 |
 |
This may be of interest to AFLS members who teach courses on French linguistics. AC --- Begin Forwarded Message --- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:36:59 -0000 From: "Myers, Gregory" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: consultation meeting on benchmarking Sender: [log in to unmask] To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> Reply-To: "Myers, Gregory" <[log in to unmask]> Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]> BAAL members, On 21 February, there was a small but lively meeting of BAAL members with members of the QAA Benchmarking committee, discussing the first draft of the subject benchmark statement for Linguistics. I'm giving notes from that meeting in case they are useful to people discussing the draft; they may draw attention to some details, or indicate where you would see issues that have not previously been raised. See especially the suggestions for further consultation at the end. Keith Brown opened the meeting with some general remarks: that there were 645 courses in the UK with "Linguistics as a named portion", of which 19 are single subject Linguistics Honours degrees. Thus the statement has to deal with a very wide range of offerings. Programmes combining Linguistics with other subjects can draw on both benchmarking statements. The benchmarking statements to not form a national curriculum; institutions devise the curricula [see section 5, paragraph 2]. The sections of the statement follow indicative headings suggested by QAA and used for other subject statements. Those who want to compare this statement to those written in earlier rounds for other disciplines (e.g. English) should see the QAA web site http://www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/benchmark/benchmarking.htm. The standards were intended to accommodate a very wide range of different programmes, including those with an emphasis on communication, education, language acquisition, or English language as well as those emphasizing formal linguistics. He pointed out during the meeting that, while the committee was open to suggested revisions, they did not want to make the various lists in the document too long and cumbersome. Issues raised (in the order in which they came up): * Are the "threshold" and "typical" levels of achievement [the QAA's terms] qualitatively different? Is this an attempt at a criterion-referenced standard that is actually norm-referenced? * The binary distinction between linguistics and applied linguistics leaves out sociolinguistics. * The distinction between linguistics and applied linguistics sometimes seems arbitrary or inconsistent. Alternative terms were discussed, such as a distinction between language as system and use. Or it might be better to drop the distinction (and the term applied linguistics) entirely. * Section 2, paragraph 3 could draw on a wider range of applied areas. * There is a mismatch between sections 2 and 3.1-3.2, in the ways the field is carved up. * One area missing in 3.1 is writing [there are presumably others; this was offered as an example]. * Section 3.2 - Is there a core implied here? All programmes would include grammar, but grammar would not necessarily be the heart of all programmes. * Section 5 has a great deal of detail on six areas under "Knowledge and Understanding", in sections a-d and f-g, and all other areas are compressed into Section e. In revision, Sections a-d might be compressed, and e expanded. Similarly, under "Discipline Specific Skills", many methods are compressed into c, but they do not include conversation analysis, analysis of written language, or analysis of media texts, which are major components of some courses. Under "Intellectual (thinking) skills", there could be a skill in relating these analyses to social and cultural issues. * The statement must serve several audiences, including not just QAA assessors and Linguistics departments, but also staff in other related departments and university administrators. * * Further consultation * Individuals and departments can make their comments (and repeat comments made at meetings) by clicking on the comments box at www.rceal.cam.ac.uk/benchmark.html. That way comments are entered in your own words. * It may be particularly useful for some departments to meet and discuss whether the statement would or would not reflect the assumptions of their programme. * Roz Ivanic suggested that it would be useful for three or four different sorts of departments to try out the specifications by drafting sections 9, 10, and 11 of the QAA Programme Specifications using this statement as a template, and comparing their results. That might reveal any practical difficulties or omissions. * There is further consultation at the BAAL Executive Committee, LAGB (Leeds), CILT (London), and the Bilingual Symposium at Bristol. See the www.rceal.cam.ac.uk/benchmark.html for details. [Attendance at the meeting: Keith Brown and Rosalind Mitchell for the Benchmarking Committee, Mike Baynham, Jennifer Coates, Roz Ivanic, Constant Leung, and Greg Myers for BAAL] Greg Myers [log in to unmask] --- End Forwarded Message --- ---------------------- Aidan Coveney University of Exeter