Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education: Student-Staff Partnerships for Research 3030691578, 9783030691578

Citation preview

Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education Student-Staff Partnerships for Research

Edited by Marion Heron · Laura Barnett Kieran Balloo

Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education

Marion Heron  •  Laura Barnett Kieran Balloo Editors

Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education Student-Staff Partnerships for Research

Editors Marion Heron Surrey Institute of Education University of Surrey Guildford, UK

Laura Barnett Surrey Institute of Education University of Surrey Guildford, UK

Kieran Balloo Surrey Institute of Education University of Surrey Guildford, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-69157-8    ISBN 978-3-030-69158-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the ­publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and ­institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 Exploring ‘Excellence’ in Disciplinary Contexts Through Student-Staff Partnerships  1 Sophie Williams, Malina Pricop, Marion Heron, Kieran Balloo, and Laura Barnett 2 What Teaching Excellence Means to Undergraduate Students on a STEM Programme 21 Julia Matyjasiak and Alfred Thumser 3 Evaluating Teaching Excellence from a Disciplinary Perspective 39 Charlotte Foreman and Ali Musawi 4 Students as Co-creators of Visual Mnemonics Using LEGO®: An Evaluation of a Higher Education Revision Session Using an Adapted LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) Methodology 57 Debbie Gooch, Rachel Stead, Daisy Haywood, and Lewis Jerrom 5 How Can Mandatory Elements of Moving and Handling Be Delivered to Enhance Student Engagement? 75 Orlando Caetano and Nicola Dallimore

v

vi 

Contents

6 Exploring ‘Teaching Excellence’ in Vocational Theatre Training: What Role Does It Play in Enabling Student Success? 91 Jo Franklin and Ryan Anstey 7 An Exploration into Student and Staff Perceptions on the Use of Audio-Visual Content as a Measure of Teaching Excellence109 Lauren Regan and Iman Ezidy 8 Perceptions of Teaching Excellence and Satisfaction Amongst Chinese-Educated Students at a UK University127 Xeina Ali, James Tatam, Jiayu Le, Kristy Yeung, and Tom Bond 9 International Student Collaborations to Achieve Teaching Excellence in Higher Education145 Ramsha Saleem, Alireza Behnejad, Nayar Cuitláhuac, and Armin Mottaghi Rad 10 Co-Creating Teaching Excellence in Curriculum Design Through Leadership and Entrepreneurship163 Jashim Khan, Tang Yuqing, Yuan Yue, and Zhang Yuheng 11 Towards a Pedagogically Healthy University: The Essential Foundation for Excellence in Student-Staff Partnerships183 Ian M. Kinchin 12 Creating ‘Excellent’ Partnerships: Reflections on Practice199 Laura Barnett, Marion Heron, and Kieran Balloo

Notes on Contributors

Xeina  Ali was an International Business Management student at the University of Surrey. At the time of writing she was doing her professional training year with the Surrey Institute of Education. Ryan Anstey  was, at the time of writing, a final-year undergraduate student studying on the BA in Theatre Production at Guildford School of Acting, specialising in theatre sound. He plans to move into a career in sound design and engineering for theatre and events. Kieran  Balloo was, at the time of writing, a Lecturer in the Surrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey. His research broadly explores the impact of students’ backgrounds and the university environment on their experiences of higher education. Laura  Barnett is a Lecturer in the Surrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey. Her disciplinary background is in sociology and her research interests relate to everyday social experiences, inequalities and widening participation linked to learning and teaching in higher education. Alireza  Behnejad  is a Senior Teaching Fellow (Associate Professor) at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of the University of Surrey, UK.  He achieved his first Master’s degree in Architectural Engineering, followed by a second MSc in Structural Engineering, as well as a PhD in Geometry of Spatial Structures. He also has more than 13 years of industrial experience in the field of design and construction of prefabricated light weight structures. He is the founding co-chair of the Working vii

viii 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Group on Teaching for the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS). Tom Bond  is a Lecturer in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Surrey, and his usual research has the aim of engineering solutions to the impacts of hazardous aquatic pollutants. He is a chartered member of the Institution of Civil Engineers (MICE) and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA). Orlando  Caetano  is a  Teaching Fellow in Integrated Health (Moving and Handling) at the University of Surrey. Originally from Portugal, he has a background in exercise physiology and has extensive experience in health-care settings helping people to recover from musculoskeletal injuries, prescribing and monitoring exercises that contribute to right body posture and preventing MSDs. He has a passion for teaching and to transform peoples’ lives. He is motivated to assist people to know their body and to help them to have a good quality of life by promoting exercise and correct body posture. Nayar Cuitláhuac  is a researcher at the ITESO University in the Habitat and Urban Development Department. His expertise is in optimising and designing light weight structures. He has experience in consultancy and academy since 2008. Nicola Dallimore  was, at the time of writing, a year 3 student adult nurse based at the University of Surrey. She plans to work in the community and hopes to specialise in diabetes in the future. Iman  Ezidy was, at the time of writing, a final-year undergraduate Psychology student in the School of Psychology at the University of Surrey. She undertook her placement year in the Digital Learning team, University of Surrey, where she explored the structure of tertiary education and contributed towards a more digitalised learning environment for students. Charlotte  Foreman  is a Senior Teaching Fellow at the University of Surrey. She has worked in further and higher education for 13 years. She is the Director of Learning and Teaching for Mechanical Engineering Sciences, responsible for the management of the programmes of Aerospace, Automotive, Biomedical and Mechanical Engineering BEng and MEng degrees. She is a fellow of Institute of Materials Minerals and Mining, which is where her academic interests lie. She is keen to help develop the digital learning strategy for her department.

  NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 

ix

Jo  Franklin  is Head of Technical Theatre Arts at Guildford School of Acting at the University of Surrey. She is a stage manager and educator, teaching at both UG and PG levels alongside developing and running England’s first MA in Stage and Production Management. She holds an MA in Higher Education and is a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Her research interests are in the pedagogy of technical theatre training and the identity and values of professional theatre practitioners in higher education. Debbie  Gooch is a  Lecturer in Developmental Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Surrey. She has worked in higher education for over ten years in research and teaching roles. Her research interests include understanding the typical and atypical development of language, literacy and executive function in children and she convenes a final-year advanced module in psychology and education. She is interested in utilising evidence-based teaching methods and using research methods to evaluate educational practice. Daisy Haywood  was, at the time of writing, a second-year undergraduate Psychology student at the University of Surrey. Marion Heron  is a Senior Lecturer in the Surrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey. Her disciplinary background is applied linguistics and she researches in the area of educational linguistics. She has worked in a teacher education role in a variety of national and international contexts. Lewis Jerrom  was, at the time of writing, a second-year undergraduate Psychology student at the University of Surrey. Jashim Khan  is a Senior Teaching Fellow with University of Surrey and Adjunct Associate Professor of Marketing with IBC, Dongbei University of Economics and Finance. He received a doctorate degree in business marketing from AUT University and received a Master of Management (with Distinction) degrees from Massey University in New Zealand. His research is concerned with understanding the influence of emerging technologies on consumer behaviour. His work appears in a number of journals relating to business research. Ian M. Kinchin  is a Professor of Higher Education, within the Surrey Institute of Education at the University of Surrey. He has published research in Zoology, Science Education and in Academic Development. His current research considers the concept of care within the salutogenic

x 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

university and the application of concept maps to visualise the yet-to-­beknown. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Biology and a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Jiayu Le  was a student studying Digital Media Arts at the University of Surrey. At the time of writing, she was in her fourth year studying abroad, an experience which provided understanding of her chapter topic. Julia Matyjasiak  was, at the time of writing, a Biotechnology Bachelor of Science candidate at the University of Surrey. She completed her placement in the Rusyn laboratory at the Toxicology program of Texas A&M University, USA. In her free time, she contributes to community events and counsels students as a student life mentor. She joined Dr. Thumser in a mutual effort to advance student welfare and education for her and her peers. Armin Mottaghi Rad  is an Associate Lecturer at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. He graduated with an M.Arch from IA University of Mashhad, Iran. He has 22 years’ experience in the field of design, construction and education of architectural technology and lightweight structures. Ali Musawi  was, at the time of writing, a third-year undergraduate MEng Aerospace Engineering student in the School of Mechanical Engineering Sciences. Malina  Pricop  was, at the time of writing, a final-year undergraduate student studying Media, Culture and Society at the University of Surrey. Previously, she was an intern in the Surrey Institute of Education at the same institution. Based on student feedback and perspectives, her role involved the development of educational projects through student-­staff partnerships. Lauren Regan  was, at the time of writing, a digital learning coordinator within the Department of Technology Enhanced Learning, University of Surrey. Regan has a degree in Multimedia Computing and an MA in Education. She has studied IT for 20 years and taught IT and Computing at Secondary and Further Education institutions for 10 years. Her professional interests are in how technology can be used to increase student engagement and to enhance teaching and learning. Ramsha Saleem  was, at the time of writing, a third-year undergraduate student studying Civil Engineering at the University of Surrey. She has

  NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 

xi

been awarded with an ICE Scholarship, the Felix Pulzer Memorial Prize and has achieved Level 4 and 5 Global Graduate Awards in Spanish. Rachel  Stead is a  Teaching Fellow in Learning Development at the University of Surrey, Senior Fellow of the HEA, and LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® facilitator. She has taught in higher education for almost 20 years. Her interests lie in exploring the potential contribution of play and creativity to learning in a variety of disciplines and fields, including veterinary medicine, nursing, psychology, business, acting and film studies, and personal and professional development. Her most recent publications have involved collaborating with faculty to develop engaging, playful learning activities using both LEGO® and PlayDoh® to enable deeper critical reflection and enhance subject revision. James Tatam  was an English Literature with Creative Writing student at the University of Surrey. At the time of writing he was undertaking a professional training year in the Surrey Institute of Education at the university. Alfred  Thumser is a  Principal Teaching Fellow in Biochemistry and Strategic Lead for Education in the School of Biosciences and Medicine at the University of Surrey. He has worked in higher education for 20 years, initially as a laboratory-based researcher and subsequently with a teaching focus over the last 5 years. His pedagogic interests include active learning, student engagement, inclusivity, and the improvement of assessment and feedback processes. Sophie Williams  was, at the time of writing, a final-year undergraduate student studying English Literature. She undertook a professional training year in the Surrey Institute of Education at the University of Surrey, working on a range of projects seeking to improve the teaching and learning experience. Kristy  Yeung was a student studying International Hospitality Management at the University of Surrey. At the time of writing she was in her fifth year studying abroad and her experience as a Chinese student gave her practical insight into the topic of her chapter. Yuan  Yue  was, at the time of writing, a final-year undergraduate student  studying a BSc at the  Surrey Business School. She plans to study at postgraduate level in Business.

xii 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Zhang  Yuheng  was, at the time of writing, a final-year undergraduate student studying a BSc at the Surrey Business School. She plans to study at postgraduate level in Business. Tang Yuqing  was, at the time of writing, a final-year undergraduate student studying a BSc at the Surrey Business School. She plans to study at postgraduate level in Business.

List of Figures

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 9.1 Fig. 9.2 Fig. 10.1 Fig. 11.1 Fig. 11.2

Content taught Moving and Handling hours Students at ITESO University after the assembly of their full-scale spatial model bamboo shelter designed by Surrey students (2019) The small-scale model vs the full-scale spatial structure Direct relationships and Hypothesis Test A concept map to show the relationship between the key ideas presented in this chapter The model of pedagogic health (after Kinchin, 2019a)

82 83 149 159 172 185 186

xiii

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 4.1 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 10.1 Table 10.2 Table 11.1

Examples of disciplinary definitions and approaches to teaching excellence 5 A summary of survey respondents by year and programme of study25 A post-survey analysis indicated that the survey respondents rated phrases related to teaching excellence into two broad clusters26 Student’s median ratings on the pre-test and post-test survey (N = 24) 64 TEF key areas of measurement (Office for Students, 2018) 112 Outline of workshops 114 Politics questionnaire summary of responses 118 Convergent validity indexes 171 Discriminant validity index 171 A comparison of academic researcher identities: silo disciplines and rhizomatic research cultures (After Guerin, 2013)191

xv

CHAPTER 1

Exploring ‘Excellence’ in Disciplinary Contexts Through Student-Staff Partnerships Sophie Williams, Malina Pricop, Marion Heron, Kieran Balloo, and Laura Barnett

Excellence is at the heart of debates about what the contemporary university stands for and what it is attempting to achieve. —Skelton (2007, p. 257)

Introduction Within the higher education literature, the notion of ‘teaching excellence’ has attracted considerable discussion. This is largely because it has been found to be a ‘contested concept’ (Skelton, 2004). Skelton (2005) points out that terms such as ‘excellent’, ‘outstanding’, ‘good’, ‘competent’, ‘best’ are used equivocally by educational policy makers and Clegg (2007, p. 91) observes that ‘Excellence has become ubiquitous as a popular slogan, indeed the oxymoron ‘excellence comes as standard’ has thrown off its ironic resonance and is now routinely used to promote an astonishing

S. Williams • M. Pricop • M. Heron (*) • K. Balloo • L. Barnett Surrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_1

1

2 

S. WILLIAMS ET AL.

variety of goods’. Some argue the term teaching excellence is used to measure teaching according to performative notions (O’Leary & Cui, 2020), whereas others suggest it can describe the teaching methods used (Gunn & Fisk, 2013) and finally, from a student’s perspective, teaching excellence can connote ‘unmissable’ lectures (Revell & Wainwright, 2009). Elton (1998) therefore concluded that the term ‘teaching excellence’ lacked precision. In asking the question, what does teaching excellence mean? we instinctively ask, mean to who? Gunn (2018) points out that teaching excellence inevitably depends on context and discipline and we also contend that if we are to use the term, we need more nuanced, contextualised and individualised understandings of teaching excellence. Therefore, the aim of this chapter is not to explore the etymology of teaching excellence, but to highlight the key challenges and to argue for context-specific, disciplinary-focused understanding(s) of the term, with a view to supporting a collaborative student and teacher exploration of teaching excellence. We end the chapter with a description of the development of the book and an overview of each of the contributions to the volume.

Defining Teaching Excellence Although there is a general lack of agreement on the definition of teaching excellence, we will briefly consider the three areas in which discussions of the term are commonly situated. The first set of definitions attributed to teaching excellence arises from the perspectives of the political, social and educational context. These perspectives derive from the current performative nature of HE and government initiatives, such as the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (2017), which is the national teaching quality assessment exercise used for English universities. Scholars have argued that teaching excellence has become associated with notions of performance (O’Leary & Cui, 2020) as well as criteria and evaluation (French & O’Leary, 2017) (see further sections describing the TEF [Teaching Excellence Framework]). It is argued that teaching excellence has become connected to broader social and technological changes shaping and influencing the way in which information is taught to students. The notion of teaching excellence therefore becomes inexorably linked to the technology used and the type of teaching activities that are incorporated into lessons, such as group work (Gunn & Fisk, 2013). The second set of definitions focuses on the student perspective on teaching excellence, which is highly contingent on the context. While

1  EXPLORING ‘EXCELLENCE’ IN DISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS… 

3

some students are focused on developing practical skills for their future careers, others are mainly interested in theoretical concepts and critical thinking. Naturally, such differences will result in distinct mechanisms for evaluating excellence (Skelton, 2005). In classrooms of the twenty-first century, expectations of teaching standards are raised not just by governmental organisations, but also by students, possibly in response to increased tuition fees and a more competitive job market. For example, Lubicz-­ Nawrocka and Bunting (2019) report that students highlight the following as part of teaching excellence: concerted visible effort, commitment to engaging students, breaking down student and teacher barriers, and stability of support. The third and final set of definitions focuses on the teacher’s perspective. Although there is an overall consensus that it is difficult to define precisely what teaching excellence is (Bartram et al., 2018; Wood & Su, 2017), some academics have made an attempt to describe what embodies the term in relation to their own experiences and research. The notion is partly based on personal qualities, with Handy (1990) referring to the six essential ‘e-factors’: energy, excitement, enthusiasm, effort, effervescence and enterprise. Such factors allude to the ‘performance’ of the academic, linking to Kreber’s (2002) idea of excellence in teaching usually being identified on the basis of a judgement made about performance. Mangione and Norton (2020) argue that the concept of the ‘excellent’ teacher is all too often viewed within a performative university culture in which teachers feel they have to hide their concerns and fears. They suggest that instead we re-think the notion of the ‘excellent’ teacher as someone who dares to be vulnerable. The question remains, however, of who makes that judgement on performance? Is it the student, colleagues or management? Mentkowski et  al. (2000) discuss four ways in which such knowledge about learning and teaching can be constructed: through formal research, collaborative inquiry, the literature and practice or experience. These four avenues guide ‘excellent’ teachers in knowing what to do in order to achieve this title. Wood and Su (2017) again highlight the problematic relationship between semantics—excellent, good and good enough, and argue that an academic’s perspective favours a closer relationship between teaching and research. As can be seen from the discussion above, there is a distinct lack of clarity over the meaning of teaching excellence, with ‘ambiguity and ambivalence across the sector as to what constitutes excellence’ (Gunn & Fisk, 2013, p.  19), likely because teaching excellence is ‘context specific,

4 

S. WILLIAMS ET AL.

meaning different things in different disciplines and institutions’ (Gunn, 2018, p. 134). We take up this theme of a disciplinary-focused conceptualisation and review its scope in the next section.

Disciplinary Definitions In this section we discuss studies which have explored more nuanced and contextually specific definitions of excellence through the lens of disciplines. A focus on disciplinary excellence aims to counter arguments of normativity (Elton, 1998) and exclusiveness (Morrison, 1998; Skelton, 2005). Disciplinary notions of excellence are likely to highlight specific teaching activities rather than generic notions of excellence. A Higher Education Academy (HEA) report (Gunn & Fisk, 2013) found that there were few references to teaching excellence in the higher education disciplinary  literature—instead the literature talks of ‘good practice’. This would negate the need for a hierarchical, normative notion which is found in the term ‘excellence’, as good practice is accessible to all. The report found three themes emerging from the literature on disciplinary teaching excellence: active research-teaching activities, such as developing a culture of inquiry; dynamic student engagement, such as facilitating peer work and student-staff partnership work; and changes to assessment practice to reflect more assessment for learning (2013, p. 18) Higher education within the UK in particular has expanded significantly over recent decades and is now characterised by considerable diversity in its institutional forms, in the content of its courses, and in the backgrounds, aspirations and destinations of its students (Abbas et  al., 2016). Disciplines have distinct criteria for the ‘effectiveness’ of teaching and academics perceive effective teaching in a multitude of ways. Despite disciplines varying greatly in terms of the skills required and the environment in which the skills are practised, across the disciplines there is an increasing trend towards pedagogic practices that focus on simulations, real-world experiences and problem-solving approaches. Student experiences vary based on the discipline, for example, having debates in law courses, and simulation suites in health and medical science subjects (Abbas et  al., 2016). Health and social care disciplines define teaching excellence as the environment or process in which they produce students who would be well equipped to engage in their professional duties of care. They believe this is achieved by incorporating real-life experiences to

1  EXPLORING ‘EXCELLENCE’ IN DISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS… 

5

prepare them for their professional careers following education, looking to employer needs, professional standards and patient treatment to inform teaching and learning practices. This links back to students as the most valuable resources, encouraging active learning as we learn best through doing things, having discussions, debates, simulation-type learning. For example, in health and medical science-­based subjects such as nursing it is more relevant to create the environment of a hospital in order to put the theory into practice as nursing is a practical and skilful role which deals with patients. The more practice of reacting to different scenarios, the better prepared students will feel. Likewise, having debates in law can help students experience for themselves what it is like to put forward their ideas in a similar environment. Other examples of disciplinary definitions and approaches to teaching excellence can be found in Table 1.1 below.

Table 1.1  Examples of disciplinary definitions and approaches to teaching excellence Discipline

Definition

Example techniques

Health Sciences (Gardner & Boix-Mansilla, 1994)

Allowing the students to be open to explanation and prediction and be fully involved in their learning, not just being fed the theory.

Developing models of what causes illness and testing these models through experimentation.

History (Gardner & Boix-Mansilla, 1994)

Not just letting students ‘parrot back’ phrases, but encouraging them to really understand the theories and concepts being taught in familiar ways. Helping students to better understand not just the content they are learning, but also how they are graded for this. Giving students the opportunity to play the role of teacher and creating a classroom where the roles are more equal.

Students ‘performing’ their understanding, e.g. comparing a historical event to that of a modern day one.

Arts and Law (TEF, University of Birmingham, 2017) Life and Environmental Sciences (TEF, University of Birmingham, 2017)

‘Bank of Assessed Work’: examples of undergraduate work from across all levels of attainment to give current students more guidance on technique and writing style. Developing in-class peer marking exercises.

6 

S. WILLIAMS ET AL.

In exploring disciplinary references to good practice, an HEA report (Abbas et  al., 2016) found that there are differences in pedagogic approaches, likely due to different disciplinary cultures and knowledge structures (Kinchin et al., 2020). Across disciplinary contexts, and looking for convergences, we see that facilitating student engagement in holistic and critical thinking is the foundation of good practice. Holistic thinking emphasises how knowledge, experience and understanding is situated in broader contexts and prompts learners to look into how people, concepts and  institutions interact, connect, reflect and influence each other. For example, Finance is a highly practical discipline and a good illustration of how standards for ‘effective teaching’ are both discipline-specific and trans-disciplinary. Finance threshold concepts (Hoadley et  al., 2015) themselves lead easily to the use of real-world financial data and on/off-­ line statistical analysis tools that can be used for pedagogical purposes. One approach to learning such concepts is the use of simulated financial trading rooms (Sharma et al., 2018) to enhance experiential learning by simultaneously linking real-world cases and contemporaneous market events to different finance concepts. A prevailing theme when looking at disciplinary approaches to defining teaching excellence is that there is no singular, universal definition. It varies depending on numerous variables including who is defining it, the receiver of the teaching, the subject matter being learnt, the methods used in teaching (Hammer et al., 2010), and the methodology for researching it (Abbas et al., 2016). It could be argued that teaching excellence has been hijacked as a political tool, with excellence as ‘new vocabulary […] embodied by institutions’ to ‘present and represent themselves in the global competitive arena’ (Rostan & Vaira, 2012, p. viii) referring to league tables and how the institution is viewed as a whole, with teaching excellence contributing greatly to this representation. However, it is evident from disciplinary research that definitions differ significantly and understandably so. We live in a world where different generations have had contrastingly different educational experiences and so ‘excellence’ can be deemed as something based on personal experience within different time periods and environments. Nixon (2007) builds on this view and perceives teaching excellence as a ‘process of growth’ which can only be achieved by fusing moral attributes such as authenticity and ethics with research and teaching.

1  EXPLORING ‘EXCELLENCE’ IN DISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS… 

7

Examining Teaching Excellence Teaching excellence is recognised and examined in a number of different ways, each with its own strengths and challenges. Land and Gordon (2015), in their report for the HEA, identify a taxonomy of modalities of teaching excellence initiatives. They argue that excellence should be examined at individual, departmental and institutional level, as well as national level. Land and Gordon (2015) suggest that modalities of teaching excellence comprise teaching competence (e.g. qualifications such as postgraduate certificates in learning and teaching), teaching proficiency (rewarding excellent teachers), advanced teaching proficiency (e.g. rewarding innovative teaching, e.g. HEA Fellowship scheme) and teaching expertise (e.g. National Teaching Fellows). However, as we outline above, the challenges of defining teaching excellence render the recognition or rewarding of teaching excellence as problematic. We concur with Land and Gordon (2015) who, in their report, argue that initially an awareness of teaching excellence can be raised at the departmental (i.e. disciplinary) level. This approach heralds a potential future disciplinary narrative on teaching excellence and serves as a further justification for the way in which teachers and students explore teaching excellence as described in the chapters in this book. In terms of national initiatives, one well-known scheme is the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS), which began in 2000 and was the first national-level award for higher education teachers in England and Northern Ireland. At an institutional level, many institutions run internal schemes such as student-nominated awards. Whilst at face value these schemes might seem to be more appropriate ways to measure teaching excellence, they are not without their challenges (Bradley et  al., 2015; Madriaga & Morley, 2016). The authors argue that such schemes, whilst flattering for those nominated and the winners, are viewed by staff as divisive, lacking in transparency, lacking credibility and potentially demoralising for staff. The National Student Survey (NSS) is another UK national approach to measuring teaching excellence. The annual survey gathers students’ opinions about their experience of being in higher education, encouraging them to speak honestly about their time on their course at university. It asks 27 questions to final year undergraduate students relating to 8 aspects of the student experience, allowing the universities/colleges to choose up

8 

S. WILLIAMS ET AL.

to 6 banks of optional questions which may be more tailored to the institution or allows the institution to gain feedback on desired areas they wish to improve. The NSS has been heavily criticised in the literature (Neary, 2016; French & O’Leary, 2017) for its inability to provide reliable data about student satisfaction and its role in the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) [See below for a discussion of the TEF]. For example, French and O’Leary (2017) argue that NSS scores demonstrate an institution’s ability to ‘game the NSS’ (p. 19) rather than evidence the quality of teaching, and that the students who complete the NSS are not the ones who will benefit from any subsequent changes to the curriculum. A further government initiative, the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) was developed ostensibly to ‘open up the sector’ (French & O’Leary, 2017, p. 13) by providing students with data on teaching excellence which they could use in their decision making. Its origins lay in the will of changing the traditional system based on institutional reputation to one based on facts as the lack of regulated information allowed the universities to publish selective information (Gunn, 2018). In the TEF, teaching excellence is broadly defined to include teaching quality, the learning environment and student outcomes, and learning gains (TEF, 2017, p. 10). The TEF requires the measurement of teaching excellence, and currently this is at the heart of the debate, with many questioning the value and integrity of reducing an abstract notion of excellence to a list of metrics (Gourlay & Stevenson, 2017). Neary (2016) argues that metrics, such as the NSS, have become a proxy for excellence, and that such definitions neglect to recognise some of the crucial dimensions of disciplinary good practice, as outlined in the section above. Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are also a way of measuring teaching excellence; however, their use raises concerns of reliability in the face of student bias (Heffernan, 2021). The increased number of higher education institutions has led to a more competitive environment where universities try to distinguish themselves in order to attract more customers, a model similar to service marketing (Ching, 2018). Concerns about using this method have become more urgent as student reviews on the quality of teaching not only influence the decisions of future students but are also widely used in matters of staff recruitment and promotion. Ching (2018) has identified a number of factors which bring bias into the measurement of teaching excellence through student evaluations. One factor is the timing of the evaluation—students are more likely to give a negative evaluation if it takes place at the end of the semester or near the exam

1  EXPLORING ‘EXCELLENCE’ IN DISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS… 

9

period, as opposed to a few weeks earlier. One study even found through a randomised controlled trial that students who were given chocolate cookies prior to completing course evaluation questionnaires rated their teachers and the course significantly better than those in a control group (Hessler et al., 2018). There is also a risk of students becoming emotional under stress or disappointed after they have received their marks using the evaluations as a revenge tool (Braskamp et al., 1984). These concerns have persisted through the years resulting in SETs being seen as tools students use to either punish or reward their teacher (Clayson & Sheffet, 2006). A further bias factor which has been identified is gender (Boring et al., 2016; Buck & Tiene, 1989; MacNell et  al., 2015). From a literature review, Boring et al. (2016) conclude that students rate female instructors lower than male instructors. They also found evidence that students who expect higher grades give higher scores. It is arguable that student evaluations of teaching, in the same way as the NSS, seems to say more about student satisfaction than teaching performance, and although satisfaction may play a role in the learning process, it does not reflect teaching effectiveness.

Exploring Teaching Excellence Through Student-Staff Partnerships A common theme that has arisen, regardless of definitions of teaching excellence, has been around co-creation and the opportunities for students to have a more active role in their learning in order to get the most out of it, rather than it merely being a passive experience. Many of those who have tried to define teaching excellence have put students at the heart of the concept, with a shared power-balance between student and teacher (Little & Williams, 2010). By seeing students as the most valuable resources in the classroom, teachers and students themselves begin to value the teaching and learning experience. Another important factor in excellence is the ability of teachers to adapt their teaching behaviours to the capabilities of students. This awareness comes from a close working relationship between student and teacher, making student-staff partnerships a useful tool in building this relationship of trust and ensuring the students’ needs are being addressed and their voices heard. Students may experience the freedom to become critical thinkers and critical beings in the world (Cook-Sather et  al., 2018; see also Gravett et  al., 2020 for examples of student-staff partnership projects). Similarly, a collaborative

10 

S. WILLIAMS ET AL.

perspective on teaching excellence may go some way towards addressing what Gravett and Kinchin (2020) call a more fluid perspective on teaching excellence—a perspective in which all factors operating in the teaching and learning environment are recognised. O’Leary and Cui (2020) critique the TEF in several aspects, but one which is particularly pertinent to this book is their argument that teaching is often seen as a service for students, and an individual endeavour. In fact, teaching is co-created, and collaborative, further supporting our contention in this book that student-staff partnership approaches should be used to explore excellence. Teaching must be seen as part of students’ experience and therefore their engagement with definitions of good practice is key. Indeed, the current chapter was researched and co-authored by both students and staff. Whilst we agree that it is important to elicit students’ views on teaching excellence—after all, they are considered the ‘end users’, we would argue that in many studies students are positioned as data points. The chapters in this book offer an alternative view, that of research-based teaching in which students are active participants in the research process (Healey & Jenkins, 2006) exploring teaching excellence. Teaching excellence has traditionally been perceived as an individual notion or trait, but we suggest it is a co-constructed concept requiring a multiplicity of perspectives. Collaborative notions of teaching excellence therefore require a synergy between students and staff to elicit and develop more context-specific and empirically based understandings of teaching excellence, which are useful for that specific group. In other words, the theme of this book is to diverge from generic notions of teaching excellence and underscore meanings that are useful for those working with the concept. For this reason, meanings of teaching excellence in this book are drawn from student-staff partnership collaborations within disciplinary contexts. That is not to say one discipline cannot glean useful dimensions of teaching excellence from other areas, but as will be seen, because the focus is more on practice there can be an overlap of ideas.

Development of the Book This edited volume resulted from conversations with colleagues across the University of Surrey and across the different disciplines on what constituted teaching excellence. With the push for working towards Teaching

1  EXPLORING ‘EXCELLENCE’ IN DISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS… 

11

Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF, 2017) submissions, the term ‘teaching excellence’ was gaining attention but with little agreement on what it meant. At the time of conception, Marion, Laura and Kieran (the staff member co-authors of this chapter) worked together in the Surrey Institute of Education. Our role as academic developers gave us the enormous privilege of working with staff from all disciplines. We were in regular contact with teachers in disciplines as distinct as Engineering Sciences and Performing Arts. Through conversations, observations of teaching and more formal routes such as the taught Graduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching, we found diverse and exciting manifestations of teaching excellence. The chapters in this book stem from a student-staff research project which was a university-wide development opportunity led by the Surrey Institute of Education at the University of Surrey. This project built on an earlier initiative, also focused on student-staff partnerships and which also culminated in an edited book (Gravett et al., 2020). The current project was launched in late 2018 and aimed to support student-staff research into understanding teaching excellence in disciplinary contexts. A further aim was to promote pedagogical research in the institution and offer an opportunity to teachers to be supported through the process. Kinchin (Chap. 11, this volume) suggests that teaching excellence may be better understood as a process of becoming that is achieved with the partnership of students. This partnership in the quest to understand teaching excellence sits at the heart of this project and is reflected in the accounts presented in this book. The projects were supported by institutional funding and led by the book editors. A call for proposals was announced and eight projects were accepted. Whilst staff took on this research as part of their workload, student partners received a small bursary with the expectation they would contribute 25–30 hours of their time. It was left up to the student-staff partnerships to decide how the work and resulting responsibilities would be allocated. All projects received favourable ethical opinion from the University’s ethics committee. Authors for each chapter were paired up to peer review each other’s drafts. Our role as editors of the collection was to provide ongoing professional development opportunities in the form of workshops, writing guidance, review and feedback.

12 

S. WILLIAMS ET AL.

Outline of the Book The contributions in this book are testament to the hard work, commitment and ultimately the close working partnership of the students and staff. Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were co-authored by staff and student researchers. In the spirit of promoting a culture of pedagogic research, a noteworthy feature of the book is the research guides which form the final appendix of each of these chapters. These research guides are summaries of the research project written in a way to enable readers to adapt and replicate the research for their discipline. The book is comprised of 12 chapters in total, which we shall now outline. Chapter 2: What Teaching Excellence Means to Undergraduate Students on a STEM Programme Julia Matyjasiak and Alfred Thumser In this chapter, Matyjasiak and Thumser present the findings from a survey of Biosciences students’ perspectives on teaching excellence, and how excellence impacts on their learning experience. Students ranked phrases related to teaching excellence, and the authors’ analyses of the ranks revealed two distinct clusters, whereby the primary cluster (ranked higher by survey respondents) indicated that students perceived traditional didactic lectures to be more aligned with their view of excellence than more active learning approaches, such as team-based work and problem-­based learning. The authors argue that the latter approaches are more important for enhancing students’ employability skills, so they recommend that the Biosciences curriculum needs to include less focus on facts and more emphasis on developing students’ skills. The authors draw on their findings to highlight broad concepts that could be taken forward to programme reviews. Chapter 3: Evaluating Teaching Excellence from a Disciplinary Perspective Charlotte Foreman and Ali Musawi Foreman and Musawi’s chapter focuses on the perceived effectiveness of institution-wide module evaluation questionnaires (MEQs). They carried out student and staff focus groups to ascertain: how MEQs are perceived; the challenges of current MEQs; perceptions of how teaching excellence is, or is not, reflected in current MEQs; and student and staff perceptions of the revised discipline-specific MEQ. The findings indicate divergent views of what teaching excellence is, leading the authors to

1  EXPLORING ‘EXCELLENCE’ IN DISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS… 

13

question whether students’ use of ratings on current MEQs are reflective of excellence. Furthermore, the authors argue that the current methods of MEQ administration may hinder teachers’ abilities to use student feedback to effectively reflect on their practice, which they view as being a vital feature of teaching excellence. The authors also argue that MEQs can only be effective and useful if they reflect disciplinary notions of excellence through discipline-specific questions. Chapter 4: Students as Co-creators of Visual Mnemonics Using LEGO®: An Evaluation of a Higher Education Revision Session Using an Adapted LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) Methodology Debbie Gooch, Rachel Stead, Daisy Haywood and Lewis Jerrom Demonstrating to students the value of peer teaching in a Psychology revision workshop, Gooch et  al. engaged students in a theory-driven method of active teaching—LSP. In this chapter, the authors evaluate their workshop by administering pre- and post-workshop questionnaires to determine whether the LSP approach increased students’ confidence with module material, improved their retention and reduced their exam anxiety. Their findings indicate that students felt significantly more confident in recalling module material and making links between topics after participating in the workshop. Survey responses also revealed that students felt the workshop facilitated discussion and interaction, which students considered to be aspects of teaching excellence. The authors also highlight how the student-staff partnership approach enhanced the evaluation of the teaching activities because students were able to co-design evaluation tools to incorporate what they felt should be important outcomes to measure in revision sessions. Chapter 5: How Can Mandatory Elements of Moving and Handling Be Delivered to Enhance Student Engagement? Orlando Caetano and Nicola Dallimore In the first of two vocationally oriented studies, Caetano and Dallimore draw on data generated from nursing, paramedic and midwifery students’ reflections on their attendance at three mandatory patient handling sessions. After analysing students’ views about the content taught in the sessions, the number of teaching hours, and the perceived relevance of the content to their clinical practice, the authors outline the significant changes they made to their curriculum based directly on student feedback, which they argue led to enhanced excellence. The authors demonstrate how involving students in reflection and feedback on training that is often

14 

S. WILLIAMS ET AL.

viewed as non-academic can enable teachers to develop the curriculum to more authentically mirror their healthcare practice needs. Chapter 6: Exploring ‘Teaching Excellence’ in Vocational Theatre Training: What Role Does It Play in Enabling Student Success? Jo Franklin and Ryan Anstey In the second vocationally oriented study in the book, Franklin and Anstey investigate how teaching excellence is perceived by students and teachers in a discipline where traditional definitions of excellence (e.g. via the TEF) are not necessarily seen as relevant to employers, or aligned with industry expectations. A thematic analysis of interviews and questionnaires with staff and students led to the authors identifying four main inter-­ connected themes: defining the ‘excellent teacher’ in technical theatre; considering how the excellent teacher impacts student progress and employability; the role of professional development in teacher excellence and how teacher excellence can be measured. The authors conclude with a call for more research to define teaching excellence in the discipline, in order to plan, implement and measure learning in the theatre training sector. Chapter 7: An Exploration into Student and Staff Perceptions on the Use of Audio-Visual Content as a Measure of Teaching Excellence Lauren Regan and Iman Ezidy Regan and Ezidy explore the role of audio-visual content as a factor in teaching excellence in the discipline of Politics. Students and staff participated in two student-staff facilitated collaborative workshops, which were designed to establish a shared understanding of what the term ‘captured content’ meant. Participants also collaboratively explored what teaching excellence meant and the role of audio-visual content in excellence. In this chapter, the authors present a case study evaluating the workshops. They found that after participating in the workshops, both students and staff gained a deeper understanding of the interaction between teaching excellence and audio-visual content, as well as how resources can and should only be used as a supplement to face-to-face teaching. The authors emphasise the power of students and staff listening to each other to better understand how audio-visual content can lead to teaching excellence. Chapter 8: Perceptions of Teaching Excellence and Satisfaction Amongst Chinese-Educated Students at a UK University Xeina Ali, James Tatam, Jiayu Le, Kristy Yeung and Tom Bond Ali et al.’s chapter foregrounds the generally neglected views of Chinese-­ educated students with respect to teaching excellence. Utilising student

1  EXPLORING ‘EXCELLENCE’ IN DISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS… 

15

focus groups, the authors investigate their perceptions of the differences between higher education in the UK and China, the perceived characteristics of teaching excellence, and how student satisfaction could be improved. Their findings show that Chinese-educated students believe teaching excellence involves teachers providing interesting, engaging and interactive lectures, and actionable feedback. The authors provide several recommendations to ensure the Chinese-educated student voice is heard and their needs are met in the UK university sector, including the need to conduct more research directly comparing how international and UK/EU students perceive teaching excellence. Furthermore, lecturers need to make more use of lecture-capture technologies, to provide additional explanation and clarification of taught content and to provide extra support to aid these students in finding internships and jobs in the UK. Chapter 9: International Student Collaborations to Achieve Teaching Excellence in Higher Education Ramsha Saleem, Alireza Behnejad, Nayar Cuitláhuac and Armin Mottaghi Rad In the first of two studies outlining an international student-staff teaching initiative, Saleem et al. discuss the challenges and affordances of the Design, Assemble and Dismantle (DAD) project, which draws on an active learning teaching approach, and involves collaboration between Civil Engineering and Architecture students and staff across three countries. In this chapter, Saleem offers an autoethnographic account of her experience of being a student on the project. The perspectives of lecturers teaching on the scheme in each country (the other co-authors) are also presented. The authors describe a number of features of the DAD project that are developed in both students and staff, such as creativity, communication, time management, an understanding of the importance of health and safety, and adaptability. They argue that the innovative aspects of the project represent teaching excellence. Chapter 10: Co-creating Teaching Excellence in Curriculum Design Through Leadership and Entrepreneurship Jashim Khan, Tang Yuqing, Yuan Yue, and Zhang Yuheng In the second study covering an international student-staff teaching initiative in the book, Khan et al. present an overview and evaluation of the LEAD programme. In LEAD, students work in partnership with teachers and industry professionals to enhance their engagement and employability skills by becoming co-creators of content and learning materials. In this chapter, the authors evaluate their programme using surveys and

16 

S. WILLIAMS ET AL.

in-depth interviews. They found that students who participated in the programme reported greater satisfaction and achievement. The authors argue that their programme provides a framework for how a student-­ teacher partnership of co-creation can contribute to teaching excellence. Chapter 11: Towards a Pedagogically Healthy University: The Essential Foundation for Excellence in Student-Staff Partnerships Ian M. Kinchin In the penultimate chapter, Kinchin uses his framework of pedagogic frailty to demonstrate how the efficacy and learning potential from student-­ staff partnerships requires the university to be pedagogically healthy and resilient. The author highlights recipience, exaptation and adaptive expertise as key concepts that may enable teachers to construct a sense of coherence about their practice, scaffolding the development of effective student-staff research partnerships. The author invites readers to view these key concepts through a rhizomatic lens and see teaching excellence as an ongoing process of becoming rather than being; this changes the nature of excellence and makes it something that both students and teachers (who are simultaneously developing and learning) can engage with together as authentic partners in learning. Chapter 12: Creating ‘Excellent’ Partnerships: Reflections from Practice Laura Barnett, Marion Heron, and Kieran Balloo The final chapter concludes the book by drawing on the collective voices of all contributing authors through their reflections on the partnership experience. Two overarching themes are examined in depth in the chapter: how student-staff partnerships can promote a shared understanding of disciplinary excellence, and how teaching excellence itself is more likely to be achieved through student-staff partnerships. Other notable points revealed through the reflections in the chapter include the reciprocal learning and power of collaboration and partnership in opening up new perspectives on teaching excellence.

Conclusion We concur with Gravett and Kinchin (2020) who suggest that the term teaching excellence can help us ‘to understand and improve what we do’ (p. 1033), but that the term does require some ‘re-imagining’ (p. 1033). Therefore, we contend that the chapters in this book make a contribution to this ‘re-imagining’ by offering not only an examination of, but also a

1  EXPLORING ‘EXCELLENCE’ IN DISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS… 

17

co-creation of, understandings of teaching excellence to develop more connected and authentic accounts of what works. We assert that the contributions to this volume provide constructive models for partnership across a range of contexts through the use of empirical research, reflections and research guides. We hope that readers can draw upon these contributions for exploring, redefining and co-creating more authentic forms of excellence in their disciplines.

