provider - qqi.ie · web viewconsidering the stated objective of the ... there is unnecessary...

Report of the Programme Evaluation Panel

Provider’s Name: IBAT Ltd T/a IBAT College DublinAddress: 16-19 Wellington Quay

Dublin 2

QA procedures agreed on: QA procedures reviewed on:

Programme()s submitted for approval:

Leading to the award of:

1. Three-year 180-credit ab initio Level 8 programme

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Computing and Business Information Systems

2.3.4.5.

Date submitted to QQI:Date of Evaluation: 2nd June 2016Date of Report:

Membership of the Programme Evaluation Panel:

Role Name Area of Expertise QQI Peer Review Reference Listing

Chairperson Danny Brennan Quality Assurance in Higher Education

External Specialist Patricia O’Byrne ComputingExternal Specialist Dr John McAvoy Business Information

SystemsExternal Specialist Martin Nolan Business, Accounting,

AuditingIndustry/Employer Perspective

Ian Doyle Software Development/ Management

Secretary Hugh Mc Bride Business, Accounting, Finance

1

1. Profile of provider:

IBAT College Dublin was established in May 2004. The College is a privately-funded, independent, for-profit college, with one major shareholder and a number of smaller Institutional and private shareholders. The College offers programmes in business, information technology, accountancy, marketing, management and English language. IBAT College Dublin currently has over 1,300 full-time and part-time learners, on undergraduate, postgraduate, Springboard+, short/professional and English language programmes at its Temple Bar Campus.

1.1. ProviderName IBAT Ltd T/a IBAT College Dublin Address 16-19 Wellington Quay, Dublin 2, Ireland

1.2. Contact for ValidationName: Mary Doyle Title: Academic Registrar Address: IBAT College Dublin, 16-19 Wellington Quay, Dublin 2 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +353 1 2461 519

1.3. Programme Leader Name: Rory ByrneTitle: Head of School Address: IBAT College Dublin, 16-19 Wellington Quay, Dublin 2 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: +353 1 2461 558

Provider Type Private Commercial Enterprise – private third-level education provider CRO: 385326 PAYE/RSI Number: 6405326P

2. Planning:Programme development since agreement of QA procedures / the last review

The proposed programme is an extension and development of IBAT’s offerings at undergraduate level. The College does not currently offer a programme of the nature now proposed. The proposed programme is a new departure for the College.

2

2.1. Purpose of the award

Does the proposed programme address a clear market demand? Yes No

There is a clear demand for the type of graduate proposed. However, the Panel do not consider that the proposed programme will produce the type of graduates envisaged at Level 8 standard.

2.2. Avoidance of duplication

Has the Programme Development Team identified the availability of similar programmes locally, regionally, nationally?

Yes No

The Programme Development Team has identified some similar programmes. However, the Panel do not consider the scope of the benchmarking/comparison exercise undertaken by the Team, as evidenced in the programme document, to have been adequate. Similar programmes on offer have not been referenced, and there is scant analysis or concrete detail.

2.3. Stakeholder consultation

Was the level of stakeholder engagement satisfactory? Yes No

The programme document contains information about stakeholder engagement and consultation, which was also referenced in the discussions with staff. However, the Panel does not consider that the level of engagement and consultation was satisfactory.

A particular gap is the apparent lack of consultation with major management consulting companies who are a significant stakeholder in the industry and a potential employer of graduates.

Support for the programme (industry/business/community) Yes No

The Panel consider that there would be industry support for the type of graduate proposed but not for the programme as proposed.

2.4. Efficient and effective use of resources

Does the proposed programme represent both efficient and effective use of the provider’s resources?Yes No

The College consider that the proposed programme would represent both effective and efficient use of their existing resources.

The Panel understand, however, that the full staffing resource required to deliver the proposed programme has not yet been recruited.

The Panel does not consider it would be an effective use of resources as the Minimum Intended Programme Learning Outcomes (MIPLOs) would not be achievable.

