Dear all,
I am currently looking into developing our Year Abroad programme and would like to know of colleagues who have experience of using work placements abroad/ teaching placements abroad as part of degrees in German/modern languages. I am interested to know, in particular, how you build this into your respective credit structures, how you assess work and what role you take in the allocation of placements etc. Also any advice on potential pitfalls would be gratefully received!
Many thanks,
Gillian Pye
UCD, Dublin
Message -----
From: Frank Finlay <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 11:10 am
Subject: FW: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]
To: [log in to unmask]
> REF peer-review panels
>
> As you are no doubt aware, HEFCE is in the process of drawing up
> the key features for the Research Excellence Framework (REF). At
> stake are the types of indicators to be used in the REF, the
> expert review processes to be included, the make-up of the
> quality profiles the REF will produce, and the subject structure
> for assessment. HEFCE is working with Expert Advisory Groups to
> decide upon these questions during the first half of 2009.
> Further information on the policy development currently taking
> place at HEFCE is available at
> http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/develop/eag/.
> Of particular importance in Modern Languages is the composition
> of the peer review panels. The representation of individual
> disciplines and subject areas in Modern Languages has yet to be
> determined. However, it is widely anticipated that there will be
> a move to fewer Units of Assessment and panels in the REF. Given
> the vulnerable status of languages (as SIVs - see below), and
> the fact that due to declining numbers and relatively low Grade
> Point Averages in RAE 2008, languages along with subjects such
> as European Studies figure at the bottom of league tables
> showing how much QR funding has been allocated to different
> disciplines, it seems fair to assume that languages may be
> regarded as an area where regrouping might be considered. There
> are clearly competing considerations in terms of developing a
> "light-touch" peer review process for the REF on the one hand,
> but retaining adequate subject and language specificity on the
> other. The University Council for Modern Languages (UCML) is
> uniquely placed to gather opinion on such issues, to lead debate
> and campaign on behalf of the languages community as a whole.
> UCML would therefore like to canvas opinions of subject
> associations within modern languages to determine their views on
> some of these questions. We would be grateful, therefore, if you
> could respond by Tuesday 21 April to the following questions:
> Colleagues,
> As the mail base rejected my previous posting because it
> contained a WORD-attachment, I have cut and pasted the text into
> this email.
>
> Best wishes,
> Frank
>
>
> 1. How important do you consider the need for subject-specific
> and language- or area-specific representation on the REF peer-
> review panels?
>
> 2. Which areas of specialisation would you most wish to see
> represented in the composition of the REF peer-review panels?
>
> 3. Are there particular concerns or considerations you would
> like UCML to consider and raise with HEFCE regarding the key
> features of the REF?
>
> 4. Would your subject association be willing to attend a
> meeting, organised by UCML, to develop a representation to HEFCE
> on this question?
>
>
> Strategically Important and Vulnerable Subjects (SIVs), and
> Power-ranking
>
> Modern Languages are classed as SIVs, and this status provides a
> degree of protection in the areas of recruitment and ELQ
> (Equivalent or Lower Qualifications). However, whereas for STEM
> subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths), SIV
> status contributed to more generous funding as a result of RAE
> 2008, languages have not received such support and have suffered
> financially. How should UCML and the subject associations be
> taking forward this issue?
>
> Languages Schools or Departments often cover a range of
> languages and disciplines, and consist of a number of relatively
> small groups. They also rely on a relatively high proportion of
> teaching-focused staff to deliver the language programmes. Some
> Schools are already coming under pressure in their institutions
> to work towards targets of, for example, 85% of all staff to be
> research active. UCML would like to canvas the opinions of
> subject associations within Modern Languages to determine
> whether this is an issue you consider might be usefully raised.
> We would be grateful, therefore, if you could respond to the
> following questions:
>
>
> 1. Would you support a campaign emphasising SIV status in
> research assessment?
>
> 2. How widespread a problem is the issue of relative power
> ranking within institutions for Modern Languages?
>
> 3. Would your subject association be willing to attend a
> meeting, organised by UCML, to develop a representation to HEFCE
> on this question?
>
>
> Please send your responses to these questions by email to the
> ucml email address: [log in to unmask] . We would welcome
> responses by Tuesday 21 April so that these can be collated and
> used to determine next steps.
>
> UCML Executive
> Committee Wednesday 25 March 2009
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JISCMAIL LISTSERV Server (15.5)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 01 April 2009 11:02
> To: Frank Finlay
> Subject: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]
>
> Your posting to the GERMAN-STUDIES list has been
> rejected because it contains
> an attachment of type 'APPLICATION/MSWORD'. The
> GERMAN-STUDIES list has been
> configured to reject such attachments;
> please incorporate the information
> contained in the attachment in a standard e-mail message, and re-
> post it to the
> list. Contact the list owner at GERMAN-STUDIES-
> [log in to unmask] if you
> need more information.