CuCom 055
12 March 2008
UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN
CURRICULUM REFORM COMMISSION
REPORT ON ENGAGEMENT WITH SCHOOLS
First Engagements
First engagement meetings are now completed. Reports of these meetings are attached for:
 Accountancy and Finance
 Education
 Geosciences
 Medicine
Reports remain to be submitted for:
 Natural and Computing Sciences
 Property and Economics
Second Engagements
Second engagement meetings have now been arranged for all Schools. Some have already taken
place and one report has been submitted. This related to the School of Education and is attached
herewith.
Third Engagements
Third engagement sessions have been arranged for most Schools and work is in progress to close
remaining gaps.
D:\106741839.doc
1
CuCom 055
12 March 2008
Curriculum Reform Commission
Minute of Meeting 9th January 2008: Chris Fynsk and Jim McDonald to School
of Education.
The meeting was chaired jointly by Chris Fynsk and Jim McDonald who welcomed staff
form the School of Education to the first of a number of planned visits by
representatives of the Commission to the School. The meeting was attended by
approximately thirty staff.
Jim McDonald set the scene for discussion by outlining the drivers for reviewing our
curriculum at this time and why some measure of reform might be assumed. The
School was encouraged to look at the wider picture regarding the University
curriculum and to seize upon this opportunity of contributing to the review process.
Concern was expressed over the use of the term “reform” as opposed to “review”. It
was also apparent that there was a measure of scepticism over the whole process,
given that academics within Education are continually amending their curriculum in
response to the external pressure of professional bodies. However, it was also
intimated that the School was receptive to the review/reform and indeed was in a
strong position to forward informed opinion about certain issues relating to both
curriculum content and process. These issues were not developed at the meeting but
individuals were strongly encouraged by the Commissioners to make representation to
the Steering Group. (It may be noted that two staff from Education have subsequently
presented to the Steering Group.) There was concern expressed over the lack of
agenda for discussion but the Commissioners encouraged staff to consider the present
stage of the process as one of opinion seeking and agenda making, rather than that of
response to proposed strategy. It was pointed out by the Commissioners that the
latter emphasis would no doubt follow in the months ahead.
Some concern was expressed over the apparent advocacy of the Melbourne Model. It
was emphasised by the Commissioners that no assumptions had been made over the
relevance of this model to the Aberdeen curriculum but staff were encouraged to
respond positively to the opportunity of attending the forthcoming lecture by Peter
McPhee, who would reflect upon the Melbourne experience.
The meeting closed with the Commissioners thanking staff for their attendance and
apparent enthusiasm for making representation to the Steering Group.
D:\106741839.doc
2
CuCom 055
12 March 2008
School of Medicine Open Meeting to discuss Curriculum Reform held on
Thursday 30 January 2008 in LT3, Polwarth Building
Curriculum Commission representatives: Prof Howard Chandler, Prof Jenny
Mordue
Attendees: 7 staff members including Prof Mike Greaves

Profs Chandler and Mordue started the meeting by advising that the Reform
process has the aim to make the University of Aberdeen distinctive, with a unique
selling point. In general terms the meeting was positive. Mike Greaves was happy
to agree that breadth subjects should be within the MBChB degree, and felt that it
was already there. Members of staff involved with designing non-medical degrees
within SM showed interest in some of the ideas to introduce breadth including
generic skills that could be taught within disciplines.
A paper produced by the GMC in 1993 – “Tomorrow’s Doctors” - is the document
against which all medical degrees are benchmarked and which informed the
MBChB curriculum. The MBChB degree already has diversity built in, e.g. the
paramedical block which had been developed whereby students organise an 8week elective project which could take place in any part of the world and on any
topic. This generated enthusiasm among students and also promotes the idea that
medical students, and therefore future medical practitioners, should have a
rounded approach to life. Mixed views were expressed about this block but the
student feedback was more positive than negative.

The SM agreed with the Commission’s view that all students should start their core
subject area from day one bearing in mind that there was a need also to introduce
some broader courses, e.g. ethical discourse, cultures, etc. Such topics were
already built in to the medical degree.

