 |
 |
Hi, I agree with most of the responses about modularisation and would like to add a few comments from my experience at London Met. Only yesterday one of my students commented that she preferred the modular system when compared with the end of year exam model of Poland because it kept her motivated throughout the year. But she said it was a lot more stressful. Over assessment is endemic and so students are almost exclusively focussed on completing coursework. Clearly, from a learning development perspective, it means a lot more work. And while it may help those who intermit rather than drop out, the increased workload does not help the non-traditional students at LMU to get to grips with the demands of HE. It also increases the incidence of plagiarism, we believe. Partly because of workload and partly because of Jill's point about compartmentalisation. Confusion arises and is intensified because of inconsistencies across disciplines and different academic literacy practices. How realistic is it that in the 11 to 12 weeks of contact time offered by most modules that students get a good grasp of the subject, and more importantly, have an idea of where it fits in to their overall degree course or interests? From an administrative point of view we find it difficult to turnaround our marking when we have already started the next module. The main consequence of which is that it takes a long time for students to get feedback on their work. We run over 2,000 modules in one semester alone, but this choice is an illusion as it depends on obligatory modules, timetable fit and student numbers. The year long modules would definitely be an improvement but so far not an option here. Regards, Julian Ingle Lecturer in Language and Learning Development London Metropolitan University Jill Armstrong wrote: > What is the problem you are trying to solve through going modular? Lots > of us did this in the UK because there was a largely spurious notion > that it would bring more choice, some slight problem of students getting > nothing if they left after half an academic year's study, and I cannot > even remember the other rationale. > > Many year one programmes have reverted to using year long courses or at > least year long modules because of the problems encountered in getting > students quickly enough oriented into HE, on the right courses, working > quickly enough at degree level and the inevitable low that comes on the > learning curve of a student progressing through year one, that for us > hits at Christmas, so students are faced with exams just at the point > they are struggling the most. > > Learning takes time and term long modules may be something of a > challenge. Over assessment (which modularisation brings) leads to more > superficiality and compartmentalising of their work, and there is no > longer thinking time for students or staff. > > So be wary! You need a clear rationale and that you know that > modularising will be the solution to whatever problem you are > addressing. > > Jill Armstrong > LearnHigher > Liverpool Hope University > Hope Park > Liverpool L16 9JD > > Tel: 0151 291 3289 > Fax: 0151 291 2033 > > mailto: [log in to unmask] > > >>>>John Hilsdon <[log in to unmask]> 05/05/2006 11:50:39 >>> > > Hi Laurie > > > > V briefly - in a former life/job I found that in the immediate > post-modularisation phase the range of choices for students was > increased. The university in question adopted a policy encouraging at > least one 'free' choice of module for undergrad programmes at each > levels of study. Over the years this was whittled away and virtually > lost as an option ... > > > > In terms of developing student learning, in my more recent experience, > modularisation can have benefits and disadvantages. It depends how > coherently a programme and its various routes are conceived - and > whether the component modules are well planned to contribute to these > in > a 'constructively aligned' way (a la Biggs). I'd echo Pauline's > comments about fragmentation in many cases, and over-assessment - or > too > much being led by cumbersome assessment practices ... and ones which > seem not to take account of what 'happens' to students in other > modules > - both prior to and after / at the same time as each other. > > > > On the plus side, re-thinking programmes can allow the development of > some very good practice - if only in pockets. Where > module/subject/programme teams are enthused by the notion of looking > at > their students' experience and attempting to make it as conducive as > possible for learning, some interesting ideas seem to emerge - uses of > group projects, peer assessment, learning partnerships etc ... but I'm > sure that it is not modularisation that leads to these rather it is > the > process of reviewing and re-working that 'should' happen anyway as > part > of standard practice ... > > Forgive rushed top of head scrawl > > John > > John Hilsdon > Co-ordinator, Learning Development > 01752 232276 > [log in to unmask] > www.plymouth.ac.uk/learn > > -----Original Message----- > From: learning development in higher education network > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pauline Ridley > Sent: 04 May 2006 15:37 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Modularisation > > > > Hi Laurie - you'll probably get lots of replies from people with more > experience of fullscale modular programmes than we have here at > Brighton, where we've retained a fairly mixed approach But there does > seem to be a consensus that using mainly single modules completed and > assessed within a term or semester leads to fragmentation and problems > of over-assessment. Because of this, there's been a move back to 'long > thin ' and/or double module here. > > > > best wishes > > Pauline > > -----Original Message----- > From: learning development in higher education network > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Laurie Lumsden > Sent: 04 May 2006 12:03 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Modularisation > > Good morning all. TCD is considering moving towards > modularisation of its programs. We think this will mean complete > subjects and assessment each term. It might also allow greater > subject > flexibility for students. Currently the norm is for three terms with > a > major emphasis on end-of-year exams. What kinds of learning support > changes occurred in the UK when similar changes were made there? > Laurie > Lumsden >