End of unit learner feedback - Jill Barlow

I share a workroom with Jill at the Coatbridge centre, and we teach a lot of the same classes, where she teaches Numeracy and I teach Communication. In addition to our lunchtime Wordle, Connections and Strands quizzing, we regularly discuss the importance of improving delivery, and the necessity for meaningful learner feedback. This is an important theme which runs throughout this blog across all the respective teaching teams. 

Jill was discussing the idea of creating a bespoke questionnaire post delivery, to ask her students a series of questions, and as a result, devised this excellent version, using Survey Monkey. I would encourage colleagues to look at the style of the questions, which most definitely yield a great deal of very useful qualitative and quantitative data in a supportive and clear manner. Jill takes up her reflections below. I personally think this is a great example of how to develop as an educator, in a user friendly way, to improve delivery moving forward and reflecting on the many success of the various deliveries. Bravo.

Here is a link to the Qs: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PWPTQKY

This is my first "proper" year in the college (I was only here for the tail end of Semester 2 last year. This is my first go at having students for the entirety of their courses). While I have delivered Maths. and Numeracy courses for years, it has been to a different population with different needs and expectations. For example, in my last role, delivery was entirely paper based. I didn't have to create slides, use a VLE like Moodle, or really utilise any other form of technology. 

Given these new challenges, I thought it was important to get an idea of how the students thought I performed in the first semester. 

I asked three separate questions on the delivery of courses: 

1. quality of the workbooks
2. quality of slides/examples in class
3. quality of teaching in general

If the students thought the workbooks were helpful, great! But did my examples on the board beforehand prepare for them adequately? Did I explain the examples in a clear way? I know all three aspects contribute to the delivery of the courses, so wanted to ensure I captured info about all three aspects individually.

While I get feedback informally from students in every class, I felt it necessary to capture this in a more formal manner, especially given that they can be anonymous in an online survey and perhaps give constructive feedback more readily than they would in person. 

Wrongly or rightly, I found the "any other comments" question the most interesting and generally read the answers to that one first! Thankfully, on the whole, they were very positive. The comments identifying areas for improvement will help enhance my practice for the upcoming semester. Meanwhile the complimentary comments have done wonders for my ego. No downsides to capturing user voice!

 

MPS video run through - Mark Hetherington

One of the good practice criterion points noted in the recent Communication and English EV reports was the video run through of the Master Pack System I posted in our evidence folders.

It is not mandatory for External Verifiers to have prior access to a Master Pack per se, as sometimes there are QA / privacy challenges cross colleges, but it is always helpful to show them the secure depository somehow should they not have full access. Pre lockdown, they would look at the physical Master Pack Folder (now in electronic format, of course).

One of my own HNC Business students undertaking this very unit (H7TK 34) was delivering a social media presentation and introduced me to a feature on the mobile ‘phone which is “screen recording”. It is often the case that simple ideas are often (arguably) the most effective. I am not too precious to learn from our learners, that’s a fact! 

Here is the run through, which will be handy when the next EV visit occurs in a month or so for the Business Communication Unit.

When I was updating all the folders in the MPS for the Communication delivery, I wanted to ensure that all the signposts were clear to all lecturers delivering the respective units, both new and experienced, in a friendly and supportive way, which was not the case in the previous versions, sadly.

2024 EV Successes - Numbers and Words!

The Mathematics / Numeracy and Communication / English teaching teams both received successful reports in 2024 External Verification reports. EV visits can be daunting for many lecturers and the current mode of delivery (arguably) makes this difficult in terms of preparation, as they are now conducted online. Not only did lecturers have to supply all materials in online format, many of them were involved in the then industrial dispute. This meant fewer hours to prepare the folders, conduct pre EV meetings, IV work etc., as many of them were working to contract only. Both the visits had to be rearranged as a result, which was acknowledged in the respective reports.

This post draws out some of the main points which contributed to two all green / high confidence Qualification Verification reports.

This demonstrates the levels needed to Assure Quality, and various  groups were verified from levels 3-6 inclusive (VG 340) May 2024 and level 6 (VG 001) April 2024.

All colleagues are advised to read the EV reports, previous and most recent ones, to get a feel for all the criteria points in sections 2, 3 and 4. Knowledge and understanding of these are helpful for the online meeting discussions, where much of the good practice points can be fleshed out and written up in the External Verifier's report. 

Core Skills Numeracy feedback highlights

The centre was congratulated on having appropriate and contextualised assessments. Marking and progress recording were clear. 

Internal verification was thorough and effective. Comments made were valid and key in ensuring a good standard of assessment, marking and recording across the numeracy units. 

A significant number of numeracy units have been prior verified.

Thorough internal verification of evidence, with good recording.

The candidates' qualifications are reviewed by the host department to ensure appropriate for the course. The host department allocates the candidates to the appropriate numeracy class. The assessor can change the unit being studied if the candidate is struggling. Candidates who require extra support are referred to the ELS team who provide the the necessary help.

Candidates must have scheduled contact with their assessor to review their progress and to revise their assessment plans accordingly. 

For F3GF10, F3GF 11 and F3GF 12 the centre has devised a number of contextualised versions specific to their course.

Clear marking and recording on scripts.

Communication and English feedback highlights

The centre has received a High Confidence rating, with all quality criteria securely evidenced. The centre uses a range of learner-centred approaches to teaching of FA1W12 and FA5812. It is very clear from the discussion with both the learners and assessors as well as from the evidence provided that the delivery team are committed to providing a very high quality learning and teaching experience for students. 

The team also received praise for their efforts in ensuring the suitability and the relevance of assessment material, with high standards maintained when making decisions about candidate evidence. 

Internal verification procedures are also effective.

During this visit, evidence from all three sites was reviewed: Cumbernauld and Coatbridge for Communication (NC) (FA1W12/13 and 14, respectively), and Cumbernauld and Motherwell for Literature 1 (FA5812/114 and 111, respectively). 

During the visit, candidates from SWAP Access to Nursing, SWAP Access Social Sciences, and NQ Psychology and Criminology courses were available to provide feedback on their learning and teaching experience, as well as the support available. 

All candidates praised the organisation of the learning and teaching experience of both FA1W12 and FA5812, the range of assessments undertaken and the feedback provided, and were very satisfied with the support received from, and the frequency of contact with, their assessors. In particular, the candidates said they found classes intellectually stimulating, were encouraged to critically engage with the material taught, and to spend time on self-reflection, for example in relation to individual talks. 

They also agreed that their support needs, where relevant, were met, for example by having a regular access to computers and/or having assessments, learning and teaching material available in different formats.

A very impressive assessor’s blog providing both students and the assessor with opportunities to review aspects of course delivery.

Assessments used in Communication (NC) incorporate vocationally relevant and current materials, enhancing engagement with specific student groups. More specifically, the department prepares learners for academic report writing, offering guidance modelled on reports in higher education settings. For example, the reports submitted to me prior to the EV activity were characterised by: an effective use of structure, information based on academic research into various and reliable sources, and inclusion of intext referencing and a bibliography list. The students then use this information to prepare an individual talk, supported with PowerPoint slides. 

Additionally, students benefit from an interactive blog maintained by their assessor, fostering reflection, deepening knowledge, and nurturing a cohesive group dynamic. For all assessments there were detailed task instructions, a record of text, a marking guide, and performance criteria matched to the current specification. This level of detail is best practice. 

The centre has a policy in place to ensure authenticity (POLAP 9: Assessment Malpractice and Maladministration Policy). This policy deals with plagiarism, collusion, copying, offensive and frivolous content, fabrication, deception , cheating, bribery, misconduct, sabotage. In line with recent developments in generative AI such as ChatGPT, the centre also has a policy on plagiarism and AI. We briefly touched upon SQA's policy on the use of generative AI in assessments (https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/ 107507.html) in this context. 

Candidates sign a declaration form upon the submission of each assessment to confirm their understanding of malpractice and expectations of authenticity. Several drafts of written work are retained (examples of these were presented to me as evidence), and the assessors work closely with candidates as work is generated. Submissions made by candidates are uploaded to Turnitin and automatically checked for plagiarism using antiplagiarism software, with the assessor being able to review the rate of plagiarism and to take action, if necessary.