Tag: Case Study

This case study explores the implementation of a mid-unit checkpoint in Unit 3: Situating Innovation within the MA Innovation Management course at CSM. It examines how structured feedback supports student progress and equitable participation in assessing and giving feedback for learning. Additionally, it aligns with the A3 (assess and give feedback for learning), A5 (enhance practice through professional development), K3 (critical evaluation for effective practice), K5 (quality assurance and enhancement), and V5 (collaborate with others to enhance practice) from the Professional Standards Framework. 

Background

The Situating Innovation unit is an 11-week-long research-based unit where students develop and refine their research proposals. In the past years, despite its duration, there was no structured checkpoint for students to receive interim feedback, apart from voluntary crit sessions organized during class times. While these sessions provided valuable peer interaction, they disproportionately benefited confident students, leaving quieter or less proactive students with limited engagement and feedback opportunities.

Having successfully implemented and conducted structured checkpoints in other LCF courses, I recognized the benefits of a more inclusive and guided mid-unit feedback session. These checkpoints had proven effective in maintaining student momentum, helping staff identify common struggles, and promoting a deeper engagement with feedback and learning outcomes. Given this experience, I introduced the first-ever structured mid-unit checkpoint for MAIM to ensure all students received formative feedback, gained external perspectives, and refined their research direction before final submission.

Evaluation

The newly introduced checkpoint session was carefully structured to optimize student engagement and feedback quality:

• Mandatory participation: Unlike voluntary crits, all students were required to present their progress, ensuring broader participation.
• Cross-supervision feedback: To offer fresh insights, students were not assigned to their own supervisors but instead presented to a different faculty member.
• Small group structure: Three parallel sessions were conducted with two staff members per room, optimizing discussion time and feedback quality.
• Accountability and reflection: Each student had 10 minutes to present, which pushed them to organize their research coherently, promoting self-reflection and preparedness.

The response from students was overwhelmingly positive. They particularly appreciated:

1. Hearing their peers’ progress, which helped them benchmark their own work.
2. Gaining external faculty perspectives, which provided fresh, unbiased feedback.
3. Being pushed to structure their work earlier, reducing last-minute stress.

From a theoretical perspective, this aligns with Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick’s (2006) Seven Principles of Good Feedback, particularly in clarifying performance standards, fostering self-reflection, and encouraging sustained engagement. Additionally, Race (2001) highlights the importance of structured self, peer, and group assessment in enhancing learning, reinforcing the value of this checkpoint session. 

A key lesson was that mandatory participation created a more equitable learning experience. In contrast to the previous voluntary crits – where  only confident students engaged – this structured format ensured all students received and acted upon constructive feedback, as emphasized by O’Donovan, Price & Rust (2004) in their work on making assessment criteria explicit and accessible. 

Moving Forward

Reflecting on this intervention and incorporating insights from the PgCert discussions on crits, I identified key enhancements for future sessions:

• Structuring peer feedback within the checkpoint: While peer crits were previously optional and often dominated by confident students, I plan to formalize a peer feedback component within the checkpoint session. This structured approach will ensure all students actively engage with their peers’ work, promoting deeper critical reflection while still benefiting from staff insights.
• Optimizing session formats for deeper engagement: Some students expressed a need for more time to discuss their feedback in depth. To address this, I propose conducting the checkpoint in smaller groups over multiple days, resembling a group tutorial format. This would allow for more focused conversations and closer interaction with both peers and staff.
• Enhancing participation and inclusivity: Combining structured peer crits with faculty feedback will create a more balanced learning experience, ensuring that students who may be less confident in presenting still receive constructive input. A clear framework for guiding peer discussions will also be introduced to help students provide meaningful feedback.
• Encouraging reflection and application of feedback: Inspired by Russell (2010) on assessment patterns, I propose requiring students to reflect on and integrate checkpoint feedback into their final work. While this is not currently a formal requirement, introducing a reflective journal or structured self-assessment for longer units would help students track their intellectual and methodological development over time.

By implementing these refinements, the checkpoint session will not only provide valuable feedback but also reinforce students’ ability to assess their own work critically, engage more actively with feedback, and integrate it meaningfully into their research process.

References

Brooks, K. (2008) ‘Could do Better?’: students’ critique of written feedback. University of the West of England.

Nicol, D. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199-218.

O’Donovan, B., Price, M. & Rust, C. (2004) ‘Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria’, Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), pp. 325-335.

Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. LTSN Generic Centre.

Russell, M. (2010) Assessment Patterns: A Review of the Possible Consequences. University of Hertfordshire, ESCAPE project.

This case study addresses the importance of adapting teaching strategies to accommodate students’ diverse academic experiences, ensuring an equitable learning environment. It aligns with the Professional Standards Framework, specifically addressing A2: teaching and supporting learning through appropriate approaches and environments and V1: respecting individual learners and diverse groups of learners, while also incorporating elements of K2: approaches to teaching and supporting learning appropriate for subject and level of study. 

The study is based on the Collaborative Unit run by MAIM and MAAI at CSM, and it explores how different student experiences influence teamwork and knowledge-sharing and how the application of cultural and educational theories can support more effective collaboration. Given that many UAL programmes incorporate collaborative units, discussions with colleagues across various courses and faculties confirm that these challenges are widely shared. You can check here another post related to the Collaborative Unit (Reflections on being observed by a peer: Facilitating Team Collaboration and Conflict Resolution).

Background

In today’s globalised higher education landscape, classrooms are increasingly diverse, with students bringing varied cultural and educational backgrounds that shape their approaches to learning and collaboration (Deardorff, 2006). While this diversity enhances the learning experience by introducing multiple perspectives, it also presents challenges, particularly in group work, where different understandings of collaboration, leadership, and communication can lead to misunderstandings and conflict (Meyer, 2014).

The Collaborative Unit has run for 6 weeks and one key challenge identified at the very beginning of the project was that students experienced frustration and difficulty progressing with their teamwork due to misaligned expectations and differing approaches to academic work. Many struggled to understand how their peers structured tasks, made decisions, and engaged in collaborative problem-solving, leading to inefficiencies and tensions within the group. This aligns with findings from Hofstede (2001), who emphasised that educational expectations vary significantly across cultures due to differing levels of power distance, individualism, and uncertainty avoidance. In our observed case, some students were highly familiar with independent research and self-directed learning, while others were engaging with structured academic inquiry in a group setting for the first time.

Evaluation

To address these challenges and foster a more inclusive learning environment, we introduced Erin Meyer’s Cultural Map framework, a widely recognised model that highlights how cultures differ across dimensions such as communication style, decision-making, and attitudes towards confrontation (Meyer, 2014). By mapping themselves and their peers within this framework, students gained deeper insights into their own collaborative styles and recognised that tensions often stemmed from cultural predispositions rather than personal shortcomings.

In parallel, Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory was introduced to provide further context on how different cultures approach learning and collaboration. For example, students from collectivist cultures, where group harmony is prioritised, initially hesitated to assert their perspectives, whereas students from more individualist cultures were accustomed to voicing their opinions assertively (Hofstede, 2001). This discrepancy created initial communication barriers, reinforcing the importance of explicitly addressing these dynamics in an academic setting.

Through these frameworks, students were able to identify the root causes of their frustrations, acknowledge the influence of cultural differences, and develop strategies for effective collaboration. Moreover, by discussing conflict moderation techniques such as assertive communication, students gained the confidence to express their perspectives in a constructive manner, eliminating any unspoken tensions or “elephants in the room” (Deardorff, 2009). 

The integration of cultural mapping tools significantly enhanced students’ ability to collaborate effectively. In their final presentations, students demonstrated a remarkable level of self-awareness by mapping each group member’s position within the Cultural Map framework, illustrating how their diverse backgrounds contributed to the group’s collective learning process, and how the differences enhanced the final submission. This exercise not only improved teamwork dynamics but also fostered a sense of inclusivity, empowering students to articulate their ideas assertively and respectfully (Deardorff, 2009).

Moving forward

To foster more effective collaboration in diverse learning environments, I aim to embed cultural competence awareness into the curriculum, by including some of the following: 

• Workshops on intercultural communication, providing students with practical tools to navigate diverse teams effectively (Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009).
• Reflective exercises on personal biases and cultural expectations in learning environments (Gudykunst, 2004).
• Ongoing use of cultural frameworks such as Meyer’s Cultural Map and Hofstede’s dimensions to ensure that students develop the skills necessary for global collaboration.

These strategies equip students with the awareness and adaptability needed to engage effectively in diverse professional and academic environments, preparing them for the complexities of an interconnected world (Holliday, Hyde, & Kullman, 2010).

References

Deardorff, D. K. (2006). Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 241-266.

Deardorff, D. K. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Gudykunst, W. B. (2004). Bridging Differences: Effective Intergroup Communication. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2010). Intercultural Communication: An Advanced Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.

Meyer, E. (2014). The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business. New York: PublicAffairs.

Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

This case study explores how I used evidence-informed approaches to know and respond to my students’ diverse needs – addressing V1 (respect for diverse learners), V2 (promoting participation and equality), and V3 (evidence-informed practice) – in a collaborative setting where uneven participation and communication barriers impacted group dynamics. To address this, I implemented a structured intervention to enhance assertive communication, foster inclusion, and promote equitable teamwork, aligning with A2 (supporting learning), K3 (how students learn collaboratively), and K4 (the use of effective learning environments and approaches) to create a more inclusive and participatory learning experience.

Background

As part of the MA Innovation Management programme, I tutor students in Unit 2: Collaborative Practices, which fosters interdisciplinary collaboration between MA Innovation Management and MA Applied Imagination students at CSM. This unit is structured around small-group tutorials, collective lectures, guest speaker sessions, and guided readings. Each group is assigned a dedicated tutor for three-hour weekly sessions, providing close guidance and an opportunity for deep engagement.

My assigned group (The Dream Team), an imbalance in participation emerged early on, with two students taking on the bulk of the work while others remained passive. This created frustration, disengagement, and potential conflict, making it difficult for the group to function effectively. Communication and confidence appeared to be the root causes, as the quieter members hesitated to assert themselves, while the more active students became increasingly frustrated. Recognising that effective communication is key to equitable collaboration, I sought to implement a structured intervention to encourage assertive participation.

Evaluation

Having recently conducted the microteaching exercise (the Friday before), I adapted an activity from that session to address communication barriers within the group. The “Invisible Ball” exercise – initially designed to help participants discover their assertive voice – was repurposed to demonstrate how clear objectives improve communication. The activity required students to verbalise their intention as they “passed” an imaginary ball, ensuring the recipient was aware and prepared.

Though seemingly lighthearted, the exercise underscored key principles of workplace communication:

1. Clear articulation of intent – The ball could only be successfully “passed” with explicit verbalisation, mirroring how tasks in teamwork require clarity and direct communication (Bamber & Jones, 2015).
2. Confidence in delivery – Initially, some students hesitated, but they quickly realised that assertive speech—not dominance—ensured the message was received (Griffiths & Tann, 1992).
3. Balanced participation – The exercise naturally equalised engagement, allowing quieter students to find their voice in a low-risk environment (Arao & Clemens, 2021).

Following the activity, I guided a reflection on how clear, direct communication is essential in professional environments, particularly when navigating group work challenges. Students recognised how unclear expectations had contributed to uneven workloads and identified strategies to rebalance their collaboration.

To reinforce this learning, I introduced two additional strategies:

• Structured Check-Ins: Weekly tutorials began and ended with brief reflections on each member’s contributions, ensuring that accountability was embedded into the process.
• Peer-Led Problem-Solving: Instead of defaulting to my intervention, I encouraged students to discuss workload imbalances collaboratively, strengthening self-regulation and collective responsibility (Gibbs, 2015).

These adjustments significantly improved participation and engagement, fostering greater trust, confidence, and commitment within the group.

Moving forward

This experience reinforced the importance of active facilitation in student-led learning. Moving forward, I aim to:

• Introduce communication-focused exercises earlier in the unit to pre-empt collaboration challenges.
• Develop structured peer-feedback mechanisms, allowing students to reflect on their group roles and adjust dynamics proactively.
• Continue embedding reflective practice, encouraging students to critically assess their own contributions and communication strategies (Wilson, 2021).

By embedding these principles into my teaching practice, I aim to further support students in developing clear communication skills, fostering equitable participation, and building confidence in collaborative settings.