2 strategies, tactics and change - university of brightonadm-hea.brighton.ac.uk › resources ›...
TRANSCRIPT
2Strategies, Tactics and Change
2.0Introduction
120
121
In Higher Education Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE) 2004
invitation to bid for CETL funding there are broad references to the
strategic impact CETLs would have on the hosting institution and on
the wider HE community. The potential for CETLs to fail to deliver
positive effects beyond their hosting institution was one of the key
concerns raised during the consultation phase on the development
of the CETL initiative.
Many institutions were concerned that the creation of a fixed
number of CETLs might weaken rather than strengthen the
promotion of excellence across the whole HE sector.
(HEFCE, 2004)
The invitation to bid goes to some length to avoid being prescriptive
about how individual CETLs might meet the main aims to ‘reward
excellent teaching practice and to invest in that practice further in
order to increase and deepen its impact across a wider teaching and
learning community’. It does this to the extent that it occasionally
appears vague in its terms. However, it was unquestionably HEFCE’s
intention that the CETLs would enhance excellence in learning and
teaching both at the host institution and across the sector and that
this enhancement would affect students’ learning experiences and
outcomes, teachers’ practice and institutional cultures for learning
and teaching. This was made explicit in three of the six ‘objectives for
the CETL funding initiative’, which required CETLs to:
…support and develop practice that encourages deeper
understanding across the sector of ways of addressing students’
learning effectively… [influence] practice and raise the profile of
teaching excellence within and beyond their institutions; and
demonstrate collaboration and sharing of good practice and
so enhance the standard of teaching and effective learning
throughout the sector. (2004)
One of the key mechanisms for supporting change was that the
work of CETLs would be underpinned by evidence. In some instances
122
this was instrumental: the bids had to offer evidence of existing
excellence to be considered for progression from stage one to stage
two of the bidding process. However, CETLs were also expected to
develop credibility across the sector by underpinning their work with
scholarly approaches; they were expected to:
…stimulate excellent practice through teaching that is informed
by scholarly reflection, developed through innovative and
adventurous thinking, extended through tested knowledge to
learning in new contexts … [and] deepen staff involvement in
critical scholarly reflection and evaluation of current teaching
by strengthening the CETL’s research (and administrative)
infrastructure. (2004)
And, in the guidance notes to the invitation to bid, HEFCE
suggested questions that bid writers ask of their proposals including:
‘What evidence gives you confidence that your approaches have
worked and will continue to work?’ It also suggested that the answer
should consider ‘evidence of published research, and of scholarly
and evaluative work related to teaching and learning effectiveness’
(2004). This is as close as HEFCE gets to an expectation that CETLs
should have a track record and a mission to extend pedagogic
research. In fact it is interesting to note that this last reference is
the only one made to research undertaken as part of CETL activity
(other references are to research students as potential beneficiaries,
research-led learning, student acquisition of research skills, etc.).
This collection of papers, falling into the theme of Strategies,
Tactics and Change, opens discussions on how CETLs have promoted
enhancement and change. Many CETLs are building on wider
policies for the development for universities and colleges and their
relationship with the world beyond the institution, for example,
Dearing (1997), Lambert (DTI, 2003), Cox (2005), ‘Higher Education
at Work’ (DIUS, 2008a) and ‘A New University Challenge’ (DIUS,
2008b). This collection of papers also expands and details arguments
that began to unfold in the GLAD conference: ‘Drivers for Change’ in
Cambridge 2007, in particular, Brown et al., discussing the shifts in
emphasis between teaching, research and administration, and course
development in art and design education; and Blair et al., arguing
for a new model of pedagogic practice to respond to change and
contemporary cultural, social and economic conditions (Drew, 2008).
In this session Alison Shreeve argues for developing pedagogic
research as a provocation for change beyond CETLs whilst Ellen
Sims looks at broader educational development activities focused
on ‘perfecting practice’. Several papers look at specific areas of
research and development that have formed part of CETL activities
including papers by Jane Osmond on the application of threshold
concepts and Ben Johnson on the ‘Emotional Studio’, drawing on
a wide range of pedagogic research to argue for the ‘substantial
pedagogic freedom’ available to learners in the studio.
Mike Neary’s paper, the ‘Student as Producer’, discusses the
student as co-researcher, sharing in the wider mission for places of
‘higher learning’ to generate new knowledge; and Megan Lawton et
al., look at ‘academic literacies’ and how student learning is enhanced
through research-like activities. Tom Hamilton et al., Alan Clarke,
and Angela Rogers and Steven Kilgallon all look at the situations
for learning, including issues of ‘ownership’ of the projects, learning
spaces and learning resources. Finally, Mark Stone et al., look at the
formation of communities of practice across colleges, particularly FE
colleges that are delivering HE-level art and design courses.
Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
References
Cox, Sir G. (2005) Cox Review of Creativityin Business: Building on the UK’s Strengths. London: HMT.
DIT (2003) The Lambert review of business-university collaboration. London: Department of Trade and Industry.
DIUS (2008a) Higher education at work: unlocking talent. London: Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills.
DIUS (2008b) A new university challenge: unlocking talent. London: Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills.
Drew, L. (ed.) (2007) The student experience in art and design higher education. Drivers for Change Conference, Cambridge.
HEFCE (2004) Centres for excellence in teaching and learning: special initiative invitation to bid for funds, Bristol. www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2004/04_05/ (accessed 08/09).
123
2.1Research, Learning and Teaching
2.1.1Why Bother with Research into Learning and Teaching in Art and Design?
124
125
Alison Shreeve
Creative Learning in Practice (CLIP) CETL
London College of Fashion
University of the Arts London
Abstract
The Centres for Excellence in Art and Design in England and Northern
Ireland were set up with the express intention of recognising and
rewarding excellent practice in teaching and learning and to further
that practice across the sector. In order to bid for the funding a two-
stage process entailed demonstrating excellence with evidence from
stakeholders, including employers, students, external examiners and
the institutions’ internal evaluations. There was also an expectation
that there would be engagement and capacity building in pedagogic
research. This paper argues that research into learning and teaching
is an important activity for educational institutions in art and
design and should be maintained beyond the life of the Centres for
Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs) and embedded into art
and design education cultures.
Introduction
The Centres for Excellence in Art and Design in England and Northern
Ireland were set up with the express intention of recognising and
rewarding excellent practice in teaching and learning and to further
that practice across the sector. There was also an expectation that
there would be engagement and capacity building in pedagogic
research. This paper argues that research into learning and teaching
is an important activity for educational institutions in art and
design and should be maintained beyond the life of the CETLs and
embedded into art and design education in spite of the potential
barriers to engagement presented by differences in disciplinary
cultures. Following a brief overview of pedagogic research I will
discuss the potential barriers to engagement and the importance of
overcoming these.
What is research into learning and teaching in HE?
Research may take many forms, but basically it is a structured
enquiry that focuses on a question or set of questions that arise from
aspects of teaching and learning practice and ways of systematically
enquiring into that practice. A good teacher will constantly be
asking questions of their teaching, such as did my students learn
from that particular session, what worked for them and why? How
can I improve and how can I maximise the learning potential for
students? Good teaching is like good design, a process of enquiry
and evaluation, often collaborative, expansive and imaginative. This
kind of constant evaluation might be argued to be research into
teaching and learning. However, in order to differentiate enquiry into
our own practices from educational research more generally Ashwin
and Trigwell (2004) use the following table:
Table 1 Investigating Teaching and Learning
Level Purpose of investigation
Evidence gathering methods and conclusions
Investigation aimed at
Example
1 To inform oneself Verified by self Personal knowledge
Learning
2 To inform others within that context
Verified by those within the same context
Local knowledge Course evaluation
3 To inform a wider audience
Verified by those outside that context
Public knowledge
Research article
126 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
The signifying factor is the extent to which there is engagement
and dialogue with existing debates around teaching and learning
and the increase and sharing of knowledge. If the knowledge is
retained within the tutor’s own experience or that of their close team
there is limited articulation and relation to experiences beyond the
course. This can lead to reinventing the wheel, as there is limited
reference to and building on previous knowledge and pockets of
isolated excellence from which we cannot learn as a community. If
there is engagement with the wider sector knowledge can be both
shared and built upon. Through using and referencing theories of
teaching and learning, the practices that usually remain tacit may
be made explicit.
The range of research into learning and teaching is incredibly
varied, and covers aspects of the students’ experience, teaching and
teachers, specific groups of learners and specific kinds of activity.
It may also include quantitative and qualitative approaches, be
longitudinal, a broad survey or an in-depth personal narrative. It
may focus on the whole education sector, an institution, course or
individual. It may be comparative, representative or atypical. What it
is not, is a description of practices.
What can it tell us?
Research into situations as complex, mutating and organic as education
can only hope to be illuminative, and the more research that is done
from as many perspectives as possible, the better the picture of learning
and teaching will be. Research situated in well designed and carefully
executed projects can suggest ways to move forward, what factors
help students to learn, what hinders learning and what helps tutors
to teach. There are also benefits to institutions through enquiry into
systemic issues around policy and procedures. Research can provide
unexpected insights or reaffirm suspicions. Such knowledge also has
implications for action; both to more widely disseminate and debate the
outcomes and to take action to improve as a result of research. There is
always an ethical dimension and a fundamental driver in research is to
improve the world as we find it, and critical pedagogy (e.g. Freire, 2006)
exemplifies an approach that seeks to make education democratic.
What are the barriers to engagement in educational research in
our sector?
Although many would argue that knowledge about education,
learning, knowledge and knowing is universally applicable in the FE/
HE sector in the UK, there are many who believe that disciplinary
ways of being actually influence our understanding of teaching and
learning practices and what we do (e.g. Becher, 1994; Neumann et al.,
2002; Entwistle, 2005; Lindblom-Ylanne et al., 2006; Brew, 2008).
The disciplines could be said to entail particular cultural practices
(Trowler, 2005), or to consist of ‘signature pedagogies’ (Shulman,
2005), which are characteristic to the discipline.
Art and design practices are embedded in practical, physical,
visual and material artefacts and processes. The written word is not
the predominant form of communication and for many art and design
practitioners and educators writing does not come easily, requiring,
like any form of practice, the motivation, time and energy to perfect it. In
addition to this there are a high percentage of dyslexic students in the
discipline and one might assume a similar percentage of academics.
Writing, however, is the main form of communication in educational
research, although there is a growing body of methods based on
the visual and artefact within the research process (e.g. Emison and
Smith, 2000; Silverman, 2001). Communication and interpretation
of the data is still primarily written, though new technologies are
opening up alternative forms for presenting research.
Tutors are required to be professional in terms of their commitment
to and understanding of the world of education with its socially
and politically driven agendas. The emphasis on a quality learning
experience for students, the quest for excellence and striving for
recognition and status, the expectation that they will be involved
in research and/or consultancy in their creative practice, and the
constant challenges of budgetary constraints, pressures of time,
space and new technology, all add to an almost impossible burden
for the full-time tutor. How can research into learning and teaching
be incorporated into this increasingly demanding role?
In addition to those who might consider themselves to be full-
time career academics in art and design education, there are a
127
significantly high proportion of part-time and fractional teaching
appointments. The proportion of face-to-face teaching students
encounter from part-time and fractional staff while at college may be
as high as 70 per cent of the total (estimate from ADM-HEA personal
communication: Clews, 2008). The reasons for employing so many
part-time staff are numerous, but they are often seen as the link to
current creative industry practices. The relationship experienced
between practice and teaching for part-timers (practitioner tutors)
is complex and variable (Shreeve, 2008; Walker, 2008). They are
engaging in two separate cultural activities – their practice and their
teaching – which can be conceptualised as two separate cultural
worlds. Although many practitioners may experience practice and
teaching as a continuum, this does not necessarily mean that they
are comfortable with an academic discourse or want to spend time
inquiring into the intricacies of learning and teaching.
Resistance to professional development of practitioner-tutors is
evidenced through a reluctance to embrace the ‘education speak’ that
is the predominant discourse of quality assurance, staff development
through accredited and non-accredited processes and indeed,
of educational research. The concepts, ideas and debates about
learning and the student experience originate in the wider education
sector, not usually within our specific disciplinary environments.
We have not often appropriated the discourse for ourselves and
engaged in conversation beyond the art college. For example, social
learning environments where students come together to informally
support each other’s learning are now engineered through libraries;
learning in the studio has long provided such a situation and this is
now recognised by others who replicate the studio environment for
other disciplines, as it supports a student-centred learning approach
(Smith Taylor, 2009).
Engagement with employers is encouraged across the sector, but
industry practitioners often teach art and design students, and live
projects with industry partners are common. Authentic assessment
strategies, enquiry-based learning and many other initiatives have
been and continue to be characteristic of art and design education
but we tend to take these ways of learning and teaching for granted.
Why question a way of life that we have both been through as
students and we reproduce as tutors? Are we providing the best
education we can for our students and how would we know if we did?
Art and design performs worse than any other sector in the National
Student Survey. Can we contribute to debates about teaching and
learning in all disciplines or do we tend to be isolated? We have our
‘own’ disciplinary journals for art education, but we do not frequently
contribute to many journals beyond our own disciplines.
A reluctance to embrace the wider educational discourse
may be linked to two factors. First, the primary medium of our
discipline, which is visual and artefactual, is a far more immediate
communication tool than a structured argument through a written
paper or through a text book. The majority of student learning
will be through making, experiment and evaluation. The artefact
and its associated traces of process we assume speaks for itself.
If students produce creative, innovative outcomes why would we
need to question the efficacy or the processes of our teaching?
Second, the mechanisms through which our students learn are
habitual, complex and experiential. With such ingrained, material
approaches we inhabit an educational environment that expects
both students and staff to work with and through complex, chaotic
and ambiguous situations. Tutors are constantly challenged and
appear to work at the edge of chaos in a zone of creativity that often
requires them to suspend judgment and take risks. For example, a
tutor interviewed about their teaching describes it in this way:
…your relationship to students is different from student to
student. There are some students that come to an idea which
I just can’t get my head around. But I trust them and I’ll say go
with your instinct because they’re a strong student.
A ‘pedagogy of ambiguity’ (Austerlitz et al., 2008) is prevalent
where the tutor is frequently living through uncertainty and unable
to fully articulate the path ahead. Both student and tutor are on a
shared journey of discovery. Working within environments that are
constantly shifting and uncertain, the discourse of educational
Good teaching is like good design, a process of enquiry and evaluation, often collaborative, expansive and imaginative.
128 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
research appears to be an alien culture and one that might require
alternative sets of skills to either creative practice or to teaching.
How might we overcome barriers to engagement in pedagogic
research?
Overcoming a general reluctance to undertake research into learning
and teaching may be a long-term goal, but as the CETL initiative
has shown, there are tutors who are willing to engage and adopt
a systematic critical enquiry into their practices. Having funds to
release tutors from some of their teaching duties, or to support
those who are part-time teachers to undertake research is one
way to enable this to happen. Encouraging tutors through project
funding, with careful mentoring and support from more experienced
researchers, helps to develop a community that begins to own the
discourse of educational research as well as to adapt it to include
disciplinary-sensitive concepts and knowledge. If these kinds of
activities are to become embedded in the culture of the discipline
it will require investment by institutions to enable people to engage
and to support others to become pedagogic researchers with
the confidence to adapt and develop methodologies in line with
disciplinary practices.
An example of new approaches to research is exemplified in the
10by10 project at the ARTSWORK CETL at Bath Spa University. Here
researchers are developing ways to enquire and produce information
about the relationship between practice and teaching, which are
visual. Such moves towards developing and appropriating research
methods that are more sympathetic to the ‘natural’ environment of
art and design suggest how educational research might become more
accessible to teachers and more directly relevant to dissemination
within the community of art and design education.
Why should we bother?
The CETLs, together with groups such as GLAD (Group for Learning
in Art and Design), CHEAD (Council for Higher Education in Art and
Design) and the ADM–HEA subject centre have begun to enable more
research into learning and teaching in art and design higher education,
but why is it important to continue to develop and expand this research
and why do we need to have practitioner-teachers involved?
We need to understand what the signature pedagogies (Shulman,
2005) of our practice as art educators are and why such approaches
work in order to both develop them and to provide the best education
we can for students in a complex and changing world. If we do not
articulate and develop awareness and knowledge based on research
we are unlikely to be able to defend our beliefs about art and design
education in the university in the light of growing demands for
uniformity and conformity, usually originating in sectors outside our
own disciplinary context. How are we to argue for what we believe
and develop learning in creative arts if we do not base our arguments
on sound research and enquiry methods?
Developing a questioning approach to learning and teaching is
also in line with our own practices. Learning is at the heart of creative
practice; it is what drives us to create. These approaches motivate
our practices and the same conditions should pervade teaching.
All too often though there are no debates and no questioning of
learning and teaching, simply reiterations of didactic formulae.
