Paul and list members,
I think this point about ensuring that outcomes are covered by more
than one module is vital. For most programmes and most aspects
within them, this will be true. Dangers arise where a particular skill is
assessed in niche areas within a programme, particularly where
students can elect (via choice within assessment regimes) to avoid
being assessed in certain aspects. Also, many course regulations
permit compensation and condonement outcomes, even extending to
final year performance. Academic staff often support students who
have blemishes on paper but merit as perceived by the academic
community who have worked with them. The requirement to
complete a rigorous 'tick box validation' on top of the professional
judgements that have traditionally been made (generally with a fair
degree of compassion coupled with professional integrity) may be
counter productive. A srape through on a module or conventional
subject exam has always masked a gaping void in knowledge. An
approach to graduation that has too many exacting 'pre-shuttle'
checks would mean that a significant number would never be
launched into careers. I believe the university output performance
characteristics are very reasonable indeed, when we consider what
difficulties we are facing at intake, even with students having good A-
levels on paper! If industry and the world of first employment was as
concerned as 1st year university course tutors, then we would have
a bigger problem. Do others agree?
Alan Webb
Dr J A C Webb,
Senior Lecturer,
School of Electrical & Mechanical Engineering,
Coordinator of Student Learning,
Faculty of Engineering.
Tel. 028 90365131 Ext. 6696, Personal Direct: 028 90366696
Fax. Ext.6804 EMail: [log in to unmask]
Secretaries: 6276/6091
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|