One
criticism of the composite term ’learning and teaching' (or
teaching and learning) is that it reinforces a false distinction
between the different participants in a learning environment.
Certainly there is a clear and valid pragmatic and organisational
distinction between the two roles but in practice these boundaries
can reinforce a model of students as passive consumers of a product
delivered by teachers. Student disengagement can be a consequence of
this perspective and the challenge in designing evaluation systems is
seeing the opportunities to re-engage students as active participants
in course and unit development.
Further,
teachers are also learners as they continue to research their fields
and students may be more fruitfully understood through the community
of practice model where
novice discipline members gain in skills and confidence through
participating in legitimate peripheral activities of the discipline
community. From this perspective, education is not a consumer
commodity but a process through which new members are introduced to
knowledge communities under the guidance of knowledge leaders.
Some
students may resist activation for various reasons but the majority
of students will be keen participants, especially if they are
activated at the beginning of their course and maintain a sense of
empowerment throughout the process. Closing the loop is an important
aspect of maintaining this relationship and this section will look at
specific methods of engaging students as respected co-producers of
their own education.
Tapping
into student engagement
The
causes of student disengagement is one of the most debated topics in
academia. In section 7 we explored the importance of interactivity
for the screen-age students who entered the education system from the
1990s and onward. A lack of opportunities to interact, the pressures
of a massified education system and the presentation of education as
a commodity to be passively consumed are all reasons for
disengagement, as is the feeling of powerless the results from having
no voice.
The
anonymous student survey is the conventional method of expressing
student voice and while teachers may feel it is a powerful managerial
tool, students do not share this attitude. Often the student surveys
are a nuisance, another telemarketing drain on time and as surveys
are more frequently imposed serious survey fatigue sets in. Worse
still, students can embrace the survey enthusiastically expecting
results, particularly where they feel aggrieved and then feel
betrayed at the apparent lack of consequence. Even where surveys
lead to change, this is seldom communicated to students and is not
felt in tangible results to the individuals giving the feedback as
improvements will be directed at the next iteration of a unit of
study.
While
student surveys were created with good intentions the results is
often to further emphasise the passive role of students who feel like
consumers filling out customer satisfaction forms. Evaluation is an
opportunity to foster student engagement by giving students a real
opportunity to express their voice, to feel that they are being heard
and to make choices in the co-production of their education. This
does not mean that every course or unit design decision is subject to
a vote, but it does require careful thought as to which areas of
design depend on professional academic judgement and which areas
would be enhanced by a more participatory approach.
One
basic way to let students know that they are being heard is to close
the loop on all feedback at
unit and at course level. This is rarely done and it is a simple way
of letting students know that you have heard what they had to say,
have carefully considered it and acted on it, even if that action is
to explain the reasons why changes to the unit or course cannot be
made. It is a simple step and while there is no single accepted
method to communicate this to students, there are many mechanisms
available.
Closing
the loop is only the tip of the student engagement iceberg.
Embedding collaborative structures in the design of course and units
enables a virtuous circle by providing high quality localised
feedback and providing further engagement opportunities. These
structures often take on a social learning dimension, through formal
or informal mentoring systems and through student representative
structures.
Mobilising
Grass Roots Action
In
the era of web2.0, crowdsourcing and crowdfunding, social media and
global activism we have begun tapping into the potential of
wide-scale engagement sometimes mediated by communications
technologies but more profoundly invigorated by an ethos of
collective action. Active individuals are connected into a network
of activated communities. Some of these changes have begun to
influence the way that organisations are managed and a recognition
that top-down pyramid management structures are not the best way to
get results.
The
Student Management Team (SMT) technique is inspired by the success of
quality control circles in manufacturing industries1
and constructs small teams of student representatives in a unit of
study whose responsibility is to meet regularly and liaise with unit
managers about issues of concern. These teams draw on local
knowledge that is difficult to obtain from outside and provide a
channel for collective student engagement based on principles of fair
representation.
'A
Handbook for Student Management Teams' written by Edward Nuhfer2
provides a blueprint for designing and running SMTs as well as
comprehensive training materials for students and staff. The SMT
provides a structure for managing collective action, for filtering
and prioritising the mass of student feedback that you might get from
an online discussion forum for instance. Nuhfer's handbook is
comprehensive and contains a thorough discussion of the distribution
of decision making responsibility between academic and student and
exploration of the ethical context that SMTs operate in.
These
are new areas of innovation, both socially and educationally and we
are sure to see a range of new approaches and evaluation of them in
the near future. While they are matters of broader educational
design they strong resonance for evaluation systems and promise to
bring students out of the passive consumer role and place them as
responsible co-producers of their education and active members of
their learning communities. Disengagement will continue to be a
problem but the less we systemically thwart student attempts to
provide feedback, the fewer barriers to engagement we will place.
Rethinking
Student Contact
The
lack of personal contact is another key criticism of our present
tertiary education system. Mass lectures, online delivery and high
rates of disengagement mean that students seldom have personal
contact with teachers. Outside of formal contact times, there is
benefit to student wellbeing and the learning community at large from
having incidental informal contact with teachers. Curiosity is a
fundamental learning trait and it is difficult to foster when all
contact is ’on the clock' and directed toward the set curriculum
agenda.
This
is not a call to make friends with students nor to demand longer
office contact hours or to place further obligations on teachers.
Rather it is to consider where there is space within a program for
the kind of incidental and social contact that builds to bonds of
social cohesion and respect. From an evaluation perspective, these
connections can be the source of vital informal feedback that in
itself must be weighed carefully for validity, but which can be the
spark which inspires further fact finding and evaluation.
Staff
may feel awkward engaging with students in more informal and social
activities, although staged correctly (see the box on boundaries)
these can be community builders. There are other opportunities to
create learning opportunities that are more informal and involve an
element of social engagement, such as a field trip or even a study
intensive. Rather than adding to work hours, this should be done by
reducing time spent in passive, non-engaging activities. The more
transactional contact that is involved the more a
relationship of trust and respect will be fostered and the more
effective feedback will be provided, both informally and through the
other feedback channels.
Education
and citizenship
Education
has a profound development role in shaping the identity of emerging
citizens. While neoliberal policy makers seek to reduce education to
a consumer product or human capital enhancement, education has always
had a central part to play in defining an individual's relationship
to society, to their community and to the political system. Students
are often young people and their experiences at university will set
the base standard for future interactions at work and in other
spheres of life.
Where
students have positive and empowering experience, where they are
respected and benefit from a respectful attitude to others, they
explore the identities of active and engaged citizens. Where
students are disempowered, their voice is not heard and they are left
to passively consume their education than this does not set positive
expectations for future social action. Universities have a broad
responsibility to society in general to cultivate the next generation
of engaged responsible professionals and knowledge leaders and the
evaluation process is one critical juncture at which these attitudes
can be fostered.
Methods
- Embedded design
- Flexible contact
- Persistent Wikis
- Feedback from ePortfolios
- Student Mentoring
- Student Management Teams
Key
Points
- Students have grown fatigued by frequent requests for feedback without being acknowledged or responded to by closing the loop at unit and course level.
- Effective feedback and evaluation systems can help to activate and engage students as individuals and as members of learning communities
- Education is a site of identity exploration for future citizens, professionals and members of knowledge communities. Educational institutions have a social responsibility to cultivate positive engagement and model this through feedback and evaluation systems.
- Engagement can be mobilised through learning innovations that situate learners as co-producers of their education and of the learning environment.
1Berk,
Ronald A (2005)’Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching
Effectiveness', International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education,
17(1), 48-62 at 53
2Nuhfer,
Edward (2008) A
Handbook for Student Management Teams,
California State University, the introduction is available at
http://profcamp.tripod.com/New_PM_Intro_SMT.pdf
The whole text is available under a licensing arrangement so contact
your local teaching support, or if you are a Deakin Staff member
contact Scott Beattie.
Embedded Design
In a nutshell:
Student feedback is embedded in the fabric of unit design as individual and collective choices work to co-construct the learning environment. This approach requires more flexibility than traditionally structured units but can enhance student engagement through a sense of shared responsibility. For example students may be engaged in designing the topics of focus, the design of the assessment (within the framework of the unit outline) and the criteria by which success is judged. For example a law reform unit of study might be structured around creation of public submissions to a real current law reform inquiry.
Example Questions:
What project will this unit culminate in?
How will class contact be designed so as to meet the demands of both learning outcomes and project objectives?
Reporting:
The feedback loop is contained within the class community but may also lead to the production of a practical report as a unit outcome.
Pros:
Many learners find this an engaging way of learning.
Student input feeds back directly into the design of the learning context.
Cons:
Learners and teachers have to manage a degree of uncertainty in comparison to traditional fixed units of study.
May seem more time intensive to some teachers.
Caution:
Unit coordinators need to manage a certain amount of chaos as the framework is developed and may face resistance from some learners who prefer learning from a fixed textbook or using materials from previous unit iterations.
Student Management Teams
In a nutshell:
Grassroots feedback is provided by small representative student teams who meet regularly with each other and with the unit coordinator. This approach could also work at course level, but the selection process would be more complicated and would need to consider broader issues of representation, such as year levels and major choices.
Example Questions:
Where are students having difficulties with unit outcomes?
What resources are most useful?
How can students be assisted in preparing for assessment?
Reporting:
SMT reporting is internal to participants within a unit of study. To close the loop it is important that the unit coordinator responds to the larger group.
Pros:
An innovative method of activating student engagement which has been well developed and has extensive training materials.
Student voice is expressed in an environment of respect.
Not as adversarial as anonymous surveys and students can share responsibility for aspects of their learning.
Cons:
Requires further administrative effort. May be difficult to coordinate across different units of study so that students are represented fairly and do not feel obliged to be involved too often
Caution:
Empowerment can quickly lead to discontent if students feel that their voice is not heard and has no impact. Done half-heartedly this method could worsen a disengagement problem.
Persistent Learning Resources and Wikis
In a nutshell:
Students create resources during the course of a unit which are preserved for future students to further develop. Rather than each group starting from scratch, students actively contribute to the information networks and are able to see themselves as part of a bigger knowledge project.
Example Questions:
What is it important to know in this field?
What are the zones of uncertainty that need completion?
Reporting:
The resource is available to future students and, preferably, is an open education resource for everyone.
Pros:
Students can see actual outcomes of their coursework and feel part of a community of practitioners.
The resource development is organic and responds to student input as to where the areas of priority lie and what are the key disputes and uncertainties.
Cons:
Can seem too ambitious, particularly for the first group of students.
Some students may feel exposed by the public nature of their work.
Caution:
While student contributions will exist in a public space and this may include feedback on that work from teachers and peers, student assessment should not. Course coordinators should be careful to protect student privacy and have a private side channel for communicating assessment.
Feedback from ePortfolios
In a nutshell:
Where students are creating ePortfolios that are connected to graduate outcomes these can provide a diagnostic on individual progress and feedback on how well these are aligned to the course and unit outcomes.
Example Questions:
Are students making progress toward graduate outcomes in this unit?
Do assessment tasks provide an opportunity for creating evidence of outcomes?
Reporting:
The feedback loop will be determined by the ePortfolio tool which may have a method for reporting individual and collective progress.
Pros:
This may provide a detailed method of exploring the way that graduate outcomes are developed across a course and within individual units of study.
Cons:
Tools may not yet be sufficiently advanced for full analysis.
Caution:
The outcome oriented framework is relatively new and some teachers and students are still oriented toward content testing and find it difficult to transition to the new context. As a result using new and unfamiliar methods of feedback can be daunting.
