Institutional Review Report - Maynooth University 2019 - QQI
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Institutional Review Report 2019 QQI Review CINNTE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW REPORT Maynooth University 2018 MAYNOOTH UNIVERSITY
Contents Foreword...................................................................................................................... 1 The Review Team.......................................................................................................... 2 Section A: Introduction and Context............................................................................ 5 Section B: Institutional Self-Evaluation Report (ISER)................................................ 9 Section C: Quality Assurance/Accountability............................................................. 13 Objective 1 – Current Quality Assurance Procedures [14] Objective 2 – Quality Enhancement [38] Objective 3 – Procedures for Access, Transfer and Progression [41] Objective 4 – Provision of Programmes to International Learners [43] Section D: Conclusions.............................................................................................. 45 Section E: Institutional Response.............................................................................. 53 Appendices................................................................................................................ 57 Appendix A: Terms of Reference [58] Appendix B: Main Review Visit Schedule [67] Glossary..................................................................................................................... 70
Institutional Review Report 2019
Foreword
Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) is responsible institutions have enhanced their teaching, learning
for the external quality assurance of further and and research and their quality assurance systems and
higher education and training in Ireland. One of how well institutions have aligned their approach to
QQI’s most important functions is to ensure that the their own mission, quality indicators and benchmarks.
quality assurance (QA) procedures that institutions
The CINNTE review process is in keeping with Parts
have in place are effective. To this end, QQI carries
2 and 3 of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality
out external reviews of higher education institutions
Assurance in the European Higher Education Area
on a cyclical basis. This current QQI cycle of reviews
(ESG 2015) and based on the internationally accepted
is called the CINNTE cycle. CINNTE reviews are
and recognised approach to reviews, including:
an element of the broader quality framework
for institutions composed of Quality Assurance −− the publication of Terms of Reference;
Guidelines; each institution’s Quality Assurance −− a process of self-evaluation and Institutional
Procedures; Annual Institutional Quality Reports Self-Evaluation Report (ISER);
(AIQR); and Dialogue Meetings. The CINNTE review
cycle runs from 2017-2023. During this period, QQI −− an external assessment and site visit by a team of
will organise and oversee independent reviews of reviewers;
each of the Universities, the Institutes of Technology −− the publication of a Review Report including
and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI). findings and recommendations; and
Each CINNTE review evaluates the effectiveness −− a follow-up procedure to review actions taken.
of the quality assurance procedures of each
This institutional review of Maynooth University was
institution. Review also measures each institution’s
conducted by an independent Review Team in line
compliance with European standards for quality
with the Terms of Reference in Appendix A. This is
assurance, regard to the expectations set out in the
the report of the findings of the Review Team. It also
QQI quality assurance guidelines or their equivalent
includes the response by Maynooth University to the
and adherence to other relevant QQI policies and
report.
procedures. CINNTE reviews also explore how
1
Institutional Review Report 2019
The Review Team
Each CINNTE review is carried out by an international team of independent experts and peers. The 2018
institutional review of Maynooth University was conducted by a team of six reviewers selected by QQI. The
Review Team was trained by QQI on 18 October 2018. The Chair and Coordinating Reviewer undertook a planning
visit to Maynooth University on 19 October 2018. The Main Review Visit was conducted by the full team between
10 December and 14 December 2018.
Review Team for the Institutional Review of Maynooth University
CHAIR responsible for its management and development.
Dr John Bassett is President Emeritus at Clark Mr Platt has worked for QAA (and HEQC before that)
University, which he led from 2000 to 2010. He also as an audit/review secretary/review co-ordinator
served as President of Heritage University (2010-17) and subsequently as a part-time Assistant Director
and as Dean at Case Western Reserve University. at QAA, working largely on developmental projects,
(1993-2000). Prior to that Dr Bassett was a faculty review methods and reviews. Since 2017 he has been
member at Wayne State University and North Carolina engaged as a zero-hours Review Manager including
State University. work on degree awarding powers scrutiny and
consultancy work. Mr Platt has also worked as a Co-
Dr Bassett has served on a number of boards
ordinating Reviewer for a number of ELIR reviews, and
including the Council for Higher Education
reviews in Ireland and Lithuania.
Accreditation (CHEA) and the National Association
of Independent Schools and Colleges (NAICU), both INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
of which boards he chaired. He has chaired seven Dr Lena Adamson is an associate professor of
accreditation site visit teams for the New England Psychology at Stockholm University. She recently
Association of Schools and Colleges. A scholar of stepped down from Director General of The Swedish
American Literature, he has published widely on Institute of Educational Research. Dr Adamson has
Faulkner, Twain, Sherwood Anderson, and other twenty years of leadership experience in a number of
writers. different organisations, academic and non-academic,
national and international, and wide experience in
COORDINATING REVIEWER many fields and disciplines in higher education.
Tony Platt graduated from the University of Wales, Dr Adamson also has extensive experience of
Aberystwyth with a degree in education and an MA quality work focussed on quality assurance issues
by research into the development of bilingual library at all levels in HE; teaching level, department level,
provision in Wales. He also holds an MBA from the institutional level, national level and in different
University of Essex. Mr Platt has spent most of his international settings. This includes being the main
working life in university administration, tackled most author of a QA system for the European Institute of
of the ‘Registry’ functions at one time or another and Innovation and Technology (EIT), Quality for Learning.
worked with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic) to She is registered as a reviewer with a number of QA
establish a Graduate School, subsequently becoming agencies.
2
Institutional Review Report 2019
LEARNER REPRESENTATIVE Prof Dooley holds a PhD in Psychology from UCD.
Rebecca Maxwell Stuart is a PhD student at Heriot- She is an active researcher and supervisor with over
Watt University in the School of Social Sciences where 55 publications in peer-reviewed journals. Her field
her research on Transnational Student Engagement of research is on the application of psychological
examines the differences in student experience theory and methodology to a range of priority mental
at campuses in Edinburgh, Dubai and Malaysia. health areas such risk and protective factors in youth
She also has teaching responsibilities in Research mental health, body image research, alcohol and
Methodologies and Business Management and is eating disorders. Prof Dooley is a member of the HSE
Dissertation Coordinator for undergraduates. National Office for Suicide Prevention Evaluation
Advisory Group (EAG), a committee member of the
Ms Maxwell Stuart is a member of the European International Youth Mental Health Research Network,
Students’ Union (ESU) Quality Assurance Expert a steering group member of the European Universities
Pool and a QAA Scotland ELIR Reviewer. She also Association – Council for Doctoral Education, member
participated as an international reviewer in seven of the Universitas 21 Deans and Directors of Graduate
institutional reviews for Kosovo Accreditation Agency Studies and UCD’s Universitas 21 Senior Leader.
and in three quality assurance agency reviews for
ENQA and EQAR. She is currently Deputy Chair of the INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVE
Education & Social Care Subject Panel of the UK’s
Dr Kevin Marshall is Head of Education, Microsoft
Teaching Excellence Framework.
Ireland. He is a Visiting Fellow at the Centre of
Research in Information Technology (CRITE) at Trinity
QUALITY ASSURANCE REPRESENTATIVE
College Dublin. He has represented IBEC on a number
Professor Barbara Dooley is Dean of Graduate
of education committees such as the Teaching Council
Studies and Deputy Registrar at University College
and the National Council of Curriculum Assessment
Dublin (UCD). She provides support to the Registrar
(NCCA).
and Deputy President on enhancing the student
experience and ensuring the delivery of the university Dr Marshall serves on a number of boards – Rehab
education strategy. As Dean of Graduate Studies, Prof Group, Marino Institute of Education and Learnovate
Dooley works with her team to align UCD’s structured Research Centre, located in Trinity College Dublin.
PhD with Ireland’s National Framework for Doctoral Prior to working in Ireland, he worked in Boston
Education to ensure that robust quality assurance Public Schools in the Office of Research, Assessment
is integral to UCD’s doctoral education. Prior to her and Evaluation where he ran a number of research
appointment, she was Vice-Principal for Teaching projects focusing on developing new performance
and Learning in the College of Social Science and Law assessment and statistical models to enhance
(2009 to 2014) and Head of the School of Psychology student performance. Dr Marshall has a BA in
(2005 to 2009). Prof Dooley has teaching experience Psychology from UCD, an MSc from the University of
at all levels from undergraduate through to PhD Hull and a PhD from Boston College.
supervision and is the Director of the UCD Ad Astra
Academy, which nurtures exceptional students by
offering them unique supports and opportunities to
further develop their potential.
3
Institutional Review Report 2019 4
A
Institutional Review Report 2019
Section
Introduction and Context
5
Institutional Review Report 2019
Introduction and Context
Maynooth University is the newest institution within The University, however, in its new Strategic Plan
the National University of Ireland, becoming an has highlighted changes and improvements that
autonomous university under the Universities Act should be made as economic circumstances allow.
1997. Maynooth University, however, is also an old Maynooth University has prioritised the maintenance
institution, tracing its lineage back to the founding of teaching quality including maintaining the student:
of the Royal College of St. Patrick in 1795. For many academic staff ratio of 25:1. This was corroborated
years it was primarily or only a Catholic seminary. throughout meetings with stakeholders during the
site visit. However, the cutbacks and increasing
In 1910 it became a Recognised College of the
student numbers has put the quality of a number
National University of Ireland. Under the Universities
of resources under strain. These include the
Act (1997) it was formally established as the National
learning infrastructure and campus environment,
University of Ireland, Maynooth, which is a constituent
some aspects of student support and the student
University of the National University of Ireland. In
experience, administrative processes and systems,
2015 the Governing Authority decided that the
and investment in the professional development of
primary name of the University should change to
staff.
Maynooth University.
Maynooth University is, not surprisingly, a very
Maynooth University is also the fastest growing
different institution from what it was during
university in the Irish system, expanding from some
the last institutional review in 2010, which was
4,000 students in 1997 to about 13,000 today.
conducted by the Irish Universities Quality Board,
Recognised primarily but not solely for expertise in the
a predecessor body to QQI. In the October briefing
social sciences and humanities, it has also targeted
the University claimed to have acted on all sixteen
strengths in science and technology. Its most
recommendations from that review, and the Review
important professional programmes are relatively
Team found no basis for disputing their claim. The
new. The Department of Law was established in
University is now much larger, with new degree
2009 and the School of Business in 2010. The highly
programmes, new alliances, a clearer sense of its
regarded Froebel College of Education, which began
mission, and a record of achievements. It now defines
in 1943 under the Dominican Order, became part of
itself as a research university with equal commitment
Maynooth University only in 2013 and is housed in the
both to teaching and to research. It was clear to the
University’s newest building.
Review Team that faculty and administrators want
Maynooth University strives for excellence in teaching Maynooth University to be recognised as a major
and research in a very challenging context. In the past research partner among Irish universities. That
decade, the recent economic recession has resulted commitment makes this institutional review of quality
in severe resource constraints: funding available to assurance especially important as an evaluation of
the University for a typical BA student saw a reduction the University’s oversight of quality during a unique
of 18%. While pay cuts were put in place to reduce period of growth and ambitious strategic planning,
the impact, the net effect was a decrease in funding albeit at a time of restricted public funding.
of approximately 12% per student. Other restrictions
The first two priorities in the new Strategic Plan
such as the Employment Control Framework and
(2018-2022) are to expand research excellence – by
the sheer shortage of learning spaces have made
means of significant internal investment and with a
progress at Maynooth University slower than planned
goal of increasing external research funding by 50%
and slower than students would wish
by 2022 – and postgraduate programmes, with growth
6
Institutional Review Report 2019
of some six hundred additional master’s students More recently, as part of its commitment to the
and an even stronger innovative doctorate. These internationalisation of the University, Maynooth
priorities will build on achievements of the last few University has been developing a linked provider
years in undergraduate education, including a new partnership with UCSI College in Kuala Lumpur,
curriculum, and consolidating the strengths of that Malaysia, and a joint college with four undergraduate
curriculum is a third priority in the new Plan. The other programmes with Fuzhou University in China. Some of
three priorities—enhancing the student experience, the arrangements for these programmes have yet to
comprehensive and ethical internationalisation, and be completed, but Maynooth University assured the
diversity inclusion—are all consistent with the first team that all procedures for quality assurance will be
three. established in 2019 before students are registered
for the programmes. These procedures will be based
While Maynooth University has committed itself
on Maynooth University guidelines plus international
institutionally, as exemplified in both the ISER and
best practices as well as NUI and QQI expectations
the most recent AIQR, to a culture of quality and
(see Objective 4 “Provision of Programmes to
self-examination, with so much on its agenda and so
International Learners” below).
many moving parts, it must ensure that commitment
to quality at the top is matched by the same Maynooth University, as part of its research and
commitment throughout the University. The Review technology transfer initiatives, has also established
Team agrees that leadership recognises the kinds of relationships with Knowledge Transfer Ireland
excellence achievable for Maynooth University since and MaynoothWorks, a business incubator. These
it tied its strategic plans for growth in research and developments have made the University a partner
graduate study to areas of institutional excellence with, for example, Kildare County Council and the
and national need. That is, it is emphasising areas University of South Florida. The Review Team saw
such as social sciences and policy studies, education, no reason to believe that the same expectations for
and specific sciences, where the University already quality assurance in research would not be followed
has a strong reputation. in relation to those partnerships as are followed for
Maynooth University in research.
Maynooth University is committed to the same level
of quality assurance for programmes that result
from collaborations and partnerships as it is for
programmes run entirely by the University. The
primary collaborative providers now are the Military
College and the Crafts Council of Ireland. The Review
Team met with staff overseeing the programmes with
the Military College and concluded it was indeed
meeting the same standards of quality assurance
(See section on “Other Parties involved in Education
and Training”). Each institution, moreover, has an
administrator that serves on the other institution’s
Academic Council. The team was also informed that
procedures for the Crafts Council programme were
similar.
7
Institutional Review Report 2019 8
B
Institutional Review Report 2019
Section
Institutional Self-Evaluation
Report (ISER)
Methodology Used to Prepare the ISER
9Institutional Review Report 2019 10
Institutional Review Report 2019
Institutional Self-
Evaluation Report (ISER)
Methodology used to prepare the ISER
The Institutional Self-Evaluation Report was designed draft of the ISER was prepared by June 19 for review
to assess the current level of Quality Assurance and by University Executive, Task Group, Consultative
Quality Enhancement at Maynooth University. It Forum, and Quality Committee. Following feedback,
describes the University’s programmes and activities a second draft was prepared over the summer. By
and the means of evaluating the effectiveness of the end of August, it had been reviewed by the same
every major University activity, what the University groups. A third draft was prepared and submitted
learns from such evaluations, and how it improves on to the faculties and then approved by the Academic
the basis of what it learns. The ISER was prepared Council on 5 September 2018.
following—and to some extent along with—a
The ISER includes a description of a wealth of data
strategic planning process. That culminated in
that was used to inform the report. It also benefitted
approval of the University Strategic Plan (2018-2022).
from reports of consultations over the last few years
The two processes together provided for alignment
on the curriculum, research institutes, the Strategic
between strategic planning and quality assurance.
Plan, the Campus Master Plan, and more.
While ISER preparation in a sense began in
Overall, the Review Team considered that the process
autumn 2017 with initial conversations between
undertaken by the University was truly consultative
the University and QQI and with the preparation of
with input by relevant groups and evidence of active
internal materials, the consultation process began
participation by these groups, including senior
in late January 2018 with the appointment of the
management, academic staff, support services staff,
Institutional Coordinator. For three months extensive
students and representatives of Maynooth University
consultations and briefings took place on campus
Students Union, and external representatives. The
involving faculty, staff, administrators, and students.
ISER demonstrated significant capacity for self-
Meanwhile a CINNTE Task Group was established
analysis. It was particularly evident to the Review
along with a CINNTE Consultative Forum, which
Team that despite the economic constraints and
facilitated discussions around campus of key issues
the challenge of the significant growth in student
addressed by the Review.
numbers the University had faced in the past decade,
By the end of April 2018 material for different sections the process had been truly reflective and had
of the ISER had been developed by the Task Group, benefitted from coinciding with the development of
directors, and the University Executive, supplemented the next iteration of the Strategic Plan.
by input from faculty and students. A draft Strengths,
Challenges, Opportunities and Threats (SCOT) COMMENDATION 1
analysis for Maynooth University was prepared The Review Team commends Maynooth University on
by the Institutional Coordinator and the Quality the comprehensiveness of, and inclusive approach
Enhancement Officer for comment by faculties, to, its ISER process.
