Effective Learning
In this section:

Introduction

A Fresh Look at Independent Learning

Effective learning: comments archive

External links

Enhancing Learning

How Does Learning Happen Best?

Enhancing Learning

Notes from a staff development event at Thames Valley University, UK.
Ealing Campus : 29/30 April, 1998

Background:

This two-day staff development event was held in the context of the University's aim to build a reputation for world class teaching and learning. It set out to explore ways in which learning can be enhanced through:-

assessment
active learning
scholarship in teaching and learning and continuing professional development (CPD).

In terms of academic staff development the last 18 months have been primarily concerned with subject or pathway based curriculum design and development work aimed at meeting the needs of TVU's New Learning Environment. There has been little time or opportunity to share and disseminate and build on the wealth of good teaching and learning practice and experience across the institution. At the same time we are all only too aware of the rapid developments post-Dearing towards the accreditation of teaching in Higher Education. Hence this event brought together the twin agendas of student and teacher learning in an open, participative and sharing environment.

Sessions:

Sessions 1, 2 and 4 were built around three or four enhancing learning/assessment related themes, led by one or more contributors who outlined their own experience and practice, then opened up the session to wider debate and other colleagues' contexts. Session 3 focused on the national context, TVU's teaching and learning development programmes, and portfolio approaches to Continuing Professional Development (CPD). The sessions were attended by 15 - 22 participants/contributors from across the university :

Session 1 :

Varying the assessment diet and Assessing groupwork
Peer and groupwork assessment

Session 2 :

Using Task-based Assessment
Using technology to improve assessment and cater for large numbers
Dialogue, Seminars and Technology
Management, delivery and assessment using the Internet

Session 3 :

The Institute of Learning and Teaching
Building a Teaching Portfolio/CPD
MA in Learning and Teaching in Nursing and Midwifery
TVU's Facilitating Framework
Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning in F/HE
MSc/MA in Management Learning Strategies
PG Diploma in Flexible Learning Delivery

Session 4 :

Experiential/Independent Learning
Supervising Projects and Dissertations
Using the Video Studio for Assessment

Key outcomes :

All participants/contributors were issued with a certificate of participation/contribution and encouraged to write a reflective summary of what they had learned and would act upon;
Positive reactions from participants :
- opportunity to learn about different assessment strategies and other perceptions and interpretations of university curriculum guidelines
- exchange of information and ideas with other Schools
- opportunity for problem-solving
- input on interface with new technologies
Powerful evaluative information for those responsible for planning staff development activities as well as learning and teaching strategies, e.g. :
- preparing the ground for teaching accreditation : awareness-raising; building a teaching portfolio; value of interdisciplinary approaches
Useful suggestions for action, e.g.:
- importance of using all communication means at disposal to get information across (voicemail, email, university bulletin, staff pigeonholes, intranet)
- need to build staff development events into university calendar
- contributors to write abstracts in advance; publish biennal Teaching and Learning Journal; contribute to national journals such as New Academic
- creation of staff development resource rooms/areas
- use students more, e.g. give Media students project to video and edit sessions
Suggestion of follow-up events on other sites, also workshops where staff can work on new strategies in situ, and go away with something they can use.

Below are the unedited notes from the sessions - if you'd like to follow up on anything in any way, please contact :

Heather Matlock, Project Manager, Academic Staffing, TVU.
email heather.matlock@tvu.ac.uk ; tel./voicemail : 0181 231-2938

Session 1.1 : "Varying the assessment diet", led by Philip Woods (EISS)

Philip presented the experience of the History Pathway in planning undergraduate student assessments in the NLE context. The team's aims were:

to provide a variety of types of assessment
to eliminate exams totally in Levels 2 and 3
to encourage greater independence of student learning in a progressive way (ultimately students asked to choose what assessment should be)
to cover key historical skills
to encourage development of transferable skills (notably communications, groupwork, employment related)
to encourage students to participate in the learning process

Philip reported on feedback from students to date (full evaluation after Sem. 2) :

good feedback on lectures including good attendance, lower participation in seminars
attendance drops after taught part of module
mature students perform better at coursework than in exam
some students worried at 'loss of exam', feel not required to do as much work
students' 'increasingly utilitarian' approach to assessment

Philip described how Independent Learning guidance was given to Level 2 students, how learning agreements were drawn up with students setting their own objectives, schedule, identifying resources and fixing a feedback session with supervisor. There was a discussion on whether to or how best to assess this type of work and the value of the reflective processes it involved in preparing students for the final (output based) assignment. It also prepared students for undertaking more independent work at Level 3.

What had colleagues learned from this experience?

Criteria and requirements need to be made more explicit to students
Need to 'state the obvious' in writing, in class discussion, making students practise, i.e. do it, get/give feedback, review, refine and repeat..(engaging both staff and students in the learning cycle)

Assessing Groupwork (Level 3 option module)

Problem - 'students avoid it like the plague!' because of risk of group tension, having to work with 'uncooperative' students, fear of being let down. General feeling that 'assessment gets in the way of learning through groupwork' has led to history staff looking at innovative ways of assessing, e.g. students setting own assessment criteria, thereby forcing them to think about the issues (critical thinking skills), and differentiating formative and summative approaches. (Tutor allocates final mark). Interestingly students had failed themselves on critical thinking, perhaps because they themselves hadn't thought of it and it had to be introduced by the tutor. Again the question of how to assess process was raised, and the keeping/assessment of reflective diaries was discussed.

Session 1.2. "Peer assessment", led by Eryl Price-Davies (LCMM)

Eryl showed how he and colleagues had over the past five years developed a way of using self and peer assessment methods to build essay writing skills with Level 1 Media Studies students - from the outset of their course! As follows :

Task A: (formative)	1. Start by giving students the assessment criteria 2. Give each student copy of (past) student essay and ask them to mark it 3. Provide (immediate) feedback to students on their efforts 4. Ask students what they would like further comments on
Task B:	Students to make self assessment using own (real) essay and same criteria
Task C:	Students to make peer assessment using others' (real) essays Must give names on work
Task D: (summative)	Students' work given to tutor with two sets of comments/indicative marks, returned with third set from tutor, plus final mark, allocated by tutor but considering students' comments/marks

Aims of this approach :

to demystify the marking process
to appreciate and reap the benefit of students using students as a learning resource

Student evaluation has shown students to be very pessimistic in assessing own work, they overassess peers, tutor usually comes in between.

It is a time-consuming processes but produces good results (enhanced learning, enhanced performance). Also students could do badly in their essay (outcome) but do very good self/peer assessment and it might be considered giving a separate mark allocation for this task. Eryl saw another handicap in students having to re/learn other tutors' assessment methods on other modules/pathways. Staff were very positive towards Eryl's approaches and discussed how they might be tied in with the Director of Studies scheme (could be taken up with Judith Vincent).

Criteria for peer assessment/groupwork (example of Level 3 'Cyberculture' module). Students had to produce a written report and oral presentation.

Eryl explained how assessment criteria were identified, defined as process or content and differentially weighted (his team had used Oxford Brookes/Higher Education for Capability methods as a basis), e.g. :
1. Contribution to teamwork } set by tutor
2. Contribution to written report } set by tutor
3. 4. 5. - additional criteria set (owned) by students , e.g. timekeeping, participation in meetings

When submitting their work students completed a grid allocating their own group allocated marks (ranging from -2 to +2) against these five criteria. They had to add up to the agreed total! Eryl said students preferred this to other alternatives, i.e. all being given the same mark by tutor or being given full responsibility for marking their peers. Groups could carry weaker members if they so wished and in marginal cases they could possibly fail individual team members.

In discussions Eryl stated the importance of designing a task - and assessment - appropriate to groupwork. He had drawn on Belbin and other models. (Tutor must define tasks/deadlines/assessment methods in such a way that they cannot effectively be done by one person).

As far as allocating students to groups is concerned, Eryl finds tutor allocation at Level 1 and Level 3 self-selection by students most appropriate and works best.

Session 2.1 : "Using Task-Based Assessment", led by Bruni Jones (EISS)

Bruni presented task-based assessment as linked to prescribed competences or learning outcomes, drawing on her own experience in teaching languages and business studies, particularly in the contexts of G/NVQ and AP/E/L. She emphasised applications in the field of Vocational Qualifications and the need to follow Lead Body Standards. This raised the question of to what extent these approaches could or should be adopted in 'more traditional, academic' courses.

Colleagues were asked to discuss in small groups how they used and assessed practical work in their teaching, e.g. case studies; micro-teaching; dealing with customers or business associates in a foreign language; recording students' work (audio/video); interactive exercise involving students self-selecting or negotiating part of the curriculum with minimal tutor-input. As in the morning session the value of students learning from each other was emphasised and there was further discussion on criteria setting and weighting, particularly in terms of process v. content.

Session 2.2. : "Using technology to improve assessment and cater for large numbers (on non-specialist IT pathways)", led by Rolfe Partridge (THL)

Rolfe set out to identify the issues related to technology and assessment within TVU and discuss some possible solutions. (Why don't we use it - more? Why we should - maybe! Why we can - i.e. IT for 'dummies'!).

