Andrew, Paul & List members,
We are fully modular at UU but it does have its particular set of
difficulties. Inevitably, the initial difficulty is the re-packaging of
existing programmes for the purposes of transition. This leads to
hybrid modules and variable sized modules but is inevitable,
particularly if the changeover is rapid or 'big bang'. In the long term,
there are potential advantages but final projects etc. need careful
handling and modules of different sizes tend to emerge.
On the positive side, modularity/unitization does facilitate proper
identification of learning outcomes and their appropriate
relationships to credit levels. In Northern Ireland, we have had the
NICATS project, prior to the QAA qualifications framework. Of
course credit frameworks and qualifications frameworks are not
quite the same thing but there are clearly inter-mapping aspects
implicated. In my faculty, there is a move towards recognising that
the modules need to be co-ordinated and managed such that these
sub-components of courses represent quality units in their own right.
If students can get through a programme by sidestepping the parts
they want to avoid, there are clearly dangers. While optional aspects
are good and appropriate at cetain stages within programmes, there
is a clear need for integrity in the overall programmes to ensure that
graduates have got some attainment consistent with the subject
benchmarks.
My own view is that a modular system, that does not 'throw out the
baby with the bath water' (i.e. retains within the modular framework,
some facility for assimilation (possibly long thin modules) and
variable module size(s)/value(s)etc) may prove to be more realistic
than the retention of traditional approaches. Explicitness is now
expected and this is largely good. Modules lend themselves to
explicitness on most fronts and this is largely painful but also good in
the long term(semester?!).
Another difficulty is the tension between courses and modules.
Programmes need to have leadership and vitality while modules
need to have currency and financial viability. Shared modules
(across programmes and attainment levels) create potential hazards.
The module must only be changed with all stakeholders on board.
Module review processes must feed in to Annual Course Review
activities and those driving the modules must take an interest in all
courses that utilise the module or its variants with different
assessment regimes.
I would suggest that one of the largest challenges for modular
systems is the challenge to establish consistent module management
and general 'conduct of the module' including all aspects of
planning, resourcing delivery assessment, reflection reporting and
modification. All this needs a very dedicated team with lots of nested
adinistration at the course sub-component level. It means in practice
that virtually every member of academic staff needs to look after a
few modules and quality assurance oversight needs to ensure that
the processes are continuing consistently. In practice, some
academics are unmitigated disaster areas when it comes to admin
issues but in the past, they have managed to hide. A modular
system will tend to put a spotlight on everyone .... painful but
perhaps right in the long term.
Food for thought and sorry for the length of the ramble
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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|