The academic unit of exchange

I remember when in the University of Hull in 1994 or thereabouts a new modular structure for degree programmes was introduced, most academics saw it primarily as a mechanism for changing the term structures of the academic year, and they assessed (and usually resisted) it accordingly. It took a moment for it to sink in that the critical innovation was not the change from a trimester/term system to a semester framework, but rather the establishment of the module as the basic pedagogical building block of learning and qualification. Modules would allow the student to build up and transfer credits, and would allow flexible pathways to be developed in the design of academic programmes.

But then again, maybe that wasn’t the critical change after all. At a recent workshop I heard a number of academics argue that the real problem with modularisation was that it had removed or at least undermined deep learning, in that each subject had to be crammed into a twelve week course of teaching and had to be assessed or examined within that structure. Many, maybe most, subjects – so they argued – required the intensity and depth of treatment that needed to be extended over a year; but this assumption had been killed off by making semesters the unit for each module. Short modules might be the perfect unit for today’s youth with limited attention spans, but they were not always pedagogically appropriate.

The truth is, of course, that modules are flexible units that can be easily adapted to almost any learning objectives. There is actually no reason not to have two associated modules that will produce a year-long analysis of a topic. But the uneasiness that some academics feel may suggest that modularisation has been inadequately understood and implemented, and that more work needs to be done to make it an educational project rather than one driven by the administration of learning. Two decades on from the original rush to modularisation, such work would be timely.

Explore posts in the same categories: education, higher education

Tags: , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

2 Comments on “The academic unit of exchange”

  1. Al Says:

    Vell made point.
    Modularisation has its place in that it can be used effectively to introduce aspects of subjects etc. But when it comes to depth and areas where skills competency are required it is an impediment to the development of the learner.
    Saying that show me a perfect system….

  2. cormac Says:

    I agree that modules could in principle be a flexible structure – but it depends how college administrators choose to implement it.
    For example, re “There is actually no reason not to have two associated modules that will produce a year-long analysis of a topic”, depends on implementation. In our college there were strong impediments to having pre-requisites. The deep learning model is presevered only if one can specify that a student has to have taken calculus I in order to take calculus II – yet we were not allowed specify this.. Surely an example of one-size-fits-all administration getting in the way of pedagogy


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: