#LTHEchat 317: The Hidden Curriculum

Posted on February 3, 2025 by lthechatteam

Led by Professor Pam Birtill @diervilla.bsky.social, Dr Richard Harris @richharrisleeds.bsky.social, and Dr Madeleine Pownall @maddipow.bsky.social

The Hidden Curriculum

The hidden curriculum in higher education shapes student experiences in ways that are themselves hidden. Unwritten rules, implicit expectations, and cultural nuances can deeply impact learning and belonging, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. In this chat, we will explore the hidden curriculum, its impact on students, and consider how we can make higher education more inclusive and transparent.

The ‘hidden curriculum’ of Higher Education (HE) includes the implicit norms, processes, and language that students are expected to understand but are rarely taught explicitly (Semper & Blasco, 2018). This concept generally describes not just the curriculum, but also the values, knowledge, skills, or practices that are required to successfully navigate HE and to be an effective HE student, that are not overtly taught, explained or communicated to students.

Our work on the hidden curriculum started during the COVID-19 pandemic, when we were considering the impact of lockdowns, and online learning for transition to HE (Pownall et al., 2022). We were concerned that the informal transfer of knowledge from more experienced students to new students would be disrupted, and this vital socially mediated support would be absent for many students, who would have had a difficult time finishing their compulsory education, and deciding ‘what next’ (Birtill et al., 2024).

As educators, we all had experience of students not knowing about the language we use – either specialist terminology from our discipline, or peculiar terms in our university (I still don’t know why computer rooms are called ‘clusters’ at the University of Leeds!). We were also aware that much language of HE isn’t well understood beyond the classroom – credits, assessment types, and seminars.

The hidden curriculum may specifically impact students who are not the ‘typical’, such as those from minoritised backgrounds, mature students, disabled students, care experienced students, and those who are the first in their family to access HE (Hinchcliffe, 2020). These students do not have access to informal networks that can support navigation through HE, and may not even know that they are missing out on assumed knowledge (the unknown unknowns!).

One mechanism that educators may draw upon to unpack the hidden curriculum is to identify which norms of HE are the most overlooked, assumed, or unquestioned by academic staff and institutions. In response to this, we set about creating a resource, that defined the terms we use. We consulted on Twitter, spoke to our students, colleagues and families. Working with QAA, we created a straightforward, plain English guide that explained much of the terminology that is taken for granted. We followed this up with a version for staff too, to encourage academics with identifying their own ‘hidden curriculum’.

Developing this resource, and trying to make visible what is hidden, was one way of supporting a more inclusive approach to education, and supporting successful transition to HE.

In creating this guide, we were confronted with how much of the language that we use in HE is unknown to students. We conducted an evaluation, which of the guide, which demonstrated the need for efforts to dismantle the hidden curriculum to be appropriately tailored for diverse areas, subject disciplines, and contexts. In other words, while there is an overriding hidden curriculum that all students may experience, there are also subject-specific or local contributors to the hidden curriculum that should also be tackled, preferably with students.

There has been overwhelmingly positive response to these resources. We have led workshops at conferences, and universities sharing our approach to addressing the hidden curriculum. Of course, a guide itself doesn’t undo the harm of hidden curriculum. But identifying the problem, and using language that avoids a student-deficit narrative brings the hidden curriculum into the light.

Unpacking your Hidden Curriculum: A Guide for Educators

References

Blundell-Birtill, P., Harris, R., & Pownall, M. (2024). Development of the ‘Student guide to the hidden curriculum’. Open Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.56230/osotl.66

Hinchcliffe, T. (2020). The Hidden Curriculum of Higher Education. Advance HE.

Orón Semper, J. V., Blasco, M., Víctor, J., Semper, O., & Blasco, M. (2018). Revealing the Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 37(5), 481–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-018-9608-5

Pownall, M., Harris, R., & Blundell-Birtill, P. (2022). Supporting students during the transition to university in COVID-19: Five key considerations and recommendations for educators. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 21(1), 3–18.

Biographies

Dr Madeleine Pownall is an Associate Professor in the School of Psychology, University of Leeds. Her research spans three core areas: (1) pedagogical research, focusing on student outcomes, assessment, and pedagogies, (2) feminist scholarship, (3) open science and research reform. She is the author of the undergraduate textbook A Feminist Companion to Social Psychology (Open University Press, 2021), winner of the British Psychological Society Book Award 2021. She has also authored the upcoming popular science book Absent Minds: Reclaiming the Missing History of Women in Psychology (Headline Press, 2026). Her pedagogical research examines how psychology students can be best equipped to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals, through integrating psychological literacy and global citizenship into the curriculum. She also examines how open research can be integrated into research training across disciplines and methodologies, through her work with the Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Training (FORRT).

Dr Richard Harris is Associate Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Leeds. He gained his PhD at the University of York on the topic of the neural basis of facial expression processing, and has held research positions at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London, and University of Adelaide, Australia.  He is currently Director of Student Education in the School of Psychology and has held several student-education focussed roles, for example, Disability Tutor, Admissions Tutor and Assessment Lead.

He is a founding member of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Research Group, Research in the Psychology of Student Education. He is currently the General Secretary for the European Society for Psychology Learning and Teaching, and an Associate Editor for the Journal of Psychology Learning and Teaching. He has contributed nationally to the development of teaching practice, including working with the Quality Assurance Agency (UK) to unpack the ‘hidden curriculum’ for students.

Professor Pam Birtill is a psychology academic, who has been working at the University of Leeds for over 20 years. She publishes extensively on pedagogical matters, particularly relating to global citizenship, student belonging, transitions and the hidden curriculum. Her recent focus has been on implementing the assessment strategy in the University of Leeds, as part of a secondment to the Institutional Lead for Assessment and Feedback. Pam has led changes to assessment processes to improve the agility of assessment design and communication of assessment expectations to students. She has a focus on programmatic assessment and has championed the implementation of synoptic assessment. She explores the ways in which assessment can be inclusive, contributing to conversations addressing awarding gaps in the institution. A recent substantial project, as part of the University of Leeds Curriculum Redefined project, is using a peer-led approach to training and defining competence standards for programmes. Her approach involves building communities of practice and providing development opportunities for scholarship-focused staff.

Pam, Maddi and Richard work closely together, bringing insights from Psychology to their pedagogical work. Some of their most recent research has examined the student experience and student learning, with a particular focus on the hidden curriculum and the experiences of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. They worked with QAA to produce the student guide to the hidden curriculum, which has been highly regarded across the sector. They have also produced the staff guide to unpacking the hidden curriculum, which provides support to colleagues to address issues within their own context. 

Posted in announcement | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

#LTHEchat 316: Closing the Race Award Gap: A New Approach to Inclusive Assessment in Higher Education 

Posted on January 27, 2025 by lthechatteam

Dr Paul Ian Campbell @drpauliancampbell.bsky.social

The Race Award Gap

There currently exists a difference in degree outcomes between domicile students of colour and their White peers across UK Higher Education Providers (HEPs). This means that a student’s likelihood of achieving a 2.1 or First-class degree varies based on their racial or ethnic background, with some groups being less likely to attain these grades than their White peers—even when they enter with the same qualifications.

This disparity is commonly referred to as the race or ‘ethnicity’ award gap (henceforth RAG). Latest figures show that the aggregate gap between all students of colour and their White peers is 10.8% (Campbell, 2024). However, this gap is lower, or significantly higher, for UK students from different minority ethnic communities.

Institutional responses to the RAG

Current responses to the RAG by HEPs are driven by an assumption that there is a causal relationship between a largely White and Eurocentric curricula and students’ academic performance. Consequently, many HEPs have attempted to address this by pluralising, decolonising and/or co-creating their curricula through the introduction of curricula toolkits and students as curriculum consultants. Research on the impact of these curriculum-based initiatives has shown that while they significantly improve the general educative experiences of students, they have negligible impact on reducing the RAG (The Center for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes, 2022).

For the last half decade, I have been leading the UK’s first large scale interdisciplinary research project specifically on the relationship between race and assessment in HE. It showed that the sector had been looking in the wrong place for solutions to the RAG. We should instead be focused on addressing the racial barriers that exist in HE assessment and related practice.

How HE assessment currently works unevenly for students of colour

The project’s findings, published in my recent book, Race and Assessment in Higher Education: From Conceptualizing Barriers to Making Measurable Change (Campbell, 2024), show that existing HE assessment, assessment-practice, and assessment-policy are all framed around an imagined ‘ideal student’ (Campbell 2024). This is a student who, for example, can attend all lectures and seminars, understands the jargon-heavy language used in assessment rubrics, feels safe and that they belong at university, has family and friends who can support them with coursework, and so on. When we look at which students are most likely to fit this profile, we find that they are usually White, middle class, able-bodied and neurotypical.

Race-based structural inequalities in the UK mean that students of colour are comparatively less likely to be able to afford to live on campus and thus more likely to be commuter students. They are also statically more likely to need to find paid employment to support their studies, more likely to have family and/or care responsibilities, more likely to be first in their family to go to HE, and more likely to be from socioeconomically challenged households.

The consequence for students who fall outside of the ideal student frame, is that they are not meaningfully accounted for in HE assessment and thus they have to work much harder for equitable results. For example, my research found that students of colour are less likely to arrive at HE with a clear understanding of when to start working on their assignments, what their assessments were asking them to do, what was expected in their assignments and how to do them, and finally, the differences between a stronger and weaker piece of work and reasons for these. It also found that existing assessment pedagogy often failed to teach these hidden lessons for success, leaving students to have to learn through a costly process of trial and error.

Against all this, I developed the Racially Inclusive Practice in Assessment Guidance Intervention (RIPAIG), which is a set of resources to help frontline lecturing staff and professional services colleagues respond to their students’ needs and provide this support in their practice.

THE RIPIAG: Making a measurable difference

Trialed on a sample of 175 students across three UK universities, the results show that the RIPIAG is the first intervention to date to directly and measurably reduce the RAG. For example, the reported RAGs on all treated modules were below the overall RAG reported at their respective HEPs. In 83% of modified modules, the reported RAG difference was lower than the 8.8% national average that year. Also, all treated modules reported narrower gaps when compared to their aggregate RAG performance for the previous two years.

