University teachers’ shifting views of successful learning environments in the future

ABSTRACT

University teachers are expected to continuously improve their practice, but research about their viewpoints of future-ready universities is scarce. The paper contributes to educational research through paired Q methodology and investigates university teachers’ shifting views of successful future learning environments, while being forced to move to fully digital solutions due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Four pre-pandemic (January 2020) and two while-pandemic viewpoints (November 2020) are qualitatively interpreted and show that lived experiences during the pandemic led to a polarization of participants’ subjective perspectives. Despite challenging conditions, university teachers view digital and distance teaching more positively, but remain skeptical concerning technologically-enhanced on-campus learning environments. Results also indicate a largely unchanged consensus regarding the importance of critical thinking and creativity. This exploratory study’s results allow forward-thinking dialogues about new policies in potentially ever more hybrid learning environments with various educational stakeholders, both within the case university in Sweden and other educational institutions.

KEYWORDS:

• Future-ready
• Q methodology
• learning environment
• hybrid
• university teaching
• higher education
• critical thinking
• digitalization

In a time of continuous and permanent societal change, universities must adjust their established practice, set new objectives, and deploy innovative approaches to teaching, learning, and curriculum design. In other words, it is critical for the future of the discipline, that university teachers are capable of adapting their praxis in continually shifting circumstances (Brew, 2011). Already Cuban (1986) asked how teachers have responded to the promise of improvement, not only regarding technology but more holistically concerning “new” teaching and learning theories and methods. The teaching profession is a delicate balancing act between being flexible, adaptable and open for new science-based evidence and not being deceived by ill-considered trends within higher education teaching and learning. Consequently, it is essential for university teachers to constantly and critically engage with currents trends in teaching and learning and show willingness to question longstanding teaching traditions and outdated beliefs about good practice (Ramsden, 2003). Recently, in describing the contentious issue of teaching excellence, Matheson (2020) accentuates academics’ role in creating “the best resources, environments, challenges, and opportunities for the students to develop as learners” (p. 922). With regard to educational research, it is therefore imperative to regularly address these teachers’ critical accounts and subjective viewpoints, which need to be made explicit to be systematically examined.

The original intention of the present study was to contribute to the existing research base with university teachers’ critical accounts of lived experiences of higher education pedagogies coupled with their reflective voices about what will be the crucial characteristics for successful higher education learning environments in the future. Data aligned with this original intention was collected on the eve of the Covid-19 pandemic, in January 2020 (t¹). The Covid-19 pandemic has then illustratively taught us that change, usually a slow process, can happen immediately, and we decided to add a second data collection time point to our study design in November 2020 (t²), after eight months of distanced and digitalized teaching. The revised aim of the present paper is therefore to contribute with teachers’ subjective viewpoints regarding successful learning environments before and during a forced and instant digitalization of their higher education setting. The resulting longitudinal design of this Q methodological study allows investigating potentially shifting views of university teachers during the first phase of the pandemic. Therefore, three research questions guided the present study:

RQ1: Which pre-pandemic viewpoints (t¹) of university teachers regarding successful future learning environments emerge?

RQ2: Which while-pandemic viewpoints (t²) of university teachers regarding successful future learning environments emerge?

RQ3: What are the differences and similarities between the pre- and while pandemic viewpoints?

This paper continues by placing the study into the context of scholarship of university teaching, through the concept of learning environments (henceforth LE), which has gained increased attention among educational researchers and policymakers (Abualrub & Stensaker, 2018). Next, it introduces Q methodology as a theoretically grounded means to seek common configurations of viewpoints about the issue under scrutiny, as seen through the eyes of university teachers. Results are presented and discussed before we draw conclusions relevant to the aforementioned problem statement and illustrate how university teachers can be engaged in multidisciplinary and critically reflective discussions about teaching and learning, regardless of their specialization (Cleaver et al., 2018). In sum, the significance of our study lies in its contributions concerning university teachers’ practice in times of change through an innovative research design using longitudinal Q methodology.

Previous research about higher education learning environments

In relation to internationalization, globalization, and not least a rapidly progressing digitalization (Parviainen et al., 2017), universities are requested to develop their LE following current trends and quality standards. Given teachers’ responsibility of creating LE through their interpretation of national and local steering documents, such as program and course syllabi, on the one hand, and their general creative leeway in designing their teaching, on the other hand, the present study focuses on LE that are subjectively perceived to be successful in the future by university faculty. Interestingly enough and quite the contrary to students’ perspectives, university teachers’ subjective views and presuppositions about LE in research are largely invisible (Abualrub et al., 2013). Abualrub and colleagues’ comprehensive review of more than 80 studies about LE in higher education has identified three definitional lenses of the concept of LE. The first one focuses on the close relationship between teaching and learning. Secondly, the LE is understood to be defined by the organizational setting in which knowledge development takes place, and lastly, the review found LE to be characterized as a networking activity.

For the sake of the current project that aims at investigating university teachers’ subjective viewpoints without imposing researchers’ categories a priori, the conceptualization of higher education LE remains deliberately wide and holistic. Moreover, because the present study was initiated before the global pandemic, no particular focus was put on digital and distance LE, despite this being the forced and therefore dominant setting during t². All three aforementioned lenses are therefore briefly introduced in the next section.

A pedagogical setting

The application of two parameters seems useful to structure the first lens: (a) teacher-centered versus student-centered (Kember, 1997) and (b) low-tech versus high-tech. The first parameter serves as a continuum from more traditional lecture-style teaching with students expecting to receive and process information to an increasing focus on students’ own active role in their knowledge development (SFS, 2014). The second parameter indicates the level of involved technology in the chosen teaching and learning approach. Technology and digitalization within higher education teaching and learning are by no means a new phenomenon, but have received more attention since the start of the global Covid-19 pandemic, as universities around the world were forced to instantly, and in many cases unpreparedly, shift from traditional face-to-face teaching to fully digital solutions. The result is an intense and accelerated digital transformation of course designs, instruction and assessment (Madsen et al., 2020). Of particular relevance is the fact that not only educators with a particular interest in digital tools and methods were involved in this transformation, but all university teachers, even those without particular interest and competencies in the field (Rapanta et al., 2020). The term emergency remote teaching (Hodges et al., 2020) was coined in the initial phase of the pandemic and described the dominant distance teaching approach applied in 2020.

As different approaches within this first pedagogical lens can be interpreted and applied differently, we refrain from a clear-cut categorization. Nevertheless, and to name but a few, some examples of potential teaching preferences within this highly diversified pool are the following. Direct instruction during lectures is considered a prime example of a teacher-centered and low-tech teaching style (Hodgson, 2005). However, technologically enhanced, by adding any kind of supportive tool, can change the character of lectures (Mazur, 2009). Through the use of pre-recorded video-based instruction, flipped classroom method arguably involves a higher level of technology and has gained in popularity during the last decade (van Alten et al., 2019). Another example is game-based learning (GBL), where game characteristics are inherent to learning activities. These games can be analog or digital (Kiili, 2005) and are meant to provide engaging and experiential learning experiences for students. Other mentionable examples of teaching and learning approaches are kinesthetic learning, which involves the students’ active and physical interaction with the matter or enquiry-based learning (Deignan, 2009), including problem-based learning (Savin-Baden, 2000) that involves students often working in collaborative settings to solve a realistic problem described in trigger material.

An organizational responsibility

The second lens represents an extended and more holistic vision of LE. Flexibility is a key aspect in terms of providing students opportunities to study part-time or from distance to personalize their knowledge development. Moreover, issues regarding students’ physical and mental health, resilience, and their sense of safety and belonging are being understood to fall within the remit of the higher education organization. Since studying at university has been shown to be a time of heightened distress (Bewick et al., 2010), in particular for gender and sexuality diverse students (Ferfolja et al., 2020), an increasing need for university embedded counselling services and university faculty’s heightened awareness about a safe environment of faculty was reported (Broglia et al., 2018).

Greater attention is paid to the physical facilities in which learning takes place (Lippman, 2010) and how these allow and support an inclusive and flexible setting, satisfying all needs of an arguably ever more diverse community of students (Cleveland-Innes, 2020). Central here are so-called non-traditional students (Thunborg & Bron, 2018), such as first-generation academics, mature or ethnic or linguistic minority learners, as well as those with special needs.

A networking activity

The third lens includes characteristics of LE that might go beyond the organizational boundaries (Abualrub et al., 2013) and focuses on students’ employability. Theoretically, this final lens draws on literature on graduate attributes (Oliver & Jorre de St Jorre, 2018). In many ways, these generic skills are congruent with twenty-first century skills and competencies, preparing graduates to be successful in a social and economic landscape that bears distinctive features in comparison with preceding historical periods (Tan et al., 2017). Two frequent concepts in this context are critical thinking for lifelong learning, including thoughtfulness, enquiry and open-mindedness (Walker & Finney, 1999), and creativity. Livingston (2010) expects future workplaces to require their workforce to be highly creative in terms of interaction and collaboration and therefore calls for an intensified graduate preparation for it.

Furthermore, LE need to prepare future-ready graduates to be technology literate. However, Jeffrey et al. (2011) report a slow development of this matter in higher education institutions, partly blaming it on university teachers’ own reservations or even resistance to acquiring digital literacy (Amhag et al., 2019). Stigmar et al. (2012) explain university faculty’s criticism towards increased technology with teachers’ low self-efficacy beliefs and confidence regarding digital media.

Closely connected to promoting digital literacy among students, is the ability to communicate effectively orally as well as in writing (Sparks et al., 2014). From an international perspective, the ability to do so in the global lingua franca, English, might not be underrated. Generally, the potential of multilingual knowledge and skills in higher education is acknowledged (Li, 2012). An additional measure for internationalization is the provision of opportunities for students to study abroad and therefore foster additional networking activity. Finally, seen in this third lens, graduates must have leadership skills and practice learning and working collaboratively.

