1 of 13

The Glasgow School of Art

Periodic Review Report: School of Fine Art Review Panel Professor Linda Drew Deputy Director & Director of Academic Development (Convenor)

Professor John Butler Birmingham City University (External Specialist)

Ms Sinead Dunn SRC President

Dr Eunice Ma Head of Academic Programmes, Digital Design Studio

Mr Patrick Macklin Programme Leader, School of Design

Professor Elizabeth Moignard University of Glasgow Senate Representative

Professor Nicholas Pearce University of Glasgow Senate Representative

Ms Sally Stewart Programme Leader, Mackintosh School of Architecture (Head of School Alternate)

Dr Craig Williamson Head of Academic and Student Services

Mr Ewan Muir Academic Services (Secretary) [Attending]

The Review was held on Thursday 16 February 2012 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Information

1.1.1 Fine Art provision has existed since the inception of the Glasgow School of Art (GSA) in 1845

and has been perceived as central to its identity and purpose ever since. As one of three schools and two academic departments within GSA, it is able to influence the overall direction of the GSA and maintain a direct connection to its primary operational policies and activities.

1.1.2 The work of the School of Fine Art is concentrated on the Garnethill site and at the time of the Review had benefitted from some rationalisation of accommodation enabling the MFA provision to be located, since the beginning of session 2011/12, in a single building. As the programmes at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels require both studio and workshop provision the amount and disposition of space is one of the most vital elements in the overall consideration of resources. For the fine artist the working space is not just a facility, it is a material. The studio is also a forming space where materials meet ideas and the various sources and influences, historical, critical, environmental and personal are brought to bear on visual form. The studio serves as a constant record of individual progress available to other students and staff.

1.1.3 The School of Fine Art is organised through three academic departments and a small central agency of Head of School, School management and administration, that provides both support and direction. Each Department has a Head who is a member of the School of Fine Art Senior Management Team, as well as providing academic leadership to the staff and students of the department. For the undergraduate programme and the postgraduate

2 of 13

programmes the School of Fine Art has Programme Leaders who enjoy an equal voice with the Heads of Department on the Senior Management Team. Heads of Department and Programme Leaders are also frequently involved in GSA-wide initiatives thereby ensuring a flow of information between Department, the School of Fine Art and Glasgow School of Art.

1.1.4 The departmental structure of the School of Fine Art, whilst rooted in the history of the GSA, makes operational sense in that academic and resource management is effectively delegated. It also represents an academic model that is more about attraction than containment. The School of Fine Art considers departments as containers with overlapping interests. Within the School of Fine Art departments are built around disciplines or combinations of sympathetic disciplines. As such they are regarded as sources of attraction – magnets – for students, staff and external audiences.

1.1.5 The organisational model is particularly relevant at undergraduate level as students enter with individual desires that have yet to be tested through time. At postgraduate level the demands on the departmental structure shift as graduate artists declare either their relationships with the single discipline or the artistic territory that is no less specialist but multi-disciplinary. An MLitt Fine Art Practice programme, with specialist pathways in Painting, Printmaking, Fine Art Photography, and Sculpture and Environmental Art was validated in 2010/11. The addition of the MLitt was to open the way for further additions to sit alongside the MFA multi-disciplinary programme and together articulate with undergraduate provision.

1.1.6 The current session (2011/12) is the first in which GSA has operated a Periodic Review model

grouping cognate provision. Prior to this, GSA operated a revalidation model which focused on individual degree programmes. School of Fine Art provision was revalidated in 2006/7 through separate revalidations of the BA (Hons) Fine Art and the Master of Fine Art (MFA).

1.1.7 The Self Evaluation Report preparation was led by the Head of School in conjunction with the Programme Leaders and in consultation with the Heads of Department. Staff and students were involved in an inclusive process.

