 Welcome to this session as part of that old conference. Good morning if you're in this time zone and good whatever time of day is if you're in other time zones. I'm going to hand over nice and quickly so we make most of the most of the time to Neil Hughes who you could see the title there on screen because it's all very slick so you know it's the future of teaching and learning in the arts and humanities. The student view obviously always interested in the student view session is about 25 minutes and we'll have some we'll have a bit of time for Q and at the end to drop your questions into the kind of question comment area but for the to get us started I'll hand over to you Neil off you go. Okay great so the future of teaching and learning in the arts and humanities the student view my name's Neil Hughes and I'm one of two digital learning directors in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Nottingham. So COVID-19 has catapulted digitally enhanced teaching and learning forward in ways unimaginable prior to the global pandemic. For some academics this has been an unwelcome disruption that has highlighted the poverty of online education and of this mode of teaching's associated tools and methods. For these academic colleagues the return to in-person teaching could not come sooner. For others the disruption caused by COVID-19 has offered an opportunity to reimagine their teaching practice and develop new skills and competencies in digital teaching and learning pedagogies. From this cohort of academics there is intense pressure to retain at least some of the flexible working practices and digital transformation that the global health crisis has produced. While these competing positions and narratives will figure prominently in debates about the legacy of the pandemic in higher education also of relevance to the future of teaching and learning in universities the students own reflections and perspectives on their experiences since the pandemic struck and it is on this issue that this paper focuses its attention. The taking stock of the student view is particularly important if the future fails to provide the solace that many of those hoping for a return to business as you crave and the resolution of the pandemic remains slow and uneven. In such a scenario we may very well find that the new normal is one of fits and starts in which national governments continue to open, close and reopen campuses again in response to waves of infection much as they have since March 2020. What then are arts and humanities students saying about their experiences and what are the consequences for teaching and learning if the resolution of the pandemic remains slow and uneven? So to answer these questions the paper draws on two main sources of data. So firstly the answers students provided to open-ended questions in GISC's 2021 student digital experience insight survey about what they liked and disliked about their online learning experiences during the pandemic and secondly qualitative student feedback from the Faculty of Arts at the University of Nottingham. While not limited to arts to students in the arts and humanities the GISC survey provides a set of key themes patterns and areas to interrogate in date in greater depth than the University of Nottingham data. To ascertain if there were any parallels similarities or differences between the sector wide picture and students experiences of teaching and learning during the pandemic in the Faculty of Arts the GISC results were compared to feedback provided by student representatives as reported in the minutes of staff student committees that go under the title of learning community forums conducted at school and departmental levels during the course 2021. So LCFs learning community forums are one of the main mechanisms students at the University of Nottingham have to provide feedback and shape decisions during the course of the academic year and the minutes of these meetings are one of the few if only sources of qualitative data available on students experiences of the pandemic and the Faculty of Arts. So in total the minutes of 37 LCF meetings were analyzed encompassing the following departments classics in archaeology culture media and visual studies American and Canadian studies English liberal arts history modern languages and cultures music theology and religious studies and philosophy. So why the focus on qualitative data so by choosing to interpret the meanings students have attached to their experiences of teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic this study sidesteps one of the main criticisms of the type of quantitative data capture via self-completion questionnaires that often prevails in student consultations i.e. that they provide few to no opportunities for respondents to construct their own responses and interpretations of their experiences. So according to Maringe although questionnaires give an impression of democratic procedure in that every student is polled they lack in-depth analysis discouraged students from reflecting meaning meaningfully on their experiences and give too much legitimacy to momentary and parting thoughts. So what works and what didn't so before we move on i'd like to invite you to contribute via the chat so any reflections you might have on what students might and what students disliked in your own context of teaching and learning or alternatively you could try to predict the results of the GIST survey then at the end of the presentation if there is any time we can compare and contrast experiences. Okay so moving on so beginning with the positive aspects of their online learning experiences in 2020-21 there was clear evidence in the GIST data of students valuing the flexibility and convenience of the teaching and learning arrangements during the pandemic. More specifically students were positive about the ease of access to learning resources free from time and space constraints via institutional VLEs. This finding was replicated in the Faculty of Arts with one student representative reported as saying that students like the flexibility which online lectures bring but that the social aspect of in-person was missed. One of the areas of resource provision most often singled out for praise by student representatives in the F in the Faculty of Arts was the online provision of lecture recordings. More of a concern was the availability of library resources with several student representatives reporting difficulties accessing books and other resources. Regarding support for learning according to the GIST data students were appreciative of the effort that had gone into curriculum redesign communication and support from academic and professional service staff. Again this finding was echoed in the Faculty of Arts data with several student representatives fulsome in their praise for staff who had gone above and beyond in terms of the support they had provided particularly during the early stages of the pandemic. Other areas in which there was a close correlation between the positive feedback received at both the national and local levels include opportunities to interact with academic staff and support for both asynchronous and synchronous modes of lecture delivery. So while the former was valued for catch-up purposes live sessions were reported as more interactive and engaging. So one of the more counter-intuitive GIST findings was that students found it easier to communicate collaborate and discuss their studies with their lecturers peers and tutors than before. The evidence from the LCF meeting minutes in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Nottingham was however more equivocal on this point. So regarding peer-to-peer discussion and collaboration using breakout rooms for example while some students seem to have enjoyed the opportunity for discussion that such technologies provide others were more critical claiming they derived very little benefit from such interactions. Two areas where the picture was more positive in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Nottingham are contexts in which effective strategies for triggering peer-to-peer interaction were in place and amongst students further along their undergraduate journey such as final year students. So there were of course several negative experiences reported by students in the GIST data in areas such as access to appropriate study space, technical issues, feeding isolated mental health issues and workload related problems. So regarding technical issues the main concern reported in the Open Tech section of the GIST survey concerned poor connectivity and a lack of bandwidth including in on-campus student accommodation. This was echoed to some extent in the arts LCFs where concerns were voiced about primarily off-campus Wi-Fi access. So in one notable example poor Wi-Fi performance in one of the main student neighbourhoods in Nottingham recited as the main reason students were unwilling to put their cameras on in Microsoft Teams meetings. As expected communication isolation and mental health were identified as of concern in both the GIST survey results and in the Faculty of Arts LCF minutes. Another area of student concern in which there was close correlation between the GIST and the Faculty of Arts data had to do with workload and other time related issues. According to GIST students reported receiving too much work that expectations from their lecturers involved a larger volume of independent work than usual but without the benefit of timely support. This was also a common refrain in the LCF comments particularly in cases where students were provided with pre-recorded lectures through the institution of the early. Plus several student reps commented that it takes more time to watch, take notes, take notes and reflect on pre-recorded lectures that it does to attend live lectures delivered through Microsoft Teams. The other main issue in this regard concerns the timeliness of recording availability with students complaining at both the national and local levels of insufficient time to watch videos before attending timetabled online classes. A final issue flagged in the local feedback but not necessarily in the GIST data concerns high-flex teaching which received a mixed reception. So in one set of minutes for example a student representative mentioned that it's difficult to manage and students online sometimes feel like it's harder to engage. While another stated that some students have found high-flex learning to be disruptive due to interference from devices and technical difficulties experienced during the class. So then what about the future? So one of the main criticisms of student engagement initiatives concerns universities failure to live a change in response to student feedback. Such inability to close the loop can be a source of student frustration and is often cited as one of the reasons for their low response rates to surveys and other forms of consultation. Where action is taken it's often perfunctory resulting in little more than cosmetic change. In this paper I argue that universities can start to address this source of student frustration by constructing what I refer to in the paper as future pedagogical imaginaries that hinge on patterns detected in student feedback data. I believe that such imaginaries are particularly valuable in periods of uncertainty such as at the moment when it's unclear which pedagogical strategy is best to follow. So by opening up new imaginative horizons imaginaries can kickstart discussions about pedagogical innovation among staff and students and provide templates to inform curriculum developments. According to Beckett in the context of economics not not education imaginaries such as the ones outlined here can also act performant performatively as self-fulfilling prophecies shaping the decisions that create the outcomes the imaginaries predict. To be plausible they must be rooted in the present embody empirical trends and not constitute too significant a departure from prevailing practices structures and technologies. As Delanti is at pains to point out the future is always tied to the present and so far as possibility must emerge out of actuality. The future is that which is possible and what is possible must come from actuality that which exists. So in this final section of the paper I'll flesh out three pedagogical imaginaries that I argue can be used heuristically my colleagues as they work through the pandemic as they work their way through the pandemic and out the other side. As already mentioned the imaginaries act as creative tools to kickstart debates underpin experimentation and inform pedagogical planning and design and should not be seen as rigid to our models. In each imaginary delivery is flexible i.e. the timetabled elements can be moved seamlessly between in-person and online delivery using video conferencing platforms such as Microsoft Teams and Zoom. Before setting them out it's important to signal that the imaginaries are not in competition it's perfectly feasible for them to peacefully coexist within the same teaching context and neither should they be seen as filling the whole realm of the pedagogical impossible. Finally while of the