Friday, August 22, 2008

Bruce's Proposal

Hi All
Below is Bruce's proposal for the way forward in the merger.


Graphic Design merger - August 20th 2008
A proposal for the way forward
This is a proposed framework and time line for the merging of the two Graphics programmes currently offered at the CPUT.
This proposed framework has come about through some inter departmental discussion and is an attempt to identify a possible way forward for the merger, while considering the logical steps that may be required to set this in motion.
My aim in making this proposal is to spark debate and to encourage all staff to engage with the process of generating ideas.
Key considerations:
1. minimize disruption to both programmes.
2. keep staff happy and stress free by having CLEAR planning for the years ahead that is based on point 1, and developing
realistically time tabled joint teaching events.

2009
In short, we dedicate 2009 to building a common educational culture, where we actively engage in jointly offering a number of key projects at all levels without jeopardizing the key considerations above.
This would mean very careful planning in November 2008 to facilitate this joint offering.
Both programmes would need to be use the same number of evaluation points and both time-tables would have to be designed to accommodate the key projects at the specific levels. This would literally mean opening up slots to allow for the joint projects to be offered. At the moment I am not suggesting we try to develop one time-table for both programmes in 2009.
Re-curriculation would be an ongoing process throughout the year – a time-table would need to be set up and worked to where task teams engage with designated research activity and workshops (see rough plan for 2008 at end).
As far as the Learner Guides are concerned, these joint projects would be written into the workscheme/syllabus for each subject.




Aim of joint project offerings:
ØØto allow staff on both campuses to plan and teach together.
ØØto encourage inter campus sharing of ideas.
ØØto break down issues of mistrust.
ØØto be actively trying out what we will be doing in the near future, which is teaching together!
ØØto expose students on both campuses to staff and teaching methods currently housed in CT and BV.
ØØto explore the curriculation debate from a shared experience rather than from a point of difference.
Key projects could be driven from the following:
ØØsubject needs (drawing, comm. design, history, prof prac etc)
ØØlevel needs
comm. design integration with photography or drawing
- history/prof prac integration into comm. design
SAPPI ITM is a core event that could be jointly taught and co-ordinated
portie prep/presentation methods
BTech seminars (i.e. proposal presentation stage)
ØØdigital training needs
ØØDesign Indaba
ØØlive competitions
Big Blue T-shirt
Bank note
Trident Golf Day
Antalis Corporate ID competition
Music Band Brand (cross level team work) etc
South
ØØØDesign Achievers Awards, Think Ahead





In addition, to further build a common educational culture:
ØØstaff can moderate across the two campuses
ØØØorganise teaching and Learning seminar

These key projects would entail the following kinds of activities:
The idea being that the briefs for these projects would be conceptualized and co-written by a CT and a BV lecturer.
They would work out the timing required for the project to run (Nov/Dec planning phase) plus co-ordinate any outside/industry input required.
These staff would then duplicate their briefing phase for the project in CT and BV.
They would then plan appropriate review and assessment methods for the project. At level two and three a combo of live (i.e. both lecturers present) review and assessment methods or emailing of pdf’s could be considered. At level one a live option may work best.
Getting students to participate in cross campus activity should also be planned. For example student talks, seminars or workshops could be planned for all or within certain subjects/levels.

2010
Physical merging of both departments on the CT campus on top floor of Design Building.
Aim of doing this earlier than 2013/14:
ØØto eradicate the time consuming issue of cross campus teaching.
ØØto eradicate issues of miscommunication (not being on the same page) and wheel spin due to planning lags.
ØØto explore the curriculation debate from a shared experience rather than from points of difference.
ØØto facilitate the proximity necessary for staff to genuinely forge the design education culture required for a world class offering of Communication DesignØ.
ØØto enable staff to work towards a time frame that is driven by us and not the institution (dates may change!).

In order to do this we need to:
ØØthink creatively with regard to teaching methods, modes of delivery and use of studio space.
ØØbe accommodating and acknowledge that this is an interim measure until the extra floors are built on to the Design Building in 201?
ØØhave one HOD that has clear line function (from within the department up to faculty & institution management) and a job description that details all operational responsibilities along with the mandatory HOD tasks.
Reality of Space constraints:
Students
We would have to reduce 2009 student intake (CT and BV campuses) to keep numbers of second years in 2010 manageable.
Approx student numbers for 2010:
First years (2010 intake) ±75
Second years (2009 intake) ±80
Third years (2008 intake) ±110 (60CT + 50BV students currently in first year)
Fourth years ±30
I have not factored in the Foundation programme as I am unsure of the student figures. The proposed Design cluster, of which Graphic Design would be part, should define our thinking around how access, under preparedness and diagnostics are applied to the concept of a Foundation Year within such a cluster.
Possible action:
ØØØMore desks into the available studios to accommodate extra students.
ØØØrun programme on more of a rotation system i.e. students are put into morning or afternoon groups and the studio space is shared in this way.
ØØØAdapt to a modular system of course offering.


Staff
Need to accommodate ±six permanent academic staff from BV plus one technician.
Possible action:
ØØØMove physical BTech studio space to Roeland Street. Students still consult with staff in Design bldng but would benefit from proximity with Masters students and research hub in Roeland St.
This would open up the current BTech studios for adaptation into staff office space or possible third year studio space.
ØØØbuild temp offices against first year studio (within current open plan space).
ØØØ convert store room opposite staff room for technician or admin staff.

