Dear Paul,
I totally agree with you!
And I think the more different a discipline is form your 'native' one, the
more you can probably learn from it in terms of learning & teaching. For
example, I saw a very successful pairing for peer observation of an Computer
Studies lecturer and a lecturer who taught stained glass.
But I think we work in a sector where people's identity, status, career and
job security have been bound up with their role as discipline expert. No
one but a physicist is going to persuade my colleagues that it is worth
looking outside their subject - least of all me, as I am a graduate in
English Literature!
Here's an extract from the email from my physics colleague:
"If it doesn't look as if our competitors will be members of the ILT, there
will be little incentive for my colleagues to join.
Finally, until the RAE and Department Plan is out of the way, and the first
two UCAS days (mid-December), I can't see anyone here doing anything.
While I am sympathetic to the cause, I feel that some very powerful
arguments will be needed to help me shift my colleagues."
I guess Physics' departments probably feel quite under threat as it is, with
falling student numbers, so may be they feel they have to focus on the RAE
as a survival tactic - and that a good RAE score may affect recruitment more
positively that ILT membership.
I'm just thinking aloud (in writing) here, not arguing that this is an
appropriate approach.
Anyway, thanks for the comment, Paul
Shan
Dr Shân Wareing
Director of the Educational Development Centre
Royal Holloway
University of London,
Egham, Surrey
TW20 0EX
RM 206 Bedford Library
tel: (01784) 414291
fax: (01784) 477670
email: [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr.Paul Skett [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 9:25 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: how many physicists?
>
> At 09:08 20/11/00 -0000, you wrote:
> >Dear ILT,
> >I'm the person responsible for encouraging staff at Royal Holloway to
> join
> >the ILT. The Physics department is less enthusiastic than some of the
> >others, and has asked me to come back to them with information about how
> >many physicists nationally have joined the ILT (their point being, I
> think,
> >that if other physicists haven't joined, there is no purpose in their
> >joining).
> >
> >Does the ILT have these figures easily to hand, or would any physicists
> like
> >to email me with why the ILT is relevant to physicists?
> >
> >Thank you!
> >
> >Shan
> >
> Shan,
>
> I am again surprised by my colleagues in the H.E. sector - ILT is to
> develop/find and disseminate good practice within learning and teaching.
> At
> the basic level the SUBJECT being "taught" makes little difference. The
> techniques/ideas should be relevant to most subjects. Many of my best and
> most successful developments have come from areas far removed from my
> subject (I am in Biology and have taken ideas from Engineering, Languages
> and Music).
>
> I hope ILT can remove the blinkers from my colleagues and allow them to
> see
> the whole picture.
>
> Paul
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Dr.Paul Skett,
> West Medical Building,
> University of Glasgow,
> Glasgow G12 8QQ,
> Scotland, UK.
>
> tel/fax: +44-(0)141-330 5926
> mobile: +44-(0)7785-536825
> email: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
>
> For further information on the Institute of Biomedical and Life Sciences
> see: www.gla.ac.uk/ibls
> -----------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|