FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W64100811> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W64100811 abstract "Academics supporting students in health social care are often described as gatekeepers for their professional disciplines as they are seen as experts able to make reliable judgments when assessing students. This metaphorical use of the term gatekeeper recognises that academics’ in these disciplines are often on the same professional registered that student wants to enter and that assessment can also have a gatekeeping purpose ensuring that academic standards and professional standards are maintained (Leach, et al 2001). Ilott and Murphy, (1997) suggest that because of the professional gatekeeping aspects of assessment, students are under a greater scrutiny than students on awards that do not lead to a professional recognised qualification: as these courses need to produce students who are confident and professionally competent in both the theory and practice of their chosen professional pathway. Newly appointed academics within these disciplines are often experienced practitioners, who are seen as moving from being experts familiar with professional assessment in their previous roles to novices in an academic setting. For such new academics the first experience of marking is an event as memorable as the experience of preparing for and giving the first teaching session. Yet whilst the academic literature abounds with reflections and narratives about the latter, there is a paucity of literature on the former despite the assertion that marking carries an emotional burden for lecturers (Hand and Clewes, 2000): and that marking and assessment can be “the most significant quality event in the lives of students and academics” (Flemming, 1999:83). To address this shortfall in the literature an extended independent study as part of a professional doctorate was undertaken was given ethical approval.Aim: The aim of the study was to explore the experience of six newly appointed academics from health and social care backgrounds as they began to mark and give feedback on student coursework.Methods: Three in-depth interviews which each participant. Findings and conclusions: Each participant experienced different levels of support and guidance in relation to assessing, marking and giving feedback on students’ coursework. Participants reported a growing confidence in their academic judgements and discussed the challenges in relation to the emotional effects and ethical considerations that they had not anticipated. As a result of the study staff development sessions which focus on the needs of newly appointed academics have be introduced into the induction programmes for new staff.How this work contributes to knowledge development in the theme:•Exploration of the lived experience of six newly appointed academics within their probation year as they begin to mark and give feedback on student coursework.•Increased awareness of the experience of newly appointed academics from health and social care backgrounds during their first year of employment.•Suggestions for staff development workshops for newly appointed academics." @default.
• W64100811 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W64100811 creator A5056865872 @default.
• W64100811 date "2013-09-04" @default.
• W64100811 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W64100811 title "Newly appointed academics’ experiences of marking" @default.
• W64100811 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W64100811 type Work @default.
• W64100811 sameAs 64100811 @default.
• W64100811 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W64100811 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W64100811 hasAuthorship W64100811A5056865872 @default.
• W64100811 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W64100811 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W64100811 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W64100811 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W64100811 hasConcept C2776050585 @default.
• W64100811 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W64100811 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W64100811 hasConcept C51067260 @default.
• W64100811 hasConcept C540791928 @default.
• W64100811 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W64100811 hasConcept C73380752 @default.
• W64100811 hasConceptScore W64100811C15744967 @default.
• W64100811 hasConceptScore W64100811C17744445 @default.
• W64100811 hasConceptScore W64100811C19417346 @default.
• W64100811 hasConceptScore W64100811C199539241 @default.
• W64100811 hasConceptScore W64100811C2776050585 @default.
• W64100811 hasConceptScore W64100811C39549134 @default.
• W64100811 hasConceptScore W64100811C509550671 @default.
• W64100811 hasConceptScore W64100811C51067260 @default.
• W64100811 hasConceptScore W64100811C540791928 @default.
• W64100811 hasConceptScore W64100811C71924100 @default.
• W64100811 hasConceptScore W64100811C73380752 @default.
• W64100811 hasLocation W641008111 @default.
• W64100811 hasOpenAccess W64100811 @default.
• W64100811 hasPrimaryLocation W641008111 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W1496191865 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2016708748 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2061680621 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2100728181 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2243012278 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2295669403 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2613800649 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2752974767 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2784000127 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2790505984 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2890252780 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2915506262 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2929070398 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2942792025 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W3123029192 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W3136889791 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W178572353 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2167315145 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2299778643 @default.
• W64100811 hasRelatedWork W2339543482 @default.
• W64100811 isParatext "false" @default.
• W64100811 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W64100811 magId "64100811" @default.
• W64100811 workType "article" @default.