Tag Archives: curriculum design

Time, trust and not just training . . .⤴

from

This is just a short reflection on a session I facilitated at the Jisc Student Experts Meeting last week in Birmingham. As part of the next phase of the Beyond Blended programme, and based on feedback from our pilot institutions we are looking at developing an assessment and feedback view of our four modes of participation model. So I use the session to get groups to think about the types of assessment they currently use in each of the modes, and what mode feedback is given in – so lots of post-it note action! This was followed by a bit more of an indepth discussion around assessment and feedback and the opportunities/challenges for both educators and students.

In all the talk of (Gen)AI just now, particularly around assessment and feedback, it does seem that there is a default answer and expectation of training, particularly for staff. How many principles, frameworks have staff training/development in them? Now I’m not for a moment saying that isn’t needed, but at the same time as this is mentioned, there is the flip side of the conversation around things moving so quickly how can we, not just catch up, but keep apace with AI system developments. We’re also at a point (in the UK at least) where there is “a lot” of change in the system, with thousands of staff leaving the sector (and not always voluntarily).

Timetables are already full and with added pressures and uncertainties of staff and student numbers, time is even more precious. In this context quite often the first thing to go when staff are time pressed is any kind of CPD. So where and how do we find the time for relevant and useful AI training? A couple of hours aren’t really going to cut it with AI are they? It’s not a tick box exercise.

There are so many aspects that really need to be given quite a bit of time so that our staff are able to be critically informed to make effective, ethical disciplinary relevant design decisions for their students. In these uncertain times, trust is more important than ever. So I do think that having trusted places, spaces, platforms where we can start to explore, critique, challenge, and decide where and when to use (or not use) GenAI is increasingly important.

At a strategic level this could be institutions being really explicit about what training models are being used by institutional systems, how is data being process/used. What choices are actually available for staff and students in terms of using /opting out of GenAI systems? Who decides? We also need to think about how we make our educational spaces and places (physical and digital) trusted spaces for staff and students. Universities should be places of trust and safety for both educators and students.

So I think we need to have more conversations around what trusted educational spaces look like in the 2020’s, how we create, support and develop them. In terms of our Six Pillar for Beyond Blended, the top half of our diagram has really resonated with our pilot projects- particularly place and pace of learning but maybe it’s time to make trust a more explicit part of this model and the conversations it is supporting.

Recognising the power and joy of being human . . . some thoughts from #digifest2026⤴

from

Due to circumstances outwith my control (yes dear reader outwith is a real word), I had a slightly truncated visit to this year’s Digifest.  I also had to spend quite a bit longer of trains, and train platforms so on my way home I was listening to quite a variety of podcasts/live radio, and reflecting on the time I had there.

As with any conference/festival/event ( I think Digifest is actually a mix of all three of these) the “best part” is always catching up with people in person.  I was there to be part of a session showcasing the work from Phase 1 & 2 of the Jisc Beyond Blended Pilot programme.  I’ve written before about how special this programme is ( and yes of course I am biased), but one of the really special things about it is the sense of community, of openness, empathy, sharing and fun that has almost instantly been there from our first in person meeting.  The very human element of this work was exemplified by the hugs and laughs shared by the representatives the pilots as we all met up in our designated room before the session. 

We had all just come from the first key note by Melato Wijsen, climate activist, change maker and founder of Youthtopia.  Melato is passionate about supporting young people to be change makers; about having more space in all educational settings for intergenerational partnership opportunities, and allowing more space to, and talk about failing.  But essentially what she was advocating for was more a more human centred approach in education to global (and local) issues that impact all of us, and allow different (younger) voices to be heard and have an impact. 

All quite challenging in our current political climate – how can you speak truth to power when certain power doesn’t need feel the need to listen to anyone outside its own echo chamber?  But we do still need to try, and as Melato said we do need to have new narratives, new stories to tell and share about the reality of education today. (BTW We have some great stories from real people about the conversations and work they are doing to transform learning and teaching from the Beyond Blended pilots).

We also need to be wary of some stories we are being told and sold, particularly about AI. The wonderful and self proclaimed Cassandra of EdTech Audrey Watters, is always reminding us that some of the loudest stories we are currently being t/sold about AI, aren’t new but are in fact perpetuating old stories and “visions” for the future of education . These stories are predicated on profit – not people. They certainly don’t tell this kind of story about the human cost of training AI.

So, I was thinking about all of this whilst almost dozing off listening to a podcast about toothache (don’t judge me) on the train home, when near the end of the episode, one of the hosts starting talking about poetry. I know, quite a leap from toothache, but bear with me, there is a point here. He recalled how he had recently seen an old interview with Seamus Heaney where he was talking about a book he edited call By Heart ( I haven’t been able to find said book yet). The idea of the book was to encourage people to learn poetry by heart. Heaney was asked if he thought that learning poems would make someone a better person, to which he replied, no, but I think it might you better at being a person. What a brilliant answer, and how apt for some of the discussion around AI in education right now. Isn’t education fundamentally about making us all better people?

Danny Liu’s keynote (which I watched remotely) on day 2 also picked up on this theme. He reminded us that as we navigate our way through our current AI cluttered landscape, we need make space across the curriculum (and beyond) to celebrate and support the values that make us human in ways that only humans can. As Audrey recently pointed out, the qualities we value about being human aren’t actually replicated in so called human centred AI.

So, let’s value teaching and teachers and not boil “learning” down into “efficient”, self accessed chunks. Let’s value and create spaces to develop criticality in conversations; for equality and respect of different points of view but also an acceptance of facts. Let’s value and create safe spaces for people to fail and to learn how to learn from those experiences – not just be knocked down and out by them. Let’s value the fact that some things – like writing – are hard. Let’s value the joy of bringing people together to share the highs and lows of work, and life (thank you Digifest for doing just that).

Maybe if we have that focus around the value of collectively becoming better people, then we will be able create and tell more stories, so that more young people will have stories like Melato’s and we really will have a better future to look forward to. And being “only human” not, augmented with AI is something I certainly want to value and cherish for as long as I can.

Cue cheesy 80’s music. . .

Talking about beyond blended learning⤴

from

The latest edition of the Jisc Beyond the technology podcast has a focus on the current Beyond Blended pilot programme, which you will know is something that has been a central part of my work for the last few years. Sarah Knight expertly facilitated a really rich conversation between the institutional leads of three of the pilot project – Dr Jonathan Eaton (University of Cumbria), Dr Emma Heron (University of Northampton), Dr Julie Blackwell Young (Abertay University) and myself.

The conversation focused on insights from the first research phase and illustrated how the beyond blended resources – particularly the strategic lenses, pillars, and activity cards are reshaping staff development, curriculum design, student engagement, and assessment practices. The podcast further enriches the narratives shared in the Beyond Blended in Action report, which shares evidence and experiences from all the phase 1 pilot projects.

Celebrating beyond blended pilot projects: not an ending, but a sense of a new beginning⤴

from

Early this week I had the pleasure of joining colleagues in Birmingham to celebrate the work of the Jisc Beyond Blended Pilot Programme.

Along with Helen Beetham, I have been working with colleagues at Jisc (Sarah Knight, Elizabeth Newall, Simon Birkett and Lou McGill) since 2022 on this theme. Starting with our post pandemic survey and subsequent report on approaches to curriculum and learning design in UK HE, through to developing resources and the launch of the Beyond Blended: rethinking approaches to curriculum and learning design web guide, and more recently supporting the 17 institutions that made up the pilot programme.

The aims of the pilot programme were to:

  • Understand how higher education providers (HEPs) are using the materials that make up the rethinking curriculum and learning design guide to support their strategic goals
  • Gather information about different approaches to developing institutional strategies for blended learning
  • Facilitate the sharing of approaches to curriculum and learning design
  • Find out what further support and guidance HEPs need from us to further develop their practice
  • Develop case studies and briefings of the learning from the pilots to inform sector understanding on designing blended learning

The event was an opportunity for the pilots to share and celebrate what they have done over the past year since applying to be part of the pilot programme. And my goodness, what a sharing took place. Even though myself and and Jisc team have met regularly with the each of the teams, have had onsite days with almost all of them (aka Sheila’s UK tour!), it was amazing to see and hear from the teams the resources the teams have/are using and have adapted for their context. Our swapshop (remember this, dear reader?) sessions were such a great opportunity for each of the teams to share what they had done, why they had done it, and the impact of their work.

Near the end of the day, Helen and I had the chance to reflect on our involvement with the programme. Our conversation was very ably steered by Elizabeth Newall. This has been a really special piece of work to be involved in. In fact it has been a joy to be part of it, and I don’t say that lightly. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with everyone involved in the programme. Again, not something that I say lightly or often in public.

The UK HE sector is, to put it mildly, in quite a state of flux. All our pilot projects have been dealing with quite major restructuring. The have had to deal with (and some still are) the uncertainty of being in the “restructuring zone”. You know that really difficult time when things are being decided on high, and there is an underlying hum of uncertainty around everything. Or they are now on the other side of that trying to figure out who is still around, who is responsible for what, and who they need to work with.

Whilst many across the sector are having existential angst about GenAI, the future of HE etc, these pilots exemplify the “do’er’s” in their respective universities They are people who have to ensure: implementation of new learning and teaching strategies, ensure that programmes are “fit for purpose”, meet the expectations of employers and students,provide support for staff to tackle the thorny issues around student engagement . . . and of course because they are “do-ers” we now have a new strategic lens for AI in education developed by the team at Sheffield Hallam.

From our very first meeting with the pilot teams in November last year, there was a tangible sense of positivity from all the participants. Partly this was due to the focus of the pilot and their recognition of the value of the resources. Partly also due to the structure of the expression of interest application form. As well as a clear rationale, each of the pilots had to have a statement from a senior management project sponsor, and overall everyone of those sponsors has taken an active role in the pilot. That senior engagement has again had a positive impact for the whole programme. I also think that the teams really saw the resources themselves and the structure of the programme as a positive in and of themselves. In times when it can feel that everything is being taken away, I got a strong sense that the resource and opportunity to be part of the pilot programme was seen by the project teams as them been given something of real value.

We were confident about the relevance of our resources due in no small part to to the level of community engagement we undertook whilst developing them and the enthusiasm from the pilots about them over the last year. But it was still incredibly gratifying yesterday to hear and see just how useful the pilot projects have found them and how useful they have been used to start and extend conversations around approaches to learning and teaching.

The pilots formed a really strong community of practice pretty much from the first face to face meeting. And again, it was wonderful to see such openness in sharing resources and practice yesterday. The programme has provided teams with a very needed space to step away from the day to day, have some thinking time and have some time for experimentation.

The resources have acted as a gateway to such a range of activities – from strategic consultations to extending/rethinking approaches to learning design to formal and informal CPD opportunities for staff to support to student co-creation and support to actual live changes to courses/modules and evaluation of impact of those changes.

Our six pillars and 4 modes of participation in particular, have provided not only easily understood starting points for conversations – a picture really does speak a thousand words, but also have helped to widen conversations around our understandings of how we as educators, and our students, think about and use places and platforms both on and off campus. There is some really rich evidence coming through from the pilots particularly around student engagement in different modes of participation, and the importance of gaining more understanding of the transitions through places (particularly on campus) and platforms . The final report and case studies from each of the pilot institutions will make for really interesting reading when they are published later in the year.

Whilst yesterday was the end of one phase, it really did feel like just the beginning. All the projects are planning to extend and/or embedded their work and Jisc is keen to keep supporting that (but maybe not quite at the level of the pilot programme). So hopefully I will be able to continue on this really exciting and relevant journey too.

pie chart diagram of the six pillars of blended learning. The six elements in the diagram are place, platform, pace, support, flex, blend

How do we know if we have the right blend? Some reflections on SQAA’s Future of Learning & Teaching event.⤴

from

I really enjoyed attending the SQAA The Future of Learning and Teaching: Planning and Delivery of Digitally Enhanced Blended Learning on 20 September in Glasgow. Here in Scotland, there is now a focus on developing approaches to learning, teaching and enhancement across tertiary education. You can read more about the work on developing a common approach here.

The event was very much focused on the learning and teaching aspects of the wider quality framework work. And, as the title suggests, exploring approaches to the planning and delivery of digitally enhanced blended learning.

Over the past year, SQAA have led a cross sectoral agency project around defining and delivering and inclusive digital/blended learning for across tertiary education. This is the first cross sector enhancement project, as well as the first cross agency one, including CDN, ES-HMIE, and sparqs. Thework includes Scottish universities and colleges.