1.1.8 The Review Panel found the Self Evaluation Report to be exemplary in its honest and

reflective approach, and considered that it provided a comprehensive and compelling account of the activities of the School of Fine Art, detailing many examples of innovation, situated good practice, and partnership. The Review Panel commends the School of Fine Art regarding its engagement with the Periodic Review process. (Commendation 1)

1.1.9 During the one day visit, the Review Panel met with:

Professor Roger Wilson Head of School of Fine Art Mr John Calcutt Postgraduate Programme Leader (MFA and MLitt) Mr Ken Mitchell Undergraduate Programme Leader (BA)

Mr Jim Birrell Head of Department, Painting and Printmaking Professor Thomas Joshua Cooper Head of Department, Fine Art Photography Mr Paul Cosgrove Head of Department, Sculpture and Environmental Art Mr Justin Carter Sculpture and Environmental Art Ms Marianne Greated Paint and Printmaking Mr Stuart MacKenzie Paint and Printmaking Ms Lesley Punton Fine Art Photography

3 of 13

Mr John Quinn Academic Support Manager

Dr Ken Neil Head of the Forum for Critical Inquiry

Ms Allison Gibbs MFA student Ms Alice Jacobs Sculpture and Environmental Art student (BA, Year 4) Ms Diana Jorgensen Fine Art Photography student (BA, Year 4) Ms Sukaina Kubba MLitt student Ms Erik Osberg MFA student Mr Calum Sutherland Painting and Printmaking student (BA, Year 3)

1.1.10 In addition to meeting with staff and students, the Review Panel undertook a tour of the

studios in order to gain a greater understanding of the student experience, accommodation and resources.

1.1.11 The Review Panel considered the following provision offered by the School of Fine Art:

Undergraduate

BA (Hons) Fine Art A four year programme with pathways in Painting and Printmaking, Sculpture and Environmental Art, and Fine Art Photography

Postgraduate

MLitt Fine Art Practice A one year programme with pathways in Painting, Printmaking, Fine Art Photography, and Sculpture and Environmental Art

MFA Master of Fine Art A two year programme

1.1.12 Student numbers for session 2011/12 are as follows:

Programme (Stage) FTE

BA Fine Art (Stage 1) 79

BA Fine Art (Stage 2) 138

BA Fine Art (Stage 3) 168

BA Fine Art (Honours) 130

Undergraduate Total 515

MLitt Fine Art Practice 20

MFA Master of Fine Art 55

Postgraduate Total 75

2. Overall Aims of the School’s Provision 2.1 The Self Evaluation Report clearly set out the overall aims of School of Fine Art provision.

The Review Panel was satisfied that the aims were appropriate. 2.2 The Review Panel noted that the School of Fine Art had additionally undertaken an internal

review process to consider past, present, and proposed future practice. This enabled a consideration of the shape and processes within the School. The conclusion drawn by the School of Fine Art was that the three undergraduate disciplines should remain separate.

4 of 13

2.3 The Review Panel agreed with the School of Fine Art view that the development, and introduction in 2011/12, of the MLitt Fine Art Practice was important milestone given that it was the first new programme for a decade.

3. Evaluation of the Quality of the Provision Under Review 3.1 Programme Aims and Intended Learning Outcomes 3.1.1 The Review Panel considered that the programme aims and the Intended Learning

Outcomes were relevant, robust, clearly articulated, and aligned with School of Fine Art course provision. The Review Panel was of the view that in revising its Programme Specifications as part of a GSA-wide development, the School of Fine had fully engaged with this process and produced supporting documentation of a high standard.

3.1.2 The Review Panel recognised that there was a difference regarding the language used in the

studio and that of external bodies such as the QAA and noted that the School of Fine Art had attempted, successfully, to create dialogue and discourse with students so that they would fully understand the intended learning outcomes.

3.1.3 The Review Panel noted the intention to revisit, as part of the 2012/13 Annual Programme

Monitoring process, the MLitt Programme Specification following the first full year of the operation of the programme. This was recognised as good practice and emphasised the School of Fine Art’s considered approach to programme aims and intended learning outcomes.

