Academic Code of Practice No.2 Validation, Monitoring and Review. Academic Year 2017/2018

Transcription

1 Academic Code of Practice No.2 Validation, Monitoring and Review Academic Year 2017/2018 As agreed by the Academic Council on 14 June 2017 and by the Governing Body on 29 June 2017 This code may be revised from time to time by the Institute. Tá leagan Gaeilge d Chód Iompraíochta na Mac Léinn le fáil ar láithreán gréasáin GMIT.

2

3 Validation, Monitoring and Review Table of Contents SECTION A 1 CONTEXT VALIDATION AND AUTHORISATION OF NEW PROGRAMMES LEADING TO MAJOR AWARDS VALIDATION AND AUTHORISATION OF MINOR, SPECIAL PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL AWARDS DIFFERENTIAL VALIDATION AMENDING AN APPROVED PROGRAMME SCHEDULE AND NEW MODULES PROGRAMME MONITORING PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW SUPPORT SERVICES AND FACILITIES REVIEW INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW SECTION B APPENDIX 1: QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK APPENDIX 2: INDICATIVE SCHEDULE OF NEW PROGRAMME VALIDATION AND AUTHORISATION PROCESS APPENDIX 3: NEW PROGRAMME PROPOSAL (AQA1 FORM) APPENDIX 4: NEW PROGRAMME TEMPLATE (AQA2 FORM) APPENDIX 5: BRIEFING NOTES FOR EXTERNAL VALIDATION PANELS APPENDIX 6: TEMPLATE FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW REPORT OF NEW PROGRAMME EVALUATION (AQA3) APPENDIX 7: GENERIC AWARD TYPE DESCRIPTOR (MINOR, SPECIAL PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL AWARD TYPES) APPENDIX 8: GUIDELINES FOR CHANGES OF MODULES AND APPROVED PROGRAMME SCHEDULES APPENDIX 9: PROGRAMME HANDBOOK APPENDIX 10: PROGRAMME BOARD ANNUAL REPORT TEMPLATE APPENDIX 11: LEARNER FEEDBACK FORM MODULE (QA1) APPENDIX 12: SUMMARY OF LEARNER FEEDBACK MODULE (QA2) APPENDIX 13: LEARNER FEEDBACK FORM AWARD (QA3) APPENDIX 14: FUNCTIONAL REVIEW SELF-EVALUATION REPORT

4 Academic Code of Practice No.2 SECTION A 1 CONTEXT 1.1 QUALITY ASSURANCE AT GMIT 2 Quality Assurance is a framework designed to foster and embed a culture of continuous improvement. Policy and procedures are established to promote, support and enable the maintenance and improvement of the quality of all Institute activities. The Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012 specifies the obligations of providers to prepare quality assurance procedures as follows: each relevant provider and linked provider shall establish procedures in writing for quality assurance for the purposes of establishing, ascertaining, maintaining and improving the quality of education, training, research and related services the provider provides. (Section 28 (1)) The achievement of academic excellence is a complex process involving all Institute staff and students. The educational environment in respect of teaching, learning, research, student support, academic support, accommodation, equipment, facilities, management, administration, community service and collaboration with industry are important elements in this regard. GMIT is committed to respecting students as the central focus of all our activities. Attracting and motivating students who are interested and determined to succeed in their chosen fields is a key foundation for academic quality. The quality of the interaction experienced by the student with all agents and aspects of GMIT is of vital importance. The overall experience of the student has to be considered at all times. Quality in all of the activities and functions of GMIT requires clarity of communication and transparency of procedures. This Code of Practice is one of a series of Codes of Practice developed by GMIT. It is written to assure quality to all stakeholders, internal and external, on the policies and procedures in place at GMIT to assure the quality of its programmes of education and training. A key element in academic quality assurance is the continuing review of academic processes to ensure that the aims and intended learning outcomes of academic programmes are achieved on a consistent basis. The underlying thrust is for all programmes offered by the Institute to achieve the highest academic standards. GMIT programmes are expected to bear comparison with the best available, both nationally and internationally. This Code sets out policies and procedures aimed at ensuring that highest standards are the norm for all of the Institute s programmes. This Code of Practice is a working document and is subject to regular review based on experience in implementation, feedback received from staff, students and other stakeholders, and new educational developments. This Code should be read in conjunction with the other Codes of Practice and Codes of Academic Policy approved by the Academic Council (Appendix 1).

5 Validation, Monitoring and Review 1.2 NATURE AND SCOPE This Code specifies Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology s procedures for the validation, monitoring and review of programmes. In addition, it outlines how the quality assurance procedures for academic and support functions and the Institute will be periodically reviewed. 1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 2012 The Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012 specifies the conditions under which national awards shall be made. (a) GMIT has delegated authority under Section 53 of the Act to make awards at Higher Certificate, Ordinary Degree, Honours Degree and taught postgraduate levels with effect from September 2004, and for postgraduate research awards in two disciplines for levels 9 and 10 in Aquatic Science and Mechanical Engineering. (b) In accordance with the Institutes of Technology Ireland Sectoral Protocol for the Awarding of Research Masters degrees at NFQ Level 9 under Delegated Authority (DA) from Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) (2015), GMIT has developed NFQ Level 9 Research Discipline Area Validation Policy and Procedures, and to date has validated new research degree programmes at level 9 in the discipline area of Science. (c) QQI is obliged under Section 49 (1) of the Act to determine the standards of knowledge, skill or competence to be acquired, and where appropriate, demonstrated, by a learner before an award may be made by the Authority or by a provider to which, under Section 53, authority to make an award has been delegated. (d) Under Section 28 of the Act, GMIT shall establish procedures covering: evaluation at regular intervals of the programme of education, training, research and related services; evaluation by students and graduates; review of the application of the quality assurance procedures; publication of the evaluation report together with an implementation plan to address any recommendations referred to in the report. (e) In accordance with Section 29 of the Act, before establishing procedures under Section 28, GMIT shall submit a draft of the proposed procedures to the Authority for approval. (f) Under Section 30 of the Act, where the Authority approves procedures under subsection (2)(a), GMIT shall publish those procedures in such form and manner (including on the internet) as the Authority directs and shall provide a copy of the procedures as published to the Authority. 3

6 Academic Code of Practice No Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area The Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area* (European Standards and Guidelines {ESG}) are the benchmark for quality assurance in Europe. The Guidelines identify that higher education providers have the primary responsibility for the quality of their provision and its assurance. The Guidelines also envisage an important role for external quality assurance. GMIT s academic quality assurance practices are consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area Governing Body and Academic Council The functions of the Governing Body are specified in Section 5 of the Regional Technical Colleges Act 1992 as amended by the Institutes of Technology Act The functions of Academic Council are specified in Section 10 of the Regional Technical Colleges Act 1992 as amended by Section 11 the Institutes of Technology Act Refer to Academic Code of Practice No. 1 for the specific provisions Review of Amendments to the Code The effectiveness of the procedure outlined in the Code will be formally reviewed once in the lifetime of every Academic Council. All members of the Institute will be formally invited by the Registrar to provide feedback and make recommendations for improvement. They can do so by informing their Head of Department, Head of Academic Unit or by writing directly to the Registrar. The Registrar will compile an annual report on the Institute's validation, monitoring and review processes and outcomes to the Academic Council. Such a report should form the basis for the development of key performance indicators External Accreditation GMIT may seek accreditation for its programmes from relevant professional bodies including for example Engineers Ireland, Accountancy Bodies, The Teaching Council. 4 *

7 Validation, Monitoring and Review 2 VALIDATION AND AUTHORISATION OF NEW PROGRAMMES LEADING TO MAJOR AWARDS 2.1 INTRODUCTION Validation is the quality assurance process by which GMIT approves new programmes of education and training leading to awards. Specifically, it is the process by which GMIT satisfies itself that a student will attain knowledge, skill or competence for the purpose of an award made by GMIT. Validation is a core function of quality assurance mandated by the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012*. Validation, when implemented rigorously, fairly and transparently, supports public confidence in the quality of programmes and in the standards of awards. It also contributes to the enhancement of the quality of programmes. Authorisation is approval from the Institute s Executive Board to proceed with the development of a proposed programme, and subsequently to offer the programme following a successful validation. 2.2 POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR VALIDATION AND AUTHORISATION OF NEW PROGRAMMES New programmes and related awards are normally proposed within the overall context of an Academic Plan for a College/Centre/Campus/School (hereafter referred to as the Academic Unit ). However, no constraints are placed on the method whereby new programme proposals can originate or on the submission of proposals for consideration. The concept for a new programme could come from a variety of sources, internal or external, including a review of the existing programme portfolio and as a result of changing circumstances or emerging needs. 2.3 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR VALIDATION AND AUTHORISATION There are two separate but interrelated elements involved in the approval of new programme proposals. Validation is primarily concerned with the academic quality of a proposal and is the responsibility of the Academic Council. However, new programmes may have resource and strategic implications for the Institute. As such, the authorisation to proceed with development, and subsequently to offer the programme following a successful validation, is the responsibility of the Executive Board. The approval process should be conducted in accordance with the principles of mutual respect, fairness and Institute norms and requirements. The Registrar shall have a particular responsibility for ensuring that this is the case. * 5

8 Academic Code of Practice No STAGES IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MAJOR AWARDS New programme approval is a five stage process: Stage 1: Preliminary authorisation to proceed with proposed development. Stage 2: Internal validation. Stage 3: External validation. Stage 4: Authorisation to offer the programme. Stage 5: Issue of Certificate of Approval. This process is consistent with the generic quality assurance model promoted by the ESG. A regular review of the process should be conducted by the Registrar during the lifetime of the Academic Council and a report forwarded to Academic Council for consideration. New programmes can only be placed in the prospectus, on the CAO website or CAO Handbook when the Certificate of Approval has been issued by the Registrar (See Stage 5). No marketing or promotion of the programme should take place until this has occurred. Appendix 2 provides an indicative schedule for the process of new programme validation. Stage 1: Preliminary Proposal Authorisation This stage is the responsibility of the Executive Board. The purpose is to authorise the team proposing the programme to proceed to develop a full proposal for validation. The Executive Board will consider the following: the rationale for the proposed programme and related award; consistency with the Institute s mission, strategy and academic plan; likely resourcing requirements and potential viability; expected programme starting date in relation to submission requirements, validation, budgetary considerations, CAO deadline etc. The Preliminary Proposal can be made using the Academic Quality Assurance 1 (AQA1) form (see Appendix 3). The form should be submitted by the relevant Head of Academic Unit to the Registrar for consideration by the Executive Board. The Board can authorise or refuse a proposal, or seek further information from the proposer. Its decision will be formally communicated through the Registrar to the relevant Head of the Academic Unit. Following authorisation by the Executive Board, the sponsoring Academic Unit may proceed to develop a full programme proposal (incorporating the material specified in Appendix 4, using Academic Quality Assurance 2 (AQA2) as a guide). 6

9 Validation, Monitoring and Review Stage 2: Internal Evaluation The purpose of an Internal Validation is to review the academic quality of proposed new programmes. It is intended as a supportive process providing independent, constructive feedback and advice to the promoters, and as a preparation for external validation. The membership of the Internal Validation Panel shall normally consist of the following: A neutral Head of Academic Unit, or the Registrar s nominee as Chairperson. Two members of Academic Council. A member of the Institute s Academic staff nominated by the proposing Head of Academic Unit. If deemed necessary, an external person with knowledge/expertise in areas relevant to the proposal. The Registrar, or nominee shall act as Secretary to the Panel. The new programme proposal (AQA2) will be submitted by the relevant Head of Academic Unit to the Registrar, who shall then convene an Internal Validation Panel and arrange a date for the internal validation meeting. The Internal Validation Panel shall meet with the team proposing the new award/programme, including the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit. The key considerations for the Internal Validation Panel include, inter alia, the following: The rationale and need for the programme. Potential demand for entry into the programme. Employment opportunities and potential demand for graduates. Programme title. Award title, type and level. Duration. Entry requirements, access, transfer and progression. Aims and programme intended learning outcomes, having regard to the level of the award sought in the context of the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and related QQI guidance. Structure of the programme including the proposed Approved Programme Schedule (APS) and the content and sequencing of modules. Relevance and quality of individual module syllabi. Teaching and learning methodologies and approach to assessment, including a programme assessment strategy. Arrangements for programme management. 7

10 Academic Code of Practice No.2 Adequacy of staffing and physical resource requirements. Use of previously approved modules. Number of modules/class contact hours/assessment workload. Potential synergies with existing programmes. The Internal Validation Panel should be particularly interested in the overall coherence, integration and consistency of the proposal. Those who participate in the internal evaluation, the internal panel and the proposing team, will be given the opportunity to provide feedback on the process through their Head of Department and submit to the Registrar and Academic Council. The Internal Validation Panel can approve or reject the programme proposal, or make recommendations to amend the proposal as deemed necessary. The Chairperson of the Internal Validation Panel shall submit a report on the Panel s findings to the Registrar and this will be forwarded to the Head of the Academic Unit concerned normally within two weeks of the review. In the event that the Internal Validation Panel recommends approval subject to revisions to the proposal, these shall be agreed between the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit and the Registrar or nominee within the spirit of the recommendations made in the report. Stage 3: External Validation All new programme proposals shall be subject to external validation by an expert panel nominated by the Registrar, following consultation with the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit. The composition of the External Validation Panel shall be as follows: The Chairperson shall be a senior educationalist, business, or professional person knowledgeable in the relevant disciplinary area of the proposed programme. Two experienced academics in the relevant disciplinary area. An experienced practitioner with necessary knowledge and expertise from the industry/services/professional sector, as appropriate. The Registrar, or the Registrar s nominee, shall act as Secretary to the Panel. In the event that a panel member is unable to attend at short notice, the Registrar shall decide whether the panel should proceed. Ideally, panels shall be gender balanced and every attempt will be made to ensure this is the case. It is the responsibility of the Registrar, or nominee, to make arrangements for the external validation meeting. This should be done in consultation with the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit. In this context, it is the responsibility of the Registrar to brief members of the Validation Panel on their role and to supply them with all necessary and relevant documentation for the validation meeting, on a timely basis. The sponsoring Head of 8

