Mr. Colin McLelland

Status	Current
Part Time	Yes
Years	2020 - 2025
Project Title	Establishing the effectiveness of screening and prehabilitation methods utilised by soccer clubs to identify and reduce lower limb indirect injuries; and the perceptions of these by soccer players, coaches and medical science staff
Awarding Institution	Edinburgh Napier University
Director of Studies	Susan Brown
Second Supervisor	Alan McCall
Additional Supervisor	Konstantinos Kaliarntas

Post Graduate Cert of Higher Education / Teaching and Learning
Postgraduate Certificate

Status	Complete
Part Time	Yes
Years	2012 - 2015
Project Title	AROPA: Peer review to develop professional and graduate attributes
Project Description	I was successfully awarded an individual research ant from the HEA in order to undertake the above project. This was later presented at the HEA conference. The four key objectives were: 1. To establish whether MSc year 1 Physiotherapy students develop in their academic practice following peer review from both their own year cohort and senior Year 2 students 2. To attain whether MSc year 1 Physiotherapy students perceive peer review is beneficial to their academic studies 3. To attain whether MSc year 2 Physiotherapy students perceive peer review is beneficial to their academic studies 4. To review whether stage two students improve their academic feedback within peer review 5. To review the benefits of peer review within an academic environment Summary: 1. To establish whether MSc year 1 Physiotherapy students develop in their academic practice following peer review from both their own year cohort and senior Year 2 students An objective to establish whether the year one cohort positively developed their academic practice following the two AROPA peer review tasks, the research analysed two important aspects of development. Firstly comparison of marks, between the 2013 and 2014 cohorts, was undertaken on the students first summative assessment of the MSc Physiotherapy (pre reg) course. This first summative assessment is an exercise based module which is run in parallel to the more practical Physiotherapy foundation module and is has been undertaken by both student cohorts. Although the 2013 and 2014 exercise module were slightly different in nature, the focus of analysis was on the marks for academic writing, as this would be the students first experience of academic writing at Masters level. Results from both cohort years were examined and analysed using SPSS (v21). A ‘related samples Wilcoxon signed rank test’ was employed to specifically assess whether significant differences existed between the two cohorts with regards specifically to references and academic presentation, two important components that students are marked on within their academic work. There were no significant differences noted with regards to referencing. However significant differences with observed with regards to academic presentation. Indeed results demonstrated that the 2014 cohort performed significantly better with regards to academic presentation than their 2013 counterparts. This significance may be due to a number of observed variables. Biggs and Tang (2007) noted that students who were assessed ultimately received better grades, than those who were not assessed at all. As the 2014 cohort had undertaken two formative AROPA peer reviews prior to this summative assessment suggests that early peer review formative assessments have a positive effect on summative tasks, following the learning cycle as defined by Kolb (2005). This early academic intervention may also eliminate some of the negative perceptions that students have with regards to assessment feedback (Hartley and Chesworth 2000). Indeed, Hartley and Chesworth (2000) identified a high number of students perceived feedback from assignments was ineffective for their future academic course work as feedback was received after their assessment. Indeed Kirby and Downs (2007) argue for the benefits of a “formative, low stakes, criterion-referenced assessment”, which was employed within this study. The second comparison was between the 2014 cohorts first and second AROPA peer review tasks. Results were examined in order to identify whether any positive effects on the development of academic writing were noted. SPSS (v21) was again employed to statistically analysis the grades from these two formative tasks, however no significant improvements or changes were noted. Again a number of explanations may explain why no significant improvements were noted. Firstly the 2014 cohort reported anxieties and time restraints throughout their first semester, the time in which both tasks were administered. It could therefore be suggested that as students identified that the AROPA peer review tasks formative assessments rather than summative, and therefore these tasks had no influence on their grades. 2: It has been established that peer review improves academic skills (Nicol 2010). However Lui and Carless (2006) has indicated that this feedback is considered by many students to be insignificant, especially when been delivered by their same level classmates. This is has been suggested may be due to the perception of students that their colleagues may not be qualified to comment on peers work. In order to review these beliefs and perceptions, the research methodology employed both the same cohort peers, as well as the more experienced year two cohort peers to review, mark and comment on the academic work. A mixed methods questionnaire was employed to attain the perceptions from the year one MSc (pre reg) cohort, with regards to AROPA peer review, and was administered prior to and after the research project. Observations in changing attitudes could also be observed and comparison between the two was then made, and analysed using statistical analysis (SPSS v21). The questionnaire was voluntary for students to complete and was distributed to the year one cohort via an email link. The questionnaire was developed using Survey Monkey (1999) to ensure the anonymity of students with this anonymity further enhancing validity of the study. Observations from the qualitative analysis of the two questionnaires pre and post tasks, noted that students valued the comments received from their more experienced peers, yet identified that they did not value their own capabilities when marking their own colleagues work. This perception had previously been identified by Lui and Carless (2006). 100% (n=21) of students in the pre test questionnaire stated that “yes they would benefit from their experienced peers” compared to 93% (n=15) in the post task questionnaire. In contrast, 87% (n=21) of students in the pre task questionnaire and 83% (n=15) of students in the post task questionnaire, that they believe that they themselves “they could contribute to their peers”. Qualitative review of post task comments was mainly positive towards the AROPA peer review, and notably towards receiving comments from their more experienced peers. This indicates that students believe that they can learn from more experienced student cohorts. These finding concur with Maclellan (2001) who suggested that improvements are only effective when students perceive the feedback as enabling to their learning. Indeed as the year one cohort believes that their more experienced peers will be of benefit to them, the marks and comments become more advantageous. Comments included: ‘Getting feedback from the second years especially is helpful because they know what to expect’. ‘Yes since it gives us an additional perspective to some new ingenious ideas that our peers might have’. It must be noted that a number of students still valued tutor feedback compared to their more experienced peer comments. The research project identified a significant correlation between the year two cohort and tutor (1.4.1), yet the first year cohort students still prefer the safety net of tutor feedback. Yes (..feel that marking and receiving peer feedback in these assignments will help you in your MSc course) but I would like instructor feedback to compare to my peer feedback. ‘In future I'm sure this (marks and feedback from peers) will be the case (help improve them academically) as people become more skilled in writing. I had such a variety of marks for my 1st essay it was hard to take seriously, luckily I asked my personal tutor for feedback.’ These findings are supported by a number of studies (Hartley and Chesworth 2000, Lea and Street 2000), who indicated that students often interpret findings differently to what the marker intended, and often have difficulty interpreting the feedback, especially when a number of markers may be involved. This therefore supports Day and Hounsell (1995) who suggests that it is the students underlying lack of understanding that may be insufficient to relate to the feedback given. This factor therefore results in students not improving their learning needs. 3: Within the research study, it must be noted that the second year cohort developed the task questions, the marking grid as well as marking and commenting on the year one cohort assignments. In order to attain whether the more experienced year two cohort perceived if they benefited from the AROPA peer review, a mixed methods questionnaires (n=9)was employed. The students were sent a request to complete a questionnaire following both of the two tasks. These were again voluntary, anonymous and developed using Survey Monkey (1990) in order to maintain confidentiality. Questions enquired of the student’s perceptions of their own academic skills and their perceptions of how using AROPA peer review may have developed the more novice first year cohort. The questionnaire also questioned whether the students perceived AROPA peer review to aid their own personal development, both academic and vocational. It must be noted that the respondent rate was 22.2% (n=2). The results demonstrated that 100% answered ‘yes’ to the question “Do you feel that your peer review for a novice cohort is beneficial in their development?”. However opinion was split, when answering the question whether their own academic skills had been improved following both tasks. One responded answered ‘quite a lot’ whilst the other answered ‘a little’. It should be noted that both respondents perceived that the research (including development of questions, marking grids and formative marking) had helped then towards their MSc course. Both indicated that this knowledge would aid them, especially in their final research project. “Yes, I believe it will give me a better understanding of the standard that I need to achieve for my final project” This correlates with the findings by Boud and Falchikov (2006) that ‘active participation by students in assessment design, choices, criteria and making judgments is a more sustainable preparation for subsequent working life’. Indeed with full participation of the research tasks, the year two cohort students were able to take ownership of the tasks. It was also acknowledged by both of the year two cohort respondents that they perceived that the AROPA Peer review tasks would benefit more novice students, as well as aiding their own development. It was also noted that they believed that this study would have aided their own development if the study had been implemented when they were part of the first year cohort. 4: AROPA peer review has been identified to be an effective learning aid (Hamer, J., Kell, C. and Spence, F. (2007). However, as yet no link has been identified whether more experienced students improve their academic feedback from the peer review feedback to more junior colleagues. These feedback skills have been identified by the HCPC (2009), as an essential learning tool for all future clinicians. In order to establish whether students did develop, both tasks one and two were marked (using the grid developed by the stage two students) by both the second year cohort and the principle researcher (tutor). All first year cohort academic works was ensured student anonymity and confidentiality at all times. Year one cohort students all submitted work using their randomised student number not their names. All task feedback received by the year one cohort was also anonymous, yet were made aware whether the feedback was from the same cohort or their second year peers. It must be noted that this anonymity was also consistent with regards to the researcher (tutor) who also ensured that all marking was completed blind. Statistical analysis was conducted in order to correlate both marks from the second year cohort and that of the tutor from both tasks one and tasks two. These results were then statistically analysed using SPSS (v21) and a Pearson correlation employed. Results for task one demonstrated that correlation between marks were significant for critical source (p=0.01) and critical discussion (p=0.01) and also for critical references (p=0.05). Following task one, a dissemination session was conducted with the 2013 cohort and by F. Roberts (project researcher). Task one was reviewed and discussed. Again confidentiality remained a key priority. The results for task two demonstrated that all second year cohort marks correlated significantly with that of the tutors. Introduction Critical discussion Source References Presentation (p=0.01) (p=0.01) (p=0.05) (p=0.01) (p=0.01) It may therefore be suggested that the more experienced second year cohort students are significantly effective in their role of critically marking academic work. 5: In order to review the benefits of peer review, it is important to consider both the quality of feedback and changes in students’ academic behaviour (Yorke 2003). It has been demonstrated that the year one cohort developed their academic presentation, however in order to examine whether this was due to the quality feedback or merely a ‘learning effect’, a feedback classification system developed by Brown, Gibbs and Glover (2003) was employed in order to grade the year two cohort feedback. Following this classification, the results were statistically analyses using SPSS (v21). A related samples Wilcoxon signed rank test was employed, and results demonstrated a significant improvement when ‘developing a strategy to encourage further learning’ on the second task compared to the first task (p=0.018). The second MSc (pre reg) year cohort also demonstrated a significant improved in ‘constructive comments offering educational encouragement’ rather than grading with simple praise (p=0.018). Indeed grading with little or no comments has been identified to be demotivation to the receiving student (Nicol, 2007). The findings compound the thoughts of Bingham and Ottewill (2001) who indicated that assessments of peers are often too self-congratulatory and therefore inaccurate. Indeed although this may have been the case in the earlier task one, the second task demonstrated that students could develop a more constructive approach, resulting in a more positive outcome for the student. Further, Cole (2003) stated that this constructive feedback including criticism of a students work is essential for successful peer review tasks, and the fear of being ”too critical” results in negative overall learning outcomes. To surmise, it is apparent that this year two cohort demonstrated that they can effectively mark and comment upon formative academic tasks.
Awarding Institution	Robert Gordon University

Mr. Colin McLelland's Qualifications (4)