higher education and training awards council, … college dublin... · american college dublin...

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 American College Dublin

3 - 4 December 2009

Report of the Expert Panel

www.hetac.ie

Institutional Review of American College Dublin –3-4 December 2009 Report of the Expert Panel

Final Report

1

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................2 Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................4 Background to American College Dublin ..................................................................................5 Institutional Review Methodology ...............................................................................................8 Findings in Relation to Objectives of Institutional Review ............................................... 12 Appendices Appendix A Terms of Reference ........................................................................................... 38 Appendix B Panel Membership ............................................................................................. 43

Appendix C Additional Documentation requested prior to the site visit ........................ 44 Appendix D ACICS Annual Reports .................................................................................... 46 Appendix E Data on students registered for HETAC awards.......................................... 56 Appendix F List of documentation available at site visit ................................................... 68 Appendix G Agenda for Site Visit ......................................................................................... 70 Appendix H List of People met by the Panel ...................................................................... 72 Appendix I Membership of the Board of Directors .......................................................... 74 Appendix J Organisational Chart:......................................................................................... 75


Final Report

2

Introduction

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

Council (HETAC), which carried out the Institutional Review of American College Dublin in

December 2009.

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 Dr Charles Cook, membership of the expert 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.

American College Dublin will submit a follow-up report to HETAC not more than 12 months after

the publication of this report. Their follow-up report will outline how they have implemented the

recommendations, as set out in its response to the Institutional Review, and evaluate the initial

impact of such implementation. The follow-up report will be considered by the Academic

Committee of HETAC, and a commentary by the HETAC Executive will be included. The

Academic Committee may adopt the College’s follow-up report and may consider further conditions.

Following adoption by HETAC’s Academic Committee, the follow-up report will be published on

the Council’s website.


Final Report

3

Note

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

appended to the report of the expert panel.

In particular, the panel cannot make any finding regarding the following:

• The financial standing and commercial viability of the institution reviewed

• The institution’s compliance with its general statutory obligations

• The general fitness of the institution’s financial governance and management systems and arrangements

The report of the expert 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 of the expert panel 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.

Note also that the Terms of Reference for American College Dublin only involved programmes accredited by HETAC

and did not include the evaluation of programmes accredited only by ACICS or by the college or its affiliates.


Final Report

4

Executive Summary — Report of the Expert Panel

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

of American College Dublin on 3-4 December 2009. 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 Expert Panel’s key findings:

• The effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by American College

Dublin has been assessed and has been found to be partially 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, 2004.

• American College Dublin has substantially implemented the National Framework of

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

by the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland.

Commendations and Recommendations The Expert Panel made a total of 8 commendations and 37 recommendations, as identified in the

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

The panel is grateful to American College Dublin for the cooperation and assistance provided to the

Expert Panel and wishes it well in its future work.


Final Report

5

Background to American College Dublin

American College Dublin (ACD) was established by Lynn University, Boca Raton, Florida in May

1993, as a study abroad teaching site for the university. Following the emergence of local interest, it

was decided to offer some of Lynn University’s degree programs to non-Lynn students based in

Ireland. Classes commenced in October 1993.

On 29 January 1994, American College Dublin was established as a separate institution. American

College Dublin is a not-for-profit institution and is an Irish-registered limited company.

In 2001, American College Dublin established a recruitment office in the state of Delaware, which

led to the development of a branch campus for the College in Delaware. In September 2003,

American College Delaware admitted its first group of students, studying for a two-year Diploma in

Hospitality Management, validated by the American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA).

American College Dublin has accreditation with the US national accreditation agency, the

Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS). This organisation accredits

institutions rather than individual programmes. The college received its initial grant of accreditation

from ACICS in May 2004; this grant was renewed in 2008 and is scheduled to run until 31 December

2011.

In 2005, American College Delaware applied for inclusion as a branch campus within American

College Dublin’s current grant of accreditation with ACICS; this process was completed in 2006. At

the end of 2006, the institution received approval from the Department of Education of the State of

Delaware to operate as an institution of higher education. That state approval permitted American

College Dublin, in 2007, to apply for accreditation with the Middle States Commission on Higher

Education.

From 1 January 2009, American College Dublin became a constituent college of Irish American

University (the other constituent college is American College Delaware). The Irish American

University Limited was incorporated with the Companies Registration Office of Ireland in 1993.

It should be noted that the name, Irish American University, has no bearing on American College

Dublin’s relationship with HETAC. Awards issuing from HETAC to graduates of the College

continue to be named and applied only with respect to American College Dublin.


Final Report

6

Accreditation in Ireland of American College Dublin’s academic programmes was first granted in

1996 by the National Council for Educational Awards (NCEA). NCEA was formally dissolved under

the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999, and responsibility for making awards,

validation of programmes leading to those awards, and quality assurance of providers of validated

programmes was vested in the Higher Education Training and Awards Council (HETAC).

Programmes offered by American College Dublin and validated by HETAC include:

Level 8

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Behavioural Science (Psychology Concentration)

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in International Business

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Accounting and Finance

Level 9

Master of Business in International Business

In 2008, HETAC approved the delivery of the Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in International Business

and the Master of Business in International Business at the American College Delaware, 3001

Philadelphia Pike, Claymont, Delaware 19703, USA.

HETAC-validated programmes are delivered in the American College Dublin premises at 1, 2 and 3

Merrion Square, Dublin 2. Until August 2008, the college had an additional three houses on the

western side of Merrion Square This has resulted in a significant reduction in the physical size of the

college, which is currently engaged in a search for additional properties.

Support facilities include a library, two computer laboratories, a psychology experimental laboratory,

a cafeteria, and student lounges and recreation areas.

Since its foundation in 1993, student numbers in American College Dublin have increased from an

initial intake of 16 students to a current total student population of 623. There are 303 males and

320 females. The average age of students is 21. Students generally come from within the national

middle socio-economic stratum.

The college is committed to delivering excellence in education. It is also committed to: teaching in

small classes; teaching which is responsive to the needs of students of varying abilities and

backgrounds; teaching which actively involves the student in the learning process. It continues to

encourage and project an international outlook. This is done through its student recruitment (70% of


Final Report

7

the total student body comes from outside the Republic of Ireland), through the content of many of

its courses, and through the fostering of links with the international community in Ireland.

American College Dublin’s unique quality relates largely to its commitment to provide a nexus

between what is best in both Irish and American higher education provision. The college continues

to promote its American connection, most obviously through its name. In substance, this can also be

seen through: its branch campus in Claymont, Delaware; its state licensure in Delaware; its pursuit of

accreditation with the Middle States Commission on Higher Education; its links with the institution

which founded it, Lynn University; and the study-abroad programme it offers to university students

in America.

HETAC agreed American College Dublin’s Quality Assurance Procedures on 15 March 2005, under

the provisions of Section 28 (1) of the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999.


Final Report

8

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 Expert Panel coming at the end of phase 3.

1. HETAC set the Terms of Reference following consultation with the Institution.

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

Evaluation Report (SER).

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

Expert Panel.

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

5. Publication of the Report of the Expert Panel and the Institution’s subsequent response.

6. Follow-up report submitted by the College.

The Terms of Reference for American College Dublin were discussed at a meeting between HETAC

and the college in May 2009. The objectives of the Institutional Review of American College Dublin

were set by HETAC as follows:

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

college and the standards of the awards made.

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

following special consideration:

� American College Dublin considers the American connection to be

fundamental to its institutional identity. The two campuses of American

College Dublin and American College Delaware were united under as single

umbrella organisation, the Irish American University (IUA), on 1 January

2009. The Irish American University Limited was registered as a company

under the Companies Act in 1993.

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

with the following special consideration:

� The Institutional Review Process should consider how the quality assurance

arrangements in place in American College Dublin facilitate the

international profile of its students.


Final Report

9

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

Qualifications and procedures for access, transfer and progression. The following special

consideration applies to American College Dublin:

� The Institutional Review process should consider the relationship between

American qualifications and the National Framework of Qualifications

(NFQ) in the context of access, transfer and progression.

5. To evaluate the operation and management of delegated authority where it has been granted

This objective is not applicable to American College Dublin as the Qualifications

(Education and Training) Act 1999 only allows delegation of authority to

“Recognised Institutions of the Council” (presently Irish-based Institutes of

Technology)

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

by the college.

In addition to these prescribed objectives, the following Additional Objectives were set out in the

Terms of Reference American College Dublin:

7. To confirm the status of American College Delaware as an Off-campus of American College

Dublin.

The Institutional Review process should consider the arrangements in place for off-campus

provision. American College Dublin has received approval from HETAC to deliver two of its

programmes at its branch campus in Claymont, Delaware: BA in International Business and MBS in

International Business. These programmes were due to commence in September 2009 and will be

delivered according to the quality assurance policies and procedures American College Dublin has

agreed with HETAC.

8. To clarify the relationship between American accreditation and HETAC accreditation in the

quality assurance of provision at American College Dublin.

American College Dublin is in the process of seeking accreditation with the Middle States

Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE, www.msche.org). MSCHE is responsible for

accrediting institutions of higher education in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

Maryland, Washington DC and Delaware, the state in which ACD’s American state licensure and

branch campus is located. This accreditation application process has no formal bearing on American

College Dublin’s accreditation with HETAC. However, it is one which is complementary and about


Final Report

10

which American College Dublin would like to keep its Irish accreditation partner appropriately

informed.

The Institutional Review process should consider potential issues that may arise in the context of the

American accreditation arrangements and the establishment of the new single umbrella organisation,

the Irish American University (IAU). The policy and criteria in the HETAC document, Policy for

collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards December 2008 (see Appendix A) may be

relevant in this regard.

