Student and staff partnerships as ‘student engagement’ – on being a case study

Posted on May 23, 2013 by

I was asked  to present the ‘Students as Teaching and Learning Consultants” project as part of the national ‘Changing the Learning Landscape’ programme; to be a sort of ‘live’ case study at two of their strategic change workshops in April 2013.

Photo of workshop

All rights served, Kevin Flinn

The workshop delegates were teams of management and academic support staff from 16 English HE institutions who are enacting change programmes (the teams include student representatives)

I went along with James Ritchie, one of the student consultants, who presented his experience of being part of the project.

I am sure that many of the questions that came up in discussion reflect what a wider audience might ask so I thought I would include them here:

How did you select the students to be part of the scheme?

The Student Consultants were recruited from students taking part in the Students’ Union’s STARS (Student Training and Recognition Scheme). Participants in STARS are drawn from a wide-range of involved students that include course representatives, student activity group leaders, and community volunteers. The diverse range of participants in this scheme have ensured that there is a good cross-section of the student body – for example, our clubs and societies include different faith and cultural groups, and there is always a good representation of mature students involved in the course rep system.

Students were asked to submit a paragraph about why they were interested in being part of the project and in teaching and learning.

Were the students paid? Should students be paid?

Students are paid £10.35 an hour to train and work as teaching and learning consultants. I believe students should be paid when we ask them to commit time and expertise to a project or other activities. This is also a way to ensure that all students can be included and not just the ones that can ‘afford’ the time.

James made the point that, although the students were not initially told they would be paid (I believe this was part of the Students’ Union’s recruitment strategy), he would not have been able to do as much work with members of staff as he has done.

How did you ensure that not only the engaged students were involved?

This is a difficult question as the students were recruited on the basis of having an interest in teaching and learning and improving the student experience. This project is very much one of many platforms to engage students meaningfully in teaching and learning. There should be other processes in place to represent the more ‘quiet’ students and the outcome of the discussions on the day was very much that the course rep role would cover this.

What training did the students receive?

The main aim of the training was to prepare the student to meet with staff and present the project aims and negotiate tasks to undertake. Focus was on how to give feedback in a way that enabled conversations about teaching and learning rather than judgments about approaches/styles.

Students were presented with an overview of educational approaches but not given any specific pedagogical training. The training was really about giving students confidence in their ‘authentic’ student voice and in the student perspective they would be able to offer.

I was pleased that a number of the student representatives that were there agreed with this and saw the importance of student retaining a ‘student perspective’ rather than becoming ‘experts’.

How do you get the members of staff who need to improve their teaching to take part? Should the scheme not be mandatory? Could staff be referred by managers to work with student consultants?

This is where the student representatives from the organisations taking part in the scheme made some fantastic arguments for how making such a scheme mandatory for staff would undermine the aims and ethos of the partnership approach. It would result in the scheme becoming a tick box exercise with no possibility for real impact.

James also argued that making it mandatory could mean that the students would not be received as positively by the members of staff as had been the case at the moment. This positive welcome was key to students having confidence to engage in conversation and seems to have been an effect of the students being in a different role. As a consultant James felt he was taken seriously and given a lot of responsibility. Staff were asking him what he could offer and these discussions often led to prolonged involvement in different tasks.

Following the workshops, Jessica Poettcker, lead on Technology Enhanced Learning, the National Union of Students kindly let me know that:

“Your project has generated a lot of interest among attendees of the workshops in student mentoring – I’ve had so many questions about it since then”

 

“Your project has generated a lot of interest among attendees of the workshops in student mentoring – I’ve had so many questions about it since then”

(Jessica Poettcker, NUS lead on Technology Enhanced Learning)

Posted in HEASTLC | Leave a comment

C-MENT

Posted on May 13, 2013 by

This is a guest post by James McDowell. This is one of the 2013  Teaching and Learning Innovation Projects funded by the Teaching and Learning Institute at the University of Huddersfield (TALI). It is the final post of 11 guest posts by TALI funded projects.

ALT

In 2009, the University of Huddersfield’s Teaching and Learning Strategy set out an institutional vision for the four years to 2013, with one initiative being to support academics in becoming a Fellow of the Higher Education (FHEA); in 2012 the university became the first higher education institution in the UK at which 100% of academic staff teaching on undergraduate or postgraduate courses achieved FHEA status.

As part of demonstrating their commitment to continuing professional development, academics were also encouraged to achieve professional recognition within their disciplines and subject areas, and many of my colleagues in the School of Computing and Engineering elected to become either a Member of the British Computer Society (MBCS), or a Member of the Institute of Engineering and Technology. During this time however, I had been working towards my PhD in the field of technology-enhanced learning (TEL), and after being named Winner of the ALT-Epigeum Award for Most Effective Use of Video in 2011, I found myself drawn towards the professional accreditation scheme offered by the Association for Learning Technology (ALT). Developing a portfolio of evidence of how I had used technology to enhance my teaching, I achieved recognition as a Certified Member of ALT (CMALT) early in 2012, and on the strength of my portfolio was invited to become a CMALT Assessor.

Having engaged with TALI’s Teaching and Learning Innovation Projects in each of the three years since it was launched, I recognised that while the Learning Technology Advisors (LTAs) and related staff in each of the university’s seven Schools had been key to the success of many worthwhile projects, they were sometimes ‘unsung heroes’ whose invaluable work I believed deserved greater, more formal recognition. In line with an aim of the Teaching and Learning Strategy that academic-related colleagues will be “high-achieving reflective people, at the forefront of their fields … [and] active in appropriate professional practice”, CMent was therefore conceived as vehicle by which to contribute to that aim, facilitating professional recognition for our LTAs through becoming CMALT Holders.

Building initially upon the work of an ongoing, university-wide project through which video-enhanced assessment and feedback (VEAF) practices were being extended into each School with the help of Academic Champions, CMent sought to deepen the involvement of the LTAs with this and other TALI-supported Innovation Projects. Identifying both previous work which might contribute to a portfolio, and opportunities to work with academics to embed TEL and VEAF practices within their teaching, a group of ten candidates comprised of LTAs and other academic-related staff have been mentored through the process of documenting these activities as part of the development of their CMALT portfolios.

Following the initial meeting, a dedicated e-portfolio system was made available for candidates to view examples of successful portfolios, to begin developing case studies and collating evidence against each of the key criteria to be met, and to provide opportunities for peer review and feedback to help disseminate best practice. In additional one-to-one sessions, areas including the impact of learning difficulties such as dyslexia and Asperger’s Syndrome on students have also been explored with candidates, highlighting how and where TEL and VEAF practices can be used to help meet legislative requirements.

Building a successful CMALT portfolio is expected to take at least six months, and can often take substantially longer, but two members of the project team have already submitted their portfolios, and while awaiting accreditation have begun mentoring other candidates who are continuing to build their portfolios with a view to submission before the end of the academic year.

Huddersfield may have been the first university to see all academics achieve FHEA status, but the race is still on to become the first institution to achieve 100% CMALT status amongst those working in learning technology roles. Since the C-Ment project began, it has emerged that University College London also recognises the importance of achieving professional accreditation for those working in learning and technology roles, and in 2011 UCL launched its own scheme to support 20 candidates through to becoming CMALT Holders – we may have made a later start, but we’re making ground on them, and it’s great to know that Huddersfield is in direct competition with an institution like UCL.

Finally, and hot off the press, our abstract for a symposium entitled “Enhancing institutional practice through CMALT accreditation” which will describe the work of the project has been accepted for the ALT annual conference, alt-c 2013, to be held at the University of Nottingham on 10th-12th September 2013, and we will be there flying the flag for Huddersfield!

Posted in Computing and Engineering, Innovation projects, Learning technology, professional development, Training, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Student teaching and learning consultants reflect on project impact

Posted on May 3, 2013 by

A post updating project progress for the Students as Teaching and Learning Consultants project – funded by the Higher Education Academy

The power of Play-Doh

I feel like I should have known to bring in Play-Doh at a much earlier stage in this project as there is something about engaging your hands in moulding something that seems to open up conversation. I think I tend to forget that it is incredibly difficult to show up to a group session and then be asked to reflect on what you have been doing. The last session that I did with the student I asked them to evaluate the project and also to talk about what inspirational teaching is. Nick Boone, one of the student consultants, took the photo below and uploaded it to the online forum the group is using to share experiences.

Photo of Play-Doh figures representing an inspirational teacher

An inspirational lecturer using multiple teaching methods and explaining things as they go along

I think it is interesting that the students have mostly considered teaching to be lecturing in a classroom (as depicted in the photo). I am not sure whether this is due to how we have presented the idea of feedback on teaching (which did involve a mock-lecture and an introduction to observation), the activities they have been asked to undertake by staff or simply reflects the current experiences of the students involved.

Benefits to students

I asked the students about the skills or benefits that they thought they had gained by being part of this project:

  • Confidence in giving feedback
  • Ability to communicate effectively
  • Seeing teaching methods more clearly
  • Using an audio recorder
  • Nice to feel on par with a lecturer and work ‘with them’ rather than ‘for’ or ‘against’ them
  • I think I have become more observant of good practices since doing training and observing others

“I feel that I have certainly gained more skills and experience in the way I think and give critique. This has helped me in my everyday studies giving me more confidence in my own feedback.”

(Student consultant H)

“I have found that working one to one with tutors has enabled me to improve my communication skills. I was initially concerned that I would not be ale to communicate effectively if I needed to provide constructive criticism, however I have found that this has been received in a positive manner by the tutors I have worked with. Another concern was that I would not be taken seriously as I am a student and not a tutor, however the staff that I have worked with have had respect for the project and have been eager to find ways of improving the learning experience for their students.”

(Student consultant F)

Student teaching and learning consultants want to know more about impact

In evaluating the project students are keen to know what the members of staff thought about their feedback and also if their contributions had any impact (eg. any changes being made). The way the current consultation process is set up relies on staff filling in an evaluation form after they have worked with students. As we all know getting anyone to fill in a form takes time so this part of the work is only partially done. Dr Liz Bennett is also carrying out a number of interviews with staff that we hope may provide some more detail.

Most of the staff who responded said the feedback was very useful but some had longer comments:

  • I thought it was amazing. We looked at what students wanted from feedback as opposed to what I want them to learn.
  • I thought the feedback was incredibly useful. It had both positive and negative points and he had clearly thought about the activity and its use to students.
  • It was all very positive – probably some areas of development would have been good.
  • The feedback received provided some very useful insights. The feedback was delivered in written and verbal form, written first followed by a face-to-face meeting. This was very useful, since it allowed time for reflection on various aspects of the consultation before being given further comments and being able to ask for clarification on a couple of points.

How can we improve the scheme?

The students also had a number of ideas for how to improve/enhance the scheme, most of it to do with tracking impact in some different ways:

  • Follow up observations to track progress/improvements
  • Look at other modules taught by lecturers
  • Send feedback forms to students to see if they have noticed improvements
  • Receive feedback from staff evaluation to see how useful they have found the project to be (I am working on this and I will be presenting project findings to the students at our next session)
  • Advise lecturers that face to face feedback meetings normally produce better results
  • Get members of staff who had taken part to promote the scheme in committee meetings

Posted by Kathrine Jensen (@kshjensen)

Posted in HEASTLC, Research, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Association for Learning Development in Higher Education 2013

Posted on April 22, 2013 by

I went to Plymouth to help celebrate 10 years of learning development at the Association for Learning Development in Higher Education Conference at Plymouth University from 25-27th March 2013.

I also went to present a ‘lightening talk’ about the Higher Education Academy funded Students as Teaching and Learning Consultants project and how it was set out to enable student and staff dialogue about teaching and learning. I talked about how the project was very much a response to the potential disconnect between student and staff perception of what happens in the classroom or in other staff/student interaction. To illustrate this difference in perception and the existence of dual perspectives I used the well-known image of the duck/rabbit, a reversible figure that can be seen both as the head of a duck or the head of a rabbit.

Duck/Rabbit: Jastrow, J. (1899). The mind's eye. Popular Science Monthly, 54, 299-312. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg

Duck/Rabbit: Jastrow, J. (1899). The mind’s eye. Popular Science Monthly, 54, 299-312. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Duck-Rabbit_illusion.jpg

A keynote looking at the history and the future of learning development

My favourite presentation was by Dr Stella Cottrell, who was the keynote speaker on Wednesday 27th March. She outlined the history of learning development from an area being of marginal interest in most higher education institutions to becoming more central in her talk entitled: “Learning Development and the Day of the Cyborgs: Evolution, Revolution or Surrender?”

Dr Cottrell argued that support for learning should be universal but differentiated not remedial and not because of league tables.

Take a look at the photo below (you need to click the link) taken by a delegate which shows the ‘great chain of being’ that Dr Cottrell used to humourously illustrate an earlier time (1980s) when the priorities in HE had students (and their development needs) very much at the lowest end.

Dr Cottrell also talked about the future and interestingly, she argued that there is an increased focus on emotional intelligence, affect, mindfulness, resilience and EQ, not just IQ.

Cottrell anticipates more interdisciplinarity, thinking across boundaries: students will need to be Renaissance thinkers #ALDcon

— Emma Coonan (@LibGoddess) March 27, 2013

I think it is fair to say that Dr Cottrell ended with a call to keep working as there is room for improvement in relation to the status of learning development and learning developers.

You can view the searchable twitter archive created by Andy Mitchell

Next year the conference is at the University of Huddersfield, which is where I am based, very exciting! I look forward to it, always a great experience.

Posted by Kathrine Jensen (@kshjensen)

Posted in Conference, Learning experience | Leave a comment

QR QR: Quick Referencing with QR Codes

Posted on April 16, 2013 by

This is a guest post by Sarah Munks and Nicola Howorth. This is one of the 2013  Teaching and Learning Innovation Projects funded by the Teaching and Learning Institute at the University of Huddersfield (TALI). It is the tenth of 11 guest posts by TALI funded projects.

QR Code

 

Project aim:

To make use of QR code and mobile technology to provide in-hand, timely, text specific referencing advice for students.

Objectives:

  • Utilise QR code/mobile technology to improve student’s citation and  referencing skills
  • Provide referencing support to students anytime, anywhere
  • Enhance the student learning experience using mobile technology
  • Cross collaboration: liaise with module leaders to ensure key texts are included in the project
  • Cross collaboration: liaise with academic skills tutor to ensure referencing and citation information is accurate
  • To reach those student who may be unwilling to ask for help
  • Promote QR codes as a tool for learning

The project is based at our campus library in Barnsley and is investigating the willingness of students’ use of mobile and QR code technology to access learning support. Recent research has suggested that the rise in use of mobile technology is resulting in more and more learning taking place outside the traditional classroom or lecture theatre (Solvberg & Rismark, 2012) and the increase in and availability of mobile devices and developments in technology (smartphones, tablets, portable music players etc) allow users to readily and easily access the internet or download applications (Walsh, 2012).

Students want more choice with regards to when and how they learn and increasingly want to be able to use their own mobile device to access teaching and learning materials. Using QR Codes is an ideal way of utilising user owned mobile technology to engage and support learners. As a result a short survey was conducted at the campus and revealed 66% of respondents owned a smart phone, and 68% of these students would use it to access help with referencing which started the project.

Two courses were identified within the School of Education and Professional Development but with a different demographic of students for each course. The project hopes to identify if students on a particular course and part of a particular demographic were more or less likely to use mobile technology to access learning support. A reading list from a PGCE in-service module and Early Years BA (Hons) module were utilised and a blog entry for each title on the reading lists was created. The blog entry advises students how to produce an in-text citation and reference using our institutions Harvard referencing guide. QR codes were then produced linking to each of the blog entries and attached to each text on the reading lists with text advising students what the code was for. A decision was made early on to promote the QR codes to one group of students and leave the other to their own devices with a view of seeing if promotional activities make a difference with regards to usage.

Current Work:

During December we promoted the QR codes in referencing sessions delivered to the PGCE cohort.

In February we ran a workshop at the JISC RC NW + YH HE Conference that gave an overview of the project and gave attendees the opportunity to try out QR and other mobile technologies for themselves.

During March we ran an exit survey to gauge the level of awareness of QR technology amongst our student population. The results are being reviewed.

In March we presented at LILAC (Librarians’ Information Literacy Annual Conference).This was in ‘TeachMeet’ format. We also had an informal meeting with Sue Clarkson in the School of Art, Design and Architecture to advise on the use of QR codes for a small scale project she was considering.

The project is still ongoing and the next steps are to arrange focus groups with students to gain qualitative feedback. In particular the usefulness of delivering advice/support using QR codes and mobile technology, the analytics of hits/views to the blog posts will also be reviewed.

References:

Solvberg, A., and Rismark, M. (2012) ‘Learning spaces in mobile learning environments’. Active Learning in Higher Education. 13 (1), pp.23-33.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Technology Enhanced Learning in Creative Arts

Posted on April 3, 2013 by

This is a guest post by Dr Jess Power, Dr Cath Ellis, Vidya Kannara, Jonathan Marsh and Ben Fisher from the ‘Technology Enhanced Learning in the Creative Arts’ project. This is one of the 2013  Teaching and Learning Innovation Projects funded by the Teaching and Learning Institute at the University of Huddersfield (TALI). It is the ninth of 11 guest posts by TALI funded projects.

Image by J Power, all rights reserved

Image by J Power, all rights reserved

Project rationale:

To identify knowledge gaps in digital literacy within creative arts and humanities and establish suitable strategies to close them.

In Higher Education there is a general trend to move to an anywhere anytime learning model in which the VLE must be developed to support the diverse needs of the learner. Digital literacy amongst staff in terms of embedding E and M learning is varied. The VLE thematic review (University Teaching and Learning Committee, 2010) recognises the fact that staff are most likely to engage with learning technologies through training that is directly related to their own teaching requirements. It is also of the view that a multifaceted approach is needed, to ensure technology enhances the student learning. A recent survey in the school of Art, Design and Architecture (ADA) found significant variations in the use and development of interactive and blended learning resources. Similar analysis has been undertaken in the school of Music Humanities and Media (MHM) with similar findings. Whilst the overall results are encouraging, showing a year on year increase of advanced use, there is significant further work to be done to support the transition to ubiquitous blended learning within creative arts and humanities.

Project aims:

  1. Analyse the level and type of e-learning opportunities provided across a range of undergraduate courses in creative arts and humanities.
  2. Identify examples of good practice in relation to blending technology to enhance teaching and learning within the VLE.
  3. Develop, implement and evaluate a strategy to support technology-enhanced blended learning in creative arts and humanities.

Evaluating the level and type of e-learning opportunities:

The preliminary phase of the project uses a qualitative approach (this has been presented at two internal conferences). Two literature reviews were conducted: the first identified institutional blockages in relation to the VLE, the second explored methods of auditing VLE use. Further to this a questionnaire was distributed to the seven schools within the university to determine which schools were auditing the VLE and how this information was enhancing T&L strategy. The outcome of this research has resulted in a national conference research paper being submitted.

The first stage of the project involved devising the criteria (level and type of e-learning opportunities) for conducting content analysis within the VLE for two schools (ADA & MHM) within the university. In total 704 modules were analysed to establish good practice in relation to technology enhanced learning within creative arts. Early analysis of the data support the requirement for a different approach to technology enhanced learning within practical based disciplines.

Current work:

During March 2013 a staff questionnaire was distributed across the School of Art, Design and Architectire and School of Music, Humanities and Media to explore current and predicted use of e-learning tools. The project team is currently evaluating the data.

During April/May a series of seven focus groups are planned to explore the wider themes and to establish mechanisms for embedding and enhancing e-learning within creative arts and humanities.

Moving forward the data collected from the early phases of the project will enable the project team to develop strategy to close gaps in relation to technology enhanced learning.

The final phases of the action research will evaluate, compare and reflect on the implemented action in terms of improvement in digital literacy and technology enhanced learning in creative arts and humanities.

Posted in Innovation projects, Research | Leave a comment

Ladder of participation and level of engagement

Posted on March 21, 2013 by

I found this ‘Ladder’ of Participation from the Learner Voice Futurelab report useful to think about different dimensions of learner participation and student engagement. Please go to the Futurelab report to see the original table and get the full background on the research the table is built on.

I have added the original table into a powerpoint slide as this was easier to upload.

A figure outlining a ladder with differnt levels of learner voice participation

A table from Learnervoice – a handbook from Futurelab (2006:11). Authors Tim Rudd, Fiona Colligan and Rajay Naik

“The table above draws on Arnstein’s ladder of participation and Hart’s work on children’s participation. It shows that involvement can occur on a number of levels, ranging from those described as ‘non participation’ to the fully participatory and active (learner empowerment). In terms of embedding learner voice, the aim is to ensure there is a culture and appropriate ways of working to enable more approaches like those at the bottom of the table (learner empowerment)” (Futurelab report 2006:11).

Arnstein, S (1969). A ladder of citizen participation in the USA. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 4 pp 216-24.

Hart, R (1992). Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. UNICEF

Posted in HEASTLC, Learning experience, Research, Teaching, Uncategorized | Leave a comment