Student mentoring
In a nutshell:
Mentoring is a well-accepted methods of enhancing learning and mentors can come from academic staff or peers or may be external to the university. The mentoring relationship is confidential but may be a source of general feedback, with the consent of the student. Mentors might be consulted about specific issues or gather feedback about student learning generally.
Example Questions:
How are students responding to the new assessment structure?
Where are the key areas of difficulty?
Reporting:
Reports are confidential but the course coordinator should respond to the whole group with an overview of feedback and the changes implemented as a result of it.
Pros:
Mentors have experience and a personal connection to their mentees who may be more forthcoming than they would be with a teacher.
Mentoring can be an opportunity to deal with broader feedback issues that are generally covered within a unit of study and can talk about the big picture of learning.
Cons:
Mentoring programs are resource intensive and must be managed carefully.
Caution:
The mentoring relationship is built on confidentiality and trust and the evaluation process cannot compromise this. Mentors and students need to clearly understand when feedback is sought and the ways in which this will be communicated to the university.
A Flexible Approach to Additional Student Contact
In a nutshell:
Teaching staff are traditionally available for student contact within office hours but this approach is not heavily utilised by students and those that do are often within a crisis that might have been averted by early intervention. Innovative use of this time may find new ways of engaging students parallel to coursework and might include participation in university events and social media.
Example Questions:
Feedback is generally impromptu and instigated by the student. The teacher can however use the opportunity to ask further questions to develop a better understanding of what is going on.
Reporting:
Informal, generally in confidence.
Pros:
May create opportunities where for students to provide feedback that is unexpected, candid or otherwise out of the box.
Students’ value personal contact and this is an opportunity to let them know that they are valued and heard.
Cons:
Informality means little opportunity to use that knowledge directly, although it may create an opportunity for further inquiry using other methods.
Difficult to generalise experiences.
Caution:
It can be difficult to manage the formal and informal boundaries of the learning relationship, especially for inexperienced staff. No matter what the context, students need to know that the relationship remains a formal professional one and that arms-length objectivity is crucial for fair assessment.
Embedded Design
In a nutshell:
Student feedback is embedded in the fabric of unit design as individual and collective choices work to co-construct the learning environment. This approach requires more flexibility than traditionally structured units but can enhance student engagement through a sense of shared responsibility. For example students may be engaged in designing the topics of focus, the design of the assessment (within the framework of the unit outline) and the criteria by which success is judged. For example a law reform unit of study might be structured around creation of public submissions to a real current law reform inquiry.
Example Questions:
What project will this unit culminate in?
How will class contact be designed so as to meet the demands of both learning outcomes and project objectives?
Reporting:
The feedback loop is contained within the class community but may also lead to the production of a practical report as a unit outcome.
Pros:
Many learners find this an engaging way of learning.
Student input feeds back directly into the design of the learning context.
Cons:
Learners and teachers have to manage a degree of uncertainty in comparison to traditional fixed units of study.
May seem more time intensive to some teachers.
Caution:
Unit coordinators need to manage a certain amount of chaos as the framework is developed and may face resistance from some learners who prefer learning from a fixed textbook or using materials from previous unit iterations.
Student Management Teams
In a nutshell:
Grassroots feedback is provided by small representative student teams who meet regularly with each other and with the unit coordinator. This approach could also work at course level, but the selection process would be more complicated and would need to consider broader issues of representation, such as year levels and major choices.
Example Questions:
Where are students having difficulties with unit outcomes?
What resources are most useful?
How can students be assisted in preparing for assessment?
Reporting:
SMT reporting is internal to participants within a unit of study. To close the loop it is important that the unit coordinator responds to the larger group.
Pros:
An innovative method of activating student engagement which has been well developed and has extensive training materials.
Student voice is expressed in an environment of respect.
Not as adversarial as anonymous surveys and students can share responsibility for aspects of their learning.
Cons:
Requires further administrative effort. May be difficult to coordinate across different units of study so that students are represented fairly and do not feel obliged to be involved too often
Caution:
Empowerment can quickly lead to discontent if students feel that their voice is not heard and has no impact. Done half-heartedly this method could worsen a disengagement problem.
Persistent Learning Resources and Wikis
In a nutshell:
Students create resources during the course of a unit which are preserved for future students to further develop. Rather than each group starting from scratch, students actively contribute to the information networks and are able to see themselves as part of a bigger knowledge project.
Example Questions:
What is it important to know in this field?
What are the zones of uncertainty that need completion?
Reporting:
The resource is available to future students and, preferably, is an open education resource for everyone.
Pros:
Students can see actual outcomes of their coursework and feel part of a community of practitioners.
The resource development is organic and responds to student input as to where the areas of priority lie and what are the key disputes and uncertainties.
Cons:
Can seem too ambitious, particularly for the first group of students.
Some students may feel exposed by the public nature of their work.
Caution:
While student contributions will exist in a public space and this may include feedback on that work from teachers and peers, student assessment should not. Course coordinators should be careful to protect student privacy and have a private side channel for communicating assessment.
Feedback from ePortfolios
In a nutshell:
Where students are creating ePortfolios that are connected to graduate outcomes these can provide a diagnostic on individual progress and feedback on how well these are aligned to the course and unit outcomes.
Example Questions:
Are students making progress toward graduate outcomes in this unit?
Do assessment tasks provide an opportunity for creating evidence of outcomes?
Reporting:
The feedback loop will be determined by the ePortfolio tool which may have a method for reporting individual and collective progress.
Pros:
This may provide a detailed method of exploring the way that graduate outcomes are developed across a course and within individual units of study.
Cons:
Tools may not yet be sufficiently advanced for full analysis.
Caution:
The outcome oriented framework is relatively new and some teachers and students are still oriented toward content testing and find it difficult to transition to the new context. As a result using new and unfamiliar methods of feedback can be daunting.
Student mentoring
In a nutshell:
Mentoring is a well-accepted methods of enhancing learning and mentors can come from academic staff or peers or may be external to the university. The mentoring relationship is confidential but may be a source of general feedback, with the consent of the student. Mentors might be consulted about specific issues or gather feedback about student learning generally.
Example Questions:
How are students responding to the new assessment structure?
Where are the key areas of difficulty?
Reporting:
Reports are confidential but the course coordinator should respond to the whole group with an overview of feedback and the changes implemented as a result of it.
Pros:
Mentors have experience and a personal connection to their mentees who may be more forthcoming than they would be with a teacher.
Mentoring can be an opportunity to deal with broader feedback issues that are generally covered within a unit of study and can talk about the big picture of learning.
Cons:
Mentoring programs are resource intensive and must be managed carefully.
Caution:
The mentoring relationship is built on confidentiality and trust and the evaluation process cannot compromise this. Mentors and students need to clearly understand when feedback is sought and the ways in which this will be communicated to the university.
A Flexible Approach to Additional Student Contact
In a nutshell:
Teaching staff are traditionally available for student contact within office hours but this approach is not heavily utilised by students and those that do are often within a crisis that might have been averted by early intervention. Innovative use of this time may find new ways of engaging students parallel to coursework and might include participation in university events and social media.
Example Questions:
Feedback is generally impromptu and instigated by the student. The teacher can however use the opportunity to ask further questions to develop a better understanding of what is going on.
Reporting:
Informal, generally in confidence.
Pros:
May create opportunities where for students to provide feedback that is unexpected, candid or otherwise out of the box.
Students’ value personal contact and this is an opportunity to let them know that they are valued and heard.
Cons:
Informality means little opportunity to use that knowledge directly, although it may create an opportunity for further inquiry using other methods.
Difficult to generalise experiences.
Caution:
It can be difficult to manage the formal and informal boundaries of the learning relationship, especially for inexperienced staff. No matter what the context, students need to know that the relationship remains a formal professional one and that arms-length objectivity is crucial for fair assessment.
No comments:
Post a Comment