10.06.2017 Views

A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Enhancing academic and Practice

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

46 ❘<br />

<strong>Teach<strong>in</strong>g</strong>, supervis<strong>in</strong>g, learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />

6 Evaluation<br />

This covers the learner’s ability to construct an argument, compare oppos<strong>in</strong>g arguments,<br />

make judgements <strong>and</strong> so on. Can learners make judgements based on <strong>in</strong>ternal evidence?<br />

Can they make judgements based on external evidence?<br />

The follow<strong>in</strong>g verbs may be useful <strong>in</strong> construct<strong>in</strong>g learn<strong>in</strong>g outcomes <strong>in</strong> response to<br />

these questions:<br />

judge select evaluate choose<br />

assess compare estimate rate<br />

measure argue defend summarise<br />

In us<strong>in</strong>g these verbs to <strong>for</strong>m your learn<strong>in</strong>g outcomes it is useful to bear <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d that you<br />

may need to check that your students actually underst<strong>and</strong> the mean<strong>in</strong>g of the verbs. Do<br />

your students underst<strong>and</strong>, <strong>for</strong> example, the difference between ‘compare’ <strong>and</strong> ‘contrast’?<br />

Do they underst<strong>and</strong> what it means to ‘construct an argument’?<br />

In writ<strong>in</strong>g learn<strong>in</strong>g outcomes, there are other factors relat<strong>in</strong>g to ‘the curriculum’ as<br />

students experience it that need to be taken <strong>in</strong>to consideration. For example, learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />

outcomes should <strong>in</strong>clude a description of the k<strong>in</strong>ds of per<strong>for</strong>mances by which achievement<br />

will be judged, either with<strong>in</strong> the outcome or <strong>in</strong> an associated set of assessment<br />

criteria (Toohey, 1999).<br />

CREDIT LEVEL DESCRIPTORS<br />

One of the issues many staff f<strong>in</strong>d problematic is that of credit levels <strong>and</strong> level descriptors.<br />

There is a strong push with<strong>in</strong> the UK higher education sector towards credit frameworks.<br />

For example, the Southern Engl<strong>and</strong> Consortium <strong>for</strong> Credit Accumulation <strong>and</strong> Transfer<br />

(SEEC, 2001) has presented a set of guidel<strong>in</strong>es on Credit Level Descriptors. These descriptors<br />

are grouped under four head<strong>in</strong>gs:<br />

• Development of knowledge <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g (subject specific)<br />

• Cognitive/<strong>in</strong>tellectual skills (generic)<br />

• Key transferable skills (generic)<br />

• Practical skills (subject specific).<br />

Credit level descriptors may be used as the means by which each subject area can check<br />

the level of dem<strong>and</strong>, complexity, depth of study <strong>and</strong> degree of learner autonomy expected<br />

at each level of an <strong>in</strong>dividual programme of study. While credit level descriptors are

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!