view that they're relevant to many of the subjects located under the arts and humanities umbrella there may be some performance-based programs in for example the dramatic arts and music for which alternative imaginaries might be more appropriate. So the first pedagogical imaginary posits a flip design based on recorded lectures broken up into chunk segments of up to 10 minutes and delivered asynchronously through an institution of the early. To focus attention on the main concepts and understanding of key issues and themes the videos should be accompanied by tutor prompts that trigger reflection and scaffold engagement. It's also important to ensure that the videos comply with accessibility guidelines for audio vision materials and that students have enough time to view the recordings prior to the delivery of live lecture engagement sessions and or seminars that can be delivered either on campus and or via video conferencing. In this imaginary students are also prompted to complete required readings accompanied where necessary by questions that again scaffold engagement and trigger reflection. Given the uncertain the ongoing uncertainty caused by the pandemic it's important to ensure that set texts are available electronically preferably through the library's online collection to ensure ease of navigation of learning materials it's crucial that careful attention is paid to their organization and sequencing as well as to the clarity and precision of accompanying and structural instructional directions. This is particularly important during periods that students for whatever reason attend classes remotely and have less access to support from staff or their peers. In such circumstances attention should be paid to potential ambiguities in online instructions about what students need to do to complete tasks and acquire learning outcomes. Seminars can be organized around the questions staff set online to structure and student to structure student engagement with texts and timetabled lecture engagement sessions can be used to provide opportunities for clarification and to explore themes included in the lecture videos and readings in greater detail. These events take place online careful consideration should be given to the use of breakout rooms to stimulate peer-to-peer social interactions where used students should receive a set of task requirements and guidance on the rules of appropriate behavior in such online contexts. To help students overcome feelings of isolation consideration should be given to the role that collaborative coursework might play in assessment. If this strategy is pursued it's important that colleagues think carefully about how best to prepare students for such tasks. Finally it's important to think about the workload implications of this pedagogical imaginary and to make adjustments where necessary to lighten the load weeks focusing on preparation for assessment hear feedback or skills development when students have less content to prepare can be incorporated into the syllabus might also be necessary to reduce the amount of summative assessment that students are required to complete. The second imaginary based on blended delivery is the closest to the pedagogical strategy that dominated much teaching in the arts and humanities prior to the pandemic. The main difference is that thanks to the advent of videoconferencing technologies such as Microsoft Teams and Zoom all timetable teaching events can be shifted from on campus to remote delivery and back again without causing major disruption. This is blended learning timetable sessions are accompanied by asynchronous components that complement the synchronous events in ways that are mutually reinforcing. As in flip learning it's important to provide a narrative that sets clear expectations for students as well as giving careful consideration to the organization sequencing and presentation the online dimension in ways that are consistent and easy to navigate. When lectures and seminars shift to online delivery by platforms such as Microsoft Teams or Zoom efforts should be made to trigger interaction through the use of the chat functionality embedded quizzes and polls and where appropriate by taking advantage of the opportunity to create breakouts. Possibility to record lectures using lecture capture technology and make them available asynchronously is encouraged in this imaginary. Finally as in the flipped imaginary there's scope to reorientate assessment approaches towards collaborative tasks with an emphasis on real-world problems. So finally and by way of conclusion what about high-flex teaching? So the third and final future pedagogical imaginary involves face-to-face and online students being taught together synchronously. Whereas the student feedback demonstrates this is not currently popular with students or not currently that popular with students and does provide for considerable flexibility the importance of which cannot be underestimated in the current context. As a consequence rather than rejecting this strategy out of hand it's important to invest time and energy in exploring its affordances and constraints as well as the learning spaces and technologies required to deliver it effectively. It cannot escape the fact that some students whether because of their location, circumstances or even possibly through choice will not be able to attend on campus events. In such circumstances there may be value at least for some arts and humanities faculties in evolving to become work and study from anywhere operations. To do so requires teaching rooms equipped with the latest technologies and staff with the confidence, skills and flexibility to reimagine their teaching for a context in which students are on campus and at remote locations at the same time. So okay so with that that's the end of the presentation. So if anybody, hello have any questions? Yes there's plenty there's plenty of chat it's all happening. So I'll start with the I'll just start with a couple of questions because we've only got a couple of minutes but I just broadly say that in terms of what people found students were getting on well with and what they were struggling with did completely mirror a lot of the things that you were saying and it was an interesting discussion about flexibility and the impact of that. So the first question is one of the last questions which is from Kirsty which is I think we're probably all interested in how's high flex gone so far? How's it actually gone? Because it looks okay on paper but you know. As I said I think the feedback from the students hasn't been that positive