11 Validation, Monitoring and Review Academic Unit is responsible for making all the necessary arrangements relating to the team proposing the new programme. The key considerations for the External Validation Panel include, inter alia, the following: The rationale and need for the programme. Potential demand for entry into the programme. Employment opportunities and potential demand for graduates. Programme title. Award title, type and level. Duration. Entry requirements, access, transfer and progression. Aims and programme intended learning outcomes, having regard to the level of the award sought in the context of the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and related QQI guidance. Structure of the programme including the proposed Approved Programme Schedule (APS) and the content and sequencing of modules. Relevance and quality of individual module syllabi. Teaching and learning methodologies and approach to assessment, including a programme assessment strategy. Arrangements for programme management. Adequacy of staffing and physical resource requirements. Use of previously approved modules. Number of modules/class contact hours/assessment workload. Potential synergies with existing programmes. (Refer to Appendix 5 for External Panel Briefing notes) The External Validation Panel should be particularly interested in the overall coherence, integration and consistency of the proposal. Those who participate in the external validation will be given the opportunity to provide feedback on the process through their Head of Department and submit to the Registrar and Academic Council. At the end of the validation meeting, the Chairperson of the External Validation Panel should make an oral presentation on their findings and conclusions to the proposing team. The Chairperson should indicate whether a recommendation for approval or rejection of the proposed programme is to be made. Key recommendations for modifying the programme, and any special conditions relating to approval, should be outlined. A draft written report of the findings of the External Validation Panel shall be prepared by the Secretary (AQA3, Appendix 6). The draft report will first be approved by the 9

12 Academic Code of Practice No.2 chairperson before being circulated to other members of the panel for their comments and endorsements. The secretary shall incorporate the feedback received from panel members and agree these with the chairperson before finalising the report. A rationale should be provided for the main recommendations and conditions, if any are made. A copy of the panel s final report shall be forwarded to the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit. The Registrar shall notify the Academic Council of the recommendations made by the External Validation Panel and seek its approval for the programme, subject to the modification of the proposed programme as required by the External Validation Panel, and the implementation of any specified special conditions. The Registrar may seek to discuss the response to the conditions with the External Validation Panel. The sponsoring Head of the Academic Unit shall be responsible for submitting an amended award/programme documentation to the Registrar, as required. The Head of Academic Unit shall also undertake to implement any special conditions of approval and to report to the Registrar, normally within two months of receipt of the external panel report. A formal statement from the Registrar to the Academic Council must be made to state that any specified conditions have been met. Stage 4: Authorisation to offer the Programme Following approval by the Academic Council, the Registrar shall notify the Executive Board including drawing their attention to the net additional resources required, if any, to run the programme. The decision to offer the new programme is a matter for the Executive Board having regard to strategic and resource issues. A decision by the Executive Board to authorise the running of a new programme has to be approved by the Governing Body as required by Section 5 (1)a of the Regional Technical Colleges Act 1992 as amended. Stage 5: Issue Certificate of Approval A Certificate of Approval will be issued by the Registrar normally for a period of five years or up to the next Programmatic Review, whichever comes first. On receipt of this Certificate of Approval, the final programme documentation lodged with the Registrar, incorporating any recommended changes, and the Approved Programme Schedule become the official programme documents. It is only at this point that programme promotion may begin. The new programme is included in the QQI Order in Council which documents the GMIT list of approved awards in respect of delegated authority. Details of all new programmes are to be sent to the Higher Education Authority (HEA) by the Registrar. New programmes are required to be provided within the agreed Institute s budget. 10

13 Validation, Monitoring and Review 3 VALIDATION AND AUTHORISATION OF MINOR, SPECIAL PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL AWARDS 3.1 INTRODUCTION The National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) recognises both large and smaller packages of learning. The NFQ recognises four award-types, as follows: Major Awards: the principal class of award made at a Level, e.g. Higher Certificate; Bachelor Degree Level 7 & 8, Masters Degree and PhD. Minor Awards: for partial completion of the outcomes for a Major Award. Special Purpose Awards: for relatively narrow or purpose-specific achievement. Supplemental Awards: for learning that is additional to a Major Award. (QQI, 2013) In relation to these awards: A minimum of 10 credits per named award will apply; The approval process is outlined in Section 3.5 below for Minor, Special Purpose and Supplemental Award-Types; A generic award-type descriptor for GMIT named awards of Minor, Special Purpose and Supplemental Award-Types is included in Appendix 7; These programmes are not marketed through the CAO. 3.2 TITLING CONVENTION The titles of named awards for minor, special purpose and supplemental award-types are important. The titles of these awards should be clearly distinguished in a consistent way from named major awards and from each other so as to enhance understanding and avoid any confusion. These distinctions should be signaled in supporting documentation and communication about the award-types, e.g. The European Diploma Supplement; provider advertising/recruitment material. 3.3 AWARD CLASSIFICATIONS All awards other than research degrees, minor awards, supplemental awards, and SPAs with less than 60 credits shall be classified. Special-purpose awards which have a volume of at least 60 credits and are comparable to a major award (at the same NFQ level) may be classified in accordance with the convention for the relevant major award. Otherwise, awards of this type shall be unclassified (QQI, 2013).* * HETAC (2009). Assessment and Standards. P

14 Academic Code of Practice No ACCREDITATION AND PROGRAMME VALIDATION All programmes leading to minor, special purpose and supplemental awards must undergo a programme validation process, which differs from the major award validation process. The purpose of this validation is to ensure: the programme has coherence worthy of an award in its own right; the range and level of intended learning outcomes specified for the award-type is appropriate and relevant; the level reflects the standard to be attained by students. It is essential that the programme validation process agrees the level at which the award is placed on the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ). A programme validation process must take place even where the proposed programme and award is already part of or linked to a major award. 3.5 STAGES IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MINOR, SPECIAL PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL AWARDS Stage 1: Preliminary Proposal Authorisation Stage 2: Peer Panel Validation Stage 3: Authorisation to offer the Programme Stage 4: Certificate of Approval Stage 1: Preliminary Proposal Authorisation This stage is the responsibility of the Executive Board. The purpose is to authorise the programme promoters to proceed to develop a full proposal for validation. The Executive Board will consider the following: the rationale for the proposed programme and related award; consistency with the Institute s mission, strategy and academic plan; likely resourcing requirements and potential viability; expected programme starting date in relation to submission requirements and validation. The Preliminary Proposal can be made using the Academic Quality Assurance 1 (AQA1) form (Appendix 3). It should also be incorporated in the Academic Plan. The form should be submitted by the relevant Head of Academic Unit to the Executive Board. The Board can authorise or refuse a proposal, or seek further information from the sponsoring Academic Unit. Prior authorisation from the Executive Board shall be required before new programmes shall be submitted for validation. Following such authorisation, the sponsoring Academic Unit may proceed to develop a full programme proposal (incorporating the material specified in Appendix 4, using AQA2 as a guide). 12

15 Validation, Monitoring and Review Stage 2: Peer Panel Validation All new programme proposals shall be subject to validation by an expert panel nominated by the Registrar, following consultation with the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit. The composition of the Peer Validation Panel shall be as follows: The Chairperson shall be an experienced academic and/or practitioner and may be internal or external. Two members of Academic Council. At least one external person with knowledge/expertise in areas relevant to the proposal. The Registrar or nominee will act as Secretary to the panel. A quorum shall be three, which must include the chair and external person. It is the responsibility of the Registrar to make arrangements for the validation meeting. This should be done in consultation with the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit. In this context, it is the responsibility of the Registrar to brief members of the Validation Panel on their role and to supply them with all necessary and relevant documentation for the validation meeting, on a timely basis. The sponsoring Head of Academic Unit is responsible for making all the necessary arrangements relating to the team proposing the new programme. Considerations for the validation panel will include, inter alia, the following: The rationale and need for the programme. Potential demand for entry onto the programme. Employment opportunities and potential demand for graduates. Programme Title. Award title, type and level. Duration. Entry requirements, access, transfer and progression. Aims and programme intended learning outcomes, having regard to the level of the award sought in the context of the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and related QQI guidance. Structure of the programme including the proposed Programme Schedule and the content and sequencing of modules. Relevance and quality of individual module syllabi. Teaching and learning methodologies and approach to assessment, including a programme assessment strategy. Arrangements for programme management. Adequacy of staffing and physical resource requirements. 13

16 Academic Code of Practice No.2 Use of previously approved modules. Number of modules/class contact hours/assessment workload. Potential synergies with existing programmes. The Validation Panel should be particularly interested in the overall coherence, integration and consistency of the proposal. Those who participate in the Validation should be given the opportunity to provide feedback on the process through their Head of Department and submit to the Registrar and Academic Council. At the end of the validation meeting, the Chairperson of the Panel should make an oral presentation on their findings and conclusions to the proposing team. The Chairperson should indicate whether a recommendation for approval or rejection of the proposed programme is to be made. Any recommendations for modifying the programme, and any special conditions relating to approval, should be outlined. A draft written report of the findings of the Panel shall be prepared by the Secretary and agreed by the panel. A rationale should be provided for the main recommendations made. A copy of the panel s final report shall be forwarded to the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit. The Registrar shall notify the Academic Council of the recommendations and conditions made by the Validation Panel and seek its approval for the programme, subject to the modification of the proposed programme as required by the Validation Panel, and the implementation of any specified special conditions. The sponsoring Head of the Academic Unit shall be responsible for submitting an amended award/programme document to the Registrar, as required. The Head of the Academic Unit shall also undertake to implement any special conditions of approval and to report to the Registrar, normally within two months of receipt of the external panel report. A formal statement from the Registrar to the Academic Council must be made to state that any specified conditions have been met. The Registrar may seek to discuss the response to the conditions with the External Validation Panel. Stage 3: Authorisation to offer the programme Following approval by the Academic Council, the Registrar shall notify the Executive Board including drawing their attention to the net additional resources required to run the programme. The decision to offer the new programme is a matter for the Executive Board having regard to strategic and resource issues. A decision by the Executive Board to authorise the running of a new programme has to be approved by the Governing Body as required by Section 5 (1)a of the Regional Technical Colleges Act 1992 as amended. Stage 4: Certificate of Approval A Certificate of Approval will be issued by the Registrar normally for a period of five years or up to the next Programmatic Review, whichever comes first. 14

17 Validation, Monitoring and Review On receipt of this Certificate of Approval, the final programme documentation lodged with the Registrar, incorporating any recommended changes, and the Approved Programme Schedule become the official programme. It is only at this point that programme promotion may begin. The Registrar shall send a copy of the Certificate of Approval and the evaluation report to QQI and request that the new programme is included in the QQI Order in Council which documents the GMIT list of approved awards in respect of delegated authority. Details of all new programmes are to be sent to the Higher Education Authority (HEA) by the Registrar. New programmes should be provided within the agreed budget. 15

18 Academic Code of Practice No.2 4 DIFFERENTIAL VALIDATION 4.1 CHANGES TO PROGRAMMES All proposed new programmes and awards must be validated in accordance with the policy and procedures outlined in Sections 2 and 3 of this Code. Academic Council recognises that a validated programme is not a static construct. It is expected that Programme Boards may seek periodically to make changes to aspects of the programme based on the experience of delivery and in the context of an evolving environment. The validity of proposed changes should be considered in the context of the effectiveness of the programme in facilitating students to achieve the intended programme learning outcomes. There are limits, however, to what may be changed. Any extensive and substantial changes that essentially result in a new programme and award must be validated de novo. The interpretation of what does or does not constitute an extensive and substantial change to a programme is a matter of professional judgement. Proposed changes to an award title and proposed material changes to the minimum intended programme learning outcomes would fall within this category. Any proposed change which run contrary to the underlying aims, ethos and/or rationale of the programme and/or which would undermine anything which was essential to the original validation decision would also be judged to be an extensive and substantial change. Proposed changes to programmes other than those judged extensive and substantial may be made through the Academic Council in accordance with a differential validation process or through the processes outlined in s5 of this Code. 4.2 DIFFERENTIAL VALIDATION Differential validation should apply in cases where significant structural changes are proposed to a programme, but the changes do not run contrary to the aims, ethos, rationale and/or minimum intended learning outcomes of the programme, and are consistent with the original validation report (or with a subsequent re-validation report following a programme review). An example of such a change may be the conversion of a 3+1 offering into an ab initio Level 8 programme retaining the existing award title and without materially changing the minimum intended programme learning outcomes. Another example might be the addition of a new elective strand to a programme consistent with the minimum intended programme learning outcomes. A third example might be a significant re-distribution and re-sequencing of content without altering the fundamentals of the programme and consistent with the minimum intended programme learning outcomes. The interpretation of what does or does not constitute significant structural changes to a programme is a matter of professional judgement. Ultimately, it will be the Academic Council, acting on the advice of the Standards Committee and independent external 16