The intervention also improved the qualitative assessment experiences of students from all backgrounds, and significantly reduced exam anxiety, a key contributor to mental ill health (Howard, 2020). The RIPIAG is now being embedded, and changing assessment practice, at 16 UK universities including Loughborough, Leeds Trinity, University of South Wales, University of Winchester, London School of Economics, and Birmingham City University.

It is wrong to think that the RIPIAG alone will eliminate the RAG fully, because it is also caused by factors that exist outside of assessment practice. However, it is clear that assessment focused interventions, such as the RIPIAG, go a significant way in making university degree outcomes more indicative of an individual’s talent, skill and ambition, and not their racial background, as is the case, currently.

Acknowledgements

This piece was adapted from Campbell, P. I. (2. 10. 2024) Decolonising the curriculum hasn’t closed the gap between Black and white students – here’s what might. The Conversation.  Available at: https://theconversation.com/decolonising-the-curriculum-hasnt-closed-the-gap-between-black-and-white-students-heres-what-might-238728  

References

Campbell, P I (2024) Race and Assessment in Higher Education: From Conceptualizing Barriers to Making Measurable Change. Bingley, Emerald Publishers

Howard, E. (2020) A review of the literature concerning anxiety for educational assessments.  Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e45825340f0b677bf6eb3ea/A_review_of_the_literature_concerning_anxiety_for_educational_assessment.pdf

The Center for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes (2022). The Impact of Curriculum Reform on the Ethnicity Degree Awarding Gap. Available at: https://cdn.taso.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022-11-23_The-impact-of-curriculum-reform-on-the-ethnicity-degree-awarding-gap_TASO.pdf

Dr Paul Ian Campbell is a Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Leicester. He is also an award- winning academic in race and inclusion. His first monograph won the British Sociological Association’s Philip Abrams Prize in 2017, and he has continued to publish widely in this area. Paul also has a distinguished track-record and commitment to inclusive pedagogical practice, first as a secondary school teacher, then as an academic and researcher, and now as a senior leader. Since 2020, Paul has been directly involved in leading the University’s strategic response to eliminating the awarding gap between White and minority ethnic students at the college, university and national level and in devising toolkits, strategies and training for improving racial literacy among teaching staff. Paul currently leads on several cross-university Race Equality and Education projects and supports a number of UK universities in addressing racial inequalities in their curricula and in their assessment processes. Paul is also Chair of the University of Leicester Race Equality Action Group, a University Distinguished Teaching Fellow and current winner of the University of Leicester’s Citizens’ Award for Inclusivity. Paul was recently appointed to Director of the Leicester Institute for Inclusivity in Higher Education. In this role, he will continue his ground-breaking work and contribution to informing best racial inclusion practice at Leicester and across the sector.

Posted in announcement | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

#LTHE chat 315: Playful learning

Posted on January 20, 2025 by lthechatteam

Led by Suzanne Faulkner (SFHEA), teaching fellow in Prosthetics and Orthotics, within the department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, and  Dr Kiu Sum, lecturer in Nutrition in the Department of Sport and Health at Southampton Solent University. 

The Benefits and Barriers to Playful Learning in Higher Education 

Playful learning is an educational approach that integrates elements of play into learning activities, and it is gaining recognition as a powerful pedagogical tool in higher (HE) and further education (FE). It is often defined as an active, engaged, and enjoyable form of learning that encourages curiosity, creativity, and collaboration.  

Walking and leaving foot prints in paint. Students learning and laughing through Lego Serious play.

Two sessions led by Suzanne Faulkner:  learning about gait through painting feet and analysing footprints, exploring aspects such as step length and walking base width, and Lego Serious Play session with 2nd-year students.

The ‘magic circle’ and play in Higher Education.

The concept of the ‘magic circle’ of playfulness originally introduced by Huizina (1995) and was expanded upon by Salen and Zimmerman (2004), refers to the space where play occurs, explaining how relationships and realities are constructed during play. This occurs through the creation of a specific social situation, where participants cross virtual boundaries and enter another world with accepted and defined rules and codes of practice

Moving from the real world to the ‘magic circle’ involves moving through a liminal space. As learners move through this threshold, they often encounter a transformative process where they evolve from a state of ‘not knowing’ to a state of ‘knowing’, letting go of old ideas to develop and change to embrace and explore new ideas.

One of the key defining features of the magic circle of playfulness is that this is a safe space where mistakes are not only tolerated but encouraged. However, it is important to remember that in the HE/FE context that simply introducing playful activities and games does not create a safe environment, this is developed through developing relationships with their fellow learners over time (Whitton, 2018) to reach a place where individuals feel secure enough to take risks.

Additionally, with a playful mindset, challenges are viewed as opportunities to learn, mistakes are no longer considered as failure, but an opportunity to learn (Guitard et al., 2005). Play facilitates soft fails, fail without consequences. There are not many opportunities for soft fails, or to fail safely in higher education (Forbes, 2021). Doing so helps to build resilience and allows students to take managed risks and develop resilience.

Permission to play

Goffman’s order of interaction discussed in his work “The Presentation of Self in Everyday” (1959), outlines how individuals negotiate their roles and the expectations of others in social interactions. Goffman refers to the “backstage” and “frontstage” dynamics of social life, which ties into permission to play by determining when and how individuals feel free to express themselves or engage in playful behaviour, this is particularly relevant in Higher Education.

Front stage relates to the public persona where people manage their appearance and behaviour to an expected norm, whereas backstage refers to instances where people can be their authentic self.

As such, implementing playful learning in HE and FE settings, both in the UK and globally, presents notable challenges. This blog explores its benefits and barriers.

Playdoh and cards. Using glasses to learn about anatomy. Two students learning and laughing. Several students learning and laughing. Glasses, pens and equipment to learn about anatomy.

Using the game ‘Who am i?’ with glasses to learn spinal anatomy and playdoh to learn about different types of cervical (neck fractures). Session facilitated by Suzanne Faulkner

Benefits of Playful Learning in Higher Education

  1. Enhanced Engagement and Motivation
    One of the most significant benefits of playful learning is the increased engagement it facilitates. Traditional educational methods can often lead to passive learning, where students are mere recipients of information. Playful learning, on the other hand, encourages active participation, making learning more enjoyable and stimulating. Pivec (2007) highlights that when students engage in playful activities, such as role-playing, gamification, or problem-solving challenges, they are more likely to remain motivated and enthusiastic about their studies.
  2. Development of Critical Thinking and Creativity
    Playful learning encourages students to ‘think outside the box’ and explore new ways of solving problems. Activities such as games, simulations, or interactive workshops – particularly when real-world problems are posed – require students to apply critical thinking, adapt to new information, and work collaboratively. This process helps to foster creativity, as students are encouraged to experiment with ideas and approaches in a low-stakes environment. In HE/FE, where innovation and original thinking are highly valued, these skills are essential for academic and professional success.
  3. Fostering Collaborative Learning
    Playful learning often involves group activities, which can enhance collaborative work. In HE and FE settings, group projects and peer-to-peer learning are integral parts of the academic experience. Playful learning settings, such as team-based games or interactive exercises, encourage communication, teamwork, and the sharing of ideas. These social learning environments can help students build relationships, strengthen networks, and develop interpersonal skills that are valuable in both academic and professional contexts.
  4. Stress Reduction and Well-Being
    The pressure of university life can be overwhelming, and students may experience stress, anxiety, or burnout. Playful learning offers a means to mitigate these challenges by creating a more relaxed and enjoyable atmosphere for learning. Importantly, students who engage in play are more likely to overcome challenges and think of new, innovative solutions (Walsh, 2015). Engaging in play-related activities can trigger the release of dopamine, associated with feelings of pleasure and reward. This can lead to improved mental well-being and a greater sense of fulfilment in academic pursuits.

Barriers to Playful Learning in Higher Education

  1. Perceived Lack of Academic Rigour
    One of the most significant barriers to adopting playful learning in HE is the perception that it lacks academic rigour. Many HE institutions prioritise formal assessments, research output, and traditional teaching methods. As a result, there is a reluctance to embrace playful learning, which is sometimes viewed as trivial or not serious enough for academic environments. Some educators and students may also feel that playful learning is incompatible with the expectations of higher education, which often emphasise critical thinking, discipline-specific knowledge, and assessment-driven learning.
  2. Resource Constraints
    Implementing playful learning in HE settings can be resource-intensive and expensive. Games, simulations, and other playful activities require time, effort, and financial investment to design and execute effectively – not forgetting space to store the resources and manage them. Universities may face budget constraints that limit their ability to integrate these methods into the curriculum, which often means proponents of play end up funding resources from their own pockets. Additionally, academic staff may require training in how to facilitate playful learning experiences, which can further strain institutional resources (Lester & Russell, 2010). This is particularly challenging for institutions with limited resources or those focused on large-scale lectures rather than interactive or experiential learning.
  3. Cultural and Institutional Resistance
    Despite the evidenced benefits of play in HE, resistance to play in HE persists (James, 2022), with transmissive learning often the unquestioned norm in academia (Koeners & Francis, 2020). There may also be cultural resistance to playful learning in HE/FE In many academic environments, especially in more traditional or conservative settings, there is an entrenched belief in the value of formal instruction and the separation between work and play.  A significant problem identified is misunderstanding the role of play in HE. The continuing stigma of play, thought of as frivolous, lacking rigour and a loss of credibility continues to be barriers faced by the proponents of play (Koeners & Francis, 2020).  The shift towards a more playful and interactive approach may be met with scepticism or resistance from both faculty and students who are accustomed to conventional teaching methods. This can create barriers to the widespread adoption of playful learning practices, as some educational stakeholders may fear that such approaches could undermine the perceived value of the academic experience.
  4. Assessment Challenges
    Playful learning can pose challenges when it comes to assessment. Traditional forms of assessment, such as exams and essays, do not always align with the experiential and dynamic nature of playful learning activities. This mismatch between learning and assessment methods can make it difficult to measure the outcomes of playful learning accurately. Additionally, is appears, there is a lack of established frameworks for evaluating the effectiveness of playful learning, which may deter educators from adopting it in their teaching practices.

Learning foot anatomy with pasta and vegetables. Session facilitated by Suzanne Faulkner.

Conclusion

Playful learning offers numerous benefits in HE and FE settings, including increased engagement, the development of critical thinking and creativity, enhanced collaboration, and improved well-being. However, its implementation faces significant barriers, such as the perception of a lack of academic rigour, resource constraints, cultural resistance, and challenges related to assessment. To overcome these barriers, institutions must create supportive environments that value innovative pedagogies (and the academics/teaching staff that spearhead these), provide adequate resources for playful learning initiatives, and develop new assessment frameworks that align with these approaches. With the right support, playful learning has the potential to significantly enrich the HE/FE experiences and prepare students for the dynamic and evolving demands of the future.

References:

Forbes, L. (2021). The Process of Playful Learning in Higher Education: A Phenomenological Study. Journal of Teaching and Learning, 15, pp. 57–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/jtl.v15i1.6515

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.

Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston, MA: The Beacon Press.

Guitard, P., Ferland, F., & Dutil, É. (2005). Toward a Better Understanding of Playfulness in Adults. OTJR: Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 25(1), pp. 9–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/153944920502500103

James, A. (2022). The Use and Value of Play in HE: A Study. Independent scholarship supported by The Imagination Lab Foundation. Available at: https://engagingimagination.com

Koeners, M. P. & Francis, J. (2020). The physiology of play: Potential relevance for higher education. International Journal of Play, 9(1), pp. 143–159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2020.1720128

Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Walsh, A. (2015). Playful Information Literacy: Play and Information Literacy in Higher Education. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 7(1), pp. 80–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15845/noril.v7i1.223

Whitton, N. J. (2018). Playful Learning: Tools, Techniques, and Tactics. Research in Learning Technology, 26, pp. 1–12. ISSN: 2156-7069. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2035

Author Biographies

Suzanne Faulkner

Suzanne Faulkner

Suzanne Faulkner (SFHEA) is a teaching fellow in Prosthetics and Orthotics, within the department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, she is also a facilitator trained in the LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) methodology. Suzanne is passionate about enhancing the student experience by focusing on improving student engagement, utilising social media in learning and teaching and incorporating playful learning. She has been nominated and shortlisted for several teaching excellence awards and is currently undertaking an EdD, evaluating the use of LSP to enhance participation of students who have English as an additional language in group work activities.

X: @SFaulknerPandO

Bluesky: @sfaulknerpando.bsky.social

Dr Kiu Sum

Dr Kiu Sum

Dr Kiu Sum is a Lecturer in Nutrition in the Department of Sport and Health at Southampton Solent University. With a BSc(Hons) and MRes in Human Nutrition, Kiu’s mixed-methods research includes workplace nutrition, public health nutrition, and nutritional behaviour. Kiu’s PhD explored doctors’ and nurses’ nutrition during shift work. Aside from nutrition, she is a pedagogy researcher focusing on student engagement and partnerships, assessments and feedback.

Kiu is a Registered Nutritionist (Nutritional Science) with the Association for Nutrition (AfN) and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Kiu is a member of The Nutrition Society, Chair of the Institute of Food Science and Technology’s South East Branch Committee, the Communications Officer of the UK Society for Behavioural Medicine’s Early Career Network. She serves as Secretary at the RAISE Network, where she also convenes the Engaging Assessment and the Early Career Researchers Special Interest Groups. With an interest in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), Kiu serves on ALDinHE’s Steering Group and leads the EDI Working Group.

X: @ KiuSum

BlueSky: @kiusum.bsky.social

Posted in announcement | 3 Comments

#LTHE chat 314: Generative AI (GenAI)

Posted on January 13, 2025 by lthechatteam

Led by Dr. James Bedford, Education Specialist, Artificial Intelligence (AI), UNSW College, @jamesbedford.bsky.social

2025: The Year for Evidence-Based Generative AI in Higher Education

The past two years have seen an explosion of discourse on Generative AI (GenAI) in education—from speculative threads on social media to claims about the many benefits and dangers of this new technology. I wanted to take this opportunity while writing a blog post for #LTHEchat to encourage a shift in the way we talk about GenAI more broadly, one that focuses on evidence-based approaches with pedagogically aligned solutions.

Reflecting on Two Years of GenAI in Education

The conversations that have emerged because of GenAI have been some of the most fascinating of my career to date. From almost frantic exchanges with colleagues about how on earth we come up with a response to the challenge of academic integrity and Referencing AI in academic work, to designing a Responsible Use of AI framework for UNSW that attempts to outline effective and responsible uses of AI for over 60,000 students. Collaborative efforts, such as our research on how GenAI can support ESL students demonstrated the value of the student-voice and left plenty of room for further exploration. I’ve also been lucky enough to speak to over 4000 educators and students across a variety of keynotes and seminars which have fundamentally informed my understanding of the state of AI in education.

If there is one thing I’ve learned from all this, including the past 24 months of updates, and responses to those updates, it’s that there is a lot of hype and hopeout there, and a lot less proof about what GenAI can actually do for education.

The problem with much of the current discourse is that it’s often centred around cherry-picked examples of GenAI failures or successes, along with simplistic testing of large language models resulting in hasty conclusions about the capabilities or limitations of these tools. As Rose Luckin recently pointed out, “claims about educational impact need proper time for evaluation in higher education” (2024).  We are only two years in, and if the past has told us anything it’s that the longer-term effects of technology take a while to manifest. If we are going to make any progress with (or perhaps without GenAI) in education we need to start having a much deeper, pedagogically-informed discussion grounded in robust research and thorough evidence.

Moving Towards Evidence-Based Implementation

Recent studies have attempted to shed light on the tangible impacts of GenAI in educational settings. For instance, Almasri (2024) conducted a systematic review highlighting that AI applications in education are transforming instructional practices, assessment strategies, and administrative processes, actively contributing to the progression of science education. Additionally, Lee and Moore (2024) synthesised empirical studies on GenAI for automated feedback in higher education, indicating significant opportunities and challenges in integrating these tools effectively into learning environments, emphasising the growing demand for timely and personalised feedback. Crompton and Burke (2023) underscored the importance of aligning AI tools with specific educational objectives to enhance learning experiences.

However, while these articles provide excellent coverage of a growing field, there still remains a need for further empirical research to fully understand the long-term implications of AI integration in education. This includes addressing challenges such as the limitations of current AI technologies, the necessity for human oversight, and the potential impact on intellectual and emotional development. Additionally, the rapid evolution of AI tools calls for continuous evaluation to ensure they complement traditional teaching methods without undermining the fundamental goals of learning. A cautious and well-researched approach is essential to harness the benefits of AI while mitigating potential risks in educational settings.

Moving Forward: Practical Steps for 2025

And herein lies the challenge. How do we evaluate the pedagogical and societal impact of generative AI—a technology that is not only still emerging, but which so often operates subtly and invisibly within educational practices?

For starters, we need to be asking ourselves some important questions:

  • What specific problems in our current educational system can GenAI demonstrably help solve?
  • How can we validate the effectiveness of GenAI tools in our educational settings?
  • What metrics should we use to measure the impact of GenAI integration?

All of us must be willing to question our assumptions about the necessity of GenAI solutions, and all of us must acknowledge not every educational challenge requires an AI-powered solution. We should be honest about when traditional approaches might be more effective. I’m all for using GenAI for certain parts of my job, however, I would not think it beneficial to create an educational system where we end up becoming conduits for statistically aligned outputs, infinitely parsing information through systems that effectively minimise human intervention and judgement. In other words (and excuse the sentiment) if we depend too much on GenAI’s handling of everything, we risk losing the personal touch that makes educational experiences so meaningful. Which brings me to the purpose of this blog.

Recommendations for Implementation 

While speculation about future GenAI capabilities is crucial, perhaps we should be leaning into an informed understanding of current GenAI tools and their applications. This means:

  1. Conducting rigorous research on existing GenAI tools and their impact on learning outcomes.
  2. Developing clear frameworks for evaluating the appropriateness of GenAI integration in different educational contexts.
  3. Creating evidence-based best practices for GenAI implementation.
  4. Establishing robust assessment methods to measure the effectiveness of GenAI-enhanced learning.

While the enthusiastic discussions and speculative debates about GenAI in education have served an important purpose in helping us process this technological revolution, 2025 must be the year we anchor ourselves in evidence. The future of GenAI in education is not just about continually anticipating what’s coming next—it’s about understanding and optimising what we have now.

Conclusion

In summary, to make 2025 a turning point in how we approach GenAI in education educators might consider:

  • Prioritising peer-reviewed research on GenAI implementation in educational settings.
  • Sharing detailed case studies of both successes and failures in GenAI integration.
  • Developing standardised methods for evaluating GenAI tools in educational contexts.

By focusing on evidence-based approaches and present-day applications, we can build a more solid foundation for GenAI solutions in higher education. This doesn’t mean we stop imagining future possibilities, rather, we begin to balance our forward-looking discussions with practical, evidence-based implementations that serve both our own and our students’ needs today. To end on a quote from a now prophetic article on AIED published in 2021:

”In the end, the goal of AIEd is not to promote AI, but to support education. In essence, there is only one way to evaluate the impact of AI in Education: through learning outcomes. AIEd for reducing teachers’ workload is a lot more impactful if the reduced workload enables teachers to focus on students’ learning, leading to better learning outcomes” (Chaudhry & Kazim, 2021).

Author Biography

James Bedford is an award-winning writer and educator with over 10 years experience working in higher education. He earned his PhD in Creative Writing from the University of New South Wales in 2019 and has won multiple teaching and academic awards throughout his career, ranging from: a Programs that Enhance Learning Award, Australian Postgraduate Award, a Research Excellence Award, and a University Medal. A visiting doctoral scholar at the Oxford Centre for Life-Writing at Oxford University he has published both creative fiction as well as teaching and learning scholarship. He is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA) and has been a keynote speaker at multiple events and conferences, regularly sharing his insights on generative AI in higher education. He is also a member of the Artificial Intelligence in Education at Oxford University (AIEOU), a research hub dedicated to exploring the potential of AI in education. Currently, he is working at UNSW College as an Education Specialist in Artificial Intelligence.

References

Almasri, F. (2024). Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence in teaching and learning of science: A systematic review of empirical research. Research in Science Education, 54(4), 977–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-024-10176-3

Bedford, J. (2024). AI in academic research and writing: Potentials, pitfalls, and possibilities. Kirby Institute, UNSW. Retrieved from https://www.kirby.unsw.edu.au/events/ai-academic-research-and-writing-potentials-pitfalls-and-possibilities

Bedford, J., Kim, M., & Qin, J. C. (2024). Confidence enhancer, learning equalizer, and pedagogical ally. In S. Beckingham, J. Lawrence, S. Powell, & P. Hartley (Eds.), Using generative AI effectively in higher education: Sustainable and ethical practices for learning, teaching and assessment (1st ed., pp. 9–18). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003482918-6

Chaudhry, M. A., & Kazim, E. (2021). Artificial intelligence in education (AIEd): A high-level academic and industry note 2021. AI and Ethics, 2(1), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00074-z

Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence in higher education: The state of the field. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(22). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8

Lee, S. S., & Moore, R. L. (2024). Harnessing generative AI (GenAI) for automated feedback in higher education: A systematic review. Online Learning, 28(3), 82–104. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i3.4593

Posted in announcement | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

#LTHE chat 313: Meeting the Challenges of Implementing Feedback: Moving Towards Active, Dialogic Practices in Higher Education

Posted on January 6, 2025 by lthechatteam

Led by Prof. Kay Sambell @kaysambell.bsky.social and Prof. Sally Brown @profsallybrown.bsky.social, Independent consultants

We’ve been thinking a lot about feedback recently, preparing some new workshop materials and especially trying to unpack how we can make feedback a more interactive dialogic process that helps with real student learning. We are privileged therefore to be leading the first #LTHEchat that is exclusively on BlueSky.

In recent years, we see that feedback in higher education has undergone a significant shift in both theory and practice—a Copernican revolution putting the students at the centre of the experience. Researchers (including us) argue that feedback can no longer be seen merely as a set of teacher-generated comments delivered to students after assessment. Emerging perspectives now emphasize that feedback is not a static product but rather an active process, where students must engage, interact, and act for learning to occur. As Winstone and Carless (2019) argue, feedback involves much more than delivering performance-related information; it requires students to make sense of, process, and apply that information.

This conceptual shift is powerfully captured by Henderson et al. (2019), who define feedback as “processes where the learner makes sense of performance-relevant information to promote their learning” (p. 268). Feedback, therefore, is incomplete unless some form of learning or action takes place as a result. Simply put, comments alone do not constitute feedback unless they stimulate improvement and growth.

The Limitations of Traditional Feedback

We note that the traditional model of feedback in universities is often linear and detached: students produce work, tutors respond with comments (sometimes weeks later), and students are left to interpret and act on this information in isolation. While improving the timing or quality of these comments is beneficial, there are limits to how far this conventional model can stretch. Importantly, such approaches risk positioning students as passive recipients rather than active agents in their own learning. As Sadler (1989) observes, without students’ ability to make sense of educators’ comments and act upon them, feedback input remains little more than “dangling data” (p. 121).

This challenge is compounded by practical realities that we hear about weekly, such as educators’ workloads and institutional constraints. Increasing the volume of feedback provided by teachers is neither sustainable nor reflective of real-world environments, where graduates must develop agency and independence in using feedback (Molloy et al., 2020). Instead of “doing more assessment,” which is just not feasible, we must rethink feedback as an embedded process—an integral part of the curriculum that builds students’ capacity to evaluate their own progress and act on insights in meaningful ways.

Reframing Feedback: A Social, Dialogic Process

To move beyond traditional feedback models, we can adopt complementary strategies that foster interaction, dialogue, and student agency. Black and McCormack suggest that a broader repertoire of feedback practices—many of which are already common in schools and professional settings—can offer inspiration. These include:

• Oral feedback and classroom dialogue

• Peer-to-peer feedback

• Student collaboration in group work

• Opportunities for immediate, task-based feedback

Importantly, feedback should not be “principally about teachers informing students” but rather about “building feedback opportunities and processes into courses” (Boud and Molloy, 2013). Creating structured activities where students engage in dialogue, self-evaluation, and collaborative meaning-making can help them see where they stand, understand what’s expected, and explore actionable next steps.

Informal Feedback as a Tool for Learning

One particularly effective approach is fostering informal feedback, which occurs naturally as part of ongoing teaching and learning activities. In thinking about assessment for learning, Sambell, McDowell, and Montgomery (2013) suggest that feedback does not always have to be delivered as a separate, formal act; it can be an integrated outcome of well-designed subject-related tasks and interactions. For instance, simulations, group activities, or live problem-solving exercises can provide immediate and intuitive insights into performance. Students can see the consequences of their actions in real time, making feedback active, timely, and impactful.

As co-blogger Sambell and colleagues (2013: 101) illustrate:

“A lecturer might set up an online simulation exercise which enables students to realise immediately what consequences their actions have had by seeing whether their intentions ‘work out’ effectively or not.”

Through such approaches, educators shift their role from feedback providers to facilitators of meaningful learning experiences. Rather than simply giving students “answers,” teachers create environments that foster exploration, interaction, and reflection. Shared dialogue within a learning community strengthens the feedback process, allowing students to gain “feedback-like effects” through participation, collaboration, and social interaction.

Moving Forward: Rethinking Feedback Practices

So how can we, as educators, design feedback processes that encourage student participation, promote self-efficacy, and remain manageable? How can we ensure that feedback prepares students for authentic challenges—both in academic settings and professional contexts? These are the questions we aim to tackle in this discussion over the course of a lively interactive hour this Wednesday, 8th January 2025 at 8pm.

By reimagining feedback as an active, social, and embedded process, we are sure we can better equip students to understand their learning journeys, develop critical self-evaluation skills, and engage meaningfully with feedback. Let’s explore these challenges—and opportunities—together.

Author Biographies

Sally Brown is an Independent Consultant in Learning, Teaching and Assessment and Emerita Professor at Leeds Beckett University where she was, until 2010,
Pro-Vice-Chancellor. She is also Visiting Professor at Edge Hill University and formerly at the Universities of Plymouth, Robert Gordon, South Wales and Liverpool John Moores and at Australian universities James Cook, Central Queensland and the Sunshine Coast. She holds Honorary Doctorates from the universities of Plymouth, Kingston, Bournemouth, Edinburgh Napier and Lincoln. She is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, a Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) Senior Fellow and a National Teaching Fellow.

Alt Text: Image of Prof. Sally Brown

Kay Sambell is widely known internationally for her contributions to the Assessment for Learning (AfL) movement in Higher Education, which seeks to emphasize the ways in which assessment processes can be designed to support and developing students’ learning, as well as measure it. For over two decades she has spearheaded a range of pragmatic innovations, research projects and initiatives focused on improving university student learning via assessment. She co-led the pioneering Centre for Excellence in Assessment for Learning during her time at Northumbria University. She is a UK National Teaching Fellow (2002) and a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. She is currently an independent consultant and Visiting Professor of Assessment for Learning at the University of Sunderland and the University of Cumbria.

Kay also helped to establish and support a series of international conferences aimed at rethinking assessment practice. She is currently President of the vibrant Assessment in Higher Education (AHE) conference series, ( https://ahenetwork.org/.) which leads the development of assessment for learning. 

Posted in announcement | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

LTHEChat 312: Supporting students through pre-arrival academic questionnaire

Posted on December 13, 2024 by susan89706

Led by Michelle Morgan @it_se

We need to look forward and not back

The value of a pre-arrival academic questionnaire (PAQ) in understanding prior learning experiences, concerns and expectations on entry in providing support guidance and advice for our increasingly diverse student body.

Entire committee cycles are focussed on “review” – look back, synthesise, tweak, repeat. The National Student Survey invites students to look back on their time at university. The end of and even mid-module review asks students to reflect on what happened in the recent past.

However, as a sector,  we need to move the focus from understanding student “outcomes” (e.g. NSS) to understanding “prior learning experience, expectations and concerns on entry”. This can be achieved by undertaking a pre-arrival academic questionnaire (PAQ) to help provide the right support on entry. If we can lay stable foundations and building blocks for our students then we are better placed to improve their experience as well as their progression and success throughout the study lifecycle. If we get that right, then the all-important metrics that we are weighed, measured and judged by should also improve. 

I  have designed and undertaken numerous pre-arrival and entry-to-study questionnaires at undergraduate and postgraduate levels over the years, with the most recent being a three-university report looking specifically at Prior learning experience, study expectations of A-Level and BTEC students on entry to university This report has been submitted as part of the National Curriculum and Assessment Review.

What would you do if you knew the following?
A Pre-arrival Academic Questionnaire can be a powerful tool in changing the assumptions of staff and university leaders regarding understanding the needs and expectations of incoming students. As a sector, student diversity has increased, and we need to be much more aware of the impact student characteristics can have on their engagement, behaviours, progression and success. 

So if……….

  • Your course teams knew that the top two learning resources at school for incoming undergraduate students were handwritten notes and a course textbook; even during COVID-19, when teaching went online, how would the first few weeks of teaching be adapted in introducing them to online learning resources? The core business of a university and the primary activity for a student is learning. So it is perplexing that understanding the prior learning experiences is such a neglected practice across the sector.

So if……….

  • Colleagues knew that the top priorities for new undergraduate and postgraduate taught students were academic life, balancing study, work and life demands, and mental health, and that social activities and joining clubs and societies were at the bottom of their list, how could these be incorporated into the course/curriculum as we know they help with creating a sense of belonging and mattering?

The delivery and use of PAQ data
I have delivered the PAQ centrally, at course level, with and without student IDs. The best collection method is an anonymous questionnaire completed as a course-based pre-arrival academic activity. This helps with engagement and completion by incoming students as they know they cannot be identified, as does the promise that the headline findings will be fed back to them with support and advice four weeks into their studies through videos and an interactive digital App. Departments get their basic frequencies within one week of the survey closing along with headline findings.

The PAQ has evolved over numerous years and has been developed with students. It takes students through six reflective sections, starting with their prior learning experiences, concerns about entry, how they expect to study at university, their strengths and weaknesses and university study outcomes. 

Examples of areas explored include:

  • What support do they expect to use, and what support do they feel would be helpful to them?
  • How are they used to studying?
  • How do they expect to study at university?
  • What do they understand by the term ‘feedback’, and how are they used to receive it?
  • What concerns (if any) do they have?
  • What do they see as their main study strengths?
  • How are they used to being assessed, and what is their preferred assessment method?
  • What skills do they hope to obtain, and what do they wish to do after graduation?

What is done with the PAQ?
The information gleaned from the PAQ helps inform every area of a university’s work, from Access and Participation Plans to recruitment, orientation, reorientation and outduction activities, designing learning, teaching and assessment practices, developing mental health and wellbeing support, and evolving policy. The PAQ also has numerous other benefits.

For the incoming student, asking appropriate and targeted questions can effectively kick-start the university learning process and get students to reflect on prior and expected learning behaviour. This can be especially helpful after a long summer vacation or lengthy break from study.

The findings can also help students a few weeks in when some experience a wobble and start questioning whether university is right for them. By highlighting some of the anxiety levels and concerns of new students along with signposting to relevant support services to help reduce them, it not only provides targeted and practical advice for this specific cohort but also helps entrants realise that they may not be alone in feeling worried or concerned. Importantly, they can see that their responses are being used for their learning benefit and not merely to improve university processes.

For the department or faculty, the findings can enable course leaders and academic advisors to be proactive in identifying and bridging any concerns about study skills and skill gaps. Central services providing learning support can use the information to effectively tailor their provision based on identified student needs. For example, this can include dedicated support or early intervention mechanisms for mature or BTEC students.

Understanding incoming students’ perceptions of how they are expecting to learn enables marketing departments to provide targeted course advice in their publications to help correct any misunderstandings of what is expected. This helps manage expectations and, in turn, satisfaction levels.

Lastly, it can stop assumptions being made about the knowledge and experience of incoming students across all levels of study, and it stops merely lifting shifting support appropriate for one level automatically to another.

A national survey
If these types of pre-arrival and entry questionnaires were undertaken nationally, such as the National Student Survey (NSS) and the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES), results could inform policymaking at a national level. For example, universities could compare their pre-entry/entry expectations data with NSS/PTES results. This would enable institutions to understand how their interaction with students and the development of targeted support initiatives have impacted the student experience on entry through to completion. Importantly, it would also enable the sector to understand different incoming student support requirements based on student characteristics, institution, region, and mission group. 

If we understand the expectations, concerns, and anxieties of incoming students at the front end of their studies, then we are better placed to improve not only their overall student experience but also student retention, progression, and attainment. 

The LTHE chat on Wednesday, 18th December 2024, will pose six questions based on PAQ findings to explore with colleagues what they would do in bridging the study journey into higher education at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Join us and tell us what you would do if you knew these findings about your student body.

Pre-arrival Academic Questionnaire reports

Morgan.M. (2023) Prior learning experience, study expectations of A-Level and BTEC students on entry to university and the impact of Covid19 | London: University of East London

Morgan, M. (2020a) Financial concerns and working intentions of incoming Level 4 students -The potential implications for applicants and students in 2020/21 due to Covid19. Available online at: https://www.improvingthestudentexperience.com/library/covid19/Financial_concerns_and_working_intentions_of_incoming_Level_4_university_students-_implications_of_C19.pdf

Morgan, M. (2020b) Bridging the gap between secondary and tertiary education. Available online at: https://www.improvingthestudentexperience.com/library/UG_documents/Bridging_the_gap_between_secondary_and_tertiary_education-Morgan_2020.pdfdf

Morgan, M. and Direito, I. (2016) Widening and sustaining postgraduate taught (PGT) STEM study in the UK: a collaborative project. Creating change through understanding expectations and attitudes towards PGT study, experiences and post-study outcomes from the perspective of applicants, students, universities and employers. Available at: https://www.improvingthestudentexperience.com/library/PG_documents/Postgraduate_Experience_Report_Final.pdf

Creator and author of https://www.improvingthestudentexperience.com/

Editor/Chapter and Case Study Author of Improving the Student Experience- a practical guide (published by Routledge 2011)

 Editor/Chapter and Case Study Author of  Supporting Student Diversity in Higher Education- a practical guide (published by Routledge 2013).

Author Biography

Dr Michelle Morgan is Dean of Students at the University of East London. She was previously associate professor and associate dean of the student experience at Bournemouth University. Michelle is extensively published in the area of supporting student diversity and improving the student learning experience at undergraduate and postgraduate taught levels in, through and out of the student study journey. Her two edited books, which revolve around her Student Experience Transitions Model (SET), are designed to help academic and professional service colleagues support students. She has developed a free portal for staff which provides a range of information and links for anyone interested in improving the student experience in higher education www.improvingthestudentexperience.com 

During her career, Michelle has been a faculty manager, lecturer, researcher and academic manager. She describes herself as a ‘Third Space Professional’ student experience practitioner who develops initiatives based on pragmatic and practical research. Michelle has over 50 publications and has presented over 100 national and international conference papers (including 53 keynotes and 35 invited papers). She co-wrote and co-presented a 5 part Radio series for BBC China in 2011 on the student learning experience. Michelle was the creator and PI/Project Lead of an innovative, £2.7 million, 11-university collaborative HEFCE grant, looking at the study expectations and attitudes of postgraduate taught (PGT) students. The project report received praise from across the sector, including UKCGE, OFFA, the HEA and the Engineering Professor’s Council. Michelle is a Principal Fellow of the HEA, Fellow of the AUA, an elected council member of UKCGE. She is an NTF Reviewer and Student Minds Mental Health Charter Assessor. She was awarded the EFYE Leader/Champion Award and SRHE Contribution to the Field Accolade in 2024.

You can learn more about Michelle on LinkedIn or talk with her on Twitter / X @it_se or by email mail to mgmorgan8@hotmail.com 

Photo of Dr Michelle Morgan
Posted in announcement | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

LTHEChat 311: Anxiety, Neurodiversity and Learning

Posted on December 8, 2024 by susan89706

Led by Cora Beth Fraser @drcorabeth

We all know that anxiety is a problem for students in higher education – and it probably won’t surprise anyone to hear that it’s getting worse. A 2023 survey by The Tab found that 61% of students are now living with anxiety, and categorised anxiety as the most prevalent mental health issue among students. It also found that many students were reluctant to disclose their problems to the university – so anxiety may be under-reported in official figures.

Neurodivergent students are particularly at risk from anxiety and its consequences. There’s an often-quoted figure of around 50% for rates of anxiety disorder amongst autistic and ADHD people – but again, this may be an underestimation. In my experience (both personal and professional) it’s pretty rare to meet a neurodivergent person who doesn’t suffer from a significant level of anxiety. 

So what can we do, in higher education and related areas, to address the problem of anxiety, and the ways in which anxiety disproportionately affects neurodivergent students? How can we improve the comfort levels of our students without taking away the motivating pressure to learn?

That’s what I’ve been working on at the Open University over the last few years. My focus has been on teaching environments – and because I work in distance learning, for me that means online teaching environments. 

The project I helped develop at the OU is called the Relaxed Tutorial Project. 

Relaxed Events

‘Relaxed’ here is being used in a very specific sense, to connect the project to ‘relaxed’ events which are common in Arts settings like theatres and cinemas, as well as museums and galleries. The original goal of relaxed theatre performances was ‘to make as few changes to the actual show as possible but rather to make adjustments to the organization of the front of house in order to reduce anxiety and stress’ (Kempe, 2015, p. 60). These adjustments were designed in the first instance for autistic people, but they were also found to benefit others too.

So in a ‘relaxed’ cinema showing, the volume in the cinema might be turned down a bit, and the lights might be turned up so that people aren’t in total darkness. Or in a theatre, the social rules might be relaxed so that it’s acceptable for audience members to talk or move around. During relaxed museum opening hours, sudden sounds from interactive exhibits are turned off, and a quiet area might be offered to anyone who needs a break.

The content remains the same; it’s just the environment that is modified.

Relaxed Teaching

In developing the Relaxed Tutorial Project, we thought about how these ‘relaxed’ adjustments might map onto the ‘front-of-house’ arrangements of an online synchronous teaching session. How could we modify the online social and sensory environment to make students more comfortable?

To reduce sensory input, we cut down on elements like break-out rooms, microphone and webcam use, and multiple windows. We also adjusted our expectations of social behaviour, assuming that students would need to leave and rejoin the session, and accepting that many attendees would not want to participate visibly. We planned our teaching to fit around these expectations (Fraser et al 2024).

The ‘relaxed’ sessions were a big hit with students who said that anxiety (around being put on the spot, in particular) had previously affected their learning. They were more willing to attend, took in more information and were (surprisingly) more willing to participate, with around 90% of attendees typing comments in the chat box. Students mentioned feeling comfortable – some for the first time in their higher education experience.

Why does anxiety matter?

We can argue that anxiety is sometimes productive: it can drive learning and push students to exceed their own expectations. This is true for many. But it can also drive our most vulnerable students away, and push them out of an environment which feels hostile to them. Anxiety matters because it disproportionately affects students who are already dealing with a range of challenges and accessibility needs.

Beyond that, anxiety connects two key practical issues in higher education: attendance and retention. Students suffering from anxiety will struggle to attend classes if they are concerned about having to take part in active or collaborative work (Macfarlane 2017 p. 76), or about being put on the spot. Students (particularly autistic students) are at risk of withdrawing from their course if their anxiety is not addressed (Beardon 2021 p.92). 

So by focusing on anxiety and its reduction we might be able to make real gains in access, retention and student success, as well as in equitable support for neurodivergent students.

References

Beardon, L. (2021). Avoiding Anxiety in Autistic Adults. Sheldon Press.

Fraser, C.B., Yamagata, N. and Mac Mahon, A. (2024). ‘The Relaxed Tutorial Project: distance learning and anxiety in Classical Studies’, Journal of Classics Teaching, pp. 1–5. doi:10.1017/S2058631024001004.

Kempe, A. (2015). Widening Participation in Theatre through ‘Relaxed Performances’. New Theatre Quarterly, 31(1), 59-69. 

Macfarlane, B. (2017). Freedom to Learn: The Threat to Student Academic Freedom and why it Needs to be Reclaimed. Routledge.

The Tab (2023). ‘‘They made me feel invalid’: Shocking new figures show scale of student mental health crisis’. Available online at https://thetab.com/2023/05/02/they-made-me-feel-invalid-shocking-new-figures-show-scale-of-student-mental-health-crisis (accessed 28/11/2024).

Author Biography

Dr Cora Beth Fraser (SFHEA NTF) is a part-time Associate Lecturer in Classical Studies at The Open University, working in a student-facing role with distance learners. With a Masters in Education and another in Online and Distance Education, she combines her work in Classics with research interests in online teaching and learning. Beyond the OU, she is passionate about widening access to Classics; she is a member of the Council of University Classics Departments EDI Committee and is Co-Chair of the Women’s Classical Committee, and she heads a neurodiversity organisation called Asterion. 

Cora Beth was diagnosed with autism five years ago, after a lifetime of struggling with social communication and sensory difficulties. Since her diagnosis she has been working to make neurodiversity an institutional priority in the planning of learning activities. She devised and conducted the Relaxed Tutorial Project at the OU, which is continuing to make an impact on teaching practices throughout the organisation, and is currently working on improving access to PhDs for autistic candidates.

Posted in announcement | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

LTHEChat 310: Exploring Learner Psychology in Higher Education

Posted on November 29, 2024 by Gustavo Espinoza

Led by Chris Martin @Linguist1980 

The landscape of higher education in the UK is as diverse as its student population. As many students come from varied cultural, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds, understanding what makes them tick and their psychology as learners could be key to fostering academic success and personal growth. This blog post aims to introduce readers to three key psychological theories that could be applied to our learners in higher education: Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000), Expectancy-Value Theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and Wellbeing Theory (Seligman, 2012).

One key area of learner psychology is that of motivation and engagement. There is a growing emphasis being placed on the application of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) within educational settings (Dimitriadou et al., 2023; Neufield, 2023; Zhou & Zhang, 2023). The theory was pioneered by Ryan and Deci (2000), who posit three key forms of motivation: amotivation, extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation.

Amotivation: Amotivation occurs when an individual has no desire or wish to participate in a task or pursue an activity. This may be due to a disconnect between the individual and content – the individual sees no value in completing the task or may not feel competent enough to complete the task without support. Amotivation may lead to negative outcomes such as anxiety, aggression, and depression when faced with tasks or activities that the individual does not wish to undertake. This would have a negative impact on the individual’s wellbeing and may lead to creating a contiguous pair (when two things occur repeatedly, leading to an association e.g., assessment periods and anxiety).

Extrinsic Motivation: Extrinsic Motivation can be viewed in multiple ways. The overarching definition is that an individual is motivated by external means (e.g., reward, praise). If an individual is externally regulated, this means that their motivation comes from external sources (e.g., parents offering gifts for doing well, rewarding them with praise). If any of these external sources are removed, the individual risks becoming demotivated. If an individual displays introjected regulation, this means that the individual could be motivated by obligation or guilt. For example, a student just flying under the radar and not performing as well as they could when they see others doing well may feel a sense of guilt and would, therefore, be motivated to do better. Extrinsically motivated individuals tend to attribute their success or failure at a task to external factors e.g., task difficulty, pure luck on the day.

Intrinsic Motivation: This form of motivation is considered the more desirable form of motivation within educational settings. Intrinsically motivated individuals are those who feel a sense of excitement or desire when participating in a task or activity. These individuals feel competent and have autonomy/agency over the task at hand, and they feel connected to the task, their surroundings, and their peers. They also see a value to participating in an activity or completing a task. Intrinsically motivated students tend to attribute their success or failure at a task to internal factors, e.g., effort, willpower, and ability.

For an individual to be intrinsically motivated, three psychological conditions need to be met: Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness. Autonomy refers to the ability to feel a sense of agency or control over a particular task or behaviour. It involves being able to make one’s own decisions and a feeling of independence. Competence relates to having the required skills, intellect, and qualities to perform a given task. Someone who feels competent has a sense of mastery over the task/activity at hand. Finally, relatedness is about fulfilling the need to have close relationships and a sense of belonging to a social group, in this case, peers in the classroom. Without relatedness, an individual would feel disconnected from their surroundings and would lack support and help from their social group, making self-determination difficult to achieve (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Image of intrinsic motivation

When considering the design of student learning experiences, it is helpful to keep these three conditions in mind, particularly when designing assessments. Authentic assessments, for example, provide students with the flexibility to approach an assignment that makes them feel the most competent and to make their own judgments about the information contained within and the format in which the assignment is presented (McArthur, 2022). When students see that their peers are also fully engaged with the assignment, this supports the condition of relatedness. 

Expectancy-Value Theory

This is an additional motivational theory, pioneered by Wigfield & Eccles (2000), that explains how an individual’s expectancy to succeed and the perceived value of the task at hand impact on the level of effort that is put in to complete the task. If an individual goes into a task feeling prepared and competent and expects to do well as well as seeing the value of doing well, there is a strong likelihood that they will have a favourable outcome.

Image of performance

Achievement-related choices are motivated by a combination of people’s expectations of success and subjective task value. Task value can be broken down into four sub-levels: attainment value (the importance of doing well), intrinsic value (personal enjoyment), utility value (perceived usefulness towards goals) and cost (time investment and competition with other goals). Expectations for success are strongly correlated with performance, i.e., students who expect to do well tend to perform well compared to those who do not expect to do well.

The Role of Positive Psychology in the Classroom

‘Positive Psychology helps to foster happiness and emotional wellness. It does it by helping individuals to capitalise on their strengths, heighten their gratitude and awareness, connect to others, and develop the wisdom needed to live a more meaningful and fulfilling life’ (Harvard Medical School, 2023).

Positive Psychology is a nascent field of psychology that focuses on individuals’ well-being and happiness in their daily lives. One key theorist within this field is Martin Seligman (2012), who pioneered the PERMA+ Theory. PERMA+ is an acronym that stands for:

Positive emotion (hope, interest, joy, love, pride)

Engagement (loss of self-consciousness – total absorption in the task)

Relationships (partners, peers, friends, mentors, the wider community)

Meaning (sense of value and worth, having meaning/purpose)

Accomplishments (achievements, mastery, competence)

+ (sleep, nutrition, physical activity)

Links with Self-Determination Theory

This theory links extensively to Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000) which stipulates that, for an individual to be intrinsically motivated, three psychological conditions need to be met: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When considering PERMA+ theory association with SDT, Seligman’s reference to ‘relationships’ links clearly with ‘relatedness’ of SDT – an individual feels connected to their environment and those around them. In addition, ‘Accomplishments’ are linked with ‘competence’ – an individual is motivated when they feel a sense of achievement and competence when doing a task. Finally, ‘Engagement’ could be linked to ‘autonomy’ – an individual is agentive in completing the task, being completely absorbed and not requiring much (if any) guidance.

Possible recommendations for practice

When designing learning experiences or engaging with students in personal tutoring, for example, consider ways of empowering the student to showcase their accomplishments, experience a sense of achievement, possibly through praise, and demonstrate the value of their learning in securing future employment. Students are more likely to put more effort into their work when they can see clear value in doing the task (cf. Expectancy-Value Theory, Wigfield & Eccles, 2000).

For students to feel ownership over their studies, providing them with open-ended, complex tasks or problems that are not prescriptive in nature would allow students to approach the task how they see fit, demonstrating a variety of skills and presenting the product of the task in a chosen format (cf. Authentic Assessment). From an employability perspective, this may align with workplace experiences where autonomy is required, and constant guidance may not be on hand.

References

Dimitriadou, I., Vasileiadis, I. & Koutras, S. (2023). The self-determined learning model of instruction: implementation to elementary school students with learning disabilities. European Journal of Alternative Education Studies, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.46827/ejae.v8i2.4873

Harvard Medical School (2023) Positive Psychology [Online]. Available at: https://www.health.harvard.edu/topics/positive-psychology#:~:text=Positive%20psychology%20helps%20to%20foster,more%20meaningful%20and%20fulfilling%20life. (Accessed on 27 November 2024)

McArthur, J. (2022). Rethinking authentic assessment: work, well-being, and society. Higher Education, 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00822-y

Neufeld, A. (2023). Moving the Field Forward: Using Self-Determination Theory to Transform the Learning Environment in Medical Education. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2023.2235331

Ryan, S., & Deci (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55(1). DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68 

Seligman, M. E. (2012) Flourish: A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Atria, USA.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

Zhou, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Distance Education: A Self-Determination Perspective. American Journal of Distance Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2023.2177032

Author Biography

Dr Chris Martin (EdD, SFHEA) is a Senior Learner Developer within the Education Development Service (EDS) at Birmingham City University (BCU). He oversees the open-access student-facing provision for academic writing and skills development, student life coaching, maths and statistics, and leading Transition-related projects across the university.

Chris has over 15 years of experience in both secondary and higher education, and his academic background is in applied linguistics and learner psychology in language learning. He has taught modern foreign languages (French, German and Spanish) in secondary schools across the Midlands, and he started his career in higher education as a Teaching Fellow in English for Academic Purposes. After completing his doctorate, Chris chose to pursue a full-time career in higher education and, more specifically, academic and learner development. His key areas of expertise are in learner psychology (motivation, engagement, positive psychology), student transition, authentic assessment, and academic literacy.

You can learn more about Chris on LinkedIn or talk with him on Twitter / X @Linguist1980 or by email chris.martin@bcu.ac.uk

Photo of Chris Martin
Posted in announcement | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

#LTHEChat 309: What is a flourishing space and how might they be enabled in higher education?

Posted on November 22, 2024 by quirksahern

Led by Professor Louise Younie, Institute of Health Sciences Education, Queen Mary University of London and Olumide Popoola, Queen Mary Academy, Queen Mary University of London

X: Professor Louise Younie @LouiseYounie

X: Olumide Popoola @OluPopoola3

Flourishing Oases in a Neoliberal Desert

The ‘Flourishing Spaces’ project has grown out of medical education and healthcare, where we are facing ‘moral injury’ and a growing ‘wellness crisis’ (1). Our work on #flourishingspaces involves a shift from the scarcity mindset to an abundance mindset, where resources like time and opportunities are viewed as shareable and regenerative. We have been supported by funding from a diverse range of sources including Advance HE.  Our most recent funding has been from the inaugural President and Principal Educational Excellence Fund, administered by the Queen Mary Academy at our own institution – Queen Mary University of London – where the flourishing of staff and students is core to our stated mission 

We are in VUCA times – Volatile Uncertain Complex Ambiguous. In higher education, where neoliberalism frames institutions as businesses and students as consumers, both students and educators are feeling overwhelmed and exhausted. The increase in burnout and impaired mental health is well-documented, yet solutions remain elusive. This competitive agenda prioritises measurable outputs—such as performance metrics over the cultivation of creativity, intellectual curiosity, and connection. The result is an erosion of spaces for humanity and flourishing. Medicine today similarly operates within a framework dominated by neoliberal principles, where science is prioritised over relationships and human connection is sidelined. This focus alongside the biomedical positivist framing of medical education contributes to a hidden curriculum shaped by ‘macho invulnerability’.

Although there are no quick fix answers to the challenges we are up against, we have been promoting Creative Agency and Flourishing Spaces as antidotes to the neoliberal principles which are compounding issues in both higher education and healthcare. As a core part of this we have been encouraging movement away from the development of ‘resilience’ towards the fostering of human flourishing, in higher education and healthcare (2, 3).

A comic strip of 5 images each representing an element of the flourishing spaces model: ecological, connection, meaning making, compassoin and keeping it real, shadow work
Figure 1 Flourishing Spaces Model by LY, graphics @CamilleAubry

The emphasis on resilience training has grown exponentially, with thousands of published studies in recent decades on “resilience in healthcare”. The concept of resilience, while initially appealing, has started to face criticism for its overemphasis on the ability to “bounce back” from adversity (4, 5).  The Latin root is ‘resilire’ to ‘spring back’ or ‘rebound’.  In the physical sciences resilience indicates materials resuming their original shape after being bent or stretched. Translated to humans this suggests withstanding challenges and an individual capacity to be tough and unchanged through adversity.  Resilience as a solution often places the burden on individuals rather than addressing the systemic failures. This can be damaging or even abusive, for example, expecting individual resilience in the face of systemic racism or injustice of any kind.

Flourishing is an old concept but also is receiving a resurgence of attention across political, cultural and educational spheres with for example the Templeton foundation in USA investing $100 million in the field of flourishing and starting in a new Global Flourishing Conference in 2022. It might be helpful to define flourishing as there are different conceptualisations emerging. By flourishing we mean enabling meaning, purpose, agency and growth in the lives of students and educators, drawing on Aristotle’s eudaimonia which can be juxtaposed with hedonia – the pleasure of the quick fix bar of chocolate, or purchase of luxury goods (6). Flourishing can be thought of as a noun and therefore measured – to what degree are we flourishing – see Harvard’s Flourishing Measure (7). This however risks again the attention on the individual rather than seeing the barriers faced by many towards flourishing, as found by research in the Mid-West US, where people of certain races and financial brackets were less likely to say they were flourishing (8). We focus on flourishing as a verb, and the ways in which we might support greater flourishing in our times of challenge and adversity. 

We have been exploring two theoretical frameworks underpinning flourishing – Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the Belonging Dignity Justice (BDJ) framework. SDT and flourishing align (9). SDT emphasizes autonomy, relatedness, and competence as key psychological needs and research supports the value of holding intrinsic aspirations like personal growth, community engagement, and meaningful relationships, as enhancing wellbeing in the workplace, compared to focus on extrinsic goals such as status or earnings (9). 

The Belonging-Dignity-Justice framework has emerged in recent years as an alternative to the corporate EDI practices that have captured and somewhat constrained the original social justice aims of EDI. Belonging fosters open dialogue and mutual understanding. Dignity recognises individual worth, even in imperfection. Justice ensures equal voice and opportunity, challenging systemic inequities. Through creative enquiry and artistic exploration we have expanded the concept of flourishing by integrating belonging, dignity, and justice as foundational principles; this new Flourishing-Belonging-Dignity-Justice framework has been adopted by the Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) Developers network to bring social justice dimensions to the training and development of Postgraduate Researcher Educators.

Flourishing spaces are characterized by curiosity, creativity, compassion, and co-creation. They invite participants to engage with their humanity, challenge existing hierarchies, and imagine new possibilities for growth and connection. In order to support the creation of flourishing spaces and oases in our workplaces, we have created a Flourishing Spaces ‘ASK’ toolkit: 

Attend:  Attending involves being fully present with oneself and others, fostering mutual recognition and understanding.

Share stories and Shadow work: Sharing stories facilitates deeper connections and allows individuals to process and integrate their experiences.

Kindle hope: Kindling hope provides a sense of purpose and community, essential for navigating complex and challenging environments. 

By fostering these spaces we enable the building of trust and connection as well as sharing the challenges we are facing which can be both deeply humanising and perhaps provide clarity on ways to move forward and further reclaim space for our humanity. In a world shaped by neoliberal values, the concept of flourishing offers a transformative alternative. By prioritising connection, creativity, and compassion, we can create spaces that nurture human potential and address the systemic challenges that undermine wellbeing. The vision and framework of our ‘Flourishing Spaces’ group provides a roadmap for building these flourishing oases, challenging us to imagine and realise a more equitable and just future.

Case study: Flourishing in Medical Education SSCS through Creative Enquiry

Student Selected Components (SSCs) in medical education have served as laboratories for exploring and nurturing flourishing (10). Feedback from participants reveals that these sessions provide a unique space for vulnerability, connection, and creative expression. One student described flourishing as “a kinder way to grow,” and reflected on how these sessions allowed her to embrace her struggles as part of her identity rather than flaws. Such reflections highlight the potential of flourishing to transform educational experiences and foster deeper human connections.

The transition to digital education during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted challenges in preserving human connection, a core component of flourishing spaces. The elective course “Exploring the Creative Arts in Health and Illness,” which I (LY) has lead, serves as a case study for creating a flourishing space, even in virtual environments (11). This course integrated Noddings’ pedagogy of care, emphasising relational pedagogy and fostering a sense of connection, creativity, and compassion among medical students. Educators modelled care by building trust through vulnerable leadership, fostering psychological safety, and co-creating group rules. Dialogue was encouraged through interactive strategies like ‘kettle boiling’ breakout groups, where students shared personal reflections in small, informal settings, emulating the relational warmth of face-to-face interactions. These strategies illustrate the potential of relational pedagogies to transform digital spaces into flourishing environments.

Central to this flourishing space was creative enquiry—a pedagogical approach that uses the arts to explore lived experiences. Students engaged in creative activities, from poetry to visual art, enabling them to process and express complex emotions. Sharing their creations in a supportive environment nurtured trust, voice, and agency. The arts served as a bridge to deeper self-reflection and collective understanding, facilitating a holistic exploration of the human dimension in healthcare. Creative enquiry lies at the heart of flourishing pedagogy. By engaging with lived experiences through the arts—metaphor, storytelling, and visual expression—creative enquiry allows individuals to explore the complexities of their humanity. This approach humanises both practitioners and patients, fostering empathy and connection. Creative enquiry also serves as a form of social justice pedagogy, amplifying marginalized voices and creating spaces where diverse perspectives can be shared and valued.

References

1. Sinskey JL, Margolis RD, Vinson AE. The Wicked Problem of Physician Well-Being. Anesthesiol Clin. 2022;40(2):213-23.

2. Younie L. What does creative enquiry have to contribute to flourishing in medical education? In: Murray E, Brown J, editors. The mental health and wellbeing of healthcare practitioners: research and practice: Wiley-Blackwell; 2021. p. 14-27.

3. Younie L. How might we cultivate flourishing spaces? Journal of Holistic Healthcare. 2024;21(1):14 – 6.

4. McArdle S, Byrt R. Fiction, poetry and mental health: expressive and therapeutic uses of literature. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. 2001;8(6):517-24.

5. Taylor RA. Contemporary issues: Resilience training alone is an incomplete intervention. Nurse Education Today. 2019;78:10-3.

6. Huta V. The Complementary Roles of  Eudaimonia and Hedonia and How   They Can Be Pursued in Practice. In: Joseph S, editor. Positive Psychology in Practice  : Promoting Human Flourishing in Work, Health, Education, and Everyday Life: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2015. p. 159-82.

7. VanderWeele TJ. On the promotion of human flourishing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(31):8148-56.

8. Willen SS, Williamson AF, Walsh CC, Hyman M, Tootle W. Rethinking flourishing: Critical insights and qualitative perspectives from the U.S. Midwest. SSM – Mental Health. 2022;2:100057.

9. Ryan RM, Current RR, Deci EL. What humans need: Flourishing in Aristotelian philosophy and self-determination theory. In: Waterman AS, editor. The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia: American Psychological Association; 2013. p. 57-75.

10. Younie L. Arts-based inquiry and a clinician educator’s journey of discovery. In: C.L.McLean, editor. Creative Arts in Humane Medicine. Edmonton: Brush Education Inc.; 2014. p. 163-80.

11. Younie L, Adachi C. Nurturing the Human Dimension in Digital and Medical Spaces Through Pedagogy of Care – a Case of Creative Enquiry. Perspect Med Educ. 2024;13(1):307-12.

Author Biographies

Professor Louise Younie
Professor Louise Younie

Professor Louise Younie:
Louise Younie (NTF, PFHEA, EdD) is a General Practitioner and Professor of Medical Education at Queen Mary University of London where she leads on faculty development, innovation and flourishing. She has extensive experience with creative enquiry methodologies in medical education for humanising medicine, professional identity formation and human flourishing. She is also co-lead for the QMUL co-creation student recognition SEED award. She is co-chair of the Royal College of GPs Creative Health Special Interest Group (SIG).

Olumide Popoola

Olumide Popoola:
Olumide Popoola (LLB MSc FHEA) is an Education Developer (social justice pedagogies; assessment integrity) at QMUL’s Queen Mary Academy. He is a module leader on the PGCAP, a mentor for early career educators seeking teaching recognition and lead coordinator for the Queen Mary Postgraduate Researcher Educator Programme. He is also an active member of the GTA Developers Network, where he has launched the  Flourishing-Belonging-Dignity-Justice Working Group to tackle EDI issues in GTA training. He has published research and scholarship applying forensic linguistic techniques to academic misconduct detection and is currently exploring the connections between academic integrity and social justice.

Posted in announcement | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

LTHEChat 308: Living in the Third Space – Reflections, connections and conundrums

Posted on November 14, 2024 by susan89706

The LTHEchat308 will take place in both X (formerly know as Twitter) and Bluesky
X: https://x.com/LTHEchat
BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/lthechat.bsky.social

Led by Malgorzata (Gosia) Drewniok (@Vampirelinguist, @vampirelinguist.bsky.social), Maeve O’Dwyer (@odwyermaeve, @drmaeve.bsky.social) and Wendy Taleo (@wentale, @wentale.bsky.social)

Introduction:

Higher Education as a sector, in every country, is facing a myriad of challenges at the moment, from the financial to the moral. To overcome this difficult environment, all staff working at HEIs must work together towards a shared vision for Higher Education. This #LTHE chat explores the concept of the ‘third space professional and/or practitioner’ (Whitchurch, 2008). In particular, we argue for the importance of the third space in articulating the value of all staff who teach and/or support learning across Higher Education institutions (HEIs). 

The concept of the ‘third space professional’, as researched and defined by the work of Celia Whitchurch (Whitchurch, 2008), has benefited from excellent research interrogating what it means to be a third space professional in contemporary Higher Education institutions (McIntosh & Nutt, 2022, Veles, 2023, et al). Much of this research has been collated as part of the Third Space Slowposium, taking place November 15th- 30th 2024. Three (of many!) organisers of the Slowposium, Wendy, Gosia and Maeve, have come together to celebrate that practice in this LTHE chat, in what we hope will be a highlight of the Slowposium calendar.

Reflecting on our own experience in different institutions and in different countries, we want to connect with others and critically discuss conundrums of people in these roles. Here, to align with the language being used in the upcoming Third Space Slowposium, we will use the term ‘third space practitioner’. However, we hope the chat (and accompanying Slowposium) will be engaging for all colleagues- those who identify as third space professionals, third space practitioners, those who research the third space, and those who are new to the concept, or approach it from different perspectives. 

What or who is a third space professional or practitioner?

Our first conundrum is that working in the third space and self-identifying as a third space professional/practitioner are not always commensurate, and role requirements, contract types and nomenclature vary widely, as do perceptions of value associated with the terms (Caldwell, 2024, Whitchurch, 2022). There is no one definition- here we focus on sharing practice across academic and non-academic contract binaries, reflecting on how self-identifying as a third space professional gave us the ability to better articulate our work, and to pursue our commitment to teaching and learning, regardless of activity or contract type. Indeed, it is very possible to engage in third space work on academic contracts, or to hold a passion for pedagogy which manifests in multiple contract types, whether that be over the course of a ‘concertina’ career (Whitchurch, Locke & Marini, 2021) or even to be both academic and non-academic (according to HEI structures) simultaneously. 

As Whitchurch (2022) notes: ‘’the concept of third space has helped to make activity that was invisible visible, and given an identity to a range of professionals who may or may not have academic contracts, even though they may have academic qualifications and be involved in aspects of teaching and research’’. For the authors, a shared interest in third space has led to connecting and collaborating across different time zones, from unknown strangers to co-organisers. We connect from different aspects of third space- english language support, academic development and educational technology- to find common ground.  

Why is the concept of third space important?

To put it in terms that we are all used to, third space professionals have significant impact on the teaching and learning experience at an institution, and thereby, influence many key metrics such as student results and retention, which are often used in attempts to quantify teaching excellence (in the UK, largely via the National Student Survey and HESA data). 

For many students, the majority of their face-to-face learning and/or support (when considered in terms of contact hours) may be provided by staff who do not hold academic contracts. Some may be based in Schools, for example, technicians in performing arts, educational technology support, or student success advisors. Most are likely based outside Schools or Faculties, in the form of ‘support services’. Many colleagues significantly impact the student experience through non-student-facing roles, such as setting academic policy, leadership of teaching and learning related initiatives or committees, and more. 

Without the concept of a third space, there is a risk of deepening a binary between academic staff, and support (or professional) staff, or in other words, of devaluing the work of professional services staff. This is not intended to undermine the important work of staff who are neither academic nor third space (Moreau & Wheeler, 2024), but to highlight the importance of fostering collaboration and connection at a time when student support, whether that be mental health awareness, english language support, academic integrity training, research methods support, library support, technical support, academic writing support etc. is more important than ever to help scaffold and sustain student learning. Students are not just faced with new questions around the use of generative AI or language support tools, they are likely to be caring for others, working and/or commuting long distances to study. The valuable work that third space practitioners do to support teaching and learning endeavours needs to be recognised and supported on a structural level. In this way, all HEI staff can work together towards ‘providing a contribution’ (Rosewell & Ashwin, 2019), to the development of students and an improved society. 

References

Caldwell, J. (2024). ‘Nomenclature in higher education: “non-academic” as a construct.’ Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 46:5, 507-522. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2024.2306569  

McIntosh, E. and D. Nutt (2022). The Impact of the Integrated Practitioner in Higher Education: Studies in Third Space Professionalism. London: Routledge.

Moreau, M, and Wheeler, L. (2024). Doing the Dirty Work of Academia? Ancillary Staff in Higher Education. Research Report. Society for Research into Higher Education. https://srhe.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/MOREAUwheelerReport.pdf 

Rosewell, K., and Ashwin, P. (2019). ‘Academics’ perceptions of what it means to be an academic’. Studies in Higher Education. 44:12, 2374-2384.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1499717 

Whitchurch, C. (2008). Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: The emergence of Third Space Professionals in UK Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly. 62(4), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00387.x

Whitchurch, C. (2013). Reconstructing Identities in Higher Education: The Rise of Third Space Professionals. New York: Routledge.

Whitchurch, C. (2022).  From ‘working in third space’ to ‘third space professionals’. Third Space Perspectives – Exploring Integrated Practice. Published 22nd September 2022. https://www.thirdspaceperspectives.com/blog/tothirdspaceprofessionals

Whitchurch, C., Locke, W., and Marini, G., (2021). “Challenging Career Models in Higher Education: The Influence of Internal Career Scripts and the Rise of the ‘Concertina’ Career”. Higher Education 82(3): 635-650.

Veles, N. (2023). Optimising the Third Space in Higher Education: Case Studies of Intercultural and Cross-Boundary Collaboration. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Author Biographies

Wendy Taleo
Wendy Taleo
Maeve O’Dwyer
Dr Maeve O’Dwyer
Malgorzata (Gosia) Drewniok
Dr Malgorzata (Gosia) Drewniok

Wendy Taleo: I am an enthusiastic and creative Education Designer and Technologist. After completing a degree at Deakin University, a career started working for a large corporation in the Information Technology (IT) field. This included over 10 years working in desktop support (>3,000 clients), network management (nationwide) and team leadership. My career was extended through IT volunteer and agency work in the South Pacific. Back in Australia, the formal Education sector provided a move into Education Technology. Completing a Masters of Arts in Online and Distance Education (MAODE) in 2019 through the Open University, UK, I continue my passion in the field of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) across diverse sectors and disciplines. My current role at Monash University is as an Education Designer working with academics from a variety of disciplines to improve teaching and learning. My role includes project management, LMS design and publishing on the teaching and learning hub.

Dr Maeve O’Dwyer, SFHEA, is an Academic Developer working at the Teaching Enhancement Unit at Dublin City University (DCU), and an Educational Contributor to Portal, Trinity College Dublin’s centre for innovation and entrepreneurship. As someone who has held a variety of academic and non-academic contracts post-Phd, often simultaneously, Maeve is passionate about the importance of third space in identity formation, and towards the pursuit of best practice through critical reflection. Maeve teaches history of art, pedagogy, and entrepreneurship, and is External Examiner at Buckinghamshire New University for routes to Fellowship of Advance HE. Maeve is co-founder of a research group on third space professionals called HETS. She is happy to be contacted about potential research and/or collaborations in pedagogy, educational development, art history, entrepreneurship education, or third space.

Dr Malgorzata (Gosia) Drewniok is the Assistant Director for International Student Success at University of Bristol. She started her career in UK HE teaching English for Academic Purposes (EAP), study and research skills, and linguistics, before moving on to leadership roles. Before joining Bristol, she was the Head of International College at University of Lincoln. Having started in teaching-focused academic roles and then moving to support roles in Professional Services, Gosia felt she needed to rethink her professional identity and thus stumbled upon the idea of  third space. Since then, she has been passionate about advocating for third space professionals, sharing her experience, and highlighting the benefits of operating in the third space. She has a PhD in Linguistics and does her best to remain research-active. She is co-founder of a research group on third space professionals called HETS, and is particularly interested in the intersectionality between HE leadership and third space.

Posted in announcement | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment