confirmed minutes university of east london school … · programme leader’s cv had been included...

1

CONFIRMED MINUTES UNIVERSITY OF EAST LONDON SCHOOL OF ARTS AND DIGITAL INDUSTRIES School Quality Standing Committee (SQSC): Programme Repackaging Event 1.30pm to 6pm Wednesday 2nd April 2014, Room USS2.44, University Square Stratford Campus Present: SQSC - Panel members: Ms. Helena Blakemore, Subject Area Rep, Humanities & Creative Industries Subject Area Mr. Adrian Haberberg, Principal Lecturer, School of RDBS and internal/external member of SQSC Ms. Kathy Dale, Quality Assurance Officer, UEL Quality Assurance & Enhancement Ms. Elaine Davis, Registrar Mr. David Dorrington, Subject Head, Media, Communication & Screen Studies Dr. Paul Gormley, Associate Dean (Academic)/Chair Ms. Minna Kantonen, School Quality Leader Dr. Stephen Maddison, Subject Head, Humanities and Creative Industries Subject Area Ms. Stacey Pogoda, Subject Area Rep, Media, Communication & Screen Studies (MCSS) Subject Area Dr. Sheila Preston, Subject Head, Performing Arts Subject Area Dr. Hedley Roberts, Subject Head, Art & Design Subject Area Dr. Dorota Watson, Subject Head, Fashion & Textiles Subject Area Servicing Officer: Ms. Elaine Davis, Registrar Programme teams Dr. Jyoti Argade, Joint Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice Dr. Saraleigh Castelyn, Senior Lecturer, BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice Ms. Susanne Thomas, Joint Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice Ms. Vicki Fong, Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Digital Fashion, Fashion & Testiles Subject Area Ms. Eve Katsouraki, Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance Mr. Tim Allen, Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Fine Art Mr. Pete Cobb, Senior Lecturer, Programme Leader, Extended Degree (AVA) Ms. Yumi Cawkwell, Senior Lecturer, Co-Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production Dr. Guy Harries, Senior Lecturer, Co-Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production Mr. Gordon Kerr, Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Technology 22. APOLOGIES

2

22.1 NOTED: Apologies from the following External Advisers:

i) Ms. Louise Ainley, Central School of Ballet (for BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice)

ii) Dr. Melissa Blanco Borelli, Royal Holloway, University of London (for BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice)

iii) Professor Carl Lavery, University of Glasgow (for BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance)

iv) Mr. David McGravie, Associate Dean School of Creative Arts, University of Hertfordshire (for BA (Hons) Fine Art)

v) Mr. Peter Pilgrim (for BA (Hons) Digital Fashion) vi) Dr. Liselle Terret, Coventry University (for BA (Hons) Drama, Applied

Theatre & Performance) vii) Dr. Simon Zagorski-Thomas (for BSc (Hons) Music Technology and BA

(Hons) Music Performance and Production

22.2 NOTED: Mr Andreas Patsalos, Student Representative 23. TERMS OF REFERENCE 23.1 NOTED:

23.1.1 Terms of Reference for SQSC. 23.1.2 The Chair advised that the following repackaged programmes were

under review:

i) BA (Hons) Digital Fashion, level 6 only (this programme is no longer recruiting)

ii) BA (Hons) Fine Art iii) BA (Hons) Music Peformance and Production iv) BSc (Hons) Music Technology

23.1.3 The Chair advised that the following programme would be

revalidated at this meeting:

i) BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice ii) BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Threatre & Performance (Name

change, formerly BA (Hons) Theatre Studies) 23.1.4 Documentation. A full set of documents for each programme was

received, as below.

23.1.5 Validation Document (Option One Repackaging programme to comply with the New Academic Framework)

3

23.1.6 Module Mapping Document. (For repackaged programmes only. It is not a requirement to produce a mapping document for (re)validated programmes).

23.1.7 Programme Specification 23.1.8 External Adviser Comments 23.1.9 ‘You Said, We Did’ Responses to External Advisor comments (where

required). 23.1.10 Part 4 of QA Manual entitled: ‘Quality Criteria 23.1.11 Email confirmation from External Advisor to amendments (if

required)

23.2 External Adviser comments. The SQSC panel team and members of SQSC followed up comments made by External Advisers and asked programme teams questions about any issues raised by External Advisers for each of the six programmes under review. Key questions related to the impact of changes to the programme under the new academic framework; areas of learning, teaching and assessment; resources; student consultation, issues related to combined honours students; content and accuracy of documentation.

23.3 Nominated Readers. The Chair advised that readers had been assigned to each of the six programmes presented at this meeting. The Chair asked members of SQSC to check all documentation and advise if there were any issues or errors with regard to module mapping.

24. MATTERS ARISING FROM LAST MEETING

24.1 AGREED:

i) The minutes of the last validation event held on Thursday 19th February 2014 were re-written and issued late. Actions arising from this meeting will be addressed in time for the next VRSC meeting on 28th April 2014. (Action: Members of SQSC to note)

25. BA (HONS) DIGITAL FASHION, level 6 only (this programme is no longer recruiting)

25.1 Readers

25.1.1 NOTED: The nominated readers for this programme were: Dr. Hedley Roberts, Dr. Sheila Preston and Dr. Dorota Watson.

4

25.2 External Adviser Comments

25.2.1 Academic Climate and Resources

25.2.1.1 NOTED: All issues raised by the External Adviser, Peter Pilgrim, were addressed by the Programme Leader. Information on the Programme Leader’s digital skills had been included in the validation document; the Programme Leader’s cv had been included and more information regarding the University Library resources included.

25.2.2 Philosophy and Principles

25.2.2.1 NOTED: No issues were raised by the External Adviser.

25.2.3 Admissions


25.2.4 Structure

25.2.4.1 NOTED: In response to issues raised by the External Adviser, information regarding credits awarded at intermediate stages had already been included in the Programme Specification.

25.2.5 Content

25.2.5.1 NOTED: The External Adviser asked that details of specialist software learning for fashion design and manufacture be included in the documentation. (See action agreed in 25.6.2 (ii) below). The documentation should make it clear that fashion design was not covered in its entirety in this programme as this would be misleading to students. The Programme Leader responded that the programme would give students the opportunity to study fashion without making clothes and this information had already been included in documentation. Although the course did not lean towards the graphics end of the spectrum, students were provided with workshops in Level 4 on simple garment block construction, which had resulted in students being able to create garments in Levels 4 and 5.

25.2.6 Learning and Teaching Methods

25.2.6.1 NOTED: The External Adviser stated that the balance was unclear regarding intellectual learning and the acquisition of technical skills. This was an important issue in this programme as without a high level of knowledge and skills in the use of digital technology across a number of software programmes students might not fulfil enough of the objectives and learning outcomes to enter the types of employment outlined in the documentation. It was clear that e-learning was well developed and the existence of an IT learning resource was positive, but did not wholly replace the need for a digital specialist who would work directly with students.

5

Additionally, the broad concept of the course would mean that decision-making about the direction of major projects would require students to think through the initiation, development and execution of a significant piece of work; without well-seasoned independent thinking and management skills students could under-achieve. The Programme Leader responded that students did receive a balance of intellectual learning and digital skills, workshops were provided within their contact hours and e-learning provision added to face-to-face delivery and learning. With regard to a second point made by the External Adviser, the Programme Leader advised that students were encouraged to identify where they wished to position themselves within the broad arena of ‘Digital Fashion’. In Level 5, some students initiated their own live projects in line with modules such as Fashion Film and TV, involving collaborations with Fashion Designers and other individuals in the creative field, internal and external to the university.

