SRHE Blog

The Society for Research into Higher Education

Tag Archives: learning environments


by Leave a comment

Gaps in sustainability literacy in non-STEM higher education programmes

by Erika Kalocsányiová and Rania Hassan

Promoting sustainability literacy in higher education is crucial for deepening students’ pro-environmental behaviour and mindset (Buckler & Creech, 2014; UNESCO, 1997), while also fostering social transformation by embedding sustainability at the core of the student experience. In 2022, our group received an SRHE Scoping Award to synthesise the literature on the development, teaching, and assessment of sustainability literacy in non-STEM higher education programmes. We conducted a multilingual systematic review of post-2010 publications from the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), with the results summarised in Kalocsányiová et al (2024).

Out of 6,161 articles that we identified as potentially relevant, 92 studies met the inclusion criteria and are reviewed in the report. These studies involved a total of 11,790 participants and assessed 9,992 university programmes and courses. Our results suggest a significant growth in research interest in sustainability in non-STEM fields since 2017, with 75 studies published compared to just 17 in the preceding seven years. Our analysis also showed that Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, and Austria had the highest concentration of publications, with 25 EHEA countries represented in total. The 92 reviewed studies were characterised by high methodological diversity: nearly half employed quantitative methods (47%), followed by qualitative studies (40%) and mixed methods research (13%). Curriculum assessments using quantitative content analysis of degree and course descriptors were among the most common study types, followed by surveys and intervention or pilot studies. Curriculum assessments provided a systematic way to evaluate the presence or absence of sustainability concepts within curricula at both single HE institutions and in comparative frameworks. However, they often captured only surface-level indications of sustainability integration into undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, without providing evidence on actual implementation and/or the effectiveness of different initiatives. Qualitative methods, including descriptive case studies and interviews that focused on barriers, challenges, implementation strategies, and the acceptability of new sustainability literacy initiatives, made up 40% of the current research. Mixed methods studies accounted for 13% of the reviewed articles, often applying multiple assessment tools simultaneously, including quantitative sustainability competency assessment instruments combined with open-ended interviews or learning journals.

In terms of disciplines, Economics, Business, and Administrative Studies held the largest share of reviewed studies (26%), followed by Education (23%). Multiple disciplines accounted for 22% of the reviewed publications, reflecting the interconnected nature of sustainability. Finance and Accounting contributed only 6%, indicating a need for further research. Similarly, Language and Linguistics, Mass Communication and Documentation, and Social Sciences collectively represented only 12% of the reviewed studies. Creative Arts and Design with just 2% was also a niche area. Although caution should be exercised when drawing conclusions from these results, they highlight the need for more research within the underrepresented disciplines. This in turn can help promote awareness among non-STEM students, stimulate ethical discussions on the cultural dimensions of sustainability, and encourage creative solutions through interdisciplinary dialogue.

Regarding factors and themes explored, the studies focused primarily on the acquisition of sustainability knowledge and competencies (27%), curriculum assessment (23%), challenges and barriers to sustainability integration (10%), implementation and evaluation research (10%), changes in students’ mindset (9%), key competences in sustainability literacy (5%), and active student participation in Education for Sustainable Development (5%). In terms of studies discussing acquisition processes, key focus areas included the teaching of Sustainable Development Goals, awareness of macro-sustainability trends, and knowledge of local sustainability issues. Studies on sustainability competencies focussed on systems thinking, critical thinking, problem-solving skills, ethical awareness, interdisciplinary knowledge, global awareness and citizenship, communication skills, and action-oriented mindset. These competencies and knowledge, which are generally considered crucial for addressing the multifaceted challenges of sustainability (Wiek et al., 2011), were often introduced to non-STEM students through stand-alone lectures, workshops, or pilot studies involving new cross-disciplinary curricula.

Our review also highlighted a broad range of pedagogical approaches adopted for sustainability teaching and learning within non-STEM disciplines. These covered case and project-based learning, experiential learning methods, problem-based learning, collaborative learning, reflection groups, pedagogical dialogue, flipped classroom approaches, game-based learning, and service learning. While there is strong research interest in the documentation and implementation of these pedagogical approaches, few studies have so far attempted to assess learning outcomes, particularly regarding discipline-specific sustainability expertise and real-world problem-solving skills.

