date: Mon Oct 26 10:52:45 1998
from: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
subject: HEFCE Response
to: t.d,davies@uea

>Return-path: <nieldt@geolsoc.org.uk>
>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 <nieldt@geolsoc.org.uk>
>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
>
>
>
