srhe

The Society for Research into Higher Education

Monthly Archives: June 2023


by Leave a comment

Landscapes of Learning and other metaphors

by Marguerite Koole

As I write this response to the first symposium on “Prospects for Space in Higher Education”, I am aware of my asynchronicity. I listened to the recording of the session, and I am subsequently engaging in the conversation through writing. I am physically located 6,500 km away. While time and space may separate us, the technologies that we use in our daily engagements can weave us together. Interestingly, ‘Technology’, derived from the Greek technē, refers to an art or artifice; derived from Indo European *tekth- meaning to weave, build, join. Latin adopted it (textere) meaning to weave.

One of the characteristics that defines us as human is our use of technology. Technology surrounds us. As I write this, I am sitting on a chair, clicking on a keyboard, and reading on a screen with light waves projecting into my tired eyes. It’s midnight. There is an old Webster’s New World Dictionary from 1970 by my side. This old dictionary is a reminder of my past. (I have safeguarded it for many years because of the quality of the etymologies.) I am surrounded by physical and digital technologies as well as atmospheric conditions. It’s summer on the Canadian prairies. It’s hot. The air conditioner has been humming for hours.

To be sure, the spaces in which we find ourselves are replete with sounds and lights of varying quality and frequencies. There are objects in our spaces and, sometimes, other creatures such as flies, spiders, mites, pets, and people. Temperature, airflow, air quality, paint colour, physical dimensions, and many other aspects all relate to our use of these spaces. On a human level, Viola’s research into how students experience belonging in university spaces evidenced the importance of merging physical, virtual, and emotional connections. Beckingham’s discussion of bonding and bridging social capital highlighted elements of mattering: being noticed, being cared for and being needed. The characteristics of space can support and/or diminish connections and mattering. I would argue that all such factors, physical-environmental, digital, and socio-cultural co-create our personal and collective experience within spaces.

Listening to the four presenters I was fascinated with the words used to describe spaces for learning in the higher education context. I examined their slides, the whiteboard sketches, and my own notes. I circled words that conjured images in my mind. For fun, I asked ChatGPT to do a preliminary sorting of the list of words into five categories. Then, I chose titles, reviewed the lists, and conducted a final sorting (Table 1).

Table 1: Words for describing spaces

Spatial conceptsRelationshipsLearningTechnologyOther  
Polycontextual space Reflective space Virtual learning spaces Multi-polycontextual Space for stillness Siloed ecologies Space production Boundary crossing Meshwork Fixed nodes Invisible boundaries Multi-dimensional Model of space Peripheral Context collapse Seclusion Fluid Topology Holes and breathing spaces Accessibility Place spectrum Merging of spaces Participatory spaces Learning spaces Spaces for learning Unfolding  Bonding social capital Bridging social capital Networks Commitments Peers Learning relationships Communication breakdowns Nurturing connection Community engagement Mattering Co-presences Disaggregation of the person Ephemerality Association Social integration Learning communities Field of relations    Scaffolded Blended learning Hybrid learning Enablement Stimulation Transversal skills Fugitive practices Disaggregation of learning Cognitive integration    Post-digital Networks Mediations Datafication Surveillance Multi-modal  Strands Non-digital strands Transhumanist Human as a document Static models Transparency Tyranny of the designer Fit Haunting Imaginaries  

Clearly, many of the words in Table 1 can fit into multiple lists, and other people might sort them differently. The spatial concepts were highly metaphorical, and I found the number of items in each list intriguing. Relationship terms appeared emphasised and digital-technology terms seemed de-emphasised while the number of ‘learning’ words/variations was moderate. To create a visual sense of the salience of the individual words in the list, I created a word cloud (Figure 1). The two words most repeated words were ‘space’ and ‘learning’ – not unexpected for a series on “landscapes of learning”.

Figure 1: Word cloud (Created via https://wordart.com/)

As scholars, we strain to locate metaphors to encapsulate and model our world. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) argue: “human thought processes are largely metaphorical” (p6). They write: “The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thin in terms of another” (p5). For me, the very word ‘space’ invokes feelings such as openness, closedness, arrangements, activities, stillness, noisiness, walls, furniture, and so on.  I decided to delve more deeply into the meanings of the following space-related words:

Space

  • From Latin: spēi- to flourish, expand, succeed.
  • Area or room sufficient for or allotted to something [a parking space]

Place

  • From Greek: plateia a street
  • Space; room
  • A particular area or locality; region

Context

  • From Latin: contextus (n.) a joining together; contextere (v.) to weave together; com (together) + textere (v.) to weave.
  • The whole situation, background, or environment relevant to a particular event, personality, creation, etc.

As it turns out, the words ‘space’, ‘place’, and ‘context’ are not all that metaphorical in their common usage, but their etymological nuances are attractive and reflect, perhaps, what we wish to achieve in describing and/or envisioning learning spaces—that is, locations for flourishing, success, and weaving together of people, ideas, and experiences.

During her session, Gourlay opposed metaphors such as ‘network’ suggesting that it emphasises connections rather than one’s state of being. She argued that Ingold’s (2011) notion of meshwork was more appealing in its suggested fluidity with whole fields of relations unfolding. Similarly, she found metaphors such as ‘intertwining’ troublesome because it suggests merging of two entities into one, explaining that two pieces of twine cannot actually merge; rather, they remain two pieces of twine as they wrap around each other. Her thinking about space led her to concepts of ephemerality (that which is not recorded), seclusion (that which is not observed), and co-presence (that which is co-located at the same time and same place). She arrived at a metaphor of “fugitive spaces” for learning, which she argues are essential for human learning as opposed to information transfer.

With my own leanings towards the sociomaterial approach, I ‘get’ her argument. Within a sociomaterial sensitivity, reality can be thought of through multiple patterns of relations in which “human, digital, physical-environmental, and socio-cultural characteristics interact to produce phenomenon” (Koole et al, 2021, para 3; Sørensen, 2009). The ‘pattern of relations’ metaphor helps me to connect and order my experiences, readings, and discussions of the world. The use of metaphor appears useful and even necessary in discussions of space and how space is inhabited.

During the panel discussion, Bligh drew attention to the place-for-learning-spectrum in which there is a single continuum of structured to unstructured spaces. In addition to the need for conceptualising a multimodal spectrum, he suggested that there is a need for a common lexicon to discuss space. Such language could guide designers, builders, and users of space. As he noted, “design tends to focus on metaphor”. Yet, as Gourlay suggested, metaphor can also become an impediment in which we could become even more bogged down. It is important to interrogate and test our metaphors; we must know their limitations.

As I ponder the discussion in its entirety, however, I found the seemingly overwhelming use of metaphors productive. It is productive in terms of inspiring creative ideas about how we can understand space and our use of it. I find myself constantly exploring new metaphors and philosophical approaches in order to grasp new ways of seeing reality, ideas, and issues. Less conventional approaches such as sociomaterialism and the postdigital, for example, help me question what might otherwise remain hidden. An anecdote might help to illustrate how different approaches can help in seeing anew:

Many years ago, after I had completed my undergraduate degree, I took a wonderful class called “Drawing for the Completely Intimidated”. I had never taken a real art class outside of grade school, so this course seemed perfect for exploring my artistic side. As the course progressed, the students had opportunities to experiment with various materials, subject matter, and techniques. It was during a drawing exercise involving shading with pencil that I suddenly became attuned to lines and shades in a glass vase that I had never really noticed before. Even 30 years later, I still see everyday objects differently; my sensitivity had shifted, and now I can see a reality that was previously hidden from my gaze.

In recounting this story, I think of Bligh’s suggestion that we shift from static knowledge to possibility knowledge. Metaphors are useful tools for exploring possibility. While our metaphors might proliferate uncomfortably, they might also lead to novel ways of envisioning the co-creation of learning spaces as locations for flourishing, success, and the weaving together of people, ideas, and experiences.

Marguerite Koole is an Associate Professor in Educational Technology and design for the College of Education, University of Saskatchewan. In 2013, Dr. Koole completed her PhD in E-Research and Technology-Enhanced Learning at Lancaster University UK on digital identity in networked learning.  She also holds a Master of Education in Distance Education (MEd) with a focus was on mobile learning. Dr. Koole has a BA in Modern Languages and has studied French, Spanish, German, Blackfoot, Cree, Latin, Mandarin, ancient Mayan hieroglyphics, American Sign Language (ASL), and linguistics. She has designed interactive, online learning activities for various learning purposes and platforms—including print, web, and mobile devices. 