Many of the reviewed studies relied on single-method approaches, meaning valuable insights into sustainability-focused teaching and learning may have been missed. For instance, studies often failed to capture the complexities surrounding sustainability integration into non-STEM programs, either by presenting positivist results that require further contextualisation or by offering rich context limited to a single course or study group, which cannot be generalised. The assessment tools currently used also seemed to lack consistency, making it difficult to compare outcomes across programmes and institutions to promote best practices. More robust evaluation designs, such as longitudinal studies, controlled intervention studies, and mixed methods approaches (Gopalan et al, 2020; Ponce & Pagán-Maldonado, 2015), are needed to explore and demonstrate the pedagogical effectiveness of various sustainability literacy initiatives in non-STEM disciplines and their impact on student outcomes and societal change.

In summary, our review suggests good progress in integrating sustainability knowledge and competencies into some core non-STEM disciplines, while also highlighting gaps. Based on the results we have formulated some questions that may help steer future research:

  • Are there systemic barriers hindering the integration of sustainability themes, challenges and competencies into specific non-STEM fields?
  • Are certain disciplines receiving disproportionate research attention at the expense of others?
  • How do different pedagogical approaches compare in terms of effectiveness for fostering sustainability literacy in and across HE fields?
  • What new educational practices are emerging, and how can we fairly assess them and evidence their benefits for students and the environment?

We also would like to encourage other researchers to engage with knowledge produced in a variety of languages and educational contexts. The multilingual search and screening strategy implemented in our review enabled us to identify and retrieve evidence from 25 EHEA countries and 24 non-English publications. If reviews of education research remain monolingual (English-only), important findings and insights will go unnoticed hindering knowledge exchange, creativity, and innovation in HE.

Dr. Erika Kalocsányiová is a Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Lifecourse Development at the University of Greenwich, with research centering on public health and sustainability communication, migration and multilingualism, refugee integration, and the implications of these areas for higher education policies.

Rania Hassan is a PhD student and a research assistant at the University of Greenwich. Her research centres on exploring enterprise development activities within emerging economies. As a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary researcher, Rania is passionate about advancing academia and promoting knowledge exchange in higher education.


by 2 Comments

Working environments: a short overview of the literature

by Nic Kipar

We rarely consider whether staff on our campuses are enjoying their work environments and are able to be their most creative and effective selves. We should ask individuals how they work best, to enable them to thrive. Staff should be given the freedom to experiment with different settings, without others imposing judgments based on their own limited perspectives. Here in the first of two blogs Nic Kipar reviews what we know from research about working environments; the second blog will look at what this might mean in practice.

Control over the workspace

A growing body of research underscores the significant role that control over the physical workspace plays in employee wellbeing, productivity, and job satisfaction. Studies consistently show that providing employees with autonomy over their work environment – such as control over lighting, workspace flexibility, and layout adjustments – can reduce stress and improve mental health (Colenberg et al, 2021). This sense of control fosters a positive psychological environment, as evidenced in both Swedish and Dutch Masters and PhD research. For example, Ghaemi Flores (2023) found that agile and activity-based workspaces, which allow for greater personal control, are rated more favourably by employees. Similarly, van der Vleuten-Chraibi (2019) observed that control over light levels even in shared spaces enhances workspace satisfaction and productivity.

Despite these benefits, the hierarchical tradition in workspace allocation—where higher-ranking employees receive designated offices—remains a barrier to the adoption of more flexible environments. Ghaemi Flores (2023, p44) notes that overcoming this cultural resistance is crucial for a successful transition to activity-based work settings.

Research also challenges the assumption that open-plan offices facilitate collaboration. Instead, these layouts often lead to increased distractions and reduced personal control, negatively impacting both productivity and employee wellbeing (Bernstein and Turban, 2018). Open-plan designs, especially cubicles, have been shown to disrupt natural collaboration, as employees may withdraw to avoid noise and distractions.

This body of research collectively suggests that providing employees with control over their workspace fosters a healthier, more satisfying work environment, positively affecting both personal and organisational outcomes.

Wellbeing and working environments

The psychological dimension of workspace design is essential to employee wellbeing and productivity. Ruohomäki et al (2015) identify key factors, such as privacy, personal space, and control over tasks and schedules, as critical for reducing distractions and supporting mental focus. Research by Danielsson and Bodin (2008) further supports the idea that private and agile office environments contribute to better emotional health, largely due to the sense of control they afford employees. Lee and Brand (2005) also proposed that offering more flexibility and control over workspaces could lead to significant benefits for occupants. This is consistent with findings by Laughton and Thatcher (2019, p837) that shared offices and agile spaces promote psychological wellbeing more effectively than reservable spaces or open-plan offices.

