Key messages for consulting with faculties

Owned by Paul Seiler (Unlicensed)
Last updated: Jul 15, 2015
5 min read

We will shortly take our subject grouping proposal to faculties for consultation. Having done as much as we could in the project team, including rework based on feedback from 50+ students, we now need to share the findings with key staff in the faculties (and schools) and listen to their feedback. The following key messages should help set the scene and keep the conversations constructive, as there is a danger that the discussion over such significant change gets bogged down in opinions and looses focus on the objective.

  • This consultation draft of subject grouping represented our best efforts based on the information available to us (current subject listings for the web and in publications, the 2015 Calendar, and the subject descriptions on both Homesite and Faculty and School sites).
  • We will have made mistakes or imperfect calls, be they omissions, erorrs, oversights, misunderstandings or because of information we either missed or did not have access to 
  • The purpose of these discussions is to allow faculty managers (and a small number of key staff) to improve our draft. Our calls are all open to challenge, as we are not experts in any of these fields.

  • The grouping of subjects is primarily a marking initiative. As such our guiding objective has been "findability" (could also be thought of as usability or understandable), especially for senior secondary school students, as they are considered our primary audience group. This how directly and accurately can they find specific subjects, of their choice and in tasks set by us, some of which were career/vocation oriented (e.g. What subject would you study if you wished to be a primary school teacher?).
  • We have conducted user research with 50+ school students aspiring to university study in the near future, both to validate and shape the groupings and labels.
  • The level at which any particular subject name first appears is no judgement of its importance. Rather, it reflects answers to questions such as "Does it really belong in a group with other things?" and "Where do school students look for it?"
  • We have used sensible/logical groupings of subjects under the working title of "topic". These topics pages will answer the questions research shows this audience has when deciding on what to study, be concise and well written, show as well as tell.
  • Some topics have been grouped under the working title of "mega-topic", We are currently unsure how much content, if any, will be provided at this level.
  • In some cases there is a reasonable resemblance to a Faculty or School, but this was by "chance" and not by design.
  • We acknowledge that search is a viable option, as is starting somewhere other than topic (e.g. a faculty site or a programme page). WIP will ensure that both these paths/approaches also work well for users.
  • The taxonomy itself does not illustrate the soft and hard linking options available to us, so (until we have prototypes) these are recorded in a table and will be shared in consultation.

 

 

Content of email sent to identify who to invite to each faculty feedback meeting

Subject groupings: Requesting your input

I am pleased to have our subject groupings in a state for you to review and feedback on. This consultation draft of subject grouping represents our best efforts based on the information available to us (current subject listings for the web and in publications, the 2015 Calendar, and the subject descriptions on both Homesite and Faculty and School sites). Our proposal has 15 high level groups, entry points for students searching for what to study (after all, our overall objective is to make things more “findable” for future students). Under this we have 49 unique subject groups (topics are our in-house name) and 148 unique subjects (covering UG and PG).

We will have made mistakes or imperfect calls, be they omissions, errors, oversights, misunderstandings or because of information we either missed or did not have access to. You are out first port of call to correct and improve.

The purpose of these discussions is to allow you (mostly faculty managers) and a small number of key staff to improve our draft. I think it is best for Sam and I to meet with each faculty in turn, so request that you send me the names of the people you need around you and I will schedule the meeting.

 

Content of feedback meeting invite (that will have full subject grouping attached)

Thank you for taking an interest in the subject grouping work, one of the current work areas for the WIP II team. I have attached a document containing the all subjects and groups so you can prepare for the feedback meeting. This consultation draft represents our best efforts based on the information available to us (current subject listings for the web and in publications, the 2015 Calendar, and the subject descriptions on both Homesite and Faculty and School sites). Our proposal has 15 high level groups, entry points for students searching for what to study (after all, our overall objective is to make things more “findable” for future students). Under this we have 49 unique subject groups (topics are our in-house name) and 148 unique subjects (covering UG and PG).

We will have made mistakes or imperfect calls, be they omissions, errors, oversights, misunderstandings or because of information we either missed or did not have access to. You are out first port of call to correct and improve.

A few points that might help you understand and prepare your feedback, points we will also discus at the meeting:

  • The grouping of subjects is primarily a marking initiative. As such our guiding objective has been "findability" (could also be thought of as usability or understandable), especially for senior secondary school students, as they are considered our primary audience group. This how directly and accurately can they find specific subjects, of their choice and in tasks set by us, some of which were career/vocation oriented (e.g. What subject would you study if you wished to be a primary school teacher?).
  • We have conducted user research with 50+ school students aspiring to university study in the near future, both to validate and shape the groupings and labels.
  • The level at which any particular subject name first appears is no judgement of its importance. Rather, it reflects answers to questions such as "Does it really belong in a group with other things?" and "Where do school students look for it?"
  • We have used sensible/logical groupings of subjects under the working title of "topic". These topics pages will answer the questions research shows this audience has when deciding on what to study, be concise and well written, show as well as tell.
  • Some topics have been grouped under the working title of "mega-topic", We are currently unsure how much content, if any, will be provided at this level.
  • In some cases there is a reasonable resemblance to a Faculty or School, but this was by "chance" and not by design.
  • We acknowledge that search is a viable option, as is starting somewhere other than topic (e.g. a faculty site or a programme page). The WIP work will ensure that both these paths/approaches also work well for users.
  • The taxonomy itself does not illustrate the soft and hard linking options available to us, so (until we have prototypes) these are recorded in a table and will be shared in consultation.

I look forward to meeting with you all,