Recommendation to University Quality Enhancement …€¦ · · 2008-05-01Recommendation to...

AAR template version 3

of 21

UNIVERSITY QUALITY COMMITTEE SAD/SCIT STANDING PANEL (2006/07)

ACADEMIC APPROVAL RECORD REFERENCE – (1385) CONFIRMED Recommendation to University Quality Enhancement Committee The Standing Panel was asked to validate a Foundation Degree (Arts) on behalf of the School of Art and Design (SAD) and City of Wolverhampton College (CoWC) and is pleased to recommend to the University Quality Enhancement Committee approval of the following proposals: VALIDATION Pathway

Code Pathway Title Final

Award Intermediate

Awards Specialist

/Joint Modes of delivery

FS/CVP Commercial Video Production FD (Arts) CertHE Specialist - Full Time - Part Time (Day and Evening)

MODULES Semeste

r New

Module ( )

Module code

Module Title Credits Core / Core option or elective

Delivered by

1 AD1007 Research and Study Skills in Art and Design

15 Core University

1 AD2209 Representations of Reality: Documentary Theory

15 Core University

2 DM1006 Introduction to Digital Sound 15 Core University 2 DM1101 Video and Film Production 15 Core CoWC 1 DM1103 Editing Theory and Practice 15 Core CoWC 2 DM1105 Creating Ideas for Screen: Script

and Stories 15 Core CoWC

1 DM1106 Principles and Practices of Video and Film

15 Core CoWC

1 DM1022 Advertising and Persuasion through Commercial Video

15 Core CoWC

2 DM1023 Designing Graphics/Compositing for TV

15 Core CoWC

1 DM2037 Creative Commercial Video Production

15 Core CoWC

1 DM2038 Professional Practice I 30 Core CoWC 2 DM2039 Professional Practice II 30 Core CoWC 1 DM2110 Client-based Video Production 15 Core CoWC 2 DM2111 Streaming Media 15 Core University

In support of these recommendations, the Validating Panel provides appendices of supporting evidence including records of meetings, external and other reports and an action checklist The Validating Panel is aware that the University Quality Enhancement Committee reserves the right to review all decisions made by the Standing Panel, to ratify approvals and to follow up on any issues identified in the AAR as the Committee sees fit.


of 21

DATE OF THE NEXT REVIEW The next review of the Foundation Degree (Arts) Commercial Video Production is scheduled to take place by the end of the 2012-2013 academic year. Summary of process:

Date Activity See appendix 22/01/07 Received Academic Development Panel approval 11/04/07 Received submission documentation 03/05/07 Panel meeting with staff team at City of Wolverhampton College

- External Adviser reports One Two

16/05/07 Received resubmitted documentation 21/05/07 Panel meeting to further discuss the documentation 18/06/07 Received resubmitted documentation 26/06/07 Panel meeting to discuss the revised document. Course Guide

requested from Team. - Letter to the Dean of School of Art & Design

Three Four

11/07/07 Course guide received 01/10/07 Final approval received.


of 21

Academic Approval Record Summary of findings The proposal originated from the need for providing a further education level 4 Video Production programme following the demise of the HND Digital Media (Video Production). The proposal fits well into the City of Wolverhampton College strategic plan for Higher Education (HE) and Further Education (FE) and the internal progression strategy whilst offering the University of Wolverhampton (UoW) an alternative route to the BA (Hons) Film and Video Production. On the day of the meeting Dr Bernardes, the Chair, was unable to attend the meeting for personal reasons therefore the Panel was unable to reach a decision regarding the proposal at the validation meeting. Moreover, further assurance was sought on a number of issues namely the level of employer engagement, the role of work based learning and the consistency of the pathway learning outcomes within and across modules. The Proposing Team was asked to re-present the submission documentation based on the Panel’s comments and Dr Jon Bernardes’ comments. Following the meeting, the Proposing Team was asked to re-submit the submission documentation twice and received final approval on 26th June 2007. However, the Panel felt it was necessary to write to the Dean of the School, Dr Bryony Conway, to express its concerns regarding the quality of the validation documentation. The Panel noted the improvement in the quality of the submission documentation however in giving the Programme approval to recruit, the Panel draw attention to the number of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and lack of attention to detail. This concern was strengthened in the light of the forthcoming QAA Audit in the autumn of 2008. Collaborative Arrangements This is a joint pathway designed, developed and delivered by the University and CoWC and leads to an award conferred by the University. Students will be enrolled at both the University and the CoWC. The majority of teaching will take place at CoWC, the remainder will be delivered at the UoW. With regards to induction, a joint SAD/College induction is planned which will last approximately three weeks towards the end of October. Good Practice / Enhancement Issues that have institutional implications for consideration by the University The Panel noted that there was a training need for staff, particularly around the writing of submissions for proposals involving collaborative partners, and in particular, around the requirements for Foundation Degrees in terms of employer involvement and the integration of work based learning. Action checklist for ongoing monitoring throughout the lifetime of the pathway(s)

