Support Staff Meeting

UG STAFF STUDENT LIAISON COMMITTEE

Tuesday 22nd February, 2005

Dorothy Hodgkin Building Lab 2, Room DH0.44

M I N U T E S

Present:

Dr Mark Trueman (MTr) – Chair/Director of UG Studies Claire Briant Yr 1 Dr Nicky Edelstyn (NE) – Year 1 Tutor Liam Kirwan Yr 1 Dr Richard Stephens (RSt) – Year 3 Tutor Lisa Todd Yr 1 Dr John Hegarty (JHe) – Head of School Sarah Denley Yr 2 Dr Claire Fox – Learning Support Tutor Candice Harding Yr 2 Mayush Visram Yr 2 Roxana Rudzik Yr 3 Kate Scapens Yr 3 Caroline Wheelton Yr 3

1 Apologies;

There were apologies from Vicky Gillis (Yr 2 Rep) and Dirk Van Rooy (Yr 2 Tutor).

2 Minutes of the last meeting 9/11/04:

These were read and approved.

3 Matters Arising:

There were no matters arising.

4 Level 1 Business:

a) Module 10004 Lab Books

In response to student’s complaints about the lack of lab books in the student union shop and concerns on their use, MTr invited RSt as module leader to respond. RSt gave a brief overview of the process required to complete the Lab Books and reminded the students that the module guide contained all the information needed. He also stated that no-one had emailed him with any specific problems relating to the use of these books. He also explained that staff at the student union shop had been informed in advance of the need to stock enough books. However, we have now been told that the shop only ordered 100 books at a time and that this was inadequate for our needs. The module leader will endeavour to ensure that the Student Union shop orders an appropriate number of lab books next year.

b) BPS Recognition

In response to a rumour that the psychology course might lose BPS recognition, MTr briefly explained the process of accreditation. He reported that the current programme is accredited until the cohort intake of 2006-7 and that the next 5-year review would take place in 2007-8. The school successfully completed a BPS Resources Review as recently as June 2004. In short there is no substance to this rumour. c) Slide Usage

In context of positive feedback about lectures some students requested that staff talk around PowerPoint slides rather that read them out.

5 Level 2 Business:

Alex Jones was not at the meeting. However, she had sent an email detailing the agenda items that she had been asked to raise and these are as follows:

a) Module 20005 Exam:

The Year 2 students had asked why module 20005 is assessed only by an exam whereas, in the past, there had also been an essay requirement. MTr responded on behalf of the module leader, Martin Rowley and explained that the external examiner to the previous year’s course had thought that the module was over- assessed and the module team had responded by removing the essay. MTr noted that the two exam revision sessions have been organised for this module, scheduled for 28.4.05 and 3.5.05

b) Module 20009 Exam (Example questions):

JHe was asked to comment on why there were no example questions for this module prior to the exam. He explained that as the module was now assessed using the MCQ system it had not been possible to produce example questions for this year. Following the SSLC meeting it was agreed that the module team would produce some example questions for next year.

c) Module 20004 Lab Book marks:

Some students had asked why the lab books did not contribute to the summative assessment of the module. MTr explained the lab book system to the students on behalf of the module leader, Dr Andrew Rutherford. Their purpose is to assess the achievement of a range of laboratory competencies and this method was commonly used in natural sciences. The material served as a record of the lab classes, which could be used for exam revision and that their introduction last year was thought to have contributed to an improvement in examination performance over previous years. Students feedback from last year indicated that they found the lab books were useful. The module team was unwilling to adopt a more formal method of assessment, which would greatly increase the work load of students. Student representatives were content with this response.

6 Level 3 Business:

a) Return of Special Option Essays:

There were complaints from the year 3 students about the late return of these essays, which were handed in on 17/12/04. MTr responded by explaining the marking and moderating procedure in detail. The reps replied that they were happy with this account and no further action was necessary.

7 Understanding RPT:

MTr invited the year 1 reps to comment on their understanding of the RPT system as a larger proportion of students than usual had failed module 10002 this year due non- completion despite email reminders sent out at the end of November. The reps responded that they were not aware of any problems since no-one had complained. MTr urged the reps to encourage the students to read the relevant information in their Psychology Undergraduate Handbooks (page 30) and the RPT co-ordinator agreed to email all year 1 students outlining the RPT requirements. Action: RSt

8 Any other Business:

a) The year 1 students had requested a suggestion box be placed in reception. MTr informed them that there is already such a box situated just to the right of the hatchway in the School Reception area, which is regularly monitored by the Senior School Manager, Ann Ireson.

b) On behalf of the module leader, Dr Martin Rowley, MTr asked the year 2 students to comment on the email discussion group called “PSY2K5talk”. It was generally thought that this was useful; however, they felt that more control was needed to be exercised by the moderator to ensure that students stick to topics relating to this module

c) MTr presented module evaluation summaries for modules PSY-304 and PSY-338 which were taught in 2003-4. There were no matters arising from this apart from noting the positive nature of student feedbacks.

d) RSt invited the reps to nominate someone to sit on the Health and Safety committee. The committee thanked Rebecca Wheeler (Yr 1 rep) who volunteered to do this.

e) The year 3 reps presented a report they had compiled about module PSY-30026 exam performance and made the following points:

i) Lecture material was too broad to revise ii) Too many lecture references to read iii) The “revision” seminars were not any good iv) The module would be better served if there were additional assessment opportunities, and if weekly seminars were also offered.

The module leader, NE responded:

i) Lecture material had been reduced by 33% compared to last year’s module. ii) The exam was there to sample their knowledge and the students should have been reading at least 4 hours per week per lectures from week 1 of semester 1. iii) The module leader had received negligible response to her email requesting areas of content to be discussed at revision seminars. Therefore, during these seminars, she could only deal with her own subject area and the exam structure.

9 Date of Next Meeting

This will be Tuesday 10th May 2005 at 1.00pm

MTr/sjw220205