 |
 |
Hi Rob, Many thanks for your speedy and very interesting (albeit rather depressing) reply. Margaret --On 26 November 2003 10:11 +0000 "R.J. CHAPMAN" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Margaret > > hope this helps- it was quite depressing looking at the list of > modules running here only 3 years ago. However our current > situation was entirely predictable from about 1996. In some ways it > is an achievement to have lasted so long. > > Rob > > Date sent: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:57:48 +0000 > Send reply to: Science and Lifelong Learning > <[log in to unmask]> From: Margaret Pilkington > <[log in to unmask]> Subject: CE science > provision questionnaire > To: [log in to unmask] > > Dear All, > Below is the short CE science provision questionnaire (to provide > information on the state of CE science for my forthcoming book exploring > science teaching in the countryside which is to be published by NIACE). > I have tried to make the questions quick to answer (for example I am not > asking for numbers of students)and hope that you will be able to respond > using what is in your heads rather than having to look up figures. > I would very much appreciate an immediate reply and will keep you posted > on major findings. > With best wishes, > Margaret > > > The State of CE Science Provision, November 2003 > Email questionnaire > > Please answer all the questions by adding or deleting as appropriate, and > return to <[log in to unmask]> by beginning of December. > > 1. Your name: Rob Chapman > > 2. What is your subject speciality? Earth Sciences/metallurgy > and status? full-time > faculty. > > 3. Name of institution: U of Leeds > > 4. How long have you been involved with CE science provision at this > institution? 13 years > > 5. Have you or your department undergone reorganisation in the last 3 or 4 > years? No > If yes, please give details. > > 6. If yes, how has this affected your ability to deliver CE science > teaching? > > 7. If no, Do you expect to be reorganised in the near future? No > If yes, please give details. > > 8. Name of department: School Of Continuing Education > > 9. Is this: > a CE department? Yes > a mainstream university department? Yes/No > other? Please give details. > > 10. How long have you been in this department? 13 years > > 11. How many part-time, adult education science courses is your > institution running this year (2003-04)? Please fill in the table below. > > Short courses, 5-12 credits Long courses, > 20-36 credits Open course, > (general interest) > HE Level1 1 3 > HE Level 2 > HE Level 3 > > Please give details of any post-graduate provision. > > 12. Subjects covered in this year’s provision. Please delete/add to list. > Astronomy > Geology/Geomorphology > Botanical illustration > > 13. Is your provision contracting? Please delete as > appropriate. > Please add any details you have to hand. > > Rapid decline from 2000. From 1994- 2000 between 20 and 30 > courses per year, about 50% 10 cr, 30% 20 and 20% 30 cr. > > > 14. Why do you think this is happening? > > Many reasons: > > 1. Increase in cost- SCE courses now equivalent price of p/t degree > modules > 2. Increase in viable number threshold to 14 students, > (consequence of being a deficit department) > 3. Unclear remit- the courses are accreditted, but do not fit into a > broader degree scheme. Students who study out of interest resent > the assessment load, (usually equivalent to science u/g teaching > not arts) , students interested in sustained serious study have no > provision past level 1. Why not? - i. resourcing issues. ii. > duplicationof on campu sprovision, iii. only 1 science staff member > in CE at Leeds so no opportunity to cross fertilize and develop > programmes such as your own BA Landscape studies. > Archaeology is irritatingly and stubbornly fixed in BA mode. (dont > quote me on that bit!) > > 15. Apart from you, how many other science tutors help to deliver your CE > science programme? > Hourly paid part-time tutors: 4 > Fraction-post faculty 0 > Full-time faculty 0 > > 16. Please add any other comments you have about the current state of CE > science provision. > > My own feeling is that to fulfill its true potential accreditted science > CE really needs to be regional rather than local. Only this way can > an appropriate audience be aquired. This requires collaboration with > other CE providers, and the disparity of individual practices has > hampered this, together with the demise/ reorganisation of the > most obvious potential partners for us in Leeds. The only way > forward I see now, (assuming a return to the broader science > education remit remains inadmissable as a funded activity) is to > work closely with internal depts in a WP context to to generate > dedicated access routes which double as CE provision. There is > some interest in this at Leeds- depending upon the state of > undergraduate recruitment. Design and delivery are certainly > possible, but whether the market exists is another question. there > are also timetabling issues making CE provision equivalent to u/g > science teaching. > > > > > 17. Please indicate whether you would be happy for me to quote comments > from your response in my book. > I am happy for you to quote my comments in your book, Science in the > Countryside. Yes/. > > > Thank you very much. > > Margaret Pilkington > Centre for Continuing Education > University of Sussex