HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING AWARDS COUNCIL, IRELAND · Institutional Review of Institute of...

Institutional Review of Institute of Technology Carlow –October 2010 Report of the Expert Panel

Final Report

1

HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING AWARDS COUNCIL, IRELAND

Comhairle na nDámhachtainí Ardoideachais agus Oiliúna, Éire

Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and Training

Institutional Review of Institute of Technology Carlow

19-21 October 2010

Report of Expert Panel

Version Date of Approval

Final 4 July 2011

www.hetac.ie

http://www.hetac.ie/


Final Report

2

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary — Report of the Expert Panel .................................................................. 5 Background to the Institute of Technology Carlow .................................................................. 7 Institutional Review Methodology ........................................................................................... 11 Findings in relation to objectives of Institutional Review ...................................................... 15 Appendices Appendix A Terms of Reference.......................................................................................... 51 Appendix B Panel Membership ........................................................................................... 64 Appendix C Supporting documentation issued by ITC with the SER ............................... 65 Appendix D Documentation requested by the panel ......................................................... 66 Appendix E Glossary of documentation provided to the panel at the site visit by ITC ..... 67 Appendix F Agenda for site visit ........................................................................................ 74 Appendix G List of people met by the panel ...................................................................... 77 Appendix H Strategic Planning and Review Steering Group Members ............................. 83


Final Report

3

HETAC Institutional Review

Introduction

This is the report of the Expert Panel appointed by the Higher Education and Training Awards

Council (HETAC), which carried out an Institutional Review of the Institute of Technology Carlow

(ITC) on 19-21 October 2010.

HETAC is the qualifications awarding body for third-level educational and training institutions

outside the university sector in Ireland. All providers offering HETAC awards are subject to external

quality assurance review of their institutions. HETAC carries out such reviews as part of its

Institutional Review process.

HETAC appointed an Expert Panel to carry out the Institutional Review on its behalf. Under the

chairmanship of Mr Peter Williams, membership of the panel reflected a wide range of expertise and

experience, in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the review. HETAC wishes to record its

thanks to the members of the panel for accepting this task and for their generous and professional

commitment to the review.

The Institute of Technology Carlow will submit a follow-up report to HETAC not more than 12

months after the publication of this report. The follow-up report will outline how the Institute has

implemented the review report‟s recommendations, as set out in its response to the Institutional

Review, and evaluate the initial impact of such implementation. The follow-up report including a

commentary by the HETAC Executive will be considered by the Academic Committee of HETAC.

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

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

be published on the Council‟s website.


Final Report

4

Note

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

included in Appendix A.

The panel points out that it cannot make any findings regarding:

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

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

or

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

matters.

The Report of the panel contains no assurances, warranties or representations, express or implied, regarding the

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

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

any reliance placed on such information is strictly at the reader‟s own risk, and in no event will HETAC be liable for

any loss or damage (including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage) arising from or in connection

with the use of the information contained in the report of the Expert Panel.


Final Report

5

Executive Summary — Report of the Expert Panel

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

Institute of Technology Carlow (ITC) on 19th – 21st October 2010. The review process was carried

out in accordance with the HETAC Policy on Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and

Training, 2007.

Findings

Overall recommendation to Awards Body, including details of any conditions attached

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

The effectiveness of the quality assurance arrangements operated by the Institute of

Technology Carlow has been assessed and the arrangements have been found to be

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

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

Guidelines and Criteria for Quality Assurance Procedures in Higher Education, 2002.

The Institute of Technology Carlow has implemented the National Framework of

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

by the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland.

The Institute of Technology Carlow substantially meets:

- The criteria for the delegation of authority to make awards that relate to Operations

and Management; Education and Training Programmes;

- Council Conditions related to Delegation of Authority and the Objects of the

Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999.

The panel recommends that delegated authority granted to Institute of Technology Carlow

be continued subject to the following conditions:

1. That ITC agrees supplementary quality assurance procedures with HETAC in

accordance with HETAC‟s Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes

and joint awards, December 2008 to underpin all collaborative provision.

2. Following agreement with HETAC on 1 above, ITC should request HETAC to

review the delegated authority for all collaborative programmes but in particular for

the Level 7 Bachelor of Arts in Leadership and Community Development with An

Cosán;


Final Report

6

3. That ITC carries out, in consultation with HETAC, an external review of its formal

procedures and mechanisms for:

a. The approval of all new programmes Major, Minor and Special Purpose

awards;

b. The procedures for programmatic review; and

c. Monitoring of all programmes and awards.

4. That the periodic revalidation (programmatic review) of the degrees of Bachelor of

Arts (in Sport and Exercise) (GAA) Level 7 and Bachelor of Arts (in Sport and

Exercise) (Soccer) Level 7, be brought forward and are carried out at the same time

as the periodic revalidation of the degree of Bachelor of Arts (in Sport and Exercise)

(Rugby) Level 7, scheduled for 2011.

Commendations, Recommendations and Conditions

The panel made a total of 10 commendations, 24 recommendations and 4 conditions, shown in the

body of the report, in relation to the Objectives for Institutional Review.

The panel is grateful to the Institute of Technology Carlow for the cooperation provided to it and

wishes the Institute well in its future work.


Final Report

7

Background to the Institute of Technology Carlow

Founded in 1970, the Institute of Technology Carlow (ITC) is located in the centre of Ireland‟s

South Leinster region (containing the counties of Carlow, Wicklow, Wexford, Kildare, Laois and

Kilkenny), and on the periphery of the Mid East and South East Regions of Ireland.

The Institute provides a broad range of programmes, from trade apprenticeship programmes (on

behalf of FÁS, the National Training and Employment Authority) to higher education and training

programmes, including research and enterprise development opportunities. It does this at its main

campus in Carlow and other off-campus locations in Wexford and Wicklow:

Main Campus, Kilkenny Road, Carlow - programmes provided in Business, Humanities,

Engineering and Science.

Wexford Campus (approx. 75 kilometres from Carlow) - full-time and part-time

programmes provided in Business, Social Studies, Early Childhood Studies, Art, Visual

Communications and Design, Architectural Technology and Economics. Approximately 870

learners are registered at the Wexford Campus of which 80% are mature learners.

Wicklow Campus (approx. 117 kilometres from Carlow) – Enterprise Support Centre with

180 part-time learners registered on a mixture of higher education and continuing

professional development programmes as part of the enterprise support programme in

association with Wicklow County Council.

ITC has a diverse portfolio of over 74 taught programmes between Levels 6 and 8 on the National

Framework of Qualifications (NFQ); four apprentice programmes; 38 candidates undertaking

research degrees up to and including Doctoral level (Level 10 NFQ) in the Sciences and Technology.

The Institute‟s programmes are modularised but delivered on a year-long basis. The Institute‟s

programmes are not organised in semesters, with the exception of one programme. Following an

internal review and in the light of learner needs and the perceived risk to new learners in particular,

the Institute decided not to semesterise programmes.

Student profile

ITC has a student population of 4,795 (2,921 undergraduate, 312 trade apprentices, 133 Erasmus

students, 198 non EU students, 38 postgraduate students and 1,193 lifelong learning students


Final Report

8

[programmes undertaken part-time by night] or part-time/mature continuing professional

development students). More than 70% of students studying for major awards are enrolled on Level

7 and Level 8 Bachelor Degree programmes. Over 25,000 students have graduated from ITC since

1970. A diverse student body comprises the traditional leaving certificate entrants; a growing

European and International student body; an increasing proportion of mature students; learners from

disadvantaged backgrounds; and a significant number of part-time learners. According to ITC over

80% of ITC graduates find their first employment in the counties of South Leinster and Dublin. An

outline profile of students is as follows:

Table 1: Undergraduate & Postgraduate Statistics 2009/10

Business & Humanities - 1,360 Engineering - 727 Science - 696 Wexford Campus - 469 (Programmes in Business, Social Studies, Early Childhood Studies, Art, Visual

Communications and Design, Architectural Technology and Economics) Postgraduate (Research) - 38 Apprentices - 312 Lifelong Learning - 1,193

TOTAL Number: 4,795

Staff Profile

ITC has a total staff of 616, of whom 295 are full-time and 321 part-time. The total number is

comprised of 363 academic, 88 administrative, 161 student services and support, and four dedicated

research staff. Of the academic staff, over 74% are qualified to Level 9 or higher. (See chart below).

Staff development remains a strategic priority in the Institute‟s most recent Strategic Plan for 2009-

2013 and will focus on staff training programmes targeted at enhancing the qualification profile of all

staff in the Institute. The strategic plan has a specific objective on programme development in the

area of academic staff development, which will enable all academic staff to obtain training and/or a

qualification in teaching and learning.


Final Report

9

Figure 1: Whole Time Academic Staff Qualifications Profile

Quality Assurance

In 2005 the Institute was granted Delegation of Authority by HETAC to make awards up to Level 8

of the NFQ. Further Delegation of Awarding Authority was granted by HETAC in 2009 to Level 9

and Level 10 of the NFQ, covering Research in the fields of Biotechnology and Molecular

Environmental Science. ITC intends to apply for Delegated Authority for taught programmes at

Level 9 in the near future. ITC agreed an initial set of quality assurance policies and procedures with

HETAC in 2004.

Partnerships and Collaborations

ITC has established a number of educational and research partnerships and collaborations. These

cover national and international industries and higher education institutions in Europe (62 European

partner institutions across 17 countries), Asia and the US. Foreign national full-time students

currently account for over 10% of the Institute‟s full-time student population, with an equal division

between EU and non-EU nationalities. Developments in this area are consistent with the national

priority of significantly increasing the number of non-EU international students in Ireland. ITC

considers that it is contributing to the national objective of boosting Ireland‟s academic reputation in

China through the establishment of formal links between Irish higher educational providers and


Final Report

10

China‟s leading institutes of learning. An example of this is the transnational arrangements in place

for two ITC Bachelor degree computing programmes which are being delivered in Henan University

of Finance and Economics, China.

Lifelong Learning

The Institute offers a range of lifelong learning opportunities through its recently expanded Lifelong

Learning Centre. ITC considers that this development reflects the emphasis on the knowledge-based

society, where an ability to acquire knowledge, skills and competencies throughout the working life is

required in an environment characterised by continuous change. The Lifelong Learning Centre works

with local companies in the identification and development of customised programmes, through

Special Purpose, Minor and Supplemental Awards, to meet their specific training and development

needs.

Research and Innovation

ITC considers that research, development and innovation (RDI) are an integral part of its activities.

They are seen as a vital aspect of the interaction of the Institute with industry and other higher

education and research institutes, on both a national and international basis. Its collaborative RDI

programmes have been variously funded by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, the European

INTERREG Programme, the Higher Education Authority (HEA) PRTLI1, the HEA Strategic

Innovation Fund (SIF), EU Framework Programmes, Industry, the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), Irish Research Council for Science Engineering & Technology (IRCSET), the

Technological Sector Research Programme (TSR, Department of Education and Skills Ireland),

Enterprise Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland.

Additional background on the profile of the Institute is set out in the Terms of Reference document

in Appendix A.

1 PRTLI- Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions


Final Report

11

Institutional Review Methodology

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

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

phases, with the report of the panel coming at the end of phase 3.

1. HETAC sets the terms of reference following consultation with the Institute.

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

evaluation report (SER).

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

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

5. Publication of the report of the panel and the Institute‟s subsequent response.

6. Follow-up report submitted by the Institute.

The terms of reference for the Institutional Review of the Institute of Technology Carlow were

discussed at a number of planning meetings and set by HETAC in July 2010 following consideration

and consultation between representatives of both HETAC and the Institute. The objectives of the

review were set by HETAC as follows:

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

Institute and the standards of the awards made.

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

3. To assess the effectiveness of the quality assurance arrangements operated by the Institute

with the following special consideration set by HETAC for the Institute of Technology

Carlow: The Institutional Review should consider the quality assurance arrangements for collaborative

provision, including any out-centre provision.

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

Qualifications (NFQ) and its procedures for access, transfer and progression.

5. To evaluate the operation and management of Delegated Authority where it has been

granted.

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

by the Institute.

For the complete terms of reference for the Institutional Review of the Institute of Technology

Carlow, see Appendix A.


Final Report

12

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

was chaired by Mr. Peter Williams and its membership reflected a wide range of expertise and

experience, in accordance with the terms of reference for the review. Panel members were asked to

declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to their appointment and none were declared. They

also received induction training on the conduct of Institutional Reviews in advance of the site visit.

The panel membership is outlined in full in Appendix B.

Prior to the panel‟s visit, the Institute of Technology Carlow engaged in a self-study exercise. The

Institute appointed an Institutional Review Project Team comprising Mr Brian Bennett, Registrar, Mr

David Denieffe, Head of School of Engineering and Ms Maebh Maher, Head of School of Business

and Humanities. In addition, an Institutional Review Steering Group was established, comprising

members of the management, academic and administrative staffs, together with four working groups

(from the same staff groups, but also with student representatives). The self evaluation process was

designed to address the objectives agreed in the terms of reference set by HETAC. The Institute also

carried out a number of programmatic reviews in the schools of Science, Engineering and the

Wexford campus and two strategic reviews of the school of Business & Humanities and the Centre

for Lifelong Learning. The Institute indicated that these reviews collectively contributed to

preparation of the self evaluation process and report.

The outcome of this work, undertaken over several months, was the production of the Self

Evaluation Report (SER), which was submitted to HETAC in September 2010 together with the

additional supporting documentation listed in Appendix C.

Prior to forwarding the Self Evaluation Report to the panel, a desk-based review of the SER was

undertaken by HETAC. The members of the panel assessed the SER in advance of the site visit, and

forwarded their initial thoughts to HETAC and the Review Chairperson and Secretary.

The SER was produced under the direction of the ITC Institutional Review Project Team, working

through four working groups that addressed the six objectives of the Institutional Review process as

follows:

Working Group A dealt with Objective 1 on Public Confidence and Objective 2 on Strategic

Planning and Governance.

Working Group B dealt with Objective 3 on the effectiveness of Quality Assurance.


Final Report

13

Working Group C dealt with Objective 4 on the Implementation of the National Framework

of Qualifications and Objective 5 on Delegated Authority

Working Group D examined the transition from an inputs to a learning outcomes

organisational model.

The panel considers that this approach resulted in a self evaluation report consisting of four separate

accounts rather than an integrated final report with a single style applied throughout the SER. While

the panel acknowledged the impressively large volume of documentation submitted by ITC, it

considered that the SER was largely descriptive, containing many assertions but providing little

analysis or a sense of critical self-reflection and awareness.

An advance meeting was held between the Review Chairperson, Secretary, HETAC Head of

Institutional Review and the President, Registrar, Head of School of Business & Humanities and

Head of School of Engineering of the Institute on 22nd September 2010. An indicative site visit

agenda was agreed at the advance meeting as were the general arrangements for the Institutional

Review site visit. It was also confirmed that the panel composition did not pose any potential

conflicts of interest for HETAC and the Institute. The terms of reference to be addressed by the

review panel were discussed and some emerging themes were noted including a focus on quality

assurance systems and procedures; collaborative arrangements including the roles played by the

different collaborative partners; the lifelong learning strategy of the Institute; and the arrangements

with Wicklow County Council for part-time provision. Discussion on the distinctive aspects of the

Institutional review included the multiple campus structure and how the multiple campus operations

are managed.

It was agreed that the Institute would set up a documentation room for panel members and provide

an index/glossary of documentation to ensure ease of access to the documentation for panel

members. The list of documentation requested, including that required by the panel in advance of the

site visit, is attached in Appendix D. Not all documentation requested by the panel was provided in a

timely manner. The glossary of documentation provided to the panel at the site visit is given in

Appendix E.

The site visit took place from 19th to 21st October 2010 at the Institute of Technology Carlow. The

panel met members of staff of the Institute, learners and other stakeholders in accordance with the

site visit agenda previously agreed; the agenda is set out in Appendix F. With some changes, that


Final Report

14

agenda was followed during the visit. Lists of persons with whom the panel met are provided in

Appendix G.

The members of the panel were satisfied that they received cooperation from ITC during the course

of the visit and that they had available the necessary documentation and discussions with staff,

students and other stakeholders to reach their conclusions and produce their report.


Final Report

15

Findings in relation to objectives of Institutional Review

Objective 1 — Public Confidence

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

Institute and the standards of the awards made

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

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

report of the panel, and the Institute‟s own response and action plan. The information provided by

the Institute to the public is part of this objective.

Summary of Objective 1 — Public Confidence

Self Evaluation Report

1.1 The self evaluation process undertaken by the Institute in preparation for the Institutional

Review was lead and managed by the Institute‟s Institutional Review Project Team and assisted

by an Institutional Review Steering Group comprising of the Registrar, Secretary/Financial

Controller, Librarian, Computer Services Manager, Academic Managers and the Quality

Assurance Officer. Using the framework and objectives established by HETAC, four working

groups were also established, as previously referenced.