Morrison and Macky (2017) applied the established Job Demands-Resources model to explore the demands of shared work environments and hot-desking arrangements and found that open offices increase cognitive demands on employees, leading to higher job dissatisfaction. Similarly, Cvijanovic (2019) found that customised workspaces are linked to higher job satisfaction and lower stress, although they do not necessarily enhance productivity. High social density within a workspace has also been shown to reduce perceived control (MacMillan, 2012). The study by Cobaleda Cordero et al (2019) of wellbeing related to working spaces also supports these findings.

The role of greenspace in workplace wellbeing

Access to greenspace within the workplace has been shown to positively affect employee wellbeing. Research by Bratman et al (2015) and Berman et al (2008) showed that walking in nature or even viewing pictures of nature can improve directed attention and cognition, the latter supporting the theory of Attention Restoration. (Attention Restoration Theory, developed by psychologists Stephen Kaplan and Rachel Kaplan in the late 1980s, proposes that exposure to natural environments can help restore mental focus and relieve “attention fatigue.” This fatigue arises when we rely on directed, or focused, attention for extended periods.) Gilchrist et al (2015) went further by finding that time spent in workplace greenspace, as well as views of natural elements like trees and flowering plants, significantly boosted wellbeing. Interestingly, the mere presence of these natural elements, rather than subjective satisfaction with the view, appears to be sufficient to yield benefits.

A systematic review by Ricciardi et al (2022) suggests that greenspace exposure may benefit cognition, according to recent advances in environmental psychology. The review included six longitudinal and 19 cross-sectional studies focusing on schoolchildren, adults, and the elderly. Most studies used the Landsat Normalized Difference Vegetation Index, which is a widely used measure of live green vegetation on Earth, calculated from satellite images, to measure greenspace exposure and examined outcomes such as academic achievement, global cognition, attention/executive functions, and memory. Although findings are inconsistent, they indicate a potential cognitive benefit from exposure to greenspace.

Activity-based workspaces

Activity-Based Workspaces (ABWs) are designed to offer flexibility by providing different spaces tailored to specific tasks, encouraging employees to choose environments that support their current work needs. Originally introduced to stimulate creativity in IT start-ups, ABWs are intended to facilitate both collaborative and focused work. However, Haapakangas et al (2023) found that the use of ABWs varies widely among employees, influenced by factors such as age, job role, and ergonomic satisfaction. High cognitive demands and collaborative tasks were associated with more active workspace switching, while distractions in ABWs led to frustration and a decrease in perceived environment fit. Haapakangas et al (2018) noticed that difficulties in locating available workspaces led to frustration and perceptions of time loss and recommend implementing real-time information systems to help employees locate suitable workspaces and accessible quiet zones to address privacy needs.

Clearly, there will always be a need for quiet working spaces, which also highlights the benefits of flexible working that includes home office work (should the individual wish to do so and has a quiet home office working space, which may not be possible for everyone).

The value of silence, and the value of controlled noise

Silence in the workplace offers numerous benefits, such as enhancing wellbeing, productivity, emotional regulation, and focus for all employees, but particularly for neurodiverse employees or those sensitive to noise. Quiet spaces reduce sensory overload and support productivity, especially for individuals on the autism spectrum or those with sensory processing disorders (Asselineau et al, 2024, Cox et al, 2024, Szulc, 2024). Open-plan offices, however, often contribute to decreased wellbeing due to limited privacy and excessive noise (Delle Macchie et al, 2018, Laughton, 2017).

Interestingly, silence can have the opposite effect on some, with controlled noise being beneficial for some individuals and tasks. Research on ADHD (Sikström and Söderlund, 2007; Söderlund et al, 2007; Söderlund et al, 2010) suggests that moderate background noise may enhance focus by helping the brain filter distractions. ADHD is linked to unusual functioning of the brain’s dopamine system, a neurotransmitter crucial for motivation, attention, and learning. Under typical conditions, stable dopamine levels allow the brain to regulate its responses to new stimuli, “dampening” reactions to prevent overstimulation. However, in individuals with ADHD, dopamine levels are lower than average, which causes the brain to overreact to external stimuli, leading to heightened sensitivity and difficulty filtering out distractions. In environments with moderate stimulation (like gentle noise or activity), people with ADHD can often focus well. This phenomenon, known as “stochastic resonance”, suggests that a moderate level of noise can improve cognitive performance by making it easier to distinguish important signals. Though it may seem counterintuitive, the right amount of noise can push a weak signal over a “detection threshold,” allowing it to stand out more clearly.

