Dear All
Since I am not a learning developer (at least not in a conventional
sense), I don't often contribute to the very interesting and stimulating
discussion threads on this mail list.
However, the issue of contact time is something about which I feel
strongly. Broadly, I am very much in sympathy with Pete's initial email
on the subject. We should not be considering reducing but making a
strong case for increasing contact time, especially in those subject
areas which have traditionally had far less than others. I have been
around long enough to know that contact hours, in the social sciences
and business and management, have been subject to reductions through so
called rationalisations over many years. Not only have hours been
reduced but the size of lecture/seminar/workshop groups have been
increased, which has often resulted in unfortunate outcomes not simply
for tutors but also students. Just one example, when I started teaching
in 1973 a small group meant about 8. By the time I ended my 'front line'
teaching career in 2001 it meant 24. The consequence of this threefold
increase was that many tutors simply used small group teaching time for
mini-lectures. This was evidenced by the fact that even in rooms with
moveable seating desks and tables were invariably set out to accommodate
a 'talk and chalk' format - so much for interactive, student centred
learning. Thus, educational development initiatives should be directed
not simply at assessment but all aspects of student learning time,
including the development of more imaginative approaches to 'small
group' teaching and, in the present climate, that ever increasing part
which is supposedly 'self-managed'. Alternatively, why don't we just
require all students to be distance learners or elearners, coming in for
week long blocks of intensive teaching/learning every two to three
months or so?
That said, there is another aspect of this issue which, in my view, has
not received the attention it deserves. This concerns the substantial
differences in contact time between subjects/disciplines. What we should
be doing is asking fundamental questions about the justifications for
some subjects having significantly more contact hours than others (as
highlighted in a recent THES article), with the consequent
cross-subsidisation (and a case for differential fees?) that this
implies. Other than tradition, on what grounds should subjects differ so
much, especially since all disciplines are now required to meet the
requirements of the employability agenda, with students being expected
to develop a much wider range of practical skills than in the past, and
the widening participation agenda? There may be good reasons for the
differences but I have not seen any serious attempt to justify them.
I would be interested to know how far learning developers feel they are
having to plug gaps which would not be there if contact time truly
reflected the demands placed on both students and tutors. It might also
be the case that variable contact time helps to explain why students
from some courses make more use of 'learning developers' than others, a
point that was made in an earlier exchange of emails.
Sorry about the rant, but I wanted to get the issue of contact time off
my chest.
Needless to say these are personal views and not those of my University.
Roger
====================================
Roger Ottewill
Project Manager and Research Assistant
Tel: 023 80594472
====================================
Learning and Teaching Enhancement Unit
B25/3075 Highfield Campus
University of Southampton
SO17 1BJ
====================================
-----Original Message-----
From: learning development in higher education network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pete Jeffreys
Sent: 05 October 2007 17:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reducing contact time
I completely support making assessment and feedback mechanisms more
useful to both parties, though at the moment I doubt any students would
feel that receiving comments on an essay would count as 'contact time'.
There are many more things which can be pursued in the field of
assessment for learning which don't require the process to be paper
pushing, as this would disenfranchise both teachers and learners.
If this was the intent of the original email, then it's not about
reducing contact time but more about rationalising and enhancing the
learning process - which is a completely different thing.
Have a good weekend all,
Pete
---
Pete Jeffreys
Vice President Education
Reading University Students' Union
[log in to unmask]
0118 318 4130 (internal x4130) 07980 697089
www.rusu.co.uk
- - - Keep the Cap in 2010 - http://www.coalition2010.org - - -
-----Original Message-----
From: learning development in higher education network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sherry Jeary
Sent: 05 October 2007 15:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: FW: Reducing contact time
Hello,
I agree with Christine. As a pragmatic academic, who cares about the
learning experience of my students, and at the same time has to juggle
the research requirements of my School, I am looking for ways to both
enhance the student learning experience and allow me time to do all the
other things that are necessary.
I am NOT looking to have minimal contact time. I have explored a number
of different teaching avenues over the last few years and the majority
of these have been very successful but have in my opinion increased the
marking burden. Another option - using a Problem- based learning style
approach often means the students have deeper knowledge of a smaller
area of the subject. In addition larger class sizes may make this a
difficult option.
Perhaps I am in search of the holy grail? Some means of giving the
students what they need, across a reasonable subject area without over
assessing them and burying myself in paperwork in the meantime?
Regards
Sherry
Sheridan Jeary
Senior Lecturer and VIDE Project Manager
Software Systems Modelling Group
Bournemouth University
Fern Barrow
Poole
Dorset
BH12 5BB
01202-965257
www.sosym.co.uk <http://www.sosym.co.uk/>
________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network on behalf of
Christine Keenan
Sent: Fri 05/10/2007 14:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reducing contact time
Let's think about it another way. I think there is a lot to be said
for giving students time, resource and input that really enhances their
learning. We might though, have to re-think how we do that. For
example, at the moment, assessment is often a trauma for students, they
don't always get feedback that they understand and can work from, even
if they can remember the assignment when they get the feedback to it.
So the value of assessment is probably minimal as a learning experience
plus it can be a huge load for academics, which is missing a trick for
both parties. I'd like to move towards encouraging an attitude of
'assessment for learning' and encourage a richer mix of assessment
across the piece. We might also want to tap more into creative
technologies to enhance how curriculum is delivered.
Our vice chancellor has introduced a releasing potential programme and
part of this is to release staff's potential to get their research done,
and allow the research to inform the teaching.
Whilst I am aware of the problems and politics associated with all of
this, it gives people like LDHEN'ers a real opportunity to shape the way
the learning is developed and delivered. I'd agree that without the
appropriate staff development activities to underpin the change it might
in the short term be detrimental to students, and I don't endorse the
idea of giving students a reading list and telling them to get on with
it.
I also believe that we can do this in negotiation with the students to
bring forward a truly student centred Learning experience. In most
respects I would see this as giving students a much better richer
experience than they might have had before.
What do others thinl?
Chris
________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network on behalf of Pete
Jeffreys
Sent: Fri 05/10/2007 13:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reducing contact time
At a time of crippling student tuition fees, I find it absolutely
staggering that we would consider suggesting a reduction in contact time
with students. Of course looking for common areas across disciplines is
sensible but this is about rationalizing time and quality delivery, not
reducing the overall contact time.
With some courses offering as little as four hours of contact time, the
scope to reduce could not be any smaller. Staff and students alike
benefit from a mutually shared teaching and learning experience.
Pete
---
Pete Jeffreys
Vice President Education
Reading University Students' Union
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
0118 318 4130 (internal x4130) 07980 697089
www.rusu.co.uk <http://www.rusu.co.uk/>
- - - Keep the Cap in 2010 - http://www.coalition2010.org
<http://www.coalition2010.org/> <http://www.coalition2010.org/> - - -
________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christine Keenan
Sent: 05 October 2007 09:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Reducing contact time
Dear all
I wonder if anyone has experience of working with staff through staff
development initiatives in the area of reducing contact time with
students by adjusting assessment, reducing units (modules) offered, and,
looking for commonalities across courses (eg programming across
engineering/computing disciplines).
I'm thinking rather more about the "big picture" issues in staff
development with major change like this, rather than techniques for
example, just simply getting into CAA. I'd be very grateful for any
advice on this.
Best wishes
Chris
Christine Keenan
Learning and Teaching Fellow
School of Design, Engineering & Computing
Bournemouth University
Poole House
Fern Barrow
Poole Dorset
BH12 5BB
Tel: 01202 965307
|
