Clinical skills development: using controlled condition assessment to develop behavioural competence aligned to Miller’s pyramid

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Kat Hall,  School of Chemistry, Food and Pharmacy, k.a.hall@reading.ac.uk

Overview

The Centre for Inter-Professional Postgraduate Education and Training (CIPPET) provide PGT training for healthcare professionals through a flexible Masters programme built around blended learning modules alongside workplace-based learning and assessment.  This project aimed to evolve the department’s approach to delivering one of our clinical skills workshops which sits within a larger 60 credit module.  The impact was shown via positive student and staff feedback, as well as interest to develop a standalone module for continuing further learning in advanced clinical skills.

Objectives

The aim of this project was to use controlled condition assessment approaches to develop behavioural competence at the higher levels of Miller’s pyramid of clinical competence 1.

Miller’s Pyramid of Clinical Competence

The objectives included:

  1. engage students in enquiry by promoting competence at higher levels of Miller’s pyramid
  2. develop highly employable graduates by identifying appropriate skills to teach
  3. evolve the workshop design by using innovative methods
  4. recruit expert clinical practitioners to support academic staff

Context

Health Education England are promoting a national strategy to increase the clinical skills training provided to pharmacists, therefore this project aimed to evolve the department’s approach to delivering this workshop.  The current module design contained a workshop on clinical skills, but it was loosely designed as a large group exercise which was delivered slightly differently for each cohort.  This prevented students from fully embedding their learning through opportunities to practise skills in alongside controlled formative assessment.

Implementation

Equipment purchase: As part of this project matched funding was received from the School to support the purchase of simulation equipment which meant a range a clinical skills teaching tools could be utilised in the workshops.  This step was undertaking collaboratively with the physician associate programme to share learning and support meeting objective 2 across the School.

Workshop design: the workshops were redesigned by the module convenor, Sue Slade, to focus on specific aspects of clinical skills that small groups could focus on with a facilitator.  The facilitators were supported to embed the clinical skills equipment within the activities therefore promoting students in active learning activities.  The equipment allowed students the opportunity to simulate the skills test to identify if they could demonstrate competence at the Knows How and Shows How level of Miller’s Pyramid of Clinical Competence.  Where possible the workshop stations were facilitated by practising clinical practitioners.  This step was focused on meeting objectives 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Workbook design: a workbook was produced that students could use to identify core clinical skills they required in their scope of practice and thus needed to practise in the workshop and further in their workplace-based learning.  This scaffolding supported their transition to the Does level of Miller’s Pyramid of Clinical Competence.  This step was focused on meeting objectives 1 and 3.

Impact

All four objectives were met and have since been mapped to the principles of Curriculum Framework to provide evidence of their impact.

Mastery of the discipline / discipline based / contextual: this project has supported the academic team to redesign the workshop around the evolving baseline core knowledge and skills required of students.  Doing this collaboratively between programme teams ensures it is fit for purpose.

Personal effectiveness and self-awareness / diverse and inclusive: the positive staff and student feedback received reflects that the workshop provides a better environment for student learning, enabling them to reflect on their experiences and take their learning back to their workplace more easily.

Learning cycle: the student feedback has shown that they want more of this type of training and so the team have designed a new stand-alone module to facilitate extending the impact of increasingly advanced clinical skills training to a wider student cohort.

Reflections

What went well? The purchase of the equipment and redesigning the workshop was a relatively simple task for an engaged team, and low effort for the potential return in improved experience.  By having one lead for the workshop, whilst another wrote the workbook and purchased the equipment, this ensured that staff across the team could contribute as change champions.  Recruitment for an advanced nurse practitioner to support the team more broadly was completed quickly and provided support and guidance across the year.

What did not go as well?  Whilst the purchase of the equipment and workshop redesign was relatively simple, encouraging clinical practitioners to engage with the workshop proved much harder.  We were unable to recruit consistent clinical support which made it harder to fully embed the project aims in a routine approach to teaching the workshop.  We considered using the expertise of the physician associate programme team but, as anticipated, timetabling made it impossible to coordinate the staffing needs.

Reflections: The success of the project lay in having the School engaged in supporting the objectives and the programme team invested in improving the workshop.  Focusing this project on a small part of the module meant it remained achievable to complete one cycle of change to deliver initial positive outcomes whilst planning for the following cycles of change needed to fully embed the objectives into routine practice.

Follow up

In planning the next series of workshops, we plan to draw more widely on the University alumni from the physician associate programme to continue the collaborative approach and attract clinical practitioners more willing to support us who are less constrained by timetables and clinical activities.

Based on student and staff feedback there is clearly a desire for more teaching and learning of this approach and being able to launch a new standalone module in 2020 is a successful output of this project.

Links and References

Miller, G.E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med, 65(9):S63-7.

Developing Diversity and Inclusion teaching: The importance of D&I and Ethical Practice

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Dr Allán Laville, Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, a.laville@reading.ac.uk

Overview

In the training of Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners (PWPs), teaching must include a focus on Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) as well how this relates to ethical practice. Therefore, I created a 15-minute screencast that tied key D&I principles to clinical practice, with a particular focus on ethical practice within this area.

Objectives

  1. To support students in being aware of key D&I and ethical principles and how these principles relate to their clinical practice.
  2. To support students in writing a 500-word reflective piece on the importance of considering D&I in their ethically-sound, clinical practice.

Context

PWP programmes include D&I training within the final module of the clinical programme, but to meet the British Psychological Society (BPS) programme standards, D&I training needs to be incorporated throughout. Furthermore, this training should be tied to the BPS programme standard on Ethical Practice teaching (Module PY3EAA1/PYMEAA).

Implementation

The first step was to identify the key sources to include within the screencast. These were wide ranging from legislation (Equality Act, 2010), positive practice guides (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies) and ethical practice guidelines (British Psychological Society) and reference to the University’s Fitness to Practise policy.

The second step was to think about how students could engage with the screencast in a meaningful way. Based on an earlier T&L Exchange project report of mine (https://sites.reading.ac.uk/t-and-l-exchange/2019/07/23/developing-innovative-teaching-the-importance-of-reflective-practice/), I wanted to include an element of reflective practice. Students were asked to write a 500-word reflective piece on their own take-home points from the screencast and preferably, following the Rolfe, Freshwater, and Jasper (2001) reflective model of: a) what is being considered, b)  so what, which I say to my students is the ‘why care?’ part! And c) now what i.e. from reviewing what and so what, detailing your SMART action plan for future clinical practice.

Example by Will Warley, Part 3 MSci Applied Psychology (Clinical) student.

Impact

The student feedback about the screencast and completing the reflective piece has been very positive. This has been across both the MSci in Applied Psychology (Clinical) as well as the Charlie Waller Institute (CWI), PG (Cert) in Evidence-Based Psychological Treatments (IAPT Pathway). The training materials have also been shared with members of the SPCLS Board of Studies for CWI training programmes.

In regard to national level impact, I have presented this innovative approach to D&I teaching at the BPS Programme Liaison Day, which included the BPS PWP Training Committee and Programme Directors from across the UK. The presentation was received very well including requests to disseminate the materials that we use in the teaching at UoR. Therefore, these materials have now been circulated to all PWP training providers in the UK to inform their D&I provision.

Reflections

One core reason for the success of this activity was the commitment and creativity of our students! Some students used software to create excellent mind maps, interactive presentations or a YouTube video! There was even an Instagram account used to illustrate the main take-home points from the screencast, which I thought was particularly innovative. Overall, I was absolutely delighted to see such high levels of student engagement with topics that are so important – both personally and professionally.

In regard to better implementation, it is possible that slightly more guidance could have been provided regarding how to approach the reflective task, but the brief of ‘be as creative as possible!’ worked very well indeed!

Follow up

I will be following up with the BPS PWP Training Committee in 2020 to see how this activity has developed within other PWP training providers! We will then create a summary of all innovative approaches to including D&I in PWP programmes and how these meet the programme standards.

Links

https://my.cumbria.ac.uk/media/MyCumbria/Documents/ReflectiveModelRolfe.pdf

Student YouTube video as submission on reflective task: https://youtu.be/hMU6F_dknP4

Electronic Management of Assessment: Creation of an e-Portfolio for PWP training programmes

By laurenmccann Comment Closed

Tamara Wiehe, Charlotte Allard & Hayley Scott (PWP Clinical Educators)

Charlie Waller Institute; School of Psychology and Clinical Language

Overview

In line with the University’s transition to Electronic Management of Assessment (EMA), we set out to create an electronic Portfolio (e-Portfolio) for use on our Psychological Well-being Practitioner (PWP) training programmes to replace an existing hard-copy format. The project spanned almost 1 year (October 2018- September 2019) as we took the time to consider the implications on students, supervisors in our IAPT NHS services, University administrators and markers. Working closely with the Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) team led us to a viable solution that has been launched with our new cohorts from September 2019.

Image of portfolio template cover sheet

Objectives

  • Create an electronic Portfolio in line with EMA that overcomes existing issues and improves the experience for students, NHS supervisors, administrators and markers.
  • Work collaboratively with our all key stakeholders to ensure that the new format satisfies their various needs.

Context

A national requirement for PWPs is to complete a competency-based assessment in the form of a Portfolio that spans across their three modules of their training. Our students are employed by NHS services across the South of England and many live close to their service rather than the University.

The issue? The previous hard-copy format meant that students spent time and money printing their work and travelling to the University to submit/re-submit it. University administrators and markers reported issues with transporting the folders to markers and storing them, especially with the larger cohorts.