25.2.7 Assessment

25.2.7.1 NOTED: No issues were raised by the External Adviser. 25.2.8 Guidance and Support

25.2.8.1 NOTED: The External Adviser reiterated the points made under ‘Academic Climate and Resources’ and these issues were addressed in item 25.2.1.

25.2.9 Information

25.2.9.1 NOTED: No issues were raised by the External Adviser. 25.2.10 Students’ and Employers’ Views


25.2.11 Regulations of Validation Bodies

25.2.11.1 NOTED: No issues were raised by the External Adviser. 25.2.12 Other Issues


25.3 General Questions to Programme Team

25.3.1 NOTED:

i) Transitional arrangements. Level 6 of the BA (Hons) Digital Fashion programme will be running out in 2014/15 academic year. The Programme Leader was asked about transitional arrangements for students that might be trailing modules at Level 6.

6

The Subject Head for Fashion & Textiles advised that students will complete a Learning Contract in accordance with agreed and approved transitional arrangements. The Associate Dean confirmed that all legacy students in the School would be offered negotiated transitional modules by completion of a learning agreement. The School will have a ‘shell’ module at each level tailored for each student which will be taken by independent learning. The School will review any trailing Level 6 students on a case-by-case basis. Mr. David Dorrington, Subject Head for MCSS and Chair of the Transitional Working Group, has sent round details of transitional arrangements to staff. The internal/external advised that he had only a short time to consider the documentation. However, he noted that reasonable detail and appropriate scrutiny had been given to transitional arrangements.

ii) Structure of module FT6250 Final Major Project. The Programme Leader was asked how this module had been structured. The Programme Leader responded that the module was made up of 20-credits of research in Semester ‘A’ and 40-credits in Semester ‘B’; it was the same credit value of previous modules that have now been merged.

25.3.2 AGREED:

i) Module FT6045 ‘Fashion & Textiles Dissertation’. On page 13, the first word in learning outcome No. 2 needs to be amended. It should not state ‘Become adept….’. Also on page 13 under the heading of Coursework 1 ‘Research Outline’, the wording: ‘To demonstrate investment of 20 practice hours’ should be removed.

Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Digital Fashion

ii) Module FT6520 ‘Final Major Project’. The Programme Leader was asked why 240 hours had been included on the module specification as ‘Student/tutor/demonstration interaction’ time. This was an error and should be recorded as eight hours per week. There was a lot of online contact with students on Facebook but this figure should not contain details of lecture series outside the physical classroom. The first word in learning outcome No. 1 needed to be amended. It should not state ‘Gain invaluable knowledge…..’. The module code needs to be added to the module specification on page 15 of the validation document.


iii) External Adviser Form. More information needed to be included on page 66 of the ‘Academic Climate and Resources’ section of the ‘You Said, We Did’ document with regard to the External Adviser’s comments about specialist software, software problems etc. The discussion per 25.2.6.1 addressed this and the committee felt satisfied that the programme offered a good balance of intellectual learning and digital skills and that workshops were provided for students.


7

iv) Programme Specification. Reference to UEL-Plus in the document

needs to be amended to Moodle, e.g. page 4 of the Programme Specification.


25.4 Approval

25.4.1 AGREED: The BA (Hons) Digital Fashion programme was approved by the External Adviser and by members of SQSC. The programme may now proceed to formal approval at VRSC.

26. BA (HONS) DANCE: URBAN PRACTICE

26.1 Readers

26.1.1 NOTED: The nominated readers for this programme were: Dr. Hedley Roberts and Dr. Dorota Watson

26.1.2 External Advisers’ Comments

26.1.2.1 RECEIVED and NOTED: A tabled paper (Appendix 1) highlighting in red text the changes requested by External Advisers, Louise Ainley and Dr. Melissa Blanco Borelli and a synopsis of the subsequent changes prepared by the programme team in response to External Advisers’ comments and recommendations.

26.1.2.2 AGREED:

i) The programme team has responded to all External Adviser comments and modules have been amended based on these comments.


26.1.3.1 NOTED:

i) Staff and space resource. The External Advisers, Louise Ainley and Dr. Melissa Borelli noted the increase in admissions applications for this programme for 2014/15 and asked what additional staff and space resource had been forecast and put in place for next year. The Subject Head for Performing Arts responded that additional staff were being appointed. A larger space would be created on Floor 4 of the USS Building and additional space was being negotiated at Stratford Circus. Optimum numbers would be recruited to the programme.

8

26.1.4. Philosophy and Principles

26.1.4.1 NOTED:

i) Progression. The External Adviser, Louise Ainley considered that there could be greater clarity in the language used to describe progression in depth, complexity and sophistication from Level 4 to Level 6 within the description of the learning outcomes. The tabled document (Appendix 1) has provided detailed amendments to modules PA4102, PA5202 and PA6302. This matter is now resolved.

26.1.5 Admissions

26.1.5.1 NOTED: No issues were raised by the External Adviser. 26.1.6 Structure

26.1.6.1 NOTED:

i) Evaluative and reflective elements of learning outcomes. The External Adviser, Louise Ainley, stated that the evaluative and reflective elements, as shown in the choreography modules, could be more apparent in the learning outcomes for the technique modules. Word-count or equivalent should be included in portfolio elements to evidence research and learning outcomes. The documentation should include information about requirements for direct entry to Levels 5 and 6. The Programme Leader has since amended the learning outcomes for modules PA4102, PA5202 and PA6302 to demonstrate reflective elements. The Subject Head confirmed that the word count for written work had been included in line with the UEL tariffs for practice-based work and no action would be taken to change this. Information regarding the requirements for direct entry to Levels 5 and 6 will be included in the programme handbook. This matter is now resolved.

26.1.7 Content

26.1.7.1 NOTED:

i) Transferrable skills. The External Adviser, Louise Ainley, asked what mechanisms were in place to ensure that students identified and articulated their development in terms of their transferrable skills in relation to their own practice and professional development. The Programme Leader responded that self-reflection in assessing students’ skills was articulated across each level, conducted through group workshops, formative feedback sessions and personal tutor interactions. Skills and employability modules, PA4104, PA5204 and PA6002 offered students the opportunity to evaluate their own skills in relation to job opportunities in the Dance sector.

9

The Programme Leader advised that no action was required as mechanisms of identification would be addressed through the delivery of modules and through pastoral care offered by personal tutors.

ii) Reading lists – bibliographies. The External Adviser, Dr. Melissa Borelli commented that the level of breadth in the bibliographies for the modules was quite exemplary. How though was the level of information managed in a way that did not overwhelm the student whilst still maintaining scholarly integrity of material and the expertise of the lecturer? The programme team responded that the core and recommended reading list was necessarily expansive to address diverse theoretical modes of study to enable students to engage and develop practice and research-based interests. No further action was required.

iii) Assessment practice for students with learning difficulties. The External Adviser, Louise Ainley, asked what measures were in place for alternative and inclusive assessment practice for students with specific learning difficulties. The External Adviser suggested that a statement linked to policy around the use of a viva voce to replace a written submission could be more clearly stated. A statement regarding reasonable adjustments for students has now been included under the assessment section of the programme specification.

iv) Texts by Jennifer Moon. The External Adviser, Louise Ainley, recommended titles by Jennifer Moon to support the development of students’ reflective skills. The Programme Leader has since included these texts in reading lists, particularly in technique and choreography modules.


