The Manchester Approach to the HEAR

1. The Manchester Approach to the HEAR Patricia Clift Martin Teaching and Learning Support Office University of Manchester Patricia.clift-martin@manchester.ac.uk

2. Context The University of Manchester is a HEAR trial institution Increasing emphasis on personalisation of learning New structures for advising students Poor NSS results on assessment and feedback Emphasis on volunteering, citizenship and leadership development Lack of pedagogy for the HEAR at a formative stage

3. Broad Strokes • The HEAR should reflect the distinctiveness of the University, the programme and the student • The HEAR should be useful • Producing the HEAR should not add unnecessary burdens to admin or academic colleagues. Where possible business processes should replace or enhance existing practices and not duplicate • The HEAR should be electronic/ digital/ online • The HEAR should be produced in a way that is sustainable and cost effective • The HEAR should be informed by the needs of stakeholders

4. Developing the pedagogy: HEARing student voices Broad: • How do students make educational choices within differently structured curricula? • How do employment aspirations influence choice? • How can the HEAR best be designed to meet student needs? • How does formative assessment influence academic and career development? Specific: • What factors influence unit choice? • What methods of feedback do students prefer and find useful? • How can the HEAR be constructed to inform choice and maximise use of feedback?

5. Making the formative HEAR useful • What do students need the University to record about them? • What to academic advisors need to know – and when? • Where does the formative HEAR sit in terms of the information and resources available to students? • Is it valid? • Is it verified? • Is it accurate? • Is there enough detail or too much? • Is this duplicated elsewhere? • How does it link up?

6. Links to other initiatives • Personal Development Planning • Academic Advising • eLearning – learning environments • Resource development • Customisation

7. Further findings • There is a place for a formative “HEAR”-type document. At the least, it will enable students to track their own skills. In addition, it could enrich and encourage deeper discussion between academic advisors and students. • Right now, both choice and feedback are often seen as solitary endeavours. The students feel isolated and do not seem to be integrating all of the resources and feedback at their disposal. • There is an interesting question about assessment and feedback. Do they always need to be linked? Can/should students have the chance to turn in work to be looked at but not counted in the course? Will that help make the feedback more valuable?

8. Indications for improvement/Areas for further investigation Use the formative HEAR as a platform for conversation and planning between academic advisors and students Create “plans” between and inside modules that allow students to see the skill set they are expected to learn and the feedback to expect. Devise ways to move feedback “beyond” the mark. Further investigation into structures that encourage conversation and community building between students and staff Explicitly react to student feedback and support their use of feedback to improve skills