This blog was originally published by the DCU Brexit Institute on 24 June 2021. If there is one thing that has become clear during the long years of Brexit negotiations between the EU and the UK, it is that the EU27 – despite their differences – were able to act in a united way when it came to negotiating with a soon-to-be third country. Highlighting the perks of membership has played a role in this. In her 2019 JCMS Annual Review lecture, Brigid Laffan also argued that one of the EU’s strategic goals in this process was “to affirm the Union’s dominance in governing transnational relations in Europe.”
Yet, the two sides continue to haggle about their divorce. While the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement came into force on 1 May 2021, the ongoing discussions about the status of Northern Ireland show that Brexit by no means is a done deal. The divorce came with an agreement to maintain an open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland to uphold the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. Yet, the UK already wants to alter this Protocol as it comes with checks on British goods entering Northern Ireland, effectively creating a border within the UK. In the context of the recent G7 summit, UK Brexit negotiator David Frost even attended a meeting wearing Union Jack socks in a not-so-subtle message for the EU. Whereas the Europeans continue to take a tough negotiating stance affirming their trust in rule-based international relations, the British approach to Northern Ireland might tempt others into trying to get out of existing agreements. If it is so (relatively) easy to undermine an agreement with the EU, wouldn’t other non-EU European countries be willing to do so too? Two recent developments are worth discussing in this context. First, in late May Switzerland pulled out of negotiations on a detailed partnership agreement with the EU. EU-Swiss relationships have never been straightforward, as illustrated by a range of referendums that had a (potential) impact on dealings between the two. For instance, only in September last year the Swiss rejected a proposal on ending the free movement agreement with the EU in a referendum that “echoed the Brexit vote”, according to The Guardian. The partnership agreements, negotiations on which have been going in since 2014, were partly an attempt to reduce uncertainty by means of an encompassing agreement that would replace the many existing bilateral agreements. Like in the case of Brexit, here too the debate revolves around the Swiss wanting exemptions from rules that the EU wants to uphold. Foreign Policy columnist Caroline de Gruyter has even called Switzerland the “next big problem” for the EU. A second example relates to reports that Norwegian opposition parties may want to renegotiate the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement should they get into government. Like Switzerland, Norway may not be an EU member, but it is closely tight to the EU through an intricate web of rules. While the Norwegians voted against EU membership on two occasions in 1972 and 1994, the current situation has been less controversial. While agriculture and fisheries remain divisive issues, relations with the EU overall remain quite well. Indeed, reflecting on potential similarities with Brexit, John Erik Fossum and Joachim Vigrestad argue that it is unlikely that Norwegian politicians would want to jeopardise relations with the EU. In their view, “the sheer size and magnitude of the EU–Norway power asymmetry” is acknowledged and shapes the Norwegian debate. Relations between the EU and Norway might be said to differ from those with Switzerland by being more firmly established through the EEA. Yet, recent debates in both countries show that relations with the EU are not uncontested. Brexit may even have put a new spotlight on these debates. Yet, the question is how committed critics are to really change relations with the EU, especially given the economic benefits they have been enjoying so far. In any case, it is likely that they will encounter an EU that is committed to a united and robust negotiating stance. There is a continued need to reaffirm the value of full membership vis-à-vis ties with the EU as a third country. And while the continuing Brexit saga may heighten hopes in some countries that a new relationship with the EU is possible, it is also likely to reaffirm the EU’s commitment to rule-based relations.
0 Comments
Originally published by Active Learning in Political Science on 23 April 2021. I was recently asked to test a new touch screen to check its potential contribution to teaching after the Summer. While we’re all hoping to return to on-campus teaching by then, I used the test to get some additional insights about equipment and hybrid teaching. After all, if there’s one thing we’ve learned these past few months, it’s that it’s difficult to predict the development of the pandemic. The new screen is vast, as you can see from the pictures below (and especially so in that relatively small room). It offers all kinds of options, including a decent hand-writing functionality (including a ‘pen’) and opportunities to add additional apps and equipment. This includes, for instance, the use of airplay to connect your Macbook, but also adding dedicated cameras, mics, etc. But did the screen have an added value? I first gave a lecture using the screen. Here its added value was quite apparent to me. I was much less bounded by screen and camera than I would ‘normally’ have been by my (home) office set-up. This is despite the latter coming with a fairly large screen, plus a height-adjustable desk. I could easily move around and use much more body language. And when students’ faces popped up on the screen for questions, I had the feeling that we were less detached from each other due to the life-size images. The only drawback was that the screen was hooked on to an ethernet cable, which meant that I could not wirelessly connect my Macbook. But I’ve been told that this is going to be solved soon. So far, so good. I also organised two hybrid tutorial sessions in one of our first-year undergrad courses, each with 3 students accompanying me in the room, while the rest were online.* Students were informed in advance that this would be a small pilot. I also informed them about some of the possible complications that we might run into, such as those discussed by Chad last June. You should know that in Maastricht we tend to work with student discussion leaders and notetakers. I specifically instructed the discussion leaders to maintain a connection between online and on-campus students. In addition, I arranged to have an online discussion leader with an on-campus notetaker in my first group, whereas in my second group the discussion leader was on-campus and the notetaker online. This would allow me to see if there is a set-up that works best. So, how did it go? I asked students to complete a short survey afterward (20 out of the 24 attending students completed the survey). As expected, they had different views on how the hybrid setting impacted the quality of the discussions as compared to our regular online meetings. Out of six on-campus students, five completed the survey and all thought the experience was better. As one of the students put it, “it was so good to have a class with real people and not through a screen”. All five referred to enjoying the discussions with their fellow students in the actual room. They noticed that not everything went well – some sounds issues, in particular, but also at times a disconnect between on-campus and online students. Yet overall, the on-campus students felt that discussions went better and were more lively, also with the online students. The online students were less impressed. Plus they all virtually gave the same feedback, whether in the group with the online or the on-campus discussion leader. First, quite a few commented on the sound quality. On-campus contributions to the discussions were not always audible. Second, the on-campus group wasn’t always fully visible to the online students, which was party due to the camera angle and partly due to the need to keep a distance. The size of the room also didn’t offer space for a different seating arrangement. And, thirdly, there was the reoccurring disconnect between on-campus and online students. One online student referred to sometimes feeling like a spectator, which, another student wrote, was partly due to “the participants in real-life not looking at the screen all the time”.
None of this really came as a surprise to me. Yet, unfortunately, I was also unable to prevent these issues from occurring. Clearly the fancy screen with lots of trimmings also did not matter here. But, more importantly, this again raises questions about the viability of hybrid teaching. In my opinion, it is probably better to have separate on-campus and online groups – even though, as Arjan and I wrote before, this too comes with its own challenges. But these can be solved. The potential disconnect between on-campus and online students in a hybrid setting to me is more problematic, as it may result in unequal learning opportunities. * A huge thank you goes to the students who attended the sessions: Jill Bartholmy, Emma Begas, Jeanne Brunhes, Adam Ceccato, Noah Chebib, Carl Colonius, Boti Czagány, Jos de Heij, Lilian Giebler, Vincent Halder, Xavier Heck, Sanne Hocks, Julia Hufnagel, Leila Kahnt, Anna La Placa, Carolina Lean Santiago, Liam Lodder, Arianne Michopoulou, Mayanne Pagé, Simone Palladino, Emili Stefanova, Mae Thibaut, Tessa Urban and Victoria Wenninger. Co-authored with Arjan Schakel, originally published by Active Learning in Political Science on 10 February 2021. Students and staff are experiencing challenging times, but, as Winston Churchill famously said, “never let a good crisis go to waste”. Patrick recently led a new undergraduate course on academic research at Maastricht University (read more about the course here). Due to COVID-19 students could choose whether they preferred online or on-campus teaching, which resulted in 10 online groups and 11 on-campus groups. We were presented with an opportunity to compare the performance of students who took the very same course, but did so either on-campus or online. Our key lesson: particularly focus on online students and their learning. In exploring this topic, we build on our previous research on the importance of attendance in problem-based learning, which suggests that students’ attendance may have an effect on students’ achievements independent fromstudents’ characteristics (i.e. teaching and teachers matter, something that has also been suggested by other scholars). We created an anonymised dataset consisting of students’ attendance, the number of intermediate small research and writing tasks that they had handed in, students’ membership of an on-campus or online group, and, of course, their final course grade. The latter consisted of a short research proposal graded Fail, Pass or Excellent. 316 international students took the course, of which 169 (53%) took the course online and 147 (47%) on-campus. 255 submitted a research proposal, of which 75% passed. One of the reasons why students did so well – normal passing rates are about 65% – might be that, given that this was a new course, the example final exam that they were given was one written by the course coordinator. Bolkan and Goodboy suggest that students tend to copy examples, so providing them may therefore not necessarily be a good thing. Yet students had also done well in previous courses, with the cohort seemingly being very motivated to do well despite the circumstances. But on closer look it’s very telling that 31% of the online students (52 out of 169) did not receive a grade, i.e. they did not submit a research proposal. This was 9.5% for the on-campus students (14 out of 147)[1]. Perhaps this is the result of self-selection, with motivated students having opted for on-campus teaching. Anyhow, it is clear that online teaching impacts on study progress and enhancing participation in examination among online students needs to be prioritised by programme directors and course leaders. We focus on students that at least attended one meeting (maximum 6) and handed-in at least one assignment (maximum of 7). Out of these 239 students, 109 were online students (46%) and 130 on-campus (54%). Interestingly, on average these 239 students behaved quite similarly across the online and on-campus groups, they attended on average 5 meetings (online: 4.9; on-campus: 5.3) and they handed-in an average of 5 to 6 tasks (online: 5.0; on-campus: 5.9). We ran a logit model with a simply dummy variable as the dependent variable which taps whether a student passed for the course. As independent variables we included the total number of attended meetings and the total number of tasks that were handed-in. Both variables were interacted with a dummy variable that tracked whether students follow online or offline teaching and we clustered standard errors by 21 tutor groups. Unfortunately, we could not include control variables such age, gender, nationality and country of pre-education. This would have helped to rule out alternative explanations and to get more insight into what factors drive differences in performance between online and offline students. For example, international students may have been more likely to opt for online teaching and may have been confronted with time-zone differences, language issues, or other problems. Figure 1 displays the impact of attending class on the probability to pass for the final research proposal. The predicted probabilities are calculated for an average student that handed-in 5 tasks. Our first main finding is that attendance did not matter for online students, but it did for on-campus students. The differences in predicted probabilities for attending 3, 4, 5, or 6 meetings are not statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level) for online students but they are for on-campus students. Students who attended the maximum of six on-campus meetings had a 68% higher probability to pass compared to a student who attended 3 meetings (89% versus 21%) and a 52% higher probability to pass compared to a student who attended 4 meetings (89% versus 37%). Figure 2 displays the impact of handing-in tasks on the probability to pass for the final research proposal. The predicted probabilities are calculated for an average student that attended 5 online or on-campus meetings. Our second main finding is that handing-in tasks did not matter for on-campus students, but it did for online students. The differences in predicted probabilities for handing-in 4, 5, 6, or 7 tasks are not statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level) for on-campus students but they are for online students. Students who handed-in the maximum of seven tasks had a 51% higher probability to pass compared to a student who handed in four tasks (69% versus 18%) and a 16% higher probability to pass compared to a student who handed-in five tasks (69% versus 53%).
Note that we do not think that attendance does not matter for online students or that handing-in tasks does not matter for offline students. Our dataset does not include a sufficient number of students to expose these impacts. From our previous research we know that in general we can isolate the impact of various aspects of course design with data from three cohorts (around 900 students). The very fact that we find remarkably clear-cut impacts of attendance among on-campus students and of handing-in tasks for online students for a relatively small number of students (less than 240) reveals that these impacts are so strong that they surface and become statistically significant in such a small dataset as ours. This is why we feel confident to advise programme directors and course leaders to focus on online students. As Alexandra Mihai also recently wrote, it is worth investing time and energy in enhancing online students participation in final examinations and to offer them many different small assignments to be handed-in during the whole time span of the course. This is not to say that no attention should be given to on-campus students and their participation in meetings but, given limited resources and the amount of gain to be achieved among online students, we think it would be wise to first focus on online students. [1] The difference of 21% in no grades between online and offline students is statistically significant at the 99%-level (t = 4.78, p < 0.000, N = 314 students). Co-authored with Talisha Schilder and Johan Adriaensen, originally published by Active Learning in Political Science on 26 January 2021. One of the key questions regarding Higher Education (HE) curriculums is concerned with the extent to which a curriculum should be flexible. For our own undergraduate studies, the curriculum consists of a relatively fixed set of courses. This set-up seems logical, after all: Why would we expect students’ assessment of the knowledge or skills required for the discipline to be more advanced than that of educational professionals active in the field for many years? Yet, the use of electives, tracks, or specialisations has become a staple in many undergraduate programmes. As part of a project on mapping the undergraduate political science curriculum, we calculated the proportion of course credits that are optional in 225 undergraduate programmes. This measure of flexibility shows significant variation as highlighted in the figure below. Considering the curriculum is the backbone of a programme, one can expect this variation in flexibility is likely to have pedagogical, administrative, economic and social consequences.
Consequences of flexible curriculum In terms of learning, theory suggests education becomes more inclusive with curriculum flexibility as students can structure their program in accordance with their personal needs, strengths and interests. This empowers students and can increase their intrinsic motivation to the study. It could also stimulate a deeper understanding of learning and self-reflective cycles of planning change. In practice, however, this freedom increases student anxiety around choosing electives, minors and majors, because students experience pressure to make the right decision in a meritocratic environment without having sufficient self-knowledge. Moreover, researchsuggests that students choose electives based on short-term perspectives and the estimated level of difficulty to pass the course. In that case, education does not encompass what is best for students but rather what they perceive as best, hence, students do not reach their full potential in the absence of more challenging courses. But there are also several implications in terms of management and organisation of a flexible curriculum. Electives commonly require the completion of several prerequisite courses. Updating and enforcing these prerequisites further complicates course development, particularly if students from multiple programmes can sign up to the course. Teaching staff may find themselves confronted with a diverse set of procedures, customs and meetings for each of the respective programmes or Faculties that offer the course. For the curriculum as a whole, increased flexibility may also compromise the development of coherent and cohesive teaching as each student is likely to follow a different trajectory. The exposure to a diverse set of teaching styles and conventions can certainly help students’ adaptability; it may also render a disorienting and inconsistent learning experience. Explanations for flexible curriculum Many of the possible consequences requires further corroborating evidence. Yet, it also raises questions on the underlying motives that push curricula towards more flexible formats. The main argument we found in discussions with peers is the marketization of universities. The student becomes a value-seeking customer of knowledge and flexible curricula are part of the HE institution’s business strategy. As students pay for a service, universities offer a customization of their product based on the needs and desires of the customer. It assumes the customer knows best, even if they are pursuing an education. Other explanations take an organizational perspective and look at curricular reform as a process with vested interests. Faculty members want to retain the courses they have been teaching. If student numbers in a programme drop, they may push to have their course taken up in new or other programmes (if rebranding wouldn’t work). An elective system can thus offer a solution, but it also makes student numbers highly volatile. Similarly, the creation of new programmes in response to market pressures can take place without expanding the faculty if one can repackage existing (elective) courses. The literature on the topic is relatively scarce, and often dependent on anecdotal evidence. This is the reason why most of this post has been written in a conditional tense. There is clearly a lot to be studied, which drove us to construct a comprehensive comparative database on Political Science programs over the last years to facilitate these efforts. In case anyone is interested, do reach out! Originally published by the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog on 22 January 2021. PBL course design is a recurring topic in academic literature, but also in staff development. This concerns, for instance, applying general PBL principles to assignment design, but also the needfor varying assignments. The design process is always limited by variables such as available resources and place in the curriculum and. These past twelve months the pandemic created more limitations, but also opportunities to move beyond more traditional course design. The BA European Studies is currently going through a revision of its curriculum. One of the new courses concerns a new skills training course that revolves around training students in writing what Booth and colleagues call “research problems” (consisting of a topic, a research question, and their relevance). Working with Research Problems includes components from previous BA skills courses, but also introduces new topics. The course takes place in period 2 of the first year. Course design From the start, I wanted to design a course that included both synchronous and asynchronous elements – which actually allows the course to be taught on-campus and online. There are lectures and tutorials, as in a regular course. Lectures are 60-75 minutes long, with most of them accompanied by videos, for instance on interdisciplinarity, concepts and methods. The tutorials last one hour and focus on the post-discussion, with students being responsible for arranging their own pre-discussions. Coherence was created through a linear, weekly structure, which has for instance also been used in Kirsop-Tayler and colleagues’ course on political ecology. In addition, I recorded a weekly podcast to introduce each week’s topic, which also included contributions by colleagues Pablo Del Hierro and John Harbord, and BA ES alumna Mareike Müller. Adding audiovisual material to the course helps to cater for different learning styles, but also builds on work that stresses that using a variety of material makes for a richer learning experience. Time to reflect Last week I handed in the grades from December’s first sit. With 75% of the final research proposals having received a passing grade, overall the course seems to have prepared students well for writing their first piece of research. Lecture attendance hovered around 190 students per lecture, with students asking interesting and important questions. The audiovisual material was also widely watched and listened to, with podcast episodes and videos having on average been played around 200 times each. But not everything went as planned. In addition to some smaller intended changes, there are a couple of things that I particularly want to address.
Interestingly, when I decided half-way through the course to include learning objectives in the podcast and to no longer ask students to do their own pre-discussion, quite some groups decided to go ahead anyways. Sometimes because it allowed them to meet more regularly – which is as good a reason as any. I have great confidence in our students and believe that they can do this – emphasising the intended self-directed nature of PBL. But to make this work, I plan to include a pre-discussion training in the first week of next year’s course.
Work in progress! Originally published by Active Learning in Political Science on 17 November 2020. The ongoing Covid-19 crisis has forced us all to rethink our teaching, but not all innovation has to start from scratch. For instance, when you feel uncomfortable with recording a video for your lecture, you can also simply use the narrated slides option in your presentation software. And when you want to stimulate student engagement and interaction during an online talk, existing audience response tools, such as GoSoapBox, Kahoot!, Mentimeter and Wooclap are ready for online use. I’m a frequent user of Wooclap myself, but also have experience using GoSoapBox and have trialed some other options too. My choice for Wooclap is partly one based on its user-friendliness – though the additional perks that come with Maastricht University’s subscription are welcome too. I’ve been using Wooclap offline for quite some time already, and I’ve continued using it when we went online. Wooclap functionality Wooclap comes with an easy-to-use, clutter-free interface, minimising possible distraction for you and for your audience. It is also easily accessible, regardless of the device that students are using. The weblink is short, plus you can generate a QR-code. The existence of different types of questions and various ways to present results is really helpful. You can ask multiple-choice and open questions and conduct polls. You can have students fill in blanks or locate something on an image. When you want students to actively work together, you can opt for the brainstorm option. Issues can be sorted or you can ask students to prioritise what they would like to discuss. Answers can be given in writing, but you can also ask students to make a meme and upload it. Even when you decide to only use multiple-choice and open questions, you can choose to present answers to the latter as a word cloud instead of a list of answers. This presents a nice and useful overview, because with a big group you’ll never be able to read every answer. It is very easy to reorder questions and to integrate slides – though the later comes with potential limitations when you are a savvy user of funky slide transitions and other moving bits and pieces. Other useful options include a timer for answering questions and allowing audience members to ‘like’ each others answers. One option I haven’t used yet, is gamification, which allows you to rank participants – and hand out prizes – adding a fun element to your talk. But one which can also create a sense of unease among your audience. What I also find particularly useful is the ease with which you can copy polls and questions; convenient when you want to re-use polls while keeping existing data. Indeed, you can also export results, so you could for instance look at differences between cohorts of students. Online vs offline use
To me, the offline usefulness of Wooclap is evident. It is a really simple and fun way to involve your audience in an active way, individually and in groups. I have for instance used Wooclap during interactive lectures on Euroscepticism, academic skills, you name it. You can ask students to ‘define Euroscepticism’ but you can also ask them what type of resources they’ve consulted for their research paper. When I write “really simple” I do not mean that it is self-evident. You’ll still have to explain what the purpose is of using Wooclap. Sometimes additional instructions are needed, in particular when it comes to brainstorming – talking to each other may be easy, but how do you succinctly contribute to an online brainstorm? – but you may also want to take the time to explain your questions. This is where integration of slides comes in handy. Using Wooclap in an online setting requires additional planning. Two challenges are noteworthy. First, you may have to switch between several screens, sharing one screen, stop sharing it, and moving on to the next. As I mentioned, the integration of slides goes a long way towards solving this challenge – but comes with its own limitations. Second, in a lecture theatre it is relatively easy to get a sense of how engaged students are with your Wooclap tasks. Yet, not being able to see your online audience it is easy to fail to engage audience members. These limitations should, however, not stop you from considering using Wooclap. A good plan for your talk is a must. I recommend either having a few short questions at the beginning of the lecture to, for instance, gauge students knowledge of a topic, or to have them mid-way to, for instance, see whether you are getting your point across. If you plan to have several questions – I’d say anything above five – best to distribute them across your talk instead. Because, while Wooclap is a fun and useful way to engage your students, you can also overdo it, with students ending up asking for its purpose. Originally published by Active Learning in Political Science on 16 September 2020. We have just entered the third week of the new academic year here. With regards to the Covid-19 challenges, our faculty has decided that we should offer students one on-campus meeting per week. This particularly concerns our new BA and MA students, who want to help adapt to this new environment. Obviously, this comes with huge challenges as to how to organise teaching, including students who have simply not been able to come to Maastricht. I myself am currently in the process of designing a new course and updating an old one. So far, I have given lectures in two different set-ups: once completely online and once in a hybrid setting with on-campus and online students. I have experience with Zoom lectures and decided for a similar approach for my online lecture on interdisciplinarity for our new BA students. This included a short video introducing topic and initial questions for discussion. This worked well. Many students seemed to have prepared the questions, which resulted in some good ideas and suggestions (including some funny memes about academic research and writing): The only real problem was that I was only co-hosting the session, which complicated things a bit as far as technicalities (breakout groups, integrating Wooclap) were concerned and which, hence, created a bit of fuss. Something to avoid in the future. Yet, with all students being at the other side of the screen, it was easy to engage with all of them in a similar way. My hybrid experience was vastly different, though. Engaging with students was just one of the problems. Going hybrid My hybrid lecture was part of our Research Master. The lecture took place in ‘Tent 1’ – the faculty has set up tents to allow for more on-campus activities. The acoustics were awful. And the A/C, despite making lots of noise, was unable to keep the temperature below boiling point… This was a lecture that I have just inherited from a colleague, which meant I had to adapt it. This, together with the fact that some students would be online and some on-campus, made me opt for a plainer set-up. Following Chad’s experience with breakout rooms I decided not to use audience response tools. As the group was quite small, I thought it would also work to simply ask questions as we went along.
Unfortunately, response was slow and only came from on-campus students. The only comment raised online concerned an echo on the portable mic that I had been asked to use. The latter was not the only challenge resulting from the hybrid setting. As ‘Tent 1’ comes with an in-built laptop camera, I had to stay in front of that laptop. I couldn’t walk around – something that usually helps me to stimulate interaction – and using the (real-world) whiteboard was near impossible, as it meant having to juggle with the laptop camera. But the most problematic thing of all was me overlooking the online students. When you have real people in front of you, this is whom you engage with. At first, I thought this might be due to the online students not having turned their camera on. I asked them to do so after the break, but, again, my attention drifted towards the on-campus students very quickly. Lessons learned I can imagine Simon being anxious towards teaching this semester. At any rate, my hybrid teaching experience was similar to Chad’s: quite terrible. I will meet most of the Research Master students again from the end of October. At least one of them is unlikely to make it to Maastricht. Hence, given that this will be one of my own courses, I have decided to:
But in any other setting I would certainly suggest not to go hybrid. This may mean having to split up students in on-campus and online groups. Yet, if resources allow you to do so, all students will benefit; either from your best on-campus teaching or from your best online teaching. Originally published by the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog on 29 May 2020. Throughout the last couple of months I have joined several nationaland international webinars, observed colleagues’ online tutorials and lectures, and read several blogs and papers to inform myself about online teaching and learning. This includes excellent posts by FASoS colleagues on this blog. But see also this contribution by Anna Harris and Andrea Wojcik or post on The Educationalist and Active Learning in Political Science. Because like many of you, I was (and still am) a novice when it comes to online teaching and learning. I particularly wanted to use videos to support students’ learning. I had considered doing this pre-Corona, but never actually came round to trying. Now I had to redesign three lectures and these were ideal for introducing video. (In addition, John and I recorded a short conversation to support students working on their final BA thesis.) For two lectures in our BA ES mentor programme I went for a completely asynchronous approach, with the help of Pia and Resi. These are normally lectures in which we present students with some need-to-know information about the upcoming second or third year and some of the important choices to be made (elective courses, Erasmus exchange, internship). We decided to adapt existing slides and accompany them with short videos, plus a short instruction on how to best view this material. My videos – one for each year – were mostly meant as introduction to the other material. Given that our BA curriculum will undergo quite substantial changes, they were one-off, shot-from my garden, using my iPhone. Using her home computer, Pia shot an excellent video that we can reuse in the future. Resi went a step further by recording a video about studying abroad and internships that is also suitable for students in our other BA programmes. She shot the video using recording facilities in the Turnzaal – and unfortunately had to do so twice, due to technical issues. The third lecture was one on Euroscepticism for our first-year BA ES students. Here I decided for a flipped-classroom approach by pre-recording a video that would serve as input for an interactive online discussion with the students. But I went a step further by inviting well-know colleagues in the field to each contribute a short clip. The resulting video is nearly 27 minutes long, which is a bit risky given online attentions spans. Yet, it has (so far) been watched over 200 times, with most having watched the full video. And students’ contributions to the interactive online discussion were excellent. So what did I take away from this first experience shooting videos? First two challenges:
But the benefits make me want to use more videos in the future to contribute to (not replace) my lectures, also when in-class teaching resumes:
There are two final issues that are worth highlighting. First, the Euroscepticism video could be used and shared with other colleagues and students, something that we also discussed during a recent faculty webinar and a recent University Association for Contemporary European Studies online meet-up. This comes with an important hurdle, though: copyrights. Here we are confronted with a challenge that complicates innovative teaching and learning. Second, videos are a wonderful tool, but shooting and editing them costs time. This time is currently not remunerated in SOLVER hours. If you record a full lecture using lecture capture (in, for instance, PowerPoint) this will probably not be a big thing. But if you want to try out something new and innovative, this should also be rewarded. These are issues that we need to think about as a faculty community. And a first opportunity to do so, is the upcoming webinar organised by the new FASoS Support Team Online Teaching & Learning on 11 June. I hope to see you there! DISCLAIMER: All videos are only viewable by students and staff of Maastricht University. A related blog can be found on the website of Active Learning in Political Science. Zooming into online teaching and learning: An interview with Marisa Mori and Mirko Reithler2/6/2020 After weeks of online teaching and learning, you may be totally Zoompt and perhaps you have even developed a case of Zoomophobia. Inversely, you may have become a Zoomophile who looks back at the pre-Zoom age with a smile. In both cases it remains important to reflect on what we are currently going through and to learn from each other’s online teaching and learning experience. A few weeks back I wrote that I would be sitting in with tutorials of Marisa Mori and Mirko Reithler. I observed two tutorials with two great tutors. Everything seemed to work pretty well. But I also noticed a few differences in the way Zoom was used and integrated in the tutorial. So, I asked Marisa and Mirko a few questions. Marisa is MM, Mirko is MR and PB is me. PB Overall, from what I’ve seen, things actually seem to work relatively well given these strange circumstances. Why do you think this is the case?
MR So far, online tutorials have been going amazingly well. The main reason is that we are blessed with students who are intrinsically motivated, who know how to work independently and are great communicators and team players. MM I agree, most students are quite adaptable. A lot of the time, the concerns are even the same, such as focusing too much on the whiteboard worker, or certain students speaking more often than others. These issues are perhaps more confronting online though, for instance if the note-taker is sharing his/her screen, or there is the virtual version of an intake of breath before someone wants to speak – an unmuting – that might get overlooked. PB So, have you seen students struggling? MM Some do, yes. Some dislike staring at the screen for “so long” or find it much easier to get distracted in their own spaces; some have also mentioned that they feel less of a responsibility to the group in terms of showing up and participating because they don’t feel they ‘know’ the others if they didn’t really know them in pre-Zoom life. MR Plus, there are some students who are facing challenges like unstable internet connections, increased anxiety, being stuck in Maastricht without a job or at home with parents and siblings. PB I noticed that both of you tried to communicate with students in a non-verbal way. Do you think you sufficiently manage to do so, given the screen as a possible barrier? MM Not really. I still use a lot of facial expressions and now seem to gesticulate a bit more, but I have very little sense of who actually sees these. Sometimes students react with clear signals, such as nodding or shaking their heads, or giving thumbs up, but when there is silence, it’s not really possible to nudge the group along non-verbally. The chairs often seem to struggle without non-verbal feedback, too. As a result, one of my groups has opted to be more directive and have the chair ask a specific person to start answering a learning objective. This seems to work well for the more factual information questions, and then the structure loosens up a bit for the discussions. MR In my experience, the limits to non-verbal communication in an online setting can be quite frustrating. Particularly because it usually can be very helpful to invite and encourage hesitant group members to participate in the discussion. As a tutor it is so much part of what I am used to doing, that I automatically find myself smiling and nodding all the time. Like Marisa, hand gestures like waving hello and goodbye and thumps up have now been added. PB Do you have any other tips to try and make online teaching as personal as possible? To support students who may be struggling. MR Students have created WhatsApp groups to be able to stay in touch with each other outside of group sessions. There are weekly open office hours and students can always email questions and concerns. Arrangements like these are more important now, to make up for the loss of opportunity to meet and speak informally and personally during breaks or before and after meetings. MM Another thing that seems even more important now is making sure there is space for a feedback round. Since there is not really a ‘standard operating procedure’ in the current situation, this gives students a chance to discuss what they’re having trouble with individually, what they find challenging, and what else we can try as a group in order to make the best of the circumstances. I’m also trying to make up for the lost informal moments by starting the groups early and highlighting the option for students to ‘stay in the room’ during breaks. In any case, I always start by asking them how they’re doing. Also, as part of the introduction round at the start of the period, I asked them to tell the group where they were and to show us something funny, weird, or meaningful from the room each of them was in. This not only provided some fun insights, but it was also helpful to know of different circumstances that might affect the students, such as being in a different time zone, or as Mirko mentioned earlier, staying with a particular relative or parent, or in a student house with five other people trying to Zoom at the same time. PB When observing the tutorials, I noticed that Marisa had a student taking minutes, whereas Mirko opted to take minutes himself. Could you explain why you decided for the respective options? MM I’ve tried to keep as much to PBL as possible, including it being student-led. Notetaking is something that students do anyway, so I didn’t feel the need to take over this responsibility. MR My expectation was actually that the tutor might need to do some more moderating to ensure that the online tutorials would be efficient. Taking notes on the whiteboard allowed me to bring together input from the group while indirectly providing some feedback and guidance without having to speak. After three sessions, students volunteered to take over notetaking, and they do an excellent job. PB Related to this, whereas Mirko used the Zoom whiteboard, Marisa used Google-docs. How do you consider the integration of online tools to work? MR Apart from occasional glitches, Zoom has been working smoothly. Managing multiple screens simultaneously is tiring, but I am getting used to it. One student uses the Microsoft whiteboard application via screen sharing and that works beautifully. MM I actually didn’t find the Zoom whiteboard very handy, and there’s much more versatility in sharing one’s screen since it’s possible to share whatever is useful, which is usually a Word or Google doc, but could also be slides, webpages, or a mind map app. I find screen sharing needs to be purposeful and brief, however, especially during the post-discussion. For the pre-discussion – which I’ve heard some have opted to skip online – it is helpful to have someone to share the screen, but for the most part, there seems to be better communication when students are able to see each other in Zoom. Then perhaps they have a shared document open in a different window or device, but they can still engage with the group. PB That’s interesting. Are there also other benefits to online teaching? MM It’s easier to share content, for example, by quickly sharing a link to a news story. It’s also been useful to highlight to students how tutorials can be more discussion-focused, even in heavily fact-based courses, such as EU Politics, which I am currently teaching. Students seem to find less value in just reporting and actually focus more on their questions or points they want to discuss. MR Some features are convenient, for instance, showing slides, text passages and other materials through screen sharing, distributing files through the chat, flexibility to rearrange notes on the whiteboard, names of every participant being visible to everyone at all times. One benefit would be that we can all add ‘experience with productive online teamwork’ to our resume now. PB Is there anything else we can take away from this that we should take into account when ‘normal’ teaching resumes? MR For me, the online adventure has shown how important it is to have well designed courses, with clear intended learning outcomes, engaging assignments and interesting readings and a healthy balance of fixed content and space for students to find their own way. MM It’s perhaps a bit early to tell… but to build on what Mirko said, it’s also important to reflect on how these components work differently when we design ‘normal’ courses versus (deliberately!) online courses. About Marisa and Mirko Marisa Mori is a member of the faculty’s Politics department and mainly teaches in the Bachelor in European Studies. Mirko Reithler is a member of the Department of Society Studies and mainly teaches in the Bachelor in Arts & Culture. Both can now add ‘experience with productive online teamwork’ to their resumes. DISCLAIMER: this interview was conducted in writing rather than through Zoom, because perhaps we do not need to organise online meetings for everything? This blog was first published by the DCU Brexit Blog on 23 April 2020. A few months back I read Anu Bradford’s much-debated article ‘The Brussels Effect’. Her main argument: through its stringent regulations the EU has set standards for countries across the world, shaping polices on a wide range of issues, from chemicals to privacy. Bradford has elaborated on the argument in a recently published book.
During recent weeks, I had to think about Bradford’s arguments again, mainly because commentators and politicians are once again proclaiming the end of the EU due to internal divisions and its indecisiveness regarding the ongoing Covid-19 crisis. This is not the first time that the EU has been carried to the grave because of a crisis. In fact, as Davis Cross and Ma nicely show in their 2015 article ‘EU crises and integrational panic: The role of the media’, each crisis the EU is confronted with is quickly turned into an existential challenge. The Eurozone crisis? Check The migration crisis? Check Brexit? Check At first sight, the EU does indeed appear to be in troubled waters. It has been unable to coordinate health policy responses and related decisions in light of Covid-19 and member states have been endlessly bickering about economic support measures. Indeed, being Dutch and living just 2.5 KMs from the Belgian border, it is easy to see some truth to this crisis rhetoric. For one, I had never thought that I would see border fences being erected at the end of my street. But also when following EU news, the Dutch position on how the EU should deal with the crisis is not exactly painted as a constructive and supportive one. But let’s look at this new crisis in a bit more detail. And in particular at the economic policy response, because, let’s face it: the member states are primarily responsible for health policy, which may largely explain their unconcerted panic reactions (which does not mean that there are no lessons to be learned here). The economic response rests on the Commission’s policy response as well as on member states’ agreement regarding financial measures. The Commission has been pursuing a policy of more flexibility regarding state aid to allow member states to deal with economic uncertainties. It has also launched the so-called instrument for temporary Support to mitigate Unemployment Risks in an Emergency (SURE). This instrument is meant to help protect jobs and employees affected by the current crisis by allowing for EU financial assistance to member states through billions of euros of loans from the Commission to member states. The EU finance ministers also recently agreed on a substantial support package, which includes use of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). The new multi-annual budget may play a role here as well. Yet, some challenges and questions remain unresolved, with Eurobonds being the most controversial issue (and dating back to the Eurozone crisis). It is also expected that more money will be needed – even up to 1 trillion more, according to Economy Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni. In other words, there has not (yet?) been a ‘Brussels effect’ during the current crisis and there are certainly grounds to criticise the EU’s response to Covid-19 – for a slow reaction, a lack of coordination, and so on. Yet, we should also not forget that these are extraordinary circumstances. Countries across the world have struggled to come up with a good response. And the EU has only seldomly been the first to react to extraordinary circumstances. So, will the current response be sufficient? Probably not. But does that mean that the EU’s end is near? Probably not either. It is more likely that the EU will muddle through this crisis, just like it did at the time of previous crises. Meanwhile, take care of yourselves and your loved ones. #bloggingfromhome |
Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|