Lessons learnt …

• Read through once only and highlight in yellow any areas where a comment should be made (a higher level of scripting than that means you may as well write the feedback first )
• Live with imperfection. Unless you edit the feedback in an audio editor, Jing is one take only. Live with the odd, ‘errr…..’ … pause or stumble or else the videos will take a ridiculous amount of time.
• Manage expectations: Jing feedback was sought once word got around, this created a rush at the last minute. For the sake of workload give cut offs, and only feedback on a pre-determined amount of work.
• Opt out not in. Given the openness of feedback, being technically accessible by others and given the alternative nature of the approach brief students and tell them what you are doing and why, and offer an opt out. No-one chose this.
• Practice makes efficient. The first handful of videos took forever. Had I not made a public commitment to do this I would have ditched it out of sheer frustration. It did get better.
• Using other types of video in class meant that this was a familiar approach to students. It was in synch with classroom methods. For example, I used video feedback to playback a critique of a case study.
• It saved an awful amount of time by removing the need for proofing my own feedback.

While it may seem labour intensive to offer 45 verbal feedbacks I was secure in the knowledge that 45 written feedback attempts would take an awful lot longer. The depth of the feedback was also more than could have been realistically achieved on paper. You can say a lot in 5 minutes.

What did the students think …

• Students thought this was fantastic!
• ‘Like a conversation’
• Personalised
• ‘It was like having a one to one tutorial’
• Enabled them to work through changes one at a time with the video open and their work open at the same time
• Only one technical glitch was reported
• Lots of feedback is possible in this way

Other Jing ideas…

An alternative approach I saw recently was a tutor talking through the grade sheet. Giving a verbal commentary on why decisions were made as they were. A different take on Jing.

As a spin off from this work, experimentation shows Jing can work well with White Board technology too, so that in-class examples can be used and taken away. A blue tooth mic and you’re away …

(How to make a Jing feedback video is outlined here http://www.techsmith.com/education-tutorial-feedback-jing.html )

OK, so not in a million years will HE documentation ever take this flavour, but wouldn’t it be better if it did!

So far I have used it to create a video of where to find information within our intranet and have created a ‘catch up TV’ screen cast for those unable to attend a face to face session last week.It is so easy to use; I have no hesitation now about using this to facility to offer formative feedback students submitting draft work.

Jing in action screenshot

“A concept by itself does not provide meaning, but when two concepts are connected using linking words or phrases, they form a meaningful proposition”. (Villalon and Calvo 2011 p18)

C-map is downloadable for Windows and Mac and wonderfully, is free.

Below is my own mind map to demonstrate C-map (though I am confident that there are better examples!!). Click to view.

Villalon, J. and R. A. Calvo (2011). “Concept Maps as Cognitive Visualizations of Writing Assignments.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 14(3): 16-27.

(Special recommendation for chapter 17 )

2. Research shows that performance is neither reduced nor enhanced by pass/fail grading systems (Robins, Fantone et al. 1995). For those worrying about a reduction in standards caused by the removal of grades, don’t!

3. Pass-Fail grades are more conducive to a culture of collaboration, which in turn links to higher levels of student satisfaction (Robins, Fantone et al. 1995; Rohe, Barrier et al. 2006; White and Fantone 2010). The increased collaboration may be especially beneficial as preparation for certain professions which require high levels of cooperative working (as noted in a medical context by Rohe, Barrier et al. 2006).

4. Pass-fail counteracts challenges brought about by grade inflation practices (Jackson 2011).

5. Pass-fail is associated with lower student anxiety and higher levels well being (Rohe, Barrier et al. 2006). That has to be good!

Dweck, C. S. (2010). “Even Geniuses Work Hard.” Educational Leadership 68(1): 16-20.
Jackson, L. J. (2011). “IS MY SCHOOL NEXT?” Student Lawyer 39(8): 30-32.
Robins, L. S., J. C. Fantone, et al. (1995). “The effect of pass/fail grading and weekly quizzes on first-year students’ performances and satisfaction.” Academic Medicine: Journal Of The Association Of American Medical Colleges 70(4): 327-329.
Rohe, D. E., P. A. Barrier, et al. (2006). “The Benefits of Pass-Fail Grading on Stress, Mood, and Group Cohesion in Medical Students.” Mayo Clinic Proceedings 81(11): 1443-1448.
White, C. B. and J. C. Fantone (2010). “Pass-Fail Grading: Laying the Foundation for Self-Regulated Learning.” Advances in Health Sciences Education 15(4): 469-477.

So, the question – how do transitions affect new comers to higher education And what might be done to help … ?

