1

Learning and Teaching Quality Committee

Report on the Periodic Programme Review of programmes in the Department of the Languages and Cultures of the Near and Middle East

6 March 2015

Review panel Dr Mike Jennings Chair

Professor Charles Melville University of Cambridge Dr Sarah Bowen Savant Aga Khan University Dr Angus Lockyer Professor Dan Plesch Ms Jennifer Rhodes

Panel secretary Miss Chloe Weanie Departmental representatives

Professor Wen-chin Ouyang Head of Department Professor Muhammad Abdel-Haleem Dr Yorgos Dedes Ms Tamar Drukker Ms Narguess Farzad Faculty Senior Tutor Professor Andrew George Ms Mona Hammad Mr Gamon McLellan Dr Nima Mina Mr Mohamed Said UG Admissions Tutor Dr Mustafa Shah Dr Ayman Shihadeh Dr Stefan Sperl

Student representatives, including:

2 UG students (yr 2) BA Arabic 9 UG students (yr 2) BA Arabic and another subject 4 UG students (yr 4) BA Arabic and another subject 1 PGT student MA Turkish Studies 2 PGT students MA Near & Middle Eastern Studies 1 PGR student (yr 1) 1 PGR student (yr 2) 2 PGR students (yr 4)

Faculty representatives Professor Anne Pauwels Dean Professor Andrew George

Associate Dean, Learning & Teaching (UG) Dr Griseldis Kirsch

Associate Dean, Learning & Teaching (PGT) Mr Roger Nuthall Faculty Administrator Professional services Ms Beth Clarke

Head of Teaching & Research Support (Library)

2

Table of contents Section

1 Summary of recommendations and good practice

1.1

Conclusion on Quality and Standards

1.2

Good Practice

1.3

Recommendations

2

Introduction

3

Action following previous reviews

4

Programmes

4.1

Curriculum Design and Development

4.2

Learning, Teaching and Assessment

4.3

Student Recruitment, Progression and Achievement

4.4

Student Support and Guidance

4.5

Postgraduate Research Degrees

4.6

Quality Assurance and Enhancement

5

Acknowledgements

Appendices

1

Head of Department’s report

2 Departmental Self Evaluation Statement and supporting documentation (available on request from the Panel Secretary)

3

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOOD PRACTICE This summary should be read in conjunction with the paragraphs shown in brackets, where applicable. Action on recommendations should be taken, and a written report of that action received by the Panel Secretary, within THREE MONTHS of the approval by LTQC of this report. 1.1 Conclusion on Quality and Standards The review panel concludes that, subject to the recommendations below, quality and standards are being achieved in the programmes reviewed, listed below. The following programmes are offered by the Department and were under consideration at this review:

Undergraduate Degrees (3 years unless stated) BA Ancient Near Eastern Studies BA Arabic and Islamic Studies (4 years) BA Hebrew and Israeli Studies (4 years) BA Islamic Studies BA Middle Eastern Studies BA Persian BA Turkish (4 years) BA Arabic (4 years) BA … and Georgian BA Arabic and another subject (4 years) BA Hebrew and another subject (4 years) BA Middle Eastern Studies and another subject BA Persian and another subject BA Turkish and another subject (4 years) Certificate Ancient Near Eastern Studies Certificate Arabic Certificate Arabic Studies Certificate Modern Hebrew Certificate Persian Certificate Turkish Certificate Turkish Studies Taught Masters Degrees (1 year unless stated) MA Ancient Near Eastern Languages MA Arabic Literature MA Islamic Societies and Cultures MA Islamic Studies MA Near and Middle Eastern Studies MA Palestine Studies MA Turkish Studies MA Iranian Studies MA … and Intensive Language (Arabic) (2 years) Research Degrees MPhil/PhD

1.2 Good Practice The review panel commends the Department for:

4

1.2.1 the high standard of its language acquisition courses, and ambitious levels of competence expected;

1.2.2 the supportive environment offered to students in smaller language sections, and in particular the efforts of the Persian section to provide an immersive experience in London to compensate for the lack of a year abroad;

1.2.3 the rapid response to student concerns regarding year abroad venues in 2013/14, and the measures subsequently put in place to support students prior to and during their studies abroad.

