Complex skills and academic writing:a review of evidence about the types of learning required to meet core assessment criteria

Assessment criteria are increasingly incorporated into teaching, making it important to clarify the pedagogic status of the qualities to which they refer. We reviewed theory and evidence about the extent to which four core criteria for student writing-critical thinking, use of language, structuring, and argument-refer to the outcomes of three types of learning: generic skills learning, a deep approach to learning, and complex learning. The analysis showed that all four of the core criteria describe to some extent properties of text resulting from using skills, but none qualify fully as descriptions of the outcomes of applying generic skills. Most also describe certain aspects of the outcomes of taking a deep approach to learning. Critical thinking and argument correspond most closely to the outcomes of complex learning. At lower levels of performance, use of language and structuring describe the outcomes of applying transferable skills. At higher levels of performance, they describe the outcomes of taking a deep approach to learning. We propose that the type of learning required to meet the core criteria is most usefully and accurately conceptualized as the learning of complex skills, and that this provides a conceptual framework for maximizing the benefits of using assessment criteria as part of teaching. © 2006 Taylor & Francis.

Congenital prosopagnosia in a child:neuropsychological assessment, eye movement recordings and training

Here we report the assessment and treatment of a 6-year-old boy (L.G.) who was referred to us for congenital prosopagnosia (CP). We investigated his performance using a test battery and eye movement recordings pre- and post-training. L.G. showed deficits in recognising relatives and learning new faces, and misrecognition of unfamiliar people. Eye movement recordings showed that L.G. focused on the lower part of stimuli in naming tasks based on familiar or unfamiliar incomplete or complete faces. The training focused on improving his ability to explore internal features of faces, to discriminate specific facial features of familiar and unfamiliar faces, and to provide his family with strategies to use in the future. At the end of the training programme L.G. no longer failed to recognise close and distant relatives and classmates and did not falsely recognise unknown people.

Developing a robust self evaluation framework for active learning:the first stage of an ERASMUS+ project (QAEMarketPlace4HEI)

In ensuring the quality of learning and teaching in Higher Education, self-evaluation is an important component of the process. An example would be the approach taken within the CDIO community whereby self-evaluation against the CDIO standards is part of the quality assurance process. Eight European universities (Reykjavik University, Iceland; Turku University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Aarhus University, Denmark; Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Ume? University, Sweden; Telecom Bretagne, France; Aston University, United Kingdom; Queens University Belfast, United Kingdom) are engaged in an EU funded Erasmus + project that is exploring the quality assurance process associated with active learning. The development of a new self-evaluation framework that feeds into a ?Marketplace? where participating institutions can be paired up and then engage in peer evaluations and sharing around each institutions approach to and implementation of active learning. All of the partner institutions are engaged in the application of CDIO within their engineering programmes and this has provided a common starting point for the partnership to form and the project to be developed. Although the initial focus will be CDIO, the longer term aim is that the approach could be of value beyond CDIO and within other disciplines. The focus of this paper is the process by which the self-evaluation framework is being developed and the form of the draft framework. In today?s Higher Education environment, the need to comply with Quality Assurance standards is an ever present feature of programme development and review. When engaging in a project that spans several countries, the wealth of applicable standards and guidelines is significant. In working towards the development of a robust Self Evaluation Framework for this project, the project team decided to take a wide view of the available resources to ensure a full consideration of different requirements and practices. The approach to developing the framework considered: a) institutional standards and processes b) national standards and processes e.g. QAA in the UK c) documents relating to regional / global accreditation schemes e.g. ABET d) requirements / guidelines relating to particular learning and teaching frameworks e.g. CDIO. The resulting draft self-evaluation framework is to be implemented within the project team to start with to support the initial ?Marketplace? pairing process. Following this initial work, changes will be considered before a final version is made available as part of the project outputs. Particular consideration has been paid to the extent of the framework, as a key objective of the project is to ensure that the approach to quality assurance has impact but is not overly demanding in terms of time or paperwork. In other words that it is focused on action and value added to staff, students and the programmes being considered.