Desafíos de la educación financiera en microempresarios en Colombia

In this section, I provide a detailed discussion on findings on each of the five meetings observed. Each meeting is presented in the following subheadings.

Meeting One

Source: University of Leeds, School of Education

Type of Meeting: School Learning and Teaching Committee Meeting (SLTC)

Purpose and Objectives: The meeting was held on a periodic basis aimed at discussing issues relating to learning and teaching at the School.

Location and Duration: The meeting was held in one of the classrooms at the School. It was held on 17th of February, 2011 and lasted for 85 minutes.

95

Attendees and Chair: There were only seven members of staff at the meeting. The meeting was chaired by the Head of the Committee. In attendance were the Head of School, the undergraduate student representative, the postgraduate student representative, an administrative member of staff, and the remainder of the attendees were academic members of the staff, and members of the School Learning and Teaching Committee.

Issues Discussed: The following issues were discussed in the meeting, in the presented order. 1. Confirming issues arising from the previous meeting

2. PGCE and BA (Hons)‘In Principle Approval’ 3. Critical Studies Marking

4. The future of degree classification at the University of Leeds 5. School of Education Code of Practice for Assessment 2010/11 6. Action plan to respond to feedback of students experience 7. New Programme and attendant module proposals

8. BA (Hons) Childhood Studies Programme

The meeting started on time, with the Chair welcoming attendees and introducing them to each other. Obviously, the members of academic staff already knew each other, but as there were student representatives, they may not have known all of the attendees. These representatives did not appear as comfortable in the meeting as the other attendees. During the meeting, the Chair asked the administrative member of staff, who was taking the minutes of the meeting, to write the report of the meeting and provide feedback on the minutes of the previous meeting. The Chair provided some comments and showed concerns about third party confirmation, referring to cases of bereavement only. After this amendment, the Minutes of the previous meeting were approved. The Chair then said, “OK, then let’s move on to issues we have for this meeting”, looking at the administrative member of staff. At this point, the Chair presented the first issue, which was on PGCE Primary. He advised that the Committee should conduct a full revision, which would be reported in the next meeting. He did not clarify how this revision was going to be conducted or by whom. Perhaps, the other members knew how this task would be dealt with. This issue was dealt with quickly, and the Chair then asked to move on to the next issue. Obviously, issues to be dealt with were not presented in an ad hoc manner as the order of presenting issues followed the meeting schedule (the agenda). The Chair looked at the meeting schedule and moved on to the following point, which was the issue of critical study marking. At this stage, the discussion moved to the Head of School who said that one of the absent meeting members was leading

96

on this issue and its progress. This example showed that members of the committee were given responsibilities of following up on issues.

The next issue on the schedule was “the future of degree classification”. Again the Chair took the lead on this issue, advising on further consideration in the LTC meeting. This instant showed that the meeting delegated some tasks to other committees of the School. The way issues were presented was systematic and organised as the meeting schedule guided the process. One issue that consumed much time of the meeting was “School of Education Code of Practice for Assessment 2010/11”; the source of argument of this issue was on the details of the Code. Members of the meeting expressed their opinions on the particular issue. The meeting then moved on to discuss the “action plan in response to feedback of the student experience”. The Chair started this issue by thanking the student representatives for their thorough response to the action plan. Relating to this issue, participation from the student representatives was included, as earlier to this point none was made. Student representative input was minimal as they only expressed their appreciation to the plan. Obviously, these representatives had earlier delivered some reports relating to this issue to the meeting. This action could show how a meeting relates to documents, and this justified the importance of starting my research with documents. The following issue on discussion was “new programme and attendant module proposals”. With this issue, the committee members took on more of a role on leading discussions. Five programmes were discussed, and all were approved quickly. The reason behind this was that members of the committee had been in- charge or followed up on these proposals. All proposals were approved collectively. I wondered about the judgement criteria that each attendee had used to make such decisions. The last issue discussed was the BA (Honours) Childhood Studies Programme. One of the attendees had prepared some documents and handbooks for the programme, however this issue was not concluded and was postponed to the following meeting. It was felt that this issue needed more work and further investigation in order to make final decisions.

Meeting Two

Source: University of Leeds, School of Education Type of Meeting: Student-Staff Forum

97

Purpose and Objectives: The meeting was held on a periodic basis aiming at discussing issues of concern to students and staff members.

Location and Duration: The meeting was held in one of the classrooms of the School. It was held on 26th of November 2010, and lasted for 65 minutes.

Attendees and Chair: There were only thirteen members of staff in the meeting. The meeting was chaired by the Head of the School. In attendance were the Head of Learning and Teaching, the Head of UG, the Student Support Officer, the Faculty Team Librarian for Education, PGR Research Tutor, PG School Representative, PG Representative, PGT Representative, UG School Representative, UG Year 1 Representative, UG Year 3 representative, Head of Health and Safety Services. Three people (academic members of staff) were absent for unknown reasons, yet apologies were given by the Student Support Officer.

