Mapping teaching, learning and assessment in the MPharm in UK schools of pharmacy

Aim To undertake a national study of teaching, learning and assessment in UK schools of pharmacy. Design Triangulation of course documentation, 24 semi-structured interviews undertaken with 29 representatives from the schools and a survey of all final year students (n=1,847) in the 15 schools within the UK during 2003–04. Subjects and setting All established UK pharmacy schools and final year MPharm students. Outcome measures Data were combined and analysed under the topics of curriculum, teaching and learning, assessment, multi-professional teaching and learning, placement education and research projects. Results Professional accreditation was the main driver for curriculum design but links to preregistration training were poor. Curricula were consistent but offered little student choice. On average half the curriculum was science-based. Staff supported the science content but students less so. Courses were didactic but schools were experimenting with new methods of learning. Examinations were the principal form of assessment but the contribution of practice to the final degree ranged considerably (21–63%). Most students considered the assessment load to be about right but with too much emphasis upon knowledge. Assessment of professional competence was focused upon dispensing and pharmacy law. All schools undertook placement teaching in hospitals but there was little in community/primary care. There was little inter-professional education. Resources and logistics were the major limiters. Conclusions There is a need for an integrated review of the accreditation process for the MPharm and preregistration training and redefinition of professional competence at an undergraduate level.

Professional encounters in TESOL:Discourses of teachers in teaching

This book investigates the developing discourses of English Language teachers in a variety of international contexts. By analysing how professional development takes place through participation in professional discourse, the chapters shed light on what teachers do and why they do it.

Good practice guide in learning and teaching

Once again this publication is produced to celebrate and promote good teaching and learning support and to offer encouragement to those imaginative and innovative staff who continue to wish to challenge students to learn to maximum effect. It is hoped that others will pick up some good ideas from the articles contained in this volume. We had changed our editorial approach in drawing together the articles for this 2005/6 edition (our third) of the ABS Good Practice Guide. Firstly we have expanded our contributors beyond ABS academics. This year?s articles have also been written by staff from other areas of the University, a PhD student, a post-doctoral researcher and staff working in learning support. We see this as an acknowledgement that the learning environment involves a range of people in the process of student support. We have also expanded the maximum length of the articles from two to five pages, in order to allow greater reflection on the issues. The themes of the papers cluster around issues relating to diversity (widening participation and internationalisation of the student body), imaginative use of new technology (electronic reading on BlackboardTM ) and reflective practitioners, (reflection on rigour and relevance; on how best to train students in research ethics, relevance in the curriculum and the creativity of the teaching process) Discussion of efforts to train the HE teachers of the future looks forward to the next academic year when the Higher Education Academy?s professional standards will be introduced across the sector. In the last volume we mentioned the launch of the School?s Research Centre in Higher Education Learning and Management (HELM). Since then HELM has stimulated a lot of activity across the School (and University) particularly linking research and teaching. A list of the HELM seminars is listed as an appendix to this publication. Further details can be obtained from Catherine Foster (c.s.foster@aston.ac.uk) who coordinates the HELM seminars. HELM has also won its first independent grant from the EU Leonardo programme to look at the effect of business education on employment. In its annual report to the ABS Research Committee HELM listed for 2004 and 2005, 11 refereed journal articles, 4 book chapters, 3 published conference papers, 18 conference papers, one official reports and £72,500 of grant money produced in this research area across the School. I hope that this shows that reflection on learning is live and well in ABS. May I thank the contributors for taking time out of their busy schedules to write the articles and to Julie Green, the Quality Manager, for putting our diverse approaches into a coherent and publishable form.

Good practice guide in learning and teaching

This is the second edition of our Aston Business School (ABS) Good Practice Guide and the enthusiasm of the contributors appears undiminished. I am again reminded that I work with a group of very committed, dedicated and professional colleagues. Once again this publication is produced to celebrate and promote good teaching across the School and to offer encouragement to those imaginative and innovative staff who continue to wish to challenge students to learn to maximum effect. It is hoped that others will pick up some good ideas from the articles contained in this volume. Contributors to this Guide were not chosen because they are the best teachers in the School, although they are undoubtedly all amongst my colleagues who are exponents of enthusiastic and inspiring approaches to learning. The Quality Unit approached these individuals because they declared on their Annual Module Reflection Forms that they were doing something interesting and worthwhile which they thought others might find useful. Amongst those reading the Guide I am sure that there are many other individuals who are trying to operate similar examples of good practice in their teaching, learning and assessment methods. I hope that this publication will provoke these people into providing comments and articles of their own and that these will form the basis of next year’s Guide. It may also provoke some people to try these methods in their own teaching. The themes of the articles this year can be divided into two groups. The first theme is the quest to help students to help themselves to learn via student-run tutorials, surprise tests and mock examinations linked with individual tutorials. The second theme is making learning come to life in exciting practical ways by, for example, hands-on workshops and simulations, story telling, rhetorical questioning and discussion groups. A common theme is one of enthusiasm, reflection and commitment on behalf of the lecturers concerned. None of the approaches discussed in this publication are low effort activities on the part of the facilitator, but this effort is regarded as worthwhile as a means of creating greater student engagement. As Biggs (2003)[1] says, in his similarly inspiring way, students learn more the less passive they are in their learning. (Ref). The articles in this publication bear witness of this and much more. Since last year Aston Business School has launched its Research Centre in Higher Education Learning and Management (HELM) which is another initiative to promote excellent learning and teaching. Even before this institution has become fully operational, at least one of the articles in this publication has seen the light of day in the research arena and at least two others are ripe for dissemination to a wider audience via journal publication. More news of our successes in this activity will appear in next year’s edition. May I thank the contributors for taking time out of their busy schedules to write the articles this summer, and to Julie Green who runs the ABS Quality Unit, for putting our diverse approaches into a coherent and publishable form and for chasing us when we have needed it! I would also like to thank Ann Morton and her colleagues in the Centre for Staff Development who have supported this publication. During the last year the Centre has further stimulated the learning and teaching life of the School (and the wider University) via their Learning and Teaching Week and sponsorship of Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund (TQEF) projects. Pedagogic excellence is in better health at Aston than ever before – long may this be because this is what life in HE should be about.

Doing action research in English language teaching:a guide for practitioners

This hands-on, practical guide for ESL/EFL teachers and teacher educators outlines, for those who are new to doing action research, what it is and how it works. Straightforward and reader friendly, it introduces the concepts and offers a step-by-step guide to going through an action research process, including illustrations drawn widely from international contexts. Specifically, the text addresses: •action research and how it differs from other forms of research •the steps involved in developing an action research project •ways of developing a research focus •methods of data collection •approaches to data analysis •making sense of action research for further classroom action. Each chapter includes a variety of pedagogical activities: •Pre-Reading questions ask readers to consider what they already know about the topic •Reflection Points invite readers to think about/discuss what they have read •action points ask readers to carry out action-research tasks based on what they have read •Classroom Voices illustrate aspects of action research from teachers internationally •Summary Points provide a synopsis of the main points in the chapter

A bridge too far? Breaching the research/learning and teaching nexus in a previously research-led university

The relationship between research and learning and teaching represents what has been described as ‘amongst the most intellectually tangled, managerially complex and politically contentious issues in mass higher education’ (Scott, 2005, p 53). Despite this, arguments that in order to achieve high quality scholarly outcomes, university teachers need to adopt an approach to teaching similar to that of research (i.e. founded upon academic rigour and evidence), has long been discussed in the literature (see for example, Elton, 2005 & Healey, 2000). However, the practicalities of promoting an empirical and evidence-based approach to teaching within a research-led institution makes dealing with the research/learning and teaching nexus a somewhat challenging proposition. Drawing upon the findings of a mixed methodological study, this paper critically analyses the pedagogical, organisational and practical issues encountered by academics and support staff working within a newly established Centre for Learning Innovation and Professional Practice. Comprising an eclectic group of staff drawn from across the five Schools in the University, the Centre is dedicated to enhancing student learning through the development of evidence based teaching practice. Based upon the premise that the promotion of research-led teaching will act to bring teaching and research together, and in doing so enhance students learning experiences (Simmons & Elen 2007), the paper critically analyses the challenges encountered by staff responsible for developing and introducing a new learning & teaching focused organisational strategy (by reflecting on the previous 12 months work). In doing so it makes a significant contribution to current academic theory and debate in the areas of pedagogic practice and organisational management. Focusing specifically on the impact of the new policy on various aspects of university life including, pedagogic practice, student support, staff training, and organisational management, the paper critically addresses the cultural and attitudinal challenges of change management (Kotter, 1996) within a ‘grey-brick’ university. It concludes by arguing that the move towards becoming a more learning-focused university has started to develop an awareness of the positive impact the change initiative is having on the student experience and wider institution; whilst also drawing attention to the organisational challenges ahead.

Proof in the pedagogic pudding? The challenges of promoting evidence-based teaching practice in a research-focused institution

Drawing upon the findings of a mixed methodological study, this paper critically analyses the cultural, pedagogical, and organisational issues encountered by academics and support staff working within a newly established Centre for Learning Innovation and Professional Practice tasked with facilitating a new teaching-focused policy in a previously research-led institution. The aim of this policy is to assure that, across the institution, teaching is given the same priority and kudos as research. Focusing specifically staff perceptions of the impact of the new policy on various aspects of academic life including, pedagogic practice, student support, staff training, and organisational management, the paper critically addresses the cultural and attitudinal challenges of change management (Kotter, 1996) within a ‘grey-brick’ university. In doing so it makes a significant contribution to current academic theory and debate in the areas of pedagogic practice and organisational management.

The UK MPharm (1) - are we over reliant on traditional teaching methods?

Introduction-The design of the UK MPharm curriculum is driven by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) accreditation process and the EU directive (85/432/EEC).[1] Although the RPSGB is informed about teaching activity in UK Schools of Pharmacy (SOPs), there is no database which aggregates information to provide the whole picture of pharmacy education within the UK. The aim of the teaching, learning and assessment study [2] was to document and map current programmes in the 16 established SOPs. Recent developments in programme delivery have resulted in a focus on deep learning (for example, through problem based learning approaches) and on being more student centred and less didactic through lectures. The specific objectives of this part of the study were (a) to quantify the content and modes of delivery of material as described in course documentation and (b) having categorised the range of teaching methods, ask students to rate how important they perceived each one for their own learning (using a three point Likert scale: very important, fairly important or not important). Material and methods-The study design compared three datasets: (1) quantitative course document review, (2) qualitative staff interview and (3) quantitative student self completion survey. All 16 SOPs provided a set of their undergraduate course documentation for the year 2003/4. The documentation variables were entered into Excel tables. A self-completion questionnaire was administered to all year four undergraduates, using a pragmatic mixture of methods, (n=1847) in 15 SOPs within Great Britain. The survey data were analysed (n=741) using SPSS, excluding non-UK students who may have undertaken part of their studies within a non-UK university. Results and discussion-Interviews showed that individual teachers and course module leaders determine the choice of teaching methods used. Content review of the documentary evidence showed that 51% of the taught element of the course was delivered using lectures, 31% using practicals (includes computer aided learning) and 18% small group or interactive teaching. There was high uniformity across the schools for the first three years; variation in the final year was due to the project. The average number of hours per year across 15 schools (data for one school were not available) was: year 1: 408 hours; year 2: 401 hours; year 3: 387 hours; year 4: 401 hours. The survey showed that students perceived lectures to be the most important method of teaching after dispensing or clinical practicals. Taking the very important rating only: 94% (n=694) dispensing or clinical practicals; 75% (n=558) lectures; 52% (n=386) workshops, 50% (n=369) tutorials, 43% (n=318) directed study. Scientific laboratory practices were rated very important by only 31% (n=227). The study shows that teaching of pharmacy to undergraduates in the UK is still essentially didactic through a high proportion of formal lectures and with high levels of staff-student contact. Schools consider lectures still to be the most cost effective means of delivering the core syllabus to large cohorts of students. However, this does limit the scope for any optionality within teaching, the scope for small group work is reduced as is the opportunity to develop multi-professional learning or practice placements. Although novel teaching and learning techniques such as e-learning have expanded considerably over the past decade, schools of pharmacy have concentrated on lectures as the best way of coping with the huge expansion in student numbers. References [1] Council Directive. Concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy. Official Journal of the European Communities 1985;85/432/EEC. [2] Wilson K, Jesson J, Langley C, Clarke L, Hatfield K. MPharm Programmes: Where are we now? Report commissioned by the Pharmacy Practice Research Trust., 2005.