Session 2: The most valuable course structure would be?

This was a structured debate, delegates were split into 2 teams D and T. They were given 30 minutes to prepare a 5 minute presentation on why their approach would be the most robust/marketable way of packaging a Salter’s style course.

Team D            The most viable course structure is an integrated model.

 Team T            The most viable course structure is one with independent modules/units. 

The content of presentations was as follows:

Team D: Looking at the pro’s and con’s of the Integrated Model.

PRO’s CON’s
  • Popular with students
    		•
  • Convincing colleagues
    		•
  • Perception is its "softer"
    		•
  • Overall shift needed
    		•
  • Uses students innate curiosity
    		•
  • No appropriate texts
    		•
  • Ownership
    		•
  • Team teaching approach needed
    		•
  • Integrates laboratory
    		•
  • Probably long-term solution
    		•
  • Gives reasons for learning topics
    		•
  • Problem of rigour
    		•
  • Enjoyment, stimulation, relevant
    		•
  • Why need to know this
    		•
  • Promotion of intakes
    		•   

    Team T: Looking at the pro’s and con’s of Independent Modules/Units.

    PRO’s CON’s
  • Allows flexibility in delivery/design
    		•
  • Compartmentalisation
  • Autonomy
    		•
  • Not all topics covered
    		•
  • Greater selectivity
    		•
  • Lack of continuity
    		•
  • Greater student choice
    		•
  • Over specialisation/ too advanced
    		•
  • Encourages team teaching
    		•
  • Perception of rigour
    		•

    The debate that followed made the following points: 

    1. Its a lot of work to write this material. 
    2. Think not in terms of modules but rather of chunks of material expressed in terms of student hours of work, with different people doing different chunks, aiming for consistent style of delivery.
    3. "The verb to cover and the noun information are responsible for much mischief". In our current courses, students can pass knowing 40% of what they ought to, i.e. 60% ignorant. If we dropped amount of material to 70% of what it is now and aimed at 60% success this would be an improvement. 
    4. Salters does not cut rigour at "A" Level, its "Hard Science" but it lives and has meaning. 
    5. Student Input? How is material presented? What do I want my students to achieve/ get out of it? We want students who are less passive and more active/independent learners. 
    6. The chunks developed should be closed and complete, rounded pieces of work but with rough edges to allow links to other chunks. 
    7. Suggestion to take a chunk and take Salters approach as a model to do it. It has to be a chunk that is practical. 
    8. The structure of a degree course is so different from "A" Level (question of who controls syllabus, exams etc.) that you cannot translate Salter’s to University degree courses directly. 
    9. In terms of autonomy, its a matter of how big a chunk can I be responsible for? There is a sort of a critical mass of teaching needed in order to give flexibility of delivery (i.e. to make it worth while to teach in Salter’s style) 
    10. There is a lot of politics in this, but Heads of Departments should all be open to arguments based on "bums on seats". 
    11. Ideally it would be nice to have a 1st year team teaching all first year chemists between them, to give flexibility to be innovative. 
    12. If different places are doing different modules, a coordinating group is needed. 

    Summary

     Given political/autonomy issues connected with an integrated model and seeking in the short term to pursue the independent module approach, 2 main issues need to be focused on: 

    a) How best to take a chunk and change it to make it interesting?(How to help people to do this? What is the best approach?)

     b) What is smallest chunk this is worth doing for?

     Back to index page