Course representatives from the Department of English and Related Literature have spoken out in response to an article published in last week’s edition of Nouse.
The piece, written by Deputy News Editor Hoagy Davis-Digges, was published in the news section of the paper and reported on the decision made by the department’s Board of Studies to continue the use of controversial workshops as part of a redesigned teaching structure. The workshops were pioneered by lecturer Dr Helen Smith.
Nouse also used the story in their Leader article, that says that “the loss of seminars will only lead to a serious detrioration in the quality of teaching and learning within the English department.” It goes on to say that English at York should be “based less on appearances and more on substance, before the department simply becomes a farce.”
Postgraduate course rep, Miranda Thomas, wrote a formal email to Vision on behalf of the full department’s team, seeking to “clarify the situation regarding the first year curriculum.”
The Nouse piece stated that students had complained “that the workshops are ‘not as easy [as seminars] to learn in’ and ‘don’t allow you to explore an issue in sufficient depth.'” It went on to say that “whilst the debate is ongoing, those within the English department have been reluctant to comment.”
The story also claims that the decision “suggests a breakdown in communication between the student representatives and the larger student body on whose behalf they speak.” A student is later cited as saying that the “department had not waited till [sic] they had received formal and comprehensive student feedback before they instigated the debate.”
The statement highlights the efforts made by reps to work alongside students and create opportunities to share their criticisms and praise of the department with their representatives. It also outlines the further action that is planned in order to fully assess responses to the workshop system.
In particular this will involve a survey of students in order to “get to the heart of the issue.”
The statement also explains the case for agreeing to keep the workshops as they are for the time being, noting that it was “because we felt [that] not enough feedback had been garnered from the student body to justify a change at that time; it would been irresponsible to have voted to abandon the new system without conducting a thorough survey of undergraduate feeling…”
Nouse released a statement in response to the claims of the course reps, saying: “We feel the article was balanced and fully representative of the situation. We spoke to several students, two English lecturers, the YUSU Academic Officer and two course reps, all of whom highlighted the divide of opinion over workshops.
“The complaints of miscommunication came directly from the several students we questioned over the issue, and was also picked up on by [Ben] Humphrys, as quoted in the article, so was not an unfounded statement.”
THE COURSE REPS’ STATEMENT IN FULL
“The student reps for the English department wish to clarify the situation regarding the first year curriculum. The changes that have resulted in the current programme of seminars, lectures and workshops were brought in after extensive feedback from previous undergraduates; Dr Helen Smith spent a great deal of time working on the new system, which was introduced to create a more varied programme for the benefit of students.
“At last term’s Board of Studies meeting, there was a proposal to reverse the changes that had been made and revert back to a seminar and lecture based programme. As has been previously reported, there were passionate arguments for and against this motion. After listening carefully to the discussions, the student reps decided to vote against the motion to change back to the previous system. This was because we felt not enough feedback had been garnered from the student body to justify a change at that time; it would have been irresponsible to have voted to abandon the new system without conducting a thorough survey of undergraduate feeling, as our sole focus is to represent the student voice.
“Since our election as reps, we have introduced a number of initiatives to work closely with students. We have established weekly Open House drop-in sessions, where students can come and speak to their reps each week about anything course-related. We also had an official launch of the Staff-Student Committee (SSC) last week in the F. R. Leavis room, which was a great success: loads of students came to meet us, discuss departmental issues and eat cake. To supplement the system of support, we’re currently organising a mentoring scheme where first year students can be helped by second and third years, so if new students are having issues or concerns and want reassurance from someone who’s already been through the process they’ll have someone to approach.
“Regarding the current workshops, we shall be conducting a survey to establish where student feeling truly lies. So far, we’ve had some excellent feedback, both positive and negative. We hope to get to the heart of the issue so that in the future, action can be taken to improve the first year programme to ensure greater student satisfaction. This does, however, take time, and it is in the interest of the entire student body to hold back from making rash changes at the moment.”