THE Evolution of A patchwork text teaching strategy in the context of A BLENDED MODE OF COURSE DELIVERY AT POSTGRADUATE

1. THE Evolution of A patchwork text teaching strategy in the context of A BLENDED MODE OF COURSE DELIVERY AT POSTGRADUATE LEVEL Fanus van Tonder School of Higher Education Studies Faculty of Education

2. In this presentation ... Background & focus of presentation Practical action research process Contemporary perspectives Implications Patchwork text approach Further developments Blended learning Lessons learned Future imperatives

3. Background & focus Postgraduate academic programme in HES Academic development of university lecturers Mature students (adults) Literature search for appropriate teaching strategy: Contemporary learning, teaching & assessment Academic staff development Resource-based learning (RBL) Patchwork text approach Block session mode with blended learning Self-reflection on own teaching & assessment

4. Practical action research (AR) process Improving & transforming my/our own understanding of learning, teaching facilitation & assessment Taking into account own & participants’ needs Several cycles of planning, acting, observing & reflecting Self-reflective participant observer Studying relevant literature on teaching, learning & assessment of student & lecturer learning Documenting of own & participants’ experiences Integrated reflection Lessons learned and future imperatives

5. Contemporary perspectives on T&L Focus on (social) constructivist learning Student- centeredness Active, deep, reflective & critical transformative learning Individual differences in student learning Collaborative learning Outcomes-based education Constructive alignment in course design Active engagement of students in learning process Alternative & authentic assessments Acknowledging possible unintended learning outcomes

6. Contemporary perspectives onpostgraduate education &academic staff development Mature adult learners Needs driven Contemporary views require of us to: Transform lecturers’ fundamental & entrenched conceptions of teaching, learning & assessment Create an atmosphere of trust and Opportunities for critical-reflective dialogue Link theory to practice: “Practice what you preach” Become self-reflective action researchers themselves Need for alternative, authentic assessment, e.g. portfolio assessment

7. Implications for our approachof course delivery Take into account academics’ current work load? Workshop approach – dialogue & ‘sharing experiences’ (Berendt 1998) Regular workshops or block sessions? Resource- based learning (RBL) Self-study (in own time) Proper preparation for workshops? Opportunities for reflective dialogue? Group activities, discussions & presentations? How could we best practice what WE preach?

8. The patchwork text approach(Winter 2003 – Anglia Polytechnic, UK) Conducive for implementing contemporary perspectives on teaching, learning & assessment Requires the assembly of a patchwork text portfolio of learning evidence

9. The patchwork text approach Variety of gradually assembled fairly short pieces of writing (‘patches’), each complete in itself, but which are deliberately designed to cover all the intended learning outcomes of the course (through constructive alignment). The overall unity of these patches, although planned in advance, is eventually finalised by the student by means of a reflexive summary & commentary on the patches and how they relate to each other (stitching task)

10. The patchwork text approach ... Students must first share their own ‘patch’ tasks within small groups of students (and the facilitator), revise, edit and improve these all patches before including these in the patchwork text portfolio -Constructive alignment -Variety of activities -Individual differences -Interest groups -Group activities -Social collaborative learning Reflective dialogue -Group presentations Facilitator & peer feedback -Expanded opportunities Self- & peer assessment - Own knowledge construction Formative assessment - Portfolio assessment

11. Further developments Growth in student numbers for academic programme Better accommodate “busy” academics & students “from far” Continuous feedback from student population Advent of e-learning management systems (LMSs) at UFS Move away from regular face-to-face workshop sessions towards a more blended approach Combining electronic facilitation of learning with single block contact session Blackboard LMS & e-mail communication

12. Blended learning Why blended learning? Flexible opportunities for sharing knowledge, monitoring, peer discussion, reflective dialogue, collaborative learning LMSs – synchronous & asynchronous tools of communication Chat rooms & discussion forums/boards E-mail communication also possible Prevention of plagiarism through detection software (SafeAssign facility)

13. Reflections on the approach:Lessons learned 1 Overwhelming positive student feedback Evidence of transformed attitudes However, a lecturer student population demands careful & meticulous planning, preparation & monitoring of learning materials, workshops, assignments, group activities & LMS web pages Trusting & collegial atmosphere a MUST Group work challenges Self- & peer assessment problematic Problems with ‘free riding’ & free loading’ Single group marks for group presentations?

14. Reflections on the approach:Lessons learned 1 Patchwork portfolio – initial anxiety eventually replaced with enthusiasm & confidence Challenging & time-consuming for students & facilitator Assessing activities more than once, providing constructive feedback Danger of over-assessment Marks for formative & summative: ‘Double dipping?’ Reliability of portfolio assessment? Problems related to plagiarism – orientation, standard declarations & SafeAssign submission

15. Reflections on the approach:Lessons learned 3 Students’ computer skills & access to IT equipment & internet (e.g. rural areas ) Difficulty to organise synchronous ‘chat’ opportunities Reluctance to make use of discussion board facilities for group discussions Subsequent reverting to ordinary e-mail communication Even greater demand on facilitator presence & time Lack of impact studies

16. Future imperatives? Training students Roles & responsibilities in group work Computer literacy Admission requirements Involving students in assignment planning (?anti-CA?) Continuous sensitizing of students regarding plagiarism Policies on plagiarism & academic misconduct Continuous assessment – formative assessment – constructive feedback - no marks/grades Summative portfolio assessment Assessing student participation in on-line discussions

17. Conclusion Despite problems, still convinced that RBL, patchwork text & blended learning is the way to go BUT We still have a long way to go to improve this approach Continue the AR process Continue consulting our students and Keeping a open mind ...

18. REFERENCES • Akister, J., Illes, K., Maisch, M., McKenzie, J., Ovens, P., Parker, J., Rees, B., Smith, L. & Winter, R. 2003. Learning form the Patchwork Text Process – A Retrospective Discussion. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 40(2):216-226. • Altrichter, H., Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. & Zuber-Skerritt, O. 2002. The concept of action research. The Learning Organization 9(3): 125-131. • Berendt, B. 1998. How to Support and Bring About the Shift from Teaching to Learning through Academic Staff Development Programmes: Examples and Perspectives. Higher Education in Europe XXIII(3):317-329. • Biggs, J. & Tang, C. 2007. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. What the Student Does. 3rd edition. Berkshire, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. • Bitzer, E.M. & Pretorius, E.V.E. 1996. Resource-based Learning at the UOFS: Background, Meaning, Implications and Possible solutions. Bloemfontein: Academic Development Bureau, University of the Orange Free State (UOFS). • Buckley, S. at al. 2009. The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: A Best Evidence Medical Evaluation (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 11. Medical Teacher 31:282-298. • Chesney, S. and Ginty, A. 2007. Computer-aided assessment. In Bloxham, S. & Boyd, P. Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: a practical guide. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.

19. REFERENCES (Continued) • Du Plessis, L. & Koen, I. 2005a. Portfolio Assessment of Information Technology Students at a University of Technology. Education as Change 9(1):19-41. • Du Plessis, L. & Koen, I. 2005b. Portfolios – a strategy for reform in information technology teaching. South African Journal of Education 25(3):178-184. • Heywood, J. 2000. Assessment in Higher Education. Student Learning, Teaching, Programmes and Institutions. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. • Hyde-Clarke, N. 2005. The Use of Online Continuous Assessment at Postgraduate Level. Education as Change 9(1): 3-18. • Kilfoil, W.R. 2008. Assessment in higher education. In Dreyer, J.M. (Ed.). The Educator as Assessor. Pretoria: Van Schaik. • McGuire, L. 2005. Assessment using new technology. Innovation in Education and Teaching International 42(3):265-276. • Moraka, T.S. & Hay, H.R. 2009. The implementation of a capacity development system for academic staff in higher education: The case of the Central University of Technology, Free State. Journal for New Generation Sciences 7(2):218-234. • Orland-Barak, L. 2005. Portfolios as evidence of reflective practice: what remains untold. Educational Research 47(1):25-44. • Redish, T., Webb, L & Jiang, B. 2006. Design and implementation of a web-based portfolio for aspiring educational leaders: A comprehensive, evidence-based model. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 34(3):283-295.

20. REFERENCES (Continued) • Sayigh, E.A. 2006. Refining lecturers’ assessment practices through formal professional development at Rhodes University. South African Journal of Higher Education 20(1):157-169. • Smyth, R. 2003. Concepts of Change: Enhancing the Practice of Academic Staff Development in Higher Education. International Journal for Academic Development 8(1/2):51-60. • Stefani, L. Mason, R. & Pegler, C. 2007. The Educational Potential of e-Portfolios. Supporting personal development and reflective learning. London: Routledge. • Tisani, N. 2006. Assessment by portfolio: An encounter with contradictory discourses. South African Journal of Higher Education 20(3):546-557. • Van Rheede van Oudtshoorn, G.P. & Hay, D. 2004. Group work in higher education: a mismanaged evil or a potential good? South African Journal of Higher Education 18(2):131-149. • Van Tonder, S.P., Wilkinson, A.C. & Van Schoor, J.H. 2005. Patchwork text: Innovative assessment to address the diverse needs of postgraduate students at the African University of the 21st century. South African Journal of Higher Education 19 (Special Issue): 1282-1305. • Winter, R. 2003. Contextualizing the Patchwork Text: Addressing Problems of Coursework Assessment in Higher Education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 40(2):112–122. • Zuber-Skerritt, O. & Perry, C. 2002. Action research within organizations and university thesis writing. The Learning Organization, 9(4):171-179.

21. Fanus van Tonder vtondersp@ufs.ac.za