Recommended
More Related Content
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Featured
Featured (20)
Slj presentation1
- 1. Failure • Overview Presentation 1 • In-depth Presentation 2 • The Beauvais Cathedral • Critical description of as an allegory of the Toolkit structural weakness. • Elements buttressing • Finding points of failure the Student Academic on the Student Academic Learning Journey Learning Journey.
- 2. 1. Learning failure overview • Allegory of Amiens • Ember, Malfoy and Burge • Toolkit elements • Your expectations
- 3. 2. Unit data as a picture Student GPA Grade Category? Ember 7.0 NX Malfoy 3.0 NX Burgeon 0.0 NX AcaWeak NotEngaged SpeedBump PassingOK Flagging
- 4. 3. Categories as a picture Student Seasonal Game Category GLA? Ember 7.0 NX SpeedBump Malfoy 3.0 NX AcaWeak Burgeon 0.0 NX AcaWeak Algorithm
- 5. 4. GLA as a picture Student Season Game Category Group Learning ENTRY? al Attainment (GLA) Ember 7.0 NX SpeedBump 0.58 Malfoy 3.0 NX AcaWeak 0.58 Burgeon 0.0 NX AcaWeak 0.58
- 6. 5. ENTRY as a picture Stude Se Ga Category Team ENTRY UNIT? LECTURER? nt aso me nal Ember 7.0 NX SpeedBump 0.58 HSES Malfoy 3.0 NX AcaWeak 0.58 INT Burgeon 0.0 NX AcaWeak 0.58 ABOR Core Discipline Elective YoT PgCert
- 7. 6. UNIT and TEACHER as a picture Stude Se Ga Category Team ENTRY UNIT LECTURER nt aso me nal Ember 7.0 NX SpeedBump 0.58 HSES Core PhD Malfoy 3.0 NX AcaWeak 0.58 INT Core PhD Burgeon 0.0 NX AcaWeak 0.58 ABOR Core PhD
- 8. 7. Failing grades as a picture of student learning progress Stude Seasonal Game Category Team ENTR UNIT LECTUR nt Y ER Ember 7.0 NX SpeedBump 0.58 HSES Core PhD Malfoy 3.0 NX AcaWeak 0.58 INT Core PhD Burgeon 0.0 NX AcaWeak 0.58 ABOR Core PhD Rising Engagement NN NC NW NS NX
- 9. Summary – modest Toolkit • Seasonal average performance (GPA) • Game performance • Categories (a range of students, AcaWeak etc) • Algorithm • Team performance(Group Learning Attainment) • Dimensions of responsibility (Entry, Unit, Teacher)
- 10. Most satisfying result? Student Unit Grade GLA Marion 201 P 0.58 Marion 219 HD 2.35
- 11. Merit expectations No merit shown Merit shown Students Ratio (Fail, P) (CR, DI and HD) 182 59 241 (HD=1) 75% : 25% 73 30 103 (HD=1) 70% : 30% Your thoughts? Excellence?
Editor's Notes
- Amiens: Explain Beauvais pointed arch, pressure and cracked stoneworkHidden weakness; expected failure, supported by “flying buttress”Allegory to hidden weakness in student learning structureStudents: Ember was alight; Malfoy is not bad; Burgeon is flowering through the flowers are hidden; FY but Semester 2Toolkit: there are tools to detect hidden weakness in the HE structureExpectations: what are your hidden expectations?
- GPA: Grade Point Average of 7.0 means only HD in S1; 3.0 means some passing grades but mostly failing grades in S1; 0.0 means exclusively failing grades in S1 Grade Point Average (GPA) better seen as Seasonal Game Average; Grade: NX (Did not satisfy Academic standards), better seen as Current Game PerformanceCategory: Pick from the 3 failing categories available, Explain names, to categorise each student
- Category answered: Why NotEngaged cannot be used here Do you feel comfortable with Ember differentiated from Malfoy; that is, a range of student types, not one size fitting all?Algorithm: looks at a student’s contribution to a unit as KEY, versus ‘what the student got’.Column Heads: note the changes GPA Seasonal; Grade game
- Group Learning Attainment: not a measure of 1 individual; but a group, in this case the entire unit; Could be all students with Aboriginality or with Disability , or with Aboriginality plus DisabilityGLA: means major failure in unit, perhaps 50%: needs to reach 1.00 to be considered as minimally acceptable; meaning the average grade is a pass; though failures exists as do HDsDetailed explanation of GLA in next presentationGLA” better termed Team’s Game performance
- ENTRY: HSES is High Socio-Economic Status, meaning Domestic student with access to social capital; INT means international student (might be IELTS or VISA); ABOR means claims Aboriginality Would you expect an equivalence of Outcomes for these students? Domestic: declining equity: LSES, drop to Disability (not used in this example), drop to Aboriginality; Further drop if Abor + Disability) INT: declining equity: IELTS, drop to VISA. Equity parallel: IELTS to LSES , and VISA to Aboriginality. No-one caters for INT equity?Dimensions of responsibility: Expect that some weakness in student academic learning success is due to non-Student influencesGLA: note the changes GLA Team
- UNIT: two types and they are, CORE meaning mandatory and student choice minimal ; ELECTIVE meaning not as obligatory with student choice maximal Addressing the question of “hard” units (anecdotal teacher comment) meaning non equivalence in resultsWould you expect an equivalence of OutComes for Units? CORE (as we defined them as large numbers of enrolments) frequently associated with axiomatically-low unit outcomes (GLA, assignment to failing categories)TEACHER: the three types each have sub-types. For Discipline (PhD, MA, BA); for YoT (None, 1-7 years, 7-14, beyond 14); PgCert (Full HE; Partial, None) Addressing the question of “hard” units meaning non equivalence in teaching background Would you expect an equivalence of OutComes for these teachers?Order of merit: PgCert always > Discipline always > YoTSurprising weakness within Discipline: PhD and MA tie for second; BA frequently trumps PhD and MA (3 out of 5 categories)Attention diverted: as YoT increases, learning is inhibitedPgCert Never associated with axiomatically-low unit outcomes (GLA, assignment to failing categories);Question on Expectations: Does this mean these three students would have passed with a PgCert teacher?
- Grades can show degree of Engagement; rising order shown above; Engagement order exists alongside Attainment order (P,CR,DI.HD).Malfoy: might have had NN or NC or NW or NS in S1; but possibly progressing to greater NX Engagement.Burgeon: better example of success in failure; No history of success in S1, but persisting. The alternative would be informal WD; DropOut and StayOut.No 1 to 1 match between Grade and category. Expand categories?
- Toolkit: these are the tools to detect hidden weakness in the HE structure; information enrichment means decision enrichment; eventually student learning enrichment.Individual measures: 4Beyond individual measures: 2
- Student: consider this student (Marion) with a result in two units in S2. Which result was the most satisfying?For bragging rights: a HD.For avoiding a failure: the P?
- Demonstrating Merit: not by Fail; not by Pass (is that an expectation); but merit is beyond P.Results for two units are shown.What percentage need to attain, with merit, the learning outcomes? Do high non-merit percentage lead to structural failure of the student component, that is, to unit WD and University DROPOUT?