He started with his own context and identification of needs specific to students on leisure and tourism pathways, giving examples of past assignments - all paper-based! - and the need to move to a 'virtual presentation' (without tutor present). What is holding us back? Rolfe identified a number of constraints, including lack of information, technophobia, access to technology/software, reliability factors, then outlined an example of using technology in assessment, for assessment, from THL :

Level 1 module, 300 students
weekly diagnostic tests based on sections of module study guide
contributing to portfolio assessment
wholly committed to terms of reference and spirit of NLE

Rolfe was open about the problems his colleagues had encountered and sought possible solutions with participants. He identified these in terms of additional workload, student reaction/behaviour, time-consuming transfer of marks to spreadsheets, tying up lab for nearly five hours per test (only takes 16 students at a time) when maybe it could be better used for teaching? Also, was this kind of multiple-choice assessment only appropriate to Level 1/large numbers?

Session 2.3 : "Dialogue, Seminars and Technology", led by Andy Lapham (CIM)

Andy started with the starting point (!), presenting the learning process as driven by two factors : 'more for less' and 'dialogue', drawing on the massification of HE/diminishing unit of resource and the Laurillard agendas respectively. Learning processes must be :

discursive
reflective
adaptive
interactive

Andy posed the question : How do we meet the two needs ('more for less' and 'dialogic')?

His twofold answer :

Use technology
Promote learning

Andy looked at promoting dialogue through seminars, seeing participation, preparation and resources as key, also how - and what - should we assess? - going on to examine developing student-student dialogue through 'groupware'. He has set up eight virtual seminars on the Information Management pathway, running for three weeks each (11 groups of 8 students), each with a leader and recorder and assessed contributions from all students.

Benefits of the virtual seminar :	Drawbacks :
release from space/time constraints time for reflection more contributors greater range of opinion democratising effect multiple threads 'preserved conversation'	Narrow channel of communication Tutor time Novel medium - can disable High level of technological support is essential

Andy identified the following as key issues at present : assessing contribution; students lack of discussion skills; uncritical comments (I agree/disagree); some groups are stimulating discussion; form over content; student complaints over amount of work.

Important questions for TVU were raised in discussions at the end of this session which could be summarised by the following question : How do we expect to achieve the radical changes in delivery (of teaching, learning and assessment) which are fundamental to our mission and philosophy, whilst continuing to 'reward' contact time?

Session 2.4 : "Management, delivery and assessment using the Internet : the experience of the Multimedia Computing Pathway", presented by Peter Klein and Girish Lukka (LCMM)

This was an additional session requiring projection from the Web and held in Grove House Lecture Theatre.

Girish and Peter demonstrated how they had moved from using the internet for providing information - a student noticeboard (timetable; staff and student profiles) and the pathway handbook - to getting students to use it actively by presenting their assignments on the web. All 130 students on the Level 1 (minor) Pathway are involved.

We saw examples of students' work on the net. These incorporated sound, film clips, their own graphics... What really impressed those of us still locked into 'paper-based technology' was that paper has to all intents and purposes been eliminated! At first when module study guides were put on-line students had to be discouraged from printing everything out, now assignments too are published on the web and details of practical work given on a weekly basis. Students are also helped in finding a path through the information jungle by being referred to recommended websites. They can save the relevant pages on disc!

Groupwork assessment: students are registered in groups with special accounts just for assessments and put in their reports using web pages (again no paper!). The deadline problem is resolved brilliantly - tutors just stop the group accounts.
Individual assessment : students start off by producing their own homepage, including CV (showcase to employers). Nothing like technology to focus the mind on marking : staff have to mark work the day after the deadline in case students add to it! Here we did find some paper in use as students have to submit an assignment coversheet, which must include their log-in.

Finally Peter informed us he and Girish were now training staff in other subject areas on writing web pages (they use Elgar) and were planning to broadcast Tube Radio live over the internet.

3.1 : The Institute of Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILT), led by Heather Matlock

Heather outlined the main functions and role of the ILT as the proposed national professional body for teaching and learning in H.E., following on from the Dearing Report (Recommendation 14, NCIHE, July 1997). These are :

accreditation of programmes for H.E. teachers
research and development in teaching and learning
stimulation of innovation, notably in C & IT, through national networks, dissemination of good practice

Colleagues were referred to the current consultation paper from the ILT Planning Group to which institutions have been asked to respond by 22 May. Heather provided copies of the paper and invited comments from staff. Issues facing the Planning Group were raised, notably :

levels of membership
national statement of broad outcomes, underpinning knowledge, core professional and ethical values to frame local pathways
licence to practice
continuous professional development (CPD) and 'remaining in good standing'

3.2 : Building a Teaching Portfolio/Continuous Professional Development (CPD), led by Jean Clayton (AP/E/L Manager, Wolfson)

Leading on from the final point above, Jean divided us into groups to consider :

what can you see as the purpose / benefits of undertaking a teaching portfolio?
with reference to the proposed outcomes for Associate Membership (of the ILT) how may a teaching portfolio be presented / compiled in order to contain evidence of achievment of the appropriate learning outcomes
how may this process be implemented within TVU and what issues would need to be addressed?

