Making the Most of Broadcast Media (Conference summary)

On 14th January 2014, the University of Leicester played host to a day conference on Making the Most of Broadcast Media in your Teaching. The event was organised on behalf of the Higher Education Academy STEM network, and we are grateful for the financial support that enable the meeting to take place.

The purpose of the day was to promote the use of television programmes and clips in bioscience education. There has always been huge, but often untapped, potential for use broadcast media in teaching. However, several recent developments have made it very much easier to identify appropriate materials and/or obtain copies in an easily usable format.

Slides from all of the presentations on the day are available below. The intention was to combine these with audio recordings from the day. Unfortunately Slideshare have recently announced that they are withdrawing their Slidecast facility and so, at present, only the images are available.

“But we’re not a media course!”: the relevance of broadcast materials to bioscientists (and others)

To start the day, I gave a presentation outlining some of the ways in which we have used TV and film in bioscience teaching. These include clips to set the scene, to convey factual information and/or as discussion starters. Delegates took part in an activity in which a clip from the populist science show Brainiac can be used to kickstart discussion about experimental design (see here for a fuller write-up of this task).

Copyright, the Education Recording Agency and all that: you can legally do more than you think!

Murray Weston (former CEO of the British Universities Film and Video Council) talked us through some of the evolution of the UK rules governing legal use of broadcast media for education. He explained what the current rules are, but also highlighted that important changes are expected from April 2014.

Short presentations offered by delegates

The next phase of the day allowed delegates to describe existing ways in which they use broadcast media in teaching. Three case studies were offered.

1. Critical reviews of TV science documentaries

First up, Prof Jon Scott (University of Leicester) outlined an exercise in which final year students are required to conduct a critical review of TV documentaries on neuroscience topics.

2. Using cold case files TV shows to develop forensic students’ scientific approach

Dr Ian Turner (University of Derby) then described a tutorial in which video clips from cold case series, and associated resources, are used with forensic students to help them improve their crime scene methodologies.

3. Headline grabbing: Using BBC news clips as an essay springboard

Dr Steve Maw (University of Leeds) described an activity he conducts with his foundation-level students in which they write an essay on ethical aspects of a biological or biomedical mews story. More details regarding a similar task can be found here.

Looking for resources? BoB’s your uncle!: An introduction to the Box of Broadcasts

Dr Sandy Willmott (University of Lincoln) gave a demonstration of Box of Broadcasts (BoB), an exciting new resource developed by the British Universities Film and Video Council and their technical partners. BoB allows academics and students in subscribing institutions to access an enormous catalogue of previous and current television for educational purposes. Sandy showed programmes can easily be selected and how the package allows users to select clips within episodes and, if appropriate, develop playlists.

Television and Radio Index for Learning and Teaching: making the most of TRILT to know what’s on and when

To complete the day, we had a computer-based session allowing delegates to set up or develop their own accounts using the Television and Radio Index for Learning and Teaching (TRILT). TRILT allows users to check what has been on UK television (including a longer time period and broader range of channels than BoB) and to set up a weekly email alerts based on keywords of their choice.

*NOW* is the time to include more TV material in your teaching

A new version of Box of Broadcasts (launching in Jan 2014) will be a powerful tool for teaching and research

A new version of Box of Broadcasts (launching in Jan 2014) will be a powerful tool for teaching and research

The pedagogic merit of TV has a noble tradition. For people of a certain generation (my generation) this may conjure up images of Open University lecturers in tweed jackets talking about non-euclidean geometry at 5am. Although this model very definitely had its place (My mother is one of many thousands who studied for an OU degree in this way), this stereotype massively underplays the educational potential of broadcast media.

TV footage (and, to a lesser extent, radio recording) can be utilised in a variety of engaging ways across all academic disciplines. Significant changes taking place at the start of 2014 are going to make access to thousands of hours of material very straightforward. I’m going to be as bold as to say if you are not buying into these resources for your students, then you are selling them short.

In particular, the first week of January will see the roll out of version 3 of Box of Broadcasts. BoB (as it is known to its friends) is like a giant “on demand” service offered across the UK Higher Education sector. But this is only to scratch at the surface of its potential. I’ve seen a demo and I am very excited about this resource. In particular I can see BoB playing a significant role in moves towards a “flipped classroom”, not least through the potential to develop “viewing lists” to offer to your students alongside the more traditional reading lists.

I’m probably not at liberty to say too much more ahead of the official launch (you can see some details in this BUFVC press release) but I mention this now because BoB is one of a range of multimedia tools that we will be demonstrating at a day conference in Leicester on 14th January 2014.

The programme for the day (draft) looks like this:
10.00    Registration and refreshments
10.20    Welcome and introduction
10.30    “But we’re not a media course” – the relevance of broadcast materials to bioscientists (and others!)
11:00    Copyright, the Educational Recording Act and all that – you can legally do more than you think! (Murray Weston, former Director of BUFVC)
11:30    Refreshments
11.50    Television and Radio Index for Learning and Teaching: making the most of TRILT to know what’s on and when
12.20    Looking for resources? “BoB’s your uncle!” – an introduction to the Box of Broadcasts (Dr Sandy Willmott, University of Lincoln and member of the national BoB user group).
12.50    Lunch
13.30    Swap shop: Delegates will have the opportunity to demonstrate their use of multimedia in their teaching. Already offered:
Critical reviews of TV science documentaries (Prof Jon Scott, University of Leicester)
14.45    Refreshments
15.00    Setting up TRILT alerts (a hands-on computer session)
16.00    Reflections and close

This event is particularly geared at colleagues from STEM disciplines (and the examples used will primarily be drawn from the biosciences). However, the central principles will be applicable to academics from any subject area. If you are interested in attending, please book via this link. If you would like to offer a 7 minute description of your current use of moving image content, please email me.

Feedback on exams: how much of an issue is it?

In keeping with other universities, Leicester is thinking through the best way to offer feedback to students on their exam performance. Several different models are under consideration, each of which involves significant logistical difficulties, and no firm decision has been made about the approach to take.

We do not (yet) offer students in bioscience the opportunity to see their marked scripts themselves. At various times in recent years I have acted as “broker”, looking through the exam answers of personal tutees in order to suggest ways that they might improve their future answers.

In truth, the findings of this distinctly unscientific study are not earth-shattering. There are three or four key explanations as to why students fail to achieve the mark they desire:

1. Not answering the question asked – lowest marks, and those that come as the biggest surprise to the authors, are for answers in which they have significantly missed the thrust of the question. There is not much that can be done to counsel against this, except the old mantra “read the question carefully”.

2. Not offering enough detail – The most common error in exam answers is a failure to include sufficient detail to be worthy of the mark the author anticipated. This issue can be addressed in practical ways, e.g. by making the expectations overt and by exposing students to real essays written by previous students (as we do in this exercise).

3. Unstructured “brain dump” – This can be a manifestation of error #1, possibly leading to #2 (in the sense that a lot of time and effort has been spent on material which is not strictly relevant). Essays of this type are frequently characterised by flitting back and forth between different issues as the author thinks of them. For the examiner it comes across as either a lack of true understanding about the topic in hand, or as a lazy student essentially saying “I recognise this word in the question, here’s a random collection of things I recall from your lectures, you work out whether any of it is relevant”.

Encouraging students to take a few moments to sit down and plan out their answer before dashing off into the main body of their response will help to reduce this mistake.

4. Illegible handwriting – I speak as someone whose hand-writing is not fantastic on a good day and which gets worse under time constraints. Nevertheless, regardless of weaknesses in the marker, the old adage “we can’t award credit for it if we can’t read it” remains true.

Scripts that are completely undecipherable are rare, but they do exist. In the past we were able to offer some glimmer of hope in the form of the opportunity to call in the student and, at their expense, to employ someone to write a readable version as the original author translated their hieroglyph. This back-up position has now been removed, apparently because a student at a different institution significantly embellished their original version whilst it was being transcribed [note: does anyone have chapter and verse to show that this is not an urban myth? I'd like to know the details].

Given that other mechanisms for capturing an exam answer exist (e.g. use of a laptop) it ought not to be the case that someone gets to the point where they discover after the event that their legibility was inadequate. It is therefore important both that we have the chance to see some hand-written work (preferably early in a student’s time at university) and that a culture is engendered in which it is acceptable to comment on poor handwriting, even if the hand offering the rebuke is not itself ideal.

Student-generated video as a means to teach bioethics

The second phase of my November tour has taken me to Naples, for the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics 9th World Conference on Bioethics, Medical Ethics and Health Law. I hope to find time to reflect more fully on the conference in the next few days.

In the meantime, I’ve provided a link to the slides from my presentation on the work we’ve been doing over the past six years, in which second year Medical Biochemists (and Medics) produce short videos about different aspects of biomedical ethics.

Headline Bioethics

I have mentioned the Headline Bioethics project here previously, including links to a poster I presented at the Leicester Teaching and Learning event (January 2013) and again at the  Higher Education Academy STEM conference (April 2013).

A paper giving more details about the task was published last week in the journal Bioscience Education. The abstract states:

An exercise is described in which second year undergraduate bioscientists write a reflective commentary on the ethical implications of a recent biological/biomedical news story of their own choosing. As well as being of more real-world relevance than writing in a traditional essay format, the commentaries also have potential utility in helping the broader community understand the issues raised by the reported innovations. By making the best examples available online, the task therefore has the additional benefit of allowing the students to be genuine producers of resources.

This is not, incidentally, to be confused with the other activity I’ve been doing with a different cohort of second year students in which they produce short films about bioethics (the paper on that subject is forthcoming).

 

One day in Alzira…

It seems that November is shaping up as a bit of a European tour for me. Trips later in the months to Naples and Edinburgh have been on the cards for a while, but my friend and colleague Salvador Macip and I ended up popped to Alzira, Spain on November 8th for 24 hours. This unusual behaviour was prompted by our success in winning the European Prize for the Popularization of Science.

trophycrop2

This was the 19th year that the European Prize for the Popularization of Science has been awarded

Continue reading

Letting students know what we expect in essays

At a recent student-staff committee meeting, a first year student rep noted that it was difficult to know what sort of things markers would be looking for in an essay (especially since many people had no cause to write essays at all during their A level science courses).

I was able to point him to the generic guidance we offer in the Undergraduate Handbook, issues to all new students. However, I also wondered whether we ought really to give more information (particularly when we likely give *markers* of the work quite a thorough checklist). So this year I’ve decided to send an email overtly pointing out the kind of things that gain or lose marks (see below). Critics might argue either that (a) this is undue spoon-feeding or (b) that it will make it harder for us to find criteria on which to comment. I would counter this by saying that ironing out of some of these issue should make it clearer for us to actually get into the *content* of the essay we are assessing and not end up so focused on the *production and process* that we barely get into discussion of the substance of the essay proper.

Anyhow, we’ll see how it goes.

Criteria markers may be judging:

  • Has the essay got the correct title (not some vague approximation to it)?
  • Does the essay have a proper introduction and conclusion?
  • Are references cited in the text (using the Harvard system)? Is there a well-organised reference list at the end?
  • Does the essay answer the question posed in the title?
  • Is there a logical flow to what has been written (or is a random collection of points, albeit valid points)?
  • Is the sentence construction good? Are there issues with paragraphing? Is the story “well told”?
  • Has selective or partial coverage of the topic, inevitable in short essays, been justified in any way?
  • Have other instructions been followed e.g. is the essay double-spaced? page numbers? word limit?
  • Are there diagrams? Do they have: Figure number? Title? Legend (if applicable)? Are they referred to in the text? Are they neat and fit for purpose? If “imported” from a source are they cited?
  • Is the title and/or legend “widowed” (on a different page) from the image?
  • Is there inappropriate use of quotes?
  • Is the essay clearly too long (or too short)?
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 27 other followers