MINUTE of the SCHOOL MEETING
held in the Fore Hall, Gilbert Scott Building on 7 th May 2014
PRESENT:
see attached
APOLOGIES:
Catriona Macdonald, Sam Cohn, Simon Newman, Ian Ruffell, Geraldine Parsons,
Adam Rieger
Action:
1.
Minute of previous meeting held 12th February 2014
The minute of the previous meeting was approved.
2.
Matters Arising
Any matters will be discussed under agenda items.
3.
Head of School update
3.1 New appointments
ROM reported on recent appointments and forthcoming appointments in Humanities.
3.2 School Convenor roles
ROM reported that there had been no noted interest as yet in the roles of Research or Graduate
Studies Convenors. If any colleagues are interested, please contact ROM, CMcD or TC.
3.3 Staff Survey
Thanks were offered to all colleagues for completing the Survey. In the previous survey,
Humanities had a completion rate of 32%. For this survey, the College of Arts completion rate is
70%; CCA is 52%, SMLC is 62%, CS is 74% with Humanities at 94%. ROM looks forward to
seeing and acting upon the results.
3.4 Update on action plans
Appointments are continuing in both administration and academic posts.
Inaugural lectures continue with Lynn Abrams on 8 th May 2014.
Career Development Workshop - scheduled for 20th May. Initially piloting with Grade 8
colleagues, SDS are facilitating the workshop.
3.5 Process Improvements
The project is continuing with the aim of enhancing best L&T practices.
4.
Learning and Teaching best practise – Lisa Hau (Classics)
Lisa Hau presented on L&T best practice; specifically peer review assessments and explained the
process. Submission is via Aropa peer review system. Students have to submit an essay draft halfway through the course, followed by two reviews of drafts submitted by their peers. Essay drafts
are allocated for review anonymously by Aropa. LH provided an overview of the software and
the rubric criteria for giving peer feedback provided to students. The essay drafts are NOT
graded, but the peer feedback is. LH explained that this is the third year this system had been
used. There are some problems with the system, mainly software related, which can be
experienced and issues relating to feedback content, time-frame and marking workload.
Advantages of the system include giving the students practice at providing feedback; it provides
peer feedback and avoids logistical issues as assessment is completed anonymously and online.
Student evaluation feedback indicates that the students appreciate the system and the course
profile. Classics may offer across more pre-Honours courses and extend to Honours.
Thomas Munck queried the size of the class it is being used on. LH confirmed that 70 students
are taught by 3 staff. LH accepts it does take time to administer.
Maud Bracke queried whether students have dealt with comments they did not understand or
know what to do with them. LH discusses further any concerns with students.
Document1
-1-
Alex Marshall queried ethical implications. LH confirmed that it is anonymous and there is no
way to identify students. Thomas Munck queried how anonymity is guaranteed. LH reported
that Aropa provides a random number to each student. Student numbers are not used.
Stuart Airlie sought guidance on the feedback and format. LH reported that responses are
standard, and that the format of drafts can be similar.
LH
Lisa Hau will provide a copy of her PPT for the school website.
Thomas Clancy suggested that it would perhaps be counterproductive if rolled out widely.
Joy Davidson suggested the introduction of a reflective statement. LH thought that this was an
excellent suggestion.
5.
GU Strategy
ROM explained that the GU Strategic plan expires in 2015. Professor Neal Juster, VP for
Research and Teaching, will meet with Humanities on 20 th May. ROM would like input from
colleagues to take forward at that meeting.
ROM had provided a paper on 5 areas: with 7 questions to be considered under each area. It was
agreed to break into smaller groups and discuss each area and address each question. The
‘chairs’ of each discussion group were:




Teaching – Prof Thomas Munck
Research – Dr John Davies
KE & accessibility – Prof Steve Driscoll
Global reach & internationalisation – Dr Maud Bracke
Staff & student experience - Ms Ann Gow
Teaching:
Discussion covered:
 The need for more technology
 Teaching experimentally
 More small group teaching
 Maintaining student office hours
 CPD development, particularly with regard to PGT: more space for PGs
 Investment in teaching staff
 Fit for purpose teaching space: flexible use, capacity to hold 15-35, more study spaces
 GUL – currently overburdened
 Enhancing the profile of teaching with more use of Zero Hours and Atypical Workers
Research:
Discussion covered:
 Disciplinarity and the interface between Humanities, public policy, Scottish identity and
digital humanities
 Opportunities and challenges – data management and big data, creating resources and
making them available.
 Investment to support research, books, subject libraries, journal subscriptions
 Small research support resources/funding opportunities
 ArtsLab – lack of technical expertise
 Support – School vs R&E
 Better communication
 Research Support – a onestop shop
 Focus on research outputs rather than inputs, e.g. better mentoring
CL
KE and accessibility:
Discussion covered:
 Accessibility: embedded in the West of Scotland with strong connections with Scottish
Government
 Communicate successes better
Document1
-2-








Identifying receptive environments
Research: be more socially meaningful and effective on a local basis
Website development and improvements
Opportunities for engaging and disseminating research development and results: engage
Research Assistants in activity
Investment: website with subject area controls, centralised School support for KE
Estates: spaces to exhibit work
Barriers: having enough time, regime of room hire charges
Commitment to work-life balance
Global reach and Internationalisation:
Discussion covered:
 Adopting a different approach to enhance diversity of staff/student
 Internationalisation of the teaching curriculum
 Support for international research
 Distinctive Glasgow and the world
 Comparative teaching
 Valuing the international student body and welcoming diversity
 Technical facilities: ability to offer joint teaching and seminars
 Translating services offered to PGs for free
 Resources: level of funds and support available, better communication and more flexible
schemes, rolling application schemes and less specific criteria
Staff & Students:
Discussion covered:











6.
Little support, with many targets, top/down approach
Courses: cornerstones of Arts, wide variety and range
Good pastoral and pedagogical care
Geography and location of GU within Scotland
Investment: better teaching space, open conversation on estate development
Online experiences, including MOOCs, etc
Higher Education funding, particularly concern over PG funding
Structure: appears to dampen creativity and flexibility, e.g. PIP, CTT
Research grant income: one person vs group
Short term thinking
Business systems – CTT/Mycampus
AOB
There was no other business.
ROM thanked all colleagues for attending.
Appendix 1 – Notes from individual groups:
Research:
Distinctive/World-class
 Breadth of interdisciplinary
 Interface with public policy
 Digital humanities
Opportunities/Challenges:
 Big Data Management
Investments:
 Personal research ‘pots’
 Specialised support for technical/budgeting aspects of grant applications
 Maintain good library resources
What else:
Document1
-3-

One stop shop for research applications
Global reach/Internationalisation:
GU Strengths:
 International composition student and staff
 Curriculum
 Research/support for international projects/networks
 Organic links
Distinctive:
 ‘Glasgow in the world’ - comparative work
Vision/World-class:
 Value internationalisation and students
 Welcome diversity
Opportunities/challenges:
 Technical facilities e.g. video conferencing
Investments:
 Co-teaching internationally
 Translating/connecting service for PGR/PGT
 Opportunity for research support for staff research: more flexible/more continuous
 Promotion of College internationally
Staff & Student:
Distinctive
 School of Humanities – Students; Range of courses
 Value of GUL, Hunterian Museum and Glasgow information.
 Teaching facilities: large lecture spaces
 Kelvin Hall, shared spaces and History of buildings
 Pedagogical and pastoral care
 Collaborative teaching
 Geography and location
Challenges/opportunities:
 Campus build
 Structure - dampen flexibility and creativity attempting to be nimble
 Online experience - staff and students
 HE funding – Arts – PG funding
 Targets and support - top down, short term, devolved responsibility with no authority
Investments
 Large lecture halls
 Technological
 Flexible space
 Individual staff research accounts
 Tension of group input to grant capture
Staff


More ECR
Think beyond REF window
Barriers
 Less short term thinking
 CTT, MyCampus - systems not talking to each other
Knowledge Exchange:
Distinctive
 Small organisation
Document1
-4-





The future, receptive environment
Glasgow Life links
Embedded in West of Scotland
Scottish Government links
How to communicate success - the centre could support
World class ambitions
 Community
 Socially meaningful
Opportunities/challenges
 Extend appointments
 Administrative support - school provision
 Poor website
 Recognise not everyone can do KE
 Change in the way GU sees an academic career
 Work life Balance
Investment
 Local website
 Dedicate school admin support
Barriers
 Time
 Career incentive
 Room charges
Estate


Room charges - a major obstacle
Public exhibition space
Teaching:
Distinctive:
 4 year degree
 Flexibility
World-class:
 Small group teaching
 Creative use of technology-blended approach.
 Podcasts? Access through handheld device–time shifted
 New methods of assessment
Opportunity/challenges:
 PGT classes too large for space
 CPD – repackage modules for CPD, but problems with getting the collection right
 Courses for students from elsewhere
 Increased numbers (challenge)
Prioritised investments:
 Teaching staff for small group teaching
 Support for technology
Estate/capital investment:
 More teaching space
 More study space
 More PG space
Barriers/strategy:
 Balancing profile of teaching e.g. in P&DR
Document1
-5-