Search results

This chapter examines what teacher training has taught us through numerous studies and collaborations on how space can be used to develop a unique culture with students. The principal concept here is that classroom and education design has evolved. The pandemic has spotlighted the physical and virtual spaces we use while learning desired qualities of collaboration, communication, critical thinking and designing for creativity and belonging.

The contemporary focus on extracurricular activities, here the educational incubator environment, accentuates a need to understand what we offer students in terms of the curricular and extracurricular learning environments when situated in the same higher education institution (HEI). Current research points towards breaking down the invisible barriers and silo thinking. In this conceptual study, we apply the Didaktik triangle as a theoretical and conceptual framing to make comparisons of structurally based conditions for curricular and extracurricular entrepreneurship education (EE). We present a framework that helps bridge the ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ questions in the two different learning spaces and, thereby, conjoin educators and consultants in possible pedagogical discussions on how they work with the students. The suggested bridge frames a wider ‘why’ and adds a more holistic and cohesive view of the two different types of settings. Our study contributes to the literature on how to bridge the blurred lines between curricular and extracurricular activities and break down the silos. The framework can act as an inspiration for entrepreneurship educators and practitioners who wish to provide more suitable and sustainable structures and develop a holistic learning environment.

Spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in the open acknowledgment of the importance of teaching and learning praxis that is grounded in compassion, understanding, cocreation, community, and flexibility. This is especially so for ‘traditional’ university spaces, in essence questioning and resisting the many established dynamics that face-to-face teaching and learning took for granted within many neoliberal and neocolonial higher education contexts. In this chapter, I propose positioning a love ethic as a primary point of departure for all educational engagements, a foundational shift in ontology (way of being) of the university. By focusing on love as liberation and justice, and teaching as an act of love, I draw on critical, engaged, and feminist pedagogies, as well as my experience as a lecturer in a social justice– and global citizenship-oriented program at the University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa, where I positioned a love ethic as central to my pedagogical approach. I argue that when we begin to view love as more than mere emotion, but as an ideological position that informs values and praxis within higher education (and our university “classrooms” in particular), we may move toward new and exciting ways of envisioning the decolonized university of the 21st century. A love ethic, as defined by bell hooks, offers possibilities for an approach to critical transformation that is not merely motivated by the change of institutional structures, but by the reform of values guiding teaching and learning and ways of being within higher education institutions.

Higher education institutions (HEIs) in Australia shape the country's economic, social, and political landscape and equip students with the skills they need to succeed in ever-changing work environments. Embedded within Australian HEIs are sets of values that reflect and reinforce collective Australian values, which describe the shared beliefs of the leadership, academic staff, students, and the local community. These shared values then direct all members of the university community. Using a top-tier university in Melbourne, Australia, as a case study, this chapter explores how the values of accessibility, inclusion, and collaboration are embedded into the curriculum, teaching, and assessment practices. Relationship-building and positive student interaction within learning contexts are also crucial to learning contexts in higher education (HE) and are essentially driven by values in HE. Furthermore, values identified in this chapter align with broader Australian values relating to fairness, equity, cooperation, and support. Utilizing the experience and reflection of four contributing academics in HE, this chapter offers ideas and strategies on how these values can be fundamentally rooted within learning and teaching programs, thereby increasing student engagement, interaction, and success. This chapter acknowledges that the needs of contemporary education have changed, as the HE sector now accommodates students from all walks of life. Additionally, a fundamental premise of the discourse is that learner diversity can be accommodated more effectively if it is spurred by values that respect and appreciate learner diversity.

This chapter discusses what special education means for students with visual impairments (that is, those who are blind or have low vision) including what is being done and how traditions are maintained. More specifically, this chapter explores the importance of advancing values for the diverse population of students with visual impairments, focusing on cultivation of supportive, inclusive, and collaborative educational environments that continue to stand the test of time. This chapter highlights the increasing heterogeneity of this population of students and specific instructional strategies to support the cultural and linguistic diversity of learners with visual impairments in today's classrooms. This chapter also discusses the significance of promoting core concepts that are rooted in a traditional and specialized instructional framework for students who are visually impaired.

With practical entrepreneurship capabilities becoming ever more important for all university graduates, whether they are starting their own business or adding value to an organisation by innovating, improving, and problem-solving, what role do business incubators (BIs) play in helping to develop these capabilities for students? This chapter aims to better understand the role of BIs as extra-curricular entrepreneurship activity in universities through a narrative account of business incubation practice in three institutions – two in England and one in Australia. Utilising a practice-led methodology, the study is underpinned by social capital theory and a critical realist ontological perspective on incubation’s mechanisms, processes, and structures. Across these examples, there are common underpinning principles of entrepreneurial learning and socio-economic development. However, there are differences in implementation regarding space for incubation. Where the BI is on campus and closely integrated with extra-curricular entrepreneurship activity, this results in a cohesive graduate startup community and ongoing peer support. With no BI present, the opposite is observed. The chapter argues that without the infrastructure to build and maintain a community of nascent entrepreneurs to benefit from sustained peer learning, there can be negative impacts on the entrepreneurs and a visible gap affecting the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The chapter concludes with a practice note providing practical considerations for university BIs in communicating the significance of the incubator peer group to prospective entrepreneurs to improve realistic expectations and potentially improve their reach to entrepreneurs who may be experiencing isolation during their startup journey.

This chapter presents a critical reflection on delivering a lecture on the impacts of colonialism to a cohort of predominantly white, undergraduate students in the UK. This chapter provides an overview of the lecture, including its key content and how it built on a wider programme of learning. It then discusses student reactions to the lecture content, reviews the literature on teaching sensitive subjects, highlights what pedagogues in Higher Education (HE) can learn from this literature, and explores both teacher and student positionality. The chapter concludes that pedagogues in HE should pursue the teaching of sensitive subjects and not ‘give in’ to student discomfort. Not creating the conditions to discuss such issues in learning spaces ultimately sides with existing structures of power and privilege in HE that should be challenged. However, strategies need to be put in place to overcome students’ fears of discussing sensitive subjects. These strategies include pedagogues building up trust, facilitating open dialogue, and reflexively exploring positionality. These present both students and teachers with the opportunity to recognise and transform their own biases, perceptions, and attitudes to facilitate deeper and more democratic learning; and challenge existing structures of privilege in HE that benefit more powerful groups.