26.1.8.1 NOTED:

i) Critical reflection. The External Adviser, Dr. Melissa Borelli, asked how students were taught to critically reflect in their choreography and practice study. The programme team responded that students would be given workshops providing the ‘Liz Lerner’ approach of integrating and offering feedback, or the Jennifer Moon method of critical self-reflection. Methods to develop personalised and constructive critical self-reflection would be provided in module guides. No further action was required.

10

ii) Induction and development of visiting lecturers and part-time staff delivering technique classes. The External Adviser, Louise Ainley, asked about the mechanisms in place to induct, mentor and provide staff development opportunities for teachers delivering technique classes or providing part-time teaching. In response, the programme team advised that they would create a Visiting Lecturer handbook in Semester ‘A’ 2014. These staff will also be asked to attend the Lecturer Development Programme.

iii) Levels 4 to 6 – learning outcomes. The External Adviser, Dr. Melissa

Borelli considered that verbs in learning outcomes needed to be tailored to reflect incremental knowledge, understanding and progression at all levels of the programme. The tabled document (Appendix 1) has provided detailed amendments to modules at all levels. This matter is now resolved.

iv) Rationale for titles of technique modules – PA4102, PA5202 and

PA6202. The External Adviser, Dr. Melissa Borelli, asked about the rationale that included the words ‘moving, thinking or performing’ in technique modules at all three levels. The tabled document (Appendix 1) has provided detailed amendments and the rationale is now more explicit in the aims of the technique modules. This matter is now resolved.

26.1.9 Assessment

26.1.9.1 NOTED:

i) Formative assessment, student review of assessment criteria, critical reflection, mock self-assessment, peer assessment. The External Adviser, Dr. Melissa Borelli, asked whether students received formative assessment to support their critical reflection, were able to review and contribute views regarding assessment criteria, carried out mock self-assessment and were peer-assessed. The programme team responded that practice-based formative assessment was undertaken through dress rehearsals, mid-semester showings and self-reflective appraisal of performance technique in accordance with clear assessment criteria. For theory-based modules, students read and integrated formative feedback from lecturers into their draft proposals in advance of coursework deadlines. Mock assessments and criteria-setting options could be provided if there was potential value in meeting the learning outcomes of the module. No further action was required.

ii) Provision of alternative assessment for students sustaining injury and information available on injury prevention awareness in technique modules. The External Adviser, Louise Ainley, recommended that a statement be included in the documentation regarding provision to accommodate alternative forms of assessment for students that sustain an injury whilst performing dance routines.

11

The External Adviser, Dr. Melissa Borelli, had also enquired (under the section on ‘Guidance and Support’) if injury prevention was a priority in technique modules. As indicated in the tabled document (Appendix 1), alternative provisions for practice assessments had been included in the assessment section of the programme specification. Students will be required to show supporting evidence to the programme and/or module leader that documents their medical condition. The programme team commented that injury prevention was a priority and students were required to develop injury prevention plans in Level 4 module PA4104 (and apply them in training). Learning outcomes in technique modules will be reworded to explicitly address heightened awareness of injury prevention alongside measures applied to forestall the occurrence of injuries. This matter is now resolved.

v) Reading list. The External Adviser, Dr. Melissa Borelli recommended

that texts by Magolda and Hofer were recorded in reading lists for students studying at Levels 4 and 5. The programme team has since included these texts in the reading lists of modules PA4104 and PA5203. This matter is now resolved.

26.1.9 Guidance and Support

26.1.10.1 NOTED:

i) Development of students’ writing skills. The External Adviser, Dr. Melissa Borelli, enquired how writing skills were embedded in critical inquiry modules without infringing overall content of module or lecturer teaching/expertise. The programme team responded that writing skills were embedded in the modules through essays, essay proposals, annotated bibliographies, summaries of readings and coursework/writing surgeries offered over the year. Additional support was provided by the UEL Writing Centre and DDAC, the latter providing guidance to students with learning disabilities. No further action was required.

26.1.10 Progression and Completion

26.1.11.1 NOTED:

i) Review & Enhancement Process – availability of statistical data to students – progression and completion rates. The External Adviser, Louise Ainley, asked if students had access to information about progression and completion rates that were available in the annual Review & Enhancement Process. The programme team advised that this information was made available at student helpdesks. The programme team met with students that were trailing modules and scheduled personal tutorials to guide them regarding resits and progression. (NB: Note from Servicing Officer – REP reports should be made available to students through programme committees – see

12

Terms of Reference of Programme Committees. This information needs to be included in these minutes). (Action: Subject Head for Performing Arts)

26.1.12 Information 26.1.12.1 NOTED: No issues were raised by the External Advisers. 26.1.13 Students’ and Employers’ Views 26.1.13.1 NOTED:

i) The External Adviser, Dr. Melissa Borelli, recommended that formal and informal feedback sessions were provided to students to record feedback for implementation in the next year’s delivery. The programme team confirmed that feedback was already obtained in this way. No further action was required.

26.1.14 Regulations of Validation Bodies 26.1.14.1 NOTED: No issues were raised by the External Advisers. 26.1.15 Other Issues 26.1.15.1 NOTED: No issues were raised by the External Advisers.

26.2 Questions to Programme Team 26.2.1 NOTED:

i) Good practice. Members of SQSC considered this to be a strong, well thought-out programme. The documentation was commended and should be shared as an example of good practice.

ii) Benefits of the re-validation process. The programme team were asked if they had found the revalidation process helpful. The Programme Leader responded that it had given the team a chance to think about how the programme had been incredibly successful and engaged with the helm of critical dance. It had given the team an opportunity to assess quite rigorously the relationship between theory and practice and to engage and reflect on creativity; it had improved the academic coherence of the programme. The team would have preferred to have been given longer time to incorporate technique classes but a considerable amount of work had already been done in this area. Students were excited that technique classes will in future be assessed. Students were interested in the dissertation being turned into a research module. The year-long modules appealed to students and will enable them to engage more intensively with the subject.

13

Positive feedback has been received at programme committee meetings.

iii) Level 5 modules. Members of SQSC queries why the Level 5

modules were made up of 15 credits instead of 30 credits. The Programme Leader responded that this was a practical decision in terms of integration of theory and practice. It was difficult to create learning outcomes for a combined site-specific and screen-specific project. These were two distinctive projects that needed to be kept distinct and separate.

iv) Placements. Members of SQSC were impressed with the placement

opportunities and links for this programme. On page 13 of the validation document, it mentioned that alternative assessment would be given by the Module Leader to students unable to secure a placement. Members of the SQSC panel asked about alternative assessment; was there an alternative module? What number of hours were students expected to study on a placement? The programme team advised that for the alternative assessment students might be required to undertake an analysis or comparison of dance-specific organisations; students would be expected to conduct interviews and undertake historical analysis of these organisations. There were two options; students could devise workshops or develop a project, website or conference paper or organise a ‘club night’. This would be their professional engagement with industry in a broader sense. The alternative assessment is tailored to the student. The minimum amount of time spent on a placement was 80 hours.

v) Module PA5203 ‘Crossing Borders, Hybrid Forms’. There was quite

an extensive reading list for this module listing various pages. What was their learning experience/structure to enable their learning? The Programme Leader advised that this was an intensive research module. There were many different ways in which a student could understand dance and cultural studies. Many of the texts were only 10 pages in length and taken from key anthologies. The Programme Leader advised that at the start of each class students presented on their readings over a period of time and then group discussions occurred.

vi) Module PA6002 ‘Placement: Dancing in the community, working in

the community’. On page 75 of the validation document, the text in the ‘Main Topics of Study’ section in the module specification was quite lengthy, as was the reading list. This information advised about student engagement, experience and learning on the placement module. It was agreed to let this text remain under this section and also to include it in the module guide. No further action is required.

