Authors and contributors: Katherine Holt, Ella Metcalfe, Louise Dash, Mike Porter
Abstract
In response to student concerns we developed a faculty-level student guide on ‘Support for Exam Preparation’. Natural Sciences students are uniquely placed to comment on how practice varies across departments within MAPS faculty. Students expressed frustration that departments had different policies for past exams and model answer availability, which were sometimes not well explained. A task group was established, with representatives from across the faculty, to agree a uniform, inclusive approach and develop guides for students and staff about expectations. Above an agreed baseline the position adopted is not prescriptive, so can be applied flexibly by departments. An important outcome is that students know their baseline entitlement to support and emphasis is placed on clear communication from departments on why support might differ from the baseline. This process is a model for working with students to address their concerns about assessment and ensuring that students have equal access to support.
Issue to be addressed
MAPS faculty is comprised of 10 departments undertaking undergraduate and postgraduate taught teaching. Many modules within these programmes assess, at least in part, by final exam. Some departments had a policy in place for how many past exam papers should be available to students via the library exam website or on Moodle; however several did not. Some departments also had a defined position on availability of answers to past papers, but in many cases the support students received in exam preparation was variable even across modules in the same programme. This lack of consistency is especially obvious to students on the Natural Sciences programme, a multi-disciplinary programme where students follow major and minor streams in different departments. It is confusing and frustrating for students when support is available in one department and not in another, especially when the differences in approach are not well-explained or justified. This issue was raised by students using the UnitU platform, as explained by the Natural Sciences Programme Deputy Director, Ella Metcalfe:
Other departments felt there would be some benefits to their students if a common approach was discussed and agreed across the faculty, as explained by Louise Dash (Director of Teaching, Department of Physics and Astronomy) and Mike Porter (Chair of Undergraduate Exam Board, Department of Chemistry):
Approach of task group
We held initial discussions on this issue at Faculty Education Committee and Faculty Board of Examiners meetings. Several members of each committee then agreed to form a task group to develop an agreed faculty position on availability of past exam papers and indicative (model) answers. A first draft position document was drafted by Katherine Holt (Vice Dean Education) to be discussed and refined during two task group meetings.
We agreed that the review must incorporate:
- A commitment to equality of opportunity and access for all students.
- An aim to embed formative assessment and feedback opportunities into every module.
- A student-centred approach, i.e. that the viewpoint of the student as they navigate their programme should be considered (especially the experience of Natural Scientists). In other words, is the information provided consistent and clear? Is there confusion about which papers/solutions are or are not available? If a particular module does things differently is the practice and rationale clearly explained and transparent?
- A recognition that assessment practice will continue to undergo the rapid changes encountered recently due to Covid, so principles must be flexible.
- An evidenced based approach. For instance, we should examine fixed ideas and conceptions like ‘students won’t revise properly if we give them model answers’; ‘model answers prevent independent study’ etc. Do we even have any evidence that those things are true? (They might be of course, but let’s examine them!).
- Principles that advise students on how to use model answers (if provided) most effectively for revision.
- Consistency in enforcement of principles but flexibility so that local practice can vary.
- Consideration on the best way of communicating the agreed principles to students.
- Consideration of workload burden on academic staff in providing model answers and formative feedback.
An initial suggested position was set out but then modified and revised after feedback and comment from all members of the task group. Members shared current practice in their departments and explained the rationale behind it. During the second meeting of the group, it became clear that the best approach was to set a baseline expectation for support (i.e. a minimum number of past papers and answers that are available) but with a strong steer to enhance the offering above this baseline, with suggestions on how to do this. We discuss here what worked well:
Outcomes
The final guidance document outlines agreed principles for equal and fair support for students as they prepare for exams. It includes principles for access to example past exam questions and the guidance we offer students in how to answer those questions.
Underlying these principles are the values of an ‘inclusive curriculum’, which includes identification and elimination of barriers that prevent students from accessing and engaging in the education to which they are entitled.
Students should therefore expect transparency and clarity on availability of guidance for past papers for a given module. An inclusive approach to education is to the benefit of all students but is of particular benefit to students with fewer social networks. This is more likely to include students from WP or BAME backgrounds, commuter students and those with working or caring responsibilities beyond university. Katherine (MAPS Vice Dean Education) explains how the faculty interprets an ‘inclusive curriculum’ with respect to assessment strategy:
The final position is an agreed baseline level of support that all modules should offer but some recommended additional guidance is outlined, for implementation where appropriate. The document is split into two parts: 1) providing clarity to students on the types of questions they could encounter in an exam; 2) providing opportunities for students to test their understanding of the questions and receive feedback.
Alongside this staff guidance document we developed a Student Guide to explain why we had developed this position and explain the rationales behind the final outcome.
Improvements to process and future plans
Although the initial motivation for this work was in response to student concerns, unfortunately students were not involved in the process of developing the position or the final guides. This was largely due to the time of year when the task group was meeting (November) as student representatives are only just being elected and trained during this period. The process and the resulting documents were discussed at Faculty Staff Student Consultative Committee and Faculty Education Committee with the lead student reps present. Despite circulating the documents for comment there was no response from student reps when asked for feedback. It is clear that more active recruitment of students to such task groups would be very beneficial in the future and we need to be more proactive in getting students involved.
There are other aspects of assessment that would benefit from a similar review at faculty level to reassure departments that they are following best practice and to ensure that students have clarity on expectations for assessment. Examples include preparation for dissertations (e.g. access to mark schemes, rubrics or example prior dissertations); lab reports and other high stakes coursework. We plan to form similar task groups to develop guides for staff and students, with the aim to develop baseline positions that can be adopted flexibly at departmental level. Overall, as Ella describes below, this task group is representative of the more consultative and collaborative approach the faculty have taken recently to exchanging best practice, working with students and providing an evidence base for what works well in our education.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the task group: Ella Metcalfe (Natural Sciences); Louise Dash (Physics and Astronomy); Mike Porter (Chemistry); Punam Yadav (IRDR); Frank Deppisch (Physics and Astronomy); Elinor Jones (Statistical Sciences); Ian Ford (Natural Sciences/Physics); Sarah Matthews (Space and Climate Physics). Thanks also to Zak Liddell (MAPS Director of Education and Student Experience).