Academic Council, and Governing Authority. A first
11Institutional Review Report 2019 12
C
Institutional Review Report 2019
Section
Quality Assurance/Accountability
Objective 1 – Current Quality Assurance
Procedures
Objective 2 – Quality Enhancement
Objective 3 – Procedures for Access,
Transfer and Progression
Objective 4 – Provision of Programmes
to International Learners
13Institutional Review Report 2019
Quality Assurance/
Accountability
Objective 1 – Current Quality Assurance Procedures
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY Implementation and oversight of Quality Assurance
ASSURANCE PROCEDURES is led by a Director of Strategic Planning and
Quality, who reports to the Deputy President, and
The AIQR 2018 for Maynooth University asserts a by the Quality Committee, which functions as a
University commitment to quality evaluation, and joint committee of the Governing Authority and the
comparison with AIQR 2017 yielding an appreciation Academic Council. How that dual reporting process
for the process of rethinking, improving, and revision will play out in the long run is not yet clear. Working
that has been taking place on campus. The ISER relationships between the bodies and the committee
says (p. v) that the “concept of quality is broadly seem healthy, but it is not clear whether the Governing
interpreted as the manifold processes, activities Authority over time will see itself as less involved on a
and initiatives that assure standards, enhance daily basis than the Academic Council or will exercise
effectiveness and promote innovation across different active oversight.
functions of the University,” and the University
asserts that it is committed to showing, in line As already stated, the ISER was developed at
with QQI Statutory Quality Assurance Guidelines approximately the same time as the Strategic Plan
(Core), that it is creating an “embedded culture of (2018-2022) and the Review Team understands
quality assurance and enhancement.” The current that consultations on that plan elicited a number
Maynooth University Framework for Quality lists eight of suggestions for quality improvement to which
Overarching Principles. The Overarching Principles Maynooth University is now committed: better
address purpose, university culture, design and integrated planning processes, reappraisal of the
implementation (with national and international postgraduate programme portfolio, better workload
standards), scope, inclusivity and transparency, management, investments in staff development,
external validation, engagement of students and stronger digital platforms, and a campus master
stakeholders, and public confidence. The operational plan more closely tied to curricular and research
principles address process: periodic cycles, a focus agendas. Part 3.1 of the ISER, moreover, lists four
on units not individuals, holistic scope, key metrics, kinds of progress made while following specific
and follow-up. The objectives address maintenance recommendations from the overall 2010 Institutional
of public and internal confidence, confirmation of Review: integration of quality assurance with strategic
current standards, facilitation of enhancements, planning, development of innovative approaches to
and preparation for external reviews. These have teaching large classes, development of principles to
consistency and coherence and seem appropriate for support a consistent approach to student feedback
Maynooth University at this time [still a work in progress], and a revision of committee
structures.
COMMENDATION 2 The ISER continually asserts that Maynooth
The Review Team commends Maynooth University’s University consistently makes sure that academic
progress towards embedding a culture of quality practices and policies are aligned with QQI, National
evaluation and enhancement which includes Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning
coherent quality review strategies (NFETL) and European (Standards and Guidelines for
14Institutional Review Report 2019
Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education that there are capacity issues for student services
Area; ESG) guidelines, and that programmes are and particularly student life; there is a shortage
aligned with the Irish NFQ. The team’s enquiries of on-campus housing; and there are not as many
have justified that assertion, for example in relation sports opportunities or student-centred facilities as
to teaching and academic practices (ISER p.17) and at other Irish universities. Maynooth University has
postgraduate programmes (ISER p.32) and their being identified the needs and plans to address them as
designed as a comprehensive system. In order to funding allows, although the source of that funding
document more effectively staff members’ adherence is not yet clear. Faculty, staff and administration,
to the principles for teaching and learning, in line with nonetheless, seem committed to the QQI Guideline for
QQI Guidelines for Teaching and Learning, particularly “an integrated approach from the perspective of the
those on “learning environments” and “assessment learner” and “access to services.”.
of learning achievement”, the Academic Council is
preparing to act on new “Teaching and Learning GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Guidelines.” Maynooth University is also dedicated to
educating and graduating “lifelong learners” who early The operations of Maynooth University are carried out
on are able to take ownership of their own education. in accordance with principles in “Governance of Irish
Evaluating success in reaching this laudable goal, Universities 2012”, published by the Higher Education
of course, is a challenge, both because it is often Authority. The University each year presents to
difficult to know when a student has indeed taken its Governing Authority for approval a Statement
such ownership and because whether students have of Governance and Internal Control. Its governing
become “lifelong learners” can only be assessed over structures are in line with the Universities Act 1997.
time. The Governing Authority and the Academic Council are
ISER indicates five principles the University believes the two primary oversight bodies for the University.
are the underpinning principles for effective teaching The Governing Authority has full responsibility for
and learning (adapted from European Principles for strategic direction, appointment of the President,
the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning) and general conduct, and revenue and property, and for
also seven kinds of processes that are meant to approving and overseeing a strategic plan prepared
assure quality programme implementation. These by the President. It is a body of thirty, one half from
consist of rigorous programme approval processes; outside Maynooth University and one half from
periodic reviews of departments, units, and Maynooth inside (administrators, faculty, staff, students). It
University strategies; use of external examiners and has six committees, three of which—including the
departmental examination boards; student surveys; new Quality Committee—are joint committees of the
and personnel appointment and promotion processes. Governing Authority and Academic Council. Governing
The team’s meetings with staff suggest that Maynooth Authority members who met with the Review Team
University Senior Management has been responsive were almost entirely internal members. While this
in addressing perceived weaknesses in quality limited the breadth of perspectives provided, the team
and in making improvements based on what these picked up no reasons for concern about oversight
processes have revealed. The Centre for Teaching and of quality at Maynooth University by the Governing
Learning, moreover, is a useful resource for quality Authority.
