Preparing to put PBL into practice :-)

My PBL Prep

Reflection 6/6 – Developing my PBL practice

During the introductory weeks of the module my peers and I were asked to consider “how do you teach?” and “how do you see yourself as a teacher?” (Nerantzi, 2012).  I remember that my initial reaction to such questions were that I wasn’t a ‘proper teacher’ – at least not like the majority of peers on the PGCAP.  We were asked to consider our own practice against various metaphors – “lamplighters, gardeners, muscle builders, bucket fillers, challengers, travel guides, factory supervisors, artists, applied scientists, and craftspeople” (Apps, 1991, 23-24).  After some thought my own response to this was …

“I’ve always considered myself more of a ‘facilitator’ rather than a ‘teacher’.  From the list I’d probably say that I was a mix of a lamplighter, a gardener, and a travel guide.  I do try to use a variety of approaches – a bit of presenting (hopefully in a fun and engaging way), a bit of questioning, group-work and discussion, etc. so I guess craftsperson is also appropriate.” (Dunleavy, 2012).

At the start, I acknowledged that I was more of a ‘facilitator’, however I clearly didn’t regard this as being a ‘proper teacher’.  Throughout the module, during the weekly sessions and also during teaching observations I have been introduced to a variety of teaching approaches and have experienced various learning environments.  All of this has has been extremely influential in determining my own preferences in terms of ‘how I teach’.  I am now more confident to say that yes, I am a teacher with a facilitative approach.  In the past, I have ‘followed’ how others’ have taught a topic sometimes with consequences of feeling ‘out of my depth’.  Whilst there are certain areas where I am more confident (e.g. in Technology-Enhanced Learning), I think that in my new role as staff developer in a wider academic context I need to accept that I am still learning – and that’s ok.  I believe through adopting more ‘facilitative’ approaches to teaching such as Inquiry/Enquiry/Problem-based learning I can be an effective teacher who continues to develop through experience (‘good’ and ‘bad’).  Therefore, I’d like to focus this final reflection on how I may integrate what I have learnt around ‘facilitative’ approaches to teaching into my own professional practice as staff developer.

Reading through my previous reflections there seems to be a developing ‘flavour’ to my portfolio relating to the topic of assessment and feedback and problem-based learning (PBL).  This is no surprise, as my new role is focused currently on assessment and feedback, aligned with strategic priorities and my remit to plan and deliver staff development to my colleagues in this area across two Colleges.  I mentioned, during my educational autobiography, that I preferred to ‘contextualise’ my learning, and I guess that shows again here.

PBL as an approach to teaching wasn’t entirely new to me.  Working in academic development, I’m bound to have come across this method and knew that it was, in laymans terms, something to do with giving your students a ‘problem’ and then leaving them to figure out a solution, often working in small groups to do so.  I hadn’t ‘formerly’ experienced this sort of learning myself previously, although I suspected that many group learning scenarios were based on this concept and therefore felt that I had some knowledge of what it may be.  I also felt that PBL alluded to something we do in-practice all of the time in our workplace unaware of a formal title.  This is perhaps what I like most about PBL – it is a learning and teaching approach that we can equip our students with ready for the world of work.  Of course, it is important for students to learn ‘the subject’, however it is lifelong learning skills that the employer is looking for, and which can often make one graduate stand out from the next in terms of their ‘employability’.

Of course, as a staff developer of colleagues already employed in the University, it’s not necessarily my role to make them ‘employable’ – they already have a job.  However, I do think my role is to equip colleagues with new skills so that they may consider changing their own approaches to teaching to enhance the student experience.

My knowledge gap in terms of PBL?

I wasn’t really aware of the formal ‘process’ of PBL or indeed how the notion of ‘ a problem’ was defined.  During week 7 of the module I experienced PBL as a student myself on the theme of ‘Assessment & Feedback’, and also observed a peer facilitating a PBL session with his students in Occupational Therapy (see Reflection 5/6 – Observing peers) all of which enthused me to study PBL further.  Through my own continuous professional development (CPD) I discovered similar concepts to PBL – enquiry-based learning (EBL) and inquiry-based learning (IBL) and wanted to find out more in terms of how they could help me to improve my practice.

Unravelling the mystery – IBL, EBL, PBL?

Through this module, further reading, and through participating on an additional workshop for my own CPD (see additional reflection – From PBL to IBL) I’ve started to develop my understanding of such interrelated concepts.

EBL is often used as an umbrella term to capture all forms of learning stimulated by enquiry: project work, small-scale investigation or ‘inquiry’ and problem-based learning (Barrett & Cashman, 2010).  I now understand that PBL and IBL, although similar, have different characteristics relating to their perceived ‘flexibility’ and ‘openness’ (Kutar et. al., 2012).

A perspective on problem-based learning vs. inquiry-based learning (Kutar et. al., 2012)

From the analysis above it would seem that PBL is inflexible, and whilst it may be the case in terms of a more structured process with the ‘problem’ being identified at the outset, there is an element of flexibility in PBL.  Barrett & Moore (2011) write about the six-dimensional approach to PBL in higher education and discuss the various ways in which the PBL tutorial process in practice can be adapted depending on context.

PBL as a total six-dimensional approach to higher education (Barratt & Moore, 2011)

Below, I consider how each of the six dimensions relate to my own context of embedding PBL in staff development in academic practice.

Embedding PBL in my own professional practice

PBL problem design – A ‘problem’ could be a scenario, a story, a dilemma, a challenge, a trigger derived from any media, or a starting point for learning.  In my context as an academic developer, I prefer to do some preparatory research into the real ‘problems’ occurring under the staff development theme.  For example, in recent sessions discussing the topic of assessment and feedback with colleagues (see additional reflection Assessment and feedback and Reflection 4/6 – Tutor observation) a number of School issues were raised, and I’d look at using some of the outcomes of these sessions to design ‘authentic’ problems for a future PBL workshop.  Therefore, although the PBL session would be driven by the ‘problems’ which I set, they will be focused on real-life scenarios as experienced by my colleagues, and as such will provide context to their learning as students in a PBL environment.  It will also be important to involve other stakeholders at the ‘problem’ design stage.  For example, Student Life and the Student Union could provide a useful insight in to understanding the nature of the ‘problems’ from the students perspective.

PBL tutorials in small teams – The PBL tutorial is traditionally set within small teams of between 5-8 students and a tutor.  However, in a typical staff development workshop, I envisage approximately 30 staff as students and only 1, or possibly 2 tutors to facilitate the process.  Therefore, if I consider 5 groups of 6 students in each, then I would need to adopt a ‘roaming’ tutor approach.  On the PBL session in week 7, our module tutor used a type of ‘flag’ to allow the students themselves to indicate when they needed help, which I thought worked very well.  I prefer this approach to actually having a tutor present throughout, as I feel it helps students to drive the process themselves rather than always looking to the tutor for their acknowledgement and approval.  It gives the students control of the process and of their own learning, and emphasises the role of the tutor to facilitate a challenging learning process.

The student roles (e.g. chairperson, scribe, reader, timekeeper, observer, etc.) are also important, and I would need to consider which roles are appropriate for the staff development context, and ensure these were clearly defined before strarting the process.

Apropriate resources are also key to ensuring an effective tutorial – e.g. whiteboards, flipcharts, laptops, pens, etc. for each team to capture their thoughts.  One concern I do have with regards to my own context is ‘time’.  The workshops will be short (between 2-3 hours) and I worry if this is enough for the process of knowledge construction.  If I think back to Jason’s PBL sessions (see Reflection 5/6 – Observing peers) there were a number of PBL tutorials focusing on various ‘trigger’ points of a ‘problem’ which allowed for a longer ‘developmental’ process of knowledge construction.

PBL compatible assessments – In any teaching and learning, it is important that learning activities are aligned appropriately with assessment in terms of the learning outcomes.  In my educational autobiography I stated that “as the majority of my ‘teaching’ is around staff development I don’t tend to use techniques such as ‘constructive alignment’ as I’ve never thought it necessary” (see Reflection 1/1 – Educational autobiography).  Over the course of this module I’ve come to recognise that it is equally as important to set clear learning outcomes and align learning activities and assessment in staff development workshops as much as it is in a programme or module of study.  Not only does this demonstrate good practice to my academic colleagues, it allows my colleagues as learners to understand why they are participating in such staff development and helps them to take responsibility for their own CPD.  Assessment could be embedded in the way of a presentation at the end of the PBL session.

