Adapting a carousel technique from face to face to remote teaching on Blackboard Collaborate

7 September 202320 September 2023 By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

By: Anjali Mehta Chandar, Charlie Waller Institute, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences (SPCLS), a.m.chandar@reading.ac.uk

Decorative image — Photo by Jhon Paul Dela Cruz on Unsplash

Overview

Our vocational postgraduate courses in Low Intensity Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Children and Young People include a mix of face to face, and remote teaching on Blackboard, at an almost 50/50 split since the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important that trainees engage well with digital methods of learning, and a carousel technique was adapted for Blackboard Collaborate, with hugely positive feedback from the trainees.

Objectives

My objectives for this project were as follows:

adapt the carousel activity from face to face teaching to remote teaching,
gain feedback from trainees about the effectiveness of this strategy and,
make changes as necessary for future implement with other cohorts.

Context

The Educational Mental Health Practitioner (EMHP) programme is a one-year vocational postgraduate course. The trainees are employed by an NHS trust, local authority or charity, and study in the Charlie Waller Institute (within SPCLS) to become qualified mental health practitioners working in primary and secondary schools.

Since the pandemic, trainees have half of their teaching face to face on campus, and half of it via Blackboard Collaborate. Teaching days are 9:30-4:30pm. It has been important, and a learning curve, to ensure online teaching remains as engaging as face to face teaching. It is suggested that a lack of engagement with digitally enhanced learning leads to students being academically disadvantaged (Francis & Shannon, 2013). It is also important that group work is still utilised despite a larger amount of remote teaching than before, as it is an effective method for fostering wider knowledge, clarification on a topic and evaluation of peers’ ideas (Hassanien, 2006).

Carousel activities are an engaging teaching method, and are commonly used in face to face teaching. With this technique, trainees work in small groups to complete an assigned task. Half of the trainees then stay with their projects to explain them, whilst the other half circulate around the room to hear about the other projects. The trainees then switch around, enabling everyone to have a chance to present to their peers, and hear about all the other projects and outcomes too. It was therefore important to try to emulate this for online teaching, as it was a well-received method in face to face teaching.

Implementation

I designed the teaching activity to be 30 minutes of small group work in breakout rooms, and then wanted some trainees to be able to move themselves to three different breakout groups (one every 5 minutes), before moving back to their own original group. Meanwhile the other half would stay in their own group for the first 15 minutes, explaining to their peers about their project ideas, before then moving around 3 groups for the last 15 minutes.

I was able to research how to adapt settings on Blackboard Collaborate to allow this to happen. By clicking ‘allow attendees to switch groups’ when setting up breakout rooms, trainees can move themselves.

Trainees were given strict instructions about the task, including what their project was about based on what group number they were, how to make notes of their project for presenting to their peers after, and how/when to switch groups to hear about other’s ideas. See slides below, which are also available for download as a PowerPoint file:

I was then able to use the chat function to let everyone know to move to the next group (every 5 minutes).

I then closed all breakout rooms after all switches had been made, and we discussed the projects as a whole class.

Impact

Shortly after the carousel task was completed, trainees completed their usual feedback for the teaching day using Menti.

Below is the quantitative feedback about how satisfying, informative and engaging, the day was: (Note: this included other teaching techniques for three quarters of the day, and not just the carousel task in the final quarter.)

I was also able to see qualitative comments about the carousel task in particular, and noted how so many of the comments were specifically about this task. See below:

It seems that trainees appreciated the real-life aspect of the group task, which is in line with research by O’Neill and Short (2023) who found that ”real-world relevant” group tasks in higher education tend to engage students more.

There were only three pieces of feedback about the carousel activity when trainees were asked what could be improved in the day:

“Carousel was a bit chaotic but enjoyed it more than I expected”
“The carousel was not so much fun”
“Felt rushed creating poster and then needing to share”

Whilst the first two are hard to make adjustments for as it is unclear what was not fun and what was chaotic, the third point can be solved by allowing more time for the task itself. However, I am also mindful that the majority of trainees completing the feedback did not state that this felt rushed. To balance this, I can check with trainees on the day if 30 minutes feels like enough time, and go with a majority vote for timing.

Overall, this activity was therefore able to meet its first two objectives:

adapt the carousel activity from face to face teaching to remote teaching, and
gain feedback from trainees about the effectiveness of this strategy.

The third objective was “to make changes as necessary for future implementation with other cohorts.” This has yet to be carried out due to the fact this teaching day resumed to face to face teaching the following year, but a similar technique can be utilised for other teaching days and content.

Reflections

Overall, I feel that the carousel technique was well implemented and only minor changes need to be taken forward. Specifically, this is about ensuring all trainees feel they have enough time for the initial project creation element.

From the feedback, I think trainees enjoyed the task. Clear instructions made this task work well, and trainees enjoyed being able to move themselves around breakout groups. This was perhaps more novel than usual, which may have sparked interest. Similarly, Meng et al. (2019) found that novel techniques in the pharmacy field led to improved learning and communication abilities, and improved academic performance.

Furthermore, the creativity was acknowledged in another section of the Menti feedback –“this was night and day compared to some of the other less creatively organised sessions” – which is in line with research about the importance of creativity in successful and effective teaching in higher education (Bidabadi et al., 2016).

Follow up

Since this teaching, I have noticed how it has not been implemented with other teaching days. For my upcoming allocated teaching, I have mapped out remote teaching days where I can implement this strategy again.

I plan to use the same format for structuring the activities and slides, with the added element of elicited feedback from trainees before the task about whether they feel they have enough time to complete it. I could also enter the different breakout groups and check that they feel they have finished.

I also hope that by disseminating this technique more widely and in more detail than previously – I shared it in the Charlie Waller Institute Teaching and Learning Significant Interest Group – more lecturers will feel able to implement this strategy and gain feedback on future changes to make.

References

Bidabadi, N. S., Isfahani, A. N., Rouhollahi, A., & Khalili, R. (2016). Effective teaching methods in higher education: requirements and barriers. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism, 4(4), 170-178.

Francis, R., & Shannon, S. J. (2013). Engaging with blended learning to improve students’ learning outcomes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(4), 359-369.

Hassanien, A. (2006). Student experience of group work and group assessment in higher education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 6(1), 17-39.

Meng, X., Yang, L., Sun, H., Du, X., Yang, B., & Guo, H. (2019). Using a novel student-centered teaching method to improve pharmacy student learning. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(2), 171-179.

O’Neill, G., & Short, A. (2023). Relevant, practical and connected to the real world: what higher education students say engages them in the curriculum. Irish Educational Studies, 1-18.

Working in partnership with students to signpost support structures to first years

30 August 202331 August 2023 By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

By: Vicki Matthews, School of Politics, Economics and International Relations (SPEIR), v.matthews@reading.ac.uk

Title screen from a video titled 'Embedding yourself in the academic community'. The text is in white and the background is deep green. — Title screen from “Embedding yourself in the academic community”, which you can watch below. © University of Reading

Overview

Transition to university is supported in varying ways not only across our university network, but also across the wider higher education sector. In the School of Politics, Economics and International Relations (SPEIR), explicit messaging relating to undergraduate transition has been a feature for several years, but a desire to incorporate student voice within that messaging at Part 1 led to a successful application for Teaching and Learning Enhancement Project (TLEP) funding.

The project, entitled “Using Student Voice to enhance communication of support structures to new Part 1 students“, involved a partnership between Vicki Matthews, Executive Support Officer, and students from the School, culminating in videos being produced with the themes of embedding yourself within the academic community, working with the academic community, and shaping the academic community. You can watch the videos, hosted on YouTube, below:

Implementation

The students collaborated to identify key points under each theme and then developed videos offering specific advice and top tips for a positive transition experience from a student perspective. Students in SPEIR benefit from core competencies sessions which outline guidance on how to be a successful student, and the videos were shared during these classes.

Impact

The videos were well received, especially in terms of peer to peer messaging, but following first viewing we felt some advice would be better received during Welcome rather than once term had commenced. As a result, the “Embedding yourself within the academic community” video will now be shared during our Head of School Welcome Talk during Welcome Week.

In sharing the videos with the Student Engagement Community of Practice earlier this academic year, suggestion was made to update the video annotation slightly to make them suitable for use across the wider university network. Additional funding from the Teaching and Learning Initiatives Fund was received to edit them and they are now hosted on the Student Life YouTube channel for wider dissemination to students by all schools should they so wish.

Reflections

Feedback following the classes when the videos were first aired, without exception, evidenced that students’ confidence in seeking support should the need arise had arisen as a result of the session. Each class also captured at least one student who had not yet registered a learning difference, emphasising the importance of this explicit key messaging in ensuring students are aware of the support structures in place to enhance their overall university experience. Colleagues across the university are welcome to utilise these resources during their transition activities with new students. For further details on the project, or to discuss how these key messages support our transition strategy, please contact Vicki Matthews, SPEIR Executive Support Officer (v.matthews@reading.ac.uk).

As a School we will shortly be expanding the suite of videos thanks to PLanT funding. This will draw on the conclusions from recent focus groups and feature tops tips on how to overcome loneliness at university.

Designing an authentic assessment tailored specifically for Part 4 students

14 August 202314 August 2023 By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

By: Dr Julia Abery, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, j.abery@reading.ac.uk

Photo by Mimi Thian on Unsplash

Overview

I designed a tailored applied statistics assignment for a UoR Part 4 Department of Mathematics and Statistics module (module code ST4MVA) which successfully met two distinct objectives. Firstly, the assignment tested advanced, specific masters-level skills, as outlined in the QAA framework. Secondly, the assignment incorporated the critical elements of authentic assessment as recommended by Ashford-Rowe et al. (2014).

Objectives

In designing the assessment, the objectives were as follows:

To test masters-level skills described in the QAA L7 descriptor and to conform to departmental guidelines for L7 assessment.
To align with the ALOs (assessable learning outcomes) of the Part 4 applied statistics module ST4MVA.
To incorporate the critical elements of an authentic assessment, aiming to improve student engagement and develop employability skills.

Context

I produced a Part 4 assessment in multivariate methods which tests specific, advanced level 7 skills including systematic subject knowledge, evaluation, analysis, creation and independent research, to align with our department’s aims for assessment at this level.

Following discussion with colleagues and students, I became persuaded that an authentic assessment could increase value and meaning to the student. This meant basing the assessment on engaging ‘real-world’ scenarios, and aiming to incorporate employability skills and to promote deeper learning approaches.

Implementation

I consulted ST4MVA ALOs and departmental guidelines for Part 4 assessment, and decided on a data analysis assignment requiring selection and implementation of a range of multivariate methods in the statistical computing package R, some of which are researched independently. I took direction from the QAA level 7 descriptor; ‘to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively … communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences; demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level.’ I designed an open ended task, so students could be creative and direct their own work. I requested two written reports, for specialist and non-specialist audiences.

Having reviewed various articles, I elected to use a simplified version of Ashford-Rowe et al.’s (2014) list of critical elements of authentic assessment. The table below shows how the assignment addresses these elements.

Select here to download an accessible version of this table.

Impact

Feedback from internal and external examiners and other colleagues suggests the assignment successfully captures features of an authentic assessment and allows students to demonstrate higher level abilities and employability skills. Some colleagues thought a similar approach might be used elsewhere in our programmes. Writing an assignment with close alignment to the principles of authentic assessment was instructive and will undoubtedly influence the way I approach assessment in other modules and at other levels.

Students reported that the tasks were genuinely useful ones to practise and master, and tested higher level skills such as evaluation, creativity and analysis. The assignment was felt to be challenging and at least moderately engaging and interesting. One student commented ‘being able to apply the techniques we had learnt in lectures onto “real world data” made it very applicable to a real-world scenario[s].’

Reflections

At least three features helped to ensure success: Firstly, obtaining data from an industry partner, and working on the project with them, helped to maintain a real-world focus and ensured employability skills were assessed. Secondly, detailed scrutiny of the assignment by experienced internal and external examiners resulted in making some changes and improvements which led to a better and more challenging assignment. This highlights the benefits of collaborating with colleagues and other academics when developing authentic assessment, and being open to constructive criticism. Thirdly, consulting the literature and identifying a checklist ensured that I had clear objectives and maintained a wide perspective on different aspects of authentic assessment.

On reflection, a fuller understanding of authentic assessment may be achieved by consulting local employers, identifying skills they look for when they recruit and checking whether assessments align well with these. More feedback from students would be beneficial, clarifying the extent to which claims in the literature of enhanced learning, increased engagement and motivation play out in students’ experience.

The assessment has now been released, completed and marked but only for a small number of students to date, meaning that a full evaluation is yet to happen. A possible extension of the practice would be to implement authentic assessment at programme level – so each student can benefit.

References

Ashford-Rowe, K., Herrington, J., and Brown, C. (2014). Establishing the critical elements that determine authentic assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), pp. 205–222. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02602938.2013.819566
QAA. (2014). UK Quality Code for Higher Education Part A: Setting and Maintaining Academic Standards. The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/qualifications-frameworks.pdf

Reframing success in a partnership project

17 July 20237 June 2024 By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

Associate Professor Amanda Millmore, School of Law, a.millmore@reading.ac.uk

Update June 2024

This submission is now a published journal article co-authored with student partners. The link is here and the complete reference can be found below: ‘Reframing Success in A Pivoting Partnership – Student Mentors Trying to Engage: A Tale of Trial and Error’.

Objectives

Curriculum development – reviewing & designing materials and the Blackboard framework for a new elective first year module.
Peer mentoring – student partners in Part 2 offering support to students on the module, embedded within the module by linking student partners directly with each seminar group and including them in online drop-ins and in-person teaching.

Context

During the Covid-19 pandemic, our students had struggled with their sense of belonging, not feeling part of the School of Law community due to lockdowns, online teaching and restrictions on gathering socially. We were creating a new elective, Part 1 law module called “Law and Society”, and we wanted to work with students to develop the module. We were also conscious that we needed to improve support for our new first-year students to ease their transition into university and their studies by enhancing their sense of belonging. We came up with the idea of supporting the new students by building bridges with the cohort in the year above.

Implementation

Curriculum Design – the student partners worked together with staff to review the materials we had prepared and giving their thoughts on what would be helpful and work for the new Part 1 students.

Peer Mentoring – we embedded student partners as mentors with individual seminar groups. We introduced them online with a dedicated “Mentor” section on Blackboard, hosted a “Q&A” Padlet board for students to interact anonymously if they wished. The module was designed with the mentors embedded into it. Student partners were each paired with one of the teaching academics on the module to provide support. Mentors were timetabled to join online optional drop-in sessions (and the session was headed “Meet the Mentors”) and compulsory seminars to offer support with groupwork and formative activities. Academic staff highlighted the benefits of peer support and promoted the mentors and how they could help, while mentors encouraged formal and informal contact with the students in their designated classes.

When student mentees did not attend the optional drop-in (we had more student partners attending than we did students enrolled on the module) we pivoted to the student partners sharing their advice for new students, which we recorded in a document that we shared on Blackboard.

Impact

Curriculum Design – this aspect of the project was very successful, with student partners feeding into the design of the Blackboard module, reviewing the module materials to ensure that they were engaging and pitched at the appropriate level and on student recommendation we ensured the provision of clickable Talis reading lists.

Peer Mentoring – this aspect fell flat, as the Part 1 students did not want to be mentored. They did not attend sessions where the mentors were offering support, declined offers of help (even when they volunteered to join a WhatsApp group) and the student partners felt that we were flogging a dead horse trying to mentor first-year students who did not want to be mentored. Student partners then pivoted to carry out some research to find out what the barriers to engagement with the project were; beset with difficulties in seeking feedback from the Part 1 students who did not respond to questionnaires, offers of coffee and cake or focus groups, the few who did participate explained that they just did not feel the need for that kind of peer support.

Reflection

Whilst the mentoring aspect of the project did not land successfully with the Part 1 students, it was not due to problems with the partnership or even the design of the project, it was just that the Part 1 cohort did not want the support that we were offering. This may be peculiar to this particular cohort, who had been significantly affected by Covid at school, but it was not for want of trying.

Whilst not one of our explicit aims, the notable success of our partnership is the value to the student partners who worked as module designers, mentors and researchers, these students have had the opportunity to disseminate their experiences at conferences and in writing and can see real benefits to their partnership experiences, and they have developed tangible employability attributes, not least a high degree of resilience.

Amanda Millmore and student partners before presenting at the Change Agents’ Network conference 2022

Follow-up

Student partners co-presented this project at the CAN (Change Agents’ Network) conference at UCL in summer 2022 and we have now co-authored a journal article sharing our experiences.

We have continued with the good curriculum developments in the module, which continues to grow from strength to strength. The mentoring aspect of the project has not continued, but instead we ensure to signpost our students to their STaR mentors and PAL leaders for peer support.

Partnership working in the School of Law continues to be business as usual, and the hiccups on this project have not deterred us from trying new things with our student partners, ensuring that we see the benefits of partnership as part of the process and the positives for the partners.

References and links

We contributed to a blog after the CAN conference: CAN Case Study: A Pivoting Partnership – Student Mentors Trying to Engage: a Tale of Trial & Error | CAN 2022 (ucl.ac.uk)

Millmore, A., Collyer, B., Delbridge, E., Khan, A., Patil, I. and Williams, M. (2024) Reframing success in a pivoting partnership – student mentors trying to engage: a tale of trial and error. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, 9(1). https://journals.studentengagement.org.uk/index.php/studentchangeagents/article/view/1208

If you’d like to know more about staff-student partnership in the School of Law, you can reach me at a.millmore@reading.ac.uk

Decentring Ableism: Creative Applications of Film Accessibility in Film/TV Practical Teaching

12 June 202320 July 2023 By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

Shweta Gosh, Department of Film, Theatre & Television, shweta.ghosh@reading.ac.uk

Overview

In this blogpost, Lecturer in Screen Practices and Industries Shweta Ghosh discusses her recent exploration of a new approach to teach film sound design using captions. Based on Shweta’s research on filmmaking and accessibility, this exploration serves as the foundation for a toolkit of film practice teaching methods that she intends to develop through 2023/24, which draw on principles of universal design and decentring ableism in the creative industries.

