| Skip Navigation LTiA Home | Publisher: L&TU | ISSN 1477-1241 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Volume 5, Issue 1: Widening Participation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Editorial Full Circle Widening Participation Developing and Sharing Best Practice The Social Construction of the New Student WP - Who helps the helpers? Aimhigher at MMU Aspiration or Attainment - what are we trying to achieve? Raising Achievement and Aspirations Through Football Introducing 'ALIC' at AUT |
 |
Faculty Learning and Teaching Reports
The Business School
The Business School
IT SkillsThe Business School has just completed an innovative project aimed at improving the Information Technology skills of all its first year undergraduate students. Up until this year, the unit followed a traditional structure. Students were split into two groups, with one half taking the IT Skills unit in the first term, and the others in the second. This meant that students weren’t always getting the skills they needed early enough in the year, and that detecting and dealing with difficulties was not always done soon enough to be really helpful to students. The Business Information Technology team were determined to make some radical changes. Instead of spreading the unit over the whole academic year, they realised it would have the most impact if it were taught during the first two weeks of the first term. This intensive course required a new approach to the teaching as well as the timing. The course was restructured so that all the materials were available in the form of a series of on-line tutorials and self-tests. Students were also able to attend tutorial sessions where tutors were present to answer questions. Up to 175 students attended each session. The pass rate for the test was 89%, compared with 63% in 2004/05. Dave Tucker, the unit leader, said “This is an excellent outcome. In addition to the improvement in the pass rate, we were able to identify the students who need extra help with IT Skills early in the year, and provided classes during independent study week especially for them, focused on the areas where they did less well in the tests .” In addition to the academic outcomes, the team feels that the structure of the unit had two important extra benefits. It helped students to meet their colleagues on the same programmes, as they were timetabled together in the laboratory sessions, and it got them quickly into the rhythm of academic life with a clearly structured unit, an early assessment and rapid feedback. Students also had a positive view of the unit. 50% of students completed an optional online survey. 82.7% of these said that they found this to be “ a good way to learn”, and 28.5% even admitted to enjoying it! So how did the team do it? Careful planning and meticulous management were the keys to their success. The online materials were piloted last year within the more traditional unit structure. The team made a note of frequently asked questions in face-to-face sessions, and incorporated the answers into the online materials. Support from Customer Services, the IS team and the Library made everything run smoothly. What’s next? The team are evaluating the experience and taking into account the many useful comments made by students in the survey. The materials are being adapted for use with Masters level students, and the BIT team are just starting an advanced IT Skills unit using the same model. Anyone interested in seeing, using or adapting the IT Skills materials is welcome to contact Dave Tucker for more information.
Health, Social Care and Education
Working towards fair admissions for PhysiotherapyPhysiotherapy education in the UK is delivered in the higher education sector and therefore should respond to the strategic plans reported by the White Paper (DfES 2003). Physiotherapy also has a moral and government requirement to achieve increased diversity in the National Health Service (NHS) physiotherapy workforce (DoH 2000) thus reflecting the population cared for by the NHS. It has been suggested that the lack of diversity within both physiotherapy education programmes and profession put limits on their ability to reach out to all members of our society (Walsh et al 2000) and that physiotherapy’s capacity to provide a culturally sensitive service is reduced (NHS 1993). However the stereotypical physiotherapist is white, female and predominately middle class and the students at MMU largely reflect this stereotype. The physiotherapy programme has a dual challenge to change the profile of the students entering physiotherapy education whilst selecting the best students from a large pool of applicants. Physiotherapy is oversubscribed and at MMU we have approximately 11 applicants for every place so it is essential that our procedures are fair. The admissions team has been working to ensure that our admissions procedures are transparent and that the selection of applicants is objective and consistent. We examine our entry requirements annually and made changes to ensure the equal treatment of UCAS tariff rated qualifications relative to traditional A levels. The team expanded their understanding of an increased number and range of vocational qualifications and access courses that lead to us broadening our entry requirements. With increasingly diverse student applicants we recognised a need to spend more time answering admissions enquiries and discussing the different routes applicants can opt for to achieve the required entry level. Once an applicant has met a minimum required entry level, then further information is obtained from the applicant’s personal statement on the UCAS form. A set of criteria has been developed to score the personal statement. Students with the highest scores are invited for interview. This method of scoring the personal statement has increased the objectivity of this part of the selection process. We recognise the need to carry out work to measure the reliability of the scoring system to make certain that there is consistency when comparing applicants and when