Evaluating educational transformation is a tough gig, and one that not only needs careful consideration of pedagogies but also the evaluation approaches must take into account organisational readiness.
Professor Stella Jones-Devitt, Director of the Staffordshire Centre of Learning and Pedagogic Practice, shares her experience and recommendations as our host for SCOLPP’s most recent “So, What’s the Learning (#SWTL)” webinar.
Each #SWTL webinar offers:
The sharing of interesting pedagogic perspectives with the wider HE community
The chance to consider how such learning applies within your own context
Opportunity to develop tangible skill(s) for enhanced practice
Professor Stella Jones-Devitt is Professor of Critical Pedagogy at Staffordshire University.
Stella has significant experience and expertise in leading, designing and implementing evaluation research. She is a National Teaching Fellow and Principal Fellow of the HEA, Visiting Professor at Leeds Beckett University and has acted as a national Ambassador for Teaching Excellence in the UK. Her academic interests include exploring and applying innovative evaluation methodologies, flexible pedagogies and applied critical thinking. She has a keen interest in understanding more about whose voices don’t get heard and why. In her prior professional career, Stella was an NHS Public Health Specialist, with a specific focus on physical activity and community engagement. She has extensive experience engaging communities in qualitative research and evaluation, and in particular, appreciative inquiry. As a critical pedagogue, Stella has particular expertise in uncovering and challenging assumptions in approaches, which ensures that research design is optimised to determine robust answers. She is presently PI for a longitudinal evaluation of QAA Scotland’s 20 Years of Enhancement Themes (£100k).
Welcome to our third summary blog generated from a perceptive and boundary challenging “So What’s the Learning” webinar.
Our expert host for the webinar was Tyrone Messiah, Head of Technical Services at Staffordshire University.
Tyrone’s career in Higher Education dates back over two decades, beginning as a visiting lecturer at Goldsmiths College, London teaching new media technologies to excitable postgraduate curators. The next twenty years see him apply his expertise to help manage operational resources and deliver complex technological change programmes at the University of the Arts, London and the Royal College of Art before taking up his current post as Head of Technical Services at Staffordshire University in 2017.
Tyrone’s webinar shared his exploration as SCOLPP Innovator. This Innovator project revealed how adaptations to practice delivery during Covid, through the sharing of subjective experiences and storytelling, have helped to ease these tensions and bridged divisions between colleagues working at the boundary within their teaching & learning communities.
His doctoral research unpacks and explores key tensions relating to the engagement of technicians in teaching & learning and the development of their professional identities within the post-pandemic community of practice.
We are delighted to open the call for case studies as part of our project “Beyond The Classroom – Supporting Student Success”, funded by Advance HE as part of their collaborative development fund (CDF). The project is led by Staffordshire University Centre of Learning and Pedagogic Practice (SCoLPP), in partnership with the Directorate of Student Success at the University of the West of Scotland (UWS).
We are inviting you to submit a concise case study detailing current work that is driven by or largely feature ‘third space’ activities to enhance student experience and outcomes. We are using the term third space to represent beyond the classroom, building on the work of Celia Whitchurch. Following a peer review process, a small number of case studies will be selected for development into in-depth case studies and published by AdvanceHE.
Appreciating Impact and Value of 3rd Space Colleagues
Higher education institutions (HEIs) are facing increased scrutiny over the value of the degree, not only as a transformational experience but as a societal good. This in turn has seen increased use of metrics to measure factors such as progression, retention and graduate outcomes. HEIs concentrate significant resources around the direct academic-student relationship. However, there is considerable work being undertaken by ‘third space’ professionals (e.g. careers staff, enterprise advisors, learning technologists, writing centre staff) that may have a strong influence on outcomes and reinforce or support the work of academics. This project will encourage greater recognition of the value and impact of colleagues working in the 3rd space, celebrating diversity of expertise and encouraging more progressive ways of working.
Learning from Innovative Working
The curated case studies will provide learning for the sector about what works and initiate discussions about possible futures in enhancing student outcomes. Sharing ideas and impact alongside alternative team configurations, novel skills sets and collaborative approaches might challenge the mindset of “this is the way it works here”! We hope that submitting case studies will be valuable for the individuals, professions and the sector.
