AB - 110308 AB08/03/03c

RAVENSBOURNE COLLEGE OF DESIGN AND COMMUNICATION

LEARNING AND TEACHING REVIEW COMMITTEE

Minutes of the Learning and Teaching Review Committee held on Tuesday 15 January
2008 at 10:30am in the Boardroom.

Present: Peter Pilgrim Head of Faculty of Design (Chair)

John O’Boyle Director of Quality and Academic Services
Stephen Bowman Director of Information Services
Miles Metcalfe Head of ICT Research and Development
Robert Chapman Subject Leader Content Creation and
Broadcasting
Chris Thompson Head of Enterprise and Innovation
Terry Hosten Head of Facilities and Resources
Sarah Hill Training Co-ordinator
James Ward FE Subject Leader
Roger Rees Head of Learning Enhancement and
PPD
Elisa Simone Assistant Quality Officer (observer)
Paul Jeffery Quality Officer (secretary)

08.14 APOLOGIES AND ABSENCES

Apologies &
Absences: Ian Hole Head of ICT
Barbara Howell Head of Faculty of Communication Media
Sharon Hocking Head of Student Support and Access
Finola Gaynor Subject Leader Graphic Design
Helen Le Voi Sessional Lecturer Design for Interaction
Liz McQuiston Associate Senior Lecturer Contextual
Studies
Tanya Holbrook Student Union Academic Affairs Officer
John Gulliver Subject Leader Level 0 in Design and
Communication
Ruth Catlow Associate Senior Lecturer Digital Media
J Johannson-Young Learning Technologist
Fiona Hevey Associate Senior Lecturer Learning
Enhancement and PPD
Debbie Haynes Planning Officer

08.15 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING

Approved: The minutes of the meeting of 2nd October 2007 (LTR08/02/02) were
approved by the Committee.
Quality Team Unconfirmed
1
AB - 110308 AB08/03/03c

08.16 MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

08.16.01 LTRC Membership (Min 08.04 – 02/10/07 refers)

Received: The draft Terms of Reference for the Committee, following agreement
at the last meeting that two full-time academic staff be added to the
membership to represent the faculties.

Discussed: The co-options should improve academic representation, but it was

suggested that PPD and contextual studies be incorporated as well,
given the proportion of undergraduate teaching time that these areas
constitute. It was also explained that co-opted members are full
members of the Committee.

It was clear that the leadership of Committee should be academic, but

also that attendance of academics at the meeting did not reflect the
developments made to the constitution to increase academic
representation. It was desirable for members of the Committee, when
prevented by other commitments or illness from attending, to
nominate substitutes to attend in their place to maintain continuity. An
improvement in the perception of LTRC among academics as adding
value and initiating change was also needed. Although careful
scheduling was important for broad representation of faculty staff, it
was felt that as core business for the College, LTRC should not be
scheduled at lunch-times. It was noted that the Head of Enterprise
and Innovation as well as a representative from ICT should be in
attendance of this Committee. It was noted that the Director of
Information Services will be made an ex-officio member and so will
the newly appointed position of Deputy Head of Faculty. It was
commented that at present there is only one representative for FE, but
this will be reviewed next year as the department will grow.

Agreed: A member of the academic staff from each of PPD and contextual
studies should be nominated as representative members of LTRC as
well as the Head of Enterprise and Innovation and a representative of
ICT. The Director of Information Services will be made an ex-officio
member and so will the newly appointed position of Deputy Head of
Faculty.

08.16.02 E-Learning Advisory Group (Min 08.08 – 02/10/07 refers)

Noted: ELAG will continue in its current form for the 2007-2008 academic
year and then be reviewed for possible expansion to include learning
enhancement activities.

08.16.03 Art Design and Media Fellowship Scheme (Min 08.10 – 02/10/07
refers)

Noted: a) The Art Design and Media Fellowship Scheme was discussed at the
November Faculty of Communication Media Committee. Discussion at
the Faculty of Design Committee was held over to the next meeting
Quality Team Unconfirmed
2
AB - 110308 AB08/03/03c

due to time constraints. The Head of Faculty of Communication Media

and the Head of Learning Enhancement and PPD have discussed
with the Faculty of Communication Media staff how the College might
support staff to achieve fellowship status. A preliminary session has
already taken place.

b) The Subject Centre has scheduled a meeting on 15 January 2008.

The Head of Faculty of Communication Media will update LTRC on
progress at its next meeting.

Discussed: The Committee were not aware of any names for potential nominees
for the fellowship. It was suggested that the Subject Leader Graphic
Design might agree to act as a champion for the scheme to attract
potential nominees. As the fellowship was being offered for the first
time, it would be important for the College to be strategic in its
approach, devoting its best minds to prepare the best possible
application.

