Category: Teaching & Learning Unit

I took a look at a few of my peers blogs to see what kind of blog posts they were posting – it felt like I was having a nosey in their personal diary which felt a little weird and intrusive. It’s been recommended to give feedback on blog entries, and it’s been eye-opening to see how we have all tackled the blogging task differently. Some have been very reflective on their own practice, others have used it to note any interests which have come up throughout the week, others digesting the allocated reading through their written text. It made me reflect on my own blog, and how I could improve my entries. The continuation of the imposter syndrome.

All in all, I’ve found the blogging aspect quite difficult as each blog post I do feels like a mountain to climb. I do a lot of reflection individually and more privately, but posting it publicly feels like a mammoth task when it really doesn’t have to. I guess writing like this (and more importantly, publicly) doesn’t come very naturally to me, and I truly dislike the fact that this counts towards assessment. I understand that this type of regular blogging could be less daunting to some, but personally, I would prefer to be tasked a singular written piece of academic writing where I would be in a different head space to be critical and reflect on both readings and practice. This feels like such a grey area, I don’t feel like this way of working works for me.

Additionally, the form of leaving comments on each others blogs for me works in concept but still leaves a strange feeling. I feel that I have contributed well in online discussions, signposting to references I think would be useful for my peers. I also created a Microsoft Teams group for the students within our group so that we could share resources and links organically – something unfortunately I have only contributed to. Nevertheless, when I questioned the use of it and whether to continue, my peers told me they have found it useful, and to continue to share the links (e.g. Data Feminism talk from King’s) as and when they crop up. I had hoped for group-sharing, but perhaps this is indicative of what happens when things are created without group consensus, or amongst peers who are not familiar (other than through the teaching & learning space) with each other. Another peer actually asked if it’s worth creating a small support group as new teachers which I thought was great, so with permission from both, I created a WhatsApp group for the three of us to discuss ideas (and worries/concerns!) about our micro-teaching session prior to that happening. This supportive structure has been very helpful, and it’s really nice to speak with those who are in the same situation. Maybe this works better as it’s a smaller group of us.

I am happy that peer-to-peer feedback happens quite organically, and I have not limited myself to doing this through the blogs. I guess this is the downfall to measurability – some things are hard to see and assess.

Object-Based Learning (OBL) is a student-centred learning approach using objects within the classroom for visual thinking and visual literacy strategies. It encourages the student to create the focus of the enquiry, through asking questions and being inquisitive, creating deeper meaning. The most common place for OBL is in a museum setting, where an artefact from the archives or museum collection is brought out for participants to react to. OBL can create a space for intercultural dialogue to embrace intercultural diversity. As Chatterjee and Hannan note, ‘a core facet of object-based learning is its multisensory nature; the use of objects in teaching invokes a variety of senses and encourages a form of interactive or experiential learning which has been encapsulated in Kolb’s (1984) cycle of learning (Figure I.1).‘ (p.1, 2016)

According to UCL, the benefits of using real objects in learning include:

• providing a direct link with a topic or ‘the past’ and can enhance the interest in and understanding of a topic/subject.
• encourage learners to use all their senses – especially touch, sight and smell
• help to develop the important skill of drawing conclusions based on an examination of evidence, together with an understanding of the limitations and reliability of evidence
• ideal for generating group and class discussion
• promote the value of museums and encourage young people to visit museums and galleries with their families to further their learning.

Design & Delivery of the Microteaching Session

For this Microteaching session, the task was to deliver a 20 minute session on OBL and it was entirely up to me in terms of how to deliver this online session. I tried to mimic the museum setting in which OBL is often used by using an online archive which is available through the Shades of Noir website called Tell Us About It, and used an artefact to reflect on in the microteaching session. The session was designed to introduce the archive as a resource, and then to focus on a specific artefact within the archive to reflect upon. To ensure a student-centred approach, I gave the students some time to view a specific artefact (by Yasmeen Melius) and to contemplate the piece. I gave some prompting questions to consider which was also added to a Padlet board for the students to add their thoughts to: What is Yasmeen trying to say? What stood out to you? How can this artefact inform your teaching practice?

