Teaching for the Realities of Student Life Today

Is this a record? A blog post that was started about three months ago that is only now seeing the light of day? Whatever about the realities of student life, the realities of my life are showing some creaks in my blogging scheme. But as the late great Leslie Nielsen said, that’s not important right now and instead I’m going to focus on what I did want to write about – namely ‘Teaching for the Realities of Student Life Today’. This was the theme of a recent Sipping Point teaching conversation session at DCU and it’s the theme of this blog post.

The goal of the above session was to develop awareness of common life challenges faced by many of our students and talk through some ideas that might help for the benefit of both students and lecturers. Dr Dónal Mulligan, DCU School of Communications, focused on commuting-related issues he is increasingly witnessing and gave some ideas for potential approaches to consider. Dr Claire Bohan, DCU Director of Student Support & Development, presented a timely snapshot of the types of issues reported by students and shared insights on what seems to make a difference. What follows is a quick rundown on what was discussed.

Donal GN 2.JPG
Dr Donal Mulligan, DCU School of Communications, presenting at ‘The Sipping Point’ earlier this year.

Dónal Mulligan began by exploring some of the issues about the impact of commuting on the educational experience, particularly when compared with student renting models that might have been pretty standard in the past. For starters, there is clearly a higher percentage of commuting students attending university today, illustrating the wider impact of exorbitant rent prices. Having conducted a straw poll of first year students in one undergraduate class, he discovered that 81% commute daily with more than half of those spending upwards of 90 minutes each way.

This trend is clearly having an impact on what is happening in the classroom: Dónal uses peer review extensively in his teaching and he has noticed an increasing perception of ‘lack of contribution’ being attributed to commuting students in group project peer reviews. In other words, commuting students were in some cases being seen as doing less work outside of class but in self-assessing their contributions, these same students did not seem to perceive this as an issue. This type of pattern “extending over multiple projects, or longer-term group-based work, increasingly isolates those students, with sometimes stark effects on grades, participation more generally, and wellbeing.” In programmes where group work is high stakes and indeed pivotal to the learning experience, this is obviously a very big deal for all concerned.

Claire Bohan then talked about the view from her side of the house, outlining a picture of the student body in terms of diversity and entry routes. She began by reminding us that the numbers of students at DCU have increased dramatically in recent years – there has been a 77% increase in student numbers since 2002 so perhaps not surprisingly there has been an increase in the demand for various student services. She then presented a snapshot of the types of issues reported by students and shared insights on what seems to help, including a sense of belonging and speedy access to advice.

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 10.49.47

CB What's important slide
Dr Claire Bohan, DCU Director of Student Support & Development, shares what seems to help.

Can lecturers make a difference?

Claire’s point about the value of informal reassurances from staff when interacting with students is also reflected in a useful chapter from Bamber & Jones (2015) that is worth checking out. Bamber & Jones advise that lecturers make efforts to build/facilitate community, and take steps to help students manage the learning process (eg time management) in conversations and guidance. Among Bamber & Jones’ other recommendations are a call for regular ‘reality checking’ in order to get a sense of topical and important student issues – a quick online poll or show of hands might be all it takes to get a powerful insight into the profile of students in the classroom and what matters to them at that time. Throughout the session the following questions and comments were made by those present:

  • How to address the challenges of group work within the confines of 12 weeks? It was suggested that communicating a very clear rationale for why group work is happening helps and ideally this type of group work ‘induction’ should happen early in 1st year. Dónal now explicitly teaches team dynamics and project management (eg delegation, process, remote collaboration) as early as possible, even in just a 30 minute slot if that’s all that is possible. He has also developed an adaptable Google Forms-based tool to enhance self and peer review practice and facilitate early lecturer intervention in addressing/minimising potential group issues.
  • What about the issue of loss of small/quiet spaces to work? This was acknowledged as an ongoing problem, with some good news that more spaces and furnishings are on the way to address. It was strongly recommended that for first years especially, it helps if rooms are booked for collaboration and if collaborative working sessions are timetabled during regular teaching hours – this can act to drive home the expectation that there is more to the process than simply showing up in class.
  • There was an interesting comment that for many their friends on the train are their ‘real’ cohort of social friends at college, given the amount of time spent in their company.
  • The timetabling question was raised – One attendee asked can it be rethought to enable more intensive teaching and time in the subject rather than fleeting hours here and there which may be much less effective.
  • Might digital tech play a role in all of this? There were some reservations that simply putting course materials or activities online may not be as impactful as it might seem.
  • Struggling students – what should the lecturer do when someone just doesn’t get it, despite repeated efforts to explain? Claire highlighted the success of the maths learning centre and encouraged referrals there if needed.
  • Finally there was a comment that perhaps the loss of career guidance at second level could be affecting student expectations as to what their courses really involve.

There were some silver linings to it all with the news from Claire Bohan that a spanking new ‘Leadership and Life Skills Centre’ is being developed at DCU. As well as leadership programmes at different levels, this will include students creating their own Personal and Professional Development Plans aimed at addressing many of the challenges described above. The availability of mindfulness workshops was also praised, particularly given the difficulties some students may have with worrying and switching off. I’m quite sure there is much more to be written on this overall topic from both staff and student perspectives (eg the experiences of first-in-family students) but my own immediate realities are closing in and so that is it for me for now.

References

Bamber, V. & Jones, A., 2015. Challenging students: Enabling inclusive learning. A Handbook for Teaching and Learning. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 152-169.

Advertisements

Teaching & Assessing in Labs: A non-scientific view

I didn’t want to let too much time to go by without noting a discussion I found particularly striking this past week. As part of this month’s Sipping Point, Dr Emma Coyle and Veronica Dobbyn from DCU School of Chemical Sciences kindly agreed to share their considerable experiences of teaching and assessing in the laboratory environment. The session also included a short tour of a lab to help contextualise the discussion. As someone who hasn’t set foot in a ‘real’ science lab since 1987, I was looking forward to getting a brief, nostalgic window into that part of the university – but the session turned out to also offer insights into approaches to teaching and assessment that I believe deserve a wider audience.

Veronica Dobbyn, Chief Technical Officer at the School of Chemical Sciences, began by focusing on various efforts made to accommodate students who may present in the lab with a disability.  To date types of disabilities encountered include: physical mobility impairments (such as broken limbs, wheelchair requirements), health impairments  (including epilepsy, spina bifida, diabetes, and eating disorders), and a broad range of learning and attention disabilities (such as ADHD, dyslexia, and autism spectrum disorders). Hearing and sight issues are also a possibility but these have been less frequent than those just listed.

Practical considerations 2With an emphasis on safety and the achievement of positive and successful learning outcomes for all students, Veronica outlined the kinds of accommodations that are being made to include students with disabilities in laboratory practicals. This conversation really drove home for me the ‘high stakes’ nature of the issues here given the presence of sometimes dangerous chemicals. For example, there may need to be discussions about whether a 1:1 lab assistant may be needed, there is a definite need to discuss and agree a proposed approach with students, and there are clearly availability/cost questions involved. Other simpler measures include the possibility of using preferential seating to reduce the level of extraneous stimuli, the provision of support for frequent practice, and inclusion of brief breaks throughout the practical as appropriate. It was also fascinating to hear about creative and thoughtful efforts such as the creation of a wheelchair-friendly ‘lab coat’ that could be removed quickly and safely if needed.

