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

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

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.

Screenshot from student created video
Screenshot from student created video

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.

Screenshot from student created video
Screenshot from student created video

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.

Links

Link to the “UoR Italian Year Abroad” private Facebook group.

 

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

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

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.

Reframing success in a partnership project

Reframing success in a partnership project

By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

Associate Professor Amanda Millmore, School of Law

 

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.

a group of women in business attire standing in front of a white and wood panelled wall

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.

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)

Forthcoming article (co-authored by staff & student partners) in the Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership & Change in 2023 – currently in copy editing phase – will share a link once it’s available.

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

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):

  1. To trial different opportunities for, and kinds of, peer feedback.
  2. To gather qualitative and quantitative data on the perceived usefulness of peer feedback, before, during, and after interventions.
  3. 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:

  1. What do their peers know? (The expertise of those giving feedback)
  2. Do their peers care? (The attitude, investment, and motivation of those giving feedback)
  3. 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

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/

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

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:

  1. Include as many students as possible in live teaching sessions.
  2. Maintain the energy of a group learning setting for all students.
  3. Reassure students that they were still part of their learning cohort, even off campus.
  4. 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.

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:

  1. To investigate and refine the technical aspects of running hybrid lessons.
  2. To develop guidance for teachers.
  3. To ascertain whether hybrid/hyflex teaching and learning methods can be used in contexts where more complex interaction patterns are required.
  4. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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

The One Where a Timetable Merger Gives Rise to a Curriculum Implementation Review

By aaroncooper Comment Closed

Emma-Jayne Conway, James Kachellek and Tamara Wiehe

t.wiehe@reading.ac.uk

Link back to case studies on the T and L Exchange website

Overview

Staff and students in CWI collaborated on a project initially designed to merge two timetables of sister programmes to aid cross programme working (objective 1) but gave rise to the perfect opportunity to review the way our PWP curriculum is implemented following the pandemic (objective 2). In this blog, we reflect on achieving both objectives within our original timeframe!

Objectives

1.     To create a single timetable to aid cross-programme working for teaching and administrative staff.

2.     To review curriculum implementation including structure and modality on a modular and programme level with all key stakeholders.

Context

In response to a departmental restructure, we required more efficient ways of working across programmes starting with a uniform timetable. Early on, the project evolved to also review the structure and modality of the curriculum. Our two sister PWP training programmes (one undergraduate and one postgraduate) are virtually identical with a few exceptions but historically had been managed separately.

Over the course of 2021, we planned, designed, and implemented a timetable merger for our September cohorts. This impacted on 3 modules (4 for undergraduates) that form the PWP training year for the MSci Applied Psychology (Clinical) students and the Postgraduate/graduate Certificate in Evidence-Based Psychological Treatments (IAPT Pathway).

Taking both Higher Education and Mental Health Care processes into consideration was no easy feat, including those specific to University of Reading (e.g., term dates), our national PWP curriculum specifying the content and learning outcomes for our 26 teaching days and 19 study days, and British Psychological Society (BPS) accreditation requirements. Modality was a particularly important topic throughout this project, taking key learnings from remote delivery during the pandemic as well as awaiting guidance from our professional accrediting body.

Overall, it served as an excellent opportunity to work collaboratively with staff and students to review the implementation of PWP training at the University of Reading.

Implementation

  1. Early 2021: The PWP team met on several occasions to discuss the possibility of merging the two timetables, including transitioning to a “blended” format of online and face-to-face teaching post-Covid. We set out a timeline for planning, designing, and implementing the project.
  2. Advice was sought from the Director of Training in CWI and colleagues in Academic Development, CQSD based on their experience of timetable mergers and a green light was given based on our draft plans!
  3. Several options were considered before the final format was arrived at: Face-to-face teaching is weighted towards the first module/term with progressive increase to the online taught content as the course progresses. (Rationale supplied elsewhere in this blog).
  4. The educator team were able to draw on feedback from online teaching to gauge the attitude of the student body to online learning, as well as expectations and concerns related to a return to the classroom (see Impact, below). The student voice was important in terms of utilising partnership to create meaningful change to curriculum implementation. However, engaging professional practice students via the course reps was a challenge due to time constraints, therefore, we were able to engage graduate instead. This is something we would consider earlier on in future projects.
  5. The educator team unanimously agreed that the externally taught content of the VEC module could be effectively taught with mixed cohorts from the Core-PWP and MSci cohorts using an online approach.
  6. Information on the changes was disseminated to Program Administrators to enable efficient implementation. External Educators were made aware of the retention of online lecture sessions, and the mixed-cohort approach, by the VEC module convenor.
  7. Timetables were updated by the Program Director, in collaboration with Module Convenors; consideration has been given to the potential Workflow impact of closely aligning multiple cohorts (see below). Timetables have been looked at by the team ‘side-by-side,’ to ensure that Workflow balance is maintained for educators across all cohorts. We can continue to monitor the impact on workload while adjustments are made to teaching (such as with the Working Document mentioned in the Follow-Up section, below).
  8. IAPT Services were made aware of the changes to the timetables

Impact

As of October 2021, the merged timetables are proving effective, with no major barriers, having been detected. Predicted barriers included those to effective teaching of (previously face-to-face) content, student/staff dissatisfaction with a blended approach, and significant administrative/technical difficulties.

Face-to-Face teaching resumed in September 2021 and has been a successful return to the classroom. Educators report being able to switch between live sessions and face-to-face teaching days without significant barriers.

The educator team plan to continue to gather feedback on the student experience of the blended and merged approach. We will be able to assess feedback when the first cohorts fully complete in June 2022.

Feedback will be sought from module convenors, educators, and program administrators using “menti” feedback forms, bi-weekly team meetings and informal qualitative discussion, to gauge the impact of the changes on workflow. Student feedback will also be monitored through end-of-module feedback collated by the School.

Reflection

  • The challenge of engaging professional practice students and utilising graduates to overcome this. We will consider setting up graduate/patient advisory group for future projects.
  • Using feedback from a MSci graduate led to timetable changes to ensure readability and clarity for students. This included points such as colour coding F2F v online teaching days, explaining acronyms, etc.
  • Involving all members of the team (especially Module Convenors) felt like a much more meaningful and collaborative process than Programme Director decisions alone. It gave Module Convenors autonomy over their modules as well as aligning learning outcomes across the 3 modules of the programme which is particularly important for clinical training. Other courses may wish to replicate this approach to build team cohesion and allow all colleagues to make meaningful contributions to programme changes and delivery.

Follow up

  • Working document has been created for the educator team to comment on the teaching they have just delivered i.e., was there enough time to deliver all content? This has allowed changes to be made within a matter of weeks as the same day is delivered across the programmes. As a result, we can fine-tune the timetable and delivery of the programme quicky and efficiently to improve the student experience.
  • We will review module by module and at the end of each cohort to continue making any necessary adjustments. Module and programme evaluations, student-staff rep meetings and any feedback from individual teaching days will also help to inform this.

 

Blended Learning – Exploring the Experience of Disabled Law Students

By aaroncooper Comment Closed

Amanda Millmore, Sharon Sinclair-Graham, Dr. Rachel Horton, Darlene Sherwood, Sheldon Allen, Lauren Fuller, Konstanina Nouka, Will Page & Jessica Lane

a.millmore@reading.ac.uk 

School of Law (& Disability Advisory Service)

Overview

This student-staff partnership included students with disabilities and long-term conditions, academics in the School of Law and a Disability Advisor. Student partners ran a cohort-wide questionnaire and facilitated focus groups with disabled students to discover what has worked well this academic year with blended learning and where things could be improved. This work has provided a blueprint for those hoping to use blended learning to deliver accessible education for all.

Objectives

  • To magnify the voice of our disabled students
  • To understand the positives and negatives of blended learning from their various viewpoints
  • To improve current teaching, as well as planning for future teaching and learning activities.

Context

The move to blended learning during the Covid-19 pandemic led to many changes to of the way that Law was taught in the 20/21 academic year. Student-Staff Partnership Group (SSP) feedback indicated that disabled students were affected more than most by this change. This project was an opportunity to understand more about the impact on these students and to amplify their voices.

Implementation

Given the constraints of working during the pandemic, our partnership worked virtually throughout, using only MS Teams meetings and sharing documents. Students designed a cohort-wide questionnaire to find out about the wider student experience with different aspects of blended learning.

This was followed-up by student partners facilitating smaller focus groups of students with disabilities and long-term conditions.

The partnership then assimilated all of the evidence they had gathered to produce short term and long term recommendations as well as highlighting what has worked well with blended learning.

Together we prepared a report with our evidence and recommendations and this has been shared not only within the School of Law but widely across the University, including with the University’s Blended Learning Project, the Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) team and the Committee on Student Experience and Development (COSED), as well as with colleagues in different functions and departments.

Impact

Positives from blended learning were highlighted including the flexibility of pre-recorded lecture videos, which enabled students to stop, pause and revisit lecture materials and work at their own pace and in their own time. Students preferred lecture recordings to be in the region of 20 minutes, as longer than that could pose a barrier for some students.

In the short term the partnership recommended the scheduling of lecture release days across core modules, so that lectures were made available on set days. 194 students were put into 46 study groups and a video to demystify the ECF process was recorded and shared widely (https://web.microsoftstream.com/video/714b6fa4-83f3-457c-a37b-3f4904e63691). These recommendations were all adopted.

Longer term the partnership recommended the consistent use of meaningful weekly plans (now part of the Teaching & Learning Framework for 2021/22) and improvements to Blackboard, notably a uniform layout across modules for Law students, including a single menu location for joining links to online classes.

The project and its recommendations have been shared within the School of Law, across the University and more widely at national conferences, all with students co-presenting the work.

Students were invited to the School of Law’s Blackboard Working Group and have been instrumental in driving forwards their recommendation for a consistent cross-module Blackboard layout for the next academic year. Students are also working with the TEL team to produce best practice videos for staff.

Reflections

This has been a hugely successful partnership project, not merely for the clear recommendations and tangible outcomes which are aimed to improve the experience of all students with blended learning this academic year and moving into the future, but also in the way that it has amplified the voices of students with disabilities and long-term conditions at School and University level.

As a partnership it has been influential, and the recommendations have been heard across the university and many have been adopted within the School of Law, but the positives for the individual student partners cannot be underestimated. They have gained valuable employability skills and experience in project work, presenting at conferences and advocating within meetings with staff. Moreover, as a project in which clear recommendations were given which have been heeded, it has improved the sense of community for all students, emphasising that the School of Law is a space where student views are important and they can contribute to their studies and make a difference.

Focus group participants with disabilities and long-term conditions have been empowered, with 2 first year participants subsequently volunteering for a new partnership project being run in the School of Law, as they can see the impact that their involvement can have.

Links and References

  • Amanda Millmore – “A Student-Staff Partnership exploring the experience of disabled Law students with blended learning at University of Reading, UK “ in Healey, R. & Healey, M. (2021) Socially-just pedagogic practices in HE: Including equity, diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, decolonising, indigenisation, well-being, and disability.mickhealey.co.uk/resources
  • Abstract for Advance HE Teaching & Learning Conference session: Teaching and learning conference – on demand abstracts_0.pdf (advance-he.ac.uk)
  • To follow – links to CQSD TEL videos & guidance (in progress).
  • We are happy to share the project report upon request – please get in touch if you would like a copy.

Running Virtual Focus Groups – Investigating the Student Experience of the Academic Tutor System

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Amanda Millmore, School of Law

Overview

I wanted to measure the impact of the new Academic Tutor System (ATS) on the students in the School of Law, and capture their experiences, both good and bad, with a view to making improvements. I successfully bid for some small project funding from the ATS Steering Group prior to Covid-19. The obvious difficulty I faced in the lockdown, was how to engage my students and encourage them to get involved in a virtual project. How can students co-produce resources when they are spread around the world?

Objectives

I planned to run focus groups with current students with dual aims:·

  • To find out more about their experiences of the academic tutor system and how we might better meet their needs; and
  • To see if the students could collaboratively develop some resources advising their fellow students how to get the most out of tutoring.

The overall aim being to raise the profile of academic tutoring within the School and the positive benefits it offers to our students, but also to troubleshoot any issues.

Implementation

After exams, I emailed all students in the School of Law to ask them to complete an anonymous online survey about their experiences. Around 10% of the cohort responded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Within that survey I offered students the opportunity to join virtual focus groups. The funding had originally been targeted at providing refreshments as an enticement to get involved, so I redeployed it to offer payment via Campus Jobs for the students’ time (a remarkably easy process). I was conscious that many of our students had lost their part time employment, and it seemed a positive way to help them and encourage involvement. I had 56 volunteers, and randomly selected names, ensuring that I had representation from all year groups.

I ran 2 focus groups virtually using MS Teams, each containing students from different years. This seemed to work well for the 11 students who were all able to join the sessions and recording the sessions online enabled me to obtain a more accurate note which was particularly helpful. I was pleasantly surprised at how the conversation flowed virtually; with no more than 6 students in a group we kept all microphones on, to allow everyone to speak, and I facilitated with some prompts and encouraging quieter participants to offer their opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The students were very forthcoming with advice and their honest experiences. They were clear that a good tutor relationship can make a real and noticeable difference for students and those who had had good experiences were effusive in their praise. They were keen to help me find ways to improve the system for everyone.

Results

The students collaborated to produce their “Top Tips for Getting the Most Out of Your Academic Tutor” which we have created into a postcard to share with new undergraduates, using free design software Canva https://www.canva.com/.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The students also individually made short videos at home of their own top tips, and emailed them to me; I enlisted my teenage son to edit those into 2 short videos, one aimed at postgraduates, one for undergraduates, which I can use as part of induction.

From the project I now have useful data as to how our students use their academic tutor. A thematic analysis of qualitative comments from the questionnaires and focus groups identified 5 key themes:

  • Tutor availability
  • Communication by the tutor
  • School level communication
  • Content of meetings
  • Staffing

From these themes I have drawn up a detailed action plan to be implemented to deal with student concerns.

Impact & Reflections

One of the main messages was that we need to do better at clearly communicating the role of the academic tutor to students and staff.

The students’ advice videos are low-tech but high impact, all recorded in lockdown on their phones from around the world, sharing what they wish they’d known and advising their fellow Law students how to maximise the tutor/tutee relationship. The videos have been shared with the STAR mentor team, the ATS Steering Group and the MCE team now has the original footage, to see if they can be used University-wide.

I am firmly convinced that students are more likely to listen to advice from their peers than from an academic, so am hopeful that the advice postcards and videos will help, particularly if we have a more virtual induction process in the forthcoming academic year.

Ultimately, whilst not the project I initially envisaged, our virtual focus group alternative worked well for my student partners, and they were still able to co-create resources, in a more innovative format than I anticipated. My message to colleagues is to trust the students to know what will work for their fellow students, and don’t be afraid to try something new.