Report of Programme Validation Panel

Report of Programme Validation Panel Date: 25 th March 2014 Named Award: Bachelor of Science (Honours) Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Civil Engineering Exit Award(s): Not applicable Award Type: Major Award Class: Honours Bachelor Degree NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2014 Panel Members Ms Maria Kyne Chair Head of Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, Limerick Institute of Technology 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 Ann Campbell Secretary to Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology Programme Development Team Mr Pat McCormick Dr Tom Dooley Mr Brian Harmon Mr John McGeever Mr Brendan Walsh Mr Gareth Kelly Dr Ama Oji Mr Eamonn McMahon Mr Barry Evans Mr David Kavanagh Mr Dermot Smyth Report of Validation Panel Page 1/9

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 Civil and Environmental Engineering in the School of Engineering at Dundalk Institute of Technology to design the following programme(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Civil Engineering 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. Having considered the documentation provided and discussed it with the programme development team, the validation panel recommends the following: Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Civil Engineering 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: 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 Report of Validation Panel Page 2/9

should give serious consideration for implementation at an early stage and which should be the subject of on-going monitoring. 4.0 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?. This programme has been developed as a progression route for graduates from the Institute s B. Eng. in Civil Engineering who wish to work as Technologists, who can support the work of an Engineer. 4.2 Award Is the level and type of the award appropriate? Report of Validation Panel Page 3/9

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 4/9

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)? The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm 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? with condition(s) The programme delivery should be amended to allow for Advanced Mathematics to be taught in Semester 1. None 4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided for the proposed programme? Report of Validation Panel Page 5/9

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)? The programme assessment strategy as outlined in Section 8.2 of the Programme Document does not comply with Institute and HETAC Guidelines as outlined below. Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures. This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity; Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules, including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-andlearning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted. The Assessment Strategy should be revised to comply with Institute requirements as set out in Section 2.10 in the Handbook for Programmatic Review [available at https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/handbook-programmatic-review] 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 re-assess 100% continuously assessed before the Summer Break. In order to ensure continuity of learning, Learners to be required to complete appropriate civil engineering 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. Report of Validation Panel Page 6/9

4.10 Resource Requirements Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme? 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: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-qualitymanual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes. 4.12 Module-Level Findings An indicative list of practical work 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 There is a conflict between the module descriptor and the programme schedule for Renewable Energy Systems/ Renewable Energy for Civil Engineers (Semesters 1 and 2). The title should be clarified. Equally the module descriptor proposes 6 class contact hours per week, while the Programme Schedule represents this as 4 hours Report of Validation Panel Page 7/9

per week. It is a condition of validation that class contact hours do not exceed 4 hours per week, reducing lectures from 3 to 2 in the process. o There is a conflict between the module descriptor and the programme schedule for Group Design Project / Group Project (Semester 1). The title should be clarified. Equally the module descriptor proposes 6 class contact hours per week, while the Programme Schedule represents this as 4 hours. It is a condition of validation that class contact hours are reduced to 1.5 per week. This time to include one hour s tutorial providing basic guidance on the design issues relevant to the project proposal - this should be delivered to a tutorial size group (typically 20 or less) - and 0.5 hours lecturer supervision per group of the group project activity. o Structural Analysis (Semester 1) proposes 5 class contact hours per week in the module descriptor. This is represented as 4 hours per week on the programme schedule. Class contact hours to be confirmed as 4 hours per week. o The contact hours for the Individual Research Project module (semester 2) should be reduced to 0.5 class contact hours per student. 4.13 Assessment Strategies Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme? See 4.9 above An indicative list of practicals and/or experiments which are assessed is required in module descriptors where appropriate, so as to inform the learner of the assessment load. See also 4.9 above. 4.14 Other Findings Report of Validation Panel Page 8/9

Report Report of Validation Panel Page 9/9

Response to the Report of the Programme Validation Panel Date: 25 th March 2014 Named Award: Bachelor of Science (Honours) Programme Title(s): Bachelor of Science (Honours) in Civil Engineering Exit Award(s): None Award Type: Honours Bachelor Degree Award Class: Major NFQ Level: 8 ECTS / ACCS Credits: 60 First Intake: September 2014 Panel Members Ms Maria Kyne Chair Head of Faculty of Applied Science and Technology, Limerick Institute of Technology 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 Ann Campbell Secretary to Panel Registrar, Dundalk Institute of Technology Programme Development Team Mr Pat McCormick Dr Tom Dooley Mr Brian Harmon Mr John McGeever Mr Brendan Walsh Mr Gareth Kelly Dr Ama Oji Mr Eamonn McMahon Mr Barry Evans Mr David Kavanagh Mr Dermot Smyth Report of Validation Panel Page 1/10

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)? The awards standards requirements for programmes on the NFQ Framework can be found at http://www.hetac.ie/publications_pol01.htm 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? with condition(s) The programme delivery should be amended to allow for Advanced Mathematics to be taught in Semester 1. The Programme Schedule has been modified and amended as conditioned. The programme board wishes to comment that it was unclear on the reason for this condition. None 4.8 Teaching and Learning Strategies Have appropriate teaching and learning strategies been provided for the proposed programme? Report of Validation Panel Page 5/10

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)? The programme assessment strategy as outlined in Section 8.2 of the Programme Document does not comply with Institute and HETAC Guidelines as outlined below. Assessment strategies are required in line with HETAC s Assessment and Standards and should form a substantial part of the documentation to be considered by the programme validation panel. See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 4.6.1, page 33). Accordingly the assessment strategy should address the following (See (HETAC (2009) Assessment and Standards, Section 2.2.5, page 13) : Description and Rationale for the choice of assessment tasks, criteria and procedures. This should address fairness and consistency, specifically their validity, reliability and authenticity; Describe any special regulations; Regulate, build upon and integrate the module assessment strategies; Provide contingent strategy for cases where learners claim exemption from modules, including recognition of prior learning; Ensure the programme s continuous assessment workload is appropriately balanced; Relate to the teaching and learning strategy; Demonstrate how grading criteria will be developed to relate to the Institutional grading system. The Institute resource entitled Assessment and Learning: A Policy for Dundalk Institute of Technology (Nov 2010) (https://www.dkit.ie/celt/documents-and-policies/assessment-andlearning-guidelines-dundalk-institute-technology) should also be consulted. The Assessment Strategy should be revised to comply with Institute requirements as set out in Section 2.10 in the Handbook for Programmatic Review [available at https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/handbook-programmatic-review] The assessment strategy has been revised and will be updated in the programme document. Revisions include indicative tabulations of assessment types utilised in each module, breakdown of continuous assessment and terminal examination ratios in each semester, formative and summative assessment balance, linking to intended learning outcomes, samples of assessment guidelines for students and a typical CA schedule. 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. Report of Validation Panel Page 6/10

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.. The form of reassessment has been more clearly articulated in all relevant module descriptors. Students shall be offered appropriate alternative assessments in place of recoverable elements of coursework. Elements of coursework which the programme board have agreed are non-recoverable are clearly communicated to students. In order to ensure continuity of learning, Learners to be required to complete appropriate civil engineering 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. 4.10 Resource Requirements Validation Criterion: Does the Institute possess the resources and facilities necessary to deliver the proposed programme? 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: https://www.dkit.ie/registrar/policies/academic-qualitymanual and include approved procedures for the on-going monitoring and periodic review of Programmes. Report of Validation Panel Page 7/10

5.0 Module-Level Findings An indicative list of practical work and/or experiments is required in module descriptors where appropriate, so that learners are aware of the workload involved. All modules have been reviewed and the workload descriptions have been updated where necessary. 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 There is a conflict between the module descriptor and the programme schedule for Renewable Energy Systems/ Renewable Energy for Civil Engineers (Semesters 1 and 2). The title should be clarified. Equally the module descriptor proposes 6 class contact hours per week, while the Programme Schedule represents this as 4 hours per week. It is a condition of validation that class contact hours do not exceed 4 hours per week, reducing lectures from 3 to 2 in the process. The timetabled hours for this module have been reduced as conditioned. The programme board has expressed reservation about both the reduction of hours on this module and the prescription of the delivery format within the revised contact hours. The programme board wish it be noted that the hours were originally set as this module introduces a significant body of knowledge, with which most students entering the programme will have no previous experience. The change will have an impact on the support available to students. The reduction of laboratory / practical session to 1 hour per week will result in a reduction in student access and activity at our experimental facilities as most activities in this area require extended setup and monitoring. o There is a conflict between the module descriptor and the programme schedule for Group Design Project / Group Project (Semester 1). The title should be clarified. Equally the module descriptor proposes 6 class contact hours per week, while the Programme Schedule represents this as 4 hours. It is a condition of validation that class contact hours are reduced to 1.5 per week. This time to include one hour s tutorial providing basic guidance on the design issues relevant to the project proposal - this should be delivered to a tutorial size group (typically 20 or less) - and 0.5 hours lecturer supervision per group of the group project activity. The timetabled hours for this module have been reduced as conditioned and the schedule amended. The programme board has expressed significant reservation with both the reduction of hours on this module and the prescription of the delivery format within the revised contact hours. Report of Validation Panel Page 8/10

The programme board wish it to be noted that the hours were originally set to address the specific learning strategy and outcomes for the module and reflected the credit weighting of the module. The Panel has also noted in the School SER report that this module was to use a problem based learning format. The reduction to 30minutes contact per group per week will have a significant impact on the capacity to deliver the module as designed. o Structural Analysis (Semester 1) proposes 5 class contact hours per week in the module descriptor. This is represented as 4 hours per week on the programme schedule. Class contact hours to be confirmed as 4 hours per week. The timetabled hours for this module have been reduced as conditioned. o The contact hours for the Individual Research Project module (semester 2) should be reduced to 0.5 class contact hours per student. The timetabled hours for this module have been reduced as conditioned. It should be noted that this module is delivered across both semesters and not just in Semester 2. This reduction removes the lectures and tutorials on Research Methodology which were an integral part of the module and the student learning outcomes. There is no capacity in the Akari curriculum management system to indicate different delivery hours in each semester if such was the panel s intention. 5.1 Assessment Strategies Validation Criterion: Have appropriate module assessment strategies been included in the proposed programme? See 4.9 above An indicative list of practicals and/or experiments which are assessed is required in module descriptors where appropriate, so as to inform the learner of the assessment load. All modules have been reviewed and the workload descriptions have been updated where necessary. See also 4.9 above. Report of Validation Panel Page 9/10

6.0 Other Findings Response Report Approved By: Signed: Date: 29 th May 2014 Mr. Eugene Roe, Head of School of Engineering. Report of Validation Panel Page 10/10