Workshops: Embedding Inclusive and Decolonial Practices in Biosciences Curricula (Professor Zahid Pranjol) and The Co-Creation Approach to Academic Advising (Dr Hadir Elshafie)
As Inclusivity Week progressed, Day 4 brought a sharp focus to two essential elements of educational equity: curriculum reform and academic advising. Both sessions invited us to look beneath the surface—at the roots of our knowledge systems and the mindsets that shape student success.
Embedding inclusive and decolonial practices in biosciences curricula
Led by Professor Zahid Pranjol
Professor Zahid Pranjol opened the session by confronting a common misconception: that decolonising the curriculum means erasing or dismissing the past. On the contrary, it’s about enriching education by questioning dominant knowledge systems, uncovering marginalised voices, and situating what we teach within broader histories of colonialism and power.
Decolonising the curriculum, he argued, isn’t simply about ‘adding diversity’ or tweaking reading lists—it’s an interrogation of our ways of knowing. Who is included in the narrative, and who is left out? What have we validated through repeated citation, and what have we neglected through omission?
In the science disciplines, 95% of reading lists are authored by white scholars, and 85% by men. Zahid encouraged participants to:
Highlight historical biases and their present-day implications
Embed content from non-Western contexts and voices
Create inclusive teaching and assessment modes
Link curricula to employability and student representation
Acknowledge systemic racism in academia through policy (such as the Race Equity Action Plan)
Examples included recognising the scientific contributions of Black and Indigenous scholars, drawing from the Islamic Golden Age, and exploring co-curricular materials that situate contemporary issues like vaccine inequality and COVID-19 health disparities within a historical framework.
Project-Based Learning (PBL) emerged as a key strategy—one that helps students from diverse backgrounds work collaboratively and critically. And beyond curriculum content, visibility matters: diverse role models in teaching, representation in classroom materials, and celebration of identities across religion, gender, and sexuality all help to foster inclusive learning spaces.
The session challenged attendees not just to ‘diversify’ science but to reconsider how science is taught, understood, and contextualised.
Dr Hadir Elshafie ask participants: how can we support students to develop their authentic voice, rather than a borrowed one?
Drawing on over 300 one-to-one sessions with students in her role as advisor and wellbeing lead in the Law School, Hadir introduced a co-creation model of academic advising rooted in curiosity, action, and personal reflection. Instead of focusing solely on ‘problems’—like improving grammar or mastering structure—this approach asks deeper questions: Why did this reading frustrate you? What does this topic mean to you personally?
Using a tree metaphor, she described the difference between:
Problem-focused advising: addressing surface-level issues (the branches and leaves), which may bring short-term results but lead to pedagogical dependency
Person-focused advising: nurturing the roots—student mindset, confidence, and identity—which supports long-term growth and self-sustainability
Academic advising, she reminded us, is not a one-way transaction but a relationship. It’s about listening, asking thoughtful questions, and building trust. Through micro-encounters and structured conversations, advisors can help students build agency, develop critical thinking, and align with the university’s broader sustainability goals.
During the session, Hadir asked participants to look at the photograph of a dense forest canopy, mostly made up of rich green foliage. Among the sea of green trees, one tree stands out prominently in bright yellow, creating a striking contrast. What do you notice? Would you say the yellow tree is the original—the first of its kind—or is it authentic in another sense? This leads us to consider: while each new tree may not be the original, can it be understood as authentic in its own right?
In one-to-one academic support, Hadir recommends prioritising curiosity and authenticity over competition and originality. Authenticity fosters reflective, person-centred conversations that empower students to connect with their values, rather than focusing on external benchmarks of originality and comparison.
Hadir expands upon this approach to academic advising in an article for Wonkhe.
Shared insight: authentic voice as the thread of inclusivity
Across both sessions, the notion of authentic voice emerged as a central thread running through. Whether interrogating whose voices are missing in the biosciences curriculum or guiding students away from generic essay-writing skills and toward genuine personal insight, the message was clear: inclusive teaching begins when we allow students to be themselves.
By questioning the norms of what is taught and how we teach it, and by meeting students with curiosity rather than correction, we can transform the curriculum and student experience.
Workshops: Creating Accessible Digital Documents and Resources: led by Faye Brockwell (Learning Technologist) and Maintaining Attention in Lectures
Led by Dr. Sophie Forster (Reader in Cognitive Neuroscience)
Creating Accessible Digital Documents and Resources
Led by Faye Brockwell
With most attendees joining for a refresher, this workshop underscored that accessibility is not a one-time task, but an ongoing practice. As Faye pointed out, we all pick up bad habits—this session helped us refocus on why accessibility matters, how to check our materials, and where to go for support.
At Sussex, 30% of students have a declared disability. That means accessibility isn’t optional—it’s essential. In addition, many of the accessibility techniques benefit all learners, not just those with declared needs.
Faye introduced key tools for digital accessibility:
Accessibility checkers in both Canvas and Microsoft Office are a great place to start—just spotting issues is a win
Text-based alternatives should always accompany visual content like graphs, videos or diagrams
Alt text should be used with all images (even in emails) to describe the image’s purpose, not just its content
Use minimal colours—three per page is a good rule—and avoid using colour alone to convey meaning
Create meaningful links using descriptive text instead of pasting the full URL or using vague terms like “click here.”
Headings and styles in Word, Canvas, and PowerPoint help screen readers navigate documents and slides properly
A key message? You don’t need to retroactively fix every old file—but you can commit to doing better from now on.
The session closed with a reminder of the ‘why’: without accessible formatting, partially sighted students may be forced to read through entire document rather than jumping to what’s relevant. It’s not about box-ticking—it’s about making our content usable and inclusive for everyone.
The afternoon session tackled a key question: how do we hold students’ attention in a world full of distraction? Drawing on cognitive science, Sophie explored how attention works and why it matters so much for learning outcomes.
Inattentive traits, like difficulty focusing, mind-wandering, or distraction, can significantly affect academic performance, even among undiagnosed students. Attention is a deeply heritable trait, but also one educators can help shape.
Key takeaways:
Attention fluctuates, but it can be influenced by teaching design.
Students mind-wander during around 30% of lectures.
Attention is not just about willpower, but about how engaging and digestible our content is.
Sophie offered recommendations of simple, inclusive techniques:
Consider incorporating real-world examples, anecdotes, or humour to build engagement.
Break content into smaller segments using interactive elements such as interpolated testing, polling tools, or micro-interactions (e.g. “talk to your neighbour for a minute”).
Assume that most students will ‘zone out’ at some point during the lecture—what would be the worst parts for them to miss, and how can you prevent or mitigate this? For example, you could say, “This next bit is really important,” or “If you’re going to focus for 10 minutes in this lecture, focus now!”
Let students know the structure of the session and when there will be breaks.
Participants reviewed their own teaching content, asking:
What is the key information I need to deliver?
Are there long periods without interaction?
The message was clear: cut content where necessary, and add flavour, interaction, and salience. This isn’t about making learning “entertaining” for its own sake, it’s about helping students absorb, retain, and stay present.
Sophie also provided two book recommendations that can support maintaining students’ attention during lectures and seminars:
Storyworthyby Matthew Dicks. The author is a multiple winner of ‘The Moth’ storytelling competition (it’s also a podcast). I found this helpful not just for lecturing but also for grant writing.
The serious guide to joke writing: How to say something funny about anythingby Sally Holloway. This book has practical techniques that can be used to create a joke about any topic (i.e. including very dry and unfunny topics – the author’s background was in writing jokes about the news) in a way that I think lends itself well to lectures (and bear in mind, these ‘jokes’ could be delivered in lectures either verbally or as visual jokes on the slides, depending on the lecturer’s style and preferences).
Shared message: Inclusive teaching starts with thoughtful design
Both sessions reminded us that inclusive teaching is not about grand gestures—it’s about intentional design. Whether that’s making sure screen readers can read your Word document or ensuring students aren’t left behind by overly dense lectures, we have the tools (and support) to teach in more inclusive ways.
Inclusivity Week Day 3 offered two powerful, practical lenses for building better teaching: accessibility and attention. When both are thoughtfully considered, the result is a more engaging and equitable learning experience for everyone.
Workshops: Decolonising the Curriculum (Tobey Ahamed-Barke), Reasonable Adjustments at Sussex: Policy and Practice led by Graeme Pedlingham and From Bystander to Upstander led by Dr. Özden Melis Uluğ.
Across three sessions—on decolonising the curriculum, the evolving Reasonable Adjustments policy, and bystander intervention—attendees were encouraged to reflect on how teaching practices can be reimagined to better support student voice, belonging, and empowerment.
Workshop 1: Decolonising the Curriculum
Led by Tobey Ahamed-Barke
The day began with a question written across a whiteboard: Why do we need to decolonise the curriculum? Post-it notes from participants quickly filled the space—referencing awarding gaps, Eurocentric canons, and the need to reflect diverse perspectives and lived experiences in the curriculum.
Tobey encouraged attendees to think beyond reading lists, framing decolonisation as both content and pedagogy. What emerged was a shared understanding that decolonising means rethinking knowledge production itself—centering global perspectives, challenging historical hierarchies, and designing modules that speak to a diverse student body.
Drawing on his work as Race Equity Advocate in Media, Arts and Humanities, Tobey introduced four guiding principles (with associated prompts) to support inclusive module design:
Is this module global?
Whose voices are centred?
Are all topics taught equally?
Might my choices adversely impact students?
The conversation moved from theory to practice with discussions not only of the content we teach, but how we teach it. This means we could flip the traditional lecture-seminar order, encourage personal reflection in assessments, and design safer classroom cultures where all students—especially those from underrepresented backgrounds—feel confident to participate.
This workshop highlighted the importance that discussions such as these are had with students, between departments, and at every level of the University. This way, Sussex can holistically engage its curriculum with decolonial praxis, with a mission of positive student experience at its core.
Workshop 2: Reasonable Adjustments at Sussex: Review and Practice
Led by Professor Graeme Pedlingham
The session offered attendees early insight into changes coming out of the University’s Reasonable Adjustments Review—developed in response to the findings of the Natasha Abrahart case.
These changes, while grounded in existing legal obligations, signal a culture shift at Sussex. The review explicitly adopts a social model of disability, that shifts the focus from the individual to attempting to address societal barriers. Graeme also stressed that reasonable adjustments should not be confused with convenient adjustments. As Graeme noted, real inclusion requires consideration of how we develop our systems, cultural attitudes, and everyday teaching delivery.
Participants discussed challenges surrounding in-class assessments, communication between teams across the University, and trying to avoid a burden being placed on students (e.g. if they find themselves repeatedly disclosing and explaining their disabilities). Students in the session discussed the impact of being called on to speak in lectures, expressing that it made them feel uncomfortable and unconfident. They suggested that this approach be reconsidered in teaching practice.
Over 30% of new Home undergraduate students joining Sussex last year declared a disability. This is above the national average. It is therefore vital to make our education inclusive by design.
There was strong consensus that inclusive teaching must be integrated into curriculum and module design, not added on later. A recurring recommendation? Make inclusive pedagogy and Reasonable Adjustments training a standing item at Faculty meetings—and embed them into core curriculum development.
Workshop 3: From Bystander to Upstander
Led by Dr. Özden Melis Uluğ
In the final workshop of the day, led by social psychologist Dr. Özden Melis Uluğ, participants explored how to move from a passive witness to an active ally when encountering discrimination in academic settings.
Melis introduced the Five D’s of bystander intervention—Distract, Delegate, Direct, Document, and Delay—and invited participants to think about how each might be used in classroom settings.
The session also addressed the emotional and structural barriers that often prevent intervention, such as fear of escalation, uncertainty about what to say, and lack of institutional support when you do intervene.
Applying the Five Ds in the teaching space, the workshop also offered practical examples of how these approaches can be used in teaching spaces:
Distract: Redirect conversation after a harmful comment (e.g., “Let’s reflect on how cultural backgrounds shape interpretation.”)
Delegate: Consult with colleagues or students in the room (e.g., “Would anyone like to share how language like that might impact others in our community?”)
Direct: Acknowledge problematic language calmly but firmly (e.g., “That comment reinforces a stereotype, can you reflect on why that might be problematic?”)
Document: Keep notes of repeated incidents and share with an Equality Diversity and Inclusion Lead or the Director of Student Experience, as appropriate
Delay: Follow up with the affected students or colleagues to offer support and resources.
Moving from theory to practice
One of the key takeaways was that inclusive practice means acting with intention—not just designing inclusive curricula or issuing policies, but developing the interpersonal courage and cultural awareness to respond meaningfully to discrimination. Melis made the case for bystander training as part of mandatory staff development, possibly in a bite-sized, online format so that everyone at the university can access these essential tools.
A shared thread: Inclusion as practice
All three sessions underscored the importance of centring student voice—not as an outcome of inclusion, but as its foundation. Whether it’s redesigning content, shifting the structure of a session, or responding meaningfully to student needs, inclusion begins with listening and responding—with intention.
Workshops: Reading and Note-Making with AI (Martin Brown) and Designing Inclusive Learning Activities (Brena Collyer de Aguiar & Alice Taylor)
The sun was shining on the first day of Inclusivity Week—a fitting backdrop to a day that centred student voice, inclusive learning, and creative approaches to teaching.
Workshop 1: Reading and Note-Making with Generative AI
Led by Martin Brown
Facilitated by Dr Martin Brown, this session offered a deep dive into how academic writing confidence can be built through strategic note-making—particularly for students for whom English is an additional language.
Martin’s session was split into two halves: the first half was directed at educators; the second encouraged participants to put themselves in the students’ shoes and try out Martin’s note making framework.
Martin’s aim was to support students with heavy reading loads and low confidence in academic writing—challenges often heightened by linguistic and cultural barriers.
At the heart of the session was a note-making framework, designed to help students demystify academic expectations and develop their own academic voice – what do I need to capture in my notes, how long do my notes need to be, what information is relevant? Importantly, this framework incorporates the use of AI (such as Microsoft Copilot) in a purposeful and ethical way.
AI is used within Martin’s note-making framework as a support tool to help students structure and refine their understanding of academic texts. Students begin by reading the text themselves and making their own notes (using the headings from the framework), before using AI—such as Microsoft Copilot—to complement their thinking. Martin recommends using Microsoft Copilot because it is licenced by the University and all students and staff have access to it, and also because it protects user data. Prompts within Copilot must be clear and specific to be effective. For example, a student might copy and paste a section of a journal article into Copilot and ask: “Summarise the author’s main argument from pages 44–47,” or “Identify and explain the research methods used in this excerpt.” AI can also be asked to evaluate strengths and weaknesses or define key terms. Crucially, students are reminded never to rely on AI alone—the process is co-authored with AI, not outsourced. AI can make mistakes. The work generated by AI needs to be checked by the student. However, AI is a tool that can speed up the note-making process for students. Martin’s approach, therefore, not only strengthens critical engagement with reading material but also helps students see AI as a tool for learning, rather than a shortcut.
This workshop wasn’t just about AI—it was about empowering students in their note-making strategies and academic skills more broadly. It encouraged students to find their own voice rather than rely on a borrowed one, humanising the writing process, reducing fear, and making space for personal expression.
In the afternoon, Brena Collyer de Aguiar and Alice Taylor led a session rooted in Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and inclusive instructional design.
After an opening activity (spot the difference) exploring barriers to learning, we were introduced to the three pillars of UDL:
Engagement (how learners are motivated)
Representation (how content is presented)
Action and Expression (how learners demonstrate knowledge)
The focus was on anticipating a wide range of learning needs—permanent needs, temporary needs, and situational needs—and creating environments where all students feel agency and ownership over their learning.
The session highlighted the value of storytelling, playful learning, and locative narratives (learning anchored to real-world places) as ways to make content more meaningful and inclusive.
Alice Taylor built on this by introducing the ADDIE model of instructional design (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation). We were encouraged to think of module design as iterative and collaborative—with evaluation and student feedback at every stage.
Brena and Alice encouraged participants to work in small teams to begin designing a module, drawing on UDL, storytelling, and the ADDIE model as they saw fit. It was refreshing to be able to select from a range of educational theories in a way that felt accessible and not overly complex.
A connecting thread between the workshops: student voice
Both workshops, in different ways, centred the importance of student identity and voice. Martin’s writing frame helps students find confidence in expressing their ideas, particularly in a second language. Brena and Alice’s frameworks help educators create spaces where students feel seen, heard, and empowered.
Whether through reflective note making or story-based learning, the message was clear: inclusive education isn’t just about removing barriers. It’s about making sure students recognise and value their own learning experiences and their academic identity.
Mark Bagley is a Professor of Organic Chemistry in the School of Life Sciences. Mark delivers many of the taught modules in Synthetic Organic Chemistry as part of the Chemistry degree programmes offered by the University and leads a vibrant research team in the School. Mark also serves as Degree Convenor of the Chemistry BSc and MChem UG programmes.
What I did
As part of a major review of our undergraduate Chemistry curriculum, I developed a new Level 5 module on ‘Researching and Communicating Chemistry’ which uses a 100% portfolio assessment designed to help students articulate their transferrable skills and experiences in a way that is relevant to future employers. This is one of a number of expressly skills focused modules woven through our new undergraduate curriculum, developed in collaboration with Kaz Field, our partner Careers and Employability Consultant, to scaffold students’ disciplinary and transferrable skills development from year one onwards.
Why I did it
Feedback from the Chemistry PSRB, the Royal Society of Chemistry, at our reaccreditation visit in May 2019 emphasized the need for a shift from our very academic focused curriculum to a more skills-oriented approach to match the shifting needs and expectations of employers and Chemistry graduates nationally. This coincided with a School wide curriculum review and an expansion of the remit of university Careers and Entrepreneurship Consultants at Sussex to support Schools to embed employability in the curriculum. One outcome of this was the creation of an Embedding Employability Steering Group, guided by Kaz, and comprising cross school membership. We quickly recognised that, while we were already teaching our students a wide range of skills, our students really needed them to be scaffolded through the curriculum and also needed our help to recognize and articulate them, for example in CVs and interviews.
How I did it
The module is assessed by a 2-minute presentation, and a skills portfolio submission. The portfolio comprises a self-assessment of competency in employability skills (conducted in week 1 on which students were required to reflect at the end of the module), a CV and interview (with marks and feedback provided by CV360 and BigInterview respectively), a group poster and essay, and an individual chemical data analysis task. Students were given the chance to deliver a formative, 1-minute, flash presentation and to submit an essay draft. I also mapped out for them the many activities they would undertake through the semester which they could draw on as evidence in their portfolio (an example is provided below).
The CV and interview elements were supported by sessions delivered by Kaz, who also contributed a workshop on effective team work which helped launch the group assessments. Finally, I attached to the group essay a Buddycheck peer evaluation which made it possible to easily to adjust marks easily for individual group members based on their peers’ ratings of their contributions to the project.
How it went
The module ran for the first time last semester and went really well (of course there are tweaks to be made). I could see the students were nervous going into the module, especially about their oral presentation skills. This was despite, when it came around to it, them being capable of giving very high-quality presentations. They were also nervous about the career skills assessments, despite having been taught about writing CVs and preparing for interviews in their first year and being familiar with skills focussed portfolio assessments, having completed lab skills focused versions in their first year. It was also clear from reading the students’ competency self-assessments that they tended to under value their existing transferrable skills (such as oracy) and had a real lack of confidence using the skills language.
By the end of the module, it was really nice to see that most students showed significant improvement in their self-assessment and confidence levels. In fact, at the end of the semester we ran an informal session in which students were asked to step up to give a flash presentation on their group’s poster, and many of those who volunteered mentioned they’d hated public speaking at the start of the module but now actively enjoyed it! It was also clear in the portfolio submissions that the module had helped them develop a language to describe their skills, which was beneficial for future employment.
The biggest surprise was how dysfunctional many students were at working in teams. While some groups functioned well, others really struggled with communicating and working effectively together. This included working to deadlines and managing the responsibility of working for a team. It was clear that, while non-attendance likely reflected wider issues with engagement, the students who didn’t attend Kaz’s introductory workshop were those most likely to struggle with the group task. Having attached a Buddycheck peer evaluation to this assessment meant students were able to score their peers’ contributions to the group assessment against a range of criteria. This meant those who contributed least got a lower mark, and vice versa, which mitigated against some freeloading behaviours. Interestingly, because students also scored their own contributions to the group, the same pattern of under confidence could be seen, with many giving themselves lower scores than they received from their peers. The automated feedback from Buddycheck compares self-scores with those from their peers so will, I expect, have boosted many students’ confidence in working in groups going forward.
Student feedback demonstrated that they liked that the module was dynamic, that it felt relevant and was taught enthusiastically, but I think they hated the fact they were being taught skills rather than in depth chemistry (which would be less relevant for most career destinations). This is despite me having packed in a lot more hardcore chemistry teaching than they seem to have realised! Nevertheless, many have said it was their favourite module and they have developed important skills.
I think they also came away with a wider understanding how skills development is embedded in their degree and how many of the activities we get them to do build on, or support, activities in different modules, which bodes well for when they come to complete the NSS!
Future practice
Next time I think we’ll trim and focus the introduction to team work session to give students more time to get on with the activities, which might include asking them to designate a leader whose role it will be to keep them on track. I also plan provide more guidance on how to communicate with each other and organise the activities of the group. I’ll also be much clearer with them what’s likely to happen if they don’t engage; that students who don’t meet with their peers will likely have their contributions scored poorly which will affect their mark. But also, that students who give that little bit extra can also be rewarded by the team ad see their marks increase, which is important because you need people with enthusiasm to help drive the team forwards.
I also want to get the groups up and running much more quickly, so will require them to plan out and timetable their future meetings and activities after the introductory session. I’m also going to make the groups bigger (up to 6-7 in a group, rather than 4-5), to account for drop out.
Top tips
Plan out skills training sessions, session learning outcomes, and the structure of the portfolio well in advance and take advice on all aspects, especially with your partner Careers and Employability Consultant, as they have lots of really valuable experience to offer.
Buddy check is a really powerful tool but can be a bit intimidating at first, so I would advise people to be cautious and to take advice from people who’ve used it (e.g. the Educational Enhancement team).
Be certain to review any reasonable adjustments to ensure students are able to perform to the best of their ability in the multifaceted nature of skills training and assessment.
Allocate sufficient staff resources to govern and guide the students, as well as mark their portfolio assessments as skills training and evaluation can be resource intensive.
On 13th March 2025, final-year History students from the University of Sussex spent a day by the sea visiting the Towner Eastbourne. The day offered students a valuable opportunity to work together and reflect on how the skills and knowledge they’ve developed throughout their course can be applied beyond the University.
The day began at 9am at Brighton train station. At first, things were quiet—everyone was still waking up and gathering their thoughts for the day ahead. But during the 30-minute train ride to Eastbourne, the atmosphere became more relaxed, and conversations started to flow. As the day progressed, energy and engagement grew—highlighting the value of stepping outside traditional teaching spaces.
At the Gallery, students explored the exhibitions and went behind the scenes into the archives, gaining insight into how the organisation operates. The students had a room of their own at the Museum, allowing them to come together, share ideas and reflect on what they had seen. This space was also used for short workshops and talks for the students, introducing them to various aspects of object collection and community engagement.
Student room, where there were workshops and where we shared ideas and reflected on what we’d learnt throughout the day
The day was organised by Professor Lucy Robinson and Associate Professor Chris Warne and formed part of a broader effort to help students see how the study of history shapes public life—and how they, as historians, can contribute to that work by bringing their discipline expertise and skills into the wider cultural landscape. The visit was part of Do It Together (DIT) Digital. Lucy explains:
DIT Digital is a really important part of how Chris and I work. It’s part of a wider collaborative research and impact project with the Subcultures Network and the Museum of Youth Culture (MOYC). We want our students to benefit from how universities connect with the wider world beyond the lecture and seminar room. We want to weave teaching into all of our research and public work, providing students with real world experience. In this case for example, DIT Digital will feed into our event that we are organising as part of the Brighton Festival for the University’s Festival of Ideas. Students will be our collaborators in the project, developing an ethics application, designing a collections forms, and working with the public at the events to collect objects for the MOYC’s archive.
Quote from Prof. Lucy Robinson.
In preparation for their work at the festivals, the visit encouraged and trained students to think about how to record, interpret, and present historical objects to people—and how community-facing institutions like Towner play a key role in this process. As its name suggests, Towner is a space designed for the town; a place where art and everyday life intersect.
Capturing and sharing objects digitally
One of the aims of the day was to help students explore how digital tools can be used to document, share, and interpret historical objects. George Robinson and I introduced students to Padlet, which enables students to capture historical material in a variety of formats.
Students using Padlet to capture and curate objects
Padlet allows users to record content directly or upload media from their phone or device. Each object entry can be complemented with links to relevant external sources, such as podcasts, journal articles, or YouTube videos—enriching the historical context with multiple perspectives.
Students also explored how to curate their Padlet boards, transforming them into either:
a deep dive into a single object, layered with media and supporting content.
a digital museum, echoing the store at Towner, where viewers can explore a diverse collection of objects across time periods and themes.
Importantly, Padlet also allows for community engagement. It can be an open access resource where members of the public can:
contribute objects, stories, and images
reflect and comment, creating a dialogue around shared histories
co-curate collections, encouraging shared ownership of cultural memory
Behind the scenes: The Towner store
A highlight of the visit was a tour of Towner’s art store—a temperature and bug-controlled archive space. The tour was led by Liz Corkhill (Skills and Opportunities Producer at Towner). Part of Liz’s role is to extend the gallery’s collections to the wider community, and she shared her knowledge of the collection, offering fascinating stories about the wide array of objects held by Towner.
Liz showing students the store at the Towner
Among other things, students discovered that:
Only 18% of the works at Towner are by women, and the gallery is actively working to improve representation. (This figure, notably, is still higher than the National Gallery, which currently stands at around 1–3%.)
The Towner houses the world’s largest collection of works by Eric Ravilious.
A well-run art store is all about organisation—where objects are carefully categorised, clearly labelled, and correctly stored.
Art, archaeology, and everyday objects: The Findings
It was excellent to hear about The Findings—a public art project by artist Verity-Jane Keefe, exhibited at Towner and across Eastbourne.
The project responded to the recent excavation of a significant Bronze Age settlement at Shinewater and Langney (near Eastbourne). Keefe’s work bridged archaeology, art, and everyday life, exploring what it meant to find, hold, and interpret objects from the past.
Her installation featured large-scale brass sculptures, cast from everyday objects unearthed at the site—soft drink cans, bricks, pre-historic tools—juxtaposing the ancient with the contemporary. Keefe worked with local schools, businesses and organisations to select, preserve and place the found objects in public spaces across Shinewater and Langney, including shopping centres and housing estates, inviting passersby to engage with them.
Artefacts found on the archaelogical dig at Shinewater and Langney, cast in brass and on display at the Towner.
The Findings was a community project, resulting in community-made art. It was a clear demonstration of collective approaches to history, and one that reflected the ethos of both the Towner Gallery and the teaching philosophy of Lucy and Chris.
The Museum of Youth Culture
Also attending the day was Ann O’Toole from the MOYC, which celebrates the lived experiences, creativity, and everyday heritage of young people in Britain.
Ann showing students artefacts from the Museum
Students were invited to engage with this idea of everyday heritage by bringing in their own objects that spoke to personal or cultural stories of youth. These were items like a parent’s 1980s Psychobilly leather jacket, a photo at a festival that represented notions of collectivism and nostalgia, and an Acid House CD that had been listened to by both the student and their parents at different points in history, heard through different perspectives, experienced in different ways. These objects, just ordinary things, represented cultures, politics and ideologies of the youth in Britain. Having been scanned by Ann, these objects are now part of the MOYC’s digital collection.
As each student scanned their object/s so that they could form part of the MOYC archive, Ann explained the importance of metadata, ensuring that objects are recorded correctly and can therefore be adequately searched for and understood by the public via the database.
Connecting with Ann was a valuable experience for the students, many of whom followed up with her afterwards to explore volunteering opportunities at the MOYC. After engaging with the students and supporting them in recording objects, Ann shared some key advice about working in the industry. She emphasised the importance of building connections, explaining that it’s often the people you know who help you find job opportunities. She encouraged students to take advantage of internships and volunteer roles—even if just for a few hours—as these experiences not only help develop industry skills and knowledge, but also clarify personal interests and preferences. She also noted that some institutions, like the MOYC, even offer payment for volunteer work.
What did students gain?
I’m sure that each student gained something very individual to them. Here are some of the things I observed:
Insight into how historical knowledge can shape careers in heritage, museums, archives.
Practical skills in digitisation, curation, and creative presentation.
A deeper understanding of how community history and public engagement are central to the work of museums and galleries.
On the train home, one student said it had been incredibly helpful to meet people like Ann from MOYC andLiz from the Towner—to hear about their roles and learn how they got into their careers. Another reflected:
It’s great to talk to professionals, get their advice, and see behind the scenes in this kind of work.
Another student commented that the day had boosted their confidence in engaging with cultural spaces and noted that, while it was nice to have this at the end of their degree as a culmination of their hard work, they would have benefited from more opportunities like this throughout their course.
Next Steps
As an Academic Developer, the day inspired me to help strengthen the connections between the University and cultural institutions like the Towner. This experience was really enriching for the students, not only in terms of enhancing employability, but also in supporting student confidence, satisfaction and wellbeing by applying disciplinary knowledge to life beyond the University and seeing the positive impacts in can have on the community.
Dr. Gillian Sandstrom is an Associate Professor in the Psychology of Kindness in the School of Psychology. Gillian worked in industry for 10 years as a computer programmer before discovering positive psychology. This led to pursuing a Masters in Psychology at Ryerson University (now Toronto Metropolitan University), where Gillian developed a smile-and-wave relationship with a lady who worked at a hot dog stand. During her PhD studies at the University of British Columbia, inspired by this relationship with the hot dog lady, Gillian started studying interactions with weak ties. Her work since then has focused on the benefits of minimal social interactions with weak ties and strangers, and the barriers that prevent people from connecting. After completing her PhD, Gillian worked as a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Cambridge before taking on a lectureship at the University of Essex.
What I did
In my teaching, I use a method called Lecture Comprehension Checks (LCCs) to gather rapid student feedback. This is a simple but effective technique that allows me to understand what students are learning, where they are struggling, and how they feel about the module material. At the end of each lecture, I ask students to fill out a small slip of paper answering two or three key questions. Depending on the subject I am teaching, these questions may vary, but they always focus on comprehension, engagement, and areas for improvement.
For example, when I taught undergraduate statistics, I asked:
What did you learn today?
Are you still confused about anything?
Are you completely lost?
For a module on positive psychology, I was more interested in student engagement with the content, so I asked:
What topic did you find most interesting?
What was the least interesting?
What would you like to learn more about?
More recently, in my Social Connection and Disconnection module, I used similar questions to gauge student learning and encourage suggestions.
Why I did It
The primary reason I use LCCs is to be responsive to student needs. Rather than waiting for formal evaluations at the end of the term, this method allows me to make real-time adjustments to my teaching.