3

2.5. Resource development over last 5 years (or in direct support of this programme)

Specific Comments:

Staff: The full staff complement required to support the proposed programme has not yet been recruited. Many staff are recruited on a part-time contract basis.

The College encourages academic staff development through engagement in further study relevant to their discipline area; attendance at conferences and seminars; attendance at a number of planned workshops and seminars organised, and collaboration with other Higher Education Institutions. The College is committed to strengthening support in this area.

Accommodation: The building is state-of-the art and fit-for-purpose. The city centre location is a strategic advantage.

Information technology: The College has three IT labs that are fit-for-purpose in support of the proposed programme. It has excellent broadband connectivity. The Panel believe, however, that an additional dedicated IT laboratory would be required for the award stage of such a programme.

Library: Administration: The College has library provides access to hard copy and online information sources. Administration and student-support services for the proposed programme will be carried out with existing resources, which appear adequate to support the programme.

Publicity/public information: The primary tool to communicate the mission and objectives of the College to relevant stakeholders is the website (www.ibat.ie). The College also communicates public information via printed promotional material. The College has appointed a full-time Marketing Manager to assure the integrity of public information and communication.

2.6. Planned development over the coming 5 years?

Have the QQI award standards been explicitly referred to in the programme and does the programme meet those standards at the specified level?

Yes No

The QQI award standards have been explicitly referred to in the programme document. The Panel are of the opinion that the proposed programme does not meet those standards at the specified level.

Has the Provider complied with Protection for Enrolled Learner requirements?Yes No

4

http://www.ibat.ie/

2.7. Access

Is the expected minimum and maximum number of all learners entering the programme explicitly stated?

Yes NoThe proposed minimum and maximum enrolment numbers are provided for a period of 5 years.

Have any/all prerequisite knowledge, skills or competence or any other specific entry requirement been articulated?

Yes No

The College intends to offer the programme through the CAO to Irish students. It also plans to recruit within the EU and globally. For foreign students, IELTS 6.0 will be the language standard required in addition to normal academic requirements.

The Panel had concerns about retention particularly in the context of the challenge of reaching Level 8 standard in a three year programme.

Assumptions about some of the prior competencies of entrants onto the programme are not clearly articulated. The College indicated plans to address deficits in entrant competencies through induction and targeted support programmes. However, these are not clearly and adequately explained in the programme document.

3. Quality Assurance

3.1. Application of agreed quality assurance procedures for development of programmes

Were the agreed quality assurance procedures for programme development followed?Yes No

Has the programme team demonstrated how programme delivery will be monitored in accordance with agreed QA procedures?

Yes No

Are programme management arrangements adequate and coherent?Yes No

5

4. Programme structure and contentIs the programme structure well designed, coherent and fit for its stated purpose?

Yes No

The Panel are of the opinion that there are significant weaknesses in the programme design, that it lacks coherence and integration, and that it is not fit for its stated purpose. The Panel does not consider that the learning outcomes are achievable within the three-year delivery period, that the programme is overly ambitious for the time-frame, that there are gaps in the breadth and depth of content, and that there would be deficits in graduate knowledge, skill and competence.

4.1. Programme learning outcomes

Do the programme learning outcomes comply with national standards for the level of award proposed?

Yes No

Are module descriptions adequate and relevant? Yes No

Some module descriptors are both adequate and relevant, others are not. Refer to comments below on the modules.

Are modules relevant and current? Yes No

Some module descriptors are both relevant and current, others are not. Refer to comments below on the modules.

Does the combination of modules chosen have the coherence to support the proposed award?Yes No

The Panel are of the opinion that there is insufficient integration of modules, and of the diverse and separate strands, and that the programme lacks the necessary cohesion to support the proposed award.

4.2. Learning Modes

Can the teaching and learning strategies proposed support achievement of the required learning outcomes?

Yes No

The Panel are of the opinion that the design of the proposed programme is too condensed and that the proposed teaching and learning strategies, particularly in this context, would not support achievement of the learning outcomes at the Level 8 standard. Essentially, too much would be demanded in terms of delivery and learning in the three-year time-frame to produce the type of graduate envisaged.

6

The claim that there is ‘an integrated teaching, learning and assessment strategy for the programme’ is not adequately supported in the programme document.

Recommended text books and reading lists should be current.

Are the delivery mechanisms proposed adequate to the needs of the programme and the proposed learner cohorts?

Yes No

The Panel have concerns about the pedagogical soundness of the proposed delivery model, in the particular context of the proposed programme.

Some of the modules are shared across a number of programmes. The programme team clarified that in these cases, the modules will be delivered separately to each programme cohort but that the assessment will be the same.

4.3. Assessment strategies

Are assessment processes and methods adequately described? Yes No

Assessment processes and methods for individual modules are, for the most part, adequately described (refer to comments on individual modules below). However, there is little evidence of an integrated assessment strategy for the programme.

The Panel consider that there is need for clarity and consistency in the policy and practice regarding repeat opportunities. There is inconsistency in the information provided.

The Panel had concerns about the range and expertise of External Examiners to be appointed to the programme. The Panel consider that the proposed external examining team would need to be strengthened with appropriate subject experts.

Are these strategies appropriate to this type of award, in terms of type, frequency and volume?Yes No

Is assessment explicitly linked with intended learning outcomes? Yes No

Does the assessment strategy underpin the achievement of the relevant standard of knowledge, skill and competence?

Yes No

The Panel does not consider this to be the case.

4.4. Duration

What is the intended duration of the Programme?

Three-years (full-time).

7

What is the lifespan of the programme (e.g. single cohort intake to satisfy limited local demand; multiple intakes over the following 5 years etc.?)

There is a proposed student cohort intake in each year over the next 5 years, and beyond. It is intended to facilitate two entry cohorts per academic year (September and January), and it is also proposed to have a part-time cohort intake.

Does the Panel believe this to be realistic? Yes No

Are there flexible modes of participation? Yes No

Full-time and part-time delivery is planned.

4.5. Credits

Is credit allocation in accordance with national and international guidelines?Yes No

Considering the level, outcomes and volume of each module, is the number of credits attached to each appropriate?

Yes No

See comments on individual modules below.

Considering the stated objective of the programme is the number of credits attached to the award appropriate?

Yes No

The Panel are of the view that 240 credits would be appropriate in the context of the stated nature and objectives of the proposed programme and award.

4.6. NFQ Level

Is the proposed level of the programme in accordance with institutional policy/national norms?Yes No

The Panel does not consider that the programme as presented is to Level 8 standard.

4.7. Programme titles and award

Is the title consistent with national policy, is it informative and is it fit for purpose?Yes No

The Panel are of the view that the proposed title does not match the design and content of the programme, that it is potentially misleading and that it is not fit-for-purpose. The inclusion of the word ‘Computing’ in the title is considered particularly problematic.

The rationale for proposing a ‘Bachelor of Arts’ award is unclear and the Panel are unconvinced by the explanations offered.

8

4.8. Transfer and Progression

Has the Programme Development Team identified realistic transfer and progression opportunities/possibilities that learners may avail of following achievement of this award?

Yes No

The Panel are of the view that the design and content of the proposed programme would result in significant knowledge, skills and competence deficits that would compromise progression to a higher level and that would compromise graduate employability.

9

5. Module Titles, Content and Assessment Strategy

Module Title: Programming Fundamentals

Is the title informative and is it fit for purpose? Yes No

The title is informative and the title is fit for purpose.

Are the specific learning outcomes a) properly stated, b) sufficient and c) achievable?Yes No

Three of the documented learning outcomes would be sufficient and achievable as is, but the third one requires extra content in program design, algorithms and data structures, mathematics and problem solving that are not part of the syllabus. Without these, learners will be shown how to implement techniques, without knowing where to use them or understanding the concepts behind them. Learning outcomes such as problem-solving, program design and algorithms must be recognized and assessed. As this is the only algorithmic module in year one, the content in this module could not be expanded to include them and be achievable in the time frame.

Is the content sufficiently informative and is it fit for purpose? Yes NoThe indicative syllabus is appropriate for a programming module that would be required in a Computing degree, where other support modules provide learning outcomes such as problem-solving, program design, and algorithms. No such modules are available, and MLO3 indicates that these skills should be acquired in this module.

Does the Assessment Strategy align sufficiently with the intended learning outcomes?Yes No

As indicated, there is no content that will provide MLO3.

Is the required reading and supplementary reading appropriate, current and realistic?Yes No

Module Title: Financial Accounting Fundamentals


Recommend ‘Introduction to Accounting’ as a more appropriate title.


Is the content sufficiently informative and is it fit for purpose? Yes No


The final examination will also assess learning outcomes 2 & 3.


Latest editions of texts should be used.

10

Module Title: Business Mathematics and Statistics




This module is primarily focused on business and is not insufficient for computing /BIS. There are gaps, e.g. matrices, set theory, which will impact on student preparedness for computer science and follow-on computing modules. These gaps would need to be covered extensively in another module, as the missing content cannot be “shoehorned” into this module.



Module Title: Computer Applications

Is the title informative and is it fit for purpose? Yes NoThe Panel feels that the title is misleading, as this is really an introduction to Office tools. The title does not relate sufficiently to the learning outcomes or explain the value of the module.

Are the specific learning outcomes a) properly stated, b) sufficient and c) achievable? Yes No

For the most part; however, they are a little lacking in detail. For example, ML05 is unclear, e.g. it is not clear how much database / data analysis knowledge is expected at the end.



The Panel would expect to see a case study so that students can get some practical skills in the area of presentation and real world implications of how software affects businesses. Without a real-life study, the module would risk being very academic without much practical value.

11


There should be more on the theory side in the required reading.

12

Module Title: ICT (Information and Communications Technology) for Business



The outcomes are properly stated and sufficient; however, more time should be allocated to this module to accommodate the content. There is too much material to cover to the required standard in a 5 credit module. This really needs to be a 10 credit module.




Module Title: Learning and Development

The module is shared across a number of programmes.



This module is very worthwhile and should centre the student in their learning environment.



The use of group and individual assessment for this module means that students are working together while still being assessed for half of their work individually.


13

Module Title: Operating Systems and Networking


The title is informative and the title is fit for purpose.


The documented learning outcomes are not achievable by the target learners in a single semester introductory module.


The content as documented is too broad to be able to fulfil the very ambitious learning outcomes.



The required reading is very appropriate and current, but not realistic. Given the number of contact hours and the duration of the module, learners will rely heavily on extra reading.

Module Title: Introduction to Business



Review active verbs in MLO2 and 3.


There is unnecessary content overlap with the modules ‘Management Principles’ and ‘Marketing Fundamentals’. Scope exists to design, deliver and assess these three modules in an integrated manner. This provides scope for revising the content in the ‘Introduction to Business’ module, and for enhanced coverage of other relevant areas.Some topics listed in the content may prove challenging particularly in the terms of student preparedness based on prior knowledge (for example, dealing with CSR if students do not already understand the nature of a corporation).


There is a need for greater clarity in relation to the proposed continuous assessment project. There is scope for integrating assessment with other modules.


The essential reading text may be dated.

14

Module Title: Management Principles



Review active verbs in MLO 2 and 4.


Scope exists to deliver and assess this module in an integrated manner with the ‘Introduction to Business’ and ‘Marketing modules.



Module Title: Marketing Fundamentals



Edit MILO 2.


Scope exists to deliver and assess this module in an integrated manner with the ‘Introduction to Business’ and ‘Management Principles’ modules.



15

Module Title: Web Design




There is too much material to cover to the required standard in a 5 credit module. This really needs to be a 10 credit module. The hardware elements to be covered alone would make up 5 credits. The module would also benefit from use of new web technologies such as angular.js, bootstrap etc.




Module Title: Database Systems



The specific learning outcomes are stated, but are not sufficient in that some of the underpinning material has not been covered previously or in this module, nor achievable as the more advanced material is too ambitious. It needs to be split up.


The breadth of knowledge, skills and competence that must be acquired to complete this module is not realisable in the time frame. Even a very basic databases module would require a grounding in set theory and Armstrong’s Axioms. This module introduces a huge range of relational and non-relational databases, Entity relationship modelling, SQL, distributed databases both relational and NoSQL.


Is the required reading and supplementary reading appropriate, current and realistic?

16

Yes No

Module Title: Information Systems Management




This module, in terms of its aims, learning outcomes and content would be more appropriately delivered at level 8.It is unlikely that the students would have the level of preparedness for the module at the proposed stage of delivery.




Module Title: IT Law and Ethics


This module title is misleading. The words ‘and Ethics’ should not be included in the title as it is not merited by the proposed learning outcomes or content.


This is the first module in law for students. There is a question relating to the preparedness of students to deal with advanced topics without some prior knowledge in the area (for example, in relation to the legal system, contract law, legal form of business etc.).


Refer comment above.



Essential reading is dated.

17

Module Title: Object Oriented Software Development


The title suggests that the module is about Software Development, but the content is programming. In an object-oriented context, design is particularly important. While there is a module in a later stage addressing modelling, object oriented software development requires a strong practical competence in design. Although the descriptor states that ‘learners are expected to apply and integrate relevant learning from other syllabi …’ the module on design is scheduled to follow this module.


The learning outcomes are sufficient for a programming syllabus rather than a software development one. This module could work if the software engineering module that is listed as level 8 was delivered alongside it.



The learning outcomes are sufficient but the indicative syllabus is a programming syllabus rather than a software development one.


The reading material is all programming.

Module Title: Quantitative Methods



The name is misleading and could be assumed to refer to a research methods modules. The module title could make reference to statistics.


There is too much material to cover to the required standard in a 5 credit module. This really needs to be a 10 credit module.




18

Yes No

Module Title: Web Client and Server-Side Programming


Are the specific learning outcomes a) properly stated, b) sufficient and c) achievable?

Yes No

The learning outcomes are generally appropriate; however much more time is required for the outcomes to be achievable by learners. It is unclear how students will achieve a good understanding of server-side programming with the amount of time given. There is too much material to cover to the required standard in a 5 credit module. This really needs to be a 10 credit module.




Module Title: Digital Marketing and Social Media



5 hours of lecturing is insufficient. While some modules can have mainly self-directed learning, this module requires mainly lecture hours.




19

Module Title: Graphical User Interface (GUI) Programming


Are the specific learning outcomes a) properly stated, b) sufficient and c) achievable?

Yes No

The added value of this module is unclear and 5 hours of lectures is insufficient. The content and learning outcomes are not relevant and would not assist graduate employability. This is a somewhat dated concept and could be merged into the mobile development module. Is the content sufficiently informative and is it fit for purpose? Yes No

The added value of this module in terms of usable skills for graduates is questionable. This module would make more sense by focusing on core 00 concepts, such as a design patters ore reusable software patterns. The time allocated to the module is also inadequate to allow learners develop a full understanding of the topic.



Module Title: Innovation and Enterprise



Students likely to find aspects challenging and may lack preparedness for the module in terms of prior knowledge (for example, in finance and market research).



Assessment seems excessively focused on a business start-up. The module title, the learning outcomes and the content suggest a broader focus that equating ‘innovation’ with ‘start-up’.


Essential reading seems dated.

20

Module Title: New Media Production



This is a useful module, but needs more lecture hours. It is not possible to cover all the required material in 6 hours.




Module Title: Operations Management



Review active verb in MLO 3.




21

Module Title: Applied Project Management



Review active verb in MLO1




Module Title: Business Intelligence and Data Analytics



The learning outcomes are stated but are not achievable from this module, given previous work undertaken by the learners. To evaluate data storage systems and associated techniques for indexing and retrieving data would require that the student had studied indexing, b-trees, hash tables, distributed databases, partitioning, storage structures and retrieval methods that are not part of other modules in the programme. The appraisal of different Business Analytics techniques is related to the indicative syllabus entry discussing decision trees, neural networks, regressions, etc. that cannot be properly covered by students who have not taken specific statistics and algorithms modules prior to this.


The content is not fit for purpose in that it is over ambitious and is not suitable given expected prior learning of students in Stage 3. As well as previous learning, the learner would need to acquire an infeasibly extensive number of new skills to succeed in this module.



The required reading does not cover the topic to the level that is expected in the learning outcomes and assessment strategy. The supplemental reading material may do so.

22

Module Title: Capstone Project


It is very important to have a capstone project in a level 7 or level 8 degree in Computing or in Business Information Systems.


The learning outcomes are sufficient for a level 7 project, provided the marking scheme and writing requirements are changed.


It is unclear as to what level of implementation is required. Documentation of work (interim and final reports) are far too short, even for a level 7 project, especially given the structure of the documents. It is good to give the documents a structure to enable the students to express their achievements.


An independent project is a very important part of the assessment strategy for a degree. The marking scheme is not appropriate for such a project and will not ensure that the learning outcomes are met by all candidates who pass the module as specified.


Module Title: IT Project Management



There is a question about the preparedness of the students for aspects of the module content.


There is a question about the preparedness of the students for aspects of the module content.


It is difficult to differentiate this module from the applied project management module. The main difference seems to be in the Agile versus traditional debate, yet none if the assessment appears to examine this element.

23


Module Title: Software Engineering


The module title is good and the module is fit for purpose as a stage 2 module. It should be placed earlier in the programme, before or alongside Object oriented Software Development.


The learning outcomes are specific, properly stated and achievable, but too basic for a level 8 module.




Yes No

Module Title: Strategic Management



This module should be redesigned. The learning outcomes are practically identical to a 10 credit module with the same title and are not achievable at the level required.There is also a question about the preparedness of the student for the module content.




24

Module Title: Cloud Computing for Business



There is a risk that this module is too short for what it is trying to achieve; there is too much material to cover to the required standard in a 5 credit module. This really needs to be a 10 credit module, especially given the need for a large technical element to the module which is currently missing. The learning outcomes refer to “deep understanding” of cloud infrastructure and deployment, which may take more time that is being allocated.


This module could be very useful, but it needs to include a case study of how a company goes from planning to implementing a cloud strategy and all of the associated implications of this activity.



Module Title: Information Security Management



Somewhat; this could be a very useful and informative module. However, there is too much material to cover to the required standard in a 5 credit module. This really needs to be a 10 credit module. The hardware elements to be covered alone would make up 5 credits.


This is an interesting and beneficial module. The Panel would also like to see content looking at likely future threats and the landscape of IT security in the coming years.


25


Module Title: Mobile Application Development


The module is fit for purpose, and is a nice module. Given the fact that there are some core learning outcomes missing from the programme and that there are no Computing electives in Stage 3, this could become an elective.



This is a nice module and would be popular, but usually such a module would be delivered as a level 7 module, rather than a level 8.



Module Title: Global Business and Emerging Trends



Edit MLO1, 2, 4 and 5.




Essential and supplementary reading appears dated and limited.

26

Module Title: Corporate Governance



Review active verbs in MLO 1 and 2.


Recommend the incorporation of a greater focus and emphasis on ethics as the basis for good governance.



Essential reading is dated.

