Memo

To Professor Stephen Towers, Director, Academic Programs

From Terry Flew, Head of Media & Communication

Date 13 June, 2010

Subject Student-related grievance in KKN600

I have now met with three students enrolled in Semester 1, 2005 in KKN600 Advertising
Creative: Major Project, and had email correspondence with a further two students. I have
advised on the MOPP Policy E/9.2 Grievance resolution procedures for student related
grievanvces, particularly Policy 9.2.1. which identifies the grievance as being concerned with
'delivery or quality of a product or service by QUT', and 9.2.2. which outlines procedures for
Informal Resolution and Formal Resolution (9.2.3).

As part of the informal resolution process, I met with students enrolled in the unit at 3pm on
Wednesday 29 June. All enrolled students had been notified of my availablility for this
meeting. The need to change the date from the earlier time of 4pm Monday 27 June had
meant that two students were unable to attend the later meeting.

The issues raised by the students can, I believe, be grouped into three categories:

1. Quality of Industry Client Feedback

The Major Project was, with my approval, structured around a client-based project with Virgin
Blue, involving the redesign of their in-flight magazine Voyeur. The students have all reported
poor quality of feedback from the client, and delays of up to 3 weeks in receiving the
feedback. It also appears that the client's commitment to supporting the student work
dinminished over the course of the semester period, leaving students concerned that they
may have been better to do independent work. Concerns have also been raised as to
whether it was essentially graphic design-related work rather than advertising per se;

2. Contribution of unit co-ordinator

Concerns were expressed about the unit co-ordinator, Ms. Sandra Contreras, in terms of not
responding promptly to student emails, being hard to contact (one suggestion was to buy
Sandra a mobile phone), and not providing sufficiently clear parameters for assessing the
quality of student work. One suggestion was that projects on this scale may require a
production asisstant/project manager as well as Sandra's role as a manager of the creative
process;

3. Overall comments on the degree

As this student cohort are completing Masters (IX96) students, they have also made
suggestions on how to improve the course. These include: working more closely with
stduents and staff in other disciplines (e.g. Film & TV, Communication Design); having better
Production Support and access to CIF facilities; getting a better balance between conceptual
and production skills; and having CI electives more directly related to Advertising. Art
Direction in particular was identified as an area requiring more attention.

A student evaluation of the unit has been commissioned, and this will provide students with
an opportunity for structured feedback. I also undertook to meet with Sandra after 13 July,
when final results have been submitted. I indicated that subsequent to that, feedback would
be provded to the student cohort. The question of whether a Formal Complaint could also be
lodged with the Student Ombudsman was also raised. I inidcated that this was an option, but
that I had initiated this consultation process as a means of establishing an Informal
Resolution that may be to the satisfaction of all parties.