⟶ In your pairs, half an hour to: ⟶Describe / share your data collection method with you partner. ⟶What “pitfalls” can you spot in each other’s work? What would improve it? Think about order of questions, syntax, clarity, scaffolding…
OUTPUT:
When piloting the questionnaire, I didn’t have a full questionnaire to use, although I had some thoughts around the types of questions I’d like to ask and a provisional layout/order for those, which is shared in the session:
Provisional questionnaire questions
Positive:
Feedback
Action
So far the questionnaire looks neat and questions seem thought through with particular relevance to research topic. If this is maintained in the final data collection tool, this will help build a clear picture/story in relation to research question
Maintain neat visual aesthetic and clarity with questions order when making refinements
Constructive:
Feedback
Action
Could broaden the scope of answers on likert/scale questions
Broaden scope of answers from 3 to 5 different types of answers
Obscurity with use of double questions, e.g. where I have grouped questions about ‘feedback’ and ‘teaching’ into one question – split them into two questions.
Adjust questions to avoid double referencing and separate into singular questions for ‘teaching’ and ‘feedback’ related questions.
Language – the term ‘imposter syndrome’ can seem quite intimidating to readers
Take extra care with wording, omit use of terms ‘imposter syndrome’ and ‘imposter phenomenon’ on data collection tools (Clance 2021, Kaplan 2009). Instead focus on and wording questions around the thoughts and feelings that can be associated with IP without directly referencing the term.
Specify if you’re referring to online/in-person teaching/feedback given current COVID climate
Clarify the teaching/feedback context in question e.g. online vs in person, written vs verbal etc.
References
Bell, J. (2010) Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Clance, P. (2021) Email to Stephanie Martindale, 6th March 2021.
Using Bell’s (2010) guidance on choosing an appropriate data collection method, I started with the question ‘what do I need to know and why?’ followed by ‘what is the best way to collect this information? Answering this in relation to my research question and associated questions that I want to explore:
How pedagogical applications in feedback delivery influence the provocation of imposter phenomenon in higher education students.
Do the pedagogic applications of HE lecturers in feedback deliveryhave influence on the provocation of imposter phenomenon (IP) in HE?
What practices can teachers adopt in their delivery of teaching and feedback to help mediate the development of imposter phenomenon?
I mapped the various possibilities for data collection and the options (including pros/cons) as a starting point:
A mind map of research methods
We discussed this further in our lecturer, breaking out into small groups to identify the pro’s and con’s of each method type, before collating them in a padlet document, which I’ve referred back to throughout the journey of this project:
In order to begin refining my mind-mapped thought and designing my data collection tool, I took a simplified approach and broke down my main research topic into smaller, more digestible questions:
Question: What exactly do I need to know in relation to my research question?
Answers:
Do students experience IP?
To what extent do student experience IP?
What influence does the teaching delivery have on IP?
What influence does feedback delivery have on IP?
If a relationship is established between these variables (teaching/feedback) and IP, how do students think teachers can influence or change in the learning environment to help mediate the effects of IP?
What can be changed or implemented in the learning space to do this?
When thinking about determining an appropriate methodology for my project, I utilised questions encouraged by O’Leary (2020) and used this as a framework to help further develop my approach to data collection. My answers are highlighted in red:
☑ Who
Who do you want to be able to speak about?IP – considered a sensitive topic, the learning environment and the relationship between the two aforementioned topics
Who do you plan to speak to/observe? Students at UAL, students who experience IP to some degree
☑ Where
What is the physical domain of your sample? Sample will be participating via digital/online mediums
☑ When
How do your methods fit into your time frame? Short time frame, small scale study, requires non time-consuming data collection method
Is timing relevant to the credibility of your methods? No
☑ How
How will I implement my methods? Online/digital implementation required due to COVID 19 restrictions on social distancing
☑ What
What will you look for/what will you ask? I will ask about student experiences of IP, and whether the learning environment has had any influence on these
With a clearer understand of the type of information I needed to retrieve to investigate the research questions, I started thinking about additional considerations and constraints within the scope of the project:
Constraints
Time – 3 month project timeframe – restrictive
Funds – no budget available to support use of costly resources to support project
Resource – limited capacity to broaden scope and depth of project with only 1 researcher
Chosen Methodology
Giving thought to the advantages and disadvantages of each method, the constraints of the project, and the information I require for my research, I chose to proceed with the questionnaire method of data collection. This method of data collection will allow to me collect data in a short timeframe, with no financial investment required and with only myself and researcher.
Considerations
Qualitative data – depth, richness of data
Vs.
Quantitative data – credibility through larger samples and statistical analysis
Questionnaire has both qualitative and quantitative features for mixed-method approach
Sampling – convenience sampling method used due to aforementioned constraints
Negotiating access to participants
Designing my Questionnaire – Characteristics
Given that one of the first things I’d like to find out from my data collection is whether students experience Imposter Phenomenon (IP), I explored ways to measure and identify this in my sample. It was important for me to obtain a sample from participants with IP, as their experiences and shared data would be key in helping me understand the extent of IP to then help me analyse and formulate conclusions.
During my reading and research further into IP, I came across Dr. Pauline Clance, a clinical psychologist with an extensive body of work on the topic of IP (2021, 2013, 1978). Clance developed the Clance Imposter Phenomenon Scale (CIPS), which is a questionnaire tool to help identify markers for IP and IP traits. I reached out to Clance via email and sought permission to use the questionnaire as part of my study, for which permission was granted.
Given that first part of my research required me to identify participants experiencing IP with the CIPS questionnaire, I knew I needed to expand beyond this with an additional questionnaire to identify more of the specific detail required to help me explore my research question. I identified the CIPS as questionnaire A. I then developed my own research questionnaire which, throughout this project and on participant facing communication, I identify as questionnaire B. This questionnaire focusses more closely on IP specifically in the learning environment in relation to teaching and feedback experience:
Designed as a questionnaire to be disseminated digitally for improved accessibility and mitigation of cost implications
Varied question style – open /closed/likert questions
To be used in conjunction with Questionnaire A
The complete data collection tool is formatted in two parts (Questionnaire A/B):
Use of Dr. Clance’s IP scale questionnaire to understand prevalence and extent of IP in students (questionnaire A)
in conjunction with:
Specific questionnaire designed to answer the research question (questionnaire B)
‘In action research, researchers do research on themselves. Empirical researchers enquire into other people’s lives. Action researchers enquire into their own. Action research is an enquiry conducted by the self into the self’. McNiff (2021).
When diving into the initial steps in my SIP project, I started to reflect on the term ‘action research’. Through discussion in our SIP lectures and insights from reading of academic sources, I began to formulate my understanding of what it is, the principles of the concept, and how it is carried out.
Key learnings about action research:
Reflection on personal practice
‘Action research is an enquiry conducted by the self into the self’ Jean McNiff (2021)
Intent to learn more about an issue within a particular setting
Incremental for self-evaluation and self-change
Is cyclical and the process is constantly refined and adapted, therefore an infinite process
Research cycle: Problem > Question > Methodology > Outcome (insight=implication/recommendation led vs. solution-led)
Ethics driven – ethical approach underpinning the research process
Visual representation of the research process, as presented in SIP lecture 1, 13.03.2021.
I like the research action plan developed by Jack Whitehead (1996)(excerpt from Jean McNiff) which helped me contextualise the process, so I consider almost to be a framework for action research, although I don’t consider this to be prescriptive:
What issue am I interested in researching?
Why do I want to research this issue?
What kind of evidence can I gather to show why I am interested in this issue? What can I do? What will I do?
What kind of evidence can I gather to show that I am having an influence?
How can I explain that influence?
How can I ensure that any judgements I might make are reasonably fair and accurate?
How will I change my practice in the light of my evaluation?
Mpofu, S. Jean McNiff, Pamela Lomax and Jack Whitehead. 1996. You and Your Action Research Project. International Review of Education44, 122 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003083314762
Project Bell, J. (2010) Doing your research project: A guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
I started to map out my thoughts for my SIP project through a couple of concept maps.
Using my topic, imposter syndrome/phenomenon as the central reference point, I began to map ideas around why I chose this topic and its significance in my personal, professional and academic development.
I then started to develop and contextualise my ideas further in relation to the SIP requirements and expected learning outcomes, thinking about ethics and desired outcomes or goals, and also exploring deeper into the method options available for data collection.
‘Interaction with artefacts deepens students’ learning.’ (Schultz 2012, p.185)
I designed my object-based learning session as a synchronous online activity, delivered on the BB Collaborate platform. Due to the mode of delivery, my ‘objects’ were in fact images of the objects, rather than the objects themselves. I’ve discussed my thoughts around the limitations of this in more detail my ‘Critical Review of Object Based Learning’ blog.
My learning objectives and session plan for the session were:
To stimulate discussion (Communication)
Encourage exploration of design (Design awareness)
To inspire critical & creative thought (Inspiration)
To identify cross-cultural connections
Microteaching Session Schedule
I started the session in a conversational tone to set the mood and to introduce myself and the session.
I then went on to explain the learning objectives of the task to inform students of what is expected from this session.
Learning Outcomes for OBL Microteach
Following this, I set the activity brief for the session, explaining what the task was about and how to do it in order to engage students. The prompt questions for response were displayed for students to see.
Activity Brief for OBL Microteach
I then went on to display the two objects on the screen, side by side. There was no description or context given to the objects, so as not to limit students thinking and ideas about the objects from the start, however I tried to choose a culturally diverse selection of objects; object A originated in the UK, while object B originated in the Caribbean.
Image of Objects chosen for OBL Microteach
Following the end of the activity, I allowed students time to briefly explain their answers which allowed me to hear their thoughts, ideas and perceptions which I found very interesting. The task was then finished.
Feedback
The outcome of the session was the receipt of extremely positive feedback via Padlet and the verbal feedback recorded during the session itself was also very positive, thus confirming the success of the activity.
OBL Microteach Feedback
Successes
Upon personal reflection, I think part of the success of my microteaching session, was understanding the context in which it was being delivered. I was well aware of the time restrictions, with it being an 8-minute task, I knew I had to plan meticulously, by the minute, to ensure that it could be executed in full. This meant that the structure and the activity was designed with the time-frame in mind and I was careful not to over over-optimistic with what could be achieved in such a short timeframe. The three core aspects of the session which I facilitated was: learning objectives, the activity itself and the activity de-brief/discussion, all of which I was able to execute effectively.
The success of the delivery was reaffirmed given the feedback from students including ‘this was a really well planned and paced activity’. Producing session plans is something I will always continue do for all my teaching delivery, as I find structured planning is a key driver in it’s success.
Other positive feedback included:
Delivered active feedback to students for encouragement
Clear communication
Well balanced delivery – facilitated rather than dominated it
Clear, visual, non-complicated powerpoint
I also believe that the session was successful as I was able to link the activity closely with the LO’s, so the session was well structured and remained relevant throughout. Clarifying the LO’s at the start of the session was beneficial for students to understand the nature of the activity and it’s relevance – this is something I will continue to do as part of the foundations of my teaching practice.
Challenges and areas for improvement
I found the time limits of the activity fairly restricting in terms of the breadth of teaching which could be delivered. For example, had this activity been longer in duration, I would have adapted the activity to include more objects, longer time for group discussion and broadened the scope of prompt questions e.g. to enquire about other aspects of the objects aside from functionality (e.g. material choice)
In hindsight, I would have ended this activity more strongly with a follow-up activity, summary or resource to review to ensure that students remain engaged and the session was more ‘well-rounded’.