improvement as it provides technology support, offers The Academic Council, of about seventy members
courses for tutors and staff training, and facilitates and chaired by the President, is the primary academic
stakeholder feedback. oversight body. It consists of faculty, staff, and
It is the Review Team’s opinion that Maynooth students. It oversees decisions on curriculum,
University is sincerely student-centred. It generally instruction, and research. Nine areas of oversight
has good academic support services including the are outlined in the University Profile 2018. The
Maynooth University Access Programme, student Council has ten committees including, for example,
wellbeing services and the Mathematics Support the Teaching and Learning Committee, the Academic
Centre. Such services’ quality is regularly evaluated, Programmes Committee, and the Graduate and
and it is clear—largely because of funding cutbacks— International Education Committee. A review of
15Institutional Review Report 2019
agendas and minutes for both Academic Council and and student-support staffing (see “Staff Recruitment,
Governing Authority indicates both are operating in Management and Development” below)—involving
line with their mission. The Review Team concluded governance and management as well as financial
that Academic Council exercises rigorous quality questions.
oversight of University academic programmes.
RECOMMENDATION 1
Throughout the site visit it was evident to the Review
Team from meetings with staff at all levels that, The Review Team recommends that the University
despite some weaknesses in communication (see reconsider the balance among spending priorities
recommendation below), senior officers by and to avoid negative consequences particularly to its
large work well together and retain a talented and student-oriented reputation.
loyal staff along with a student-centred culture. The academic parts of the University are organised
Administrative offices seem well organised under into 28 departments and schools, which are divided
their respective vice presidents, directors, and among three faculties, each with its own dean. A fairly
officers, and also seem to be interacting effectively. recent redefinition of the role of the dean, making
The culture makes possible the development of an the position one of leadership and management, has
ambitious but realistic strategic plan, campus master been an important and helpful change in maintaining
plan, and Master’s Task Force. quality assurance of programmes. The deans and
heads, as well as faculty and staff working with them,
COMMENDATION 3
are an impressive group.
The Review Team commends Maynooth University for
QQI Statutory Quality Assurance Guidelines (Core)
developing a strong leadership team that works well
indicates that the system of governance should be
together, with talented and loyal staff as well as a
aligned with mission and strategy. The Review Team
student-centred culture.
felt that there was good alignment of the system with
All units go through the same kind of rigorous periodic the mission, vision, values, and the thirteen goals
review as academic programmes, and written reports for the period 2018-2022 as spelled out on pages
of those reviews indicate thoroughness in assessing 8-9 of the Maynooth University Profile for CINNTE
quality performance and encouragement of units to Review 2018. The same can be said for alignment of
enhance quality. As the University embarks on more governance systems with the new Strategic Plan. The
aggressive fund-raising initiatives as part of its quest challenge for Maynooth University is to make sure
for the new revenue sources needed to maintain that the system remains adequate for the University’s
the quality of programmes, and as it upgrades its recent ambitious commitment—as set out in its
marketing and Maynooth University communication Strategic Plan—to being a “major research university”
strategies, it may want to consider some presence as well as an excellent teaching institution.
in the University Executive group of a senior external
The recent appointment of a Vice President for
affairs person. On the other hand, as reflected in the
Engagement, changes in the roles of deans of
most recent quality review of Student Affairs, there is
faculties, evolution of the committee structure
also some sensitivity on campus about the absence of
including the relatively new Quality Committee, like
someone like a dean of students in that same group.
revisions this past year in the AIQR, all suggest the
Despite the University’s successes in attracting, University is quite engaged in trying to assure that its
retaining, and graduating students, in playing a governance structures are appropriate for a rapidly
leadership role in working with non-traditional changing institution.
students, in producing significant research, and
in maintaining a healthy campus culture, it is also COMMENDATION 4
true that there are significant infrastructure issues The Review Team commends Maynooth University
addressed in the ISER and in this report—including for its ambitious vision and Strategic Plan, which
inadequate learning and activity spaces (see “Support if successful can reposition the University to be an
for Learners” below), deferred maintenance (see “Staff even greater asset for the Irish people.
Recruitment, Management and Development” below),
16Institutional Review Report 2019
There is a feeling in many parts of the University PROGRAMMES OF EDUCATION
that better communication by senior management AND TRAINING
with the campus about the functions of the various
administrative offices would help allay concerns Maynooth University offers close to a hundred
about the direction of the University and the handling different undergraduate degree (Level 8) programmes
of University challenges, as would making more taken by approximately 8,000 (FTE) students. There
information about the University’s financial health are also a small number of students in certificate
and more data about budgets and enrolments and diploma programmes or foundation courses.
available to the campus. The team saw these The majority of degree-seeking students are in the
concerns as relevant to attempts to establish a three-year BA programmes with the rest in the four-
culture of quality enhancement across campus with year BA International and BSc programmes. While
broad buy-in by staff. Maynooth University offers solid majors in the natural,
mathematical, and information sciences as well as
RECOMMENDATION 2 electronic engineering and robotics, its most heavily
populated areas are in the humanities and social
The Review Team recommends that Maynooth
sciences as well as related professional areas—
University address its communication gaps,
education, law, and business.
particularly between executive offices and
departments. Improvements in this area can also Maynooth University also offers some sixty
ensure that quality enhancement initiatives are more postgraduate programmes at masters, diploma, and
systematically captured through the governance doctoral levels with about 1,900 students. Of these
structures and can be properly tracked back to about 1,000 are in taught masters programmes, about
quality assurance processes. (See also Section 2) 500 in diploma/certificate courses, and about 400 in
17Institutional Review Report 2019
research and professional doctoral tracks. Almost following it through three cycles that have included
40% of masters students are in Education. quality improvement plans with monitoring following
each review.
