Enhancing Delivery and Assessment: A Case Study in Module Redesign for Improved Transition Into Higher Education

ABSTRACT

Understanding student transition into higher education is an important aspect of module design, linking content, delivery, and assessment with a student’s prior educational experience and knowledge bases. However, reflections on how modules designed choices are, generally, not widely disseminated. Here, we document the reflections of a junior lecturer responsible for redesigning a Level-4 Political Systems module and analyze the intentions of change via a transition pedagogy perspective, presenting a program renewal that establishes connected curriculum as an enabling infrastructure for students to actively engage with learning. First-year experience is considered as a major impacting factor of a student’s subsequent success on a program of higher education and the diversification of student cohorts requires teaching staff to consider a wider number of intersectional factors that may impact on a student’s opportunity to succeed in their studies. With a focus on simulations and active-learning, by providing examples of the thinking behind the resultant activities and assessment realignment we hope to provide an example of how a transition approach to a first-year module can be explored.

KEYWORDS:

• Active learning
• diversity
• module design
• simulations
• transition pedagogy

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Meriel Smith for her help with the original conceptual redesign of the module, particularly in relation to the seminar tasks.

Notes

The term “module” used herein represents a semester-long (12 weeks) teaching unit worth a total of 15 CATS /7.5 ECTS points at Level 4 in which successfully completing a full academic year of credit requires gaining 120 CATS/60 points. Typically, within the UK HE system a “module” refers to a unit of teaching equivalent to a “course” or “course unit” in the US and European systems. Contrastingly, a “course” in the UK systems tends to refer to an entire degree program. In relation to the US credit system, the module represented 150 hours of study made up of 29 hours of contact/teaching hours—24 × 1-hour lectures and 5 × 1-hour seminars—with a total of 121 independent learning hours.

Seminar 1 acted as an overview to the seminar series and assignments and how these would build toward the summative Policy Paper assessment. Teams were also tasked to pick from one of the eight regimes listed in the module handbook (China; Equatorial Guinea; Eritrea; Laos; North Korea; Oman; Saudi Arabia; Syria) and had 15 minutes to make their decision and then each provide a 3- to 4-minute initial rationale. No two teams in the same seminar group could pick the same regime and where there was duplication these teams had to negotiate for their pick.

The only “team” that failed was actually a single student who had failed to participate in seminar group tasks, so, consequently was put into their own “team” required to produce a proportionately reduced word-count policy paper.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Matthew Barr

Dr. Matthew Barr is a Lecturer in Public Policy at the University of Cambridge. His areas of interests include the processes of political decision-making, path dependence, ideation, and Foreign Policy Analysis.

Louise H. Jackson

Professor Louise H. Jackson is Head of Learning Enhancement at Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance and was awarded a National Teaching Fellowship in 2013. Her areas of interest include how Widening Participation enacts and promotes notions of Neoliberalism, and academic staff development.