Reciprocity in Learning: Co-creation with undergraduate students- creating content for ‘a week in the life...’ - Elizabeth Tilley and Frankie Kendal
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•7 vues
Presented at LILAC 2024.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Reciprocity in Learning: Co-creation with undergraduate students- creating content for ‘a week in the life...’ - Elizabeth Tilley and Frankie Kendal
Similaire à Reciprocity in Learning: Co-creation with undergraduate students- creating content for ‘a week in the life...’ - Elizabeth Tilley and Frankie Kendal (20)
Plus de IL Group (CILIP Information Literacy Group)
Plus de IL Group (CILIP Information Literacy Group) (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Reciprocity in Learning: Co-creation with undergraduate students- creating content for ‘a week in the life...’ - Elizabeth Tilley and Frankie Kendal
- 1. Reciprocity in Learning Co-creation with undergraduate students- creating content for ‘a week in the life...’ Elizabeth Tilley, formerly University of Cambridge Email: elizabeth.tilley@cantab.net Twitter: @LibTil Frankie Kendal, Cambridge SU Email: frankie.kendal@cambridgesu.co.uk
- 2. ‘A Week in the life’
- 3. Underpinning the co-creation project…. Reciprocity Clarity about what co-creation is, and isn’t The practical model developed by Lystbæk et al (2019) Underpinning theory and model
- 4. Reciprocity: allied with respect and responsibility • OED: “the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit” • “a process of balanced give-and-take; there is equity in what is exchanged and how it is exchanged” (Cook-Sather et al, 2014) • “contributions made by partners are equally valued and respected…all participants have an equivalent opportunity to contribute.” (Lystbæk et al , 2019) • Positions both (all) groups of people as both learners and teachers
- 5. Co-creation • Concept is ‘tricksy’ : what is it? Magic? A panacea? • Partners share investment in the output and initiate the project together • Leveraging student’s unique contribution • Beneficial outputs for student community will empower students to take part
- 6. Co-Creation Model (after Lystbæk et al, 2019) Cyclical model: “The four aspects should fit together, i.e. be aligned and adjusted in accordance to each other in a particular context”
- 7. Context • CamGuides for transition to University • Previous feedback from students highlighted bias to Humanities • Black students lived experiences in libraries – involvement in the Alterline project • Institutional APP plan • Complex environment for student engagement and for paid work • Students leading on designing for each other – co-creation
- 8. Partners • Students: This co-creation was inclusive of the targeted student population – primarily first year students • Student Union • Education Section: User Research and Researcher Development • Library Staff • Website • Skills offer • Mentor • Student Engagement opportunity
- 9. Process • Education Strategy Committee and Senior management approval • Timing for project • Recruitment • Administration • Planning the week of activity • Implementation
- 10. Product
- 11. Geography
- 12. Philosophy
- 13. Evaluation of : ‘Week in the Life’ co- creation project • Usage of site • Partner evaluation of process • Reciprocity • A final word on co-creation
- 14. Site visits • Higher data usage: at point of completed page • Higher data usage: pre-arrival confirmed students arriving
- 15. Poll evaluation on the site
- 16. Partner evaluation: “I don't think I've ever had that much fun making a project”
- 17. Student participants in co-creation (1) Being able to reflect on what I really valued about my time at Cambridge I wanted to show that life at Cambridge can be a holistic experience. Having a 'base' in the SU to come and go from and being given that level of independence felt great. Met some new people and made friends I remember looking for information on what Cambridge life is truly like and it was limited. Every course is different in what and how you will be learning - it is important to have something like this for a variety of students and every single course. Being part of minority groups meant that I could share information about my experiences within my course that could potentially help others
- 18. Student participants in co-creation (2) Project was good, but maybe on a site with more publicity - a lot of freshers I talked to hadn't heard of the website Some assistance in executing student's ideas would be helpful in future. Organising for some time in multi-media unit for students would be useful. I think it could be useful to have guides for specific demographics outside of courses.
- 19. Student Union partners in co-creation (1) • A primary positive takeaway was the collaboration and engagement with students. They had a sense of ownership over the project. It was amazing to see students giving their time to supporting other prospective and incoming students. • For such student-led and student-focused work, it felt important for the SU to collaborate with the libraries on supporting students with this work. We have also included some of the students' work on the SU's Alternative Prospectus to ensure that outreach work is done in collaboration rather than competition. • The diversity of content was a wonderful part of the project
- 20. Student Union partners in co-creation (2) If the project was to run again, I would suggest: • further collaborations across the University, especially with Departments to expand our reach. • a standardised production as well that can be used across many different platforms so that student perspectives on their own experiences can be included in projects across Cambridge.
- 21. Staff perspectives “the best use of my time for a long time – I felt that I was learning so much from being with students all week” “we were able to share some of our skills and knowledge in an interactive, relevant way – much better than a one-hour teaching session” have a half-day where they heard about the project, the desired output, and the accessibility and copyright concerns and then had a week or two to go away and think about what they might like to do conflict between wanting creativity and individuality but also providing more guidance
- 22. Evaluating ‘Reciprocity’ Gaining insights into other’s perspectives ; positions both groups of people (all the groups) as both learners and teachers Space to develop conversations, and allow students to partner with each other Together with respect and responsibility, reciprocity allows partnership to develop, negotiation to be a lynchpin – we listen, but also articulate our expertise
- 23. Potential barriers to implementing productive co-creation practices (Barrit, Almond, 2024, Advance HE student co-creation conference)
- 24. Conclusion “the opportunity to practice adaptability and flexibility in order to create something students find engaging and useful…. I was able to be creative and work in several different mediums to cater to the biggest demographic possible by being inclusive of students' preferences of engaging with materials ….. I put myself forward to be involved because it sounded like a genuinely entertaining way of helping people that I could have used myself.”
- 25. Thanks for listening - & Questions CONTACT: Email: elizabeth.tilley@cantab.net On LinkedIn (Libby Tilley) X (Twitter) @LibTil
Notes de l'éditeur
- You will no doubt have seen the output of this project via the URL in the abstract but here’s a screen shot of the top level page. Student voices mentioned, talking about the ‘Cambridge week’ which no-one has any idea how critical this is – and how different from almost any other Uni. Ties into teaching and formative assessment, as students move from one topic to another with new formative assessments to do nearly every week.
- Fundamentally it’s a formal word to recognize that all involved in the process are in a position to exchange expertise – to both give and recieve. Nothing really very new there, but I thought the use of the word really summarized what actually happened as well as what was intended If working harmoniously then reciprocity brings about respect and helps everyone take part and take ownership and responsibility. Exchanging things with others for mutual benefit.
- Co-creation - there is no general agreement about what this actually entails. The concept of co-creation has been used in various ways, and the differences are not always made clear. It tends to be promoted as a ”magic concept” or as a kind of panacea that solves all kinds of problems while having no problems of its own. However, collaborating with students can be challenging and problematic. AT Cambridge we were trying to exploit the potentials and eliminate or at least mitigate for some of the tensions. It is sometimes referred to as co-production, but a key factors is that all partners be invested in the output and ideally be involved in project initiation. Involving students as partners means giving them a voice and valuing and leveraging their skills, expertise, knowledge as a unique contribution. Ideally it should be about bringing systematic changes to benefit the student community and it is this that is fundamental to empowering students.