Stochastic resonance, observed across systems from biological networks to electronics, demonstrates how controlled noise can sometimes enhance performance. In the brain, this effect helps neurons respond more effectively to subtle stimuli. For individuals with ADHD, who typically have lower dopamine levels, computational models suggest that a slightly higher level of background noise may be needed to achieve this beneficial effect, enabling the brain to filter out distractions. However, both extremes – very quiet (low stimulation) or highly chaotic (high stimulation) environments – can impair focus. Empirical evidence supports this theory, indicating that tailored environmental adjustments, such as specific levels of background noise, can help individuals with ADHD better manage distractions and maintain concentration.

Studies by Vostal et al (2013) also highlight the need for adjustable acoustic environments for those with ADHD, as a controlled level of noise or visual simplicity can improve task engagement. In classrooms, Batho et al (2020) found that quiet zones or low-level background noise are beneficial, depending on the cognitive task – findings that may be relevant to workplace design as well.

It is not only the noise or activity in an environment that can be beneficial; the environment itself plays a crucial role. Kat Holmes notes that “the objects and people around us influence our ability to participate” (Holmes et al, 2018, p2). Certain settings can create a sense of belonging, such as the feeling of being part of a learning community in student study spaces, which can enhance concentration and productivity. Humans are inherently social beings, shaped by evolution to thrive in environments that support connection – provided there are also sufficient opportunities for solitude and silence when needed.

Summary

This short literature review underscores the importance of control, flexibility, and environmental sensitivity in workplace design. The research suggests that workplaces need to cater to individual preferences and diverse needs to create supportive and inclusive environments that foster both personal and organisational success. No preference is better or worse, it all depends on the individual and what works best for them.

Nic Kipar leads the Academic and Digital Development team at the University of Glasgow. She played an instrumental role in the creation of the James McCune Smith Learning Hub, focusing on inclusive active learning. Nic co-leads the Enhancing Learning & Teaching Practice workstream, contributing to the university’s Learning & Teaching strategy and planning for the upcoming Keystone building, which will feature large interdisciplinary labs. Nic also chairs a working group on Pedagogy in Superlabs, pioneering these innovative spaces for the university.

References

Asselineau, A, Grolleau, G and Mzoughi, N (2024) ‘Quiet environments and the intentional practice of silence: Toward a new perspective in the analysis of silence in organizations’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 326-340

Batho, LP, Martinussen, R and Wiener, J (2020) ‘The Effects of Different Types of Environmental Noise on Academic Performance and Perceived Task Difficulty in Adolescents With ADHD’ Journal of attention disorders, 24(8), pp 1181-1191

Bayne, S (2024) Future of learning spaces University of Edinburgh: Learning & Teaching Design workshop,  28.10.2024

Bayne, S, Wood, H-R, Simmonds, R, Drysdale, T, Murray, E, Lamb, J, Christie, B. and Nicol, . (2024) Futures For Our Teaching Spaces: principles and visions for connecting space to curriculum Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh

Berman, MG, Jonides, J and Kaplan, S (2008) ‘The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting With Nature’ Psychological Science, 19(12), pp 1207-1212

Bernstein, ES and Turban, S (2018) ‘The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration’ Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological sciences, 373(1753), pp 1-8

Bratman, GN, Daily, GC, Levy, BJ and Gross, JJ (2015) ‘The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition’ Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, pp 41-50

Champion, L. (2024) RE: Evolution is based on variation. Personal communication to Kipar, N., 05.11.2024

Cobaleda Cordero, A, Babapour, M and Karlsson, M (2019) ‘Feel well and do well at work: A post-relocation study on the relationships between employee wellbeing and office landscape’ Journal of corporate real estate, 22(2), pp 113-137

Colenberg, S, Jylhä, T and Arkesteijn, M (2021) ‘The relationship between interior office space and employee health and well-being – a literature review’ Building research and information: the international journal of research, development and demonstration, 49(3), pp 352-366

Cox, CB, Krome, LR and Pool, GJ (2024) ‘Breaking the sound barrier: Quiet spaces may also foster inclusivity for the neurodiverse community’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 350-352

Craft, A (2005) Creativity in schools: tensions and dilemmas London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer

Cvijanovic, M (2019) The relationship between workspace and office placement and workforce productivity and wellbeing Doctor of Philosophy, Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Danielsson, CB and Bodin, L (2008) ‘Office Type in Relation to Health, Well-Being, and Job Satisfaction Among Employees’ Environment and behavior, 40(5), pp 636-668