Issues Discussed: The following issues were discussed in the meeting in the presented order. 1. Health and Safety Issues

2. Minutes from Previous Meeting 3. Matters Arising from Minutes 4. Equal Opportunities

5. Library Matters 6. School Action Plan 7. Items Raised by Students

The meeting started on time with the Chair welcoming the attendees and introducing the attendees to each other. This activity took seven minutes as there were thirteen attendees of the meeting who were students. Obviously, members of the academic staff had known each other, but as there were student representatives present, they might not all have known each other previously. I felt that the students seemed more comfortable in this meeting as opposed to the previous meeting by the way they appeared and talked in the meeting. The Student Support Officer mentioned that some of the attendees (three) could not join the meeting. The Chair later asked to move to issues of the meeting schedule and asked for permission to start with Item 5, “Health and Safety Issues”. He justified this as the Head of Health and Safety could not attend the whole meeting and had to attend to other duties. This issue began with the Head of Health and Safety talking about H&S issues, and new procedures and exercises that were going to be run. This part of the meeting was more like a presentation of a report as the Head of H&S did not take any comments nor give any opportunity for other attendees to

98

participate. They also reported some concerns that had been passed in earlier meetings related to issues of Health and Safety in one of the buildings. Through what was said, it was felt that the University took students’ opinions seriously, and actions were taken accordingly. The students required more formal feedback on this.

As the Head of Health and Safety finished, he left the room and discussion then focused on the following points of the meeting schedule. The next point related to matters arising from the Minutes. At this stage, the Chair informed the meeting on some points related to emailing policies. He also moved to talk about library issues, where he passed the lead to the Faculty Team Librarian, who explained that there had been some problems with the cataloguing system, which was resolved. The meeting schedule had areas of interest sections, with one whole section being dedicated to library issues. This section ran the discussion while the Chair remained less active. In fact, this procedure occurred with different sections as particular attendees headed these areas of interest, for example, Health and Safety. Library issues raised by students were discussed, including the high demand for books and the possibility of purchasing more copies of certain books. Also issues of expenditure were raised along with the need to cut down on library expenditure due to financial difficulties of the University. The next issue on the meeting schedule was ‘equal opportunities’, however no issues were raised. The Chair then checked if any member of the meeting any further issues to be discussed; attendees looked at each other and confirmed. The following issue was “school action plan”, led by the Director of Learning and Teaching (DLT). It was noticed that the Chair was the facilitator to the meeting, where he passed discussion from one person to the other, especially when moving from one section to the other. When discussing the school action plan, the DLT started explaining that the plan had been circulated to students earlier, and she was expecting the feedback. Not much feedback was offered by students who needed encouragement to talk. The student officer took the role of encouraging them. Students’ points were centred on practical placement. At this stage, the PGR Research Tutor explained that the courses at the School, especially the postgraduate courses, were research-focused. Issues of assessment were also discussed. The final section of the meeting comprised of issues raised by students, and only the postgraduate research student representative raised issues here. He raised the issue of teaching placement again, and he appeared very persistent on this issue. The meeting concluded with the Chair asking if anyone had any issues about the meeting, and no one mentioned anything. One concluding remark about this meeting is

99

that it appeared to be designed to address issues of concern to students, unlike the name of the meeting which gives the impression that issues discussed would be of mutual interest to staff as well as students.

Meeting Three

Source: University of Leeds, School of Education

Type of Meeting: UGSG Meeting (Undergraduate Strategy Group)

Purpose and Objectives: The meeting was held on a periodic basis aimed at discussing issues of concern of Undergraduate issues at the School.

Location and Duration: The meeting was held in one of the classrooms at the School. It was held on 26th of January 2011, and lasted for 61 minutes.

Attendees and Chair: There were only six members of staff in attendance. The meeting was chaired by a member of academic staff. In attendance were four members of academic staff and the Student Officer. Apologies were presented by the Chair for one administrative member of the School and one academic member of staff.

