School of Education
An evaluation of the collaboration
between Mathematics and Science ITE
tutors in developing teaching
strategies to support their students
with M level writing
Maarten Tas and Sue Forsythe
www.le.ac.uk
Overview
• Introduction
• Aim
• Extra support for Mathematics and
Science PGCE Students (UA1 and UA2)
• Methods
• Results
• Conclusions
• Recommendations
Introduction
In 2007-2008 the proportion of Mathematics and Science PGCE
students at the University of Leicester being successful in writing
assignments at Masters level was worryingly lower than the whole
cohort of Secondary PGCE students.
In 2008-2009 an extra programme of support for Mathematics and
Science was put in place, in particular peer assessment of a synopsis for
the second assignment, resulting in a much higher percentage.
Subject
No. of students achieving Masters
2007-2008
2008-2009
126/152 (83%)
131/142 (92%)
Mathematics
5/11 (45%)
14/19 (74%)
Science
22/38 (59%)
28/34 (82%)
All secondary
PGCE subjects
Aim for 2009-10
• For the Mathematics and Science Tutors
to work collaboratively supporting the
Mathematics and Science Post Graduate
Certificate of Education (PGCE) students
at the University of Leicester, leading to
an even higher proportion gaining Masters
level credits.
Extra support for Mathematics and Science
PGCE Students (assignment 1 – UA1)
Support for Mathematics students
Support for Science students
Subject session on writing a practice
assignment, Harvard style of referencing
and introducing a mark scheme
Critical Review Library session
Peer marking the practice assignment
Session on structuring assignment
and marking exemplar assignments
using level descriptors and mark
scheme
Peer conversation following on from the
peer marking
Twilight session with tutor in
December
University tutor feedback on the
practice assignment
Session with university student
support staff on writing skills
Peer conversations about the assignment
in December
Title:
Extra support for Mathematics and
Science PGCE Students (UA2)
Peer assessment of the synopsis and tutor feedback using
the following framework:
Content
Introduction
Focus
Why questions
What questions
How questions
Outline of some
learning and teaching
strategies
Literature
To be added
Not needed
Other comments
Methods
• Questionnaire after submitting UA1:
– Mathematics n=29
– Science n=37
• Questionnaire after the support session for
UA2, comparing the attitudes of current
students and cohorts from the previous year:
– 2008-2009 Mathematics and Science n=33
– 2009-2010 Mathematics and Science n=41
• Interviews with PGCE students
– Mathematics n=4
– Science n=6
Student feedback on the support for UA1
• The Mathematics and Science students
received different forms of support and
therefore the questionnaires addressed
different foci.
• However, through this collaboration clear
needs and direction can be identified.
Mathematics
Results of questionnaire on support for UA1 n=29
Support strategy
Helpful
Not helpful
Subject session on writing the assignment
27
2
Writing the practice assignment
Whole course session on writing the assignment
27
11
2
18
Seeing the markscheme
Marking the practice assignment of another student
27
22
2
7
Getting oral feedback from another student on your
practice assignment
University tutor feedback on the practice assignment
18
11
26
3
Exemplar assignments on Blackboard
20
10
The peer conversations about the assignment
15
14
Help from university tutor
26
3
Some issues raised by the Mathematic students:
• Wanted more tutor feedback on practice assignments
• There was not enough advice on how to structure the
assignment
• Wanted more direct input on locating research material
Science
Results of questionnaire on support for UA1 n=37
Support strategy
Helpful
Not helpful
Whole course session 1 Research/writing at
Masters level
Whole course session 2 in mixed groups
19
18
17
20
Critical Review Library session
27
10
Session on structuring assignment and marking
exemplar assignments using level descriptors
37
0
Twilight session with tutor in December
31
6
Session with student support staff (individual
and/or group work)
Exemplar Assignments and other info on VLE
11
0
33
4
Handbook for Writing Assignments
32
5
Individual support from tutor
37
0
Some issues raised by the Science students
• Twilight session; good to know others were in the same boat
• Whole course session needs to be optional (2)
• Did not ask for any individual tutor support
• Handbook; more detail needed for requirement at each level
• Some kind of feedback on draft assignment would be helpful
to know whether on track (2)
• One-on-one very useful, but needed more
Suggestions for further support (Science)
Extra tutorial in
small groups
n=16
Marking more
Peer marking a practice
exemplar
assignment (to check the
assignments using referencing and academic
the marking criteria writing for Social Sciences)
and level descriptors
n=8
n=13
An extra workshop Opportunity to read
Other suggestions:
on professional
the work of your
- Time management
writing in TDC
peers
seminar
n=0
n=11
- Extra individual tutorials
• I didn’t find this assignment aided my
teaching in any way and provided lots of
stress and extra work at a time when all I
wanted to focus on was my classroom
persona and ability to teach
This is a comment by a student; How do
we address this and make it relevant to
their training?
Conclusions
• Sessions in subject specific groups are more valued than
the whole course sessions
• Individual support from tutor is more valued than support
from peers
• Students need more training for being peer assessors
• Writing and assessment of the practice assignment in
Mathematics was successful
• A session on structuring the assignment and marking
exemplar assignments using level descriptors in Science
was successful
• The Mathematics and Science students identified needs
which were fulfilled in the support strategies in the other
subject.
Recommendations for UA1
support in 2010-2011
• Session 1:
– On the structure of an M level assignment, including
referencing;
– The marking of exemplar assignments using the mark
scheme and level descriptors;
– Homework to write a practice assignment.
• Session 2:
– Peer review of the practice assignments on Assessment for
Learning (AfL)
• Session 3:
– Students bring in a one page draft (either written or
diagrammatic) for Learning Conversations in small groups
• Individual tutorials
Support for UA2
Results of questionnaire on verbal and written
feedback on the synopsis by fellow students.
Was this feedback
worthwhile in your
opinion?
YES
NO
2008-9
85
15
2009-10
80
20
Results of questionnaire on verbal and
written feedback on the synopsis by tutor.
YES NO
Was this feedback worthwhile in
your opinion?
2008-9
88
12
2009-10
90
10
Improvements suggested by students
• More discussion with more peers (4)
• Longer time given to read and assess synopsis (2)
• More feedback from course tutor (11)
• Do synopsis earlier (2)
• More help on understanding grid (2)
• Help on how to write a synopsis (6)
• Peer marking other’s work who is working on a similar topic
(3)
Other support reported useful
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Blackboard material (4)
Support from the librarian (3)
Brainstorming ideas in an earlier session (2)
Previous assignment feedback (1)
Time spent on discussion on requirements (2)
Finding another peer who worked on a similar topic (1)
Example outline (1)
Guidance from handbooks (1)
Marking grid (1)
Other issues raised
• Peer assessment didn’t give any new ideas (1)
• Blind leading the blind for peer assessment (1)
• It (peer assessment strategy) brought the assessment into
focus which was useful in planning (1)
• Good exercise, very useful (peer assessment strategy) (1)
• Some good interactive debates would be good (1)
Conclusion
• The questionnaire should have focused
more on the relevance, perception and
ideas about learning conversations
rather than asking about the written
feedback of the peer-assessment
exercise.
The main points raised in the
interviews (1) (Mathematics n=4; Science n=6)
• Focus:
– Students learnt from their experience of writing
UA1 and put this in place for UA2
– Most students decided earlier on their focus
– Having to write the synopsis was helpful
• Peer assessment exercise:
– Some students said the process was only helpful
if the peers they were working with had the skills
to be able to give good feedback and ideas
– In the Science group it was mentioned that it
would be useful to work with peers who write
about the same topic
The main points raised in the
interviews (2) (Mathematics n=4; Science n=6)
• Other support:
– The value of the tutor’s input, the help of the
university library staff and the marking of
exemplar assignments using the mark scheme
with level descriptors were mentioned
• Suggestions for extra support:
– More one-on-one tutorials and unstructured
discussion with their peers were mentioned
Discussion
• Students need to have good skills for selfassessment and peer-assessment to make
learning conversations productive
• The developed skills of peer assessment
in our students can be transferred to
their own classroom teaching and
learning environment
Bibliography
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Black, P. and Wiliam, D.(1998) 'Assessment and Classroom Learning', Assessment in Education:Principles,
Policy & Practice, 5: 1, 7 — 74
Bloxham, S. and West, A. (2004) Understanding the rules of the game: marking peer assessment as a
medium for developing students’conceptions of assessment, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
29: 6, 721-733
Elwood, Jannette andKlenowski, Val(2002) 'Creating Communities of Shared Practice: the challenges of
assessment use in learning and teaching', Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27: 3, 243 — 256
Minjeong, K. (2009) The Impact of an Elaborated Assessee’s Role in Peer Assessment, Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 34 : 1,105-114
Norton, L (2009) Assessing student learning, in S. Fry, S. Ketteridge and S. Marshall (eds) A Handbook for
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Enhancing Academic Practice. 3rd Edition (New York and
London, Routledge: 141)
Rust, C., Price, M., and O'Donovan, B. (2003) 'Improving Students' Learning by Developing their
Understanding of Assessment Criteria and Processes', Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28 : 2,
147 -164
Sluijsmans, J., Brand-Gruwl. S., van Merriemboer, J.G., and Bastiaens, T.J. (2003) The Training of Peer
assessment Skills to Promote the Development of Reflection Skills in Teacher education, Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 29, 23-42
Smyth, Karen (2004) The benefits of students learning about critical evaluation rather than being
summatively judged, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29: 3, 370 -378
Taras, Maddalena(2010) 'Student self-assessment: processes and consequences', Teaching in Higher
Education, 15: 2, 199 — 209
Topping, K.J., Smith, E.F., Swanson, I. and Elliot, A. (2000) Formative Peer Assessment of Academic
Writing between Postgraduate students, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25: 2,149 – 169