Docstoc

ID

Document Sample
ID Powered By Docstoc
					     Student Mentoring Unit Assessment
Assessment is via oral (50%) and written (50%) presentation. The oral
presentation comes in two parts. Students will be required to work in
groups and give a presentation on their peer mentoring activities to
year 1 PSP students and recruit volunteer mentors from year 1 to
engage in voluntary mentoring during their second year of study. Part
two of the oral presentation will involve a focus on a key skill required
for mentoring and on providing encouragement to year 1 students to
offer social support to next year’s Yr 1 students.

The two parts of the oral presentation may be combined into one
presentation if the group wishes. The marking criteria will be applied to
the two presentations combined, not applied to the two presentations
individually.

The written presentation will require student to individually produce a
1500 word reflective essay that critically evaluates their oral
presentations. This will be a summative assessment. The oral
presentations should be evaluated against both the mentoring
experience in total as well as evaluated against the academic literature
on social support and peer mentoring.

Below are details of which learning outcomes are being measured for
each piece of coursework along with the marking criteria that will be
used by your marker to determine whether you have demonstrated that
you have achieved that learning outcome. Look carefully in particular at
the marker’s scoring and feedback sheet so you understand how
different elements of the criteria are weighted.
ORAL PRESENTATION MARKING CRITERIA

In the presentation you should stay focused on your group’s particular mentoring
activity (i.e., drop-in, website, facebook or Psy Soc. ) and particular mentoring skill
(i.e., communication, listening, organisation or understanding)

Learning outcome: Develop, monitor and evaluate a mentoring [recruitment and
training] program
Marking criteria:
    1. Has given a clear and concise explanation of where the idea for the group’s
       particular mentoring activity (e.g., Psychology Society, Drop-in, Website) came from
       and how it developed into what it is now.
           a. E.g., who came up with the idea and why did the group think it was a good
               idea? How did the idea develop and change as a result of putting the idea
               into practice?
    2. Has described how the activity was monitored throughout the year.
           a. E.g., how did the group record progress? How were the observations
               recorded?
    3. Has evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of the activity based on the
       monitoring of the activity through the year.
           a. E.g., what did the group record as strengths and weakness of their activity?
    4. Has delivered convincing arguments to encourage Yr 1 students to act as mentors
       for Yr 1 students next year.
    5. Has given sufficient information to year one students to enable them to continue the
       group’s mentoring activity.
           a. I.e., to help keep the Psychology Society active, to maintain the website, to
               operate a drop-in centre, to operate the Facebook site.

Learning outcome: Show a critical understanding of the strengths and weaknesses
of peer mentoring program
Marking criteria
   1. Has described the strengths and weakness of the group’s particular mentoring in
      terms of the individual, organisational, institutional and cultural issues that might
      have facilitated and obstructed the activity.
          a. Individual – e.g., the skills, commitment, motivation of particular group
              members or of the mentees
          b. Institutional – e.g., the availability of resources or presence of organisational
              rules as well as norms and practices in higher education sector as a whole
          c. Cultural – e.g., norms, roles, rules and rituals in society as a whole.

Learning outcome: Effectively communicate the knowledge gained from the
experience to others
Marking criteria
   1. Is the language accessible to a Yr 1 psychology class?
          a. Is jargon avoided. Are acronyms spelled out
   2. Are visual aids used appropriately / effectively?
          a. E.g., can the OHPs be read from the back of the lecture theatre?
          b. E.g., do the visual aids add to rather than subtract from the presentation?
   3. Time keeping.
          a. Does the presentation start and stop on time? (plus or minus two minutes)
    4. Clarity of speaking.
            a. Can all speakers be heard all of the time?
    5. Is it clear what each presenter’s role is?
    6. Does the team present as a team?
            a. Are transitions between speakers well managed?
            b. When a group member is not speaking, do they appear attentive and
                interested in the group member who is speaking?
    7. Appropriate interpretation of questions or absence of questions.
    8. Manages interruptions politely and effectively.
            a. If students are talking during the presentation, does the team politely ask
                them to refrain from doing so and is this effective?
    9. Awareness of audience needs.
            a. Does the presentation sufficiently involve the audience?This can be achieved
                        by either engaging the audience directly or by making the presentation
                        engaging and interesting. If directly involving the audience, the team
                        should ensure no-one in the audience is made to feel embarrassed in
                        the process.Learning outcome: Show self-awareness in a
critically reflexive evaluation of skill development and the application of
psychological skills to mentoring programs
Marking criteria
    1. Has given a clear and well thought through explanation as to why the key mentoring
       skill was chosen by the group.
            a. What other skills were considered and why were they rejected?
    2. Has situated the discussion in the context of the psychological skills developed by
       psychology degree programs.
            a. Is the skill acquired through the training provided on psychology degrees and
                how is it / is it not acquired?
    3. Has considered how the mentor can acquire the skill through the mentoring
       programme
            a. How did mentors develop/maintain this skill as a result of the mentoring
                activity?
    4. Has considered how the skill might be different or similar to that gained from a
       psychology degree program.
    5. Consider how students might acquire / maintain the skill prior to becoming a
       voluntary mentor in year two.
            a. If the skill is important, how would a prospective mentee acquire / maintain
                that skill over the summer so they can be an effective mentor?

Learning outcome: Demonstrate reliability and sensitivity in responding to the
needs of others adhering to ethical and culturally safety working practices
Marking criteria
   1) Has the presentation avoided victim blaming practices?
          a. E.g., avoid making individuals culpable for organisational failures or
              organisations culpable for broader social systems failures (includes not
              blaming individual tutors, individual students or the MMU degree program)
   2) Has the presentation avoided culturally unsafe practices, such as making
      assumptions about the mentees and the audience in relation to their; class;
      sexuality; age; disability***; socio-economic group; gender; religion/spirituality and
      so on?
*** NB: In order to satisfy criteria 2, you should ask the unit tutor for a list of
accommodations that are required for disabled students in year one and ensured
you have made those accommodations, where reasonable, when you deliver your
presentation.
WRITTEN PRESENTATION MARKING CRITERIA

In the presentation you should stay focused on your group’s presentation and
evaluate this in relation to both the mentoring experience in total and against the
academic literature on social support and peer mentoring.

Learning outcome: Develop, monitor and evaluate a mentoring recruitment and
training program

Marking criteria
How well have you evaluated your group’s mentoring presentation in terms of its:
         a. effectiveness in summarising the mentoring activities of your group
         b. anticipated effectiveness in motivating year one students to become
              mentors.
Learning outcome: Show a critical understanding of the strengths and weaknesses
of peer mentoring programs

Marking criteria
How well have you demonstrated your appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of
mentoring based on theoretical, experiential and empirical evidence [see below].

Learning outcome: Show self-awareness in a critically reflexive evaluation of skill
development and the application of psychological skills to mentoring programs

Marking criteria
How well have you used mental, conceptual and theoretical reflectivity to evaluate the
application and development of psychological skills in a mentoring program?
[See below for an explanation of these three forms of reflectivity]

Learning outcome: Demonstrate reliability and sensitivity in responding to the
needs of others adhering to ethical and culturally safety working practices

Marking criteria
How well have you demonstrated your ability to ensure both the mentoring activities and
the mentoring presentation were ethically and culturally safe, taking into consideration
issues of class; sexuality; age; disability; socio-economic group; gender; religion/spirituality
and so on (you do not need to cover all of these, but should cover those issues that you
feel have most relevance for your activities)?.


Learning outcome: Effectively communicate the knowledge gained from the
experience to others
Marking criteria
How well is your text written (in terms of how the material is organised, the writing style
adopted, the referencing, and the extent to which it is error free).
     Right and Wrong ways to use different types of
    evidence (experiential, empirical and theoretical)
Assertion: 1 in 10 people in the UK have a disability

Experiential evidence WRONG
This figure is based on a kind of feeling I have.
This figure is based on the fact that I know 10 people and 1 of them is disabled.

Theoretical evidence WRONG
I know this because the social model of disability says a lot of people are
disabled by their social environments so 1 in 10 seems about right as a figure.

Empirical evidence RIGHT
1 in 10 people in the UK have a disability (based on a government population
census survey conducted in 2000)

Assertion: I found the presentation on my mentoring work to be quite
challenging

Experiential evidence RIGHT
I know this because I found myself getting quite nervous about the presentation

Theoretical evidence WRONG
I know this because Stuart and Opic’s (1964) theory of presentation stress says
that I should have felt nervous.

Empirical evidence WRONG
I know this because a survey found that 2 out of 3 mentors find presenting on
their mentoring work to be challenging, so it is likely that I was finding it
challenging too.

Assertion: Social support may be a fundamentally important mechanism to
offset the negative effects of stress

Experiential evidence WRONG
I know this because I feel less stressed when I feel socially supported

Theoretical evidence RIGHT
Theories of social support (such as those by Wilkinson. 1998) postulate social
support as being one of the psychosocial pathways that lead to reduced stress.

Empirical evidence RIGHT
Studies conducted on student stress by Smith etc support this assertion.
                   CRITICAL, REFLEXIVE THINKING
This should be based on an awareness of feelings and thoughts invoked from your
presentation in particular and your mentoring activities in general and be a critical
analysis of personal feelings and knowledge, leading to a new perspective on the
application of student mentoring in a department of psychology and training issues
in mentoring programs in particular and psychology in general. The targets of
reflexivity should be perceptions, thoughts and actions and the aim should be to
produce synthesis from a diversity of experiences.

Mental reflectivity - a way of drawing conclusions from our experiences and feelings
     I.e., our personal experiences of it and feelings towards it

Conceptual reflectivity - a critical understanding of how concepts (such as the
     concept of education, of student, of support etc) limit our world view (e.g., our
     views of the roles of students, mentors etc).
     I.e, what we think it is

Theoretical reflectivity - broader ideological issues including our cultural awareness
     and awareness of the environment in which we live (e.g. our theories of social
     support, active learning, role of education in society etc)
     I.e, how we think it works

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:12
posted:8/7/2011
language:English
pages:7