1.3 Recommendations The review panel recommends the following: Necessary action The Department should: 1.3.1 urgently investigate student concerns regarding the attitudes of some teaching staff

and the resulting poor practice in teaching and pastoral support in the Arabic section, instigating misconduct or performance management procedures if necessary (4.2, 4.3, 4.4);

1.3.2 by the end of Term 3 (2014/15), convene a first annual departmental away day, with support from Staff Development, to allow for completion of the outstanding sections of the 2015/16 Departmental Plan, and more effective discussion of departmental strategy and planning, including the recommendations of this report (3);

1.3.3 for students enrolling in 2016/17 and beyond, review the structure and content of the BA Arabic curriculum, including consideration of (a) the proposal that Arabic tuition be spread more evenly over the first two years; (b) the balance between reading/writing and oral practice and assessment; and (c) the use of more diverse and contemporary teaching materials (4.1, 4.2);

1.3.4 improve the quality of course information provided for students, going beyond the School‟s minimum standards for BLE use in every course by ensuring that from the start of the 2015/16 session, students receive (and can find online) accurate listings of staff responsibilities, and termly schedules showing broad outlines for each week, including fixed assessment dates (4.2, 4.4, 4.6.1);

1.3.5 reintroduce the departmental research seminar, especially for third year research students, ensuring that a regular session is scheduled to allow them to meet as a cohort and with departmental staff (4.5);

1.3.6 ensure that Annual Programme Reviews are conducted more effectively, demonstrating genuine engagement with student feedback and progression data, and commitment to enhancement of programmes (4.6).

Advisable action The Department is advised to: 1.3.7 review the induction and ongoing support provided to MA students, with particular

attention to the difficulties experienced by those whose programme has no single core course (4.1)

5

1.3.8 ensure that all staff and students are aware that language acquisition classes are closed to auditors from undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes, and direct interested students instead to enrolment on courses or on the Language Entitlement Programme, to ensure that class sizes reflect the numbers used for resource allocation and enable staff to meet the needs of registered students (4.2)

1.3.9 invite the Diversity Advisor and colleagues from the Careers Service to attend departmental meetings in the near future to discuss the facilities available to students of the Department, and the responsibilities of teaching staff in these areas (4.6.1)

Matters for attention outside the Department (responsibility shown) The Faculty should: 1.3.10 ensure that the Department is fully and proactively supported in the above actions (3)

The School is advised to: 1.3.11 publish and implement the recommendations arising from its review of Area Studies

programmes (4.1) (Academic Development Committee)

1.3.12 review the information given to students on the possibility of auditing classes in which they are not enrolled, and devise a system of formally enrolling PGR students for classes which they need to attend (4.2) (Registry)

1.3.13 schedule a discussion around School policies concerning resits, supported by data

comparing progression and completion rates in the years before and after the introduction of additional resits, and report its conclusions to Academic Development Committee where the impact on staff research time can be evaluated (4.3) (LTQC/Registry)

1.3.14 continue its efforts to increase participation in Student Evaluation of Courses to ensure that data collected provides a robust basis for enhancement (4.6.2) (LTQC/Quality Assurance)

2 INTRODUCTION This Periodic Programme Review was conducted using the Learning and Teaching Quality Committee‟s Guidelines for Periodic Programme Review 2014-15. The Department submitted a Self Evaluation Statement (SES) and supporting documentation for consideration by the review panel. In addition, students of the Department made submissions to the review panel. The LTQC guidelines give the following description of the aims of Periodic Programme Review:

Periodic Programme Reviews [PPRs] provide an opportunity for dialogue between Departments, Faculties and the School as represented by the review panel. Reviews will focus on learning and teaching, and will cover other issues as they impact upon the standard of awards and the quality of the student experience. The panel will need to have seen sufficient evidence to be able to comment in its report on the „continuing validity and relevance‟ of the programmes under review, and to make targeted and constructive recommendations for improvement and enhancement. Reviews are also one of the ways in which the School learns of exceptionally good practice in individual departments and programmes, and commends it to others.

6

Participants were reminded of these aims at the start of the session, and of the practice of making recommendations for the Department‟s, School‟s or Faculty‟s attention as thought appropriate by the review panel. The report is broadly set out using the suggested headings provided in the Guidelines as applied to the Department‟s SES. A summary of recommendations and good practice is provided in Section 1 and a copy of the Department‟s SES and supporting documentation can be obtained from the Panel Secretary. 3 ACTION FOLLOWING PREVIOUS REVIEWS The Department was last under review in January 2010. The recommendations of that report were addressed by the then Head of Department and followed up by the appropriate parts of the School. The Panel agreed with the Department that appropriate action had been taken in response to those recommendations, and that in some areas significant improvements could be seen as a result. In other areas the panel felt that less progress had been made, and these are addressed in the relevant sections below. An issue which arose in relation to several different topics was the cohesion of the Department as a whole, and relationships between the various sections. This was the subject of a recommendation in 2010, and remains problematic, and it was for this reason that the panel strongly recommended that the Head of Department apply for support from Staff Development to hold an away day at which the strategic direction of the Department as a whole could be discussed. The panel also wished to draw the attention of the Faculty of Languages and Cultures to the difficulties experienced by this Department in implementing previous recommendations, and asked them to ensure that adequate administrative and managerial support was available to resolve them. 4 PROGRAMMES 4.1 Curriculum design and development The Department currently teaches a large number of undergraduate programmes, with eight BA degrees, five of which can also be combined with another subject, and one subject (Georgian) which can be taken only as a minor in combination with another subject. Undergraduate degrees in Arabic, Turkish and Hebrew include a year abroad (year three of four), as indicated in 1.1. The panel heard that it was not currently possible to send students overseas as part of a Persian degree, given Foreign Office advice on travel to Iran. Students reported that the section makes strenuous efforts to compensate for this disadvantage, bringing students together with native speakers in London, participating in Iranian cultural events locally, and conducting classes wholly in Persian from the earliest practicable point. Arabic is the Department‟s most popular subject, with students of BA Arabic and BA Arabic and another subject accounting for more than half its total intake. Arabic courses are also popular with students across the School wishing to include one or two units of language in their degree. Students requesting Arabic under the Language Entitlement Programme are divided between the Department and the Language Centre. The first year Arabic course is a triple unit, compulsory for single and double subject students, meaning that those on two subject degrees can take only one unit of their second subject in the first year. This limits the subjects with which Arabic can be combined, and means that on their return from the year abroad they have space for only one unit of Arabic at Level 6, as they make up for the imbalance earlier in their degree. A one-unit introductory course is also offered, for students of the BA Middle Eastern Studies and others from outside the Department, and the Department has considered introducing a third pathway, with a two unit course, but could not currently staff this option. The Department offers eight Masters programmes, plus a year-long course of Intensive Arabic, which can be combined with Masters programmes (including those inside and outside the Department) to make a two-year MA. At present the Department‟s Masters degrees cannot be combined with intensive language provision other than Arabic.