14

26.2.1 AGREED:

i) Modules PA4101 ’Choreographing the Body, Staging the Body’ and PA5201 ‘Site-Specific Contexts’. Members of SQSC referred to page 28 and asked if there were any current texts for module PA4101. Members of SQSC also referred to pages 44/45 and noted that the latest text was dated 2005.The Programme Leader responded that module PA4101 was a shared module delivered by another programme and would have to be reviewed. Some of the texts needed to be removed. It was stated that there was a lack of academic resources on dance techniques texts and it was important to include journals in the reading lists. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice

ii) Module PA5204 ‘Producing Dance, Staging Events’. On page 61 of the validation document, Coursework 1 ‘Viva Voce’ is given a weighting of 105 hours. This reads as though the viva will be 105 hours in duration. This could be changed to a presentation tariff, e.g. how long it would be expected for a presentation to last. (It was noted that in the Drama programme the presentation tariff was 30 hours for preparation). It was also noted on page 61 that explicit reference was made to an organisation called ‘Coll!de’. If this organisation changed its name the programme team would have to change the module specification which could trigger another validation. It was recommended that a more neutral phraseology be used. Reference was made to learning outcome No. 6 (Deliver a presentation on a chosen research topic) in the module specification (for PA5204) on page 72 of the validation document. As learning outcomes need to be formally assessed; it was not clear how the 105 hours specified for Coursework 1 ‘Negotiated Research Submission’ would assess the presentation aspect of the learning outcome. It was agreed that Coursework 1 should be divided into a ‘Proposal Presentation’ of 10% weighting and a final ‘Negotiated Research Submission’ of 90% weighting with a word-count smaller than 4500 words. The length of the presentation needed to be included and reference made to the tariff. It should also advise whether the presentation was individual or group work. It was noted that the dance presentation tariff was normally 5 to 10 minutes for each student. The Dance team will make these amendments. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice

iii) Module PA6303 ‘Practicing Research, Researching Practice’. On

page 71 of the validation document, the first word of the module title in the module specification was incorrectly spelt and should be changed to ‘Practising’. The level was shown as Level 3 and needed to be changed to Level 6.

Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice

15

iv) Reading lists. In a number of the reading lists the most recent date was given as 2008. Examples were given on pages 44/45 (module PA5201) and pages 52/53 (module PA5202). This needs to be reviewed. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice

v) Staff cvs. The staff cvs were formatted in different fonts. The qualifications for Susanne Thomas, Senior Lecturer, had not been included. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice

vi) Module PA6002 (page 74) used an old proforma. Delete box referring to skills curriculum. Action: QA officer

26.3.1 Approval

26.3.1.1 AGREED: The BA (Hons) Dance: Urban Practice programme was

approved by the External Adviser and by members of SQSC. The programme may now proceed to formal approval at VRSC.

27 BA (HONS) DRAMA, APPLIED THEATRE & PERFORMANCE

27.1 Readers

27.1.1 NOTED: The nominated readers for this programme were: Dr. Stephen Maddison and Dr. Dorota Watson

27.2 External Advisers’ Comments


27.2.1.1 NOTED:

i) The External Adviser, Liselle Terret, was satisfied that the programme was appropriately resourced in terms of academic, scholarly and professional activity. Resources and teaching appeared to be excellent.

The title change was apt and reflected current development in theatre and applied theatre. This new degree will potentially equip, attract and develop students’ employment credentials. The local to global focus was strong, as was the opportunity to integrate the theoretical and practice-based modules.

16

27.2.2 Philosophy and Principles

27.2.2.1 NOTED:

i) The External Adviser was ‘hugely satisfied’ with the aims and objectives that were well considered and in line with QAA benchmarks; these reflected the high level of expertise on the degree. There was a strong, philosophical foundation for this degree and it should enhance recruitment, attract a diverse student body and enhance employability. The whole university was dedicated to ensuring the delivery of ‘innovative research and teaching that was intellectually stimulating’. It was noted from publications that academic staff were well respected in their field.

27.2.3 Admissions 27.2.3.1 AGREED:

i) The External Adviser considered that the admissions procedures were fair and reflected the diverse student body. There was clear commitment to continue attracting a student body reflective of contemporary cultural migration and diverse population. The External Adviser commented that it was good to note that the programme would be offered part-time, making the programme more accessible and attractive. However, it was advised at the meeting that this programme was only offered full-time and this information needed to be advised in the programme team response to the External Adviser on the ‘You Said, We Did’ form. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

27.2.4 Structure

27.2.4.1 NOTED:

i) Progression. The External Adviser commented that the new structure appeared to offer good progression enabling students to constructively build upon their understanding, theoretical debates and practice-based skills. The degree offered a useful and relevant balance of theory and practice. The placements and ‘participatory performance practice’ modules should potentially equip students with necessary employability skills. The first year has more tutor-led opportunities leading to students being able to work more independently by their final year.

The larger, 45-credit modules will enable students to take ownership and spend longer time learning their subjects. The research focus for their dissertation rather than it being an academic task will give students the chance to reflect and introduce their diverse experiences into their degree. There is good choice for students, enabling them to choose their own projects in the final year.

17

27.2.5 Content

27.2.5.1 NOTED:

i) Modules. The ‘urban’ and ‘memory’ focus for several modules will offer students a complex insight into how the field operates in terms of live research with academic study.

ii) Module PA4103 ‘Participatory Performance Practices’. This module looked exciting and would support the students’ academic engagement on the degree.

iii) Module PA5401 ‘Politics of Performance & Memory’. The External

Adviser was not convinced that the content and trajectory of this module was reflected in its title. It appeared to be a very specific area but was actually dealing with themes that arguably sat across all of the modules, around documenting and archiving. The Programme Leader advised that this was the most appropriate title at the moment. The team will reconsider the title next year.

iv) Module PA6001 ‘Staging Philosophies’. The External Adviser commented that the content of the programme was highly engaging. Module PA6001 needed more explicit links to the rest of the degree. Staff may wish to reconsider and make more explicit how the module linked to other themes in the new degree; perhaps philosophies around community, other socially excluded communities etc. It was otherwise in danger of becoming separated out from the rest of the degree. The Programme Leader responded by highlighting the key aim of this module, which was to serve as a principal theoretical module. The module sought to enable students successfully progressing with the writing of an 8,000 words dissertation and developing possible postgraduate avenues. The module related well to the rest of the degree and this will become more explicit for the module guide than the module specifications. The Programme Leader also noted that the emphasis of this module was on equipping students with solid theoretical components which aimed to enrich students’ understanding of performance practice and their practice of the other third year modules as well as their writing and thinking skills in relation to their practice. No further action was required.

27.2.5.2 AGREED:

The programme. It was a very challenging degree, but students will be able to ‘find their own place’ within it. The urban, local to global focus was a strong selling point of the degree. This focus offered students the opportunity to ‘debate, problematize, question assumptions around academic and practice-based applied theatre, strengthen their understanding and place themselves within it.

18

The relationship with the local and national professional theatre and applied theatre-related industry was fantastic. The relationship with international HE institutions moving from local to the global was also commendable. Perhaps there could become more explicit connections with digital technologies as a way of linking local to global as this was within the expertise of the teaching staff. A response was required on the ‘You Said We Did’ pro-forma to the suggestion made by the External Advisor. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance


27.2.6.1 NOTED:

i) Teaching and learning styles, book lists, aims, objectives, assessment. The External Adviser commented that the detailed breakdown of the teaching and learning styles was really useful, well considered and reflected in the type of assessment required. The book lists were well thought out and contained the most updated texts as well as more seminal ones. The aims and objectives for each module were well considered and provided a clear rationale. The modules have a variety of different assessment modes that reflected students’ strengths.