Veronica disc flume hood
Veronica Dobbyn taking us on the lab tour

Looking at lab pedagogies more generally, Dr Emma Coyle, lecturer in organic and medicinal chemistry, reminded us about the distinctive focus of laboratory modules, emphasising that students are there primarily to develop practical skills but also transferable skills and knowledge. She explained how assessment of practical skills is obviously best carried out within the lab itself but it can be extremely logistically demanding to do so – particularly where there may be 80 students at a time. She talked us through an approach recently implemented in a third year module where lab demonstrators play a pivotal role in the process: in this case, demonstrators assess the pre-lab preparation/planning with the students and then monitor/provide ‘on the fly’ feedback on students’ live performance throughout the lab assessment itself. She put the success of this assessment down to the high level of advance preparation, interaction, training, and communication between the academic supervisor/module coordinator, the lab demonstrators, and the students. There is clearly a strong element of effective peer-based learning at work here too that is worth considering in relation to other disciplines.

Emma disc Summary
Dr Emma Coyle outlining ‘lessons learned’ from assessment in the lab

This is really just a very short snapshot of what was said (1 hour was not nearly enough time to discuss!). However I’m hoping that these practices will be captured in more depth and disseminated in future case studies. Serendipitously in recent days I also received a copy of a very current and highly readable literature review focused specifically on good practices of assessment and feedback in the practical environment: Embracing alternative formats, assessment strategies and digital technologies to revitalise practical sessions in Science & Health (Bree, 2018) is well worth downloading and reading, if you would like further evidence and inspiration on this subject. Next up in this blog I plan to continue the student-centred theme in a forthcoming post about ‘Teaching for the Realities of Student Life Today’. 

References

Bree, RT (2018) Embracing alternative formats, assessment strategies and digital technologies to revitalise practical sessions in Science & Health. Editors: Akande, A., Brazil, D., Doyle, D., Harding, N., Kavanagh, Y., Maguire M., and Mulvihill A., TEAM Project Publication, Dundalk. Retrieved from https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/publication/embracing-alternative-formats-assessment-strategies-and-digital-technologies-to-revitalise-practical-sessions-in-science-health/

Game On: Initial insights on gamification in practice

The teaching of research literacy has been known to suffer adversely from a lack of student engagement, high levels of learner anxiety, and a general failure to transfer learning across multiple situations. In attempting to address such challenges Dr Louise Hopper spoke at a recent ‘Sipping Point’ teaching conversation about how she incorporated gamified formative learning activities into a first year undergraduate psychological skills module. As part of the National Forum funded DSTEP project, Dr Hopper wanted to examine the impact of gamification on learning, motivation, and attitudes towards statistics.  She found that some activities were enjoyed by students and seemed to deliver good results, but that additional support (particularly on how to work in groups) appeared necessary among recent school leavers. The following is a short summary of the talk, the approach applied, and early findings.

Louise Presents at SP
Dr Louise Hopper is an Assistant Professor in the School of Nursing and Human Sciences at Dublin City University (DCU), lecturing primarily in Psychology Research Skills. Pictured here speaking at The Sipping Point January 2019.

Dr Hopper started out this teaching practice-sharing session with colleagues by emphasising what her gamification approach was NOT – it was not about ‘Serious Games’ or a fully immersive or role-play approach such as Second Life. Instead it was about leveraging the mechanics of games that students find engaging and attempting to use those to address known issues such as students’ frequently low perceptions of their own abilities.

Debunking myths
Some of the myths about gamification – and the focus of this project

This gamification approach was designed such that a knowledge check quiz, which students were required to complete individually, was made available after the 2 hour lecture each week of the project. Students were also required to complete a 2 hour lab practical each week. A core goal was to avoid the use of “quizzes for quizzes sake” and ensure that all quizzes had clearly associated learning objectives. Students were able to choose their preferred feedback option (eg personal and/or normative feedback), learn from hints, retry, and make multiple quiz attempts.

Students were also assigned to groups and the idea was that progress was to be made by unlocking levels of content – all students within a group had to complete the quiz and achieve a certain standard ( 80-100%) before the next group activity could be ‘unlocked’. The intention of the group work was to encourage collaboration and peer learning.

That was the plan, at least. However we heard how problems emerged in week 1 when it quickly became clear that some students seemed reluctant to do anything that didn’t contribute to marks and didn’t want to “have to” meet peers outside of class time. However attitudes seemed to improve markedly upon introduction of a badge and a group leaderboard in the subsequent session, which generated a major buzz in the room, somewhat to the lecturer’s surprise at first.

Screen Shot 2019-03-04 at 20.37.06
Badges helped engagement with group activities

While the badges and leaderboard helped improve student engagement in some way, a number of other challenges became apparent over the course of implementing this approach:

  • There was insufficient time between the lecture and practical class for students to complete the individual task – this was due to timetabling challenges and is something Dr Hopper is going to try to address by enabling students to do more of the required work at home
  • There was a perception that weaker students and students who preferred to take time with each task struggled with the individual tasks and the time pressure to complete so that the next task for the group would be made available.
  • There was a general lack of motivation to work on the group tasks, perhaps as a result of a lack of knowledge in 1st years about how to work in groups (a familiar refrain in Sipping Point talks)

Based on this initial small-scale research, students seemed to respond very positively to the formative quizzes, the immediate feedback they received, the hints, and the badges. Initial feedback indicated that students wanted to do the quizzes ‘at home’ and do the group activities in class. They thoroughly enjoyed the ‘real world’ authentic links such as the behavioural profiling debates that emerged. The combination of gamified elements and psychology content seemed to go down well and students liked the idea of having control over their learning, including the freedom to make mistakes. Further developments on this project and its next phase will be released in due course. In the meantime, for more on the idea of ‘productive failure’ see the Innovating Pedagogy (2016) report referenced below (p16-18).

Positive Outcomes
Some learnings for Phase 2 of the project

Reference

Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi, C.K., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B. and Weller, M., 2016. Innovating pedagogy 2016: Open University innovation report 5.

The Inside Track on Outdoor Learning

I remember three things very vividly from my primary school education: on my first day of school, I remember feeling immensely proud of the little plasticine/márla ‘biscuits’ I made with the approval of my first ever teacher Mrs Kenny. A few years later, I remember the delight of learning the wonderfully atmospheric poem The Listeners by Walter de La Mare. And lastly, I cannot overstate the excitement of childhood memories from getting on the train in Galway and going to Dublin Zoo with my pals for a school tour. It is that last memory that leads me to this blog post where I’d like to share some thoughts on what I believe are the under explored opportunities of outdoor learning – not just for little ones but for much older students too.

At ‘The Sipping Point’ recently we ran a session on the great outdoors with a promise we would “experience some outdoor learning activities, and begin to appreciate the potential for learning in, through and about the outdoors”. So it was that on two days in January (one cold but crisp, the other cold and damp) we found ourselves gathered to set off on an ‘Outdoor Learning’ walk under the expert tutelage of Dr Orla Kelly, DCU School of STEM Education, Innovation & Global Studies.

So what exactly did we do, you may wonder? Here’s a very brief summary of what our group did in about 30 minutes:

  • We started off with everyone closing their eyes and identifying 10 sounds from the surrounding environment – conversations, distant and nearby traffic sounds, birdsong, the trundle of a pull-along suitcase, to name just some.
  • Then, keeping close to one another, we moved through park being asked to identify shapes we identified on our palms and then in nature.
  • Our next activity was what can only be described as a tree hugging exercise with a difference: we were asked to guide a colleague with his/her eyes closed towards a tree for them to explore with with their hands, keeping their eyes closed. During this process, the ‘guider’ was responsible for the safety of their peer,  ensuring the colleague did not stumble over twigs or walk into branches en route. The ‘hugger’ was then asked to identify the tree – which proved harder than it sounds, if one is deliberately thrown off the scent, I might add!
  • Next we gathered up a palette of nature’s bounty on a January day, sourcing different coloured and textured objects such as leaves, branches, and pine cones from the ground.
  • We finished with a short reflection on how we felt at the end of the walk, asked to write very briefly how we felt at that point. Words such as “alert” “happy”, “peaceful” “in touch with nature” – and yes “cold” – were all mentioned.

