Classroom Being

A blog about my experiences of learning

[classroombeing-blog]

Staging your Research IV

On Thursday 9th July, the ‘Staging Your Research’ ensemble met for a final time before the end of the academic year, and was once again facilitated in our learning by David Shirley, the head of the Manchester School of Acting.

This evening the group worked on empathy, with David guiding us through a series of exercises that encouraged us to examine a relationship that we would like to improve, by looking at it from three different perspectives:

1. Self – Each of us 2. Other – The person with whom we had a damaged relationship 3. Observer – An independent observer

By considering what each of these people might see, hear, think, and feel when the looked at the other (or in the case of the observer when they looked at the scene as a whole), we were able to better empathise with the person with whom we wished to improve our relationship. It was a very personal experience, and none of the details of what we did were shared with the rest of the group, but I found it to be an incredibly useful and therapeutic exercise, which helped me to address some issues and also to brainstorm some potential solutions to help build bridges.

Bottled goodness (Photo credit: Geoff Jones)

When we discussed the impact of this exercise on research and teaching practices over dinner (courtesy once more of the incredibly empathetic Haleh Moravej and MetMunch), it became apparent that this was a very useful exercise for reflecting on fractured relationships with colleagues at work. It was also discussed how it could also be extremely beneficial when considering a piece of work or research. It may sound trite, but removing yourself from your working practices and considering how you are approaching a problem from an objective perspective can be an incredibly useful methodology of problem solving. This emotional intelligence and the use of feelings to motivate, plan, and achieve in one's life is something that has been proved to be extremely effective (see e.g. Salovey and Mayer, 1990).

Emotional intelligence: a key skill set in academia.

Empathy is also an important tool in the classroom, and can be used to help foster improved student learning (Gair, 2011), whilst also being instrumental for the effective teaching of culturally diverse students (McAllister and Irvine, 2002). I think that doing exercises like this with smaller groups of students would also be a great learning experience for all, and would help the students to reflect on their own relationships and learning practices.

Listening to the thoughts of others from the group, it was also apparent that people had benefited from taking the time out to actually address a problem, giving it the space and time to breathe that was needed to properly identify it as a problem. I think that as academics we sometimes get so caught up in the maelstrom of university life that we push things to the back of our minds far to often, and that rather than letting them fester we should instead take the time to acknowledge and deal with them out in the open.

The whole Staging Your Research journey has been of great benefit to me, and as well as connecting new colleagues from across the university, it has given me time and space to reflect on things in my research and teaching practices, allowing me to look at issues from new angles and perspectives. It has been a thoroughly enjoyable experience, and whilst I am sad that it is over in its current incantation, we have made plans to continue to meet as a group at the start of the next academic year. So watch this space…

References:

GAIR, S. 2011. Creating spaces for critical reflection in social work education: Learning from a classroom-based empathy project. Reflective Practice, 12, 791-802.

MCALLISTER, G. & IRVINE, J. J. 2002. The role of empathy in teaching culturally diverse students: A qualitative study of teachers' beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 433-443.

SALOVEY, P. & MAYER, J. D. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality, 9, 185-211.

[classroombeing-blog]

Staging your Research III

On Thursday 28rd April, the ‘Staging Your Research’ troupe once more assembled for an evening of co-discovery via the medium of theatrical technique. After the previous voice coaching expertise of Simon Gilman, this session was lead by the head of the Manchester School of Acting, David Shirley.

After a few warm-up exercises (my personal favourite was counting to 15 in the guise of a grand Shakespearian actor), David introduced us to the ‘Circles of Concentration’. Originally developed by the Russian actor and theatre director Konstantin Stanislavsky as a way for young actors to cope with the anxiety of performing in front of an audience, the circles can be summarised thus (Rodenburg, 2002):

First circle: this is when you are speaking to yourself, and your imagination is very internal.

Second circle: this is when you are speaking directly to one other person, and your imagination is focussed on one person at a time.

Third circle: this is when you are addressing many people at once, or indeed the Universe in general, and your imagination is distributed. 

We participated in a number of exercises that explored what it meant to be in each of these circles, and how our interactions with others changed depending on which of the circles we occupied. We also discussed a number of situations in which we occupied different circles simultaneously. For example, when driving long distances we often occupy the first and third circles, as we may be preoccupied by our own thoughts (first circle), but are still able to traverse busy roads without major incident (third circle), even if we often reach our destination with no recollection of how we actually got there!

Stanislavski, deep in his first circle (Photo Credit: Public Domain)

When we discussed the impact of these circles on our research and teaching practices over dinner (once again provided by the third-circle brilliance of Haleh Moravej and MetMunch), it struck me that I embody multiple circles throughout my working life. When I am teaching I try to communicate to my students on a 1-2-1 basis in what can be large lecturer theatres, meaning that I am attempting to present a single, third-circle version of myself as a series of concurrent, and much smaller, second-circle replicas, like circular ripples on the surface of a much larger pond. On the other hand, when I am conducting research (and especially when I am reading academic papers) I almost always find myself craving the introspection that is afforded by the solitary cocoon of the first circle. This again caused me to question the expectance for university lecturer’s to be both gifted researchers and inspirational teachers. As Jensen (1988) point out, it can be difficult to administer this twofold task, given the differences pertaining to the very nature of the varying disciplines.

Not always such a bad thing (Photo Credit: Maik Meid)

Overall this session helped me to reflect deeply upon my own teaching and research practices, and to consider if it might be beneficial to step more regularly into the second or third circles during my research, and whether or not there is ever place for introspection at the front of the classroom. Discussing aspects of my research with colleagues and co-workers has certainly yielded results in the past, and it has also been shown that teachers who use silence report that students who do not ordinarily say much are more inclined to start sharing (see e.g. Rowe, 1969). I know that I am occasionally guilty of not giving my students a sufficient amount of time to respond to questions, or even to process information, and so this is something that I will now actively be addressing.

We all operate across these three circles of concentration in many of the different facets of our daily lives, but what this session has taught me more than anything else is that it is important to realise that not everyone will be operating in the same circle as me at anyone time, and that it is important for me to be sensitive to this in my interactions with others.

References:

JENSEN, J.-J. 1988. Research and teaching in the universities of Denmark: Does such an interplay really exist? Higher Education, 17, 17-26.

RODENBURG, P. 2002. The actor speaks: Voice and the performer, Palgrave Macmillan.

ROWE, M. B. 1969. Science, silence, and sanctions. Science and Children, 6, 11-13.

[classroombeing-blog]

Staging your Research II

On Thursday 23rd April, the ‘Staging Your Research’ collective met once again at the Capitol Theatre for a voyage of theatrical discovery. After last month’s session with Jackie Snow, today we worked with Simon Gilman, senior lecturer in acting at the Manchester School of Acting. Simon is an expert in the use of the voice, and so today’s session was an exploration of this particular instrument, with especial focus given to the notion of the voice being as much a physical thing as it is an intellectual ideology.

At the beginning of the session, Simon introduced the group to the Alexander technique, a method which aims to improve posture and movement, and which is believed to help correct and prevent problems caused by unhelpful habits. As well as being used to treat conditions ranging from chronic back pain (Little et al., 2008) to Parkinson’s disease (Stallibrass et al., 2002), the Alexander technique can also be used to help improve vocal quality. Indeed, that is the purpose for which the Australian actor Frederick Matthias Alexander developed it, as a personal tool to alleviate breathing problems and hoarseness during public speaking.

Frederick Matthias Alexander (Photo Credit: Fair use via Wikipedia)

Simon introduced us to this technique with a few gentle body re-positioning exercises that required us to work with a partner. Whilst this could have been awkward or slightly embarrassing, Simon did a fantastic job to alleviate any fears. I also think that the trust that we have collectively built up in previous sessions helped us in this process, and also with the integration of a couple of new members to the troupe.

After doing these exercises I genuinely felt about 2” taller, whilst my posture appeared to be the best that it has done in years (being 6’3” in height, I have a tendency to stoop). I also felt like my chest cavity was the size of a cave, and I found a significant improvement to the quality of my voice in terms of both richness and depth. This remained with me for the rest of the session, in which we participated in a number of ‘games’ that helped us to further explore the physicality of our voices.

