 |
 |
Thanks Garry, really useful set of guidelines – and how relevant to this thread!
Have a great Christmas.
Liz
From: Garry Maguire [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 18 December 2013 12:54
To: Elizabeth Thomson
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
A colleague and myself have been researching the assignment brief area for several years and working towards a set of design guidelines to help develop the communicative effectiveness of written assignment instructions.
These are just getting the finishing touches before disseminating.
We have just joined this forum and were struck immediately by the number of themes and even phrases which echo our draft set of assignment brief design principles which have emerged from the research with students
and staff and from a pilot consultancy.
You can find these and comment on at:
On 16 December 2013 10:01, Elizabeth Thomson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi Mark
I am feeling somewhat self-conscious that we have kind of hijacked this thread, and I feel, whilst many interesting topics such
as the purpose of Universities and the process of learning etc. have arisen, we are slightly off track (perhaps the topic for a new thread?).
Mandy initially raised the issue of poorly worded tasks – e.g. to ‘critically critique…’ which I don’t think anyone can claim
is an effective (or elegant) description of what the student needs to do and this led on to a discussion about whether the wading through all these abstract definitions is actually in the students’ best interests. In your first response you point out ‘
At heart all the lecturers are hoping for is (sensible) carefulness in considering and attempting the task’ and I’d agree.
I don’t think anyone would deny that University-level learning is complex, takes place over a period of time and involve
a variety of events, communications & interventions, but while no one expects that to take place without some areas of confusion, if certain elements of communication are consistently causing frustration and confusion, and essentially delaying students in
getting to grips with the task in hand, then that needs to be addressed. For example, I recently saw a student, a retired lawyer, who is now doing a course on photography because he has always wanted to know more about it – an avid reader, very articulate,
who failed his first essay because he had answered a question based on a mixture of his own interpretation and theories that he felt to be relevant and had constructed a discussion around that…but he failed because the lecturer had wanted that particular
question answered in relation to a specific group of theories that had been covered in a lecture that this student had missed due to having to attend his brother’s funeral. Nowhere on the unit brief did it specify that that question had to be answered with
reference to that particular theoretical framework.
To be honest, my main gripe with (some of) the Unit handbooks given to students is that they are long, difficult to
find and navigate – eg there are at least 2 pages of generic pedagogic waffle which is the same for all courses, and pretty much entirely meaningless to students (although probably very important for the institution, and quality and standards etc.), and rather
thin on the specific information about what the task is, when the deadline is and what the assessment criteria is. While the quality and standards stuff needs to be available for students should they choose to look at it, the vast majority start looking at
it and then give up before they find the information they actually need, pretty much the antithesis of all the things that effectively written communication should be.
Grice’s maxims come to mind;
·
The maxim of quantity, where one tries to be as informative as one possibly can, and gives as much information as is needed, and no more.
·
The maxim of quality, where one tries to be truthful, and does not give information that is false or that is not supported by evidence.
·
The maxim of relation, where one tries to be relevant, and says things that are pertinent to the discussion.
·
The maxim of manner, when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as orderly as one can in what one says, and where one avoids obscurity and ambiguity.
So, in answer to your direct question Mark, should academic staff write assessment briefs so they can be understood
by people what haven’t attended all the lectures and seminars then my answer is yes, I think they should. Obviously, a student who has not attended many of the input sessions will be at a huge disadvantage compared to those who have (and will be wasting their
fees and time at University, really) but I do think that the task itself should be specific enough that students can identify what they need to do and refer to in order to address the task adequately – and that academic support staff are able to recognise
whether or not the ideas or work a student comes to them for advice on is, in fact, answering the brief.
Our students ARE paying customers, and they are paying for academic tuition and support services, so if support staff
are unable to help them due to the lack of clarity of assessed tasks, then that is an issue in terms of student experience/satisfaction and retention. Whilst some may be cynical (and deluded) enough to think that doing a degree means getting a certificate
that will enable them to get a well-paying job, raising their awareness that critical thinking, research skills and the ability to communicate clearly and convincingly are the degree-level skills that employers are willing to pay for generally motivates them
to work to develop those skills.
And as paying adults they are in a position to say, ‘I am not interested in reading and deciphering long texts about
University rules and regulations, I am here to study photography, and I want to spend my time here reading about that, and getting to grips with the complexities of semiotics and the technicalities of studio lighting, so can we cut to the chase and you tell
me what I need to do for the assessment task, and what you’re looking for me to demonstrate in how I complete the task so as to pass/excel – in clear and concise language.’
I don’t believe the issue that started this thread is endorsing spoon-feeding or down-grading the complexity of knowledge
in ever-changing communities of professional practice, I think it is about clear and audience-conscious communication which needs to be in written form and available for students and all staff involved with academic support, and to this end I think it would
be helpful if subject expert lecturers with no specialism in language worked with language experts in academic support to produce more readable handbooks and briefs – or to use guidelines such as the one George recommended Lean Systems
http://www.lean.org/whatslean/ , or the fog-index or whatever, but I really believe there is room for improvement in this area.
Anyhow, apologies for the essay-length of this response… have a great Christmas everyone!
Liz
From: learning development in higher
education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Wilson, George
Sent: 13 December 2013 15:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Implicit explicit.
Time to suggest a wee look into Lean Systems
http://www.lean.org/whatslean/ .
I know, that’s for industry and we’re education , but …………………
George Wilson FHEA
Learning Adviser - Centre for Learning and Study Support
Room B05 Merchiston Campus - Edinburgh Napier University
0131 455 3372 -
[log in to unmask]
From: learning development in higher
education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of John Sutter
Sent: 13 December 2013 14:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Phew- another interesting discussion! I think Liz makes a good point about making
the ‘implicit explicit’, and for me one very important aspect of this is the often hidden power/knowledge relations (that I think Mark partly is referring to), and which often find expression in briefs, criteria, handbooks and all the rest (as well as in the
form of the ‘essay’ as a means of classifying and defining student identities). I almost feel that many universities are now in a state of something between panic and schizophrenia, having discovered -often through their own theoretical perspectives – that
they themselves are part of the ‘problem’ of knowledge (defining what counts as knowledge and producing knowledge)…. and yet they must sell this knowledge as a ‘product’, as a real object. The confused briefs, tick box criteria, and ‘competencies’ are all
a symptom of the rather paradoxical position universities currently find themselves in.
I do wonder if universities in their current form are any longer coherent or even possible!
All best
John
John Sutter
Learning Enhancement and Support Manager (Language and Learning Development) Canterbury,
University for the Creative Arts
New Dover Road
Canterbury
Kent
CT1 3AN
Mob:
07813 836559
Skype: jssutter
From: learning development in higher
education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Elizabeth Thomson
Sent: 13 December 2013 11:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Mark
Whilst I agree that to some extent criteria need to be generic, so that they can apply to a variety
of types of work (and this is, I think, particularly important in arts and humanities) I think the actual tasks need to be specific, due to the way that universities have changed over the last few decades, such as the effect of Widening participation – if
we are accepting students with disabilities and from a variety of educational backgrounds (plus many international students) then there needs to be support for students to build up the study skills, vocabulary and confidence to deal with the confusion and
frustration which are part of deep learning, and going beyond their comfort zone. You question whether ‘ discomfort with indeterminacy is related to humiliations relating
to economic class? At least that was the case twenty or thirty years ago; in the meantime it may have been overtaken by experiences of social exclusion along lines of linguistic and cultural difference.’
Which I take to mean that you recognise that less confident students struggle more with dealing with ambiguity and negotiated meaning.
Also, as you mention, many fee paying students have the sense that they are paying customers and
therefore expect things to be tailored to suit their preferences – which I agree is not necessarily helpful to learning, but still needs to be addressed/negotiated .
If assessment briefs are so vague as to be incomprehensible to other members of qualified staff,
who are not able to attend all the lectures, seminars and tutorials that students do, then those staff are put in the uncomfortable position of not being able to do their job and support students. This is a practical problem, for example when a brief says
something like ‘ write an analysis using one of the films screened during this unit’ but there is no information about which films have been screened, so if the student has missed the screenings, they will be unable to answer the question.
There is basically a difference between constructive confusion and making room for conversation,
and poorly worded assessment tasks which mean students don’t understand what is expected of them – which you, in your previous email refer to;
‘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.’
Where you give an example of a student not understanding the abstract and obviously for him, ambiguous,
criteria of demonstrating empathy, by giving him an example - ‘write like a girl!’ which he understood and his grades went up. At times it helps to make the implicit explicit, to move students on in their learning journey – which is not the same as gratifying
them with easy, tick-box answers.
Anyhow, as with all teaching methodology, it depends on the students you are dealing with as to what
is appropriate.
Liz
From: learning development in higher
education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Mark Stevenson
Sent: 13 December 2013 10:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Criteria writing and meaning
Wow! The Writing Cafe looks like a really friendly way of introducing a new relationship to 'confusion'. If you are selling that coffee you're going to make a fortune for someone.
I wonder if discomfort with indeterminacy is related to humiliations relating to economic class? At least that was the case twenty or thirty years ago; in the meantime it may have been overtaken by experiences of social exclusion along lines of linguistic and
cultural difference.
We need more of the Writing Cafe kind of experiment.
By the way, before I send anyone on a wild goose chase, in Imagining the University Barnett actually speaks of 'the imaginative university,' but spaciousness is they key metaphor and it is a prescription for the congested university we have today.
Mark
From: Helen Bowstead
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 7:45 PM
To: Mark Stevenson;
[log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Criteria writing and meaning
I love the notion of a ‘spacious’ university, I think creating space for thinking, conversation
and even confusion is vital. We have just managed to secure our very own ‘third’ space here at Plymouth …
http://blogs.plymouth.ac.uk/thewritingcafe/
Helen
Please note that my working days for LD are Wednesday afternoon, Thursday and Friday.
Helen Bowstead
Web pages
www.plymouth.ac.uk/learn
for further information, resources and
study guides.
Drop-in-Zone (DiZ)
Plymouth campus Library. 1200-1400 on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and 14.00 to 1600 Tuesday and Thursday during term time. No need to book
One to one tutorials
Learning Gateway, 011 Roland Levinsky Building: 01752 587676 (for info on what to expect,
click here)
Online feedback on your writing
email feedback form
Writing for Assignments E-library
www.learningdevelopment.plymouth.ac.uk/wrasse
Email study questions
[log in to unmask]
LDTalk
student e-forum www.jiscmail.ac.uk/ldtalk
From: learning development in higher
education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Mark Stevenson
Sent: 12 December 2013 21:47
To: [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. |
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 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 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
|
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.
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.
|
Edinburgh Napier University offers industry informed courses which combine the optimum balance of theory and practice to equip graduates for success in today's competitive global job market. 92.3% of our graduates are in work or further study within six months
of leaving. With over 17,000 students from over 110 countries, we are an international university and are also proud to be the largest UK provider of higher education in Hong Kong.
This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned
for viruses or other defects.
Edinburgh Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject
to routine monitoring and filtering by the University.
Edinburgh Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number SC018373 |
--
Garry Maguire
Senior Lecturer EAP and Brookes Teaching Fellow
Postgraduate Academic English Subject Coordinator
Oxford Brookes University
Gypsy Lane
Oxford
OX3 0BP
Tel: + 44 (0) 1865 484358