scoil ealaíne agus deartha school of art and design - lit.ie panel report programmatic... ·...

of 25

Institiúid Teicneolaíochta Luimnigh

Limerick Institute of Technology

Scoil Ealaíne agus Deartha School of Art and Design

Report of Peer Review Panel

Programmatic Review

of the

Limerick School of Art & Design

17th & 18th May 2017

of 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1. Higher Education Provider .................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2. Programmes Evaluated ........................................................................................................................................ 3

2.3. External Programmatic Review Panel of Expert Assessors ............................................................................. 4

2.4. Institute Staff .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.5. Selected Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................................... 6

2.6. Documentation ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

3. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF EXTERNAL PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW PANEL ................. 8

3.1. Main Findings ........................................................................................................................................................ 8

3.2. Conditions .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.3. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................. 8

of 25

1. INTRODUCTION This report outlines, in summary form, the proceedings of the programmatic review in the School of Art and Design, and the findings of the External Peer Review Group in May 2017. The programmatic review was undertaken in accordance with Section 3.8 of the LIT document ‘Academic Council Regulations and Procedures for Taught Programmes: Academic Year 2016/2017: Part 1’. The report of the Programmatic Review Panel is the academic judgement of a peer group on the academic standard and quality of the programmes of the School. It confirms to the Institute the standard of the programmes in a publicly accountable manner.

2. GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1. Higher Education Provider

Institute: Limerick Institute of Technology

School: School of Art & Design Date of Review/Visit: May 17th & 18th

Venues: Boardroom, Clare Street Campus

2.2. Programmes Evaluated

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Painting (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Painting (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Fine Art Painting (Level 6) - Embedded

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Photography, Film, Video (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Photography, Film, Video (Level 7) - Embedded

Higher Certificate in Fine Art Photography, Film, Video (Level 6) - Embedded Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Print Contemporary Practice (Level 8)

Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Print Contemporary Practice (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Fine Art Print Contemporary Practice (Level 6) - Embedded Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Sculpture and Combined Media (Level 8)

Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Sculpture and Combined Media (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Fine Art Sculpture and Combined Media (Level 6) - Embedded Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Design Animation and Motion Design (Level 8)

Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Design Animation and Motion Design (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Design Animation and Motion Design (Level 6) - Embedded

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Design Ceramics (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Design Ceramics (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Design Ceramics (Level 6) - Embedded

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Design Fashion Design (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Design Fashion Design (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Design Fashion Design (Level 6) - Embedded

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Design Graphic Design Communication (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Design Graphic Design Communication (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Design Graphic Design Communication (Level 6) - Embedded

of 25

Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Design Fashion and Textiles for Product and Costume (Level 8)

Bachelor of Arts (Ord) in Design Fashion and Textiles for Product and Costume (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Design Fashion and Textiles for Product and Costume (Level 6) - Embedded Bachelor Science (Honours) in Creative Multimedia (Level 8) Bachelor of Science (Ordinary) in Creative Multimedia (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Science in Creative Multimedia (Level 6) - Embedded Bachelor Science (Honours) in Digital Animation Production (Level 8) Bachelor of Science (Ordinary) in Digital Animation Production (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Science in Digital Animation Production (Level 6) - Embedded Bachelor Science (Honours) in Game Art & Design (Level 8) Bachelor of Science (Ordinary) in Game Art & Design (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Science in in Game Art & Design (Level 6) - Embedded Master of Arts in Art and Design Education (Level 9) Master of Arts/Master of Fine Art in Social Practice and the Creative Environment (Level 9)

2.3. External Programmatic Review Panel of Expert Assessors

Dr. David Ryan,

Chairperson – Assistant Registrar IT Carlow Professor Olwen Mosley, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Wales Dr. Varsha Gupta, National Institute of Fashion Technology, India

Dr. Aoife McNamara, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada

Ms. Una Burke, Fashion Designer, London, UK Mr. Gary Granville, Former Head of Education NCAD, Dublin Mr. Padraic Lynch, Letterkenny Institute of Technology, Donegal Ms. Mary McCarthy, National Sculpture Factory, Cork Mr. Paul McKevitt, Ulster University, Northern Ireland Mr. Frank Rafter, Student Representative, Thurles, Tipperary

2.4. Institute Staff

Prof. Vincent Cunnane, Institute President Mr. Terry Twomey, Vice President Academic Affairs & Registrar

Mr. Mike Fitzpatrick, Head of School of Art and Design Dr. Tracey Fahey, Head of Department of Fine Art Mr. James Greenslade, Head of Department of Design Lecturing Staff

of 25

Dr. David Brancaleone Dr. Kieran Cashell Dr. Marilyn Lennon Dr. Nigel Oxley Dr. Sercan Sahin Dr. Dara Waldron Ms. Aideen Barry Mr. Arturo Borrego Ms. Fiona Bourke Mr. Aidan Byrne Ms. Helen Byrne Mr. Michael Canning Ms. Martina Cleary Mr. Andrew Crotty Mr. Alan Crowley Mr. Eamon Dalton Ms. Ruth Duignan Ms. Amanda Dunsmore Ms. Maria Finucane Mr. Mike Fox Mr. Paul Gardiner Mr. Richard Gavin Ms. Giordana Giache Ms. Dearbhla Glynn Ms. Bernard Goldbach Ms. Patricia Greene Ms. Christina Guiry Ms. Susan Halvey Ms. Siobhan Hanley Mr. John Hannafin Ms. Pamela Heaney Mr. Barry Holian Ms. Edel Hogan Ms. Joanne Hogan Mr. Alan Keane Mr. Alan Kelly Mr. Michael Kiely Ms. Caoimhe Kilfeather

