Search

In the current context of promoting active learning and raising student engagement within Higher Education, an increasing amount of research has looked at pedagogical-based design and factors that contribute to functional behaviours surrounding the interaction and use of academic assessment feedback. However, few studies have considered the perceived influence of student autonomy over feedback format and whether this promotes engagement and academic development. In this study, we recruited level 5 and 6 students (N=38) on an undergraduate Education Programme (that has consistently implemented student feedback choice) to participate in initial self-reporting and subsequent focus groups ('soft triangulation'). The findings revealed three core themes: [1] Personalisation -- (a) "sense of autonomy/involvement," (b) "engagement" and (c) "motivation," [2] Clarity -- (d) "depth and detail," and [3] Areas for development. Overall, these findings suggest that feedback type -- and the inherent option to choose -- has a functional impact on academic engagement and development. We discuss these findings in relation to a sense of being valued that was associated with autonomy of choice, a divergence in how and when students engage with feedback, as well as the requirement for academic clarity and provision of formats that support academic development.

Daylight predictions of architectural spaces depend on good estimates of light transfer through skylights, windows and other fenestration systems. For clear glazing and painted surfaces, parametric transmission and reflection models have proven adequate, but there are many cases where light-scattering, semi-specular shading and daylighting materials defy simple characterization. Something as commonplace as fabric roller shades and venetian blinds may turn daylight prediction into guesswork, and numerous advanced systems on the market tuned specifically to enhance daylight are not sufficiently characterized to distinguish their performance. In this paper, we describe new tools available to handle novel and specialized fabrics, materials, and devices using data-driven modelling of bi-directional scattering distribution functions (BSDFs). These representations are usually tabulated at constant or adjustable angular resolution for efficient point-in-time and annual daylight simulations. We describe a variety of BSDF simulation workflows, including some of the tools and methods that make advanced analysis possible, and highlight some of the current challenges. We conclude with a discussion of future work and how such data might be created and shared worldwide.

Background: Randomised Control Trials (RCT) involving large numbers of schools, teachers and pupils, can provide statistically significant evidence that an intervention 'works', or makes a difference to learning. However, often the quantitative data collected to illustrate the extent of impact is insufficient to illustrate exactly 'how' the intervention was enacted, what was done and 'why' it was successful. This paper collates a range of forms of data from an innovative professional training programme to indicate the nature of the promoted strategies that comprise the 'intervention' and consider how they worked in practice. Purpose: To illustrate how a mixed methods approach is required to substantiate the nature, as well as the extent of impact, of an educational intervention. Namely, Thinking Doing and Talking Science (TDTS). Sample: The project reported on here involved 42 schools in a south east county in England, UK. 21 were the 'experimental' schools and 21 were 'control' schools. Design and Methods: The project was an Educational Endowment Fund (EEF) RCT designed to assess the impact of the TDTS intervention. Results: Quantitative data showed TDTS had a statistically significant impact on the academic attainment of nine and ten-year olds, by at least three months. Various forms of qualitative data provided here offer evidential insights illustrating how and why the intervention had the impact it did on thinking and attainment. Conclusions: Designing research projects that examine both the nature and extent of impact on pupils' learning requires a mixed methods approach. This necessarily involves the statistical comparison of quantitative evidence from both the experimental and control school groupings. However, in addition to the quantitative data, qualitative evidence is required to elicit the precise nature of the intervention. This included observations during the professional development sessions, lesson transcripts, evaluative questionnaire data and interviews characterise a successful science learning intervention.

This study investigates the impact of a professional development programme for teachers that encourages more cognitively challenging, practical, and interactive science lessons. Using a Randomised Controlled Trial, its impact was measured by pupil learning outcomes. Pupils aged 9-10 at 42 primary (elementary) schools in Oxfordshire (England) were randomised to receive either the 'Thinking, Doing, Talking Science' (TDTS) programme, or to be in the business-as-usual control group. Two teachers per school attended five training days over the school year. These were designed to enhance their skills in providing conceptual challenge and improving pupils' higher order thinking by facilitating more discussion, more practical work and less (but more focused) writing in science lessons. The main outcome measure was an age-appropriate pencil-and-paper science test covering a range of topics and question types. Pupils also completed attitude surveys. Analysis of the scores for the 1264 pupils who took the pre- and post-tests shows this low-cost intervention had a statistically significant effect on attainment, with an effect size of +0.22. The impact was stronger among girls and slightly stronger among those with lower prior science attainment. Data from 1189 pupil surveys suggested that TDTS had also improved their attitudes to science.