Episode 10: Transformative Learning

Posted on by Sarah Watson

The Learning Matters Podcast captures insights into, experiences of, and conversations around education at the University of Sussex. The podcast is hosted by Prof Wendy Garnham and Dr Heather Taylor. It is recorded monthly, and each month is centred around a particular theme. The theme of our tenth episode is ‘transformative learning’ and we hear from Dr Adhip Rawal, Assistant Professor in Psychology in the School of Psychology, and Chris Stocking, Lecturer in English Language in the School of Media, Arts, and Humanities. 

Recording

Listen to the recording of Episode 10 on Spotify.

Transcript

Wendy Garnham:

Welcome to the Learning Matters podcast from the University of Sussex, where we capture insights, experiences, and conversations around education at our institution and beyond. Our theme for this episode is Transformative Learning, and our guests are Dr Adhip Rawal, assistant professor in psychology in the School of Psychology, and Chris Stocking, lecturer in English language in the School of Media, Arts, and Humanities. Our names are Wendy Garnham and Heather Taylor, and we are your presenters today. Welcome, everyone.

All:

Hello.

Heather Taylor:

Can you give us an idea of the kinds of discussions you’ve been having around transformative learning and what that means to you? 

Chris Stocking:

So the discussions that we’ve been having, they go back a good few months. Adhip and I, we sort of became aware of each other’s work after we won the Education and Innovation awards for our respective projects. And Adhip’s, if I remember, was on stories from the heart, who we are, what we are, and it really resonated with me in some research that I’ve been doing. So I had a look at Adhip’s profile and found a paper that he’d recently written, called Deep Calling, the Will of the Heart. And reading through this, I realized that I had found a very kindred spirit here at the university that was thinking about knowledge and understanding and learning through very different perspectives using different concepts. So I reached out to him, and we met, and we began discussions. And I think at that stage, we hadn’t called it transformative learning at all. This is something that we’ve kind of given it this name at this stage, just as something that we can start to build around.

Adhip Rawal:

And I think there was something, so we didn’t use those words, transformative learning, and we haven’t used those words yet. I think the words that we were using were sort of being and belonging because they spoke to the respective strands of the work we’re engaged in. And I kind of felt when Chris messaged me and I found out about his work that these were sort of two strands that ought to find each other. You know, just like people have to kind of find each other to do something creative, it also seems to me that there are certain themes that have to find each other. So this connection between the themes of being and belonging seemed very important to me. And I think one aspect of that is, and that relates, I think, to what transformative learning means to me, is that we kind of make an invitation to each other to be closer than people have ever perhaps been in academia. So we make this invitation to each other, “let us be closer to each other”. And in this atmosphere of closeness, something will be generated that could potentially be transformative.

Heather Taylor (03:12):

By closeness, do you mean sort of in my mind, I’m thinking of sort of closeness in terms of sharing, maybe without barriers or without sort of a little bit of personal pretence, you know, which there can definitely be in academia. I think students as well can be concerned sometimes about oversharing, you know. So by closeness, do you mean this sort of sharing of experiences or sharing of thoughts? 

Adhip Rawal:

I think what I’m speaking about is sharing at a level of being that don’t necessarily come into contact with each other anymore. So Chris spoke about this paper that I wrote, Deep Calling, the Will of the Heart, so I think what we’re speaking to really is that we kind of now need to make an invitation to reinstate a very old channel of human communication, which is a heartfelt connection. And that heartfelt connection, that heartfelt way of speaking to one another and orienting to the world, can somehow be regenerative. So I’m saying that a person can begin to recover certain things that they ought to know about themselves and that they ought to be doing in the world.

Heather Taylor:

Like a sort of… a reawakening from having these connections? 

Adhip Rawal:

So that’s exactly it. So I think that’s the beauty of the connection because we have stopped including the heart, I think, in how we work and how we speak and what we do in academia, and now it’s lying asleep. It needs some form of impulse to start awakening again, speaking again.

Chris Stocking:

Yeah. So I mean, it’s interesting, you know, when I’m speaking with Adhip, and the words, the language that he uses, this idea of being, because a lot of the work that I do is looking at 

becoming. And so the way that I frame and understand these discussions and this proximity, this closeness that we’re engaged in is through kind of this collaborative becoming. It’s kind of leaning into these unexpected avenues of thinking, of discussing, being vulnerable enough to respond, to stumble in discussion, and to find sort of the edges of one another and to start to sort of, say, dream beyond those. So there’s a lot of different kind of epistemic framings that we’re engaged in, this discussion, this idea of the heart, of dreaming, of dancing. I think when we start to use different terminology, and this is what we’re engaged in, this is what we’re practicing, this is what we’re allowing ourselves to investigate and stumble and feel our way into, we start using these different concepts or terms to talk about learning and this experience of listening and speaking and thinking and feeling from the heart, the soul, the spirit, it allows us to start thinking about learning in different terms, different ways. And for me, there’s something very generative and creative and earnest in this. It doesn’t need to fit back into a certain research paradigm or a certain disciplinary framing. It’s indisciplinary in that sense, so we’re drawing on a lot of different concepts. We’re investigating teaching in very different ways, Adhip, through his work within psychology, and my own with interculturality and these intercultural spaces, which are very dynamic, rich, fixed, and tender spaces. There’s a lot of contestation and negotiation that is required. There’s a lot of care that is required. And it’s something that I notice a lot when I speak with students that I teach is one thing that they continuously say is that they felt it was a space in which they were cared for. And that, I think, is very important. So in this extension, this invitation that Adhip has offered by thinking about the heart, there is within that an invitation for thinking about how we care within the university and ways that we frame discourses around students who are people with sometimes very complex lives and how we acknowledge that and talk differently about the people who are here at the university.

Wendy Garnham (07:48):

It sort of raises two things for me. One is that sense of personalization, which it seems to be much more about the individual and directing the learning to that individual. But also, I wondered if you sort of thought about how this relates to the sort of the whole idea of 

risk taking and learning, because it sort of feels a bit more like it’s like that sort of caring, supportive context within which you can take risks, and you can stumble, and you can make errors, but that is how learning is most effective, I guess, in some ways. So I don’t know if that is sort of a true reflection of what you were thinking with that.

Adhip Rawal:

Yeah. I think it’s a very, very nice reflection, actually, a very nice question. Because I think what you’re speaking to there really is something very, very important that there’s a kind of a recognition or at least a possibility that what the individual has to say is important and could be of profound significance. Maybe they have something to say that has never been said in the world and could never be said without this person speaking it. So I think that sort of openness to that possibility that is very, very important to be open to who is this person in front of me and to pay attention to the more subtle realities of this person, has a huge possible reward. The risk that I take could come at the reward that I begin to speak myself into the world.

Chris Stocking:

There aren’t neat ways that we can evaluate or judge this. And I think, you know, similar to this discussion that’s taking place right now, there is this sense that we are 

co-creating meaning together, that we’re sensing one another, and that there is this risk of saying things that perhaps don’t transmit. It’s a discussion that Adhip and I actually had before coming to take part in this podcast of how can we ensure that what it is that we’re saying is transmissible because we’ve had these discussions. We’re coming from, there’s an implicit understanding that we have and an acceptance towards one another to speak in these ways. And so how do we invite within our learning spaces these kinds of discussions and this kind of speaking to emerge and for the people in these spaces to find that sense of caring towards another person so that they can take these risks, that they can be vulnerable, that they can open up, and that they can share. And then how does this link back into disciplinary frameworks, institutional frameworks, the learning that takes place in the university and the constraints that come with that? Because, you know, what we’re talking about here, I don’t think it’s something that lends itself necessarily to the kind of evaluated knowledge production that takes place at a university. where we’re looking at starting a program, a module, being guided through that of taking on this knowledge and then shunning that we understand this knowledge and that we can be creative and critical with it. But if we haven’t had a space to authentically start speaking from our own sense of being and that becoming that happens when you do start speaking with somebody else, that’s it’s very difficult to start. Where do you start with them? These are the kinds of discussions that we’ve been having. It’s one of the reasons why this idea of transformative learning, I suppose, this the name that we’ve given at this stage, it’s something that we still we don’t really have a neat definition for because we’re still talking through all of the other ways that learning could be taking place in university, all the other ways that we could be, showing care towards the people who are here and the learning and what it means to them. 

It reminds me a little bit of, a journal that I know that Sarah (Watson) has been involved in, POESIS, which is the creative act of knowledge. And she’s been writing about how when we’re in a lecture, when we’re in a seminar, from our perspective as educators, we’re using words in a way that we feel is transparent. We feel that the words are stable and that when we use them, they’re transmitted across and that whoever’s listening receives the words and understands them in the same way that we’re presenting them. But there’s disconnections all through there. There’s disconnections that come from learning the words, from performing the act of being a student, of being in a lecture, performing the act of listening to take notes. These are all very different ways of listening and being and becoming with somebody else that have been taking place with the conversations that Adhip and I have been having, which has been I think I use this term perform, this kind of collaborative becoming. In that a call is put out, it’s received and responded. And so we’re kind of creating knowledge in this way that takes us into strange territories. So I think it’s trying to understand how all of these processes, what it is that we’re talking about, how that can then extend into the university to challenge it, to give different spaces of learning and being and becoming.

Wendy Garnham (13:45):

So it sounds as though I mean, that really gives us an idea of at least some of the challenges. Are there any other sort of challenges in terms of actually getting transformative learning happening?

Adhip Rawal:

So, I mean, I think if I speak to that from experience, then I think one of the challenges that is involved in that is that, you know, what you’re trying to really do there is you’re trying to present the possibility that what we do in a classroom needs to be fundamentally different to what we do in daily life. Because you may have this kind of assumption that what we draw on from daily life is not enough for us to transform ourselves. So we have to do something different. Something different has to be in the classroom, operate in the classroom to allow that from happening. And of course that requires you to be free fundamentally to do those things. There’s an inherent, I think, obligation to suspend what might be expected of you and to do things differently if you really believe that something like you were speaking to this POESIS, which is really based on the idea that there’s something absent that my speaking can make present. Now that, you know, is fundamentally, I think what we’re talking about. Right? That, we need to be so be really aware of the relational responsibility that we have towards each other. That my speaking can be an act of your becoming. And I think so that of course, I mean I think so the point I want to make so sometimes, you know, colleagues say to me or students say to me, Adhip, why are we doing this again? This is going nowhere. And you have to, I think, have the courage to say, I understand that, but let’s go there again. Let’s go again to nowhere. Because I think that’s fundamentally what is involved. Right? All the other places we’ve been to already.

Chris Stocking (15:47)

Yeah. And I think other challenges Adhip was talking about there, what we’re doing in daily life, the impositions that we’re facing through daily life in, you know, our modern world and the – without sort of getting too much into politics and but there was framings of higher education that exist today that exert an enormous pressure over students, the way that they internalize this sense of going into debt to get an education, but the reward there linking them to a job, something in the future. But how all of this is couched in neoliberal ideology and terminology and the pressures and that kind of flattening out of identity into something which is quite, well, one dimensional in that sense. So when we engage in these kinds of discussions, Adhip and I have been having, we recognize the value of these discussions as opening up space for a different kind of being together and collaborative becoming and construction of knowledge and thinking, the way that we experience the world, the relational encounter with one another, and how that spills out into the way that we encounter other people, other members of the university, the students who are here at the university, the family. There is this an extension there which is challenging these implications of living in the modern world. 

But it’s one of the issues that comes from that is thinking about the value that students perceive from having these kinds of discussions, engaging with this kind of thinking and being together, and whether they can see value in that knowing that there is debt being incurred to get the education and that the education is a pathway to get a job to meet the material needs of the future. And I think that pathway has a lot of implications for how we experience learning, how we experience teaching, and how particularly the learners understand what’s happening at the university. And so it’s a question also that that comes to my mind is where do these kinds of spaces that we’ve been discussing exist today in higher education and education in general? Because I certainly can’t remember any point in my education having these kinds of discussions that we’re having today. And they are for me, they’re such an important part of the life that I have here at the university. To have found somebody like Adhip and to have these conversations, it allows me to reengage with the university, to reevaluate what it is that I’m doing, to perceive the people here at the university differently and otherwise, and so to create different relations with them. And so it’s that question again that it comes back to how can we frame this kind of learning in a way that is valuable to students, there are other constraints and pressures on them to go through university and the learning and what learning means?

Wendy Garnham (19:26):

It sounds as though relationships are really at the heart of it, sort of relating to each other. So I think that’s one of the key takeaways, I think. 

Heather Taylor:

Yeah. I think as well, you know I mean, you sort of inferred this at different points, but it is a bit of a tricky situation where you’re talking about something quite deep and maybe, like an organic kind of thing. And when you look at, like, marking criterias and learning outcomes, it’s all very intellectualized, and it’s kind of hard, I guess, to intellectualize. It’s almost paradoxical to intellectualize what you’re talking about. Does that make sense?

Yeah. And I think that I guess, I suppose I mean, how do you – I know you’ve done some work, you know, with the life stories. And how have you, in that respect, sort of because of when you’re doing that, you’re not asking people to, you’re not calling it transformative learning. Right? How are you approaching it so that you are getting this sort of essence and this, I guess, making these people comfortable to share their stories in this way?

Adhip Rawal (20:11):

There is a couple of things that are involved in that. So I think one thing that is involved in that is that I need to be able, as an educator, to also show the student that what they have to say also matters to me.  And if you say something that comes out of your heart, of wherever, I’m prepared for that to change me as well. That’s the assurance that I give you, you know. So it’s that as well, you know, that sort of recognition that, what the student has to say. So it’s not necessarily, you know, we’re going to explore the meaning of life. We’re going to explore the meaning of your life. And that change, I think, is very, very important. When the student hears the change in that question, they want to speak. And then it’s up to you, you know, to stay with them for however long they want to speak. Right? So you make this sort of invitation and I think it’s quite remarkable what students, when they feel safe, begin to say and what they begin to communicate. You know? And it’s up to you to allow that to happen. Right? That, you know, that you take an interest in them to the degree that they feel okay. What I have to say, I’m going to share with you.

Heather Taylor:

I love that adding your because I can see how it brings about safety because of essentially, there can’t be a wrong answer. Right? Unless you are conflicted and not being open. And even if you’re conflicted and not being open, and so give a technically incorrect answer, nobody else knows. Only you know. And actually, that’s I think that’s learning something, isn’t it? You know, sometimes when someone might tell you something about yourself and you go, that’s not what I’m like. And then you have a think about it later and you go, oh, you know? And it’s sort of that level of self reflection though in answering these questions, the meaning of your life. And I do think that’s really important as well that you’re not just asking them questions because of you have to, you know, because I know you do this in your module, your final year module as well. You’re not asking them questions because you have to or because you have to fill time. You’re asking them questions because you are genuinely interested in the answer. And the more willing they are to explore how they feel rather than just what they think about things, the more even the more interested you become. You know? So, yes, it’s lovely. It’s I think it is a lot of the time missing in education. But again, like I said, it’s not that easy – they’re very at odds with each other, the whole systems and this thing, which is very fluid, you know.

Adhip Rawal:

But I think there’s something, you know I mean, of course, I mean, there’s all sorts of pressures around this. Right? But I think if you observe a student doing this, then you can’t help but prioritize that. You know, that whole when you were asking about the personal element of it, when you see somebody speak to you in that way, you can’t help but say I’m gonna pay attention to you. I don’t need 20 students. I don’t need 40 students. All of that will be relativized because you have one person there in front of you. And that’s enough for you if you begin to see that.

Wendy Garnham (23:27):

It sort of reminds me of one of the quotes that one student said to me recently, which was that they felt heard. And that seems to be at the heart of what you’re saying is that students have that desire to feel heard rather than be one in a large group where they sort of just become quite anonymous in a large group. So I think the importance of that personalised approach is really sort of coming to the fore. I hope it’s coming to the fore. 

Chris Stocking:

Yeah. It’s something I think also that Adhip and I share in common, this respect for reflective practices of sense making through one’s own life and the experiences that they’ve had. And, it just it brings to mind some of the work that I’ve done in the intercultural spaces where the assignments are critical reflections, where the students are then trying to go back through. And they’re going back through. They’re making sense of themselves in different ways. And there’s been some very powerful pieces of work that have been submitted where students who perhaps come from backgrounds – so there was one student who came from – her parents were from one country. She grew up in another country, and then she was studying in the UK. And so she had this persistent question throughout her life as to, you know, which culture she belonged to. We come back to that sense of belonging. And through the module and deconstructing this idea of how we understand culture and how we understand identity, she came to see, and she was able to claim ownership of existing in all of these spaces and none of them as something that was novel, something that was new, a different sense to speak from and to speak into. 

And I think this was very, very powerful to see so many students taking these modules, starting to speak of their experiences, being given space to talk about their experience, about their life, and how they’ve understood it, and the struggles that they’ve had. That sense of being marginalized, that sense of being othered, of trying to fit into certain ascribed criteria that are given by others, and to claim a sense of ownership over who they are and to feel proud of who they are and of how they understand the world and to understand that they matter. And I think that this is something that I was having a discussion about this morning. This sense of belonging from an institutional kind of top down approach to creating conditions of belonging can sometimes be alienating. I found myself alienated by having people tell me how to belong and the conditions for belonging in a certain space. Whereas when we flip this and we start talking about mattering and how a student matters, then they’re starting to come together. They’re starting to collaborate and become together and share with one another and to create the conditions for what it means to belong in that class with themselves rather than it kind of being an imposition or imposed upon them.

Wendy Garnham (26:55):

And I suppose that’s the same for staff as well, isn’t it? Staff in an institution could do the same thing. That sort of coming together, that sort of sharing about our experiences and so on. So, yeah, I think it’s quite a powerful concept.

Adhip Rawal:

Yeah. Can I ask you one more thing about that? Because I think this thing that we’re speaking to, the students’ experience and our experience and why that is valuable. Because I think one of the reasons why it’s also valuable is because that’s not only characterized by difficulty, it’s also characterized by inspiration. And I think the youth, they are very sensitive to inspiration. And how do you navigate the road to the future? You need the inspiration of the youth. So I think we need that. You can’t do it without it. They have they have much more, much richer lives than I have. You know? And my job to listen to what they have to say.

Heather Taylor:

Oh, I agree with you. I think the yeah. I think the, I mean, I’ve never thought of it in these terms before, but, you know, the sort of better I think rapport sounds superficial, but, you know, like, the better sort of connection I mean rapport, but, you know, like, with the better connection you have with students and the easier you find to get them and they get you and, you know, it sort of develops generally over the term. I find that actually, you know, they do sort of teach you things about yourself, but not necessarily explicitly. Sometimes they just pose questions that challenges you, and it makes you really question, you know, like, I know, like, from one lesson, someone asked me a question and they were saying, well, isn’t this thing normal? Don’t you do this? And I went, oh, don’t ask me if as an example of whether people think this is whether this thing is normal or not because it was to do with health. And, actually, after that, I really thought about it, and I was like, I don’t care about my health. Right? And I really recognize that I physical, you know, and I really sort of thought and it bothered me for ages, not the student. The student I appreciated that they’d do you know what I mean? It was a throwaway question to them, and it was a phrasing. They didn’t mean it like you. You know? But it really made me think about it. And I’ve actually been, like, training for a run since then, haven’t I? So it is really cool. And that is that’s transformative because I had crisps for lunch. You know? So I’m still eating crisps at lunch. But is it you know, that, like, that did change me. It did not just that. It fit in with a lot of other things at the same time, but it made me think, and it made me reflect. And I think, yeah, and it’s and it the other thing is when you’re dealing with especially when you’re talking about health, sort of younger people, most of them are much younger than me. They’ve got health most of the time on their side. Do you know what I mean? More so than I have. And when they bring up these sorts of things or when they bring up stuff to do with, you know, the environment or the economy or whatever, it’s much more it’s much more important, I guess, to them because it’s gonna affect them for longer, and it’s affecting them more than it will be me. And it does just make you stop and go, oh, what am I doing? You know?

Chris Stocking:

Yeah. I like what you’re speaking to there. It kind of speaks to me of this slippage of identity positions. So we go into a classroom and we think about this teacher-student relationship. And I think what you’re talking about there is this kind of slippage where suddenly you’re a person. And you’re speaking with people, and that allows for this transformation that perhaps wouldn’t happen if you were to just hold yourself in this teacher and student identity, which is often done so it’s not embodied in the same way. And then when you suddenly slip, something happens, and it breaks the carapace of those carefully cultivated identities, and suddenly there’s that exposure. And you’re there and you’re with people. And there’s that possibility for learning and speaking and doing otherwise that affords for very interesting transformations to come about that you would never have thought that something like this, this kind of learning might take place in that space. And suddenly, just through a conversation, just through a question, you’re changing things about the way that you live in your lifestyle. And I think that’s it’s very, very important that we start to recognize these moments in a classroom and we start to give voice to them and shape them because these are the stories that, at least for me, really interest me and that remind me that here in the university, we are people, we are working with the youth who, as Adhip said, are the ones that are going to be shaping the future. You know? So how do we support them, and how do we allow them to come back to themselves as people in these learning spaces? 

And I think the only way we can do that, and Adhip made this lovely distinction earlier, not learning about life, we’re learning about your life. That suddenly makes it very personable. And then when we’re thinking, it becomes more complex than when we start thinking about global universities and all of the different experiences and framings and positionalities that come into these learning spaces that have to be recognized and spoken to. And the only way we do that in a meaningful sense, I believe, is through hearing one another, through listening to one another’s stories, of understanding one another. And that requires this that that we allow for these personal narratives and histories to be present in the classroom. Because when you start to speak of them and you start to speak to them as, you know, you know, there are three psychologists here in in this this kind of speaking therapies, there’s something very transformative about saying and talking and hearing yourself say words that perhaps you wouldn’t say otherwise. And to hear that repeated back in other ways, to see where it touches and connects with the other person that you’re talking to, to allow for that collaborative becoming as research, as a methodology of research, that collaborative becoming, sharing stories in the space and seeing what comes out of it, and reflecting on that, and learning the tools to speak and listen and be heard, and to allow yourself the luxury of sounding like an idiot.

Wendy Garnham (33:23):

I think it is that opening up. Yeah. Isn’t it? Just opening yourself up. And the more you do that, the more the students seem keen to do it.

Heather Taylor:

Being willing to get things wrong and say I don’t know – I’m always saying I don’t know because I don’t know.

Wendy Garnham:

When technology doesn’t work.

Heather Taylor:

Yeah. When technology doesn’t work. I think also, you know, even sharing sometimes sharing little things about – I’m always sharing things about myself with my students. It’s not even deliberate. It’s sometimes because of something. I don’t mean, like, my PIN number or whatever. I mean, like, you know, just things that little anecdotes that, like, pop into my head. Because for me, it’s made me able to understand something, and you just have a go and see if it helps them. And I do find actually that, you know, I’m not doing it with the intention of getting them to share. Right? I don’t, because I honestly, I don’t mean to do it as it happens. It just happens, But it does help them share. And I think it also helps them recognize they’re allow allowed to give an answer or allowed to give some input that isn’t academic. You’re allowed to give a response that you didn’t get out of a book.

Chris Stocking:

It’s another way of making sense of the learning experience, but through ways of speaking that aren’t themselves inherently academic, and I think that that opens up the possibility of learning, and learning about disciplinary content as well, by speaking about it, by hearing a terminology, not some terminology, not necessarily fully grasping it, but allowing it to trigger moments in your life and to discuss these to bring yourself into the learning environment as a way of navigating and migrating back towards developing a more full, embodied understanding of the concepts, the terms, the theories, the research that you’re reading about, thinking about, challenging. But I think that that’s very important for me is that embodied sense. And the only way it really becomes embodied is if we’re fully present to it. So there’s also some of those discussions that we’ve had. And I remember the last time we spoke, we were talking about just even the constraints of a classroom. And I was talking to a friend last night about this. He’s got a younger daughter who’s 10. And, they were discussing her favourite subject at school, and she said that it was physical education because she can learn while she’s moving. You know? And this idea, I think, is Wendy, you’ve been involved in outdoors learning, so learning while walking, the way that it triggers makes you think differently, have different conversations. So opening up all these possibilities for learning otherwise. Learning in different ways that aren’t necessarily just sitting down and making notes and listening and then talking in in an abstract and somewhat removed sense.

Heather Taylor:

What advice would you give to anyone wanting to make learning transformative?

Adhip Rawal (36:27):

So I think we’ve touched on something just now which I think is important in that, which I think is the recognition that I don’t know. And that sort of recognition that I also don’t know who I am really. Because I think there’s something liberating in that. I mean, the young person, if he hears another, if he hears an educator saying I also don’t know who I am, there’s something I think that that recognition does that allows for this deeper connection to become present. Because I think essentially what we’re saying is that the transformation doesn’t require the input of money. It doesn’t necessarily require the input of knowledge as such. Maybe certain knowledge can help you keep that, sort of keep transformation in vicinity, but essentially it’s about relational support. And I think also that flow of recognition that what that transformation will be, we don’t know. I don’t know. What would you say, Chris, about that?