Applications of outdoor learning?

Back indoors we discussed the most striking aspects of the exercise, and if/how we might apply it elsewhere. Apart from the obvious novelty factor in doing something different with students, there seemed to be a number of promising opportunities for embracing the outdoors in teaching practice, including:

  1. As a team-building exercise – given the known challenges of group projects, we wondered if this type of experience might potentially help to prepare students for working in groups. At a minimum, it should help them get to know one another a little better.
  2. As a grounding/focusing exercise – the change of environment could potentially help to prepare students’ readiness for a task and declutter the brain from distractions. Notably none of us used our phones during the session – and didn’t even notice we hadn’t until after it was pointed out which says something these days.
  3. As a health and wellbeing enabler – the benefits of walking (versus sitting) probably need no further elaboration.
  4. As part of a commitment to sustainability which is at the core of the DCU Strategic Plan. As Orla described, it is important now more than ever that our students have opportunities to develop a love of nature, “as a precursor to pro-environmental attitudes and actions”.
  5. As a tool for reflection – speaking personally, this is where I see enormous potential as an academic developer. The session reminded me of an experience I had at a recent SEDA conference workshop on Walking as a Tool for Reflective Practice. Led by Susannah Quinsee and Anise Bullimore, this guided walk was particularly useful for the way it helped pairs of participants reflect on an experience “that went wrong” and learn from it for the future. Having seen first hand how the well the approach worked at a conference, and how useful it could be for encouraging conversations between colleagues, I have high hopes to give it a whirl at the next DCU Teaching and Learning Day.

If you are reading this and thinking it all seems rather simple, it is, and perhaps that is what makes it memorable. But isn’t that the beauty of it, if you have good reason and a suitable cohort to try it out? If you’d like further evidence, then check out the inclusion of outdoor learning in the Innovating Pedagogy 2019 report – the section on ‘Place-based Learning’ includes several examples and references if you wish to dig in to this topic further.

References

Ferguson, R., Coughlan, T., Egelandsdal, K., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Hillaire, G., Jones, D., Jowers, I., Kukulska-Hulme, A., McAndrew, P., Misiejuk, K., Ness, I. J., Rienties, B., Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Wasson, B., Weller, M. and Whitelock, D. (2019). Innovating Pedagogy 2019: Open University Innovation Report 7. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved from https://iet.open.ac.uk/file/innovating-pedagogy-2019.pdf

Video in Teaching, Learning & Assessment: A Snapshot of Two Experiences

In the final countdown towards the Christmas holidays, we’ve had two surprisingly well attended Sipping Point sessions on creative uses of video in teaching, learning, and assessment. With video becoming such a ubiquitous educational tool, there seems to be strong interest out there in learning how to make it work best for both students and lecturers in various teaching contexts.  What follows is a short account of what was discussed at DCU St Patrick’s and Glasnevin campuses on Dec 17th and 18th.

As usual, the sessions kicked off with two speakers who kindly agreed to share their experiences. Dr Tish Balfe, from DCU School of Inclusive and Special Education, discussed how she employs video in two ways: to assess students’ application of course content in the classroom and also to support social constructivist, peer learning between student teachers. In the first case, Tish explained how the assignment requirement of uploading video clips allowed observation of how and to what level the students were actually applying course content within the primary classroom. Furthermore, the use of video to share practice during a research project supported self and group reflection on what students were observing. For example, while initially somewhat uncomfortable sharing clips of themselves, the students reported that they benefited and learned from gaining a very authentic visibility into others’ professional practice and style.

Tish Balfe at Gnvn - Advs of Video Slide
Dr Tish Balfe, DCU School of Inclusive and Special Education presenting at ‘The Sipping Point’

Dr Daniela Lehwaldt, DCU School of Nursing & Human Sciences, talked about her ongoing work on an Erasmus+ funded eCoNNECT project that involves the development of four videos for a blended learning module. Geared towards nursing students on practice placement, the project employed various novel technologies and drew on a range of expertise for filming and editing. For example H5P (interactive video) technology was used to create moments where students make ‘on the spot’ decisions about what they’re seeing within the videos. In this case a substantial team of people were involved in the production process, including professional actors and multimedia technology experts working alongside the academic lead.

Daniela Explains Script - cropped
Dr Daniela Lehwaldt explains the scripting process followed for the eConnect Project

These were both clearly very different approaches but I think it interesting to note that in both cases, the videos were being used as a spark or discussion point to generate deeper dialogue between students. Both approaches were being employed in a blended learning context, with students discussing the videos in more depth (particularly the challenging aspects) collectively as a group in a face-to-face environment. True to the form of the Sipping Point, several comments and questions were raised about the approaches shown, including:

  • Was the professional, team-based filming approach worth it? Or could simpler, less time-consuming and expensive approaches be employed? (Yes to both, seemed to be the consensus. Having funding to employ a professional team (particularly for acting and editing) worked well in this case but this does not preclude more basic approaches that do not require the services of a dedicated professional team.)
  • What are the ethical issues to consider around video creation and sharing? (Student ownership, control, and storage of the video are central to this, and of course, consent.)
  • Where is it possible to find the audio clips used for background noise, etc? (https://freesound.org/ was highly recommended as Creative Commons licensed database of sounds.)

I plan to share more video-related resources with the attendees soon, particularly in relation to reuse of existing Open Educational Resources (OERs) and further information about H5P. On a logistical note, it was difficult to know if this is a good or a bad time to run a teaching conversation session like this. Given that teaching at DCU just finished on Friday December 14th, attendance at the sessions could have gone one way or another – although very late in the semester, it turns out quite a number of people (29) were game to come along the week after teaching finished, which is something to keep in mind for future scheduling, whenever possible. To everyone who bravely presents at or comes along to the Sipping Point, or indeed reads this blog, may I take the opportunity to wish you a peaceful, restful Christmas and the best of health and happiness in 2019. I look forward to sharing more tea and company with you soon.

UDL at DCU – What’s happening on the ground?

At our most recent Sipping Point, the focus was on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as a means of positively impacting the learning experience of all students at DCU. Karina Curley (Student Support & Development), Carol Ellis (Disability Officer) and Karen Buckley of the Teaching Enhancement Unit (TEU) ran two very well-attended sessions that highlighted principles, survey findings, and forthcoming initiatives aimed at informing and supporting staff in this area.  The following account summarises and reflects on some of the points that were made as the conversation unfolded.

The introductory presentation started out with some definitions of UDL including one that described it as ‘An approach to teaching that consists of the proactive design and use of inclusive instructional strategies that benefit a broad range of learners, including students with disabilities’ (Scott, McGuire & Foley, 2003). Setting the scene for the session, it was also acknowledged that while nothing can ever be truly ‘universal’ (Mace, 1998) cited in McGuire et al., we can usually improve on the things we design to make them more usable.

The presenters went on to discuss the work done by University College Dublin (UCD) in formulating ‘9 principles of Universal Design for Instruction’, giving specific examples of how certain principles could be realised in teaching. For example, it was suggested that the principle of Equitable Use could potentially be furthered by consistently making slides available to students before class. In another example, the principle of Perceptible Information could be achieved through efforts to create more readable slides via usage of a sans serif font at a minimum font size 24 pt.

But while few would argue with the thinking that UDL is, in general, a good and positive ideal to consider, the purpose of this session was to unpack how the approach might be supported and implemented in teaching practice. In the conversations that emerged during the open floor discussion, the following comments and questions were made:

St Pat’s Session

  • Is the use of UDL-related terminology a barrier and might it be preventing staff from engaging with the concept (despite the fact that they may actually be adhering to many of its principles in practice)?
  • Is UDL perceived as another, potentially onerous, expectation to be added to an already hectic teaching load? The importance about achieving buy-in from staff was made several times and the point was made that it should be recognised as something that is part of good teaching rather than somehow interpreted as a separate niche activity that is relevant only to certain types of students.
  • Could publication of marking descriptors represent a ‘quick win’ for staff in furthering the reach of flexible assessment? One of the attendees wondered if that might spur students to question/appeal the marks they received which opened a further conversation about the need to develop robust, clear, and inclusive marking criteria.
  • Are many problems due to the restrictions of the teaching space, for example the use of rooms/theatres that are simply not appropriate to the class size or intended pedagogy? The limitations of such spaces was highlighted as a significant issue for some of our staff (e.g. visually impaired or wheelchair using lecturers) as well as students.
  • The need to build in UDL principles across the curriculum was mentioned – the need for programme level (not module level) thinking was emphasised.
  • A number of attendees mentioned the value of developing practical, achievable case studies to highlight what people are doing in their practice with respect to UDL – this was highlighted as something that would potentially be of use/value to staff who want to take these principles on board.
  • Another tool suggested was some kind of checklist that enables staff to evaluate their courses against key UDL standards – as well as identifying strengths, this could help to target areas for improvement. It was emphasised that some form of scaffolding would be needed to exemplify what it means to make progress in each of the 9 principles highlighted above.
Some Participants at Sipping Point Glasnevin UDL
Some of the participants at the Glasnevin Sipping Point Session on UDL

Glasnevin Session

The discussion at Glasnevin brought up a number of similar themes. The UDL checklist suggestion was reiterated again, to help aid understanding of what needs to be done with respect to fonts, labels, subtitles etc. Furthermore:

  • It was acknowledged that “withholding” of resources/notes was happening, generally with the intent of encouraging students to attend lectures in person. This led to a discussion about whether or not it is advisable to do this. The following guidance from University College London (UCL) about making lecture materials available in advance offers several pointers to help you evaluate that approach from both staff and student perspectives.
  • Attendees present from DCU Open Education made the point that their team commits to making all course materials available online from September each year. Acknowledging the high workload involved in making these resources and activities available upfront, the freeing benefits of this approach over the remainder of the year were also noticed.
  • The importance of offering a variety of assessment methods (e.g. an introductory video as an alternative to an in-person presentation) was underlined. However, feedback from the staff survey indicated that providing these important resources requires significant time investment in terms of setting up flexible assessments, and this needs to be recognised when measuring academic outputs. “The investment can often go unrecognised compared to publishing articles etc and therefore this needs more encouragement from the academic system.”
  • The need to better understand assessment equivalences was mentioned. A starting point for exploration and further discussion at School level may be the UCD guide on assessment equivalences (Galvin, Noonan & O’Neill, 2012).

These sessions highlighted forthcoming activities that should be of interest to staff seeking to inform their knowledge and practice of inclusive approaches – watch out for a series of student panel discussions and a visit from UDL expert Dr Abigail Moriarty of De Montfort University in February 2019.  The Sipping Point sessions culminated with an open invitation to join the UDL in DCU Working Group to move ahead and act on the important points raised.

Karen Speaking at UDL
Karen Buckley of the TEU presenting at the UDL-focused Sipping Point. Karina Curley (Student Support & Development) & Carol Ellis (Disability Office) collaborated on this presentation.

References

Galvin, A., Noonan, E. and O’Neill, G. (2012) Assessment: Assessment Workload and Equivalences. UCD Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/UCDTLA0038.pdf

McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. and Shaw, S. F. (2006) ‘Universal design and its application in educational environments’. Remedial and Special Education 27(3), pp. 166-175).

Padden, L., O’Connor, J., Barrett, T., (2016). Universal Design for Curriculum Design: Case Studies from UCD.

Scott, S., McGuire, J. M. and Foley, T. (2003) ‘Universal design for instruction: a framework for anticipating and responding to disability and other diverse learning needs in the college classroom’ Equity & Excellence in Education, 36(1), pp. 40-49.

Making Group Work ‘Work’: Conversations on a theme

This month at The Sipping Point  our teaching conversations focused on the theme of ‘Making Group Work ‘Work’’. This particular topic attracted the most people yet to the Sipping Point so for those who couldn’t be there,  I think it’s well worth reflecting on some of the points that emerged.

At St Patrick’s campus, the session opened up with the irrepressible Martin Molony (DCU School of Communications) asking us to consider common group work stereotypes. No doubt familiar to many of those in the audience, these ‘types’ ran the gamut from the uber enthusiasts to the seemingly work shy. We were presented with the common challenges of group work which included varying abilities, varying skillsets, varying motivations, and varying commitment levels. In a nice about-turn of transforming a negative into a positive, we were asked to encourage students to think about these challenges as potential opportunities and indeed enablers of successful group work.

Group Work Session St Pats
Some of the attendees at the DCU St Patrick’s Sipping Point

The inspiring Susan Pike (DCU School of STEM Education, Innovation & Global Studies)  walked us through several examples of different types of group work projects she has been running in geography teacher education. These ranged from projects that had small groups of students getting to socialise and know each other through completing a local field trip, to class-wide activities that got everyone engaged in a collective, high-energy buzz about the posters they created. The confidence-building effects of these activities proved a wonderful counterpoint to all the negative ‘stuff’ we tend to hear about group work in HE, reminding us of why it’s so important to include it in curricula in the first place. Luckily we had a number of geography specialism students at the session to help us see things from the student perspective. The big takeaways that stood out for me were that:

  • Students enormously valued time in class to do work on their group projects – this request seemed all the more pertinent these days when so many students are working and/or commuting
  • Students strongly preferred to self-select their own group members (well these 4th years did…but staff present agreed that there are times when ‘mixing it up’ is beneficial for students getting to know each other)
  • Students seem to meet up face to face generally – in the follow-on discussion, we wondered if perhaps they are missing an opportunity to meet online? Is there more us lecturers should be doing to encourage that, once students have met each other and are comfortable with the idea?

At the Glasnevin campus, the conversations continued, with the following highlights:

Sipping Point Glasnevin Group Work
The lively discussions continued at the Glasnevin Campus
  • A ‘cake’ metaphor offered a novel way to describe certain group work dynamics: in Martin’s experience, students tended to want to slice the cake via individual contributions, whereas most lecturers are interested in helping students work together to bake the cake.
  • The importance of discussing proposed group work with students and explaining the rationale behind it was strongly emphasised. This advice is very much reflected in the excellent resource developed by Dundalk IT which offers an assessed group work framework for programme teams and lecturers to plan and manage their group work in more effective ways. A paper by Davies (2009) was cited as another practical and research-informed resource to explore. There was another shout out too for the super work done by Dónal Mulligan on developing a Google Forms-based peer review system within group work. You can read more about that in his EdTech 2018 presentation.
  • Various approaches on group ‘selection’ were discussed, such as the pros and cons of empowering students to select their own members versus the perhaps unexpected benefits that randomisation might provide. One attendee talked about how her students gave positive feedback welcoming random selection of group members. Another suggestion shared was the idea of allowing students in a group to select one friend that they know and are comfortable with, while the lecturer identifies the other pair to work on the project.
  • To help promote group accountability, based on positive experience, it was also suggested that we encourage students to adopt typical professional behaviours such as agenda setting and minute taking.

We could have talked for hours and if nothing else, this session absolutely confirmed that those attending are passionate about trying to make group work a success within their disciplines. Somewhat off point, but interesting nonetheless, I think it worth mentioning that it was noted that this topic attracted an almost exclusively female attendance. Why is it that group work (and the management of group work) seemed to attract so many women but so few men? Was it purely coincidental on this occasion or just a topic that seemed to speak more to women for some reason? Let’s regroup to consider that one another time, perhaps.

References

Davies, W. M. (2009) ‘Groupwork as a form of assessment: common problems and recommended solutions’, Higher Education, 58(4), pp. 563–584.