Responsibility Action Date Action to be closed by Annual

Monitoring Report Writer

To monitor the work placement opportunities available

Annual Monitoring 2007/08

School Quality Enhancement

Committee Annual

Monitoring Report Writer

To monitor the breadth and depth of work based learning

Annual Monitoring 2007/08

School Quality Enhancement

Committee Key Proposer To evaluate the students who obtain

work placements in preparation for 2008/09

2007/08 School Quality Enhancement

Committee Key Proposer To evaluate the perceived expansion of 2008/09 School Quality


of 21

the number of work placements Enhancement Committee

Date the draft AAR was approved for submission to the AAR Sub Group for ratification by the Standing / Validation Panel Chair.


of 21

VALIDATING PANEL RECORD Details of Panel and Participants Chair: Dr Jon Bernardes Officer: Ms Pamela Bains Panel members designated to validate the provision: Ms Anne Barclay (Registry) Mr Tom Hicks (Learning Resources) Mr Martin Holmes Mr Jas Singh Independent External Adviser for the Validation: Name: David Sleight, University of Lincoln Position: Head of Media Production Name: Stephanie Farmer, Bournemouth University Position: Media Producer Subject/Pathway Team Representative(s) from School and Partner for the Validation: Mr Don Adamson (School of Art & Design) Mrs Tricia Cooper (School of Art & Design) Mr Simon Larson (Key Proposer, City of Wolverhampton College) Ms Alison Marsh (City of Wolverhampton College) Mr Lester Meachem (School of Art & Design) Mr Phil Nichols (Key Proposer, School of Art and Design) Ms Elke Theissl (City of Wolverhampton College) Ms Dee Young (City of Wolverhampton College)

Appendix 1

QUALITY AND ACADEMIC STANDARDS DIVISION ART & DESIGN, COMPUTING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STANDING PANEL

CONFIRMED

Notes of the meeting of the Standing Panel to consider the validation of a Foundation Degree (Arts) Commercial Video Production in collaboration with the City of Wolverhampton College held on Thursday 3 May 2007, at 9.30am in the Conference Centre, City of Wolverhampton College, Paget Road Campus, Wolverhampton. Present:

Name Member Attendance Dr Jon Bernardes Chair, School of Humanities, Languages and Social

Sciences Standing Panel A

Mr Don Adamson School of Art & Design Proposing Team Ms Pamela Bains Officer, Quality and Academic Standards Division Standing Panel Mrs Anne Barclay City Campus Registrar Standing Panel Mrs Tricia Cooper School of Art & Design Proposing Team Ms Stephanie Farmer External Adviser, Media Producer, Red Balloon

Productions Standing Panel

Mr Tom Hicks Learning and Information Services Standing Panel Mr Martin Holmes Deputy Chair, University of Wolverhampton

Business School Standing Panel

Mr Simon Larson Key Proposer, City of Wolverhampton College Proposing Team Ms Alison Marsh City of Wolverhampton College Proposing Team

(1- 2pm) Mr Lester Meachem School of Art & Design Proposing Team Mr Phil Nichols Key Proposer, School of Art and Design Proposing Team Mr Jas Singh Deputy Chair, School of Computing and Information

Technology Standing Panel

Mr David Sleight External Adviser, Head of Media Production, University of Lincoln

Standing Panel

Ms Elke Theissl City of Wolverhampton College Proposing Team Ms Dee Young City of Wolverhampton College Proposing Team Key: = Present A = Apology Received X = Absent

Background The proposal originated from the need for providing a further education level 4 Video Production programme following the demise of the HND Digital Media (Video Production). The Proposal fits well into the City of Wolverhampton College (CoWC) strategic plan for Higher Education (HE) and Further Education (FE) and the internal progression strategy whilst offering the University of Wolverhampton (UoW) an alternative route to the BA (Hons) Film and Video Production. Introduction Mr Singh commenced the meeting by welcoming colleagues and reported that Dr Bernardes, the Chair, was unable to attend the meeting for personal reasons and therefore he and Mr Holmes would jointly Chair the meeting. Presentation by Proposing Team The Proposing Team delivered an informative presentation about the CoWC that included an overview of: • Media at the College; • Media Centre of Vocational Excellence (CoVE) and employer engagement; • The partnership between the School of Art & Design (SAD) and CoWC; • Involvement of Skillset, The Sector Skills Council for the Audio Video Industries, and;