- Lystbaek’s model – at it’s centre is the context – really crucial, I think students can tell if they are being fobbed off with something that isn’t real or meaningful. The rest of the cycle implies good planning! I’ll take this apart a little for our project
- We owned a resource that we knew from reviews hadn’t quite hit the spot for some students; we had some clear objectives from our engagement with Alterline’s project on black lived experiences in libraries; the institution has it’s APP Practically paying for the students meant focusing on one week after summer term finished when a lot of students were still in residence, but just after the exam period. AND a desire to be pragmatic about trying to solve the issue of working with students – student engagement - we never seem to quite crack it, and we had engaged with some UX work earlier in the year and we just wanted to be with students and learn from them – so much more than we had been able to do
- Most cumbersome area to handle
- So how did it go? A week with most students undertaking 30 hours of work Based in the SU (Pizzas on offer on day 1 for free – sweetner) Day 1 was quite a lot of training and user engagement eg what do they want on a website; idea generation for content, accessibility tips; copyright eg for images tips etc; how to organise the LibGuide page During the week they could base themselves at the SU or take themselves elsewhere, especially if videoing. They had time sheets to complete They were also involved in an SU workshop They were also asked to take 30-45 minutes with a member of library staff for a student interview – pooled questions from across the libraries to ask students; we also had an Education Section admin staff member talking to the students about user research project We did not bring the students in early and involve them in project initiation as it suggests we should, although we gave them a fair amount of leeway. However we had an end goal in mind – and the platform to achieve this end goal – what the students brought to the table was a multiplicity of ways to achieve that and in this respect we let them take the lead, but supported or suggest when asked. Here are just two of the starting points from a Geographer and a Philosopher.
- The overarching themes from the feedback was: It was great being involved in this Students really felt that it was a useful activity to do to help others. So the CONTEXT was right. Staff commented that having the variety of people together in one place really helped that issue of getting hold of students for different reasons – there were at least two other projects that were able to happen at the same time as having students there for nearly a whole week. (PARTNERS worked) We should definitely have had an initiation session a week or two before the week of work started to enable a) any slow starters time to absorb the ideas b) to allow the students to think about HOW they wanted to work and give us time to book up eg the Media Suite for them (PROCESSES needed amending) The output was on a site (CamGuides) which many felt was not central in the University. (I confess that I made one massive error which I don’t think I worked out how to correct after promotion – and that was the naming of the site – as it does not come up in a simple google search). (OUTPUT was great – but not as findable as it could be)
- Understanding the student context was brilliant. I felt that I lived a whole week with students and in true ethnographic research style learnt a hell of a lot by observing and listening. So the time gave us space to listen and develop relationship both between groups and across the groups as well – that comment from one student about meeting new friends. Fabulous. We ALL articulated our expertise. The students who used a time table as their focus for their outputs were the only people who knew that timetable – I learn so much about how their time is used and where they learn and how they learn. First year medics – 1 200 page pdf on anatomy just to learn for their exam. Fair, but revelatory. Absolutely NO interest in searching for articles. Reciprocity is a process of give and take, equity in what is exchanged and how it is exchanged. The use of a space that was for students already was also very good was also incredibly important. Lystbaek’s CO-CREATION model is one that can easily be adapted and can work in any scenario – it is essentially about good planning and remembering the context that they students are coming to. Allied to a strong understanding of co-creation based on an understanding of what reciprocity really is about, it works.
- I think the skills of facilitation and negotiation are critical. Also accepting that changes to a very ‘pure type ideal’ that you might be after are needed. The Advance HE does a great annual conference on co-creation which I’ve been able to attend and this is a useful slide covering a lot of the practical issues which can result which came from a presentation at that conference Although recruitment produced a lot of applicants (more than 30 ), a lot pulled out at the last minute. Or just couldn’t get their heads around that fact that we needed to see their passports for right to work. I won’t mention them in detail but for us ‘under staff’ Logistics and coordination were something I underestimated; under students I think ‘unintentional exclusion’ possibly also on the workload front – once the students were decided on a tactic to use, they couldn’t stop until it was done perfectly. I had offered 30 hours of work (agreed from on high) and yet some of them were super tempted to work much longer. So I had to agree with them how to resolve that.
- A model of co-creation was used and assessed and A’ thing’ was created There will always be ‘surprises’ in any new venture Whether another ‘thing’ happens is pretty much up to the institution Was this successful? As a co-creation project bearing in mind the definitions of co-creation, reciprocity and the model followed – yes. If it happens again tweaks can be made and hopefully our own learning of the process will develop,