Self Initiated Project – SIP

Conclusion

Doing this academic research has been illuminating! A lot of hard work in an already busy period which increased my stress level but a fascinating journey nevertheless that taught me a lot on many aspects of my lecture and my practice. I had never done academic research before and I had never had deep, meaningful and constructive feedback from students on my lectures either. So, this SIP has clearly taken me outside of my comfort zone but it has also giving me an opportunity to study my own work and to find improvements on both my lecture and my own practice.

Inspired by these finding I have also reflected on my practice and on how I could make my own work more inclusive and effective. For example, I have realised the importance of graphics to ease the learning process for all. I have tested different pedagogies, realised their potential and I will reuse them. I have learnt not to pack jam my lecture of too much information that I will not have the time to go through and I have learnt to time better my lectures. My understanding of the importance of peer to peer communication has been enhanced and I will prioritise a safe space in my lectures for these conversations. My critical thinking and analysis have gained in sophistication and my overall understanding of teaching and the learning process have increased exponentially.

There is also an interesting aspect that has emerged from the research of the lecture: it is the different teacher/ students’ relationship I observed. Indeed, both at the beginning of the lecture and of the focus group, I purposely blurred the relationship by letting them know that as biases were all around us they had already a good knowledge of some of the topics and that I would learn from them and from their feedback. During the focus group, I highlighted that there was no teacher or students in the session but a group of people who were brainstorming. It seems that breaking the mould of the normal teacher/students’ relationship had a liberating effect on how the students interacted with me. They seemed to have been more relaxed, more open to talk about their feelings and experiences and more critical as I wasn’t perceived as the person that had all the knowledge. I do realise that a research would be necessary to confirm this intuition but my instincts were very strong specifically during the focus group and I do believe that there is a truth to this even though I can’t prove it for now.

Finally, I would like to address a comment that was made in the Padlet feedback page and that I haven’t addressed yet as I felt it was too specific to be included in the research. Indeed, one of the students mentioned that in China the gender bias is the reverse than in Europe and 70% of the TV crew are female. I was surprised by this comment because it went against everything I know about Chinese TV & Film crew. Indeed, the main activity of my company Beaucoup Films, is to provide film services to foreign production companies who wish to film in the UK and in Europe. My main clients are Chinese and Indian. I have 20 years of experience filming with Chinese crew and I have never witnessed a 70% female crew, ever. I also know for having researched it that the gender gap in labour force participation and pay has widened in China in the last 10 years^[1]. At first, I thought that this comment could be the result of male fragility but decided to investigate to make sure. After the focus group was finished, I related the comment to the group and ask them what they thought. A Chinese female student replied that the imbalance wasn’t so much in the number of female and male crew but in the role that they had. She went on to explain that directors and all the camera department crew would be male with very rare exceptions and the production department would be mainly female crew which is exactly what I have experienced. In all these years working with Chinese crew, I’ve worked with only 2 female directors and never saw a woman in the camera crew. What was interesting is that the male student wanted to be a producer and the female student wanted to be a director. So I took this opportunity to demonstrate how damaging gender gap was for all of us and how it could crush talent and ambitions. I also thought that I would include this comment in my next lecture to emphasise the impact of gender gap on people’s career.

In conclusion, doing the self-initiated project and going through PG Cert has been a challenging yet rewarding experience. It has allowed me to understand better my practice, different pedagogies and the learning process. I now feel much more confident in my teaching and in my understanding of High Education. I’m looking forward to carrying on implementing these new skills and knowledge in my lectures and I am grateful to all teachers and peers that have made this experience very special indeed!

^[1] Zang, E. and Huang, T. (2020) Gender Discrimination at Work Is Dragging China’s Growth. Peterson Institute for International Economics. Available at: https://www.piie.com/blogs/china-economic-watch/gender-discrimination-work-dragging-chinas-growth. (Accessed on 6^th January 2022)

Field Notes – SIP Workshop 3

This workshop came as a saviour to me. I had done my focus group a couple of weeks before the workshop and I was lost with the amount of data, not really knowing what to do with it. I could sense some themes coming out of all these points of views but it was just a gut feeling rather than something I could demonstrate.

Understanding the analytical filtering of primary and secondary data started to lift the blurring fog on my data. Semiotic analysis was interesting to study but ultimately didn’t really apply to my research.

The data poetry was a total revelation and a very useful one too! Doing the exercise on Jordan transcript during the workshop made me realise that this was the best way to analyse and extract meaningful point of views. Saying that, I was surprised that the data poem that each group ended with was somewhat different, extracting different meaning from the transcript. What was important was to stay true and rigorous to the meaning and the intention of the data to create an honest and relevant explanatory narrative.

Working in groups on the thematic coding had the effect of a bright new light on my data!

I could finally see a way of making sense of the data by classifying them in different research themes. This is when I realised that my research question had 3 main themes in order to extract improvements: the content of the lecture, the pedagogies and the learning outcomes. It became obvious that I needed to classify the data following these themes.

I was delighted at the end of the workshop and couldn’t wait to put my new knowledge into practice. It also allowed me to have a good understanding of what I was doing for the first time!

Field Notes – SIP Workshop 2

The workshop started by a recap of Action Research and then moved on to the action research cycle. Adding our actions on Miro allowed me to understand better the different phases of action research and how to implement them.

Messy Work, Meshwork and Meh Work:

I have to say that learning that mess was an important factor of action research was liberating to me. At the time, I had done the 121 interview and the students’ Padlet feedback and I was preparing the focus group. I could sense that a lot of different point of views had already been expressed and I was feeling a bit overwhelmed with all these different ways of thinking. I wasn’t quite sure where all this would lead and didn’t have a grasp on how to make sense of the data.

One sentence from Cook’s study^[1] (2009) really resonated with me:

“In research, having multiple viewpoints, where each new view and theory is a springboard for further reflection, is an important way of finding new ways of seeing.”

I also very much enjoyed the Meshwork idea that space is actively created rather than something out there to be discovered. I was also interested in the notion that meshwork allows for dynamism and change which is what I wanted for my research. I could relate to this concept as I was researching the lecture that I had created but also was interested in the connection difference between Meshwork and Network.

The Meh work section highlighted 2 different approaches: the Modernist, which deals with the matter of fact and the Design, which deal with the matter of concern. The Design approach resonated better with me as it touched on an aspect of the research that was very important. Why does it matter to me? Why did I wanted to do a lecture on the bias in the film industry and researched it? The answer to these questions resides in the ethic of the research. It was important to me because I had been the recipient of these biases throughout my working experience and I wanted to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Learning to review efficiently and thoroughly an article to extract all the purposes, questions, information, inferences, concepts, assumptions, implications and point of views allowed me to be much more efficient in my reading. I took the habit of making notes and references which greatly helped when writing the research.

What I found difficult to get my head around was the referencing. I do not know if it is because I am dyslexic but it took me quite a while to identify the different referencing methods and to apply this new knowledge to my research.

Sampling was interesting to know about, but ultimately was irrelevant to my research as my sampling was random amongst the population of MA Film students that participated to the lecture.

The data collection tools swap shop was fascinating and was only slightly hindered by the fact that not everybody was ready for the exercise. Saying that, it allowed for a peer to peer exchange of ideas and concepts that was useful to all. The very first information I extracted from this session was the difficulty in elaborating questions. The syntax, the clarity, the order of the questions were all important factors that would help getting relevant and informative data. It was a great help to hear other people’s questions and to see the difference between the intention of the person asking the question and how actually it is received and perceived by a participant. Being able to be in turn an interviewer and an interviewee allowed me to understand the complexity of questioning and the importance of its accuracy.

We also look into our data collection methods and this was a bit more reassuring as I had planned (without fully realising it) quite few different ways of getting data. It is actually one of my peers in my group that highlighted that I would end up with a lot of data considering that I wanted to do a Padlet feedback after the lecture, a 121 interview, a focus group and a questionnaire. I have to say that I hadn’t thought of the volume of data I would get and this peer’s reflection made me realised that I had no idea how to deal with all the data I would get.

Thankfully Workshop 3 will be all about data analysis…

^[1] Cook,T. (2009) The purpose of mess in action research: building rigour though a messy turn, Educational Action Research, 17:2, 277-291

After the lecture field notes

Critical analysis of The Bias of the Film Industry lecture

Content:

Good start with the breakdown of the lecture at the very beginning. I feel it set up straight away the topic and how we are going to study it.
Good introduction: brainstorm and the non-existence of the usual teacher/ students’ relationship in this lecture as biases are in everybody’s life and everybody knows about them. Encouraged dialogue from the beginning. “Netiquette” and “What do bias means?” are good, necessary and clear.
Whack or Woke? Voting on film clips to assess if they are Whack or Woke. Access to films with Padlet page. Chose to do that as it is too bad quality when screening the films to the students through my screen from Collaborate.
Asked an open question to a student prompted by a text from him in the chat box to start the conversation: good
1^st clip: I gave my point of view too quickly and should have asked for other students’ point of view. I was surprised that some students had voted Woke for Love The Neighbour and I should have investigate straight away. I realised my mistake and explained that there was no right or wrong and we were brainstorming but I couldn’t get anybody who voted Woke to speak. A student reinforced the Whack vote with an interesting point.
2^nd Clip: I realised that I was going to run out of time if I wanted to show all the clips that I had planned. I chose to cut the number of clips and jumped few to finish on time. Saying that my priority was students discussing the clips so it was good that they did and that it took more time than I thought.
Rest of the clips went well but I would have selected different clips if I had known that I wouldn’t show all of them. Select 4 clips for the next lecture with 2 other clips as a backup.
Workforce: went well. Data shows clearly the gender gap. Maybe introduce other countries to show this is international not just UK?
Balance of power: slightly trickier to evidence but seems to have hit the mark
Good conclusion: positive note to end the lecture. It felt really important to end on a bright light as I wanted to give them a message of hope rather than of doom and gloom.
Overall lecture went well no backlash and everybody was on board – respectful and safe conversations.
Lots of interesting comments. I can’t wait to analyse them!
Students were engaged and happy to have this lecture. Many feedbacks highlighting the importance of approaching such topics.
Students opened up to their own experiences and interacted but the conversations could have been more engaged as there was a chore of 8 to 10 students only who mainly talked. Need to rethink group conversations.
The online factor is important to highlight. Indeed, it took quite a bit of time for everybody to see the clips and come back to the main window. I had done a Padlet page with a timeline to make it easier to follow but still it took a lot of time. Also, I think that this lecture begs for human connections through the conversations and this is harder to obtain online than in presence.

Pedagogies:

Inclusive teaching & learning pedagogy: Netiquette^[1] was clear and set well the values of the lecture.
Object learning pedagogy^[2]: students engaged well with this pedagogy and from the Padlet feedback it seems that the film clips helped the students to understand the concept of representation. The game of voting for Whack or Woke was also a good way to make them engage with the topic in a fun way.
Critical thinking pedagogy^[3]: By asking them to vote Whack or Woke I wanted to highlight the need for critical thinking as I knew there will be opposing views. Voting declined when they realised that it wasn’t clear cut which seems to show that they were critically analysing the clips BUT there should have been a “I’m not sure” button to reflect those who weren’t sure. Peers to peers’ conversations were also a way of enhancing critical thinking. I’m sure I can find a way of improving these conversations so that everybody participates.

Learning outcome:

I think they now have a better understanding of their industry. From the Padlet feedback few were surprised by the wide gender gap in the workforce and many were happy to discuss such topics and felt that it was important to have a lecture that exposed honestly bias in their industry. Few expressed verbally during the lecture how important this lecture was for them.
From the voting for Whack or Woke and the Padlet feedback it seems that the learning outcome for critical thinking has been reach to some degree.
The understanding of concepts & values is harder to assess at this stage and will need deeper research.

Self-critical analysis:

Although I started the lecture a bit nervous, I managed to relax after a couple of minutes and then thoroughly enjoyed teaching the lecture. I am pleased that I managed to cut down the number of clips and keep the lecture on track with no disruption to the lecture. Saying that, I do realise that this was an oversight that I need to address as I wasn’t realistic in the time it would take to see, think and discuss the film clips.

What I think I could have done better is to investigate more all points of views before giving my own. Specifically at the beginning, I was too quick in agreeing with a specific point of view when I should have explored other students’ views.

I realised my mistake during the lecture and tried and mainly succeeded in exploring all avenues before giving my own views. Still need to work on this.

Overall, I am delighted to have taught this lecture. It was well received by the students and I could see during the lecture that they were eager to learn from it and to speak about these topics. There are some improvements that I can already see such as the “I’m not sure” button when voting or the need to improve conversations but I also know that there must be quite few other improvements that I do not see yet. I cannot wait to start the research on the lecture and the students’ feedback.

^[1] Shade of Noir https://shadesofnoir.org.uk

^[2] Dr K. Hardie. (2015) Wow: The power of Objects in Object-Based Learning and Teaching. HEA

^[3] Freire P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Myra Ramos ed. New York: Continuum

Thoughts on my SIP and Workshop 1

I decided on the topic of my SIP before the summer when I wanted to create my new lecture The Bias of the Film Industry. When working on the lecture, I realised that a study would be necessary in order to assess if the learning outcomes were reached and if the lecture needed improvements.

During the summer, I pitched the concept of the lecture to friends, family and colleagues to gage the interest on such topic and had numerous conversations about biases. I also read bell hooks’ book Reel to Real: Race, Class and Sex at the Movies¹. I had encountered bell hooks during the L&T unit through her books; All About Love and Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. At the time, I really engaged with her critical analysis of societal bias and her theory of engaged pedagogy. When researching for books about bias in the film industry, a simple Google search on “racism in the film industry” gave me a list of books to read. Reel To Real was part of the list. Knowing the great ability of the author to analyse biases and their impact on individual and her subversive spirit, I couldn’t wait to get my hands on it.

Reading her book allowed me to get a more sophisticated critical analysis on the racial, gender and class representation in cinema and on the power and effect that movies have on individuals. Two concepts that were to become an important part of the lecture. My reading list didn’t stopped at bell hooks (See Lecture Bibliography in Workflow) and I also watched many films such as Disclosure².

In September, I started to work on the structure and content of the lecture and all too soon it was time for our first SIP lecture.

I have to say that it was quite a shock to realise the complexity of academic research. From formulating a precise research question to structuring a focus action plan and analysing data in order to implement results; the task seemed voluminous and the time given to achieve it seemed short.

The SIP lecture was a great help to focus my attention and my readings.

I really enjoyed the philosophical aspect of academic research and indeed my research is fully in line with my educational and moral values.

Reading McNiff allowed me to understand the methodology of an action research. I realised that I needed to study how to interview, how to formulate interview questions and how to collect and analyse data. I also needed to find a strategy and design a structure for the overall research.

A lot of reading and work ahead but for now, the lecture is scheduled in a few days’ time and I need to concentrate on it.

I am equally exited at the prospect of lecturing this subject and nervous. I am aware of the sensitive nature of the lecture and I am concerned with possible emotional backlash and students being triggered by the lecture’s topics. To be ready for this I have read many papers on the challenge of having courageous conversations in an educational context thanks to Shade of Noir’s website.

I am also pleased to do the lecture as it will mean that I will be able to start my study. Apart from the fact that much of my brain is busy with the lecture, I do not feel that I can concentrate my efforts on my research until the lecture is done.

b. hooks. (1996) Reel to Real: Race, Class and Sex at the Movies. Routledge
Disclosure: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8637504/?ref_=fn_al_tt_20