Review of validation of Loughborough University/Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts BA Hons programme in Graphic Communication

 

Notes of a meeting held on 9 May 2006

 

Present:         Members of the original validation panel

Professor Morag Bell, Dr Paul Byrne, Robert Bowyer

 

Members of staff of LUSAD

Dr Marsha Meskimmon, Phil Sawdon, Andy Selby,

Jim White, Rachel Jermyn, Gillian Cairns

______________________________________________________________

 

Background

 

1.         The validation of the programme was approved by Senate in June 2004 for an initial period of three years with effect from the NAFA academic year 2004/05.  The continuation of the validation beyond the end of the initial period was made subject to review towards the end of academic year 2005/06. 

 

2.         LUSAD was asked to provide the following information for the review:

 

(i)      An update on each of the recommendations in the validation panel’s report as agreed by Senate in June 2004.

(ii)    Data available covering the 2004-06 period relating to [a] entry qualifications, [b] progression and withdrawals, [c] student module/programme feedback, and staff actions relating to this feedback and [d] External Examiner Reports.

(iii)   An update on any on-going developments – particularly in relation to [a] the taught and research postgraduate dimension, and [b] what may be on the horizon in terms of any further validation

(iv)  A summary of any other benefits LUSAD feels it is deriving from the relationship.

(v)    A summary of the financial position to date.

 

3.         The panel members also received copies of the original validation report, the LU/NAFA collaboration agreement, and the programme regulations and module specifications. 

 

4.         NAFA was informed that the review had been initiated within the University and that its views would be invited following discussions with LUSAD.

 

Discussion

 

5.         Programme management

            It was noted that Andrew Selby had taken over the management of the programme within LUSAD from Mario Minichiello, as part of the consolidation of the Visual Communication area.  He would in future chair the Programme Management Committee.  There had been personnel changes within NAFA as well, Casey Boo now being the pathway leader.  NAFA had informed LUSAD in advance of this change as expected under the agreement.

 

6.         Recruitment

            8 students had been admitted to the programme in 2004/05; 14 in 2005/06. Entry requirements had been laid down in accordance with the panel’s recommendations and the suitability of potential candidates had been assessed by LUSAD staff (up to now by Mario Minichiello) during a visit to Singapore in the spring, as agreed.  The reasons for the ‘gap’ between acceptances and actual intake were not clear however, and it was agreed that Andy Selby would explore this and provide further information for the AD(T).  It had been envisaged that students from outside NAFA might be considered for entry to the degree programme, but it was understood that all students in the first two cohorts had come through the NAFA Diploma route. 

 

7.         Bridging modules

            The bridging material, which comprised studio and written components, was being incorporated in the degree programme as recommended, though it was understood that details for 2006/07 had still to be finalised.

 

8.         Assessment

            It was confirmed that student learning contracts were being sent to LUSAD for approval early in the year.  An example was included in the paperwork provided to the panel.  Scripts relating to the S.1 ‘Contextual Studies’ dissertation module were being first marked at NAFA and sent to LUSAD for second marking by Visual Communication staff.  This corresponded to the double marking arrangements in place within LUSAD.  The panel was assured that the process was auditable. 

 

9.         External Examiner

            The External Examiner’s report was very good.  The person concerned was one of the existing LUSAD External Examiners and therefore able to compare standards with those achieved on the in-house programme. 

 

10.       Student attainment

            The degree results achieved by the 2004/05 cohort were quite satisfactory: one 1st, two 2.1s, three 2.2s, one 3rd and one failure that was converted to a 3rd on reassessment. 

 

11.       Student Feedback

            The panel was assured that students were being given appropriate opportunities to raise issues about the programme and that staff were receptive to their views.  The panel received several examples of staff/student liaison committee minutes, as well as minutes of combined pathway committee meetings at which the Graphic Communication degree students were represented. 

 

An example of end-of-module feedback was also provided.  The panel requests LUSAD to ensure that NAFA in future provides a statistical summary of student feedback obtained at both module and programme level, to provide an overview across the cohort. 

 

12.       Financial Arrangements

The panel was informed that a surplus of around £10k had been generated in the first year and a similar figure was projected for 2005/06.  However, this was before transfers to cover central administrative costs.  The panel found it difficult to relate the figures to the original operating budget annexed to the agreement although the only difference in what was covered appeared to be the residential study visit.  LUSAD was keen to revisit the costings for the programme, because, apart from the marking of scripts, they did not cover the input from LUSAD staff beyond the scheduled visits to Singapore.  It was noted that the financial memorandum envisaged a revision of fees and charges taking place before the start of each academic year and it was recommended that revised costings for 2006/07 be negotiated as soon as possible.  It was the view of the panel however that the costings for the study visit should be handled independently from the operating costs for the remainder of the programme. 

 

13.       Study Visit

A residential study visit by the NAFA students to Loughborough had been included in the programme from 2004/05 and was seen as a vital element in attracting students on to the programme.  It was felt to have a significant impact on the way the Singaporean students approached the subject and the presence of the NAFA students in LUSAD also brought the Loughborough students a different perspective on their work.  Feedback on the visits was generally good although there were some minor points of criticism at the operational level.  The timing of the visit had changed from one year to the next and the arrangements for the 2006/07 visit were currently under discussion.  Accommodating the students on the University campus had proved extremely difficult.  Student numbers were rising which would add to the difficulty, and it was felt some measure of control over the numbers might need to be introduced to ensure that the visit remained manageable. 

 

It was noted that some of the studio work the students undertook whilst at LUSAD fed into their final projects.  It would be helpful to make this more explicit in the programme documentation. 

 

14.       Programme regulations and module specifications

            The panel remarked on a mismatch between the programme as described in the course of discussions and the version that appeared in the published programme regulations.  LUSAD was asked to ensure that the information published about the programme was consistent and fully up to date.

 

15.       Future developments

LUSAD indicated that the positive experience with the Graphic Communication programme had encouraged it to be proactive in developing further links with NAFA and a group of staff had visited Singapore in February 2006 to explore possibilities. 

 

Collaboration at Masters level was being pursued: it was the intention to introduce a variant of the MA in Art and Design (Studio Practice) from 2006/07 whereby students could take the first 120 credits of the programme in Loughborough and the final project and dissertation, jointly supervised between LUSAD and NAFA, in Singapore.  The option would be open to any student, so that UK students could also avail themselves of the opportunity of study abroad. 

 

Joint PhD supervision was another possibility being explored and it was hoped to arrange a secondment from NAFA during 2006/07 in the spirit of developing research collaboration.

 

At undergraduate level, consideration was being given to the development of a collaborative pathway through the new 3D Design: New Practice programme, on similar lines to the Graphic Communication arrangements.  A NAFA-based degree in Photography had also been mooted. 

 

Within LUSAD, thought was being given to other possible developments which might provide scope for collaboration with NAFA in due course.   One was the possibility of developing four-year programmes on the style of the integrated Masters, with a final year at postgraduate level (though the panel warned of potential difficulties in relation to Bologna.)  Another possibility could be four-year programmes incorporating a placement year leading to a Diploma in International Studies.  There was a determination to make a strategic shift in the emphasis of the work of LUSAD away from the home undergraduate market and a desire to internationalise the curriculum.

 

The panel was informed that there was no indication of NAFA moving closer to being granted degree-awarding powers within Singapore.  It was the hope that fruitful collaboration would continue even if this happened. 

 

16.       Future programme monitoring and review

It was the view of the panel that the programme should in future be considered alongside other LUSAD programmes in APR/PPR. 

 

Conclusions

 

17.       The panel concluded that the collaboration between LU and NAFA was working well and of benefit to both parties.  It was minded to recommend in the light of the review that the programme in Graphic Communication be revalidated for a further two years, until the end of academic year 2008/09.

 

18.       Before making a formal recommendation to LTC and Senate, however, the panel agreed that NAFA should be invited to submit its views on the collaboration and that confirmation should be sought that NAFA wished the the agreement between the institutions to be extended. 

 

19.       The panel also agreed that the costings (para 13) and the residential study visit (para 14) should be signalled to NAFA as matters which the University wished to follow up in extending the current agreement.