#LTHEchat

Join us on Bluesky for #LTHEchat on Wednesday 24th June at 8pm BST with guest Abbi Shaw (@abbis.bsky.social) to discuss professional identity, recognition, and collaboration in higher education. Together, we will explore how Digital Education Specialists understand and communicate their contribution, the role of professional development and networks in shaping professional identity, and how colleagues across academic and professional services roles perceive and work alongside digital education professionals in supporting the student experience.

Introduction

In 2022, as a Digital Education Specialist (DES) studying for an MA Education: Leading Innovation and Practice, I conducted a research study into the professional identity of DES during 2021/22. The study focused on the period in which universities were returning to campus after Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) had required teaching, learning and assessment to take place almost entirely online. More than 40 UK DES participated in a survey and 12 took part in follow-up interviews.

My findings suggested that this period exacerbated many existing complexities around DES professional identity. Participants reported challenges around visibility, recognition and influence, while the return to campus appeared to heighten some of the barriers to institutional integration that had developed during the pandemic period.

Four years on, digital education is no longer viewed as an emergency response. Blended, online and digitally enhanced learning have, in most institutions, become expected features of higher education. Yet questions remain about how the expertise of those supporting this work is recognised, understood and valued.

For this week’s #LTHEchat, I want to revisit some of the themes from that research and explore how DES professional identity is understood today, both by those who work in digital education and by colleagues across higher education. I am particularly interested in the role that continuing professional development (CPD), professional accreditation and sector networks play in helping DES articulate and communicate their contribution.

I started my research from the idea that DES often experience challenges to the formation, visibility, and perception of their identities, whether personally, institutionally, or both (Akerman, 2020; White, White & Borthwick, 2021). Whether it’s differences in the language used, or power dynamics between academic, and professional roles, it is difficult for institutions to reach, and sustain, blended learning maturity without actively ensuring DES are fully-embedded into the everyday academic space (Mihai, Questier & Zhu, 2021). A clear understanding of DES’ professional identity – both amongst DES themselves, and in their institutional context – and the ability to communicate the possibilities that identity and practice have to offer is therefore key in fostering a positive environment in which DES can best perform.

The need for DES’ professional identity to be constructed: how are we doing?

DES’ professional identity necessitates construction: it is rarely inherent (Altena et al., 2019; Scott et al., 2019; Lawrence, 2022). The work itself is often unseen, or is not perceived as actively being work: DES perform not only the production of resource and support, but also act as a translation, education, and development role which must take place between colleagues. An individual’s sense of professional identity is thus inevitably influenced by the nature and context of these interactions with colleagues (Beaton & Hope, 2022). It’s too easy for DES to be labelled “techy people”, whose indefinable work, which may or may not take place solely in binary code, is perceived as relevant only to the organisation of files and folders, and the removal of the irritating error message, rather than relevant to the classroom, the design of the assessment, and the structure and delivery of the course as a whole. The pedagogic legitimacy and inclusion afforded DES by both colleagues, and institutional structures and approaches truly matters (Watermeyer et al., 2021).

As a consequence, the need for DES to be in the committee, the steering group, the procurement panel, the many, many meetings in which the work of the modern university is done, has, previously, been difficult to evidence if an institution’s clear understanding of the nature and purpose of the role of DES has yet to be developed. Historically, whether in the literature, or my own research, the message from DES themselves has been that, either institutionally, or locally, they have found themselves critically underestimated or misunderstood by those whose understanding matters most. If it is the case that blended, online and digitally-enhanced learning are fully-established parts of normal UK Higher Education offerings, have we also fully established the purpose, presence and fullness of the DES this learning necessitates?

The potential for CPD and collegiality to support the development and projection of DES’ professional identity

A notable dimension to DES’ professional identity is its inherent connectedness (Walker & Macneill, 2015). DES’ work is fundamentally similar across UK higher education, resulting in a multitude of sector-wide networks, such as ALT and the advisory agency Jisc, as well as many regional and disciplinary networks, not to mention, of course, the online networks that events such as this very #LTHEchat develop. Engagement with such networks enhances the capacity of DES to understand themselves, and communicate in more personalised, contextual terms (Beaton & Hope, 2022), consequently fostering individual and collective professional identities (Walker & MacNeill, 2015;  Arnold, 2022).

Moving on from networks to objective, and transferable accreditations, that most commonly identified as being of benefit to DES is CMALT (Certified Membership of the Association for Learning Technology), awarded following peer assessment of a reflective portfolio of work. ALT recently introduced Associate, Senior, and Principal levels to facilitate career development of DES. Similarly, fellowships of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA – also available in Associate, Senior and Principal) can be useful for DES. Ostensibly designed for academic roles in UK HE, these accreditations focus on approaches to teaching, allowing DES to consider themselves and their practice academically, improving their ability to communicate in academic language (Nutt, 2022). Completing such frameworks is one of the few ways DES and other third space professionals can evidence career development in the pursuit of promotion (Shotts & Shaw, 2022). 

To access professional development, however, DES must exist in an environment that recognises the existence of relevant opportunities, and is willing to finance and accommodate them (McIntosh & Nutt, 2022). Further, DES and other third space roles often need to create their own opportunities to participate in projects and clear examples of their individual practice, as, where their possible contribution to academic work and the student experience is not understood,  they are more likely to encounter “glass walls” (Campbell-Perry, 2022:118) which prevent their collaboration with academic colleagues. 

Whilst professional portfolios and connections with the wider DES networks support the development of professional identity (White et al., 2021), the fact perception of DES relies upon the projection of a constructed identity suggests to me such engagement with professional development ought to be a priority for DES at all levels, as well as for their institutions. 

My findings were in line with the literature, in that professional development did support the development of professional identity, and, in turn, that this developed identity allowed DES to advocate for themselves, and ensure their work was more highly visible within their institution. Participants who had completed professional portfolios often appeared more confident in discussing their work, leadership and impact. They were generally better able to explain their contribution in ways that colleagues could understand. By contrast, some participants who had not engaged with these frameworks expressed frustration about how their work was perceived, while simultaneously finding it more difficult to articulate the nature of that work themselves.