Objectives

The primary aim of the activity was to explore possible pedagogical applications of research on film accessibility in practical Film/TV teaching at the Department of Film, Theatre & Television. Key objectives were:

To develop student awareness of disability and Deaf culture, and the need for accessibility
To develop student capacities for confident exploration of diversities in audio-visual experience and development of creative ideas based on accessible filmmaking principles
To build accessibility into creative work with a foundational approach rather than incorporating it as an afterthought

Context

My doctoral research on filmmaking and accessibility revealed that filmmaking continues to centre nondisabled perspectives and practices, both on and off screen. Accessibility measures such as captions and audio description are often inserted in film/TV/video content as afterthoughts and accessible filmmaking research as well as practice demonstrates that the same measures considered at early stages (ideation, pre-production and planning) can make film and TV outcomes more accessible by default.

Additionally, accessibility measures can offer exciting possibilities to develop creative aspects of one’s work. The University of Reading Curriculum Framework outlines the need for teaching and learning practices to be accessible to all, and a key programme learning outcome of the new BA in Film & Television at the Department of Film, Theatre & Television programme is to “Create creative practice that is informed by an understanding of accessibility, sustainability and/or social engagement”. In alignment with these visions and outcomes, my exploratory activity was aimed at understanding student and staff response to the use of accessible filmmaking methods in film/TV practice teaching and learning.

Implementation

The activity involved working with two tutorial groups in the Part 1 Film/TV practice in Autumn term 2022 called ‘Introduction to Filmmaking’ (FT1ITF).

The idea was to explore the creative potential and inclusive outcomes of using creative captioning in Film/TV outputs. Group A and B tutors (Dr. James Kenward and I respectively) used a video by Artist Christine Sun Kim on rewriting closed captions from a Deaf perspective as a prompt for seminar discussion (released in advance on Blackboard), and facilitated student reflection on how captions can communicate diverse sound perspectives and the filmmaker’s creative intentions.

Initial discussion explored how the use of captions is widespread and how it makes audio-visual content accessible for Deaf viewers. This helped gauge student awareness and understanding of disability rights and accessibility more generally. Further discussion explored creative dimensions of captions in relation to ‘aural worlds’ (i.e., how each ‘world’ within an audio-visual work is built with different sound components and perspectives).

Students were then encouraged to identify the different components of the aural world in the video as well as the classroom, and map these on to a sound design template. This template, used by Part 1 students as a formative development blog submission, facilitates thinking and planning for practical project sound design, where each column represents a component of the aural world (ambient sound, voice/dialogue, etc.) and which can subsequently be mapped on to sound design and mixing software.

A discussion connecting these various elements enabled students to apply insights to develop creative ideas for the sound design of their own practical projects. Questions used by tutors to facilitate discussion were based on the following themes:

How do the captions in this video describe the creator’s intention? For example, what is the intended mood and tone with respect to the violin music in the captions before and after Christine Sun Kim changes them?
How do the detailed captions help us imagine / create an aural world that is more complex + inclusive?
If you had to caption your 10-shot sequence, how would you caption it with your sound design intentions? Have a go based on your current rough cut (in class / before your next edit session with the rough cut copy / during the edit with the captioning tool).
How can your ‘captioned’ intentions be mapped on to a sound design plan (esp. Mood section)?

The activity was successful in achieving its intended objectives. Practical subgroups in A tutorial group used captions during the workshop to develop creative intentions for sound design. One of the practical subgroups in tutorial group B explored the use of creative captions in their final practical output. While their use of captions was not assessed summatively, formative feedback was provided at an editing supervision meeting, and their attempt to understand and engage with captioning was positively recognised.

Reflection

Positive feedback from the group A tutor summarises the strengths of this activity and reaffirms that this can be an effective and interesting way to teach students film practice and accessibility.

“This was a very useful exercise and encouraged students to think about their creative practice in new and inventive ways. Students were not ‘taught’ accessibility, but utilised standard accessible filmmaking practice as a foundation to explore sound design choices in their films. Accessible practice was thus a given, ingrained into the work itself, rather than something to be viewed as separate or additional.

As the exercise confronts practitioners’ inherent biases as well as their expectations for the viewer, it works effectively to encourage students to critically analyse and evaluate their sound design choices in a targeted fashion. Given improving the quality of students’ sound design is a specific area of focus for the department, this exercise would be beneficial for students across practical modules.”

This exploratory project has also confirmed that there is an appetite amongst students to understand and engage with audio-visual perspectives that are different to their own, whether on and off screen. This is crucial to develop future film/TV makers whose practices are built on the principles of empathy and inclusion.

Follow up

The verbal feedback from students and interesting themes emerging from the trail this year (such as creative intentions, creative control, accessibility tools as enhancers or limiters of creativity), will be used to develop a detailed yet flexible version of this exercise, which can be used in next year’s Introduction to Filmmaking module as well as adapted for relevant Part 2, 3 and MA Film/TV practice modules. A seminar + workshop format (or critical discussion + sound design template application activity) will support students to connect critical themes to creative applications fruitfully. Student and staff feedback at the end of these sessions will be invited to further my understanding of engagement with accessibility methods and how these might enhance creativity and empathy, as well as key pedagogical challenges.

If you’d like to know more or would like to talk about this project, you can reach me at shweta.ghosh@reading.ac.uk or my personal website.

Overview

We undertook a pilot study into the use and usefulness of peer feedback, involving undergraduates and postgraduates from Philosophy at Cardiff University – where peer feedback was not widely used – and for comparison, undergraduates from Law (where peer feedback was well-established).

The study identified three main concerns students have with peer feedback: the expertise of their peers, their motivation and investment, and their ability to interpret and apply grading criteria. Here we outline some simple recommendations to help to mitigate these concerns while allowing educators and students to repeat the many benefits of incorporating peer feedback.