27.2.7 Assessment

27.2.7.1 NOTED:

i) Year-long modules, presentation assessments. The External Adviser felt that the year-long modules would offer a more linear route allowing more progressive learning and assessment at different times. The performative presentational assessments were really invaluable and offered students the opportunity to evidence their academic and practice-based understanding in different learning and pedagogical modes.


27.2.8.1 NOTED: i) Student recruitment numbers. The External Adviser considered that

the programme appeared supportive as long as organisational systems were in place in terms of student recruitment numbers.

19

27.2.9 Progression and Completion

27.2.9.1 NOTED:

i) Placements/employability. The External Adviser’s experience has been that placements offered students some assurance of future employment on completion of their degree. The list of possible routes for students on completion was realistic and strong.

27.2.10 Information

27.2.10.1 NOTED:

i) The External Adviser stated that the information provided to students was clear and well organised. The titles were well considered and the detailed descriptions were good. The programme specification was sound and clear.

27.2.11 Students’ and Employers’ Views 27.2.11.1 NOTED:

i) The External Adviser noted the positive responses from students. The

students seemed to be excited about the new programme and the opportunity for new development. Students were really pleased at the emphasis on the combined, theoretical and practical understanding of performance with the focus on developing solid skills and attributes in the areas of ‘Drama’, ’Applied Theatre’ and ‘Performance’. This consultation should continue with the students throughout the first year of the new degree and relevant changes made in accordance with student feedback.

27.2.12 Questions to Programme Team

27.2.12.1 NOTED:

i) Documentation. The Chair advised the Programme Leader that members of SQSC considered the paperwork to be very well prepared and the programme was quite exciting. The positive notes from the External Adviser were particularly recognised. The paperwork required quite a few minor corrections.

ii) Process of revalidation. The Programme Leader was asked how the programme team found the process of revalidation and how it improved the programme. The Programme Leader responded that it was a substantially improved programme as a result of the revalidation. It had been a long but rewarding process. The timing of the event was not quite right as permanent staff have been on leave. The programme was now better defined in terms of student expectations and employability.

20

There were now three very distinctive pathways. Students can develop their own interest within the course. There are options within modules to enable students to pursue their own interests. Assessment will be improved and students will now be clear about what is expected from them. Students can spend more concentrated time and effort on creative performance and can now present more professionally developed work externally. The programme has been revalidated to target the right student recruitment. This programme reflected the students’ research interest; students will have significant opportunity to develop practitioner skills throughout the course.

iii) Level 6 modules. Members of SQSC asked the programme team about the rationale for providing a dissertation, a placement and a project at Level 6. What were the distinctions in terms of the learning outcomes? The Programme Leader responded that there was a reading project of 8000 words. The final project would be the equivalent of the practice and students completed a portfolio to take away when they graduated in their artistic career. The programme team have included both written and practical components. Students will be able to apply for jobs when they complete the Professional Practice Placement module. The final year will be more autonomous and students can cultivate their own interests with the four different options to develop their expertise in the programme. The project will be very open. Students will be able to build their writing in the taught solo/site-specific project. The placement will be about the student working at an external organisation. The project will be about students doing their own work. Students will also have an opportunity to develop postgraduate study.

iv) Employability. The internal/external member of SQSC asked about employability and how this would be improved with the new programme. The Subject Head for Performing Arts advised that the programme team aimed for 90% employability. The changing title would reflect employability as well as admission of students. Students were happy with the new name in terms of employability prospects. Students can do their placement any time in the year and usually get jobs after they complete their placement.

v) Accreditation. In response to questions raised, the Subject Head

advised that there was no formal accreditation for this programme. Accreditation under ‘Youth Work’ was under consideration.

21

27.2.12.2 AGREED:

i) University wide skills learning outcomes at Level 4 and 5. Were the learning outcomes in one module or in several modules? It was suggested that the Programme Leader would need to include in the revised documentation a brief table that indicated the level 4 and 5 university-wide skills learning outcomes Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

ii) Module P4101 ‘Performing the City’. References were not CITE-compliant. On page 42, the wording of learning outcomes in the module specification need to be redrafted. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

iii) Module PA4401 ‘World Performance’. On page 37, it was noted that the most recent text was dated 2005. The reading lists need to be reviewed and updated. On page 20 PA4401, the assessment tariffs seemed uneven, eg CW1 = 30% = 20 hours; CW2 = 40% = 60 hours. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

iv) Module PA4402 ‘Reading and Writing Performance’. On page 40, it was noted that the most recent text was dated 2008. On page 39, the assessment tasks were too wordy – this would make it difficult to amend or revise this information at a later date. It was agreed to keep just the assessment headings. More detailed description would be included in module guide. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

v) Module PA5102 ‘Cultural Entrepreneurship: Staging Events’.

Members of SQSC asked the programme team why module PA5102 was a 15-credit module instead of a 30-credit module. The code for module PA5102 needed to be entered onto the module specification on page 55 of the validation document. Members of SQSC considered that there were too many learning outcomes for this 15-credit module. Learning outcome No. 8 had not been mapped. The learning outcomes should be correlated and equally mapped against Coursework 1 and Coursework 2. The learning outcomes needed to be balanced against assessment weightings – see page 56. Also on page 56, the assessment hours added up to 50 hours, which was a little low, when the tariff was a maximum of 105 assessment hours for a 15-credit module. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

22

vi) Module PA5403 ‘Urban Interventions (Community Engagement & Performance). The module code for PA5403 needs to be entered onto the module specification on page 58 of the validation document. On page 17 in the table the grammar needs correcting. Learning outcomes Nos. 4 and 7 should be amended to follow on from pro-forma text ‘ at the end of this module, students will be able to:’. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

vii) Module PA6000 ‘Research Project Dissertation’. The module code

was shown as PA3000 on the module specification on page 67 of the validation document and should be recorded as PA6000. The research skills were included for this module; learning outcome No. 10 related to the presentation and was included in the CW1 assessment mapping. However it was not accounted for in the assessment tariff.– see page 68. It was agreed that the programme team would amend CW1 to contain the presentation and to use the ADI hours-based tariff for the assessment component. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

viii) Module PA5404 ‘Applied Performance’. It was noted that learning

outcome mapping of the assessment task was missing against learning outcomes Nos. 8 and 9 and this should be amended - see page 49. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

ix) ‘Final Practical Project’. The module code will need to be inserted in the module specification on page 61. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

x) Module PA6001 ‘Staging Philosophies. The learning outcomes need to be redrafted. Learning outcomes Nos. 4 and 8 – change the word ‘Enable’. Learning outcomes Nos. 5 and 7 – change ‘Engage’. Where it stated that students will need to ‘Develop’ in learning outcome Nos. 1, 6, 9, 10 and 11, change to ‘Demonstrate’ or ‘Apply’. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

xi) Module PA6002 ‘Professional Practice’ (Placements). There were

five learning outcomes mapped against CW1 with a weighting of 30% and three learning outcomes mapped against CW2 with a weighting of 70%. This appeared unbalanced -see page 71. The programme team agreed to amend this. The sub-heading on page 71 should be amended from ‘Subject Specific Skills’ to the correct pro-forma text ‘Subject-based Practical Skills’.

23

The order of sub-headings should be ‘Thinking Skills’, ‘Knowledge’, ‘Subject-based Practical Skills’ and ‘Skills for Life’ and the programme team need to amend this. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

xii) Assessment hours. The number of assessment hours quoted for most modules was incorrect. The ADI tariff was 210 hours for a 30-credit module. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

xiii) Reading lists – Cite Them Rite. All reading lists need to be Cite Them Right compliant. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

xiv) Employers’ views. The Subject Head read out feedback received from

one employer. This information will need to be sent to the Servicing Officer to include in these minutes. Action: Subject Head, Performing Arts

xv) Errors in documentation. The programme team need to review the

documentation again to check for errors, e.g. in coding, levels and learning outcomes. The internal/external advised that the formatting of texts and/or reading lists was incorrect or inconsistent on pages 37, 40, 43, 46, 49 and 59 (large page numbers). The learning outcomes needed to be balanced against assessment weightings – se pages 56, 68 and 71. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance

27.2.13 Approval

26.2.13.1 AGREED: The BA (Hons) Drama, Applied Theatre & Performance programme was approved by the External Adviser and by members of SQSC. The programme may now proceed to formal approval at VRSC.

28 BA (HONS) FINE ART 28.1 NOTED: The readers for this programme were Ms. Helena Blakemore and Dr. Sheila Preston.

24

28.2 Academic Climate and Resources

28.2.1 NOTED:

i) Space allocation and facilities. The External Adviser, David McGravie, had not reviewed specific or detailed information regarding space allocation or the physical layout of the resources. However, from the material provided he agreed that statements made about the programme and facilities were a true and accurate record.


28.2.2.1 NOTED:

i) QAA benchmarks. The External Adviser commented that the programme specification and validation document did not make specific reference to QAA benchmarks. The module statements and learning outcomes demonstrated that underlying principles had been applied.

28.2.3 Admissions

28.2.3.1 AGREED:

i) UCAS tariff points. The External Adviser noted that a wide range of entry qualifications, BTEC, Art Foundation Diploma, A2 etc. was included in the programme specification. The admissions section needs to include the UCAS tariff points of 240 in the programme specification

Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Fine Art 28.2.4 Structure

28.2.4.1 NOTED:

i) Structure. The External Adviser noted that the structure was consistent with the aims and objectives of the programme. The mapping of learning outcomes was robust and consistently applied for all awards in accordance with University regulations. The External Adviser considered that the student experience from induction and progression needed to be more clearly articulated. The Programme Leader responded that this information is given to students during induction and is included in the student handbook and module guides.

25

28.2.5 Content

28.2.5.1 NOTED:

i) Aims and objectives. The External Adviser commented that the overall aims and objectives of the programme were clear and comparable to programmes at other institutions. The broad aims of teaching, where students are allocated a personal studio space to develop their work, were clearly defined. This is an independent research-based programme and students develop their individual practice supported by seminars, tutorials, exhibitions, workshops and visiting artists. The information provided gave students an overview of the programme in easily understood and accessible language.

ii) Merger of Art & Design disciplines. Information regarding the merger of the disciplines into one subject area of Art & Design needed to be more explicitly explained to Fine Art students, underlying the ethos of the programmed and merged practice areas. In response, the Programme Leader has added to the ‘Fine Art at UEL’ section of the programme specification the following text: ‘Although many students specialise in a particular area, e.g. painting, there is scope for students to access a combination of media and practice as required, mirroring contemporary art practice.


28.2.6.1 NOTED:

i) Consistency of learning and teaching methods with programme aims and objectives and variety of learning opportunities and experiences. The External Adviser noted that the learning and teaching methods were consistent with the aims and objectives of the programme and met the needs of the students, mirroring competitor providers. The programme specification and modules demonstrated variety of learning opportunities and experiences.

ii) Experiential learning. The External Adviser considered that the opportunity for experiential learning was an example of good practice giving students experience of working as a professional artist.

28.2.7 Assessment

28.2.7.1 NOTED:

i) Assessment methods. The assessment methods and arrangements were fair, reliable and valid. Learning outcomes and information regarding external moderation was clearly articulated.

26

ii) Sampling of project briefs and supporting module information. The External Adviser commented that he had not been given access to sample project briefs that would demonstrate how assessment methods and arrangements were applied and worked in practice. The Programme Leader responded that project briefs would be included within the module guide and did not form part of this repackaging/re-mapping validation exercise.


28.2.8.1 NOTED:

i) Information. The External Adviser noted that a set of comprehensive guidance material had been made available.

ii) Foundation degree. The External Adviser raised a query whether the Foundation Degree, as mentioned in the programme specification, was an award on this degree programme. The Programme Leader advised that the Foundation Degree was not an award and conferred advance standing for direct entry to Levels 5 and 6.

28.2.9 Information 28.2.9.1 NOTED: No issues were raised by the External Adviser for consideration. 28.2.10 Students’ and Employers’ Views 28.2.10.1 NOTED:

i) Feedback mechanisms. The External Adviser stated that the programme specification referenced how students were involved in the quality management process and how the views of industry were taken into account. Student feedback was obtained through programme committee meetings, module and programme evaluations. Students were notified of actions taken through programme committees or through individual responses to students. An annual student satisfaction questionnaire was issued to students and there were regular staff/student meetings at subject area/programme level. There was also liaison with industry panels, professional designers and subject experts.

28.2.11 Regulations of Validation Bodies

28.2.11.1 NOTED: No issues were raised by the External Adviser for

consideration.

27

28.2.12 Other Issues 28.2.12.1 NOTED:

i) Summary of issues raised. The External Adviser summarised in this section the points made, which have been addressed, under previous headings in sections 28.2.3.1 (i), 28.2.5.1 (ii) and 28.2.8.1 (ii) of these minutes.

ii) Students’ preparedness for study. The External Adviser raised general queries related to learning and teaching aspects with regard to .students’ preparedness for study’. These queries are detailed and addressed in sections 28.2.12.1 (ii) (a) to (d) below:

(a) Induction. How were students inducted onto the programme, over

what timeframe and how were they prepared for the challenge of tackling large modules? The Programme Leader responded that students were initially inducted during a UEL first week induction with programme-specific induction projects. Weekly year group seminars commended immediately and the induction process continued onwards from first week induction.

(b) Feedback points. Linked to induction, how did students receive formative feedback? The Programme Leader advised that the main formal formative feedback point was during the mid-year review. Feedback was given verbally and in writing, and indicative grades given under a number of headings linked to the learning outcomes. Additional formative feedback was given in tutorials, seminars and critiques based around exhibitions of student work.

(c) Assessment matrix. How was the assessment load set? What

was the balance throughout the year and when were the deadlines? The Programme Leader responded that an assessment tariff load matrix was available in the validation document. The form of each student’s portfolio necessarily varies widely and this is measured by hours in conception and production rather than by volume. Summative assessment is at the conclusion of the module.

(d) Assessment. How did retrieval of 45-credit modules work in

practice and had the team considered the impact on student progression? The Programme Leader advised that the programme currently operates with 40-credit practice modules. Students who fail a 40-credit module have the opportunity to resit without attendance in the summer. The progression and completion rates for Fine Art were quite high. Under the new regulations failing students will not be able to retrieve a 45-credit module as a retake and stay on track with the full academic programme within year.

28

However, as under the existing regulations any failing students will be able to retrieve modules at the second opportunity during resit periods in the summer, with an august deadline. Additional support will be made available to support students through studyfest activities.

28.2.13 Questions to Programme Team 28.2.13.1 AGREED:

i) Module AD5010 ‘Contextual Studies in Fine Art 2’. Learning outcomes on page 36 of the validation document are numbered differently in the mapping document on page 89 and this needed to be tidied up. Learning outcome No. 9 had not been mapped against this module. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Fine Art

ii) Module AD6001 ‘Fine Art Studio Practice: C’ and module AD60002

‘Fine Art Studio Practice: D’. There were a number of repeated readings in both modules. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Fine Art

iii) Errors. Bibliographies need to be checked. Levels need to be

synchronised. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Fine Art

iv) Programme specification. On page 104, the levels need to be

correctly specified, i.e. Levels 1, 2 and 3 should be Levels 4, 5 and 6. This needed to be checked throughout the document. On page 93, the final award needs to state: ‘BA (Hons) Fine Art. The wording in the banner box: ‘Designing a future to meet the challenges in the workplace of a new century’ needs to be amended. The programme team need to ensure that the programme specification is updated as soon as possible. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Fine Art

v) Module specifications. The aims contained in the module

specifications addressed the student in second person, i.e. ‘You will’. This needs to be changed to third person, i.e. ‘The student will’. If the second person address was currently consistent across all modules then this could be changed to third person after the programme had been revalidated. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Fine Art

29

28.2.14 Approval

28.2.14.1 AGREED: The BA (Hons) Fine Art programme was approved by the External Adviser and by members of SQSC. The programme may now proceed to formal approval at VRSC.

29 BA (HONS) MUSIC PERFORMANCE AND PRODUCTION and BSc (HONS)

MUSIC TECHNOLOGY 29.1 NOTED: The readers for this programme were Dr. Stephen Maddison, Dr. Hedley Roberts, Ms. Stacey Pogoda.

29.2 External Advisers’ Comments


29.2.1.1 NOTED:

i) SSRs. The External Adviser, Dr Simon Zagorski-Thomas, expressed concern about the SSR of 37:1, way above the UEL average of 25:1 and already high according to the Complete University Guide.

The two new posts will reduce SSRs to 30:1 and it was recommended that the appropriate SSR should be nearer to 20:1. This is under review.

29.2.2 Philosophy and Principles 29.2.2.1 NOTED:

i) Shared content between the BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production and BSc (Hons) Music Technology programmes. The External Adviser commented that the experiential nature of the course, backed up with the requirements for critical analysis and written documentation matched the national standing of the award. It was not clear to the External Adviser why there was so much shared content between the two courses, one is a BA and the other is a BSc. I understand this is under consideration by the Deanery and I would recommend that they were both BA qualifications to reduce confusion. The programme team responded that an agreement was now in place that the Music Technology moved from a BSc classification to a BA and is change was planned for academic year 1015/16 so that the change could be properly processed and allow due consultation to take place with students.

29.3 Admissions

29.3.1 NOTED: No issues were raised by the External Adviser for consideration.

30

29.4 Structure


29.5 Content


29.6 Learning and Teaching Methods


29.7 Assessment

29.7.1 NOTED:

i) As a result of discussion between the External Adviser and the Programme Leader for the BSc (Hons) Programme, some small amendments have been made to the documentation, since approved by the External Adviser.

29.8 Guidance and Support


29.9 Information


29.10 Students’ and Employers’ Views


29.11 Regulations of Validation Bodies


29.12 Other


29.12 Approval

29.12.1 AGREED: The BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production programme was approved by the External Adviser and by members of SQSC. The programme may now proceed to formal approval at VRSC.

31

29.13 Questions to Programme Team

29.13.1 NOTED:

i) Programme change of title. The programme has changed its title from BA (Hons) Music Production & Culture to ‘BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production’. The Chair commented that this was an exciting programme. Some students have asked to be awarded under their existing programme titles. The QAE Officer confirmed that students could be awarded under their existing programme title as part of the transitional arrangements.

ii) Benefits of repackaged programme. The programme team was asked about the long-term benefits of repackaging this programme. The programme team responded that the repackaging exercise had helped to solidify existing strands, adding longer breadth rather than students changing from one module to another. It also created more distinction and specialised pathways between performance and technology. The philosophy had changed to focus on student development. Students were quite happy with the changes and were pleased that the textual modules would remain.

iii) Programme philosophy. The programme team was asked about the

philosophy of theory and production/performance-based practice modules. The programme team advised that strands would be integrated in Level 6 of the programme. The most dramatic change would be in music production; the dissertation module will be theoretical and the independent project will be practice-based. The connection between contextual studies and practical production skills was now evident. The cultural contextual modules related to music practice. Level 4 will develop students’ skills in computer-based practice. All modules and workshops will have contextual input. The team has been able to create distinction between the two existing music courses by separating them out into practical and contextual work.

iv) Module PA6302 ‘Music Technology Final Project’. It was noted on

page 66 of the BSc (Hons) Music Technology document that learning

outcomes Nos. 4 and 9 had been mapped against research skills.

29.13.3 AGREED:

i) Module PA4301 ‘Music Skills 1: Practical Musicianship’. Learning outcome No. 5 needed to be broken up into new learning outcomes Nos. 5 and 6. ‘Perform the arrangements live’ (existing learning outcome No. 5) should fall within Coursework 1. ‘Evaluate them (live arrangements) in relation to the original musical text’ (new learning outcome No. 6) should fall within Coursework 2.

32

Alternatively, learning outcome No. 5 needs to be re-worded Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production

ii) Module PA4303 ‘Performance Skills 1: Collaboration and Improvisation’. Remove learning outcome No. 6 from the assessment mapping as there were only five learning outcomes in this module. Learning outcome No. 5 should be mapped against Coursework 2. This needed to be reviewed. Learning outcome No. 5 states: ‘Perform sensitively in an ensemble and as solo performer, with attention to detail, sensitivity to others…’. This outcome refers to either an individual or group assessment. The words ‘solo’ and ‘ensemble’ therefore need to be removed so that the learning outcome could be applied to both individual and group assessment. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production

iii) Module PA4305 ‘Contextual Studies 1: History of Music Genre, 20th-21st Century’. The bibliographies were too long and too out of date in the module specification on page 32 of the validation document. A question was raised with regard to the wording for learning outcome No. 10 ‘Work effectively and appropriately with others….’ as this was individual coursework assessment. This needed to be clarified or mapped against a different module and assessed across the programme. On page 31, the essay is recorded as 3000 words or 126 hours. It should not show two, mixed tariffs. The Programme Leader advised that assessment in this programme related to time. This tariff should be specified in the module guide.

Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production

iv) Module PA4306 ‘Computer Music 1: Electronic Dance Music’.

Learning outcome No. 5 needed to be tidied up (remove ‘be able to’). The wording in learning outcome No. 6 ‘ show basic’ should be amended as it was not possible to measure the verb ‘show’. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production

v) Module PA5302 ‘Music Skills 2: The Songwriter’s Identity’. It was suggested that learning outcomes Nos. 9 to 12 be merged. Concern was raised that Coursework 1 had two different elements in the ‘Assessment Methods’ section of the module specification. It was suggested that Coursework 2 could be a Professional Level Portfolio and Coursework 1 Group Project. On page 42, Learning Outcome No. 7 should be mapped against Coursework 2. It was unclear from the learning outcomes whether the work was individual or group assessment. Learning outcome No. 6 should be tidied and the wording ‘be able to’ should be removed.


33

vi) Module PA5304 ‘Computer Music 2: Music and Moving Image’.

The programme team need to amend learning outcomes Nos. 1 and 7

to use a better level 5 description than ‘engage’.

Action: Programme Leader, BSc Music Technology

vii) Module PA5306 ‘Contextual Studies 2: Music Technology,

Industry and Writing’. In the module specification on page 46 of the validation document, there were two pieces of coursework recorded. Learning outcome No. 6 discussed an essay and should be mapped against Coursework 1 only. Learning outcome No. 2 should be amended from ‘ be aware of’ to e.g. ‘Apply’.


viii) Module PA5307 ‘Audio Technology 2: Live Studio Production. The

programme team need to amend learning outcomes Nos. 1 and 2 to

use a better level 5 description than ‘understand’. Learning outcomes

Nos. 5 and 7 could be combined into a single learning outcome.


ix) Module PA5308 ‘Performance Skills 2: Live Performance’. The pro-forma text under Learning Outcomes for this module should be amended to the correct pro-forma text; ‘At the end of this module, students will be able to’. Therefore, learning outcome No. 1 needed to be tidied up and the wording ‘be able to’ removed. There were minor typing errors in this module specification. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and

Production

x) Module PA6002 ‘Professional Practice: Employability and the Music Professional’. The sub-heading on page 57 should be amended from ‘Subject Specific Skills’ to the correct pro-forma text ‘Subject-based Practical Skills’. The order of-sub headings should be ‘Thinking Skills’, ‘Knowledge’, ‘Subject-based Practical Skills’ and ‘Skills for Life’ and the programme team need to amend this. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and

Production

xi) Module PA6301 ‘Music Performance and Production – Final Year Project’. As this was a 45-credit module, members of SQSC confirmed it was acceptable to have four pieces of coursework. On page 61 the module specification as well as the mapping document identified the university research skills.

34

However, research skills 5 and 8 were not fully incorporated into the learning outcomes (ethical consideration and timetabling) and would need to be amended in the learning outcomes of the module. Learning outcome No. 12 should not be mapped against all pieces of coursework. It should not be mapped to CW3 Dissertation and needed to be removed. The team need to ensure that learning outcomes were assessed in the right places. The presentation of a research topic (learning outcome No. 12) was a requirement of the research skills curriculum and as a learning outcome must be assessed, it was agreed that CW1 would be amended to include ‘Detailed proposal and presentation’. Learning outcome No. 12 would be mapped against CW1 only. It was also suggested to the programme team that reference to ‘term A & B’ should be removed as this detail could be included in the module guide.


vii) Module PA 6302 ‘Music Technology Final Project’. The ECTS credit needs to be amended to 22.5. Action: Programme Leader, BSc Music Technology

viii) Module PA6303 ‘Computer Music 3: Live Electronic Sound’. The

wording of learning outcome Nos. 2, 3 and 6 should be reviewed to use level the 6 descriptor instead of ‘understand’ and ‘ show’. Learning outcome Nos. 7 and 9 could be combined into one learning outcome. Action: Programme Leader, BSc Music Technology

ix) Module PA 6304 ‘Audio Technology 3: Interactive Sound’. The

capital letter needs to be amended to lower case in learning outcome No. 7.


xii) Module PA63XX ‘Contextual Studies 3: Music, Sound and the Body’. The module code will need to be added to this module specification. It was agreed to amend the wording to learning outcome No. 10 ‘and talk’ to ‘discuss’, which can be assessed in CW2 ‘Essay’. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production

xiii) Learning outcomes. The team need to in general consider how learning outcomes were assessed. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production

35

xiv) Title of programme in programme specification/levels. There was an error in the programme title on page 84 of the validation document. Levels 1, 2 and 3 need to be changed to 4, 5 and 6 on pages 84/85 of the validation document. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production

xv) Practice modules. Modules PA4306 – learning outcome No. 9, PA5307 – learning outcome No. 7; module PA6303 – learning outcome No. 9. There was repetition of learning outcomes in these modules, e.g. ‘Identify relevant solutions and strategies’ and there was no indication of the ‘levelness’ of these modules. It was suggested that the following words could be used: for module PA4306 ‘Introduce relevant solutions…’; for module PA5307 ‘Develop relevant solutions…’; for module PA6303 ‘Define relevant solutions…’. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and

Production and Action: Programme Leader, BSc Music

Technology

xvi) Programme specification for BA (Hons) Music Performance and

Production. There was a typing error in the title of the programme (in the banner box on page 84 of the programme specification). Level 1 should be Level 4. Levels 1, 2 and 3 should be levels 4, 5 and 6. The programme specification needs to be updated as soon as possible. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production

xvii) Programme specification for BSc (Hons) Music Technology. On pages 86 and 88 references to ‘Pro Tools’ and ‘Logic’ software need to be removed. On page 110 the old degree classification had been included and should be amended as follows: Where a student is eligible for an Honours degree by passing a valid combination of modules to comprise an award and has gained a minimum of 240 UEL credits at level 5 or level 6 on the current enrolment for the programme, including a minimum of 120 UEL credits at level 6, the award classification is determined by calculating:

The arithmetic mean of the best 90 credits at level 6

x 0.8 + The arithmetic mean of the next best 90 credits at levels 5 and/or 6

x 0.2

The programme specification is to be updated as soon as possible.

Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Technology

36

xviii) Reading lists. There were a number of different formats for the reading lists on page 58 of the BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production document. Only the first word of the title should be in a capital letter. Action: Programme Leader, BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production

29.3 Approval

29.3.1 AGREED: The BA (Hons) Music Performance and Production programme and the BSc (Hons) Music Technology programme was approved by the External Adviser and by members of SQSC. The programme may now proceed to formal approval at VRSC.

30. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

30.1 RECEIVED and NOTED: Tabled email from Emma Burchfield, Head of Admissions. The revalidated Architecture Extended Degree will form part of the revalidation of the Extended Degree (AVA).

31. DATE OF SQSC MEETINGS: 2013/14

31.1 NOTED: Dates of future SQSC meetings:

DATE TIME CHAIR LOCATION

WED 07.05.14 09:30 – 12:30 Minna Kantonen EB.1.39

WED 04.06.14 2:00 – 5:00 Minna Kantonen KD.2.19

32. DATES OF REMAINING SCHOOL PLANNING MEETINGS,

(RE)VALIDATION/RE-PACKAGING EVENTS AND UEL/VRSC MEETINGS:

2013/14

AFR4

1. Programmes BA Journalism (Revalidation)

BA Sports Journalism) (Revalidation)

BA Fashion Design (Revalidation)

BA Fashion Textiles (New Validation)

BA Fashion Marketing (New Validation)

BA Fashion Design with Fashion Management (repackage), level 6 only

BA Printed Textile Design, repackage), level 5 & 6 only

37

2. Planning Meeting (all documentation to be ready for this) Wednesday April 9th 2014

3. Paperwork sent to Externals: Wednesday April 16th

4. School Validation Event Wednesday April 30th 2014 (Amended after this meeting to Tuesday 6th

May 2014)

5. VRSC Deadline for Papers: May 1st 2014

Meeting: May 20th 2014

AFR5

1. Programmes BA Illustration (New Validation)

BA Animation and Illustration(New Validation)

BA Media and Communication (New Validation)

BA Digital Media Design (New Validation)

Extended Degree Art and Design (repackage)

Extended Degree Cultural and Creative Industries (repackage)

2. Planning Meeting (all documentation to be ready for this) Friday May 2nd 2014

3. Paperwork sent to Externals Wednesday May 7th 2014

4. School Validation Event Wednesday May 21st 2014

5. VRSC Deadline for Papers: May 23rd 2014

Meeting: June 11th 2014

Draft Friday 25th April, 2014.

Unconfirmed Monday 28th April, 2014.

Confirmed

confirmed minutes university of east london school … · programme leader’s cv had been included...

Documents