Prof Hamish McKenzie, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Medicine, confirmed he
had an appointment to speak to the Steering Group in more depth about the
medical degree. He also confirmed that broader areas which might previously
have been considered as a hidden part of the university experience, e.g.
communication skills, professionalism – were now becoming more explicit.
Although not always easy, it was possible to identify components which could be
taught and assessed.
Concern was expressed by SM staff about what percentage of the students’ time it
was envisaged would be spent on these general skills in first year. HC and JM
confirmed that the area was up for debate and that any ‘Aberdeen’ courses would
not impinge overmuch on the amount of time spent on core curricula.
Concern was also expressed by SM staff about how the broader subjects such as
statistics could be taught at a standard level when experience showed that
students have varying levels of knowledge and ability which made designing
courses very difficult. However, the view was expressed that if students were
coming in at Masters level, there should not be a need to improve their numeracy
and literacy skills before they could be taught their chosen University subject.
With regard to the MBChB degree, concern was expressed as to how more nonmedical subjects could be fitted in to the timetable. The main aim was to get
medical students involved in clinical situations/problems as early as possible so as
D:\106741839.doc
3
CuCom 055
12 March 2008
to try and keep them enthused about their chosen career path. Topics such as
ethics were woven into their curriculum from the start and continued throughout
their studies. There was a view that intelligent people should be able to follow
topics such as climate change through reading relevant material and watching TV.
We should be nurturing enquiring minds, which should be the mark of a graduate.
It was noted that Tutors in other areas were often surprised at the level and
variety of activities undertaken by medical students on topics outwith medicine. It
was felt that enthusiastic teachers were essential to maintaining motivation.
D:\106741839.doc
4
CuCom 055
12 March 2008
Meeting with the School of Geosciences, 22 January 2008, attended by 17
staff
Representatives of the Commission: Judith Masthoff, Joachim Schaper
The School of Geosciences comprises four disciplines: Geography, Geology and
Petroleum Geology, Spatial Planning, and Archaeology. It is split over two sites
(Meston building and St Mary's), and offers both BSc and MA degrees. Many of its
degrees are accredited by outside professional bodies (in particular in Geology, Spatial
Planning and Marine and Coastal Resource Management). Special for this school is
that 30-60 credits’ worth on each degree course is taught outdoors, through fieldwork.
The School has recently undergone reorganisation, streamlining the management of
teaching and support staff. In particular, it has introduced consistency in rules for
students across the school, avoiding observed game playing by students who often
chose the honours option with the lowest entry level. Archaeology has only recently
been introduced.
Entry Requirements: There was a lot of support for higher entry requirements. It was
noted that there seems to be a conflict between being a regional university and an
aspiration of being in the top 100, with the latter requiring higher entry requirements.
While higher entry requirements were seen as an ideal, there was some concern that
this may lead to lower student numbers (‘Can the University afford getting rid of
weaker students?’). Staff wondered whether this may lead the University to refocus its
activities, shutting down disciplines with student numbers that are ‘too low’.
Foundation year: With the exception of Geography, there are no real Highers directly
related to the disciplines in the School. This led to support for a foundation year, to
allow students to catch up through an extra year. Such a foundation year could also
be used to allow lower level entry (with good students being fast-tracked).
Core topics: Colleagues in the School would like a core course on ‘ways of
knowing/acquiring knowledge’. ‘Mathematical thought and physics (logic behind
arguments, how the world works) was seen as too ‘classical’. It should be a broad
course, covering methods from many disciplines, not just the natural sciences. It was
seen as important not to advance one discipline over others. There was a preference
for teaching students ‘effective writing" rather than "essay writing’.
Breadth: It was noted that a mature mind (and a good grounding in your own
discipline) is needed in order to appreciate other/cross discipline courses. Maybe
breadth should be part of the curriculum in later years, rather than at the start, as is
currently the case. There is support for breadth: it was commented that the great
global problems need a multidisciplinary approach.
Other issues: Students currently have to pay for fieldwork (£200-£500) and this poses
problems, particularly given that fieldwork is required for accreditation. Also, many
(most?) students are working part-time, and the idea that students are spending all
their time on study is out of date.
Professor David MacDonald (Head of School) and Professor Neil Price (Head of
Archeology) indicated a willingness to give a presentation to the Steering Committee.
D:\106741839.doc
5
CuCom 055
12 March 2008
Curriculum Reform: Meeting with Business School
Accountancy and Finance
25th January, 2007
Professors Jim Anderson and Angela Black
Present: Dr Chandana Alawattage, Mr Alex Arthur, Professor Roger Buckland, Ms
Breanna Canfield, Professor Pat Fraser, Professor David Heald, Ms Shimin How, Dr David
Molyneaux, Professor Clare Roberts, Dr Kai Hong Tee, and Dr Mark Whittington.
Apologies were received from other members of staff.
The meeting began with introductions from Professor Deans and Professor Black who
jointly provided an outline of the Curriculum project along with an explanation of the
various group remits and memberships. The purpose of the meeting was explained as the
opportunity to encourage feedback and ideas that would contribute to the Curriculum
project. Giving evidence to the steering group was also encouraged.
A discussion took place which began with questions such as “what is a University for?”
and “in what way is Aberdeen different?” along with “what does Aberdeen want to do?
The group considered these types of questions as part of the curriculum reform in
conjunction with academic planning and the potential results from the RAE 2008.











