Report of Programme Validation Panel

Transcription

1 Named Award: Programme Title(s): Exit Award(s): Award Type: Award Class: NFQ Level: 8, 7, 6 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 240, 180, 120 First Intake: September 2014 Panel Members Report of Programme Validation Panel Date: 24 th March 2014 Bachelor of Science (Honours) Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Building Surveying Bachelor of Science in Construction Surveying Higher Certificate in Science in Construction Surveying Honours Bachelor Degree Major Ms Maria Kyne Chair Head of Faculty, Applied Science, Engineering and Technology, Limerick Institute of Technology (LIT) Dr P.J. Purcell External Academic Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering, University College Dublin Mr Des Walsh External Academic Head of Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, Cork Institute of Technology Mr Gerry Carty Industry Managing Director, RPS Galway Representative Ms Clare McKeown External Academic Senior Lecturer, School of the Built Environment, University of Ulster (UU) Student Union President, Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) Mr Glenn Fitzpatrick Student Representative Ms Ann Campbell Secretary to Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology Programme Development Team Mr Noel McKenna Mr Jim O Donohoe Mr Martin O Malley Mr Gerry Smyth Ms Jean Connolly Mr Frankie Watters Mr Tom McGoldrick Mr Enda Fields Mr Colin Doran Mr Aidan Sherlock Ms Finola Fegan Ms Antoinette Rourke Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9

2 1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the Department of Construction and Surveying Engineering in the School of Engineering at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programme(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Building Surveying Bachelor of Science in Construction Surveying (Exit Award) Higher Certificate in Science in Construction Surveying (Exit Award) The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings 2 Background to Proposed Programme See programme submission for more detailed information. 3 General Findings of the Validation Panel The Panel commends the programme board for the quality of their programme documentation and for their open engagement in discussions during the site visit. The Panel applauds the Department s engagement with the SCSI to develop a student summer Foster Scheme allowing learners the opportunity to take part in an internship with building surveying firms who volunteer to mentor the learner for up to four weeks. Following a discussion with the Programme Board, it emerged that the proposed titles for the Exit Awards (B.Sc. in Property Surveying, Higher Certificate in Property Surveying) were inappropriate because the programme as designed does not lead to the qualifications (levels of training, education) referred to in the Property Services Act 2011, Paragraph 95 (d). The Programme Board subsequently agreed the above titles with the Panel. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Building Surveying Bachelor of Science in Construction Surveying (Exit Award) Higher Certificate in Science in Construction Surveying (Exit Award) Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations X Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9

3 Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited Note: Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for the higher certificate and ordinary degree as appropriate. Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring. 4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance. 4.1 Demand Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it? Despite disappointing uptake in recent years, the Panel is conscious of the importance of this degree which is the only one of its kind in Ireland to be SCSI/RICS accredited. The Building Control Act 2007 cites this programme as an accredited programme, allowing graduates to hold the protected title of Building Surveyor. Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9

4 The Programme Board should identify those modules offered on this programme which are broadly similar to those offered on other programmes within the Department or across the School, but specifically on the Bachelor of Science in Construction Technology and re-structure the programme to allow for shared delivery in the same semesters. This measure will generate savings which may allow for the programme to run with reduced intakes. Graduates of the BSc in Construction Technology who enter Year 3 of the BEng (Hons) programme will already have completed some of the learning which is addressed in Year 3 of the Honours programme (for example, amongst other learning, the Building Information Modelling module will already have been completed by the transferees); the fact that transferees will already have achieved some of the Year 3 learning needs to be considered and addressed in a manner appropriate for the student. 4.2 Award Is the level and type of the award appropriate?, with recommendation(s) The Programme Board should consider replacing the awarding of the classification of the degree by 20% from year 3 marks and 80% from year 4 marks to 100% from year 4 marks. This would facilitate the possibility of progression of advanced entry students to the programme into year 4 when they have considerable experience in the Industry or are International learners. 4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and engagement: local and international embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate? Report of Validation Panel Page 4/9

5 4.4 Entry Requirements Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate? 4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements? 4.6 Standards and Outcomes Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)? For parent award? For exit award (if applicable)? The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9

6 4.7 Programme Structure Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme? The Panel considers that a work placement module will enhance this programme. The programme should be restructured to allow a formal work placement module to be built into the programme by September The Programme Schedule and module descriptors should be amended where necessary to accurately reflect class contact hours for students. See also 4.12 below. See 4.1 above. 4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided for the proposed programme? 4.9 Assessment Strategies Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)? An assessment Strategy is well documented and is appropriate to the programme. Re-assessment strategies require review. Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9

7 Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures. This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity; Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules, including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) ( should also be consulted. Re-assessment must be clear and explicitly articulated in all module descriptors. Assessment and re-assessment strategies should be reviewed. It is critically important that the students are offered a second opportunity to catch up on missed coursework. There should be a second chance to repeat the coursework elements of modules. Individual lecturers should not decide whether elements of coursework are recoverable or not. This should be a programme board decision. Opportunities should be provided to reassess 100% continuously assessed before the Summer Break. In order to ensure continuity of learning, Learners to be required to complete appropriate assignments in respect of all year-long modules in linked time space between winter and spring semesters for submission in the first week of the spring semester Resource Requirements Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme? Resources are adequate. Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9

8 4.11 Quality Assurance Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes? The Institute s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes Module-Level Findings An indicative list of practicals and/or experiments is required in module descriptors where appropriate, so that learners are aware of the workload involved. The Panel considers that the proposed class contact hours over-burden learners and do not allow for reflective learning. Class contact hours should be reduced as follows: o Measured Surveys 2 (Semester 2)- reduction from 6 to 4 hours/week, (1x lecture & 3 x tutorial); o Building Surveys 1 (Semester 4) reduction from 5 to 4 hours/week; o Building Surveys 2 (Semester 6) reduction from 6 to 5 hours/week, (3 x lecture & 2 x practical); o Building Pathology 2 (Semester 6) reduction from 6 to 5 hours/week, (3 x lecture & 2 x practical) Assessment Strategies Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme? See 4.9 above Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9

9 4.14 Other Findings Condition(s) Report Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9

10 to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel Date: 24 th March 2014 Named Award: Bachelor of Science (Honours) Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Building Surveying Exit Award(s): Bachelor of Science in Construction Surveying Higher Certificate in Science in Construction Surveying Award Type: Honours Bachelor Degree Ordinary Bachelor Degree Higher Certificate Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 8, 7, 6 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 240, 180, 120 Delivery Mode(s): Full-time, Part-time, ACCS First Intake: September 2014 Panel Members Ms Maria Kyne Chair Head of Faculty, Applied Science, Engineering and Technology, Limerick Institute of Technology (LIT) Dr P.J. Purcell External Academic Senior Lecturer in Civil Engineering, University College Dublin Mr Des Walsh External Academic Head of Department of Civil, Structural & Environmental Engineering, Cork Institute of Technology Mr Gerry Carty Industry Managing Director, RPS Galway Representative Ms Clare McKeown External Academic Senior Lecturer, School of the Built Environment, University of Ulster (UU) Student Union President, Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) Mr Glenn Fitzpatrick Student Representative Ms Ann Campbell Secretary to Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology Programme Development Team Mr Noel McKenna Mr Jim O Donohoe Mr Martin O Malley Mr Gerry Smyth Ms Jean Connolly Mr Frankie Watters Mr Tom McGoldrick Mr Enda Fields Mr Colin Doran Mr Aidan Sherlock Ms Finola Fegan Ms Antoinette Rourke Dr John Harte Mr Patrick Carr Mr David Kavanagh Report of Validation Panel Page 1/10

11 1 Introduction The following report to Academic Council is a validation panel report from an expert panel of assessors on a proposal from the Department of Construction and Surveying Engineering in the School of Engineering at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programme(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Building Surveying Bachelor of Science in Construction Surveying Higher Certificate in Science in Construction Surveying The evaluators would like to thank the members of the development team for engaging generously and openly with the review process. The report is divided into the following sections: Background to Proposed Programme General Findings of the Validation Panel Programme-Level Findings Module-Level Findings 2 Background to Proposed Programme See programme submission for more detailed information. 3 General Findings of the Validation Panel The Panel commends the programme board for the quality of their programme documentation and for their open engagement in discussions during the site visit. The Panel applauds the Department s engagement with the SCSI to develop a student summer Foster Scheme allowing learners the opportunity to take part in an internship with building surveying firms who volunteer to mentor the learner for up to four weeks. Following a discussion with the Programme Board, it emerged that the proposed titles for the Exit Awards (B.Sc. in Property Surveying, Higher Certificate in Property Surveying) were inappropriate because the programme as designed does not lead to the qualifications (levels of training, education) referred to in the Property Services Act 2011, Paragraph 95 (d). The Programme Board subsequently agreed the above titles with the Panel. It was not the programme boards intention that the B.Sc. (Hons.) in Building Surveying (or its exit awards) would meet the qualification requirements for licensing with the Property Services Regulatory Authority. However, the development of suitable separate stand alone and/or supplementary programmes will be considered. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team; the validation panel recommends the following: Report of Validation Panel Page 2/10

12 Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Building Surveying Bachelor of Science in Construction Surveying Higher Certificate in Science in Construction Surveying Accredited for the next five academic years or until the next programmatic review, whichever occurs sooner Accredited subject to conditions and/or recommendations Re-designed and re-submitted to the same validation panel after additional developmental work Not Accredited X Note: Conditions and recommendations described for the parent award apply equally for the higher certificate and ordinary degree as appropriate. Approval is conditional on the submission of a revised programme document that takes account of the conditions and recommendations outlined below and a response document describing the actions of the Department to address the conditions and recommendations made by the programme validation panel. In this report, the term Condition is used to indicate an action or amendment which in the view of the validation panel must be undertaken prior to the commencement of the programme. Conditions are mandatory if the programme is to be approved. The term Recommendation indicates an item to which the Programme Board should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring. 4 Programme-Level Findings This section of the report addresses the following programme level considerations: Demand Award Institute strategy alignment Entry requirements Access, transfer and progression Standards and Outcomes Programme structure Teaching and Learning Strategies Assessment Strategy Resource requirements Quality Assurance. 4.1 Demand Is there a convincing need for the programme and has evidence been provided to support it? Despite disappointing uptake in recent years, the Panel is conscious of the importance of this degree which is the only one of its kind in Ireland to be SCSI/RICS accredited. The Building Control Act 2007 cites this programme as an accredited programme, allowing Report of Validation Panel Page 3/10

13 graduates to hold the protected title of Building Surveyor. The Programme Board should identify those modules offered on this programme which are broadly similar to those offered on other programmes within the Department or across the School, but specifically on the Bachelor of Science in Construction Technology and re-structure the programme to allow for shared delivery in the same semesters. This measure will generate savings which may allow for the programme to run with reduced intakes. The programme board is reviewing the modules on the programme and will bring this matter to the attention of the School of Engineering Board with a recommendation that a cross disciplinary group be established to examine this issue and bring formal proposals. Graduates of the BSc in Construction Technology who enter Year 3 of the BEng (Hons) programme will already have completed some of the learning which is addressed in Year 3 of the Honours programme (for example, amongst other learning, the Building Information Modelling module will already have been completed by the transferees); the fact that transferees will already have achieved some of the Year 3 learning needs to be considered and addressed in a manner appropriate for the student. The award qualification degree should read BSc (hons) not BEng (Hons).The programme board agree to fully consider this recommendation. 4.2 Award Is the level and type of the award appropriate?, with recommendation(s) The Programme Board should consider replacing the awarding of the classification of the degree by 20% from year 3 marks and 80% from year 4 marks to 100% from year 4 marks. This would facilitate the possibility of progression of advanced entry students to the programme into year 4 when they have considerable experience in the Industry or are International learners. The programme board agrees to fully consider this recommendation. Report of Validation Panel Page 4/10

14 4.3 Institute Strategy Alignment Is the proposed programme aligned to the Institute s strategy and are the strategic themes of entrepreneurship, sustainability and engagement: local and international embedded in the proposed programme as appropriate? 4.4 Entry Requirements Are the entry requirements for the proposed programme clear and appropriate? 4.5 Access, Transfer and Progression Does the proposed programme incorporate the procedures for access, transfer and progression that have been established by the NQAI and does it accommodate a variety of access and entry requirements? Report of Validation Panel Page 5/10

15 4.6 Standards and Outcomes Does the proposed programme meet the required award standards for programmes at the proposed NFQ level (i.e. conform to QQI Award Standards)? For parent award? For exit award (if applicable)? The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at Programme Structure Is the programme structure logical and well designed and can the stated proposed programme outcomes in terms of employment skills and career opportunities be met by this programme? The Panel considers that a work placement module will enhance this programme. The programme should be restructured to allow a formal work placement module to be built into the programme by September The programme board agrees to implement this condition by the stipulated date. The Programme Schedule and module descriptors should be amended where necessary to accurately reflect class contact hours for students. See also 4.12 below. The individual module writer has changed the class/student contact hours in Akari for each specified modules See 4.1 above. Report of Validation Panel Page 6/10

16 4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided for the proposed programme? 4.9 Assessment Strategies Validation Criterion: Have appropriate programme assessment strategies been provided for the proposed programme (as outlined in the QQI/HETAC Assessment and Guidelines, 2009)? An assessment Strategy is well documented and is appropriate to the programme. Re-assessment strategies require review. Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures. This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity; Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules, including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) ( should also be consulted. Re-assessment must be clear and explicitly articulated in all module descriptors. Assessment and re-assessment strategies should be reviewed. It is critically important that the students are offered a second opportunity to catch up on missed coursework. Report of Validation Panel Page 7/10

17 There should be a second chance to repeat the coursework elements of modules. Individual lecturers should not decide whether elements of coursework are recoverable or not. This should be a programme board decision. Opportunities should be provided to reassess 100% continuously assessed before the Summer Break. In order to ensure continuity of learning, Learners to be required to complete appropriate assignments in respect of all year-long modules in linked time space between winter and spring semesters for submission in the first week of the spring semester. The programme board regrets to inform that it is unable to implement this condition at present, as to do so would mean non-compliance with current Institute policy and procedures. This matter will be brought to the attention of Academic Council. In due course should Council amend the relevant policies and procedures, the Programme Board will comply accordingly Resource Requirements Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme? Resources are adequate Quality Assurance Validation Criterion: Does the proposed programme demonstrate how the Institute s quality assurance procedures have been applied and that satisfactory procedures exist for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of programmes? The Institute s Quality Assurance Procedures are published in the Academic Quality Assurance Manual available at: and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes. Report of Validation Panel Page 8/10

18 4.12 Module-Level Findings An indicative list of practicals and/or experiments is required in module descriptors where appropriate, so that learners are aware of the workload involved. Where a module descriptor does not provide an indicative list and marks of coursework components, the individual module writer has agreed to amend the descriptor to reflect the condition. The Panel considers that the proposed class contact hours over-burden learners and do not allow for reflective learning. Class contact hours should be reduced as follows: o Measured Surveys 2 (Semester 2)- reduction from 6 to 4 hours/week, (2x lecture & 3 x tutorial); The programme board reluctantly has amended the documents to reflect this condition but it wishes to have on record that this request is completely out of sync with the other 7.5 credit weighted modules. o Building Surveys 1 (Semester 4) reduction from 5 to 4 hours/week; o Building Surveys 2 (Semester 6) reduction from 6 to 5 hours/week, (3 x lecture & 2 x practical); o Building Pathology 2 (Semester 6) reduction from 6 to 5 hours/week, (3 x lecture & 2 x practical). The individual module writer has changed the class/student contact hours in Akari for each specified modules above Assessment Strategies Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme? See 4.9 above Report of Validation Panel Page 9/10

19 4.14 Other Findings Condition(s) Report Approved By: Signed: Mr. Eugene Roe, Head of School of Engineering. Date: Report of Validation Panel 10/10 Page