­

Inclusivity Week | Friday 4th April 2025

Posted on by Sarah Watson — No Comments ↓

Workshops: Neurodiversity Affirming Pedagogies (Em Harrison) and Student Co-Creation in the Curriculum (Dr Carli Rowell) 

The final day of Inclusivity Week brought together two rich sessions focused on the importance of student partnership in shaping inclusive pedagogies. Both initiatives were funded by the University’s Education and Innovation Fund, and it was excellent to see the respective outputs that the Fund supported—each demonstrating brilliant work. 

Neurodiversity Affirming Pedagogies 

Led by Em Harrison (Assistant Professor in Digital Practice) 

This session brought together ten participants to explore the principles of neurodiversity affirming pedagogies. Em began with a gentle icebreaker—name, pronouns, and what had drawn people to the session—before grounding the group in the foundations of the neurodiversity movement: a challenge to the idea of a single “normal” mind and a call to celebrate cognitive diversity as a natural and valuable form of human variation. 

Em shared findings from an Education and Innovation Funded project, involving both staff and students at Sussex who identified as neurodivergent. The first stage was an anonymous survey exploring the barriers faced in teaching, learning and working environments. This was followed by a participatory research workshop aimed at consulting the neurodivergent community and piloting neurodiversity-informed teaching approaches. 

The findings, viewed through an intersectional lens, highlighted a range of challenges for neurodivergent students in higher education: 

  • A lack of clarity around expectations for participation, attendance, and Canvas navigation 
  • Sensory overwhelm in learning spaces—from lighting to noise to the smell of hot drinks 
  • Barriers created by inconsistent or overwhelming communication (e.g. unclear deadlines, email overload) 
  • Barriers in disclosing neurodivergence at university, particularly for students who described their ethnicity as ‘black’ or ‘ethnic minority living in the UK’ 
  • Generic or ineffective reasonable adjustments, including inaccessible software or blanket extensions. 

Em encouraged the group to reflect on how these insights might inform our practice. Some changes, like checking lighting in teaching spaces or discussing norms around movement and participation, are simple but can have a big impact. Others require broader shifts, like universal design approaches to curriculum and assessment. 

Key takeaways included: 

  • Clear communication: Use plain English, avoid unnecessary jargon and abbreviations 
  • Inclusive materials: Use off-white backgrounds, sans serif fonts, and visual icons 
  • Assessment support: Provide assessment exemplars and consolidate assessment information in one place 
  • Flexibility and variety: Use multiple media formats where possible with regards to communicating course content and inviting student engagement with the content. 
  • Shared ownership: Involve students in shaping the sensory and structural environment of the classroom 

This session was a call not only for awareness, but for meaningful change—one rooted in listening, learning, and action. 

Please see Em’s slides, which contain brilliant resources and guidance on inclusive teaching practices. Note, the Neurodiversity Affirming Pedagogies toolkit will be available soon and linked to from this blog post.  

Student Co-Creation in the Curriculum 

Led by Dr Carli Rowell (Associate Professor in Sociology) 

The final session of the week, facilitated by Dr Carli Rowell, offered a case study in co-creation with students as a mode of inclusive pedagogy. Carli shared how she designed and delivered a second-year Sociology module—Class, Culture and Conflict: A View from Within—in collaboration with four working-class students, funded initially through the Student Connector programme and then evaluated via the Education and Innovation Fund. 

What emerged was a student-centred module shaped by lived experience of class. Students were not merely consulted on curriculum content, they designed it. They reviewed topics, crafted reading lists, designed assessments, and gathered peer feedback.  

Co-creation, Carli argued, is about more than diversifying content. It means rethinking power in the classroom: Who decides what is taught? Whose knowledge is valued? How are students positioned—as consumers, or as contributors? 

The benefits were clear: 

  • Students developed leadership and communication skills 
  • They felt greater belonging and ownership of the curriculum 
  • The process surfaced previously marginalised perspectives and fostered critical engagement 
  • It encouraged flexible and inclusive teaching methods rooted in mutual respect 

Even without significant funding, Carli offered practical ways to embed co-creation: 

  • Invite students to suggest readings or seminar topics 
  • Provide space for lived experience in assessment 
  • Reflect on the emotional and social dynamics of the classroom, not just content delivery 

See Carli’s slides and guidance around co-creation with students. 

A shared message to close the week 

From neurodiversity-affirming teaching to working-class student partnership, the two final sessions of the week shared a common thread: that inclusivity isn’t achieved through surface-level interventions, but through deep, ongoing relationships with students. 

Inclusivity Week ended not with neat solutions, but with questions that invite us to reimagine our classrooms: 

  • What if students helped shape not just what we teach, but how we teach it? 
  • What if difference wasn’t something we “accommodate”, but something we celebrate, expect, and design for? 

As the week drew to a close, participants left with the sense that inclusive teaching is a shared responsibility—and that every small shift in practice can help transform a student’s experience of belonging. The workshops, along with this series of blog posts, provide resources and guidance to support both small and significant changes. 

I encourage you to read the five short blog posts that complement the week’s events: 

  1. Inclusivity Week | Monday 31st March 2025 
  1. Inclusivity Week | Tuesday 1st April 2025  
  1. Inclusivity Week | Wednesday 2nd April 2025 
  1. Inclusivity Week | Thursday 3rd April 2025 

Use these resources to identify some short- and longer-term changes you can make to your pedagogic practice to foster greater inclusivity. 

Universities are institutions embedded in a history of hierarchy and exclusion. In many ways, this legacy—and its enduring impact on the student experience—remains invisible. It exists in the language we use, the content we teach, our assessment practices. It shapes our curriculum in ways we often overlook. 

Inclusivity Week offered practical guidance on how we can begin to unpick these embedded prejudices and create spaces that are truly for everyone—spaces that bring people in, rather than keep them out. And, most importantly, it reminded us to celebrate diversity as an opportunity for learning and growth. 

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Blog

Inclusivity Week | Thursday 3rd April 2025

Posted on by Sarah Watson — No Comments ↓

Workshops: Embedding Inclusive and Decolonial Practices in Biosciences Curricula (Professor Zahid Pranjol) and The Co-Creation Approach to Academic Advising (Dr Hadir Elshafie) 

As Inclusivity Week progressed, Day 4 brought a sharp focus to two essential elements of educational equity: curriculum reform and academic advising. Both sessions invited us to look beneath the surface—at the roots of our knowledge systems and the mindsets that shape student success. 

Embedding inclusive and decolonial practices in biosciences curricula 

Led by Professor Zahid Pranjol 

Professor Zahid Pranjol opened the session by confronting a common misconception: that decolonising the curriculum means erasing or dismissing the past. On the contrary, it’s about enriching education by questioning dominant knowledge systems, uncovering marginalised voices, and situating what we teach within broader histories of colonialism and power. 

Decolonising the curriculum, he argued, isn’t simply about ‘adding diversity’ or tweaking reading lists—it’s an interrogation of our ways of knowing. Who is included in the narrative, and who is left out? What have we validated through repeated citation, and what have we neglected through omission? 

In the science disciplines, 95% of reading lists are authored by white scholars, and 85% by men. Zahid encouraged participants to: 

  • Highlight historical biases and their present-day implications 
  • Embed content from non-Western contexts and voices 
  • Create inclusive teaching and assessment modes 
  • Link curricula to employability and student representation 
  • Acknowledge systemic racism in academia through policy (such as the Race Equity Action Plan) 

Examples included recognising the scientific contributions of Black and Indigenous scholars, drawing from the Islamic Golden Age, and exploring co-curricular materials that situate contemporary issues like vaccine inequality and COVID-19 health disparities within a historical framework. 

Project-Based Learning (PBL) emerged as a key strategy—one that helps students from diverse backgrounds work collaboratively and critically. And beyond curriculum content, visibility matters: diverse role models in teaching, representation in classroom materials, and celebration of identities across religion, gender, and sexuality all help to foster inclusive learning spaces. 

The session challenged attendees not just to ‘diversify’ science but to reconsider how science is taught, understood, and contextualised. 

Please see Zahid’s slides and resources.  

The co-creation approach to academic advising 

Led by Dr Hadir Elshafie 

Dr Hadir Elshafie ask participants: how can we support students to develop their authentic voice, rather than a borrowed one? 

Drawing on over 300 one-to-one sessions with students in her role as advisor and wellbeing lead in the Law School, Hadir introduced a co-creation model of academic advising rooted in curiosity, action, and personal reflection. Instead of focusing solely on ‘problems’—like improving grammar or mastering structure—this approach asks deeper questions: Why did this reading frustrate you? What does this topic mean to you personally? 

Using a tree metaphor, she described the difference between: 

  • Problem-focused advising: addressing surface-level issues (the branches and leaves), which may bring short-term results but lead to pedagogical dependency 
  • Person-focused advising: nurturing the roots—student mindset, confidence, and identity—which supports long-term growth and self-sustainability 

Academic advising, she reminded us, is not a one-way transaction but a relationship. It’s about listening, asking thoughtful questions, and building trust. Through micro-encounters and structured conversations, advisors can help students build agency, develop critical thinking, and align with the university’s broader sustainability goals. 

During the session, Hadir asked participants to look at the photograph of a dense forest canopy, mostly made up of rich green foliage. Among the sea of green trees, one tree stands out prominently in bright yellow, creating a striking contrast. What do you notice? Would you say the yellow tree is the original—the first of its kind—or is it authentic in another sense? This leads us to consider: while each new tree may not be the original, can it be understood as authentic in its own right?

A photograph of a dense forest canopy, mostly made up of rich green foliage. Among the sea of green trees, one tree stands out prominently in bright yellow, creating a striking contrast.

In one-to-one academic support, Hadir recommends prioritising curiosity and authenticity over competition and originality. Authenticity fosters reflective, person-centred conversations that empower students to connect with their values, rather than focusing on external benchmarks of originality and comparison.

Hadir expands upon this approach to academic advising in an article for Wonkhe.

Shared insight: authentic voice as the thread of inclusivity 

Across both sessions, the notion of authentic voice emerged as a central thread running through. Whether interrogating whose voices are missing in the biosciences curriculum or guiding students away from generic essay-writing skills and toward genuine personal insight, the message was clear: inclusive teaching begins when we allow students to be themselves. 

By questioning the norms of what is taught and how we teach it, and by meeting students with curiosity rather than correction, we can transform the curriculum and student experience.  

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Blog

Inclusivity Week | Wednesday 2nd April 2025

Posted on by Sarah Watson — No Comments ↓

Workshops: Creating Accessible Digital Documents and Resources: led by Faye Brockwell (Learning Technologist) and Maintaining Attention in Lectures 

Led by Dr. Sophie Forster (Reader in Cognitive Neuroscience) 

Creating Accessible Digital Documents and Resources 

Led by Faye Brockwell 

With most attendees joining for a refresher, this workshop underscored that accessibility is not a one-time task, but an ongoing practice. As Faye pointed out, we all pick up bad habits—this session helped us refocus on why accessibility matters, how to check our materials, and where to go for support. 

At Sussex, 30% of students have a declared disability. That means accessibility isn’t optional—it’s essential. In addition, many of the accessibility techniques benefit all learners, not just those with declared needs. 

Faye introduced key tools for digital accessibility: 

  • Accessibility checkers in both Canvas and Microsoft Office are a great place to start—just spotting issues is a win 
  • Text-based alternatives should always accompany visual content like graphs, videos or diagrams  
  • Alt text should be used with all images (even in emails) to describe the image’s purpose, not just its content 
  • Use minimal colours—three per page is a good rule—and avoid using colour alone to convey meaning 
  • Create meaningful links using descriptive text instead of pasting the full URL or using vague terms like “click here.” 
  • Headings and styles in Word, Canvas, and PowerPoint help screen readers navigate documents and slides properly 
  • Use tables only for data, not layout. 

See the Digital Accessibility Toolkit for more information. 

A key message? You don’t need to retroactively fix every old file—but you can commit to doing better from now on. 

The session closed with a reminder of the ‘why’: without accessible formatting, partially sighted students may be forced to read through entire document rather than jumping to what’s relevant. It’s not about box-ticking—it’s about making our content usable and inclusive for everyone. 

The resources used in this workshop are available via our Creating Accessible Digital Resources workshop Canvas page (requires login). 

Maintaining Attention in Lectures 

Led by Dr. Sophie Forster 

The afternoon session tackled a key question: how do we hold students’ attention in a world full of distraction? Drawing on cognitive science, Sophie explored how attention works and why it matters so much for learning outcomes. 

Inattentive traits, like difficulty focusing, mind-wandering, or distraction, can significantly affect academic performance, even among undiagnosed students. Attention is a deeply heritable trait, but also one educators can help shape. 

Key takeaways: 

  • Attention fluctuates, but it can be influenced by teaching design. 
  • Students mind-wander during around 30% of lectures. 
  • Attention is not just about willpower, but about how engaging and digestible our content is. 

Sophie offered recommendations of simple, inclusive techniques: 

  • Consider incorporating real-world examples, anecdotes, or humour to build engagement. 
  • Break content into smaller segments using interactive elements such as interpolated testing, polling tools, or micro-interactions (e.g. “talk to your neighbour for a minute”). 
  • Assume that most students will ‘zone out’ at some point during the lecture—what would be the worst parts for them to miss, and how can you prevent or mitigate this? For example, you could say, “This next bit is really important,” or “If you’re going to focus for 10 minutes in this lecture, focus now!” 
  • Let students know the structure of the session and when there will be breaks. 