The full Terms of Reference for the Institutional Review of American College Dublin are provided in

Appendix A.

HETAC appointed a panel of experts to carry out the Institutional Review of American College

Dublin on its behalf. Under the chairmanship of Dr Charles Cook, the review panel 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. No such conflicts were adduced. Panel members received induction on the conduct of

Institutional Reviews in advance of the site visit.

The panel membership is set out in Appendix B.

American College Dublin’s Self-Evaluation Report (SER) and its addendum describe the internal

preparations in advance of the Institutional Review process as summarised:

American College Dublin is in the process of seeking accreditation from the Middle States

Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE). As part of that process, it engaged in a period of self-

analysis that resulted in the granting of candidate status by the MSCHE. The processes involved in

that application informed the SER undertaken by American College Dublin as preparation for the

Institutional Review. The SER was initiated by Dr Rory McEntegart, Academic Dean, and

responsibility transferred to Dr Chris Johnson, the Director of Institutional Research and

Assessment (DIRA), in August 2009. It was overseen by the Accreditation Compliance Committee.

The SER was conducted through the various committees operating in the college. The main

technique used involved interviews with stakeholders on the six major objectives — or those

objectives relevant to the college. The agreed responses comprised the basis of the Self-Evaluation

Report. The Accreditation Compliance Committee prepared a draft report which was then passed to

the college community for comment, criticism and changes. Following this, a new document was

prepared and circulated again to the college community. A final version was then drafted and

approved by the Executive Management Committee.1

1 Note comment following Recommendation 5 on page 15


Final Report

11

The college submitted the Self-Evaluation Report to HETAC on 7 October 2009. It did not provide

any additional supporting evidence or references.

A desk-based review of the SER was undertaken by HETAC. Subsequent to discussion with

HETAC, the American College Dublin provided an addendum to the Self Evaluation Report on 22

October 2009. This provided some additional information in the main text and in 12 appendices.

These outlined aspects of current institutional research, interim reports and position papers aimed at

underpinning nascent policy and procedural developments, particularly in the area of strategic

planning.

Following an advance meeting with the chairperson, secretary and the HETAC project manager on 6

November 2009, HETAC requested a list of supplementary information from the college (Appendix

C).

In advance of the site visit, American College Dublin provided some general statistical data prepared

as annual returns to ACICS (Appendix D) and some data on students registered on HETAC

validated programmes (Appendix E) and submitted this information to HETAC on 27 November

2009.

American College Dublin also provided a list of documents that would be available to the expert

panel during the site visit (Appendix F).

Panel members reviewed the Self-Evaluation Report, the Addendum to the Self-Evaluation Report,

the statistical data that was submitted, and the list of documents to be made available, in advance of

the site visit. Members of the panel forwarded their initial thoughts on these documents to HETAC

in order to highlight issues and prioritise items for discussion during the site visit.

The Self-Evaluation Report included:

• an Introduction to American College Dublin

• sections addressing each of the six main Objectives in the Terms of Reference and the two

institution-specific objectives provided by the college.

The Addendum to the Self-Evaluation Report expanded on the six main Objectives in the Terms of

Reference.

At the advance meeting, the agenda for the site visit was discussed and finalised (Appendix G).

The site visit took place on 3 and 4 December 2009. The expert panel met staff of the college,

learners and other stakeholders following the agreed agenda. The list of people met by the expert

panel is set out in Appendix H. The site visit was conducted at 1 Merrion Square, Dublin 2.


Final Report

12

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

College and the standards of the awards made

This overarching objective covers all areas of the college’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 Expert Panel, and the college’s own response and action plan. The information

provided by the college to the public is part of this objective.

Key Findings of Objective 1 — Public Confidence

Public Confidence Instruments

The main instruments the college uses to promote confidence include the catalogue, prospectus and

the website.

• The catalogue is available to all students and provides them with information on the

following areas: staff, meaning of accreditation obtained by the college, calendar, admissions

procedures, academic programmes and module descriptions as well as the college’s academic

policies, procedures, fees and charges.

• HETAC (and previously the NCEA) has a long-standing relationship with American College

Dublin in accrediting programmes submitted [to them] for validation. This relationship is

clear on the college website. However, their current prospectus is in the name of the Irish

American University (meaning the Irish American University Limited, incorporated with the

Companies Registration Office in 1993 Co. number 203168), with whom HETAC has no

relationship. This prospectus, unfortunately, is somewhat misleading. For example, page 31

states: ‘What is different about International Business at the Irish American University? We offer a three

year Honours degree in International Business. It is accredited by HETAC and is placed at Level 8 on the

National Qualifications Framework.’ This is untrue. HETAC has not accredited any awards for

the Irish American University. This same misleading information is repeated in respect of

other awards accredited by HETAC at American College Dublin only. Given the provisions

of the Universities Act 1997 (Sections 9 and 52), the use of the title ‘Irish American

University’ to describe American College Dublin is debatable. The Irish American

University, as described, may have questionable standing as a university (sensu Universities

Act 1997) in Ireland. This point needs to be resolved lest students are misled in terms of the


Final Report

13

standing of the institution providing the programme and the validity of the accreditation

being advertised for the awards.

In this context, the expert panel was pleased that the president of American College Dublin,

Dr Donald Ross, undertook to take corrective action about the ambiguity of the name.

Recommendation 1: In order to ensure clarity of understanding and maintain the value of

HETAC awards, the panel recommends that American College Dublin withdraw the current

(2009/2010) Irish American University Prospectus and replace it with separate prospectuses

for the American College Dublin and for the Irish American University that include accurate

descriptive information. As an immediate step, the college must provide accurate

information about its status in Ireland and its relationship with HETAC on its web-site and

that of the Irish American University and American College Delaware in any and all

publications of these institutions.

• With regard to professional accreditation of HETAC-validated awards, the panel is

concerned that Psychological Society of Ireland (PSI) accreditation for the Bachelor of Arts

(Honours) in Psychology (Behavioural Science) lapsed in November 2009. The panel noted

that American College Dublin was in the process of renewing accreditation for this

programme and that documentation was with the Psychological Society of Ireland. However,

the college could give no indication of how long it might take for the process to reach a

conclusion.

Recommendation 2: In order to clarify the position for students and other stakeholders, the

panel recommends that the college follow up on the process expeditiously and bring the

matter to a successful conclusion as soon as possible. In addition, until the Psychological

Society of Ireland accreditation is renewed, American College Dublin must make clear in its

marketing documentation and on its website that continued accreditation is subject to

confirmation by the PSI.

• American College Dublin markets itself through its website. Management at the college

indicated that its website was undergoing significant revision.


Final Report

14

Recommendation 3: The panel recommends that the website be revised and updated as a

matter of urgency, and that there is individual responsibility and accountability for ensuring

timely revision. This will ensure that currency, accuracy and completeness of information are

provided to the public. It will also satisfy American College Dublin’s statutory obligations on

the provision of information underpinned by the Qualifications (Education and Training)

Act 19992.

• As one of its unique selling points, American College Dublin sees the establishment of a

nexus between what is best in Irish and American higher education provision. In bringing

this into reality through the vehicle of the Irish American University there is the danger that

public confidence in the HETAC Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in International Business may

be undermined. This fully validated award, which is benchmarked by published standards of

knowledge, skill and competence, has been placed at Level 8 on the National Framework of

Qualifications and has international recognition. Notwithstanding that this degree has the

same standing in Ireland and Europe as the other HETAC degrees offered by American

College Dublin, it is suggested that in order to obtain a Bachelor’s degree of similar standing

from the Irish American University, students would be required to complete an additional

ten modules in general education. Several dangers are apparent in this:

- Irish American University is not an accredited awarding body in either the

United States or Ireland. In its prospectus, it indicates that the IAU Bachelor

(Honours) in International Business (four years) is accredited by the Accrediting

Council for Independent Colleges and Schools. Yet the ACICS3 does not list

Irish American University as an accredited institution.

- The programme outlined as the four-year Bachelor (Honours) in International

Business degree is substantially the same programme accredited by HETAC,

with the ten additional general education modules (normally taken in the first

two semesters in year one of American degrees) back-loaded onto the HETAC

award, following graduation. This creates the very real danger of double-

crediting students for the same learning.4

- Although inadvertent, the material as presented implies that the HETAC award

is deficient relative to the Irish American University award. This is not the case.

The only fully accredited award is the HETAC award. The Irish National

2 Policies, actions and procedures for the facilitation of Access, Transfer and Progression 3 The ACICs Directory of Institutions is available at http://www.acics.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/01.27.10.pdf 4 Double-crediting refers to simultaneous double counting of credit for the same module/modules towards more than one award. This is not permitted. Once credit has been counted towards one award, it cannot be used towards another award.


Final Report

15

Framework of Qualifications endorses the standard and value of awards granted

in the State. It does not distinguish between HETAC awards and university

awards. Such a distinction, now being made by Irish American University, has

the potential to damage public confidence in the international standing and

value of Irish qualifications.

Recommendation 4: The panel appreciates American College Dublin’s effort to provide its

graduates with the best aspects of both Irish and American higher education. The panel

therefore recommends that American College Dublin re-examine its dual award proposals

and, in cooperation with HETAC, that the college examines the exciting potential available

for such synergies under the HETAC Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes

and joint awards.5

• The panel was concerned that American College Dublin, whether at institutional or

departmental level, was not engaged with other higher education institutions in the State

either in formal or informal networks. The panel believes that sharing experience, good

practice and the development of synergies in shared initiatives would enrich the college and

underpin potential for creative programme development, broader staff and student

experience, and participation in policy development, both nationally and internationally.

The panel was further concerned that the student body in American College Dublin was

isolated from the higher education student population both locally and nationally. This

isolation was a cause of regret for those in the Students’ Union with whom the panel spoke

and with individual students and graduates who met the panel.

Recommendation 5: As a first step at wider engagement, the panel recommends that the

Students’ Union renew its affiliation to the Union of Students in Ireland.

• As a general comment, the panel found that the Self Evaluation Report (SER) submitted by

American College Dublin was deficient. It did not provide any direction for the coherent

development of American College Dublin, or the rationale for the development of the Irish

American University structure. Nor did it state where and how the college saw itself

developing in the medium to long term. The self-evaluation lacked data, analysis, evaluation

and reflection. The lack of supporting documents to back up statements and assertions

5http://www.hetac.ie/docs/Policy%20for%20collaborative%20programmes,%20transnational%20programmes%20and%20joint%20awards.pdf


Final Report

16

further limited the usefulness of the self-evaluation. It was also unclear how, or even

whether, the college had engaged with its external stakeholders.

While the Self Evaluation Report concentrated exclusively on the seven Objectives in the

Terms of Reference for the Institutional Review, it was largely descriptive of what the

college does, or did, in terms of satisfying the objectives. It lacked rigour, and was not

evidence-based; nor was it comprehensive. There was no attempt to evaluate the strengths or

weaknesses of the college systematically or to highlight improvements that the college could

factor into future plans.

• American College Dublin admitted to the panel that it now saw deficiencies in the self-

evaluation. Nonetheless, it found the process of engaging with the college community on its

contents and compiling the Self-Evaluation Report extremely rewarding. This was especially

so in terms of what such an evaluation could do for staff, enabling the college to rethink its

strategic planning processes and quality assurance policies and procedures. The college could

now see the need to embed a bottom-up approach to quality assurance. The Institutional

Review process had also shown the college how deficient its data gathering and handling

processes are, thus preventing it from compiling the type of data necessary for good strategic

planning. The college has now purchased a new data management system that will provide it

with appropriate management information support in the future.

Commendation 1: The panel was impressed with the college’s openness and willingness to engage

with issues and problems identified during the Institutional Review process.


Final Report

17

Objective 2 — Strategic Planning and Governance

To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the college

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

institutional strategic planning.

Key Findings of Objective 2 — Strategic Planning and Governance

Mission and vision

The expert panel noted that the mission of American College Dublin had undergone some change

since its foundation in 1993. It also noted that the Strategic Planning Committee is now considering a

revision. The vision underpinning this mission sees American College Dublin providing a nexus

between what is best in both Irish and American higher education provision, particularly in Business

and Humanities, to a culturally diverse population.

The panel commended this vision and was impressed by the cultural diversity evident on campus.

However, the panel also noted that the marketplace for international students was becoming

increasingly crowded and difficult. The college indicated that it recognised this as a problem and has

begun to step up its marketing, particularly through attendance at recent Enterprise Ireland events in

India and China. However, the panel was disappointed that key staff, those involved with the

international recruitment effort, were unavailable to meet with it.

Interestingly, most Chinese students in the college were recruited in Ireland and not directly from

China. While focusing on China, India and Nigeria, the college was concerned that it would not

simply be seen as a college for Chinese and Indian students. Indeed, the college is proud of the

number of Irish students it has registered, particularly on the psychology programme.

Strategic Planning

The panel was concerned that strategic planning in the college should address its future sustainability,

particularly in the light of falling enrolment and increased competition in the international market. A

strong, coherent marketing plan was seen as an essential component of any new strategic plan.

The panel identified a number of strategic planning issues that need to be addressed:

• Strategic planning appears to be a work-in-progress. Nonetheless, the college appears to lack

a clear and realistic vision as well as a clear strategy to realise that vision. The first reference

to strategic planning in the college was in 2007, and very little has appeared since. The


Final Report

18

current strategic planning processes do not appear to be based on the evolution of a pre-

existing plan. Through a newly empanelled Strategic Planning Committee, the college is now

engaged in processes that envisage delivery of a draft strategic plan in the second quarter of

2010.

• There appears to be little sense of urgency in the planning process. This is despite the

worrying trends in enrolment, increased external competition for students, and the global

economic downturn, the latter of which is particularly important in an institution dependent

on fee income.

• The panel noted that, although issues of importance to the operation and development of

the college are often raised and debated in one of its many committees, they frequently fail

to be moved further along the decision chain or be brought to a resolution.

• Day-to-day management at American College Dublin is achieved through an Executive

Management Committee. The college president, Dr Ross, is present in the college several

days each month and is in contact on at least a daily basis by telephone. However, the panel

found that even this level of detachment from day-to-day leadership allowed issues to drift,

thus compromising a sense of urgency in policy development and implementation.

Recommendation 6: The panel recommends that formal and comprehensive internal planning

structures be put in place as a matter of urgency. This will ensure that issues of policy, strategy and

direction are appropriately and expeditiously addressed.

Recommendation 7: Strategic planning should address the future viability of the college. It should

impart a clear sense of the challenges facing the college and should propose strategies to ensure

continuing financial viability.

Recommendations for enhancement of strategic planning are detailed under Objective 6.

The panel welcomes the fact that the Board of Directors, although at an early stage, is considering

both the necessity for succession planning and institutional leadership.

Recommendation 8: In order to develop a sense of urgency in management and direction in

planning, the panel strongly urges the American College Dublin to consider the appointment of

someone at a leadership (provost) level in Dublin, He/she will have plenipotentiary powers from the

college president.


Final Report

19

Governance

American College Dublin has established two boards to perform this function, they are the Board of

Directors and the Board of Overseers.

1. The Board of Directors of the company has legal and fiduciary responsibility.

• It governs the organisation by establishing broad policies and objectives.

• It selects, appoints, supports and reviews the performance of the chief officer.

• It ensures the availability of adequate financial resources.

• It approves annual budgets.

• It is accountable to the stakeholders for the organisation's performance.

However, in many ways, this process is detached from the development of the college as an

academic institution. Membership of the Board of Directors is shown in Appendix I.

Note: Any role for the Board of Directors of the company, who have very real responsibilities in Irish company law, is

currently omitted from the organisational charts presented to the panel (see Extract from ACD Self-Evaluation

Report, Appendix J).

2. The Board of Overseers (previously known as the Board of Trustees6) acts in an advisory,

rather than governance, capacity. While policy proposals are passed to the Board of

Overseers for approval, there is no sense that they initiate strategic policy proposals, point to

strategic direction, or seek delivery from the college executive or management. Given that

the Board of Overseers meets twice a year, the requirement for their approval contributes to

delay in the decision-making process.

Recommendation 9: The panel considers that a clear separation of functions between the legal and

fiduciary role of the Board of Directors, and a clear academic governance/advisory role for the

Board of Overseers, would expedite strategic planning and decision-making in American College

Dublin.

• As per Recommendation 8, a leader (provost) or chief officer (reporting directly to the

president) would control and direct the activities of the college. He/she would control and

direct the staff in the implementation of such activities and would be responsible to the

Board of Directors for the efficient and effective management and control of the college.

6 Given that fiduciary responsibility is a legal obligation of the Board of Directors, the use of the title ‘Board of Trustees’ had the potential to create a significant confusion of roles, responsibilities and authority.


Final Report

20

• The Board of Overseers should continue to have an important governance role and its

functions would continue to be consultative and advisory on matters of policy, direction,

practice and effectiveness.

Insularity

The expert panel is concerned that there is a sense of detachment from the rest of the higher

education community in Ireland. This compromises the vision of American College Dublin in

seeking to provide the best of both the American and Irish higher education experience. No evidence

of alliances or collaborations with other Irish higher education institutions was adduced. The college

is not currently a member of the independent colleges network (HECA) which is represented on

national policy formation and regulatory bodies. In addition, there was little evidence of beneficial

collaboration or strategic alliance with the three Dublin public universities, the four Dublin Institutes

of Technology, or the other not-for-profit/private colleges in Dublin.

The panel found that this detachment, to a greater or lesser extent, means that the executive,

management, faculty and administration of American College Dublin are unfamiliar with the detail of

their obligations under the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999. This lack of familiarity

also extends to their obligations to actuate the determinations of the National Qualifications

Authority of Ireland, and the current developments under the Bologna Process and the development

of a European Higher Education Area. The responsibility for compliance is a function of the

Accreditation and Compliance Committee, whose members — particularly the Academic Dean (9)

and Registrar (10) and Director of Institutional Research and Assessment (5) — serve on several

other committees (The numbers refer to the number of other committees on which the individuals

serve.) No individual holds responsibility for ensuring compliance with national policy and regulation

across the college. Thus compliance is patchy, and faculty and managers are unclear as to their

individual responsibilities in these areas.

Recommendation 10: The panel felt strongly that it behoves American College Dublin to become

more active and engaged with the Irish higher education community. American College Dublin

should begin the process of developing relationships, based on mutual interest, with other higher

education institutions in Ireland and in Europe. American College Dublin should include a strategy

to achieve this in the implementation plan it is required to provide to HETAC.

Recommendation 11: In order to contribute to policy development in Irish higher education and to

have a say in the Bologna Process, American College Dublin should consider joining or re-joining

one of the higher education representative bodies — either as an affiliate or a full member.


Final Report

21

Recommendation 12: In order to address the sense of isolation felt by the student body from other

higher education students in Ireland, American College Dublin should consider how it could support

its Students’ Union in re-affiliating with the Union of Students in Ireland.

