Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING AWARDS COUNCIL, IRELAND

Comhairle na nDámhachtainí Ardoideachais agus Oiliúna, Éire

Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and Training

Institutional Review of Griffith College 12-13 October 2009

Report of the Expert Panel www.hetac.ie

1 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Contents

Introduction ...... 3

Executive Summary — Report of the Expert Panel...... 5

Background to Griffith College ...... 6

Institutional Review Methodology ...... 8

Findings in relation to objectives of Institutional Review ...... 11

Appendices

Appendix A Terms of Reference ...... 27

Appendix B Panel Membership ...... 34

Appendix C Index of supporting material provided on–site ...... 35

Appendix D Agenda for site visit...... 37

Appendix E List of People met by the Panel ...... 39

2 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

HETAC Institutional Review

Introduction

This is the Report of the Expert Panel, appointed by the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC), which carried out the Institutional Review of Griffith College in October 2009.

HETAC is the qualifications awarding body for third-level educational and training institutions outside the university sector in Ireland. All providers offering HETAC awards are subject to external quality assurance review of their institutions. HETAC carries out such reviews as part of its Institutional Review process.

HETAC appointed an expert panel to carry out the Institutional Review on its behalf. Under the chairmanship of Mr. Paul Hannigan, membership of the expert panel reflected a wide range of expertise and experience, in accordance with the Terms of Reference for the review. HETAC wishes to record its thanks to the members of the panel for accepting this task and for their generous and professional commitment to the review.

Griffith College will submit a follow-up report to HETAC not more than 12 months after the publication of this report. Their follow-up report will outline how the College has have implemented the recommendations, as set out in its response to the Institutional Review, and evaluate the initial impact of such implementation. The follow-up report will be considered by the Academic Committee of HETAC, and a commentary by the HETAC Executive will be included. The Academic Committee may adopt the College’s follow-up report and may consider further conditions. Following adoption by the Academic Committee of HETAC, the follow-up report will be published on the HETAC’s website.

3 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Note HETAC's Institutional Review process is designed to address only those objectives described in the Terms of Reference included in Appendix A.

The expert panel points out that it cannot make any findings regarding: 1. The financial standing and commercial viability of the institution reviewed 2. The institution’s compliance with its general statutory obligations or 3. The general fitness of the institution’s systems and arrangements for the governance and management of financial matters.

The Report of the Expert Panel contains no assurances, warranties or representations - express or implied- regarding the aforesaid issues, or any other issues outside the Terms of Reference.

While HETAC has endeavoured to ensure the information contained in the Report is correct, complete and up-to-date, any reliance placed on such information is strictly at the reader’s own risk, and in no event will HETAC be liable for any loss or damage (including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage) arising from or in connection with the use of the information contained in the Report of the Expert Panel.

4 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Executive Summary — Report of the Expert Panel

This is the Report of the Expert Panel appointed by HETAC to undertake the Institutional Review of Griffith College on 12-13 October 2009. The review process was carried out in accordance with the HETAC Policy on Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and Training , 2007.

Findings

Overall recommendation to HETAC, including details of any conditions attached

The following is a summary of the Expert Panel’s key findings: • The effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by Griffith College has been assessed and has been found to be effective and broadly in accordance with the seven elements of Part One of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance , 2009, Helsinki, 3 rd edition, and the HETAC Guidelines and Criteria for Quality Assurance Procedures in Higher Education , 2004.

• Griffith College has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression, as determined by the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland.

Commendations and Recommendations

The Expert Panel made a total of 12 commendations and 15 recommendations, identified in the body of the report, in relation to the Objectives for Institutional Review to which each corresponds.

The panel is grateful to Griffith College for the cooperation and assistance provided to the review team and wishes it well in its future work.

5 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Background to Griffith College

Griffith College is an independent provider of higher education and professional training. Established in 1974 as “Business and Accounting Training”, it began by delivering accountancy training programmes leading to the examinations of the professional bodies, both national and international. The College continues to deliver professional training in accountancy, law and other disciplines from its campus in Dublin, from constituent colleges in Cork and Limerick, and from other centres throughout the country and overseas in Moscow.

The College began development and provision of academic programmes in 1990, delivering degree programmes in Computer Science, Business Studies and Accounting and Finance. Awards were granted under the auspices of the University of Ulster (UU). In 1992, the College became a designated institute of the National Council for Educational Awards (NCEA) and commenced the process of NCEA programme validation. This led to a migration of awards to the NCEA, an expansion in the range of provision from Higher Certificate through to Master degrees and an extension of the disciplines provided to include Media, Design, Music and Education.

In 1994 the College began delivery of its first Nottingham Trent University (NTU) validated degree programme in Business and Law. This collaboration led to further validated programmes in Law, Hospitality Management and International Business at undergraduate and postgraduate level. Following submissions to both HETAC and NTU in 2006, these awards have received joint validation from both awarding bodies, with graduates obtaining joint NTU / HETAC degrees.

Griffith College is funded directly and exclusively from student fee income. Programme fees paid by students or their guardians in respect of accredited programmes are eligible for tax relief. Exceptionally, EU students attending the first two years of the College’s B.Sc. in Computer Science on a full-time basis are eligible for Government public funding under the undergraduate skills funding scheme.

Following approval by the College’s Academic and Professional Council, the College’s academic quality assurance procedures and practices were approved by HETAC in 2005. These continue to be subject to ongoing monitoring, review and development, both internally and in agreement with HETAC and NTU, in the context of programmes approved solely by HETAC and for joint awards made by both HETAC and NTU. In relation to its HETAC programmes, the College is responsible for the appointment of External Examiners and the implementation of policies for programmes validated by HETAC. Where joint awards are concerned, the College implements the procedures agreed by it with both awarding bodies, as set out in the Memorandum of Agreement between NTU and HETAC, regarding provision of

6 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report validated programmes. The College is responsible for undertaking a periodic programmatic review of all programmes validated by HETAC and communicating the outcome of such reviews to HETAC.

Since its foundation, the College has continued to grow and extend its provision of academic and professional programmes to a point where its annual total student population exceeds 8,000. This growth is reflected in the range of programmes provided; the number of College centres and locations; the range of delivery modes - which include full-time, part-time, block release and e-learning; and the internationalisation of its student body, with learners from more than 70 countries now attending the College.

The College delivers the majority of its validated programmes from its main seven acre campus in Dublin. HETAC programmes are also provided from its college locations in Cork and Limerick, with one programme being provided in partnership with Globe Business College in Munich, Germany.

The College delivers a wide range of programmes from Level 6 to Level 9 of the National Framework of Qualifications. The programme profile includes: • Accountancy • Law • Business • Computing • Media/Journalism • Design • Music & Drama

The College has a richly diversified learner profile, in terms of age, previous educational attainment, extent of prior work related experience, gender and ethnicity. This extent of diversity also varies considerably from programme to programme, depending on the study mode and discipline involved. This is exemplified by undergraduate programmes in business and computing attracting international cohorts, while programmes in Irish law, because of their jurisdictional nature, being largely restricted to Irish learners. In the same way, professional and evening programmes are largely provided to Irish residents in full-time employment.

(Additional background on the profile of the College is set out in the Terms of Reference, Appendix A).

7 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Institutional Review Methodology

The Institutional Review process was carried out in accordance with HETAC’s Policy on Institutional Review of Providers of Higher Education and Training , 2007. The process consisted of the following six phases, with the Report of the Expert Panel coming at the end of phase 3.

1. HETAC set the Terms of Reference following consultation with the College. 2. Self-evaluation is carried out by the Institution and is followed by the production of a written Self-Evaluation Report (SER). 3. Site visit of the expert panel appointed by HETAC, followed by the written Report of the Expert Panel. 4. Institutional response to the panel’s report, including its implementation plan. 5. Publication of the Report of the Expert Panel and the College’s subsequent response. 6. Follow-up report submitted by the College.

The Terms of Reference for Griffith College were discussed at a meeting between HETAC and the College in May 2009. The objectives of the Institutional Review of Griffith College were set by HETAC as follows:

1. To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the College and the standards of the awards made. Griffith College welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate to the institutional review panel that the learner is the “primary public” and that learner confidence in the quality of education and training provided and the standards of awards made is a high priority for the College.

2. To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the College. As an independent institution, the College’s specific governance and strategic planning may differ considerably from those applicable to publicly funded institutions.

3. To assess the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by the College with the following special consideration for Griffith College: The Institutional Review should consider the Quality Assurance arrangements for collaborative provision, including any out-centre provision. 1. Collaborative and Transnational Provision and Out-centres

1.1 The institutional review should consider the quality assurance arrangements in place for out-centre provision in centres other than the main Dublin campus as follows:

Griffith College Cork - 2 Campuses Cove Street, Sullivan’s Quay, Cork and The Arch, Drinan Street:

8 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

• Higher Certificate in Business • Higher Certificate in Business in Computer Applications • Certificate in Business Studies in Intercultural Studies • Bachelor of Business in Marketing • Bachelor of Arts in Marketing • Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Accounting & Finance • Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Business Studies • Bachelor of Arts in Journalism • Higher Diploma in Arts in Journalism and Media Communications • Bachelor of Business

1.2 The institutional review should consider the arrangements for collaborative provision provided in partnership with Globe Business College, Munich:

• Bachelor of Arts in Business, level 7 • Bachelor of Arts in Marketing, level 7

1.3 The institutional review should consider the arrangements in place for the provision of programmes leading to joint awards of HETAC and the Nottingham Trent University:

• Postgraduate Diploma in International Business Management, level 9 • Master of Science in International Business Management, level 9 • Master of Business Administration in International Business, level 9 • Bachelor of Laws (Honours) in Irish Law, level 8 • Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Business and Law, level 8 • Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in International Hospitality Management, level 8 • Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Legal Studies with Business, level 8

The policy and criteria in the HETAC document - Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards’ December 2008 (see appendix 1 to the terms of reference) are relevant in this regard.

4. To confirm the extent to which the College has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and its procedures for access, transfer and progression.

The College would like to highlight to the panel its commitment to the National Framework of Qualifications. The College has endeavoured to ensure that the programmes run by the College, outside the remit of HETAC, have received some recognition on the National Framework of Qualifications. An example includes awards from the Leinster School of Music and Drama, a constituent college of Griffith College. The College has also developed a range of “Special Purpose” and “Minor” awards.

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

9 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

In addition to these prescribed objectives, the following Additional Objective was set out in the Terms of Reference under Section 5:

1. The institutional review should explore whether or not the current division of responsibility between the internal and external quality assurance procedures supporting programme validation is optimal, while recognising that HETAC is required to formally validate new programmes, and make recommendations for enhancement.

For the complete Terms of Reference for Griffith College, see Appendix A.

HETAC appointed a panel of experts, under the chairmanship of Mr. Paul Hannigan, to carry out the Institutional Review on its behalf. Panel members were asked to declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to their appointment and none emerged. Panel members received induction training on the conduct of Institutional Reviews in advance of the site visit. The panel membership is outlined in full in Appendix B.

Griffith College’s Self Evaluation Report (SER) and its accompanying documents described the internal preparations in advance of the institutional review process and were submitted to HETAC on 2 September 2009. A desk-based review of the SER was undertaken by HETAC prior to forwarding the report to the review panel. The expert panel assessed the SER in advance of the site visit, and forwarded their initial impressions to HETAC and the Review Secretary.

An advance meeting was held between the Review Chairperson, Secretary, HETAC Head of Institutional Review and representatives of the College on 29 September 2009. This meeting: • Agreed the agenda and logistics of the site visit. • Confirmed the Terms of Reference (TOR) to be addressed by the review. • Agreed additional information and documentation to be made available to panel members during the site visit (a list of these is provided in Appendix C).

The site visit took place on 12-13 October 2009 in Griffith College. The agreed agenda, with some minor variations due to emerging logistical issues, was followed throughout the visit. The final agenda is set out in Appendix D.

As agreed, the panel met Executive and other staff members of the College, learners and other stakeholders. Details of persons with whom the panel met at each session is provided in Appendix E.

The members of the panel were satisfied that they received full cooperation from Griffith College and that they had the necessary documentation and discussions to reach their conclusions and produce their report.

10 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Findings in relation to objectives of Institutional Review

Objective 1 — Public Confidence

To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the College and the standards of the awards made.

This overarching objective covers all areas of the College’s activity. The quality of the Institutional Review process is a critical part of this, as is the publication of the Self Evaluation Report, the Report of the Expert Panel, and the College’s own response and action plan. The information provided by the College to the public is part this objective.

Griffith College uses a number of instruments to promote both itself and public confidence in the College. Included among these are its prospectus and its website. Whilst these are both informative and comprehensive, the information has a focus that is almost exclusively on the client – i.e. the prospective student. This singular focus is also evident in both the Terms of Reference for the Institutional Review and in the Self Evaluation Report.

This emphasis is not, of itself, a bad thing but does the College a disservice in not addressing the concerns and expectations of a wider public.

The panel is of the view that the College needs to show broader engagement, formally recognising and engaging with the wider elements of society, who also constitute its public. This wider engagement would be to the benefit of the primary client – the student.

The panel noted that the College seeks and receives input and feedback from employers in connection with programme review and quality assurance issues but feels that the College would benefit from facilitating direct involvement of employers, agencies and the wider community at a proactive rather than reactive level.

Unsurprisingly, publicity material concentrates on the top rank achievements of the College’s graduates. However, the College should review its material to highlight the extent and level of careers for which its awards prepare all its graduates. This might be facilitated through use of its significant level of contact with alumni to produce, for example, first destinations reports that would underpin the value a wider public affords its awards.

Following meetings with the management and staff of the College the panel noted that the Self Evaluation Report, though broadly consistent with the Terms of Reference, did not reflect how thorough and reflective the process had been in the College. The report highlighted the good and listed what could

11 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report be done in the future. However it lacked the level of analysis, risk assessment, identification of opportunities and strategic direction that serve to underpin a wider public confidence in the operation and output of organisations.

The panel formed the view that the College leadership had driven the institutional self-study with commitment and that the process had been addressed energetically at all levels of the organisation. It is clear that a large amount of data on various College activities had been assiduously assembled, analysed and discussed. That process had brought to light the need for corrections and improvements in many areas of College activities. However, despite being reassured during the panel visit to the College that a level of analysis underpinned the Self Evaluation Report, the panel is concerned that the effectiveness of processes and procedures were not properly addressed and that proposals for improvement were not underpinned by a needs analysis nor were they prioritised in a Strategic Plan.

Commendation

Commendation 1 : The panel wishes to commend Griffith College on the comprehensive work carried out for the Institutional Review process. Although this is not evident in the Self Evaluation Report, it was clear from the panel visit that the process was inclusive, thorough and engaged.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1 : The College should develop mechanisms that would encourage and facilitate greater formal engagement with a broader range of stakeholders, than is currently the case, and with the community. This would improve its service to students, whom it regards as its primary client, and should help strengthen public confidence in its activities.