This raises an interesting possibility. Professional development may not simply enhance expertise; it may also help DES communicate that expertise more effectively.

Looking ahead

My research corroborated the idea that professional identity is not something DES automatically possess. Rather, it is something they continually construct, communicate and negotiate within their institutional context. Professional networks, accreditation and reflective CPD appear to play an important role in supporting that process.

If that remains true today, investment in DES development is not simply beneficial for individuals. It may also help institutions better understand, recognise and make use of digital education expertise.

I’m keen to continue to explore whether DES have grown any closer to feeling fully situated and understood in their roles, whether CPD has played a clear role in this, and whether non-DES participants feel, themselves, clear around their DES’ colleagues role, and their overall ability to contribute, ultimately, to the student experience.

References

Akerman, K., (2020). ‘Invisible imposter: identity in institutions’, Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 24:4, 126-130, DOI: 10.1080/13603108.2020.1734683.

Altena, Sharon, Ng, Rebecca, Hinze, Meredith, Poulsen, Simone, & Parrish, Dominique Rene (2019) ‘’Many hats one heart’: A scoping review on the professional identity of learning designers.’ In Yi Wei S, Chew, Mun C, Kah, & Alphonso, A (Eds.) Personalised Learning. 

Diverse Goals. One Heart: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE 2019) Conference Proceedings. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Australia, pp. 359-364.

Arnold, D., (2022). ‘Inside out and outside in: an exploration of peripheral third space.’ Third Space Perspectives. Blog. Posted 10th October 2022. https://www.thirdspaceperspectives.com/blog/inside-out-and-outside-in-an-exploration-of-peripheral-third-space.

Beaton, F. & Hope, J. (2022) ‘Exploring the Identities of Blended Professionals in Higher Education’. The Impact of the Integrated Practitioner in Higher Education: Studies in Third Space Professionalism. Ed. Emily McIntosh & Diane Nutt. Routledge, London.

Campbell-Perry, S. (2022) ‘The blended professional: barriers and boundaries to collaborative institutional cultures’, in McIntosh, E. and Nutt, D. (eds.) The Impact of the Integrated Practitioner in Higher Education: Studies in Third Space Professionalism. London: Routledge.

Denney, F. (2021). ‘A glass classroom? The experiences and identities of third space women leading educational change in research-intensive universities in the UK.’ Educational Management Administration & Leadership. doi:10.1177/17411432211042882.

Lawrence, J., (2022). ‘Career Trajectories in the Third Space.’ The Impact of the Integrated Practitioner in Higher Education: Studies in Third Space Professionalism. Ed. Emily McIntosh & Diane Nutt. Routledge, London.

McIntosh, E. & Nutt, D., (2022). ‘Introduction and literature review.’ The Impact of the Integrated Practitioner in Higher Education: Studies in Third Space Professionalism. Ed. Emily McIntosh & Diane Nutt. Routledge, London.

Nutt, D., (2022). ‘Rewarding Blended Working and Integrated Practice.’ The Impact of the Integrated Practitioner in Higher Education: Studies in Third Space Professionalism. Ed. Emily McIntosh & Diane Nutt. Routledge, London.

Quinsee, S., (2022). ‘Leadership in the Third Space.’ The Impact of the Integrated Practitioner in Higher Education: Studies in Third Space Professionalism. Ed. McIntosh, E. & D. Nutt. Routledge, London.

Shotts, J. & Shaw, M., (2022). ‘Recognising and Developing Talent.’ The Impact of the Integrated Practitioner in Higher Education: Studies in Third Space Professionalism. Ed. Emily McIntosh & Diane Nutt. Routledge, London.

Walker, D. & MacNeill, S., (2015), Learning Technologist as Digital Pedagogue, The Really Useful Ed Tech Book, 91-106.

Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C. & Goodall, J., (2020). ‘COVID-19 and Digital Disruption in UK Universities: Afflictions and Affordances of Emergency Online Migration.’ Higher Education 81(3):623–41. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00561-y.

Watermeyer, R., Crick, T. & Knight, C., (2021). Digital disruption in the time of COVID-19: learning technologists’ accounts of institutional barriers to online learning, teaching and assessment in UK universities, International Journal for Academic Development, DOI:10.1080/1360144X.2021.1990064.

White, S, White, S and Borthwick, K. (2021) Blended professionals, technology and online learning: Identifying a socio-technical third space in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly. 75: 161– 174. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12252.

Guest bio

Abbi Shaw is the Faculty Digital Education Manager for UCL Arts and Humanities, responsible for the strategic and good pedagogical use of teaching, learning, and assessment technologies across the Faculty’s broad range of disciplines. Abbi’s research interests include the professional identity of digital education specialists, and methods of effecting digital education change in UK higher education. Prior to joining UCL in 2020, Abbi, with an extensive background in vintage bookselling and digital commerce, worked in the Library and as a Learning Technologist at St. Mary’s University Twickenham. 

Join us on Bluesky for #LTHEchat on Wednesday 17th June at 8pm BST with guest Iwi Ugiagbe-Green (@profiwi.bsky.social) to reflect on how we can create brave, caring and purposeful spaces for conversations about inequalities in higher education.

Conversations about inequalities are important because, without naming inequalities, they cannot be acknowledged or addressed. Nor can their impact. For example, without naming race, racism does not exist (Kishimoto, 2018). Race is an example of a social construct: an idea that exists through collective agreement and operates as a system of power and discrimination. As American lawyer, professor and civil rights activist Professor Derrick Bell explains, ‘the reality is that we live in a society in which racism has been internalized and institutionalized’ (Bell, 1991).

Recent societal events have shown us that engaging in conversations about inequalities with intention, empathy and care is more important than ever. The ongoing and sustained injustices endured by minoritised and marginalised communities remind us of the importance of human-centred conversations, accompanied by a call to action, in understanding and addressing these inequalities. Afro-feminist scholars have explored how the philosophy of Ubuntu — ‘I am because you are’ — based on our interconnectedness with one another and the collective, can be used to mould and shape social relations that enhance, for example, race and gender justice (Tamale, 2020, pp. 221–229; Diouf et al., 2023).

