LSE100 The LSE Course: Understanding the causes of things A large-scale, multi-discipinary approach to teaching research methods Jonathan Leape Director

LSE100 The LSE Course:Understanding the causes of things

A large-scale, multi-discipinary approach to teaching research methods

Jonathan Leape

Director of LSE100

HEA Social Sciences annual conference - Teaching research methods

23-24 May 2013

The LSE Course: Understanding the causes of things2

Overview

Motivation and aims

Course strategy

Some examples from the course


Aims of LSE100

To deepen and broaden students’ understanding of social scientific thinking, with its core elements of evidence, explanation and theory

To strengthen the critical skills that underpin the study and application of the social sciences

– Methodological skills– Information skills– Communication skills


Methodological skills

Evaluate and interpret different types of evidence

Explain the roles of questions, theories, evidence and explanations

Identify and critically assess causal claims in social science explanations

Analyse problems from different disciplinary perspectives


And also

Communication skills

Construct coherent and persuasive arguments – in writing and in presentations

Information skills

Find, evaluate, and manage information effectively


Course strategy

Important issues of public debate used as vehicles for examining research methods (‘deep embedding’)

Contrasting disciplinary approaches to each issue to highlight methodological differences;

Emphasis on argumentation to motivate research method learning and to foster critical thinking about research methods;

Continuous feedback.

Intensive teacher training and support; all in a

Large scale approach – compulsory for all UG students (1350 students, 108 weekly classes, 20 lecturers, 30 seminar teachers).


Course topics

LSE100 examines ‘big’ questions such as:

– How should we manage climate change?

– Do nations matter?

– Why are great events so difficult to predict?

– What caused the financial crisis?

– Is population growth a threat or an opportunity?

– Who owns ideas?


Intensive feedback strategy

Feedback on LSE100 is

high-frequency, to stimulate and support learning in lectures (group PRS, muddy points) as well as classes (task-based group work);

‘just in time’, to match student needs and ensure motivation;

varied, to accommodate different learning styles (real-time and deliberative, collective and individual, audio, written and dialogical); and

relationship-based, to facilitate skills and personal development (121 feedback, classes limited to 12 students)


Measuring poverty: Analysis and argumentation

Class tasks – Poverty


Different ways of thinking about risk

Class tasks – Climate change


Class tasks – End of the Cold War

Connecting evidence and explanations


Class tasks – Financial crisis

Analysing causes


HEA Project

Establish a permanent web presence to share course strategy and resources, while expanding the range of self-paced online resources;

Invite external consultant to review existing approach and advise on creative integrative assessment strategies appropriate to the course.

The LSE Course: Understanding the causes of things14 HEA Social Sciences strategic projectLSE100: An innovative, multi-disciplinary approach to assessing research methods learning

Giving feedback on formative assessments

Progression F1-F2-S1-S2

– Formative 1 – in class short

answer text (week 4)

– Formative 2 – in class short

essay (week 6)

– Summative 1 – in class short

essay (week 9)

– Summative 2 – end of term

coursework essay (week 11)



Media resource page


The first formative task (F1) requires students to draw on two contrasting disciplinary approaches (economics and international relations) in assessing the failure of international collective action on climate change.

It also supports the communicative outcome of cogent written argumentation.

Feedback on formative assessmentsPlanning F1 – Week 4 Class


Feedback on formative assessmentsFormative 1 – dialogical feedback

The feedback approach taken on LSE100 is dialogical: students are asked to nominate what kind of feedback they would like on their written work

Tutors explicitly address this request and structure their feedback to answer it


LSE100 marking data is captured through a central marking database

Marking follows the course criteria, which relate in particular to the communicative outcomes

This database enables comparisons over time for individual students or across markers

The database also builds in a referral system that encourages students to be responsible to their own development

Feedback on formative assessmentsMarking database


The database produces reports that bring together the marking criteria, individual feedback and referral recommendations

On the reverse, there are details of the ‘LSE100 writing lab’, a system of one to one guidance on writing and argumentation

HEA Social Sciences strategic projectLSE100: An innovative, multi-disciplinary approach to assessing research methods learning

Feedback on formative assessmentsF1 Feedback


Pass levelThis essay demonstrates understanding of the key issues, but it doesn't go far enough to present a really credible academic argument. You need to flesh out your points with more references to key ideas, references to the literature, and examples to support your assertions. You should take yourself out of the argument (so avoid phrases like "I believe," "I agree," etc.) - instead, just write an assertive statement and back it up with explanation (drawing on the literature) and evidence. This will give you a more academically sophisticated voice, and will also save time.

While the substance of your argument is correct, it really doesn't go far enough. In a short answer essay, aim to write an introduction that sets out a clear argument (2-3 sentences), introduce around three points that support that argument, and write a conclusion that reinforces your argument and then takes things a step further by discussing the implications.

Prior to next week, be sure to complete the writing tutorial on Moodle. I think that will help you to think about how to approach that issue

Merit levelThis essay starts out with a very strong introduction. It is engaging and well-written, and it includes a clear thesis statement. Your definition/summary of the two approaches is also excellent, as it is concise and clear, and yet demonstrates excellent understanding.

There are a couple of things you could do to improve your essay. First, use language that is not emotive and more reflective of social science. I've noted a couple of places in the essay where you could substitute words that are less "loaded" and are more objective. It is important to recognise that in social science research, people rarely "always" behave in certain ways. Also, be sure to refer to specific facts or events or actions to support your points, rather than things that are harder to demonstrate, like general attitudes. Avoid stereotypes (even if you are pretty sure they are valid!), and instead refer to actions.

Finally, be sure to include more citations/ references to the reading. This demonstrates engagement with the literature. It is important to demonstrate some breadth as well as depth, so in this essay, you could have referred to Hare et al. as well as Stern (either the lectures or the readings).

Distinction levelThis is a clearly written, well-thought and convincing essay. The argument is clear and consistently supported and justified throughout the analysis. It is a compelling argument since it offers a complementary approach to tackling the issue of collective action on mitigation. Therefore I gave you D for Thesis.

The justification of your points is also very good and the reasoning in the argumentation is very strong. You explain some of the strengths of building blocks approach in relation to the weaknesses in global deal. However, the only justification you use for your key argument on the need for a adopting multiple approaches is that building blocks may not achieve the aim for 2 C. Building blocks have other weaknesses that leads to the necessity of adopting multiple approaches. For instance, building blocks might lead states to loose their focus on more ambitious aim to tackle the climate change. Also, free riding problem might exacerbate in this approach, etc. Therefore I gave you M for Justification.

The use of examples and supporting arguments from the literature is quite good. You could derive some explicit connections to the public goods theory and non-excludable and non-rivalrous character of climate and what implications this might have on building blocks and global deal approaches. I gave you M for Support and D for Concepts. Your grasp of the concepts and issues in the topic, and understanding of the connections between its different aspects is impressive. However, you need to bring in more information on the limitations and strengths of the two approaches and use these in a way that derives comparisons and contrasts more explicitly. Well done!

Feedback on formative assessmentsExamples of Feedback on F1


Another form of referral recommendation is to theself-study materials on the LSE100 Moodle site

These include an essay writing tutorial, guidance on literature searching and information literacy and further resources on argumentation, such as marking tasks in line with the course marking criteria

Giving feedback on formative assessmentsSupport: Moodle essay writing


Following the second formative task (F2), all students visit their class tutor’s ‘feedback session’ to get their work back and have a one to one conversation about both F1 and F2

Office hours for the term are clustered in certain weeks, so all students have the chance to meet their tutor in person

The feedback slot is an oral continuation of the feedback dialogue started in F1

HEA Social Sciences strategic projectLSE100: An innovative, multi-disciplinary approach to assessing research methods learning


F2 1-2-1 feedback session (week 7)

Documents

LSE100 The LSE Course: Understanding the causes of things A large-scale, multi-discipinary approach to teaching research methods Jonathan Leape Director