updated version of the Quality Assurance Handbook was approved in December 2011. A fully revised Section 8 of the Handbook, Assessment, is informed by the Sectoral Conventions (Section 3) and the Protocols (Section 4) as set out in HETAC’s policy document: Assessment and Standards, 2009. DBS recognises that the policy Conventions are agreed at sectoral level, and are to be observed by all providers, and that DBS are required to use the policy Protocols. All Programmatic Reviews that took place in 2011, and all future Programmatic Reviews, and as required by HETAC’s Terms of Reference, will underpin the continuing alignment of DBS assessment policies with HETAC’s policy. Evaluation DBS quality assurance procedures align with the HETAC policy on Assessment and Standards, 2009 in respect of all aspects of assessment.

13

Recommendation 6 Give particular attention to student appeals, recheck and review procedures to ensure that they are clear, consistent, understandable and available and accessible to students. Response submitted in January 2011 All documentation relating to student appeals, recheck and review procedures will continue to be available and accessible to students in all student handbooks and on the Current Student website. The nomenclature relating to appeals, rechecks and reviews will be reviewed to ensure it is clear, consistent and understandable. The updated regulations will be included in the 2011 edition of the Quality Assurance Handbook, and will be launched on both the Examinations Office and Student Handbook sections of the Website in advance of the summer examinations. Actions implemented during 2011 DBS has reviewed its procedures for Appeals and Complaints in accordance with sections 2.2.15 and 4.10 of HETAC Assessment and Standards December 2009. The following are the outcomes of the review:

a) Nomenclature has been revised to ensure consistency between our three accreditors. The procedures have been redrafted to ensure they are easily understood and more accessible to Learners.

b) The procedures are now more visible on all websites, with links in all student handbooks.

c) An automatic entitlement for a learner to view their examination script is now formally articulated in the Quality Assurance Handbook (section 7.12) and communicated to all students as part of the appeals and complaints procedures, whether they make an appeal or not.

d) Deadlines for appeals have been extended from five to seven working days.

e) From the September 2011 student intake onwards, the induction process for each student cohort includes a dedicated presentation by staff from the Registrar's Office about the appeals procedure in DBS, and the manner in which specific information can be accessed by students.

Evaluation Student appeals, recheck and review procedures are clear, consistent, understandable and available and accessible to students.

14

Recommendation 7 More closely monitor programme titles across the range of institutional literature and cross reference the data with HETAC information. Response submitted in January 2011 All titles will be reviewed with immediate effect, and DBS will work with our accrediting partners to ensure that correct and consistent programme titles are used at all times. Actions implemented during 2011 The complete suite of programme titles and award titles was reviewed in April 2011, using the database of validated programmes that is maintained in the Registrar’s Office, and programme titles were checked against the corresponding programme schedules and validation certification of the relevant awarding bodies. This database now incorporates the definitive listing of programme titles, which is published on the shared directory and is reviewed on a regular basis. A definitive list of all validated programmes, and those upcoming for validation or review, is reviewed as a standard agenda item at meetings of both the Schools Executive Board and the Academic Board. Programme titles used in institutional literature must be cross checked and must be consistent with the titles in the database. Evaluation This issue has been dealt with satisfactorily.

15

Recommendation 8. Revisit and re-establish the University of Wales joint award agreement in accordance with the HETAC ‘Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards’ December 2008. Response submitted in January 2011

DBS has submitted a new chapter on policy and procedures for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards which is currently undergoing an approval process with HETAC. On completion of this process DBS will review its joint award agreement with the University of Wales. The timescale for this initiative will be agreed with the University of Wales. Actions implemented during 2011 The response to the action to revisit and re-establish the University of Wales joint award agreement was fundamentally changed by a statement from the University of Wales on 3rd October 2011, that intimated that the University is to stop validating courses at all other institutions in the UK and abroad. The University reiterated its commitment that it would honour its obligations to all current students who are registered with DBS for an academic award of the University of Wales. A moratorium on new programmes and the recruitment of students onto existing programmes came into place from 3rd October, and will affect current programmes from September 2012. Evaluation Following representation to the University of Wales, it was agreed that the LLB programme could recruit students for a final academic year: 2012-2013. No other University of Wales programme will recruit students. DBS is keeping HETAC fully informed of all developments in respect of this decision by the University of Wales.

16

Objective 6 – Recommendations for Enhancement Recommendation 9 The Institution’s own recommendations for enhancement in the Self Evaluation Document be fully articulated in the implementation plan that will be agreed with HETAC arising from this review. Response submitted in January 2011 Plans for implementation of our own recommendations for enhancement are included in the attached implementation plan. The following are the recommendations for enhancement, as outlined in the Self Evaluation Document – February 2010:

i. More formalities of academic processes across the institution, supported by streamlined audit trails and evidence of execution.

ii. Enhancement of academic and scholarly activity across the institution. iii. Better integration of Law faculty and development of the School of Law. iv. Enhancement of the student records system to support the generation of more

comprehensive, more focused and more timely information. v. Enhancement of facilities for staff and students. vi. Enhancements to meet the standards required to achieve devolved authority .

Although periodic in nature, DBS considers the process of institutional review on-going. This process will be continued internally by the Academic Monitoring and Review Group, reporting to the Academic Board. Actions implemented during 2011 i. Implement more formalities of academic processes across the institution, supported by

streamlined audit trails and evidence of execution. Academic Processes were reviewed and formalised prior to the HETAC Institutional Review. The Academic Management and Review Group (AMR), which is a sub-committee of, and reports to, the Academic Board has taken responsibility for ensuring that all reporting templates are fit for purpose and are formally approved on an agreed regular basis. This has proved to be a successful process; the AMR meets monthly, and the templates are reviewed and noted prior to Academic Board scrutiny. The AMR will continue to review current reporting templates. A number of reporting templates across the College were approved and formally brought into use during 2010 and 2011, which the Academic Board has approved at its meetings during the past eighteen months. The AMR has the role of monitoring the Schools’ action plans, Boards of Studies minutes and KPI reports to ensure academic activities are evidenced.

17

ii. Enhance academic and scholarly activity across the institution. The Research Committee was formed in 2009 and has recently secured funding for subject specific staff development. DBS has engaged formally with Kaplan Europe and Kaplan Inc. to seek to establish formal research links or other relevant mechanisms to support scholarship. The library will prepare a report on all published research activity of DBS academic staff to support the Research Committee in its role to further develop this activity. Ultimately all research output will be held on the institutional repository, held by the library iii. Secure better integration of Law faculty and development of the School of Law. The School of Law was relocated to Castle House in September 2010 and the fulltime staff compliment was reinforced with three new full-time appointments during the 12 months prior to the visit of the Institutional Review. Law Staff are represented on various committees across the College. DBS is currently undertaking a full review of the management structure in DBS. This review embraces both the management of schools and the management of programmes. The Law School is included in this process. The School of Law merged with the School of Business in August 2011, creating a new School of Business and Law. iv. Implement enhancement of the student records system to support the generation of more

comprehensive, more focused and more timely information. A new student records system is currently (December 2011) being implemented. This system will replace fully the previous system and is a customised standard platform in use in a significant number of higher education institutions. This system generates all required academic indicators, as well as having an integrated Programme Builder facility that facilitates the validation and programmatic review processes. The generation of the Diploma Supplement for learners is an integral part of the system, and this was utilised for the first time in November 2011, replacing the previous manual system. v. Enhancement of facilities for staff and students. Castle House was occupied in September 2011 and provided, and continues to provide, excellent teaching and staff accommodation with greatly improved student breakout spaces. The student common areas hosted a number of events during 2011, for both students and staff. The Radio Studio opened in summer 2011, and has enhanced the School of Arts provision significantly, as well as providing modern facilities for Radio DBS which proved to be most popular across the College. The library and learning resources are constantly being enhanced with the introduction of an institutional repository which was launched in September 2011.

18

DBS formalised the resource planning and bidding process during the academic year 2010-2011 to ensure that appropriate resources are readily available and maintained for all programmes. Resource planning is an integral part of all formal programme proposals and programmatic reviews and any resource issues identified are considered and formally approved by the Senior Management Group vi. Enhancements to meet the standards required to achieve devolved responsibility. The self-reflection process that DBS has been engaged with through various review processes, the most significant being the HETAC Institutional Review, will be continued by the AMR. Enhancements will be identified, implemented and monitored by this group by a variety of mechanisms including a more formal stakeholder focus group. Currently the focus is on:

• obtaining devolved responsibility for sub-processes of the validation of new programmes;

• continuing to develop its comprehensive and easily accessible QA policies and procedures

The College has put in place, or enhanced, a number of policies and procedures during 2010 and 2011 that facilitate application to HETAC for devolved responsibility. These are set out fully in the Quality Assurance Handbook (QAH) 2011.

19

Objective 7 – Incorporation of Portobello College Recommendation 10 DBS should formalise the lessons learned from the Portobello College acquisition in the form of internal corporate guidelines to be drawn upon in the future as part of the corporate due diligence. Action should be taken to address this recommendation as soon as possible. Response submitted in January 2011 DBS is giving priority to implementation of this recommendation and is liaising with Kaplan UK and Ireland to prepare a set of corporate guidelines that will be used in any future acquisitions. This process will be finalised by the end of 2011. Actions implemented during 2011 Kaplan UK and Ireland are (December 2011) close to establishing a set of corporate guidelines which will form part of due diligence procedures prior to any future acquisitions. These guidelines are being informed by lessons learned from the Portobello College acquisition. Evaluation No further acquisitions have taken place since the acquisition of Portobello College. If a future opportunity for acquisition arises, the finalised guidelines will be used as a reference of good practice.