and I think the feedback from from staff hasn't always been being great either. I mean that said I know that certain faculties at the university next year will be using it quite extensively so the faculty of engineering for example will be using high flex quite a lot next year. There was something about guidance so there's I mean it seems to me that the you know that it's colleagues in the states that have had most experience of using high flex and there's there's lots and lots of stuff. I noticed some really good stuff from the University of Michigan so if you kind of Google I think it's high flex plus University of Michigan or I can find the link there was some some really excellent guidance there both looking at it from a kind of the technical perspective but also from the pedagogical perspective as well with a number of videos. So I think the position of the institution is that again although the feedback has been mixed I think this is something that we will be looking at both you know technically and pedagogically. Right so it's a bit of a watch this space isn't it? Yeah I think so but bumpy at the moment. Yeah I mean I'd be interested in hearing what anybody else has to say about that. Is that kind of chime with other people's experiences? Well we'll see what comes up in the chat but I suspect it does and then another question this is kind of outside of all of the details of what you were saying but I think it's a really important one this came from Pete is what are the perceptions of value for money because I think from my perspective there's some interesting things going on in there where students are saying well it takes me longer to engage in a recording than come to a lecture but obviously those students will have been told that they're doing like a billion independent learning study hours for each credit that they get so hypothetically shouldn't be a problem right but I just I just wonder whether being more formally pushing time into independent study actually cuts against perceptions of value for money despite the fact that it's the same structure in theory I mean what are your thoughts on that? No yeah I mean I think yeah particularly in the kind of the flip model I think that there there has been a sense that you know no I think you're right in terms of the way in which students perceive value for money is very much being linked to kind of synchronous contact whether that's in the classroom or face-to-face and so flipping some of that out to the online async from this space I do think I would agree with you it could be problematic from that perspective yeah I mean thinking about the feedback from the qualitative feedback I mean the question of value monetary value the cost of the you know if they'd agree wasn't mentioned at all by any students you know it just really wasn't an issue in the qualitative feedback I mean it you know we did quite a lot of quantitative stuff as well which I must say personally was much less interesting there wasn't you know there wasn't really very much in there that you know surprised us whereas there was in in terms of the qualitative feedback there may have been some comments and you know you know the text box space at the bottom I don't know comments about value for money but I I can't remember seeing anything at all okay okay that's intriguing because it's it's a tricky area isn't it yeah the pandemic's pushed that question to the to the service it didn't it didn't appear in the in in the gist base either so it neither did it neither appeared in the gist data or in the University of Nottingham Faculty of Arts data I mean I I think it raises big I think everything that's happens raises big questions about what both staff and students perceive as teaching what they perceive as learning yeah yeah and there's a tension between what might be effective pedagogy and what people imagine they should be able to engage with culturally is their conception of university you know it's really it's really fascinating so we'll just do one last question because we are over time and I know that people might want to go to other sessions and it's rather there's some detailed questions in there but this is just a really quick high level one that I think all round off the session which is somebody to ask you know how how do you feel your institution is responding to all of this information just broadly well I know it's a tough question I mean as I said I think I mean most of our response is probably based on on the quantitative stuff and and I don't think the quantitative stuff is is providing with with very many interesting insights personally you know I would advocate a shift to the more qualitative stuff and then and then the use as as I kind of outlined in the presentation of these kind of imaginaries to kind of speculate about the future to construct you know creative narratives about what we think the future might look like and to use those as heuristics not those kind of rigid models not as something that's prescriptive but something that you know that can kickstart discussions debates maybe you know maybe even some planning so yeah I could see that it's more of a reimagining than a kind of problem solving exercise yeah that's right yeah yeah but finding the breathing space to do that in a system that just never stops yeah absolutely I'm sure that everybody who's who's who's who's still still listening in will will be well aware of the reality of that problem yeah no absolutely what we'll do is we're round up there because we're a little bit over time but I think that's all good thanks thanks for everybody's comments and questions in the chat thanks for a great session Neil it was super super clear and I think there's a discord channel as well that if you wanted to float around or if you want to track back through the the chat and have a look at some of the other questions we went to at your discretion but I think I feel like you know what you've been talking about is very representative of a lot of what of us that a lot of us have been sort of considering and dealing with so it's it's useful it's used it's been a really useful session that even where we might not know the answers or the imaginaries yeah I'm getting a sense that we're a lot of us are in the same game you know our experiences of the last couple of years haven't been that dissimilar yeah so it's good to know all right thank you thanks very much thank you for moderating moderating moderating yeah yeah so happy to happy I'm not sure exactly what's happens now I guess this just vanishes and becomes a recording that people can get to so yeah