Kendall criticises teaching review
President says teaching review should be dealing with effects of restructure
Further details about the ongoing Life Sciences undergraduate teaching review have been provided to students, with Union President Alex Kendall voicing concerns over the review’s relationship to the planned departmental restructure.
An e-mail was sent on Monday, 14th February, to students in the Department of Life Sciences from the co-chairs of the review, Professors Andy Purvis and Murray Selkirk, thanking students for over 200 responses to a questionnaire which provided the review group with information about undergraduate degrees and teaching.
As previously reported last month, individuals were critical of the 3 day time frame for submitting responses and of the questionnaire itself.
In their e-mail to students, Purvis and Selkirk were praiseworthy of what they considered to be “excellent suggestions and comments that are shaping [the review group’s] thinking as the review process continues.” Acknowledging queries for further details about the review, the terms of references used by the review group and a timetable pertaining to the process were also provided.
The terms of reference follow the main principle of aiming “to review undergraduate teaching in Life Sciences and make recommendations” with respect to 13 guidelines. Such guidelines include investigations into the “overall coherence of each degree,” the “use of assessment and provision of feedback” and “implications on student satisfaction, applications, and position relative to competitors.”
In terms of the timetabling of the review, the related information corresponds with previously reported statements, with the review period stated as lasting from January until March. A draft review document is due to be completed by early March, with the co-chairs explaining in their message that there will be a further period of consultation. “Anonymised” student responses will be attached as an appendix to this document.
Following this, a response to the review document will be completed in early April. Mid to late April will see a deadline for proposals to be submitted to the Science Studies Committee ahead of the panel reporting to them on May 17th. The final process will be a senate meeting on June 17th. It is hoped that the new intake of student in October 2011 will be the first to see changes during their degrees.
However, not everyone is satisfied by the responses provided by the review group. In his online sabbatical blog on February 11th, Union President Alex Kendall responded to the impending release of the terms of reference, noting particular concern in the fact that they would not contain any reference to the planned restructure of the Life Sciences department: “The teaching review appears to simply be taking a long view about teaching without trying to fill in the 25% loss in teaching time in both degree streams, or replace any of the lost administrative positions.”
Kendall was previously critical of last month’s questionnaire and its lack of mention towards the restructure.
Felix contacted Purvis and Selkirk about the relationship of the restructure towards the teaching review and received the following statement: “The review of teaching that is currently underway is something that all departments do from time to time, in order to make sure their degrees remain relevant and up-to-date.” The co-chairs then categorically stated that, “It is not part of the restructure.”
This will no doubt raise some questions amongst opponents of the restructure, many of whom held the expectation that the teaching review would have some bearing on impending job losses.