Participants reviewed their own teaching content, asking: 

  • What is the key information I need to deliver? 
  • Are there long periods without interaction? 

The message was clear: cut content where necessary, and add flavour, interaction, and salience. This isn’t about making learning “entertaining” for its own sake, it’s about helping students absorb, retain, and stay present. 

See Sophie’s slides.  

Sophie also provided two book recommendations that can support maintaining students’ attention during lectures and seminars: 

  • Storyworthy by Matthew Dicks. The author is a multiple winner of ‘The Moth’ storytelling competition (it’s also a podcast). I found this helpful not just for lecturing but also for grant writing. 
  • The serious guide to joke writing: How to say something funny about anything by Sally Holloway. This book has practical techniques that can be used to create a joke about any topic (i.e. including very dry and unfunny topics – the author’s background was in writing jokes about the news) in a way that I think lends itself well to lectures (and bear in mind, these ‘jokes’ could be delivered in lectures either verbally or as visual jokes on the slides, depending on the lecturer’s style and preferences). 

Shared message: Inclusive teaching starts with thoughtful design 

Both sessions reminded us that inclusive teaching is not about grand gestures—it’s about intentional design. Whether that’s making sure screen readers can read your Word document or ensuring students aren’t left behind by overly dense lectures, we have the tools (and support) to teach in more inclusive ways. 

Inclusivity Week Day 3 offered two powerful, practical lenses for building better teaching: accessibility and attention. When both are thoughtfully considered, the result is a more engaging and equitable learning experience for everyone. 

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Blog

Inclusivity Week | Tuesday 1st April 2025 

Posted on by Sarah Watson — No Comments ↓

Workshops: Decolonising the Curriculum (Tobey Ahamed-Barke), Reasonable Adjustments at Sussex: Policy and Practice led by Graeme Pedlingham and From Bystander to Upstander led by Dr. Özden Melis Uluğ.

Across three sessions—on decolonising the curriculum, the evolving Reasonable Adjustments policy, and bystander intervention—attendees were encouraged to reflect on how teaching practices can be reimagined to better support student voice, belonging, and empowerment. 

Workshop 1: Decolonising the Curriculum 

Led by Tobey Ahamed-Barke 

The day began with a question written across a whiteboard: Why do we need to decolonise the curriculum? Post-it notes from participants quickly filled the space—referencing awarding gaps, Eurocentric canons, and the need to reflect diverse perspectives and lived experiences in the curriculum. 

Tobey encouraged attendees to think beyond reading lists, framing decolonisation as both content and pedagogy. What emerged was a shared understanding that decolonising means rethinking knowledge production itself—centering global perspectives, challenging historical hierarchies, and designing modules that speak to a diverse student body. 

Drawing on his work as Race Equity Advocate in Media, Arts and Humanities, Tobey introduced four guiding principles (with associated prompts) to support inclusive module design: 

  1. Is this module global? 
  1. Whose voices are centred? 
  1. Are all topics taught equally? 
  1. Might my choices adversely impact students? 

The conversation moved from theory to practice with discussions not only of the content we teach, but how we teach it. This means we could flip the traditional lecture-seminar order, encourage personal reflection in assessments, and design safer classroom cultures where all students—especially those from underrepresented backgrounds—feel confident to participate.  

This workshop highlighted the importance that discussions such as these are had with students, between departments, and at every level of the University. This way, Sussex can holistically engage its curriculum with decolonial praxis, with a mission of positive student experience at its core. 

Workshop 2: Reasonable Adjustments at Sussex: Review and Practice 

Led by Professor Graeme Pedlingham 

The session offered attendees early insight into changes coming out of the University’s Reasonable Adjustments Review—developed in response to the findings of the Natasha Abrahart case. 

These changes, while grounded in existing legal obligations, signal a culture shift at Sussex. The review explicitly adopts a social model of disability, that shifts the focus from the individual to attempting to address societal barriers. Graeme also stressed that reasonable adjustments should not be confused with convenient adjustments. As Graeme noted, real inclusion requires consideration of how we develop our systems, cultural attitudes, and everyday teaching delivery. 

Participants discussed challenges surrounding in-class assessments, communication between teams across the University, and trying to avoid a burden being placed on students (e.g. if they find themselves repeatedly disclosing and explaining their disabilities). Students in the session discussed the impact of being called on to speak in lectures, expressing that it made them feel uncomfortable and unconfident. They suggested that this approach be reconsidered in teaching practice. 

Over 30% of new Home undergraduate students joining Sussex last year declared a disability. This is above the national average. It is therefore vital to make our education inclusive by design. 

There was strong consensus that inclusive teaching must be integrated into curriculum and module design, not added on later. A recurring recommendation? Make inclusive pedagogy and Reasonable Adjustments training a standing item at Faculty meetings—and embed them into core curriculum development. 

Workshop 3: From Bystander to Upstander 

Led by Dr. Özden Melis Uluğ 

In the final workshop of the day, led by social psychologist Dr. Özden Melis Uluğ, participants explored how to move from a passive witness to an active ally when encountering discrimination in academic settings. 

Melis introduced the Five D’s of bystander intervention—Distract, Delegate, Direct, Document, and Delay—and invited participants to think about how each might be used in classroom settings.  

The session also addressed the emotional and structural barriers that often prevent intervention, such as fear of escalation, uncertainty about what to say, and lack of institutional support when you do intervene. 

Applying the Five Ds in the teaching space, the workshop also offered practical examples of how these approaches can be used in teaching spaces: 

  1. Distract: Redirect conversation after a harmful comment (e.g., “Let’s reflect on how cultural backgrounds shape interpretation.”) 
  1. Delegate: Consult with colleagues or students in the room (e.g., “Would anyone like to share how language like that might impact others in our community?”) 
  1. Direct: Acknowledge problematic language calmly but firmly (e.g., “That comment reinforces a stereotype, can you reflect on why that might be problematic?”) 
  1. Document: Keep notes of repeated incidents and share with an Equality Diversity and Inclusion Lead or the Director of Student Experience, as appropriate 
  1. Delay: Follow up with the affected students or colleagues to offer support and resources. 

Moving from theory to practice 

One of the key takeaways was that inclusive practice means acting with intention—not just designing inclusive curricula or issuing policies, but developing the interpersonal courage and cultural awareness to respond meaningfully to discrimination. Melis made the case for bystander training as part of mandatory staff development, possibly in a bite-sized, online format so that everyone at the university can access these essential tools. 

A shared thread: Inclusion as practice 

All three sessions underscored the importance of centring student voice—not as an outcome of inclusion, but as its foundation. Whether it’s redesigning content, shifting the structure of a session, or responding meaningfully to student needs, inclusion begins with listening and responding—with intention. 