I also find that students appreciate being heard. Many have commented on how valued they feel when they see their feedback shaping the course. When they express confusion about a particular topic, I dedicate time in the next lecture to address it. If they highlight a particularly engaging topic, I make sure to expand on it in future lessons.
I pair this with another practice to build rapport with students. At the end of class, I stand at the door to collect the slips, which allows for a moment of personal interaction with each student. These brief exchanges enhance engagement and help me show students that I care.
How it works
At the start of each lecture, I distribute small slips of paper. Students can write on them at any point during the class and hand them in as they leave. I deliberately use paper-based feedback rather than digital surveys because of the response rate. I experimented with a QR code survey, but not a single student used it. There’s something about the physical act of writing and handing in a paper slip that encourages participation – maybe there’s a bit of peer pressure when you can see others filling out their slips.
The key elements that make this method effective include:
Anonymity – students are more honest when they can provide feedback anonymously.
Simplicity – the slips contain only a couple of questions, making them quick and easy to complete.
Routine – because this happens every lecture, students become accustomed to it and engage more actively.
I read through all the responses as soon as possible, usually right after class. This allows me to identify common themes and areas of confusion. If multiple students are struggling with the same concept, I dedicate time in the next lecture to revisit it. I also make small, real-time adjustments to my teaching methods based on their feedback, and I make sure to tell students what changes I’ve made.
Impact and student feedback
The impact of LCCs has been overwhelmingly positive. Students appreciate having a direct way to communicate their thoughts, and I have been able to improve my teaching based on their input.
Some of the specific changes I have made due to student feedback include:
Adding more group discussions – initially, I used Padlet for anonymous contributions, assuming students would prefer it. However, after receiving comments about how much they enjoyed in-person discussions, I phased out Padlet and encouraged more verbal participation.
Adding takeaway slides – a student noted that they found the summary slides at the end of the lecture to be helpful. As a result, I began systematically adding these at the end of each sub-section of the lecture, not just at the end.
Clarifying graphs with bullet points – after feedback that some graphs were difficult to interpret, I started adding brief bullet point summaries next to them.
Beyond structural improvements, LCCs also humanise the classroom experience. Students sometimes share personal reflections or stories related to the lecture content. For example, after discussing social networks and “six degrees of separation”, a student excitedly told me about two friends who had a “Bacon number” of two. Another student connected a discussion on kindness to cultural practices in their home country.
During one class session, a student left during the break and handed their LCC to me as they left. When I read it after the lecture, I discovered that the student had used it to explain why they had left early: a difficult personal/family issue. Luckily, I teach a small enough class that I was able to figure out which student wrote the LCC, and I was able to reach out and offer them support.
From my perspective, the emotional impact of reading these responses is also significant. Teaching can be draining, but knowing that students are engaged, enjoying discussions, and valuing the course content is incredibly motivating. I often look forward to reading their comments as soon as I can.
Top tips
Keep it simple and flexible – ask only one or two questions, and encourage students to share whatever is on their minds
Show/tell students how you have used their feedback. They want to know that it is worth their time, that you are really listening and open to their suggestions.
Pair this practice with a moment of connection as students leave class. I stand at the door to collect the LCCs, which gives me a chance to make eye contact and exchange pleasantries with every student.
NOTE: I’m currently using this technique in a final year optional module with 60 students, but I have used it in classes of several hundred students too.
Dr. Eljee Javier is an Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer in English Language Teaching at the University of Sussex. She is the Course Convenor for the MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL and works extensively in transnational education and intensive English programmes.
Dr Eljee Javier
What I Did
The Peer-Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) project was developed to support international students during their postgraduate studies, particularly in the period after formal teaching had ended and dissertation work had begun. The initiative provided structured, student-led study groups focused on academic writing and peer support.
The PASS facilitators were international students themselves and were trained to lead the sessions. The participants worked collaboratively on their writing project, such as a small section of a chapter, or an outline for rewriting their conclusion. The aim was not to provide proofreading services but to create a space for discussion, clarification, and mutual learning.
Sessions included structured activities such as exchanging a paragraph of their writing with a fellow student (not necessarily from the same discipline), asking specific questions for peer feedback, and encouraging students to reflect on their writing skills.
Why I Did It
The idea for PASS stemmed from discussions with MA students who expressed feelings of isolation after teaching had ended. The absence of structured classes made it challenging for them to stay engaged and connected with peers. While the University already offered academic writing workshops (via ELAS) and individual tutoring, students sought a more communal, interactive approach to undertaking their dissertations.
PASS aimed to bridge this gap by fostering a sense of academic community among international students. The sessions were designed to be informal yet purposeful, allowing students to build confidence in their writing and academic communication skills in a supportive environment.
How It Worked
Four international students were recruited as PASS facilitators. They were responsible for organizing sessions, booking rooms, and promoting the initiative. Facilitators received training on session management and peer learning techniques. They were not expected to teach content but to guide discussions and problem-solving exercises.
Each session had a clear structure, including icebreakers, guided discussions, and peer feedback activities. Students brought a paragraph of their writing to share and discuss with others.
A small budget was provided for snacks, helping create a welcoming and relaxed atmosphere. Facilitators coordinated room bookings and promotional efforts within the student community.
Impact and Student Feedback
The initiative was well received, with an average of 15-20 students attending each session. Key benefits highlighted by students included:
A supportive, low-risk environment for discussing academic challenges.
Improved confidence in writing through peer review and discussion.
A sense of community and belonging, reducing feelings of isolation.
Enhanced ability to articulate writing challenges and seek appropriate support.
Two main criticisms emerged:
Students expressed a desire for PASS to run throughout the year rather than just during dissertation season.
Some students initially expected proofreading services, requiring clearer communication about the session’s objectives.
Lessons Learned & Recommendations
For educators or departments considering a similar initiative, here are key takeaways:
Identify and train student facilitators well in advance ensures smooth implementation.
Work closely with administrative staff to streamline room bookings, budget allocation, and session planning.
Clearly communicate that the sessions focus on collaborative learning, not proofreading.
Consider offering PASS sessions year-round to support students at different stages of their studies.
Focus on small details, such as providing a variety of culturally inclusive snacks, contribute to student engagement and comfort.
Future Plans
Based on positive feedback, there is potential to expand PASS, integrating it into departmental support structures. Future iterations could:
Extend the model to final-year undergraduate students.
Work closely with academics, who could then recommend these events to the students who could really benefit.
By fostering a peer-supported learning environment, PASS has demonstrated the value of informal academic spaces that complement existing university resources. The initiative highlights the importance of student-led learning in building confidence, academic skills, and a sense of belonging in higher education.
Geoffrey Makstutis is Head of the School of Design at West Dean College, one of the University of Sussex’s partner institutions. He holds degrees in architecture from the University of Michigan and the Architectural Association and a postgraduate qualification in teaching and learning for higher education. He was formerly the Course Leader for BA Architecture at Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts London; where he also led several research projects and acted as a PhD Supervisor. He has taught and lectured at institutions around the world and as Subject Lead for Construction, Art, and Design Media; with Pearson Education, he led the development of higher education qualifications across these different subject areas.
Geoffrey is a published author of two books. “Architecture: An Introduction” (2010) and “Design Process in Architecture” (2018). He has also authored numerous articles on architecture, construction, media and education. He is a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Architects Registration Board, a Fellow of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
A key experience in the studying of design subjects is the critique or ‘Crit’. Primarily used in formative assessment, this engagement between student and teacher involves the student presenting, typically, work-in-progress and then tutor and student discuss how the work is progressing. This may involve the tutor challenging the student on aspects of the work; with the student seeking to support their position. The tutor may discuss ways in which the student might consider further development. In short, the aim of the Crit is to provide the student with an opportunity to engage in an analytical discourse on their design work and an opportunity to ‘test’ their conceptual and critical approach to their work.
The most important aspect of the Crit is that it is interactive. Where written feedback is often valuable, it is received after the event and is purely one-directional (from tutor to student). While a student may have a follow-up meeting with a tutor to discuss the written feedback, which can be valuable in understanding the feedback, it is further ‘distanced’ from the work and limits how the student can apply the feedback; as they must wait until clarification can be sought. The Crit is live and feedback is continuous throughout the activity. Further, this can also be an activity that engages peers in providing commentary and critique to each other.
However, this does not suggest that a Crit can result in just a discussion. For the student, who may often be nervous about presenting their work, it is easy for key points to be forgotten in the back and forth of discussion. So, there is a need for some record of the discussion. This could be a video or audio recording, but the introduction of such media can often result in people feeling they must ‘perform’ or they become less open in their discussion; stilted in their delivery as they worry that they might say ‘the wrong thing’. Ideally, a written record of the key points of the discussion will be the most effective. Herein lies another challenge. If the tutor is making notes, the flow of their discussion can be disjointed as they seek to write what they are saying. Similarly, if the student is taking notes, they may miss important points raised by the tutor or fail to engage, fully, in the discussion; as they become focused on recording.
We have sought to address these challenges by instigating a collaborative note-taking format during Crits. This sees students working pairs to take notes for each other during their counterpart’s discussion with the tutor.
In practice, this allows the student and the tutor to be actively engaged in a discussion about the work being presented, without needing to stop and take notes. The discussion can flow more freely, without interruption or worry that something may be missed while trying to record points in the discussion. However, there are additional benefits; beyond the initial discussion.
The student pairs are encouraged to meet, after the end of the session, to review notes with each other and discuss. This encourages further peer-to-peer discussion about the work, as each can seek clarification from the other – “what do you think the tutor meant when they said…?” or “You know, the same point was made in your discussion as in mine, let’s look at our work together…” The model also provides multiple points at which students are encouraged to reflect on the feedback they have received, as they receive it, in discussion with their pair, and independently after the discussion. In this way, the collaborative note-taking approach has greater potential for students to engage in a more meaningful and evaluative consideration of the feedback.
In some cases, there may be a need for the tutor to have a record of the feedback, but this can also be based on the collaborative note-taking from the students. Tutors may instruct students to email a copy of the notes, following the peer-to-peer discussion. When these are received, the tutor has the opportunity to either file these as a record of the feedback or, if necessary, send a short email back to the student to further clarify a point in the feedback (that may not have been fully articulated in the notes) – “…don’t forget that we also discussed the possibility that you might look at…” or “…when I mentioned X, this was intended to give you another area for investigation.”
Theory into Practice
This collaborative note-taking practice fits well within pedagogic models, such as Laurillard’s Conversational Framework. In Laurillard’s framework we see how the teacher’s and student’s concepts interact and feed to peer concepts through ‘discussing’. This is what we aim to achieve through the Crit, where a tutor and student explore the student’s work and invite discussion among peers.
Our note-taking model brings the ‘collaborating’ activity, found in Laurillard’s framework, into action and; through the collaborative feedback provides an opportunity for students to explore their own (design) practice with their partner such that they build a sense of peer practice. While this is primarily focused around the sharing of design practice experience, the very nature of the activity also builds a sense of peer practice in feedback and discussion; both of which are key features of professional design studios.
Conclusion
Developing successful teaching and learning strategies is often about finding solutions that are effective for learners and manageable for teachers. While the idea of manageability may seem like a derogation of a teacher’s responsibility to support the learner, there is a difference between things that are ‘easier’ and things that are manageable. When faced with high student numbers and the need to actively engage in the review and discussion of student work, time can be a critical factor. The teaching of design requires careful consideration of a multitude of factors (conceptual development, theory into practice, technical resolution, communication, practical skill), all of which must be explored when discussing a student’s work. In such a context, the ability to engage in discussion, without distractions for the teacher and the student, is profound.
Collaborative note-taking during verbal feedback, in the Crit, provides a manageable and effective means of recording the content of a discussion between student and teacher. In addition, the collaborative nature of the activity creates a context in which students build greater understanding of their own work while supporting colleagues to develop further. In short, it’s win-win for teachers and students.
References
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. London: Routledge.
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 runs monthly, and each month is centred around a particular theme. The theme of our fifth episode is ‘creating an autism-friendly university’, and we will hear from Dr Sophie Anns (Associate Professor in Psychology).
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 neurodiversity and our guest is Doctor Sophie Anns from Psychology. Our names are Heather Taylor and Wendy Garnham and we are your presenters today. Welcome everyone.
All
Hello.
Wendy Garnham
So, Sophie, can you tell us a little about the context of your scholarship in the area of neurodiversity?
Sophie Anns
Sure. OK. Before I came to Sussex, I did my PhD in Learning and Memory in children with complex needs with autism. And that gave me a really sort of good insight into sort of how children learn and some of that research was also applied in another study that I did with the criminal justice system, which was looking at how to interview autistic witnesses. And I thought that some of that we could really apply to how students learn at University, so when I was at Sussex, I thought, oh, you know, let’s look at that, not so much memory, but more about learning and how children learn and obviously there has been a very positive move in the theories behind autism and neurodiversity, lot more of neurofirmative approaches that are around now, which is really nice to be able to tap into, and also look at students at university and how they learn.
Heather Taylor 1:40
What issues do you see as being particularly pressing in this area?
Sophie Anns
There’s quite a few. I would say the main one is probably the rise in numbers of neurodivergent students that we’re seeing, especially in the last few years. And I’m sure you guys also notice it in your classes. It’s across the board and some of this is related to increased number of diagnosis as well. So yeah, there’s overall sort of massive increase. And I think we’re at the point where universities, as an institution, we’re just not set up for it at many levels. Practically speaking, at a sort of spatial and infrastructural level, but also the way we teach, the way we disseminate and share knowledge, the way we assess it. Basically, across the board a switch is just really, really important and if we focus more on autism, which is more my sort of expertise or sort of specialism. And if we look at sort of autistic people generally they have such a need and desire to have fulfilled and focused interests and that on paper, basically an autistic student, on paper, should thrive at university. Because of this, their abilities and strengths, their focused interest, which is what a degree actually is of course. And also, their detailed focused thinking. So, we should be able to maximize and capitalize on those strengths. Specifically, again, you know in sort of all degrees across the board, there’s going to be that element that might not have been present so much at school. So really on paper, they should thrive at university. And the sad thing is that they’re not. There’s a big gap here that we need to address.
Wendy Garnham 3:38
Yeah. I think sometimes it’s having the opportunity to demonstrate those particular skills as missing isn’t it?
Sophie Anns
Yeah. It’s enabling that and recognising it as a strength. And you know in the way we teach in the way we assess as well. I think it’s, you know, more present in some degrees, perhaps in others, just by the very nature of the discipline. But it’s something that we, yeah, could really draw out of students more I think.
Wendy Garnham
I think sometimes it’s about taking the risk in terms of changes to what we’re doing and teaching. Quite off putting I think. But doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it, but I do think that is a barrier. So, can you, on that note, give us an idea of what scholarship projects you are or have been working on?
Sophie Anns
Yeah. So, I’ve been working on a few. Probably the first one that I worked on was
as I said earlier, looking at this sort of learning in autistic students, and I wanted to look of course at well-being because that impacts hugely their studies. It’s just too huge in autism. So, I wanted to focus purely on academic learning experiences. And by that I mean sort of everything that comes into their academic learning basically. So yeah, it’s going to be what’s going on outside of their work as well. So of course, mental health is going to impact that, but it’s more looking at things like all the different learning contexts, so examinations, whether they’re in- person or online, different types of coursework and assessment. How well they do at self-directed study?
So, we basically developed a measure, a questionnaire exploring these academic learning experiences and we looked at these sort of different learning contexts and then we also looked at some other elements that we called dimensions. So, these were more around things like sensory reactivity, which is big in autism. In autism, sensory issues can be sort of hypo or hypersensitive, and that could in the learning context translate to things like what it’s like in a lecture theatre – can they actually focus and concentrate if there’s a bright light, or if someone’s eating a packet of crisps next to you, for example? This questionnaire that we created really was trying to capture these in a real sort of context. These rich contexts of experiences, other things we looked at with things like social anxiety in group learning, and things around peer support, things around mono focus, which was our sort of term for combining monotropism and hyperfocus. So, the ability to have either this tunnel vision or focusing on one thing at a time or that sort of detailed oriented processing as well. And one other thing I can’t remember off the top of my head. So anyway, we developed this measure, had huge feedback from students on that, and we’re just trying to, at the moment, validate it. We’re on our second round of revisions with the journal, so we’re hoping that’s going to be a measure that will be validated and published and that will be able to be used, obviously not just in research, but also with Student Services – they can use it on a one to one basis with students to help them answer questions about how they’re doing and look at where their strengths and weaknesses, in terms of their experiences, actually are.
Wendy Garnham 7:10
Sounds like a fantastic resource.
Sophie Anns
I hope so.
Wendy Garnham
One that will be well used, I think.
Heather Taylor
Yeah. In terms of, you know, you said you got student feedback. So how did you approach that? How did you identify students to give you the feedback? Was the uptake good, how did they feel about the experience of giving you too many questions in a row?
Sophie Anns
No, I mean, I’m really glad you asked that because it’s really important. This took actually years to develop and I started with some of my project students, my undergrad project students, getting them to think about the academic learning experience. This was a co-created participatory research design. And they were mainly non autistic at that point, but we got them to sort of sketch out what academic learning experiences for you? What do they look like? And then we involve some autistic students and we ran then a pilot study. This was just after the pandemic or sort of coming out of the pandemic. We put it online and we got hundreds and hundreds of students to take part. I think in the second round we also put it on SONA for psychology students here, but we’ve had about 1000 responses. And worldwide from other countries as well.
Wendy Garnham 8:29
It’s incredible, that many participants.
Sophie Anns
Yeah, we were lucky. I think if we did it now, we wouldn’t get so many because I think post pandemic everyone’s a bit sort of fatigued by, you know, there’s a bit of participant fatigue out there. But for then it was really, really good. But we kept that co-creation process going, so we did a pilot study first and then we did it again, we revised all the items in the questionnaire again with several autistic students, and one particularly that worked on it in her placement year. And she’s now a first author on the paper, which is great. It’s actually, you know, really beneficial for people involved as well.
Heather Taylor
I actually really like the fact, though, that it started from students. You’ve gone and got the student experience to begin with. And then, because it actually is, well, doing it that way, I know you said the majority of them are undergraduate students who didn’t have autism to begin with. But I think finding out what potentially neurotypical students are experiencing in the classroom and then thinking about, OK, it almost gives you that way to look at, is it an equal experience, you know to start from there? So I think that’s great, and it’s just so nice that the whole way it’s been very much student-informed, sort of student co-lead, its lovely.
Wendy Garnham 9:51
I think that enables you as well to get at the details, isn’t it? Because there’s a lot of very general advice, but actually something that really gets to the nitty gritty of what that experience is like in terms of the detailed experience of what’s going on in a lecture theatre. You know that I think is really useful. My next question is what impact do you hope your scholarship will have? I have one particular interest myself, in that, which is given what you found out, are there plans to develop sort of recommendations or ideas for how to support neurodiversity in the classroom as a result of your scholarship?
Sophie Anns
Yeah, quite a few. So we’ve got, hopefully, this measure is going to get validated in a research context, which would be really good. We have some universities in the States already using it in their disability services. We created an infographic which is full of recommendations and there’s a research base which is on the University Academic Development website I think already, we’re going to update that with news of figures from the actual study, but basically it’s all the same, it’s just different numbers, but you know the same thing occurred, the same findings exist. Also I was very lucky to visit a university in India this year where we’re trying to set up a partnership between our schools and I shared the infographic and the study with them and they’re going to be able to use it with their students. And then we later had this really nice sort of research conclave discussion where a few of us from psychology went over in September, and one of the sessions was about the lived experience of neurodivergent students. And there we were sort of able to sort of compare the cross cultural differences between student experiences. So that was really, really useful. And I hope useful for them and their students over there as well. We all benefited from it and it was really interesting. And then also what this study has sort of led into has being this new collaboration with Anna Franklin and John Moore who look at visual discomfort. And Claire, who’s the first author and worked on this, the other previous study, is now doing her PhD in this, and this project is going to be looking at visual discomfort in autism, but it’s going to have a focus on educational environments and she’s going to use the Sussex campus as her sort of first trial, if you like. She’s going to again involve students, it’s a participatory project, and get them to sort of go around campus and see where they experience visual discomfort and sort of take photographs of that, and create the stimuli from that and then we’re going to get those rated by students and other people later. There’s lots of aspects to this project. But I think the important thing that’s going to come out of this project is it is going to be able to inform designers and architects and get them to revise any guidelines there are around neurodiversity in spaces. So that project particularly is around, yeah, space, you know, visual discomfort and space. And some other work that I’ve been doing as well, sort of trying to get this initiative going at Sussex, looking at trying to make Sussex a more autism friend university, with that more neurodiversity friendly as a whole. So we’ve worked a little bit with the library looking at the spaces there, working with academic development on sort of staff training. Probably some other things that I can’t think of off the top of my head. I guess it sort of spanned out into quite a few different projects in a sense.
Wendy Garnham 13:38
Yeah, it sounds like the impact’s been quite diverse.
Heather Taylor
I think that the thing you said about the lights, so that is so common. I don’t know whether the student’s autistic or, I can’t remember who’s said when. But it’s very common when I go into a teaching space that they won’t like the lights, you know, want the lights off, which is fair enough. But yeah, there is quite a need for this, and it’s actually really important because I think if I just ignored them and kept the lights as they are, they would really struggle to concentrate. And like I said, I don’t think this is always necessarily autistic students, I think it’s quite common that you know, for whatever reasons it might be, these sorts of fluorescent lights can really interrupt with someone’s concentration. But I suppose that’s the way with when you’re trying to make a more neurodiverse friendly environment it does tend to benefit everyone, doesn’t it?
Sophie Anns
Yes, absolutely. And I think that’s a problem, especially with autism specifically and neurodivergence more generally is that people want a sort of one-size-fits-all tick box, this is how we solve it all. And on one side we’re never going to have that. It’s always about just trying to tailor everything to the individual but at the same time you say very rightly Heather, if we sort of tap into principles of universal design, some of the things most of the things that are going to benefit neurodivergent people is going to benefit all. So it’s striking that balance. So yeah, I think that’s really important and lighting is absolutely key. Yeah, it really. I have the same when I go into you know seminars or workshops, the first thing I do is like, right, let’s all sort out the lighting, the seating and the lighting. And you know, it’s a free for all.
Wendy Garnham
Yeah. I wonder just on that note, how neurodiverse students find outdoor learning. Just as a contrast to that indoor lighting, artificial lighting and sort of very constrained environment, whether learning outdoors is beneficial or whether there’s a sort of a similar sort of issue with over stimulation but in a different way, a different context. But that would be interesting to explore.
Sophie Anns 15:54
It’s really interesting and I think generally people would say it’s probably better because it’s natural, it’s the outdoors, there’s sort of less stimulation. But I know some students that really struggle with the wind, for example, and as we know here, it’s really windy. So yeah, there could be other sort of sensory sensitivities around. Rain. Wind. What’s happening? And it’s quite interesting because that taps into the sort of biophilia sort of theory about how we often assume that nature is best and less stressful. And this comes into some of the work that Claire’s going to be looking at around visual discomfort from a sort of more theoretical standpoint. But we assume natural is better and sometimes it. But actually, if we think about nature, it’s actually a very stimulating environment to be in. And I think there’s some research and I say this very broadly and vaguely, that says, and I’m quoting someone else here, that if you’re already stressed then being in nature is not going to calm you down and help. But if you’re not, then it will. And I’m sure it’s not as straightforward as that. I think that’s quite interesting. But I would love to, you know, personally do much more sort of outdoor teaching like you do, Wendy. But just look at the weather half the time!
Wendy Garnham
Yeah, I’ve done a walking seminar in the cold today and it was freezing. But it does just bring a different atmosphere I think to what we’re doing. So I was saying to Heather earlier, we were sitting in the seminar room – nobody wanted to talk to anybody else. Was very quiet. Very short answers to questions where you know I got an answer at all. The minute we stepped outside, they all started talking to each other, to me, I think there’s something about that idea that if you’re walking and talking the conversation flows naturally, it doesn’t feel like there’s a spotlight on you. It just creates this nice sort of atmosphere of, you know, it’s easy to talk and it’s easy to share ideas and thoughts. But interestingly, we were looking at different blue spaces on campus today and looking at how restorative they found the different blue spaces and what factors might be sort of implicated in their decisions. And so yeah, really interesting, it’ll be interesting to see what their results are
Sophie Anns
Can I ask you a question? What’s your maximum number for a walking seminar?
Wendy Garnham
Normally our seminars are about 20 students max. Today it was my smaller group, so I had seven students, but I mean, you can do it in different ways. Today we did just pairing up or a small group of three, and I gave them like a list of where we were going. They had that in advance so that they knew what the plan was, what the route was. I gave them their questions to consider at each location, so yeah, basically it worked really well because we were all moving together as one. But they were chatting within their pairs or their small groups of three, and it really did facilitate conversation. Yeah, it works. And I think you can as long as you sort of have those smaller groups within a bigger group, it works. It’s just I think trying to do with everybody talking to everyone else or just one person talking amongst the whole crowd I’m not sure that would be as effective. It’s that idea that when you’re walking, whoever you’re next to, it’s just easy to generate conversation. And even at this stage in term, there were students there that hadn’t met, or at least hadn’t worked together before that were introducing themselves to each other. And without any intervention from me, it was just naturally happening. So yeah, I think it’s something that’s quite interesting in terms of neurodiversity and how it can break down barriers. But it’d be interesting to see for, you know, autism, how the symptoms there and the experiences actually feed into that.
Sophie Anns 20:09
Definitely. I mean, I think it generally it would be really, really helpful and especially alleviating that social anxiety and sort of it takes a focus off you, doesn’t it as well. Just sort of more about chatting with the other person. And you’re out in the fresh air, which is always good, even if it’s freezing. They can also, you know, complain about how cold it is as well. Part of a bonding experience as well.
Wendy Garnham
Exactly. But I think it also takes the onus off of us as the instructor because it does sort of strip away that hierarchy. It does sort of facilitate that sort of cooperative collaborative talk. So yeah, it’s it’ll be an interesting one to explore, I think.
Heather Taylor
What advice would you give to anyone regarding scholarship in the area of neurodiversity?
Sophie Anns
I think probably one of the first things I was saying, and it’s leads back to your point, Heather, that you mentioned earlier is about including the neurodivergent students in your research, if possible or projects or work whatever it is that you’re doing. Because that’s just key in getting that, you know, co-creating whatever you’re doing with them. And if it’s research trying to do participatory research with them and, you know, putting them at the sort of centre of the activity or the task or the research, I think it’s really important. So that would be one bit of advice and I think another thing, maybe something that I found useful has been collaborating with other people, not just at Sussex, but elsewhere. If I think about that PhD, how that’s come about, that’s the sort of collaboration, which has just been wonderful. And also I think sometimes, you know, some pedagogical research I come across, sometimes can suffer a little bit, methods wise I would say, and I can say that with you two, because you’re both psychologists, know what I mean? So I think sometimes collaborating with other researchers where there might be, you know, another skill or area that’s missing can be really good. And I think probably the main thing is finding a community or other people to work with, even if again, it that’s not at your own university. And I think if anyone’s interested in doing scholarship work in neurodiversity I can recommend that they join an international community of practice – it’s called Canvas, not to be confused with our learning platform at Sussex, but it stands for let me think, the community of autism. Yeah, Community Autism Network, Virtual Association of Scholars. And I think if you Google that, you’d probably get it. It’s an international network that are all looking at, basically autistic students at university and I think that would be a really good starting point and a great thing to join. And I think it’s just finding your people and working with others and also in an interdisciplinary way, especially with scholarship and pedagogical work. I think we have so much freedom to do that and that’s one of the main areas where I actually do love this role is that, you know, I just get to work with so many different people in different sort of subject areas. Also with professional services with EE here as well as Academic Development, it’s sort of across the board really, Student Services.
Wendy Garnham 23:36
I would like to thank our guests Sophie Anns.
Sophie Anns
Well, thank you very much for having me also.
Wendy Garnham
And thank you for listening. Goodbye.
Wendy Garnham
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/learningmatters.
Simon Overton 24:25
This is Simon, the producer. I’m just going to jump in, I hope you don’t mind Heather and Wendy if I do. So I was very interested to understand a little bit more. You’ve mentioned visual discomfort a few times, and I’m getting a sort of a picture in my mind of what that is. We have talked, Wendy and Heather have, a little bit about sort of what I guess is audio discomfort, buzzy things and things like that. But, could you expand a little bit on what visual discomfort is and how that might impact on students at university?
Sophie Anns
Sure. That’s a really good question. And I don’t know if I can that well because I don’t really get it, lots of us don’t. I think most of us can relate to audio discomfort a lot more easily, but say with visual discomfort, it could be like now I’m looking at these bricks in front of me. So I’m looking at sort of a brick, literally a brick wall. So for some people, all those lines could be quite sort of uniform and comforting. For others, maybe the contrast between the dark colour brick and the cement in the middle would be too much, so it could be one or the other of course, but that sort of maybe the sort of things we’re going to be thinking about. I mean, I’m only going on what other people have said, so things that it’s often to do with lines. Might be staircases, corridors and obviously lighting, lighting always comes into it. And then I guess images of nature, so the trees you know, generally most likely going to be positive. But I think it’s more the architecture and the harsh lines and the contrast of the colours. With these incidents of visual discomfort, it’s not just that ‘Oh, I’m not really sure I like the look of that’, for some autistic people that can cause actual physical pain, and they might feel it as a sort of burning sensation through their spinal cord, for example. Or it means they just can’t focus in any way. You know it’s quite extreme because I think even, you know, for myself as neurotypical person, I can relate to the idea of it. I don’t really experience it, but I can imagine. But actually, you know, for autistic people and probably some other people that are neurodivergent it can translate as physical pain through the body. So it’s really important to investigate it for sure.
Simon Overton 26:35
A funny and very simple fix for one of these. So with the flickering, our electrical system in the UK is 50 hertz . So the light is switching on and switching off 50 times every second, which is faster than we should be able to see it. But a lot of equipment, camera equipment and projectors and so on, their default is America, which operates at 60 hertz. So when you have that difference, and if your camera is not set up, you will get flashing or a flickering on your phone. If you’ve ever tried to, I don’t know if anybody else tries to do this, but if you ever try to film like a train or a bus and they have the sign on the front, if your phone is not set up right, if it’s set to an American or NTSC instead of PAL, the sign on the front of the bus will flicker because it’s operating at a different refresh rate to your camera. So that’s a really easy thing to fix, you go into the settings and you just set it to the PAL setting – whether it’s the camera or projector or whatever it is, but a lot of people wouldn’t know to do that, and if someone, if a lecturer for example, has recorded a video or something or an online seminar or something like that – the entire thing – and it’s and it’s set to NTSC the entire video is going to be flickering and it’s going to be driving people like me nuts. And again I’m probably neurotypical, I’ve not really being checked one way or the other, but if it irritates me, I can imagine that it’ll be extremely frustrating for someone who is not neurotypical.
Sophie Anns
Yeah, absolutely. I just wonder if you can fix this problem in my kitchen, Simon.
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 The Learning Matters Forum.
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.