Creating interest within a community of teachers who examine
their teaching practice is a healthy situation and one in which the
issues are alive and the discourse of education can be integrated
into creative teaching and learning practices. There is no reason
why ‘education speak’ should not become part of a discourse of art
education, integrated into and informing our learning; enhancing
and extending our own creative arts practices and recognising that
teaching is also a creative profession. This may best be achieved
through developing our own discipline-based research in arts
education, by applying theory and developing outcomes that are
based in our own disciplinary language.
Conclusion
I have set out what I believe to be important reasons to engage with
research into learning and teaching in the disciplines of the creative
arts. I have also outlined some of the barriers to engaging. These are
not insurmountable obstacles, but present a challenge to all of us
129
to evolve methods and approaches that are sympathetic and speak
to our colleagues in ways that make the language of research into
learning and teaching acceptable and meaningful.
We might start with the notion of scholarship being an extension
of our own creative practices, where enquiry is a fundamental part
of what we do. By expecting tutors to also enquire into their practice
as creative educators we will begin to evolve a discourse and culture
where unpacking traditional approaches to teaching and learning
may help to stimulate the idea that teaching is and should be a
creative act. Without such an enquiry-led approach we are in danger
of being forced into modes of working that are inappropriate and
undervalued in the wider university culture. We have much to learn
and much to offer, but we can only do this through engagement in
learning and teaching research with the wider HE research community
as well as within our own. We need to be able to engage others in
educational discourses, using theories developed elsewhere and
also articulating our own approaches and theories about learning in
order to engage with the higher education sector as a whole.
References
Ashwin, P. and Trigwell, K. (2004)Investigating educational development, in P. Khan and D. Baume, (eds) Enhancing Staff and Educational Development. London: Kogan Page.
Austerlitz, N., Blythman, M., Grove-White, A., et al. (2008) Mind the gap: expectations, ambiguity and pedagogy within art and design higher education, in L. Drew, (ed.) The Student Experience in Art and Design Higher Education: Drivers for Change. Cambridge: JRA Publishing.
Becher, T. (1994) The significance of disciplinary differences, Studies in Higher Education, 19(2): 151-162.
Brew, A. (2008) Disciplinary and interdisciplinary affiliations of experienced researchers, Higher Education (in press).
Emison, M. and Smith, P. (2000) Researching the Visual. London: Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage.
Entwistle, N. (2005) Learning Outcomes and ways of thinking across contrasting disciplines and settings in higher education, The Curriculum Journal, 16(1): 67-82.
Freire, P. (2006) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1970.)
Lindblom-Ylanne, S., Trigwell, K., Nevgi, A. and Ashwin, P. (2006) How approaches to teaching are affected by discipline and teaching context, Studies in Higher Education, 31(3): 285-298.
Neumann, R., Parry, S. and Becher, T.(2002) Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: a conceptual analysis, Studies in Higher Education, 27(4): 405-417.
Shreeve, A. (2008) Transitions: variation in the experience of practice and teaching relations in art and design. PhD. Lancaster University.
Shulman, L.S. (2005) Signature pedagogies in the professions, Daedalus, 134(3): 52-59.
Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage.
Smith Taylor, S. (2009) Effects of studio space on teaching and learning: preliminary findings from two case studies, Innovative Higher Education. Online, 07/08.
Trowler, P. (2005) The sociologies of teaching, learning and enhancement: improving practices in higher education, Revista de Sociologia, 76: 13-32.
Walker, A. (2008) 10x10 project website. http://10by10.info/ (accessed 20/07/09).
Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
2.1Research, Learning and Teaching
2.1.2‘Stuck in the Bubble’: Identifying Threshold Concepts in Design
130
131
Jane Osmond
Centre of Excellence for Product and Automotive Design (CEPAD)
Coventry University
Abstract
This paper briefly details the journey to date that the Centre of
Excellence for Automotive and Product Design (CEPAD) at Coventry
University has taken toward identifying threshold concepts in
design, one of three research strands outlined in the original 2005
CETL bid document. The research allowed the emergence of tacit
assumptions and knowledge of the discipline and details how a
threshold concept for first year design students was identified. The
paper then proposes two questions for discussion arising from the
work with the aim of exploring the possible impact on the higher
education art and design community.
Introduction
This paper briefly details the journey to date that the Centre of
Excellence for Automotive and Product Design (CEPAD) has taken
toward identifying threshold concepts in design (Osmond et al., 2007,
2008, 2009), one of three research strands outlined in the original 2005
project bid document. The paper then proposes three questions for
discussion, which have arisen from the work, with the aim of exploring
the possible impact on the higher education art and design community.
The journey
The journey began with a consideration of possible threshold
concepts for the first year of study for the transport and product
design course at Coventry University, with threshold concepts being
defined by Meyer and Land (2003) as concepts that:
…represent a transformed way of understanding, interpreting or
viewing something without which the learner cannot progress.
(p.1)
As transport and product design staff felt that the successful
development of spatial awareness skills was crucial if students
were to gain entry into the design community of practice, a
research question was formulated to examine if spatial awareness
was a threshold concept. First year students and their tutors were
interviewed in order to define the term ‘spatial awareness’ as it
applies to the transport and product design course, and also identify
other potential threshold concepts. In relation to the meaning of
spatial awareness, the data yielded a multiplicity of meanings from
staff, and little knowledge from students. However, several potential
threshold concepts were identified, the more practical of which were
incorporated into the development of a pilot spatial awareness
measurement tool, which, it was hoped, could be used to assess
students’ suitability for the course at application interview.
The pilot measurement tool was implemented with a first year
cohort of 114 students alongside The Purdue Visualisation of
Rotations Test (Bodner and Guay, 1997), the latter being a recognised
tool for measuring spatial awareness. The results of both tests were
compared with students’ end-of-year assessment results and no
correlation was found. Therefore, despite the emphasis by staff on
the importance of students’ spatial awareness development, there
appeared to be no common definition available and end-of-year
assessments did not specifically measure it. The research team
concluded from this that spatial awareness was not a threshold
concept, at least for the first year of study.
However, a potential threshold concept did emerge from the
data, tentatively identified by staff as the ‘confidence challenge’
and defined as the ability to inculcate design conventions and
expand upon them using information from a variety of sources
and experiences.
This confidence enables students to tackle what Buchanan (1992)
describes as ‘wicked’ problems, which:
…have incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements;
and solutions to them are often difficult to recognize as such
because of complex interdependencies. (p.6)
132 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
Further investigation into the ‘confidence to challenge’ was
undertaken during the third and fourth year of the CETL project and
revealed that the actual threshold concept is the process that leads
to the confidence to challenge. Tentatively labelled the ‘toleration of
design uncertainty’ it is defined as:
…the moment when a student recognises that the uncertainty
present when approaching a design brief is an essential, but at
the same time routine, part of the design process.
Both the design (Cross, 1992; Dorst, 2003, 2008) and the creativity
literature (Kleiman, 2008; De-Bono, 1995; Baillie, 2003; Amabile,
1983 in Vidal, 2009) recognise this moment, and at its simplest it
can be understood as the process before a ‘eureka’ moment, which
Tovey (1984) describes as an ‘incubation’ period:
It is possible that the incubation periods, that time of apparent
inactivity during which the designer’s brain furiously grapples
with the problem, is simply the period during which the two
halves of the brain are out of touch or unable to agree. By
contrast, the moment when they do suddenly come into
alignment would be the classic ‘eureka’ point’. (1984: 226)
Further, Wallace (1992) describes it as ‘problem bubbles’:
Progress through many simultaneous tasks involves solving
hundreds of individual problems… To solve a particular design
task, the complete set of problem bubbles associated with
the task must be solved; but many, many bubbles not directly
related to the task will be entered between starting and finishing
the task… (p.81)
Therefore, some students may get stuck in Wallace’s problem
bubble when searching for design inspiration, and this is reflected
by this student quote:
I think during the very beginning I really struggled to really
know what I should do in my projects – you really spend a lot of
time to think about it but the result is not really that good as you
expected because you keep surfacing around, you can’t really
make decisions about doing … that’s one of the most negative
feelings because you don’t know what to do sometimes – I
mean I understand you do projects … it is not really satisfying
teachers, you learn during the process, but still you want to
know what they really want.
As reported in Osmond and Turner (2009), the toleration of
uncertainty fits Meyer and Land’s (2003) definition of a threshold
concept as transformative in that the students accept that this is what
a designer ‘does’ and thus they begin their journey to the designer
identity. It is irreversible in that they would find it very difficult to
‘un-think’ themselves from a design identity, and integrative in
that they realise that everything they know, learn and experience
is a legitimate source of inspiration (for example, accepting that
those moments when they dance around the bubble thinking about
subjects that are not directly related to their task may turn out to
be the most important part of the process). And, most of all, it is
troublesome in that the students will constantly experience and re-
experience the ‘surfacing around’ as they hunt for a solution, even
when they attain the status of professional designer.
Therefore, it is argued that the toleration of design uncertainty
is a transformative moment for design students: without this
transformation, students can remain in a liminal state, described as:
an in-between state of uncertainty and insecurity in which they do
not enjoy full community membership status and struggle both to
make sense of the underlying episteme and also to find their own
creative identities as design practitioners. (Osmond, et al., 2007)
The most recent data to emerge from the study indicates that
passing through the toleration of design uncertainty may or may not
take place for some students before they enter university, and could
Accepting that those moments when they dance around the bubble thinking about subjects that are not directly related to their task may turn out to be the most important part of the process.
133
134 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
therefore be related to the kind of creative educational background
they have previously experienced. It is possible then that students
who arrive at university having not passed through this threshold
and who also face large class sizes and the concomitant staff:student
ratio may remain in Wallace’s problem bubble far longer than is
necessary. In addition, this may pose even greater difficulty for those
international students who are used to a more prescribed curriculum
that privileges a ‘rote’ style of learning rather than a ‘creative’ style.
These findings have obvious implications for course design and
deserve further investigation. Further investigation is also indicated
into how applicable this threshold concept is to other creative
disciplines. To date, interest has been shown by the art and design
sector and measures are underway to locate appropriate sources
of funding.
Conclusion
The research into threshold concepts in design at Coventry
University has highlighted that as a research framework it is capable
of surfacing – often tacit – assumptions and knowledge that form the
episteme of a discipline, which Perkins (2006) defines as:
a system of ideas or way of understanding that allows us to
establish knowledge. (p.42)
In this case, the research identified that spatial awareness
development, although of critical importance in terms of the
development of designers, was not actually the critical element during
the first year of study. Further, the research framework allowed the
examination of several other pieces of tacit knowledge, in particular ‘the
confidence to challenge’, which again did not prove to be a threshold
concept, but did allow the researchers to identify the process leading
up to it: ‘the toleration of design uncertainty’. The identification of this
threshold concept was then underpinned by its presence in the staff and
student data and in the design and creativity literature. More recently,
data has indicated that students’ ability to pass through this threshold
may be linked to their previous creative educational background.
Therefore, using the threshold concept research framework has
enabled the surfacing of the episteme that is characteristic of a
discipline, and this knowledge can now be used as a baseline for
further investigations. In this case, it is hoped that this will be a focus
on the examination of students’ previous educational backgrounds
and potential applicability to other creative disciplines.
Questions
1. The threshold concept has been identified as peculiar to the
transport and product design course at Coventry University.
However, the recognition of, for want of a better phrase, the
‘eureka’ moment, in the design and creativity literature, points to
the possibility that the threshold concept may well exist in other
creative disciplines. Therefore, should we – and if so, how do we –
examine this possibility across other creative disciplines, such as
music, dance and fashion to name but a few?
2. If every design student does face design uncertainty at some
point in their design education, and does not achieve toleration
of design uncertainty before they get to university, it could be
argued that the increased number of students on design courses
and concomitant staff:student ratios may mean that they do not
get the appropriate support and ‘safe’ space that allows them to
experience this transformative moment. Therefore, should we, as
educators in creative disciplines, be:
• Recognisingthatestablishedteachingandlearningstylesare
often predicated on class sizes that were historically much
smaller, and students who were perhaps better ‘university-
trained’?
• Researchingandidentifyingwhattypeofcreativeeducational
background is the most successful in preparing students for
the toleration of design uncertainty?
• Redesigning courses that privilege the threshold concept
and thus take into account the lack of appropriate creative
background in both home and international students?
135
References
Baillie, C. (ed.) (2003) The TravellingCASE: Fostering Creative Thinking in Higher Education. UK Centre for Materials Education. Learning and Teaching Support Network.
Bodner, G. and Guay, R. (1997) The Purdue Visualisation of Rotations Test, The Chemical Educator, 2(4): 1-17.
Buchanan, R. (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking, Design Issues, 8(2). Cross, N. (1992) Research in design thinking, in N. Cross, K. Dorst and N. Roozenburg, (eds) Research In Design Thinking. Delft: Delft University Press. DeBono, E. (1995) Exploring patterns of thought: serious creativity, Journal for Quality and Participation, 18(5): 12-18.
Dorst, K. (2003) Understanding Design: 150 Reflections on Being a Designer. Amsterdam: BIS.
Dorst, K. (2008) Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen, Design Studies, 29(1): 4-11. Kleiman, P. (2008) Towards transformation: conceptions of creativity in higher education, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3): 209-217.
Meyer, J.H.F. and Land, R. (2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines, in C. Rust, (ed.) Improving Student Learning. Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice – 10 Years on, pp.412-424. Oxford: OCSLD.
Osmond, J. and Turner, A. (2008)Measuring the creative baseline in transport design education, in C. Rust, (ed.) Improving Student Learning – For What? Oxford: OCSLD.
Osmond, J. and Turner, A. (2009) The Threshold Concept Journey: from Identification to Application. Threshold Concepts: From Theory to Practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers (in press).
Osmond, J., Turner, A. and Land, R. (2007) Threshold concepts and spatial awareness in automotive design, in R. Land and J.H.F. Meyer, (eds) Threshold Concepts Within the Disciplines. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Perkins, D. (2006) Constructivism and troublesome knowledge, in J.H.F. Meyer and R. Land, (eds) Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, pp. 33-47. London and New York: Routledge.
Tovey, M. (1984) Designing with both halves of the brain, Design Studies, 5(4): 219-228.
Vidal, R.V.V. (2009) Creativity for problem solvers, AI and Society, 23: 409-432.
Wallace, K. (1992) Some observations on design thinking in N. Cross, K. Dorst and N. Roozenburg, (eds) Research in Design Thinking. Delft: Delft University Press.
Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
2.2Engaging with Learning
2.2.1Perfecting Practice: Engaging with Learning and Teaching in the Creative Subjects
136
137
Ellen Sims
Creative Learning in Practice (CLIP) CETL
Chelsea College of Art and Design
University of the Arts London
Abstract
The University of the Arts London is host to the Creative Learning in
Practice Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CLIP-CETL),
which has supported a number of individual and course-based
evaluative and developmental projects.
The CLIP-CETL approach to engaging staff with learning and teaching
focuses on the development of scholarship of learning and teaching
through working with tutors and students, building on excellent
practice in a range of contexts, seeking to elicit, analyse and evaluate
what is often implicit in practitioner-teachers and the experience of
developing pedagogies for extending practice-based learning.
This paper argues that staff welcome opportunities to innovate in
learning and teaching but need space, time and support to do it. A
pragmatic approach – one that acknowledges the reality of teaching and
learning in our subject areas, and working with people in their contexts
rather than telling them what to do – is key for successful engagement.
Introduction
Since 1999 The Higher Education Funding Council for England
(HEFCE) has set national priorities for learning and teaching in
higher education (HE). Funding to reward and embed excellence and
innovation has been made available through the Teaching Quality
Enhancement Fund and the establishment of Centres for Excellence
in Teaching and Learning (CETLs).
The University of the Arts London (UAL) is host to the Creative
Learning in Practice Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
(CLIP-CETL), which has funded a number of individual and course-
based evaluative and developmental projects to inform and enrich
teaching practice through research, working with tutors and students
and building on excellent practice in a range of contexts.
This paper seeks to demonstrate how the experiences of staff
and students are enhanced through pedagogic and professional
development activities and to set out potential models for engaging
with learning and teaching in the creative arts in UK HE. It further
identifies and addresses issues for staff and institutions seeking to
participate in and support developmental activities by suggesting
answers to the following:
1. What is good teaching?
2. What are the benefits and obstacles to engaging with learning and
teaching development?
3. What strategies work?
What is good teaching in the creative arts in HE?
Since the Dearing Report in 1997 elevated interest in HE teaching and
the quality of the learning experience for students, debates around
what characterises good teaching (e.g. Ramsden, 2003; Prosser and
Trigwell, 1999; Biggs, 2003) have ensued. For creative arts subjects,
the teaching excellence recognised in the awarding of the CLIP-CETL
is based on student-centred, inclusive approaches to authentic
learning in practice, underpinned by social theories of learning (e.g.
Lave and Wenger, 1991; Lave, 1996; Wenger, 1998). Such pedagogies
are founded on the claim that learning to practise in the creative arts
requires engagement with authentic activities in context.
The ‘Teaching Landscapes in the Creative Arts Subjects’ cross-
UAL research project suggests that practitioners characterise good
learning and teaching as ‘performative’ – that is that students have the
opportunity to perform as practitioners, offering interactions with the
physical and material, where learning is by ‘making and doing’ – visible
and explicit (in the process and products that are outcomes of learning);
experimental (emphasising the development of ideas); and encouraging
of independence, professionalism and critical/reflective thinking.
Good teaching is seen as being responsive to student needs and
‘tailor-made’. The role of the teacher is therefore seen as facilitation
or as McWilliams (2008: 266) suggests, one of being a ‘meddler’,
138 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
‘mutually involved in assembling and dis-assembling cultural
products’ with learners. This is a shift from the conception of the
teacher as all-knowing.
Why is it important to engage with professional development?
While the ‘Landscapes’ project suggests that teachers are taking
their role of facilitation of learning on board, descriptions of their own
teaching practice are often at odds with student-centred approaches.
This suggests professional development could support further change.
Additional reasons for engaging with professional development
include professionalising teaching and giving teachers the language
of pedagogy to participate more fully in research and academic
discourse; engaging students as co-researchers and building learning
communities; and acknowledging the ‘liquidity’ of knowledge and
developing new forms of social engagement with the world.
McFarlane and Hughes (2009: 5) cite a number of authors who
suggest educational development is largely concerned with ‘improving
teaching practices and techniques including assessment and
curriculum design’. Pedagogic research provides a vital link with the
development of teaching and can make a contribution to the quality
of learning and teaching as well as contributing to policy and strategy
development and implementation; it is therefore an important aspect
of pedagogic development.
How do we successfully engage people at all levels with learning
and teaching?
The activities of learning and teaching development include
programmes of recognised professional qualifications along with a
range of approaches that seek to develop research-informed teaching.
These range from evaluation of individual and local practices to
scholarly approaches and contributions to the debates in art and
design pedagogy in HE. The CLIP-CETL has developed several strands
of funded activities, which have included curriculum development
funding; pedagogic research based on individuals’ practices; student
projects, which convey widening participation success stories;
participative cross-university research projects engaging experienced
and novice researchers; and bursaries for PhDs, PG Certificates and
PG Diplomas in Learning and Teaching in HE.
Within these projects a wide range of themes have been explored
including the use of technologies; the experiences of international
students; assessment practices and the language of assessment;
peer and collaborative learning; signature pedagogies in art
and design; spaces for teaching and the influences of space on
pedagogy; the emotional dimensions of tutor-student interactions;
and teacher conceptions of how they teach, what they teach and
how students learn.
The engagement of staff with learning and teaching has been
acknowledged by the UAL as an important part of strategic
development and in the past few years structures have been put into
place that are beginning to support this development. A pragmatic
approach that acknowledges the reality of teaching and learning in
our subject areas and working with people in their contexts, rather
than telling them what to do, is important.
This has been the CLIP-CETL approach – engaging individuals and
small teams in the exploration of the nature of their own pedagogic
practice, designed and evaluated to better understand and extend the
pedagogies of practice-based learning and teaching. This has been
done through the aforementioned funding used primarily to buy staff
time, as well as providing practical support using new technologies,
developing research and writing skills and mentoring. This approach
has worked well where the time to carry out the projects and reflect
has been properly ring-fenced and where participants have been
given further opportunities to engage their colleagues and (with
varying success) managers with these activities and outcomes.
It is of interest that engaging course directors has been such a
challenge, raising issues of professional identity; are course directors
managers or academic innovators and leaders? This issue was identified
in the first internal evaluation report (Blythman, 2008) as an issue central
to changing the institutional culture to encourage enhancement.
Successful participation has been reliant on the dedicated support
embedded in the organisational model of the CLIP-CETL, which
provided a coordinator for each of the participating colleges and built
139
local support networks. For example, PG Cert bursaries were offered
to staff to buy teaching replacement for additional study time and
dedicated support for building research and study skills, which the
cohort found beneficial. The participants acted as mentors to each
other and sometimes to subsequent cohorts. As a result subsequent
groups of PG Cert participants have had additional support in their
colleges, enhancing their experience and causing less disruption to the
course teams, which in turn increased buy-in from course managers.
A further slightly exceptional example is a project that recognised
and built on good practice, in this case collaborative approaches to
working in the fine art studios. The Virtual Studios project looked
at the different challenges and possibilities offered by online
collaboration. It was exceptional in that the tutors admitted to
engaging initially to fund the collaboration and were not particularly
interested in the pedagogic aspects but in the making of artworks,
even though they had identified learning outcomes for the students.
They measured the success of the project on the work produced
rather than the student learning.
This had an effect on the pedagogy in that the tutors attempted to
control the process and were reluctant to allow a student-led approach
due to anxiety over the quality of the work. Through facilitated
sessions with the students, which also built student confidence in
standing up for their ideas, the tutor was able to move to a more
facilitative role and allow the students to lead the collaboration.
If things didn’t go to plan it wasn’t a disaster but a learning/
creating opportunity. (Tutor, unpublished evaluation data)
What gave the project life was ending up going somewhere
completely different, not where you expected. That was the
excitement. Going off at a tangent. Constantly re-evaluating.
[That experience] is something to take away to our own practice.
(Student, unpublished evaluation data)
The model of providing rewards for building on existing good
practice in this case was successful in that it engaged reluctant
participants by not only providing funding and support but also by
communicating to staff that their teaching was valued. The project
has since been repeated in other courses and made sustainable by
previous participants mentoring new students and leading on not
only the direction of the project but the technology used.
Benefits to staff and students
Keeping in mind both the aspirational and pragmatic aspects of
engaging with pedagogic research and development, key questions
for staff are: What might doing this research change about you and
your practice? How might students’ learning be enhanced?
Participants in CLIP-CETL projects found that the main benefit of
taking part was the opportunity to try out and discuss new ideas with
colleagues and to follow up and share experiences. For example, for
the PG Cert bursary recipients, exchanging teaching methods and
getting feedback from peers were highly valued (CLIP-CETL Interim
Evaluation Report, 2007).
Benefits for staff are in the development of their own skills and in the
production of shared knowledge. Increased and ongoing engagement
with learning and teaching is evidenced, for example, in the numbers
of staff engaging in the debates, proposing projects and applying for
funding and fellowships, and in an increased interest in undertaking
further qualifications such as the Postgraduate Certificates and
Diplomas in Learning and Teaching in HE. It is worth noting that a number
have gone on to receive UAL teaching and professional fellowships.
The main benefits have been:
• Publishedarticle/conferencepapers
• Creatingadebatearoundtheissuesseenasimportant
• Developingabilitytohelpthestudentslearn
• Developingresearchskills
• Learningtogivepresentationstopeers
• Gainingvaluablefeedbackfromstudents
• Feelingchallengedprofessionally
• Introducingimprovementstothecurriculum
A pragmatic approach that acknowledges the reality of teaching and learning in our subject areas and working with people in their contexts, rather than telling them what to do, is important.
140 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
In addition, there has been a growing awareness of greater
applicability of project products and models to other courses,
leading to a higher level of awareness of pedagogy. This is a
key criterion for many internal funding opportunities and seen
as essential to supporting culture change. For example, the
outcome of a UAL teaching fellowship is Visual Directions, an
online visual resource for developing reflective thinking skills and
use of sketchbooks, which has been widely disseminated and is
being used and evaluated across a range of courses. It is serving
as a model for additional resources to extend the website. Staff
and students were engaged in the development and piloting of
the resource, which has proved to be a valuable learning and
teaching resource.
Obstacles and issues
Throughout the projects staff have been supported and mentored in
their activities by peers, more experienced colleagues and CLIP-CETL
coordinators. A number of workshops introducing pedagogic theory,
bid writing, research skills and methods, writing and presentation
have supported participants, who have gone on to engage and
support their colleagues. Less successful has been the support
available to individuals to embed and sustain development activities
in their own contexts due to a range of issues.
1. Time
HE teachers, technicians and managers are busy people. Evidence
provided in CLIP-CETL evaluations supports the notion that tutors
and technicians welcome opportunities to innovate in learning and
teaching but need space, time and support to do it:
I’m squeezed into a place now where I’ve got a lot of other
things on and I really haven’t got the space … I would have
loved to have said, ‘Oh yes I want to write parts of that paper
that’s going, you know, to be going out there’ but … I need,
you know, real good concentration space and when you’ve
got four hundred and fifty students to deal with that just ain’t
going to happen. (Staff interview: Third internal evaluation –
unpublished – Blythman, 2008)
2. Engagement at all levels
The original conception was that course directors and key team
members would participate in the CLIP-CETL projects together to
encourage embedding of innovation and whole-team learning.
However, it was inevitably course team members who carried out the
work as managers could not find the time or had other priorities:
…if other joint projects come up I’m really happy to be involved
… the biggest difficulty for me is always going to be, you know,
finding the time… The course management is very hard to step
out of. (Staff interview: Third internal evaluation – unpublished
– Blythman, 2008)
3. Building and sustaining a community
The programmes have focused on the establishment of a culture that
increasingly values and awards status to teaching. Key to the success
of engagement is the sense of identification with a community of
practice. Participation in the CLIP-CETL programmes has increased
year-on-year, and as a result the pedagogic research and development
community into which new members and knowledge are received is
ever-widening, increasingly visible and welcoming. However, staff
leave and new staff are always arriving. The model of community
building needs to be nurtured and sustained.
Strategies for further engagement
In strategising ways forward overall we need to be thinking about
how the CLIP-CETL approach can be sustained to further explore
emerging pedagogies and identify areas for further development.
This will require ongoing support for engagement with both the
scholarly and practical activities of learning and teaching practice.
The key to developing successful future strategies for engaging
staff lies in recognising the value of overcoming the aforementioned
obstacles and embracing the key successes identified. Particularly
141
References
Biggs, J. (2003) Teaching for QualityLearning at University. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
Blythman, M. (2008) CLIP-CETL internal evaluation report (unpublished).
CLIP-CETL interim evaluation report (07/07). University of the Arts London. www.arts.ac.uk/clipcetl-evaluation.htm (accessed 11/05/09).
Lave, J. (1996) Teaching, as learning, in practice, Mind, Culture and Activity 3(3): 149-164.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McFarlane, B. and Hughes, G. (2009) Turning teachers into academics? The role of educational development in fostering synergy between teaching and research, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1): 5-14.
McWilliams, E. (2008) Unlearning how to teach, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3): 263-269.
Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (1999)Understanding Learning and Teaching. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Shreeve, A. and Trowler, P. (2006) CLIP-CETL cross-university research project: Teaching landscape in creative arts subjects (project proposal).
Trowler, P. (2005) The sociologies of teaching, learning and enhancement: improving practices in higher education, Revista de Sociologia, 75: 13- 32.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
important is engendering a sense of community and belonging;
supporting peer engagement; support for development of new
skills, particularly in the area of research and communication of
outcomes; and pragmatic approaches based on the practitioner’s
teaching context.
Recommended actions include developing strategy to enable
academic staff to combine other duties with a pedagogic research
profile, perhaps based on internal exchanges and temporary
secondments. Structures like local and university-wide learning
development days (which enable staff to learn from each other) need
to be embedded.
More specifically we need to examine:
• Non-participation: possible reasons for it; how to encourage
participation
• Equalopportunity/accessissues
• Effectsofshiftingrolesandresponsibilitiesandlocusofcontrol
• Emotionsaffectingattitudestowardsworkandstudy
• How to identify systematically the impact of these projects on
student learning
The argument is therefore that our institutions need to develop
and resource pedagogic research and development strategies
that are informed by and integrated into the teaching and learning
strategies. The HEFCE funding for CLIP-CETL will run out in March
2010, and the future of funding for the types of activities described
herein is uncertain. Discussions with the University of the Arts
London suggest that the university values the contributions made
thus far, would like to sustain the activities and acknowledges
that engagement with the scholarship of learning and teaching
is key to implementing the university strategy for student learning.
The challenge will be to make it happen.
2.2Engaging with Learning
2.2.2Student as Producer: Risk, Responsibility and Rich Learning Environments in Higher Education
142
143
Professor Mike Neary
Reinvention Centre for Undergraduate Research CETL
University of Warwick
Abstract
In 2002, while at the University of Warwick, I established the
Reinvention Centre for Undergraduate Research, a Centre for
Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL). The centre, as the
name suggests, was inspired by the work of Ernest L. Boyer and the
commission established in his name. The core aim of the Reinvention
Centre for Undergraduate Research at the University of Warwick
and Oxford Brookes University is to ‘reinvent’ the undergraduate
curriculum through the promotion of research-based learning. In so
doing, the Reinvention Centre is attempting to recreate the notion
of an inclusive academic community where learners, teachers
and researchers are all seen as scholars in the common pursuit of
knowledge. The activities of the Reinvention Centre are intellectually
grounded in the previous work of those involved in research-based
learning at the two institutions, providing a framework within
which progressive educators now working with the centre are able
to develop their work in collaboration with each other and with
students in an atmosphere of mutual support and an ever-expanding
academic network (www.warwick.ac.uk/go/reinvention).
The problem for the Reinvention Centre was how to design a space
that allowed for closer collaboration between student and teacher.
Key to the Reinvention Centre’s commitment to research-based
learning is a critical pedagogy that challenges the idea of students
as passive consumers of education and emphasises the importance
of their being active producers of real knowledge and an integral
part of the research culture of departments and universities. In this
model, hierarchical relationships between student and teacher are
transformed to produce more fluid and elaborate collaborations
between producers of scholarly work. Addressing these theoretical
issues in practical ways calls for a critical rethinking and reinvention
of the spaces in which students learn. The Reinvention Centre’s
teaching space has been designed in order to offer a creative
response to these demands (Lambert, 2008).
Introduction
This paper, in discussing the implications of designing a university
education that is creative and full of social purpose, is grounded
in intellectual traditions of critical pedagogy (e.g. Paulo Freire
and Walter Benjamin), as well as the notions of ‘the scholarship
of teaching and learning’ (Ernest Boyer). The notion of ‘student
as producer’ rather than ‘student as consumer’ draws on work of
the Reinvention Centre and work at the University of Lincoln. The
main point is that designing a curriculum that is socially useful
and genuinely creative means rethinking the teaching and learning
experience and also requires fundamentally rethinking the nature
and purpose of higher education (HE).
The idea of the university is up for grabs
The role, function and nature of universities are subject to
increasingly intensive debate as higher education undergoes
profound transformations, nationally and internationally. There
is little consensus about the ‘idea’ or the ‘uses’ of the university
(Newman, 1996; Kerr, 1963), if there ever was. Universities are being
‘realised and reshaped’ (Barnett, 2005), ‘rethought’ (Rowland, 2006)
and ‘redefined’ (Scott, 1998). Some regard these transformations
positively, others feel the academic mission is undermined, leading to
‘crisis’ (Scott, 1984), ‘deprofessionalisation’ (Nelson and Watt, 2003),
‘corporatisation’ and ‘commercialisation’ (Bok, 2003; Slaughter and
Leslie, 1997; Callinicos, 2007), ‘ruination’ (Readings, 1996) and even
the ‘death’ of the university (Evans, 2004).
For many a key issue is the way the student experience has been
‘consumerised’ (Boden and Epstein, 2006). The concept of student as
consumer is based on a market-led model of corporate governance
where risky activity is motivated by profit-driven imperatives. I will
argue for a different model, based on taking progressive risks with
the curriculum, giving students more responsibility for their learning,
144 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
providing much richer learning environments. This model – not
student as consumer, but student as producer (Neary and Winn,
2009) – may be at odds with the market- driven paradigm of providing
services for students, but it has the potential to provide a framework
for teaching and learning promoting social responsibility as the key
organising function of the university, making it better able to deal
with the social emergencies that underpin its own crisis of identity.
Universities – research and teaching
While teaching and research are the central functions of a university,
higher education is characterised by an imbalance between these,
leading to an ‘apartheid’ between student and teacher. As Brew
(2006) puts it:
The relationship between teaching and research is intricately
embedded within ideas about what universities do and
what they are for. It is fundamental to what is understood as
higher learning and to ideas about the nature of the academy.
Understanding this relationship raises substantial questions
about the roles and responsibilities of higher education
institutions, about the nature of academic work, about the
kinds of disciplinary knowledge that are developed and by
whom, about the way teachers and students relate to each
other, about how university spaces are arranged and used,
indeed, it raises fundamental questions about the purposes of
higher education. (p.3)
My point, following Brew, is that in order to rethink the role and
function of the university we need to focus on the relationship
between teaching and research.
The reinvention of research-intensive universities
Much of Brew’s inspiration for re-engineering the relationship
between teaching and research comes from Ernest Boyer. Boyer
acknowledged the imbalance between research and teaching
and argued for teaching to be recognised as an important and
fundamental part of academic life. He provided a framework and
benchmark against which to consider the relationship between
teaching and research.