different members of the academic admissions team are marking statements. There have also been changes to the interview process throughout the past five years that have increased the standardisation of interview assessments. The interviewers, who have all been through a training programme, no longer have access to the UCAS forms. The applicants are marked at the interview against a set of criteria. Applicants with the highest scores at interview are offered a place on the course. We are currently completing further work on the effectiveness of the criteria used at both the interview and personal statement stages. By collecting information from discussions with academic and clinical physiotherapists we are compiling a list of the non-cognitive characteristics that physiotherapists believe are important qualities in students and qualified physiotherapists However, we are aware that the criteria are socially constructed and in the physiotherapy profession they are likely to have been constructed by white middle class females. Additionally measuring everyone against the same criteria also presents problems for the nontraditional student. The non-traditional students may have gained valuable life experiences however the applicant’s experience may be ignored if it does not fit into an exact structure, especially if specific experience or views are being looked for. So despite their objectivity, merit criteria can incorporate the very discrimination they purport to eliminate, that of indirect bias against a group. These issues will be considered when further reviewing and developing the criteria for the personal statement and interview. Since making the above changes to the admissions process, the physiotherapy cohort is more diverse. We have an increasing number of mature students entering with a wider range of qualifications and the male and ethnic minority students have increased although nowhere near the levels we would like to reach. Despite these pleasing changes we still have a small proportion of students entering the course with vocational qualifications. Nationally 2% of physiotherapy students have a BTEC qualification (the figure is only 1% at MMU), whilst the majority entering a physiotherapy degree course have three A levels. There is a strong feeling held by potential applicants and careers advisors that the BTEC qualification is not seen as an entry requirement for physiotherapy. This is demonstrated in a recent letter from a career advisor in response to a request for students who might consider physiotherapy as their career : “Universities mainly take A levels students and we are a vocational college that run Btec National Diploma” This belief is present despite a majority of the 37 physiotherapy undergraduate programmes in the UK stating that they will accept the BTEC qualification. Observation from the last three years of physiotherapy applications at MMU suggests that the students with A levels have a broader range of GCSEs and higher GCSE points than students opting for the vocational route. Up until 2005 we used the GCSE results as an additional method of deselecting applicants in the selection process. Only students who scored 20 points or above were considered for the course. For 2006 our minimum requirement is 6 points (ie 6 GCSEs at grade C or higher). Although we have only had around 250 applications so far for 2006, more applicants with BTEC have gone through to the personal statement stage of selection than in previous years. The BTEC students’ progress through the application and selection stage and their success on the course will be monitored over the next few years. With increasing number of BTEC students graduating as physiotherapists the careers advisors should gain confidence to suggest physiotherapy as a career option to their students. This, in addition to increasing our working relationships with tutors teaching BTEC courses will help to redress the imbalance that currently exists. These are just some of the areas the admissions team in Physiotherapy are considering. We are open to comments and further suggestions for improvement of our procedures. If you have any comments please contact either myself Jenny Caunt Ruth Macdonald Jenny Caunt
2005 Faculty Learning and Teaching Conference
The Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education held their annual Learning and Teaching Conference on the 27 th of June 2005 , at the Elizabeth Gaskell Site. The main focus points of the conference were; E Learning and Teaching, Student Diversity and Student Feedback. The conference was an opportunity for colleagues from the Faculty to come together to share good practice and discuss Learning and Teaching. The first speaker at the event was Mike Farrell from the Cumbria and Lancashire Workforce. His presentation was on E-learning developments in the North West focussing on the NHS. Maureen Haldane from the Promethean Centre for Excellence, followed Mike, presenting information on teaching with technology in higher education, focussing on interactive whiteboards. After the presentations both Maureen and Mike each facilitated a round table on the area they had discussed. The idea of the round tables was to share information and give staff an opportunity to swap ideas, ask for and give advice to colleagues and think about how they could develop their teaching methods. Kate Kirk opened the afternoon with presenting a paper on Diversity & Achievement; researching the experience of non-traditional entry into higher education. Two round tables sessions followed;