The discussion which took place was fruitful, and the 20 minutes shot by. I wanted to make sure there was enough time to consider the artefact and to reflect individually before coming together as a group, but on reflection I think I should have reduced the individual reflection time by a fraction to enable a longer discussion as a group. However, the feedback suggested that it was better to have that time to fully digest the piece. Perhaps the artefact touches on a heavy topic which can’t be digested too quickly.

Although I have begun my placement within LCC, I have yet to deliver a taught session which was led by me (although I have a session coming up on Wednesday which I’m very nervous about!) so this felt like a whole new experience. I felt like I was in safe hands with my peers, who gave me feedback to consider for when I do deliver my first session.

I hadn’t realised that there would be time for feedback embedded within the session, so when I was preparing the presentation I had put in a MentiMeter page so that my peers could submit anonymous feedback so I could learn from my micro-teaching experience.

The verbal feedback I received included the following:

• the session was well-paced and it was clear
• it was good to have the time to digest the piece
• it never felt rushed
• it’s great that it considers how it may inform our teaching practice
• it could be pitched for a Staff Development session
• very good to have a trigger warning, enabling students the option to opt out or leave if it’s something that triggers them
• great to have a set of resources out of UAL as well as within
• better to turn mic off during self-reflection as the sound was distracting.

Overall, it was nice to have a safe environment for me to explore my first online teaching experience. The feedback was positive which gives me some confidence for my next teaching session to take place on Wednesday with the BAUXD cohort. In future, I will remember to turn my microphone off when there is no need for me to speak, so that it prevents from distracting the students. I will also remember to keep a steady pace, and allow for time for reflection and for silent contemplation. Silence isn’t something to be scared of, and it never needs to be filled for the sake of it.

---

References

Chatterjee, H. J. and Hannan, L. (2016) Engaging the Senses: Object-Based Learning in Higher Education. Ashgate Publishing: New York.

Melius, Y. (n.d.) Reaching Out. Available from: http://www.shadesofnoir.org.uk/artefacts/tell-us-about-it/#yasmeen-melius [Accessed 17 March 2021]

Ross, F. (2021) Object Based Learning – Yasmeen Melius Padlet. Available from: https://padlet.com/f_a_ross/OBL [Accessed 17 March 2021]

Shades of Noir (n.d.) Tell Us About It. Available from: http://www.shadesofnoir.org.uk/artefacts/tell-us-about-it/ [Accessed 17 March 2021]

UCL (n.d.) Teaching & Object-Based Learning. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/culture/schools/teaching-object-based-learning [Accessed 17 March 2021]

This week we were looking at the differing forms and values of feedback. First, there were two reading tasks, one in a form of video, the other a short case study.

The video was called Performing With an Invisible Audience by Hattie Walker and Helen King, published in June 2020 so very much after the move to online delivery due to the national lockdown. It covered methods on how to overcome the challenges of performing to an invisible audience and how to take advantage of the opportunities this situation of online teaching provides as well. It referenced Patsy Rodenburg and her Three Circles of Energy (2008) – where you aim for the second circle – when energy is focused and connected to specific points outside of yourself (audience is made of individual people). The encouragement was to let your personality in as it would engage the audience more as you exude your passion, and to look at the ‘black dot’ – the camera on your laptop or webcam, so that viewers can feel like you’re talking to them. I found this irritating to listen to. There was something about this video which made it feel like a performance in itself, completely fake and disingenuous. I didn’t feel like I was being drawn in to the session in any way.

A few of things I liked about the video was how it told you to be kind to yourself, and not to aim for perfection. To be yourself, and to let your personality show through your passion. Lessons being recorded makes it feel like anything you say or do can be permanently recorded and referenced in years to come, making it a bit of a daunting task. What if you stumble, or make a fool of yourself? What if you freeze half-way through a lecture? As much as we need to show the act of care to our students, we need to show ourselves some love and kindness by not aiming for perfection. None of us are perfect. It’s fine to embrace the mistakes.

Next, the short case study excerpt is from Bruce Macfarlane’s 2004 book Teaching with Integrity: The ethics of higher education practice (Routledge), in which a fictional lecturer, ‘Stephanie’, receives feedback on her teaching in the form of student evaluation forms and a peer observation. 

Which aspects of Stephanie’s teaching practice appear to be the most fertile for development? 

The feedback suggests that her teaching practice is ‘too theoretical’, so she could perhaps apply the theoretical knowledge to ‘real-life practices’ or deliver interactive workshops where the students apply the theoretical learning to practice. Maybe Stephanie could consider having different formats of the readings, such as video links, podcasts, etc instead of purely academic-heavy theoretical writing. 

It also sounds like the students would benefit from having the resources in advance and online, as it would cater for different learning needs. For example, as somebody with dyslexia, I appreciate having the slides in advance so I can annotate as I go along rather than have them separate to my notes. It also sounds like she could do some assessment workshops to go over the assessment criteria and to really break down the assessment requirements. Perhaps having a Q&A session, or an online Q&A space for students to raise any questions regarding their upcoming assessment. 

What could Stephanie do to move past her defensive response? 

She could consider the benefit towards the students rather than thinking about her own priorities. It sounds like her teaching is stuck in a static, rather outdated method, and she would benefit from speaking to her junior colleague who has some innovative ideas. She could start a discussion group with her students to see what they would prefer, to include them in the decision making of what goes forward, to develop on their feedback to make her sessions more engaging for her students. 

Are there any interesting questions or problems that this case study raises for you?

Why is the focus for Stephanie her research, which is more individualistic, rather than on the delivery of a module to students? It sounds like she only teaches to enable her research, and should consider being more student-centred rather than ‘teacher-centred’. Why can Stephanie not be a ‘critical friend’ to her peer, and vice versa? Surely the peer observation is meant to be beneficial for feedback rather than holding back critical feedback for improvements. Stephanie clearly didn’t explain why peer observations / evaluations are useful to the students if the feedback was ‘why should we do it when lecturers get paid to do it’. 

Further questions raised in a group discussion included the following:

• How can we ensure better structure and systems for feedback as part of transparent pedagogy?
• Has Stephanie lost some objectivity due to her feeling towards her students, and competing workloads and demands?
• Why is it important to mention that Stephanie was a member of the Church of England?
• How can we constructively use the feedback that has been given to inform our teaching practice, even if we have strong convictions about the feedback?
• How can we present complex material without alienating students?
• How or should teaching excellence be held in equivalence with professional research outputs?
• Who gets to embody the institution, and do institutional demands mitigate against open reflection?

Finally, I will examine the difference between feedback and feed forward. (Open Awards, 2018)

Feedback: providing information to students about where they are in relation to their learning goals. I tallows students to evaluate progress, identify gaps or misconceptions and take remedial action. It is important that all feedback is: constructive, honest, specific and supportive.

Summative feedback and final grades can be considered as opportune moments for feedback. It’s useful to reflect on how an individual has achieved according to the marking criteria. Timely, specific and constructive feedback will enable the students to improve their work for future assessments or in general.

Feed forward: looking ahead to subsequent assignments and offers constructive guidance on how to do better. Some common problems include: timeliness, regularity, approaches to feedback and missed opportunities, passive learners and trouble understanding feedback, and finally a lack of overview.

Examples of feed forward includes formative feedback, tutorials, crit sessions, self-reflection. Feed forward can provide constructive guidance on how to improve or progress the work. It can develop a stunts confidence, expand their research interests or give some reassurance that they’re on the right track.

Finally, it’s important to remember that feedback can be generated by tutors, peers, mentors, supervisors, or by the individual as a result of self-assessment. It should be a cyclical and iterative process, not a linear one.

---

References

Academic Practice Directorate (2020) Performing with an invisible audience. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl5a_eU_H0o&feature=youtu.be [Accessed 03 March 2021]

Macfarlane, B. (2004) Teaching with Integrity: The Ethics of Higher Education Practice. Routeledge: Abingdon.

Open Awards (2018) Feedback and Feed Forward. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHAXibq2H-Y&ab_channel=OpenAwards [Accessed 03 March 2021]

Rodenberg, P. (2008) The Second Circle: How to Use Positive Energy for Success in Every Situation. Penguin Group: London.

‘Love is a combination of care, commitment, knowledge, responsibility, respect and trust.’

bell hooks (2002)

What a fantastic session. We came prepared by having read at least two of the wide selections of reading exploring ‘love, care and belonging’, and a view on how it can be applied within our teaching context. Instead of it being a top-down approach to teaching, Linda invited us into a dialogic space to discuss our views on the readings, and to elaborate on why we thought love, care and belonging was necessary in teaching, particularly during these uncertain times. Apparently this was a new session planned in for the PgCert due to the additional challenges everyone is experiencing at the moment, to reflect on the vital role of the teacher-learner relationship in monitoring and enhancing the wellbeing of students. A very welcome one at that.

We reflected on how it’s a very difficult time for everyone, and how pastoral care is essential. There are sometimes students who have insecurities about their academic ability, and who question whether they are on the right course. There are lots of obstacles and difficulties students experience, and now more than ever could be more isolating for them during our third national lockdown.

It’s important to work as a team (rather than in isolation/silos) when supporting students, and to set parameters on what we do and don’t share. Fostering a sense of belonging is important (UAL, n.d.), and it’s equally important to recognise when a student has not attended, to touch base with them afterwards (by email) to see if they’re ok and to note that you noticed they didn’t attend. A little reminder that you care about their wellbeing goes a long way.

Even creating informal spaces for students to talk to each other, particularly when they are unable to do it in person, is a form of care and a way of creating a sense of community and belonging. What would have happened organically if the teaching were to be taking place face-to-face needs to be facilitated for. You can create a buddying system or encourage reading groups, you do not have to facilitate the sessions as an academic, but you can play a vital role in instigating the sessions which the students then take ownership from.

Care in an academic environment forces an individual to show a level of empathy, to put themselves in another’s shoes, and to consider the language used. Mutual patience between student and teacher is required, and if the wrong language comes up (e.g. colloquialisms) it can lead to the person feeling uncomfortable (e.g. if English is not their first language, the use of colloquialisms may make them feel inadequate in their language ability if it’s not understood). Care in teaching encourages a level of comfort and trust from the student to the teacher.

When discussing what people have done to create a sense of belonging and care, a few interesting examples were mentioned:

• relating wholeheartedly to another person (listening to the student(s))
• telling students that you are hearing them. e.g. paraphrasing what they have said to indicate that you are listening
• setting parameters and a routine of when you can meet with students – this managed their expectations. e.g. regularity in 20 minute weekly tutorials.

Megan shared a gem on the 5 levels of listening. To be a good listener, you want to aim for level 4 and 5, to be an attentive and active listener. Good listening encourages the person you are listening to to expand further on what they are saying, something which is vital within teaching. For example, during a tutorial, instead of interrupting, hijacking or advising the student too soon, it is better to listen carefully and to invite them to expand further on their ideas, or to even prompt them with questions which helps the student reflect on their ideas. This in turn gives the student the confidence in what they already know, with some prompting nudges for further investigation.

---

References

hooks, b. (2002) Communion: The Female Search for Love. HarperCollins: New York.

UAL (n.d.) Fostering belonging and compassionate pedagogy. Available from: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/223417/AEM3_FBCP.pdf [Accessed 17 February 2021]

Ward, L. (n.d.) How to increase your listening skills. Available from: https://www.slickpivot.com/bloginputpage/how-increase-listening-skills [Accessed 17 February 2021]

John Holmwood’s chapter on ‘Race and the Neoliberal University: Lessons from the Public University’ (2018) calls to question the impact of ‘privatisation’ of higher education following the 2008 global financial crisis, which sadly led to the removal of all public funding for HE courses for arts, humanities and social sciences courses (and the impact being seen through the increase in tuition fees). The value placed on a HE degree by the government is therefore reduced to the measurable economic return in the labour market. With the sudden increase in tuition fees (from roughly £3,000 to £9,000 in 2012) and the financial burden that students are now faced with (psychologically, may I add, for those taking out a SFE Student Loan… as technically speaking the likelihood of all students paying off their loans within 30 years of starting their career [plan 2 loan] is next to impossible, so ironically it still falls back to the taxpayers, see Holmwood 2018, p.46), the expectation students (and their parents) place on the economic return of a degree is greater than before, turning student to consumer and university as a hub of education and engine to social change to business.

To what extent are individuals personally responsible for their success?

The idea of higher education as a personal responsibility would seem to reinforce existing socioeconomic inequalities.

Holmwood, J. (2018 p.38)

To think that individuals are personally responsible for their own success is a very neoliberal view which would have been championed by Margaret Thatcher (and Ronald Reagan) in the 1980s. This individualistic view does not take into consideration an individuals socio-economic background, implicit biases and structural racism, gender biases, or the intersectionality of these barriers which would impact the ease at which ‘success’ is achieved. Nor does it consider the differing levels of privileges individuals inherit, such as economic, social or cultural capital. What even is the definition of success? Is it to make a difference in the world, or to make £150k per annum? This very much depends on where value is placed, so is very subjective.

Within the Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs), a blind eye is turned to the levels of free labour individuals feel is a necessity to undertake in order to succeed. In this instance, I frame ‘success’ as breaking into the industry. Unpaid (or low paid) internships (or ‘volunteering’ which have replaced some internships as a loophole to avoid the now illegal unpaid internships) are at the heart of the meritocratic discourse, paintings those who are able to undertake these internships as passionate and ‘doing it for the love of it’, and those who cannot (for many reasons such as not having the time, money or contacts) as not wanting it enough. To suggest that an individual is personally responsible for their own success is shortsighted.

Even within higher education, the BAME attainment gap (or what Dr Gurnam Singh likes to rephrase as the awarding differential) is evidence that there is something which creates a difference in experience for success (in this instance, success is framed as attainment – achieving a high grade (1st or 2:1, A-B grades, merit or distinction)). Be that the sense of belonging, the curriculum which they may not identify with or how assessment is carried out does not align with the wider student population, this highlights the different needs an individual requires to achieve success. See AEM’s ‘supporting attainment with unit design‘.

As Holmwood says, ‘Personal responsibility is the ideology that maintains the status quo, not the means of challenging it.’ (2018, p.47)

What is the justification for some people earning more than others?

The paradox of neoliberal ‘credentialism’ is that it makes participation in higher education necessary for any job beyond those paying the minimum wage, while, at the same time, the increased stratification of higher education makes place of study as important as a degree as such.

Holmwood, J. (2018 p.45)

You would expect that the justification would be the level of responsibility, job difficulty or amount of work they have to do compared to others would increase earnings. However, in a neoliberal climate where individualism has excelled, it appears that the amount of value that is placed on a role and how it is reflected in pay is very much dependent on whether it sits within the public or private sector (e.g. NHS staff, teacher vs banker, recruiter).

According to a public survey, the top three key factors which dictate the amount of earnings are: the amount of responsibility; how well the person does the job; and finally the job difficulty. The level of education or qualifications required is also valued – so does obtaining a degree give you more justification to be able to do a job? According to UAL’s PRA system, obtaining a relevant qualification does enable the recommendation of an increase in pay progression (an additional spine point), but who decides how relevant the degree is to the role?

What does ‘social solidarity’ mean to you?

In sort, social rights, in their development, were partial, but might have been universalised and extended to others previously excluded. To do so would have been to address the racialised exclusions that they contained. in the case of higher education, this would have been to ‘decolonise’ the university in terms both of access and curriculum (the latter would be likely both to follow greater access as well as facilitating it, as was the case with gender and the impact of feminism, for example).

Holmwood, J. (2018 p.44)

Social solidarity in an educational context means to empower an individual to have a sense of belonging to the wider society and to have the same shared values of society. As French sociologist Emile Durkeheim (1972) said, ‘society can survive only if there exists among its members a sufficient degree of homogeneity; education perpetuates and reinforces this homogeneity by fixing in the mind of the child, from the beginning, the essential similarities that social life demands.‘ His perspective on education was that education plays an essential role in shaping modern societies through embedding shared social values.

The call to decolonise the university is a call to extend and enact social justice in education. The alternative to public higher education is a market-based system operating on neoliberal principles. This purports to be race-blind, but insofar as racialised difference and inequality is a product of social structures of disadvantage, those structures will be reproduced in any arrangements that make change a matter of personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is the ideology that maintains the status quo, not the means of challenging it.

Holmwood, J. (2018, p.47)

---

References

Holmwood, J. (2018) Chapter 3. Race and the Neoliberal University: Lessons From the Public University. Decolonising the University. [Online]. pp.37–52. Available from: http://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/25936 (Accessed 06 February 2021).

Morrison, A. (2016) How do people justify earning more than others? [Online]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33613246 (Accessed 06 February 2021).

Thompson, K. (2017) Durkheim’s Perspective on Education. [Online]. Available from: https://revisesociology.com/2017/08/22/functionalist-durkheim-role-education/ (Accessed 06 February 2021).

Gloria Dall’Alba writes her account of teaching development in universities for experienced university teachers in her piece, ‘Improving teaching: Enhancing ways of being university teachers’ (2005), and it was interesting to see how I reflected on my perceptions as a student entering the PgCert in Academic Practice as an academic with no prior experience.

There was a lot of mention of ontology and epistemology (areas of philosophy) within the educational context, terms which I still find a little difficult to fully grasp. I tend to try and simplify the definitions to ontology as what the knowledge is, and epistemology as how knowledge is obtained. As epistemology is an area of philosophy that is concerned with the creation of knowledge, individual epistemologies will differ depending on the lens in which the world is seen through (e.g. feminist lens). The text really expanded upon how you can learn from each other, through understanding each others epistemologies to expand your knowledge and to develop empathy through other perspectives.

Dall’Alba considers the pedagogical relationship and suggests that the conventional student-teacher model (in other words, the hierarchical top-down approach) as inappropriate, noting that ‘no one form or site of knowledge has privileged status’ (Dall’Alba, 2005 p.363). I like to break down hierarchies and to encourage a more mutual form of learning, where teachers facilitate these spaces of knowledge exchange, to spark an interest or to suggest further readings. 

Although I am in agreement of the collaborative approach to teaching and learning, it did cross my mind that this is a very Western style of education and questioned what things could be put in place to be supportive of students who are not familiar or used to questioning what they perceive as the authority or contributing so freely during class without the fear of ‘mistakes’. The teacher-centred classroom is still common practice in Japan, and I think it is important to consider how to break the balance whilst managing expectations. Perhaps preparing the students in advance with topics of discussion prior to the session, giving notice to come prepared to the class with views, experiences or thoughts to contribute would be helpful.

‘Against the background of this wealth of experience, I see the course as a form of collaboration among colleagues in which we all learn, in contrast to a conventional student-teacher model.’ (Dall’Alba, 2005 p.365)

I hope to be active in my learning as a new academic, and to heed the advice of ‘critical friends’ through discussing teaching methods/techniques. The paper noted how it is difficult to teach a toolbox of skills to be a ‘good teacher’, and highlighted the importance of the continuing process of learning as a teacher. Dall’Alba concludes by noting how important it is to continue ‘to be reflexive about teaching practice as the contexts in which we teach change’ (p.371). Lessons I have learnt through this is that lived experience can be a mode of knowledge, and the responsibility of learning is shared between teacher and student. I will aim to always be flexible and adaptable in my teaching by reading the room and being reflexive and modify when necessary.

---

References

Dall’Alba, G. (2005) Improving teaching: Enhancing ways of being university teachers. Higher Education Research & Development. [Online] 24 (4), pp.361–372. [online]. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07294360500284771 (Accessed 06 February 2021).

The reading for this week was a chapter on ‘Understanding Art: The Play of Work and Spectator’ by Monica Vilhauer in Gadamer’s Ethics of Play: Hermeneutics and the Other (2010).

In Truth and Method, Gadamer introduces the concept of “play” in his description of the “event” of understanding that occurs in the experience of a work of art. […]

Gadamer aims to show us how the spectator plays a crucial interpretive role in what the meaning of the artwork is. He aims to show us how it is only in the back and forth play of communicating meaning between presenter and spectator that interpretive understanding occurs and the artwork achieves its completion. […]

Gadamer teaches us to recognize how understanding itself only takes place in a dynamic, interactive, interpretive process of working through meaning with others. A shared understanding is in this way an interpretive event that takes place in a play of presenting and recognizing meaning.

Vilhauer, 2010 p.31

This suggests that the spectator’s interpretive framework of an artwork could be influenced by their knowledge base, lived experience, cultural capital, etc. The interpretation of the artwork is very subjective and objective, but the argument is that the artwork is complete when the collaborative meaning-making is conducted. Within a teaching context, I think this could be seen within group tutorials, when the ‘feed-forward’ aspect of feedback is taking place. I quite like the thought that teaching cannot take place without a cyclical approach of student and teacher exchange – an exchange of knowledge, if you like.

An interesting question was posed to the group, asking us whether we notice anything different about the way you contribute as a student in sessions in an online environment. Personally, I feel more comfortable contributing as I am not limited to verbal contributions, and I find myself able to construct my thought and sentence when typing it out. I think I find it hard to muster the words coherently when put on the spotlight. On the flip-side, I find it difficult to keep up with the chat if it’s popping alongside the spoken aspect of the session – multitasking is difficult, and I keep getting the fear that I’ll miss something important. Additionally, adding something in the chat makes it feel like there’s a sense of permanence to my thoughts… but then again, in a blackboard collaborate recording, the chat isn’t recorded but the audio (so spoken contributions) is, so there’s a different sense of permanence.

Here’s what my group ended up adding to the whiteboard, I wrote, “it depends on the situation.” Once I get to know the group I am in, I find myself feeling more comfortable sharing my thoughts (and being challenged), whereas if it’s in a big group I feel more shy about contributing or being seen as wrong or, to put bluntly, stupid. Looking through what was written, I see that I’m not alone in feeling this way – there’s some comfort in that somewhere.

It is evident though that the opportunity to speak within a big group feels more daunting than in a smaller group. Breakout sessions/rooms tend to lubricate the classroom discussion, after which you can feel more confident to contribute when you return to the bigger group. There is a duty of care to enable students to have the time and space, to sit in silence for a minute, to consider their thoughts and contributions. Sometimes calling students out by their names to encourage them to contribute can be worthwhile, but it can also put those who are shy or nervous on edge about being called out and they may disengage more. It’s hard creating a happy-medium.

It was quite nice to see how passionately Lindsay spoke about Gadamer, and she very helpfully summarised his philosophy on ‘horizons’. Below is a paraphrase of what she said.

The metaphor of a fusion of horizons is stemmed from the idea of horizons encompassing your world view. Depending on your historical context, your horizon will look different. For example, when you move somewhere, your horizon will change (depending on the day, time, etc). When we try to understand each other, you are trying to understand someone else’s world perspective or world view. Through the fusion of horizons, you are being empathetic rather than erasing the difference. Prejudice is necessary for an understanding, and you must consider your positionality.

I quite like the metaphor of a horizon being relative to your world view. Depending on which way you look, the horizon can adapt and change.

Finally, we looked at the ways in which universities are measured for the Teaching Excellence Framework. I really dislike the way in which it’s rated, and how it’s used as an excuse to hike up tuition fees. I think it’s important to gather student feedback and to publicise things, but the government model of NSS (and I guess TEF) is done in such a manner that they presume one size fits all. Comparing an arts university alongside a Russel group or non-arts related university is counter intuitive. Particularly with DLHE as statistically creative graduates take longer to settle into their creative careers than those who go into graduate jobs which are related to their degree. The precarious working conditions and the emphasis on freelance work as a creative graduate is not taken into consideration for the government-led stats data, so how can one truly measure and compare an arts university amongst others? Surely measuring success, or what is deemed successful (by whom? who holds the power to decide what is successful?) is only really there to cater for the neoliberal view of individualism, feeding into capitalism. But when there has been a proliferation of universities and varying degrees offered (e.g. how many graphic design or fine art courses do UAL offer?), how do you decide which to apply for? Perhaps measurement is a side effect rather than the root of the problem.

---

References

Vilhauer, M. (2010) ‘Chapter 3 Understanding Art: The Play of Work and Spectator’ in Gadamer’s Ethics of Play: Hermeneutics and the Other. Lanham, Md, Lexington Books. pp.31-48

Today marked the beginning of the Teaching and Learning unit, and I came to the session not really knowing what to expect. Perhaps I hadn’t seen the schedule when I had looked on Moodle, but I was pleasantly surprised.