Advice on Creating a Case Study
We are suggesting the following headings to your case study;
Background/context to the activities (including a start date) Under this heading we invite you to discuss the justifications for the activities, sharing the context in which the activities were happening. Including a start date and any narrative about the number of iterations this work has experienced will help to offer a sense of project maturity.
What did you do? Offer as much detail as you can about what went on, when and by whom. Can you help the project team understand the various approaches employed and the decisions you made as the initiative progressed?
What have you achieved? Include here evidence of impact for students, colleagues and institution. Evidence of impact comes in many forms. Consider the many ways in which you can represent the impact and value of the work. Resources such as the TASO Evidence Toolkit or ways to consider a layering approach to evidence often used for HEA fellowship submissions may prompt your thinking.
How does the work connect with other activities in the university? Typically these initiatives have many layers of activities or nestle into other institutional activities- please do share how the work was embedded.
You may have used a Theory of Change to define and guide your work. If so please do share this as a way to summarise the work.
Once submitted, your case study will be peer reviewed by the research team and the project’s expert reference group. Case studies will be selected to progress to publication on the basis of evidence supplied across following criteria;
Integrated and collaborative practice (presence of professional services and academic expertise)
Leadership from 3rd space expertise
Detail of initiative activities
Transformative impact on student outcomes
Transformative impact on student experience
Transformative impact on sector
Ready to submit a case study?
At the bottom of this post you will find the Participant Information Sheet. You will need to review this before submitting your case study. Submit your case study here. The submission portal will close on 7th June.
Keep in touch with the project
As the project progresses, we will be posting updates via @SCOLPPStaffsUni, sharing developments and ideas on this blog and reporting to the AdvanceHE Project Page.
Participant Information Sheet
Please carefully read the following information about the project. At the end of this participant information summary, you will be invited to register your informed consent and will then continue through the steps to case study submission.
We would like to invite you to participate in a project to understand a range of techniques, approaches, and lessons learned from current work about student outcomes interventions that are driven by or largely feature ‘third space’ colleagues supporting activities outside the classroom.
Why are we undertaking this project?
There is considerable work being undertaken by ‘third space’ professionals (e.g., careers staff, enterprise advisors, learning technologists, writing centre staff) that may have a strong influence on outcomes and reinforce or support the work of academics.
This project will build on the work of McIntosh and Nutt (2022) and curate a small number of institutional case studies to identify and disseminate new ways of working and show how third space professionals make a positive contribution to student outcomes. The project outputs, published by AdvanceHE, will provide practical examples of how this type of reconfiguration can be undertaken for the benefit of all.
Who is running the project?
The project is led by the Staffordshire Centre of Learning and Pedagogic Practice in partnership with the University of the West of Scotland and funded as part of the Collaborative Development Fund from AdvanceHE. Within the project team there are colleagues with significant experience of third space working and institutional enhancement projects.
What will happen to the information I submit as a case study?
Your case study submission is part of the crowdsourcing activity and the information you supply will be curated in a searchable database hosted by AdvanceHE. The project team will catalogue your submission in relation to mission group; size of HEI; focus of intervention (including the representation of student demographics such as student groups with marginal identities and thematic area of enhancement); diversity of professional identities; geographical representation. Submissions to this database will be reviewed by the project’s Expert Reference Group to select up to 5 submissions that will be developed into in-depth case studies for publication. The project team will support the institutional teams to create effective case studies, working alongside the colleagues involved with the 5 short-listed concise case studies. This co-production activity will take the form of 1-2 recorded sessions with the institutional contact conducted on Microsoft Teams, each 1 hour long during which the in-depth case study will be developed. Editorial activity will be undertaken by the project team and institutional contacts will sign-off the content of the case study prior to publication.
For the purpose of this project an in-depth case study may include;
A pen portrait defining the context within in which the enhancement took place;
Details of the activities undertaken across the lifespan of the initiative and the key decision-making steps;
Signposting to the evidence-base and professional knowledge that the team used during decision-making;
An outline of evaluation activities undertaken;
A reflective account of how the expertise within the team was mobilised, recognised, and valued. Of particular interest will be a reflection on the ways in which the team ensured the best working arrangements as a multi-disciplinary unit;
Serendipitous moments, unintended outcomes and deviations from the plan that resulted in positive outcomes or challenges to success;
Looking to the future- narrative which points to the scale up of the initiative, the way in which the project team has influenced institutional practice beyond the initiative detailed in the case study.
