The Hidden Curriculum Glossary – supporting transitions with student-created resources

24 October 202425 October 2024 By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

By: Amanda Millmore, The School of Law, a.millmore@reading.ac.uk

Overview

As a way of helping new students to transition to university, our student-staff partnership co-created a “Hidden Curriculum Glossary.” The original glossary has been shared with students in the School of Law, used as the basis for a guide for first generation students at the University of Reading and has been adopted and adapted by universities across the sector, both in Law and other disciplines.

Objectives

The “hidden curriculum” has varied definitions but relates to the lack of connection between academics’ assumptions about students and how they should behave and what happens in reality. This includes implicit aspects of the taught curriculum as well as the academic expectations. The project aimed to get first generation Law students to help new entrants to understand some of the terminology and behavioural expectations of university by co-creating supportive resources.

Context

The adverse impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on students’ sense of belonging has been challenging. This partnership project worked with first generation Law students to brainstorm ideas to improve a sense of community and belonging within the Law School. The project led to positive ideas to benefit our community, as well as the creation of resources to support transition for all students.

Implementation

We recruited 8 paid student-partners; we pay them for their time to ensure a diverse group of students and as always, we are adopting the University’s Principles of Partnership.

Together we shared ideas to improve the sense of community and belonging which were taken forwards by the School’s Student Experience Committee and we identified suggestions to help incoming students.

One important output of our partnership was our quick guide to terminology and expectations – the Hidden Curriculum Glossary. Students shared what they wished they had known before starting and in their first year of university, and we co-created a helpful and colourful document demystifying key terms and concepts, written in plain English and tailored for what new students need to know.

The glossary was printed and shared with incoming undergraduate and postgraduate students as part of their transition materials in Welcome Week. Students also created “Top Tips” videos for new students and a video guide to our building. All of the resources are also shared electronically via Blackboard.

We have updated the glossary each year to incorporate student feedback and to include any changes. So for example, in its second year we added in more information about the Careers team and how they can help students.

The glossary is designed to support student transition and retention. It received very positive feedback from Law students via a questionnaire to all who received it, for example here is some of the qualitative feedback we received:

Impact

Student partners disseminated the work at a Teaching & Learning Showcase and the Change Agents’ Network Conference 2023.

We created a Criminology version of the glossary for the new programme which was launched in 2023/24 and are now getting ready for the 3^rd iteration of the glossary to incorporate the new language of semesters for 24/25.

The glossary is also a useful introduction to new colleagues joining the university, to get to grips with the language and terminology we use in Reading.

Reflections

Sometimes the simplest ideas are the best. The glossary has been a really useful exercise in co-creation with students, ensuring that we meet their needs and by making something of real value to them.

I would recommend that anyone looking to devise this kind of resource, looks to do so with student partners. Partnership working in this way ensures that the materials you produce are appropriate. As always with this kind of work, the students are fantastic at getting their teeth stuck into a project and make a real difference. Co-creation leads to sharing of different perspectives and is always eye-opening, unsurprisingly students know best as to what will resonate with their peers.

One of the biggest challenges was the timing of the project. Our funding did not kick in until August, but we needed to start work before then in order to achieve something useful in time for the start of the next academic year. Juggling student availability, when they have so many calls upon their time is always tricky, but keeping a flexible approach and realising that things do not need to be perfect, is crucial to a successful project.

Full credit to my colleague Dr. Başak Bak who worked on the community-building side of the project, and our fantastic student partners: Laura Carroll, Ambreen Azeem, Ryan Gibbard, Aina Binti Mohammad Abu Sofian, Srijanani Viswanathan, Saydee Brown, Lewis James, Hasti Houshyari and Kartiga Moganan.

Follow up

Having presented this work and its evolutions within Legal Education streams at Law-specific conferences (Society of Legal Scholars, 2023, Socio-Legal Studies Association, 2024) and at the Advance HE Teaching & Learning Conference (2023 & 2024), our glossary has been adopted and adapted by 8 other institutions (to date), many working to co-produce resources with their students:

2023

University of York (Law)
King’s College, London (Law)
University of Lancaster (Law & Student Success Team)
University of Salford (School of Science, Engineering & Environment)

2024

University of Cardiff (Law)
University of Nottingham (Law)
University of Portsmouth (Law)
University of Manchester (Law)

I am currently working with colleagues at these institutions to gather feedback and the impact of this work. With cohorts of several hundred (and in one case over 1000) our work has already supported several thousand students nationwide. They are all explicitly acknowledging that their versions were inspired by the work of our student staff partnership.

In 2024 students asked, through course representatives on the Student Staff Partnership Group, whether we could create a Careers-focused Glossary. Jeff Anderson (our Careers Consultant) is working with student representatives and me to produce something suitable.

