The first panel included short presentations from the following contributors:
Michael Thornton and Mathilde Peron (Economics): Reflections on Learning and Assessment in Economics
Gareth Evans, Pen Holland, Richard Waites and Thorunn Helgason (Biology): Use of feedback in the Department
Lisa O'Malley and Dan Horsfall (Social Policy and Social Work): Teaching Methods to Undergraduates in COVID: The Good, the Bad and the Take-away.
The recording is provided below followed by longer recorded presentations or supporting materials from each of the contributors providing a more in-depth reflection on their practices. The comments and reflections on each panel from session participants have also been included below (click on the heading at the bottom of the page if you would like to view these).
You can view the session recording on this page (make sure you are logged in to Panopto first) or by following the link to view the session in the Panopto viewer (33mins 28secs)
Michael provided an overview of the approaches taken in the Department of Economics from the initial replacement of first year summative assessment with a summer project. He outlined how the Department supported staff to rethink their teaching and assessment approaches during the period and reflected on feedback from students as well as on how the experiences this year might influence future approaches to increased blended learning within the Department. [View in new window or play the video below (16 mins 58secs)].
Building on Biology contributions from Richard Waites and Lexie Fields at the Autumn meeting, Gareth, Pen, Richard and Thorunn discussed examples of how regular (general and targeted) feedback from student and staff communities has helped to improve online teaching through the year and highlighted key practices to take forward. The PowerPoint presentation they provided to support their summary is embedded below [open in a new window] along with a video version which you can view in a new window or you can play the video below (6 mins 54secs).
Lisa and Dan focused on a second year core undergraduate module and highlighted how it exemplified some of the wider challenges the Department faced in responding to the pandemic. They highlighted how they developed resources, organised collaborative group work and supported students and considered how the experience will impact on future practices [View in new window or play the video below (16 mins 58secs)].
A 'live document' was used to record comment, reflection and discussion during the session. The contributions from this panel are included below for reference (click to view these contributions):
Is there any actual evidence of students colluding or attempting to cheat with the 24 hour exams from any departments? There seems to be a fear of this happening, but I wonder if this is just a ‘feeling’ and the evidence shows otherwise.
IG: We have evidence, although it is reported from other students. That said, even if true, it wasn't much.
In the 24 hour exam I ran last year I did not notice any significant difference in the average and standard dev of the results - so if there was collusion it was rather misguided and ill informed.
LS: Good to know, Tony.
I can second what Tony said. We had 24 hr exam based exams and the distributions were more or less the same and there was no evidence to suggest collusion (SQ)
Evidence of collusion can be difficult to find - by design. I have been told by a supervisee of discussions of an ongoing exam on WhatsApp but we didn’t find huge evidence in the scripts or the distribution. (MT)
TJ: I suspected some collusion on an exam - it was the incorrect answers that looked very similar that stood out though - not so much correct answers
Students appreciate being in the same breakout groups through a term to get to know a small number of people to work with, but seminar leaders appear to prefer to randomise. What are the key reasons seminar leaders do not keep to the same breakout groups?
MH: For stage three I randomised groups for three consecutive journal club workshops. The idea was to get them interacting with more people and minimise the chance of always being stuck with someone not pulling their weight. For stage two one off workshops I let them choose break out room groups.
LS: re being stuck with people not pulling weight - switching groups half way through a term might be one way to mitigate this and have the best of both worlds?
MH: True, I only did three of these though.
LS: 👍.
I think the same breakout rooms are helpful for developing the learning communities among (in our case) tutorial groups though equally can be restrictive in not providing networking and social opportunities for students to meet new peers and work with a diverse range of their colleagues.
MH: I suspect there might be some people resorting to random rooms because it is easier and needs less preparation. I’ve been surprised that some people haven’t used breakout rooms before given we are one year into the pandemic.
A good tip is to ask students to rename their username such that their group number is at the start of their name. Makes assigning rooms very quick. You can also pre-assign.👍.
PH: With the latest versions of Zoom, students can assign themselves to rooms and move in and out, so you can ask them to sign up in groups, or even just give them a list and ask them to put themselves in rooms. That means they can choose their friends beforehand, and a handful of students turning up to different sessions doesn’t break the preassignment (or them just not being signed in via their uni account).👍.
MH: Agreed, students moving themselves works very well and it’s not much work to manually move those that haven’t updated zoom.
[TW] What is the general view on the maximum cohort size it makes sense to break into breakout rooms? I can’t see it working for a class of 188.
LJ: We did 180 in Stage 1 Biology cohorts
TW: Interesting Louise - did you manage to visit each breakout room?
LJ: We were two staff and ~4 post-grads. We did visit all groups multiple times between us. It was stressful the first time but ok afterwards!👍.
MP: Many of my GTAs (on YLTA course) had to manage break out rooms on their own, with cohorts of up to 30. We have one speaking about this later (Taryn) - they found it challenging! I was very spoiled with my GTA cohort as they seemed to get a lot out of being sent into breakout groups without me needing to check in on them. They said they liked the opportunity to touch base with each other.
TW: A colleague has reported that they have put students in breakout groups - students have complained they have just been left there with some students just not contributing - and the whole thing fading out.
LOM: We used structured google docs for students to add their comments/answers in the breakout rooms so they could write even if people didn’t want to speak! These were also a good resource to share with those who couldn’t make it. (And they were easier to use than discussion boards!!)
TB: We’ve been using a number of different tools - my personal favourite is Jamboard, and we found students really appreciated this collaborative element, but I know others have used Google Docs, Google Slides. The advantage with these online tools is you can also keep an eye on student engagement without hovering over them in the breakout rooms
PH: We’ve used padlets a lot too - they are very simple to use, but great for creating structured discussions that breakout groups can contribute to as a group, and then we can summarise for the whole workshop cohort.
TB: I thought Padlets were a bit visually overwhelming at first but our students seem to love them! Which is great as they are very effective
PH: I find them good! Especially being able to start notes and then have comments on each note to expand on those. Have to try not to get carried away with different layouts and background images...
Any issues with survey fatigue? Has there been a decreased number of responses to module evaluation forms as a result of the weekly feedback request? Any tips to improve student participation in surveys?
RW: Rapid turn arounds, transparency and co-production.
Thanks Richard.
IG: Don't surveys slightly undermine the point of student reps?
RW: No, not in our experience. Every student should have their voice heard or the opportunity to share their experience. Reps are really busy - this supports the work they do.
SQ: I’d also be interested in this - we ask our students for module feedback every 4 weeks and this usually ends up with fewer responses as time goes on suggesting questionnaire fatigue
GE: I think it helps if students see their feedback being acted on - which happened a lot in the Autumn term when we were all finding our way.
ME. I get the benefits of good things being disseminated, however can continual dialogue and feedback create negativity, criticism, affect staff wellbeing, anonymous feedback can be used to vent any number of feelings
IG: Seconded. We find that we do get some useful things from feedback, but frankly, 90% of it is either so vague as to be unactionable, or actively contradictory. Our amazing student reps are the only way we manage to get actionable feedback.
RS: I loved the way that in Biology it was not just satisfaction surveys and ‘what can we do better’ (though obviously it did lead to lots of actionable feedback) but also ‘how are you getting on questions, emphasising the affective and the community and the fact that ‘we are all in this together. Research seems to suggest that it is the feeling that the information is genuinely wanted and that there will be definite responses as a result drive ongoing engagement.
RW: I found the “How can we make this less stressful” survey was one of the most helpful we did. Asking different questions each week helps and demonstrating that you do care about the academic experience makes a big impact with students.
MA: Use of Mentimeter - did you just use a free account which limits you to 2 or 3 questions? I have found word clouds and scales are very helpful but haven’t tried Q&A - I note that I should!
GE: Some staff have a license - we would love an institutional license! It’s great for anonymous Q&As.
PH: Seconded! The Q&A question option is really useful though - students can ask all their questions and you only need one slide. - RS: The ‘scales’ option also seems to work really well and allow for multiple questions on one slide - as well as providing useful summaries of responses and a clear idea of spread
SQ: Thirded - responsware is nowhere near as user friendly as mentimeter. I think we should replace it with an institutional licence for mentimeter!
LS: I will copy and paste this into a ‘please can we have’ spreadsheet that I am building up. :-) Also checking with Responseware if they have built similar functionality yet.
RW: Mentimeter is extremely helpful - I am delivering an entire lecture this week via menti. So it isn’t just a voting tool at all.
You do know there are other voting tools that are as good/even better/more accessible, right? But I do note people here are fans of Menti, as am I. :-)
NR: Richard, I’m intrigued about the process by which you would deliver a lecture via menti. I have used it for wordclouds, questions, posting summaries etc in seminars, but that’s all.
LJ: The Biology stage two and three student advice on 24 hour assessments was fantastic - really useful and reassuring for the Stage 1 students
RCS: I am wondering if any of you had any suggestions for getting students to actively participate during online discussions. .i.e breaking down the wall of silence in zoom calls
LOM: RCS - We used structured google forms with questions for students to work on in small groups (breakout rooms) so they could write things down if they didn't want to talk. These then provided points for tutors to respond to in the larger group....
SQ: I too use google docs for the same purpose and it works well. It gives students a skeleton to structure their discussions so they have a starting point
IG: I waffle on randomly and manage to draw them into discussion eventually, but that is for groups of around 8. For larger groups it is much harder.
GE: In large Zoom sessions the only way I’ve found to promote discussion is to use breakout rooms of 5-6, where students will unmute and discuss their work. We also used GSheets to allow them to assign to their own rooms. We can then visit the rooms and later bring everything together back in the main room.
MP: We had a slightly different take on this issue on YLTA in a conversation with GTAs. One has looked at why they don’t turn their cameras on for example, and there is some rather saddening preliminary research suggesting that a big factor is not eg tech inequality etc but good old fashioned self-consciousness about one’s appearance. We kind of concluded we need to maybe consider supporting students in learning how to self-present online. The point was made that, for example, in a wider context it is quite likely that employers will likely maintain video interviews first first round recruitment going forward as it has proven to be a lot more efficient. We considered it as a potential need to support students learn how to perform in the online/video professional world.
SQ: While I agree with this, unfortunately, some students are not in a house that is conducive to learning. Some of our students are sharing rooms with others and one student said she’s actually taken to studying in the hallway. Perhaps this will change when we get back to normal and students may be more willing to turn on their camera. I do agree though that self-consciousness is probably a lot higher in an online discussion (with camera on) than in a FTF discussion (I can feel a project coming on…)
:D Do it!
RS: It will perhaps be interesting to see whether use of google docs/jamboards, padlets etc continue to grow for group work in-person too - for less intrusive tutor monitoring and input and also to continue/link up independent work between sessions…
LS: And if a Google Doc is shared through a term, it really helps a group to build up that information and rapport over time.
AB: Absolutely agree!
SS - part of my background is in secondary and tertiary teaching in schools and colleges. What I find interesting is that a lot of the reassessment that has been described by HE teaching staff who have been faced with covid-19 matches the everyday experience of planning learning for secondary and FE teachers. Can we possibly link up with teachers and college lecturers to share experiences and/or involve our in house PGCE tutors in discussions? I suspect that hearing how T and L is approached in earlier phases could be enlightening, particularly at a time when practice in HE may be seen as ‘plastic’ due to circumstance.