Agreed: The Chair would hold informal discussions with the staff who were
interested, and confer with the Director of Quality and Academic
Services on the application process.

08.17 NEW FACILITIES FOR LEARNING

Noted: The new Lime Lab facility and potential changes to learning and
teaching was discussed by the Committee.

Discussed: The Lime Lab offered the prospect of new models of, and approaches
to, teaching and learning, through its state-of-the-art functionality and
flexibility of use. It was reported that FE students are making good use
of the facility, but that greater awareness was needed to maximise use
College wide. The Lab was a particular case in the wider issue about
the use of space and facilities in the College as a whole, which was
important both for pedagogical reasons and with respect to planning
the new building. Newly installed timetabling software allowed all
rooms to be booked centrally, but it was clear that booking and actual
use were different things. A space audit was to be conducted by the
Director of Resources to show the actual patterns of day-to-day use.

It was preferable to have a system based on trust, so that rooms are

only booked as and when necessary, rather than on a ‘just in case’
basis. A fairly sophisticated model would be needed to ensure that
maximum use is made of key facilities in particular. A number of
issues would need to be taken into account, including students’ use of
space, addressing perceptions of disadvantage, scope for events held
to develop external links, as well as the main College priorities. The
Lime Lab should demonstrate the new approach to space utilisation to
be used in the new premises, which would have much less fixed-use
space than the current building. Radical changes in the teaching of
design, with further implications for the use of space were also
anticipated.

Quality Team Unconfirmed

3
AB - 110308 AB08/03/03c

Agreed: Head of Enterprise and Innovation to report to the June meeting of

LTRC on the space audit and related developments.

08.18 TRAINING AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT

Approved: The revised External Training, Staff Development Event or Research

Activity funding form.

Discussed: The Training Co-ordinator updated members on developments in

internal training, where DVD viewing sessions were planned as for
Health and Safety and Fire Prevention as an attempt to improve
attendance. The evidence showed that staff were more inclined to
attend external rather than internal training, but it was hoped that 30
minute DVD viewings would be better attended. Members felt that
online sources, accessible at any time, could be a better solution.
Programmes such as the workstation health and safety test and other
IT training simulations were said to be effective and time-saving.

The Training Co-ordinator’s successor, who should be appointed by

mid-February, would hold meetings with faculty heads to consider
training needs for 2008-09 as an early priority. Members also heard
that a meeting with HEA was being arranged on the introduction of an
accredited course in learning and teaching designed for small,
specialist institutions.

The Chair thanked the Training Co-ordinator for her contribution to the
work of LTRC, and on behalf of the Committee expressed best wishes
for her future.

08.19 LAPTOP PROJECT

Received: A verbal update from the Head of ICT Research and Development on
the Laptop Project was received by the Committee.

Discussed: The Head of ICT R&D described the progress of the project. In terms
of learning and teaching developments, there had been no radical
change so far, but lessons were being learnt about students’ usage
and some of the initial assumptions made in the setting up of the
project had been disproved. He said a mistake had been made with
some of the software supplied with the machines. Dealing with
vendors was highly problematic and much time was wasted in
protracted efforts to obtain reasonable service. It also reinforced the
misconception of some students that graphic design was about
learning to use software. The experience strongly suggests that the
use of specified software items should never be a requirement, but
examples of suitable packages provided.

In addition to the experience of dealing with technical ‘teething’

problems, knowledge about the nature of students’ use through
monitoring can usefully inform future decisions. Blogging clearly has
potential for enhancement of learning, but the challenge will be to
develop teaching methods which exploit the tendency for
Quality Team Unconfirmed
4
AB - 110308 AB08/03/03c

extra-curricular interaction between students to enhance learning.

Although things were at an early stage in terms of innovations in

teaching there are some examples – including a project linked with
participants in Germany – of activities that were only possible with the
project laptops. Their use was also being integrated gradually with
work on PPD and personal presentation. There was a question about
sustaining pedagogic developments beyond the life of the project,
which in turn raised questions about future provision of hardware.
Given the small scale of the project, it would be ideal from an R&D
point of view to extend or repeat it, but clearly the funding for the
machines would not be repeated. More could be done, however, in
terms of collecting and analysing data on the project experience and
comparing it with data on students’ use of computers outside the
project.

There was further discussion about the position LTRC should take
with regard to computer provision and use in future, when a range of
interactive teaching and learning processes would be increasingly
dependant on students’ use of computers. The project had already
shown that more support staff would be needed to provide technical
support and solutions to operating problems. New building facilities
would not include large-scale provision of machines for general use
and there was an increasing tendency for students to use their own. It
seemed inevitable that, at some point, it would be a requirement for
students to have their own computer when they commenced their
course (in effect, it was already necessary in Design for Interaction
and possibly other courses as well). For the short and medium term,
however, ways of managing the transition to more interactive teaching
and learning should be considered.

It was suggested that data on computer access/ownership should be

collected on admission to the College (without adding significantly to
the burden of survey and form-completion) to assess the measures
that would be needed in future to ensure that all students have the
equipment they need. It was important to remember the context of a
national fall of 12% in HE admissions (10% at Ravensbourne) and the
risk of deterring students who are financially disadvantaged. Purchase
discounts and other measures could be used to enable students to
acquire computers where necessary. In terms of software, the new
building will be equipped with professional-grade machines and
software. The market provides enough cheaper alternatives for
individual student work. It was felt that LTRC should give a lead on
preparation for an eventual requirement for all students to have their
own machines as part of the response to pedagogical changes in
progress.

Agreed: The Head of ICT R&D would prepare a paper for the Committee on
developments in teaching and learning and the hardware and
software facilities issues they raise for the College in the transition to
new premises.

Quality Team Unconfirmed

5
AB - 110308 AB08/03/03c

08.20 POSTGRADUATE BOARD OF STUDIES

Approved: The final draft Terms of Reference for the Postgraduate Board of
Studies, subject to:
i) an amendment to point 3 as follows: ‘To receive the minutes of
Course Committees when appropriate and to hear reports from
Course/Subject Leaders';
ii) addition of Representative of Enterprise and Innovation
to the membership list.

08.21 PEER ASSISTED LEARNING

Discussed: The draft paper on peer assisted learning (LTR08/02/06) was

discussed by the Committee. Whilst the paper made a sound case,
members felt that it should include proposals for the development of
PAL. Specifically, the issue of credit for peer tuition should be
addressed. Students could not be expected to take it seriously unless
it had official recognition. PAL was also good preparation for
collaborative working in employment and as such was already
recognised in learning outcomes.

A structured development process was needed, starting with the new

MA programme where PAL was a key element of the learning process.

08.22 E-LEARNING ADVISORY GROUP

Received: The notes of the meeting of 19 December 2007 were received by the
Committee.

08.23 LEARNING ENHANCEMENT

Received: The Committee received a verbal update on learning enhancement

developments at the College. The Head of Learning Enhancement
and PPD summarised the provision for informal staff development that
was in development, including online support for action research,
suggestions for papers for publication, the HEA fellowship and sharing
of current good practice.

Agreed: An action plan would be prepared by the Head of Learning

Enhancement and PPD for consideration at the next meeting of the
Committee.

08.24 PEER OBSERVATION

Received: The Peer Observation of Teaching Report 2007 was received by the
Committee.

Discussed: Members noted the areas of strength and weakness in engagement

with the scheme across the Faculties, and that proper implementation
was needed for sessional staff that had been in continuous
employment by the College for four years or more. The requirement

Quality Team Unconfirmed

6
AB - 110308 AB08/03/03c

for peer observation as a condition of completing annual appraisal

was clear, and peer schemes were now the norm in HE as well as FE.
There were also mutual benefits for observing and observed peers.

The FE Subject Leader said that observations were timetabled and so

took place as a matter of course. Peer observation was also included
in the five key measures used in the Ofsted self-evaluation report.

08.25 CYBER BULLYING

In the absence of the Head of Student Support and Access, the item
on Diversity Committee discussions on cyber bullying would be held
over until the next meeting.

08.26 CRITIQUING THE CRITIQUE

Discussed: Attending for this item, the Deputy Director Strategic Development,
Innovation and Postgraduate Studies described the outcomes of the
research project undertaken jointly with Kingston University as
disappointing. Consequently, the conclusion had been reached that
development within the Faculties was needed in order to
accommodate the distinctiveness of the process in design and
communication contexts.

A number of suggestions were made for development through sharing

experience between courses and faculties, including video recordings
and a pilot exercise to address concerns about the demands on staff
and perceptions about how things work in industry. Critiquing the
critique could also be used as a targeted approach to peer
observation. The use of different types of critiques in particular
contexts should be considered, and a shared understanding
developed of a term used to refer to a range of differing activities.

Agreed: The Deputy Director and Head of Learning Enhancement and PPD
would co-ordinate developments and report on progress to LTRC’s
next meeting.

08.27 ANY OTHER BUSINESS

No items were received.

08.28 DATE AND TIME OF NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Committee will be held on 22 April 2008 at

10.30 in the Boardroom.

Quality Team Unconfirmed

7