Module Title: Organisational Leadership






27

Module Title: Services Marketing






Module Title: Consumer Behaviour in the 21st Century




The Panel liked the idea behind this module and feel it is a valuable area of learning for graduates. It would be useful to include content on the link between consumer behaviour and how people interact with technology at a high social level. For example, some research and learning on how Facebook and other social networks run studies on how users interact with their software, how trends in behaviour are changing generationally as younger generations have a higher dependence on technology and traditional behaviour models are being replaced. Does the Assessment Strategy align sufficiently with the intended learning outcomes?

Yes No


28

Module Title: Entrepreneurship



Active verb in MLO1; edit MLO2.



The nature of the ‘Value Creating Report – Group’ is unclear, as is the alternative offered for RPL entrants.


Specified reading seems dated.

Module Title: Personal and Professional Development




This is a very useful and beneficial module. There is some concern that there may be inadequate time in this module for all the outcomes to be achieved.



While the module is a good idea, it will be hard to assign marks to presentation and mock interview elements. If the course had a work placement, then this module would be more useful and easier to assess.


29

6. Specific Issues to be addressed by the provider

The Programme is not recommended for approval for the following reasons:

There are significant weaknesses in the programme design: it lacks coherence and integration, and is not fit for its stated purpose.

The programme does not meet the Level 8 standard required, and will not produce the type of graduates envisaged.

The learning outcomes at Level 8 standard are not achievable within the three-year delivery period: the programme is overly ambitious for the time-frame proposed. There are gaps in the breadth and depth of content, and there will be deficits in graduate knowledge, skill and competence.

The programme structure and content is missing important elements for the proposed award at Level 8.

The proposed title is not appropriate, is potentially misleading and is not fit-for-purpose. The inclusion of the word ‘Computing’ in the title is particularly problematic.

The design of the programme is too condensed and the proposed teaching and learning strategies do not adequately support achievement of the learning outcomes at the required Level 8 standard. The pedagogical soundness of the proposed delivery model in the context of the programme is questionable.

There is insufficient integration and cohesion of modules in the programme design, delivery and assessment to support the proposed award.

The design and content of the proposed programme would result in significant knowledge, skills and competence deficits that would compromise graduate progression to a higher level and that would compromise graduate employability.

The scope of the benchmarking/comparison exercise undertaken was inadequate and there is insufficient analysis or concrete detail.

The nature and level of stakeholder engagement was limited.

30

7. Overall Result of Evaluation Panel Review:

The Programme is not recommended to the Programmes and Awards Executive Committee for approval for the reasons noted above.

This report has been agreed by the Evaluation Panel and is signed on their behalf by the Chair.

Signed: _______________________________________ Date: _________________

Panel Chairperson:

The Report of the External Review Panel contains no assurances, warranties or representations

express or implied, regarding the aforesaid issues, or any other issues outside the Terms of

Reference.

While QQI has endeavoured to ensure that the information contained in the Report is correct,

complete and up-to-date, any reliance placed on such information is strictly at the reader’s own risk,

and in no event will QQI 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 External Evaluation Panel.

31

Appendix 1: Staff who met with Panel

Staff Name RoleShane Ormsby DirectorMary Doyle RegistrarMarie McTigue Marketing ManagerRichard O'Brien Admissions ManagerSarah Sharkey Programme Manager - Postgraduate Programmes & Examinations ManagerOlga Vilenskaya Student Services Co-OrdinatorRory Byrne Head of SchoolFrances Keating LecturerMorgan Campbell LecturerMark Dean LecturerJulia Lawlor LecturerDavid Duff LecturerAdrienne Gallagher LecturerMary Gordon LecturerDeirdre Gorman LecturerPeter Meehan LecturerMatt Murray LecturerJohn Rowley LecturerJeff Taylor Lecturer

32

provider - qqi.ie · web viewconsidering the stated objective of the ... there is unnecessary...

Documents