date: Mon Oct 26 10:52:45 1998 from: Keith Briffa subject: HEFCE Response to: t.d,davies@uea >Return-path: >Envelope-to: f023@cpca11.uea.ac.uk >Delivery-date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 10:37:53 +0100 >Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 10:36:35 +0100 >From: Ted Nield >To: ddg@aber.ac.uk, d.c.green@anglia.ac.uk, g.k.westbrook@bham.ac.uk, > d.e.g.briggs@bristol.ac.uk, Rickard@cardiff.ac.uk, CRRoberts@chelt.ac.uk, > katkins@csm.ex.ac.uk, P.J.Hill@derby.ac.uk, R.C.Searle@durham.ac.uk, > yardleyb@earth.leeds.ac.uk, keith.onions@earth.ox.ac.uk, > Roger.Scrutton@ed.ac.uk, mccave@esc.cam.ac.uk, c.j.caseldine@exeter.ac.uk, > s.ellis@geo.hull.ac.uk, g.walkden@geol.abdn.ac.uk, C.Gribble@geol.gla.ac.uk, > jonesm@geol.port.ac.uk, m.menzies@gl.rhbnc.ac.uk, pleyshon@glam.ac.uk, > ba12@gre.ac.uk, david.sanderson@ic.ac.uk, gga09@keele.ac.uk, > a.rankin@kingston.ac.uk, r.macdonald@lancaster.ac.uk, ra12@le.ac.uk, > sr11@liv.ac.uk, m.j.hambrey@livjm.ac.uk, geoff.notcutt@luton.ac.uk, > graced@macollamh.ucd.ie, David.Vaughan@man.ac.uk, a.c.aplin@newcastle.ac.uk, > c.j.hawkesworth@open.ac.uk, j1griffiths@plymouth.ac.uk, g.leslie@qub.ac.uk, > a.parker@reading.ac.uk, C.W.Mcleod@Sheffield.ac.uk, djs2@soton.ac.uk, > mjt4@st-andrews.ac.uk, d.e.roberts@staffs.ac.uk, > bob.harrison@sunderland.ac.uk, paallen@tcd.ie, pbruck@ucc.ie, mohr@ucg.ie, > d.price@ucl.ac.uk, h.downes@ucl.ac.uk, K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk >Subject: HEFCE Response > >Dear CHUGD members, > >The following has been sent to me by Helen King of So'ton (see her >introductory letter to me). > >Please let Helen know if you have any comments, on >Helen.L.King@soc.soton.ac.uk by lunchtime tomorrow (22 Oct). > >BWs > >Ted Nield > >text follows: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >Dear Ted, > >We (Geol. Soc, Malcom Hart, various FDTL projects) have written a draft >response to the HEFCE learning and teaching strategy consultation >document. >We would like to send a copy to CHUGD members for their opinions as >soon as possible (I have to send the final version to HEFCE tomorrow >afternoon!). Malcolm has told me that you have a copy of the CHUGD >email addresses. > >I'd be very grateful if you would forward it to CHUGD members and ask >for any comments to be sent to me before lunchtime tomorrow. > >Sorry for the short timescale and thanks very much for your help, >Best wishes >Helen >Helen.L.King@soc.soton.ac.uk > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >EARTH SCIENCES RESPONSE TO HEFCE CONSULTATION 98/40: >LEARNING AND TEACHING: >STRATEGY AND FUNDING PROPOSALS > > >1.0 Introduction > >This response to Consultation 98/40 is made by the National Earth >Sciences >Education Network (NESEN), a national body which speaks on behalf of >the >Earth Sciences HE community. NESEN membership includes all major >current >Earth Sciences learning and teaching initiatives being run in HE >institutions. The core membership of NESEN is: > >the FDTL-funded Earth Sciences Staff Development Project (ESSDP), the >FDTL-funded TRIADS project, the TLTP- funded UK Earth Sciences >Courseware Consortium (UKESCC), the DfEE-funded Earth Sciences >Discipline Network project (ESDN), the Geological Society (discipline >professional body and central to the structure) and the Committee of >Heads of University Geosciences Departments (CHUGD). > >NESEN is currently seeking endorsement from other key national >(Petroleum >Exploration Society of Great Britain, British Geological Survey, Institute of >Petroleum, Palaeontological Association, Mineralogical Society, National >History Museum) and international (National Association of Geoscience >Teachers, International Association for Geoscience Education and >Training) agencies. > >NESEN welcomes the proposed new funding initiatives introduced in the >consultation document 98/40, in particular the proposed rationalisation of >support under a single programme - the TQEF. Our response offers >comments on all aspects of the consultation document but we primarily >focus on the proposals regarding the establishment of subject centres. >To this end our response to paragraph 50d (concerning the subject >strand of the TQEF) is given first and comments on paragraph 50a - c >and 50e-g follow later. > > >2.0 Response to Subject Strand of TQEF Proposals (paragraph 50d) > >2.1 General Comments >We believe that the proposal to develop a UK-wide network of new >integrated subject centres to support learning and teaching is the most >effective mechanism for disseminating and embedding existing >experience and good practice developed during the FDTL and TLTP >programmes and related initiatives funded by other organisations, such >as the DfEE-funded >Discipline Networks. > >Regarding the suggested subject-centres listed in the CTI / TLTSN review >document 98/47 we consider that the inclusion of Geology in a >subject-centre along with Physical Geography and Meteorology is >inappropriate. Our current and past learning and teaching projects have >focused sharply on a discipline-based Earth Sciences approach. We >would prefer an Earth Sciences subject centre incorporating Geology, >Geophysics, Geochemistry and Marine >Sciences, spanning 50 HE institutions throughout the UK which offer >such courses. This suggestion is in line with the subject benchmarking >framework of the QAA (THES: 16/10/98) which places Earth Sciences >and Geography in separate subject units. We believe that single set of >subject units for all teaching and learning issues is the most sensible >way forward and, hence, would advocate separate subject-centres for >Earth Sciences (as defined above) and Geography. > >2.2 Paragraph 50di - current programmes >We welcome the rationalisation of current initiatives and suggest that >partnerships are enabled between successful projects and those >subject areas not already covered by previous phases of FDTL / TLTP >funding. > >2.3 Paragraph 50dii - reward successful project completion >We believe that the reward of successful projects is imperative. The >experience and expertise developed is most effectively used if funding >opportunities are provided for full dissemination and implementation of the >learning outcomes and recommendations of previous projects. > >2.4 Paragraph 50diii - invest in a programme >We agree that investing in quality improvement is required but suggest >that networks with a proven track record should be at the core of this >process in order to ensure maximum benefit from partnerships between >'best practice' and 'weaker' subject providers. > >2.5 Paragraph 50div - subject-centres >We welcome and support the proposal to develop a UK-wide programme >of new integrated subject centres to support learning and teaching. We, >in the >Earth Sciences, have considerable expertise and experience in >developing and successfully completing learning and teaching projects, >as witnessed by the membership list in section 1.0. Staff loyalties >dominantly lie with their discipline and we urge the funding councils to >encourage and enhance good practice in learning and teaching by >building on this fact. > >We strongly recommend that the physical structure of the >subject-centres should be in the form of co-ordinated networks, with a >membership comprising key projects having a proven track record of >delivering in learning and teaching. We suggest that, where appropriate >(e.g. in the Earth Sciences), the relevant professional body (in this >example, the Geological Society) could co-ordinate the network to draw >on existing membership networks and to avoid the 'not developed here' >syndrome. The network director need not necessarily be physically >based at the professional body but, preferably at an HEI. We strongly >support a network approach in preference to a single subject centre. > >As an example of how such a network might be realised we outline >how, in the >Earth Sciences, we can provide an effective service by building on >current initiatives, contacts and experience. All 5 points (a-e) in >paragraph 33 of the consultation document 98_40 are well covered by >our proposed structure given that the individual strands of expertise >provided by the NESEN core membership would be responsible for >promoting / disseminating good practice and sharing experiences; >disseminating outcomes of other initiatives; reviewing new materials and >initiatives in a subject context. This would be effected through the >NESEN, under the co-ordination of the national director. > >We have subject expertise in the key areas of: staff development >(ESSDP), student development (personal and career development - 'key >skills': ESDN)), computers and IT (UKESCC), continued professional >development (CPD - >Geological Society, ESSDP) and assessment (TRIADS). These initiatives >contribute to the development of individuals and the curriculum. > >These current Earth Sciences projects (funded under the FDTL and DfEE >programmes) have successfully collaborated for two years, sharing >experience and expertise in order to disseminate good practice to the >Earth Sciences academic community. The NESEN will be the primary >vehicle in the continuation strategy of these projects. This provides >evidence of our proven track record in, and commitment to, delivering a >truly national discipline-based learning and teaching strategy. > > >3.0 Response to Other Proposals (paragraphs 50a-c and 50e-g) > >3.1 Paragraph 50a - proposed strategic purposes >We welcome the strategic purposes and recognise their potential for >raising the status of learning and teaching in HE. However, we wish to >emphasise that, if the profile of learning and teaching in HEIs is to be >raised to that of research, the funding should be appropriately organised. >Current short-term programmes (e.g. FDTL, TLTP) have initiated >invaluable learning and teaching innovations but without long-term >funding options these are difficult to fully implement and adequately >sustain. We would like to see the funding councils taking a long-term >view of funding for learning and teaching, similar to that adopted by >research councils. > >Encouragement and reward. The reward to individuals for high quality >learning and teaching, as currently obtained for excellence in research, >should be implemented as a priority. Promotion on the basis of pedagogic >achievement will stimulate staff to engage in learning and teaching >initiatives and encourage more rapid development of both staff and >initiatives. > >Co-ordination and collaboration. We see co-ordination and collaboration >of existing learning and teaching initiatives and agencies as an essential >ingredient to the promotion and development of high quality learning and >teaching. Our national learning and teaching profile, in the Earth >Sciences, is enhanced by collaboration with organisations such as the >Geological >Society and CHUGD. Additionally, we also recognise the value of >cross-discipline interaction for sharing and enhancing good practice, as >witnessed by our connections with existing projects and networks in >other subject areas (e.g. Geography Discipline Network). > >Disseminating and embedding good practice. Many outcomes of current >Earth >Sciences learning and teaching projects are ripe for dissemination and >embedding. The implementation of new subject-specific networks would >be an ideal and timely vehicle for introducing these on a national basis. >UK HEIs are beginning to play an important role in the high profile area of >international educational development in Earth Sciences. We have >several links with international agencies (e.g. the International >Association for >Geoscience Education and Training - IAGET and the USA -based National >Association of Geoscience Teachers - NAGT) and we also collaborate >on learning and teaching matters with individual academics in Europe, the >USA, >Australia and South Africa. We intend to build on this international >network to enhance the global competitiveness of Earth Sciences >learning and teaching in the UK and would welcome the potential funding >council support for such activities. > >Research and innovation. The recognition of the need to identify areas >for further investment in research and development is welcomed and we >would look to assist the process by widely disseminating our >experiences. > >Capacity for change. We support proposals to promote a culture of >acceptance of new initiatives at a senior management level within >institutions. We recognise the crucial importance of this approach in >breaking down current barriers to change. > >3.2 Paragraph 50b - bidding mechanism >We agree that an open tendering mechanism is the fairest way of >allocating funding with the proviso that there is adequate support and >guidance for bidders. We also recognise that research is not only >supported by bidding for grants but also by the automatic reward / >penalty for good / poor performance in the RAE. We seek confirmation >from the funding councils as to whether they envisage an allocation of >learning and teaching funding along similar lines. > >3.3 Paragraph 50c - additional student numbers >>From experience in our own subject area, we note that additional student >numbers are not a benefit unless the resources they bring actually reach >the disciplines that earn them. > >3.4 Paragraph 50e - invitations to institutions to bid for funding >We welcome the proposal for making awards to individual academics to >enhance learning and teaching. As indicated in our response to 50a >above, individual incentives are crucial to engage staff and provide them >with increased credibility for their pedagogic development work and we >believe this should be a major funding priority. However, we seek >clarification of the phrasing of this proposal. Will institutions be invited to >bid on behalf of individuals? or will individuals be able to bid, with the >prior approval and support of their institutions, directly to the funding >councils? We believe that the latter approach (as used in bidding for >FDTL funding) is preferable. > >3.5 Paragraph 50f - areas for innovation and development >We believe that future investment should be focused on staff, student >and curriculum development. However, we would like to emphasise that >disciplines, and HE in general, would benefit from funding that focuses >on holistic programmes rather than purely on enhancing individual >strands. > >3.6 Paragraph 50g - the TQEF >Funding is essential for the advancement and global competitiveness of >learning and teaching in the UK. We agree that the proposed TQEF is the >best model - a single funding mechanism will be simpler for all involved. >We envisage the purpose of the fund will be to improve quality in learning >and teaching and its nature will be to promote discipline-based >centres/networks with close links to the Institute for Learning and >Teaching. > >Again, we would like to emphasise the need for a long-term, or rolling, >programme in preference to another one-off, short-lived 'radical new >initiative'. We would encourage, and appreciate, funding councils to work >on academics' behalf to educate government ministers on the crucial >importance of these funding proposals for the future of learning and >teaching in HE. > > > > >Collated by Dr Helen King (ESSDP) for NESEN >20/10/98 12:16 > > >