# data[].attributes.body
I'm new to this module and will be the first run through for me as module leader, but generally speaking I think the students like the interaction they get with us, as it's all DL.
They like lots of feedback, especially if they're new to M level study. they like to be told they're on the right track with their learning.
I know from experience on CIRO module that those who struggle to engage or complete the work usually struggle with final assessment.
Staggered hand ins sound good in theory but you would have to make sure students weren't disadvantaged in any way re number of study weeks. For those that teach on pre-reg as well, it could complicate things further, happy to discuss in the team. I do think students want more more more all the time and are looking for value for money, which I think we give them in bucket loads!

# data[].attributes.body
I think that this is about module leader choice and more about the principles of what they are trying to achieve rather than the number. There are quite a few on the EP module and at first sight it is easy to think there are too many - I did at first! However having been involved with it twice now I can see a pattern of those that don't complete them tend to be referred in the module or achieve low marks. There isn't a single thing that they do that isn't part of the final assessment.

# data[].attributes.body
I'm still quite new to all this and I am keen to learn more about what has been designed and why, I think there is a danger of going round in circles for example as Sue has mentioned with hand in dates and we need to draw on the experiences of the team to decide where to focus any effort. Anything else would lead to wasted time and effort. I think that what at times can be seen as quick fixes could have a danger of undermining the structure in ways that we perhaps don't anticipate. It isn't that I am adverse to change and improvements are always welcome but you know me I am always cautious. Looking at some 30c modules seems sensible, not sure about merging to super modules, maybe now if the time to seek stakeholder feedback to make sure that we are responsive to the needs of practice. I also think that Cath has started to do some work on what student pathways look like which is helpful, just because 'someone' says that our provision is too big and too complicated doesn't actually mean it is?

# data[].attributes.body
over the last two years I tried staggering the hand in for ACISC and POCC as there are two tasks, this was in response to students who felt they had a lot of work to do for one deadline. However since then students have complained at having to submit work later and would have preferred to submit work together so I have gone back to the original hand in date for both assessments. It hasn't made any difference to me staggering the dates either, it just prolongs the marking for me.

Sue

# data[].attributes.body
in response to Amy re 30C for CSM, yes I think this module would lend itself to being a 30C however this would then only leave students with 15C worth of elective modules which may be restricting for some who like to do the 30C electives such as ACISC or POCC. Currently the MSc SPC only has 30C of elective options the rest are core. Happy to discuss this though

Sue

# data[].attributes.body
1. Interaction on MSc modules should continue to be our USP. We know this is what students want and what works well in helping them succeed. Emphasising this and improving it, rather than focusing on provision of resources, is essential in my view. As an example, I tried to cut down resources to (what I thought was) a minimum on IGRT and many thought there was still too much to wade through.  Regular interactive stuff and facilitating peer communication goes down a storm.
2.  If our focus on minimising staff burden impacts significantly on the above then students will not perceive VFM.
3. Yes, the odd 30C module *may* work but there are potential issues as Cath has rightly pointed out. I'd also add that people would start arguing that their module could be worth 30C and want to add more content. I could easily do that with IGRT but I actually think it might continue to work well at 15C with students focusing their learning around what is required for their own practice. There is overlap between modules and maybe we can further explore where this is and cut it out!
4. Etivities should explicitly feed forward in to summative assessment. As Cath says - this is clear in our documentation.  It should be integral to the interaction within a module. Agree with not having a one-size-fits-all approach but we should probably try to avoid having too many etivities. I differentiate between etivities and additional activities (like an article of the week) that can rely more on peer discussion.
5. Staggered hand-ins: agree with others. A week either way is great but that probably won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.

Rob

# data[].attributes.body
An overarching pedagogy regarding the LTA on our modules was documented in the most recent definitive document for the MSc R&O. Firstly, it details how we should use our e-tivities in such a way that they feed forward into the final assessments. This could be directly or indirectly and I feel strongly that it should be the decision of the module leader to do what they feel works best for them and how they want to deliver their module and address the module aims. I don't want to go to a one size fits all approach, more a 'sharing ideas' approach where we share as a team of module leaders, what we do and what we find works well.
I agree that we should consider assessment burden (formative and summative), but also other factors that are important e.g. experience of the student. We need to be careful that we don't limit our time and interaction with the student on the module so much that they have a poor experience and reduced level of support. The second key aspect to our pedagogy is firmly based around the principles of connectivism and learning through communication with others and we need to facilitate this, whether it is through e-tivities or other means. We need to remember that its the e-tivities and opportunities to communciate, live webinars etc... that we get the most positive feedback on from our students in terms of their learning experience.
If anything, in terms of staff burden and also burden on students to wade through it all, i think we should focus more on how many learning materials and resources we create and provide for them!!!

Cath :-)

# data[].attributes.body
Good idea in principle again I'm with Amy I think the BCR module could easily be a 30C module as so much content already and more we can add, I wonder if we could have a BCR 15 credit version then a 30C that includes the 15 C BCR stuff plush a separate Breast cancer module that covers screening, advanced breast cancer etc that may entice wider group of professionals i.e. nurses, medics GPs etc

# data[].attributes.body
I think we need to have a wider discussion about this, remember PG students are paying for the module they need to see they are getting value for money I know it is only one aspect of the module provision but we already give a lot away

# data[].attributes.body
Yes we should do this, I always start my module earlier and finish earlier than the University timetable to do just that

# data[].attributes.body
I like the idea of having some more of our modules as '30'C but don't think we should over do this as there are funding implications for students trying to self-fund (especially if they only want to do a single module) and seeking funding from their local employer.
We also have to consider what impact they would have on all of our courses. So for example; if you made the IGRT mdoule 30C, then this would only leave students on the MSc RT Planning with 15C worth of electives. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but something that would need to be thought about.
Another way in which we could reduce the complexity of our learning options, especially on the MSc R&O, would be to have more core modules and less elective options. They would then be able to see a clearer pathway of study and this would help reduce staff burden in terms of advice on module choice. Something I know the faculty is keen on in terms of making the CL role for efficient.
We have had discussion before about staggering summative assessment deadlines. What Heidi does, is about all we can achieve really i.e. start a module maybe 1 week earlier or later and therefore make the hand in slightly different. The crucial thing being they have the same number of weeks on a module. It wouldn't be fair for some students on one module having 'x' number of weeks before their hand in and students on another module having 'y' number of weeks.
Final point (I promise).... I think we have to be showing to address some of the issues management have with the complexity of our framework and provision but I don't think we should change too much as I think it works REALLY well and overall we have a great reputation!
Cath :-)

# data[].attributes.body
Agree to opening up webinars (where relevant) and using them as a promo for our course.
Would be happy to have the discussion around moving CSM to a 30 credit module, maybe in terms of assessment rather than combining as I'm not sure which other module it would fit with but can discuss this with Sue.
I only have one hand in at this point, agree in principle as others have multiple hand in's at one point.
Cheers
Amy