Responding to the call means agreement to use the submitted material as project data and the submitting individual/team is also agreeing to work alongside the project team during April/ May 2023 if selected to build an in-depth case study. The in-depth case studies will form the basis of an Advance-HE publication and subsequent academic publications by the project team.
Do I have to take part?
No, your participation in this research is entirely voluntary.
How will the project team manage Confidentiality?
All raw data and recordings made during co-production activities with the participants building their in-depth case study will be stored in password protected SharePoint folders, accessible only by the core research team and Expert Reference Group.
The nature of this project and the proposed searchable database will mean that materials collated during the call for concise case studies will identify institutions and departments engaged in the activities detailed within the proffered case study.
The research team will work alongside participants generating the in-depth case studies and ensure that informed consent is obtained for all case study materials. However, the research team is aware that during the co-production of the in-depth case studies, certain information about the institutional activity may be deemed sensitive and not be for external consumption if the institution could be identified. This material will be extracted from the case study curation and will be used in the critical pedagogy commentary. There will be no identifying factors included in this commentary.
What about Data Protection?
The data controller for this project will be Staffordshire University. The university will process your personal data for the purpose of the research outlined above. The legal basis for processing your personal data for research purposes under the GDPR is a ‘task in the public interest’. You can provide your consent for the use of your personal data in this study by completing the consent form that has been provided to you.
You have the right to access information held about you. Your right of access can be exercised in accordance with the GDPR. You also have other rights including rights of correction, erasure, objection, and data portability. Questions, comments, and requests about your personal data can also be sent to the Staffordshire University Data Protection Officer. If you wish to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office, please visit www.ico.org.uk.
What are the risks or disadvantages of taking part?
The only risk or disadvantage to participation is the time commitment needed to draft a case study.
What are the benefits of submitting a case study?
We hope that participants enjoy reflecting on initiatives that enhance student learning and in doing so raise awareness and place value on the differing contributions third spaces professionals make to higher education. Your participation will help create a rich picture of integrated practice and share this learning with the sector through building connections between individuals, teams and departments.
What if I chose to withdraw my case study?
Participants can withdraw their case studies from the project up to one week after submission without having to give an explanation.
How can I find out more about the project and its outputs?
For more information about the project and the development of associated outcomes please contact Kate.cuthbert@staffs.ac.uk. Updates and outcomes of the project will be shared on the AdvanceHE webpage and the SCoLPP webpage.
Has the project been reviewed by anyone?
The project has been subject to ethical approval by Staffordshire University’s Research Ethics Committee.
What if something goes wrong?
If you wish to make a complaint about the conduct of the study, you can contact the Chair of the Staffordshire University Ethics Committee for further advice and information at ethics@staffs.ac.uk
For further information or to discuss your submission please contact Dr Kate Cuthbert PFHEA Kate.cuthbert@staffs.ac.uk
We are back with another summary blog generated from a rich and informative “So What’s the Learning” webinar.
Each #SWTL webinar offers:
The sharing of interesting pedagogic perspectives with the wider HE community
The chance to consider how such learning applies within your own context
Opportunity to develop tangible skill(s) for enhanced practice
Our second session: : Disentangling cause and effect: the challenges of translating interdisciplinary research into policy was led by Dr Arinola Adefila, Deputy Director of SCoLPP at Staffordshire University, and Prof Maria Lúcia T. Garcia, Professor and Postgraduate Lead for Political & Social Programmes from The Federal University of Espírito Santo, Brazil. Working across continents (during COVID lockdowns!) this research partnership dealt with concept complexity through an humanitarian lens. Negotiating the differing contexts in terms of language and culture produced rewarding outcomes for both the project and the researchers. Our presenters share their thoughts on the place of activism as educational researchers. If you need motivating or nourishing- this is the webinar for you!
Want to view the recorded webinar?
Things that resonated for us- SCoLPP’s learning points
We have pooled our reflections together in a little sketchnote. We would love to hear your learning- what did the session prompt for you?
The new year came with the new webinar series from SCoLPP, “So, What’s the Learning?” The aim is to bring together individuals and teams who are knee-deep in the challenging, exciting and at times complex work of embedding interventions, research, and evaluation to positively influence successful life chances of all learners, regardless of background.
Each #SWTL webinar offers:
The sharing of interesting pedagogic perspectives with the wider HE community
The chance to consider how such learning applies within your own context
Opportunity to develop tangible skill(s) for enhanced practice
Our first session: People, places and pedagogies: navigating through the terrain of digital ethnography, was led by Fran Brown-Cornwall (@FrankieCornwall) and Dr Jo Basford (@basford_jo) from the Institute of Education, Staffordshire University.
In this session Fran and Jo shared their insights in adopting a digital ethnographic approach for their SCoLPP research project. We heard how Fran and Jo experienced the changing dynamics of their research and the challenges of employing a photo-elicitation methodology in both digital and in-person contexts. It was discussed how this methodology helps participants to ‘sharpen’ their ability to reflect upon and explain their experiences and perceptions as well as encourage collaborative knowledge production (Auken, Firvoll and Stewart, 2010).
Things that resonated for us- SCoLPP’s learning points
The session got us thinking (thanks Jo and Fran!) about the practicalities, the emotional investment and collaborative aspects of undertaking pedagogic research within your own institution. We have pooled our reflections together in a little sketchnote. We would love to hear your learning- what did the session prompt for you?
What’s your experience? Please do leave comments or tweet your thoughts via #WhatsTheLearning
Have you used photo-elicitation as part of your research or as a way to engage with students? What would you recommend to others?
How have you worked with technology to support your research and evaluation in HE learning and teaching? Any pitfalls to avoid?
As SCoLPP Innovators Fran Brown-Cornwall @FrankieCornwall and Matt Coombe-Boxall @mcoombeboxall share their experiences of using coaching on Staffordshire University Microsoft Innovative Educator Expert Coaching Programme (known as SUMEC).
This first of its kind staff development coaching programme supported staff towards applying for and obtaining MIE Expert status, whilst simultaneously enabling staff to focus on their own personal goals with using technology to enhance the experience of their learners at the university.
Alongside this blog post, we have summarised our work as a storyboard which can be downloaded by clicking the image on the left.
Digital skills and innovation in teaching is at the forefront of the HE agenda, with JISC (2021) reporting to have a 2030 vision that will see HE providers respond to student feedback which identifies that they appreciate online/digital learning, but that sometimes approaches are unengaging and more fatiguing. For HE staff to maximise on the positive aspects of digital learning, teaching and wider student experience, it is important staff seek to continually improve their digital capabilities to ensure students remain fully engaged and involved. Therefore, it is arguably timely that our SUMEC project combined coaching and digital skills into a single programme.
Coaching Partnership for Digital Development
Instrumental to the inception, development and implementation of the project was the relationship between the two coaches leading the programme, one a learning technologist and another an academic in the Institute of Education at Staffordshire University. Van Allen & Katz (2023) highlight that educators must adopt qualities in keeping with open education to support the evolution of technological, pedagogical and content for their learners. Breaking down the possible silos between academic and professional service staff in a continuing professional development environment in Higher Education (HE) is important for the student learner experience, therefore the programme welcomed social interactions across services, subjects and departments which helped to reconstruct teaching, collaboration and communication using technology (Basdogan, Birdwell and Harris 2022).
According to the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (2020) coaching and mentoring is an approach which can be used to help learners accelerate their careers, their development and successes. The Department for Education (2020) acknowledge the significance of coaching and mentoring within education and signpost the education sector to resources which encourage an ethos of coaching and mentoring in and amongst colleagues in educational establishments. Race (2020) highlights that purposeful coaching is a useful component is effective learning in Higher Education and reminds us that to be a principal fellow of the HEA an individual must demonstrate strategies for supporting and promoting others giving mentoring and coaching as explicit examples of such effective practice. Therefore, it is identifiable that programmes of CPD whereby coaching is the vehicle are desirable in education and specifically in HE CPD.
