University of Strathclyde - TQFE Programme: consultation analysis

Question 3

Do you consider that the TQFE programme as detailed in this consultation is suitable in relation to: assessment of the programme?

4 respondents agreed that the assessment of the TQFE programme detailed in the programme is suitable; 1 respondent did not agree; 2 respondents were unsure and the remaining respondent did not answer the question.

In further detail, respondents made the following comments about the assessment arrangements set out in the consultation. The below comments are direct quotes from respondents who were content to have their responses published:

• The viva approach also promotes depth of learning, providing an opportunity for the student to engage in collegiate discussion about the contents of the portfolio and exemplify the range of experiences through which they have adopted the Professional Standards. Reference is made to the programme being conducted entirely online. However, we would welcome clarification as to whether the viva will be conducted in person or remotely. To ensure inclusive practice, we would again recommend that the views of the individual student should be taken into account in determining this format.
• The assessment methods of portfolio and viva are new to TQFE programmes in Scotland and are noted with considerable interest. Lecturers come from diverse range of subject/workplace/industry sectors and we would be interested in learning the benefits of this approach to TQFE assessment including lecturer/college feedback. There is however a potential for inconsistency across colleges in relation to the more substantial college mentor role/assessment suggested in this programme. GTC Scotland questions whether it is possible to ensure that the professional standards can be fully assessed in scenarios where only virtual assessment has been used and would propose that a caveat needs to be considered in order to ensure there is a balance between assessment approaches undertaken. With regard to observations (as a form of assessment), it is noted that the observation by the university will be digital, however, teaching observations (in the main, i.e., "most observations") will be face-to-face; at least one of the university observations should be face-to-face in order to capture verbal and non-verbal interactions and engagement. This would naturally extend to the in-class professional discussion following observations as a crucial aspect of developing Learning and Teaching practice.
• The proposed role for college mentors in Module 3 is welcome, enabling a greater emphasis on this critical aspect over other TQFE providers, giving mentors a bigger role in supporting the development of the Module 3 Portfolio and prep for the viva. This links to mentors' development as a CPD opportunity.
• The focus on authentic assessment and assessment for learning, along with the evidencing of achievement of the professional standards, is modelling good practice to students.
• We considered the assessment tasks themselves to be authentic and relevant for college lecturers. However, we do have some queries about assessment methods, grading and workload required from students to complete these assessments. Some more detailed assessment criteria are needed to fully understand the appropriateness of the assessment approach.
• Observations of practice are not listed as an assessment task but we presume these are assessed. It was not clear whether these will be assessed in a pass/fail way (in line with other TQFE programmes) and why these are shorter than is typical in other TQFE programmes (where observations are 1 hour). As we understand the programme design, observations of practice are not linked with any of the modules but more stand-alone and this is perhaps a missed opportunity to further cement the links between the learning taking place during the modules and teaching practice. We suggest it is essential that observations of practice are assessed formally during a TQFE programme.
• It is good here to incorporate remote methods for observing practice but relying solely on these can be problematic. In particular, some guidance is needed about what constitutes an acceptable recording for assessment purposes. We also foresee an equity issue with online-only observations as this creates choice in the assessment for some students (who teach both online and in a physical classroom) but not for others (who only teach physically in the college).