teaching and learning forum 15 february 2016 pauline kneale pro-vice-chancellor teaching and...
DESCRIPTION
CEP Plymouth Plus Final Year students Becky Turner - EvaluationTRANSCRIPT
Teaching and Learning Forum
15 February 2016
Pauline Kneale Pro-Vice-Chancellor Teaching and Learning
Agenda
NSS SPQ - please encourage completion
CEP update
QAA HER update
Green paper TEF
GPA – starting to think about marking
CEP
Plymouth Plus
Final Year students
Becky Turner - Evaluation
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
Higher Education Review
Timescale for QAA HE Review-52 weeks Date for visit announced -26 Review team membership announced November-16 Preparatory meeting 11 January -12 SED Document upload; analysis begins 1-16 Feb-9 Request for additional evidence March-6 Provider uploads additional evidence asap -4 First team meeting early April 0 Review visit w/c 9 May +2 Key findings letter late May+6 Draft report mid July+9 Provider comments on draft report August +12 Report published September+22 Provider publishes action plan December
Review team Name Institution Role
Mr Anthony Bagshaw London School of Economics and Political Science
Reviewer
Professor Mary Malcolm
University of Bedfordshire Reviewer
Dr Clare Milson Liverpool John Moores University
Reviewer
Ms Christine Wilmore University of Bristol Reviewer
Mr Craig Best Brunel University Student Reviewer
Mrs Maureen Mclaughlin
QAA Review Manager
HER Process : two stages
Initial desk appraisal by the team:SED and some supporting evidenceStudent submission (prepared and submitted by
UPSU)Primary evidence as specified by QAA (e.g. external
examiner reports / responses, periodic review reports)
Ask for additional evidence
Review visit: Meet with selected groups of staff and students
Green Paper
Implications of the Teaching Excellence Framework
TEF: Context
Reducing complexity and bureaucracy in
research
The higher education
sector
Simplifying the higher education architectur
e
Teaching Excellence, Quality and
Social Mobility
• Provide an excellent (measurable) teaching experience
• Ensure teaching has equal status with research - staff promotion
• Provide students with the information they need to judge teaching quality
• Social mobility - WP, better retention and progression to further study or a graduate job
• Move to clearer outcome-focused criteria and metrics.
TEF – What it is hoping to achieve
Implications • Continue to build and deliver on Teaching,
Learning and Student Experience Strategy • Revisit Strategy to align to TEF (with KPIs?)• Whole institution understanding of TEF
– Changes to DSA– Learning Gain– GPA– Teaching excellence / enhancement evidenced through
University School Programme Module Action Plans
TEF – Providing an excellent (measurable) teaching experience
Issues• Recognising and rewarding teaching excellence• Not defined but will probably align to UKPSF
Implications• Build on NTFs• Build up TDF for HE Academy F/SF/PF HEA• Ensure staff qualification HESA data is correct• Ensure all new and current staff are qualified, including
the Associate Lecturers.
TEF – Teaching staff recognition
Grade Point average (GPA)
Early group thinking opportunity today
• GPA is a measure of student achievement used both during and on completion of a programme of study. (HEA 2015)
• There are different GPA systems in use across and within countries, with different scales (Soh 2011; Holland 2012).
• Potential implications for marking
Do we have consistent marking approaches?
A quick trawl of programme handbooks on DLE for 17 schools and 27 programmes shows
• 10 / 27 programmes have detailed marking information e.g: levels, classification, types of marks, marking schemes and assessment criteria that was easily accessible on the DLE
• Lots of variation in information style
PU NSS2015
PU SPQ 2015
Dental SchoolNSS 2015
Theatre & PerformanceNSS2015
Assessment % % % %
Clear marking criteria 80 72 95 100
Assessment is fair 78 75 92 100
Feedback Feedback is prompt 70 68 95 100
Provides detailed comments
73 69 95 100
Clarifies student queries 67 62 97 100
Perspectives on feedback
Fast communication, fast marking of work.
The assessments were vague and unclear leaving
me puzzled and confused- I have no idea what makes
an A, B or C
I think there needs to be more of a consistency of
marking in core modules but there have been cases where
I've been too leniently marked and got higher marks
than I deserved.
The disparity in grades was vast: some being penalised for grammatical, spelling or referencing errors, whilst others were not!
Undergraduate - perspectives on marking NSS 2015
GPA background
Reservations of ‘fitness for purpose’ of Honours Degree Classification
Dearing Report into higher education (1997) Burgess Reports (2004, 2007, 2012)
Group of interested universities meet 2011-12 Leading to a proposed GPA model (2012)
Oxford Brookes white paper (Oxford Brookes 2012)
HEA scoping work, and GPA pilot group (2013-14)
GPA –perceived benefits
• greater granularity in reporting achievement• encourages and rewards consistent student effort
throughout their programme (UCL 2013)• increases transparency in how an award is calculated• globally understood and international comparability• review of compensation, condonement and resits
(Levy 2014) • UK Universities report both GPA and HDC (higher
degree classification)
Bangor University University of Birmingham University of Edinburgh
Hull College Kingston University University of Leeds University of Leicester City College Norwich Northumbria University University of Nottingham The Open University, Oxford Brookes
University Richmond
American International University in London
University of Sheffield University of
Southampton South West College
(Northern Ireland) University College
London University of the West of
England University of the West of
Scotland University of Winchester York St John University
HEA: GPA Pilot institutions 2013-14
HEA: GPA Project findings
• Increased student motivation and engagement • Student access to their GPA scores offered ongoing
view of their performance• GPA does not foster grade inflation• GPA offers greater transparency in marking • Increased granularity beneficial to employers for
effective selection• Need for a single scheme across the whole HEI
sector
Grade Mark GradeA+ >75 4.25
A 71-74 4.0 A- 67-70 3.75 B+ 64-66 3.50 B 61-63 3.25 B- 57-60 3.0 C+ 54-56 2.75 C 50-53 2.50 C- 48-49 2.25 D+ 43-47 2.0 D 40-42 1.50 D- 38-39 1.00 F+ 35-37 0.75 F 30-34 0.50 F- <29 0.0
HEA Report
UK GPA Scale
Managing the transition to GPA
Teaching and Degree classification considerations
Which scale to adopt?
Are changes needed to our long established marking culture) Staff and student induction required?
New quality assurance processesChanges to way we mark?Weighting of modules, by year and levelCompensation, condonement and resit implications
NUS marking benchmark
• Marking is consistent across every student’s programme of study.
• Use of the full range of marks is regularly reviewed including students in the process, and support is provided for staff to ensure it happens
• Guidance and clear grade/classification descriptors are provided.
Developing greater consistency in marking.
• Does it matter that we have grades, % and ... on the marking guidance sheets?
• Are we ensuring that we as staff mark consistently?
• How do we best introduce new academic staff to marking systems in modules and programmes?
• How do we better introduce students to marking? – Visibility of information on the DLE? – Sessions where students marking of past scripts/ own course work.
Followed by a discussion about standards and requirements etc. – Induction to marking needed in each year.
Thanks