Delle Macchie, S, Secchi, S and Cellai, G (2018) ‘Acoustic Issues in Open Plan Offices: A Typological Analysis’ Buildings (Basel), 8(11)

Ghaemi Flores, S (2023) From cubicles to collaboration: A study on the transformation of government office spaces driven by cost-efficiency, digitilization, and modernization Master of Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

Gilchrist, K, Brown, C and Montarzino, A (2015) ‘Workplace settings and wellbeing: Greenspace use and views contribute to employee wellbeing at peri-urban business sites’ Landscape and urban planning, 138, pp. 32-40

Haapakangas, A, Hallman, DM, Mathiassen, SE and Jahncke, H (2018) ‘Self-rated productivity and employee well-being in activity-based offices: The role of environmental perceptions and workspace use’ Building and environment, 145, pp 115-124

Haapakangas, A, Sirola, P and Ruohomäki, V (2023) ‘Understanding user behaviour in activity-based offices’ Ergonomics, 66(4), pp 419-431

Holmes, K (2018) Mismatch: how inclusion shapes design Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press

Laughton, K-A (2017) The Effects of Workspace Office Layout on Aspects of Employee Wellbeing MA, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

Laughton, K-A and Thatcher, A ‘Health and Wellbeing in Modern Office Layouts: The Case of Agile Workspaces in Green Buildings’ Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018), Florence, Italy: Springer International Publishing, pp 831-840

Lee, SY and Brand, JL (2005) ‘Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes’ Journal of environmental psychology, 25(3), pp 323-333

Lin, Y-S (2020) ‘Possibility Thinking’ The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp 1-9

Morrison, RL and Macky, KA (2017) ‘The demands and resources arising from shared office spaces’ Applied ergonomics, 60, pp 103-115

Ricciardi, E, Spano, G, Lopez, A, Tinella, L, Clemente, C, Elia, G, Dadvand, P, Sanesi, G, Bosco, A and Caffò, AO (2022) ‘Long-Term Exposure to Greenspace and Cognitive Function during the Lifespan: A Systematic Review’ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18)

Runco, MA (2007) Creativity: theories and themes: research, development, and practice Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier Academic Press

Ruohomäki, V, Lahtinen, M and Reijula, K (2015) ‘Salutogenic and user-centred approach for workplace design’ Intelligent Buildings International, 7(4), pp 184-197

Sikström, S and Söderlund, G (2007) ‘Stimulus-Dependent Dopamine Release in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder’ Psychological Review, 114(4), pp 1047-1075

Söderlund, G, Sikström, S and Smart, A (2007) ‘Listen to the noise: noise is beneficial for cognitive performance in ADHD’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(8), pp 840-847

Söderlund, GBW, Sikström, S, Loftesnes, JM and Sonuga-Barke, EJ (2010) ‘The effects of background white noise on memory performance in inattentive school children’ Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6(1)

Szulc, JM (2024) ‘Embracing silence: Creating inclusive spaces for autistic employees’ Industrial and organizational psychology, 17(3), pp 357-359

Tasler, N (2024) RE: Aladdin Personal communication to Kipar, N 05.11.2024

van der Vleuten-Chraibi, S (2019) Lighting in multi-user office environments: improving employee wellbeing through personal control PhD, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven

Vostal, BR, Lee, DL and Miller, F (2013) ‘Effects of Environmental Stimulation on Students Demonstrating Behaviors Related to Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Review of the Literature’ International Journal of Special Education, 28(3), pp 32-43


by 1 Comment

Unveiling the role of sustainability reporting in UK universities

by Maryna Lakhno

Sustainability reporting in higher education

In the increasingly digital world of higher education, the significance of sustainability reporting has grown, driven by demands for greater transparency and accountability. This evolution reflects a dual expectation: that universities not only commit to sustainable practices but also openly communicate these efforts to their communities.

While many believe that sustainability reports could spearhead substantial changes and lead to the solidification of sustainability within institutional operations, there is a growing scepticism about their efficacy and authenticity. Critics argue that such reporting can sometimes serve as mere green-washing or window-dressing, aimed more at appeasing stakeholders than effecting real change. This criticism is rooted in the tendency of reports to focus predominantly on successes while glossing over areas needing improvement.

Furthermore, current sustainability reports often focus narrowly on environmental and physical aspects of campuses, such as energy efficiency or waste management. Though these are important, they represent only a fraction of what true sustainability encompasses. This limited focus can overshadow crucial areas such as social justice, economic stability, and cultural vitality, which are essential for a comprehensive sustainability strategy.

