Catherine Baker

More about those feedback cards

Two weeks into the term and my experiment with instant feedback cards, they are beginning to have some effect on the shape of the course, and maybe even to give insights into how students are synthesising material in the different courses they take.

The two main courses I’m delivering this semester are a course on the theory and practice of social research and a longer course on nations, identity and power where students apply theory to cases from the region that this School studies. Many students on social sciences tracks choose to or need to take the social research course, while the course on nations, identity and power appeals to students with interests in politics and nationalism.

The overlap in students taking both these courses is a big help for remembering names,  and also gives me twice as many opportunities a week to think about how their learning is progressing.

After the first social research lecture, I realised the point that most students had found ‘least clear’ was the idea of anti-foundationalist thought. (Well they might, since anti-foundationalism doesn’t leave anything to grasp.) At the next lecture, I tried to provide more – one provocative (Nietzsche’s anti-foundationalist take on good and evil) and one probably less so (the interpretive way that Mark Bevir and R. A. W. Rhodes approach policy networks in political science).

The next day, I was lecturing to the Nations/Identity/Power class on ‘what makes the nation?’. This week’s focus was on approaches to the study of ethnicity: attempts to typologise features of ethnicity, versus constructivist accounts that problematise identity and group formation.

The most extreme example of constructivism I wanted to introduce was work on ethnicity by Rogers Brubaker, a sociologist at UCLA. Brubaker, put simply, rejects the common-sense idea that researchers in ethnicity should be studying groups (his last theoretical book was even called Ethnicity Without Groups). Instead, we should be studying the practices and processes that make people consider they belong to groups. It’s all right for group members to believe that they belong to groups; researchers with their professional hats on should not.

But we all know groups exist. We know that we belong to groups. Don’t we?

I wanted to introduce this now so that students would begin to ask the question, even if they find Brubaker too counter-intuitive to agree with. It’s helpful as an intellectual exercise in taking nothing for granted (I gave an illustration of some of the bureaucratic, financial, legal, social, hospitality-related and linguistic practices that might operate to produce the ‘groupness’ of belonging to the collectivity ‘UCL students’). Because I know grasping anti-foundationalism has been an issue for some students in the other course, I added that, for those who are taking Theory and Practice of Social Research at the same time, Brubaker is an example of anti-foundationalist thought.

Which made me very pleased, after I’d collected the feedback cards from the ethnicity lecture, to find out someone had found ‘Brubaker’s anti-foundationalist ideas’ the clearest thing of all.

This may not be the same person who said they’d had trouble understanding anti-foundationalism in week 1. The cards are anonymous, I don’t take much account of handwriting, and I don’t use them as a way to track individual progress from week to week.

It’s still evidence that students are learning actively by applying their knowledge from one course to another, my teaching has had some intellectual coherence across courses, and that a difficult concept may be starting to sink in as students use it in different ways.

I could have found this out in a seminar if the discussion had gone in that direction (although, conscious that students don’t necessarily take both courses, I’d have been unlikely to lead it there myself). As it is, I’m able to observe this from the feedback cards.

The cards also work as a way for students to make brief ‘off-topic’ comments about classroom management or seminar structure (such as one thing that always trips me up: when and where is the best point to put out the sign-in sheet?). Someone took the opportunity to suggest a further primary source I might like to use as a case study in the nationalism course. I enjoy these, and I enjoy having had at least one moment of interaction with every person in a group 40-60 strong.

I just wish the institution where I’m using them had an easy way to recycle them (unlike my other institution, which recycles everything – apart from glass). The paper recycling points in our print rooms only accept white printer paper, so I have been throwing a shocking number of plain white cards away.

Time to plan a simulation that will take up a lot of place cards, maybe?

Advertisements

Written by bakercatherine

12 October 2011 at 2:47 pm

Posted in teaching

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This is a really nice idea, and it’s something that I might try and do now I’m teaching grownups again. What kind of level of engagement do you tend to have with your cards? I’m teaching in a slightly less prestigious institution than UCL, and I’m a little worried my French students will find it pointless, boring, or an opportunity to blow off steam and slag off my course without shedding any light on how I can make it better. Any tips?

    Mike

    12 October 2011 at 2:58 pm

    • Good question! The engagement level has been high so far (I don’t count the cards but the return rate seems to be 80-90% of attendance). Then again, it is the start of the course, and then again again, the people I’m teaching at the moment are postgraduates. Both those factors may have an impact on what engagement with the technique is like. Over the rest of the course, I’m hoping that if they observe their comments do have an effect on the teaching content or delivery (and if they feel their learning is improving because of this) then that will keep the engagement level high.

      Next term I also have first- and second-year undergraduate teaching at my other institution, and the cohort difference may make it a different kettle of fish entirely when it comes to engagement. (Though the new undergraduates are perhaps the group I’m most anxious to get quick feedback from.) That may turn out to be the big test of how much I’ll use it in the future.

      bakercatherine

      12 October 2011 at 3:03 pm

  2. Just thinking about your comment on the use of index cards and their inability to be recycled–when I use a similar technique, I provide scrap (good on one side) paper. If you could get your hand on a stack of paper to be recycled, perhaps that would solve your dilemma.

    Gavan Watson (@gavatron)

    12 October 2011 at 4:00 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: