In the three weeks between the Christmas holidays and the start of the third teaching block, many of us, myself included, finally have the time to complete long-delayed reviews, write research proposals and develop new ideas for teaching and research. So I thought about new working methods, finally had time to read and came across new literature that fits perfectly into the course for block 3. And it's only January, so there's plenty of time to incorporate this into the course manual and lecture preparation.
I am fortunate to be teaching in block 3 with a wonderful colleague with whom I brainstormed in mid-January about teaching methods, new literature and how that fits in with the course. But in the last week before the start of period 3, there were a few hiccups. We wanted to create a specific layout in the room for that fun new teaching method. Unfortunately, the group in this course consists of around a hundred students, so we are in a traditional lecture room. It's Monday, so I realise that this is also a luxury. Changing rooms was no longer an option, because other types of rooms were not available for a hundred students, especially at such short notice. Long story short, we did roughly what we did before (but slightly better, of course). Traditional lectures, because that is efficient and allows you to serve many students at once. We seek as much interaction as possible, but the room does not cooperate. Such a lecture room is rather reminiscent of a classical Roman theatre and mainly reinforces the hierarchy: whoever is on stage does the talking. Those sitting in the stands listen. If there is any interaction at all, it is from listener to speaker, rarely as a conversation between students.
Still slightly disappointed by the failed plans, I read the new institutional plan. There I read that we need to offer ‘high-quality programmes with personalised and innovative teaching methods’ and ‘didactics of the future’. Yes, exactly what I was thinking in January, I can contribute to that. In addition, we received a positive assessment during the last visitation, so that quality (care) should be fine. Searching further for hopeful glimpses of a bright future for our education, I see terms such as “interdisciplinary, interfaculty, individual and group experiences”. My course also includes students from other faculties, and we use the differences between the two colleagues' domains as part of the teaching, so we also do interfaculty and team-based teaching. Furthermore, I mainly read about administrative “ambitions” to maintain student enrolment despite the demographic decline in our own country.
But what education can already benefit from right now is space for the teaching methods of the future. Or at least innovative forms of education; we don't need a crystal ball to see that. With all the developments coming our way, from AI and digital literacy to sustainability issues and changing skills in the labour market, shouldn't we have started thinking yesterday about the task and role of university education in society? What do we mean by “high-quality education”? And how can we ensure that our lecturers achieve this? As a lecturer, these were precisely the topics of my January reflections.
Actually, not finding a suitable educational space is a good metaphor. We need suitable physical spaces for innovative working methods and teaching techniques of the future. But we also need mental space to ensure that new ideas, working methods and scientific insights can find a place in our education. And decision-making space, to make choices that ensure high-quality education, personal responsibility for students, and of course space to make mistakes now and then and reflect on them. At university level, it is not about working out exactly what those skills are, or the exact definition of “high quality”. After all, the interpretation of “high-quality” education is partly and only retrospectively determined by the future employers and alumni of our programmes. What we need is the space to continuously reflect on this.
Whether we have sufficient space for this is something we can discuss over a cup of coffee. Whether we feel we have the space, I would venture to say yes. Much of it is currently being suppressed. Mental space due to enormous pressure on efficiency and fixed workloads; physical space due to restrictions on innovative working methods and, ultimately, the freedom to choose innovative working methods in education.
But I am convinced that it is possible, even with a traditional lecture room, to design physical space for multiple teaching methods. That also means investing in the rooms, in people, and in the ongoing discussion about “the didactics of the future”. I sincerely hope that together we can create all kinds of space for this.