Multiple truths and multiple realities is an ontological position with which educational research is well versed, but what happens when multiple subjective perceptions form the context of the learning experiences with which students and faculty engage? This volume is about perceptions – perceptions of shifting and developing learner/professional identities, perceptions of the value of a degree, of expertise and of the classrooms' affordances and stakeholder expectations. The international authors in this volume focus on the outcomes of the conscious decisions we make about the contexts in which we find ourselves when studying or working in higher education. They explore both quantitatively and qualitatively how we orientate ourselves amongst the multiple perspectives of reality and how perceptions are enacted in educational situations.
Chan and Stacey qualitatively explore student-faculty partnerships in the context of co-creation of curricula in Vietnam. They document the shifting perception of identity over the time/duration of the partnership and how student frustrations and academic vulnerability manifest in the early stages of such partnerships. The development of trust, respect, risk and shared learning are discussed as power, which originally resided with the teaching team, is shared, and ownership of the student learning experience is increased.
Co-design also raises the question of expertise and who is perceived to be best placed to design learning experiences. The students are the experts in their own learning, but Lange and Costley, from South Korea and Russia respectively, remind us that instructional design decisions need to be made with care an attention, in order to avoid negatively impacting students with extraneous cognitive load. They explore sequencing and scaffolding, two well established curriculum design methods, which are surrounded by conflicting research, especially when used together.
As educators, we tend to believe that instructional design decisions made during the development of courses are invisible to students, that students are offered a series of coherently presented learning experiences and may not perceive or appreciate the pedagogical decisions that underlie these. However, the nursing students in Liu, Kor and Kwan’s study, from Hong Kong, highlight that they are aware of these and can identify how they benefit from them. These students fully appreciated the immediate chances to test their understanding of a topic and they specifically appreciated the alignment between the pre and post lecture activities, and how these blended together in the classroom. Indeed, they were acutely perceptive of pedagogical choices made in the design of their learning experiences and they recognised that the most active and engaged class participants would be the ones that would benefit the most.
Yet, what if active engagement in the classroom, as per the western norms, is hindered for international students due to both, a culture shock and a pedagogical shock? Zhu and O’Sullivan outline how this may be challenging for both faculty and students due to misalignment of understanding and perceived expectations, and they outline strategies for adaptation which could be adopted in UK higher education settings. In this volume, Tan and Carnegie further explore home and international students’ differing perceptions in relation to academic integrity and assessment and find surprising results.
Changing the dynamics of the classroom, from a setting for content delivery into a space where higher order skills can be developed, is another example of shifting power which facilitates the development of learner identity. Cilliers and Pylman, from South Africa, seek to quantitatively understand the perceptions of faculty and students when the classroom is ‘flipped’, to offer content delivery prior to in-class engagement. They find that perceptions of significantly more effort is required by both instructors and students, to design and engage in such experiences, especially if all the other modules offered to students take a more traditional approach. The contrast is stark and the determining factors of success in their case study were access to the required infrastructure and possession of the necessary digital skills and capabilities.
However, in Chien-Yuan Su and Cheng-Huan Chen’s research, previous experience of using technology and having developed relevant digital skills, was less important to Chinese students (not a pre-condition) and the determining factor of learner engagement was having a positive attitude and strong perceptions of autonomy in how one chooses to learn. Indeed, Lee, from the USA, posits that if educators create opportunities for students to identify their talents and they support them in developing the necessary behaviours, then students’ confidence will increase, regardless of risk and feelings of failure. Lee specifically evaluates college students’ perceptions of how they develop their own creative personal identity, over the duration of a course. Through pre and post surveys, he finds that self-doubt is a strong internal hindrance, but within the right learning environment and through perseverance, this can be overcome, perceptions of self can be changed and confidence levels increased.
Increased belief in one’s own potential can truly motivate learners to engage in their learning, which is also attested by Orji and Ogbuanya’s research with undergraduate students in Nigeria, who engage with problem-based learning experiences to develop practical skills. However, we can see the opposite effects on achievement, derived from students’ low personal investment in their studies, in the article by Agu Igwe, Lock and Rugara, from the UK. They report on a study, which was also carried out in Nigeria, where students did not set or articulate their own personal goals and targets and, as such, failed to develop the required employability skills. This is largely due to the widely accepted notion that it’s the accreditation that is the most important requirement to gain employment in their context, and the perception that ‘a degree is enough’. In this context, the importance of the formal qualification outweighs students’ individual development as professionals, and hinders the development of their professional identity.
Indeed, formal accreditation is also the topic of investigation by Chong, who aims to understand how a ‘PhD by published work’ can be attained in the UK. Chong reveals the structure and formal requirements of the thesis submission in this genre of PhDs, but with such variability across the sector, one questions the differing levels of support which are available to developing the all-important student/researcher identity and how this is perceived. One must also question what is being assessed, which doctoral level skills are demonstrated and how they are accredited.
Finally, Káplár-Kodácsy and Dorner, from Hungary, in their exploration of relational mentoring, remind us that perceptions of learning spaces, how they afford engagement, and the need for personal investment and ownership of one’s learning is not unique to our student community, but also our faculty.
The research presented in this volume highlights that perceptions can be fairly static or they might be more fluid and can change throughout the duration of a particular course, project or even through a single learning interaction. Most importantly, the authors remind us that it is how these perceptions play out in an educational setting can be a strong determining factor of success, irrespective of how we choose to measure it.