Category: Associate Lecturer

Posted on

Student Perspectives of Associate Lecturer Support for Students who share Mental Health Difficulties

A Praxis funded Research, Scholarship and Innovation project led by Professor Joan Simons in HWSC (Health, Wellbeing and Social Care)

If you have a tutor there that is supporting you throughout your studies or that you know knows and understands your conditions or your mental health, that in itself is so helpful because you feel supported and you feel that, OK, they’re there, they understand, they get it.

 

 

Introduction

This blog post summarises a critical OU study led by Professor Joan Simons and funded by Praxis – WELS Centre for Scholarship and Innovation. It explores how Associate Lecturers (AL) at the Open University can provide practical support for students who share that they have mental health difficulties and thus help them succeed in their studies. This research is of particular importance because although there has been an increase in students with declared mental health issues over the past few years, they are the most likely to be unsuccessful in their studies or even drop out entirely. Therefore, focus group discussions were organised to identify ways to help these students continue and succeed in their studies.

Results

The results of this study showed ways that the OU can support their associate lecturers so they can, in turn, support the students they have with shared experiences of mental health issues. Firstly, students strongly preferred email as their primary communication method, as it allowed them to take the time needed to formulate their thoughts carefully. However, some noted the challenges of miscommunication via email. In contrast, phone calls were generally seen as stressful unless scheduled in advance. Secondly, some students struggled with Tutor Marked Assignments (TMA) and found that getting extra support from their tutors was hugely valuable. Finally, students had difficulties navigating the OU resources.

Discussion

Personalised communication was seen as essential in building solid tutor-student relationships. Students appreciated individualised, rather than generic, responses from tutors, which made them feel supported and valued. Timely responses and clear boundaries around tutor availability also helped alleviate anxiety. To help students who share they they have a mental health condition and based on the results of this study, Joan proposes the development of an intervention aimed at enhancing academic and pastoral support for students with shared mental health difficulties. This intervention would include regular check-ins, tutor video introductions, clear boundary-setting, and structured communication. The impact of these strategies will be assessed by tracking retention and attainment rates.

On the other hand, students also noted a significant variation in how well different tutors understood and supported mental health challenges. Some felt that a lack of understanding from their tutors hindered their progress, indicating a need for more standardised training. A warning light that students who are likely to experience mental health issues need extra support or a modification in the support they are receiving is if they are asking for repeated extensions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, based on the results of this study, Joan aims to implement various modifications to the support that students who share that they have experienced mental health issues receive. For example, comprehensive academic and pastoral support will be tailored to students with mental health difficulties. Interventions will include personalised check-ins and engaging video introductions that respect these students’ requests for precise boundary settings. Additionally, regular check-ins will be organised in time for the TMAs, and extra support will be provided if necessary. The effectiveness of future support will be rigorously assessed using questionnaires, focus group discussions with ALs and feedback sent to the OU. Additionally, participating students’ retention and attainment rates will be compared against their peers. By better understanding the needs and preferences of students who share they they have a mental health condition, the OU will be better equipped to help them fulfil their studies and continue to a successful and satisfying future.

We would love to hear about your experiences of mental health  (directly or in supporting others) and study in higher education. What more should the sector be doing.  Please send us a comment in the box below.

Thanks to Lesley Fearn for peer reviewing and helping to shape this blog post.

 

Dr Lesley June Fearn is a secondary school English teacher in southern Italy. She is also an affiliate researcher at the Open University’s (UK) Faculty of Well-being, Education, and Language Studies (WELS), where her research centres on linguistics and sociocultural theory. 

 

Posted on

Defending my work or being defensive?

Photo by Zen Chung: https://www.pexels.com/

I recently practised a presentation in front of my daughter; I’d asked her to say what she thought. She commented: “I think you should begin by explaining what you are doing.” I replied abruptly that no, I wanted this to emerge as I talked. 

 “It’s confusing.” 

“I don’t think so.” 

“Well, if you’re not going to take any notice of what I think, I’m going.”  She went. 

The boundary between defending my ideas and taking on board constructive criticism constructively is one I have needed to learn to identify along my research journey. I recognise a similar uncertainty between defending and being defensive amongst some students as I provide feedback on their assessed writing. 

A particular student on a first-level English language module was doing very well, gaining distinctions for almost all assignments, but they questioned most of the minimal (in my view) criticisms within my written feedback. I realised their persistent questioning resulted from an assumption that I had misunderstood their intentions; therefore, they felt they needed to explain their rationale whilst not contesting my grading of their finished assignment. Their questioning was the result of a concern for mutual understanding; yet, for a student achieving consistently in the nineties, this could be seen as defensive. 

I consider that this need to explain, to discuss, and for dialogue with an assessor/evaluator/supervisor/mentor is crucial in our feedback processes at all academic levels. As tutors, I think that we need to recognise the inherent power of our evaluative comments. Criticism – especially that which is not mitigated by dialogue – was shown to have a powerful impact amongst students in my research into multiple viewpoints around feedback practices, with one tutor commenting that a lot of students “see the feedback as a list of errors”. Young (2010), researching self-esteem and mature students’ feelings on assignment feedback, reports that feedback comments affected some students’ “whole sense of self” (page 409). Young’s article is entitled aptly, “I Might as Well Give Up”. 

However, a student, too, can be viewed as having inherent power within a different feedback context, such as when completing formal evaluations of their tutor’s practice. Macfadyen et al. (2016:821), in their multi-level analysis of the evaluation of teaching by students, note the extent of the rapid “emotional debate” that student evaluation evokes. Indeed, an experienced tutor in my research commented that a student’s criticism of their tutoring “sticks in your mind…and you can’t get rid of”. No talkback no dialogue, means the opportunity for both defending and mutual understanding is lost, and the negativity “sticks”. 

Therefore, in attempting to identify a boundary between defending my own work and being defensive, my emerging recommendations to myself are twofold. Firstly, allow time to digest evaluative comments, re-read, and attempt to understand where the other is coming from. Secondly, take any opportunity to engage in dialogue with the other – via whatever medium is available – to continually strive towards mutual understanding.   

My daughter was right about my presentation. My way was confusing. I had not taken time to listen to the listener, my audience, to acknowledge their opinion and allow it to negotiate with my own. If I had, I might have had the opportunity for an ongoing dialogue to defend my own rationale whilst not shutting out defensively the view of the other. 

This value of the joint construction of meaning is explained by Halasek (1999) in her book,  A Pedagogy of Possibility. Halasek presents a perspective on composition studies which adopts Bakhtin’s concept of the dialogic, seeing the relationship between participants in an evaluative process as a constant search for meaning. Halasek echoes Bakhtin’s emphasis on the importance of the audience, that “through the discourse, the audience constructs the author” (page 62). 

However, that opportunity to think then respond, question, and discuss is sometimes unavailable – perhaps following a final, summative assessment, feedback on an article submitted for publication or a formal complaint or evaluation, as in the example above. In such cases, when an opportunity for dialogue with the evaluator who possesses inherent power is shut off, how is the boundary between being defensive and defending our work and ideas to be navigated? Young (see above) finds that variations in reactions to tutor feedback are linked to self-esteem. So, is acknowledgement and moving forward – despite the inevitability of undefended, one-way criticism – perhaps what we mean by having academic confidence? 

I have been an Associate Lecturer at the Open University since 2002, tutoring mainly English language modules.  I live in Stourbridge in the West Midlands with my husband, two adult children and three Romanian rescue (street) dogs.  My recent EdD and my current research interests concern the multiple perspectives around feedback practices around assessed writing in HE.  This is my first venture into blogging, and I am looking forward to this creative space, where colleagues can share, debate, and discuss issues arising around their research.

Posted on

Professionalism and Posthumanism in Early Years Practice

The OU’s conference on professionalism and posthumanism fascinated me as someone who has worked in campaigning around literacy and education in England and Scotland. I now work in early years practice while pursuing an education doctorate. During this time, I have witnessed policy changes come and go. Despite the frustrations of governments and institutions, I remain optimistic that we can work through them because we have to, especially with the looming challenges of the climate crisis. In my experience, the short-term illusion that the neo-liberal world offers can be alluring, but there is no silver bullet to anything. I have been influenced by Vivian Gussin Paley’s (reference) storytelling approach to literacy, which is subtle and complex and has stayed with me much longer than England’s national literacy hour policy. Therefore, the problem I focus on is balancing the demands of professionalism and posthumanism in the early years’ sector.

Solution 1: Use the principles of posthumanism to unite concerns for eco and social justice and inspire us to be direct yet positive and affirmative in conversations with colleagues, children, and their parents. My current work with posthumanism has revitalized and challenged me in equal measure. It has inspired me to keep questioning, unite eco and social justice concerns, and be more direct yet positive and affirmative in conversations with colleagues, children, and their parents. I used to take pride in NOT being a teacher, but I have learned to be careful not to seek to belong through an anti-identity. As someone who has chosen to take the ‘many-jobs’ and ‘multiple-identities’ route, I have gained freedom of thinking but also experienced disconnection and a lack of confidence. But it has been an overall positive experience because it has made me find ways of being optimistic rather than just becoming a grumpy, dissatisfied, or burnt-out employee (past experiences!). This session gave me a new perspective on nomadism.