7

Several of the Department‟s MA degrees have no core course, and in one case, the MA Near and Middle Eastern Studies, students are required to take courses in more than one discipline (this is the standard model of the SOAS Area Studies MAs, which until 2008/09 were administered directly by the Faculty of Languages & Cultures). The panel heard from students on this programme that they did not feel they received adequate induction, and were confused by the different academic expectations of the departments in which their courses were based (for instance formats for dissertation proposals). As students on the programme could follow widely diverse course combinations, there was no feeling of being a single cohort, and students felt isolated and lacking in support and guidance. The panel recognised that this issue was common to several programmes of this sort and was one of the issues which would be addressed by the review of Area Studies currently being undertaken under the remit of Academic Development Committee. 4.2 Learning, teaching and assessment

The panel heard that undergraduate Arabic teaching is particularly intensive. The triple unit (Arabic 1) includes fifteen hours of classes per week, assessed by two final examinations (60%), one oral examination (20%) and two mid-term tests (20%). This course, and Arabic 2 for which it is a prerequisite, follow a textbook which the panel‟s external members considered somewhat out-dated, particularly in the content of its translation exercises, some of which contained inappropriate reference to, for instance, violence to women. The Department confirmed that its staff had been working for several years to update the materials, but the panel noted that similar concerns had been raised at periodic review not only in 2010 but also 2003, and recommended that this work be given a higher priority. Externally-produced teaching materials were available if staff time did not allow for adequate updating of in-house publications. Despite the close adherence to the textbooks, the students whom the panel met did not feel that they had a good understanding of how the course would progress or what would be covered in each week, as course information online and on the BLE was limited. Students also expressed the wish that their Arabic courses should include more tuition and practice in spoken Arabic alongside the grammatical content, and the Department agreed that the current 80/20 balance between written and oral assessments could be adjusted further. Students recognised that the intensity of the language acquisition courses enabled them to reach a very high standard, equipping them very well for their year abroad and for further study. Some of the most able students described their appreciation of the demanding and fast-paced curriculum. The workload was thought by many to be high but manageable, and justified by the good results of those who completed it (and the students whom the panel met considered the programme to be „good value for money‟ in terms of contact hours). Nevertheless students had serious concerns about the style of teaching in some classes, and the panel heard the atmosphere in a small number of classes described in extremely concerning terms: “dismissive”; “humiliating”; “demoralising”. Those taking two subject degrees identified dramatic differences in the levels of support they received from staff in the different sections of the Department. Students of Persian, Hebrew and Turkish were confident that their teachers were familiar with their abilities and concerns, and would support them if problems arose; students of Arabic expressed the feeling that it was assumed that a high proportion of them would fail, withdraw or transfer, and that little pastoral support was available to those in this category. Students felt that they had in some classes witnessed favouritism, and bias against students without prior knowledge of Arabic. The panel encouraged the Department to investigate these concerns and urgently address the culture prevalent among a small number of its staff. The level of demand for Arabic means that classes are often full. A particular issue raised by the Department is the phenomenon whereby official class numbers do not match the true number of students „in the room‟: it was difficult to establish the reasons for this, but it was suggested that occasionally unofficial auditors were in attendance, although language acquisition classes are not open to auditors (this is because auditors are not accounted for in workload and resource allocations, and participants in language courses auditors do need to participate at least in formative assessments, increasing staff workloads). The Department

8

would welcome the support of the departments admitting these students in ensuring that, if language skills are a beneficial part of their studies, space is found in their programmes for formal enrolment on appropriate courses. A related problem is students enrolling for double-unit courses (available in Hebrew, Turkish and Persian) when they have only one unit free. 4.3 Student recruitment, progression and achievement The Department has shown reasonably consistent recruitment at undergraduate and postgraduate level over the period under review, despite significant changes to student funding arrangements, employment prospects and other external factors. Some of its programmes have a very low intake, but some, in particular BA Arabic, continue to recruit strongly, with the most notable shift in recent years being away from single subject and towards two subject degrees. BA Arabic and another subject is the Department‟s highest-recruiting degree, with around fifty students in each year. The Department is keen to maintain high admissions requirements for these popular and demanding programmes, a view which the panel supported. The Department is aware that progression and retention are issues for Arabic in particular, where students are learning a difficult language, often ab initio, and in a relatively large cohort. The panel was concerned, however, that pastoral support in this section did not seem to take account of this issue. Feedback received from students in person and in writing referred to difficulties in accessing academic guidance, and to an attitude among a few teaching staff which appeared to accept the likelihood that a number of students would fail to progress. Tests are summative and taken termly (where the norm among language classes elsewhere in SOAS is for weekly, formative assessment) and little support is provided to students who do badly. It appeared that there was a reliance on the transfer of weaker students to programmes with less intensive language requirements (such as the BA Middle Eastern Studies), when some might have been able to complete their original degree given better academic support. The relatively high number of students requiring resits in this Department has focused its attention on the workload associated with the School‟s recent guarantee of September resits for all continuing students. The panel agreed that it was important for the School to track the impact of this change, and recommended that LTQC should when possible receive comparative data on the retention and progression of students in the years before and after its introduction. The Department‟s Masters programmes recruit mostly in relatively small numbers. The largest cohort is on the Area Studies degree, MA Near and Middle East Studies. A number of the MA programmes are new, and the Department remains confident that recruitment will increase as these become more established. Scholarships supported by HEFCE will be available in 2015/16 for students on two-year, language based Area Studies programmes, which would include the „and Intensive Language (Arabic)‟ pathway. 4.4 Student support and guidance The panel received the impression from the students who attended the review and submitted written feedback that support was somewhat variable across the Department. Students on programmes with low numbers, such as Persian and Hebrew, had received excellent, individualised pastoral care and found their teachers accessible, approachable and supportive. In the larger subjects, although staff:student ratios were on the face of it comparable, a number of staff were employed on fractional and/or teaching only contracts, with less formal responsibility for pastoral care and student support beyond the classroom. In the case of recent appointments, contracts were 0.8 FTE, but with the same teaching load as full-time staff, meaning that there was significantly less time for preparatory work such as the development and updating of teaching materials. The panel recognised that these policies increased the workload of permanent members of staff. The panel heard sufficient instances of poor practice, however, (including dismissive response to concerns, inaccurately published

9

office hours, and an „intimidating‟ atmosphere in some classes) to conclude that there was an unacceptable culture among some members of staff, which could not be justified by high workloads, but was out-dated and unsupportive of students, falling far short of internal and external expectations. In contrast, the panel heard that support for students undertaking a year of study abroad was considerably improved since the last review. In 2013/14, student concerns led to a change of institution mid-year, and students reported that they had found staff supportive and accessible during the transition. Preparation for the Year Abroad is also good, with guidance available throughout the second year, and a meeting in Term 2 bringing second year students together with fourth years (male and female) who have returned from the various institutions, and with relevant staff. Students can then indicate their preference from the three available venues. The Department has taken care to indicate clearly to receiving institutions the content and standards expected, to ensure a consistent academic experience for students in different venues. The Years Abroad in Israel and Turkey are also well-managed. In each case SOAS staff are involved in assessment of work undertaken in the partner institution. Pastoral and academic roles such as Year Tutor were not indicated in the submission or on the Department‟s website, making it difficult for the panel (and students) to ascertain exactly how responsibility for pastoral care was allocated.

4.5 Postgraduate research degrees

The Department has a large number of postgraduate research students, but those whom the panel met felt that they would welcome more frequent opportunities to meet together. Research training in the first year is undertaken at Faculty level, and in contrast to the description submitted to the review by the Department, the fourth year PGR students whom the panel met reported that neither in first or subsequent years had there been any occasion when they met with other students of the Department to discuss their research. The panel felt that this was a notable gap in the Department‟s provision, and recommended that a weekly or fortnightly programme of seminars for third years should be added as a minimum. Regular departmental sessions for first years, and for second years not away on fieldwork, would also be beneficial for student morale and cohesion; for the development of transferable and career-enhancing skills; and ultimately for the outcomes of PGR degrees.