Materials and methods

In addition to placing students in a central position in research about LE, research reviewed by Abualrub et al. (2013) most often made use of surveys. In some cases, classroom observations or interviews were added. To avoid a methodologically one-sided approach and in particular add more subjective insight into the investigation of LE, Q methodology (henceforth Q, Brown, 1980) is selected as a fitting approach. The methodology was invented to uncover shared subjective viewpoints about a given topic by allowing individuals to rank-order a set of items in a relative fashion. Developed for small-scale research, Q is known to be the basis for a science of subjectivity (Brown, 2019), and has experienced an increased popularity in recent educational research (Lundberg et al., 2020). The present study consisted of the construction of a Q sample, the collection of data by engaging participants in a Q sorting activity, and inverted factor analysis to statistically condensate data. Emerged factors were then interpreted in an abductive and iterative fashion, permitting participants’ subjective voices to stay at the center of the analysis (Gravley-Stack et al., 2016). Measuring changes in perceptions in before-after or paired assessment studies has been identified as a possible area for further growth for Q methodology (Akhtar-Danesh & Wingreen, 2020). The present study’s design is therefore not only highly innovative but represents a methodological contribution. University teachers were engaged in a Q data collection activity in January 2020, before Covid-19 made its impression on Swedish ground (t¹), and again in November 2020, after eight months of digital and distanced teaching and learning (t²). As the present research project did not involve sensitive personal data, no ethics approval was required. Participation was voluntary and informed consent and confidentiality were respected at all times.

Q sample construction

The central question, called condition of instruction in Q terminology, posed to the participants in the present paper reads as follows: According to you, what characterizes successful higher education learning environments for students in the future?

With the purpose of providing participants a set of items to be sorted as a response to this question, previous research on higher education LE served as the main source for dominant discourses surrounding the topic (Godor, 2016) and current trends in higher education teaching and learning. We used publications reviewed in Abualrub et al. (2013) as a starting point and enriched the collection of items in an unstructured and naturalistic manner (Sæbjørnsen et al., 2016) based on our academic readings and experience as educational developers. This first step resulted in around 70 items. To cull the items and receive a functional Q sample, we collaboratively discussed each statement regarding its added value to the study. This “very fluid way of working” (Watts & Stenner, 2012, p. 60) with the topic of LE was followed by two rounds of face-to-face pilot studies with each a group of university teachers. Thereby items were tested according to simplicity, clarity, and wording. The Q sample was further revised until the issue in question was covered satisfyingly in terms of breadth and depth. At the end of this content validation process, 37 items were included in the Q set. Even though recommendations concerning a satisfactory number of items range between 40 and 60 and Lundberg et al. (2020) report 40.3 as the average number of items in their review with 74 included studies, we decided to move on with slightly fewer, as our main concern was sufficient coverage of the subject matter.

Participants

The present case study is located at a relatively young university (founded in 1998) with an increasing orientation towards research and a student population characterized by a high percentage of first-generation academics, often with a multicultural and multilingual background. The cultural system this student population has created (Kahn & Misiaszek, 2019), has led the university to emphasize a range of core values such as internationalization, global engagement, and diversity. Further, the university is guided by the principles of collegiality and student influence. For maximum coverage of the range of discourses of teaching and learning that transcends disciplinary boundaries and specialisms, participants for this Q study were sampled in a purposive way and therefore in line with a qualitative research approach (Miles et al., 2014). As a consequence, university faculty members at various stages in their professional careers and from different subject areas were invited by email request. The main criterion was their involvement in higher education teaching practices and the expectation of a defined viewpoint about the subject matter as a consequence of their professional activity. This effort resulted in the recruitment of 22 participants for t¹. For the second measurement point, 16 out of the initial 22 participants agreed to sort the items a second time. Table 1 shows an overview of all respondents.

Table 1. Participant overview.

Sort	G	Birth decade	HE	Position	Subject Area	t^2
1	F	1970s	6	L	Public Health	Yes
2	M	1980s	11	D	Pedagogy	Yes
3	M	1960s	26	P	Pedagogy	Yes
4	M	1980s	7	D	Criminology	Yes
5	M	1980s	4	D	Criminology	Yes
6	M	1980s	5	D	Criminology	No
7	F	1970s	6	L	Migration	No
8	F	1950s	8	L	Pedagogy	Yes
9	F	1970s	10	A	Social Work	Yes
10	M	1970s	10	A	Computer Science	Yes
11	M	1960s	19	L	Computer Science	Yes
12	M	1970s	1	A	Pedagogy	Yes
13	M	1940s	30	L	Computer Science	Yes
14	M	1950s	9	A	Computer Science	Yes
15	F	1950s	23	A	Higher Education	Yes
16	M	1950s	31	P	Economy	No
17	M	1950s	15	A	Sport sciences	No
18	M	1950s	30	P	Pedagogy	No
19	F	1970s	8	D	Sport sciences	Yes
20	M	1970s	20	L	Political science	Yes
21	F	1960s	34	P	Pedagogy	Yes
22	F	1950s	17	L	Psychology	No

Note: G: Gender; F: female; M: male. HE: Years of higher education teaching experience. D: Doctoral student; A: Adjunct (without PhD); L: Lecturer (with PhD); P: Professor. t²: participation at while-pandemic data collection activity.

Data collection through Q sorting

Due to the changed conditions, data collection had to be adapted from t¹ to t². As there were no social distancing regulations in place in January 2020, data could be collected face-to-face with at least one researcher present in the room to respond to participants’ procedural queries. After an introduction to the research project and the applied methodology, a short demographic questionnaire was completed. Information collected in the questionnaire is visible in Table 1. Participants were advised to first sort all items, printed onto physical cards, into three provisional ranking categories (most characteristic, least characteristic, neutral/insecure) as a sorting help and then carry out a finer-grained judgment until each item was placed on the distribution grid. Through this rank-ordering activity, participants sorted each item in relation to every other item in the selected Q sample. It is this built-in feature of Q that allowed us to investigate aspects of LE that are not directly linked to, but potentially still affected by educational technology or distance education, despite the forced digitalization experienced in 2020. In line with the recommendation in Hellström and Lundberg (2020), the forced-choice and symmetrical distribution grid was presented in a vertical form. Items, that participants felt to be most characteristic for successful higher education learning and teaching were placed highest (value +5). The bottom of the distribution grid represented the slots for items, which were deemed least characteristic (value −5) according to the presented condition of instruction. All participants sorted the Q sample individually. However, they did so simultaneously with at least three other participants allowing a post-sorting discussion about their general impression of the sorting activity, the most provocative items, and potentially missing items. In addition to these discussions, a written rationale of all participants’ choices for their two top and two bottom items was secured on the back of their distribution grid.

For t², data were collected digitally using QMethod Software (Lutfallah & Buchanan, 2019). Participants were again asked to pre-sort items into the same three categories and then rank-order them onto a distribution grid. As no vertical grids were available in the chosen software, participants received a more traditional horizontal one. Identical to t¹, participants were asked to provide a rationale for their choices at +/−5. In addition, they provided written feedback about the different data collection instruments compared to t¹. During the entire data collection activity, technical support was available for all participants.

Data analysis and interpretation

To respond to the research questions, data from both measurement points was analyzed separately and treated as independent studies. KADE (Banasick, 2019), a free desktop application for Q methodological analysis, was used to quantitively analyze all empirical data through principal components analysis as the factor extraction method, and varimax rotation, which seeks the maximum amount of study variance (Watts & Stenner, 2012).

In t¹, four factors with Eigenvalues ranging from 1.86 to 6.54 were identified. They accounted for 60% of the variance and had at least three significant loadings. Seventeen of 22 participants were found to load significantly at the p < 0.01 level on only one of the factors and were therefore used to create a single ideal-typical Q sort per factor, according to the procedure of weighted averaging. Four participants loaded significantly on two factors, whereof Factor 4 was always one of them. One participant (sort 21) showed a significant, but negative loading on factor 1. During the post-sorting discussion, the participant reported a misunderstanding of the condition of instruction, which led to the exclusion of their result. In t², only two factors were identified and accounted for 37% of the study variance. Out of the 16 participants, two Q sorts were non-significant and one showed a confounded result. The remaining 13 were split on factor 1 (8 significantly loading sorts, Eigenvalue 4,63) and factor 2 (5 significantly loading sorts, Eigenvalue 1,19) (Table 2).

Table 2. Factor loadings for t¹ and t². Participants sorted according to loadings and viewpoints in t¹.

	pre-pandemic (t^1)				while-pandemic (t^2)
Sort	V1-1	V1-2	V1-3	V1-4	V2-1	V2-2
17	0,7879*	−0,0031	−0,099	0,1497	Not participated
14	0,6883*	0,3449	0,2168	0,297	−0,0149	0,4663*
10	0,5914*	0,2806	0,2404	0,2326	0,5726*	0,2387
15	0,4743*	0,1766	−0,3561	0,405	0,6231*	0,026
9	0,4295*	0,3932	0,307	0,2761	0,5656*	0,0752
12	0,0992	0,8753*	0,079	0,159	0,3731	0,5364*
3	0,1625	0,8268*	0,1385	−0,0663	0,6075*	0,3237
4	−0,0254	0,7611*	−0,0661	0,2081	0,4848*	0,4067
5	0,3105	0,6773*	−0,1484	0,2828	0,3975	0,5185*
16	−0,2782	0,4233*	0,3541	0,0672	Not participated
1	0,0381	0,0853	0,7615*	0,2514	0,8235*	−0,1163
6	0,1751	−0,1222	0,7192*	−0,2933	Not participated
2	−0,0192	0,0759	0,5743*	0,1432	0,3632	0,192
20	0,0589	0,0881	−0,0553	0,8409*	0,4445	0,5902
18	0,0225	0,2124	0,1617	0,7213*	Not participated
8	0,2726	−0,0718	0,4029	0,5962*	0,5748*	0,3035
13	0,2214	0,1337	0,1526	0,4961*	0,1617	0,555*
11	0,4738	−0,2015	0,3247	0,4962	0,0802	0,2809
19	0,244	0,2486	0,5861	0,4619	0,59*	0,1173
7	0,0553	0,4366	−0,0211	0,7197	Not participated
22	−0,1669	0,4601	0,1231	0,4767	Not participated
21	−0,6942	0,0836	−0,0665	0,2512	−0,0323	0,4094*

Note: Bold numbers denote significant loadings at .42. * shows flagged sorts for the respective viewpoints.

Factor solutions in both data measurement points showed relatively low intercorrelations and factors were therefore interpreted individually, through an abductive and iterative logic, where “multiple, compounding layers of interpretation and meaning” (Sneegas, 2020, p. 83) were built. This facilitated accounting for the entire item configuration of single factors.

Results

Conforming to common practice in Q research, the qualitative descriptions of emerged factors are called viewpoints (abbreviated with V1-1 to V1-4 for t¹ and V2-1 and V2-2 for t²) to accentuate their subjective character and illustrate the participants’ own, nota bene selective, perspective of the phenomenon under investigation. All viewpoint descriptions are complemented with the item numbers and rank values assigned by the respective viewpoint in brackets. The references correspond with the information listed in Table 3, where items are ordered according to the across viewpoint consensus and disagreement (Z-Score variance) at t¹. In accordance with Table 3, we begin by presenting aspects of consensus at both timepoints. We then continue with the presentation of four pre-pandemic viewpoints (t¹, RQ1) Finally, while-pandemic viewpoints (t², RQ2) are described individually and contrasted with pre-pandemic viewpoints to respond to RQ3, focused on differences and similarities between the pre- and while-pandemic viewpoints. In other words, results from t¹ are used as baseline or reference Q sorts (Akhtar-Danesh & Wingreen, 2020).

Table 3. Factor score ranks for each item ordered according to consensus and disagreement in t¹.

		pre-pandemic (t^1)						while-pandemic (t^2)
Item	Statement	Z-Score variance t^1	V1-1	V1-2	V1-3	V1-4	C	V2-1	V2-2	C
30	Lectures are used to achieve equal opportunities	0,048	1	0	1	0	C*	2	−1
21	Higher education teaching and learning is nearly paper-free	0,051	−5	−5	−5	−5	C	−5	−2
19	Students are encouraged to navigate in and across different languages while learning	0,054	−3	−1	−2	−2	C*	−4	1
17	Technology-enhanced on-campus learning environments are implemented	0,084	−2	1	0	−1	C	−2	−1	C*
13	Students are prepared to be effective communicators	0,123	2	0	1	1		2	−2
33	Quests to accomplish specific goals in a game-based learning environment are provided	0,131	−2	−4	−5	−5		−5	−4	C*
9	Collaborative learning arrangements for students are created	0,161	3	1	2	3		−1	2
2	Students’ learning experience is improved by supervising them in a supportive way	0,216	4	0	3	2		1	2	C*
18	Multiple channels to process and navigate information are used	0,223	−1	2	0	−1		−2	3
23	Students’ self-consciousness is fostered	0,286	1	−3	−1	−3		0	0	C*
25	The physical learning environment allows flexible teaching and learning	0,306	0	3	3	−1		−1	0	C*
35	Students are mainly assessed in a formative manner	0,308	1	−2	−4	−1		−3	−5	C*
15	Opportunities for students to go on expeditions and engagement in in-depth study of topics are given	0,309	−1	−3	−1	1		−1	−2	C*
1	Students’ critical thinking skills are improved	0,317	5	5	3	5		5	5	C*
26	English as a medium of instruction is used whenever possible to prepare students for an international market	0,334	−3	0	1	−2		−4	−1
11	Students are taught to be supportive leaders in collaborative learning settings	0,361	0	−1	−1	3		0	−3
4	Students are prepared for lifelong learning by focusing on learning strategies	0,397	−1	4	2	1		2	1	C*
3	Students are taught to be good networkers	0,417	0	−2	−3	2		−2	0
6	Students’ capability to understand information is stimulated	0,461	2	3	−2	3		4	3	C*
7	Students are given opportunities to study part-time in order to work and/or fulfill family commitments	0,479	−4	−4	1	0		−3	−5
10	Students’ capability to self-start learning is fostered	0,52	−1	4	1	0		1	3	C
24	Possibilities for students to access teaching from distance are created	0,524	−3	1	2	1		1	2	C*
14	Students’ ability to complete work in an appropriate amount of time is promoted	0,547	−1	2	−4	−2		−2	1
27	Opportunities for students to make their own decisions while learning are provided	0,561	3	2	2	−3		2	0
37	Videos of lectures to be watch as homework before class are created (flipped classroom)	0,587	−2	1	−2	−4		0	2
22	Students are taught to identify the fitting sources of information	0,688	−2	3	−2	0		0	5
16	Students are taught to separate fact from fiction	0,714	1	5	0	2		5	1
34	A gender responsive pedagogy is applied	0,755	2	−3	−3	1		−1	−2	C*
8	Opportunities for students to study abroad are provided	0,772	−5	−2	−1	2		−3	−1
31	Students are presented multiple perspectives and approaches, because teachers work in teams	0,776	3	1	−3	4		3	−1
36	Students learn through the experience of solving a problem found in trigger material, while teachers support and guide	0,784	5	2	−1	0		1	4
20	Students are engaged in hands-on learning settings allowing physical experience, such as e.g., role plays and debates	0,812	4	−1	0	−2		1	0	C*
5	Students are allowed to be creative and think outside the box	0,958	1	0	0	5		3	4	C*
32	Learning environments are inclusive in any possible way	1,156	0	−2	5	4		4	1
29	A safe learning environment for all students is created	1,338	2	−1	4	−3		3	−3
12	Students’ mental health is monitored to avoid drop-outs	1,435	−4	−1	4	−4		0	−4
28	Every student's individual needs are acknowledged and met	2,352	0	−5	5	−1		−1	−3

Note: Distinguishing items in t¹ are highlighted in bold. C: Consensus item at p < 0.01; C*: Consensus item at p < 0.05.

Consensus across viewpoints in t¹ and t²

As shown in Table 3, four items were statistically flagged as consensus items at t¹. Applying a more qualitative framework, other items are equally relevant to describe here. Nevertheless, compared to the total of 15 items which were significantly not distinguishing between any pair of factors in t², the immediate shift to digital teaching seems to have led to a polarization of viewpoints among the participants. The rather high number of consensus statements in t² must also be partially explained by the two-factor solution.

In January 2020, all viewpoints except for V 1-3 ranked item 1 about the importance of students’ critical thinking skills in the top position (+5). With a rank value of +3 by Viewpoint 1-3, it can nevertheless be argued that even respondents loading on this viewpoint agree that the improvement of the discussed twenty-first century skill is highly characteristic for successful higher education LE. In t² item 1 was ranked at +5 by both viewpoints. In addition, consensus regarding the importance of creative thinking (item 5) was found in t², whereas in t¹, only V1-4 ranked it highly (+5).

Before the pandemic, respondents on all four viewpoints strongly agreed that neither a paper-free LE (item 21), nor quests to accomplish specific goals in a game-based LE (item 33) contribute to a successful higher education teaching and learning. While the participants’ experience with forced digital and distance teaching has not impacted their perspective on item 33, V2-2 shows a more positive, but still relatively skeptical view on a nearly paper-free LE (-2). In January 2020, further consensus across all viewpoints was found regarding the respondents’ aversion to encouraging students to navigate in and across different languages while learning (item 19). After the first eight months of the pandemic, the viewpoints have diverged. V2-1 ranks this item at −4 and V2-2 at +1. The same phenomenon is visible with regard to item 30, describing lectures as a means to achieve equal opportunities. While viewpoints in t¹ showed a rather indecisive position between 0 and +1, the difference between V2-1 (+2) and V2-2 (−1) was bigger in t². Finally, in t², a highly significant consensus between the two viewpoints was found regarding students’ formative assessment (item 35). Both, V2-1 (−3) and V2-2 (−5) do not see this as characteristic of successful LE in the future. Despite consensus among pre- and while-pandemic data, the present study allows the emergence of a variety of independent viewpoints described below.

Which pre-pandemic viewpoints (t¹) of university teachers regarding successful future learning environments emerge?

Viewpoint 1-1

Apart from the conviction that critical thinking skills should be improved (1; +5), respondents loading on V1-1 share the view that students should learn through the experience of solving a problem found in trigger material, while teachers support and guide (36; +5). This corresponds well with their positive understanding of hands-on learning settings that allow physical experience (20; +4) and the importance of supportive student supervision (2; +4). Even though tight supervision seems to be regarded as vital, students should also receive opportunities to make their own decisions while learning (27; +3) and work in collaborative learning arrangements (9; +3).

Providing opportunities to study abroad (8; −5), or part-time to work and/or fulfill family commitments (7; −4), or to access teaching from distance (24; −3) is not regarded as characteristic of successful LE in the future by respondents loading significantly on V1-1.

Viewpoint 1-2

Faculty members significantly loading on V1-2 consider separating fact from fiction (16; +5) and critical thinking (1; +5) as the most important skills to be learned and improved by future graduates. They therefore also consider students’ capability of identifying fitting sources (22; +3) and understanding found information (6; +3) as vital. The analytical approach to students’ learning, goes hand in hand with their concern for preparing students for lifelong learning (4; +4) and a proactive approach to knowledge development (10; +4).

Generally, V1-2 focuses on students’ autonomy in learning processes and a far-reaching allocation of responsibility to future graduates. This is achieved by providing a physical LE that allows flexible arrangements on campus (25; +3) and a flipped classroom approach, focusing on students’ preparation before class (14; +2). Respondents loading on V1-2 do not see it as their task to acknowledge and meet students’ individual needs (28; −5) or foster students’ self-consciousness (23; −3) but want their students to have opportunities to make their own decisions (27; +2) and choose the channel to process and navigate information that best fits their learning preferences (18; +2). Generally, V1-2 respondents regard future students as highly capable and confident, without the need for excessive supportive supervision (2; 0) or particularly inclusive LE (32; −2).

Viewpoint 1-3

The focus of V1-3 respondents clearly lies on potentially more vulnerable students. Not only do they consider acknowledging and meeting every student’s individual needs (28; +5) and LE that are inclusive (32; +5) and safe (29; +4) as central, but consider monitoring students’ mental health as crucial to avoid drop-outs (12; +4). As expected, faculty members loading on this viewpoint wish for physical LE that allow flexible teaching and learning (25; +3) and aim to provide supportive supervision (2; +3). However, they do not regard formative assessment as characteristic of successful LE (35; −4). In connection to the disagreement with promoting students’ ability to complete work in an appropriate amount of time (14; −4), V1-3 continues to show low expectations and denial to apply pressure on learners.

Certain insecurity about students’ capability to be autonomous learners is also detected in indecisive ratings for item 5 about allowing students to be creative and thinking outside the box (0) and item 36 about letting students learn through the experience of solving a problem found in trigger material (−1). Respondents on V1-3 also struggle with coming to a clear response concerning the importance of students’ skills to separate fact from fiction themselves (16; 0).

Viewpoint 1-4

Respondents loading of V1-4 emphasize students’ creative (5; +5) and critical thinking skills (1; +5) and see benefits in stimulating students’ capability to understand information (6; 3). On the other end of the continuum and similar to other viewpoints, respondents here regard the suggestion of a paper-free (21; −5) and game-based LE (33; −5) as least characteristic of successful future LE. In addition, also the pedagogical concept of the flipped classroom is ranked low (37; −4).

Even though much of the teaching in Swedish universities during recent decades has been based on student-based-activity, e.g., problem-based learning, case-based learning, and enquiry-based learning, V1-4 ranks hands-on learning settings allowing physical experience rather low (20; −2). Still, they find it important to foster students to be supportive leaders in collaborative learning settings (11; +3), an arrangement that is generally perceived as promising by these respondents (9; +3). The idea of collaboration even extends to university teachers’ work, as V1-4 regards team teaching as beneficial for students’ knowledge development due to the multiple perspectives and approaches offered to them (31; +4).

Which while-pandemic viewpoints (t²) of university teachers regarding successful future learning environments emerge?

Viewpoint 2-1

Respondents from all four pre-pandemic viewpoints load significantly on V2-1. Critical thinking (1; +5) and being able to separate fact from fiction (16; +5) are seen as most characteristic of successful LE in the future. V2-1 is thereby, particularly in line with V1-2. Furthermore, V2-1 puts a strong focus on an inclusive (32; +4) and safe (29; +3) LE, but is unsure if monitoring students’ mental health is characteristic of a successful LE (12; 0). Nevertheless, these items clearly distinguish the two while-pandemic viewpoints and indicate that V2-1 is similar to V1-3 in its view of students’ vulnerability. Acknowledging and meeting students’ individual needs has however not received a high ranking by V2-1 (28; −1) and might be explained by the difficulty to do so during the first phase of the pandemic and the connected emergency remote teaching.

V2-1 ranks a game-based LE with quests lowest (33; −5) and does not believe in the idea to have a nearly paper-free teaching and learning setting (21; −5). Moreover, issues connected to language, such as using English as a medium of instruction (26; −4) or encouraging students to navigate in and across different languages (19; −4) are not seen as characteristic of successful LE.

Viewpoint 2-2

Respondents from V1-1, V1-2, and V1-4 were found to load on V2-2. Critical thinking (1; +5) and the ability to identify fitting sources of information (22; +5) are seen as most characteristic of successful LE in the future by this viewpoint. In addition, V2-2 claims that creative thinking (5; +4) and learning in a problem-based environment (36; +4) should be focused on in the future. Together with this viewpoint’s conviction that students’ capability to self-start learning should be fostered (10; +3), V2-2 seems to put more responsibility for learning onto the students than V2-1.

According to V2-2, part-time studies are not characteristic of successful LE (7; −5), showing close alignment with V1-1 and V1-2. Moreover, no focus needs to be put on creating a safe LE for all students (29; −3), which represents the statistically strongest disagreement with V2-1. This is further confirmed through V2-2 low ranking of monitoring students’ mental health (12; −4). An additional difference to the other while-pandemic viewpoint is found with regard to multimodality in higher education, which received a relatively high loading by V2-2 (18; +3). In our pre-pandemic results, this item was distinguishing for V1-2.

Discussion

The present article contributes with the conclusion of a wide variety of LE characterizations, manifested in four statistically distinctive pre-pandemic viewpoints, where a traditional view of future successful LE in higher education, achieved through fostering students’ critical thinking in a typically monolingual LE without extensive use of technology, could be detected as a consensus. Through data collected after the first eight months of the pandemic, a polarization of viewpoints could be identified. First-hand experience of digital and distanced teaching during an unknown and unsure situation led university teachers to reevaluate their preferences and perspectives regarding successful LE in the future. As results from t² indicate, while-pandemic viewpoints represent completely new configurations of university teachers’ views of what successful LE might look like. By contrasting the presented results with the theoretical foundation on LE introduced earlier, a range of aspects are worth discussing and lead to several implications for practice.

The importance of critical and creative thinking

First of all, the perceived importance of students’ critical thinking skills is well in line with the Swedish Higher Education Act and a more student-centered perspective on teaching and learning in Swedish higher education (SFS, 2014). Since training in critical thinking is central from the undergraduate level all the way to the degree of doctorate in Sweden and it is not necessarily surprising that participating university teachers are aware of their responsibility to continuously and systematically prepare students’ critical thinking. The same is true for creativity. The finding that this item even rose in participants’ ranking during the pandemic is telling of the importance of finding creative ways of coping with digital solutions, both as teachers and students. As a result of this interpretation, all emerged pre- and while-pandemic viewpoints illustrate some sense of importance for a LE with a networking lens (Abualrub et al., 2013) that focuses on the employability of future-ready graduates.

Increasingly positive views on digital and distance teaching and learning

Before the pandemic, we identified skepticism around items connected to digitalization, such as the idea of distance teaching and learning or a paper-free and game-based LE. Potential reasons could have been ignorance, a lack of knowledge, certain insecurity about the quality of lesser-known approaches (Amhag et al., 2019), or a higher level of undesired dependence on university’s ICT support (Stigmar et al., 2012). Therefore, pre-pandemic university teachers perceived newer approaches as less successful. After the immediate and mandatory digitalization of all university teachers’ work settings, a more positive, yet not overwhelming, viewpoint regarding distance teaching could be found. In particular, it seems as more university teachers with a more traditional view (V1-1) were positively surprised and ranked respective items higher in t². A particular example is item 37 about flipped classrooms, which has generally received more acceptance after the first phase of the pandemic. On the other hand, items that specifically focused on on-campus LE (e.g., items 17; 20; 25) seem to have disappeared in the neutral areas of the distribution grid at t². It remains to be investigated, if this result can be explained by the data collection activity only eight months into the pandemic, where participants were still dealing with emergency remote teaching (Hodges et al., 2020) and might have not yet entered a consolidation phase in their while-pandemic teaching practice.

Shifting views about students’ capabilities

It is notable that the respondents in our study expressed not only different but also contradictory beliefs in connection to students’ capabilities. At t¹, V1-2 painted a picture of autonomous learners with the capacity for lifelong learning and V1-3 showed a great deal of insecurity about students’ independent work. In addition, the characterization of successful LE by V1-3 seemed to be of particular importance for non-traditional students (Thunborg & Bron, 2018) and referred to the lens of organizational responsibility. It, therefore, stood in contrast to the predominant pedagogical lens in V1-1. At t² however, the stronger viewpoint (V2-1), was more closely aligned with V1-3, indicating the increased focus directed towards students’ potential difficulties in an ever more student-centered approach to teaching and learning (Kember, 1997). A potential explanation is the changed conditions in which university teachers interact with students during the pandemic. Without physically meeting students and at times without seeing their faces due to turned off cameras during online meetings, respondents adapted their views regarding students’ capabilities.

Future directions

Finally, despite the found polarization during the first period of the pandemic, our findings reveal a seemingly reasonable variety of viewpoints, given the fact that a group of respondents naturally contains a wide range of opinions. It also echoes the findings in Matheson (2020), which suggest the deeply individual perception of teaching excellence. The exploratory nature of this research and its results allow a dialogue about future policies both, with the participants of this study, within the case university more broadly, and also in other higher education institutions. Hereto, future research taking up results presented here or even replicating the present study will illustrate if and how the immediate and radical shift to distance teaching via digital media affected university teachers’ views on successful LE in the long run. Moreover, studies with other methodological approaches, such as questionnaires or narratives, and other participants, such as students, will certainly complement the analysis of the teaching and learning experienced during Covid-19.

Limitations

Because Q methodology is interested in participants’ subjectivity, it is common practice in Q not to define concepts and terms used in the Q items. The many questions posed to the researchers about gender-responsive pedagogy (item 34) forced us to handle the rankings of this item with reservations and adumbrate the limited understanding of the term at the case university. Connected to that is also our conscious choice of unspecific wording regarding in the future. We have no information about participants’ specific ideas of what point in time they were thinking of during the sorting activity. It is imaginable that some of them were thinking about a time after their teaching career, and therefore transferred responsibility for newer aspects of LE to upcoming generations of university faculty. Covid-19 has however illustrated that change can come more immediate than expected and certain transformative dynamics, such as the digitalization of higher education LE, might be accelerated by unexpected external influences.

Furthermore, the applied Q sample was criticized for its size. At least one participant experienced a certain fatigue during the certainly stimulating and demanding sorting of 37 items. The expression of fatigue is well-documented in previous research in connection to answering for example long questionnaires (Lee et al., 2005). Consequently, we cannot exclude the risk that some of the participants suffered from sorting exhaustion and therefore rank-ordered the statements arbitrarily.

Finally, results from the present case study and from Q methodology in general are not meant to be generalized. However, described insights into premises that allow universities to be future-ready are expected to be relevant for any higher education institution, as measures such as the Bologna system have made universities more similar than different from an international perspective. This is further supported by the fact that the immediate digitalization in the spring of 2020 was mandatory for most higher education institutions, nationally and globally.

Conclusions

It is gratifying to note that the movement towards student-centered learning continues, as respondents in our study are in agreement regarding the importance of students’ critical and creative thinking and seem to be more positive towards online teaching and learning after the initial phase of the pandemic. Closely connected to that is the finding that they are not yet convinced of the benefits of technologically enhanced on-campus LE, where physical and digital aspects are integrated. Since we steer towards more such hybrid LE in the future, the skeptical, hesitant and undecided position towards technology simultaneously represents an opportunity for learning development and poses a challenge for educational developers in higher education teacher training courses. As a practical implication of our study, university teachers are well-advised to further develop their view on the benefits of technologically enhanced on-campus LE as well as their skills regarding digital teaching and learning. To increase university teachers’ confidence and willingness to teach digitally and in hybrid LE, training course offerings at educational development centers are to be adapted accordingly.

Furthermore, a diversity of viewpoints regarding successful future LE and revealed areas of consensus which should be of interest to any policymakers and centers of educational development are presented. Four different pre-pandemic viewpoints were identified among the participants. The variety in subjective viewpoints of successful LE in the future was therefore similarly wide as the three lenses described by Abualrub et al. (2013) and outlined in the literature review of the present paper. This finding also confirmed previous literature reporting little general agreement regarding teaching excellence. At the same time, the results of this study illustrate the highly dynamic character of LE as a concept. The immediate shift to digital and distance teaching in spring of 2020 and the experiences collected during the first eight months of the pandemic have led to a new orientation and polarization of what university teachers see as characteristic for successful LE in the future. It became obvious how vital sound options for further development of university faculty are in order to prevent emergency hybrid teaching and instead incorporate newer, potentially less known approaches into the university teachers’ repertoire to create future-ready learning environments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study did not receive any funding.