Solution 2: Develop a nuanced understanding of professionalism that values the personal, bodies, and emotions in caring professions like working in the early years. I appreciate that professionalism is a lifelong pursuit (Wall, 2014), having values and striving to be the best version of oneself in any situation, whether paid or not. However, I resist the terminology because it opposes the personal bodies and emotions central to caring professions like working in the early years. I wonder why we worry so much about the word or concept of professionalism and whether it is only because the early years’ sector is often left out of it. Nevertheless, I happily embrace different words to describe my job and use my energies elsewhere. While I am currently employed in a role that I enjoy, I have experienced the fragility of my identity when it is too connected with jobs and employment. Therefore, I try to think of myself as a professional while at the same time concentrating on significant values in my life, not just the parts that provide income and status through paid work. I also wonder how those I teach or spend time with think of me and whether it matters. Parents may have a consumerist view of the early years’ experience (May-Yin Lim, 2015), but I try to understand it rather than feel overwhelmed.

In conclusion, my reflections on professionalism and posthumanism have made me question the language and concepts used to describe our work and identities. As we face more significant challenges in the future, it is essential to remain optimistic, keep questioning, and prioritize the values that guide our work and lives.

So, my question is – what does professionalism mean to you

by Sarah Barton

Sara Barton AL @ OU

 

 

 

Sarah Barton works in early years practice in Edinburgh and as an associate lecturer with The Open University. She is also a part-time professional doctorate student with the OU, researching the experience of young children with additional support needs and/or disabilities in early years forest and nature settings.
Posted on

What do I mean by participants’ perspectives: do I take their word for it?

The context

When I began my EdD studies, as an OU insider researcher, I knew that I wanted to explore multiple perspectives around feedback practices and to focus non-judgementally on participants’ own perspectives.

Feedback emerges as a concern throughout the literature Carless et al, 2011 and amongst colleagues.  Empirical studies and pedagogical discussions around feedback practices tend to focus on one perspective, usually students’.  I aimed to consider all perspectives, without foregrounding one, a challenge from my ‘insider’ position Hellawell, 2006 as an OU tutor of many years.

In considering which perspectives were essential to explore to understand feedback practices within this context, three distinct participant groups emerged clearly in terms of their allocated roles within the feedback process.  These comprised those who study and pay for tuition (students), those who facilitate and deliver a pedagogical service by working directly with students (tutors) and those who design and write the module and monitor the process of its delivery and assessment, manage staff and appoint tutors (central academics).

Further, the literature tends to take a ‘problem/solution’ approach and in so doing makes prescriptive recommendations about how participants ‘should’ behave, such as what tutors should be trained to do, to make feedback effective Wakefield et al, 2014.  I wanted to explore perspectives without imposing solutions to identified ‘problems’, considering multiple viewpoints, rather than a single dominant one.

In order to stand back, to be non-partisan, I chose a broadly ethnographic methodology, informed by the principles of being exploratory, interpretive and concerned with context Blommaert, 2007.  I elicited participants’ perspectives via their questionnaire responses and semi-structured interviews conducted via telephone.

My problem

Although being an insider meant, to an extent, I was a participant, my in-depth exploration of participants’ perspectives through their own accounts did not meet ethnographic tendencies to use the multiple methods of data collection Lillis, 2008 available, such as actual tutor feedback.  I did not view events in situ, like Tuck’s ethnographic study Tuck, 2012, considering the context of tutors’ feedback production.  Yet, I could not see how to achieve this immersion in the lived experiences of participants, without imposing, as I saw it, my interpretation of their actions; I wanted to stay with participants’ own accounts of their perspectives.

Two alternative solutions

I considered identifying a case study of one student/tutor experience to allow me to explore observations of behaviour and associated documents alongside my data from semi-structured interviews and open questionnaire questions.

Another option was to stay true to my original intention and to continue to focus on an in-depth exploration focusing only on my participants’ declared perspectives.  This is what I chose to do.

My question/s

Therefore, what do I/we mean by participants’ perspectives?  What leads to the greater ‘truth’, to rely on participants’ own accounts, inevitably filtered through the researcher’s lens, or must we make potentially intrusive ‘checks’ on what participants do in practice to achieve an in-depth exploration of their perspectives?

by  Dr Jane Cobb

I have been an Associate Lecturer at the Open University since 2002, tutoring mainly English Language modules.  I live in Stourbridge in the West Midlands with my husband, two adult children and three Romanian rescue (street) dogs.  My recent EdD and my current research interests concern the multiple perspectives around feedback practices around assessed writing in HE.  This is my first venture into blogging, and I am looking forward to this creative space, where colleagues can share, debate, and discuss issues arising around their research.