#Take5 #22: The best way to make PhD Students write?

The Thesis Boot Camp

Thank you to Heather Campbell for this #Take5 post

Take twenty-six PhD students, keep them in a room for 24 hours over a weekend, feed them, water them, motivate them and encourage them, and what happens? They write. In fact, collectively they write over 200,000 words towards their theses.

Here at Queen Mary University of London the Thinking Writing team have just completed our fourth Thesis Boot Camp and the event seems to be going from strength to strength. The premise of providing the time, space and motivation for PhD students to write may be a simple one, but the impact of the boot camp on the students seems to be immense. One reason is that we also provide something less immediately obvious – support. Whether it be gently pushing them to achieve more than they think they can, helping them to overcome writers’ block, or being a shoulder to cry on when the task of completing a thesis seems overwhelming, students often state in their feedback how reinvigorated they are. They’ve realised they can do it. They can write a thesis!

Thesis Boot Camp is not easy – not for the students and not for the staff. Preparations start months in advance, when application forms have to be judged as to who would get the most from the Thesis Boot Camp. Last May we had over fifty applications for twenty-six places, so we would factor in, who is closest to their final deadline and so forth? Rooms have to be booked, food has to be ordered, out-of-hours cleaners and porters informed. By now we’re a well-oiled machine in organising pizza deliveries, stocking up on tea and biscuits, booking Pilates teachers and finding fans or blankets at the last minute, but it still requires a lot of time.

Generally speaking, the days are divided into large chunks of time when the students are writing, interspersed with some group discussions and short activities around goal setting, motivation and writing. We also build into the schedule an ‘active break’ on the Sat and Sun (hence the Pilates teacher) as we find that sitting down for long periods of time is not the best for the body. Starting at 4pm on Friday, Thesis Boot Camp runs until 8pm that day, and on Sat and Sun goes from 9:30am to 8:30pm. Since students are not encouraged to leave Thesis Boot Camp once they get here, we provide all the food – dinner on Friday, lunch and dinner on Saturday and Sunday, and tea, coffee, water, juice, fruit, biscuits, crisps, and pastries throughout.

With no distractions, and nothing to worry about except writing, the amount of words the students produce during Thesis Boot Camp is significant. To prepare them for this we send out a series of emails in the run up to the boot camp with advice and information, and pre-boot camp tasks. The idea of Thesis Boot Camp is to write, not to read or to plan, so we encourage students to do all of this beforehand, so they arrive ready to write. And to make the push to write a bit more fun, we give out some squishy blocks (see picture). You get a green block when you write 5,000 words, a blue one when you reach 10,000, red for 15,000 and the rare ‘gold’ (*ahem* yellow) block for 20,000 words written over the weekend! These may be highly intelligent PhD students, but that doesn’t stop them getting excited about getting a squishy lego block!

So popular have our Thesis Boot Camps been that this July we are organising our first mini Thesis Boot Camp – same premise but will take place over one and a half days rather than two and a half. Fingers are crossed that this proves as useful for students as its bigger brother does!




Heather Campbell works for Thinking Writing, Learning Development at Queen Mary University of London. Thinking Writing is the part of Learning Development that works with academic colleagues and students around thinking and writing: thinking, writing, and thinking about writing. They help with designing modules and assessments, developing tasks and materials, teaching – on a collaborative basis – and practical advice on helping students with writing and running writing or reading retreats (including the Thesis Boot Camp).






#Take5 #21: The best way to develop presentation skills?

This #Take5 blog has been written by Lynne Crook and captures the essence of her excellent interactive session delivered in Hull at the 2017 ALDinHE Conference.

BIO: Lynne has worked in HE since 2003, and is currently an Academic Skills Consultant at the University of Salford. Her academic background and PhD are in English Literature, specifically the uses of comedy in the contemporary Irish novel. Since 2008, in her spare time, she has also performed stand-up comedy and then improvised comedy with several troupes around the north-west of England.

Using Improvisation Skills for Confidence Building in Public Speaking for Students

Trying to write anything about improvisation is a tricky task. Really, as Mick Napier (guru of improvisation) says, the only way to learn about it is by ‘…doing it. Doing it. Doing it’ (2004, p.2). As someone with a background in comedy improvisation, I have found that the main issue is not so much explaining the practical benefits. As a theatre format, it is clear to many that improvisation can help with skills such as body language and thinking on ones feet, especially in arenas such as public speaking.

However, I would argue that it is the less tangible benefits of a change in mindset that can be most helpful. It is this hunch which led to a new workshop – and associated research project – for our students at the University of Salford, combining (often silly) improvisational exercises and some of the skills needed for public speaking in Higher Education.

Public speaking is an increasingly important issue, with most students having to undertake a presentation, often in their first few weeks at university. ‘Public Speaking’ can also encompass other forms of assessment, such as vivas, and less formal aspects of being a student, such as speaking out in class.

Our team has run standard sessions on presentations for some time. These cover all aspects such as structure, content and PowerPoints. However, while some time was spent on dealing with nerves, many students (both in workshops and one-to-ones) cited this emotional aspect as their main issue. Additionally, across the sector there are increasing numbers of students declaring issues such as anxiety, impacting further on their confidence.

In practice, the new workshop involved a series of improvisation games, linking them to skills such as eye contact, brevity of expression and performing in front of an audience. However, this also draws on the ethos of improvisation as a collaborative process. Hopefully, this fosters a group dynamic in which students can ‘fail cheerfully…’ (Barker 2016), and draw upon each other as a source of support.

Some of our Games

The name game: stand in a circle. Each person says their name, then says an animal that begins with the same letter, then acts out the animal. E.g. I’m Lynne and I’m a lion *roar*. It just gets everyone used to looking silly.

I’m a treehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_4KacJam5c This is used to get the students used to standing up in front of each other and being the centre of attention.

Pass the claphttps://www.dramanotebook.com/drama-games/pass-the-clap/ (we also passed across the circle). This involves concentrating on eye contact and body language. Often worth noting how the students stand differently after the exercise – usually with far more open body language and less things like folded arms.

It worked!

The positive change in mindset suggested by Barker (2016), and the importance of collaborative support, seemed to be largely borne out in our research project. There seemed to be positive effects for students generally. What was noticeable was that this positive correlation was stronger for ‘nerves’ than ‘confidence’. Free text comments seemed to indicate that this may be because students with a formal presentation also felt they needed more advice on structuring, which would be provided by the existing presentation workshops.

However, the positive effect on nerves, and the free text comments which praised the group atmosphere, did underline how such improvisation could build a ‘community’ of support. With some students commenting that they would like further sessions to build on what they learnt, it did seem that there was some use to teaching students to be less afraid of the unknown!

Get in touch

If anyone is interested in learning more about how the power of silliness can help your students, please feel free to contact me (l.v.crook@salford.ac.uk)


Barker, L.M. (2016). Invoking Viola Spolin: Improvisational Theater, Side-Coaching, and Leading Discussion. English Journal, 105(5). 23-28

Napier, M. (2004). Improvise: Scene from the inside out. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann


#Take5 #20 The Best Way to Manage OUR Writing?

Managing academic writing: how managerialism puts pressure on academics’ writing practices

By Sharon McCulloch of the Department of Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster University

Writing is central to what academics do, mediating almost every aspect of their work, including research, teaching, administrative and service work as well as public engagement. Much has been written about student academic writing, but less is known about the range of writing that academics do these days and how this might be changing in light of changes in higher education such as marketization and the use of managerial principles in higher education.

This #Take5 blog shares findings from an ESRC-funded research project at Lancaster University that investigated academics’ writing practices in three English universities. We interviewed 75 academics in three disciplines (mathematics, history and marketing) at three different English universities, asking them about the writing they did in a typical day, how this fitted into their workload, and what tools and resources they used to do it. We also interviewed administrative staff and heads of departments to find out about management expectations regarding academics’ writing, and how writing work was shared within and beyond departments.

The academics we spoke to described writing a very wide range of text types, not all of which they saw as a core part of what they should be doing. For example, many of the academics we spoke to spent time writing module descriptors or course handbooks, as described here by David, a mathematician:

See what’s in the course handbooks, all have proper descriptions and agree with each other […] I can see the point of it but it all – like everything, it takes on its own momentum and people go really crazy about it.

With respect to this sort of administrative writing, academics in every discipline complained of having to repeat the same information in different ways, as illustrated by this comment by Diane, a professor in marketing:

God. You have to repeat everything endlessly […] I had to write pages and pages of stuff to justify what the aims of the course were, of this new master’s programme, and then you have to justify it and then you have to justify that there’s a market there and demonstrate evidence for the market.

This type of writing was viewed by many academics as more to do with demonstrating accountability or justifying the use of resources than the business of creating or disseminating disciplinary knowledge. Unsurprisingly, one source of resentment about this related to the time it took up, and how easily it could eat into time for research writing.

When we asked our participants about their writing, they invariably talked first and foremost about their research writing. The writing of journal articles, monographs and chapters was described as the ‘serious’ or ‘real’ writing that occupied a central role in shaping their identity as academics. However, many people talked about struggling to find time, particularly longer, uninterrupted chunks of time, for scholarly writing. The majority of our participants did all or part of their research writing at home, often carving out time for this by getting up early and putting in a couple of hours’ work before going to the office, or by writing in the evenings after the immediate daily demands of work and family had been dealt with.

Even when time could be found for scholarly writing, there was a perception that regulatory apparatus associated with the REF was piling on the pressure around the number and standard of papers to be written. Almost every academic we spoke to had performance targets linked to the REF written into their conditions of probation or promotion, either implicitly or explicitly. For Charles, who worked in a marketing department, there was a perception that these targets were becoming tougher and tougher to meet:

Now back when I started it was “Just get a couple of twos, maybe a couple of threes, if you get included in the REF that’s brilliant.” Now you need, as a junior member of staff or any member of staff in this department, you need to be able to get a four star journal.

This has implications not only for academics’ ability to meet their institutions’ expectations and progress in their career, but also for their sense of purpose and identity. Asked what he enjoyed about writing, Alex, a senior lecturer in history, replied,

Gosh, what a rare question to ask […] in the rhetoric of modern universities, lip service, and I do think it’s lip service, I’m afraid, is paid to, “Oh, staff are valued,” etc. I think increasingly, in a competitive higher education market, it is very target-driven, more boxes to tick. And therefore enjoyment isn’t really an issue, so I’m flummoxed because I can’t remember anyone’s ever asked me that before.

Enjoyment, or lack thereof, was also mentioned in relation to the effect of managerialism on teaching work. Michael, a marketing lecturer, describes below how managerial practices can erode academics’ willingness to innovate in their teaching practice:

The bits I tend to enjoy less and less is of course this sort of overwhelming standardisation of everything. The filling of forms about forms you’ve just filled. This constant derivatives of auditing practices. And I also tend to resent these days the way that even your ability to do innovation in teaching is so much constrained by all sorts of rules, expectations, sets of expectations, lists of this, lists of that, consultations through god knows how many committees. It is quite enough to discourage most of us to do something very different, or to try out anything.

What has emerged from the Academics’ Writing project is a picture in which research writing is subject to a number of ever-moving targets and metrics, and is squeezed into the margins of academics’ working lives by other forms of writing aimed at demonstrating compliance with standards. These combined pressures risk suppressing the joy and creativity of life in the academy and undermining the sense of intellectual and pedagogical purpose that most academics hold dear.


Sharon McCulloch is an associate lecturer in the Department of Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster University. She is also a postgraduate tutor at UCL and a teaching fellow at the University of Bath. Her research interests are in literacy practices as they pertain to both students and professional writers in higher education. You can read more about the Academics Writing project here, more specifically on academic writing and the REF here.

Link to my profile at UCL: https://uclappliedlinguistics.wordpress.com/postgraduate-tutors/

Link to my profile at Lancaster: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/linguistics/about-us/people/sharon-mcculloch

Twitter: @samcculloch1




#Take5 #19: Learning Development – the best values?

For this #Take5 we have we have invited Helen Webster from Newcastle University to blog about Learning Development values. This is in honour of our ALDinHE Conference, 10-12 April, University of Hull: http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/events/9/aldinhe_conference_2017.html?p=7_9, and follows her recent interesting discussion on the LDHEN list.  So – thank you Helen! Everybody else – do leave a comment – pass the post on – have a great Conference … and think about offering your own blogpost very soon!

The Value(s) of Learning Development

What are professional values? I remember when I was doing my teacher training that values didn’t really get much attention in amongst all the complex abstract education theory we were learning. They definitely seemed a bit ‘fluffy’ and irrelevant amidst the practicalities of my early teaching placements. I wasn’t very sure what a value was, let alone what my own values as a teacher were. It’s only later in my career as a learning developer that I’ve come to reflect on how much my values, even half-articulated, underpin everything I do in my teaching practice, how important they are to our status as professionals, and how very practical a tool they can be. Values give us the ethical principles to interrogate and guide our practice as professionals and therefore standards to aspire to and hold ourselves to account to. They are a means of communicating and building trust with those we work with.

This thinking led me to undertake an exercise in our learning development team, in which we established the professional values we aim to embody in our work. This allowed us to reflect on our beliefs and assumptions as a team, establish agreed common standards for our practice, build our confidence and quality in our practice and assert our professionalism. I ran a similar exercise during a regional event for ALDinHE in January, which participants also found thought-provoking. We started off looking at the values formally espoused by more established professions, before thinking about what might work for Learning Development in our own institutional context. Some of the values for the Newcastle Learning Development service arose from our particular circumstances; others are, I hope, relevant to the Learning Development community more widely, and some may be recognisable to colleagues in the more established professions from which Learning Development has grown, including subject teaching in higher education.

In Newcastle, we’ve used our values document in various ways. On an individual level, we use it to examine our own practice and look at the impact of even the smallest interaction on student learning. Opening a one-to-one with a throwaway phrase like ‘so how can I help you?’ or a workshop with ‘now, what I want you all to do is…’ can, for example, subtly but negatively affect the whole dynamic of a session. On the other hand, a reframing along lines more in keeping with our values of empowerment, respect and student-centredness can really turn a session around. On a larger scale, they’ve helped formulate our whole approach to workshop design with co-created learning outcomes from which we learn as much as our student partners, redesign the spaces in which we see students for one to one appointments and find a more nuanced approach to digital resource development than just ‘putting content online’. I believe that working to embody these values in our practice is making a tangible if implicit difference to the quality of our provision which is evident to students and academic colleagues. The next step for us is to start communicating this more explicitly in the way we present ourselves as professionals, in our publicity and service statements with colleagues and students and build it more formally into evaluation and quality assurance.

We’ve certainly found reflecting on and articulating our values a very useful activity at Newcastle on many levels, and having shared them more widely beyond our team and institution, the process has been received with much interest from other Learning Developers. Whether you feel this thinking about values ‘chimes’ with your practice or not, I hope you find the values we shared to the LDHEN list a thought-provoking aid in reflecting on your own practice, individually and when working with others! I’d love to hear any responses.

Helen Webster is Head of the Writing Development Centre at Newcastle University. She is a learning developer who has worked over the last decade at UEA, Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, before returning to work at Newcastle, where she did her first degree in German. She’s a former medievalist who did a PhD on learning and the laity in the fourteenth century and taught Medieval Studies at Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, realising she preferred working with living rather than long-dead students. She has a PGCE in Further and Higher Education, and is a Senior Fellow of the HEA. She is currently developing CPD resources for the Association of Learning Developers in Higher Education. Helen tweets at: @scholastic_rat

#Take5: 18: The best way to tackle plagiarism?

Turn-it-off:  Making use of ubiquitous plagiarism to facilitate academic skills

Liam Greenslade

 While asking why writers plagiarize might seem to be a fool’s quest, it can actually be very helpful in preventing future plagiarisms. After all, if we assume it isn’t just the “evil” that plagiarize, it makes sense to take a moment and figure out what would make a “good” person commit such a deed.

Bailey (2017)

In our cut and paste culture, even if it is not actually the case, it sometimes seems that we are being overwhelmed by a plague of plagiarism, not just in academia but in all walks of life (e.g. Scroth, 2012). The current popularity of tools like Turnitin in higher education suggests that what started out as a solution in search of a problem may have opened a Pandora’s box in which our notions of academic honesty and integrity are called into question by the behaviour of our students. In fact, the ubiquity of electronic counter-measures have given rise to counter-counter-measures (e.g. Rogerson & McCarthy, 2017) which make marking essays more of an exercise in forensic science rather than an educational process.

My earliest encounter with student plagiarism came in my first year as a university teacher during the Analogue Age. My initial response comprised of two elements; anger and vanity. I was enraged by the act of cheating itself and amazed that the two students in question thought that I would be stupid enough not to know what they had done. Three decades later I still feel those two emotions when confronted with plagiarism.

However, amongst my feelings was a third element: curiosity. Before deciding on disciplinary action I sat down with the two students and asked why they had risked their university careers in such stupid and easily discovered ways.

The first explained that he simply had no idea how to write a university essay and hoped that copying large chunks from a course text might suffice. The second student said something far more telling. He had plagiarised, he said, because he simply had not understood the content of my lectures. He had ‘borrowed’ an essay submitted to my predecessor in the belief that I would interpret the vast improvement in his academic work as a tribute to my pedagogic skills. The latter explanation troubled me far more than the former and in many ways shaped my approach to teaching for the next 30 years by setting me on a journey of becoming what we now call a ‘reflective teacher’. A journey, I might add, which has yet to reach its terminus.

On foot of these discussions, I chose not to pursue formal disciplinary action. I permitted both students to re-submit with the proviso that they would receive a minimum passing grade irrespective of the quality of their work. I then set out to see if I could develop an approach that would obviate the need for plagiarism by my students in the first place.

One outcome of this was a small pamphlet called ‘Essay Writing Made Easy’ (Greenslade, 1983/2001). This may not seem much by modern standards of student support, but in the 1980s, when students were expected to arrive with, or very quickly acquire, the necessary cultural capital and skills (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) to succeed at university, it was an almost unique resource. Thereafter I distributed it to my students at the start of every unit I taught with the warning that I would expect them to read and make use of its content in their written work or face the consequences.

At the same time, without moving too far away from the traditional model of ‘chalk and talk’ pedagogy, I began to devote less time to delivering large quantities of information and more time checking that learning had actually taken place.

Both strategies appeared to work well. Over the next 25 years detected cases of plagiarism amongst my students were few and far between and the feedback I received on my teaching was generally positive, or so I like to think.

I should point out, however, that during this period I was teaching in well-resourced, elite institutions in the U.K. and Ireland. My students were super-selected and/or highly motivated, staff-student ratios were low, and the values and aspirations associated with academic culture were usually well-respected. Under such conditions, opting for deterrence with a student-centred approach to teaching was not onerous and it often surprised me that more of my colleagues didn’t do it.

What have they done to my song…

When I returned to the U.K. a few years ago I found myself teaching in an environment which I barely recognised. Pay and conditions had worsened, far more teaching was being undertaken by postgrads or adjuncts on zero hours contracts with no time to devote to development of students, course materials or their own teaching skills. The number of working class, mature, and overseas entrants had increased significantly. More importantly, students were now fee-paying customers who wanted value for their money. Value measured in term of qualifications, grade point averages, and almost exclusively instrumental relations between learning experience and learning outcomes.

If this sounds to you like I am suffering from an old don’s nostalgia for the halcyon days of academia, then you’re wrong. What was good about the ivory tower of elitist higher education was paid for at a terrible cost in wasted potential, complacent over-privilege, and massive social exclusion. But, opting for a bums-on-seats model of growth without much modifying the structure and content of the old elitist system inevitably has consequences. One of which, in my experience, is an exponential growth in plagiarism particularly amongst those students who arrive less prepared for the traditional British university experience.

I found increasingly that the learning support materials I was producing and the efforts I was putting into helping students to develop their academic and intellectual skills were simply not working to deter plagiarism. Despite my efforts many of my students simply didn’t wish to consider the importance of how they learned and its relationship to what they learned in a university context. Or, perhaps more accurately, they felt that they didn’t have the time to waste on such irrelevancies.

In my last university teaching post, leading a pre-Master’s research methods module in which all of the students were from overseas, rates of plagiarism could be as high as 60 percent in some semesters. The methods employed ranged from the ‘accidental’ (e.g. failing to cite sources or indicate quotations properly) to out and out cheating and with each new semester I was confronted (and affronted) by novel attempts to game the system by getting around Turnitin.

Students would aim for the Holy Grail of a 0% score without recognising that such a score was itself indicative of plagiarism in my eyes. So a zero would always provoke further investigation and students were warned that this would occur.

Turnitin – zero sum?

I found that some essay providers would tweak or fabricate references, for example, to satisfy their student-clients’ demand for zero or negligible scores. Or they would plunder papers published in sources not available on-line. In one instance, a feasibility study for an air ambulance service in Scotland was published originally in Norway, with the former nation substituted in the text for the latter throughout.

Over time I formed the view that Turnitin was less useful as a plagiarism tool than its marketing would have us believe. Many students and some colleagues were engaged in a futile fetishism focussed on percentages and were using it as a blunt force tool for catching out lazy or dishonest students and that essay mills were exploiting this. More commonly in my experience, it dispirited students who lacked confidence or had a poor command of academic English and academic style. Moreover, a certain proportion of students seemed to delight in the challenge that getting around Turnitin presented. Used this way, it was educationally self-defeating.

Faced with this, I decided to alter fundamentally my approach to deterrence. Rather than teach as if plagiarism was a form of wholly unacceptable moral deviance, I began to embrace the idea that it was ubiquitous. I acknowledged openly that, largely because the pressures of time and money on them and their lecturers, many, if not most, of my students would consider and possibly commit plagiarism at some point in their academic career. The changed context of higher education had made it a viable choice for many students who despaired of ever writing something ‘in their own words’ that would compare with the original source.

Rather than address plagiarism as a moral issue, I located it in a pragmatic context. If I could not dissuade them on moral and intellectual grounds, I would persuade them that it was simply a waste of energy. I began by devoting some time to showing them how ridiculously easy it was to be caught out (with or without Turnitin). Then I focussed on both the ‘whys’ and ‘hows’ of referencing, citation, quotation, paraphrasing in a way that was not shrouded by academic or linguistic mystique. Finally, I tried to explore with them how the tools used to catch them out could be used to improve their ability to produce academically acceptable work even with the pressure of deadlines.

How to plagiarise

Sessions entitled ‘How to Plagiarise’, ‘How to write an essay in 24 hours’, ‘How to lower your Turnitin score without cheating’ and ‘The Harvard Referencing Game’ proved popular. I used Turnitin, paraphrasing tools, and other on-line plagiarism checkers as creative means to get students to think about the processes involved their writing. These efforts seemed to have an impact on the way my students approached their written work. As a bonus, the incidence of plagiarism certainly dropped in the year I introduced this approach. To what extent my approach might be a panacea on a wider scale I cannot say.

So what can individuals involved in learning development on a day-to-day basis learn from this? I’m not at all sure. I do know that under present socio-economic conditions academic integrity and intellectual honesty are severely threatened. When jobs and futures are at stake moralities have a way of becoming flexible, to say the least. I have suggested that it is possible to take a contentious issue like that of student plagiarism and turn it on its head by working on the basis of what students may be likely to do rather than what we as educators would like them to do. Furthermore, I would insist that tools used to catch them out can and should be used as tools to help them to achieve the standards we require of them.


Bailey J (2017) Five reasons people plagiarise and how to stop them Plagiarism Today 15th February 2017 Available at  https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2017/02/15/5-reasons-people-plagiarize-and-how-to-stop-them/ Accessed 12/3/17

Bourdieu P Passeron J-C (1977) Reproduction in education society and culture London: Sage

Greenslade L (1983/2001) Essay writing made easy Available at https://issuu.com/liamg/docs/essay_writing_made_easy. Accessed 1/3/17

Rogerson AM McCarthy G (2017) Using Internet based paraphrasing tools: Original work, patchwriting or facilitated plagiarism? International Journal for Educational Integrity 13:2 Available at https://edintegrity.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s40979-016-0013-y Accessed 24/2/17

Scroth RA (2012) The Plagiarism Plague: Declining standards make getting caught the primary offense America: The Jesuit Review 14th May 2012 Available on-line at http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/5140/article/plagiarism-plague (Accessed 20/3/17)


Liam Greenslade is a social scientist who has worked at number of universities in the UK and Ireland including Manchester, Liverpool, Trinity College Dublin, and Birkbeck College. A specialist in social research methods, he has published numerous articles on migration, health, mental health, and cultural theory. He is currently developing a project The Dissertation Doctor (https://www.dissertationdoc.co.uk/), which is a support service for students undertaking research projects and dissertations in the social sciences and humanities.  

Take5 #17 – #creativeHE 16-20 January – Join in if you dare!!

*** STOP PRESS: #creativeHE new run: 16-20 Jan!! ***

A new version of #creativeHE with a focus on creativity, play, narrative & storytelling and making will be offered by MMU’s CELT in collaboration with London Metropolitan University’s CPED 16-20 Jan 2017.


Participants are invited from across the sector – such that colleagues from both institutions and elsewhere will have the opportunity to learn and develop together within a diverse and distributed community of higher education practitioners. Get together with colleagues who are involved in teaching, supporting learning or development of others with an interest in creative teaching and learning, who would like to explore innovative learning and teaching.

In #creativeHE practical creative tasks will be explored together with related pedagogical theory and literature. Participants will experience learning through play, games, models and stories and actively experiment with such approaches. This will help to further develop understanding, knowledge, skills and practices in these areas such that we all become more adventurous in our teaching.

Participants will be able to critically reflect on their practice and identify opportunities to design, implement and evaluate an imaginative and creative innovation that fosters curiosity, maximises motivation and meaningful active engagement and discovery learning. The teacher is challenged to be creative in order for creativity to be developed in the students.

The unit will be offered online as a 5-day block with further support until the end of the term. All MMU participants will be invited to a portfolio building workshop before commencing the unit.

The programme
■ Day 1: Creativity in HE
■ Day 2: Play and games
■ Day 3: Learning through story
■ Day 4 : Learning through making
■ Day 5: Celebrating creativity.

Join in for the whole week – or just come along for the sessions that you can use this time round.

Getting Credit
The unit is available for free to all practitioners who would like to participate informally in the open online version of this course.

#creativeHE is part of MMU’s FLEX programme – and can be taken for 15 or 30 credits. If you work in another institution and are interested in studying towards academic credits FLEX15 [Creativity for Learning] , please get in touch with CELT as there is a cost for this.

Participants from LondonMet can get recognition for participation as part of their CPD.

To join in with #creativeHE – just ask to join this Google+ group: https://plus.google.com/communities/110898703741307769041/

LondonMet staff are asked to book via Eventbrite if possible – so that we can let you know about follow up activities once the course is complete.

Take5 #16 How to enjoy being an academic: Collegiality as Positive Practice

Sandra Abegglen, Tom Burns & Sandra Sinfield

This #Take5 blog focusses on three academics working collaboratively in their learning, teaching and research practice: as a way of helping us to better enjoy our time as practitioners.


All three of us work in UKHE, in a post-1992 University with a diverse student body from non-traditional backgrounds[1]. Our job descriptions vary, with TB and SS in staff development and SA as a course leader in Education; we are one full time and two fractional with heavy workloads[2]. Our institution has been through radical reconstruction, including a merger, the institution and then modification of AWAM[3] (Academic Work Allocation Model) and now, of course, the coming of TEF (Teaching Excellence Framework). In common with many staff across the HE sector we experience constant pressure with little time for research and writing. Our response was to work more closely together, co-mentoring and co-writing to sustain our energy and our enjoyment of teaching.

How it started

Before the Centre for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching became completely staff facing in our new Centre for Professional and Educational Development (CPED), we had set up a module partnership where we shared our learning and teaching practice – and also our students. SA ran (and still runs) a Peer Mentoring in Practice module whose students mentored TB/SS students on Becoming an Educationalist. As we piloted our students through their tricky first year experiences, supported by those second year students, we discussed the what, why and how of our praxes: our ontologies and our epistemologies. From this emerged our first paper (Abegglen et al. 2014), and a determination to model collegiate academic practice to our students within and across our modules[4].  Even though our job titles and foci changed, we have continued to find ways to collaborate; to be collegiate.

How it works

Academia itself is a complex dance in complex landscapes of practice, navigating multiple tensions and meaning (Wenger-Trayner 2014). We discovered that co-mentoring and writing together, like cooking or dancing, required trust and continuous dialogue: ideas need to simmer and bubble before they are ready (Elbow 1998). Our writing relationship became a place of trust and oscillated and oscillates between the social and the personal, offering a space for our own academic identity-construction in this time of super-complexity and rapid HE change.

What we like about the way that we work together is that anyone one of us can suggest an idea for innovation – or share a reflection on current practice – or discuss a new approach or theory. An idea for a new paper emerges – and a draft then circulates – which we all add to, modify, edit and amend. The continuous writing/thinking circle provides intense moments of thought and engagement – mini-writing retreats – stolen from the busy working day.

This co-mentoring and co–writing has surfaced friendship, communication and support; we have wrestled with time and against time – but always supporting each other. We like working together – and from this (vaguely transgressive) behaviour has emerged our quite healthy academic output (e.g. Abegglen et al. 2015).

Our advice to others would be to set up similar support/writing/practice circles: to offer a resource, a helping hand and sounding board to each other; to make time for that which makes our work so enjoyable: thinking about ways to further interest, engage and stretch our students – and in the process to really enjoy being academics in these ‘interesting’ times.

Spaces to take your articles and reflections to?

Try ALDinHE: The ALDinHE Conference (http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/events/hull17.html) and Journal (http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/ojs/) are excellent places to take reflections about empowering academic practice.

Try #tlcwebinars: You might want to work up your ideas into a professional development session – and offer a Teaching and Learning Conversation (TLC) Webinar. The TLC Webinars are offered monthly via Manchester Metropolitan University in association with the Universities of Northampton, Salford, Surrey, Suffolk, Sheffield Hallam and London Metropolitan (https://tlcwebinars.wordpress.com/about/).

By the way – the next TLC is on Tuesday 13th December, 12.00-13.00 on ‘Using Social Media to create a sense of belonging in students’ – and delivered by our colleague, Danielle D’Hayer (https://tlcwebinars.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/using-social-media-for-belonging-and-bonding/).

#Take5 blog: And finally – you might want to offer us a reflective blog post on your practice to share. Typically our blog posts are anything from 300-1000 words – and we are interested in any area of teaching, learning and assessment practice. Send your ideas for posts to t.burns@londonmet.ac.uk or s.sinfield@londonmet.ac.uk – we look forward to hearing from you very soon!


Abegglen, S., Burns, T. & Sinfield, S. (2015). Voices from the margins; Narratives of learning development in a Digital Age. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change, 1(1).

Abegglen, S., Burns, T. & Sinfield, S. (2014). Disrupting learning landscapes: Mentoring, engaging, becoming. Investigations in University Teaching and Learning. London, 9, pp.15-21.

Elbow, P. (1998, 2nd Edition). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford UP.

QS Top Universities (2013, 10th Edition). Worldwide university rankings, guides & events. Retrieved from http://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings

Wenger-Trayner, E. (2014). Learning in landscapes of practice: Recent developments in social learning theory, in Association for Learning Development in Higher Education. ALDinHE 2014: Learning development spaces and places. University of Huddersfield, 14-16 April.

Ziker, J. (2014). The long lonely job of homo academicus. Retrieved from https://thebluereview.org/faculty-time-allocation/

End Notes

[1] Our HEI comes 18th in the QS World University Rankings for the international diversity of its student body (10th edition, 2013).

[2] Viz. Ziker (2014): ‘On average, our faculty participants worked 61 hours per week. That is 50 percent more than a 40-hour workweek’.

[3] AWAM: Academic Work Allocation Model – where all 1492 of an academic’s annual hours were micro-managed – as opposed to the old HE model, where FT academics were allocated 550 teaching hours – and had some control over the rest of their time. Whilst AWAM no longer formally exists – we have defined teaching and overall working hours in which everything we do needs to fit regardless.

[4] Acknowledging that the formal education landscape traversed by our students is hostile, often alien and typically judgemental, we decided to take an embedded approach to the ‘enhancement of practice’ to develop student apprehension of the codes and practices of HE in authentic ways. Thus in the year 2014-15, alongside an embedded ‘blogging to learn’ project, we also stated as an aim in our Module Monitoring Logs that we intended develop and model collegiate practice to highlight to students a more positive side of university culture and learning in general.