Recommendation 2: The College has a very clear view of student success and uses the achievement of its top graduates effectively in promotional material. However, the panel felt that it should broaden its graduate employment feedback to reflect the broader range of achievement of all its graduates and thus appeal to a wider audience. Publication of this broader type of information is an important tool in building public confidence.

12 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Objective 2 — Strategic Planning and Governance To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the College

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

Mission and Vision- Findings

The panel noted that the mission of Griffith College, to wit “ Pursuing excellence in applied education”, has remained fairly constant over the years to reflect existing practice and a continuing search for best practice.

The applied nature of the education offered reflects the College’s foundation as a professional college and its continuing focus on enabling its learners to seek advancement in their careers through successful completion of career oriented programmes.

This emphasis is incorporated in a recently extended mission, which reads: “Pursuing excellence in applied education and the relentless pursuit of the advancement of individual learner attainment”

The values underpinning this mission reflect a commitment to placing the educational needs of the learner at the core of the College’s academic activities; a commitment to defining and advancing programme learning outcomes; and a commitment to constructing current, relevant and robust teaching, learning and assessment methodologies.

The College has identified key components of a vision by which the mission and values would be realised. These include:

1) Continuing to draw on and develop existing strengths.

2) The move through blended to online learning.

3) Further development of articulation agreements internationally.

4) The development of a research function in the long term.

The panel noted that the values articulated by the College are central to its activities. It is clear from Objective 1 that the learner is central to the operation and success of the College. From its active participation in developments brought about by the ‘Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999’

13 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report and the ‘Bologna Process’ the College continues to demonstrate its commitment to a modern approach to learning and teaching.

Governance

Griffith College has established one Board to perform this function.

1. The Board of Directors of the Company has legal and fiduciary responsibility; it is responsible for ensuring that the company delivers on its Memorandum and Articles of Association; is compliant with the requirements of Company Law; it governs the organisation by establishing broad policies and objectives; it selects, appoints, supports and reviews the performance of the officers of the College; it ensures the availability of adequate financial resources; it approves annual budgets; and is accountable to the stakeholders for the organisation's performance.

2. The development of the College as an academic institution is achieved through two boards that report directly to the Board of Directors. These are:

The Management Board : This Board oversees the operational management of the College; it determines budget allocations and makes resource and capital investment decisions up to a maximum approved by the Board of Directors; it reviews course proposals in terms of viability and appropriateness to strategic aims; participates in the formal review of programmes, Faculties and Departments and considers resource requirements leading from Programme Reviews, Faculty Reviews and Department Reviews; it manages human resource issues, including the provision of staff development and oversees the marketing of the College.

Academic & Professional Council : This Board ensures that the College's academic policies relating to teaching and learning are consonant with the College's mission and strategic plan; ensures the implementation of the academic regulations of the College and monitors the design, development and implementation of courses of study in accordance with the functions of the College; it makes recommendations to the board of management for the selection, admission, retention and exclusion of students; it ensures that the quality and standard of provision is routinely monitored and that the regulatory framework governing the assessment and examination of students is fairly operated; it approves External Examiner nominations and reviews internal and external feedback and proposes appropriate action in response to feedback

The panel is of the view that these structures are appropriate and are effective in providing for the governance and management of the College.

14 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Strategic Planning Findings

As acknowledged by the College, the external environment is becoming more challenging for higher education providers. Any mission and its underpinning vision must, therefore, enable institutions to articulate clearly where they see themselves succeeding in the medium to long term. This is equally true for both private and public higher education providers.

The mission articulated by the College is somewhat generic and would be reflective of the intentions of the majority of higher education providers in this sector. What is lacking from it is an identification of Griffith College’s unique ethos or activities. Given that the College is totally reliant on student fees as an income source it should be possible for the institute to articulate its Unique Selling Point.

Additionally, it should be possible for the College to describe the vector of change that will see it develop and grow from its position in the current, somewhat constrained, economic environment to its desired future state in the medium to long term.

The panel is concerned that a strategic plan for the development of the institution has not yet been devised and adopted. The strategy of the College focuses on cost-effectiveness, the impact of technology and the recruitment of international students. However, this could give the impression of strategy being driven solely by opportunity and reaction rather than reflection, analysis and vision. The fact that individual faculties independently produce plans and make them available to other faculties highlights this. In effect, these faculty plans are more in the nature of business plans focused on particular products, services or programmes. Faculty plans should be framed in the context of an institutional strategic plan, not the other way around. The focus of the strategic plan should be on the entire organisation.

The panel was impressed by the cultural diversity evident on campus. The marketplace for international students, however, is becoming increasingly crowded and competitive. The College is a market leader in Ireland and if it is to maintain that position it will need to frame strategies that will under-line its Unique Selling Point in that marketplace. While the College has a clear view of ‘what we do’ and ‘for whom we do it’, it has not articulated a coherent position on ‘how we excel’.

Commendation

Commendation 2 : The panel commends the commitment of Griffith College to changes brought about by it in relation to the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999 and the Bologna Process. This is clearly embedded in College policy. This commitment comes from the highest level in the College, and the panel commends the President and his staff for their active participation in these processes.

15 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Recommendations

Recommendation 3 : The College should continue the process of developing and adopting a formal strategic plan to provide clarity about structure, policy and direction. Faculty business plans should be framed within the context of this institutional strategy.

Recommendation 4: In framing a strategy for the future, the College should utilise a common analytical tool that would enable it to articulate and clearly evaluate its current position in Irish Higher Education and identify the structural and environmental threats and opportunities it is likely to face in the medium term.

Recommendation 5: The College, in its new management information software, should develop robust business intelligence and management information systems to provide sufficient and appropriate key performance indicators that will enable it to evaluate achievement against milestones in the strategic plan.

Recommendation 6: The College should re-examine the role of the Heads of Faculty to elicit how they may be brought into an institutional strategic planning process.

Recommendation 7: In terms of looking forward and in framing an Institutional Strategic Plan, the College should consider utilising a risk management tool to identify, analyse, manage and mitigate risks to its success.

16 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Objective 3 — Quality Assurance

To assess the effectiveness of the Quality Assurance arrangements operated by the College (with the Special Consideration as indicated below)

This is based on Part One of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (QA). 1 By including this in the Institutional Review process, the statutory requirement for the review of QA is met. How the College reviews the effectiveness of its QA for the seven elements of the European Standards and Guidelines should be explicitly addressed by the review process.

Summary of Objective 3 — Quality Assurance

The panel noted that Griffith College, as required by the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act, 1999, had agreed its quality assurance procedures with HETAC. These procedures are very comprehensive. The College has a clear quality assurance policy that enshrines the following objectives;

To identify the principles upon which the College’s quality assurance policies, procedures, practices and guidelines are based and which aim to enhance and fulfil its mission as an education provider
To outline the College’s collegial approach to the agreement and ongoing monitoring and development of quality assurance processes
To identify the process of implementation and integration of policies, procedures, practices and guidelines and the corresponding management structures that support this process.

The panel noted that the production of the Quality Assurance Manual was not simply a top-down process but that the staff was involved in its production. Students and College committees, industry advisors and employers were able to feed into the process design.

It was clear from the meetings with staff that a quality culture is genuinely embedded in the College. The articulation arrangements that the College has with Nottingham Trent University and the incorporation of best practice from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) into College procedures has enhanced the quality procedures in the College.

Information provided by the College in the SER shows that the College has taken this requirement seriously and has or is attempting to address issues that have arisen.

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

17 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

European Standards Element 1- Policy and procedures for quality assurance findings Griffith College has articulated its policy and procedures for quality assurance through a Quality Assurance Manual that is comprehensive, systematic and in line with best international practice. The full manual is available for download from the College website ( http://www.gcd.ie/qamanual.pdf ).

Whilst the College insists that quality assurance and quality improvement are continuous, rather than episodic, processes for the precise arrangements for reviewing the content of the manual and the timely embedding of changes in new versions is not explicit. Responsibility for ensuring that new procedures become operational throughout the College and its satellite campuses was unclear.

The panel recommends that the College should review the scope and content of the Quality Assurance Manual periodically during the course of each quinquennium to ensure it remains current, relevant and in keeping with best practice as it develops.

While the college has a coherent policy and robust procedures for quality assurance, it does not have a quality strategy that is coherent with the standards and guidelines for quality assurance. This strategy should clearly indicate how the College will pursue the continuous enhancement of quality and the role which students and other stakeholders will have in that process.

Commendation 3 : Panel members were given the opportunity to review samples of the various questionnaires, report forms, meetings, records and other documentation illustrating the operation of the quality assurance procedures. Documentation of the procedures approaches exemplary standards, the departmental review template being particularly commendable.

Commendation 4 : The panel welcomed and commended the student charter as a well-balanced expression of the rights and obligations of students and staff in their joint pursuit of educational achievement.

Recommendation 8 : The panel recommends that the College develops and implements a strategy for the continuous enhancement of quality and makes this, along with its policy and procedures publicly available.

18 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Recommendation 9: The panel recommends that approval reports on overseas partner providers such as Globe, Munich, should explicitly articulate the arrangements, procedures and responsibilities for assuring the quality of the learning opportunities at such locations.

European Standards Element 2- Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards findings

The panel is satisfied that the College has in place policies and procedures for validation, monitoring and review of programmes. These have been agreed with HETAC and are being implemented.

Regular Programmatic Reviews are carried out by the College in accordance with the quality assurance procedures. Reports are forwarded to HETAC who takes appropriate action. The panel is satisfied that these arrangements provide assurance that quality assurance findings in relation to education and training programmes are implemented.

European Standards Element 3 - Assessment of learners findings

Students are assessed according to criteria outlined in programme approval documents and to the relevant Marks and Standards document agreed with HETAC. Although the SER made no reference to prospective changes arising from the forthcoming implementation of the new HETAC policy on learner assessment, Assessment & Standards, 2009 , the panel was assured in discussions that the academic staff is aware of the changes involved and that preparations are in hand for the changes required for the September 2010 implementation deadline.

The panel reviewed a sample of Extern Examiner Reports and other documentation of the assessment system and is satisfied that assessment is fair and consistent and that it complies with the standards set by HETAC for the various awards.

Commendation 5 : The panel commends Griffith College’s policy of automatically issuing, free of charge, the European Diploma Supplement to every student upon graduation. The panel further commends the College for publicising this in its information to prospective students and for providing an example of the Supplement on its website 2.

2 Available at: http://www.gcd.ie/index.jsp?1nID=93&pID=95&nID=808

19 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Recommendation 10 : Given the changes occasioned by the publication of the new HETAC policy on learner assessment and the requirement of the European Standard that ‘Students should be assessed using published criteria, regulations and procedures which are applied consistently’ the panel recommends that the College should take further steps to make the criteria clearer to students, including a specific dialogue with student representatives on this matter, and to publish relevant documentation on the College’s website.

European Standards Element 4- Quality assurance of teaching staff findings

In its discussions with lecturing staff the panel was impressed by their positive attitude to both student and peer feedback, indicating a general commitment to quality assurance and enhancement, and contributing to a clarity and consistency in teaching methodologies, as well as openness to innovative practice. In this context, the College makes extensive use of student feedback on lecturer performance and provides an example of good practice.

The Lecturer Development and Support Unit (LDSU) makes a commendable contribution to staff development and has an especially valuable role where relatively large numbers of part-time teaching staff are engaged. The requirement that staff complete a postgraduate teaching qualification is a welcome development. While it is compulsory for new staff it is unclear as to whether it is mandatory for existing staff.

Commendation 6 : The College is to be commended for its efforts in ensuring that teaching staff members are appropriately qualified, and for its encouragement and support of staff wishing to update their qualifications.

Commendation 7 : The panel was impressed by the use made of lecturer peer observation and feedback. This could provide a model of good practice for other institutions.

Recommendation 11: The panel recommends that the College take steps to ensure that staff members away from the main campus are accorded the facilities and expertise available to staff members on the main campus.

20 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

European Standards Element 5 - Learning resources and support findings

It is a requirement of programme validation and review to ensure that adequate facilities and resources are in place to support student learning. While these can always be enhanced, there is frequently a disconnect between students’ perceptions and the perception of faculty and management. In this context, what is important is that there is in place a communications strategy that feeds information and demands in one direction and adequate and timely responses in the other.

In the consultation sessions, students sought improved computing, library and study facilities and, in some cases, better feedback from teaching staff and a greater level of academic advice. These perceived inadequacies seemed to be greater in the satellite campuses. It behoves the College to consult with student representatives to determine whether, or how, these issues could be addressed.

Despite the comments above, however, the students were quite definite in their views that the teaching staff, with very few reported reservations, are of the highest quality. In discussions students said this was the factor above all others that attracted them to the College – the lecturers’ reputation among the students’ peers.

European Standards Element 6- Information systems findings

The College has in place a core administrative information system used for learner data in respect of admission, registration, assessment and examination results. This is an in-house designed product (Scholar) and is beginning to suffer due to the increased enrolments in the College and its increased level of activity. The College is currently, actively, engaged in sourcing a replacement system that will satisfy its needs at least in the medium term.

The College uses a number of external information systems to assist in management of all aspects of the College.

There is no evidence that the College uses bespoke business intelligence or management information systems that would help with strategic planning.

European Standards Element 7- Public information findings

The College makes available, through its website, brochures and prospectuses, a range of relevant information about its programmes, staff and facilities, generally in line with that provided by other higher education institutions.

21 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Overall Conclusions on Objective 3 – Quality Assurance Procedures

The panel’s overall conclusion on the effectiveness of the quality assurance procedures is positive. There is strong commitment to quality at all levels of the College. The panel is satisfied that operation of the procedures is making a major contribution to the quality of the College’s higher education and training programmes.

The panel considered the College’s procedures in relation to the seven elements of the European Standards and Guidelines for Internal Quality Assurance and concludes that the criteria have been met.

Commendation 8 : The panel commends the College on its Quality Assurance Procedures and their effectiveness under the seven elements of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance. College staff have a positive attitude to quality assurance and recognise the benefits of having Quality Assurance and Improvement procedures in place to enhance the work of the College.

Commendation 9 : The College is commended for its development of a postgraduate Special Purpose Award in teaching and learning.

Commendation 10 : The panel considered that the programme handbook for fashion design was an example of good practice that could usefully be emulated by other courses.

Commendation 11 : A significant proportion of the College’s students come from outside the national jurisdiction. The College has played a notable role in promoting and developing a code of standards for institutions with foreign students, which is now widely accepted and implemented. The College leadership deserves a special commendation for this service and achievement.

Recommendation 12: The College should increase its efforts to improve student involvement in quality processes.

Recommendation 13: The panel recommends that the College ensure that all academic staff members are required to undertake the postgraduate Special Purpose Award in Teaching and Learning .

22 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Objective 4 — Qualifications Framework, Access, Transfer and Progression

To confirm the extent to which the College has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and its procedures for access, transfer and progression.

This objective has two main strands: 1. Review of the Institution’s activity in implementing the National Framework of Qualifications 2. Procedures for access, transfer and progression

The panel found that the College has a very clear approach in this area, and is fully supportive of implementing the National Framework of Qualifications. Progress in the application of Assessment of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL) and the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) has been somewhat slower than that in relation to traditional academic progression. The College, however, has put the necessary infrastructure in place to facilitate a broader uptake, as prospective learners become more aware of the possibilities now available. While the College’s approach is a good beginning, the panel urges it to be more pro-active in promoting these opportunities.

The College has endeavoured to ensure that the programmes it provides leading to awards other than those provided by HETAC are nonetheless recognised on the National Framework of Qualifications. Examples include awards of the Leinster School of Music and Drama, a constituent college of Griffith College. The College has also developed a range of ‘Special Purpose’ and ‘Minor’ programmes, leading to awards at Levels 6-10 on the National Framework of Qualifications.

Key Findings — Objective 4

The College is actively implementing the National Framework of Qualifications in accordance with the determinations of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland.

Commendation

Commendation 12 : The panel commends the College on its implementation of the National Framework of Qualifications which is well understood by all staff.

Recommendation

Recommendation 14: The panel recommends that a more proactive approach should be adopted to the Assessment of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL) and the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) particularly in the context of newer pedagogies and flexible modes of delivery.

23 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Objective 5

To evaluate the operation and management of delegated authority where it has been granted to Institutes of Technology

This objective currently only applies to Recognised Institutions as defined in Section 24 (1)(a) of the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act, 1999. It does not apply to Griffith College.

24 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Objective 6 — Recommendations for Enhancement

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

This objective includes both the recommendations arising from the external peer review process and the recommendations arising from the internal self-evaluation process.

Key Findings — Objective 6 – Recommendations for Enhancement

Unfortunately, the SER and additional material submitted by Griffith College lacked any internal or external analysis that would inform this objective.

Recommendation

Recommendation 15: The panel recommends that the College continue to analyse its strengths and weaknesses in all areas of its operations and identify the opportunities available to it in the current environment, as well as the threats facing it, and that it refines its mission and vision of what Griffith College can, and should, become in the medium to long term.

25 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Additional Objective for Griffith College

In addition to the prescribed HETAC objectives and the special considerations noted in relation to them, institutions have the option to include additional objectives to maximise the benefits of the review process.

Griffith College added one additional objective to the Terms of Reference for Institutional Review. The College welcomes the institutional review approach towards enhancement of provision, in particular, the opportunity to identify what those enhancements will be in the next phase of development. Griffith College is determined to enhance provision to the next level of achievement and gain further recognition as an independent provider. For example, the quality assurance of programmes provided by Griffith College has an internal dimension -the College's own internal quality assurance procedures-and an external dimension- HETAC's external quality procedures notably its procedures for new programme validation and institutional review. Specifically, Griffith College submits all of its new programmes to HETAC for validation and under existing legislation must continue to do so.

The institutional review should explore whether or not the current division of responsibility between the internal and external quality assurance procedures supporting programme validation is optimal, while recognising that HETAC is required to formally validate new programmes, and make recommendations for enhancement.

Panel findings

With regard to this objective the panel felt it was outside its remit to comment. However, as the issues involved are not specific to Griffith College but involve other private providers, the panel recommends that HETAC engage with Griffith College and other interested parties particularly in the context of the proposed amalgamation of quality assurance agencies.

26 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Appendix A Terms of Reference

Higher Education and Training Awards Council

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF

Griffith College, October 2009

STATUS - SET

1. Purpose

The purpose of this document is to specify the Terms of Reference for the institutional review of Griffith College in October 2009. The HETAC Institutional Review policy applies to all institutions providing HETAC accredited programmes, or programmes accredited under delegated authority. These Terms of Reference are set within the overarching policy for institutional review as approved in December 2007 and should be read in conjunction with same. These Terms of Reference does not replace or supersede the agreed policy for Institutional Review. The Terms of Reference once set may not be amended and any significant revision required to the Terms of Reference will result in a new Terms of Reference to be set by HETAC following consultation with the college. Terms of Reference should be read in conjunction with the supplementary guidelines for institutional review.

The objectives of the institutional review process are

1. To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the institution and the standards of the awards made; 2. To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the institution; 3. To assess the effectiveness of the quality assurance arrangements operated by the institution; 4. To confirm the extent that the institution has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications and procedures for access, transfer and progression; 5. To evaluate the operation and management of delegated authority where it has been granted to Institutes of Technology; 6. To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by the institution. It is possible that, within the objectives outlined above, Institutions may have specific sub-objectives to which they will attach particular importance and wish to emphasise in their TOR. To maximise the benefits of the review process, Institutions may also consider including additional objectives relevant to its context.

The approach taken by HETAC to institutional review will:

• Acknowledge that institutions have ownership of and responsibility for their activity; • Be conducted in a spirit of partnership with institutions, with a view to improvement and enhancement, whilst acknowledging statutory requirements for accountability; • Be conducted in a manner which adds value to the institution, minimises overhead and assists in building institutional capacity; • Be flexible, adaptable and scalable in order to meet the needs of diverse institutions; • Be conducted in an open, consistent and transparent manner; • Be evidence-based in accordance with established criteria; • Promote learning and development for all involved; • Reward innovation and experimentation when it seeks to enhance our understanding of good practice; • Promote collaboration and sharing of good practice between institutions; • Take cognisance of international best practice and contribute to European and international developments in this area.

27 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

2. Institution Profile

Griffith College is an independent provider of higher education and professional training. Established in 1974 as Business and Accounting Training, it began its delivery of accountancy training programmes leading to the examinations of the professional bodies, both national and international. The College continues to deliver professional training in accountancy, law and other disciplines from its campus in Dublin, from its constituent colleges in Cork and Limerick, and from other centres throughout the country and overseas in Moscow.

The College began its development and provision of academic programmes in 1990, delivering degree programmes in Computing Science, Business Studies and Accounting and Finance initially under the auspices of the University of Ulster (UU). In 1992 the College became a designated institute of the National Council for Educational Awards NCEA and commenced the process of NCEA programme validation. This led to a migration of its existing UU degree programmes, an expansion in the range of provision from Higher Certificate to Masters programmes, and an extension of the disciplines involved to include Media, Design, Music and Education.

In 1994 the College began delivery of its first Nottingham Trent University validated degree in Business and Law. This collaboration led to further validated programmes in Law, Hospitality Management and International Business at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. Since 2006, the College’s NTU awards have also been recognised by HETAC with graduates obtaining joint NTU / HETAC awards.

Griffith College is funded directly and exclusively from student fee income. Programme fees paid by students or their guardians in respect of accredited programmes are eligible for tax relief. Exceptionally, EU students attending the first two years of the College’s B.Sc. in Computing Science on a full-time basis are eligible for public funding under the skills initiative. The College is not eligible for public funding under free fees, SFI, PRTLI or related research initiatives.

Following approval by the College’s Academic and Professional Council, the College’s academic quality assurance procedures and practices were approved by HETAC and NTU in 2005. These continue to be subject to ongoing monitoring, review and development, both internally and in agreement with HETAC and NTU. In relation to its NTU validated programmes, the College operates in much the same manner as the University’s other departments and centres, by implementing agreed quality assurance procedures in association with University appointed external examiners and verifiers. In relation to its HETAC programmes the College is responsible for the appointment of External Examiners and the implementation of policies for programmes validated by HETAC. The College is also responsible for undertaking a periodic programmatic review of all programmes validated by HETAC. ,

Since its foundation, the College has continued to grow and extend its provision of academic and professional programmes to a point where its annual student population exceeds 7,000. This growth is reflected in: the range of programmes provided; the number of College centres and locations; the range of delivery modes which include full-time, part-time, block release and e-learning; and the internationalisation of its student body with learners from more than 66 countries attending the College. Sustaining the growth from year to year arises from the success of the College’s learners and the increased reputation made possible through their word of mouth recommendations. In this regard, our learners continue to be the College’s primary public.

The College delivers the majority of its validated programmes from its main seven acre campus in Dublin. HETAC programmes are also provided from its college locations in Cork and Limerick with one programme being provided in partnership with Globe Business College in Munich, Germany.

The College delivers a wide range of programmes from Level 6 to Level 9. The programme profile includes:

• Accountancy • Law

28 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

• Business • Computing • Media/Journalism • Design • Music & Drama

The College has a richly diversified learner profile, in terms of age, previous educational attainment, extent of prior work related experience, gender and ethnicity. This extent of diversity also varies considerably from programme to programme, depending on the study mode and discipline involved, for example, with undergraduate programmes in business and computing attracting international cohorts and programmes in Irish law, because of its jurisdictional nature being largely restricted to Irish learners. In the same way, professional and evening programmes are largely provided to Irish residents in full-time employment.

The College greatly welcomes the considerable challenge and opportunity afforded by the self evaluation and institutional review processes. It is committed to active college-wide engagement, in the full expectation that the collaborative process will serve to review, inform, affirm and enhance the College’s long standing tradition of learner-centred quality educational provision.

3. Griffith College Team / Contact Details The Institutional Review involves all members of the College, both teaching and non-teaching, whether full-time or part-time, throughout all of the College’s locations. It is undertaken by review groups involving representatives from each department, location and functional role.

A coordinating group has been established to facilitate the process. This group includes:

Diarmuid Hegarty College President 01-4150450

Tomás Mac Eochagáin Director of Academic Programmes 01-4150447

Sean Reid Students’ Union President 01-4150400

John Mc Sweeney Student Development Officer 01-4150400

Ailish Finucane Head of Examinations 01-4150486

Fiona O’Riordan Head of Lecturer Support 01-4150437

Richard Mc Hugh Quality Assurance Officer 01-4163360

All members of the co-ordinating self-evaluation group can be reached by means of a shared email address [email protected]

Richard Mc Hugh has been appointed as Liaison Officer for the group.

4. HETAC objectives for institutional review

There are six prescribed objectives for institutional review as outlined below. Institutions may wish to highlight any areas of specific importance to the Institution within each of the objectives.

Objective 1 To enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the institution and the standards of the awards made

This objective is to enhance public confidence in the quality of education and training provided by the Institution and the standards of the awards made. This is an overarching objective which covers all areas

29 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report of the Institution’s activity. The quality of the institutional review process itself is a critical part of this as is the internal self study, the publication of the Self Evaluation Report and panel report. The information provided by the Institution to the public falls within this objective.

Special consideration for Griffith College:

Griffith College welcomes the opportunity to demonstrate to the institutional review panel that the learner is the primary public and that learner confidence in the quality of education and training provided and the standards of awards made is a high priority for the College.

Objective 2 To contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the institution

This objective is to contribute to coherent strategic planning and governance in the institution. The review may address the coherence of institutional mission, vision and values and overall institutional strategic planning. For recognised institutions with delegated authority this objective also includes the Operation and Management criterion of the review of delegated authority (governance, management, administration, planning and evaluation) and the Objects of the Qualifications Act criterion relating to national contributions etc .

Special consideration for Griffith College:

As an independent institution, the College’s specific governance and strategic planning may differ considerably from those applicable to publicly funded institutions.

Objective 3 To assess the effectiveness of the quality assurance arrangements operated by the institution

This objective is to assess the effectiveness of the quality assurance arrangements operated by the institution. This will be based on Part One of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance 3. By including this in the institutional review process the statutory requirement for review of QA is met. How the Institution manages its QA for the “seven elements” of Part One of the European Standards and Guidelines should be explicitly addressed by the review process including : Policy and procedures for quality assurance; Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards; Assessment of students; Quality assurance of teaching staff; Learning resources and support; Information systems; Public information.

Special consideration for Griffith College:

1. Collaborative and Transnational Provision and Out-centres

1.1 The institutional review should consider the quality assurance arrangements in place for out-centre provision in centers other than the main Dublin campus as follows:

Griffith College Cork - 2 Campuses Cove Street, Sullivan’s Quay, Cork and The Arch Drinan Street:

• - Higher Certificate in Business - Higher Certificate in Business in Computer Applications - Certificate in Business Studies in Intercultural Studies - Bachelor of Business in Marketing - Bachelor of Arts in Marketing

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

30 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

- Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Accounting & Finance - Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Business Studies - Bachelor of Arts in Journalism - Higher Diploma in Arts in Journalism and Media Communications - Bachelor of Business 1.2 The institutional review should consider the arrangements for collaborative provision provided in partnership with Globe Business College, Munich:

• Bachelor of Arts in Business, level 7 • Bachelor of Arts in Marketing, level 7 1.3 The institutional review should consider the arrangements in place for the provision of programmes leading to joint awards of HETAC and the Nottingham Trent University:

• Postgraduate Diploma in International Business Management, level 9 • Master of Science in International Business Management, level 9 • Master of Business Administration in International Business, level 9 • Bachelor of Laws (Honours) in Irish Law, level 8 • Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Business and Law, level 8 • Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in International Hospitality Management, level 8 • Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Legal Studies with Business, level 8

The policy and criteria in the HETAC document - Policy for collaborative programmes, transnational programmes and joint awards, December 2008 are relevant in this regard.

Objective 4 To confirm the extent that the institution has implemented the national framework of qualifications and procedures for access, transfer and progression

This objective is to confirm the extent that the institution has implemented the National Framework of Qualifications and procedures for access, transfer and progression. The National Qualifications Authority has produced guidelines in relation to this. For example this includes issues such as credit, transfer and progression routes between levels and award types, entry arrangements and information provision. As part of this objective, HEA-funded Institutions should be mindful of the goals of the HEA’s National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher Education (2008-2013) and pay particular attention to the objectives relevant to Higher Education Institutions.

Special consideration for Griffith College:

The College would like to highlight to the panel its commitment to the National Framework of Qualifications. The College has endeavored to ensure that the programmes run by the College, outside the remit of HETAC, have received some recognition on the National Framework of Qualifications. An example of such awards include those from the Leinster School of Music and Drama, a constituent college of Griffith College. The College has also developed a range of “Special Purpose” and “Minor” awards.

[Objective 5 to evaluate the operation and management of delegated authority where it has been granted – NOT APPLICABLE]

Objective 6 To provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by the institution

This objective is to provide recommendations for the enhancement of the education and training provided by the institution. This will include both the recommendations arising from the external peer review process and recommendations arising from the internal self study process.

31 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

5. Institution-specific objectives

In addition to the prescribed HETAC objectives and the special considerations noted in relation to them, institutions have the option to include additional objectives to maximise the benefits of the review process. These might include for example:-

• the management of significant organisational change (such as a merger, campus relocation, organisational re-structuring, etc .); • accommodating joint review with other statutory or non-statutory bodies from Ireland/overseas; • integrating institutional review and programmatic review where feasible ( e.g. in the case of specialised institutions having a single (or few related) programmes); • using the process to progress a priority policy area or strategic objective (e.g. research management, internationalisation, etc .).