Secondary school students have often been engaged in surface learning which has been cultivated by a climate of testing and a grade facing culture (Hussey and Smith 2010). The learning habits and cultures of a secondary school are very different than most HEIs where large class sizes exist (Cook and Leckey 1999) and there is an expectation of autonomy (Hussey and Smith 2010) – a transition is needed to thrive in this new environment (a transition of self and in learning approach). In terms of self-concept students may go from being confident amongst a small group to feeling disorientated by their new place in the bigger order. At the same time as needing to undertake transitions in their approach to learning they may be undergoing great shifts in their personal life from being dependent to being independent as they move locations and away from family. Transitions are essential to learning and may occur on a number of fronts – in knowledge, in learning orientation, in social dimensions (Hussey and Smith 2010) and in epistemologies (Chan, Ho et al. 2011). First year attrition of students is high (Beaty, Gibbs et al. 1997; Cook and Leckey 1999; Hussey and Smith 2010). It seems little wonder given the multi-faceted transitions. Such transitions are more complex for first generation learners who face added challenges.

To facilitate these transitions a number of recommendations emerge from the literature:

· Induction – induction for students should address student expectations such that learners can ‘see’ the transitions ahead (Cook and Leckey 1999)
· Monitoring – so student transitions are not hidden from staff and can be engaged with positively and appropriately. Montitoring ensures teachers are not surprised at the end of a course when transitions have not occurred as anticipated (Hussey and Smith 2010)
· Avoiding a crammed curriculum – to provide space for deep engagement such that time for deep learning is made (Cousin 2006; Hussey and Smith 2010)
· Formative assessment – to enable students to develop an understanding of the expectations and allow them to adapt on their journey ahead of high stakes assessment (Hussey and Smith 2010)
· Progression flexibility – more radically, student programmes could be undertaken over a longer period of time where an individual’s transition path requires, when they are not ready to move on at the speed of the academic calendar (Hussey and Smith 2010)
· Promote study skills for higher education (ideally before arrival) such that students have to tools to adapt (Cook and Leckey 1999)
· A culture of support where disorientation or turmoil is OK (Cousin 2006)
· Ensure student’s make good course choices which hold their engagement (Jansen and Suhre 2010).

While study skills are suggested as being important, their role may be less significant than the process of aligning courses to student requirements (Jansen and Suhre 2010). In ensuring good choices of programme are made, students may develop higher levels of buy-in and therefore be more prepared to undertake active involvement in learning (which, in turn, is particularly helpful to the surface – deep learning transition (Atherton 2011)).

For first generation students there may be additional or exacerbated challenges. Self-concept lies at the heart of many transitions. First generation students may have a different self concept (perhaps in confidence, beliefs and self-worth) than those who have been socialized in to HE by family. The may feel that they do not belong (Mehta, Newbold et al. 2011).

Cultural changes may be exacerbated for first generation students. HE has its own culture and even language. For students who are first generation the newness of this culture will be starker since exposure to the language and rituals of HE may have been nil. Outreach programmes (from HE to school and induction may help).

According to Mehta, Newbold et al (2011) first generation students “enter college less prepared to succeed but also have greater time demands and financial commitments”. The distractions of financial pressures, part time jobs etc may be a challenge for some first generation students especially when they are immersed in so many transitions, and forming new learning habits.

Care must be taken not to over-generalise first-gen students in to one category though, since in itself this category represents great diversity of culture, class and values. For example, first generation students from a work-based background may face different self-concept issues than school leavers (as inferred by Hussey and Smith 2010)

Broadly the notion of personalizing provision and induction to individual student need may be an approach to facilitate transition. However particular attention may need to be offered to financial support, pace (in response to financial and emotional transitions), integration (social) and the management of expectations.

Much better perhaps to see it like this

I suspect work on transitions could usefully inform personal development programmes as well as induction.

Atherton, J. S. (2011). “Learning and teaching: Approaches to study: Deep and surface learning.” Retrieved 3 August 2011, from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/deepsurf.htm.
Beaty, L., G. Gibbs, et al. (1997). Learning orientations and study contracts. The experience of learning. D. H. F. Marton, & N. Entwistle. Edinburgh, Scotland, Scottish Academic Press.
Chan, N.-M., I. T. Ho, et al. (2011). “Epistemic beliefs and critical thinking of Chinese students.” Learning and Individual Differences 21(1): 67-77.
Cook, A. and J. Leckey (1999). “Do Expectations Meet Reality? A survey of changes in first-year student opinion.” Journal of Further & Higher Education 23(2): 157.
Cousin, G. (2006). “An introduction to threshold concepts.” Planet(no. 17): 4-5.
Hussey, T. and P. Smith (2010). “Transitions in higher education.” Innovations in Education & Teaching International 47(2): 155-164.
Jansen, E. P. W. A. and C. J. M. Suhre (2010). “The effect of secondary school study skills preparation on first-year university achievement.” Educational Studies 36(5): 569-580.
Mehta, S. S., J. J. Newbold, et al. (2011). “WHY DO FIRST-GENERATION STUDENTS FAIL?” College Student Journal 45(1): 20-35.

Thanks to Kath Leigh for forwarding the video on PDP which was shown to me at an event I blogged about in May 11.

Perkins (2006) explains why knowledge may be troublesome (e.g. It may be ritualistic, conceptually challenging or alien). This in turn helps us to understand how students may grapple to assimilate and accommodate information, how they may behave when thresholds are not dealt with (e.g. mimicry) and how they may be supported by teachers (see for example Cousins 2006).

According to Meyer & Land (2006) a liminal state exits for learners between entering and emerging from engagement with a threshold concept. There are parallels here with the emotional turmoil associated with critical thinking (Brookfield 2011). Cousins (2006) suggests that teachers may support students in their liminal state by empathising with them and by tuning into the factors which influence the learning journey of individuals to inform their support approach. Additionally she suggests teachers should permit liminal states and facilitate learners to know that they are not alone in their tumultuous time. Land (2011) advocates meta-learning approaches to equip students to cope with liminality. His recommended approaches include reflective logs, cognitive mapping and diarizing the learning journey (see Land 2011).

The use of recursive approaches (Cousins 2006; Land 2011) and varied learning techniques (Marton and Trigwell 2000; Land 2011) may be useful if learning happens in the manner proposed. Such methods enable the learner to approach a challenge from different angles. Learners will ‘click’ with one method or another or may build up a triangulated picture through the mixed methods to which they are exposed. Methods that are active, perhaps with creative and social dimensions, are deemed appropriate (Meyer and Land 2006; Hill 2010) for assisting learners through troublesome knowledge. These may include discovery learning, inquiry based learning and role-play, discussion, creative writing and experimentation (Perkins 2006). However, Hill (2010) cautions that not all learners always want to be active and prefer transmission modes.

Practitioners need to bring about pragmatic constructivism recognizing the reality of their operating context and traditions and nuances of the discipline when deciding on precise learning activities. The active learning process can be consuming on the part of both learners and teachers, so choices in the learning context should be sustainable and the curriculum not crammed (Cousins 2006).

Research in to threshold concepts has tended to focus on subject areas (e.g. economics, mathematics and research methods) across different levels, including for doctoral research students (see Kiley & Wisker 2009). The focus on subjects makes sense since precise choices of appropriate learning activities may be a product of:
-Subject tradition and nuances
-Types of knowledge under consideration
-The cause of ‘the trouble’
-Learner’s own prior view of the world

In their paper, Kiley & Wisker (2009) looked specifically at thresholds for doctoral students and suggest that there are six specific threshold concepts at this level for research students:

-Argument
-Theorising
-Framework
-Knowledge creation
-Analysis and interpretation
-Research paradigm

In a programme with a large social learning element the online discursive dimension may be loaded with it’s own challenges; especially since it encompasses, or at least touches upon, the core threshold concepts as cited above (or others). While academic community is proposed as a solution to negotiating threshold concepts (Wisker et al. 2010) engagement is also, in itself, a challenge.

Teachers may scaffold student progress but the responsibility for working through troublesome learning points ultimately remains with the learner. Bruner (1966 cited in Allen 2005) asserts that instruction should ultimately lead to self sufficiency in learners. Marton and Trigwell (2000) suggest that independence is important for the real world beyond student life.

For a comprehensive resource see Michael Flannegan’s pages: http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html

Allen, K. (2005). “Online learning: constructivism and conversation as an approach to learning.” Innovations in Education & Teaching International 42(3): 247-256.
Brookfield, S. (2011). The Risks of Becoming Critically Reflective, Laureate Education.
Cousin, G. (2006). “An introduction to threshold concepts.” Planet (17): 4-5.
Hill, S. (2010). “Troublesome knowledge: why don’t they understand?” Health Information & Libraries Journal 27(1): 80-83.
Kiley, M. and G. Wisker (2009). “Threshold concepts in research education and evidence of threshold crossing.” Higher Education Research & Development 28(4): 431-441.
Land, R. (2011). Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, Laureate
Marton, F. and K. Trigwell (2000). “Variatio Est Mater Studiorum.” Higher Education Research & Development 19(3): 381-395.
Meyer, J. H. F. and R. Land (2006). Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: An Introduction. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.) Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, 3-18. Routledge: London.
Perkins, D. (2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In J. H. F. Meyer & R. Land (Eds.) Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, 33-47. Routledge: London.
Wisker, G., Morris, C., Cheng, M., Masika, R., Warnes, M., Trafford, V., Robinson, G., & Lilly, J. (2010) Doctoral Learning Journeys (draft report). HEA: York