As a spectator during the activity during the session, I observed and heard comments and reflections that make me feel satisfied that the LO’s were met at the end of this activity. However, given the time restraints, I was unable to check this in full. One way to check for learning and engagement in my teaching practice in future would be to make use of platforms such as ‘Mentimeter’ with brief tasks such as live polls or Q&A’s. This would allow me to better measure whether the LO’s have been met.
Additional student feedback which I have reflected on is the need for some variety in my object selection. This is something I will consider in future OBL tasks to keep it varied, engaging and relevant to different contexts and cultures. I also considered choosing objects that students may have found in their home-surroundings, although the task would have to be adapted to accommodate for the ‘variations’ of the objects that might be found across different households (e.g. a spoon in one household may be different from another)
Another suggestive piece of feedback was to make more use of ways to make the session more inclusive. Inclusive practice is something that grounds my work as a teaching professional and so I will always continue to explore ways to enhance inclusivity in my sessions. One way to do this for example would have been a broader selection of culturally diverse objects to enrich the learning experience and encourage dynamic and interesting discussions
OBL is a student-centred, experiential learning approach that ‘involves the active integration of objects into the learning environment’ (Chatterjee, Hannan and Thomson, 2015, p.1).
In practice, Object Based Learning (OBL) allows students to physically engage with objects that serve as a primary medium for learning for new ideas, realisations, creative work or professional/personal development (FUMA, 2020).
I consider OBL to be a valuable approach to learning because of its experientiality and ability to facilitate active learning amongst students. Particularly for those in art and design disciplines where visual language and interpretation underpins creative practice, OBL activities creates a ‘learn by doing’ environment which enhances thinking in understanding and response to design (Hardie, 2008). It is this type of interaction with material artefacts which develops students learning and could make OBL more relevant and meaningful, especially when intersected with inclusive pedagogy (Schultz, 2012; Lelkes, 2019).
Figure 1: ‘Objects in teaching and learning’ (FUMA, 2020) image identifies ways in which OBL can inspire creative thought.
As a teaching professional, I consider inclusive pedagogy as the groundwork for my practice, so understanding how this could work with OBL to create an enhanced learning environment is a real incentive to put it into practice more frequently (where necessary in the curriculum), particularly given that research has shown that when used across multi-disciplinary environments, OBL was more effective than a lecture or talk in facilitating learning (UCL, 2020).
Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson (1999) observe “after the individual’s curiosity is aroused, the exhibit must engage sustained interest in order for learning to take place” (p. 153) thus the element of intrigue generated by an exhibit adds to the object’s appeal and encourages students’ investigation and critical analysis of design
Given this statement from Csikszentmihalyi and Hermanson, its suggests to me that making OBL as inclusive as possible is a opportunity to make it even more successful, as in order to capture and sustain engagement, the objects would need to be of some relevance to them either personally, socially, professionally or academically.
I personally haven’t yet implemented an in-person OBL activity (due to COVID-19 restrictions). However, I have implemented a successful OBL activity online (see ‘Microteaching Task blog’ for further context). I believe part of the success of this task was the way in which it was designed to encourage a structured discussion which was important to achieve LO’s.
Online delivery of OBL does have its opportunities, for example the ability to include large-scale cohorts to the session – something that is logistically difficult in practice in a museum or archive space when archives and objects can be explored.
One of the limitations however, to my OBL activity was the absence of the physical presence of the object in students’ hands, which automatically limits the level of interaction and sensory engagement with the object. Hardie (2015) identifies ‘hands-on engagement’ and the ability for ‘live objects’ to be ‘interrogated 360° as a key factor for meaningful and memorable interactions with objects; the absence of this physicality is explicit when OBL is delivered virtually.
This would lead me to query whether engagement in virtual OBL activities may not be as effective as in-person OBL, as you instantly lose the physicality of the object. Given that online teaching delivery of core curriculum in HE institutions is relatively new, I think further exploration is needed to understand whether OBL can be as effective and engaging when delivered in a virtual space vs. a physical space and what adaptations to the practice should be made to ensure it remains effective for learning.
I would be keen to explore the UAL library archives and inclusive archives at UAL such at the Tell Us About It archives (UAL, 2020; Shades of Noir, 2020) to better understand ways to incorporate archives and objects into my teaching practice in-person and online in a more effective way. However, I do have some reservations which is possible the result of having less experience with OBL, creating a barrier to uptake.
Joe Cain touches on such barriers, identifying that alternative pedagogic methodology is required when implementing OBL, as it nurses a different style of teaching from lecture style teaching delivery for example. Therefore, OBL isn’t just about objects, its about teaching too and this can cause barriers to implementation. (Cain, 2010).
Cain also talks about the logistical concerns of practicing OBL such as the setting, timing and access for example, but one way to overcoming this could be meticulous planning (something I think is crucial for successful teaching delivery – see Case Study A1 Designing and Planning for Learning) which might help diminish any anxieties of it not ‘running smoothly’. There are resources and tools available to help overcome these barriers to OBL, such as the use of Mirador which allows for the magnification of objects. This would allow flexibility in settings timing and access for OBL sessions, but also give students to opportunity to explore objects close-up, almost as if they had physical access.
Further exploration of OBL highlights opportunities for learning that I hadn’t previously considered. Barton (2017) discusses the emergence of ‘object-based self-enquiry’ (he discusses this in relation to museum objects, however I believe this can be transferred across any OBL context).
Object-based self-enquiry uses OBL for engaging in learning and self-awareness/perception, as students become more aware of their own learning process and the values, assumptions and habits of mind; it is the exploration and evaluation of meta-cognitive function which helps facilitate transformative learning (Barton, 2017). He identifies that self-response is important for the development of study skills, capacities and competences and over time, students will begin to understand how cognitive patterns and capabilities correspond with skilful academic responses.
Skills-focused approaches, developing a range of student literacies such as academic writing and critical thinking, developing visual perception and material sensibilities can be enhanced through an emphasis on metacognition or self-awareness. (Barton, 2017)
This leads me to want to enquire about the possibilities of inclusive object-based self-enquiry pedagogy, where the convergence of multiple proven pedagogic practices will help students to further engage with creative practice and academic study.
To conclude, OBL provides a wealth of opportunity for relevant and meaningful engagement and active learning. It has intersectional avenues and the possibility of mergence with other pedagogic approaches such as inclusive pedagogy or critical pedagogy to create an engaging learning environment. In addition, OBL can be used to facilitate self-enquiry and meta-cognitive self-analysis which can facilitate transformative learning. There are, however, limitations to OBL for example the transference of its benefits in virtual spaces (vs. real spaces), logistical concerns and pedagogic conflicts, however there are resources available to help mitigate these. I think further exploration and enquiry about virtual OBL vs. in-person OBL is required, particularly given the current context of mostly online-delivery for core teaching in HE, where virtual OBL does not allow for physical contact with an artefact.
Reynolds, R. and Speight, C. (2008) Trials and trails: do HE design students need museum learning resources? Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, 7 (3) 185-93.
Willcocks, J. (2015). ‘The power of concrete experience: museum collections, touch and meaning making in art and design pedagogy’ in Chatterjee, H.J. and Hannan, L. (eds.) (2015) Engaging the senses: object-based learning in higher education. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, pp.43–56.
Given the changing landscape of university education and the transition from core on-campus teaching to core blended/online teaching delivery, it was important for me to establish a plan to help manage this process to continue to deliver impactful and engaging teaching content in a structured way.
I devised a plan for the transition considering the current impact of global matters such as Covid-19 and the need to dismantle structural racism and create an inclusive learning environment.
This plan became the subject for my ‘Review by a Tutor’ element of my Teaching and Learning portfolio, due to the social distance restrictions imposed in 2020 which meant that an in-person observation would have no longer been feasible within the required timeframe for submission.
Finnigan, T., Bunting, L. & Morrison, C. (2020) Remote teaching and learning: an inclusive & compassionate approach. University of the Arts London: Academic Enhancement Model.
When reflecting on my teaching practice as we near the end of 2020, it is impossible to ignore the impact of two seismic events that have occurred this year, which have helped inspire and define my approach to teaching, but also changed the landscape of teaching in Higher Education.
Chronologically, those events were:
The global COVID-19 pandemic and
The murder of George Floyd and increased prominence of the Black Lives Matter movement
The Covid-19 pandemic spread rapidly across the globe, impacting the UK most prominently in March, which completely disrupted our social and economics norms and causing an unprecedented challenge for university teaching as we were forced into lockdown. For students at staff at UAL, this meant a wide-reaching schedule of changes to university ‘norms’ including, but not limited to:
Shift from on-campus to blended/online teaching
Staff and students working mostly from home
Postponing of graduation ceremonies
Changes to assessment practices
Personally, the biggest change to adjust to was the transition to blended/online teaching delivery. Initially, the scale of this change, sent anxious shockwaves through my body as this was a dive into unchartered territory; all my teaching until this point had been on-campus. I quickly identified some of the challenges affecting me as a direct result of this, including:
Barriers to student relationships – lack of human contact
Technical problems with resources and platforms
Mental health and wellbeing – trying to find balance and calm in the chaos
Thanks to a wealth of resources, guidelines and guidance available online, including from UAL (UAL Teaching Online resources) (UAL, 2020), about managing the move to online learning , I found that I have been able to tackle these challenges in a structured, effective way. For example, I have found a trial and error method of working with anything technical (such as learning to use new platforms e.g. BB Collaborate/Microsoft Teams) has enabled me to learn the best ways around such problems.
In addition, I have been able to set boundaries for myself as a teaching professional, but also as a mother and human being, to enable me to be reflexive and adapted to cope with the emotional labour of the adjustments this year.
I have however, found many pros to this new way of working including:
Sense of community brought about by the commonality of the changes impacting everyone simultaneously (Halls Life, 2020)
Effective way of working online – saving travel time and money and defining own timetable
More opportunity for inclusion for students e.g. opportunities for disabled
I have found that while there have been challenges in adapting to this new way of working, I am also excited by the opportunities it brings. Particularly with regards to the opportunity for a more inclusive way of working with better accessibility for disabled and other marginalised students, we are better equipped as teachers to support their diverse requirements.
I feel optimistic about the future of education, as I believe it can really be tailored to be accessible for all types of student and learning modes. I have also learnt that I am particularly reflexive in challenging situations like Covid-19 and I surprised myself at my ability to adapt swiftly as a teacher.
Despite this, Covid-19 has been an incredibly scary illness which has created massive uncertainly. It has not only brought about a massive program of change from university norms, it has also highlighted the systemic racial inequalities affecting people from BAME backgrounds and the theories of intersectionality.
The murder of George Floyd and increased prominence of the Black Lives Matter movement has highlighted this further. This was a particularly traumatic time for me personally, as it was for communities across the world. However, this event really forced me to reflect on my positionality considering the impact of my teaching on students and reaffirming my social justice led outlook and approach to my practice.
I adopt a pedagogic approach which puts inclusivity at the forefront, adopting methods to teaching which aims to build a more diverse and inclusive learning environment. This is especially important at UAL, who prematurely described themselves as an ‘anti-racist establishment’. (Crawley, 2020)
At a time where there is so much confusion and heightened perceptions of racial inequalities and marginalisation, it is important for me to work towards enhancing my students’ feelings of being valued, respected, supported and included when learning. Therefore, I have adapted my practice to teaching to include compassionate pedagogic approaches.
