Just sharing what I’ve learned about the value of recording committee meetings; this has proved to be especially important when meetings aren’t 1-on-1 and there’s lots of chatter and sometimes varied perspectives (as is the case for me with three members of my PhD committee).
Taking notes in this scenario just doesn’t often work for me. Sometimes, I have the attention span of an excited puppy…
Plus, we can talk! And I struggle to take detailed notes and remain present. I do still jot a couple of notes into my meeting minutes, but trying to keep up with listening to three other people talking (and asking me questions and thinking) can feel overwhelming. Further, I need to be and feel fully present because my committee meetings don’t contain a lot of information-transmission or “telling” but involve a lot of probing and clarifying type of feedback and, of course, discussion of next steps (probably like yours!).
So, with their permission, I video record my meetings. This has proved to be so valuable because, in the moment, critical feedback can sting, folks. But the ability to listen to the feedback at a later date can often take the bite out of the interaction.
In fact, I journaled about my last committee meeting; in short, it felt incredibly challenging in that moment & I felt that emotion in my body, it felt hard to focus & I felt I couldn’t articulate myself and ultimately, when we’d wrapped, I left the meeting feeling deflated…
But I went back to recording a few days later and seeing and hearing the meeting from from this point of view provided me with different perspective. My feelings at the time are also valid, but I feel that having the meeting recorded allows me to tackle critical feedback at a later date when it’s not so raw. Recording also allows me to return to and summarise the meeting’s next steps with precision.
Do you record your meetings? I’d love to hear your experiences on why/why not!
On 11 Aug at 3:30p at MCEC in Meeting Room 212, I’ll be speaking at #EduTECHAU discussing how we can better empower students through equity-driven human-data interaction. My presentation will be based on my co-authored book chapter in upcoming book, Human Data Interaction, Disadvantage & Skills in the Community’: Enabling Cross-Sector Environments For Postdigital Inclusion, edited by Dr. Sarah Hayes.
Join my session at #EduTECHAU! 10,000+ education leaders gather at Australia’s biggest meeting for the education sector to learn, exchange ideas & network. Book now with my discount code SPEAK20 and save an additional 20% off your in-person delegate pass. Register here www.edutech.net.au
Recently the RAISE Network (Researching, Advancing & Inspiring Student Engagement) discussed our (Dr. Cathy Stone and Dr. Rebecca Bennett) paper, Conceptualising and Building Trust to Enhance the Engagement and Achievement of Under-Served Students, published in The Journal of Continuing Higher Education.
Dr. Rachel Forsyth chaired the discussion, and while Cathy, Bec nor I were unable to attend, we are so grateful for hearing about the discussion. You can read the thoughtful write-up by Dr. Forsyth via the AdvanceHE website, linked here: https://connect.advance-he.ac.uk/topics/14367/topic_feed_posts/1256842
and replicated below:
You can join RAISE on 5 July for their last session of the UK academic year, when they are planning a happy and positive discussion about this paper:
Picton, C., Kahu, E. R., & Nelson, K. (2018). ‘Hardworking, determined and happy’: first-year students’ understanding and experience of success. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(6), 1260-1273. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1478803
It’s been a long time coming, but I’m so thrilled to attend (and present at) my first HERDSA conference! This will also be my first ever in-person conference. So, I thought I'd take a moment to share with you what I’m most looking forward to at HERDSA 2022 - happening both on-site and virtually!
The program for the poster presentations are available at this link. The below does not include keynotes and panel discussions. +Please note that my program picks reflected below are for the on-site program unless otherwise indicated.
Monday, 27 June (Pre-conference workshops)
Workshop 2: I’m beginning to publish in higher education – what next? Host(s): Dr Wendy Green, University of Tasmania; Assoc Prof Susan Blackley, Curtin University; Assoc Prof Eva Heinrich, Massey University Room: Wadawurrung 2 Time: 8:30a-12p
Workshop 6: Improving feedback practices: The role of learner-teacher relationships and digitally enabled learning design Host(s): Assoc Prof Rola Ajjawi, Deakin University; Prof Elizabeth Molloy, The University of Melbourne Assoc; Prof Kelly Matthews, The University of Queensland Room: Gunditjmara 2 Time: 12:30p-4p
Tuesday, 28 June
Professional learning for changing academic practices: To be or not to be (in academia)? Inward calling and academic hazards in aspiring academics’ career prospects
Host(s): Ms Pham Ai Tam Le, Melbourne Graduate School of Education Room: Meeting Room 103 Time: 10:30a-10:55a
Teaching, learning and the student experience: Improving learner engagement through narrative digital storytelling
Host(s): Dr Pranit Anand, Queensland University of Technology Room: Meeting Room 106 Time: 11:30a-11:55a
Values, justice and integrity: Anti-racism as a critical graduate competency: Developing students’ capacity to recognise the mechanism of structural
Host(s): Ms Jessica Genauer, Flinders University Room: Meeting Room 104 Time: 11:30a-11:55a
+Virtual 1.2: Feedback vs feedforward: which matters more to students?
Host(s): Dr Jeffrey Lim, The University of Sydney Time: 11:30a-11:55a
Teaching, learning and the student experience: Authentic assessment in the digital world: A critical scoping review
Hosted by an early career researcher, educator and incoming doctoral student (Payne), senior researcher and educator (Compton) and disabled, undergraduate psychology student (Kennedy), our collaborative and interactive tweetchat aims to explore how behavioural change in online, higher education can be supported without behaviouristic approaches. Specifically, we will engage in discussion on how nudges and digital footprints may be deployed effectively to empower marginalised students – and the potential pitfalls of such data-driven pedagogy.
When students engage in online learning, they leave behind digital footprints, artefacts that trace their activities such as contributions, page views and communications. Digital learning management systems (LMS) generate data from these footprints that can provide insight into student progress and engagement as it relates to student success. These data are called learner analytics (LAs). LAs encompass the broad data mining, collection, analysis, and sharing/reporting/disseminating of students’ digital footprints. LAs are shaping the role of online instruction and student self-regulated learning by promoting ‘actionable intelligence’ (Bayne et al., 2020, p. 71), allowing instructors to orient students and empowering students to orient themselves.
The growing adoption and interest in LAs has supported a strategic commitment to transparency regarding key drivers for improved student engagement, retention and success. At the same time, concerns are increasingly voiced around the extent to which students are informed about, supported (or hindered by), and tracked and surveilled as they engage online. It is important to acknowledge that making pedagogical conclusions based on delimited dimensions creates a context for stereotyping and discrimination, and profiling can result in hindering students’ potential and may hurt self-efficacy.
Nudge theory, coined by behaviour economist Richard Thaler, connects persuasion with design principles (Thaler, 2015). A nudge is an approach that focuses not on punishment and reward (behaviourism) but encourages positive choices and decisions – fundamental is understanding the context. We’d like to share a few assumptions as we engage in this discussion:
Academic staff have a responsibility to support our increasingly diverse body of students and need to be open to new tools and techniques such as data generated by our students’ digital footprints and opportunities offered by behavioural psychology.
Achievement differentials and attainment gaps exist for marginalised students. Disabled students, or students with executive dysfunction, may struggle with skills vital to independent study and content learning e.g., initiation, planning, organisation, etc. For disabled students, a product of being under-served by higher education institutions (HEIs) is that they often demonstrate lower levels of engagement which leads to disproportionate completion rates and, subsequently, employment rates and other outcomes.
Behaviouristic approaches (rewards and sanctions) are at the heart of much of what we still do in education but there have been movements and trends challenging manifestations of this – from banning of corporal punishment in schools to rapid growth in interest in ungrading.
LMS data are not indicators of students’ potential and merit. LAs are not impartial; they are creations of human design. By giving a voice to the data, we’re defining their meaning through our interpretations.
It is valuable to build in periodic or persistent nudges of and toward ‘both the goal and its value’ to empower all students to sustain their efforts (CAST, 2018). We advocate the implementation of nudges as something that can be useful for everyone using an LMS, as compared to a tool aimed directly at disabled students, who may feel singled out. We hold that nudging is less of an evolution of behaviourism but more of a challenge to its ubiquity and all the common assumptions about its effectiveness. We propose the employment of empathy, human connection (in contrast with carrot and stick approaches of education) and understanding to help effect small changes through supportive nudges. Nudging, prompted by LAs, is one way to approach improving achievement, narrowing gaps and offering connection and support for all students.
Q1 – If nudging students is less about coercive practises (punishments and rewards) and more about ‘soft’, small-step connections towards positive change, what examples can you offer from your practice?
Q2 – What role does/could learning analytics (LAs) play in shaping our in-course interactions with students, particularly those from marginalised groups?
Q3 – LAs risks profiling students and driving inequality. How might we address the weaknesses of LAs (such as the cognitive biases we may bring to its interpretation and/or some students being advantaged by extra guidance)?
Q4 – What role might nudging and/ or LAs play in personalising/adaptive learning?
Q5 – Regarding the complex issues in the nexus of student agency & subjectivity, privacy, consent, & vulnerability, how might we differentiate between LAs & surveillance in online HE?
Q6 – Can nudges assist students in overcoming ‘learned helplessness’ especially when breaking through cycles of negative thoughts and self-blame? If so, how might nudges support students in taking control of their educational experiences?
Join us on Wed, 2 Feb at 8p (GMT) / Thu, 3 Feb at 7a (AEDT)
Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Mcleod, H., et al. (2020). The Manifesto for Teaching Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lim, L. A., Gentili, S., Pardo, A., Kovanović, V., Whitelock-Wainwright, A., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2021). What changes, and for whom? A study of the impact of learning analytics-based process feedback in a large course. Learning and Instruction, 72, 101202.
Payne, A. L., Compton, M. & Kennedy, S. (In Progress). ‘Supporting and humanising behavioural change without the behaviorism: nudges and digital footprints.’ Human Data Interaction, Disadvantage and Skills in the Community: Enabling Cross-Sector Environments For Postdigital Inclusion. Springer.
Prinsloo, P. (2016). “Decolonising the Collection, Analyses and Use of Student Data: A Tentative Exploration/Proposal.” Open Distance Teaching and Learning (blog). https://opendistanceteachingandlearning.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/decolonising-the-collection-analyses-and-use-of-student-data-a-tentative-explorationproposal/.
Prinsloo, P., & Slade, S.(2015). Student privacy self-management: implications for learning analytics. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge (LAK ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/2723576.2723585
Roberts, L. D., Howell, J. A., Seaman, K., & Gibson, D. C. (2016). Student Attitudes toward Learning Analytics in Higher Education: “The Fitbit Version of the Learning World”. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1959. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01959