Young-Jin's PGCert blog

Please find below an example data of from the present work. It represents the anonymous dataset that formed the basis of the analysis.

Project Title: The role of lecture slide typeface on inclusivity within a classroom setting

Research Question: How do different typefaces influence students’ perceptions of inclusivity and comprehensibility in classroom slide presentations?

The project aims to explore the impact of PowerPoint presentation design on learning effectiveness across a wide range of students and the perception of inclusivity of the slides evaluated directly by the students. The project will specifically focus on the effects of typeface (i.e., curvilinear vs. angular fonts), based on two types of evidence: 1. Critical evaluation of existing empirical research, and 2. Primary data collected in a classroom setting.

I would like to clarify that the research project focuses on two types of inclusivity. On the one hand, the project will explore whether there are certain typefaces that appear more friendly and inclusive than others (i.e., students directly evaluate the perception of inclusivity of the slides). On the other hand, the project will explore whether certain typefaces are comprehended by a larger number of students (i.e., students directly evaluate the comprehensibility of the slides). In doing so, the project promotes inclusivity as a positive experience without the classroom as well as maximisation of accessibility to all students within a classroom setting.

Why this research project?

Firstly, the Curvature Effect denotes that human psychology is sensitive to the physical properties of objects, such that curvilinear contours (as opposed to angular contours) trigger an emotionally positive response (e.g., Bar and Nesta, 2006). Recent evidence further suggests that the positive impact of curvature can be explained via the human approach-avoidance spectrum (e.g., Palumbo, Ruta, & Bertamini, 2015; Tawil, Elias, Ascone, & Kuhn, 2024). In other words, people associate friendliness and general approachability with rounded objects, whereas they associate threat and danger with angular objects. This means that one can expect viewing rounded objects to give a sense of inclusivity and safety, as has been demonstrated also by the fact that people wish to enter curvilinear spaces more than angular spaces (e.g., Vartanian et al., 2019). Specifically, recently studies have found further evidence of this curvilinearity vs. angularity effect using typefaces (Velasco, Woods, Hyndman, & Spence, 2015). This can lead to the generation of the following research question: How do different typefaces influence students’ perceptions of inclusivity and comprehensibility in classroom slide presentations?

It shoudl also be added that there is much literature on the relationship between font type, screen readability, and dyslexia (e.g., Rello & Yates, 2016). This literature can be used as a justification and interpretation for how certain design elements of lecture slides can provide wider accessibility across the classroom. Taking this literature, the present study fits nicely into the domain of accessible design.

Bar, M. and Neta, M. (2006) ‘Humans prefer curved visual objects’, Psychological Science, 17(8), pp. 645–648.

Palumbo, L., Ruta, N. and Bertamini, M. (2015) ‘Comparing angular and curved shapes in terms of implicit associations and approach/avoidance responses’, PloS One, 10(10), e0140043.

Tawil, N., Elias, J., Ascone, L. and Kühn, S. (2024) ‘The curvature effect: Approach-avoidance tendencies in response to interior design stimuli’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 93, pp. 1–12.

Tinker, M.A. (1966) ‘Experimental studies on the legibility of print: An annotated bibliography’, Reading Research Quarterly, pp. 67–118.

Vartanian, O., Navarrete, G., Chatterjee, A., Fich, L.B., Leder, H., Modroño, C., … and Nadal, M. (2019) ‘Preference for curvilinear contour in interior architectural spaces: Evidence from experts and nonexperts’, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(1), pp. 110–116.

Velasco, C., Woods, A.T., Hyndman, S. and Spence, C. (2015) ‘The taste of typeface’, i-Perception, 6(4), p. 2041669515593040.

The full presentation can be found above.

Please find attached a pdf version of the survey

The ethics form was signed off after three rounds of reviews.

The first revision, which was submitted after a group tutorial, took on board what was discussed in that tutorial (from the tutor and colleagues). Therefore, it clarified the writing and included a section on how my research could also benefit accessibility. The version also included further elaborations on the ethics of research (e.g., data storage).

