#LTHEchat 147 The Hidden Curriculum with @scholastic_rat

The ‘Hidden Curriculum’ refers to the tacit, unintended, unacknowledged lessons that are passed on alongside the formal curriculum. Education acts as a form of socialisation after all, and alongside the subject matter, we also implicitly inculcate norms, values and beliefs through our practices, language and even the architecture around us.

These implicit ‘moral’ lessons may help to create a positive learning environment and socialise students into the characteristic discourses and practices of their discipline as well as other socially desirable ‘graduate’ attributes,  but they may also more problematically reinforce social injustice and inequality-  invisible lessons about gender, class, sexuality or race. It’s not just a matter of the individual teacher’s practice; as part of the curriculum, the institution and the discipline, it’s also systemic. It could be right there in the way we expect students to write ‘properly’, the personal qualities we reward in our marking schemes, in the phrasing of an assignment or feedback, in the dynamics of a seminar or furniture of a lecture room. Academic Literacies theory tells us that learning takes place in a strongly hierarchical context of power and authority, not just regarding the knowledge that is right and wrong, but about identities and voices that are acceptable.

As the Hidden Curriculum is, well, hidden, it is difficult to engage with, interrogate or contest. Some students with greater cultural capital may pick these invisible lessons up unproblematically, others may find themselves struggling to guess the secret rules of the game or feel a strong sense of dissonance with what is being presented as ‘right’ or ‘natural’. They can be left bewildered and disempowered by mixed messages when in the hidden curriculum clashes with the official one or with their own prior experiences of education. We may ourselves be unaware of these incidental learning outcomes around how a ‘good student’ thinks and behaves, unwittingly passing on our own socialisation, unexamined and unchallenged. Without examining our hidden curriculum, we cannot make deliberate or ethical decisions about what we’re encouraging students to learn.

Are we helping students to enact the necessary epistemological or methodological implications of their discipline in HE, or is it rather about their ability to fulfil socio-cultural conventions which have more to do with class, race or gender than actual learning? The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education often implicitly demands that students reject their own ways of making and articulating meaning, their own identities and ways of knowing and seeing the world, as being less valid than those of the university, alienating them from their own learning. Could this be contested and diversified?

This tweetchat will explore our encounters with the Hidden Curriculum asking how both we and our students can uncover it, articulate it and, where desirable, challenge it together through a process of emancipatory ‘decolonisation’.

Reading:

Lea, M. and Street, B. (1998) ‘Student Writing in Higher Education: An Academic Literacies Approach’, Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), pp. 157-172.

Lillis, T. (2001) Student Writing: Access, Regulation, Desire. London and New York: Routledge.

Snyder, B. R. (1970) The Hidden Curriculum. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

Margolis, E. (ed.) (2001) The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge.

A brief biography:

Dr Helen Webster is a Learning Developer and head of the Writing Development Centre at Newcastle University. She works in a central, student-facing role across the institution, helping students at all levels and in all disciplines negotiate the complex conventions and practices of UK Higher Education, and reflect on their own study strategies to become successful independent learners.

She is interested in developing interprofessional models and approaches for this emerging profession, particularly around one-to-one work. A qualified teacher, Senior Fellow of the HEA and Certified Leading Practitioner of Learning Development, she is also an executive steering group member for the Association of Learning Developers in Higher Education. She blogs at https://rattusscholasticus.wordpress.com

The Wakelet for this chat will be available here

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEchat 146 Teaching Excellence: the drivers and barriers from a practitioner perspective with @cwaterhouse_e

When defining teaching excellence I can only talk about an institution-specific culture, and what it looks like at my institution, Harper Adams. Here it’s based on interactiveness, where colleagues are really engaging with students and thinking outside the box in terms of delivery.  This could be as simple as thinking about how to deliver similar information in a different way, for example, colleagues may present information in webinars or livestreams. To create this culture, encouraging staff to talk about teaching excellence is key. 

As a result of attending the Teaching Excellence Programme (TEP) in 2017, I’m trying to be more active in terms of talking to people about teaching excellence. This includes discussing the concept, asking how we can measure/ achieve it and how that might relate to a TEF submission. I’m probably the annoying person that keeps nattering at colleagues about the same thing! While our TEF narrative is authored by senior colleagues, like other teaching-active staff, I have an interest in contributing to the data we’re collecting and what it demonstrates about Harper Adams.

I was fortunate to get some internal funding to run a project to understand the staff perspective on the drivers and barriers to teaching excellence, which will be published externally. In addition to this, I’ve run conference workshops at both Edge Hill and Plymouth University and will be hosting a  #LTHE chat on Wednesday 15 May. This project was integral to understand institution-specific teaching excellence, with one of the recommendations being that it is rerun on a larger scale to gather wider viewpoints. 

Before I took part in TEP I was looking to gain a sense of where my practice was in terms of the sector and also where I sat within my institution in terms of my contribution in this particular area. My desire to take part was very self-driven, I wanted to be able to bring some useful recommendations back to base. I found that the first masterclass around teaching excellence absolutely set the context of why we were there. After that, there were useful refresher exercises and group conversation which helped me with sense checking that I was still up to speed with good practice. 

I took part in TEP because I wanted to access a wider viewpoint and internal staff development wouldn’t have offered the same breadth. I was able to share viewpoints with colleagues from different institutions, as attending events like this mean that automatically you’re in the room with people from different places. 

I thoroughly enjoyed the TEP. The pre-correspondence was well organised and we were encouraged to make contact with fellow group members before the first workshop, which created a welcoming and approachable environment in which I felt that any questions I had would not be seen as silly. This environment is representative of the culture I have helped create a Harper Adams, one in which teaching excellence is discussed and engaged with by staff.

Article originally published by AdvanceHE here

A brief biography:

Emily is a Lecturer in Student Academic & Professional Development at Harper Adams University, specialising in the design and delivery of animal and veterinary-related Workforce Development. 

Emily joined the staff at Harper Adams as a Project Coordinator in 2006. In 2008, Emily was appointed Business Development Manager where she co-developed a number of animal- and veterinary related courses. Emily’s commitment to enhancing practice is illustrated by her successful completion of postgraduate teaching and learning qualifications.  In 2012, Emily took up an academic post and achieved Senior Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy in May 2015. To date, Emily’s excellent practice has been recognised through the ASPIRE Excellence Awards (in 2008-9, for Sharing and Developing Excellence and in 2015-16, for Innovating and Sharing Excellent Practice).  In 2017/18, Emily started work on an internally funded Aspire Development Fellowship exploring the drivers and barriers to teaching excellence.

The Wakelet for this chat will be available here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEchat 145 PGRs Who Teach with @CatherineLill20

PGRs have very different opportunities to teach. Some institutions (or departments) rely on PGRs to deliver teaching but provide limited or no support for their development. Others value and nurture this as a vital career stage, recognising that for those PGRs interested in pursuing an academic career, being immersed in teaching activities is part of the ‘academic apprenticeship’ of the PhD, and that these teaching opportunities will enable their PGRs to enter a competitive academic jobs market in a stronger position. Some may choose not to involve PGRs in teaching at all, citing reasons of teaching quality or exploitation of PGRs (whose primary focus should be on their research).

The discourse around Postgraduates who teach (PGWT*) is also varied- from celebrating and valuing their ‘unique niche’ and ‘key strengths’ (Winstone and Moore, 2017), to referring to them in deficit terms- “you’ll just be getting a PhD teacher for this session”, or “we’re not going to fob you off with a PhD student”. With the backdrop of fees and the pervasive value for money narrative, students too may feel that they are getting something ‘less’ if some of their teaching is delivered by a ‘novice academic’.

Yet there is much evidence to suggest that PGWT bring something valuable to the table. As near-peers, students often perceive them to bring a more personal contact which can impact on retention (Reeves et al 2016) and this ‘relaxed and comfortable interaction’ can play an important role in student learning (Nasser & Fresko, 2018). Their enthusiasm, the fact that they are often adept at guiding students through threshold concepts and their ability to ‘exploit the research-teaching nexus to the maximum’ (Fairbrother, 2012) are also highlighted as strengths.

And what of the PGWT themselves. PGWT can be described as having role conflict (Park & Ramos, 2002) as they negotiate the dual identity – and liminal space – of being both student and teacher. They are often given teaching responsibilities without ongoing support or development, or with little opportunity to experience the full range of teaching and learning activities. Yet Ryan (2015) highlights that “providing students with structured training in the pedagogical fundamentals will not only enhance the GTAs ability to carry out their role as teachers, but it will also improve the undergraduate learning experience”. So how can those who work in development or academic roles best support them?