The team shared the an outline of the research they have been undertaking to discover the current balance of delivery across the sector. They are using the terms f2f, hybrid, and online, but were very clear that they recognise that there are issues around definitions – or perhaps it is contextual use of definitions. Hybrid in particular has quite a range of practice interpretations. The overall aim is to establish what the current balance of delivery is across the sector. A key question the partners are hoping to address is how can institutions re-balance their provision to “get the blend right” for all students.

Using a mixed methods approach of desk research and interviews the team have been exploring 4 lines of enquiry with colleges and universities, namely: what they state they are offering, what learns want, what learners are experiencing and what does the evidence suggest is best for learning. A report with the initial research findings is due for publication soon.

The focus of this year is to establish the effects of different modes and to facilitate national conversations, around the theme of designing and delivering blended learning to improve leaner outcomes in a tertiary landscape. The meeting on Wednesday was the start of those conversations.

The team shared some of their early findings which included:

  • Need to focus on getting the blend right
  • All provision should be accessible and inclusive
  • Digital poverty is recognised and being addressed
  • Sense belonging key to learner engagement regardless of modality
  • Active and peer learning are essential
  • Learners and staff need clear, consistent info about what blended means
  • Ongoing promotion of digital literacies with a shift to pedagogical understanding for staff and learners
  • There are tensions between institutional estates and learning and teaching 
  • Institutions need to build in times and have a particular strategy for designing and delivering high quality blended learning

These findings resonated with the research Helen Beetham and I have been doing with Jisc around curriculum and learning design. In our recent “Beyond Blended” report we share our findings particularly around evolving understandings of the changing relationships of time, space and place of learning post pandemic. In terms of tensions between estates and learning and teaching, we have recognised this and have developed a series of strategic lenses one of which is focused on use of space. These lenses provide a series of prompts which we hope will foster richer, curriculum focused discussion between stakeholders.

The day was designed really well in terms of engagement and discussion. A big shout out to Susi Peacock and the SQAA team for that. There were plenty of opportunities for discussions, and I was delighted to be asked to be participate in the lightening presentations to share our Beyond Blended work. Though I was slightly out of breath running up and down the stairs to each group!

In the plenary session the perennial issues of time, finding and developing evidence, senior management support were all raised. Simon Thomson highlighted the need to explore the value of different modalities of learning so we can share them with students. If we want students to turn up and participate in any mode of learning, they need to recognise the value of it. Equally at institutional (and sectoral ) levels we need to ensure we aren’t making knee jerk reactions to perceived issues. Foro example stopping lecture capture to get students to turn it could actually disadvantage students. I just spotted this excellent paper from Emily Nordmann which provides evidence of the benefits of lecture capture.

In terms of senior management support, I have been reflecting on how quickly that has changed again. From research and conversations I had with colleagues here in the UK and in Ireland, it was very clear that during the pandemic senior management were very focused on learning and teaching. So many people told me that “they had a seat a the table” they never had before, that they were listened to and supported. And now . . . well I’m not sure if the seats have totally been removed from all the tables, but the “back to normal” mentality does seem to have meant that senior management focus isn’t as sharply focused on the key issues of delivering flexible, accessible, equitable learning and teaching opportunties.

During and just after the pandemic, I talked quite a bit (well in one keynote at least!) about pandemic amnesia. By that I mean forgetting the experiences of lock down, of thinking that everything will be like before. It can’t be and it isn’t. If we are going to provide flexible, accessible and equitable learning that really engages our students, an meets all the claims of various strategic goals, then we need to be changing our practices and attitudes to planning and designing learning and re thinking our workload models so we can allow educators (and students) to develop, engage with, reflect and share evidence around the different modes of learning we are using. That needs serious senior management engagement. But it might also take a little bit of bottom up subversion of “normal” practice too.

The SQAA work is a such an important part of developing and sharing evidence and practice and I’m looking foward to seeing their report and being part of the discussions moving forward.

My short and long “must reads” around ChatGPT and LLM⤴

from

Undoubtedly LLM (large language models), and in particular ChatGPT, is the hot topic in education right now. David Hopkins has helpfully started and shared a flipgrid where he is sharing articles around generative AI, and I know many others are doing the same. Amongst the hype there are thankfully a growing body of people who are writing informed critiques. In this post I just want to quickly highlight a couple of publications that I think are a must read.