1.2 The self-evaluation process provided the opportunity for the Institute to review its current

practices, identify activities which it does well and highlight areas for improvement. The main

recommendations arising from reviews completed by the Institute during the academic year

2009-2010 are contained in Chapter 7 of the SER: Main Recommendations Arising from Reviews

Completed in the Institute in 2009-2010 as indicated here:

The Institutional Review Self Evaluation Report submitted by ITC contains twenty

eight recommendations.

The Strategic Review of the School of Business and Humanities makes three

recommendations.


Final Report

16

The Lifelong Learning Centre Strategic Review makes two recommendations.

The Programmatic Review of all provision at the Wexford Campus makes eight

recommendations.

The Programmatic Review of all programmes in the School of Engineering makes

eighteen recommendations.

The Programmatic Review of all programmes in the School of Science makes

eighteen Recommendations.

1.3 The Self Evaluation Report (SER) states that public confidence in the quality of the activities

of the Institute may be determined by the degree to which it achieves and communicates the

quality of its standards, its competitiveness, the quality and importance of its undergraduate

and research programmes and the range and quality of its contribution to economic, social and

cultural development. The degree to which it is recognised for these aspects will determine its

reputation and recognition amongst stakeholders (SER, page 16).

1.4 The ITC Strategic Plan 2009-2013 states that the Institute‟s acknowledged track record in the

areas of access to higher education and efficiency and innovation, within an organisational

structure and culture that ensures a quick response to changing stakeholder needs, is

particularly important at this time of economic and social challenge. The Institute also

emphasised that equally important is the crucial role ITC has played in creating an economic

environment which is attractive to high-value knowledge-based enterprises (ITC Strategic Plan

2009-2013, page 1).

1.5 ITC recognises that the enhancement of public confidence requires an approach that ensures

the programmes offered are, and continue to be, of the highest quality. At Institute level this

requires the efficient operation of the Governing Body, Academic Council and the Senior

Management Group.

1.6 In his presentation „From Evolution to Enhancement‟ the Registrar outlined to the panel the

major stakeholders or „players‟ and „factors‟ impacting on ITC Quality Assurance as:

The Department of Education and Skills

External and Internal Auditors

HETAC and the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI)

Employers


Final Report

17

FETAC

Second level stakeholders

Higher Education Authority

Professional Bodies

ENQA Guidelines

Government Reports

Institutes of Technology Ireland (IOTI)

Research Funding Bodies

Enterprise Support

Graduates

Legislation

The degree to which all of these „players‟ have been incorporated into the Institute‟s

understanding of “public confidence in the quality and standard of the award” is unclear to the

panel.

Key Findings of Objective 1 — Public Confidence

1.7 The SER document, while comprehensive in several respects and providing information on all

areas covered by the HETAC Institutional Review, was too descriptive and not sufficiently

analytical. The structure used in the production of the SER, whereby different working groups

produced different sections, meant that the overall document lacked focus, coherence and

integration.

1.8 The panel met with a number of further and second level education stakeholders and

employers of ITC graduates in the region (Appendix G lists people met by the panel). It was

clear from the panel‟s discussions with external stakeholders that the Institute enjoys a good

reputation in its region and is well-regarded for its pastoral support for learners. The

willingness of employers to recruit ITC graduates was also evident during discussions with

panel members. The panel was of the view that while a number of staff members have a

dynamic relationship with various external shareholders, ITC would nonetheless benefit as an

institution from more systematic and planned engagements with its external constituencies.

This would ensure that maximum benefit could be derived from all external activities. During

the site visit the panel noted that considerable work had been undertaken over an extended


Final Report

18

period by management and the various working groups in their engagement with the

Institutional Review process. But, despite this, the panel also discovered that some members of

the Academic Council and its sub-committees, whom they met, had not seen the SER. In

contrast to this, the panel was also informed that the SER had been posted on the Institute‟s

intranet. The panel believes that, notwithstanding the length and complexity of the process

used by the Institute in preparing for the Institutional Review process, the effectiveness of that

process was constrained and the absence of rigorous self criticism in the SER limited the

potential of the Institutional Review to add significant value to the Institute.

1.9 It was also clear from the panel discussions with both staff and external stakeholders that there

was a considerable amount of work of a high standard being undertaken in ITC that was not

reflected in the SER or supporting documentation. During discussions with external

stakeholders the panel were informed of very considerable levels of interactions between ITC

and the local business community. The panel were also informed of the active dynamic that

existed between ITC and companies including industry involvement in projects, a willingness

to incorporate industry suggestions for programme modifications and a willingness of ITC

staff to lend expertise as appropriate. In the panel‟s view the SER did not do justice to the

Institute as it did not convey the scale or quality of this interaction.

1.10 During the site visit, staff demonstrated a good understanding of the many facets of public

confidence in their institution. The panel was of the view that the Institute has shown

commendable entrepreneurship in its willingness to seek out new collaborative arrangements

and partnerships with various stakeholders throughout the region and abroad.

1.11 The panel was satisfied that ITC has a strong awareness of the necessity of the role of

communications in building its public profile and endeavours to keep the public updated using

various communication tools such as print publications and online/electronic

communications. ITC has recently established a number of online interactive communications

tools with links to the Institute website. These include using social networking sites such as

Twitter, Boards.ie and YouTube. The panel was informed that the number of ITC website

visits for the month of January immediately prior to the CAO closing date had increased from

49,851 in 2008 to 98,258 in January 2010.


Final Report

19

1.12 The panel is in no doubt that ITC is held in high regard in its region, as evidenced by buoyant

student numbers, the extent and level of their strong interaction with industry and other

stakeholders met by the panel. All stakeholders speak of an institution with high standing in

the community. ITC is justly proud of how it is viewed by the students, stakeholders and the

wider community. The panel is of the view that ITC would benefit from the development of

more formal performance indicators to monitor and measure the effectiveness of its public

confidence.

1.13 Commendations — Public Confidence

The panel wishes to commend ITC on:

i. The strong engagement with industry, other stakeholders and partners in the provision of

programmes.

1.14 Recommendations — Public Confidence

The panel recommends that ITC:

i. Ensure that its definition of public confidence is comprehensive and inclusive of all

stakeholders including those referenced in section 1.6 of this report, and has a particular

focus on communicating the academic standards and quality of the ITC awards to these

and all other stakeholders.

ii. Identify key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor and measure the level of public

confidence that it enjoys.

iii. In reviewing its academic planning and performance, ensure that there is a more reflective,

self critical approach, a comprehensive analysis of relevant strengths and weaknesses and a

greater emphasis, in the documentation, on securing evidence of continuing quality

enhancement.


Final Report

20

Objective 2 — Strategic Planning and Governance

To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the Institute

The review may address the coherence of institutional mission, vision and values and overall

institutional strategic planning.

Summary of Objective 2 — Strategic Planning and Governance

Governing Body

2.1 The Governing Body has responsibility for the governance and strategic direction of the

Institute, overall responsibility for the management of its assets, and for the preparation of its

budgets for submission to the Higher Education Authority (HEA). Its membership is defined

by legislation, which states that it shall be „representative of industry, agriculture, commerce,

the professions and other interests as appropriate to the activities of the [Institute]‟. It is

also responsible for appointing the President (who becomes a member on appointment), and

the Institute‟s Academic Council. The President is responsible for the implementation of the

Institute‟s strategic plans, and for the management of the activities and staff of the Institute.

The Academic Council assists to the Governing Body in the planning, development and

oversight of the programmes of the Institute, and for setting and maintaining the academic

standards of its academic activities.

2.2 The ITC Governing Body membership includes Institute staff and student representatives and

the Chairperson is appointed by the Minister for Education & Skills. The Institute‟s

Secretary/Financial Controller is Secretary to the Governing Body. The Governing Body also

oversees all governance and financial audit processes. An internal audit committee is

established as a sub-committee of the Governing Body. The purpose of the audit committee

is to advise the Governing Body on internal control, corporate governance and any matters

referred to it by the Governing Body.


Final Report

21

Strategic Planning

2.3 The ITC Strategic Plan 2009–2013 follows on from its 2005–2009 plan, which was the first

formal Strategic Plan published by the Institute.

“In the development of its first strategic plan in 2005, the Institute used an extensive consultation

process with its stakeholders and in particular the staff of the Institute, to agree a series of goals and

objectives that would deliver in an effective quantifiable manner its mission” (SER, page 33).

The strategic planning process for the 2009-2013 Strategic Plan followed essentially the same

structure and repeated the majority of the goals of the 2005-2009 Plan. This decision was taken

to give a sense of continuity, stability and progression to the Institute‟s strategic planning

process. The development of the plan involved a period of analysis, which commenced with

institute-wide consultations involving all staff and student representatives and members of the

Governing Body. External stakeholders were also consulted (SER, page 37). The outcomes of

these consultations were considered by the Strategic Planning and Review Steering Committee

(SPRSC). Membership of the SPRSC is detailed in Appendix H.

2.4 The Strategic Plan is published in a bound bilingual volume. The Governing Body adopted the

Strategic Plan 2009–2013 in early 2009. It contains eight high level goals relating to:

1. Academic Portfolio: To become the higher education provider of choice for learners in South

Leinster through the provision of an academic portfolio which will further enhance Institute of

Technology Carlow‟s reputation as a higher education Institute of international reputation and

excellence.

2. Learner Population: To be recognised as a higher education provider, which is committed to

ensuring that its learners are afforded the opportunity to develop to their full potential in a

professional and supportive environment.

3. Research, Development and Innovation (RDI): To enhance our reputation as a

research-informed and internationally competitive higher educational Institute through expansion of

our research, innovation and technology transfer activities in targeted priority areas that support

economic and social development.

4. Lifelong Learning: To provide quality educational opportunities for lifelong learners that meet

the varied needs and demands of all learners, consistent with national policy and guidelines.


Final Report

22

5. Organisational and Staff Development: To further develop our organisational structure,

systems, values and culture to support the Institute‟s changing educational, social, employment and

staff development needs.

6. Physical Infrastructure: To develop and maintain a physical Infrastructure capable of

supporting the delivery of world class higher education in all its facets.

7. Economic, Social and Cultural Development: To maintain our focus as a key driver

for balanced economic development within South Leinster, and to continue to contribute to the social

and cultural development of South Leinster through interaction and involvement in the wider

community.

8. National and International Positioning and Alliances: To maintain and enhance our

reputation and position within national and international higher education structures and

frameworks through the identification and exploitation of opportunities at both national and

international level.

(ITC Strategic Plan 2009-2013, page 3).

2.5 In common with the earlier plan, the current plan aligns each target with an objective which in

turn is aligned to a goal. There is, however, a significant difference from the earlier plan in that

an implementation methodology has been incorporated into the 2009–2013 Plan. This

specifies the targets to be met by ITC in the first year and over the lifetime of the plan. During

the first day of the site visit, the panel was presented with a detailed document entitled Strategic

Plan 2009 – 2013 Action Plan Review 2009/2010, but this document was presented too late for

the panel to give it adequate consideration.

2.6 ITC is engaged in the collaborative provision of programmes with a number of partners at

local, regional, national and international levels. These programmes range from those offered

at its Wexford campus to programmes offered on the Wicklow campus in Rathnew to

programmes with the Communications and Information Services Corps of the Defence

Forces. ITC is also the sole higher education provider of full-time approved basic training

leading to Part 66 Aircraft Maintenance Engineer licences in the Republic of Ireland. ITC also

offers a Bachelor of Science in Computer Systems Management, Level 7, in China in

collaboration with Henan University of Finance and Economics. The panel was asked to

consider the quality assurance arrangements and procedures in place under transnational and

collaborative provision. This special consideration is dealt with in sections 3.16 to 3.20 of this

report under Objective 3 - Quality Assurance.


Final Report

23

Key Findings of Objective 2 — Strategic Planning and Governance

2.7 The strategic roles of both the Academic Council, as the senior deliberative committee

advising the Governing Body, and the Governing Body itself in the strategic planning process

were unclear to the panel. While the Governing Body is kept informed of activities in the

Institute on a regular basis and consulted along with students, staff and stakeholders, it does

not appear to be pro-active in informing or leading strategic/policy development, and the

panel was of the view that the Governing Body had a more passive role than might be

expected of such a body. In discussions with the panel the Chairman of the Governing Body

explained that while members were given an update twice a year, and were free to ask any

questions they wished, the Governing Body did not initiate any policy developments.

2.8 The panel considered that one consequence of this was too great a focus and reliance on the

Senior Management team as the principal source of policy development, implementation and

monitoring. In the view of the panel, the respective and distinctive roles of the Governing

Body, the Academic Council and the Senior Management team and the interplay between

them, merit serious reconsideration by ITC. For example, in discussions with members of the

Academic Council the panel was informed that Senior Management had announced at

Academic Council the decision to introduce the new framework for the modularisation of

programmes (FMP) within a year long academic structure system, without notice or any

explanatory paper, and that it was only after a request to do so that an explanatory paper was

presented to the Academic Council subsequently. The panel did not consider this to be good

deliberative management practice or reflective of a collegiate environment.

2.9 Commendations — Strategic Planning and Governance

The panel commends ITC on:

i. The entrepreneurial spirit it has shown in reaching out to the community and region it

serves.

ii. The overall approach at the strategic level towards the collaborative transnational pilot

project being undertaken with Henan University of Finance and Economics, China.


Final Report

24

2.10 Recommendations — Strategic Planning and Governance

The panel makes the following recommendations under Strategic Planning and Governance:

i. The ongoing monitoring, implementation and evolution of the strategic planning process

would benefit from a more active engagement by the Governing Body. More active

engagement would broaden and enrich the range of constituents involved in contributing

to the process at a time of significant change.

ii. The respective and distinctive roles of the Governing Body, the Academic Council and

the President and the Senior Management team, and the interplay between them, merit

serious reconsideration by ITC.

iii. The Institute has reached a size where current organisational structures, including

managerial and decision-making processes, that may have served the Institute well up to

now, may no longer be fully fit-for-purpose. ITC needs to consider what implications this

has for the distribution and delegation of management responsibilities, quality assurance

systems and other aspects of its organisation.


Final Report

25

Objective 3 — Quality Assurance

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

This objective is based on Part One of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in

Higher Education (ESG).2 By including this in the Institutional Review process, the statutory

requirement for the review of quality assurance is met. How the Institute reviews the effectiveness of

its quality assurance for the seven elements of the ESG should be explicitly addressed by the review

process.

Introduction

Section 3 of this report comments on the seven areas covered by the European Standards and Guidelines

for Quality Assurance (QA), namely:

i. Policy and procedures for quality assurance

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

iii. Assessment of learners

iv. Quality assurance of teaching staff

v. Learning resources and support

vi. Information systems

vii. Public information

The panel considered the Institute‟s quality assurance procedures in relation to the seven elements of

the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance and the HETAC Guidelines and Criteria for

Quality Assurance Procedures in Higher Education, 2004 and considered them to have been substantially

effective. The panel‟s findings are summarised below.

Element 1 - Policy and procedures for quality assurance

The ITC quality standards policy and framework

The Institute‟s approach to quality assurance is based upon a quality assurance system developed by

Australian Universities3 and referred to as a benchmarking quality assurance system. The SER

2 “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area”. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2009, Helsinki, 3rd edition. 3 Quality Standards from the Australian Universities Benchmarking Manual (McKinnon, Walker and Davis, 2000, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs) were examined by ITC.


Final Report

26

describes how, building on an approach developed by Australian universities, and following its own

extensive consultation process, ITC decided in 2004 to create and implement a Quality Assurance

and Improvement Policy and Framework. In this approach, a Quality Standard is defined as a distinct

element of an area of institutional activity, guided by a defined purpose or rationale, described in

terms of good practice (benchmarking) that can be measured either qualitatively and/or

quantitatively. Quality Standards are presented in the following standard format:

• Area identifies a major activity of the Institute, e.g. governance, learning and teaching,

research.

• Element identifies a sub-area component of a major-activity of the Institute, e.g., for the

major area of learning and teaching, course establishment processes is an element; for

governance, leadership is an element.

• Type identifies whether the benchmark is a lagging indicator, that is, essentially a record

of past performance (which may, of course, be continuing on into the future), a leading

indicator (indicative of the drivers of current and future performance), or learning

(indicative of the rate of change).

• Quality Standard Purpose is a description of why that element is important and what is

being assessed.

• Sources of data list existing, known sources of data. It also specifies areas where data

availability or suitability is doubtful.

• Good practice is a description of good practice in that element. The intention is to define

the best observable practices rather than some theoretical ideal.

