Background: The MASFM course is one of UAL’s largest Postgraduate courses with roughly 80 students from over 20 nationalities. Most students do not have English as a first language which greatly benefits the course with vibrancy, diverse perspectives and rich cross-cultural exchange which I would argue is the course’s USP. However, as assessment is in English (as are seminar discussions and lecture content) it has become a challenge for me and my team to best support students who lack certain communication skills in this English context. It is difficult to offer appropriate support to individuals without discouraging, demotivating, or making them feel as if they are lacking.
Evaluation: Through the social constructionism lens (Kim, 2001), my teaching practice sees the act of learning to be cocreated and based on the integration of students into a knowledge community. As I am not only responsible for the content and organisation of the PG course, but responsible for student’s well-being and development, I aim to create a supportive environment for learning – without judgement or pressure from peers or academic staff. I strive to provide a safe space where students feel comfortable with their strengths and weaknesses, and feel a desire to reach their academic potential.
Moving forward: My role within the classroom is to create a collaborative culture of learning and encourage conversation and peer feedback within the classroom which ultimately is built upon trust. The term ‘trust’ often refers to a willingness to make oneself vulnerable when relying on others (Baghramian, et al., 2020). To create an atmosphere of vulnerability and trust, I have engaged a range of activities including 1) setting up a Padlet page where students introduce each other at the start of the academic year 2) bi-weekly “open office hours” encouraging students to be transparent with any dilemmas they are facing and 3) even small gestures such as writing all 73 students a handwritten Happy Holidays card!
The language I use is purposefully inclusive focusing on “team”, “us”, “we”, and “colleagues” opposed to “us and them”. This atmosphere of trust allows us as a Learning Team to engage with collaborative activities and for me to better understand student’s diverse talents and areas for improvement. Once I can assess this, I note this onto an Excel sheet which I update throughout the year but is particularly useful during 1-1 tutorials where I encourage students to attend Language Development or Academic Support sessions. These activities and tutorials, ultimately lead to assessment feedback where the academic team and I can see how progress was achieved especially in terms of communication and can note success points and what can be improved. Here is also a good opportunity to signpost Language Development and Academic Support. This has largely been a successful exercise however when working with multiple markers (also from diverse backgrounds from around the globe) language varies where some written feedback can be blunt and more direct versus more nuanced. This can be a challenge which is why moving forward I need to work more closely with my team on creating and sustaining a shared culture and shared language which can improve in turn the student’s learning experience in a positive manner.
To conclude, the purpose of being a student (even a student of life!) is to continue our development but sometimes it can feel belittling or demotivating if it is perceived that peers are striding ahead or “better” or receiving direct, negative feedback. By focusing more on collaborative culture in the classroom and within the academic team which helps create more purposeful individual support, I hope the motivation to improve English language will be instilled; resulting in a better student experience and academic results.
Referencing:
Ackermann, E., 2001. Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), p.438.
Baghramian, M., Petherbridge, D. and Stout, R., 2020. Vulnerability and trust: An introduction. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 28(5), pp.575-582.
Brookfield, S., 1998. Critically reflective practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 18(4), pp.197-205.
Kim, B., 2001. Social constructivism. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology, 1(1), p.16.