Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange Making change happen: using outcomes from projects Prof. Margaret Price ASKe Centre for Excellence

Outline Where to start Leverage Effectiveness Using what we have learned

Brief overview – FDTL FDTL Engaging students with assessment feedback Three partners: Oxford Brookes, Bedfordshire, Bradford plus cascade and transferability partners The aims of the project were to: develop cost-effective practices and procedures to engage students with assessment feedback; encourage the adoption of practices which will engage students with assessment feedback; and share understanding of students experiences within the HE community. Methods: Literature review, case studies, questionnaire, interviews, cascade partner initatives. Dissemination audiences: Practitioners, educational developers, policy makers

Brief overview - CETL Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange Aim: to improve student learning through sharing and applying an understanding of assessment standards within a broad community of practice. Methods: embedding proven good practice, range of research project to develop understanding and better practice, undertake community initiatives to support involvement. Dissemination Raising awareness, developing understanding, active engagement …

Beyond the bid: where to start What do you want to achieve? contrary to intuition and experience in some other areas, transformation of HE by ICT has not been achieved by focussing on the means but by focussing on the ends: on what exactly we want to achieve (Draper and Nicol 2006) further development/research work, change reinforcement Focus of the goal? Practice Targeted Widespread Policy Strategy Beyond the institution

Planning Institutional culture Disciplinary culture Target level Timing Finding the drivers

Institutional culture Degree of policy definition Loose CollegiumBureaucracy Degree of control of implementation LooseTight EnterpriseCorporation Tight (McNay, 1995)

Planning Institutional culture Disciplinary culture Students approaches to learning can be changed through interventions embedded in the disciplinary context ( Norton and Crowley, 1995 ) Target level Timing Finding the drivers

Focusing the change – level International National Institution Department Programme Individual Student

Level Students and student body – joint initiatives Working with practitioners – is change sustainable Programme change e.g REAP project examples, Course Design initiatives Excellence emerges from departments where high quality teaching could be seen in these universities it emerged from within departments rather than being initiatated from the centre (Gibbs, Knapper and Piccinin, 2006) Institutional – interrelated systems and interest National International

How do you change a whole universitys teaching and learning? (Lund University 2008) 1.Develop individual teachers practice 2.Develop teacher thinking 3.Develop teacher motivation 4.Develop Communities of practice address local issues and problems 6.Identify successful emergent change and spread good practice 7.Develop learning environments 8.Develop learning resources 9.Develop students 10.Develop quality assurance 11.Undertake evaluation 12.Undertake evaluation 13.Develop leadership of teaching 14.Co-ordinated institutional strategy 15.Influence external environment (Gibbs, 2009)

Level contd National Assessment Standards Manifesto for Change Feedback Agenda for Change Select committee International movement Australia New Zealand

Timing and finding drivers (using your time and resources effectively) Strategic planning round of the institution Responding to triggers – NSS results, new post holder, newspaper article, QAA audit, course redesign, select committee report(s), Government policy Identifying tensions e.g. between cost and quality (Nimmo & Littlejohn, 2009) Who is listening? Anticipating issues

Leverage Evidence Robustness Accessibility Usability Not invented in my back yard Receptiveness Credibility Acknowledged expertise Authority/power base Opinion leader Communication Sound bites vs complex ideas Audiences High level champions Most educational development staff tend to focus on just one or two of all possible levers for change and are not involved at all in most of the others (Gibbs, 2009)

Effectiveness of change processes Top down/bottom up Single/collective action Active/passive engagement Practice/conceptual shift

Mapping the approach Engagement Active Local convertsSweep Approach SelfCollective Local innovatorsFlood Passive

Conclusions - Using what we have learned Journey travelled Changing practice isnt enough – assessment practice to assessment literacy Traditional development (hints and tips) is too limited and doesnt lead to sustained change Robust, expert evidence is essential Appealing to current agendas gives you a voice Isolated change is not sustainable Pedagogic change is a very slow process Networks and alliances strengthen the change effort In future Plan for the long term Work together Persevere Be persistent in delivering you message and supporting active engagement

References Draper, S. & Nicol, D (2006) Transformation in e-learning. Available at Gibbs, G. (2009) Developing students as learners – varied phenomena, varied contexts and a devlopment trajectory for the whole endeavour. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education Issue 1 Gibbs, G., Knapper, C. & Piccinin,S (2006) Departmental leadership of teaching in research-intyensive environments: a manual. Available at: McNay,I. (1995) from cllegial academy to the corporate enterprise: the changing culture og universities. In T. SChuller(Ed) The changing University? Buckingham: SRHE& Open University Press Nimmo, A. & Littlejohn, A. (2009) Encouraging learning innovation: recognising and rewarding good practice. Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Vol. 4(1) pp41-55 Norton, L.S. & Crowley, C.M. (1995) Can students be helped to learn how to learn? An evaluation of an Approaches to Learning programme for first year degree students Higher Education Vol 29(3) pp