19 Validation, Monitoring and Review expert opinion (if deemed necessary), that will adjudicate in this regard. In the event that there is any doubt about the extent of the impact of the proposed changes on the basis of the original validation (or subsequent revalidation following programme review) then a new validation process should be undertaken. Procedures for proposed amendments to Approved Programme Schedules and for the validation on new single modules are outlined in Section 5 of this Code. 4.3 DIFFERENTIAL VALIDATION AND COLLABORATIVE PROVISION All programmes and awards offered through collaborative provision require validation. In certain cases, however, the differential validation process may apply. Policy and procedures relating to collaborative provision are specified in a separate Institute Code, Collaborative Provision including Transnational Collaborative Provision and Joint Awards (as agreed by Academic Council on 13th February 2015 and by the Governing Body on 19th February 2015). 4.4 DIFFERENTIAL VALIDATION PROCESS A Programme Board may apply to the Registrar, through the relevant Head of Academic Unit, for proposed changes to a programme, or a suite of related programmes, to be considered through a differential validation process. Whether the differential validation process should apply is a matter for the Registrar to decide in the first instance. The Academic Council should be informed about all such decisions. In the event of any doubt, or if the judgement of the Registrar is disputed by the Head of Aacdemic Unit or the Programme Board, the matter will be referred to the Academic Council for adjudication. Differential validation will be approached with the same high level of rigour as a full validation. Applications for differential validation must systematically analyse and explain the proposed changes and their impact on the programme. The Programme Board will provide the Registrar with full programme documentation. In addition, the Board will provide a summary of the proposed changes and a comprehensive explanation of the reasons for the proposed changes. The proposed changes to the programme shall be subject to review by an expert panel nominated by the Registrar, following consultation with the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit. The composition of the differential Validation Panel shall be as follows: The Chairperson shall be an experienced academic and/or practitioner and may be internal or external. Two members of Academic Council. At least one external person with knowledge/expertise in areas relevant to the proposal. The Registrar or nominee will act as Secretary to the panel. 17

20 Code of Student Conduct A quorum shall be three, which must include the Chair and external person. It is the responsibility of the Registrar to make arrangements for the validation meeting. This should be done in consultation with the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit. In this context, it is the responsibility of the Registrar to brief members of the Panel on their role and to supply them with all necessary and relevant documentation for the differential validation meeting, on a timely basis. The sponsoring Head of Academic Unit is responsible for making all the necessary arrangements relating to the Programme Board. At the end of the validation meeting, the Chairperson of the Panel should make an oral presentation on their findings and conclusions to the proposing team. The Chairperson should indicate whether a recommendation for approval or rejection of the proposed programme changes is to be made. A draft written report of the findings of the Panel shall be prepared by the Secretary and agreed by the Panel. A rationale should be provided for the recommendations made. A copy of the Panel s final report shall be forwarded to the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit. The Registrar shall notify the Academic Council of the recommendations made by the Panel. The Registrar shall notify the Academic Council of the recommendations made by the External Validation Panel and seek its approval for the amended programme, subject to the modification of the proposed programme as required by the Validation Panel, and the implementation of any specified special conditions. The Registrar may seek to discuss the response to the conditions with the Validation Panel. The sponsoring Head of the Academic Unit shall be responsible for submitting an amended award/programme documentation to the Registrar, as required. The Head of Academic Unit shall also undertake to implement any special conditions of approval and to report to the Registrar, normally within two months of receipt of the panel report. A formal statement from the Registrar to the Academic Council must be made to state that any specified conditions have been met. Following approval by the Academic Council, the Registrar shall notify the Executive Board including drawing their attention to the net additional resources required, if any, to run the programme. The decision to offer the amended programme is a matter for the Executive Board having regard to strategic and resource issues. A decision by the Executive Board to authorise the running of a new programme has to be approved by the Governing Body as required by Section 5 (1)a of the Regional Technical Colleges Act 1992 as amended. 8 Code of Academic Practice No. 6 on Recognition of Prior Learning, RPL, 18

21 Validation, Monitoring and Review 5 AMENDING AN APPROVED PROGRAMME SCHEDULE AND NEW MODULES 5.1 All proposed changes to programmes/awards require the approval of the Academic Council. The normal protocol for making changes is Programmatic Review. Changes to modules should be infrequent outside this timeframe. Any proposed amendments to a programme or a module must first be considered by the Programme Board and decisions recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The Registrar has the authority to agree changes in the allocation of marks or changes in the breakdown of contact hours having regard to the Academic Unit policy and similarly to agree the addition of pre-approved modules as electives. For other proposed changes, the Registrar has the following authority: a) To agree the proposed changes and notify the Programme Amendments Committee and the Academic Council. b) To refer the proposals directly to the Programme Amendments Committee for consideration. 5.2 PROCESS The process is as follows: Programme Boards should include proposals for changes to programmes/awards as an agenda item for a meeting. Any proposals for changes agreed by the Programme Board should be submitted by the relevant Head of Academic Unit to the Registrar, accompanied by all the relevant documentation (see 5.4 and Appendix 8). The Registrar shall decide which proposals require the opinion of the Programme Amendments Committee. The Registrar shall inform the Programme Amendments Committee of those proposals submitted directly to the Academic Council. A Head of Academic Unit or Head of Department or promoter are invited to attend the Programme Amendments Committee meetings to discuss the proposed amendment. 5.3 All requests for changes must be submitted by the date specified in the Operations Calendar for changes taking effect from a subsequent academic year. This date should be agreed by the Academic Council in advance of publishing the Operations Calendar. Requests for immediate application will not be considered without the express approval of the Registrar. Applications of this type must be made to the Registrar in writing by the Head of Academic Unit, specifying a very strong case for early consideration. 5.4 Each request for an amendment to an Approved Programme Schedule must provide the following information: 19

22 Academic Code of Practice No.2 programme name; the minutes of the Programme Board where the change is recommended; the reason(s) for the proposed change(s); a summary of the proposed change(s); a copy of the existing Approved Programme Schedule; a copy of the proposed Approved Programme Schedule; a copy of the Programme intended learning outcomes, where these are affected by the proposed change; new and old module descriptors where appropriate. Requests for amendments to programmes will not be considered by Academic Council, or any of its sub-committees, if the required information listed above is not provided. Appendix 8 gives further details of the process for requesting changes to modules or programme schedules. 5.5 Academic Council may approve any change recommended by the Programme Amendments Committee. However, where the change will require net additional resources to be made available (i.e. additional hours), the Executive Board must be briefed on the proposal by the Registrar and their approval sought before the change can be approved. 5.6 The minutes of Academic Council are the official record of all authorised changes which are circulated to all Heads of Academic Units / Departments. Approved changes are communicated to the Heads of Academic Units and the Office for Academic Affairs by the Registrar. The Registrar will arrange for changes to be made to the Approved Programme Schedules on the Banner System. The Registrar will place any approved changes on the official programme files. Heads of Academic Units and Heads of Departments should also update their files. 5.7 VALIDATION OF SINGLE MODULES It is possible to validate new modules as electives or as Institute-wide common modules. A new single module should be evaluated by the Programme Amendments Committee and subject to the approval of Academic Council. The Programme Amendments Committee has discretion to seek an external opinion if deemed necessary. A single module, if 10 credits or more, cannot be classified as a Minor, Special Purpose or Supplemental Award without going through the approval process outlined in Section 3.5 above. 20

23 Validation, Monitoring and Review 6 PROGRAMME MONITORING 6.1 OVERVIEW Section 28 of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012 requires that GMIT establish procedures in writing for quality assurance for the purposes of establishing, ascertaining, maintaining and improving the quality of education, training, research and related services. Ongoing monitoring of programmes is essential to ensure that academic quality and standards are being maintained. GMIT will monitor each programme on an ongoing basis to ensure: that the programme intended learning outcomes are being attained by students; the continuing appropriateness of the curriculum, pedagogy and assessment in relation to the intended learning outcomes; that programmes remain current and valid in the light of developing knowledge in the discipline and practice in application; that issues arising in relation to the academic quality of programme design, delivery and assessment are identified and addressed on a timely basis. The responsibility for managing and ensuring the quality of academic processes, in accordance with Institute policy, lies with the Heads of Academic Units and with Programme Boards. Individual members of staff are required to co-operate with the quality management procedures within the academic structures. The Institute will review and evaluate the effectiveness of programme monitoring processes on a regular and systematic basis. 6.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER AT GMIT 6.3 THE HEAD OF ACADEMIC UNIT RESPONSIBILITY The Academic Unit within GMIT is a College/Centre/Campus/School. The activities within each Academic Unit are organised into Departments. The Head of Academic Unit has overall responsibility for all programmes/awards in the Academic Unit. This includes responsibility for: strategic planning, implementation, and co-ordination of academic and related processes; staffing and other resource requirements; programme development and management of change. The Head of Department has responsibility for all programmes/awards in his/her Department including, the day-to-day delivery of programmes, timetabling, and ensuring the ongoing quality and continued development of programmes. Academic and support staff are assigned to a Department and are responsible to the Head of Department for the proper carrying out of individual duties. 21

24 Academic Code of Practice No.2 The responsibility of the Head of Academic Unit for reporting to Academic Council on all programmes in her/his unit is specified in Section 6.6 below. 6.4 PROGRAMME BOARDS Programme Board Membership A Programme Board shall be established for each programme and/or group of programmes and/or awards, consisting of all lecturers on the programme(s), the Head of Academic Unit, the Head of Department, and at least two students per stage/year (with gender balance where possible) of the programme Programme Board Responsibilities A Programme Board shall monitor the design, delivery, academic standards, students performance and academic development of programmes and awards. The specific responsibilities of a Programme Board include, inter alia: specifying quality objectives for the programme; ensuring that programme details are made available to students in whatever format is deemed appropriate, ideally in the form of a Programme Handbook (Appendix 9 below outlines the suggested contents of such a Handbook); recommending suitable candidates to act as external examiners; reviewing external examiners reports and addressing recommendations; monitoring the results achieved by students and taking or advising appropriate action when required; reviewing retention and attrition rates and taking or advising appropriate action when required; reviewing student feedback on the programme and taking or advising appropriate action when required; reviewing and amending the Programme Assessment Strategy as appropriate, ensuring in particular that the balance and spread of work imposed upon the student is reasonable; assessing the resourcing requirements for the programme and advising the Institute executive accordingly; preparing a list of texts for library purchase and the equipment to be acquired within an agreed budget; preparing a Programme Board Annual Report; attending and participating in the Progression and Award Board (PAB); engagement with Programmatic and Institutional Reviews. Decisions of Programme Boards are advisory in nature and should be referred to the Head of Department and/or the Head of Academic Unit for approval prior to implementation. In the event that a Programme Board activity and/or proposal is inconsistent with, or 22

25 Validation, Monitoring and Review requires a change to, academic policy, it will require the approval of the Academic Council. In the event that a Programme Board activity and/or proposal has additional resource implications for the Institute, it must be approved by the Executive Board Programme Board Officers Each Programme Board shall have a Chair and a Secretary. In addition, Board members may be appointed as liaison officers for particular stages/years of the programme. The Board shall nominate and elect members to the positions of Chair and Secretary at its first meeting early in the academic year (in September/October). The positions of Chair and Secretary should normally rotate among members of the Programme Board on a three-year basis. In the event that the Board fails to nominate/elect a Chair and/or Secretary, the Head of Academic Unit or the Head of Department shall appoint, by consultation, Board members to these positions. The first meeting of the Board in the academic year will be chaired by the existing Chair or, if that person is unavailable, by the Head of Department/ Head of Academic Unit. The position of Chair and Secretary will be ratified by the Programme Board at the first meeting Specific Duties of Programme Board Officers The Chair shall: chair meetings of the Programme Board; consult with student representatives in advance of the meeting; ensure standing orders are implemented; advise the Head of Academic Unit/Head of Department on issues arising from the Programme Board meetings. The Secretary shall: schedule and organise the meetings of the Programme Board for the year in consultation with the Chair; prepare and disseminate an agenda and draft minutes of Programme Board meetings on a timely basis. Members of the Programme Board appointed as stage/year liaison officers shall: liaise, on a regular basis, with students in the programme stage/ year designated to them; bring to the attention of the Programme Board and/or the Head of Department/Head of Academic Unit matters of concern in that particular stage/year Programme Board Meetings Formal meetings of the Programme Board shall be held at least three times in the academic year - once in each term. Minutes of each meeting shall be prepared and 23

26 Academic Code of Practice No.2 submitted to the Head of Department. Each meeting shall have an agenda and the following items would normally be included: For the first term meeting: Review of External Examiners Reports. Review of student feedback on the programme, and of any other stakeholder feedback on the programme received. Review of Summer/Autumn examination results. Schedule for student assessments for the academic year. Resource requirements. Annual Report for preceding academic year. Student Engagement and Retention. For the second term meeting: Review of the programme design, delivery and assessment. Review of the Programme Assessment Strategy. Retention Report. Module Performance Reports. Careers Survey. Student Engagement and Retention. New Student Induction. Planning for the next academic year, including student induction. For the meeting prior to Progression and Awards Board: Review of draft examination results (refer to Code No. 3). Other items should be considered on the agenda for each meeting as deemed necessary and appropriate Programme Board Annual Report Programme Boards have responsibility for preparing an Annual Report. The Head of Department is responsible for ensuring that the reports are prepared within an agreed timeframe and that all appropriate follow-on actions are taken. It is the overall responsibility of the Head of Academic Unit to ensure that this is done. A Programme Board s Annual Report can be prepared in a standard format (Appendix 10) or in another format deemed more appropriate. An Annual Report would normally be expected to include the following content: A general review of the programme for the year, including enrolment, attrition and examination results (data to be provided by the Head of Department). Summary of and follow-up on External Examiners comments, including issues to be addressed in the following academic year. 24

27 Validation, Monitoring and Review An outline of the key actions to be taken in the coming academic year. These may include: issues relating to programme delivery; actions to be taken to remedy identified weaknesses in the programme; actions to be taken arising from student feedback; resource issues and any other relevant academic matter. Where programmes do not meet Institute attrition and retention targets, specification of the actions to be taken. Any other general comments and recommendations deemed appropriate for inclusion by the Programme Board Student Representation on Programme Boards There shall be at least two registered students per stage/year of the programme (with gender balance where possible) on each Programme Board. They will be elected by registered students from each stage/year of the programme using whatever procedure the Students Union recommends. Training will be available for the student representatives regarding their role on Programme Boards. The Chairs of Programme Boards will consult with the student representatives in advance of Programme Board meetings to see if there are any items the representatives wish to have discussed. Programme Boards should not be used by student representatives to make complaints about particular staff members or about other students. Any such complaints should be dealt with through the normal mechanisms and established channels, including the Student Complaints Procedure. Where a Programme Board needs to consider the personal details of a student these should be discussed as the last item on the Programme Board agenda prior to which the student representatives should be asked to leave. No examination results shall be discussed in the presence of student representatives. 6.5 STUDENT FEEDBACK Legal Obligation Under Section 28 of Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012, GMIT is obliged to have programmes of education and training evaluated by students of that programme and the evaluation of support services related to that programme Academic Unit/Student Liaison Committee An Academic Unit/Student Liaison Committee shall be established consisting of two student representatives for each stage/year of each programme within the Academic Unit, the various programme Chairs, the Head of Department and the Head of Academic Unit. Its purpose is to hear student views on any aspect of their programmes and to identify areas of concern to class groups. 25