4.6 Quality assurance and enhancement

4.6.1 Use of internal QA procedures and external reference points The documentation of the Department‟s submission was substantially complete: one omission was minutes of departmental meetings attended by the Diversity Advisor and by the Careers Service. The panel found the Self-Evaluation Statement helpful, though lacking in specific analysis of the department‟s strengths and weaknesses. A number of issues which subsequently arose, from student feedback and on the day, had not been acknowledged. Programme specifications were received for the taught programmes under review, the content of which was appropriate, and showed engagement with the relevant subject benchmark statements. The panel noted, however, that information at course level was far less complete. Courses were listed online with learning outcomes and introductory reading lists, but students reported that in some cases this was the full extent of the information available to them before sign-up and even during the course. Term plans and detailed week-by-week syllabuses were not routinely available. In some cases courses were failing to meet the School‟s agreed minimum requirements for information on the BLE. Monitoring of learning outcomes is via Annual Programme Review, and the panel saw evidence that this had been completed for each programme and each year over the period under review. Comments were sometimes brief, however, and it appeared that this was a process which the Department could use in a more effective way.

10

It was noted that the Department‟s Certificate courses, which effectively cover the first year of an undergraduate programme, were not included among the programmes for which full documentation (including programme specifications, annual programme reviews and visiting examiner reports) were submitted.

4.6.2 Student Feedback Feedback from students in the Department is obtained primarily via course evaluation forms, with additional, informal feedback collected mid-term for a few courses. Although the Department expressed concerns about the validity of feedback collected from this source, given the low response rate, additional opportunities were rather limited, with staff-student meetings held on an ad hoc basis and student participation low. After consideration of student feedback received as part of the periodic review process, the panel concluded that this was more likely to be because students lacked confidence that their participation would be welcomed and effective, than because they had no concerns about their programme content and overall experience. The panel noted that the Department was able to demonstrate some instances of prompt and effective responses to feedback, for instance in the changes to the Arabic year abroad described in 4.4; in making the ISP optional in several undergraduate degrees; and in the introduction of a Persian course at an appropriate level for those who were new to that language but had already reached a high level in Arabic. As in other respects, this highlighted variability between the sections, with least evidence of effective action on feedback shown by Arabic. Student representatives also reported variability in communications around departmental meetings. 4.6.3 External Examining System Visiting Examiners‟ reports were received for the Department‟s programmes over the period under review, and the panel was satisfied that Visiting Examiners were employed appropriately in the examination process. Members of staff demonstrated familiarity with comments made in recent years, assuring the panel that reports had been discussed and responded to. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The review panel would like to express its thanks to all members of the Department‟s staff and students who took part in this review, and to all Faculty and other School officers who attended or otherwise assisted. In particular, the review panel would like to thank Professor Ouyang and her colleagues in the Department and Faculty for the considerable time spent in producing the SES and supporting documentation.

11

Department of the Languages and Cultures of the Near and Middle East: response to recommendations of the PPR report

This report was submitted by the Head of Department in response to the serious and urgent recommendations made in the PPR report of April 2015. Further follow-up on these issues, and others identified by the review, will be considered by the Learning and Teaching Quality Committee in Terms 1 and 3 of the academic year 2015/16.

Course material, teaching style and communication with students

in Arabic 1, 2, 4

The Department conducted a series of meetings with year 1, 2 and 4 students who

take Arabic 1, 2 and 4 regarding issues raised with regards to gender, conduct of

teaching staff in class, and communication with students.