Objectives

Our study’s overarching aims were three-fold (https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/learning-hub/view/improving-peer-review-a-pilot-study):

To trial different opportunities for, and kinds of, peer feedback.
To gather qualitative and quantitative data on the perceived usefulness of peer feedback, before, during, and after interventions.
To improve students’ ability to identify and utilise different kinds of feedback (including, but not limited to, peer feedback).

Ultimately, we wished to improve the perception of peer feedback among students by helping them to understand its usefulness, identify the conditions under which it is most valuable, and gain insight into the barriers that can hinder its success. We hypothesised that a better understanding of student perceptions regarding feedback would help us to improve our teaching and feedback practices.

Context

The research was undertaken by Dr Charlotte Newey and Dr Steph Rennick when we were Philosophy lecturers at Cardiff University. We noted an apparent mismatch between workload constraints and the quality and volume of feedback the university aimed to provide. We trialled interventions in two undergraduate and one postgraduate Philosophy module and held focus groups with Philosophy students and students from Law (where peer feedback was already an established practice). Given the time pressures on academics throughout the UK, this research remains highly relevant and is applicable across disciplines.

The research also bears on student experience. Students may give lower scores on module evaluations and NSS in relationship to the timeliness or usefulness of feedback if they do not recognise the different forms that feedback can take and have in mind only written comments made by academics on summative work. There is therefore additional benefit to improving students’ understanding and recognition of peer feedback.

Implementation

At the start of the study, we held focus groups to canvas opinions among undergraduates regarding peer feedback. We then trialled six interventions across three modules over the course of a semester (two undergraduate and one postgraduate). These included critically commenting on their peers’ individual and group work over different tasks, providing feedback both verbally and in writing. Throughout this period, we measured the difference in perceived usefulness between the different interventions, including instances identified explicitly as constituting peer feedback versus those described merely in terms of the activity (e.g., ‘a group exercise’). We used in-class surveys and Mentimeter polls. Finally, we held a third focus group at the end of the semester to capture whether attitudes had changed as a result of the interventions. In the first half of semester, we described activities in terms of their specific learning outcomes without identifying them explicitly as peer feedback (e.g., this is a group activity in which you’ll practise reading and interpreting an ancient text); in the second half, we indicated how and why the interventions were forms of peer feedback. We wanted to discover whether the phrase ‘peer feedback’ put students off, and whether they were correctly identifying the various opportunities when they were receiving feedback, rather than assuming feedback was limited to comments from a staff member on written work.

We found that reception of peer feedback varied depending on a number of factors. Most strikingly, students seemed to appreciate peer feedback most when it didn’t apply to a particular assessment, but rather in the context of checking their understanding and/or skills development. While they were reluctant to have their peers ‘mark’ their work, they reported significant benefits from defending their ideas, critiquing the structure of others’ arguments, and comparing their understanding. Perhaps because ‘assessment’ and ‘feedback’ are so often discussed together, students didn’t always recognise this non-assessment-specific feedback as ‘feedback’.

Students highlighted three main concerns with peer feedback:

What do their peers know? (The expertise of those giving feedback)
Do their peers care? (The attitude, investment, and motivation of those giving feedback)
Do their peers understand the grading criteria, and would they apply it accurately and reliably?

The focus groups revealed differences in attitudes between disciplines that affected reception of peer feedback: Philosophy students tended to view their peers more as collaborators while Law students viewed them as competitors.

Impact

Encouragingly, each of the central concerns raised by students can be overcome. Based on the study and our subsequent practice, we make the following recommendations for improving the effectiveness and reception of peer feedback:

Ensure that exercises involving peer feedback are overseen by staff. This helps to avoid the problem of ‘student expertise’.
Provide opportunities for students to practise giving feedback, increasing their confidence in themselves and each other.
Incentivise giving helpful feedback. For example, by making peer feedback a component of summative assessment. This helps to overcome the problem of student investment.
Foster an environment where students see each other as collaborators, rather than competitors, which might be done differently in different departments.
Develop students’ literacy in interpreting grading criteria by having them apply them, rather than merely distributing copies of the criteria.
Do not limit the discussions of feedback to discussions of assessments: highlight the diversity of opportunities for, and benefits of, feedback. An example of this from within Humanities, which is likely to have wider application, occurs in group discussions. A seminar leader might delay their own response to a students’ question or opinion, and instead invite others to provide answers or suggestions.

Reflection

This study provided helpful insights into the attitudes of students towards peer feedback and how its benefits could be maximised and best communicated. Part of the project’s success came from the sustained nature of the interventions, the ongoing evaluations, and comparisons between modules and with another department. However, this was a small pilot study so there were limitations on what could be achieved. The postgraduate class we trialled interventions in was small, and so the bulk of our analysis focussed on our more robust undergraduate data – exploring postgraduates’ experience of peer feedback would be a fruitful avenue for future research. We had chosen Law as our comparison discipline as peer feedback was more established there, but unfortunately the attendees of the Law focus group were less familiar with this practice than we had hoped. In future research, additional cross-discipline comparisons would be useful.

Follow Up

We have both continued to incorporate peer feedback into our practice and encourage our colleagues to do the same.

Links

https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/922929/Rennick-Newey-Peer-Feedback-Final-Report.pdf

Using student feedback to make university-directed learning on placement more engaging

18 October 202218 October 2022 By aaroncooper Comment Closed

Anjali Mehta Chandar: a.m.chandar@reading.ac.uk

Charlie Waller Institute, School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences

Overview

Our vocational postgraduate courses in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy include University Directed Learning (UDL) days that are completed within the placement setting (e.g. their NHS trust). A qualitative student feedback survey allowed us to collaboratively adapt this format, with favourable outcomes in how interesting, enjoyable and useful the students found the day.

Objectives

Our objectives were as follows:

-To ascertain how interesting, enjoyable and useful the UDL days were, as perceived by the students, based on pedagogical findings that students engage best and are most satisfied, if these characteristics are met (e.g. Ramsden, 2003).

-To make improvements to the UDL days based on qualitative student feedback.

-To ascertain whether our improvements had made the UDL days more interesting, enjoyable and useful, as perceived by the next cohort of students.

Context

The Educational Mental Health Practitioner (EMHP) and Children’s Wellbeing Practitioner (CWP) programmes are one-year vocational postgraduate courses. The students are employed by an NHS trust, local authority or charity, and study at UoR to become qualified mental health practitioners.

UDL days make up a small proportion of the teaching days. They are self-guided teaching days, usually containing elements of e-learning, designed to complement and consolidate face to face teaching (live or remote). A combination of learning methods, including e-learning, is shown to be effective in increasing clinical skills (e.g. Sheikhaboumasoudi et al., 2018).

UDL days had been poorly received by our two 2019/2020 cohorts, according to feedback in the student rep meetings and Mentimeter feedback after each UDL e.g. comments included: ‘there was too much [content] for one day’, ‘I felt pressured to fill [the form] out rather than focussing on the readings themselves’ and ‘[the reflective form] was too long and too detailed’. Whilst this gave us some ideas on changes to make, I was aware of the low completion rates of the Mentimeter feedback. Therefore, to hear from more voices, we decided to create a specific feedback survey about the UDLs to help us make amendments in a collaborative way.

Implementation

We started by creating a survey for the current students to ascertain their views on how interesting, enjoyable and useful the UDL days were. We also had qualitative questions regarding what they liked and disliked and ideas for specific improvements.

I then led a meeting with my course team to explore the key findings. We agreed to make several changes based on the specific feedback, such as:

– variety of activities (not purely e-learning, but roleplays, videos, self-practice self-reflection tasks, group seminars run by lecturers, etc, to provide a more engaging day)
– fewer activities (we aimed for one main activity for every 1-1.5 hours to manage workload demands)
– an option to complete the programme’s reflective form (designed to be more simple, by asking them to provide their own notes on each task) or provide their notes in a format of their choice (e.g. mindmaps, vlogs, etc) to increase accessibility.
– share these reflections on a discussion board for other students and the lecturer to comment on.

We were unable to implement these changes to the current cohort as they had finished all their UDL days in the timetable, so made the changes for the following cohorts in 2020/2021.

We then sought their feedback via a new survey to ascertain their views on how interesting, enjoyable and useful the UDLs are, with additional questions relating to specific feedback on the new elements.

Impact

The survey results for the newer cohorts were much more positive than the original cohort, after changes were made to the UDL format.

There was a significant increase in how interesting, enjoyable and useful the students found the days.

The trainees also largely agreed that the UDLs had an appropriate workload, e.g. one task per 1-1.5 hours.

They also largely agreed that UDLs included interactive and varied tasks. This finding is in contrast to some of the aforementioned literature of the importance of e-learning, and it must be remembered that too much e-learning can be less engaging for trainees.

The students also praised the simple reflective form as a helpful tool, and many appreciated the option to submit notes in their own preferred way.

Although we neglected to explore the role of the lecturer feedback in the new UDL survey, research shows that this makes for a more engaging e-learning session (Dixson, 2010), and may explain why the UDLs were now more favourable.

Moreover, the process of collecting data from the students via a feedback form seemed effective, in that we used feedback to adapt the specific teaching method, thus improving student satisfaction. Pedagogical research shows the importance of using qualitative questions (instead of, or as well as, quantitative methods) to elicit student feedback (Steyn et al., 2019).

Reflection

Overall, this redesign was successful, which may be down to the fact we used the student voice to make meaningful changes. This is in line with Floden’s (2017) research that student feedback can help to improve courses.

Furthermore, the changes we have made are in line with effective practice amongst other courses and universities, e.g. appropriate workload (Ginn et al., 2007), student choice of discussion format (Lin & Overbaugh, 2007), accessibility of resources (Mahmood et al., 2012) and lecturer interaction (Dixson, 2010).

There is a possible limitation in this case study, in that our more recent cohorts are generally happier on the course, and therefore may be more positive about the UDL. In future projects, it would be useful if we can notice themes within module evaluation/student rep meetings earlier, to then elicit specific survey feedback earlier in the course and make amendments sooner, allowing feedback from the same cohort.

In future variations of the survey, I would also wish to explicitly ask how trainees find sharing reflections on the Blackboard discussion groups, as this is one change we had not elicited feedback on.

Follow Ups

We have continued to utilise these changes in the UDL format with future cohorts, e.g. reduced workload, variety of activities, simplified forms, choice of discussion format and lecturer interaction. We no longer receive concerns about these days in the student rep meetings since the original cohort. The Mentimeter feedback at the end of each UDL is generally positive, with one person recently commenting: ‘this was a very engaging day’.

References

References:

Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1-13.

Flodén, J. (2017). The impact of student feedback on teaching in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(7), 1054-1068.

Ginns, P., Prosser, M., & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher education: The perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in higher education, 32(5), 603-615.

Lin, S. Y., & Overbaugh, R. C. (2007). The effect of student choice of online discussion format on tiered achievement and student satisfaction. Journal of Research on technology in Education, 39(4), 399-415.

Mahmood, A., Mahmood, S. T., & Malik, A. B. (2012). A comparative study of student satisfaction level in distance learning and live classroom at higher education level. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 128-136.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. Routledge.

Sheikhaboumasoudi, R., Bagheri, M., Hosseini, S. A., Ashouri, E., & Elahi, N. (2018). Improving nursing students’ learning outcomes in fundamentals of nursing course through combination of traditional and e-learning methods. Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research, 23(3), 217.

Steyn, C., Davies, C., & Sambo, A. (2019). Eliciting student feedback for course development: the application of a qualitative course evaluation tool among business research students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 11-24.

Overview

The case study will describe a TLEP (Teaching and Learning Enhancement Project) to develop STEM teaching and learning. Over 400 Reading Partnership student teachers (RPTs) have received some training, which was well received in university sessions. This case study will also describe how the programmable Lego kits were used successfully with 60 children who visited the university during their science week, as well as discussing future plans.

