Minutes
School Management Group Meeting
10th February 2016
Present:
Lynn Abrams (LA), Ann Gow (AG), Michael Given (MG), Karin Bowie (KB), Stephen
Marritt (SM), Phillips O’Brien (PoB), Catherine Steel (CS), Thomas Clancy (TC),
Jenny Hutcheson (JH), Peter Jackson (PJ),Pauline McLachlan (PMcL).
Apologies:
Fiona Macpherson
Attending:
Don Spaeth (DS), Helen Macpherson (HMcp)
1. WLM Project:
DS and HMcp attended to present on the project, giving a background to the
project, its purpose and intentions. It is a tool to model workload and allows
flexibility to model and manage. There are two parts to the system (1) reporting
element per individual and (2) modelling element. Nominated modellers are able
to view data, workloads and distribution and it allows modelling to be performed
and a drill-down into data. Confidentiality is robust and access has to be
provided per line manager approvals. It requires some local data gathering, e.g.
roles that individuals undertake. Benefits include fairness and transparency of
workloads. The project commenced in 2011, with a pilot launched in 2014. Full
roll-out is anticipated in 2016. GTA’s can also be included.
Don Spaeth explains that the project is concerned with current work load and
future (modelling).
Data entered automatically includes: Teaching (from CMIS/timetabling). Staff teaching has to be entered in CMIS
to be pulled through to WLM. This may require a huge administrative data
input exercise;
 PhD examining; and
 Research buyout (from PAF’s).
 Allocation for REG funded research and scholarship, Subject and school
roles/administration.
Teaching formula – credits/120 *students* 35
Team taught teaching – divided amongst the staff scheduled to teach.
Locally entered data includes: PG/UG dissertation supervision
 PhD Internal examining – has to be added manually
 Study leave
 GTA supervision
1


Additional teaching
Senior School and college roles
SMLC is the pilot in Arts; once the data gathering/cleansing has been completed,
SMLC will produce a crib sheet for other schools.
School to decide how to implement and agree the regularity of report distribution.
School activities:
 Review of confirmation of data;
 Identify ‘modeller’ users;
 Named contacts for WLM issues;
 Training for admin and modellers:- Insert roles;
- Insert accurate teaching info;
- PGR supervision;
- Identify cross-school workloads.
 Timing of implementation.
WLM has a moodle site – HMcp will forward the details. *HMacp*
TC queried line manager authority and how team taught courses are entered.
CS queried how far the School would be able to ‘tweak/play’ the system. A
working draft version is a complete copy of the live system. DS suggested that
CoA may review the Admin Modelling System. LA suggested a shadow system
may be required in Humanities to record Admin roles and workload.
PJ reported that it does not include University level roles, or University external
roles e.g. SGSAH roles and being a Centre/Network director. AG commented
that it was essential to get the data accurate. LA an AG could both see the
benefits, but only once the data is correct. PoB queried the confidentiality of the
data and whether it could be used as a performance measure. Colleagues will
not see each other’s data, but managers will be able to see data.
DS and HMcp will take forward with JH and LA.
2. Minutes – 27 January 2016.
3. Matters arising:
JH to provide Incentivisation update. *JH*
4. HoSc Update
School Internationalisation Officer – replacement required.
Complaints officer – second officer required, preferably not from History.
Humanities Lecture Series – Stuart Airlie will compile a list.
School
Incentivisation funds may be able to support and hopefully raise the school
profile. It was agreed to approach Costas Panayotakis regarding an inaugural
lecture. *CS*
2
Celtic & Gaelic and History REF reviews – would go forward between April and
June.
PSR recommendation process – Issues were expressed relating to the
submission process, as there was little or no School co-ordination. A more
streamlined process, to include School oversight to be developed. School
Learning & Teaching Committee currently have no involvement in the process.
School to liaise with Senate regarding the process and the need for School
involvement. *JH/LA/KB*
5. School Committees
5.1 Research
PJ reported on recent Research related business:
5.1.1 The College RK&E Committee had met last week, where unhappiness
had been expressed by Research Convenors about the £10k
stipulation regarding study leave applications. Research income in
School of Humanities is down as is the number of large, FEC’d
applications. Concern was also expressed at how research for project
awards is treated, essentially being bundled into research allocation.
5.1.2 School Research Committee was held week on 1 February 2016. All
colleagues had been encouraged to develop a research profile,
including research projectory and research in relation to REF and
P&DR. It would further allow the School to develop research support
guidance and mentoring. It was agreed that each UoA would develop
a template to capture this information. Information gathering to be
completed by June 2016 with templates to be agreed by end of
February 2016.
5.1.3 In addition, there was confusion over the role of CoA in
allocating/managing study leave. It was felt that the RL system was
currently not fit for purpose. PJ will forward the School points to
college and provide a report to Ashley Theunissen and Karen Lury
*PJ*
5.1.4 Research planning – It was reported that two further REF reviews were
forthcoming. Completed plans/templates for each UoA by June 2016
would be extremely useful.
5.2 Learning & Teaching
KB reported on L&T related business:
5.2.1 NSS - Don Spaeth had highlighted Subjects that need to increase their
response rates, e.g. history. NSS response rates are circulated to
HoSubs and HoSc. Convenors were encouraged to encourage
students to complete, e.g. History will target students at Honours
Dissertation hand in.
5.2.2 Class rep meetings
3
SRC – Humanities feedback session had been held. KB provided a
summary of the issues reported, both positive and negative.
Assessment feedback remains an issue. HoSubs requested to take
the information back to subject convenors. JH queried the purpose of
the feedback, what actions were expected and what the next step was
to be. It was separate from the School and Subject SSLC. KB will
discuss at the next school L & T meeting and then feedback to SRC
*KB*
5.2.3 Assessment models - Schools were being encouraged to consider
alternative models of assessment, e.g. oral presentations. Different
assessment methods require different levels of workload from students.
Some courses offer a choice, and many are moving away from exams.
KB provided a document detailing different types of assessment to be
considered during course development. KB will develop a workshop in
April for Course Convenors, Exam Convenors and HoSubs to attend to
discuss further (development of skills/attributes) across programmes.
*KB*
PJ queried student satisfaction with exam weighting. CS reported that
Classics had not held pre-Honours December exams this year and it
had gone very well. CS would be happy to discuss further with
interested colleagues.
5.3 Grad studies
SM reported on Graduate Studies relate business:
5.3.1 Ancestral studies - Programme to be offered session 16/17. It is a
School level programme rather than Subject. NF and SM sought
approval for a Subject rep to sit on an advisory board. It was agreed to
have one Subject related rep attend from each of the Subject areas.
*SM*
5.3.2 Lone study policy - CLeR had placed on web and notices had been
placed in rooms. SM confirmed that the policy is particularly aimed at
lab work and fieldwork outside GU.
5.3.3 AHRC ranking meeting – a meeting had been held, with outcomes
awaited.
5.3.4 PGT recruitment – SM reported that applications were up 40% on the
same time last year.
5.3.5 Melbourne studentship – SM reported that five applications had been
received, with a PGR in History unanimously selected.
4