Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching

Featuring contributions from: 

• Toby Reynolds, Senior Placements Administrator, Engineering Faculty Office
• Kat Rooney, BILT Student Fellow, MSc Marketing student
• Joel Ross, Associate Professor in Engineering Experimental Practice Education, School of Civil, Aerospace and Design Engineering
• Angela Parry-Lowther, Senior Lecturer, School of Management – Business School
• Catriona Johnson, EAP Subject Lead, Centre for Academic Language and Development

As well as thoughtful comments on the blog itself, it has been great to hear insights and reflections from different people within the UoB community in response to the scenarios which Ashley, Ali and Jan experienced.

In trying to bring these thoughts together, some key themes are apparent from the collective insights of our blog contributors. 

Ashley – a student wondering ‘what does ‘good’ look like?

Although it is often easier said than done, many of our contributors emphasised the importance of being proactive.

For Toby Reynolds, an important consideration to recognise was that: 

‘It sounds like they struggle with group assessments; or are, at the very least, uncertain about how to do well in these. Would it be an idea to get help with how to tackle these? In terms of what ‘good looks like’, they should check in with their personal tutor and discuss things with them using specific examples of assessments where they did well, and assessments where they did average.’.

In a similar respect, Angela Parry-Lowther reflects on her own practice and that:

‘One of the key things I say to my students is for them to make sure before they start writing any work and the beginning of the term, look at the marking criteria and the unit information on the assessment, it’s very often a really useful tool to have next to you. Be mindful of ,when you’re writing an assignment, or compiling a poster or making a presentation, to look back over your marking criteria and take off elements that they’re asking you to consider to make sure that you’ve included all of those. The other thing I always advise is for students to use the academic terminology that’s provided in each unit to reflect your understanding in an academic way – that always helps. And finally, students gain higher grades when they’re critically evaluative. So try and provide both sides of the argument and support that with underpinning. So look at both sides , because nothing is ever straightforward.’.

From Kat Rooney’s perspective, the phrase ‘even between what ‘good’ looks like across different units’ has particular resonance:

‘In these situations student communication with lecturers through office hours has been paramount for me! Also, I think avoiding the temptation to skip seminars and lectures is important, sometimes you can pick up on expectations or have an unplanned discussion about the assessment in a regular class.’. 

Offering a supportive insight, as well as some practical next steps is the advice from Catriona Johnson:

‘I’d reassure Ashley that many students find it challenging to understand the transferability of year 1 feedback to their year 2 assessments, especially when new assessment types are introduced, such as groupwork, and the marking criteria changes.  Year 2 assessments are also higher stakes with fewer formative opportunities, which adds to assessment anxiety. 

I’d encourage Ashley to make connections between assessments by mapping out how feedback from a year 1 unit relates to a year 2 assessment using an app like XMind or Miro.  Visualising the connections in this way would help Ashley work out what they need to prioritise and what they need to stop, start or continue doing in year 2.  Ashley could also identify themes in their year 1 feedback (focusing on both strengths and areas for development) and relate these to the marking criteria for the Year 2 assessments.’.

But there are also some considerations for academic staff to make in light of such scenarios.

Carefully considering personalisation is an important recognition for Kat Rooney, who (also having been an undergraduate at UoB) reflects that:

‘Academics need to ensure they are tailoring feedback to the year group and assessment type. I have received a 2:1 in an essay and the feedback has felt too shallow (e.g. ‘alphabetise references’, ‘develop this’), and can feel hard to implement effectively.’.

Kat also offers the view on Ashley’s comment about feeling ‘less sure of what ‘good looks like’ than at times during the first year of the course’ that: 

‘Group assessments are tricky! With the complications of marking and group feedback/ group grades students may need more support than academics think. It is important to remember if they run the same assessment 5 years in a row, they may explain it assuming knowledge.’.   

Returning to Catriona Johnson, who provides insights into some of the considerations for staff working with Ashley to take forward:  

‘To feel more confident about what ‘good looks like’ Ashley could be encouraged to evaluate a range of student samples from previous years and then compare their own feedback with the actual tutor feedback to help demystify the expectations of the department. If samples aren’t available, they could engage in peer review with their current classmates. These kinds of activities would help Ashley to generate internal feedback (Nicol, 2021) and increase their agentic engagement with feedback practices in general (Winstone et al., 2017).

Ashley would benefit from increased transparency about the assessment process.  I sometimes suggest that students complete Evans’ EAT framework (2022) to evaluate their own understanding of assessment literacy, feedback and design.  This framework can help students to feel part of the assessment process (rather than something that is just done to them) so that they feel empowered to ask questions and request access to useful documents such as marking criteria and student samples.’. 

Ali – a student with intellectual passion and curiosity, but feeling increasingly tentative.

Many of our contributors expressed empathy at Ali’s experience and recognised that this can happen in any learning context. 

Catriona Johnson offers some approaches to not only reassure students, but some key points about the nature of learning itself.

‘Firstly, Ali is not alone in their concern about seminar participation as many first-year students feel unconfident about contributing to these group discussions, especially if they’ve never learned in this way before.  If I were Ali’s mentor or personal tutor, I would emphasise the importance of collaborative learning and how starting to participate more actively in seminars in their first year will have a hugely positive impact on their future studies and careers.

I’d suggest setting small achievable goals at first, such as asking a question for clarification, inviting someone to elaborate (e.g. Could you tell us more about that?) or preparing a couple of points linked to their background reading.  Over the term, as they grow in confidence with speaking in front of their peers, they can slowly increase the number of contributions they make.  Similar to learning a language, if they start with the basics and practise ‘a little and often’, participating will become easier without the need for as much preparation.

It would also be useful to remind Ali that the aim of seminars is not to display knowledge or impress peers with highly intellectual points, but rather an opportunity to explore concepts together through questions, examples and real-life applications.  Hopefully, this would help them realise that this collaborative meaning-making process is a more memorable way of learning than lectures as students can engage more cognitively with the content by using a range of higher-order thinking skills.’.

Both Joel Ross and Toby Reynolds separately recognised this as a risk of students adopting a strategic approach, maybe optimising for time versus the ‘payoff’.  Toby recognised that:

‘Whilst Ali’s attitude towards going down the passive / low key route (e.g. not speaking up in seminars as much as more extrovert students) is understandable, they will be at a disadvantage when it comes to second year group discussions. It’s also a pity for them not to share their knowledge (gleaned from their independent study) with the seminar group as a whole.’.

Angela Parry-Lowther took this opportunity to directly address Ali and provide some advice that:

‘It’s particularly [challenging] for first years when you’re finding your way, so don’t feel bad that you’re not contributing. It is something that we learn to do as we progress. I would say that you will get far more from your studies if you turn up and engage. Some people will seem more confident than others, but there will be many people like Ali who might seem afraid to talk or not quite sure if their view is important. But it is very important to have differing opinions, so sharing your views…you can do in your own way. You might not be as confident as the others, but that doesn’t matter.  This is something that will come -it’s very natural for you to feel this way. But peer-to-peer learning and having various points of view can’t be done alone, so your own independent learning will be hindered by not engaging with these groups and discussions. It always helps us to hear from others. It’s a slow process – don’t be too hard on yourself. I would start early. The majority of people will actually be feeling the way you do.’.

Jan – a lecturer who is worried about silences

Our scenario contributors all reflected on providing Jan with time and space to reflect on the aims of the seminar and the expectations they have of themselves and students in these particular spaces. 

For Joel Ross, there are some important questions to consider to explore this scenario further: 

‘Embracing the silence, actively filling it or inviting someone else to? Does this seem like student-centred learning, or does it sound a bit like Jan not liking the silence so is trying to cut it off.  Does that give space to others? Is this about the students’ feelings, or about the Jan’s ways of dealing with this approach?’.

A similar view in terms of re-evaluation is considered by Toby Reynolds: 

‘Jan needs to rethink their approach to prompting group discussions; as we know from Ali’s experience, there are students who are less extrovert but who can contribute a lot. Maybe the seminars can be re-designed to encourage the less vocal students to speak up (‘I want to hear from people who haven’t spoken yet’). Jan also needs to deal with her fear of silences in her seminar group; these are nothing to be afraid of. Sometimes a silence can be a good thing in terms of people mentally digesting the discourse….’.

Kat Rooney recognises the understandable aims of Jan looking to invite students who have previously spoken to continue the conversation, but Kat reflects that Jan:

‘…May assume that students who do not speak up do not want to. As mentioned above this seems like an issue in the learning environment. Jan could use tech (e.g. menti’s etc)  to guide discussion so that people can contribute in different ways regardless of confidence. Otherwise, calling on students who are quieter but still seem engaged and attentive may work, they may want to contribute but avoid it due to the other members of the class, and just need some encouragement.’.

Kat also offers some practical advice in the way in which Jan could: 

‘Utilise more think-pair-share so that students can build confidence in what they would say with a partner before in front of the group. If it is an understanding issue e.g. they haven’t done pre-work or didn’t understand the lecture, then maybe grounding concepts before asking questions could be beneficial.’.

These perspectives are also echoed by Catriona Johnson, who outlines the benefit of allowing student the opportunity to:

‘Discuss their seminar topics in small groups first, rehearsing their arguments before presenting them to the wider cohort.  Within these groups, roles could be allocated, such as chair, devil’s advocate or summariser to promote more equitable participation rather than favouring the confident students.’

In a similar regard to Joel and Toby, Catriona also suggests that Jan may benefit from taking time to review their practice:  

‘Jan could perhaps explain the purpose and value of seminars more explicitly to their students so that they understand what can be gained from this dialogic style of learning.  They could also give them a few tips for successful seminar participation, such as completing any preparation tasks and trying to build on their peers’ contributions rather than just making new points. 

It would also be worth Jan reflecting on the complex nature of discussion and why students might find it difficult to discuss topics related to the discipline.  Jan could consider Laurillard’s (2013) definition of ‘discussion’ in her conversational framework which acknowledges the complexities of this style of learning and the range of sub-skills involved: listening and responding, asking and answering questions, exchanging ideas, articulating concepts, arguing and challenging each other’s arguments.  A more nuanced consideration of the challenges students face could help Jan scaffold the seminar discussions more carefully and motivate all students to contribute.’.

—-

Once again, thanks to our contributors for sharing their reflections on these scenarios. Please feel free to comment below if you have anything to add to these reflections based on your own experiences. 

For more information about the series as a whole, you can find out more here.

If you have been inspired to contribute to the next scenarios blog, more details can be found here. Otherwise, we look forward to seeing you in the next edition of ‘Picture This’.

References:

Evans, C. (2022) EAT ORGANISING FRAMEWORK | EAT Framework

Laurillard, D., 2013. Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies. Routledge.

Nicol, D. (2021). The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,