DCU Structures for Academic Management:
Report of Special Working Group
Barry McMullin
Dean of Teaching and Learning
Draft (Last revised: 9th April 2000)
Working Paper odtl-2000-00
1. Introduction
The Working Group on Academic Management was established by
Executive at its meeting of 16th November 1999. The briefing
paper, including detailed terms of reference, is included below
at Appendix A. The membership of the group is shown in Appendix
B.
In summary, the group was charged to review the current operation
of academic management in DCU, particularly the Programme Board
system, and bring forward recommendations for change, where
appropriate.
The group discharged its remit through a combination of research
by individual members, ongoing electronic exchanges, and four
plenary meetings. The minutes of these meetings are included at
Appendix D below. These provide detailed discussion of the
group's work. The body of this report is accordingly limited to
summarising the consequent recommendations.
2. Recommendations
The recommendations following provide for significant revisions
of the structures for academic management in DCU. Appendix C
provides a diagrammatic summary of these proposed changes.
1. The number of Programme Boards should be significantly
rationalised, by making each Board responsible for broad
groupings of programmes. A target reduction is suggested
from the current level of 60+ Boards to about 15.
2. In general, proposals for new programmes should subsequently
be brought forward through these rationalised Programme
Boards; i.e., establishment of completely new Programme
Boards should become an exceptional event.
3. The remit of Programme Boards should be explicitly redefined
as being strictly concerned with development (rather than
day-to-day operation), at the programme level (rather than
detailed module level issues). Operational and module level
management should be re-allocated to separate (but
interacting) entities, as detailed below.
4. With this more specific focus, the membership of Programme
Boards should be significantly reduced. A target membership
of 5-10 for each Programme Board is suggested. An explicit
mechanism of establishing the membership of each Board, on
an annual basis, will be required. It is suggested that this
rely primarily on nomination from relevant Heads, on the
basis of a formula determined by Academic Council for each
individual Board.
5. The role of the chairperson of the Programme Board will
necessarily change, with the change in scope and remit of
the Programme Boards. For clarity, a title of Programme
Director is used here for this revised role. However, the
Programme Director will still serve as chairperson of the
Programme Board. Again, appointment of Programme Directors
will rely primarily on nomination from relevant Heads.
6. Operational, day-to-day responsibilities for academic
management at the programme level should be formally vested
in the relevant Programme Director, working with Class Group
Co-ordinators. Operational responsibility at the module
level should be vested in each designated Module
Co-ordinator. These particular allocations of
responsibilities largely reflect existing practice, and have
already been implicitly adopted by Academic Council, through
the Framework of Good Practice in Teaching and Learning,
Working Paper odtl-2000-01.
7. Since every module is the responsibility of a single School,
nomination of Module Co-ordinators is directly the
responsibility of relevant Heads. However, nomination of
Class Group Co-ordinators (as with Programme Directors)
generally involves cross-School involvement, and therefore
requires co-operation and agreement between relevant Heads.
8. Module level development responsibility--which is to say,
detailed design and revision of module content, assessment,
teaching and learning approaches etc.--should be formally
assigned to newly constituted Module Boards. In general,
each School should have just one Module Board; however,
where a School delivers an exceptional number or diversity
of modules, there may be provision to vary this. A target
membership of 5-10 for each Module Board is
suggested. Membership (including Chairmanship) of Module
Boards, on an annual basis, will be by nomination from
Heads.
9. The system of examination boards etc., should also be modified
and rationalised. This should reflect both the
rationalisation of Programme Boards, and an explicit
separation between module and programme level
responsibilities.
10. It is suggested that detailed module level examination review
be conducted by Module Examination Boards (MEBs), convened
on a School basis, and essentially constituted of the
relevant Module Co-ordinators (plus School based externs if
appropriate). Multiple MEBs may be constituted in any single
School, such that each MEB has a feasible and effective
workload. MEBs would meet at the end of each diet (Spring,
Summer, Autumn), and make module level recommendations
(only).
11. Programme level examination review would be undertaken by
Programme Examination Boards (PEBs). These would generally
be organised on the basis of the same programme groupings as
the (rationalised) Programme Boards. Each PEB would have a
relatively small membership (included programme level
externs), and would be concerned strictly with programme
level progression and award decisions. The PEBs would be
constrained to avoid, as far as possible, any
reconsideration of detailed module level issues. PEBs would
meet only after the Summer and Autumn diets (since
progression and award recommendations do not arise at the
Spring diet).
12. These new structures, if adopted, will have implications for
Student representation. The Students' Union should be
invited to make specific proposals in this regard.
13. Given the scale of DCU's academic operations, it is essential
that these management structures be underpinned by effective
IT support. Specifically, there should be provision for a
central database of Programme Boards, Module Boards,
Chairpersons, Class Groups and Co-ordinators, Module
Co-ordinators etc. This must allow easy distributed
maintenance to ensure that information is kept up to
date. It must be fully integrated with other Intranet and
Internet systems (ITS, Timetabling, Prospectus, Faculty
``booklets'' etc.).
3. Implementation
The Working Group did consider that it might be beneficial to
seek more widespread comment among the academic community on the
proposals contained here before proceeding to
implementation. Such a consultation would have the potential
benefits both of improving the recommendations, and encouraging a
wider sense of ownership. It is certainly expected that this
report will be among the matters discussed at the planned
workshop on Teaching and Learning Strategy (to take place in
mid-May). Executive advice is requested on whether further,
wider, consultation should be sought in the interim.
In any case, while the remit of this group was academic
management it is clear that the recommendations, if adopted,
would involve significant changes to our academic structures and
responsibilities; accordingly, if Executive should accept these
recommendations (modified or otherwise) they will then have to be
submitted to Academic Council for consideration.
If recommendations are then endorsed by both Executive and
Academic council, implementation could proceed as soon as
possible. It is suggested, in that case, that an implementation
group be established to oversee this. While it would be ideal to
target the new system for introduction in academic year
2000/2001, the changes are of such a scale that it may be more
realistic to aim for a limited pilot in that year with full
introduction in 2001/2002. In any case, this should be the
subject of specific decision by Executive and Academic Council.
---------------
Appendices (omitted):
A. Working Group Terms of Reference
B. Membership
C. Proposed New Structures (pictures!)
D. Minutes of Working Group Meetings
---------------