Again, both of these sessions were information sharing events, giving staff an opportunity to give their opinions and feedback. The afternoon plenary was a chance for people to reflect on the day's findings, and evaluate the day using the ACTIVote evaluation technology. This showed staff how they could use ACTIVote to obtain student feedback from their sessions. We asked all staff who attended the conference to complete a feedback questionnaire. From our evaluation of the day the majority agreed that the presentations provided new knowledge and were of relevance and that the round tables on E Learning and interactive whiteboards were clear and of use. Many of those who completed the questionnaires felt that they would have benefited from seeing both items in practice. The Diversity roundtable was well received and a majority of those who attended felt that this roundtable was a good way for them to share good practice and that it raised awareness of practical issues but also social and cultural matters that shape approaches to diversity. People who attended the student feedback roundtable found it interesting but felt that a round table on the student experience would have been more beneficial. The two areas that people felt they would like to learn more about after the conference were; E Learning and practical use of the interactive whiteboards. The general comments on improvement for the day were a call for more posters and a discussion on peer appraisal. The Committee has taken these comments on board and will make sure these items are included in the 2006 Faculty Learning and Teaching Conference. Clare McInnes Humanities, Law and Social Science
The winner of the Faculty Prize for Teaching Innovation and Excellence (“TIE”) 2005 is Helen Jones from the Department of Sociology. The final report of Helen’s project, entitled “A WebCT based blended learning package for the Criminology Curriculum” will be available to view on the Faculty’s Learning and Teaching Website in the near future, alongside the reports from the other contenders for the prize. With the recent appointment of Dr Jesse Edwards as a Fellow in Academic Practice, the Faculty now is in the enviable position of having seven Fellows within its staff. They are: Dr Jesse Edwards Richard Eskins Edwina Higgins Bill Johnston Helen Jones Margaret Kendall Batsheve Samely
The Faculty e-learning mentoring schemeThe scheme was originally designed to last four academic terms, with the final phase taking place in autumn 2005. The plan was for two mentors to provide support for 8 mentees in developing materials for use via WebCT with students in 2005/6. Some funding was provided by the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee. The rest was approved by the Staff Development forum as a pilot for the University as a whole, the background of which is explained by Forsyth 1 . Following a “snapshot” evaluation study in June 2005, the Faculty Management Group agreed to fund timetable relief for a one term extension (Spring 2006) for the existing mentees, for a third mentor and a new cohort of up to 9 mentees from January to December 2006. This report summarises the activities undertaken during 2004/5 and plans for 2005/6.
Phase 1:Autumn term 2004. Planning and Preparation During this phase, the mentors undertook further training in preparation for the mentoring role, including attendance on Netskills workshops and guided reading, support and advice from the Learning and Teaching Unit. Four planning meetings were held with Rachel Forsyth and Robert Ready. The mentors designed an application form which encouraged consideration of learner profiles at an early stage and enabled an initial analysis of the mentees’ prior experience of e-learning. Given the wide variation in experience, a blended approach was considered appropriate, consisting of regular face-to-face group and individual meetings, staff development sessions and the use of a WebCT area for communication between everyone involved. A common problem with e-learning is for projects to begin at the development stage rather than spend time on analysis and design to inform decisions. The ADDIE 5 step framework was used to structure the programme, taking the mentees through the stages of analysis and design in the initial weeks of the programme before moving on to the use of technology to develop their materials.
Phase 2: Spring and Summer terms 2005: Supporting mentees through the Analysis, Design and Development stages The programme took place largely as planned, with attendance at meetings variable as some mentees were unable to attend because of teaching and other timetable commitments. Two were asked to take on additional management responsibilities which affected their ability to participate. One eventually had to withdraw because of extended sick leave, but as a ninth mentee joined the scheme in February following approval from the Faculty Learning Committee, a full complement remained. Despite difficulties in attendance, the mentees were strongly in favour of the group meetings as shown in their responses to the anonymous WebCT survey which was designed and implemented in February (see progress report, Faculty Learning & Teaching Committee, 23 rd February 2005 ), although two did not complete it. The results were used to inform the programme for the summer term. Other WebCT Developers from the Faculty as a whole were invited to join the group sessions in the summer. This increased the number of people able to share experiences and facilitated the creation of a mutually supportive community of practice. Individual support from the mentors was offered as required. Lorraine Parker, visiting scholar from April to mid-May, involved the mentors and LTU staff in the design of interview schedules and carried out 24 in-depth interviews with the mentors, LTU staff, all 8 mentees and their respective Heads of Department or Programme Leaders. As shown by her report (presented to the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee, 1 st June 2005 ), strong support was expressed with every respondent being in favour of repeating the scheme. At the time of her interviews, all the mentees were hoping to have more time over the summer and expected to see their projects through to completion. Four mentees completed their materials for implementation from the autumn term 2005, of which one gained employment elsewhere so alternative arrangements will be made for implementation and evaluation. Another won a research scholarship to the University of Washington so will need to postpone introduction of his materials till 2006/7.
Phase 3: Autumn term 2005/Spring term 2006: Implementation and Evaluation
In drawing up the original timescale for the project, it was assumed that the materials created by the mentees would be implemented during the autumn term and that this would enable some interim evaluation of the students’ experiences. However, as part of the process of designing their projects using blended learning approaches, two of the mentees are not planning to use the materials until the Spring term and the extension of the current scheme to the end of the Spring term 2006 will enable a fuller picture to be obtained. The projects to be implemented during 2005/6 are now:
During the autumn term 2005, the mentors will organise group sessions for the existing mentees on implementation and evaluation. One-to-one support will be provided in implementing their materials in the autumn term and in devising student feedback activities during and at the end of the academic year. FMG approved the second cycle from January to December 2006, as waiting until after this evaluation risked losing the momentum and enthusiasm for e-learning gained by delaying a further cycle by twelve months. To inform the second cycle and the possible development of a CPD elective, a questionnaire survey will gather views of mentors and mentees on the lessons learned from the 2004/5 mentoring scheme. Analysis of the results will form the basis of a fourth progress report to the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee, Staff Development Forum and Learning and Teaching Unit. Margaret Kendall and Edwina Higgins, September 2005
Criminology e-communication projectTwo of the participants of the mentoring project delivered a conference paper in Atlanta , USA , in October 2005. As part of her mentoring project Dr Helen Jones, a criminologist in the Sociology Department, has developed an ecommunication project between Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of West Florida (UWF). This project links students by email (see Faculty Newsletter 2005 and Sociology Dept Newsletter 27). The full background to the project is published in a peer reviewed journal article (Jones, H., Kunselman, J., Johnson, K. and Wowk, M. (2005) ‘Communicating Across the Atlantic: US and British Students Discuss Criminal Justice Issues’, Issues in Information Systems. Volume VI No.1.). She travelled with Dr Maria Wowk, also of the Sociology Department, to deliver a conference paper on the project at the International Association for Computer Information Systems conference. This conference provided the first opportunity to meet the UWF partners in person. The next phase of the project will move away from email as the medium for discussion and instead will use the threaded discussion board facility of WebCT. Confirmed partners for the Spring 2006 project are:
Faculty Learning and Teaching Event, Thursday 3rd NovemberA very successful day was organised by the SL&TFs in the Faculty focussed on e-learning. The event was opened by Sue Zlosnik, Chair of the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee and the keynote paper: “10 things I hate about elearning.. and how to learn to love them!” was presented by Susannah Quinsee, Head of e- Learning, City University .
Approximately 50 people participated (including 18 contributors) and every Department was represented. There were poster sessions on the Faculty e-learning mentoring scheme; E-portfolios; reusable resources in the Faculty, and the LearnHigher CETL Presentations were given by Edwina Higgins, School of Law , ‘Engaging students through e-learning as an aid to retention’; Judith Shaw and Nicola Wakefield, Library, ‘E-resources and e-learning developments in the University Library’; Helen Jones and Maria Wowk, Dept of Sociology, ‘Communicating across the Atlantic : US and British students discuss criminal justice issues’; Margaret Kendall & Magda Vasileiou, Dept of InfoComms, Batsheva Samely & Fiona Long, Dept of Languages, ‘E-learning and international students’, and Richard Eskins, Dept of InfoComms, ‘E-learning for all: designing for accessibility’.
A final session on ‘Moving Forward: universitywide developments’ was chaired by Edwina Higgins and comprised a fast-moving question & answer session with Learning and Teaching Unit staff (including a video link to Rachel Forsyth in France ), and the Faculty SL&TFs.
Bill Johnston Science and EngineeringThe Student Experience
Introduction On June 24 th 2005 , The Faculty of Science and Engineering hosted a very successful annual learning and teaching event. The event took place at Manchester Art Gallery and followed a round table format over a three-course lunch. The overall theme of the event was “The Student Experience” and 50 MMU staff took part and all were issued with Certificate of Attendance for CPD purposes. The main aims of LT2005 were to:
Event format
In each case, the tables first considered problems and issues arising in relation to their theme, and subsequently considered solutions and actions to achieve improvement. The chairpersons were briefed beforehand to make a special effort to compile a list of suggestions for staff development in relation to their theme throughout the discussions.
Participation The event was attended by 50 staff, mainly from the Faculty of Science and Engineering (except for Chairpersons) with the exception of some individuals invited from central University services. The distribution of participants is shown in Table 2.
* Unfortunately, a clash with an exam board prevented wider participation
Key issues raised during themed discussions The key issues raised during each tabled discussions are summarised below. These summaries are based on post-event reports submitted by the table chairpersons.
1. The Learning EnvironmentThis group first identified what they saw as the strengths of the current learning environment at MMU:
These strengths pretty much speak for themselves. There was a real appreciation of the value of the new facilities, and much of the “constructive criticism” that comes later must take this into account. The group then identified what they regarded as problems:
There was much talk about space utilisation. Lecturers feel bounded by the lack of flexibility, in many respects, around space allocation and utilisation. Timetablers, lecturers AND students could get a lot out of a sensible/radical rethink about space allocation systems. This might need a spend on furniture, partitions, minor rebuilding, network points and so on in order to get better use out of the space available. However, half hourly timetabling and creative approaches to other spaces (eg in the library, in the foyer, in the quadrangle) could do much to create a building for learning and teaching.
Solutions The group identified a range of potential solutions to the problems cited. Underlying all of these is the argument that we must realise that (a) the learning environment is more than a building, but that (b) the entire building needs to be made into a learning environment. Space utilisation Small study spaces; half hourly rooming regime; study rooms in the Library; noisy working space in the Library; use new “big spaces” better (eg the bean bag in All Saints West); create exhibition space; use of video screen….science programmes! Flexibility Extended viable access hours (eg the development of 24/7 where appropriate); wireless access Functionality and aesthetics Little windows on doors; plastering the breeze block; furniture/layout rethink (eg design some learning and teaching into the space); individual staff rooms; maintenance (eg review lighting, heating, graffiti, chewing gum) Technology Remote slide changing (wireless mouse?); computer lab rejigged with partitions and flexible study/working space; convert JD’s into a cyber-café; benches / covered areas all with wireless connectivity; bring the standard AV platform to all learning spaces with a network point in every room. VLE Sort out the VLE (more support / more bodies; effective link to student record system; proper scaleable upgrading of VLE product; more training for students; staff development; administrative rejigging to take account of emerging “VLE course area for every unit” reality; workload model for online course development; make curriculum development possible; get it right at the centre!).
The solutions listed generally speak for themselves, but the spirit was radical around the table: JD Cybercafe! Science programmes on the screens! Study pods made of glass in the foyer – show students working and learning! Wireless networking! Shelters in the quadrangle for allweather meeting spaces! Bean bag like All Saints West! The group felt that there was plenty to go on – all it needs to be realised is some resource, a visionary will and the realisation across MMU that the learning environment is more than a building, the entire building should be a learning environment!
2. Staff DevelopmentDiscussions on this table began with a consideration of the current staff development programme provided by the Training and Development Unit and the uptake on courses delivered through the programme. It was noted that there was limited time for academic staff to avail of the courses offered. Also, mandatory elements of the provision needed to be prioritised and taken first. It was recognised that elements of the training and development programme such as skills-based and IT training were beneficial. The Introduction to WebCT course offered by the Learning and Teaching Unit was also mentioned as a worthwhile training session by members of the discussion group. It was also noted that training was much more likely to be taken up if there was an immediate need for training and/or immediate perceived benefits that it would bring. The need for training on Personal Development Plans (PDP) was noted. the Faculty itself that provided opportunities for learning and brought peers from across the faculty together to share good practice. These included Faculty events, learning and teaching events, MIDAS training, courses on legal requirements and Departmental away days. There was a discussion of the importance of “currency” when thinking about staff development and the importance of the development feeding in to the role of academic staff at the University as teachers and subject specialists. This staff development may include research into subject areas or attending conferences. It was noted that development for “thinking people” was not necessarily skills based. This led to a discussion about the impact of research on staff development. There was consensus that research into subject areas did not automatically make the researcher a better teacher, this depended on the individual’s communication skills and whether they could communicate the findings from their research effectively through their teaching. There was also a discussion of enthusiasm for teaching and the transfer of enthusiasm for the subject to the student. There was a discussion concerning the ways in which staff could be encouraged to engage with development. There was consensus that staff development offered at the Faculty level was popular and staff seemed to engage with this kind of learning more than staff development provided at the University level because it was more targeted, relevant and focused. There was a short discussion about some of the factors that may impact negatively on staff development. These included:
A discussion followed concerning the importance of timetabling staff development into staff schedules. In some departments two weeks from the timetable were allocated to staff development. There was also a discussion about the disparity in funding for staff development across departments with some staff in our discussion group being allocated a set amount of funding to spend on development on an annual or three-yearly basis while other staff were required to “put forward a case” for funding to their head of department as and when required. The group made some recommendations: Specific targets to be incorporated into the Learning and Teaching Strategy: 1. Introduce a Faculty policy to standardise the amount of funds that staff members receive for their training and development. Specific staff development ideas 2. Make the materials from courses available through training and development available online so that staff can have access to the information and potentially undertake the training in their own time (rather than having to attend a live training session on a certain date). 3. Provide academic staff with training on Personal Development Planning. 4. Facilitate more internal training focusing on issues relating to Faculty and staff subject areas.
3. Personal Development Plans
Timescales Initial discussion was precipitated by the immediacy of the September deadline to have Personal Development Planning (PDP) provision in place for all years of all degrees. However, QAA points 17, 18 and 19 indicate some flexibility in the implementation process. For example, PDP may be implemented over a 5 year period via the normal course review process. Although this should not be a source of instant complacency, it may remove undue haste and error from rushed implementation on courses with no prior PDP or equivalent experience. This does mean that the resource issue may not be as onerous as first assumed: Any resources made available to support the implementation of PDP can be targeted at courses and departments that are not closely driven by professional affiliation. Staff who really feel they are lost at the starting line can get the full support they desperately need. These departments can also be guided by the prior experience of those who already have some form of PDP in place. The group then moved on to look at a related topic of staff skills and motivation. It was felt that urgent staff development and longer term skills training need to be targeted at those departments or courses where CPD is not already a component. In addition to guidance, staff also need encouragement from senior management. This is particularly the case where staff are expected to shoulder the extra burden of PDP delivery with no extra resources. Without this support and encouragement, the group thought that the proverbial straw of MMU staff morale’s back might be broken. The lack of explicit requirements for PDP’s from senior management and the lack of a central ‘PDP person’ for MMU were cited as major reasons for many staff with specific responsibilities for PDP implementation frantically running around like children in the dark. The pseudo-political chant of ‘resources, resources, resources’ was also to be heard around the table, which could be the cry of staff drowning in overload or euphemistic for ‘incentives, incentives, incentives’.
Student involvement Convincing staff and students that PDP is an enhancement to academic attainment and not a distraction emerged as important. This is particularly a problem in subjects such as Psychology where the main career requirement has been to simply obtain a 2:1. It is acknowledged that the world is changing and we are no longer places of academic reverence indifferent to career outcomes. Students now expect courses to lead to worthwhile careers and are paying for courses on this basis. Therefore we must take student’s career and professional skills seriously via PDPs. Thus, skill and employability should NOT be toxic to academic values. Students want jobs but will need motivating to complete the extra work required by PDPs. The group considered that having credits attached to PDPs (ie as units required to be passed) would be essential for their success. However, this creates other problems such as where the credits come from. Replacing existing skills units is one possibility but adding credits to the 120 for a pass is not an option.
