Hello,
In response to the project concerning student's understanding of 'independent study' I would also be very interested to know more about this subject. We are about to set up a small evaluation exercise of our academic learning support workshops and I wonder if what students define as 'independent study' impacts upon their expectations of academic learning support. I would be very grateful if anyone could point me in the direction of and/or share experience of small evaluative exercises concerning the 'success' of academic learning support. We have a series of workshops over a six week period starting in February and are seeking feedback on why students might attend, what their expectations are and how they might gage their success. I am aware that this is really an initial step forward into a well discussed and considered area so the simpler, the better!
Many thanks,
Emma Davenport
Academic Learning Support Tutor
City University
-----Original Message-----
From: LDHEN automatic digest system [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 December 2013 00:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: LDHEN Digest - 11 Dec 2013 to 12 Dec 2013 (#2013-235)
There are 10 messages totaling 5243 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Criteria writing and meaning (4)
2. The Journal of Pedagogic Development: Call for Papers
3. Research project leads (3)
4. VISUAL PRACTICES CONFERENCE- 28th JANUARY 2014, BOOK A PLACE NOW
5. Pearsons MyLabs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:18:56 +0000
From: Mark Stevenson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
"Nothing that requires interpretation can be understood at once."
This observation of Schleiermacher's, cited in Gadamer's Truth and Method, perhaps explains why he so valued the role of living feeling in achieving understanding. Schleiermacher also claimed that the common idea that understanding occurs as a matter of course was misleading: "misunderstanding occurs as a matter of course, and so understanding must be willed and sought at every point." Openness and freedom are as much essential to the communicative process as closure and definitiveness.
I wonder what Schleiermacher would have thought of Quintilian's "Aim not at being possible to understand, but at being impossible to misunderstand," cited on these pages just a week or so ago? Aim yes, absolutely, but prepare for disappointment?
Part of the breakdown we see in understanding is not just the fault of murky prose. As we move to text and online video for everyday modes of communication we create new contexts, but we also undermine the sense of "being there" or "being with" that comes from face-to-face and group lectures/discussion. I would not be surprised if our students feel it is only natural to hold the university away and at a distance. And I'll probably be howled down for blaming the customer, nevertheless some of my thoughts in response to this discussion thread were, "Where was s/he when the lecturer went through the criteria in class (both times)?", "Has s/he asked the lecturer to clarify?", "Were the criteria designed by the lecturer or a committee that wouldn't know a classroom from the sole of their shoe?"
And then there might be (Oh heavens!) criteria that remain unspecified forever, but which are nevertheless learned over a course. I remember a discussion a few years ago with a young man who was well read, as well as interested in current affairs, but getting nowhere with English. In the lead up to the university English exams I suggested he "write more sensitively, like a girl." His grades went up. No one at school had ever told him, but the research showed boys did not "hear" the sensitivity criteria implicit in English, whereas girls did.
Yes, some criteria are AWFULLY written. But to push Schleiermacher aside and pin things down, I wonder... what will that look like? What is wrong with asking a few more people just to use their noggins (with feeling!)? At heart all the lecturers are hoping for is (sensible) carefulness in considering and attempting the task.
Mark
Dr Mark Stevenson
Senior Lecturer, Asian Studies
College of Arts
Victoria University
Melbourne
Australia
________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of M. Gough [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Thanks for your responses Helen and Peter.
I also teach in the related English Language field and having taught ESOL in a previous life in AE and FE, perhaps this is why this resonates with me. I remember students in an ESOL class saying that although they had learnt English back home they could not decipher one word when listening to people chatter at the bus stop. We then set about working with tape recordings of real speech and going out of the class to the real world for real language. Students were not told it was 'their problem' or that they ' should not be here if they could not understand' . They were not expected to overnight be fluent language speakers but were supported to learn as learners are meant to. ... After all that's why they were students. Perhaps HE has a lot to learn from AE and FE after all.
So why are our students ( who are paying vast sums of money) expected to navigate their way through impenetrable phrases which even many of their teachers ( and I include myself in this) don't fully understand? I've recently seen the response given to students asking ' what do you mean by writing at level 6 ?' As ' operates in complex and unpredictable contexts, requiring selection and application from a range of largely standard techniques and information' (again SEEC descriptors). What students really seemed to want is an example of writing at level 6 and of course want to be able to compare year 1 (level 4) with year 2 (5) and year 3 (6). Students at year two are told they should 'discuss' and don't need to be critical till year 3 yet when receive feedback told they need to be more critical. Students ask ' what do you mean by critical? ' and of course get a range of responses and end up more confused than ever. Yet, some students do manage to navigate their way through and get A grades... How do these students do that? Do they have an inbuilt computer that just translates these indecipherable terms instantly? Where does that leave the students who don't manage to 'get it?'
I agree, Helen, we have to find creative solutions and as a lecturer with some control over marking criteria, i like your ideas of getting students to do work themselves on making the criteria more visible. In an LD role though we may not be party to what the module lecturers actually mean and indeed perhaps they may not know, so creative solutions definitely needed!
Onward and upwards!
Mandy
________________________________
From: Helen Bowstead <[log in to unmask]>;
To: <[log in to unmask]>;
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Sent: Wed, Dec 11, 2013 9:28:47 AM
As a Learning Developer and a lecturer, I sit somewhat uncomfortably between a rock and a hard place when it comes to writing marking criteria and assignment briefs. In my Learning Development role I am very aware of the impact a poorly written brief and impenetrable marking criteria (and feedback that basically replicates it) but in my lecturing role I often find it difficult to avoid falling into the same traps. A very detailed assignment brief often leads to even more confusion and/or students feeling that they MUST follow it to the letter, no matter what, and it is difficult to write marking criteria without falling back on the kind of language that will demonstrate the learning outcomes that are dictated by organisations like SEEC (Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer) and the QAA. So for example, at level 5 the SEEC descriptor for analysis and evaluation goes like this:
Analyses a range of information comparing alternative methods and techniques. Selects appropriate techniques/criteria for evaluation and discriminates between the relative relevance and significance of data/evidence collected.
What is “a range of information”, what are appropriate techniques/criteria who decides what is relevant or significant? As a Learning Developer, I know this is what students struggle with, but as a lecturer, how do I demonstrate to the institution/external examiners that I am writing assessments that are appropriate?
I recently brought an incomplete set of marking criteria in to class and asked the students to complete the grid according to what was written in the assignment brief and what they felt they should be being assessed on. They also decided on weightings for the various components. I hope that this will help open up a dialogue through the rest of the year that will go some way to making the invisible a little more visible, however, as a language teacher I am lucky – I have small classes (20) and a lot more freedom than many lecturers in terms of the ‘content’ I deliver – as long as we are doing in in English, for me it counts as language work …
Creative solutions are definitely needed.
Best wishes
Helen
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter John Lumsden
Sent: 11 December 2013 08:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Mandy – yes, very interested in this. In fact doing some work on this right now – as part of an attempt to put some principles and practice to our existing policies and procedures.
Assignment briefs do often seem too brief, and marking criteria often use generic grids which were designed in a different era!
PL
Peter J. Lumsden
BSc, DPhil, Fellow HEA
Principal lecturer, Academic Development and Employability
University of Central Lancashire
01772 893270
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PLumsden
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/peter.j.lumsden?ref=tn_tnmn
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=100728902&trk=hb_tab_pro_top
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of M. Gough
Sent: 10 December 2013 22:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Criteria writing and meaning
Dear all
I'm becoming increasingly interested in perceptions of assignment criteria from the students' viewpoint. I seem to be spending increasingly amounts of time each year I work as an academic skills adviser (aka LD! ) helping students to unpack criteria thus leaving precious little time left for other important elements. I'm beginning to agree with lighthearted comments 'you need a degree to understand the criteria' and wonder what the motivation and rationale is behind making the criteria so complex? Is this something others experience?
A recent example is asking students to ' critically critique... ' and then there are the criteria points that seem to embed 3 points in one ( reminds me of those poorly thought out job interview questions!) and the sentences that leave you confused as to the subject, the object and so on.
There are mixed responses to students to raise the issue, from helpful further guidance to the other extreme of ' we are not here to spoon feed you'.
I'd be interested to hear of others' experiences of this and any signposts to further reading as I suspect this has come before! On a wider issue I find it fascinating how 'we' construct meaning depending on various factors and am looking for literature on this if anyone can point me in the right direction.
Thanks for reading.
Mandy
Academic Skills Centre Co ordinator
Kingston University
________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.
This email, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. It is confidential and may contain personal information or be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, reproduction or storage of it is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender via return email and delete it from your system immediately. Victoria University does not warrant that this email is free from viruses or defects and accepts no liability for any damage caused by such viruses or defects.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:45:55 +0000
From: David Mathew <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: The Journal of Pedagogic Development: Call for Papers
Dear Colleague,
We are planning and reading for Volume 4 of the Journal of Pedagogic Development. Volume 4 will be published in hard copy and online in March, July and November 2014.
This message is a call for your papers. As usual, the preferred length is between 3000 and 4000 words, but longer and shorter submissions will be considered.
We are also interested in shorter submissions to our Key Pedagogic Thinkers series, book reviews and opinion pieces.
We hope to hear from you soon.
Best wishes
David Mathew
Editor Journal of Pedagogic Development
http://www.beds.ac.uk/learning/professional-development/jpd
Centre for Learning Excellence
University of Bedfordshire
Park Square D006
Luton
Bedfordshire LU1 3JU
ENGLAND
44 1582 743064
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:17:17 +0000
From: "Rooney, Stephen G." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Research project leads
Dear all,
Hope this finds you well.
I'm currently working with academic and course design colleagues on a project to explore students' understandings of 'independent study' and the different approaches and practices this study entails. A quick scout around the relevant databases has thrown up some promising looking leads, but wondered if colleagues here might be able to steer me towards further material, including any projects of their own in this or related areas. Naturally, I'll collate and 'share back' with the list.
All the very best,
Steve
Steve Rooney
Learning Development Manager
University of Leicester
0116 252 2316
www.le.ac.uk/succeedinyourstudies<http://www.le.ac.uk/succeedinyourstudies>
Elite Without Being Elitist
Times Higher Awards Winner 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
Follow us on Twitter twitter.com/uniofleicester<http://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
www.le.ac.uk
Chair of the Association for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:59:58 +0000
From: Elizabeth Thomson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Interesting discussion - a number of the briefs and handbooks I've come across over the past few years make me want to scream at how unreadable they are, and I agree that this has a negative impact on students because, due to the current school system in Britain, many students (at both FE & HE) are very used to being required to 'tick boxes' and therefore very concerned about what the assessment criteria are. Drawing students' attention to how the assessment criteria are linked with the learning aims and the knowledge and skills covered in the course is key to them learning in a more 'joined up' way, but the jargon heavy unit handbooks are not in any way reader-friendly, and not many students I meet attempt to read them - and therefore remain confused about how assessment tasks link up to lecture, seminar and workshop content.
Many assessment criteria seems to include a proliferation of abstract nouns, such as information, contextualization, techniques, evidence etc. but very little to help students understand what they mean - what Len describes as symptoms, but I would basically describe as examples - e.g. - in order to contextualize a piece of artwork you need to consider the time and place that it was made, and the ideas, theories, politics, technical considerations in that time and place that influenced the artist etc. Detailed examples can be given in lectures, seminars etc. but just breaking the terminology down can help.
The problem for academic support staff is the fact that usually they weren't there in the relevant lecture, and if the student they are working with either missed it or was unable to understand it, then you have very little to work with - and yes, ok the student 'should' have been there and using strategies to understand and record the session, but, well, people get sick, trains are delayed etc.
Since University is, amongst other things, supposed to support the student in a transition from school to the work place, the skills to 'unpick' a brief are important, and one that is useful in many industries, but at University, it needs to be staged, and it would seem that many academic staff are not aware of things like Gunning's 'fog index' and write very 'stream-of-consciousness' briefs, that leave me wondering what it is, exactly, they want the students to produce.
I'm not suggesting 'dumbing down' course content, I just think that assessment tasks and criteria, which tend to create a lot of anxiety for students, should be written in straightforward language, that doesn't assume a familiarity with pedagogical terminology; and that they are specific enough that support staff such as study advisers, dyslexia tutors, librarians etc. can understand what is expected. If it is expected that students to write reader-friendly texts for their assignments, the University should, surely, lead by example.
However, it is a sensitive issue, and it is difficult for support staff to approach academic staff unless the University strategy endorses such meetings as an aspect of WP & good practice.
Has anyone out there been involved with working with subject lecturers on writing unit briefs? Because although I have, very informally, in a few cases, but that is really just down to my knowing the member of staff well enough that they were open to discuss it. I can't help thinking that the way forward would be to have University-wide guidelines on readability etc. that all staff were expected to follow - or do you think that would be too 'standardised'?
Best wishes
Liz Thomson PGCE, MA
Learning Development Tutor
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Stevenson
Sent: 12 December 2013 05:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
"Nothing that requires interpretation can be understood at once."
This observation of Schleiermacher's, cited in Gadamer's Truth and Method, perhaps explains why he so valued the role of living feeling in achieving understanding. Schleiermacher also claimed that the common idea that understanding occurs as a matter of course was misleading: "misunderstanding occurs as a matter of course, and so understanding must be willed and sought at every point." Openness and freedom are as much essential to the communicative process as closure and definitiveness.
I wonder what Schleiermacher would have thought of Quintilian's "Aim not at being possible to understand, but at being impossible to misunderstand," cited on these pages just a week or so ago? Aim yes, absolutely, but prepare for disappointment?
Part of the breakdown we see in understanding is not just the fault of murky prose. As we move to text and online video for everyday modes of communication we create new contexts, but we also undermine the sense of "being there" or "being with" that comes from face-to-face and group lectures/discussion. I would not be surprised if our students feel it is only natural to hold the university away and at a distance. And I'll probably be howled down for blaming the customer, nevertheless some of my thoughts in response to this discussion thread were, "Where was s/he when the lecturer went through the criteria in class (both times)?", "Has s/he asked the lecturer to clarify?", "Were the criteria designed by the lecturer or a committee that wouldn't know a classroom from the sole of their shoe?"
And then there might be (Oh heavens!) criteria that remain unspecified forever, but which are nevertheless learned over a course. I remember a discussion a few years ago with a young man who was well read, as well as interested in current affairs, but getting nowhere with English. In the lead up to the university English exams I suggested he "write more sensitively, like a girl." His grades went up. No one at school had ever told him, but the research showed boys did not "hear" the sensitivity criteria implicit in English, whereas girls did.
Yes, some criteria are AWFULLY written. But to push Schleiermacher aside and pin things down, I wonder... what will that look like? What is wrong with asking a few more people just to use their noggins (with feeling!)? At heart all the lecturers are hoping for is (sensible) carefulness in considering and attempting the task.
Mark
Dr Mark Stevenson
Senior Lecturer, Asian Studies
College of Arts
Victoria University
Melbourne
Australia
________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of M. Gough [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Thanks for your responses Helen and Peter.
I also teach in the related English Language field and having taught ESOL in a previous life in AE and FE, perhaps this is why this resonates with me. I remember students in an ESOL class saying that although they had learnt English back home they could not decipher one word when listening to people chatter at the bus stop. We then set about working with tape recordings of real speech and going out of the class to the real world for real language. Students were not told it was 'their problem' or that they ' should not be here if they could not understand' . They were not expected to overnight be fluent language speakers but were supported to learn as learners are meant to. ... After all that's why they were students. Perhaps HE has a lot to learn from AE and FE after all.
So why are our students ( who are paying vast sums of money) expected to navigate their way through impenetrable phrases which even many of their teachers ( and I include myself in this) don't fully understand? I've recently seen the response given to students asking ' what do you mean by writing at level 6 ?' As ' operates in complex and unpredictable contexts, requiring selection and application from a range of largely standard techniques and information' (again SEEC descriptors). What students really seemed to want is an example of writing at level 6 and of course want to be able to compare year 1 (level 4) with year 2 (5) and year 3 (6). Students at year two are told they should 'discuss' and don't need to be critical till year 3 yet when receive feedback told they need to be more critical. Students ask ' what do you mean by critical? ' and of course get a range of responses and end up more confused than ever. Yet, some students do manage to navigate their way through and get A grades... How do these students do that? Do they have an inbuilt computer that just translates these indecipherable terms instantly? Where does that leave the students who don't manage to 'get it?'
I agree, Helen, we have to find creative solutions and as a lecturer with some control over marking criteria, i like your ideas of getting students to do work themselves on making the criteria more visible. In an LD role though we may not be party to what the module lecturers actually mean and indeed perhaps they may not know, so creative solutions definitely needed!
Onward and upwards!
Mandy
________________________________
From: Helen Bowstead <[log in to unmask]>;
To: <[log in to unmask]>;
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Sent: Wed, Dec 11, 2013 9:28:47 AM
As a Learning Developer and a lecturer, I sit somewhat uncomfortably between a rock and a hard place when it comes to writing marking criteria and assignment briefs. In my Learning Development role I am very aware of the impact a poorly written brief and impenetrable marking criteria (and feedback that basically replicates it) but in my lecturing role I often find it difficult to avoid falling into the same traps. A very detailed assignment brief often leads to even more confusion and/or students feeling that they MUST follow it to the letter, no matter what, and it is difficult to write marking criteria without falling back on the kind of language that will demonstrate the learning outcomes that are dictated by organisations like SEEC (Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer) and the QAA. So for example, at level 5 the SEEC descriptor for analysis and evaluation goes like this:
Analyses a range of information comparing alternative methods and techniques. Selects appropriate techniques/criteria for evaluation and discriminates between the relative relevance and significance of data/evidence collected.
What is "a range of information", what are appropriate techniques/criteria who decides what is relevant or significant? As a Learning Developer, I know this is what students struggle with, but as a lecturer, how do I demonstrate to the institution/external examiners that I am writing assessments that are appropriate?
I recently brought an incomplete set of marking criteria in to class and asked the students to complete the grid according to what was written in the assignment brief and what they felt they should be being assessed on. They also decided on weightings for the various components. I hope that this will help open up a dialogue through the rest of the year that will go some way to making the invisible a little more visible, however, as a language teacher I am lucky - I have small classes (20) and a lot more freedom than many lecturers in terms of the 'content' I deliver - as long as we are doing in in English, for me it counts as language work ...
Creative solutions are definitely needed.
Best wishes
Helen
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter John Lumsden
Sent: 11 December 2013 08:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Mandy - yes, very interested in this. In fact doing some work on this right now - as part of an attempt to put some principles and practice to our existing policies and procedures.
Assignment briefs do often seem too brief, and marking criteria often use generic grids which were designed in a different era!
PL
Peter J. Lumsden
BSc, DPhil, Fellow HEA
Principal lecturer, Academic Development and Employability
University of Central Lancashire
01772 893270
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PLumsden
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/peter.j.lumsden?ref=tn_tnmn
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=100728902&trk=hb_tab_pro_top
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of M. Gough
Sent: 10 December 2013 22:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Criteria writing and meaning
Dear all
I'm becoming increasingly interested in perceptions of assignment criteria from the students' viewpoint. I seem to be spending increasingly amounts of time each year I work as an academic skills adviser (aka LD! ) helping students to unpack criteria thus leaving precious little time left for other important elements. I'm beginning to agree with lighthearted comments 'you need a degree to understand the criteria' and wonder what the motivation and rationale is behind making the criteria so complex? Is this something others experience?
A recent example is asking students to ' critically critique... ' and then there are the criteria points that seem to embed 3 points in one ( reminds me of those poorly thought out job interview questions!) and the sentences that leave you confused as to the subject, the object and so on.
There are mixed responses to students to raise the issue, from helpful further guidance to the other extreme of ' we are not here to spoon feed you'.
I'd be interested to hear of others' experiences of this and any signposts to further reading as I suspect this has come before! On a wider issue I find it fascinating how 'we' construct meaning depending on various factors and am looking for literature on this if anyone can point me in the right direction.
Thanks for reading.
Mandy
Academic Skills Centre Co ordinator
Kingston University
________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.
This email, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. It is confidential and may contain personal information or be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, reproduction or storage of it is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender via return email and delete it from your system immediately. Victoria University does not warrant that this email is free from viruses or defects and accepts no liability for any damage caused by such viruses or defects.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:20:48 +0000
From: "Rooney, Stephen G." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Dear all,
Fascinating discussion (aren't they all?!) which I'm only just catching up with - I do sometimes wish you wouldn't all be so darned interesting ;-)
Anyway, I'm currently working on a project with colleagues in our School of Law to revisit their assessment criteria. This will involve working with tutors and students to 'de-code' the language of criteria and open up discussions around writing practices. I would like this to lead us away from the current language (which others have noted can be very unhelpful) and towards what I think (if I've understood Len, correctly) would be a more 'symptomatic' approach to defining effective writing practice. I'd be interested to know about similar or related projects. To date, one minor version of this exercise that has proved helpful has been to simply survey tutors within departments, asking them to interpret their own criteria in terms of practice, including how they recognise criteria as having been met in the first place. Members of this list won't be at all surprised to learn that this exercise has, itself, thrown up some interesting inconsistencies in expectations and definitions...
All best,
Steve
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Thomson
Sent: 12 December 2013 10:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Interesting discussion - a number of the briefs and handbooks I've come across over the past few years make me want to scream at how unreadable they are, and I agree that this has a negative impact on students because, due to the current school system in Britain, many students (at both FE & HE) are very used to being required to 'tick boxes' and therefore very concerned about what the assessment criteria are. Drawing students' attention to how the assessment criteria are linked with the learning aims and the knowledge and skills covered in the course is key to them learning in a more 'joined up' way, but the jargon heavy unit handbooks are not in any way reader-friendly, and not many students I meet attempt to read them - and therefore remain confused about how assessment tasks link up to lecture, seminar and workshop content.
Many assessment criteria seems to include a proliferation of abstract nouns, such as information, contextualization, techniques, evidence etc. but very little to help students understand what they mean - what Len describes as symptoms, but I would basically describe as examples - e.g. - in order to contextualize a piece of artwork you need to consider the time and place that it was made, and the ideas, theories, politics, technical considerations in that time and place that influenced the artist etc. Detailed examples can be given in lectures, seminars etc. but just breaking the terminology down can help.
The problem for academic support staff is the fact that usually they weren't there in the relevant lecture, and if the student they are working with either missed it or was unable to understand it, then you have very little to work with - and yes, ok the student 'should' have been there and using strategies to understand and record the session, but, well, people get sick, trains are delayed etc.
Since University is, amongst other things, supposed to support the student in a transition from school to the work place, the skills to 'unpick' a brief are important, and one that is useful in many industries, but at University, it needs to be staged, and it would seem that many academic staff are not aware of things like Gunning's 'fog index' and write very 'stream-of-consciousness' briefs, that leave me wondering what it is, exactly, they want the students to produce.
I'm not suggesting 'dumbing down' course content, I just think that assessment tasks and criteria, which tend to create a lot of anxiety for students, should be written in straightforward language, that doesn't assume a familiarity with pedagogical terminology; and that they are specific enough that support staff such as study advisers, dyslexia tutors, librarians etc. can understand what is expected. If it is expected that students to write reader-friendly texts for their assignments, the University should, surely, lead by example.
However, it is a sensitive issue, and it is difficult for support staff to approach academic staff unless the University strategy endorses such meetings as an aspect of WP & good practice.
Has anyone out there been involved with working with subject lecturers on writing unit briefs? Because although I have, very informally, in a few cases, but that is really just down to my knowing the member of staff well enough that they were open to discuss it. I can't help thinking that the way forward would be to have University-wide guidelines on readability etc. that all staff were expected to follow - or do you think that would be too 'standardised'?
Best wishes
Liz Thomson PGCE, MA
Learning Development Tutor
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Stevenson
Sent: 12 December 2013 05:19
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
"Nothing that requires interpretation can be understood at once."
This observation of Schleiermacher's, cited in Gadamer's Truth and Method, perhaps explains why he so valued the role of living feeling in achieving understanding. Schleiermacher also claimed that the common idea that understanding occurs as a matter of course was misleading: "misunderstanding occurs as a matter of course, and so understanding must be willed and sought at every point." Openness and freedom are as much essential to the communicative process as closure and definitiveness.
I wonder what Schleiermacher would have thought of Quintilian's "Aim not at being possible to understand, but at being impossible to misunderstand," cited on these pages just a week or so ago? Aim yes, absolutely, but prepare for disappointment?
Part of the breakdown we see in understanding is not just the fault of murky prose. As we move to text and online video for everyday modes of communication we create new contexts, but we also undermine the sense of "being there" or "being with" that comes from face-to-face and group lectures/discussion. I would not be surprised if our students feel it is only natural to hold the university away and at a distance. And I'll probably be howled down for blaming the customer, nevertheless some of my thoughts in response to this discussion thread were, "Where was s/he when the lecturer went through the criteria in class (both times)?", "Has s/he asked the lecturer to clarify?", "Were the criteria designed by the lecturer or a committee that wouldn't know a classroom from the sole of their shoe?"
And then there might be (Oh heavens!) criteria that remain unspecified forever, but which are nevertheless learned over a course. I remember a discussion a few years ago with a young man who was well read, as well as interested in current affairs, but getting nowhere with English. In the lead up to the university English exams I suggested he "write more sensitively, like a girl." His grades went up. No one at school had ever told him, but the research showed boys did not "hear" the sensitivity criteria implicit in English, whereas girls did.
Yes, some criteria are AWFULLY written. But to push Schleiermacher aside and pin things down, I wonder... what will that look like? What is wrong with asking a few more people just to use their noggins (with feeling!)? At heart all the lecturers are hoping for is (sensible) carefulness in considering and attempting the task.
Mark
Dr Mark Stevenson
Senior Lecturer, Asian Studies
College of Arts
Victoria University
Melbourne
Australia
________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of M. Gough [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Thanks for your responses Helen and Peter.
I also teach in the related English Language field and having taught ESOL in a previous life in AE and FE, perhaps this is why this resonates with me. I remember students in an ESOL class saying that although they had learnt English back home they could not decipher one word when listening to people chatter at the bus stop. We then set about working with tape recordings of real speech and going out of the class to the real world for real language. Students were not told it was 'their problem' or that they ' should not be here if they could not understand' . They were not expected to overnight be fluent language speakers but were supported to learn as learners are meant to. ... After all that's why they were students. Perhaps HE has a lot to learn from AE and FE after all.
So why are our students ( who are paying vast sums of money) expected to navigate their way through impenetrable phrases which even many of their teachers ( and I include myself in this) don't fully understand? I've recently seen the response given to students asking ' what do you mean by writing at level 6 ?' As ' operates in complex and unpredictable contexts, requiring selection and application from a range of largely standard techniques and information' (again SEEC descriptors). What students really seemed to want is an example of writing at level 6 and of course want to be able to compare year 1 (level 4) with year 2 (5) and year 3 (6). Students at year two are told they should 'discuss' and don't need to be critical till year 3 yet when receive feedback told they need to be more critical. Students ask ' what do you mean by critical? ' and of course get a range of responses and end up more confused than ever. Yet, some students do manage to navigate their way through and get A grades... How do these students do that? Do they have an inbuilt computer that just translates these indecipherable terms instantly? Where does that leave the students who don't manage to 'get it?'
I agree, Helen, we have to find creative solutions and as a lecturer with some control over marking criteria, i like your ideas of getting students to do work themselves on making the criteria more visible. In an LD role though we may not be party to what the module lecturers actually mean and indeed perhaps they may not know, so creative solutions definitely needed!
Onward and upwards!
Mandy
________________________________
From: Helen Bowstead <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>;
To: <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>;
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Sent: Wed, Dec 11, 2013 9:28:47 AM
As a Learning Developer and a lecturer, I sit somewhat uncomfortably between a rock and a hard place when it comes to writing marking criteria and assignment briefs. In my Learning Development role I am very aware of the impact a poorly written brief and impenetrable marking criteria (and feedback that basically replicates it) but in my lecturing role I often find it difficult to avoid falling into the same traps. A very detailed assignment brief often leads to even more confusion and/or students feeling that they MUST follow it to the letter, no matter what, and it is difficult to write marking criteria without falling back on the kind of language that will demonstrate the learning outcomes that are dictated by organisations like SEEC (Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer) and the QAA. So for example, at level 5 the SEEC descriptor for analysis and evaluation goes like this:
Analyses a range of information comparing alternative methods and techniques. Selects appropriate techniques/criteria for evaluation and discriminates between the relative relevance and significance of data/evidence collected.
What is "a range of information", what are appropriate techniques/criteria who decides what is relevant or significant? As a Learning Developer, I know this is what students struggle with, but as a lecturer, how do I demonstrate to the institution/external examiners that I am writing assessments that are appropriate?
I recently brought an incomplete set of marking criteria in to class and asked the students to complete the grid according to what was written in the assignment brief and what they felt they should be being assessed on. They also decided on weightings for the various components. I hope that this will help open up a dialogue through the rest of the year that will go some way to making the invisible a little more visible, however, as a language teacher I am lucky - I have small classes (20) and a lot more freedom than many lecturers in terms of the 'content' I deliver - as long as we are doing in in English, for me it counts as language work ...
Creative solutions are definitely needed.
Best wishes
Helen
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter John Lumsden
Sent: 11 December 2013 08:46
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Mandy - yes, very interested in this. In fact doing some work on this right now - as part of an attempt to put some principles and practice to our existing policies and procedures.
Assignment briefs do often seem too brief, and marking criteria often use generic grids which were designed in a different era!
PL
Peter J. Lumsden
BSc, DPhil, Fellow HEA
Principal lecturer, Academic Development and Employability
University of Central Lancashire
01772 893270
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PLumsden
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/peter.j.lumsden?ref=tn_tnmn
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=100728902&trk=hb_tab_pro_top
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of M. Gough
Sent: 10 December 2013 22:14
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Criteria writing and meaning
Dear all
I'm becoming increasingly interested in perceptions of assignment criteria from the students' viewpoint. I seem to be spending increasingly amounts of time each year I work as an academic skills adviser (aka LD! ) helping students to unpack criteria thus leaving precious little time left for other important elements. I'm beginning to agree with lighthearted comments 'you need a degree to understand the criteria' and wonder what the motivation and rationale is behind making the criteria so complex? Is this something others experience?
A recent example is asking students to ' critically critique... ' and then there are the criteria points that seem to embed 3 points in one ( reminds me of those poorly thought out job interview questions!) and the sentences that leave you confused as to the subject, the object and so on.
There are mixed responses to students to raise the issue, from helpful further guidance to the other extreme of ' we are not here to spoon feed you'.
I'd be interested to hear of others' experiences of this and any signposts to further reading as I suspect this has come before! On a wider issue I find it fascinating how 'we' construct meaning depending on various factors and am looking for literature on this if anyone can point me in the right direction.
Thanks for reading.
Mandy
Academic Skills Centre Co ordinator
Kingston University
________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.
This email, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. It is confidential and may contain personal information or be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, reproduction or storage of it is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender via return email and delete it from your system immediately. Victoria University does not warrant that this email is free from viruses or defects and accepts no liability for any damage caused by such viruses or defects.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:11:48 +0000
From: Amaechi Echedolu <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: VISUAL PRACTICES CONFERENCE- 28th JANUARY 2014, BOOK A PLACE NOW
*Look/Make/Learn: visual transformations in learning, teaching and
assessment- **New Date!*
Due to the unforeseen circumstances caused by strike action, this
conference had to be postponed in December 2013 till the New Year. We now
have a new date and once again we hope that you will join us! Conference
details follow:
You are invited to this one-day conference organised by ALDinHE's PD group
and hosted at London Metropolitan University, to explore how visual
learning practices are becoming more mainstream in the digital age. Taking
inspiration from a number of recent initiatives, we will explore how
different kinds of visual tasks can be embedded in classrooms, tutorials
and online environments across the disciplines. We hope this event will
inform, challenge and offer practical ways to enhance your own practice.
*Date: * Tuesday 28th January 2014
*Time*: 10am-4pm
*Venue:* London Metropolitan University
The Graduate Centre, room GCG-08
166-220 Holloway Road
London N7 8DB
*Conference Fee: *£50- *(This includes refreshments and lunch)*
*Outline of day:*
9.30-10.00 arrival, coffee, registration
10.00 Welcome from Associate Professor Digby Warren
*10.15 Welcome* from Pauline, Sandra and Debbie - and Chris O’Reilly
*10.30 - 11.30* *Drawing to learn* Everyone can draw – whether diagrams,
doodles or storyboards -to think, explore, learn, reflect, understand and
communicate. But many of us lack confidence or just forget to use this
essential tool for learning. This interactive session will include
practical activities relevant for any discipline and any context.
*11.30-12.30 Science and Social Sciences*: using visual approaches
for qualitative research and (re)conceptualising science (Philip Howlett
and Debbie Holley)
*12.30-1.30 lunch and networking*
*1.30-2.30 ‘It’s more than just drawing!’* Using collages and Cabinets of
Curiosities; Memory envelopes and installations; Digital artefacts and
Animations - for TLA. (Pauline Ridley, Sandra Sinfield, Tom Burns & Chris
O’Reilly)
2.30/ 2.45 shuffle & comfort break - reconvene in main hall
2.45- 3.45 MOOC madness: digital tools, activities, exemplars – and table
tasks.
3.45- 4.00 summary, thanks, depart
*To book a place- Visit the London Met E-shop here: *
https://eshop.londonmet.ac.uk/browse/product.asp?compid=1&modid=1&catid=271
*If you have any queries please contact Amaechi Echedolu *
*[log in to unmask]* <[log in to unmask]>
--
*Working hours*
Wednesday mornings
Thursdays & Fridays
Companies Act 2006 : http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/companyinfo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:29:52 +0000
From: "Foster, Ed" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Research project leads
Hi Steve
There's this textbook on Learning Development you may have
In Chapter 5, 'Learning Developers Supporting Early Student Transition' we talk about our research into new students' expectations about independent learning (around pg. 85). I think our basic point was that students knew that they were going to do it, but had very naïve perspectives on what it actually was. From memory, my favourite answer to the question 'What is independent learning?' was 'learning independently'
I can share some presentations developed out of the same source material, but I'm a bit short on references - sorry
Ed
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rooney, Stephen G.
Sent: 12 December 2013 09:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Research project leads
Dear all,
Hope this finds you well.
I'm currently working with academic and course design colleagues on a project to explore students' understandings of 'independent study' and the different approaches and practices this study entails. A quick scout around the relevant databases has thrown up some promising looking leads, but wondered if colleagues here might be able to steer me towards further material, including any projects of their own in this or related areas. Naturally, I'll collate and 'share back' with the list.
All the very best,
Steve
Steve Rooney
Learning Development Manager
University of Leicester
0116 252 2316
www.le.ac.uk/succeedinyourstudies<http://www.le.ac.uk/succeedinyourstudies>
Elite Without Being Elitist
Times Higher Awards Winner 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
Follow us on Twitter twitter.com/uniofleicester<http://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
www.le.ac.uk
Chair of the Association for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE)
DISCLAIMER: This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private and confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error. Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University. Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free. This is in keeping with good computing practice.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:24:14 +0000
From: "Pottinger, Isabelle B" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Pearsons MyLabs
Hello Colleagues,
Collated Results
One LDHEN person told me it had been used in her institution - and she recommended it. A colleague in my own institution had recently acquired a licence for his own course and so demonstrated the material to me. He enthused about this product.
A fellow LDHEN contributor and I had both looked at the material online and neither of us had been convinced about the product - mainly because it required students to approach study in a particular way. All on this network know that students study in a variety of ways. And money spent on one commercial product will not be available to spend on the learning resources that support other learning styles.
Thought welcome.
Best wishes,
Isabelle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isabelle Pottinger
Effective Learning Adviser
Information Services
Cameron Smail Library
Gait 12
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh
EH14 4AS United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)131 451 3062
E-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
http://www.hw.ac.uk/is/skills-development/study-support.htm
http://www.hw.ac.uk/is/skills-development.htm
Heriot-Watt is a Charity Registered in Scotland, SC000278
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pottinger, Isabelle B
Sent: 02 December 2013 10:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Pearsons English MyLabs
Hello Colleagues,
I've only had one response so far to my request and would welcome more feedback.
My Subject Librarian colleagues have asked me to find out more about:
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/englishmylabs/learn-about/what-is.html
#1. Have you used this material?
#2. What is your view of it? Useful? Not useful? Other thoughts?
Please send responses to me - not to the network. I'll collate responses and post a summary.
Best wishes,
Isabelle
________________________________
Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2013
Top in the UK for student experience
Fourth university in the UK and top in Scotland (National Student Survey 2012)
We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders<http://www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders> for further information and how to apply.
Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278.
-----
Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2013
Top in the UK for student experience
Fourth university in the UK and top in Scotland (National Student Survey 2012)
We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to
join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes.
Please see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how
to apply.
Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity
registered under charity number SC000278.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:27:31 +0000
From: "Rooney, Stephen G." <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Research project leads
Yes, thanks Ed. I have indeed read it - it's one of the things I've already been able to bring to 'the mix' so to speak!
I think you're right - students are often aware of the expectation the HE will involve IL and are also often familiar with the meta-language that accompanies it (self-direction, autonomy etc.).
All best,
Steve
From: Foster, Ed [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 12 December 2013 15:30
To: Rooney, Stephen G.; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Research project leads
Hi Steve
There's this textbook on Learning Development you may have
In Chapter 5, 'Learning Developers Supporting Early Student Transition' we talk about our research into new students' expectations about independent learning (around pg. 85). I think our basic point was that students knew that they were going to do it, but had very naïve perspectives on what it actually was. From memory, my favourite answer to the question 'What is independent learning?' was 'learning independently'
I can share some presentations developed out of the same source material, but I'm a bit short on references - sorry
Ed
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rooney, Stephen G.
Sent: 12 December 2013 09:17
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Research project leads
Dear all,
Hope this finds you well.
I'm currently working with academic and course design colleagues on a project to explore students' understandings of 'independent study' and the different approaches and practices this study entails. A quick scout around the relevant databases has thrown up some promising looking leads, but wondered if colleagues here might be able to steer me towards further material, including any projects of their own in this or related areas. Naturally, I'll collate and 'share back' with the list.
All the very best,
Steve
Steve Rooney
Learning Development Manager
University of Leicester
0116 252 2316
www.le.ac.uk/succeedinyourstudies<http://www.le.ac.uk/succeedinyourstudies>
Elite Without Being Elitist
Times Higher Awards Winner 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
Follow us on Twitter twitter.com/uniofleicester<http://twitter.com/uniofleicester>
www.le.ac.uk
Chair of the Association for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE)
DISCLAIMER: This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private and confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error. Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University. Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free. This is in keeping with good computing practice.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 21:46:52 +0000
From: Mark Stevenson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Liz,
I think you make a very important point about 'ticking boxes'.
When it comes to HE a move must be made from ticking boxes to thinking things through. Much of the lack of specificity found in criteria is precisely (and deliberately) a result of strategies aimed at discouraging quick, tick-box approaches. Being hyper-specific narrows the space of thinking and conversation.
When a student enters university, whether they are aware of it or not, they are making a commitment to becoming someone knowledgeable, someone able to spend time with complex questions. Until recently that expectation has defined what universities are; we could all it "the professional (or intellectual) difference". If we don't have it anymore, do we still have universities?
At least four things threaten that expectation, not least by putting pressure on the space for conversation. The idea that education can be reduced to a service for fee, the instrumental use of education to serve business and industry (noted already by Nietzsche), low funding or poor distribution of funding, and mental distraction (work, social media). Thus Ron Barnett's call for a "spacious" university.
We could also perhaps include the evolution of professionalism into city swagger.... Anyway, the specific growth in jargon heavy (committee designed?) handbooks you mention is very much part of that service for fee culture and about an attempt at guaranteeing a product that can't in the end come with guarantees. Increasingly I wonder if what I and my colleagues are doing, despite our intentions, is training a whole generation to hustle and bluff. Nevertheless, facing Entwistle's deep, surface and strategic learners,* I still see a bias toward the the deep--it has to do with that idea of what universities are--and that bias is not going to favour the student who wants a tick-box path.
Confusion has a role to play in the deep path of learning, even when it comes to assessment and their criteria.
Mark
*
Greg Light, Susanna Calkins, Roy Cox, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The Reflective Professional, p. 52.
________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Elizabeth Thomson [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 8:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Interesting discussion – a number of the briefs and handbooks I’ve come across over the past few years make me want to scream at how unreadable they are, and I agree that this has a negative impact on students because, due to the current school system in Britain, many students (at both FE & HE) are very used to being required to ‘tick boxes’ and therefore very concerned about what the assessment criteria are. Drawing students’ attention to how the assessment criteria are linked with the learning aims and the knowledge and skills covered in the course is key to them learning in a more ‘joined up’ way, but the jargon heavy unit handbooks are not in any way reader-friendly, and not many students I meet attempt to read them – and therefore remain confused about how assessment tasks link up to lecture, seminar and workshop content.
Many assessment criteria seems to include a proliferation of abstract nouns, such as information, contextualization, techniques, evidence etc. but very little to help students understand what they mean - what Len describes as symptoms, but I would basically describe as examples - e.g. - in order to contextualize a piece of artwork you need to consider the time and place that it was made, and the ideas, theories, politics, technical considerations in that time and place that influenced the artist etc. Detailed examples can be given in lectures, seminars etc. but just breaking the terminology down can help.
The problem for academic support staff is the fact that usually they weren’t there in the relevant lecture, and if the student they are working with either missed it or was unable to understand it, then you have very little to work with – and yes, ok the student ‘should’ have been there and using strategies to understand and record the session, but, well, people get sick, trains are delayed etc.
Since University is, amongst other things, supposed to support the student in a transition from school to the work place, the skills to ‘unpick’ a brief are important, and one that is useful in many industries, but at University, it needs to be staged, and it would seem that many academic staff are not aware of things like Gunning’s ‘fog index’ and write very ‘stream-of-consciousness’ briefs, that leave me wondering what it is, exactly, they want the students to produce.
I’m not suggesting ‘dumbing down’ course content, I just think that assessment tasks and criteria, which tend to create a lot of anxiety for students, should be written in straightforward language, that doesn’t assume a familiarity with pedagogical terminology; and that they are specific enough that support staff such as study advisers, dyslexia tutors, librarians etc. can understand what is expected. If it is expected that students to write reader-friendly texts for their assignments, the University should, surely, lead by example.
However, it is a sensitive issue, and it is difficult for support staff to approach academic staff unless the University strategy endorses such meetings as an aspect of WP & good practice.
Has anyone out there been involved with working with subject lecturers on writing unit briefs? Because although I have, very informally, in a few cases, but that is really just down to my knowing the member of staff well enough that they were open to discuss it. I can’t help thinking that the way forward would be to have University-wide guidelines on readability etc. that all staff were expected to follow – or do you think that would be too ‘standardised’?
Best wishes
Liz Thomson PGCE, MA
Learning Development Tutor
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mark Stevenson
Sent: 12 December 2013 05:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
"Nothing that requires interpretation can be understood at once."
This observation of Schleiermacher's, cited in Gadamer's Truth and Method, perhaps explains why he so valued the role of living feeling in achieving understanding. Schleiermacher also claimed that the common idea that understanding occurs as a matter of course was misleading: "misunderstanding occurs as a matter of course, and so understanding must be willed and sought at every point." Openness and freedom are as much essential to the communicative process as closure and definitiveness.
I wonder what Schleiermacher would have thought of Quintilian's "Aim not at being possible to understand, but at being impossible to misunderstand," cited on these pages just a week or so ago? Aim yes, absolutely, but prepare for disappointment?
Part of the breakdown we see in understanding is not just the fault of murky prose. As we move to text and online video for everyday modes of communication we create new contexts, but we also undermine the sense of "being there" or "being with" that comes from face-to-face and group lectures/discussion. I would not be surprised if our students feel it is only natural to hold the university away and at a distance. And I'll probably be howled down for blaming the customer, nevertheless some of my thoughts in response to this discussion thread were, "Where was s/he when the lecturer went through the criteria in class (both times)?", "Has s/he asked the lecturer to clarify?", "Were the criteria designed by the lecturer or a committee that wouldn't know a classroom from the sole of their shoe?"
And then there might be (Oh heavens!) criteria that remain unspecified forever, but which are nevertheless learned over a course. I remember a discussion a few years ago with a young man who was well read, as well as interested in current affairs, but getting nowhere with English. In the lead up to the university English exams I suggested he "write more sensitively, like a girl." His grades went up. No one at school had ever told him, but the research showed boys did not "hear" the sensitivity criteria implicit in English, whereas girls did.
Yes, some criteria are AWFULLY written. But to push Schleiermacher aside and pin things down, I wonder... what will that look like? What is wrong with asking a few more people just to use their noggins (with feeling!)? At heart all the lecturers are hoping for is (sensible) carefulness in considering and attempting the task.
Mark
Dr Mark Stevenson
Senior Lecturer, Asian Studies
College of Arts
Victoria University
Melbourne
Australia
________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of M. Gough [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Thanks for your responses Helen and Peter.
I also teach in the related English Language field and having taught ESOL in a previous life in AE and FE, perhaps this is why this resonates with me. I remember students in an ESOL class saying that although they had learnt English back home they could not decipher one word when listening to people chatter at the bus stop. We then set about working with tape recordings of real speech and going out of the class to the real world for real language. Students were not told it was 'their problem' or that they ' should not be here if they could not understand' . They were not expected to overnight be fluent language speakers but were supported to learn as learners are meant to. ... After all that's why they were students. Perhaps HE has a lot to learn from AE and FE after all.
So why are our students ( who are paying vast sums of money) expected to navigate their way through impenetrable phrases which even many of their teachers ( and I include myself in this) don't fully understand? I've recently seen the response given to students asking ' what do you mean by writing at level 6 ?' As ' operates in complex and unpredictable contexts, requiring selection and application from a range of largely standard techniques and information' (again SEEC descriptors). What students really seemed to want is an example of writing at level 6 and of course want to be able to compare year 1 (level 4) with year 2 (5) and year 3 (6). Students at year two are told they should 'discuss' and don't need to be critical till year 3 yet when receive feedback told they need to be more critical. Students ask ' what do you mean by critical? ' and of course get a range of responses and end up more confused than ever. Yet, some students do manage to navigate their way through and get A grades... How do these students do that? Do they have an inbuilt computer that just translates these indecipherable terms instantly? Where does that leave the students who don't manage to 'get it?'
I agree, Helen, we have to find creative solutions and as a lecturer with some control over marking criteria, i like your ideas of getting students to do work themselves on making the criteria more visible. In an LD role though we may not be party to what the module lecturers actually mean and indeed perhaps they may not know, so creative solutions definitely needed!
Onward and upwards!
Mandy
________________________________
From: Helen Bowstead <[log in to unmask]>;
To: <[log in to unmask]>;
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Sent: Wed, Dec 11, 2013 9:28:47 AM
As a Learning Developer and a lecturer, I sit somewhat uncomfortably between a rock and a hard place when it comes to writing marking criteria and assignment briefs. In my Learning Development role I am very aware of the impact a poorly written brief and impenetrable marking criteria (and feedback that basically replicates it) but in my lecturing role I often find it difficult to avoid falling into the same traps. A very detailed assignment brief often leads to even more confusion and/or students feeling that they MUST follow it to the letter, no matter what, and it is difficult to write marking criteria without falling back on the kind of language that will demonstrate the learning outcomes that are dictated by organisations like SEEC (Southern England Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer) and the QAA. So for example, at level 5 the SEEC descriptor for analysis and evaluation goes like this:
Analyses a range of information comparing alternative methods and techniques. Selects appropriate techniques/criteria for evaluation and discriminates between the relative relevance and significance of data/evidence collected.
What is “a range of information”, what are appropriate techniques/criteria who decides what is relevant or significant? As a Learning Developer, I know this is what students struggle with, but as a lecturer, how do I demonstrate to the institution/external examiners that I am writing assessments that are appropriate?
I recently brought an incomplete set of marking criteria in to class and asked the students to complete the grid according to what was written in the assignment brief and what they felt they should be being assessed on. They also decided on weightings for the various components. I hope that this will help open up a dialogue through the rest of the year that will go some way to making the invisible a little more visible, however, as a language teacher I am lucky – I have small classes (20) and a lot more freedom than many lecturers in terms of the ‘content’ I deliver – as long as we are doing in in English, for me it counts as language work …
Creative solutions are definitely needed.
Best wishes
Helen
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter John Lumsden
Sent: 11 December 2013 08:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Mandy – yes, very interested in this. In fact doing some work on this right now – as part of an attempt to put some principles and practice to our existing policies and procedures.
Assignment briefs do often seem too brief, and marking criteria often use generic grids which were designed in a different era!
PL
Peter J. Lumsden
BSc, DPhil, Fellow HEA
Principal lecturer, Academic Development and Employability
University of Central Lancashire
01772 893270
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PLumsden
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/peter.j.lumsden?ref=tn_tnmn
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=100728902&trk=hb_tab_pro_top
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of M. Gough
Sent: 10 December 2013 22:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Criteria writing and meaning
Dear all
I'm becoming increasingly interested in perceptions of assignment criteria from the students' viewpoint. I seem to be spending increasingly amounts of time each year I work as an academic skills adviser (aka LD! ) helping students to unpack criteria thus leaving precious little time left for other important elements. I'm beginning to agree with lighthearted comments 'you need a degree to understand the criteria' and wonder what the motivation and rationale is behind making the criteria so complex? Is this something others experience?
A recent example is asking students to ' critically critique... ' and then there are the criteria points that seem to embed 3 points in one ( reminds me of those poorly thought out job interview questions!) and the sentences that leave you confused as to the subject, the object and so on.
There are mixed responses to students to raise the issue, from helpful further guidance to the other extreme of ' we are not here to spoon feed you'.
I'd be interested to hear of others' experiences of this and any signposts to further reading as I suspect this has come before! On a wider issue I find it fascinating how 'we' construct meaning depending on various factors and am looking for literature on this if anyone can point me in the right direction.
Thanks for reading.
Mandy
Academic Skills Centre Co ordinator
Kingston University
________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.
This email, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. It is confidential and may contain personal information or be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, reproduction or storage of it is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender via return email and delete it from your system immediately. Victoria University does not warrant that this email is free from viruses or defects and accepts no liability for any damage caused by such viruses or defects.
This email, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. It is confidential and may contain personal information or be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, reproduction or storage of it is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender via return email and delete it from your system immediately. Victoria University does not warrant that this email is free from viruses or defects and accepts no liability for any damage caused by such viruses or defects.
------------------------------
End of LDHEN Digest - 11 Dec 2013 to 12 Dec 2013 (#2013-235)
************************************************************
|
