Passion and Reflection

I have spent the last few days having individual interviews with the Life Science module coordinators and their team members. The interviews involve reflecting on their involvement with the module and the assessment practices . The object of the exercise is to build up case studies of the current assessment practice ,to see what the particular assessment drivers are and to give people a chance to critically reflect on their current practice.

The appreciative enquiry approach that we are taking is really paying dividends - it is allowing the passion that these practitioners have for their subject to really shine through. It is interesting to watch people during the interviews start realise that they can say " wait - what if...........". Simple questions such as "tell me what you enjoy most about being involved with this module" are acting as a catalyst for open and honest reflection about the assessment practices.

This honest reflection along with being able to harness the passion of the staff are the key elements to the success of the project. They will be the drivers that will allow the re-engineering from within the module teams.

All roads lead to ESCAPE

Peter Bullen and I have been invited to act as guest editors for a special edition of Engineering Education. Engineering Education is the Journal of the Higher Education Engineering Subject Centre. We were approached (I suspect) since we are engineers, are passionate about engineering Education and because we are Director and Deputy Director of the Blended Learning Unit (respectively).

The focus of the special edition is technology supported engineering
education. See the fit?

We were overwhelmed with the response, it far exceeded our expectations and I suspect it exceeded the expectations of the Subject Centre :-) Naturally we then had the pleasure of reading the proposals. This 'pleasure' IS genuine since I'm always interested to hear and read about colleagues activity. Although we are guest-editing the regular editorial team are still in place to support us. I had a lengthy telephone conversation today regarding the proposals and how we move forward from here.

Some things that came from the conversation included ...

* What to do with a great proposal that exceeded the word limit?
* How it was comforting when the 5 independent reviewers agreed on the outcome of many of the proposals
* How it was frustrating when we didn't.
* How we can be encouraging yet maintain the standards of the Journal

Sure, much of this relates to the Journal but it really struck a chord with me since we were essentially assessing the proposals for suitability for inclusion in the journal. And many of the issues really relate to assessment per se.

* Congruence of mark / feedback - i.e. reliability of assessment
* Engagement with the rules
* Sharing and maintaining standards


Seems like wherever I look nowadays I see assessment and activity related to ESCAPE.