10 March 2015, 9-9:30, Introduction to Classical Arabic literature, year 2, W Ouyang

12 March 2015, 11:45-12:00, including a short women-only meeting, Introduction to

Arabic Dialects, year 2, W Ouyang

12 March 2015, 12:45-13:00, including a short women-only meeting, Arabic 4, W

Ouyang

13 March 2015, 15:00-15:30, Introduction to Early Islamic Texts, year 2, S Sperl

16 March, 10:30-11, Arabic 1, year 1, W Ouyang

16 March, 11:00-12:00, Introduction to Modern Arabic Literature, year 2, including a

short women-only meeting, W Ouyang

Arabic 1

Textbooks and course material

One sentence identified in Year 1, Part 4, Page 75, Sentence 8 (Owen Wright): ‘Upon

hearing that he beat his wife so hard that she fell on the bed, weeping like someone

who finally realized that the situation was utterly hopeless’. This sentence did exit in

the old unrevised version of the textbook. Revision was incomplete last year and the

old Part 4 was used. A revised version of all 4 volumes of Arabic 1 textbook is

complete and being used this year. This sentence has been removed. Evidence

available upon request.

The new textbook will need an index and clear instructions for the drills and

exercises.

Communication

Some members of staff do not use Moodle (do not know how despite training) but

communicate with students by email regularly.

The course follows closely the 4-volume Arabic 1 textbook (Owen Wright) and a

weekly task sheet is circulated to all students by email every week. Example enclosed.

12

Tests are announced in advance in class and by email and repeated in Task Sheets.

The structure of the final oral examination will be explained to students in Term 3.

Teaching style

The teaching style of some members of staff may be considered old fashioned.

Women students said the staff handled well the passage describing violence against

women.

Arabic 2

Textbooks

The course material for this course consists of the 2 volume Arabic textbook written

by Owen Wright, and the media and listening material posted on BLE. The latter is

most welcome, but the OW textbook is considered dated by some. It also contains

some material that re-enforces gender stereotypes.

Ahmad Alkhashem is in the process of writing a new textbook for Arabic 2 (the

media material is ready and on Moodle) and this new textbook will in time replace

Owen Wright. The Department raised £20, 000 to cover the cost.

Communication

Moodle (BLE) is used for materials added to the course, especially media and

listening.

The course follows closely the 2-volume Arabic 2 textbook (Owen Wright) for

grammar and reading. A Task Sheet is given to students every two weeks (clearly

divided into weekly tasks). Example enclosed.

Tests were announced in advance by email and in class and repeated in Task Sheets,

except for the January test, which was announced in class only. Only one student

(William Cecily, withdrawn) missed the test. See enclosure.

The structure of the final oral examination will be explained to students in Term 3.

Teaching style

Names of students who scored top marks in term tests were read aloud in class for

commendation and encouragement. Some students found this problematic but the

majority thought it was simply a waste of time.

Women students said they did not feel threatened or intimidated or demoralised in

class. They do feel uncomfortable when teachers confront them about absence or

lateness in front of class.

Arabic 4

13

No issues with course material or staff conduct were raised in relation to gender.

There is, however, a concern with ‘favouritism’ in class discussions that is relevant to

the visibility of more capable students, who happen to be male among this year’s

cohorts.

There have been concerns with the focus of the course (primarily language and

grammar), and the absence of a more robust intellectual content as well as a written

syllabus that spells out clearly the objectives and the scope of the course.

Departmental response to the concerns raised in PPR 2015:

In general, members of staff are not aware that there are minimum standards for BLE

use. They have been informed and will now use BLE for course materials and

communication with students in addition to email circulation of key information.

They are also asked to desist from commending excellent students in class and from

confronting students about absence or lateness publically.

The Department is also aware of all the issues raised with regards to Arabic textbooks

and teaching styles, and has been making tremendous efforts in addressing them.

Ahmad Alkhashem will convene Arabic 2 beginning 2015-16, and Ouyang will co-

convene Arabic 4 in 2016-17.

With the help of Staff Development and Academic Development Directorate, the

Department is organizing a training course for the Arabic language teaching staff to

take place during Welcome Week 2015-16. The training course will focus on equality

and diversity, pedagogy and teaching style, and managing students with disabilities.

Members of staff who have yet to master BLE are asked to enrol in Moodle training

courses.

The incoming Head of Department and the Head of Arabic have been fully involved

in this response and will follow up the various issues as appropriate.