English Speaking and Listening Assessment Project - Baseline. Bangladesh

This study seeks to understand the current practices of English Language Teaching (ELT) and assessment at the secondary school level in Bangladesh, with specific focus on speaking and listening skills. The study draws upon prior research on general ELT practices, English language proficiencies and exploration of assessment practices, in Bangladesh. The study aims to provide some baseline evidence about the way speaking and listening are taught currently, whether these skills are assessed informally, and if so, how this is done. The study addresses two research questions: 1. How ready are English Language Teachers in government-funded secondary schools in Bangladesh to implement continuous assessment of speaking and listening skills? 2. Are there identifiable contextual factors that promote or inhibit the development of effective assessment of listening and speaking in English? These were assessed with a mixed-methods design, drawing upon prior quantitative research and new qualitative fieldwork in 22 secondary schools across three divisions (Dhaka, Sylhet and Chittagong). At the suggestion of DESHE, the sample also included 2 of the ‘highest performing’ schools from Dhaka city. There are some signs of readiness for effective school-based assessment of speaking and listening skills: teachers, students and community members alike are enthusiastic for a greater emphasis on speaking and listening skills, which are highly valued. Teachers and students are now speaking mostly in English and most teachers also attempt to organise some student talk in pairs or groups, at least briefly. Yet several factors limit students’ opportunities to develop skills at the level of CEFR A1 or A2. Firstly, teachers generally do not yet have sufficient confidence, understanding or competence to introduce effective teaching or assessment practices at CEFR A1-A2. In English lessons, students generally make short, predictable utterances or recite texts. No lessons were observed in which students had an opportunity to develop or demonstrate language functions at CEFR A1-A2. Secondly, teachers acknowledge a washback effect from final examinations, agreeing that inclusion of marks for speaking and listening would ensure teachers and students took these skills more seriously during lesson time. Thirdly, almost two thirds of secondary students achieve no CEFR level, suggesting many enter and some leave secondary education with limited communicative English language skills. One possible contributor to this may be that almost half (43%) of the ELT population are only at the target level for students (CEFR A2) themselves, whilst approximately one in ten teachers (12%) do not achieve the student target (being at A1 or below). Fourthly, the Bangladesh curriculum student competency statements are generic and broad, providing little support to the development of teaching or assessment practices. The introduction and development of effective teaching and assessment strategies at CEFR A1-A2 requires a profound shift in teachers’ understanding and practice. We recommend that: 1. Future sector wide programmes provide sustained support to the develop teachers' competence in teaching and assessment of speaking and listening skills at CEFR A1-A2 2. Options are explored for introducing assessment of these skills in terminal examinations 3. Mechanisms are identified for improving teachers own speaking and listening skills 4. Student competency statements within the Bangladesh curriculum are revised to provide more guidance to teachers and students

Editorial: Focus on Peer Leaders and Peer Learning in Different National and Disciplinary Contexts

Welcome to Volume 15 of the Journal of Peer Learning

Editorial: Evaluation as the “Eternal” Challenge: Opportunities and Innovations in Demonstrating Value in Ever-Changing Peer Learning Environments

Welcome to Volume 14 of the Journal of Peer Learning

Embedding literacy skills in design curriculum

This paper discusses a collaborative curriculum development process undertaken by a cross-disciplinary team comprising of academic staff from Industrial Design Engineering and the Learning Skills Unit (LSU). The collaboration has led firstly to the development and implementation of an innovative Academic Literacy Skills Resource Book. Secondly, Academic Literacy Skills were incorporated into the Design and Engineering curriculum offered by the School of Engineering at one Australian university. The collaboration started in 2003 and continues into 2007. The Industrial Design academics mapped and prioritised the graduate attributes and skills that students need across their university career and identified the most appropriate subjects in which to locate these skills. They identified the need to develop a comprehensive academic skills experience for their students as well as the academic skills required for successful completion of each subject and the major final year project. Perhaps one of the more significant aspects of this collaboration with the LSU was the embedding of academic skills within the discipline rather than being taught as generic skills the students then need to transfer to specific subjects. In 2004, the academics from the LSU and Industrial Design jointly piloted the program with a first year core subject delivered within the Industrial Design and Design & Technology courses. In 2005 and 2006, the relationship between LSU and Engineering and Industrial Design academics was further developed. This collaboration led to the development of a first year core subject Engineering and Industrial Design Practice (EIDP) with a comprehensive academic skills resource book, integrated guest lectures and the training and monitoring of peer mentors for the compulsory peer mentoring component of the subject as key aspects of a subject focussed around a team project

Reducing Geo-risks for Offshore Developments

Risk and Reliability in Geotechnical Engineerin

Classroom Practices of Primary and Secondary Teachers Participating in English in Action: Second Cohort (2013)

Executive summary a) Background The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether there had been changes in the classroom practice of teachers and students participating in English in Action (EIA) over the period of the 2012–13 intervention (Cohort 2). Previous research in language teaching has established that when teachers take up most of the lesson time talking, this can severely limit students’ opportunities to develop proficiency in the target language (Cook 2008), while a general goal of English language (EL) teachers is to motivate their students to speak and to practise using the target language (Nunan 1991). This study therefore focused upon the extent of teacher and student talk, the use of the target language by both, and the forms of classroom organisation (individual, pair, group or choral work) in which student talk is situated. Of course, the amount of teacher talk is not the only indicator of quality language teaching; the nature of that talk is also important – for example, whether teachers engage the attention of the class, present them with new information in an understandable way and allow them time to ask questions and comment. Classroom Practice 2013 is a repeat of the studies on the pilot EIA programme (Cohort 1) (EIA 2011a & 2012a). The students and teachers of Cohort 2 are sixfold greater in number (4,368 teachers, compared to 751 teachers, in schools). To enable this increase in scale, the programme has been delivered through a more decentralised model, with much less direct contact with English language teaching (ELT) experts, a greater embedding of expertise within teacher development materials (especially video), and a greater dependence upon localised peer support. This study addresses two main questions: 1. To what extent do the teachers of Cohort 2 show improved classroom practice, particularly in relation to the amount and language of student talk, compared with the pre-intervention baseline? 2. To what extent has the programme been successful in repeating the post-intervention improvements in teachers’ classroom practice seen in Cohort 1, at the much larger scale of Cohort 2? b) Research methodology The EIA classroom practice baseline (EIA 2009a & b) was originally adapted from a general classroom observation study, and was geographically limited, due to an uncertain social and political context at the time of the fieldwork. Subsequently the methodology was revised to give more fine-grained data about student and teacher talk, use of the target language, and forms of classroom organisation, and was implemented on a representative sample of EIA teachers, four months after the launch of the pilot programme (EIA 2011a) and again 12–16 months after the programme start (EIA 2012a). The research instrument is a timed observation schedule (see Appendix 1), directly comparable to that used in the earlier studies on the EIA pilot intervention (2010 and 2011). The sample comprised 401 lesson observations – 230 of primary teachers, 145 of secondary teachers, and 26 of primary head teachers. For this study, the practices observed were compared directly (statistically) with the earlier pilot studies (EIA 2011a and 2012a), and indirectly with the earlier baseline (EIA 2009a & b). c) Key findings: Primary classrooms i) Teachers’ talk and activity In the observation of Cohort 2 lessons, average primary teacher talk had dropped to less than half of the lesson time (45%). This represents a very significant reduction in teacher talk from 2009 baseline practices, where teacher talk was the predominant classroom activity. Although this is a higher figure than was found in the 2010 early-intervention observations (34%), it had not caused any reciprocal drop in student talk-time (compared to that found in 2010). Teachers’ use of the target language was very much greater than that observed in the 2009 baseline, and slightly higher (76%) than that found in 2010 (71%) or 2011 (72%). In the observation of Cohort 2 lessons, there was a notable increase in time teachers spent organising and a decrease in time spent presenting when compared with the baseline and with the 2011 study. Primary teachers were using a wide range of activities in the classroom and involving students in these activities. Primary teachers were found to be organising for 32% of the time, presenting 25% of the time, asking questions 23% of the time, and giving feedback 20% of the time. This is a change from the baseline studies (EIA 2009a & b), where teachers were observed to be primarily reading from the textbook and rarely involving students in activities. Compared to 2011, primary teachers spent less talktime ‘asking questions’ (falling from 27% to 23%) and more time ‘organising’ classroom activity (rising to 32% from 22%), and much less time presenting (falling from 40% in 2011, to 25% in 2013). These observations suggest EIA Cohort 2 primary teachers were making great and sustained efforts to increase the use of the target language, and involve students more actively in their English lessons. ii) Students’ talk and activity In the observation of Cohort 2 lessons, average student talk-time accounted for 27% of the lesson. This figure represents a very different situation to the 2009 baseline, where in two-thirds of lessons observed ‘none or hardly any’ of the students spoke. The figure is identical to that found in the 2010 observations. Students’ use of the target language had also increased substantially over the baseline, to 91% of student talk in English. The proportion of primary students’ talk in English was higher than that observed in 2010 (88%) and 2011 (81%), with the difference between 2011 being statistically significant (p<0.05). Almost half (46%) of student talk was observed in the context of choral activities, while approximately a third (36%) was individual student talk. 18% of student talk was pair (10%) or group (8%) work, a figure midway between that observed in 2010 (30%) and 2011 (9%). In all forms of talk organisation, English was the main language used by students (86–91%). The fact that students were often engaged in activities in which they interacted with their classmates marks a notable change from the baseline studies (EIA 2009a & b), which identified few occasions when individual students or groups were encouraged to speak in English (2–4% of the lesson time) and which showed that in most classes students were not interactive at all. d) Key findings: Secondary classrooms i) Teachers’ talk and activity In the observation of Cohort 2 lessons, average secondary teacher talk had dropped to less than half of the lesson time (48%). This represents a very significant reduction in teacher talk from 2009 baseline practices, where teacher talk was the predominant classroom activity. Although this is a higher figure than was found in the 2010 early-intervention observations (33%), it is lower than 2011 (50%), and is not related to any reciprocal drop in student talk-time (compared to that found in 2010 or 2011). Teachers’ use of target language was much greater than that observed in the 2009 baseline, and slightly higher (87%) than that in 2010 (86%) or 2011 (79%). In the observation of Cohort 2 lessons, there was a notable increase in the time teachers spent organising and a decrease in the time spent presenting when compared with the baseline and the 2011 study. Secondary teachers were using a wide range of activities in the classroom and involving students in these activities. They were found to be organising 29% of the time, presenting 32% of the time, asking questions 22% of the time, and giving feedback 17% of the time. This is a change from the baseline studies (EIA 2009a & b), where teachers were observed to be primarily reading from the textbook and rarely involving students in activities. Compared to 2011, secondary teachers spent similar talk-time ‘asking questions’ (22% compared to 23%), more time organising classroom activity (rising from 22% to 29%), and much less time presenting (falling from 45% to 32%). These observations suggest EIA Cohort 2 secondary teachers were making great and sustained efforts to increase the use of the target language, and involve students more actively in their English lessons. ii) Students’ talk and activity In the observation of Cohort 2 lessons, average secondary student talk-time accounted for 24% of the lesson. This figure represents a very different situation to the 2009 baseline, where in two-thirds of lessons observed ‘none or hardly any’ of the students spoke. The figure is about the same as that found in the 2010 (23%) and 2011 (24%) observations. Students’ use of the target language had also increased substantially over the baseline, rising to 87% of student talk in English. The proportion of secondary students’ talk in English was similar to that observed in 2010 (88%) and 2011 (85%). Over half (53%) of student talk observed was individual talk, while 28% was pair (13%) or group (15%) work, a figure similar to that observed in 2011 (27%), but below that observed in 2010 (57%). In all forms of talk organisation, English was the main language used by students in all forms of classroom organisation (85–92% for individual, pair and choral work); though as might be expected, in group work English still predominated (64%), but students used Bangla more (36%) than they did in other forms of organisation. The fact that students were often engaged in activities in which they interacted with their classmates marks a notable change from the baseline studies (EIA 2009a & b), which identified few occasions when individual students or groups were encouraged to speak in English (2–4% of the lesson time) and showed that in most classes students were not interactive at all. e) Conclusions Despite a sixfold increase in scale for Cohort 2, and a more decentralised, peer-supported approach to teacher development, observations of Cohort 2 classroom practices show substantial and important changes compared with the baseline studies, which show teachers making great efforts to promote and model the target language, and to organise increased student participation in lessons. The observations show substantial increases in students’ active participation, with more opportunities to speak and practise the target language. These latest findings mark a notable increase in the time teachers spent organising and a decrease in the time spent presenting when compared with the baseline and with the 2011 study. The results show that both primary and secondary teachers were using a wide range of activities in the classroom and involving students in these activities. In summary, the 2013 cohort of teachers observed in the EIA programme were using more English in their classes, involving students in more activities and encouraging them to spend more of their class time speaking in English

A cross-sectional study examining the nature and extent of interprofessional education in schools of pharmacy in the United Kingdom.

Interprofessional education can prepare the workforce for collaborative practice in complex health and social care systems. The aim of this study was to examine the nature and extent of interprofessional education in schools of pharmacy in the United Kingdom. An online questionnaire was developed using systems theory, published literature and input from an interprofessional expert panel. It included closed and open-ended questions and a demographic section. Following piloting, it was distributed to 31 schools of pharmacy. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data, a content analysis approach for qualitative data. Ten schools of pharmacy responded. All reported delivering compulsory interprofessional education. Most (80%) reported an interprofessional steering group overseeing development. Formative and/or summative assessment varied depending on year of study. Mechanism and purpose of evaluation varied, with respondents reporting Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model Levels 1-3 (100%;80%;70%). Two themes were identified: "Variation in Interprofessional Education Approaches and Opportunities" and "Factors Influencing Development and Implementation of Interprofessional Education". Formal teaching was mainly integrated into other modules; various pedagogic approaches and topics were used for campus-based activities. Respondents referred to planned interprofessional education during practice-based placements; some still at pilot stage. Overall, respondents agreed that practice-based placements offered opportunistic interprofessional education, but a more focused approach is needed to maximise student pharmacists' learning potential. Most interprofessional education offered in undergraduate pharmacy curricula in the United Kingdom is campus-based, the nature and extent of which varies between programmes. Very few examples of practice-based activities were reported. Results may inform future interprofessional education curricular developmen

Prevalence of BoHV-1 seropositive and BVD virus positive bulls on Irish dairy farms and associations between bull purchase and herd status

Abstract Background: BVD and IBR are contagious viral diseases highly prevalent in Irish cattle. Despite their significant reproductive and economic impact very little is known about the BVD and IBR status of stock bulls (a bull used for breeding purposes). There are still a high proportion of dairy farms in Ireland that rely on the use of a bull for breeding cattle and ensuring the fertility of the bulls is of paramount importance for the efficiency of the farms. The prevalence of BoHV-1 and BVD in stock bulls in Irish dairy herds has never been investigated. The objectives of this study therefore were: (i) to provide descriptive, observational data on the use of stock bulls on Irish dairy farms; (ii) to investigate the BVD and BoHV1 status of a sub-set of stock bulls; (iii) to investigate factors associated with BVD and BoHV1 status of stock bulls and (iv) to investigate factors associated with dairy herd status for BVD and BoHV1, including any associations with the use of stock bull. A total of 529 blood samples from bulls involved in the dairy breeding process were analysed for BVD virus using RT-PCR, and BoHV-1 antibodies by ELISA test. A total of 305 different dairy herds took part in the study and the overall BVD and BoHV-1 herd status was determined by ELISA using four bulk tank milk samples over the 2009 lactation. Logistic regression was used to investigate the associations between the stock bulls and BVD and BoHV-1 herd and individual status. Results: Of the 305 total participating farms, 235 farms (77 %) had at least one bull and 167 farms had purchased bulls. Two bulls (0.4 %) out of 529 tested were found positive for BVD virus and 87 (16.7 %) tested seropositive for BoHV-1. Some significant associations were identified between the purchase of bulls and both viral diseases. Purchased bulls were three times more likely to be seropositive for BoHV-1 than homebred bulls. In the same way, herds with purchased bulls were three times more likely to be classified as seropositive for BVD and four times more likely to have evidence of recent BoHV-1 circulation than farms where all the bulls were homebred. Conclusions: The prevalence of BoHV-1 and BVD in stock bulls in Irish dairy herds has never been investigated. This study highlights the widespread use of stock bulls in Irish dairy herds, as well as the high rate of exchange of bulls between farms. Significant associations were found between the origin of the bull and their serological BoHV-1 status. In keeping with these results, bulls with higher number movements between farms were more likely to be seropositive for BoHV-1