In preparation for my first tutorial, I mapped out my research idea as follows, with notes and questions to discuss with my tutor.
I want to explore mood in the classroom
Emotions can impact attention and absorption of information as well as motivation to participate
I could ask students to self-assess their mood while I observe
Followed by immediate regroup/feedback
Can I do it in someone else’s seminar?
Could it be live participant feedback via Padlet?
Can I take the weekly learnings and iterate?
Find a method to take the temperature at the beginning of class
Research Question: Is it possible to adapt taught sessions to the overriding mood of the class?
Firstly define ‘mood’?
Co-create a self-assessment pathway for students through the action research
Research method: participatory ethnography where I am part of the experience and we reflect as a group
What are students bringing to the session?
How is the reality of the session different to their expectations?
One other PGCert student and I were in the tutorial. We discussed our ideas and our tutor helped us to define the scope of our projects and the type of research methodology that would be most appropriate.
My tutor suggested that as this is a small-scale research project, I could attempt to co-design a tool with students for students to communicate emotion but that we might not get a chance to test it. They could suggest how they would feel most comfortable communicating emotions, for example through emojis. She suggested that this is a form of participatory research and that I should try to break the hierarchy between me and the students. My fellow PGCert student in the tutorial suggested I could tell the students about my journey as a student, which could maybe put us on the same level. My tutor suggested that given the small-scale that this could be a research group at first, but that the students could potentially implement the tool in Block 2. I planned to recruit 5-8 students from the cohort by introducing the topic in my next seminar session with them.
The initial idea for my Action Research Project emerged from my exploration within the Inclusive Practices Unit. In that unit I created an artefact to assess Year 1 students’ sense of belonging with a view to helping them settle in sooner. Through research and feedback, I evolved the artefact to become: Aworkshop to co-create what belonging looks like
Students work in groups discussing their cultural and personal backgrounds to explore a variety of emotions and states that contribute to belonging, such as mattering, safety, inclusion and respect.
Students self-assess their belonging on a scale from 1-5. Those who feel they belong the least could hear what belonging feels like from those who self-score highly.
The class co-creates a visual and verbal language, using images, colours and numbers to express what ‘belonging’ looks like for this cohort specifically.
I concluded the Reflective Report by saying:
“I could also work with students to co-create resources generated for and by them, whilst sitting with the uncertainty of what they might create. This process has helped me to reconsider my teaching practice; I can see the differences between being a leader in the classroom and allowing student feedback to dictate what we do. I can allow myself to facilitate as often as I dictate, which could potentially lead to more inclusive practices, benefitting students and improving attainment and retention.” The key part of this is how I could work with students to co-create interventions that would improve their experience.
When thinking about the practicalities of completing the research for ARP, I realised that I would have most contact with a Year 2 cohort at this time of year. Instead of working with Year 1 students on a project about belonging, I thought instead about what this particular Year 2 cohort might need. Having taught them in Year 1, I know that sometimes they can be quiet and disengaged in seminars. I thought maybe there was an opportunity to develop a tool for them to communicate the emotions they are experiencing and to tailor the teaching style to the overriding emotion in the room, for example if students were mostly tired, stressed, energised etc.
When conducting research on this topic, I didn’t find many articles that tackled this subject specifically. Instead, I found lots of research on how mood impacts learning. Exploration of mood is extensive and multiple findings have been proposed – some contradictory. Something interesting I found was that positive emotion does not always increase learning, “if students are in a good mood and the learning topics are of less importance to them, the positive emotion might detach them from learning: It may motivate them to pay only a minimum of attention, to reduce learning effort or to choose tasks with an aspiration level that is much too high for them. Positive emotions, however, do not corrupt school learning if the relevance of the learning content is evident to school students.” (Hascher, 2009) Reading this kind of work made me realise that the teacher may not be capable of altering the style of teaching to suit the general mood given ‘mood’ and ‘emotion’ are such complex topics.
Hahn Tapper’s (2013) social identity theory (SIT) explains much of what I witness in my teaching practice, but I don’t agree with the separation of teaching and facilitation mentioned. “Facilitators are professionally trained in intergroup dynamics, “Teachers” are trained professionals who are able to guide students through texts.”(Hahn Tapper, 2013) Instead, I see these modes as inextricably intertwined. But I realise that any good teaching and facilitation practices I have developed have been through observing others and trial-and-error rather than formal training. This could put students who are most disadvantaged in jeopardy; I sometimes lack confidence in my ability to fully support them due to my perceived gap in knowledge.
Josephine Kwhali’s “Witness Unconscious Bias” makes me think that the people who are most conscious of bias are those who are most affected by it. It is easier for me as a white middle-aged woman to move through teaching and learning spaces unconsciously when I am not negatively affected by bias. I have to think consciously about how I might be affecting students through our interactions. This takes effort but is necessary to move towards social justice. Kwhali wonders what it will take for people to become conscious; I think the only solution is to put effort into being purposely aware of others’ potential needs and experiences.
Finnigan and Richards (2016) describe methods that remind me of my experiences studying in an art and design school. I felt completely unsure of what I should be doing and had no idea if it was good. The tutors nurtured those that had an existing vision or aesthetic rather than ‘teaching’ us anything. “Students in their first year of study are constantly looking for certainty and reassurance, while staff are encouraging ambiguity and risk taking.” (Finnigan and Richards, 2016) This description is in direct opposition to how we teach in the Fashion Business School; we explain what we are asking the students to do in detail and how to do it step-by-step. I endorse the approach of scaffolding students’ learning with formative assessments and tutorials. It helps to bring students onto a level playing field by creating a clearer framework for students to self assess their progress. I think this is essential for everyone but especially for marginalised groups to succeed.
I read ‘Religion, the public sphere and higher education’ by Professor Craig Calhoun. The section ‘Religion and dissent in universities’ made me realise how little we talk about religion in the classroom. Sometimes Muslim students mention religious obligations in the context of not being able to attend class. This year, I scheduled multiple dates for a session that fell around Eid so they could attend. In contrast, Christian students seldom mention religion maybe because the holiday calendar is already organised around their religious festivals. Considering this, I have changed the way I talk about holidays; instead of mentioning Christmas or Easter, I refer to the Winter Break and the Spring Break. But I think acknowledging the historical reasons for the existing calendar is important.
The Reith Lecture on Creed by Kwame Anthony Appiah made me consider the presence of doubt. I was raised in the Catholic faith, but as a teenager, the scandal of child sexual abuse within the Irish Catholic Church was exposed, making me question my faith. I didn’t think there was an option to take some of the teachings and to leave the institution behind. Instead I developed a complex relationship with Catholicism which I rarely speak about. However, this lecture has reignited my curiosity in religion and prompted me to discuss my history with religion more openly which could be helpful for students to hear.
The article by Raman Mundair in the Shades of Noir publication Higher Power: Religion, Faith, Spirituality & Belief is about exposure to different religions and questioning which one fits. Mundair settles on ‘self-imposed silence’ which resonates with me. I think belief can be experienced through having time and space for contemplation. I could include a moment of silence during sessions for students to just breathe and contemplate, whether they are religious or not. This could generate a small sense of wellbeing for everyone.
I could be more inclusive by speaking more freely about religion in class, highlighting religious festivals that students celebrate and recognising that faith might be a core part of their identity. One of the most course-related ways to do this would be when learning about consumer segmentation; students could reflect and share how they think marketing targets their religious and cultural beliefs.
I often direct students to the UAL Disability Service web pages to get support. In lectures I have used UAL’s CSR strategy as a corporate example. Similarly, I could use UAL’s Disability Service web pages to illustrate how businesses should support their disabled staff . Upon reviewing the pages critically, they seem to lack a human aspect; there are no photos of staff for example. Whilst the process of gaining support seems straightforward, it could also be very daunting, particularly for students with intersectional characteristics.
The film by Christine Sun Kim introduces the idea of sound ownership and who decides what sounds are produced. It makes me think of classroom noise and its impact. After a couple of hours in a noisy classroom, my stress and tiredness levels go up, but the students may be experiencing something quite different. Sometimes students remain silent when I try to elicit responses from them. At other times, silence makes students feel uncomfortable; they would rather there was a hum to help them concentrate. I wonder if there are ways to enforce loud or quiet time within a session. Is there a comfortable noise level that we could agree upon? I could work with seminar groups at the beginning of a session to collectively decide what works for us in that space.
The conversation with Maria Oshodi in the Shades of Noir publication Disabled People: The Voice of Many is about accessibility and diversity in the arts. Oshodi has an interesting take on inclusion, stating that it is a diluted version of the radicalism it was borne out of in the 70s and 80s. She instructs artists to make work that is “relevant to us as ‘other’… that is where the originality sits, not in aping what is already out there.” This idea inspires me to reverse the notion of inclusion. Rather than creating adjustments for students to be able to participate in the dominant practice, I could suggest that the whole class tunes to methods that best suit students with disabilities.
Christine Sun Kim (2012), A Selby Film. Available at: https://vimeo.com/31083172 (Accessed: 17 July 2023)
During the January 18th briefing, we read a case study about unit evaluations (Macfarlane, 2004), wherein a lecturer perceived some feedback to be negative: the readings were ‘boring’ and ‘too theoretical’. One of my peers’ responses on the Padlet page: “Does all teaching need to be not-‘boring’?” inspired me reflect.
Peer responses to the unit evaluation case study by Macfarlane (2004)
I teach market research methods, which could be interpreted as boring. Davis (1971) said, “Interesting theories are those which deny certain assumptions of their audience, while non-interesting theories are those which affirm certain assumptions of their audience.” On reflection, I adhere to this principle already as follows:
I don’t mention that research methods can be interpreted as boring and maintain an authentic level of excitement about the topic throughout (I ❤️ research)
I interject personal anecdotes referencing brands students like e.g. that time I conducted qualitative interviews for Nike
I critique industry norms, pointing out the flaws in current research practice. In doing so, I empower students to become the excellent and ethical researchers of the future.
However, in the original case study (Macfarlane, 2004) the lecturer’s peer is deemed to prioritise charisma over accuracy, using his power of personality to engage students at the expense of facts or scrutiny of the content.
The solution could be to continue with my genuine enthusiasm for research but to allow students to find it boring. I could encourage students to explore the topic and to develop their own interpretation. We could evolve the unit evaluation, to understand their interpretation of the subject matter in more depth – currently only one question addresses this. It would be interesting to hear how students interpret the content separate from the context, which could improve subsequent iterations of the unit.
Unit Evaluation Existing Example Questions
I wrote a blog post about the Microteaching session that includes some thoughts about shifting my teaching to a student-centred approach to learning, some of which influences this post.
References
Davis, M.S. (1971). That’s Interesting!: Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839317100100211
Macfarlane, B. 2004. Teaching with Integrity: The ethics of higher education practice. Routledge.
During the 24th February seminar, we responded to the question: “What do we need to know in order to teach well?” The answers relate to the Core Knowledge section (K1-K6) of the UKPSF 2011.
What do we need to know in order to teach well?
In comparison to K5: “Methods for evaluating the effectiveness of teaching”, we mentioned, “making success criteria visible to ourselves and each other” but didn’t explore further.
In a blog post, I compared educational evaluation to marketing effectiveness, which interestingly present similar challenges.
Hummelbrunner and Reynolds (2013) overlaid systems thinking with learning loops. Their framework for rigour in evaluation demonstrates that progression towards triple loop learning is determined by “applying progressively wider measures of value”. However, “Often only one specific level might be feasible or can be appropriately attained.”
A systems-based framework for rigor in evaluation (Hummelbrunner and Reynolds, 2013)
Interestingly, the former marking criteria at UAL for Subject Knowledge denotes the following as ‘A’ grade, “Contributes to the subject debate by assimilating knowledge into a personal hypothesis (or elements of/ the beginning of one)” which suggests reaching a level of criticality akin to triple loop learning (Hummelbrunner and Reynolds, 2013). However, the current Assessment Criteria does not include this, “Excellent evidence of: Critical analysis of a range of practical, theoretical and/or technical knowledge (s).” (UAL, 2019)
How we evaluate learning loops and values must be considered given the Assessment Criteria no longer indicates this. Perhaps, the Learning Outcomes should fill this gap. With the current preference for succinct Assessment Briefs rather than extensive Unit Handbooks, we are required to produce additional explanatory documents to clarify grade levels to students – and tutors.(I previously wrote a blog post about the need to streamline the Assessment Brief). I don’t have a specific solution, but this exploration encourages me to work towards a more rigorous method of evaluating effectiveness of teaching.
References
Hummelbrunner, R. and Reynolds, M. (2013) Systems thinking, learning and values in evaluation. Evaluation Connections: The European Evaluation Society Newsletter, June 2013, pp.9-10.
I was inspired by the seminar on 27th January to consider small group teaching more deeply. Next term, I will guide a new collaborative unit where Year 1 students will work in small groups to complete a communications brief. This is a challenging unit but from past experience, working in a group is likely to be the students’ greatest challenge.
Small group teaching benefits and challenges brainstorm
In the past, we have used a Teamwork Learning Agreement as a contract amongst students, however, I don’t think they see this as binding. The leaflet produced by ASKe research centre (Oxford Brookes, 2011) offers some interesting solutions to the challenges of group assignments.
Teamwork Learning Agreement Example
The leaflet emphasises self-management, which we could scaffold more strongly. It would be better if students recognised their responsibility to ensure the group functions rather than relying on their tutor to investigate absenteeism and moderate disputes. The leaflet suggests that peer reviews take place early in the process and that students could implement a red/yellow card system to indicate when a peer is underperforming. This could be supported by anonymous peer marking at the formative stage. “Students moderate each others’ marks on the basis of perceived contribution” (Oxford Brookes, 2011) could prompt in-group discussions about who will need to improve their contribution to ensure the desired group grade is achieved.
The unit’s summative assessment takes the form of a creative video, along with “supporting evidence” to be uploaded to Workflow. The nature of the supporting evidence has yet to be determined but a suggestion from the leaflet could provide a structure to evidence individual contributions, “requiring groups to keep minutes of meetings, work planning records, on-line group discussion posts, etc., and individuals to keep journals or portfolios of their contributions.” (Oxford Brookes, 2011) I will take these practical tips onboard when supporting groupwork.
My tutor, Santanu Vasant, observed one of my teaching sessions as part of the TPP unit. He highlighted some interesting points of improvement one of which, centred around cognitive load, “At 20 minutes in, I experienced a little cognitive overload.” He suggested I consider the following:
Provide overview slides to sub-sections – there could be an overview slide of staff and how they all fit together, to help the students visual the bigger picture of their studies. See my micro-CPD session on Dual Coding (Sept 2022) for an example.
Slide from observation session that prompted feedback about cognitive load
I was intrigued to watch the session as I usually teach a lecture 1-2 times per year, which includes cognitive load theory in relation to report layout, but I was not familiar with dual coding theory (Sweller et al., 2011). Typically, I reference Malamed (2011) and Ware (2011) in terms of visual processing but dual coding theory could add a new dimension to both my presentations as well as how I help students to learn how best to present their work for ease of communication. The application of Caviglioli’s (2019) theory demonstrated by Vasant (2022) is compelling. Using a visualisation of an organigram versus a verbal explanation clearly demonstrated the theory – it was much easier to understand the organisational structure using a visual aid.
Application of Caviglioli’s (2019) Dual Coding Theory by Vasant (2022)
I could use this theory in my own presentations to clarify complex information. Where this might be particularly useful is to explain how the content in the sessions relates back to the assessment brief. In my experience, students find it helpful to know exactly which part of the lecture or seminar content relates to what they are expected to produce.
During the onsite sessions on Friday 24th February, we were tasked with reviewing the UK Professional Standards Framework 2011. As a group, we mapped out our responses to the question: “What do we need to know in order to teach well?” These answers are connected to the Core Knowledge section (K1-K6) of the UKPSF 2011.
Mind map in response to Core Knowledge
Most of the ideas generated were about our interaction with students, understanding their needs and the context. There were also ideas about communication and how we scaffold information to take different learning styles into account. Upon comparing our ideas against the Core Knowledge points, K4-6 were not fully addressed. K5 in particular is of interest to me. It states: Methods for evaluating the effectiveness of teaching. While we had included a point in our mind map that said, “Making success criteria visible to ourselves and each other” we had not considered what success criteria might mean. While I used evaluation methods in my teaching, they tend to be broader topics to include a student’s entire experience on a unit or at UAL as a whole, through the CSS and NSS.
Effectiveness is a term used in the marketing industry (the subject area I teach), it even has its own awards – the Effie Awards – to identify best practice. However, there is much debate about how marketing effectiveness is measured and attributed. Renowned marketing effectiveness experts Les Binet and Peter Field wrote The Long and the Short of It, a publication that explains that effectiveness must be measured in terms of short-term marketing activation as well as long-term growth through brand building. Marketers are advised to apply the 60/40 rule, where 60% of budget should be allocated to long-term brand building and only 40% to short-term activations.
If we were to apply this concept to the higher education context, our methods of evaluating effective teaching would look quite different. Currently, our main method of evaluating the effectiveness of teaching is assessment, where students demonstrate how well they have learned. However, this is not the same as evaluating teaching as there is no guarantee that students have learned well due to good teaching; they may have prior experience of completing successful assignments or they may have read widely to understand the subject area. There is no direct method that we use to evaluate effective teaching. Evaluating effectiveness is problematic in teaching in the same way that it is problematic in marketing; what can be measured and what should be measured are not the same thing and lines of attribution are opaque.
We use unit evaluation surveys to assess how students felt about the unit as a whole. The results of these are used to improve the unit for the next time, and to identify successes and failures. In my experience, the successes and failures of a unit are already known prior to students completing the survey. Points about lack of communication or confusing lectures tend to get raised during the unit and the survey does not include questions that are specifically related to effective teaching.
It would be interesting to develop survey questions that could assess teaching effectiveness directly.
Additionally, Binet and Field’s 60/40 rule could be considered as a method for long-term success. If we were to view teaching as the 40% i.e. short-term activation, we could see that lectures, seminars and tutorials are the moments where we interact with students and capture their attention. We could evaluate the effectiveness of this portion through updated surveys as suggested above. However, there is little provision to examine long-term effectiveness as we don’t examine trends over time. One could argue that the FMP (Final Major Project) is the culmination of knowledge and that effectiveness of all the teaching over the previous three years could be evaluated at this point. However, this concept is flawed as once again it would equate effective teaching with effective learning. Another easy measure would be the amount of ‘good degrees’ that are awarded; once again a laughable concept given the way degrees are calculated and widespread grade inflation practices. We are reminded here that what can be measured does not equate to what should be measured.
A new way to evaluate effectiveness over time might be to create an extensive research methodology, which could be undertaken shortly after students graduate. Students could identify what information resonates from their whole degree programme, whose lectures and they remember and what will stick with them for the rest of their lives. A comprehensive research design would be required including qualitative and quantitative methods. The results could be linked to performance reviews and it could become a way for lecturers to stay motivated over the long-term rather than only focusing on the short-term rewards of unit completion.
