Faculty Appendices 2017-18

01/09/2011 and updated annually

24/04/2018

Faculty Appendices

Faculty of Education and Children’s Services

The Principles and Regulations 2017/18 are accompanied by a series of handbooks relating to each of the main sections of the Principles and Regulations and reflecting also the Expectations of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. Collectively, these handbooks are referred to as the Quality and Standards Manual.Our Faculty Appendices in relation to the Quality and Standards Manual are detailed below.

Appendix A: Pedagogy Position Statement

Appendix B : Blended Learning Position Statement

Blended Learning Position Paper

Sector context

An essential part of the purpose of higher education is to develop independent, autonomous learners and thinkers. Indeed, The UK Quality Code for Higher Education (QAA 2012, Ch. B3) expects that institutions should enable every student to develop as an independent learner. Unfortunately, that job has in many respects become harder in recent decades. Our young people spend thirteen years being led through a highly prescriptive micro-managed and tested curriculum, in which they meet the learning objectives of others, in a manner that is almost totally externally controlled. By the time they reach university, many of them are all but incapable of independent learning, and come “ill-prepared for the kind of learning that universities value” (Pring, 2008, p.1).  They have passed through a school education system fixated upon transmitting knowledge, in a period in history when gaining access to knowledge has never been easier.  The current challenge lies not in organising the transmission of knowledge, but in providing students with the skills to acquire it for themselves, analyse it, interpret it, challenge it and shape it. It is a task in which schools are failing, not entirely, perhaps, of their own volition, but one which universities cannot ignore.

Many students encounter serious difficulties when undertaking independent learning – even if they come to embrace it. Most will have passed through an education system where the acquisition of information and knowledge consists of a more or less transparent process, tightly prescribed and closely directed. In many ways, the contrast with study at the higher level couldn’t be starker. (HEA, 2015, p.4)

Meanwhile, with rising tuition fees, there is increased demand from students for value for money, which they often equate with number of contact hours (Higher Education Policy Unit, 2014). The HEPI (2014) survey, suggests that only 10 % believe that they gain value for money from large scale lectures, but 50% of those in classes of fewer than five students find them very beneficial. And whereas student fees have risen to £9000, and expectations have risen accordingly, the amount of money available to improve the quality of delivery has not risen to anything like the same extent. Universities are faced with the double dilemma of providing a better quality of student experience, with the same, or fewer, resources, while attempting to remedy the educational shortcomings of the schooling system. In this context, the development of blended learning (BL) is essential, as an aspect of a strategic move towards greater Directed Independent Learning (DIL), which will improve the quality of learning, without additional face to face contact hours.

Definitions

Blended learning (BL) is quite simply a blend of online learning and traditional face to face learning.

Allen, Seaman & Garrett (2007)

Directed Independent Learning (DIL), on the other hand, better describes an overarching approach to student engagement in learning, which includes blended learning but also includes the many other ways in which learning may take place, with an emphasis on independent and shared responsibility for that learning. Thomas, Jones and Ottaway (2015) state that there is no single preferred definition of DIL, but nonetheless offer:

In this study ‘directed independent learning’ has been understood as learning in which students are guided by curriculum content, pedagogy and assessment, and supported by staff and the learning environment, and in which students play an active role in their learning experience – either on their own, or in collaboration with peers. (Thomas, Jones & Ottaway, 2015, p.3)

It is about improving the quality of the learning experience by supporting students in playing an active role in their own learning. It is the opposite of being spoon-fed, and is sometimes also referred to as independent learning (IL) or autonomous learning.

Faculty context

The Faculty of Education and Children’s Services at the University of Chester is subject to the same pressures that are leading the HE sector as a whole in the direction of BL/DIL. However, it is also facing additional pressures specific to teacher education. There has been an expansion in student numbers and programmes, along with a requirement to deliver high quality academic tuition to students distributed over a wide geographical area, who have limited time available for attendance at University. This has placed considerable strain on the Faculty’s capacity to timetable, accommodate, staff and plan for the increased demands on its resources, while continuing to provide high quality education.

One way in which this additional strain on capacity could be lessened, would be in further developing BL/DIL. An option which, although of value to all students on all programmes, is particularly relevant to those studying for post-graduate qualifications, who may be assumed to have already developed a degree of independence in their learning, and who might reasonably be expected to be able to take a greater degree of responsibility for their own future learning. Furthermore, this might allow that time that was previously allocated to face

to face tuition, to be spent in high quality discussion and analysis, rather than in the transmission of knowledge. This of course would be in addition to the many general benefits that would accrue from BL/DIL, as outlined in Thomas, Jones and Ottaway (2015).

Benefits of BL/DIL

Benefits of BL/DIL as identified by Thomas, Jones and Ottaway (2015):

extending subject knowledge by covering more material than could be covered in face-to-face sessions only, moving beyond the basic/minimum level of understanding towards deeper learning, and understanding theory by relating it to practice;

personal and academic development by enabling students to learn how to learn and become effective lifelong learners, and taking greater responsibility for managing their learning;

encouraging students to feel like they belong to the academic community and the institution (or academic programme), and developing a network of support;

engaging and motivating students by showing the relevance and value of their study in real world situations, and enabling them to become deeper learners;

developing students’ graduate attributes, including developing professionalism in a particular field, developing employability skills, internationalising the curriculum experience, and familiarising students with modern technology;

providing a way of monitoring students’ engagement and learning progress; practical benefits for students in relation to flexibility, place and pace of learning.

Altering perceptions with regard to quality in HE for students/staff and schools/ stakeholders

Traditional views of what constitutes educational quality still prevail in HE, almost to the same extent as they do within the school system. Parents, students, employers and, yes, teaching staff, still tend to equate value for money with the number of face to face contact hours, classroom time and class size. Although Gibbs (2010) suggests that it is not these factors, but quantity and quality of study that impact most significantly upon learning in HE. It is the quality of engagement that is significant and not the quantity of attendance. However, it is recognised in much recent research in this area by the HEA, that convincing students and stakeholders of the value of quantity and quality of study over attendance, will require a considered strategy on the part of providers. The benefits of the approach are clear, but they must be communicated. Students and stakeholders need to understand exactly what blended learning is, and how it will benefit them. It needs to be communicated on open days, during induction, in partnership meetings and training events, in recruitment literature, at interviews, in lectures and in seminars. Furthermore, students need to feel confident in the skills needed to take maximum advantage of blended learning opportunities; and that entails training in study skills to a greater extent than has been the norm in the past, as well as a commitment to the feedback and support that is essential to maintain engagement. It is upon such a wider strategy founded on an institutional, as well as Faculty, commitment to independent learning that longer term success will depend.

Proposed project

It is proposed that there be a Faculty commitment to the development and integration of blended learning across all programmes, supported by a strategy of capacity building. Recent HEA research (Thomas et al, 2015) suggests that success in this area is heavily dependent upon providing necessary technological support and associated CPD for both

students and lecturing staff. It also requires commitment to increasing student capacity for independent learning, as well as further developing lecturer expertise in providing appropriate support materials. However, most importantly there needs to be recognition of the amount of staff time and effort that creation and maintenance of blended learning opportunities require.

In the 2015/2016 academic year, it is proposed that:

PR7101 be developed as a blended learning module, incorporating significant online content, staged assessment and the re-orientation of face to face sessions to emphasise seminar and tutorial discussion and analysis, over large group knowledge transmission;

PR7102 and PR7103 begin to be developed in a similar manner to PR7101, as time and resources allow;

all module leaders across ITE and other Faculty programmes be encouraged to integrate elements of blended learning into their modules, and to experiment with different ways of blending technological and traditional teaching methods;

all participants encouraged to report on their initiatives either through individual research papers, or through an end of year symposium/conference;

all module outcomes where a blended approach has been adopted will be analysed in terms of student/ staff feedback and profiles of attainment;

a focus group will be established and facilitated which comprises a sample of students from across various modules where a blended approach has been used.

References:

Allen, Seaman & Garrett. (2007). Blending In: The Extent and Promise of Blended Learning in the United States. Boston, MA: Sloan.

Gibbs, G. (2010). Dimensions of Quality. York, United Kingdom: Higher Education Academy.

Gulc, E. (2006). Using Blended Learning to Accommodate Different Learning Styles. York, United Kingdom: Higher Education

HEA. (2015). Compendium of effective practice in directed independent learning. York, United Kingdom: HEA.

Pring, R. (2008). Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training, in England and Wales: Learners and Learning. Oxford, United Kingdom: Nuffield.

QAA. (2012). UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B3: Learning and Teaching. London, United Kingdom: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Thomas L., Jones R. & Ottaway, J. (2015). Effective practice in the design of independent learning pathways. York, United Kingdom: HEA.

_________________________________________________________________________

Appendix C: Assessment Arrangements 2017-18 for Assignments at Level Z and 4- 8

The definitive guides to online submission are available on Registry pages here: https://portal.chester.ac.uk/registryservices/Pages/submissions.aspx

The guides are also linked within individual module moodle pages for both staff and students.

Programme Assessment Grids (PAGs), Marking and Monitoring Forms (M&Ms) and Grademark Report Forms:

* Always access this documentation directly from Edshare;* The definitive version of the PAGs will also be located on each individual module page within the top box.

Early Submissions: All Turnitin inbox submission boxes should be open three weeks in advance of the submission date.

Allocation of Marks: The full range of marks should be used.

Dissertation or Equivalent: Students should submit an electronic copy via Turnitin.

Lates: Interval checking should occur, as a minimum, at 1 week, 2 week, 3 week and on the day before the relevant board.

Extensions: Extension Turnitin inbox submission boxes should be set up by admin and tracked on PAGs as admin receive extension forms. Separate inboxes can be added for different durations taking individual student need into account.

Drafts: Offering feedback on assessment drafts is at the discretion of the module leader and module team. The extent of the draft should be proportional to the overall word count for the assessment. Equality of opportunity should be exercised across the cohort.

Guidance:

o UG 20 credit module c300 words drafto UG 40 credit module c750 words drafto PG 20 credit module c500 words drafto PG 40 credit module c1000 words draft

No redrafts seen at UG and PG levels.

U G and PG ITE:

On time box – set up by Module Leader (ML)

2 day extension - set up by Admin. as extension confirmed

1 week extension -  set up by Admin. as extension confirmed

3 week extensions  - set up by Admin. as extension confirmed

Programme Leader (PL) authorising the extensions would normally ensure the extension fits into one of the above timescales.  However, the PL has the discretion to agree an extension

outside of these dates if the student's circumstances warrant this. In this case (s)he is responsible for ensuring the administrator sets up an additional submission inbox.

PG Non-ITE:

On time - ML

1 week extension - set up by Admin. as extension confirmed

3 week extensions  - set up by Admin. as extension confirmed

5 week extensions - set up by Admin. as extension confirmed

Programme Leader authorising the extensions would normally ensure the extension fits into one of the above timescales.  However, the PL has the discretion to agree an extension outside of these dates if the student's circumstances warrant this.  In this case (s)he is responsible for ensuring the administrator sets up an additional submission box.

Grademark (Feedback Studio) Minimum Requirements:

Developmental annotations will be made on each submission using QuickMark and/ or comments;

The UG/ PG Marking Criteria Qualitative Rubric Templates are already set up in Turnitin/ GradeMark and will be adapted by the Module Leader to match the rubric within individual module handbooks. This will be highlighted with a 'best fit' judgement being made;

A mark will be recorded and the weightings detailed within module handbook rubric must be applied at this point;

A text comment will be made and the suggested structure is 'positive, developmental, positive, summary of areas for development'.

Appendix D: Minimum Requirements for Moodle Module Spaces

Minimum requirements are detailed within the Faculty Moodle Template:

Faculty Moodle Template

Appendix E: Feedback Benchmarking Tool