Search

This article reports on an exploratory two-stage sequential mixed methods research study that investigated the views of university educators on the introduction of assessment methods other than essays, exams and dissertations within taught Masters programmes. In the first stage, interviews were conducted internationally with 45 participants and the data analysed using an activity theoretical framework. The article illustrates how interviewees questioned their existing practice and reworked aspects of it, using new assessment methods as tools to transform their teaching and learning processes. The issues emerging from this analysis informed the design of a second study that used Q methodology to interpret five shared viewpoints on assessment methods among a group of UK-based educators. These viewpoints all saw alternative assessment methods as having advantages over traditional methods in, for example, encouraging student motivation and improving equality of opportunity, although training for academic staff in such methods was seen as necessary. Differences between the five viewpoints related to, for example, whether improving assessment methods requires a shift in how learning is viewed, and the importance of institutional support in encouraging assessment innovation. The five viewpoints are compared and contrasted. Tensions within and across assessment related activity systems are also considered, and recommendations made for further research into stakeholder viewpoints and values to improve collaboration across interacting networks.

Assessment at Masters Level is the subject of a three-year UK National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS) project, "Assimilate", which seeks to explore innovatory approaches in this field. More than 40 interviews were undertaken for the project with teachers at Masters level in the UK and internationally. Although national and institutional systems differentiate clearly in their documentation how assessment at M-level should differ from that at undergraduate level, in practice there is not necessarily such clarity. This article draws on how teachers and programme leaders on Masters level courses who were interviewed for the project described the differences in practice. It concludes that there is considerable confusion and ambivalence about what distinguishes one level from another and scope for further clarification.

In New Zealand, the Blueprint Executive Leadership and Management Programme enables clinical leaders to learn alongside consumer leaders and specialist services managers. This leadership program has been in operation since 2004 and is getting stronger and stronger. A partnership with the University of Waikato School of Management enables the academic input alongside clinical and consumer expertise. Blueprint Centre for Learning is the only New Zealand Qualifications Authority and ISO 9001 accredited training provider focusing on mental health in New Zealand. Blueprint focuses on "living the learning" and, through its executive programs, takes a lead role in the development of capacity and capability within the mental health workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Executive Leadership and Management Programme (ELMP) and the advanced programme (AELMP) were founded in New Zealand in 2004. The Blueprint Centre for Learning was contracted by the then Mental Health Workforce Development Programme to develop and deliver a leadership and management programme for staff in the mental health and addictions sector. The programme is now managed under Te Pou (the National Center for Mental Health Research, Information and Workforce Development). The Blueprint Centre for Learning is the only New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) and ISO 9001 accredited training provider focusing on mental health in New Zealand. Blueprint's focus is on 'living the learning' and the organisation has a spirit of 'passion for people and potential'. While some basic statistics indicate the success of the programmes, it is timely to conduct a more in-depth qualitative evaluation of them. Thus, the aim of this project was to examine the outcomes (personal, professional and organisational) perceived to have occurred as a result of attending the programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]