Appendix 1

• The pathway. Resources Visit The Panel undertook a resource visit and viewed a control room, student gallery, learning resources centre, Media CoVE headquarters, Higher Education social learning centre and an IT room; the Panel was satisfied with the resources. Following the visit, the Panel viewed a CoWC DVD, ‘Flight of the Flamingos’ which had been produced to improve the skills of the Public Sector staff. Panel Discussion • What was the process of involving employers in the development of the pathway? The Proposing Team reported that a presentation was delivered at the Media CoVE employer forum and the suggestions made were taken on board when developing the pathway. Following discussion regarding evidence of employer involvement, it was agreed that minutes of forum meetings at which the proposal was discussed should be submitted in the revised submission documentation. • Were comments received from other employers? The Panel discussed the level of employer involvement and noted that comments were received prior to designing the pathway. • Who would be responsible for finding student work experience placements? There would be a dedicated work experience co-ordinator at CoWC; currently, Ms Marsh was the level three work experience co-ordinator. It was noted that in the event that work experience placements could not be secured, placements would be available within Media CoVE and the College marketing department; in certain circumstances, employers could be brought into the College instead of students going out to employers. • How would work based learning be monitored? The Proposing Team assured the Panel that both the College and University policies and procedures would be adhered to in order to verify proposed workplaces; the work experience co-ordinator would be responsible for this. Mr Sleight advised the Proposing Team that a contract may need to be established for each work placement offered. • Would a document be made available to employers informing them of their role during work

placements? It was noted that a general College booklet was available and this would be tailored for employers involved in the Foundation Degree. • The Panel noted that the student logbook was not very media friendly, and queried whether there

would be provision for online activity. The Proposing Team reported that the logbook would be completed electronically, online; PebblePad would be used for the reflective portfolio element of assessments. • The Panel queried why there was no work based learning at level one. At level one, the intention was to provide students with the foundation for working with clients. The focus at that stage would be to build student skills and provide simulation activities; this would be achieved through developing scripts and stories which might come from industry. • Has support been received from any other Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Bodies (PSRB) other

than Skills Set? At this stage, Skills Set was the key PSRB involved with the Foundation Degree but the Proposing Team was open to other PSRB participation. • Has support been received from any large-scale organisations? The Proposing Team confirmed that Maverick had confirmed involvement with the Foundation Degree. • How would the College work with employers?

Appendix 1

The College strongly encouraged Guest Speakers from industry, for example, Satnam Rana from BBC Midlands Today had delivered a number of lecture sessions. Additionally, web based designers who had previously offered students placements would be involved in the Foundation Degree. The Proposing Team reported; not only did they enrich the course but also provided very useful anecdotal evidence. • How long would work placements last? It was noted that for some modules, for example, Professional Practice I and II, students would come to College for formal input and their work experience placements would be scheduled around taught sessions. The Panel noted that the length of work placements would seek to satisfy the University norm to ensure module learning outcomes could be achieved. • Given the potential varying student experiences during work placements, and the final outcome letter

from employers, how would module grades be determined? The Proposing Team reported that the letter from the employer was part of the personal achievement log, which would be moderated by the College and External Examiner. It was noted that the final grade would depend on how well the module learning outcomes had been attained. • How would students be compensated if for example, employers did not provide adequate student

support/feedback? It was noted that the undergraduate student experiences would be monitored throughout the modules by the course tutor. All issues related to student support and feedback would be identified and resolved early on. • The Panel queried the timing, organisation and responsibility of the work experience placements. The Panel noted the module tutor would be responsible for preparing students for work placements in the first session of modules, for example, students would be offered advice and guidance on applying for jobs and attending interviews. Although there were no modules in the pathway which focused specifically on building student skills, it was noted that students would be encouraged to build their Curricular Vitae and use PebblePad at level one of the Foundation Degree to enhance their skills. • Mr Sleight noted that there was no formal work placements at level one and suggested that the

College use the summer period to establish work experience opportunities. The Panel noted that at the School of Art & Design (SAD), members of staff were currently liaising with students about finding work experience placements for the second year; students who undertook the foundation degree would also be encouraged in this way. The Proposing Team suggested that students should also meet with the work experience co-ordinator in the first year in preparation for their work experience placements. • How would work based learning work for people already in employment? Although students would not be accredited prior learning (APL) for work-based learning, students could undertake their work experience placements with their current workplaces. The Panel advised the Proposing Team to inform employers of their duties and responsibilities when offering work based learning opportunities. • What were the entry requirements for the Foundation Degree? The Panel noted that standard students needed 80-140 UCAS points from either 2 A Levels (grades D and above) / an overall pass in National Diploma/Certificate in Media / City and Guilds 7500 Media Techniques / Access to HE certificate / a mature student with good GCSE or O Level grades and relevant experience. Applicants should also have GCSE English and Mathematics at Grade C or above or Key Skills Communication and Application of Number at Level Two. Accredited Prior Learning (APL) would be awarded on an individual basis. A maximum of 180 credits towards Foundation Degree could be awarded APL, therefore at least 60 level 2 credits must be studied. • What market intelligence was available regarding whom the Foundation Degree aimed to attract? The Panel noted that people from all types of organisations would be targeted to undertake the Foundation Degree in particular, freelancers and small company employees • How many students would be recruited onto the pathway? It was suggested that 10-15 students would be recruited to the pathway at each level. It was noted that timetabling would be reviewed to accommodate any increase in student numbers; more weekend and evening