2008
I have put a very rough plan together for what we would need to do in the last months of 2008 IF we were to go with the proposed model.
September
ØØØMid month - Joint staff meeting to establish which would be appropriate joint projects for 2009 (focusing on first year).
Target population analysis report back by Janet and Edwine.
Synthesis into curriculation plan done by task team leader.
ØØØCompletion of, or second phase of DACUM process.
Synthesis into curriculation plan done by task team leader.
ØØØTask team established to analyse current educational landscape that we are occupying. This entails researching existing programmes i.r.o, fee structures, course content, research standing, industry standing.
Report back end month. Synthesis into curriculation plan done by task team leader.

October
ØØØStart planning for joint projects for 2009
ØØØStart work on the Learner Guides for 2009 Ø move toward producing a template that
is student friendly
represents the work ethos and behaviour expected on the programmes
identifies the joint projects to be taught (when, assessment methods etc).
November & early December
ØØØAgreement on Learner Guides wording for 2009 Ø first to third year.
ØØØ Joint Graduate Show as part of Faculty Exhibition in CT.
ØØØ Complete planning for joint project offerings for 2009.
In conclusion
This model proposes a more organic merger process rather than the linear one where we first adapt/recurriculate first year and then progress through second and third year.
This model is an attempt to allow for good teaching practice and proximity (of staff and students form CT and BV) to form the basis for discussion and change.
I believe that the sooner we can remove the issues of separate locations, separate time-tables and assessment practices, and different content and methodologies, the easier it will be for us to:
ØØØ offer one course called Graphic Design (one day this should change to Communication Design) at the CPUT.
ØØØ start to competitively position this course in the minds of our target population and our industry.
ØØ eradicate issues of miscommunication and wheel spin due to planning lags.
ØØ explore the curriculation debate from a shared experience rather than from points of difference.
ØØ facilitate the proximity necessary for us to genuinely forge a design education culture together.
ØØ start to budget for the long term needs of the programme i.e. computer upgrades, photography unit upgrading, staff recruitment, space requirements, and the list goes on.

Possible negatives for this proposal:
ØØØ 2010 - staff disagreements could adversely affect the programme offering Ø strong leadership required to avoid this.
ØØØ 2009/10 - reduced income due to reduced intake - reduced subsidy can be accommodated within FID as a whole, some depts. must increase intakes where possible.
ØØØ 2010 Ø very careful planning and co-ordination required to avoid overcrowding and frustration due to double bookings.
ØØØ 2010 - unresolved baggage (emotional etc) Ø would need to have resolved as much of this as possible during the sharing experience of 2009.
ØØNOTE: I am using the term Communication Design rather than Graphic Design as it is more descriptive of the field we teach in.

Bruce Snaddon
Course Leader - Cape Town Graphic Design department

4 comments:

Amanda said...

I think this proposal should be discussed in a more formal situation with all staff involved. Not all staff are engaging with the blog and I think it is a better idea to discuss this proposal together and in person...

Johannes Cronje said...

Thanks for that, Amanda
The problem is that not all staff attend meetings either.
How do we get MAXIMUM participation?

Bruce said...

I have to say that I believe the purpose of a blog is for ANYONE to put their ideas 'out there'. We will create a formal situation for discussion but these formal situations have been few and far between. The idea is that staff should feel free to think on their own and have a space where they are encouraged to contribute imaginatively to the debate.

Here are two more variations on the proposal:

Variation 1.

A variation that accommodates a longer integration phase could be:

2008 – planning and preparation as outlined above.

2009 – similar to the proposed joint project offerings and re-curriculation exercise mentioned already. Student intake for first year would have to be decided on as they will be in CT in 2011.

2010 –One first year intake for CT campus ±80 students.

-Second years in CT and BV with co-ordinated joint teaching and course harmonization activities.

-Third years in CT and BV with co-ordinated joint teaching and course harmonization activities.

This model could possibly allow for a more student
friendly experience.

The single first year intake on the one campus would mean that students experience from the start a more consolidated and integrated course that would then be continued through to their third/fourth year. This time-frame would allow for us to plan for the needs of the course a year in advance while remaining flexible enough to accommodate unforeseen issues.
We would then have 2009 to plan for this single intake with regard to re-curriculation (HEQC), and to reach consensus between CT and BV as to what is best practice.
This would also mean that only first year BV staff would need to make the move to CT in 2010.
It would also give CPUT time to indicate to the first year intake that they would be on CT campus.

The second year offering would still be on separate locations thus alleviating the space problems in CT. By 2010 the programmes would be identical due to the harmonization and development of a common design education approach that would have happened in 2009.
Students then would know they are heading for CT in 2011.

Ditto for the third year offering, also offered on both campuses but identical.
Students then would know they are heading for CT in 2011.

The fourth years could be housed in Roeland Street.

2011 -Physical merging of both departments on the CT campus on top floor of Design Building.

-One first year intake for CT campus ±80 students.
-Second years in CT
-Third years in CT
-Fourth years in CT



Variation 2.

This variation is based on a single offering of first year on the CT campus.

2008 – Planning and preparation phase as mentioned in first proposal plus a more focused look at how both departments see first year syllabus working.

2009 – One first year intake for CT campus ±80 students.
How many ecp students go into regular first year? 8 from foundation in CT. How many porties received to date?

Second years in CT and BV with co-ordinated joint teaching and course harmonization activities - similar to the proposed joint project offerings and re-curriculation exercise mentioned already.

Third years in CT and BV with co-ordinated joint teaching and course harmonization activities.

2010 – One programme offered on CT campus.
First year intake would be adjusted for facilities limitations.
Second year would be ±80 strong.
Third year would be large ±110 students.

Coleen Jaftha said...

This proposal is quite solid and takes into account all the critical aspects of the merger. However, merger-debates are sensitive as it could cause uncertainty about opportunities for advancement,resulting in tense working relationships and increased resignations. The challenge is to contain the fears of pesonnel, yet inspire them so that they are motivated to participate and make it work.