How should MSc Placements be assessed?  Gathering the views of students to inform assessment

How should MSc Placements be assessed? Gathering the views of students to inform assessment

 

By: Paul Jenkins, School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences, p.jenkins@reading.ac.uk
two women sitting on stairs having a conversation
Image credit: Buro Millennial on Pexels.

Overview

The School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences (PCLS) offers several postgraduate degree programmes, nearly all of which include a placement element.  Getting the assessment right is an important challenge to fairly evaluating students on placement.  As part of an ongoing review of programmes with placement components, a piece of work was commissioned to look at how placements should be assessed within PCLS.

Objectives

The primary aims of this project were to explore:

  • What elements of placements MSc students felt were important to assess; and
  • How MSc students felt these elements should be assessed.

Context

As a ‘taught’ component of the course, any assessment needs to be carefully planned and contribute “directly to learning and skill development” (UoR, 2023).  Student feedback indicated that the current method of assessing placements, which comprises a written report of what was done and learned on placement, was unsatisfactory.  For instance, students felt that it did not reflect the amount of work put in over the course of the placement and that the final grade was too reliant on one piece of written work.

It was felt that gaining insight into current students’ views would be helpful to inform future changes to the way(s) in which MSc placements might be assessed, making this process proportionate and more useful for students.

Implementation

In February 2023, a grant from the UoR T&L Initiatives Fund was awarded to address the question of how MSc placements should be assessed.

A focus group discussion was conducted in June 2023, with participants recruited from PCLS MSc students. The focus group lasted around 45 minutes.  In addition, a 1:1 interview was held in July 2023 with another individual who wanted to share their views on the subject, and this is included to add detail to the data obtained from the focus group.

To frame the focus group and interview, open-ended questions were developed to explore participants’ experiences, opinions, and thoughts regarding placement and its assessment. The facilitator (a member of staff within PCLS) was present to encourage a relaxed atmosphere and supplement prepared questions with prompts to gather participants’ views and pursue themes relevant to the research questions.  The following is a sample of the questions asked during the interview:

  • What are the important elements of an MSc placement to be assessed?
  • How do you think MSc placements should be assessed?

The focus group was audio-recorded and the facilitator also kept notes to help keep track of themes and provide a more holistic picture of the discussion (Kornbluh, 2023).  The students were also given a document on different types of assessment and an exemplar of how a placement might be assessed to act as ‘stimulus material’ to prompt detailed discussion of their views on assessment.

Impact

The findings of the discussions provided insight into how students think placements should be assessed.  In terms what students considered important to be assessed, several different themes emerged:

  1. Assessing what was learned

Students talked about the importance of assessing what was learned, as opposed to a more cursory assessment of the time or activities spent in placement; for instance if: “technically, you put in the work but you didn’t actually apply it to anything”.  They reflected on the different environments and services within which placements took place, such as some being online and others being conducted in-person, and the importance of asking students “to prove” that they have engaged with placement.  The importance of certain skills (e.g., teamworking, presentation skills) learned on placement was highlighted, and also how such skills relate to students’ futures.

  1. Reflecting on one’s own development

Several students commented on how they have developed over the course of placement, and how this could be included in the assessment.  For instance, one student suggested that assessments could cover “what skills are we learning and how much are we able to apply it… and how we’re changing”.  Another noted discussions they have with their supervisors, whereby they “don’t just talk about what I do… [but] also some sort of reflection,” and that this brings in “reflection of how you see yourself”.

  1. Capturing diversity of experiences

The discussion also covered the reality that students will have different experiences of placement and how it can be “a very subjective experience,” including different types and levels of supervision.  For instance, one student commented that “the difference between person to person doesn’t always end in […] what they’re doing but also where they started from, because we also came into the programme with very different experiences”.  Students also highlighted differences in effort put in by those on placement, sharing the perception that there were some students “who are doing everything they possibly can” and others who “slowly move to the back… waiting for things to be handed to them”.

As part of the project, students also discussed how these skills and elements of placement should be assessed and, again, several themes arose:

  1. Continuous assessment

Students discussed having the opportunity to reflect ‘as they go’ and potential problems with a unitary, retrospective assessment.  Whilst they felt that having a reflective piece is “a nice idea,” one student commented how a lot of experiences gained on placement are difficult to recall at the time of submission.  They were also wary of having too much overlap between pieces of assessment, such as a reflective report and report of activities, and one student suggested being “forced to keep track of what you have been doing… in a detailed manner”.

Having been offered a list of potential assessment types to review in the focus group, one student felt that Reflective Diaries could be a better approach, perhaps used alongside an hours log.  Another suggested that Learning Logs with “certain points to learn about” could be helpful, perhaps covering “small reports on small things”.  Another suggested a “spaced out diary… or some form of input from our supervisor” could be of use, although also stated that they were unsure “how feasible that would be”.  It was also suggested that a website (or blog) could be used to help students log experiences and remain accountable.  Of note, some students chose to do this independently, with one saying: “I keep a log for myself”.

  1. Oral presentations

Many students mentioned advantages of an oral presentation over written work, including being “better able to express what I’m doing when I speak”.  Another commented that “when you write, you downplay” what was done on placement and that an oral form of assessment can be less constrained by “academic rules”.  Another student agreed, saying that a presentation would “let someone express [their experience] much better” and another concluded: “I think just talking would be better [than a written assignment]”.

Students suggested that oral presentations offer a chance to “talk through your experience” and also to field questions (e.g., “What do you think you specifically learned?”), which “makes you reflect a lot more”.  They also commented on the advantages of having other individuals present.  A student noted that presenting in a group means that you “get to see what other people have been doing [and] how they’ve developed their skills” which could even “change your perspective”.  It was commented that this approach can be “helpful to your peers as well, not just you”.

In a similar vein, one student suggested a viva voce (a one-to-one oral examination) whereby students “talk to our supervisors… and have that discussion” about their experiences.

  1. Assessing the thoroughness of the experience

One student suggested that having written assignments can limit introspection, and get one “writing it for the sake of having a reflective piece to submit” rather than discussing “how much have I grown”.  By contrast, they suggested that, in oral presentations, “flow is better – easier – and it really gives you cause to think about how you have developed”.  Further reflecting on oral presentations, one student commented that “it’s up to you how you present it and how you convey how much you’ve learned, what you’ve learned, how much you’ve grown” and “how you justify what you’ve done in your placement hours”.

Reflections

The insight gained from this work has proved invaluable when formulating assessment for the coming academic year.  Students’ views on the possibility of interpersonal assessment has informed the structure of oral presentations where students are given the opportunity to discuss an aspect of placement in front of their peers.  The marking criteria have been developed to incorporate some of this feedback, such as inclusion of autonomy, personal development, and showing relevant skills.

Whilst it only represents a small study, some practical suggestions could be proposed.  For instance, when evidencing and discussing their placement experiences, students were clear that oral presentation offers several advantages over written methods (a more common approach to work-based assessment; Ferns & Moore, 2012).  The importance of assessing skills development over time was highlighted, which could be considered when setting and providing structure for both formal and informal assessment (e.g., Bates et al., 2013).  Finally, it is perhaps also important for educators to keep in mind that students begin placement with different experiences, variation which has the potential to impact both their learning and achievement.

Follow up

The summer of 2024 will be the first-time oral presentations have run for several ‘placement’ modules.  We shall continue to refine the assessment itself (and marking criteria) based on further feedback and look into whether concerns about the written reflective piece remain; if so, an assessment that relies more on continuous engagement could be considered.

References

  • Bates, J. et al. (2013).  Student perceptions of assessment and feedback in longitudinal integrated clerkships.  Medical Education, 47, 362–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12087
  • Ferns, S., & Moore, K. (2012).  Assessing student outcomes in fieldwork placements: An overview of current practice.  Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(4), 207–224.
  • Kornbluh, M. (2023).  Facilitation strategies for conducting focus groups attending to issues of power.  Qualitative Research in Psychology, 20, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2022.2066036
  • University of Reading. (2023, December).  Assessment and the Curriculum Frameworkhttps://sites.reading.ac.uk/curriculum-framework/assessment/

Using student feedback to make university-directed learning on placement more engaging

Anjali Mehta Chandar: a.m.chandar@reading.ac.uk

Charlie Waller Institute, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences

 

Overview

Our vocational postgraduate courses in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy include University Directed Learning (UDL) days that are completed within the placement setting (e.g. their NHS trust). A qualitative student feedback survey allowed us to collaboratively adapt this format, with favourable outcomes in how interesting, enjoyable and useful the students found the day.

Objectives

Our objectives were as follows:

-To ascertain how interesting, enjoyable and useful the UDL days were, as perceived by the students, based on pedagogical findings that students engage best and are most satisfied, if these characteristics are met (e.g. Ramsden, 2003).

-To make improvements to the UDL days based on qualitative student feedback.

-To ascertain whether our improvements had made the UDL days more interesting, enjoyable and useful, as perceived by the next cohort of students.

Context

The Educational Mental Health Practitioner (EMHP) and Children’s Wellbeing Practitioner (CWP) programmes are one-year vocational postgraduate courses. The students are employed by an NHS trust, local authority or charity, and study at UoR to become qualified mental health practitioners.

UDL days make up a small proportion of the teaching days. They are self-guided teaching days, usually containing elements of e-learning, designed to complement and consolidate face to face teaching (live or remote). A combination of learning methods, including e-learning, is shown to be effective in increasing clinical skills (e.g. Sheikhaboumasoudi et al., 2018).

UDL days had been poorly received by our two 2019/2020 cohorts, according to feedback in the student rep meetings and Mentimeter feedback after each UDL e.g.  comments included: ‘there was too much [content] for one day’, ‘I felt pressured to fill [the form] out rather than focussing on the readings themselves’ and ‘[the reflective form] was too long and too detailed’. Whilst this gave us some ideas on changes to make, I was aware of the low completion rates of the Mentimeter feedback. Therefore, to hear from more voices, we decided to create a specific feedback survey about the UDLs to help us make amendments in a collaborative way.

Implementation

We started by creating a survey for the current students to ascertain their views on how interesting, enjoyable and useful the UDL days were. We also had qualitative questions regarding what they liked and disliked and ideas for specific improvements.

I then led a meeting with my course team to explore the key findings. We agreed to make several changes based on the specific feedback, such as:

– variety of activities (not purely e-learning, but roleplays, videos, self-practice self-reflection tasks, group seminars run by lecturers, etc, to provide a more engaging day)
– fewer activities (we aimed for one main activity for every 1-1.5 hours to manage workload demands)
– an option to complete the programme’s reflective form (designed to be more simple, by asking them to provide their own notes on each task) or provide their notes in a format of their choice (e.g. mindmaps, vlogs, etc) to increase accessibility.
– share these reflections on a discussion board for other students and the lecturer to comment on.

We were unable to implement these changes to the current cohort as they had finished all their UDL days in the timetable, so made the changes for the following cohorts in 2020/2021.

We then sought their feedback via a new survey to ascertain their views on how interesting, enjoyable and useful the UDLs are, with additional questions relating to specific feedback on the new elements.

Impact

The survey results for the newer cohorts were much more positive than the original cohort, after changes were made to the UDL format.

There was a significant increase in how interesting, enjoyable and useful the students found the days.

The trainees also largely agreed that the UDLs had an appropriate workload, e.g. one task per 1-1.5 hours.

They also largely agreed that UDLs included interactive and varied tasks. This finding is in contrast to some of the aforementioned literature of the importance of e-learning, and it must be remembered that too much e-learning can be less engaging for trainees.

The students also praised the simple reflective form as a helpful tool, and many appreciated the option to submit notes in their own preferred way.

Although we neglected to explore the role of the lecturer feedback in the new UDL survey, research shows that this makes for a more engaging e-learning session (Dixson, 2010), and may explain why the UDLs were now more favourable.

Moreover, the process of collecting data from the students via a feedback form seemed effective, in that we used feedback to adapt the specific teaching method, thus improving student satisfaction. Pedagogical research shows the importance of using qualitative questions (instead of, or as well as, quantitative methods) to elicit student feedback (Steyn et al., 2019).

Reflection

Overall, this redesign was successful, which may be down to the fact we used the student voice to make meaningful changes. This is in line with Floden’s (2017) research that student feedback can help to improve courses.

Furthermore, the changes we have made are in line with effective practice amongst other courses and universities, e.g. appropriate workload (Ginn et al., 2007), student choice of discussion format (Lin & Overbaugh, 2007), accessibility of resources (Mahmood et al., 2012) and lecturer interaction (Dixson, 2010).

There is a possible limitation in this case study, in that our more recent cohorts are generally happier on the course, and therefore may be more positive about the UDL. In future projects, it would be useful if we can notice themes within module evaluation/student rep meetings earlier, to then elicit specific survey feedback earlier in the course and make amendments sooner, allowing feedback from the same cohort.

In future variations of the survey, I would also wish to explicitly ask how trainees find sharing reflections on the Blackboard discussion groups, as this is one change we had not elicited feedback on.

Follow Ups

We have continued to utilise these changes in the UDL format with future cohorts,  e.g. reduced workload, variety of activities, simplified forms, choice of discussion format and lecturer interaction. We no longer receive concerns about these days in the student rep meetings since the original cohort. The Mentimeter feedback at the end of each UDL is generally positive, with one person recently commenting: ‘this was a very engaging day’.

References

References:

Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1-13.

Flodén, J. (2017). The impact of student feedback on teaching in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education42(7), 1054-1068.

Ginns, P., Prosser, M., & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher education: The perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in higher education32(5), 603-615.

Lin, S. Y., & Overbaugh, R. C. (2007). The effect of student choice of online discussion format on tiered achievement and student satisfaction. Journal of Research on technology in Education39(4), 399-415.

Mahmood, A., Mahmood, S. T., & Malik, A. B. (2012). A comparative study of student satisfaction level in distance learning and live classroom at higher education level. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education13(1), 128-136.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge.

Sheikhaboumasoudi, R., Bagheri, M., Hosseini, S. A., Ashouri, E., & Elahi, N. (2018). Improving nursing students’ learning outcomes in fundamentals of nursing course through combination of traditional and e-learning methods. Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research, 23(3), 217.

Steyn, C., Davies, C., & Sambo, A. (2019). Eliciting student feedback for course development: the application of a qualitative course evaluation tool among business research students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 11-24.

Links

CWI website: https://sites.reading.ac.uk/charlie-waller-institute/

Embedding employment in the curriculum: the MSci graduate showcase!

Tamara Wiehe     School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences     t.wiehe@reading.ac.uk

Overview

Students on our programme – MSci Applied Psychology (Clinical) – are training to become qualified Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners (PWPs) so employment is naturally embedded in the curriculum. However, the existing career development session was originally designed for students on the postgraduate course so it required some adaptation for undergraduates. This is where the MSci Graduate Showcase event came in! I organised and facilitated a 45-minute ‘speed dating’ type event where our previous students who are employed in a range of roles in clinical psychology came to share their experiences and support our current students with their career development.

Objectives

  • To learn about a wide range of career options within clinical psychology from MSci graduates.
  • To consider the steps to put in place during Part 4 that will help students work towards their chosen career path.
  • Encourage networking between graduates and current students.

Context

Aspects of the original career development session were used to create the new session. It was appropriate to keep the event on the final teaching day of the year as this is when students are close to qualifying and are starting to think about the next steps in their career. However, the original session was created for postgraduate students who are employed by an NHS service so the career options reflected this. Educators used their experience as practitioners to make the session as engaging as possible but we all felt as though it needed a new lease of life. The new event aimed to address these two issues by discussing a wider range of career options in clinical psychology for our undergraduate students and by inviting some of our MSci graduates who are employed in the field back to the University to share their first hand experiences.

Implementation

After delivering the same session about 5 times over the past few years, I knew it was time to make some changes when it came to planning the event for the current cohort. The following steps took place over the past 4 months:

  1. Identifying the issues with original session and sharing these with the programme director to see if there was scope to make changes.
  2. Planning the event with the programme director to ensure it met the learning objectives and remained in line with the national PWP curriculum and BPS standards.
  3. Contacting some of our MSci graduates to invite them to the event.
  4. Sharing the plans for the event with our current students so that they had time to prepare.
  5. Confirming the MSci graduates attendance and sharing ideas on how to engage students during the event.
  6. Organising the layout of the room so that students were sat in small groups and formatting the activity using the ‘speed dating’ approach to maximise engagement.
  7. Facilitating the event on the teaching day.
  8. Evaluating the outcomes to then amend the event for future cohorts.

Impact

The event was a success and met the learning objectives!

Our students said that they enjoyed speaking to people who are currently doing the role and a wide range of roles were represented. They learned about how the graduates got to where they are now as they were sat in the same position not too long ago and also where they are heading. It gave them time to think about the next steps in their career.

Our MSci graduates said that the students were engaged as they were asking lots of relevant questions and it also gave them a chance to reflect on how far they have come and where they are heading.

Whilst looking around the room, I felt a sense of pride for how far both my current and previous students have come since I’ve known them. They are all extremely dedicated and passionate about their chosen career path and will go on to make a real difference in the world, what a testament to themselves and the University.

Reflections

I believe that the event was successful due to three main reasons:

  1. I created a session that reflected the needs of the students and made sure that the atmosphere was relaxed to encourage engagement.
  2. The students who took part were engaged and willing to learn from others who were in their position not too long ago.
  3. The MSci graduates were willing to volunteer their time and expertise for the event.

In terms of improving this event, our students suggested that we could find someone who is currently training to become a clinical psychologist; this is something we will explore when preparing for the event next year. I reflected that we needed to number the tables (simple really!) to aid the transitions when moving the graduates around the room.

Based on the success of this event, we definitely want to continue it with future cohorts. As well as the above suggestions, we will review any further comments that arise from more formal student evaluation and amend the event for future cohorts.

Closing the gap! Bringing together students studying at different campuses using Blackboard Collaborate

Kate Fletcher, Sue Slade, Kevin Flint, Raj Vaiyapuri, Wee Kiat Ong, School of Chemistry, Food and Pharmacy; Pharmacy

Context

MPharm Programme: Introduction to Professionalism and Practice

Undergraduate (UG) students, Part 1

Number of participants in sessions: 20 (9 in the UK and 11 in Malaysia)
Session length: 60 minutes

Description

 Part 1 students studying the MPharm course at both the Reading and Malaysia campuses were
brought together using Blackboard Collaborate to compare Pharmacy Practice in each country.
 Kate wanted to encourage crossover between campuses and for students to get to know each
other before the Malaysian students came over to study in the UK for Part 3.
 Students based at each campus logged in to Collaborate on individual computers with a
headset.
 Both groups of students were in the Clinical Skills Suite on each campus with laptops and
headsets.
 Staff supported students in the physical rooms to get them settled and set-up.
 The session was designed around set discussion activities and students separated out into
groups that included students from both campuses, using the ‘Breakout room’ feature.

Impact

 Collaborate provided an effective way for students studying at different campuses to learn
together and begin to build relationships.
 Close cooperation was needed between the UK and Malaysian staff to set up the session.
 Students quickly picked-up how to use the tool, were using the Chat tool without prompting
and easily able to undertake the tasks in the breakout rooms.
 The session was activity based and students were discussing with each other. This made best
use of the technology to facilitate communication.
 There were good levels of interaction between students using the audio and video. However,
the first time people use the system interaction can initially be awkward.
 Some cultural differences were perceived. Malaysian students were quieter in the
conversations and UK-based students tended to lead.

Thoughts and reflections

 Kate and Sue were thoroughly prepared for the session and had rehearsed how to use the
‘breakout rooms’ and written a session plan with timings.
 Don’t expect to get as much done as you would in a face-to-face session or allow more time for
activities in this environment.
 As the students were located in the same room together they were spread out to minimise the
transfer of noise between them when talking. Pharmacy had a large enough room to allow this.
Feedback from students indicated they could easily take part from home.
 Pharmacy needed to purchase suitable headsets that could be re-used by different students.
Allow sufficient time to arrange ordering from IT.
 Make sure Chrome is installed on the University computers students are going to use.
 There was a significant investment of time and a learning curve to set up the session, as this
was the first time they had attempted this. Future sessions should be easier to facilitate.
 It’s not yet possible to save what has been written on the whiteboards in the breakout rooms.

(Use the PC – Microsoft Clipping tool https://support.microsoft.com/engb/help/13776/windows-use-snipping-tool-to-capture-screenshots
or MAC keyboard shortcut to take a screenshot of the whiteboard.)

 

Using Blackboard Collaborate for small group tutorials with distance learning students

Adrian Aronsson-Storrier, School of Law                                                                                                                             a.m.storrier@reading.ac.uk

Context

LLM International Commercial Law (Distance)

Description

 Adrian held small group seminars with groups of around 5 students per online workshop.
Workshops were scheduled in all of the distance LLM modules, and ran weekly through the
Spring and Autumn terms. Collaborate was also used for individual dissertation supervision
sessions.
 These were Postgraduate Masters level distance learning students enrolled in a range of
optional LLM modules. Students attended from across the UK and the world.
 The Law School already offered online workshop sessions using a competing webinar product
(Adobe Connect). This software was complex for students to use, not supported centrally by
the University and was paid for from the School’s budget. We sought to investigate alternative
web conferencing solutions that would be simpler for our students whilst maintaining
equivalent functionality (slide sharing, chat, whiteboard etc).
 Blackboard Collaborate was chosen to replace Adobe Connect as it was simpler for students to
use (a more straightforward interface reduced initial student training time, the integration into
Blackboard made it simpler for students to log in and participate).
 Preparation was similar to distance workshops previously delivered with the earlier Adobe
Connect web conferencing tool. For some workshops slides were prepared, in others a series
of tutorial style questions were circulated to students in advance for discussion.
 After giving students an initial training session, delivering a class on Collaborate took no more
effort than delivering an equivalent session in an on campus module.

Impact

 Students quickly adapted to Collaborate. They made frequent use of the chat function and the
‘raise hand’ function, particularly in larger groups where many students wished to contribute to
a discussion.
 Student’s enrolling in the distance LLM are required to have access to their own computer,
headphones and internet connection.
 From a support perspective, the move to Collaborate required less ongoing staff and student
training than our previous web conferencing software – once set up on Blackboard it was simple
for students and staff to access Collaborate sessions for their weekly workshops.
 Blackboard Collaborate achieved everything we had previously delivered to students using
Adobe Connect. It had the advantage of being simpler for students to use, and the blackboard
integration made connecting to the sessions simpler.

Thoughts and Reflections

 Lecturers in the school of law tended to use Collaborate from their homes (distance workshops
are often scheduled outside core hours, to accommodate students in diverse time zones). This
required staff to have sufficient equipment (laptop, headphones or a headset).
 One challenge – which often impacts distance learning when working with students in less
economically developed nations – was issue of the student’s poor internet connection
impacting sessions. At times students (particularly in Africa and the Middle East) had poor
internet connections which prevented full video streaming. While the software does allow
students to participate by providing streaming audio only, this is less immersive for the student.
 Ensure that all participants are making use of headphones or a microphone headset. If students
rely on computer speakers there will often be some level of echo introduced into the web
conference, which can be distracting. Students without headphone should be encouraged to
mute their microphones when not speaking.
 Provide students with an introductory session on the software before beginning online
instruction. We used a general online induction day for students as a trial, allowing them to test
that the software worked and giving them time to learn the functionality before being required
to use it in class.