Email: m.koole@usask.ca

Twitter: @mkooleady

References

Guralnik, D (1970) Webster’s new world dictionary 2nd ed Nelson, Toronto: Foster & Scott Ltd

Ingold, T (2011). Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description London: Routledge

Lakoff, G and Johnson, M (1980) Metaphors we live by Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

Sorensen, E (2009) The materiality of learning: Technology and knowledge in educational practice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press


by Leave a comment

Make the tacit explicit: how to improve information on university webpages for potential doctoral applicants

by Dangeni, James Burford and Sophia Kier-Byfield

Working out how to apply for a doctoral programme can be a challenging process for many potential applicants. As countless Youtube videos, blogposts and twitter threads attest, there is much confusion and plenty of (sometimes contrasting) advice on the internet about what to do, whom to contact, and how to contact them. Some applicants find this process so challenging that they turn to a range of paid services that help them to learn how to contact a potential doctoral supervisor or develop a research proposal. There is clearly much demand for guidance on how to make a successful application to doctoral study, but for many academics and professional services staff doctoral admissions is a familiar and routine process where quick assessments can be made about the enquiries of a given applicant.

We began our recent exploratory research project, ‘Opening up the Black Box of Pre-application Doctoral Communications’, with an interest in the somewhat opaque processes that occur prior to formal doctoral admissions, but which often form a crucial part of the pathway to applying. We were concerned that the mysteries of the pre-application stage may have Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) implications, making it easier for some to navigate toward doctoral study than others. We conducted a study to examine the pre-application stage of doctoral admissions in a single university context, the University of Warwick.

At the start of our study, we conducted a search for public-facing, institutional webpages relevant to doctoral admissions. Webpages are one of the key spaces where potential doctoral applicants can gather information about the application process, including institutional pages (eg produced by a Doctoral College) and departmental pages (eg departmental guidance or a potential supervisor’s webpage).

We aimed to identify and characterise information aimed at doctoral applicants prior to their making formal applications to study. Our primary goal in conducting this review was to understand: (a) the nature of pre-admissions information on university webpages; (b) whether this pre-admissions information was consistent across the institution; and, (c) whether the detail was a sufficient and adequate explanation of key pre-application steps to potential applicants.

This blog post gives our top six tips for stakeholders involved in doctoral admissions to consider for potential applicants, so that they have all the information they need from public-facing web pages.  

  1. Avoid complicated web designs, texts and duplicated material

All the webpages we reviewed provided ‘opening pages’ which covered the basic details and specifications of programme, but there was a wide variety of detail in terms of the introductions to departments. Some departments included short paragraphs, others offered more elaborate introductions which included orienting students to the research areas of the department, the ranking of the department in UK league tables, and student testimonials with multiple tabs and long paragraphs, sometimes with invalid links. These layouts can be confusing on a computer screen, but institutions and departments could also consider that potential applicants may use phones or tablets to access the information, and thus the webpage design should be tablet/phone friendly. It is also necessary to check whether the page is accessible, eg for visually impaired visitors or those with learning difficulties.

  • Display a checklist and flowchart for the pre-admissions process

We found two categories of admission information across department webpages. The first category was a link to signpost applicants to the central university portal for application advice and guidance, which provides an overview of the pre-application procedure for potential applicants to follow. The second category of admission information is commonly more tailored to a department’s specific procedures and is often accessed via a ‘how to apply’ section. However we noted that several departments did not undertake much departmental level ‘translation’ of general admissions information, perhaps simply linking applicants to the central university portal. We do not believe this would give potential applicants sufficient information to know how to get started and what to do in local contexts. In particular, decision-making related information and explanations were rare: very few departments explained details such as evaluation criteria, who is involved, the maximum cohort size each year, and the timeframe for decision-making. Therefore, we suggest that departmental webpages should consider displaying a checklist of key steps and a flowchart explaining the timeframe, decision-making process and who is involved.

  • Outline what is expected from applicants in terms of locating a supervisor before applying

Most departmental webpages advise applicants to contact prospective supervisors in advance of the application to discuss research interests and compatibility, although some do not require a nominated supervisor for application. Our web review identified that most departments do consider this process to be a key pre-application step, and some provide relevant information and guidance regarding how to identify a supervisor. Therefore, a clear indication of what is expected from applicants to contact prospective supervisors is needed on departmental webpages. Additionally, institutions/departments should encourage academic staff to update their staff profile web pages with consistent information eg current projects supervised, information on interests (topic, methodology/approach, country contexts, and capacity to take on new students) would be helpful for applicants in the preparation and communications stages.

  • Explain what counts as a ‘good’ research proposal

Another key category of pre-application information concerns how to draft a research proposal. Most departments require a research proposal for an application to be considered; research proposal-related guidance can be found in two categories. Most departments link to the central university portal for application advice and guidance, which contains the general structure of a research proposal (eg an overview of research question(s), main objective of research, potential contribution to existing research field/literature, research techniques, suggested data collection procedures and an outline timeline) and a list of department requirements. In contrast, in several departments, a webpage or a link to department-specific guidance can be found, providing an outline/structure with word count and what to include in detail. It is suggested that clear guidance on a ‘good’ research proposal (disciplinary equivalent) is necessary for applicants, including information on expected sections and length, as well as the evaluation criteria for the proposal.

  • Include clear contact information for the department for potential applicants

As emphasised on the central university portal for application advice and guidance, one of the most important points to consider is whether the academic department shares the academic interests of the applicant. While all departments suggest applicants make contact before proceeding with their application any further, different formats and categories of making the initial contact and sending inquiries can be found across departments. Though all departments provide email addresses for applicants to make general inquiries, some provide the Academic Director of PGR (who manages the department’s PGR programme) and relevant professional staff contact details. It is suggested that institutions/departments should include clear contact information for potential applicants, including which queries should be directed at which named members of staff and how long the wait time may be for responses.

  • Welcome applicants from underrepresented groups implicitly and explicitly

Only two departments across all faculties featured EDI-related information in their pre-admission information webpages. The first was in the form of a statement explaining why plenty of information was provided (‘in order to demystify the admissions process, as part of our commitment to enhancing inclusivity in doctoral education’). The second featured a video clip which sought to detail principles of an inclusive working and learning environment and welcome applications from individuals who identify with any of the protected characteristics defined by the Equality Act 2010. Websites which clearly communicate all required information to applicants serve an EDI function in that they do not require applicants to draw upon tacit information to make sense of pre-application steps that have not been carefully explained. In addition to clear and accessible information, welcome statements that determine a departmental position on inclusion can be helpful in that they directly acknowledge those under-represented in higher education. This could be written in collaboration with existing minoritised students.

Our aim is to share the findings from our institutional case study, but also to encourage reflection, review and conversation amongst colleagues about pre-application practices. We highly recommend involving staff and students in review processes as much as possible to ensure that webpages are readable, relevant and useful.

Further information

Two linked Pre-Application Doctoral Communications Research Projects have been carried by a research team based at the University of Warwick including Dr James Burford (PI), Dr Emily Henderson (Co-I), Dr Sophia Kier-Byfield, Dr Dangeni and Ahmad Akkad. The projects were funded by Warwick’s Enhancing Research Culture Fund. The team have produced a suite of open access resources including project briefings. For more information on the project see the website (www.warwick.ac.uk/padc) or #PADC_project on Twitter.

Dr Dangeni is a Professional Development Advisor at Newcastle University, where her teaching and research focus broadly on teaching and learning provision in the wider context of the internationalisation of higher education. She is particularly interested in research and practices around international students’ access, engagement and success in postgraduate taught (PGT) and postgraduate research (PGR) settings.

Dr James Burford is an Associate Professor at the University of Warwick. James’ research interests include doctoral education and the academic profession, higher education internationalisation and academic mobilities. Dr Sophia Kier-Byfield is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Warwick, where she works on the ‘Opening Up the Black Box of Pre-Application Doctoral Communications’ projects. Her research interests broadly concern equity in higher education, feminisms in academia and inclusive pedagogies.


by Leave a comment

Landscapes of learning for unknown futures: presenter responses to audience questions

by Brett Bligh, Sue Beckingham, Lesley Gourlay, and Julianne K Viola

SRHE’s ‘Landscapes of Learning for Unknown Futures: prospects for space in higher education’ symposium series, delivered with Professor Sam Elkington and Dr Jill Dickinson, aims to foster continuous dialogue around learning spaces. Here the three presenters reflect on some of the ideas and issues raised during the first symposium on ‘Networks’. This blog has been compiled by Sam Elkington, Jill Dickinson, and Sinéad Murphy (SRHE Conferences and Events Manager.)

