Peter Felten

Students as co‐creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: implications for academic developers

Within higher education, students’ voices are frequently overlooked in the design of teaching approaches, courses and curricula. In this paper we outline the theoretical background to arguments for including students as partners in pedagogical planning processes. We present examples where students have worked collaboratively in design processes, along with the beneficial outcomes of these examples. Finally, we focus on some of the implications and opportunities for academic developers of proposing collaborative approaches to pedagogical planning.

Cultivating student–staff partnerships through research and practice

Cultivating student–staff partnerships through research and practice Student engagement is a central theme in higher education around the world. Over the last several years, student–staff partnerships have increasingly been portrayed as a primary path towards engagement. Indeed, Healey, Flint, and Harrington argue that ‘engaging students and staff effectively as partners in learning and teaching is arguably one of the most important issues facing higher education in the twenty-first century’ (2014, p. 7). This special issue explores practices and research on student–staff partnerships, and considers the implications for academic development. In higher education, partnerships between students and academic staff in learning and teaching can be understood as ‘a collaborative, reciprocal process through which all participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, although not necessarily in the same ways, to curricular or pedagogical conceptualization, decision-making, implementation, investigation, or analysis’ (Cook-Sather, Bovill, & Felten, 2014, pp. 6–7). Partnership practices vary widely across disciplines, institutions, and countries. This special issue reflects that diversity with articles from Australia, Canada, Sweden, and the UK. These articles highlight that partnership is an emergent practice that is often unfamiliar to students, staff, and academic developers (Bovill, 2014) – and that partnership does not always fit easily within existing cultures in higher education. A common theme throughout this special issue is the difficulty of moving partnership from theory to practice. In the first article, Marquis and colleagues evaluate a student scholars programme at McMaster University in Canada. The authors, including both students and staff, use the theoretical lens of threshold concepts to consider the troublesome nature of partnerships for all involved. This article is refreshingly honest about some of the challenges faced in this work, including when staff attempt to make space for student perspectives yet paradoxically leave students feeling less capable of contributing to the partnership. Woolmer, with student and staff colleagues at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, critically analyze their experiences when co-creating an undergraduate course that spanned a range of science disciplines. They underscore the importance of beginning partnerships by explicitly addressing the aims and intended processes of the work. At the same time, they stress that too much early attention to structure can stifle the development of authentic partnership. Bergmark and Westman, scholars in teacher education at the University of Luleå in Sweden, extend this consideration of processes by emphasizing the democratic values at the heart of partnerships. In common with other authors in this issue, they carefully consider some of the tensions in trying to encourage students to take on more responsibility for co-design when students report that it is ‘hard to give concrete suggestions on tasks when you have little knowledge about the subject’. Jensen and Bennett at the University of Huddersfield in England outline an interdisciplinary study of their student–staff partnership programme focused on enhancing dialogue about learning and teaching through observation of teaching sessions. The most successful of these partnerships, Jensen and Bennett conclude, ‘created space for conversation and collaboration, a liminal space where students and staff stepped outside normal roles and the traditional learner-teacher relationship’.

Understanding the work of academic development

In the previous issue of this journal, Brenda Leibowitz critically reflects on the ‘definitional quagmire’ of the term ‘academic development’ (2014, p. 359). Because the use of that phrase has shifted over time, across institutional contexts, and in different geographic locations, a precise and shared definition continues to be illusive. Still, Leibowitz concludes, a common thread is woven through the diverse tapestry of work in our field; we all focus on creating conditions to support teaching and learning by students and academics in higher education. This issue of the journal illustrates both the variance and the unity that Leibowitz notes; while most of the authors are employed as academic developers, they have scholarly backgrounds in disciplines ranging from engineering, linguistics, and psychology to social work and education. As Little (2014) reminds us, many academic developers are ‘migrants’ (Green & Little, 2013) from a range of ‘academic tribes’ (Becher & Trowler, 2001). Drawing on our scholarly origins, we bring an array of methodologies to study what we do. This methodological diversity adds a layer of productive complexity to academic development. Unlike most academic fields, we do not have a consensus about the appropriate methods we should employ to interpret, understand, and make meaning of our work. Little (2014) argues that ‘understanding educational development – the way we frame our work, the way we measure and account for it, the research questions we ask of and with it – has implications not only for our field but also for higher education more broadly’ (p. 2). Indeed, our understanding and valuing of different kinds of methods is influenced by the stakeholders, contexts, and constraints of our varying institutional and geographical situations. In today’s rapidly changing environment, academic developers must respond critically and creatively to local, regional, national, and international topics and concerns within higher education. As we continue as a field to explore how we make meaning and use particular methods to make sense of our work, this journal issue illustrates how our methods can have an audience as much as our arguments, data, and conclusions. In the first article in this volume, ‘Gestalt and figure-ground: reframing graduate attribute conversations between educational developers and academics,’ Bernadette Knewstubb and Alison Ruth discuss the distinct perspectives that can fragment or contribute to connections in the task of curriculum development. Using Gestalt theory in combination with images that have multiple interpretations, the authors present a unique lens for exploring how meaning making is influenced by context and academic role. Pete Boyd, Caroline Smith, and Dilek Ilhan Beyaztas apply the ExpansiveRestrictive Workplace Environment Continuum in two academic disciplines in order to examine the nature of research, teaching and knowledge exchange. Their article, ‘Evaluating academic workplaces: The hyper-expansive environment experienced by university lecturers in professional fields,’ draws on a survey of more

On the Threshold with Students

The idea of threshold concepts emerged from and has evolved through communities of scholarly teachers and researchers talking with each other about disciplinary learning. In this chapter, I will approach thresholds from a different angle. Drawing on threshold concept seminars that I conducted with undergraduate students at three US colleges, this chapter considers what we might understand about threshold concepts if we partnered with students to explore the nature of thresholds and learning in higher education.

The means and ends of academic development in changing contexts

The increasing reliance on sessional staff (the focus on the last issue of IJAD) is just one of several significant trends transforming higher education globally. Emerging technologies, changing student demographics, expanding demands for quality assurance, spreading neoliberal administrative values, and other factors are fundamentally altering the contexts of academic development and academic developers. The articles in this issue prompt us to reflect critically on our own and our field’s power and purposes in this dynamic environment. What is the responsibility of the academic developer to be an advocate for faculty? For students? For excellence in teaching and learning? For administrative agendas? For equity in higher education? For institutional change? Questions like these are more than rhetorical; they act as signposts in our professional journey. The destination we set will shape the path we walk. The articles here challenge us to evaluate both the means and the ends of our work to determine whether we adapting to new contexts while staying true to the foundational aims of academic development. In their article “Agency and structure in academic development practices: Are we liberating academic teachers or are we part of a machinery suppressing them?” Roxå and Mårtensson explore the kinds of power afforded to academic developers via their placement within institutions. Through a discussion of a study by a social anthropologist at Lund University in Sweden, the authors examine the ways in which academic developers are “power-holders linked to expertise, institutional management, and policies” through which teachers “encounter the language and perspectives of these forces, policies, and worldviews” (p. 102). Roxå and Mårtensson end the article by suggesting counter discourses that might signal a way forward that align with the values of our field. In “Outsourcing academic development in higher education: Staff perceptions of an international program,” Dickson, Hughes, and Stephens analyze a case of academic development programming at an Australian university being outsourced to a U.S.-based transnational, private non-profit company. Through 25 in-depth semi-structured interviews, the authors explore staff reactions to the program specifically in relation to its cultural context, efficacy, disciplinary context, institutional context, and other realms. Given that outsourcing of academic development may be a rising trend, this article offers an important view into the possibilities and perils of such programs. The eight authors of “Strategies for leading academics to rethink humanities and social sciences curricula in the context of discipline standards” test the effectiveness of disciplinespecific professional development in response to new curriculum standards in Australia. Thomas, Wallace, and colleagues combine the principles of first-year curriculum, threshold learning outcomes, and disciplinary priorities to create workshops that could be facilitated for instructors across disciplines. Using decoding the disciplines methodology and conversation maps, the authors ground this work in discipline-specific concerns, avoiding some of the resistance that can arise in the face of ‘standardisation’ of curriculum and outcomes.

Academic development in support of mentored undergraduate research and inquiry

Integrating research and inquiry into the undergraduate student experience has become a central theme of higher education agendas in many countries (Brew, 2013; Dekker & Wolff, 2016; Fung, 2017; Harland, 2016; Kuh, 2008; Walkington, 2015). Scholars around the globe have demonstrated that undergraduate research and inquiry (URI) significantly improves student learning (Healey & Jenkins, 2009; Healey, Jenkins, & Lea, 2014; Huggins, Jenkins, & Scurry, 2007; Osborn & Karukstis, 2009; Turner, Wuetherick, & Healey, 2008). URI also brings together the teaching and research missions of higher education, so that ‘through it, students can contribute to the academic project of the university’ (Brew, 2013, p. 604). Like any research in academic disciplines, URI may embody diverse practices and be named differently across both disciplinary and international contexts (Healey et al., 2014). For instance, it often takes the form of supervised undergraduate theses embedded in degree programs, inquiry projects within individual courses, or stand-alone mentored research experiences. Whatever its particular form, evidence from rigorous studies in the US demonstrates that high-quality URI contributes to student learning, retention, and engagement (Kuh, 2008), and ethnic minority, first-generation, and low-income students are significantly more likely to graduate if they participate in mentored URI (Brownell & Swaner, 2010; Gregerman, 1999; Locks & Gregerman, 2008). URI also fosters deep learning of critical thinking, effective communication, and complex problem-solving, which are among the most valuable skills undergraduates develop during university studies (Hart Research Associates, 2015). Yet in many university contexts URI disproportionately serves students from advantaged backgrounds, those with high grades, and those with the confidence to pursue selective opportunities (Osborn & Karukstis, 2009). Kuh and O’Donnell (2013) contend that the deepest engagement in URI occurs when undergraduates participate in all aspects of the research process in close working relationships with academic staff. Scholars also have examined academic staff mentors’ roles in supporting student learning in course-embedded URI models (e.g. Healey et al., 2014) and undergraduate theses (e.g. Rowley & Slack, 2004), faculty perceptions about supervising undergraduate theses (e.g. Todd, Smith, & Bannister, 2006), and gendered relationships in undergraduate thesis supervision (Hammick & Acker, 1998). Despite the merits of close student-staff collaboration throughout the inquiry process, higher education’s traditions and practices often distance students from full involvement in university research (Brew, 2006). Perhaps because of this distance, few investigations have focused on the academic staff mentor’s or supervisor’s role in supporting student learning within or across URI models, what constitutes a productive student-mentor dynamic in URI, or how institutions and academic developers can most effectively cultivate mentored URI. In order to deepen student engagement and expand access to mentored URI, whether as course-embedded inquiry or as a co-curricular activity, the staff mentor/supervisor role must be better understood – and mentoring capacities must be supported and developed in staff across disciplines, institution types, and national and international contexts.

Toward theories of partnership praxis: an analysis of interpretive framing in literature on students as partners in teaching and learning

ABSTRACT A body of literature on students as partners (SaP) in higher education has emerged over the last decade that documents, shares, and evaluates SaP approaches. As is typical in emerging fields of inquiry, scholars differ regarding how they see the relationship between the developments in SaP practices and the theoretical explanations that guide, illuminate, and situate such practices. In this article we explore the relationship between theory and practice in SaP work through an analysis of interpretive framing employed in scholarship of SaP in teaching and learning in higher education. Through a conceptual review of selected publications, we describe three ways of framing partnership that represent distinct but related analytical approaches: building on concepts; drawing on constructs; and imagining through metaphors. We both affirm the expansive and creative theorising in scholarship of SaP in university teaching and learning and encourage further deliberate use and thoughtful development of interpretive framings that take seriously the disruptive ethos and messy human relational processes of partnership. We argue that these developmental processes move us toward formulating theories of partnership praxis.

Reflecting on Reflecting: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as a Tool to Evaluate Contemplative Pedagogies

Although interest in contemplative pedagogies has grown considerably in higher education, faculty have relatively few resources available to help them make evidence-based choices about the use of different contemplative pedagogies in particular disciplinary or course contexts. We propose adapting a framework from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) to serve as a heuristic for assessment of the design and implementation of these practices. After outlining this framework, we provide concrete examples from undergraduate courses to explore how a SoTL-informed design, implementation, and assessment process could be applied to the utilization of contemplative pedagogies. The examples suggest that there are many ways in which practices can be incorporated in support of deepening student learning and creating transformative learning opportunities for our students. We conclude with reflections on the potential and the limitations of this approach.