The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as collaborative working: a case study in shared practice and collective purpose

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) has yet to fully enter the mainstream of life in higher education. In this case study, we consider a specific network focused on the reform of engineering education. The network involves global collaboration within the discipline of Engineering and is based around curricular activity that affects entire departments or groups of staff. We suggest that SoTL should pay greater attention to collaboration that addresses substantive disciplinary purposes, further embodying these purposes through spaces, motivations and capacities for action in the disciplinary and departmental setting. We frame our argument around a theoretical model of collaborative working in higher education and go on to offer a synoptic overview of ways to articulate common purpose around teaching and learning at large. Our account highlights potential drivers for such collaborative activity in other settings. In this way, we offer a means for others to develop the collective commitments, structures and understanding needed to mainstream SoTL within specific disciplinary or departmental settings.     

A recipe for effective participation rates for web‐based surveys

One way many universities have approached the process of better understanding and meeting the needs of their students is through student evaluations. The evaluation data provide not only diagnostic feedback but also useful information in terms of the quality of learning and teaching experiences. In an effective quality cycle, the data gathered are analysed and used to make improvements. This is often referred to as ‘closing the loop’. However, for any evaluation data to be of value an important prerequisite for ‘closing the loop’ is that response rates should be sufficiently high to be representative of the student cohort. This paper describes how a faculty within Monash University utilising only web based surveys developed a successful communication strategy to elicit staff and student participation in the unit (subject) evaluation process which achieved a response rate as high as 83.2%.     

Implicit aspects of paper and pencil mathematics assessment that come to light through the use of the computer

This article explores the effect on assessment of ‘translating’ paper and pencil test items into their computer equivalents. Computer versions of a set of mathematics questions derived from the paper-based end of key stage 2 and 3 assessments in England were administered to age appropriate pupil samples, and the outcomes compared. Although in most cases the change to the different medium seems to make little difference, for some items the affordances of the computer profoundly affect how the question is attempted, and therefore what is being assessed when the item is used in a test. These differences are considered in terms of validity and legitimacy, that is whether the means used to answer a question in a particular medium are appropriate to the assessment intention. The conclusion is not only that translating paper and pencil items into the computer format sometimes undermines their validity as assessments, it is also that some paper and pencil items are less valid as assessments than their computer equivalents would be.     

Understanding achievement differences between schools in Ireland – can existing data-sets help?

Recent years have seen an increased focus on school accountability in Ireland and calls for greater use to be made of student achievement data for monitoring student outcomes. In this paper, it is argued that existing data-sets in Ireland offer limited potential for the value-added modelling approaches used for accountability purposes in many other countries. Some reasons for this include: few longitudinal studies of student achievement, few population data-sets and limited data on student home background in the State examination data-sets. A cross-sectional contextualised attainment model (CAM) is presented using Junior Certificate data from 2009. While the model offers some potential for identifying schools performing significantly above or below average, its explanatory power is limited by the availability of appropriate student background data. It is proposed that the use of statistical models for the purposes of identifying high or low performing schools in Ireland would need to take account of findings from other countries regarding technical difficulties such as variable selection, missing data, and the need to avoid aggregated data. Other practical concerns discussed include the appropriateness of publishing league tables and the usefulness of such information for informing parental choice.     

A comparison of teacher assessment (APP) with standardised tests in primary literacy and numeracy (WIAT-II)

Assessing Pupils’ Progress (APP) arose from a government drive to increase the amount of teacher-based assessment within school and to make this consistent across schools. We conducted semi-structured interviews with head teachers to gain insight into how their schools applied APP and we compared the APP levels for English and Maths, provided by teachers across 11 schools for 72 pupils, to a standardised assessment (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II; WIAT). There was a strong correlation between the APP and WIAT for literacy but not for numeracy. Head teacher interviews revealed that APP is used differently across schools and at times is used in a way inconsistent with government guidance, which raises the question of how teacher assessments are used and their purpose. Questions that should be considered are; how is moderation used in schools, what is the function(s) of teacher assessments and what is good practice in relation to these assessments? Clarity about the function of assessments is of vital importance as is ensuring that assessments are meaningful to teachers, pupils, families and schools, especially in light of the weight that can be placed on teacher assessments for all these groups.     

Monitoring health,activity and fitness in physical education: its current and future state of health

Various government policies, strategies and responses in England over the years have highlighted schools and physical education to be instrumental in addressing health and the focus on health has been strengthened within subsequent revisions of the National Curriculum. Whilst this might seem encouraging, concerns have been expressed that such policies and governmental regulation increasingly bear features of a ‘performative culture’ and that these have led to increasingly widespread health surveillance in schools. Linked to this are long-standing concerns over the way in which health is addressed in schools and physical education, as well as over some of the monitoring measures and practices employed within the curriculum. Despite this, little is known about monitoring practices in physical education. This article, therefore, presents findings of a study which aimed to (1) determine the nature, prevalence and purpose of monitoring health, physical activity and physical fitness within the physical education curriculum and (2) establish physical education teachers' views of and approaches to monitoring. The study comprised two phases. The first phase involved a survey completed by Heads of Physical Education in 110 secondary schools from across England, and the second semi-structured interviews with 18 of those from the original sample. The findings revealed monitoring, and in particular fitness monitoring, to be a common feature within the physical education curriculum in many schools. However, a number of issues and limitations associated with monitoring and some of the schools' monitoring practices were identified, and the individualistic nature and performative culture reflected in and reinforced through monitoring were acknowledged as potentially problematic. It was thus suggested that if the findings are typical, then monitoring practice is currently not in a good state of health. The article concludes proposing a way forward for monitoring within physical education in the form of some recommendations for practice.     

The difficulties of defining development:A case study

In the current climate of change and expansion within higher education in the UK, there are various drivers for change in the way the curriculum is designed and delivered. In the recent past, within the UK, the QAA has presented a Code of Practice with respect to HE provision for students with disabilities and changes in the legislation relating to access to higher education for students with disabilities. These developments have prompted funding councils to resource major projects relating to accessibility. Such is the complexity of terms such as 'curriculum', 'accessibility' and 'disability', that these funded projects require a multidisciplinary approach. However, questions arise as to whether the key players in these multidisciplinary projects actually fully understand each other and have a shared understanding of the terms of reference. This case study highlights some of the difficulties experienced within a multidisciplinary team that did not ensure a shared conception of the complexities of the change management project in which it was engaged. What comes to the foreground is the problematic concept of academic development and how it is understood outside of its own community.     

On becoming an academic developer: A personal journey

Abstract

Academic Development is a diverse and complex profession that is becoming an increasingly important aspect of higher education, albeit that in general terms it is not necessarily highly enough valued at institutional and departmental levels. To raise the profile of the profession it may be tempting to provide a narrow definition of the nature of Academic Development and the appropriate credentials of the ‘Developers’. Such a move could stifle the creativity and the diversity of skills that exist within the profession and that render it problematic to define. However, to place value on our chosen field it is important for Developers to work towards a shared conception of Academic Development as a unique profession. The intention of this paper is to contribute to the dialogue and discussion of this issue through critical reflection on my personal journey into this profession. While some of the issues raised by Andresen (1996) relating to the nature of Academic Development, pathways to credibility within the profession and issues relating to accredited programmes for Academic Developers are addressed, it is important to state that this paper is limited to reflections on my own journey, which I consider to be neither unique nor ordinary, into the profession.