In many cases, things designed for one purpose can serve another quite well, albeit with some adjustment or modification. This is how old warehouses and factories – especially, in the places I am most familiar with, cotton factories – become offices and apartment buildings: the exterior is preserved while the interior is replaced [1].
In writing that, I realised that it would be possible to explore the analogy with the transition from traditional campus-based teaching to emergency remote learning and maybe a future hybrid or blended delivery. However, I only wanted to remark that the repurposing may not address crucial things such as proper isulation to provide high-quality, damp-free spaces that require a minimum amount of energy to keep comfortably warm; the equivalent is expecting appropriate course design and delivery without training, support and access to pedagogical expertise. Skimping on the upfront costs is a feature that many universities seem to share with developers and landlords who provide cold, damp accommodation that wastes energy unnecessarily and drains the tenant’s funds to keep habitable.
The point of this blog is to reflect on learning. In a topic that considers design, it became apparent how deeply wedded to traditional paradigms the more senior (i.e. tenured) members of my group seem to be. This was particularly noticeable in their use of language and the tacit assumptions it betrayed, as well as their expressed thoughts about what the future of university education might be. The short answer is depressingly exclusionary and heirarchical. I know universities are bastions of conservatism, but had hoped for slightly more imagination from those taking this course.
What we didn’t discuss was the process of learning design or instructional design, and surely this is fundamental to quality education? I suspect this seeming avoidance of the topic may be symptomatic of a highly-individualistic system that prefers cooperation (on research projects, preferably high-profile ones) over student learning and development. Co-teaching is not common at university, nor is it well understood [2]; neither is systematic instructional design, though that the Open University has made the resources referred to in the webinar Open Access [3] is a boon for anyone who may be in a position to influence how things are done (myself hopefully included).
So what has this topic taught me – or to be more precise, since I have issues with ‘to teach’, what have I learnt from this part of the course? Not much new, to be honest, but I do have new tools that I hope would make my efforts more effective. I have long been aware of the systemic barriers to pedagogical reform [4], and seeking tools to address these and improve educational opportunities in a sector that does not value education despite the hypocrisy and irony that this entails was one of my principal motivations for joining the ONL course – and sticking with it through a very minimal level of involvement at times and spending time in three countries. I have gained some useful perspectives, resources and tools, as well as lots of currently very vague ideas and much to think on.
Here’s to the future of education and learning.
References:
[1] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/property/greater-manchester-mills-for-sale-16836919 – accessed, 04/12/2021
[2] Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2007). Co-teaching in higher education. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 4(10).; https://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:Z_pf5IQ8sJIJ:scholar.google.com/+co-teaching+at+university+level&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 – accessed, 04/12/2021
[3] http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/learning-design/?page_id=457 – accessed, 04/12/2021
[4] Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020104.; https://journals.aps.org/prper/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020104
