Today we had the first Board of Study meeting of the year. At this meeting we are encouraged to discuss all the positives and negatives of our course; with feedback from the students in our class. Me and Josh decided to collect people thoughts on the course via post it notes in one of our classes. I typed the notes out and brought them to the meeting. Here they are:
Board of Study Meeting
Media Professional Studies
Stevie Lennon and Josh McDowell (student representatives)
We asked all of our classmates to write down something that was positive and also something that they thought could be improved on our course and in the new building. Here are the responses.
Positives
Ø The facilities have greatly improved because of the new building.
Ø The Television Studio is the best thing to happen to the screen school and everyone loves using it!
Ø Plenty of computer facilities which is important.
Ø Some students have said the classes are very interesting.
Ø There seems to be more job opportunities this year which is good.
Ø The location of the building is perfect - right in the city centre.
Negatives
Ø Starbucks is far too expensive and it should be a small cafe rather than a mainstream consumer. Students cannot afford these prices!
Ø The toilets should not be mixed sex; they are also badly laid out - for example, the sinks are inside the cubicle but then you have to open the door to go and dry them, leaving the handles wet.
Ø Why do we have water coolers but no cups?
Ø Changes to the timetable last minute are not appreciated. Students book time to go home (Ireland for example) and then miss out on lectures because the timetable is changed.
Ø There should be more vending machines in the building or other sources of food and drink.
Ø Students would like to work in the TV Studio more.
Ø We shouldn't have to go to the Dean Walters building, there is plenty of space in the new building so why should we have to use an old one?
Overall, people are very concerned about the price of food in the Starbuck and that they don't even put prices on their food. Because we are students there should be a cheap facility with more choice. Even in the old building (Edge Lane), there were 2 cafe's at one point and the prices were reasonable.
The main positive that we received in the feedback is that everyone loves the new building and its facilities - mostly the TV Studio!
Here are the official minutes of the meeting in case any of you would like a read through them!
Minutes of the BA/BA (Hons) Media Professional Studies, Programme Board of Study, held on Wednesday 17th October 2012 at 1.15pm, Room 521, Redmonds Building.
Present: Sarah Haynes (SH) – Chair
Camilla Affleck (CA) – Lecturer, Media Professional Studies
Paula Baines (PB) - Student Development Co-ordinator
Ian Bradley (IB) – Lecturer, Media Professional Studies/IMedia
Alex Irving (AI) – Lecturer, Media Professional Studies
Stevie Lennon (SL) – Level 5 Student Representative
Josh McDowell (JM) – Level 5 Student Representative
Daldeep Poonia (DP) – Level 4 Student Representative
Natasha Singh (NS) – Level 6 Student Representative
Mark Smith (MS) – Lecturer, Media Professional Studies/IMedia
Alex Stevenson (AS) – Level 4 Student Representative
Sheena Streather (SS) – Library and Student Support
1. Welcome to Members
SH welcomed members to the first Media Professional Studies Board of Study of the academic year. It was noted that the purpose of the meeting was for Student Representatives to report back on any issues within their cohort, and for staff to report on development of the programme. SH commented that it was important for the meeting to be productive, and that this should be seen as a safe space for people to say what they want; the meeting should be as formal or informal as the students wished.
2. Apologies for Absence
There were apologies for absence from David Sorfa, Mouna Saeed, Trevor Long, Karis Lonsdale and Jan Coulson
3. Minutes of the Previous Meeting and Matters Arising
It was confirmed that the minutes were circulated to members prior to the meeting.
3.1 Modules on the MPS Programme
It was confirmed that staff are now more aware of explaining the purpose of the modules, content and expected outcome to the students.
4. Student Feedback
4.1 Feedback on Induction
DP commented that the induction was very detailed, but that it was a bit boring at times, as the students were given information of what they would and would not be covering in their first year of study. It was also noted that the programme induction clashed with Fresher’s Week.
CA agreed that some of the staff felt that the induction was too long, but this was a new format that had been introduced this year.