Procedures for developing new programmes are laid
out in the AIQR and involve two steps. A preliminary The most important recent development at
departmental proposal—lacking modular details— undergraduate level is the new curriculum, which
is sent to the Dean and Faculty Executive and the was designed not only to help students shape
Teaching and Learning Committee to ensure inter- their own education but also to establish new
unit coordination. It then goes to the Academic learning goals such as critical thinking skills
Programme Committee. If approved there, the and the broader perspective gained by means of
department submits a full proposal to the Academic experiential education. (For further details on the new
Programme Committee (and to relevant faculty for undergraduate curriculum, see section on Teaching
input). It also goes out to external reviewers and and Learning below.)
then returns to the committee for approval and
to the Academic Council for final approval. The COMMENDATION 6
process has widespread support from faculty and The Review Team commends Maynooth University for
staff. It is, moreover, in line with QQI Guidelines for developing a creative new undergraduate curriculum
“programme development and approval” and with aimed at improving the quality of the student
NFQ requirements. A number of interdepartmental learning experience and for developing a rigorous
proposals have recently been developed. The Review plan to assess its effectiveness.
Team noted that the Centre for Interdisciplinary
Studies is a significant player in that process with the Maynooth University is committed to quality
Dean for Teaching and Learning playing a leadership assurance and quality enhancement of the new
role. curriculum and it has a robust evaluation plan in
place. Like the Review Team it also realises that the
There is a well-established process for regular value of some of the new curriculum’s priorities can
review of academic programmes. From evidence of only be well assessed over a longer term than the
committee minutes and the Review Team’s meetings years spent in college. The Review Team believes that
it appears that the process is rigorously followed. the campus is aware of the need for supplementing
External members from universities outside Ireland on-campus criteria with employer-based, graduate
and where appropriate from industry are an important school-based, and alumni-based instruments.
part of the process, and programmes are assessed (For further details on gathering feedback from
both in terms of institutional standards and in stakeholders, see section on Teaching and Learning
terms of external benchmarking. Student feedback below.)
is collected through course evaluation results and
minutes from student-staff committees. Maynooth The ISER lays out the goals of the new curriculum
University is now in its third cycle of programme and its nine key components, with particular focus
reviews based on current procedures established on critical skills, experiential learning, and elective
in 1996. The last institutional review of quality courses. It also describes early efforts at evaluation
assurance (2010) led to “a more holistic institutional and seven values to be emphasised during ongoing
approach to QA/QE processes,” an enhanced format, implementation of the programme.
and greater alignment of strategic planning and
RECOMMENDATION 3
quality assurance. The processes are well aligned
with QQI Statutory Quality Assurance Guidelines
The Review Team recommends that the University
(Core) for “programme monitoring and review.”
develop a plan to evaluate the longer-term impact
of its ambitious new curriculum through possible
COMMENDATION 5
surveys of employers, alumni, and graduate students.
The Review Team commends Maynooth University
While the ISER reports on existing methods for
for developing and implementing a rigorous review
quality assurance and quality enhancement in
procedure for programmes and units, and for
postgraduate programmes, it also admits the
18Institutional Review Report 2019
need for more development in this area, including in areas of existing university expertise—teacher
creation of a Graduate School. The Review Team education, social sciences, and humanities, as well as
noted some variation in the quality of assessment in newer programmes in business and law, software
among programmes. The new Strategic Plan makes engineering, and data sciences. These plans have
expanded graduate programmes and improved also been correlated with predicted national need
management, assessment, and support for graduate according to University administrators.
studies a priority. The Graduate Office, partly through
The PhD programmes have been, not surprisingly,
its Master’s Task Force, is committed to strategic
traditionally defined as research programmes.
growth of master’s programmes in line with University
Maynooth University, however, is proud that it
expertise, regional needs, and opportunity. Maynooth
“pioneered the development of the structured
University has a unique opportunity to develop
doctorate in Ireland.” This development included
innovative postgraduate programmes and modules,
not only new processes to support and monitor
building at times on interdisciplinary planning,
progress of students, including more regular oversight
that respond to current and changing needs in the
by chairs and deans of faculty of their doctoral
workforce.
students, but also elements and modules that are
intended “to broaden the skills and support the
COMMENDATION 7
future employability of graduates.” The Review Team
The Review Team commends the University on its learned that these changes did not have the universal
initiative, through the Master’s Task Force and other support of faculty, largely because the traditional
planning, to grow its postgraduate enrolment in line research design of programmes prepared students for
with national needs and University expertise. only certain careers—in line with what some faculty
The innovative curricular culture, focussed on saw as their sole mission—whereas the demand
quality and national need, has led to a creative nationally for doctoral graduates was for students
undergraduate curriculum and robust quality able to fill a much broader set of positions “across
evaluation plan, and a structured PhD that responds all sectors in the knowledge society” (ISER). The
to the needs of the workforce at large beyond structured doctorate is now much better embedded
academia. in the Maynooth University identity, in part because
of training provided by the Graduate Studies Office.
The Master’s Task Force is only part of a larger Now there is an ongoing review of the taught portions
strategic plan to grow the postgraduate profile of the structured PhD with an emphasis on graduate
of Maynooth University. The last quality review of critical skills as they are tied to employability.
postgraduate studies (2015) was especially positive
on the quality of care for and support of students but It is clear that the University is committed to “refining
recommended that, with the growth taking place, and diversifying [its] approach to the doctorate,
there needed to be more centralised restructuring of particularly in areas of skills and employability” and
the Graduate Students Office (GSO) and a review of its connection to national need. The Strategic Plan
the postgraduate portfolio in line with the University’s also calls for the necessary increases in staffing,
goals and mission. The restructuring, with plans for spaces and resources for postgraduate students.
a new Graduate School, and the systematic review It articulates a need to consider the potential of
of programmes are under way, while a new Graduate interdisciplinary programmes and “engaged and
Dean was appointed in 2016-2017. The Strategic Plan practice-based research” with broader communities.
calls for growth in the number of master’s students It also plans a series of international forums on the
from about 1,000 to 1,600 and in doctoral students changing nature and value of the doctoral degree in
from 400 to 600. While these are huge increases, the twenty-first century. It was clear to the Review
especially in light of the personal oversight needed Team that Maynooth University is serious about
for postgraduate students, the University identified defining its special niche in the landscape of doctoral
these targets following a scoping analysis and has research programmes in Ireland, and about the
given assurances that they will be accompanied by quality assurance of those programmes since each
appropriate supports. The growth will be largely programme (ISER, p.33) is regularly reviewed by the
Vice-President Academic and the Dean of Graduate
19Institutional Review Report 2019
Studies for programme design, admission and Having said that, the Review Team must also say that
induction and supervision practices, use of external there are emerging patterns of frustration that by and
examiners, conduct of examinations, graduation data, large result from pressures caused by the budgetary
and research environment. problems. As the funding allocated per student goes
down while enrollment grows, more support units
COMMENDATION 8 become understaffed. During discussions with staff
The Review Team commends the University on the it became evident that, more and more, staff see
development, implementation, and continuous their units as not performing at the level of quality
assessment of the structured doctorate degree. expected. More pressure is put on the very best
employees to do even more. So far, the University
The University’s policies and guidelines for research has avoided a major burn-out problem; but the
degree programmes are in line with the ‘QQI Statutory Review Team became aware that such was possible
Quality Assurance Guidelines (Research Degree should workload issues not be addressed. The
Programmes)’. Each research student, moreover, frustration has at times been intensified by the lack of
completes an annual progress review, overseen by possibilities for promotion.
the Dean of Graduate Studies and Vice-President
Academic. The Graduate Studies Office (GSO) provides RECOMMENDATION 4
support of many kinds for students and partners
The Review Team recommends that the University
with the Research Development Office (RDO) to
develop a transparent and flexible workload model
seek research scholarships for students. For the
for both academic and administrative staff to
past few years, there has been an emphasis on
address concerns that have resulted from increased
enhancement of the supervision of postgraduate
enrolment along with budgetary constraints.
research students by faculty members; and the ISSE
survey of graduate students suggests some ninety The ISER asserts that University hiring practices
per cent of students are satisfied or very satisfied are consistent, equitable, and transparent, and
with the supervision they receive. The Review Team that procedures assure candidates’ qualifications
also noted that, based on meetings with staff and and values are aligned with international norms.
faculty, the Postgraduate Feedback Council is the The Review Team felt no reason to question that
“best practices” unit for effective provision of student statement. The processes are in line with ESG and QQI
feedback on programmes (see “Information and Data standards for fairness and transparency.
Management” below); and the University makes use of
The processes for hiring academic personnel and
evidence from that feedback.
administrative staff are similar although overseen
by different personnel. The University has been
STAFF RECRUITMENT, MANAGEMENT, especially attentive to gender issues and asks that
AND DEVELOPMENT all hiring committees include at least 40% women
(and 40% men). It has a gender equality action plan
Maynooth University has been very fortunate to
(2018-2021) and can show some success over the
have developed over many years a talented, loyal,
past few years. The University is proud of receiving
collegial, student-centred staff in both academic and
the Athena SWAN Bronze Award. There are women,
administrative areas. The University is considered by
moreover, in senior administrative positions, although
those working there to be a good place to work, and
the percentage of female professors is not large (31%,
the Review Team noted that staff are fully committed
although the figure is 42% in humanities and social
to the success of Maynooth University students. The
sciences). In STEM areas 100% of those in Professor
Review Team heard this comment over and over from
A category are male. Within the administrative
staff at every level, and moreover students were very
category 69% of those earning less than €45,000 are
positive about the staff with whom they interact.
female, but only 30% of those earning over €105,000.
They said the staff are always willing to help and
The ethnic and racial diversity of the Maynooth staff
are sensitive to the needs of individual students,
cohort compares favourably with that of the total
including those with disabilities.
population of Ireland.
20Institutional Review Report 2019
Faculty and staff development are areas of great Of course, they may share interests with and learn
challenge for the University, largely because of from veteran staff in their area, whether it be student
budgetary limitations. Like deferred maintenance, affairs, technology, physical plant, admissions,
staff development is one of those budget lines too or something else. But the Review Team learned
easily cut when funds are limited. In the academic that in effect much of the “development” for a new
area, since priority has been given to maintaining departmental administrative assistant, for example,
healthy student/faculty ratios, instructors have had come from a senior colleague in some other
been hired, but faculty members suggested to the department volunteering to provide useful mentoring
Review Team that development opportunities for for the new employee. The Review Team learned that
new academics have been reduced. The Review Team Human Resources had met with the Departmental
did learn that new instructors receive a good level Administrators’ Forum for a needs analysis discussion
of mentoring from more experienced colleagues. on training, in the context of the ongoing development
The Team, however, believes that academic staff of Heads of Department and a revised Induction
development should be more formalised and Programme. This engagement served to inform the
consistent across departmental lines. content of a subsequent Skills Training Programme
for Administrative Support Staff. The HR department
It is also true that the Centre for Teaching and
is also considering a mentor programme which
Learning and the relatively new Dean of Teaching
could operate across departmental lines. In addition,
and Learning have provided significant positive
Maynooth University is developing a competency
change in the area of faculty development. The
model for entry and next level positions.
Centre now provides courses for new staff and tutors
and customised workshops; it provides technology The Review Team is confident that the Department of
support and training in how to use the Moodle Human Resources truly wants a robust programme
learning environment; and it can help with the of staff development; but with limited personnel and
evaluation of teaching through the use of learning limited digital resources, by its own admission during
analytics. The professional diploma and professional the review visit, it spends almost all of its time on the
certificate in higher education are not currently most essential personnel functions and only limited
offered to staff to enhance their teaching practice. time on staff development. The Department in its
latest internal quality review received high marks for
COMMENDATION 9 its dedication to staff and students, its user-centric
The Review Team commends the University for its approach to service, and its operational effectiveness.
progress in improving the quality of teaching and its The Review Team confirms this evaluation of the
plans to make additional progress in this area. Department of Human Resources.
The new Strategic Plan projects a Teaching Innovation Fortunately, the new Strategic Plan includes a robust
Fund, masterclasses, periodic review of the taught agenda for improving the quality of staff development
portfolio, and new educational technology. The provided at Maynooth University and based on
Review Team hopes that a new funding plan will be discussions with them during the main review visit,
able to help Maynooth University implement these Human Resources personnel seem eager to be at
important quality upgrades in the near future. Given the centre of the implementation. The agenda will
the stated value by management of making teaching include career pathways for all categories of staff,
and research equally important in evaluations for performance management systems (with regular
promotion, this kind of support is even more essential. feedback mechanisms), and a stronger induction
The four research institutes, it must be added, have and mentoring platform. It will include an improved
helped new faculty members embark on research promotion process and a set of awards for exemplary
careers. The shared intellectual interests of the service. It will emphasise “a positive organisational
academic staff involved with those centres make culture” by means of a set of steps to enhance
them positive forces in faculty development. employee engagement and partnerships. To address
another University need, the agenda will also focus
New administrative staff may at the present time on leadership progress to develop future University
have a thinner support system than academic staff. managers, supervisors, and leaders. The agenda
21Institutional Review Report 2019
will also include establishing a “Process Quality and the majority of the students that the team met
Improvement Centre” to utilise digital potential were indeed very positive about their teachers and
to make University operations more efficient and how engaged and approachable they were. All this
effective. corresponds well with the results from the ISSE 2018
where additional questions for Maynooth University,
The QQI Statutory Quality Assurance Guidelines
also with positive results, were included concerning
(Core) suggest that the main question regarding
independent learning and assessment.
staff is whether the University takes “responsibility
for the quality of its staff and for providing them
COMMENDATION 10
with a supportive environment that allows them
to carry out their work effectively.” According to The Review Team commends the University for
the Maynooth University Framework for Quality its very professional, engaged and approachable
Assurance and Enhancement, the goals and teaching staff as evidenced from the results from
objectives of the institution are “firmly focused on student surveys and by meetings with both teachers
providing staff with an excellent work environment and students.
in which innovation is fostered and a collegial ethos The commitment to have and to develop the teaching-
is sustained.” The Review Team believes that the research nexus is also clearly stated in the ISER:
University has fulfilled QQI expectations and its own “Progression and promotion processes support
stated ambitions. The Team is concerned, however, teaching development by giving the same weight
that, with workload concerns and deficiencies to teaching quality and educational innovation
in staff development, this very important asset as is given to research and scholarship.” This was
may in the future be compromised. At the same elaborated on by the President who said that the aim
time, evidence both in the ISER and the Strategic is to have teaching that is led or informed by research,
Plan indicates that the University understands its while encouraging staff not to dedicate all their
challenges and has a clear plan for addressing them energy to teaching. This is a sound approach which
as funding allows. This challenge can be addressed should ensure that the University will not be seen
by considering the introduction of a formal system solely as a teaching institution.
to measure and develop performance supported by
regular mechanisms for feedback and procedures to As outlined above, the Maynooth University approach
encourage enhancement. to teaching and learning is underpinned by five
general principles. These include: a university
RECOMMENDATION 5 learning experience which nurtures and enables the
development of students as critical thinkers and
The Review Team recommends that the University
problem solvers, equipped for life-long learning;
develops a timescale and funding plan for the kind of
teaching is core to academic practice and is
robust staff development articulated in its Strategic
respected as scholarly and professional; teaching
Plan.
and learning are student-centred; teaching and
learning are collegial processes; and learning,
TEACHING AND LEARNING teaching, and research are interconnected and
Maynooth University is committed to offering its mutually enriching. These five Teaching & Learning
students an outstanding university education with Principles are evidenced in the new sector-leading
strong connections between its research and teaching. undergraduate curriculum (UGP; referred to above
The University’s Teaching and Learning Guidelines under the section Programmes of Education and
are underpinned by five general principles, which Training) which had a pilot launch in 2015/16 and was
are adapted from the European Principles for the fully implemented in 2016/17. The UGP rests on three
Enhancement of Teaching and Learning noted above. pillars: critical thinking skills, experiential learning
and a flexible degree structure. The reform followed
This was all strongly confirmed during meetings both extensive internal and external consultation and was
with academic staff and with students. Teachers were also guided by international experience from other
enthusiastic and committed to their teaching mission, universities.
22You can also read
