Throwing the baby out with the bathwater: Rethinking the undergraduate dissertation
Professor Mick Healey,
University of Gloucestershire
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
Showing posts with label projects. Show all posts
Showing posts with label projects. Show all posts
Friday, 12 July 2013
Track C - A chameleon genre
A Chameleon Genre: an audit of the dissertation at a typical UK University Dr Nick Endacott and colleagues, Middlesex University Learner Development Unit
Undergraduate students at Middlesex are expected to complete a dissertation/research project (or equivalent ‘substantial’ piece of work) in their final year. In order to better develop/embed the required writing/linguistic/analytical/critical skills of these students, the LDU (whose remit this is) need to have a clear idea of what is expected of same students with regard to their dissertations/research projects – or whatever they may be called – and what’s in a name anyway?
Nick Endacott and colleagues in the LDU have undertaken an ambitious project to complete an ‘audit’ of all these projects in all the Schools and most of the disciplines across the University. At present their findings are descriptive, not evaluative, and are based entirely on Module Handbooks (all those that could be got hold of).
The session got underway with some very interesting questions concerning the dissertation ‘genre’. Is it a genre in the straightforward sense, or rather a ‘chameleon genre’, adapting to its environment or is it, as in Peter Medway’s phrase, a ‘fuzzy genre’ with rather blurred edges? The context of different disciplines was discussed. How can expectations of a dissertation be the same across disciplines which are cultural phenomena divided by gulfs of linguistic variation? For the LDU to support students in a discipline they need to be able to unpick the cultural and linguistic expectation (science: analytical, arts: imaginative – simplified but understandable examples).
The initial findings were presented as a series of graphs depicting commonalities and differences in nomenclature (report; essay; portfolio; dissertation; project etc.) and pathways (empirical research; journal article; artefact-based project; combinations of these, etc.) Word length requirements also varied widely which raises other challenges for the LDU – low word limit = concise writing, high word limit = expanded writing etc.
The research is only just beginning and this is the start of a larger on-going project to explore this ‘genre’ and improve the LDU’s ability to develop the students’ skills to meet the demands of the dissertation in whatever form it may take.
Report by Celia Cozens
Undergraduate students at Middlesex are expected to complete a dissertation/research project (or equivalent ‘substantial’ piece of work) in their final year. In order to better develop/embed the required writing/linguistic/analytical/critical skills of these students, the LDU (whose remit this is) need to have a clear idea of what is expected of same students with regard to their dissertations/research projects – or whatever they may be called – and what’s in a name anyway?
Nick Endacott and colleagues in the LDU have undertaken an ambitious project to complete an ‘audit’ of all these projects in all the Schools and most of the disciplines across the University. At present their findings are descriptive, not evaluative, and are based entirely on Module Handbooks (all those that could be got hold of).
The session got underway with some very interesting questions concerning the dissertation ‘genre’. Is it a genre in the straightforward sense, or rather a ‘chameleon genre’, adapting to its environment or is it, as in Peter Medway’s phrase, a ‘fuzzy genre’ with rather blurred edges? The context of different disciplines was discussed. How can expectations of a dissertation be the same across disciplines which are cultural phenomena divided by gulfs of linguistic variation? For the LDU to support students in a discipline they need to be able to unpick the cultural and linguistic expectation (science: analytical, arts: imaginative – simplified but understandable examples).
The initial findings were presented as a series of graphs depicting commonalities and differences in nomenclature (report; essay; portfolio; dissertation; project etc.) and pathways (empirical research; journal article; artefact-based project; combinations of these, etc.) Word length requirements also varied widely which raises other challenges for the LDU – low word limit = concise writing, high word limit = expanded writing etc.
The research is only just beginning and this is the start of a larger on-going project to explore this ‘genre’ and improve the LDU’s ability to develop the students’ skills to meet the demands of the dissertation in whatever form it may take.
Report by Celia Cozens
Track B - Work based projects as dissertations
Work based projects as dissertations: where’s the theory, where’s the practice? Ruth Miller and Alan Beadsmoore, Middlesex University School of Health and Education
Video of the session
An informative and thought provoking session, Ruth and Alan started with the similarities and differences between traditional dissertations and the contextualised projects that form part of work based learning professional practice programmes. One of the differences (referred to throughout the conference) was that students carrying out professional practice projects are internal inquirers as opposed to external researchers. The introduction of the student perspective via 3 students, who joined them for the session, broadened the session, enabling a deeper exploration of some of these differences.
As these students are based in the work place, leading projects that aim to make a change to something within their practice, a tripartite agreement between the students, the university and also the employer, is another distinguishing factor of these projects. The relationship between the student and university is more advisory than supervisory - a fundamental that students have to get to grips with – especially at undergraduate level.
The students Sandra, Jane and Irene (from left to right in the picture with Alan), gave a brief overview of their projects; BSc Mental Health “Developing a smoking cessation programme”, BA Professional Practice Early Years “Supporting children’s communication and language skills” and MSc Nursing Studies “Evaluating a stress reduction programme for nurses”, respectively. This prompted a flurry of questions from the floor, such as; what was it like being an insider researcher and how easy was it to achieve the level of independence required for inquiry? What were the advantages and disadvantages of inquiry inside an organisation – for example is the topic influenced by management? How did they manage to apply theory and relate it to their practice? What preparation did they have for selecting research methods? and How did they go about marrying the tension between tacit knowledge (what you just know) and academic theory?
For more questions and the varied answers from each of the students (including the final one “would they do it all again?”) – watch the video of the session (above).
Report by Louise Merlin
Video of the session
An informative and thought provoking session, Ruth and Alan started with the similarities and differences between traditional dissertations and the contextualised projects that form part of work based learning professional practice programmes. One of the differences (referred to throughout the conference) was that students carrying out professional practice projects are internal inquirers as opposed to external researchers. The introduction of the student perspective via 3 students, who joined them for the session, broadened the session, enabling a deeper exploration of some of these differences.
As these students are based in the work place, leading projects that aim to make a change to something within their practice, a tripartite agreement between the students, the university and also the employer, is another distinguishing factor of these projects. The relationship between the student and university is more advisory than supervisory - a fundamental that students have to get to grips with – especially at undergraduate level.
For more questions and the varied answers from each of the students (including the final one “would they do it all again?”) – watch the video of the session (above).
Report by Louise Merlin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)