Mr. Joe Lane Ms. Roisin Lewis Ms. Breda Lynch Mr. Des Mac Mahon Ms. Katrina Maguire Mr. Mathew Maher Ms. Louise Masterson Mr. Richard McEnteggart Ms. Anne Melinn Ms. Michelle Molloy Ms. Sandra Murphy Mr. Cormac Morrison Ms. Mary Nagle Ms. Lorraine Neeson Ms. Aine Nic Giolla Coda Ms. Noelle Noonan Ms. Sarah O’Flaherty Mr. Mark O’Kelly Mr. Mark O’Leary Ms. Mandy Parslow Mr. David Phelan Ms. Fiona Quill Mr. Owen Quinlan Ms. Linda Quinn Ms. Elaine Riordan Ms. Slyvia Shorthall Ms. Grainne Smyth-Higgins Mr. Eamon Spelman Ms. Liz Spillane Ms. Yvonne Sweeney Ms. Paul Tarpey Mr. Sean Taylor Ms. Clodagh Twomey Ms. Marie Walsh Mr. Kieran Whitelaw Ms. Fiona Woods Ms. Tamlyn Young

of 25

2.5. Selected Stakeholders

2.5.1. Employers/Industry & Alumni Representatives

Jack Bowler AMD Pirana Bar Niamh Brown Painting Ormston House Michael Cleary MA SPACE and SCM Artist Mary Conroy Ceramics Jim Furlong Painting Sophie Gough SCM Laura Hobson CM Icon / Firecrest Kevin King Graphics Piquant Naomi O’Nolan Hunt Museum Kate O'Shea Print Cliff Parrot AMD Salty Dog Liadán Scott-Keogh Fashion Jess Tobin Limerick Printmakers

2.5.2. Current Students

David Carroll AMD

Elizabeth Cleary Print

Seana Conway SCM

Joan Crowley MASPACE

Cindy Fogarty Painting

Debbie Harrington Ceramics

Linda Maxwell DAP

Isabelle McCarthy Graphics

Richard Naughton GAD

Andrew O’Toole Photography

Laura Piggot CM

Siobhan / Aisling FTPC

Grainne Wilson Fashion

2.6. Documentation

2.6.1. Critical Self-Study, School of Art and Design 2.6.2. Stage One, Common Core Year for Fine Art and Design programmes 2.6.3. Critical and Contextual Studies Modules 1 – 7 2.6.4. Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Painting (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Painting (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Fine Art Painting (Level 6) – Embedded 2.6.5. Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Photography, Film, Video (Level 8)

of 25

Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Photography, Film, Video (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Fine Art Photography, Film, Video (Level 6) - Embedded

2.6.6. Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Print Contemporary Practice (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Print Contemporary Practice (Level 7) - Embedded

Higher Certificate in Fine Art Print Contemporary Practice (Level 6) - Embedded 2.6.7. Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Sculpture and Combined Media (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Sculpture and Combined Media (Level 7) - Embedded

Higher Certificate in Fine Art Sculpture and Combined Media (Level 6) - Embedded 2.6.8. Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Design Animation and Motion Design (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Design Animation and Motion Design (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Design Animation and Motion Design (Level 6) - Embedded 2.6.9. Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Design Ceramics (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Design Ceramics (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Design Ceramics (Level 6) - Embedded 2.6.10. Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Design Fashion Design (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Design Fashion Design (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Design Fashion Design (Level 6) - Embedded 2.6.11. Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Design Graphic Design Communication (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Design Graphic Design Communication (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Design Graphic Design Communication (Level 6) - Embedded 2.6.12. Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Design Fashion and Textiles for Product and Costume (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ord) in Design Fashion and Textiles for Product and Costume (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Design Fashion and Textiles for Product and Costume (Level 6) - Embedded 2.6.13. Bachelor Science (Honours) in Creative Multimedia (Level 8) Bachelor of Science (Ordinary) in Creative Multimedia (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Science in Creative Multimedia (Level 6) - Embedded 2.6.14. Bachelor Science (Honours) in Digital Animation Production (Level 8) Bachelor of Science (Ordinary) in Digital Animation Production (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Science in Digital Animation Production (Level 6) - Embedded 2.6.15. Bachelor Science (Honours) in Game Art & Design (Level 8) Bachelor of Science (Ordinary) in Game Art & Design (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Science in in Game Art & Design (Level 6) - Embedded 2.6.16. Master of Arts in Art and Design Education (Level 9) 2.6.17. Master of Arts/Master of Fine Art in Social Practice and the Creative Environment (Level 9)

of 25

3. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF EXTERNAL PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW PANEL

3.1. Main Findings

The External Validation Panel of Assessors recommends the on-going approval and re-validation for a further five years of the submitted programmes and associated amendments in the School of Art and Design, subject to the following condition and recommendations.

3.2. Conditions

3.2.1 The Bachelor of Arts (BA) programme learning outcomes need to be customised to describe the

intended programme learning outcomes in order to distinguish the Award.

3.3. Recommendations

3.3.1. Strategy

3.3.1.1. A School based framework to address existing and proposed Internationalisation in terms of student

and staff mobility as well as the internationalisation of the curriculum and international collaborations could be considered.

3.3.1.2. A School plan to extend and embed an entrepreneurial culture including the provision of Continuing

Professional Development (CPD) programmes should be developed. 3.3.1.3. The work with students carried out by staff, particularly in first year, in terms of transitioning to third

level, induction, integration and student focus could be captured in a description of the first year experience.

3.3.1.4. In terms of Flexible Learning provision opportunities there are a number of modules across

programmes which could be considered for accreditation. 3.3.1.5. Opportunities to expand both CAO and other access opportunities for Limerick School of Art &

Design could be considered. 3.3.1.6. The Limerick School of Art & Design vision could be more reflective of the true dynamism evident in

the School. 3.3.1.7. Communication and Campus identity and integration issues need to be considered, particularly

resulting from the successful Tipperary Institute merger. 3.3.1.8. Advertising internationally for the MA Art and Design Education as a non-physical presence

programme is recommended. 3.3.1.9. As a sustainable strategy, wherever possible, the Limerick School of Art & Design should make the

digital shift.

of 25

3.3.2. Resources

3.3.2.1. The impressive growth and expansion of Limerick School of Art & Design has resulted in some resource challenges. In terms of physical space this appears to be a particular issue in the Clonmel campus and plans to address this should be implemented.

3.3.2.2. There is an opportunity to optimise the use of Moodle to support teaching and communication with

and between students and to highlight, for example, opportunities for student feedback on assessments or the availability of access to counselling and other student services. Clonmel campus is example of good practice in the use of this technology - additional training in Moodle may be needed for staff and students to support this.

3.3.2.3. Review access to and availability of Student Services including language support and counselling

services at each campus.

3.3.3. Programmes

3.3.3.1. Credits assigned to modules in the BA and MA programme schedules do not align to contact hours for

the student, rather they align to total lecturer contact time. These should be revised to reflect student contact time per module and, as much as possible, standardised to reflect ~100-120 total effort hours per credit.

3.3.3.2. Module teaching and learning strategies should be module specific rather than generic or programme

strategy. 3.3.3.3. Learning Outcomes descriptors should be revised to describe learning at the appropriate level. 3.3.3.4. The description of module assessment strategy is a key element particularly for continuous assessment

based programmes. This descriptor should detail the high levels of formative assessment which is undertaken reflecting the huge effort by staff evident in discussions but currently not captured in many cases.

3.3.3.5. The special regulations for progression which differentiates between Critical and Contextual Studies

(CCS) and ‘Main modules’ in terms of requirements must be clearly highlighted and explained to students.

3.3.3.6. Module learning resources should include current reading lists and that other resources including

relevant URLs. 3.3.3.7. In a number of cases the same Learning Outcomes are used in more than one module. 3.3.3.8. In a number of modules the assessment strategy or Teaching and Learning strategy contains a list of

module Learning Outcomes. 3.3.3.9. Developing learning skills and transferrable skills should be clearly highlighted and represented in

Module Learning Outcomes and Assessment strategies. 3.3.3.10. The clear articulation of Professional Practice is a welcome development and could be further

enhanced by embedding career planning and graduate opportunities across all modules. 3.3.3.11. Programme titles need to be kept under consideration.

of 25

3.3.3.12. The weighting of continuous assessment in the School Self Study document should be corrected.

3.4. Commendations

3.4.1. The panel commends all participants involved in the Limerick School of Art & Design review process at LIT for their open engagement in all sessions. The commitment of staff, students, alumni, management and employers to the Limerick School of Art & Design, its continued growth and success was clearly evident. The strong ethos of the Limerick School of Art & Design, its sense of identity and place within LIT and the region and its ongoing commitment to the creation of cross disciplinary and collaborative creative opportunities was evidenced throughout the visit.

3.4.2. Of particular note are: the focus on widening participation; strong student retention rates; the first year

undergraduate and overall student experience; the cross pollination of peer support through open plan studios; the Limerick School of Art & Design links with industry; the visiting guest lecturer and residency schemes; the portfolio admission process; the creative and innovative use of software across different constituencies particularly in the MA Art and Design Programme; the actively practicing staff.

3.4.3. The strong local and regional community engagement should continue to be nurtured - a supportive

ecosystem and space for Artists are important. 3.4.4. The continued development of level 9 and 10 research opportunities in the Limerick School of Art &

Design, while outside of the scope of this review, is also to be commended.

_______________________________ Signature of Chairperson and Date

of 25

APPENDIX

PRIVATE MEETINGS OF ASSESSORS

The Panel of Assessors met privately a number of times throughout the visit to the Institute. The Chairperson and members of the panel discussed the outstanding substantial issues, the faculty responses, the engagement of the stakeholders, etc. 10.00 AM ARRIVAL MEETING OF CHAIR WITH HEAD OF FACULTY, HEADS OF DEPARTMENT

& VICE PRESIDENT ACADEMIC AFFAIRS & REGISTRAR

The Panel Chair, Dr. David Ryan, met with the management to review the programmatic review schedule. The chair had some general questions about the faculty which were addressed by the management team. 11.00 PM - PRIVATE MEETING OF PANEL OF ASSESSORS

Panel members introduced themselves. The Chair of the Panel led an open discussion on panel member’s initial responses to the programmatic review documentation and set out the key themes for consideration. The Chair explained the programmatic review process and led the panel members through the relevant institute policy and procedures. The Chair walked the Panel through the programme schedule to agree the content of each meeting. It was agreed by the Panel that all three sites would be visited. The Panel were particularly interested in how the assessment of all options in Year 1 is balanced and how it functions. A student representative wished to discuss the possible leaning of the faculty more towards design and cross disciplinary cooperation, perhaps at the expense of fine art and the distinctive identity of each discipline. The 40% expansion in student numbers was highlighted and how this has impacted on resources. The depth and meaning of the desire for internationalisation was discussed, particularly the increased focus on Limerick and the region. The critical self-study document was commended. The institutional relationship between LSAD and LIT was noted as a point for consideration. The Shannon Consortium links were also raised as a point of interest for discussion. Student number and student profile changes might need to be explored in terms of strategies to meet these changes and challenges. The Panel would seek confirmation that management and staff took ownership of these challenges. Links with industry and the guest lecture series were commended. The impact of the merger with Clonmel campus was of interest to the Panel. The collaborations with other organisations were commended. The need to use more technology, including the Moodle learning management environment, might allow easy wins for the staff. The use of the portfolio admission process for admission of students was commended. Differentiation between titles of courses were discussed. Module title changes that include too much would need to be explained. Similarly, the designations of MA and MFA. General points such as learning outcomes and assessment processes would be queried. The importance of employability and students’ understanding of employment options would need to be considered.