This Tweetchat will uncover and explore some of these issues. The questions are designed to be responded to by both PGWT and those who support or work with them.

* The term PGWT is used broadly, to describe all doctoral students who teach including PhD students with limited teaching and those on GTA contracts.

References:

Fairbrother, H. (2012) Creating space: Maximising the potential of the Graduate Teaching Assistant role, Teaching in Higher Education, 17:3, 353-358

Nasser-Abu Alhija, F. and Fresko, B. (2018) Graduate teaching assistants: how well do their students think they do?  Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43:6, 943-954

Park, C. and Ramos, M. (2002) The donkey in the department? Insights into the Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) experience in the UK Journal of Graduate Education, 3, 47-53

Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., & Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(2)

Ryan, B. (2015) Postgraduate Researchers who Teach: how can national policy and the structured PhD centralise this forgotten tribe and celebrate their skills in tackling some of the current challenges in Irish higher education AISHE-J, 7, 1-13

Winstone, N. and Moore, D. (2017) Sometimes fish, sometimes fowl? Liminality, identity work and identity malleability in graduate teaching assistants Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54:5, 494-502

About:

Catherine Lillie is a Teaching Enhancement Advisor at the University of Hull. The main focus of her role is developing and delivering teaching and learning support for PGRs and early career academics through a range of accredited and credit-bearing programmes, and non-accredited provision. She is a Senior Fellow of the HEA and is a part-time doctoral student at Lancaster University.

The Wakelet for this chat will be available here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEchat 144 Celebrating Failure with @NomadWarMachine and @DrAnnBingham

Failure is often a dirty word in education: it’s associated with a loss of credit for students, work needing to be redone, resits, being held back. For staff it is associated with lack of promotion, awkward conversations in yearly performance and development reviews, even loss of employment … why would anybody want to risk that? Setting ourselves or our students up to fail seems like a recipe for disaster, surely?

Yes at the same time we know that often creativity, originality, even genius are the products of risk taking … and who would want to stifle that? Not allowing ourselves or our students the chance to excel seems … just wrong – doesn’t it?

So how do we resolve this tension?

The topic for this chat came from a serendipitous conversation over Twitter where the pair of us talked about the need to allow ourselves and our students opportunities to take risks without the fear of censure. Join us in this chat as we think about the language we use to talk about failure and how we, as professionals working in education, can can help to create an atmosphere where failure can lead to success.

 

References

Honeychurch, S. (2019) The Future of Learning [blog] Available at: http://www.nomadwarmachine.co.uk/2019/04/17/the-future-of-learning/ Accessed 25/4/19

Kapur, M. (2008) “Productive Failure” Cognition and instruction vol.26 no.3 pp.379-424 doi:10.1080/07370000802212669   

Sarah Honeychurch @NomadWarMachine is a Teaching Fellow in the Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, where she is investigating ways of making learning, teaching and assessment less stressful and more meaningful for staff and students. She is currently writing-up a PhD in Education which considers the effects of online peer interaction on learning.

Sarah is also an editor for the journals Hybrid Pedagogy and Research in Learning Technology. She blogs at http://www.nomadwarmachine.co.uk/

Dr Ann Bingham is a Senior Teaching Fellow at the Centre for Higher Education Practice at the University of Southampton.

With a background in Chemistry, Ann obtained her PhD in 2002.   In addition to Teaching, Ann’s roles encompassed leadership, mentoring, and staff development before moving into academic development.  

With a passion for life-long learning, Ann continues to maintain her record of CPD, her interests encompass, Innovative Curriculum Design, Assessment and Feedback, the International Student Experience, Cultural Differences in HE, and Personal Academic Tutoring.   She is a Fellow of the HEA, a member of NACADA and ALDinHE and a founding member of UKAT where she holds the position of Vice-Chair (Community Engagement).

Here’s the Wakelet for this chat: https://wke.lt/w/s/nHeqPG

Posted in guest, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEChat 143 Sketchnoting Extra Activity with Dawne Bell @belld17

competition

Wow! Wow! Wow! What an amazing chat that was!

Thank you so much for sharing all of your fantastically creative ideas and just for fun, we thought it might be nice to present a little award for the most creative, innovative, funniest, cutest, inspirational visual sketch noting tweet.

However, because we are aware that quite a few of you weren’t able to join us on the night, to ensure everyone has had an equal opportunity to participate we’re going to give it a few more days for the tweeting to die down and then based on your ‘votes’ we’ll award this cute little A5 note book and pencil (provided courtesy of The Centre for Learning and Teaching at Edge Hill University) to the creator of the tweet with the most likes and re-tweets, or something like that. Remember, the judges’ decision is final!

20190407_194228

The wakelet of entries can be found: https://wakelet.com/wake/6c1f70a9-4a15-4f90-b045-2dbafd2eafaf

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEChat 143 Sketchnoting with Dawne Bell @belld17 April 10th 2019 8-9pm BST

lthechatvideo

While the use of visual techniques including pictures, graphs, charts, videos and patterns in letters or learning are well known, the advantages of learners creating their own visuals to help retain focus and as a technique to aid memory recall are not as well documented.

However, there is a growing body of research that suggests that when combined with traditional style written notes, when learners use their own imagery, and take pictorial notes, this visual thinking, doodling with a purpose or as it more commonly known ‘sketchnoting’ can help them to manage unfamiliar ideas and concepts; to support the assimilation of information, and to build bridges between concepts, helping to internally process information and recall it more easily.

In teaching we use visual resources to support learners all of the time, so in this week’s #LTHEchat we would like you to share your experiences; what are the challenges of supporting learners to engage in and develop their own visual learning? and what are the benefits of encouraging them to support their own learning in this way!

You can find the Wakelet archive of this chat here: https://wakelet.com/wake/a7ac4fd7-5bee-43bb-b8db-224bbd23eb0e

Dawne Irving-Bell, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in Teaching and Learning development within the Centre for Learning and Teaching at Edge Hill University.

Dawne

She has extensive experience of working in secondary, further and Higher Education settings and is a member of The Centre for Higher Education Research and Evaluation at Lancaster University. Her research interests include learner identity, specifically, the influence personal histories (experience-related beliefs) have in shaping a learner’s attitudes and approaches toward learning. Pedagogy and pedagogical approaches to STEM Education, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, including the use of technology (and social media) to engage learners and enhance learning.

Dawne is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (PFHEA), leads on the University’s Graduate Teaching Assistant Teaching in Higher Education Programme, and the Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching in Higher Education Developing Practice through Pedagogic Research Module.

In her current position Dawne chairs institutional enquiries and leads on university-wide strategies to enhance the student learning experience, including Personal Tutoring and Induction and Transitions.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

#LTHEchat 142 Use of broadcast media and other AV resources across the disciplines with @cjrw

Unless someone in the Western world makes an intentional decision to go “off grid”, they are likely to encounter daily exposure to an abundance of audiovisual content. Television availability blossomed from three or four terrestrial channels in my youth, to hundreds of satellite stations. Thereafter we have streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon offering further diversity. The online world brings forth YouTube, Facebook videos, plus a plethora of subscription services and more niche learning opportunities.

It is less than a decade since publication of the influential Intelligent Television report Video Use and Higher Education: Options for the future (Kaufman and Mohan, 2009) yet already the technology describes in their report has a nostalgic air. Problems identified with educational use of AV included insufficient copies [of the VHS tape or DVD] in the library, not enough screening rooms and a shortage of foreign formal PAL players. There are hints at the potential relevance of an emerging tool known as the iPod, and a sense of wonder that thirteen hours of material were being uploaded every minute to something called YouTube (which had started in early 2005). It is currently estimated that 300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute (Merchdope, 2019).

Kaufman and Mohan correctly predicted growth in the importance of online content as a resource for education, and the potential development of dedicated archives and repositories of university-relevant AV materials. Many such services now exist, including BoB (“Box of Broadcasts”), an on demand streaming platform offering broadcast media for use in UK Universities, and similar collections in some other countries. These are clearly a boon for courses whose raison d’être is media studies, but can also offer much to the study of other academic disciplines.

It is my contention, however, that Higher Education has been slow to exploit this potential (Willmott, 2014). Do you agree? Maybe you disagree, and have evidence to prove that I’m wrong. Either way, we’d love you to take part in #LTHEchat on Wednesday 3rd April as we reflect on the use of broadcast media and other AV resources across the disciplines.

References:
Kaufman P.B. and Mohan J (2009) Video Use and Higher Education: Option for the future. NY, USA: Intelligent Television. Available at http://intelligenttelevision.com/files/42-intcccnyuvideo_and_higher_edjune_2009_2.pdf (last accessed 30th March 2019).

Merchdope (2019) 37 Mind Blowing YouTube Facts, Figures and Statistics. Available at https://merchdope.com/youtube-stats (last accessed 30th March 2019).

Willmott C (2014) Boxing clever – television as a teaching tool Times Higher Education (28th August 2014, p26). Available at https://tinyurl.com/BoxingClever14 (last accessed 30th March 2019).

Biography:

Image of Dr Chris Willmott

Chris Willmott is an Associate Professor (Senior Lecturer) and National Teaching Fellow (2005) in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of Leicester. Chris’ interests include bioethics, antibiotics and representations of science in broadcast media. He is especially delighted when all three coincide.

 

Conflict of Interest notification: Chris is a Trustee for Learning on Screen, the British Universities and Colleges Film and Video Council. BoB is one of the services provided by Learning on Screen.

Read the Wakelet 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEchat 141 How can staff development support effectively the work of professionals (staff and students)? with @DrRossEspinoza

There are multiple definitions of staff development and names used to describe this area of work. For this discussion, let’s start with one. Staff development can be described as a continuous process involving “education, training, learning and support activities”. It aims to encourage other professionals to grow in their workplace (Marriss, 2011). In a nutshell, staff development is about planting seeds for growth.

In real life, however, things are a little bit more complex. As we know, Higher Education faces turbulent times. We may have witnessed staff development resources becoming constrained or directed elsewhere. And if resources are available, with daily stresses, such as heavy workload, unfriendly and perhaps alien structures and systems, no wonder we may even forget about developing ourselves.

Traditionally, staff development provision has been influenced by a deficit model. In other words, such provision is organised in response to what knowledge, skills and attitudes staff may need in order to do their job effectively. While the intention is positive and as professionals we may require some of that kind of support, could combining strengths and areas of development possibly offer a more balanced approach to help professionals face job demands?

Moreover, Higher Education institutions are typically huge hierarchical entities, so provision is put together to explain the institution’s processes, systems and structures. Staff development, for example, may be put in place to pass on to staff and students how to use online systems that all have to use, to be aware of compliant procedures, and others. In the big picture, this is needed for institutions to continue functioning, but does not necessarily inspire or motivate us.

When we think of the development of our own profession, we consider, for example, attending courses, participating in a workshop, using technologies or other ways. However, it is not an uncommon experience that after taking staff development opportunities (for example, a course), the good effects may be lost when we return to where we work.

On the other hand, ingredients for effective staff development include ‘observation, reflection, planning and action’ (Marriss, 2011), which staff development integrates in their provision. There are also opportunities to enhance its effectiveness by situating staff development within the workplace, so it can take account of routine influences and take advantage of peer learning (Boud, 2006). So, the question remains: ‘How can staff development support effectively the work of professionals (staff and students)’

Staff Development has been my passion and profession since the time I was a university student. This week’s LTHEchat is dedicated to the work of so many professionals whose passion is to help other professionals grow and develop in Higher Education. This discussion seeks to explore potential avenues for re-invention, collaboration and partnership, when organising staff development.

References:

Boud, D. (1999). Situating academic development in professional work: Using peer learning, The International Journal for Academic Development, 4:1, 3-10.

Marriss, D. (2011). Academic staff development. In A. McIntosh, J. Gidman, & E. Mason-Whitehead (Eds.), Key Concepts in Healthcare Education (pp. 1-5). Los Angeles: SAGE.

RossanaDr. Rossana Espinoza (https://www.linkedin.com/in/drrossespinoza/) is a free spirit who takes every opportunity to help others succeed in what they do. She is passionate about Education and technology (please note the capital E and lower case t!). Currently, she is on a mission to reinvent Marketing and Communications for her much-loved Staff Development Forum (SDF) Network on a pro-bono basis.

Weekdays, she is in London working as an Online Content Developer at the Centre for Academic Practice Enhancement at Middlesex University, helping staff with active practice based learning, collaborative learning classrooms or social media. When she isn’t training staff or developing online courses on Moodle, she is hanging out with friends, drawing, or making a tiramisu.

The Wakelet for this week’s chat is now here

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEChat 140 #RAISEEngAssess Authenticity in Assessments with @KiuSum @J_JutleyNeilson @OBrienUoL1

The next #LTHEchat will be hosted by the co-convenors of RAISE Special Interest Group, ‘Engaging Assessment’ (#RAISEEngAssess) discussing “Authenticity in Assessments”. (And yes, is double hashtags!)

Inspired by the successful #LTHEchat monthly chat with #AdvanceHE_chat with the recent topic on “Inclusive Assessment: Where Next”, this chat on Wednesday 13th March 8pm – 9pm discusses best practices on engaging students (and staff) in assessments. The  aim of the chat will be to explore the meaning behind “authenticity” within assessments, share the  practices and challenges of authentic assessments and explore potential strategies and approaches to enhance authenticity.

kiuKiu Sum (@KiuSum) is a Co-Convenor for the ‘Engaging Assessment’ Special Interest Group at RAISE, and currently sits on the committee as the Student Officer. Kiu has been involved in a number of student engagement, which led to her first publication (Sum, 2018) and becoming a reviewer in Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal (SEHEJ). Kiu has also taken on various roles in pedagogy projects, to help champion student engagement including collaborating with Jisc as their Student Partner. She has been an active #LTHEchat participant (led a few chats and part of organising team previously) and continues to work with students and staff in Higher Education by day.

jagjeetJagjeet Jutley-Neilson (@J_JutleyNeilson) is the Director of Student Experience and Progression at University of Warwick (Psychology), a Senior Fellow of HEA and a Co-Convenor for the ‘Engaging Assessment’ Special Interest Group at RAISE. Prior to Warwick, Jagjeet oversees the departmental student experience activities, NSS and TEF metrics, and leads on widening participation activities, student engagement, promoting student voice and pedagogical research. She also works with student on a one to one basis focusing on employability and academic skills. Jagjeet also teaches academic skills, developmental psychology to undergraduate students, and project supervisor to PhD and undergraduate students.

paulaPaula O’Brien (@OBrienUoL1) Principal Lecturer [Teaching] at Lincoln International Business School, Department of People and Organisations

I have extensive experience in the delivery of international MBA programmes delivered in UK, Hong Kong, Zambia and Oman. I possess experience in the development of staff and their pedagogic approach  and inform my own teaching through reflexive practice.  My roles include: College Student in the identity work of international students  with particular focus on diversity and inclusion . I am currently working on a number of student engagement related projects which are cross disciplinary .

RAISE Network website: http://www.raise-network.com/home/

The Wakelet for this chat is available

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEChat 139 Nurturing a feedback culture with @invisiblegrail

Honest feedback is hard. It can be hard to listen to, and difficult to give. Yet as Learning and Teaching practitioners, this is a core part of the learning process for our students; it helps them to listen and respond to challenge, and to adapt their mindset and approach. Over time, it builds resilience, and nurtures the expectation that seeking out opinions from others will ultimately end in a better outcome for everyone.

But whilst we expect our students to grow and thrive through our feedback, do we hold ourselves accountable to the same expectation?

Are we, as individuals and a community, receptive to feedback, using this as an opportunity to grow and learn?

Between colleagues, feedback can be challenging, and in hierarchical working cultures it can be daunting. Yet, if we don’t challenge each other we only ever preserve the status quo, and inaction becomes enabling.

If we were to nurture a feedback-rich culture, where we trust each other and so trust that when feedback is given it is thoughtful and thought through, we might also benefit from greater resilience and an adaptable approach, as individuals and as a community.

At a time when pressure is mounting to excel at the student experience, a feedback-rich culture that is expected, lived and valued by everyone in the university could help us adapt and thrive; consciously choosing to learn rather than battle to stay the same.

For this tweet chat, we want to know how we can tap into our skills in feeding back and use these to grow stronger communities in learning and teaching. We want to know how we can bring this narrative alive.

LC IG extras-1-7

Over the last six years Louise has crafted a career in marketing and communications within higher education. Specialising in professional development, Louise thrives on working with people to bring alive the stories that show the wider world who they are and why what they do matters.

 

The Wakelet for this chat is available: http://wke.lt/w/s/pQg5T

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment