In my application for Innovative Initiative Grant funding
for a project researching student and staff perceptions of co-creation of the
curriculum, I felt an innovative aspect of this project could be involving
students as research consultants. Their role was to contribute the student
perspective to analysis of the student focus group data, and to help co-lead
the focus groups for academic members of staff. Therefore, I would be able to
experience an element of co-creation within my research on this subject, so it
was particularly relevant and topical. I was delighted to receive the small
grant which would enable me to compensate the Student Consultants a bit for
their work. This project was also accepted to be presented at the Student Partnerships in Quality Scotland (sparqs) conference in March 2017, so another
great opportunity arose at that conference for the students to co-present the
work together with me.
I wasn’t nervous before leading the student focus groups
with student representatives since this was not too dissimilar to other events
I run at the Students’ Association to contribute to student representatives’
training and skills development. This time, though, I was excited to share my
own work and the area of student/staff partnerships in co-creating the
curriculum with them since I wanted to share this interest and I thought many
would be interested in this idea. What I was nervous about ahead of the focus
groups was in how to present the Student Consultant opportunity. What if no one
was interested?
Risk is a theme that has been arising in my qualitative data from interviews I previously conducted with both staff and students who have participated in co-creation of the curriculum. Staff felt a sense of risk that students would not engage with their work, and another sense of risk in not knowing the direction of their collaborative work to develop an aspect of the curriculum together since this would depend on the ideas and consensus within the group. Furthermore, students can feel a sense of risk in taking more ownership over their learning, feeling more accountable to the learning community than in traditional courses, and not knowing what to expect from this non-traditional teaching. However, it was interesting for me to feel this sense of risk and nervousness myself while I wondered if any students would want to work with me on the project. If they didn’t, then a core aspect of my ‘innovative’ project would not work and it would no longer be very novel. Therefore, I put in quite some time into designing a handout to promote the role and getting the wording right so it was clear yet hopefully enticing and not over-promising anything or asking too much of the students.
Luckily for me, I had five students email me to express their interest in the two Student Consultant roles. It was a difficult decision because all of the student focus group participants had provided valuable contributions, and especially these students. Two students in particular wrote about how much they had enjoyed the project, what they could contribute to it, and what skills and experience they felt they could gain by participating – I offered them the roles but it was difficult turning the other students down.
We have now met once to co-analyse the focus group data, after finally finding a time we could all meet. We had all read through the transcripts of the two focus groups (about 20 pages each!) and the students had been very conscientious in their preparations and notes about their reflections which led to a valuable discussion. We had very similar interpretations of the data relating to students’ aims in higher education, students’ views of effective teaching, and their perspectives on student engagement. All of us had been surprised that the first focus group (which neither of them had been a part of) had been a bit negative about the idea of co-creation of the curriculum. Several participants in that focus group had complained about the heavy workload of preparing ahead of a flipped classroom experience, they felt there was no benefit in attending if they did not have time to prepare adequately, and even when they had prepared some of these students had felt that the discussion was too ‘out of the box’. Both the Student Consultants and I were surprised that these participants had previously spoken about the need for students to take responsibility for their learning experience; furthermore, they had voiced the view that effective teachers should adapt to students’ interests and act on students’ feedback to improve the course as it takes place. Therefore, we felt it was contradictory that these participants had highlighted many challenges to co-creation of the curriculum when, in other parts of the discussion, it seemed that they would have benefited from and enjoyed experiencing co-creation of the curriculum. By contrast, the second student focus group (which both Student Consultants had been part of) was generally very positive about the opportunities that co-creation present.
We are still analysing the focus group data, and we are preparing for leading the two focus groups with staff on 10 and 13 March. One of the Student Consultants has volunteered to create the short PowerPoint sharing the general consensus from the student focus groups, which will be presented after the staff share their perspectives so that we can discuss the comparison. My first gut reaction was to think ‘What if the presentation isn’t good?’ but immediately I felt that it would be ok since part of the process of co-creation is letting go of ownership over the direction of the project. From what I hear from staff who have done this, often the students go above and beyond the staff members’ expectations and produce exceptionally high-quality work when they’re given this opportunity. If they don’t, then we can have a productive discussion and give each other feedback to improve the presentation, but I’m confident I’ll be pleasantly surprised by the output. We’ll see!
Update: read more about our presentation and experiences at the sparqs conference.
Risk is a theme that has been arising in my qualitative data from interviews I previously conducted with both staff and students who have participated in co-creation of the curriculum. Staff felt a sense of risk that students would not engage with their work, and another sense of risk in not knowing the direction of their collaborative work to develop an aspect of the curriculum together since this would depend on the ideas and consensus within the group. Furthermore, students can feel a sense of risk in taking more ownership over their learning, feeling more accountable to the learning community than in traditional courses, and not knowing what to expect from this non-traditional teaching. However, it was interesting for me to feel this sense of risk and nervousness myself while I wondered if any students would want to work with me on the project. If they didn’t, then a core aspect of my ‘innovative’ project would not work and it would no longer be very novel. Therefore, I put in quite some time into designing a handout to promote the role and getting the wording right so it was clear yet hopefully enticing and not over-promising anything or asking too much of the students.
Luckily for me, I had five students email me to express their interest in the two Student Consultant roles. It was a difficult decision because all of the student focus group participants had provided valuable contributions, and especially these students. Two students in particular wrote about how much they had enjoyed the project, what they could contribute to it, and what skills and experience they felt they could gain by participating – I offered them the roles but it was difficult turning the other students down.
We have now met once to co-analyse the focus group data, after finally finding a time we could all meet. We had all read through the transcripts of the two focus groups (about 20 pages each!) and the students had been very conscientious in their preparations and notes about their reflections which led to a valuable discussion. We had very similar interpretations of the data relating to students’ aims in higher education, students’ views of effective teaching, and their perspectives on student engagement. All of us had been surprised that the first focus group (which neither of them had been a part of) had been a bit negative about the idea of co-creation of the curriculum. Several participants in that focus group had complained about the heavy workload of preparing ahead of a flipped classroom experience, they felt there was no benefit in attending if they did not have time to prepare adequately, and even when they had prepared some of these students had felt that the discussion was too ‘out of the box’. Both the Student Consultants and I were surprised that these participants had previously spoken about the need for students to take responsibility for their learning experience; furthermore, they had voiced the view that effective teachers should adapt to students’ interests and act on students’ feedback to improve the course as it takes place. Therefore, we felt it was contradictory that these participants had highlighted many challenges to co-creation of the curriculum when, in other parts of the discussion, it seemed that they would have benefited from and enjoyed experiencing co-creation of the curriculum. By contrast, the second student focus group (which both Student Consultants had been part of) was generally very positive about the opportunities that co-creation present.
We are still analysing the focus group data, and we are preparing for leading the two focus groups with staff on 10 and 13 March. One of the Student Consultants has volunteered to create the short PowerPoint sharing the general consensus from the student focus groups, which will be presented after the staff share their perspectives so that we can discuss the comparison. My first gut reaction was to think ‘What if the presentation isn’t good?’ but immediately I felt that it would be ok since part of the process of co-creation is letting go of ownership over the direction of the project. From what I hear from staff who have done this, often the students go above and beyond the staff members’ expectations and produce exceptionally high-quality work when they’re given this opportunity. If they don’t, then we can have a productive discussion and give each other feedback to improve the presentation, but I’m confident I’ll be pleasantly surprised by the output. We’ll see!
Update: read more about our presentation and experiences at the sparqs conference.
No comments:
Post a Comment