After a break for dinner (once again provided by the fabulous Haleh Moravej and MetMunch), we split off into smaller groups to discuss what we had done this evening, and also how we used voice in our teaching and research. For me the most pertinent thing to come out of these discussions was the notion of ‘projection’, and how this was the wrong way to look at making sure that you are heard and understood; in fact Simon likened it to projectile vomiting! In order to truly be understood, and for your voice to have the necessary authority for the situation, it is instead important to be congruent. I found it fascinating that once again this issue of integrity is something that has been shown to be so fundamental to public speaking and performance, and it is something that I will make sure that I continue to discuss in my own lectures and workshops on effective communication.

Another thing to come out of today’s session is that people would really benefit from doing some movement/voice/relaxation work on a weekly basis. I know that there are a number of people in the group who would be able to lead on this, so maybe this is something that we can continue, and which will be a result of the project. We also briefly discussed what we will be doing in the next session, and whilst I have a framework in mind for what I think will work well, I didn’t want to give away too much, or to impose too many of my own ideas, as I think that what has worked best in this endeavour so far has been the semi-organic nature of it.

Annoyingly I once again forgot to take photos of proceedings, but this has now been rectified, and I have made sure there will now be someone available to document the next event. In hindsight it was foolish of me to assume that I could sufficiently detach myself from the proceedings to objectively record what was going on, but I am absolutely delighted that this has been the case, as I have thoroughly enjoyed being a participant in the process so far! 

References:

LITTLE, P., LEWITH, G., WEBLEY, F., EVANS, M., BEATTIE, A., MIDDLETON, K., BARNETT, J., BALLARD, K., OXFORD, F., SMITH, P., YARDLEY, L., HOLLINGHURST, S. & SHARP, D. 2008. Randomised controlled trial of Alexander technique lessons, exercise, and massage (ATEAM) for chronic and recurrent back pain. BMJ, 337, 438-441. STALLIBRASS, C., SISSONS, P. & CHALMERS, C. 2002. Randomized controlled trial of the Alexander Technique for idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Clinical Rehabilitation, 16, 695-708.

[classroombeing-blog]

Staging your Research I

For the past couple of months I have been involved with setting up a new interdisciplinary project at MMU, and it is one that I am VERY excited about.

Prior to my time in Manchester I spent two years working in Japan, where I taught at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, using theatrical technique to improve effective communication skills in science undergraduate and postgraduate students. This culminated in a performance at a Tokyo theatre, which was written, directed and performed by the students, all of whom greatly benefited from the experience in terms of their communication, confidence and teamwork. Theatre has been shown to be an effective tool in higher education (see e.g. Sloman and Thompson, 2010, Kettula and Berghäll, 2013), and since becoming a lecturer in Science Communication at MMU; I have been looking for an opportunity to do a similar activity here on the Oxford Road corridor, which is where Staging Your Research comes in.

The original premise of the programme (which is sponsored by CELT and RKE) was to work with researchers (from postgraduates to professors) from across the University (from the Faculty of Science & Engineering to the Manchester School of Art) to help develop their communication skills via the medium of theatre. Communication skills that could then be further utilised in their teaching practices, and also in the communication of their research to the general public. The Manchester School of Theatre are on board for approximately six sessions, over a six-month period, and we will be working closely with their programme leader David Shirley, as well as senior lecturers Jackie Snow and Simon Gilman.

Brainstorming in the first session.

The first session was hosted on 26th February 2015 in the Benzie Building, with about 15 people turning up to see what it was all about. In this session David talked to us about how theatrical technique can be used for effective communication, and for me the one key, take-home message was that however you give a presentation, it should be done with integrity and congruence. I was really happy to hear this, at is the same message that I teach in my Science Communication lectures.

All of the participants were also given the opportunity to share their own experiences, and to outline their hopes and expectations for the project. Listening to these discussions, people seemed to be hoping for three outcomes:

1. To improve communication skills 2. To develop innovative ways of communicating and doing research 3. To cultivate interdisciplinary links

The second session was run on 26th March 2015 in the Movement Studio of the Capitol Theatre. For the first hour or so, Jackie ran an extremely engaging and energetic movement session. I personally found this session to be of great benefit, as I am so used to being a practitioner that I am rarely able to experience events like this for myself. I found the workshop to be empathetic and invigorating, and also got lots of ideas from Jackie for my own future workshops, in particular I appreciated how Jackie ensured that we were all working together in a safe environment, which encouraged all of the participants to be fully engaged in the activities throughout.

After the session we all spent time discussing what we had done, and how we might use some of these ideas and activities in our future work together. After discussions with a couple of the participants, as well as some personal reflections, I think that the direction that this project is going in is towards a joint participatory event, rather than a ‘public performance’. This also ties in really well with the Education and Social research Institute (ESRI) Qualitative Research day on the 8th July, which we have already been asked to contribute something towards.

Another topic that came up during these discussions was the issue of breaking new ground with research, and how at times this can be a daunting task. We discussed how sometimes the best way to tackle this is to simply ‘go with the flow’ and to ‘enjoy the ride’. For me this neatly paralleled my experiences of Staging Your Research so far. It is important for me, as a facilitator, that I do not try and force a particular direction, but that instead I allow the project to grow organically. Watching both Jackie and David in their delivery, it is clear that they are experts in adapting to new environments and situations, and that is something that I need to be aware of in order to ensure that the project is of the greatest mutual benefit to all of the participants. I also need to remember to take more photos!

References

KETTULA, K. & BERGHÄLL, S. 2013. Drama-based role-play: A tool to supplement work-based learning in higher education. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25, 556-575. SLOMAN, K. & THOMPSON, R. 2010. An example of large-group drama and cross-year peer assessment for teaching science in higher education. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1877-1893.

[classroombeing-blog]

Planning a Masters

Essential Ingredients of a Good Research Proposal for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students in the Social Sciences by Abdulai and Owusu-Ansah (2014) sets out to provide a template for best practice regarding the construction of a research proposal. I am currently in the process of studying for my masters in academic practice, and one of my upcoming tasks is to write a research proposal for my dissertation, as such I felt like this was an appropriate paper to read. I also wanted to get some further grounding in the terminology used by social scientists when conducting their research.

My background as an atmospheric physicist means that I have typically approached research from a purely positivist theoretical perspective, and it has become apparent in my recent studies that this is not at all the only way! In addition to this, my current research in Science Communication tends to lean more towards the social sciences in terms of its suitability for publication, and so it is useful to read widely on the subject area.

This paper did a fine job of answering many of the questions that I had regarding different research methodologies, in particular it gave a concise and practical definition of ‘Action Research’. This is of particular pertinence, as it is the chosen methodology of a piece of summative group work that I am currently undertaking as part of my masters programme.

Overall I felt that that the authors did a good job of outlining how to construct a research proposal. However, there were a couple of areas that I thought were somewhat glossed over and which would have benefitted from further detail. For example, whilst the authors give reasonably clear definitions of epistemology and ontology, they could have given clearer examples of how the two differ in a practical sense when conducting research. They also somewhat gloss over the notion of a theoretical framework, stating that this: “will not normally crystallize at the research proposal writing stage” (Abdulai and Owusu-Ansah, 2014, pp. 14). However, I disagree with this, favouring the approach instead that is adopted by Crotty (1998), which argues that a theoretical perspective will help to frame the method of inquiry, as indicated in the diagram below.

The research framework, adopted from (Crotty, 1998, pp. 4)

I have two other issues with the paper, one minor and one major. The minor issue relates to the excessive verbosity of the paper, phrases such as sine qua non (something that is absolutely needed), are perhaps a little off-putting the target audience of undergraduate and postgraduate scholars, although I concede that it may just be that my own lexicon is sadly lacking!

The major issue that I have with the paper is that I think that it is at times reasonably subjective, and that whilst many elements of good practice are presented, the authors present a structure for a research proposal that they, as academics, would like to receive from their students. I think more could have been made to highlight the relative subjectivity of the narrative, because as evidenced by the theoretical framework debate outlined above, there is clearly more than one way to skin a research proposal.    

Overall though, I found this paper to be a helpful overview of the kind of questions that I should be asking myself when constructing my research proposal. It has clarified some issues that I had relating to methods of inquiry, and has pointed me in the direction of some further reading material to assist me in my studies. I am especially excited about reading more on ‘narrative research’, as this may turn out to be a potential strategy for inquiry for my masters thesis. 

References:

ABDULAI, R. T. & OWUSU-ANSAH, A. 2014. Essential Ingredients of a Good Research Proposal for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students in the Social Sciences. SAGE Open, 4, 2158244014548178. CROTTY, M. 1998. The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process, Sage.

[classroombeing-blog]

Student-Faculty Interaction and Social Class

Student–faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status by (Kim and Sax, 2009) is an ambitious study, which aims to assess if the effects of student-faculty interaction vary according to student gender, race, social class, and first-generation (i.e. neither parent of the student attended a university) status. It is a very clear and concise analysis, and for the purposes of this blog post I will only be reflecting on the findings relating social class, as it ties in with some research that I am currently engaged with.

The higher educational studies by Pascarella (1980) and Pascarella et al. (2005) explore in detail the positive benefits that student-faculty interaction can have on students in terms of their degree performance and aspirational career choices etc.  The potential benefits of these interactions have been shown to vary according to gender (see e.g. Colbeck et al., 2001) and race (see e.g. Lundberg and Schreiner, 2004) . However, as noted by Kim and Sax (2009) it is necessary to “broaden our notion of diversity” beyond race and gender to include social class and first-generation status.

The average University student? (Photo Credit: Botgirl Questi)

The study itself was conducted using a pool of several thousand undergraduate students from the University of California. However, the way in which the methodology is presented does not make clear exactly what the diversity statistics of the surveyed students was. This is because the Academic Engagement Module, which forms the basis of this survey, was part of a larger study. The diversity statistics of the smaller module appear to have been assumed to be the same as that of the larger survey despite a different sample size being taken. Another issue that I have with the methodology of this study is the way in which students are asked to rank themselves in terms of social class, which is rather crass (the are simply asked to indicate what type of family they come from, ranging from ‘poor’ to ‘wealthy’). I wonder if all students felt comfortable in answering such a question, or indeed if they did so honesty; the anonymity of the data is not commented upon.

In relation to social class, the survey found that there were differences apparent in the effects of course-related faculty content and student satisfaction. For example, upper-class students were found to be more likely to assist in faculty research for credits, whereas students from a lower-class background were more likely to do so in return for pay. It was also found that as a student’s social class increased they were more likely to interact or communicate with the faculty. Overall, the study found that students from a lower-class background were more likely to be excluded from faculty interaction.

The findings of this survey show demonstrate, in the words of the authors that:

“A one-size fits all student development model does not adequately capture the unique experience of various student subgroups.”

Studies such as this one are necessary so that universities can be encouraged to pay special attention to the underrepresentation of certain student subgroups in terms of student interaction and engagement.  Kim and Sax (2009) suggest that:

“Institutions and their members as well as higher education scholars need to know more about how lower-class and first generation students experience faculty contact differently from their counterparts.”

In order to do this, further studies are needed to ask why this disengagement is happening. Why is it that students from a lower social class are found to interact less, and what can be done to turn this around?

References:

COLBECK, C. L., CABRERA, A. F. & TERENZINI, P. T. 2001. Learning professional confidence: Linking teaching practices, students' self-perceptions, and gender. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 173-191. KIM, Y. K. & SAX, L. J. 2009. Student–faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50, 437-459. LUNDBERG, C. A. & SCHREINER, L. A. 2004. Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 549-565. PASCARELLA, E. T. 1980. Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of educational research, 50, 545-595. PASCARELLA, E. T., TERENZINI, P. T. & FELDMAN, K. A. 2005. How college affects students, Jossey-Bass San Francisco, CA.

[classroombeing-blog]

Tweeting Engagement

The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades by Junco et al. (2011) is an extremely well written study, which qualitatively investigates how using Twitter can have a positive impact on both engagement and performance amongst higher education students.

The study that is carried out in this paper is for a health professional class in a US University, which from the statistics supplied by the authors is predominantly Caucasian, and appears to attract students from reasonably privileged backgrounds (only 28% of the reported sample came from families where neither parent had a degree, and the authors acknowledged that this was a typical representation for across the University). Despite the limits in this study regarding ethnic and apparent social diversity, and the relatively small sample size (125 students) across only one research discipline, the study is still an extremely useful insight into if Twitter can be used to improve student engagement and grade performance.

The study was conducted by splitting the students into different groups, depending on whether they were required to use Twitter (experimental group) or not (control group) during a first year seminar course for pre-health (students planning to apply to medical, dental, chiropractic schools etc.) professional majors. At the start of the study the students were asked to fill in a pre-engagement questionnaire, and then after the study they were asked to fill in a similar form. The students involved gave permission for the grades that they received to be used. They also gave permission for their high school grades to be accessed, which allowed for statistical tests to be carried out, ensuring that there was no existing performance differences between the experimental and control groups.  

Engagement was discussed in terms of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education laid out by Chickering and Gamson (1987):

1. Student/faculty contact 2. Cooperation among students 3. Active learning 4. Prompt feedback 5. Emphasising time on task 6. Communicating high expectations 7. Respecting diversity

The study referred to these seven pillars of engagement throughout, and was able to demonstrate through anecdotal and empirical evidence that they had achieved greater engagement via each of these items. The statistics also showed that the students in the experimental group had improved grades. However, I found it strange that the method in which the engagement was assessed was via pre- and post-study questionnaires, which themselves are entirely static and non-engaging. I think that future studies would do well to look at alternative means of measurement, which are more in keeping with the ideologies of the study itself.

Students, engaging? (Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

It is important to note that the control group still had the opportunity to interact with the faculty and the other students using social media, as both groups used Ning instead of a learning management system (e.g. Blackboard, Moodle etc.). The authors themselves acknowledge that it is difficult to delineate between the effect of Twitter as a technology and Twitter as a facilitatory tool. I am also slightly sceptical of the claims that none of the participants in this study had previously used Twitter, even if it was 2010 and the little blue bird was not quite as ubiquitous as it is today!

This study has certainly given me plenty of food for thought, including the following two ideas that I aim to implement in my own teaching:

1. Ask students to use Twitter to post their collective thoughts on a book read outside of class time. 2. Use Twitter to help facilitate the creation of study groups and extra-curricular activities between students. Helping students to gain access to institutional and out-of-classroom support resources has been shown to be an effective way of encouraging engagement and retention rates (see e.g. Dean and Jolly, 2012)

Aside from examples of good practice though, this study has made me aware of the additional work that is still needed in order to better understand how Twitter and other social media can be used to improve student engagement. I am particularly interested in determining if Twitter can be used to help engage students who are historically less engaged to begin with, such as those who are first-generation students (Kuh, 2009). The issue of how social class affects Twitter usage is also a topic that would be fascinating to probe further.  

References:

CHICKERING, A. W. & GAMSON, Z. F. 1987. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE bulletin, 3, 7. DEAN, K. L. & JOLLY, J. P. 2012. Student identity, disengagement, and learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 228-243. JUNCO, R., HEIBERGER, G. & LOKEN, E. 2011. The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of computer assisted learning, 27, 119-132. KUH, G. D. 2009. What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 683-706.

[classroombeing-blog]

How UK Students view science and technology

Student opinion in England about science and technology by Jenkins (2006) is a very interesting study, that presents elements of the Relevance of Science Education project (ROSE), from a UK perspective. The ROSE project itself was an ambitious study, designed to “shed light on affective factors of importance to the learning of science and technology,” with a target age group of students towards the end of their secondary school education (15-16).

The ROSE study comprised of a questionnaire, with a series of questions on a Likert-type scale, and the results presented by Jenkins (2006) concentrated on UK students only, focussing on those questions in the ROSE study which asked the students about their “opinions about science and technology.” Overall I found this to be a well written, and concise paper that made good use of the limited quantitative evidence to draw some general conclusions and suggest areas for future research.

Some of the results of the survey were, to my mind at least, quite surprising. For example that the majority of students did not agree with the statement “scientists are neutral and objective.” The author groups this response alongside other general disagreement to the statements: “scientists always follow the scientific method that always leads them to the correct answers” and “we should always trust what scientists say,” however I would disagree with such a grouping. The wording of these other two questions is far more absolute, and it is not surprising that the students thought that scientists were not always right or trustworthy, indeed it is encouraging that they felt this way. However, the wording of the question regarding the neutrality and objectivity of scientists would seem to imply a general dogma rather than an absolute one. If the question had been worded instead as “scientists are always neutral and objective,” then this would have made for a fairer comparison.

Is this how the majority of school students view science? (Photo Credit: Public Domain)

One area of discussion that I felt would have benefited from further insight was the difference in perception between ‘science’ as a school subject and as an academic pursuit. This is a fascinating topic that is consigned to a couple of sentences and a (admittedly very interesting) footnote, although given the data that was available in this study I concede that it would have been difficult to develop this idea further, beyond simple conjecture. I imagine that it would make for a rewarding future study.

The main issue that I had with the paper was that some of the comparisons with other similar European studies, such as those conducted by the European Commission and the National Science Board were slight abject. For example, the author suggests that the Eurobarometer survey (see e.g. Bréchon, 2009, Gaskell et al., 2011) is not suitable for a direct comparison with the findings of the ROSE survey because of differences in sampling and methodology. This is understandable, however what is less understandable is why the author makes general comparisons using pan-European statistics, rather than adopting a UK focus that is keeping with the rest of the paper. As noted by the author, the Eurobarometer survey does provide statistics on a country-by-country basis, yet no justification is given as to why these are not used for the general comparison.

The main conclusion from the paper is that whilst the survey yielded some interesting results, the nature of the questionnaire meant that it was unable to provide any robust strategies for the promotion of science as a subject discipline. For example, the survey found that a strong majority of the students felt that science and technology would present greater opportunities for future generations. However, as Jenkins and Nelson (2005) found in another study using the same students but a different set of questions, a career in the sciences seemed to have little appeal. This would therefore point to either an apathetic set of students who realised the potential of science but wanted no part of it, or else a deeply frustrated set of students who saw the potential but felt that they had no part in it.

Ultimately, that is the biggest issue with studies such as this one, that whilst they can highlight some interesting permutations, their absolute and relatively short-term nature mean that deeper analysis is often very difficult. This, in turn, as the author concedes, means that:

“Attempts to encourage more students to choose the physical sciences are likely to be at best hit and miss, and at worst counterproductive.”  

Using surveys such as those produced by the ROSE project as a starting point, longitudinal, mixed method studies would help to provide the answers to some of the questions that are raised in this paper, and would stand a greater chance of producing long-term, productive measures to enthuse secondary school students into science-related careers.

References:

BRÉCHON, P. 2009. A breakthrough in comparative social research: The ISSP compared with the eurobarometer, EVS and ESS surveys. The International Social Survey Programme 1984-2009: Charting the Globe.

GASKELL, G., ALLANSDOTTIR, A., ALLUM, N., CASTRO, P., ESMER, Y., FISCHLER, C., JACKSON, J., KRONBERGER, N., HAMPEL, J., MEJLGAARD, N., QUINTANILHA, A., RAMMER, A., REVUELTA, G., STARES, S., 

TORGERSEN, H. & WAGER, W. 2011. The 2010 Eurobarometer on the life sciences. Nature Biotechnology, 29, 113-114.

JENKINS, E. W. 2006. Student opinion in England about science and technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 24, 59-68.

JENKINS, E. W. & NELSON, N. 2005. Important but not for me: Students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23, 41-57.

[classroombeing-blog]

Being in the Classroom

Being in the classroom by Ramsey and Fitzgibbons (2005) describes a teaching process in which the authors move from doing something to their students, to doing something with their students, to being with their students. It is, on the whole, an extremely well argued paper, in which the authors cite examples from the field of educational psychology and also make use of personal experiences to highlight their successes in using this method.

The central thesis of the being approach to teaching is to reassess the roles of the teachers and the learners, and to ultimately work towards an environment where there is an emphasis on learning, and in which the role of the teacher becomes that of a servant leader (as described by e.g. Autry, 2007).

The authors discuss that in order for this approach to work, it needs to be underpinned by both student commitments and “explicitness about the class process.” They also acknowledge that none of their courses have ever been taught entirely with a being approach, but rather that they exist towards this end on a doing-being scale. They also concede that there are times when the students do need to learn factual knowledge and skills that can only be imparted using a doing approach, although they argue that in these instances doing with is normally favourable to doing to.

There are many inspirational and aspirational arguments laid out in this paper, and from my viewpoint as a humanist, I particularly liked the statement that:

“Every person, every experience, every reflection, every question asked of oneself or another, every interaction observed, every element of the universe is a potential source of learning.”

Whilst this may, to some, seem like quite a ‘new age’ or ‘far out’ statement, it really appealed to me in terms of what I ultimately think the purpose of a University is, i.e. to stimulate the intellectual curiosity of our students.

There are also plenty of practical resources given in the paper for running both being and doing focussed sessions. Many of these focus on the development of mutual respect, ability, and obligation between teacher and student, which is necessary for effective learning to take place (see e.g. Oser, 1992). One of the suggestions that I will be adopting with some of my students is to begin each class with a check-in, in which the students respond to a question, geared towards their understanding of the subject matter outside of the taught environment. For example, for my science communication students, this might take the form of: “Can you give me one good example of effective communication that you have seen this week”, or “What news story has stuck with you this week, and why?” The authors also suggest rotating responsibility for the setting of this question amongst the students.

In some respects we have still moved very little from 14th-century teaching practices (Photo Credit: Laurentius de Voltolina [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons).

The authors of the paper do a relatively good job of addressing the key concerns that others may have in adopting a being approach to delivery. As mentioned above, they acknowledge that there is still a place for doing in the learning environment, and they also acknowledge that once classes exceed 35-40 students in size, the approach that they have outlined becomes very difficult to integrate effectively.

In regards to the notion that the implementation of being is very much dependent upon the institution, they state that: “success depends more on attitudes, we believe, than on institutional characteristics or perceived constraints.” However, they are unable to provide any evidence, either anecdotally or from the literature, that this is the case, and I suspect that there will also be a cultural angle that would need to be considered in implementing this approach outside of the US educational system (in which the authors operate).

The authors also address the situation where students do not engage with their approach, although for me this is perhaps the weakest and most disappointing part of the paper. Regarding student motivation, they state that:

“We believe that the choices to prepare, participate, and learn are and should remain with the students. In a being class that works, most students willingly opt to come aboard. Those who don’t choose to learn less.”

I think that this is quite an arrogant statement, which is directly in contradiction to the improvement in pastoral care that is suggested elsewhere in the paper. Dean and Jolly (2012) have written about the responsibility of the teacher to investigate why some students are disengaged, and the collegiate nature of the approach discussed by Ramsey and Fitzgibbons (2005) would indicate that they are in an ideal position to do just that. Ultimately I think that more work could be done to ensure that “none are left behind.”

Despite my concerns regarding the authors approach to student disengagement, I thought that this was a fascinating paper, and I will certainly be implementing some of the methods and ideologies with my own students. After all, learning is such a beautiful thing; why should I be the one to miss out.

   References:

AUTRY, J. A. 2007. The Servant Leader: How to Build a Creative Team, Develop Great Morale, and Improve Bottom-Line Perf ormance, Random House LLC.

DEAN, K. L. & JOLLY, J. P. 2012. Student identity, disengagement, and learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11, 228-243.

OSER, F. K. 1992. Effective and Responsible Teaching: The New Synthesis, ERIC.

RAMSEY, V. J. & FITZGIBBONS, D. E. 2005. Being in the classroom. Journal of Management Education, 29, 333-356.

[classroombeing-blog]

Reflecting on Reflection

I read with interest Chapters 6 and 7 of ‘A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice’ (Moon, 2004), and found myself agreeing and disagreeing with some of what was covered. In keeping with the focus of the chapters, I thought I would reflect on this reading.

On Page 80, Moon (2004) states that:

“The content of ‘reflective writing’ is not a direct mirror of what happens in the head, but it is a representation of the process with a chosen medium - in this case writing.”

I think that this is a really interesting statement, and it made me think what our reflections would be like if recorded audibly or using video. The reflective blogs that I have currently set some of my students for summative assessment purposes are very informal by nature, and would I suspect represent a sub-genre within the medium of writing. This made me wonder if any of these approaches could be adopted as a potential summative assessment medium, i.e. by allowing students to reflect upon their observations in e.g. a podcast or vodcast?

Reflections are not just a direct mirror, but a representation of the process within the chosen medium. (Photo Credit: Meckser (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons)

The passage that I found myself disagreeing most vehemently with was on page 87, where Moon (2004) states that: “reflective learning occurs when learning is relatively ill-structured or is challenging to a learner”. I disagree, as I feel that reflective learning can also occur when the learner is engaged with a subject that they find intellectually stimulating, but not necessarily challenging. Van Woerkom (2004, pp. 180) notes that, “Reflective learning occurs if the person considers it and makes an intellectual decision about it;” there is no reference here to ill-structure or difficulty. In fact, from my own teaching experiences I think that ill-structured learning can actually inhibit reflective learning, as with poor structure, the learner can be left unable to grasp anything to reflect upon.

Another passage that particularly resonated with me, was on page 100, when Moon (2004) notes that:

“Perhaps there are a few who, in taking a relatively strategic approach to reflective tasks, stumble across useful understandings of the subject matter which encourage them, subsequently to adopt a deeper approach.”

Much has been written on the subject of shallow, strategic and deep learners (see e.g. Riding and Rayner, 2013), but I think that this passage by Moon (2004) is an interesting observation; that be encouraging the learners to reflect as part of summative assessment then those students who do so in order to ‘score well’ or ‘pass the unit’, might just stumble upon an approach to learning that is deeply beneficial to their future practices. I have certainly found in the past that engaging in discussion boards have lead to a deeper understanding of the subject, if only because the opinions of others are often so much more erudite and learned than my own.

  References:

MOON, J. A. 2004. A handbook of reflective and experiential learning: Theory and practice, Psychology Press.

RIDING, R. & RAYNER, S. 2013. Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behavior, Routledge.

VAN WOERKOM, M. 2004. The concept of critical reflection and its implications for human resource development. Advances in developing human resources, 6, 178-192.

[classroombeing-blog]

Failing to Communicate

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts

These comforting words from Winston Churchill ring soundly in my ears, as I contemplate the Google Hangout session on ‘Communicating’ that I have just run for the January 2015 edition of Bring Your Own Device For Learning (BYOD4L). It was supposed to go so smoothly; a similar event that I had run in July 2014 had been an unqualified success, and I had since followed my own advice and prepared an agenda and undertaken a practice run. I had even recorded a trailer for the event on YouTube for heavens sake!

Sadly in the end, no one turned up to the hangout, and so instead I decided to record a short one-man discussion about the virtues of effective communication. It was just then that the first participant arrived, the deliveryman from UPS. This caused me to loose my train of thought, stopping the recording in the process and forever associating the event with a 60-second video of abject failure. Watching it, I could imagine how Martin Sheen must have felt reliving the hotel scene in Apocalypse Now (number 8 in this list), albeit with more clothes and less blood. Still, it spurred me into action, prompting me to record this new video about communicating effectively, and giving me an excuse to quote Theodore Roosevelt in the process.

The whole ordeal also got me thinking about the notion of failure, and how many of the students that I teach at Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) struggle to cope with it. Being a scientist, I am well aware that failure is as important a part of research as success, and that a desire to be always right and to never fail has ramifications to the pursuit of knowledge, but how do I impart this wisdom to my students?

Outside of academia, organizations are widely encouraged to learn from their failures, but it is something that many individuals still find difficult to implement (Cannon and Edmondson, 2005). By exploring the nature of failure, in particular collaborative failure, at this stage in their academic development, it is hoped that the students will be well prepared for innovative thinking post-university.

  Both equally valid destinations on the road to discovery (Photo Credit: StockMonkeys.com)

According to Stanford University psychologist Carol Dweck’s work on mindset, people can be classified as having either a fixed or a growth mindset. Those with a fixed mindset attribute failure as being something intrinsic and unavoidable, whereas those with a growth mindset view failure as a temporary stop on the way to success. Dweck (2006) found that teaching young children about the way in which the brain learns actually made them more likely to succeed in academic tests. By discussing these ideas with my students I hope to be able to persuade them that their failures are just a necessary step in their academic progression. It is important that rather than getting hung up on the failure, they reflect on what has gone wrong and why, and then resolve to use this information to further their knowledge and understanding.

According to the American philosopher John Dewey, If we reject absolute certainty as unattainable, being fallible allows us to view our beliefs as “being well-supported and warranted in terms of presently available evidence and current theories, but always subject to revision in the light of further evidence and reflection” (Hare, 2004). In demonstrating my own fallibility I hope to be able to demonstrate to my students that the acceptance of one’s owns failures is a trait that has been necessary throughout history, in order to avoid scientific stagnation. 

The next time I discuss the concept of failure with my students, I will be sure to mention today’s non-Hangout, I just won’t be showing them the original recording of that video anytime soon…

  References

  CANNON, M. D. & EDMONDSON, A. C. 2005. Failing to learn and learning to fail (intelligently): How great organizations put failure to work to innovate and improve. Long Range Planning, 38, 299-319.

DWECK, C. 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success, Random House LLC.

HARE, W. 2004. Open-minded inquiry. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 23, 37-41.

[classroombeing-blog]

Elec-Tricks

Electrical engineers are currently on the UK Government’s shortage occupation list, with the Institution of Engineering and Technology (JET) engineers having warned that the increasing number of students taking Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) A Levels is not enough to address the this skills shortage [Harris, 2010].

Other research has shown that STEM graduates remain stratified by social origin and ability, and that this sorting takes place during compulsory schooling, in the same way as it does for other high status subjects. [Smith and Gorard, 2011]. As such, it is imperative that interventions take place at Key Stage 3 (Years 7-9) and Key Stage 4 (Years 10-11, i.e. GCSE), when school students still have the opportunity to be selective in their choice of future study.

During the summer of 2014, Dr Lisa Simmons and I worked with a group of Nuffield Research Placements students (see below) to create a workshop, designed to enthuse students from Key Stages 3 and 4 to study electrical engineering at GCSE and beyond, and to consider it as a potential course in higher education. Such courses have been run with considerable success in other countries [see e.g. Ravishankar et al., 2012], but to our knowledge Elec-Tricks was the first of its kind to take place in the UK.

Nuffield Research Placements (previously Nuffield Science Bursaries) provide over 1,000 students each year with the opportunity to work alongside professional scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians [Chapman, 2002]. Students in the first year of a post-16 STEM course are eligible to apply, with placements available across the UK, in universities, commercial companies, voluntary organisations and research institutions.

The students worked incredibly hard over a 6-week period, along with assistance from our fabulous technicians, and one of MMU’s PhD students, Dean O’Reilly. Working from a rough template that Lisa and I had created, they put together a 5-hr workshop that taught key aspects of electrical engineering through practical exercises that were designed to both educate and enthuse.

A Problem-Based Learning (PBL) approach was adopted, as compared to conventional instruction it has the potential to be a more nurturing and enjoyable [Albanese and Mitchell, 1993] learning environment; it also ensures that students are more likely to remember the acquired knowledge in the long term [Dochy et al., 2003]. Lisa and I use a number of different PBL activities with our level 4 (first year) physics undergraduate students, and so we were able to draw on our expertise of delivering these projects, in particular remembering to define learning-appropriate goals to help ensure deep understanding [Barron et al., 1998].

The activities included building circuits to discover the effects of ‘mystery’ components (e.g. capacitors and diodes), as well as building and soldering a circuit that resulted in a sequence of flashing lights, onto a printed circuit board. The final activity of the day required the students to build a solar-powered car, for which they had to use all of the skills that they had learnt in the morning, e.g. soldering and circuit construction.

  Students get to grips with building a solar-powered car.

This process of encouraging the students to use previously taught skills to achieve a set task reinforces the earlier subject matter, and it is something that I could make better use of in my own teaching practice. For example, in a lecture on citizen science I could spend the last 10 minutes of the session by setting my students the challenge of developing a framework for their own citizen science projects.

An element of competition was introduced to the Elec-Tricks event by awarding prizes for the most neatly soldered components, and for the fastest solar-powered car; these extrinsic rewards acting as concrete representations that something of “value” had been accomplished [Shindler, 2009].

This workshop was delivered at the end of November, at the Museum of Science and Industry, with 30 school students from 10 local Manchester schools involved. Despite the event being advertised as being for year 9 and year 10 students, there was a far more eclectic mix, with students from year 7 (11-12 years old) to year 11 (15-16 years old). However, the year 7s more then held their own, eventually winning the soldering challenge for their exceptional competency. The performance of the younger students was an example of an indirect form of peer mentoring [see e.g. DuBois and Karcher, 2013], which can be used to great effect to inspire younger students to achieve closer to their maximum potential.

Peer mentoring is something that I would like to explore in my own teaching practices, as I think that both sets of students could benefit greatly from such a scheme. For example, by encouraging final year students to mentor first year undergraduates, proactive interventions could enhance important aspects of learning and pastoral care [see e.g. Chester et al., 2013], potentially leading to an increase in retention.

The feedback for the event was overwhelmingly positive, with all of the students and teachers remarking on the fact that they had enjoyed the activities, and also learnt a lot about electrical engineering, and the potential pathways to successful and interesting careers that it provides.

One teacher’s feedback was that:

     “My students hadn’t really thought about studying electrical engineering,        but now they are strongly considering taking it at A-level.”

This comment was extremely encouraging, and demonstrated that events such as Elec-Tricks could provide the intervention needed to enthuse younger students to pursue electrical engineering at A level and beyond.

References

Albanese, M. A., and S. Mitchell (1993), Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues, Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52-81.

Barron, B. J. S., D. L. Schwartz, N. J. Vye, A. Moore, A. Petrosino, L. Zech, and J. D. Bransford (1998), Doing with Understanding: Lessons from Research on Problem- and Project-Based Learning, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 271-311.

Chapman, F. (2002), Nuffield bursaries: A national scheme for high school students, Cell Biology International, 26(9), 837-840.

Chester, A., L. J. Burton, S. Xenos, and K. Elgar (2013), Peer mentoring: Supporting successful transition for first year undergraduate psychology students, Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 30-37.

Dochy, F., M. Segers, P. Van den Bossche, and D. Gijbels (2003), Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis, Learning and Instruction, 13(5), 533-568.

DuBois, D. L., and M. J. J. Karcher (2013), Handbook of youth mentoring, Sage Publications.

Harris, S. (2010), Not enough students take STEM A Levels, warns IET, Engineer, AUGUST.

Ravishankar, J., P. Allen, R. Eaton, E. Ambikairajah, and S. J. Redmond (2012), Taste of electrical engineering workshops for high school students, paper presented at Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering, TALE 2012.

Shindler, J. (2009), Transformative classroom management: Positive strategies to engage all students and promote a psychology of success, John Wiley & Sons.

Smith, E., and S. Gorard (2011), Is there a shortage of scientists? A re-analysis of supply for the UK, British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(2), 159-177.

[classroombeing-blog]

Finding Fame

Finding Fame

I was absolutely delighted to be an invited judge for the regional finals of the UK’s 2014 FameLab, on Wednesday 20th November, at the Museum of Science and Engineering (MOSI). 

Advertised as an exciting competition to find the new voices of science and engineering from across the world, FameLab is a great opportunity for both practicing and aspiring researchers to show off about the subjects that impassion and enthral them.

Along with Professor Judith Smith and Professor Andy Miah from the University of Salford, a very pleasant early afternoon and evening were spent watching Manchester’s finest compete for a place in the regional final, compered so beautifully by the effervescent Dr Katie Steckles. 

All of the contenders were given just three minutes to impress and enthral, and as judges we were asked to mark them on: the content of their speech, the clarity of their delivery, and the charisma of the presenter. There was also an opportunity for us to ask questions, to further probe the knowledge and engagement of the presenters.

Regarding the inclusion of ‘charisma’ as a marking criteria there is an interesting pedagogical analogy to be made with the work of Shevlin et al. [2000], who argue that there is a halo effect in students’ evaluations of their lecturers, produced by the former’s perceptions of the latter as charismatic. From my own personal experiences, both in and outside of academia, I often identify ‘good’ lecturers or speakers as those that I would also classify as charismatic.

From personal feedback and anecdotal evidence, I would class my own presentational and lecturing style as charismatic, and I believe that this sometimes does have a positive effect on my students. However, I also know that I have to work hard so that my approach does not come across as egotistical or intimidating, especially to students whose nature is more introverted than my own. 

Latvia’s entrant at the FameLab International Semi-Final part 2014; winners of the regional finals progress to a national final, the winners of which get to go to this! Photo credit: FameLab UK. 

Three-minute presentations, in which an entire topic is expected to be introduced and discussed, can be extremely daunting, especially in front of a live (and summative!) audience. However, all of the FameLab contestants did an incredibly good job of putting together some truly memorable presentations. From the first three minutes of the Universe to the importance of the honeybee, we were treated to some fascinating topics delivered by a selection of engaging personalities. 

Next year I plan on encouraging some of my students to enter FameLab, as I think that it would present an opportunity for enhancement of experiential learning in higher education [Kolb and Kolb, 2005], via extra curricula opportunities. We could practice these 3-minute presentations in our seminars, and then I could encourage the students to enter the competition. Even if they were not successful in progressing through the heats, they would be learning key communication and presentation skills, which would tie in well with the MMU Commitment to provide courses with a strong focus on employability, professionalism and enterprise.

Deciding on which candidates to send through to the regional finals was incredibly tough. However, in the end my esteemed colleagues and I prevailed, sending five candidates through to FameLab’s regional final, which featured the best candidates from the Manchester and Sheffield regional heats, and was hosted by the MOSI on Monday 9th December. My co-judges in the final were Professor Miah and the BBC’s science reporter Victoria Gill, with the event again compared by Dr Steckles, in front of a large and vivacious crowd.

In the finals, the participants had to present a completely different topic to that used in the heats, and again the shear scope of topics was mightily impressive. It was also really encouraging to see that many of the Manchester-based contestants had taken on board the feedback that was given to them following their performance in the heats, demonstrating that the participants were able to use feedback as great potential for learning [see e.g. Jonsson, 2013].

All of the finalists performed admirably, but in the words of Christopher Lambert, “there can be only one’”, with Ben Stutchbury taking home the bacon (in the form of a Amazon gift voucher), for his engaging talk about the maverick physician Barry Marshall. Ben will also be entered into the national finals; fingers crossed for a Mancunian winner! 

References

  Jonsson, A. (2013), Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education, Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 63-76.

Kolb, A. Y., and D. A. Kolb (2005), Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193-212.

Shevlin, M., P. Banyard, M. Davies, and M. Griffiths (2000), The validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: love me, love my lectures?, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 397-405.

[classroombeing-blog]

FLEX 5: The Use of Facebook as a Learning Tool

Prior to my recent experiences facilitating an open learning event for students and teachers (Bring Your Own Device For Learning AKA BYOD4L, more of which can be read about here), I had remained unconvinced about the ability to use Facebook as anything other than a social media, with which to connect with my friends and family. This opinion was formed on the back of a number of ‘professional’ groups that I had both been a member of and had also attempted to form. From these episodes I had found Facebook to be a very stymied resource, which felt forced and not at all conducive to a naturally collaborative environment. Rather, it was one in which people spent more time observing than they did posting. This behaviour was also observed by Pempek et al. (2009, pp. 227), who also found that, “Facebook was used most often for social interaction, primarily with friends with whom the students had a pre-established relationship offline.” However, Wang et al. (2012) found that many of the fundamental functions of a learning management system could be easily implemented into a Facebook group, and through my facilitating experiences during BYOD4L I also found this to be the case. As a facilitator on Facebook I ensured that I read all of the posts, and that I left comments wherever possible, structuring these comments so that they sparked further thought and discussion, There was some debate as to whether it was better to comment directly on the blog themselves, or to leave comments on the Facebook group wall. I started off by doing the later, but as preferences shifted, I tried to alter my strategy to suit the individual needs of the poster, whilst also considering the needs of the group. A good compromise seemed to be to leave detailed comments on the blog posts themselves, and then briefer comments within the Facebook group. In future Facebook facilitations, the best option would appear to be to leave detailed comments on the blogs themselves, and then shorter (but different) comments in the Facebook wall which were specifically designed to spark debate within the Facebook group.

Facebook: Not just another brick in the digital wall (Photo Credit: Brookie)

Wang et al. (2012) also noted that students did not always feel as though their privacy was adequately protected via interaction with Facebook groups, and whilst this did not appear to be the case during the BYOD4L experience, more could have been done to ensure that all participants were aware of how to suitably adjust their privacy settings for their individual needs (e.g. to stop articles that were posted in the group from appearing on ‘non-BYOD4L‘ Facebook friends’ walls).

Prior to BYOD4L I had been unconvinced about the use of Facebook as a learning platform, but my experiences showed me that Facebook could indeed be used to engage with a willing and able community, and also highlighted that how, with the correct facilitation, it could be used as a useful tool to help promote discussion and collaboration amongst my students. The way in which the students would ultimately benefit most from this experience is by giving them the opportunity to setup and facilitate the Facebook group themselves. This way the students would be able to create a learning environment that was conducive to their individual learning needs; it would also provide the students with great opportunities to facilitate themselves in an open environment. Such ownership and direct involvement in the facilitation process would also present the students with an awareness of professionalism, sustainability and social responsibility, all of which are key facets of MMU’s corporate strategy towards Student Experience.

Encouraging students to use Facebook as a learning tool also presents me as a lecturer with more flexibility to engage with them at times that are convenient for them. This in turn will lead to the students feeling more inclusive, and will mean in turn help to foster a more collegial atmosphere amongst the students and between the students and myself (Marovich et al., 2010).  More can be read about how social media can be used to promote interaction and inclusivity, and how it is being done across UK HE institutions, on this post by the UK Media-Enhanced Learning Special Interest Group (MELSIG) 

The ethical and privacy considerations discussed above are also something that needs to be considered and understood by the students, who may have difficulty in translating their understanding of traditional, analogue-based ethics (e.g. the use of people’s personal information from surveys) into digital processes. It is also important to adopt the position that technology as well as humans has a moral character in order to disclose ethical concerns that are not transparent to users of the site (Light and McGrath, 2010), and these ideas will need to be explored with the students prior to the use of Facebook as a learning tool.

  Action Points

Set up a Facebook group page for my first year Physics students, which I can then facilitate, and use to answer queries and comments, plus foster collaborations across the cohort. Prior to this I will need to fully understand and test the group/open privacy and security settings with Facebook, and to make my students aware of this.

Encourage my students to take ownership of the Facebook group, and to use it as a tailored learning environment for their development.

The easy distribution of content over a global network has led to dramatic changes in scholarly practice (Weller, 2011), and the digital facilitator now has a responsibility to help both encourage that sharing and distribution and in providing and platforms and opportunities for a community to grow on. Using Facebook as a learning tool presents one such option in terms of helping to establish and nurture this digital community.

  References

  LIGHT, B. & MCGRATH, K. 2010. Ethics and social networking sites: a disclosive analysis of Facebook. Information Technology & People, 23, 290-311.

MAROVICH, M., STANAITYTE, J. & WANKEL, C. 2010. Cutting-edge social media approaches to business education: teaching with LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Second Life, and blogs, IAP.

PEMPEK, T. A., YERMOLAYEVA, Y. A. & CALVERT, S. L. 2009. College students' social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 227-238.

WANG, Q., WOO, H. L., QUEK, C. L., YANG, Y. & LIU, M. 2012. Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 428-438.

WELLER, M. 2011. The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice, A&C Black.

[classroombeing-blog]

FLEX 4: Creative Networking

Creative Spaces was held on Thursday 24th July 2014 in Manchester Metropolitan University’s (MMU) John Dalton Gardens as a way of getting people from across the University to connect, communicate and hopefully collaborate on future projects. My role was to project manage and facilitate the activities; I also ran the flash poetry stand (see below). Facilitating in a creative manner like this emphasizes collective work and collaborative learning through the interaction of the participants. (Vidal, 2004)

The event was well attended, with over 40 members of staff turning up to enjoy the festivities and the beautiful July sunshine. Upon arrival each of the participants was asked to fill in a short tag, in order to give an indication of what they want from and what they have to offer to any future collaborative projects. There were then a number of activities for the participants to engage with, including, mind-controlled Scalextric, create your own superhero, flash poetry, and mathematical bubbles. It was great to see so many of the partakers really getting engaged with the activities, and hopefully this sparked some creative ideas for future public engagement events both within the University and beyond.

The 'poe-tree', where attendees' fabulous short verses were displayed

I believe that the event was a success because I was able to encourage conversation between different parties, in a relaxed and enjoyable manner. The hands-on activities encouraged people to naturally interact with the other participants, with conversations spreading out well into the lunchtime. During the event, I also used the ‘I have/I want’ tags to match up participants into potentially productive couplings. These pairings were then displayed for everyone to see, and everybody was left with the task of making a note of their respective partner, and encouraged to email them to discuss common grounds and conceivable collaborations. It was very encouraging to see that by the end of the event many people had already found their respective partners and were starting to make connections.

This methodology of facilitating creative thought through interactive activities is one that I could and perhaps should be using with my students. I can see how the organisation of such an event would be of great benefit to them, not only to get them thinking creatively, but also to help foster networking skills, which are a key facet of employability and which are directly linked to MMU’s offer of “leading edge courses and learning opportunities that are… oriented towards employability, professionalism and enterprise”, as outlined in MMU’s corporate strategy towards Student Experience.

Rather than running an event like this for my students it would be even more productive to instruct the students to organise it themselves. This would be a great experiential learning experience for them, and would tie into my commitment to placing more trust in my students to enable them to develop, as outlined in this blog post.

Heutagogy is the study of self-determined learning, in which it is important that learners acquire both a proven ability in learning knowledge and skills (competency), and a confidence in using those skills (capability) in a meaningful way (Blaschke, 2012). Self-organised and self-directed learning can be used as a tool to both empower and motivate our students, and by encouraging my students to develop and deliver their own Creative Spaces-style event I would ultimately be helping to develop both their competency and their capability. What would also be fascinating would be to see how my students reacted to this challenge, specifically how the students generated their own contexts to cope with the challenge, and how their competency and capabilities changed throughout. For more information on the world of heutagogy, this excellent interview with Fred Garnett (@fredgarnett) is an excellent starting point. 

Some of the feedback that I received from the event was that we could have used the mindset that the creative activities inspired in people to brainstorm ideas for more public engagement and outreach activities. There was the thought that this was potentially a wasted opportunity to harness a very good potential collective output, as by doing these activities it put people in the correct creative mindset. Reflecting on my teaching practices, I could do this with my students, by asking them to participate in some creative activities at the start of a lecture or workshop in order to energise them and to get them thinking in a creative mindset from the off.  It is in an educator’s power to push the motivation button (Burns and Gentry, 1998), and by encouraging the students to become engaged from the moment they enter the classroom is one of the devices that can be used to implement this.

    Action Points

Facilitate networking opportunities amongst my students. Getting my Applied Physics students to run a ‘Creative Spaces’ style event, in which they show off their ideas and research, can do this. By asking the students to organise the event themselves I will also be enabling them to develop other key employability skills such as teamwork and project management.

Include a creative activity in the start of one of the lectures on the  ‘Science Communication’ level 7 module that I teach. This technique will be used to motivate and energise the students for the session, and will be refined depending on the reaction, and subsequent progress, made by the students.

  References

BLASCHKE, L. M. 2012. Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13, 56-71.

BURNS, A. C. & GENTRY, J. W. 1998. Motivating students to engage in experiential learning: A tension-to-learn theory. Simulation and Gaming, 29, 133-151.

VIDAL, R. V. V. 2004. The vision conference: facilitating creative processes. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17, 385-405.

[classroombeing-blog]

FLEX 3: Experiential Learning

Bring Your Own Device For Learning (hereafter BYOD4L) is a fully open course, that ran from Monday 14th July to Friday 18th July (inclusive) 2014, and which was designed to run fully on smart devices, aiming to present an immersive learning experience that encourages active experimentation and discovery learning (Nerantzi and Beckingham, 2014).

During one of the nightly Tweetchats I found myself being volunteered by one of the organisers to host a Google Hangout (hereafter GH) session the following day on the topic of ‘curating’; a request which I found to be the odd and yet intoxicating mix of flattering and slightly unnerving. Whilst I had experience of using GH for conference calls I had never before used it to facilitate a learning experience, and so I had some trepidations about how I would successfully utilise it. However, I thought that it would be a great experiential learning experience for me as a facilitator, using a practical application to help identify my strengths and limitations (Beard et al., 2007); the fact that I hate saying no to anything also played a strong part in me accepting the request.

  Hanging out with (digital) friends.

  I have learnt from recent Skype sessions that I have facilitated, that not having designated (yet flexible) timings for each area of discussion can lead to real difficulties.  Working from a suitably prepared agenda really helped me to facilitate the GH in a time-effective manner. This meant that as well as a digital document of our discussions (the YouTube video of which can be found here), we were also able to produce a Top 5 list of tips for curating (which can be found in this Google Document).

In many ways I facilitated the GH session just as I would facilitate any face-to-face session, by ensuring that I was a catalyst for discussion rather than a central conduit through which all communications must be directed. This was self-evidenced by the seamless continuation of conversation when my computer shut itself down about half way through the proceedings. As I wrote about in this blog post I sometimes find that my facilitating gets in the way of my active learning, but in the case of GH this was not the case, as whilst I was still more passive than I would have been had I not been a facilitator I definitely took a collaborative role in the learning process.

This whole experience, in which I was to some degree thrown in at the deep end was a very useful lesson, as it has made me think about the potential positive implications that pushing my students beyond their relative comfort zones might have, and I am looking forward to experimenting with this over the next academic year and beyond. Perhaps (Dewey, 1991, pp. 340) best summed up this slightly sadistic approach when he said that, “the business of education might be defined as an emancipation and enlargement of experience.” In the past I have certainly been guilty of worrying about pushing my students too far, but with the benefit of hindsight I can see how this could be perceived as patronising, and how I might actually have denied my students the opportunities to develop in ways that I had not conceived. Inviting students to find solutions to their problems by learning from their errors is an essential part of the learning process (Assal et al., 1992), and it is important to give them the opportunity to do this.

By displaying a heightened degree of trust in my students, I am also challenging them and encouraging them to become more autonomous leaners. This approach is directly supported by MMU’s Strategy for Learning, Teaching and Assessment (SLTA), whose first principle is centred on the learning environment and the student experience, in which it states that MMU is committed to, “staff engaging and challenging their students.” By encouraging my students to push the barriers of what they believe they can achieve I am helping them on their journey of discovery towards becoming world-class professionals. 

In addition to giving my students the opportunities to make mistakes so that they might learn from them, it is also important that I continue to put myself in these positions. As a scientific researcher I know that failure is an essential part of any process, although sometimes in my teaching and facilitating I am guilty of using structures and lesson plans that I know to be both successful and safe. So that I might continue my own professional development, it is imperative that I allow myself the opportunity to occasionally take on something that might at first seem overwhelming; the chances are I will undoubtedly learn something.

  Action Points

With the Applied Physics students that I will be teaching next academic year on the Engineering Design and Practice module I will endeavor to give them activities that push them out of their comfort zones, whilst simultaneously placing more trust in them

I should also push myself out of my own relative comfort zone. One way in which I could do this would be to facilitate a session on a topic that I know very little about. This would have the added benefit of being a very useful case study for the ‘role of the expert’ pedagogic study that I am undertaking (more of which can be found here)

References

ASSAL, J., LACROIX, A. & AUFSEESSER-STEIN, M. 1992. [Better listening, better information, better teaching. Lessons of our incompetence]. Schweizerische Rundschau fur Medizin Praxis= Revue suisse de medecine Praxis, 81, 147-151.

BEARD, C., WILSON, J. P. & MCCARTER, R. 2007. Towards a theory of e-learning: Experiential e-Learning. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 6, 3-15.

DEWEY, J. 1991. How We Think, New York, Prometheus Books.

NERANTZI, C. & BECKINGHAM, S. 2014. Bring Your Own - Our Magical Open Box to Enhance Individuals, Learning Ecologies. In: JACKSON, N. & WILLIS, J. (eds.) Learning and Education in Universities and Colleges E-Book. Online.

[classroombeing-blog]

FLEX 2: Open Facilitating

Bring Your Own Device For Learning (hereafter BYOD4L) is a fully open course, that ran from Monday 14th July to Friday 18th July (inclusive) 2014, and which was designed to run fully on smart devices, aiming to present an immersive learning experience that encourages active experimentation and discovery learning (Nerantzi and Beckingham, 2014). During a series of facilitated activities, the participants were encouraged, over the course of the five days, to: connect, communicate, curate, collaborate, and create, by sharing and working with others across a variety of social media platforms.

Prior to the beginning of the course I volunteered myself to help facilitate the BYOD4L Facebook group, and to help run one of the timetabled Tweetchat sessions, as I knew that it would be a fantastic learning opportunity, which would aid in my facilitatory development.

In her 1996 paper on the role of facilitators, Ackermann (1996, pp. 93) states that, “while the benefit that facilitators can bring is acknowledged, developing the necessary skills and techniques is more problematic. There are few manuals for would-be facilitators to draw upon, and much of their ability is acquired through experience.” Whilst I have considerable experience in facilitating, which stretches across many different subject areas and levels of expertise, the notion of facilitating in a virtual environment was completely alien to me, and I felt that the BYOD4L experience would serve to remedy this.

  Facilitating Learning (Photo credit: Giulia Forsythe)

As an open facilitator I found that I was constantly monitoring the BYOD4L Facebook group and Twitter account (especially during the Tweetchats), so that I could respond to any queries and help to stimulate debate and discussion. This meant that I was able to take a very active role in the actual learning process itself within these two outlets, but it also meant that I was less active in other areas, such as in the Google+ community. In my role as facilitator I felt that I did a good job of connecting with the other participants, and that I was able to respond to their inquiries and suggestions in a timely and useful fashion; key to this was the fact that I had blocked off the time in my working week to allow for me to immerse myself in the open learning and facilitating experience. Nerantzi et al. (2014) note that working as an open facilitator encourages a large investment in the actual learning process itself, with the facilitators learning alongside the other participants in a supportive and collaborative manner. My experiences from facilitating during BYOD4L were exactly this, with the onus of facilitation encouraging me to become more immersive and involved in my own personal learning journey.

One of the major challenges (aside from being less digitally vocal across other communities) was in the interaction with other facilitators, as I felt that I often acted independently and didn’t co-facilitate very well at all. For example, if another facilitator left a response I often didn’t feel the need for further comment, considering the discussion to be resolved. This is definitely something that I could improve on in the future, and it also caused me to reflect on my experiences of co-facilitating face-to-face sessions. My first experiences of doing this were quite poor, as I was working with a much more senior colleague and I felt that it was imperative that I maintain a strong and discernable voice throughout. However, I soon learnt that this was not a sustainable model, because as noted by Wiesenberg (2013) devising a co-teaching system that complements different facilitation styles is essential to avoid student frustration. As such I worked very hard to ensure that we complemented each other throughout our facilitations, and I ended up learning a lot about my own strengths and weaknesses in the process. This is something that I should aim to put into practice in the next open facilitation work with which I am involved.

My experiences on BYOD4L have been greatly beneficial to my capabilities as a facilitator, strengthening my knowledge and understanding of the basic principles and also introducing me to a new toolkit and modus operandi of facilitating openly. Moving forward I aim to continue to use these new toolkits and networks to enhance my role as a facilitator and to encourage me to remember that as a facilitator I can also take an active part in the learning process myself, something which I have been guilty of forgetting in past face-to-face facilitations.

As discussed in a previous post, facilitating workshops for my students, rather than running an ‘expert-led’ one way lecture is in very good agreement with MMU’s corporate strategy towards Student Experience, and will enable the students to contribute towards creating outstanding, inspiring and sustainable environment for their own learning.  Cacciamani et al. (2012) found that high levels of participation and a supportive facilitator style are essential for knowledge building amongst students, and by continuing to develop in my role as a co-operative and supportive facilitator I will be ensuring that my students maximize their learning potential.

Action Points

Take an active role in the actual learning process of the next facilitated session that I run. I will do this by actually joining in with one of the group brainstorming sessions that I have planned as part of the workshop.

The next time I do some open facilitating, which I imagine will be the next incarnation of BYOD4L, I will ensure that I actively engage and work with the other facilitators, and adapt my facilitating style to provide consistent and beneficial communication to the learners, the other facilitators, and myself.

  References

ACKERMANN, F. 1996. Participants' perceptions on the role of facilitators using group decision support systems. Group decision and negotiation, 5, 93-112.

CACCIAMANI, S., CESARENI, D., MARTINI, F., FERRINI, T. & FUJITA, N. 2012. Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. Computers and Education, 58, 874-884.

NERANTZI, C. & BECKINGHAM, S. 2014. Bring Your Own - Our Magical Open Box to Enhance Individuals, Learning Ecologies. In: JACKSON, N. & WILLIS, J. (eds.) Learning and Education in Universities and Colleges E-Book. Online.

NERANTZI, C., MIDDLETON, A. & BECKINGHAM, S. 2014. Facilitators as co-learners in a collaborative open course for teachers and students in Higher Education. Learning in cyberphysical worlds [Online], 39.

WIESENBERG, F. 2013. Designing and co-facilitating online graduate classes: Reflections and recommendations. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 30.