SUBJECT CENTRE FOR LANGUAGES, LINGUISTICS AND AREA STUDIES

Meeting of the Advisory Board
3 February 2005

Present

Name	Institution	Constituency/role	
Liz Ashurst (EJA)	Subject Centre 	Centre Manager	
Neil Bermel	University of Sheffield	Slavonic and Eastern European Languages	
David Bickerton (DB)		Chair of Subject Centre Specialist Group for Languages	
Anny Brooksbank Jones	University of Sheffield	Hispanic Languages	
Keith Brown (KB)		Chair of Subject Centre Specialist Group for Linguistics 	
Nick Byrne (NB)	LSE	Languages for non specialists	
John Canning (JC)	Subject Centre	Academic Coordinator for Area Studies	
Billy Clark	Middlesex University	Linguistics	
Anne Davidson Lund (ADL)	CILT	Assistant Director	
Alison Dickens (AD)	Subject Centre	Senior Academic Coordinator (Learning and Teaching)	
Chris Flood	University of Surrey	Area Studies	
Angela Gallagher Brett	Subject Centre	Academic Coordinator for Languages and Related Studies	
Cecilia Garrido	Open University 	UCML Secretary	
Michael Hughes	University of Kent	English for Academic Purposes	
Barry Jackson (BJ)	Middlesex University 	SEDA	
Michael Kelly (MHK)	Subject Centre	Director of the Subject Centre	
Peredur Lynch	University of Wales, Bangor	Celtic Studies	
David Newton	CILT	HE Development officer	
Jonathan Rayner	University of Sheffield	Area Studies not associated with languages	
Ian Scott	University of Manchester	Cultural and Literary studies not associated with languages	
Penny Sewell	Birkbeck College	French	
Richard Towell (RT)	University of Salford	Chair of Subject Centre Advisory Board	
Catherine Walter	Institute of Education	Applied Linguistics	
Jocelyn Wyburd (JW)	University of Manchester	Languages for Specialists	

1.	Apologies for absence
These were received from the following board members

Name	Institution	Constituency/role	
Bernadette Challinor	Leicestershire County Council	Association for Language Learning	
Dick Ellis	University of Birmingham	Chair of Specialist Group for Area Studies	
Derrik Ferney	Anglia Polytechnic University	Languages for Specialists	
Rhys Williams	University of Swansea	German	
Roger Woods	University of Nottingham	Chair of UCML	
Vicky Wright	Subject Centre	Senior Academic Coordinator (Strategy) 	

2.	Minutes of the last meeting and matters arising
These were approved.  

Yearbook
The Subject Centre team reported that this was going ahead.  However, it was agreed that it would be necessary to check that there was no substantial overlap with the content of the CILT Yearbook.  

3.	Overview of Subject Centre activity
EJA presented the written report and highlighted some of the activities, which the Subject Centre had carried out since the last meeting, and some of its plans for the coming months.  There was discussion of the following issues:

Support for External examiners:
MHK noted that many of institutions are doing training for External Examiners. He suggested that Subject Centre could organise networking event for our subject area.  It was agreed that it was becoming increasingly difficult to recruit external examiners and that there was a risk that the role could become excessively burdensome.  

DfES Research Project
MHK explained that this was the closest partnership that the Subject Centre had had with the DfES.  The report was informative with many useful recommendations.
It seemed that the Department were looking favourably at a series of projects to implement the recommendations of the report though nothing had been confirmed.  The Department had shown increased confidence in the Subject Centre as a result of working together on this project.  .

DB reported that Hilary Footitt, author of the report, had given a presentation at the Subject Centre Languages Specialist Group.  He wondered what steps the languages community should take to support the recommendations.  It was agreed that subject associations could lobby the DfES to encourage implementation of the recommendations.  RT also noted that departments could use the information to lobby in their institutions.  In this context, the Subject Centre team agreed to advertise the report when it was published and indicate how colleagues might obtain a copy.  

Partnerships in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
MHK reported that the Subject Centre now had a strong partnership with Scottish CILT.  It would soon be formally launching its partnership with CILT Cymru. The Welsh Assembly has been doing review of Languages in Higher Education, which should be published by early March, discussion of which would form part of the launch event.  

It was noted that the Subject Centre also had a good relationship with Queens and Ulster.  The administration for a Subject Centre ‘satellite’ in Northern Ireland would be hosted first by the Centre for Excellence at Ulster, then at NI CILT at Queens.  Colleagues in Northern Ireland were hoping to run a policy event in NI in May.
ADL noted that there were discussions taking place about the formulation of a languages strategy in Northern Ireland.  

RT concluded this agenda item by noting that the Subject Centre was engaging in an impressive range of activity.  

4.	Subject Centre related activities
Employability project
JC noted that the Subject Centre had been awarded £19K to carry out a project in partnership with the English Subject Centre and the History, Classics and Archaeology Subject Centre.  The project is looking at employability in the longer term in humanities and languages rather than first destinations.  It will involve in-depth interviews with graduates several years after they have left university to find out the impact of their university studies on their employment.  A series of case studies will be written which will be published on the Subject Centre website.  These should help to promote the subjects.  

It was agreed that this was an interesting project.  Board members were asked to send information to the Subject Centre about alumni who might be interesting to interview.  

Education for sustainable development
AD reported that HEFCE had committed some money for education in this area via the Academy.  The Research exercise was being carried out as to how issues of Sustainable Development could be taught.  Higher Education is seen as key player as it is educating future company managers.  Sustainably literate graduates are needed in future.  AD reported that the Subject Centre had been awarded a small sum of money to carry out a scoping exercise to ascertain what is being done in our subject areas to contribute to education for sustainable development.  A focus group would take place in April and there would be discussions as to whether a module could be developed.  Endangered languages and some area studies would be relevant in this context.  