3.2 Assessment, Feedback and Achievement 3.2.1 The Self Evaluation Report addressed assessment, feedback and achievement in a clear,

detailed, and reflective manner. The categories and criteria for assessment were well presented and clearly defined.

3.2.2 The Review Panel noted several points following a detailed discussion and exploration of the

School of Fine Art’s approach.

3.2.3 Firstly, that External Examiners endorsed the School of Fine Art endeavours to use three assessment points (interim, tutorial, final) to enable students to routinely engage their own work with the Intended Learning Outcomes. The Review Panel was pleased to note the School of Fine Art’s on-going considered approach to formative and summative assessment and student support for this. Of particular value was the clear description of the conduct of assessment, its discursive nature, and the student-centred nature of the approach.

3.2.4 With regard to the above, the Review Panel commends the School of Fine Art on a clearly

articulated approach to formative and summative assessment. (Commendation 2) 3.2.5 Secondly, students highlighted that the interim assessment was a helpful format, especially

for final year undergraduates, for receiving feedback on work. The Review Panel recognised this good practice and recommends that the School of Fine Art explore how this could be consistently applied across its departments, noting that students commented on the timing of feedback. (Recommendation 1)

5 of 13

3.2.6 Thirdly, postgraduate students confirmed that feedback was engrained into the assessment process and that the diet of assessment was rich. Regarding this point, the Review Panel noted the School of Fine Art intention to revisit the newly introduced MLitt Fine Art Practice to ensure that it offered parity of student experience.

3.2.7 Finally, the Review Panel noted that students considered the self evaluation process to be positive and leading to critical awareness.

3.3 Feedback from Students 3.3.1 The Review Panel was pleased to note that students felt that they were listened to and that

their input was valued. Key methods used were Staff Student Consultative Committees and tutorials. Additionally, the recently introduced meeting between the Head of the School of Fine Art and student representatives enabled a discussion of ideas about art which arose out of the student experience. Master of Fine Art students highlighted their feeling that the programme was constantly evolving owing to their feedback.

3.3.2 Local matters, which were perhaps easier to address, were usually resolved relatively quickly, whereas problems at an institutional level, such as estate difficulties and studio space, were not addressed as swiftly or perhaps were not resolvable. The Director’s Forum was highlighted as a helpful development but students felt that this should not become the sole solution to addressing such matters.

3.4 Curriculum Design, Development and Content

3.4.1 The Self Evaluation Report provided a clear and helpful insight into curriculum design,

development and content. The development and introduction of the MLitt Fine Art Practice was an excellent example of the School of Fine Art process in action. This programme development was lead by the Undergraduate Programme Leader and Heads of Departments in consultation with the Postgraduate Programme Leader and the GSA Postgraduate Co-ordinator.

3.4.2 Following a review of the Self Evaluation of the Report and member discussion, the Review Panel considered that it would be productive to explore four themes in detail: the relationship with the Forum for Critical Inquiry; the relationship between undergraduate and postgraduate study; graduate destinations; and the influence of research on learning and teaching.

The Relationship with the Forum for Critical Inquiry

3.4.3 The Self Evaluation Report highlighted that a critical issue for the School of Fine Art was the relationship with the Forum for Critical Inquiry. The BA programme had hitherto been characterised as delivered in two parts; studio and theory. This description was considered by the School of Fine Art to be inaccurate and as reflecting a thoroughly outdated relationship (viz. 1961 Coldstream Report).

3.4.4 Over the past two years progress had been made in integrating the teaching of the Forum with the rest of the curriculum. In particular the final examination process had been revised to achieve a more holistic appraisal of the student. A key aspect of this was the inclusion of designated School of Fine Art and Forum for Critical Inquiry staff as part of the cross subject moderation process. The agreed next step in the process of integration is to establish full participation of the Forum in the overall planning of the curriculum and year-level

6 of 13

coordination, with the School of Fine Art retaining responsibility for the BA programme and establishing the terms for the whole of its planning and delivery.

3.4.5 During the discussion with the Review Panel, the Head of the School of Fine Art explained that he only had responsibility for 80% of the BA the curriculum and had a preference, perhaps, for the model in the Mackintosh School of Architecture, with that School delivering its own theoretical and critical syllabus. The Head of the School of Fine Art also confirmed that, following Annual Programme Monitoring discussions, the Forum had been more progressive, particularly as they have now been included in final assessment. However, the issues regarding curriculum design remained affected by the 80/20 structure that was in place.

3.4.6 Notwithstanding the evident structural issues, the Review Panel noted that School of Fine Art staff considered the relationship with the Forum to have improved greatly recently, partly owed to developments such joint work on the moderation process.

3.4.7 The Head of the Forum for Critical Inquiry stated that Forum was in a position of readiness to work with the School of Fine Art on further developments, there being awareness within the Forum that there were issues to refine in the relationship. The Head of the Forum highlighted that the undergraduate structural relationship with the School of Fine Art was the same as with the School of Design and that the Forum had experience in covering a range of learning approaches. The Head of the Forum also highlighted the positive partnership working that had taken place in recent developments.

3.4.8 In the light of the above discussions, the Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art hold discussions with the Forum for Critical Inquiry regarding joint curriculum development. Subsequently recommendations should be made and implemented for the beginning of session 2013/14. (Recommendation 2)

The Relationship between Undergraduate and Postgraduate Study

3.4.9 The Review Panel also explored the relationship between undergraduate and postgraduate study. A key theme of inquiry was that of the porosity between both cohorts and how this manifests itself in the School of Fine Art community.

3.4.10 It was evident that the overlap in studio usage and workshops fostered a feeling of community and the Friday Event – a series of lectures by leading artists and academics –was recognised by students as a valuable opportunity to engage with other students. The Review Panel noted with interest that part of the rationale for developing the MLitt Fine Art Practice was to further strengthen the relationship between postgraduate and undergraduate studies and that this had resulted in three interlocking communities. The Review Panel further noted that the MFA students now presented their work to undergraduate students in a formal attempt to link the communities.

3.4.11 The Review Panel noted the student view that opportunities for Masters students to teach on undergraduate programmes were not widely afforded. It was considered that this would be a positive development particularly given that some undergraduate students saw the relationship with postgraduates as somewhere between fellow student and tutor, a further indication of the healthy undergraduate and postgraduate porosity. The Review Panel was pleased to note that the School of Fine Art was supportive of Glasgow School of Art

7 of 13

developments regarding Graduate Teaching Assistants. The Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art explore the use of Graduate Teaching Assistants. (Recommendation 3)

Graduate Destinations

3.4.12 The Review Panel explored whether students and staff considered that the programmes, and being part of the School of Fine Art community, prepared students for post-study opportunities. The Review Panel was pleased to note that the School of Fine Art had excellent links with the wider Glasgow art community, such as the Glasgow Sculpture Studios, and that many Glasgow art institutions had been founded or operated by School of Fine Art graduates. The same graduates were regularly invited to GSA to offer insights into life after graduation. Further, for example in the MFA, artists were frequently invited to engage with students in the studio environment.

3.4.13 The Review Panel was also pleased to note that professionalism of practice and work-related

learning were regarding by staff as key aspects of programmes. The focus on building confidence, embedding skills and creating contacts beyond the Glasgow environment was evident.

3.4.14 Recognising the considerable opportunities available to students and the positive student

feedback regarding these, the Review Panel commends the School of Fine Art Commendation on its collaborative approach to working with the Glasgow art community. (Commendation 3).

3.4.15 With a view to further developing the excellent work on embedding professional practice, the Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art undertakes a focussed consideration of how the HESA DHLE information could be utilised. (Recommendation 4)

The Influence on Research on Learning and Teaching

3.4.16 The Review Panel explored the linkage between research and the curriculum. Postgraduates were clearly aware of staff research, with staff often using this to inform tutorials. This in turn assisted students in developing their own research methods. It was evident to the Review Panel that staff sought to incorporate their research and scholarship strengths into their teaching methods.

3.4.17 The Review Panel commends the School of Fine Art on the high percentage of research-active staff and the positive impact that this has on learning and teaching. (Commendation 4)

3.5 Student Recruitment

3.5.1 The Review Panel noted that all programmes attracted a high number of well qualified. It

was evident that the School of Fine Art was a destination of choice. The ratio of applications to place are: BA (Hons) 13:1; MLitt 3:1; MFA 6:1. Of particular note was the successful recruitment to the MLitt in its first year of operation, particularly given that new postgraduate programmes often need a period of time to attain financially viable recruitment levels. Applicants to the in-demand MFA were also considered for MLitt and this was a contributing factor in attaining healthy recruitment.

3.5.2 As part of its consideration of student recruitment the Review Panel also explored the possible impact on applications resulting from the Rest of UK (RUK) fee changes. The Review

8 of 13

Panel was pleased to note that the School of Fine Art had good relationships with foundation course providers in England and that those courses met with GSA entry criteria. Further, the Review Panel was reassured to note that the School of Fine Art would monitor offer/acceptance ratios to ensure that future recruitment practice and admissions processes were shaped accordingly.

3.6 Student Progression, Retention and Support 3.6.1 The Review Panel was pleased to note that the student retention within the School of Fine

Art was very strong in all programmes, and in line with GSA’s sector leading performance in this crucial area.

3.7 The Quality of Learning Opportunities 3.7.1 The grouping of undergraduate and postgraduate students, drawn from each of the School

of Fine Art’s programme cohorts, clearly and enthusiastically expressed satisfaction with the quality of their learning opportunities.

3.7.2 The Review Panel noted student comments that the National Student Survey was offered at a difficult time of year and recognised that art and design in general had not performed well across the higher education sector. Notwithstanding this, the Review Panel was pleased to note that the School of Fine Art, in conjunction with the institutional endeavours, was addressing outstanding issues in a considered rather than reactive manner – for example through Staff Student Consultative Committees and Annual Programme Monitoring – and remained focused on identifying and sharing good practice in this area.

3.8 Resources for Learning and Teaching 3.8.1 The Review Panel considered that the School of Fine Art managed learning and teaching

resources effectively. It was noted that further work would be undertaken regarding SSRs to enable a finer management of resource amongst programmes and levels, and that this would follow after a necessary period of consolidation. The new Programme Specifications would be used as a platform for this work. The Review Panel found the insight offered into resource challenges helpful and was reassured that the School of Fine Art was well placed to address these matters. The Review Panel was pleased to note the community approach in the staffing cohort and in particular the lack of demarcation of technical staff. This latter point was clearly evident during the Review Panel’s tour of the studios and workshops.

3.8.2 The Review Panel explored staff development and career progression as key themes

regarding resources for learning and teaching. It was noted that staff felt supported by the School of Fine Art when they wished to pursue opportunities but it was also evident that there was not a systematic approach to staff development at GSA. The Review Panel was of the view that this matter was one that could be considered by GSA as well as the School of Fine Art.

3.8.3 The Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art fully informs and participates in any forthcoming institutional review of GSA staff development policy and processes focused on enhancing the student learning experience. (Recommendation 5)

9 of 13

3.8.4 The Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art fully informs and participates in any forthcoming institutional review of GSA career enhancement and progression structures. (Recommendation 6)

3.8.5 The Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art should consider how to make greater use of the GSA Virtual Learning Environment and that examples of best practice should be garnered to foster such developments. (Recommendation 7)

4 Assuring the Standards of Awards and Quality of Provision 4.1 The Review Panel was pleased to note that External Examiners reports were almost entirely

positive, with examples of good practice often cited. The following are illustrative:

Eric Bainbridge BA (Hons) Fine Art (Sculpture and Environmental Art pathway)

“The subjects examined are considered by GSA in the broadest definition. Students

have the choice to formulate their own relation to the subjects and are supported by an

excellent staff with wide reaching expertise. Meetings (over both days) between the

internal and external examiners were enjoyable and stimulating, the internal team

demonstrated their keen involvement with the programmes and their outcomes and

also to be objective and open minded. I observed in the teaching staff a generous and

sympathetic understanding of student needs, problems and difficulties they may have

encountered on the programmes.”

Vanessa Jackson BA (Hons) Fine Art (Painting and Printmaking pathway)

“The standard of this year’s Painting and Printmaking degree was yet again of a very

high standard, as is reflected in the classifications of the degree awards. Not only does

the standard of work compare well with other institutions that I have knowledge of but

is consistently good which reflects the demanding high standards of this course,

unhindered by modular or unitised structures. It is evident that the students are well

supported in teaching and all aspects of professional practice and research.”

David Hazel BA (Hons) Fine Art (Fine Art Photography pathway)

“The whole examining process was very well organised by the school, and the

information regarding internal course marking and cross-course moderation was given

in full and precise detail. How moderation was achieved was clearly indicated and fair in

its application. The student’s work was very well presented for examination and the

courses occupied the numerous gallery spaces in an organic rather than separate

manner, which made it easier to assess parity of marking and quality of work in the

different disciplines.”

Craig Richardson Master of Fine Art

“The time allocated to the assessment process, the organisation of the visits, and the

presentation of information at the Exam Boards enabled continuous oversight and

scrutiny. Once again I draw the University’s attention to the keen management of the

process, from the final internal assessment to Degree award taking about one week.”

10 of 13

4.2 The honest assessment of the relationship with the Forum for Critical Inquiry and the willingness of both the School of Fine Art and the Forum to work on developments such as changes to the moderation process were reassuring in this context.

5 Assuring and Enhancing the Quality of the Student Learning Experience. 5.1 The Review Panel considered that the School of Fine Art had made a concerted effort to

positively engage with developments regarding institutional quality assurance procedures, as evidenced in the revised Programme Specifications, and noted in particular the reflective approach adopted in the Self Evaluation Report. The Review Panel was confident that this reflective approach would be evident in future Annual Programme Monitoring reports as the School of Fine Art, and all areas within GSA, became more familiar with the revised process.

5.2 The Review Panel also noted that the intention of the School of Fine Art to utilise the Annual Programme Monitoring process when reviewing key developments, such as the introduction of the MLitt Fine Art Practice.

6 Engagement with Students in Developing Teaching and Learning and Assessment Practice,

including Preparation for the Periodic Review Process. 6.1 It was clearly evident to the Review Panel in reading the Self Evaluation Report, meeting

staff and students, and in touring facilities, that the School of Fine Art holds students at the heart of its provision and that there is frequent, healthy engagement with students in this regard. In addition to the use of effective formal processes, the Review Panel recognised that the School of Fine Art purposefully sought to form a sense of community with staff and students and that this in turn enabled student engagement.

7 Identification of Good Practice and Dissemination Across GSA, as Appropriate 7.1 The Review Panel considered that the commendations set out in section 8 below represent

good practice and invites Academic Council to consider how these School of Fine Art successes can be best disseminated for awareness and action cross-GSA.

8 Summary of Perceived Strengths and Areas for Improvement in Learning and Teaching

Commendations The Review Panel commends the School on the following, which are listed in order of appearance in this Report: Commendation 1

The Review Panel found the Self Evaluation Report to be exemplary in its honest and reflective approach, and considered that it provided a comprehensive and compelling account of the activities of the School of Fine Art, detailing many examples of innovation, good practice and partnership. The Review Panel commends the School of Fine Art regarding its engagement with the Periodic Review process.

11 of 13

Commendation 2

The Review Panel commends the School of Fine Art on a clearly articulated approach to formative and summative assessment. Commendation 3

Recognising the considerable opportunities available to students and the positive student feedback regarding these, the Review Panel commends the School of Fine Art on its approach to linking with the Glasgow art community.

Commendation 4

The Review Panel commends the School of Fine Art on the high percentage of research-active staff and positive impact that this has on learning and teaching.

Recommendations The Review Panel has made the undernoted recommendations, which are listed in order of appearance in this Report. It is noted that Schools shall, normally within one month, provide a brief report explaining how any recommendations have been, or will be, met. However, the Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art holds a single item extraordinary Board of Studies in order to submit a report to the respective convenors of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee and Academic Council by 26 April for consideration at the 9 May Academic Council. The report should include an action plan and timeline for addressing the recommendations set out in the Periodic Review Report. Progress will be reviewed as part of the action list discussions at subsequent meetings of the Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee and Academic Council A formal report on the progress made in addressing the recommendations of the Review will be submitted to Academic Council (via Undergraduate and Postgraduate Committee) approximately one year from the date that the Panel’s Report was received by that Committee. The School should also report on the steps it has taken to feedback to students on the outcomes of the review and on the actions taken. The Convenor of the Review Panel will review the progress reports to ensure that the recommendations have been adequately addressed and reported, including evidence of dissemination of recommendations to students. Academic Council may request further follow-up reports in certain circumstances, for example, where progress has been limited or delayed. Academic Council will be responsible for maintaining an overview of the Periodic Reviews. In addition to reporting to Academic Council, Schools should comment in the next set of Annual Programme Monitoring reports on the impact of the Periodic Review on provision. Progress will be reported to the University of Glasgow via a copy of the relevant extract of the Academic Council minute. Recommendation 1

Students highlighted that the interim assessment was a helpful format, especially for final year undergraduates, for receiving feedback on work. The Review Panel recognised this good practice and recommends that the School of Fine Art explore how interim assessment practices could be consistently applied across its departments, noting that students commented on the timing of feedback.

12 of 13

Recommendation 2

The Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art hold discussions with the Forum for Critical Inquiry regarding joint curriculum development. Subsequently recommendations should be made and implemented for the beginning of session 2013/14. Recommendation 3

The Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art explore the use of Graduate Teaching Assistants. Recommendation 4

With a view to further developing the excellent work on embedding professional practice, the Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art undertakes a focussed consideration of how the HESA DHLE information could be utilised. Recommendation 5

The Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art fully informs and participates in any forthcoming institutional review of GSA staff development policy and processes focused on enhancing the student learning experience.

Recommendation 6

The Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art fully informs and participates in any forthcoming institutional review of GSA career enhancement and progression structures. Recommendation 7

The Review Panel recommends that the School of Fine Art should consider how to make greater use of the GSA Virtual Learning Environment and that examples of best practice should be offered to foster such developments.

9. Revalidation of Programme Provision 9.1 As an integral part of the Periodic Review process the Review Panel considered the

revalidation of individual programmes. The Self Evaluation Report explicitly and frequently reference individual programme provision. Examples were offered throughout. In conducting the Review, the Review Panel explicitly explored individual programme provision and the student experience therein. All discussions within the Review Panel, and with staff and students involved in the Periodic Review process, retained a focus on programme provision.

9.2 The Review Panel invites Academic Council to recommend to the University of Glasgow that

all School of Fine Art degree programmes should be revalidated for a period of six years, these being:

BA (Hons) Fine Art

MLitt Fine Art Practice

MFA Master of Arts The Review Panel applied no conditions to the revalidations but does apply the recommendations set out in section 8 above to each of the programmes. Progress with

13 of 13

these recommendations should be addressed through the Annual Programme Monitoring process.

CW/EM 12 March 2012