Yesterday, I sat at the University Learning & Teaching Committee and we discussed again the "Programme Level View". As you know, the University Teaching and Learning Strategic Plan refers to the programme
level view as "a holistic view of the programme that the student
experiences, rather than focusing on its component modules". Colleagues at Sheffield are currently working to define programme level view and through some pilot application in some Departments to acquire experience that will be disseminated across the University. You can read more about the progress made so far here.
I am confident that at the International Faculty we apply a programme level view for years now. But, as I was thinking about it, I could not quite put in ticks in the boxes on what do we do to achieve that. Trying to put my mind in that frame, I came up with a list of key indicators that one could use to have a holistic view of the programme.
My dilemma was whether the programme level view refers to "what we promise" or to "what we deliver"? I think I will have to stick to the former because the latter will imply "programme review" and it is said before that "programme level view is not (necessarily) a programme review"; it may lead to one but it is not one per se. So, below you may find (and comment on) a list of indicators and data that I would recommend to programme leaders to look at:
In the IF, we have the badges to map each syllabus to Sheffield Graduate Attributes. A simple exercise could create a matrix which will tell us where the emphasis is and where we could insist more by identifying the gaps.
We have the coursework submission map. If we add feedback dates and dates of unseen examination, we can have a view of the student workload through the semester.
Incredibly useful to gather all TL&A methods from each module and project them to the whole programme. We can identify what we do in excess and what we rarely do. As a side effect we can identify similar methods that each one of us uses under a different name and group them somehow.
That could determine the intended "difficulty" or "challenge" of the programme as a whole. A bar chart that would number how many learning outcomes are mentioned per Bloom Taxonomy level would assist us to determine at what "overall cognitive level" the programme operates.
Although, the modules are (in principle) designed to fulfill the programme specification, modules change over time and the mapping may become obsolete. Having the learning outcomes from all modules, we can check how these map to the leaning outcomes of the programme specification.
An overall view of how much % is allocated to coursework and how much % in unseen examination is important to identify issues related to learning outcomes and student performance.
This has to do with whether colleagues use the templates for syllabi, coursework handout, feedback forms, exam papers etc. It is crucial to have consistent approach to all documents produced by the department so that all information is communicated to students in a coherent way.
I had my doubts whether I should include this or not, because some may think that this might be a programme review issue. I am still not very firm about it, but I think that such statistical data could help to have a holistic view of the programme over the last few years.
As above, the same may apply with progression, success (failure) rates and graduation.
I would be grateful if I had your opinion on all these. Is there anything that could be excluded or included in the list? Remember that we do no want to run a programme review on what we actually deliver but what do we promise we do. At least that's the intention at this stage.
Please use this link to provide anonymous feedback and comment on each other's opinions. Thank you!
Petros Kefalas
IFDLT
I am confident that at the International Faculty we apply a programme level view for years now. But, as I was thinking about it, I could not quite put in ticks in the boxes on what do we do to achieve that. Trying to put my mind in that frame, I came up with a list of key indicators that one could use to have a holistic view of the programme.
http://www.fico.com/en/blogs/risk-compliance/model-management-taking-holistic-view/
My dilemma was whether the programme level view refers to "what we promise" or to "what we deliver"? I think I will have to stick to the former because the latter will imply "programme review" and it is said before that "programme level view is not (necessarily) a programme review"; it may lead to one but it is not one per se. So, below you may find (and comment on) a list of indicators and data that I would recommend to programme leaders to look at:
- How does the programme contribute to the Sheffield Graduate Attributes?
In the IF, we have the badges to map each syllabus to Sheffield Graduate Attributes. A simple exercise could create a matrix which will tell us where the emphasis is and where we could insist more by identifying the gaps.
- What is the timeline sequence of events?
We have the coursework submission map. If we add feedback dates and dates of unseen examination, we can have a view of the student workload through the semester.
- What is the attendance workload distribution?
The class schedule will give us another view of student workload distribution on how many days and hours students are occupied with attending classes.
- What is the variety or Teaching, Learning and Assessment methods?
Incredibly useful to gather all TL&A methods from each module and project them to the whole programme. We can identify what we do in excess and what we rarely do. As a side effect we can identify similar methods that each one of us uses under a different name and group them somehow.
- What is the Cognitive distribution of Learning Outcomes?
That could determine the intended "difficulty" or "challenge" of the programme as a whole. A bar chart that would number how many learning outcomes are mentioned per Bloom Taxonomy level would assist us to determine at what "overall cognitive level" the programme operates.
- How does the aggregate Learning Outcomes map to the Learning Outcomes of the Programme Specification?
Although, the modules are (in principle) designed to fulfill the programme specification, modules change over time and the mapping may become obsolete. Having the learning outcomes from all modules, we can check how these map to the leaning outcomes of the programme specification.
- How does the aggregate Teaching, Learning and Assessment methods map to those stated in the Programme Specification?
The same could apply to teaching, learning and assessment methods. A consistency check with what we promise at programme specification level is necessary.
- What is the % of coursework and how this is distributed among types of coursework?
An overall view of how much % is allocated to coursework and how much % in unseen examination is important to identify issues related to learning outcomes and student performance.
- Is there a consistent way to communicate to students everything they need to know?
This has to do with whether colleagues use the templates for syllabi, coursework handout, feedback forms, exam papers etc. It is crucial to have consistent approach to all documents produced by the department so that all information is communicated to students in a coherent way.
- What is the overall satisfaction of students over the last few years?
I had my doubts whether I should include this or not, because some may think that this might be a programme review issue. I am still not very firm about it, but I think that such statistical data could help to have a holistic view of the programme over the last few years.
- What is the success and progression, graduation rates over the last few years?
As above, the same may apply with progression, success (failure) rates and graduation.
I would be grateful if I had your opinion on all these. Is there anything that could be excluded or included in the list? Remember that we do no want to run a programme review on what we actually deliver but what do we promise we do. At least that's the intention at this stage.
Please use this link to provide anonymous feedback and comment on each other's opinions. Thank you!
Petros Kefalas
IFDLT
No comments:
Post a Comment