Case Study 1 : Knowing & Responding to your students’ diverse needs

Contextual Background

At LCC I deliver a cross-cultural discussion group called World Conversations. The students who attend are predominantly, though not exclusively, from diverse international backgrounds with varying levels of English proficiency and collaborative skills. 

Evaluation

I seek to make the sessions as welcoming as possible. I run them in visible informal spaces such as the College’s learning lounges and employability hub. I feel that these locations help create an environment that doesn’t appear tied to a particular programme area or specific group of students and suggests divergent learning. I begin the sessions by asking the cohorts a little bit about themselves as an ice-breaker, trying to gently tease out their reasons for coming to the workshop. Often this is to speak with different cohorts, improve English skills or simply to learn more about the topic advertised. Generally this is an effective approach although depending on the size of the cohort there can be a reluctance for some students to speak out. During the sessions I try to ensure that every student voice is heard with roughly equal time being allocated to each participant.

Moving Forwards

One of the main challenges with the parity of student of voice at these sessions is not knowing the numbers that will attend as these sessions are considered enhancement activities and therefore not listed on celcat. When planning for the sessions I have to take into account the range of attendee numbers which can vary from 5-20 students. One solution might be to provide tweaked session plans, one targeted at low numbers, one for medium and one for a high intake. This adaptive strategy should allow for a more ‘student centred’ approach.  

Strategies to deal with varying levels of English proficiency could include providing glossaries for complex words or themes or scheduling in time for smaller break out groups. By encouraging students to work in pairs or groups of three this could allow individual students to share their thoughts with a small number of peers whilst allowing them the flexibility to not speak in front of the larger cohort if they so wish. Equally this ties in with the idea of acculturation not being a linear journey for international cohorts. Q Smith describes this as the need to ‘authenticate hybrid identities that are under construction’ (Q Smith, 2007). Students who may be vocal one week on a particular topic may lack the confidence or skills to engage in another subject. Working in smaller groups may alleviate this potential burden and encourage students to return.

‘The vantage point of the atypical’ (Linton, 1998) is a phrase most often associated through a Disability lense but I feel can equally be applied to diverse international learners who attend these cross cultural discussion groups. In one of the PGcert microteaching sessions a fellow student used a simple number classification system. I feel that a similar process, perhaps ranking elements of the chosen topics might be a practical inclusive approach whereby limited English proficiency would be less of a barrier to proactive engagement in the session. This may also benefit students who learn concepts visually and might therefore be more open to speaking about potentially complex or philosophical ideas through a visual medium.

References

Quarshie Smith referenced in Grace & Gravestock ‘Inclusion & Diversity: Meeting the needs of all students’  (2009)- page 148

Linton, S. 1998. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York: NYU Press. Page 5

Case Study 2: Plan for and support student learning through appropriate approaches and environments

Contextual Background

One of my LCC enhancement workshops involves using Lego as ‘Serious Play’ to model attitudes and approaches to UAL’s ambitious target to become carbon neutral/ reach net zero by 2030.

Evaluation

The main pedagogic challenge of my Lego Climate Workshops is to assist students in understanding the benefits of this creative approach. Many students will understand the approach once explained but encouraging students to initially take part in a collaborative object based learning workshop can be difficult. Feedback collected from the sessions is usually positive but often comments such as ‘I wasn’t sure what the relevance was at the start’ suggest that there is a barrier where it is perhaps perceived as ‘fun or quirky’ and having limited academic value. Students might also see these sessions through a similar lense to Drew (2008) who discusses the pedagogy of ambiguity and how this links to students’ expectations.  

One of the strategies I have employed is using printed questions (see figure 1) to make the link more explicit. This example has the dual function of collecting responses (each lego brick represents one individual response) but also acting as an ice breaker for the wider session. For the majority of the workshop students are collaborating on making lego structures and models to interpret the climate crisis- for example carbon credits or the depletion of natural resources. Once these structures are created they are quite an effective visual tool in encouraging others to join the workshop.

Moving Forwards

I have been exploring ways to boost attendance at these workshops and expand them in the near future. I believe that these workshops are effective at unlocking tacit knowledge which certain cohorts might feel difficult to express verbally. International cohorts in particular might struggle to verbally criticise UAL’s sustainability policies and equally feel hypocritical when it comes to their own carbon consumption. I could experiment in targeting these sessions at specific groups, ie Tier 4 students or Contextual Admissions so students feel a greater sense of ownership. This might be in contrast to the imposter syndrome that these groups may feel in collaborating with students who might have a broader understanding of the principles and benefits around object based learning.

It may initially feel overwhelming for students to see a group of peers already being creative with materials (see figure 2). One strategy could be to split the workshops over multiple tables so that it feels more welcoming and less of an exclusionary ‘tight knit group.’

Another approach could be to demonstrate the benefits of object based learning by referencing real world industries that value this collaborative approach such as Film studio’s or Graphic Design companies. Sims and Shreeve (2012) talk about signature pedagogies within art and design and how various pedagogic approaches should be made clearer in order to engage cohorts more fully. I could tie these workshops into other sessions related to employability or knowledge exchange, ie LCC’s Graduate Futures Week in order to make this link more explicit. Equally I could look at ways of embedding the session within course delivery at LCC. For example the session could be tweaked to fit in with the social justice aims of the Responsible Design Unit on BA GMD which examines how ethics and culture shape design choices.

Whilst there are inherent risks in deconstructing a workshop that is promoted as being inclusive, ie open to everyone, I feel there are benefits in targeting these serious play sessions at cohorts who might benefit the most from creative forms of expression around social justice issues.

References

Drew, L. (ed.) (2008) The Student Experience in Art and Design Higher Education: Drivers for Change. Group for Learning in Art and Design

Sims, E. and Shreeve, A. (2012) Signature Pedagogies in Art and Design. In Chick, N., Haynie, A. and Gurung, R. A. R. (eds) Exploring More Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind. Stylus, 55- 67.

Figure 1: Engagement activity for Lego Climate Workshops

Figure 2: Lego Climate Workshop running in the LCC Cafe

Case Study 3: Assessing Learning & Exchanging Feedback

Contextual Background

Working within the College Education Team a key area of my role involves improving student outcomes by examining and acting upon retention, attainment and awarding gap data. I often work with course teams to look at how their assessment processes can be improved often through an International/ decolonial lense. One area of assessment that I have been actively pursuing is an expansion of formative assessment practices to research how this non credit bearing feedback can have a more inclusive approach for international cohorts.

Evaluation

I have conducted a number of feedback sessions with International cohorts within the Design School relating to experiences of formative assessment. These have been broadly positive. Various themes have emerged including;

• Awareness of learning gaps:  Many students feel that this process allows for quicker interventions when issues with their learning journey are surfaced.

• Metacognitive skills: Many students have mentioned the benefits of being able to reflect on their learning which in turn can help with growth mindset.

• Increased Engagement: Self assessment and particularly peer-peer assessment was mentioned as increasing learner engagement. Many students’ confided that they found their cohorts work to be ‘inspiring’ and valuable for their learning development.

In these focus groups I examined students’ understanding of self-assessment as reflection on personal practice (Race, p.4 2001); and ideas around self-reflection being linked to a specific skill providing the foundations for life-long learning beyond a given project (Grantz & Gruber, p.23, 2014). I have presented my findings to course teams and colleagues highlighting in particular how exposure to self reflection is particularly beneficial for International cohorts who may have had limited exposure to this practice. Equally, as argued by Shay (2004) an informal peer-driven space can help alleviate the potential  ‘situatedness of assessment practice’. International cohorts have, for example, confided in me that they sometimes view the traditional teaching space and creativity as being diametrically juxtaposed. Formative assessment is patchy across LCC with a reluctance from some course teams to expand upon the provision. Anecdotal feedback suggests that there are concerns around workloads and a misunderstanding of the benefits to this approach of non credit bearing assessment.

Moving Forwards

I feel that pursuing new strategies to encourage course teams to adopt more formative assessment practices could focus on the benefits to teaching staff

• Flexibility: Tutors can pivot their approach in ‘real time’ to identify diverse student needs early in the academic journey
• Enhanced Learning: Regular feedback helps students reflect on their progress and identify areas for improvement.
• Potential reductions in workload. Embedding these strategies may reduce re-submissions or tutorials during the latter stages of the course.

I feel that these areas are ‘easy wins’ when it comes to proving the link with retention,  attainment and awarding gap outcomes.

There is an argument to be made that an assessment can be a combination of both formative and summative feedback. Grace and Gravestock argue that ‘coursework may be continuous assessment and thus contribute to the final degree mark, but also be a part of the formative feedback process (Grace & Gravestock, 2009). On this basis it could be absorbed into the notion of ‘continuous feedback’ and presented in a way that enriches the student learning journey rather than feeling like an additional burden for tutors.

Another strategy might be to ensure that formative assessment is fully integrated within the course where it can be specifically tied to the learning outcomes. Mahendra states that to support effective learning  “ formative assessment design and implementation must take into account the learning objective(s), success criteria and learning progression that emerges.”  (Mahendra, Dewi and Wahyuni  (2021)  This could also be achieved informally through peer assessment, such as students using the learning outcomes to grade each others work. This has an additional benefit of exposing international students to their peers’ critical thinking. Another strategy could be to map specific formative assessment sessions to the UAL assessment criteria to highlight how they address the five processes in the same fashion as if they were credit bearing.

References

Grantz, RE & Gruber, R. (2014) ‘“How Well Did I Learn What I Learned?” The Art of Self Assessment’, Journal of the Academy of Business Education, vol. 15, pp. 23–40,

Race, P. (2001) A briefing on self, peer & group assessment. York: Learning and Teaching Support Network.

Mahendra A, Dewi N.L & Wahyuni,L (2021)  Analysis of The Formative Assessment Planning During Online Learning: A Case Study, Pages 157- 166

Grace & Gravestock  ‘Inclusion & Diversity: Meeting the needs of all students’  2009- page 181 & Page 188 (Shay)