We used Table 2, page 14 and C.8, pp. 34, 35 of the Accreditation and Teaching in Higher Education Consultation Paper (Booth Committee) as a basis for discussion.

The feedback session brought out many issues, some of them worthy of a workshop in themselves! It was very apparent we would need to follow up on this topic. Points raised included :

opportunity for all staff to get involved and participate
won't work if it's 'done to you' - need for personal ownership
must fit in with what you're doing already (be learner centred)
must be 'fit for purpose' (this led on to discussion around 'the multipurpose portfolio', usable for appraisal, career progression, accreditation, etc.)
fundamental question of motivation (reward?)
how do you get everyone to achieve minimum threshold requirement?
module designers will need to accommodate flexible study
P.T. teachers - who pays?
'licence to practice' - threat or opportunity?
would CPD (potentially) reduce or increase stress

3.3 : M.A. in Learning and Teaching in Nursing and Midwifery, presented by Gill Young, Wolfson Institute

Gill took us through the proposed programme structure of this new Learning and Teaching MA, due to start in the Autumn, and explained its background and context.

The programme had already been articulated against the proposed accreditation framework of the planned Institute for Learning and Teaching in H.E. (see 3.1), with the 'core' set against Associate Member level. Whereas the programme's focus is the nursing and midwifery context, option modules will be drawn from other programmes, notably the MSc/MA in Managing Learning Strategies (UCCL) - see 3.6.

3.4 : TVU's Facilitating Framework for Learning and Teaching development, presented by Ann Irving, Director, UCCL

Ann presented the programmes run by UCCL : the City and Guilds of London Institute programme ; the Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning in FE/HE ; the MSc/MA in Managing Learning Strategies ; PhD. Ann has produced an excellent paper on the context and coherence of the provision, building on TVU's unique DNA and seeing technology as the interface between learner/s and the learning facilitator/s. Please contact her for a copy!

3.5 : Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning in F/HE, Lyn Greaves

Lyn did not present the programme as such a) because it is now well known and established, and b) it had been referred to in the course of earlier discussions. The programme is accredited by the Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) and it is expected that graduates will be able to gain interim accreditation as Associate Members of the new Institute for Learning and Teaching (see 3.1), pending the evidencing of additional outcomes. It is mandatory for all new staff who are new to teaching and at present optional for experienced staff. There has been increased take-up by existing staff this year, perhaps reflecting national trends and developments towards accreditation.

A new feature this year is the opportunity for experienced staff to select small modules (5 M level credits) for individual study, e.g. Assessment, Evaluation, Using Resources, thereby demonstrating evidence of achievement of learning outcomes and gaining credit which may contribute towards eventual national accreditation.

3.6 : MSc/MA in Managing Learning Strategies, presented by John Cook, Programme Leader, UCCL

This is a new programme intended for learning facilitators (including but not limited to those involved in tutoring, learning support, information resource support, technical training and learning materials development) who wish to become learning strategists.

It aims to develop in learning facilitators the ability to devise learning strategies and to implement creative and effective student learning programmes.

A key feature is that modules are also available as stand-alone short courses which should be attractive to staff seeking to update their skills and/or seek accreditation through a CPD/AP(E)L route with the new Institute for Learning and Teaching.

John will be happy to provide further details ....

3.7 : PG Diploma in Flexible Learning Delivery, presented by John Bateson, School of Business

John presented this programme in place of the Programme Leader, Dave Clarke, who was abroad on University business. The main feature of the programme is that it practises what it preaches! i.e. it is flexible to the point of being negotiable in terms of both delivery and self-management. Its aim is to enhance students' ability to design, deliver and implement flexible learning programmes by personally experiencing a flexible, self-managed programme.

Further details from John or Dave.

Session 4.1 : Experiential and independent learning, led by Charles O'Hanlon and Teresa Moore

Charles outlined a team approach to the planning of the BA Design and Media Management curriculum taken five years ago which led to the development of an experiential learning module.

The team recognised and took as their premise that there are :

many ways of learning, including through experience
many of our students working outside, many with access to senior staff

Initial aim :
At Level 3, to develop a formally assessed academic module related to work experience and to the programme of study.

The activity would have to provide elements of :

acquisition or enhancement of knowledge
high level independence
responsibility for self and/or others
planning, prioritising
problem solving, decision making
elements of creativity and synthesis

These elements embody the SEEC descriptors today!

On completion of the activity, students must :

identify their learning experience
reflect on the activity and conduct self-appraisal
carry out an analysis
compare and contrast
evidence/appraise communications aspects

Assessment : constitutes a reflective, analytical, critical and evaluative summary

Teresa took up the story of incorporation into the NLE. The team already had the module handbook which formed the basis of the Study Guide. They learned from their own experience by ensuring that learning from failure as well as success were included as valid assessment criteria. They initially tried to get it adopted as a minor, which did not materialise. However, undaunted - Teresa said the team's motivation was the key to eventual success - they set about advertising the module to pathways throughout the university.

It now exists as a Level 3 option module throughout the university and its scope has been extended accordingly to embrace other experiences, e.g.

school based learning (support system set up)
voluntary work
working to a brief - students setting own brief
citizenship

Guidance is given in the study guide, including examples of best reflective practice which are particularly useful for students. Application is the key!

The module is popular with American students who find it the nearest we have to their 'internships'.

Charles and Teresa brought with them boxes containing impressive examples of students'work, including a short video made for the Paraplegic Olympics which we viewed together. We then discussed the enormous range of skills and abilities developed by students and evidenced in their work. Going beyond the brief....

4.2 : Supervising projects and dissertations, led by Peter Wood, School of Business

Given the time constraints Peter gave us a shortened version of his two hour Staff Seminar, with the following objectives :

to offer participants an opportunity to share their experiences in supervising students conducting their own research
to identify those aspects of the supervisory relationship which might help us in predicting the success (or failure) of that relationship
to identify some of the salient interactive characteristics of the supervisory relationship

Peter raised the issue of the nature of facilitation, the emotional aswell as the intellectual
aspects, asking the questions 'where do we get support in open learning?' and 'how do we manage students into an active state of learning?'. Issues for students were :
'what constitutes a substantial piece of work?', feedback , and level of responsibility (personal v. tutor). Peter presented Heron's six dimensional model for facilitating, prompting discussions on class (group) dynamics, 'moving on' and 'managing spontaneity and feeling'. An example of student-tutor interaction, with the tutor handling feeling :
Student : "I'm angry, I'm not doing this".
Tutor : "How do you think I'm approaching your anger?"
The facilitator's role is to break down barriers to learning (including 'negative feeling') but it should be noted that this is not therapy!

Discussions moved on to empowerment. Peter defined it as using the diversity of the group to best effect. Many students don't succeed because they cannot handle the experience, therefore taking this perspective empowerment means we must acknowledge this! The student's fears of disclosure, being judged and failure, aswell as interpersonal rivalries need to be acknowledged and brought out into the open.

Contact Peter for a copy of his paper which also includes :

assessment of process as well as product
potential conflict in roles of assessor and supervisor
negotiation and the management of expectations
differences between Levels (Masters, PG Dip, Diploma)

Peter also outlined plans for an MA in Executive Studies based on action learning and self assessment. This programme would require a degree of autonomy and maturity on the part of students.

4.3 : Using the Video Studio for Assessment, led by Sandra Jackson, School of Business and Ian Stevenson, Media Services

Sandra introduced the session in the classroom, then moved us into the Video Studio where Ian presented the range of facilities and the use made of the studio for assessment, particularly by the Schools of Travel, Tourism and Hospitality, Law and Languages.

We discussed how the studio might be used for assessing students' work in different subject areas, drawing on our own experience. Two participants agreed to be filmed interviewing one another, thereby experiencing performing on-camera for themselves and giving us all the opportunity to reflect on the difference between 'live' and videotaped performance, and the implications for assessment. Issues raised and discussed included :

screen gives enhanced authority
can be used as evidence for self-assessment, better than written word or memory
video is sound basis for assessing content, but beyond that, i.e. peformance?
'loss of atmosphere' on screen
double marking was an issue because of the different conditions and should be taken into account where the first marker was working in the studio and the second off tape

Requests for additional information should be directed to the colleague/s who led the session. Any other comments should be made to Heather Matlock, who compiled this report. I also have an evaluation report which will be used to help inform future staff development planning. Let me know if you would like a copy.

Heather Matlock
Project Manager, Academic Staffing
27 May 1998


		Contact deliberations@londonmet.ac.uk
Page last updated 25 July 2005	ISSN 1363-6715	© 2013 London Metropolitan University