28 Academic Code of Practice No.2 It shall meet a minimum of once a term. The Head of Academic Unit is responsible for convening and chairing the meetings. In some cases, an Academic Unit may decide to hold these meetings on a Departmental basis. Any personal complaint about a staff member shall not be discussed in this forum, but it can be addressed though the appropriate channels Student Feedback Surveys of students shall be undertaken at the end of a programme as follows: Module Evaluation will be carried out by each lecturer at the end of a module using QA1 form (Appendix 11) or another appropriate means. Each lecturer will provide a summary of the survey results to the Heads of Department (Appendix 12, QA2). An end of stage/year Programme Survey (Appendix 13, QA3) dealing with aspects of the overall programme, including facilities and services, is to be carried out by the Head of Department or nominee. Alternative survey mechanisms can be employed, as directed by the Institute, aligned to National policy. Heads of Departments and Heads of Academic Units are obliged to ensure that this feedback is obtained in accordance with the agreed requirements. Heads of Departments should provide feedback to Programme Boards on the QA2s and QA3s. 6.6 HEAD OF ACADEMIC UNIT REPORT TO ACADEMIC COUNCIL The Head of Academic Unit shall submit an annual overview report on the programmes in his/her Unit to the Academic Council, through the Registrar, on an agreed date to be published in the Operations Calendar. The report should: Confirm that all Programme Boards met three times a year. Confirm that the student surveys (as specified in above) were carried out. Confirm that each Programme Board submitted an Annual Report. Specify the actions taken by the Unit as a result of the Programme Board Annual Reports. Specify any issues which should be brought to the attention of Academic Council. In particular, the report shall focus on programmes which do not meet the agreed Institute norms for retention and progression. The report shall be considered by the Academic Council each year and responsive actions will be initiated where necessary. 6.7 INSTITUTE ANNUAL ATTRITION REPORT The Registrar will prepare an Institute Annual Retention Report each year for consideration by the Academic Council before Christmas each year. 26

29 Validation, Monitoring and Review 6.8 SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF A PROGRAMME The introduction of new programmes and discontinuation of others are considered in the preparation of the Academic Plan. Suspension refers to temporarily ceasing to offer a programme of study. Termination refers to the permanent cessation of offering a programme of study The criteria to be used collectively in a decision to suspend or terminate a programme are as follows: student demand for the programme; enrolment numbers; registered numbers as of 1st March of previous year if programme was running; retention numbers; common modules; financial considerations; employment opportunities; contribution to regional development; alignment to Academic Unit/Institute Strategy. The normal procedures to be adopted in such a decision are as follows: review by Executive Board; consultation with Programme Board/Department/School; decision of the Executive Board; advice and recommendation of the Academic Council; approval of the Governing Body. In special and exceptional circumstances, a decision to suspend a programme may have to be made without the consultation process. This may arise if, for example, the Institute found that there were an insufficient number of qualified applicants for the first year of a programme when the CAO application data became available in August. This would require an immediate decision following discussion between the President, Registrar and Head of Academic Unit concerned. Any such decision would require endorsement by the Executive Board and the approval of the Governing Body at its next meeting. 27

30 Academic Code of Practice No.2 7 PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW 7.1 OVERVIEW Section 28 of The Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012 requires that GMIT establish procedures for the evaluation at regular intervals of its programmes of education and training. The Act also requires that GMIT furnish a report to QQI and provide for the publication of findings arising out of the evaluation Programmatic review involves a periodic, formal, systematic, comprehensive and reflective review and evaluation of each programme and award offered by the Institute for purposes of programme development, quality enhancement and revalidation. It is an important means of ensuring and assuring, inter alia: that required academic standards are being attained; that programmes and awards remain relevant and viable; that student needs, including academic and labour-market needs, are addressed; that the quality of programmes and awards is enhanced and improved; public confidence in the quality of GMIT s programmes and awards. The Programmatic Review process will involve a self-evaluation by each Programme Board followed by an external peer review. It is intended to be a positive, open, constructive and collegial process, designed to encourage and support active academic engagement with internal and external peers, and with relevant stakeholders, in the review, evaluation and development of programmes and awards. The active participation of students in all phases is an integral part of Programmatic Review in GMIT, as recommended by the European Association for Quality Assurance (ENQA). Programmatic Review is conducted under the auspices of the Academic Council. It will be carried out at least once every seven years, or as the Academic Council may direct from time to time. Programme Boards will be supported as necessary in the review process by the management of the Academic Unit (College/Centre/Campus/School) within which the programme is offered The Registrar, in consultation with the Heads of Academic Units, will draft a schedule for the review of all programmes and awards offered by GMIT. The Registrar should ensure that sufficient time is allocated for the satisfactory review of each programme and award. This proposed schedule will be presented to the Academic Council for approval Proposed new programmes and awards must be evaluated separately in accordance with the policy and procedures outlined in sections 2 and 3 of this Code (full, special purpose, minor and supplemental). 28

31 Validation, Monitoring and Review Proposed programme and award change outside of the Programmatic Review process will be considered in accordance with the policy and procedures outlined in sections 4 and 5 of this Code. 7.2 OBJECTIVES OF PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW The objective of a Programmatic Review is to review the development of the programme over the previous five to seven years, with particular emphasis on the achievement and improvement of educational quality. The focus is principally on the evaluation of quality and the flexibility of the programmes responses to changing needs in light of the validation criteria and relevant awards standards. In particular, a Programmatic Review seeks to confirm that the promise evidenced at the original validation (or since the last Programmatic Review) in terms of academic quality, relevance and viability has been realised, and that the programme is adapting appropriately to evolving circumstances. The specific objectives of a Programmatic Review are, inter alia, to: analyse and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the programme, including details of student numbers, retention rates and success rates; review the development of the programme in the context of the requirements of employers, industry, professional bodies, the Irish economy and international developments; evaluate the response of the programme to regional and societal requirements and to educational developments; evaluate the feedback mechanisms for students and the processes for acting on this feedback; review the feedback from students relating to the student experience of the programme; evaluate stakeholder engagement including links and collaboration with industry, business and the wider community; review feedback from employers and graduates; evaluate the physical facilities and resources provided for the provision of the programme; review any research activities in the field of learning in the disciplinary areas and their impact on teaching and learning; consider likely future developments in the disciplinary areas; make proposals in relation to updating programmes and modules, and to discontinuing programmes or parts of programmes. The exploration of opportunities and related proposals by programme boards to develop new programmes and awards should be a part of the review process. 29

32 Academic Code of Practice No PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW PROCESS Each Programmatic Review will be undertaken in two phases: Self-Evaluation Review (SER). External Peer Review (EPR) Phase 1: Self-Evaluation Review (SER) Self-Evaluation Review (SER) is an internal process involving each Programme Board undertaking a comprehensive and reflective self-study review and evaluation of their programme and award. The output from the review process will be a SER Report. The SER should be conducted in accordance with established international good practice. It requires the active participation of all academic staff involved in the delivery of the programme and of student representatives. It will involve consultations with outside stakeholders, including graduates, employers and community representatives. It should involve consultation with those involved in the provision of essential support services including library and information services, careers services and counseling services. It should involve consideration of the regional and social environmental context of the programme, of any relevant market research, and of developments and research findings in the discipline and profession concerned. The SER will incorporate an analysis of the Programme Board experience of providing the programme since the validation or the last review, informed by stakeholder consultation and developments in the discipline and professional practice. In this context, it will focus on a number of key underlying concerns: the overall validity, coherence, integration and consistency of the programme aims, intended learning outcomes and structure; the manner in which intended learning outcomes are being achieved; proposed changes (if any) to improve the programme and award in terms of design, delivery and assessment. In particular, the SER should include a review and evaluation of the following: programme aims, rationale and history; minimum intended programme learning outcomes and their compliance with the relevant awards standard(s); prerequisite learning for participation in the programme and any other assumptions relating to the programme s target student cohort; access, transfer and progression; programme structure including balance of content and inter-relatedness, module titles and sequencing; developments and changes since the validation or previous Programmatic Review; module intended learning outcomes and prerequisite requirements; 30

33 Validation, Monitoring and Review pedagogy, including teaching and learning strategies employed; programme and module assessment strategies; external examiner reports and follow-up actions taken; recruitment statistics, retention rates, pass rates; statistics on graduation and classification of awards; the operation and effectiveness of current quality assurance procedures; particular strengths and weaknesses of the programme, benchmarked against other similar programmes and considering developments in the discipline and professional practice; links with relevant industry and/or professional bodies; profile of teaching staff; the operation of the programme board; the level and appropriateness of resources available for programme delivery. The SER should also be used by programme boards to identify opportunities and signal proposals for related new programme and award development. The SER Report should be a comprehensive programme document including specification of programme aims, intended learning outcomes, the Approved Programme Schedule, proposed changes to the programme, pedagogy and assessment, admission criteria, module descriptors, and resource requirements. It should also outline details of the SER process, including an outline of the nature and findings of the consultation undertaken with stakeholders. The Registrar will agree dates with the relevant Head of Academic Unit for the submission of the SER Report Phase 2: External Peer Review (EPR) Following the SER, each programme will be subject to an External Peer Review (EPR) process. This involves convening a panel of independent external experts to comprehensively review each programme and award and consider it for re-validation. The external evaluation should be conducted in accordance with established international good practice regarding external quality evaluation in higher education and training institutions. It should be a process of co-operation, consultation and advice between the external independent experts and the programme board, and it should be conducted in a spirit of collegiality, mutual respect and fairness. In practice the following principles of good practice should apply: an external peer review panel will review each programme separately; panels should have the necessary academic and professional competence to undertake the review; 31

34 Academic Code of Practice No.2 normally the composition of the external peer review panel will mirror the composition of the original validation panel; programmes of the same disciplinary nature should preferably be reviewed by the same panel; the EPR should be undertaken at the programme delivery site. The membership of an External Peer Review Panel (EPRP) will normally be as outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Membership of External Peer Review Panel Role Level of expertise required Nominated by Chairperson A senior educationalist or business/professional person Secretary GMIT Registrar (or nominee ) President Member Member Member Member An academic from the IoT sector with appropriate expertise. A university academic with appropriate expertise. A professional practitioner with appropriate experience. An Institute graduate from the disciplinary area with a minimum of one year s postgraduate experience. Registrar in consultation with Head of Academic Unit Registrar in consultation with Head of Academic Unit Registrar in consultation with Head of Academic Unit Registrar in consultation with Head of Academic Unit Ideally, panels shall be gender balanced and every attempt will be made to ensure this is the case. The Registrar shall establish the EPRP in consultation with the relevant Head of Academic Unit, composed as shown in Table 1. It is the responsibility of the Registrar to make arrangements for the EPR meeting. This should be done in consultation with the relevant Head of Academic Unit. It is also the responsibility of the Registrar to brief members of the EPRP on their role and to supply them with all necessary and relevant documentation, on a timely basis. Specific functions of the EPRP include, inter alia, the following: to review the programme SER Report and the underlying process; to visit the Institute at the programme delivery site and meet with the programme staff to discuss the SER Report, and all related aspects of programme activities, performance, position, and proposed development; to clarify the contents of the SER Report; to meet with programme support staff, students, graduates, employers and other stakeholders; 32

35 Validation, Monitoring and Review to consider how well the identified aims and objectives of the programme are being met; to consider the quality assurance arrangements which affect the programme; to consider the merits of proposed programme changes and quality enhancements; to review the facilities available for delivering the programme and to consider any other issues relevant to the successful provision of the programme. At the end of the EPR meeting, the Chairperson of the Panel will make an oral presentation on the panel s findings and conclusions to the proposing programme board team. The Chairperson should indicate whether a recommendation for re-validation or for withdrawal of validation for the programme is to be made. Conditions, if any, relating to approval and recommendations, if any, for modifying the programme should be outlined with supporting rationale. 7.4 EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW PANEL (EPRP) REPORT The EPRP Report should address the quality of the provision and make recommendations for improvement, and/or change, based on a combination of the SER, and findings during the site visit. It should also include a recommendation: positive, negative or conditional, in respect of the continuing validation of the programme and award. A rationale should be provided for any conditions imposed and for the main recommendations that are made. The report should specify the duration of re-validation recommended, not to exceed seven years A draft written report of the findings of the EPRP shall be prepared by the Secretary. The draft report will first be approved by the Chairperson before being circulated to other members of the EPRP for their comments and endorsement. If any member objects to an item, this should be noted in the report. The Secretary shall incorporate the feedback received from EPRP members into a revised draft report subject to the agreement of the Chairperson. A copy of the panel s revised draft report shall be forwarded to the sponsoring Head of Academic Unit for comment on issues of factual accuracy. Following this, the report shall be finalised by the Secretary subject to the approval of the Chairperson. The Registrar shall submit the EPRP Report for adoption by the Academic Council. It will then be submitted for adoption by the Governing Body, forwarded to QQI and published on the Institute s website Proposed timelines for the EPRP Report generation are as follows: agreement on the draft report between the Secretary and Chairperson within two weeks of the Programmatic Review site meeting; draft report forwarded to members of the EPRP and incorporation of members feedback into the report within six weeks of the Programmatic Review site meeting; 33

