![\"\"](\"http:\/\/microsites.ncl.ac.uk\/casestudies\/files\/2025\/09\/Kay-Crosby-and-Samantha-Ryan-Picture-300x208.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Included an individual discussion board task as part of the weekly rhythm of teaching and used this to hone writing skills.\u00a0 We encouraged student to student feedback and provided a round-up of learning points.<\/p>\n
Dr Kay Crosby, Senior Lecturer in Law<\/p>\n
Samantha Ryan, Lecturer in Law<\/p>\n
We redeveloped a 3rd<\/sup> year module Evidence for delivery in 2020\/21.\u00a0 This previously had thirty hour-long lectures, plus five hour-long seminars assessed by exam.<\/p>\n This year the module has two assessment points: an essay (30%), and a problem question (70%). Each week, along with short video lectures, we added an individual discussion board activity to give students practice in articulating legal arguments.\u00a0 We also included a second discussion board for a group writing activity preceding each of the four seminars.<\/p>\n The individual discussion board was set up so that students could only see their peers\u2019 posts after they had submitted their piece of writing.\u00a0 We gave a prompt, asked for a 100-200 word response, and encouraged students to comment on the post of one other student. \u00a0We repeatedly pointed out that the discussion board contained excellent contributions by their peers, and that if students didn\u2019t contribute, they were missing out on this opportunity.<\/p>\n Each week, after reviewing the posts, we gave general feedback on the task to the whole cohort, addressing common issues and giving pointers. \u00a0The writing tasks were set to give opportunities to practice skills that were assessed in the module\u2019s assignments.<\/p>\n This year, we wanted to get more engagement with students throughout the year, rather than only in the period prior to the exam.\u00a0 The weekly discussion board was as a way of facilitating this.<\/p>\n In the initial weeks, we scheduled time each Friday to provide feedback on each student contribution submitted by the Thursday of that week. \u00a0Our expectations were that only a portion of students would engage with the task, and that we would therefore have time to give attention to those who posted.<\/p>\n We were surprised in the first few weeks to have a huge uptake, with over 100 messages on the discussion board (from a cohort of 150 students).<\/p>\n The downside of this was that providing feedback took the majority of a Friday.<\/p>\n Students really engaged and they started giving feedback to each other.<\/p>\n After the first few weeks we stepped back from giving intense feedback and encouraged students to continue to submit posts and comment on each other\u2019s posts.<\/p>\n The total engagement dropped, but we were still seeing 30-40 posts from students each week, and about a quarter provided feedback on the posts that their peers submitted.\u00a0 For those that continued to participate, the quality of their writing continued to improve.<\/p>\n More importantly, when students handed in their first piece of coursework, we could see that many of the things we had been focussing on in those activities were reflected in student\u2019s submissions, and that the learning had percolated through the cohort.<\/p>\n We see a direct link between the improved quality of student\u2019s writing and this discussion board activity.\u00a0 Even those who have not participated have been able to benefit from the roundup feedback that we have generated.<\/p>\n When we probed why engagement with the individual discussion board activity fell off, we were surprised that students said this wasn\u2019t wholly related to the change in our moderation approach. \u00a0They suggested that workload was also a factor.<\/p>\n We were unusual in giving students something concrete to do early in the course, but later in the term, as workload increased from other modules, they found it harder to keep up. \u00a0Our groupwork component has worked less effectively, and dropping this would remove some pressure.<\/p>\n Students have also indicated that they have valued the rhythm and routine built into the module\u2019s design.<\/p>\n
\nWhy did you do it?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\nDoes it work?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/microsites.ncl.ac.uk\/casestudies\/files\/2021\/02\/screen-shot-1-300x50.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/microsites.ncl.ac.uk\/casestudies\/files\/2021\/02\/screen-shot-1-3-300x50.png\")
<\/p>\n
\nStudent Voice?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\nWhat advice would you give to colleagues wanting to do something similar?<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
\nUseful Resources<\/strong><\/h4>\n