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Blog

Inclusivity Week | Monday 31st March 2025

Posted on by Sarah Watson — No Comments ↓

Workshops: Reading and Note-Making with AI (Martin Brown) and Designing Inclusive Learning Activities (Brena Collyer de Aguiar & Alice Taylor)

The sun was shining on the first day of Inclusivity Week—a fitting backdrop to a day that centred student voice, inclusive learning, and creative approaches to teaching.  

Workshop 1: Reading and Note-Making with Generative AI 

Led by Martin Brown 

Facilitated by Dr Martin Brown, this session offered a deep dive into how academic writing confidence can be built through strategic note-making—particularly for students for whom English is an additional language. 

Martin’s session was split into two halves: the first half was directed at educators; the second encouraged participants to put themselves in the students’ shoes and try out Martin’s note making framework.  

Martin’s aim was to support students with heavy reading loads and low confidence in academic writing—challenges often heightened by linguistic and cultural barriers. 

At the heart of the session was a note-making framework, designed to help students demystify academic expectations and develop their own academic voice – what do I need to capture in my notes, how long do my notes need to be, what information is relevant? Importantly, this framework incorporates the use of AI (such as Microsoft Copilot) in a purposeful and ethical way.  

AI is used within Martin’s note-making framework as a support tool to help students structure and refine their understanding of academic texts. Students begin by reading the text themselves and making their own notes (using the headings from the framework), before using AI—such as Microsoft Copilot—to complement their thinking. Martin recommends using Microsoft Copilot because it is licenced by the University and all students and staff have access to it, and also because it protects user data. Prompts within Copilot must be clear and specific to be effective. For example, a student might copy and paste a section of a journal article into Copilot and ask: “Summarise the author’s main argument from pages 44–47,” or “Identify and explain the research methods used in this excerpt.” AI can also be asked to evaluate strengths and weaknesses or define key terms. Crucially, students are reminded never to rely on AI alone—the process is co-authored with AI, not outsourced. AI can make mistakes. The work generated by AI needs to be checked by the student. However, AI is a tool that can speed up the note-making process for students. Martin’s approach, therefore, not only strengthens critical engagement with reading material but also helps students see AI as a tool for learning, rather than a shortcut. 

This workshop wasn’t just about AI—it was about empowering students in their note-making strategies and academic skills more broadly. It encouraged students to find their own voice rather than rely on a borrowed one, humanising the writing process, reducing fear, and making space for personal expression. 

See Martin’s slides.  

Workshop 2: Designing Inclusive Learning Activities 

In the afternoon, Brena Collyer de Aguiar and Alice Taylor led a session rooted in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and inclusive instructional design. 

After an opening activity (spot the difference) exploring barriers to learning, we were introduced to the three pillars of UDL: 

  • Engagement (how learners are motivated) 
  • Representation (how content is presented) 
  • Action and Expression (how learners demonstrate knowledge) 

The focus was on anticipating a wide range of learning needs—permanent needs, temporary needs, and situational needs—and creating environments where all students feel agency and ownership over their learning.  

The session highlighted the value of storytelling, playful learning, and locative narratives (learning anchored to real-world places) as ways to make content more meaningful and inclusive. 

Alice Taylor built on this by introducing the ADDIE model of instructional design (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation). We were encouraged to think of module design as iterative and collaborative—with evaluation and student feedback at every stage. 

Brena and Alice encouraged participants to work in small teams to begin designing a module, drawing on UDL, storytelling, and the ADDIE model as they saw fit. It was refreshing to be able to select from a range of educational theories in a way that felt accessible and not overly complex. 

See Alice and Brena’s slides. 

A connecting thread between the workshops: student voice 

Both workshops, in different ways, centred the importance of student identity and voice. Martin’s writing frame helps students find confidence in expressing their ideas, particularly in a second language. Brena and Alice’s frameworks help educators create spaces where students feel seen, heard, and empowered. 

Whether through reflective note making or story-based learning, the message was clear: inclusive education isn’t just about removing barriers. It’s about making sure students recognise and value their own learning experiences and their academic identity. 

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog

Developing chemistry student employability through assessment design

Posted on by Kitty Horne — No Comments ↓

Mark Bagley is a Professor of Organic Chemistry in the School of Life Sciences. Mark delivers many of the taught modules in Synthetic Organic Chemistry as part of the Chemistry degree programmes offered by the University and leads a vibrant research team in the School. Mark also serves as Degree Convenor of the Chemistry BSc and MChem UG programmes.

What I did

As part of a major review of our undergraduate Chemistry curriculum, I developed a new Level 5 module on ‘Researching and Communicating Chemistry’ which uses a 100% portfolio assessment designed to help students articulate their transferrable skills and experiences in a way that is relevant to future employers. This is one of a number of expressly skills focused modules woven through our new undergraduate curriculum, developed in collaboration with Kaz Field, our partner Careers and Employability Consultant, to scaffold students’ disciplinary and transferrable skills development from year one onwards.  

Why I did it 

Feedback from the Chemistry PSRB, the Royal Society of Chemistry, at our reaccreditation visit in May 2019 emphasized the need for a shift from our very academic focused curriculum to a more skills-oriented approach to match the shifting needs and expectations of employers and Chemistry graduates nationally.  This coincided with a School wide curriculum review and an expansion of the remit of university Careers and Entrepreneurship Consultants at Sussex to support Schools to embed employability in the curriculum. One outcome of this was the creation of an Embedding Employability Steering Group, guided by Kaz, and comprising cross school membership.  We quickly recognised that, while we were already teaching our students a wide range of skills, our students really needed them to be scaffolded through the curriculum and also needed our help to recognize and articulate them, for example in CVs and interviews.  

How I did it

The module is assessed by a 2-minute presentation, and a skills portfolio submission. The portfolio comprises a self-assessment of competency in employability skills (conducted in week 1 on which students were required to reflect at the end of the module), a CV and interview (with marks and feedback provided by CV360 and BigInterview respectively), a group poster and essay, and an individual chemical data analysis task.  Students were given the chance to deliver a formative, 1-minute, flash presentation and to submit an essay draft. I also mapped out for them the many activities they would undertake through the semester which they could draw on as evidence in their portfolio (an example is provided below). 

The CV and interview elements were supported by sessions delivered by Kaz, who also contributed a workshop on effective team work which helped launch the group assessments. Finally, I attached to the group essay a Buddycheck peer evaluation which made it possible to easily to adjust marks easily for individual group members based on their peers’ ratings of their contributions to the project.  

How it went

The module ran for the first time last semester and went really well (of course there are tweaks to be made).  I could see the students were nervous going into the module, especially about their oral presentation skills. This was despite, when it came around to it, them being capable of giving very high-quality presentations.  They were also nervous about the career skills assessments, despite having been taught about writing CVs and preparing for interviews in their first year and being familiar with skills focussed portfolio assessments, having completed lab skills focused versions in their first year.  It was also clear from reading the students’ competency self-assessments that they tended to under value their existing transferrable skills (such as oracy) and had a real lack of confidence using the skills language.  

By the end of the module, it was really nice to see that most students showed significant improvement in their self-assessment and confidence levels. In fact, at the end of the semester we ran an informal session in which students were asked to step up to give a flash presentation on their group’s poster, and many of those who volunteered mentioned they’d hated public speaking at the start of the module but now actively enjoyed it!  It was also clear in the portfolio submissions that the module had helped them develop a language to describe their skills, which was beneficial for future employment.  

The biggest surprise was how dysfunctional many students were at working in teams. While some groups functioned well, others really struggled with communicating and working effectively together. This included working to deadlines and managing the responsibility of working for a team. It was clear that, while non-attendance likely reflected wider issues with engagement, the students who didn’t attend Kaz’s introductory workshop were those most likely to struggle with the group task. Having attached a Buddycheck peer evaluation to this assessment meant students were able to score their peers’ contributions to the group assessment against a range of criteria. This meant those who contributed least got a lower mark, and vice versa, which mitigated against some freeloading behaviours.  Interestingly, because students also scored their own contributions to the group, the same pattern of under confidence could be seen, with many giving themselves lower scores than they received from their peers. The automated feedback from Buddycheck compares self-scores with those from their peers so will, I expect, have boosted many students’ confidence in working in groups going forward. 

Student feedback demonstrated that they liked that the module was dynamic, that it felt relevant and was taught enthusiastically, but I think they hated the fact they were being taught skills rather than in depth chemistry (which would be less relevant for most career destinations). This is despite me having packed in a lot more hardcore chemistry teaching than they seem to have realised! Nevertheless, many have said it was their favourite module and they have developed important skills.   

I think they also came away with a wider understanding how skills development is embedded in their degree and how many of the activities we get them to do build on, or support, activities in different modules, which bodes well for when they come to complete the NSS!  

Future practice

Next time I think we’ll trim and focus the introduction to team work session to give students more time to get on with the activities, which might include asking them to designate a leader whose role it will be to keep them on track. I also plan provide more guidance on how to communicate with each other and organise the activities of the group. I’ll also be much clearer with them what’s likely to happen if they don’t engage; that students who don’t meet with their peers will likely have their contributions scored poorly which will affect their mark. But also, that students who give that little bit extra can also be rewarded by the team ad see their marks increase, which is important because you need people with enthusiasm to help drive the team forwards.  

I also want to get the groups up and running much more quickly, so will require them to plan out and timetable their future meetings and activities after the introductory session. I’m also going to make the groups bigger (up to 6-7 in a group, rather than 4-5), to account for drop out. 

Top tips

  1. Plan out skills training sessions, session learning outcomes, and the structure of the portfolio well in advance and take advice on all aspects, especially with your partner Careers and Employability Consultant, as they have lots of really valuable experience to offer. 
  2. Buddy check is a really powerful tool but can be a bit intimidating at first, so I would advise people to be cautious and to take advice from people who’ve used it (e.g. the Educational Enhancement team).   
  3. Be certain to review any reasonable adjustments to ensure students are able to perform to the best of their ability in the multifaceted nature of skills training and assessment. 
  4. Allocate sufficient staff resources to govern and guide the students, as well as mark their portfolio assessments as skills training and evaluation can be resource intensive. 

Additional Links and resources

Embedding Employability and Entrepreneurship Toolkit [Sussex login required] 

Guidance provided to students on how their weekly activities and assessments contributed to the module portfolio.  

Overview of Portfolio Assessment

AppendixWeekComponentMarkNotes
–11Competency of Skills–Contributing evidence
–1–11Quality and Use of Supporting Evidence10See assessment criteria on Canvas
–11Reflection–Contributing evidence
11Skill assessment–Contributing evidence
21Principles of Green Chemistry–Contributing evidence
31GROUP Using IT for mechanism–Contributing evidence
42Flash Presentation–Contributing evidence
53CV10Marked by CV360 with your reflections
63Preparing for Interviews–Contributing evidence
74Writing Abstracts–Contributing evidence
85Science Presentation–Contributing evidence
96Teamwork–Contributing evidence
107Essay first draft–Contributing evidence
118Using IT for mechanism–Contributing evidence
128Big Interview10Marked by Big Interview with your reflections
139Data Processing–Contributing evidence
1410GROUP Flash Presentation–Contributing evidence
1510GROUP Poster15See assessment criteria on Canvas
1611GROUP Essay25See assessment criteria on Canvas
1711Problem-Solving30See appendix 17 for mark distribution
1811Review of Skills–Contributing evidence
191–11Professional Development Log–Contributing evidence
TOTAL100
Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Case Studies

Do It Together: History, Culture, Community engagement with the Towner Eastbourne

Posted on by Sarah Watson — No Comments ↓
A sign outside the Towner that says "Come In"
The entrance to the Towner Eastbourne, March 2025 

Introduction

On 13th March 2025, final-year History students from the University of Sussex spent a day by the sea visiting the Towner Eastbourne. The day offered students a valuable opportunity to work together and reflect on how the skills and knowledge they’ve developed throughout their course can be applied beyond the University.  

The day began at 9am at Brighton train station. At first, things were quiet—everyone was still waking up and gathering their thoughts for the day ahead. But during the 30-minute train ride to Eastbourne, the atmosphere became more relaxed, and conversations started to flow. As the day progressed, energy and engagement grew—highlighting the value of stepping outside traditional teaching spaces. 

At the Gallery, students explored the exhibitions and went behind the scenes into the archives, gaining insight into how the organisation operates. The students had a room of their own at the Museum, allowing them to come together, share ideas and reflect on what they had seen. This space was also used for short workshops and talks for the students, introducing them to various aspects of object collection and community engagement.  

Photograph of a PowerPoint presentation. The slide reads: DIT Digital 2025.
Student room, where there were workshops and where we shared ideas and reflected on what we’d learnt throughout the day 

The day was organised by Professor Lucy Robinson and Associate Professor Chris Warne and formed part of a broader effort to help students see how the study of history shapes public life—and how they, as historians, can contribute to that work by bringing their discipline expertise and skills into the wider cultural landscape. The visit was part of Do It Together (DIT) Digital. Lucy explains: 

DIT Digital is a really important part of how Chris and I work. It’s part of a wider collaborative research and impact project with the Subcultures Network and the Museum of Youth Culture (MOYC). We want our students to benefit from how universities connect with the wider world beyond the lecture and seminar room. We want to weave teaching into all of our research and public work, providing students with real world experience.  In this case for example, DIT Digital will feed into our event that we are organising as part of the Brighton Festival for the University’s Festival of Ideas. Students will be our collaborators in the project, developing an ethics application, designing a collections forms, and working with the public at the events to collect objects for the MOYC’s archive. 

Quote from Prof. Lucy Robinson.

In preparation for their work at the festivals, the visit encouraged and trained students to think about how to record, interpret, and present historical objects to people—and how community-facing institutions like Towner play a key role in this process. As its name suggests, Towner is a space designed for the town; a place where art and everyday life intersect. 