36 Academic Code of Practice No.2 revised draft report forwarded by the Secretary to the Head of Academic Unit for comment on factual accuracy within two months of the Programmatic Review site meeting; response from the Head of Academic Unit on issues of factual accuracy within one month of receipt of the revised draft report; EPRP Report finalised for submission to Academic Council within one month of receipt of factual accuracy response from the Head of Academic Unit. 7.5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND MONITORING The Head of the Academic Unit will submit a response to the report to include an implementation plan within four weeks of the Academic Council meeting that considered the EPRP Report. The Academic Council has responsibility for ensuring that the recommendations of the Report are implemented. The Head of Academic Unit shall agree a timeframe with the Registrar for the implementation of the recommendations. On completion of the implementation plan, an updated electronic copy of each programme document shall be lodged in the Registrar s office on behalf of the Institute. In accordance with the Act, GMIT shall provide for the publication of findings arising out of the evaluation. The implementation plan devised by the Academic Unit and arising from the Programmatic Review report should include specific achievable actions with specified outcomes and timelines. The date of implementation of the changes should be clearly identified, and include specific detail on the phasing in of changes proposed and in particular identify transition issues which should be addressed. A formal statement from the Registrar to the Academic Council must be made to state that any specified conditions have been met. The EPRP Report and the related Implementation Plan will provide a basis for monitoring the relevant programme. The Head of Academic Unit will be required to present an annual progress report on implementation to the Academic Council. Those who participate in Programmatic Review should be given the opportunity to provide feedback on the process. 34

37 Validation, Monitoring and Review 8 SUPPORT SERVICES AND FACILITIES REVIEW 8.1 Section 28 of the 2012 Act requires that GMIT shall establish procedures for the review at regular intervals of the services related to its programmes of education and training. This review should include an external evaluation by persons who are competent to make national and international comparisons. The Act provides that GMIT shall provide for the publication of findings arising out of the evaluation. 8.2 GMIT s provision of high quality educational experiences and awards is enabled by a range of support services and facilities including: Academic Affairs Building & Estates Computing Services Finance Human Resources International Office Library Lifelong Learning Office Marketing, Communications & School Liaison Research Office Student Services 8.3 PROCESS FOR EVALUATING SUPPORT SERVICES GMIT will review the effectiveness of each function on a cyclical basis. The main elements of the review will be a self-evaluation and an external peer review process. This review of support services will focus on the contribution of each of the services and how they can be developed to enhance the quality of provision to learners, staff and all stakeholders. The review of facilities should include the examination of GMIT s equipment and other facilities, to ensure their continuing adequacy and fitness for purpose. 8.4 STAGE 1: SELF EVALUATION The self-evaluation will be led by the Head of Function and will involve all members of staff involved in the support service. A template that may be used for the Functional Review Self-Evaluation Report (SER) is contained in Appendix 14. The review should be evidence based, involve consultation with relevant parties, benchmarking with other institutes and be reflective. It should propose changes to enhance development and quality assurance, outlining the reasons for these. The self-evaluation will encompass: the objectives, functions, activities and processes of the support service; its management organisation and staffing; 35

38 Academic Code of Practice No.2 staff development; physical facilities; communication and information systems; planning and decision making; internal and external engagement; quality assurance. 8.5 STAGE 2: EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW External Peer Review - This involves inviting a panel of external experts to visit GMIT to review the services and facilities using the Self-Evaluation Report as a basis, and to meet staff and students as well as to view the facilities available and consider other relevant issues. The external panel will consist of: The Chairperson who shall be a senior educationalist Two external experts with experience in the functional area A representative of the Support Service s stakeholders Nominee of the President who will normally be the Registrar Ideally, panels should be gender balanced and every attempt will be made to ensure this is the case. In the event that a panel member is unable to attend at short notice, the Registrar shall decide whether the panel should proceed. The role of the external peer review panel shall be as follows: Visit the Function to meet with staff, user representatives and other stakeholders, institute management and review facilities. Consider the SER as a basis for discussion and address any perceived gaps in the report. Comment on the appropriateness of the Support Service s mission, objectives and strategic plan. Verify and report on how well the aims and objectives of the Support Services are being met having regard to the available resources. Make recommendations having due regard to resource implications. Present key findings at the end of the visit and prepare a peer review report. The External Peer Review Panel (EPRP) Report should address the quality of the provision and make recommendations for improvement, and/or change, based on a combination of the SER, and findings during the site visit. A draft written report of the findings of the EPRP shall be prepared by the Secretary. The draft report will first be approved by the Chairperson before being circulated to other members of the EPRP for their comments and endorsement. If any member objects to an item, this should be noted in the report. The Secretary shall incorporate the feedback 36

39 Validation, Monitoring and Review received from EPRP members into a revised draft report subject to the agreement of the Chairperson. A copy of the panel s revised draft report shall be forwarded to the Head of Function for comment on issues of factual accuracy. Following this, the report shall be finalised by the Secretary subject to the approval of the Chairperson. The Registrar shall submit the EPRP Report to the Executive Board for review and then to the Academic Council for advice, and finally to the Governing Body. The Head of Function will submit a response to the report to include an implementation plan within four weeks of the Academic Council meeting that considered the EPRP Report. The Academic Council has responsibility for ensuring that the recommendations of the Report are implemented. The Head of Function shall agree a timeframe with the Registrar for the implementation of the recommendations. The implementation plan devised by the Support Service and arising from the Programmatic Review report should include specific achievable actions with specified outcomes and timelines. GMIT shall provide for the publication of findings arising out of the evaluation. The EPRP Report and the related Implementation Plan will provide a basis for monitoring the relevant support service. The Head of Function will be required to present an annual progress report on implementation. Those who participate in Support Services and Facilities Review should be given the opportunity to provide feedback on the process. 37

40 Academic Code of Practice No.2 9 INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW 9.1 CONTEXT The Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) will carry out an Institutional Review of GMIT on a cyclical basis. The terms of reference for institutional reviews will normally incorporate prescribed statutory review functions, particularly those provided for in Section 34 (review of the effectiveness of agreed quality assurance procedures) and Section 54 (review of delegation of authority) of the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act The process and procedures will be guided by the Handbook for the Cyclical Review of Institutes of Technology (2017). Institutional Review is an element of the broader quality framework for Institutes of Technology. It is interdependent on and integrated with a wider range of QQI engagements: Quality Assurance Guidelines, GMIT s Quality Assurance Procedures; Annual Institutional Quality Reports (AIQR); and Dialogue Meetings; Delegation of Authority and Sectoral Protocols. 9.2 PURPOSES OF INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW Institutional Review is a key and critical element of Quality Assurance. Institutional Review evaluates the effectiveness of institution-wide quality assurance procedures for the purposes of establishing, ascertaining, maintaining and enhancing the quality of education, training, research and related services the institution provides. The Institutional Review measures institution accountability for compliance with European standards for quality assurance, regard to the expectations set out in the QQI quality assurance guidelines or their equivalent and adherence to other relevant QQI policies and procedures as established in the lifecycle of engagement between the institution and QQI. Institutional Review explores institution enhancement of quality in relation to impacts on teaching, learning and research, institutional achievements and innovations in quality assurance, alignment to the institution s mission and strategy and the qualityrelated performance of the institution relative to quality indicators and benchmarks identified by the institution. The following are four key purposes for individual institutional reviews: Purpose 1 To encourage a QA culture and the enhancement of the student learning environment and experience across and within the institution achieved and measured through: emphasising the student and the student learning experience in the review. providing a source of evidence of areas for enhancement and areas for revision of policy and change and basing follow-up upon them. exploring innovative and effective practices and procedures. exploring quality as well as quality assurance within the institution. 38

41 Validation, Monitoring and Review Purpose 2 To provide feedback to institutions about institution-wide quality and the impact of mission, strategy, governance and management on quality and the overall effectiveness of their quality assurance achieved and measured through: emphasising the governance of quality and quality assurance at the level of the institution. pitching the review at a comprehensive institution-wide level. evaluating compliance with legislation, policy and standards. evaluating how the institution has identified and measured itself against its own benchmarks and metrics to support quality assurance governance and procedures. emphasising the enhancement of quality assurance procedures. Purpose 3 To contribute to public confidence in the quality of institutions by promoting transparency and public awareness achieved and measured through: adhering to purposes, criteria and outcomes that are clear and transparent publishing the reports and outcomes of reviews in accessible locations and formats for different audiences evaluating, as part of the review, institutional reporting on quality and quality assurance, to ensure that it is transparent and accessible Purpose 4 To facilitate quality enhancement by using evidence-based, objective methods and advice achieved and measured through: using the expertise of international, national and student peer reviewers who are independent of the institution. ensuring that findings are based on stated evidence. facilitating institutions to identify measurement, comparison and analytic techniques, based on quantitative data relevant to their own mission and context, to support quality assurance. promoting the identification and dissemination of examples of good practice and innovation. System-Level Purpose An additional specific purpose for cyclical review is to support systems-level enhancement of the quality of higher education achieved and measured through: publication of periodic synoptic reports. ensuring that there is sufficient consistency in approach between similar institutions to allow for comparability and shared learning. publishing institutional quality profiles. 39

42 Academic Code of Practice No ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Roles and responsibilities during the Institute Review will align with Handbook for the Cyclical Review of Institutes of Technology (2017). The Institute will appoint an Institutional Coordinator at the outset, who will be the main liaison point between the Institution, QQI and the Review Team, throughout the Institutional Review process. An Institutional Self-Evaluation team chaired by a senior manager will be established, and will include students (undergraduate and postgraduate representatives) and staff involved in teaching, administration, and quality assurance and enhancement. The selfevaluation process will be as inclusive and participative as possible. 9.4 INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW PROCESS The review will consist of five elements: Stage 1: The publication of Terms of Reference. Stage 2: An Institutional Self-Evaluation Report (ISER). Stage 3: An external assessment and site visit by a team of reviewers. Stage 4: The publication of a review report including findings and recommendations. Stage 5: A follow-up procedure to review actions taken. 40 STAGE 1 Terms of Reference QQI will complete an institutional information profile, and confirm Terms of Reference for the Institutional Review with GMIT and HEA. The published Terms of Reference will document the objectives of the review. The Institutional Self-Evaluation Report (ISER) and the Review Report must analyse whether an institution has achieved these and the extent to which they have been achieved. Review Objectives Objective 1 To review the effectiveness and implementation of the QA procedures of the institution through consideration of the procedures set out, primarily, in the AIQR. Where necessary, the information provided by the AIQR is supplemented by additional information provided through documentation requests and interviews. The scope of this includes reporting procedures, governance and publication. This also incorporates an analysis of the ways in which the institution uses measurement, comparisons and analytic techniques, based on quantitative data, to support quality assurance governance and procedures. Progress on the development of quality assurance since the last review of the institution will be evaluated. Consideration will also be given to the effectiveness of the AIQR and Institutional Self Evaluation Reports (ISER) by the institution. The scope of this objective also extends to the overarching approach of the institution to assuring itself of the quality of its research degree programmes and research activities.

43 Validation, Monitoring and Review This objective also encompasses the effectiveness of the procedures established by the institution for the assurance of the quality of alliances, partnerships and overseas provision, including the TU clusters, mergers, transnational provision, joint awarding, joint provision and regional fora. Objective 2 To review the procedures established by the institution for the governance and management of its functions that comprise its role as an awarding body. The Team will focus on evidence of a governance system to oversee the education and training, research and related activity of the institution and evidence of a culture that supports quality within the institution. Considerations will centre upon the effectiveness of decision making across and within the institution. Objective 3 To review the enhancement of quality by the institution through governance, policy, and procedures. To review the congruency of quality assurance procedures and enhancements with the institution s own mission and goals or targets for quality. To identify innovative and effective practices for quality enhancement. Objective 4 To review the effectiveness and implementation of procedures for access, transfer and progression. Objective 5 Following the introduction of a statutory international education quality assurance scheme, to determine compliance with the Code of Practice for the Provision of Programmes to International Learners. Key questions to be addressed across all objectives by the review How have quality assurance procedures and reviews been implemented within the institution? How effective are the internal quality assurance procedures and reviews of the institution? Are the quality assurance procedures in keeping with European Standards and Guidelines? Are the quality assurance procedures in keeping with QQI policy and guidelines, or their equivalent? Who takes responsibility for quality and quality assurance across the institution? How transparent, accessible and comprehensive is reporting on quality assurance and quality? How is quality promoted and enhanced? Are there effective innovations in quality enhancement and assurance? 41

44 Academic Code of Practice No.2 Is the student experience in keeping with the institution s own stated mission and strategy? Are achievements in quality and quality assurance in keeping with the institution s own stated mission and strategy? How do achievements in quality and quality assurance measure up against the institution s own goals or targets for quality? 42 STAGE 2 Self-Evaluation Self-evaluation is a self-reflective and critical evaluation completed by the members of an institution s community. It is the way in which the institution outlines how effectively it assures and enhances the quality of its teaching, learning, research and service activities. The Report produced by the Institution following the self-evaluation process, called the Institutional Self-Evaluation Report (the ISER), is the core document used by the Review Team. It provides them with the documented evidence, or references to evidence, to support claims that the institution is meeting the objectives and criteria set out in the ToR. Two Overarching Intended Outcomes of Self-Evaluation Firstly, the self-evaluation process will provide an institution with an opportunity to demonstrate and analyse how it evaluates the effectiveness of: its policies and procedures for quality assurance and quality enhancement; the ways the governing authority is facilitated in and is discharging its responsibilities for quality assurance. Is there clarity and transparency about process, the distribution of responsibilities, and the criteria for decisions? the procedures in place for reporting, governance and publication; the methods employed to ensure internal quality management processes are in keeping with national, European and international best practice; the overarching procedures of the institution for assuring itself of the quality of its taught programmes, research degree programmes and programmes of research; the use of outcomes of internal and external quality assurance and enhancement processes to identify strengths and weaknesses and enhancement targets in its teaching, learning, research and service areas, informing decision-making, and enabling a culture of quality within the institution. In particular, are they clear and transparent to all stakeholders? Is there appropriate critical mass in the provision of programmes? the use of relevant information and data to support evidence-based decisions about quality; the accuracy, completeness and reliability of published information in relation to the outcomes of internal reviews aimed at enhancing the quality of education and related services;

