Meeting Notes 04-11 (April 13, 2011)

Present: Russell Kerr, Jeremy Parker, Adrian Dyer, Adrian Miles, Cathy Greenfield, Karen Trist, Adrian Miles
Apologies: Yoko Akama, Phred Peterson

Have received word from Fiona Peterson that the academic ‘package’ has successfully passed through the next step of the approval process, and so I take from this that we can be confident that the program will be allowed to begin in 2012.

We then discussed some concerns around the research methods/strategies subject offered, and identified that where there is a specific need for a very specific and detailed method, that an alternative methods subject could be undertaken. However, it was also agreed that in general students should be using methods and practices that they are familiar with from their undergraduate study and that honours is not where you begin a new method, from the beginning as it were. To be blunt, honours is not there to address or correct things that may be missing from the undergraduate curriculum.

At the last meeting we had been working on the Media Futures subject. It was agreed that a general statement about the aims of the subject would be prepared, and that this would not outline specific approaches or theories, but provide a framework to let individual teaching staff frame a curriculum.

ACTION: Cathy agreed to write this for tabling at the next meeting.

We then had a long, broad, general, and wandering discussion about the the labs. It was agreed that agreeing upon a method or protocol for how lab themes were to be defined was the key next step. (And then we could actually theme them.) In addition input from Linda Daley (HDR) and Jo Tacchi (Research) would be sought.

ACTION: Adrian Miles to contact Jo and Linda for informal input. Responses to be tabled at the next meeting.
ACTION: all to consider possible scenarios or ways that labs can be defined (what methods or protocols we could have that are clear, understandable, transparent, for how a lab theme is decided upon). These to be discussed at the next meeting.

In addition there are questions around staffing, selection, promotion and marketing, and resourcing that need to be addressed.

ACTION: Adrian Miles to meet with relevant staff to discuss, this to be tabled at first available meeting.

Overall governance of the program also needs to be considered, and defined.

ACTION: Adrian Miles to discuss this with Fiona Peterson, outcomes to be tabled at first available meeting.

Meeting Notes 03-11 (March 16, 2011)

Present: Cathy Greenfield, Jeremy Parker, Rachel Wilson, Yoko Akama, Adrian Dyer, Karen Trist, Adrian Miles.
Apologies: Russell Kerr, Jeremy Yuille.

Discussed and outlined the Bachelor of Design honours that is being proposed and its relation to the Media and Comm Honours program. In essence the two cohorts will be together except for Media and Communication Futures.

Revisited the Research Strategies course that has been developed so far. Variety of things raised and discussed, generally further contextualising the subject and its role.

Discussed Media and Communication Futures – what should it do, what should students learn. This conversation needs to continue at the next meeting. This documented via the photos below:

Useful URLs for January 28th through March 12th

These are my links for January 28th through March 12th:

• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error
• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error
• Better designs that lead to better learning | theage.com.au – Nice article about relationship between architecture, learning, and the role of small groups in learning.
• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error
• 500 Internal Server Error – 500 Internal Server Error

Meeting Notes 02-11 (March 1 2011)

Here: Adrian Miles, Cathy Greenfield, Yoko Akama
Apologies: Karen Trist, Karli Lukas

Update: revised academic package has been returned to College, so we are waiting for what’s next. Arranging a meeting to get a bit more information about the Comm Des honours proposal, partly for clarification and partly to get a better sense of what the imagined relation to the M.Comm honours is.

Today: last session we built a map of the outcomes for the research strategies subject. We now want to:

1. define assessment outcomes
2. develop an assessment matrix
3. define assessment timelines
4. develop and describe a learning roadmap for the subject

Excellent discussion about the strategies subject. It will begin from a constellation of questions:

• what is your discipline?
• what counts as a proposition in your discipline?
• what is a discipline?
• what counts as (professional) knowledge in your field?
• what is knowledge?
• what is the difference between information, data, knowledge?

Around or arising from this are a cluster of related questions and problems. We discussed the ‘roadmap’ of the subject as like a guide, where there are, say, three key things to be seen, but how you get to them will vary, but you really need to see these three things. So, the assessment is a way to focus this stroll so that students are to make a response to:

• what questions matter?
• how do you do research?
• what do you do as a researcher?
• how is it done?
• how is it presented?
• what methods are used?
• why does this matter?

A version of this of around 2000 words will be assessed half way through semester. Critiqued/assessed and then further developed and submitted at the end where it will be between 4 and 5000 words. These are the only assessment tasks, they are iterative, and a mix of formative and summative. It is also to build the ‘bedrock’ for their second semester research task.

A research proposition, which is also an outcome of this, will be assessed by the honours committee, but will be ‘attached’ to the research subject as a hurdle assessment, come satisfactory progress requirement.

In addition we talked about ways (and the value of) an ongoing mapping come visualisation task in the workshop that maps the different discsiplines/fields/methods being used, where you place yourself, as a way of making visible respective research specificities and differences. This would be a key outcome of the strategies workshop, not assessed, but useful in showing what has been done, where we’ve been, and will inform their responding to the main assessment task. The aim is to start broad, and spend the semester focussing ti down.

