Is the Research Master’s in Psychology programme future-proof?
The midterm review is a moment for reflection on the Research Master’s in Psychology programme, and also a starting point for development. The review process is supported by everyone involved in the programme, including the students themselves. On 14 May, the external committee will visit the programme for the midterm review.
Freedom and focus
Although the midterm review is a formal requirement, the Board of Education is allowed to entirely determine the content ourselves. This is exactly why Rianne Bouwman, policy officer education, is working on it with great energy. Rianne: ‘We are focusing on topics that we, as an institute, consider important for the further development of the study programme, and we also get to choose with whom we want to discuss these topics. This gives us the opportunity to receive constructive feedback and advice from peers moving forward.’
Themes: study load to programme structure
Programme director Pascal Haazebroek and Research Master’s coordinator Anna van Duijvenvoorde select the key themes for the midterm. Colleagues who have extensive experience with a specific topic will join the panel discussions with the committee in one of the areas: perceived study load and feasibility of the programme; quality assurance and future-proofing of assessment—particularly in light of GenAI; and the balance and sustainability of the of the programme structure with multiple tracks.
'We want to offer students a challenging yet achievable programme.'
‘We are drawing on previous assessment reports, as well as conversations with students, staff, and the Board of Examiners,’ says Anna. ‘We want to offer students a challenging yet achievable programme. This midterm review is a chance to look at where we are and especially where we can strengthen further. For example, with student support and how to respond to new challenges such as AI in education.’
What is a midterm review?
The Programme assessment is part of the legal accreditation cycle and carried out every six years. It is a requirement for all degree programmes within the Netherlands, in order to renew their accreditation. The midterm review takes place three years after the programme assessment and is a requirement for all Leiden study programmes, imposed by the Executive Board (CvB).
Whereas the programme assessment focuses on an official evaluation of programme quality, the midterm review is developmentally oriented. As an external committee engages in conversations with own panels on themes chosen by the programme itself, space is created for tangible reflection and advice. The committee consists of peers from outside the university, a colleague from another Leiden faculty, and a student from a another programme.
How students perceive the programme
The student perspective is an important premise for this review, because students have first-hand experience with how the programme works. That is why a student from the Master Education and Child Studies is invited to join the external committee, and why Thijs van den Berg and Minke Osinga student member of respectively the Board of Education and the RMOC will participate in the panel discussions.
Thijs: ‘In discussions with fellow students, we found out, for example, that specific factors strongly influence the perceived study load, within and outside the tracks. For instance, in one course you might have weekly assignments, while in another you hand in one large assignment at the end. Or that specialisation courses from one track are perceived as difficult, while those from another track are considered too easy.’ Thijs hopes this feedback will help make the programme even better. ‘It feels good to contribute in this way.’
Extra focus on assessment
High on the agenda is the topic of assessment. Pascal: 'It is very important to have a good overview of our assessment: how, what and when do we test? Not only do we want the assessment to align with the programme level, but we also want it to be clear and transparent, both for students and lecturers.'
'We tend to motivate students with partial grades, while it is highly questionable whether it contributes to learning.'
‘We’re also exploring how to implement more formative assessment. Currently, for students summative assessment sometimes feels like “jumping through hoops,” he explains. ‘We tend to motivate students with partial grades, while it is highly questionable whether that actually contributes to their learning experience. Using an assessment plan which we put together with the help of the course coordinators, we want to have a conversation about this with peers. We hope for useful advice from the midterm committee.’
‘Moreover, like many others, we’re facing the major challenge of GenAI for assessment. GenAI is challenging not only in terms of the validity of grading and the risk of fraud, but also raises questions about which skills students need in a world with AI.
And after?
Following the visit, the Board of Education will receive a report of the panel discussions containing the committee’s findings and recommendations. ‘Based on that, wewill draft a Plan of Action,’ says Rianne. ‘In this plan, we will propose ways to incorporate the advice and recommendations of the committee in the plans for programme development, for both the short and long term. The plan is of course drafted in consultation with the Programme Committee and the Board of Examiners.’