Tag Archives: Workflow

Does all teaching need to be ‘not-boring’?

Selected, , ,

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.

Evaluating effectiveness of teaching

Selected, , , , ,

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.

The UK Professional Standards Framework (2011) Available at: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/resources/ukpsf_2011_english_1568036916.pdf Accessed: 17th March 2023

UAL (2019) New Assessment Criteria. Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/students/stories/new-assessment-criteria3 Accessed: 17th March 2023

Encouraging self-management in small group assignments

Selected, ,

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.

References

Oxford Brookes (2011) ASKe 1,2,3 leaflet: Getting the most from Groupwork Assessment. Available at: https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/2550091b-a022-01c3-3d39-6863738f5287/2/?search=%2Fhierarchy.do&index=1&available=13 Accessed: 24th February 2023

Ways to reduce cognitive load

Selected, , ,

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.

References

Caviglioli. O. (2019) Dual Coding for Teaching. Available at: https://www.olicav.com/s/Dual-Coding-2019-6.pdf Accessed: 15th March 2023

Malamed, C. (2011) Visual language for designers: principles for creating graphics that people understand. Beverly, Mass: Rockport.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer.

Vasant, S. (2022) Dual Coding Theory. Available at: https://ual.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=e801907b-69bb-473d-881b-af96011c0bce Accessed: 15th March 2023

Ware, C. (2013) Information visualization: perception for design. London: Morgan Kaufmann.