Appendix 1

lectures would also be considered. The Panel highlighted the difficulties that may arise for full time students having to attend College during part time hours. However it was noted that this was current practice at the College and worked well. • The Panel suggested that AD1007 Research and Study Skills be moved to level one, semester one

delivery instead of level two, semester one delivery for the part time mode of study The Proposing Team noted that the part time schedule was draft and would be finalised upon successful validation. It was further reported that part time students would be counselled to help determine their course of study. • The Proposing Team was informed of the potential access issues to the gallery and control room for

students. The Proposing Team acknowledged the tight space and the associated difficulties however it was noted that the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 had been fully adhered to, and College furniture had been adapted to ensure compliance to it. Ms Farmer recommended that putting a window in the gallery would prove to be very useful. • Mr Sleight queried whether the College had access to funds for additional teaching for students with

disabilities. It was noted that the College recruited a number of disabled students and constantly adapted physical provision to accommodate them; there was provision for funding which would be allocated following an assessment by the Student Enabling Centre. The Proposing Team reassured the Panel that SAD had also been working very closely with the College, sharing expertise on fulfilling the DDA; this started at the student application process. The Panel urged the Proposing Team to detail this in the validation document. • The Panel queried the rationale behind how SAD and CoWC would work together to deliver the

pathway. Following a long period of discussion, the Proposing Team agreed that students would come to the UoW for wider ranged learning, which would cover both theory and practice. Students would also be urged to use the Harrison Learning Centre at the UoW, in addition to the resources available at the CoWC. • What plan was in place for staff development? The Panel noted that staff development would be undertaken at a number of levels. Firstly, members of staff from both the UoW and CoWC could participate in any staff development available at the collaborative institute. Moreover, staff could also undertake any staff development sessions by Teaching and Learning Advisors and those held by the Centre of Excellence for Learning and Teaching (CELT). In addition to this, the UoW would be holding Road Shows at all of its collaborative institutes, including the CoWC, to provide staff with any information they required. Finally, formal and informal communication between staff at the UoW and CoWC would act as a form of staff development. • Who would be responsible for administering and granting extensions? The UoW would be responsible for this. It was noted that extensions would be granted for one to seven days by an appropriate member of staff . • Would there be any training for CoWC staff to advise students on UoW policies and procedures? The Panel noted that the CoWC was already a collaborative institute with the UoW and was well informed of UoW policies and procedures. It was further noted that the existing UoW model would be used by College staff to acquire the knowledge required to advise students. • The Panel noted that the pre-requisite modules stipulated on some of the MSTs were not available in

the pathway. The Proposing Team reported that careful mapping would be undertaken to ensure that the pre-requisite or equivalent modules formed part of the pathway structure.

Appendix 1

• The Panel sought clarification as to how students would be encouraged to attend the full length of modules.

It was noted that formative feedback would be provided throughout modules; this would support students’ learning. The Proposing Team assured the Panel that deadlines would be set throughout the module to encourage student attendance and continuous learning and development; this mirrored industry practice. The Panel further noted that the students would hand in assignments during week 11, at which point work would be submitted to the client and feedback received; work would be resubmitted in line with the comments received. • The Panel advised the Proposing Team to stipulate clearly in the validation document that the 30

credit Professional Placement modules at level two could not be compensated. • The Proposing Team was advised to include references to QAA and the UoW Guidelines for work-

based learning in the submission documentation. • The Panel noted that all modules would be marked and moderated by staff at the institution at which

they were taught. • The Panel queried the level of teaching and learning support that would be available to students. It was noted that the CoWC was hoping to adapt the Wolverhampton Online Learning Framework (WOLF) for use within the College. CoWC staff would have access to WOLF and would work with the UoW staff to ensure that the information available on WOLF was incessantly updated and accurate. It was further noted that CoWC staff would also have access to e:vision; training would be undertaken as required. • The Panel queried how an increase in student numbers or staff sickness would be managed given the

heavy reliance on a few members of the staff team. The Proposing Team suggested that under such circumstances Visiting Lecturers would be employed. Furthermore, if a member of CoWC staff was off on sick leave, then an appropriate member of UoW staff would be asked to teach the module at the College. • The Panel queried how the personal tutor support system would work . It was noted that the majority of the student support would take place at the CoWC although there would be shared responsibility for this. It was agreed that Mr Nichols would be the main UoW contact for students. • The Panel noted that the CoWC long term strategy included building a new 3000 square metre School

of Creative Arts at the Wolverhampton Science Park. In the short term the College was considering ways of better utilising campus space.

