From previous post:
Expanding on the idea of giving all core users basic skills to navigate and play in the space based on their interest, could empower them to feel a sense of belonging. – Goes back to artefact idea.
Do they feel a sense of non-belonging? INTERVIEW
Are the students that consult more end up being in the space more? Courses like MABD who have a heavy workshop based curriculum end up being heavy users of the space. Correlation with the type of support given or reflection of the course brief?
Reflections for the future and points to keep always in mind when analysing questionnaire data:
Too comfortable in the space – goal achieved or another problem?
It came to my mind that the idea of belonging to a space for some, can create discomfort to others. For example, students that are perceived as regulars, who are comfortable and empowered to learn and explore, could be passing the idea of ‘model students’ and examples to be followed to those who don’t feel the same way? How can the constant presence of ‘regulars’ create an idea of a clique and a perceived status of ownership of the space? How can I intervene and avoid that?
Would the creation of different spaces and levels of support help?
Maybe would be worth considering the creation of different work zones for independent work and other spaces where more oversight is offered. The challenge, in my point of view, is to do it in such a way that it doesn’t create a divide and the perception that the spaces are inflexible. The one who inhabits one category can’t navigate to the other and vice-versa. Would that create an undesirable structure?
At the same time, being able to offer more support who those who need, would give them more malleability to navigate the different spaces and the feeling of empowerment through independency. My interpretation of Freire’s work is that learning and belonging comes when the individual believes it has control and ownership of its pace and space.
Issues with creating different categories
As an expansion to the previous point, one could also argue that creating different spaces for different user groups could create stigma. An observation of mine is that students that struggle with language are more hesitant to ask for help and request time from the technical team. They end up trying to solve things on their own and getting things wrong, which in turn results in them being corrected and the sense of hesitation is perpetuated. They often tend to be quite apologetic when requesting support, and for me, personally, that is an indication of discomfort. How can I deal with this?
The offer of more one-to-one time is the strategy that we currently use, but if a student is not comfortable with verbal communication, the face-to-face 15min conversation might not solve the issue and even make it worse. If the student feel they are not understood or can’t get their point across, that might put them off trying again or returning to the space.
How can I make students from different language backgrounds and learning skills feel equally supported?
Written consultation / webchat? Those could solve the communication issue and make the student feel understood and the conversation flow in a pace that works for everyone. However, how those tools can be used in a technical space where practical work need to be demonstrated?
The observation regarding language barriers is reflected in the UAL attainment gap report case studies (Israel & Mackey, 2019) that also points to cultural differences when speaking in public.
DEVIATION FROM THE ORIGINAL POINT.
References:
Friere, P. (1968) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum
Israel, A. and Mackey, C. (2019) UAL attainment gap report. Available at https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/62935733/artssu-attainment-gap-report-14nov (visited on 17th July 2023)