Capturing and sharing objects digitally 

One of the aims of the day was to help students explore how digital tools can be used to document, share, and interpret historical objects. George Robinson and I introduced students to Padlet, which enables students to capture historical material in a variety of formats. 

Three students sitting around a table photographing their historic objects, like a flyer, a photograph and a choker.
Students using Padlet to capture and curate objects 

Padlet allows users to record content directly or upload media from their phone or device. Each object entry can be complemented with links to relevant external sources, such as podcasts, journal articles, or YouTube videos—enriching the historical context with multiple perspectives. 

Students also explored how to curate their Padlet boards, transforming them into either: 

  • a deep dive into a single object, layered with media and supporting content. 
  • a digital museum, echoing the store at Towner, where viewers can explore a diverse collection of objects across time periods and themes. 

Importantly, Padlet also allows for community engagement. It can be an open access resource where members of the public can: 

  • contribute objects, stories, and images 
  • reflect and comment, creating a dialogue around shared histories 
  • co-curate collections, encouraging shared ownership of cultural memory 

Behind the scenes: The Towner store 

A highlight of the visit was a tour of Towner’s art store—a temperature and bug-controlled archive space. The tour was led by Liz Corkhill (Skills and Opportunities Producer at Towner). Part of Liz’s role is to extend the gallery’s collections to the wider community, and she shared her knowledge of the collection, offering fascinating stories about the wide array of objects held by Towner. 

A photograph of Liz in the Towner store. She is pulling out some Eric Ravilious framed paintings.
Liz showing students the store at the Towner 

Among other things, students discovered that: 

  • Only 18% of the works at Towner are by women, and the gallery is actively working to improve representation. (This figure, notably, is still higher than the National Gallery, which currently stands at around 1–3%.) 
  • The Towner houses the world’s largest collection of works by Eric Ravilious. 
  • A well-run art store is all about organisation—where objects are carefully categorised, clearly labelled, and correctly stored. 

Art, archaeology, and everyday objects: The Findings 

It was excellent to hear about The Findings—a public art project by artist Verity-Jane Keefe, exhibited at Towner and across Eastbourne. 

The project responded to the recent excavation of a significant Bronze Age settlement at Shinewater and Langney (near Eastbourne). Keefe’s work bridged archaeology, art, and everyday life, exploring what it meant to find, hold, and interpret objects from the past. 

Her installation featured large-scale brass sculptures, cast from everyday objects unearthed at the site—soft drink cans, bricks, pre-historic tools—juxtaposing the ancient with the contemporary. Keefe worked with local schools, businesses and organisations to select, preserve and place the found objects in public spaces across Shinewater and Langney, including shopping centres and housing estates, inviting passersby to engage with them. 

Artefacts found on the archaelogical dig at Shinewater and Langney, cast in brass and on display at the Towner. There are six objects in total, one is a milk bottle, another half a brick, and there is also some flint.
Artefacts found on the archaelogical dig at Shinewater and Langney, cast in brass and on display at the Towner. 

The Findings was a community project, resulting in community-made art. It was a clear demonstration of collective approaches to history, and one that reflected the ethos of both the Towner Gallery and the teaching philosophy of Lucy and Chris. 

The Museum of Youth Culture 

Also attending the day was Ann O’Toole from the MOYC, which celebrates the lived experiences, creativity, and everyday heritage of young people in Britain. 

A photo of Ann showing students artefacts from the Museum. She is holding up a black and white photo of a woman riding a motorcycle
Ann showing students artefacts from the Museum 

Students were invited to engage with this idea of everyday heritage by bringing in their own objects that spoke to personal or cultural stories of youth. These were items like a parent’s 1980s Psychobilly leather jacket, a photo at a festival that represented notions of collectivism and nostalgia, and an Acid House CD that had been listened to by both the student and their parents at different points in history, heard through different perspectives, experienced in different ways. These objects, just ordinary things, represented cultures, politics and ideologies of the youth in Britain. Having been scanned by Ann, these objects are now part of the MOYC’s digital collection. 

As each student scanned their object/s so that they could form part of the MOYC archive, Ann explained the importance of metadata, ensuring that objects are recorded correctly and can therefore be adequately searched for and understood by the public via the database.  

Connecting with Ann was a valuable experience for the students, many of whom followed up with her afterwards to explore volunteering opportunities at the MOYC. After engaging with the students and supporting them in recording objects, Ann shared some key advice about working in the industry. She emphasised the importance of building connections, explaining that it’s often the people you know who help you find job opportunities. She encouraged students to take advantage of internships and volunteer roles—even if just for a few hours—as these experiences not only help develop industry skills and knowledge, but also clarify personal interests and preferences. She also noted that some institutions, like the MOYC, even offer payment for volunteer work.

What did students gain? 

I’m sure that each student gained something very individual to them. Here are some of the things I observed: 

  • Insight into how historical knowledge can shape careers in heritage, museums, archives. 
  • Practical skills in digitisation, curation, and creative presentation. 
  • A deeper understanding of how community history and public engagement are central to the work of museums and galleries. 

On the train home, one student said it had been incredibly helpful to meet people like Ann from MOYC and Liz from the Towner—to hear about their roles and learn how they got into their careers. Another reflected:  

It’s great to talk to professionals, get their advice, and see behind the scenes in this kind of work. 

Another student commented that the day had boosted their confidence in engaging with cultural spaces and noted that, while it was nice to have this at the end of their degree as a culmination of their hard work, they would have benefited from more opportunities like this throughout their course. 

Next Steps 

As an Academic Developer, the day inspired me to help strengthen the connections between the University and cultural institutions like the Towner. This experience was really enriching for the students, not only in terms of enhancing employability, but also in supporting student confidence, satisfaction and wellbeing by applying disciplinary knowledge to life beyond the University and seeing the positive impacts in can have on the community.  

Posted in Blog

Rapid student feedback: A simple method for real-time course improvement

Posted on by Kitty Horne — No Comments ↓

Dr. Gillian Sandstrom is an Associate Professor in the Psychology of Kindness in the School of Psychology. Gillian worked in industry for 10 years as a computer programmer before discovering positive psychology. This led to pursuing a Masters in Psychology at Ryerson University (now Toronto Metropolitan University), where Gillian developed a smile-and-wave relationship with a lady who worked at a hot dog stand. During her PhD studies at the University of British Columbia, inspired by this relationship with the hot dog lady, Gillian started studying interactions with weak ties. Her work since then has focused on the benefits of minimal social interactions with weak ties and strangers, and the barriers that prevent people from connecting. After completing her PhD, Gillian worked as a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Cambridge before taking on a lectureship at the University of Essex.  

What I did 

In my teaching, I use a method called Lecture Comprehension Checks (LCCs) to gather rapid student feedback. This is a simple but effective technique that allows me to understand what students are learning, where they are struggling, and how they feel about the module material. At the end of each lecture, I ask students to fill out a small slip of paper answering two or three key questions. Depending on the subject I am teaching, these questions may vary, but they always focus on comprehension, engagement, and areas for improvement. 

For example, when I taught undergraduate statistics, I asked: 

  • What did you learn today? 
  • Are you still confused about anything? 
  • Are you completely lost? 

For a module on positive psychology, I was more interested in student engagement with the content, so I asked: 

  • What topic did you find most interesting? 
  • What was the least interesting? 
  • What would you like to learn more about? 

More recently, in my Social Connection and Disconnection module, I used similar questions to gauge student learning and encourage suggestions.   

Why I did It 

The primary reason I use LCCs is to be responsive to student needs. Rather than waiting for formal evaluations at the end of the term, this method allows me to make real-time adjustments to my teaching. 

I also find that students appreciate being heard. Many have commented on how valued they feel when they see their feedback shaping the course. When they express confusion about a particular topic, I dedicate time in the next lecture to address it. If they highlight a particularly engaging topic, I make sure to expand on it in future lessons. 

I pair this with another practice to build rapport with students. At the end of class, I stand at the door to collect the slips, which allows for a moment of personal interaction with each student. These brief exchanges enhance engagement and help me show students that I care. 

How it works 

At the start of each lecture, I distribute small slips of paper. Students can write on them at any point during the class and hand them in as they leave. I deliberately use paper-based feedback rather than digital surveys because of the response rate. I experimented with a QR code survey, but not a single student used it. There’s something about the physical act of writing and handing in a paper slip that encourages participation – maybe there’s a bit of peer pressure when you can see others filling out their slips. 

The key elements that make this method effective include: 

  • Anonymity – students are more honest when they can provide feedback anonymously. 
  • Simplicity – the slips contain only a couple of questions, making them quick and easy to complete. 
  • Routine – because this happens every lecture, students become accustomed to it and engage more actively. 

I read through all the responses as soon as possible, usually right after class. This allows me to identify common themes and areas of confusion. If multiple students are struggling with the same concept, I dedicate time in the next lecture to revisit it. I also make small, real-time adjustments to my teaching methods based on their feedback, and I make sure to tell students what changes I’ve made. 

Impact and student feedback 

The impact of LCCs has been overwhelmingly positive. Students appreciate having a direct way to communicate their thoughts, and I have been able to improve my teaching based on their input. 

Some of the specific changes I have made due to student feedback include: 

  • Adding more group discussions – initially, I used Padlet for anonymous contributions, assuming students would prefer it. However, after receiving comments about how much they enjoyed in-person discussions, I phased out Padlet and encouraged more verbal participation. 
  • Adding takeaway slides – a student noted that they found the summary slides at the end of the lecture to be helpful. As a result, I began systematically adding these at the end of each sub-section of the lecture, not just at the end. 
  • Clarifying graphs with bullet points – after feedback that some graphs were difficult to interpret, I started adding brief bullet point summaries next to them. 

Beyond structural improvements, LCCs also humanise the classroom experience. Students sometimes share personal reflections or stories related to the lecture content. For example, after discussing social networks and “six degrees of separation”, a student excitedly told me about two friends who had a “Bacon number” of two. Another student connected a discussion on kindness to cultural practices in their home country.  

During one class session, a student left during the break and handed their LCC to me as they left. When I read it after the lecture, I discovered that the student had used it to explain why they had left early: a difficult personal/family issue. Luckily, I teach a small enough class that I was able to figure out which student wrote the LCC, and I was able to reach out and offer them support. 

From my perspective, the emotional impact of reading these responses is also significant. Teaching can be draining, but knowing that students are engaged, enjoying discussions, and valuing the course content is incredibly motivating. I often look forward to reading their comments as soon as I can. 

Top tips 

  1. Keep it simple and flexible – ask only one or two questions, and encourage students to share whatever is on their minds 
  1. Show/tell students how you have used their feedback. They want to know that it is worth their time, that you are really listening and open to their suggestions. 
  1. Pair this practice with a moment of connection as students leave class. I stand at the door to collect the LCCs, which gives me a chance to make eye contact and exchange pleasantries with every student. 

NOTE: I’m currently using this technique in a final year optional module with 60 students, but I have used it in classes of several hundred students too. 

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Case Studies

Peer-Assisted Study Sessions

Posted on by Sarah Watson — No Comments ↓

Dr. Eljee Javier is an Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer in English Language Teaching at the University of Sussex. She is the Course Convenor for the MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL and works extensively in transnational education and intensive English programmes.  

Dr Eljee Javier

What I Did 

The Peer-Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) project was developed to support international students during their postgraduate studies, particularly in the period after formal teaching had ended and dissertation work had begun. The initiative provided structured, student-led study groups focused on academic writing and peer support. 

The PASS facilitators were international students themselves and were trained to lead the sessions.  The participants worked collaboratively on their writing project, such as a small section of a chapter, or an outline for rewriting their conclusion. The aim was not to provide proofreading services but to create a space for discussion, clarification, and mutual learning.  

Sessions included structured activities such as exchanging a paragraph of their writing with a fellow student (not necessarily from the same discipline), asking specific questions for peer feedback, and encouraging students to reflect on their writing skills. 

Why I Did It 

The idea for PASS stemmed from discussions with MA students who expressed feelings of isolation after teaching had ended. The absence of structured classes made it challenging for them to stay engaged and connected with peers. While the University already offered academic writing workshops (via ELAS) and individual tutoring, students sought a more communal, interactive approach to undertaking their dissertations. 

PASS aimed to bridge this gap by fostering a sense of academic community among international students. The sessions were designed to be informal yet purposeful, allowing students to build confidence in their writing and academic communication skills in a supportive environment. 

How It Worked 

Four international students were recruited as PASS facilitators. They were responsible for organizing sessions, booking rooms, and promoting the initiative. Facilitators received training on session management and peer learning techniques. They were not expected to teach content but to guide discussions and problem-solving exercises. 

Each session had a clear structure, including icebreakers, guided discussions, and peer feedback activities. Students brought a paragraph of their writing to share and discuss with others. 

A small budget was provided for snacks, helping create a welcoming and relaxed atmosphere. Facilitators coordinated room bookings and promotional efforts within the student community. 

Impact and Student Feedback 

The initiative was well received, with an average of 15-20 students attending each session. Key benefits highlighted by students included: 

  • A supportive, low-risk environment for discussing academic challenges. 
  • Improved confidence in writing through peer review and discussion. 
  • A sense of community and belonging, reducing feelings of isolation. 
  • Enhanced ability to articulate writing challenges and seek appropriate support. 

Two main criticisms emerged: 

  • Students expressed a desire for PASS to run throughout the year rather than just during dissertation season. 
  • Some students initially expected proofreading services, requiring clearer communication about the session’s objectives. 

Lessons Learned & Recommendations 

For educators or departments considering a similar initiative, here are key takeaways: 

  1. Identify and train student facilitators well in advance ensures smooth implementation. 
  1. Work closely with administrative staff to streamline room bookings, budget allocation, and session planning. 
  1. Clearly communicate that the sessions focus on collaborative learning, not proofreading. 
  1. Consider offering PASS sessions year-round to support students at different stages of their studies. 
  1. Focus on small details, such as providing a variety of culturally inclusive snacks, contribute to student engagement and comfort. 

Future Plans 

Based on positive feedback, there is potential to expand PASS, integrating it into departmental support structures. Future iterations could: 

  • Extend the model to final-year undergraduate students. 
  • Work closely with academics, who could then recommend these events to the students who could really benefit.  

By fostering a peer-supported learning environment, PASS has demonstrated the value of informal academic spaces that complement existing university resources. The initiative highlights the importance of student-led learning in building confidence, academic skills, and a sense of belonging in higher education. 

Tagged with:
Posted in Case Studies

Collaborative Note-taking in Formative Feedback

Posted on by Kitty Horne — No Comments ↓

Geoffrey Makstutis is Head of the School of Design at West Dean College, one of the University of Sussex’s partner institutions. He holds degrees in architecture from the University of Michigan and the Architectural Association and a postgraduate qualification in teaching and learning for higher education. He was formerly the Course Leader for BA Architecture at Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London; where he also led several research projects and acted as a PhD Supervisor. He has taught and lectured at institutions around the world and as Subject Lead for Construction, Art, and Design Media; with Pearson Education, he led the development of higher education qualifications across these different subject areas. 

Geoffrey is a published author of two books. “Architecture: An Introduction” (2010) and “Design Process in Architecture” (2018). He has also authored numerous articles on architecture, construction, media and education. He is a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Architects Registration Board, a Fellow of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. 

A key experience in the studying of design subjects is the critique or ‘Crit’. Primarily used in formative assessment, this engagement between student and teacher involves the student presenting, typically, work-in-progress and then tutor and student discuss how the work is progressing. This may involve the tutor challenging the student on aspects of the work; with the student seeking to support their position. The tutor may discuss ways in which the student might consider further development. In short, the aim of the Crit is to provide the student with an opportunity to engage in an analytical discourse on their design work and an opportunity to ‘test’ their conceptual and critical approach to their work. 

The most important aspect of the Crit is that it is interactive. Where written feedback is often valuable, it is received after the event and is purely one-directional (from tutor to student). While a student may have a follow-up meeting with a tutor to discuss the written feedback, which can be valuable in understanding the feedback, it is further ‘distanced’ from the work and limits how the student can apply the feedback; as they must wait until clarification can be sought. The Crit is live and feedback is continuous throughout the activity. Further, this can also be an activity that engages peers in providing commentary and critique to each other. 

However, this does not suggest that a Crit can result in just a discussion. For the student, who may often be nervous about presenting their work, it is easy for key points to be forgotten in the back and forth of discussion. So, there is a need for some record of the discussion. This could be a video or audio recording, but the introduction of such media can often result in people feeling they must ‘perform’ or they become less open in their discussion; stilted in their delivery as they worry that they might say ‘the wrong thing’. Ideally, a written record of the key points of the discussion will be the most effective. Herein lies another challenge. If the tutor is making notes, the flow of their discussion can be disjointed as they seek to write what they are saying. Similarly, if the student is taking notes, they may miss important points raised by the tutor or fail to engage, fully, in the discussion; as they become focused on recording. 

We have sought to address these challenges by instigating a collaborative note-taking format during Crits. This sees students working pairs to take notes for each other during their counterpart’s discussion with the tutor.  

In practice, this allows the student and the tutor to be actively engaged in a discussion about the work being presented, without needing to stop and take notes. The discussion can flow more freely, without interruption or worry that something may be missed while trying to record points in the discussion. However, there are additional benefits; beyond the initial discussion.  

The student pairs are encouraged to meet, after the end of the session, to review notes with each other and discuss. This encourages further peer-to-peer discussion about the work, as each can seek clarification from the other – “what do you think the tutor meant when they said…?” or “You know, the same point was made in your discussion as in mine, let’s look at our work together…” The model also provides multiple points at which students are encouraged to reflect on the feedback they have received, as they receive it, in discussion with their pair, and independently after the discussion. In this way, the collaborative note-taking approach has greater potential for students to engage in a more meaningful and evaluative consideration of the feedback. 

In some cases, there may be a need for the tutor to have a record of the feedback, but this can also be based on the collaborative note-taking from the students. Tutors may instruct students to email a copy of the notes, following the peer-to-peer discussion. When these are received, the tutor has the opportunity to either file these as a record of the feedback or, if necessary, send a short email back to the student to further clarify a point in the feedback (that may not have been fully articulated in the notes) – “…don’t forget that we also discussed the possibility that you might look at…” or “…when I mentioned X, this was intended to give you another area for investigation.” 

Theory into Practice 

This collaborative note-taking practice fits well within pedagogic models, such as Laurillard’s Conversational Framework. In Laurillard’s framework we see how the teacher’s and student’s concepts interact and feed to peer concepts through ‘discussing’. This is what we aim to achieve through the Crit, where a tutor and student explore the student’s work and invite discussion among peers.  

Our note-taking model brings the ‘collaborating’ activity, found in Laurillard’s framework, into action and; through the collaborative feedback provides an opportunity for students to explore their own (design) practice with their partner such that they build a sense of peer practice. While this is primarily focused around the sharing of design practice experience, the very nature of the activity also builds a sense of peer practice in feedback and discussion; both of which are key features of professional design studios. 

Conclusion 

Developing successful teaching and learning strategies is often about finding solutions that are effective for learners and manageable for teachers. While the idea of manageability may seem like a derogation of a teacher’s responsibility to support the learner, there is a difference between things that are ‘easier’ and things that are manageable. When faced with high student numbers and the need to actively engage in the review and discussion of student work, time can be a critical factor. The teaching of design requires careful consideration of a multitude of factors (conceptual development, theory into practice, technical resolution, communication, practical skill), all of which must be explored when discussing a student’s work. In such a context, the ability to engage in discussion, without distractions for the teacher and the student, is profound. 

Collaborative note-taking during verbal feedback, in the Crit, provides a manageable and effective means of recording the content of a discussion between student and teacher. In addition, the collaborative nature of the activity creates a context in which students build greater understanding of their own work while supporting colleagues to develop further. In short, it’s win-win for teachers and students. 

References 

  • Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. 
  • Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. London: Routledge. 
Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Blog

About this blog

Learning Matters provides a space for multiple and diverse forms of writing about teaching and learning at Sussex. We welcome contributions from staff as well as external collaborators. All submissions are assigned to a reviewer who will get in touch to discuss next steps.