Meeting Notes, 01 -11 (February 14 2011)

Present: Yoko Akama, Cathy Greenfield, Jeremy Parker, Karen Trist.

Update: Part As and program guides approved subject to some amendments, which Adrian is doing.
Communication Design has been tasked with developing an individual honours program, discussion about this and relation to Media and Communication honours is ongoing.

Old stuff: Have confirmed that the Part Bs of the course guides (where you pretty much specifically indicate what is being done in the subject) do not have a formal approval process. Have not been given any information about how the process of staffing and teaching the program will proceed.

We talked about developing and designing the entire curriculum, on a subject by subject basis. The first one we started with was the strategies come methods subject. We sent the day doing the first step, which was to make a list of the things we could think of that students might want or need to learn doing the subject. Each thing was stuck on to a chart, where I later moved the items into thematic/cognate groups.

Reading vertically, from left to right, headings are mine:

technical
does it need to cover how to write?
what ‘technical writing’ stuff is needed?
styleguide?
presmises of academic writing
library session

stuff
what stuff will you be working with? How?
where is this stuff?
what do you need to know to do this?

epistemologies of research
what is knowledge?
what is your discipline?
what counts as a proposition in your discipline?
what is a discipline?
what counts as professional knowledge in your field?
what is the difference between knowledge, information, data?

tacit knowing and research
what constitutes/counts as research?
what is a research question/problem?
what form does evidence take in your discipline?
what does a research answer look like?
what is an argument?

ethics
what are the ethics of research?
ethics – an ethical reflection of you to your research, your research persona as ethics, things you should do, not just things not to do

currently miscellaneous
how does this relate to the labs?
systems of reason
hierachies of knowledge
qualitative versus quantitative
specific methods or practice modules (interviewing, surveys), in lectures, workshops?

Next: from this map move to how students might learn these things, activities, methods, models. And then what learning outcomes these are, and what assessment artefacts are relevant and useful.

Presentation to School about Honours

Below is a pdf of the brief presentation to be made on February 14th about the new honours program. Since this is at a ‘whole school meeting’ it is a good opportunity to communicate to everyone what has happened, where we are up to, what is happening next, and keep information flowing. It also means if anyone feels like they want to have input, or find out more, there’s a face to things and an avenue opened for that.

• Get your copy of the Honours School Presentation (PDF)

Business Case

The business model come plan for the new honours has been formally approved. It loses money, but less than what we currently do, but I think with supervision as part of the mix it isn’t possible for an honours program to not lose money… Now we will wait and see what happens with the teaching and learning documents.

Useful URLs for October 21st through January 27th

These are my links for October 21st through January 27th:

• Learning Through Digital Media – Collaborative open scholarship anthology about learning through digital media.
• Culture Club « Desktop – Desktop Mag article about what makes a studio successful.
• Research Skill Development Framework – This is very very good. Nuff said. Detailed matrix of facets and student autonomy to categorise/map research skills.
• :: NuVu studio – Boston located problem based learning driven studio for 14 to 18 year olds that is rethinking learning in the same ways that I am.
• TEXT Special Issue No 6 – Supervising the Creative Arts Higher Degree: Towards Best Practice. Good collection of material here.

Meeting Notes, December 8

Apologies: Karen Trist, Jeremy Yuille.
There: Cathy Greenfield, Yoko Akama, Jeremy Parker, Adrian Miles.

Reported on where the formal documentation is up to. Finalising the final, last, hopefully for now, changes to the Program Guide, and the Part A course guides. These are then being submitted to the College for consideration, and hopefully then to Building One. The program guide outlines program capabilities and which subjects/courses link to and teach which of the capabilities.

Will keep regular updates out to the School via the School newsletter. If we get through the next approval round then will also see if we can present a brief outline of honours to the next whole school meeting.

Key Tasks for 2011

1. draft vision dash mission statement for honours
2. develop a bibliography/collection of key resources to inform our thinking about honours
3. detailed planning, structuring and scaffolding of the entire curriculum for delivery in 2012

To be confirmed:

1. Do Part B course guides need to go through an approval process?
2. At what point in 2011 do issues around staffing (who is going to teach these things) need to begin? Finished?
3. What governance structure needs to emerge from the working group?

We will begin again in February, fortnightly hourly meetings with the main task to develop specific curricula for each subject.

Academic Documents

Attached as a pdf is a copy of the completed Program Guide that is going to the College for endorsement. In addition the final (as in being submitted for endorsement) versions of the program guides are also included. The program guides are the Part A’s only, which have been very well edited by Fiona. They are very general, leave lots of room for how things actually get delivered and assessed, but do spell out learning outcomes and capabilities.

• BH066 Bachelor of Media and Communication (Honours) Program Guide
• Part A Program Guides