Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE
Editorial: Process and Development
Author: Simon Smith
Journal Title: PRS-LTSN Journal
ISSN:
ISSN-L:
Volume: 2
Number: 2
Start page: 4
End page: 5
Return to vol. 2 no. 2 index page
Welcome to the latest issue of the PRS-LTSN Journal. This is the fourth edition of the journal that it is continuing to grow and develop into a unique resource, providing the latest in learning and teaching scholarship in our subject areas, reports on some of our recent events, and news information about our current and future activities.
We are receiving increasingly good feedback for the journal and I hope that this will continue with this issue which, once again, includes output from the projects and mini-projects that we have been funding over the last eighteen months. Indeed, these have been so successful that we will shortly be announcing the fourth tranche of funding, again for projects up to £3,000 (see the separate leaflet). In addition to the expertise and hard-work displayed by the project grant-holders, one of the reasons why this funding stream has been so successful is that the original subject areas that were selected were chosen as a result of a questionnaire sent out during the early stages of the PRS-LTSN’s existence. The results of this early questionnaire were very informative and helped shape the direction of the Subject Centre; indeed the very existence of this journal was in response to an overwhelming majority of respondents who said that they would welcome it. Now, two years later, we feel that it is once again time to discover what you want from your journal. To this end we have enclosed a reader survey with this issue that we hope will help us develop the publication as it becomes an established part of the scene. Could I please ask that you spend a few minutes to complete and return it to us. We will be publishing the results of the questionnaire in the next issue of the journal.
In this issue of the journal we are very pleased to publish the second part of Jarvis and Cain’s series on the diversification of forms of undergraduate assessment in the History of Science. Building on their previous article on examinations and essays, this time they concentrate on assessment using posters and oral presentations. Once again their paper contains much that could be of use to those teaching beyond the History of Science. Indeed, I know that many of you are thinking about new ways of assessment as a means of tackling plagiarism. Jarvis and Cain offer us some excellent insights into how oral assessment can be implemented effectively. Posters are not a medium that we have traditionally used as a means of assessing undergraduate students in PRS. Nevertheless, Jarvis and Cain discuss the benefits of using posters in this way as well as providing some excellent advice on how they can be used.
Sellars presents an overview of the teaching of ancient philosophy. In addition to providing us with a number of useful resources, especially web-based resources, he examines a wide-range of historical and contemporary approaches. Of particular relevance is his discussion of the interdisciplinary nature of ancient philosophy and his addressing difficult issues such as the extent that classical languages should be taught to undergraduates in an age where relatively few possess such skills.
Beckham examines the use of group work in religious studies. In a wideranging article she presents the results of a survey that aims to examine the role of group work in the subject, and gives us an insight into its benefits in the cultivation of key skills such as critical thinking, and in the development of student-centred learning. In examining the results of the survey Beckham provides us with a useful analysis of how both departments and individuals view the use of group work in religious studies, and gives us some examples of good practice in this important area. She follows this up with a more in depth analysis of practice in a number of specific case studies. Together these approaches help us to understand the usefulness of group work in a religious studies context.
Stolberg and Fulljames highlight the recent increase in the number of science and religion courses in UK Higher Education. They question the expectations that student learners bring to such courses and ask whether these are the same as their teachers, especially their understanding of the dialogue between science and religion. Stolberg and Fulljames provide us with a great deal of information taken from a survey of students taking courses in science and religion, presenting us with an invaluable insight into their attitudes and expectations. This, I am sure, will be of great help to those involved in the development of science and religion courses and modules to design them with the student in mind.
I hope that you enjoy reading this issue of the journal, but whatever you think of it, I hope that you will let us know by returning the survey.
Return to vol. 2 no. 2 index page
This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.
