Notes of PDQ Away Day
2 February 2006
Purpose of the day
Quality enhancement theme
Meanings of enhancement (DAW)
QAA definition
‘Process of taking
deliberate steps at institutional level to improve the quality of learning
opportunities’
But a lot taking place not ‘at institutional level’
Need to put QE in strategic
context but encourage at different levels
Does enhancing teaching
quality mean more expected of staff and making life easier for students?
Need to recognise interests
of staff alongside those of students
Should have clear idea of
capabilities required of our graduates
Revised definition
‘Process of taking
deliberate steps at different levels to improve the quality of learning
opportunities with a focus on the desired capabilities of our students and the
needs of our staff’
‘Customer’ not
appropriate term for students: they need to share responsibility and take active
part in learning. Not how students would
see themselves but will be looking for VFM.
Student experience includes
but extends beyond the classroom/learning experience. All susceptible to QE.
What are desired
capabilities of LU graduates?
Employers look at academic
qualifications but more at other generic skills and how graduate will fit into
their organisation…how are we developing these skills especially faced
with large numbers…some departments have specific modules…
Is there an assumption that
employability skills are a key characteristic of LU graduates?…same as
life skills generally?…but students will come expecting a
financial/employment advantage from their degree
Sense that students
don’t like group work though recognise team skills are valuable: perhaps
we don’t do it/assess it as well as we should…
+ Benefit
in being more explicit about what it means to be a Loughborough graduate.
+ Partnership
(staff/students) a key factor.
Institutional context (MB)
Strong ethos and values
Focused approach - is it
always beneficial?
Threats
External changes - different
era
Looking for competitive edge
What priorities are right
for LU?
Need to redefine and sharpen
up what we identify as our strengths.
Have staff got their
expectations of students right?
Students want to know what
is expected of them.
Staff need support with
managing change: supporting not policing.
QE and Institutional Audit (RAB)
Greater emphasis on
enhancement
Focus on how strategies for
QE are derived from QA
Scottish Enhancement-led
Institutional Review (ELIR)…requirement to reflect on effectiveness of QE
strategy…will this be echoed in new Handbook for Audit in
Will have to respond to QAA
method and demonstrate how we are building on outcomes of QA process
But seems narrow and
bureaucratic approach to QE
Will want to go beyond the
QAA model
+ Student
engagement – review expectations on both sides
+ No one
definition of ‘Loughborough experience’ to fit all. But unity of purpose accepting diversity
+ Need an internal
audit to see what is being done to improve learning experience…depts
don’t know what is going on elsewhere on campus but willing to try new
approaches that are shown to work
Enhancement themes
Enlivening classes – student learning support
(PLB)
‘If it ain’t bust don’t fix
it’…eg progression/attainment data, NSS results, QAA record…and
imperative to keep staff on side
but…some concerns
amongst staff…eg decline in student attendance, motivation. (Exceptions where competitiveness and strong
work ethic apparent…eg through projects.)
Need to respond to ‘21st
century learners’…comfortable with experiential and informal
learning modes and high-degree of self-teaching, etc
Technological drivers and
possibilities:
- Blogs
Tie-in
with PDP, personalised assessment maps?; but would it be taken seriously
without credit
- mlearning – PDAs and mobiles
trendy
but doubtful relevance
- Groups within Moodle
Engaging
students, problem of uneven participation mitigated by element of individual
assessment. Either credit-bearing (individual element necessary)
or group work culminating in presentations with external assessors
- Personal Response Systems (PRS)
Can
be used during lectures, to test comprehension during lectures/seminars, also
for attendance, quizzes, etc
+ RAE
timing = window of opportunity coming up but need to guard against perception
of imposition on staff
+ Moodle
– students as individuals users: VLE module minimum requirements, support
for academics to introduce interactive features
+ Moodle –
groups: support for academics, pedagogical
and techno
+ Group
work – more input from outside? Put
students on their mettle. (Would be good
to have stronger relationships with subject centres and CETLs. Simulations involving industry can be seen as
CPD for young employees; possibly recent LU graduates. ‘Virtual’ presence via
videoconferencing link, etc)
+ Trial PRS
with one or two departments?
+ No
substitute for staff enthusiasm!
+ [LU doesn’t
do enough to] recognise and reward teaching
Improving assessment and feedback (MCH)
HEA Workshop –
Challenge of Student Engagement
See http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/4049.htm
- Switching from having to to wanting to
- Engagement starts early with choice of
institution, expectations, promises, information, look and feel
- First encounters of a student kind: social
networks, induction, access to/interaction with academics, teaching
– encourage activity and participation, set challenges, value
contribution
Assessment principles
- To enable students to show us and them they have
achieved ILOs
- Use a variety of assessments
- Provide sufficient information and advice on
assessment methods and criteria
- Set clear unambiguous tasks
- Provide feedback asap
- Should we monitor assessment practices ?
Pros and cons of different
assessment techniques/instruments
- How can students be persuaded to put in more
effort without the process requiring more staff time to assess their
efforts?
CAA can drive student
learning along at a steady pace: regular pattern of short periods of study
followed by assessment.