The year 2 and part-time problem Credits in years 2 and 3 are sometimes tightly controlled by the requirements of professional bodies, leaving little room for ‘credit shuffling’. Without any credit weighting PDP could be embarrassingly ignored. It was suggested that PDP could be optional for a career route but QAA do not use the term ‘optional’. This problem is magnified for part-time students where not only credits are tight but also the scheduling of units and attendance. How do we make PDP parttime? Web based units will be useful here. Use of graduates and mentoring: Students as resource and anti-dependency The MMU Alumni database could be utilised to encourage invite ex-students to speak to undergraduates about careers and skill needs within the framework of PDP. This would help motivate students from year 1. Surveys have found that most graduates did not consider a career until year 3, something PDP is intended to change. Using year 3 students to mentor year 2 and year 2 to mentor year 1 as part of PDP was discussed in the context of keeping year 2 and year 3 students involved in the PDP process as well as keeping the students active in their learning process and as an anti-dependency measure. Mentoring could be relevant to the subject area and thus be both a viable subject unit and PDP contribution. It would also assist with resourcing PDP.
Residual issues There were a few loose ends of discussion around the table: 1. There are some useful existing units available to support PDP initiatives (eg Career development learning units and Infoskills). 2. Potential problems relating to information technology were mentioned (eg deleting student accounts and Web-CT courses annually). 3. There is a need to bring staff up to a minimum skill level in learning technology such as WebCT and making this training a requirement for new staff. 4. Among some staff there is a lack of enthusiasm and even resistance to implementation of PDP. This can only be countered by enthusiasm and example from senior management. The importance of PDP must be more widely explained in terms of the potential for students to turn away from expensive university education towards direct careers in the absence of explicit skills development.
4. Student SupportThis group spent a considerable amount of time considering current strengths and weaknesses, at faculty and University level, of providing both (a) study skills support and (b) support for disabled students. Other areas of student support were identified but the group decided to focus on these more limited areas given time constraints. In terms of supporting disabled students, the group identified a number of strengths including:
It was considered generally that there were good structures in place to effectively support disabled students. However, the main weaknesses identified were difficulties in dealing with the sheer number of students who disclose a disability and issues relating to poor/lack of communication. In terms of study skills support, the group identified a number of strengths including positive attitudes among staff towards skills development, library courses and services and the availability of online resources. However, the perceived weaknesses include the fact that there is a lot of wheel re-inventing going on across the University and at Faculty level in providing study skills support materials. There was also seen to be a lack of good utilisation of pedagogical research into skills development and employability issues. Another resource issue was raised, in that there are few opportunities for 1:1 skills development - which is sometimes needed. There were discussions about whether study skills development should be explicit or embedded in subject-based material and views varied on this. The group discussed problems of poor English among students and the need for improved support for overseas students. This was of particular concern given the trend to target overseas students for recruitment (ie the need to match new targets with resource capability). The discussion moved onto to consider improvements in practice and any suggested policy changes. It was agreed that although sometimes a difficult task, it is absolutely essential that a University education include skills development.
5. CommunicationThis group began with a discussion about what the term communication meant in a professional learning and teaching context and concluded the following: 1. Communication is successfully giving (accurately), receiving , understanding, interpreting and acting on information by a suitable method. 2. It is a two way process that should be both flexible and understandable by both parties. 3. Communication should be fit for purpose, using an appropriate method to reach understanding. The group decided to focus on a few key areas. A key concern was of the danger that communication could be regarded as a one-way rather than two-way process and that expectations were increasingly moving towards 24-7 availability of teaching staff without a corresponding emphasis on the responsibility of students to communicate with us. There was also a concern that we are pressured into tailoring our communication systems to cater for the non-participator rather than the participator. Whilst it was appreciated that systems must address communication breakdowns at the earliest possible stage, it is vital that we don’t spend all our time “chasing determined absentees” to the detriment of students who show willingness to communicate. Specific problems identified were:
The group also noted down what they perceived to be the commonest student complaints about communication:
Managing expectation therefore emerged as a key theme. Could a protocol of some kind be developed setting out what students can expect of us and what we can expect of them in terms of communication? Additionally, perhaps a clearer strategy is needed on how/in what format particular types of information should be communicated: The group identified numerous ways to communicate with students (eg lectures, tutorials, in the corridor, by phone, email, websites and WebCT, plasma display screens, letters, traditional notice-boards and documentation such as handbooks). Is there any consensus on which means is best for particular types of information, and if so, would sticking to that make it easier for students to understand the purpose of a particular communication? One practical problem identified was that staff don’t necessarily know how to download student email addresses. We also wondered whether we could insist students use MMU rather than personal email accounts to communicate with us. There was some discussion about whether we should move towards mobile phones as a means of communication. Could we make more use of texting to reach students and, if so, should the University issue staff with mobile phones? Would this simply increase the 24-7 expectation? The group closed with a consideration of three particular issues of key concern:
Personal tutoring
Assessment feedback The group spent some time discussing how feedback on assessments could be more effective.
There was a brief discussion about plagiarism and how we could improve our communication to students of what it is and how to avoid it. Workshops for students and increased use of the Turnitin software as a formative tool were suggested as methods.
Staff to staff communication
Event feedback
Feedback from participants was obtained using a simple questionnaire. Participants were asked four open-ended questions and given space to write comments: 1. Are there other areas of L+T you would like to have been discussed today? Responses included plagiarism avoidance; the student community; student recruitment, induction and retention; assessment methods; evaluation of mitigating circumstances.
2. Name ONE topic you would like to see the subject of a Faculty L+T event in the future A very wide range of topics were listed including WebCT and learning technologies; PDP’s; assessment criteria; introducing a personal tutoring system; mentoring; student recruitment, induction and retention; communication management; widening participation; life as an academic; employability; field-based learning.
3. Name ONE topic you would like to see the subject of staff development in the future A small number of topics were repeatedly requested for staff development including PDP’s (lots); assessment criteria and moderation; WebCT and e-learning (lots); student support (including disabled student support).
4. Add any other comments or suggestions that you think may be helpful to the organisers A wide range of comments were submitted, mostly very complementary, expressing considerable satisfaction with the event. There were several requests relating to wine and vegetables (….!) and some suggestions as to minor modifications to improve the event if run again. Several comments were made about the value of meeting colleagues from around the University and a couple of requests were made for students to be involved in the event on another occasion.
Participants were also asked to indicate their level of agreement with four statements. Responses are given as the mean value of 41 responses overall (5 = strongly agree 1 = strongly disagree), and for each table (between 7 and 9 responses): The responses (Table 3)suggest that the event, its format and aims, and the meal, were all rated very highly, with Table 5 appearing to enjoy themselves the most!
*Table Numbers: 1 = The Learning Environment, 2 = Staff Development, 3 = Personal Development Plans, 4 = Student Support, 5 = Communication
ConclusionsIn conclusion, LT2005 was a very successful event and created an excellent forum for cross- Department and cross-Faculty discussions on some of the key topics facing the Faculty and the University. The specific outcomes of the event were as follows: 1. A Certificate of Attendance (for CPD purposes) was produced for attendees. 2. The working party developing the Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy will use the summary of discussions as a form of checklist to ensure that all relevant issues are addressed in the new strategy and action plan. 3. Suggestions made during discussions for future learning and teaching events will be passed to the Faculty L+T events programme coordinator in order that some topics can form the basis for events during the 2005/6 academic year. 4. Suggestions made during discussions (and in feedback) for staff development events will be passed to the coordinator of the CPD Project for consideration.
However, it is to be hoped that the ‘invisible’ outcome of the event will be the significant enhancement of pedagogically sound learning and teaching provision in a supportive learning environment across the Faculty of Science and Engineering.
Acknowledgements
This event could not have taken place without the generous assistance of Shaheena Abbas, Mike Cole, Alan Fielding, Peter Gough, Mark Langan, Dawn Nicholson (Chair) and Joao Ponciano (LT2005 working party members); Yasmine Butt (events organiser at Manchester Art Gallery ); Terry Wareham (keynote speaker); Media Services (photography); Sue Bailey, Emma Flynn, Edwina Higgins, David Holmes and Robert Ready (chairpersons). Thank you.
Dawn T. Nicholson
Winter 2006 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The event opened at 10.30am with coffee and biscuits, followed by short briefings from Brian Murphy (Faculty Learning and Teaching Strategy) and Chrissie Gibson (Knowledge Transfer Partnerships event). There then followed a keynote presentation from Terry Wareham, Director of the Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching at Lancaster University at 11am. After this, participants took part in round table discussions over lunch, each table being chaired as shown in table 1. 
The participants next discussed the differential needs of Departments and courses. It was considered to be good news for courses that are closely tied to professional organisations since they may already implement some form of PDP. Such courses (which may include many Masters courses) simply need to identify all of the elements of existing PDP delivery and check alignment with the requirements of QAA criteria. Students can then incorporate these elements into an appropriate format which is transparent, auditable and explicit.