Chris Stocking:

Yeah. I mean, it’s a very difficult question because you know, the first thing that, you know, when we were thinking about this podcast and I was making notes was that, you know, we’re not really sure at this stage what transformative learning really is. And I think that probably this discussion has revealed somewhat that we’re still trying to understand what it is that we’re talking about and how we make sense of it and how we bring that into a more formal academic setting. But relationality, I think, is definitely important. And I think that the sort of the peeling away of layers to understand again and to remind ourselves that from an educational perspective and as educators that they are people before us. They aren’t students. They are people who have incredibly rich, vibrant stories, experiences, inspiring, difficult, and all of that is always present in any shared space. And that we should never make assumptions about how somebody is responding in a classroom. And that we should afford for the opportunity for different kinds of discussions, different kinds of conversations to emerge. And if they open up organically and naturally to work with that as a learning substance and material to feed and fold ourselves into to support the learning and to support that sense of being present with one another.

Adhip Rawal:

Yeah. Yeah. So then maybe what one thing that we’re saying is that any kind of transformation requires communication. Right? And it requires us to be present to the communication, to the full spectrum of communication. So, essentially, that’s a function of attention. You know? The depth of my attention might be very important and, you know, somehow, facilitating this process from coming about.

Chris Stocking:

I think Wendy had mentioned that, being heard, some feedback that you’d heard from students, that idea of being heard, I think, is also very important. Because when you afford that space for somebody to speak and you don’t allow them you don’t afford this space of them speaking, waiting to navigate the conversation back where you want it to go, but you respond to whatever it is that’s being said in a meaningful way. I think that is very important that people feel heard, that they feel visible, that they have a voice that matters, that matters to you as an educator, as Adhip said earlier. And I think that, yes, that that being present, that capacity to listen, tenderly and in a way that is actively involved in caring for the cultivation of another human being.

Heather Taylor:

I would like to thank our guests, Adhip Rawal and Chris Stocking.

Adhip Rawal:

Thank you.

Chris Stocking:

Thank you.

Heather Taylor:

And thank you for listening. Goodbye. 

This has been the Learning Matters podcast from the University of Sussex, created by Sarah Watson, Wendy Garnham, and Heather Taylor, and produced by Simon Overton. For more episodes, as well as articles, blogs, case studies, and infographics, please visit blogs. Sussex.ac.uk/learning-matters.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Podcast

Scholarship Opportunities in Education –Autumn 2025

Posted on by Simona Connelly
A group of four people dressed in business attire walk together through an open glass doorway into a courtyard. The courtyard is flanked by modern brick and glass buildings with trees and greenery lining the walkway. In the background, other individuals are seen walking or sitting on benches, engaging in conversation or working on laptops. The sky is clear with a few clouds, suggesting a pleasant day

As the autumn term begins, we’re delighted to welcome students and colleagues back to campus. For those involved in teaching, learning, and academic development, this season brings a wealth of opportunities to engage with educational scholarship—both at the University of Sussex and across the sector.

Where to publish

Whether you’re new to educational research or looking to share innovative practice, there are many platforms to consider:

  • Learning Matters – Sussex’s own space for reflections and scholarship on teaching and learning. Contribute a case study, blog post, article or take part in our podcast.
  • Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (JLDHE) – Serves an international readership interested in all aspects of learning and teaching in higher education.
  • Open Scholarship of Teaching and Learning – Captures the rich contexts, experiences, and voices from colleagues across the sector. The journal encourage all types of writing from more traditional educational inquiries, to working-out-loud papers and provocations.
  • Teaching and Learning Inquiry – Publishes scholarly works on the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) in higher education. This includes original research, theory, or commentary and may include empirical and interpretive investigations, theoretical analyses, thought-provoking essays, works about the state of the field, or innovative genres. 
  • Practitioner Research in Higher Education – Publishes research and evaluation papers that contribute to the understanding of theory, policy and practice in teaching and supporting learning. 
  • RAISE Journal – Publishes contributions dealing with student engagement in Higher Education from a disciplinary or multi-disciplinary perspective.
  • Journal of Education, Innovation, Partnership and Change – Welcomes articles, case studies and opinion pieces in written or video format relating to learning, teaching and assessment with the context of students and staff as co-creators and change agents. Our aim is to inspire, educate, amuse, and generally engage its readership.
  • SEDA Blog – The SEDA Blog is a chance for higher education professionals and stakeholders, including students, to share ideas, opinions, good practice and reflections that can inform staff development in higher education.

Events to attend

Join us at Sussex on 26th November (13:00–16:00, Bramber House 255) for an interactive event on oracy in higher education. Explore how speaking and listening can be embedded into the curriculum to support inclusion, engagement, and academic integrity. Register via Eventbrite

Beyond Sussex, sector-wide events including registration and calls for contributions:

  • Access, Participation and Student Success Conference (UUK, 20 Nov) – A key event bringing together colleagues from across the sector to explore the evolving landscape of student equity and opportunity.
  • SHIFT 2026 (Greenwich, 6–7 Jan) – This conference celebrates the role of students as active partners in shaping the future of higher education. By championing co-creation, collaboration, and inclusive practice, we explore how institutions can foster belonging and empower student agency. Proposals. Registration.  
  • Compassion, collegiality and communities in higher education: challenging the discourse SRHE International Conference 2025(28 Nov online; 2–4 Dec Nottingham) – The SRHE annual international conference aims to advance the understanding of higher education, support and disseminate research and practice, and provide a platform for the perspectives and knowledge offered by systematic research and scholarship. 
  • Assessment and Feedback Symposium 2025– (online 4th November) -This presenter-led virtual event will provide teaching and support staff from across the sector with a space to exchange and disseminate new and different ways of thinking about assessment and feedback.
  • Educational Excellence Symposium 2025– (online 9th December) – This year’s symposium will bring together educators, academic leaders, professional services, and students to explore what really works in delivering high-quality, inclusive, and impactful education.
  • Artificial Intelligence Symposium 2026(online 10th February) – A presenter-led event to learn, discuss and share latest practices and pedagogies utilising artificial intelligence.
  • Employability Symposium 2026 (online 10th March) – The Employability Symposium 2026 aims to bring together cutting-edge examples of how employability can be embedded at school, faculty/college and/or institutional levels.
Posted in Uncategorised

Sustainability and simulations: Using simulations to engage first-year Business students

Posted on by Kitty Horne

Alison Bailey is an Associate Professor in Management at the University of Sussex Business School and is the convenor of the Introduction to Business and Management (IBM) a large core module taken by nearly every first-year business student in their very first term. Alison’s teaching research focuses on using team-based learning to enhance student engagement and outcomes in higher education and business simulations, other areas of interest include leadership and sustainability. She is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SHEA), a Certified Management and Business Educator (CMBE), a member of the Team-Based Learning Collaborative and has recently been appointed as the PRME London & South-East Co-Lead.

What I did

I redesigned the IBM module to integrate experiential learning through a business simulation game, replacing outdated assessments and traditional lectures with more active, practice-oriented experiences. The aim was to combine theoretical learning with real-world application, teamwork, and critical thinking. All delivered in a way that keeps students motivated and connected from day one.

The module is structured in two halves: the first focuses on foundational business theory, and the second immerses students in a business simulation where they apply that theory in running a virtual company. Over the years, we’ve evolved the simulation component.

Why I did it

The diversity of knowledge levels among first-year students makes this module particularly challenging. Some students arrive with a deep understanding of business concepts, others have never studied business before. My goal was to design a module that levels the playing field, engages everyone regardless of background, and sets a strong foundation for their degree.

Personally, I’m a social constructivist teacher. I believe students learn best when they can apply theory to practice in meaningful, collaborative settings. The previous iteration of the module lacked a clear connection between theory and practical application. Introducing a simulation and strengthening its link to classroom content helped bridge that gap. Additionally, embedding sustainability and employability throughout the course ensures that students not only learn and put into practice business theory but also gain essential, future-facing skills.

How it works

In weeks 1–5, students are introduced to key business concepts, from organisational structures to marketing and finance using team-based learning resulting in an MCQ to test knowledge. Going forward this will be assessed through a poster presentation and a reflective audio file focusing on sustainability frameworks. From week 7 onwards, students work in teams to manage a virtual business using a simulation game. Originally, this was Marketplace Business Fundamentals, where students ran a bicycle company. For the coming academic year, we’ve adopted an ESG-focused simulation called Humbro from SAGE Publishing where students make decisions based on real-time global news events, such as supply chain disruptions.

Each week in the simulation represents a financial quarter, and teams compete on metrics such as market share and profitability. A balanced scorecard approach is used to assess performance. Weekly rankings are shared, which fosters a healthy competitive spirit and the simulation concludes with a team presentation and peer evaluation via Buddycheck.

Throughout, we embed sustainability using tools like the TASK certificate and the Climate Fresk. We even collapsed a week of the module to run Climate Fresk workshops, bringing together diverse student groups to reflect on climate impacts and corporate responsibility.

Impact and student feedback

The student response has been overwhelmingly positive. Many appreciate the practical, team-based nature of the module and the opportunity to form early friendships. They describe the classes as inclusive and engaging, and the simulation itself as highly motivating – particularly the live leaderboards, which fuel their competitive instincts!

The sustainability focus has also resonated. Students are beginning to see ESG not just as a theoretical add-on but as central to business strategy. In fact, some students then trained as Climate Fresk facilitators after participating in the workshop, with others hoping to train this academic year. 

On the flip side, presentations can be anxiety-inducing for some, and peer complaints about unequal team contributions do come up. That’s where Buddycheck has been incredibly helpful, giving students a fair and transparent way to evaluate each other.

Future practice

Going forward, we’re making several key changes. We’ve scrapped the multiple-choice tests as they weren’t fit for purpose in large lecture theatres and didn’t support deep learning. The new poster and audio reflection are much better aligned with our goals.

We’re also embedding a new simulation which brings new challenges and opportunities. It’s longer, 12 rounds instead of 4; has a strong ESG emphasis; and integrates current global events, which adds complexity and realism. We’ll continue running the Climate Fresk annually, and we’ve strengthened ties with the International Study Centre to ensure students from all backgrounds can participate and feel part of the community.

We’re also inviting in a wider range of guest speakers, including representatives from B Corps, sustainable businesses, and local entrepreneurs, to enrich the module with real-world voices.

Top tips

  1. Just do it. Don’t be afraid to introduce a simulation. Yes, it’s resource-intensive and complex, but the rewards are huge in terms of student engagement and learning outcomes.
  2. Know it inside out. Play the simulation game yourself. Try to “break” it. You need to understand the mechanics fully because at least one student will probably figure it out faster than you! Strong understanding also helps you align it with your learning outcomes.
  3. Train your staff. All teaching staff need proper hands-on training with the simulation. We run full-team trial games and ensure everyone is confident before term begins. This is especially important for a consistent student experience across a large cohort.
  4. Design for inclusivity and clarity. Create clear, step-by-step resources, especially for neurodiverse students. Simulations can be overwhelming without strong scaffolding.
  5. Link it to employability and sustainability. Choose a simulation that not only teaches business acumen but also builds soft skills like teamwork, communication, and adaptability.
  6. Speak to staff running simulations or Fresks. Gabriella Cagliesi, Rashaad Shabab and Sambit Bhattacharyya run MarketPlace Corporate Capitalism with Apprenticeship students; Alex Pearson and Claire Tymoshyshyn run and organise Climate Fresk.
Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Case Studies

Reflections on working for the Office for Students: Conversation with Prof Graeme Pedlingham

Posted on by Sarah Watson

Prof Graeme Pedlingham, Deputy Pro Vice Chancellor for Student Experience, talks to us about his time working for the Office for Students. 

Photograph of Graeme Pedlingham
Prof Graeme Pedlingham

Can you tell us a little about your role at the Office for Students? 

Around 2022, the Office for Students (OfS) was setting up a new unit focused on quality investigations, linked to the implementation of new conditions of registration. I became the first Principal Assessor, helping to establish the structures and lead some of the initial investigations. These were focused on the B conditions, academic experience, robustness of assessment, and so on, particularly where there were concerns about the quality of provision in specific subject areas. 

I was involved in developing training and guidance for a wider pool of assessors. I enjoy working on new initiatives and helping shape things from the ground up, especially when they have the potential to positively impact the sector. I’m particularly interested in how we define and assess quality in higher education, and how we account for the diversity of institutions and contexts. 

My priority was ensuring assessment teams operated appropriately, while also being transparent with institutions. Investigations can be anxiety-inducing, so it was important to communicate clearly that this wasn’t about catching individuals out, it was about examining systems and processes, and their impact on students. We focused on authentic staff and student voices, sometimes observing teaching, but mostly through conversations. 

Can you walk us through a typical assessment process? 

It usually started with data, identifying areas of potential risk. We’d request further information from the institution and prepare for site visits, focusing on key questions and stakeholders. The aim was to triangulate evidence: data, staff interviews, student feedback, policies, committee observations. You couldn’t rely on one source, you had to build a full picture. Sometimes the data pointed to issues that weren’t there, and sometimes it revealed real problems. 

It was satisfying to uncover root causes and help institutions make positive changes. But we were careful not to overburden them, requests had to be purposeful. The goal was always improvement, not punishment. 

What were some of the most important insights you gained? 

The diversity of the sector is key. Quality assessors need open minds and a strong focus on student outcomes. Independence is also crucial, bringing subject expertise and practitioner insight to the role. Assessors need to recognise their own expertise and use it to evaluate fairly and constructively. 

Did you always work within your own subject area? 

Not always. Each team had at least one subject expert, but as Principal Assessor, I often chaired the group, similar to a validation panel setup. 

How did your work with the OfS influence your practice at Sussex? 

It sharpened my focus on impact, evidence, and outcomes. I became more questioning and reflective. Writing the reports was a challenge, balancing priorities and articulating issues clearly using data and expert knowledge. It’s like a more intensive version of external examining. It also deepened my appreciation for how scholarship informs practice. Seeing different institutional approaches and their effects on students was incredibly valuable for that. 

What advice would you give to colleagues considering a similar role? 

  1. Be open to different structures of working and work collaboratively.  
  1. People skills are essential.  
  1. You also need an interest in regulatory frameworks and how they translate into practice. Understanding the interaction between high-level regulation and on-the-ground data and experience is key.  
  1. Most importantly, keep the student impact front and centre. Quality isn’t abstract, it affects real people and their outcomes. 
Posted in Case Studies

Walk with me: Exploring community, belonging and inclusion through walking interviews

Posted on by Kitty Horne

Dr Verona Ni Drisceoil is a Reader in Legal Education and a member of the Education Team, currently leading on Assessment and Gen AI policy, at Sussex Law School. She is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA), Co-Convenor of the International Connecting Legal Education Network and a Judge of the OUP Law Teacher of the Year Award.

Introduction

In the Spring Term of 2025, I, along with my colleagues Jeanette Ashton and Jo Wilson, ‘walked with’ nine of our first-year students to better understand and explore what community, belonging and inclusion means for them in the everyday. In this blog post, I share the background of the ‘Walk with Me’ project, a bit about walking interviews and some of the preliminary findings from the project, in advance of a longer piece. I hope these findings will be useful as we all prepare for another academic year. The ‘Walk with Me’ project was supported by the Sussex Education and Innovation Fund.

Background

The start point for the ‘Walk with Me’ project came about from a place of discomfort with our commitments to community and belonging in higher education. Whilst the terms community, belonging and inclusion are commonplace in higher education (HE) policy and viewed as positive and required for an enhanced student experience, there is much less clarity, as I have previously noted, about what the terms really mean and look like for the everyday lived experience of students, and indeed staff, in HE. Drawing on the work of Gravett, Ajjawi and O’Shea, I argue that we need to challenge our conceptualisation of these terms as they relate to both students and staff and the perceived frame within which community and belonging sits in HE.

Set against the challenges presented by increased student numbers, post pandemic trauma, the cost-of-living crisis, low attendance and poor mental health, this project, utilising walking as a research method, set out to walk with students to help better understand community, belonging and inclusion in the everyday. This approach (walking with students 1-2-1, side by side), as opposed to more traditional surveys and student group interviews, hoped to shift the power imbalance somewhat and to provide for more meaningful and authentic opportunities for spontaneous and holistic conversation about self and being within what can often become rather abstract or superficial conversations about community and belonging in HE.

Why walking interviews?