The most important obligation now confronting colleges and
universities is to break out of the tired old teaching versus
research debate and define in more creative ways what it means
to be a scholar. (Boyer, 1999: xii)
Boyer (1990) suggests four categories of what he refers to as
‘scholarship’:
• Thescholarshipofdiscovery:research
• Thescholarshipofintegration:interdisciplinaryconnections
• The scholarshipof application/engagement: knowledgeapplied
in the wider community
• Thescholarshipofteaching:researchandevaluationofone’sown
teaching
In 1999 The Boyer Commission, the ‘Reinvention of the Research’,
set out to create an Academic Bill of Rights for students, which included
the commitment for every university to provide ‘opportunities to
learn through enquiry rather than simple transmission of knowledge’
(Boyer Commission, 1999).
Walter Benjamin: author as producer
The Reinvention Centre for Undergraduate Research CETL was
inspired by the work of Boyer and the commission established in his
name. It utilised Boyer’s liberal humanist progressive pedagogies but
also found inspiration in the work of other radical thinkers, including
Walter Benjamin. The ‘student as producer’ is based on an article by
Benjamin, written in the 1930s. In his essay, the ‘Author as Producer’,
Benjamin sought to find a role for progressive intellectuals in a
society faced with the crisis of capitalism and the rise of fascism.
Benjamin argued that intellectuals work on products and on the
means by which the work is produced; that is to say, the process of
With students as active collaborators in the research, hierarchical relationships between student and teacher are transformed, producing more fluid and elaborate collaborations between producers of scholarly work.
145
146 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
production. Each work, therefore, is part of the organising function
of society. It is only by progressively reinventing the dominant
organising function that society can be transformed and crisis
averted. The organising function within which Benjamin was writing
was the social relation of capitalist production, defined through
the logic of waged labour and private property. For Benjamin, the
imperatives of capitalist production led to the horrors of Bolshevism
and fascism. Therefore, any alternative form of organising principle
must be antithetical to these extreme types of political systems
and be set up on the basis of democracy, collectivism, respect for
legitimate authority, mutuality and social justice.
Benjamin found examples of this alternative organising principle
in progressive forms of political art: in Dada, Brecht’s Epic Theatre
and the Russian avant-garde. These art forms involved the reader
and spectator in the process of production: they are the producers
of artistic content and collaborators in their own social world, the
subjects rather than objects of history:
What matters is the exemplary character of production … first,
to induce other producers to produce, and, second, to put an
improved apparatus at their disposal. And this apparatus is
better, the more consumers it is able to turn into producers –
that is, readers or spectators, into collaborators. (Benjamin,
1934: 777)
Benjamin’s thinking can be applied to the dichotomous relationship
between teaching and research in the contemporary university. It is
applied to reinvent the relationship between teacher and student, so
students are not simply consuming knowledge transmitted to them
but become actively engaged in the production of knowledge with
academic content and value.
This process, turning the student-as-consumer into the student-
as-producer is achieved by providing more research and research-
like experiences integral to the undergraduate experience. Thus,
students become productive collaborators in the research culture of
their universities. This is particularly important in a context where
students have been forced into the position of consumers in a service
culture that many academics regard as antithetical to the academic
project of the university (Lambert et al., 2007).
Reinventing the classroom
In the model of research-based learning, with students as active
collaborators in the research, hierarchical relationships between
student and teacher are transformed, producing more fluid and
elaborate collaborations between producers of scholarly work.
Addressing these theoretical issues in practical ways calls for a critical
rethinking and reinvention of the spaces in which students learn. The
Reinvention Centre’s teaching space has been designed in order to
offer a creative response to these demands (Lambert, 2008).
The classroom is rectangular: 120 square metres of light and colour
stripped of all decoration; white walls; blue rubber floor; primary
colour cubed seats; round yellow bean bags; and long monochrome
grey and black benches. There are no tables and chairs, nor any
obtrusive technology, only ethernet connection points, electric
sockets and Wi-Fi. There are no fixed screens or projectors creating
focal points where the teacher might stand to deliver a lecture. The
space is lit by spotlights set in the floor that shine up through the
rafters to the ceiling. Lacking tables and chairs, the room is not for
sitting in for long periods, but has been designed for movement and
dynamic interaction between student and teacher, emphasising the
importance of non-cognitive aspects of learning, including body and
other forms of non-verbal language.
The room melds the energy of the performing and fine arts, and
the critical sensibility that art generates. The artistic influences
informing the design are purism and neoplasticism, utopian art
movements that emerged in the 1920s as a protest against the
chaotic carnage of the First World War. The space is grounded in the
historical materiality of the real world. This ‘embeddedness’ in social
reality is manifest by the significance given to the area that acts as a
reality check for the whole room: the floor. The floor provides a sense
of gravitas and gravity for the entire space. The floor is a surface
for working on as well as walking on. It is heated and rubberised,
147
providing an all-around feeling of warmth and comfort. By making
the floor more than something to be trampled on, the space
recognises the significance of the floor as a site of social interaction,
and, with its emphasis on the symbolic importance, it is a reminder
of the ways in which floor space is used by other cultures, giving the
room a racial and ethnic intelligence.
As for technology, the room has movable audio-visual equipment,
allowing multiple points of focus counteracting the traditional
perspective of classrooms, built around a focal point establishing the
teacher as the dominant presence within the room. With no obvious
place for the teacher, each activity requires the space to be negotiated
by student and teacher. The lack of a dominating focal point reflects
the cubist anti-perspectival sensibility, consolidating the utopian
tendency of the room, which presents the future as something to be
constructed rather than ready-made. There is no fear of the future in
this space: no ‘future-proofing’ (Miller, 2001). The colours and shapes
of the furniture emphasise play in a serious space, recognising that
there are ways to learn ethics, values and responsibility through
activities that are serious, yet enjoyable and fun.
Academic literacy – Reinvention: a journal of student work
Reinvention: a Journal of Undergraduate Research is a biannual
online, peer-reviewed journal, dedicated to the publication of high
quality undergraduate student research. The journal welcomes
academic articles from all disciplines and is produced, edited and
managed by students and staff at Oxford Brookes University and
the University of Warwick. Manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer
review. Reviewers may include undergraduate and postgraduate
students but at least one review is completed by a faculty member
and recognised authority in the field of interest. As well as teaching
students how to critically appraise research, this protocol ensures
that papers are comparable to those published in traditional journals,
ensuring academic rigour and maintaining confidence in the journal.
David Metcalfe, the student editor of Reinvention, says:
The journal itself represents an addition to a growing number of
undergraduate research publications which have arisen around
the world. The journal team itself is unique in that it reflects true
collaboration between students, academics, and administrative
and technical staff. Students and academics will, for example,
work together as subject editors to elicit submissions and
coordinate peer review within each individual faculty and school.
Indeed, the collaboration theme of Reinvention is reiterated
throughout its multi-disciplinary content and in the fact that its
governance is spread across Oxford Brookes University and the
University of Warwick … It is hoped that, in this way, Reinvention
may also help to promote undergraduate research and that the
experience gained by authors will encourage them to produce
papers for high-impact journals within their own areas of
interest. (www.warwick.ac.uk/go/reinventionjournal)
University of Lincoln
Since 2007, as the Dean of Teaching and Learning at the University
of Lincoln, together with colleagues and students, I have been taking
forward some of these ideas at an institutional level. A new student
journal, Neo, will feature text and visual research, building on
Lincoln’s strengths in the creative arts. It will feature undergraduate
research taking place within the university, including work done as
part of the Undergraduate Research Opportunity Scheme (UROS).
This is a bursary programme allowing undergraduate students to
engage with the research activity of academics; there are 39 research
projects currently underway (www.lincoln.ac.uk/cerd/uros.htm).
While UROS is extracurricular, Lincoln is committed to developing
research and research-like activity and to designing undergraduate
research-based degrees. The distinctive aspect of work at Lincoln is
the awareness that – following Edwards and Usher (2003) – ‘space
and spatiality have become central to any discussions about the
nature of teaching and learning’.
The colours and shapes of the furniture emphasise play in a serious space, recognising that there are ways to learn ethics, values and responsibility through activities that are serious, yet enjoyable and fun.
148 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
Thinking about the spatiality of teaching and learning is
conceptualised as ‘learning landscapes’ where:
the total context for learning experiences, of opportunities
[is] in virtual as well as physical space. Learning happens
anywhere, enabled by network information systems, wireless
access and mobile devices … a network of places for discovery,
learning and discourse between students, faculty staff, and the
wider community. (DEGW, 2006)
This includes redesigning classrooms to encourage collaboration
and engagement between teachers and students, and recognition
and solidarity between groups of students (Contact, 2008).
Websites and mobile technologies are being developed to provide
online environments and to generate capacity for autonomous and
independent forms of student learning (http://learninglab.lincoln.
ac.uk/). The university holds annual campus-wide conferences
based on the learning landscapes theme to engage students and
colleagues across the university on the theme of how to build
a contemporary university that engages with its own academic
community and with the external world (www.lincoln.ac.uk/cerd/).
Lincoln, with other major British universities, is leading a national
project funded by the Higher Education Funding Councils (http://
learninglandscapes.lincoln.ac.uk), looking at innovation in the
design of teaching spaces. The key interest is in decision-making
processes that make innovations in the design of teaching and
learning spaces operational; the ways in which classroom design
reflects contemporary developments in teaching and learning;
and, uniquely, the ways in which the academic voice is included in
these debates. In this context, academic voice means not just the
kind of furniture teachers want in their classrooms, but the ways in
which space and spatiality have been intellectualised and how these
intellectual sensibilities might be reflected in classroom design
(Neary and Thody, 2009).
Conclusion
It is important to reinvent education so that undergraduates can
have a more holistic experience of the academic project. This more
complete experience of academic life offers students a more broadly
integrated sense of their subjects and how they relate to other
disciplines, but also it is key in assisting the academic community
in rethinking how to deal with global emergencies. David Orr has
written about the need for a more holistic curriculum in relation to
environmental issues:
The great ecological issues of our time have to do in one way
or another with our failure to see things in their entirety. That
failure occurs when minds are taught to think in boxes, and [are]
not taught to transcend those boxes or to question overly much
how they fit with other boxes. (David Orr, 2004: 95)
The organising principle that generated the ecological crisis has
now manifested itself as a world-wide financial crisis. Politicians
struggle to avert catastrophe, and they may succeed in the short-
term but the underlying causes of the crisis are not being addressed.
My point, like Orr, is that to avert global catastrophes we need a
fundamental rethinking of the nature of academic enquiry. We can
start by looking at the ways in which we engage with the world,
and, in particular, how we engage with our students. By taking more
progressive risks with our teaching and learning, and by treating
students as responsible members of our academic community we
might be able to create richer learning environments, but also to
invent new approaches to some of the very real emergencies that
are confronting both the university and society.
149
References
Barnett, R. (2005) Reshaping theUniversity: New Relationships Between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Benjamin, W. (1934) The author as producer, in M.W. Jennings, H. Eiland and G. Smith, (eds) (2005) Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, Vol. 2,1927-1934. Harvard: Harvard University Press
Boden, R. and Epstein, D. (2006) Managing the research imagination? Globalisation and research in higher education, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(2): 223–236.
Bok, D. (2003) Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialisation of Higher Education. Princeton University Press.
Boyer, E. (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Stony Brook, New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning.
Boyer Commission (1999) Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities. Stony Brook, New York: Carnegie Foundation for University Teaching. Brew, A. (2006) Research and Teaching: Beyond the Divide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Callinicos, A. (2007) Universities in a Neoliberal World. London: Bookmarks Publications.
Contact (2008) In-house magazine,University of Lincoln.
DEGW (2006) Working to learn, learning to work: design in educational transformation. Fourth Annual FoundationLecture.www.degw.com
Edwards, R. and Usher, R. (2003) Space, Curriculum and Learning. Greenwich, CT: IAP.
Evans, M. (2004) Killing Thinking: The Death of the University. London: Continuum.
Kerr, C. (1963)The Uses of the University. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
Lambert, C. (2008) Exploring new learning and teaching spaces, Warwick Interactions Journal, 11(2), University of Warwick.
Lambert, C., Parker, A. and Neary, M. (2007) Entrepreneurialism and critical pedagogy: reinventing the higher education curriculum, Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4):525-537.
Miller, A. (2001) Einstein, Picasso: Space, Time and the Beauty that Causes Havoc. New York: Basic Books.
Neary, M. and Thody. A. (2009) Learning landscapes – the classroom of the future, in L. Bell, M. Neary and H. Stevenson, (eds) The Future of Higher Education: Policy, Pedagogy and the Student Experience. London: Continuum.
Neary, M. and Winn. J. (2009) Student as producer: reinventing the undergraduate curriculum, in L. Bell, M. Neary and H. Stevenson, (eds) The Future of Higher Education: Policy, Pedagogy and the Student Experience. London: Continuum.
Nelson, C. and Watt, S. (2003) OfficeHours: Activism and Change in the Academy. Abingdon and New York: Routlege.
Newman, J.H. (1996) The Idea of a University. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Orr, D. (2004) Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment and the Human Prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Readings, B. (1996) The University in Ruins. The Estate of Bill Readings, USA.
Rowland, S. ( 2006) The Enquiring University: Compliance and Contestation in Higher Education. SRHE and Buckingham: Open University Press.
Scott, P. ( 1984) The Crisis of the University. London: Croom Helm.
Scott, P. (1995) The Meanings of Mass Education. SRHE and Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.
Scott, P. (ed.) (1998) The Globalisation of Higher Education. SRHE and Buckingham: Open University Press.
Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Temple, P. (2007) Learning spaces for the 21st century: a review of the literature. Higher Education Academy.
2.3Student Centredness
2.3.1The Emotional Studio: Student-Tutor Interactions in Design
150
151
Dr Ben Jonson
Creative Learning in Practice (CLIP) CETL
Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design
University of the Arts London
Abstract
This trigger paper looks at emotion in the context of design education
and the studio experience in particular, from both a practical and
theoretical perspective, including learning theory, learning styles and
emotion studies. The paper also relates to ‘Unspoken Interactions’, a
pedagogic research project funded by The Creative Learning in Practice
Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CLIP-CETL) at the
University of the Arts London (2008). With emphasis on discussion,
the paper is a critical reflection of ideas, views and values in learning
and teaching in creative subjects and draws on the author’s experience
of studio teaching and pedagogic research across a broad spectrum of
design disciplines. It explores the emotional studio, compares face-
to-face interaction in studio education with e-learning, and argues
that the studio approach is the preferred learning style for designers.
It illuminates tutor-student power relationship, refers to Emotional
Intelligence (EI), suggests affirmative actions to improve emotional
competence and concludes with questions for further discussion.
Introduction
Although we know that learning is facilitated or hampered by
emotions (Goleman, 1995), and that emotions drive learning and
memory (Sylvester, 1994), the impact of emotions on learning in
higher education is often overlooked or underestimated (Austerlitz,
2008). So, for example, what may seem an innocent comment or
remark by a tutor may trigger a negative emotional response in the
student. Tutor and student, then, may experience, interpret and
respond differently to the same event, reflecting different aspirations,
beliefs or attitudes of the parties (Desmet, 2008). Emotional issues
in student-tutor interactions, then, need to be discussed seriously.
So what characterises emotions? Paradoxically they are subjective
and yet common human experiences. But while some common
emotions have been identified, such as fear, anger, sadness and
joy, many others are neither innate nor universal but complex
cognitive constructs influenced and mediated by social and cultural
factors (Ekman, 2003). Hard to explain, and without an agreed upon
definition, emotions, then, are complex phenomena of both learned
and innate expressive displays and physical responses that can
be verbal as well as non-verbal, including dress, body postures,
attitudes and paralanguage, for example, hesitation and gesture.
Moreover, emotional responses may vary from total ‘openness’ to
‘concealment’, for example, genuine versus social smiles, which can
make decoding and judging emotion difficult.
The emotional studio
Although late postmodern design agendas are strongly influenced
by virtual environments, it is generally held that the studio remains
central to practice-based design education, an approach to learning
that is personal and social, experiential and situated where students
engage in problem solving activities. In this, the studio embodies
both experiential learning (thinking and doing) and situated learning
(Lave and Wenger, 1990) serving as an educational model that
recognises the need for artistry in professional education (Schön,
1987). The studio experience also resonates with personalised
learning, or constructivism, a learning theory advanced by J. Piaget
(1969) whereby learning is understood as a very personal endeavour
actively constructed by the learner. Studio education, moreover,
reflects Vygotsky’s (1962) understanding of learning, also known as
activity theory, as something that occurs through social interaction
and language, where the role of the teacher is that of providing
scaffolding to assist student learning.
Compared with the generic lecture model (instructivism), where
emotion might be seen as a disruptive concept, the studio model
offers substantial pedagogic freedom, including improvisation
and play, providing rich and authentic emotional experiences.
