Barr stokes conf_10
-
Upload
educational-development-division-university-of-liverpool -
Category
Education
-
view
265 -
download
1
Transcript of Barr stokes conf_10
Evaluating the ‘Teach Smarter’ Initiative in Law
Mr Warren Barr
&
Dr Robert Stokes
Overview Background: The ‘Teach Smarter’ Initiative Module Design
Two Examples: Equity& Trusts, Commercial Law
Evaluating the Initiative Internal Processes, CLL Project
Potential and Pitfalls
Background:
The ‘Teach Smarter’ Initiative
Traditional ‘Law’ Delivery Professional Subject
Required Modules – 7 subjects (225 credits) 250+ students per required module 100+ for optional modules
Traditional Delivery & Assessment 24 Lectures + 5 Small Group Teaching Tutorials/Seminars (12
per group) Traditional Assessment Methods
Issues High volume of repeat teaching Lack of student engagement (preparation, participation) Feedback Issue
No Single Model Adopted
‘Teach Smarter’ is a change in ethos not a single blue-print for
module design or delivery
‘Teach Smarter’ Initiative
Rethinking Delivery Structured and more engaging learning:
• E-support and e-tasks• Emphasis on collaborative work (e.g. group work)• Emphasis on student engagement• Structured learning – pre- and post- delivery
engagement• Improved feedback
Staff Workload Benefits:• More research time through less repeat teaching• More engaging delivery
Module Design:
Two Examples
Example 1: Equity (Required)
30 credit module (‘long, fat’) 48 lectures + 10 tutorials for 250+ students
• Repeat Teaching Groups of 12 students = 21 tutorial groups Delivery Hours: 105 per Semester = 210 hours
Directed reading and lecture slides available on VITAL Tutorial Preparation:
• Students Conduct Individual Preparation and Participate In Interaction With The Tutor
Feedback: Informal, and Formal on Assessments Assessment: 25% coursework (Sem 1); 75% unseen
examination
Example 1: Equity (Required)
48 lectures + 6 seminars for 250 + students• Repeat Teaching
Groups of 30 students = 9 Seminar Groups Delivery Hours: 54 per Semester (2 hr Seminars) – 108 hours
Directed reading, pre- and post- group work (in, podcasts and other e-learning support materials on VITAL
• Students Prepare Directed Reading• Split Into Sub-Groups of no more than 6 students• Prepare unseen questions in group• Write up a question as a group after completion of Seminar
Additional Feedback: • Group Essay Feedback + Guideline Answer per Question• MCQ Self Test Feedback
Assessment: 25% coursework (Sem 1); 75% unseen examination
Change in Learning Ethos
TTutorT
Example 2: Commercial Law (Optional)
Different Approach:• Comparative Delivery Savings over of 1/3rd
Module Delivery:• No lectures• 10 Hours Seminars replace 5 hours Tutorials
Retains emphasis on group work
• Extensive support materials, including Seminar Podcasts and MCQs per topic and follow-up exercises
• Feedback: Podcasts (on seminar performance); Group Work Feedback, Marked Formative Essay, Assessed Plans
Evaluating The Initiative:
Internal Processes & CLL Project
Internal Processes
Student Surveys 2009-10 Equity & Trusts
• Positive reception to new model• Improved engagement• Too much content• Group work problems
Commercial Law• Positive reception to new model• Seminar materials praised• Positive response to feedback• Group work problems• Lectures popular
Evidence – Equity & Trusts Over 93% of respondents felt that VITAL was well used,
particularly in providing sources for seminar study and in supplementing lecture provision
“Very useful and found them a lot more helpful than tutorials that occurred for other modules. Learnt a lot more in seminars from discussions with others in the seminar and also in sub group work”
“the seminars do work very well - I have found them rewarding, and they have helped to clarify areas I was still hazy on following lectures and reading”
“the level of feedback given far surpasses that in any other module, and is helpful”
Evidence – Equity & Trusts
Some criticism:
“There are too much to cover in one seminar with a high speed train rushing through the session. Why cover 3 chapters when one is more than enough”
“If group work is preferred, punishments should be given to those who were not involved. Penalty seems too lenient, many got away by saying they are down with swine flu but I saw my group mate attended the lecture!”
Evidence – Commercial Law
90% felt seminars made a contribution to their learning beyond that of private study
93% felt that the seminar materials were either good or very good
86% were either very or fairly satisfied with the feedback they received.
Evidence – Commercial Law
Some criticism:“However, the seminars were pretty good. If possible, I would just add lectures to the current seminars, then it would be simply great module to study”
“The feed back to the only formative assessment essay was extremely poor and I was highly disappointed after putting work into it not getting a detailed personal feedback”
“I strongly believe having lectures will help students connect with the module much better”
“If there were no lectures, my tuition fee's should have been reduced.”
CLL Review
Methodology
Student Focus Groups: Nominal Group Technique
Online Survey (student) Online Survey (staff) Staff Interviews
Preliminary Observations
First Year Feedback Enablers
• Importance of directed reading• Opportunity for engagement• Structured learning
Disablers • Tutorial atmosphere• The free-loader problem• Unrealistic reading lists
Preliminary Observations
Second Year Feedback
More fractious than Year One Concerns over feedback and communication Problems with collaborative work Support for structured learning and new forms
of feedback, e.g. podcasts
Concluding Remarks
Potential and Pitfalls
Potential
Real Savings In Delivery Gains not in the first year but in subsequent years Should definitely be a pay-off in freeing up research time,
important for early academics
Better Student engagement More directed and effective Increased transferable skills
Staff benefits from learning ethos Better learning atmosphere – collaborative learning Better knowledge of students and student performance
Pitfalls
Entrenched attitudes
Front loading Too easy to underestimate workload involved in preparing
materials and rethinking delivery
Role of individual tutor Feedback, Quality, Approachability
Group Work and Communication Know What They Have To Do Better Guidance
Conclusions
Too early to be sure Potentials seems to outweigh pitfalls Students not harmed
Final assessment results are on a par or better than in previous year
Student Experience Will Improve As Progresses
Provisional View: Qualified Success