• It was noted that there was limited reference to CoWC members of staff and the proposed Foundation

Degree on the existing/new MSTs. Furthermore, there were a number of inconsistencies in the learning outcomes within and across modules and the PST. The Panel scrutinised the new MSTs and commented on the following:

Generic Issues: a) Part A of all MSTs and the PST must be amended to ensure accurate details of the intermediate awards,

module codes and titles, availability, location of delivery and collaborative arrangement. b) Rationalise part B, section 3 of all MSTs, this included:

- Clearly specifying the pathway and module learning outcomes. - Updating section 9, learning resources and reviewing the resources listed for student to purchase.

Module Specific Issues: e) DM1022 Advertising and Persuasion through Commercial Video - Update the learning resources to include marketing texts. f) DM2038 Professional Practice I - Amend section 1b to enable wider student access to the module. - Update the learning resources to include text on placements and/or reflective writing.

Appendix 1

e) DM2039 Professional Practice II - Amend section 1b to enable wider student access to the module. - Update the learning resources to include text on business planning and remove the reference to the

prospectus Careers Website. It was agreed that all MSTs would need to be amended to address the aforementioned issues. Conclusion and Recommendations for action The Panel was unable to reach a decision regarding the validation of the Foundation Degree (Arts) in Commercial Video Production without the comments of Dr Bernardes. However, in light of the discussions, the Proposing Team was asked to address the following recommendations for action: 1) Submit the Memorandum of Cooperation and Course Guide

Deadline: Wednesday 8th May 2007

2) Revise and re-present the submission documentation, this involved:

a) Re-working and re-presenting the validation document to include: • Explicit details of the role of work based learning in the pathway; • Reference to how APL would be managed and approved; • Details of how compensation would operate; • A staff development plan; • A statement about staff resources and specialist equipment if the pathway was successful and numbers

increased dramatically; • Further evidence of early external involvement in the development of the pathway for example, minutes

of forum meetings, and; • Repositioning the delivery of AD1007 Research and Study Skills in Art and Design from the second

year of the part time pathway structure to the first year.

b) Revisiting the Pathway Specification Template and Module Specification Templates (MST) to include: • Accurate intermediate awards, module codes and titles, availability, location of delivery, collaborative

arrangement details in Part A of the PST and MSTs; • Up-to-date learning resources; • Clear details of the University staff who would be teaching on new modules and the College staff who

would be teaching on the existing modules. • Reviewing the pathway learning outcomes within and across modules to ensure accuracy and

consistency; • Reference to the Quality Assurance Agency Guidelines for Foundation Degrees and the University

Foundation Degree Guidelines; • A rationale for the proposed modifications to AD1007, DM1101, DM1103, DM1105, DM1106 and

AD2209 including a copy of the existing MSTs. • Details of who would be delivering the marketing element in DM1022 Advertising and Persuasion

through Commercial Video; • Details of how the business plan would be supported in DM2039 Professional Practice II.

c) Re-presenting the Staff Curriculum Vitae’s on the QASD template.

Deadline: Wednesday 16th May 2007 It was agreed that upon receipt, Dr Bernardes’ comments would also need to be addressed in the revised documentation. The Proposing Team was also referred to page six of the University Guidelines for Foundation Degrees for further advice and guidance. To conclude, Mr Singh thanked the Proposing Team for their time and effort, and further thanked the External Advisers for their valuable contributions. The Panel wished the team the very best for the future.

Appendix 2

Proforma for external comments by David Sleight Head of Media Production, University of Lincoln.

Validation of FD (Arts) Commercial Video Production Joint Delivery with City of Wolverhampton College

in the School of Art & Design May 2007

1) Relationship between the programme title and curriculum content:

The relationship between the programme title and curriculum content is secure, and the programme is consistent with recent developments in both educational and industrial fields. Several elements of the programme are re-purposed units of study from the existing portfolio, however these are carefully chosen, and the new units are skilfully grafted to link these materials – it may be found in piloting the programme that these linking units of study may need further small adaptations or augmentations to help them bed in (e.g perhaps add some study of the context of the UK creative economy?)

2) Appropriateness of programme aims and outcomes

The programme of study intends to help develop creative workers who have drive and enthusiasm, can work as part of a team, using technology, and harnessing creative and analytical capabilities. The documentation makes some comment on the need for “outgoing” and “personable” characteristics, it should also be possible in the programme to embrace “introverted” and “awkward” characters too, as they often carry the mercurial spark of creativity! The Commercial Video sector in the Uk is now estimated at £550m turnover per year, but also: Corporate / business-to-business £2.7bn (in 2002) Approx 3500 companies in SME’s of 5-10 people Video Conferencing £110m (growing) Business TV £50m Live Events £600m (growing) (Source; Skillset & IVCA) It can therefore be entirely supported that an industrially-oriented programme can provide a useful route into this industrial sector consistent with LSC guidelines. The teaching consortium’s experience in working in this field through MediaCove’s output is evident and gives great confidence, as do the testimonials from various organisations in the sector. It was fortuitous that a larger scale company came on board the day of the validation, this providing evidence of

Appendix 2

wider networking that will help build the programme to a sustainable, and regional (if not national) level. The learning outcomes of the programme are appropriate in addressing the technological capability that is required linked to an understanding of creative production. The element of business acumen, or creative entrepreneurship, could be enhanced within the proposed units of study, and would bring this onto a level with other programme developments in the field; this could be achieved by a modest number of additional guest lectures.

3) Programme design, content and organisation

The organisation of the programme of study appears robust and detailed. Notwithstanding the concurrent validation of the part-time route having some specific progression requirements, all of the units of study appear consistent and coherent. The learning outcomes should be refined each time they make an appearance, and in practice I am sure the teaching team would do this automatically, to build on previous attempts by drawing students’ attention to the repetition of the same learning outcomes. There is an opportunity through the repeated practical units of study to ratchet up the quality threshold, whilst maintaining an equivalence with other units of academic study – this need not be obscure, it is an entirely appropriate mechanism for advanced assessment, and students will be in accord if it is clear from the outset.

4) Appropriateness of assessment

As mentioned above, and notwithstanding the additional work necessary to refresh the assessment grid, it is possible to see how the programme of study will deliver a balance of assessment tasks consistent with an effective programme. Of particular note is the intention to structure practical assessment to emulate industry methodology whereby work will be reviewed at interim stages and an opportunity for client-focussed changes will be taken, before final submission. This enshrines best practice of formative and summative assessment in the same unit of study where students who may encounter difficulties will find a mechanism by which they can recover their achievements by the end. Group working and use of reflective logs/diaries are a perennial issue in programmes of study such as this, on a programme with a target recruitment of 15, it should be managed carefully to ensure all students work in different groupings to maximise the range of talents (and egos!) they work alongside. Some consideration should be given to the process of individual resits, where group working has been the methodology in use on that unit of study, this may cause the resit challenges (as yet unspecified) to have slightly different, but hopefully congruent, learning outcomes.

Appendix 2

5) Learning and teaching methods: All secure as described, depending on suitable academic recruitment as mentioned above. The work placement, whilst in content, falls outside the control of the programme team, does have adequate mechanisms for monitoring and support of the students. It might be desirable to delay the immediate assessment of learning outcomes until much later after the student has returned from the placement. This is because it is often in the application of experience that the personal development and enlightenment becomes apparent, not always on the date of the student’s return from a company.

6) Learning Resources / Specialist Resources

The resources as planned are appropriate for this programme, however the nature of the split-teaching and the desire that the University portion of the programme is not seen as the “academic” part, means that resource allocation and access to resources at the partner sites will be more complex to manage than a single-site programme. Some discussion at the panel focussed around the resource “entitlement” that students would accrue in each location, and the teaching team will need to model resource needs alongside traditional accession patterns (e.g always left to the last minute!). Industry best-practice should inform this process and the concept of equipment “hire” could be established, along with a ratecard, and virtual credit to help make the budgeting exercises take on a real-world aspect. The electronic journals service appears excellent, and the enthusiasm of the staff in the area makes this a robust resource. The book lists, as discussed, remain at the quixotic level – for a programme of such contemporary study, whilst the fundamental principles underpinning creative video production have not changed, so much has, relating to technology for example. Students will need to be aware of the current trends, not only to understand the contemporary context, but to better understand the historical trends in the sector – these are perhaps the most valuable if the students are to attempt to predict the future with any degree of accuracy.

6) Comments relating to the Modules:

Previously validated units are taken as read, with the minor amendments as described. The new units of study are appropriate and fit for purpose, in some cases they appear to condense a great deal in their timescale, however this I take as an artefact of Media Tutors desire to ensure that their students are especially busy given society’s disdain for media education. Looking at the constituency from which these students may be drawn (and further market research should be undertaken to enlighten this task) it is possible that on entry students are coming from wide ranging vary degrees of experience and abilities. The proposers describe the first year as “foundational” to allow for catch-up and bring all to a

Appendix 2

level or parity – this is appropriate, and the first level modules should help achieve this.

7) Staff CVs:

There are relatively few CV’s, however it is understood that this programme as delivered will require some additional recruitment to key positions in the delivery chain. This programme validation approval must go hand-in-hand with access to the recruitment resource necessary to make delivery a success.

8) Any other comments: 9)

Whilst it is reassuring to hear that CWC and UofW both have exemplary records in the access to quality educational experiences for people from all backgrounds including those coping with disabilities, it must be added that the programme team’s desire to actively market this programme as accessible to all, must take account of the resource implications of this. The CWC Tv Studio Gallery & edit suite for example will need some adaptation to enable access for example to wheelchair users, and access to the special fund for person-specific resource needs, must be guaranteed. It may also be prudent to check course documentation for learning outcome equivalences where for example a partially sighted student may have difficulty to critically review a “video” piece, but be entirely capable of reviewing a piece of “creative” production as an equivalent. I am entirely certain that the teaching team’s experience and commitment to this issue means that through the programme delivery this would be managed sensitively to create the best possible opportunity for all students.

10) Recommendations

My recommendation is that this is a useful programme of study that is consistent with the industrial and educational relationships that are being forged by Universities in relation to the Sector Skills Council agenda. This programme with its modest recruitment target, would most likely succeed, and even thrive. It taps into a market that is poorly-considered, and yet has much evidence of recent and future growth. The programme as proposed would take a students from wide-ranging backgrounds and give them the opportunity to learn vital team working skills alongside developing creative and analytical processes – and that in summary is exactly what the industry are asking from new candidates.

Signed: David Sleight_____________________________ (External Adviser). Date: 08/05/07______________

Appendix 2

Proforma for external comments for the Validation of Foundation Degree (Arts) Commercial Video Production – joint delivery with City of Wolverhampton College 1) Relationship between the programme title and curriculum content:

The curriculum content appears well thought out and corresponds well to the needs of Commercial Video Production.

2) Appropriateness of programme aims and outcomes:

The course aims to build a good general skill base across practical production areas such as editing, camera work, graphic design, compositing, scriptwriting and so on – underpinned with theoretical study to support the practical work and broaden the student understanding of the subject area. The course should provide good opportunities for students to graduate with very employable skills. Employers will want students to have the most up to date knowledge and provision of software and production equipment will need to be kept very fluid and a dialogue with their local commercial video production companies should be ongoing to ensure that students meet their potential employers needs.

3) Programme design, content and organisation: The programme is well designed and organised – I particularly liked the fact that

students work based learning takes place in the second year. This allows them to build a good skill base – before being placed with a potential employer.

However I don’t think the team should underestimate the difficulties of finding placements with companies – especially small ones. The need to supervise a student can put considerable strain on a one or two man production company and make it difficult for the student to get a worthwhile experience. Whilst the team have made some excellent contacts with their local media companies and have a promise of support from them it will of course depend on their critical work-load at the time; Having said that - if you can place a student who has some key skills – like basic editing, shot logging, or production management skills then they could be very welcome to a small company. One of the key issues we sometimes find when placing students is their ability to understand the importance of clients and how to manage themselves when clients are around – for example at meetings and on location shoots. Some clients are very relaxed others for example would expect

Appendix 2

crew to be dressed appropriately when filming in an office situation…..all these might seem minor things but to a small production company they are key to keeping a good relationship with their client and the ‘client relationship’ and how to act in a professional manner should be addressed in the course content. This in turn will help the students get the most out of their work based learning.

4) Appropriateness of assessment

The assessments appear to be appropriate but the panel suggested that more benchmarks might be put in place so that students were more aware of their skills, and achievement levels during the programme rather than entirely at the end of a module or presentation of an artefact.

5) Learning and teaching methods The combination of practical work underpinned by theoretical studies seems good.

The teaching staff appear enthusiastic, knowledgeable and approachable. The students we saw seem to have a good relationship with them and therefore the learning and teaching methods will reflect that enthusiasm. I suggest that half day studio sessions are not long enough? A full day in the tv studio would allow more planning, and preparation for more complicated scenarios – and allow students the opportunity to swap roles more frequently.

6) Learning Resources / Specialist Resources

The resources are good given the number of students who are predicted to apply – if the course was more popular the teaching team would need to be increased and the provision of more kit might need to be assessed. The provision for disabled access to the studio gallery was particularly poor and my need to be revised. This was addressed by the panel and presenting team.

It was noted that some delivery of modules may have to occur during the evening – even for full-time students – due to access/timetabling issues. The presenting team felt that this did not pose any problems as they have experience of such delivery with an existing Journalism course. This may need to be monitored. The panel also identified several texts that were recommended reading – that appeared to be quite old – the presenting team were asked to revise the reading list with this in mind. Whilst the library at The College was quite small and only a small quantity of subject books was shown to us the librarian at The College seemed particularly enthusiastic and will be an asset to the students and the course. She was able to show us some good examples of on-line resources that will be very useful to students on this course. The students will of course also have full access to the University resources.

Appendix 2

7) Comments relating to the Modules No issues – all seem appropriate

8) Staff CVs

The staff are obviously knowledgeable – and some of the team seem to have previous experience of running the Foundation Degree in Journalism the college already offer – this should be very helpful to the development of the course.

9) Any other comments

I particularly liked the use of Media Cove Productions to enable students to get valuable work based learning experience and this should be used wherever possible as an integral part of the course – not just as a first employment opportunity or as work placement if nothing else can be found. This is an asset to the course and should be used to help develop students interaction with ‘real’ clients and experience the need to hit real deadlines wherever possible. A suggestion from our partner college in Weymouth who offer a similar course is that that the team should consider having an employer panel who meet perhaps twice a year? This will help feedback into the needs of the local employers and allow tweeking of the course content. This could be broadened into a showcase for good students and provide networking opportunities for everyone connected with the course and provide a link into further work based placement opportunities.

10) Recommendations

I recommend that the course be validated and wish the team every success. Signed: ___Stephanie Farmer_ (External Adviser). Date: ________22nd May 07___________

Appendix 3

QUALITY AND ACADEMIC STANDARDS DIVISION ART & DESIGN, COMPUTING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STANDING PANEL Foundation Degree (Arts) Commercial Video Production The Panel was pleased to recommend for approval the Foundation Degree (Arts) Commercial Video Production for recruitment in September 2007 1 Good Practice

There was improvement in the quality of the resubmission documentation 2 Recommendations

The Panel made the following recommendations: Work Based Learning

Revisit the depth, level, hours, and content of the work based learning elements of the course to ensure that they are appropriate for a Foundation Degree

(Note: that whilst the Panel was advised that there was a Work Based Learning element implicit in many of the modules, the MSTs and the PST appeared to indicate the inclusion of only 45 credits worth of Work Based Learning with 15 credits of formal input, rather than the full 60 credits worth of Work Based Learning per se)

Course Guide

Amend and enhance the Course Guide to

• correct inaccuracies, inconsistencies and grammatical errors • ensure that appropriate reference is made to City of Wolverhampton College throughout

the Guide • clearly articulate the regulations for Foundation Degree students (amend inaccuracy in

template provided) • amend the part time course structure to refer to “year of study” rather than “level” • revisit and enhance the section concerning career opportunities and further study to

ensure the inclusion of relevant information • revisit and enhance the section concerning additional information specific to the course to

ensure the inclusion of relevant information • remove all references to postgraduate and research opportunities • revisit the student support diagram to ensure accurate contacts • revisit and expand the criteria for APL and the maximum credit that students are allowed

Pathway Learning Outcomes

Revisit the “existing” Module Specification Templates (validated in 2006). The re-presented templates indicate instances where the existing module outcomes have been removed and amended to accommodate the Foundation Degree

External Examiner Arrangements

Appendix 3

• notify External Examining Sub-Committee that the extension of duties for Mr S Kochberg now covers the FD specifically

• make recommendation to the External Examining Sub-Committee to cover the five new modules

3 Monitoring

As part of annual monitoring 2007/08, the School must: • monitor the work placement opportunities available • monitor the breadth and depth of work based learning. • (during the course of the 2007/08 academic year) evaluate the students who obtain work

placements in preparation for 2008/09 • (during the course of the 2008/09 academic year) evaluate the perceived expansion of the

number of work placements Revised Course Guide to be submitted (3 hard copies) to Quality and Academic Standards Division by 6 July 2007 SAD/SCIT Standing Panel Members 26 June 2007

Appendix 4

26 June 2007 Dr B Conway Dean of School School of Art & Design MK Building CITY CAMPUS Dear Bryony Foundation Degree (Arts) Commercial Video Production Following the meeting of the SAD/SCIT Standing Panel this afternoon, I am pleased to confirm that the Foundation Degree (Arts) Commercial Video Production has been approved for recruitment in September 2007. Members thanked the Team for the re-submission of the paperwork and recognised that there had been an improvement in the quality of the submission documentation for this Foundation Degree. However, in giving the Programme approval to recruit, the Panel wished to point out that there were still inconsistencies, inaccuracies and lack of attention to detail. This concern was strengthened in the light of the forthcoming QAA Audit in the autumn of 2008. The Panel, therefore, requests that the documentation be re-visited in line with the recommendations identified in the attached document, and submitted by the agreed deadline. Members were also of the view that there remained a training need for staff, particularly around the writing of any future submissions for proposals involving collaborative partners, and in particular, around the requirements for Foundation Degrees in terms of employer involvement and the integration of work based learning. Quality and Academic Standards Division would be more than happy to provide such training if you wish Yours sincerely J Bernardes (Dr) Chair - FD (Arts) Commercial Video Production validation ATT

Recommendation to University Quality Enhancement …€¦ · · 2008-05-01Recommendation to...

Documents

Transcript of Recommendation to University Quality Enhancement …€¦ · · 2008-05-01Recommendation to...