SUBJECT CENTRE FOR LANGUAGES, LINGUISITCS AND AREA STUDIES

SOUTHAMPTON ADVISORY GROUP
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 30TH MAY, 2003 ROOM 2185 AVENUE CAMPUS

Present: Dr Clare Mar-Molinero (Chair ) CMM, Professor Michael Kelly MHK, Professor Ros Mitchell RFM, Ms Jackie Rafferty JR, Ms Elizabeth Ashurst EJA, Adam Warren AW, Paul Cooper PC, John Canning JC,  Mrs Vicky Wright VW, Amanda Dunn, (minutes sec)

1. 	Apologies for absence
Sheila Corrall, Alison Dickens, Kate McLuskie, Ann Collins

2. 	Minutes of last meeting and matters arising

See agenda item 5.

3. 	Report of Year’s activity to date

3.1	VW confirmed SML’s involvement in good practice in LWULTLs on the    Subject Centre project on Portuguese with Portsmouth. The School of Modern Languages is working with the Collaboration programme, which is made up of 10 mini projects. SML is involved in 2 projects at the moment: a) postgraduate study days and b) web-based materials for German and Spanish. 

3.2	The Language Technology Project has put out a call for bids to manage a research project for learning technologies. They have been in touch with the University of Sheffield to award them the project.

3.3	JC, who is coordinating the Area Studies project, reported that the Subject Centre is in partnership with 5 other Subject Centres.

3.4 	VW reported briefly on the recent White Paper event, which was well attended (60-70 people) mostly by heads of departments and Deans of Faculties. RFM stated that she had participated in a good event on linguistics and language skills last Friday, 23rd May, which was worthwhile and a good day. An event is being organised by AD and Dr D Jones, on ‘New Approaches to the teaching of literature in languages and related/ Area studies’.

3.5 	CMM asked about the arrangements for the 2004 conference. MHK said it would be in London, as political figures would not travel to Southampton. The venue at SOAS was suggested. It is hoped that one speaker will be the Minister from the Commonwealth Office. The National Director for Languages will be invited when known who it is. Half of the conference would focus on policy and the other half on curriculum issues. VW stated that the policy event was well received last week. CMM was grateful to hear that week beginning 7th/8th July was being mooted as a possible time for the conference as exam boards would then be in the distant past.

3.6 	EJA said that either she or VW would sit on the steering committee at CILT for the Languages Work project: the development of promotional materials for languages for school pupils

4 	Implications of the White Paper for the Subject Centre

4.1 	MHK began by talking about the Academy for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, which is gradually taking shape. The Subject Centres will be within the new Academy and there should be more concrete detail about this before the summer. There may be some restructuring of some of the 24 Subject Centres but as far as LLAS is concerned we are not involved in the discussions. JR thought that the 24 SCs may be reduced to 20 to take the paying of overheads into account, but MHK pointed out that there was supposed to be some additional funding and commitment to paying overheads, which would be a welcome asset to Southampton.

4.2 	There was much discussion about the proposed Centres of Excellence and how they relate to Subject Centres. MHK said that the current state of documentation suggests that C of Es will be more thematically oriented but may be within disciplines. There is a lot of unsettled business in the current draft but there is likely to be clear enough separation that Subject Centres will be seen as the dissemination and networking arm and C of Es will be intended to enhance quality of education in their institutions – i.e. they will be expected to disseminate good practice in their own institutions.

EJA said we were being kept well informed by the LTSN. HEFCE still prefer the model of collaboration between departments in one institution rather than between institutions. PC wondered why they are more disposed towards intra rather than inter collaboration. It was suggested this was to do with encouraging learning between departments and also with rewarding excellence. 

It was noted that Southampton would be eligible for 3 institutional bids and one collaborative bid. 

There followed much discussion about the strategic importance of having a Centre of Excellence. PC said that, as one of the Russell Group, we would not want to be seen as not having one. MHK suggested that departments hosting Subject Centres would probably be expected to bid to be a Centre of Excellence. However, all agreed that this made the SC role of supporting all potential bidders a difficult one.

4.3 	Much discussion followed about foundation degrees and their importance for modern languages. The Subject Centre could be under pressure to facilitate and promote foundation degrees - this is driven by the widening participation strategy. VW pointed out that when departments are faced with low recruitment any strategies would be considered. PC wondered if the advent of fees would affect programme choices. CMM suggested that the Subject Centre should lobby for a policy of no payment of fees during the year abroad as it was hard to justify such payments during this year and would put students off. MHK pointed out that fees are waived for Socrates students during this year and it is half for the rest of the time. PC suggested looking at other exit awards, such as the DipHE. CMM suggested that further discussion would be useful about the nature a foundation degree course could take in languages. It was agreed that a preparatory meeting should be arranged to see how other institutions are trying to solve the problem. A workshop could then be arranged with a range of institutions taking part. Action: EJA

5. 	Other issues

5.1	Professional standards for teaching: MHK asked if the Subject Centres should be taking a more pro-active role in staff development and supporting professionally accredited courses which come within the CLT remit. The Subject Centre has not been strongly involved in staff development hitherto. There followed a discussion about how best staff could get accredited qualifications. VW pointed out that many units of Masters courses contribute to staff development. PC talked about the CAP being a generic provision, which could be supported by modules related to language learning. This could then be marketed to institutions in the UK and studied through distance learning. JR referred to her Subject Centre website, which provides a good resource in learning and teaching.

5.2 	Strengthening the external examiners’ system: CMM pointed out that the School of Modern Languages at Southampton University does give some training to external examiners.  However, it was agreed that it might be helpful for the Subject Centre to consider providing this training.

6. 	Future Plans

6.1 	EJA stated that, owing to the uncertainties about the position of the Subject Centre in the restructured faculty, the proposed LLAS/SWAP Subject Centre event had not been timetabled. She also felt that it would be more appropriate to wait until there was more clarity about the Subject Centre’s role in the Academy. MHK pointed out that LLAS may have a broader educational remit for its surrounding area which could change the shape of what we want to propose. CMM emphasised that we ought to publicise the fact that the University is benefiting from the presence of two very important national centres. This is an ongoing agenda item.

6.2 	In institutional visits, JR noted that it was very resource-intensive to do these – SWAP were carrying out 22 in the next few months.

6.3 	CMM asked whether the Subject Centre could help people prepare for institutional audit. PC wondered whether someone within the SC could be trained as an auditor. People with TQA training would be good.

7. 	Any other business
CMM said that, in the light of restructuring, the membership and remit of the committee would need to be reviewed. Many roles have to be rethought especially that of the ex-officio Chair – this could be one of the heads of the successor groups, someone in Languages or Linguistics. With the new faculty structure there will be 3 new committees at faculty level and a big range of disciplines.

RFM asked about the language ladder in the National Languages Strategy and she suggested that Universities make sure that they are involved. MHK reported that there is a group being organised by the QCA to look at this in detail.

8.	Date of the next meeting
	To be confirmed.

<script src='//archive-bar.soton.ac.uk/archive-bar.js'></script>