What next? Suggestions/feedback from Sci Faculty
-
Run a ‘Best
practice in feedback’ project (Inf Sci)
-
PD should offer assessment
and feedback advisory service (Inf Sci)
-
Promote CAA and
OMR (Inf Sci and Maths)
-
Investigate CW
marking software (Inf Sci)
+ Need
variety in assessment across programme, not necessary within module. Therefore need to encourage staff to share ownership
of the whole programme, not just their bit/module
+ Similarly
use of different technological instruments/approaches – variety across
the curriculum
+ Departmental
workload models need adjusting to recognise different workloads associated with
different assessment methods
Graduate employability (JGD)
‘Employability
briefing for Engineering academics’,
Engineering subject centre
Employability skills definition
in booklet
CETL
Asked depts what they were
good at: links with industry top of the list
Aims include pedagogical
research
Building ideally suited for
group design project work, relevant to all ENG+ depts
Teamwork and leadership
module…off-campus outdoor activities…effective
approach…results manifest in other areas of curriculum
+ Employability enhancement: industry input aids
skills development
+ Transfer
of practice. How to get one dept to
adopt what another is doing unless they have a problem?
Feedback from student engagement study with programme
reps (BD)
- Overwhelming majority of students feel welcomed
and integrated into dept
- Atmosphere in dept ‘friendly’ (49%)
- Best thing about lectures/seminars: 58% -
subject matter, 35% - staff; interesting topics, enthusiastic tutors,
discussion and interaction.
- Worst thing abut lectures/seminars: 63% was
lecture related; boring, overcrowded, lack of facilities.
- If tempted to skip lecture/seminar, for what
reason: (1) lecturer reads from slides – therefore attending is
pointless as slides appear on Learn, (2) to complete outstanding work, (3)
early single lectures
- One thing that would make learning at LU better:
many different responses, including (1) more interaction for international
students, (2) more feedback, (3) more communication within dept.
Assessment and feedback
- A majority of students feel they get
comprehensive feedback from their tutors.
Positives: tutors are helpful, feedback on time; negatives: no exam
feedback, no feedback at all.
- How do use the feedback you get? Put comments into practice. Students want to identify common
mistakes and improve for future.
- What methods of feedback would be most
useful? 33% verbal, 25% written and
verbal, written/email 21%, other 21%.
Most students would like to be spoken to about their performance.
- A number commented they would like more exam
related feedback
- 77% feel the amount of assessment for their
course is ‘about right’.
- 56% feel the amount of assessment is what they
expected. (25% more than expected)
- Students who felt they received too much and
that it was more than they expected were mainly from AAE and Wolfson.
- If you could change one thing relating to
assessment and feedback, what would it be?
(1) spreading out deadlines, (2) more details of what is expected
and required, (3) more tutorials/contact time, (4) exam feedback.
+ Interesting reflection on use of Learn
+ Lectures have a social aspect
+ Clarity of expectations a key factor
Toward a Loughborough QE strategy
Do we want a QE strategy set
down on paper ? Or a shared understanding ?
What areas should be covered
?
Dimensions of QE.
Institutional/Individual. External/Internal. In some activities, QE is QA driven: others intrinsically
QE.
Vision and purpose.
QE about addressing
problems, tensions etc as well as building on what is good. But should be proactive as well as reactive. Proactive model more difficult – depts/staff
have competing priorities. But status
quo not sufficient? Need more than sharp
antennae and quick reactions.
Need idea of where we are
going for future.
Possible audit of
departmental practice against vision of how/where we want to be…then
address shortfalls. Would be more
proactive than QAA model.
How directive an approach? Diversity at the dept level a good thing. Depts are
interested in what is working well in other depts but not everything
transferable or appropriate for all.
Apparent that depts/staff would
like off the shelf ‘how to do…’ guides/services. We should provide a supportive environment
for the sharing of good ideas amongst depts that want to be creative and
innovative in L&T. Play an advisory
role and provide support for implementation.
Need for more intelligence for/from depts and for resource to support implementation;
mustn’t be spread too thinly. A
key resource issue (for PD).
Should priority areas be
identified? Could change emphasis and
name of mini-projects to emphasise enhancement dimension. Perhaps advisory service ought to be funded,
not projects.
Purpose of audit of depts to
pick pockets of excellence, select priorities to promote, and depts ready to
engage. Need for awareness of national
context, more engagement with HEA subject centres. Information could be gleaned from PPR rather
than introduce another questionnaire.
Good to embed QE in PPR process. May
need two-stage process, initial/ongoing.
Conclusions and Actions
+ Strategic
view of QE should be clearly articulated within L&T strategy. QE strategy should not be separate.
+ Aspects
emerging: partnership in learning, clarity of expectations, mutual
staff/student understanding; acceptance of diversity but unity of purpose.
+ Need to
know what departments are
Proud of
…
Concerned
about…
Want help
with…
Not just academic depts, support
services too.
No
formal survey but ADTs need to approach in phase and confer on what they are
asking. DAW to look at support services
+
Re-launch, heighten profile of ‘Academic Practice and Quality
Enhancement’ section of PD as place to go for advice and support
+ Should be
an ‘L&T’ button on LU home page
+ Continue
awards and rewards for excellent teaching
+ Provide
advice to depts on doing group work effectively…supply links with
external organisations that they could tap into…in diverse ways to suit
discipline
+ Follow up
interest in new systems eg PRS with a few volunteers and evaluate use
+ Encourage
depts to look at the variety of assessment and teaching methods across the whole
programme
+ Could explore visiting appointments linked to UG
programmes
+ Explain
to student department committee chairs how we are moving forward and taking
account of what students say; might ask them to consider if there are common
factors defining their LU experience
+ Raise awareness of QE at EMG and Faculty level