Track E - The Traditional Dissertation in Biomedical Sciences

The Traditional Dissertation in Biomedical Sciences: Not Broken, But How Can We Improve It? Dr Paula Bernaschina, Rosemary Clyne and Martin Rooke, Middlesex University Learner Development Unit, Library and Student Support and the School of Science and Technology

The Biomedical Science Dissertation workshop was facilitated by Rosemary Clyne (Module Leader), Martin Rooke (Graduate Teaching Assistant) and Paula Bernaschina (Academic Writing and Language Support Lecturer).

Although ‘69% of the students enjoyed the dissertation module’ and ‘75% felt it allowed them to express themselves academically’ overall students did less well in the dissertation than a 3rd year writing task. The workshop centred on addressing this problem.

The workshop participants were asked to come up with ideas on the following questions:

• What is the best procedure for communicating final agreed grades and feedback to students?
• How can the Academic Writing and Language (AWL) lecturers help you and your students?
• How should the dissertation module for biomedical science be improved?

The session succeeded in engaging the participants to question current practice and brainstorm to come up with ideas that could lead to improvement.

One of the interesting discussions centred on transparency in marking. With transparency in mind it had been decided to share grades from both 1st and 2nd markers with students. However, comparison of 1st and 2nd marker grades showed a tendency of 1st markers (the academic supervisors) to consistently award higher grades than the 2nd Markers.  As grades awarded by 1st and 2nd markers differed participants felt this could lead to a rise in student appeals and hence thought sharing both grades was a little too transparent.  

To view the slides click here

Participants' video feedback 2

Steven Barritt, Middlesex University

Simon Best, Middlesex University

Waqar Ahmad, Middlesex University

Participants' video feedback 3

Mick Healey, University of Gloucestershire

Ray Batchelor, Buckinghamshire New University

Marc Rayan, Middlesex University

Caroline Reid, University of Bedfordshire & Barbara Workman, Middlesex University

Lunch break

Participants' video feedback 1

Clare O'Donohue, Middlesex University

Małgorzata Nanke, Jagiellonian University, Poland

Federico Farini, Middlesex University

Aftenoon keynote - Mick Healey

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater: Rethinking the undergraduate dissertation Professor Mick Healey, University of Gloucestershire

 

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater: Rethinking the undergraduate dissertation from mdxaltc

 
Final year projects and dissertations handout

It was a pleasure to welcome Mick Healey, HE Consultant, Researcher and Emeritus Professor at the University of Gloucestershire, UK, to offer the conference his thoughts and findings from a detailed two year study funded by the HEA, ‘‘Rethinking Final Year Projects and Dissertations: Creative Honours and Capstone Projects”. The publication of the report of this study is very well timed with the theme of this year’s conference and an excellent opportunity for Mick to give life to the pages of the report. However this was to be no didactic speech from the front and Mick announced that the afternoon session was to be workshop style that would provide plenty of opportunities for participants to explore and discuss some of the key ideas presented in the report and beyond. The session was prefaced with a quote from Paul Ramsden that espoused the idea that undergraduate students could and should be involved in research and the co-creation of knowledge throughout their programmes of study; this placed the role of the dissertation more clearly as the logical culmination of such study.

In his opening remarks it was clear that Mick felt that reports of the death of the dissertation have been widely exaggerated but that this was tempered by a need to find new formats and ideas for Final Year Project and Dissertation (FTPD) studies that needed to respond to a greater diversity of both students and subjects that now existed in higher education. It was clear that we were not alone in questioning the currency and value of FYPDs within our own University and it was useful for Mick to briefly outline the debates and responses to similar questions that had taken place internationally from America to Australia. It was interesting to note that the a UK debate about the development of teaching only universities had resulted in the Research Informed Teaching (RIT) initiatives of early to mid 2010s that have led to the maintenance of the FYPD as the gold standard and USP of a British higher education.

The study that Mick has been involved in had sought to explore the FYPD in relation to five principle headings; Conception, Function, Form, Location and Dissemination, it was through consideration of these principles that we might be able to extend and adapt the scope of FYPD within programmes of study. Mick was able to offer examples of this from case studies within the report drawn from Biomedical Science and MIT and the exciting initiative of the British Conference of Undergraduate Research (BCUR) that was now in its third year within the UK. Within the activities of the workshop we were asked to consider the 10 key characteristics of FYPDs that had been identified within the study to see if we agreed and had any to add. The broad consensus appeared to be one of agreement with some questions being raised about the language of methodology and trans-disciplinary practices. We were asked to look at the range of case studies and discuss ways that we might use or adapt these ideas. In the final exercise we were encouraged to consider ways that students might be better supported without the use of more staff time or even reducing it; this opened an interesting discourse on the use of both linear and vertical peer support systems.

Mick concluded that it was clear that the ‘one size fits all’ idea of the FYPD was inappropriate and that we might consider students as agents of change within the development of both FYPD formats and through the use of FYPDs as ways of informing the design and content of curriculums. This was a very useful and timely session that left participants with plenty of energy for a wide range of ideas that they might develop in the future.

Report by Mike Seignor

Track H - Professional inquiry

Professional inquiry: advocating the emerging practitioner perspective Alan Durrant and Paula Nottingham, Middlesex University Institute for Work Based Learning


A 3 part assessment comprising; a Critical Review (6000 words), a Professional Artefact (equivalent to 3000 words) and an Oral Presentation, replaces the traditional 12000 word dissertation on Alan and Paula’s innovative programme for media and performing arts professionals. They have responded to the needs of their students and created a programme that sits within the work based learning framework but takes a learner centred approach to professional inquiry – with an assessment that reflects this and is slightly different to the professional practice project.

In this stimulating session, Paula and Alan explained their approach to professional inquiry. Their student body - generally young practitioners in the performing arts or graphics design – are not based in one organisation but freelancers who are part of a wider professional community. The programme is designed to provide them with the academic tools to accompany them on their professional journey and help them deal with questions such as “How do I as an emerging professional, operate in this environment”. When Alan and Paula thought about whether a traditional dissertation would serve these students, they realised that it would not – something more relevant was required, challenging students to think about themselves in their practice and so they developed an inquiry model with some features of a dissertation.

The goal of the programme, is to bring about transformative learning. Using reflective practice and inquiry, considering transdisciplinarity (in this presentation, understood as skills and ways of working that are not disciplinary) and drawing on contemporary approaches, such as capabilities learning, it is attribute rather than knowledge based.

As questions flowed, particularly around the approach to assessment, they shared with us examples of students work. The photo shows some of The Professional Artefacts submissions, which can take all sorts of forms.

The session will be available to watch on video shortly and the slides can be viewed below.

Report by Louise Merlin

Professional Inquiry: advocating the emerging practitioner perspective from mdxaltc