• The levels section asks users to match the practice/performance of the Institute on the

five-point scale, generally (but not always) against one of three descriptions or at

intermediate levels, where 1 = minimum alignment with good practice and 5 = close/very

close alignment with good practice. It is intended to help the Institute realise that even

good performance may not be the upper limit, that level five indicates the current best

practice.

• Self-assessment is a convenient way to record the self-assessment made by the Institute,

Department or Schools using that Quality Standard.

• Check assessments is for when the Institute, Departments or Schools invite independent

experts to make an assessment of the functioning of that element of the Institute.

(SER, page 45-46)


Final Report

27

3.2 The table below provides an example of an ITC quality Standard for student satisfaction.

Table 2 Example of a Quality Standard

Quality Standard

3.10, Version 1.0

Element Student Satisfaction

Area Student Outcomes

Type Learning

Purpose: In-house questionnaires are administered to students. Students describe their perceptions of five areas of study and their overall level of satisfaction with the course. High scores correlate positively with high quality student learning. The data is best used for year-on change within a single Institute but has relevance as a comparative measure. Of most relevance are comparisons at the course level; data similar to that below should be available for each course.

Good Practice The Institute is achieving mean scores across all fields of study on each of the six scales. 1. Good Teaching 2. Clear Goals and Standards 3. Appropriate Assessment 4. Appropriate Workload 5. Generic skills 6. Overall Satisfaction Good practice requires evidence that the Institute is striving to improve low scores, and to achieve a profile of scores better than the average of the scale. Sub-set scores relating to international students are extracted for use in the international programme.

Levels

1 2 3 4 5 No evidence of action in response to scores

Evidence of support and remedial action to improve low scores

Evidence of effective support and remedial action to improve low scores

No evidence of improvement of previous year’s scores

Some of the previous year’s scores have improved

Improvements in most or all of previous year’s scores

A profile of scores where only some of the fields of study reach average levels in most dimensions and few are higher

A profile of scores in most of the fields of study equal to average in each dimension and reaching higher in some

A profile of scores in fields of study at least equal to average in each dimension, and reaching the top quartile in some

Self-Assessment (5 max) ……………………………….

Check Assessment (5 max) ……………………………….

Please document any specific comments relating to the Institute’s performance in this area and attach. (SER, page 49)


Final Report

28

The Institute points out the differentiating factors or cornerstones of this quality standards

framework as follows:

“The purpose of the good practice statements is to provide tools to identify performance trends in Institute

activities and so proved a means whereby a process of continuous improvement can be initiated in each

activity. The Quality Standard approach has as its main philosophy the belief that it is important to

include not only aspects of performance that can be quantified, but also performance that can only be

assessed qualitatively. The Quality Standards approach strives to achieve a balance between both of

these.

Another cornerstone of the Quality Standards approach is the assumption that Higher Education

Institutions are best managed through a partnership ethos, where the strategic aims and objectives of the

Institute are prioritised through a process of agreement by all stakeholders. Hence the concept of best

practice is perceived as being defined into Quality Standards through a consensual process.

Significant emphasis is placed in many quality systems on the measurement of past performance. In the

Quality Standards approach, a more rounded and comprehensive set of performance indicators is defined;

lagging, leading and learning indicators (Quality Standard Types). These three indicators measure not

only outputs in the Quality Standards systems but also provide a means of assessing innovation and how

well the Institution is adapting to its environment and achieving its strategic objectives. The Quality

Standards approach is also intended to provide information for the Institute‟s internal community on

improvements needed.” (SER, page 46)

3.3 ITC has developed 62 Quality Standards to date, with each standard being supported by

procedures and processes to facilitate implementation of the standard. Quality Standards are

grouped into nine categories as follows:

1. Governance, Planning and Management;

2. External impact;

3. Finance and physical infrastructure;

4. Teaching and Learning;

5. Student Services/Support;

6. Research;

7. Library and Information Systems;

8. Internationalisation; and

9. Staff.


Final Report

29

3.4 The following 15 Quality Standards (QS) have been reviewed by ITC during 2008-2010:

1. QS 2.2 Institute wide planning

2. QS 3.3 Scholarly teaching

3. QS 3.10 Student satisfaction

4. QS 4.5 Research higher degree completions per academic staff

5. QS 4.6 Weighted publications per FTE Academic Staff

6. QS 5.1 Operating results

7. QS 5.2 Diversity of revenue

8. QS 5.3 Liquidity

9. QS 5.4 External debt

10. QS 5.5 Quick ratio

11. QS 5.6 Academic salaries expenditure

12. QS 6.2 Contribution to teaching and learning

13. QS 7.2 Student services

14. QS 9.3 Balanced onshore international student programme

15. QS 10.2 Competitiveness

3.5 Standards listed by ITC for completion by December 2010 are as follows:

1. QS 3.8 1st to 2nd Year completion

2. QS 5.7 Commercialisation: Net return on equity

3. QS 5.8 Strategic asset management

4. QS 6.3 L&IS: Provision of support for research

5. QS 4.5 Research outcomes: Higher degree completions/FTE staff

3.6 The SER, together with a presentation by the Registrar and discussions between the panel and

staff members of the Institute, provided a comprehensive outline of the history and evolution

of the Quality Assurance and Improvement Policy and Framework and the manner in which it

is managed, implemented and coordinated. The panel was given to understand in its

discussions that the standards were to be reduced from 62 to 25, but the Institute has

subsequently indicated that this was not so, and that the revision to the standards comprised a

“cycling of the core set of standards to reflect a mix of leading, lagging and learning quality standards to give the

Institute sufficient knowledge about how it is performing in terms of standards, trends and knowledge of the

most important improvement metrics (key performance indicators).” The panel hopes that this work will


Final Report

30

help to provide a more manageable operational approach towards implementation of the ITC

standards.

3.7 A comprehensive and extensive Quality Assurance/Improvement Policy and Framework

Manual has been devised to document the process and associated procedures (available on the

Institute‟s website4 since June 2010). The manual includes chapters on the following:

Quality Assurance & Improvement at IT Carlow and the Quality Standards

Framework

Quality Standards for Governance, Planning and Management

Quality Standards for Learning and Teaching

Quality Standards for Research and Development

Quality Standards for Finance and Physical Infrastructure

Quality Standards for Information and Library Systems

Quality Standards for Student Services and Support

Quality Standards for Human Resource Planning and Management

Quality Standards for Internationalisation

Quality Standards for External Impact

3.8 Quality improvements in ITC are guided by recommendations from the management,

Governing Body, Academic Council and in particular two of its sub-Committees, the Quality

Assurance and Improvement Committee and the Quality Steering Group. Both sub-

committees were established in order to facilitate quality improvement activities. The Quality

Assurance and Improvement Committee focuses on the academic policies and procedures and

was established in 2006. The Quality Steering Group is focused on the rollout of the Quality

Standards across all Institute activities and leads to changes to policies and procedures (SER,

page 52). The Quality Assurance Officer appointed in 2009, who has done much to review and

refresh existing arrangements, has recently been seconded to the post of Student Support

Officer, while retaining responsibility for quality assurance on a part-time basis. One of the

responsibilities of the Quality Assurance Officer was re-establishing and reviewing the quality

assurance procedures and manual(s) in the context of a comprehensive management

documentation system (SER, page 9).

4 ITC Quality Assurance and Improvement Policy and Framework Manual is available at: http://www.itcarlow.ie/downloads/QA%20QI%20Policy%20and%20Framework%20Document.pdf?top_section=1&lower_section=2&uid=itcarlow)

http://www.itcarlow.ie/downloads/QA%20QI%20Policy%20and%20Framework%20Document.pdf?top_section=1&lower_section=2&uid=itcarlow

http://www.itcarlow.ie/downloads/QA%20QI%20Policy%20and%20Framework%20Document.pdf?top_section=1&lower_section=2&uid=itcarlow


Final Report

31

Key Findings- Element 1 - Policy and procedures for quality assurance

3.9 The panel considers that ITC‟s Quality Standards Policy and Framework (QSPF) are

interesting and innovative. The panel also considers the QSPF has the potential to be of value

to ITC when it has evolved as a more coherent and integrated framework across the Institute

to meet the current quality effectiveness needs. Nevertheless, the elaborateness and complexity

of the QSPF appeared to be limiting the value of the quality standards, which should be

reviewed to ensure that they are effective, fully fit-for-purpose and do not impose any

unnecessary burden on the Institute. The review should include an evaluation of the role of the

Quality Assurance Officer and whether there is a need for a continuing dedicated post for this

work.

3.10 In summary, the panel considers that ITC has well developed quality assurance policies and

procedures. The quality assurance framework, however, is very elaborate and complex, which

makes it difficult for the Institute (or any other observer) to assess its effectiveness and the

extent to which specific elements achieve their intended objectives. Each quality standard gives

the impression of a stand alone position in a quality framework that lacks integrated coherence

across all provision in the Institute. For example, the panel noted that there had been a

significant increase in programmes offered through the rapidly expanding Lifelong Learning

Centre leading to Major, Minor, Special Purpose and Supplemental awards. The panel was

unclear as to how the quality standards policy and framework facilitated and captured the

dispersed nature of the location of the programmes in the Lifelong Learning Centre due to the

fact that they are administered outside of the school context. The challenge of demonstrating

and maintaining equality of standards is considerable.

3.11 Recommendations - Policy and procedures for quality assurance

i. The panel recommends that the quality assurance system, policies and procedures should

be used throughout the Institute with a focus on consistency and coherence, in order to

ensure parity of quality and standards between full-time provision and lifelong learning

programmes.


Final Report

32

ii. The panel recommends that the quality assurance system, policies, procedures and

committee structures be reviewed by ITC to ensure that they are fit-for-purpose and

operate with a minimum of additional burden on staff. This should include the inclusion

of processes to ensure that changes introduced by the Academic Council are formally

communicated to all staff and students.

Element 2 - Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards

Validation of new programmes

3.12 The Institute outlined the ITC “policy and Guidelines for the Accreditation of Taught

Programmes Levels 6 to 8 of the National Framework of Qualifications” (SER page 80). The

panel also considered additional documentation relating to the approval procedure for a

number of new programmes leading to Major, Minor and Special Purpose awards identified by

the panel at the advance meeting with the Institute (see Appendix D on additional

documentation requested by the panel).

3.13 Following consideration of the sample programme documentation for the validation of a

number of major awards the panel was satisfied that the procedure as stated was appropriate

and clearly defined. However, the panel had a number of concerns regarding the composition

of panels of assessors established by ITC for the approval of programmes developed with

collaborative partner organisations. Some members of the panel of assessors engaged by ITC

for the new programme validation process were also members of the collaborative partner

organisations involved in the development of the same programmes. While recognising the

necessity of having panels of assessors with the specific expertise and skills required to evaluate

new programmes, the panel was of the view that it was essential to protect the transparency

and objectivity of the process by ensuring that there were no real or perceived conflicts of

interest for any member of a panel of assessors.

3.14 The procedures and processes for the design, approval and validation of Minor, Special

Purpose and Supplemental awards on the NFQ was outlined in the SER (page 83). The panel

also considered additional documentation relating to the approval of Special Purpose Awards

provided by ITC. The panel was satisfied that the policy and procedures specified in the SER

and the additional documentation reflected best practice. However the new programme

validation documentation provided by ITC during the site visit indicated that ITC had failed to


Final Report

33

follow its own procedures for the validation of Minor and Special Purpose awards which

provided for independent external expertise as part of the composition of the panel of

assessors. The panel of assessors for the validation of the new programmes did not include

independent external expertise.

3.15 The panel also considered the documentation for the most recent periodic programmatic

reviews carried out by ITC. The programmatic review documentation, PRG Report and the

school response for all schools including the Wexford campus was made available to the panel.

Some course board minutes referred to the unsatisfactory duration and content coverage for

the programmatic review in terms of the broad range of fields of study involved. The ITC

senior staff indicated to the panel that the next phase of programmatic reviews due in 5 years

would be a two-part process.

Collaborative Programmes

3.16 ITC has a number of collaborative arrangements as set out in the Terms of Reference for

Institutional Review (Table 6 under Objective 3 in the Terms of Reference provided in

Appendix A). As a special consideration under Objective 3 in the Terms of Reference the

panel was requested “to consider the Quality Assurance arrangements/procedures in place for the

arrangements which fall under transnational provision, collaborative provision and also include off-campus/out-

centre provision.”

3.17 The SER states under Section 4.12 (page 59) “IT Carlow‟s policy, procedures and templates

for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards are to be drafted for

approval by the Academic Council, Governing Body and by HETAC”. The panel was

informed that the draft quality assurance procedures were submitted to HETAC for

consideration under a separate process and were awaiting feedback at the time of the site visit.

It is the view of the panel that this task requires to be completed urgently. Given the strategic

significance ITC places on collaborative programmes. As soon as the quality assurance

procedures for collaborative and transnational provision are agreed the details regarding all

collaborative arrangements, both national and international, need to be reviewed in accordance

with the “HETAC Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards,

December 2008."


Final Report

34

3.18 The panel reviewed the additional documentation provided by ITC for the Bachelor of Arts

Level 7 degree programme in Leadership and Community Development being offered through

An Cosán, West Tallaght. Following consideration of the documentation and discussion with

ITC staff, the panel is of the opinion that the provision of this programme does not fall within

the current HETAC policy and guidelines on collaborative provision. The panel therefore

recommends that the Institute reviews its collaborative arrangements for this programme in

accordance with the criteria set out in HETAC‟s Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational

programmes and joint awards, December 2008. The panel further recommends that ITC does not

enter into any other collaborative arrangements, national or international, until the situation

regarding An Cosán is remedied in line with HETAC policies.

3.19 ITC needs to engage the necessary levels of objective independent external expertise in all new

programme validation processes in accordance with the procedures established by it.

3.20 ITC should take steps to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest, or likely perceptions of

conflicts, in the composition of evaluation panels.

3.21 Recommendations - Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and

awards

The panel makes the following recommendations under Approval, monitoring and periodic

review of programmes and awards:

i. The panel recommends that ITC reviews all its collaborative arrangements as set out in

Table 3 of the Terms of Reference (Appendix A) in accordance with HETAC‟s Policy for

collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards, December 2008 in consultation

with HETAC.

ii. The panel makes further recommendations on:

The new programme validation processes for Major, Minor, Special Purpose

and Supplemental awards

The programmatic review process and

The monitoring of all programmes and awards

as conditions under delegated authority in section 5.8 of this report.


Final Report

35

Element 3 - Assessment of learners

3.22 The panel was generally satisfied that the policy and practices for the assessment of learners

were exercised and carried out in accordance with HETAC‟s Assessment and Standards, December

2009. Students met by the panel had a good understanding of the learning outcomes expected

of them by their modules and how they were to be assessed.

3.23 In meetings with the panel, student representatives considered the appeals procedure regarding

examination grades to be fair and conducted in an appropriate and sensitive manner.

3.24 Considerable work has been carried out in ITC on the assessment of learners, in particular

through the development of the academic staff‟s capacity to develop programme/module

assessment strategies and align assessment with intended learning outcomes. In this regard the

positive impact of the Strategic Innovation Funded (SIF) projects at the Institute have been

considerable in bringing about a cultural change from the focus on input processes to that of

outcomes. As part of the Institute‟s preparation for the Institutional Review, a working group

examined the transition from an input based approach to a learning outcomes based model in

teaching and learning within ITC (SER, page 62).

3.25 ITC relies heavily on its external examiners to provide independent external peer reassurance

regarding the quality of its programmes and the standards of its awards. The primary role of

external examiners as outlined in the HETAC document Effective Practice Guidelines for External

Examining, March 2010 is to verify that standards achieved are at the appropriate level and are

fair and consistent. The panel was informed by ITC staff of the difficulties being increasingly

encountered in sourcing external examiners that had the appropriate experience required to

perform this crucial role. The role played by external examiners and their importance to the

quality assurance system was well understood by ITC staff including the members of

programme boards with whom the panel met.

3.26 The panel considered all available external examiners‟ reports for the academic year 2008-2009

and was seriously concerned at the variability of feedback in the reports submitted by the

external examiners. While some were examples of best practice, others were largely empty or

completed in an unacceptably cursory manner. In some instances the panel found that oral

feedback at examination board meetings was replacing formal written reports. The panel found


Final Report

36

the processes and procedures for the selection and appointment of external examiners to be

satisfactory. However, following consideration of the external examiners‟ reports for the

academic year 2008-2009, the panel found a number of matters that raised concerns, including

the fact that some external examiners came from organisations with which ITC was offering

collaborative programmes.

3.27 The panel also considered the mechanism used by ITC to consider feedback from external

examiners, e.g. programme boards‟ minutes. The panel found little evidence of systematic

consideration of issues raised by external examiners, including follow-up action on the issues

raised by the external examiners in their reports. In practice, external examiners‟ reports are

considered by the Heads of Schools/Departments, who either circulate the reports to the

programme boards or inform programme boards of any matters that they consider relevant to

them. ITC would benefit from the implementation of a coherent systematic approach by the

Institute as a whole for analysing and responding to all concerns raised by external examiners

and monitoring the follow-up action required. A role for the Teaching and Learning Centre in

facilitating an Institute-wide response should be explored.

3.28 Commendations - Assessment of learners


i. The extensive and innovative work being done by ITC in the assessment of students and

their contribution to the development of national policy in this regard.

3.29 Recommendations - Assessment of learners


i. Carries out an external review of the role and function of external examiners together with

the process of internal feedback and follow-up action on external examiners‟ reports at all

levels in the Institute, to ensure that academic standards are at an appropriate level and

that the Institute has a systemic approach to dealing with issues raised. This review should

include inter alia:

the contract, including role specification, for external examiners;

the support documentation provided to external examiners;

the current lack of an induction programme;

the pro-forma external examiner report form;


Final Report

37

processes for internal feedback and action on external examiners‟ comments and

recommendations at all levels in the institute.

Element 4 - Quality assurance of teaching staff

3.30 The panel found the staff development opportunities afforded to academic and

administrative staff in ITC to be extensive, of high quality and relevant to their needs. In

2006, ITC established a Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC), funded from its own

resources, with a mission to foster a culture of excellence in teaching and learning and to

support the provision of a quality learning experience for all learners at the Institute. Projects

initiated by the new Centre focused on innovation in teaching and learning and on the

assessment of learning outcomes. In 2008-2009 67% of academic staff participated in 37

workshops designed to support academic staff in the development of their roles in teaching,

learning, assessment and research supervision. In the view of the panel, the positive impact

and contribution of the TLC within the Institute has been considerable.

3.31 The panel met with a broad range of student representatives from all schools, levels and

campuses. They were fulsome in their praise of their lecturers. They found them to be

responsive to their needs with good interaction during lectures. Students indicated that

lecturers were available outside of lectures on an informal basis. Students portrayed ITC as a

student-friendly environment conducive to their development and well-being.

3.32 ITC indicated that the nationally agreed student feedback mechanism for the Institute of

Technology (IoT) sector using the QA1, QA2 and QA3 forms was not operational due to

national industrial relations issues. The panel noted that ITC revised and enhanced the

original form in an attempt to gain the necessary feedback through an online form. The

student feedback mechanism in use at present focuses on the students‟ experience of their

programmes rather than the performance of the teaching staff. An online questionnaire is

received and analysed by Heads of Departments. The panel is not persuaded that this

mechanism alone is a fully adequate or effective way of ensuring that ITC is able to assess

the student experience of programmes and the quality of lecturers. The panel considers a

more open, sophisticated and transparent student feedback mechanism is required to be put

in place by ITC.


Final Report

38

3.33 Commendations - Quality assurance of teaching staff


i. The positive attitude of the ITC staff and the supportive nature of their relationship with

students.

ii. The work being done by the Teaching and Learning Centre and the positive impact

created across the Institute. The panel suggests that ITC considers using the Centre as a

way of promulgating and promoting good practice in all aspects of quality assurance.

iii. The high levels of voluntary take-up by Institute staff of opportunities to develop their

own pedagogical expertise and skills and the investment by ITC of its own funds in this

area.

3.34 Recommendations - Quality assurance of teaching staff

The panel makes the following recommendation under Quality Assurance of teaching staff:

i. The nationally agreed system within the IoTs for student feedback on the performance of

lecturing staff is not currently being implemented in ITC. The panel recommends that ITC

builds upon its current online system of student feedback and develops a more open,

transparent and comprehensive student feedback mechanism(s) to capture and assess a

fuller understanding of the student experience of programmes and the quality of teaching

in ITC.

Element 5 - Learning resources and support

3.35 The full range of student support services is listed in the table below (SER, page 13). ITC has

a comprehensive and wide ranging system of academic and other student support services for

full-time students. This includes a comprehensive orientation and induction programme for

new students, including specific targeted supports for particular categories of students, such as

support services for international students.


Final Report

39

Table 3 Student Support Activities in ITC

Student Services – Sport & Recreation, Sports Scholarships, Accommodation, Access, Medical, Counselling, Chaplaincy, Health, Student Academic , Disciplinary Regs, Code of Discipline, Student Complaints & Appeals, International Student Supports, Careers Advice & Support, Links to Sporting Bodies Students‘ Union – Clubs & Societies, Welfare & Education, Student Rep Council, Entertainment, etc. Academic Regs, Admin, Review & Quality – Admissions, Exams, Conferring, Prizes & Awards, Tutorial Support, Evaluation of Learner Supports, Retention, Academic Council, Academic Regulations, Quality Assurance, Academic Reviews, Programme Design, Programme Boards, Research & Development, Schools Liaison, Industry Liaison, Technical Support, etc. Learning Resources – Learning Resource Centre – Library & Computing Services Non-Academic – Governing Body, Finance, Grants & Scholarships, Payroll, Human Resources, Estates, External Services, Communications & PR, Freedom of Information, Reprographics, etc.

(SER, page 13)

3.36 Given its various campus locations in Carlow, Wexford, Wicklow and Kilkenny and the

number of students on the lifelong learning programmes, the Institute faces considerable

challenges in extending the full range of its student services equally to all students on all

campuses. The panel was informed by Institute staff that efforts were being made, within

budgetary constraints, to ensure equitable access for all students, irrespective of campus

locations.

3.37 During a meeting with student representatives, the panel was informed of some

dissatisfaction regarding the support services on the Wexford campus. Particular mention

was made of the lack of structured careers guidance for students finishing their second year

who needed support in choosing suitable programmes to transfer or progress to in ITC.

3.38 Students from the Carlow campus expressed high levels of satisfaction with the range and

quality of their learning resources and support services – the panel is satisfied that this is a

true reflection of the general situation. Two areas where students expressed concerns to the

panel were the library in Carlow and the careers guidance function. Students did not consider

the library to be conducive to study owing to the noise levels and the limited study areas

provided for students. The careers guidance function has experienced significant increased

pressure due to the less favourable jobs market. The Institute has one careers officer

covering all campuses. The Wexford-based students believed that they were at a comparative

disadvantage regarding the provision of services and made particular reference to the careers

guidance function. The panel suggests that the Institute investigate these concerns.


Final Report

40

3.39 Commendations - Learning resources and support


i. The comprehensive induction programme provided by ITC for all first year students.

3.40 Recommendations - Learning resources and support


i. Develops a training or mentoring system to enable student representatives to play a more

active and effective role.

ii. Give consideration to developing a role for the careers guidance service in supporting

student decisions for internal and external progression.

iii. Ensures that any further expansion in student numbers be matched by the provision of

appropriate additional student services.

iv. Ensures that the student services support staff meet as a group on a regular basis to plan

and review the provision of the services across all the Institute campuses.

v. Ensures that the student supports provided at all campuses are adequate to meet the needs

of students.

Element 6 - Information systems

3.41 Institutions should ensure that they collect, analyse and use relevant information for the

effective management of their programmes of study and other activities. The Institute

describes its Management Information System (MIS) by referencing a number of key

applications and specific database systems which, according to the Institute, ensure they

comply with external developments and meet customer service requirements and demands.

The systems referred to in the SER include the:

Banner Student Record System used by all Institutes of Technolog;,

Millennium Library System;

Core HR/Payroll System;

Aggresso Finance System.

„In addition, the Institute has a Computing Services Department that provides the computing

infrastructure for the college and monitors, initiates and develops this infrastructure to enable

all of these customised MIS to operate effectively. The MIS is used to provide data for


Final Report

41

planning, monitoring, and assessing progress on the operational management of the Institute.‟

(SER, page 42)

3.42 Although an extensive range of data is, in principle, available within ITC, it was not clear to the

panel how this information was used in the decision-making process. Data is collected and

held in the various systems in place, but formal mechanisms for accessing the information

have not been developed. ITC staff indicated to the panel that informal networking was the

preferred mechanism for accessing data. Data on incoming students is available to staff but

information regarding students who leave ITC mid-programme is not collected. Student data,

including assessment records and examination broadsheets, are all maintained centrally, as are

reports from external examiners. However, it was not clear to the panel how the information

was used, nor how far standardised information was available at all levels throughout ITC. The

panel concluded that information was released on a need-to-know basis.

3.43 The panel considers that the use of official data analysis for the purposes of decision making is

important for the Institute; the current management information system in ITC does not meet

this requirement and does not use this to best effect. Its value to the organisation is not clear.

The panel is of the view that the actual management information system, as opposed to the

individual applications, should be reviewed and updated.

3.44 Internal communications in general could adopt a more open, systematic and standardised

format, in particular to ensure that decisions of the Academic Council are brought to the

attention of the appropriate staff and student groups in a timely manner.

3.45 Recommendations - Information systems


i. Builds its business intelligence capacity in order to exploit more fully the management and

use of data stored on its existing information systems.

ii. Performs more effective follow-up and analysis of students who leave ITC prior to

completion of their programmes and determine what, if any, additional supports may help

in this regard.


Final Report

42

Element 7 - Public information

3.46 The Institute promulgates information in relation to its activities by means of the annual

prospectus, along with a Lifelong Learning prospectus, and its website. ITC also publishes,

retrospectively, its Annual Report, in fulfilment of its statutory obligations. The Institute

recognises the importance of providing timely information to the public through a variety of

channels. The information provided to the public appears to follow standard practice and

fulfils the statutory requirements of the European Standards and Guidelines and the

requirements set out in the NFQ Policies, Actions and Procedures on Access, Transfer and

Progression for Learners.

3.47 During discussions with the panel, the Institute highlighted the necessity for more joined-up-

thinking between the various Public Agencies engaged with the Institute of Technology, as the

proliferation of information requests places a considerable burden on the Institute. A more

unified system of requesting data periodically from Institutes of Technology would be of

considerable benefit to ITC.

3.48 The panel found that ITC‟s public information systems are strong and noted its use of the new

social media platforms in developing new avenues of communication both with students in

particular and with other stakeholders.


Final Report

43

Objective 4 — Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and

Progression

To confirm the extent to which the Institute has implemented the National Framework of

Qualifications (NFQ) and its procedures for access, transfer and progression

This objective has two main strands:

1. Review of the Institution‟s activity in implementing the National Framework of

Qualifications

2. Procedures for access, transfer and progression

The National Qualifications Authority has produced guidelines in relation to this objective.5 These

include issues such as credit, transfer and progression rules between levels and award types, entry

arrangements, information provision, and policies and procedures for the Recognition of Prior

Learning (RPL).

Summary — Objective 4 — Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression

4.1 Chapter 5 of the SER describes the processes undergone in ITC to ensure that its programmes

comply with the requirements of the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ). The

Institute‟s Quality Policies and Procedures require that new programmes meet HETAC

policies and criteria as appropriate, and the NFQ specifications, including compliance with

award titles, and the requirements in relation to access, transfer and progression.

4.2 The Institute‟s senior management indicated and emphasised to the panel how the

introduction of the NFQ had stimulated considerable debate at all levels in ITC. In 2004, ITC

adopted the principle of a modularised credit structure for all its academic programmes based

on units of modules (multiples of 5 ECTS6 credits) to a maximum value of 60 credits per full-

time year/stage. After considerable discussion and debate, a framework for the modularisation

of programmes (FMP) was established by ITC within a year long (non-semesterised) academic

5 “Policies, Actions and Procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression”. National Qualifications Authority of Ireland. 2003. www.nqai.ie. 6 ECTS- European Credit Transfer System


Final Report

44

structure. This academic structure was agreed by ITC‟s Academic Council in 2009 for

implementation in September 2010.

Key Findings — Objective 4 — Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression

4.3 The panel reviewed selected representative samples of programmes and programmatic review

documentation during the site visit and was satisfied that ITC had implemented the National

Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) effectively. However, the panel felt the procedures

relating to the assignment of the NFQ levels to minor awards was unclear and requires

clarification and alignment with the HETAC policies and guidelines on Minor, Special Purpose

and Supplemental awards. From the records provided, it was noted that the panels established

for the validation of Minor, Special Purpose and Supplemental awards comprised internal staff

and that there was not external representation. It was clear from discussions with staff, and

materials provided, that access, transfer and progression routes are in place for programmes

leading to awards on the NFQ.

4.4 The Institute has a long history of access initiatives and it is constantly broadening these. The

HEA Labour Market Activation Initiative, established in 2008, is the most recent extension to

access. ITC informed the panel that it was not involved in the HEA Labour Market Activation

scheme (established 2008) in the most recent academic year as it could not recruit sufficient

applicants to make the programmes viable.

4.5 Under its previous Strategic Plan 2005-2009, ITC had as a goal a 3% increase per annum in

non-standard applicants over the duration of five years. This target was exceeded, with mature

students accounting for 8.5% of First Year entrants in 2005-2006, rising to 24% in 2009-2010.

Student numbers entering the Carlow Access Programme (a programme for socio-economic

disadvantaged second level learners who are awarded a financial scholarship each year of their

studies) increased from 12 in 2005-2006 to 56 in the 2009-2010 academic year.


Final Report

45

4.6 Other access initiatives include Kildare into Tertiary Education (KITE7), Access South

Leinster (ASL8), Kick Start9, Traveller Programme10, and the Special Needs Applicants Direct

Entry Scheme for socially/economically disadvantaged applicants.

4.7 ITC has established a wide range of external links with first and second level schools, further

education colleges and the broader community, with a view to extending its provision of

education to students from socio-economically deprived backgrounds.

4.8 Commendations — Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression


i. Its many access initiatives including Kildare into Tertiary education (KITE), Access South

Leinster (ASL), Traveller Programme and the Special Needs Applicants Direct Entry

Scheme for socially/economically disadvantaged applicants.

ii. Its scholarship programme for socially/economically disadvantaged students.

4.9 Recommendations — Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression


i. Establishes clarity on the NFQ level of Minor Awards to align with HETAC‟s policy and

guidelines.

ii. Strengthens the information available to students on transfer and progression

arrangements between programmes in ITC, particularly for those studying in other

centres.

7 KITE- partnership between the NUI Maynooth Access Programme, Kildare Community Partnership, ITC and nine DEIS schools in Kildare. [DEIS- Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools- integrated School Support Programme and standardised system for identifying and regularly reviewing levels of disadvantage] 8 ASL- project aiming to broaden the activities of KITE to DEIS schools and VTOS (Vocational Training Opportunities Scheme) providers in South Leinster. 9 KICK Start- after school club for primary school students, combining sport and learning, run in association with ITC, Carlow County Development Partnership Ltd, and the DEIS primary school in the Carlow area. 10 Traveller Programme- project aiming to enhance the academic performance and potential of traveller children attending secondary schools in the South East Region by providing tuition.


Final Report

46

Objective 5 – Operation and Management of Delegated Authority

This objective is to evaluate the operation and management of Delegated Authority (where

applicable) for both taught and research programmes

The Institutional Review process will satisfy the statutory requirement for the review of Delegated

Authority for recognised institutions, once Objective 5 of the Institutional Review process is

included in the Terms of Reference. The majority of the Delegated Authority criteria are covered

under the prescribed objectives of Institutional Review. Additional criteria which relate specifically to

the operation of delegated authority should be explicitly addressed in the Institution‟s submission.

A special consideration was added under Objective 5 of the Terms of Reference (Appendix A) “The

Institutional review panel is requested to consider the Institute validation policy and procedures and in particular

procedures for the validation of Minor, Special Purpose and Supplemental awards.”

A special consideration was also added in the Terms of Reference, under Objective 3: Quality

Assurance, the panel was requested to “to consider the Quality Assurance arrangements/procedures in place for

the arrangements which fall under transnational provision, collaborative provision and also include off-campus/out-

centre provision‖ (see page 60 of this report). The arrangements in place for the collaboration with An

Cosán also fall under the remit of Delegated Authority. An Cosán is a community education centre in

Tallaght, Dublin. ITC developed a Bachelor of Arts in Leadership and Community Development in

association with An Cosán in 2006 and according to ITC, staff of An Cosán deliver the Level 7

degree under the remit of the ITC quality assurance procedures. These arrangements were

considered by the panel in accordance with the criteria in the HETAC Policy for collaborative programmes,

transnational programmes and joint awards, December 2008.

Summary — Objective 5 — Operation and Management of Delegated Authority

5.1 In 2005 ITC was granted Delegation of Awarding Authority (DA) by HETAC to make awards

at Levels, 6, 7 and 8 of the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ). From 2005-2006

ITC became responsible for the validation of its own awards at these levels. In 2009

Delegation of Authority was extended to research Levels 9 and 10 awards in the field of

Biotechnology and Molecular Environmental Science.


Final Report

47

5.2 In October 2005 ITC adopted a policy “Institute Policy and Guidelines for Accreditation of

Taught Programmes Levels 6 to 8 of National Framework of Qualifications” which was

adapted from the HETAC “Supplementary Guidelines for the Accreditation of Taught

Programmes and Research Degree Programmes, August 2005”. This policy states the general

principles ITC observes and promotes with regard to the operation of delegation of awarding

authority.

5.3 In Chapter 6, Section 6.1 of the SER, Figure 2 shows the new taught programme accreditation

flowchart for major awards (full-time and part-time mode), for Levels 6–8 of the NFQ (SER,

pages 81-82). Procedures and processes for the design, approval and validation of Minor,

Special Purpose and Supplemental awards on the NFQ are outlined in Figure 3 (SER, page

83). Section 6.2 of the SER, Figure 4 (SER, page 84) shows the research programme

accreditation flowchart under DA (Levels 9 and 10 of NFQ).

5.4 The Institute described to the panel how it had benefited from Delegated Authority stressing

the new flexibility it enjoyed in being able to respond more rapidly to the requirements of its

stakeholders. It also described how this had enhanced its reputation in its own community.

5.5 ITC also highlighted the benefits of being able to select and appoint its own external

examiners, both from the perspective of quality assurance and also from public confidence in

the awards made by the Institute. Delegated Authority is also seen as providing ITC with a

significant advantage in the competitive educational environment in which it operates.

Key Findings — Objective 5 — Operation and Management of Delegated Authority

5.6 Following the granting of Delegated Authority, ITC has been more flexible in its response to

stakeholders‟ requirements and more responsive to opportunities. The panel agrees that the

Institute‟s profile in the community has been enhanced as a result. Delegated Authority has

had a beneficial effect on the Institute in that it has given it more control over, and

responsibility for, the programmes it offers.

5.7 However, on closer consideration of these responsibilities, for example new programme

validation as indicated in sections 3.12-3.15 of this report, the panel finds that in general


Final Report

48

Institute of Technology Carlow is only substantially compliant with its obligations in the

operation and management of Delegated Authority and therefore recommends a conditional

continuation of Delegated Authority as it currently stands.

5.8 Recommendations — Operation and Management of Delegated Authority

The panel makes the following recommendation under Operation and Management of

Delegated Authority:

i. The panel recommends that the Delegated Authority granted to the Institute of

Technology Carlow be continued as provided for in the Qualifications (Education and

Training) Act 1999, subject to the following conditions:

a. That ITC agrees supplementary quality assurance procedures with HETAC in

accordance with HETAC‟s Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes

and joint awards, December 2008 to underpin all collaborative provision.

b. Following agreement with HETAC on 1. above, ITC should request HETAC to

review the delegated authority for all collaborative programmes but in particular for

the Level 7 Bachelor of Arts in Leadership and Community Development with An

Cosán;

c. That ITC carries out, in consultation with HETAC, an external review of its formal

procedures and mechanisms for:

The approval of all new programmes Major, Minor and Special Purpose

awards;

The procedures for programmatic review; and

Monitoring of all programmes and awards.

d. That the periodic revalidation (programmatic review) of the degrees of Bachelor of

Arts (in Sport and Exercise) (GAA) Level 7 and Bachelor of Arts (in Sport and

Exercise) (Soccer) Level 7, be brought forward and are carried out at the same time

as the periodic revalidation of the degree of Bachelor of Arts (in Sport and Exercise)

(Rugby) Level 7, scheduled for 2011.


Final Report

49

Objective 6 — Recommendations for Enhancement

To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by

the Institution.

This includes both the recommendations arising from the external peer review process and the

recommendations arising from the internal self-evaluation process.

Summary — Objective 6 — Recommendations for Enhancement

6.1 The panel finds that the Institute is clearly committed to the enhancement of its teaching and

learning and strives for continuous improvements.

6.2 The panel notes that the final chapter of the SER (Chapter 7: Main Recommendations arising

from Reviews Completed in the Institute in 2009-2010, pages 91-96) lists 28 recommendations

by ITC as part of the Institutional Review. These are followed by lists of peer review

recommendations arising from the three programmatic reviews in the School of Engineering,

School of Science and the Wexford Campus; and two strategic reviews in the School of

Business and Humanities and the Life Long Learning Centre; and an expert review of

academic administration. The panel recommends that all of these recommendations are further

analysed, prioritised and grouped together to allow for a clearer focus and implementation

plan.

6.3 Section 2 of this report on Objective 2: Strategic Management and Governance referred to the

Institute‟s high reliance on the role of the Senior Management Group, which was evident

during the site visit as the panel met with a number of staff groups (as indicated in Appendix

G). The panel recommends that ITC investigates the benefit of strengthening the operating

systems and staff roles elsewhere in the Institute in order to facilitate a wider engagement of

staff in its decision-making structures.


Final Report

50

Key Findings — Objective 6 — Recommendations for Enhancement

6.4 Recommendations — Recommendations for Enhancement


i. Prioritise the internal recommendations contained in the SER and other periodic reviews

and develops an appropriate implementation plan with timelines and responsibility

identified.

ii. Identifies processes for the engagement of wider groups of staff in ITC in the decision

making processes.


Final Report

51

Appendix A Terms of Reference

Higher Education and Training Awards Council

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF Institute of Technology Carlow in October 2010

STATUS: SET

Section 1. Purpose The purpose of this document is to specify the Terms of Reference for the Institutional Review of Institute of Technology Carlow in October 2010. The HETAC Institutional Review policy applies to all institutions providing HETAC accredited programmes, or programmes accredited under delegated authority. These Terms of Reference are set within the overarching policy for Institutional Review as approved in December 2007 and should be read in conjunction with same. These Terms of Reference do not replace or supersede the agreed policy for Institutional Review. The Terms of Reference once set may not be amended and any significant revision required to the Terms of Reference will result in a new Terms of Reference to be set by HETAC following consultation with the college. These Terms of Reference should be read in conjunction with the supplementary guidelines for Institutional Review. The objectives of the Institutional Review process are

1. To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the institution and the standards of the awards made;

2. To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the institution; 3. To assess the effectiveness of the quality assurance arrangements operated by the institution; 4. To confirm the extent that the institution has implemented the National Framework of

Qualifications and procedures for access, transfer and progression; 5. To evaluate the operation and management of delegated authority where it has been granted; 6. To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided

by the institution. It is possible that, within the objectives outlined above, Institutions may have specific sub-objectives to which they will attach particular importance and wish to emphasise in their TOR. To maximise the benefits of the review process, an Institution may also consider including additional objectives relevant to its context. The approach taken by HETAC to Institutional Review will:

Acknowledge that institutions have ownership of and responsibility for their activity;

Be conducted in a spirit of partnership with institutions, with a view to improvement and enhancement, whilst acknowledging statutory requirements for accountability;

Be conducted in a manner which adds value to the institution, minimises overhead and assists in building institutional capacity;

Be flexible, adaptable and scalable in order to meet the needs of diverse institutions;

Be conducted in an open, consistent and transparent manner;

Be evidence-based in accordance with established criteria;

Promote learning and development for all involved;

Reward innovation and experimentation when it seeks to enhance our understanding of good practice;

Promote collaboration and sharing of good practice between institutions;

Take cognisance of international best practice and contribute to European and international developments in this area.


Final Report

52

Section 2. Institute Profile Background to the Institute Founded in 1970, the Institute of Technology Carlow (ITC) is located in the centre of Ireland‟s South Leinster region (containing the counties of Carlow, Wicklow, Wexford, Kildare, Laois and Kilkenny), and on the periphery of the Mid East and South East Regions of Ireland. ITC considers its location point of midway between Dublin (84 kilometres) and Waterford (80 kilometres) as a strategic advantage and a key feature of its dual role in servicing students and enterprises from both the South East and the Mid East -Greater Dublin area. Serving a catchment area of 700,000 persons containing approximately 15% of the State‟s workforce (An Economic Profile of Carlow, 2009, DKM Economic Consultants), ITC says it aims to contribute to regional and national economic, social and cultural development, informed and enriched by the Institute‟s growing international activities and profile. The Institute provides a broad range of programmes from trade apprenticeship programmes (on behalf of FAS, the National Training and Employment Authority), to higher education and training programmes including research and enterprise development opportunities. Programmes are provided at its main campus in Carlow and other off-campus locations in Wexford and Wicklow:

Main Campus, Kilkenny Road, Carlow - programmes provided in Business, Humanities, Engineering and Science.

Wexford Campus (approx. 75 kilometres from Carlow) - full-time and part-time programmes provided in Business, Social Studies, Early Childhood studies, Art, Visual Communications and Design, Architectural Technology and Economics. Approximately 900 learners are registered at the Wexford Campus of which 80% are mature learners.

Wicklow Campus (approx. 117 kilometres from Carlow) – Enterprise Support Centre with 180 part-time learners registered on a mixture of higher education and continuing professional development programmes as part of the enterprise support programme in association with Wicklow Co Council.

ITC has a diverse portfolio of over 74 taught programmes up to and including Level 8 on the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ); a research portfolio to Doctoral level (Level 10 NFQ) in the Sciences and Technology, and an emerging research platform in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. The Institute programmes are modularised but delivered on a year-long basis. The Institute programmes are not semesterised, with the exception of one programme. The Institute decided not to semesterise programmes following extensive consideration and based upon learner needs and perceived risk to new learners in particular. Table 4 (page 10) provides a breakdown of School/Centre programme provision and Table 5 provides a breakdown of research candidates per school. Student profile ITC has a student population of 4,795 (2,921 undergraduate, 312 trade apprentices, 133 Erasmus, 198 non EU, 38 postgraduate and 1,193 lifelong learning [programmes undertaken part-time by night] or part-time/mature continuing professional development). More than 70% of students studying for major awards are enrolled on Level 7 and Level 8 Bachelor Degree programmes. The Institute has presided over 25,000 graduates to date and the current student diversity is reflected in its mix of students. This comprises the traditional leaving certificate entrants; a growing International (and European) student body; an increasing proportion of mature students; learners from disadvantaged backgrounds; and a significant number of part-time learners. On average, over 80% of


Final Report

53

ITC graduates find their first employment in the counties of South Leinster and Dublin. Further information on the student profile is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1- IT Carlow - Snapshot of Core Academic Provision

Level 6 Trades

Higher Certificates

Level 7 Ordinary Degrees

Level 8 Honours Degrees Higher Diplomas

Level 9 Masters Degrees PGrad Diplomas

Level 10 Doctorate Degrees

74 Undergrad Full-time Programmes, 4 Apprentice Programmes, 38 Research Postgrad Programmes & 2 Taught Postgrad Programmes in 2009/10

Undergraduate & Postgraduate Statistics 2009/10

Business & Humanities - 1,360 Engineering - 727 Science - 696 Wexford - 469 Postgraduate (Research) - 38 Apprentices - 312 Lifelong Learning - 1,193 TOTAL Number: 4,795

Undergraduate Full-time Analysis 2009/10

By Award Level Level 6: 922 Level 7: 1,123 Level 8: 1,519 By Gender Male: 2,137 Female: 1,427 By Domiciliary Origin Leinster: 2,799 Connaught: 106 Munster: 227 Ulster: 101 EU Erasmus & NonEU International: 331

Lifelong Learning Part-time Analysis 2009/10

By Award Level Level 6: 8 Level 7: 358 Level 8: 524 Level 9: 12 SP Level 6: 68 SP Level 7: 22 SP Level 8: 34 SP Level 9: 7 Minor Level 6: 30 Non IT Carlow Accredited Awards: 130 By Gender Male: 440 Female: 753 By Domiciliary Origin Leinster: 1174 Connaught: 4 Munster: 15 Ulster: 0

Total Students 2009/10

4,795

Home Undergrad F/T 2,921

Apprentices 312

EU Erasmus 133

Non EU International 198

Postgraduate (Research)

38

Lifelong Learning 1,193

Total Number of Graduates 2005 to 2009 Research Output 2005 to 2009 Doctorate Degrees 12 Peer Reviewed 86

School/Centre 2005-09 Masters Degrees 16 Conference Proceedings 54

Engineering 872 Income: €7.55million (18% HEA, 16% EI, 15% EU, 3% SFI, 48% other)

Business & Humanities 1,671 Research Priorities: EnviroCORE, DesignCORE, GameCORE, GeoCORE, Health Sciences Science 1,047

Wexford Campus 445 Enterprise Development: 37 EPP Companies, 25 Innovation/Incubation Companies (1,573m2 incubation space), 6 patents filed, 71 RDI Company Projects under Enterprise Ireland Innovation Voucher Programme

Lifelong Learning (2009 only) 169

TOTALS 4,204

Note: Each Postgraduate „Research Project‟ is a separate programme of study.


Final Report

54

Staff Profile The total staff complement for ITC is 616, of which 295 are full-time and 321 part-time. Staff breakdown into 363 academic, 88 administration, 161 student services and support and 4 dedicated research staff. Over 74% of the Academic Staff have Level 9 qualifications or higher (see Figure 1 below). According to ITC, staff development remains a strategic priority in the new Institute Strategic Plan 2009-2013 and will focus on staff training programmes targeted at further enhancing the qualification profile of all staff in the Institute. The strategic plan has a specific objective on programme development in the area of staff development. This will enable all academic staff to avail of training and/or a qualification in teaching and learning. Figure 1: Whole Time Academic Staff Qualifications Profile

Quality Assurance The Institute was granted Delegation of Authority by HETAC to make awards up to Honours Bachelor Degree, Level 8 of the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) in 2005. Further Delegation of Awarding Authority was granted by HETAC in 2009 for research programmes to Level 9 and Level 10 of the NFQ, in the fields of Biotechnology and Molecular Environmental Science. ITC intend to apply for Delegated Authority for taught programmes at Level 9 in the near future. ITC agreed an initial set of quality assurance policies and procedures with HETAC in 2004. The Institute appointed a Quality Assurance (QA) officer approximately 12 months ago. The QA officer is currently engaged in re-establishing and reviewing the quality assurance procedures and manual(s) in the context of a comprehensive management documentation system. The Institute has completed three programmatic reviews, in the Schools of Science and Engineering and in the Wexford Campus in 2010. Two strategic reviews in the Schools of Business & Humanities and Lifelong Learning are underway and due for completion by June 2010. The Wexford campus is integrated structurally and academically into the main Carlow campus. The Wexford campus is conducting its own programmatic and strategic review.


Final Report

55

Partnerships and Collaborations

In the provision of its programmes and services, ITC has significant educational and research partnerships and collaborations with national and international industries and higher education institutions in Europe (62 European partner institutions across 17 countries), Asia and the US. Non-national full-time students currently account for over 10% of the Institute‟s full-time student population, with an equal division between EU and non-EU nationalities. ITC says developments in this area are consistent with the national priority of significantly increasing the number of non-EU international students in Ireland. ITC considers that it is contributing to the national objective of boosting Ireland‟s academic reputation in China through the establishment of formal links between Irish higher educational providers and China‟s leading institutes of learning. An example of this is the transnational arrangements in place for an ITC Bachelor degree computing programme currently being delivered in Henan University of Finance and Economics, China. ITC has also established other transnational collaborations which include dedicated feeder, progression or recognition arrangements, and exchange programmes with the following institutions:

Guilin University of Electronic Technology, China

Louyang University of Finance & Economics, China

Dong-A University, South Korea

Chung-Ang University, South Korea

Inha University, South Korea

UTHM, Malaysia

Nilai University College, Malaysia

UMP, Malaysia

Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore

St. Ambrose University, USA

Nova Scotia Community College, Canada

College of the North Atlantic, Newfoundland

University of Prishtina, Kosovo

Université de La Rochelle, France

ITC has established other alliances with higher education institutions through the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) and the National Digital Learning Repository (NDLR) funding streams. Over €1million has been allocated to date to the Institute of Technology Carlow for its involvement in a number of strategic alliances, through the Higher Education Authority (HEA) SIF funding schemes, the details of which are outlined in Table 2 below HEA Strategic Innovation Funding (SIF) Alliances.


Final Report

56

Table 2- HEA Strategic Innovation Funding (SIF) Alliances

SIF 1 SIF 2

Continue Project Eastern Regional Alliance (ERA)

- Emotional Competencies - Problem Based Learning - Learner & Staff Support - Learning Styles - Assistive Technologies

Lead Institutes: ITTD Partners: ITC, ITB, IADT

- Consolidating Services for - Increased Capacity - Repositioning Learner Assessment - Transitions - Repositioning Learner Assessment

Lead Institute: ITC Partners: DKIT, ITB, ITTD, HETAC (Repositioning Learner Assessment)

IOT Sector – Wide Area Networking: Delivering Systemic Change

IOTI Sectoral

- Capacity & Analysis Review - Learning Innovation Networking - Staff Empowerment - Senior Management Development - MIS (BI & Portal Project)

Lead Institutes: IOTI Partners: all IOTs

- Addressing the Needs of the Knowledge Economy

Lead Institute: IOTI Partners: all IOTs

Strategic Alliances with IOT & NUI Maynooth

Limerick IOT

- Academic Structures - Lifelong Learning - Staff Development & Teaching & Learning - Knowledge Transfer - Post Graduate Training

Lead Institute: NUIM Partners: ITC, DKIT, ITTD, AIT, WIT

- Work Based Learning Approach Craft Persons

Lead Institute: LIT Partners: ITC

IOT Research Alliances

- IT Research Alliances Lead Institute: IOTI Partners: all IOTs

The National Digital Learning Repository (NDLR) funding stream was established as part of the HEA‟s strategic initiative to support greater collaboration in eLearning within the higher education sector. It was set up to support access to and provide support for the development of digital learning resources that can be shared. Partners include all the National universities and Institutes of Technology in Ireland. The overall objectives of NDLR are to:

Support individual, group and community HE sector staff in the sharing of digital learning resources and associated teaching practices;

Support open access digital rights management. Lifelong Learning

The Institute offers a range of Lifelong Learning opportunities through its recently expanded Lifelong Learning Centre. ITC considers that this development reflects the emphasis on the

Provide access to storage, search and retrieval facilities for shared resources;

Promote sharing across HE sector by events and training;


Final Report

57

knowledge-based society where an ability to continuously acquire knowledge, skills and competencies throughout the working life is required in an environment where change appears to be the only constant. Within this context, educational delivery needs to be more flexible and accessible to learners of all ages and backgrounds. ITC considers itself to be at the forefront of such delivery, providing a range of programmes across a variety of subject areas at its centres in Carlow, Wexford and Wicklow. The Lifelong Learning Centre liaises and works with local companies in the identification and development of customised programmes, through Special Purpose, Minor and Supplemental Awards, to meet their specific training and development needs.

Research and Innovation

ITC considers that Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) is an integral part of the Institute‟s activities and is a vital aspect of the interaction of the Institute with industry and other higher education and research institutes on both a national and international basis. Its collaborative RDI programmes have been variously funded by the Department of Agriculture Ireland, the European INTERREG Programme, the Higher Education Authority (HEA) PRTLI, the HEA Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF), EU Framework Programmes, Industry, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Irish Research Council for Science Engineering & Technology (IRCSET), the Technological Sector Research Programme (TSR, Department of Education and Science Ireland), Enterprise Ireland and Science Foundation Ireland.

The Institute has a strategic collaborative relationship with Teagasc Oak Park Research Centre Carlow and is working closely with its National Biotechnology Centre. The Institute says that this collaborative relationship is appropriate in terms of Carlow‟s prosperous agricultural hinterland and attractive environment for the location of Green Technology businesses.

The Institute‟s RDI activities are complemented by various campus-based specialist centres and campus companies based on the Institute‟s main campus. These include the Campus Innovation Centre (established in 1992) and the new Enterprise & Research Incubation Centre (established in 2006). These centres help accelerate the development of start-up companies through a comprehensive combination of infrastructure, business support services and specialised resources before and during their foundation. Companies within the South East and Mid East regions have grown and developed with the support of the Institute‟s CIM Centre.

A snapshot of the Institute‟s resources, enterprise development and student support activities is provided in Table 3 below - IT Carlow - Resources & Support Activities Snapshot.


Final Report

58

Table 3 - IT Carlow - Resources & Support Activities Snapshot

Staff Numbers 616

Full-time 295 Part-time 321 Breakdown Academic 363 Admin 88 Support 161 Research 4

Income 2009 €28,451,000

Fees € 7,147,000 Dept €19,876,000 Other € 1,428,000

Expenditure 2009 - €28,531,000 Staff €22,892,000 Non-Pay € 5,639,000

Support Activities Student Services – Sport & Recreation, Sports Scholarships, Accommodation, Access, Medical, Counselling, Chaplaincy, Health, Student Academic, Disciplinary Regs, Code of Discipline, Student Complaints & Appeals, International Student Supports, Careers Advice & Support, Links to Sporting Bodies Students’ Union – Clubs & Societies, Welfare & Education, Student Rep Council, Entertainment, etc. Academic Regs, Admin, Review & Quality – Admissions, Exams, Conferring, Prizes & Awards, Tutorial Support, Evaluation of Learner Supports, Retention, Academic Council, Academic Regulations, Quality Assurance, Academic Reviews, Programme Design, Programme Boards, Research & Development, Schools Liaison, Industry Liaison, Technical Support, etc. Learning Resources – Learning Resource Centre – Library & Computing Services Non-Academic – Governing Body, Finance, Grants & Scholarships, Payroll, Human Resources, Estates, External Services, Communications & PR, Freedom of Information, Reprographics, etc.

Academic Staff External Higher Education Activities

Programme Validation Panels

Programmatic Review Panels

High Level HETAC Panels

HETAC Consultation Groups

SIF Projects

Interview Panels

External Examiners (Undergrad & Postgrad)

Visiting Lecturers

International Review Panels

Consultancy Work for Social Care Standards & Organisations, e.g., IASC

Subject Matter Experts for Fás

Accreditation Board, RIAI

Accreditation Board, Panels, etc. Engineers Ireland

Area of IT Carlow

Overall: 11.5 hectares Buildings: 25,763 m

2

Rented: 2,765m

2

Teaching & Learning Centre

- Academic Professional Development - PG Cert/Dip in T&L - SIF & NAIRTL Projects - Supplementary Teaching -Tutor System - ELearning &Technology - Consultation on T&L - Resources for T&L - Policy on T&L

Enterprise Development Activities – Enterprise & Research Incubation Centre Innovation Centre, Computer Integrated Manufacturing Centre, Enterprise Platform Programmes, Wales Ireland Sustainable Enterprise, Business & Technology Centre, EnviroCORE, DesignCORE, GeoCORE, GameCORE.

Enterprise Development Support Services – Enterprise Development Support, Specialised Incubation Facilities, Pre & Post Incubation Supports, Science & Technology Research & Consultancy, Commercialisation of R&D, Technology Transfer Supports, Business Development & Mentoring, Training Programmes.


Final Report

59

Strategic Planning Last year, the Institute launched its new Strategic Plan for the period 2009-2013. It has a mission which incorporates a proactive commitment to its learners and the region, supporting exploration and development of the full potential of both. This commitment is spread over eight strategic goals, ranging from provision of a diverse and niche academic portfolio for full-time and Lifelong Learning students, to active engagement in Research & Development. This commitment includes supporting these goals with a modern organisation structure, prioritising staff development and a strong engagement with the wider community. Table 4 - Summary of School/Centre Programme Provision There are 74 undergraduate programmes and 4 apprentice Level 6 programmes being delivered during the academic year 2009/10:

School Level 6 Level 7 Level 8

Business & Humanities 4 6 12

Engineering 8 9 7

Science 5 5 11

Wexford 3 3 5

TOTALS 20 23 35

Table 5 - Level 9 & 10 Higher Degrees by Research - Postgraduate Register

There are 22 learners at Level 9 and 15 learners at Level 10 (PhD) referred to as postgraduate research programmes being delivered by the Institute in the academic year 2009/10:

School Level 9 (Research) Level 10 (Research)

Business & Humanities 4 0

Engineering 3 1

Science 14 14

Wexford 2 0

TOTALS 23 15

NOTE: Each Postgraduate ‗Research‘ Project is a separate programme of study.

Section 3. Institution‘s Team

President: Dr Ruaidhrí Neavyn, [email protected] Tel: + 353 59 9175002

Registrar: Mr. Brian Bennett, [email protected] Tel: +353 59 9175708

Steering group for Institutional Review: Mr. Brian Bennett, Registrar Ms. Maebh Maher, Head of School of Business Mr. David Denieffe, Head of School of Engineering

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Final Report

60

Section 4. HETAC objectives for Institutional Review There are six prescribed objectives for Institutional Review as outlined below. Institutions may wish to highlight any areas of specific importance to the Institution within each of the objectives. Objective 1: To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the institution and the standards of the awards made This objective is to enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the Institution and the standards of the awards made. This is an overarching objective which covers all areas of the Institution‟s activity. The quality of the Institutional Review process itself is a critical part of this as is the internal self study, the publication of the Self Evaluation Report and panel report. The information provided by the Institution to the public falls within this objective. Objective 2: To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the institution This objective is to contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the institution. The review may address the coherence of institutional mission, vision and values and overall institutional strategic planning. For recognised institutions with delegated authority this objective also includes the Operation and Management criterion of the review of delegated authority (governance, management, administration, planning and evaluation) and the Objects of the Qualifications Act criterion relating to national contributions etc. Objective 3: To assess the effectiveness of the quality assurance arrangements operated by the institution This objective is to assess the effectiveness of the quality assurance arrangements operated by the institution. This will be based on Part One of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance11. By including this in the Institutional Review process the statutory requirement for review of QA is met. How the Institution manages its QA for the ―seven elements‖ of Part One of the European Standards and Guidelines should be explicitly addressed by the review process including: Policy and procedures for quality assurance; Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards; Assessment of students; Quality assurance of teaching staff; Learning resources and support; Information systems; Public information. Special consideration for IT Carlow 1. The Institutional Review should consider the Quality Assurance arrangements/procedures in place for the following arrangements which fall under transnational provision, collaborative provision and also include off-campus/out-centre provision as set out in the table below: (The policy and criteria in the HETAC document - Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards, December 2008 are relevant in this regard).

11 “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area”. European Association for

Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2009, Helsinki, 3rd edition.


Final Report

61

Table 6

Partner ITC

School

Nature of Partnership HETAC Policy

An Cosán, West Tallaght

Lifelong Learning

ITC developed a BA in Leadership and Community Development in association with An Cosán – a community education centre in Tallaght Dublin. An Cosan staff deliver the Level 7 degree under the remit of ITC quality assurance

Collaborative Provision Off-campus

Wexford Campus

Wexford Campus

All programmes delivered by Staff employed by ITC. Three Level 6, three Level 7, Ordinary Bachelor Degree programme and five Level 8 Honours Bachelor Degree programmes, one Taught Masters (MBA) and two Level 9 research candidates. Almost 900 learners on campus.

Out-centre provision

Wicklow Campus, Rathnew

Lifelong Learning

Enterprise development and training support through provision of lifelong learning programmes, run and delivered by ITC staff for a mature/part-time cohort of approx 200 learners.

Out-centre provision

Leinster Rugby & Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU)

Business & Humanities

Programmes run jointly by ITC staff and Leinster Rugby/IRFU staff Bachelor of Arts Level 7 (in Sport and Exercise) (Rugby) [IT Carlow Award]

Collaborative Provision Main Campus

Football Association of Ireland (FAI)


Programme(s) run jointly by ITC staff and FAI staff. Bachelor of Arts, Level 7 (in Sport and Exercise) (Soccer) [IT Carlow Award]

Collaborative Provision Main Campus

Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA)


Programme(s) run jointly by ITC staff and GAA staff. Bachelor of Arts, Level 7 (in Sport and Exercise) (GAA) [IT Carlow Award]

Main Campus

Communications and Information Services Corps, Irish Defence Forces

Engineering

Programme provided jointly by staff of ITC and Irish Defence Forces: Bachelor of Engineering in Electronic Engineering (Military Communications Systems) – Level 7, Ordinary Bachelor Degree

Collaborative Provision ITC and Irish Defence Forces (Curragh Co Kildare)

Henan University of Finance and Economics, China

Science

ITC Bachelor of Science in Computer Systems Management Level 7, provided and awarded by ITC in Henan University, China.

Transnational Collaborative Provision

Objective 4: To confirm the extent that the institution has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications and procedures for access, transfer and progression This objective is to confirm the extent that the institution has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications and procedures for access, transfer and progression. The National Qualifications Authority of Ireland has produced guidelines in relation to this12. For example, this includes issues

12 Policies, Actions and Procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression”. National Qualifications Authority of Ireland.

2003. www.nqai.ie.


Final Report

62

such as credit, transfer and progression routes between levels and award types, entry arrangements and information provision. As part of this objective, HEA-funded Institutions should be mindful of the goals of the HEA‟s National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education (2008-2013) and pay particular attention to the objectives relevant to Higher Education Institutions. Objective 5: To evaluate the operation and management of delegated authority where it has been granted This objective is to evaluate the operation and management of delegated authority (where applicable) for both taught and research programmes. The Institutional Review process will satisfy the statutory requirement for the review of delegated authority for recognised institutions, once Objective 5 of the Institutional Review process is included in the Terms of Reference. The majority of the delegated authority criteria are covered under the objectives of Institutional Review. Additional criteria which relate specifically to the operation of delegated authority are included in the Supplementary Guidelines and should be addressed in the Institution‟s submission. Institutional Review will cover all areas for which ITC has Delegated Authority (both taught and research). IT Carlow has Delegated Authority for:

All taught programmes at Level 8;

Research Level 9 in the specific fields of Biotechnology & Molecular Environmental Science;

Research Level 10 in the specific fields of Biotechnology & Molecular Environmental Science.

Special consideration for IT Carlow 1. The Institutional review panel is requested to consider the Institute validation policy and procedures and in particular procedures for the validation of Minor, Special Purpose and Supplemental awards. Objective 6: To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by the institution This objective is to provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by the institution. This will include both the recommendations arising from the external peer review process and recommendations arising from the internal self study process. Section 5. Institution-specific objectives In addition to the prescribed HETAC objectives and the special considerations noted in relation to them, institutions have the option to include additional objectives to maximise the benefits of the review process. Additional Institutional Objectives • None


Final Report

63

Section 6. Schedule for Institute of Technology Carlow As outlined in the Institutional Review policy, the process consists of six phases

1. HETAC sets terms of reference following consultation with institution; 2. Self-study by the institution; 3. Visit by panel appointed by HETAC and written panel report; 4. Institutional response including implementation plan; 5. Panel report and response published; 6. Follow-up report submitted by the institution.

The major milestones in the timeframe for the Institutional Review of Institute of Technology Carlow are outlined below. This should be read in conjunction with the supplementary guidelines for Institutional Review. Relative timeframe

Actual Date Milestone

At least 6 months before panel visit

Institute indicates timeframe for Institutional Review as per overall HETAC schedule of reviews

Approx. 6 months before panel visit

April-July 2010 Terms of Reference set following consultation with Institute

3 to 6 months before panel visit

Institute undertakes self study process and produces self evaluation report

8 weeks before site visit

Received: 3 September 2010 Submission of Self Evaluation Report and other documentation


HETAC desk based review of SER and feedback to Institute


22 September 2010 Advance Meeting between Chair, Secretary and Institute

Panel Visit 19 -21 October 2010 Site visit by external peer review panel (3 days approximately as determined by TOR) Preliminary (oral) feedback on findings

12 weeks after site visit

Estimated: 31 January 2011 Actual: 25 February 2011

Draft report on findings of panel sent by HETAC to Institute for factual accuracy

4 days -1 week following this

21 March 2011 Institute reply to HETAC with details of any factual inaccuracies

4 days -1 week following this

27 April 2011 Following discussions with panel in relation to factual accuracy check, the final report is sent by HETAC to Institute

Usually 6 weeks following receipt of final report

Received: 22 June 2011 Response by Institute to HETAC including plan with timeframe for implementation of any changes

Next available HETAC Academic Committee meeting

4 July 2011

Consideration of report and institutional response by HETAC Academic Committee Publication of report and response on website once adopted

12 months after adoption

July 2012 Follow up report by Institute to HETAC on implementation of recommendations


Final Report

64

Appendix B Panel Membership

Chairperson Mr. Peter Williams Former Chief Executive of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) in the UK Secretary Mr. Jack O‘Herlihy Former Head of Development, Letterkenny Institute of Technology Mr. Neil McLaughlin Cook Registrar, Liverpool Hope University Mr. Leon Cremonini PhD. Student in Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) at University of Twente Ms. Kay Hallahan Former senior policy analyst in Forfas with Expert Group on Future Skills Needs Dr. Brendan McCormack Registrar, Institute of Technology Sligo


Final Report

65

Appendix C Supporting documentation issued by ITC with the SER

1. IT Carlow Self Evaluation Report 2. Institutional Review Working Groups: Membership 3. Professional Links with External Bodies and Organisations 4. Strategic Plan 2005-2009 and Action Plan 5. Strategic Planning and Review Steering Group: Membership 6. Strategic Plan 2009-2013 7. Academic Council: Committees and Terms of Reference 8. Corporate Risk Register 9. Framework for Modularisation of Taught Programmes 10. Quality Standards: Teaching & Learning 11. Quality Standards: Planning, Governance and Management 12. Strategic Review Group Report 2010 and Programmatic Review Peer Review Group

Report 2010 13. External Examiners‟ Reports for the academic year 2008/2009 and a list of External

Examiners and their organisational affiliations. 14. Summary outline of the stages for dealing with follow up on the external examiners. 15. Institute prospectus 16. A copy of each memorandum of understanding/other documentation indicating the

arrangements with all collaborative partners listed in the table in the Terms of Reference


Final Report

66

Appendix D Documentation requested by the panel

Following the advance meeting on 22 September 2010 the panel requested the following from ITC: Documentation to be provided before the site visit-

1. All external examiners‟ reports for the academic year 2008/2009 and a list of external examiners and their organisational affiliations.

2. Summary outline of the stages for dealing with follow up on the external examiners. 3. A copy of the Institute prospectus. 4. A copy of each memorandum of understanding/other documentation indicating the

arrangements with all collaborative partners listed in the table in the Terms of Reference (objective 3).

Documentation to be available on-site for panel members-

5. A copy of all programme documentation demonstrating the QA cycle of each of the following programmes:

• Bachelor of Arts in Sport & Exercise (GAA)– Level 7 • Bachelor of Arts in Sport & Exercise (Rugby) – Level 7 • BSc Honours in Sustainable Architectural Technology – Wexford campus • Bachelor of Business in Supply Chain Management – 2 yr add-on • Bachelor of Arts in Leadership and Community – An Cosán • Bachelor of Science in Computer Systems- Henan University of Finance &

Economics (HUFE), China • Sample special purpose and minor awards in the School of Engineering • MSc in School of Science

The programme documentation should include for example: Programme validation documentation Minutes of various programme committees - 2008/2009 Evidence of any follow-up on issues relating to student input - 2008/2009 External Examiner reports 2008/2009 and documentation relating to follow-up by ITC Programme review documentation Programme evaluation forms/ reports of evaluation results Copies of completed staff and student surveys and any reports arising– QA1, 2, and 3 Any other QA documentation relating to these programmes

6. The RPL policy, RPL procedure and samples of RPL portfolios. 7. ITC Quality Manual- hard copy. 8. A sample induction pack received by a new member of the Institute staff. 9. Any staff development- information regarding participation in various initiatives provided by

ITC. 10. Details of the Governing Body, including representation. 11. Simple table indicating the distribution of student population throughout all campuses. 12. Summary employment profile of the region, to include, for example,

multinational/indigenous, company sizes, industry/services/agriculture breakdowns, educational attainment levels of the labour force.

13. Communications plan and review in 2009. 14. Documentation on the regular review of the strategic plan. 15. SER Chapter 4- Table 4, page 53: copy of the report for QS 3.10 and QS 7.2. 16. Background information on the Teaching and Learning Centre. 17. Information on the Lifelong Learning Centre. 18. Documentation providing evidence that recommendations of past reviews have been acted

upon.


Final Report

67

Appendix E Glossary of documentation provided to the panel at the site visit by ITC

Academic Council

Academic Council – Constitution & Standing Orders

Academic Council & Sub Committees Memberships Academic Council Committee – Agendas & Minutes of Meetings

Academic Council Committees – Agendas & Minutes of Meetings - 2005 to Present

1 Research & Development Committee

2 Academic Regulations Committee

3 Programme Planning & Validation Committee

4 Teaching, Learning & Support Committee

5 Quality Assurance & Improvement Committee

Access

Access Programme - IT Carlow 2010

Access - National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education 2008-2013, HEA (www.hea.ie)

Access - NFQ - National Framework for Access, Transfer & Progression for Learners

Apprentices

Apprentice Statistics 2005 - 2009

Apprentice Assessment Rates 2007 - 2009

Audits

Audits of Buildings and Grounds

Audit Report on Marketing (Deloitte & Touche) – pre DA

Audits - List of Audits carried out since 2004

Communications & PR Communications & Marketing Strategy 20090-2013

Collaborations & Agreements

1. HETAC Policy for Collaborative Programmes, Transnational Programmes & Joint Awards

2. IT Carlow - National & International Collaborations 2009-2010

3. Erasmus / EU Agreements- related policies & procedures

4. International Office - EU Programmes (e.g. Interreg, Tempus, etc.)

5. International Office - Non-EU Programmes - related policies & procedures

6. Education Ireland - International Students in Higher Education in Ireland 2006/2007

7. Provision of Education to International Students - Code of Practice & Guidelines for Irish Higher Education Institutions

8. Memorandums of Understanding - Henan, China; An Cosan, Dublin; CIS, Defence Forces

9. Professional Recognition (Programmes, Links and Case Studies)


Final Report

68

Delegation of Awarding Authority Levels 6 – 8 (2005)

1. Submission for DA Levels 6 – 8

2. Panel Report & Recommendations

Delegated Authority Evaluation Group on the Application for Delegated Authority to make Minor, Special Purpose and Supplementary Awards by Institutes of Technology (May 2006)

Delegation of Awarding Authority Levels 9 & 10 by Research (2008)

1. Submission for DA Levels -Levels 9 & 10 Research

2. Panel Report & Recommendations

3. DA 9 & 10 - Improvements since DA 9 & 10 Research Received in 2008

Delegation of Awarding Authority - Programme Development, Monitoring, Operation & Management (Policies & Procedures)

1. New Taught Programmes Accreditation: Major Awards (Full-time & Part-time), Levels 6-8 NFQ

2. New Research Accreditation, Levels 9-10 NFQ

3. New Taught Programme Accreditation: Non Major Awards, Levels 6-8 NFQ

4. On-going Monitoring of Programmes, Levels 6-8 NFQ Programme Information & Reviews: Programme Documentation Demonstrating the QA Cycle:

(a) Bachelor of Arts in Sport & Exercise (GAA)

(b) Bachelor of Arts in Sport & Exercise (Rugby)

(c) Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Sustainable Architectural Technology

(d) Bachelor of Business (Honours) in Supply Chain Management

(e) Bachelor of Arts in Leadership & Community Development (in cooperation with An Cosán, Tallaght, Dublin)

(f) Bachelor of Science in Computer Systems Management (Institute of Technology Carlow, in cooperation with Henan University of Finance and Economics, China)

(g) Programmes - Minor, Supplemental & Special Purpose Awards in School of Engineering - Operated by Centre for Lifelong Learning

(h) MSc in School of Science

Programme Documentation General (for each Institute programme, full-time and part-time, from 2005 onwards):

(a) Programme Validation Reports, Statements of Council, Certificates of Accreditation

(b) Programme Syllabus (available from the individual Schools on Request)

(c) Annual Programme Reviews

(d) External Examiner Reports

(e) Programme Board Minutes


Final Report

69

Programme Schedules - Approved Approved Programme Schedules for Full-time Programmes 2004 to present

Approved Programme Schedules for Part-time Programmes 2004 to present

Reviews - Academic

School/Department Year Reports

Institutional Review 1997 Institutional Review

Business & Humanities 2000 Programmatic Review Documentation & PRG Reports

Business & Humanities 2004 Strategic Update

Business & Humanities 2006 Programmatic Review Documentation, PRG Reports & Progress Update Reports

Business & Humanities 2010 Strategic Review Documentation, SRG Report & School Response

Electronic Engineering 2004 Programmatic Review Documentation, PRG Reports & Progress Update Reports

Mechanical & Civil Engineering

2004 Programmatic Review Documentation, PRG Reports & Progress Update Reports

School of Engineering 2010 Programmatic Review Documentation, PRG Report & School Response

Computing & Networking 2004 Programmatic Review Documentation, PRG Reports & Progress Update Reports

Science & Health 2004 Programmatic Review Documentation, PRG Reports & Progress Update Reports

School of Science 2010 Programmatic Review Documentation, PRG Report & School Response

Wexford Campus 2002 Strategic Plan

Wexford Campus 2004 Strategic Update

Wexford Campus 2010 Wexford Campus Programmatic & Strategic Review, PRG Reports & Progress Update Reports

Lifelong Learning 2010 Strategic Review Documentation, SRG Report & Centre Response

Estates - Campus Development Plans, Business Extension Plans, New Initiatives, etc. ………………..

Examinations

1. Sample Award Parchments (Full-time / Part-time / Accs / Special Purpose / Exit)

2. Sample Diploma Supplement

3. Conferring Booklet (2005 to Present)

4. Examination Broadsheets (2005 to Present) CONFIDENTIAL - Available to the panel on request


Final Report

70

External Examiner - Policies & Procedures and Operational Procedure

External Examiner Register

Enterprise, Research & Incubation Centre - Polices & Procedures Manual 2010 FETAC - Application & Registration to be a FETAC Provider & Agreement of Quality Assurance Policies & Procedures (2008)

Finance - Company Accounts (2005 to present) CONFIDENTIAL - Available to the panel on request

Freedom of Information - Index of Requests March 2004 to present

Garda Vetting Policy

Governing Body

Governing Body - Constitution & Standing Orders

Governing Body & Sub Committees Memberships

Governing Body – Agendas & Minutes of Meetings (2005 to Present) CONFIDENTIAL - Available to the panel on request

Governing Body – Agendas & Minutes of Sub Committee Meetings (2005 to Present) CONFIDENTIAL - Available to the panel on request

Graduate Destination Survey Reports (2005 to Present)

Health & Safety Committee

Health & Safety Minutes of Meetings (2005- Present)

Health & Safety Statement 2009

HETAC Documents & Guidelines

HETAC Assessment & Standards (December 2009)

HETAC Award Standards

HETAC Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education & Training - Terms of Reference

HETAC Internal Guideline Questions for HETAC/Institution Planning Meeting

HETAC Sets Terms of Reference Following Consultation with Instituition

HETAC Policy for Collaborative Programmes, Transnational Programmes & Joint Awards

Human Resources

1. Staff Resource Handbook

2. Staff Profile, Qualification, etc. (list of all staff, qualifications, job titles, etc.)

3. PMDS Pilot Explanatory Handbook

4. Sample Staff Induction Pack

5. Staff Development - Information regarding Participation in Various Initiatives Provided by ITC


Final Report

71

Institutional Review 2010

Institutional Review Project Plans - 3 Worksheets - 1 a, b, c - Aug 2010

Institutional Review Project Team Agendas & Minutes

Institutional Review Steering Group Agendas & Minutes

Institutional Review Objectives Working Groups - Reports of Meetings

Institutional Review & QA Presentations to Academic Council, Senior Management, Governing Body, IR Steering Group, Staff

Learning Outcomes, Transition To - Case Study - Report from IR Working Group D - May 2010 Library

1. Library Guides

2. Library Holdings (Actual) - searchable catalogue of the library holdings. 3. Library Holdings (Remote Access)

4. Library Review 2010 - Review of Library & Information Services

Memberships of Committees, Meetings & Groups 2009 to 2010:

* Academic Council & Academic Council Committees

* Access - Embedded Access Group

* Class Representatives Group

* Equality Committee

* Governing Body Committee 2009 and 2010

* Governing Body Audit Sub Committee 2009 and 2010

* Health & Safety Committee

* Industrial Liaison Boards

* Institutional Review Project Team

* Institutional Review Steering Group

* Institutional Review Objective Working Groups

* Pandemic (H1N1) Response Group

* Programme Boards for each Programme within each School/Campus/LLL

* Quality Steering Group

* Senior Management

* Strategic Planning & Review Steering Group (SPRSG)

* Students' Union Committee & Clubs & Societies (2009-10 & 2010-2011) National Framework of Qualifications (http://www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/)

Operational Reports (2002/04 to 2010/12)


Final Report

72

Organisational Charts - Management, Reporting Structures, etc.

Polices & Procedures for Non-Standard Students Case Study (for Preparation of IR SER)

Postgraduate Policy and Procedures for Postgraduate Research Students (Admission, Registration, Supervision and Examination

Postgraduate Register

Programme Audit Teams 2010 Prospectus for Full-time Programmes (2005 to present)

Prospectus for Part-time LLL Programmes (2005 to present)

Public Confidence - the quality of education and training provided by the Institute and the Standards of the Awards made (IR Working Group Report)

Quality

Quality Assurance & Improvement Framework Manual (2004)

Quality Assurance & Improvement Manual 2010 (Academic & Non-Academic Policies & Procedures)

Quality Assurance - Surveys

Form QA3 Report 2007-2008

Form QA3 Report 2008-2009

Recognition of Prior Learning

(a) Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Overview

(b) RPL - Existing RPL Policy & Procedure

(c) RPL - Application Procedure - 2 x case LLL Case Studies (CONFIDENTIAL)

(d) RPL - Exemptions Granted by Dept 2007- 2010

(e) RPL - Proposed new Institute Policy on RPL (21 April 2010)

Senior Management Meeting Agendas & Minutes (2004 to Present)

Statistics - Student

Statistical Table - distribution of student population throughout all campuses.

Erasmus Student Statistics 1999 to Present

Non-EU Student Statistics 2005 to Present

Full-time Student Statistics 2005 to Present

Part-time Student Statistics 2005 to Present

Apprentice Statistics 2005 - 2009

Statistical Table - summary of employment profile of the region (RPS Planning & Environment - An Economic Profile of Carlow - An Input to the County's Economic Strategy Review - May 2009)

Strategic Planning Strategic Planning & Review Steering Group (SPRSG) Minutes of Meetings (2005 to Present)


Final Report

73

Strategic Objectives (Institute) 1998 – 2003

Strategic Plan 2005 – 2009

Strategic Plan – Action Plan 2005 – 2009

Strategic Plan 2009-2013

Strategic Plan – Action Plan 2009 – 2013

Strategic Innovation Fund 1 & 2 (SIF) PROJECTS

SIF 1 - Continue Project

SIF 2 - ERA Project

Student Services

Student Handbook 2009 & 2010

Student Charter (includes Student Complaints Procedure)

Student Support Services - Internal Audit Report by Mazars - Draft 1 - Nov 2007

Student Support Services - Internal Audit Report by Mazars - FINAL - December 2008

Student Services Annual Report 2005-2006

Current Provision of Services - 6 October 2010

Teaching Council - Programmes/Subjects Approved for 2nd Level Teaching

Teaching & Learning Centre

Teaching & Learning Centre Annual Report - 2006-2008

Teaching & Learning Centre Annual Report - 2008-2009

Survey of Academic & Professional Development Needs 2007

Handbook for Tutors - Skills for Tutoring - 3rd Edition


Final Report

74

Appendix F Agenda for site visit

Agenda for the Institutional Review of Institute of Technology Carlow 19-21 October 2010

Mr. Peter Williams, Review Chairperson to chair all plenary sessions. The format of each session is a discussion in question and answer format unless otherwise indicated. Evening before first day

Monday 18 October 5.00pm- 8.00pm - Panel Induction and planning (Evening before) in the Lord Bagenal Hotel, Carlow (private meeting for panel)

Day One Morning Afternoon

Private meeting of panel and briefing session at IT Carlow 9.00am-12.00pm - Panel Induction (continued) and Panel planning and review of documentation provided by the Institute. 12.00pm -1.00pm Lunch at Institute– Panel private lunch and opportunity for panel members to continue review of supplementary evidence – documentation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meeting with Senior Management /Governing body representative 1.00pm– 2.00pm –Objective 2 Strategic planning and governance; Brief presentation by President (10 mins) -an overview of the Institute and the Institutional Review self study process. Links between internal reflection and strategic planning decision making. This meeting will involve setting the scene - Institution overview, context, mission, and vision. Clarification on structure and roles and overall activities the Institute is engaged in. Environmental factors including competitive position and collaborations with other local HEIs. 2.00pm- 2.15pm coffee break and panel discussion 2.15pm-3.00pm - Objective 1 - Public Confidence – demonstrating evidence of public confidence in the quality of education and training and standards of awards made. Information provided by the Institute; Overall approach taken to self study for Institutional Review (outline of self study process etc). 3.00pm – 3.15pm coffee break and panel discussion 3.15 – 4.00pm – sub group for Quality Assurance – individuals involved in the core quality issues as discussed at Advance meeting 4.00pm-5.00pm - Objective 3: Quality Assurance (Seven Elements Review): Overview of QA System - Presentation by Registrar on the overview of the Quality Assurance System/structures (10 mins)- Evolution of QA over the most recent years. The “seven elements” covered by the European guidelines and the stage of development of the Institutes QA system in each area; evidence of performance of QA system in each area; evaluation of effectiveness of QA system in each area; improvements identified; integration between processes, (governance, management and planning etc) – Institute QA recommendations for enhancement plan – summary changes to the QA procedures over the last 5 years). 5.00pm – 6.00pm Private meeting of panel – at the Institute


Final Report

75

Day Two Morning

All meetings take place at the Institute 9.00am–10.00am Objective 3: Quality Assurance continued (Seven Elements Review): Overview of QA System - Committee staff The “seven elements” covered by the European Standards and Guidelines. Evidence of performance of QA system in each area; evaluation of effectiveness of QA system in each area; improvements identified; integration between processes, governance, management and planning etc.). 10.00am – 10.15am Coffee break and private panel discussion 10.15am-11.00am Objective 3 - Meeting with Learner Support/ Service Staff / Administrative Staff on the QA seven elements as appropriate. 11.00am – 11.15am – Meeting with Head of Life Long Learning and Registrar 11.15am – 11.30am Coffee break and panel discussion 11.30am-12.30pm (2 Parallel Sessions) Objective 3: Quality Assurance continued (Seven Elements Review): Overview of QA System – Non Committee staff The “seven elements” covered by the European Standards and Guidelines. Evidence of performance of QA system in each area; evaluation of effectiveness of QA system in each area; improvements identified; integration between processes, governance, management and planning etc.). 12.30pm–1.00pm Private meeting of panel 1.00pm – 2.00pm Private lunch for Panel (at Institute) - Panel discussion and review of documentation

Afternoon 2.00pm–3.00pm Parallel sessions (2 groups) Meeting with learners (student union representatives) and Graduates representing a variety of students across the stages/schools/campuses and programme levels including postgraduate and non-standard students. 3.00pm- 3.15pm- Coffee break and panel discussion 3.15pm -4.00pm - Objective 4: Access, Transfer and Progression: Review of Implementation of the National Framework of Qualifications and procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression; learning outcomes; learner assessment; recognition of prior learning (RPL). 4.00pm - 4.15pm Coffee break and private panel discussion 4.15pm - 5.15pm Parallel sessions (2 groups) Meeting with Stakeholders including Second level reps. 5.15pm– 6.15pm Panel review of documentation/ planning


Final Report

76

Day Three Morning

All meetings take place at the Institute 9.55am – 10.20am – Clarification Meeting on external examiner reports and processes 10.20am- 10.30am-Coffee break 10.30am-12.40pm Objective 5: Operation of Delegated Authority - operation and management of DA

Afternoon 12.40pm – 1.30pm Private lunch for Panel (at Institute) 1.30pm- 3.15pm - Private meeting of panel to consider findings and recommendations 3.15pm – 3.30pm Coffee break 3.30pm–4.00pm – Private meeting of panel on preliminary recommendations 4.00pm–4.15pm - Meeting with President, Registrar (and Institute’s team) to provide preliminary feedback on findings and recommendations.


Final Report

77

Appendix G List of people met by the panel

Tuesday 19 October 2010 1.00pm– 2.00pm –Objective 2 Strategic Planning and Governance Dr Ruaidhrí Neavyn President Paddy Browne Chairman of Gov Body Brian Bennett Registrar Dr Patricia Mulcahy Head of Development Cormac O‟Toole Secretary/FC Maebh Maher Head of School of Business & Humanities David Denieffe Head of School of Engineering Dr David Dowling Head of School of Science Caroline Murphy Head of Wexford Campus Joseph Collins Wexford Campus Brian McQuaid Head of Lifelong Learning 2.15pm-3.00pm - Objective 1 - Public Confidence Dr Ruaidhrí Neavyn President Brian Bennett Registrar Maebh Maher Head of School of Business & Humanities David Denieffe Head of School of Engineering Dr David Dowling Head of School of Science Dr Patricia Mulcahy Head of Development Joseph Collins Wexford Campus Brian McQuaid Head of Lifelong Learning 3.15pm – 4.00pm – sub-group for Quality Assurance – individuals involved in the core quality issues Maebh Maher Head of School of Business & Humanities David Denieffe Head of School of Engineering Helena Johnson Acting Head of Student Services (Quality Officer) Dan O Sullivan Lecturer in Architectural Technology, Dept of Built Environment Ailish O‟Brien Lecturer in Business, Wexford Campus Kate Acheson President of the Students‟ Union 4.00pm-5.00pm - Objective 3: Quality Assurance (Seven Elements Review): Overview of QA System Brian Bennett Registrar Maebh Maher Head of School of Business & Humanities David Denieffe Head of School of Engineering Dr David Dowling Head of School of Science Dr Patricia Mulcahy Head of Development Joseph Collins Wexford Campus Brian McQuaid Head of Lifelong Learning Helena Johnson Acting Head of Student Services (Quality Officer) Allison Kenneally Head of Dept of Humanities Eugene Carbery Head of Dept of Electronic, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Nigel Whyte Head of Dept of Computing & Networking


Final Report

78

Martin Meagher Head of Dept of Business

Wednesday 20 October 2010 9.00am–10.00am - Objective 3: Quality Assurance - Committee staff Anne Carpenter Coordinator, Centre for Teaching & Learning Damien Raftery eLearning Development Officer, Centre for Teaching & Learning and

Lecturer in Maths & IT, Dept of Business Owen Brady Lecturer in Business & IT, Wexford Campus Una Grant Lecturer in Marketing & Business Research, Dept of Sports, Media &

Marketing Hilary Dempsey Lecturer in Design, Dept of Humanities Ralf Burbach Coordinator, Wexford Campus Dr Diarmuid O Sé Lecturer in Maths and Coordinator Retention, Dept of Computing &

Networking Roddy McNamee Lecturer in Aviation, Dept of Electronic, Mechanical & Aerospace

Engineering Dr Dina Brazil Lecturer in Environmental Science, Postgraduate Coordinator, Dept of

Science & Health Gina Noonan Lecturer in Business & Languages, Dept of Business 10.15am-11.00am - Objective 3: Quality Assurance - Learner Support/Service Staff/ Administrative Staff Helena Johnson Acting Head of Student Services (Quality Officer) Mary Jordan Head of Academic Administration Patricia Rochford Acting Access Officer, Student Services Grace McKevitt Nurse & Medical Centre, Student Services Carmel Lynch Sports & Recreation Officer, Student Services Mary Bates EU Student Coordinator, Development Donal McAllister Non EU Student Coordinator, Development Anne Carpenter Coordinator of Centre for Teaching & Learning Fergal Flanagan Head of Computing Services Richard Lennon Librarian 11.00am – 11.15am – Clarification Meeting with Head of Life Long Learning and Registrar Brian Bennett Registrar Brian McQuaid Head of Lifelong Learning 11.30am-12.30pm Objective 3: (2 parallel sessions) Quality Assurance continued (Seven Elements Review): Overview of QA System – Non Committee staff Dr Ger Murphy Lecturer in Biosciences and Biopharmaceuticals, Dept of Science &

Health Joseph Kehoe Lecturer in Computing, Dept of Computing & Networking Mary Dowling Lecturer in Sports Rehab, Dept of Science & Health Áine Byrne Lecturer in Computing & Project Coordinator for HUFE, China,

Dept of Computing & Networking Tomás Dwyer Lecturer in Business, Wexford Sheelagh Collier Lecturer in Early Childhood & Social Studies, Wexford Campus Alison Hearne Lecturer in Economic & Social Studies, Wexford Campus Edmund Joyce Lecturer in Architectural Technology, Wexford Campus Ivan Sheeran Lecturer in Law, Dept of Humanities


Final Report

79

Fionnuala Hunter Lecturer in Social Studies, Dept of Humanities Susan Brennan Lecturer in Accounting, Dept of Business Damien Raftery eLearning Development Officer, Centre for Teaching & Learning and

Lecturer in Maths & IT, Dept of Business Dorothy Keane Lecturer in Marketing & Media, Dept of Sports, Media & Marketing Myles Kelly Lecturer in Accounting & IT, Dept of Sports, Media & Marketing Joe Dillane Lecturer in Mechanical Eng, Dept of Electronic, Mechanical &

Aerospace Engineering Dr Dorel Picovici Lecturer in Electronic Eng, Dept of Electronic, Mechanical &

Aerospace Engineering Gerry Gallagher Lecturer in Civil Eng, Dept of Built Environment Martin O‟Neill Lecturer in Quantity Surveying, Dept of Built Environment Brian Byrne Lecturer in Civil Eng, Dept of Built Environment Eileen Farrell Part-time Lecturer in Social Studies, Centre for Lifelong Learning

Carlow, Wicklow & Wexford Brendan Byrne Part-time Lecturer in Accounting, Centre for Lifelong Learning Carlow 2.00pm–3.00pm Parallel sessions (2 groups) Meeting with learners (student union representatives) and Graduates Learners: School of Business & Humanities Jean Furey Year 5, MA in Sustainable Design Mary Traveres Year 2, BA (Hons) in Law Alice Heffernan Year 3, BA (Hons) in Accounting Karl Miller Year 3, BA (Hons) in Communications & PR Cian Cox Year 2, Higher Cert in Business Studies School of Engineering Song Li Year 3, BEng in Aircraft Systems Ger Curtis Year 4, BEng (Hons) in Mechanical Engineering Tony Raftery Year 4, BSc (Hons) in Architectural Technology School of Science Colette Collins Year 3, BSc in Computing Systems Management Conor Costello Year 4, BSc (Hons) in Software Engineering Therese Kennedy-Brennan Year 2, Higher Cert in Physiology & Health Science Wexford Campus Anthony Kynes Year 5, MBS Sharon Wallace Year 3, BA (Hons) in Early Childhood Education & Care Shane Cusack Year 3, BSc in Construction in Architectural Technology Lifelong Learning Denise Kavanagh Year 2, BA in Early Childhood Education & Care Helena McKenna Masters in Business Graduates: School of Business & Humanities Mary Mulhall BBS(Hons) in Management (2010) Kathleen O‟Rourke BBS (Hons) in Marketing (2010) School of Engineering Thomas Conroy BSc (Hons) in Architectural Tech (2010) Ciaran Oman BEng in Electronic Eng (Military Communication Systems (2008)


Final Report

80

School of Science Dr Niamh Gilmartin PhD (2004) Jerome Byrne BSc (Hons) in Computer Games Development (2009) Brendan Walsh BSc (Hons) in Industrial Environmental Science (2010) Wexford Campus Ciara Gerigan BA (Hons) in Applied Social Studies (2010) Jacinta Cloney BA (Hons) in Applied Social Studies (2010) Lifelong Learning John Callinan Bachelor of Business (Honours) (2009) Students‘ Union Representatives Kate Acheson President, Students‟ Union Emma Hayden Vice President, Students‟ Union 3.15pm - 4.00pm - Objective 4: Access, Transfer and Progression Brian Bennett Registrar Dr Patricia Mulcahy Head of Development Mary Jordan Head of Academic Administration Helena Johnson Acting Head of Student Services (Quality Officer) Patricia Rochford Acting Access Officer, Student Services Marea Curtis Admissions, Academic Administration Brian McQuaid Head of Lifelong Learning Anne Carpenter Coordinator of Centre for Lifelong Learning 4.15pm - 5.15pm Parallel sessions (2 groups) Meeting with Stakeholders including Second level reps

Name Position/Title Company/ Organisation

Collaboration/link to College

Seaghan O Flannagain

Bainisteoir Forbatha na gCluichi & Structur

CLG Comhairle Laighean

BA in Sport & Exercise (GAA) delivered by IT Carlow in association with Comhairle Laighean and the GAA

David Ross Executive Services Manager

Leinster Rugby BA in Sport & Exercise (Rugby) delivered by IT Carlow in association with Leinster Rugby and the Irish Rugby Football Union

Thomas Murphy

Director of Services

Wicklow County Council

Wicklow County Campus - Lifelong Learning and Enterprise Support Activities

Frances Coughlan

CEO Special Occupation Scheme Kilkenny

Panel member on programme validation for the B.A. in Applied Social Studies

Bernadette Keane

HR Manager Bank of New York Mellon Global Investment Servicing

Bank of New York Mellon Global Investment Servicing takes Wexford Campus students on placement each year and employs a number of our graduates

John Conway

Managing Director Chevron Training Chevron Training takes Wexford Campus students on placement each year and employs a number of our graduates


Final Report

81



Richard Breheny

AVP IT Unum Ireland Ltd

Employer, Programmatic Review Panel member, Sponsor of UNUM Centre

Christopher McQuinn

Former Principal Tullow Community School

2nd Level Education, some of their graduates go to IT Carlow

Michael Roberts

Former Career Guidance Counsellor

CBS Secondary School, Carlow


Fred Tuite

Careers Officer Heywood Community College


Breda Sunderland

Principal Athy Community College

KITE project

Aine Byrne Youth Project Worker

CKLP (County Kildare Leader Partnership

KITE Project and VTOS

Noreen Reilly

Visiting Teacher for Travellers in Carlow and Kilkenny

Department of Education and Science

Support for Traveller Project (Dormant Accounts)

Liz Waters Chief Executive Officer

An Cosán Collaborative Partner delivering Level 7 Bachelor of Arts in Leadership and Community Development

Áine Gahan

Manager Carlow County Childcare Committee Ltd

Employer

Mark McKechnie

IT Leader Merck Sharp & Dohme

Developing strategic partnership and engaging in research and development

Michael Lawler

Director of Design & Business Development

Vasco Care Medical Ltd

Former Enterprise Platform Programme Participants of IT Carlow. Business registered at IT Carlow Campus

Michael Kealy

Company Director, Method Planning, Processing & Simulation

OMF Engineering Business registered at IT Carlow Campus

Comdt Michael Moore

Officer Commanding

CIS School Level 7 BEng in Electronic Engineering in Military Communication Studies

Capt Andrew Burke

Instructor Ordnance School Level 9 Postgraduate Diploma in Ordnance Mechanical Engineering

Brian Joyce Manager, Education & Professional Development Unit

Irish Aviation Authority

Programme development


Final Report

82



Ger Lawler Air Worthiness Inspector

Irish Aviation Authority

Inspector Part 147 Training School, IT Carlow

Thursday 21 October 2010 9.55am – 10.20am – Clarification Meeting on external examiner reports and processes Dr Ruaidhrí Neavyn President Maebh Maher Head of School of Business & Humanities Declan Doyle Head of Dept of Sports, Media & Marketing Allison Kenneally Head of Dept of Humanities Martin Meagher Head of Dept of Business Brian McQuaid Head of Lifelong Learning 10.30am - 12.40pm - Objective 5: Operation of Delegated Authority Dr Ruaidhrí Neavyn President Brian Bennett Registrar Dr Patricia Mulcahy Head of Development Maebh Maher Head of School of Business & Humanities David Denieffe Head of School of Engineering Dr David Dowling Heads of School of Science Joseph Collins Wexford Campus Brian McQuaid Head of Lifelong Learning 4.00pm – 4.15pm - Meeting with President, Registrar (and Institute‘s team) to provide preliminary feedback on findings and recommendations Dr Ruaidhrí Neavyn President Paddy Browne Chairman of Governing Body Brian Bennett Registrar Dr Patricia Mulcahy Head of Development Cormac O‟Toole Secretary/FC Maebh Maher Head of School of Business & Humanities David Denieffe Head of School of Engineering Dr David Dowling Head of School of Science Caroline Murphy Head of Wexford Campus Joseph Collins Wexford Campus Brian McQuaid Head of Lifelong Learning


Final Report

83

Appendix H Strategic Planning and Review Steering Group Members

Ms M Bates International (Erasmus)/Events Officer Mr B Bennett Registrar Mr P Browne Chairperson Governing Body Ms S Clarke School of Science Administrator Mr D Denieffe Head of School of Engineering Mr M Dolan Human Resource Manager Dr D Dowling Head of School of Science Mr D Doyle Head of Centre Mr A Doyle President Student Union Ms A Fogarty Student Union Mr M Glynn Head of Department of Built Environment Ms E Heylin-Kelly Lecturer, Department of Built Environment Ms M Jordan Academic Administration & Student Affairs Manager Mr C Kelly Head of Department of Management Mr J Keogh Attendant, School of Engineering Ms M Maher Head of School of Business & Humanities Mr M Meagher Head of Department of Business Dr P Mulcahy Head of Development Dr R Neavyn President Ms G Noonan Lecturer, Department of Business Mr C O‟Connor Technician, Computer Services Dr D O‟Se Lecturer, Department of Computing & Networking Mr C O‟Toole Secretary/Financial Controller Mr D Raftery Lecturer, Department of Management Dr D Ryan Head of Department of Science & Health Mr T Walker Technician, School of Engineering

HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING AWARDS COUNCIL, IRELAND · Institutional Review of Institute of...

Documents

Transcript of HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING AWARDS COUNCIL, IRELAND · Institutional Review of Institute of...