45 Validation, Monitoring and Review progress on the development of quality assurance since the last review of the institution; the use of the AIQR and ISER procedures within the institution; the procedures established by the institution for the assurance of the quality of collaborations, partnerships and overseas provision, including the procedures for the approval and review of joint awarding arrangements, joint provision and other collaborative arrangements such as clusters and mergers; the enhancement of quality by the institution through governance, policy, and procedures. the congruency of quality assurance procedures and enhancements with the institution s own mission and goals or targets for quality; Innovative and effective practices for quality enhancement; and Procedures for access, transfer and progression. Secondly, whether its tools, its quality assurance policies and procedures are effective in answering these questions. STAGE 3 External Review QQI will appoint a Review Team to conduct the institutional review. These teams are composed of peer reviewers who are students and senior institutional leaders from comparable institutions as well as external representatives, and will have appropriate gender representation. The institution will have an opportunity to comment on the proposed composition of their Review Team to ensure there are no conflicts of interest, and QQI will ensure an appropriate and entirely independent team of reviewers is selected for the institution. QQI has final approval over the composition of each Review Team. In preparation for the Planning and Main Review Visits, each team member is requested to conduct their own independent desk analysis of the ISER and supporting materials, including AIQRs and the institutional profile and data supplied by the HEA. A one-day on-site Planning Visit will normally be conducted by the Chairperson and the Coordinating Reviewer approximately seven weeks before the Main Review Visit. Review Team members will have been invited to provide comments on the ISER and additional documentation required to the Chairperson and Coordinating Reviewer in advance of the Planning Visit. A QQI staff member will also attend the Planning Visit to ensure the process is conducted in accordance with published criteria. The Main Review Visit will be used by the Team to seek evidence to determine the effectiveness of the processes employed by the Institution for assuring quality management in keeping with their own mission and strategy and in accordance with national and European requirements. The Team will receive and consider evidence on the ways in which the Institution has performed in respect of the objectives and criteria set out in the Terms of Reference. 43

46 Academic Code of Practice No.2 STAGE 4 Report The report sets out the finding of the Review Team. The content for the written report will be prepared and agreed by the whole Team at the end of the review process. The Institution will be given a formal opportunity within the post-review timeline to check the factual accuracy of the review report. The Institution is also invited to provide a formal response to the review report (ideally no longer than two pages in length) that will be published as an appendix to the main Review Report. QQI and the Institution will publish the Review Report, the Institution s response (optional) and the follow-up report of the Institution. STAGE 5 Follow-up One year after the Main Review Visit, the Institute will be asked to produce a follow-up report (incorporating the institutional action plan) for submission to QQI. Within the report, the Institution should provide a commentary on how the review findings and recommendations have been discussed and disseminated throughout the Institution s committee structure and academic units, and comment on how effectively the Institution is addressing the review outcomes. The report should identify the range of strategic and logistical developments and decisions that have occurred within the Institution since the review report s publication. 44

47 Validation, Monitoring and Review SECTION B (APPENDICES) APPENDIX 1: QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK Standards and guidelines for Quality Assurance at GMIT 1 Policy for Quality Assurance 1.1 The Academic Council 1.2 Research 1.3 Research Ethics 1.4 Honorary Fellowships 2 Design and Approval of Programmes 2.1 Validation, Monitoring and Review 2.2 Collaboration Provision including Transnational Collaborative Provision and Joint Awards 2.3 Level 9 Research Discipline Area Validation Policy & Procedures 3 Student-Centred Learning, Teaching and Assessment 3.1 Student Assessment: Marks & Standards 3.2 Learning, Teaching and Assessment 3.3 Professional Practice Policy 3.4 External Examining 3.5 Plagiarism 3.6 Reasonable Accommodation 4 Student Admission, Progression, Recognition and Certification 4.1 Access, Transfer and Progression 4.2 Recognition of Prior Learning 4.3 Student Retention Policy 4.4 Nursing: Clinical Placement 4.5 Nursing: Progression Policy 4.6 Garda Vetting 4.7 Withdrawal Policy 5 Teaching Staff 5.1 Policy on Continuous Professional Development 5.2 Timetabling 6 Learning Resources and Student Support 6.1 Online Learning Policy 6.2 Child Protection Policy 6.3 Student Equality Policy 6.4 Social Media Policy 7 Information Management (Including Public Information) 7.1 Code of Student Conduct 7.2 Cód Iompraíochta na Neach Léinn 45

48 Academic Code of Practice No.2 APPENDIX 2: INDICATIVE SCHEDULE OF NEW PROGRAMME VALIDATION AND AUTHORISATION PROCESS Activity Submission of AQA1 to Executive Board for authorization. Development of AQA2. Submission of AQA2/programme document to Registrar s Office and scheduling of Internal Panel. Internal Panel report written, circulated and agreed by internal panel. Issued to proposing Head of Department by the Registrar s Office. Response to internal panel report submitted with revised AQA2/Programme Document and review of same by Chair and Secretary of Panel. Submission of resource requirement sheet to Executive Board through Registrar. Submission of revised AQA2/programme document provided to Registrar s Office and scheduling of external panel Scheduling of external panel. External Panel report agreed by chair, circulated to external panel and when agreed issued to proposing Head of Department by the Registrar s Office. Response to external panel report and revised AQA2/programme document incorporating conditions and recommendations provided to Registrar s office and review of same by Registrar and/or nominee. Registrar notifies Academic Council of the recommendations made by the External Validation Panel and seeks its approval for programme subject to implementation of conditions and recommendations of panel. Registrar notifies Executive Board that programme has proceeded through external validation and Executive Board decides whether to authorise the offering of the programme. Executive Board decision to authorise running new programme has to be approved by Governing Body. Certificate of Approval issued by Registrar. Timeline 1-2 weeks 2 weeks after submission of AQA2/Programme Document 2 weeks 1 week after receipt of response and revised AQA2/Programme Document 1-2 weeks 2 weeks after submission of revised AQA2/Programme Document 2.5 weeks 1 week after submission of revised documentation Next scheduled Academic Council Next scheduled Executive Board Next scheduled Governing Body 1 week after approval by Governing Body Notes: All programmes must be built on Module Manager and submitted with the AQA2 document for internal validation. Internal and external panels will not be scheduled until final documentation is received. Above schedule is indicative and may be slower due to the parties involved being unable to meet the deadlines suggested, or difficulty recruiting panel members. 46

49 Validation, Monitoring and Review Programmes should have approval by Academic Council by the end of November to be listed on the CAO for commencement at the start of the next academic year. Non-CAO programmes should have Academic Council approval by the end of February at the latest for commencement the following September. The following deadlines apply: Process completed by mid-may to be included in the CAO handbook*. The Admissions Office should be informed of programmes likely to be approved in time for the CAO handbook by mid-march. Inclusion on the CAO website can take place from early November onwards for programmes that miss the CAO handbook. Process completed by mid-april to be included in the GMIT Prospectus*. Process completed by mid-april to allow time to build programmes on Banner for commencement in September. Other marketing deadlines worth noting: GMIT Open Day (including address to Career Guidance Teachers): mid-october CAO Annual Roadshow for Admissions Officers and Career Guidance Teachers: early November Career Guidance Teachers Association Annual Conference: February Programmes cannot be promoted until the new programme validation and authorisation process is complete. * Inclusion in the CAO handbook and the GMIT Prospectus is for the academic year after next. 47

50 Academic Code of Practice No.2 APPENDIX 3: NEW PROGRAMME PROPOSAL (AQA1 FORM) Full Award Higher Cert. Degree Hons. Degree PG Dip Special Purpose Award Minor Supplemental Special Purpose Masters Level of Award Programme Title(s): (Where a number of interrelated programmes are being developed, all programme titles should be included) Department: School/Campus: 1. General: Projected Numbers: Proposed Starting Date: Mode: (Full-time/Flexible/ACCM) 2. Aims and Objectives: Describe briefly aims and objectives of the programme. 3. What needs will be served by this programme? Give details of any research undertaken to justify provision of this course. 4. Potential Employment Opportunities. 48

51 Validation, Monitoring and Review 5. Additional resources required under (a) Human, (b) Physical, (c) Equipment. (Use additional sheet if necessary). 6. Proposed Programme Design/Common Modules, clearly indicating those already being delivered. Signed: Head of Academic Unit Date: For Office Use: Received by Registrar s Office: Date: Decision of Executive Board: 49

52 Academic Code of Practice No.2 APPENDIX 4: NEW PROGRAMME TEMPLATE (AQA2 FORM) This is the recommended template for new programme submissions. 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction to the Institute 1.2 Introduction to School and Department 1.3 Award(s) Sought (and Level(s)) 1.4 Proposed Programme Title(s) and Levels (Also specify embedded exit awards) 1.5 Proposed Commencement Date 1.6 ISCED Code 1.7 Rationale for the New Programme having regard to Mission and Strategic Plan This should include reference to any relevant local, regional, national and EU reports as well as any surveys and research undertaken. It should also include the career/employment opportunities targeted. The feedback received from consultations with employers, professional bodies and other groups should be included. 1.6 RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMME Justification for the Programme: [This should include market research undertaken, including supporting data.] Consultation Process: (a) With Employers (a) With Relevant Professional Bodies (c) With Other Groups 1.7 Relevance of the Programme to the Mission and Strategic Plan of the School, Campus and GMIT. 50

53 Validation, Monitoring and Review 1.8 a) Industrial and other links, including possible industrial/professional work placement. b) Entry requirements. This should cover standard and non-standard students. c) Duration. d) Student demand for the programme and projected student numbers. e) Transfer/Progression opportunities in the context of the National Framework. f) Environmental scan of similar or related programmes offered by other providers. 2 Aims and Objectives of the Programme (a) Level of Award sought. (b) Aims and objectives. (c) Intended Learning Outcomes of the programme(s) (They must comply with the NQAI Intended Learning Outcomes for the level). 3 Resources required for programme (indicating what is available and what additions are required) Human Resources Information Technology Library Resources and Support Facilities Equipment Financial Implications of Offering the Programme. 4 Programme Design and Management 4.1 Programme Design/Modular Framework/Programme Schedule a) Listings of modules, contact hours (with a break down between laboratory, practical, studio, tutorials, lectures). b) Common modules Calculation of Award 4.2 Staffing Lecturing staff with responsibility for each module. (Curriculum vitae should be provided in an appendix). 4.3 Programme management procedures 4.4 Pedagogy relevant to the programme 4.5 Assessment Methodologies/Programme Assessment Strategy 51

54 Academic Code of Practice No.2 The document should describe the assessment methodologies proposed, having regard to the intended learning outcomes and the workload for students. Fair, consistent and standard-compliant assessment of students on the programme is essential. 4.6 Module Descriptors Each module should be prepared as follows: (a) Module title (b) Intended learning outcomes (c) Indicative content with relative weightings (d) Teaching/Learning, Assessment and Repeat Methodologies (e) Indicative Reading List (i) Essential (ii) Supplementary (f) Learning Resources (software and web-based sources) The latest edition of texts should be referenced. 5 Degree Profile An electronic version of this template is available at: DEGREE PROFILE OF The official name of the programme offered by the institution in the original language. If the name is not in English, please provide in addition an English translation (where available) in italics Please provide (in bold): The full name of the qualification in the original language as it is phrased in the original qualification. If the qualification is a dual award, this should be stated. Indicate if the award confers any nationally accepted title on the holder and what this title is. Indicate if the title is protected by law. If the name is not in English, please provide in addition an English translation (where available) in italics. INSTITUTION COUNTRY YEAR OF REFERENCE LEVEL Please fill in the official name of the awarding institution Please fill in the country that provides the accreditation of the degree awarding institution. Please refer to the year(s) for which the programme received accreditation, or any other reference date indicating when the information provided within the degree programme was designed. Please indicate the level of the qualification in terms of NQF (where available)/eqf and Bologna (EHEA). A PURPOSE Please provide (in 2 sentences) a general statement of the degree programme, covering a synthetic view of the overall purpose of the programme 52

55 Validation, Monitoring and Review B CHARACTERISTICS 1 DISCIPLINE (S) Please indicate the main subject and/or specific subject areas of the degree programme. If the programme is multi- or interdisciplinary: please add relative weight of major components if applicable (e.g. politics, law and economics (60:20:20). 2 FOCUS Please indicate here the specialist and/or general focus of the degree programme (if applicable). 3 ORIENTATION Please provide a summary of the orientation of the degree programme For example, whether the degree is primarily: research oriented, practical/professional orientated, applied, related to designated employment. 4 DISTINCTIVE FEATURES Please provide here any additional features that distinguish this degree programme from other degree programmes For example: if the programme includes a compulsory international component, if a specific working environment is required or if a course is taught in second language C EMPLOYABILITY & FURTHER EDUCATION 1 EMPLOYABILITY Please summarise (in a maximum of 3 lines) the employment opportunities relating to the competences obtained in the degree programme and its specialisations. These, for example, refer to occupations and/or job level. N.B. Indicate the relevant national/european legal framework if applicable. 2 FURTHER EDUCATION Please indicate (in maximum 3 lines) access to further studies within and outside the main subject areas identified above, relating to the competences obtained in the programme and its specialisations. D EDUCATION STYLE 1 LEARNING & TEACHING APPROACHES Please indicate (in a maximum of 3 lines) the main learning and teaching strategies and methods, relevant to the programme outcomes. Examples are: self-directed study, problem based learning, research based learning, learning through laboratory practice, reflective learning, work placements, group work, individual study and autonomous learning. 2 ASSESSMENT METHODS Please indicate (in a maximum of 3 lines) the main assessment strategies and methods, relevant to the programme outcomes as well as learning and teaching approaches. Examples are: oral and written examinations, practice, critical incident analyses, case studies, essays, presentations, reports, continuing assessments, examinations and project work, selfreflection 53

