An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2005 - 2006
REVIEW OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF ANATOMY
FINAL REPORT
3 May 2006
2
Department of Anatomy: Review Report 2005–06
Introduction
This report arises from a visit by a Review Team to the Anatomy Department
on 7 - 9th March 2006. The Department had already prepared and submitted a 'Self
Assessment Report' that, with other documentation, was made available to the Review
Team in advance of the visit.
The Review Team consisted of: Dr Alistair Warren, University of Sheffield
(Chair); Dr Dave Wilson, Department of Anatomy, Queen’s University of Belfast;
Ms. Ruth McMenamin, Dept of Speech & Language Therapy, NUI Galway; Dr.
Adrian Frazier, English Department, NUI Galway (Rapporteur).
The report is structured to cover the following main topics:
1. Aims and Objectives
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Organization and Management
Programmes and Instruction
Scholarship and Research
Community Service
The Wider Context
Summary and Concluding Remarks
File name, Print date
AnatomyFinal Report
05/07/2007
3
Department of Anatomy: Review Report 2005–06
1.
Aims and Objectives
Clinical: To provide an understanding of anatomy relative to clinical
medicine, nursing, and therapeutic practice, thereby enhancing the quality of patient
care.
Science: To deliver teaching in a research-led environment; to provide
students with a broad background in modern anatomical science; to encourage
students to develop a range of subject-specific technical skills as well as generic
transferable skills (written, oral, collaborative, etc.).
2.
Organisation and Management
Recently filling of a long vacant chair for head of the Anatomy Department
provides an opportunity to implement its Aims and Objectives.
Administrative and technical support staff understand and fulfil their roles.
There is a team-based approach. Positive relations between technical and teaching
staff have enabled the department to continue to fulfil and expand its teaching
functions during the years without a chair.
Although there are some mechanisms in place to solicit the expression of
student views and to provide feedback, a uniform approach has not been agreed.
Staff should be encouraged to use CELT for the development of appropriate student
feedback mechanisms, and a departmental system should be put into place whereby
the results are available to the Head of Department and other teaching staff, with
actions arising from the evaluation being communicated to students through a staffstudent committee.
3.
Programmes and Instruction
Four medical and paramedical students representing years one through three
from various courses in receipt of Anatomy lectures expressed a high level of
satisfaction with the quality of teaching in the Anatomy Department. The lecturers’
readiness to make to make notes and other helpful information available on
Blackboard or the ‘Q’ drive (students prefer the former), and the use of group work
were highlighted by the students as being particularly helpful.
The external examiner’s reports from 1998 to 2005 indicate standards
achieved by NUI Galway anatomy students are consistent with those of students of
other universities.
During meetings with students, 17 current and 2 past Science students,
concerns were expressed about the fourth year, regarding the structure of the year,
lack of communication, cancellation of lectures, late marking of work, and other
matters. Students have made complaints to the Head of Department. It is
recommended that the department address this issue urgently. Opinions about earlier
years of the programmes were generally very positive.
File name, Print date
AnatomyFinal Report
05/07/2007
4
Department of Anatomy: Review Report 2005–06
The Review Group met with all 4th year students at their request; as a
consequence 3rd year student representatives did not have comparable time to present
their views.
4.
Scholarship and Research
In spite of the difficult situation in which the department found itself, it has
put a great deal of time and effort into maintaining and expanding its teaching profile.
Understandably, this has had an impact on laboratory research output. However,
there is evidence that academic staff have been developing in areas of pedagogy in
relation to their scientific discipline. For example, innovative use of web-based
electronic laboratory notebooks in histology and questionnaire-based enquiry into the
psychological effects of exposure to dissection room teaching on first-year students.
We recommend that staff be encouraged to publish such innovations in relevant
journals.
The panel feels that there has been a significant period of neglect regarding
opportunities for staff to pursue research and scholarship. Nevertheless, there have
been pockets of creativity in scholarship, research, and service to the community (see
section 5).
Laboratory research activity has been low relative to both national and
international comparators, making it difficult to demonstrate how research supports
teaching. The embryonic seminar programme that has been established is welcomed
and should be expanded.
5.
Community Service
There is evidence of community engagement involving school children visits
to the department. An outreach programme brings disadvantaged children to the
Anatomy Department in a liaison with Galway Youth Service.
More significantly, the department has a critical role in the body donation
programme in which it informs the community of the importance of the provision of
cadavers for the training of clinical and science students. It is an issue requiring
sensitivity.
6.
The Wider Context
The panel have given due consideration to the issues arising from the prolonged
period when the department lacked a full-time head. This report is presented context
of this special set of circumstances. In view of this, the Institution and department
may wish to consider holding the next review earlier than would occur in the usual 6yearly cycle.
The external assessors additionally recommend that the university monitor and coordinate across all departments the evaluations that students make of teaching and
introduce a simple, annual departmental report on learning and teaching. Furthermore
File name, Print date
AnatomyFinal Report
05/07/2007
5
Department of Anatomy: Review Report 2005–06
they suggest that the University should consider introducing a rewards system (for
example prizes) for staff whose teaching has been demonstrated to be excellent. The
committee agrees that responses to student evaluations of teaching should, as we
understand is normally the case at the university, be communicated to students
through a staff-student committee.
Current changes in the Anatomy curriculum are taking place both as parts of
regular improvement and updating of science teaching and as part of a radical review
driven by the new medical curriculum.
The Biophotonics Platform and REMEDI, both major national ventures, have
significant input from the Department.
The change in emphasis in higher education to student-centered learning presents
this department with new challenges with which they have only partially engaged.
7.
Report Summary and Concluding Remarks
a) The Panel thanks the Anatomy Department, especially Professor Dockery, for
the open and positive way in which they have received this site visit. Such
visits are intrusive and take up a great deal of time; the panel appreciates the
patience and cooperation shown. We also thank NUI Galway and the Quality
Office for its hospitality.
b) The panel is impressed by the spirit of reinvigoration within the department.
c) Over the past five years the Department of Anatomy has gone through a
difficult time, with no head and diminished teaching staff, and all members of
the department have taken a huge responsibility to maintain medical, science,
and other teaching on behalf of the university.
d) The department has responded positively to its new dynamic Head of
Department. The changes introduced by him have been embraced by all
categories of staff and classes of student.
e) The new Human Biology Building is both a necessary and important
investment, and the Anatomy Department requires and deserves a significant
representation in that space.
Recommendations
Physical Plant
o The fabric of the existing Anatomy building is poor. As a matter of
urgency, the University should allocate resources for refurbishment,
contingent on progress with the new building. Anatomy should be given
adequate teaching and research space to allow the continued expansion of
this discipline within the Human Biology Building.
Revitalization of Research Culture
File name, Print date
AnatomyFinal Report
05/07/2007
6
Department of Anatomy: Review Report 2005–06
o The department has talents in teaching and innovative, rigorous delivery
and assessment; we recommend that staff be encouraged to publish such
innovations in relevant journals.
o We recommend that staff be given time for development to advance their
careers, to include pedagogic, research, administrative, and technical
developments. Sabbaticals should be taken on schedule; mini-sabbaticals
should be explored. Therefore we further recommend that the department
receives as soon as possible a full-time contract teaching post for a period
of at least two years in order to facilitate sabbaticals for academic staff.
This is necessary as partial remediation after years of neglect.
o Additional funds (beyond the Triennial Grant) should be provided to cover
staff travel for academic conferences, staff development, and training
opportunities. This also is necessary as a form of remediation after the
years of neglect.
o We endorse the Department’s plans for collaborative research both
nationally and internationally, and recommend focusing intra-departmental
research into core areas.
Teaching
o Although there are innovative aspects to the teaching (‘snapshot marking’ and
‘peer teaching’ for instance), there remains a heavy reliance on didactic
delivery. We acknowledge that progress has been made in reducing student
contact time, but recommend reducing this still further to give both staff and
students more time for reflection and self-direction.
o Prior to any further expansion in student numbers, adequate staff and
resources should be put in place.
o An objective student evaluation and monitoring process must be introduced as
soon as possible, possibly in collaboration with CELT.
Communication between staff, with students, and across departments
o We recommend that the department’s internal communication processes
should be clarified, with regular staff meetings and the introduction of a
student-staff committee.
o Furthermore, it is recommended that lines of reporting and responsibility
should be made clear to all staff and students.
o We recommend the introduction of a web-based weekly calendar, accessible
by students and all categories of staff, in order to disseminate information.
o We recommend that the department institute a systematic process of timely
student feedback.
o The student perception of 4th year is that it is poorly organized and structured,
with an imbalance of workload across the semesters. We understand that there
are plans to rationalize the management of Science teaching, but recommend
that the problems with the current 4th year class be addressed immediately.
File name, Print date
AnatomyFinal Report
05/07/2007
7
Department of Anatomy: Review Report 2005–06
Conclusion
It is clear that the department now has Professor with a strong voice in institutional
affairs and a vision for the future of the discipline. Leaders of the institution are
evidently sympathetic to the plans for improvement of the department and its work
conditions.
File name, Print date
AnatomyFinal Report
05/07/2007
8
Department of Anatomy: Review Report 2005–06
Comments on The Methodology of the Review Process
1. The self-assessment report did not adhere fully to the guidelines of the Quality
Assurance Programme; e. g., there was no participation by students in the
construction of the self-assessment report.
2. Specific SWOT analyses were provided by all elements of the staff.
3. Core course documentation & survey data were patchy.
4. Staff reported they did not receive written copies of the External Examiner’s
reports and therefore the recommended changes in them were not made.
5. Whilst most units in NUI Galway are on the second round of review, this visit
represents the first review of Anatomy. The next review should be, with the
agreement of the Anatomy staff, within a shorter interval than the planned 6 year
cycle.
6. It would be helpful to external assessors to be provided with a ‘Quality
Handbook’ that included such information as the university’s policies on
sabbatical leave, student feedback, course-loading, etc.
Dr. Alistair Warren (Chair)
Dr. Dave Wilson
Ms Ruth Mc Menamin
Dr. Adrian Frazier (Rapporteur)
3 May 2006
File name, Print date
AnatomyFinal Report
05/07/2007