iholmesPGCert_2025

Category: Case Studies

Categories
Case Studies

Case study 3: Assessing Learning and exchanging feedback/feedforward  

Background 

As PSE and ISPT examiner, I assess both the spoken and written output of ESOL (see appendix 1 for acronyms) students using a framework which has been adapted from IELTS (see appendix 2). As a Language Development tutor, I operate as a mediator of assessment and feedback, i.e. helping students to understand and process both formative and summative feedback received from others. 

Evaluation 

Written feedback has limited value if learners cannot see the connection between the feedback received (Brooks, 2008), what they have produced and what they need to do next. It is an expectation from course leaders that I can help solve the time pressure problem on the writers of feedback on the main course, I can give them advice about how they can practically make improvements on the next assignment and, in some cases, justify the mark to them (Ibid, p.5). However, what I feel will be the most effective for learners (Watkins, 2002), is developing the meta cognitive skills to process this for themselves.   

Going Forward 

As Language Development tutor at UAL I have had the opportunity to work with a range of other practitioners and courses and, through these experiences, I have collected procedures for reflection, which, with the aim of fulfilling principles of good feedback (Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick 2006), I have begun using with the aim of helping learners to process their feedback. This I frame as feedback feedforward, an idea inspired by Paul Jackson, course leader of MA Graphic Branding and Identity at LCC, along with the accompanying Back to the Future (n.d.) branding (see figure 1).   

Fig. 1. First slide of Processing Feedback/forward session for Bsc_Msc Fashion Management Year 1 (February 2025) 

Gibbs (1988) Reflective Cycle (see figure 1) is a useful tool for reflective thinking, which I have learned about through teaching reflective writing for ‘collaborative units’ on a range of courses. It first focuses on how we feel – which is worth reflecting on before moving forward to the evaluative, analytical and action stages. The description stage represents the feedback given.  

Fig 2. Gibbs reflective cycle (Gibbs, 1988) 

The Hampel Method (ICCA, 2014) (see figure 2) is a system originally devised for legal professionals, which I learned from MA GBI course leader Paul Jackson, and places more emphasis on the action – feedforward.  

Figure 3. The Hampel Method – (Adapted by Jackson, 2024) 

We can synthesize the two processes – to address: what was the feedback? (description) why did you receive it? (analysis), what can you learn from this (evaluation)– and then, crucially, what will you do about it? (action).  

To make it concrete, I introduce learners to the SMART GOALS frame, with which they can articulate their plan of action (see figure 4); the use of this structured approach can be useful for students with ADHD to set and manage goals (Next Steps 4 ADHD, 2024).   

Figure 4. SMART GOALS (Next Step 4 ADHD, 2024) 

Whilst currently students see me as the only mediator, it is my hope that, through using these models, students can work together socially (Vygotsky, 1987), and communicatively (Nunan, 1991), to help scaffold each other’s understanding of feedback and development. 

Action Points:

What: Implement Feedback Feedforward lessons to process Block One – When: February/ March 2025 – Develop and reiterate February/ March 2026

What: Gather feedback on this approach from students and peers – When: March/ April 2025

Appendix 1: Acronyms 

ESOL–  English for Speakers of Other Languages 

IELTS–  International English Language Testing System  

PSE–  Pre-Sessional English  

ISPT–  In-sessional Progress Test  

Appendix 2: Assessment Descriptors

Writing Band Descriptors.docx

Speaking Descriptors.docx

References:

Back to the Future (n.d.) Available at: https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiAUI52_-niASQabl_PqdkJQ-moVziM6ahfiYkZW9NSnhcciNw (Accessed on 02.02.2025) 

Gibbs, G. (1988) Learning by Doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods, Oxford: Further Education Unit, Oxford Polytechnic. 

ICCA Inns of College of Advocacy (2014) The Hampel Method. Available at: https://www.icca.ac.uk/post-qualification-training/cpd/advocacy-training/the-hampel-method/ (Accessed on 28.02.25) 

Jackson, P. (2024) Feedback Feedforward. Unit 3 Major Project Proposal MA GBI UAL_2024 

Nicol, D.J., and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31: 2, 199 — 218  

Next Steps 4 ADHD (2024) How to create smart goals, Available at: https://nextstep4adhd.com/how-to-create-smart-goals/ (Accessed on 13.03.2025) 

Nunan, D. (1991) ‘Communicative Tasks and the Language Curriculum.’ TESOL Quarterly. 25 (2): 279–295.  Available at: doi:10.2307/3587464. JSTOR 3587464. (Accessed on 20.02.25) 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987) ‘Thinking and speech’. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934.) 

Watkins, C. (2002) ‘Effective Learning,’ NSIN Research Matters Institute of Education. Issue 7 London: University of London   

Categories
Case Studies

Case Study 2: Planning for effective learning – Product vs Process oriented learning.

Introduction and Background

Effective learning requires outcomes that are focused more on collective knowledge generation than individual knowledge acquisition; learners having gained cognizance of the processes necessary to become effective – i.e. learning to learn (Watkins, 2002, p.4).  

However, this requires the motivation of the individuals to engage in this practice. My EAP (English for Academic Purposes) challenge is to navigate the tension between the paradigms of education and training (Widdowson,1983); educate students a capacity to manage a range of disciplinary possibilities and not purely train them to meet defined specific outcomes (Tibbets and Chapman, 2023). 

Evaluation

Learning Outcomes enable students to know what they must do, through which activities, with what resources and how and when they will be assessed; however, since they were imposed in late 1990s there has been a question mark over their efficacy (Addison, 2014, p.314). I devise LOs for each session, however, I also work with other people’s LOs for units – deconstructing them and encouraging learners to analyse them from a linguistic approach so that they more fully understand what is required- the product.   

My current procedure is, at the beginning of each unit, asking learners to identify the instruction (imperative) verbs in the LOs – and then, to understand what they mean in terms of cognitive domain, we explore (the revised) Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). Next, we break down the other components – using a frame originally designed for analysing essay questions (Gillet, n.d.) – to identify the topic – the aspect on the topic – and any restrictions or expansions on the topic (see examples 1 and 2 in appendix).  

Learners’ ability to do this varies and reflects (in my view) how well they are written, and sometimes it is also necessary to verbalize the abstract nouns that are sometimes used by course leaders for instruction.

Moving Forward

My rationale for showing learners how to use these tools is firstly so that they can more effectively visualize the product offered via the learning outcomes – however, as I have begun to reflect on (and verbalize to students) is how these tools might also be used to analyse their own writing – especially those students at post graduate level who need to devise working titles, aims – objectives and research questions of their own.    

I have taken a more collaborative approach to working in recent lessons – whereby the ideation in the design of possible avenues for research can be explored through language and ‘collective disruption’ (a term that emerged through the experience of a colleague’s microteach). This is an approach which is essentially more process focused, although it begins with the deconstruction of product.

A new procedure that I have applied recently (see Teaching Practice – Tutor observation) is to analyze previous student example aims for their components – (see fig 1 and Advanced Research Methods – ARM2 in Appendix) – then removing this content leaving only the frame. Before returning to the frame – students then generate other possibilities (as freely as possible) – this is done on a Padlet wall – and an actual wall (see figures 2 and 3). Once we have generated lots of potential content students work together to create a new example aim from the newly generated possibilities of content. The intended purpose here is to develop greater flexibility with the generic language and, through a ‘collective disruption,’ with the possibilities for research.

Fig.1 Analysis of who, what, where, how, why of student example research aim.

Fig.2 Padlet Student Aims example generator

Fig.3 Post Graduate Fashion Marketing students generating content ideas using same categories as Padlet wall above- LCF classroom.

Fig. 4. Frame for students to apply generated ideas.

We are experimenting with this approach of foster the capacity of students to co-construct knowledge, which Freire (2005 [1970], p.72) defines as that “hopeful inquiry human beings pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other,” and restore those affective relationships underpinning social learning (perhaps) denied by LOs (Addison, 2014, p.325). Below is some useful student feedback on the lesson helps me understand how future iterations of this lesson might be designed.

Figure 5. Student Feedback on Lesson Padlet.

Action Points:

What: Implement ‘collective disruption’ approach to research aim and question development lessons

When: February/ March 2025

What: Gather feedback from students and peers – PG Cert and Language Development departmental observations – to evaluate efficacy of approach

When: March/ April 2025

Appendix

EXAMPLE 1_Analysing LOs_BSc_MSc_(S)FM_Product Management.pptx

EXAMPLE 2_Analysisng LOs_PG Marketing_Advanced Research Methods.pptx

2_ARM.pptx

References

Addison, N. (2014) ‘Doubting Learning Outcomes in Higher Education Contexts: from Performativity towards Emergence and Negotiation,’ The International Journal of Art and Design Vol 33- Issue 1- pp.313-325  

Anderson, L. W. and Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

Friere, P. (2005 [1970]) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuem 

Gillet, A. (n.d.) Understanding the question Available at: https://www.academia.edu/122158876/Understanding_Essay_Questions (Accessed on 6th March 2025)

Tibbets, N.A., Chapman, T. (2023) A Guide to In-sessional English for Academic Purposes, New York: Routledge  

Watkins, C. (2002) ‘Effective Learning’ NSIN Research Matters Institute of Education. Issue 7 London: University of London 

Widdowson, H.E. (1983) Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: OUP 

Categories
Case Studies

Case Study 1: Scaffolding interactions and learning – diversifying task outcomes and media 

Introduction and Background

This case study focuses on learners at LCF in Language Development, which aims to support speakers of English as an additional language. However, first language (L1) English students also find it useful for communicating at an advanced academic level. I aim to address diversity of linguistic and communicative ability as well as cultural and neurological diversities. My approach in general is based on the paradigm of communicative language teaching (Nunan, 1991) and although this can be interpreted to mean a variety of strategies (Thornbury, 2016), this has been the architecture of my prior teacher training (CELTA and DELTA- see appendix for acronyms) and practice.

Evaluation

My strategy currently relies on assumptions about providing a range of tasks (in a range of media) – which have differentiated points of production (even to the extent that learners may not do the tasks at all and simply observe others doing it). Peer learning leverages the knowledge and skill of the L1 learners. I draw on a mediation between what Vygotsky (1987) defines as the more knowledgeable other (MKO) and the zone of proximal development (ZPD) for the learner (a space in which I also facilitate scaffolding). I aim to foster a community of practice and learning based on the assumption that all knowledge acquisition begins through engagement in social interaction (Wenger, 2000). This approach is easier to measure regarding specific speaking lesson aims than it is for academic research and writing lesson aims.

Moving Forward


The media for materials is predominantly digital, however responding to feedback from peer observation regarding accessibility, I have increased haptic tasks that can also be done with paper handouts and whiteboards. Rather than black and white on slides and materials, I use pastel colours and avoid contrast issues (BDA, 2023). Despite dyslexia being the most common specific learning difficulty, intersectionality makes it difficult to differentiate dyslexia from other general learning issues and to design effective strategies for different cultural contexts (Davies, 2022). The multilingual classroom presents challenges for teaching and learning in respect of dyslexia in the context of a ‘super-diversity’ of learning needs (Peer and Reid, 2016), where data on students is not always available or reliable.  

Aside from development of reading and writing skills, students also need to develop their interactive speaking and listening skills for seminar work (this has been identified by both learners and course leaders). My approach to this is to scaffold conversation by allowing space for preparation thinking time (Kerr, 2017), but also by making learners cognizant of cultural differences in turn taking (Frendo, 2005, pp.115-116) and allowing them to reflect on the possible impacts for intercultural communication.

Figure 1. Selected Lesson Slides using text and diagram (source: Frendo, 2005, p.117)

Learners then have the opportunity for semi-controlled practice in pairs before freer practice in a larger group. – Feedback from observation (see appendix) of this approach reports that:  

L1 students were first to speak, but the L2 students were paying close attention and soon joined in. The L2 students brought their cultural perspectives, and experiences of the global fashion market into the discussion. The conversation grew organically, everyone participated, and it is clear that they had grown in confidence and conversational ability thanks to tasks. (see Appendix 2)

This is a procedure which I aim to employ and test for efficacy with other Language Development groups. Regarding reading and writing tasks, deciding which strategy to use and when (Deunk et al., 2015) and not knowing which combination of students will be in each (non-compulsory) session presents the differentiation problematic, and a strategy for mediating the issues of complexity raised above (Davies, 2022; Peer and Reid, 2016) needs to be developed through further research of literature and more accurate profiling of learners, which can more effectively identify complex needs. 

Action Points:

What: 1:Trial this lesson approach with Bsc_Msc_Fashion Management class- (gather feedback from observation). 2: Implement this lesson approach with new groups April May – and 3: with all groups for new academic year

When: 1:January (February) 2025, 2: April/May 2025, 3: October/November 2025

What: Gather data from admissions and course leaders on neurodiversity of students who may attend my classes in new academic year – and design lessons to support these students.

When: September 2025

Appendix 1: Acronyms:

CELTA- Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults

DELTA – (Level 7) Diploma in English Language Teaching to Adults

Appendix 2: Peer Observation Notes

Holmes_20.01.25.docx

References

BDA _British Dyslexia Association (2023) Creating a dyslexia friendly workplace. Available at: https://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/advice/employers/creating-a-dyslexia-friendly-workplace/dyslexia-friendly-style-guide (Accessed: 20.02.25) 

Deunk, M., Doolaard, S., Smale-Jacobse, A., and Bosker, R. J. (2015) Differentiation within and across classrooms: A systematic review of studies into the cognitive effects of differentiation practices. RUG/GION 

Frendo, E. (2005) How to Teach Business English, Harlow: Pearson

Kerr, P. (2017) ‘How much time should we give to speaking practice?’ The Cambridge Papers in ELT series. [pdf] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Nunan, D. (1991) ‘Communicative Tasks and the Language Curriculum.’ TESOL Quarterly. 25 (2): 279–295.  Available at: doi:10.2307/3587464. JSTOR 3587464. (Accessed on 20.02.25) 

Thornbury, S. (2016) ‘Communicative language teaching in theory and practice.’ In Hall, G. (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teaching. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge, pp. 224–237. 

Wenger, E. (1998) ‘Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.’ Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education 6(2):185-194 Available at DOI: 10.1023/A:1023947624004 (Accessed 23/02/25) 

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987) ‘Thinking and speech’. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934.)