Additional Institutional Objective

The College welcomes the institutional review approach towards enhancement of provision, in particular, the opportunity to identify what those enhancements will be in the next phase of development. Griffith College is determined to enhance provision to the next level of achievement and gain further recognition as an independent provider. For example, the quality assurance of programmes provided by Griffith College has an internal dimension- the College's own internal quality assurance procedures-and an external dimension-HETAC's external quality procedures notably its procedures for new programme validation and institutional review. Specifically, Griffith College submits all of its new programmes to HETAC for validation and under existing legislation must continue to do so.

The institutional review should explore whether or not the current division of responsibility between the internal and external quality assurance procedures supporting programme validation is optimal, while recognising that HETAC is required to formally validate new programmes, and make recommendations for enhancement.

32 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

6. Schedule for Griffith College

As outlined in the Institutional Review policy, the process consists of six phases

1. HETAC sets terms of reference following consultation with institution; 2. Self-study by the institution; 3. Visit by expert panel appointed by HETAC and written panel report; 4. Institutional response including implementation plan; 5. Panel report and response published; 6. Follow-up report submitted by the institution. The major milestones in the timeframe for the institutional review of Griffith College are outlined below. This should be read in conjunction with the supplementary guidelines for institutional review.

Relative Actual Date Milestone timeframe At least 6 months Institution indicates timeframe for institutional before panel visit review as per overall HETAC schedule of reviews

At least 6 months May 2009 Terms of Reference set following consultation before panel visit with Institution and post on HETAC website 3 to 6 months Institution undertakes self study process and before panel visit produces self evaluation report (SER)

Approx. 8 weeks 14 August 2009 Submission of Self Evaluation Report and other before site visit documentation

4 weeks before site 14 September 2009 HETAC Desk based review of SER and feedback visit to Institution

Approx. 3 weeks 29 September 2009 Advance Meeting between Chair, Secretary before site visit and Institution

Panel Visit 12-13 October 2009 Site Visit by external peer review panel (2 days approximately as determined by TOR) Preliminary (oral) feedback on findings

Approx 12 weeks Estimated: 18 January 2010 Draft report on findings of panel sent by HETAC after site visit to Institution for factual accuracy Actual: 13 April 2010 Approx. 4 days Estimated: 22 January 2010 Final report on findings of panel sent by HETAC following this to Institution Actual: 26 May 2010 6 weeks following 21 June 2010 Response by Institution to HETAC including plan receipt of final with timeframe for implementation of any report changes

Next available Consideration of report and institutional HETAC Academic 5 July 2010 response by HETAC Academic Committee Committee meeting Publication of report, response and SER on website once adopted 12 months after July 2011 Follow-up report by Institution to HETAC on adoption implementation of recommendations

33 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Appendix B Panel Membership

Chairperson

Mr. Paul Hannigan

President of Letterkenny Institute of Technology

Review Secretary *

Mr. Liam Ryan

Former Director of Academic Affairs, HETAC

Ms. Katie Akerman

Head of Quality Management at Bath Spa University

Mr. Robert Grealis

Consulting Partner at The Discovery Partnership

Ms. Mairead Clohessy

Learner Representative, Postgraduate Learner, Master in Business, Tipperary Institute

NOTE

* Mr. Liam Ryan, Review Secretary, attended the advance meeting and the site visit held at Griffith College and produced the initial draft report for the expert panel and subsequently withdrew from the panel. Dr. Dermot Douglas assisted the panel in the production of the final draft report.

Observer Ms. Chris Slade, Nottingham Trent University, UK (Present at the institutional review site visit due to the collaborative provision with NTU)

34 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Appendix C Index of supporting material provided on–site

Section A College Related Information

A1: College Publicity and Promotional Material (e.g. prospectus, DVDs, schools liaison schedules, branding , merchandising)

A2: College Organisational Structures (e.g. faculty and departmental reporting lines, staff profiles)

A3: Institutional Policies and Procedures (e.g. QA: Policies, Procedures, Practices and Guidelines, HR Policies, Safety Statement, RPL Policy)

A4: College Publications (examples) (e.g. course manuals, lecturer and learner publications)

A5: Collaborative Provision with NTU (e.g. PSQR and CSQR reports, verifier reports, memorandum of understanding)

A6: Outreach Centre Information (re GCC, GCL, GBCM) (e.g. consideration documents, review reports)

A7: List of institutions with which articulation agreements exist

A8: Lecturer Development and Support Information (e.g. lecturer handbook, lecturer development and support activities, level 9 programme, ICEP conference material, lecturer and module assessment instruments)

A9: Learner Resources (e.g. Student Handbook, SU Schedule of Events, Supports for International Learners, feedback assessment instruments)

A10: Student Profile Statistics (e.g. by campus, course and country of origin)

A11: Record of Success of College learners (e.g. in external professional examinations, competitions)

Section B: Institutional Review Process Information

B1: Formation and Initial Communication (e.g. Terms of reference, introductory documents, coordinating committee agendas)

B2: Desk Review of QA Policies and Procedures against EUA Seven Elements

B3: Analysis of QA Practices and Procedures (on the ground) (e.g. introductory, peer review and evaluative processes of and by faculties / departments)

B4: Focus Groups: Processes and Findings (e.g. agenda for focus groups, focus group minutes (lecturer / learner / course development participants )

B5: Strategy Presentations (e.g. faculty specific presentation slides, college wide educational / strategic direction presentations)

35 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

B6: Case Studies (e.g. Examples of effective and innovative practice)

B7: NTU Institutional Review: Processes and Findings (e.g. Centre Approval Documents, Critical Appraisal Document, NTU report on the Institutional review)

B8: Collation of documentation to support HETAC Self-Evaluation Report (e.g. SER mapping to appendix A of HETAC Institutional review Guidelines Document analysis report, Focus Group Reports)

Section C: Information in respect of M.Sc. in Computing Science

C1: Validation / Programmatic Review documentation C2: Course Delivery and Management Processes C3: Assessment Processes C4: External Examiner Processes C5: Annual Programme Reviews

Section D: Information in respect of BA (Hons) in Journalism and Visual Media

D1: Validation / Programmatic Review documentation D2: Course Delivery and Management Processes D3: Assessment Processes D4: External Examiner Processes D5: Annual Programme Reviews

Section E: Information in respect of BA (Ord) in Fashion Design

E1: Validation / Programmatic Review documentation E2: Course Delivery and Management Processes E3: Assessment Processes E4: External Examiner Processes E5: Annual Programme Reviews

Section F: Information in respect of BA (Hons) in International Hospitality Management

F1: Validation / Programmatic Review documentation F2: Course Delivery and Management Processes F3: Assessment Processes F4: External Examiner / Verifier Processes F5: Annual Programme Reviews

Section G: On-line information provided on PC

G1: College Website G2: MyGCD / Moodle facility for learners G3: Moodle usage to support lecturers and staff engaged in College processes

36 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Appendix D Agenda for site visit

Griffith College Institutional Review 12th -13th October 2009

The format of each session is a discussion in question and answer format unless otherwise indicated. Mr Paul Hannigan, Review Chairman, will chair all sessions unless otherwise indicated.

Day One 9.30am - 12.00 am - Panel Induction (continued) and Panel planning - Private meeting of panel Monday in Griffith College, Dublin. 12 October 12.00am -12.30 Lunch – Panel private lunch and opportunity for panel members to review supplementary evidence – documentation. ______

12.30 pm – 1.45pm - Session One with College Representatives - Objective 2: Strategic Planning and Governance. Brief presentation (10mins max) Setting the scene - Institution overview, context, mission, and vision. Clarification on structure and roles and overall activities the College is engaged in. Environmental factors including competitive position. Collaborative provision. This session to include consideration of Special Objective 5 - Internal External QA – next level of achievement and the strategic aspects of Objective 1: Public confidence – strategic alliances overview of activities and demonstration of public confidence. Overview of Collaborative provision ______1.45pm- 2.00pm Break for coffee / brief panel discussion ______

2.00pm – 3.00pm - Objective 3: Quality Assurance - Overview of Quality Assurance system (Brief presentation 10 minutes maximum ) and management of change to QA system – QA framework within the College – Senior members of staff. Objective 1 : Public confidence continued - Approach to the self evaluation process. – This session to include Faculty Heads - coordinating committee and Registrar. Public information provided by Institution; approach taken to self study for Institutional Review (outline of self study process etc). (Registrar, Institution’s team). Procedures for collaborative provision

______3.00pm- 3.15pm Break for coffee / brief panel discussion ______

Session three - 3.15pm – 4.45pm Concurrent meetings with different staff within the College as set out :

3.15pm- 4.00pm – Academic Staff Support Group

4.00pm - 4.45pm – Non Academic Staff Support This session will deal with the “seven elements” covered by the European Standards and Guidelines and the stage of development of the Institutions QA system in each area ; evidence of performance of QA system in each area; evaluation of effectiveness of QA system in each area; improvements identified; integration between processes, governance, management and planning etc)

4.45pm- 5.00pm Break for coffee / brief panel discussion

5.00pm – 6.00pm Session Four – meeting with learners

Two parallel sessions with representative learners and graduates – maximum of 10 learners in each session. 1. Learners/graduates mature/part-time: representing different disciplines/campus/international/Postgraduate/minority etc.

37 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

2. Learners /graduates full-time: representing different disciplines/campus/international/different stages up to Postgraduate/minority etc.

Private meeting of panel 6.00pm – 7.00pm in College

Day Two Griffith College 13 October 9.00am – 10.00am Meeting with stakeholders (for example employers and others to be clarified by the College in advance of the site visit)

10.00am – 10.45am Objective 3 : Quality Assurance continued (Seven Elements Review) : This session will deal with the “seven elements” covered by the European Standards and Guidelines and the stage of development of the Institutions QA system in each area ; evidence of performance of QA system in each area; evaluation of effectiveness of QA system in each area; improvements identified; integration between processes, governance, management and planning etc)

10.45 am-11.00 am Coffee and brief meeting of panel ______11.00am – 11.30am Objective 4: Access, Transfer and Progression : Review of Implementation of the national framework of qualifications and procedures for access, transfer and progression. Learning outcomes, learner assessment etc.

11.30am – 12.30pm Documentation trail [Format: Opportunity for panel members to review supplementary evidence in private. Institutions may be asked to provide a ‘Document room’ for this purpose]

12.30pm - 1.15pm – Clarification Session with College President and staff.

1.15pm - 2.00pm - Panel private lunch and opportunity for panel members to review supplementary evidence – documentation.

2.00pm – 3.30pm Private meeting of panel to consider its findings and recommendations

3.30pm – 3.45pm Meeting with President, Registrar and institution’s team to provide preliminary feedback on findings and recommendations

38 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Appendix E List of People met by the Panel

Monday 12 October 2009

12.30 pm – 1.45pm - Session One with College Representatives - Objective 2: Strategic Planning and Governance Diarmuid Hegarty (President - presentation) Tomas Mac Eochagáin (Director of Academic Programmes) Reg Callanan (Director – accounting professional) Ronan Fenelon (Director) Noel Daly (Cork Campus Manager) Rebecca O’Brien (Head of Marketing) Eamonn Nolan (Faculty Head - Computing Faculty) Wallace Ewart (Faculty Head - Graduate Business School)

2.00pm – 3.00pm - Objective 3: Quality Assurance - Overview of Quality Assurance system Heads of Faculty (HF) IRCP (Institutional Review Coordinating Panel) Tomas Mac Eochagáin (IRCP) Richard Mc Hugh - Quality Assurance (IRCP) Ailish Finucane (IRCP) Fiona O’Riordan ( lecturer support unit IRCP) Seamus Fitzpatrick (HF – Business – both campuses) Valerie Ryan (Cork Rep - Business Faculty co-ordinator – lecturer) Eamonn Nolan (HF - Computing) Cliona Dempsey (Acting HF – Design) Niall Meehan (HF – Media – both campuses) Roderic O’Gorman (Acting HF – Law joint – both campuses) Wallace Ewart (HF - Graduate Business School)

3.15pm- 4.00pm – Academic Staff Support Group Richard Mc Hugh (QA Officer) Robert Mc Kenna (Senior Librarian) Ailish Finucane (Senior Examinations Officer) Emma Cuddihy (Central Administration Officer) Fiona O’Riordan (Lecturer Support) Keith Styles (Admissions Officer) Jonh Molohan (IT Manager) Sean O’Sullivan (English for Academic Purposes Manager) Caroline Connolly (Course Administrator) Katie Ferrell (Course Administrator)

4.00pm - 4.45pm – Non Academic Staff Support Jacqui Ryan (SU President) Yifan Yan (Pastoral Care International Office) Mairead Lawless (Human Resources Manger) Marcus Reidy (Operations Manger) Mairead Murphy (Deputy Head of Marketing) Pat Sheehan (Chief Accountant) Killian Faughnan (IT Services Support)

39 Institutional Review of Griffith College –12-13 October 2009 Report of the Expert Panel Final Report

Tuesday 13 October 2009

9.00am – 10.00am Meeting with stakeholders June Hosford - Council Member of Higher Education College Association (HECA) Sheila Power - Director of Irish Council for International Students (ICOS) Alan O’Grady - Private Banking Manager, Bank of Scotland, Ireland Liz Carroll - Training and Development Manager, Irish Small and Medium Enterprise Association (ISME) Veronica Duffy - President of the Irish Institute of Legal Executives (IILEX) Michael Meagher - Academic Engagement Manager, Microsoft Ireland Past Pupils Ronan Dalton - Software Development Manager, IBM Software Group Tim Tuomey - Deputy Head of Sport and Head of Soccer Setanta Ireland Padraig O'Feinneadha - Taxation Sub Committee, CPA Paul Heaney, CPA

10.00am – 10.45am Objective 3: Quality Assurance continued (Seven Elements Review) Academic Staff - Non Faculty Heads - lecturers and year heads Madeleine Ford (Business) Waseem Ahktar (Computing) Majella Mulhall (Hospitality) Robbie Smyth (Media) Kate Kelly (Law) Eoin Carroll (Computing) Cliodhna Dineen (Law – Cork) Jane Leavey (Design) Angela O’Keefe (Business Part time) Kitty Moloney (GBS – Part time)

11.00am – 11.30am Objective 4: Access, Transfer and Progression Eilis O’Leary (Business faculty lecturer – Year Head) Áine McManus (Graduate Business School) Fiona O’Riordan (Lecturer Support) Eamonn Nolan (Computing) Mairead Murphy (Schools Liaison) Kay O’Sullivan (Leinster School of Music and Drama) Keith Styles (Admissions) Ciara Fitzgerald (Law) Tomas Mac Eochagáin (DAP) Ailish Finucane (Exams)

12.30pm - 1.15pm – Clarification Session with College President and staff. Diarmuid Hegarty, President Tom Mac Eochagáin, Director of Academic Programmes Eilis O’Leary (Business faculty lecturer – Year Head) Fiona O’Riordan (Lecturer Support) Ailish Finucane (Senior Examinations Officer) Anne Marie Donovan (Cork Campus)

40