Staff Student Committee Meeting
22nd November 10.00 am B23
Present – Yonatan Shemmer, Chris Bennett, Sally Weston, Joanne Renshaw, Anne-Marie Frisby, Beatriz Perez Garcia, David MacLachlan, Jake Smith, Ben Dugher, Anna Ludlam, Tymiah Ford, Pete Barr, TemiAyodeji, Paul Faulkner, Rosanna Keefe, Dominic Gregory.
Ben started the meeting by running through the points that students had praised the department for. He then mentioned that most of the complaints were isolated incidents.
Learning and Teaching
One person had complained that their seminar leader was unfamiliar with the course content. Chris Bennett responded to this by explaining the role of the tutor – to facilitate and structure discussion in the tutorial, rather than be an expert in the subject. The lecturer is there as the expert. This is covered in the Thursday at 5 sessions but it was agreed that it should be explained by the lecturer in the lecture and the tutor in the tutorial aswell.
In response to the complaint about the poor atmosphere for discussion, Anna suggested it was due to the high number of unrestricted students in Level One tutorials, they are not used to the Philosophy style of tutorial discussion.
Yonatan asked the group how we can be advised of these incidents earlier so we can fix them before they are a complaint. Need to improve communication between student reps and staff, Yonatan asked the committee to email him with suggestions.
In response to the query about tutorials starting in week 3, Rosanna explained this was due to add/drop. Chris also followed up to say that a certain amount of content needs to be covered in lectures before this can be discussed in a tutorial/seminar.
Assessment and Feedback
Students complained about submitting a paper copy of their essays. The reasons for requiring the paper copy were discussed by the committee. Some members of the department are trialling online marking this semester so more staff may come on board following this trial.
In response to the complaint about knowing when deadlines are Anne-Marie advised the committee of all the places where this information is available. During this discussion it came to light that some members of the committee did not have access to Philosophy UG Online, this will be urgently dealt with by the office.
Anne-Marie explained how and why the deadlines are set - In response to previous committees requesting deadlines be staggered, they are set over one week, and they are in week 6 rather than week 8 to ensure students get feedback before their end of term essay is due. Rosanna reported that the Faculty is looking in to reducing assessments across departments.
Yonatan spoke about an assessment suggestion – submitting a piece of work, getting feedback on it and then resubmitting it. It was met with a mixed response but it was agreed that it could be a good idea for Level 1 students.
Chris answered the complaint about paper expectations, we have planned sessions on this with personal advisors. Beatriz suggested peer feedback at Level 1 and Jake suggested replacing a micro essay with an essay outline. All of these will be suggested to lecturers. Rosanna asked how students felt about having different assessments for each module or if we should be uniform across the department. Students had no strong feelings about this as long as they were clearly advertised (on Philosophy UG Online page) Pete mentioned the 301 essay writing sessions, but said these are more generic sessions.
Academic Support
Beatriz reported that students don’t know who their personal advisor is and suggested compulsory meetings, maybe a group meeting. Rosanna reported that we are planning to do this at Level One and if it is successful roll out to Levels Two and Three. Dominic will chase staff to ensure they are emailing their personal advisees to invite them for a chat as this doesn’t always happen. Yonatan explained the role of the personal advisor to the committee as students were unsure.
Grace who was not in attendance had complained about the lack of module advice for RTB and PHI dual students, it was confirmed that all arrangements and information circulated are the same for PHI single and Dual honours students and RTB single and Dual honours students. As Grace was not at the meeting we could not discuss this further.
Organisation and Resources
There were lots of complaints about the timetable app, Anne-Marie explained why the system is not ideal (it shows ALL bookings linked to a module code, eg ALL tutorial slots even though the students only attend one of those) We give feedback on this to CICS but as it is a uni wide resource we have to use it. It was decided to warn the new intake of students about the problems with it in Intro Week.
In answer to the complaint that First Years don’t know what they are doing, Jake suggested they read the handbook he put together in his role as student rep last year. Attendance at the Thursday at 5 sessions was also suggested.
There were complaints that communication by email is not helpful, unfortunately there aren’t many other options. Important information is given on MOLE, website, social media, posters and in lectures as well as emailed out.
The lack of a central Philosophy information resource on MOLE is actually not a problem, we have Philosophy UG Online. As mentioned previously, enrolments on this organisation is being checked urgently.
Personal and Professional Support and Guidance
There had been complaints of bad experiences when trying to arrange Extenuating Circs, Anne-Marie reported on the long waiting times for doctors notes from UHS and also waiting lists for counselling service. As the students who raised this point were not in attendance they will be contacted for further information so we can ensure we act on this complaint.
In response to the lack of Careers Guidance complaint, Yonatan explained all the activities the department does in this area for students and their low attendance and take up rate. We think this may be because students don’t start thinking about this until later on in their time at university. It was suggested to do more shout outs in lectures about careers events.
Other issues
Ben suggested putting module evaluation results on MOLE for students to refer to when making their module choices (as in Politics) Rosanna told the committee that we were already discussing something similar to this as it came up in the Periodic Review. Jake suggested that more information on the modules description would be helpful – this will definitely be actioned this year. But whether the module evaluation results are shown is to be discussed at the next department meeting.
There were a few complaints about one lecturer who does not give handouts and who doesn’t use power point. Another committee member was familiar with this lecturer and explained this further, as the module is based on a book the book is in place of the handouts. Staff members of the committee answered that they were happy that their lecturers had different styles and that it was a good thing for students to experience different ways of learning.
Anne-Marie asked the committee if they would like to see their turnitin originality reports, this was raised at the Periodic Review. There was no strong feeling about this.
Teaching Committee Minutes:
- Feedback – the committee reported that results of the feedback discussion from the staff away day will be circulated, by email, to all students. Comments and reaction from students regarding the changes to feedback would be much appreciated.
- Periodic Review – a report of the recent review on Teaching and Learning within the department will be made available to students via email, again feedback from students would be much appreciated. The students who attended the periodic review were thanked for their input and participation
- Library Liaison – Peter Barr
Peter commented that the main aim was to build Library Services to suit the students needs.
A 'library survey' would be open to students to complete in the next week or so, and Peter advised the Reps to give this information to their fellow students and encourage them to complete the survey.
A point that has arisen at the Fac Exec Board is that FAC are under-represented in the Diamond Study Space. Peter asked what the reps opinions of this was? The general consensus was that the Diamond was not a good use of space compared to the IC. Trying to find study space proved to be a nightmare, with students 'reserving' desk space with coats etc for up to 6 hours before attending.
Most Philosophy books could be found in the IC and so the students preferred to study there, stating that the learning 'atmosphere' was much better in the IC.
They found the book pick up/drop on the ground floor of the Diamond handy to use.
Peter said he would take these points away and they would be noted for further improvement meetings. - Communication – this topic arises on EVERY agenda and YS asked the reps to go away from the meeting and think about better ways to communicate with the department. SW mentioned that a 'comments' box was used in the Arts Tower for anonymous suggestions/comments if students felt that they were not comfortable emailing/speaking to someone in person. YS will arrange a further meeting to specifically discuss this topic after Xmas.
- CB handed out the new feedback sheet, that was devised at the recent away day, for the students to view. The reps received the feedback sheet positively, and CB explained it could also be used as a checklist when writing essays. Further dialogue on feedback will take place at next TC/SSC meeting next Semester.
Meeting closed 12.05pm