of 25

12.00 PM - MEETING OF PANEL OF ASSESSORS WITH LIT EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

The Panel and LIT Management introduced themselves. The President, Professor Vincent Cunnane, welcomed the Chairperson and External Programmatic Review Panel to the Institute. The President, was joined by the Head of School of Art & Design Mr. Mike Fitzpatrick, the Head of Department of Fine Art, Dr. Tracy Fahey and the Head of Department of Design, Mr. James Greenslade. Professor Vincent Cunnane thanked the members of the panel for coming to the programmatic review. The Institute particularly appreciated the efforts of the panel members at this busy time of the academic year. The programmatic review process is an essential process for quality improvement and assurance: it takes place every five years. The growth in student numbers and introduction of new programmes over the previous five years were highlighted by the Management. Also, the primary role taken by LSAD in the integration with the digital media disciplines in Clonmel was presented as a strong positive for LSAD. LITs strategic position within the region was discussed. LIT balances the move towards internationalisation with the its regional remit and role. The institute is developing a new strategic plan with LSAD again to the fore in that process in creating new opportunities for graduates within the region. LIT wants to be challenged to look outside and beyond, not to rest on its laurels. The management team then made a presentation on the programmatic review and further recent developments since the documentation was published. LSAD sees itself at the heart of culture development in the region and responds to national policy developments. The LSAD brand is strong and engages with public agencies. The multi-site configuration of LSAD was explained. The 40% growth in student numbers to 1100 since 2007 reflects the introduction of these new campus buildings and the introduction of six new degrees, three in Limerick and three in Clonmel. The joint teacher education masters with University of Limerick is also a new development since the last programmatic review There has been significant capital development investment in LSAD over recent years, with further campus developments planned. The soul of LSAD was viewed as the combination of the quality of staff and the students working within an ethos of achievement. The LSAD context of change and living art live shows was presented in visual format, documenting the many students who win national and international prizes. The school was delighted a recent win of a €1.5m Cultural Europe international collaborative project. The LSAD vision of stability, relevance and quality was presented as the backdrop to its creative dialogue contribution. Five target areas were set out as Professional Development, Internationalisation, Engagement, Enterprise and Diversity. The LSAD motto is that everyone is an entrepreneur. The Panel queried the alignment of these targets with the new LIT strategic plan. LSAD is leading this strategic plan for the institute, differentiating the institute and challenging the focus on cultural enterprise development of the region and the Wild Atlantic Way. LIT’s place in the context of the National Strategy for Higher Education was discussed. LSAD management was very clear that it wants art and design at the centre of LIT, Limerick and the region. The Shannon Consortium Regional Cluster has been extremely successful for LIT, building in existing relationships with clear boundaries. LIT, UL and MIC use the regional cluster to their advantage as a vehicle of collaboration, respecting differences. LIT is against homogeneous education institutions and is proud of its difference. The tensions in this position and the risks were queried, particularly related to the five target areas. The clash between stability and change was explored in the context of keeping students engaged. The link between growth, change and providing stability for art and design was explained. The integration of the Clonmel staff, courses and campus was presented as of great value and learning for LSAD. The road to strategy, targets and consensus was a lively, engaged conversation among staff to reach a central direction that overrides everyday issues and concerns. The student is at the centre of LSAD’s mission and strategy. The need for a stronger business aspect and professional

of 25

practice were viewed by past students on the panel as areas for development. The lack of financial support for higher education at national level was referred to as the single most serious limitation on LSAD and LIT’s aspiration. The Chairperson, on behalf of the panel, thanked the President for the invitation to revalidate the programmes in the School of Art and Design during the programmatic review process. The Chairperson thanked the participants for the ‘good session’ and looked forward to the further engagements. 2.15 PM - MEETING OF PANEL OF ASSESSORS WITH HEADS OF FACULTY/DEPARTMENT AND

PROGRAMME REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Eamon Dalton Mr. Des McMahon Ms. Amanda Dunsmore Mr. Cormac Morrison Ms. Maria Finucane Ms. Anne Melinn Mr. Richard Gavin Ms. Lorraine Neeson Mr. James Greenslade Ms. Mairead Neill Mr. Barry Holian Ms. Aine Nic Giolla Coda Mr. Joe Lane Mr. Mark O’Kelly Mr. Matthew Maher Ms. Mandy Parslow Ms. Louise Masterson Mr. David Phelan Mr. Eamon Spelman

The Chairperson welcomed the Programme Leaders. Introductions followed. The focus of the meeting was to look specifically at the common elements across programmes, namely the common Year 1 and the CCS stream. The Chair opened the discussion by outlining the Panel’s earlier deliberations. The Panel asked about the distinction between courses in Limerick and Clonmel and the rationale for the different entry processes. The Common Entry in Limerick was seen by staff as supporting transitions. Fashion Knitwear was developed as a response to the over demand for Fashion. The transferability from Fashion Knitwear to other disciplines was confirmed. The digital media based programmes in Clonmel had a different history, hence their separateness. The Panel the interface between staff teaching, practice and research. Staff viewed this as complementary rather than as competing endeavours. Regarding internationalisation LSAD confirmed that they are planning a fashion student visit to Canada. The Panel asked what challenges and changes over the next five years would impact on them. The staff responded that the collaboration across disciplines and departments is a growing practice that will continue. The job market for disciplines is changing and growing so that there are new opportunities for graduates. The different disciplines exhibit and compete internationally where cross discipline collaboration has a growing importance. Technology is supporting communication and working internationally. Staff are supported through staff development funding to travel internationally. The institute supports students to look internationally to publish their work. The staff discussion that they are committed to the LSAD international agenda. The Panel complemented the LSAD wider world perspective. The breaking out of disciplines from specialist to generalist was queried by the Panel. LSAD had explored a multi-discipline programme model but it didn’t work as students felt they were being forced out of their area of interest. Staff felt that maintaining the specialist discipline model with collaboration opportunities has served students well. Students having choices and a degree of fluidity is important for their development.

of 25

The 63% employment of graduates was questioned in the context of the need for enterprise potential and entrepreneurship. Staff confirmed that students do get experience of professional practice, including costings, without moving fully into marketing and sales. The Professional Practice model is capturing the enterprise and entrepreneurial thinking at an earlier stage in the programme. A specialist staff post in this area has recently been advertised to lead this aspect of courses. Alumni are very supportive of hiring graduates. On top of the 63% entering employment, another 15% of students progress to research. Links between staff and industry developments were explored. New technologies and ideas are piloted on a regular basis. However, the focus is on general skills rather than vender specific technologies. The Panel were complementary regarding the visiting lecturers and asked if visiting artists are used. There are residencies for two practicing artists/designers at a time. Students go on international visits and events. They also go on placement in Year 3. Fine Art lends itself less easily to this level of industry engagement, yet benefits from LSAD’s established peer networks. The staffs sense of ownership of strategy and their future was discussed. The feedback from Student Surveys was interesting. The Students Union facilitates focus groups to get feedback from students. External Examiner Reports were cited for their usefulness in keeping programmes contemporary. Feedback from employers is direct. So the programmatic review was more an evolution than a share change process. Quite a lot has changed. The Panel commented on the greater emphasis on drawing, that had been flagged originally by an External Examiner. The degree of change for the next five years was again queried. The staff confirmed that most of the changes are tweaking of the major changes implemented five years ago. The impact of the 40% growth in student numbers was of interest to the Panel. The change in the LSAD top management board all in the one year was taken as an opportunity to review and change that led to the increased numbers and redesign of Year 1, the nature and frequency of tutorials, the use of group learning, greater student responsibility and the Admissions Portfolio. The increased student numbers have presented challenges and generally has been very positive. The similarity of Learning Outcomes across programmes was queried and student awareness of assessment criteria. The Progress Review meetings with students are used to clarify assessment criteria, with an element of self-assessment. Some module descriptors in Year 1 Elective Modules are less clear than others on other descriptors. These two-week block electives do not lend themselves well to highly defined assessment in order to facilitate a sampler learning process. The LSAD CAO profile, high retention and direct entry processes were discussed. Half the students come from Leaving Certificate and half come from Further Education, with 20% being mature students. There is an attendance requirement which is more a student engagement measurement. There is a discussion among staff about use of studios and other forms of peer learning and group working. Different models of engagement have been tried, with the campus and studio attendance working well. The use of shared study spaces rather than dedicated studios is available in some areas. The transferability between programmes in Clonmel was confirmed. Transfer between Clonmel and Limerick is more difficult because the disciplines are distinctive between the two locations.

of 25

3.15PM - MEETING OF PANEL OF ASSESSORS WITH PROGRAMME STAFF

(PARALLEL BREAKOUT SESSIONS)

LSAD OCTAGONAL ROOM – Fine Art

The external panel members present for the breakout session were Dr. David Ryan (Chair), Ms. Mary McCarthy, Mr. Gary Granville and Mr. Frank Rafter. Stage One, Common Core Year for Fine Art and Design programmes Critical and Contextual Studies Modules 1 – 7 Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Painting (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Painting (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Fine Art Painting (Level 6) - Embedded Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Photography, Film, Video (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Photography, Film, Video (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Fine Art Photography, Film, Video (Level 6) - Embedded Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Print Contemporary Practice (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Print Contemporary Practice (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Fine Art Print Contemporary Practice (Level 6) - Embedded Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Fine Art Sculpture and Combined Media (Level 8) Bachelor of Arts (Ordinary) in Fine Art Sculpture and Combined Media (Level 7) - Embedded Higher Certificate in Fine Art Sculpture and Combined Media (Level 6) - Embedded FIRST YEAR Des MacMahon explained the 1st year process and the process for allocation of places. Retention rates are good Common first year is wonderful – challenge how it works on the ground Frank Rafter – Electives – Most of the students are happy with the way the system works – recommended not to change this system. First year lecturers teach on other years other than 1st year – this is good. Critical and Contextual Studies

In terms of positioning CCS within LSAD – what is the integration? Is CCS a separate strand within LSAD – trying to move towards more integration with staff working in studios with students, some staff in CCS come from a practice based background. Louise – CCS is 16.6% of every student’s course – explained how CCS operates over the week. Timetabling is the inhibitor. Presented as a separate document – explained it would have been repeated across all documents. Roll out of CCS studio, English language, etc – were you given the opportunity to thrash out these issues and have they been resolved. Process has just commenced 6 months ago. English language is a problem – incoming student is there a minimum English requirement, are there support classes offered – it is a small number of students. If it is a professed aspiration of the School to bring in more international students – will this not become more of an issue. English language support should come to LSAD – currently only being offered in LIT., transport issues travelling to LIT. Dyslexia is another issue. Not all students are as engaged or integrated with CCS as you may think. Students see it as crux hanging over them for the 1st Semester.

of 25

You don’t write about your work … writing is your work. Painting

Terrific response from External Stakeholders and Alumni. How supported are you within the Research unit – how embedded is it in this programme – are there obstacles. Primary a BA college – get them to a top standard when they graduate in 4th year. Like to see it embedded within the Department. Not so much in favour of a separate research unit. Nigel – individual research in LIT does not fit within any one discipline. Continue to attract students with their own individual discipline research. Erasmus to be complimented within the programme. Proposed quite a number of changes – clearly outlined the reasoning for this. Page 38 comment on course being too easy to pass. Programme Schedules – mismatch within content hours and credits – clarified hours in Schedule are more lecture contact hours rather than student contact hours. Programme Learning Outcomes – 4 streams – same programme learning outcomes – all graduates have the complete suite of learning outcomes – no distinction between disciplines – all students have the exact same skill sets. Each programme is supposed to have individual programme learning outcomes not the generic HETAC outcomes. Staff didn’t have responsibility for these Learning Outcomes. Module – teaching and learning strategies – each module should be looked at so they are not generic. 3rd and 4th year are level 6 – need to be upped to Level 8 Assessment – description of assessment process is critical. Level 7 module outcome – huge amount of work going on in it – assessment is practical evaluation assessing all the learning outcomes – need to understand more clearly how the learning outcomes are being assessed. What is the state of the virtual learning environment in LSAD. Students commence in Moodle and develop from there. Ask students to post everything through Moodle rather than emailing. Tumblr and Blogging is also extensively used – used as an assessment tool. Amount of engagement with students and staff is incredible. Hugely underselling the work staff do in terms of assessment. Sculpture & Contemporary Practice

Experimental programme- different than other documents. One full-time member of staff within the department – is there a reason for this – staff are doing other things – is it less supported? Page 18 – assessments before Christmas – brought to Fine Art Departmental meetings - nothing has become of it. Eight week elective – acoustic and performance – who are they for – are they voluntary – opened up to all students across Fine Art. Are they opened up to UL – students are sent back and forth doing projects – work with SAUL – we attempted to write a Masters between two organisations – ended in disaster. Very open to working with anybody – strongly hold the view creative is not institute specific. Do institutes come back in to LSAD – is it two-way – used to be more reciprocal – a lot of it is down to time and staff availability and desire – continuously opened to it – integration with LIT – most open programme in the school. Succession planning – what happens staff expertise – given how related the modules are to staff expertise – perhaps direct this towards management – nothing is set in stone – everything is experimental. School vision – each document considered it in various ways and to various degrees – how aware are you of the school vision – were you involved in it – how do you integrate it into your practice. School vision is very generic – LSAD so much sharper than that. Need much more opportunity to discuss the vision. Do you consider your students on a 3 year or a 4 year programme – 4 year. Photography & Film Video

Changes proposed – rational very clear for them.

of 25

Cross over activities – particularly benefit to direct entry students who don’t go through the generic first year programme and haven’t been based in Clare Street. Resources, space – management are prioritising this during the summer works. Need a social space and studio space is an issue in Georges Quay. Integration and connection – name change – discussed rational for this. Studios – what kind of studio space is the priority – shooting spaces? Well-equipped in studio space – fine art course – really important for students to have the same studio space as other in fine art programmes . In terms of stakeholder and industry feedback – is there an appetite for more established integration across other disciplines – a lot of cross area activity going on – not as highlighted as it could be to the programme’s best interest – making more of the richness of the culture. Print Contemporary Practice

Rationale for changes is very clear. Why limit yourself to Ireland – trying to make international links at the moment – need to establish centre of excellence in Ireland first. Student engagement with international projects – how is this structured – is it a feature that attracts students to the programme – really developed in the last 4 years – discuss more with 1st years when they are looking at discipline selection. Get students involved in finding these projects. Are there signs of international students coming here – contacts in Northern Spain - Residencies. Are you involved with Creative Europe – Symbols was a project in this – recently won another project. Structure of Residencies – explain the process. Link with Limerick Printmakers should be more prominent. Why the title change – what about Contemporary Printmaking Practice – what are the reasons? There is a lot of entrepreneurial opportunity within this programme. Transferrable skills from Leaving Cert to 3rd Level – was this discussed – within 1st year – point of entry survey. Are any modules available as stand-alone – are any of them accredited – is it something you are looking at – none of the modules in Fine Art are stand-alone. Assessment – extent to which CCS component sits with the Studio – CCS element is handed up in the first week of February – a number of changes may incur from then until end of the year assessment. 3.15 PM – LSAD BOARDROOM BREAKOUT SESSION – DESIGN

Mr. Arturo Borrego Ms. Anne Melinn

Ms. Fiona Bourke Ms. Michelle Molloy

Mr. Aidan Byrne Mr. Cormac Morrison

Ms. Helen Byrne Ms. Sandra Murphy

Mr. Eamon Dalton Ms. Mairead Neill Ms. Ruth Duignan Ms. Mandy Parslow

Mr. Mike Fox Mr. David Phelan

Mr. Paul Gardiner Mr. Owen Quinlan

Ms. Giordana Giache Ms. Linda Quinn

Ms. Susan Halvey Ms. Elaine Riordan

Ms. Siobhan Hanley Mr. Richard Savin

Mr. Barry Holian Mr. Eamon Spelman

Mr. Alan Kelly Ms. Liz Spillane

Mr. Joe Lane Ms. Yvonne Sweeney

Mr. Mathew Maher Mr. Kieran Whitelaw

of 25

The Chair welcomed the staff and introduced to panel. The process for discipline offers in Year 1 was discussed. The Panel queried the student’s option to change disciplines for Year 2. A small number of students do not gain entry to their preferred option because a particular discipline is over subscribed. There is also an issue of the last six weeks having to be in the discipline where the student has been offered a place in Year 2 and not necessarily the student’s first choice option. The disciplines are so closely aligned that there is sufficient cross-over to satisfy the student. This competitive process encourages the Year 1 students to work hard. YEAR 1 & CCS The use of paper based feedback sheets was discussed. This is used to fill in the form with the student present. Tape recordings could also be used instead of paper review feedback forms. Critical and Contextual Studies link to research was discussed. Course administration impacts on CCS staff as they service teach on all programmes. Staff spoke about the distribution of administration workload and how staff share out duties between them. Personal tutor roles are also shared between staff. There is good interaction between CCS staff and specialist discipline staff. The Panel queried the assessment strategies and the issue of plagerism. For overseas student the question of English language issues were discussed. There is English language support on an individual basis within the Learning Support Unit in LIT and English classes also provided by the International Office. A greater cultural issue is the lower emphasis on critical thinking in some cultural contexts. The introduction of class tests was explained as a way of ensuring that students study all areas of the course and not just the chosen topic of their CCS report. The class test is a quiz type test under exam conditions. This is a good transition from the examinations based system students have come from. CERAMICS DESIGN The introduction of the Professional Practice Module was discussed. It is now moving from across the programme into a designated module over the years. The assessment of the module across programmes has been discussed. The professional practice has been brought into Year 2, where in the past it was in Year 3. There are differences in how it is managed in different disciplines as the discipline contexts may differ. For example, graphic designers are often SME’s who need a better understanding of costing and pricing. The Panel queried the absence of a business plan. FASHION DESIGN Fashion was discussed in the context of internationalisation. The Panel suggested that there was a particular opportunity for international students for the fashion programme. The lack of studio space was seen as a limitation on taking more students and exploiting the international opportunity. The process of costing in fashion was considered important for fashion students. Group projects can also be useful for students to understand the business and costings. Staff considered the importance of business and costing. They also confirmed that ethics issues are covered in Year 3. There was a discussion of dying crafts, craft tourism and other cultures. FASHION & TEXTILES & COSTUME The double & in the award title was queried by the Panel. The staff suggested that the title shows the diversity and possibilities within this programme, that attracts fashion transfer students as well as those interested in costume specifically. The use of the word textiles covers the wide range of uses of textiles across fashion design, interior design and product design.

of 25

ANIMATION & MOTION DESIGN/DIGITAL ANIMATION PRODUCTION The panel queried the overlap in programme titles and the possible need to protect programmes through differentiation. Staff did not see this as an issue in LIT. The two programmes are very different, both are recruiting strongly and the two programmes are delivered in different campuses. GRAPHIC DESIGN COMMUNICATIONS The title change from Visual Communications was explained by the staff as the outcome of a lengthy discussion. There was a question from the Panel about the Workshop and Studio provision and whether the workshops belong to different disciplines. While the workshops are located within disciplines students do move between workshops and locations. Budgeting is not differentiated on a workshop basis. Timetabling of space and safety on machines are restrictions on the use of some workshops and studios. The Panel pointed out that to produce hybrid graduates this freedom to move between workshops is important. 9.00AM - MEETING OF PANEL OF ASSESSORS WITH EMPLOYERS / INDUSTRY AND ALUMNI

REPRESENTATIVES

Jack Bowler AMD Pirana Bar Niamh Brown Painting Ormston House Michael Cleary MA SPACE and SCM Artist Mary Conroy Ceramics Jim Furlong Painting Sophie Gough SCM Laura Hobson CM Icon / Firecrest Kevin King Graphics Piquant Naomi O’Nolan Hunt Museum Kate O'Shea Print Cliff Parrot AMD Salty Dog Liadán Scott-Keogh Fashion Jess Tobin Limerick Printmakers

The Chairperson thanked the industry and alumni representatives for attending the session and outlined the programmatic review process. The Panel and the attendees introduced themselves. The Panel asked about the relevance of the programmes. The alumni stated that graduates are lacking a sense of agency and taking ownership of their own careers. The new Professional Practice module will address this deficit. Students need better preparation for promoting themselves and their career. Students lack an understanding of the administration side of art and design, how do document and develop a programme of work, how to prepare and submit a proposal and general awareness of the work environment. Companies are keen to hire the design graduates but the fine art graduates need enhanced communication skills and writing skills to be able to sell themselves. A distinction was drawn between passive and active learning, which would give students a stronger sense of ownership and agency.

of 25

The Panel held the view that agency and transferable skills are best taught within all modules rather than in a standalone module. Learning outcomes from the programmes were discussed. More explicit learning outcomes from modules could specifically address these deficits. There was agreement on the need to make Limerick a stronger eco space for art and design. Building connections across disciplines is necessary, as well as designated spaces for art and artists. The Panel explored the connections between art and design students. Alumni confirmed that opportunities for collaboration exist, though students don’t always take this up. Communication between different campuses is limited. The need for LSAD to provide more information on the locations and structure of the organisation beyond Clare Street was discussed. There is a deficit of signage in LSAD to link it with the bigger LIT identity and footprint. Opening up the city centre campus to the public may be an opportunity. Choosing specialisations in Year 1 was discussed. Alumni confirmed the process and that the Year 1 was a good experience. The assessment was challenging and standards were high. The criteria for assessment becomes clearer as students’ progress, but is not so clear in Year 1. Students don’t read module descriptors or learning outcomes. The Panel discussed what LSAD can do for companies and alumni? Students bring the latest ideas and technologies to the companies. Companies provide workshops to the students. LSAD is supportive of alumni and there is an informal network. Moodle is used in some locations and not by all students. The FE students coming to LSAD generally have a better level of preparation for higher education. Employers look for self-starters. 10.00AM MEETING OF PANEL OF ASSESSORS WITH STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES

David Carroll AMD

Elizabeth Cleary Print

Seana Conway SCM

Joan Crowley MASPACE

Cindy Fogarty Painting

Debbie Harrington Ceramics

Linda Maxwell DAP

Isabelle McCarthy Graphics

Richard Naughton GAD

Andrew O’Toole Photography

Laura Piggot CM

Siobhan / Aisling FTPC

Grainne Wilson Fashion

The Chairperson welcomed the students and outlined the programmatic review process. Following introductions students were asked about their initial induction into LIT and how they made choices. Induction in Clonmel was described as “fantastic”. The LSAD induction was a bit destabilising, with information overload without building the skills to address a brief. Year 1 is journey, not too tough, and gives the students a chance to make informed decisions about disciplines. Students don’t read the Student Handbook. It is good for the student to have a copy of the assessment forms. There is room for giving more direction to students in Year 1. Brainstorming workshops on the brief would be helpful to help students understand how to approach the brief.

of 25

The Panel asked about the amount of group, how it is coordinated and how it is assessed. Working as a group is best in Year 4 as people work towards the final year show. Students were sometimes unclear about the assessment criteria for group work. At the same time, the students felt the group work assessment was fair. Students gained a better understanding of group dynamics and self-assessed the group process. Use of an online system can help record who is doing the work within the group. Assessment within groups is mainly on an individual basis. Students commented positively on the assessment process by tutors. Group work is used throughout programmes and can be difficult in terms of group dynamics. Student’s views on assessment were requested. The students described formative and summative assessment processes that help them improve. Greater feedback on work was welcomed. There is the opportunity to visit tutors after summer assessments. The balancing of a creative experience and professional practice was discussed. The introduction of a mandatory module on Professional Practice was suggested and welcomed by the students. Library resources are adequate though the space is tight. Staff members are responsive to requests for new materials. Georges Quay is a bit more isolated, though there are online resources. Student services supports were viewed as insufficient in LSAD. Waiting periods for counselling were referred to. There was a perception that Moylish Campus has more services. The value of CCS was considered. Confidence to shape things and a sense of agency are developed through CCS. CCS is seen as passive, regurgitating information with little critique. Project based learning and problem based learning were discussed. A lot of the student experience is workshop based, with peer learning and time-based projects. Problem solving is at the centre of the learning process. Moodle is used to some extent by staff, but could be used more. Students would need training to use Moodle. Clonmel courses use Moodle much more. There is a lack of industry standard equipment and space is tight. There can be delays with the appointment of lecturers. The Chairperson noted that the session had been very helpful and informative. He thanked the participants. 10.45 AM TOUR OF FACILITIES (CLARE STREET)

The panel toured a number of the facilities on the Clare Street campus.

of 25

11.30 AM MEETING OF PROGRAMME REVIEW PANELS AND PROGRAMME STAFF –

(PARALLEL BREAKOUT SESSIONS) LSAD BOARDROOM

Ms. Maria Finucane Ms. Shelagh Hannon Mr. Joe Lane Ms. Marilyn Lennon Ms. Joanne O’ Dwyer

The external panel members present for the breakout session were Dr. David Ryan (Chair), Dr. Aoife MacNamara, Ms. Mary McCarthy, Mr. Gary Granville and Mr. Frank Rafter. Master of Arts in Art and Design Education (Level 9)

Modules Stage 1 GEL – Formation and consolidation of online community of practice VET Contemporary art and design critique REV Creative art and design practice MULL – Reflection and evaluation Stage 2 NET Collaboration and change agency : art and design in society BUZZ Art and design practice, research and teaching

COP Analysis of art and design curriculum and contexts Following introductions the Panel considered the proposed changes to the MA programme. The two year process was explained. The market among teachers, lecturers and artists was discussed. The Panel queried the online and blended learning delivery model, including video conferencing in real time on a Google Tools platform. Moodle proved too clunky, hence the more to the improved usability of Google Tools. Incoming students are provided with training before the programme starts, using screen tutorials. The technology induction process helps to build collaboration and the community of practice. Data protection issues were considered. Nothing private or identifying is posted beyond the shared blogs. Research ethics of working with vulnerable groups were discussed. The programme follows the LIT Policy on Research Ethics, reporting to the Ethics Committee and Academic Council. The programme helps students to re-engage with their artistic practice as a lead into how the student might innovate their own curriculum, teaching or practice. Students have varying motivation to develop as artists or as teachers. The cohort dynamic and mix helps shape each delivery. The concept of Artography crossover of

of 25

identities is explored within the programme in a balanced way. The artist, teacher, researcher identities are distinctive so that Artography can be problematic. Demand for the programme is falling, with viability an issue. Special Purpose Award are being considered. International marketing may have potential. There are also scholarships for Masters level programmes in Belgium and other European countries. The self-financing funding model applies to this programme and funding for marketing is an issue. The contact hours to credits per student needs to be presented in the document. Master of Arts/Master of Fine Art in Social Practice and the Creative Environment (Level 9) Modules Semester 9 Commentaries – Critical Grounding, Taking a Position Transactions, Roles and Research Practice – Analysis, Contextualise, Assimilate Social Practice : Major Project Documentation: Critical Reflection and Evaluation of Major Project This programme is available over one, two or three year full-time or part-time. The changing from an MA to an MFA designation was considered. The MA would normally be 90 credits with the MFA being more. There may also be need for a teaching element to add the extra credits for the MFA award at 120 credits as a supplemental award. The programme hopes to embed itself more in the city of Limerick over the next few years and also bring students from outside to build social capital. The programme recruitment focuses on creativity rather than fine arts graduates. The programme doesn’t limit the definition of social engagement, communication or student practice. There is a balance between maintaining the coherence and dynamism of the programme. The programme has grown out of the recession and faces sustainability issues. Visiting lecturers are available to feed, develop and promote the programme. The issues of interdisciplinary cohorts were considered. The staff presented this aspect of the cohort as bringing a richness to the table, around themes such as the collapse of social capital or cultural policy. Documentation and reflection are the assessment criteria, not the success or failure of a project or artefact. Process development is core of the student development and education. 11.30AM - OCTAGONAL ROOM BREAKOUT SESSION

Mr. Ken Coleman Mr. John Hannafin Mr. Andrew Crotty Ms. Joanne Hogan Mr. Eamon Dalton Mr. Michael Kiely Mr. Richard Gavin Mr. Mathew Maher Ms. Bernard Goldbach Mr. Richard McEnteggart Ms. Christina Guiry Ms. Caitriona Ui Chassaide

of 25

The external panel members present for the breakout session were Una Burke, Prof. Olwen Mosley, Paul McKevitt, Padraic Lynch. B.Sc (Honours) Creative Multimedia B.Sc (Honours) Digital Animation Production B.Sc (Honours) Game Art and Design. The Chairperson introduced himself and Panel members, outlined the schedule of events and the specific area of expertise of each Panel member. Panel questioned the workspace in relation to the size of the Clonmel Campus. Staff outlined that there is a shortage on Labs and General space in the Clonmel Campus and acknowledge the presence of a critical resource problem. The difficulty in locating a room for a class was discussed. Staff highlighted that there is a 95 % utilisation of Labs, therefore there is no lenience to reschedule a class. As the software is so specialised in the Labs, students have to wait around till outside of college hours to complete their work. Staff outline that this problem is brought up yearly and nothing is acted upon. Staff voice that on an ethical level, Clonmel are taking in the students, but don’t have the facilities to support. This is the first chaired meeting that has allowed the staff to express their opinions at a senior level. The campus is described as being oversaturated. There are 7 seats in the Library, group work is done in the canteen, and there is no quiet study or social space. The potential of renting facilities close by was alluded to by the Staff. Staff outline the formation of a Digital Arts Lab, application for European Funding and events that have taken place on Campus such as; Career Days, Industry Days, Workshop with Youth Work Ireland. The Campus is heavily involved in ICT and Clonmels Junction Festival. Staff outline that if they had funding they could grow this aspect of the Campus. Staff felt there should be consideration for decision making that Clonmel is a rural Campus and decisions, e.g that Clonmel is closed on a Saturday, should be made separate to LIT/LSAD. Additionally, there was no communication that Clonmel was going to close on a Saturday. Staff outline that Management visit the campus once a year. The preparation of students for working in the relevant Industry domain was discussed. Staff are striving for a balance for students to be entrepreneurial as well as have the skills to work in the industry. They hope to be teaching students for products that are yet to exist. They are also very mindful of ethical issues and the fast paced nature of this domain. Staff outline that there is a lot of Industry need for the programmes that are being run in Clonmel. The motivation of students was discussed. It was described as being positively target driven to encourage the students. The opportunity to future protect courses through their titles was discussed. There was an interest in Professional Practice for B.Sc (Honours) Game Art and Design. B.Sc (Honours) Creative Multimedia, on how Industry contacts were being obtained. Every January 25 companies take on students from Clonmel and many will be hired on finishing their Degree. The leveraging of Staff Contacts and International links was also referred to. The courses are in their infancy so the presence of Alumni is limited but staff are aware that Awards act as currency. 2.15PM - TOUR OF FACILITIES (GEORGES QUAY AND MERRIMAN HOUSE)

The panel toured a number of the facilities on the Georges Quay and Merriman House campuses.

of 25

3.30PM - CONCLUSION – MEETING WITH PRESIDENT AND HEADS OF FACULTY AND

HEADS OF DEPARTMENT

The Chairperson briefed the President, Professor Vincent Cunnane, the Head of School, Mr. Mike Fitzpatrick, the Heads of Department, Dr. Tracy Fahey and Mr. James Greenslade, on some of the conclusions of the panel. More detail, including a number of conditions, recommendations and observations, will be available in the final report. The panel noted the fruitful exchanges during the visit with students and employers. On behalf of the panel, the Chairperson thanked the Institute for the hospitality, administrative support and for the invitation to validate the programmes. The President thanked the panel for the thorough review of the programmes. The input is really important for the Institute and invaluable for quality assurance.

scoil ealaíne agus deartha school of art and design - lit.ie panel report programmatic... ·...

Documents