Issues Discussed: The following issues were discussed in the meeting in the presented order. 1. Minutes from Previous Meeting

2. Recruitment and Admission 3. Administrative Issues 4. Personal Tutoring 5. Staff Updates 6. Dissertations

7. Graduate Student Destination and Employability

This meeting was well-organised and well-managed; perhaps this was a result of the small number of attendees, and not having students in attendance there. Members of the meeting already knew each other, as there was no time assigned to introduce attendees to each other. The Chair was keen on starting quickly with issues of the meeting scheduled. She held the Minutes of the previous meeting with two corrections related to personal tutoring. I wondered about the way these corrections or amendments were made. Perhaps, the meeting presents its meeting minutes to another committee for approval. Presenting amendments was very quick as the Chair asked to move to the following issue of the schedule “recruitment and admissions”. The Chair highlighted that the person in charge of this issue was not present in

100

the meeting and that there were no updates regarding this issue. A short conversation was held regarding recruitment, and the possibility of an increase in student fees. Attendees expressed their feelings towards the increase and the impact that it would have on student recruitment. The Chair asked to move on to the next issue, “administrative issues”, asking one of the attendees to provide updates. The person talked about issues relating to the documentation of some modules, and that they needed more time to be reviewed. Another member reported on updates relating to a new experiment of an online submission system. The person reported that the new system was running smoothly, and there were no problems. Issues were raised in an informative style at this meeting, where each person had updates to report and bring to the attention of the committee. When the person finished, there were no comments or questions, and the discussion moved on to issues like “personal tutoring”. The Chair reported on the Leeds for Life presentation she had attended, mentioning that this needed to be passed on to students through personal tutoring. Again, members of the meeting listened without discussion.

The next issue was on ’Staff Updates’. The Chair highlighted a point relating to the appointment of a successor for one of the teaching members of staff for one module. Discussion arose at this point. One of the attendees suggested someone, highlighting their related experience in the field. Other members approved, yet one member stated that there were also other members of the academic staff who could make more of a contribution to the same module. This caused a little confusion on what to decide. Three names were suggested, but the committee could not make a decision. The Chair said that she would approach these particular suggestions to ask if they had any interest in the role. Another issue was raised related to ’Staff Updates’, regarding the advertisement for senior lecturers/lecturers, and that one person would be asked to make some corrections. The following issue on the schedule was ’Dissertations’. One of the meeting committees was led this issue, which raised concerns related to ethics. One of the attendees mentioned that help could be taken from the Legal Advisor of the University. The person who provided this advice was thanked for the information. The final issue of the meeting schedule was ’Graduate Student Destinations and Employability. The Chair said that she would like better views on student destinations and employability. One person suggested a Facebook page where students could network. The majority of attendees liked this idea. One person suggested hosting an Open Day. One

101

member of the meeting then mentioned that there is a need for a more systematic method, however gave no suggestion as to what that could be.

Meeting Four

Source: King Saud University, Faculty of Education Type of Meeting: Faculty Staff Meeting

Purpose and Objectives: The meeting was held on a periodic basis, aiming at discussing issues of concern to members of academic staff in the Faculty.

Location and Duration: The meeting was held in one of the teaching lecture theatres at the Faculty premise. It was held on 16th of December 2010, and lasted for 132 minutes. A parallel video-conferencing room on the Faculty campus was allocated to females.

Attendees and Chair: There were 32 male attendees in the lecture theatre and about 24 females in the parallel room. The meeting was chaired by the Dean who sat at the front of the lecture theatre. He was accompanied by his assistant, and Heads of Departments.

Issues Discussed: The following issues were discussed in the meeting in the following order. 1. Minutes from Previous Meeting

2. Issues Related to Policy and Practice 3. Issues Related to Staff Requests 4. Issues Related to Student Requests

The meeting was well-prepared and well-managed. The meeting room was prepared prior to the session, including the provision of drinking water in front of the table. There was an overhead projector showing a screen behind the panel with the name and date of the meeting. Attendees started entering the room in groups. Most of them were talking amongst themselves. Some of them even stood at the door of the room (still chatting) as the session was late to start as the panel and Dean were not yet present. As the Dean arrived (10 minutes late), attendees who were at the entrance shook hands with him and with his assistant. The Dean took his place, and the meeting started with the assistant welcoming everyone and asking the Dean to start the session. Three of the attendees arrived later. The Dean welcomed everyone and thanked them for joining the meeting. The assistant then presented the meeting schedule where he pointed out the four topics. Details of these issues were shared between the Dean and his assistant. The topics were presented in an informative manner. The first issue on the meeting schedule was ‘Minutes from the Previous Meeting’, and the Dean’s Assistant mentioned and confirmed some issues that had been raised there.

102

The Dean explained to the attendees the new issues relating to teaching practices. From the title of this topic, I expected him to talk about issues relating to the Faculty’s overall policy and strategy. Nonetheless, he talked about issues related to teaching, mentioning new roles for the teaching staff, for example, the new policies relating to the use of multimedia in class. Another issue that he informed the meeting about was maternity leave. When the Dean talked about an issue, there was no discussion with attendees at the front. He occasionally had minimal discussion with the people on his table (his assistant and the Heads of Departments). It could be felt that those attendees who did not participate in discussion at the meeting, asked the Heads of Departments to do so on their behalf. They had discussed an issue with the Head of the Department prior to the meeting, and asked him to raise the issue at the meeting. The