Firstly the UNESCO Quick Start Guide to ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence. This is provides a really good overview of issues including a useful flow chart to help decisions around using ChatGPT, applications for education and some of the current issues. I suspect this will become a “go to” resource. It’s something that all educators should read.

And once they’ve done that then I have to recommend 2 longer pieces by Helen Beetham. Firstly, “on language, language models and writing“. In this essay, Helen really gets to grips with a key issue that is missing in many of the articles about LLM and ChatGPT, that is what is the purpose of writing? Why do we do it? It’s not just about structuring of text, personal reading. I think most people (well at least you, dear reader) does now understand that these language models work on prediction, and have no sense of context. So although the text may read well, it will often lack purpose and understanding. As Helen points out ” Writing by human writers is not only about the world, it is of the world and accountable in it.”

She goes on to explore some of the potential benefits of using systems such as ChatGPT. Can they be seen as writing partners? We supply the prompts, they supply the text . . ? I was struck by this.

“The illusion that these are more than tools or interfaces – that they are our partners in language, our interlocutors. We already spend large parts of our lives engaged in vivid graphical and sensory illusions. We should count the costs and benefits before rushing into a life of dialogue with illusory others”

And this

“Students see writing as a diverse, messy, inexact, variously motivated practice they are developing for themselves. Then perhaps they can aspire to be a writer among writers, and not a human version of ChatGPT.

I thank Helen for being the writer she is to have come up with that last turn of phrase. And then she goes on to point out:

But tools are not neutral. Just as language is not ‘simply’ the words we use to express our meanings to other people, tools are not ‘simply’ the means we use for exercising our personal intentions in the world. Tools carry the history of how they were designed and made. They shape practices and contexts and possible futures. . . With so many other tools we can use creatively, we must surely weigh the risks against the creative possibilities.”

In terms of education Helen also raises some really valid points for strategic leadership in universities. It does seem an awful lot of responsibility is being heaped on students, maybe we need to be asking these questions

“While students are held stringently to account for their use of LLMs, how will universities account to students for their own use of these systems? Can they hold out against black-box capabilities being embedded into the platforms they have come to depend on? Who is assessing the risks, and how are those risk assessments and mitigations being shared with the people most affected? These are questions that universities should be attending to with at least as much energy as they are policing students’ use of apps.”

There is also an accompanying piece students assignments in a time of language modelling. Again this is a really thoughtful (and pragmatic) piece about why, how and when to use writing tasks in assessments.

I would thoroughly recommend reading both essays, and engaging with Helen’s writing over on substack.


Everything, everywhere, all the time: some thoughts on time, space and learning design⤴

from

It’s been hard to get back into writing for the blog this year. I’m not sure if it has been what seems to be the increasingly  common feeling of not quite knowing what to say,  everyone else saying it better. or to busy doing other things. It’s probably a combination of all three and of course, the addition of all the noise about ChatGPT. What’s the point of writing anything now . . . well of course there still is,  but that’s a whole other post.

What has been occupying a large part of my time is developing the recommendations from the review of approaches to curriculum and learning design that Helen Beetham and I conducted for Jisc last year.  As part of this we have been thinking a lot about the spaces and  places and modes of participation for learning and teaching. 

As part of our thinking and research Helen found what you might now call a “historical document” from the early 2000’s about learning design systems. Coppercore anyone?  It really took my back to those heady days of learning design and Learning Design (IMS spec). We were all a bit obsessed with finding ways to automate and move learners through systems and activities.  James Dalziel used the analogy of orchestration when he talked about being able to (re)use designs in different systems. This was highlighted in the Larnaca Learning Design Declaration. 20 odd years later, it did strike me that maybe that obsession with directing learners through systems was partly down to the quite difficult navigation in ye olde VLEs (and yes, before you say anything that has got a lot better!), and the holy grail of moving seamlessly between systems.  To a large extent that’s pretty much been sorted now – though we have all the fun of data and surveillance capitalism to deal with now. 

We can all access and move around different systems and devices in “relative” ease. The needs of learning design/ student orchestration have evolved. Whilst system access and navigation isn’t perfect, it’s a lot better than it was The review of approaches to curriculum and learning design Helen and I did for Jisc last year highlighted how much learning design frameworks/approaches (including ABC and Carpe Diem) have been embedded and adapted across the sector. There has been a shift of focus from system orchestration to activity design, and now equity, inclusion and accessibility. This was heightened by the experiences of lock down. 