What is clear is that, if our current political climate tells us anything, it is the importance of being intentional and active in listening to others with whom we might not agree, who may or may not look like us, and who may be very different from those with whom we would naturally communicate. It is important that we work together to try to come to a place of understanding, rather than simply reply.

To hold space in our universities for conversations that move us forward, we need to be intentional about adopting collective principles through which communities of care can operate. We also need to mediate difficult conversations in ways that give due regard to perspectives with which we may not agree.

We will spend an hour together sharing our experiences of mediating difficult conversations, giving space to different views, and exploring ways in which we might be able to talk about inequalities bravely. This is an opportunity to step into a space in which we may feel uncomfortable, but where we can also experience growth.

References

Bell, D. (1991) ‘Racism is here to stay: Now what?’, Howard Law Journal, 35(1), pp. 79–94.

Diouf, E., Dyer, U., Asali Ecclesiastes, A. and Gilbert, M. (2023) ‘Our Ubuntu: A Black feminist turn’, Agenda, 37(2), pp. 32–43. doi: 10.1080/10130950.2023.2229572.

Kishimoto, K. (2018) ‘Anti-racist pedagogy: From faculty’s self-reflection to organizing within and beyond the classroom’, Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(4), pp. 540–554. doi: 10.1080/13613324.2016.1248824.

Tamale, S. (2020) Decolonization and Afro-Feminism. Ottawa: Daraja Press.

Speaker bio

Iwi has worked in higher education since 2000. Her first ten years were in a range of financial administration and accounting roles before she transitioned into academia in 2010. Since then, she has delivered sustained educational excellence in higher education and established a track record of successfully leading innovative, impactful and strategic projects that enhance student opportunity, experience and outcomes. She is recognised nationally and internationally as an intentionally inclusive leader whose praxis is rooted in Ubuntu: ‘I am, because we are’.

Iwi describes herself as an academic activist: a positive agitator who is unapologetic in her commitment to student success. She is very proud and grateful to have recently been promoted to Professor of Equity in Education and to be the 84th Black woman professor in the UK. She was awarded a National Teaching Fellowship in 2025.

Questions

1. What interactions do you have with people whose experiences, values or social views differ from your own? 
2. How do you mediate those difficult conversations whether in life or in your educational practice?
3. How do you create conditions of safety for your students?
4. What do you do in your practice to help students feel that they matter, belong and are taken seriously?
5. What would a genuine system of care in your university look like?
6. How do you protect your own wellbeing while engaging in emotionally demanding work around equity, inclusion and social justice?

Join us on Bluesky for #LTHEchat on Wednesday 10th June at 8pm BST with guests Emma Gillaspy (@egillaspy.bsky.social), Earle Abrahamson (@profearle17.bsky.social), Sue Beckingham (@suebecks.bsky.social) and Rose Gann (@rosegann.bsky.social) to reflect on your scholarship journeys by sharing experiences, exploring challenges and opportunities, and considering how resources like Scholarship Spotlight can support and advance your practice.

Introduction

Scholarship (Boyer, 1990; Hutchings and Shulman, 1999) can be a powerful, yet often everyday, way to enhance learning, teaching and professional practice. Yet for many of us, it can feel difficult to know where to begin…

• How do I turn my idea into a project? 
• Where can I find support? 
• What even ‘counts’ as scholarship anyway?

Scholarship Spotlight has been created to help address these challenges. Developed by a group of UK academics and funded through a small grant from the Association of National Teaching Fellows, Scholarship Spotlight brings together practical guidance, personal narratives, lessons learned, useful resources and opportunities to connect with wider scholarly networks.

Getting Into SoTL

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) is often a difficult space to enter, it can feel conceptually unclear, with hidden traditions that aren’t always easy to see or access (Fanghanel et al., 2016; Godbold, Matthews & Gannaway, 2024). Even experienced academics can find themselves stepping into unfamiliar territory – becoming novices again as they begin SoTL work, often without clear signposting or support (Kim et al., 2020). These challenges sit alongside the realities of working in Higher Education right now. Time, space, and energy are often in short supply, and engaging with scholarship can feel like something we should do, but struggle to prioritise.

Scholarship for Everyone

One of the things we’ve tried to do with Scholarship Spotlight is resist the idea that scholarship is a neat, linear or obvious process. Instead we share the experiences of colleagues who have approached scholarship in different ways. Our hope is that this creates a space that feels practical, inclusive and encouraging – a place where you can find ideas and support, whatever stage you’re at in your scholarly journey

This LTHEchat is a scholarship activity in itself! It’s a chance to pause and think about your own scholarship journey. We will spend our hour together sharing experiences, navigating challenges, generating new ideas and exploring ways to move your own scholarship forward. We’re keen to hear your feedback on Scholarship Spotlight too – what works well, what might be missing, and how the resource could evolve to better support the LTHEchat community. 

Whether you’re new to scholarship, already engaged, or supporting others in their scholarly development, we hope this will be a supportive and energising conversation. 

Before the chat, please take a few minutes to explore the resource: https://scholarshipspotlight.uk/

References 

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. https://www.umces.edu/sites/default/files/al/pdfs/BoyerScholarshipReconsidered.pdf 

Fanghanel, J., Pritchard, J., Potter, J., & Wisker, G. (2016). Defining and supporting the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): A sector-wide study. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/defining-and-supporting-scholarship-teaching-and-learning-sotl-sector-wide-study 

Godbold, N., Matthews, K. E. E., & Gannaway, D. (2024). Theorising new possibilities for scholarship of teaching and learning and teaching-focused academics. Higher Education Research & Development, 43(1), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2218809 

Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 10–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389909604218 Kim, A. S. N., Popovic, C., Farrugia, L., Saleh, S. A. F.,

Maheux-Pelletier, G., & Frake-Mistak, M. (2020). On nurturing the emergent SoTL researcher: Responding to challenges and opportunities. International Journal for Academic Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2020.1842743

About the Team

Please see an overview of our team here About Scholarship Spotlight. You can connect with most of us via Bluesky:

Earle Abrahamson https://bsky.app/profile/profearle17.bsky.social 

Sue Beckingham https://bsky.app/profile/suebecks.bsky.social

Emma Gillaspy https://bsky.app/profile/egillaspy.bsky.social

Susan Smith https://bsky.app/profile/smithysusan.bsky.social

Hannah Cobb https://bsky.app/profile/archaeocobb.bsky.social

Rose Gann https://bsky.app/profile/rosegann.bsky.social

Julie Hulme https://bsky.app/profile/juliehulme-psyc.bsky.social

Dawne Irving-Bell https://bsky.app/profile/profdawne.bsky.social

I Wilson (please connect via the links on the website above)

Questions

Q1: What kinds of activities spring to mind when you think about the term ‘scholarship’ in relation to teaching and learning?

Q2: What helps you move from an idea to actually ‘doing’ scholarship? What makes that first step easier? 

Q3: What gets in the way of engaging with scholarship and how do you (or we) work around it? 

Q4: If you were to ‘shine a spotlight’ on one moment from your scholarship experience, what would you highlight? 

Q5: Who or what has helped you feel connected in scholarship? What role do online communities (like #LTHEchat) play in your scholarly connections?

Q6: If you could design the ideal resource to support your next step in scholarship, what would it include and why?

Join us on Bluesky for the #LTHE chat on Wednesday 3 June at 8pm BST with guests Jill Dickinson (@jilldickinson.bsky.social), Monika Foster (@monika-foster06.bsky.social), and Debbie Rigby (@debbierigby.bsky.social) to discuss potential challenges and opportunities for pracademics in navigating the research culture of HE.

Introduction

In an increasingly tricky global landscape, it has become even more important to identify opportunities for bringing together HE and external organisations in driving forward collaborations that generate impactful research and knowledge exchange. Following calls for recognising, rewarding, and championing the potential contributions that those with dual experience from practice and academia can make as part of a diverse faculty (Dickinson and Griffiths, 2024), and funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust (The British Academy, 2024), our research explores how ‘pracademics’ (Volpe and Chandler, 2007) renegotiate their professional identities as they seek to navigate HE research culture(s).

Context

Our research is presented against a backdrop of increasing discussion and debate around pracademia (see, for example, Hollweck et al., 2021; Dickinson and Griffiths 2024; Marcus, 2024) that raise provocative questions around professional identity(ies) within this context. These include whether staff with dual experience from practice and academia can be ‘proper’ academics (Hodgson and Garner, 2024) and why some academics might be viewed as more ‘proper’ than others (Dickinson et al., 2024). It is clear that such issues can also be compounded when HEIs seek to recruit pracademics without providing them with the support needed to make the most of their practitioner experience within their new academic working environments (Yusoff, 2026).

Pracademics’ navigations of HE research culture(s)

We are self-identified pracademics from the fields of law, business, and education respectively and are drawing on our positionalities as insider researchers (Merton, 1972) to conduct this multidisciplinary research project. We have framed our research around the following three questions:

• What do pracademics understand by the phrase ‘research culture in HE’?
• To what extent do pracademics perceive themselves as able to engage in, and navigate, the research culture within HE?
• What other factors do pracademics perceive as either supporting or inhibiting their potential to contribute to the research culture within HE?

Early findings from the analysis of survey data collected reveal themes around: conflicting priorities and tensions in sustaining dual roles and responsibilities around teaching and research; challenges in accessing institutional support, clarity, and guidance to develop confidence in conducting research; the importance of developing collegial, supportive, and inclusive environments that are characterised by shared interests and values; and questions around what might constitute becoming, and being, ‘a real academic’.

References

Dickinson, J. & Griffiths, T. (Eds). (2023). Professional Development for Practitioners in Academia: Pracademia. Springer Nature. 10.1007/978-3-031-33746-8.

Dickinson, J., Griffiths, T., Foster, M. & Johnson, S. (2024, 29 September). ‘Some academics are seen as more proper than others’. WONKHE. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/some-academics-are-seen-as-more-proper-than-others/. 

Hodgson, R. & Garner, I. (2024, 4 August). ‘Are staff with professional and industry expertise proper academics?’ WONKHE. https://wonkhe.com/blogs/are-staff-with-professional-and-industry-expertise-proper-academics/. 

Hollweck, T., Netolicky, D.M., & Campbell, P. (2021). Defining and exploring pracademia: identity, community, and engagement. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 7(1), 6-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2021-0026.

Leeds Beckett University. (2026). ‘How do academics with practitioner experience renegotiate their professional identities as they navigate the research culture within Higher Education?’ Leeds Beckett University. https://www.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/research/centre-for-justice-law-and-policy/pracademia-navigate. 

Marcus, J. (2024, 21 July). ‘‘Pracademics,’ professors who work outside the academy win new respect. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/21/pracademics-vocational-training-college-professors/. 

Merton, R.K. (1972). ‘Insiders and Outsiders: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge’. American Journal of Sociology. 78(1), 9-47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2776569. 

The British Academy. (2024). Over £1.7 million in British Academy/Leverhulme Trust Small Research Grants awarded to support SHAPE researchers. The British Academy. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/news/over-17-million-in-british-academyleverhulme-trust-small-research-grants-awarded-to-support-shape-researchers/. 

Volpe, M.R. & Chandler, D. (2007). ‘Resolving and Managing Conflicts in Academic Communities: The Emerging Role of the “Pracademic”’. Negotiation Journal, 17(3), 245-255. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2001.tb00239.x. Yusoff, A. (2026, 26 March). ‘The human side of the practitioner-to-academic pipeline.’ Times Higher Education.https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/human-side-practitionertoacademic-pipeline.

Speaker bios

Jill Dickinson is Professor of Law and Professional Development at Leeds Law School. Jill is an applied, interdisciplinary researcher whose projects explore professional development and place-making, and the inter-sections between them, and often draw on creative research methods. Jill is also a: Principal Fellow (Advance HE); Recognised Research Supervisor (UK Council for Graduate Education); Recognised Practitioner in Advising (UK Advising and Tutoring); Executive Coach (L7); and Solicitor (non-practising). Publications include Professional Development for Practitioners in Academia: Pracademia (Springer Nature, 2024).

