FSTL 2016 Silvia Dibeltulo Oxford Brookes University Reflection on and Critical Evaluation of a tutorial in a Film Studies Module FSTL 2016 Silvia Dibeltulo Oxford Brookes University

Introduction Module: Film Genres Level: 5 or 6 Advanced single module Prerequisite: students must have passed module ‘Key Issues in Film Studies’ Tutorial: How to prepare a conference paper Methods: Power Point slides, group discussion, Q&A, written feedback Students: Year: second Number: 19 (17 attended the tutorial) Background: 2 (native speaker) exchange students; 4 male, 15 female; 3 non-UK nationals (with very good English); mixed national/ethnic backgrounds (British majority); around 20 years old Setting: ‘Cinema room’; comfortable chairs and couches facing a large screen; no desks My role: teaching lectures, tutorials, seminars, assessing assignments

Assignment As part of their coursework students present a conference paper (worth 50%) during seminars Handbook instructions: ‘Each student will be asked to research, prepare, and deliver a short paper in the style of a conference during seminar hours. This consists of both an oral presentation (duration 20’ + 5’ discussion) AND subsequent submission of the related written version of the paper. Specific guidelines as to how to prepare and deliver a paper will be discussed and provided in class during the Tutorial scheduled in week 2 and posted on Moodle – such guidelines are therefore to be considered a formal module requirement in addition to what specified in this handbook.[…] Each student will then have to submit a paper title that suggests clearly both a specific topic/argument/film(s) and methodological approach with regards to the assigned genre […]. Presentation/Submission requirements for conference paper presentations Oral presentations MUST be accompanied by a short PPT presentation (or similar: e.g. Keynote, Prezi). Students are responsible for making sure well ahead of time that they have a working USB memory stick/pendrive to bring to class and that the file(s) they use are compatible with the software used on the workstation of the room allocated to this module. They are also responsible for printing out their papers and bring them to class when their presentation is due. IMPORTANT – The oral presentation is NOT to be learned by heart; since this is supposed to simulate the delivery of a paper in a conference setting, students will have their written paper in print and will read it out to the class, accompanied by a PPT or other visual aid.’

The Tutorial – Theoretical frameworks UK Professional Standards Framework (Areas of activity A1 to A5; Professional Values V1 to V4) Focus on learning outcomes (Laurillard, 2002) Graduate attributes (Oxford Brookes →Film Studies →Film Genres module →Tutorial) Planning the session to include various activities in order to address the needs of a whole range of different learning styles (Honey & Mumford, 1982; Chickering & Gamson, 1987) and types of intelligence (Gardner 2011) Implementing discussion, participation, student/teacher engagement, feedback, learning through examples Research-led teaching practice (Bond & Robertson, 2005) Importance of Digital Visual Literacy (Morgan Spalter & van Dam, 2008) and use of digital technologies in Film Studies and more broadly Practice: embedded in the tutorial (but also in my lectures) Explained to students (using my paper presentation as example) Reflection and action (Brookfield, 1995; Schön, 1983)

The Tutorial - structure Objectives Your Questions [students were asked to think of possible questions a week in advance and reminded the day before] Guidelines and assessment [students had access to general guidelines included in the Handbook prior to the tutorial] Examples [research-led; based on a paper on a relevant topic I presented at a conference; a way to ‘communicate high expectations’ (Chickering and Gamson, 1987)] Feedback

Learning outcomes and Graduate attributes All learning outcomes were discussed during introductory lecture (week 1) Assignment-related learning outcomes and graduate attributes discussed at the beginning of tutorial

Students’ questions Conference paper Visual aid/presentation Differences between paper and written essay Length Structure Critical approach Visual aid/presentation clips (how many; length) references

Guidelines and assessment ‘Guidelines for conference paper presentations in seminars’ (four pages; uploaded on Moodle after tutorial) shown and discussed in class Sections covered in ‘Guidelines’ types of presentations planning components/structure of paper preparing paper for oral presentation (duration, visual aids, anticipating questions, tips for delivering) Assessment criteria shown and discussed in class

Example Paper proposal abstract shown and discussed Power Point of my presentation shown and discussed (images, clips) Paper discussed (research, design, structure, sections, critical approach, argument, examples) Q&A throughout this section of tutorial

Students’ Feedback Format: Questions asked: Results: anonymous paper straight after tutorial Questions asked: Was this session useful? Why Results: 14 (out of 17) gave feedback Mainly positive (12 “yes”; 1 “kind of”; 1 “yes and no”) Positive aspects: enhanced understanding of assignment (content and structure); informative; using my own presentation as example; explaining assessment criteria Issues: no examples of critical approaches; not enough examples (e.g. mock conference presentation + giving students a copy of a paper); session was too short (more time should have been allocated to giving several examples)

Reflection/Critical Evaluation Drawing on Brookfield’s lenses (1995) and Schön’s reflection in and on action (1983) Was the session effective? Students’ perspective: see feedback My perspective/observations: based on my experience as teacher/learner/researcher; mainly positive as allowed engagement Issues: some students had a passive approach (asking what critical approach they should use in their paper; asking for full presentation of conference paper + copy of sample paper); lack of understanding of learning outcomes and graduate attributes (students listening passively and not mentioning these in feedback) Colleague’s perspective: confirmed my observations on students’ passive approach; issue of students needing examples to use as templates, rather than being original/creative (possible legacy from secondary school); lack of individual initiative in research Literature: plan further action to address issues identified based on scholarship

Action and Recommendations Immediate Analysed session’s effectiveness; identified positive elements (to repeat) and issues (to correct) Discussed session with colleagues Discussed student feedback with students: focusing on learning outcomes (2, 5 and 6 of this module + graduate attributes), explained how the session (and overall module/teaching activities) is designed to reflect those; made suggestions to enhance independent research (skills, tools, resources), develop a critical approach/argument, plan the assignment (e.g. looking for further examples) Provided students with extra examples (on Moodle) Future In class: more emphasis on learning outcomes during teaching sessions (make sure students recognize links between learning objectives, graduate attributes and practical ways to achieve them); develop critical thinking and independent learning through activities; longer session Personal/professional development: further observation of colleagues’ teaching; further research on scholarship about how to encourage active learning (Chickering & Gamson, 1987), individual research and critical thinking skills (Furedy & Furedy, 1983; Cottrell, 2011)

References (1) Bond, C. & Roberston, J. (2005). ‘The research/teaching relation: A view from the 'edge'. Higher Education. 50: 509-535 Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). ‘The Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education’ American Association for HE Bulletin, (March) 3-7 Cottrell, S. (2011). Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Furedy, C. & Furedy, J. J. (1983). ‘Ways to promote critical thinking in higher education.’ The Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia NEWS, Vol. 5, no. 1:3-4 Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books Higher Education Authority (2011) ‘UK Professional Standards Framework’ [online]. Higher Education Authority. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ukpsf [Accessed 4 February 2016]

References (2) Honey, P. & Mumford, A. (1982). The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge/Falmer Morgan Spalter , A. & van Dam, A. (2008). ‘Digital Visual Literacy’, Theory Into Practice, Vol 47, No. 2, Digital Literacies in the Age of Sight and Sound (Spring): 93-101 Oxford Brookes University (2009) ‘Graduate Attributes ’ [online] Available at https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/GAA/GAs+in+the+disciplines [accessed 4 February 2016) Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books