Frances Ross

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).