The solution… To resolve these issues by transitioning to an electronic version of the Portfolio.

Implementation

  1. October 2018: An initial meeting with TEL was held in order to discuss the practicalities of an online Portfolio submission.
  2. October 2018 – March 2019: TEL created several prototypes of options for submission via Blackboard including the use of the journal tool and a zip file. Due to practicalities, the course team decided on a single-file word document template.
  3. April – May 2019: Student focus groups were conducted with both programmes (undergraduate and postgraduate) where the same assessment sits to gain their feedback with the potential solution we had created. Using the outcomes of the focus groups and staff meetings, it was unanimously agreed that the proposed solution was a viable option for use with our future cohorts.
  4. June 2019: TEL delivered a training session for staff and admin to become familiar with the process from both student and staff perspective. TEL also created a guidance document for administrators on how to set up the assignment on Blackboard.
  5. July – August 2019: Materials including the template and rubrics were amended and formatted in order to meet requirements for online submission for both MSci and PWP courses. Resources were also created for students to access on Blackboard such as screen casts on how to access, utilise and submit the Portfolio using the electronic format; the aim of this is to improve accessibility for all students participating on the course.
  6. September 2019: Our IAPT services were notified of the changes as the supervisors there are responsible for reviewing and ‘signing off’ on the student’s performance before the Portfolio is submitted to the University for a final check.

Image of 'how to' screen cast resources on Blackboard

Impact

Thus far, the project has achieved the objectives it set out to. The template for submission is now available for students to complete throughout their training course. This will modernise the submission process and be less burdensome for the students, supervisors, administrators and markers.

Image of the new portfolio process

The students in the focus group reported that this would significantly simplify the process and relieve the barriers they often reported with completing and submitting the Portfolio. Currently, there have not been any unexpected outcomes with the development of the Portfolio. However, we aim to review the process with the first online Portfolio submission in June 2020.

Reflections

Upon reflection, the development of the online Portfolio has so far been a success. Following student feedback, we listened to what would improve their experience of completing the Portfolio. From this we developed an online Portfolio, meeting the requirements across two BPS accredited courses which will be used for future cohorts of students.

Additionally, the collaboration between staff, students and the TEL team, has led to improved communication across teams with new ideas shared; this is something we have continued to incorporate into our teaching and learning projects.

An area to develop for the future, would be to utilise a specific Portfolio software. Initially, we wanted to use a journal tool on Blackboard, however, it was not suitable to meet the needs of the course (most notably exporting the submission and mark sheet to external parties). We will continue to review these options and will continue to gain feedback from future cohorts.

 

Universally Speaking: crossing cultural & generational boundaries – a seminar series

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Dan Jones, School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences, d.jones6@reading.ac.uk

 

Overview

The ‘Universally Speaking’ series provides a platform for students, staff and community members to exchange ideas on culture, heritage, customs, values and traditions, via a seminar presentation. Each seminar is followed by an informal drinks reception to facilitate further discussion and interactions between the different communities.

Objectives

  • To offer an outstanding holistic student learning experience by promoting extra-curricular activities in the School.
  • To celebrate and promote the diverse School: lends on the diverse experiences of our staff, students and local communities to help students become global citizens and directly experience the benefits of a diverse and multinational learning environment.
  • To equip students with the aspirations, confidence and skills: opportunity to present and talk to a range of different people.

Context

The School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences is a wonderfully diverse School – this series was launched to promote and celebrate this diversity. The series provides an opportunity for members of the School to reflect upon different experiences and perspectives of the world, and to take a moment to discuss these with others. Ultimately, it is a tool to promote and explore difference, leading to greater tolerance and acceptance of it.

Implementation

Once funding was gained, along with the student partner, we formed a student committee to help support the different aspects of the series: promotion, advertisement, organisation, and invitations to community members. The committee was made up of five students, and two members of staff (myself included). The seminars were run on a monthly basis, starting in February 2019 and running until June 2019. Talks were delivered by a range of volunteers: UG students, PGR students, PCLS staff and other University members (including the University Chaplain, who is hopefully going to repeat their highly interesting session).

Overall, the series was a success, with positive feedback received and a consistent attendance, including up to eight members of the public attending the final session of the academic year. Due to the positive reception, we are hoping to make this a permanent fixture on the PCLS calendar.

Impact

The feedback on the series has been overwhelmingly positive. Quotes from attendees nicely summarise the benefits that have been gained from the series so far:

“The ability to increase my knowledge on other countries education and research style/system. Learn about peoples’ experience – first-hand experience. Love it!”

“Hearing about the differences from personal perspectives. Helping people embracing the differences.”

“Really interesting to hear about cultures and customs in other countries and how one should consider them when assessing actions and situations.”

Many of the quotes reflect on learning about and understanding difference; skills that lead to more tolerance and acceptance of difference – ultimately, this is what the series contributes to the PCLS community.

Reflections

The only negative of the series was attendance: considering the size of PCLS, we only averaged around 40 attendees across the series. There were several reasons why this may have been the case, including the timing, exam periods and advertising. We are aiming to address these issues if the series is to continue. One step that we have taken is to utilise the skills of the School marketing officer to help with promotion and advertising.

Follow up

The launch of the seminar series was made possible with PLANT funding – this funding ended in July 2019. To maintain the series over the course of the next academic year, and to enable collaboration with other groups across the University, additional funding has been sought from the School of PCLS. We already have the next seminar planned for January 2020, in collaboration with the UoR Islamic Society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rev Dr Mark Laynesmith, Anglican Chaplain at the University, reports on a project set up with the University’s Institute of Education to explore increasing knowledge diversity among school children.

‘How did I do?’ Finding new ways to describe the standards of foreign language performance. A follow-up project on the redesign of two marking schemes (DLC)

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Rita Balestrini and Elisabeth Koenigshofer, School of Literature and Languages, r.balestrini@reading; e.koenigshofer@reading.ac.uk

Overview

Working in collaboration with two Final Year students, we designed two ‘flexible’, ‘minimalist’ rubric templates usable and adaptable across different languages and levels, to provide a basis for the creation of level specific, and potentially task specific, marking schemes where sub-dimensions can be added to the main dimensions. The two marking templates are being piloted this year in the DLC. The project will feature in this year’s TEF submission.

Objectives

Design, in partnership with two students, rubric templates for the evaluation and feedback of writing tasks and oral presentations in foreign languages which:

  • were adaptable across languages and levels of proficiency
  • provided a more inclusive and engaging form of feedback
  • responded to the analysis of student focus group discussions carried out for a previous TLDF-funded project

Context

As a follow-up to a teacher-learner collaborative appraisal of rubrics used in MLES, now DLC, we designed two marking templates in partnership with two Final Year students, who had participated in the focus groups from a previous project and were employed through Campus Jobs. ‘Acknowledgement of effort’, ‘encouragement’, ‘use of non-evaluative language’, ‘need for and, at the same time, distrust of, objective marking’ were recurrent themes that had emerged from the analysis of the focus group discussions and clearly appeared to cause anxiety for students.

Implementation

We organised a preliminary session to discuss these findings with the two student partners. We suggested some articles about ‘complexity theory’ as applied to second language learning, (Kramsch, 2012; Larsen-Freeman, 2012; 2015a; 2015b; 2017) with the aim of making our theoretical perspective explicit and transparent to them. A second meeting was devoted to planning collaboratively the structure of two marking schemes for writing and presentations. The two students worked independently to produce examples of standard descriptors which avoided the use of evaluative language and emphasised achievement rather than shortcomings. At a third meeting they presented and discussed their proposals with us. At the last meetings, we continued working to finalise the templates and the two visual learning charts they had suggested. Finally, the two students wrote a blog post to recount their experience of this collaborative work.

The two students appreciated our theoretical approach, felt that it was in tune with their own point of view and that it could support the enhancement of the assessment and marking process. They also found resources on their own, which they shared with us – including rubrics from other universities. They made valuable suggestions, gave us feedback on our ideas and helped us to find alternative terms when we were struggling to avoid the use of non-evaluative language for our descriptors. They also suggested making use of some visual elements in the marking and feedback schemes in order to increase immediateness and effectiveness.

Impact

The two marking templates are being piloted this year in the DLC. They were presented to colleagues over four sessions during which the ideas behind their design were explained and discussed. Further internal meetings are planned. These conversations, already begun with the previous TLDF-funded project on assessment and feedback, are contributing to the development of a shared discourse on assessment, which is informed by research and scholarship. The two templates have been designed in partnership with students to ensure accessibility and engagement with the assessment and feedback process. This is regarded as an outstanding practice in the ‘Assessment and feedback benchmarking tool’ produced by the National Union of Students and is likely to feature positively in this year’s TEF submission.

Reflections

Rubrics have become mainstream, especially within certain university subjects like Foreign Languages. They have been introduced to ensure accountability and transparency in marking practices, but they have also created new problems of their own by promoting a false sense of objectivity in marking and grading. The openness and unpredictability of complex performance in foreign languages and of the dynamic language learning process itself are not adequately reflected in the detailed descriptors of the marking and feedback schemes commonly used for the objective numerical evaluation of performance-based assessment in foreign languages. As emerged from the analysis of focus group discussions conducted in the department in 2017, the lack of understanding and engagement with the feedback provided by this type of rubrics can generate frustration in students. Working in partnership with them, rather than simply listening to their voices or seeing them as evaluators of their own experience, helped us to design minimalist and flexible marking templates, which make use of sensible and sensitive language, introduce visual elements to increase immediateness and effectiveness, leave a considerable amount of space for assessors to comment on different aspects of an individual performance and provide ‘feeding forward’ feedback. This type of ‘partnership’ can be challenging because it requires remaining open to unexpected outcomes. Whether it can bring about real change depends on how its outcomes are going to interact with the educational ecosystems in which it is embedded.

Follow up

The next stage of the project will involve colleagues in the DLC who will be using the two templates to contribute to the creation of a ‘bank’ of descriptors by sharing the ones they will develop to tailor the templates for specific stages of language development, language objectives, language tasks, or dimensions of student performance. We also intend to encourage colleagues teaching culture modules to consider using the basic structure of the templates to start designing marking schemes for the assessment of student performance in their modules.

Links

An account written by the two students partners involved in the project can be found here:

Working in partnership with our lecturers to redesign language marking schemes

The first stages of this ongoing project to enhance the process of assessing writing and speaking skills in the Department of Languages and Cultures (DLC, previously MLES) are described in the following blog entries:

National Union of Students 2017. The ‘Assessment and feedback benchmarking tool’ is available at:

http://tsep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool.pdf

References

Bloxham, S. 2013. Building ‘standard’ frameworks. The role of guidance and feedback in supporting the achievement of learners. In S. Merry et al. (eds.) 2013. Reconceptualising feedback in Higher Education. Abingdon: Routledge.

Bloxham, S. and Boyd, P. 2007. Developing effective assessment in Higher Education. A practical guide. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International.

Bloxham, S., Boyd, P. and Orr, S. 2011. Mark my words: the role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading practices. Studies in Higher Education 36 (6): 655-670.

Bloxham, S., den-Outer, B., Hudson J. and Price M. 2016. Let’s stop the pretence of consistent marking: exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria. Assessment in Higher Education 41 (3): 466-481.

Brooks, V. 2012. Marking as judgement. Research Papers in Education. 27 (1): 63-80.

Gottlieb, D. and Moroye, C. M. 2016. The perceptive imperative: Connoisseurship and the temptation of rubrics. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy 13 (2): 104-120.

HEA 2012. A Marked Improvement. Transforming assessment in HE. York: The Higher Education Academy.

Healey, M., Flint, A. and Harrington K. 2014. Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York: The Higher Education Academy.

Kramsch, C. 2012. Why is everyone so excited about complexity theory in applied linguistics? Mélanges 33: 9-24.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 2012. The emancipation of the language learner. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. 2(3): 297-309.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 2015a. Saying what we mean: Making a case for ‘language acquisition’ to become ‘language development’. Language Teaching 48 (4): 491-505.

Larsen-Freeman, L. 2015b. Complexity Theory. In VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (eds.) 2015. Theories in Second Language Acquisition. An Introduction. New York: Routledge: 227-244.

Larsen-Freeman, D. 2017. Just learning. Language Teaching 50 (3): 425-437.

Merry, S., Price, M., Carless, D. and Taras, M. (eds.) 2013. Reconceptualising feedback in Higher Education. Abingdon: Routledge.

O’Donovan, B., Price, M. and Rust, C. 2004. Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education 9 (3): 325-335.

Price, M. 2005. Assessment standards: the role of communities of practice and the scholarship of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 30 (3): 215-230.

Sadler, D. R. 2009. Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment and evaluation in Higher Education 34 (2): 159-179.

Sadler, D. R. 2013. The futility of attempting to codify academic achievement standards. Higher Education 67 (3): 273-288.

Torrance, H. 2007. Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education 14 (3): 281-294.

VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.) 2015. Theories in Second Language Acquisition, 2nd edition. Routledge: 227-244.

Yorke, M. 2011. Summative assessment dealing. Dealing with the ‘Measurement Fallacy’. Studies in Higher Education 36 (3): 251-273.

Stories of Our Studies

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Simon Floodgate, Institute of Education, s.floodgate@reading.ac.uk

Overview

A form of inter-active, reflective practice for students in which Playback Theatre (an improvisatory form) is used to ‘play back’ individual stories of students’ experiences regarding all aspects of their studies.  This process can support emotional literacy and well-being and promote professionalism in students at all levels of study.

Objectives

  • To develop students’ ability to both express and assert themselves in the world and to support them to be more successful within their studies. (TLDF Priority 2.2)
  • To support students to feel valued, gain greater awareness of their skills and articulate these to better address the challenges they face in the field of education and the workplace (TLDF Priority 2.3)

Context

To address concerns regarding student well-being and emotional literacy as highlighted both nationally, within the University and the IOE where workload and pressures have specifically impacted upon initial teacher training (ITT) students who are transitioning into teaching professionals.

Implementation

The pilot year, within the IOE, was focussed upon the training of a student performance group with a couple of performance-workshops undertaken with Secondary ITT students and IOE staff.  Both sessions were evaluated and the students involved as the performance team, were also asked to evaluate the benefits to them of engagement in the project.  The project enters a second year (2019-20), with further funding, to adapt the contact sessions.  This will lead to two different versions of Stories of Our Studies.  A full length, two-hour version will incorporate a full Playback Theatre performance of 1-1/2 hours duration in a more public setting.  A second shorter version will align the performance elements with discursive and written aspects focussed upon critical incident analysis (Lister and Crisp, 2007).  This will blend the elements for more captive audiences within module teaching sessions.

Impact

As a pilot project, Stories of Our Studies achieved its objectives.  A student team was trained to deliver the contact sessions alongside the project leader.  The project was presented to both PGCE Secondary ITT students and IOE staff, enabling feedback from different perspectives.  Staff were able to appreciate the potential impact upon student well-being.  The PGCE students were able to effectively reflect upon their learning, in particular focussing upon their school teaching placements. They were able to subjectively reflect upon how these experiences felt to them but also objectively appreciate what occurred, how their experiences were similar or different to others and to be able to consider themselves as professional teachers soon to embark upon their chosen profession. The TLDF priorities 2.2 and 2.3 were both met.

Reflections

The enthusiasm and willingness of the UG students who trained in the form was exceptional and their empathy and artistry were commented upon following both performance-workshops.  This was a major factor in the pilot’s success.  The structure of the session with the main performance aspect following some Morenian sociometry facilitated a relaxed and intimate atmosphere thus enabling audience members to openly share.  The use of the form – Playback Theatre – was vital to the success of the pilot.

Although participants gained a lot from their engagement in the session, there is a further need to develop the sustainability of the reflective process.  To this end the project will be developed into longer and shorter iterations (as mentioned above).  There remains some difficulty in encouraging students to attend extra-curricular sessions and, for many, to attend events in which drama/theatre are mentioned.  This is a difficulty in attracting both student-performers and audience members.  Word of mouth will help and, like a stone gathering moss, momentum will attract more interest and students to engage with it.

Follow up

See above. The project has entered a second year with further TL enhancement (mini) funding.  It is evolving with the incorporation of critical incident analysis and a further blending of the performance and written reflection elements.

We already have more performance-workshops booked in the diary for 2019-20 than for last year, including presentation at the University’s T&L conference in January 2020.

Contact has been made with the RUSU society, Open Minds, to investigate the potential of some performances to a larger student audience outside of timetabled teaching.

The performance-workshop, photographed last year, will be filmed to create a marketing online clip to promote the project.  Recruitment of new student-performer members has already begun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo of Playback Theatre in action

Capturing and Developing Students’ Assessment Literacy

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Hilary Harris, Maria Danos, Natthapoj Vincent Trakulphadetkrai, Stephanie Sharp, Cathy Tissot, Anna Tsakalaki, Rowena Kasprowicz – Institute of Education

hilary.a.harris@reading.ac.uk

Overview

The Institute of Education’s (IoE) T&L Group on Assessment Literacy worked collaboratively with 300+ students to ascertain the clarity level of assessment criteria used in all programmes across the IoE.  The findings were used to develop a report containing key findings and recommendations, which were then shared with programme directors. The findings also fed into the development of a Glossary of Common Assessment Terms to help develop students’ assessment literacy. SDTLs and DDTLs of almost all UoR Schools and the Academic Director of the UoR Malaysia campus have now either had one-to-one meetings with us or contacted us to explore how our group’s work could be adopted and adapted in their own setting.

Objectives

The aims of the activity were to:

  • Develop students’ assessment literacy, specifically in terms of their understanding of assessment criteria which are used in marking rubrics
  • Engage students in reviewing the clarity of assessment criteria and terms used in marking rubrics
  • Engage programme directors in reflecting on the construction of their marking rubrics
  • Develop an IoE-wide glossary of common assessment terms

Context

The IoE has set up T&L Groups to enhance different aspects of our teaching and learning practices as part of the peer review process. The T&L Group on Assessment Literacy has been meeting since 2017, and is made up of seven academics from a wide range of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.

As marking rubrics are now used for all summative assessments at the IoE (and to some extent across the University), ensuring that students have a good understanding of the embedded assessment terms matters as the criteria inform students of what is expected of them for a particular assessment. Moreover, the marking rubrics can also be used by students to develop their draft work before submission.

Implementation

The Group asked 300+ students across all the IoE programmes to indicate the clarity level of their programme’s assessment criteria by circling any terms on the marking rubric that they were confused by. The Group collated the information and created a summary table for each programme, ranking assessment terms according to how often the terms were highlighted by the students.  Each group member then wrote a brief report for each programme with key findings and recommendations on alternative assessment terms that are clearer (e.g. to replace ‘recapitulation’ with ‘summary’; ‘perceptive’ with ‘insightful’, etc.). In some other cases where the use of specific terminology is essential (e.g. scholarship or ethics), the Group’s advice is for module convenors to spend some time within classroom to explain such terms to students and refer students to the assessment glossary for further support and examples. Both the Report and the Glossary were disseminated to programme directors and their teams, who were then able to use the evidence in the report to reflect on their programme’s assessment criteria and consider with their team any changes that they would like to make that would make the marking rubric more accessible and easier to understand by the students.

Impact

At the IoE, the work has already made an impact in that programme directors have reflected on their assessment criteria alongside their teams and have acted on the Group’s recommendations (e.g. replacing problematic terms in their marking rubrics with terms that are easier to understand by students.) The Glossary has been used by IoE programme directors and module convenors when introducing the assessment and their marking rubrics. The Glossary has also been uploaded onto Blackboard for students to consult independently. The feedback from students on the Glossary has also been very positive. For example, one student commented that “The definitions were useful and the examples provided were even more helpful for clarifying exactly what the terms mean. The glossary is laid out in a clear and easy to follow way for each key term”.

Beyond the IoE, impact is being generated. Specifically, SDTLs and DDTLs of almost all UoR Schools and the Academic Director of the UoR Malaysia campus have now either had one-to-one meetings with us or contacted us to explore how our group’s work could be adopted and adapted in their own setting. The Group has been invited to give talks on its work at CQSD events and the School of Law’s T&L seminar. The Group is also currently working with academic colleagues at other universities (nationally and internationally) to replicate this Group’s work and generate impact beyond the UoR.

Reflections

The activity was very successful as:

  • The Group had a clear focus of what it wanted to achieve
  • The Group was given time to carry out its work
  • There was strong leadership of the team, with each member being allocated specific contributions to the project

The process of involving students in reviewing terms on marking rubrics has empowered them to treat the documents critically and start a conversation with their lecturers about the purpose of marking rubrics, as well as being involved in as partners in making the marking rubric work for them.

There were some challenges that needed to be overcome/ ideas for improving the project:

  • When presented to colleagues at the Staff Day, some members of staff expressed the view that ‘tricky’ terms should be retained as developing an understanding of these terms is part of the transition to HE study. This was recognised in our report which suggests that technical terms (e.g. methodology) could be retained provided that they are explained to students.

Follow up

The Group plans to spend the 2019/2020 academic year generating and capturing the impact of its work across and beyond the UoR.

Reframing Identity 360

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Kate Allen, Department of Art, k.allen@reading.ac.uk

Overview

An investigative artwork that explores identity using 360 cameras developed through practical, alumni led workshops and socially engaged art with current art students, school groups and the general public. Part of ArtLab Movement’ at Tate Exchange (TEx) 2019 at the Tate Modern on March and be archived on the ArtLab website.

Objectives

- Contribute to live art event/out-reach work experience led by Alumni at Tate Exchange 1-3 March 2019

- Explore identity capture with 360 cameras

- 360 cameras experimentation including designing, capturing, printing and editing.

- Create portraits with purpleSTARS, people with learning disabilities and children from Widening Participation schools in Reading.

Context

Reframing Identity explored self-portraits in shot in 360, developed as a response to Tania Bruguera’s Turbine Hall Commission concerning institutional power, borders and migration. Can 360 self-portraits raise awareness of how interconnected we are, when no person is ever behind the 360 camera, everyone is included.

Implementation

Alumni and Virtual Reality artist Kassie Headon researched ideas in response to Tania Bruguera installation at Tate Modern inspired by Bruguera’s ideas on inclusion, connecting to Kate Allen’s research with purpleSTARS a group of people with and with learning disabilities who aim to make museums more inclusive. Kassie demonstrated to students and purpleSTARS how to use the GoPro Fusion Camera and the app to edit 360 content. Activities to share the 360 self portrait concept with visitors were developed including drawing cylindrical self-portraits which they could then wear on their heads for a 360 selfie. Students facilitated the Reframing Identity 360 workshop as part of ArtLab Movement at TEx. Using 360 cameras was a new experience and concept for our students and most people visiting the TEx. The 360 self-portraits were exhibited via live video stream from the 360 cameras on an iPad displayed at the Tate and let participants explore the views, which they could manipulate and distort to create the desired effect. Participants 360 self-portraits were also printed or sent to the visitors phone.

Impact

The impact of Reframing Identity 360 created access and inclusion with new technologies for students and the public. Experiencing the live video stream frequently gave visitors an ‘Oh Wow’ moment. TEx gave an opportunity for research led teaching with Dr Allen purpleSTARS, Alumni Kassie Headon and current BA students to explore the concept of 360 self-portraits gain professional practice experience facilitating the workshops and technical skills working, with the 360 camera. The 360 cameras are now part of the digital equipment available to students with a core team of ArtLab students now familiar with their potential and how to use them.

Reflections

Working with new technologies in collaboration with Alumni, ArtLab students and purpleSTARS led to new perspectives on ideas of inclusion and self -portraiture. The experimental research occurred in response to work at the Tate and in collaboration with visitors to TEx. The project built capacity and awareness of new technology being introduced into the Art Dept learning through research and practical experiences the potential to create artworks and inclusive engagements.

Follow up

Kassie Headen continued to work with the 360 camera collaborating with widening participation schools during the ArtLab summer workshops 2019 exploring spaces and manipulating 2d versions of 3d space.

We are developing further research collaborations and research led teaching opportunities for ideas exploring inclusion in museums and immersive virtual reality artworks/experiences using Oculus Rift technology.

Links and References

We created a 360 recording of our Reframing Identity event at the Tate https://www.thinglink.com/mediacard/1158753748827242499?autoplay=0&autorotate=0&displaytitle=1&rel=1

ArtLab documents the workshop

https://readingartlab.com/2019/04/25/artlab-tate-exchange-visual-diary-2nd-and-3rd-march-2019/

purpleSTARS web documentation

https://purplestars.org.uk/2017/11/12/purplestars-at-tate-gallery-2018/

Tate Exchange webpage

https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/tate-exchange/workshop/reading-assembly-movement

A ‘Sherlock’ Approach to Physician Associate Learning: Using Workshops to Promote Critical Thought

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Dr Sarah Greenwood, Lecturer, Physician Associate Programme, School of Chemistry, Food and Pharmacy, s.l.greenwood@reading.ac.uk

Physician Associate (PA) students are talented life-sciences postgraduates who must quickly develop critical thinking skills in relation to medicine. Our PA programme focuses on the core skill of applying bioscientific and medical theory to skills of history taking, clinical examination, investigation diagnosis and treatment in order to produce safe, competent practitioners within two years.

Our student numbers have doubled in the five years since the programme began, and so as we strive to accommodate higher numbers, we witness greater diversity in learning styles. We recognised the need to promote advanced critical thinking amongst all our students in creative ways.

Firstly, funding secured access for all our students to McGraw Hill’s ‘Connect Online’, (which included an anatomy and physiology e-book, histology slides, media files, assessment tests and a cadaver dissection) for students to work though system by system. This online package proved very popular with the students whereby the overall average grade over 18 assignments was 94.47%.  Students’ engagement could be regularly monitored by the lead lecturer and areas of difficulty were successfully addressed.

Secondly, funding enabled us to develop in-house ‘PA workshop investigation packs’ – which were used by groups of PA students in our clinical skills suite, and online. The packs were themed according to body systems, and consisted of series of work stations containing instructions and various learning materials. Our PA students worked together to tackle core practical and theoretical concepts, working out solutions together in a systematic manner – hence using a ‘Sherlock’ detective approach to their learning!  The funding covered the cost of all our workshop materials, in particular laminated displays/charts, questions and visual guides; these are particularly valued because they are reusable for future cohorts of PA students.

The learning processes aimed to mirror the role of the Physician Associate in practice. As such, the learning packs provided engaging, challenging and motivational learning to develop essential skills safely and effectively.

The effectiveness of the workshops became apparent early on – as evidenced by the number of students passing their formative practical examinations at first attempt (shown below).

Formative results without workshops                        Formative results with workshops

Graph showing improved results following workshop

In the summative end-of-year objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs): 28% of our workshop students achieved > 80% in these practical exams, with 5 students achieving 90% or above  – this exceeded the previous cohort’s results where only 8% of students scored over 80% and none scored 90% or above. There was an overall improvement in mean performance from 66% to 70%.Graph showing improved results following workshop

 

The student evaluations were very positive; all students were able to articulate what they had gained from the experience:

“Examination station was useful because I was able to practice examination skills in an -almost- clinical environment, with the help of teachers. Another station I found useful was the BNF station. It gave me an understanding of how to use the BNF in a given time frame, and find what I am looking for. The BNF station also helped me identify a lot of drugs for certain conditions, which I would not have known otherwise”

“The upper and lower neurological examinations were very useful. This is because I found the overlap and structure similar and reinforce the other. I also found the breast examination very useful because I am less likely to get patient experience with this as a male student”.

“Listening to the heart murmurs station with questions on hypertension – allowed us to work through different case examples”

The lecturers and students all recognised the value of the workshops, and this fun, interactive and relaxed teaching approach has now been formally integrated into the curriculum. We are most grateful for the support of the University’s teaching and learning enhancement scheme which funded this intervention.