Hi Paul
I agree that modular courses hinder the transfer of skills/knowledge across
modules and that there are problems even within modules. However, I feel the
challenges are even greater in cases where quantitative subjects are
incorporated into what are perceived as essentially non-quantitative prorammes
(such as many of those in business and management). Certainly
multi-disciplinary team teaching is one response, but this of course is very
expensive.
Regards
Roger
[log in to unmask] writes:
>Dear Roger,
> On the subject of ring-fenced learning, isn't that a feature of all
>modular courses? Our own students, who take almost all their modules within
>this school, have a tendency to forget everything between one lecture and
>the next! The way round it might be to teach theory and practice together
>via multi-disciplinary teams?
>
> best wishes,
>
>Paul Strickland.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Roger OTTEWILL(SBF) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 05 October 2000 11:12
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: RE: Getting discussion going
>>
>>
>> Dear Paul
>>
>> Which organisations did you have in mind? In my view, the
>> principal value of
>> the ILT is that it cuts across disciplinary boundaries and should
>> stimulate
>> pedagogic discourse between members of different academic
>> 'tribes'. I note that
>> you have a computing/maths background. From my own experience at Sheffield
>> Hallam University it has been quite difficult to discuss
>> pedagogic issues with
>> colleagues from your area. Of course, it might be different at
>> John Moores. My
>> background is in Businees and Management and one specific concern is the
>> challenge of getting students to apply their learning in
>> quantitative subjects
>> in other contexts. In other words, to be a little provocative,
>> quantitative
>> modules/units tend to be 'ring fenced' as far as learning is concerned.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|