We kicked off with James Wisdom (a Visiting Professor in Educational Development from Middlesex University) who presented ‘The Context of UK Higher Education, 2021‘. This was an overview of both the historical context and current situation of HE and creative HE, highlighting the politics, economics and attitudes influencing the policymaking around HE. Having recently written a dissertation on the role of HEIs in preparing creative graduates for the labour market, I was aware of the depressing statistics and issues surrounding the government’s focus solely on the economic value of HE, and how they do not favour creative education which puts the future of creative HE at risk. Will it be accessible to underrepresented applicants in the future? Or will it become more elitist, perpetuating the homogeneous workforce that is prevalent within the creative industries, further widening the gap to access? The gender pay gap was briefly discussed, but what about the access barriers to POC? If not the government, then is it for universities to address these issues to level the playing field, and if so – where does the funding come from and how do they drive the change into industry? Some food for thought.

James raised some interesting questions such as which way HE should develop in the next generation, whether the standard models of studying will remain post-Covid, the potential for change in academic culture and what it means to be a professional HE teacher. I feel he was purposefully quite provocative in some suggestions, perhaps to spark a debate or to highlight opposing views. What about the impact of neoliberalisation in HE (and in this context you could replace neoliberalisation with individualisation) and how that ties in with the consumerist perception many students come with? The students expect value for money, are we providing it? How can we manage student expectations?

Overall, James was a very engaging speaker, who spoke at a slow speed to allow us to digest the information provided. Having just been in an online Away Day yesterday where I felt the Chair had whizzed through their presentation at bullet speed, I was grateful for the change and for the ability to be able to keep up with the content. His humour and ability to respond to the questions or comments in the instant messaging whilst teaching made for an engaging session. I very much enjoyed this.

Following a short break, the second and final speaker, Victoria Odeniyi (Project Researcher, UAL), presented her ongoing research titled ‘Reimagining Conversations with Multilingual Students‘. She noted her interest in researching real-world problems through the lens of language. She argued that language can be framed not only in a technical or communicative skill, but also the subtleties found in understanding cultural differences such as the grammatical ordering of sentences. This resonated with me, as a British-Japanese bilingual, as I often find it difficult to be concise with my thoughts, particularly when I’m speaking. Previously, somebody has speculated the reason why I do this could be due to Japanese sentence structure, where the verb often comes at the end of the sentence – perhaps my brain likes to mix it all up.

Victoria explained that she has been observing online teaching sessions at LCC and LCF, observing who dominates the conversation and who remains silent. She questioned whether the silence or pause was productive or negative in the context, and reflected on the pros and cons of the chat function (e.g. it enables those who are not confident enough to speak up to have a space to contribute or ask questions, whereas it can also be distracting and disrupt the flow of a conversation). It’s a shame that the research hadn’t begun prior to the Covid-19 pandemic so that there could be the face-to-face teaching to compare her research with.

Having done a spot of shadowing of a delivery of a session on Blackboard Collaborate myself, I have observed the awkward silences and the apprehension of turning a camera on, and experienced the uncertainty of speaking to a group of headless icons, unable to gauge the reaction or note the subtle body language of the listeners. I have also seen how an international student was utilising a translation service, which acted as a delayed form of subtitles for the session. This meant that it took a little longer for them to respond, and those silences were really important for them to be able to gather their thoughts and translate parts which were necessary. This made it really clear that to be truly inclusive in the delivery, you needed to allow the time, and to adapt by typing the questions/comments whilst also speaking.

During the lecture, there was a discussion about colloquialisms and whether they have a place within the teaching environment. I am of the view that as long as colloquialisms are expanded on which would ensure inclusivity (one noted how they had a glossary of terms as they spoke quite naturally through colloquialisms), they should be fine to use – it’s part of the language, and the classes should be established as safe spaces where inquisitive questioning is encouraged when an individual does not understand something. This in turn could spark a conversation about how a particular phrase is said in a different language.

Overall, it as an interesting session. I’m looking forward to learning more, and getting to know the rest of the cohort better for peer-to-peer learning. I’m sure there’s plenty I can learn from experienced academics!