  1. How do we encourage academic staff to think more intentionally about how they use different spaces in and through their practice? How do we effectively build in ideas of working with spatiality into our learning and teaching strategies? 

Julianne: Academic staff should consider how students are connecting with each other and with educators in formal learning spaces. Spaces aren’t (in most cases) designed by the educators teaching in them, but looking at the formal learning setting (lab, lecture theatre, seminar room, etc) through a critical lens can help educators begin to think about what they might want to achieve in that space. For example, if you want to know whether a new way of teaching a challenging concept is landing with the students, also consider: can students see each other in the layout of this room? Can they look around the room to see whether anyone else has a quizzical expression on their face, so they know they aren’t alone in not understanding a concept? 

Sue: Staff need the luxury of thinking time and discussion to spark new ideas and share current practice. Encourage or lead a course/subject group activity where colleagues start by looking at how they use their own spaces, then visit other parts of their university. How are others using those spaces? Vignettes, videos and the like could be shared in newsletters which could then be used to prompt discussion and inspire alternative ways.  

Brett: If staff are to think more intentionally then they need to get used to talking about space in relation to their practice. One problem is that neither the pedagogical theories that people use, nor the institutional guidelines used in practice discussions, tend to be very helpful in talking about how space is used. We need to build a vocabulary that helps people to discuss the roles of space in practice. That vocabulary must be challenging, so that it provokes new thinking, but it must not be overly technical or oriented towards engineering or architectural concerns. In my own work I have put forward a tentative vocabulary that I think could be used, in both ‘everyday’ thinking and conversations and in institutional projects where space needs to be discussed more productively.

  • How do we work productively through the inherent contradictions of learning space design? For example, universities create specific spaces with the aim of helping to build a sense of community but then impose rules on how those spaces can be used. 

Julianne: Students tend to use spaces to socialise that aren’t entirely intended for that purpose. From example, my school friends and I used to gather in a hallway that adjoined the gym to the art wing at our high school, for no other reason than it was the perfect size for our group to hang out before school every morning! I’d be interested to see what the role of space utilisation monitors/ technology will be in the future of spaces like this. If my high school had these monitors available, I wonder whether they would consider expanding the space and adding some benches for students to sit on.  There have been some great StudentShapers projects at Imperial in this area – and the spaces that have been transformed to create more informal social space have garnered lots of positive feedback. 

Sue: When planning new buildings or updating current, it is essential that educators and students that will use those spaces are included in the conversations. The users of those spaces will be able to highlight what is missing and provide suggestions.

We need to start with reimagining what it is like to start a new course at university. I remember taking my daughters around multiple institutions for open days. Where they chose to go to was not just the course or the reputation of the university; it was where they felt comfortable and could imagine being there. Space begins with walking through the main doors, the café, the social spaces, the library and of course the formal learning spaces. Being able to visualise mentally what their future experience might look like, creating an affinity to and a sense of place they could relate to, and connect with is so important. Making the space feel welcoming and somewhere they would want to be. Connecting language to physical objects could include motivational quotes or saying welcome in multiple languages, graphics/images that depict diverse role models, big screens showcasing video clips with captions of what students are doing and creating, how and where they are collaborating and communicating. How can students be involved in created art/artefacts that can be showcased for others to see that depict the student experience?

Visiting an open day at the weekend may be busy but it doesn’t always capture the true feel of what’s to be expected in a session in full flow. How can this be created with video, AR or VR? The very spaces students will learn in are wide and varied, and may not have been experienced before.

Brett: We must view space design as an ongoing process in which refinement and new ideas are viewed as inevitably and welcome. Initial designs will hardly ever work in quite the ways intended, and so we must be prepared to refine the spaces and also recognise what has actually been achieved. To do so we need to provide ongoing forums for interprofessional and staff-student discussion. At present, these are often created for specific projects (for example, where a new building is being designed) and then wound up afterwards. Inevitably, these bounded discussions follow narrow agendas and seem formulaic. We need something more ongoing and permanent.

  • What do you think are the most immediate considerations pedagogically when thinking about how to make the best use of learning spaces? What can we practically be doing now to move staff towards being more open, flexible, and creative in and with space? 

Julianne: There is a walking interview method I’ve used in my research at Imperial: walking can generate thought. I’d be interested to see how educators can implement walking into their pedagogy, perhaps starting out with ‘office hours’ meetings happening over a walk, and maybe moving onto engaging students in formal coursework outside. Colleagues of mine like Dr Luke McCrone, who completed his undergraduate degree in Earth Science and Engineering, recognise the different way of thinking that one experiences when outside the classroom. There was a great 2014 piece on this in The New Yorker – “Why Walking Helps Us Think” by Ferris Jabr.

Sue: We can do more to create comfortable spaces to meet, collaborate and learn together outside of timetabled classes. Furniture is important; learning booths are popular in corridors as informal meeting places. Libraries, once hushed and quiet, now offer learning spaces students can use independently or with peers. Access to charging points for portable devices, as well as access to loanable devices. If we provide spaces for students to interact informally before class, it could make them feel more at ease when coming into a formal class. After the class has finished where can students go to debrief, plan for future groupwork, engage in social conversations? Landmarks they can communicate by text or group chat apps along with screenshots to arrange meetups. Such places will become favoured, and their use creates a sense of community and emotional connection. This links in to mattering as messages easily sent by mobile can cascaded to cohorts as well small groups.

Brett: Counterintuitively, the most constraining issue when discussing space usage tends to be timetabling rather than problems with particular spaces. We need to be clear that open, flexible and creative uses of space are not the same as efficient space occupancy; if a university is to be more innovative with space then occupancy metric will be challenged. I see no way other than to confront this contradiction directly.

  • Is it that spaces need to be seen as a way of ‘simulating’ certain modes of being and not just from a perspective of enacting certain forms of pedagogic content knowledge? What might this look like? 

Julianne: Great question, and my research on identity development ties in with this.  Interacting with other people and presenting different parts of ourselves to others depends on who we are with, and what the setting is. The idea of boundaries comes in again with this question. For example, the self that I present when I enter the Junior Common Room at Imperial (where the best katsu curry is!) is a bit inhibited – I feel I am encroaching on undergraduate territory, whereas I feel very relaxed having lunch or coffee outside with colleagues on the Queen’s Lawn, where the space feels more public. There are power dynamics in certain spaces!  

Sue: For current students, informal learning and self-directed learning starts before any scheduled class and often continues afterwards. Students line up ready to enter large lecture halls or sit cross legged in corridors waiting to enter a classroom for a seminar, lab, workshop or other discipline related space. Sometimes in deep conversation and some shy and yet eager to belong. If a picture is worth a thousand words what pictures would make a difference to the learning spaces to stimulate conversation? Perhaps some constant and providing familiarity, others changeable to create interest and intrigue? How can walls be used to share stories about the educators they will meet within the classroom? What stories can be told of prior students?

Brett: Many spaces do already stimulate certain modes of being. In my view these are often either ‘disciplinary’ spaces – including design studios, engineering labs, and finance trading rooms – or outdoor spaces, including green spaces but also pods and classrooms in wooded areas. If campuses are to continue to be viewed as valuable, then they need to be clearly differentiated from other forms of spaces. Too many campuses in recent times seem to look more and more like generic business parks as time goes on. This will inevitably erode how students perceive universities as places, and over time how valuable campuses are perceived to be—which could pose existential issues for some universities as institutions.

  • How can individual staff build creativity and criticality into their pedagogical approaches while working in learning spaces designed without their input? Is a collective voice among staff needed to influence how learning spaces are established; if so, how can this be facilitated, and how can an intersectional perspective on access needs and dynamics of power be assured?

Julianne: Bringing in different stakeholders when designing new spaces is key (see a list of prior StudentShapers projects at Imperial to see how students and staff became partners in designing new spaces at Imperial), and gives a sense of agency to staff and students alike. Building agency in the community would be a great outcome in and of itself. 

Sue: We need to push back against conventions. Why is furniture in a classroom in rows when we want students to interact and work in groups? Why do we plan for a lecture and separate seminar when we want students to engage in active/project/problem-based learning? It is important to evaluate innovative use of learning spaces from the students’ perspective. What works for them? How inclusive does it feel? What would they change?

Brett: Individual staff have increasingly limited power. Teaching is increasingly the domain of interprofessional collaboration and teamworking. I do think that collective voices are needed; including the forums for discussion I mentioned earlier. We also need to think more at the level of spaces across (a) whole programmes of study and (b) students’ entire experience of being at university, than at the level of the specific pedagogical interaction.

  • Hasn’t this whole conversation exploded, or at the very least fundamentally challenged, the conventional idea of a university campus?

Julianne: It has! The idea of a ‘university campus’ may also be different, depending on what your own university context is. Coming from a US liberal arts background, my initial mental image of a ‘campus’ is very different from the revised version that is in my mind’s eye after studying and working at universities in the UK. As technology has become a large part of the university experience, the conventional idea of a university campus should now include digital/online spaces, too. 

Sue: Successful examples of hybrid modes of learning are set to continue, so yes. But this also means we need to continue to review learning spaces that are not timetabled. We need to provide learning space for students to engage online; not all will have a space at home or reliable digital access, or it is too far to go home and then take an in-person class the same afternoon. Where lectures are scheduled online, students may value learning together using one screen or personal screens and headsets. In the classroom, planning a flexible space is important, being able to reconfigure seating plans to suit the needs of the class and activities. Long rows of heavy tables and chairs are not conducive to interactivity and spontaneous communication.  

Brett: Yes, I think that the idea of the university campus is being challenged profoundly, resulting in rearguard actions by some stakeholders as a form of defence. The attempts to make campuses ‘sticky’ are but one example of this.

Lesley: I would agree that it has – in some quarters – reinforced an already prevalent idea that the physical campus is obsolete or in need of ‘reinvention’. However, I would caution against an assumption that because universities managed to stay operational while fully remote, it is something to pursue post-pandemic. This was an emergency response, not an active choice, and it brought with it a large number of disadvantages to students and academic staff. Our own study at UCL into the impacts on academic and professional services staff revealed many tensions, stresses and difficulties encountered by staff remote working, with evidence of differential impacts on women and those with less workspace (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/departments-and-centres/centres/ucl-knowledge-lab/current-research/ucl-moving-online-teaching-and-homeworking-moth). Research has also shown that the pivot to online had negative effects on students in terms of alienation, lack of engagement and social support.

I would be highly critical of ‘discourses of inevitability’ which state that as a result of the pandemic, the role of the material campus and face-to-face engagement should be challenged. While remote engagement may have a limited place, I would argue that the pandemic has in fact underscored the vital importance of being physically together on campus, in terms of engagement in study, and also in terms of social contact, identity and depth and richness of experience.  

Dr Brett Bligh is a Lecturer in the Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, and Director of the Centre for Technology Enhanced Learning. He is co-Editor of Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning and co-ordinator of the CL-SIG group dedicated to discussing uses of the Change Laboratory approach in higher education settings. His research interrogates the nexus of technology mediation, physical environment, and institutional change in higher education. Brett’s work prioritises Activity Theory conceptions of human practice, and interventionist methodologies. For further details about Brett’s work see his staff profile here.

Sue Beckingham is a Principal Lecturer and LTA Lead in Computing. In addition to teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate level, Sue has an academic development leadership role where she provide support and guidance relating to learning, teaching and assessment. In 2017 she was awarded a National Teaching Fellowship. She is also a Fellow and Executive Committee Member of the Staff and Educational Development Association. For details of Sue’s publications and other activities, see her staff profile here.

Professor Lesley Gourlay is a professor at the UCL Knowledge Lab, currently working in the intersection of Science and Technology Studies and Education, drawing on phenomenological perspectives and approaches. Her current project, funded by a Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship Grant MRF-2020-35 (Sept 2021 – 2024), focusses on ‘The Datafied University: Documentation and Performativity in Digitised Education’. She is currently working on a new monograph for Bloomsbury Academic, with a working title of ‘The University and the Algorithmic Gaze: A Postphenomenological Perspective’. For more, see Lesley’s staff profile here.

Julianne K Viola is a postdoctoral Research Associate at the Centre for Higher Education Research and Scholarship (CHERS). Julianne leads the Belonging, Engagement, and Community (BEC) and contributes to educational research and evaluation efforts across College, and is a developer of the Education Evaluation Toolkit. Previously, Julianne completed her doctoral research at the Department of Education, University of Oxford, on how adolescents develop their civic identities in the digital age, conceptualisations of citizenship, and the interplay of social media and technology on youth civic identity. For details of Julianne’s publications and other activities, see her staff profile here.