The aims of the programme
The six-monthly programme provided an opportunity to build a lasting community of innovative educators at the University, whilst seeking to make ready its participants for the professional Microsoft accreditation. Whilst there was naturally a focus on how Microsoft Technologies can be used to develop teaching and learning practice by creating immersive and engaging learning activities within the programme, the experience was highly reflective, evaluative and collaborative, recognizing commitments of staff to innovative practice, digital advancement and building connection. The goal of the SUMEC programme was to coach participants towards completion of the MIE Expert application, helping them to obtain evidence of their impact using Microsoft Technologies.
The wider SUMEC aims were:
Enable staff to become leaders and advocates of Microsoft Technology to enhance teaching and learning by developing digital skills.
Prepare staff for the changing digital landscape within HE by developing agility and confidence.
Showcase and measure the innovation and quality of Microsoft facilitated teaching and learning at Staffordshire University.
Facilitate accreditation, achievement and recognition of skills, namely via the MIE Expert status application, but not limited to this.
Underpinning theoretical framework
The programme structure itself was based on the Salmon (2013) 5 stage model for building online communities of learning or practice in HE. The reason for this is that the SUMEC programme has a focus on HE staff, their community and digital pedagogy and ran entirely online.
Therefore, influenced by this, we designed our own five steps for the SUMEC approach.
Step 1: the introduction to the programme
Step 2: sharing of practice and establishing relationships with bespoke and collective synergies
Step 3: evaluate the use of familiar technologies and practice, whereby coaching teases out new sense making and perspectives
Step 4: using previous knowledge to explore new technologies and practices with the support of a coach/community
Step 5: disseminating new ideas, and applying/being accredited with MIEExpert status
Another model that resonates with the SUMEC programme is that of Race (2020) who proposed seven factors of successful learning in HE.
The coaching sessions ran fortnightly, and topics included (but weren’t limited to): a technology buffet – where groups explored and presented on different Microsoft technologies; support with developing teaching resources; nurturing evidence and impact in support of the application. Monthly themes were based upon Keene and Kersznowski (2020) sail the seven cs with Microsoft education and included innovation with collaboration, communication, creativity and computational thinking.
Finally, the programme ended with a SUMEC showcase of all the resources and experiences the community had, had, creating a reusable training resource in itself. For the second iteration the themes were tweaked slightly in response to participants needs, thus in keeping with coaching qualities of personalising the support on offer.
Capturing the Impact of SUMEC
The project used a multiphase mixed methods design, this mixed methods approach involved the SUMEC Community of participants in multiple quantitative and qualitative phases of data collection.
According to Mertens (2009) this can bring about knowledge exchange between researchers and participants and adequately fulfil the project aims. This is particularly the case as coaches and researchers for the SUMEC programme we identified as ‘Insider Researchers’ according to (Tueslner et al 2019) this provides an insightful and reflective approach for conducting research within a setting where the researcher is part of that cultural unit, whilst maintaining their own day-to-day role within that community. We were therefore able to coach staff and run the programme, whilst researching if the programme was fulfilling its aims by carrying out data collection tasks to seek qualitative and quantitavtive responses.
To uphold a continuous exchange of information our data collection methods included a caricature exercise at the start and end of each programme whereby staff identified skills or characteristics MIEExperts have and used these as the basis to reflect upon themselves and their own aspirations. We also conducted self-assessments at the start and end of the programme to measure participants confidence and competence via scaling questions on microsoft technologies. We conducted mid-way and end-point evaluations so staff could feedback on the quality of the programme, leaving time for coaches to respond in real-time practice. We held a SUMEC showcase so the community could present their innovative practice and the recording stored as a reusable learning resoruce and anecdotally fedback on during dissemination. Finally, we totalled how many applied and received Microsoft accreditation at the end of the programme and looked at this against the national backdrop of MIEexperts in represented in HE.
In terms of the sample for project the first iteration of the SUMEC Community included a multi-discipline collaboration across subject areas in the School of Life Sciences and Education at Staffordshire University. 15 colleagues elected themselves to join us following a short 10 minute briefing session. The community included a mix of academics and professional services within the School, with both colleagues who were new to the University and longer-serving members of staff, covering undergraduate and postgraduate teaching, and consisting of a mixture of prior experience in blended, distance or technology enhanced learning. There were no explicit criteria to be fulfilled to be part of the community. The sample therefore was self-elected from Staffordshire University school of Life Sciences and Education. The second iteration was offered more widely around the university following a 10 minute briefing session and opportunity for colleagues to self-elect, this led to 25 colleagues commencing the SUMEC programmes including a diverse mix of researchers, management, academics and professional service staff.
Our Learning
The first cohort saw a 1.8% drop out and the second saw a 3.8% drop out. In terms of retention this is largely positive. Time and workload often impacts on efforts and ability to engage with CPD in higher education. Despite this, all those engaged at the end felt the programme was not onerous. Race (2020) identifies that staying well and managing workload is an important part of a career in HE and being able to provide purposeful learning experiences relies on staff being well. Therefore, it would be in contrast to the aims of SUMEC if staff felt the programme was burdensome or did not feel they could retract from the community for other priorities.
100% of completers agreed that they had achieved what they wanted from the Programme and that it had supported their personal intended development. Their feedback identified that the design, structure, implementation and coaching approach of the programme was a success – with no recommendations given for the programme itself.
According to Gregory and Salmon (2013) incremental innovation coupled with coaching can be a low cost way of upskilling and enhancing digital or online learning in HE and this has resonated with the findings of SUMEC. Feedback has identified that the benefits of SUMEC has enabled staff to fulfil their personal goals and improve their use of technologies for their learners, with the design of the SUMEC programmes explicitly being referred to as a vehicle for that. Therefore, the careful design and influence from Salmon (2013) is important.
93% completing participants agreed that they felt they were part of the SUMEC Community that coaching contributed to personal development, growth and empowerment. When coaching was probed explicitly 93% identified that the coaching presence and non-hierarchical approach enabled confidence to build, was encouraging and enabled personalised/bespoke support. It was noteworthy that the soft skills of the coaches were identified as coming through via this approach such as warmth, empathy, positivity – and were identified as needed when staff were taking risks and innovating in their practice. The combination of a learning technologist and academic creating an effective duo was also noted, with participants highly grateful for the perspectives and skills that brought to the community. This is interesting as perhaps coaching is a skill in its own right, the DFE (2020) signpost to a coaching programme from the OU that states building rapport, listening to learners and supporting reflection are key components to being an effective coach. Whilst the coaches on this programme did not have previous explicit coaching training, the professional backgrounds perhaps leant itself to embodying these skills.
100% of completers that opted to apply for MIEExpert status for accreditation were unanimous that had they not have joined the programme, they would not have applied for MIE Expert status. Race (2020) want/need to join SUMEC beyond Microsoft accreditation were digital skills, community learning, timeliness and passions were motivations for joining the SUMEC programme and feedback was unanimous that individual motivations were each fulfilled.
According to Salmon et al (2019) Scaffolding learning with explicit learner-centredness, having communities that cross-professional and disciplinary areas and starting the learning process with the end in mind’ i.e. future visions and missions, enables programmes of learning to create flexibility and agility for each learner and the collectives community.
Importantly 29 colleagues at Staffordshire University have successfully been admitted to the MIE Expert class of 21-22 and 22-23 due to the SUMEC programme. This means that Staffordshire University has housed most MIE Experts of any University in the UK. Whilst this is small in terms of statistical power, it is notable in terms of HE representation in the national MIE Expert landscape with only 8-9%. Nevertheless, there may also be barriers or something undesirable about becoming an MIE Expert as a means of gaining accreditation and showcasing innovative pedagogy within HE that leaves room to be explored by future research or something which innovators could explore further.
Most pertinent are the approaches to coaching which stood out for the success of this programme, these are transferable to any type of coaching. Therefore, for the future legacy of SUMEC it is proposed that features including coaches being present, positive and warm, empathetic, agile in support and a non-hierarchical relationships with members of the community are adopted in other coaching programmes. Perhaps then SUMEC now stands for Staffordshire Universities Methods of Effective Coaching.
References
Basdogan M., Birdwell T., & Harris T. (2022). Technological frames in classroom: a case study for a faculty professional development. Research in Learning Technology, 30.
European Mentoring and Coaching Council (2020) Encouraging Excellence for mentors, coaches and supervisors, [Online] Available at: Home (emccuk.org) Last Accessed January 2021
Gregory, J. Salmon, G. (2013) Professional Development for Online University Teaching, Distance Education, October 2013, P.1-14
Race, P. (2020) The Lecturers Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Assessment, Learning and Teaching, Routledge: Milton
Salmon, G. (2013) E-tivities, the key to teaching & learning online. 2nd Edition. Routledge: London
Tueslner, A. (2019) Qualitative Insider Researcher, in, SAGE Research Methods Foundations, SAGE: London
Van Allen J., & Stacy Katz. (2023). Viewing open education within the Technological, Pedagogical, Content Framework: illustrating educator knowledge, skills and dispositions. Research in Learning Technology, 31.
Learning in higher education (HE) is about the individual. For many students formal learning is primarily an individual event; as is the assessment of learning, the delivery of feedback (individual and anonymous), and student progression. Collaborative work, where it occurs, is principally organised by tutors, but it’s often the individuals within groups who are assessed. Individual students provide feedback on their individual experiences for the National Student Survey. Learning is about acquiring ‘know what’ and ‘know why’. As a result, an independent learner is formed. This is problematic.
Higher education must deliver inter/transdisciplinary education and generate graduates who are capable of collaboratively solving modern global challenges, including climate change. This requires transformative competencies such as ‘reconciling tensions and dilemmas’, working in an ‘interdependent’ fashion and creating new knowledge and values. In addition to ‘know what’ and ‘know why’, this requires ‘know who’ and ‘know how’. Learning as an individual event will not deliver. What is to be done?
We need to take another look at what learning is. To address external demands of future learning, HE needs to become more familiar with social learning. There are five key themes to social learning.
Theme 1.Participation – contrary to established thinking, learning is more than acquisition of knowledge and cognitive understanding. It’s participatory. We need both acquisition and participatory learning models in operation.
Theme 2. Context – ‘know how’ and ‘know who’ are always learnt in context through participating in practices. Knowledge doesn’t reside just in the head, isolated from the world. For social learning, knowledge is always in person in practice – this is called knowledgeability. Such knowledge isn’t transferred. It cannot be taught in the decontextualised classroom. It must be experienced. You must do it yourself.
Theme 3.Practices – learners develop practices, such as negotiating meaning, through participating with others. This learning allows for the development of learner identities.
Theme 4. Identities – learners, such as students, develop new (professional) identities as they learn. Learning isn’t just about knowing more, it is about becoming someone different. These new identities are not always recognisable to learners in themselves.
Theme 5. Belonging – with new shared identities learners have a new sense of belonging. This allows more effective working together, imagined possibilities and the development of shared learning histories and relationships.
Do these themes look familiar? They should. This is because we are all social learners. These themes represent how learning takes place within a community of practice (CoP). Higher education is made up of many different communities where social learning is taking place. Hence, learners in higher education are not just students; everyone is a learner. How can we tap into that huge resource?
Phenomenon-based learning, encapsulated within CoP, spans learning across universities and with societies outside universities. In the February ‘What’s the Learning’ session we want to work with you in developing a university wide Global Challenge. Using the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals, we want to begin to construct a curriculum that allows all learners to be part of global sustainability.
When people say ‘it ticks all the boxes’, we know instantly what they mean. It is a metaphor used to represent their ideal or something that will do the job. My new house ticks all the boxes means ‘it has everything we want’. It’s comfortable being in the ideal. Well comfortable that is until new boxes come along to be ticked.
A house that ticks all the boxes for a single person 25-years of-age, can be a very different property for that same person at 65-years of age, retired and living with a new partner. We rarely look back at the history of the boxes we tick, at our changing ideals. We are often too busy with life, that complex interactions of the everyday. If the single 25-year-old didn’t respond to the pressures and requirements to move house, we can imagine the sort of house they would be living in when they were 65-years old. Extensions, lots of different styles, a bit out of balance, and worn. In terms of moving to a new house we do not think of change as being problematic, although buying the new house might be.
In higher education we also tick boxes, although increasingly members of the university might not see these ticked boxes as something that allows the job to be done. The boxes have names, such as delivery patterns, taught skills, assessments (low and high), student experience, progression routes, recruitment, retention, course monitoring, administration, and research. There is a learning box. Learning appears to be many things, for example: collaborative, inquiry based, authentic, problem based, digital, resource based, simulated, action research based and flipped. These are the different vehicles for learning and universities tend to focus on the ‘know what’ and ‘know why’ learning. Both these are often measured through individual assessments, because in HE it is the individual who is learning, even if the individual works with others.
Using the house analogy, if you had started working within HE as an academic at 25-years of age, and were now 65-years old, universities as structures have not moved to accommodate the new, but have built extensions, have lots of different ill-fitting styles, are out of balance and from inside they look worn out, although they can appear glossy from the outside. For some this doesn’t matter. ‘Why change HE if it is successful’. Success is often measured through ticking several metrics (boxes) such as the increasing number of students awarded first and upper second-class degrees. In many ways HE has become a BOX that is ticked – job done.
Another metaphor regarding boxes is used when we need a better perspective. We are told to ‘think outside the box’. Once outside the HE box, we see life beyond the boundaries of the box. This allows us to re-write the rules, be creative, to reimaging learning and teaching. We can get a different perspective of old themes. Instead of measuring only ‘know what’ and ‘know why’ we can look to ‘know how’ – perhaps in terms of making judgements of best practice, conceivably through working with other disciplines, and ‘know who’, recognising the expertise in others. This can be seen through a different type of learning, involving negotiating meaning through participating in different practices with others. Recognising learning identities – own and others. Not easily assessed. We need this out of box experience as HE must shift its focus on learning. Graduates are expected to have the required capability sets for collaboratively solving modern global challenges, including climate change, and supporting sustainable growth. It is not a world for individual learners. HE needs more than another extension. Students when they leave university are not prepared for life outside the box. To be successful in the future we need HE to think outside its boxes.
In our next blog we look more closely at why we need to reimagine learning in higher education, and how to go about it. One of the things we find, is that students are not the only learners in HE.
Learning in a community of practice (CoP) is relational, it occurs though participating in practice with others (Lave and Wenger 1991). Learning involves a person developing new identities. What learners do, and the understandings they make, does not exist in isolation. Everything is in context. New knowledge is always knowledge in person in practice, this is called knowledgeability. Students form a community of practice. We can see students participating in different practices outside the formal curriculum. Many students are capable social learners. This is learning in time within a changing world.
Why is this important?
Our university is made of different communities, which boundary on to each other. Just as neighbours talking across a garden fence can learn a lot about each other, so crossing the boundary of another community can be a learning opportunity. We get exposed to different types of engagement, different research methods, different histories. We escape from our silos.
Why is this helpful to know?
In phenomenon-based Learning (PhBL), a phenomenon, such as global climate change, encourages students to learn within a contemporary context. Humans are increasingly considered as integral to the natural world and a massive driver of change, how individuals attain their goals, requires greater awareness and consideration of others in our global society.
Can community learning facilitate this process of greater awareness?
Understanding PhBL as a substructure of a CoP, allows us to frame a university wide Global Challenge. A challenge to address, within our University and local community, the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Within learner communities and crossing community boundaries using relational learning approaches, inter/transdisciplinary engagement occurs. Learners address questions of responsibility. Learners recognise diversity. There are many different values, and research methodologies. Learners recognise that knowledge is often provisional and incomplete. There are different ways of ‘reading the world’, some in opposition to our own. There are ethical issues such as ethics of care. ‘Care’ has been recognised as what humans do to maintain and repair our world so that all inhabitants can live in it (Tronto, 1993). Within a CoP framework, we can use PhBL to allow learners not only to understand the pre-existing world, but to have emergent learning (Osberg and Biesta, 2007), defined as ‘the creation of new properties’. Here, knowledge is understood as not relating to the present, but takes the learner to new realities. Imagination is important in community learning. This is learning in time to save the planet.
Who would be involved in this Global Challenge?
Traditional learners at university are often thought of as students. But, from a community perspective, we are all learners. All members of the university can be involved in the Global Challenge. All of us have an ethics of care responsibility. The SCoLPP Global Challenge session on 30th March is an opportunity for us all to come together and begin planning how we address the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals. This is something we can all be involved in. This is learning in time together.