Monika Foster is Associate Pro Vice Chancellor (International and Educational Partnerships) and Professor of Business Education at Northumbria University. Previously as Dean and Head, Professor Foster has led a number of Business Schools in the UK, as well as international, cross-institutional and interdisciplinary research projects to enhance student experience and internationalization strategies. Her research interests include leadership and change management, with publications in Production, Planning and Control and Journal of Economic Science. Monika’s external recognition includes the award of National Teaching Fellow, Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and Visiting Professor from Shandong University of Finance, China.

Questions

Q1: What object(s) would you choose, and why, to represent your past, current, or future professional identity (whether as a researcher or not)?

Q2: What term(s) do you use to introduce yourself in different professional contexts, and why?

Q3: What does the phrase ‘real’ or ‘proper’ researcher mean to you?

Q4: What factors might support colleagues in feeling like ‘real’ or ‘proper’ researchers, and why?

Q5: What factors might restrict colleagues in feeling like they are ‘real’ or ‘proper’ researchers, and why?

Q6: What steps could institutions take to better support those with practitioner experience in navigating the research culture(s) that exist within HE?

Join us on Bluesky for #LTHEchat on Wednesday 27th May at 8pm BST with guests Caroline Michelle Keep (@ka81.bsky.social) to discuss why HE outreach needs to move beyond marketing events and become a clearer, more inclusive bridge between schools, universities, and students’ developmental journeys.

Introduction

Having spent most of my career in secondary education, with time in primary, secondary, and Higher Education (HE), I have spent years mapping the educational landscape in the UK. My PhD in Educational Digitisation using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs) does exactly this: mapping how technology works in schools. Living at the crossroads of three different sectors: as a teacher (yes, I still teach), a researcher, and a student, I see inclusion and outreach from three different, often conflicting, worldviews.

Higher Education often talks about inclusive pedagogy, widening participation and belonging. Yet, from the school side, outreach can still feel more like a marketing event than a structural bridge into university learning. If universities want to be genuinely inclusive, outreach cannot remain a “nice-to-have”. It needs to become part of the student developmental journey: helping learners understand pathways, expectations, support structures and the shift in autonomy before they arrive.

Clear Pathways vs. Enthusiastic Joy

I have found simple things to be baffling. Why is HE outreach often just an assembly or a talk with no direct pathways? The most useful thing you can do is provide clear pathways to your courses and careers. Enthusiastic joy is insufficient if a child cannot see the way forward. In the classroom, inclusion is not a department we outsource, it is the daily management of sensory environments, cognitive load, and social communication. When HE outreach teams arrive with generic presentations, they often miss the students they claim to support. Truly inclusive outreach should meet students where they are, acknowledging specific needs, providing clear guidance, and sharing a joint vision before they arrive.

The “High-Friction” Transition

The transition to HE is a high-friction event for most students. We lose students not because they are not capable, but because the support structures in schools and HE do not communicate with each other. We need a model of “Pedagogical Outreach” where HE staff and schoolteachers collaborate to build the skills students need to survive the shift in autonomy. These shifts are particularly challenging for disabled and neurodivergent students.
In the first year of my PhD, despite being an experienced professional in education for over 20 years, I found myself overwhelmed and crying on the first day. Why? Because we still do not provide neurodivergent people with clear maps in universities. (For more information, see the paper I wrote on this experience: Keep, C. (2024) Lost in the Maze: Navigating Neurodiversity in Built Environments. Town & Country Planning).

A Structural Failure

We lack clear guidance for disabled and neurodivergent students at the PhD and Master’s levels, as if we suddenly become “able” at that stage. We don’t. There is a glaring lack of national-level organisations providing support to these students. The data backs this up. The 2025 Access Insights Report showed that while 87% of disabled students have agreed adjustments, only 44% report that those adjustments are actually delivered. Similarly, early findings from the first National Disabled Staff Survey (NDSS) in 2025, covering 837 staff across 127 institutions, exposed deep structural barriers undermining well-being and retention. While the launch of Advance HE’s Inclusive Institutions Framework is a start, proper inclusion is long overdue in the UK.

Learning from the School Practitioner

HE can learn from the “practitioner’s agility” found in schools. By observing how schools manage micro-decisions of inclusion, HE can stop waiting for students to fail before intervening. 

We must build proactive and high-clarity structures from day one. Outreach should not just be about showing students a lecture hall; it should be an opportunity for HE to study successful inclusion strategies already working in classrooms and translate them into the university setting.

Speaker bio

​Caroline is an award-winning Teacher, AI & Edtech Researcher, and Data Scientist. Having recently completed her PhD at The University of Lancashire, she focuses on crafting a unique Neurodivergent Edu/Tech narrative.

Join us on Bluesky for #LTHEchat on Wednesday 20th May at 8pm BST with guests Puiyin Wong (@puiyin.bsky.social) and John Brindle (@johnbrindletel.bsky.social) to discuss how curiosity-driven conversations can spark meaningful professional growth and evolve into vibrant, supportive communities.

Introduction

Some of the most meaningful professional learning does not begin with a formal programme. It begins with a question, a conversation, and the curiosity to keep exploring. Sometimes, that shared curiosity is enough to start a community. 

We started #TELresearchers and #HEresearchers out of sheer curiosity and a desire to learn more about research career pathways from academics who supervise on our PhD programme. What has grown from that is a global community series with a wide range of speakers and participants. 

So, how do we pursue our curiosity to develop ourselves? And how can we build community around our interests? 

Getting Informal

Informal learning can be a powerful way to develop yourself and others. While it requires a high degree of self-motivation, it can be strengthened through communities and special interest groups (Macià and García, 2016). Although the definition of informal learning is highly contested (Švigelj and Cruz, 2023), it is widely recognised as a core part of continuous professional development across a range of disciplines. In our view, creating space and time for this type of learning is key to a successful and fulfilling career in learning, teaching, and research. 

Curiosity drives this self-directed approach to learning. So how do we build on that curiosity and develop it into a community-focused informal learning opportunity? 

Network

A strong informal learning approach depends on networks, particularly personal learning networks. At the heart of this are four behaviours of learning in an informal network: Consuming, Creating, Connecting, and Contributing (Milligan et al., 2014). In setting the scene for this week’s #LTHEchat, we want to explore these four behaviours in relation to our own practice in informal learning networks.  

Consuming

Creating space for those who want to listen and learn is important in informal learning opportunities. For some, this is their preferred way of “discovering new knowledge and ideas”. We allow participants to ‘lurk’ and listen to the discussion, or to contribute actively if they wish.  

Creating

Creation should be encouraged, and participants should be ‘making knowledge structures public’. By providing opportunities to share sense-making and personal accounts of their journeys, the #TELresearchers and #HEresearchers communities enable speakers to make their knowledge structures public and add ‘a layer of value from which others can benefit’.  

Connecting

As hosts of the community, we have seen our personal learning network grow significantly. Many peers want to talk about research and scholarship beyond our initial PhD cohort, and we have seen this most clearly when speakers and participants are encouraged to share their experiences.  

Contributing

Contribution happens openly. Curated questions, speaker engagement, and open-floor Q&A sessions all help those who want to contribute to the knowledge-creation process. 

How do you see yourself in Milligan et al.’s (2014) four C’s of learning behaviour? 

Openness

Open practice, for us, is a non-negotiable part of informal learning and grassroots CPD development. All of our talks are open: some are shared through the National Teaching Repository, and all are available through YouTube. Invitations are open to anyone who is curious and interested in the shared practice of #TELresearch and #HEresearch, and in the journeys that prominent researchers and scholars have taken. For us, that is the real value of open and informal learning networks. They show that grassroots CPD can start with a small question, grow through shared curiosity, and become a space where people connect, contribute, and keep learning together. 

References 

Macià, M., & García, I. (2016). Informal online communities and networks as a source of teacher professional development: A review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, pp. 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.021. 

Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A. and Margaryan, A. (2014) Workplace learning in informal networks. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.2014-06 

Švigelj, M., & Cruz, C. (2023). Youth as educators. International Encyclopaedia of Education, 4^th Edition, 337-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.08049-0 

Speaker Bios

Puiyin Wong

Puiyin is Senior Advisor (Digital Pedagogy & Practice) at Buckinghamshire New University, where she leads the strategic direction of digital education and contributes to improving teaching quality University wide. She is also a Trustee of Association for Learning Technology (ALT), where she helps govern the strategic development of ALT and supports sector initiatives. Puiyin has a keen interest in bringing people together; she is connected to colleagues in the UK and internationally. Puiyin is at the final stages of her PhD at Lancaster University, exploring the interplay between pedagogy and technology for learning and professional development. Finally, Puiyin leads a multi award winning researchers community – #TELresearchers & #Heresearchers that connects educational researchers at different career stages, from around the world.  

John Brindle

John is Learning Design Manager at Edge Hill University where he leads the design and development of online and blended programmes and non-credit bearing CPD. He is also and advisory panel member for BETT. John has an interest in inclusive practices and curriculum approaches. He is currently finishing his thesis for his PhD at Lancaster University where he is exploring sense-making of inclusive practice by third-space professionals. He co-hosts the award winning #TELresearchers and #HEresearchers community with Puiyin Wong.    

Questions

Q1. What questions or interests first sparked your curiosity in learning, teaching, or research?  

Q2. How has informal learning shaped your professional development compared with more formal CPD opportunities?  

Q3. What role has your personal learning network played in helping you learn, reflect, or grow?  

Q4. Which of the four C’s — Consuming, Creating, Connecting, or Contributing — feels most natural to you, and which would you like to develop further?

Q5. What helps you feel able to move from listening quietly to actively contributing in a learning community?  

Q6. How can open practices help turn individual curiosity into shared learning and community?

Join us on Bluesky for #LTHEchat on Wednesday 13th May at 8pm BST with guest Sarah Rhodes (@sarahjrhodes.bsky.social) to discuss how well we design for the sensory experience of learning.

Higher Education is good at designing content. Outcomes are aligned, assessments mapped, activities justified. We design for cognition, accessibility, and progression.

But how often do we design for the sensory experience of learning?

In early years, schools, and Further Education, sensory-aware practice is well established, supported by SEND reforms and regulation-informed approaches (Education Committee, 2025). In contrast, universities often treat learning environments, physical, digital, or hybrid, as sensory-neutral.

As blended and online learning continue to expand, it’s worth asking:
Are we designing for learning or simply expecting students to adapt?

Learning is sensory

Learning is not just intellectual; it is embodied. Neuroscience recognises eight sensory systems, including vestibular, proprioceptive and interoceptive systems that underpin attention, regulation, posture and readiness to learn (Neff, 2022).

Every learner has a sensory profile. Some seek movement or pressure; others are highly sensitive to light, noise or visual clutter. When sensory input is overwhelming or insufficient, it can affect concentration, emotional regulation, motivation and persistence.

This is well understood in earlier educational stages. In Higher Education, it remains largely invisible.

The hidden sensory load of HE

Lecture theatres, seminar rooms, studios and libraries carry sensory demands we rarely name: lighting, acoustics, seating, proximity, routes of movement. Digital environments add further load, scrolling VLEs, screen glare, notifications, video fatigue and multi-device study (Borda-Niño-Wildman & Gillies-Walker, 2025).

Students increasingly study in environments they did not design, while managing work, care responsibilities and high levels of stress. Research suggests that sustained sensory strain can lead students to avoid learning spaces, reduce participation, or reconsider their programme choices altogether (Nolan et al., 2023).

When this happens, the problem is often framed as individual disengagement rather than environmental mismatch.

Behaviours we misread

Higher Education rarely talks about vestibular or proprioceptive regulation, yet these systems underpin behaviours we associate with “engagement”.

Fidgeting, shifting position, pacing or standing are often attempts to stay regulated and focused, not signs of distraction (Neff, 2022; Rhodes, 2023). When these behaviours are constrained or discouraged, learners are left with fewer ways to self-regulate.

Sensory-inclusive design is practical, not specialist

Designing for the senses does not require radical redesign. Small, intentional choices can make learning more sustainable:

• Flexibility in posture and movement
• Built-in breaks and transitions
• Reduced visual and auditory clutter
• Explicit permission for fidgeting or standing
• Online sessions designed for sensory stamina, not endurance

These supports benefit all learners, not only those with identified needs.

A sensory reckoning for Higher Education?

Higher Education has become comfortable talking about learning design frameworks, accessibility checklists, and digital innovation. Yet we rarely ask the more uncomfortable questions about how learning actually feels to participate in.

If lecture theatres exhaust students before content even begins, if online learning requires prolonged sensory suppression, if participation relies on sitting still, staying silent, and tolerating overload then these are not neutral design choices. They are values made material.

Perhaps the real provocation is this: When students disengage, withdraw, or “fail to thrive”, how often is it the learner we position as the problem, rather than the sensory demands of the environments we have designed?

Designing for the senses is not about comfort, preference, or lowering academic standards. It is about recognising that learning has always been embodied and that ignoring sensory experience advantages some bodies and brains over others.

Higher Education has rightly embraced conversations about inclusion, equity, and belonging. A sensory lens pushes those conversations into the physical and digital realities of learning.

So perhaps the question is no longer “Can we design for the senses?” But instead:
What does it say about our institutions if we continue not to?

References

Borda-Niño-Wildman, C. & Gillies-Walker, L. (2025). The importance of the sensory environment in Higher Education. Teaching Matters, University of Edinburgh.

Education Committee (2025). Solving the SEND Crisis (HC 492). London: House of Commons.

Neff, M. A. (2022). The 8 Senses of the Body: Exploring Hidden Sensory Systems. Neurodivergent Insights.

Nolan, C., Doyle, J. K., Lewis, K. & Treanor, D. (2023). Disabled students’ perception of the sensory aspects of the learning and social environments within one Higher Education Institution. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 86(5), 367–375.

Rhodes, S. (2023). Sarah Rhodes on Sensory Learning. L&T Chatshow Podcast.

Speaker bio

Sarah Rhodes is Associate Professor of Educational Practice at BPP University, with over 25 years’ experience across academic, developmental and professional service roles. Her work centres on inclusive curriculum design, technology‑enhanced learning and reflective practice, alongside interests in wellbeing and movement pursued through a PGDip in Nutrition and Exercise Science.

Sarah has led major initiatives across several UK universities, including inclusive policy development, staff induction design, PgCert leadership and Advance HE awards and recognition schemes. A Senior Fellow of Advance HE, trained ILM Coach and Mentor and SEDA accredited Learning to Tutor Online and Digital Transformation practitioner she contributes widely through examining, advisory roles and sector engagement. At BPP, she leads the Postgraduate Certificate in Educational Practice and supports Fellowship recognition.

LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-rhodes-889b4a74/

X @sarah_rhodes2

BlueSky @sarahjrhodes.bsky.social

Questions

1. Where do you most notice sensory overload or sensory mismatch in your own teaching and learner development (physical, digital, or hybrid)?
2. Which student behaviours have you previously interpreted as “disengagement” and how might a sensory lens reframe them?
3. What small, practical changes have you made (or could you make) to support movement, regulation, or sensory flexibility in learning spaces?
4. How do your online or blended teaching and learner support practices acknowledge sensory stamina, not just attention span?
5. In what ways might our institutional norms around “professional behaviour” unintentionally limit sensory self-regulation?
6. Could a sensory-informed perspective sit alongside UDL or learning design frameworks in your context and what might that change?

Join us on Bluesky for #LTHEchat on Wednesday 29th April at 8pm BST with guest Jenni Rose (@jennirose21.bsky.social) to discuss how we can support students’ critical thinking through self-feedback.

Introduction

We all want our students to think critically. It’s embedded in our learning outcomes, our professional body requirements, and our assessment criteria. Yet, despite decades of focus on critical thinking, graduates consistently arrive in practice without these capabilities. Whether your students are training to become accountants, engineers, nurses, journalists, lawyers, or social workers, they need to move beyond seeking ‘right answers’ to exercising professional judgement in ambiguous situations. Perhaps part of the problem is that we do not always consider the intellectual development that must happen before students can demonstrate critical thinking.

What’s missing from our approach to critical thinking

Perry’s Scheme of Intellectual and Ethical Development (Perry, 1970; 1999) offers a crucial insight that critical thinking isn’t just a skill to be taught, it’s a capability that emerges when students reach particular stages of intellectual development (Rose and Moore, 2024). Before students can consistently demonstrate critical thinking, they must progress through earlier positions where they develop the foundational capacities for independent judgement.

Consider a typical first-year student who arrives seeking “the right answer”, a mindset Perry termed ‘dualism’ (position two). These students see knowledge as a collection of facts to be memorised, and view teachers as authorities who possess correct answers. This dualistic thinking appears across disciplines, whether students expect clear legal precedents, defined clinical procedures, single correct equations, or specific marking criteria. Students become passive receivers of knowledge, with teachers positioned as all-knowing authorities (Freire, 1996). In this environment, students naturally adopt dualistic thinking, seeing answers as simply right or wrong based on what their teacher has told them.

From dualism, students move to multiplicity (position three), where they recognise that multiple viewpoints exist but lack tools to evaluate them, creating what Evans et al. (2010) call disequilibrium in meaning-making. Critical thinking only emerges at pure relativism (position four) and contextual relativism (position five), where students construct evidence-based arguments, view teachers as sources of thinking frameworks rather than answers, and ultimately evaluate knowledge within context to exercise sophisticated professional judgement (Rose and Moore, 2024).

This developmental lens reveals why simply teaching critical thinking skills often fails. We’re asking students to demonstrate capabilities that depend on intellectual positions they haven’t yet reached. It’s like expecting someone to run before they can walk.

Are we measuring what we think we’re measuring?

This developmental framework also illuminates a troubling question about our assessments. Traditional assessments such as essays, exams or case analyses require students to demonstrate critical thinking within constrained formats and time pressures. But what if these assessment methods inadvertently prevent students from showing the intellectual development they’ve achieved?

A recent study with first-year accounting students revealed that 55% of students who completed formative assignments demonstrated higher intellectual positions in reflective tasks than in their academic essays (Rose and Stoner, 2026). Students capable of sophisticated evaluative thinking when reflecting on their own work reverted to more dualistic approaches when writing formal essays. While this research focused on accounting education, the implications extend across disciplines and asks if our traditional assessment formats are systematically underestimating students’ intellectual capabilities?

This matters because we make crucial decisions based on these assessments. We conclude students “can’t think critically” when perhaps they can’t demonstrate it within our particular assessment constraints. We design interventions to “teach critical thinking” when students may need support developing the intellectual foundations that enable critical thinking to emerge.

How self-feedback supports development

If intellectual development precedes critical thinking, how do we facilitate that development? One promising approach draws on Nicol’s (2021) theory of inner feedback, operationalised through structured self-feedback activities.

Self-feedback involves students comparing their work to information in resources such as exemplars, peer work, videos, AI-generated content and explicitly articulating their evaluative responses through guided prompts. It is more effective when students do something before comparing (Nicol and Rose, 2025), so that they can cope with the uncertainty of the blank page before refining. This process moves students from passive knowledge reception (characteristic of dualism) toward active evaluation and contextual judgement (characteristic of relativism).

The developmental power lies in what self-feedback requires students to do. They must:

• Articulate evaluative judgements rather than seek ‘the right answer’
• Justify their evaluations with evidence (position four)
• Make contextual judgements about quality (position five)
• Develop autonomy rather than relying on teacher authority

In the same study of 80 first-year accounting students, 86% progressed by at least one position on Perry’s scheme (Rose and Stoner, 2026) by using self-feedback pedagogy. More remarkably, 74% showed at least glimpses of pure relativism (the threshold for critical thinking) by the end of the intervention, compared to just 14% at the outset. This substantial development occurred autonomously, without direct teacher feedback and perhaps accelerating intellectual growth precisely because students weren’t relying on teachers as arbiters of correctness.

While this research was conducted in accounting education, the principles apply across disciplines. Self-feedback activities can be adapted to any field where students need to develop evaluative judgement whether comparing their laboratory reports to exemplars, evaluating rubrics, or looking at peers’ screen play writing (Rose et al., 2024).

Making thinking visible through dialogue

This approach resonates with Freirean dialogic pedagogy, where students develop knowledge through “invention and reinvention, the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry human beings pursue with the world and with others” (Freire, 1996, p.53). Self-feedback enables this inquiry by creating structured opportunities for students to:

• Engage with diverse viewpoints (building comfort with multiplicity)
• Articulate their evaluative thinking (developing metacognition)
• Practice independent judgement (supporting autonomy)
• Build confidence in their reasoning (reducing reliance on authority)

When students complete self-feedback comparing exemplar essays, they encounter multiple valid approaches to the same question. When comparing their work to peers, they recognise their thinking as one perspective among many. These experiences support progression from dualism (seeking the single right answer) through multiplicity (overwhelmed by many answers) to relativism (confident in evaluating multiple answers contextually).

What this means for our teaching

If intellectual development precedes critical thinking, and self-feedback facilitates that development, several practical implications emerge.

We need to start early and scaffold carefully. Introducing self-feedback early can help establish trajectories of intellectual growth across a degree. Structured prompts can also help students articulate evaluative thinking that is only just beginning to emerge. These prompts can be drafted with generative AI (Rose, 2025) and then refined by the teacher.

We should diversify our assessment formats. If 55% of students demonstrate higher intellectual positions in reflective self-feedback than essays, we need assessment portfolios that capture development across contexts. Written self-feedback responses, reflective commentaries on peer work, and evaluative annotations of exemplars might reveal capabilities that traditional essays miss.

Finally, our pedagogy needs designing for autonomy. The intellectual development required for critical thinking involves moving from dependence on authority toward autonomous judgement. Pedagogical approaches that position students as active agents in their learning – comparing, evaluating, articulating judgements – support this shift more effectively than approaches that position teachers as answer-providers. 

This focus on intellectual development connects to wider conversations about student empowerment and learning communities. We want students to develop the intellectual capacities that enable genuine participation in their disciplinary communities, including the capacity to question, evaluate, and exercise professional judgement.

References

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D. and Renn, K.A. (2010) Student development in college: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Freire, P. (1996) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Translated by D. Macedo. New York: Continuum.

Nicol, D. (2021) ‘The power of internal feedback: Exploiting natural comparison processes’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), pp. 756–778.

Nicol, D. and Rose, J. (2025) ‘When should students engage with exemplars? Comparing the impact of pre-task versus post-draft exemplar analysis on student performance and self-feedback quality’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2534870

Perry, W.G. (1999) Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. New York: Routledge.

Rose, J. (2025) Teacher prompt for creating a self-feedback worksheet. Available at: https://zenodo.org/records/17611231

Rose, J. and Moore, W. (2024) ‘Encourage intellectual development in students to improve work readiness’, Times Higher Education.

Rose, J. and Stoner, G. (2026) ‘Measuring and enabling engaged first-year students’ intellectual development towards critical thinking’, Accounting Education (under review).

Rose, J., Dewsnip, H., McBride, J., McDonagh, L. and Walker, L. (2024) Active self-feedback guide for staff. Available at: https://assets.manchester.ac.uk/staffnet/files/itl/active-self-feedback-for-staff/

Speaker Bio

Jenni Rose is a Senior Lecturer in Accounting and Academic Lead for Employability at Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester. Jenni was awarded a National Teaching Fellowship in 2025 (the first for AMBS) and holds Principal Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy. Her innovative work on self-feedback has trained over 1,000 educators across multiple continents. As Chair of the ICAEW Academia and Education Committee, she supports the professional development for 20,200+ accounting educators globally. Jenni co-founded the University of Manchester Teaching and Scholarship Network (450+ members) and co-edited the Accounting Streams open-access textbook (83k+ interactions across 131 countries). Her research focuses on intellectual development, active self-feedback methodologies, and dialogic pedagogy in accounting education.