selected – thinking thoughts academic practice

The hidden curriculum

When I very first started teaching (not at UAL) I was completely taken by surprise at the lack of joined-up thinking across the unit on which I was teaching. I couldn’t make sense of what the course roadmap looked like, how all the units fitted together and how my teaching needed to connect.

My very first contract was to undertake some marking with very little guidance or understanding of the course. I took the work on more out of curiosity and because I was interested in moving into higher education. When exploring the apparent disconnect with the course leader, I was told that it was for the students to piece together the learning, to connect the dots across various content. At the time I didn’t question or challenge this as I was new to education but felt uncomfortable about the quality of the teaching and learning that this approach created. I did not really know how to articulate this.

In preparing my planning and design case study, this topic came up again and I tried to find reading around the topic of disconnected curriculums (my own words for how it felt) this quote from Faculty Focus seemed to support what was an intuitive feeling for me.

Another reason why learning doesn’t seem to last long for many students is because they don’t see how each “part” of the instruction fits into the “big picture.” Teachers often choose to teach their material in discrete units for ease of course organization. This often leads students to compartmentalize, cram, and then forget as they turn their attention to the next unit.

Using Context to Deepen and Lengthen Learning Tyler Griffin is an assistant professor at Brigham Young University

The idea that this is for ease of course organisation does not seem to support a student-focused learning environment. My experience at UAL is that this is less of an issue, however, I have only taught on one course and have a long and positive relationship with the course leader who is very inclusive with our team and encourages all of us to input to unit and course design and ensures we have a clear understanding of the ‘shape’ of the course.

However, this seems to happen by default due to personality and leadership rather than being systemised as part of ‘how we work’ at UAL. I am aware of teaching staff who have moved to other courses who still feel this sense of disconnect and lack of joined-up thinking regarding learning outcomes and teaching inputs.

On discussing my case study topic with Lindsay she mentioned the concept of a ‘hidden curriculum’ which is a new phrase for me. We also discussed the idea that this creates a sink or swim situation for many students, which has implications for inclusivity – some students may be capable of making those connections enabled by factors such as previous educational context or language, for others it will be much more challenging and may reinforce and exacerbate inequalities. I was interested in this idea of a hidden curriculum so read further about it.

I found Unpacking the Hidden Curriculum published by the Quality Assurance Agency and downloaded the guide for educators and will discuss with our course lead whether this is currently part of our planning, it may be covered in sessions in which I am not involved. I also feel it connects to ideas around cognitive load – if international students are navigating so many mentally competing situations and environments when they first arrive in the UK and at UAL, we could aim to reduce some of that through extra support on the hidden curriculum. I intuitively feel that this issue is probably the most difficult for them to navigate as it is, by definition, opaque and hidden!

The ‘hidden curriculum’ of higher education refers to certain unspoken ‘rules of the game’ about the norms, processes, and language of higher education that students are implicitly assumed to have but are not explicitly taught or explained (Hubbard et al, 2020; Semper and Blasco, 2018).

https://www.qaa.ac.uk/news-events/news/unpacking-the-hidden-curriculum-for-students-new-guidance-launched-for-staff

Unpacking the Hidden Curriculum – a guide for teaching staff

I followed up by listening to a podcast from the developers and authors of the guide, Pam Birtill, and Richard Harris, amongst the points made, were the ideas of confidence and cultural capital bringing advantage to some students. They discuss the idea that some students are ‘just surviving’ their university experience and that even by the final year of a degree some topics are unclear. This ‘survival’ mode can deeply affect stress levels and a sense of belonging which in turn can impact learning and outcomes.

Reflections: I am currently unclear how much of the hidden curriculum thinking is explicitly covered in the Design Management course, and even if work has been done to address this, my own experience of dealing with students on a one-to-one basis in workshops and FMP tutorials would indicate there is more that could be done. On the DM course, 100% of our students are international, many of whom are living away from home for the first time and whilst they all have previous experience of university it will often have been totally different in the cultural norms and rituals that exist vs UAL / studying in the UK. Birtill and Harris discuss the differences between universities in terms of language, terminology and rituals and that applying a local context for their hidden curriculum guide is critical – at a university level but also at a course level.

Additionally, I feel I could integrate some of the principles of the hidden curriculum into how I design my topics or units, for example, checking understanding of terminology using padlet or whiteboards (for anonymity if students don’t feel confident speaking up) at the start of a teaching session

I would like to run a more explicit session on elements of the hidden curriculum with students at the start of my FMP supervision process. I usually ask/check if there are any questions but I think I could do a deeper dive to assess levels of understanding and make it a much more interactive session – again using padlet, asking them to work in groups to identify areas that are unclear or confusing.

‘good’ learning

I was finally able to attend an in-person session, despite the challenges of landslips on the train line and a 2.5-hour commute rather than 55 mins!

notions of criticality

In preparation for this session I read Macfarlane, Teaching with Integrity and was immediately surprised by the comment that ‘the notion of criticality has rarely been systematically and rigorously applied to teaching practice in university education’, – the idea of criticality is an integral part of what we expect our students to demonstrate on the MA in Design Management and I was surprised to read that, in his opinion, this has not been brought to reflective academic practice systemically.

As someone whose undergraduate degree was in Politics and History (admittedly many moons ago) the notion of criticality is so embedded in my thinking it is more about who I am not what I do! I’m not sure I can think in any other way…

evaluating learning

Further, into the text Macfarlane discusses that ‘lecturer performance and student performance are not necessarily synonymous’. I found this a thought-provoking concept and I am unsure how you start to disentangle the two and note that Macfarlane doesn’t really expand upon this either.

Throughout most of 2022 I was fortunate enough to have a student from the MA DM course, work with me as an intern on a challenging consultancy project around redesigning work for a large global publishing group, I had mentored her through her thesis and was aware that her skill set and personal attributes could add value to the work. It was a great learning experience for both of us. For me, I could see the value of the studies she had undertaken in a ‘real world’ context, and also identify where the gaps may have been in her learning and understanding which could inform my curriculum design.

It enabled me to see where the student had internalised concepts and was easily integrating this into how we practiced and where there were gaps in understanding and/or application of knowledge. In this respect, I was looking at ‘student performance’ in a different context which was illuminating.

Therefore, when Macfarlane discusses SEQs and the need for a variety of tools to evaluate the quality of teaching this really resonated with me. I strongly feel that the real value from the MADM course evolves and emerges as students gain professional/practice experience post-graduation – clearly this will depend on which role, sector, and tasks they undertake.

Whilst LCC may do evaluations post-graduation, as a lecturer on the course I have never had sight of any of this feedback and/or understand how it feeds into curriculum design and iterating our teaching and student needs. This is further supported when Macfarlane comments that higher education is a complex service, moving away from it being a ‘consumer-based service and one that you can only evaluate the value and experience some years after graduation’.

‘We are not transmitting knowledge, we are supporting learning’ writes Gill Aitken, director of post-graduate education at Edinburgh University. This aligns with Macfarlane’s comments that we should ‘challenge students to re-examine their own knowledge base rather than simply transferring information uncritically’

Graham Barton and Judy Wilkins state that ‘one of the central assumptions of learning development is that learning is often more than the simple acquisition of new knowledge and skills, with the potential for transformations in perceptions, values and beliefs’. Whilst we do undertake assessment of learning in the short term via a range of methods such as assignments, I do feel that assessing whether a ‘transformation’ has taken place may require distance and space from the actual learning process. Which led me to think about where does the value sit in the course and learning for my students? I feel like I make assumptions about this without real insight…

The UK Framework for Programme Reviews (2022) sets out to give some definition around quality and value in response to the OfS focus on courses deemed ‘low quality’ and recognise the risk that ‘regulation and funding decisions based only on narrow graduate outcome measures will harm courses that support levelling up, improve social mobility and deliver student choice’

I would be interested in exploring this further with students who are alumni of the course, or exploring with my course leader how we assess value on our course, how we are measuring and understanding value.

My thoughts are unclear on this at the moment however in terms of input to curriculum design it feels important to understand where the ‘value’ sits for our students in our course. Moreover, it could assist me when I am interviewing prospective students, I don’t really have a clear view on how I can discuss this topic with them when asked that question. I can talk about student progression in a functional way i.e. job roles, which organisations they may be working in, but not really communicate where the real value has come in the course which I would hope is wider than job role or earnings.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/designing-postgraduate-education-means-sharing-and-developing-academic-and-professional

https://sparkjournal.arts.ac.uk/index.php/spark/article/view/75/129

https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/sites/default/files/field/downloads/2022-01/uuk-framework-for-programme-reviews.pdf

thinking through drawing

Thinking through drawing….

I’m a big fan of visual frameworks for aligning, problem-solving, and enabling different points of view, `I use them all the time in my practice workshops and designing consultancy projects

In a deliberate attempt to develop new skills, I attended the Thinking through Drawing workshop with Ilga Leimanis FHEA . From a teaching point of view I wanted to attend a workshop that is totally different to anything I currently teach myself to see what learnings I may have for my own practice.

Ilga’s view is that too often we think of an idea and try to draw it, this keeps our thinking in the rational side of our brains. To unlock alternative thinking she advised we need to try not to think.. just do (it all sounds very Jedi) and see what emerges

As you can see I’ll never have a career in illustration (!) but accessing a different part of my brain around one of my work topics on the future of work design was enlightening and indeed gave me alternative thoughts on how to talk about tackling it.

the workshop

The workshop was online with approx 12 attendees. The steps that Ilga took us through reduced my worries about being able to draw, she made it very clear that the workshop was not about drawing ‘skills’ but about thinking and unlocking thinking. We worked individually for an hour or so as she guided us through various stages which involved inputs of words to help us iterate and develop our thinking, laddering through ideas.

