promoting constructive alignment through programme specification and subject benchmarks warren...

Promoting constructive

alignment through

programme specification and

subject benchmarks

Warren Houghton

School of Engineering and Computer Science,

University of Exeter

Plan.

1. Programme Specification

a. How we went about it in Engineering at Exeter

b. Discussion of process

2. Threshold standards

3. Defining differentiated assessment criteria at module level

– Example and discussion

4. Helping students to manage their own learning

5. Levels of thinking about learning processes

6. A reflective framework for thinking about learning & teaching

Themes

• Responsibility

• Alignment

• Reflection

Context of examples

• University of Exeter

– mid ranking “old” university

– “research lead”

• Department of Engineering

– in School of Engineering and Computer Science

– small general engineering department

– 26 full time academic staff

– approx 400 U/G students

• Heavily constrained by PEI accreditation

Context of examples

3-yrgeneral

BSc

3-yr BEngaccredited

Ele

ctro

nic

Mech

an

ica

l Civ

il

En

g.

&

Man

ag

em

en

t

4-yr MEngaccredited

Ele

ctro

nic

Mech

an

ica

l Civ

il

En

g.

& M

an

Common first year

How we wrote Programme Specifications

1. Put Subject Benchmark Statement to one side !

2. Wrote aims and ILOs for existing programmes

– many iterations - emergent outcomes

3. Wrote aims and ILOs for existing modules

– many iterations

– drawing out what staff were already doing

4. Then, checked against Benchmark Statements etc.

5. Did not try to achieve one-to-one mapping

Why not use Benchmark Statements as “blueprints”?

• What authority should we give the Benchmark

Statements ?

– What does the QAA say ?

• Is there a “correct answer” ?

• How can we obtain a set of required ILOs ?

– From industry?

• Do we have to take responsibility, with our own

ideas?

William Perry’s positions:

1. Absolute right answers are provided by Authority.

2. Authority may make us find his absolute right answers ourselves.

3. Authority may not have found all the absolute right answers – yet . . .

4. Anyone has a right to his own opinion, but better keep Authority happy.

5. Everything is relative.

6. I may have to make some decisions for myself.

7. I must commit myself to a viewpoint.

8. I must take responsibility for what I commit to.

9. I am confident in my personal commitment, but I will keep an open mind.

What position do we take ?What position do we take ?










What position are we encouraged to take ?What position are we encouraged to take ?










• NOT as some definitive “right answer”

• We have to take responsibility for creating/recreating the curriculum

– drawing on

– our own experience

– others’ experience - set out in benchmarks etc.

• an iterative, reflective, process

How should we use benchmarks?

Curriculum developmentCurriculum development

Emergent Emergent outcomesoutcomes

Rewrite ProgrammeSpecification

Implement changes

Read availableliterature.

Benchmark Statements etc.

Contribute tonational discussion

Compare curriculum with Benchmark Statements etc.

Articulate currentaims, ILOs etc.

Curriculum experienced by teachers and students

A limitation of benchmarks?

• They are not explicitly multidimensional

A two-dimensional table for each assessment criteria heading

Assessment criteria

MEng

BEng

BSc

3rd 2.2 2.1 1st

Breadth and depth

of programme

Degree classification (performance)

MEng and BEng programmes : volumes in a space that is at least three-dimensional.

BEng

MEng

Depth

Breadth

Independence

Dimensions of learning outcomes

Order of thinking

(e.g. Bloom’s hierarchy)

Range of concepts

“difficulty” of concepts

Simplistic “levels” view of a degree

Order of thinking

e.g. Bloom’s

hierarchy

Range of concepts

Allowing for other dimensions

Order of thinking

e.g. Bloom’s

hierarchy

Range or “difficulty” of concepts

and allowing for life before university !

Order of thinking

e.g. Bloom’s

hierarchy

Range or “difficulty” of concepts

Prior learnin

g

Degree programm

e

Plan .

• Programme Specification

– How we went about it in Engineering at Exeter

– Discussion of process

• Threshold standardsThreshold standards

• Defining differentiated assessment criteria at module level


• Helping students to manage their own learning

• Levels of thinking about learning processes

• A reflective framework for thinking about learning & teaching

Threshold standards

• benchmarking implies . . .

• all graduates will meet all threshold

standards

• we need to show how

• we may have to change our assessment

• QAA(2000) Engineering Benchmark Statement.

Threshold standards

• Effective in (e.g.) the Royal Navy

• Different in HE – why?

– “Education and training are different”

– Is certification realistic / useable ?

• Too much / different for employers to read

• PDP offers a solution to both problems

Example:

setting and assessing threshold setting and assessing threshold standards in core academic modulesstandards in core academic modules

in Engineering at Exeter

Traditional examination

• 3 hr paper

• Choose 5 out of 8 questions

• Pass mark 40%

• Pass provides evidence of 25% of ILOs tested

• But which 25% ?

• What can we build further learning on ?

• define detailed ILOs/assessment criteria . . .

• For all 1st and 2nd year engineering modules

Module specification – A/B structureDETAILED LEARNING OUTCOMES / ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

List A comprises core outcomes that will be covered fully in lectures and must be achieved by all students to meet the minimum requirement for progression.

List B comprises outcomes that are EITHER more difficult to achieve OR are to be achieved by private study (or both).

A: THRESHOLD LEVEL B: GOOD TO EXCELLENT

.

.Apply nodal analysis, with step by step prompting, to 2 loop circuits....

.

.Apply nodal analysis, without guidance or prompting, to 2 and 3 loop circuits. ..

Assessment - examinations

• Paper A: – Covering list A ILOs only

– Typically, short straightforward questions

– No choice

– Expected mark >80%

– Criteria referenced

• Paper B– All ILOs, and some choice

– Longer, more challenging questions with no “easy” parts

– Expected average < 40%

Doesn’t this approach mean

that we are blatantly

teaching to the examination?

Yes !Yes !

Development

• Accepted because of PEI accreditation

– evidence that students with different marks

had achieved identifiably different learning

outcomes

• Originally developed as part of a

scheme to give better guidance to

students

Impact on staff

• Staff find it hard to split ILOs this way

BUT

• asking for differentiated ILOs seems to

work better than just asking for single

level ILOs

Realism

• Any test is demanding when the pass

mark is 80%

• If we are genuinely going to test all ILOs

they must be achievable.

• We have to be honest.

Deep vs. surface learning

• Are we encouraging surface learning?

• Other factors enable deep learning . . .

• Consider structure of the learning (noun)

– Hierarchy of concepts

• What happens if students try to understand complex concepts when they haven’t grasped the components?

• A/B approach makes deep learning possible

a problem

• of success ?

Supporting students

• A/B split originally introduced for student guidance

• students asked to identify progress against ILOs on weekly basis

• now whole of 1st year

• ILOs are a prerequisite to PDP

Why is PDP important ?

• It is about students becoming autonomous, independent, thinking for themselves– the real purpose of HE

• It enables students to articulate what they can do

PDP:

• is not a bolt on extra

• it is an integral part of learning in HE

• it must be addressed by all academic

teaching staff

Academic staff

• view PDP in qualitatively different ways

and

• many have difficulty with valuing PDP

• Why?

Levels of thinking about teaching

Biggs (1 to 3):

Focus on: 1. what the student is

2. what the teacher does

3. what the student does

plus?

4. how the student can manage 4. how the student can manage

what the student does (PDP) what the student does (PDP)

Ways of thinking about Generic Graduate Attributes

Barrie (1 to 4):

1. Necessary basic PRECURSOR skills but irrelevant as

they are a prerequisite for university entry

2. Useful skills that COMPLEMENT or round out

disciplinary learning

3. These are the abilities that let students TRANSLATE,

make use of or apply disciplinary knowledge in the

world

4. They are the abilities that infuse and ENABLE

university learning and knowledge

Biggs - teachingBiggs - teaching(plus)(plus)

1. What student is

2. What teacher does

3. What student does

4. How student manages learning

1. PRECURSOR, irrelevant

2. Useful COMPLEMENT

3. TRANSLATE learning

4. ENABLE university learning

Barrie - attributes Barrie - attributes (skills+)(skills+)

Paradigm shifts

Plan

Experience

Reflect

TheoriseKolbKolb

Paradigm shifts - double loop learning

New understanding

Paradigm shift

Biggs - teachingBiggs - teaching(plus)(plus)

1. What student is

2. What teacher does

3. What student does

4. How student manages learning

1. PRECURSOR, irrelevant

2. Useful COMPLEMENT

3. TRANSLATE learning

4. ENABLE university learning

Barrie - attributes Barrie - attributes (skills+)(skills+)

Learning to learn

Teachers must :

• have theories of learning

• not just “bags of skills” (see Ramsden)

STUDENTS need

• study “skills”

• AND

• learning about learning

– theories of learning

– tools for metacognition / reflection / self management

A Reflective FrameworkA Reflective Framework

Teacher as creator of subject

learning environment



Student working within created




Teacher as provider of tools for reflection on

learning


learning

Student acquiring tools for reflection

on learning

Student acquiring tools for reflection

on learning

Teacher as learning tutor


Student discussing own

learning


learning

Teacher as subject tutor


Student learning through subject related dialogue


Teacher as reflective

practitioner


practitioner

Student engaged in PDP












The “created learning environment” must be designed so that students can manage their own learning within it.

It must offer:

• real choices for students to make

• resources to support different choices

• information required to make choices (ILOs etc.)

• assessment outcomes clearly linked to choices (i.e. aligned assessment)

P.B.L. ?P.B.L. ?










practitioner


practitioner


learning


learning

Student learning about learningStudent learning about learning










learning


learning

A dialogue about learning is essential:










practitioner


practitioner


learning


learning











learning


learning

PDP as a bolt on extra

PDP:

• should be an integral part of the academic experience

• requires teachers who are reflective practitioners

• should have a profound impact on learning

• can be used as a tool for curriculum development

Plan.

• Programme Specification

– How we did it in Engineering at Exeter

– Discussion of process

• Threshold standards

• Defining differentiated assessment criteria at module level


• Helping students to manage their own learning

• Levels of thinking about learning processes

• A reflective framework for thinking about learning & teaching

SummarySummary

Responsibility

Reflection

Alignment










practitioner


practitioner


learning


learning









learning


learning

StudentStudenttakingtaking

responsibilityresponsibility

How do we achieve alignment of:

withHow academic

staff think about research in their

disciplines

How academic staff approach

curriculum development

withHow we want

academic staff to teach

How academic staff are managed

?

promoting constructive alignment through programme specification and subject benchmarks warren...

Documents

absolute right answers

authority happy

year slide

mapping slide

university of exeter

learning teaching slide

pei accreditation slide

benchmark statements