Simple techniques for a more inclusive curriculum

Simple techniques for a more inclusive curriculum Mary Dracup, Tanya King & Juliet Austin Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University

Abstract Students from low-socioeconomic status or non-English speaking backgrounds, or who have a disability, are Indigenous, or live in a remote area all generally score lower than average grades in Australian higher education. Deakin University’s Faculty of Arts & Education trialled a range of inclusive curriculum strategies in two units during 2015, with the aims of finding and embedding techniques that worked to improve learning outcomes of students in these groups, and at the same time building staff capacity in delivering inclusive curriculum. Staff from across academic and professional divisions collaborated to develop the techniques. This presentation outlines the techniques trialled, their varying impacts and critical success factors, as identified through quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods. Richly annotated readings, visual format seminar papers, and a formative peer assessment activity were found to be the most successful techniques. The presentation also describes briefly the staff capacity-building approach, based on activity systems theory. Introduction Deakin University, like others, has a strategic aim to provide all students with a genuinely accessible education, regardless of their background and other characteristics. However, students from low-socioeconomic (LSES), Indigenous or non-English speaking backgrounds, or who have a disability, or live remotely, all generally have lower success rates at Deakin and many other Australian higher education institutions (DET 2015). The Faculty of Arts & Education applied its 2015 Higher Education Participation & Partnerships Program (HEPPP) funding to trialling a range of inclusive curriculum strategies in two target units. The project had dual aims, firstly to find and embed techniques that would be most likely to improve the engagement and learning outcomes of students in these ‘equity’ groups and, secondly, to build staff capacity in developing more inclusive curriculum. The target units were from the faculty’s two largest undergraduate courses (Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Education), and included relatively high numbers of students from the equity groups mentioned above. For example, 17.8% of Unit A (Anthropology) and 11% of Unit B (Education) students were from LSES backgrounds. Teaching staff in these units collaborated with a working group including Library, Academic Support and Equity and Diversity staff to identify key curriculum elements with which students from the target equity groups struggled. Group members then lent their expertise to develop and deliver more inclusive teaching and learning activities and resources to improve these students’ engagement and learning. Theoretical context for the study Sociocultural education theorists such as Lave and Wenger (1991) see learning as developing the capacity to take part in the discourses of an unfamiliar knowledge community. The Australian higher education student population is increasingly diverse (DET 2015), and higher education providers are morally and legally obliged to provide equitable access to learning 1 Simple techniques for a more inclusive curriculum, Emerging initiatives format

opportunities and outcomes (e.g. see Deakin University 2012). However, this is not simple. Making the cultural and systemic changes necessary to provide an equitable education continues to challenge many higher education providers (May & Bridger 2010, p. 2). A contemporary approach is to anticipate and plan for diversity, and provide an inclusive curriculum from the outset (Morgan & Houghton 2011, p. 7). Northedge (2003) argues that with increasing student diversity, many higher education students now face considerable ‘social and intellectual discontinuities’ (p. 28), involving important issues of identity and voice. He suggests active vicarious participation in the unfamiliar knowledge community (for example, through listening in lectures and seminars, and reading required texts) is vital, but teachers and other pre-established members of the discourse community also need to serve as models and ‘discourse guides’ (p. 30), overtly scaffolding students’ ability to participate in academic knowledge communities. These theories also underpin literature supporting embedding developing academic literacies in subject intended learning outcomes, learning activities, resources and assessment (e.g. Lea & Street 2006). Research and evaluation methods The project methods were informed by activity systems theory (Engestrom 2001), which involves a collaborative, problem-based approach to analysing and implementing change at work unit level, and proposes that internal tensions and contradictions are the driving force of change and development in activity systems (p. 135). The evaluation of project outcomes focused as far as possible on longer term impacts of the interventions for both staff and students (Earley & Porritt 2014). The evaluation methods, approved by the Deakin University Ethics Committee (project HAE-15-059), included analysis of statistical data collected by the university Strategic Intelligence and Planning Unit, surveys, semi-structured student focus groups and teacher interviews. Interventions and results Table 1 outlines the main aspects of these units with which students from diverse groups tended to have difficulty in the two target units (as identified by teaching staff), the interventions made to address these, outcomes for students, and critical success factors. Note that most Unit A interventions were prepared before the start of the teaching period and while the teacher was on a sabbatical from other teaching duties. The teacher therefore had more time than usual to develop and integrate the innovations into the curriculum and assessment tasks, make them readily accessible, provide clear explanations and promote them to students. In contrast, competing research, administration and personal priorities meant most Unit B interventions were developed hastily after the start of the trimester, not well integrated into the curriculum, and not easily discoverable on the LMS site. These factors had significant impacts on outcomes. Unit A students achieved significantly higher final grades and success rates than the previous year’s cohort. The mean final grade rose from 52.9% to 68.7%, and significant rises in grades occurred for all of the target equity groups. The success rate (the number of students who passed) also rose, from 69.3% in the previous cohort to 88.9%, and all equity groups shared in the increase. Students studying off-campus had a 31% increase in their success rate. The unit chair said engagement and learning had improved generally throughout the trimester and all groups of students were performing better. Previously shy students were engaging more in discussions, using complex anthropological language and key concepts, and making connections to work they had done in previous weeks. She and students attributed these improvements to the introduction of annotated readings and visual fact sheets, in particular. 2 Simple techniques for a more inclusive curriculum, Emerging initiatives format

Needs & interventions UNIT A Difficulty reading texts: Richly annotated versions of all readings, including questions, explanations, background, parallels to other texts. One-page visual ‘fact sheets’ used to frame tutorial presentations instead of written papers Students make a picture postcard of their conception of the subject at the start of the unit Video annotation of a key article with short self-test on key points Not understanding expectations: Video-annotated unit guide, highlighting and elaborating on main points. Study support videos and Q&A forums on LMS, real-time Blackboard Collaborate sessions on study skills provided by Academic Support staff. Videos of past students’ stories tips, e.g. effective study strategies. UNIT B Difficulty understanding assignment requirements: Formative peer assessment activity: students mark peers’ assignment drafts against rubric, give feedback. Scaffolding activities to explain rubric, demonstrating with annotated exemplar. Infographic clarifying multi-part assignment requirements. Difficulty finding library resources: Librarian lecture spot and annotated PPT provided on LMS, showing how to find resources for the assignment.

Outcomes Many more students understood the readings in depth, enabling wider, deeper participation in discussions, better grades.

Critical success factors Word and PDF versions provided. Timely availability. Promoted by teacher.

Increased engagement with ideas in seminars and LMS discussions. Helped students crystallise concepts. Helped students recognise pre-conceptions, variety of student views. Prepared them for abstract concepts. Nearly half viewed video, completed quiz; most found it helpful. Significant reduction in number of basic queries. Students found it helpful.

Clear instructions, examples, links to infographic-making apps. Good rubric. Clear instructions, examples. Ongoing deconstruction of original preconceptions. Transcript provided for students on costly/poor internet. Transcript provided. Available before start of unit.

Videos/webpages used by 2/3 students. Live sessions not well attended. Students reported also using the information in other units. Uncertain impact: little comment from students.

Early in unit. Customised to unit assessments, readings. Recording of live sessions provided. Transcripts available.

Student, teacher feedback indicated better understanding of assessment processes and criteria, valuable feedback on own assignments.

Good rubric. Scaffolding of rubric, marking and feedback skills.

Clear but provided too late to be useful. Student, teacher feedback indicated better skill in finding resources, and confidence to ask for help.

Incorporation in assignment instructions. Careful targeting and design to meet real student needs. Timeliness. Customisation to assignment.

3 Simple techniques for a more inclusive curriculum, Emerging initiatives format

Most accessed video but Captioned video or Difficulty decoding readings: Video demonstrating how to focus group did not find it transcript provided. ‘read’ a key website text, helpful. Incorporation in provided on LMS. curriculum and Annotated version of a key Clear but provided too late to promotion by teachers. Easily discoverable on a reading, provided on LMS, inc. be useful. well-managed LMS site. highlighted phrases, comments on how to read the text strategically. Generic reading strategies Clear but provided too late to document. be useful. Pitched too low so did not Difficulty interviewing: Video of past student explaining help much. her interview procedure. Two students said these were Poor group work: Selected videos on group work helpful, if general. Not skills provided on LMS. accessed widely. Table 1: Summary of needs, interventions, outcomes and identified critical success factors As the interventions listed above were the only significant changes from the previous year’s offering, it is reasonable to connect these results with the interventions. The impacts of the interventions in Unit B are less easy to identify. Student final grades, overall and for particular equity groups, were generally higher in comparison to the results achieved by the previous cohort or between the intervention cohort and other campus cohorts. However, success rates and pre- and post-surveys on key questions relating to the interventions do not show a similar pattern. Qualitative data do not indicate the interventions had significant overall effects on students’ learning and engagement, although staff and students said the formative peer assessment activity generally was very helpful. The project included several faculty-wide workshops, as well as numerous smaller meetings between teaching teams and professional staff. In each of these, staff from across siloed systems worked together to share experiences and develop inclusive techniques with minimal resources and little time. All teaching staff said lack of time was a major barrier to developing inclusive resources and techniques, so the targeted approach of the project—linking professional staff with individual teaching staff to develop discipline-specific strategies—was a positive feature. All teaching staff in the target units said they would build on the contacts they had made and what they had learnt about inclusive curriculum in future. Unit Chair A said the support and encouragement provided by the working group had definitely improved her teaching, and the excellent student outcomes had inspired her to try many more technically simple ideas to make her curriculum yet more inclusive. Further, Unit Chair A’s anthropology colleagues agreed that the richly annotated readings were so effective that this intervention would be delivered in other anthropology units in the future. Conclusion The increasing diversity of university students requires that inclusivity strategies remain a goal for Australian tertiary educators into the future. This project identified several types of resources and techniques that can enhance the inclusivity of curriculum. It has highlighted the difficulty of implementing new strategies when time and circumstances restrict the unit chair (Unit B). It has also shown how proven successful initiatives can be extended to other similar 4 Simple techniques for a more inclusive curriculum, Emerging initiatives format

units, thereby magnifying the effects of a successful trial (Unit A). In both cases, some of the processes of identifying issues and collaborating with colleagues and professional staff on solutions are likely to extend outside the life of this project, leading to 'culturally new patterns of activity' (Engestrom 2001, p. 139). Our findings suggest that universities should facilitate collaborations (between professional and teaching staff) and focus resources on those units where teaching staff have both the enthusiasm and the time to develop and evaluate inclusive curriculum strategies, and that the successful innovations be promoted widely. References Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deakin University. (2012). Equity and diversity policy. Retrieved April 8, 2016, from https://theguide.deakin.edu.au/TheGuide/TheGuide2011.nsf/fe1b1fd3a8864aebca257 7970012ba73/f156674b1d006019ca257aad0023b387?OpenDocument. D. E. T. (Department of Education and Training). (2015). Selected higher education statistics— 2014 student data. Retrieved April 8, 2016, from https://www.education.gov.au/selectedhigher-education-statistics-2014-student-data. Earley, P., & Porritt, V. (2014). Evaluating the impact of professional development: the need for a student-focused approach. Professional Development in Education, 40(1), 11229. Engestrom, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-56. Lea, M., & Street, B. (2006). The ‘academic literacies’ model: theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45(4), 368-77. May, H., & Bridger, K. (2010). Developing and embedding inclusive policy and practice in higher education. Retrieved April 8, 2016, from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/developingembeddinginclusivepp_report .pdf. Morgan, H., & Houghton, A. M. (2011). Inclusive curriculum design in higher education. Retrieved April 8, 2016, from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/inclusion/Disability/Inclusive_curriculum_d esign_in_higher_education.

Northedge, A. (2003). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 17-32. Some questions for discussion   

What other technically simple resources or techniques can be embedded in a curriculum to improve its inclusivity? Do teaching and professional staff need a deep understanding of inclusion for simple techniques to work? Are the traditional ways that HE measures student success congruent with notions of inclusion? 5

Simple techniques for a more inclusive curriculum, Emerging initiatives format