Teaching Committee Minutes, 28/11/2014

Teaching Committee Minutes, 28/11/2014

Present: Dominic Gregory (Chair), Chris Bennett, Tom Cochrane, Joanne Marie Elliott, Bob Johnston, Ida Kemp, Rebecca Williamson, Michael Chilton, Eleanor Marinho, Alice Pedder

Apologies: Jenny Saul, Anne-Marie Frisby, Sally Weston, Amy Collins

1.Welcome and Introductions

2. Report on NSS data [DG]

DG summarised the previous year’s NSS results, after thanking both staff and past students for their efforts in ensuring satisfactory completion rates, with reference to documentation provided at the meeting.

3. 2nd Year Assessment issues [DG]

Most of our second year modules involve two pieces of coursework, with one submitted roughly in the middle of the term and the other submitted at the end, and with both pieces of work counting towards the eventual module mark. 2nd Year Feminism is different, however, in that students are welcomed but not obliged to submit a piece of coursework in the middle of the term, so that they can receive feedback on their work; the work also does not count towards the final module mark. The department was interested to find out how the discrepancy here was perceived by the students: it was generally agreed that it is a good system; people did not express concern at the discrepancy; and it was suggested that it was a system that might be adopted more widely, particularly for modules that deal with topics that are likely to be new to most of those studying them.

4. BPA Good Practice Scheme Implementation

Discussion of this was deferred, due to JS’s absence.

5. Request for suggestions concerning feedback [DG]

DG noted that, while the department’s feedback scores for the NSS had improved, there is still room for further improvement. So advice was sought on potential improvements. Student representatives noted that that no feedback is provided on exams: DG and others explained the reasons for this. It was also suggested by the student representatives that the department should provide more advice on how to write for exams: DG noted this suggestion. First year micro-essays were discussed: the student representatives queried the fact that the individual feedback isn’t standardly provided on these, but CB explained the reasons for this fact. The student representatives felt that the practise of swapping micro-essays within tutorials should be widely used. It was also felt that it would be useful for feedback if the people teaching modules were to provide themed office hours, in which students could come to discuss e.g. particular questions or module themes, perhaps organised around questions posted in advance on MOLE. (The student representatives also wondered if it would be possible for an email to be sent around each semester stating all staff office hours.) They also emphasised their desire for instruction to be provided within feedback regarding those aspects of their work which were good and worth fostering, as well as those aspects that need improvement.

6. IPO update [IK]

Ida Kemp provided an update on the continuing changes that the IPO is introducing with regards to e.g. triple degrees. The students all welcomed the additional flexibility that these changes are bringing to the university’s degree structures.

7. Potential changes to first-year IBL courses [DG]

Staff have raised concerns about the first-year IBL courses (PHI113 and PHI114), so opinions were sought from the student body. EM expresses positive opinions on the module, particularly given that they are not feeding into final degree results; their novel elements in relation to standard modules were noted. MC didn’t disapprove of the compulsory aspect of the courses, although some dissatisfaction was expressed with the History of Philosophy website-construction component; the fact that one of the modules but not the other involves presentations was also regarded as odd. MC expressed a desire for more flexibility with regards to the final outputs produced as part of the modules.

8. Two hour lectures vs. two lectures separated by a small gap [CB]

Some staff have wondered whether we should move away from timetabling two lectures with a small gap, towards instead timetabling two lectures within a single continuous slot: student opinions were therefore sought.The general consensus was approving, although EM was keen to emphasise that the lectures shouldn’t simply be two hours long; a gap of e.g. 10 minutes is essential. It was remarked that students have experience of analogous sessions at school, and the memories of those sessions was positive overall.

9. Achieve More developments

(Discussion was deferred until the next meeting, due to lack of time.)