Objectives

The aims for the TLEP were:

To provide the students the skills, resources and confidence within university to deliver cross-curricular STEM activities whilst on their school placement, either in lessons and / or as an after-school club.
To promote and model cross-curricular working within a module and collaborative working within the community.
To maximise the use of expensive resources and to demonstrate ‘proof-of-concept’ that lending of resources to partnership schools is viable.

Context

The majority of the incoming primary teaching ITT (Initial Teacher Training) students do not take STEM A-levels and lack confidence teaching STEM in schools. Over the course of the teacher training programme, knowledge in the individual subjects improves. However, due to the siloed nature of university module teaching, students do not always see the cross-curricular opportunities to teach the subjects, nor have the confidence to deliver STEM initiatives, especially design and engineering challenges to children. With an ever-increasing shortage of a skilled STEM workforce, promoting STEM skills in children from a primary age is important for the future of Britain’s economy (ASPIRES project, 2013). One major barrier to achieving this goal is schools having the finances to purchase equipment. Even if schools have access to the necessary resources, they can often be used once and then lost in the back of the store cupboard. Further barriers include teachers having the necessary skills and confidence to deliver these sessions.

Implementation

By modelling working in a cross-curricular fashion and exposing students to carrying out the activity experientially, the aim was to upskill the RPTs (Reading Partnership student teachers) in their skills and confidence to deliver these types of STEM projects in their training placements and in their future schools.

Funding from the TLEP was used to purchase 10 Lego Spike Prime kits which provided sufficient resources for a class set both for use in university science teaching sessions, and with schools, where class numbers are approximately 30 children. By the university purchasing the resources and making them available for lending through the Learning Hub at London Road, the barrier in terms of resource cost to schools using these kits (~£300 per box new) was therefore eliminated.

The ambition was that after the workshop session as part of their university course, the Reading Partnership Teachers (student teachers) would then be inspired to borrow the kits and use with their own classes. However, the use of practical resources was severely hampered by covid-19, so the anticipated impact was reduced, and the timescale delayed.

But as part of a ‘Science Week’ in May 2022, a partnership school was invited to the science teaching labs on the London Road Campus. The children from a years 5 and 6, took part in a session to build 2 different motorizable grabber arms, and evaluated which was the best grabber to pick up different plastics in a plastic recycling sorting facility.

Impact

Aim 1: The university session provided the students the skills, resources and confidence, as evidenced by module reviews and overhearing many of the university students saying, “that was really fun!”. It also gave them the chance to work together and problem-solve groups, developing relationships amongst the cohort.

Aim 2: By inviting a school into the university’s science teaching lab, we met the aim of working collaboratively with the local community, meeting the aims of the Community, Engagement and Sustainability strands of the University Strategy. The children very much enjoyed this with them rating the session 9 or 10, out of 10.

Aim 3: This aim was to maximise the use of expensive resources and demonstrate that this is an option when working in partnership with schools. The fact that this work has already been used by 400 university children and 50 children, the means that the cost per participant is now down to approximately £5, based on the purchase cost of £2500. As further students and children, use these resources this cost per participant will further reduce.

Reflection

This was a good first good start to supporting delivery of these cross-curricular STEM sessions with a physical computing component. Part of this aim was also to model cross-curricular working within a module with the computing training happening in computing sessions. Due to covid-19 disrupting the delivery of both the science and computing sessions, this was not as well implemented as initially hoped.

Further confidence and awareness in how these kits can be used would be beneficial to support increased implementation in schools, both for the trainee teachers and for experienced teachers mentoring them.

Follow Up

I am aiming to train experienced teachers in using the kits, to ensure even greater impact and support for our RPTs on school placements.

Using more low-tech hybrid/hyflex teaching methods in English Literature modules – benefits and limitations.

1 July 2022 By aaroncooper Comment Closed

Professor Cindy Becker: l.m.becker@reading.ac.uk

Literature and Languages

Overview

During the pandemic, hybrid learning was used in two modules I taught – one at Foundation Level and one at Part One. I found it worked well for discussion-based sessions. I recognize that there are potential gains and losses to continuing this practice post-pandemic and I hope this case study might contribute to our institutional conversation.

Objectives

The objectives were to:

Include as many students as possible in live teaching sessions.
Maintain the energy of a group learning setting for all students.
Reassure students that they were still part of their learning cohort, even off campus.
Ensure good attendance and engagement on key modules at Foundation Level and Part 1, which might be seen as ‘at risk’ stages for student retention and attainment.

Context

Seminars in Arts and Humanities offer a specific type of learning experience, based upon developing ideas through discussion in a group setting. Students did not respond well to the idea of one-to-one (or two/three) sessions as a replacement if they were off campus. They struggled to attend or to engage in sessions which could become ‘information-giving’ tutorials rather than ‘knowledge-sharing’ seminars.

Implementation

Hybrid learning, in my case through a Blackboard Collaborate session running simultaneously with a campus seminar, was used for some modules in my department to include students who were unable to come onto campus due to the pandemic. I used the desktop computer in the teaching room, and I had the camera facing me (the online students preferred this to looking at their fellow students). The sessions were low tech, so I did no more than share my screen for visual material used in the seminar. I put the handouts in my Blackboard module and shared them in the Blackboard Collaborate chat. At the end of each seminar the online students stayed in the session so that I could check in with them once the on-campus students had left the room

For the Part 1 module, the module convenor alerted me to those students to whom I would need to send the Blackboard session link. No students other than these were offered the option of attending online

Impact

The first three objectives were achieved with the Part 1 module. An unplanned outcome was that we opened the hybrid sessions to a student whose mental health precluded on-campus attendance for two weeks, so the impact was wider than expected.

I then introduced hybrid learning in a Foundation module on which there had been poor attendance, for seminars in which I was offering important information about assessment.

I sent the online link to all students on the Foundation module. An unexpected outcome was that this did not significantly reduce the number of students who attended the on-campus seminar, but it did draw in the students on the module who had been regular nonattenders.

Reflection

I think hybrid teaching and learning worked well because our subject lends itself to relatively low-tech, conversation-based seminar learning. It worked for me as a seminar leader surprisingly well; this might in part have been because students were happy to give me leeway as I drifted off camera or took a few moments to catch up with their chat contributions.

On reflection I wish I had explored the option of students in the room interacting on their laptops with the online-only students. Responses would be passed to me from students online via students in the room on WhatsApp during general discussions, and I would have liked to facilitate that more formally. I wonder if we are underestimating our students’ abilities to multi-task in this way when we offer them campus-only sessions and I am keen to see whether the blended learning landscape of our future might also allow for more hybrid learning opportunities.

Follow Up

I led a professional conversation on this topic in my department to share our experiences and, perhaps, to consider what we might lose if we abandon hybrid teaching next year, weighing this against the potential risks that might be associated with its continuance. I would be pleased to hear from any colleagues who would like to become involved in a wider conversation.

Links

Note: this entry is submitted in conjunction with Gemma Peacock’s T&L Exchange entry in which she shares her experiences of hybrid/hyflex learning in language learning and academic skills development courses in ISLI (add link to that blog here).

Hybrid Teaching and Learning Network (on Teams) for sharing good practice: https://tinyurl.com/ye6awyuz

General survey on hybrid teaching and learning practice at the University of Reading: https://forms.office.com/r/bF9k3amY3d

Using more high-tech hybrid/hyflex teaching methods in language and academic skills learning contexts – benefits and limitations.

1 July 20225 August 2022 By aaroncooper Comment Closed

Gemma Peacock: g.peacock@reading.ac.uk

ISLI (International Study and Language Institute)

Overview

This case study reports on a successful pilot of hybrid/hyflex teaching in the International Study and Language Institute (ISLI) where one class contained fully online remote students and blended on-campus students together. There are both benefits and limitations to using this approach for language and skills learning contexts.

Objectives

The objectives of the pilot were:

To investigate and refine the technical aspects of running hybrid lessons.
To develop guidance for teachers.
To ascertain whether hybrid/hyflex teaching and learning methods can be used in contexts where more complex interaction patterns are required.
To gather feedback from teachers and students on their experiences.

Context

The hybrid/hyflex pilot was run initially because small cohort numbers for ISLI’s autumn 2021 Pre-sessional English course precluded the running of two separate classes: one online and one on-campus. While evidence existed in other institutions of the successful adoption of hybrid in lecture-style classes, it was not known if hybrid would work in ISLI’s context as it specialises in English language teaching and academic skills development for international students. These fields require complex interaction patterns between students themselves and with their teachers.

Implementation

During the pilot we refined the technology and processes necessary to deliver hybrid successfully as follows:

A Teams meeting runs during the lesson, displayed on a smart board. Remote students attend this meeting and on-campus students can also do the same using their own devices to receive documents or links easily in the chat during the lesson.
A device called a Meeting Owl Pro takes a constant 360 degree panoramic shot of the whole classroom and also shares video and audio of the speaker as they speak and move around the room.
Two monitors on the teacher desk means they can interact with the Teams meeting functionality (such as displaying slides or documents) and they can use the other screen for other purposes (such as teacher notes).
Teachers are thus able to speak to all students and remote students can speak to and see on-campus students via the Owl and vice versa for the implementation of a wide variety of interactive tasks.
Focus groups were held with teachers and students on the pilot to gather data on their experiences.

NB: Hybrid/hyflex is possible without a Meeting Owl so long as a reasonable quality microphone and camera exists in the classroom.

Impact

ISLI’s hybrid/hyflex pilot achieved its outcomes. We investigated and refined the technical aspects of running hybrid lessons through trial and error. This resulted in the production of:

a Meeting Owl Pro set-up guide for teachers.
a guidance document for teaching and learning via hybrid/hyflex methods.
a Teaching and Learning Sub-committee report on the pilot.
future recommendations for hybrid/hyflex delivery in ISLI.

The feedback gathered from teachers and students on their experiences was generally positive. When combined with the feedback from ISLI’s TEL team, it was agreed that while it is possible to use hybrid/hyflex in language learning or skills development contexts it may not be desirable. Some recommendations include:

Comprehensive teacher training in hybrid technology and pedagogy.
Lesson design and staging must enable both remote and on-campus students to participate equally and to receive equal attention from the teacher.
Where there is a small cohort (<5) these should be integrated into an online/F2F class to form a hybrid cohort to improve the student experience.

Reflection

The pilot study was successful as it allowed for on-the-job teacher-training through action research, and a more granular understanding of how hybrid/hyflex can work in terms of both technology and pedagogy. I believe ISLI’s expertise of hybrid/hyflex teaching and learning methods could be called on more widely across the university as the blended learning landscape of the future takes shape.

Hybrid/hyflex teaching and learning has been hailed as a more inclusive and accessible mode of study since it gives students agency to choose whether to study from home or on campus according to their immediate needs. This has proved beneficial in other teaching contexts (add link to Cindy Becker’s T&L blog post). Current visa regulations, however, do not permit international students on Pre-sessional English courses to switch between online and face-to-face delivery within a course, as students receive an offer for one mode of delivery only. This means that some of the potential benefits of hybrid/hyflex delivery are not available to them at this time.

Follow Up

Since the pilot, professional conversations about hybrid/hyflex have taken place with schools across the university to include the Department of English Literature and Henley Business School. In May 2022, presentations on hybrid were delivered to HE colleagues at the JISC Change Agent’s conference, and with English Language Teaching professionals at the IATEFL conference in Belfast. Data on hybrid methodology usage is currently being gathered from a survey Gemma Peacock and Cindy Becker have circulated with the aim of writing a journal article in the near future.

Links

Note: this entry is submitted alongside Cindy Becker’s T&L Exchange entry in which she shares her experiences of low tech hybrid/hyflex learning in English Literature seminars (add link to that blog here).

Hybrid Teaching and Learning Network (on Teams) for sharing good practice: https://tinyurl.com/ye6awyuz

General survey on hybrid teaching and learning practice at the University of Reading: https://forms.office.com/r/bF9k3amY3d