Recommendation 13: American College Dublin should consider appointing a compliance officer

who would have responsibility for ensuring that it meets its statutory requirements with respect to:

-higher education legislation [detailed in the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999];

the determinations of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland; the Policies and

Procedures of HETAC];

-the information requirements outlined in determinations of the National Qualifications

Authority of Ireland;

-European agreements (the national response to the Bologna Process especially in respect of

quality assurance, credit accumulation and transfer, European Diploma Supplement);

-the Central Applications Office.


Final Report

22

Objective 3 — Quality Assurance

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

This is based on Part One of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (QA).7 By

including this in the Institutional Review process, the statutory requirement for the review of QA is

met. How the college reviews the effectiveness of its QA for the seven elements of the European

Standards and Guidelines should be explicitly addressed by the Institutional Review process.

Key Findings of Objective 3 — Quality Assurance

1. Policy and Procedures for Quality Assurance

The panel noted that the current version of American College Dublin’s Quality Assurance Manual

(September 2009) represents very little development from that which was first agreed with HETAC

in 2005. Despite being reviewed by the Quality Assurance Committee at the end of each academic

year, the college’s QA procedures do not seem to have benefited from monitoring, evaluation,

continuous review and enhancement.

The panel noted that the Quality Assurance Committee had recently been reconstituted with wider

institutional representation. The new Quality Assurance Committee has taken on the responsibility of

revising and recasting the Quality Assurance Manual and embedding procedures with all levels within

the college.

The college admitted that the approach adopted in the past was too ‘top-down’, which was inimical

to embedding a quality culture throughout the college.

The panel recognised that the college regarded its Quality Assurance Manual as a ‘work-in-progress’. It

also noted the college’s assertion that it could be ‘so much better’ and more clearly aligned with the

European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance.

Recommendation 14: As the development of quality assurance policies and procedures is still under

review, the panel recommends that HETAC should agree these with the college as a separate

process, following a re-submission to HETAC.

7 “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area”. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2007, Helsinki, 2nd edition.


Final Report

23

Recommendation 15: In the context of renewing its Quality Assurance Agreement with HETAC

and strengthening its policies and procedures, the panel recommends that the college seeks guidance,

mentoring and external expertise (e.g. by engaging an independent consultant) to work with the re-

constituted Quality Assurance Committee.

Recommendation 16: A new and comprehensive Quality Assurance Manual should be submitted to

HETAC within six months of the adoption of this Report of the Expert Panel by HETAC.

Recommendation 17: In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the new QA policies and

procedures, the panel requires that, within one year of their implementation, an assessment of their

effectiveness be undertaken by American College Dublin. In addition, the report, including proposals

for quality improvement, should be submitted to HETAC. At that stage, HETAC will consider

whether the quality assurance procedures should be agreed for a further year or a number of years —

not exceeding five years.

Recommendation 18: The panel recommends that the Quality Assurance Committee should consist

of all senior staff (as ex officio members) as well as faculty and administrators drawn from each area of

the college’s operations. This committee should be recast as an Academic Board — a proxy for an

Academic Council/Committee — and should subsume the role of a number of current committees.

Students should be represented on this new committee.

American College Dublin is a small college. It prides itself on the open and easy communication that

exists between students and staff. That being said, a concern was raised by staff during the sessions

with the panel. They felt that, in the day-to-day operations of the college and in the transfer of

information between departments and committees, communication is not always effective. There is a

need to provide better integration between committees and to improve lateral as well as vertical

communication. Evidence presented to the panel indicated that the college was examining the

effectiveness of its internal communications. This needs to be embedded in the new strategic

planning process, currently under development. Reduction in the number of committees, widening

participation and sharpening their terms of reference (e.g. Recommendation 18) would go some way

in improving this.

Recommendation 19: Following analysis of the outcome of American College Dublin’s one-year

plan for implementation of recommendations in this report, the panel recommends that HETAC

determines the time frame, processes and conditions for the next Institutional Review.


Final Report

24

Commendation 2: The panel noted the comment from American College Dublin staff that

communications had begun to improve, particularly in the past year, and that communication

channels were now opening up across the college. The panel commends this and was pleased to note

that American College Dublin was continuing its efforts in this regard.

Commendation 3: The panel commends the college for its policy of involving students in Course

Boards and suggests that it looks at ways to involve students further in the decision-making

processes.

Commendation 4: The panel commended the methods used by the college to obtain student

feedback on programmes. At the end of each module, course evaluation forms are given to the

students. These are filled in and given to the academic administration staff or reception. Students are

informed of the purpose of the questionnaire and that completed forms do not go back to the

lecturer. The forms are reviewed by the relevant head of department who gives feedback on a one-to-

one basis to each staff member and on a summary basis to the faculty board. Students indicated that

they were satisfied that the feedback forms were acted upon and that the Students’ Union

suggestions for improvements were listened to and acted upon, where possible.

Overall Findings on Quality Assurance

The panel finds that the current Quality Assurance Processes in American College Dublin, while only

partially effective, are sufficient to meet a minimum standard. However, the panel is concerned at the

lack of quality improvement instruments (such as review of effectiveness, benchmarking and

stakeholder involvement) and the absence of integration of programmatic review processes into an

overall quality assurance/quality improvement strategy. The maximum period of accreditation

granted by HETAC to programmes is five years. HETAC has not yet received a report of any review

of accredited programmes undertaken by the college (as per procedures detailed on page 39 of the

Quality Assurance Manual) nor has it received a schedule of planned programmatic reviews. The panel

was also concerned that the current Quality Assurance Manual lacked rigorous procedures for

programmatic review. This is a serious deficiency that needs to be rectified as a matter of urgency.

The panel — following its discussions with the executive management of the staff, department

heads, faculty and students — found the application of quality assurance processes to be uneven

across the college. Examples include the lack of any programmatic reviews (as indicated above), the

lack of development of the Quality Assurance Manual (a role of the Quality Assurance Committee),


Final Report

25

poor formal feedback from External Examiners, patchy compliance with the determinations of the

NQAI and the policies of HETAC etc.

The panel identified a need for all levels in the college to take ownership of quality assurance. At

present, QA appears to be more a regulatory compliance chore rather than something embedded at

all levels in the culture of the organisation.

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

Recommendation 20: As a matter of urgency, the panel recommends that, American College

Dublin puts in place policies and procedures for Programmatic Review (as required under Section 28

of the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act, 1999); and that it provides HETAC, within a six-

month period of adoption of this report of the panel by HETAC, with an agreed schedule for such

reviews.

3. Assessment of Students

Currently, there is no institutional policy on assessment. College management indicated that this is in

process, but that it needs to be completed. Assessment strategies need to be applied consistently and

fairly. There is a need to identify and share good practice across the college.

American College Dublin is in the process of moving towards an outcomes-based approach to

programme delivery. In this context, there is a compelling need that assessment strategies are

designed to endorse achievement of those outcomes. This is a new challenge facing the college, one

which they will not be able to implement successfully unaided. In this context, the college will need

to embed the conventions and protocols of the policy on Assessment and Standards published by

HETAC in December 2009. Additionally, the college must provide HETAC with a plan for

implementation of the conventions and protocols in the 2010/2011 academic year (documentation

available at www.hetac.ie).

The panel was pleased to note that American College Dublin had begun a process of staff training to

address the issues of an outcomes-based curriculum and the assessment challenges it poses. The

panel further noted that this was still at an early stage but, given the fact that the changes being

implemented follow determinations of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland in 2003 and

the Awards Standards published by HETAC in 2005, such major changes call for a greater sense of

urgency by the college in driving change. Many of the institutions under purview have already


Final Report

26

implemented these changes, so there is a wealth of experience and material upon which American

College Dublin can draw.

Clearer guidelines are necessary for the appointment and training of external examiners by the college

— particularly in the context of turnover and of external examiners coming from the professions or

from outside the Irish educational system. The college’s attention is drawn to the HETAC Code of

Practice on External Examiners circulated to all colleges early in 2009.

Feedback from external examiners is an important part of quality assurance and improvement. The

processes in operation at American College Dublin are both informal and formal. The formal reports

are short and the questions used are weak. They do not encourage proposals for enhancement, nor

do they link to national standards.

There is no formal mechanism whereby heads of departments may respond formally to external

examiners who comment constructively on the assessment process.

There is no formal mechanism to ensure that external examiners’ constructive comments feed into

the ongoing development of assessment practice in American College Dublin.

Recommendation 21: The panel recommend that American College Dublin embed the HETAC

Code of Practice on External Examiners in its Quality Assurance Procedures.

Recommendation 22: The panel recommends that American College Dublin devise new formal

reporting strategies to enable and encourage external examiners to contribute actively to quality

improvement, along with mechanisms that will ensure that actions are taken in the light of

constructive proposals.

Recommendation 23: The panel recommends that American College Dublin instigate a process of

formal feedback with its external examiners on actions taken on foot of their reports.

4. Quality Assurance of Teaching Staff

American College Dublin has policies and procedures in place that are appropriate for the selection

and appointment of staff. Together with this there is an annual performance review for each member

of the instructional staff.

Student input in the form of student evaluations is an integral part of this process.


Final Report

27

Commendation 5: The panel commends the approach to student evaluations in the quality

assurance of teaching staff adopted by American College Dublin.

Commendation 6: The panel is pleased to note that the college encourages staff to develop their

teaching, assessment, programme development and research skills through the college’s INSET (In-

Service Education and Training) programme. This is achieved through attendance at workshops,

attendance at courses and conferences. The existence and value of this initiative was endorsed by the

faculty. (Unfortunately, as is the case with most institutions, financial support for these efforts is

somewhat constrained in the current economic climate.)

Commendation 7: The panel is pleased to note the esteem in which students and graduates held the

faculty and staff of American College Dublin. The small size of the college, the small size of classes,

and the openness and approachability of the faculty and staff were highly valued. The panel

commends this relationship and encourages American College Dublin to do everything to maintain it

as it grows.

Recommendation 24: Substantial changes have been occasioned by the development of outcomes-

based curricula and assessment instruments designed to endorse the achievement of national

standards of knowledge, skill and competence associated with awards at each level of the National

Framework of Qualifications. In light of this, the panel recommends that American College Dublin

devise a comprehensive and urgent staff development plan to ensure staff are fully equipped to cope

with these new demands. Engagement with higher education institutions in the State that have

already gone through this process may expedite progress.

5. Learning Resources and Support

Despite institutional support, the panel is aware that a significant majority of students have poor

English. The panel commends the college’s efforts to address this, particularly through the

compulsory modules on English composition and Public Forum. However the panel is of the view

that the college should develop more robust mechanisms for assessing and improving actual

competence in spoken and written English that will sustain a student through the entire academic

programme.


Final Report

28

Student and graduate feedback indicated a level of dissatisfaction with the library and computer

facilities currently available. However both undergraduate students and graduates valued the link to

Lynn University library resources in the USA.

Commendation 8: The panel commends American College Dublin for maintaining the link to the

Lynn University library resources, even though formal partnership between the two institutions had

ceased. This is a valuable resource and the panel is of the view that American College Dublin should

do all it can to maintain this link into the future.

Recommendation 25: The panel recommends that the college conduct a review of student feedback

on support services such as language support needs, study skills and learning styles, library and

information technology, institutional communication strategies etc. This will enhance the students;

overall learning experience and improve the quality of provision of services supporting the academic

programmes.

A number of foreign-national students and graduates, while very happy with their academic

programme, felt isolated both within the college and once they returned to their accommodation in

the evening. The fact that the Students’ Union was staffed solely by volunteers following their own

full academic programme meant that they were not as active or focused as in other higher education

institutions. The isolation of American College Dublin from other higher education institutions in

Ireland compounds the problem.

Recommendation 26: The panel recommends that the college makes use of the recently published

IHEQN (Irish Higher Education Quality Network) booklet Provision of Education to International

Students: Code of Practice and Guidelines for Irish Higher Education Institutions. This publication and details

of membership of IHEQN can be downloaded from www.iheqn.ie.

Recommendation 27: American College Dublin needs to be more actively involved, at a national

level, with committees such as the Admissions Officers Association, Irish Council for Overseas

Students, and the Confederation of Student Services in Ireland etc. This will provide the possibility of

a wider support network for its foreign-national students.


Final Report

29

Recommendation 28: The college should consider mechanisms that would provide financial

support for at least one officer in the Students’ Union, enabling him/her to take a sabbatical year and

work full-time for the benefit of the student body. This would give both leadership and coherence to

efforts to enrich the cultural experience of students in American College Dublin and provide a focus

for support and organisation of social activities, which are currently very limited in the college.

6. Information Systems

Major procedural and system limitations exist in evaluating, analysing and planning for quality

operations in American College Dublin. These are exacerbated by the lack of a clear plan and robust

information systems to provide necessary academic, management and business intelligence. The

college must decide what information it needs to record, what reports it needs to generate, and what

strategies it needs to have in place to address issues arising from analysis of these reports.

Recommendation 29: Within one year of HETAC’s adoption of this Report of the panel, the panel

recommends that American College Dublin should put effective information technology systems in

place. These will support institutional research, quality assurance and management information,

which will demonstrate to HETAC that it is in the process of embedding these systems in

institutional planning, business and academic processes. Without this, strategic planning, effective

management and quality enhancement will be severely circumscribed.

7. Public Information

Some of the issues under this heading have already been addressed in Objective 1, Public

Confidence.

The panel commends the college for the wide diversity of students it has attracted. In this context,

however, the quality and accuracy of information provided to prospective candidates and their

parents is paramount. Unfortunately, inaccuracies and omissions exist in the current catalogue and

prospectus, as well as on its website.

The panel draws attention to specific issues identified in recommendations8 relating to Objective

One, Public Confidence (pp. 13-18). In this context, and in the context of the college’s obligations

relating to public information, the panel makes the following over-arching recommendation:

8 Viz. Public Confidence - Recommendation 1, Recommendation 2, Recommendation 3 and Recommendation 13.


Final Report

30

Recommendation 30: The panel recommends that the college undertakes, as a matter of urgency, a

comprehensive forensic analysis of its catalogue, prospectus and website. This will help it identify and

remove inaccurate and confusing information, thereby ensuring that the college complies with its

statutory obligations with respect to information determined by the National Qualifications

Authority of Ireland for awards and programmes on the National Framework of Qualifications. The

website references given below refer to the principle determinations and policy documentation

underpinning the National Framework of Qualifications as determined by the National Qualifications

Authority of Ireland:

www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/documents/determinations.pdf;

http://www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/publications_and_resources/publications_and_resources.html

http://www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/documents/atp.pdf

www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/documents/NFQ-principles06brown.pdf

www.nfq.ie/nfq/en/documents/desforminor.doc


Final Report

31

Objective 4 — Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression

To confirm the extent to which the college 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.9 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).

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

While there is a broad understanding of the National Framework of Qualifications throughout the

college, there is little appreciation of the determinations of the National Qualifications Authority of

Ireland that underpin it. As a result, and as previously mentioned above, the college is deficient in the

information it makes available about access, transfer and progression with respect to its HETAC

validated programmes.

The basis of the credit system (ECTS) and its utility — in respect of access, transfer and progression

inter-institutionally in Ireland and its transportability throughout Europe — is ignored in the college’s

information sources.

The availability and utility of the European Diploma Supplement (EDS) are not addressed. There

appears to be a low level of awareness of the EDS at all levels in the college.

With regard to progression, the panel reiterates its concern — particularly the danger of double-

crediting the same material inherent in the proposal to grant IAU degrees to graduates of HETAC

programmes who retrofit ten modules of general education to their HETAC award. The narrative

and discussion leading up to Recommendation 4 refers.

9 “Policies, Actions and Procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression”. National Qualifications Authority of Ireland. 2003. www.nqai.ie.


Final Report

32

While American College Dublin can recognise and accredit prior learning where it has been obtained

and certified by another education institution, the panel notes that ACD has no processes in place to

recognise informal or non-formal learning or learning that has been achieved from experience.

The National Framework of Qualifications aims to support the development of alternative pathways

to qualifications (or awards) by promoting the recognition of prior learning. The National

Framework of Qualifications forms the basis of a new, more flexible and integrated system of

qualifications. The need for such a system arises in the main from the national objective of moving

towards a ‘lifelong learning society’ in which learners will be enabled to take up learning

opportunities at chosen stages throughout their lives.

It is a policy of the Qualifications Authority to promote the co-ordination and harmonisation of

processes for the recognition of prior learning on the part of education providers and awarding

bodies.

Recommendation 31: The panel recommends that American College Dublin adopt and

incorporates the Principles and Operational Guidelines for the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) in Further

and Higher Education and Training (published by the National Qualifications Authority in 2005) into its

procedures on access, transfer and progression, and that it embeds procedures for RPL into its new

Quality Assurance Manual.


Final Report

33

Objective 6 — Recommendations for Enhancement

To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by

the college

This includes both the recommendations arising from the external peer review process and the

recommendations arising from the internal self-evaluation process.

Key Findings — Objective 6 — Recommendations for Enhancement

Unfortunately, the Self-Evaluation Report submitted by American College Dublin lacked any internal

SWOT10 or external PEST11/STEP12 type of analysis that would inform this objective.

Recommendation 32: The panel recommends that the college analyse its strengths and weaknesses

in all areas of its operations. As it refines its mission and vision of what it can become in the medium

to long term, the college should identify the opportunities available to it, and threats facing it.

Recommendation 33: The panel recommends that the college complete the external environmental

scan it has begun as a matter of some urgency.

Recommendation 34: The panel recommends that American College Dublin consider the

recommendations in this report in the light of its SWOT and external scan, and that it should submit

its analysis on these matters to HETAC, along with its implementation plan on the findings of this

Institutional Review.

The panel was disappointed that the college could not provide external stakeholders who would be

able to comment on the quality of provision in American College Dublin and the value of the

HETAC awards conferred on it learners. The college appears to have little interaction with the wider

community outside its campus. Although it interacts with employers in terms of gaining internships

for its students, it does not appear to involve these stakeholders in programme design or review. It

was extremely disappointing that none of the employers contacted could make time available to

participate in the Institutional Review process.

10 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) 11 Political, Economic, Social and Technological (PEST) 12 Social, Technological, Economic and Political (STEP)


Final Report

34

The stakeholders who agreed to meet the panel were all internal. Two members of the Board of

Overseers provided an insight into the operation of that body. The remaining stakeholder, the

recently appointed education attaché from the Malaysian Embassy, was not briefed by the college

and was unaware that any of his countrymen were actually registered at the college. He believed that

he was invited to the college to be briefed on its operations rather than to be questioned on how

Malaysian students and graduates valued the education they received there.


Final Report

35

Additional 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.

American College Dublin added two additional objectives to the Terms of Reference for Institutional

Review.

Special Objective 7

To confirm the status of American College Delaware as a branch campus of

American College Dublin

The Institutional Review process should consider the arrangements in place for off-campus provision.

American College Dublin has received approval from HETAC to deliver two of its programmes at its

branch campus in Claymont, Delaware: BA in International Business and MBS in International Business.

These programmes will commence in September 2009 and will be delivered according to the quality assurance

policies and procedures American College Dublin has agreed with HETAC.

At the beginning of the site visit, the college confirmed with the panel that this special objective is no

longer applicable, as the college has made a strategic decision not to deliver the BA in International

Business and MBS in International Business in Delaware.

Recommendation 35: The panel notes that this programme validation was for one intake only and

is no longer valid and the panel recommends that accreditation to offer these programmes at the

American College Dublin branch campus in Claymont, Delaware, USA, is formally closed off in

HETAC records.


Final Report

36

Special Objective 8

To clarify the relationship between American accreditation and HETAC

accreditation in the quality assurance of provision in American College Dublin.

American College Dublin is in the process of seeking accreditation from the Middle States Commission on

Higher Education (MSCHE, www.msche.org). MSCHE is responsible for accrediting institutions of higher

education in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington DC, and the state

in which ACD’s American state licensure and branch campus is located, Delaware. Although this

accreditation application process has no formal bearing on American College Dublin’s accreditation with

HETAC, it is one which is complementary and about which American College Dublin would like to keep

its Irish accreditation partner appropriately informed.

The Institutional Review process should consider potential issues that may arise in the context of the

American accreditation arrangements and the establishment of the new single umbrella organisation, the Irish

American University (IAU). The policy and criteria in the HETAC document — Policy for

Collaborative Programmes, Transnational Programmes and Joint Awards, December 2008

(see Appendix A, Terms of Reference) may be relevant in this regard.

The panel was made aware of the progress of accreditation under the MSCHE process. The Irish

American University was granted Candidate Status in September 2009. Candidate for Accreditation

Status is described by the Middle States Commission as an indication that an institution is

progressing towards, but not assured of, accreditation. It is of serious concern to the panel, therefore,

to note that the IAU, in its catalogue, claims MSCHE accreditation for some of its awards, when it

still has not achieved MSCHE accreditation. This is misleading particularly when juxtaposed with

HETAC accredited programmes, as is the case with the BA (Honours) in Behavioural Science and

the MBS in International business.

Currently, HETAC has no relationship with the Irish American University, so the accreditation status

afforded to this institution has no relevance for HETAC.

The main issue that arises, however, is the confusion caused by implying that because American

College Dublin has a relationship with the Irish American University and also has a relationship with

HETAC, a de facto relationship exists between Irish American University and HETAC. This is clearly

not the case, and the panel was encouraged by the remarks of Dr Ross, the college president, when

he indicated that the relationship was, and will continue to be, solely between American College

Dublin and HETAC.

The panel was also encouraged to learn that American College Dublin is committed to clarifying the

current confusing statements regarding this issue on its website, in its prospectus and in its catalogue.


Final Report

37

In this context, the panel refers to the recommendations it made in earlier sections of this report.13

The panel draws the attention of the college to Recommendation 1 in relation to its

prospectus.

Recommendation 36: The panel recommends that a separate catalogue be produced for American

College Dublin, particularly in relation to HETAC validation and awards. Reference to MSCHE

accreditation for these programmes must be removed, as American College Dublin is not a fully

accredited institution of MSCHE.

Recommendation 37: The panel requires American College Dublin to make clear in its website that

HETAC accredits awards of American College Dublin only, and that there is no relationship between

HETAC and the Irish American University. This may best be achieved by having separate websites

for the two organisations.

13 Viz. Recommendation 2, Recommendation 3, Recommendation 13 and Recommendation 30


Final Report

38

Appendix A Terms of Reference

Higher Education and Training Awards Council TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF American College Dublin, 3-4 December 2009 STATUS: Final

1. Purpose The purpose of this document is to specify the Terms of Reference for the Institutional Review of American College Dublin in December 2009. 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 does 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. 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

to Institutes of Technology. 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, institutions 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, while 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

39

2. Institution Profile American College Dublin was established in 1993 as a branch campus of Lynn University, Boca Raton, Florida. American College Dublin is a not-for-profit institution and is an Irish registered company. HETAC validated programmes are delivered in the American College Dublin premises at 1, 2, 3 Merrion Square, Dublin 2. American College Dublin and American College Delaware merged on 1 January 2009 to form a new entity, the Irish American University. The Irish American University is also registered as a company under the Companies Act since 1993. Programmes offered by the American College and validated by HETAC include: Level 8 Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Behavioural Science (Psychology Concentration) Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in International Business (Dublin and Delaware locations) Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Accounting and Finance Level 9 Master of Business in International Business In 2008, HETAC approved the delivery of the Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in International Business and the Master of Business in International Business at the American College Delaware: 3001 Philadelphia Pike, Claymont, Delaware 19703, USA. The current student population is 623 full-time students. There are 303 males and 320 females. The average age of students attending the college is 21, indicating a relatively mature student profile. The college has a largely international learner profile, with students from 63 different nations; approximately 75% of the student body comes from outside the European Union.

• Students in the psychology programme are drawn predominantly from Ireland (c. 80%), with smaller proportions from the EU (12%) and outside the EU (8%).

• Students in the international business and accounting and finance programmes are mainly drawn from outside Ireland: students outside the EU comprise approximately 75%, with the remaining 25% shared almost equally between Irish and EU sources.

The college’s students generally come from within the national middle socio-economic stratum. The students are all paying their own way through the programme (their tuition paid for by their parents or self-financed through part-time work). The student body is committed and serious. Graduates of American College Dublin have progressed to careers in business, finance, advertising, recreation, tourism, the arts, and the caring professions. A great number of the college's alumni have gone on to pursue postgraduate qualifications at universities in Ireland and around the world. The college’s Quality Assurance procedures were submitted to HETAC on 19 November 2004 and a Certificate of Agreement of Quality Assurance Procedures was issued by HETAC to the college on 15 March 2005. American College Dublin’s unique qualities relate largely to its roots as an institution founded by an American university (Lynn University in 1993). Its American connection is fundamental to its institutional identity. American College has received study-abroad students from the United States in every year since its foundation; it has had a branch campus in Claymont, Delaware, since 2003; and it has had American accreditation with the national agency, the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) (as part of a holding organisation, Irish American University [IAU], since 2003 and until December 2009). American College (as part of the IAU) is currently pursuing accreditation with the Regional Accrediting Body, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.


Final Report

40

3. Institution’s Team Dr Donald E. Ross President American College Dublin 2 Merrion Square Dublin 2 [email protected] Mr David Webb, Registrar [email protected] Dr Rory McEntegart, Academic Dean [email protected]

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 seeks 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-evaluation, the publication of the Self-Evaluation Report and panel report. The information provided by the institution to the public falls within this objective. Special considerations for American College Dublin

• No special considerations. Objective 2 — To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the institution This objective seeks 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. Special considerations for American College Dublin American College Dublin considers the American connection to be fundamental to its institutional identity. The two campuses of American College Dublin and American College Delaware were united under a single umbrella organisation, the Irish American University (IAU) on 1 January 2009. The IAU was registered as a company under the Companies Act in 1993. Objective 3 — To assess the effectiveness of the quality assurance (QA) arrangements operated by the institution This objective seeks 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 Assurance.14 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

14 “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area”. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 2007, Helsinki, 2nd edition.


Final Report

41

awards; Assessment of students; Quality assurance of teaching staff; Learning resources and support; Information systems; Public information. Special considerations for American College Dublin The Institutional Review process should consider how the quality assurance arrangements in place in American College Dublin facilitate the international profile of the American College students. Objective 4 — To confirm the extent to which the institution has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications and procedures for access, transfer and progression This objective seeks to confirm the extent to which 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 this.15 For example, this includes issues such as credit, transfer and progression routes between levels and award types, entry arrangements and information provision. As part of this objective, Higher Education Authority (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. Special considerations for American College Dublin The Institutional Review process should consider the relationship between the American qualifications and the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) in the context of access, transfer and progression. Objective 5 To evaluate the operation and management of delegated authority where it has been granted [NOT APPLICABLE] Objective 6 — To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by the institution This objective seeks 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-evaluation process. Special considerations for American College Dublin

• No special considerations. 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 Objective 7 — To confirm the status of American College Delaware as an off-campus of American College Dublin The Institutional Review process should consider the arrangements in place for off-campus provision. American College Dublin has received approval from HETAC to deliver two of its programmes at its branch campus in Claymont, Delaware: BA in International Business and MBS in International Business. These programmes due to commence in September 2009 and will be delivered according to the quality assurance policies and procedures American College Dublin has agreed with HETAC.

15 Policies, Actions and Procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression”. National Qualifications Authority of Ireland. 2003. www.nqai.ie.


Final Report

42

Objective 8 — To clarify the relationship between American accreditation and HETAC accreditation in the quality assurance of provision at American College Dublin American College Dublin is in the process of seeking accreditation with the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE, www.msche.org). MSCHE is responsible for accrediting institutions of higher education in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington DC, and Delaware, the state in which ACD’s American state licensure and branch campus is located. Although this accreditation application process has no formal bearing on American College Dublin’s accreditation with HETAC, it is one which is complementary and about which American College Dublin would like to keep its Irish accreditation partner appropriately informed. The Institutional Review process should consider potential issues that may arise in the context of the American accreditation arrangements and the establishment of the new single umbrella organisation, the Irish American University (IAU). The policy and criteria in the HETAC document, Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards December 2008 (see Appendix A, Terms of Reference) may be relevant in this regard. 6. Schedule for American College Dublin 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-evaluation by the institution. 3. Visit by expert 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 time frame for the Institutional Review of American College Dublin are outlined below. This should be read in conjunction with the supplementary guidelines for Institutional Review. Relative

Time frame

Actual Date Milestone

At least 6 months

before panel visit

January 2009 College indicates time frame for Institutional Review as per overall

HETAC schedule of reviews

Approx. 6 months

before panel visit

April 2009 Terms of Reference set following consultation with college and

posted on HETAC website

3 to 6 months before

panel visit

December

2008

Colleges undertakes self-evaluation process and produces Self-

Evaluation Report (SER)

Approx. 8 weeks

before site visit

7 October 2009 Submission of Self-Evaluation Report (SER) and other documentation

1 week following

receipt of SER

14 October

2009

HETAC desk-based review of SER and feedback to College

Approx. 3 weeks

before site visit

6 November

2009

Advance Meeting between Chair, Secretary, HETAC and College

representatives

Panel Visit 3-4 December

2009

Site Visit by external peer review panel

(2 days approximately as determined by TOR)

Preliminary (oral) feedback on findings

Approx 12 weeks

after site visit

15 March 2010 Draft report on findings of panel sent by HETAC to college for

factual accuracy

4 days following this 19 March 2010 Final report on findings of panel sent by HETAC to college

6 weeks following

receipt of final report

4 May 2010 Response by college to HETAC including plan with time frame for

implementation of any changes

Next available HETAC

Academic

Committee meeting

24 May 2010 Consideration of report and college response by HETAC Academic

Committee

Publication of report, response and SER on website once adopted

12 months after

adoption

May 2011 Follow-up report by college to HETAC on implementation of

recommendations


Final Report

43

Appendix B Panel Membership

1. Dr. Charles Cook (Chairman)

Senior Vice President for University Affairs for Johnson & Wales University

2. Dr Dermot Douglas (Secretary)

Former Director of Academic Affairs with Institutes of Technology Ireland

3. Mr Frank O’Conor

Former Education Services Executive and Development Manager, International Services Division Enterprise Ireland

4. Dr. Norma Ryan

Director of the Quality Promotion Unit UCC and Irish Bologna Expert

5. Mr. Martin Dunne

Former Vice-President for Academic & Student Affairs and President of the DIT Students' Union

6. Prof. Neil McLoughlin Cook

Registrar of Liverpool Hope University


Final Report

44

Appendix C Additional Documentation requested prior to the site visit

Documentation to be made available on-site for the HETAC Institutional Review of American College Dublin

1. Documentation relating to the self-evaluation under the Middle States Commission application. For example, the candidacy report due in October 2009 from Middle States on ACD following the earlier visit; the notification letter.

2. Any annual reports for the ACICS recognition for example similar reports to those enclosed as part of the 2004/5 Quality Assurance submission to HETAC — statistical information.

3. Statistical information on learners indicating retention/progression/overall results. 4. First destination information on graduates of HETAC and other programmes. 5. Summary information on staff employed by the college, for example: faculty staff/associate

staff and all other staff indicating titles, functions and positions held on committees etc. 6. Nine hard copies of the College Brochure; Prospectus; Catalogue? 7. Planning — Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee meetings — any draft strategic

plans. A copy of the environmental scan referred to in the documentation submitted. Documentation that will provide a sense of where the planning process is and any statistical information that will help in that regard.

8. A copy of the SWOT analysis carried out by ACD. 9. A copy of the Code of Governance. 10. Quality Assurance: A statement (max. one A4 page) on the significant updates to the quality

assurance procedures since initial agreement with HETAC in 2004/2005 to the current version — present day. In particular, where and how the current QA manual is compliant with HETAC policy. Documentation indicating what amendments have been made by the College on an annual basis.

11. Public confidence — information on how the college has identified with its stakeholders both national and international — internal (learners and all staff) and, in particular, the external stakeholders. Evidence of how the college has responded to external and internal stakeholders. Identify and provide analysis of how the stakeholders generally interact with the college.

12. Access to minutes of all committee meetings. 13. Minutes of the Board of Overseers meetings and any reports to the Board 14. Programme documentation for all programmes validated by HETAC and currently running.

In general, all documentation associated with the continuous (and periodic review) management and quality monitoring of the programme indicating an audit trail on issues raised by staff and learner feedback and consideration at the internal and external committees. For example, follow-through on programme monitoring reports for staff meetings and issues raised by learner feedback on modules and programme content — Quality assurance of teaching staff reports and consideration of same by appropriate committees. External Examiner appointment process for the programmes, External Examiner reports and minutes of meetings where these reports were considered. Please also include:

• an example of a programme handbook for learners.

• examples of feedback from students and how it has been acted upon.

• minutes from the higher level Academic Committee

• example of a programme report

• staff handbook 15. All External Examiner reports for the last three years. 16. Information on student services or student support (for example, Ratio of Personal

Computers (PC) to students, availability of PCs outside scheduled hours, Internet access, e-mail access, library development, and current stock), professional counselling (psychological/career), recreation, internship, employment etc.


Final Report

45

17. The Self-Evaluation Report and Addendum states that problems have been identified by the college (e.g. the problems identified in the Student Assessment Plan). Documentation should be provided indicating:

• What the problems are

• How they have been addressed

• How they are dealing with them 11. Other documentation that the college representatives consider appropriate and indicative of a reflective self-analysis under the objectives for HETAC Institutional Review — as set out in the Terms of Reference and further articulated in the HETAC Supplementary Guidelines for Institutional Review.


Final Report

46

Appendix D ACICS Annual Reports


Final Report

47


Final Report

48


Final Report

49


Final Report

50


Final Report

51


Final Report

52


Final Report

53


Final Report

54


Final Report

55


Final Report

56

Appendix E Data on students registered for HETAC awards


Final Report

57


Final Report

58


Final Report

59


Final Report

60


Final Report

61


Final Report

62


Final Report

63


Final Report

64


Final Report

65


Final Report

66


Final Report

67


Final Report

68

Appendix F List of documentation available at site visit

List of documentation made available by ACD on-site for panel members during site visit

1. Documentation relating to self-evaluation under the Middle States Commission application (a) Candidacy site visit report, May 2009 (b) Candidacy notification letter, June 2009 (c) Semi-annual Interim Report site visit: MSCHE consultant report

2. Any annual reports for the ACICS recognition for example similar reports to those enclosed

as part of the 2004/5 Quality Assurance submission to HETAC — statistical information (a) Annual institutional reports for the last three years (also provided in number 3,

below)

3. Statistical information on HETAC learners indicating retention/progression/overall results. (a) Annual institutional reports for the last three years, indicating retention and

placement information (b) Statistical breakdown of overall results and progression for HETAC programmes

over the last three years (c) Country of origin of current student population (d) Current student population distribution by programme

4. First destination information on graduates of HETAC and other programmes

(a) Selection of alumni files

5. Summary information on staff employed by the college, for example: faculty staff/associate staff and all other staff indicating titles, functions and positions held on committees etc.

(a) Summary tables on faculty and staff

6. Nine copies of the College Brochure; Prospectus; Catalogue (a) Nine copies of the IAU prospectus, 2009/10 (b) Nine copies of the IAU catalogue, 2009/10

8. A copy of the SWOT analysis carried out by ACD

i. SWOT analysis, January 2008

9. A copy of the Code of Governance a. Memorandum and Articles of Association

10. Quality Assurance: A statement on the significant updates to the quality assurance

procedures since initial agreement with HETAC in 2004/2005 to the current version. In particular, where and how the current QA manual is compliant with HETAC policy. Documentation indicating what amendments have been made by the College on an annual basis.

a. Quality assurance statement

11. Public confidence. Information on how the college has identified with its stakeholders both national and international, internal and, in particular, the external stakeholders

a. Internal stakeholders – staff, learners b. External stakeholders – Research and scholarship, ambassadorial links, International

academic partnerships, Internships, Alumni

12. Access to minutes of all committee meetings


Final Report

69

a. Folder with minutes of current committees

13. Minutes of the Board of Oversees meeting and any reports to the Board a. File containing minutes of Board of Overseers meetings

14. Programme documentation for all programmes validated by HETAC and currently running

a. Programme documentation: BA (Hons) in Psychology b. Programme documentation: BA (Hons) in International Business c. Programme documentation: BA(Hons) in Accounting and Finance d. Programme documentation: MBS in Internation Business

15. All external examiner reports for the last three years

a. File with external examiner reports and documentation

16. Information on students’ services or student support (for example: ratio of personal computers to students; availability of personal computers outside scheduled hours; internet access, e-mail access; library development; and current stock), professional counselling (psychological/career), recreation, internship, employment etc.

a. Student services and support file

17. The Self-Evaluation Report and Addendum states that problems have been identified by the college (e.g. the problems identified in the student assessment plan). Documentation should be provided indicating what the problems are; how they have been addressed; how they are dealing with them.

a. Communications b. Curriculum management

18. Other documentation that college representatives consider appropriate and indicative of a

reflective self analysis under the objectives for HETAC Institutional Review a. Current fulltime faculty: research and scholarship compendium b. Institutional assessment c. Assessment of student learning outcomes

Also available was documentation of classes 1996 - 2009


Final Report

70

Appendix G Agenda for Site Visit

American College Dublin Institutional Review Site Visit Agenda 3-4 December 2009 The format of each session is a discussion in question and answer format unless otherwise indicated. Dr. Charles Cook, Review Chairman, will chair all sessions unless otherwise indicated.

Wednesday

2 December

6.00pm-8.00pm — Panel Induction and planning (Evening before) in HETAC

Tara Ryan, HETAC. Presentation on the Institutional Review Process in the context of

American College’s profile. This session will cover any issues and queries on the process raised

by panel members. (Observer status and guidelines to be discussed.)

8.00pm - Dinner

Day One

Thursday

3 December

9.00am-11.30 am — Panel Induction (continued) and Panel planning Private meeting of panel

in HETAC offices, 26 – 27 Denzille Lane, Boardroom.

• Role of the Expert Panel Member/Team member

• Guidelines on FOI & Confidentiality

• Overview of Initial impressions from panel members — Issues, areas for

discussion; Focus Themes of visit

• Format and style of the review process, planning for each session/meeting

• Assignment of ‘panel tasks’ and balance of general contribution • Panel member reporting process

• Report Template — feedback & time frame of follow-up

• Format of concluding session with Panel and College

IR Panel arrive at American College Dublin at 11.45am-12 noon

Panel members to review supplementary evidence – documentation.

1.00pm–1.30pm — Panel’s private lunch in meeting room

__________________________________________________________

1.30pm–2.15pm — Session One with College Representatives

Objective 2: Strategic Planning and Governance. Brief presentation (10mins max) Setting

the scene — an overview of the college context, mission and vision. Clarification on structure

and roles and overall activities the College is engaged in. Environmental factors including

competitive position. Strategic planning and governance. Links between internal reflection and

strategic planning decision making. Brief presentation by President or nominee (10 minutes).

2.15pm–3.00pm

Objective 1: Public Confidence. Overarching objective. Demonstrating evidence of public

confidence in the quality of education and training and standards of awards made. Information

provided by the Institution; Stakeholder interaction. Overall approach taken to self study for

Institutional Review (outline of self study process etc).

3.00pm- 3.30pm Break for coffee / brief panel discussion

Session two 3.30pm – 4.30pm - Objective 3: Quality Assurance - Overview of Quality

Assurance system/framework in place in the College (Brief presentation 10 mins) and

management of change to QA system. The “seven elements” covered by the European

Standards and Guidelines and the stage of development of the Colleges 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 and strategic

planning etc.



Final Report

71

4.45pm- 5.30pm – Objective 3 : Quality Assurance continued - Meeting with Staff of

Learner Support Services and some administrative staff

This session will deal with the “seven elements” covered by the European Standards and

Guidelines and the stage of development of the Institutions 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)


5.45pm – 6.30pm Session Four – meeting with learners and Graduates

Two parallel sessions with representative learners and graduates – maximum of 10 learners in

each session.

1. Learners/graduates mature/part-time: representing different programmes

/international/Postgraduate/minority etc.

2. Learners /graduates full-time: representing different programmes & different

stages/international/different stages up to Postgraduate/minority etc.

Private meeting of panel 6.30pm – 7.30pm in College

Day Two

4 December

Day two - American College Dublin - Friday 4 December

9.00am – 10.00am Meeting with External Stakeholders (for example employers and others

to be clarified by the College in advance of the site visit)

10.00am – 10.45am Objective 3: Quality Assurance continued (Seven Elements Review) :

Meeting with non committee lecturing staff - faculty and associate faculty.

This session will deal with the “seven elements” covered by the European Standards and

Guidelines and the stage of development of the Institutions 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)

________________________________________________________________

10.45 am-11.00 am Coffee and brief meeting of panel

________________________________________________________________

11.00am – 12.00am 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 etc. This session will also

consider the Special objectives - Objective 7 – To confirm the status of American College

Delaware as an Off- Campus of American College Dublin

Objective 8 – To clarify the relationship between American accreditation and HETAC

accreditation in the quality assurance of provision at American College Dublin.

12.00am – 1.00pm Documentation trail - Format: Opportunity for panel members to review

supplementary evidence in private.

1.00pm - 2.00pm - Panel private lunch and opportunity for panel members to review

supplementary evidence – documentation

2.00pm - 2.30pm - Supplementary meeting with College staff.

2.30pm – 4.30pm Private meeting of panel to consider its findings and recommendations

4.30pm – 4.45pm Meeting with President, and College’s Senior Management team to

provide preliminary feedback on findings and recommendations.


Final Report

72

Appendix H List of People met by the Panel

ACD participants at HETAC Institutional Review, 3-4 December 2009 Thursday, 3 December 1.30-2.15: Session one with College representatives Dr Donald E. Ross, President Mary Monahan, Executive Assistant Dr Joseph Rooney, Provost for Institutional Advancement Dr Rory McEntegart, Academic Dean Dr Chris Johnson, Director of Institutional Research and Development David Webb, Registrar Rowland Crawte, Director of Information Technology Audrey Mitchell, Director of Finance and Accounts 2.15-3.00: Public confidence Dr Joseph Rooney, Provost for Institutional Advancement Dr Rory McEntegart, Academic Dean Dr Chris Johnson, Director of Institutional Research and Development David Webb, Registrar Rowland Crawte, Director of Information Technology Stephen Chandler, Head of Department of Business Ronan Yore, Head of Department of Psychology Dr Peter Sadowski, Head of General Education 3.30-4.30: Quality assurance Dr Joseph Rooney, Provost for Institutional Advancement Dr Rory McEntegart, Academic Dean Dr Chris Johnson, Director of Institutional Research and Development David Webb, Registrar Rowland Crawte, Director of Information Technology Stephen Chandler, Head of Department of Business Ronan Yore, Head of Department of Psychology Dr Peter Sadowski, Head of General Education Colum Cronin, Director of Student Services 4.45-5.30: Quality assurance contd – learner support services and administrative staff Dr Peter Sadowski, Head of General Education David Webb, Registrar Rowland Crawte, Director of Information Technology Colum Cronin, Director of Student Services Eoghan Quigley, Assistant Librarian Audrey Mitchell, Director of Finance and Accounts 5.45-6.30: Meeting with learners and graduates Students: Martin Walsh Harry Woods Sharifa Yateem JP Izzaks


Final Report

73

Felipe Rocha Darrell Johnson Carla Codutti Miranda (Dun Lei) Ahmar Hassan Nhamo Mariga Graduates: Amy Yin Zhang Aminath Shifana Ahmed Simone Doherty Brian Peelo Erik O’Brien Friday, 4 December 9.00-10.00: External stakeholders Dr Maeve Martin, Former Senior Lecturer, Psychology Education Department, National University of Ireland, Maynooth Dr Martin O’Donoghue, Fellow Emeritus, Trinity College Dublin, and Former Minister for Education Others to be confirmed 10.00-10.45: Quality assurance contd. – meeting with lecturing staff Fulltime: Dr Ian Tyndall, Lecturer in Psychology Dr Niamh Flynn, Lecturer in Psychology Dr Elizabeth Seigne, Lecturer in Psychology Jennifer Evans, Lecturer in Psychology Felicity Heathcote, Lecturer in Psychology Neil Dunne, Lecturer in Business Yasmina Poggi, Lecturer in Business Adjuncts: Dr Padraic Regan, Associate Lecturer in Business Ray Genoe, Associate Lecturer in Computer Science Charles Frederickson, Associate Lecturer in Business 11.00-12.00: Access, transfer and progression Dr Rory McEntegart, Academic Dean David Webb, Registrar Katie Morrisroe, Assistant Director of Admissions 2.00-2.30 College staff as required by panel 4.30-4.45: Meeting with President and senior management team Dr Donald E. Ross, President Mary Monahan, Executive Assistant Dr Joseph Rooney, Provost for Institutional Advancement Dr Rory McEntegart, Academic Dean Dr Chris Johnson, Director of Institutional Research and Development David Webb, Registrar Rowland Crawte, Director of Information Technology Audrey Mitchell, Director of Finance and Accounts


Final Report

74

Appendix I Membership of the Board of Directors

AMERICAN COLLEGE DUBLIN

DIRECTORS

Seamus Mallon Board Chairman

Attorney

Seamus Mallon & Co. Solicitors

Co. Monaghan

Patrick J. Rooney President & CEO

Investment Corporation of Palm Beach

West Palm Beach, Florida, USA

Helen L. Ross Delray Beach, Florida, USA

Dr. Donald E. Ross President & CEO

American College Dublin

Appendix J: Organisational Charts

Effective September 2009

BOARD OF OVERSEERS

PRESIDENT Dr. Donald E. Ross

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

Christopher Sarafian

ACADEMIC DEAN

Dr. Rory McEntegart

DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS

Audrey Mitchell

DEAN OF ENROLMENT

MANAGEMENT Ali Shimaz

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT

Mary Monahan

HEAD OF PSYCHOLOGY Ronan Yore

REGISTRAR

David Webb

HEAD OF BUSINESS

Stephen Chandler

DIRECTOR OF STUDENT SERVICES

Colum Cronin

– Oscar Wilde House – Alum Relations – Housekeeping Maintenance

–Academic Office

– Student Services Student –Residence Relations – Counseling – Athletics – Semester abroad – Security

– Academic Affairs – Library

– Budget/Financial Office –Accounts Receivable – Accounts payable – Payroll – Contracts

– Admissions –Marketing – Reception Staff

DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY

Rowland Crawte

DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENT

Dr. Chris Johnson

HEAD OF GENERAL

EDUCATION Dr. Piotr Sadowski


Final Report

76

Committee Organisational Chart Effective September 2009

BOARD OF OVERSEERS

Long Range Planning

PRESIDENT’S OFFICE

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

FACULTY BOARD

INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

ENROLMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

COURSE BOARDS

CURRICULUM COMMITTEE

ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE

– Psychology Course Board

– Business Course Board

– Internal Examination Board

– External Examination Board

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

STRATEGIC PLANNING

COMMITTEE

ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

QUALITY ASSURANCE COMMITTEE

ACCREDITATION AND COMPLIANCE

COMMITTEE

Institutional Review of American College Dublin – 3-4 December 2009] Report of the Expert Panel

Draft Report

77

higher education and training awards council, … college dublin... · american college dublin...

Documents