References Abbas, A., Abbas, J., Brayman, K., Brennan, J., & Gantogtokh, O. (2016). Teaching excellence in the disciplines. Higher Education Academy. https:// www.advance-­he.ac.uk/knowledge-­hub/teaching-­excellence-­disciplines Bartram, B., Hathaway, T., & Rao, N. (2018). Understandings of ‘teaching excellence’ in higher education: A comparative study of English and Australian academics’ perspectives. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(9), 1284–1298. Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P. B. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. Science Open Research. https:// www.math.upenn.edu/~pemantle/active-­papers/Evals/stark2016.pdf Bradley, S., Kirby, E., & Madriaga, M. (2015). What students value as inspirational and transformative teaching. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(3), 231–242. Braskamp, L. A., Brandenburg, D. C., & Ory, J. C. (1984). Evaluating teaching effectiveness. Sage. Buck, S., & Tiene, D. (1989). The impact of physical attractiveness, gender, and teaching philosophy on teacher evaluations. The Journal of Educational Research, 82(3), 172–177. Ching, G. (2018). A literature review on the student evaluation of teaching: An examination of the search, experience, and credence qualities of SET. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 12(2), 63–84. Clayson, D. E., & Sheffet, M. J. (2006). Personality and the student evaluation of teaching. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(2), 149–160. Clegg, S. (2007). The demotic turn—excellence by fiat. In A.  Skelton (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education: Improving knowledge and practice (pp. 91–102). Routledge. Cook-Sather, A., Matthews, K. E., Ntem, A., & Leathwick, S. (2018). What we talk about when we talk about students as partners. International Journal for Students as Partners, 2(2), 1–9. Elton, L. (1998). Dimensions of excellence in university teaching. The International Journal for Academic Development, 3(1), 3–11.

18 

S. WILLIAMS ET AL.

French, A., & O’Leary, M. (Eds.). (2017). Teaching excellence in higher education: Challenges, changes and the teaching excellence framework. Emerald Group Publishing. Gardner, H., & Boix-Mansilla, V. (1994). Teaching for understanding in the disciplines and beyond. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 14–18. Gourlay, L., & Stevenson, J. (2017). Teaching excellence in higher education: Critical perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(4), 391–395. Gravett, K., & Kinchin, I. (2020). Revisiting ‘A “teaching excellence” for the times we live in’: Posthuman possibilities. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(8), 1028–1034. Gravett, K., Yakovchuk, N., & Kinchin, I. M. (Eds.). (2020). Enhancing student-­ centred teaching in higher education. Palgrave Macmillan. Gunn, A. (2018). Metrics and methodologies for measuring teaching quality in Higher Education: Developing the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). Educational Review, 70(2), 129–148. Gunn, V., & Fisk, A. (2013). Considering teaching excellence in higher education: 2007–2013. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-­he.ac.uk/ knowledge-­h ub/considering-­t eaching-­e xcellence-­h igher-­e ducation-­ 2007-­2013 Hammer, D., Piascik, P., Medina, M., Pittenger, A., Rose, R., Creekmore, F., Soltis, R., Bouldin, A., Schwarz, L., & Scott, S. (2010). Recognition of teaching excellence. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(9). Handy, C. (1990). Inside organisations. Penguin Books. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2006). Strengthening the teaching-research linkage in undergraduate courses and programs. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 107, 45–55. Heffernan, T. (2021). Sexism, racism, prejudice, and bias: a literature review and synthesis of research surrounding student evaluations of courses and teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–11. Hessler, M., Pöpping, D.  M., Hollstein, H., Ohlenburg, H., Arnemann, P.  H., Massoth, C., Seidel, L. M., Zarbock, A., & Wenk, M. (2018). Availability of cookies during an academic course session affects evaluation of teaching. Medical Education, 52(10), 1064–1072. Hoadley, S., Tickle, L., Wood, L. N., & Kyng, T. (2015). Threshold concepts in finance: Conceptualizing the curriculum. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46(6), 824–840. Kinchin, I. M., Winstone, N. E., & Medland, E. (2020). Considering the concept of recipience in student learning from a modified Bernsteinian perspective. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507 9.2020.1717459. Kreber, C. (2002). Teaching excellence, teaching expertise, and the scholarship of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 27(1), 5–23.

1  EXPLORING ‘EXCELLENCE’ IN DISCIPLINARY CONTEXTS… 

19

Land, R., & Gordon, G. (2015). Teaching excellence initiatives: Modalities and operational factors. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-­he. ac.uk/knowledge-­h ub/teaching-­e xcellence-­i nitiatives-­m odalities-­a nd­operational-­factors Little, B., & Williams, R. (2010). Students’ roles in maintaining quality and in enhancing learning: Is there a tension? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 115–127. Lubicz-Nawrocka, T., & Bunting, K. (2019). Student perceptions of teaching excellence: An analysis of student-led teaching award nomination data. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(1), 63–80. MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A.  N. (2015). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 291–303. Madriaga, M., & Morley, K. (2016). Awarding teaching excellence: ‘What is it supposed to achieve?’ Teacher perceptions of student-led awards. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(2), 166–174. Mangione, D., & Norton, L. (2020). Problematising the notion of ‘the excellent teacher’: Daring to be vulnerable in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1812565. Mentkowski, M., Rogers, G., Doherty, A., Loacker, G., Hart, J. R., Rickards, W., O’Brien, K., Riordan, T., Sharkey, S., Cromwell, L., Diez, M., Bartels, J., & Roth, J. (2000). Learning that lasts: Integrating learning, development, and performance in college and beyond. Jossey-Bass. Morrison, K. (1998). Management theories for educational change. Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.. Neary, M. (2016). Teaching Excellence Framework: A critical response and an alternative future. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 12(3), 690–695. Nixon, J. (2007). Excellence and the good society. In A.  Skelton (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education: Improving knowledge and practice (pp. 15–31). Routledge. O’Leary, M., & Cui, V. (2020). Reconceptualising teaching and learning in higher education: Challenging neoliberal narratives of teaching excellence through collaborative observation. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(2), 141–156. Revell, A., & Wainwright, E. (2009). What makes lectures ‘unmissable’? Insights into teaching excellence and active learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 209–223. Rostan, M., & Vaira, M. (2012). Questioning excellence in higher education. Springer Science and Business Media. Sharma, S., Charity, I., Robson, A., & Lillystone, S. (2018). How do students conceptualise a “real world” learning environment: An empirical study of a financial trading room? The International Journal of Management Education, 16(3), 541–557.

20 

S. WILLIAMS ET AL.

Skelton, A. (2004). Understanding ‘teaching excellence’ in higher education: A critical evaluation of the National Teaching Fellowships Scheme. Studies in Higher Education, 29(4), 451–468. Skelton, A. (2005). Understanding teaching excellence in higher education: Towards a critical approach. Routledge. Skelton, A. ed. (2007). International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education: Improving knowledge and practice. Abingdon: Routledge. Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework. (2017). Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework specification. https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658490/Teaching_Excellence_and_Student_Outcomes_ Framework_Specification.pdf Wood, M., & Su, F. (2017). What makes an excellent lecturer? Academics’ perspectives on the discourse of ‘teaching excellence’ in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(4), 451–466.

CHAPTER 2

What Teaching Excellence Means to Undergraduate Students on a STEM Programme Julia Matyjasiak and Alfred Thumser

Introduction By definition, all Higher Education is a preparation for life, work and future learning. (Sterling, 2012)

The opening quote provides an insight to the authors’ thinking in starting a student-staff partnership project on a STEM programme and, in this chapter, we have used an evidence-based approach to obtain an initial impression of the student perspective on teaching excellence as a first step in developing learning communities to improve STEM teaching. In addition, we reflect on our own challenges in undertaking an equitable collaboration as co-investigators and then link our own perspectives with survey data and the literature. During this work, our own perspectives on

J. Matyjasiak • A. Thumser (*) School of Biosciences and Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_2

21

22 

J. MATYJASIAK AND A. THUMSER

teaching excellence in a higher education environment were challenged. In our institution, for example, teaching excellence is usually measured indirectly through module evaluations that are often criticised due to low response rates or described as ‘not fit for purpose’. On the other hand, the student perspective is often driven by teaching evaluations and student-led teaching awards that are an undervalued resource in terms of understanding the impact of teaching approaches on student learning (Gunn & Fisk, 2013; Little et  al., 2007; Matheson, 2019; Noddings, 2012). Further considerations in the context of STEM subjects is the tension between the identities of teacher and scientist with a view that valuing teaching may reduce the credibility of the scientist. In the final section we explore how our findings from this study can inform a programme review which can reflect students’ perspectives on teaching excellence.

Literature Review The Concept of ‘Teaching Excellence’—A Broad Overview The focus of this chapter is on teaching excellence as a multi-dimensional, complex and often controversial concept driven by the needs of academics, students and other key stakeholders to generate critical, challenging and contextually relevant emergent pedagogies (Brusoni et  al., 2014; Elton, 1998; Gourlay & Stevenson, 2017; O’Leary & Wood, 2019; P.  Wood & O’Leary, 2019) (see overview of disciplinary approaches in Chap. 1). An Overview of Teaching Excellence and Approaches to Teaching in STEM Subjects Distinct pedagogical approaches, also referred to as ‘signature pedagogies’, are associated with different disciplines and STEM subjects, including the Biosciences, and are broadly focussed on developing critical enquiry, communication, team and practical skills (Abbas et  al., 2016; Shulman, 2005). A hallmark of STEM subjects is a rigorous, evidence-­ driven method of enquiry that is continuously enhanced by active learning strategies, for example, case studies, problem-based learning, think-pair-­ share exercises, rather than traditional didactic lectures and a collection of scientific facts (Bauer-Dantoin, 2009; Tanner & Allen, 2005; Winstone & Millward, 2012). Although a didactic lecture format still prevails in STEM

2  WHAT TEACHING EXCELLENCE MEANS TO UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS… 

23

subjects, it may be interwoven with flipped learning, discussion groups, laboratory sessions, simulations and placements. Of note is the influence of institutional context on teaching approaches with research-focussed universities in the UK typically more reliant on didactic lectures, whereas former polytechnics and other post-1992 universities have a more student-­ centred approach (Abbas et al., 2016). There are also distinctions between STEM subjects in terms of their focus, with a strongly academic emphasis generally observed in mathematics, physics, biological sciences while there is a stronger vocational and skills focus in engineering, statistics and computing (Abbas et al., 2016). Pedagogic concerns in STEM subjects include knowledge and skills gaps, meeting the needs of industry, the effects of globalisation and the relatively low inclusion of females and historically disenfranchised communities, for example, BAME (black and minority ethnic) students (Abbas et al., 2016; Dewsbury & Brame, 2019). As pointed out above, didactic lectures are the most prevalent method of instruction in STEM subjects, with students primarily listening to the instructor (Stains et al., 2018). Kampourakis (2017) suggests that this is because it is how science is taught in most undergraduate programmes, while Handelsman et  al. (2004) have identified several further reasons, namely that scientists are not aware of the effectiveness of active learning and are intimidated by the challenge of using new teaching techniques. A major obstacle to conceptual changes in STEM teaching may be the university promotions system and a fear that identification as teachers may reduce the credibility of scientists as researchers (Handelsman et al., 2004; Kampourakis, 2017; Waldrop, 2015). Student-Staff Partnerships The establishment of student-staff partnerships can be used to facilitate a paradigm shift from formal, passive student evaluations of teaching and delayed feedback to teaching faculty into feedback as a discursive and integrated communication platform. Faculty could view students as valuable resources in developing their own learning and shift from making assumptions about how students learn to using an evidence-based methodology to improve STEM teaching. The most important lessons we have learnt in this project are the values of reciprocity, empowerment, trust and courage and an informed knowledge base, that is, learning from others (Cook-­ Sather & Luz, 2015; Curran, 2017; Healey et al., 2014; Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017, 2019).

24 

J. MATYJASIAK AND A. THUMSER

The aim of this student-staff partnership was to provide new insights from the student perspective of teaching excellence in the Biosciences and subsequently use the findings to reinforce good practice and identify faculty misconceptions to improve the student learning experience. In this study we combined the different perspectives of a current student and an experienced educator to develop a survey that focussed on appraising the students’ perceptions of teaching excellence. Our objectives were to address the following questions, from a Biosciences perspective: (1) what is the student perspective on teaching excellence? and (2) how does teaching excellence impact on the student experience?

Methodology Approach The literature review shows that the term ‘teaching excellence’ is not well defined and therefore the authors sought to consolidate an appropriate understanding of how teaching methods and student experiences in the Biosciences influence student perceptions. It was from this perspective that we set up an anonymous survey of the undergraduate student cohort that included a quantitative analysis as well as anonymous, free-text comments that were related to specific questions, to facilitate the open and constructive expression of student views (see Appendix 1 for survey details). Data Collection Methods After several iterations and discussions, we agreed a set of questions for a student survey, set up the survey in the GDPR-compliant Qualtrics software (https://www.qualtrics.com) and emailed an anonymous link to the undergraduate Biosciences student cohort of approximately 1000 students in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University of Surrey. We felt that an anonymous survey would provide a channel for honest responses while also engaging students that may lack confidence in a live forum. The student survey was broken down into three broad sections. In the first section, the students were provided with a Likert Scale to rate 16 separate phrases related to teaching excellence, for example, clarity of lecture, personality of lecturer. In the second section, students were asked which words or phrases described an excellent lecture, for example, didactic, interactive.

2  WHAT TEACHING EXCELLENCE MEANS TO UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS… 

25

Table 2.1  A summary of survey respondents by year and programme of study Year of study

Programme of study

BSc, year 1: 40% BSc, year 2: 24% BSc, year 3: 25% BSc, placement year: 11%

BSc Biomedical Science: 34% BSc Biochemistry: 21% BSc Biological Sciences: 15% BSc Dietetics: 9% BSc Nutrition & Food Science: 8% BSc Microbial Sciences: 6% BSc Veterinary Bioscience: 5% BSc Sports & Exercise Science: 1%

The research project, including the survey, was submitted to the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences Ethics Committee, University of Surrey, and received a favourable ethical opinion. A summary overview of survey respondents is shown in Table  2.1. A total of 132 students completed the survey. Analysis of Survey Data The survey data was exported from Qualtrics in a text format (csv file) and numerical data were analysed using GraphPad Prism 8 (https://www. graphpad.com/) to assess whether the ranking of phrases linked to teaching excellence could be separated statistically (Kruskall-Wallis test with Dunn’s multiple comparison). The analysis indicated two broad response clusters of ranking by the respondents, with phrases in the primary cluster ranked higher by the survey respondents than those in the secondary cluster (Table 2.2). An examination of the two clusters highlights the pedagogic features that aligned with students’ perceptions of teaching excellence.

Findings and Discussion What Is the Student Perspective on ‘Teaching Excellence’? The phrases were quantitatively ranked, and analysis showed two broad clusters (Table 2.2), with the primary cluster notably linked to traditional didactic lectures. ‘Clarity of lecture content’ was rated most important under teaching excellence, with relevant comments indicating that planning and preparation, challenging content, clear

26 

J. MATYJASIAK AND A. THUMSER

Table 2.2  A post-survey analysis indicated that the survey respondents rated phrases related to teaching excellence into two broad clusters Primary cluster

Secondary cluster

Clarity of lecture content Feedback after coursework or exams Advice for coursework or exams [feedforward]

Personality of the lecturer Small-group workshops Inclusion and discussion of relevant research Includes team projects [group work] Includes Problem-Based Learning [PBL] Involves small-group workshops Difficulty of exams Research seminars

Academic support [lecturers] Pre-practicals and advice on practical reports [feedforward] Practicals and their integration with theoretical material

explanations and engaging lecturers are key, while also indicating disapproval of content-intensive lectures, repeated content and irrelevant information. The free-text student quotes are insightful in getting a better understanding of student perceptions: In my opinion, good lecturers are key here!’; ‘Some of the lecturers go off on tangents too often about irrelevant information: which blurs the line as to what we need to know versus what goes beyond what we need. There is also an apparent differentiation of teaching excellence between individual lecturers and across a programme of study: Some lecturers go to incredible lengths, planning and preparing for their modules and lectures (it’s a shame this isn’t quite the standard across the whole school yet); Content should be more challenging and not repeated across modules. Students clearly value good teaching and well-designed environments, which may be linked to lecturer fluency and prior expectations (Bell & Brooks, 2018), and the positive influences of personality-related traits such as caring, conscientiousness, extraversion, sensing and agreeableness (Bradley et al., 2015; Göncz, 2017; Noddings, 2012; Tan et al., 2018), and a passion for the subject, linking theory and research (Anderson et al., 2020; Bradley et al., 2015; Brusoni et al., 2014; Consortium of Students’, 2017; Jensen et  al., 2014; Lubicz-Nawrocka & Bunting, 2019; Parpala et al., 2011). Student perceptions of teaching excellence, in particular their preference for engaging lectures, as shown in this study, may be influenced by prior expectations (Bell & Brooks, 2018), with a bias against active learning

2  WHAT TEACHING EXCELLENCE MEANS TO UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS… 

27

(Deslauriers et al., 2019), while the students’ ‘feeling of learning’ is influenced by lecturer fluency (Carpenter et al., 2013; Deslauriers et al., 2019). Students may also feel that they learn less in an active learning environment and not appreciate that effective learning is linked to increased cognitive struggle, as required during active learning classes (Deslauriers et al., 2019). In this regard, Little et al. (2007) have proposed a separation of teaching excellence and students’ learning, though Carpenter et  al. (2013) propose that good teaching inspires students to think for themselves and investigate a subject in depth. Does Teaching Excellence Impact on the Student Experience? In this study, we considered the student experience, that is, their broader education and life as students in the classroom and beyond, as overlapping with their perceptions of teaching excellence. Survey responses to ‘What impact do the following have on your student experience?’ showed similar outcomes for all study programmes and year cohorts. Students value feedback and would like more guidance and feedback on their assignments and assessments: ‘I think providing a wide range of practice exam questions, with answers and marks helps students while studying and create an idea of how much work the student has to put in to achieve the desired grades.’; ‘More support for first time assignments needed’. These comments reflect an aspect of teaching excellence that includes a positive and supportive classroom environment (Bradley et al., 2015; Jensen et al., 2014; Marsh & Roche, 1994; Noddings, 2012; Parpala et al., 2011; Saroyan et al., 2004; Wood & O’Leary, 2019). Similarly, teaching should be an enriching experience enabling students to achieve their goals (Coyle, 2018), thus reflecting student views that they would like more opportunities to network and get an authentic appreciation for life outside and beyond their degree programme: ‘Listening more to the students who are finishing the degree at a course (specific) level’; ‘Lecturers should be more aware of students that work… all of the students differ and have to struggle with different difficulties in their lives’. However, an alternative view against too much provision of support was reflected in student comments: ‘I already have a degree. I did not receive anywhere near the level of support, guidance or feedback that students at Surrey now receive for coursework or exams. I feel that at times they are given too much help and guidance’. From students’ perspective then it is imperative that a supportive environment moves beyond ‘spoonfeeding’ and students are provided with transformative interventions to

28 

J. MATYJASIAK AND A. THUMSER

develop agentic engagement with their own learning (Balloo et al., 2018; Winstone et al., 2017). As presented in Table  2.2, a secondary cluster of phrases linked to teaching excellence included lecture, laboratory and IT facilities; campus environment; peripheral support (Library—Learning & Development, finance, mental health, employability and careers, peer support scheme, student course representatives) and terms linked to active learning activities (small-group workshops, research seminars, team projects; engagement with postgraduate students and opportunities to meet scientists and employers). One student commented that there could be ‘More opportunities for final years to network and contact potential employees’. How Can Our Findings Be Taken Forward in a Programme Review? In this section we explore how our findings can be utilised in reviewing the Biosciences programme to reflect the notions of teaching excellence identified by students in this study. Tanner & Allen (2005) proposed conceptual change strategies to develop a shift in science teaching from a collection of science facts to developing a deeper understanding of concepts related to the scientific discipline. Scientists should approach teaching with the same rigour as for their experiments, for example, by developing clear goals, and be motivated to think about their teaching (Kampourakis, 2017; Waldrop, 2015). A major obstacle may be the university promotions system and a fear that identification as teachers may reduce their credibility as researchers (Handelsman et  al., 2004; Kampourakis, 2017; Waldrop, 2015). A viable proposal is the formation of educational research groups and opportunities for experienced instructors to share best practice. This joint project has highlighted both a clarification of what teaching excellence in the STEM context involves, and this project has highlighted the affordances of working in partnership. Going forward we agree that there is a need for communities of practice for mid-career and senior faculty, the latter often feeling isolated and on the periphery in terms of teaching-­ focussed development opportunities (Clegg, 2007; Cox, 2004). Excellence is a process of growth and development, not an endpoint. The formation of faculty and student learning communities to aid student retention, deeper learning, increased sensitivity to alternative points of view and increased civic contributions could be considered (Coyle, 2018; Wood,

2  WHAT TEACHING EXCELLENCE MEANS TO UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS… 

29

2009; Young & Shaw, 1999). Such communities, which should include students as partners, would work together to create or redesign a set of courses and so increase awareness of the complexity of teaching, amongst faculty and students, and increase the prestige and scholarship of teaching (Blessinger et al., 2017; Cox, 2004; Handelsman et al., 2004; Olmstead et al., 2019). Faculty learning communities require a substantial initial investment of time and effort, with returns that include a sense of community and collaborative interactions with students that facilitate discussions of concerns in real time to develop an understanding of collaboration, consensus and teamwork (Laal & Ghodsi, 2012; Olmstead et  al., 2019; Tinnell et al., 2019). Conclusions Good teachers and their teaching matter. (Walker & Gleaves, 2016)

Excellence is a process of growth and development, not an endpoint (Gravett et al., 2020), and therefore the understanding of different perspectives is important in modernising and revitalising undergraduate STEM programmes. Deeper learning, student retention, increased sensitivity to alternative points of view and increased civic contributions could be enhanced by formation of faculty and student learning communities. Such communities, which should include students as equitable partners, would work together to create or redesign a set of courses, thereby increasing awareness amongst students of the complexity of teaching and enhancing the prestige and scholarship of teaching (Blessinger et al., 2017; Cox, 2004; Handelsman et al., 2004; Olmstead et al., 2019). During this work, our own perspectives were challenged: what is important was questioned—is it teaching excellence, excellent teaching, student learning or a nuanced interaction and overlap of all three perspectives? On a personal level, there are several positive outcomes from this student-staff partnership, including our personal development, a greater appreciation of student and staff perspectives and a substantially enhanced knowledge base and understanding of education reforms and processes required to develop a curriculum that makes students more workplace ready and reflective learners. Our next objective is to initiate student-staff learning communities to develop a more student-focussed learning and teaching environment on the Biosciences programmes.

30 

J. MATYJASIAK AND A. THUMSER

Appendix 1: Survey Questions 1. Do you consent to the anonymous use of the survey data in presentation, publications or similar communications? 2. Please select your current level of study:

i. Level 4 ii. Level 5 iii. Level P iv. Level 6 3. Please select the most appropriate programme of study:



i. Biomedical Science ii. Biochemistry iii. Biological Sciences iv. Veterinary Biosciences v. Microbial Sciences, including Biotechnology vi. Nutrition & Food Science vii. Dietetics viii. Sports & Exercise Science 4. How would you rate the following in terms of Teaching Excellence?



i. Clarity of lecture content ii. Personality of the lecturer iii. Academic support [lecturers] iv. Advice for coursework or exams [feedforward] v. Pre-practicals & advice on practical reports [feedforward] vi. Practicals and their integration with theoretical material vii. Feedback after coursework or exams viii. Small-group workshops ix. Inclusion & discussion of relevant research x. Includes team projects [group work] xi. Includes Problem-Based Learning [PBL] xii. Involves small-group workshops xiii. Difficulty of Exams xiv. Research seminars

2  WHAT TEACHING EXCELLENCE MEANS TO UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS… 

31

5. What impact do the following have on your ‘Student Experience’?

i. Lectures ii. Practicals iii. Lecture facilities iv. Laboratory facilities v. Academic support [lecturers] vi. Academic support [SPLASH] vii. Academic support [Finance] viii. Study facilities [Library] ix. IT facilities and support x. Course reps xi. Mental health support [Centre for Wellbeing] xii. Biosciences Peer Support Scheme xiii. Careers support [Employability and Careers Centre] xiv. Careers support [Pathfinder] xv. Placement (PTY) opportunities xvi. Learning resources, e.g., textbooks and e-books xvii. Pre-exam advice xviii. Post-exam feedback xix. Advice on coursework xx. Feedback on coursework xxi. Pre-practicals and advice on practical reports xxii. Support during practicals xxiii. Feedback on practical reports xxiv. Small-group workshops xxv. Research seminars xxvi. Team projects [group work] xxvii. Engagement with postgraduate students xxviii. Opportunities to meet scientists and employers xxix. Campus environment 6. Which of the following words or phrases best describe an excellent lecture? Please rank the following [most important at the top]:



i. Didactic [passive lecture] ii. Interactive lecture [encourages discussion and/or debate] iii. Interactive lecture [includes PollEveryWhere, Kahoot or similar technology] iv. Includes relevant research

32 



J. MATYJASIAK AND A. THUMSER

v. Includes problem-based learning [PBL] vi. Involving small-group work vii. Has challenging content viii. Requires further reading 7. Do you have any further comments or thoughts on maintaining or improving Teaching Excellence and the Student Experience at the University of Surrey? 8. May we contact you for Focus Groups or to discuss the points you have made? 9. Do you consent to the anonymous use of the survey data in presentation, publications or similar communications?

Appendix 2: Research Guide Discipline: Biosciences, which here includes Biomedical Science, Biological Sciences, Biochemistry, Veterinary Bioscience, Nutrition, Food Science, Dietetics and Sports & Exercise Sciences. Research question(s) (a) What is the student perspective on ‘teaching excellence’? (b) How does ‘teaching excellence’ impact on the student ‘learning experience’? (c) Can broad concepts, as highlighted by the students, be taken forward in terms of a programmes review? Rationale: To include students’ perspectives and input in planned programmes review. This project is part of a bigger project to collect evidence from various stakeholders, including teaching colleagues, the student cohort, support staff, employers and alumni to inform the review. Subsequently, various forums will be arranged to distil programme-­specific objectives before starting a ‘blank page’ mapping of the Bioscience programmes. Link between research question(s) and topic of excellence: Teaching Excellence is an important aspect of the student and staff educational experience and the understanding of different perspectives is important in updating and revitalising undergraduate Bioscience programmes. The recent Covid-19 pandemic has seen a substantial change in teaching and

2  WHAT TEACHING EXCELLENCE MEANS TO UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS… 

33

assessment practices, which demonstrates that change can be rapidly implemented. Methods: (a) Literature review: The basic search method was undertaken on the Web of Science (https://wok.mimas.ac.uk/) database using the following phrases: Teaching + excellence + bio* (*: wildcard search function); Student + partnership + bio*; Teaching + excellence + science; Student + science + partnership. Furthermore, updates were received from pedagogically-focussed journals and PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed). (b) Survey: Qualtrics survey software (https://www.qualtrics.com), which is GDPR compliant; anonymous link. Ethical considerations: The project received a favourable ethical opinion from the University’s ethics committee. Challenges: The first one was time. The undergraduate student cohort is at the university for approximately nine months in an academic year (October–May), which includes the January and May exam periods. Fitting in student partner recruitment, training, research (surveys and forums) and writing of the chapter was not feasible within this time frame. A second challenge was establishing roles and power dynamics: Concerns and challenges related to the student-staff partnership, especially in terms of power dynamics, should not be under-estimated. Solutions: Firstly, training of staff and students is essential, with some concepts, such as power dynamics, addressed in separate groups. Secondly, an informed approach to student-staff partnerships and learning from other projects is advisable before the start of a new partnership (i.e. not during the project). Finally, an open and reflective discussion to address power dynamics and establishment of roles should occur during the recruitment process and be a standing agenda item in subsequent meetings. Meetings’ outcomes should be recorded, and actions clearly identified.

References Abbas, A., Abbas, J., Brayman, K., Brennan, J., & Gantogtokh, O. (2016). Teaching excellence in the disciplines (pp. 1–92). Higher Education Academy. Anderson, V., Rabello, R., Wass, R., Golding, C., Rangi, A., Eteuati, E., Bristowe, Z., & Waller, A. (2020). Good teaching as care in higher education. Higher Education, 79(1), 1–19.

34 

J. MATYJASIAK AND A. THUMSER

Balloo, K., Evans, C., Hughes, A., Zhu, X., & Winstone, N. (2018). Transparency isn’t spoon-feeding: How a transformative approach to the use of explicit assessment criteria can support student self-regulation. Frontiers in Education, 3, 69. Bauer-Dantoin, A. (2009). The evolution of scientific teaching within the biological sciences. In A. Haynie, N. L. Chick, & R. A. R. Gurung (Eds.), Exploring more signature pedagogies: Approaches to teaching disciplinary habits of mind (pp. 224–243). Stylus Publishing. Bell, A. R., & Brooks, C. (2018). What makes students satisfied? A discussion and analysis of the UK’s national student survey. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(8), 1118–1142. Blessinger, P., Cozza, B., & Cox, M. (2017). A collective way for faculty to transform education. University World News. http://www.patrickblessinger. com/a-­collective-­way-­for-­faculty-­to-­transform-­education Bradley, S., Kirby, E., & Madriaga, M. (2015). What students value as inspirational and transformative teaching. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(3), 231–242. Brusoni, M., Damian, R., Grifoll Sauri, J., Jackson, S., Kömürcügil, H., Malmedy, M., Matveeva, O., Motova, G., Pisarz, S., Pol, P., Rostlund, A., Soboleva, E., Tavares, O., & Zobel, L. (2014). The concept of excellence in higher education. European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (pp. 1–44). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2146.7683 Carpenter, S.  K., Wilford, M.  M., Kornell, N., & Mullaney, K.  M. (2013). Appearances can be deceiving: Instructor fluency increases perceptions of learning without increasing actual learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1350–1356. Clegg, S. (2007). The demotic turn: Excellence by Fiat. In A.  Skelton (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education: Improving knowledge and practice (pp. 91–102). Routledge. Consortium of Students’. (2017). Teaching excellence: The student perspective research commissioned by a consortium of students’ unions. https://studentsunionresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/tef-­pr-­research-­report.pdf Cook-Sather, A., & Luz, A. (2015). Greater engagement in and responsibility for learning: What happens when students cross the threshold of student–faculty partnership. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1097–1109. Cox, M.  D. (2004). Introduction to Faculty Learning Communities. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 97, 5–23. Coyle, S. (2018). “What makes good teaching?”: Reflections from a Teaching Fellow in Law. JADE—The Journal of Academic Development and Education, 9, 11–13.

2  WHAT TEACHING EXCELLENCE MEANS TO UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS… 

35

Curran, R. (2017). Students as partners—good for students, good for staff: A study on the impact of partnership working and how this translates to improved student-staff engagement. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(2), 1–16. Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(39), 19251–19257. Dewsbury, B., & Brame, C.  J. (2019). Inclusive teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), fe2. Elton, L. (1998). Dimensions of excellence in university teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 3(1), 3–11. Göncz, L. (2017). Teacher personality: A review of psychological research and guidelines for a more comprehensive theory in educational psychology. Open Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 75–95. Gourlay, L., & Stevenson, J. (2017). Teaching excellence in higher education: Critical perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(4), 391–395. Gravett, K., Yakovchuk, N., & Kinchin, I. (Eds.). (2020). Enhancing student-­ centred teaching in higher education. The landscape of student-staff research partnerships. Palgrave Macmillan. Gunn, V., & Fisk, A. (2013). Considering teaching excellence in higher education: 2007–2013: A literature review since the CHERI Report 2007. Higher Education Academy. Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Peter Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M., & Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching (policy forum). Science, 304, 521–522. Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. https:// www.advance-­he.ac.uk/knowledge-­hub/engagement-­through-­partnership­students-­partners-­learning-­and-­teaching-­higher Jensen, K. S., Adams, J., & Strickland, K. (2014). Inspirational teaching: Beyond excellence and towards collaboration for learning with sustained impact. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 2(2), 37–41. Kampourakis, K. (2017). Science teaching in university science departments. Science & Education, 26(3–4), 201–203. Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia— Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486–490. Little, B., Locke, W., Parker, J., & Richardson, J. (2007). Excellence in teaching and learning: A review of the literature for the Higher Education Academy (pp. 1–70). Higher Education Academy.

36 

J. MATYJASIAK AND A. THUMSER

Lubicz-Nawrocka, T., & Bunting, K. (2019). Student perceptions of teaching excellence: An analysis of student-led teaching award nomination data. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(1), 63–80. Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1994). The use of students’ evaluations of university teaching to improve teaching effectiveness. DEET. Matheson, R. (2019). In pursuit of teaching excellence: Outward and visible signs of inward and invisible grace. Teaching in Higher Education, 25, 1–17. Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A Systematic Literature Review of Students as Partners in Higher Education. International Journal for Students As Partners, 1(1). https://doi. org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119 Mercer-Mapstone, L., Islam, M., & Reid, T. (2019). Are we just engaging ‘the usual suspects’? Challenges in and practical strategies for supporting equity and diversity in student–staff partnership initiatives. Teaching in Higher Education, 26, 1–19. Noddings, N. (2012). The caring relation in teaching. Oxford Review of Education, 38(6), 771–781. O’Leary, M., & Wood, P. (2019). Reimagining teaching excellence: Why collaboration, rather than competition, holds the key to improving teaching and learning in higher education. Educational Review, 71(1), 122–139. Olmstead, A., Beach, A., & Henderson, C. (2019). Supporting improvements to undergraduate STEM instruction: An emerging model for understanding instructional change teams. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 20. Parpala, A., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Rytkönen, H. (2011). Students’ conceptions of good teaching in three different disciplines. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 549–563. Saroyan, A., Amundsen, C., McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Winer, L., & Gandell, T. (2004). Assumptions underlying workshop activities. In A.  Saroyan & C. Amundsen (Eds.), Rethinking teaching in higher education (pp. 15–29). Stylus. Shulman, L.  S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-­ Peters, S.  E., Eagan, M.  K., Esson, J.  M., Knight, J.  K., Laski, F.  A., Levis-­ Fitzgerald, M., Lee, C.  J., Lo, S.  M., McDonnell, L.  M., McKay, T.  A., Michelotti, N., Musgrove, A., Palmer, M.  S., Plank, K.  M., … Young, A.  M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. Sterling, S. (2012). The future fit framework: An introductory guide to teaching and learning for sustainability in HE (pp. 1–76). Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-­he.ac.uk/knowledge-­hub/future-­fit-­framework

2  WHAT TEACHING EXCELLENCE MEANS TO UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS… 

37

Tan, S., Mansi, A., & Furnham, A. (2018). Students’ preferences for lecturers’ personalities. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(3), 429–438. Tanner, K., & Allen, D. (2005). Approaches to biology teaching and learning: Understanding the wrong answers—teaching toward conceptual change. Cell Biology Education, 4(2), 112–117. Tinnell, T. L., Ralston, P. A. S., Tretter, T. R., & Mills, M. E. (2019). Sustaining pedagogical change via faculty learning community. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(26), 1–19. Waldrop, M. M. (2015). The science of teaching science. Nature, 523, 272–274. Walker, C., & Gleaves, A. (2016). Constructing the caring higher education teacher: A theoretical framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, 65–76. Winstone, N., & Millward, L. (2012). Reframing perceptions of the lecture from challenges to opportunities: Embedding active learning and formative assessment into the teaching of large classes. Psychology Teaching Review, 18(2), 31–41. Winstone, N.  E., Nash, R.  A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. Wood, P., & O’Leary, M. (2019). Moving beyond teaching excellence: Developing a different narrative for England’s higher education sector. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 21(2), 112–126. Wood, W. B. (2009). Innovations in teaching undergraduate biology and why we need them. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 25, 93–112. Young, S., & Shaw, D. G. (1999). Profile of effective college and university teachers. Journal of Higher Education, 70(6), 670–686.

CHAPTER 3

Evaluating Teaching Excellence from a Disciplinary Perspective Charlotte Foreman and Ali Musawi

Introduction It is almost 50 years since the publication of The Assessment of University Teaching (Falk & Dow, 1971). Initially the very idea that teaching in higher education might be evaluated proved highly controversial (Fry et  al., 2008). Some academics considered it an insult to their academic autonomy, while others viewed it as needless kowtowing to student opinion (Fry et al., 2008). Nowadays, evaluation is expected. It is widely seen not only as a necessary step towards accountability, but also as an integral part of good professional practice and the systematic development of teaching expertise (Fry et al., 2008). Evaluations also play an important role in the selection of teaching award winners for rewarding teaching excellence, institutional review of programmes and student course selection (Benton & Cashin, 2014). Furthermore, evaluations are used by faculty committees and administrators to make decisions about promotion

C. Foreman (*) • A. Musawi Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_3

39

40 

C. FOREMAN AND A. MUSAWI

(Davis, 2009) and as such have a significant impact on the careers of educators. Yet, although gathering feedback and evaluating learning and teaching is highly valued, the results and accuracy of the outcomes from these methods, as well as whether they measure teaching excellence, are dependent on how they are constructed, how they are administered and the response rates. Furthermore, although institutions appear to see the benefit of evaluations, many staff do not. Therefore, this chapter aims to review and critique the teaching evaluation methods used by higher education institutions, both within the UK and internationally, then investigate student and staff perceptions of the evaluation methods used within a particular discipline. Our research questions were: • How are teaching evaluations perceived by students and lecturers? • What are the challenges of the current module evaluation questionnaires (MEQs)? • How do staff and students perceive teaching excellence in the Engineering Sciences? Our investigation drew on a student-staff partnership approach to the study, with the student partner facilitating student focus groups and the staff partner gathering feedback from staff within the discipline of Mechanical Engineering Sciences (MES).

Literature Review Definitions of Teaching Excellence To evaluate ways of measuring teaching effectiveness and excellence, we need to first define what we mean by teaching. The verb “to teach,” goes back to Old English, with the meaning to show, to instruct, to impart knowledge (Inglis & Aers, 2008). This implies that someone is in the position of being instructed. This definition highlights that teaching cannot be carried out without learners—whereas learning can be carried out without teachers (Inglis & Aers, 2008). Many researchers have aimed to define “good” teaching; however, despite increased attention to “good teaching” there is no single agreedupon definition (Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010) (see also Chap. 1).

3  EVALUATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE FROM A DISCIPLINARY… 

41

Wiener et al. (2015) found that students in the social sciences and humanities attributed more importance to relations with students and teaching methods compared with students in exact and natural sciences. Of particular significance to this chapter is observations by Neumann (2001) and Neumann et  al. (2002), who noted that disciplinary differences in students’ perceptions of teaching excellence are related to differences in teaching approaches (see Chap. 1). Neuman et  al. (2002) noted that knowledge application and integration are considered of great importance to the applied field. In disciplines such as Engineering, they noted that the ability to apply different methods and principles is central to teaching excellence. Therefore, greater emphasis is placed on skills that are required in the workplace. In this field, besides lectures, teaching methods such as laboratory work are used. In addition, traditional examinations are commonly used to make sure students’ knowledge and understanding sufficiently cover the content, as well as to assess problem solving skills (Neumann et  al., 2002). Much of the literature suggests that beliefs regarding “good teaching” are based primarily on experiences; therefore, the assumption would be that students begin to form beliefs about good teaching and good teachers as soon as they begin school (Lortie, 1975; Pajares, 1992; Ginns et al., 2007). Several researchers have defined excellence in teaching in terms of teaching outcomes, linking excellence with good quality learning. Hativa (2015) extended this by stating that good teaching promotes both an understanding of the specific subject matter and the development of a range of skills, abilities and attitudes. Therefore, teaching should have multidimensional goals, in addition to developing students’ knowledge about specific material (Alhija, 2017). From reviewing the literature on teaching excellence, it is also clear that its definition depends on whether it is from a student’s perspective or a lecturer’s perspective (Bhatti, 2012). It is therefore crucial that we explore both perspectives to develop disciplinary and context-specific understandings of teaching excellence. Student Perceptions of Teaching Excellence There have been several studies which explored students’ perspectives of teaching excellence. Sheehan (1999) found that the characteristics for teaching excellence were informative and interesting lectures, fair tests and paper evaluations, instructor preparation and the degree to which the course is perceived as challenging. Similarly, Crumbley et  al. (2001)

42 

C. FOREMAN AND A. MUSAWI

reported that students perceive teaching style, presentation skills, enthusiasm, preparation, organisation and fair grading to be hallmarks of good teaching. Spencer and Schmelkin (2002) noted that teachers who show a concern for students, value students’ opinions, are good communicators and demonstrate openness towards varied opinions are all considered to be good teachers. Su and Wood (2012) found that students expected a highly qualified lecturer with excellent subject knowledge. Alhija (2017) explored how students’ background characteristics relate to their perceptions of teaching excellence. They concluded that students with different backgrounds attributed different importance to the same teaching dimension. In the study, the five teaching dimensions were goal to be achieved, long-term development, teaching methods and characteristics, relationship with students and assessment. Miron and Mevorach (2014) also found differences between first- and second-year students’ perceptions of good teaching. First-year students attached the highest importance to methods of teaching, with the instructor’s knowledge seen as less important, whereas second-year students deemed the instructor-­ student relationship as most important and methods of teaching as least important. The diversity in perceptions of dimensions of good teaching among students with different personal and study characteristics raise concern that these perceptions might influence their ratings on teaching evaluation forms (Alhija, 2017). Measuring Teaching Excellence A variety of methods aimed at evaluating teaching and learning are used at the institution we focus on in this study. These include Module Evaluation Questionnaires (MEQs), Staff Student Liaison Committees (SSLC), National Student Survey (NSS) responses and teaching observations. Universities tend to use these methods as a means of improving teaching effectiveness leading to higher numbers of staff deemed to be “excellent teachers.” The most widespread measure of teaching quality, and thus excellence, in higher education are Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) also known as MEQs. Three main aspects are often covered by the SET: the evaluation of the teacher (the teacher herself/himself), the teaching process (general activity and teaching approaches) and the learning outcomes as perceived by the students (student expectations) (Ching, 2018). Other approaches such as peer evaluation also occur, but these are much less

3  EVALUATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE FROM A DISCIPLINARY… 

43

common and generally given little weight in assessments of teaching quality (Goos & Salomons, 2017). For this reason, the focus of this study is on MEQs. Module Evaluation Questionnaires Numerous issues have been discussed within research on MEQs. One critique is that MEQs are used as a tool by students to reward or punish their instructor (Clayson et al., 2006). Completion rate and background demographics of students have also been found to significantly affect MEQs (Stark & Freishtat, 2014). Additionally, it has been reported that MEQs can be biased with respect to the gender of the instructor and that of the students (Boring et  al., 2016). The characteristics of the course subject also matter. For example, Wachtel (2006) reported that students give higher ratings for elective courses due to a prior interest in the subject, compared to required courses. Class size has been found to have an impact, since bigger classes tend to present fewer  opportunities for interaction between the teacher and the individual students, which can affect ratings (Marsh, 2007). However, despite issues identified with MEQs, it is widely accepted that they can give us some insight into student perceptions of teaching excellence. The discipline can also affect ratings, particularly since different teaching formats and styles are used across subject areas, for example, lab classes compared to lecture-intensive courses (Wachtel, 2006). The Engineering discipline uses a variety of teaching methods, such as lecture classes, tutorial style sessions, laboratory sessions and group work sessions. Class sizes vary substantially, ranging from a 200+ students in a lecture-style session to smaller (approximately 50 students) seminar-style sessions for elective courses. This diversity in formats and styles provides an ideal discipline in which to investigate perceptions of how to evaluate teaching excellence. Current Practices of Measuring Teaching Quality Within Mechanical Engineering Sciences In National Academics Press (2002), evaluations that are based on a single teaching activity (e.g. lecture observation), or that depend on information from a single source (e.g. student evaluation forms), are less reliable, useful and valid than an evaluation of an instructor’s strengths and weaknesses based on multiple sources (Centra, 1993). At the institution in this

44 

C. FOREMAN AND A. MUSAWI

study, multi-source evaluation is achieved through annual peer observations, module evaluation questionnaires (MEQs) where input from students is sought, staff student liaison committees and National student surveys. The focus of this study is solely on MEQs for the reasons discussed above. The MEQs at the institution use a consistent format across all courses, with the same questions used irrespective of the discipline. They are administered twice per academic year, within the last two weeks of each semester. For each module, the MEQ is requested to be completed within the last lecture of the module, the rationale for this being that if they are administered within a lecture, the response rate would be higher. Once data is collated, the departmental Director of Learning and Teaching has full access to the scores and comments and, as such, is responsible for acting upon the feedback. Within Mechanical Engineering Sciences (MES), discussions are held with any staff who has low MEQ scores or when comments provided require a response. A summary of the MEQ data is then presented back to the students. Given that there are disciplinary differences in the definition of teaching excellence, a uniform and standardised approach to measuring teaching quality is unlikely to be appropriate. By specifically reviewing what both learners and lecturers perceive as teaching excellence within MES, we aimed to explore a disciplinary-based understanding of teaching excellence which could then inform more appropriate and context-sensitive MEQ questions and formats.

Methodology Study Design Both student and lecturer focus groups were carried out to explore the research questions posed at the beginning of this chapter. Ethical approval was gained by following the University’s ethics procedures. Recruitment to the student focus groups was by email, through the student partner, across all years of the BEng and MEng programmes in Aerospace, Biomedical, Automotive and Mechanical Engineering in the Department of MES.  These target groups were chosen because it was important to capture student perceptions as they progress through the years. Initially, the plan was to recruit about 25 participants, but the final number taking part was only eight (25% female), spread across three focus groups, with each focus group representing years 1, 2 and 3 of their

3  EVALUATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE FROM A DISCIPLINARY… 

45

programmes, respectively. The focus groups were facilitated by the student partner in order to create an environment where students felt they could give their views honestly, without the inhibiting presence of a staff member, demonstrating one of the benefits of student-staff partnership projects (Ollis & Gravett, 2020). The current MEQs were reflected on during the focus group as well as understandings of teaching excellence, and questions were designed to establish students’ opinions about an MEQ question design, the response rates and the method of scoring. The questions can be found in Appendix 1. The focus group interviews were audio recorded and the student partner summarised the main findings. Analysis The student data and the lecturer data were analysed separately. Thematic analysis was carried out on the focus group transcripts. The analysis was guided by the three research questions: • How are teaching evaluations perceived by students and lecturers? • What are the challenges of the current MEQs? • How do staff and students perceive the concept of teaching excellence? Although there were some similarities in the themes across both groups of participants, such as timing, MEQ questions, learner characteristics and student behaviours, there were also some significant differences in the perception of excellence. In the section below we present the data from students and staff separately through the themes of MEQ relevance, challenges and dimensions of excellence.

Results and Discussion Students MEQ Relevance Students initiated the discussion by reinforcing the importance for teaching to be evaluated as “with no feedback mechanism it would be an open loop system with no control.” They implied that once lecturers were successful in being appointed, the student feedback should be one method to

46 

C. FOREMAN AND A. MUSAWI

check how they are performing, stating also that “feedback is the most obvious way towards improvement.” However, interestingly, when linking to response rates for the MEQ, one student stated that they “don’t respond as they don’t feel it has an effect.” This could be due to timing of the MEQs: “the MEQ is at the end of the module and so students think it won’t have an effect in their experience for the module.”  hallenges of MEQs: Timing C The timing of asking students for feedback is crucial. Students may well only engage in providing feedback if they feel it will be pertinent to them, or if it will lead to tangible changes. Since MEQs are completed at the end of a module, many students felt that their feedback “won’t impact us now.” Therefore, one of the main aspects to consider for student satisfaction is how to show that the feedback is being addressed. Some students thought that having an opportunity to feedback throughout the course would increase response rates since this feedback could affect their experience. The summative practice of MEQs has been reported to be highly discouraged by many researchers as it does not allow lecturers to adjust delivery during the module (Cashin & Downey, 1992; Marks, 2000; Sproule, 2000).  hallenges of MEQs: Student Behaviours C Students behaved in a number of surprising ways with respect to MEQs. For example, students may be reluctant to be honest due to respect for the teacher: “Some students won’t address issues or concerns about the lecturer due to respect and empathy towards them.” This attitude towards evaluation of teachers and teaching has, to the best of our knowledge, been neglected in the literature. The low response rate for MEQs is a challenge and was explained by the need to only comment on extremes. One student stated: “Some students don’t bother filling in MEQs for average lecturers and fill in just for those who are either good or too bad.” This tends to align with human behaviour in general, as reviews are completed either when a customer really likes a product or has a major complaint rather than if they just feel it is okay.  hallenges of MEQs: MEQ Questions C Some students considered MEQs to be very vague, since there are no disciplinary or module-specific questions in the form used at the current institution, and lecturers do not tend to add any. One student pointed out

3  EVALUATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE FROM A DISCIPLINARY… 

47

that “every department should have their own MEQ. As an engineer it’s already expected [of] us to know digital skills and so the question is kind of pointless.”  imensions of Excellence: Knowledge and Skills D Students believed that a lecturer’s knowledge and skills demonstrated excellence to some extent. For example, one student stated: “Intelligibility of the lecturer and how knowledgeable they are in the subject” was important in terms of their teaching excellence. In terms of content, students felt that “providing something you can’t source yourself in textbook – real world examples and anecdotes was critical for good teaching” as well as “structure of lectures and showing what it leads to” is important.  imensions of Excellence: Student Interactions D Some of the essential skills that students believe is a feature of teaching excellence is the ability to engage students in the session. Students in the earlier years of their Mechanical Engineering Programme at Surrey reported that the engagement within the lecture was deemed to be important, stating, “engagement is a strong indicator of the quality of teaching.”  imensions of Excellence: Lecturers’ Characteristics D During the focus groups students did not merely focus on the actual delivery in terms of structure and content; they also stated that “a good lecturer would have to be approachable.” For example, one student noted: “Lecturers that are available (outside of class time) and willing to find time to support students is important.” This resonates with the study by Su and Wood (2012) who found that students defined excellence as teachers who had something “extra.” In other words, a lecturer’s personality can affect students’ perceptions of whether they are an excellent teacher. One student even concluded by stating, “it’s [teaching excellence] mostly down to the lecturer’s personality.” This is backed up by many other studies (Hu & Ching, 2010; Hu et al., 2015) where there are reports that interpersonal characteristics influence interactions between students, leading to better engagement and learning.  imensions of Excellence: Perceptions of Excellent Scores D One of the aims of this study was to explore students’ perceptions of excellence as reflected in how they used the ratings on MEQs. Currently a rating scoring system is used, with scales ranging between 1 and 5 (5

48 

C. FOREMAN AND A. MUSAWI

representing the highest satisfaction level and 1 representing the lowest). However, it is not clear what students feel is an “acceptable” level. From an institutional perspective, an average of above 4.2 is expected; however, the student’s perception of what is deemed “excellent” may be a different scale to that of the university’s. Findings revealed that some students thought of 3 as acceptable, implying that unless a lecturer was outstanding, the grade 3 would be justified. Other students expected a minimum of 4 to be classed as excellent. One student commented, “for a University that considers its teaching as excellent, then 4 would be a good score.” Staff Themes from the student focus group were also reflected in the staff focus group.  imensions of Excellence: Lecturers’ Characteristics D There were discussions over the fact that the students’ grading on MEQs is personality driven, rather than content driven, corresponding with the students’ concluding comments from their focus group. One example given was of an actor who was given some scientific content to deliver; the actor, who had no prior knowledge of the scientific content, scored extremely highly. Thus, this emphasises that lecturers believe the content is not the driving factor in students’ perceptions of their teaching excellence. It would seem therefore that students may struggle to distinguish between measuring teaching excellence (i.e. the process and design of teaching) and teacher excellence (i.e. individual characteristics).  hallenges of MEQs: Administration/Timing C There were concerns over the timings of the MEQs. One lecturer reported, “poor attendance for the last few lectures of the module,” and as such, “the return rate might not be high and may not be a true representation of the cohort’s opinions.” A discussion on response rates led staff to express frustrations. One lecturer commented that “the cohort size has a significant effect on MEQ scores,” which is in agreement with findings by Marsh (2007), who found that bigger class sizes tend to present fewer opportunities for interaction between the teacher and the individual students, which can affect ratings. In addition, for large cohorts, if the return rate is reasonable (typically return rates were approximately 40%), then the percentages can be meaningful, whereas for smaller cohorts, 33% may be

3  EVALUATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE FROM A DISCIPLINARY… 

49

equivalent to one student’s opinion. Therefore, one lecturer concluded, “comparing MEQs based on percentages is not meaningful and data needs to be interpreted carefully.” Staff agreed with the students in terms of the timing of MEQs; one staff member felt, “it would be more effective to administer MEQs either a third or half way through the module delivery in order to be able to address any issues raised,” which would then benefit the students completing the MEQ, rather than only benefiting subsequent cohorts.  hallenges of MEQs: Student Behaviour C Staff felt that their students were selective regarding which MEQs they filled out. Their perception from students was that if the students were reasonably happy, they would not take the time to complete the MEQs. However, they would be more likely to fill out the MEQ if they were either extremely dissatisfied or had some major issues with a particular module. This belief is backed up by statistics from customer experiences, whereby it is reported that customers with negative experience are highly likely to share that experience by leaving a bad review, whereas a customer who has a positive experience is unlikely to leave a good review (Thomas, 2018). Staff did agree that having students complete the MEQs in lectures would lead to more students discussing their responses, potentially leading to influence from peers. A staff member commented that “it was very clear that students had discussed responses as some free form comments were nearly identical.”  imensions of Excellence: Students’ Perceptions of Excellence D Staff had concerns that understandings of excellence and the corresponding scores could be viewed differently by students. Staff were concerned that due to Engineering students’ backgrounds and academic training of striving for excellence through reflection and development they would be more likely to score below a 5. Similar to the student focus group feedback, all staff involved in the focus group thought it was important to have a way to evaluate teaching, stating it was helpful to have feedback and was a way of sharing good ideas. As argued by Biggs (2003), excellent university teachers are reflective practitioners who can keep reviewing and improving their teaching practice and the MEQs are one method to attain student opinion which can be incorporated into the reflections of the module. Staff, however,

50 

C. FOREMAN AND A. MUSAWI

implied that the current form of MEQs are not an effective way of evaluating, due to the rigid criteria and the benchmark being so high. There were further discussions related to an area that staff feel is not currently captured in terms of evaluating teaching, that of the notion of “value added.” Schools place a significant emphasis on value added, yet it is absent from discussions in Higher Education. In summary, the findings from both the staff and student focus groups were similar to studies by Berk (2005), Isely and Singh (2005), MacNell et al. (2015) and McPherson et al. (2009), who criticised MEQs for partially reflecting student course and teachers’ characteristics, which may not be related to teaching quality.

Conclusion This study aimed to explore ways of measuring teaching excellence in Engineering sciences. We consider each of the research questions below: • How are teaching evaluations perceived by students and staff? There was strong agreement between both staff and student participants that some form of evaluation and/or reflection of teaching is needed. However, a mid-term reflection was thought to be more useful to the students. Cohen (1980) noted that if MEQs are administered during the middle of the semester, teachers are still able to improve their teaching pedagogy. As a result, faculty members who received mid-semester feedback in that study ended up with significantly higher MEQ ratings than their counterparts who did not have a mid-semester evaluation. The question design needs careful consideration, with the mid-­semester questions being differentiated from the end of semester review. The mid-­ semester MEQ should only focus on aspects that could be addressed quickly, thus having an impact on the students’ remaining studies that semester. The implication of this could be that different disciplines need different questions for the mid-semester review in order to align with the particular method of delivery/type of module. • What are the challenges of the current MEQs? Despite the general agreement on the importance of a method of evaluating teaching excellence, both students and staff identified a number of issues. These were mostly around timing, administration and questions. As mentioned above, the timing and design of the questions need to be aligned with the purpose of the evaluation. The questions need to reflect

3  EVALUATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE FROM A DISCIPLINARY… 

51

the concerns and interests of both students and teacher, and the development of more context-appropriate MEQs is the way forward. • How do students and staff conceptualise teaching excellence? Both staff and students believed that a feature of excellence was reflection on practice and willingness to evaluate. That being said, the MEQs may not be the most effective way of carrying this out. The perceptions of what constitutes teaching excellence has been shown to vary from learner to learner. Although the themes around teaching excellence have been identified, there was no agreement on which themes were most important. This is an aspect which makes measuring teaching excellence extremely challenging and highlights the lack of suitability of MEQs as the only measure for teaching excellence. There were three main aspects of perceptions on excellence. Firstly, there was a distinction between teaching excellence versus teacher excellence which focuses on individual characteristics. Secondly, students’ own high expectations of their own performance can influence their perception of excellence. In terms of staff perceptions of teaching excellence there was agreement that the term necessitates evaluation and reflection. However, concerns about how MEQs are administered and the nature of the scoring meant that in their current form MEQs may not reflect teaching excellence. Further work needs to look at the criteria, scoring and method of administration. Unfortunately, due to the small focus group size, no significant findings could be determined between the year of study and the perceptions of teaching excellence. This is a potential area for further research into teaching excellence within the disciplines. A key aspect to consider for student satisfaction is the need to show that the feedback is being addressed. Much of the discussions from the focus groups were on changes made as a result of the feedback and it was implied that if students could see what changes were made as a result of their feedback then the return rate for MEQs would increase as a result.

Appendix 1: Focus Group Sessions Principal themes for discussion: 1. Do you think it is important to have some way of evaluating teaching? One of the main methods of evaluating teaching within MES at the moment is using the MEQs. Do you feel that in their current form? Is this an effective way of evaluating teaching?

52 

C. FOREMAN AND A. MUSAWI

(after some general discussion, may want them to focus down on the following) a. Discussion on typical response rates b. Do they fill in one for every module or do they focus on the ones they enjoyed the most/didn’t enjoy? c. Do they prefer to complete the MEQs in their own time or are they happy to complete within the last two weeks of the session? d. Do they tend to discuss their responses with friends and does this inform their responses? 2. What grade do you think an “acceptable” grade is, given the scale of 1–5 (5 being outstanding)? 3. After reviewing the questions (a sheet with the questions will be handed out) currently on the MEQ do you think they are phrased appropriately? Are there any amendments you would make or any suggestions on additional questions? 4. Instead of having a grading system with numbers, would you find a matrix style evaluation (like a grade descriptor) effective or would you prefer to assign a number as is currently the practice? please justify your answer to this. 5. Can you think of any other way of evaluating teaching?

Appendix 2: Research Guide Discipline: Mechanical Engineering Sciences (MES) Research question(s): What are the current methods in which learning and teaching are evaluated in MES? Rationale: The return rates for MEQs are low and MEQs are carried out at the end of the module, therefore of little benefit to the students who complete them; therefore the purpose is to design something that can be used in mid-semester to have a greater impact on the delivery of the modules to benefit the students learning earlier on in the semester. Link between research question(s) and topic of excellence: MEQs are just one way of measuring excellence but staff and students have different views on what excellence means and, as such, a new MEQ will be designed to take into account both staff and students’ perceptions of excellence.

3  EVALUATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE FROM A DISCIPLINARY… 

53

Methods: Focus group interviews. Student focus groups were facilitated by the student partner and the staff focus group interview was facilitated by the staff partner. Ethical considerations: Ethics approval was sought as data was gathered from current students who were known to the researchers. The university granted ethical approval. Although the recordings were anonymous, the student partner transcribed the recordings to ensure the opinions from the students were anonymous to the staff partner and any identifying information was redacted. Challenges: Low participation rates in focus groups. Students going off topic in focus groups. Solutions: Emails sent to all levels of students to maximise the potential numbers to participate. Facilitator of focus group to try to keep the focus of the discussions on track.

References Alhija, F.  N.-A. (2017). Teaching in higher education: Good teaching through students’ lens. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 3–12. Benton, S. L., & Cashin, W. E. (2014). Student ratings of instruction in college and university courses. In M. P. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 279–326). Springer. Berk, R. (2005). Survey of 12 strategies to measure teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17, 48–62. Bhatti, M. T. (2012). Dimensions of university teaching: Faculty and department chair’s perspectives. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(1), 44–53. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press. Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching. ScienceOpen Research. ­(https://doi. org/10.14293/S2199-­1006.1.SOR-­EDU.AETBZC.v1) Cashin, W., & Downey, R. (1992). Using global student rating items for summative evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 563–572. Centra, J. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. Jossey-Bass. Ching, G. (2018). A literature review on the student evaluation of teaching: An examination of the search, experience, and credence qualities of SET. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 12(2), 63–84. https://doi. org/10.1108/HEED-­04-­2018-­0009

54 

C. FOREMAN AND A. MUSAWI

Clayson, D., Frost, T., & Sheffet, M. (2006). Grades and the student evaluation of instruction: A test of the reciprocity effect. Academy of Management: Learning and Education, 5(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.5465/ AMLE.2006.20388384 Cohen, P. (1980). Effectiveness of student-rating feedback for improving college instruction: A meta-analysis of findings. Research in Higher Education, 13(4), 321–341. Crumbley, L., Henry, B., & Kratchman, S. (2001). Students’ perceptions of the evaluation of college teaching. Quality Assurance in Education, 9, 197–207. Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching. Jossey-Bass. Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111–124. Falk, B., & Dow, K.  L. (1971). The assessment of university teaching. Society for Research. Fry, H., Ketteridge, S., & Marshall, S. (2008). Handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice. Routledge. Ginns, P., Prosser, M., & Barrie, S. (2007). Students’ perceptions of teaching quality in higher education: The perspective of currently enrolled students. Studies in Higher Education, 32(5), 603–615. https://doi. org/10.1080/03075070701573773 Goos, M., & Salomons, A. (2017). Measuring teaching quality in higher education: Assessing selection bias in course evaluations. Research in Higher Education, 58, 341–364. Hativa, N. (2015). What does the research say about good teaching and outstanding teachers. Hora’ah Ba’akademya, 5, 50–55. Hu, Y. L., & Ching, G. S. (2010). Factors affecting student engagement: An analysis on how and why students learn (pp. 989–992). Scientific Research Publishing. Hu, Y.-L., Hung, C.-H., & Ching, G. (2015). Student-faculty interaction: Mediating between student engagement factors and educational outcome gains. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 4(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrse.2014.800 Inglis, F., & Aers, L. (2008). Key concepts in education. Sage UK. https://search. credoreference.com/content/topic/teaching Isely, P., & Singh, H. (2005). Do higher grades lead to favorable student evaluations? The Journal of Economic Education, 36(1), 29–42. Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press. MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A. (2015). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40, 291–303. Marks, R. (2000). Determinants of student evaluations of global measures of instructor and course value. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(2), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475300222005

3  EVALUATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE FROM A DISCIPLINARY… 

55

Marsh, H. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In R.  A. Perry (Ed.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 319–383). Springer. McPherson, M. A., Jewell, R. T., & Kim, M. (2009). What determines student evaluation scores? A random effects analysis of undergraduate economics classes. Eastern Economic Journal, 35(1), 37–51. Miron, M., & Mevorach, M. (2014). The good professor as perceived by experienced teachers who are graduate students. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 2(3), 82–87. Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and University teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 135–146. Neumann, R, Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and Learning in their disciplinary Contect. Studies im higher education, 27, 405–417. Ollis, L., & Gravett, K. (2020). The Emerging Landscape of Student–Staff Partnerships in Higher Education. In K. Gravett, N. Yakovchuk, & I. Kinchin (Eds.), Enhancing Student-Centred Teaching in Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­35396-­4_2 Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332. Sheehan, D. (1999). Student evaluation of University teaching. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26(3), 188–193. Spencer, K., & Schmelkin, L. (2002). Students’ perspectives on teaching and its evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1(1), 12–16. Sproule, R. (2000). Student evaluation of teaching: Methodological critique. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(50), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.14507/ epaa.v8n50.2000 Stark, P., & Freishtat, R. (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations. Science Open  Research, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-­1006.1.SOR-­EDU.AOFRQA.v1 Su, F., & Wood, W. (2012). What makes a good university lecturer? Students’ perceptions of teaching excellence. Journal of Applied research in Higher Education, 4(2), 142–155. Thomas, A. (2018, February 26). The secret ratio that proves why customer reviews are so important. https://www.inc.com/andrew-­thomas/the-­hidden-­ratio-­ that-­could-­make-­or-­break-­your-­company.html Wachtel, H. (2006). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293980230207 Wiener, G., Filk, G., & Kortiokov, D. (2015). What students think about good teaching and who is the excellent teacher? Teaching in the Academia, 5, 31–40.

CHAPTER 4

Students as Co-creators of Visual Mnemonics Using LEGO®: An Evaluation of a Higher Education Revision Session Using an Adapted LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) Methodology Debbie Gooch, Rachel Stead, Daisy Haywood, and Lewis Jerrom Introduction LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) is a theory-driven and evidence-based approach to learning which has the potential to be of value in the HE classroom when it comes to revision. This chapter presents findings from a study designed to evaluate the utility of using LSP during a final year

D. Gooch (*) • D. Haywood • L. Jerrom Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] R. Stead Department of Library and Learning Services, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_4

57

58 

D. GOOCH ET AL.

Psychology UG module revision session. In a novel approach we engaged student partners in the study design and sought their views on what makes excellent teaching and learning and how this could be measured to evaluate the effectiveness of the revision session. The study considers perspectives of final year students participating in the revision session via a questionnaire assessing their confidence and engagement with module material and enjoyment of the class as well as the perspectives of the teaching staff who delivered the session. We discuss how this collaborative approach provides a holistic view of teaching excellence which can be used in the evaluation of new pedagogies in a higher education setting and we reflect on the barriers to using this approach.

Background Given the increasing numbers of students who are reporting mental health difficulties (Johnson & Crenna-Jennings, 2018), a challenge for HE teachers is to help students to manage their anxiety especially around exam periods. Indeed, from our own experience there is an increasing trend for students to be very anxious about exam preparation, and to alleviate this anxiety they frequently ask for the remit of the exam to be narrowed to reduce the amount of information they feel they need to revise. Students can find it challenging to understand the content of lectures (Mulligan & Kirkpatrick, 2000), as well as make links between information given in different lectures. This can result in difficulty and anxiety around applying their knowledge and understanding to broader questions in which they need to draw on content from several sessions. One solution would be to narrow the remit of the exam. However, this is likely to encourage students to focus on key parts of the course, adopt surface learning techniques and try to guess questions which can impact on how the module learning objectives are truly met. Thus, there is a need to investigate whether innovative approaches to revision facilitate learning, aid effective retrieval/recall of information and increase student confidence with module material, all of which would reflect excellence in teaching and learning. Furthermore, within the current context of HE, learner engagement and satisfaction have become key performance indicators (e.g. the UK student satisfaction survey and the TEF (Teaching Excellence Framework), see Chap. 1, this volume) and universities frequently obtain feedback from students regarding their enjoyment and engagement with their chosen modules. This focus on quantifiable performance in higher education is

4  STUDENTS AS CO-CREATORS OF VISUAL MNEMONICS USING LEGO®… 

59

reflected in an increasing trend for assessment-driven learning environments which perhaps inadvertently undermines key academic values such as problem-solving, creativity and critical thinking and instead promotes teaching-to-the-test and criteria-based assessment with clear quantifiable outcomes (Nørgård et al., 2017). This has been argued to create a learning and teaching culture, among both staff and students, that is characterised by a fear of failure and risk avoidance (Nørgård et al., 2017) and which may in turn prevent staff and students seeing the value in trialling innovative pedagogies to assess their effectiveness. However, Palmer and Collins’ (2006) research into teaching excellence in higher education found “willingness to innovate” to be a vital characteristic of the excellent teacher. In light of the cost of university and the somewhat controversial neoliberal conceptions of ‘student as consumer’ (Matthews et al., 2018), as well as reports that students also see themselves as the customer (Universities UK, 2017), there is increasing pressure for HE teachers to have the confidence to adopt novel but evidenced-based pedagogy that facilitates learning, engagement and enjoyment of a subject (Dunn et al., 2013). Research has shown that active learning and playful approaches in education have positive outcomes, particularly in terms of increasing motivation and engagement in a learning task (Boyle et  al., 2016; Whitton, 2018) and promoting retention of learning materials (Smith & LeAnn, 2012). However, the additional cognitive effort required during these types of learning tasks can sometimes impact negatively upon reported levels of enjoyment (e.g. Smith & LeAnn, 2012). There is also some evidence in the broader education literature that being playful in education can facilitate learning, social interaction, emotional resilience, problem-­ solving, reduce stress and increase happiness (Proyer, 2013). Whilst there is a plethora of research on the benefits of play for learning in childhood (Brown & Vaughan, 2010), research into playful learning in HE is more limited (Whitton, 2018) and to date there is no research which explores the utility of playful learning methods for revision. One potential solution which may help alleviate anxiety and promote deeper learning and understanding is to use an adapted version of a theory-­ driven method of active teaching namely LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP). LSP involves setting a series of structured model building activities which are often completed in small groups using LEGO®. The aim of these activities is to encourage participants to think more critically and creatively about a topic, to promote discussion among participants (i.e. encouraging participants to explain their own thinking and consider that of their peers)

60 

D. GOOCH ET AL.

and to help students develop a narrative about the topic which is prompted by the physical model. Teaching staff act as facilitators by asking students questions about models to encourage them to explain their understanding of the topic and explore links between topics. Collaborative LEGO® activities in the higher education classroom allow students to build and make sense of connections in their learning. This building process makes tacit knowledge more tangible and therefore shareable for discussion (see Papert’s theory of Constructionism). Recent studies in HE which evaluate the use of adapted versions of LSP have been shown not only to encourage richer participation, aiding students to make connections in their learning (see Cavaliero, 2017), but also to improve meaningful engagement with subject matter through critical discussion with peers and reflection, deepening the meaning-making which occurs (see Peabody & Noyes, 2017). Earlier work in higher education by James and Brookfield (2014), James (2013) and Gauntlett (2007) also demonstrate the highly memorable nature of learning development using an adapted LSP methodology. This can be explained in terms of levels of processing theory which postulates that deeper and more elaborate processing is associated with increased recall (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Marton and Säljö (1976) suggest that students can engage in either surface-level or deep-level learning and that the latter facilitates recall. Furthermore, Slamecka and Graf (1978) suggested that people are more likely to remember information which they have generated (constructed) themselves (the generation effect) in comparison to information which they have to simply try to remember. LSP methodology also builds on the idea of communities of practice (Lave, 1991) namely, that from a Vygotskian perspective, learning occurs during social interactions with a more knowledgeable other. It is hoped that the small group LSP activities would help to minimise non-­ participation and passivity (James & Brookfield, 2014) and facilitate social interaction and thus provide an effective and inclusive learning environment. Aims and Research Questions This study aims to determine whether using an adapted version of LSP is an effective approach to revision during a final year Psychology module. Framed within a perspective on teaching excellence which valorises innovation, in this novel approach we engaged student partners in the study

4  STUDENTS AS CO-CREATORS OF VISUAL MNEMONICS USING LEGO®… 

61

design and sought their views on what makes excellent teaching and learning and how this could be operationalised. This discussion informed the questions we used to evaluate the effectiveness of the session so that our measure of excellence reflects what is important to students. More specifically, the study aims to determine whether LSP helps to increase students’ confidence with module material by facilitating deeper learning/understanding of module material and thus alleviate exam anxiety. In addition, the study aims to explore students’ perceptions of the LSP activities, that is, whether they found them enjoyable and useful and whether the LSP activities improved their retention of and engagement with module material. It was hoped that through modelling (with LEGO®) and discussing theoretical principles and research findings with others during the session, students would start to think more deeply about content and the links which can be made between content learnt in different sessions. Students would also gain the benefit of teaching others through revision activities, which has been found to promote understanding (Koh et  al., 2018). Students themselves generally do not see the value of peer teaching, so this opportunity allows them to apply their thinking to scenarios by building and recalling narratives in a safe and playful environment. Given previous research which has demonstrated the effectiveness of playful pedagogies and active learning it is hypothesised that students would report greater confidence with module material after the LSP session compared to before the session.

Method Participants Participants consisted of 24 undergraduate Psychology students in their final year of academic study at the University of Surrey, United Kingdom. The participants were recruited via opportunity sampling during a Psychology final year module class, and invited to take part in the study. Participation in the study (i.e. completion of the pre- and post-session questionnaires) was voluntary. All participants were informed as to the aim of the study and provided informed consent prior to completing the questionnaires.

62 

D. GOOCH ET AL.

Tasks and Materials Participants completed questionnaires (see Appendix 1) before and after the revision session to assess the effectiveness of using an adapted version of LSP. The questionnaire items were informed by discussions about what is meant by excellence in teaching and learning with our student partners to ensure that we measured factors of importance to students in the context of a revision session. These discussions highlighted that students find learning, understanding and remembering course material to be most successful when there is “interactive discussion,” “clear summaries of content,” a chance to “synthesise/link different topics” and “fully engage with course material” and when teaching “elicits interest in a topic.” The questionnaires were administrated through Qualtrics, a survey platform. The pre-test included a set of questions asking students to rate their confidence in different aspects of learning the module material, such as remembering/recalling module material, and revising module material. The same questions were repeated after the session so that responses could be compared. Participants were also asked more specific questions which required them to reflect on the activities completed during the session and to rate their enjoyment/perceived utility of the session. Finally, to enable us to reflect on the session from the perspective of the student participants we asked students to write about what excellence in teaching meant to them in a maximum of 100 words (see Appendix 1). A range of LEGO® (bricks, people, objects, base plates) was provided by the researchers for use during the LSP activities. Procedure The study took place during a revision session in a seminar room at the University of Surrey. Students were seated around tables in groups of 4–6. First, the researchers introduced themselves and explained the aim of the study. The students were introduced to Qualtrics and provided with a link to the survey which they could access on their phones/laptops. Students were asked to read an information sheet about the study before giving their consent to take part if they wished. Students who consented to take part then completed the pre-test questionnaire. Following this, all students participated in the revision session. First there was a brief discussion of a topic (effective learning environments) which the students were asked to recap prior to the session, then

4  STUDENTS AS CO-CREATORS OF VISUAL MNEMONICS USING LEGO®… 

63

the researchers gave an introduction to the rationale behind using an adapted LSP approach followed by a brief warm-up activity (Task 1 see Appendix 2). This involved each student selecting an item of LEGO® from the box on their table to metaphorically represent an element of an effective learning environment. Students were asked to discuss what the item meant with their group and how it linked to psychological theory/ research. Ideas were then discussed with a facilitator and shared with the class. Following this the lecturer gave a short introduction to the topic of Special Education Needs (SEN) and each group of 4–6 students were given a case study regarding either Dyscalculia or BESD (behavioural, emotional and social difficulties) together with instructions for the second modelling task (Task 2 see Appendix 2). The task involved participants using the LEGO® provided to represent the key characteristics of the SEN, key psychological explanations for the behaviours and linking these to strategies/interventions that could be used to support the child. Students were encouraged to discuss their ideas and model them, supplementing the models with post-it notes highlighting key studies, references and/or theories that were relevant. During the activity, facilitators moved around the groups to help facilitate discussion and model building and answer questions as necessary. Students were given 12 minutes to complete their models and following this they were asked to join with another group and given 10 minutes to reflect upon their models, explain them to each other and combine them into one model reflecting their shared understanding of the SEN.  Each group was then asked to talk through and explain their final model with a facilitator who prompted with questions and points of clarification where necessary. The same procedure (model, discuss, combine, explain) was repeated with a case study around the topic of inclusion and the factors that should be considered during inclusion decision making (Task 3 see Appendix 2). After the final activity was completed, participants were asked to complete the post-test questionnaire on Qualtrics. Finally, the lecturer talked through general exam advice, and there was time for students to ask questions about exam technique. The whole session lasted 1 hour 50 minutes.

64 

D. GOOCH ET AL.

Results The data show that from pre- to post-test  there was an increase in the number of students who gave positive ratings (i.e. ratings of >2: Quite confident or Very confident) for survey items regarding their confidence in remembering/recalling module material, explaining module material, making and explaining links between topics, and making and explaining links between theory and practice (see Table 4.1). Exact McNemar’s tests indicated that there was a significant change in the proportion of students who gave positive ratings for the item remembering/recalling module material pre- versus post-test (χ2 = 7.12, p = 0.013). There were no other significant  changes  from pre- to post test. Data were analysed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to establish whether students’ ratings of their confidence in remembering/recalling module material, understanding module material, explaining module material, making and explaining links between topics, making and explaining links between theory and practice, and revising module material had changed as a result of the LSP revision session. Non-parametric tests were used given the ordinal nature of the student ratings and violations of normality for two items on the survey. Students’ median ratings for each of the six items on the pre- and post-test survey are shown in Table 4.1. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests indicated that students’ median ratings on the post-test survey were significantly higher than their median ratings on the pre-test survey regarding their confidence in remembering/recalling module material (Z = −2.50, p = 0.012) and making/explaining links Table 4.1  Student’s median ratings on the pre-test and post-test survey (N = 24) Survey item

Remembering/recalling Understanding Explaining Making/explaining links btw topics Making/explaining links btw theory/practice Revising

Pre-test

Post-test

Mdn (range)

N positive (%)

Mdn (range)

N positive (%)

2 (2–4) 3 (2–4) 3 (2–4) 2 (1–4) 3 (2–4)

7 (29) 21 (88) 14 (58) 11 (46) 14 (58)

3 (2–4) 3 (2–4) 3 (2–4) 3 (1–4) 3 (2–4)

18 (75) 18 (75) 18 (75) 18 (75) 20 (83)

3 (1–4)

18 (75)

3 (1–4)

19 (79)

4  STUDENTS AS CO-CREATORS OF VISUAL MNEMONICS USING LEGO®… 

65

between topics in the module (Z = −2.64, p = 0.008). Median pre- and post-test ratings did not differ significantly for the remaining four items on the survey (see Table 4.1). The additional session evaluation questions, which formed part of the post-test survey, were completed by 23/24 students. For these questions, we were interested in the number of students who either agreed or strongly agreed with several statements about the session (see Appendix 1). These data indicated that 78% (18/23) of students felt the session enabled them to think differently about the module content, 75% (17/23) of students felt that the session gave them the opportunity to explain their thinking about module content, 78% (18/23) of students felt that the session gave them the opportunity to participate in discussion and 91% (21/23) of students felt the session gave them the opportunity to learn from their peers. Student ratings regarding whether the session stimulated their interest and was intellectually challenging were less positive with 9/23 (39%) and 8/23 (35%) responding positively to these items respectively. Overall, 11/23 (48%) of students reported that they found the session useful and enjoyable. Finally, we reviewed the student participants’ perspectives on what teaching excellence means to them and reflected on this in relation to the session. Students frequently mentioned discussion, collaboration and interactive teaching as being key to teaching excellence. These are key principles in LSP and as demonstrated by the quantitative data summarised above, the vast majority of students felt the session encouraged discussion and interaction with peers. Furthermore, students mentioned “using new ideas” and “a variety of methods” in their accounts of teaching excellence, which suggests that adopting a novel approach such as LSP can be viewed positively by students.

Discussion Achieving excellence in teaching and learning is challenging but nevertheless virtuous—indeed the question remains; what is excellent teaching? And to whom? In this section we discuss our results and reflect on our developing understanding of teaching excellence. This study aimed to determine whether using an adapted version of LSP is an effective approach to revision during a final year Psychology module whilst also reflecting on our own and students’ perceptions of excellence in teaching

66 

D. GOOCH ET AL.

and learning. Whilst there are numerous challenges to conducting action research which will be discussed below, our results demonstrate that students felt significantly more confident in remembering/recalling module material and making/explaining links between topics in the module after the session compared to before the session. Moreover, a clear majority of students felt the session facilitated discussion and interaction; key features of excellence in teaching according to survey responses from our student participants. Whilst our study was straightforward to implement and retains ecological validity, there are numerous logistical challenges faced by teachers who seek to evaluate the success of a novel session. On reflection it is important to consider how collecting pre-post test data impacts on the timings of the session to ensure teaching is not rushed. Also, it is crucial to consider the suitability of the physical learning environment; the first time we ran this session we were assigned a large, cool teaching space with plenty of room for students and facilitators to move around; however, the session reported on in this chapter was scheduled in a small and hot teaching room which was challenging given the interactive nature of the session and the need for space for the physical resources. Indeed, the heat may have impacted on students’ willingness to invest cognitive effort into the activities and thus had an impact on learning outcomes and enjoyment of the session (e.g. Barrett et al., 2013). One strength of the pre-post design adopted here is temporality (i.e. the intervention precedes the outcome). However, given that here we have not included a control group there are numerous criticisms of this design and many factors pose a threat to its internal validity (e.g. history, maturation, regression to the mean) which will impact on the interpretation of causal inference (see Marsden & Torgerson, 2012 for a discussion). Thus, it would be important to replicate this study with a more comprehensive, rigorous and stringent evaluation study. Ideally, this would include a control group (a comparison group who do not receive the intervention) to demonstrate that any change (improvement or decline) is due to the intervention and not something that would have occurred without the intervention, for example, response shift bias as participants’ understanding of the concepts tapped by the survey change as a result of pretesting (Colosi & Dunifon, 2006) or regression to the mean with students with higher pre-test ratings being more likely to make smaller gains than those with lower pre-test ratings (Marsden & Torgerson, 2012).

4  STUDENTS AS CO-CREATORS OF VISUAL MNEMONICS USING LEGO®… 

67

However, the ethical dilemma of assigning students to a control group and potentially depriving them of an intervention that works remains. A second strength is that through adopting a staff-student partnership we were able to co-create an evaluation tool that reflected not only what we as staff felt were important outcomes from a revision session but also what students themselves view as important. The current study did not employ an objective measure of knowledge retention/understanding because both staff and students felt that asking student participants to complete a mock exam before and after the revision session would place a high burden on participants. Therefore, we adopted self-report measures to assess participants’ perceived knowledge retention/understanding. Despite the limitations of self-report measures, they are frequently used in the literature (e.g. Smith & LeAnn, 2012). Indeed, previous research has found that students can accurately rate their own learning (Chesebro & McCroskey, 2000) and that students’ self-reports of their learning is related to their actual learning outcomes (Lizzo et al., 2002). A final strength of this study has been our (teachers and student partners’) developing understanding of excellent teaching and excellent learning through the initial discussions which informed the intervention measures and the student responses. Excellent teaching is characterised by evidence-based approaches which value interaction and reflection. Similarly, excellent learning takes place when students can recall and understand information, are engaged and enjoy the learning experience. What is significant here is that the use of a novel approach (LSP) that embodies features of excellent teaching (Palmer & Collins, 2006) can also lead to what students define as excellent learning. Impact and Future Directions These results contribute to the evidence base regarding the utility of using playful teaching methods (e.g. LSP) in higher education as a way of optimising students learning, engagement and enjoyment. Specifically, this study will help to establish LSP as an evidence-based teaching practice which may facilitate recall, topic integration and learning. Although the results from this study apply to a specific final year Psychology module, the study paves the way for future research to evaluate the effectiveness of LSP as a tool for teaching and revision in Psychology and other disciplines.

68 

D. GOOCH ET AL.

Appendix 1: Survey Instruments Pre-test Survey (Completed at the Start of the Session) How confident do you feel about the following? . Remembering/recalling module material 1 2. Understanding module material 3. Explaining module material 4. Making and explaining links between topics in this module 5. Making and explaining links between psychological theory/research and educational practice 6. Revising module material All items rated on a 5-point scale 1 = Not confident at all 2 = Not very confident 3 = Quite confident 4 = Very confident 5 = Extremely confident Post-test Survey (Completed after the LSP Part of the Session) How confident do you feel about the following? . Remembering/recalling module material 1 2. Understanding module material 3. Explaining module material 4. Making and explaining links between topics in this module 5. Making and explaining links between psychological theory/research and educational practice 6. Revising module material All items rated on a 5-point scale 1 = Not confident at all 2 = Not very confident 3 = Quite confident 4 = Very confident 5 = Extremely confident Which activity did you complete? Dyscalculia/BESD

4  STUDENTS AS CO-CREATORS OF VISUAL MNEMONICS USING LEGO®… 

69

Retention of module material (specific topic considered during the session) 1. The group activities increased and/or clarified my knowledge about the learning environment 2. The group activities increased and/or clarified my knowledge about Dyscalculia 3. The group activities increased and/or clarified my knowledge about BESD 4. The group activities increased and/or clarified my knowledge about inclusion All items rated on a 5-point scale 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree or disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree Engagement with module material 1. The activities helped me to think about what I was learning in a different way 2. The group activities stimulated my interest in the topics 3. The group activities challenged me intellectually 4. The group activities encouraged me to explain my thinking 5. The activities enabled me to participate in discussion of topics 6. The activities allowed me to learn from my peers Enjoyment and utility of the class . I enjoyed this class 1 2. The class was useful All items rated on a 5-point scale 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree or disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree What does excellence in teaching mean to you? (100 words max)

70 

D. GOOCH ET AL.

Appendix 2: LSP Tasks Task 1: Model with LEGO® the Environmental Factors That Support Learning (10 mins) 1. Choose one item from those on your table which links to one of the four factors which comprise the learning environment—explain to your group what the item represents. 2. Consider how psychology has contributed to our understanding of the factors. (5 mins) 3. Feedback to whole class on factors your group considered. (5 mins) Task 2: SEN: How Has Psychology Contributed to Our Understanding of [SEN]? (30 mins) 1. Using LEGO®, as a group, represent the key characteristics associated with the SEN in the case study and consider how it creates a SEN. (3 mins) 2. As a group consider the psychological explanations of the behaviours associated with the SEN—write on post-its. (3 mins) 3. Using LEGO®, as a group, model strategies/interventions that the teacher/school could implement to support the child. (3 mins) 4. As a group consider the rationale behind these strategies/interventions and talk about how they link to the psychological explanations you considered at step 2. (3 mins) 5. Join, review and combine (10 mins) a. Join with the other groups working on the same SEN and talk to each other through your respective models. b. Using components of each of your models, create one comprehensive model reflecting the educational implications of the area of SEN—consider how psychological theory has contributed to our understanding of the SEN and strategies for intervention/educational management. 6. Explain your model to a facilitator (8 min)

4  STUDENTS AS CO-CREATORS OF VISUAL MNEMONICS USING LEGO®… 

71

Task 3: Inclusion: What Are the Challenges Faced When Deciding What Would Be in the Best Interests of the Child? (25 mins) 1. In your groups consider and model the factors that should be considered during inclusion decision making. (10 mins) 2. Talk to another group through your model. (2 mins) 3. Reach a shared understanding by combining your model of the challenges. (10 mins) 4. Explain your model to a facilitator. (3 mins)

Appendix 3: Research Guide Discipline: Psychology Research question(s): Is using an adapted version of Lego serious Play (LSP) an effective approach to revision during a final year psychology module? Specifically, we explored whether LSP improved confidence, retention, engagement and enjoyment. Rationale for research question(s): As well as being a memorable activity, LSP in HE can increase student autonomy, critical engagement, participation and peer collaboration. This suggests that LSP may be useful for revision; however, this has yet to be documented in the literature. The current study aims to address this gap by evaluating a final year psychology revision session using adapted LSP methodology. Link between research question(s) and topic of excellence: This study is an evaluation of a novel approach to teaching which will contribute to the evidence base regarding the effectiveness of LSP.  Using evidence-­ based pedagogy and evaluating teaching practices are two approaches that we deem are important for teaching excellence. Methods: Participants completed an online questionnaire to assess their perceptions of confidence with module material before and after the revision session. They also answered questions regarding their perceptions of engagement with and retention of module material and whether they found the session useful and enjoyable. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval was granted by the university. Students were provided with an information sheet about the study; how data would be used, anonymised and stored and how participants could withdraw if they wished to. All participants gave informed consent to take part before they completed the questionnaires.

72 

D. GOOCH ET AL.

Challenges: A key challenge in pedagogical research is design and power. The gold standard method for evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention is through a randomised control trial; however, there are ethical issues around offering an intervention to some students and not others. Furthermore, it is important to ensure sufficient numbers of participants to detect an effect; however, the number of potential participants will be limited by the size of the class/cohort you are working with. In this case we only had 40 students in the class and thus the study is underpowered. The selection of appropriate valid and reliable outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of an intervention is important but challenging. Furthermore, factors relating to the learning environment, such as classroom and class size, the teacher delivering the session and activity design will also impact on the effectiveness of the session. There are also challenges around working with students as partners. The nature of this project was perhaps more staff led with students contributing their ideas and learning about research processes. Solutions: To enable students to come forward with ideas and make use of staff research expertise to help realise those ideas; this approach may enable students to take the lead and feel more engaged in the process.

References Barrett, P. S., Zhang, Y., Moffat, J., & Kobbacy, K. (2013). An holistic, multi-level analysis identifying the impact of classroom design on pupils’ learning. Building and Environment, 59, 678–689. Boyle, E. A., Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Gray, G., Earp, J., Ott, M., Lim, T., Ninaus, M., Ribeiro, C., Pereiraf, J., & Pereira, J. (2016). An update to the systematic literature review of empirical evidence of the impacts and outcomes of computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 94, 178–192. Brown, S., & Vaughan, C. (2010). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. Penguin. Cavaliero, T. (2017). ‘Creative blocs’: Action research study on the implementation of LEGO® as a tool for reflective practice with social care practitioners. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(2), 133–142. Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). The relationship between students’ reports of learning and their actual recall of lecture material: A validity test. Communication Education, 49, 297–301. Colosi, L., & Dunifon, R. (2006). What’s the difference? “Post then pre” & “pre then post”. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi= 10.1.1.91.6252

4  STUDENTS AS CO-CREATORS OF VISUAL MNEMONICS USING LEGO®… 

73

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior, 11, 671–684. Dunn, D.  S., Saville, B.  K., Baker, S.  C., & Marek, P. (2013). Evidence-based teaching: Tools and techniques that promote learning in the psychology classroom. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 5–13. Gauntlett, D. (2007). Creative explorations: New approaches to identities and audiences. Routledge. James, A. (2013). LEGO® Serious Play®: A three-dimensional approach to learning development. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 6(6), 18. James, A., & Brookfield, S. (2014). Engaging imagination: Helping students become creative and reflective thinkers. Jossey Bass. Johnson, J., & Crenna-Jennings, W. (2018). Prevalence of mental health issues within the student-aged population. https://epi.org.uk/publications-­and-­ r esear ch/pr evalence-­o f-­m ental-­h ealth-­i ssues-­w ithin-­t he-­s tudent­aged-­population/ Koh, A. W. L., Lee, S. C., & Lim, S. W. H. (2018). The learning benefits of teaching: A retrieval practice hypothesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 401–410. Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, 2, 63–82. Lizzo, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27, 27–52. Marsden, E., & Torgerson, C. J. (2012). Single group, pre- and post-test research designs: Some methodological concerns. Oxford Review of Education, 38(5), 583–616. Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. 1—outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11. Matthews, K. E., Dwyer, A., Hine, L., & Turner, J. (2018). Conceptions of students as partners. Higher Education, 76, 957–971. Mulligan, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2000). How much do they understand? Lectures, students and comprehension. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(3), 311–335. Nørgård, R. T., Toft-Nielsen, C., & Whitton, N. (2017). Playful learning in higher education: Developing a signature pedagogy. International Journal of Play, 6(3), 272–282. Palmer, A., & Collins, R. (2006). Rewarding teaching excellence: Motivation and the scholarship of teaching. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(2), 193–205. Peabody, M. A., & Noyes, S. (2017). Reflective boot camp: Adapting LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® in higher education. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 18(2), 232–243.

74 

D. GOOCH ET AL.

Proyer, R. T. (2013). The well-being of playful adults: Adult playfulness, subjective well-being, physical well-being, and the pursuit of enjoyable activities. The European Journal of Humour Research, 1(1), 84–98. Slamecka, N. J., & Graf, P. (1978). The generation effect: Delineation of a phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 592–604. Smith, C. V., & LeAnn, C. (2012). Is active learning like broccoli? Student perceptions of active learning in large lecture classes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 53–61. Universities UK. (2017). Around a half of students now see themselves as customers of their university—new ComRes survey. https://www.universitiesuk. ac.uk/news/Pages/Around-­a -­h alf-­o f-­s tudents-­n ow-­s ee-­t hemselves-­a s-­ customers-­of-­their-­university.aspx Whitton, C. (2018). Playful learning: Tools, techniques, and tactics. Research in Learning Technology, 26, 2035.

CHAPTER 5

How Can Mandatory Elements of Moving and Handling Be Delivered to Enhance Student Engagement? Orlando Caetano and Nicola Dallimore

Introduction In classrooms of the twenty-first century, students have raised their expectations of teaching standards. Teaching excellence in higher education is teaching that caters for the needs and expectations of diverse learners in and through the fields and subjects of their choice (Armour, 2018). Teaching excellence recognises that students are adults who work alongside tutors to co-create new knowledge for better futures, ensuring students feel valued (Gourlay & Stevenson, 2017). Recognising the importance of a student-staff partnership to developing the curriculum (Healey & Jenkins, 2006), for a number of years a team from the University of Surrey School of Health Sciences has been encouraging students, during their training updates, to reflect on placement handling practices. The

O. Caetano (*) • N. Dallimore School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_5

75

76 

O. CAETANO AND N. DALLIMORE

information presented in this chapter has been gathered from these sessions and has been the foundation for changes implemented in patient handling teaching. In this chapter we outline how we positioned student perceptions of the Moving and Handling course as the central guiding approach to developing the programme. In this chapter we describe how, given the inherent challenges in teaching Moving and Handling and its perceived lack of status, students were partners in seeking to develop a programme that they felt was fully beneficial and would provide them with the appropriate knowledge and experience to be able to practise in their respective healthcare professional roles.

Background In this section we situate our study in the context of patient handling courses in the UK. There are a number of challenges associated with delivering these courses, as well as prejudice as to the value and scholarship of such courses. We believe that many of these concerns are relevant to other practical and mandatory courses which form part of professional training programmes. In the UK, universities and other higher education institutions are required by law to provide patient handling training to all the students enrolled in courses that lead to clinical practice. This training should be provided before students’ first clinical placement followed by annual updates (Kneafsey et al., 2012). Safe patient handling is an activity that requires both theoretical and practical knowledge. This learning process should start at universities with initial training followed by annual updates, and it is expected that students keep practising and developing this skill while in practice placement. However, patient handling may not be viewed as a valid higher education subject or may not be valued by academics as such (Felstead & Angrave, 2005). Moving and Handling is classified as mandatory training in the same way as information governance or equality and diversity. As a result, Moving and Handling training is viewed as a tick-box exercise rather than real training or competencies to be acquired. At the same time, the Nursing and Midwifery Council (2018) consider poor patient handling as a form of physical abuse. Decisions need to be made regarding content and this invariably means that some areas are given higher priority than others. For many years patient handling was omitted from educational programmes. This could also have an adverse effect on students’ views of its importance as they may not perceive patient handling to be a relevant aspect of

5  HOW CAN MANDATORY ELEMENTS OF MOVING AND HANDLING BE… 

77

nursing practice (Felstead & Angrave, 2005). Additionally, students in their placements witness poor practice and they are encouraged to participate in these procedures and practices by professionals they perceive as qualified and knowledgeable, exposing them and patients to potential risk of injury. Furthermore, as well as contributing to the lack of engagement with the discipline, this poor practice is against the Nursing and Midwifery Council (2018) code of professional conduct. The training provided to students in different institutions may differ in consistency and quality which leads to a variety of methods used in patient handling teaching. As a result, practices are conducted that may differ from what students observe in their clinical placements (Felstead & Angrave, 2005). Moreover, the joint responsibility of higher education and the Trusts to provide training can lead to lack of clarity over the responsibilities of each sector, increasing a discrepancy in training provided in each place. Within this context, student nurses are more vulnerable to injuries, particularly those with no previous care experience, which generates both lack of technical skills and muscular memory developed through practice (Wanless, 2016). The pedagogic approach to teaching patient handling is also problematic. Patient handling training usually focuses on enabling healthcare professionals to replicate a set of skills that are considered safe. However, adopting this view may not empower professionals to solve different situations that they may encounter daily. As a consequence of this, unsafe techniques could be used, putting both professionals and patients at risk (Hall & Bryer, 2005). Experience shows that instead of simply instructing how to replicate certain handling techniques, the training should also provide healthcare professionals with a set of skills that enables them to consider different solutions to handling problems. Additionally, trainees have their own set of skills, learning approaches and cognitive processes that will influence the effectiveness of teaching methods. Generally, the teaching approach should use the best part of the different models enabling students to solve problems or challenging situations and choose the most appropriate technique based on a correct postural position and the best biomechanical approach. As a consequence, this will develop their patient handling skills and abilities, instead of replicating a set of skills that were considered safe. The teaching of patient handling in the setting of this study has attempted to mitigate many of the challenges outlined above. The teaching of patient handling is integrated in the University of Surrey, School of

78 

O. CAETANO AND N. DALLIMORE

Health Sciences curriculum with a person-centred approach and follows the same principles as the programme philosophy which takes into account all the challenges of adult learning such as intrinsic challenges, that is, memory, information processing and metacognition. Furthermore, patient handling training uses a simulation environment following the need, highlighted by the healthcare professionals, of real-life, practical skills development and training to prepare students. Accordingly, before practical sessions students have guided e-learning in order to promote reflection and preparation for the simulation session. In this particular e-learning module students cover the fundamentals of principles, legislation, acronyms and concepts that they will encounter in the practical session. Furthermore, the simulation sessions promote and develop empathy and understanding for patients’ feelings and experience. Thus, students that roleplay nurses need to consider their handling approach, risk assessment and care plans. Equally the students who roleplay patients can experience how it feels to be moved and handled, allowing them an empathetic experience when they are hoisted, moved or subjected to other handling procedures (Molesworth et al., 2018). At the School of Health Sciences, the Handling team uses a biomechanical model approach to the discipline. This is a very flexible approach which is suitable for all fields of nursing; paramedics and midwives, and to the whole care sector in general. The content taught explains that movement patterns are learned and retained by constant repetition, allowing the neuromuscular system to practise the controlled movements that require muscles and joints in complex figurations. As human movement develops, the body finds the most efficient way to move according to the mechanics of the musculoskeletal system. This is the reason for why individuals move using “normal” patterns of movement with slight variations (Kerr & Rowe, 2019). In an adult the proportions of the body change from childhood, with the pelvic area the centre of gravity and the head, thorax and abdomen the first- and second-class leverage systems. Most of the large muscle groups attach centrally which increases the muscle pull in all three plans, for example, deltoid in the shoulder. In the distal limbs, a third-class leverage system ensures that when biceps contract in the arm the hand has a high-­ velocity arc ten times greater than the length of the muscle contraction (Kerr & Rowe, 2019). Everyday activities involve complex movement patterns that have been learned in our development since birth; therefore knowing the common

5  HOW CAN MANDATORY ELEMENTS OF MOVING AND HANDLING BE… 

79

patterns and understanding normal individuals’ movements improve the assistance provided to people who have some movement dysfunction or some psychological factors that are limiting their movements. When giving instructions to people regarding patient handling it is important to always start with the head as it initiates movement for the rest of the body. Also, clear commands must be given for each movement to avoid confusion (Lorenz et al., 2002). Although this methodology is generally considered appropriate and effective there is always space for improvement, particularly when referring to a subject that, like any other clinical skill such as taking heart rates or blood pressure, can be repetitive and unappealing. Students and healthcare professionals can perceive patient handling as merely a “tick-box” exercise. Unfortunately, this point of view is held nationally across many healthcare establishments and professionals, resulting in incorrect beliefs that preclude staff applying appropriate knowledge and reducing the risk of injury (Lee & Lee, 2017). Accordingly, motivating learners is primary, therefore adopting the most effective teaching approach for each element of training, enabling students to acquire the required skills is crucial (Wanless & Hopper, 2015). A further perception of the subject and its pedagogy is the students’ views that although simulation training provides an ideal environment it does not reflect challenging clinical situations encountered in different placements, where practice handling skills may effectively require different techniques (Perlow et al., 2016). As a result of the many challenges discussed above, we sought to work with students to explore their notions of disciplinary teaching excellence as reflected in their ideas for the curriculum and delivery of patient handling courses. Our research question was: What are students’ perceptions of the Patient Moving and Handling curriculum?

Methods Participants and Sampling The participants in this study were students who were studying Nursing (Adult, Child and Mental Health), Paramedics and Midwifery. These courses are required to have three patient handling sessions throughout the three-year programmes. The data was gathered from students between the years 2015 and 2018 and the sample size was 200 students. This

80 

O. CAETANO AND N. DALLIMORE

represents the average number of students per year divided by all the fields of nursing, paramedics and midwifery providing us with a large representation of the entire student population of the School of Health Sciences. We used a simple random sampling, in this case each group was chosen entirely by chance and each member of the population has an equal chance, or probability, of being selected. As with all probability sampling methods, simple random sampling allows the sampling error to be calculated and reduces selection bias (Moule, 2015). A specific advantage is that it is the most straightforward method of probability sampling. A disadvantage of this method is that it may not select enough individuals representing equally the different fields of nursing: paramedics and midwifery (Ben-­ Shlomo et al., 2013). Ethical approval was obtained from the University by completing an online Self-Assessment tool. All data was anonymous. Procedure Students were grouped into small groups of four where they discussed their patient handling experiences in the University and in their practical placements. A guide with questions (see Appendix 1) gave students the opportunity for reflection including points such as relevance to practise, hours offered, content given, and possible suggestions and difficulties encountered in placements. The reflections were written anonymously. The questions guided the students to reflect on what was covered and what could be changed to improve the quality and relevance of the teaching sessions. Furthermore, the small groups presented their findings to the whole class which enriched the discussion and helped the handling team with feedback. This approach to reflection on teaching and practice also encouraged the more reluctant students to consider a rationale for adopting a safer patient handling approach (Health Education England [HEE], 2016). Through these reflection sessions, we generated an understanding of students’ views on the patient handling sessions at the University and we developed our understanding of their perceptions of the discipline whilst on placements. Students felt they were involved in developing the curriculum of Moving and Handling and they felt that they were listened to and their contributions were valued.

5  HOW CAN MANDATORY ELEMENTS OF MOVING AND HANDLING BE… 

81

Data Analysis Data were analysed using a content analysis approach. This approach is used to process and interpret non-numerical data (Moule, 2015). In addition, content analysis can be used to make qualitative inferences by analysing the meaning and semantic relationship of words and concepts. This approach can be applied to a broad range of texts, it is used in a variety of fields, including healthcare, and it is possible to understand the intentions of an individual, group or institution, finding correlations and patterns in how concepts or content are communicated (Moule, 2015). A further  advantage of using content analysis is its high flexibility; coded form of text can be statistically analysed and allows for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Information gathered from the discussion groups in the classroom were categorised according to content; key data are presented below to illustrate the main issues for students. Once codes and themes had been identified, these were then counted and analysed statistically. This was carried out to provide an overview of student perspectives on the curriculum. The student partner on this project helped with the data analysis. It was interesting to see the student partner’s reaction to the data and her insight was invaluable in providing the student perspective on the themes as well as their views on what changes may be required to enhance student engagement in the patient handling course.

Findings This section illustrates the themes of content taught in sessions, number of hours and relevance to practice. These themes reflect the opinions of students on important aspects of the discipline. Content Taught Figure 5.1 below presents the quantitative analysis of codes relating to content taught. As can be seen, 22% of students were happy with the content delivered. However, in terms of specific content 39% of students identified that complex scenarios, that is, handling bariatric and dementia patients, would be a useful addition to the curriculum. This may be because students feel they need support with more challenging or difficult situations.

82 

O. CAETANO AND N. DALLIMORE

Not mentioned

32%

Complex Scenarios

9%

Logrolling

2%

Community

5%

Critically ill/Unconscious

3%

Compulsion

2%

Emergency Handling

2%

Long-Term Conditions

2%

Orthopaedics/Amputies

5%

Hoists

8%

Hoverjack

5%

Bariatric

19%

Bedpan

2%

Dementia

11%

Happy with taught content

22% 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Fig. 5.1  Content taught

Qualitative comments supported the data above. Students indicated that they felt the teaching sessions should incorporate complex teaching scenarios. For example, one student commented: “maybe sessions should cover complex scenarios making this practical session more similar to practice.” Another student highlighted the importance of complex scenarios on specific challenges: “we are confronting ourselves with more and more larger patients in practice and there is no training on how to move or care for these patients.” Patient Handling Hours Figure 5.2 below demonstrates students’ perceptions on the number of hours given to the teaching of Moving and Handling. Three sessions of six hours are provided in total, and 25% of the students agree this is sufficient. However, 36% believe that there needs to be more hours given to the teaching of the subject. Only 3% of the students stated that the number of hours exceed the requirements for the content. We believe this is due to the number of students who have previous experience in healthcare.

5  HOW CAN MANDATORY ELEMENTS OF MOVING AND HANDLING BE… 

Not mentioned

28%

Different period of year

7%

More hours Too many hours

36% 3%

Happy with number of hours 0%

83

25% 5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Fig. 5.2  Moving and Handling hours

The qualitative data supported the statistical evidence. Students commented on the usefulness of the sessions but with a need for more hours and frequency. For example, one student stated: “[this was] useful/fun/ productive/changing views on practice, … spread through the year with more hours instead of only a long day.” One student commented that more sessions lead to learning good practice: “practicing more hours helps reducing bad habits” Further comments were related to the timing of the sessions and the need for a revision session before going into practice: “another session right before placement instead of only one session at the beginning of the year” The comment above suggests that students require more contact hours in order to present themselves as confident to perform patient handling appropriately. In agreement with the literature, students who were not satisfied with their learning typically received significantly fewer contact hours than those who were satisfied (National Union of Students, 2011). However, the reduction in contact hours seems to have no effect on student marks or progression (Choi-Lundberg et al., 2020). It is understandable that there is a link between the number of hours of content and the levels of proficiency in the topic of Moving and Handling, which is a practical subject and in which the ability to obtain a mark or pass the course is less important than the appropriate practice.

84 

O. CAETANO AND N. DALLIMORE

Relevance to Practice Most students considered the subject relevant or very relevant which indicates that students encounter patient handling regularly in their practice and placements. A very important part of the patient handling education is to promote students’ awareness to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing as well as their patients. Students mentioned that this discipline is relevant to practice. For example, one student commented: “[it is] extremely relevant to practice; specially the challenging scenarios.” Another student commented on the nature of the teaching and the opportunity for role plays and experiential learning: “[it is] …nice to experience being a patient.” Difficulties in Practice Placement One major theme from the reflections and discussions was the pressure students felt from their workload and poor practice. This represented major difficulties in their practice placements and created challenges in applying what they have learned in  our sessions. It is essential that our students feel confident in assertively challenging requests from senior staff members if the task requested, or the nature of its implementation, involves risk. For example, one student commented: “certainly, do not want to be treated really badly, ignored or abused by doing something different” This student above felt that they had been previously mistreated in placement when they had tried to challenge bad practice. Unfortunately, sometimes this bad practice comes from the senior staff or even their mentors which make it more difficult to challenge it. This is supported by Cornish and Jones (2010) stating that students feel powerless in placements when working with members of staff. For example, one student referred to this: “I would probably find very difficult to say (as a student nurse) to someone, ‘no, I’m not doing that’, or, ‘should we do this way?”. Having adequate and appropriate knowledge of the right skills, abilities and techniques offers confidence to ensure a best practice is adopted and reduces subsequent risks (Perlow et al., 2016). To increase these skills and knowledge the patient handling team designed new ways of practice which aimed to provide students with more opportunities to practise their skills increasing their confidence. This will be discussed in the following section.

5  HOW CAN MANDATORY ELEMENTS OF MOVING AND HANDLING BE… 

85

Furthermore, although students’ feedback suggest that an effective model of teaching was being delivered, some interesting ideas and suggestions from students emerged that could contribute towards a more appealing curriculum increasing their engagement with the Moving and Handling training.

Discussion The aim of this study was to surface students’ perceptions of the curriculum of Patient Moving and Handling. Given the challenges in teaching this subject outlined in the Introduction, we felt it was crucial to gather students’ views to enable us to further develop a curriculum that was relevant and supported their work in practice. Our approach was to elicit students’ views through reflections. One of the aims of these reflections was to initiate a move from a teacher-centred approach to student-centred one. Students played an active part in deciding the direction of the session and they felt involved. Additionally, the handling team consider that student involvement is very important not only for the development of the discipline but also for the creation of more interactive sessions. Furthermore, this session provides an example of the collaboration between students and staff, allowing students to give their opinions and staff to reflect on what was suggested, leading to a change in the teaching process or content. This collaborative work between staff and students reflects the will of the Handling team to enhance excellence; students feel integrated and valued which in turn helps Patient Moving and Handling to move forward as a discipline. As a result of the feedback, the patient handling team changed the way the discipline is taught in the School of Health and Sciences. These are described below. For the first-year groups, online training is provided before the classroom and simulation sessions in order to cover the legislation and some concepts regarding patient handling. Consequently, there are many advantages of using online resources, the main one for the patient handling team is the fact that this will remove this content from the practical sessions leading to more time to practise the techniques moving away from a lecture format. Learners can also come back to the content at any time reinforcing their learning and allowing students to work at their own pace. After the final online test students are allowed to attend their first practical session where essential patient handling principles, based on a

86 

O. CAETANO AND N. DALLIMORE

biomechanical approach simulating natural mobility, are taught. Other factors must be considered to achieve a holistic patient handling education such as exercise, nutrition, hydration and the effects of fatigue at the end of a long shift which will increase the risk of injury. Moreover, students learn in their first session about the use of equipment and how to apply and practise good techniques. We have also incorporated short scenarios to address the need for discussion and reflecting challenging situations. For the second-year groups, the session was adapted to an online session. Although students prefer practical sessions, the patient handling team decided to change it to be more in accordance with the Trust’s e-learning training which provides patient handling training every two years, mostly on an online form. The online content allows the opportunity to review concepts learned in the first-year session as well as preparing them for their third-year session. The third-year session was completely changed to reflect students’ requirements but also to try to reduce the gap between practice and training. Different challenging encounters in practice on the different fields of nursing were considered in the creation of specific scenarios for each field of nursing. These scenarios involved several conditions such as dementia, bariatric, orthopaedics, strokes and sensorial impairments. The practical scenario session allows students to assess the situation, aiming to reduce the risk of injury while practising some of the techniques learned previously. The year three session brings numerous benefits to the students. Not only can they have a reflective space to share new ways to apply patient handling, but they can also roleplay as a patient, experiencing patients’ perspectives and feedback to their colleagues. The patient handling team innovated by using an integrated approach with third-year midwifery and paramedics. The practical scenarios are developed with midwifery and paramedics teams to promote a patient handling curriculum that is more realistic and will ultimately help students to understand its relevance to their practice and its value as a subject to be learned.

Conclusion This study aimed to explore students’ perceptions of teaching excellence in a Patient Handling and Moving sessions in the Health and Medical Sciences Faculty. Higher Education institutions are bound by legislation and professional guidance to provide education in safe patient handling to

5  HOW CAN MANDATORY ELEMENTS OF MOVING AND HANDLING BE… 

87

healthcare professionals. It is important that the teaching and learning strategies promote an active and problem-solving approach. In order for students to develop the required Moving and Handling skills to handle patients safely, certain prerequisites must be in place. Over the years there have been many changes in Moving and Handling education but the constant themes that prevail are the basic principles of movement and handling. Adopting a biomechanical approach provides students with an awareness of the dangers involved and encourages them to adopt the safest position for handling the patient. Healthcare professionals work with the most unpredictable load. Following the basic principles and collaborating with students helped us to create an effective and stimulating approach. Within the University setting, students should be encouraged to be active learners, working towards a set of clear evidence-based patient handling objectives. Teaching and learning activities should be tailored to the needs of students with different levels of experience where possible in order to promote engagement and learning progression. What students learn in University has the potential to be either supported or undermined within the clinical workplace setting. The importance of good role models in safe patient handling cannot be underestimated. Reflection plays an important part in enabling students to establish meaningful and realistic links between education and practice. This research led to changes in the way Moving and Handling is now taught in the University providing a learning environment that is meaningful and realistic to the student as it is related to their “real world” of Moving and Handling practice. Students also have the time to risk assess and to make appropriate clinical decisions. Some students were able to change their practice behaviour and perspective. Previously students thought they had no choice other than to conform to some unsafe practices. Over time their perspectives change, and we believe this contributes to their development from passive to assertive healthcare professionals.

Appendix 1: Discussion Questions Please discuss the following points and make notes/concept map ready to feedback to the group. • Describe your experience of Moving and Handling throughout your pre-registration programme. Consider the following

88 

O. CAETANO AND N. DALLIMORE

–– Mandatory online work & online resources –– Content of M&H sessions –– Relevance to your programme –– Relevance to practice –– Equipment and facilities –– Hours and number of sessions • Think about your experience of Moving and Handling in practice placement areas. –– Consider the following –– Support/training by mentors –– Supervision by other staff in the clinical area –– Support from Back Care Adviser or M&H lead –– Adequate equipment available –– Risk assessment/management processes considerations: was an M&H assessment tool available? –– Was the M&H assessment tool correctly completed where appropriate? –– Support from M&H tutors (Uni), personal tutor, PLT • Did you have any occasion to teach clinical staff how to move and handle patients? If so what? • Did you ever feel obligated to handle patients in a way that you knew was incorrect or gave you discomfort? • Did you witness handling of patients using the arms or under arms? • Did you witness the patients being slid up in bed with only the bed sheet? • Have you ever had any near misses/potential Moving and Handling accidents? • Have you ever had a Moving and Handling incident/accident throughout your pre-registration programme? If so, which year of study? • Anything else you think may be relevant to discuss to enhance your learning and understand your risk management and accountability.

Appendix 2: Research Guide Discipline: Moving and Handling training Research question: What are students’ perceptions of the curriculum of Patient Moving and Handling?

5  HOW CAN MANDATORY ELEMENTS OF MOVING AND HANDLING BE… 

89

Rationale for research question: Patient handling may not be viewed as a valid Higher Education subject or may not be valued by academics as such. This study aimed to enhance understanding of the value of Moving and Handling and its relevance to placement practice. Link between research question and topic of excellence: Recognising the importance of a student-staff partnership to developing the curriculum, and the co-creation of curriculum as part of teaching excellence. This study utilised student reflections and feedback to develop a more relevant curriculum and to reflect on placement handling practices. Method: Students were grouped into small groups of four where they discuss their patient handling experiences in the University and in their practical placements. Data was analysed using a content analysis approach. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval was obtained from the University by completing an online Self-Assessment tool. All data were anonymous. Challenges: Choosing the right methodology and dealing with data, knowing how to make sense of the data collected. Strategies to overcome challenges: Identifying the research question clarified the best methodology to choose. Seeking help from a more experienced researcher was another strategy followed. The student co-­ researcher also helped with data treatment and selection.

References Armour, K. (2018). Teaching excellence in higher education. https://www. heacademy.ac.uk/blog-­entry/teaching-­excellence-­higher-­education Ben-Shlomo, Y., Brookes, S., & Hickman, M. (2013). Lecture notes: Epidemiology, evidence-based medicine and public health (6th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. Choi-Lundberg, D., Al-Aubaidy, H., Burgess, J., Clifford, C., Cuellar, W., Errey, J., Harper, A., Malley, R., Ross, R., Williams, A., & Hays, R. (2020). Minimal effects of reduced teaching hours on undergraduate medical student learning outcomes and course evaluations. Medical Teacher, 42(1), 58–65. Cornish, J., & Jones, A. (2010). Factors affecting compliance with moving and handling policy: Student nurses’ views and experiences. Nurse Education in Practice, 10(2), 96–100. Felstead, I., & Angrave, P. (2005). Implementing moving and handling in higher education. Nursing Standard, 1(33), 46–50. Gourlay, L., & Stevenson, J. (2017). Teaching excellence in higher education: Critical perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(4), 391–395.

90 

O. CAETANO AND N. DALLIMORE

Hall, N., & Bryer, M. (2005). Moving and handling education: Educating the experienced practitioner. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 12(10), 449–453. Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2006). Strengthening the teaching-research linkage in undergraduate courses and programs. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 107, 45–55. Health Education England. (2016). Improving safety through education and training. https://www.hee.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/documents/Improving% 20safety%20through%20education%20and%20training.pdf Kerr, A., & Rowe, P. (Eds.). (2019). An introduction to human movement and biomechanics (7th ed.). Elsevier. Kneafsey, R., Ramsay, J., Edwards, H., & Callaghan, H. (2012). An exploration of undergraduate nursing and physiotherapy students’ views regarding education for patient handling. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21(23–24), 3493–3503. Lee, S., & Lee, J. (2017). Safe patient handling behaviors and lift use among nurses: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 74, 53–60. Lorenz, E., Lavender, S., & Andersson, G. (2002). Determining what should be taught during lift-training instruction. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 18(4), 175–191. Molesworth, M., Waugh, A., & Oliver, J. (2018). Teaching person-centred moving and handling through simulation. Nursing Times, 114(5), 64–65. Moule, P. (2015). Making sense of research in nursing, health & social care (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. National Union of Students. (2011). NUS/HSBC student experience report: Teaching and learning. Nursing and Midwifery Council [NMC] (2018). The code: Professionals standards of practice and behaviour for nurses, midwives and nursing associates. London: Nursing and Midwifery Council. Perlow, E., Tunney, N., & Lucado, A. (2016). Integrating safe patient handling into physical therapist education: reducing the incidents of physical therapist injury and improving patient outcomes. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 30(2), 32–37. Wanless, S. (2016). Principles for the safe moving and handling of patients. Uniwersytet Medyczny w Lublinie, 4(57), 66–69. Wanless, S., & Hopper, D. (2015). Moving and handling practice: The challenge for educators. Equipment Services Journal, 7, 44–48.

CHAPTER 6

Exploring ‘Teaching Excellence’ in Vocational Theatre Training: What Role Does It Play in Enabling Student Success? Jo Franklin and Ryan Anstey

Introduction As the concept of teaching excellence has come to the forefront of pedagogical discourse in higher education in the UK, it can appear to dominate the policies and operations of both management and academics within universities: teaching excellence should be strived for, measured and awarded. There are significant disciplinary differences in perceptions of teaching excellence (Abbas et al., 2016) and a range of perspectives within disciplines on the definition of excellence and how it should be evaluated (Skelton, 2005). Within the drama conservatoire, excellence in practice is a shorthand for the elite professionalism expected in these institutions. However, as highlighted by Gunn and Fisk (2013), there is no consensus amongst stakeholders on what excellence is and how it works. In this

J. Franklin (*) • R. Anstey Guildford School of Acting, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_6

91

92 

J. FRANKLIN AND R. ANSTEY

chapter we explore the concept of teaching excellence in the context of vocational theatre training for stage managers and theatre technicians at Guildford School of Acting and consider to what extent this enables student success. We provide contextual background on the history and structure of vocational drama training in the UK, an overview of the literature around teaching excellence related to this field, the methodology of the study, and an analysis of the findings, grouped into four inter-­ connected themes.

Background Professional actor training in the UK developed out of the ‘European Naturalism’ movement in theatre of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As society and culture changed due to the industrial revolution and technological advances, so theatre underwent a transformation from flamboyance and ‘theatrics’ to authenticity and ‘truth’. This was influenced by the theories and methods of the Russian actor and director Stanislavsky, who attempted to codify his work into a ‘system’ for acting (Merlin, 2003). The impact of this movement on performance and production values was significant, requiring that all aspects of theatre were unified and representational of ‘reality’. Considering this, practitioners felt encouraged to establish training institutions for new ways of working, and systematic actor training in drama schools ‘came to be central to theatrical innovation in the twentieth century’ (Hodge, 2010, p. xix). The emergence of drama schools in the UK can be traced from the late nineteenth century with the establishment of the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art (LAMDA) in 1861. Over the following century numerous schools were established, including Guildford School of Acting (GSA) in 1935. The Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation report Going on the Stage (1975) recommended the establishment of a body for the protection and maintenance of professional standards within drama schools, and so the National Council for Drama Training (NCDT) was established to work with the already established Conference of Drama Schools (CDS). In 2012 the NCDT and the CDS united to form Drama UK. For various reasons, this body was unable to effectively collaborate and represent the interests of its members and so disbanded. In 2017 institutions began discussions regarding the creation of a new model of alliance within the sector, to ensure the continuation of professionally simulated practices and the protection of the training. This led to the formation of the Federation

6  EXPLORING ‘TEACHING EXCELLENCE’ IN VOCATIONAL THEATRE… 

93

of Drama Schools (FDS), including 20 of the UK’s leading conservatoires. A defining feature of all member schools is a commitment to excellence in training: but how does the FDS define this? The ethos of the FDS is summarised thus: ‘primarily established to enable prospective students to identify high quality, intensive, vocational training for performers, directors, designers and technicians, …. committed to exploring ways of sharing best practice in teaching and learning … maintaining very strong links with various parts of the industry in which trained students will find employment’ (2018). Although ‘excellence’ is not defined by the FDS, the ten ‘Core Principles for Training’ of the organisation place a high emphasis on ‘professional’ standards and values, with the word appearing seven times: in relation to industry working practices, production values, teaching practitioners, visiting practitioners, teaching staff profile and both short- and long-term graduate destinations. Other key aspects signposted by these principles are that the training is selective, rigorous and intensive as well as supportive, empowering and collaborative. The culture and practice of elite drama schools is a simulation of the professional environment, to draw the trainee performer, creative or technician into the ‘community of practice’ (Wenger, 2011) of the theatre. In addition to being its own community, the drama school is part of the wider community of the professional theatre and the broader creative industries, with a porous boundary between the school and the ‘business’; drama schools prioritise industry currency within their teaching staff and training. The schools have ambitious aims, values and principles as well as an embedded culture, which staff characterise as ‘excellent’ or in pursuit of ‘excellence’. Prior to the 1950s, production and technical theatre work within drama schools was facilitated by a small number of professional staff and the acting students themselves, as at that time it was common practice for actors to begin their career as an Assistant Stage Manager (ASM). However, as technology and production ambition progressed, there was an increasing ‘professionalisation’ of backstage work. Formal training in stage management and technical theatre began in the UK in 1962, following the unionisation of stage managers’ contracts by Equity (the performers’, creatives’ and stage managers’ trade union) in 1954 and the formation of the Stage Management Association in 1956. RADA (the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art) began the first ‘official’ stage management course, under the guidance of their resident stage manager, Dorothy Tenham (Cattell, 2015).

94 

J. FRANKLIN AND R. ANSTEY

Tenham realised that, just as actors learnt in an environment that mixed taught sessions and production work, so could stage managers. In addition, this meant there were students undertaking the backstage work whilst paying to do so. From this, the field expanded with other drama schools starting similar programmes. This phase continued until around the end of the 1970s, by which point all 12 UK drama schools that currently offer technical courses had got underway. Each institution is different in terms of size, governance and structure, but what is taught, and the systems used to do so are largely similar across the sector. Each school attempts to simulate the professional world, using the pedagogy of the practicum (Schön, 1983) with student assessment being primarily via professional simulation. This is explicit within the Federation of Drama Schools Core Principles for Training. As a member of the Federation, Guildford School of Acting (GSA) is required to ensure that production work is of the highest standard, and strong links are maintained with industry. For students studying technical theatre and stage management, production modules are their primary method of learning; teachers guide and mentor students who take primary responsibility for production delivery. A key part of this learning is developing an understanding of the expectations of the professional sphere: facilitating the creative vision of a production and simultaneously developing their own internal construct of quality, as they move towards becoming independent practitioners. Within this context, striving towards an excellent standard of work is an inherent aspect of the training model. It is common for professional theatre makers to have a superior attitude to amateur theatre, referring to it as ‘am-dram’, a shorthand for unconvincing acting, wobbly sets, ill-fitting costumes and unplanned comedy moments. Those who enter drama school training are seen to be making the move from the school play and the youth theatre group to the professional world, turning their hobby into a job. It is not surprising therefore that the drama school seeks to position itself as excellent in its teaching practices and outcomes. In practice this means authentic acting, very strong technique in voice, dancing and singing and the integration of all these into slick, coherent  perfromances. For the design and technical departments, excellence would mean coherent design concepts that are integral to the vision and story of the piece, realised to a very high standard across all technical disciplines. Lights must be perfectly focused, voice, music and sound effects must be appropriate and clearly audible, costumes must fit, props must be correct to the

6  EXPLORING ‘TEACHING EXCELLENCE’ IN VOCATIONAL THEATRE… 

95

period and style and everything must be curated and managed seamlessly by the stage management team. Traditionally this has led to an ‘apprenticeship’ style training, with a model of staff mentor and students working together closely to make theatre. At its best this is a natural model of staff/ student partnership which can lead to graduates who are the ‘excellent collaborators’ desired by employers (Zezulka, 2018). However, there are numerous barriers to this which can mean it does not work well in practice. Among these are the practitioner background of teachers which means academic language, structures, expectations are often alien to them, so working as an academic is a steep and sometimes insurmountable learning curve (Franklin, 2019). In this situation it is easy to fall back on what they did as a student or learnt ‘on the job’, arguably leading to a higher education sector that is not preparing graduates for today’s careers (Zazzali & Klein, 2015). In addition, employers have their own ideas about what excellent teaching is within the conservatoire and are often vocal about it; the study undertaken by Nordicity on behalf of UK Theatre and the Society of London Theatre (SOLT) in 2017 reported that employers feel graduates are simultaneously over-educated and under-prepared for employment. The definition of teaching excellence differs between all these stakeholder groups and is fluid as practices change: the excellent teaching of the drama school of 20 years ago would not necessarily be the excellent teaching of today. In recent years the introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) has not been fully embraced by FDS schools. Of the 12 institutions that offer training in technical theatre, 5 achieved gold, 1 silver and 3 have no award. The final three (RADA, LAMDA and Bristol Old Vic Theatre School) were awarded gold as members of the Conservatoire for Dance and Drama, an umbrella organisation which two of the three have now left. Where awards are in place these are often where the school is embedded to some extent into a larger university. This suggests that a pursuit of excellence as defined by the TEF is not necessarily seen as relevant to their work; perhaps another quality assurance process is one too many in a sector where schools are often reviewed by multiple external bodies.

Literature Review One of the key issues when investigating pedagogy within technical theatre training is that it is relatively unresearched as a field. It is likely that this stems back to its origin as an afterthought and facilitation to actor

96 

J. FRANKLIN AND R. ANSTEY

training (Cattell, 2015). As context to the drama schools’ history and institutional practices, literature on actor training (e.g. Hodge, 2010; Evans, 2015) is useful, as is exploration of conservatoire practices and cultures (e.g. Drowley et  al., 2013; Duffy, 2013; Wilkie, 2015). Examination of related vocational arts fields, such as music and visual art can be helpful. For example, Perkins (2013) examines how the learning culture of the music conservatoire is influenced and informed by notions of excellence in elite classical performance. Similarly, Orr (2011) suggests that an expectation of excellence in fine art heavily impacts assessment practices in schools of art and design. These attitudes and concepts will be familiar to anyone who has worked in the elite drama conservatoire. Moving the focus back to theatre institutions, the work of Goebbels and Thomas (2013) stands out in including all theatre makers in his consideration of the best ways of educating theatre artists. It should be noted however that this is written from a German perspective, where long-term collaboration is usual practice, rather than the short-term project-based working typical of the UK theatre. It is frustrating to read research examining drama school training and to find that technicians, stage managers and designers are invisible, although this does mirror the professional situation of practitioners, who are literally invisible in a performance context. There is some emerging discussion of backstage disciplines, including industry-commissioned reports on the backstage theatre training field (Farthing, 2012; Nordicity & Smith, 2017). These have focused on the views of teachers and employers, and so are useful to illuminate the views of these groups on teaching excellence, in so far as these perspectives contribute to graduate outcomes and skill levels; yet the student view is neglected. Some authors both in the UK and internationally have begun to explore the higher education landscape for technical theatre, for example as previously cited Zezulka (2018, 2020). However, this work is focused only towards lighting and not the full range of backstage disciplines. Hence in this research our aim was to shine some light backstage and investigate teachers’ and students’ perspectives on teaching excellence and how that aligned or not, with industry expectations.

6  EXPLORING ‘TEACHING EXCELLENCE’ IN VOCATIONAL THEATRE… 

97

Methodology Participants The student participants were undergraduates from all years of the BA Theatre Production: three first years, three second years, and one third year who was just about to graduate and had already secured professional employment. We had hoped for a greater number of participants: more than 60 were approached and we had planned for 4 from each cohort. Indeed, the main challenge of this study was the difficulty of engaging both teachers and students in the research. Students’ reluctance seemed to stem from them being unsure what the concept of ‘teaching excellence’ meant in the context of their training, and teachers were reluctant due to a lack of time to write detailed responses. However, this small selection did provide a cross-section of the student body and were genuinely interested in the topic. Four teachers participated in the study; these included one specialist each within the fields of stage lighting and scenic arts, and two from stage and production management, with experience in higher education ranging from 1 year to over 25 years and simultaneously professional experience of between 15 and 30 years. Ethical approval was sought and gained through the University of Surrey’s self-assessment for governance and ethics process. All participants gave informed consent and they are anonymised in this chapter. Methods The second author interviewed fellow students either individually or in pairs in an informal setting as a peer, an approach which aims to create a positive rapport and may encourage the participants to give honest perspectives. Questions were phrased in ‘non-academic’ language to avoid barriers to understanding (Appendix 1), and the interviews were recorded. The first author sent online questionnaires to the four teacher participants (Appendix 2) which they completed and returned; again, a peer-to-peer approach. The second author transcribed the interviews prior to transcripts being accessed and analysed by the first author.

98 

J. FRANKLIN AND R. ANSTEY

Analysis A thematic analysis was carried out by the first author by reading and categorising both student and teacher responses under the broad themes of definitions and descriptions of teaching excellence, impacts of teaching excellence on student learning and achievement, teacher training and development towards teaching excellence, and measurability of teaching excellence.

Findings and Discussion Following the completion of the interviews and questionnaires, our analysis of the data enabled us to identify four main inter-connected themes: defining the ‘excellent teacher’ in technical theatre, considering how the excellent teacher impacts student progress and employability, the role of professional development in teacher excellence and how teacher excellence can be measured. Defining ‘the Excellent Teacher’ in Technical Theatre All participants agreed that ‘excellence’ is a subjective term, meaning different things to students, teachers, employers and the wider industry, and as such very hard to define, measure and analyse. This subjectivity was demonstrated by these student responses: ‘every individual will have different ideas of teaching excellence’; ‘It should mean different things to different people because everyone’s different’. One student stated that although teaching excellence should mean the same to all parties in practice ‘I think it can change’ depending on the perspective of each person. The lack of scholarship around the pedagogy of technical theatre undoubtedly contributes to this lack of consensus for teachers, with the most experienced member of staff stating they knew ‘very little’ about teaching excellence and another saying teaching excellence ‘for me …. means a few things’. Of the four surveyed, two ignored the specific questions about the school and institution, instead choosing to write a couple of paragraphs on their own conception of teaching excellence. One provided quite short cryptic answers, with only one answering the questions as directed. This may be linked to the previously mentioned lack of engagement of technical theatre academics in pedagogical research and investigation; having primarily come from a practitioner background there

6  EXPLORING ‘TEACHING EXCELLENCE’ IN VOCATIONAL THEATRE… 

99

seems little motivation for engagement in what may seem abstract debates on undefined concepts. Several students interviewed felt that the attitude of staff towards students was key in teaching excellence; for example: ‘The teaching excellence person is someone who supports and acknowledges all their students, and they understand their capabilities and test them in the right way’. All the students believed that the teacher needs to get to know each student so that they can teach them in the most effective way: ‘Learning how your students will benefit from your teaching, adapt lectures to suit them’. They also mentioned effectiveness in imparting knowledge and information ‘drilling the info into students’ heads’ and providing a foundation for further learning or employment: ‘Preparing us for the industry, practically, giving us a university standard of education, giving us a conservatoire standard of education, and getting us the experience and the industry contacts that we need to actually do our jobs’. This links into the perceived necessity for teachers in this context to be industry current and professionally connected. Students did not feel that the use of ICT was essential to support excellent teaching with one saying: ‘If they’re good enough they shouldn’t need it’. Aside from signposting students to online resources rather than physical books, teachers’ use of digital technology in teaching was not seen as important. This finding appears strange given the dependence of the live entertainment industry on cutting edge technology and software in lighting, sound, video and automation. It gives the impression of an anachronistic sector, possibly too wedded to conventional methods of teaching, which may be contributing to the shortage of skilled technicians identified in the Nordicity report (2017). Teachers also mentioned that excellence necessitated ‘using research and scholarship to inform teaching approaches’, ‘a design and delivery which maximizes the students learning opportunities’ and caring for the whole student: ‘Within a vocational setting it is also essential to take a holistic view of the student and their wellbeing: long hours and stressful working conditions mean that teachers must refer back to Maslow’s hierarchy of  needs to ensure that the basics are in place before effective learning can happen’. So, it seems that the teacher in this field must be supportive, caring, knowledgeable about each student to teach them in an appropriate way, an expert in current pedagogy and curriculum design as well as professionally active to be classed as an ‘excellent’ teacher.

100 

J. FRANKLIN AND R. ANSTEY

How the Excellent Teacher Impacts Student Progress and Employability In terms of measuring teaching quality students mentioned grade achievement: ‘if, say one teacher has a bunch of students that all get firsts. And then there’s another teacher that has a bunch of students that all get 2.2s and thirds, you can see the difference there’. It was expected that teachers could adapt their teaching to students’ varying skill levels and prior experience to help everyone learn, and it was accepted that individual communication would be more effective than large group teaching or ‘just reading off a PowerPoint’. Students thought that improvements to teaching might lead to better student achievement: ‘maybe if someone’s getting really bad grades in one thing, so the teaching changes to adjust how they learn, and their results get better and improve’. There is an expectation of individualised attention, typical of the small group teaching that is the norm in a drama school context. Technical theatre students find it hard to understand how students learn in a large group: ‘on other courses, there’s 100s of people. So, it’s harder to see if other students are understanding it if there’s like 100 people in a lecture theatre. Whereas if there’s 10 or 20 in a room, you can go to them one by one, and be like, ‘Do you understand? Do you need any help?’ Apart from good grades, the other significant goal for most students is employability and finding a job after graduation. For one student, the key definition of teaching excellence is ‘giving us the platform to actually get the jobs we want at the end of it’. Teachers agreed: ‘After all the most valuable success of a vocational course is seeing the graduates in employment after their learning’. Although the definition of teaching excellence is subjective and will mean different things to each student, teacher, graduate and employer, the key measure of this to all stakeholders is professional employability. Professional Development Supporting Teacher Excellence Institutions in higher education have increasingly put large amounts of effort and resource into activities designed to improve teaching excellence. These include training and professional development for teachers, reviews of curriculum design, and encouragement towards reflective and evaluative practices. Participants were asked what they felt was the value and impact of these activities. When considering training or professional development as a teacher, only a small minority thought that it was essential that teachers in a drama

6  EXPLORING ‘TEACHING EXCELLENCE’ IN VOCATIONAL THEATRE… 

101

school context had teacher training: when asked if a training course was necessary, a typical view was ‘No … I believe experience can out-weigh the teaching on a course’. Just one student took a different view ‘I feel like having professional development can help because it will obviously, they will be perceived as a professional and the students will realise they know what they’re doing. So, they’ll be more engaged with the teacher’. Other students focused on the necessity of maintaining professional currency rather than developing as an educator: ‘It’s very important …. if they’re going to teach the industry, obviously they need to have a better idea of the modern state of the industry instead of what they did about 30 years ago’. This is equally important for the institution as for the individual student experience: ‘as the industry evolves they’ve got to keep evolving with it. Otherwise GSA as a conservatoire and as an educational place will just get left behind’. One student, perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, did place some importance on teaching development: ‘…. to provide excellent teaching, a lecturer must be supported and continue to develop their teaching methodologies’. Students were positive about the benefits of critical reflection and self-evaluation for teachers, noting that teachers would need time and space to do that: ‘they’d need a break to sit down and be like, this worked, and this didn’t’. One student stated: ‘Personal evaluation combined with colleague and management evaluation can improve teaching excellence through methods such as cross-pollination of ideas and appraisal of work’. Teachers echoed the view that maintaining professional currency was of primary importance: ‘My subject matter is very vocational so for me to achieve teaching excellence I have to work to link the university to industry …. I feel it is vital that I keep a high profile within the industry …. it’s important for me to maintain an active working role … This keeps my teaching current, it means I know what I’m teaching first hand’. Only one respondent provided an alternative view, citing learning and teaching development opportunities within the wider university. ‘This has been so beneficial to GSA staff who are mainly Teaching Fellows, as it has given us knowledge and opportunities to develop’. The focus on industry knowledge and currency over pedagogical development is perhaps not surprising in the context of UK drama training. Drama schools’ unique selling point, in contrast to academic university drama departments, is their live links with the professional theatre industry, and a member of staff with no current professional work, contacts or networks can be regarded by employers as ‘out of date’ and unfit to be teaching the new generation. Related to this, several students spoke positively of all they had learnt from freelance

102 

J. FRANKLIN AND R. ANSTEY

professional staff who are employed to work alongside teachers and students within production work, the professional simulation activity which forms a central part of learning and teaching in this context: ‘At least on this course I think, because we are such a practical course, I think the best knowledge we gained has been from industry professionals’. Measuring Teaching Excellence in Technical Theatre The increasing accountability of the higher education sector and the focus on teaching excellence has led to a drive towards institutional ‘measurements’ of teaching quality such as the University  of  Surrey’s Module Evaluation Questionnaire (MEQ) and the National Student Survey (NSS) (see Chaps. 1 and 3, this volume). There has also been movement across UK universities towards reward for excellent teaching such as promotion based partially on positive student feedback, and ‘Teacher of the Year’ or ‘Student Choice’ awards. Both teachers and students were asked about the perceived usefulness of these measures and how excellent teaching should be rewarded. Students mentioned the MEQs as a means of feedback that should in theory help teachers improve, although they were unclear as to how these were acted on. One felt that a more regular, informal feedback channel would be helpful, so improvement suggestions could be given in a timelier way. One student suggested ‘performance graded pay based on MEQ or performance graded bonuses based on NSS scores’ to encourage excellent teaching, while one of the teachers thought that the individual focus of feedback could lead to a damaging lack of collegiality: ‘Teaching excellence would I think be better rewarded on a team basis to encourage teachers to work together for the good of the students. So, for example, if a programme is successful in the teaching excellence measures, the whole team gets a bonus. This would encourage discussion, collaboration and sharing’. Although students focused very much on student satisfaction measurements, teachers favoured a more holistic view, with one suggesting ‘excellence can be measured across a number of metrics including student achievement, external review and developmental comparison’. The mention here of ‘external review’ suggests that schemes such as the TEF may be useful in measuring the benefits and impacts of excellent teaching. However, as all drama schools are already engaged with a large range of external review bodies and processes, is engaging in the TEF process a beneficial addition? Certainly, an employer is more likely to be interested in whether an institution is a reputable school, from where they have

6  EXPLORING ‘TEACHING EXCELLENCE’ IN VOCATIONAL THEATRE… 

103

employed high-quality graduates previously, than a government process of which they have no knowledge or understanding.

Conclusion Every member of the Federation of Drama Schools would insist that excellence is a core principle of their training and both employers and existing literature around conservatoire training frames this in terms of elite and rigorous professional practices. However, it is clear from this research that there is no agreement on a definition, with staff, students, employers and institutions having varying conceptions of teaching excellence and how that relates both to the government defined Teaching Excellence Framework and their own practice. Nevertheless, students and teachers were united in believing that a focus on teaching excellence was both essential and beneficial, and in fact may be more useful in a vocational context based on professional practice than in a conventional higher education setting. As one teacher stated, ‘Vocational training in the conservatoire has historically been about aspiring to “excellence” in the performing arts so aspiring to “teaching excellence” should be a natural fit’. In future, it would be interesting and useful to examine in more detail how to support teaching staff to become excellent in this sector and to help these vocational practitioners develop as academics. This could involve more reflective time, training and support, experienced mentors or more specialist professional development. This would necessarily involve institutional buy-in, so it may be beneficial to consider how academic managers and developers could be encouraged to provide support and time to assist staff in these endeavours. Finally, the student-staff partnership approach is highly relevant to this area for research. It would be very useful to continue to work collaboratively with students, leading us all to a deeper understanding, and maybe even an agreed consensus, of what represents teaching excellence in the drama school environment and how this might support and enable students to attain their goals.

Appendix 1: Student Interview Questions What does ‘teaching excellence’ mean to you? Do you consider it to be subjective or objective? Why? Can teaching excellence be improved through staff self-reflection and critical evaluation?

104 

J. FRANKLIN AND R. ANSTEY

Can teaching excellence be measured and if so how? Is learning excellence and teaching excellence the same thing? If not, how would you differentiate them? Do teachers need to use ICT to achieve excellence? Is so how? What are some practical examples of teaching excellence? To achieve teaching excellence, do teachers need to have done a course in university lecturing? How does teaching excellence differ from ordinary teaching? Is teaching excellence an individual or institutional concern? Is teaching excellence ‘common sense’ to teachers? Do teacher to student ratios have an impact on teaching excellence? What mechanisms can we put in place to either reward or attract teaching excellence at GSA? How important is it for teachers to have a professional development at GSA, or is it more important to have specialist knowledge? Does teaching excellence mean the same to everyone; for example, teachers, students, managers and employers?

Appendix 2: Teacher Questionnaire Please consider either answering all the questions or (as in some cases there is some overlap between questions) write a page or so exploring your views of teaching excellence at GSA, referring to the points that the questions raise. What does ‘teaching excellence’ mean to you? How helpful is a focus on ‘teaching excellence’ for students within a vocational training? How should ‘teaching excellence’ be measured? How should it be rewarded? What do you know about the ‘Teaching Excellence Framework’? In what ways does the TEF impact your daily routine? Does the learning and teaching environment within GSA technical theatre promote ‘teaching excellence’? ‘A key aim of TEF is to drive enhancement of teaching and learning ’. Is this statement relevant to your own experience of teaching and learning within GSA? Has your learning/teaching experience been enhanced by TEF?

6  EXPLORING ‘TEACHING EXCELLENCE’ IN VOCATIONAL THEATRE… 

105

Would you say that the teaching/learning environment at GSA is conventional or innovative, and how do you think this might influence how GSA is measured by the TEF? Would you say that teaching in a vocational training course is helped or hindered by TEF?

Appendix 3: Research Guide Discipline: technical theatre arts: the study of the production disciplines of theatre, including lighting, sound, stage management and scenic arts. Research question: What role does the concept of teaching excellence play in enabling student success in vocational theatre training? Rationale: To examine how the idea and concept of ‘excellence’ is understood and manifests itself in the context of technical theatre education within UK drama schools, how teachers’ practice is or can become excellent and how this might relate to employer understanding of excellence in graduates. Link to topic of teaching excellence: In the light of the increasing use of the term ‘excellent’ as related to teaching and learning in Higher Education, particularly in the context of the Teaching Excellence Framework, it was timely to consider how this might fit with the traditional ‘excellence’ agenda in drama schools. Methods: Focus groups with students, facilitated by the student author and a written questionnaire for teachers, facilitated by the staff author. All questions were open-ended to elicit a broad qualitative response. All participants interacted with a peer investigator, with the aim of encouraging open and honest discussion. Ethical considerations: The researchers completed the Surrey University’s self-assessment for ethical considerations. Participants signed a consent form and were assured of anonymity; the staff author did not know the identity of the student participants and vice versa. Challenges: The main challenges were encouraging students to take part, as they were unsure of the meaning or significance of teaching excellence and getting a response from teachers due to workload pressures. Solutions: This was overcome by direct peer-to-peer approaches, time limited focus groups within a normal university work day and short questionnaires with flexibility on how they were completed.

106 

J. FRANKLIN AND R. ANSTEY

References Abbas, A., Abbas, J., Brayman, K., Brennan, J., & Gantogtokh, O. (2016). Teaching excellence in the disciplines. Higher Education Academy. https:// www.advance-­he.ac.uk/knowledge-­hub/teaching-­excellence-­disciplines Calouse Gulbenkian Foundation. (1975). Going on the stage. CGF. Cattell, T. C. (2015). The living language of stage management: An interpretative study of the history and development of professional stage management in the United Kingdom, 1567–1968. Doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick. Drowley, M.  J., Lewis, D., & Brooks, S. (2013). Merger in higher education: Learning from experiences. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(2), 201–214. Duffy, C. (2013). Negotiating with tradition: Curriculum reform and institutional transition in a conservatoire. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 12(2–3), 169–180. Evans, M. (2015). The actor training reader. Routledge. Farthing, A. (2012). Mapping technical theatre arts training. Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-­he.ac.uk/knowledge-­hub/mapping-­technical­theatre-­arts-­training Federation of Drama Schools. (2018). Hallmarks and values. https://www.federationofdramaschools.co.uk/ Franklin, J. (2019). The theatrical and the accidental academic: An autoethnographic case study. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 18(4), 281–295. Goebbels, H., & Thomas, E. L. (2013). Research or craft? Nine theses on educating future performing artists. PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art, 35(1), 43–48. Gunn, V., & Fisk, A. (2013). Considering teaching excellence in higher education: 2007–2013: A literature review since the CHERI report 2007. Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-­he.ac.uk/knowledge-­hub/considering­teaching-­excellence-­higher-­education-­2007-­2013 Hodge, A. (2010). Actor training. Routledge. Merlin, B. (2003). Konstantin stanislavsky. Routledge. Nordicity, & Smith, A. (2017). Workforce review of the UK offstage theatre and performing arts sector. https://uktheatre.org/theatre-­industry/guidance-­ reports-­and-­resources/theatre-­workforce/ Orr, S. (2011). ‘Being an artist you kind of, I mean, you get used to excellence’: Identity, values and fine art assessment practices. International Journal of Art & Design, 30(1), 37–44. Perkins, R. (2013). Learning cultures and the conservatoire: An ethnographically-­ informed case study. Music Education Research, 15(2), 1–18. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Temple Smith.

6  EXPLORING ‘TEACHING EXCELLENCE’ IN VOCATIONAL THEATRE… 

107

Skelton, A. (2005). Understanding teaching excellence in higher education: Towards a critical approach. Routledge. Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/11736 Wilkie, I. (2015). ‘Too many actors and too few jobs’: A case for curriculum extension in UK vocational actor training. London Review of Education, 13(1), 31–42. Zazzali, P., & Klein, J. (2015). Toward revising undergraduate theatre education. Theatre Topics, 25(3), 261–276. Zezulka, K. (2018). Challenging the challenges facing c21st theatre training: Lighting, training and collaboration. Theatre, Dance and Performance Training Journal Blog. http://theatredanceperformancetraining.org/2018/06/ challenging-­the-­challenges-­facing-­c21st-­theatre-­training-­lighting-­training-­ and-­collaboration/ Zezulka, K. (2020). Examining the pedagogy of theatre lighting. Theatre, Dance and Performance Training, 11(1), 93–107.

CHAPTER 7

An Exploration into Student and Staff Perceptions on the Use of Audio-Visual Content as a Measure of Teaching Excellence Lauren Regan and Iman Ezidy

Introduction ‘I believe that the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks’. This statement was made by Thomas Edison in 1922 (Oppenheimer, 2003) and we have heard this same proclamation about many different types of technology since then (Veritasium, 2014). Yet the didactic approach, with an educator at the front of the class is still

L. Regan (*) Department of Technology Enhanced Learning, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] I. Ezidy School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_7

109

110 

L. REGAN AND I. EZIDY

the most prominent teaching method used in most higher education institutions. Whether in person or virtually, the idea that the educator is simply someone who imparts knowledge to the student is still a belief largely held and if this is where that role ends, then it is easy to understand why so many people believe that video or technology might replace this. In this chapter we explore how students and staff today perceive the use of audio-visual content as a factor contributing to the quality of teaching excellence and what role they think audio-visual content plays in learning. The research outlines the initial beliefs and attitudes of undergraduate students and staff in a Politics department, on what they perceive as teaching excellence and the contribution audio-visual content can make to the pedagogic experience. We then analyse any changes in perception following student-staff collaborative workshops which were designed to promote a discussion on the perceived importance of audio-visual content in teaching and learning. We took a student-staff partnership approach to the study, with collaborative efforts from a staff member and a student intern on the facilitation of the workshops and the analysis of the findings. Cook-Sather et  al. (2019) advise that pedagogical partnerships between students and staff should focus on sharing perspectives with the purpose of opening up a dialogue. We incorporated this approach when designing the workshops to encourage views from both staff and student participants. This partnership ensured that power dynamics between students and staff were balanced with all versions of the story being heard (Adichie, 2009; Mercer-Mapstone & Abbot, 2020).

Background Lecture Capture Although technology has not revolutionised education as expected, there is no doubt that it has had a hand in its evolution. Student expectations have been driven by what they perceive to now be possible and many expect to be able to learn on the go with what is referred to as ‘just in time’ learning (Evans, 2008, p. 492). They often report that they appreciate the flexibility of being able to download videos to watch in their own time (Hill & Nelson, 2011) and there is an appreciation for the value of audio-visual content in terms of its accessibility (Cebeci & Tekdal, 2006). With this increased demand for more recorded content within modules

7  AN EXPLORATION INTO STUDENT AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE… 

111

and the creation of software and devices that easily allow lectures to be recorded, many universities have been under pressure to make recordings of all teaching sessions available to students. However, some academic staff have been concerned that recording lectures may impact on attendance, and current literature emphasises that the benefits of using content depend on how it is used by students. Research suggests that students who make use of lecture capture recordings, in addition to attending live lectures, attain higher marks in comparison to their peers who only use it as a substitute for attending lectures (Bos et  al., 2016; Nordmann et  al., 2019). As lecture recordings are used with great variation amongst students, such as catching up on missed lectures or revising for exam preparations, the potential benefits of recordings are not uniform across student cohorts, so its effectiveness cannot be guaranteed. For this reason von Konsky et al. (2009) argue that it is important for students to be provided with a range of learning resources to encourage engagement and support learning and understanding. In addition, Bos et al. (2016, p. 907) state ‘Firstly, if recorded lectures have an impact on academic achievement depends, among other things, on the course design and alignment of the course’ suggesting that recording lectures without reviewing course design may have little or no impact. This aligns with the findings of Hill and Nelson’s (2011) research where students reported that they found video podcasts helpful and that they had a positive impact on their learning when the objectives were clearly outlined within the video. This is unlikely to be the case within a lecture capture recording, as the learning objectives tend to be more implicit in face-to-face delivery. Captured Content In response to the student demand for more recorded content within modules, the university in the current chapter implemented a Captured Content Policy to promote the use of audio-visual content beyond standard lecture capture. This took into consideration research that revealed a ‘flipped’ learning approach is a much better use of the technology available (Witton, 2017) and followed the general trend towards the use of the term ‘lecture capture’ in higher education. The policy aimed to promote the creation and repurposing of digital content that was appropriate to the discipline, enriching learning and supporting inclusive teaching. One of the main purposes of the policy was to encourage staff to consult with students to establish the best type of captured content that would enhance

112 

L. REGAN AND I. EZIDY

teaching and learning within their discipline and to provide supplementary tools for students to use in their learning. However, discussions with students and staff around the university highlighted clearly opposing views about the nature of captured content and how it related to the pedagogic experience. Some students and staff appreciated the contribution that well-created and selected audio-visual content can make to the learning experience, whilst others did not value the flipped learning approach that audio-visual content usually lends itself to. The Teaching Excellence Framework Following concerns that prospective university students did not have enough comparable data about UK institutions to review when making decisions about where to study (Gunn, 2018) and to ‘raise the quality and status of teaching in higher education institutions’ (Foster et  al., 2016, p. 9), the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) was introduced to measure the teaching standard at Higher Education institutions in the UK (see Chap. 1, this volume, for a discussion of the TEF). The TEF is comprised of three main components (see Table 7.1): teaching quality, learning environment and student outcomes, and learning gain. Some scholars have criticised the framework, arguing that the metrics used are unreliable measures of teaching excellence and that the framework was put in place to justify higher fee charges (Holroyd & Saul, 2016). Others were concerned that the framework would create tension between the student-teacher relationship and criticised that institutions were not required to include the views of students in their TEF submission (Neary, 2016). Despite the TEF’s potential shortcomings in measuring quality on a large scale, for the Table 7.1  TEF key areas of measurement (Office for Students, 2018) TEF key area

TEF measure

Teaching quality

The extent to which teaching stimulates and challenges students and maximises their engagement with their studies The effectiveness of resources and activities (such as libraries, laboratories and work experience) which support learning and improve retention, progression and attainment The extent to which all students achieve their educational and professional goals, in particular, students from disadvantaged backgrounds

Learning environment Student outcomes and learning gain

7  AN EXPLORATION INTO STUDENT AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE… 

113

purposes of the current action research project we referred to the three key areas that TEF measures as a reference point. This was to provide participants with a similar view point and language around teaching excellence, to assist with the workshop discussions on audio-visual content as a factor of teaching excellence. The case study presented in the current chapter addresses the following questions. Do students and staff have the same initial understanding or perception of teaching excellence? To what extent does audio-visual content positively contribute to teaching excellence? Will facilitated student-­ staff workshops lead to a change within teaching or the appreciation for how audio-visual resources can and should be used by students and staff to enhance the pedagogic experience?

Methods Participants and Materials Undergraduate students and staff from the Politics department were invited to participate in two student-staff facilitated collaborative workshops and asked to complete a pre and post project questionnaire (Appendix 1). The questionnaire was given to participants before the first workshop and again, with some additional follow-up questions, a week later at the end of the second workshop. The pre-workshop questionnaire was used to gain baseline information on the views and understanding of students and staff on what the term ‘captured content’ meant and to gain their perspective on teaching excellence. This was used to establish whether students and staff had a shared understanding before engaging in any part of the research. The post-workshop questionnaire provided an insight into the participants’ views following attendance at the two facilitated workshops, and it encouraged reflection on whether views had changed and what impact this might have on their learning or teaching. Student-Staff Collaborative Workshops The overall aim of the workshops was to establish a shared understanding between students and staff of what the term ‘captured content’ meant (from the University’s policy) and how it may reflect on the three key areas measured by TEF. They also provided the participants with the opportunity to reflect on their own experience of learning a difficult concept or

114 

L. REGAN AND I. EZIDY

Table 7.2  Outline of workshops Workshop

Aims

Workshop #1

• Establish shared understanding of term ‘captured content’ and 3 key areas of TEF (Table 7.1) • Identify steps taken to learn a new topic • Discuss pros and cons of different types of educational videos • Identify challenging topic in politics and discuss how audio-visual content might be used to help understand the topic • How to create effective storyboards for educational videos • Discuss the elements needed to make an ‘excellent’ educational video

Workshop #2

topic, and to collaboratively explore what teaching excellence meant and the part audio-visual content could play. Participants were encouraged to explore other ways in which teaching excellence could be measured and the different strategies and methods that could be used to help enhance a student’s understanding of the content taught, both in and out of the classroom (Table 7.2). The two facilitated workshops were led primarily by two student interns with the aim of promoting equilibrium and encouraging student participants to feel comfortable in sharing their views openly (Bovill et al., 2016). Once the pre-workshop questionnaire had been completed, the two student interns started the first workshop by sharing the University’s definition of the term ‘captured content’ and the three key areas measured by TEF, to ensure that all participants had a shared understanding. They then ran an icebreaker activity which asked participants to identify as many similarities amongst the group members as they could. This encouraged students and staff to discover shared characteristics and experiences and was used to help to address any inequalities in the power balance that may have been felt by students or staff before joining the workshop (Adichie, 2009). The activity worked well to centre participants’ focus on their similarities as opposed to their differences. Both students and staff appeared to be relaxed with this approach, openly sharing details about their family, pets and travel experiences in their quest to find common ground. Next, the participants were asked to reflect on a time when they found it difficult to learn something new either within their discipline or a new skill and were instructed to write down two to three steps they took to help them understand this new topic or skill. A brief discussion with participants then took place where they shared what steps had been taken, at some point all participants had looked at videos online to support them

7  AN EXPLORATION INTO STUDENT AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE… 

115

with their learning. Participants were then shown two videos, one whiteboard explainer animation and one talking head video and were invited to discuss their preferences and the value for both approaches. At the start of the second workshop, participants were given time to reflect on the discussions that took place during the first workshop. They were then tasked with identifying a difficult concept within a Politics module that students might benefit from supplementary resources to understand. They were then asked to individually storyboard a video that could be used as a supplementary resource and compare their plans with the rest of the group. Through discussion and reasoning their individual choices, the group created guidelines that would ensure the best possible impact for the student when using the resource as a supplement to learning within a face-to-face setting (Appendix 2).

Findings and Discussion Workshop Findings The workshops helped to establish that all participants had benefited from using audio-visual content as a supplement to learning and would have some understanding of its pedagogic value at an individual level. Participants talked about a range of things, such as the use of visuals within each video and the lack of colour usually found in what they referred to as ‘academic’ learning content. They also commented on the structure and pacing of the language used and acknowledged the different impact a monotone or conversational tone might have on concentration, as well as whether the content could be used in an audio-only format. All participants agreed that the length of the audio-visual content would affect how they consumed the information and the possibility of viewing it at different speeds was also mentioned by some. When asked about their views on internally created content versus external resources, students stated that they believed there was a need for both. They valued internally created content, as it meant terms used were in line with the language they were used to hearing within lectures and seminars and would also assure them that the information provided was accurate. They noted, they would also value external resources provided by staff just as much, as they felt it would also ensure accuracy of information. In terms of the language used, although they appreciated that internally created resources would match what they were exposed to in lectures,

116 

L. REGAN AND I. EZIDY

they also acknowledged that if they were struggling with the high-level terminology, variations of resources using laymen terms could help them to access the higher-level content over time. This led them to identify that the use of student-created content could help to bridge the gap between lower and higher levels of understanding. It was observed that students were also astutely aware that there was a need for them to know how they were expected to use the audio-visual content as a supplement to the rest of their pedagogic experience, and that they would value teaching staff explicitly creating links between the two. Pre-Workshop Questionnaire Results The pre-workshop questionnaire highlighted some disparity between the participants’ understanding of the term ‘captured content’ used by the University to describe audio-visual content and differences in their perception of teaching excellence. We found two reoccurring themes from the answers provided by students and staff in Politics as outlined below.  nderstanding of Captured Content and TEF U Although all participants answered yes to the question ‘Do you know what Captured Content is?’ their definitions ranged from ‘Lecture recording’, ‘Any digital content made available within the course of a module’, ‘The recording of educational content used to spread information’ to ‘Online videos alongside learning in class’. Although most participants seemed to have an understanding that it included audio-visual content of some type, the range of responses show that there was not a clear shared understanding amongst participants. When asked whether the use of ‘captured content’ should be used as a measure of teaching excellence, four of the participants responded, ‘don’t know’ while only one reported ‘agree’. Within the explanations provided, there was an appreciation for the value of audio-visual content in terms of its accessibility, however, there were also concerns over the impact it could have on engagement, attendance and the social aspect of learning. One student participant commented ‘Digital content as such can be either a tool for furthering engagement but equally an excuse for lack of participation’ and another stated ‘I find it much harder to engage if I’m not physically there’, highlighting the need for any audio-visual content used to provoke some kind of engagement from the students, if it is to be seen as a factor of teaching excellence.

7  AN EXPLORATION INTO STUDENT AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE… 

117

 efinition of Teaching Excellence D When asked about their definition of teaching excellence, the staff answered more in line with the practicalities of sharing knowledge, stating that teaching excellence is the ability to ‘Answer academic questions, understand how to answer complicated political phenomena using existing theories’, whereas most students talked more of the need for engagement and interactivity and the opportunity for both group and one-to-one support. One student expressed the desire for ‘Engaging the audience with different techniques’, such as the use of quizzes within lectures. Students also commented on the need for an ‘open discussion of topics between staff & students’ and highlighted the need for a variety of in-class learning experiences beyond standard lectures and seminars and the ‘Use of interactivity wherever possible’. The answers given by the students suggests they have an innate understanding that it is the interaction with the teaching staff and their peers that helps to consolidate their learning and not the learning material itself. Post-Workshop Questionnaire Results and Comparison After participating in the workshops there was an overall marked difference in the answers given in response to the post-workshop questionnaire and in the discussions observed. The most noticeable difference was that both the students and staff now responded in a way that reflected the student experience more holistically and spoke more of students’ understanding and growth (see Table 7.3).  nderstanding of Captured Content and TEF U When asked for a definition of the term ‘captured content’ all participants were now able to correctly identify that it included the use of audio-visual content that enhanced learning, and now added how it could and should be used as a supplementary tool. One student stated that captured content is ‘Video content that highlights key information or is a visual tutorial for solving/answering a question’ and acknowledged that it should be ‘material to use outside of lectures to supplement learning’. When asked what changed in their understanding, students shared that they now understood that it encompassed more than just lecture capture, with one stating ‘It’s not just a replacement for other study materials’. In relation to whether the participants agreed that captured content should be used as a measure of teaching excellence, all respondents

118 

L. REGAN AND I. EZIDY

Table 7.3  Politics questionnaire summary of responses Staff/ What is your idea of What is your idea of Student teaching excellence? (Pre teaching excellence (Post workshop) workshop)

Have your views changed? Please explain

Staff

I manage to motivate students and they should feel that they learn something new

I had a clear idea but after interacting with the students I understood what they need

Video content analysing country politics or structures. Reading that explores theory and groundwork. Discussion to combine the ideas, taking the discussion further Engaging and stimulating work, lecturers willing to help students learn and grow

Great teaching can be achieved without captured content, its inclusion should be a bonus or a multiplier of excellence not a measure of it

Answer academic questions, understand how to answer complicated political phenomena using existing theories Student Captured information distributed via several different mediums. Content both produced by students and teachers to help explain key concepts discussed in class Student Good and engaging lectures

Student Encouraging initial thinking and openness to other ideas in students, open discussion of topics between staff and students Student Use of interactivity wherever possible with one-on-one tuition

Encouraging initial thinking skills, the ability to understand concepts and draw knowledge from a wide range of works High level of direct contact between students and lecturers. Use of engaging simulation exercises

I used to think it was more linked to TEF but now have realised it may not always be useful for learning I have seen that captured content makes an effective way of explaining difficult concepts

No change. Videos are not hugely beneficial to me personally and I would rather see more focus on activities such as simulation exercised and some direct links between students and lecturers which are more engaging

7  AN EXPLORATION INTO STUDENT AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE… 

119

answered either ‘agree’, ‘strongly agree’ or ‘don’t know’ with the student answering ‘don’t know’ expanding to explain that at the start of the project they did think it should be a measure, but now they weren’t sure because they had now ‘realised it may not always be useful for learning’. Overall, the comments revealed that due to the student-staff workshops, the student had reflected and changed their belief, it also highlights the misconception some students have, that all audio-visual content will be useful for learning and that it is a replacement for other study methods such as reading. Another student who initially said they did not know whether captured content should be a measure of teaching excellence, stated in the post-­ workshop questionnaire that they now believed that it should be because they had ‘seen that captured content is an effective way of explaining difficult concepts’. Another student answered that although they agreed captured content could be measure of teaching excellence and their view on this had not changed, they now had more of an understanding that ‘Great teaching can be achieved without captured content, its inclusion should be a bonus or a multiplier of excellence not a measure of it’.  efinitions of Teaching Excellence D When asked in the post-workshop questionnaire what their ideal image of teaching excellence was, the most notable difference was seen in the responses from the staff who stated teaching excellence is to ‘motivate students and they should feel that they learn something new’ this compared with their initial answer, that teaching excellence is the ability to ‘answer complicated political phenomena using existing theories’, showing not only that the student-staff partnership approach has given the staff a much better insight and understanding of the students’ needs, but also that they now understand that students need motivation to learn the knowledge shared; it is much more than just providing facts. This was confirmed in their response to how their views had changed from working alongside the students to review and plan audio-visual content: ‘I had a clear idea but after interacting with the students I understood what they need’. The students again focused on the importance of engagement and interactivity, but they now also reflected on the learning experience and outcome, making comments such as teaching excellence should ‘help students learn and grow’ and provide them with ‘the ability to understand concepts and draw knowledge from a wide range of works’. This

120 

L. REGAN AND I. EZIDY

expansion of answers and more of a consideration of other types of resources and learning experiences outside of audio-visual content also shows that the students had benefited from working alongside staff to discuss resources and their pedagogic value.

Conclusion This chapter explored how students and staff in a Politics department perceived the use of audio-visual content as a factor of teaching excellence through student-staff collaborative workshops and pre and post questionnaires. Our findings were in line with the current literature and in agreement with studies carried out as far back as the 1930s, when the use of motion pictures in education was first being researched. Back then, Wise (1939) concluded that any benefit from the use of audio-visual content was dependent on so many factors such as, beliefs of the teacher on the benefits of its use, subject matter and prior knowledge and understanding of the students, that it should only ever be considered as a supplementary resource. This finding is still just as relevant today and many researchers such as Beldarrain (2006) urge educators to re-think the structure of the pedagogic experience when providing any resources that will be consumed as part of online learning, to ensure it has a complementary and valuable impact. This highlights the need for the literature available to be reviewed and considered when designing online learning and these findings should be shared and discussed with students. It was surprising that despite the large body of research, on the use of audio-visual content in learning, there were still many misconceptions held by both students and staff on the potential benefits or disadvantages of its use. Perhaps some of these misconceptions result from marketing information shared to promote the use of lecture capture hardware and software, which has steered the conversation away from the pedagogical value and more to the practical benefits of being able to record every moment of a teaching session, with no regard to its impact on learning. Our study highlighted the clear benefit to both students and staff in participating in collaborative workshops which allowed misconceptions and myths around audio-visual content to be dispelled, by reviewing teaching materials and reflecting on learning experiences together. Both students and staff who attended the workshops developed a deeper understanding of the interaction between teaching excellence and audio-visual content and more importantly, gained a

7  AN EXPLORATION INTO STUDENT AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE… 

121

reflective understanding of how resources can and should be used as a supplement to face-to-face teaching. Therefore, we believe that there is a need for students and staff to consult with each other to fully understand students’ learning needs and to allow for a mutual understanding of the definition of teaching excellence and the part audio-visual content might play. Although we believe the use of audio-visual content can be used to enhance a learning experience and support students outside of the faceto-­face teaching environment, we also believe it is not the only factor, as used alone it cannot be used as a measure of teaching excellence as this differs based on the entirety of the pedagogic experience. It is also clear that for any supplementary resources to impact teaching excellence, it must be made clear to students how they are expected to use the content as a supplement to the rest of their pedagogic experience and the link between the two. Finally, this study has demonstrated the power of a student-staff partnership approach to learning and exposed the need for collaborative workshops to identify and agree guidelines for what constitutes good audio-visual resources. These resources should be created by both students and staff to ensure there is a diverse range to suit the different levels of understanding within a cohort of students and help further the understanding of those students involved in creating resources for their peers.

Appendix 1: Pre-Post Workshop Questionnaire Question 1: Staff or Student (delete as necessary). Reason for question: To compare staff/student answers. Pre or post workshop: 1, 2, 3. Question 2: What Politics modules are you currently enrolled on as a staff or student? Reason for question: To get an understanding whether staff or students also get taught on modules that are not Politics such as Law or Sociology as this may give staff/students different views about captured content. Pre or post workshop: Both. Question 3: What is your ideal image of teaching excellence within your Politics module? (TEF Short guide 2018)

122 

L. REGAN AND I. EZIDY

Reason for question: To get a baseline for their thoughts before introducing captured content. Pre or post workshop: Both. Question 4: Do you know what captured content is? Reason for question: To get a baseline of understanding to see if this changes after the workshops. Pre or post workshop: Both. Question 4.1: If yes to Q5, what is your definition of captured content? Reason for question: To compare definitions at the start and end of the research project and between staff and students. Pre or post workshop: Both. Question 4.2: Has your definition changed? If yes how. Reason for question: To establish whether the workshops helped to create an improved understanding of the term ‘captured content’. Pre or post workshop: Post only. Question 5: How much do you think captured content should be used as a measure of teaching excellence? (TEF Short guide 2018). Strongly agree / agree / don’t know / disagree / strongly disagree. Reason for question: To establish a baseline and to compare answers after participating in the workshops. Pre or post workshop: Both. Question 5.1: Please explain your answer to Q5. Reason for question: To find out more about their feelings towards captured content and its importance in teaching and learning. Pre or post workshop: Both. Question 6: Have your views changed on whether captured content should be used as a measure of teaching excellence? Reason for question: To find out if their views have changed after the student-staff collaborative workshops. Pre or post workshop: Post only. Question 6.1: How have your views changed and why? If not, what would have to happen for your views to be changed? Reason for question: To establish the impact the workshops have had on beliefs and perceptions around captured content being used as a measure of teaching excellence. Pre or post workshop: Post only.

7  AN EXPLORATION INTO STUDENT AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE… 

123

Appendix 2: Audio-Visual Content Guidelines . Overall content should be between 2–3 minutes long 1 2. The introduction should be 10 seconds or less but should aim to provide an overview and give context about the information about to be shared. 3. Bright colours should be used to enhance the visual aesthetics and provide a lighter feel when learning difficult concepts. 4. Think about the use of language and consider providing links to additional information about the key terms used. 5. Provide an explanation of how students should use this resource, what the call to action is and how it relates to the rest of their pedagogic experience. 6. Consider whether this is a one-off piece of content or whether it forms part of a series or playlist.

Appendix 3: Research Guide Discipline: Politics. Research question: How do students and staff perceive the use of audio-visual content as a measure of teaching excellence? Rationale: To explore the beliefs and attitudes held by undergraduate students and staff on what they perceive as teaching excellence and the contribution audio-visual content can make to the pedagogic experience. Link to teaching excellence: Establishing the effectiveness of audio-­ visual resources and the extent to which the use stimulates and challenges students and maximises their engagement with their studies. Methods: Student-staff focus groups and questionnaires. The pre and post questionnaires were used to gain baseline beliefs and to identify whether there had been any shift in views and whether the participants had been impacted by the student-staff collaboration focus groups. The two focus groups, ran primarily by the student researchers in the project, allowed for facilitated discussion around perceptions of teaching excellence, how the participants best learnt and what resources they preferred to use when learning a new topic. Ethics: Staff and students were informed of the research project using an information leaflet at the start and we ensured that all had volunteered

124 

L. REGAN AND I. EZIDY

and had not been coerced into participating. All participants had the right to withdraw at any time and request that their data was deleted from the research project. No questions asked directly related to any staff members teaching style and all data used was pseudonymised. Challenges: As with all student-staff partnerships there was the potentiality that students may not feel comfortable sharing their views, the decision to have the student researchers facilitating the focus groups was also made with this in mind. Solutions: The combination of both questionnaires and focus groups allowed for all views to be shared fully.

References Adichie, C. N. (2009). Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: The danger of a single story | TED Talk Subtitles and Transcript | TED.com. Www.Ted.Com, 1–8. https:// w w w. t e d . c o m / t a l k s / c h i m a m a n d a _ a d i c h i e _ t h e _ d a n g e r _ o f _ a _ single_story?language=en# Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153. Bos, N., Groeneveld, C., van Bruggen, J., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (2016). The use of recorded lectures in education and the impact on lecture attendance and exam performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 906–917. Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., & Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195–208. Cebeci, Z., & Tekdal, M. (2006). Using podcasts as audio learning objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 2, 047–057. Cook-Sather, A., Bahti, M., & Ntem, A. (2019). Pedagogical partnerships. Series: Center for engaged learning open access book series. Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Computers and Education, 50(2), 491–498. Foster, D., Bolton, P., & Hubble, S. (2016). Higher education and research bill 2016 [Bill No 004 of 2016–17]. http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-­7608 Gunn, A. (2018). Metrics and methodologies for measuring teaching quality in higher education: Developing the teaching excellence framework (TEF). Educational Review, 70(2), 129–148.

7  AN EXPLORATION INTO STUDENT AND STAFF PERCEPTIONS ON THE USE… 

125

Hill, J.  L., & Nelson, A. (2011). New technology, new pedagogy? Employing video podcasts in learning and teaching about exotic ecosystems. Environmental Education Research, 17(3), 393–408. Holroyd, J., & Saul, J. (2016). Will the teaching excellence framework be sexist? | Education | The Guardian. Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/higher-­ e d u c a t i o n -­n e t w o r k / 2 0 1 6 / a p r / 0 4 / w i l l -­t h e -­t e a c h i n g -­e x c e l l e n c e ­framework-­be-­sexist Mercer-Mapstone, L., & Abbot, S. (2020). The power of partnership students, staff, and faculty revolutionizing higher education edited (Vol. 33, Issue 4). Series: Center for engaged learning open access book series. Neary, M. (2016). Teaching excellence framework: A critical response and an alternative future. Journal of Contemporary European Research, 12(3), 690–695. Nordmann, E., Calder, C., Bishop, P., Irwin, A., & Comber, D. (2019). Turn up, tune in, don’t drop out: The relationship between lecture attendance, use of lecture recordings, and achievement at different levels of study. Higher Education, 77(6), 1065–1084. Office for Students. (2018). The teaching excellence framework. https://www. officeforstudents.org.uk/media/5ff81204-­14f4-­4e71-­8b48-­91f46247c49b/ tef-­2018-­short-­guide.pdf Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: Saving education from the false promise of technology. Random House Trade Paperbacks. Veritasium. (2014). This will revolutionize Education. YouTube. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=GEmuEWjHr5c von Konsky, B. R., Ivins, J., & Gribble, S. J. (2009). Lecture attendance and web based lecture technologies: A comparison of student perceptions and usage patterns. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4), 581–595. Wise, H. (1939). Motion pictures as an aid in teaching American history. Oxford University Press. Witton, G. (2017). The value of capture: Taking an alternative approach to using lecture capture technologies for increased impact on student learning and engagement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 1010–1019.

CHAPTER 8

Perceptions of Teaching Excellence and Satisfaction Amongst Chinese-Educated Students at a UK University Xeina Ali, James Tatam, Jiayu Le, Kristy Yeung, and Tom Bond Introduction This project was born from a teaching qualification which Tom undertook after joining the University of Surrey. One of the component assignments of the Graduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching (GCLT) was to prepare a proposal for a piece of pedagogic research. Initial ideas were to

X. Ali • J. Tatam • J. Le Surrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK K. Yeung School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK T. Bond (*) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_8

127

128 

X. ALI ET AL.

investigate factors which influence students’ satisfaction with the education they receive at the University. Following a helpful discussion with a GCLT tutor a decision was made to focus specifically on how Chinese-­ educated students perceive teaching excellence and satisfaction at a UK university. The reason for this choice of topic was that Chinese students comprise an increasingly high proportion of the student population at Surrey and there seemed to be a paucity of literature examining how they perceive issues such as the differences between UK and Chinese education and the characteristics of teaching excellence at a UK university. Soon after completing the GCLT an opportunity arose to apply for a small amount of University funding to undertake the research. This involved a student-staff partnership and led to Tom working with Kristy during the design and data collection phases of the project, and with Xeina, James and Jiayu during the data analysis and writing phases.

Literature Review One common method of assessing teaching excellence is questionnaires which evaluate student satisfaction. This approach is not new. Students have been formally evaluating the quality of teaching they receive at university since at least 1915 (Wachtel, 1998). These evaluations have evolved to serve the following purposes: (1) provide feedback to staff about their teaching, aiding their professional development; (2) act as a measure of teaching effectiveness to make personnel decisions; (3) provide students with information to select courses; and (4) act as a source of data for research on teaching quality (Denson et al., 2010; Marsh, 1987). From a pedagogical perspective, the key aim of evaluating teaching should arguably be to improve student attainment of learning outcomes. In turn, this leads to some disquiet in the literature stating that student evaluations typically rate satisfaction or teaching effectiveness, rather than directly addressing factors which facilitate student learning. Typically, students are asked to rate teachers or teaching activities, rather than to reflect upon their own learning or the curriculum. Arguably, evaluating the latter aspects would be more appropriate for improving the curriculum and intended learning outcomes (Denson et al., 2010; Edström, 2008). Much literature is of the view that student ratings are a valid, reliable and worthwhile method for evaluating teaching (e.g. Wachtel, 1998). Marsh (1987) went so far as to state that student evaluations are the only method for rating teaching effectiveness whose validity has been

8  PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING EXCELLENCE AND SATISFACTION… 

129

thoroughly and rigorously established. An alternative perspective is that both teaching excellence and student satisfaction are somewhat vague constructs, open to personal interpretation and influenced by a wide variety of external factors (see Chap. 1, this volume). For example, one study from Germany suggested that students’ ratings are mainly based on “gut feelings” rather than objective benchmarks (Schiekirka et  al., 2012). Analysis of data from 28 UK medical schools demonstrated that National Student Survey results are not correlated with exam performance, leading to the conclusion that they are unrelated to teaching quality (THE, 2015). In 2016–2017, 42% of students at postgraduate level were from outside the UK (UKCISA, 2018). These numbers are consistent with those from the University of Surrey showing that 35% of students are from outside the UK (University of Surrey, 2020). Amongst overseas students studying at UK universities, the number of Chinese students far exceeds any other nationality; almost one-third of non-EU students studying in the UK come from China. China is the only country showing a significant recent increase in student numbers in the UK: a 14% rise since 2012–13 (UKCISA, 2018). According to data provided by the University of Surrey for the 2019–2020 academic year, Chinese students are the second largest nationality of students at Surrey, after UK students. Only 3% of undergraduate students at the University are Chinese, but this rises to 24% of postgraduate taught (masters) students, while 10% of postgraduate researchers are Chinese. One area which could potentially cause challenges for Chinese students is that the education received by Chinese-educated students is considered more dialectic than the dialogic education received in the West (Ho, 2010; Holmes, 2005; Jiang & Kosar Altinyelken, 2020). This may give Chinese-­ educated students less confidence when taking part in class discussions in English and studying independently than students who have experienced the UK education system. Furthermore, despite the large numbers of Chinese students, the Chinese student voice in exploring teaching excellence and satisfaction has been largely neglected. For this reason, the current study focuses on Chinese-educated students’ perspective on teaching excellence and satisfaction as it is nonetheless important that UK higher education institutions reflect upon ways in which the learning opportunities offered to overseas students could be enhanced. Thus, the objectives of this study were to investigate, from the perspective of Chinese-educated students, the following three research questions: (1) what are the differences between higher education in the UK and

130 

X. ALI ET AL.

China? (2) What are the characteristics of teaching excellence at a UK university? And (3) what can be done to improve student satisfaction at a UK university?

Methodology Method This study employed a qualitative approach and used focus groups to elicit the views of the participants. A focus group has been defined by the American Statistical Association as an “in-depth, qualitative interview with a small number of carefully selected people” who are brought together to discuss a specific topic (Stopher, 2012, p.  128). Focus groups have the advantage of yielding rich data that could not be easily obtained through other means (Carey, 2015). As a flexible and relatively quick tool to obtain a range of information about the feelings, perceptions and opinions of a selected group of people—in this case Chinese-educated students—they were deemed to be suitable for the aims of this particular project. We drew on many of the typical features of focus groups (Carey, 2015), employing a semi-structured session with multiple participants, in an informal setting, moderated by a facilitator, using general guideline questions, and the group discussion was recorded. Procedures A list of possible questions for the focus group was prepared. These were intended as general guidelines rather than a strict checklist to be followed in its entirety. Nonetheless, the intention was for the focus group discussion to encompass aspects of the following three research questions: (1) what are the differences between education in the UK and China? (2) what are the characteristics of teaching excellence at the University of Surrey? and (3) what can be done to improve student satisfaction at the University of Surrey. The full list of questions referred to is given in Appendix 1. A consent form and associated information sheet were prepared. Subsequently, the University of Surrey’s Chinese Society and Hong Kong Society were contacted to recruit student volunteers from different departments within the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences for the focus groups. It has been suggested that the optimum number of participants in a focus

8  PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING EXCELLENCE AND SATISFACTION… 

131

group discussion is between six and eight, while groups that have ranged in size from three participants to fourteen have been noted in literature (Bloor et  al., 2001). The current study comprised a focus group of 12 undergraduate student volunteers, which was supplemented with a one-­ to-­one interview with one postgraduate student. Before each focus group interview, student volunteers were asked to sign the consent form. An audio recording of each focus group was made using a mobile phone. The fourth author acted as moderator for the focus groups and took care to anonymise the participants, so each participant was referred to interviewee 1, interviewee 2 and so on. After the focus groups had been held the audio recordings were sent to a professional transcription service. Data Analysis Once the transcriptions had been received, responses made during the focus groups were analysed and organised according to the broad themes which aligned to the research questions. These were allocated to one of the three categories noted above, that is (1) differences between education in the UK and China (2) teaching excellence and (2) ways to improve student satisfaction at a UK university. Ethical Approval As an initial step, the University of Surrey’s self-assessment for governance and ethics (SAGE) form was completed. This form includes questions about, for example, the participant’s health and wellbeing, receiving participants’ consent, data dissemination and use of personal data. This form also included an agreement to comply with the University’s Ethics Handbook for Teaching and Research and the Code on Good Research Practice. On completion of the SAGE form the study received ethical approval. As noted above, participants received an information sheet and gave informed consent. They were made aware that they could withdraw from the study at any time. In order to avoid possible feelings of coercion, the fourth author, as a fellow student, conducted the focus group interviews.

132 

X. ALI ET AL.

Findings and Discussion In this section we present the themes from the data analysis according to the research questions. Data is attributed to a participant number and their status (undergraduate—UG, participant number, postgraduate PG student) is denoted. Research Question 1: What Are the Differences Between Higher Education in the UK and China? Language Barriers As with other international students, transitioning from their home countries to the UK was a big step for participants, not just culturally and socially, but also educationally. One obvious, but very important, difference between UK and Chinese education is language. Almost all of the undergraduate participants, as well as the postgraduate participant, mentioned language as a big challenge: language … when I just arrived here, I’m not that used to the whole English teaching style, it took me some time to get used to it. I need to focus so much on the lectures. Then I can catch the teachers, I can follow, I can be with them. Unlike my mother language, even though I don’t pay that much attention, I can still hear the things. But here I need to focus 100% on it. (MSc student)

For one student, language challenges were perhaps the key variation between the two countries So, in China, we don’t have much of the oral speaking in English with other people. We mainly just follow what we need to write down in the exams. So we literally don’t practice our English (UG 7). For some Chinese students to move between communicating in their native tongue and English requires significant time and effort. As one student explained first of all, when someone speaks to me, I need to first understand what they’re saying, to translate into Chinese in order for me to understand and know how to answer them (UG 7). Transitioning from mainly writing in English while being educated in China to having a greater reliance on oral communication creates a big gulf between the two education systems. The importance of language is also emphasised in a British Council report which found that students’ preparation for English medium instruction is the second strongest predictor of overall satisfaction (Prest, 2017). A study exploring Chinese students’ experiences in the

8  PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING EXCELLENCE AND SATISFACTION… 

133

Dutch higher education system also found that English comprehension was a key challenge faced (Jiang & Kosar Altinyelken, 2020).  eaching Styles in the UK and China T Teaching styles in the West differ significantly from those in China (Ho, 2010; Holmes, 2005; Jiang & Kosar Altinyelken, 2020). In the current study, participants noted that the  education style in China tends to be teacher-centred, as opposed to the more interactive discussion style in the UK provided through seminars and tutorials. For example, one student said that teaching in Hong Kong is pretty much one-sided. So students will listen and, of course, teachers will teach but then there’s not much interaction between them (UG 6). Other students also agreed that both students and staff follow their traditional roles in classes. As explained by one student basically, it’s just a teacher teaching and we’re just listening. Whereas, in the UK, the teachers expect us to have more questions to ask (UG 8). Although most Chinese students find teaching in the UK more interactive and dialogic, many feel somewhat intimidated by the fact that they are being left to their own devices to self-study and learn outside the classroom. One student made the point that in the UK I think they encourage students to take initiative to learn. We’ve got a lot of spare time to do our self-studies and we’ve got our own reading (UG 5). Similarly, it can seem like students were left to study independently whereas back in China they had been taught using a more guided approach I would say teaching style in China was more like parenting. They make sure every student can catch up with what they are teaching (UG 8). Another student noted that in China the teacher will give you a direction to research and you just need to follow (UG 3). A previous study based at a Chinese university which had a joint academic programme with the USA reported that Chinese students benefit from being guided away from the teacher-centred classrooms favoured in China towards the student-centred classroom approach favoured by American professors (Ho, 2010). Interestingly, the same study found that Chinese students preferred local Chinese professors to American professors, despite the perception that the latter were more highly qualified (Ho, 2010). In the current study participants mentioned the presence of frequent checkpoints throughout the Chinese academic year. One student noted that in China there were: online discussions every week and online quizzes and some mini essays, that kind of stuff. And I think the school aims to check whether we are working hard consistently (UG 11). Whereas in the UK,

134 

X. ALI ET AL.

many students felt that most importance is placed on final exams or assessment. In turn, students need to be motivated to self-study throughout the duration of the year in preparation for that heavily weighted final exam. The lack of checkpoints throughout the year in the UK has the potential to create a sense of demotivation to study in Chinese students who are used to studying for a frequent series of upcoming assessments: in the UK, I only get one exam in each semester so I don’t even get any motivation to study (UG 10). Multiple Chinese students noted the UK system of end of semester assessments created a more pressurised learning environment than they were accustomed to in China. As explained by one student In Hong Kong, my motivation to study is because of the exam and also the coursework or tests. I think the most difficult part for me to work hard here is because I don’t get that motivation to study (UG 10). This was confirmed by another student who stated: I think here you only get one mid-term report and one final exam. I think it’s quite demotivating (UG 11). Research Question 2: What Are the Characteristics of Teaching Excellence at the University of Surrey? Lecturing Styles Students commonly viewed a key characteristic of teaching excellence as having an excellent lecturer. The so-called excellent lecturer had different attributes when described by individual students, however, there were certain characteristics which many students agreed upon. For instance, the ability to keep lectures interesting, engaging and interactive. As one student explained I think the lecturer should be charismatic and the content should be interesting. And there should be great interactions, it’s not the awkward style of interaction. And there are a lot of insights (UG 2). Another student made the point that I think the most important thing is whether the lecturer can get the interest from the students, in other words, where students totally participate in the lecture and can follow the lecturer very well (PG student). A third student noted that I like it when the lecturers input some of their personal experiences (UG 6). When talking about aspects that the students did not value one student said that I think I don’t like it when the lecturers are reading off slides because it makes me feel like I could have learnt more from them (UG 6) and another said  that they did not like classes in which the teacher relied on reading off slides and which were very long (UG 11).

8  PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING EXCELLENCE AND SATISFACTION… 

135

Feedback Good feedback was also viewed as a dimension of teaching excellence. Chinese students recognise the barriers they have to integrate into the UK education system and so appreciate getting feedback which explains exactly which areas they need to improve. One student noted: for our essays and reports, they actually analysed each sentence of your essay which is more useful than just a sentence saying you lack something (UG 1). Another student mentioned one occasion when I didn’t get a really bad mark, 60-something to 70. And I got the feedback, it was all positive feedback instead of any negative feedback. And so, I don’t know what I did badly. And so, I don’t know how to improve (UG 9). They also appreciate the use of a more qualitative form of feedback rather than a reliance on rubrics. As noted by one student sometimes marking rubrics are very general and vague. They don’t actually specify what exactly they want you to add in it that will give you that highest mark or something like that (UG 4). Another student also emphasised the need for feedforward comments: We get what we should include in it but we don’t know how to get to his expectation to get the full mark (UG 9). Educational Resources The provision of relevant resources, which are explained by the teacher and made accessible and easily understandable to all students was also identified as being associated with teaching excellence. As explained by one student: where there aren’t a lot of resources, nothing to support our self-­ study, I think it would be quite confusing for me at the beginning (UG 1). Another student valued that the professor provided a lot of resources for us to help us for our personal studies (UG 11). And another student made a link with the students’ understanding of English: And if we compare different studies with different levels of English, it’s easy to find out that the students with a better English foundation, they enjoy lectures more and it’s going to be easier for them to study. Of course, it impacts a lot. (PG student)

This point once again emphasises how the level of English plays a huge role in a Chinese student’s educational experience.

136 

X. ALI ET AL.

Research Question 3: How Can Student Satisfaction Be Improved at the University of Surrey? Language Barriers When asked about the best ways to improve student satisfaction at the University, both undergraduate students and the postgraduate student agreed that the University could do more to support them. Ranging from academic content to university priorities when it comes to student satisfaction, the comments below can help shape how those in higher education teach and support the many international students in UK universities. Undergraduate students who participated in the focus groups highlighted the many complications that lectures can pose, especially the disconnect created by language barriers. One key area of discussion was lecture delivery and terminology, with some students feeling the lecturers speak too quickly, making it difficult for Chinese and international students to catch up with what is being said (UG 10). Another student corroborated this, suggesting that the terminology was hard to digest sometimes (UG 4). Due to the nature of the cohorts being so large, hearing the teacher also poses a problem, especially when they speak in a very soft voice and they expect the entire lecture hall to understand which is difficult (UG 4). The same student conceded that they wished they had a mic (UG 4) as this would have made it easier for students to understand their teachers. Some students also found it helpful when their lecturers could explain complex ideas in Chinese, to help clear up any confusion, citing previous experiences when our professor is from China and he, very gratefully, would explain in Chinese during seminars when there are only five students present, when they’re all Chinese, of course (UG 2). This helped ensure that students with language barriers—for whom English was not a native language— were not left behind. One undergraduate student suggested that additional explanation and clarification can help academic progress for international students It doesn’t have to be in the lectures but in seminars or even after class when you go to their offices. They could explain the terminology using something (UG 8). This could be a manageable, bitesize way of helping these students catch up with their peers. Lecture Capture Moreover, inconsistent use of lecture recording (i.e. lecture capture) posed an issue. As one student stated, our other modules don’t have [lecture recording] at all (UG 4). Several students disagreed with the view that

8  PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING EXCELLENCE AND SATISFACTION… 

137

recorded lectures reduce attendance in class. For example, one said that I’m skipping anyway if I’m sick or have urgent matters (UG 2) and another pointed out that uploading the [lecture recording] will help students to understand and get a better grade (UG 5). The students identified the importance of lecture recording for students who have, maybe, worse language barriers than I do. They need [lecture recording] (UG 2). Overall, the focus group participants felt that lecture recording can be of great benefit to those who may feel left behind in lectures.  urther Ways to Improve Student Satisfaction F Some students also felt that lecturers did not adapt to feedback provided by students. One student reported that they were: “expecting to have at least some kind of change towards semester 1 in Year 2 in which, clearly, I was slightly disappointed because there wasn’t anything done then,” and asked, “what was the point of making us fill in MEQs if you’re not going to change anything about it?” (UG 1)

Another student mentioned that some lecturers cancel this module or something for the next year’s students, leaving them feeling as though they wasted time (UG 1). The students identified the University’s treatment of international students as a way of improving student satisfaction. One student studying on a hospitality course thought that the University could place more importance on vocational training (UG 2) and ways to help secure internships to prepare these students for the working world. This sentiment was shared by the other students, who identified a lack of support when it came to finding and securing a placement in the UK because the placements are really competitive and there are many locals (UG 10). A possible solution to this, one student believed, could be to form something like a party representative for all that have a high grade, these kinds of students. And then you can put all Chinese people in that group (UG 5). Other students thought that the University could better collaborate with companies to help Chinese students secure placements (UG 2). Students also considered elements within the University that could be tweaked to help offer more support. One area discussed—particularly in practical courses, like hospitality—is the need for better facilities. One student suggested that the need for better facilities was not only for Chinese students, but for all students, explaining that:

138 

X. ALI ET AL.

we have [a] restaurant for restaurant operation training but it’s only a casual restaurant. It’s hard to satisfy all types of services like banquet, like [unclear] services. We can’t do the complete process of training like Swiss Hospitality University, they go on very well trained. (UG 3)

The need for better facilities was also coupled with a need for the University to prioritise its current students. The students in the focus group identified this as a key area to stop admitting more and more international students and maximising profit, as it creates overcrowding (UG 8) and drowns out student voices. Aside from overcrowding, one student thought that university systems were inflexible, and that some of us … may want to transfer to other degree courses. But we don’t even have the option (UG 8). From these responses, a clear pattern emerges that students want the space to have their voices heard on campus, and want the training required to help them manifest their potential in the working world. This finding is echoed by an investigation of Chinese students based at higher education institutions in the USA, who asked for improved international student services, as well as more academic support (Heng, 2017). The views of the postgraduate student interviewed for the project closely align with those of the undergraduate students. For example, digital capabilities were a key issue, particularly with focus on uploading documents to the virtual learning environment. Building on from discussions over language barriers, the postgraduate student said, sometimes, I can’t understand these words or sentences very well (PG student). To help support these students, the student felt it would be more helpful if our lecturers can give us more definitions, more details about the key points on the slides (PG student). The same student also identified issues with inconsistent recording of lectures, as some Chinese students may have language problems, so having a chance to relisten to the lectures will help them in their studies (PG student). Lastly, the postgraduate student shared concerns over the treatment of Chinese students. In this case, the student suggested aspects in which individual departments can help Chinese students. These ranged from social activities, helping students connect and engage with each other, and by organising some activities to make Chinese students know more about each other (PG student). At the same time, this student also recognised that study is your own responsibility while stating that it would be helpful if departments could organise group to make students familiar with each other (PG student). The student also believed that students would do better if

8  PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING EXCELLENCE AND SATISFACTION… 

139

departments gave them more resources about the previous exam papers (PG student). The current resources available were from the last year or two years before, three years before, and were not felt to be sufficient (PG student). Here we can see an obvious overlap between the experiences of undergraduate students and the postgraduate student. From these experiences, we can also see how students think the University should be meeting their expectations for teaching and learning. Overall, these findings present a common consensus that the University should do more to improve teaching and learning for a growing audience of international students.

Conclusions This study used focus groups to investigate how Chinese-educated students currently at the University of Surrey view (1) differences between higher education in the UK and China (2) teaching excellence and (2) ways to improve student satisfaction. Conclusions arising from the research are as follows: • Key challenges identified by students were associated with studying in English, transitioning to the more interactive teaching style favoured in the UK and becoming demotivated in the UK due to the lack of frequent academic checkpoints often found in the Chinese education system. A profitable avenue for future research may be to directly compare how international and UK/EU students perceive teaching excellence. • Key components of teaching excellence identified were teachers providing interesting, engaging and interactive lectures, and  offering good feedback that helped students to improve. • Recommendations to improve the satisfaction of Chinese-educated students are for lecturers and the University to implement uniform use of lecture-capture technologies, to provide international students with additional explanation and clarification of taught content, and to provide extra support in their efforts to find internships and jobs in the UK.

140 

X. ALI ET AL.

Appendix 1: Focus Group Questions Questions are split into overarching three research questions: (1) what are the differences between education in the UK and China? (2) what are the characteristics of teaching excellence at the University of Surrey? and (3) how can student satisfaction be improved at the University of Surrey? The list below is not exhaustive of the questions covered during the focus groups. The intention was not to use every individual question, but to prompt discussion amongst the students using selected questions. 1. What are the differences between education in the UK and China? • How would you characterise teaching in China? • How would you characterise it in Surrey? • So what are the big differences? • What are the most difficult aspects of making the transition? • Do you prefer education in the UK or education in China? • Why? 2. What are the characteristics of teaching excellence at the University of Surrey? • What was your motivation for moving to the UK to study? • What do you think it means if a lecturer or lecture is excellent? • Will a certain topic or lecturer demotivate you from attending lectures? • Do you like teachers who ask the students to discuss a topic during a class? • How does your level of English influence how you view teaching? • Does this impact upon the ways in which they engage in class or with Western students? • Is there effective support and guidance for your independent/ self-direct study? • Is it important for teachers to provide information about likely exam content? • How do you use feedback from assignments to improve your learning?

8  PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING EXCELLENCE AND SATISFACTION… 

141

• Do you get prompt and effective feedback on your work (including detailed comments)? • Do you understand how lecturers grade your work? 3. How can student satisfaction be improved at the University of Surrey? • What do you think individual lecturers can do to help Chinese students? • What do you think your Department could do to help Chinese students? • What do you think the University could do to help Chinese students? • How do you think lecture capture helps with your studies?

Appendix 2: Research Guide Discipline: Arts and social sciences—all the student volunteers who participated in the study came from different departments within the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Surrey. Research question(s): (1) What are the differences between higher education in the UK and China? (2) What are the characteristics of teaching excellence at a UK university? And (3) what can be done to improve student satisfaction at a UK university? Rationale: The Chinese student voice in exploring teaching excellence and satisfaction has been largely neglected in literature. For this reason, it was decided to focus on Chinese-educated students’ perspective on teaching excellence and satisfaction. Link between research question(s) and topic of excellence: The second research question specifically asked focus group participants to give opinions about their perspectives on teaching excellence. Methods: Focus groups, interviews, observation. Ethical considerations: The University of Surrey’s self-assessment for governance and ethics (SAGE) form was completed. Participants in the focus groups received an information sheet and gave informed consent. They were made aware that they could withdraw from the study at any time. In order to avoid possible feelings of coercion, the fourth author, a fellow student, conducted the focus group interviews.

142 

X. ALI ET AL.

Challenges: Difficulty in recruiting student volunteers to the focus groups. Solutions: The University of Surrey’s Chinese Society and Hong Kong Society was contacted to recruit student volunteers.

References Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. SAGE Publications. Carey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 274–279). Elsevier. Denson, N., Loveday, T., & Dalton, H. (2010). Student evaluation of courses: What predicts satisfaction? Higher Education Research & Development, 29(4), 339–356. Edström, K. (2008). Doing course evaluation as if learning matters most. Higher Education Research and Development, 27(2), 95–106. Heng, T. T. (2017). Voices of Chinese international students in USA colleges: ‘I want to tell them that …. Studies in Higher Education, 42(5), 833–850. Ho, R. (2010). Assessment of Chinese students’ experience with foreign faculty: A case study from a Chinese university. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 21(3), 156–177. Holmes, P. (2005). Ethnic Chinese students’ communication with cultural others in a New Zealand university. Communication Education, 54(4), 289–311. Jiang, L., & Kosar Altinyelken, H. (2020). The pedagogy of studying abroad: A case study of Chinese students in the Netherlands. European Journal of Higher Education, 10(2), 202–216. Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 253–388. Prest, K. (2017). What affects Chinese students’ satisfaction with UK TNE programmes? British Council—International Education Services. https:// education-­services.britishcouncil.org/insights-­blog/what-­affects-­chinese-­ students’-­satisfaction-­uk-­tne-­programmes Schiekirka, S., Reinhardt, D., Heim, S., Fabry, G., Pukrop, T., Anders, S., & Raupach, T. (2012). Student perceptions of evaluation in undergraduate medical education: A qualitative study from one medical school. BMC Medical Education, 12(45), 1–7. Stopher, P. (2012). Collecting, managing, and assessing data using sample surveys. Cambridge University Press.

8  PERCEPTIONS OF TEACHING EXCELLENCE AND SATISFACTION… 

143

THE. (2015). NSS results unrelated to teaching quality, study claims. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/nss-­results­unrelated-­teaching-­quality-­study-­claims UKCISA. (2018). International student statistics. UK Council for International Student Affairs. https://www.ukcisa.org.uk/Research%2D%2DPolicy/ Statistics/International-­student-­statistics-­UK-­higher-­education University of Surrey. (2020). Student numbers. https://www.surrey.ac.uk/about/ facts/student-­numbers Wachtel, H.  K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191–212.

CHAPTER 9

International Student Collaborations to Achieve Teaching Excellence in Higher Education Ramsha Saleem, Alireza Behnejad, Nayar Cuitláhuac, and Armin Mottaghi Rad

Introduction The Design, Assemble and Dismantle (DAD) project is a two-phase hands-on scheme developed by Alireza Behnejad at the University of Surrey in 2014 suitable for civil engineering and architecture students. Phase one of the project sees the students in groups design a full-scale steel spatial structure and prepare all the necessary documents for assembly, R. Saleem • A. Behnejad (*) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] N. Cuitláhuac Department of Habitat and Urban Development, ITESO, Tlaquepaque, Mexico A. Mottaghi Rad Department of Architecture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_9

145

146 

R. SALEEM ET AL.

including technical drawings, a list of requirements, method statements and risk assessment. In the second phase, each group is given a set of documents prepared by another group during phase one to assemble and dismantle the designed structure within a two-hour time limit (Behnejad, 2016). The project incorporates international collaboration between first-­ year civil engineering students at the University of Surrey and civil engineering and architecture students in the 7th and 8th semester of their degrees at ITESO University (Mexico) with architecture students at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (Iran). This chapter will provide an insight to the DAD Project, particularly, the benefits and challenges of the international collaborations to achieve teaching excellence. Considering the key role of the students in such collaborations, Ramsha Saleem (the first author) narrates her own experience of leading a group of first-year students at the University of Surrey in collaboration with a group of students from the University of Ferdowsi in the DAD Project 2018. Additionally, Ramsha has interviewed the lecturers from all three universities (co-authors of the present chapter) to gather their opinions about the international collaborations in the DAD Project.

Literature Review Teaching excellence within the discipline of Civil Engineering is deemed difficult to measure and define using one standard, rather it is thought to be composed of a broad array of components such as student engagement, student satisfaction, professional development, “good teaching” consisting of effective technical or practical training and critical feedback to students (Abbas et al., 2016). Some of these components are measurable in the short term, however, others need to be measured in the longer term. There is a shift occurring in how vocational courses such as Civil Engineering should be delivered. Traditional formats of pedagogic approaches in which discussion precedes the practical application of knowledge through didactic-based lectures, are increasingly being perceived as an ineffective way to ensure students become “first and foremost, engineers” as opposed to “white coat scientists” (Abbas et al., 2016). The student-led hands-on approach adopted within the DAD Project is in line with the theory that any successful engineering programme must contain hands-on activities, interdisciplinary activities to equip its students with problem-solving tools and real-life engineering experiences (Brogue et al., 2013).

9  INTERNATIONAL STUDENT COLLABORATIONS TO ACHIEVE TEACHING… 

147

The delivery approach employed by the lecturers in the DAD Project gives students the freedom to not only become critical thinkers who are confident to express themselves and make educated and informed decisions within the academic realm, but also instils within them the ability to become critical beings in the world (Barnett, 1997; Freire, 2003). The professional development from the international collaborations is consistent with Nixon’s (2007) definition of teaching excellence as a “process of growth,” but what makes it unique is that this process of growth extends to both students and lecturers. The following autoethnography written by Ramsha Saleem, a student participant in the DAD Project in 2018, embodies the organic concept of teaching excellence through developing a mindset of self-reflection, critique and independent learning to create engineers and not just white coat scientists.

Methodology I am a third-year civil engineering undergraduate student at the University of Surrey. I was one of the student group managers in the DAD Project in 2018. Over the course of the past few months, I conducted interviews with the three lecturers responsible for delivering the DAD Project across the three universities: Alireza Behnejad from the University of Surrey, UK; Nayar Cuitláhuac from ITESO University, Mexico; and Armin Mottaghi Rad from the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. The discussions were both thought-provoking and eye-opening; they allowed me to appreciate the project and collaborations from both a lecturer’s and a professional’s perspective and not just that of a student. Over the subsequent months I studied the three discussions and brought them together to compose a thorough and all-encompassing analysis of how the international collaborations enable progression in teaching excellence, particularly within the discipline of Civil Engineering. The present chapter is mainly formed based on the observation and self-­ reflection of both students and lecturers involved in the international collaborations on the DAD Project.

148 

R. SALEEM ET AL.

Discussion During the DAD Project in 2018, I was in a group of eight civil engineering students. All groups from the University of Surrey had between five and eight students, all in the first year of their degree. There were eight groups from the University of Surrey, two groups from the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad and one group from ITESO University in collaboration. Most of the groups from the University of Surrey collaborated with each other—only three groups worked with international students. All groups were given four weeks to prepare a design of a structure using small-scale magnetic kits. We first had a practical session where we got the chance to build our own small-scale model whilst using the full-­ scale steel kit to explore its buildability and amend the small-scale model further. We then had to prepare sketches, a list of requirements, method statements and risk assessments based on our design. Upon completion of this first phase, my group sent over our design documents to the Iranian team and in turn, received the documents for their design. In phase two, we had another practical session where we were able to build the Iranian team’s small-scale model using the full-scale steel kit to explore the clarity of the documents and the design’s constructability. This was followed by a brief period in which we were able to provide comments on their documents and receive the amended versions from the Iranian team, as well as receiving comments on the design documents we had sent over which we then amended accordingly. On the assembly day, my team and I had a two-hour time frame to both assemble and dismantle the full-scale spatial structure ensuring that all health and safety regulations were followed throughout the process. The project culminated in a session whereby every group presented a short video they made during the project, documenting each stage. The DAD Project was a steep learning curve for both myself and many other students in my cohort. When we started the project most of us had no real sense of full-scale construction, but within a few months, we had designed a full-scale spatial model that was assembled in another country and in turn, assembled one designed for us by another group. This was the closest I had felt to working as a civil engineer at that point in my life. The project demanded student engagement through teamwork, critical thinking and the development of a holistic viewpoint. Over the course of the project, we faced academic and interpersonal challenges. My role involved managing a large team, communicating effectively with all of the team

9  INTERNATIONAL STUDENT COLLABORATIONS TO ACHIEVE TEACHING… 

149

members, organising meetings, delegating work and ensuring that all components were ready for submission by the various deadlines. Creating a conceptual small-scale design required a new level of creativity and ingenuity for most of us. The assembly of the full-scale model itself required a greater level of cooperation between team members and the ability to deal with unexpected problems on the construction day. One aspect that made this collaboration easier for my group was that the Iranian teams were also using similar steel kits to the groups in the UK. The group working in collaboration with the Mexican team had to encounter all of the challenges we did in addition to understanding and designing a structure using a material that was completely new for them, namely, structural bamboo (Fig. 9.1). To overcome this challenge, the UK group in this collaboration attended a 7-hour desk-based training course run by Arup, an international consulting engineer company in London. The course was entitled “Using Bamboo for Construction in Humanitarian and Developmental Contexts” and it allowed the participants to fully appreciate the constructability and workability of bamboo.

Fig. 9.1  Students at ITESO University after the assembly of their full-scale spatial model bamboo shelter designed by Surrey students (2019)

150 

R. SALEEM ET AL.

Architects vs Engineers “ Architects and Engineers Do Not Share a Common Language” My team was collaborating with a group of architecture students at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. The experience of working with students from a different but related discipline allowed me to appreciate and understand the differences in our approaches and delivery of the task. Amongst the feedback my group provided on the design documents from Iran was the need to clarify required kit elements, assembly steps and the number of people needed in each step of construction, as well as the need to provide detailed sketches and the dimensions of their proposed structure. In comparison, groups of civil engineering students collaborating with each other found it easier to communicate during this stage of the project. Nayar Cuitláhuac (Author 3) also reflected on how the multidisciplinary nature of the project impacted students participating in this international collaboration at ITESO University since they were from both architecture and civil engineering disciplines. According to Dr. Cuitláhuac, the skills displayed by these students are quite different; “architects and engineers do not share a common language. Architects tend to be leaders in the project who organise the work while engineers take on a more executive role, they carry out the calculations and assess the buildability of the structure.” Meneghetti et  al. (2019) also argue that this experience mirrors the construction industry to some extent, where engineers and architects bring different perceptions and approaches. The former approaches structural issues within an analytical procedure and the latter considers the beauty of construction, how the construction lives and how it supports gravity or other loads. In order for a project to be successful however, the two experts must come together and learn how to communicate with each other collaboratively. Thus, the DAD Project facilitates such communications at an early stage of higher education. Communication in International Collaborations “ The Barrier of Communication Prevents the Exploitation of Knowledge” Collaborating with an Iranian team added another level of challenge for my group during the project because it required the management of

9  INTERNATIONAL STUDENT COLLABORATIONS TO ACHIEVE TEACHING… 

151

linguistic, cultural and time zone differences, through which our professional skills were greatly developed. Alireza Behnejad (Author 2) believes that those participants who collaborated internationally had to further develop their problem-solving skills and adapt to different ways of working. This was not the case for other groups because “without international collaboration, the question is clearer for the students and they can focus on finding solutions. But with the international collaborations, there are more open-ended questions presented to the students to tackle and so it’s more challenging. Problem-­ solving is key for teaching excellence in engineering.” Achieving effective communication was acknowledged by Dr. Behnejad to be a challenge presented to most students participating in the international collaborations because “if you can’t make your points clear to the other team, it might take longer to get an answer. So, it is important to realise how to communicate effectively and make it completely clear to the other team why something is important to you, why you are collecting the information, why you are trying to spend time and resources to find the solution for a particular situation.” As a student, a key lesson I learnt during the conceptual design stage was to find the balance between being creative with our design and knowing that we would then need to communicate our vision with the Iranian group. This was mirrored in the key takeaways for the students at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad where Armin Mottaghi Rad (Author 4) believes that “the two main challenges were communicating in another language and preparing documents in accordance with international rules. Culture and location differences such as facilities, weather and the placement of the project arose as challenges at later stages in the project. Communication was the first hurdle.” This experience mirrors that of the Mexican students—Nayar Cuitláhuac expressed that the skills learnt by his students “were more in the sense and level of communication, how to manage it at the level of technical drawings and health and safety as well as cultural aspects. It allowed students to develop creativity and idea generation in a way that would also create a buildable and practical structure.” Ultimately, all the students participating in international collaboration learnt very quickly that the more complicated a design structure was, the more difficulties there would be in communicating that design to a team across the globe. The DAD Project enhanced communication between all groups. As Dr. Cuitláhuac explains, it “gave us a method of how to articulate a concept

152 

R. SALEEM ET AL.

correctly in order to express it effectively and allow somebody to build it. I think that now I can explain to the students the importance of correctly communicating anything technically not just in drawing and writing. Speaking is very important. The barrier of communication prevents the exploitation of knowledge.” Nayar adds that “as today’s world is based on digital revolution and global villages, communication, and particularly international communication, is very important and this project allows students to experience just how important this is.” Time Management Difficulties “ International Collaboration Is Time-Consuming, and It Is Difficult” Another challenge faced over the course of the project was time management. The UK groups collaborating with each other had a few hours per week to discuss and share their ideas informally but those collaborating with international students didn’t have this opportunity. This meant that those groups had to agree beforehand and set aside time to communicate with each other. Another aspect of time management which presented a challenge for students across the three universities was the need to balance this project, spanning over the course of a few months, alongside other assessments and tasks. This was a bigger challenge at ITESO University as the additional requirement for the students on the architecture course is to design and build a shelter after an earthquake or hurricane. According to their lecturer “it is challenging to fit the DAD project in the timing of the course, it is time-consuming, and it is difficult. They have to work on this for over a month and it’s challenging because they have to manage another project simultaneously.” Dr. Cuitláhuac (Author 3) also sheds light on a further challenge faced by the students at ITESO University: “My students tend to minimise the task and view it as a simple academic exercise but during the course of this project they realised it has to be very organised and they have to fulfil the expectations of another institution/client, which allows them to overcome this challenge and put a great effort in the structures.” Once the students were able to approach the project as a professional exercise and not simply an academic one, Author 3 believes that it awoke a level of student engagement and instilled a level of commitment within them that he hasn’t seen other modules do; “they don’t get very committed to other

9  INTERNATIONAL STUDENT COLLABORATIONS TO ACHIEVE TEACHING… 

153

activities in the course- they take it as an academic issue, not a professional one.” Armin Mottaghi Rad (Author 4) also agrees that through this project the students were able to “undergo a series of challenges very similar to real challenges they will face in the industry which instils within them an enhanced level of responsibility and awareness.” Socio-Economic Differences “ There Is a Socio-Economic Preconception in International Collaborations” Another challenge for the students participating in the international collaboration was the perceived and actual socio-economic differences between them. At ITESO University for example, Dr. Cuitláhuac observes that sometimes there is an inferiority complex in the students and in order to counter this, he had to speak to his students before the collaboration. He thinks that “there is a socio-economic preconception” which stems from both cultural and economic differences between his students and those from the UK team. But the problem is not just in the mindset of the Mexican students. As Nayar recalls, he had “read some comments from University of Surrey students in which they believed that they are helping to improve the education of engineers in Mexico through taking part in this project, which is correct to some extent, but it reflects that they feel superior.” This experience highlights the need to overcome cultural and economic differences which can hinder the mindset of students and create divides. Health and Safety Considerations “ Safety Requirements for a Project Is Not the Same in Different Countries” During the design stage of the project, it was essential for our group to consider the potential health and safety hazards that the Iranian students might encounter in the assembly and dismantling of our full-scale spatial structure. We had to consider the site location and area restrictions within which the assembly would take place, as well as weather conditions on the day of assembly, and design the structure in a way that would minimise the potential risks to health and safety.

154 

R. SALEEM ET AL.

Deeming health and safety a fundamental consideration placed restrictions on certain aspects of the design, such as the height of the structure. For example, the initial rendition of the design my team received from the Iranian group required the use of ladders, but we deemed this an unmanageable risk and requested the design to be amended accordingly. Furthermore, in the list of required Personal Protection Equipment (PPE), the Iranian team did not highlight in their documents the need for goggles whilst assembling the structure which was deemed a necessity in case of flying projectiles (i.e. nuts or washers). What became apparent to all the groups taking part in international collaborations at this stage was the difference between health and safety regulations in each country and the attitudes towards health and safety of students from different countries. As reiterated by Dr. Behnejad (Author 2), students in the UK had to comply with strict health and safety protocols and this is more widely reflected in the engineering and construction industry. This contrasted with the way in which students from Mexico and Iran worked and their more relaxed practices reflected the wider legal and social attitudes towards health and safety in their countries. According to Author 2, the project brought an interesting dynamic that “on the one hand, students need to do the assembly in their own country, on the other hand, they need to propose a design suitable for the other country, so they need to understand the situation in both countries.” This demanded that students collaborating internationally consider, for the first time in their careers, health and safety in a broader, global manner. The comparisons drawn by Dr. Cuitláhuac (Author 3) towards how health and safety is viewed in his country is humbling: “In historic terms, I think that Mexicans don’t value the life of a worker, and sometimes they think they are cheap in the whole sense of their worth. To see students at the University of Surrey caring about this activity of managing health and safety reiterates that all of it is important, not just when a worker sues, for example. It is important to take care of the workers. To see that even in an academic context, it was quite shocking to watch Surrey students equipped in their full PPE only to build a spatial structure.” The problem with health and safety considerations is not just limited to the students. Author 3 explains that it extends to the teaching bodies who also overlook key aspects and through the project, he has learnt some important lessons too:

9  INTERNATIONAL STUDENT COLLABORATIONS TO ACHIEVE TEACHING… 

155

I have realised it is important to teach students to take care of themselves and the ones who work with them. It has changed me in that sense. Some exercises I used to conduct similar to this with my students were risky, but I wasn’t conscious of the risks. It was a simple exercise and now I see other professors conducting these kinds of exercises and I am worried about safety issues and wonder how they can do this with the students but in a better way. I can see how others are taking unnecessary risks, but I am one and many professors are doing these activities and putting themselves and students at risk.

Mr. Mottaghi Rad (Author 4) also believes that one of the key lessons, both for himself and his students, was “the importance of health and safety and the effective implementation of it in everything we do, which is sadly not reflected in many of the practices adopted in Iran”. The lecturers from both Mexico and Iran (Author 3 and Author 4) realised how the project forced them as well as their students to reflect on and challenge their nation’s attitudes towards health and safety. This brings another level of professional development which the international collaborations of the DAD Project nurture. International collaborations encourage personal and professional development within teams and across them. But it goes further than that—this project has encouraged reflection amongst participants of those aspects of society which need to be improved and changed. Perhaps this is a further aspect of teaching excellence that the DAD Project can encourage over time—the development of health and safety approaches amongst academics who are teaching students. This would ensure that when these students go on to become professionals, their attitudes towards this crucial area in Civil Engineering have already been transformed and are then transformative to the societies they go on to serve. Professional Development of Lecturers “ When You Try to Educate Your Students, You Are Trying to Change Yourself at the Same Time” It was during my year long industrial placement at a civil engineering consultancy in London that I was able to truly appreciate the professional development that the DAD Project initiated within myself and other students. The project incorporated real-life problems and experiences in a controlled environment to prepare us for our professional careers. During

156 

R. SALEEM ET AL.

the DAD Project, we were exposed to the processes adopted in both the consultancy and contracting sides of a project and this rare insight was invaluable. Thus, I was curious to explore whether the DAD Project had been as useful for the lecturers delivering it as it had been for the students participating. I wanted to understand whether they felt it had benefitted their own professional development and whether it had changed their approach to the other modules they delivered. Dr. Cuitláhuac (Author 3) highlighted the similarities in the key lessons learnt by both students and the lecturer delivering the project: I think that the same skills and competencies that I am trying to develop in my students with regards to critical thinking, creativity, and self-directed learning are also developing in me. In an academic process such as this, if you want your students to develop something and you do not have it, it is an incongruency. It is a learning process for myself and my students—if you try to change your students, you are trying to change yourself at the same time.

This development is mirrored in that made by Mr. Mottaghi Rad (Author 4) as a lecturer through his participation in the project: “I have been teaching using the active learning method adopted by the DAD Project for years and my understanding and appreciation of the health and safety considerations has enhanced. I have managed to use this improved understanding in other cases and subjects that I have taught.” This embodies Nixon’s (2007) definition of teaching excellence as discussed in the literature review section. It seems then that parallels can be drawn between the skills developed by students participating in the DAD Project and those developed by the lecturers delivering the module. Creativity, communication, time management, an understanding of the importance of health and safety and adaptability are required from both students and lecturers during this project and this presents unique difficulties for lecturers. Time management is particularly challenging as lecturers usually work around different timelines and semesters between the three universities. Dr. Behnejad (Author 2) explains how the three lecturers involved in the project had to overcome this by finding an appropriate time for all the collaborations as at some universities, students are starting the semester while at some they are coming to the end of their academic semester. He explains

9  INTERNATIONAL STUDENT COLLABORATIONS TO ACHIEVE TEACHING… 

157

that national holidays place limitations on the collaborations and it is challenging to find the right time for this project across the universities. Once a practical time frame is agreed, the next challenge that lecturers who deliver this module face, lies in modifying the assessment methods and syllabus across the three universities. Author 2 explains that “the learning outcome and assessment strategy might be different across the universities. It is therefore important for lecturers to keep in touch as each group of students needs to follow their own rules and regulations. This adds a further level of communication and collaboration required between lecturers.” During the project, one startling difference which became apparent was how this module was delivered in comparison with the others in the course. Author 2 and other facilitators at the University of Surrey did not play the role of lecturers as such but rather of educators. This allowed students to play a more active and independent role in the project rather than it being reduced to a passive experience. As Alireza Behnejad explains, the DAD Project requires a different form of teaching than other modules; it involves “setting the groundwork for students to experience instead of telling them  what to do. Helping them to learn instead of teaching them.” At ITESO University, Author 3 has a similar experience and tries to create a sense of distance between himself and his students as he believes that “this project is supposed to make students feel independent of a teacher. In my class, we are mentors, not teachers—we are supposed to give them the independence of formal academic standards by adopting the role of a professional assistant. Assessment and feedback are meant to be more formative and critical not in an academic sense but more in the professional sense.” For Author 2, the key takeaway from the international collaborations was the ability to adapt to different situations as an educator; “technically every time you repeat a project and solve problems you could apply the solution for the next round of project; however, due to the nature of this project you are dealing with different uncertainties and complex problems each time, so you are closely monitoring the situation and you need to be flexible enough to guide the students in the right way.” When assessing the significance of the DAD Project in contributing to teaching excellence, it seemed important to consider whether the lecturers involved had taken part in other similar projects and collaborations or whether the principles adopted in the DAD Project could be achieved in other forms. Author 2 confirmed that a similar project was introduced at

158 

R. SALEEM ET AL.

the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil on the design of spatial truss models in 2018–19 (Meneghetti et al., 2019). The DAD Project, therefore, stands as a unique concept for Alireza Behnejad (Author 2): “the scalability of the whole project is quite interesting, whatever you do as an educator is in relation to the arrangement of your students but in this collaboration, you are influencing students in another country, and this could be scalable as there is almost no limit to the number of institutions getting involved.” For Author 2, the initiative has made it easier for him to approach academics from other institutions and suggest similar collaborations: “this experience makes me confident. Seeing the benefits it has had on students and the long term joys and successes it has brought them has shown me that you can do this sort of activity successfully. By accepting the challenges it brings as an educator and helping your students find appropriate solutions, you can ultimately help them in their development.” For Alireza, the DAD Project exemplified the benefits of supporting other educators and helping them to establish new and evolving approaches to teaching and learning: “the international collaboration of the DAD Project was proof of the success of international collaboration on something practical and hands-on that can be established across other countries.” In other positive developments, Author 4 expressed that “the active learning method adopted in the DAD Project has been of interest to many of my colleagues at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.” Both Author 3 and Author 4 have not taken part in any projects or collaborations similar to the DAD Project, however, they are keen to extend it. In the case of ITESO University, this has been so that both cohorts in a year can partake in the international collaboration. It is important to note that the flexibility and nature of the DAD Project means that any institution can modify the programme based on their needs since the whole idea of designing something small scale and then realising the structure in full-scale is universal, Fig. 9.2.

Conclusions As Author 2 says, “the whole of the DAD Project is a process-based scheme, no product is produced at the end, whatever you assemble you will dismantle. Whatever you learn is experience-based.” Author 4 takes this forward to describe the DAD Project as “a simulation of the real life designing and building process in the world of professional work, which

9  INTERNATIONAL STUDENT COLLABORATIONS TO ACHIEVE TEACHING… 

159

Fig. 9.2  The small-scale model vs the full-scale spatial structure

allows students to go through a series of challenges very similar to real challenges they will face in the future.” The benefits and lessons learnt from participating in the DAD Project are therefore not ones that are limited to technical and practical knowledge and skills, but also include interpersonal skills that allow for the development of the person. Author 3 explains that students at ITESO University also benefitted in a similar way and those who took part in the international collaboration won design prizes in national competitions designing bamboo shelters because “they became independent and gained superior creativity and communication skills.”

160 

R. SALEEM ET AL.

The DAD Project undergoes continual review and modification not only to uphold the contribution it has towards achieving teaching excellence in higher education but also to improve and extend the experience. It thus embodies the philosophy that “excellence is a process of growth, development and flourishing; it is not just an endpoint” (Nixon, 2007). Since 2019, the project has been developed even further so that all groups at the University of Surrey took part in international collaborations. In 2020, two groups from ITESO University have been introduced into the project; one group is collaborating with a group at the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, whilst the other is collaborating with a group at the University of Surrey. Finally, the University of Surrey has started to establish connections with the University Malaysia Pahang after one of the PhD students who was supervising the assembly of the DAD Project at the University of Surrey took up the role of a lecturer there. The collaboration thus far has involved the manufacture of a steel kit like the kit employed at the University of Surrey and the Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, so that the DAD Project can be run at the University Malaysia Pahang next year. The definition of teaching excellence in higher education is interlinked with social and technological changes that shape and influence how students are taught. Looking back at my first couple of years at university, the DAD Project is perhaps the only examined module which had the most simulating problem-solving approach aimed at mirroring real-world experiences. What comes to mind when I look back on it are the group meetings spent trying to configure a design, the practice sessions spent trying to assemble the full-scale spatial structure and the feeling of satisfaction when the design worked and finally, the day of the assembly where we were able to build a structure designed for us by a team half way across the world and see our design being built by them. I recall the difficulties experienced in team working, communication and time management and I can appreciate the sheer personal and professional growth I experienced during those few months.

Research Guide Discipline: Civil engineering and architecture. Research question(s): What are the benefits and challenges on student international collaborations? Would such collaborations help to achieve teaching excellence?

9  INTERNATIONAL STUDENT COLLABORATIONS TO ACHIEVE TEACHING… 

161

Rationale for research question(s): The authors have been involved in a particular international educational collaboration in the past few years. They have reflected on this collaboration based on self-assessment and observation of the project during the years. It’s been important to evaluate this from the point of view of both, academics and student participants. Also, the links between the identified benefits and the topic of excellence would justify the required effort to further develop international educational collaborations. Link between research question(s) and topic of excellence: Establishment of international student collaboration requires considerable effort including time and regular communications of the academics. This research shows that the benefits of such collaborations are in line with the characteristics of teaching excellence identified by other researchers. Methods: (focus groups, interviews, observation) Self-reflection and observation. Also, the student (first author) interviewed the academics (co-authors). Rationale for methods: The research team was keen to study the subject from the point of view of both students and academics. The first author had personal experience of participating in this international educational collaboration. Therefore, she could reflect on her own experience and evaluate the project after a couple of years of her participation. Also, she conducted interviews with the academics (co-authors) which equipped her with a good understanding about the academics’ point of view. Therefore, she could play a key role in this research and become the narrator of the chapter. Ethical considerations: In line with the University policy on ethics. No human data involved. Potential challenges: Different working patterns of students and academics. Required time for research. Communication with co-authors from different countries. Strategies to overcome challenges: The student involved in this research has been working very professionally with considerable patience. Also, the academics did their best to support her throughout the research.

References Abbas, A., Abbas, J., Brayman, K., Brennan, J., & Gantogtokh, O. (2016). Teaching excellence in the disciplines. Higher Education Academy. https:// www.advance-­he.ac.uk/knowledge-­hub/teaching-­excellence-­disciplines

162 

R. SALEEM ET AL.

Barnett, R. (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Behnejad, S. A. (2016, June). Benefits of full-scale physical models in civil engineering education. Paper Presented at the 123rd Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education—ASEE, New Orleans, LA. Brogue, B., Shanahan, B., Marra, R. M., & Cady, E. T. (2013). Outcomes-based assessment: Driving outreach program effectiveness. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 13(1), 27–34. Freire, P. (2003). From pedagogy of the oppressed. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 57–68). Routledge. Meneghetti, L. C., Pauletti, R. M. O., & Bitencourt, L. A. G. (2019). An academic experiment on the design of spatial truss models and teamwork. Proceedings of IASS Annual Symposia, IASS 2019 Barcelona Symposium: Teaching and Education, 1–7. Nixon, J. (2007). Excellence and the good society. In A.  Skelton (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education: Improving knowledge and practice (pp. 15–31). Routledge.

CHAPTER 10

Co-Creating Teaching Excellence in Curriculum Design Through Leadership and Entrepreneurship Jashim Khan, Tang Yuqing, Yuan Yue, and Zhang Yuheng

Introduction The past few decades have witnessed a paradigm shift in the UK education sector, marketisation and student-centric orientation. Students became consumers, asking for a practical and ‘meaningful’ pursuit of knowledge (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2010). The marketisation of education was widely adopted in many nations such as the UK, New Zealand and Australia (Judson & Taylor, 2014). Prior to 1997, the UK Government subsidised higher education through taxpayer contributions (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 1997). Since then, the UK Government reformed higher education in the White Paper ‘The Future of Higher

J. Khan (*) • T. Yuqing • Y. Yue • Z. Yuheng Surrey International Institute, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_10

163

164 

J. KHAN ET AL.

Education’ in 2003, and subsequently, Higher Education Act in 2004. With marketisation incorporated to enhance productivity and efficiency, scholarship frameworks, such as The Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (TEF), were introduced for monitoring, recognising and encouraging teaching excellence in universities and colleges (Browne et al., 2010; Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, 2016). Marketisation brings competition, and institutions are competing to build reputations and improve student (customer) experience (Hewitt-­ Dundas & Roper, 2018). This new reality in the UK higher education sector encourages student-teacher partnership in learning activities. Innovative universities have sought to adopt peer evaluation, formative evaluation, active and collaborative learning and flipped classrooms (Santos et al., 2019). The primary teaching goal of these universities and colleges is to achieve excellence. The TEF framework encourages students to participate in meaningful learning experiences, such as being able to apply knowledge in practice, as part of a student-staff partnership. This was the approach adopted in the Surrey International Institute (SII). SII is a transnational institute run by Dongbei University of Finance and Economics (DUFE) and the University of Surrey, UK. In 2015, the lead faculty member in marketing convened the idea of a student-teacher partnership in SII which was approved by SII Learning and Teaching committee. This chapter highlights how students and teachers worked together on the LEAD (leadership, entrepreneurship, ability, development)  programme to partner with external organisations while completing formative assessments of modules taught in SII. The focus of this research is to display a formative map of a student-teacher partnership. This study gathered quantitative and qualitative data from the 2016 cohort, and data from the 2017, 2018 and 2019 cohorts of students who participated in LEAD-­ initiated formative learning projects. This research develops a framework to explain how a student-teacher partnership of learning activities can contribute to teaching excellence.

Context of This Study: The LEAD Initiative SII is a Sino-foreign Joint-Cooperative School run by Dongbei University of Finance and Economics (DUFE) and University of Surrey, UK.  The final two years of the curriculum are taught by University of Surrey academics from the UK campus and expatriate scholars based in China at SII. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Surrey leads Surrey’s JMC team. All programmes are audited by the British Quality Assurance Agency

10  CO-CREATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE IN CURRICULUM DESIGN… 

165

(QAA) and the Chinese Education Association for International Exchange (CEAIE) to ensure the way we manage and deliver the programmes meets international standards of excellence. The development of the LEAD initiative was organic, based on fulfilling student needs for learning and engagement in assessment. There are several structured approaches to co-creation of learning activities. The LEAD initiative loosely follows Bovill et  al.’s (2011) student as learner and teacher (SaLT) approach. This approach requires students to engage in reflective dialogue about their learning and teaching needs. Once the needs recognition part is completed, students record their weekly learning in a reflective portfolio. The teacher gauges student needs via informal personal tutoring at the beginning of the semester (and the beginning of the project) with external stakeholders. The assessment of LEAD is built around formative assessments during the academic semester. The student-­ teacher meetings take place outside of class times and are often via informal social media, such as WeChat, during consultation each week. At the end of the semester, students submit their formative assessment for examination as well as delivering the project work to an external organisation. This includes group presentations, development of interactive advertising and a written social media campaign.

Co-Creation Within the LEAD Initiative Student-teacher partnerships explore issues such as students as co-­ producers (Healey et al., 2014) and the role of new technology in engaging learners in knowledge creation (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008), as well as the nature of staff-student partnerships (Higher Education Academy, 2014). The value of a co-creation process for students and lecturers is seen in the interaction between all parties. Through this interaction teachers understand students’ needs and they efficiently manage curriculum design and learning procedures (Chung & McLarney, 2000). In this process, factors such as the role of participation, knowledge, shared information and the profile and activity of actors, determine the final outcome (Barile & Polese, 2010). The curriculum encourages active learners who reflect on their learning goals. The LEAD initiative influences students’ engagement with project work and creates employable graduates. Employability is viewed as the yardstick of students’ skills and grades. This current chapter demonstrates the effect of LEAD on student satisfaction by comparing the group who participated in LEAD-initiated activities with those who did not

166 

J. KHAN ET AL.

participate. The research model is set to test the influence of LEAD activities and the influence of the student-teacher partnership on student engagement. Hallett et al. (2018) maintain that co-creation is a transformative strategy contributing to student success (i.e. employability). For students, the LEAD programme represents a contribution to the evolution of community practice (Kinchin, 2016). Students can learn not only inside the classroom with the teacher but also outside with their engagement in the chosen external organisation. There are significant interactions between the teacher and students in the LEAD programme through formative assessments. LEAD requires students to engage in reflective dialogue about their learning and teaching needs. Once the needs recognition part is completed, students attend weekly meetings and write a weekly blog, and finally, they develop their portfolio. Through the informal personal tutoring at the beginning of the semester, and the allocation of external companies to groups, LEAD measures and gauges student success. After weekly student-teacher meetings which take place outside of the classroom, and some informal consultations via social media, students submit their assignments as the formative assessment of LEAD at the end of the semester. This chapter aims to highlight that co-creation of learning activities helps to develop students’ skills and knowledge through transformative experience and practice-based learning. These factors also result in greater student satisfaction with their course and better grades, which improves their future employability prospects.

Student-Teacher Partnership Engagement is a multi-dimensional psychological construct involving absorption (concentration and engrossment), dedication (challenge, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and a sense of significance) and vigour (energy and mental resilience) (Schaufeli et al., 2002). The importance of student engagement in learning activities is indisputable (Butt, 2014). First, learning quality is directly related to student engagement (Kuh, 2009). The teaching excellence framework (TEF) highlights student engagement as a way to guarantee high-quality learning (Currens, 2011). The cumulative skill sets gained in and outside of the classroom build and deploy a set of required skills. Through their engagement with learning tasks, students learn how to shoot advertisements and edit video and then

10  CO-CREATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE IN CURRICULUM DESIGN… 

167

acquire statistical software (i.e. SPSS) skills when they analyse research data. Co-creation of learning activities can positively influence student satisfaction (Maxwell-Stuart et  al., 2018). Undoubtedly, universities now make a concerted effort to research and investigate the factors influencing the factors that impact on student satisfaction. Studies have shown that when students and teachers are engaged together, they feel more confident and are more likely to have greater career satisfaction (Hamilton et al., 2019). LEAD uses the technique to assess students during personal tutoring at the beginning of a semester to identify specific strengths and weaknesses which are linked to the final outcome of practical work experience or employment.

The Current Study The aim of this research was to gain an in-depth understanding of how student-teacher partnerships of learning activities inside and outside the classroom result in enhanced student satisfaction and employment prospects. Specifically, it asks how students and teachers work together to co-­ create teaching excellence in the higher education sector. Student-Teacher Partnership and Engagement Boyd and Singer (2011) illustrate that partnership activities enable students to ask questions and then find the ways to answer those questions by themselves. Bens (2006) concurs that co-creation focuses on fostering skills and knowledge rather than ‘the results’. The LEAD programme fosters the learning of new skills and engagement in practice-based learning. Given this understanding we propose that: H1 There is a positive relationship between student-teacher partnership and student engagement. Outcome of Engagement Hughes et al. (2019) suggest co-creation contributes to the improvement of learning experience not only theoretically but also practically and could be applied to the workplace. Given the context above, we hypothesise that:

168 

J. KHAN ET AL.

H2 There is a positive relationship between student engagement and practice-­ based learning. According to Ahlfeldt et al. (2005), students’ engagement encourages the learning of new skills. Also, Healey et al. (2014) argue that by sharing new skills in learning communities, student engagement could be enhanced. In line with this reasoning, we propose that: H3 There is a positive relationship between student engagement and new skills acquisition. Student Satisfaction Studies have found that customers’ co-creation behaviours are related to their levels of loyalty and satisfaction (Vega-Vázquez et al., 2013). In this case, students are treated as consumers reporting on their ‘customer satisfaction’. It follows that, students’ satisfaction is positively linked with the course’s completion rate and also their GPA (Outcome Working Group, 2003). Their survey found that more highly satisfied students tend to have higher grades. Furthermore, Hallett et al. (2018) argue that co-creation is a transformative strategy contributing to student success (i.e. employability). By working in partnership to co-create teaching and learning, students’ employability is maximised (Jarvis et al., 2013). Given the context above, we propose that: H4 There is a positive relationship between student engagement and satisfaction. To ascertain the success of the LEAD programme, we assume that students who participated in LEAD may have higher grades and satisfaction with their taught module compared to the cohorts who did not participate. Therefore, we propose that: H5 Students’ grades and satisfaction with their modules will be greater for the cohorts who participated in LEAD compared to those who did not.

10  CO-CREATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE IN CURRICULUM DESIGN… 

169

Methodology The study was conducted as a sequential explanatory mixed method study (Mihas, 2019) consisting of a survey (face-to-face) followed by in-depth interviews. Quantitative and qualitative data were considered of equal importance. Quantitative Study Subset Participants The quantitative study involved a cross-sectional survey being administered to a cohort of students studying a dual-degree course offered by the University of Surrey in SII.  The screening question identified academic year of admission to SII. The study followed Hair et al.’s (2009) suggestion of non-probability criterion-based purposive sampling, because it allowed the researchers to intentionally select participants who have experience with the central phenomenon being explored. WeChat, a social media platform, collected the quantitative data with current and graduate students volunteering to take part in the study. In total, 178 students completed the online questionnaire. Participants in the quantitative study were aged between 18–22 years old; their gender was split between 38% male participants and 62% female. All participants were categorised into 2016, 2017 and 2018 cohorts. A large proportion  of students (45.5%) received marks above 70 out of 100. Procedure and Instruments The constructs examined in this study were measured using 5-point Likert scales, anchored from strongly disagree (scored as one) to strongly agree (scored as five). Questionnaire items were adopted to suit the purpose of this study, namely co-creation (Verleye, 2015), mastery of skills (Parente et  al., 2012), learning experience (Parente et  al., 2012; Gosenpud & Miesing, 1992), engagement (Hollebeek, 2011), practice-based learning (Xu, 2019) and satisfaction (Oliver, 1980). Student grades were actual grades recorded in the questionnaire. Employment after graduation was recorded as nominal data.

170 

J. KHAN ET AL.

S tatistical Analyses of the Quantitative Data Prior to conducting any type of analysis, we performed basic data screening activities to ensure the accuracy of data entry and normality of continuous variables. Missing data were replaced using the mean of the items from the subscale. The data were inspected for outliers, defined as values greater than 3.5 standard deviations from the sample mean for each variable. Partial least squares (PLS) testing of the research model was performed with SmartPLS (v.3.2.7) software (Ringle et  al., 2015). We conducted a bootstrapping procedure with replacement using 5000 subsamples to calculate the statistical significance of the parameter estimates. We utilised a one-way between-subjects ANOVA to test H5. Qualitative Study Subset For the interviews participants were recruited from the Surrey University International Student pool database. Posters and brochures were placed in the SII Alumni Newsletter, along with posters and brochures placed in the Alumni social media group. Ten students volunteered, and six students were subsequently interviewed. The in-depth interviews were transcribed and analysed by reading, annotating and identifying initial codes. Initial coding consisted of word identification and count, then a more focused clustering and comparison. Themes were then identified, classified, and summarised to address the similarity and dissimilarity between quantitative and qualitative findings. Individual perceptions were captured via three indicative questions after participants viewed their peers’ advertising performed as stimuli for discussion (see Appendix 1). The in-depth interview protocol consisted of indicative questions about student thinking, feeling and experience with LEAD. Indicative question about knowledge: Can you recall an incident where you experienced student-teacher partnership in learning via LEAD? Can you give an example of how you demonstrate drawing theoretical knowledge in reference to being part of the LEAD programme? Indicative question about capabilities: Can you recall how participation in the LEAD programme helped you develop your: general life skills (life skill, literacy skill, teamwork, presentation). Please give examples, transferable skills (skills that help you transition into and excel in a new role (time management, organisational skill, decision-making). Please give examples.

10  CO-CREATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE IN CURRICULUM DESIGN… 

171

Indicative question about learning excellence? In your view, how did LEAD influence your: (a) engagement in study; (b) grade; (c) satisfaction; (d) employability/ postgraduate study.

Results Reliabilities of scales were tested using Cronbach’s alpha analyses. In order to investigate convergent and discriminate validity, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) indexes were scrutinised. The AVE of each construct was larger than 0.5 and CR was larger than 0.7 (see Table  10.1). Thus, the analysis confirmed that the items measured the intended constructs and convergent validity was satisfied. The diagonal of Table 10.2 represents square root values greater than the inter-factor correlation, which suggests discriminant validity. We found support for H1, H2, H3 and H4. Similarly, we found support for H5 that skills, experience and practice-based learning are positively related to student satisfaction (Fig. 10.1). Table 10.1  Convergent validity indexes

Co-creation Engagement Skills Practice-based learning Satisfaction

α

CR

AVE

0.97 0.92 0.91 0.94 0.93

0.98 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.95

0.65 0.68 0.72 0.71 0.77

α, stands for Cronbach alpha; AVE, stands for average variance extracted; CR, stands for composite reliability

Table 10.2  Discriminant validity index

Engagement PBL Satisfaction Skills Co-creation

Engagement

PBL

Satisfaction

Skills

Co-creation

0.88 0.90 0.88 0.87 0.77

0.84 0.88 0.82 0.82

0.88 0.89 0.80

0.89 0.81

0.81

Note: Fornell-Larcker Criterion: Diagonal elements (Bold) are the square root of the variance shared between the constructs and their measures (AVE)

172 

J. KHAN ET AL.

Fig. 10.1  Direct relationships and Hypothesis Test

Success of the LEAD Programme One-way between-subjects ANOVAs were conducted to compare differences in student satisfaction and average grades between students who participated in the LEAD programme (2017 and 2018 cohorts) and those who did not participate (2016 cohort). There was a significant difference in average grades, F(2, 175)  =  9.2, p  =  0.001, and student satisfaction, F(2, 175)  =  14.2, p  =  0.001, between the two conditions. The results demonstrate that students who participated in LEAD showed greater satisfaction and scored higher grades in this programme than those who did not participate. The result provides support for H6. Students participating in LEAD programme enhanced their skills, knowledge and meaningful practice-based learning, demonstrated in their final grade.

Qualitative Findings Co-Creation and Engagement Both undergraduates and graduates highlighted that participation in LEAD enhanced their skills:

10  CO-CREATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE IN CURRICULUM DESIGN… 

173

Although I am studying finance in the UK, the presentation and teamwork skills are still useful and helpful. In Research in Marketing, we need to communicate with the business people to gain information for delivering our report, which enhanced my ability of communication. (Participant 4: 2017) Teamwork skill is often needed to ensure efficiency through division of labour. I am improving a lot in this area. For example, one of the assessment requirements is to take a promotional advertisement for the selected company. All team members met the CEO of the company and later discussed ideas with our teacher, assessed advertising requirement, and designed the story board. This task enhanced collaboration and teamwork. We were super engaged with creating advertising for the company. (Participant 4: 2017)

The expressions of interviewees are consistent with the results of the quantitative data which confirm that a strong positive relationship exists between co-creation and student engagement. The teacher created opportunities for shared expert knowledge which enhanced students’ authentic experience out of class. This finding supports the idea that students shift from merely accomplishing learning activities to developing an active awareness about what is possibly being learned in the co-creation partnership (Cook-Sather et al., 2014). Engagement, Skills, Experience and Practice-Based Learning The interview data revealed how the LEAD programme helped in discipline-­specific theoretical knowledge: I can remember we apply and practice the techniques of questionnaire design and data collection, and we used SPSS to analyse the customer data collected and delivered a report for better customer description and decision making. The knowledge of theories, I have learned in this course can be intensively connected with the real-life case. (Participant 2: 2018) At that time, we were able to collect lots of operational data from the company using the knowledge we gained from the LEAD participation. Simultaneously, as a marketing team to help the company make a promotion campaign, we made an advertising video to attract customers. (Participant 3: 2017)

174 

J. KHAN ET AL.

The finding is in line with previous research which highlights learners’ engagement in knowledge creation (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008). Interviewees also expressed their accomplishment in advancement through transformative experience in the LEAD programme: Participating in LEAD programme helped me to develop good time management skills which is super important for my following master study and future career. For example, I have learned how to avoid the underlying conflict of my schedule. (Participant 2: 2018) Cooperation with enterprises, as team leader, I participated in and produced a timeline to help us solve problems step by step and complete tasks. I think I have gained a lot in group work and improved my skills in various aspects, such as decision-making and time management. (Participant 1: 2018)

Our finding of transformative experiences focusing on out-of-class experiences complements research in this area (Cook-Sather et al., 2014). The present interviews indicate that LEAD creates opportunities to apply theory outside the classroom: By focusing on real business case, such as a product and service, we successfully connected knowledge with practice. Because we really thought about how to solve the business problem and which part of knowledge, we learned can be useful. (Participant 2: 2018)

The positive influence on students’ practice-based learning also corroborates the quantitative results. Our finding is in line with the view that co-creation can lead to a situation where both students and teachers can learn from each other and transform their practices (Antonacopoulou, 2010). The findings demonstrate that engaged students gain new skills, have positive experiences and learn how to apply theory to practice. Finally, a student-teacher partnership influences students’ grades and satisfaction with the programme. The interview results also highlight the relationship between student-­ teacher engagement, new skills, application and student grades. Students who were highly engaged in the courses received high marks in the module, and the subjective degree of satisfaction corresponded to their engagement level:

10  CO-CREATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE IN CURRICULUM DESIGN… 

175

Actively participated in the project, we got a great performance in the task and the company was also satisfied with the result. I also attained a great grade for this course. (Participant 3: student) … Participation and motivation make everyone willing to put more energy into the task, and this kind of participation also makes the knowledge learned well consolidated. (Participant 6: 2017) I am highly satisfied with Marketing Communication which was a course that could really solve some questions for real-life marketing issues. As for the first class I have learnt about marketing in college, I could utilize the theoretical ideas to implicate and further develop my interests in marketing. (Participant 3: 2016) I am satisfied. The Research in Marketing course brought me to the common sense needed to do the survey, such as the number of survey samples, the choice of quantitative and qualitative analysis. These have laid the foundation for my future thesis writing or group work and can also ensure the accuracy of the investigation and the resolution of corporate issues. (Participant 6: 2017)

Thakur (2019) supports the link between engagement and satisfaction. Participants from the current study thought that their new skill acquisition and application of learning experience better prepared them for further study and enhanced their employability: Research in Marketing (RIM) has provided a lot of help in my interview. In my interview for an internship, one of the tasks was a case study. A reform plan is given based on the described business conditions, some of which require research plans. RIM has provided me with ample knowledge, so that I can provide a very good solution from the design of the sample size or the choice of research methods, so that I can analyse the problem from a more academic professional perspective. I also received the appreciation of the interviewer and successfully passed the interview. (Participant 6: 2017)

Conclusion This research aimed to understand how co-creation activities in learning influence student engagement, and how this contributes to students’ satisfaction and employability skills. Through the co-creation activities of the

176 

J. KHAN ET AL.

LEAD programme, students directly communicate with corporations and provide solutions by using the theoretical knowledge learnt in class. This co-creation of learning was found to lead to greater student satisfaction, better grades and potential future employability prospects. Students involved in the LEAD programme believed that their skills, including communication skills, problem-solving skills and team work skills, were improved greatly by continuously communicating with team members, enterprises and teachers. Although this research reveals the positive influence of student-teacher co-creation through the LEAD programme, it is also subject to some limitations. The graduates before 2016 were difficult to contact and their non-participation in the qualitative part of the study is a limitation. The cohort before 2016 may have had difficulty recalling their memory of participating in LEAD.  Furthermore, the cohorts were unequal in size, and the variation in grades between different years may be influenced by other factors than the LEAD programme. The LEAD project also develops students’ soft skills of professionalism by requiring them to communicate with their chosen organisations. They develop a set of transferable skills that they can then apply in real-life organisational settings. Dealing with a company’s CEO boosts students’ confidence and they also learn to develop and find their own styles of communication via the practical experience. This initiative not only creates opportunities for students but also connects them to their chosen industry. Emerging research demonstrates that academic staff and students both receive significant benefits from working collaboratively on teaching activities (Nygaard et al., 2013). For example, key benefits for staff, students and institutions include enhanced engagement, motivation and learning, enhanced meta-cognitive awareness and a stronger sense of identity, enhanced teaching and classroom experiences, and an enhanced student-­ staff relationships and development of a range of graduate attributes (Cook-Sather et al., 2014).

10  CO-CREATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE IN CURRICULUM DESIGN… 



Appendix 1: LEAD Brochure

177

178 

J. KHAN ET AL.

Appendix 2: Research Guide Discipline: Business Management. Research question(s): How can student-teacher partnerships and co-­ creation of learning activities inside and outside the  classroom result in student satisfaction within a HEI (higher education institute) and employment after graduation? Rationale: The research adopts the theoretical lens of marketisation of higher education in the UK focusing on student satisfaction with HEIs and employment after graduation. Marketisation of education entails co-­ creation and student-teacher partnership of learning activities. Within this framework, the research showcases how students applied taught theories within their chosen industries. Link between research question(s) and topic of excellence: The research question posed in this book chapter measures the effectiveness of Leadership, Entrepreneurship, Ability, Development (LEAD) programme in Surrey International Institute (SII). The core area of assessment was to map students who participated in LEAD and those who did not on satisfaction, grades, employment and master’s experience. Methods: Qualitative and quantitative methods were utilised to triangulate data and enhance reliability of findings. Ethics: The research utilised self-assessment governance and ethics form (SAGE) checklist to assess ethical concerns of the research. Challenges: The potential challenge of this project was that the participating students were senior students and graduated soon after they finished the excellence book chapter. Solutions: To involve students who are studying in their 2nd or 3rd year of their bachelor’s degree.

References Ahlfeldt, S., Mehta, S., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Measurement and analysis of student engagement in university classes where varying levels of PBL methods of instruction are in use. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(1), 5–20. Antonacopoulou, E.  P. (2010). Making the business school more ‘critical’: Reflexive critique based on phronesis as a foundation for impact. British Journal of Management, 21, S6–S25. Barile, S., & Polese, F. (2010). Linking the viable system and many to many network approaches to service dominant logic and service science. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 2(1), 23–42.

10  CO-CREATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE IN CURRICULUM DESIGN… 

179

Bens, I. (2006). Facilitating to lead: Leadership strategies for a networked world. Jossey-Bass. Bovill, C., Cook‐Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co‐creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 16(2), 133–145. Boyd, D. C., & Singer, F. (2011). The meaning and evolution of teaching excellence: A radical case study from Radford University, Virginia. In I. Hay (Ed.), Inspiring academics: Learning with the world’s great university teachers. Open University Press. Browne, J., Barber, M., Coyle, D., Eastwood, D., King, J., Naik, R., & Sands, P. (2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education: An independent review of higher education funding & student finance. Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. Butt, A. (2014). Student views on the use of a flipped-classroom approach: Evidence from Australia. Business Education and Accreditation, 6, 33–43. Chung, E., & McLarney, C. (2000). The classroom as a service encounter: Suggestions for value creation. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(4), 484–500. Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. John Wiley & Sons. Currens, J.  B. (2011). How might the student voice affect transformation in higher education? In G. Czerniawski & W. Kidd (Eds.), The student voice handbook: Bridging the academic/practitioner divide (pp. 187–196). Emerald. Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (2016). Higher education: Success as a knowledge economy - white paper. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-­e ducation-­s uccess-­a s-­a -­k nowledge-­e conomy-­ white-­paper.pdf (Accessed 29 May 2021) Gosenpud, J., & Miesing, P. (1992). The relative influence of several factors on simulation performance. Simulation & Gaming, 23(3), 311–325. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall. Hallett, R., Tomlinson, C., & Procter, T. (2018). Setting up a special relationship: Students as co-creators of a research-based curriculum. Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, 4(1), 1–7. Hamilton, L. K., Boman, J., Rubin, H., & Sahota, B. K. (2019). Examining the impact of a university mentorship program on student outcomes. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 8(1), 19–36. Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Academy. Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2010). The globalization and marketization of higher education: Some insights from the standpoint of institutional theory. In F.  Maringe & N.  Foskett (Eds.), Globalization and internationalization in higher education. Continuum.

180 

J. KHAN ET AL.

Hewitt-Dundas, N., & Roper, S. (2018). Innovation in UK higher education: A panel data analysis of undergraduate degree programmes. Research Policy, 47(1), 121–138. Higher Education Academy. (2014). Framework for partnership in learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Academy. Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573. Hughes, A. L., Michener, C., Mohamed, K., & McDuff, N. (2019). Curriculum co-creation as a transformative strategy to address differential student outcomes: The example of Kingston University’s student curriculum consultant programme. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 12(1). Jarvis, J., Dickerson, C., & Stockwell, L. (2013). Staff–student partnership in practice in higher education: The impact on learning and teaching. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 220–225. Judson, K. M., & Taylor, S. A. (2014). Moving from marketization to marketing of higher education: The co-creation of value in higher education. Higher Education Studies, 4(1), 51–67. Kinchin, I. M. (2016). Visualising powerful knowledge to develop the expert student: A knowledge structures perspective on teaching and learning at university. Sense Publishers. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706. Maxwell-Stuart, R., Taheri, B., Paterson, A.  S., O’Gorman, K., & Jackson, W. (2018). Working together to increase student satisfaction: Exploring the effects of mode of study and fee status. Studies in Higher Education, 43(8), 1392–1404. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The three P’s of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization, participation and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10–27. Mihas, P. (2019). Qualitative data analysis. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford University Press. National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE). (1997). Higher education in the learning society. HMSO. Nygaard, N., Brand, S., Bartholomew, P., & Millard, L. (2013). Student engagement: Identity, motivation and community. Libri Publishing. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. Outcomes Working Group. (2003). Understanding student satisfaction (issue paper). BC College & Institute Student Outcomes, 3(1). Parente, D. H., Stephan, J. D., & Brown, R. C. (2012). Facilitating the acquisition of strategic skills: The role of traditional and soft managerial skills. Management Research Review, 35(11), 1004–1028.

10  CO-CREATING TEACHING EXCELLENCE IN CURRICULUM DESIGN… 

181

Ringle, C., Da Silva, D., & Bido, D. (2015). Structural Equation Modeling with the Smartpls. Brazilian Journal Of Marketing, 13(2), 56–73. Santos, J., Figueiredo, A. S., & Vieira, M. (2019). Innovative pedagogical practices in higher education: An integrative literature review. Nurse Education Today, 72, 12–17. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. Thakur, R. (2019). The moderating role of customer engagement experiences in customer satisfaction–loyalty relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 53(7), 1278–1310. Vega-Vázquez, M., Revilla-Camacho, M.  A., & Cossío-Silva, F.  J. (2013). The value co-creation process as a determinant of customer satisfaction. Management Decision, 51(10), 1945–1953. Verleye, K. (2015). The co-creation experience from the customer perspective: Its measurement and determinants. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 321–342. Xu, J. (2019). A practice-based study of Chinese students' learning—Putting things together. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 16(2), 1–16.

CHAPTER 11

Towards a Pedagogically Healthy University: The Essential Foundation for Excellence in Student-Staff Partnerships Ian M. Kinchin

Introduction If indeed universities are offering ‘research-led’ curricula, as often claimed, then undergraduate students should have some experience of research activities before they embark upon final-year projects, or even doctoral studies. If we do not offer these experiences to our students, we may be in danger of emulating the institution described by Dewey (1909, p. 248): I am told there is a swimming school in a certain city where youth are taught to swim without actually going into water, being repeatedly drilled in the various movements which are necessary for swimming. When one of the young men so trained was asked what he did when he got into water, he laconically replied, ‘Sunk’.

I. M. Kinchin (*) Surrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_11

183

184 

I. M. KINCHIN

The move towards a student-staff research partnership perspective in universities is an attempt to address this issue. However, it also offers a challenge to academics who tend to develop comfortable ways of working, to generate a sense of stability in an uncertain HE environment. The introduction of partnership models can present challenges to this stability. These include challenges to well-established practices and behaviours, as well as challenges to underpinning values that may be held by university teachers and which contribute to their professional identities. Such a counter-cultural challenge may be accepted or rejected by individuals, and this will impact upon the success of student-staff partnerships across a campus. In order to successfully accommodate partnership as a new way of working, an institution should already exhibit characteristics to support the academic resilience that would accompany institutional pedagogic health. Using the pedagogic frailty model as a theoretical frame, this chapter explores how explicit acknowledgement of the key concepts of recipience, exaptation and adaptive expertise (that may enhance academics’ engagement with a student-staff partnership approach) are introduced as concepts that may help academics to construct a sense of coherence about their practice, and support them to assimilate the partnership perspective within their professional activities (see Fig. 11.1). Viewing these concepts through a rhizomatic lens (sensu Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) will require a rethink of the way in which we consider ‘excellence’ in the context of student-staff partnership work—crucially, whether we see ‘excellence’ as a state of ‘being’ or a process of ‘becoming’.

Pedagogic Health The concept of pedagogic health (Kinchin, 2019a) has evolved from the model of pedagogic frailty (Kinchin & Winstone, 2017). To examine the pedagogic health of the university teaching environment, Kinchin and Winstone (2018) have explored the model of pedagogic frailty by investigating the range of views (both complementary and competing) held by academics across the spectrum of academic disciplines. This has been investigated through examination of the variety of academics’ perceptions of their relationship with four key dimensions of the teaching environment that are seen to impact on practice. These four dimensions are:

11  TOWARDS A PEDAGOGICALLY HEALTHY UNIVERSITY: THE ESSENTIAL… 

SUCCESSFUL PARTNERSHIP supported by an environment exhibiting

PEDAGOGIC HEALTH helps to generate a

needs to explicitly value

SENSE OF COHERENCE

across the

enhanced by an understanding of RECIPIENCE, EXAPTATION & ADAPTIVE EXPERTISE

needs to be built on

demonstrated by the actions of the INSTITUTION

can help to shape may contribute to the development of

may offer a new way to consider

may offer challenge to underpinning PROFESSIONAL VALUES

contribute to the construction of

185

in the context of may be influenced by adopting a

EXCELLENCE

may modify our view of

RHIZOMATIC PERSPECTIVE

may benefit from a

in terms of

with a focus on

ACADEMIC IDENTITIES as

BECOMING

Fig. 11.1  A concept map to show the relationship between the key ideas presented in this chapter

• The nature of the teaching discourse and whether it concentrates on the procedures and mechanisms that control teaching (the instructional discourse), or on the underpinning theories, values and beliefs that direct our personal, professional perspectives (the regulative discourse). • The degree of authenticity within teaching and assessment practices, and the alignment of the pedagogy with the practice of the discipline. • The nature of the research-teaching nexus and how this is made explicit in our teaching. • The degree to which teachers perceive their proximity to and influence on the decision-making processes and governance of teaching. Exploration of these dimensions has been undertaken through the application of concept mapping (Novak, 2010) to chart the connections between concepts within these knowledge structures (Kinchin & Winstone, 2017, 2018). This has identified a continuum between pedagogic frailty (the decline in adaptive capacity that results in an increased vulnerability to sudden adverse actions triggered by relatively minor stressor events,

186 

I. M. KINCHIN

leading to the inhibition of innovative teaching practice) and pedagogic resilience (the ability to positively manage complex adaptive systems in the face of adversity that may involve systemic transformation and bouncing forward to a better position than before). The model is used to describe the characteristics of the system (rather than of individuals within the system), with the aim of helping academics to develop a greater sense of coherence regarding the complex environment in which they work. Where the dimensions of the model (Fig. 11.2) are in tension, contributing to a limited sense of coherence, then I suggest that the added pressure of introducing student-staff partnership work may increase levels of uncertainty or discomfort about the authenticity of teaching or the nature of the research-teaching nexus, for example. If, however, there was a degree of balance across the dimensions of the model, then we would expect the system (Department or University) to exhibit sufficient resilience to be able to accommodate the perturbation caused by the introduction of partnership work. Unless there is some shared vision of the underpinning narrative of pedagogic health, then there are likely to be different (possibly competing) views about the nature and purpose of staff-student partnership work. In essence, what I am asking here is whether the teaching

on a continuum with

FRAILTY

PEDAGOGIC HEALTH

varies with degree of embeddedness between

varies with degree of explicitness and sharing of

REGULATIVE DISCOURSE

exhibits extremes of

Informs links between

PEDAGOGY AND DISCIPLINE

exhibits extremes of

RESILIENCE

varies with the level of unresolved tensions within the

requires iterative dialogue with

RESEARCH TEACHING NEXUS

varies with perceived distance to

must inform

requires agentic engagement with

Fig. 11.2  The model of pedagogic health (after Kinchin, 2019a)

LOCUS OF CONTROL

11  TOWARDS A PEDAGOGICALLY HEALTHY UNIVERSITY: THE ESSENTIAL… 

187

environment would be receptive to the idea of staff-student partnership, or if it would be seen as a distraction from the ‘day job’. There is, of course, a counter-argument that the introduction of partnership work may act as the catalyst to help increase pedagogic health in a system that is tending towards frailty, though this would require significant buy-in from the senior management to ensure its success (e.g. Gravett, Kinchin et al., 2020). The development of institutional pedagogic health is supported by the parallel development of the concepts of recipience, exaptation and adaptive expertise. These, in turn, are helpful in developing a perspective of research which, I suggest, may be helpful to scaffold the productive development of student-staff research partnerships.

Recipience The concept of recipience (Kinchin et al., 2020) is drawn from the literature on student feedback in which ‘proactive recipience’, is defined as ‘a form of agentic engagement that involves the learner sharing responsibility for making feedback processes effective’ (Winstone et al., 2017, p. 17). When explored further, the distinction between simplistic reception and this more agentic concept of recipience reveals many parallels to learning processes beyond the domain of feedback. Crucial to the concept of recipience is learner agency—requiring students to ask questions, actively seek feedback, interrogate the meaning of comments, deconstruct and reconstruct advice and the synthesis of multiple learning processes. In learning, it is not the passive reception of information that facilitates transformative learning, but processes of sense-making, deconstruction, reconstruction and synthesis with existing knowledge that facilitates such effects. For students and staff, their ‘home discipline’ provides a comforting array of language and concepts. It is from this background of prior knowledge and accumulated assets, that participants in partnership projects must draw their supporting knowledge and skills. A repurposing of these assets to help in pedagogic research is described as conceptual exaptation.

Exaptation There are often concepts from the practitioner’s own discipline that may confer a degree of pre-adaptation [or to use a more widely accepted term, exaptation] towards pedagogic change. The term exaptation was

188 

I. M. KINCHIN

originally coined to describe instances in evolutionary biology where useful attributes ‘did not arise as an adaptation for their present role, but were subsequently co-opted for their current function’ (Gould, 1991, p. 43). The concept of exaptation has been successfully translated into social systems (e.g. Larson et al., 2013; Bonifati, 2015) and in particular to the ways in which technologies have been co-opted for uses that were not originally intended. Garud et al. (2016) consider the human capability of inducing exaptation as a distinction from biological evolution, as humans have the power to attribute new functionalities to elements under their control. This may be supported by reflecting on teaching within our disciplines to ‘sensitize us to exaptive possibilities’ (Garud et al., 2016, p. 19). There are several published examples of exapted concepts that academics have employed to help them make sense of the university teaching environment. For example, within Chemistry, Gilmer (2002, p. 430) has utilised the concept of the triple point to good effect to help her to develop a greater sense of coherence about her conflicting roles as a teacher, researcher and administrator within the institution. She found that this provided her with a source of energy that she could tap into and empowered her ‘to be the person I want to be’. In Geography, Francis (Kinchin & Francis, 2017, p. 66) reflects on how his disciplinary background in ecology gave him ‘a predilection to examine a university department through the lens of system resilience, seeing the department as the functional unit rather than individual academics’. And within actor training, McNamara (2018) identifies the role of teacher-as-director as an emergent identity that has formed as part of an informal code of professionalism that aligns the teaching in the conservatoire with the demands of the industry. These are all examples where the academic has used their own terms of reference and technical terminology to make sense of the teaching environment.

Adaptive Expertise Whilst it clearly makes sense to have disciplinary experts teaching within universities, some attributes of expertise (particularly ‘routinised’ expertise) can create problems within the teaching arena. Many experts find it difficult to recall the novice state of mind they once held as students in order to pitch their teaching at the appropriate level for their own students (Fontaine, 2002). This teaching is all taking place in an education environment that appears to be in a constant state of flux. Bohle Carbonell et al. (2014, p. 26) have commented on how ‘The frequent changes in the

11  TOWARDS A PEDAGOGICALLY HEALTHY UNIVERSITY: THE ESSENTIAL… 

189

current work environment driven by task and knowledge volatility calls for experts who possess the required domain expertise and can quickly overcome changes. Such experts are known as possessing adaptive expertise’. This adaptive expertise, characterised by a willingness to learn and a flexible approach to teaching, is a fundamental pre-requisite for staff engaged in partnership work. An inflexible, fixed view of ‘how things are’ might work when the expert teacher is disseminating content to students, but it is not helpful in an environment trying to foster collaborative co-enquiry. Academics tend to separate teaching and research in their minds (e.g. Kinchin et al., 2009), so that the expert thinking that is evident in their research is not always seen as part of the teaching discourse. With disciplinary experts not always applying their notions of personal learning through their research to their students learning in the classroom, it can be difficult for students to develop the skill of thinking in the same ways that experts do. Within the partnership relationship, it may therefore be helpful to move away from the teaching-research binary and move towards a perspective of ‘different learners’ (i.e. the students and staff members are both learners, just operating at different levels with a focus on different personal objectives).

A Rhizomatic Perspective on Excellence In many of the projects we have undertaken as partnerships (see Gravett, Yakovchuk et al., 2020), the focus of the research has been on the pedagogy of the discipline rather than on disciplinary knowledge. As such, the projects often took the staff partners away from their disciplinary comfort zones, forcing them to use language and research methods with which they were not wholly familiar. And whereas curriculum knowledge is often ‘agreed’, pedagogic knowledge is often more contested, or ‘yet-to-be-­ known’ (Kinchin, 2020), and so exhibits a more fluid structure. This takes the staff away from their academic silos—where, for the purposes of pedagogically focused student partnership work, the traditional disciplinary structure might be seen as an impediment rather than an asset. This can be a source of anxiety for staff where (in partnership mode) they may feel like they have effectively been stripped of their expertise. This is no small issue, and one that must be taken seriously by anyone contemplating setting up a staff-student partnership programme. Implicit in the minds of most academics will be a tree of knowledge (Walker, 2014). Colleagues will talk about the roots of their discipline or

190 

I. M. KINCHIN

the various branches that subsequently divide their discipline (e.g. physical or human geography; organic or inorganic chemistry etc.). Such trees represent hierarchical, centred and unified ways of knowing that are always derived from a fixed point of origin. Such structures are restrictive and bounded, providing a tacit agreement on appropriate, disciplinary ways of thinking. As such, these structures may be helpful in delineating a community of practice. This traditional model of knowledge production has been challenged by Deleuze and Guattari (1987) who introduce the notion of the rhizome. Taken from the botanical analogy of the underground stem such as that found in the ginger plant, the application of the rhizome in higher education refers to systems or structures that are non-­ linear, a-centred, non-hierarchical, without a single general organising principle and that are continuously making new connections. Whilst a rhizomatic perspective on knowledge management may present challenges to the traditional university that may be viewed as centralised, linear, hierarchical and singular, it resonates closely with the ways in which academics depict their personal understanding of the dimensions of pedagogic frailty—as decentralised, non-linear and non-hierarchical (Kinchin, 2017). This contrast between tree-like (arborescent) and rhizomatic research cultures has been nicely summarised by Guerin (2013, p. 146): In a silo discipline, researchers could perhaps be characterized as experts in fields where the core content knowledge is agreed and known by other experts in the field; they deal with reliable content in predictable contexts; they might conceive of their work as separate from other disciplines, sometimes tending to work as lone researchers (particularly in the Humanities and Social Sciences). Clear and confident opinions can be expressed in this arboreal world where knowledge moves uni-directionally towards a single endpoint of truth. A researcher identity here inclines towards homogeneity and singularity in the quest for fixed, either/or answers to the field’s questions [see Table 11.1]. By contrast, those working in rhizomatic research cultures need to be in a state of constant learning, of being open to new knowledge, and capable of approaching unknown material. They are networked and connected to others, attuned to working in collaborative, collegial ways.

The notion of the rhizome presents an additional conceptual challenge to staff engaged in partnership work that reflects the need for adaptive expertise:

11  TOWARDS A PEDAGOGICALLY HEALTHY UNIVERSITY: THE ESSENTIAL… 

Table 11.1  A comparison of academic researcher identities: silo disciplines and rhizomatic research cultures (After Guerin, 2013)

191

Silo discipline

Rhizomatic research culture

Expert Core content that is known Predictable content Separate Lone researcher Clear opinions Confident Fixed, endpoint Homogeneous Singularity, either/or Telling

Always learning Open to new knowledge Unknown material Networked, connected Collaborative, collegial Tentative Modest Flexible, in between Heterogeneous Multiplicity, both/and (Actively) listening

deliberately designing pedagogy rhizomatically, as though the brain were a grass and not a tree, requires pedagogical mettle. Lacking the security of predetermined trajectories and known outcomes, one must operate with flexibility. (Walker, 2014, p. 355)

In this way we are challenged to ‘treat pedagogy as uncertain and heterogeneous assemblages – not as identifiable or prescribable events, and certainly not as the exclusive concern of a teacher’ (Fenwick & Landri, 2012, p. 5). Walker’s idea of ‘pedagogical mettle’ might be underpinned by a clear sense of coherence about teaching in a pedagogically healthy environment (Kinchin, 2019b). Another key concept within Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of the rhizome is that of ‘becoming’, where ‘becoming’ rather than ‘being’ is the final reality (May, 2003); the idea that one is always developing into something else. Whilst both partners (staff and student) are in a state of becoming, they are not becoming the same thing. The staff may be en route to becoming teachers (e.g. Strom & Martin, 2017) whilst students may be en route to becoming expert students (Kinchin, 2016). While these are not equal in terms of their aims and ambitions, they are parallel states of becoming, where the process of becoming is seen as more important than the product. I suggest, therefore, that ‘parallel states of becoming’ would be the best way to address the inevitable power inequalities that are often mentioned in the context of partnership (e.g. Murphy et al., 2017). While we can never argue for student-staff equality in being, we may offer a more persuasive argument for equality in becoming.

192 

I. M. KINCHIN

Disruptive concepts within a rhizome are described by Deleuze and Guattari (1987) as lines of flight. These are ideas that might destabilise the status quo and ask us to question our taken-for-granted assumptions. The juxtaposition of research and pedagogy may create such a disruptive concept in the minds of some academics where teaching can be viewed as something that one does for others while research can be viewed as a selfish activity undertaken for the development of one’s own status within the profession (Cleary, 2013). Others will see development of the relationship between teaching and research as a liberating move, freeing them from the constraints of the linear, taught curriculum. Wang (2015, p.  1551) has considered the Deleuzian conception of mapping in the context of the curriculum and how it should be approached by students as an invitation to ‘open themselves up and lose the way’ as opposed to tracing ‘a presupposed linear structure and objective model of the curriculum’. The former demands active engagement and entanglement with the learning process whereas the latter requires a more passive absorption of an externalised view of content. Wang (2015, p. 1557) offers three ideas for improving university curricula: 1. The curriculum should encourage learners to move outside the recitation of knowledge. 2. Students should be encouraged to view learning as a long-term process without termination. 3. The curriculum should encourage students to explore strangeness. These points can be addressed by learning in research partnership.

Revisiting Excellence The concept of ‘excellence’ in teaching is both contested and contentious. Within the considerable literature on the topic, and the policy guidelines that emerge from this, it is not always clear whether commentators are referring to a quest for the promotion and recognition of excellent classroom practice as an appreciative notion that would be recognised by students, or if they are referring to a disembodied concept of excellence used as a management short-hand for notions of accountability. Clearly many observers regard the discourse around teaching excellence with caution, where the Teaching Excellence Framework is seen ‘as an instrument for the entrenchment and amplification of neo-liberal market competition’

11  TOWARDS A PEDAGOGICALLY HEALTHY UNIVERSITY: THE ESSENTIAL… 

193

(Tomlinson et al., 2018, p. 1), by providing a ‘performative understanding of teaching excellence that presupposes excellence can be evidenced through standardised market-driven quantitative measures’ (Wood & Su, 2017, p. 454). In consequence, Saunders and Ramírez (2017, p. 405) see the hegemony of excellence as something to be avoided and argue that, ‘to engage with the emancipatory potential of post-secondary education necessarily requires us to resist commitment to excellence in teaching’. Wood and Su (2017, p.  452) raise the possibility of displacing ‘the dominant shallow polemics and “vacuity of excellence” with a more expansive view, one which sees academic practices of teaching, scholarly activity and research as inter-­ connected’. This ‘interconnectedness’ relates to the concept of pedagogic health, and the balance needed between the four dimensions of the model (Fig. 11.2). This is particularly the case for the dimensions of ‘pedagogy and discipline’ and ‘research-teaching nexus’, as these are seen as the routes into the model for academics engaged in the scholarship of teaching (Kinchin, 2017). The troubled nature of the relationship between teaching and research has been helpfully explored by Charles (2018) in the context of the excellence discourse—in which teaching excellence can still return to the focus on the commodification of students as becoming researchers. While the analysis by Nixon (2007, p. 15) offers the ‘possibility to move towards a notion of “excellence for all” without buying into neo-­ liberal consumerism’. Nixon sees the relationship between research, scholarship and teaching as being dependent upon a moral framework, the pivotal points of which are truthfulness, respect and authenticity, and emphasises that ‘authenticity is central to the notion of academic excellence’. Authenticity is also central to the dimension of ‘pedagogy and discipline’ within the pedagogic frailty model. Critically, Nixon (2007, p. 22) goes on to describe, ‘excellence as a process of growth, development and flourishing; it is not just an endpoint’. In other words, excellence is not a point in being, but a process of becoming (sensu Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). This changes the nature of excellence and makes it something that students and teachers can engage with as authentic partners in learning.

Conclusion As the landscape of higher education changes and as access to knowledge is no longer under the control of the teacher, Clarke and Parsons (2013, p. 38) comment on how ‘teachers are now even less the informers

194 

I. M. KINCHIN

or tellers, and more the co-researchers’. Whilst Deleuze (1994, p.  23) insists that ‘we learn nothing from those who say “do as I do”. Our only teachers are those who tell us “do with me”’. This sounds like a call towards a more partnership-­ based philosophy of education. Walker (2014, p. 358) asks, ‘Can we start with tree knowledge, but turn it into rhizomatic knowledge through strange new uses? Can we invent the conditions of learning that will foster lines of flight? Can we risk possibilities of failure?’. Staff-student partnership might be viewed as a strange new use fostering lines of flight. Such a transformational notion may encourage us to see staff-student partnership as a threshold concept in academic development (e.g. Werder et al., 2012; Cook-Sather, 2014), irreversibly changing our view of teaching–and of excellence in teaching as a process of becoming. The challenges of student-staff partnership work are, therefore, significant. However, an ‘openness to unexpected influences’ and a ‘willingness to experiment with knowledge production that lies outside [our] initial areas of expertise’, might lead to exciting new lines of enquiry or new ways of addressing old problems (Dodson, 2011, p. 18). It also sounds like the sort of thing that universities might put in their prospectuses to entice enquiring minds. Indeed, openness and willingness to experiment might be considered to sum up the essence of higher education.

References Bohle Carbonell, K., Stalmeijer, R.  E., Könings, K.  D., Segers, M., & van Merriȅnboer, J. J. G. (2014). How experts deal with novel situations: A review of adaptive expertise. Educational Research Review, 12, 14–29. Bonifati, G. (2015). The implications of the concept of exaptation for the theory of economic change. DEMB Working Paper Series. No. 76. http://merlino. unimo.it/campusone/web_dep/wpdemb/0076.pdf Charles, M. (2018). Teaching in spite of excellence: Recovering a practice of teaching-led research. Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 37, 15–29. Clarke, B., & Parsons, J. (2013). Becoming rhizome researchers. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 4(1), 35–43. Cleary, S. (2013). Perceptions of collaboration in research and teaching in a school of biomedical sciences. Higher Education Research Network Journal, 6, 19–28. Cook-Sather, A. (2014). Student-faculty partnership in explorations of pedagogical practice: A threshold concept in academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(3), 186–198.

11  TOWARDS A PEDAGOGICALLY HEALTHY UNIVERSITY: THE ESSENTIAL… 

195

Deleuze, G. (1994) Difference and repetition (P.  Patton, Trans.). Columbia University Press. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987) A thousand plateaus (B.  Massumi, Trans.). Bloomsbury. Dewey, J. (1909). The moral training given by the school community. In L.  A. Hickman & T.  M. Alexander (Eds.), The essential Dewey. Volume 1: Pragmatism, education, democracy (pp. 246–250). Indiana University Press. Dodson, K. (2011). Introduction: Eco/critical entanglements. Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences, 19, 5–21. Fenwick, T., & Landri, P. (2012). Materialities, textures and pedagogies: Socio-­ material assemblages in education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(1), 1–7. Fontaine, S. I. (2002). Teaching with the beginner’s mind: Notes from my karate journal. College Composition and Communication, 54(2), 208–221. Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. (2016). Technological exaptation: A narrative approach. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(1), 149–166. Gilmer, P. J. (2002). Opalescence at the triple point: Research, teaching and service. In P. C. Taylor, P. J. Gilmer, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Transforming undergraduate science teaching: Social constructivist perspectives. counterpoints: Studies in the postmodern theory of education (pp.  423–462). Peter Lang Publishing. Gould, S.  J. (1991). Exaptation: A crucial tool for an evolutionary psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 43–65. Gravett, K., Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (2020). ‘More than customers’: Conceptions of students as partners held by students, staff, and institutional leaders. Studies in Higher Education, 45(12), 2574–2587. Gravett, K., Yakovchuk, N., & Kinchin, I. M. (Eds.). (2020). Enhancing student-­ centred teaching in higher education: The landscape of student-staff partnerships. Palgrave Macmillan. Guerin, C. (2013). Rhizomatic research cultures, writing groups and academic research identities. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 137–150. Kinchin, I. M. (2016). Visualising powerful knowledge to develop the expert student: A knowledge structures perspective on teaching and learning at university. Sense. Kinchin, I. M. (2017). Visualising the pedagogic frailty model as a frame for the scholarship of teaching and learning. PSU Research Review, 1(3), 184–193. Kinchin, I. M. (2019a). The salutogenic management of pedagogic frailty: A case of educational theory development using concept mapping. Education Sciences, 9(2), 157.

196 

I. M. KINCHIN

Kinchin, I. M. (2019b). Care as a threshold concept for teaching in the salutogenic university. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13562517.2019.1704726 Kinchin, I. M. (2020). Enhancing the quality of concept mapping interventions in undergraduate science. In J. J. Mintzes & E. M. Walter (Eds.), Active learning in college science: The case for evidence-based practice (pp. 107–119). Springer Nature. Kinchin, I. M., & Francis, R. A. (2017). Mapping pedagogic frailty in geography education: A framed autoethnographic case study. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 41(1), 56–74. Kinchin, I. M., Hatzipanagos, S., & Turner, N. (2009). Epistemological separation of research and teaching among graduate teaching assistants. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 45–55. Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (Eds.). (2017). Pedagogic frailty and resilience in the university. Sense. Kinchin, I. M., & Winstone, N. E. (Eds.). (2018). Exploring pedagogic frailty and resilience: Case studies of academic narrative. Brill. Kinchin, I. M., Winstone, N. E., & Medland, E. (2020). Considering the concept of recipience in student learning from a modified Bernsteinian perspective. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020. 1717459 Larson, G., Stephens, P. A., Tehrani, J. J., & Layton, R. H. (2013). Exapting exaptation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(9), 497–498. May, T. (2003). When is a Deleuzian becoming? Continental Philosophical Review, 36, 139–153. McNamara, A. (2018). Acting. In I.  M. Kinchin & N.  E. Winstone (Eds.), Exploring pedagogic frailty and resilience: Case studies of academic narrative (pp. 151–168). Brill. Murphy, R., Nixon, S., Brooman, S., & Fearon, D. (2017). “I am wary of giving too much power to students:” Addressing the “but” in the principle of staff-­ student partnership. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 1–16. Nixon, J. (2007). Excellence and the good society. In A.  Skelton (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching excellence in higher education: Improving knowledge and practice (pp. 15–31). Routledge. Novak, J.  D. (2010). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations (2nd ed.). Routledge. Saunders, D. B., & Ramirez, G. B. (2017). Against ‘teaching excellence’: Ideology, commodification, and enabling the neoliberalization of postsecondary education. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(4), 396–407. Strom, K. J., & Martin, A. D. (2017). Becoming teacher: A rhizomatic look at first-­ year teaching. Sense.

11  TOWARDS A PEDAGOGICALLY HEALTHY UNIVERSITY: THE ESSENTIAL… 

197

Tomlinson, M., Enders, J., & Naidoo, R. (2018). The teaching excellence framework: Symbolic violence and the measured market in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 61(5), 627–642. Walker, S. (2014). Tree exhaustion. Studies in Art Education, 56(1), 355–358. Wang, C.-L. (2015). Mapping or tracing? Rethinking curriculum mapping in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1550–1559. Werder, C., Thibou, S., & Kaufer, B. (2012). Students as co-inquirers: A requisite threshold concept in educational development? The Journal of Faculty Development, 26(3), 34–38. Winstone, N.  E., Nash, R.  A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. Wood, M., & Su, F. (2017). What makes an excellent lecturer? Academics’ perspectives on the discourse of ‘teaching excellence’ in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(4), 451–466.

CHAPTER 12

Creating ‘Excellent’ Partnerships: Reflections on Practice Laura Barnett, Marion Heron, and Kieran Balloo

Introduction This chapter draws on the collective voices of students and staff to illuminate experiences of working in partnership to develop disciplinary understandings of teaching excellence. In doing so, we surface a number of themes which point to the affordances of working collaboratively to develop shared understandings. In preparation for this chapter, the editors invited all contributing authors of this volume working in partnership to write a reflective vignette of their experience of their partnership work and how this contributed to their understanding of excellence within their discipline. Authors were free to respond to the questions in any form they wished, and as can be seen, the vignettes reflect the diverse ways in which authors interpreted the task. Some vignettes were written collaboratively and others individually by the student or staff member. Authors were asked to write a short (250 words) reflection based around the following points: L. Barnett (*) • M. Heron • K. Balloo Surrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 M. Heron et al. (eds.), Exploring Disciplinary Teaching Excellence in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69158-5_12

199

200 

L. BARNETT ET AL.

1. What are the affordances of adopting a student-staff partnership approach to exploring disciplinary practice? 2. How is excellence perceived in your discipline by students and staff? 3. What changes will you make to your practice as a result of your research? The first section of this chapter will briefly outline the benefits and some of the challenges of student-staff partnership work. The following section draws upon extracts from the authors’ reflections to explore nuanced, contextualised and fluid understandings of teaching excellence within the broader frame of student-staff partnership work.

Student-Staff Partnerships In this section we discuss how a student-staff partnership approach to exploring notions of teaching excellence can mitigate some of the criticisms levelled at defining and measuring teaching excellence (see Chap. 1 for a summary of this critique), and how a partnership approach may result in benefits to students and staff in terms of developing a deeper understanding of excellence as well as experiencing different ways of working together. A well-established definition of student-staff partnership refers to “staff and students learning and working together to foster engaged student learning and engaging learning and teaching enhancement” (Healey et al., 2014, p. 7). In the case of the studies described in this volume, staff and students worked together on research projects and learned together about teaching excellence in discipline-specific contexts with the ultimate aim of fostering agentic engagement (Reeve & Tseng, 2011). Students actively contribute to their own learning, modifying and changing the learning environment to suit their own needs. This can result in changing dynamics between students and teachers in a positive way. In other words, there is a reciprocal influence between student engagement and teacher engagement. Involving students in research has been a mainstay of a research-­ based teaching approach (Healey & Jenkins, 2009) in which students are active members of the research team. How students engage in the research process is likely to differ depending on the disciplinary study undertaken (Craney et al., 2011). As described in Chap. 1, disciplines will often use signature pedagogies and as Abbas et al. (2016) found, differences exist in disciplinary pedagogic approaches. These differences support our claim

12  CREATING ‘EXCELLENT’ PARTNERSHIPS: REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE 

201

for more context-specific disciplinary understandings of teaching excellence (Gunn, 2018) which the teachers and students in this volume have attempted to explore. The literature on student-staff partnerships describes considerable benefits for students of partnerships, such as enhanced engagement and learning, personal development, skills development and positive relationships (Ollis & Gravett, 2020). Staff can also benefit from working in a student-­ staff partnership—such as a more positive relationship with students and a deeper understanding of students’ experiences (Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017). The studies in this volume have highlighted this latter point through their descriptions of how a student-staff partnership approach with students working collaboratively as researchers has led to a more nuanced understanding of teaching excellence. As a result of the working partnership, students and staff have developed relationships and been able to appreciate each other’s perspectives. Strong student-teacher rapport can lead to a positive learning experience which allows for a mutual understanding of teaching excellence (Lawrence et al., 2020). Accounts of student-staff partnership work in the literature are often “overly laudatory” (Kehler et al., 2017, p. 4), but this may not necessarily reflect real experiences of working in a student-staff partnership. A number of tensions may surface in student-staff partnership work such as questioning roles and identities, power dynamics and issues of inclusivity (Sullivan & Heron, 2020). Key to resolving some of these challenges is clear communication, shared understanding of roles and shared goals. In this chapter, by explicating reflections on the experiences and processes of collaborative working, we present authentic accounts of the joint meaning-­ making of understanding teaching excellence. Student-staff partnerships may not all evolve in the same way, with no two projects bringing the same experiences to all participants. Each of the student-staff partnerships in this volume took different directions and resulted in a myriad of outcomes, both pedagogical, personal and educational. Indeed, Cook-Sather et al. (2020) highlight the rhizomatic nature of student-staff partnerships in which unexpected paths intertwine and in which the growth of students and staff is “nonlinear, non-hierarchical, multiple, and unknowable in advance” (p. 3). As Kinchin puts it in Chap. 11 of this volume, both students and staff are in a constant state of becoming during a partnership, both developing, but not into the same thing. The themes below are testament to the myriad of outcomes resulting from the partnership work. We would argue that it is precisely the

202 

L. BARNETT ET AL.

“unknowable” in the student-staff partnership processes and products which is its strength, as the accounts below confirm.

Reflections In this section we present and discuss the two key themes that emerged from the reflective vignettes. The two overarching themes identified, and examined in-depth in the following sections, were that (1) partnership between students and staff can produce better shared understandings of disciplinary excellence, and (2) teaching excellence itself is more likely to be achieved through student-staff partnership. Partnerships as a Way of Developing Shared Understandings of Disciplinary Excellence When the editors put out the call for chapters for this book, upon reviewing the research project proposals, it was apparent that the authors’ projects hypothesised that perspectives of excellence would vary between students and staff. From the outset then, there was expected to be an underlying discrepancy between students and staff about what excellence within their discipline might mean. Once drafts of the chapters were submitted, initial findings from the projects appeared to confirm that there was indeed some disparity between students and staff as to what constitutes disciplinary excellence. These views were also expressed in some of the reflective vignettes which highlighted some assumptions made by staff about students’ views of excellence. One staff author wrote about how the idea for their project stemmed from their perception that an area of the curriculum was not necessarily valued by students: “Seen by students as a dry subject and something that it is not relevant for their learning process. Changing student perspective[s] regarding this subject has been an objective of [our] team for years.” Therefore, it was hoped that the project could work towards changing the student perspective. Another member of staff expressed an honest account of how their own views about students’ perspectives of excellence prior to commencing the project could even be regarded as stereotypical: I, as a member of staff, entered the project with some ideas about the type of teaching which [my] students might value and enjoy. From the student responses

12  CREATING ‘EXCELLENT’ PARTNERSHIPS: REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE 

203

revealed during the focus groups these proved to be rather narrow and often incorrect—in fact, they could be described as stereotypical.

Implicit in these reflections then was an underlying contention between students and staff about perceptions of excellence within the discipline, almost asserting that students need to come around to the staff member’s way of thinking of what constitutes excellence. Some of the student perspectives in the reflections appeared to attribute part of this contention to the fact that students are not invited into conversations about excellence (or how to achieve it), and that students do not always necessarily actively think of excellence and their role within it, as noted in one student reflection: “Excellence is not introduced to us as students formally and many students do not actively/consciously think of it.” As noted by Healey et al. (2014, p. 7), this becomes problematic when “…students are often positioned as passive consumers of, rather than active participants in, their own higher education.” Importantly, however, by having an active role in their project, one student author went on to say that “From a student’s point of view, reading about excellence motivated me to be more involved in academic life.” The authors’ reflections, as well as the chapter contributions in this volume, show that despite these contentions, there was an underlying aspiration that through the process of adopting a partnership approach, this could help to create greater mutual disciplinary understandings of excellence between students and staff. Within the reflections then, both parties realised that their research projects could have some capacity to converge seemingly opposing perceptions of excellence between students and staff. This was expressed by one author who said that “Adopting a [student-staff partnership] will bring the two perspectives in accordance…to narrow discrepancy” and another commented that through the completion of their project they themselves were able to gain a better mutual understanding of excellence: “What we discovered is a great deal of common ground in how students and staff now perceive excellence.” These reflections show that through a partnership approach, there is the potential to address discrepancies between students and staff about understandings of learning and teaching excellence within their discipline. This finding has wider relevance to HE policies such as the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) which outlines that university providers should offer meaningful opportunities for student engagement in provider and subject-level submissions (Office for Students, 2018) to provide accounts of what constitutes disciplinary excellence.

204 

L. BARNETT ET AL.

The reflections of the contributing authors mostly appeared to endorse the student-staff partnership approach in producing better mutual understandings of excellence, as expressed by one author, “Establishment of the student-staff partnership is a good precedent…into a discursive and integrated communication platform” and another saying, “We encourage students and staff to think about their perception of teaching excellence.” Therefore, despite some of the challenges acknowledged in partnership work, both students and staff recognised that a convergence in understandings can create better opportunities for achieving excellence. These reflections show some of the affordances of working in partnership including bridging understandings between students and staff about key learning and teaching practices and policies (e.g. the TEF) and the positive contributions that working in partnership can offer for the student experience. The impact of working in partnership to produce better understandings of disciplinary excellence can hopefully extend beyond the partnership itself and have a wider effect for all students within the discipline by creating greater shared understandings. Working Towards Disciplinary Excellence Through Learning and Partnership Building upon the previous theme, the authors’ reflections revealed that not only is there a need to create mutual understandings of disciplinary excellence between students and staff, but in order to work towards achieving any sense of disciplinary excellence, students and staff must adopt authentic partnership approaches. Whilst both students and staff recognise that working in partnership can be challenging, they argue that it offers a valuable learning experience for both students and staff and that the approach offered by a student-staff partnership could potentially lead towards excellence. Interestingly, when reviewing the proposals for the authors’ research projects contributing to this volume, the editors noticed an implied assumption amongst many of the authors that excellence could not be measured or achieved effectively through current processes such as Module Evaluation Questionnaires (MEQs) or student feedback on coursework. This aligns with current literature which suggests that standardised mechanisms for MEQs are problematic (Wiley, 2019). Concerns about MEQs were reiterated in the reflections with comments such as, “Module evaluation questionnaires and league tables are often used as a measure of teaching

12  CREATING ‘EXCELLENT’ PARTNERSHIPS: REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE 

205

excellence in teaching-related discussions during appraisals, even though response rates in such surveys can be quite low and thus reliability is often questioned…”. This was attributed to a recognition that current processes entail a one-way approach whereby staff collect data from students and then measures are put in place—an approach that does not put students at the heart of research approaches exploring excellence. Therefore, even at the proposal stage for the research projects, students and staff recognised the need to work together to examine other means of achieving disciplinary excellence. Through the collaborative partnerships, students and staff worked together to create and employ different research approaches determined together. In their reflections they highlighted how these approaches were beneficial in helping them create better ways to explore excellence within their disciplinary area: Focus groups are an opportunity to obtain a more detailed and balanced set of opinions than is evident from module evaluation questionnaires, at least in my personal experience. This can be a starting point to implementing changes which a significant proportion of students will view as promoting excellence.

Therefore, it was recognised that collaborative approaches between students and staff could form the basis of better methods for examining disciplinary excellence, particularly approaches that go beyond traditional MEQs and feedback routes. Finally, many authors emphasised that a partnership approach was vital to the success of their projects. For example, one author stated, “The involvement of staff was necessary to guide and support the student researchers, however, the partnership ensured that research was not looked upon from a biased viewpoint.” Specifically, many authors recognised that in order to work towards achieving excellence and for a partnership to work, there needed to be parity between students and staff whereby a student’s contribution to the partnership is seen as equally valued as that of the member of staff. This was encapsulated well by one author: The culture was very much that the teacher was ‘god’, the expert to whom the students should defer, and notions of ‘excellence’ were set by faculty and ­industry…thinking has radically changed to a more constructivist approach whereby learning happens in collaboration.

206 

L. BARNETT ET AL.

These reflections highlight the reciprocity of partnership working as another positive affordance of partnership which is endorsed by Healey et al. (2014, p. 7), “Partnership is essentially a process of engagement, not a product. It is a way of doing things, rather than an outcome itself.” In sum, excellence is not done to students, it is achieved through a cooperative endeavour, validating our argument that a partnership approach can better work towards achieving disciplinary excellence.

Conclusion Through the collective student and staff reflections presented in this chapter, we are able to argue that a student-staff partnership approach can work towards not only creating better understandings of disciplinary excellence but suggest that a partnership approach can help to establish collaborative ways for students and staff to work towards a shared goal of achieving excellence in higher education. Importantly, the reflections highlighted that for many of the authors involved in these projects, there were clearly a number of underlying contentions and perceived differences held between students and staff about excellence. This included, for example, disparity about what constitutes excellence and feelings of exclusion from dialogue around excellence or proactive attempts to enhance it. However, through the process of partnership, both students and staff have begun to recognise the value of working together to address these contentions which can also work towards creating more mutual understandings of, and opportunities for, achieving excellence. This appreciation of one another’s experiences can bring about more positive learning and teaching experiences for both students and staff which arguably contributes towards achieving excellence within their respective disciplinary areas. A notable feature of this chapter shows the value of students and staff working in a multitude of ways which highlights the complexity and nuances of not just trying to understand and achieve disciplinary excellence, but of how student-staff partnerships operate. Importantly then, this finding serves to emphasise that there is not one way of knowing what disciplinary excellence is, and as the research guides and reflections in this volume have shown, there are multiple ways that students and staff can work together to approach it. Therefore, for others attempting to pursue notions of excellence in HE contexts, it is vital to consider the nuances of excellence and the variety of ways of working to achieve it.

12  CREATING ‘EXCELLENT’ PARTNERSHIPS: REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE 

207

Acknowledgement  We would like to thank all contributing authors of this volume for providing us with reflective vignettes of their experiences of partnership.

References Abbas, A., Abbas, J., Brayman, K., Brennan, J., & Gantogtokh, O. (2016). Teaching excellence in the disciplines. Higher Education Academy. https:// www.advance-­he.ac.uk/knowledge-­hub/teaching-­excellence-­disciplines Cook-Sather, A., Becker, J. W., & Giron, A. (2020). While we are here: Resisting hegemony and fostering inclusion through rhizomatic growth via student–faculty pedagogical partnership. Sustainability, 12(17), 6782. Craney, C., McKay, T., Mazzeo, A., Morris, J., Prigodich, C., & De Groot, R. (2011). Cross-discipline perceptions of the undergraduate research experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 92–113. Gunn, A. (2018). Metrics and methodologies for measuring teaching quality in higher education: Developing the teaching excellence framework (TEF). Educational Review, 70(2), 129–148. Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Framework for partnership in learning and teaching in higher education. Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/filese/resources/engagement_ through_partnership.pdf Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. Higher Education Academy. Kehler, A., Verwoord, R., & Smith, H. (2017). We are the process: Reflections on the underestimation of power in students as partners in practice. International Journal for Students as Partners, 1(1), 1–15. Lawrence, J., Shaw, H., Hunt, L., & Synmoie, D. (2020). Rapport and relationships: The student perspective on teaching excellence. In K.  C. Thomas & A.  French (Eds.), Challenging the teaching excellence framework. Emerald Publishing Limited. Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S.  L., Matthews, K., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Kris Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A systematic literature review of students as partners in higher education. International Journal of Students as Partners, 1(1), 1–16. Office for Students. (2018). Teaching excellence and student outcomes framework: Subject-level pilot guide. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/57eb9 beb-­4e91-­497b-­860b-­2fd2f39ae4ba/ofs2018_44_updated.pdf Ollis, L., & Gravett, K. (2020). The emerging landscape of student–staff partnerships in higher education. In K. Gravett, N. Yakovchuk, & I. M. Kinchin (Eds.), Enhancing student-centred teaching in higher education (pp. 11–27). Palgrave Macmillan.

208 

L. BARNETT ET AL.

Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. Sullivan, A. K., & Heron, M. (2020). Student–staff partnerships in higher education as process and approach. In K. Gravett, N. Yakovchuk, & I. M. Kinchin (Eds.), Enhancing student-centred teaching in higher education (pp. 347–362). Palgrave Macmillan. Wiley, C. (2019). Standardised module evaluation surveys in UK higher education: Establishing students’ perspectives. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 55–65.