Topic outline

  • General

    • Reflecting on Learning and Teaching in the Performing Arts

    • Listening and Responding to the Student Voice.

      If we aim to develop the critical learning communities that we have explored in Study Area 3 it follows that the students we teach should play an important role in shaping the teaching and learning activities within those communities. This Study Area will address how we may most effectively draw on evidence based data to enhance our specific areas of practice by engaging students in curriculum design.

      Areas of exploration will include:

      • how evidence based data is collected in Higher Education Institutions
      • how students learn in different contexts and disciplines in the Performing Arts
      • how to engage students in curriculum design (including assessment)
      • how student learning is enhanced through peer support (including peer observation and assessment)

      In UK Higher Education the most well known collection of data is The National Student Survey (NSS) which forms part of the revised Quality Assurance Framework (QAF) for Higher Education and is carried out under the auspices of the Higher Education Funding Council. The aim of the survey is to gather feedback on the quality of students' courses in order to contribute to public accountability as well as to help inform the choices of future applicants to Higher Education. The first NSS took place in 2005 and an analysis of the findings together with the questions asked can be found in the Reading Room.

      Yet although final year students can now feed back on their experience of Higher Education, those who are still engaged in the process do not feel that they have a voice in curriculum development.

      The National Union of Students Student Experience Report in 2008 found:

      There is a clear divergence between how involved students feel they are in shaping course content and how involved they want to be, indicating that students would like to be more involved than they currently believe they are. This disconnect may be a result of the difference between students who have the opportunity to provide feedback about their course and those that believe this feedback is acted on. The point here seems to be that while the vast majority of students (92 per cent) have the opportunity to provide feedback, a much smaller proportion (51 per cent) feel that it is acted on. (p15)

      A year later in 2009 The Open University’s Centre for Higher Education Research and Information was commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), to explore the extent and nature of student engagement in the Higher Education sector in England. The study was concerned with institutional and student union processes and practices – such as those relating to student representation and student feedback – which seek to inform and enhance the collective student learning experience, as distinct from specific teaching, learning and assessment activities that are designed to enhance individual students’ engagement with their own learning. These processes and practices usually provide the qualitative evidence based data that can enhance practice.
      The study found that institutions view student engagement as central to enhancing the student experience, but the emphasis seems to be placed on viewing students as consumers. For student unions, the emphasis is on viewing students as partners in a learning community. The latter notion, the research found, seems to be stronger in certain subject areas than others and interestingly the report cites Art and Design and Performing Arts as examples.

      The majority of HEIs and FE colleges in the study rated their student engagement processes – comprising a basic model of student feedback questionnaires and student representation systems – as reasonably or very effective; student unions were less likely to do so. Detailed discussions with staff and students within a diverse range of HE providers showed that actual practices vary between and within institutions and that their effectiveness could be improved. 
      The research team recommended:

      • that institutions and student unions consider undertaking their own systematic review of the student engagement cycle, and in so doing establish their own measures of effectiveness – for monitoring and review purposes
      • an exploration of the extent to which learning and teaching strategies may be used to clarify rationales for student engagement and assist in the process of reviewing the student engagement cycle. Any subsequent analysis undertaken of such institutional learning and teaching strategies might helpfully further inform discussion about the emergence (if any) of distinctive models of student engagement across the sector
      • the development of networking opportunities for institutions/student unions to learn about effective practices in a range of institutions and relevant to a range of learner constituencies, in particular part-time students

      By exploring the resources in this Study Area you can begin to consider how you might engage students more effectively in curriculum design and how you might involve them in the planning of classroom practice. The guidance notes in the Reading Room are taken from a project entitled Hearing the Student Voice. Through a ten-step approach you are guided to plan, implement and evaluate the involvement and impact of the student voice while ensuring that student engagement is both appropriate and protected. This might be an activity you record in your Reflective Portfolio .

      Also in the Reading Room Bain's paper, Integrating student voice: assessment for empowerment, introduces assessment in the context of the pedagogic benefits of student engagement. This theme is further explored in the next Study Area.

      UK PSF: Professional Values V1, V2 & V3. Core Knowledge K2, K3 & K6. Areas of Activity A2, A3, A5.

  • Topic 1

  • Topic 2

  • Topic 3

  • Topic 4

    • Reflection Room

      Welcome to the RLTPA 4 Reflection Room

    •  Issues involved in introducing PEER ASSESSMENT

      Ideas gathered from a workshop  at Goldsmiths College, University of London in 2001,  led by Cordelia Bryan.

      Institutional and Collegial Barriers (relates to regulations and QAA)

      •  The assessment regime
      • Students over-grading themselves in self evaluation
      • Changes in assessment and teaching & learning procedures may result in courses needing re-validation
      • Asymmetrical development in institutions (e.g. between faculties and educational development unit)
      • Staff need training & induction in new assessment and teaching & learning procedures and continuing support in implementing them
      • Audit culture – focus on outcomes rather than process by the institution  puts pressure on lecturers to seek the most economical solutions at the expense of the students’ developmental learning process.
      • Lecturer ‘fatigue’ through unsupported effort may also result in resorting to quick/economical solutions.
      • Disruption of established traditions – resistance to change at collegial level.