In the analysis of our survey last year, equitable and accessible learning opportunities were highlighted as being key to providing “good learning” over the next 3 years. Also highlighted was the need to develop more shared understandings of the different modes of learning now in place across the sector.

This is what Helen and I have been exploring and developing resources and guidance on. The recent Advance HE Beyond Flexible Learning: Modes of Learning Practice Guide provides a useful overview of the main modes of learning currently in use, and is well worth reviewing. Our thinking very much aligns with these modes. We have also been considering changing notions of time. Perhaps this is where a re-focus of notions of orchestration is needed.

Students now expect some flexibility around their mode of participation. They potentially can access everything, be everywhere all the time. But providing lots of flexible pathways is a challenge. Particularly when you have a finite teaching resource to support multiple pathways. We are all orchestrating our work/lives/study through a variety of digital devices and systems. Even pre pandemic we knew that students weren’t just taking notes in class/lectures. The trick (aka teaching) has always been to design sessions that engage students. But if we have mixed modes of participation how do you do that effectively? And how do we support students to make the most of these potential different modes of participation and still provide and build the communities/social interactions that we know students (and all of us) really missed when all learning was fully online during lock-down?

How we think about how design and use the spaces, places and times for learning and teaching have to evolve. How can we provide the anchoring spaces for our learners in both in real life (on campus) and in online spaces? Access and use of digital resources is increasing and not just because of the rise of the recorded lecture.

We don’t have all the answers but we are working through these issues. As part of that process we have been trying to develop some visuals of students interactions of space, place and time. Students can actually access everything, be everywhere all the time. How can we design meaningful leaning for that?

As part of our thinking I’ve been developing some (relatively simple) visual representations of this. A couple shared below.

Where “are” students in a live lecture on campus?
Where “are” students during their own study time on campus? What are they doing?

If you have any thought/feedback on these, please do let me know in the comments.

ILTA Winter online conference keynote: beyond blended⤴

from

Last week Helen Beetham and I were delighted to give the keynote presentation at the ITLA Winter online conference. The conference provided us with a very timely opportunity to share the findings of the review of approaches to curriculum and learning design we completed for Jisc last year, but also some of work we are currently developing with Jisc in response to the findings and recommendations of the review.

Starting from the premise that everything is now blended, we are developing thinking around the different aspects of time, space, place and modes of participation that contemporary HE need to develop in order to support accessible, flexible and equitable learning opportunities for students.

Many thanks to everyone involved in organising the conference for giving us the opportunity to present our work. We really appreciated the engagement from all the participants.

There will be a longer post soon from me around some of our emerging thoughts, but in the meantime you can catch up with our presentation in the recording below.

And we’re back . . .⤴

from

Apologies, dear reader, it has been far too long since my last post. I did mean to post before the end of 2022 but, well none of the dozen or so half written posts really seemed to have the need to be finished and published. The mass exodus from Twitter to Mastadon seems to have now happened. I couldn’t really think of anything else about the whole white, middle aged billionaire buys twitter and f***’* it up being a classic exemplar of everything that our neoliberal age supports that hadn’t already been said.

Whilst I and many of my peers have been lamenting the end of twitter in terms of our networking and sharing of practice, this post by @ImaniBarbarin did make me give myself a good talking too. I just lost one place of instant connection and comfort, so many disabled /chronically ill people  are facing a much great loss around connection and losing their voices.

As the new year starts, I’m looking forward to some f2f learning design workshops and continuing to work with Helen Beetham on a follow up project to the review we did of approaches to curriculum and learning design last year. There will be more to share on that in the coming months, but for now I’m just trying to ease myself back into things in this part of my life whilst balancing the other, artistic part of my life which is actually getting quite busy now.

I always appreciate, enjoy and find inspiration from Sherri Spelic’s Bending the Ark newsletter, and the one that dropped early this week was no exception. In this edition, Sherri shared how she left her laptop behind and reconnecting with friends and did “other stuff” over the holidays. I loved this phrase in particular:

I had a chance to remind myself that I am so much more than the words I put out for others to find.

https://bendingthearc.substack.com/p/bending-the-arc-january-2023

Yes, Sherri you are so much more than that. And thank you for reminding me and other that many of us are. I always have a nagging feeling in my head that over the last few years I haven’t shared as much as I used to. So I’m going to try and get more comfortable with the realities of my working life and sharing only when I have something useful to share. Not quite a new year’s resolution, maybe more of a reminder. And hopefully that won’t be too long.

A really good story . . .⤴

from

Our world is full of stories. The stories we tell, and how we tell them are really important.  A story book is a wonderful thing.  I was reminded of just how wonderful “a thing” a story book can be early this week at the final project meeting of the EDTL (Enhancing Digital Teaching & Learning across Irish Universities) project.  Those of us lucky to be there in person got a physical book of stories about the project. You can read the stories (individual case studies) here.

The forward to the book by the Project Manager, Sharon Flynn,  sums up beautifully why this book came about.

” . . .we wanted to tell the stories of all the projects and activities that happened across the 7 universities, over 3 year. At first we tried to tell them ourselves. But telling our own stories is challenging, we are too close, too familiar with the detail, our writing is to academic, and we don’t have the time anyway.  So, we recruited a story teller  . . .”

In academia we are good at writing, but as Sharon pointed out – at times our writing is too academic,  it only makes ” a good story” if you can de-code and demystify the academese.   

There are some very talented people who can do just that, and can communicate very complex ideas in ways that are easily understandable.  But not everyone has the skills, or the time to do that.  The story of the EDTL project is rich, complex and complicated.  It’s been driven by human connections, of people overcoming the challenges of the mass dislocation brought about by lockdown and the subsequent colocation through digital technologies.

EDTL created shared pathways, and different ways of “doing” learning and teaching for staff and students. Its story is interwoven with students and staff working as partners. Students being given a voice, being respected and paid for their time, with true co-created outputs.  A quick skim of the resources section of the website illustrates that. The voice of the storyteller brings all that complexity together in a seemingly simple way.

EDTL was a wonderful project. Its success in no small part down to Sharon Flynn’s masterful project management. It truly was a pleasure and a privilege to play a small part in it.

But now for the ranty bit . . . I know you have been expecting it, dear reader.

The assumed narratives that surround so much of all our working lives and contexts are powerful drivers for change – or in some cases to retain the status quo. During the panel discussion at the event the inevitable questions about “what next?” came up.  I think stories need to be a key part of that.

This project has learnt so much from its student interns. It’s exemplified co-production and the power of students as change agents.  The evaluation of their experiences (research conducted by one of the interns) is really worth a read. But there are so many more stories we need to be working with students to develop and share. 

A key story (or stories) I think we need to be starting to develop, is the new story of what it means to “be” at university for students right now.  It’s not the same as it was this time in 2019, in the pre pandemic, before times.  But are we (and by we, I mean university structures) finding it easier to forget the stories, experiences and evidence of the pandemic, and just go back to what it used to be like? The stories we remember of how it used to be?  

Remember when we all had a window into our “real lives” where the mess and the realities of family life spilled over into zoom/teams when we were all working from home. Those caring responsibilities haven’t gone away, but it does seem that some of the flexibility that help some people at that time is being slowly eroded.

Everyone has been through a really traumatic couple of years, and it’s not getting any easier. There is a war in mainland Europe,  the rise of right wing politics is still on the rise, the cost of living seems to have no plans to stop increasing, the climate emergency is probably beyond fixing, but yet we are still obsessed with  sustaining gas and oil.  That’s quite a lot to deal with on top of being a student.  So many previous certainties have changed.

You can’t guarantee that you will be able to find affordable accommodation once you finish 1st year and can’t get back into halls of residence. It might be in theory easier to get a part time job, but the flexibility that was supported, and students clearly appreciated during lockdown seems to be slowly shut down as the “on campus, in person” mantra (or the old familiar story of what a “proper” university experience should be) is demanded by politicians. 

Whilst providing heat banks, ping spaces (with kettles and microwaves), free breakfasts is to be applauded. It does bring with it some questions around the how and what our physical campus spaces are being used. 

What is the story of a 2nd year undergrad, who is sofa surfing, working part time and  trying to keep up with uni work? What kinds of spaces, times and places for learning work for them. What are their real learning journeys?

I think these are the kinds stories we need to be recording and sharing right now. So as we plan and strategies at university and national levels, we really understand what changes we need to be making to provide the appropriate, flexible, accessible, inclusive learning environments for all our students and staff. We need more stories and story tellers.