Supporting Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
EJA reported that the Subject Centre would be working with the two successful CETLs bids (SOAS and the University of Ulster whose bid will be funded under a similar initiative in Northern Ireland).  The CETLs do not have a remit to carry out dissemination nationally so the Academy has played a key role in encouraging dissemination through subject centres.  Staff working for the CETLs have been amenable to working with Subject Centres.  

BJ suggested that the activities of the CETLs would be of interest to the Advisory Board and it was agreed that CETL representation on the Advisory Board would be helpful.  JW pointed out that other more generic CETLs, for example those working in the area of Problem Based Learning, would be of interest.  

5.	Academy Review of Subject Centres
MHK outlined the background to the review.  The Higher Education Academy is an amalgamation of the former ILT and the LTSN.  Its brief is to support learning and teaching in Higher Education and student related issues.  The Academy is assuming the role of taking forward initiatives in learning and teaching.  The funding councils have been under pressure from government to reduce the number of different initiatives being funded.  The solution has been to put them into the Academy, which means that the remit of the Academy is broadening and it is receiving, more funding from the funding councils.  There has been a focus on the Academy providing policy advice.

BJ, who was part of the review panel, commented that the Subject Centres have been seen as being a success and no significant change in their remit is being proposed.  It is hoped that more stability can be provided in their funding.  Subject Centres are being encouraged to work together.  The challenge for subject centres is to be able to assess their impact on student learning.  

RT welcomed the fact that the Academy were not proposing to be too prescriptive as to the activities of individual subject centres.  He welcomed collaboration with other subject centres if it was self-determined rather than imposed.  

Evaluation of impact
RT noted that establishing common success indicators for subject centres would be difficult.  It was hoped that the Academy would consult those who could provide solutions to this.  It was pointed out that the Academy would need to tell subject centres what they considered success indicators to be.  

Accreditation
It was noted that there were no strong recommendations in the review for subject centres to be heavily involved in accreditation.  However, it was pointed out that an individual could use attendance at Subject Centre events to support their application for accreditation but were perhaps unaware of this.  It was agreed that this information should be included in feedback forms for Subject Centre workshops.  

Support for departments
Concern was expressed that subject centres were being asked to put more energy into engaging with departments rather than individuals.  Departmental visits were considered to be very labour intensive – the Subject Centre’s Workshop to Go scheme was an attempt to address this.  

Membership of the Advisory Board
The Review contained a number of recommendations about membership of Subject Centre Advisory Boards and there was some discussion as to whether the Board had representation in each of the recommended constituencies.  There was at present no student representation.  MHK pointed out that the Academy was urging subject centres to build closer direct links with students.  It was suggested that a meeting of small group of students could be convened.  A report from that meeting could be sent to the Advisory Board. RT suggested that the Board should wait to find out what other Subject Centres were doing.  

MHK pointed out that there is a Subject Centre Advisory committee at the University of Southampton and that it might be helpful to table minutes of those meetings at the Advisory Board.  It was also suggested that it would be helpful to report on interactions with other Subject Centres.  

RT suggested that another mapping exercise for the current membership would be helpful.  

6.	CILT update
ADL gave a presentation on CILT, the National Centre for Languages, copies of which were included in the papers for the meeting.

In response to a question on priorities, ADL noted that CILT was engaged in a dialogue with civil servants and was also focussing on the primary language entitlement, the 14-19 curriculum and the regional agenda.  

7.	Policy issues in our subject areas
NB provided some information on the recent survey of language learning carried out by AULC.  Last year, forty institutions replied.  There were, according to the survey, a total of 53,000 students studying languages, 27,000 of whom were not on a modern languages degree programme.  This year there were the same number studying languages but 30,000 of them were not on a modern languages degree programme.  

It was noted that these figures confirm the ‘landscape’ described by Mike Kelly in the New Landscape for Languages report in 2002.  Creative ways for developing languages without being bound by curriculum structures need to be sought.  

HE and the National Languages Strategy
It was likely that the International dimensions of the National Languages Strategy would be developed, as Ministers would want to support initiatives that enhance market trends.  If there were funding to support the areas of languages that are currently in demand, that would be helpful.  It was also pointed out that Physics and Chemistry departments use languages as a promotional tool if the departments offer accredited language modules and the opportunity to study abroad.  It was agreed that if the National Languages Strategy is sustained, there are opportunities for colleagues in languages to interact closely with decision-makers.  

Pedagogic research and the RAE
RT outlined the problem that pedagogic research does not have a natural home in the RAE.  If it goes to the Education panel, it would be viewed as being not sufficiently generic.  If it goes to the subject panel, it is not necessarily viewed favourably.  It was agreed that pedagogic research probably will not be recognised in the next exercise but the Academy could play a key role in solving this issue for the future.  It was suggested that the Academy could write to the Chairs of Panels urging them to consider pedagogic research.  

At the same time, it was agreed that the community of pedagogic researchers in our subject areas needed to grow and be developed.  The recent workshop on pedagogic research had been very well received and the subject centre plan to run another such workshop in the summer.  JC pointed out that humanities subjects fared badly in the recent round of FDTL funding and reported that some research into possible reasons for this was being carried out.  MHK pointed out that there was a need to find a pedagogical language for humanities subjects.

It was suggested that MHK and RT should write a letter to HEFCE about this issue but that the Subject Centre should aim to pursue activity, which would grow its community.  

8.	Any other business and date of the next meeting 
No items were taken under AOB.  19 May was suggested as the date of the next meeting with a slightly earlier start.