PBL curriculum development –  PBL is traditionally developed to occur across a whole curriculum or programme of study.  The ‘themed’ staff development workshops, although part of a suite of CPD for staff, are likely to be stand-alone.  I need to ensure that I find ways of allowing my colleagues to continue developing their thoughts around the ‘problem’ after the PBL session ends, perhaps through providing a shared medium for continuous dialogue and debate, and also by ‘following’ and co-publishing progress of their development in-practice.

Developing knowledge and capabilities – One of the main benefits of a PBL approach is to provide a learning environment which affords the development of transferable skills for the workplace.  In the context of my staff development workshops, I’d hope that through experiencing PBL themselves, my academic colleagues would start to consider how they themselves may adopt such an approach in their own teaching and learning practice.  Also, the PBL process can help with improving their own skills in communication, teamwork, information literacy, critical and creative thinking, problem solving, reflection, etc.  The PBL process will allow ‘teachers’ to get away from their ‘silos’, and to come together to share knowledge and through dialogue construct new knowledge to improve their practice.

Philosophy of problem-based learning – One of my main concerns in using a PBL approach for staff development is that I may move away from the underlying principles of PBL, and therefore I think it is important to continuously remind myself of the PBL philosophy, particularly relating to a higher education.  When adopting and adapting PBL for my own professional practice I need to continuously question the purpose, the rationale, the ethical issues, the tutorial process, and the link between teaching, learning and research.

It may help, whilst developing my own PBL approach, to review how other higher education practitioners have adapted the traditional PBL process to suit their own contexts.  Barrett and Cashman (2010) produce a useful resource: A Practitioner’s Guide to Enquiry and Problem-Based Learning, which outlines the theory, and also provides some interesting case studies.  One case study is particularly relevant as it talks about how PBL was used with lecturers – ‘Lecturers as Problem-based Learning Students’.  I think this provides a good example of lecturers being introduced to the PBL process by working on a ‘problem’ about PBL itself.  This prepares lecturers for future staff development facilitated in this way, at the same time as allowing them to consider how they may adopt such an approach in their own practice.  I am a little concerned that if I jump straight into PBL on a ‘themed’ topic such as assessment and feedback without first giving my colleagues an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the process I may run into ‘problems’ of my own.  I need to carefully consider how I can effectively introduce the PBL concept before running too far ahead.

The practitioners guide also introduces a useful model which may help to inform my own practice.

7 Step PBL Process Guide (Barrett and Cashman, 2010)
Image source:http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/ucdtli0041.pdf

References

Apps, J. (1991) Mastering the Teaching of Adults, FL: Krieger.

Barrett, T. & Moore, S. (2011) New approaches to problem-based learning: revitalising your practice in higher education. New York, Routledge.

Barrett, T. & Cashman, D. (Eds) (2010) A Practitioners’ Guide to Enquiry and Problem-based Learning. Dublin: UCD Teaching and Learning

Dunleavy, C. (2012) CoreJan12 (Cohort 4) Module Discussions Space, Who is who and a task during pre-induction, posted 31 January 2012, 08:12.

Kutar, M., Griffiths, M. & Wood, J. (2012) IBL Workshop Presentation at the HEA STEM: I3 Inquiry, Independence and Information.  Using IBL to Encourage Independent Learning in IT Students.  19 April 2012, Media City UK, University of Salford.

Nerantzi, C. (2012) CoreJan12 (Cohort 4) Module Discussions Space, Who is who and a task during pre-induction, posted 3 January 2012, 12:19.

week 10 – professional discussions – CHERYL

week 10 – professional discussions – CHERYL, a photo by pgcap on Flickr.

so pleased I passed the first hurdle – just the write up now 🙂

Via Flickr:
The Lego is a symbol of my learning …

The tree indicates that I have grown although there are new branches still to develop

The window indicates that new doors have opened as the PGCAP has made me brave enough and confident to try new things and find my own approach rather than follow others

The people around the table are my peers on the PGCAP who have made it an enjoyable experience both personally and professionally – I’ve learnt so much from them (and Chrissi of course)

From PBL to IBL

The PGCAP has exposed me to all sorts of new teaching methods one of which being Problem-based learning (PBL) however I’d like to explore this and other similar approaches further to help with my final reflections on how I can apply such methods to my own teaching and staff development sessions.

There’s an interesting workshop coming up next Thursday on Inquiry-based learning (IBL) …

HEA STEM: I3 – Inquiry, Independence and Information. Using IBL to Encourage Independent Learning in IT Students

I’ve registered to attend – why don’t you join me 🙂

Useful links

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/teaching/issues/inquiry_based_learning.htm?part=1

Reflection 5/6 – Observing peers

As part of the observation process I observed two of my PGCAP peers – Rosie and Jason …

Rosie’s peer observation feedback

Date: 6th March 2011 Time: 11am-12.30pm Session: Drop-in tutorials

Although I’d already agreed to peer observe Jason, when Rosie asked if I would also observe her tutorial session I didn’t hesitate.  For me, one of the great things about participating on the PGCAP is that I get to see the University from a different viewpoint – the student’s viewpoint.  As a staff developer I like to think that I ‘indirectly’ have an impact on the student experience, and that through my work with academic colleagues I can enhance University teaching and learning to some extent.  That said I don’t often get the opportunity to see University teaching in action and felt honoured and privileged to be invited in to Rosie’s tutorials.  It was also an opportunity to interact with an academic colleague from an unfamiliar discipline – Arts & Social Science – my usual interactions are with colleagues from either Science & Technology or Health & Social Care.  I even visited a part of the campus that I’d never been before – Adelphi – (eventually, after getting a little lost along the way).

As you can see from the pre-observation form above, the tutorials were a final chance for the Art & Design students to get formative feedback before the assessment hand-in date the following week so it was pretty hectic.  Rosie described the tutorials as a ‘doctors surgery’ and it certainly did have that constant flow about it.  When I arrived (a little late from the drama of getting lost) the session was in full flow with students waiting in the corridor and in the room itself.

Students waiting
Image source:
Feedback Festival, S.Casciano, June 2009
(www.flickr.com/photos/xdxd_vs_xdxd/3671671524/)

There was a sign on the door indicating I was in the right place, however my first thoughts were that there was no mention of “feedback”.  At this point I reflected on conversations I’d had with colleagues regarding low scores on Assessment & Feedback in the National Student Survey (NSS, 2012), and about students not understanding what feedback was.  It’s often said that students relate only to post-assessment summative feedback rather than the ‘timely’ formative feedback given during a module leading up to assessment.  I wondered whether making it absolutely clear – “Formative FEEDBACK here” – would help at all in managing student expectations and understanding around feedback.  Also, the National Union of Students (NUS, 2010) developed a Charter on Feedback & Assessment which explicitly mentions the importance of integrating formative feedback throughout the whole curriculumn – an emphasis on ‘feedback for learning‘ rather than ‘feedback of learning‘ (see additional reflection including literature Assessment & Feedback).  As it happens, when I mentioned this to Rosie later she told me how their programme did quite well in the NSS scores and therefore didn’t think it was an issue in this case, however agreed that it was a valid point and it wouldn’t hurt to implement a simple change to be sure.

Formative feedback (NUS, 2012)
Image source:
www.nusconnect.org.uk/asset/news/6010/FeedbackCharter-toview.pdf

When I entered the tutorial session Rosie was already providing feedback, and there were other tutors doing the same, and students waiting their turn, and so I quietly waited not wanting to interrupt.  Rosie saw me and made me feel at ease immediately by calling me over and introducing me to her students.  Rosie made it clear to her students that I was there to observe her and not them which also put the students at ease.  Rosie is very approachable and this came across in the session.  I observed Rosie provide feedback to a number of students and although Rosie was less familiar with some of the students work (as indicated in the pre-observation form) this didn’t seem to effect how she interacted with each student.  When I read in the pre-observation form that Rosie wasn’t necessarily the allocated tutor for the students requesting feedback I wondered if this would go down well at all.  However, it soon became clear that it was actually helpful for them to have another tutor’s perspective.  Rosie was supportive, interested, engaged, and a good listener.  Some of the students were clearly anxious about their upcoming assessments and quite distressed at the start of the tutorial, however Rosie’s calm and supportive nature soon had them believing “I can do it”.  When Rosie came across any negative aspects of a student’s piece of work she addressed it with a positive spin – ” this would work really well in [another context] but perhaps not here”.  It was also nice that Rosie was very flexible with the students allowing them to make use of the session in whatever way they found useful – some preferred to get their laptop out and do direct edits, and some just wanted to talk.  Also, it was clear that Rosie and the other tutors had second-guessed what some of the generic questions might be as they had a number of prepared resources available – referencing and binding examples.  So, all in all I thought Rosie’s tutorials were extremely well received by the students and all at a point were they most needed the help.  Well done Rosie 🙂

I did have a few environmental concerns.  I wasn’t sure if having some students wait around in the same room was a good idea.  I wondered how I might feel about my peers watching, especially if I was feeling anxious or had personal problems to share.  I did mention this to Rosie later and although she agreed it wasn’t ideal she explained that there are ‘timetabling’ issues in getting suitable rooms for such a session.  I can relate to such issues, as it’s often difficult to get suitable and ‘private’ rooms for tutorials with colleagues or suitable rooms for group work, etc.  I think Rosie and her colleagues are well aware of this issue and certainly sensitive enough to see when a student may be uncomfortable with the ‘public’ context.

During our post-observation chat Rosie also shared with me some of her ideas around providing generic video feedback to students via the virtual learning environment (VLE) so that this could be viewed online by all students.  I thought this was a great idea.

I really enjoyed observing Rosie’s session and also chatting to Rosie about it afterwards – it was a pleasurable experience 🙂

Jason’s peer observation feedback

Date: 14th March 2011 Time: 10am-12pm Session: Problem based learning session – 1st trigger

Please listen to the audio on iPadio or read the transcript whilst viewing the story (StoryBird) …

Peer observationA Problem Based Learning (PBL) Journey with my peer J”All in it together” on Storybird(please note the Storybird is on the ‘pgcap’ account under the ‘class’ – due to problems with making it ‘public’ you will need to sign in)

My post-observation reflection

It was really fun to experiment with StoryBird as a way of feeding back to Jason.  You’d think, as someone who is enthused by technology and whose role it is to promote technology-enhanced learning to academic colleagues across the University, that this would be ‘old hat’, however it’s always a different story being ‘the student’.  That’s partly what the PGCAP is all about I think – putting yourself in the students’ shoes.  Clearly I’m not afraid of experimenting with technology – that part is second nature – however making use of the technology so that it is effective in enhancing my student experience is more of a challenge.  I think it’s often an assumption that is made of the ‘digital natives’ – the younger generation growing up with technology – that they will instantly know how to learn using technology, but this isn’t the case.  Initially, I was very aware that ‘playing’ with StoryBird may turn out to be time-wasting, however I think Jason would agree that this wasn’t the case.  This makes me think back to the Webinar about ‘Play’ by Carol Yeager in week 4 (see additional reflection – Play – fun, or more serious?) where I was sceptical about ‘play’ in relation to learning.  Perhaps this ‘related’ as opposed to ‘unrelated’ play is something to value afterall.

As I said at the end of the feedback, I was really enthused by Jason’s session to start to develop my own knowledge and understanding of PBL, and to consider adopting such an approach in my staff development sessions.  We got started with PBL in week 6 of the PGCAP where Leslie Robinson came to talk to us about her experience.  After hearing her story, seeing it in action with Jason, and experiencing it for myself as a student in week 7, I’m well underway to finding out more …

My Postcard (Week 6)

References

NSS (2012) The National Student Survey.  http://www.thestudentsurvey.com/

NUS (2010) NUS Charter on Feedback & Assessment, National Union of Students. http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/news/article/highereducation/720/

Reflection 4/6 – Tutor observation

The reflective cycle (Gibbs 1988) Image source: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/upgrade/a-z/reflective_gibbs.html

For an outline and details of the observation please see my Tutor Observation page.

Last week I was observed by my tutor. I guess the tutor observation is a little different for me as the PGCAP tutors are also my close colleagues who I work with every day.  I’m not sure if that actually made me more or less nervous!

Rather than randomly reflect, this time I thought it would be useful to follow a more structured reflection process to help me to think through all the stages of the experience. Gibbs (1988) provides such structure through ‘The reflective cycle’ and I’m hoping that by following this model I can practice a deeper reflection which will hopefully enhance my learning.

Description

(What happened?)

Last week I posted a reflection relating to a staff development workshop ‘Assessment and Feedback’ presented and facilitated by my colleague (see additional reflection, including literature Assessment and feedback).  This week it was my turn to ‘team-teach’ the same workshop ahead of being expected to present and facilitate ‘alone’ next week (definitely learning by doing here!).  I have been ‘shadowing’ my experienced and knowledgeable colleague for a few weeks now (a novice-expert relationship), observing how his approach to staff development in the area of Academic Development (including on engaging students in lab practicals through various assessment methods, and on enhancing assessment and feedback practice in higher education more widely).

Feelings

(What were you thinking and feeling?)

Before: This is all quite new to me, both in terms of content and context.  In the past my role as a staff developer within Academic Development has focused around assessment and feedback relating to Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) and therefore I felt very out of my ‘comfort zone’.  I felt nervous of the audience, especially given the participants were academic members of staff from a School whom I’d never supported before and therefore I couldn’t make any predictions around engagement or behaviour before the event (perhaps that was a good thing in the end!).  I was also nervous about ‘team-teaching’ with my colleague – I didn’t want to let him down or ‘mess things up’.  I was worried about the presentation style adopted by colleague as it wasn’t how I was used to doing things, especially the first part which was mainly presentation with points for discussion provided throughout.  I was concerned that although I’d revised and rehearsed ‘the content’ I wouldn’t be confident enough to ‘engage participants’ in a meaningful discussion.  This wasn’t a problem for my colleague as he has many years of experience of both teaching and facilitating staff development sessions in this area, however for me it was certainly a challenge which made me quite anxious in the days leading up to the workshop.  My colleague and I prepared for the workshop by reviewing the ‘ready made’ slides and session plan.  My colleague supported me to choose the areas of presentation/discussion which I felt most comfortable with.  I shared some of the slides on assessment and feedback ‘Beliefs’ and also lead on the slides around ‘Assessment strategies’ and ‘Marking strategies’.  At least I had some knowledge in these areas from week 3 on the core module where we discussed learning outcomes (LOs), Bloom’s Taxonomy, and constructive alignment and through my own work on the use of e-rubrics through GradeMark.

During: Throughout the workshop the nerves and feelings of anxiety remained, especially during the ‘Part 1’ presentation/discussion when approaching ‘my slides’.  I was worried about forgetting ‘my lines’ about there not being any engagement through discussion of the topics I covered.  My colleague on the other hand, during his presentation was very confident in introducing his topics, and he was able to follow up by using  ‘story telling’ techniques.  This engaged the audience and encouraged debate amongst participants – they all ‘shared’ common experiences.  As a result of the worry I felt that my presentation/discussion elements didn’t go too well.  On a few occasions I froze as the participants glared at me with pitiful eyes.  I was embarrassed and probably apologetic for ‘my poor performance’ and felt at times that I was either making no sense at all, or worse teaching them something which they already knew more than me about 😦  On a positive note ‘Part 2’, which was mainly facilitating a group activity, went quite well (I think).  There were two groups of about six participants in each and I was comfortable in facilitating the discussion.  Unlike in the first part, I wasn’t expected to impart my knowledge or even share my experience – I was simply there to keep the discussion focused ensuring the participants didn’t go off track.  The group activity focused around a discussion relating to how colleagues could enhance assessment and feedback practice across their School.  On a few occasions participants lost focus by discussing ‘problems’ rather than ‘solutions’, however I felt confident to bring them back on track.  I was certainly more at ease sat amongst the participants rather than standing at the front, and enjoyed listening to their ‘stories’ and ‘ideas’.  I even felt able to join in the discussion as I recalled stories of my own from tutoring on the PGCAPs optional module last year.  I also recalled some of my recent conversations with PGCAP peers about their assessment and feedback practice – I was sharing too 🙂

After: My initial feeling after the workshop was relief that it was over, then worry that I had ‘messed things up’, then dread that I would have to do it all over again next week ‘on my own’ 😦

Evaluation

(What was good and bad about the experience?)

My suggested reading post-observation: teaching what you don’t know

Despite the overwhelming feelings of nerves, anxiety, and worry which I experienced throughout the workshop, particularly the first part, an informal conversation with my tutor/colleague shortly afterwards helped me to reflect on the event and see things a little more positively.   There was a general agreement between us that the workshop didn’t go as well as it could have in terms of ‘participant engagement’, and at times it was difficult to hold a meaningful discussion, however my colleague thought this was in part down to ‘group dynamics’ – he said “it was a difficult group, and where there was engagement it was negative and ‘argumentative’ rather than positive and ‘constructive’ – there was a lot of winging!”.  On reflection, I know this to be the truth as I’ve experienced this scenario many times before in my TEL workshops running the same session but to different groups.  I guess I was ‘sensitive’ to this being ‘something new’ and lacked in confidence in terms of both content and context.  That said, my colleague suggested that I did OK and that perhaps I shouldn’t give myself such a hard time, and accept that I am ‘still learning’.  He also advised that it was acceptable to use examples from my own practice – “it may be generalising, and not necessarily discipline specific, however there will be some common ground”.  My colleague advised that I may try adapting the first part to ‘suit my style rather than his’ suggesting that until I am more confident with the topics surrounding assessment and feedback that I adopt some additional ‘facilitation’ techniques rather than too much presentation/discussion ‘up front’, especially as I seemed more comfortable with the second part.  My colleague pointed me in the direction of a book “teaching what you don’t know” (Huston, 2009) which he suggested would help me in determining some coping strategies and equip me with some essential direction when preparing for ‘the next time’ (next week!)

Analysis

(What sense can you make of the situation?)

PART 1 (1 hour)

• Introduction: What does the literature say? (NC)
• Assessment & Feedback ‘Beliefs’ (NC/CD)
• Why? What? How? (NC)
  • Assessment strategies (NC)
    • Constructive alignment (CD)
    • Criteria ref Vs. Norm ref (CD)
    • Bloom’s Cognitive Domain (CD)
  • Marking strategies (NC)
    • Group marking/moderation (NC)
    • Rubrics and marking criteria (CD)
  • Assessment flexibility (NC)
• Supporting student success and learning (NC)
• Feedback: What is it? Expectations? (NC)

The first part was mainly presentation with discussion intended throughout, although there were no structured activities to ensure discussion occurred and therefore this resulted in a few ‘tumble weed’ moments.

 

The presentation ‘content’ was divided between my colleague as lead presenter (NC) and myself (CD).  I felt this was a little ‘messy’ in terms of flipping between presenters.  I also felt this highlighted my ‘novice’ status as it was clear to the participants who the ‘expert’ was which added to my anxiety.

 

Although I’d prepared for presenting the ‘content’ I still felt unsure and unable to engage in meaningful discussion once a concept had been explained.  That said, in some areas (e.g. Rubrics and marking criteria) I was able to combine my knowledge on TEL to influence and inform a wider debate.

 

It’s a small but important point – I felt the slides could have been better designed in terms of style and layout.  For me, the dark colours made it difficult to read and some of the text fell below where participants (or I) could see.  I could have perhaps made a suggestion to my colleague to improve this beforehand, however I didn’t want to cause upset to my more experienced colleague by suggesting changes to his pre-prepared slides (and I have been known in the past to be unreasonably picky).

 

PART 2 (1 hour)

• Group activity: How can we enhance A&F at Salford? (NC/CD)
• What next? (NC)

The second part was mainly facilitation of a group activity which I felt much more comfortable with.  I was guiding discussion – the ‘guide on the side’ rather than the ‘sage on the stage’ approach.

Conclusion

(What else could you have done?)

On reflection, I perhaps should have been brave enough and confident enough to suggest changes to the delivery and also to the presentation style and layout to suit ‘my style’ rather than the style of my colleague, especially in the areas that I was presenting/discussing in ‘Part 1’.  I should have seen the experience as a ‘team’ effort rather than adopting a ‘novice-expert’ relationship with my colleague.  Of course, my colleague is more experienced and knowledgeable than me, however we didn’t need to make this so obvious during the session (or perhaps if we did we should at least have explained this to the participants).  Adopting more of a ‘facilitation of learning’ approach throughout the whole session by introducing more structured activity to encourage meaningful discussion would have been my preference.  If only I had been honest with myself and with my colleague about how I felt leading up to the session we may have been able to address some of my concerns and anxieties.

Action Plan

(If it arose again what would you do?)

As it happens, I do have the opportunity (very soon) to act on this reflection as I am faced with the same workshop ‘on my own’ next week.  There are some actions which I’ll definitely act upon …

Action: Literature on teaching outside of my area of expertise – during the post-observation discussion with my tutor/colleague it became apparent that although I had prepared for the workshop by reading around the subject matter (the ‘content’) I hadn’t prepared for the ‘teaching’.  My colleague advised that many academics often teach outside of their subject areas and that there are techniques I could adopt.  My colleague recommended the book ‘teaching what you don’t know’ (Huston, 2009).  I have already started to read ‘Chapter 4: Teaching and surviving’ which is proving very useful and informs further actions as outlined below.

Action: Adapt style and presentation of slides and embed more interactivity – I felt that the slides where perhaps ‘content heavy’ which is fine for someone like my colleague who knows the subject area, and who tended to use these as ‘prompts’ only, however I tended to try and follow these religiously and due to the style and layout I found myself ‘lost’ on more than one occasion.  I thought I may adapt the slides using more resources which I am familiar with (re-use of PGCAP materials) and also embed images/video where appropriate.

Action: Ensure an engaging entry point ideally something ‘familiar’ – although I feel it is useful to start with the assessment and feedback ‘Beliefs’ I felt it was difficult to engage participants in a meaningful discussion, therefore I may ‘facilitate’ this with the use of ‘clickers’.  It’s fun, engaging, and may introduce participants to a new way of interacting and gaining feedback from their own students (an added benefit).  It will also help me to ‘settle in’ by adopting a style I am familiar with.

Action: Adopt a more facilitative role throughout the whole session – I felt more comfortable in ‘Part 2’ where a more facilitative role was adopted.  Given that the outcome of the session is to share practice across the School this may be a more suitable approach to adopt for ‘Part 1’ also.

Action: Talk about what I do know – during the post-observation discussion with my tutor/colleague I spoke about how I was reluctant to use examples from my own practice (e.g. as a tutor on the PGCAPs optional module) as the discipline and context differed from that of the participants.  However, my colleague advised that it was OK to generalise and that more often than not common ground can be found cross-discipline.  Therefore, I should try to be confident in bringing in my own experience of assessment and feedback both as a ‘practitioner’ and as a ‘student’.

Action: Be honest and open about what I don’t know – there was a quote in the ‘teaching what you don’t know’ book which struck me as appropriate here “students don’t learn more when you’re perfect.  They learn more when you’re human and you make the classroom a place where it is safe to ask questions”.  If I am open and honest about the fact that I am learning, then I may create a more positive learning environment.  The whole idea behind the workshop is to create a ‘safe’ environment for learning and to encourage debate, discussion, and sharing of practice.  Therefore, the focus shouldn’t be on ‘me’ being up-front and lecturing.  More focus on sharing thoughts with participants themselves would help to encourage participation and take the pressure off me to be the ‘all-knowing’ authority.

Action: Handling questions – during the session, when confronted with questions from the participants which I didn’t know the answer to I tended to seek help from my colleague. However, this won’t be possible next week and therefore I need to adopt some techniques such as clarifying questions, flipping the question back to the participants, and acknowledging that I am unsure then offering to find an answer later.

Next time …

The presentation adapted to include more interaction with clickers, video, and discussions points.

Presentation: Assessment & Feedback

References

Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Further Education Unit. Oxford Polytechnic: Oxford.

Huston, T. (2009) Teaching what you don’t know, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England.

Reflection 3/6 – Mentor observation

For an outline and details of the observation please see my Mentor Observation page.

My post-observation reflection

Today was my second teaching observation which was actually a repeat of the first peer observation ‘ELS-Turnitin-GradeMark‘.  This time I was being observed by my mentor, Dr Janice Whatley, who is an experienced and knowledgeable lecturer in the Business School.  Janice is well qualified in her subject and also in teaching and learning having completed the former PGCert programme at Salford some years ago.  I’m very pleased that Janice has agreed to be my mentor and is providing feedback on today’s session.

I must admit that the thought of the mentor observation is a little more nerve racking than the peer observation as I suppose ‘anything goes’ whereas with peers there is some feeling of all being in the ‘the same boat’.  That said, once Janice arrived and settled in it wasn’t a disruption and I just got on with the session.  Again, I had emailed participants earlier to explain why Janice was there so it didn’t cause confusion.  Like Jason, Janice joined in with the hands-on activities, so hopefully the session was useful for her practice also 🙂

As I said earlier today’s session was a repeat of what I did last week but with different participants.  It was a larger group (9 rather than 5) and so I was aware that technical support may be a little tricky.  Jason picked up on this in his written feedback last week …

“Would a bigger group impact on the delivery and structure for the session?” (Vickers, 2012)

I think Jason is right that it would be very tricky to effectively support a large group, which is one of the reasons why I chose a room which has a maximum of 12 participants.  At full capacity it’s a struggle to single handedly support everyone during the practicals, and I think a good strategy is to encourage peer-help with those more familiar helping those less so.

Also, after reflecting on what Jason said …

“Do you feel you fully explored the barriers to using this system? Did you explore if any group members have a fear of change or resilience to it?” (Vickers, 2012)

I decided to place more emphasis on answering, or at least acknowledging, the groups concerns during the ‘Benefits and Challenges’ discussion activity, and also made it clear that I would be following up any concerns later with the appropriate people (e.g. ITS/Turnitin).  In our post-session discussion Jason also commented that I could have talked about the ‘Challenges’ first, and then the ‘Benefits’ which would enable me to end on a more positive note.  I thought this was a really good suggestion, and so today I put it into practice – it seemed to work as it gave more enthusiasm for exploring GradeMark further 🙂

Also, acting on my own reflection from last week around the environment (the dreaded chairs) I decided to move the ‘Benefits and Challenges’ activity to the beginning so that participants could start off in two groups (sat in the ‘comfy’ chairs) which allowed for more discussion amongst the whole group …

“One thing I do regret is that the participants weren’t able to move around and look at each others responses (due to the chairs!).  Perhaps next time I could do the discussion activity early on before participants are seated with the laptops, using the additional ‘circle’ and ‘sofa’ seating areas.” (see Reflection 2/6 – Peer observation)

Circle Seating

Sofa Seating

However, I did notice that this caused a few people anxiety when they entered the room and were asked to sit around the ‘circle’, and even more so when they saw the coloured ‘explosions’ – one participant commented “oh no, are you going to make us do some thinking”.  Yes, of course I am – isn’t that how we learn?  I think it was ‘the unknown’ that caused the anxiety as once we got into the activity everything was much more relaxed (I think!).At the beginning of the session I also added in an additional ‘E-assessment’ process section as last week I felt that those who hadn’t already attended e-submission previously couldn’t fully understand the process.  I felt that by adding this brief slide I could avoid confusion later in the session.  Again, this seemed to work as it clarified to me that everyone understood the whole process before moving into the practical activities.

Reflecting on how the session went this week, as opposed to last week, I think it went well, although  I felt last week’s group were more at ease with each other from the start (perhaps they already knew each other more) and had more questions to ask in terms of their own practice, but this is bound to differ group-by-group.  That said, I think everyone took something away and enjoyed the session.  Did they achieve the learning outcomes?

• be able to discuss the benefits and challenges associated with e-marking and e-feedback
• be familiar with the main features of Turnitin’s GradeMark tool for e-marking and e-feedback
• have engaged in hands-on activity which involves marking a paper online
• understand how e-marking and e-feedback relates to the e-submission processes
• have considered where e-marking and e-feedback can be effectively adopted within their own areas of practice

I think this was achieved in the session, I guess I’ll find out in the evaluation form 🙂

Post-observation feedback with Janice

Janice’s feedbcak …

“Cheryl, I really enjoyed observing this session, as it was a topic useful for me as well as the participants. But I also liked your style very much, and the way you managed to get interaction in the form of comments and discussion.

I have just read your reflection with interest, and I like the way you changed this week’s session slightly according to the feedback.

I was going to suggest talking about the benefits before the issues, but I think you are right that the participants ended the discussion on a more positive note.

Will write more early next week.” (Whatley, 2012a)

---

“The session began with some open discussion, with the group split into 2 halves. This has the advantage of getting participants to start talking to each other and break the ice, as well as getting them thinking right from the start. Sometimes in technical training sessions participants get bogged down in the detail, and forget the underlying principles, which are the important ones in thinking about generalisability and implementation in practice. So this discussion was great. One criticism is that you did not spend as much time talking to and encouraging the group over by the window.

The interactive follow up to the discussion involved sticking starts with their comments on the wall, and the writing was not readable at that distance, so maybe a flip chart closer would have been better, or use the screen to display stars, not sure how!! Starting with challenges was I thought at the time rather negative, but I later appreciated that you wanted to end with the benefits, on a more positive note. So good planning there. You allowed plenty of time for discussion and for participants to give additional comments, and they did explore a number of issues that you intended to introduce later in the session. Once the participants got to the PCs the only real way to add more is by 1 to 1 help, so the longer you can keep the group together the better, for giving the “theory” part of instruction.

The practical activity was well planned with the software ready set up, and good supporting handouts. Your slides clearly explained the tasks to do, with good use of screen dumps in the demo. I am glad you mentioned that the similarity report should not be looked at first, in assessing whether plagiarism has occurred. When a new feature had appeared, you honestly admitted you had not seen it before, and made a virtue of changes made, and made it look easy to play with anything new. You gave attention to everyone, giving help when needed, not always easy when having to move around PCs, and gave some additional advice when a prompt arose.

Your style was very relaxed, with some light comments, to help the informal atmosphere. I liked the way you were always positive when anyone raised a criticism.

Well done, a good session” (Whatley, 2012b)

Throughout the PGCAP, I’ve really enjoyed getting to know Janice and was really pleased she agreed to observe me.  It was really encouraging to hear such positive comments from an experienced teacher.  In particular, I like how Janice commented that the discussion at the start was beneficial to participants in discussing the underlying principles of eMarking and eFeedback, as often I worry that staff will be eager to ‘have a go’ with the technology.  I’m pleased Janice agreed that it is important to start with pedagogy, consider practice in context, and to discuss the rationale of using the technology for learning, teaching, and assessment before the ‘hands-on’ begins.

Janice commented that I seemed to spend much longer talking to one group than the other, and perhaps this is true on reflection.  I remember that the group on the sofas seemed to be getting on with the activity, however the group on the circles needed more of a kick-start, hence my focus on them.  I remember we got started on a very interesting topic and I suppose I got caught up in the discussion rather than leaving them to check on the other group.  I guess this is a matter of improving my facilitation skills.  I’ll certainly keep this in mind the next time.

Another potential issue, which Janice raised, was relating to visibility of the text on the coloured shapes.  I provided standard pens to write on the cards, however on reflection I should have provided marker pens to allow for bolder visibility at a distance.  Janice suggested using technology in some way, and there are electronic ‘post-it’ walls freely available online, however that would have meant the participants spending longer at the PCs – something I wanted to avoid.  So, on reflection I’ll use thicker pens and/or simple flip charts the next time.

Overall, I feel the session went well and Janice enjoyed the observation experience and found the session useful for her own learning.

A huge thanks to Jason, Janice, and also to my colleagues in ELS who participated during the session 🙂

References

Vickers, J. (2012) “Reflection 2/6 – Peer Observation” Cheryl’s PGCAP personal blog, entry 24 February 2012, comment posted on 29 February 2012, https://cherylscpd.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/reflection-26-peer-observation

Whatley, J. (2012a) “Observations” Cheryl’s PGCAP personal blog, page created 22 February 2012, comment posted on 1 March 2012, https://cherylscpd.wordpress.com/teaching-observations

Whatley, J. (2012b) “Observations” Cheryl’s PGCAP personal blog, page created 22 February 2012, comment posted on 14 March 2012, https://cherylscpd.wordpress.com/teaching-observations

Reflection 2/6 – Peer observation

For an outline and details of the observation please see my Peer Observation page.

My post-observation reflection

Today was my first teaching observation – a staff development session ‘ELS Turnitin-GradeMark‘ which was kindly observed by one of my learning set peers, Jason.

I have to admit that when I became aware of the observation process at the start of the PGCAP I was very nervous, especially as I don’t often regard myself as a ‘proper teacher’.  Being observed ‘for assessment’ by experienced colleagues in the teaching field is a little scary.  However, Jason soon made me feel at ease with the whole process in the days leading up to the session and by the time of the observation I was feeling quite relaxed about it 🙂

This morning I was feeling a little disappointed as I’d had a few ‘apologies’ from colleagues attending my session and I was worried there would be more throughout the day, and maybe some ‘no-shows’ too.  This isn’t uncommon with staff development sessions as many colleagues have last minute changes in their schedules due to teaching (e.g. cover) and priority meetings to attend at a moments notice (e.g. School business).

The time (2pm) was approaching fast and at around 1pm I set about planning and preparing the learning environment.  I had to load up the presentation, lay out the laptops and resources for practical activities, and prepare some ‘explosions’ for a discussion activity.  I also needed to ensure a sign-in sheet was ready so that all participants could sign-in (I need to report back to our administrator for recording of CPD for staff).

Just before 2pm Jason arrived and we briefly chatted about the best approach to take in terms of the observation.  I’d already emailed the participants to let them know that Jason would be present and that he would be observing me (and not them).  Jason was very flexible in terms of where to sit and we decided that it would be nice if he sat amongst the participants so that he could follow the activities and discussions.

At 2pm my colleagues (the participants) started to arrive. I got them signed-in and seated with support resources by their side ready to start.  Unfortunately, although the room I use for staff development sessions ‘looks nice’ it does have some significant problems, especially with the chairs – once you’re in them you can’t easily get out!  The room also has quite a noisy air conditioning system, however without it you get very warm.  I asked the participants at the start if the temperature was right and they all agreed to leave it on – so I guess I needed to shout a little, which is ok.

By the time everyone was signed-in and seated I was running a little behind in an already tight schedule, so I needed to get on and I wasted no time in starting the session – so much so that I forgot to introduce my peer (sorry Jason!).  This didn’t matter so much to the participants as they were already aware why Jason was there from my earlier email, however I feel that another brief introduction at the start would have eased things a little more for Jason.  As everyone in the session was from the same School/subject areas, and as I pretty much knew everyone from my work supporting the School using various learning technologies, there wasn’t much need for any more introductions and so the session got off to a speedy start once I’d outlined the outcomes and overview of the session.

The session was designed as a blend of presentation, discussion, and hands-on practicals, which hopefully provided enough variety to keep participants engaged.  I have run similar sessions to this before, however after reflecting on some of the methods used during the PGCAP core module so far I decided to add in a group discussion activity using, believe it or not, the coloured shapes I purchased during the ‘Sell your bargains’ game (see additional reflection Mixed-relality game: Sell your bargains).  I know I could have used ‘post-its’, however the coloured explosions seemed more fun (and I only had the standard ‘yellow’ ‘post-its’ to hand).  Anyhow, why not give it a go.  The discussion activity was focused around the ‘Benefits and Challenges’ of e-marking and e-feedback and to ‘explode’ the myths (hence my explosively shaped cards).  I did slip up a little by incorrectly labelling the coloured cards according to my slide instructions, however this didn’t matter – it gave us all a laugh!  The activity was designed to engage participants in more ‘active’ rather than ‘passive’ learning (Anderson, 2007).  Usually, I skip over this section quite quickly by simply presenting some advantages and disadvantages to the group on a slide, however this method really did get everyone talking and considering e-marking and e-feedback in their own contexts and practices – which was great – a ‘facilitative’ rather than ‘didactic’ approach!  Both groups came up with some great benefits and also valid challenges – some which will remain, however some which were hopefully dispelled by the end of the session.  I also had some pre-prepared benefits and challenges to add (just in case the group ideas dried up).  This activity took longer than I’d envisaged, however I think it was well received and got everyone to participate.

One thing I do regret is that the participants weren’t able to move around and look at each others responses (due to the chairs!).  Perhaps next time I could do the discussion activity early on before participants are seated with the laptops, using the additional ‘circle’ and ‘sofa’ seating areas.

Much of the rest of the session was hands-on practicals – actually using and ‘playing’ with the GradeMark tool and having a chance to submit and mark an actual paper online.  I did have some structured activities for participants to follow however I didn’t insist that they did this (I wanted participants to explore the features most useful to them).  I tended to explain/demo features first before giving them a chance to ‘play’ and ask questions.  We had some good discussions around the participants own contexts and practices with regards to marking and providing feedback and there was plenty of opportunity to share practice in a ‘collaborative learning’ environment – one participant offered to share his existing rubrics with another participant who was struggling to see how rubrics could help him and/or his students.

As with any session involving technology, there were a few technical glitches, however most seem to happen during one particular activity (on rubrics) and I’m wondering on reflection if it wasn’t something relating to my activity (e.g. they were all trying to create a rubric on the same assessment at the same time).  I’ll need to review this for next time.  There were also some ‘bugs’ revealed in the GradeMark tool, which I’ll need to report to Turnitin and ensure a resolution is found.  Interestingly, when trying to explain that there were some ‘bugs’ one particular participant didn’t seem to understand and at first this puzzled me.  After chatting to him separately it was simply that being Italian he didn’t understand the term ‘bugs’ and so this was easily resolved by switching to use the more inclusive term ‘faults’ instead from then on.

The pace of the session I think went quite well and everyone managed to keep up, with the more technically savvy participants supporting others who were less familiar.  It was interesting that despite there being a prerequisite to have already attended an e-submission session two of the participants had not, and therefore needed some extra help understanding the whole ‘e-submission-e-marking-e-feedback’ process.  I acknowledged this and offered to spend some more time outside of the session getting them up to speed with e-submission.

Throughout the first half of the session Jason was busy taking his notes and I have to say that I was so at ease with Jason being there that it wasn’t a disruption at all.  Shortly after the first hour Jason quietly left, and from what he said I think he both enjoyed the session and also learnt something new himself – hope so!

After the session, it took a while to clear things away, however when I got back to my desk Jason had already emailed me some very useful feedback – both positive and also things to consider in the future.  I’m really pleased with how the session went, and with Jason’s feedback.  I’ll take some time to read it, follow up with a further discussion with Jason, and then reflect here some more.

Post-observation discussion with Jason

Jason’s feedback after the session was great to hear.  It’s surprising that no matter how well you know a subject and how many times you may have ‘taught’ on that subject, it’s always nice to hear that you still do something well.  I guess sometimes I feel that staff development sessions, which I repeat over and over, become a little ‘dry’ and there is a danger that I may lose my enthusiasm.  Jason’s comments around my energy levels and positive attitude were of comfort to me in this sense.

“Very positive attitude that facilitated the group members learning – Good energy levels.” (Vickers, 2012)

I’m really pleased that Jason saw value in the ‘Benefits and Challenges’ activity, as this is something that I’d developed from my own learning on the PGCAP (see additional reflection Mixed-relality game: Sell your bargains).  My reasoning behind this was to create a more ‘active’ rather than ‘passive’ learning environment (Anderson, 2007) and this seemed to come across.

“The benefits and challenges activity was very good. Prior to this some group members were quite passive and it engaged them well by addressing their own thoughts on the GradeMark system.” (Vickers, 2012)

Jason also picked up my attempt to allow participants to ‘play’ with the features rather than stick to the rigid structure of each task which did seem to go down well.  I’ve found in the past that for some learners too much structure can be discouraging.

“When you asked the group members to explore the comments section I liked how you gave people options for play with the package. Structured or unstructured to meet the individual learning styles.” (Vickers, 2012)

Jason was very complementary towards my ‘teaching’ and to my surprise didn’t seem to distinguish me from him and the rest of my PGCAP peers.  This was an early fear of mine – not being seen as a ‘proper teacher’, however I am beginning to realise that this is more in my head than in the heads of my peers.

“You have a great approach to teaching” and “Your strength of the lesson lay in how you engage the group members, through your natural teaching style and the activities you used.” (Vickers, 2012)

Jason also made some very constructive comments about how I may improve and develop the session in the future.  One observation made by Jason was that although I was an effective trouble-shooter throughout in terms of the technology, he was concerned that a larger group may have been more difficult to manage.  I think Jason is right which is why such a practical session is limited to 12 participants maximum.  Any more than 12 and it does start to become problematic to support all learners.

Jason also made the point that I may not have had time to explore the barriers to using the system or if any of the participants still had a fear of change or resilience to using GradeMark after the session.  This makes me think of ‘follow-up’.  Although I do provide a collaborative space for continued discussion and debate it’s very rarely used and therefore ineffective.  Perhaps I need to provide more of a ‘personal’ follow-up mechanism such as calling on the participants at a later date to capture their progress (or capturing why they haven’t progressed at all).

A huge thanks to Jason, and also to my colleagues in ELS who participated during the session 🙂

References

Anderson, J. (2007) Edgar Dale Cone of Experience Media Based on a work at http://www.edutechie.ws/ http://www.edutechie.ws/2007/10/09/cone-of-experience-media/ (licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License).

Vickers, J. (2012) “Reflection 2/6 – Peer Observation” Cheryl’s PGCAP personal blog, entry 24 February 2012, comment posted on 29 February 2012, https://cherylscpd.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/reflection-26-peer-observation/.

Mixed-relality game: Sell your bargains

Mix-n-Match: What’s the Theory? Or What’s the PROBology?

c.dunleavy@salford.ac.uk

The challenge

Many of my staff development sessions focus around learning technologies and how best to embed them into teaching, learning, and assessment practice.  I have two strands to my thinking around difficult concepts:

1. What’s the Theory? – it’s not often difficult to get staff excited about using learning technologies, however sometimes it’s difficult to get them to stop and think about the learning theory behind the technology intervention.  I’ve seen faces glaze over when ‘constructivism’ or ‘communities of practice’ is mentioned.  I need a way to make this more fun and engaging – and something that makes it stick!
2. What’s the PROBology? – quite often staff in my sessions are so enthused about using a certain learning technology that they forget to think about the ‘problem’ they are trying to resolve, and therefore their technology interventions become ‘technology driven’ rather than driven from a pedagogic teaching and learning rationale.  I need a way for them to really think about their teaching and learning problem first in a fun and engaging way.

The Intervention

Thanks to Phil for a great team effort 🙂

PGCAP Sell your bargains CoreJan12 – Cheryl from Cheryl Dunleavy on Vimeo.

The results

• Active rather than passive learning
• Get’s everyone up and moving
• Injects some colour and hopefully sparks ideas
• Able to remember key points raised during activity
• Facilitates peer discussion

Anderson (2007)

Anderson (2007)

Lessons learnt and transferability

I think the use of such tools are easily transferable. I’ve already used the coloured explosions in a staff development session to explore benefits and challenges of e-assessment – see my first ‘peer’ teaching observation.

References

Anderson, J. (2007) Edgar Dale Cone of Experience Media Based on a work at http://www.edutechie.ws
http://www.edutechie.ws/2007/10/09/cone-of-experience-media/
(licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License)

Reflection 1/6 – Educational autobiography

Cheryl Dunleavy’s Educational Autobiography from Cheryl Dunleavy on Vimeo.

What personal learning experiences have influenced my thoughts about teaching?

It’s interesting that telling ‘my story’ through the video (above) helps me to reflect on my own thoughts about teaching and learning, and what kind of teacher I aspire to be. I guess I’d hope never to ‘judge’ students on their academic credentials or suggest ‘education per-se wasn’t for them’ (in the words of my School Careers Officer). I believe that there is something that ‘lights the learning light’ within everyone – we just need to find what it is, and also find the best way of learning it, and as teachers we may hold some of the tools to facilitate this. For me, learning is ‘lifelong’ and ‘lifewide’. Learning isn’t just about formal education, but something that also occurs in the workplace, in the home, and/or other social contexts.

“For me, learning is ‘lifelong’ and ‘lifewide’. Learning isn’t just about formal education, but something that also occurs in the workplace, in the home, and/or other social contexts”

Also, as someone who achieved poor GCSE results re-entering formal education via a non-traditional route, I frown when I come across quotes such as,

“The brightest and most committed students still go to University, as they have in the past, but they sit alongside students of a rather different academic bent. The range of ability within classes is now considerable, which presents teaching-related problems to staff” (Biggs and Tang, 2007).

I take issue with this statement for two reasons, (1) just because someone comes from a different academic background or ‘bent’, does this mean they are less worthy of a University education? I believe not otherwise I for one would never have stood a chance, and (2) I would hope never to perceive students with academic difference as presenting a ‘problem’ for teachers – a ‘challenge’ perhaps. Surely, it is the teacher who needs to ensure the needs of all students are met – to be’ inclusive’. This may be difficult to achieve, however hopefully not impossible. In the same chapter Biggs and Tang (2007) introduce ‘constructive alignment’ and ‘outcomes-based teaching and learning’ (OBTL) and I look forward to developing my understanding of such techniques to help maintain standards, improve teaching, and help teachers to ensure they meet the needs of all students.

A Basic Model of an Aligned Curriculum (Biggs and Tang, 2007)
Image Source: www.ucdoer.ie/index.php/Using_Biggs%27_Model_of_Constructive_Alignment_in_Curriculum_Design/Introduction

Ensuring learning activities and assessments are mapped against the learning outcomes of a module can increase engagement across a whole module, rather than just at the end for ‘assessment’, and also enables tutors to think about the various methods available to encourage ‘inclusive’ and deep learning throughout.

Hockings et. al. (2008) carried out research into inclusive academic engagement and found that introducing more student-focused teaching methods aligned to the social constructivist theory of learning helped to engage learners as they contributed their “personal knowing to socially identified knowledge”.

As a tutor on the ALT module and wider as a staff developer within Academic Development I include myself as ‘teacher’ here and hope that I may explore such alternative approaches to teaching for my own professional practice – for example, inquiry/problem-based learning.

How do I learn?

Reflecting on ‘my story’ I guess it’s clear that I ‘learn by doing’ and also I ‘learn through life’- perhaps through  ‘experiential learning’.  Looking back, I had an early passion within me for working with technology, sparked initially by a supportive teacher in High School. However, when that teacher disappeared, I didn’t then have the confidence to take it further, however it was still there lying dormant within. When presented with an opportunity to experience my passion ‘in-practice’ through a number of different roles, I eventually gained the confidence to take my passion further ‘in-education’. The two for me are complementary – ‘in-practice’ and ‘in-education’. Without the opportunity to continuously ‘practice the theory’ I wonder if I’d of continued in education at all. Therefore, ‘context’ is key to my learning – perhaps the School Careers Officer was right in some sense – in that ‘education’ in its ‘traditional’ form wasn’t for me at that specific moment in my life.

One of the early readings in week 1 talked about the many definitions of ‘experiential learning’ in the literature (Moon, 2004), however I think ‘my story’ conveys both ‘experiential learning’ whereby I learnt within both formal education and work-based settings, and ‘learning from experience’ whereby I reflected on past experiences to inform future practice, taking forward my ‘experience’ from one role to the next.  I also think that through living ‘my story’ I take forward some learnt values and beliefs into my professional practice today.  This also resonates the learning theory ‘biographical learning’ (Alheit, 2009) which I was tasked to research as part of the ‘book tearing’ action learning set activity (see additional reflections ALS Activity: Learning Theories and Action Learning Set: Learning theories – the final cut!!).

How do my students learn?

I think I carry this teaching philosophy forward into my professional practice as I always try to embed ‘learning by doing’, or where this isn’t practical I try to find ‘real’ practice-based examples to offer some context. My students are also my colleagues and more often than not are academic teaching staff. Therefore, I am always very aware not to ‘preach’ to them about something which I have limited experience of – ‘teaching’. My main subject area is TEL and whilst I am knowledgeable in this area, having worked with many academic teams across two Universities to embed learning technologies into teaching, learning and assessment, I have not often been ‘in the shoes of the teacher’ myself. Therefore, I like to think that I ‘facilitate’ learning rather than ‘teach’. I hope that by participating on the ALT module, or by attending my staff development workshops, my colleagues’ and I work together to develop ideas around TEL in the context of their own practice – a sort of ‘collaborative learning’ experience. When preparing workshops around TEL I often seek help from my academic colleagues who have experience of embedding the TEL being discussed. For example, academic colleagues who have embedded ‘Google Docs for Group-work’ and ‘Clickers for Formative Assessment & Feedback’ have participated in my workshops as guest-speakers.  An example of this collaboration is shown below.

Supporting the students’ journey with Google Docs (Dunleavy et. al., 2011)

What does University teaching and learning mean to me?

I have always thought that University teaching and learning should be of high quality – even before the fee increase and ‘students as customers’ debate. The key here for me is that ‘teaching and learning’ go hand-in-hand. Teachers and students must enter into a partnership together to achieve high quality teaching and learning. A lack of commitment from either side will impact on quality and the teaching and learning experience as a whole. I think this stems again from ‘my story’ and perhaps an initial unwillingness to engage in formal education until I found a subject that I could be passionate about and be committed to. This commitment was matched by my teacher, Mr Webster, who was passionate about the subject at the same time as being passionate about enhancing my learning of the subject – a partnership.

What do I want my students to learn?

When I run a staff development workshop or provide one-to-one support, quite often it is in the area of TEL. More often than not my academic colleagues come to me with a teaching and learning problem and are wondering if learning technologies can help to resolve it, however they are ‘fearful’. For example, a teacher may be struggling to engage students in group-work due to issues of geography, participation, and role allocation. I may suggest that a Wiki (a collaborative web space) could facilitate group-work and alleviate some of the issues. Yes, that means they need to learn about Wikis, do a little research, and be shown how to set them up, however what I really want them to learn is not to be ‘fearful’ of experimenting with learning technologies so that the next time they have a problem they feel more confident to try out new ideas. On the ALT module participants are asked to plan, implement, and evaluate only one TEL initiative within their own practice, however I often hear stories of how they have gone on after the module to embed a number of other technologies into their practice due to their increased confidence and enthusiasm. That’s what I love about teaching – hearing the success stories, and seeing colleagues grow and develop.

What are my strengths as a teacher?

I think I care about my colleagues as my students – sounds obvious; however I have unfortunately experienced teachers who simply don’t care. I’m also quite an organised person and therefore I’m very unlikely to turn up to a workshop ‘unprepared’. I think this is quite important – ‘fail to plan, plan to fail’.

What areas do I need to develop further?

Perhaps my love of planning and organisation can sometimes make me a little inflexible? Perhaps I would benefit from reflecting more. I do tend to reflect ‘on-action’ after the event, however not necessarily ‘in-action’ in terms of thinking on my feet. We were discussing this in week 2.

“The practitioner allows himself to experience surprise, puzzlement, or confusion in a situation which he finds uncertain or unique. He reflects on the phenomenon before him, and on the prior understandings which have been implicit in his behaviour. He carries out an experiment which serves to generate both a new understanding of the phenomenon and a change in the situation” (Schön, 1983).

I also need to develop my skills in course design. As the majority of my ‘teaching’ is around staff development I don’t tend to use techniques such as ‘constructive alignment’ as I’ve never thought it necessary. Therefore, I’d like to explore this further through adapting some of my workshops in preparation for the teaching observations.

Another area where I feel I need to improve is assessment and feedback – in terms of both the ‘knowledge’ of methods and techniques, however also in terms of best practice.  As a relatively new tutor on the ALT module I have recently experienced assessing and providing feedback on summative work, which is quite new to me.  I struggled with this in terms of knowing how much feedback to provide, and I’m looking forward to discussing this particular topic with colleagues on the PGCAP.  Also, since the broadening of my role from TEL to academic practice I feel I need to develop my understanding of assessment and feedback in HE.

What will I do and by when? 

In the first few weeks I, along with my peers on the module, was asked to consider ‘where I am’ in terms of my knowledge and experience relating to learning and teaching in Higher Education (HE).  It helped to be provided with aids to facilitate this initial reflection and to ensure a clear link with the key themes of the module and the UK Professional Standards Framework (UK PSF) (The Higher Education Academy, 2011).

The Wheel of Teaching (pre-PGCAP)

UK PSF: Where I am Now (pre-PGCAP)

Wheel of Teaching	UK PSF
Planning	A1  Design and plan learning activities and/or programmes of study A4 Develop effective learning environments and approaches to student support and guidance
Designing	A1  Design and plan learning activities and/or programmes of study A4 Develop effective learning environments and approaches to student support and guidance
Teaching	A2 Teach and/or support learning K2 Appropriate methods for teaching and learning in the subject area and at the level of the academic programme K4 The use and value of appropriate learning technologies K5 Methods for evaluating the effectiveness of teaching K6 The implications of quality assurance and quality enhancement for academic and professional practice with a particular focus on teaching V1 Respect individual learners and diverse learning communities V2 Promote participation in higher education and equality of opportunity for learners
Supporting	A2 Teach and/or support learning A4 Develop effective learning environments and approaches to student support and guidance V1 Respect individual learners and diverse learning communities V2 Promote participation in higher education and equality of opportunity for learners
Assessing	A3 Assess and give feedback to learners
Feeding back	A3 Assess and give feedback to learners
Theories of learning	A5 Engage in continuing professional development in subjects/disciplines and their pedagogy, incorporating research, scholarship and the evaluation of professional practices K1 The subject material K2 Appropriate methods for teaching and learning in the subject area and at the level of the academic programme K3 How students learn, both generally and within their subject/disciplinary area(s) K4 The use and value of appropriate learning technologies
Scholarship	A5 Engage in continuing professional development in subjects/disciplines and their pedagogy, incorporating research, scholarship and the evaluation of professional practices K1 The subject material K2 Appropriate methods for teaching and learning in the subject area and at the level of the academic programme K3 How students learn, both generally and within their subject/disciplinary area(s) K4 The use and value of appropriate learning technologies K5 Methods for evaluating the effectiveness of teaching K6 The implications of quality assurance and quality enhancement for academic and professional practice with a particular focus on teaching V3 Use evidence-informed approaches and the outcomes from research, scholarship and continuing professional development V4 Acknowledge the wider context in which higher education operates recognising the implications for professional practice

During the Professional Discussion I revisited the Wheel of Teaching and UK PSF with the panel and talked about my development.

References

Alheit, P. (2009) Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning theorists … in their own words.  In Illeris, K. (Ed.), Biographical learning – within the new lifelong learning discourse (pp. 116-128).  Abingdon: Routledge.

Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Buckingham, Open University Press.

Dunleavy, C., Griffiths, L. & Sharman, S. (2011) Supporting the students’ journey with Google Docs, Poster presentation at Technology-Enhanced Learning Good Practice event, University of Salford.

Hockings, C., Cooke, S., Yamashita, H., McGinty, S. & Bowl, M. (2008) Switched off? A study of disengagement among computing students at two universities. Research Papers in Education, 23:2, 191-201 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520802048729.

Moon, J. (2004) A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning, Abingdon: Routledge.

Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action.  London: Temple Smith.

The Higher Education Academy (2011) UK Professional Standards Framework.