SH informed the board that this year the Academic Staff had been told how many hours of induction to hold and that she would feedback that perhaps this year it was too long.
4.2 Feedback from Level 6 Students
4.2.1 TV Studio
NS commented that the students would have liked the opportunity to work in the TV studio in their final year, especially with the new studio in the basement.
SH acknowledged that the students felt that they should be able to advance their skills. It was also noted that there was potential to use the studio as a creative space.
4.2.2 Timetable
NS commented that she was surprised that the Level 6 students only had two days of teaching during their final year.
SH replied that the students also had tutorials and meetings for Independent Study, Work Based Learning and Dissertation modules. The final year, as with many degree programmes, involves less teaching time and more self-study/independent learning.
NS stated that the students wanted to make the most of their time in the University and were paying a lot of money to study.
CA responded that the commencement of the production module in the next Semester meant that the students would be very busy.
4.3 Feedback from Level 5 Students
It was noted that the Level 5 Student Representatives submitted a written report (Appendix A). There were a number of positive points including the new building and facilities available, and that the Screen School was now situated back in the city centre.
4.3.1 Catering
It was noted that the Level 5 Students felt that the catering was too expensive and was not very varied.
SL commented that Starbucks needed to be made more student friendly, with discounts and generally cheaper prices.
SH commented that there were vending machines available on the fourth floor of the building and that more would be introduced into the building over the coming weeks. SH stated that she would pass this to Karis Lonsdale, the Faculty Student Voice Co-ordinator, as other students in other buildings had the same complaints.
SL further commented that although there were water coolers around the building, no cups were provided for the students to use.
It was noted that the building was trying to be as environmentally friendly as possible, and as such there were no disposable cups for the water coolers. Students and staff were expected to refill water bottles and use their own cups.
SL understood this, and suggested that signs be displayed by the coolers explaining why cups were not available.
4.3.2 Toilets
SL commented that the students did not like the unisex toilets located near to the Starbucks coffee shop.
PB advised that these were the only unisex toilets in the building and that there were other toilets situated on all floors of the building.
4.3.3 Timetable Changes
SL commented that last minute changes to timetables can be a problem, especially for students who have to travel into Liverpool to find that their class has been cancelled/changed at short notice.
SH agreed that this was an inconvenience and stated that although often unavoidable, last minutes changes were rare.
SL further commented that the students were not happy at having lectures in the Dean Walters Building, when the school was based in the new Redmonds Building.
AI agreed with this point, and further stated that all the staff agreed with the issue raised by the students.
SH advised the students that the rooms were booked by a central timetable office, which timetabled all classes within the Screen School, Business School and Law School. It was further noted that a number of the classrooms were only designed to hold a small number of students, so finding rooms large enough, could mean using other University buildings.
4.3.4 TV Studio
JM commented that the students would like to have more time in the TV studio, at the moment they are only in there once a week for the TV Studio Production Module.
IB and CA agreed that it would be good for the students to spend more time in the Studio.
SH stated that the space needed to be utilised better, and the Media Professional Studies programme would be looked at to see how this could be incorporated.
4.3.5 Reading Week
JM remarked that there was no Reading Week for the Students this year and queried why this was.
SH replied that the University no longer has an official week break in the semester. It was noted that this was a decision taken by the University at the request of LSU and not by the School.
4.3.6 Tutorial Sessions
JM stated that he would like to have time to meet with his personal tutor.
SH agreed that there needed to be more meetings between the students and their personal tutors.
MS questioned whether the students would prefer group or individual tutorials.
SL replied that individual tutorials would be preferable, with a set appointment time to see the tutor. Students would like to be able to talk about their modules, disagreements within groups and/or personal matters with their tutors.
JM added that the students would like to get more personal and detailed feedback in their tutorials.
4.3.7 Suspension of the Media Professional Studies Programme
It was noted that the Media Professional Studies would not have an intake for academic year 2012/2012.
JM questioned what the suspension of the programme meant for the current students and their degree.
DP commented that on a personal note, she thought that the suspension was ok, as it meant more attention for the current students next year.
SH explained that part of the reason for the suspension was the Unistats website, which compares programmes from various institutions. It was noted that Media programmes across the country had similar scores on the National Student Survey, but that JMU had decided to address the issue to improve the programme and to do this properly the programme would be suspended for a year.
AI commented that the wording of the email was misleading. Instead of saying ‘suspended’ the email should have said ‘paused’.
JM agreed stating that a number of students, including himself, thought that the email meant that the degree had been suspended and that the current students would not be able to progress; not that there would be no intake for the next year.
SH advised the Board that she had spoken to the Dean of Faculty about this and he would be happy to speak to the students to explain the reasoning behind the ‘pause’. It was further noted that ten programmes across the university had suspended intake for 2012/2013, so it was not just the Media Professional Studies programme. SH further advised that when the Dean of the Faculty explained it to the staff, it came across as a positive decision. SH also commented that she would ask the Dean to speak to the students about the situation.
AI stated that the email to the students came out of the blue, and the staff did not have a chance to prepare the students.
CA commented that the break in the enrolment would give the opportunity for the staff to gather feedback from the students on how to achieve the best possible programme.
SH confirmed that the staff would want to work with the students on the review of the programme.
4.4 Feedback from Level 4 Students
4.4.1 Catering
AS stated that in general the Level 4 students were content, but there had been comments regarding the catering facilities in the Redmonds Building. The students felt that the prices in Starbucks were too expensive, and lot of the items were not priced.
PB responded that it was not only the students that had commented about the prices of Starbucks.
4.4.2 Mid-Session Breaks
DP advised that some of the students felt that the breaks in the middle of the module were too long, with some lasting between 20 and 30 minutes.
CA replied that this was to give the students time to get a drink from the coffee shop as well as allowing time for students to come out of various workshops.
4.4.3 Submission Deadlines
DP commented that to find the submission deadlines for essays, the students have to look through all the module handbooks; having all the dates in one place would be helpful.
SH replied that the students needed to learn to manage their own time, but would look into how all the deadlines could be published together.
5. External Examiner Reports
It was noted that the External Examiner Report was not currently available, and would be looked at in conjunction with the Annual Monitoring Report in the next Board of Study Meeting.
6. Staff Feedback
6.1 Film Makers Club
PB asked the Student Representatives to encourage the students to check their emails regularly so that they do not miss important information and opportunities. PB advised the students that the Film Makers Club was being launched on that afternoon. The Club had bid for and won a substantial amount of money to be used by the students in the club, ideally for submitting films to festivals and competitions. It was further noted that PB and Corin Willis were looking for a student to help with the running of the Film Makers Club. It was noted that the idea of the Club was for students on different programmes and year groups within the Screen School to work together. PB further advised that only the Level 5 and Level 6 students had been notified at this time, but that the Level 4 students would be invited from Semester 2 when they had more experience.
CA questioned whether any of the money could be used for specialist equipment to be used by the students.
PB replied that a second bid had been submitted for equipment, but this had been refused. The money received was to be used for student expenses.
6.2 Library and Student Support
SS reported that the LRC had extended the level of Library service; the LRC was now staffed from 9am-11pm and the 24 hour self-service was still available. It was also noted that there was now a 24 hour telephone service. SS further informed the Board that there was a new online search tool, and asked the students for their feedback on this.
NS replied that she had tried the system and like it; she had received a lot of information.
SS also commented that by now all the students should have received £50 of print credits on their Virtual Purse account.
It was also noted that there was currently a trial of a coffee cart in the foyer of the LRC which seems reasonable in price.
There were no other comments from the staff.
7. Student Satisfaction
It was noted that the Student Satisfaction Surveys would be discussed in conjunction with the Annual Monitoring Report at the next meeting.
8. Any Other Business
As there was no further business for discussion, Sarah Haynes thanked members for their attendance and closed the meeting. It was noted that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday 21st November, at 1.15pm in Room 521.
Speak Soon!
No comments:
Post a Comment