Views were expressed that questioned how students can feel they belong to a
subject area when they are admitted to the MA.
It was felt that academic members of staff do not have control over who is admitted
and that it would be helpful if staff could have contact with students who have
offers prior to them arriving at University.
There appears no direct incentive to increase year one input because students are
admitted to the MA, that is, the targets for entry were felt to be unclear.
The distribution of student ability was expressed to be becoming bimodal with
excellent students at one end and a group at the other that increasingly need extra
support.
It was felt that the existing model which involves few contact hours in first year
was not seen as the best way to engage students in learning when they begin
University.
Questions were asked relating to market research. This was not limited to analysis
of market demand for programmes but also market research in academic literature
that relates to curriculum reform and compares different models.
Timetabling constraints were seen to reduce flexibility in teaching.
There was discussion on the Harvard curriculum.
Ethics and the extent to which this topic should be compulsory was discussed.
It was suggested that we invite staff who currently work in a top 100 University
and ask them what it is that makes them something to which we should aspire.
There was a lot of discussion on retention. It was felt that few contact hours, a clear
reason for coming to University and few skills courses could be the source. There
D:\106741839.doc
6
CuCom 055
12 March 2008





was a strong feeling in the group that the curriculum should have more activities
and that the timetable should be much fuller and include more ways for engaging
with the subject material.
It was felt that it could be useful to invest in people who are teaching experts,
particularly with skills development.
Sustainability was discussed, including matching aspirations with resources and
employing relevant people to deliver core skills.
Geography, local market and recruitment processes were seen to be tied to the local
market and that engagement with the local community and schools was needed.
There were questions about league tables - what makes us rise up the tables and
how can we best ensure that we do not fall.
It was also felt that student input to the curriculum reform process was crucially
important.
D:\106741839.doc
7
CuCom 055
12 March 2008
Second meeting with the School of Education held on Tuesday 26th February
Prof. Angela Black & Dr. Peter McGeorge
8 members of staff attended the meeting.
Prof. Black began by introducing those present and briefly summarising the first
meeting and highlighting that the first draft consultation document would soon be
released and encouraged everyone to provide feedback.
There were a number of questions relating to the review process including a desire for
clarification on who was responsible for writing the initial report and the timetable for
the consultation process These questions were reflective of a latter statement that it
had not been easy to find out the most appropriate way to contribute. The Curriculum
Commissioners described the role of the steering group in producing papers for
consultation (through listening to evidence and feedback from all relevant parties) and
the role of the Curriculum Commission. As part of the consultation process it was
suggested that it would be important to obtain the input of part-time and distance
learning students, i.e., on-line and off-campus students. Reassurance was given that
this was being actioned through the Student Experience Group.
Hope was expressed that the consultation document would reflect more than a simple
framework for a flexible degree structure and would give far greater consideration to
how to educate students to understand their own learning style and how to be
independent learners. There was discussion of the relationship between 6th year
studies and students starting at University. Views were expressed that students
coming straight from 5th year studies to University were not well equipped for the
changes this transition entailed and that students were encouraged to stay on into 6th
year in order to provide a time when they could become more independent.
Following from this view of challenges facing students during the transition to
University, there was a lively and very positive discussion concerning the curriculum
reforms already underway in the School of Education. It was felt that the experience
gained in reforming the Education curriculum placed the School in an excellent
position to contribute best practice to the University wide process. This was something
that they were encouraged to do both through the Best Practice event and
presentations to the steering group (Stephen Hill to be contacted about 2nd/3rd year
Education students presenting to the steering group). The initial stages of the BEd
Programme (e.g., ‘from learning to teaching’) was seen as pivotal in providing
students with an understanding of their personal identity, learning style, ethics,
culture, communication, and many other valued attributes captured in the term
‘Hidden curriculum’. Again in relation to the opportunities to learn this Hidden
Curriculum, concern was expressed about the apparent lack of a ‘buzz’ around campus
after teaching hours.
From the experience of the reforms in the School, there was the recognition that the
work necessary to gain the type of self-insight necessary to be good learners was
often quite a painful experience. The view was also expressed that both the students
and staff that would need considerable support through such a process.
Prof. Black concluded by thanking the meeting for their most useful feedback.
D:\106741839.doc
8