Tuesday, September 12, 2006
ISL 2006
The fourteenth Improving Student Learning Symposium took place in Bath at the beginning of September see (4th - 6th). These symposia are run by the Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development at Oxford Brookes University and have a good track record for producing stimulating debate and interesting papers which are collected following the conference (so that presenters have an opportunity to respond to comments made by their audience) in book format (see INSERT URL).
This year's theme was "Improving Student Learning Through Teaching", the abstracts and associated references can be found by following this link or you can take a look at the paper copy in the office. Attendance was relatively low in comparison to previous years (105 attendees, 3 of whom were from CETLs, myself included) with a number of people just coming for one day and reports of others finding it difficult to persuade managers to let them participate. This is always a small, friendly, accessible event (no more than 200 attendees usually) with an emphasis on wider dissemination of research efforts, discussion and networking.
The first keynote (John Peters of the University of Worcester) questioned our apparent lack of attention to the teaching side of the learning experience, as suggested by the symposia title. He asked us to think what is meant by "excellence": how would we describe excellent teaching as performance or excellent teaching as facilitating student learning? He contended that "excellence" is situated and so subjective, exclusive, competitive, individualistic, divisive and discriminatory, we should therefore take care in accepting claims for excellence uncritically.
Mike Prosser, Director of Research and Evaluation for the HEA, provided the second keynote also calling for critical, research-informed reflection on teaching practice aimed at improving that practice. He reminded us that Boyer wrote of 4 scholarships (discovery, integration, application & engagement and teaching) that are separate but overlapping and indicate teaching is about more than just the delivery of content to students. He asked us to consider that what we think we are asking our students to do may not be what they understand they have to do and to remember that the 2003 White Paper used a descriptor-based approach to teaching (rather than a norm, competency or criterion-based approach. He finished by stating that, of course, teaching as well as student learning is affected by its context, suggesting the need for more socio-cultural research.
There is a strong phenomenographic tradition (dealing with variations in the way people experience phenomena, follow this link for more information) associated with this conference, so Mike Prosser and his research partner Keith Trigwell, of Oxford University, are regular participators. The final key note Sari Lindblom-Ylänne, of the University of Helsinki, reported a research study in this tradition, using the Approaches to Teaching Inventory created by Prosser & Trigwell (1999), which dealt with the professional development of teachers in higher education and followed the development of individuals' Approaches to Teaching toward a more learning focused (as opposed to content focused) approach. Her key recommendation was that there was a need for systematic pedagogical training for university teachers and that there should be an emphasis on longer courses of 6 months at least; "one day courses might raise the interest for pedagogical development but do not enhance conceptual change of teachers".
There were a number of papers that were of relevance to the work the engCETL does, although unfortunately it is impossible to be in several places at one time so this meant following up in coffee time and asking presenters if they would mind giving me a copy of papers I had missed. I tend to make my choice based on the work I am involved in at the moment or themes I think would be of intrest to colleagues, so I went to papers touching on the placement experience (1e Turner, P. & 3b Turner, I.), on CETLs (4a Gosling & Hannan), digital lectures (2c Boffey) and the evaluation of engineering teaching (5f Edström):
Undergraduate learning at programme level: an analysis of students' perspectives, Poppy Turner
Bridging the gap between academia and the world of work, Iris Turner, Susan Buckingham
Theoretical underpinnings: an analysis of Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs), David Gosling & Andrew Hannan
Improving student learning through using digital lectures, Ray Boffey, Paul Gerrans, Sophie Kennedy
Conceptions of course evaluation among teachers and student representatives of an engineering programme, Kristina Edström.
Other papers that may be of interest to colleagues included:
1c Meeting the supervisor: exploring the experience of and knowledge negotiated in the meeting between supervisors and PhD students in engineering, Jane Pritchard
1d Design experiments in problem-based e-learning, Jill Porter, Andrea Taylor, Geraldine Jones
A poster on "Embedding the placement year in the psychology curriculum: to enhance learning and employability and develop self awareness, reflective practice and generic competencies" (Reddy & Moores - Psychology, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham) provided a summary of work conducted in this area and made reference to two articles which may be useful to us:
Reddy, P. and Hill, R. (2002). Learning outcomes and assessment strategies for a psychology sandwich placement year. Psychology Teaching Review, 10 (1), 102-11.
Reddy, P. and Moores, E. (2006). Measuring the benefits of a psychology placement year. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 31 (5) 551-567.
They appear to be grappling with a similar problem to ourselves, namely how to assess and make the placement a valued experience. They would like students to: prepare for placements in the second year, reflect on their experience and demonstrate their learning during the placement year, feedback to second year students, and assimilate their experience during the final year. As this is not possible within the current degree structure they propose to create for 2007/8 a parallel University Certificate of Pre-Professional Development (or some such title) awarded for completion of an assessed portfolio. This would cover work in the second and placement years and the first half of the final year. It could contain: records of pre-placement interest and aptitude inventories and other psychometrics available via the university careers service, job applications, letters and personal statements, CVs at different stages, evidence of, and reflection on, developing attributes, interests and competencies, evidence of participation in interview training and other preparatory events, evidence of training and CPD on placement, records of appraisal and supervision, the post-placement report and poster, records of participation in mentoring, evidence of career planning.
There was also a group of people interested in assessment and, in particular, forging a collaborative partnership for research in this area, some of whom presented papers: Charlotte Taylor (4b) & Kathryn Bartimote-Aufflick (4f) from the University of Sydney (4f), Paul Orsmond & Stephen Merry (4g) from Staffordshire University and Jane MacKenzie of Glasgow University (5f).
Copies of selected papers can be viewed in the office, namely:
Keynote 3 presentation
1c paper
1e paper
2c paper
3b paper and presentation
4a paper
4g presentation
5b paper
5d paper
¶ 10:56 am
This year's theme was "Improving Student Learning Through Teaching", the abstracts and associated references can be found by following this link or you can take a look at the paper copy in the office. Attendance was relatively low in comparison to previous years (105 attendees, 3 of whom were from CETLs, myself included) with a number of people just coming for one day and reports of others finding it difficult to persuade managers to let them participate. This is always a small, friendly, accessible event (no more than 200 attendees usually) with an emphasis on wider dissemination of research efforts, discussion and networking.
The first keynote (John Peters of the University of Worcester) questioned our apparent lack of attention to the teaching side of the learning experience, as suggested by the symposia title. He asked us to think what is meant by "excellence": how would we describe excellent teaching as performance or excellent teaching as facilitating student learning? He contended that "excellence" is situated and so subjective, exclusive, competitive, individualistic, divisive and discriminatory, we should therefore take care in accepting claims for excellence uncritically.
Mike Prosser, Director of Research and Evaluation for the HEA, provided the second keynote also calling for critical, research-informed reflection on teaching practice aimed at improving that practice. He reminded us that Boyer wrote of 4 scholarships (discovery, integration, application & engagement and teaching) that are separate but overlapping and indicate teaching is about more than just the delivery of content to students. He asked us to consider that what we think we are asking our students to do may not be what they understand they have to do and to remember that the 2003 White Paper used a descriptor-based approach to teaching (rather than a norm, competency or criterion-based approach. He finished by stating that, of course, teaching as well as student learning is affected by its context, suggesting the need for more socio-cultural research.
There is a strong phenomenographic tradition (dealing with variations in the way people experience phenomena, follow this link for more information) associated with this conference, so Mike Prosser and his research partner Keith Trigwell, of Oxford University, are regular participators. The final key note Sari Lindblom-Ylänne, of the University of Helsinki, reported a research study in this tradition, using the Approaches to Teaching Inventory created by Prosser & Trigwell (1999), which dealt with the professional development of teachers in higher education and followed the development of individuals' Approaches to Teaching toward a more learning focused (as opposed to content focused) approach. Her key recommendation was that there was a need for systematic pedagogical training for university teachers and that there should be an emphasis on longer courses of 6 months at least; "one day courses might raise the interest for pedagogical development but do not enhance conceptual change of teachers".
There were a number of papers that were of relevance to the work the engCETL does, although unfortunately it is impossible to be in several places at one time so this meant following up in coffee time and asking presenters if they would mind giving me a copy of papers I had missed. I tend to make my choice based on the work I am involved in at the moment or themes I think would be of intrest to colleagues, so I went to papers touching on the placement experience (1e Turner, P. & 3b Turner, I.), on CETLs (4a Gosling & Hannan), digital lectures (2c Boffey) and the evaluation of engineering teaching (5f Edström):
Undergraduate learning at programme level: an analysis of students' perspectives, Poppy Turner
Bridging the gap between academia and the world of work, Iris Turner, Susan Buckingham
Theoretical underpinnings: an analysis of Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs), David Gosling & Andrew Hannan
Improving student learning through using digital lectures, Ray Boffey, Paul Gerrans, Sophie Kennedy
Conceptions of course evaluation among teachers and student representatives of an engineering programme, Kristina Edström.
Other papers that may be of interest to colleagues included:
1c Meeting the supervisor: exploring the experience of and knowledge negotiated in the meeting between supervisors and PhD students in engineering, Jane Pritchard
1d Design experiments in problem-based e-learning, Jill Porter, Andrea Taylor, Geraldine Jones
A poster on "Embedding the placement year in the psychology curriculum: to enhance learning and employability and develop self awareness, reflective practice and generic competencies" (Reddy & Moores - Psychology, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham) provided a summary of work conducted in this area and made reference to two articles which may be useful to us:
Reddy, P. and Hill, R. (2002). Learning outcomes and assessment strategies for a psychology sandwich placement year. Psychology Teaching Review, 10 (1), 102-11.
Reddy, P. and Moores, E. (2006). Measuring the benefits of a psychology placement year. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 31 (5) 551-567.
They appear to be grappling with a similar problem to ourselves, namely how to assess and make the placement a valued experience. They would like students to: prepare for placements in the second year, reflect on their experience and demonstrate their learning during the placement year, feedback to second year students, and assimilate their experience during the final year. As this is not possible within the current degree structure they propose to create for 2007/8 a parallel University Certificate of Pre-Professional Development (or some such title) awarded for completion of an assessed portfolio. This would cover work in the second and placement years and the first half of the final year. It could contain: records of pre-placement interest and aptitude inventories and other psychometrics available via the university careers service, job applications, letters and personal statements, CVs at different stages, evidence of, and reflection on, developing attributes, interests and competencies, evidence of participation in interview training and other preparatory events, evidence of training and CPD on placement, records of appraisal and supervision, the post-placement report and poster, records of participation in mentoring, evidence of career planning.
There was also a group of people interested in assessment and, in particular, forging a collaborative partnership for research in this area, some of whom presented papers: Charlotte Taylor (4b) & Kathryn Bartimote-Aufflick (4f) from the University of Sydney (4f), Paul Orsmond & Stephen Merry (4g) from Staffordshire University and Jane MacKenzie of Glasgow University (5f).
Copies of selected papers can be viewed in the office, namely:
Keynote 3 presentation
1c paper
1e paper
2c paper
3b paper and presentation
4a paper
4g presentation
5b paper
5d paper
¶ 10:56 am
