During the 2007-2008 academic year, the University of Cumbria introduced a Post Graduate Certificate of Education, upgraded to Master’s Degree level, in line with current national educational thinking. The first module taught on the course, entitled Meeting Children’s Learning Needs, was used as the focus for an action research case study. In designing the module, the course team wished to reflect a changing attitude to teacher education that is congruent with the 2008 ECER Conference theme of Bildung: the desire to promote ‘autonomous learning as opposed to regular training’ (Prange, 2004). A process model of teaching was adopted, based on a series of contextualised critical incidents. These focussed on those children who the students were least likely to have encountered in their own education; that is, those experiencing barriers to learning within the ordinary classroom, to emphasise the generalisability of teaching approaches in the inclusion of all children. Placed in learning sets, participants were offered opportunities to construct meanings, interrogate resources, experience partnership, and develop collaborative relationships, within a curriculum model where ‘the teacher sets the stage for a mind-set of inquiry by posing the problems, creating a responsive environment, and giving assistance to the students in the investigative operations. This environment makes it possible for pupils to achieve autonomous discoveries and to engage in self-directed learning’ (Rogers, 1983) In moving from a teacher centred pedagogy, to one in which the participants were able to address core issues, student feedback was positive. ‘..by thinking creatively about how to make the curriculum accessible to one individual, we would often devise exciting, multi-sensory and engaging activities, of benefit to others in the class’ (Participant MCN 2008). This met a further ambition of the course team: as Korthagen, et al (2005) suggest ‘Teacher educators…teach the students as well as teach about the teaching,’ thus emphasising the need to model the practice that we wish to see internalised by the student-in-training. This was enhanced by the use of ‘meta-commentary’ where, ‘teacher educators should make explicit which choices they make while teaching, and why.’ (Wood & Geddis, 1999, in Lunenberg, et al, 2007). Assessment for the module was divided into two parts; firstly a group presentation was required. This addressed the subject of planning an out of school visit, which could accommodate the learning needs of all students, including those involved in the critical incidents. A planning visit to the chosen venue was required, and the presentation had to address issues connected to the social and personal welfare of the pupils, as well as the educational value of the visit. Secondly, reflective writing was required, to address the learning that the individual student felt that they had made during the module; in choosing this element, the course team sought to embody the view of Moon (1999) that ‘assessment does not always mean marking.’ By adopting the sense of assessment that Brockbank and McGill (1998) use, which is of ‘sitting beside,’ the writing becomes a collaborative rather than inspectorial artefact. In evaluating the module, the course team felt that we had largely met our aim to ‘question critically the self evident, disturb the habitual,…making the strange familiar and the familiar strange.’ (Hwu, 1998, cited in Bolton, 2005). In our teaching, we had created a partnership between the collaborative-independent contextualised learning of the participants, and the ‘personal relationship between the facilitator and the learner.’ (Rogers, 1983). It was felt, however, that the assessment element of the module had not been as successful in placing the participant at the centre of the learning process, an issue to be addressed in the next iteration of the module.

The opportunities afforded by the introduction of this module included the formation of a delivery team with a teaching background in Inclusion/ SEN. It became evident from the outset that the philosophy embodied in the module would be inclusive and, in terms of the current orthodoxy in the Higher Education sector, radical. It was decided that an action research focus would be taken to the development of the module. The first stages of the Action Research cycle suggested by Bassey (1998, in Robson, 2002), of describing the situation, defining the issue of concern, and examining contradictions between current practice, and desired teaching and learning styles was completed during the summer of 2007. The first iteration of the module took place in the Autumn of 2007. Participants, both students and teachers, were asked to reflect on the module, during and after its delivery. Post module evaluations were gathered in accordance with University policy. Material was submitted to the appointed External Examiner; mark lists, after approval by academic boards, were compared with similar lists in other modules. Members of the course team met to monitor the changes, to analyse the evaluative data, to review the changes and to decide what to do next. The changes made to the teaching approach were felt to require further examination, and so little further change is proposed in this area. However, the assessment of the module was felt to be asynchronous in process terms with the teaching of the module

Our conclusions are tentative, as ‘change is a process, not an event.’ (Fullan, 1982). In presenting this paper, we want to share our journey so far, and garner support for the next stage. As stated, our major focus is now on assessment, and the following ideas represent the point we have reached at the time of writing. We would hope to engage with the conference in moving this thinking onwards. It is agreed that the reflective writing element of the assessment could be strengthened. In seeking to explore their inner perceptions, participants perhaps should be able to choose a variety of mediums, genres, subjects, etcetera. There is a need to consider how this will align to University Grade Descriptors, to Module Intended Learning Outcomes, and to Assignment Specific Criteria. A further area of discussion will be the means by which this writing will be assessed, to ensure quality assurance. A suggestion is that it should be self and/ or assessed, with the tutor ‘sitting beside’ the participant(s), engaging in a dialogic conversation, as this process emerges. It is also agreed that the assessment of the presentation could more closely reflect the student centredness of the learning process. The need for self and peer assessment of the group presentation is recognised, with a non-interventionist moderation process from tutors, where this provides the checks and balances needed to refocus the groups on developing their skills in assessment, rather than simply modifying marks. It is also recognised that these processes have applicability for all of our teaching. The need to build teams, to develop similar approaches, is recognised, with current thinking surrounding New Academic Teams (Weaver, 2007)being a major part of this process.