Dr Ewa Krolikowska 5th January, SHIFT 2018 Case Study Transforming a BA Events Management final year course using a Students as Partners strategy Dr Ewa Krolikowska 5th January, SHIFT 2018

Agenda Background to the course Why we decided to work with students as partners What we did What we learnt Evaluation Next steps

The course Contemporary Issues in Event Management Level 6 30 credit course Taken by BA Event Management students and a few option students Numbers: 80-100+ Course Leader: Ewa Krolikowska Course Tutor: Pamela Zigomo

Learning Objectives require students to be engaged • Critically examine relevant literature and consider its application to event management; • Investigate and critically appraise the issues, and trends affecting the events industry; • Critically evaluate different perspectives to engage in informed discussion with peers and the industry; • Reflect on the benefits of monitoring current issues and trends to the student’s career.

But the course design did not promote engagement Topics stayed the same year after year Course delivery was tutor-led and didn’t encourage student reading and research Exam assignment didn’t suit the nature of the course

The decision to transform the course

Active learning Strategies introduced in 2014-15 According to Pickford (2017) “Active student participation is a prerequisite for development of staff-student partnerships”. Co-creation of course content Peer-teaching (formative) Choice of essay topic Exam was replaced by choice of blog, podcast or video assignment

What went well and what didn’t Co-creation of course content One tutorial was not enough Peer teaching (formative) Demotivating as it was ungraded Groups (9) were too big Too many weeks (10) Choice of essay topic Students valued the choice New assignment format Most students (74/82) chose the blog; video and podcast “too risky”.

Student Voice (Evasys) Peer-teaching formative ‘This assignment did not motivate me as much as others … because it was not graded so I prioritised other tasks over this one.’ ‘Big group – just a few of you doing the work!’ ‘How can I possibly teach others when I’m still learning myself?’ ‘Some [student] lectures were really painful…a waste of time!’

Student Voice (Evasys) Peer teaching (formative) Higher performing students were more motivated: “if [content] it was really relevant to the industry”, “I did mention this project example in an interview. It does impress employers.” “I did take ownership of my learning and as a result of teaching the tutorial, I felt more actively involved and engaged.” ‘We learnt much more doing our own research into the topic …I remember much more and I can be critical and confident.’

Changes made Co-creation of course content Second tutorial added Peer-teaching (formative) 5% grade added for peer teaching Group sizes reduced to 5 Lectures/tutorials changed to workshops Peer teaching reduced to 5 weeks Blog, podcast or video assignment Learning technologist demonstrated Audacity and Panopto in lecture

Year 2 2015-2016 Our proposal was selected for the Greenwich Connect Learning Innovation Scheme to work with a learning technologist to enhance student engagement on the course through the use of digital technology.

Student Voice (Evasys) Positive “Enjoyed the blog post option - was different to the style of academic writing we are used to” “I really like we get control over our essay topic” “Being… encouraged to use electronic devices during lectures and tutorials and shown how to use different apps was really helpful”

Student Voice (Evasys) Negative - “The percentage of the Workshops seems way to little, its a lot of work for 5%” - “I think the course relies too much on the content being delivered by students in the workshops”. - “I didn't feel the need for the interactive devices all the time. It did not make me feel any more or less engaged”.

Year 3 2016-2017 Less emphasis on technology and the peer to peer teaching More emphasis on the essay component We received an email from the Director of Learning and Teaching thanking us for providing a great experience for students based on their Evasys comments but still… “The workshop could be given a higher weighting”.

Year 4 2017-2018 The peer teaching component weighting was changed to 20% following a programme review Evasys following the first term No complaints about the weighting of the student workshop Mixed views about peer teaching “I am really enjoying the workshops” “Teaching and giving workshops has nothing to do with events, unless you're planning on becoming an events management lecturer”.

What we learnt Peer teaching means tutors save time as students do more work? NO More time spent in mentoring, setting up Moodle, communicating and answering questions (confirmed by interviewees in Lubicz-Nawrocka’s research, 2017).

What we learnt Giving students more responsibility means less responsibility for tutors? NO We are working more in partnership but we are still in charge of managing the course. “I don’t think that we can ever fully share power with students” (interviewee in Lubicz-Nawrocka’s research, 2017)

Not all students want to be partners and staff can also find it challenging Pappalepore and Farrell (2017:151) asked students to get involved voluntarily in co-creating a tourism module and found “a small number of particularly engaged students were keen to work independently and to take on more responsibility in terms of research and content delivery.” Bovill (2014) found that the changing role from teachers to facilitators of learning was a considerable step for academic staff.

How did we do? The HEA (2014) identified four main areas where partnership may occur: Learning, teaching and assessment Students have become partners in co-creation and delivery of content Next step: involve students in peer assessment of workshops Subject-based research and inquiry Students research and select workshop topic, essay and blog/podcast/video topics.

How did we do? Scholarship of teaching and learning Students get the opportunity to reflect on their workshop using the literature. We need to be better at communicating the T&L benefits to students of peer teaching. Curriculum design and pedagogic consultancy Students have suggested new topics which have enhanced the curriculum.

Next Steps Involving students in assessment Disseminating what we’ve learnt to other courses we teach (however some courses are more suited to strategies such as co-creation - Pappalepore and Farrell, 2017) Sharing our experience with others and getting feedback.

Thanks for listening! Any questions?

Reference List Bovill, C. (2014). “An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, Ireland and the USA”. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol 51: No 1, p. 15–25. HEA (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education York: The Higher Education Academy. Lubicz-Nawrocka, T. (2017) “Co-creation of the curriculum: challenging the status quo to embed partnership”, Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, Vol 3: No 2. Pappalepore, I. and Farrell, H. (2017) “Redressing the balance: Inverted hierarchies in the tourism classroom”, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, Vol 21, p.144-153. Pickford, R. (2016) ‘Student Engagement: Body, Mind and Heart – A Proposal for an Embedded Multi-Dimensional Student Engagement Framework.’ Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, Vol. 4: No. 2. Pickford, R. (2017) “Student orientation: empowering our students to be active participants and to become partners in learning”, Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, Vol 3: No 2.