In this, the studio experience reflects how followers in art and
152 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
design education have ‘an intensely personal relationship with
their subject’ (Micklethwaite, 2005: 92). The personal relationship
highlights the interplay between learning and emotion whereby
students experience both pleasant and unpleasant emotions,
including adversarial interpersonal episodes with tutors, such as
fear of failure. The studio model, then, accepts the natural steps of
making mistakes (‘trial and error’) by ‘inviting and taking risks with
emotional interactions’ (Sagan, 2008: 51). Risk taking, however,
implies uncomfortable or unsettling questions so tutors need to
be aware of learners’ fears (Sappington, 1984). In the studio, then,
emotion cannot be separated from learning and, ultimately, becomes
embedded in creative outcomes, hence ‘the emotional studio’.
Creative subjects, then, are affective both in process and outcome.
Learning and teaching styles: studio-based learning versus
e-learning
The relocation of art and design education to the university sector has
introduced technology-based learning and teaching, or e-learning
to creative subjects. E-learning, however, seems at odds with
studio education because e-learning reflects instructivism whereby
knowledge exists independently of the learner and is transferred
from the teacher to the student (teacher-centred education). In
contrast, in studio education students seek out, in negotiations with
their tutors, learning opportunities through self-initiated and self-
directed projects (student-centred education).
Studio education and instructivism, however, are not necessarily
mutually exclusive, for example, studio-based learning includes
instructional modes (‘need to know’), or online feedback (‘blended
learning’). Yet e-learning suffers from a tendency to mechanistic
application: follow these instructions and you will have a successful
piece of learning. Such claims, however, are open to questioning.
For example, the review of the 2005 HEFCE Strategy for e-Learning
criticised the lack of evidence for evaluating the effectiveness of
e-learning (HEFCE, 2008).
Moreover, e-learning tends to regard the learner as an ‘empty vessel’
into which knowledge is poured. What this can result in is dry, abstract
and unengaging learning based on bits of information or logical
structures where the links between learning and emotional processes
appear weak. Affective experience with technology, however, is being
explored, for example, affective computing research (Picard, 1997),
including models for affective e-learning (Shen et al., 2009). Yet
there are limitations to e-learners’ interaction with sensory data, as
illuminated by the Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic learning model, VAK.
The VAK model
The VAK model emphasises individual learning preferences and
relates to experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984). It has three
learning styles:
1. Visual (seeing and reading), which involves the use of seen
and observed things (for example, pictures, video and
demonstrations)
2. Auditory (listening and speaking), which involves listening (words,
music and sounds)
3. Kinesthetic (touching and doing), which involves physical
experience (making, touching and moving)
But whereas both studio-based learning and e-learning include
visual and auditory learning styles, the studio model adds the
third: kinesthetic. It is kinesthetic learning, then, and notably the
‘hands-on’ and ‘touchy-feely’ qualities (learning by doing), that sets
the studio experience apart from e-learning: ‘the screen doesn’t
get dirty’. Kinesthetic learning, moreover, is a working style for
designers supporting the argument that the studio-based learning
is designers’ preferred approach to learning.
Tutor-student power relationship
Although words alone can be inadequate to describe emotion in creative
subjects (Greenhalgh, 2008), words are the most common means of
human communication. Yet reflecting on human interaction through
language, Hospers asserts: ‘We don’t so much give information, or
receive it from what others say, as express our feelings and attitudes
153
and try, through our language, to work on people’s feelings and
attitudes in order to change or control them’ (Hospers, 1990: 33).
‘Change’ and ‘control’, then, seem key words in student-tutor
interactions. But whereas change in creative practice suggests
positive transformation and pleasant emotions, control is more likely
to elicit negative emotions because control reveals the asymmetry
of knowledge and power in student-tutor interactions where tutors
hold sway by virtue of their expertise and authority (Munger, 1996).
The asymmetry is apparent in the critique (‘the crit’), or similar forms
of task-, portfolio-, project- or performance-based assessments
where tutors have the power to pass or fail students.
Where there is an asymmetrical student-tutor relationship,
Munger (1996) highlights the effect of questions and how they
help or hinder the interaction because questions are often
prompted by feelings of uncertainty or ambiguity that reveal power
relationships between novice and expert. A student voice illustrates
this point: ‘I was not alone in experiencing rudeness, sarcasm and
unprofessional behaviour from some tutors and technicians. I am
a confident person, but even I felt intimidated and would often
withhold questions’ (Finnigan, 2008). To reduce imbalance in tutor-
student power relationships, Munger (1996) suggests that rather
than presenting themselves as ‘expert’ and working in didactic
and controlling ways with students, tutors speak with a personal,
rather than a teacher’s voice. Another student voice exemplifies this
approach: ‘It was refreshing to have a tutor who was adept at the
art of listening and who acknowledged subtler cultural differences’
(Finnigan, 2008).
To emphasise change rather than control in student-tutor
interactions aligns with the strategic context for technology in
education that emphasises outcome (transformation) rather than
process (e-learning) (HEFCE, 2009). Focusing on change is also
congruent with the view that tutors develop a conceptual change/
student-focused approach, rather than an information transmission/
teacher-focused approach (Trigwell and Prosser, 1996). The
conceptual change approach, furthermore, highlights the studio
as a social and practice-based learning environment resembling a
‘community of practice’ (Wenger, 1998). As a community of practice,
then, the studio provides opportunities to develop interpersonal
(social) and intrapersonal (self-reflection) skills, skills that, moreover,
are embedded in the notion of Emotional Intelligence.
Emotional Intelligence
The term Emotional Intelligence (EI) is described as the ability to
perceive, understand, manage and use emotions to facilitate thinking
(Salovey and Mayer, 1990). EI also relates to ‘multiple intelligence’
(Gardner, 1983), and other behavioural and psychological theories.
What constitutes intelligence, however, is controversial and emotion
is not universally accepted as being an element of intelligence.
‘The benefits of EI appear to reside mainly in raising awareness of
emotional issues and motivating educators and managers to take
emotional issues seriously’ (Matthews et al., 2002: 543).
Goleman (1995), however, argues that emotional competencies
are linked to Emotional Intelligence, and draws on Gardner’s (1983)
seven intelligence types:
1. linguistic
2. logical-mathematical
3. musical
4. bodily-kinesthetic
5. spatial-visual
6. interpersonal
7. intrapersonal
Of these, Goleman (1995) emphasises the interpersonal (or co-
operation and teamwork) and the intrapersonal (or self-reflection
and self-discovery), also relating the two types to preferred working
and learning styles. Elaborating the interpersonal and intrapersonal
aspects of intelligence, Goleman identifies five ‘domains’ of
Emotional Intelligence:
1. knowing your emotions
2. managing your own emotions
As a community of practice, then, the studio provides opportunities to develop interpersonal (social) and intrapersonal (self-reflection) skills, skills that, moreover, are embedded in the notion of Emotional Intelligence.
154 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
3. motivating yourself
4. recognising and understanding other people’s emotions
5. managing relationships, that is, managing the emotions of others
These domains suggest affirmative actions for enhancing
emotional competence in student-tutor interactions.
So for example:
Self-awareness
Knowing your emotions is key to Emotional Intelligence – a capacity
to recognise your feelings as they occur.
Affirmative action: Develop your emotional awareness through extra-
curricular activities such as music, drama or competitive games.
Management
Managing your emotions is the ability to handle your emotional
reactions, control impulse and to recover from life’s upsets.
Affirmative action: Keep track of your emotions in the form of, say,
a reflective studio diary to help manage emotional demands in
different design situations, and under various conditions.
Self-motivation
Motivating yourself is the skill of using your emotions in the service
of a goal, staying hopeful despite set-backs.
Affirmative action: When stuck, get in touch with your feelings and
remind yourself why you wanted to learn/teach creative subjects in
the first place.
Empathy
Emotional sensitivity to others; recognising and understanding
other people’s emotions, a talent for tuning into others’ feelings, and
reading their unspoken messages.
Affirmative action: Dare to discuss emotional issues openly and
honestly in student-tutor interactions.
Relationships
Grace in dealing with others – strong social skills are key to
popularity, leadership and interpersonal effectiveness.
Affirmative action: Develop an authentic, unconstrained
conversational style in student-tutor interactions.
Discussion
Recent years have seen considerable increases in young people
studying creative subjects for more rewarding careers and
opportunities. Growing student numbers, however, have not been
matched with resources, resulting in fragmentation of the traditional
studio experience.
But in the face of fragmentation, accelerated by the use of portable
personal devices (mobile phones, etc.) and Web 2.0 technologies,
what happens to emotion in student-tutor interactions? Does the
studio approach to teaching and learning translate to a virtual
environment? (Gaimster, 2008).
Could socio-technological factors change power dynamics in
traditional student-tutor (i.e. novice-expert) interactions, particularly
as students’ prior knowledge and experience tend to be closer to
technological change and therefore challenge tutors’ expertise and
authority?
Does studio-based learning better prepare students for
entrepreneurship and employability (interpersonal skills)?
Does lack of awareness of emotional intelligence and/or fear
of emotional issues hamper levelling in student-tutor power
relationships? If so, should emotional issues be made more explicit
in teacher professional development?
155
References
Austerlitz, N. (ed.) (2008) Unspokeninteractions. Exploring the unspoken dimension of learning and teaching in creative subjects. London: University of the Arts London, CLTAD/CLIP-CETL.
Desmet, P. (2008) Product Emotion, in H. Schifferstein and P. Hekkert, (eds.) Product Experience, pp. 379-397. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Ekman, P. (2003) The 43 facial muscles that reveal even the most fleeting emotions. In conversation with Judy Foreman, New York Times, 05/08/03.
Finnigan, T. (2008) Tell us about it. Student voices in creative practice. London: University of the Arts London, CLIP-CETL.
Gaimster, J. (2008) Reflections on interactions in virtual worlds and their implication for learning art and design, in N. Austerlitz, (ed.) Unspoken Interactions, pp. 99-115. London: UAL, CLTAD.
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. London: Heinemann.
Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Greenhalgh, C. (2008) Emotion in teaching and learning collaboration in film practice education, in N. Austerlitz (ed.) Unspoken Interactions, pp. 171-187. London: UAL, CLTAD.
HEFCE (2008) Review of the 2005 HEFCE Strategy for e-Learning: A report to HEFCE by Glenaffric Ltd. www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2008/rd20_08/ (accessed 07/ 09).
Hospers, J. (1990) An Introductionto Philosophical Analysis. London: Routledge.
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning:Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1990) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M. and Robert, R. (2002) Emotional Intelligence: Science and Myth. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T.
Micklethwaite, P. (2005) Discussing art and design education: themes from interviews with UK design stakeholders, The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 24.1: 84-92.
Munger, R. (1996) Asymmetries of knowledge: what tutor-student interactions tell us about expertise. Conference on College Composition and Communication, paper (47th, Milwaukee, WI, 03/06).
Piaget, J. (1969) Mechanisms of Perception (G.N. Seagrim, Trans). New York: Basic Books.
Picard, R. (1997) Affective Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sagan, O. (2008) Playgrounds, studios and hiding places: emotional exchange in creative learning spaces, in N. Austerlitz, (ed.) Unspoken Interactions, pp. 37-55. London: UAL, CLTAD.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J. (1990) EmotionalIntelligence, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3): 185-211.
Sappington, T. (1984) Creating learning environments conducive to change: the role of fear/safety in the adult learning process, Innovative Higher Education, 9 (1): 19-29.
Schön, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shen, L., Wang, M. and Shen, R. (2009) Affective e-learning: using ‘emotional’ data to improve learning in pervasive learning environment, Educational Technology & Society, 12(2): 176-189.
Sylvester, R. (1994) How emotions affect learning, Educational Leadership, 52(2): 60-65.
Trigwell, K. and Prosser, M. (1996) Changing approaches to teaching: a relational perspective, Studies in Higher Education, 37: 275-84.
Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.3Student Centredness
2.3.2When the Buck Stops: The Level of Professionalism of Student-Led Activities and Their Potential Value to Teaching and Learning
156
157
Tom Hamilton, Jon Rimmer and Diane Brewster
InQbate: CETL in Creativity
University of Sussex
Abstract
This paper considers the value of student-initiated and student-led
activities in the development of lifelong professional skills. Based on
a case study of a student-led exhibition at the InQbate Creativity Zone
at the University of Sussex, it explores the anecdotal observation of the
InQbate facilitation team that events run solely by students have felt
easier to manage than those led by tutors as part of formal taught courses.
This appears to be largely due to the professional attitude adopted
by the students, most notably the degree of individual responsibility
taken and the frequency and clarity of their communication – both with
the team and between themselves. This paper offers emerging insights
from an ongoing programme of research into the role of ownership in
learning, and considers how it might be practically applied to support
deeper levels of learning and professional development in preparing
students for their careers beyond higher education (HE).
Introduction
The InQbate project is committed to a constructivist – particularly a
social constructivist – approach to teaching and learning. As a result,
the design of the Sussex Creativity Zone (www.inqbate.co.uk) drew
on an active exploration of arts education models, such as the studio
approach, which are inherently aligned to this policy (Hamilton et al.,
2007). In the studio model students are ‘given’ an area of learning
space to inhabit over the academic year; an area within which to
‘live’ inside their background research and test their emerging
designs as a way of developing their practice, and, ultimately,
their own, unique ‘voice’. Implicit within this design choice was the
assumption that a similar level of ownership of the learning space
might generate increased student engagement with – and ownership
of – the learning process in other disciplines.
A second perceived value was the opportunity, made possible
by an open, studio environment, for learners to observe different
approaches taken by their peers to solve the same tasks. It was felt
that this would introduce students to different strategic approaches
in learning tasks and promote more collaborative interaction
between learners.
Drawing on this studio model, the Creativity Zone was explicitly
designed to support exhibition, installation and performance as
part of learning events. This has made it ideal for end-of-year shows
for formal taught programmes in making/performance subjects,
such as drama, media and product design. However, there has also
been steady demand from students to use the space to display or
perform completely self-motivated work – either related to their
course of study, such as the War, Representation and Documentary
conference, or their interests, such as the Sussex University Drama
Society’s performance of The House of Bernarda Alba.
One example of an event initiated by tutors but then fully managed
and realised by the students was the ‘Denis Healey: Furniture of the
Mind’ exhibition. This was entirely designed, produced and curated
by an interdisciplinary team of students from history, art history
and media in their own time over the summer holiday after an initial
introduction to Lord Healey by the Vice Chancellor of the University
of Sussex, Professor Michael Farthing.
Throughout the development and eventual delivery of this event,
the InQbate team was struck by the level of professionalism and
organisation shown by the students involved.
I was hugely impressed by the way which they devolved
responsibility to each other and supported each other. (InQbate
participant 2)
As an operational team, overseeing the delivery of a range of
events within the space on a daily basis, it is our observation that this
also appears to be the case with other student initiated or student-
led events. There appears to be a qualitative difference between
events ‘owned’ by the students (even where these are facilitated
158 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
by tutors and other professionals) and those run as part of a taught
course. In order to investigate this, we are undertaking a qualitative
investigation of the phenomenological experience of ownership
across a range of student-delivered events. This is still underway and
a full analysis will be published at a later date. In the meantime, it
is hoped that some comments expressed by the students involved
in the Healey project, and by the InQbate team, will illustrate the
potential for the space to support engagement and ownership, and
stimulate discussion on the possible value of this in the development
of professional project management skills such as time and resource
management, clear communication and effective team-working.
In practice, the distinction between the two categories of events,
identified above, is not always quite so clear and is probably better
described as a continuum; from tutor-initiated, tutor-led events,
through tutor-initiated but learner-led events, on to fully learner-
initiated, learner-led events.
As a project with an explicit commitment to generating ownership
within learners, we are keen to understand whether there are any
differences in the student experience or tutor observation in each
case and, if there are, whether these have an impact on their longer-
term attitude to learning and professional development. Our final
objective, if learner ownership is demonstrated to have positive
impact, will be to investigate whether there are any practical
approaches we can take to maximise the level of learner ownership.
The initial study in this programme, described here, centres on the
experience of the ‘Denis Healey: Furniture of the Mind’ exhibition in
the summer of 2008. Here a small mix of second year history, history
of art, and media undergraduate students were offered the chance
by a small grant from the Alumni Office to curate an exhibition of
photographs recently donated to the university by Lord Healey.
Although tutors from each discipline and the InQbate team were
available throughout the process to provide advice if wanted, the
choice to proceed, the direction of all media production and the
actual curation of the final exhibition were completely in the hands
of the students.
After extensive research into his life and career and the contextual
factors surrounding key events, the students divided the original
photographs into political portraits (Figure 1a), landscapes and
people. They then augmented these with areas illustrating his
public profile, his photographic influences (Figure 1c), the pervasive
presence of nature within his work, and the importance of his family,
before arranging these into three zones representing his public,
private and personal lives.
To give the visitor the richest experience possible, the students
decided to take an interactive approach to the exhibition, layering
information within multimedia artefacts. This included an interactive
timeline (Figure 1b), which enabled visitors to discover background
information through photos of Lord Healey’s life, and an interactive
chair (Figure 2b), which, when sat in, triggered the accompanying
radio to switch from Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony to an
interview with Lord Healey’s wife, Edna, all within an immersive
projected environment.
The show was successfully opened to public admission October
2008 (Figure 3a) with national media interest (Figure 3b), and used
for teaching across a range of subjects, both the original ‘host’
subjects but also subjects such as product design and pervasive
computing (Figure 4).
To investigate the student experience and possible impact, a
researcher, uninvolved with the original project, was commissioned
to conduct a series of individual semi-structured interviews with
students, tutors and members of the InQbate operational team. This
was undertaken at the end of the academic year following the event,
giving the students time to reflect upon the impact of the project on
their final year of study.
Tutor initiated
Tutor led
Tutor initiated
Learner led
Learner initiated
Learner led
159
Figure 1
The ‘Denis Healey: Furniture of the Mind’ exhibition
Figure 2
Areas of the exhibition representing his garden, his
library and the impact of nature on his work
1a 2a
1b 2b
2c1c
160 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
Findings
It is clear from our discussions with their tutors that the project had
a significant effect, not just on the students themselves, but also
on how they have interacted with their course and fellow students
since. Some quotes are given below to illustrate some of the key
themes emerging from the student interviews.
Regarding their perception of their own level of ownership of
the event:
…it was completely student-led. They let us know that – right
from the beginning – that even though there were tutors
there, they just basically went: ‘It’s your project, you decide
everything from the theme to the colours of the flyers,
absolutely. (Student participant 3)
…it was our exhibition … it was our project … It wasn’t the tutor
going ‘It would be better to do this’ or ‘it would be really nice if
you had that’ … It was us that made the decisions. We did all the
research. We found out that he was on Spitting Image or This Is
Your Life. It was us who phoned up those companies and got
it. It wasn’t tutors saying you should get this. They didn’t do it.
They were just reference points for us. (Student participant 3)
Definitely – it was definitely our project – yeah, we were
definitely the executive body… (Student participant 1)
Regarding their motivation, given that it was not part of any
accredited course module:
We kind of knew it was going to get a lot of publicity. So I think
that probably made us strive even harder. We really, really
wanted it. We didn’t want … Denis [to] come around and go
[away] disappointed. (Student participant 4)
I mean the summer for goodness. We were all getting up at like
8 o’clock in the morning in the summer! We could have gone to
the beach but we were rather coming here. It was like that – it
was like less pressure because we had total autonomy with it…
(Student participant 3)
I think the fact that we were students made us want to say, Look,
this is a really good exhibition done by students, but we’ve done
this all ourselves with no sort of extra help. Although we had the
support behind the scenes … it was definitely just student-led.
We just did it because that’s what we would want to see in an
exhibition. (Student participant 2)
Regarding the impact of the project on their skills portfolio, their
CV and their career ambitions:
…but it has [helped her CV]… it put me forward because it
actually created the degree show running upstairs as well. I was
the coordinator for that. It’s actually made me want to go into
events planning now. So it’s changed my whole career path.
(Student participant 2)
Learning to work with different people, my group skills have
definitely improved; being able to listen more to other people,
and not just views of my own, and then be able to sort of
incorporate everyone’s ideas together. Learned to budget – I
was in charge of expenses and budget and everything … Also
communication with the press office and Denis Healey himself.
(Student participant 2)
…I think what it did do is make everything seem more
manageable and you learn not to panic as much, which is very
useful. (Student participant 1)
Regarding the impact on their approach towards their learning as
a result of the project:
No, no. Funny thing is I found it [her course] more interesting
161
3a 4a
4b
3b
3c
Figure 3
Lord Healey meeting the students at the
opening and a comment from his daughter
Figure 4
Teaching using the Healey exhibition
162 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
because … I think from doing the Healey thing, my mind has
become trained to spot peripheral things more and draw them out
and find something significant in them. (Student participant 1)
Yeah. A million per cent. Like I said it’s like the confidence, I got
a lot of faith in myself, the capabilities of me (by) producing a
creative space. It’s like I breezed through third year when I came
to it … I know I could take on any project that was thrown at me.
(Student participant 3)
Regarding the overall experience of being involved in the project:
It’s one of the highlights of my three years in Sussex – just that
sense of achievement. But just out of pure passion rather than
going to get a mark for … this is what I did with my summer
and it’s probably one of the best summers ever… (Student
participant 3)
Conclusion
It seems that all user groups, students and tutors alike, appear to
‘perform up’ to the space, putting in extra time and effort to ensure
that the event is a success and that their work is shown to best
advantage. It is our belief that this ‘stepping up’ within the space
may be associated with the aesthetic and perceived value of the
space – and thus their perception around the expectations upon and
confidence in them as soon-to-be professionals.
However, while all students undertaking event management –
whether tutor or student-led – within the space acquire valuable
professional skills, students in student-initiated and managed
events appear to develop more solid management skills, such as
communication, collaboration within teams and effective time and
resource management.
This may be a function of the greater level of investment involved
in taking on the full responsibility for the event. Initial research
indicates that students in student-initiated and managed events
develop a deeper relationship with the InQbate facilitator team,
draw on their skills and expertise more effectively and experience
greater levels of satisfaction with the process and ultimate event.
Although the study is still incomplete, the perception of the
InQbate team is that students running events within taught
courses have a tendency to ‘sit back’ and rely on the tutor to spot
emerging problems and issues. This may mean that they do not
develop professional skills around presentation, project and event
management to the same extent.
Questions
1. Most ADM courses result in end-of-year shows. To what extent are
these student-led?
2. Are there any mechanisms that could increase the level of student
ownership of the process?
3. Is there any argument for students being allowed to be involved
in setting the metrics for their own assessment, particularly in
end-of-course assignments? Might this lead to greater student
ownership?
4. Does ownership extend beyond the space to the creation,
management and delivery of learning programmes and materials?
Including assessment?
163
References
Hamilton, T., Morris, R. and Childs, P.(2007) Learning from higher arts education in designing constructivist learning spaces: a case study of InQbate: The Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning in Creativity, in A. Boddington and D. Clews, (eds) Third ELIA Teachers’ Academy Papers, pp. 105-108. Cambridge: Burlington Press.
2.4Communities of Practice
2.4.1Something for Nothing or Nothing for Something? Intellectual ‘Property’ and the Idea of ‘Free’ Education
164
165
Alan Clarke
Collaborating for Creativity (C4C) CETL
York St John University
Abstract
‘Openness, Peering, Sharing and Acting Globally’ are the stated
principles of ‘Wikinomics’ (Tapscott and Williams, 2006); the unofficial
motto of the digital activist organisation, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) is ‘information wants to be free’. If you put these
two together within the context of global education you get the
OpenCourseWare (OCW) movement. This paper examines the motives
and principles of the Open Educational Resource movement, as it is
also known, and will pose some important but rarely asked questions:
1. What are our wider responsibilities as institutions of higher
education in a global community?
2. What is our relationship to knowledge?
3. What do we mean by ‘student’?
In considering the practice of giving away educational resources,
the paper will also consider the concepts of ‘the public domain’,
‘intellectual property’ and the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, Woody
Guthrie and others.
Introduction
The semi-apocryphal story of the purchase of Manhattan Island
from the local Indian population in 1626 may or may not be the most
immediately obvious place to start thinking about ideas of a digital
free education, the Internet and the ownership of thought. The story
goes that Dutch settlers, wanting to buy the land from the Native
Americans, offered them $24. The Native Americans laughed at this
– not because the amount was derisory (even today you can’t buy an
island in the virtual world Second Life for less than $1,000, but the
Native Americans probably didn’t know this and would have to wait
nearly 400 years like the rest of us to find out), but because the idea
itself was mad. How can anybody own the ground they stand on, the
Native Americans are supposed to have thought? It’s impossible –
like owning air or water or what’s inside your head.
In various cultures and at various times, the idea of ‘owning’ ideas
has been seen as weird, perverse, sinister, laughable, impossible and
even immoral. We seem to be in a culture and a time now characterised
by an extraordinary greed, suspicion and uncertainty, where the idea of
owning anything (the sky, the thoughts of humans, the polar ice caps,
the moon and the stars, the DNA of living things) has become a technical
possibility and consequently an obsession. Yet there are some signs in
some parts of our global culture that this might be changing. There are
a number of examples of this new collaborative, cooperative spirit, all
of them facilitated an/or encouraged by the Internet and particularly its
Web 2.0 incarnation, from the Open Source movement of computer code
exchange and peer-to-peer file- sharing, the extraordinary phenomenon
of YouTube, Facebook, Flickr and MySpace, the eccentric contemporary
hitchhiking movement of CouchSurfing and the collaborative projects of
Wikipedia, Amazon user-comments and any number of others. The fact
that these examples are all made possible through and by the Internet
is, depending on who you talk to, significant but perhaps not the whole
story; the technology is perhaps simply facilitating a new mood or
belief in the idea of sharing, an idea that itself should be shared and
copyrighted, but not necessarily in that order.
Wikinomics, intellectual property and Woody Guthrie
‘Wikinomics’ is an idea popularised by Tapscott and Williams (2006)
to explain how companies that encourage genuine cooperation with
their employees (sometimes known as ‘crowdsourcing’) can overcome
problems, initiate more efficient processes, develop new products
and become very successful. The ‘founding principles’ of Wikinomics
are, according to its authors, ‘Openness, Peering, Sharing and Acting
Globally’ – a set of claims that can, should be and increasingly are
employed by all manner of social and cultural institutions as a kind of
mission statement. This is beginning to have implications for the idea
of ‘intellectual property’, an idea that is itself a fairly recent addition
166 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
to the history of ideas. There are those who believe that this type of
ownership is not only impractical and increasingly unworkable (if one
takes into account recent high-profile legal cases such as the judgment
against Pirate Bay regarding music file-sharing), but is also unhealthy
and unfair; the Free Culture movement, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF), the ‘Copyleft’ movement, which was supported by
UNESCO and where the rights of the author were reduced to a moral
right, and the Creative Commons are just a few of the movements
dedicated to the free exchange of ideas, creativity and expression.
Woody Guthrie – hobo, anti-fascist, folk singer, chronicler of the
poor and dispossessed of the American dust bowl – had this to say
about the idea of ‘owning’ creative product:
This song is copyrighted in the US under seal of copyright 154085
for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singing it without
our permission will be a good friend of ourn [sic] because we
don’t give a dern [sic]. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Yodel it. We
wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do. (www.woodyguthrie.de/)
OpenCourseWare, Barack Obama and Thomas Jefferson
The free exchange of ideas and every kind of artistic stuff certainly
got Woody’s vote. A more recent champion of giving things away is
Lawrence Lessig (2005), law professor at Stanford University, board
member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (whose unofficial
motto is ‘information wants to be free’) and an activist dedicated to
the free use of educational and other intellectual materials, amongst
which are what are now commonly know as OpenCourseWare (OCW)
or Open Educational Resources (OER). He is also one of Barack
Obama’s most senior consultants on communications and the law.
Two hundred years and forty-one presidents earlier, the third
President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, had similar ideas.
Jefferson believed in the idea of the ‘fair use’ of intellectual materials,
and the concept of ‘fair use’ is now one of the four ‘principles’ of the
EFF, along with ‘Free Speech’, ‘Innovation’ and ‘Privacy’. Jefferson
also pushed the idea of the ‘public library’ – not just the physical
buildings for the borrowing of books but, literally, the ‘idea’ or the
concept of educational and creative matter being in the ‘commons’
and commonly available to all. Jefferson said:
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself
without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine,
receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely
spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and
mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition,
seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by
nature. (Mayor and Binde, 2001: 300)
The idea of the ‘commons’ – areas that were owned by nobody,
owned by everybody – is a very powerful one and one that has on
occasion caused blood to be spilt in defence of it. The fairly modern
idea of ‘the public domain’, a conceptual, virtual place where,
amongst other extraordinary things, anybody can place, access or,
in the jargon, ‘repurpose’ intellectual or creative product, is the
conceptual equivalent of this.
One of the extraordinary things taking place in these virtual
commons at the moment is the placing of free educational materials,
known as OpenCourseWare (OCW), for, well, anybody who wants
to learn about, well, anything you can think of; anything that has
been taught in some kind of institution of higher education almost
anywhere in the world. The pioneer of this was the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, which decided in the late 1990s to make all
of their under- and post-graduate courses available for anybody to
download, read, study and rewrite. Crucially, however, you can’t get
accreditation – a degree or any other qualification – through OCW,
and you can’t get access to any teaching staff – but you can access
a bewildering variety of carefully designed degree and post-degree
level courses in almost any subject you might be interested in; the
point being, in the words of one of the prime funding bodies – the
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation – ‘…to advance education and
empower people worldwide’ (www. ocwconsortium.org).
OCW or OERs have been defined as ‘…teaching, learning and
research resources that reside in the public domain or have been
167
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature.(Thomas Jefferson)
168 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
released under an intellectual property licence that permits their use
or repurposing by others. OERs include full courses, course materials,
modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software and any other
tools, materials or techniques used to support access to knowledge
(Hewlett Foundation, 2008). The quality of some of these materials
can be patchy, however. They range from entire, intelligently designed
courses with linked readings and viewings, topics for consideration
and further enquiry to short, badly recorded podcasts or unreadable
lecture notes. Some of these offerings seem to be there mainly for
show and to cynically raise the global profile of the institution.
Doing the right thing
‘Access to knowledge’, ‘advancing education’ and ‘empowering
people’ globally are clearly Good Things To Be Doing. And a part of
the beauty of this is that none of it affects the actual ‘business’ of
education in its more commercial aspects; it appears to be a Win-Win
situation, and everybody’s happy. Universities do, and are seen to be
doing, Good Things in the World and, at the same time, more and
more people are eager to pay real money for a university education.
Recent analyses of social trends (Lessig, 2005; Anderson, 2006;
Tapscott and Williams, 2006; Shirky, 2009) suggest that giving stuff
away (apart from being, y’know, really nice) actually gets returns. The
accessing of OCW worldwide by anyone with access to a computer
has become a phenomenon whilst enrolment in universities by
paying ‘customers’ has never been higher (UNESCO, 2009). (Whether
we want to embrace the rather unpleasant practice of the naming of
our students as ‘customers’, with the all the attendant, inevitable
and reductionist baggage of a financial vocabulary, is another matter
entirely – or is it? Maybe some other time…) Nevertheless, OCW
has become very popular. The OpenCourseWare Consortium (www.
ocwconsortium.org) is the global coordinator of more than 300
universities in more than 30 countries from Afghanistan to Vietnam
(Zambia and Zimbabwe are, hopefully, still considering their options).
There are, however, issues to be addressed. The OCW/OER
movements should be supported and applauded and their funding
increased. Many universities have agendas of lifelong learning,
widening participation and distance learning and any materials
produced explicitly or not for an OCW/OER agenda can be and are used
to fulfil and further these initiatives. The global financial meltdown
will likely have consequences that have yet to be considered and
may be felt for a long time to come (some forecasters are indicating
that it will determine the global financial landscape for the next ten
years). Therefore, the fact of freely available educational resources
(we’ll leave aside the issue of computer ownership and access for the
moment) must be a good thing for those who can’t immediately afford
to go to university, those with time on their hands and those who wish
to re-skill, train or just learn. Universities surely have a responsibility
and a duty to make educational materials available; it costs very little
to do this and the really important stuff – experienced academic staff
and the time they spend with students – are not on offer.
Conclusion
While the idea of giving away educational and research resources
might make us reconsider what it actually means to be a student
and what our relationship to knowledge really is, significant aspects
(arguably the most important ones) are not, and probably never will
be, part of the deal. That is spending sustained, quality time with
a teacher as you engage with a process of education; and, at the
completion of that process, proof that you have done so – and a
measure of the success. The teaching materials are free, the education
isn’t, and the distinction between the two is being renegotiated all
the time with the advent of new technologies and new economic
and political circumstances. The current government agenda of
dramatically increasing domestic broadband Internet access as well
as shifting patterns of employment and leisure resulting from the
recent global economic crisis might be factors in this renegotiation
of terms and ideologies. As far as intellectual and creative ‘property’
goes, much will depend upon some well-publicised test cases as
well as how these are articulated and reported through the media,
the law courts and the academy itself. How this affects learning at all
stages of education remains to be seen.
We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.
169
References
Anderson, C. (2006) The Long Tail:How Endless Choice is Creating Unlimited Demand. London: Random House.
Boyle, J. (2009) The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. Yale University Press.
Hewlett Foundation (2008) William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. www.hewlett.org/oer (accessed 26.06.09).
Lessig, L. (2005) Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. Penguin Books.
Mayor, F. and Binde, J. (2001) The World Ahead: Our Future in the Making. Unesco Publishing.
Shirky, C. (2009) Here Comes Everybody: How Change Happens When People Come Together. Penguin Books.
Tapscott, D. and Williams, A. (2006) Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Portfolio Books.
UNESCO (2009) Launch of three reports on higher education. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=45964&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201. United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organization (accessed 26/06/09).
2.4Communities of Practice
2.4.2Supporting an Art and Design Community of Practice Across an HE in FE Network
170
171
Mark Stone, Rebecca Turner, Harriet Dismore and Chris Groucutt
Higher Education Learning Partnership (HELP) CETL
University of Plymouth
Abstract
The aim is to share development experiences and challenges, plus
stimulate debate and unearth related ideas and good practice from
elsewhere. The paper will outline how the HELP-CETL programme
relates to the art and design community within the University of
Plymouth Colleges context. It will relate the work undertaken to key
community of practice theory.
A number of community of practice facilitation interventions made
or supported by the CETL are outlined below along with the key
lessons learned and challenges clarified.
The paper goes on to outline our questions and issues regarding
how we take this work further for the benefit of staff and students.
Finally, some key questions and issues will be proposed for
further discussion.
Introduction
The paper will outline how the Higher Education Learning
Partnerships (HELP) Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
(CETL) programme supports the art and design community within
the University of Plymouth Colleges (UPC) network. It will relate the
work undertaken to key community of practice theory including the
work of Lave and Wenger.
The aim of this paper is to share some of HELP-CETL community
of practice (CoP) development experiences and challenges, plus
stimulate debate and unearth related ideas and good practice from
event participants. A number of CoP development interventions
made or supported by the CETL are outlined below along with the
key lessons learned and challenges encountered. The paper goes on
to outline our questions and issues regarding how we take this work
further for the benefit of staff and students.
How the HELP-CETL programme relates to the UPC art and
design community
The HELP-CETL aims to enhance the experience of students within
UPC network and the wider HE in FE community. Work to achieve this
has been undertaken with both individuals and groups. The table
below illustrates the relationship of the HELP-CETL to the UPC art
and design community.
Table 1 How the HELP-CETL programme relates to the UPC art
and design community
HELP-CETL areas of focus Relationship to UPC art and design community
i) Establish recognition and reward strategies for staff to further their personal and professional development
i) Twenty-one members of the community have become HELP-CETL award holders. As award holders they have undertaken continuing professional development activities and/or conducted research into discipline-based or generic teaching and learning issues
ii) Establish coherent and functioning communities of practice (CoPs) including interaction with the wider HE in FE community
ii) The CETL has supported both the whole art and design community and a number of smaller specific groups
iii) Investigate the viability of virtually supporting individuals and CoPs with video conferencing and Knowledge Management tools
iii) A number of art and design online communities have been created, monitored and are being evaluated
iv) To take forward the strategic priorities of UPC through a range of Development Activities (DA) that provide research/scholarly activity opportunities along with opportunities for groups of staff to come together from different disciplines and locations
iv) Nine development activities have been undertaken either within the community or involving community members
v) To identify, and in some cases provide, the infrastructure facilities necessary to support the delivery of HE in FE
v) College-based capital investment was made to support art and design provision, e.g. purchase of state-of-the-art equipment (laser fabric cutter) that could not normally be afforded to assist with benefits for student employability and employer engagement
172 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
Communities of practice literature and theory
Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern
or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as
they interact regularly’ (Wenger, 2007). A CoP is formed by people
who engage in a process of collective learning in a shared area of
interest and requires the following characteristics: the domain; the
community; the practice. The domain is the area of interest; the
community is formed by the relationships (conversations, discussions,
etc.) between members; and the practice is what community
members do with learning derived from their interaction.
When Lave and Wenger (1991) first introduced the concept of CoP
they described it as ‘…a set of relations amongst persons, activity and
world, over time and in relation with other tangential and overlapping
CoPs’. The proposition is that we are already involved in a number of
CoPs, whether at work or in our local community or leisure interests.
In some we may be core members; in others we can locate ourselves
at the margins. Members are involved in a set of relationships over
time and communities develop around things that matter to people.
When people work together they invariably form many informal
networks of relationships that go beyond organisational structures.
However, a great deal of the work that assists the operation of many
organisations is carried out through these informal connections.
CoPs can offer something that a single organisation, workplace or
localised team can never provide, e.g. access to a diverse pool of
knowledge, expertise and motivated individuals. CoPs tend to be
less formal and controlled than many regular workspaces but more
structured and integrated than groups, teams or networks. However,
as they are developed and sustained by their members they can
never fully replace organisational systems of communication or
professional development (McDermott et al., 2006).
Successful communities – as well as influencing and changing the
organisations within and across which they operate – also influence
and change the way that members view their own identity both
within and external to the community.
For a CoP to function it needs to generate and appropriate a shared
repertoire of ideas, commitments and memories. It also needs to
develop various resources such as tools, documents, routines,
vocabulary and symbols that carry the accumulated knowledge of
the community. In other words, a CoP involves practice: ways of
doing and approaching things that are shared to a significant extent
amongst members (McDermott et al., 2006).
Relevance to UPC and art and design
The art and design community within UPC has a long history. Prior
to the launch of the HELP-CETL there was institutional recognition
of and support for this way of working. Most significant was the
establishment, in 2003, of an art and design subject forum (along
with forums for other disciplines) with a full-time funded subject
forum chair role to provide leadership and coordination for quality
assurance and enhancement activity. This work formed part of the
evidence base for the HELP-CETL bid claim for existing excellence
allied to the potential to take the work further.
Outlined in the table opposite are some impacts, lessons learnt
and challenges from specific CoP working interventions within the
UPC art and design community.
One overall lesson is that there needs to be an effective interplay
between reward and recognition strategies. Unconnected individual
interventions do not lead to CoP ways of thinking and working.
Conclusion/questions and long-term challenges
When seeking to organise and fund CoP support, one of the greatest
challenges is to demonstrate the value of community support and
operation. Analysing types and levels of community engagement is
in itself challenging; harder still is to determine how much community
working is enough or appropriate. Within the CETL we have taken a
community-led stance. In practice this means we try to encourage
community working where we see opportunities for further sharing
or collaboration. Therefore, we have not tried to create communities,
instead we let new or emerging communities know we are willing to
assist with their development or operation and ask how we might help.
As part of the CETL community of practice work we have developed
resources and run or participated in events to publicise and promote
173
CoP interventions and rationale Example activity, impacts, lessons learnt and challenges
Support for individual staff within the UPC networkCETL funding has allowed work with a greater emphasis on individual development to be supported and evaluated.
Through the CETL award holder scheme, individuals within the art and design subject forum have received funding to support their continuing professional development. This has enabled practitioners to undertake professional updating activities, industrial placements and attend conferences. Research projects have been conducted into aspects of teaching and learning art and design in an HE in FE context. The focus of the projects has been wide ranging, including exploring the use of video conferencing by media students, graduate employability and establishing HE communities within an FE college.
However, the secret of success of the scheme for CoP development has been that award holders are supported beyond their initial project funding; they are invited to further disseminate their work, encouraged and supported to bid externally for further funds and connected to colleagues with similar interests within UPC and beyond.
Support for individuals working beyond the UPC network While the CETL bid highlighted talent within UPC, external exposure and collaborations were limited
A college-based project funded jointly by the HEA ADM subject centre and CETL investigated the experience of students undertaking enterprise education. This helped to inform the value of an enterprise module and in particular, the experience gained of the design industry.
UPC and the CETL supported a recent National Teaching Fellowship application. The confidence for staff to write about their development as well as the value of their practice has come from long-term interaction with multiple support structures and the mutual trust and respect this develops.
Support for groups of staff CETL funding allowed groups to explore how they might take their work forward.
Two examples are:
Critical and contextual studies staff within colleges and the university used a private online community within the CETL-developed Knowledge Exchange Network (Stone et al., 2006) to peer review their curriculum and the assessment of student work.
CETL support was also provided to facilitate the establishment of a higher education art CoP at a college. This has led to ongoing, college-wide discussion of the art curricula, a culture of sharing practice and research and development collaborations not previously envisaged. Significantly, this work led to new lines of communication between community members and college managers focused on art and design issues. The forum has benefited from regular events hosted at the college. However, while the CoP members have benefited from this work, such developments are often initially overly reliant on the initial leader to drive activity and remain fragile entities until they reach a critical mass of members that have together formalised their way of working. The challenge for the CETL has been to capture what has been learnt through operating as a CoP, especially approaches that can be deployed elsewhere in UPC. Members and leaders easily get caught up in the opportunities to focus on their discipline and can lose track of writing up the meta-level CoP learning. However, some initial insights concern a lack of research skills (especially data handling) and publication experience. In addition discussion has been initiated within the wider art and design forum about staff dyslexia.
Sharing practiceTo generate value added benefits by exposing more students/staff to the outputs of innovation/development
The CETL has found it effective to bring the outputs from its funded activity to the attention of relevant CoPs through communities’ own events. For generic teaching and learning issues events, UPC-wide events (bringing together multiple CoPs) have also proved to be a popular approach.
Multiple channels of dissemination and celebrationTo encourage staff from multiple organisations/roles to collaborate and know of each other as colleague professionals
Individuals or groups who have undertaken continuing professional development (CPD) activities or research projects within the forum are also encouraged to write short articles for their newsletter or CETL circulars.
The drive to establish the forum newsletter was an outcome of discussions aimed at initiating a UPC art and design research group. The format allows for the flagging up of small scale and large developments. It helps to show that research and development is a widespread CoP activity. Usefully research processes including calling for assistance or participation can be disseminated rather than just the final outputs. A great added benefit has been to distribute the newsletter to external examiners, which has led to CoP member links beyond UPC.
The CETL circulars help to highlight the range of CoP activity across UPC.
Table 2 Community of practice example activity, impacts, lessons learnt and challenges
174 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
the value and opportunity of community working (both physical and
online). However, we have stressed that the take-up of opportunities
is voluntary (McDermott et al., 2006). This is manifested in our
support for autonomous, self-regulated groups of professionals that
work within one organisation or across organisational boundaries.
We have found that, especially in the online arena, having
a designated community leader has been useful in terms of
building community membership and encouraging or facilitating
participation. Initially we have found that there was a predominance
of university staff leading community activity. This was mostly a
product of history in that university staff (funded or encouraged
by UPC) have been involved for some time in convening UPC staff
groups or events, e.g. the librarian’s community. However we have
maintained the principle that the leadership, focus and operational
practice of a community is the province of the community. Guidance
on the role of community leader has been developed by the CETL to
assist new CoPs in particular (McDermott et al., 2007).
There are many confusing factors when looking at the impact and
seeking to advise on the sustainability of community of practice
support work. One is that members of cross-UPC communities are
doing this work within a rapidly moving environment or multiple
collaborations and connections, and it is sometimes hard to judge
the effect of your intervention (Witt et al., 2008). One of the most
positive aspects of the CoP work has been that the term ‘community’
has become pervasive within UPC.
When we have asked questions relating to the lower than hoped
for levels of online community activity, members have said that
satisfying or effective face-to- face or direct contact are preferred
and will be used in preference while they are available. This is
especially true for CETL award holders. While they operate as an
effective and recognisable CoP, members would prefer to work
with or via CETL team members or programme participants directly,
rather than work online. However, feedback has been received that
online CoP support tools may come into their own when the CETL
finishes, but only then if what we have learnt regarding the support
for community working is not embedded in UPC. It is also likely that
online community working will remain focused on developmental
work and therefore a relatively marginal activity until mainstream
faculty processes (e.g. programme development and approval) are
also undertaken using similar tools, methods and approaches.
Specifically for art and design within UPC, a key issue is how much
‘community’ work can be carried out across the whole discipline
and how much is more appropriately facilitated or supported within
more focused groupings.
175
References
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) SituatedLearning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDermott, A., Witt, N. and Stone, M. (2006) Communities of Practice in the University of Plymouth Colleges Context. HELP-CETL Information Series No. 3.
McDermott, A., Witt, N., Stone, M. and Peters, M. (2007) Knowledge Exchange Network Community Leader Guide [Version 2.0]. Higher Education Learning Partnerships, University of Plymouth.
Stone, M., Witt, N. and McDermott, A. (2006) What is the UPC Knowledge Exchange Network? HELP-CETL Information Series No. 2.
Wenger, E. (2007) Communities of practice. www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm (accessed 05/01/07).
Witt, N., McDermott, A., Peters, M. and Stone, M. (2008) Community experience success factors for communities of practice. Online Educa, 14th International Conference on Technology Supported Learning & Training, Berlin, 03-05/12/08.
2.5Crossing Disciplines
2.5.1‘To Embed or Not to Embed’, That is the Question…
176
177
Patricia Cooper, Jean Dyson, Megan Lawton
and Lindsey Marshall
Critical Interventions for Enhanced Learning (CIEL) CETL
University of Wolverhampton
Abstract
For the last three years the School of Art and Design (SAD) at
University of Wolverhampton has run a large, core, school-wide level
1 model with an academic literacies approach to developing research
and writing skills assessed by ePortfolio. This module was designed
and delivered by a team of subject and study skills specialists. As the
module has matured, ownership has moved from central specialist
tutors, increasingly towards subject areas. There is clear evidence of
better student achievement when subject staff have engaged with
and supported the module. However, subject staff and students
must see a value and benefit in giving and receiving academic
writing ‘skills’.
The question now is whether to fully embed this work in subject
curricula or keep a discrete contextualised strand across all courses
that would start with a study skills type module at level 1. In the
process, what might students gain or lose?
Introduction
Our Centre of Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL): Critical
Interventions for Enhanced Learning (CIEL) is based on the first-year
student experience and is multi-disciplinary. It identifies excellent
practice in four areas: art and design; applied sciences; humanities,
languages and social sciences; and education. These practices
comprise critical interventions for the enhancement of achievement,
progression and retention.
CIEL identifies pedagogies, support systems, activities and
initiatives that in a variety of ways offer critical interventions that
help a student along his/her journey towards successfully achieving
their goals.
At the start of their studies in the SAD students use individual
learning profiles (ILP) – self-evaluation questionnaires that allow
you to audit your current knowledge, skills and abilities – to identify
their own learning needs. The Centre for Learner Development (CLD)
in SAD follows up on what students have identified in these ILPs
with group and individual support. The CLD was set up with funding
from CIEL as a one-stop-shop for student support with specialist
contextualised academic support for study skills and dyslexia.
Since the academic year 2006/07, at level 1 these activities and
support have been delivered via a semester-one core, school-wide
module, ‘AD1007 – Introduction to Research and Study Skills’. The
assessment for this module is via an ePortfolio where students can
reflect on their experiences, undertake formative assessments, gain
both peer and tutor feedback, evidence achievement and stitch
together and present their journey for summative assessment. The
module adopted an academic literacies approach that draws on the
work of Mary Lea (2004). The development of the module brought
together a team of people from the academic school and the CETL.
Lea comments:
Supporting the relationship between writing and learning is not
generally regarded as the remit of course designers. As subject
specialists they are usually primarily concerned with course
content and, therefore, often overlook the ways in which writing
and textual practices more generally are central to the process
of learning.
Having run this module for three years and seen a significant
move towards subject ‘ownership’ of the learning, we are now asking
whether to fully embed this learning and support in subject modules
or not, instead keeping a discrete school-wide contextual strand to all
courses starting with a learning skills module at level 1. This could be
facilitated by specialist contextualised academic study support tutors.
178 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
What we found meaningful from an academic literacies approach
Through debate, discussion and examination of the relevant
literature, CIEL and subject staff felt that an academic literacies
approach would give a framework and ethos for the delivery of
research and study skills that would be meaningful and positive.
Of particular interest was the prospect of:
Understanding different settings, gaining a repertoire of practice,
and how to apply this knowledge
All our courses are modular. As such, students need to gain a
repertoire of skills to produce work that meets different expectations
for different subjects, modules or even lecturers.
Moving away from a deficit study skills model towards reading
and writing in a particular discipline
With an academic literacies approach we might reasonably expect
that students are unaware of academic writing conventions in a
given subject in higher education, but this does not mean that they
can’t read and write.
Understanding staff expectations
Members of staff may not always clearly articulate their expectations
of academic writing in their discipline. To do this staff need to identify
clearly what those expectations are and the reasons for them.
Formative feedback
We need to make sure that students are developing their academic
writing skills. Formative feedback needs to be used to help them
achieve this.
Active writing – little and often
We found that it was important to get students writing and then to
give feedback to develop their repertoire of skills. Writing a little and
often also reinforced the expectation that students in the modular
scheme needed to work over the whole period of the semester.
The elements of an academic literacies approach together with the
use of an ePortfolio system to support PDP (Personal Development
Planning) processes can be found within the level 1 taught curriculum
via the use of scaffolded web folio templates. An unexpected
outcome of this approach is the early identification of risk.
Case study: The School of Art and Design
SAD is one of four lead academic areas in CIEL, based on its work
on the design and development of an ILP (Salter and Peacock,
2001, 2002; Salter, Peacock and Ives, 2003). The ILP was originally
a paper-based self-assessment document that asked a student to
rate their own confidence in their skills for learning. The ILP led
to the development of the Profile tool in the PebblePad software.
The ‘learning profile’ as the ILP became, could be used as a stand-
alone entity or as something that could be used and linked to other
applications such as action plans or web folios. In SAD they linked the
ILP to a web folio and set it as an early task for students to complete
and publish electronically. Prior to the academic year 2006/07,
the use of the ILP sat outside the taught curriculum, introduced to
students in Welcome Week and followed up by Personal Academic
Tutors (PATs) who were, if possible, staff within the subject(s) that
students were studying.
Increased student support
An outcome of embedding this task in a module as the first piece
of formative self-assessment was an increase in students asking for
support. In 2006, before the use of a scaffolded web folio template
with formative activities, 44 students came forward for additional
support. In 2007 (after the introduction of the web folio) 198
students came forward, rising in 2008 to 253 asking for help. Of the
students being helped by the CLD in 2008, 94 per cent progressed
successfully on their course. This is a higher percentage than the
school average. Of particular note is a culture shift in both staff and
students that now sees asking for help not as a stigma or a sign of
inadequacy but as a sensible thing to do in order to understand the
expectations of studying in HE and improve your own learning.
179
Highlighting issues
By using short formative activities, as well as the CLD, subject
teaching staff and personal tutors were able to make contact with
their students to enable the identification of support needs and
any non-academic issues that might be affecting student learning.
Issues highlighted included: the fact that IT facilities had been
stopped through non-payment of fees; non-attendance of the taught
sessions; some misunderstanding of the instructions given and
basic ITC skills, which were hampering student engagement with the
e-learning opportunities offered by the university. All issues raised
were addressed before it was too late for the students to complete
their work.
Support for dyslexia
The use of the scaffolded template has knitted together the student
activities, academic literacies and subject content and created
a space for meaningful dialogue and early identification of risk
with appropriate action being taken. Like many schools of art and
design ours has a disproportionately large number of students with
dyslexia compared to other subject areas. The module team has now
developed podcasts (Dyson and Rhodes, 2008) to support the needs
of this group of students.
Work submission
An unexpected outcome of the use of the ePortfolio is that there has
been an increase in the submission of work. This school-wide, core
level 1 module has an average of 440 students. It is taught in four
iterations by subject and specialist study skills tutors. The following
is a summary of the 2007/08 academic year:
• Week 1: students downloaded and personalised a scaffolded
ePortfolio template provided by their tutors. This included
elements that a student must personalise, and formative tasks
that, when completed, would form the summative assessment.
• Weeks2and3:studentswereexpected topersonaliseanduse
the ILP in their ePortfolio, submitting it to their tutor.
• Week3:210ePortfoliosweresubmitted.
• Week4: studentswere reminded that ePortfoliosneeded tobe
submitted for formative feedback.
• Week 5: 330 students had submitted at this point. The 140
students who had not submitted were contacted by their tutor or a
member of support department staff (electronically initially).
• Week 6: 110 studentswere identified as potentially ‘at risk’, as
after repeated reminders they still had not submitted any work.
• Week12:allbut20ePortfolioswerereceivedforassessment.
Personal development planning
The approach the team took was to develop the students’ activities
and their learning both within the class contact time and student-
directed learning activities, putting the student experience at the
heart of the module. The students’ own personal development
planning was at the core of this. They would be given student-
directed learning tasks that would be used for peer and formative
assessment. The summative assessment would require certain
minimum pieces of evidence including: an individual action plan
with targets; an essay project plan; and a short essay based on the
plan that had already been submitted.
In the academic year 2006/07 the learning was led and directed
by the CLD supported by CIEL with some subject input. A three
hour teaching session was broken down: the first hour was
delivered by the CLD, concentrating on introducing the why and
how of academic writing; the next two hours looked at subject
specific issues and practical application. These taught sessions
were reinforced by student-directed learning in the ePortfolio. In
the academic year 2008/09 this has now shifted with the subject
specific staff being supported by the CLD staff to deliver the
module learning outcomes.
Conclusions and issues raised
1. Understanding staff expectations
Members of staff may not always clearly articulate their expectations
of academic writing in their discipline to their students. To do this
Of particular note is a culture shift in both staff and students that now sees asking for help not as a stigma or a sign of inadequacy but as a sensible thing to do in order to understand the expectations of studying in HE.
180 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
staff need to identify clearly what those expectations are and the
reasons for them. The learning and teaching culture within art and
design disciplines can mean that this is perceived as theoretical
territory, which has nothing to do with practical application or skills.
The latter is often seen as more legitimate and desirable by both
staff and students. This can be exacerbated by the use of visiting
lecturers and fractional posts.
2. Delivery and assessment via ePortfolio
The central, specialist teaching team provided one-to-one and group
support to try to engage students early on and build confidence
with using the software. The second time this module was taught,
seminars were also held each week where students could complete
activities within an IT lab environment. Subject staff were encouraged
to join these sessions. This helped to develop confidence and
highlight issues students and staff may have had with accessing and
using the software.
In the finding of a recent evaluation of the impact of PDP and the
use of an ePortfolio (Lawton and Purnell, 2009), ePDP activities
can be onerous for staff (particularly with large group sizes). They
are often perceived as ‘add on’ to discipline content. Students can
sometimes see this as onerous too, unless they can see the value
and benefit and how it fits with the bigger picture of their learning in
HE and their chosen career path.
3. Not perceived as a subject module
Despite trying to avoid a ‘generic’ study skills approach, some students
felt that the module was not adequately subject specific. Familiarity
with more traditional, practice-based teaching meant that some
students found it difficult to relate the research and study skills to the
rest of their course. There is, however, clear evidence of success in the
difference in student grades between subject areas where staff have
engaged with this module and those where this has not happened.
Students who have been encouraged to engage with this module and
made to see the relevance to their other modules have achieved, on
average, grade points higher than those who have not.
4. How do you give meaning and relevance?
Students perceived that this module has a far greater workload
than others. However, this module reflects the amount of hours
that students should be studying: 150 hours of both directed and
self- directed learning for a 15-credit module. Ironically, reflection
and personal development planning when identified as a written
activity was sometimes seen as tiresome and worthless. However,
sketching and working up ideas, critiques and showcases linked to
creative and practical activities were not seen in the same way. It can
be argued that creative activities develop the same critical thinking
skills though not the academic writing skills.
Question
So, should the learning in this module be fully embedded in subject
curriculum or stay part of a central but contextualised strand? And in
the process, what might students gain or lose?
181
References
Cowan, J. (1998) On Becoming anInnovative University Teacher. The Society for Research into Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Dyson, J. and Rhodes, J. (2008) Supported learning with podcasts – the key to the future. CLTAD Fourth International Conference Enhancing Curricula: Using Research and Enquiry to Inform Student Learning in the Disciplines, Lycée Francais, New York, 3-4/04/08.
Lawton, M. and Purnell, E. (2009) An evaluation of the impact of pedagogic processes for personal development planning (PDP) and ePortfolio development at the University of Wolverhampton. University of Wolverhampton.
Lea, M. (2004) Academic literacies: a pedagogy for course design, Studies in Higher Education, 29(6): 739-756.
Lea, M. and Street, B. (1998) Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach, Studies in Higher Education, 23(2): 157-172.
Salter, P. and Peacock, D. (2001) An ‘Individual Learning Profile’ (ILP). http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/handle/2436/5933 (accessed 16/02/09).
Salter, P. and Peacock, D. (2002) Identifying and addressing the needs of art and design students at risk of underachievement in their incoming year of study. http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/handle/2436/3794 (accessed 16/02/09).
Salter, P., Peacock, D. and Ives, J. (2003) Identifying, monitoring and addressing the needs of art and design students at risk of underachievement in their incoming year of study. http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/handle/2436/5243 (accessed 16/02/09).
2.5Crossing Disciplines
2.5.2Making Space to Create
182
183
Angela Rogers and Steve Kilgallon
InQbate: CETL in Creativity
University of Brighton
Abstract
Findings from the CETL in Creativity at the University of Brighton
emphasise the role of clear, open and flexible spaces in facilitating
student-centred learning, in particular strategies that involve working
with groups and creative thinking. This paper discusses a workshop
that used the above criteria to engage fine art students in a dialogue
aimed to help them make better use of their shared studio space.
The workshop instigated a complete transformation in their attitude
to their studio. They started to come in, make and show work in the
space and gather together to talk. We believe that this experience
raises important questions about the capacity of higher education
institutions to support open and flexible spaces for creative practice.
Combined with observations of first and second year product design
undergraduates, it has made us question the ability of recent school
leavers to fully realise the benefits of such spaces.
Introduction
Findings from the CETL in Creativity at the University of Brighton
emphasise the role of clear, open and flexible spaces in facilitating
student-centred learning, in particular strategies that involve working
with groups and creative thinking (Martin and Rogers, 2009; Morris
et al., 2008). The centre has a remit to make an impact on creative
learning across the university, and the bulk of the work takes place
either in the centre itself or in supporting specific teacher-initiated
projects. There have also been instances of centre staff making
minor interventions, and the following discusses a workshop run to
help fine art students make better use of their shared studio space.
Tensions in creative arts education
If we assume that one of the aims of creative arts courses in higher
education is to encourage and support students to be creative, for
example, take risks, embark on open-ended explorations, push
boundaries, tolerate ambiguity, make mistakes and move on from
them, reflect on and refine their work (Banaji and Burn, 2006), we
should also assume that universities have a responsibility to provide
the necessary resources and facilities. Technical equipment will of
course change with time, darkrooms and printing presses are less
in evidence while digital imaging suites abound. If HE is to accept
the creativity remit then spaces for students to immerse themselves
in processes that are not immediately related to learning outcomes
are essential. Ironically the rhetoric of creativity as an economic
imperative and the drive to make institutions more entrepreneurial
has often resulted in more corporate environments where studio-
based courses are anomalies.
This paper is not intended to be an argument for studio space
per se but by looking at a single example it raises questions about
the current position of the studio in creative arts education. It
is possible that for today’s students, with a schooling driven by
standards and inspections, fragmented into modules and multiple
choice, sustaining self-directed activity in loosely designated spaces
is problematic. The expansion of contemporary arts practices means
that studio spaces in education need to serve a different purpose
than they have done traditionally, especially with the shift to more
collaborative and social projects. Arguably for reasons of expediency,
department or faculty wide resources, such as computer suites, hot-
desks, seminar rooms in libraries and wireless networks in cafes,
are offered as suitable replacements for studio space. Although
these facilities contribute to peer group and non-classroom learning
(Temple, 2007; JISC, 2006), there are tensions between these social
learning spaces and environments that allow for the unpredictability
of individual creative activity.
For example, if students work experimentally with materials
they will make a mess and produce rubbish; large bins will need
to be conveniently located and emptied regularly. If this does not
happen, as was the case at Brighton, will students hold back on
experimenting or will it be hard to differentiate mess from work in
184 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
progress? If students are to make open-ended explorations and
tolerate ambiguity they will need to spend time sitting with work in
progress. In this case an open space that supports group work can
be inhibiting as it is easy for work that is publicly visible to be judged
too early. This is especially important in terms of students needing
to make mistakes and learn from experiments that fail or are not
immediately successful. Reflecting and refining work takes time and
maybe not a lot of action; especially if students are not present it is
easy for onlookers to assume that no progress is being made and
appropriate the space for meetings and seminars.
The studio
On the whole, second year students on the BA Critical Fine Art
Practice were disenchanted with their studio space. They were not
coming in very often, the majority were not using it to make work
and the atmosphere was uninspiring and not dynamic. There was a
lot of furniture and miscellaneous stuff in the room but little evidence
of any work being produced. Students, lecturers and cleaners could
not always distinguish between the rubbish and pieces of work in
progress. According to the students the open plan space, which is part
of a room shared by third years, had to serve as a studio, seminar room
and social space. This caused problems – work had been damaged by
a lecturer during a joint seminar and it was difficult for anyone who
wanted to carry on working when the other activities were taking place.
It also meant the layout and amount of furniture kept changing: at one
point just before the workshop we counted 34 chairs for a student
cohort of 17. There were institutional factors they did not understand,
for instance, why the waste bins appeared and disappeared, why
wood was being stored at the back of the room and why there was no
Internet access. The second year tutor thought there was also an issue
about students finding it a problem to locate their practice. Where did
they belong? Possibly as a default strategy, without any lead from the
teaching staff, most students seemed to think critical fine art practice
was limited to digital and lens-based media.
After a session exploring the rooms in the Creativity Centre,
students began to reflect on particular features of a working
environment and reassess their studio in a more positive light. There
was an impetus to change things. Although there were institutional
issues that we could not address, we knew we could offer a session
that would identify some of the emotions underlying the students’
behaviour and clarify how the studio or their use of it needed to
change. Centre staff visited the studio, talked to students and
devised a workshop in response.
The workshop
We planned a combination of exploratory collage, small group work,
large group feedback and action planning. Although we anticipated
some reluctance about collage, we saw it as a dynamic method to
elicit thoughts and feeling. We thought that it was likely that students
had not previously used it as a tool for reflection and reframing a
problem (Moon, 2004). The action planning was intended to be
specific, i.e. to name what, who, when and how much, rather than
just identify broad aims.
Conversations with students in the week before the workshop
made it clear they wanted to see some changes and take action
during the session; they had discussed the problem enough.
Building on findings from the Creativity Centre (Martin and Rogers,
2009; Morris et al., 2008) regarding the positive impact of an open
and flexible space on moving groups forward, we decided to give
them a new experience of the studio space by starting the session
with an, albeit small, clean and clear area in which to come together
as a group. On a more esoteric level the session was underpinned
by the notion of the space between people as a place of creative
encounter and collaborative inquiry, a place where something new
can be generated. Conscious of the limits of our intervention, we
hoped that the workshop would leave students more empowered
and motivated.
The students took up the challenge straightaway. Rubbish was
collected, furniture sorted and stacked and an empty space was
made in the centre of the studio. The following images describe how
the workshop unfolded. The action planning was simplified to a list
of tasks that pairs of students volunteered to take on, e.g. making
If students are to make open-ended explorations and tolerate ambiguity they will need to spend time sitting with work in progress.
185
186 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
1
3
2
4
Figure 1
First impressions
Figure 2 – 4
All the furniture was shifted to clear a space to think and discuss
Figure 5
We asked students how they felt about their studio…
Figure 6
What they did not want in the space…
Figure 7
How the studio could work well for them…
Figure 8
We left them rearranging the furniture…
187
The session was underpinned by the notion of the space between people as a place of creative encounter and collaborative inquiry, a place where something new can be generated.
5
7
6
8
188 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
inquiries about bringing in an Internet link from the computer room
next door and storing the wooden degree show panelling elsewhere.
At the end they were beginning to rearrange the furniture and
deciding how many chairs they really needed. Overall the group was
motivated and energetic with a sense of community and commitment.
The results
Following the workshop the initial feedback from their tutor was
very positive:
First of all, thank you to both of you for the work you did with
the second years. It completely transformed their attitude to
their studio and they have been coming in, talking a lot round
the table and using the studio – as a studio! Work has gone up
on the walls and there is a much better sense of it being their
space. There are other consequences too concerning the other
year groups which it would be good to talk through with them
and with myself sometime.
The central table area was important in discussing and planning
the second year exhibition. For the first time students felt at home in
their own studio. The workshop galvanised the students into taking
positive action on existing ideas about issues that were within their
control. Space is always contested in art and design environments.
Previously, because students had not demonstrated a strong sense
of ownership, lecturers had treated it as a flexible space and made
use of it. As students became more adamant that it was their studio,
the attitudes of lecturers began to shift, for example, seminars are
now held in a different room. There were, however, ramifications.
Some students began to feel territorial and protective over the
improved space and there were tensions with third year students.
On reflection, the tutor said she would have made the whole room
the subject of the workshop and included the third year students in
order to come to some agreements about the whole space.
Conclusion
The students were a highly motivated group, demonstrated by an
almost full attendance. They were clear about the problems with the
space, but for some reason these problems had been lived with or
worked around (mainly by staying away), rather than confronted.
Through the intervention of an external agency students took control
and realised that with their commitment many of the issues were
resolvable. Exhibitions have so far prevented us from reflecting on
the workshop with students, though their comments to their tutor
have been enthusiastic. We will, however, visit the studio and follow
up at the start of their third year. To reiterate, we believe that this
experience raises important questions about whether the current
higher education culture can support spaces for the creative practice
of individuals and groups. Furthermore, are undergraduates, who have
recently left school, and the constraints of the national curriculum,
able to fully realise the benefits of such unstructured environments?
189
References
Banaji, S. and Burn, A. (2006)The Rhetorics of Creativity: A Review of the Literature. London: Arts Council England and Creative Partnerships.
Martin, P. and Rogers, A. (2009) Brighton Creativity Centre 18 month report. University of Brighton.
JISC (2006) Designing Spaces for Effective Learning, A Guide to 21st-Century Learning Space Design. Bristol: JISC.
Moon, J. (2004) A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Morris, R., Martin, P., Rogers, A. and Kilgallon, S. (2008) Lessons in Creative Spaces. Society for Research in Higher Education.
Temple, P. (2007) Learning Spaces for the 21st Century: a Review of the Literature. London: Institute of Education and Higher Education Academy.
190 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
Notes
191
192 Dialogues in Art & Design: Promoting and Sharing Excellence
Notes
193