The LEaDER Journal Club in May and June 2023

We’re pleased to announce that the next two meetings of the LEaDER Journal Club will take place at midday on Tuesday 16th May and Tuesday 13th June.

May’s session marks Global Accessibility Awareness Day, with papers exploring the importance of accessibility in teaching and learning in HE.  We will be looking at the following papers:

In June, as we look ahead to the new academic year, we will be exploring the importance of belonging in students’ transition to HE, with a focus on the following papers:

Student Transitions to HE – Journal Club 23 February 2023

An open journal on a desk

For February’s meeting of the LEaDER Journal Club, we will be exploring student transition and how to support students as they make their way through their degree programme.

Listed below are the two articles we will be discussing:

Karen Gravett & Rola Ajjawi (2022) Belonging as situated practice, Studies in Higher Education, 47:7, 1386-1396, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2021.1894118

And

Catherine Meehan & Kristy Howells (2019) In search of the feeling of ‘belonging’ in higher education: undergraduate students transition into higher education, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43:10, 1376-1390, DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2018.1490702

 

LEaDER Journal Club: Playful Practice

January’s meeting of the LEaDER Journal Club explored playful pedagogical practice in a session facilitated by Dr Jane Secker.  Discussion focussed on two papers examining the pedagogical value of play by Nicola Whitton and Jane Secker and Chris Morrison.

Whitton’s paper considers the growth in playful approachse used in higher education, from games and gamification, to play and playfulness. Focussing on two case studies, Whitton focusses on the value of play as a safe space, in which failure is accepted, learners are immersed in an activity, and intrinsic motivation for learning develops.  The paper identifies and analyses three types of play: playful tools, playful techniques, and playful tactics.

Whitton’s paper proved a great starting point for our discussion, giving a useful summary of what playful learning means in HE and a great accessible introduction to the topic for those who are new to playful approaches. As well as engaging with the benefits of play, the article prompted valuable discussion about the challenges of adopting playful practice.  We discussed the fact that play is not always valued as a pedagogical practice in HE and that there is only limited research on its use in teaching adults.

This discussion linked well with the paper by Secker and Morrison, which explores the pedagogic value of games in the context of creating two games to teach librarians and educators about copyright. Considering the role games can play in teaching in a ‘contested space’, Secker and Morrison advocate for games as a mode of problem based learning, which make learning more active and engaging.

The paper prompted a great discussion about the variety of playful practices already used by attendees.  Again, some challenges with playful approaches were identified, including some students expressing reluctance to participate and the time investment required of facilitators when developing play-based activities.  The discussion spoke to the themes of Playful Learning Research currently being undertaken at City.

The next meeting of the Journal Club will take place at midday on Thursday 23rd February.  We will be discussing the following papers:

Please book your place here.

Thanks to Dr Jane Secker for facilitating January’s session and for providing a write-up of the session on which this post was based.

 

LEaDER Journal Club: the future of blended learning

In our final meeting of the LEaDER Journal Club in 2022 we explored the report on the Blended Learning Review conducted by the Office for Students.  Picking up on some of the themes explored in our November meeting, the report considers the development of online learning during the pandemic, as well as looking towards the future of blended learning through a series of recommendations.

With attendees representing a variety of types of expertise – including lecturers, learning technologists, and academic developers – we had a rich discussionabout the role of online and in-person pedagogies.  We discussed the importance of having a clear pedagogical rationale for the use of learning technologies, picking up on the report’s finding that student engagement is higher if they understand why a blended approach is being used.

As well as considering the relationship between pedagogies and technologies, we also discussed the report’s recommendation that both students and staff be supported with developing their digital literacies, considering what this might look like in practice.  The report’s consideration of the “attendance paradox” also provided a valuable point for discussion, with reflections on how to best facilitate a return to in-person learning post-pandemic.

Our discussion also engaged with hybrid learning and was enriched by insights from the Teaching Here and There podcast series, which explores the challenges of teaching online and in-person simultaneously.

Our next session will be held on Thursday 19th January at midday and will explore playful learning.  We will be considering the following papers:

Please book your place using this form.  We hope to see you there!

LEaDER Journal Club: Online Assessment During the Pandemic

 

The pivot to online teaching and learning activities necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic led to a sudden change in assessment practices in Higher Education institutions across the world. In November’s Journal Club, we discussed two studies that examined student experiences of online assessment during the pandemic, asking what the move to online assessments can teach us about assessment going forward.  

The first article presented the preliminary findings of a study by Hatzipanagos et al (2020): “Towards a post covid-19 digital authentic assessment practice: when radical changes enhance the student experience”. The study aimed to answer the question: what was the impact of the transition to online assessment on the experiences of students and student outcomes? The comprehensive methodology for the study – which examined a range of data including learning analytics, average grades, and exam take up, as well as survey and focus group responses – was designed to examine student behaviours, student sentiment, student outcomes, and operational issues.  

While the paper only presented preliminary findings there was nevertheless much to discuss. The paper’s overview provided food for thought in relation to balancing student experience with the need to ensure academic integrity and the robustness of assessments. 

The paper engaged with challenges – including how best to support students with time-management for online examinations – as well as reporting multiple benefits of online assessment.  One particularly noteworthy finding was that student respondents to the research want online assessment practices to continue, with just 12% disagreeing with the idea.  

The second paper – “Remote Assessment in Higher Education during COVID-19 Pandemic” by Senel and Senel (2021) – served to complicate the picture of student experiences of online assessment. In contrast to Hatzipanagos et al (2020), this study found that students preferred conventional exams to remote assessment. A related finding was that students experience higher assessment anxiety for online assessments than for conventional assessments. This finding chimed with the experiences of some club attendees whose students had concerns relating to tech, the home environment, and caring responsibilities in relation to online assessment. However, others were surprised by this finding, considering exam halls to be intimidating assessment environment. 

We discussed the relevance of the papers’ findings to our own practice. For example, Hatzipanagos et al (2020) found that students did not always take advantage of the full time available to them in online exams, submitting quickly rather than taking time to check their answers. This led us to reflect on the importance of preparing students for assessments, setting expectations, and providing guidance for how to use their time.  

Another point of discussion was the importance of tutor feedback and formative activities, which arose from Senel and Senel (2021). Their study found that “students who have higher levels of interaction with instructors find assessment practices more qualified” (Senel and Senel 2021, 195). However, the study also found very few instances of peer and self-assessment tools, which can play an important role in preparing students for assessment. We discussed the value of self-, peer-, and tutor-feedback tools and of the importance of adequately preparing students for assessments.  

Our next session will pick up on the themes of the digital, exploring the Office for Students’ “Blended Learning Review”.

It will be held on Thursday 8th December from 12-1pm. Please register to attend here. 

LEaDER Journal Club: Thursday 10th November 2022

We’re pleased to announce the return of LEaDER’s Journal Club.  Following a taster session at this year’s Learning at City Conference, the Journal Club will again be a regular fixture every month during term time.  The first session will be held at midday on Thursday 10th November. ONLINE

The Journal Club exists to promote discussion of research into pedagogical practices.  Each session engages with a different theme and focuses on two articles which speak to that theme.

In our first session, we will be exploring the lessons learned from the move online during the pandemic.  The two papers consider changes to assessment necessitated by the pandemic and examine their potential long-term benefits for the HE sector:

Themes of future sessions will be decided in conversation with Journal Club members.  The first sessions will be held over Zoom and will last an hour.  All staff at City are welcome to participate.

Register below to receive the Teams link:

If you have any questions about the LEaDER Journal Club, please email Sara.Reimers.1@city.ac.uk.

Wednesday 22nd April (2020) 12.30 – 13.45 Attainment/Awarding Gaps in Higher Education

Join the discussion online

Sustained research across the UK HE sector demonstrates that a persistent attainment – or degree-awarding – gap exists between Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic [BAME] students and their White counterparts. A joint National Union of Students [NUS] and Universities UK [UUK] report published in May 2019 concluded that: “A student’s race and ethnicity can significantly affect their degree outcomes. Of the disparities that exist within higher education, the gap between the likelihood of White students and students from Black, Asian or minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds getting a first- or upper-second-class degree is among the most stark – 13% among 2017-18 graduates.” (NUS/UUK, 2019, p. 1). Extensive work is being undertaken at City, University of London to identify and seek to understand the attainment/awarding gaps our institution currently has, and to develop a range of responses at institutional and sectional levels including in the areas of curriculum and inclusive learning and teaching. There is a growing body of literature relating to awarding/attainment gaps and, as increasing numbers of institutions are beginning to report on maturing or concluded projects of their own, this seems an opportune time for the journal club to read and debate some of the evidence. We’d like you to read two articles plus (if you have time) a piece written by a student:

Firstly, a critique of existing research into the BAME attainment gap and the difficulties of undertaking research/making change in the face of institutional resistance.
Austen, L. et al (2017) ‘Why is the BME attainment gap such a wicked problem?’, The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, Vol. 3, No. 1. Available at: https://journals.studentengagement.org.uk/index.php/studentchangeagents/article/view/587/pdf

Secondly, Nona McDuff and colleagues describes how Kingston University substantially narrowed their BAME attainment gap through an outcome-focused institutional change programme.
McDuff, N., Tatam, J., Beacock, O., Ross, F. (2018) ‘Closing the attainment gap for students from black and minority ethnic backgrounds through institutional change’, Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 79-101. Available at http://tinyurl.com/vw359r3.

To help us with the discussion here are some questions you might like to consider when reading the article:
• What was the purpose of the research and were the research questions/hypothesis clear?
• Does the literature review seem thorough and draw on recent literature related to the
research problem?
• Is there a theoretical or conceptual model for the research?
• Is there reference to ethical approval for the study?
• Was there a clear discussion of how the sample was chosen and the representativeness of the sample to the population as well as details of recruitment?
• Is the research methodology clearly indicated alongside the data collection tools?
• Is the analysis of the data clearly outlined?
• Were the findings clearly presented and discussed?
• Were any limitations for the study indicated?
• What are the implications of the research for practice? What are the implications of the research for our new lecture capture policy at City?
• Has further research been indicated?

Tuesday 18th February 12.30 – 13.45 Journal club LEaD training room – Academic Literacies: embedding in course design and collaboration with academic staff

 

In this month’s Journal Club we will explore two articles on the theme of developing students’ academic literacies.

 

Mary Lea and Brian Street set out a framework for supporting student writing in higher education in their seminal 1998 article which proposed a framework for academic literacies. The first article you are asked to read is a development of these ideas by Mary Lea, published in 2004. Although written some time ago the article examines how research findings from academic literacies might be used to underpin course design in higher education. It uses a case study of an online postgraduate course and explores the role that technology might play in supporting students’ academic literacy development. We’ll consider what changes we can make to course or curriculum design to embed academic literacies.

 

Mary R. Lea * (2004) Academic literacies: a pedagogy for course design, Studies in Higher Education, 29:6, 739-756, https://0-www-tandfonline-com.wam.city.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/0307507042000287230

 

Meanwhile in a more recent article by Lotte Bergman we will discuss academic perceptions about supporting student’s academic literacy development. Many academic staff feel under-prepared to help students develop their writing skills. In this second article a group of university teachers from different disciplines reflected on and were able to extend their knowledge about how best to support their students through a programme of continuing professional development. A number of teachers made changes to their teaching practices in light of the interventions described and their confidence and ability to support students’ grew.

 

Bergman, L. (2016). Supporting academic literacies: university teachers in collaboration for change. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(5), 516-531. https://0-www-tandfonline-com.wam.city.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/13562517.2016.1160220

 

We’ll discuss both articles and reflect on whether some of the approaches in this articles are relevant to the challenges we face at City to support student academic literacies.

To help us with the discussion here are some questions you might like to consider when reading the article:

·         What was the purpose of the research and were the research questions/hypothesis clear?

·         Does the literature review seem thorough and draw on recent literature related to the research problem?

·         Is there a theoretical or conceptual model for the research?

·         Is there reference to ethical approval for the study?

·         Was there a clear discussion of how the sample was chosen and the representativeness of the sample to the population as well as details of recruitment?

·         Is the research methodology clearly indicated alongside the data collection tools?

·         Is the analysis of the data clearly outlined?

·         Were the findings clearly presented and discussed?

·         Were any limitations for the study indicated?

·         What are the implications of the research for practice? What are the implications of the research for our new lecture capture policy at City?

·         Has further research been indicated?

“Lecture capture is good in part…” – Journal Club 22 January

The second meeting of the LEaDER journal club was opened by Rachael-Anne Knight (SHS) who set the scene for the discussion around the Growing Access to Lecture cApture (GALA) project, which is taking an evidence-based approach to updating City’s lecture capture policy.

Participants of the LEaDER Journal Club

Participants of the LEaDER Journal Club

The two papers discussed focussed on both staff and student perspectives of lecture capture and the group agreed with the comment that it was nice to hear some positive perspectives about lecture capture and what it can do for us, rather than the usual focus on ‘to use or not to use lecture capture’.

Lecture capture in higher education: time to learn from the learners

We started with the paper from Nordmann and McGeorge (2018) which presented a review of lecture capture policies and a literature review of the pedagogic benefits of lecture capture. The dual focus of the paper meant that it came across as a bit of a mash-up of two papers and lacked a clear definition of the methodology. It was also unclear how the two aspects of the paper were linked, however we liked both outputs – especially the tips for writing a lecture capture policy.

We appreciated that the work took a pedagogical focus and was situated in broader frameworks of pedagogy, such as cognitive load theory and distributed practice. It also emphasised the benefits for students with a focus on inclusivity. We discussed an interesting finding about lecture capture supporting transition for non-native speakers of English and its role in reducing anxiety amongst studenst who no longer feel under pressure to write down everything the lecturer says. LEaD’s Academic Learning Support team run workshops on note-taking for students and the paper emphasised the need for critical thinking in note-taking and best use of lecture capture to support deep learning. An interesting comment was that ‘no one is an academic English native speaker’ and that lecture recordings can help new students to understand how lectures work.  We discussed the importance of providing guidance to students about how to use lecture recordings, not binge watching, and noted the useful student guidance created by the University of Glasgow. We also looked at how academics talk to their students about the use of lecture capture and noted the importance of managing expectations about production quality, given students are used to seeing high quality videos via YouTube and other sources.

We felt that at City we need to be more explicit about where things like lecture capture can be used more effectively to benefit students and to make the link with other work taking place in the institution, such as supporting commuter students and student attainment.

Big brother or harbinger of best practice: Can lecture capture actually improve teaching?

The second paper by Joseph-Richard et al. (2018) focussed on teacher perspectives, which are under researched in the literature. The paper mapped the findings against the UK Professional Standards framework (UKPSF) however it wasn’t clear why they had done this as they had only mapped against areas of activity and didn’t refer back to the UKPSF in the discussion. We felt that they could have also explored mappings to the knowledge and values aspects of UKPSF, especially inclusive teaching.

In terms of the findings, the authors suggested that lecture capture “crushes spontaneity” and suggested that lecturers are more aware of what they are saying and as a result might change their tone and teaching persona. We queried accountability for saying something in a lecture recording and the potential for something to be taken out of context. We agreed that being able to edit recordings can help here, as well as knowing when to use the pause and resume functionality available in DALI learning spaces.

We also felt that the paper focussed primarily on lectures, with some mention of student presentations, and would have benefitted from exploring other uses of lecture capture beyond just recording live lectures. One interesting example mentioned in our discussion was lecturers using a ‘nudge approach’ to send students key highlights of the lecture recording 2-3 days after the lecture to prompt them to revisit it. We also discussed concerns about the finding of using lecture recording for “holding students more accountable in group tasks” as it may bring about participation for fear of being punished. The paper also raised the suggestion of lecture capture not being inclusive for all, in particular hearing impaired students, and discussed the need for transcripts of recordings.

In conclusion

Rounding off the discussion, it was suggested that in the future we might look back at these discussions about not using lecture capture and think them to be quite quaint as it will have become the norm. The question for us is how do we make it become the norm and are lecturer perceptions of lecture capture changing? What role do students have in facilitating this change? Students already ask whether recordings are taking place and it’s felt that using lecture recording is a ‘quick win’ for getting students on your side.

The paper prompted discussions about research at City to better understand staff motivations for lecture capture. This has been covered in part by a LEaD project which has fed into the GALA project, but would be good to link these findings into the policy and any promotion of lecture capture.

Further reading

Sarsfield, M., & Conway, J. (2018). What can we learn from learning analytics? A case study based on an analysis of student use of video recordings. Research in Learning Technology, 26. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2087

January Journal Club theme: The Role of Lecture Capture

22nd January 12.30 – 13.45

As part of the Growing Access to Lecture cApture (GALA) project, City is currently expanding provision of lecture capture facilities to all centrally timetabled learning spaces and updating the existing lecture capture policy. We have suggested two articles that consider the role of lecture capture from the perspectives of the students and the lecturers. The readings are provided below:

Nordmann, E., & McGeorge, P. (2018, May 1). Lecture capture in higher education: time to learn from the learners. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ux29v

Joseph-Richard, P., Jessop, T., Okafor, G., Almpanis, T. & Price, D. (2018). Big brother or harbinger of best practice: Can lecture capture actually improve teaching? British Educational Research Journal, 44 (3), pp. 377-392. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Joseph_Richard/publication/324578306_Big_brother_or_harbinger_of_best_practice_Can_lecture_capture_actually_improve_teaching/links/5b1eb984a6fdcc69745bed74/Big-brother-or-harbinger-of-best-practice-Can-lecture-capture-actually-improve-teaching.pdf

To help us with the discussion here are some questions you might like to consider when reading the article:

  • What was the purpose of the research and were the research questions/hypothesis clear?
  • Does the literature review seem thorough and draw on recent literature related to the
    research problem?
  • Is there a theoretical or conceptual model for the research?
  • Is there reference to ethical approval for the study?
  • Was there a clear discussion of how the sample was chosen and the representativeness of the sample to the population as well as details of recruitment?
  • Is the research methodology clearly indicated alongside the data collection tools?
  • Is the analysis of the data clearly outlined?
  • Were the findings clearly presented and discussed?
  • Were any limitations for the study indicated?
  • What are the implications of the research for practice? What are the implications of the research for our new lecture capture policy at City?
  • Has further research been indicated?