Its back on the 25th May – the #HEAchat and the #LTHEchat combo! Both hashtags will be used during this discussion. We are not going all Judy Blume on you by asking what your first time was like…..but this tweet chat will focus on the new to teaching HE experience. After you’ve read Kate Cuthbert’s blog post New to teaching – […]
#LTHEChat 55: Die Öffnung der Hochschulen für nicht-traditionelle Studierende, Martina Emke (@martinaemke)
Martina Emke @martinaemke
Who are non-traditional students? According toa 2015 report by theNational Center for Education Statistics (NCSC) there is no clear definition. However, there seem to be some characteristics that many non-traditional students (NTS) share: NTS often study part-time, work full-time and have dependents. Another common factor seems to be that for many NTS the support of university staff and the institution, to help increase their confidence in learning and address practical and personal issues, is crucial for their success at university study (Field, Merrill & West, 2012).
NTS already possess professional knowledge and work experience which influence their attitude towards studying. Research suggests that they are interested in applying knowledge and that they are determined and committed to learning and studying because they have clear goals, which are often connected to pursuing a professional…
View original post 537 more words
I have been thinking a lot lately about reflective practice, and how reflection informs my practice as a lecturer and course manager. One of the reasons for this is that I recently survived a validation event for a new HE course I developed, wherein one of the modules focusses on evidence-based practice (EBP).
When I wrote the module a few months ago, I envisaged students not only learning about systematic reviews, meta-analysis and evidence-based veterinary medicine (EVBM), but also about critical reflection as a form of evidence. Although this might sound counter intuitive to many followers of the EBP/EBVM principles, I felt encouraged after reading up on autoethnography as a social science discipline. I came across a paper by Wall (2006) on learning about autoethnography, and followed this with papers by Lake (2015) on using autoethnograpgy as reflective practice and Hickson (2011) on learning to be reflective.
This led me to think about my own reflective practice. I hated it during my PgCert, as is was enforced and therefore did not result in genuine reflection. Enforced reflection is recognised by Lake (2014) as not being very useful, but the author goes on to explain that clinical teaching by GP trainers leads to reflection and is therefore an alternative route to authenticity. I am not a GP trainer, but I am an HE lecturer, so I can’t help but draw parallels, and the more I ponder about my own practice, the more I find myself reflecting on it. Funny that…
Reflecting on my own practice will help me become a more authentic HE practitioner. The more I think about this, the more I want to take it to the next level. I was intrigued by a reflective paper by David (2006) on whether being a scientist-practictioner is possible. ALthough in a very different field, it struck a chord. I’d like to give it a try, and I am actually looking forward to the process.
- David, C. (2006) ‘Reflections on the research process as a trainee clinical psychologist: is it feasible to be a scientist–practitioner?’ Reflective Practice, 7(2) pp. 193–196.
- Hickson, H. (2011) ‘Critical reflection: reflecting on learning to be reflective.’ Reflective Practice, 12(6) pp. 829–839.
- Lake, J. (2014) ‘Clinical teaching can provide an alternative route to authenticity.’ BMJ, 348, May, p. g3050.
- Lake, J. (2015) ‘Autoethnography and reflective practice: reconstructing the doctoral thesis experience.’ Reflective Practice, 16(5) pp. 677–687.
- Wall, S. (2006) ‘An autoethnography on learning about autoethnography.’ International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2) pp. 1–12.
Today I “attended” the HEA Research Webinar 9: Postgraduate transitions – exploring disciplinary practice. Although a lot of my time as a course manager is taken up by recruitment activity and manageing student populations once they arrive, another important part of my role is to make sure that students are aware of their options once they graduate. The leaving destinations of graduates are reported anually in HESA’s Destination of Leavers from Higher Education survey, and it is something my courses and the College are benchmarked against. Obviously a graduate level job is one leaving destination measured, but another, equally important destination is further/postgraduate studies.
The webinar revolved around the current situation in transition from UG to PG (Taught and/or Research) studies. It started off with a very clear overview of current transition numbers, which HE disciplines are better than other in progression to PG studies, and what various institutions are doing to promote this transition both internally and externally. Also, the presentation showed PG Taught studies seem to have been forgotten about in institutional policies. The data was very interetsing and makes something I am going to read up on to discuss with colleagues.
I think the main message of the webinar was that the evidence-base is very limited, specifically because HEIs are not very good in keeping and monitoring information in this area. The recommendations (see below) were very clear, and to me make sense. I have taken away some useful pointers for me as a course manager, and was particularly interested in the concept of using our PG transition numbers as an indicator of how we develop a culutre of scholarship.
The full findings of the EA research project discsussed during this seminar can be found here. I think the report makes very good reading and food for thought. There are some simple things we can do to support UG students who are interested in or would like to find out about PG studies.
The webinar was recorded, and can be found here for future watching. This was my first HEA Webinar, and I enjoyed the experience, so I will be looking out for future events. The next event is scheduled for June. I will be there, will you?
HEA research webinar ten: Evaluating teaching development in HE
1 June 2016, 12:30-14:00
Professor Pauline Kneale and members of the PedRIO team at Plymouth University will discuss their latest HEA-funded research which explores how best we can evaluate teaching development in HE. In addition to a literature review, the team have developed an evidence-informed toolkit which can be used to evaluate teaching development and CPD. It will be of interest to anyone who wants to understand how these activities impact and influence teaching, learning and the broader student experience.
During the past week I have followed a bitesize online CPD event offered by Writtle College’s Centre for Academic Standards, Teaching and Learning (CASTLe). The course was a collection of five daily short-ish activities focussing on various aspects of Moodle, the VLE used by the College.
Although i was familiar with some aspects, and have used quite a few features of Moodle over the past few years, it was mainly very useful to discuss with colleagues the merits of embedding video, using forums to engage students and the pros and cons of various menu styles. It it good to discuss these things in Moodle forums, because we don’t get to sit down much to discuss ideas and concerns due to heavy workloads. In a way, it was nice to be a Moodle-using student for a few days.
It has made me think more about the design decisions I have made and will be making in the future: I am currently working on the course-level Moodle page for a new course I am developing, and have started using a lot more advanced features. Not just because it is nice to show off (admit it, that’s why we all want fancy VLE pages), but mainly because well designed pages engage students more, and effective page design will cause less work for academics.
I have a few ideas which I would like to discuss further with colleagues, and which will require a meeting with our IT team to make happen. For example, I discovered today that it is now possible to link external blogs with Moodle. This means students could post to their blog via Moodle. Although this does not immediately sound exciting, it is because I plan on getting students to develop a course-level reflective blog which lasts for the full four years of their course, and which is integrated with the assessment for various modules.
These are exciting times. When I finished my degree in 2009, none of this existed, whereas now, only 6-7 years later, we work on the ever blurring border between virtual and physical learning and teaching, and have new challenges to fully engage and submerge into the subject the 21st century student.
I will post more on this in the future. For now, I am enjoying the badge I earned for completing the CPD (yes, I admit, a certain degree of gamification in Higher Education is appropriate, and to be honest, just plain cool!) and try to make sense of the ideas racing through my head. I need a white board… and a cold beer! Happy weekend all!
Originally publised in The Biologist (link), written by Francis Hooton.
(Hooton, F. (2016) ‘Don’t judge a scientist by their degree grade’. The Biologist 63(1), p7)
A survey of Fellows of the Royal Society reveals many distinguished scientists might struggle to get a research post nowadays
Many people, for many reasons, have failed to get the grades they are capable of, or messed up their degrees completely.
Yet throughout history, people have pursued scientific investigation or engineering, often through the help of others, with poor grades or having never studied science formally at all. These people have gone on to develop world changing technologies or made great breakthroughs in our understanding of the natural world.
Eminent examples include three Copley Medal winners: Michael Faraday, who did an apprenticeship, and had no degree; Charles Darwin, who got an ‘ordinary’ degree in theology; and James Joule, who had no degree. John Walker, who won the Copley Medal and the Nobel Prize, got a third class honours degree due to illness; and Admiral Henry Jackson, who invented radio communication between ships, did not have a degree.
Is it possible that these pioneers in science would struggle to get a research placement today, where research councils demand no less than a 2:1 BSc honours degree? (Exceptions to this entry requirement do occur, but only where laboratory leaders are well funded and know the student.)
I decided to look more closely at the degree grades of Fellows of the Royal Society (FRS) who worked in the experimental sciences*. It is, of course, difficult to compare the grades of people studying centuries apart, because degree terminology has changed significantly. But of nearly 300 surveyed, 18% achieved third class honours or worse, and even more had ‘ordinary’ degrees (the definition of which has changed over time, but generally means a pass without honours).
Contrary to the general belief that 70% to 80% of experimental scientists at FRS level have first class honours, I found the figure is closer to half (54%); 10% of these distinguished scientists never did degrees, and almost a third (30%) have a second, 2:2 or lower. Many of the most well known scientists on my list got the lowest grades.
The findings have important implications for decision making when offering PhD places and research jobs: clearly degree grades are not a reliable indicator of research ability and potential. A similar study to mine by Liam Hudson in 1960 reached similar conclusions, and although his sample was a fairly small cohort of Oxbridge graduates, his message has clearly been ignored.
A more thoughtful approach needs to be adopted by academics, industry and the research councils when selecting and interviewing students for research jobs. The system should mean students who have potential and are motivated, but have lower grades, can still get jobs, while those with firsts who are not suited to research are prevented from entering the system.
Students being interviewed for PhDs or research jobs could be given some new data to analyse or problems to solve. Those who have research ability, creativity or can think laterally are more likely to come up with interesting analyses or solutions; those who memorised their way to a first might not. If the quality of undergraduate research projects and theses are considered too, degree grades could almost be ignored.
I am told certain institutions such as Imperial College do employ similar sounding methods, but in my experience of meeting PhD and research supervisors I have never been given a problem to solve or take away to work on.
And do employers or academics do enough to understand a student’s motivation? Those with a first who just want to get their PhD may not be as valuable as those with worse grades but a dedication to a life in research.
The UK faces a skills shortage in science and other STEM subjects. Why would any academic institutions want to turn away people who could be very good at research? Looking at some of the great scientists of the last two centuries, it would be madness to shut the door to their potential modern day equivalents because of a couple of percentage points on their degree.
*Download a full breakdown of Francis’ survey data
Full details of the survey methodology can be obtained by emailing the editor, Tom Ireland.
1) Hudson, L. Degree Class and Attainment In Scientific Research. The British Psychological Society51(1) 67-73 (1960)
About 30-40% of the names in the survey replied to email. The rest were obtained from Royal Society biographical memoirs, Science Vega videos and other biographies. Thanks to Frederick Vine FRS and Steve Busby FRS for their help and support and to all the Fellows who replied. Thanks also to the Cambridge and Oxford student offices, and to Dr Paul Johnston at Glasgow Ecology and Tropical diseases department for helpful discussions and statistics advice. Special thanks to Donald Grierson FRS for help, criticisms and discussions and to Dr Steve Catterall and Professor Paul Barlow at Edinburgh University. Thanks to all Fellows of the Royal Society who replied to email.
During the Writtle College HE Open Day yesterday, one of the parents accompanying their daughter asked me why our UCAS Tariff for the new Integrated Master in Bioveterinary Science was so much lower than similar courses at other HEIs.
At the time, my answer was that I don’t believe that the decisions young people make in their early education journey and/or circumstances in their life when they are 16-18 years old should define their chances of entering higher education and their chances of becoming a successful graduate.
When I got home later that day, I started thinking more about this, and suddenly I remembered a TED talk I was shown in one of the workshops I took for my PgCert in Higher Education Practice. The talk was by Angela Duckworth and describer her research into “grit”.
Grit, or in my words “sheer hard word and dedication”, is something that is really important in higher education, especially in the transition from secondary education. In her talk, Angela refers to work done on Mindset Theory by Carol Dweck, who has also given a TED talk on the subject:
I strongly identify with the idea of Growth Mindset in young people, especially when they just arrive at university. Some of my most successful students have come in with entry profiles which were not even close to being considered at various “elite” institutions and graduated with first class honours degrees, after which they obtained postgraduate studies places at the institutions where they were rejected a mere 3 years earlier. Similarly, I see students with stellar entry profiles who don’t make it through year 1, because for the first time in their education journey they are confronted with setbacks and they fail to deal with it.
I am of the opinion that, with hard work, dedication and an open mind (or in other words grit and a growth mindset), candidates with less than ideal entry profiles can become successful HE graduates. Perhaps not all of them graduate with a first class award, but a student who works as hard as they can, takes up all opportunities they are offered, and who is passionate about what they do and ends up achieving a 3rd class or 2:2 class award is a successful graduate in my book. Mainly because the grit and mindset they have shown during their higher education journey will serve them really well further on in their career. These students have a bright future…
I plan on showing this videos on grit and growth mindset to new first year students next academic year, in the hope that it inspires them to think about their future and how they are going to get there.