56 Academic Code of Practice No.2 E PROGRAMME COMPETENCES Please include the main competences developed by programme completion. These are categorised as generic or subject specific competences (please see Section page X for further explanation). The total number of programme competences (generic and subject specific) should not exceed fifteen. In the case of regulated professions, it may be appropriate to make a reference to any professional/ legal requirements where the full list of programme competences is found, but here focus on the key domains/competences only. Titles are: E1 Generic; E2 Subject Specific. 1 GENERIC Please list here the generic programme competences 2 SUBJECT SPECIFIC Please list here the Subject specific programme competences F COMPLETE LIST OF PROGRAMME INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES Please list here the intended learning outcomes of the programme (suggested maximum of fifteen). Programme Intended learning outcomes are statements of what students know, understand and are able to demonstrate after successful completion of the programme. Information is found on page X. Curriculum Vitae of Lecturer NAME: JOB TITLE: CURRENT POSITION: Full Time Part Time Contract Other If other please specify: QUALIFICATIONS: (a) Academic Qualifications (b) Membership(s) of Professional Bodies LECTURING/TEACHING EXPERIENCE: RELEVANT WORK EXPERIENCE: AREA(S) OF EXPERTISE: RESEARCH/CONSULTANCY UNDERTAKEN IN LAST 5 YEARS: PUBLICATIONS IN LAST 5 YEARS: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN IN LAST 5 YEARS: 54

57 Validation, Monitoring and Review GALWAY-MAYO IT Model for Approved Programme Schedule Name of Provider: Programme Title (i.e. Named Award): e.g. Higher Certificate in Arts in Fine Arts Award Title (QQI Named Award): e.g. Higher Certificate in Arts Stage Exit Award Title Modes of Delivery (FT/PT): Award Class Award NFQ level Award EQF Level Stage (1,2,3,4,, or Award Stage): Stage NFQ Level Stage EQF Level2 Stage Credit (ECTS) Date Effective ISCED Subject code Module Title (Up to 70 characters including spaces) Semester no where applicable. (Semester 1 or Semester 2) Status Module NFQ Level1 where specified ECTS Credit Number 5 Total Student Effort Module (hours) Total Hours Contact Hours Hours of Independent Work Allocation Of Marks (from the module assessment strategy) C.A. % Proj. % Prac. % Final. % Example 1 1 M L Special Regulations (Up to 280 characters) 55

58 Academic Code of Practice No.2 APPENDIX 5: BRIEFING NOTES FOR EXTERNAL VALIDATION PANELS A Programme Validation Panel is required to make an impartial judgement on the level, intended learning outcomes, standard, content and objectives of the proposed programme and on its comparability with other similar programmes offered elsewhere in Ireland and/or internationally. The general issues considered and evaluated by the Board should include the following: 1. Need for the course (a) Philosophy of the programme. (b) Rationale for the development of the programme in terms of demand at regional and national level. (c) i) Aims and objectives. ii) Intended learning outcomes. (d) Expected intellectual development and learning experience of students taking the Programme. (e) Delivery mode. 2. Resources (a) Resources required to provide the programme. (b) Facilities and resources available to the programme and their adequacy to ensure the standard proposed. (c) Lecture rooms, laboratories, learning resources, IT access, other infrastructural support required. (d) Justification for the programme having regard to need and the resources required. 3. Access, Transfer, Progression (a) Clarity of admission criteria, progression, and transfer, having regard to the National Qualifications Framework. (b) Projected student numbers including provision for mature students. 4. Pedagogy relevant to the programme (a) Relevance of the programme design, teaching and learning methodologies, and assessment procedures to the intended learning outcomes of the programme. (b) Inclusion of a Programme Assessment Strategy. (c) Coherence, reliability and standards of the modules in achieving the programme learning outcomes. (d) How well the assessment/methodologies proposed assess the intended learning outcomes specified/teaching/learning/assessment balance and workload. 56

59 Validation, Monitoring and Review (e) Appropriateness and progression of the modules throughout the programme. (f) Appropriateness of the academic standard in the final stage of the programme to the proposed award. 5. Staff (a) Quality of staffing available to the programme. (b) Staff Development. (c) Appropriateness and effectiveness of the teaching methods, learning and assessments/methodologies to the standard of the proposed award. (d) Liaison with industry, commerce, public agencies, professional bodies, and other third level institutions in Ireland and abroad. (e) Research. (f) Publications. 6. Programme Management and Quality Assurance (a) Mechanisms for managing the programme. (b) Student support, counselling and tutoring arrangements. (c) Aspects of programme which foster study skills, independent learning, individual responsibility and professional behaviour in students. (d) International links and EU dimensions in the programme. (e) Mechanisms for monitoring the programme to maintain the standard of teaching, learning and student performance, including feedback from the various stakeholders. 57

60 Academic Code of Practice No.2 APPENDIX 6: TEMPLATE FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW REPORT OF NEW PROGRAMME EVALUATION (AQA3) EXTERNAL REVIEW REPORT OF NEW PROGRAMMES 1. Title of Programme(s): (incl. Award Type and Specify Embedded Exit Awards) 2. NFQ Level(s): 3. Duration: 4. ISCED Code: 5. School / Centre: 6. Department: 7. Type of Review: New Programme: Yes: No: Differential Validation: Yes: No: 8. Date of Review: 9. Delivery Mode: Full-time Part-time Blended 10. Awarding Body: 11. Panel Members: 12. Proposing Staff: 13. Programme Rationale: 14. Potential Demand for Entry: 15. Stakeholder Engagement: 16. Graduate Demand: 17. Entry Requirements: 18. Access, Transfer & Progression: 19. Calculation of Award: 20. Programme Structure: 21. Module Syllabi: 22. Learning, Teaching & Assessment Strategies: 23. Resource Implications: 24. Synergies with Existing Programmes: 58

61 Validation, Monitoring and Review 25. Findings and Recommendations: General: Special conditions attaching to approval (if any): Recommendations of the panel in relation to award sought: 26. FAO: Academic Council: Approved: Approved subject to recommended changes: Not approved at this time: Signed: Chair Secretary 59

62 Academic Code of Practice No.2 APPENDIX 7: GENERIC AWARD TYPE DESCRIPTOR (MINOR, SPECIAL PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL AWARD TYPES) Class Title Purpose Level Volume Comprehensiveness (The number/volume of substrands included in the named award) CREDIT Knowledge - breadth Knowledge kind Know-how and skill range Know-how and skill - selectivity Competence - context Competence role Competence learning to learn Competence - insight Minor, Special Purpose and Supplemental As per titling convention proposed above: ALL LEVEL 6 = Certificate in LEVEL 7-10 < 60 credits = Certificate in LEVEL 7-10 > 60 credits = Diploma in Refer to the purpose of each individual award-type category above. Any Level best-fit. The scope for including intended learning outcomes from lower Levels than the Level of the named award is dependent upon the overall volume of intended learning outcomes for the named awards. Minor smaller than the major award of which it is a part Special Purpose usually limited to a small number of sub-strands Supplemental - between small and medium The number of sub-strands is usually small for these award categories. The sub-strands refer to the knowledge, skill or competence at the appropriate Level in the framework for special purpose awards. For minor and supplemental award types the sub-strands refer to the knowledge, skill or competence of the major awards at the appropriate Level. A minimum volume of 10 credits per named award will apply to each of the three award-type categories. Minimum credits apply irrespective of the combination of substrands of knowledge, skill or competence (Credit is based on the notional workload of ECTS credit system (European Credit Transfer System). The subs-strands for these awards are variable, as the nature of each award type cannot prescribe any particular set of knowledge, skill or competence. A minimum volume is set for all named awards as follows: The named award may incorporate the sub-strands of knowledge, skill and competence by way of a reduced volume but should include at least one (or more) of the subs-strands in each of the three strands of knowledge skill and competence, or Should incorporate all of the sub- strands for one of the main strands of Knowledge or Skill or Competence. 60

63 Validation, Monitoring and Review Progression & Transfer Articulation Link to other Awards Minor awards- transfer to programmes leading to attainment of a part of one or more major awards. Transfer to programmes leading to special purpose awards. Special purpose awards - transfer to major or minor and other related special purpose awards at the same Level or above and to Supplemental - From major or special purpose award at the same Level Special Purpose - Intended learning outcomes may form part of those of a major award, minor award or supplemental award. Minor - Intended learning outcomes form part of those of a major award. Supplemental - leaning outcomes are closely linked to those of a major award or of a special purpose award they generally reflect a deepening of learning, up-dating or specialisation. 61

64 Academic Code of Practice No.2 APPENDIX 8: GUIDELINES FOR CHANGES OF MODULES AND APPROVED PROGRAMME SCHEDULES Change in contact hours Addition of new module Amendment of APS regulations Change to module title Change to Module Learning Outcomes Change to Syllabus Content < 30% * Change to CA Methodology Change in Breakdown of hours Addition of pre-approved module as elective Change to CA % Breakdown Executive Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Module Leader AMM Administrator Send to: Registrar Registrar Registrar Information/ Documents to be sent: Yes Yes Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Programme(s) and Year Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Module Name and Code Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Description of Proposed Change Yes Yes Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rationale for Change Yes Yes Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Date Proposed Change Approved by Programme Board(s) 62

65 Validation, Monitoring and Review Change in contact hours Addition of new module Amendment of APS regulations Change to module title Change to Module Learning Outcomes Change to Syllabus Content < 30% * Change to CA Methodology Change in Breakdown of hours Addition of pre-approved module as elective Change to CA % Breakdown Executive Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Module Leader AMM Administrator Send to: Registrar Registrar Registrar Information/ Documents to be sent: No N/A N/A No N/A Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A Indicate impact on Programme Learning Outcomes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A Indicate impact on Module Learning Outcomes No Yes Yes No N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Indicate impact on delivery resources** 63

66 Academic Code of Practice No.2 Change in contact hours Addition of new module Amendment of APS regulations Change to module title Change to Module Learning Outcomes Change to Syllabus Content < 30% * Change to CA Methodology Change in Breakdown of hours Addition of pre-approved module as elective Change to CA % Breakdown Executive Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Module Leader AMM Administrator Send to: Registrar Registrar Registrar Information/ Documents to be sent: No No No No N/A No No No Yes No Evidence of external examiner feedback / approval*** Old APS No No No No N/A No No No No No New APS No No No No N/A No No No No No Yes Yes No No N/A No Yes Yes Yes Yes New APS with changes highlighted No No No No N/A No No No No No Old Module Descriptor 64

67 Validation, Monitoring and Review Change in contact hours Addition of new module Amendment of APS regulations Change to module title Change to Module Learning Outcomes Change to Syllabus Content < 30% * Change to CA Methodology Change in Breakdown of hours Addition of pre-approved module as elective Change to CA % Breakdown Executive Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Programme Amendments Committee Module Leader AMM Administrator Send to: Registrar Registrar Registrar Information/ Documents to be sent: No No No No N/A No No No Yes No New Module Descriptor Yes No Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes No N/A No New Module Descriptor with changes highlighted * No change to learning outcomes ** Additional resources will have to be referred to and approved by the Executive *** In specific circumstances modules may be referred to the external examiner by Standards 65

68 Academic Code of Practice No.2 Submission to Programme Amendments Sub Committee of the Academic Council Academic Department: Date: Programme: Proposer: 1. Description of Proposal 2. Rationale for Proposal 3. Impact on Learning Outcomes 4. Implications for Resources 5. Appendices i) Module Descriptor with changes highlighted. ii) Existing and Approved Programme Schedule (if necessary). iii) External Examiner comments or approval (if necessary). iv) Other documents as necessary. Notes: In order to ensure that you have all the relevant documentation for your submission to the Programme Amendments Committee, please note the following prior to completion of proposals: 1. All submissions must be completed by the proposer and forwarded to the Office of Academic Affairs no later than two weeks in advance of the scheduled Standards meeting. 2. All relevant documentation should be merged into one document. 3. Please refer to the Guidelines for Submissions to Standards before submitting your proposal. 66

69 Validation, Monitoring and Review APPENDIX 9: PROGRAMME HANDBOOK Table 1: Suggested Contents of Progamme Handbook (a) Introduction to GMIT. (b) Introduction to School and Department. (c) Title of Programme. (d) Programme Intended Learning Outcomes. (e) Programme Structure. (f ) Programme Outline (degree profile) Refer to AQA2 Appendix 4 (g) Programme Assessment Strategy to include: Schedule of Assessments and Examinations (h) Regulations (special purpose areas, attendance at practicals, Health and Safety modules ineligible for compensation etc.) (i) Names of lecturers and contact details (j) Approved Programme Schedule. Appendix 1: Module Descriptors. Note: The Programme Handbook should make reference to the Student Code of Conduct covering, inter alia, regulations relating to admissions, registration and examinations. The Programme Handbook should also make reference to the following, as relevant: required equipment, placement information, option to study abroad, professional body/teaching Council information, Health & Safety, agreed grading rubric, Style Guide, plagiarism policy, sources of information/mechanisms for feedback, student supports, (Academic Writing Centre, Maths Learning Centre, Student Services, Library, Access Office, Careers Office), College Calendar. 67

70 Academic Code of Practice No.2 APPENDIX 10: PROGRAMME BOARD ANNUAL REPORT TEMPLATE Institiúid Teicneolaíochta na Gaillimhe-Maigh Eo Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology School: Department: Programme Title(s): (List all programmes/levels covered by this report) Academic Year: (1) Enrolment and Student Performance Year Stage Number registered Number sat examinations Number achieving 60 credits in Summer and Autumn % progressing with 60 credits Number achieving <60 credits and progressing as special cases % progressing in total (2) Programme Board Meetings (a) Number of meetings for the year: (b) Issues considered and actions taken: (3) Programme Feedback (a) Main feedback from students. (b) Main points in external examiners reports (4) General Comments and Recommendations. (5) Where programmes do not meet Institute targets for attrition and retention, specify the proposed actions to be taken. Signed: Head of Academic Unit Date: Head of Department Date: 68

