Workshop 5: Techniques II

  • 102 views
Uploaded on

Fifth workshop from the New Techniques and Technologies for Text-Based Disciplines coaching programme, at the JGU, Mainz, held on 9th May 2014.

Fifth workshop from the New Techniques and Technologies for Text-Based Disciplines coaching programme, at the JGU, Mainz, held on 9th May 2014.

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
102
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Workshop 5: Techniques II Dr Thomas Hunt and Dr Jamie Wood
  • 2. Introductions • Briefly say – your name – what you study/ teach – something you can remember from an earlier workshop
  • 3. Aims • To develop understanding of different kinds of learning • To think more about the role the following in learning: – assessment – creativity – process and product • To learn by doing and discussing together
  • 4. Plan for today • 30 mins: deep and surface learning (JW) • 1 hour: assessment: from the hidden curriculum to the creative curriculum (TH) • 1 hour: lunch • 1 hour: the creative curriculum (TH) • 30 mins: Pedagogy, process and product: inquiry-based learning and student as producer (JW)
  • 5. Approaches to Learning Students take an approach to learning: A ‘surface approach’ means that students intend only to complete the task requirements. Characteristics of a surface approach are that the student will memorise information for assessment, will treat the task as an external imposition, will fail to relate different aspects of the course to one another and will often forget material soon after the assessment. A ‘deep approach’ means that the student organises and structures content into a meaningful whole and sees the relations between parts, relates previous knowledge to new knowledge, relates knowledge from different courses and sees the broader significance of the course.
  • 6. Approaches to Learning In pairs: a) Identify a time when you adopted a surface approach to learning and b) Identify a time when you adopted a deep approach to learning. What factors do you think influenced the approach that you took in each instance?
  • 7. Approaches to Learning Students take an approach to learning: A ‘surface approach’ means that students intend only to complete the task requirements. Characteristics of a surface approach are that the student will memorise information for assessment, will treat the task as an external imposition, will fail to relate different aspects of the course to one another and will often forget material soon after the assessment. A ‘deep approach’ means that the student organises and structures content into a meaningful whole and sees the relations between parts, relates previous knowledge to new knowledge, relates knowledge from different courses and sees the broader significance of the course. A ‘strategic approach’ means that the student attempts to understand the demands of the task and adopts an appropriate approach to meet those demands.
  • 8. Deep or surface learning? Read the excerpts on the handouts and discuss with a partner. Are the students taking a deep or a surface approach to the task? Why?
  • 9. Why might students choose one approach over another? • Habit: previous approaches to learning (successful and unsuccessful) • Perception of workload • Motivation/interest/enthusiasm • Assessment: Is it assessed? How is it assessed? • Cues from the tutor • Perception of the purpose of (higher) education and the discipline • Ability to see relevance of learning across and beyond courses • Anxiety
  • 10. Consequences of assessment: from the hidden curriculum to the creative curriculum Dr Thomas E. Hunt Newman University t.hunt@newman.ac.uk
  • 11. Assessment? Essays; examinations; presentations; etc. Summative: after teaching Formative: ‘… indispensable to teaching …’ (Biggs and Tang, 2007) The difference between summative and formative assessment …
  • 12. What is assessment for? What is the most important thing that comes out of the process of assessment? For the students? For teachers? What do our students think is the most important?
  • 13. An assessment dilemma Three days before. 2000 word limit. 2800 word essay submitted. What do you do? A: Draw a line after 2000 words and assess those words only. B: Hand it back and tell them to rewrite it before the deadline. C: As for B, but apply a penalty. What should the penalty be? D: Hand it back unassessed. (As a non-submission? A fail?) E: Assess the essay but deduct marks. (How many?) F: Something else.
  • 14. How we frame assessment shows … … our own conceptions of what we do; ‘disciplinary unconscious’ (Decoding the Disciplines). … our understanding of what ‘knowledge’ is (quantifiable; what is known can be declared with precision…) … our understanding of what a university education should look like (separation of highest from lowest scorers).
  • 15. The Hidden Curriculum Snyder The Hidden Curriculum, 1971. Gibbs, Improving the Quality of Student Learning, 1992. ‘If you are under a lot of pressure then you will just concentrate on passing the course. I know that from bitter experience. One subject I wasn’t very good at I tried to understand the subject and I failed the exam. When I retook the exam I just concentrated on passing the exam. I got 96% … I still don’t understand the subject so it defeated the object, in a way.’ (Gibbs, 1992, quoted in Gibbs,2006, p.25)
  • 16. What do these remarks tell us about our students?
  • 17. ‘Backwash’ Assessment defines how the students understand and approach our curriculum. Learning and teaching Intended outcomes Outcomes Assessment Assessment Teacher’s perspective Student’s perspective From Biggs and Tang (2007, p.169).
  • 18. Before lunch Idea: the post-submission questionnaire. – What do you think it deserves? – What do you think it will get? – What will the feedback say? – What would you do differently next time? – What have you learned about the subject through doing this assessment? – What have you learned about yourself? Idea: the ‘real life’ problem. – Bain 2004. – Continuous project work as assessment.
  • 19. Questions? Lunchtime task: Think of a class you are teaching (or thinking of teaching). What easy thing can you do to (a) include a ‘real world’ problem in the course design and/or (b) revise (make better) how you assess that class? Write your thoughts down on a post-it note. Stick it up.
  • 20. • Please come back for 13.10
  • 21. So, the problem – the solution Students are not achieving deep learning … (partly) BECAUSE … our assessments don’t encourage it … SO … how can we design assessments that encourage deeper learning?
  • 22. Case study 1: LIPA Paul Kleiman (2005 and 2008) A lack of coherence in how creativity is understood. HE assessment now structured around ILOs and alignment which constrain. LIPA and its peer review model. Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts. Source: wikimedia Potentially emancipatory. Renewal of curriculum
  • 23. Case study 2: The imaginative curriculum Norman Jackson (2008) Creativity is a ‘wicked problem,’ unique and complex. But it is recognised as essential for economy and society. Curriculum that focusses on process; on negotiation with the students; on continuing ‘lifewide’ curriculum.
  • 24. A turn to ‘creativity’ in the curriculum What do you understand by creativity? Is you job a creative job? Is teaching creative? Is learning?
  • 25. Some pedagogic justifications from different perspectives Bloom’s taxonomy (revised Anderson and Krathwohl) Gammon and Lawrence (2005) University of Luton. Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow. Student engagement in designing assessments; pre-hand-in and post-hand-in. Focus on student experience and anxiety levels. Image source: http://steve- wheeler.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/bloom-reheated.html
  • 26. Against value in the Humanities www.heacademy.ac.uk/as sets/.../Winner_Univers ity_of_Sheffield.pdf An interesting assessment http://honoriartist.livejour nal.com/622165.html
  • 27. The doing What would you do to develop (improve?) the assessment in this class?
  • 28. A wrap up Assessment echoes and structures how students learn. Assessment therefore is not just important at the end of the module but all the way through. This means innovative and new ways of approaching curricula and assessment. But also that even small changes can make a big difference.
  • 29. Summary
  • 30. Next session • Workshop 6: Developments, Reflections and Conclusions – When: 10th June, 10-12 and 2-4 (note change of timings) – Where: 10-12 (Philosophicum, room P 108) and 2- 4 (Georg-Forster-Haus, room 02-741) – Who: Prof. Hugh Pyper (Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield)
  • 31. References (1) • Bain, K. (2004) What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. • Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: Open University Press. • Decoding the Disciplines • Gammon, S. and Lawrence, L. (2006). ‘Improving Student experience through making assessments ‘flow’’, in Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, edd. Bryan, C. and Clegg, K. London: Routledge. • Gibbs, G. (1992) Improving the Quality of Student Learning. Bristol: Technical and Educational services. • Gibbs, G. (1999) ‘Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn,’ in Assessment Matters in Higher Education: Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches edd. Brown, S. and Glasner, A. Maidenhead: Open University Press. • Kleiman, P. (2005) ‘Beyond the Tingle Factor: creativity and assessment in higher education,’ paper presented to the Economic and Social Research Council seminar, Strathclyde. Source. • Kleiman, P. (2008) ‘Towards transformation: concepts of creativity in higher education,’ Innovations in Education and Teaching International 45: 3, 209-217. • Jackson, N. (2008) ‘Tackling the wicked problem of creativity in higher education,’ Source. • Snyder, B. (1971) The Hidden Curriculum. New York: Knopf.
  • 32. References (2) For a general overview of issues related to teaching in HE: • Paul Ramsden (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education(2nd edition). London: RoutledgeFalmer. • John Biggs (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham : Society for Research into Higher Education : Open University Press. How students learn: • Jennifer Case and Delia Marshall (2004). “Between deep and surface: procedural approaches to learning in engineering education contexts”. Studies in Higher Education, 29 (5) 605-615. • Mary Lea and Brian Street (1998). “Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach”. Studies in Higher Education, 23 (2) 157-172. • Trevor Habeshaw, Graham Gibbs, & Sue Habeshaw (1987, 2nd edition 2012). 53 Interesting Ways of Helping Your Students Study. Plymouth: Harper and Row). • More on deep and surface approaches: http://www.learning.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwadminoxacuk/localsites/oxfordlearninginstitute/document s/supportresources/lecturersteachingstaff/resources/resources/Student_Approaches_to_Learning.pdf • Learning styles (which are different to approaches, and describe how a person prefers to learn): http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/careers/pgrd/resources/teaching/theories/honey-mumford • Jan Meyer and Ray Land (2003). Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Linkages to Ways of Thinking and Practising within the Disciplines. ETL Project Report, no. 4. http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport4.pdf