June 2015 Programme and Subject Information Reference Group

Date

Meeting 1:

Attendees

Apologies

  • Martin Boswell
  • Adrienne McGovern-Wilson (late arrival)

Final agenda

  1. WIPII high level update and delivery (10 minutes)
  2. Subjects
    1. Taxonomy (10 minutes)
    2. Template (20 minutes)
    3. Discussion (15 minutes)
  3. AOB/Questions (5 minutes)

Discussion items

ItemWhoNotes
WIPII high level updateChrissi Dean
  • A reminder of the aims of the WIPII project and the five phase delivery approach were presented
  • WIPII has completed seven faculty and school workshops, and the next steps are functional workshops which will be open to staff across all faculties and schools
  • Some analysis work is currently underway on how to improve staff profiles
  • Other scope areas are still being explored, covering postgraduate, research centres and student information
Subjects - taxonomyPaul Seiler
  • The current focus in this area is subjects, with the initial structure of Subjects > Programmes > Courses
  • Charles enquired how majors and subjects are related
    • Subjects were described as disciplines for marketing/recruitment
    • Majors are more an academic construct for study
  • There is a large number of subjects (120+), and the number varies from which source you review
    • Kristina noted that the calendar should be definitive subject list, with specialisations within this
  • To understand whether future students can understand the groupings, they have been asked via Careers Advisors to complete an exercise sorting subjects into categories
    • Future student version includes 40 subjects
    • Staff version includes 120 subjects

  • A newly proposed structure of Topic > Subject > Programme > Course is being proposed
  • Charles noted this could be an opportunity to present UG and PG programmes in those areas
  • It was noted that having related subjects to improve search would help draw out the related disciplines
  • The group fed back the topic example catered for undergraduate audiences well, but some content may not be of interest to international and postgraduates
  • Kristina noted that the owners of the content for subjects should be retained within the faculties, and that some subjects were owned across faculties
    • Ownership needs to be clear
    • Multiple authors of subject pages can make content and tone inconsistent
  • It was discussed whether the term topic would confuse students alongside the other academic terms, and whether it could be an internal reference and hidden externally
  • Adrienne noted some programmes were not associated with subjects, such as the MBA
    • Paul confirmed these are currently defined as subjects on the web, and further consideration would be required on how to represent these
  • Additional information around distance learning, quality of teaching, rankings etc were also discussed and where these would most appropriately fit
Subjects - templateAnne Nelson
  • The subject page purpose and target audiences were presented
  • It was raised whether our current subject pages provide what is required on all areas of consideration and are they focussed on the audience needs
  • The future state for subjects were put forward, with an improved emphasis on the audience, careers and using plain language
  • There were suggestions to improve design by including more opportunities for video, visuals, infographics
  • External examples of content and layout were reviewed for comparison
  • The Victoria topic page example which had be circulated pre-meeting, was referenced with the following questions:
    • Will this approach be more effective than the current subject pages?

    • What flow-on effects would it have – eg: subject paras have been rewritten: should we change how we write in GUS? 

    • Who would be the ‘owner’ of the page? Who might manage the content?

    • Who would provide the features?