Core Area 2b: An understanding of your target learners

Guidelines

Statements should show how you have found out about learners’ needs and the context for their studies, and how you have developed approaches that reflect this

Evidence might include a description of how assistive technologies have been used to support disabled students, how learner feedback has influenced the design of an e-portfolio, how the needs of work-based learners or overseas students have shaped the curriculum, or records of conversations with product analysts, marketing departments or course teams and the resulting plans for your design. Evidence of changed practice, rather than simply the recognition that this is an important area, is required.

Background

During the summer of 2020, as with many other departments in institutions across the UK (and beyond), we were planning for an unprecedented model of teaching for at least the Autumn Term of the 2020/21 academic year. Our institution approach was for all large lectures to be pre-recorded and available online, and for some form of face to face teaching to occur in smaller groups (later in the Autumn Term these too were moved to online formats). With these guidelines in mind we needed to design the new teaching provision with our student needs in mind. I was given the responsibility of planning the provision for the Year 1 and Year 2 students of our undergraduate degree. For the purpose of this portfolio, I will focus on the provision for our Year 2 students, how I considered their experiences to date when planning, and how I used technology to support students.

The Plan

When considering the structure of the new timetable and the general approach to the teaching, I needed to take into account the students' experiences to date. They had had almost a whole academic year of 'normal' teaching whereby the timetable gave them a very high level of structure; they knew where they needed to go and when, and what module was being taught. In that sense then, students did not necessarily need to organise themselves to a great extent as the work they needed to do was done in each of those face to face sessions. However, the new way of teaching could potentially lead to less structure meaning students would need to be much more organised with their time, to plan times to watch the videos and engage in any independent work we set them. I reflected that if we just 'flipped' our existing timetable to an online format, students would often need to switch between modules at different points throughout the week (even within the same day) which would require a high level of organisation and planning, require students to keep on track with the videos, and could also lead to students having fewer breaks between videos. It was clear therefore that taking this approach was not going to be appropriate for our students at that point.

The structure of the degree programme in Year 2 involves the teaching of five modules simultaneously across the entire academic year. This worked well for the timetable in that I could structure it on the basis of 'a module a day'. This meant students were clear from week to week that they could dedicate a day to each module and stay on track with the videos and their learning. As an institution, we were also advised to include activities and synchronous online sessions with module leaders. I therefore structured the timetable so that the videos were released at 9am each morning, and these videos would be in 10 min chunks totaling about 1 hour and 15 mins, followed by an activity that would take students about 30 mins to complete. Additionally, each day at 4pm, the students had a live online Q&A session with the module leader where the activity would be reviewed and the students had the chance to ask any questions. This new timetable gave students a clear structure and spaced out the module content in a sensible way.

Another area I needed to take into account was the way we communicated and had conversations with our students. The Year 2 students were used to seeing members of staff regularly, often being able to drop into staff offices to ask questions or ask for support. While the Q&A sessions described above lent themselves to giving students contact time with staff (albeit online), the context within which the new academic year was placed could potentially mean the regular communication students usually have with staff was much reduced. I recognised that students might therefore feel a little abandoned and 'at sea' both with what was going on with the changes in relation to the pandemic but also in terms of being able to ask questions about the course. Considering what the Year 2 students had been used to, I was aware that this sudden lack of access to support could have an impact on our students in terms of them feeling supported in their learning. We therefore set up various ways of maintaining communication with our students.

Using technology to support students

VLE

One of the key tools available on the VLE that we used was the Adaptive Release function. This ensured the videos were released at the exact same time every day, every week so the students knew exactly when they would be available. This was important as it enabled students to plan their weeks accordingly and thus was better than just releasing all videos for all modules at the start of the week. My role was to oversee this across all Year 2 modules to ensure the videos were being released at the correct time (I also used it in my own Year 2 module).

Another aspect of the VLE that could help students especially in terms of finding the materials was to have a consistent structure across all of the modules. I designed a new VLE structure for all five modules which was then implemented for the 2020/21 academic year. This meant that all the information for each module could be found in the same place across the different module pages (e.g. students would know exactly where to find the videos for each week's session, and the links to the different online sessions).

For the daily Q&A sessions, we started off using Collaborate Ultra. I set up all the Collaborate Ultra rooms for the Q&A sessions, and for the online versions of the face to face classes we were delivering at the start of the term (e.g. tutorials). This meant the VLE became this 'one stop shop' for students - all the teaching materials as well as online classes were delivered through the module pages on the VLE. We also set up Cohort Meetings (one for each year group) to enable a two way communication between staff and students at several points throughout each term so that students could ask questions. Initially, we had a few of these face to face and online but it quickly moved to solely online due to changes in the pandemic. Collaborate Ultra was the platform we first used to host these cohort meetings and I was responsible for setting up these rooms. However, it soon became apparent that Collaborate Ultra was not ideal (see the feedback from students). Many of our students who were studying remotely (particularly overseas) had connection problems meaning they either missed classes completely or had intermittent connection throughout the duration of an online class.

Zoom

The University later acquired an institutional licence for Zoom and was able to align Zoom links with the timetable. This addressed many of the connection issues our students were having with Collaborate Ultra. This was a positive step because this change coincided with all teaching being delivered online due to changes in the pandemic thus more students would need to access online sessions. I was responsible for setting up all the Zoom rooms for all the online classes, making sure I added the relevant module leader as a co-host, and that each session would automatically record. The recordings were then put on the VLE so that any students who were unable to make the session could view the recording in their own time. We also transferred all the Cohort Meetings to Zoom. I liaised with timetabling to set up these meetings throughout the term, having a Zoom link attached to each. I then set up each room adding the cohost and setting the auto record function - the recordings were then put on the VLE so students who were unable to make the session could see what was discussed and still stay up to date. I also hosted many of these cohort meetings alongside other members of staff.

Gmail

Another way in which we tried to keep the lines of communication open with our students was the introduction of a Friday email, tailored to each year group. I was responsible for sending these out to two different year groups. These emails were a vital part of keeping students up to date with changes to the delivery of teaching. Since many students were studying remotely (with more and more doing so as the year progressed), it was clear that the usual incidental conversations they'd have which each other would be reduced if not removed completely so we also used the Friday email to remind students of key deadlines (e.g. upcoming assessment deadlines), something they likely would have done to each other through the usual day to day conversations they'd ordinarily had prior to the pandemic.

Mentimeter

I have already documented elsewhere in this portfolio about the way I have previously used Mentimeter during face to face teaching sessions but it also became a really useful tool for online teaching. The key place I used this in my own teaching was in the Q&A sessions for my own module. This enabled me to ask students to anonymously submit their responses to the activity I had set them (for example, asking them to listen to a podcast and then answer a series of questions) but also for them to ask me questions anonymously. I was aware of a couple of other members of staff using Mentimeter in this way at this point but this increased after student feedback (see below).

Example of Friday email

VLE structure

What did students think?

Given the big changes that had occurred not just in terms of the timetable but also with the different types of technology used in teaching and communication with students, I was keen to get feedback from the students on what was working and what wasn't so we could make necessary adjustments. Week 5 of the Autumn Term signalled the end of the first block of teaching for our Year 2 students so it seemed the perfect time to ask for their feedback. I therefore used the cohort meeting in Week 6 to ask students for their feedback (using Mentimeter). Below I outline what they reported.

What worked

Students reported that they really liked the chunking of the lecture content into 10-15 minute videos and the fact that they were released on certain days of the week. This suggests the adaptive release was working appropriately for the students. They also reported they liked having the live online Q&A sessions with the module leader as it gave them an opportunity to clarify aspects of the lecture content they were perhaps unsure of. In terms of the different methods of communication, on the whole most students were very happy; they felt they were kept up to date with the changes afoot and the technology we used was more than appropriate for this (although see below for problems with Collaborate Ultra and for requests for further use of Mentimeter).

What didn't work

Some students indicated that they felt they didn't have enough time in the day to watch the videos and do the activity before the Q&A session. For some students, this was one reason they didn't attend the Q&A sessions (see below for a reflection on this and how technology could be used in the future to help students). In addition to this, during the term we'd had informal reports particularly from students in Asia that Collaborate Ultra wasn't working for them, often losing connection midway through a teaching session. This was also reflected by a few students in the feedback we requested. Students also requested for the Q&A sessions to be more interactive (e.g. by using Mentimeter).

Year 2 student feedback Autumn 2020 Week 4

What changed in response to this?

It seemed from the student feedback that on the whole they were very happy with the way things were structured and with the different ways we stayed in touch with them. However, it seemed that a sizeable proportion of students were feeling overwhelmed and stressed with trying to get the videos and activities completed before each Q&A session. To respond to this, I changed the adaptive release of the videos and activity to the evening before. So, for example, the videos and activity for the module that was typically done on a Tuesday would now be released at 5pm on Monday evening. This meant students could start the videos the evening before if they so wished or at least could plan their day a little more effectively knowing what was in the videos ahead of time, and what the activity involved. Although a small number of students wanted all videos at the start of the week, they seemed to be in the minority with most students appreciating the 'module a day' structure. I therefore took the decision to leave the daily adaptive release in place as from their feedback, it seemed to benefit more students than not. We also maintained the Friday email and the regular online cohort meetings as these were very popular with students.

Some students also reported that they wanted more of the Q&A sessions to be interactive. At this point, some of the more experienced users of Mentimeter (staff) had been using this platform in the synchronous Q&A sessions but not all. In a catch-up session I held with staff in Week 6, I passed on the student requests for more Q&As to be in this format, and also directed staff to the wiki pages I'd written to support their use of Mentimeter (see section 1c for more information on this wiki page). This meant a lot more staff used this platform for their Q&A sessions after that time point.

Reflections

From the feedback we had from students, it seemed the new way of working was positive for the students and met their needs at that time point in their studies. However, one aspect that I did not predict was students spending a significant amount of time watching the videos. Having spoken to other colleagues across the University, it seems this was not unique to Psychology students. Upon reflection, I can understand why some students chose to pause the videos to make notes, for example. When attending a live in-person lecture, there clearly isn't the option to do this but I know from conversations with students in previous years that many of them go back to the lecture recording to check certain areas where they might have misunderstood or to double check their understanding. They often do this either straight after the lecture and/or during revision. I wonder therefore whether having the experience of being able to pause the delivery of the lecture and take notes, or rewind and re-watch sections upon 'first viewing' this year has actually just replaced the post-lecture visits to the recordings and that the frequency with which they revisit the videos during revision for example will be less than in previous years. However, this is just speculation but it would be interesting to find out from students whether this is in fact the case. The Year 2 students would be the ideal sample as they will have had the experience of both scenarios.

If pre-recorded online lectures are to remain, while planning in future I may need to take into account the amount of time students spend watching the videos and perhaps allow for this in the design of the timetable and amend the adaptive release settings accordingly. Another option is to try to encourage students not to pause the videos but to watch as they would an in-person lecture. Some students took it upon themselves to organise watch parties so we could formalise this to try to help students stay on track with the videos. It may therefore be something to consider for the future. This could also possibly help those students who might find it difficult to manage their own time and therefore stay up to date with the videos. However, I am not familiar with the software that will enable large watch parties so I will need to look into the different options to choose the platform that is most appropriate for our students.

In order to plan future teaching that may or may not include elements of this year's provision, I intend to ask all year groups for feedback on their experiences of their learning this year and what they would and wouldn't like to keep. This can be matched against other sources such as the UPP Foundation Student Futures Commission survey on student experience of 2020/21 to see if our own student experiences are aligned with other students from across the country. If so, this will mean that many colleagues across HE in the UK will be addressing similar problems and challenges, and looking to technology to help support the solutions to these problems. It would therefore be useful to attend CPD events to see what others are planning and how their experiences are informing how they use technology to support their own students' need.