Graduate student confidence following a for-credit systematic review course pilot

Background:In 2015, librarians at Purdue University began fielding requests from many disciplines to consult or collaborate on systematic review projects, and in 2016, health sciences librarians led the launch of a formal systematic review service. In 2019, Purdue University Libraries was reorganized as the Libraries and School of Information Studies (PULSIS) and assigned its own course designation, ILS. The increase in calls for systematic review services and the ability to teach ILS courses inspired the development of a credit-bearing ILS systematic review course.Case presentation:We designed, taught, and assessed a one-credit systematic review course for graduate students, using a backward-design course development model and applying self-determination theoretical concepts into lessons, assignments, and assessments. Using qualitative pre- and post-assessments, we discovered a variety of themes around student motivations, expectations, and preferences for the course. In quantitative post-class assessments, students reported improved confidence in all systematic review processes, with the highest confidence in their ability to choose and use citation management managers, describe the steps in the systematic review process, and understand the importance of a reproducible and systematic search strategy.Conclusions:We considered our pilot a success. Next steps include testing 2- and 3-credit- hour models and working to formally integrate the course into departmental and certificate curriculums. This case report provides a model for course design principles, learning outcomes, and assessments that librarians and library administrators can use to adjust their systematic review services.     

Science Practicals in Schools: Are We Assessing Correctly?

Traditional practical examinations serve the purpose of ensuring that a candidate has some grounding in practical work. Regretably, however, they fall short in the promotion of process skills. A study done at the Institute of Education shows little relationship between tests which highlight these skills and the traditional practical tests. In today's context where emphasis should be placed on process rather than product, the continued dependence on traditional practical examinations does not seem to be in keeping with current curricula changes.     

Globalisation: An annotated bibliography for the readers of Assessment in Education

This paper takes the form of an annotated bibliography providing a synopsis of the work of some influential writers on globalisation, and presenting an indication of the wide-ranging nature of debate in the field. The selection of works is intended to inform and interest readers with a background in education and assessment.     

Peer Learning and Assessment

Various forms of peer, collaborative or cooperative learning, particularly small group activities, are increasingly used within university courses to assist students meet a variety of learning outcomes. These include working collaboratively with others, taking responsibility for their own learning and deepening their understanding of specific course content. The potential benefits of peer learning have long been recognised and are especially relevant today. However, many existing assessment practices act to undermine the goals of peer learning and lead students to reject learning cooperatively. If assessment gives students the message that only individual achievement is valued, and that collaborative effort is akin to cheating, then the potential of peer learning will not be realised. Inappropriate assessment practices may also lead to unhelpful forms of competition within and between groups that prevent groups functioning effectively. This paper examines some of the main assessment issues in connection with peer learning and suggests ways in which the benefits of this approach can be maintained while still meeting the formal assessment requirements of the course. It discusses the use of group assessment, peer feedback and self‐assessment, assessment of participation and negotiated assessment and concludes with the identification of a number of issues which remain to be addressed.     

The role of research ethics committees: Friend or foe in educational research? An exploratory study

Ethics committees have an important role to play in ensuring ethical standards (e.g. BERA, ESRC, RCUK recommendations) are met by educational researchers. Balancing obligations to participants, society, institutions and the researchers themselves is not, however, easy. Researchers often experience the ethics committee as unsympathetic to their research endeavour, whilst ethics committees find some research approaches do not make ethical implications sufficiently explicit. This potential for misunderstanding is evident in the literature, but studies investigating how participants perceive this relationship are missing. This research comprises a novel empirical study which explores researcher perceptions of research ethics committees. Fifty-five participants in higher education departments of education responded to an online survey. Open and closed-ended questions were used to collect data on roles, methodological stance, experiences of the research ethics committee, perceived tensions and examples of good practice. The results indicated that contemporary educational researchers regard research ethics committees as friends when researcher and reviewer are transparently engaged in a shared endeavour. When this shared endeavour breaks down, for a variety of reasons—including apparently unreasonable demands or mutual misunderstanding—the research ethics committees can become foes. The difference between foe and friend lies in the quality of communication, clear systems and a culture of respectful mutual learning. The contributions of this study have practical implications for the ways that education researchers and research ethics committees relate to one another within university settings, both to alleviate areas of tension and to arrive at a shared understanding which will enable best ethical research practice.