The second revision further elaborated on how the proposed ARP relates to the specific action research cycle. After this revision, the ethics form was signed off.

Design-wise, the present study makes use of an experimental design, which is run through an online software called Qualtrics. Specifically, the study’s experimental design will follow a randomised between-participants design, with the participants randomly assigned to one of two conditions: angular font vs. curvilinear font. The study material will consist of a lecture slide or key lecture supporting document concerning research ethics. The two fonts will consist of two types of popularly-used fonts in classroom settings (e.g., Arial and Times New Romans)

What will the analysis methods be? While a number of texts on research methods and statistical analysis can be consulted, Howitt and Cramer (2020) can be used to assist in designing psychological research and choosing the right statistical analysis. The present study will be a randomised between-participant experiment and t-tests will be used to interpret the statistical significance.

• Ethics form – DONE
• Draft activity plan/brief – DONE
• Run pilot with colleague/student
• Get feedback – DONE
• Refine activity – DONE
• Draft in colleagues to observe – DONE
• Run study – DONE
• Capture outputs – DONE
• Reflect on session – DONE
• Presentation – DONE

Improving attainment gaps through randomised group membership allocation in team-based assessments among diverse students

Context

My position as Course Leader of the MSc Applied Psychology in Fashion (London College of Fashion), primarily involves three roles: the teaching of research methods (including statistics) and dissertation units, the management of current students for successful course completion, and the shaping of the course’s direction for prospective students.

In this report, I will be focusing on adopting random group membership allocation in team-based assessments to reduce the attainment gap in a diverse student body. This decision is founded on two assumptions. Firstly, it is assumed that there will be a substantial presence of team-based student assessment opportunities to allow for the relevance of the intervention. Indeed, the course currently has four summative assessments that are based on teamwork, which constitutes 40% of the total number of summative assessments in the course.

The second assumption is that there is an attainment (i.e., percentage of students achieving 1^st or 2:1) gap that can be at least partially explained by the diversity of the student body. Across the BA/BSc/Integrated Masters courses at UAL, for example, there is a clear indication that attainment may be linked to certain student profiles (see visualisation below). For example, students profiled as Home White have an attainment rate of 85% whereas students profiled as Home B.A.M.E. have an attainment rate of 71%. Similarly, there are attainment gaps appearing for Home (81%) vs. International (73%) and Female (80%) vs. Male (74%) students. This means that despite UAL’s diverse student body, certain student characteristics are strongly associated with one’s academic achievements.

While the course in question is an MSc course and so the available data is less granular, a similar narrative (of student characteristics being associated with academic achievement) is detectable, as can be seen below in the dashboard table.

At the minimum, the course represents a very diverse student body, and so should consider the impact of student characteristics on academic achievement. For example, the dashboard data for the 2023/2024 academic year indicates that 17% of the students have declared disability. Furthermore, 81% of the students are International students, which indicates the representation of a large number of ethnicities and cultural backgrounds within the classroom (see dashboard data visualisation below).

Intervention design and supporting evidence

The section above demonstrates that despite UAL’s diversity, there are reasons to believe that certain student characteristics (as is present in the present course I am course-leading) may be an indicator of a student’s academic achievement measured via attainment rates. In line with the evidence, I propose an intervention that aims to improve student academic achievement while concurrently fostering student interactions. Specifically, I propose the introduction of a random group membership allocation in team-based assessments. In that, the intervention not only aims to resolve student profile-based academic outcomes but also potentially reduces student profile-based exclusivity (e.g., racism and discrimination based on certain characteristics), the intervention can be seen to kill two birds with a stone. These two aspects will be discussed below.

There are reasons to believe in the validity, effectiveness, and utility of the intervention. Firstly, there is a growing body of empirical evidence – based on both interview techniques and, to help generalise the findings, inferential statistics – that evinces how random group membership allocation can be used to enhance an individual’s task capabilities, teamwork capabilities, and reflective capabilities (McClelland, 2019). The evidence can be explained by the fact that learning can be improved with the involvement of multiple people and multiple types of intelligence (e.g., cognitive, social, emotional). Specifically, random group membership allocation, when done continuously across classes, is understood to improve skills beyond academic achievements per se, such as team-work skills and rapport-building skills – see visualisation below (Malekigorji, 2019). This fits in with the Quality Assurance Agency Subject Benchmark Statement: Psychology (Quality Assurance Agency, 2023), in which a psychology course (such as the present course) should support skills such as communication and teamwork.  

Note. Visualisation taken from Malekigorji (2019). * Denotes significant improvement.

Beyond the potential areas of positive impact, randomised group membership allocation can also reduce barriers to learning and barriers to inclusivity. For example, in my experience of non-random group membership allocation, two patterns of behaviours are evident: students forming groups based on cultural similarity (see empirical evidence from social psychology that supports people’s tendency to seek culturally homogeneous group membership in Tajfel [1982]) and/or students with low academic achievement forming their own group due to being left behind by others. While the forming of friendships based on one’s comfort zone is nothing to criticise per se, the forming of randomised groups in an academic setting may be at least partially preventative of the aforementioned student characteristics-driven attainment gaps, given that students from various facets of students characteristics will be encouraged to communicate and learn from each other.

As mentioned above, the implications of this design go beyond the purely academic aspects (as it were), and touch upon important issues of social justice. As observed by Noel and Paiva (2021), exclusivity often goes unnoticed and practised unconsciously in our day-to-day lives. When students are asked to form groups of their own liking, it is often observable that each group has a lack of diversity; as can be seen in the visualization below, there are multiple dimensions of diversity that may not be included. As Noel and Paiva (2021) note, there are three principles of inclusivity in a setting of teamwork: (1) recognise exclusion; (2) solve for one, extend to many; (3) learn from diversity. In randomising group membership allocation, the first and third principles can be simultaneously executed. In other words, randomised teams can be used to not just potentially reduce student characteristics-based attainment gaps but also be used as a springboard for conversation across a diverse range of students.

Reflection from peers and expected barriers

The discussion of my intervention concept with my peers provided an opportunity for reflection, especially concerning expected barriers. In the peer conversation, we mainly discussed how much students would perceive the randomised group membership allocation. Reflecting some empirical literature (e.g., McClelland, 2012), a main potential area of contention was students feeling pressured to go outside their comfort zone. Since students are likely forced to work with people they hadn’t built up a rapport with, it is likely that student stress (and/or conflict) levels may rise during the teamwork assessments. If this is indeed the case, the intervention idea may stand in contrast with Gibbs (2014) who argued that students learn best when they have a sense that things are within their control. The barrier to the intervention may especially be palpable if the students feel that the forced group allocation may impinge on their sense of freedom and individuality.

Yet there are also reasons to believe that such worry may be an exaggeration. For example, when I trialled the method of random group allocation last year, there was little resistance against the method. I have also anecdotally heard of other courses that take on this practice without much trouble. Although entirely conjectural, it may also be the case that students may prefer this method given the short duration of the course – students may prefer to start their work as soon as possible rather than to use the time to form groups.

However, this is not to say that I should be any less cautious of potential barriers and criticisms. It may be worthwhile to set up expectations with students early on, communicating to them the effectiveness of random group allocation in terms of learning efficacy and social justice. It may also be worth noting the QAA Subject Benchmark Statement: Psychology to the students on the expected coverage of a psychology course. Importantly, in conjunction with the last point, it may be worth emphasising the team-based nature of workplaces and how the proposed group allocation practice may assist in the transition into such work environments. Last but not least, it is crucial that I am informed of the latest developments in academic practices. For instance, the intervention concept may take on aspects of Team-Based Learning (Burgess et al., 2020), where, to minimise disruptions based on student stress and in-team conflict, the teamwork environment involves a facilitator. To further promote diversity within a team, there may also be an implementation of non-random group assignments to ensure maximum diversity of student characteristics (Michaelsen & Richards, 2005).  

Conclusion

All in all, the present intervention proposed the implementation of randomised group allocation in team-based assessments among diverse students. It is hoped that this practice, by encouraging students to get out of their comfort zones and learn from each other, will reduce attainment gaps associated with certain student characteristics (e.g., race). The intervention simultaneously promotes conversation across diverse student backgrounds, advocating for inclusive practices within the university environment.

Word count: 1450

References

Burgess, A., van Diggele, C., Roberts, C. and Mellis, C., 2020. Team-based learning: design, facilitation and participation. BMC Medical education, 20, pp.1-7.

Gibbs, G., 2014. Maximising student learning gain. In A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp. 215-230). Routledge.

Michaelsen, L. and Richards, B., 2005. Commentary: drawing conclusions from the team-learning literature in health-sciences education: a commentary. Teaching and learning in medicine, 17(1), pp. 85-88.

Malekigorji, M., 2019. The effect of continued team randomization on student’s perception and performance in a blended team-based teaching approach. Education Sciences, 9(2), 102.

McClelland, G.P., 2012. The influence of randomly allocated group membership when developing student task work and team work capabilities. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36(3), pp. 351-369.

Tajfel, H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology (33). pp. 1–39.

Quality Assurance Agency. 2023. “Psychology.” https://www.qaa.ac.uk/the-quality-code/subject-benchmark-statements/subject-benchmark-statement-psychology

In the video “Revealed: The charity turning UK universities woke”, Professor James Orr from Cambridge University critically examines the role of Advance HE, a charity organisation, towards universities adopting “woke” ideologies. The video highlights Advance HE’s role in promoting progressive policies within academic institutes, which impact university culture (including teaching, research, and general language used in the environment) and administrative processes (e.g., admissions). Particularly, two academics at Cambridge University Professor Arif Ahmed and Dr Vincent Harinam were interviewed to puts forth the argument that the implementations of Advance HE-based policies may negative impact free speech, academic freedom, and the overall educational environment in the UK.

Professor Ahmed and Dr Harinam focus on two aspects on the culture of racism in universities, yet both converge on some points surrounding issues of supporting evidence. Specifically, Professor Ahmed argues that there is no evidence that staff trainings such as implicit bias training and anti-racism training lead to positive outputs in various admissions and administrative processes. Dr Harinam argues that there is so far no actual evidence to suggest that universities are racist in the first place.

The positionality of Professor Ahmed and Dr Harinam is a valid one, and perhaps treads a careful line between judgment and evidence. The validity of their views is that it is often a healthy and particularly scientific attitude to base any judgment of reality on the evidence that supports or negates the judgment. Without evidence, there is a substantial weakening of an argument and in its worst case, is mere wishful thinking. Even should one overlook the theoretical importance of evidence, Professor Ahmed’s positionality is already well known in psychology, under the attitude-behaviour gap. The attitude-behaviour gap posits that the change of one’s attitude (or the willingness to change one’s behaviour) is no guarantee for a change in actual behaviour.

However, there are caveats to this way of thinking. Firstly, the lack of evidence should not mean that the argument itself becomes invalid. In fact, many important thoughts in the past started without evidence, and changes in policy may bring forth the wanted evidence. Relatedly, the lack of evidence also should not mean that certain thoughts should be abandoned altogether – it may be, for example, that the method of anti-racism staff training implementations may be improved. Secondly, one can also question how the evidence was measured, which are purported to be lacking in the two academics’ arguments. For example, how was racism measured? If, for example, we are simply basing racism based on internal reports, we will need to uncover whether there were barriers to reporting (such that the actual underlying numbers are under- or mis-represented in the reporting frequency). There are questions also as to whether there are incidents of racisms that may be difficult to measure and report (e.g., less visible behaviours).