How much of what kind of assessment?

Chris Rust and Mandy Jack initiated an exchange about assessment volume, kind and equivalence on the SEDA maillist.
Hours are most easily countable (and even that is not easy). There are also the number of assessment points and the “weight” given to each assessed point. Chris asserted that:
the only meaningful comparison is student hours and providing the total identified learning hours for the module (including the assessment activities) aren’t over 10 per unit credit there’s no problem.
I asked for clarification on the “total identified learning hours” per unit credit.
This is a slight diversion, but the question of equivalence is becoming increasingly important. So, too, is the question of “challenge”.
Toetenel and Rienties (2016) analysed 157 Open University course designs by all levels and activity types. Assessment (as designed or intended by those course teams) hovered around 25% of the time for all 3 UG “levels” and about 21% for PG. I do not know how much time the students actually did put in to each activity. Galvez-Bravo (2016), “… found that modules with more assessments had higher feedback (module appraisal) marks.” Simpson et al (2019) in a UK/US comparison found more assessment (both in number of assessment points and total volume) led to higher grades.
So a should a 15 credit course (150 hours) be expected (or designed) to have about 30-40 hours of assessment arranged over between one and as many as eight points in a semester? Two to four assessed tasks of 10-20 hours each? Where “exam revision” counts towards the total assessment load (two or three hours of exam and 10 hours of cramming the day before)?

Last of the summer wine

Took my last day of annual leave before the new leave year today.20190804_162828

So, I spent several hours moving this domain from Gandi.net to WordPress.com and then importing the posts from “My work blog”, rworld2.brookesblogs.net. I previously lost about 20 posts two years ago from the previous host of the rWorld2.net domain and personal blog. I had registered these somewhere when I tried, between about 2010 and 2015 to build a domain of my own for Digital Storytelling (DS106).

So here I go again.

DS106, 2017. A History of ds106 [WWW Document]. URL http://ds106.us/history/ (accessed 8.23.19).

Shaping an Identity: hacking the human?

Higher education shapes identity on many levels. We can readily identify three:

  1. the individual student/academic;
  2. the institutional characteristics of the higher education sector;
  3. and wider transnational cultural-historical activity.

This slicing into comprehensible tranches is characteristic of my pragmatic approach to knowing, characterised by a logic of effectiveness in the present: sure, it is a continuum, but clumping into useful groups helps if you want to do something.

Continue reading “Shaping an Identity: hacking the human?”

Scaffolding Ed Dev conversations: a response to Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2017)

  • Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2017). Agency and structure in academic development practices: are we liberating academic teachers or are we part of a machinery suppressing them? International Journal for Academic Development, 22(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2016.1218883

Roxå and Mårtensson (2017) argue that the discourses of academic development as mediated through formal education and training programmes by academic development departments are seen by some academics as:

a suppressing machinery anchored in globalisation and economification with an agenda to control academic teachers for the benefit of economic growth linked to a neoliberal ideology of life… Academic teachers can no longer embody the idea of academia as a place for free and critical inquiry (p 97).

Continue reading “Scaffolding Ed Dev conversations: a response to Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2017)”

Teachers professional development as an NSS action?

I read our recently issued NSS action table in the context of preparation guidance for staff annual Performance and Development Review (PDR):

One of the NSS actions (dressed up as principles) and echoing the UK PFS Values, is that,

All staff who support learning participate annually in collective professional development to ensure that their practice is evidence-based, informed by the scholarship of learning and teaching, and employs up-to-date learning tools and technologies.

I love collective professional development but feel a little queasy about “to ensure“. Always prefer a developmental/enhancement led approach… to enhance their practice through evidence informed by the scholarship of teaching ….

But it can amount to the same thing. Depends on what is measured

Pretty much everything else in the NSS action table is just stuff we shouldn’t have to mention. The fact that we have to speaks bucket-loads. But ultimately it obscures what the message should be, which is that we love our discipline and our students and teach them as well as we can.

Flipping icebergs: a neo-liberal curriculum?

It feels to me like an iceberg about to tip.
Ultimately this is an argument for qualitative research into the so-called subjective realms of values, beliefs and feelings. Because, in part, I suggest it is the enclosure of the subject for the reward of a few, which is at the root of the general mess we (me? Britain? Liberalism? Society? the globe?) appear to be in (NHS crisis, austerity, higher education funding and regulation, housing, migration, cyber-security, etc).

The theoretical approach or perspective of a neo-liberal curriculum appears to be:

  • Utilitarian (idealist, ratio-driven: promoting the greatest good for the greatest number
  • Pragmatic (what works);
  • Pareto-optimal (80% of the reward or output comes from 20% of the input or effort and the remaining 20% of the output comes from 80% of the input).

Continue reading “Flipping icebergs: a neo-liberal curriculum?”