Report from CILASS SAN and Champions meeting, to discuss the future of staff-student collaboration, 12th February 2009

This are some short notes, reporting on a meeting of CILASS academic Champions, and representatives of the Student Ambassador Network.  This meeting was to discuss the future of staff-student collaboration, and to compare perspectives of key members of the CILASS community, both staff and student, on what worked and is worth developing.

We began with a couple of fictional stories from participants - they were asked to imagine what staff-student collaboration would be like at Sheffield in five years' time.  The staff participant responded in style, outlining a story of how currently there are too many in their classes, and too many classes that they teach, to know any students by name.  The information that the university provides is limited to academic grades and out-of-date photos, and it seemed that even students didn't know each other.  The basic grounds for collaboration or mutually-supported learning simply weren't there.  Contrasted with this was a simple tale, where a CILASS student ambassador came to class, explained who he was and what his experiences of the module were, and got the class talking to one another and to the tutor.  In the future, there should be more of this; and it needed to be recognised when thinking about collaboration that the foundations have to be stable before anything can built.

The Student Ambassador Network picked up on this theme of everyday collaboration and social integration.  Representatives of the SAN sketched out a day in the life of a Sheffield student in five years' time.  This involved a great deal of peer teaching and learning, with higher-level students directly teaching those earlier on in their studies, and exploring for themselves areas of continuing inquiry.  This kind of mutually beneficial relationship was seen to aid intellectual and social integration within a department, facilitating the development of a learning community.  This was furthered by formal teaching situations being continued in informal contexts - drawing on the practice of a tutor in Politics, carrying on seminar discussions in Coffee Revolution - and dissolving some of the barriers between staff and students.  At the other end of the learning process, staff and students were also seen to be working together in the evaluation cycle, and making mutually beneficial changes to modules and programmes.  The visibility of these changes was considered to be central to motivating students to take part in learning enhancement activities, and to make clear the value of their engagement.  Participation in learning development activities was imagined to be more wide-spread across the student body than at the present, and a normal part of the university experience; a relationship very different to producer-consumer, staff and students were seen to be working together to mutually enhance knowledge.

From the subsequent discussion, it became clear that the development of community was crucial - what all sides wanted was for staff-student collaboration to become part of the fabric of the university, and part of the everyday experience at the University of Sheffield.  From the experience of participants, where this shared community already existed, it seemed to rely on common experiences, often on the edges of explicit learning and teaching (so the Year Two fieldtrip in Geography, and the informal networking that goes on around performances in Music).  It also relied on  common interests, some reason for getting involved, and visible, tangible rewards for so doing.  There was also a productive symbiosis between more or less formal kinds of staff-student interaction, with both sides being essential, and drawing strength from one another.  Students and staff need to be able to communicate with one another in a casual, sociable manner, but also have the structures where formal matters could be explored, and responsible action taken.  And similarly, students and staff needed to be clear about their responsibilities to one another, and what could be reasonably expected on either side.

Shared spaces were also seen as critical, most immediately as physical spaces - for example, common rooms, which offer opportunities for students to get to know each other across levels and programme areas, and also for staff and students to interact more informally.  It was recognised that in the current squeeze on teaching space, these kinds of areas tended to be "designed out"; for example, in the new Jessops building.  However, there remain the possibilities of virtual shared spaces, which can be effective in sharing expertise and making connections.  It was recognised by all that this was not an easy or immediate solution, and that different technologies would need to be used and supported in various ways across different contexts.  Levels of formality, for example, were seen as key for establishing different kinds of relationships between staff and students, and amongst students themselves.  Online communication did have the advantage of appearing to offer a more efficient use of time, which is a highly-pressurised commodity for both staff and students.  We could all benefit from more time to do the things that we feel are important; and one of the intentions of the story-telling aspect of this meeting was to try and imagine what this would be like, so we have a better sense of how to construct it.  Changing ways of accessing online information was also seen as key, given the increased mobilisation of technologies - students and staff may still want to access academic information by going to the Information Commons, but they may equally want to do it sitting in the park, and this will become ever-more easy and ordinary.

One conclusion that was reached was the importance of a range of different levels of engagement - between individual students and members of staff, and within departments, faculties, across the institution, and potentially beyond - making links with staff and students at other institutions in similar programmes.  These would need to be supported in different ways, both in an "outside-in" manner, with individual departments developing good practice, and an "inside-out" fashion, with that good practice being shared and supported by a body at the centre (perhaps the Teaching Commons).  Strikingly, this was similar to the conclusion of the Champions' meeting, discussing how to embed the good practice developed by CILASS in the everyday experiences of learning and teaching.  Staff numbers compared to student numbers differ greatly across departments, and are, of course, no guarantee of meaningful relationships.  However, it was still rewarding to learn of the rich experiences and exchanges that go on within smaller departments where there is a strong sense of community.  Questions were also asked about how these numbers are likely to change in the near future, with the altered economic climate.  There is a sense in which with the development of a new faculty structure, and the embedding of CILASS activities in several other forms, we need to be aware of different possible structures for collaboration to be capable of scaling them up or down to meet new circumstances.

My thanks to all those who took part, and I am sure we will all continue striving to realise these opportunities in evolving situations.