Walking as a research method, often referred to as walking interviews or mobile ethnography, has gained popularity in qualitative research due to its unique benefits (See O’ Neill & Roberts, 2019). It has been used widely in geography and more recently in health studies, criminology, and education. As researchers, it was not an approach we were familiar with, but we all felt drawn to engaging in a research approach that felt deeper, and more relational (see Gravett, 2023). According to O’Neill & Roberts, walking interviews allow the researcher to engage with participants ‘on the move’ in a more natural and holistic way, thereby providing insights into daily lives and experiences. The act of walking, they write, ‘engages the senses: looking, hearing, the feeling of being touched by air, rain, or other elements of the environmental atmosphere, and contact with changing aromas’ (O’Neill & Roberts, 2019:16) On the elements, we certainly experienced them all – cold, rain, wind, and sunshine. We all agreed that if we were taking this approach again, we would give more thought to the timing of the year. So, something to factor in, if you are keen to utilise walking interviews! Other things to factor in include time commitments, recording devices and transcription. There are, of course, now several AI tools that can be used to transcribe audio recordings, but this may not be allowed within your ethical review so do explore in advance.

The unique benefits…

On the unique benefits that O’Neill & Roberts speak about, as researchers we felt a more meaningful connection with the participants through this research. The student participants also spoke positively about the experience; how they enjoyed the conversations and building a connection with us. For us, as we moved through the term, the interviews (but felt more like conversations, and that is the point) moved into deeper discussions on a range of community and belonging issues including accessibility and the lack of accessibility on campus (one of our participants is visually impaired), race, class, discrimination, faith, and physical spaces – and how all can impact belonging, and a sense of community. In some respects, the conversations reinforced much of what we knew but it’s quite different when a first-year student walking side by side shares their personal story and journey of what community, belonging, class, race and exclusion feels like in the everyday. That ‘you have to be selective about events you go to in welcome week because of cost’, that ‘I was worried about racism in this country before starting university’, or that ‘I sometimes feel more connected to my teacher than other students’.

Some preliminary findings…

As researchers, we all felt this project was different – it felt more meaningful and relational. The stories and voices of the project were powerful. There was space and time to hear the nuance and challenge our own biases and practice too. Belonging, and community, is not, as Ajjawi, Gravett and O’ Shea write, a homogeneous experience. In fact, belonging can be ‘political’ (see Yuval-Davis, 2006). It can be ableist (Nieminen & Pesonen, 2021). The stories of this project landed in a way that served as an important reminder to us as legal educators to be mindful of how our students, all with their own story and lived experience, are navigating through our law schools and campuses – and that for students not from the global majority, the challenge can be greater; that community, belonging and ‘inclusion’ events can be exclusionary, and reinforce barriers to connection and relationality. Who gets to belong?

Below, I highlight four preliminary findings from the project:

  1. Many of our students value their faith; that it is part of belongingand it can help them through difficult periods of the academic year. By admission, we weren’t expecting this to come through as strongly as it did. When we talk to students about wellbeing, friendships, academic and personal challenges, recognise that faith might be a key part of a student’s identity and life and hold a space for that. 
  2. Students value meaningful connections with their teachers. It is probably fair to say that when we speak of community and belonging, we often focus on creating spaces ‘for’ students, rather than ‘with’. Many students value connection with their teachers as well.
  3. Social and extra-curricular have a place in our efforts to build community and belonging but it is important to also focus on what happens in the classroom. Our default to the social and extra-curricular as sites of, and for, building community and belonging, and often inclusion, though understandable, can be problematic, and can lead to “feel good” visible performativity rather than meaningful interventions and attention for all students in the academic sphere. Moreover, the framing and over reliance on the social can be particularly problematic in a cost-of-living crisis when we know that many of our students are now commuting or forced to work 20 to 40 hours a week to pay rent and bills. Coming to campus for additional social, ‘community’ orientated (community for who?) events may no longer be feasible or a priority for many of our students.
  4. Build an enabling environment. Teaching structures, timetables and physical environments matter in terms of how students experience and ‘feel’ community and belonging. Have you ever thought about how the timetable and/or layout of your classroom hinders or supports connection? Is there anything you can do to design a more meaningful learning experience for all students such as changing the layout of the room.

References

Ajjawi, R., Gravett, K., & O’Shea, S. (2023). The politics of student belonging: Identity and purpose. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 1-14.

Gravett, K., & Ajjawi, R. (2022). Belonging as situated practice. Studies in Higher Education, 47(7), 1386-1398.

Gravett, K. (2023). Relational pedagogies: Connections and mattering in higher education. Bloomsbury Academic.

Gravett, K., Ajjawi, R., & O’Shea, S., Belonging to and beyond higher education in hybrid spaces (Society for Research in Higher Education 2023). Available: https://srhe.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Karen_Gravett_Award_Report.pdf;

Moore, I., & Ní Drisceoil, V. (2023). Wellbeing and transition to law school: The complexities of confidence, community, and belonging. In E. Jones & C. Strevens (Eds.), Wellbeing and transitions in law: Legal education and the legal profession (pp. 18-19). Palgrave Macmillan.

Ní Drisceoil, V. (2025). Critiquing commitments to community and belonging in today’s law school: who does the labour? The Law Teacher, 59(2), 181–199.

Nieminen, J., & Pesonen, H. (2021). Politicising inclusive learning environments: How to foster belonging and challenge ableism? Higher Education Research & Development, 41(6), 2020

O’Neill, M., & Roberts, B. (2019). Walking methods: Research on the move. Routledge.

Yuval-Davis, N. (2006). Belonging and the politics of belonging. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(3), 197-211.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Blog

Reflections on securing funding and delivering a scholarship project: designing and implementing the dissertation navigator

Posted on by Sarah Watson

Reflections from Dr Xiangming Tao (Assistant Professor in Innovation & Project Management) and Josephine Van-Ess (Associate Professor in Management) 

Photo of Dr Xiangming Tao
Dr Xiangming Tao
Photograph ofJosephine Van-Ess
Josephine Van-Ess

Can you briefly outline your project and its aims? 

The Dissertation Navigator was designed to support postgraduate taught students through what is often the most challenging stage of their studies. Many students struggle with framing research questions, selecting research methods, and receiving consistent feedback from supervisors. At the same time, supervisors face pressures of large cohorts and varying practices. To address these challenges, we developed the MASTER Toolkit (Methods, Assessment, Support, Tools, Ethics, Resources) to standardise best practice. Together, these provide step-by-step guidance, templates, and frameworks that promote inclusive, fairness, independence, and timely feedback. The project aimed not only to improve supervision process and dissertation quality but also to foster inclusivity, confidence, and a stronger culture of research excellence across our postgraduate community. 

Which funding source did you apply to, and why did you choose it? 

We applied to the Education and Innovation Fund, which offers up to £5,000 for projects that transform teaching and learning at Sussex. The fund was a natural choice because of its focus on innovation, inclusivity, and student–staff co-creation. Dissertation support had been highlighted in the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) as an area needing improvement, so our project aligned closely with institutional priorities. The Fund gave us the flexibility to pilot new ideas such as digital toolkits and to demonstrate impact in a way that could later be scaled across programmes. It also provided visibility and recognition for teaching-focused projects, helping to ensure that postgraduate support received the attention it deserves alongside more established areas of the curriculum. 

Can you describe the application process? 

The application process was competitive but straightforward. We had to demonstrate the project’s rationale, expected outcomes, and alignment with the Learn to Transform strategy. To strengthen our bid, we drew on PTES survey data, feedback from MSc students, and reflections from supervisors to evidence the need for change. We also grounded the proposal in literature on postgraduate supervision and learning design. A key strength of the process was the requirement to think beyond immediate outcomes and consider sustainability and dissemination. This pushed us to frame the Dissertation Navigator not just as a one-off intervention, but as a scalable model that could be adopted more widely. The support from Educational Enhancement colleagues was invaluable in helping us refine our scope and make the project realistic within budget and timeframe. 

3. Were there any challenges or barriers you encountered during the application process? 

Our main challenge was balancing ambition with feasibility. Initial plans included a wide range of digital tools and cross-disciplinary training, but we needed to focus on deliverables that could be achieved within a modest budget and short timeline. Another challenge was evidencing need: while we were aware anecdotally of supervision inconsistencies, we had to support these claims with sector research and institutional survey data. Coordination was also demanding. Developing a project that involved multiple stakeholders, e.g. students, academic supervisors, success advisors, and administrators, required careful planning and compromise. Yet these very challenges helped sharpen the proposal, ensuring that the final project was focused, achievable, and relevant. 

How did the project unfold once funding was secured? What impact did it have? 

Funding allowed us to co-design the MASTER Toolkit with students and supervisors, hosted on Canvas, and across MSc programmes. The toolkit offered templates, explainer videos, and step-by-step resources. Students reported greater confidence in designing and managing research, and supervisors noted improved efficiency and fairness. One MSc Strategic Innovation Management student, supported through the Navigator, went on to secure a fully funded PhD scholarship at the University Liverpool School of Management. Students from other programs, such as the Entrepreneurship and Innovation MSc, also acknowledged the Dissertation Navigator’s impact: 

“Dear Tommy, I wanted to thank you for your kind guidance and support during my dissertation journey…… Your support was invaluable throughout this challenging process, and I truly appreciate your assistance and the Dissertation Navigator.” - MSc Entrepreneurship and Innovation Student, 2024 

The project was presented at the Higher Education Institutional Research (HEIR) Network Annual Conference 2024 and British Academy of Management (BAM) Management Knowledge and Education Teaching Practice Conference 2025, where it was praised as a scalable model.  

What are your top three tips for colleagues looking to apply for funding for their own scholarship projects? 

  1. Ground your proposal in evidence and student voice. Use survey data, feedback, and literature to show the scale and urgency of the problem you are addressing. 
  1. Start small, think big. Design a focused pilot that can demonstrate quick wins, but with scalability built in from the start. Funders want to see both impact and sustainability. 
  1. Co-create with stakeholders. Engage students, colleagues, and support services early. This builds stronger projects and creates the buy-in needed for long-term change. 
Posted in Case Studies

Reflections on setting up a higher education network: A Conversation with Tab Betts

Posted on by Sarah Watson
Head shot of Tab Betts, smiling at the camera.
Tab Betts, Assistant Professor in Higher Education Pedagogy, talks to us about setting up a higher education network.  

Tell us about the process of setting up the Active Learning Network 

It was quite an organic process that began with a flipped learning workshop I facilitated, one of many, but this particular session had an energy to it. The discussions were really lively, and as the session concluded, several participants were like, “I wish we had more time to talk about this. Could we meet regularly?” So, we established a group dedicated to active learning. Although the initial focus was on flipped learning, it quickly became clear that the scope extended much further. This was around 2016–17, and as the group expanded, I sought opportunities to share leadership. Professor Wendy Garnham, whose passion and vision were evident from the outset, joined me in co-organising and developing the group. 

Then something spontaneous happened. Wendy and I attended a conference at Anglia Ruskin University, where, at the close of the event, the organisers asked if anyone would host the next gathering. I just stood up and volunteered us. Wendy was surprised, we hadn’t got approval from Sussex, but I was confident it was the right step. That decision marked the beginning of a wider journey. From there, the network continued to grow, eventually becoming a global community with numerous satellite groups. 

What motivated you to run that first workshop and volunteer to host the conference? 

I’ve always felt strongly about making a difference in education. It’s one of the most transformative forces in the world. I’d read a lot of evidence showing that active learning is powerful, especially for making education more equitable and empowering marginalised groups. When I joined Sussex, I loved it, but the dominant teaching culture still felt quite traditional. I wanted to challenge that.  

I was also inspired by the amazing people I met, Wendy, the Education Enhancement team, colleagues at Anglia Ruskin, and people like Andrew Middleton. The people I met introduced me to new ideas and helped me grow as an educator. 

How has being part of the Active Learning Network benefited you as an educator? 

It’s been transformative. Having a regular group of people who inspire you to keep learning, experimenting, and improving is invaluable. It’s helped me grow, stay motivated, and become more open-minded. The global nature of the network also broadens your perspective. You realise that education looks very different in other contexts, and that challenges you to rethink your own practices. 

What impact has the network had on your teaching and the teaching of others? 

A huge impact. Every time I plan or deliver a session, I draw on conversations and ideas from the network. It’s like having a richer palette to work with. I’ve seen colleagues get promoted, earn fellowships, and thrive in their careers thanks to the network. Personally, I received a National Teaching Fellowship a couple of years ago, and I wouldn’t have achieved that without the support and coaching from people like Wendy. I’ve also helped others with their Principal Fellowship applications, and we regularly support each other in that way. 

One standout project was our collaborative book, 100 Ideas for Active Learning, with 100 chapters from 109 authors worldwide. It started as a Google Doc and grew organically. For many contributors, it was their first publication, and they felt proud to be part of it. It’s a practical, accessible resource that’s evidence-informed but not weighed down by academic jargon. We wanted it to be inclusive and collaborative. I don’t have a PhD, and being neurodivergent can be a barrier in traditional academic spaces. But we’ve built a community where people with all kinds of challenges can contribute meaningfully. It’s about creating the kind of empowering environment we want for our students, too. 

What tips would you give to others considering setting up a network or community of practice? 

  1. Find your people. Even if you don’t feel like you fit into your institution’s culture, there are people out there who share your passion. Build routines and culture together through monthly meetings, shared documents and annual events. That’s how you create impact. 
  1. Share leadership. Distributed leadership is key, let go of control and empower others. The more you share, the more opportunities arise. No one can do everything alone, and generosity with leadership makes the whole initiative stronger. 
  1. Be brave and different, challenge the status quo. We faced resistance from senior academics, leadership, and other institutions. But if you believe in your vision and have a supportive group, you can push through. Sometimes you just have to stand up and say, “We’ll do it,” even if you’re not sure how yet. 

Higher education can be tough, especially if you feel like you don’t fit in. The network has made it bearable, and even joyful, for many of us. It’s about solidarity, support, and making education better for everyone. 

Posted in Case Studies

Reflections on becoming a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA): A Conversation with Dr Lorraine Smith

Posted on by Sarah Watson
Head shot of Lorraine Smith smiling at the camera.
Dr Lorraine Smith: Associate Professor (Biochemistry)

Applying for Senior Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA) can feel like a daunting task. One that often gets pushed aside amid the daily demands of teaching, research and other demands of academic life. Dr Lorraine Smith (Associate Professor in Biochemistry), a colleague who successfully navigated the SFHEA process, gives us valuable insights into what the journey looks like, and how it can shape both personal and professional development. 

Why did you apply for Senior Fellowship? 

There were two main reasons I applied for Senior Fellowship. First, it was about career progression. When I joined, I only had Fellowship, and my colleague and friend encouraged me to pursue further qualifications. 

Second, I realised I’d been given poor advice in a previous role. I was in a management position and should have applied then. When I contacted Advance HE, they confirmed that management experience was key, so I had to quickly reflect on my experience in that role to build my application from that. 

What did you find most helpful during the application process? 

The most helpful thing was setting aside dedicated time to work on the application without distractions. I couldn’t have done it during term time because my teaching schedule is so busy. Being on the education and scholarship track, I used the summer period and set clear deadlines. That made all the difference. 

Were there any challenges with making the application?

Yes, absolutely. I found the writing style quite challenging. It’s a mix of reflective practice and academic referencing, and you also have to align everything with the framework. It felt like spinning lots of plates at once. 

I started by jotting down my thoughts and shaping them into case studies, then did the reading to support them, keeping in mind which framework elements I was evidencing. The reflection came as I thought about how my practice impacted students and staff. 

My application didn’t pass the first time, but the feedback was clear and constructive. I reached out to former colleagues to fill in the gaps, and that made all the difference. 

I think we’re so used to being critical of ourselves that shouting about our strengths can feel really uncomfortable. I’m better at it now, but I still find it easier to spot what I could improve than to say, “I’m really good at this.” 

Senior Fellowship is all about impact. Where you’ve been influential, where you’ve led, and how others have taken on board what you’ve done. That can be a challenge to engage with, but it’s essential to the process. 

How has the process of applying for Senior Fellowship contributed to your development as an educator? 

The process really made me reflect on my own practice and read more deeply into pedagogy and curriculum design, which was incredibly helpful. During term time, there’s so much going on that reflection often gets pushed aside. 

I also learned a lot about myself as a manager. I’m very much a doer, and I hadn’t really considered my strategies for managing staff or modules. The application gave me space to think about why those approaches work, why I’ve had good feedback, and how I adapt to individuals to work collaboratively and avoid conflict. 

Has achieving Senior Fellowship had an impact on your colleagues or the teaching culture that you work in? 

Yes, I think it has. I’m now always up for discussing pedagogy with colleagues, and we have a really collegiate way of working in our department. We collaborate well and socialise too, which I think the students notice. We regularly come together to talk about how to approach modules, and there’s a very open attitude to teaching. 