‘Compassionate pedagogy encourages educators to foster belonging by creating conditions that acknowledge structural oppression and reduce their impact on our students’ – (The Exchange, 2019).
I take comfort in knowing that my methods to teaching will help close the attainment gap and help to address inequitable student experience (Ahern, 2019).
Some methods I actively practice include:
Regular, structured well-being ‘check-ins’ with students
Ensuring resources are provided in a timely manner in accessible formats
Selecting resources which contain relatable perspectives and experiences for students
My commitment to social-justice led teaching also feeds into the UAL Social Justice and Anti-Racism Strategy, which has proposes a provisional action plan to work towards on improving attainment, equality, diversity and inclusion at UAL (Patel, 2020).
On one hand, as I am early in my teaching career, I almost feel ‘grateful’ to have two massively impactful and defining events to reflect on to help inform my views and practice as a teacher very early on. This is because the nature of these events has made me truly appreciate my role in helping to create some sense of stability, calm and inclusion. However, I cannot ignore the emotionally laborious toll of these events on myself, colleagues and students which will continue to affect us all still for some time.
Shades of
Noir (SoN) is an independent program, created by Aisha Richards, that works
towards achieving inclusive learning and social justice within higher education
(HE) and the arts sector. The abundant body of work that SoN has produced and
continues to create is dedicated to supporting marginalised groups and embodies
social justice pedagogy to support curriculum design, teaching practices and
institutional processes.
The SoN
website itself contains a broad and diverse range of content around the art,
design and communication disciplines to support students and staff. Because of
its broad content, the website is a great reference resource that can be
utilised by students across a multitude of art and design subject disciples.
The resources are not just for students, however, as there are many published
resources available for academic and support staff. For example, a recently
published article entitled ‘Supporting Black, Asian Minority Ethnic (BAME)
students during the COVID-19 Crisis’ provides a six point inclusive response
plan to support students to the current Covid-19 pandemic. This is something I
have referenced personally when considering student as UAL shifts to online-learning.
It is refreshing to see that content on the site remains relevant and up-to-date
to align with continued support of transformational cultures and practices
across the HE sector.
There are a
few resources which can be found on the SoN website which are of particular
interest to me and which I can share with my student cohort (which is comprised
of a fairly diverse student demographic). The first are the Terms of Reference
(ToR) journals which explore concepts and social topics relevant to the development
of inclusive practice. I would encourage my students to explore some of the
articles within the ToR as I am sure many have had shared or similar
experiences.
The second
is the page which details the Safe Space Crits workshops. Particularly during
the current Covid-19 climate, where we are forced to adapt to a new
home-working environment, the new online Safe Space Crits format is
particularly helpful and it is reassuring to know that students can still
access these valuable sessions as a means of feedback and support in a safe and
inclusive environment.
I would
also encourage my students to explore the digitised Tell Us About It artefact
database, but I would also consider arranging a student visit to explore the
artefacts first-hand. As a contributor to this database myself, I think it is
an important and influential tool which encourages discourse around diversity
amongst the student body and encourages students to think about the ways in
which this affects their learning experience.
As a
teacher and facilitator of learning in HE, I myself will continue to read and
reflect on the resources on the SoN site, particularly relevant to ‘education’
i.e. case studes, ToR Journals and Curriculum Support publications in order to
refine my skills as an supporter of social justice and inclusive learning in
HE.
Hahn Tapper Review: ‘A pedagogy of social
justice education: social identity, theory and intersectionality’
I enjoyed
reading the Hahn Tapper review of social justice education, most probably
because it draws comparisons between different pedagogic approaches – the
Social Identity Theory (and the Contact Theory (Allport, 1954), from which I am
in agreement with aspects of both (the Social Identity Theory (SIT) Tajfel
1978, 1982; Tajfel and Turner 1979, 1986) in particular); this will certainly
have influence on my future teaching style, particularly in group scenarios.
The first
thing I learnt from reading this text was how instrumental identity is in influencing
a student’s experience of education. It is necessary to consider the identities
of both teacher and student, as the educational experience exists between these two stakeholders. From
this text I have formed the opinion that any educational exchange in the HE
learning environment should be collaborative and built upon a foundation of trust. When you then begin to explore
the relationship between social identity and power (hence authority), we then
become engaged in the SIT pedagogic model, where it is assumed that the
exchanges between communities in larger society (outside of the learning
environment) has influence on the dynamics between the groups during
encounters.
The second
thing I learnt was an example of how the pillars underpinning pedagogies of social
justice education work and what the likely outcome could be when implemented
effectively. Ultimately, a Freirean approach to social justice, like the
example in this report, would ultimately expect to lead to responsibility and
empowerment from the students. The framework in this example considers
additional pillars to include an exploration of a) identity (social and
individual), b) intersectionality and c) experiential study encounters
respectively, each step layered and working in a clockwise motion.
An example Social Justice led education framework
One
provocation I had about this report is whether a hybrid pedagogic model which
incorporates aspects of both theories could be could be researched and
developed, despite the conflicts presented in critical research on the Contact
Theory in particular. Could aspects of this model be adopted, while the
non-ideal outcome in a group encounter (physical violence) is avoided? I assume
that so long as the framework of the SIT is the underpinning the Contact Theory
led activities which forms a ‘hybrid’ pedagogic approach leading to a) provoked
discussion and b) supported development of (habitual) critical thought and
reflection, a blended approach might be successful.
Room of Silence
The short
film ‘The Room of Silence’ is a film in which students are discussing their
experience around race issues within the university learning environment. Some
of the students talk about how they have been met with silence when their work,
which addresses topics such as race, identity and sexuality, is presented because
the students either don’t know how to talk about it, have no experience of it
or they don’t want to talk about it.
Room of Silence Film
One thing
which shocked me from watching the video was the responses of some of the
lecturers and professors. E.g. one teacher didn’t know what to say to a student
when critiquing work based on race, while another student was called ‘exotic’
in an attempt to make a compliment. For me, the latter example in particular
highlights the institutionalisation of racism within the education system.
This leads
me to agree with a comment made in the video about the lack of ‘critical
framework’, where pieces of work (which address some arguably uncomfortable
issues) can be picked apart and analysed in a group setting. I believe that our
role as teachers should be to help facilitate constructive, critical
discussions around the topics that the students chose to address regardless of
how uncomfortable they may be for others.
Another
thing which saddened me about this video was teachers suggesting that a student
work on simpler/less complex/less uncomfortable topics, based solely on the
inability of the other students in the room being able to engage in the
concepts relating to that piece of work. I do not feel that students should
mute or censor the work they chose to produce because of a fear of offending or
confusing others, particularly when the topics are real, relevant and
relatable.
This video,
for me, highlights importance of the Safe Space Crits sessions such as those
available at UAL. Students in the video described feelings of being
scared/sad/angry/isolated and made to feel as though their work or opinions are
not valid. Creating a safe space for students to receive crits on their work is
essential to help facilitate growth and learning in the classroom and when this
is not available students start to censor their work or shy away from
addressing such topics – this can only work to mask issues.
Another
thing I took from this video is the importance of a diverse reading list and
terms of reference for students to refer to ensure an inclusive learning
environment and a culture of inclusion. I feel as though this is something that
should be embedded within any course curriculum and suggests that work must
begin at a senior level to address the issue for example via an inclusive
teaching framework which incorporates social justice pedagogy which can be
applied into the classroom setting.
I feel as
though awareness of white privilege by both teachers and students is also an
important influence on the experience of BAME students. This topic usually
creates an uncomfortable environment, however awareness and acceptance of this
is important to help facilitate in inclusive and safe learning environment for
all. I would suggest that teachers and students watch the DiAngelo video on
White Privilege which I feel discusses the topic in a clear and digestible
manner, before discussing their thoughts.
