Politics of the Welfare State 08-09
Tutorial Representatives’ Meeting
1.30pm, Wednesday, 11 February 2009,
Staff Room, Chrystal Macmillan Building
MINUTES
Present
Paul Crompton, Senior Tutor & Chair
Richard Parry, Course Convener
Ewen Miller, Secretary & minutes
Group
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
Tutorial time
Mondays, 2 pm
Mondays, 3 pm
Mondays, 4.10 pm
Tuesdays, 10 am
Tuesdays, 11.10 am
Tuesdays, 3 pm
Wednesdays, 10 am
Wednesdays, 11.10 am
Thursdays, 11.10 am
Thursdays, 12.10 pm
12
13
14
Thursdays, 1.10 pm
Thursdays, 2 pm
Thursdays, 3 pm
Tutorial Representative
Susannah Compton
Josef Viezner
Samuel Barber
Owen Miller
Hannah Fairburn
Harrison Kelly
Tracy Hood
Elizabeth Breaks
Han Yap
Kenneth Toshack,
Frances Maclellan
Jeanette Thomson
Laura Kirby
Sharon Burn
Apologies
6
Tuesdays, 2 pm
Georgina Wright
Readings and Reading Pack
There was generally good feedback on the readings and reading pack (as on most
other agenda items):




without the Reader it can often be hard to find readings
it is cost-effective (compared to the cost of printing up readings from WebCT)
one doesn’t have to always be reading from a screen
and one can make notes on a hard copy.
A similar reader for other (Social Policy) courses – Social Policy & Society, for
example – would be a good idea. RP said that generally in the University there is a
move towards putting readings on WebCT, but Social Policy is happy to resist this
trend if students want a hard-copy reader, which they seem to.
More generally, it can be difficult to get hold of certain text books, either
through the Library, or bought new or second-hand.
1
Lectures
Again, there was mainly positive feedback.
Some lectures tended to speed up towards the end: RP apologised, saying
there was sometimes too much material for one lecture – but in any case the notes
are on WebCT so the key points would not be missed. 1 representative said that
more information is better than too little.
Consensus amongst students is that having lecture notes available on
WebCT prior to the lectures would be preferable and should not affect attendance.
RP said that this is aimed for but that sometimes late revisions can mean notes not
ready till last minute.
1 representative said that the lecture content can sometimes be a bit
superficial: too general and not in-depth enough. RP asked whether this is in terms
of factual information or academic analysis of the facts? The reply was that more
concrete examples were needed.
Another complaint was that lectures are not thought-provoking enough – that
they should take account of other countries and not just the UK – though the 2nd year
course European Social Policy does this.
The slides can simply repeat points made in lectures, but in reply 1
representative said that lectures are merely an introduction to a given subject, it is
the students’ own reading that should flesh out points, and this is obviously up to
students. PC agreed that lectures are just one part of a course, which also includes
students’ own reading (as above) and – crucially – tutorials.
Tutorials and participation exercise
RP said that the tutorial participation mark is, in a sense, a “reward” for attending and
fully participating in tutorials.
1 representative said that the tutorial mark could be too rigorous, citing the
example of individuals singled out for not contributing. RP said it can be difficult to
be inclusive and tutors may need to prompt students sometimes. In general,
different tutors have differing styles of teaching. A representative said that the
quality of tutorials is largely determined by the tutor – they must take the lead in
steering the discussion.
In general, the tutorial participation mark is felt to encourage participation.
However, 1 representative said it is not a good idea as it can put too much pressure
on students to perform: it can improve a tutorial where the tutor is good, but can also
make a bad tutorial worse.
With regard to the mark itself, it was asked how uniform standards can be
maintained? Different tutors presumably have different standards, so can fair
marking be guaranteed? PC said that although there is inevitably some variation,
the mark is only for 10% and so should not impact greatly on overall. Also, the mark
is for the whole semester’s performance and not individual meetings, so although
students’ may have “bad days”, the mark should average out over this period.
Tutors themselves have peer review, sitting in on each other’s tutorials, and get
together for a markers’ meeting in order to ensure systematic marking of essays and
tutorial performance as well – and PC will emphasise this at the meeting.
Some other courses have a similar tutorial mark, but it is reduced for lack of
attendance and no other criteria. RP feels that students can “play” this kind of
system by, for example, attending the minimum necessary. POWS’ more general
2
approach definitely improves tutorial participation, and can and does improve marks
in general.
Some tutorial rooms are too small, which can inhibit free discussion (Group 9,
Wednesdays at 11am in Buccleuch Place, for example). EM said that unfortunately
tutorial and lecture rooms are booked through the University’s central booking
system, which has too few rooms, but we shall look into the matter.
Other students talking in lectures can be very disruptive – RP said he would
try to control this.
Course Handbook
The handbook is good. It is similar to the Social Policy & Society one, so there is a
certain continuity. PC said the Handbook is very much based around student
feedback.
Do the essay questions have suggested readings? The questions are clearly
related to each week’s particular readings as outlined in the Handbook, so there
should be no confusion.
Will there be some time devoted during tutorials to preparing for the essay? –
tutors are encouraged to do this and some have already started.
Course website (WebCT)
Generally good feedback. The course website is easy to navigate and well
organised. There are no easily accessible journal articles in WebCT as there is the
course reader and suggested links in Handbook.
WebCT can unfortunately be temperamental, but for students and staff alike –
that is, this is not a POWS-specific problem. The Library web-site has similar
problems. RP said that he personally “test-drives” any e-journals suggested in the
Handbook to make sure links are current, at least at the time of printing. PC
suggested students could have e-journal practice sessions.
Course administration
1 representative questioned the ordering of Social Policy undergraduate courses:
why, for example, is POWS a second-semester and European Social Policy a firstsemester course? ESP has to run in Semester 1 because the school-wide courses
(Social & Political Enquiry and Social & Political Theory) run in Semester 2. And
Social Policy & Society, run in Semester 1, is foundational for POWS, introducing
concepts and distinctions which it presupposes.
Students are now able to view their Semester 1 exam scripts – at what stage
will the POWS exam scripts likewise be available for viewing? RP said around
May/August.
Will it be possible for students to get a full course breakdown – i.e., not just
their essay mark (with individual essay feedback) and overall mark (with general
exam feedback), but individual exam question marks, and breakdown of marks into
bands for whole course, so students can compare their performance to averages for
whole course?
It is, of course, already possible to calculate the exam mark based on the
essay mark and overall, given the weightings for each component. In addition, with
3
the recently introduced viewing of exam scripts, students can find out their marks for
each question. Individual feedback on exams is not envisaged by the School. Final
results (excluding Fails) are traditionally posted on Subject Area notice-boards once
Registry has released the marks, giving students some opportunity to rate
themselves against their peers. However, there are moves afoot to have a table of
all marks with band percentages put up on WebCT.
PC said that, additionally, there is a different Essay Assessment Form being
trialled this semester which should increase the quality of essay feedback.
Any other business
Is the lecture video capture which was used in Semester 1’s Social Policy & Society
course to also be used in POWS? This was a pilot project only and is still being
evaluated. 1 representative said that simply a sound recording of lectures, without
the accompanying images, would be better as the content is in what’s said, and the
images are unnecessary.
Next meeting scheduled for: 1.30pm, Wednesday, 11 March, 2009, Seminar
Room 3, ground floor, Chrystal Macmillan Building.
4