71 APPENDIX 11: LEARNER FEEDBACK FORM MODULE (QA1) Validation, Monitoring and Review 69

72 Academic Code of Practice No.2 70

73 Validation, Monitoring and Review APPENDIX 12: SUMMARY OF LEARNER FEEDBACK MODULE (QA2) 71

74 Academic Code of Practice No.2 APPENDIX 13: LEARNER FEEDBACK FORM AWARD (QA3) 72

75 Validation, Monitoring and Review 73

76 Academic Code of Practice No.2 APPENDIX 14: FUNCTIONAL REVIEW SELF-EVALUATION REPORT Self-Evaluation Report of (Insert Function name here) Date: 1. Executive Summary (Include a very brief overview of the function and a summary of the information included in the main sections of the report, including a summary SWOC analysis to a maximum of 1 page.) Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology: An Overview (This section could be written centrally, and used by all Functions.) Mission and Strategy Governance Geography and Demographics Learner Profile Graduate Profile Staff Development Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) Collaborative Partnerships and Internationalisation International Collaborations Central Support Services at GMIT Quality Introduction Scope of Quality Review (Mention all aspects of Function covered by this quality review (and campuses)) Terms of Reference The terms of reference for the review process are outlined below. The review process shall consider the following: Organisation and management of the Function: Resources, roles and reporting structures shall be evaluated to determine whether they are fit for purpose, viable and support the activities and role of the Function. Standard operating procedures shall be reviewed and evaluated with any gaps identified and addressed. Staff Development shall also be evaluated and the importance of quality and quality assurance in the Function culture shall be evaluated. 74

77 Validation, Monitoring and Review Functions and services supporting internal and external stakeholders: Each Function will describe the aims and objectives of the Function and determine and detail the user experience of the Function, both internal and external. Evidence based decision making: The decision making process utilised by the Function shall be evaluated, information gathered and stored shall be reviewed, the information used to make decisions shall be identified and the quality and source of information shall be reviewed. Institute wide engagement: The Function s contribution to the Institute s Function shall be reviewed to include items such as participation in GMIT committees, reviews etc. Each Function shall also detail how it engages with relevant external agencies and its contribution to external bodies. Integration of all Function users: Each Function shall review how it ensures the integration of and equity of support for, for example International, Life Long Learning, Mayo and Letterfrack campuses. Communication and information systems: Internal communication systems within each Function and between the Function and other academic units, departments, management structures and other Functions shall be reviewed. Information management systems and communication tools shall be reviewed to determine whether they are fit for purpose. Each Function shall ensure that they collect, analyse and use relevant information. Quality assurance: Compliance with GMIT quality systems and institute policies shall be determined. Existing Function specific policies and procedures shall be described and their effectiveness reviewed and detailed. Specific functions: Review of specific areas or functions unique to the particular Function. Strategic plan for the Function: Each Function shall develop and detail their strategic plan and evaluate its alignment with the GMIT Strategic Plan and its implementation targets. Methodology of Review Committee Process Consultation and Data Gathering (Include who is involved in the review committee, and the methodology they used to consult and gather data. Include dates.) Data Analysis (Describe how data was analysed and include dates.) Report preparation (Dates to be included.) Panel visit (Dates to be included.) 75

78 Academic Code of Practice No.2 [Insert Function Name] Introduction, Aims and Objectives of the Function Functions, Activities and Processes (Main role of the Function, the main activities, the offices that report to it, and any relevant committees under its remit - should set the overall scene for the review. Details can go in as an Appendix with an overview here.) Management, Organisation and Staffing (Resources, roles and reporting structures - Describe, analyse and reflect on the formal decision making procedures in the Function. Sample items to consider in this section: How are the tasks delegated and responsibilities assigned? What are the reporting structures? Are staff consulted on changes and if so which staff are consulted? Are there regular meetings of staff with agendas circulated in advance and with brief minutes of key decisions and action items? Who attends? Include an organisational chart, staff CVs as an Appendix) Staff Development and Training (Specific to the function and in addition to those described in Section 2. Sample items to consider in this section: Are there formal procedures in place for dealing with staff suggestions, innovations or concerns? Are there upskilling and new staff induction and training processes in place?) Physical Facilities (Available to and utilised by the Function include details of space, rooms and facilities etc. used by staff of the Function and areas that report to the Function, with occupancy details.) Communication and Information Systems (How does Function communicate internally and externally and what information does it gather and store and how does it do this? Sample items to consider in this section: What are the main IT systems used? How are staff members kept informed of changes in procedures, and of decisions taken in other parts of GMIT that may affect their work? How is communication assured externally, with other Function s, academic units and users?) Planning and Decision Making (Describe the decision making process utilised by the Function, what information is gathered and stored and used when making decisions. Sample items to consider in this section: 76

79 Validation, Monitoring and Review Does, or how does, the Function plan for new services and innovations? Have new or growth areas and other campuses been integrated and catered for? Is there a comprehensive system for ensuring that customer/user requirements are taken into account? Does the Function have a system to ensure that all activities operate and are controlled, to the prescribed standards or requirements?) Internal and External Engagement (Describe the Function s contribution to the Institute s function to include items such as participation in GMIT committees, reviews etc. Detail how Function engages with relevant external agencies and its contribution to external bodies staff CVs may be a good source of information here. Include for example engagement with schools, the public, Life Long learning, International, and other campuses.) Quality Assurance (Describe how a quality approach is embedded into the function. Sample items to consider in this section: Is there a process of continuous improvement based on identifying opportunities and needs through the analysis of operation and user data, and of external benchmarks? Does the function ensure that the audit and other findings, such as records, are always used to improve the systems through the implementation of root-cause cures (rather than quick-fixes ), so preventing the recurrence of the problem? Are the results of most service processes measured and known and are they showing an improving trend?) Progress Report Since Last Review (or a review of major developments in last five years to describe how the Function has grown, developed, or changed.) The Self-evaluation Process (Here we need to ask and answer, based on evidence gathered, whether we are doing what we claim we are doing in Section 4, how well we are doing it and how we can improve. Determine and detail the user experience of the function, both internal and external. Measures and results that indicate the levels of user satisfaction should also be provided. Actual perceptions of the users/customers, which may be obtained through surveys etc., as well as measures and results that will tend to predict trends or influence user satisfaction such as compliance levels, late delivery of service etc. should be indicated. This section should also examine whether the function is only looking at its own levels and trends, or whether it compares these with external benchmarks of the performance of comparable organisations?) Data gathering (An overview on what and how data was gathered. Stakeholders could include: students, employers, staff from other Functions, staff from academic units, managers, researchers, teachers, community groups, schools, suppliers and other stakeholders.) 77

80 Academic Code of Practice No.2 Internal stakeholder perspective (e.g. A survey for learners and a focus group for internal staff users of the function. Questions that could be addressed include: What is the user s experience of engaging with the service? Are the user satisfaction results (i.e. the actual perceptions of the user) regularly measured and known for both product and service attributes? Are these user satisfaction results showing an improving trend? Can it be shown that that the results of user satisfaction in the function are comparable with/better than those of comparable organisation in Ireland and abroad? How well does the function communicate with its users? What arrangements exist for promoting the function s facilities and services? Are these arrangements effective? How is this determined? Does the function integrate and equitably support, for example, International, Life- Long learning, CCAM, Mayo and Letterfrack campuses? How is the function represented on the GMIT website, staff intranet, student intranet, social media and other publications?) External Stakeholder perspective (e.g. A SWOC based focus group for external users of the function. Questions that could be addressed include: Are external communication systems fit for purpose? What is the external user s experience of engaging with the service? Are the external user satisfaction results (i.e. the actual perceptions of the user) regularly measured and known for both product and service attributes? How well does the function communicate with its external users? What arrangements exist for promoting the function s facilities and services externally? Are these arrangements effective? How is this determined?) Staff perspective and satisfaction (e.g. A focus group for staff working in the Function. This section examines how the Function develops and involves its workforce in achieving improvements with the Function. It explores whether the people are consulted, increasingly empowered to act and become involved in the continuous improvement of the Function. It expects that people involvement in improvement activities will be primarily through the development of a team approach to problem solving. This section also examines the satisfaction levels and trends of the employees in the office. It asks for the measures and results that will tend to predict or influence staff satisfaction. For example, are regular surveys conducted (through questionnaires, focus groups etc.) of the perceptions of the staff on various aspects of the Function? 78

81 Validation, Monitoring and Review Are resources, roles and reporting structures fit for purpose? Reflect on adequacy of provision particularly in the light of increasing student numbers and new departments, schools, new collaborations, roles etc. Do SOPs support the activities and role of the function and its stakeholders? Are there any procedural gaps identifiable? Is staff development adequate? How is the quality assurance culture in the Function? Is there a quality and innovative culture in the Function? Are Function specific policies and procedures working? Are training and development plans directly derived from the needs of the strategic plans and goals (rather than just activities or freestanding plans based on ad hoc needs)? Does the Function have a process that consults with and involves all employees (both as individuals and groups) in generating improvements? Can the Function demonstrate that it is ensuring that its employees become increasingly empowered to act and take responsibility for decisions and changes? Is effort towards quality improvement recognised and celebrated? Are there specific examples of this? Have effective two-way communications been achieved with the employees and would the employees agree that they are well informed and that their opinions are valued? Environmental Analysis The positioning and operation of the Function within the broader context of GMIT, and indeed the Irish and international higher education sector, is a crucial factor to consider when reviewing developments and planning future actions and initiatives. To this end, the impact of both external and internal environments have been analysed and key factors and trends which impact upon the Function have been identified and factored into both the review and planning processes. In order to identify and assess the key external factors which are impacting upon the strategic planning and day to day operations of the Function, a detailed PESTLE analysis was conducted by the Function Review Co-ordination Group and its staff. The key factors identified in our analysis of their impact on the Function and specific planned actions and initiatives required to address these factors are identified and discussed below. 79

82 Academic Code of Practice No.2 PESTLE Political Economic Social Technological Legal Environmental Analysis Political Factor Impact on Function Planned Action/Initiative Economic Factor Impact on Function Planned Action/Initiative Social Factor Impact on Function Planned Action/Initiative Technological Factor Impact on Function Planned Action/Initiative Political Factor Impact on Function Planned Action/Initiative Environmental Factor Impact on Function Planned Action/Initiative 80

83 Validation, Monitoring and Review Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges (Informed by data collated by the Function Review Coordination Group and in consultation with staff, a detailed SWOC analysis of the Function is presented below. This identifies the key strengths of the service, acknowledges weaknesses and identifies opportunities and challenges. The SWOC analysis has been linked to planned initiatives and actions within the Function to ensure both a suitable response to changes in the landscape and to also ensure that the service can continue to develop. Many of these initiatives align with the key objectives of the GMIT Strategic Plan.) SWOC Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Challenges Analysis Strengths Key Supporting evidence Impact (so what?) Planned initiative (how will build on this) Link to Strategic plan Weaknesses Key Supporting evidence Impact (so what?) Planned initiative (how will build on this) Link to Strategic plan Opportunities Key Supporting evidence Impact (so what?) Planned initiative (how will build on this) Link to Strategic plan

84 Academic Code of Practice No.2 Challenges Key Supporting evidence Impact (so what?) Planned initiative (how will build on this) Link to Strategic plan Self-assessment of Offices/Services/Centres Reporting to Main Office (where relevant) Function five-year strategic plan Based on the analysis, information gathered, SWOC and PESTLE analysis, detail the strategic plan for the Function and evaluate its alignment with the GMIT Strategic Plan Include implementation targets. This could include the following: A Mission Statement and a description of the functions goals in such areas as the services provided by the function, training and development, process documentation and improvement, quality measures, benchmarking and other items arising from the process and SWOC. Goals should be consistent with the institutional objectives, and should take into account the needs of the users of the service and how these needs are identified, prioritised and translated into objectives. A Vision for the function that describes a desired status, or the achievement of major goals over the next five years. A Physical Resource Analysis - a stocktaking of the existing resources which identifies those which are essential for the future and those which might arise in connection with various strategic options. A Human Resource Analysis - which should identify the strengths of existing staff and predict skills gaps which may arise. APPENDICES For example: Curricula Vitae of managers. GMIT Organisation Structures. GMIT Committee Structures. Job Descriptions. Survey and other self-evaluation research methodology. Questionnaires. Statistics. 82

85 Validation, Monitoring and Review Focus-group protocols. Full results of surveys, focus groups, interviews, Away Days Key Performance Indicators. Function activities (Overview). Other reports or reviews undertaken by the function or third party Summary findings and recommendations from previous quality reviews. Other 83

86 Academic Code of Practice No.2 Notes 84

87

88 Administrative Headquarters Dublin Road, Galway, Ireland. Tel: Fax: Website: Mayo Campus Westport Road, Castlebar, Co. Mayo, Ireland. Tel: Fax: National Centre for Excellence in Furniture Design & Technology Letterfrack, Co. Galway, Ireland. Tel: / Fax: Centre for the Creative Arts & Media Cluain Mhuire, Monivea Road, Galway, Ireland. Tel: Fax: Priomhionad Riaracháin Bóthar Bhaile Átha Cliath, Gaillimh, Éire. Teil: Faics: R-phost: academic.affairs@gmit.ie Láithreán Gréasáin: Campas Mhaigh Eo Bóthar Chathair na Mart, Caisleán an Bharraigh, Co. Mhaigh Eo, Éire. Teil: Faics: Lárionad Náisiúnta um Barr Feabhais i ndearadh & Teicneolaíocht Leitir Fraic, Co na Gaillimhe, Éire. Teil: / Faics: Lárionad do na healaíona Cruthaitheacha & na Meáin Cluain Mhuire, Bóthar Mhuine Mheá, Gaillimh, Éire. Teil: Faics: