Embedding Graduate Attributes and PDP:A Student Centred Approach to Curriculum Development in the Biosciences

Editor's Notes

• #3: Some basic definitions to introduce the focus of the session – with reference to the session abstract.
• #4: Paisley 2001-02 to 2007-08:15-point modules and the vehicle for level 7 PDP was the module “Technical Communication & Personal Development”. It was presented in trimester 1 to all Science and Engineering students, and Computing students in some sessions. The assessed components were: Personal Development Plan, Written Report, Oral Presentation, EXCEL exercise. It addressed both PDP and IT skills.The main problem we found was that it was presented separately from subject content and so many students did not see the relevance to their subject studies. Partly this was due to the very wide constituency of students on the module. 2010-11 to 2012-13:The module “Scientific Investigation” includes ePortfolios and other elements, such as a poster presentation, in a scientific context. At Paisley this module is presented in trimester 2. In order to prepare the ground, further sessions are presented in trimester 1 covering Introduction to PDP, ePortfolios, Academic Writing, Library Skills and “What Next? – summary of what had been learned/covered. In the first two years (10-11 & 11-12) these further sessions were presented as “extras”, timetabled on a day where the students did not have other classes. In feedback, although students said that they appreciated these classes, attendance was disappointing and a significant number said there needed to be more of an explicit connection with their studies.
• #5: Large cohort of students – around 250 students in first year science – approx 220 of these on cells and molecules module. Challenge was to embed PDP as a learning process – not to just tell students about it. To make it meaningful it has to be embedded as a learning process and made relevant to the student in the context of their learning in their subject area.
• #6: In response12-13 PDP sessions taught as part of Cells & Molecules timetable (taken by virtually all the first year Science students)embedded directly into important assessments within this module. To encourage students to view PDP elements as a learning process directly relevant to their subject learning. Focused on essay writing as a process to provide links with the process of Personal development/development of graduate attributes.2012-13 – Scientific investigation – Writing the group case study – sessions covered group work/academic writing/literature searching (all related to specific assessment). Preparing an academic poster session (referring to referencing etc. ) Session on e-portfolio construction and reflective writing. Linked to information covered in trimester 1 (built on approaches already taught – refer to example). 
• #9: In Effective Learning we work from a theoretical base that is rooted in students’ experience of writing at University, and our approach to curriculum development is informed by what we learn from our work with individual students: student centred – links to focus on the student experience. Writing as social practice Academic literacies theory views literacies, in this case writing, as social practice. Different ‘literacies’ (or ways of writing) associated with different contexts, and related to what counts as ‘knowledge’ in those contexts – so for instance different ways of writing in different subject areas, depending on how knowledge is constructed in that subject area.  Academic knowledge is constructed and communicated through writing, and learning is assessed through writing and so writing should form a central part of the student learning process.  Students experience academic writing activity in the context of their wider life and educational experience. Writing in HE is where students engage in deep learning and understanding of subject content and is a potentially transformative learning process, rather than being about the acquisition of surface skills.  Learning and writing in HE requires students to adapt to new ways of knowing and understanding – a different, more critical approach to knowledge - and students also need to learn how to write in a new and unfamiliar way.  Students who have not encountered this learning/writing approach before often find it to be a frustrating, confusing and emotive experience. They don’t feel they have the level of knowledge or authority required to write in that way....and are challenged by aspects such as expressing an opinion when using ‘third person’ writing style.  Also – different types of writing in different subject disciples, and within those disciplines – so report, essay, reflective writing and poster all different types of writing – so a different approach should be taken to produce a different product.  Teaching in HE tends to focus on the finished ‘product’ without focusing on the process of creating that productEncourages students to copy and engage in ‘fake writing’ - using specialist terminology and imitating academic style, without understanding it - and often missing the key substantive elements that should be included (even though they know them). Writing becomes a ‘barrier’ to learning. Writing as usefully problematic; writing to learn and learning to writeIssues highlighted through the individual feedback were collated and discussed in a follow up class session and the class were asked to write a ‘draft introduction’ to their essay in groups, putting into practice some of what they had learned from the initial formative activity. This illuminates what is usually a hidden and private process – becomes a ‘usefully problematic’ process - encouraging peer learning - bridges the gap between teaching, learning and assessment, and allows for a clear and shared understanding of assessment criteria and the feedback process.Identified key blocks to learning to write in this way, and to support learning and also to adapt the guidelines to clarify areas that hadn’t been clearly expressed.
• #10: The sessions delivered with in the first year group – Introduction to PDP introduced the key concepts related to PDP and ePortfolio, which were then picked up again in Semester 2 in the Scientific Investigation module.A ‘Generic’ Academic writing session was delivered as a lecture and then followed up by the tutorial session which focused on the particular assignment – deconstruction of the question and discussion of ‘appropriate’ writing using the text type activity (Tied in with approach of Purpose, Audience, Structure, Language, Information and Evidence) . Positive student feedback received on this session in terms of ‘demystifying’ writing.Introduction of ‘literacies’ – different forms of writing suitable for different audiences, purposes etc (refer to hand-out). These sessions also linked explicitly with Lucy’s sessions on finding and using information and evidence and referencing.
• #11: The policy drivers – part of the landscape that we have to engage with – we have taken them and embedded them as students’ learning processes - that underpinned our work were centred on embedding Personal Development Planning, with reference to how PDP related with, and could be facilitated through a focus on the development of Graduate Attributes, employability (related to a subject/programme specific context) and module learning outcomes. Articulating these frameworks with subject specific task/assessment/student learning – more directly linked to learning activity so that students can see the relevance of them to learning on their modules in additional to their on-going development as a science graduate in a particular field.The intention was to increase engagement and interest in this way by highlighting the immediate and longer term benefit and value gained from engaging in PDP, by articulating it with a subject specific assessment task (delivered as embedded in the module) – long term development (in terms of ‘end of graduation’ benefits) and immediate value (in terms of improving learning and attainment). I believe that Alison and Robin have found a really important way to ‘embed’ the development of PDP i.e. by the academic setting a subject related task that students will seek to do well to earn marks, so they are given the ‘benefit’ of some generic skill training, for which they can immediately see the ‘value’ . This means that they DO engage well with the opportunity and everyone succeeds in enhancing the learning! In effect, we have a mechanism that means that students DO get marks for doing their ‘PDP’ work (this overcomes the one reason everyone suggests that students don’t engage with the PDP training i.e. because they are not given ‘marks’).
• #12: On the basis of this approach we have developed a model which we believe can be adapted for use in any subject area to achieve similar results – a student centred model which takes the student experience of learning as it’s starting point. The student is focused on, and aware of, the assessment tasks they have to carry out. The wider ‘frameworks’ are not immediately visible or relevant to the student, so we felt it was important to link our introduction of them into the assessment tasks to foster student engagement with them. If we can make the learning frameworks relevant to and have a positive impact on the student’s assessment tasks – which are their ‘primary concern’ - then they are more likely to engage with them, and learning and development will be enhanced.
• #13: So – if we take the cells and molecules essay as an example (and Robing will talk about this some more in a minute). Through the sessions we delivered (refer to hand-outs) we highlighted the importance of essay writing in developing students’ attributes and skills in relation to the graduate attributes they were developing (there were several – concerned with information literacy and academic literacy) by linking them directly an explicitly with learning outcomes, graduate attributes and HEA employability profile statements. Teaching was delivered with these being linked in as the underpinning context or reasoning behind the learning – students were learning how to write academically – like a scientist – and developing an understanding of their subject area through the writing process. (Refer to the session on deconstructing a question and the text type activity)
• #14: So – if we take the cells and molecules essay as an example (and Robing will talk about this some more in a minute). Through the sessions we delivered (refer to hand-outs) we highlighted the importance of the process of writing/learning in relation to developing students’ subject knowledge and to the development of their attributes and skills (there were several – concerned with information literacy and academic literacy) by linking them directly an explicitly with learning outcomes, graduate attributes and HEA employability profile statements. Teaching was delivered with these being linked in as the underpinning context or reasoning behind the learning – students were learning how to write academically – like a scientist – and developing an understanding of their subject area through the writing process. (Refer to the session on deconstructing a question and the text type activity)
• #15: In the second trimester (Scientific Investigation) we then supported the student to write reflectively about their learning experience (of writing the essay) encouraging them to use the Learning frameworks as a guide (refer to example in the Scientific investigation session re using the language from the HEA employability profile)
• #21: 1st module studied in the degree programmeScientific investigation : From my point of view the Module was definitely improved upon this year, which was exemplified in a better pass mark with an increase in cohort size. The numbers don’t lie….!! In terms of what was reason for this improvement was – I’m not completely sure. I think we should watch the module over the next few sessions to get a clearer outlook.  For PDP we saw an increase in average mark (from 35 % to 62 %) and for the poster session an increase (from 59 % to 79 %). The remaining assessed components were largely left unchanged from 2011-12. I think that the improvements can be rationalised by a number of factors. Implementation of the University attendance policy significantly improved results by removing non-engaging students. The input from Effective Learning had clear benefits, particularly in defining and supporting the PDP elements. The additional postgraduate support was also helpful in supporting the student cohort through the year. The improvements to the poster assessment are difficult to quantify directly between 2011-12 and 2012-13 as the assessment had changed and the new format was in my opinion more engaging and interesting for the students. From student feedback (observed in the ePortfolio) the module seemed to be widely appreciated by students, who were enthusiastic about the diversity of material being studied and in the support they were provided.Wider impact – feeding back into development of curriculum re reading list development/assessment guidance and brief/marking rubric/standardised approach ie to referencing across modules and programme/ feedback to CoRE examples/highlighting resrouces required – EL/Library etc
• #23: Being and becoming model – being and becoming a scientistSustainable, effective, student centred learningModel can be applied to other areas  Wider impact – feeding back into development of curriculum re reading list development/assessment guidance and brief/marking rubric/standardised approach ie to referencing across modules and programme/ feedback to CoRE examples/highlighting resrouces required – EL/Library etc Effect on student experience – anxiety/mental health? – evaluative study required? I have a couple of specifics for Scientific Investigation – not sure if it’s what you’re looking for…? From my point of view the Module was definitely improved upon this year, which was exemplified in a better pass mark with an increase in cohort size. The numbers don’t lie….!! In terms of what was reason for this improvement was – I’m not completely sure. I think we should watch the module over the next few sessions to get a clearer outlook.  For PDP we saw an increase in average mark (from 35 % to 62 %) and for the poster session an increase (from 59 % to 79 %). The remaining assessed components were largely left unchanged from 2011-12. I think that the improvements can be rationalised by a number of factors. Implementation of the University attendance policy significantly improved results by removing non-engaging students. The input from Effective Learning had clear benefits, particularly in defining and supporting the PDP elements. The additional postgraduate support was also helpful in supporting the student cohort through the year. The improvements to the poster assessment are difficult to quantify directly between 2011-12 and 2012-13 as the assessment had changed and the new format was in my opinion more engaging and interesting for the students. From student feedback (observed in the ePortfolio) the module seemed to be widely appreciated by students, who were enthusiastic about the diversity of material being studied and in the support they were provided.
• #24: The problem that I and many of my colleagues have identified is; that since moving to 20 point modules we seem to have less opportunity to create a ‘VERTICAL’ development in learning a range of the generic skills i.e. progressing from L7 to L10 in for example; report writing skills, or data analysis, or oral presentations, etc. This is probably exacerbated by the fact that academics rarely engage with more than a couple of modules at each level in a programme, so we do not know what each other is teaching the students in any detail, and this applies also to the development of the generic skills. Interestingly, the ‘problem’ of large classes has meant that some academics are now seeking the assistance of colleagues in helping to mark (assess/grade) the scripts for large cohorts and with technical developments like TurnitinGrademark, we are getting a much better of idea of common ‘problems’ in effective assessment and also of potential solutions ! The potential for you and your colleagues to help us in creating a range of generic grading feedback, etc is most welcome. The IT developments also suggest new ways to ‘engage’ students, such as with the use of the spoken word through voice overs in short U-tube style videos, animated presentations, online assessment, etc. 5. Finally, referring to the ‘Wheel of Life’ model created at the last meeting – I think that while it could be viewed in that manner, I think it could also be regarded in terms of a ‘TREE’ analogy used previously, but in this case like the growth rings of the tree – with the young, green, sapling in the middle ‘me’ and then adding ‘layers’ as the individual grows through our system towards the budding ‘professional me’ , again emphasising the developmental process of adding layers from L7 to L10 and beyond. Each sector is retained, as they each provide a dimension to the developing individual. Perhaps TREE – Technology Relating to Employability Enhancement. Just a thought ... So, we have two approaches - a) An overall 'model' of one form or another to promote the integration and embedding of 'professional/transferable/PDP type' skills, and then develop this through some top down mechanism. b) Identification of a range of 'generic learning units/capsules' that can be developed, hopefully to support skills development from L7 up through to L10, linking into the range of current criteria e.g. SCQF, CIHE, UWS graduate attributes, HEA employability profiles, or any subject specific heirarchy.Graduate attributes relate to Undergraduate and Masters levels.