We then moved to Padlet where we shared content, talked through our work and how we found the experience, Ilga then offered ideas and thoughts on how to develop the work further, in my case that meant not using so many words but perhaps using shapes in their place.

reflections

Ilga’s tone was measured, thoughtful and encouraging. This encouraged a relaxed learning environment where I felt confident to explore and less worried about comparing my output to the other attendees (all of whom seemed to be from either illustration or fine art courses!). I hope I deliver an encouraging learning context for my students but I do feel I sometimes rush through content, I would like to bring more ‘breathing space’ into the teaching I do, more reflection, and ‘ease’. This relates also to my other blog post on learning environments and time to think.
Ilga runs this workshop often and her use of the technology and smoothness with which that worked was evident, this in turn ensured she was relaxed. Her expertise in this topic was clear – a reminder of the benefit of testing tech and smooth transitions between tools used
At the end was a link to a very simple questionnaire to understand what value we had taken from the workshop – I would like to test using a simple Typeform survey at the end of some of my teaching sessions or perhaps a more engaging, playful way of getting feedback.

I’m keen to encourage my students to attend this workshop or perhaps use this technique when planning teaching to see what options it unlocks

mountains and new beginnings

16^th January

Attended my first PGCert intro session whilst sitting in the French Alps on a family holiday, not for the first time I reflected on the impact of the seismic shift to remote working and learning, how it has both enabled balance of life and work and simultaneously brought other challenges around setting boundaries and not being constantly available.

It felt almost luxurious to have 3 hours of reflective practice, and my first thought at the end of the workshop, as I looked out at the snow and my different surroundings, was how had this different environment influenced my ability to process, learn and engage with the content of the session. I had felt relaxed, engaged and open to listening and learning from others.

We know that the digital / metaverse / phygital world provides many options for new blended learning experiences, however the reality is that I teach again in an uninspiring room, in a building not fit for purpose, and with the physical restrictions of tables, room layouts, etc.

How can this type of space stretch thinking, and inspire creativity and reflection?

Having recently visited my son’s new university with a £25m investment in a new engineering building, all the staff enthusiastically and excitedly talked about the design thinking behind the new building, the labs and how the lecture rooms have been designed to encourage group work, focus and healthy learning environments.

I have worked in the design of retail space and am a co-founder of a creative co-working space outside of London where we took inspiration from the writing of Nancy Kline in Time to Think and the Ten Components of a Thinking Environment to create an effective working environment.

With reference to Place, Nancy Kline says

Producing a physical environment – the room, the listener, your body – that says, ‘You matter’. When the physical environment affirms our importance, we think more clearly and boldly. When our bodies are cared for and respected, our thinking improves.

Thinking Environments are places that say back to people, ‘You matter.’ People think at their best when they notice that the place reflects their value to the people there and to the event. And because the first place of thinking is the body, it needs to be in a condition that says to us as thinkers, ‘You matter’.

In these ways, Place is a silent form of appreciation.

The question of how does the space at LCC say to our students ‘you matter’ is an interesting one. In the meantime how am I managing the space we have and myself within it to reinforce a message that my students ‘matter’? What can I do with the space that I have and the restrictions of that …

Shelia Ball takes Kline’s ideas and questions ‘in what ways does Kline’s Thinking Environment create the conditions for developing equity? What are the implications for education policy and practice?’ This got me thinking about power structures and the development of teaching spaces.

Further explorations around this topic in connection with academic environments brough up a Spark Journal article ‘A journey around my classroom: the psychogeography of learning spaces’ – the term psychogeography was new to me and the focus of one of the presentations in the workshop this morning. In this article the writers pose the following question

‘If it is common practice in art and design subjects to create a non-hierarchical relationship between students and staff, why are we still looking for the educator who supposedly holds all the knowledge and stands at the front of the room?’

I’m interested to think about this further, how in my own practice I can think about both the use of space in terms of a learning environment and connected with that how the use of space can contribute to a non-hierarchical relationship between myself and students. This is particularly interesting for me in my role as an AL – I often feel that as an AL I am engaged with the university for my content knowledge and less for my teaching and learning expertise. Therefore students do not tend to challenge or perhaps I am too directional in the way I approach topics.

Further exploration of this topic led me to a book called Bernstein, B. (2000) Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research and critique (Rev. ed). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, it appears this is available in the LCC library so note to self to pop in next time I’m at LCC and take a look

So.. in my efforts to bring small changes, this week I used music, playing the song Lovely Day by Bill Withers as the students entered the room – I could sense a slight surprise and a lightness in the room and environment as students filed in and connected differently with both myself and one another. It helped that the sun was out and the sky was blue! Reminiscent of my week in the Mountains before.

Definition of Psychogeography

Psychogeography is the study of specific effects of the geographical environment, consciously organized or not, on the emotions and behaviour of individuals. (Debord, 1955

The Ten Components

https://www.timetothink.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/literature-review-s-ball.pdf

https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/10341/1/25-178-1-PB.pdf

Debord, G. (1955) ‘Introduction to a critique of urban geography’, in Knabb, K. (ed.) (1981) Situationist International Anthology. Oakland: Bureau of Public Secrets