If you are interested in adopting and adapting the glossary for your students, please get in touch with Amanda as she is very happy to share the materials, advice and wants to gather more evidence of impact of this work.

Links

University of Reading First Generation Guide

Exploring students’ sense of belonging in the Charlie Waller Institute

31 May 202413 June 2024 By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

By:

1. Denethri Gamagedara, Psychology Undergraduate and UROP student, d.gamagedara@reading.ac.uk;

2. Anjali Mehta Chandar, Lecturer, Charlie Waller Institute, a.m.chandar@reading.ac.uk;

3. Professor Allán Laville, Dean for Diversity and Inclusion, allan.laville@reading.ac.uk;

4. Hannah Raheja, Research Assistant, h.raheja@student.reading.ac.uk

Overview

Following the University of Reading’s (UoR) Race Equality Review (UoR, 2021), this Undergraduate Research Opportunities Programme (UROP) project took place, consisting of a student survey and two student interviews conducted in the Charlie Waller Institute (CWI), a department within the School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences. The aim was to investigate students’ perception of staff racial representation and its impact on students’ sense of belonging. Students felt that diversity explicitly needed to be integrated into the teaching and learning environment. A range of recommendations are provided.

Objectives

The objectives of this pilot study were:

To understand how staff racial representation impacts CWI students’ sense of belonging.
To explore student sense of belonging in CWI, a department that consciously integrates diversity and inclusion into teaching.
To contribute towards diversifying teaching and learning material and maximising student-staff interactions.

Context

The Race Equality Review (UoR, 2021) underlined racial representation as a salient factor for fostering sense of in its students. As Strayhorn (2018) outlines, sense of belonging is broadly defined as “students’ perceived social support on campus, a feeling or sensation of connectedness, the experience of mattering or feeling cared about, accepted, respected, valued by, and important to the group (e.g., campus community) or others on campus (e.g., faculty, peers).” Focus groups within the review highlighted that a lack of staff from minor ethnicities reinforced students’ isolation and lack of belonging within the university. When present, sense of belonging promotes successful learning by improving student engagement, encouraging students to seek campus resources and acting as a buffer from mental health issues (Gopalan & Brady, 2019). This was consistent with comments made in focus groups, where inclusion and sense of belonging were seen as important to the student experience.

The primary reason for conducting this study within CWI was because of the institute’s particular interest in ensuring diversity and inclusion (D+I), and it has an award-winning D+I working group. An institute in the School of Psychology, CWI specialises in postgraduate, vocational training for mental health practitioners. Within the teaching material, students are taught to think about a therapy client’s protected characteristics and engage in conversations about their diverse cultural backgrounds. It was deemed interesting to see how students at an institute that overtly discusses diversity felt about their sense of belonging to the university (potentially based on their racial identity).

Denethri Gamagedara conducted this study as part of UROP. This study was particularly important to her because of the possible implications of institutional improvement for students similar to herself. The project had two supervisors: Anjali Mehta Chandar, a Lecturer in CWI with a keen interest in D+I, and Allán Laville, both a Professor in the department and the University’s Dean of Diversity and Inclusion. Hannah Raheja, a CWI undergraduate student, aided in the project in the role of a research assistant, particularly supporting with the thematic analysis and dissemination.

Implementation

The study involved conducting a survey and two individual participant interviews with the students of CWI. The questions were co-designed by Denethri and Anjali. Sixteen students responded to this survey while three students volunteered for the interview, however only two proceeded to be interviewed due to availability. Responses were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and discussed with Anjali and Allan. Coding and clustering were completed by Denethri and Hannah, with inter-coder agreement scores of 95.5% and 85.3%. Figure 1 and Figure 2 below outline the themes and sub-themes that emerged from the data.

Figure 1

Themes from the survey

Figure 2

Themes (dark green) and sub-themes (light green) from the interviews

Impact

The research team devised the following recommendations for teaching staff to foster a sense of belonging for students and address diversity.

1 Openness in introductions: Lecturers to mention their own protected characteristics and routes to becoming an academic can be beneficial, particularly during their initial introduction to the cohort e.g. first teaching session. Students had perceptions that only individuals who fit certain criterion could become lecturers (e.g., majority ethnicity and higher socioeconomic status).

2 Showing cultural awareness: Acknowledging cultural events in lectures, Blackboard announcements or emails helps students feel accepted and valued. This allows for better student-staff connection.

3 A discussion blog: Implementing a blog where lecturers can talk about being a professional from a minoritised background is helpful. For example, departments might like to host this on Blackboard, with a new blog each month, or in the student newsletter which is sent out once a term. Students recognised the importance of holistic diversity and wished for more openness about this.

4 Teaching resources: Representation extends to teaching material. has conducted work into decolonising the curriculum, with a more recent publication in September about steps on how to achieve this.

5 Discussing belonging with academic tutees explicitly: Students reported that openness was crucial and belonging involved feeling comfortable and valued. Figure 3 (below) provides examples on how to address sense of belonging.

6 Discussing diversity, notably race, with tutees: Students mentioned that acceptance contributed to belonging. Creating a safe space for students may improve student-staff relationships. Figure 3 (below) has potential questions related to race.

Figure 3

Questions related to sense of belonging and diversity to ask tutees

Reflections

Conducting the study was extremely beneficial as it created the opportunity to think about recommendations to improve student sense of belonging. The results showed that only 31% of students agreed to the statement “I feel a sense of belonging within CWI”, with 25% neither agreeing nor disagreeing, 18.8% disagreeing and 25% strongly disagreeing – this suggests that there is room for improvement.

The study was successful because of the efficient pedagogical partnerships that were formed. Anjali, who was the main supervisor during the project, created a creative space where Denethri and Hannah, as undergraduates, could openly express their opinions. Whilst having Allan’s perspective and expertise helped Denethri and Hannah cluster themes effectively and think about tangible recommendations that lecturers can implement. The positive outcomes, particularly the opportunity to conduct more thorough analysis with a variety of researchers, will hopefully encourage more students and lecturers to apply for the UROP scheme in subsequent years too.

The study may have been better implemented if there was an opportunity to hear from a group of students, such as in a focus group setting. This was part of the original methodology, however, only one student volunteered for this, which therefore had to become an individual interview instead. Focus groups and/or creative styles of evaluation and student voice (such as zine-making) could be incorporated into future replications of this study.

Follow up

The recommendations have been included in a screencast for dissemination to staff groups within CWI, which is viewable here for other UoR colleagues to also view. A reflective paper about the impact of pedagogical partnerships formed from the study is in the process of being published. A pre-print in the style of a lab report is also hoping to be published. It is likely that future projects will look into the effectiveness of the recommendations, perhaps in the form of student or staff feedback.

References

Gopalan, M., & Brady, S. T. (2020). College students’ sense of belonging: A national perspective. Educational Researcher, 49(2), 134-137.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational Success for All Students. Routledge.
University of Reading (UoR). (2021). Race equality review. University of Reading. https://static.reading.ac.uk/content/PDFs/files/race-equality-review-report-2021.pdf

Links

Questions in Figure 1 are adapted from CIPD (2013)

How should MSc Placements be assessed? Gathering the views of students to inform assessment

19 February 202419 February 2024 By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

By: Paul Jenkins, School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences, p.jenkins@reading.ac.uk

two women sitting on stairs having a conversation — Image credit: Buro Millennial on Pexels.

Overview

The School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences (PCLS) offers several postgraduate degree programmes, nearly all of which include a placement element. Getting the assessment right is an important challenge to fairly evaluating students on placement. As part of an ongoing review of programmes with placement components, a piece of work was commissioned to look at how placements should be assessed within PCLS.

Objectives

The primary aims of this project were to explore:

What elements of placements MSc students felt were important to assess; and
How MSc students felt these elements should be assessed.

Context

As a ‘taught’ component of the course, any assessment needs to be carefully planned and contribute “directly to learning and skill development” (UoR, 2023). Student feedback indicated that the current method of assessing placements, which comprises a written report of what was done and learned on placement, was unsatisfactory. For instance, students felt that it did not reflect the amount of work put in over the course of the placement and that the final grade was too reliant on one piece of written work.

It was felt that gaining insight into current students’ views would be helpful to inform future changes to the way(s) in which MSc placements might be assessed, making this process proportionate and more useful for students.

Implementation

In February 2023, a grant from the UoR T&L Initiatives Fund was awarded to address the question of how MSc placements should be assessed.

A focus group discussion was conducted in June 2023, with participants recruited from PCLS MSc students. The focus group lasted around 45 minutes. In addition, a 1:1 interview was held in July 2023 with another individual who wanted to share their views on the subject, and this is included to add detail to the data obtained from the focus group.

To frame the focus group and interview, open-ended questions were developed to explore participants’ experiences, opinions, and thoughts regarding placement and its assessment. The facilitator (a member of staff within PCLS) was present to encourage a relaxed atmosphere and supplement prepared questions with prompts to gather participants’ views and pursue themes relevant to the research questions. The following is a sample of the questions asked during the interview:

What are the important elements of an MSc placement to be assessed?
How do you think MSc placements should be assessed?

The focus group was audio-recorded and the facilitator also kept notes to help keep track of themes and provide a more holistic picture of the discussion (Kornbluh, 2023). The students were also given a document on different types of assessment and an exemplar of how a placement might be assessed to act as ‘stimulus material’ to prompt detailed discussion of their views on assessment.

Impact

The findings of the discussions provided insight into how students think placements should be assessed. In terms what students considered important to be assessed, several different themes emerged:

Assessing what was learned

Students talked about the importance of assessing what was learned, as opposed to a more cursory assessment of the time or activities spent in placement; for instance if: “technically, you put in the work but you didn’t actually apply it to anything”. They reflected on the different environments and services within which placements took place, such as some being online and others being conducted in-person, and the importance of asking students “to prove” that they have engaged with placement. The importance of certain skills (e.g., teamworking, presentation skills) learned on placement was highlighted, and also how such skills relate to students’ futures.

Reflecting on one’s own development

Several students commented on how they have developed over the course of placement, and how this could be included in the assessment. For instance, one student suggested that assessments could cover “what skills are we learning and how much are we able to apply it… and how we’re changing”. Another noted discussions they have with their supervisors, whereby they “don’t just talk about what I do… [but] also some sort of reflection,” and that this brings in “reflection of how you see yourself”.

Capturing diversity of experiences

The discussion also covered the reality that students will have different experiences of placement and how it can be “a very subjective experience,” including different types and levels of supervision. For instance, one student commented that “the difference between person to person doesn’t always end in […] what they’re doing but also where they started from, because we also came into the programme with very different experiences”. Students also highlighted differences in effort put in by those on placement, sharing the perception that there were some students “who are doing everything they possibly can” and others who “slowly move to the back… waiting for things to be handed to them”.

As part of the project, students also discussed how these skills and elements of placement should be assessed and, again, several themes arose:

Continuous assessment

Students discussed having the opportunity to reflect ‘as they go’ and potential problems with a unitary, retrospective assessment. Whilst they felt that having a reflective piece is “a nice idea,” one student commented how a lot of experiences gained on placement are difficult to recall at the time of submission. They were also wary of having too much overlap between pieces of assessment, such as a reflective report and report of activities, and one student suggested being “forced to keep track of what you have been doing… in a detailed manner”.

Having been offered a list of potential assessment types to review in the focus group, one student felt that Reflective Diaries could be a better approach, perhaps used alongside an hours log. Another suggested that Learning Logs with “certain points to learn about” could be helpful, perhaps covering “small reports on small things”. Another suggested a “spaced out diary… or some form of input from our supervisor” could be of use, although also stated that they were unsure “how feasible that would be”. It was also suggested that a website (or blog) could be used to help students log experiences and remain accountable. Of note, some students chose to do this independently, with one saying: “I keep a log for myself”.

Oral presentations

Many students mentioned advantages of an oral presentation over written work, including being “better able to express what I’m doing when I speak”. Another commented that “when you write, you downplay” what was done on placement and that an oral form of assessment can be less constrained by “academic rules”. Another student agreed, saying that a presentation would “let someone express [their experience] much better” and another concluded: “I think just talking would be better [than a written assignment]”.

Students suggested that oral presentations offer a chance to “talk through your experience” and also to field questions (e.g., “What do you think you specifically learned?”), which “makes you reflect a lot more”. They also commented on the advantages of having other individuals present. A student noted that presenting in a group means that you “get to see what other people have been doing [and] how they’ve developed their skills” which could even “change your perspective”. It was commented that this approach can be “helpful to your peers as well, not just you”.

In a similar vein, one student suggested a viva voce (a one-to-one oral examination) whereby students “talk to our supervisors… and have that discussion” about their experiences.

Assessing the thoroughness of the experience

One student suggested that having written assignments can limit introspection, and get one “writing it for the sake of having a reflective piece to submit” rather than discussing “how much have I grown”. By contrast, they suggested that, in oral presentations, “flow is better – easier – and it really gives you cause to think about how you have developed”. Further reflecting on oral presentations, one student commented that “it’s up to you how you present it and how you convey how much you’ve learned, what you’ve learned, how much you’ve grown” and “how you justify what you’ve done in your placement hours”.

Reflections

The insight gained from this work has proved invaluable when formulating assessment for the coming academic year. Students’ views on the possibility of interpersonal assessment has informed the structure of oral presentations where students are given the opportunity to discuss an aspect of placement in front of their peers. The marking criteria have been developed to incorporate some of this feedback, such as inclusion of autonomy, personal development, and showing relevant skills.

Whilst it only represents a small study, some practical suggestions could be proposed. For instance, when evidencing and discussing their placement experiences, students were clear that oral presentation offers several advantages over written methods (a more common approach to work-based assessment; Ferns & Moore, 2012). The importance of assessing skills development over time was highlighted, which could be considered when setting and providing structure for both formal and informal assessment (e.g., Bates et al., 2013). Finally, it is perhaps also important for educators to keep in mind that students begin placement with different experiences, variation which has the potential to impact both their learning and achievement.

Follow up

The summer of 2024 will be the first-time oral presentations have run for several ‘placement’ modules. We shall continue to refine the assessment itself (and marking criteria) based on further feedback and look into whether concerns about the written reflective piece remain; if so, an assessment that relies more on continuous engagement could be considered.

References

Bates, J. et al. (2013). Student perceptions of assessment and feedback in longitudinal integrated clerkships. Medical Education, 47, 362–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12087
Ferns, S., & Moore, K. (2012). Assessing student outcomes in fieldwork placements: An overview of current practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 13(4), 207–224.
Kornbluh, M. (2023). Facilitation strategies for conducting focus groups attending to issues of power. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 20, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2022.2066036
University of Reading. (2023, December). Assessment and the Curriculum Framework. https://sites.reading.ac.uk/curriculum-framework/assessment/

Reflecting on developing support for disabled students attending clinical training courses in the Charlie Waller Institute

18 February 202419 February 2024 By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

By: Natalie Meek, n.a.meek@reading.ac.uk & Fisayo Adunola, f.adunola@reading.ac.uk, School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences

one woman writes on a whiteboard while another watches — © University of Reading

Overview

Academic tutors across the Charlie Waller Institute (CWI) courses recognised that disabled students faced specific challenges during their studies. Respecting the diverse voices of our student body is paramount, as noted within the student charter. As such we developed student led forum to access feedback and to enact change within courses. In this report we will reflect on the learning taken, and challenges met in engaging students with disabilities.

Objectives

Support students with disabilities.
Supporting students to have a reflective space to discuss respective challenges faced and to enable them to support one another and discuss helpful ways to cope.
Enact change within CWI courses, and in wider educational settings, based on student feedback.

Context

The CWI offers graduate and postgraduate clinical training courses. We have been receiving feedback from our disabled students that they were facing additional barriers and challenges in completing their courses. One area of feedback was feeling isolated within their peer group, and assessments and processes being less accessible to them.

Implementation

The group was to cover all areas of disability; neurodivergence, learning difficulties, physical, sensory and mobility disabilities. So far five groups have been conducted in the previous academic year, sadly attendance has been very low, three groups were conducted with only one student present. Although this meant a great listening space for that student, and an opportunity for the school to take direct feedback, there is little opportunity for peer support. We have identified several challenges to developing peer support groups for post-graduate training course cohorts. On the same day that our forum runs there are two other forums which are the Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) student forum and the Parent and Carers student forum. There has been some cross over as some of the trainees that have attended one forum have attended other forums.

Impact

So far, the forum has met each objective in part. However, one challenge that has arisen is attendance at the forum which has meant the reach hasn’t gone beyond a small number of students. This is a challenge we are continuing to work on as a school to enabled more disabled students to access this space. The reach of the group has also gone beyond the University or School, with contact being made with an accreditation body to respond to student feedback. An unexpected impact has been to enable undiagnosed neurodivergent students to access support through their attendance at the forum. One take away is the importance of students having more contact with the Disability Representatives (Dis Reps) and Disability Advisory Service (DAS), which this group has facilitated. In their role of Dis Rep, Natalie can offer further individual support to enable students to have further reasonable adjustments in university study and in professional service.

Reflections

Despite low turnout, facilitating the forums has been insightful in hearing the voices of students who often face barriers to social engagement within higher education and within wider society (McGuckin et al., 2013; Watson & Nolan, 2011). Our students face unique challenges due to the pressures of clinical training, which impacts their personal, professional, and educational lives. Challenges have varied from accessibility of buildings to difficulties with information processing.

Disabled students are not a monolith, so continuing engagement with diverse voices is necessary to understand our students’ strengths and challenges. The title of the group may be a barrier to engagement, the disability label holds stigma, and those with invisible disabilities may not identify with this label.

In addition to university related learning, our students have expanded on how larger systems, such as the health service and accrediting bodies, lack accessibility. This led to liaison with the British Association of Behavioural & Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP). We hope this forum will empower our students to engage equitably in our courses.

Follow up

Within CWI we have Diversity and Inclusion Support Officers (DISOs) who have been active in ensuring that the actions from the student forums are followed up and embedded within the direction of CWI. The forums are continuing throughout the 2023/24 academic year, we plan to continue responding to student feedback to facilitate engagement. A further review will be performed at the end of the 2023/24 academic year.

References

Scope. (2023). Disability facts and figures. https://www.scope.org.uk/media/disability-facts-figures/
HESA. (2023). Table 4 – HE student enrolments by HE provider and disability marker 2014/15 to 2021/22. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/table-4
House of Commons Library. (2021). Support for disabled students in higher education in England.https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8716/
McGuckin, C., Shevlin, M., Bell, S., & Devecchi, C. (2013). Moving to further and higher education: An exploration of the experiences of students with special educational needs. NCSE.
Watson, D., & Nolan, B. (2011). A social portrait of people with disabilities in Ireland. Department of Social Protection.

Using constructivism to achieve a decolonised accounting curriculum

8 December 202318 February 2024 By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

By: Ekililu Salifu, Henley Business School, e.salifu@henley.ac.uk

Men sitting on chairs with back to camera — © Photo by Sam Balye on Unsplash

Overview

This article explores using constructivism as a pedagogical approach to achieving the objective of a decolonised accounting curriculum. It discusses how constructivism can be used to effectively outline the constraints of the received perception of accounting as a pseudo-technical subject while making room for alternative representations.

Objectives

The primary aim of this activity was to explore the use of constructivism learning theory to achieve a decolonised accounting curriculum. The next objective was to design and effectively deliver a more inclusive globalised curriculum for post-graduate financial reporting in particular, and accounting in general.

Context

Accounting curriculum is perceived to be pseudo-technical, relying on the application of technical rules and principles that are universally accepted. This is the received view of our postgraduate accounting students, over 90% of whom are from an international background. Student feedback suggested that while they wanted to learn and apply conventional financial reporting and accounting, they also wanted to see a representation of themselves in some of the discussions. During the delivery and redesign of the curriculum for ACM002 Financial Reporting and Regulation (now ACM006 International Financial Reporting and Regulation), I explored the use of constructivism as a pragmatic pedagogical approach to explore the constraints of this notion while making room for the generation of alternative explanations. ACM002 (now ACM006) is a compulsory financial reporting module for MSc International Accounting and Finance students, and currently has 26 students registered on it.

Implementation

Decolonisation can take on different meanings but is used in this context to mean the recognition of the constraints placed by monocultural and largely westernised perspectives or hierarchies in accounting and the making room for alternative representations. Decolonising the accounting curriculum faces unique disciplinary constraints, as the largely Western knowledge systems we pass on are considered to be ‘universal’, especially in the wake of the near-universal acceptance of international financial reporting standards. A decolonised accounting curriculum needs to emphasise its ability to meet local needs and cultivate globally transferable skills.

I started with an informal focus group with some students from the 2021/2022 cohort, to collate feedback on what a decolonised financial reporting curriculum would mean to them, among other objectives. Students argued against the development and delivery of an overtly decolonised curriculum that continuously recognised the constraints of the existing curriculum, and especially discussed alternative representation. This was primarily borne from their belief while the present curriculum had hegemonic dispositions, it was still necessary as its completion would enhance their global competitiveness. Furthermore, for a decolonised curriculum to be meaningful to the student, they needed to see their own experiences represented in the discussions.

Constructivism offered a solution to designing and delivering a more decolonised curriculum. Constructivism, with its focus on student-centred learning, suggests that humans construct knowledge and meaning from their experience. As a learning theory, it suggests that students learn by relating new information to what they already know. In its ability to fosters active and collaborative learning, constructivism allows students to self-identify with co-produced knowledge.

The delivery of ACM002 was primarily lecturer-led, with relatively limited opportunities for students to reflect on what was being taught. However, scholars generally recognise that knowledge is co-produced, and a lecture-only mode of delivery is not ideal for the optimal co-production of knowledge. The amount of time that could be dedicated to student engagement in debates during lectures (as opposed to workshops) was limited, especially considering the content that still needed to be delivered.

The starting point of decolonising the curriculum was thus to rename the module from Financial Reporting and Regulation to International Financial Reporting and Regulation, to highlight the inclusivity within the module. Next was to expand the reading lists to include more critical debates on some of the module content. Workshop sessions, with the object of fostering debates among the students were introduced. In these sessions, students engaged in more critical discussions when they were able to call on their own experiences and relate those to the discussions at hand. This was in sharp contrast to when critical discussions were relayed to them by the lecturer.

Impact

Adopting constructivism significantly allowed for the curriculum to be relatively decolonised and overcome some of the student resistance. As the composition of students changes year-by-year, utilising static module structure and composition may not achieve the objectives of a decolonised curriculum for each cohort. Relying on only module renaming and diversifying the module content and material risks alienating some students who may not recognise a representation of their own experiences in what is being taught.

Leaning on the canon of the coproduction of knowledge between instructors and students (see de Carvalho et al., 2016; Padilla, 2019; Shahjahan et al., 2022)., encouraging and offering students the opportunity to call upon and debate key issues within financial reporting was vital to the paradox of balancing professional (often western-centric) knowledge, socialisation, and subjugated community based and socially knowledge.

Reflections

Decolonising curriculum requires the construction of an inclusive curriculum beyond dominant knowledge systems, as well as the cultivation of an environment that fosters relational teaching and learning. This means that it is a continuous process that requires constant iterations based on student-teacher interactions, recognising the differences in the lived experiences of individuals and the impact that might have on the learning process.

Follow up

I intend to run a short survey for this cohort at the end of the term, to evaluate the extent to which they are able to self-identify their individual and country context within the discussions we have covered in the module. I also intend to make a presentation on decolonisation and constructivism at the departmental level also, to assess the receptiveness of this approach, and to close the loop on the side of the academics.

References

Bada, S. O. & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.
Charles, E. (2019). Decolonizing the curriculum. Insights, 32, 24.
de Carvalho, J. J., Cohen, L. B., Correa, A. F., Chada, S., & Nakayama, P. (2016). The meeting of knowledges as a contribution to ethnomusicology and music education. World of Music, 5(1), 111–133.
de Carvalho, J. J., & Florez-Florez, J. (2014). The meeting of knowledges: A project for the decolonization of universities in Latin America. Postcolonial Studies, 17(2),122–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2014.966411
Padilla, N. L. (2019). Decolonizing indigenous education: An Indigenous pluriversity within a university in Cauca, Colombia. Social & Cultural Geography, 22(4), 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2019.1601244
Shahjahan, R. A., Estera, A. L., Surla, K. L. & Edwards, K. T. (2022). “Decolonizing” curriculum and pedagogy: A comparative review across disciplines and global higher education contexts. Review of Educational Research, 92(1), 73-113.
Subedi, B. (2013). Decolonizing the curriculum for global perspectives. Educational Theory, 63(6), 621-638.

“Making it OUR Year Abroad”: A student-staff collaboration to support the Year Abroad experience for Languages students

7 September 202311 September 2023 By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

By: Dr Chiara Ciarlo, School of Literature and Languages, c.ciarlo@reading.ac.uk

Screenshot of UoR Italian Year Aboard Facebook group — Screenshot of the private Facebook group created by students for their Year Abroad

Overview

In this blogpost, Lecturer in Italian Language Chiara Ciarlo illustrates how four Department of Languages and Cultures (DLC) students with experience of the Year Abroad (YA), collaborated with staff on a PLanT-funded project to help fellow Part 2 students deal with the difficulties and anxiety of preparing to study abroad in the post-Brexit era, by creating a successful network of support including a student-led Facebook group and a useful video-guide with tips on life abroad. This project demonstrates the power of student partnership for building belonging and engagement in ways that are meaningful and authentic to learners.

Objectives

The primary aims of this activity were:

– to enhance communication among students across year-groups in DLC;
– to encourage current and returning students to share their YA experience in an inclusive way, and Part 2 students to proactively seek help while preparing to go abroad;
– to identify key aspects which required more support for Part 2 students;
– to create online YA resources on these aspects that could easily be accessed by current and future students.

Context

Due to recent economic and political changes, students preparing to study/work abroad as part of their Languages degree, have had to deal with complex bureaucratic processes (e.g., visa application) and unforeseen problems (e.g., increasing difficulties in finding accommodation), which have caused them undue stress and anxiety. During her time abroad, Jess Mant, one of the student partners in the project, had the original idea of setting up a network for fellow students to offer support on the issues she had experienced when preparing to leave and while in the foreign country. This subsequently became a PLanT-supported project.

Implementation

The project was based on the students’ YA experience in Italy. After an initial planning meeting with staff, two of the student partners, Jess and Francesca Greatorex (Finalists), set up a student-led private Facebook group as a space for the Italian students to find out more about the YA. It was agreed that this group should have only students as members (i.e., no staff were allowed on it) to allow freedom of discussion. Past and present students of Italian were invited to join the group, and this was a great opportunity for alumni to contribute to the discussion and offer advice on different destinations. All student partners initially introduced themselves via videos, shared their experience and pictures, and used polls to encourage members to vote on topics to discuss. This worked particularly well and stimulated participation when Part 2 students had to choose their destinations, as questions on specific cities could be addressed.

Once the Facebook group was up and running, the other two student partners, Anna McTiernan and Rosa Lockwood-Davies (Year Abroad students), created videos on topics that had become popular in the Facebook discussions and in YA preparation meetings with staff and Part 2 students e.g., tips on the visa application based on own experience, finding accommodation, and how to make friends in a foreign country. These videos were later uploaded on the Facebook group and were liked by members. Despite having individual roles, student partners collaborated in both areas of the project, sharing ideas and reviewing each other’s work.

Impact

Aim: To enhance communication among students across year groups in DLC.
The Facebook group created by the student partners is a permanent space that Italian students of all year-groups can join. This year, the group will welcome the new Part 2 cohort and the administration will be taken over by the remaining student partners of the project.

Aim: To encourage students returning from the YA to share their experience in an inclusive way, and Part 2 students to proactively seek help in preparing to go abroad.
This aim was achieved through posts and videos (and the use of captions in the videos, which helped students focus on the content). Videos on some more sensitive topics (e.g., making friends) were carefully planned to include all types of personalities. Polls were particularly effective in stimulating members to ask questions and contribute.

Aim: To identify key aspects which required more support for Part 2 students.
The use of polls and discussions in the Facebook group, and the participation of student partners at YA preparation meetings, helped create a pool of topics to cover in the video-guide.

Aim: To create online YA resources on these aspects that could easily be accessed by current and future students.
The Facebook group became “the space” were all material could be found in one place by members: this included the videos and several useful links which were recommended by student partners during preparation meeting and immediately posted in the group. This will remain a great source of information for future cohorts.

In a survey carried out during the summer, Part 2 students commented particularly on the usefulness of this material and its ease of accessibility.

Reflections

The success of the activity lies in the determination and creativity of the student partners. From the very beginning, they all took on their role with great enthusiasm and were driven by the will to pass on their knowledge to make the YA an enjoyable experience for current and future cohorts of Languages Students. Additionally, other students who were on the YA found the initiative very stimulating and began to give their contribution, both in group discussions and by posting extra material that they had created to document their experience abroad e.g., a written guide on the student experience in Padua.

Student partners encountered some difficulties while creating and running resources, namely in making students interact in online exchanges and in producing videos whose format would appeal to peers. To overcome these issues, they came up with creative ideas, like the use of polls and the creation of shorter videos, to encourage viewings. For staff, having the input of the student partners was invaluable, as every activity was designed with the students and their needs in mind.

Follow up

Two of the student partners, Finalists in 2023/24, will continue with the administration of the Facebook group (possibly creating also an Instagram account to complement it), and will encourage this year’s Part 2 students to join. With the contribution of other members, who have also returned from the YA, information will be regularly updated, discussions will be stimulated, and new material for the video-guide will be produced, making this a permanent and dynamic space for Languages students to meet and share their YA experience.

A special grazie/thank you goes (in no particular order) to Jess, Francesca, Anna and Rosa for the time, dedication and enthusiasm they all put in creating these resources, and for demonstrating that the Year Abroad is an invaluable experience that needs to be preserved and shared with others.

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.

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

The Use and Usefulness of Peer Feedback

6 December 20226 December 2022 By aaroncooper Comment Closed

Dr Charlotte Newey and Dr Steph Rennick

c.newey@reading.ac.uk

Humanities (Philosophy)

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.

Links

CWI website: https://sites.reading.ac.uk/charlie-waller-institute/

By: Amanda Millmore, The School of Law, a.millmore@reading.ac.uk

Overview

Objectives

Context

Implementation

Impact

Reflections

Follow up

Links

By:

1. Denethri Gamagedara, Psychology Undergraduate and UROP student, d.gamagedara@reading.ac.uk;

2. Anjali Mehta Chandar, Lecturer, Charlie Waller Institute, a.m.chandar@reading.ac.uk;

3. Professor Allán Laville, Dean for Diversity and Inclusion, allan.laville@reading.ac.uk;

4. Hannah Raheja, Research Assistant, h.raheja@student.reading.ac.uk

Overview

Objectives

Context

Implementation

Impact

Reflections

Follow up

References

Links

By: Paul Jenkins, School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences, p.jenkins@reading.ac.uk

Overview

Objectives

Context

Implementation

Impact

Reflections

Follow up

References

By: Natalie Meek, n.a.meek@reading.ac.uk & Fisayo Adunola, f.adunola@reading.ac.uk, School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences

Overview

Objectives

Context

Implementation

Impact

Reflections

Follow up

References

By: Ekililu Salifu, Henley Business School, e.salifu@henley.ac.uk

Overview

Objectives

Context

Implementation

Impact

Reflections

Follow up

References

By: Dr Chiara Ciarlo, School of Literature and Languages, c.ciarlo@reading.ac.uk

Overview

Objectives

Context

Implementation

Impact

Reflections

Follow up

Links

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

Overview

Implementation

Impact

Reflections

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

Update June 2024

Objectives

Context

Implementation

Impact

Reflection

Follow-up

References and links

Overview

Objectives

Context

Implementation

Impact

Reflection

Follow Up