Learners, teachers and places: A conceptual framework for creative pedagogies

Main Article Content

Nathalie Tasler Vicki Harcus Morgan Dale https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6623-7412

Abstract

This exploratory paper introduces a theoretical framework which helps educators in higher education to navigate the complex relationships between self, students, and place. It is also written for academic developers who support the evolving identities and pedagogies of lecturers undertaking professional development.  The framework focuses on students, teachers and places as actors (first space) that interact, giving rise to transformational (second) spaces. At the heart of the framework (third space), all three actors dynamically interact through creative pedagogies for active, transformational learning, physically and/or digitally. Although the term ‘third space’ typically refers to the merging of two physical places (Flessner, 2014), we perceive it here as a merging of three ‘actors’ with constantly changing identities to create a dynamic third space for transformation and student-centred learning

Article Details

Section
On the Horizon
Author Biographies

Nathalie Tasler, University of Glasgow

University Lecturer in Academic and Digital Development, Learning Enhancement and Academic Development Service

Vicki Harcus Morgan Dale, University of Glasgow

Vicki is a Senior Academic and Digital Development Adviser at the University of Glasgow. With a background in archaeology, learning technology and veterinary education, her work is currently focused on active learning and technology-enhanced learning, with a strong focus on learning design for meaningful student engagement.

References

Bainbridge, A., Gaitanidis, A., & Chapman Hoult, E. (2017). When learning becomes a fetish: the pledge, turn and prestige of magic tricks. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2017.1403950
Bali, M. (2015). Pedagogy of Care — Gone Massive. https://hybridpedagogy.org/pedagogy-of-care-gone-massive/
Bovill, C., & Bulley, C. J. (2011). A model of active student participation in curriculum design: exploring desirability and possibility. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving Student Learning (ISL) 18: Global Theories and Local Practices: Institutional, Disciplinary and Cultural Variations. Series: Improving Student Learning (18). (pp. 176–188). Oxford Brookes University: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
Bridge, G. (2013). A Transactional Perspective on Space. International Planning Studies, 18(3–4), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2013.833728
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Engaging Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching: A Guide for Faculty. Jossey-Bass. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wBoRAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT11&dq=cook-sather+bovill+%26+felten+2014&ots=kKt0sX8TLv&sig=XAq6EvAVq40FwTbFZP2ZCTVh8vE#v=onepage&q=cook-sather bovill %26 felten 2014&f=false
Dixon, F. J., & Pilkington, R. (2017). Poor relations? Tensions and torment; a view of excellence in teaching and learning from the Cinderella sector. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(4), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1301912
Flessner, R. (2014). Revisiting Reflection: Utilizing Third Spaces in Teacher Education. https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/coe_papers/37
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Ghilay, Y., & Ghilay, R. (2015). TBAL: Technology-Based Active Learning in Higher Education. Journal of Education and Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1076407
Hanesworth, P. (n.d.). Active Learning. AdvanceHE Scotland Thematic Series. Retrieved October 16, 2020, from https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/scotland/thematic-series/active-learning
Hannan, L., Duhs, R., & Chatterjee, H. (2016). Object-based learning: A powerful pedagogy for higher education. In A. Boddington, J. Boys, & C. Speight (Eds.), Museums and Higher Education Working Tgoether: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 159–168). Routledge.
Hauge, Å. L. (2007). Identity and Place: A Critical Comparison of Three Identity Theories. Architectural Science Review, 50(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2007.5007
Hendrix, K. G., Jackson, R. L., & Warren, J. R. (2003). Shifting Academic Landscapes: Exploring Co-Identities, Identity Negotiation, and Critical Progressive Pedagogy. In Communication Education (Vol. 52, Issues 3–4, pp. 177–190). https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452032000156181
Howe, R., & Armellini, A. (2020). Raising the quality curve at Northampton. Jisc Building Digital Capability and Digital Experience Insights Community of Practice Event, 21 May 2020. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/events/building-digital-capability-and-digital-experience-insights-community-of-practice-21-may-2020#
Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative Learning re-defined: as changes in elements of the identity. International Journal of Lifelong Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2014.917128
Johnston, B., Macneill, S., & Smyth, K. (2018). Conceptualising the Digital University the Intersection of Policy, Pedagogy and Practice. In Book. http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14952
Jørgensen, K. M. (2018). Spaces of performance: a storytelling approach to learning in higher education. Learning Organization. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-11-2017-0104
Keupp, H. (2020). Individualisierte Identitätsarbeit in spätmodernen Gesellschaften (pp. 41–65). Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-23580-2_3
Key, S., Gross, M. D., & Yi-Luen Do, E. (2008). Computing Spatial Qualities for Architecture.
Kidd, D. (2015). Becoming Mobius : the complex matter of education.
King, A. (1993). From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1993.9926781
Kuksa, I., & Childs, M. (2014). Making Sense of Space. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-16963-2
Kumpulainen, K., & Rajala, A. (2017). Dialogic teaching and students’ discursive identity negotiation in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 48, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEARNINSTRUC.2016.05.002
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. Routledge.
Lengen, C., Timm, C., & Kistemann, T. (2019). Place identity, autobiographical memory and life path trajectories: The development of a place-time-identity model. Social Science and Medicine, 227, 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.039
Löw, M., & Goodwin, D. (2016). The sociology of space: materiality, social structures, and action. In Cultural sociology.
Magnússon, G., & Rytzler, J. (2019). Approaching higher education with Didaktik: university teaching for intellectual emancipation. European Journal of Higher Education, 9(2), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1515030
Mezirow, J. (2009). Transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow & E. W. Taylor (Eds.), Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education (pp. 18–31). Jossey-Bass.
Phipps, L., Allen, R., & Hartland, D. (2018). Next generation digital learning: Hot teaching and learning is changing in a digital world. Jisc Project Overview and Reports. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/rd/projects/next-generation-digital-learning
Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital Storytelling: A Powerful Technology Tool for the 21st Century Classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47(3), 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802153916
Soukup, C. (2006). Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: Building Oldenburg’s great good places on the world wide web. New Media and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444806061953
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003548313194