By analysing reports from UK universities, the paper “Green or green‐washed? Examining sustainability reporting in higher education” published in Higher Education Quarterly (online 1 April 2024) identified a common trend among UK universities: while many universities are quick to highlight their eco-friendly initiatives, there is often a noticeable lack of critical self-evaluation and comprehensive coverage of all sustainability dimensions apart from the attention to green campus space.

More than just green facades?

The findings from the paper reveal a complex picture. In total, 107 reports were collected spanning a 7-year period, covering approximately one-third of the total universities in the UK. 78% of these universities showcase their sustainability performance online. Several universities genuinely integrate sustainability into their operational and educational frameworks.

However, a significant portion of the reports tended to focus heavily on physical and visible interventions, like energy-efficient buildings or campus recycling programs, potentially sidelining the equally crucial aspects of social sustainability, such as inclusivity, economic impact, and community engagement. One of the primary challenges identified is the selective reporting on positive outcomes while neglecting areas that require improvement or failed initiatives. This trend raises concerns about the authenticity of these reports as tools for genuine self-reflection and accountability rather than merely as marketing instruments designed to enhance institutional reputations.

Moving forward: beyond the green mask

Universities should not only address their environmental impacts but also embed sustainability culturally and socially within their institutions. Additionally, there should be a balance between showcasing achievements and critically addressing shortcomings and areas for development. This approach ensures that educational institutions do not merely pursue sustainability as a checkbox exercise but actively integrate it into their core values and operational strategies.

To advance beyond superficial sustainability, UK universities need to develop more rigorous, transparent, and comprehensive reporting mechanisms. These reports should not only serve as reflections of past actions but as genuine, forward-looking documents that guide future sustainable practices across all university operations.

Maryna Lakhno, a PhD candidate at the Department of Public Policy, Central European University, Vienna, specializes in exploring the intersections of policy, education, and sustainable practices within higher education.


by Leave a comment

My Marking Life: The Role of Emotional Labour in delivering Audio Feedback to HE Students

by Samantha Wilkinson

Feedback has been heralded the most significant single influence on student learning and achievement (Gibbs and Simpson, 2004). Despite this, students critique feedback for being unfit for purpose, considering that it does not help them clarify things they do not understand (Voelkel and Mello, 2014).

Despite written feedback being the norm in Higher Education, the literature highlights the benefit of audio feedback. King et al (2008) contend that audio feedback is often evaluated by students as being ‘richer’ than other forms of feedback.

Whilst there is a growing body of literature evaluating audio feedback from the perspective of students, the experiences of academics providing audio feedback have been explored less (Ekinsmyth, 2010). Sarcona et al (2020) is a notable exception, exploring the instructor perspective, albeit briefly. The authors share how some lecturers in their study found it quick and easy to provide audio feedback, and that they valued the ability to indicate the tone of their feedback. Other lecturers, however, stated how they had to type the notes first to remember what they wanted to say, and then record these for the audio feedback, and thus were doing twice as much work.

Whilst the affectual impact of feedback on students has been well documented in the literature (eg McFarlane and Wakeman, 2011), there is little in the academic literature on the affectual impact of the feedback process on markers (Henderson-Brooks, 2021). Whilst not specifically related to audio feedback, Spaeth (2018) is an exception, articulating that emotional labour is a performance when educators seek to balance the promotion of student learning (care) with the pressures for efficiency and quality control (time). Spaeth (2018) argues that there is a lack of attention directed towards the emotional investment on the part of colleagues when providing feedback.

Here, I bring my voice to this less explored side by exploring audio feedback as a performance of emotional labour, based on my experience of trialling of audio feedback as a means of providing feedback to university students through Turnitin on the Virtual Learning Environment. This trial was initiated by colleagues at a departmental level as a possible means of addressing the National Student Survey category of ‘perception of fairness’ in relation to feedback. I decided to reflect on my experience of providing audio feedback as part of a reflective practice module ‘FLEX’ that I was undertaking at the time whilst working towards my Masters in Higher Education.

When providing audio feedback, I felt more confident in the mark and feedback I awarded students, when compared to written feedback. I felt my feedback was less likely to be misinterpreted. This is because, when providing audio feedback, I simultaneously scrolled down the script, using it as an oral catalyst. I considered my audio feedback included more examples than conventional written feedback to illustrate points I made. This overcomes some perceived weaknesses of written feedback: that it is detached from the students’ work (McFarlane and Wakeman, 2011).

In terms of my perceived drawbacks of audio feedback, whilst some academics have found audio feedback to be quicker to produce than written feedback, I found audio feedback was more time-consuming than traditional means; a mistake in the middle of a recording meant the whole recording had to be redone. I toyed with the idea of keeping mistakes in, thinking they would make me appear more human. However, I decided to restart the recording to appear professional. This desire to craft a performance of professionalism may be related to my positionality as a fairly young, female, academic with feelings of imposter syndrome.

I work on compressed hours, working longer hours Monday-Thursday. Working in this way, I have always undertaken feedback outside of core hours, in the evening, due to the relative flexibility of providing feedback (in comparison to needing to be in person at specific times for teaching). I typically have no issue with this. However, providing audio feedback requires a different environment in comparison to providing written feedback:

Providing audio feedback in the evenings when my husband is trying to get our two children to sleep, and with two dogs excitedly scampering around is stressful. I take myself off to the bedroom and sit in bed with my dressing gown on, for comfort. Then I suddenly think how horrified students may be if they knew this was the reality of providing audio feedback. I feel like I should be sitting at my desk in a suit! I know they can’t see me when providing audio feedback, but I feel how I dress may be perceived to reflect how seriously I am taking it. (Reflective diary)                     

I work in an open plan office, with only a few private and non-soundproof pods, so providing audio feedback in the workspace is not easy. Discussing her ‘marking life’, Henderson-Brooks (2021:113) notes the need to get the perfect environment to mark in: “so, I get the chocolates (carrots nowadays), sharpen the pens (warm the screen nowadays), and warn my friends and relatives (no change nowadays) – it is marking time”. Related to this, I would always have a cup of tea (and Diet Coke) to hand, along with chocolate and crisps, to ‘treat’ myself, and make the experience more enjoyable.

When providing feedback, I felt pressure not only to make the right kind of comments, but also in the ‘correct’ tone, as I reflect below:

I feel a need to be constantly 100% enthusiastic. I am worried if I sound tired students may think I was not concentrating enough marking their assessment; if I sound low mood that I am disappointed with them; or sounding too positive that it does not match their mark. (Reflective diary)

I found it emotionally exhausting having to perform the perfect degree of enthusiasm, which I individually tailored to each student and their mark. This is confounded by the fact that I have an autoimmune disease and associated chronic fatigue which means I get very tired and have little energy. Consequently, performing my words / voice / tone is particularly onerous, as is sitting for long periods of time when providing feedback. Similarly, Ekinsmyth (2010) says that colleagues in her study felt a need to be careful about the words used in, and the tone of, audio feedback. This was exemplified when a student had done particularly well, or had not passed the assignment.

Emotions are key to the often considered mundane task of providing assignment feedback to students (Henderson-Brooks, 2021).  I have highlighted worries and anxieties when providing audio feedback, related to the emotional labour required in performing the ‘correct’ tone; saying appropriate words; and creating an appropriate environment and atmosphere for delivering audio feedback. I recommend that university colleagues wishing to provide audio feedback to students should:

  1. Publicise to students the purpose of audio feedback so they are more familiar with what to expect and how to get the most out of this mode of feedback. This may alleviate some of the worries of colleagues regarding how to perform for students when providing audio feedback.
  2. Deliver a presentation to colleagues with tips on how to successfully provide audio feedback. This may reduce the worries of colleagues who are unfamiliar with this mode of feedback.
  3. Undertake further research on the embodied, emotional and affective experiences of academics providing audio feedback, to bring to the fore the underexplored voices of assessors, and assist in elevating the status of audio feedback beyond being considered a mere administrative task.

Samantha Wilkinson is a Senior Lecturer in Childhood and Youth Studies at Manchester Metropolitan University. She is a Doctoral College Departmental Lead for PhDs in Education. Prior to this, she was a Lecturer in Human Geography at the same institution. Her research has made contributions regarding the centrality of care, friendship, intra and inter-generational relationships to young people’s lives. She is also passionate about using autoethnography to bring to the fore her experiences in academia, which others may be able to relate to. Twitter handle:@samanthawilko


by 3 Comments

Lessons from learning analytics

by Liz Moores and Rob Summers

Why bother collecting learning analytics data?

Some of the reported benefits of using learning analytics data include enabling personalised learning and narrowing attainment gaps. Indeed, a quick dip into some of the recent TEF feedback summaries to higher education institutions seems to suggest that use of learning analytics is valued by TEF panels. But can we learn more from the data to influence teaching practice? Aside from the potential benefits for a more personalised learning experience, we think that it’s a good way of understanding the learning process more generally. Over the past few years, we’ve been analysing some of the data generated from Aston University.

Last minute cramming is not effective in improving attainment.

Yes, your parents were correct – it’s much better to work consistently! Early engagement with studies really appears to matter. In fact, the average attainment levels of those first-year students whose engagement remained at the lowest relative levels throughout the year was very similar to those whose early engagement was lowest in the first three weeks but became the very highest in the last three weeks. In contrast, those who started off enthusiastically, but then lost interest, were awarded higher average marks than any of the groups that started off slowly, regardless of how much or whether their engagement peaked later. The consistency of the data – in that those who started off with high engagement tended to finish with high engagement – was remarkable. Also noteworthy were the effects of early engagement on attainment. For the chart below, we divided students into activity quintiles based on only their first three weeks of engagement (Q5 being the highest engagement) and on end of year mark quintiles (Q5 being the highest attainment). The width of the lines connecting engagement quintile to mark quintile is indicative of the proportion of students linking the two measures. The results highlight how few students pass from higher activity quintiles to lower mark quintiles and vice versa.

Of course, these results come with the usual caveats that we cannot infer cause and effect (it could be that the lower engagers in the first three weeks were just low achieving students). However, for us, this highlights the importance of a good induction into academic life – possibly enhanced by some structured engagement exercises to help get first years into good habits (ie tell them how they should be engaging, and the different ways that they can, not just that they should be doing so). There were probably a fair few students represented in this figure that were not even sure what they were supposed to be doing with all their ‘spare’ time

Behaviour outweighs demographics when predicting attainment

The recent pandemic generated much discussion about digital poverty, suggesting that who we teach might be important – at the very least in terms of access to technology. Our recent evidence suggests that both how you teach and who you teach mattered. However, it is important to note that behaviour outweighed demographics in predicting attainment, albeit that in this case behaviour was probably also influenced by demographics. The gap between disadvantaged students’ attainment and their peers widened during online teaching and assessment conditions, and disadvantaged students were also less likely to obtain all 120 module credits on their first try. We also observed changes in their patterns of engagement, although less so for synchronously delivered teaching (as compared to recorded lectures). Students with the lowest engagement were the ones driving the widened gap; those who engaged well with synchronously provided teaching (even if online) fared much better.

So, we should stop teaching online and get people into the classroom early?

No – not necessarily. We don’t want to claim that all online teaching is bad – instead we need to understand what forms of online teaching work, what good looks like, and how our various teaching strategies affect different groups. Anecdotally, many students have appreciated the flexibility of online teaching, particularly where it has included facilities such as the ability to ask questions anonymously. And if you want to reuse those pre-recorded videos, there has been some interesting research from other research groups on ‘watch-parties’. With the cost-of-living crisis, many students will appreciate being able to log into a lecture from home rather than forking out a bus fare or missing out on some part time work. What is important is to understand what works – and for whom.

Professor Liz Moores is Deputy Dean in the College of Health and Life Sciences at Aston University and has research interests in the evaluation of higher education, particularly as applied to widening participation issues.

Dr Rob Summers is research manager at the Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes (TASO). Before joining TASO, Rob worked in the student outreach team at Aston University managing a randomised controlled trial of two post-16 outreach programmes as part of the TASO MIOM (Multi-intervention, Outreach and Mentoring) project.


by 4 Comments

What if flashier buildings don’t make happier learners?

By Steven Jones

In some respects, students at UK universities have never had it so good. Dusty old lecture theatres are being torn down and shimmering new ‘learning environments’ erected in their place. Between 2013 and 2017, outlay on buildings and facilities at higher-prestige institutions alone matched that spent on the London Olympics (BiGGAR Economics, 2014), with some universities issuing public bonds to raise extra coffers for campus development projects.

But how can the UK Higher Education sector be sure that its unprecedented levels of capital expenditure are leveraging commensurate ground-level pedagogical gains? Evaluation mechanisms, where they exist, tend not to be student-centred. For example, the Association of University Directors of Estates reports that income per square metre increased by 34 per cent across the sector between 2004 and 2013. While this might make for a healthy balance sheet, it tells us little about the ways in which staff and students engage with their environment. As Paul Temple noted in his 2007 report for the Higher Education Academy (“Learning Spaces for the 21st Century”), university buildings have the potential to transform how learning happens. The challenge for the sector is how best to assess their impact. Continue reading →