      Staff Barriers

      • Insecurity through lack of knowledge/training, fear of responsibility.
      • Concerns that new assessment procedures may fail to achieve their promise once implemented.
      •  Course content sacrifices because of time/space needed to induct students into peer assessment and to carry out the assessments.
      • Impact of increasing student numbers in the performing arts
      •  Increases in work-load

      Student Barriers

      • Involving students in assessment practices may increase obsession with grades over other benefits of the learning process.
      • ‘Rules of the Game’ – student’s quickly learn the best ways to get the best assessment results, involving them in the process of assessment may therefore provide them with greater power to manipulate assessment criteria/procedures to their own advantage.
      • Students may not take their assessment responsibilities seriously; this may result in insensitive application of the assessment criteria/processes and/or complicity between students to obtain good grades.
      • Potential discrepancy in student/lecturer values. Students may gear their approach to a peer agenda (e.g. may feel the need to show humour to get positive feedback from their peers) which may not match the lecturer values in terms of the assessment criteria.
      • Group maintenance – forming cliques, effect of personal relationships on assessment.
      • Commodity culture – student’s buying into a hierarchy where they expect to be passively ‘taught’ rather than actively learn (e.g. deference of student ‘novice’ to ‘expert’ lecturers)

      Ways forward to implementing peer assessment

      Institutional and regulatory

      • Introduce PA as part of course validation process
      • Focus on PA developing key/transferable skills
      • Introduce SA and PA at induction (enlist support from central services e.g. staff development, careers advice, personnel etc.)
      • Create a transparent system
      • Cultivate support of the external examiner
      • Disseminate what is going on in other institutions
      •  Produce your own case studies
      • Document informal processes as evidence of utility of PA
      • Collate evidence of links with student-centred learning
      • Have students give written feedback for mark as further evidence
      • For second marking issue  a) PA mark b) tutor mark
      • Ensure administrative support to enable staff training

      Staff

      Tutors are accountable and must ultimately take the overall responsibility for student assessment. However, there are still many ways of using PA to enhance the student learning experience.

      • Build elements of PA and SA into a course (rather than treating assessment as an activity apart)
      • Integrate SA and PA into taught hours (no need for additional assessment times)
      • SA prior to tutorials maximises efficiency of tutorial time
      • Identify and secure internal champions of change i.e. staff developers; like-minded colleagues
      • Identify and secure external champions of change i.e.colleagues in other institutions
      • Get involved in institutional development
      • Build on and trumpet your successes
      • Seek allies to support and assist you with the “failures”
      • Devise clear criteria including levels
      • Emphasise process
      • Allow for intuitive (vs. analytical) processes & products
      • Mark students on the quality of their assessment and reflection
      • Do not use PA exclusively – mix and match the modes of assessment to support the learning outcomes
      • Consider reducing the number of assessments
      • Customise / contextualise modes of PA (one size does NOT fit all)
      • Negotiate and review (constantly revisit learning objectives)
      • Introduce SA and PA from day one (change the culture)
      • Incorporate peer feedback whenever appropriate to develop critical skills
      • Move from “easy” non threatening feedback to formative, then summative grades and comments (if appropriate)
      • Tutor grades performance but can be informed by student commentary
      • Qualifying system – tutor to override and moderate if necessary
      • Create a safe environment in which “mistakes” are instrumental to learning process
      • Teach students how to listen, observe, provide constructive feedback etc.
      • Demonstrate that you listen to and value student feedback
      • Devise appropriate assessment criteria with students so they gain inside knowledge of the process

      Students

      • Use anonymous feedback to begin with (overcomes problems of feeling like “betraying” friendships)
      • Devising criteria familiarises students with language of assessment and ensures that plain English is used
      • Actively explore case studies to overcome anxiety and lack of confidence in assessing peers.
      • Clarify notion of formative assessment and importance of feedback – PA will provide them with more feedback than exclusively tutor marked work
      • Use PA in vertical groups (e.g. first years assess third years and vice versa) to depersonalise the process and to establish culture of consultation, assessing and group work
      • Use written feedback (with or without grades) and reflect on value of PA
      • Ask for feedback on your feedback! (assessing the assessors)
      • Ask for and value the ‘training’ to participate in assessment (useful for staff appraisal and other situations requiring critical judgement and the application of assessment criteria)
      • SA and PA can make tutorials and vivas more exciting and relevant

    • Reflection Prompt for  PEER ASSESSMENT

      Read  the above summary.

      As you will see the pros and cons of introducing peer assessment were viewed from three perspectives:

      • Staff
      • Students
      • Institutional

      There are strong pedagogic arguments FOR regularly using both self and peer assessment.

      Using the bullet points form the workshop summary, make some notes in your Reflective Journal of the reasons why you will develop the use of peer assessment in your teaching context.

      As well as listing the pedagogic arguments for peer assessment, make sure you are able to argue your case when you encounter resistance from your students and from any colleagues who may be unaware of the benefits.