It’s also given me more confidence in sharing good practice. One example is our recent curriculum redesign, where around ten faculty members collaborated on the design and delivery. I felt really proud of that. It was a genuinely collective effort to make the new module the best it could be. 

Three top tips for undertaking the Senior Fellowship application  

Lorraine offered three practical tips: 

  1. Start gathering evidence early. Save emails, feedback, and reflections that demonstrate your impact. 
  1. Keep a diary of good practice. Jot down projects or moments that might become case studies later. 
  1. Set SMART targets. Be realistic about what you can achieve and break the application into manageable chunks. 

And perhaps most importantly be kind to yourself. Progress may be slow, and life will inevitably get in the way, but this is part of your career development and deserves your attention. 

For anyone considering Senior Fellowship, Lorraine’s experience offers both practical guidance and inspiration. It’s not just about ticking boxes. It’s about recognising the value of your work and sharing it with others. The University of Sussex supports SFHEA applications. For further information, please see our web guidance.  

Posted in Case Studies

Conversations on teaching for community and belonging: Our blog collection

Posted on by Simona Connelly

Dr Emily Danvers

Conversations around teaching rarely happen beyond formal training opportunities that often take place early on in our careers. After this, and especially during term-time, space for talking  in our busy working lives is often limited. Incidental corridor chats are seen to generate a collaborative and positive working culture and, for some, were mourned during the pandemic and its aftermath. Indeed, post-COVID (or maybe this was always the case?), we rarely have time to talk to our colleagues about anything at all. When it comes to teaching, who do we approach when things go well, or not so well? Who is talking? Who is listening? And who cares? This was the premise for our project, drawing colleagues together across the then newly formed Faculty of Social Sciences, to talk about how we facilitate conversations about teaching, and our wider working lives, to enhance a sense of community and belonging for staff.

The conversation theme was inspired by Jarvis and Clark (2020) whose work emphasises how the informality of a conversation about teaching flattens power relations and allows people to make meaning together without the intensity of an agenda or outcome. They position this work in contrast to formal teaching observations with their traces of surveillance, performance and measurement. Too often we rely on these individualised encounters to ‘develop’ teachers, where in fact, authentic conversations might more meaningfully transform teaching, where colleagues hear something, share together and be inspired by each other in the everyday. This reflects Zeldin (1998, p.14) who notes that: ‘when minds meet they don’t just exchange facts; they transform them, draw implications from them, engage in new trains of thought. A conversation doesn’t just reshuffle the cards; it creates new cards.

With the provocation to encourage transformation through talking together, Emily, Suda and Verona set up an initial launch event for all the faculty to generate some initial conversations about teaching. The questions and topics that emerged from this focused on the following questions.

  1. Why is community and belonging important for diverse academic flourishing?
  2. How and where is community and belonging created and developed?
  3. How might the labour of community and belonging work become visible, valued and rewarded?

The 12 colleagues who attended were afterwards put in cross-faculty threes and connected by email, with suggestions that they meet again to continue these conversations. As project leads, we were deliberately hands-off at this point, as the purpose of this project is to see if and how these conversations form organically.

A couple of months later, 5 of us met to blog together for the day, about our response to the questions, along with other themes that came up along the way. What we share in this blog collection is the story of our collaboration conversations.

In Jeanette and Fiona’s blog, they talk about what we can learn from student collaborations, which are often and rightly prioritised in the work of higher education.

In Suda and May’s blog they write about the value of time and space to slow down the academic pace and to generate community.

In Emily’s blog, she talks about the joy and challenges of teaching across different disciplines and how collaborations are structurally challenging.

What we learnt from this project is the ethics and timeliness of the conversation format, as a collegiate response to the complex and evolving challenges facing the sector, our students and ourselves as teachers. We all relished time to talk and think about the uncertain, the tricky, the everyday, the thorny, the unequal, the caring and uncaring practices – all of this important ‘stuff’ that sustains us as teachers but has no space in our working lives. We also did not only talk about teaching but about other collaborations that we value.

Our recommendation is that teaching (and other) collaborations should be exploratory and conversational rather than only a tool for appraisal, What we are seeking is regular open and meaningful dialogue about teaching and academic working lives that is not  ‘done to academics at the behest of institutional leaders’ but conversations  ‘with or among colleagues, characterized by mutual respect, reciprocity, and the sharing of values and practices’ (Pleschová et al, 2021:201).

References

Jarvis, J., & Clark, K. (2020). Conversations to Change Teaching. (1st ed.) (Critical Practice in Higher Education). Critical Publishing Ltd.

Zeldin. T. (1998). Conversational Leadership https://conversational-leadership.net/ [Accessed 15.07.2025}/

Pleschová, G., Roxå, T., Thomson, K. E., & Felten, P. (2021). Conversations that make meaningful change in teaching, teachers, and academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 26(3), 201–209.

Read the blog collection on Conversations on Teaching for Community and Belonging

Tagged with:
Posted in Uncategorised

Cross-faculty teaching: favour culture vs collaboration

Posted on by Simona Connelly

Emily Danvers

Across the faculty of social sciences, many of us share research interests, professional expertise and academic knowledge that shape the topics we teach. When we met to collaborate on this project, for example, we found most of us teach about issues related to education, social justice, and globalisation. Yet we rarely teach outside the confines of our disciplines and departments. And where we do, it is through favours and friendships, rather than anything structurally organised. Our compartmentalised teaching arrangements often produce a culture that can work against collaboration.

A couple of years ago, Jeanette and I met through a shared interest in education for those of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller heritages. This was an area I research, and Jeanette had just started a community legal education initiative, Street Law, in partnership with the community organisation Friends, Families and Travellers. She asked me whether I’d talk to her students about teaching. Of course, I’d love to. I liked her. I liked the project. It was my area of expertise. Why not?

I’ve since done this a couple of times and get a huge amount from teaching Law students who I normally would never get to meet. Thinking about their contexts, disciplines and experiences and translating my pedagogical knowledge to them is also a useful exercise in understanding what and why I prioritise as an educator.  But it isn’t in my workload. I don’t have to and am not, directly ‘rewarded’, in the very narrow sense of my own time.  Jeanette confesses in our collaboration project that she feels guilty about asking me. But we work in the same university and now in the same faculty. Why shouldn’t we teach across these artificial academic boundaries?

This raises questions about how much of academic life might be sustained by these sorts of favours. It reminds me of the complicated emotions of gift-giving, where the receiver bestows something with surrounding norms of exchange and appreciation. On the one hand, forging positive relationships and having reciprocal practices of care are important ways to navigate academic work and its pressures (Frossard and Jeursen, 2019). Doing this cross-faculty teaching was joyful and enriching – a ‘gift’ to me as well as Jeanette. Also, an academy where we only did what was in our job description would surely fall apart!

But, on the other hand, these practices lead to under-recognition of labour or overwork. Academia has long been organised into silos – whether departments or modules – producing a sort of bento-box style organisation rather than a rich, interdisciplinary tasty stew. It is only when trying to foster collaboration through teaching across departments that we notice how the structures and cultures produce or preclude the kinds of interdisciplinary work we may find personally enriching.

In reflecting on this experience, what becomes clear is the tension between the joy and enrichment of interdisciplinary collaboration and the structural barriers that make such collaboration exceptional rather than expected. While cross-faculty teaching can feel like a ‘gift’—personally fulfilling and intellectually stimulating—it also reveals the fragility of a system that relies on goodwill rather than institutional support. When collaboration is sustained through favours rather than formal recognition, it risks becoming invisible labour, disproportionately carried by those with the capacity or inclination to give more than is required. If we want to foster truly interdisciplinary, socially engaged teaching that reflects our shared academic interests and values, we need to rethink how work is recognised, rewarded, and organised. Moving beyond the bento-box model of academic life will mean embracing new structures that not only encourage, but also sustain, collaboration across boundaries.

Frossard, C., & Jeursen, T. (2019). Friends and Favours: Friendship as Care at the ‘More-Than-Neoliberal’ University. Etnofoor, 31(1), 113–126. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26727103

Tagged with:
Posted in Uncategorised

About this blog

Learning Matters provides a space for multiple and diverse forms of writing about teaching and learning at Sussex. We welcome contributions from staff as well as external collaborators. All submissions are assigned to a reviewer who will get in touch to discuss next steps. Find out more on our About page.

Please note that blog posts reflect the information and perspectives at the time of publication.

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts.