Students developing CS content and community

The official content of the CS program developed through various processes, from initial interaction in developing the CS minor to major preparations, and

eventually to activities taking place during the first years of the program. In Fall 2012, when the official advisory board activities in CS began, the first formal CS development meetings on the school level were held and, more informally, amongst the student community. Overall, amongst the CS students, there were motivations to improve the CS program community and content, as being a CS student was perceived to be connected with a willingness to be involved in developing the teaching itself. As one interviewee put it, “I really don't understand that some people study [in] Creative Sustainability but they don't care about [improving] education” [#13]. Another student describes that as “we have this experience, [and] we have tried out different things” [#14], this also acts as a justification to listen to their views.

In Fall 2012, CS perceptions and feedback from students were gathered in a more comprehensive survey by one student (interviewee #15), commissioned by the CS program director. The online survey continued with a student workshop.

According to the workshop results, the CS program remained “undefined” and

“maybe should stay as such” (2012 workshop report), as it could then invite all sorts of input into interaction, supported by an “overall feeling of openness and chance to experiment.” However, “people still rely on the discipline close to their school” and do not “feel like experts of creative sustainability” (2012 workshop report). In considering the contents of study, an “even more practical approach”

would be appreciated (2012 workshop report). The survey also emphasized how student perceptions are rather neutral in balancing “theory” and “practice” (3.4/5 on a Likert-type of scale; see note 92) but positive in relation to content being

“project-based” (4/5). Furthermore, according to the respondents, the things they have learned in CS have come rather equally from “extra activities” and the

“official curriculum” (2.8/5).

In general, the students have very strong experiences of the study content, perhaps also strengthened by their motivation towards participation in the program to begin with; but these feelings are not always very visible in the courses or to the teachers. Often “actually nobody complained in the class, but we were complaining a lot” [#13]. On the other hand, the developments in the course content are difficult to see as a student, as students take courses only once.

However, according to students involved in the formal developmental activities (#15, #17, being communications officer or having academic board duties), there was constant progress in developing and iterating the shared introductory study courses in CS. This was partially perceived as positive and as “a response to student feedback,” but sometimes also “circumstantial,” based on the availability of teachers and so on [#17].

As in relation to the Systems Thinking course, a student feedback video

(discussed in interview #13) criticized the lack of time in terms of both planned content and how much students were able to contribute. This lack of invested

“credits” and “time” (how much students are able to contribute in relation to their scheduling of studies) connect together and, according to the video, result in a lack of “motivation” and “productivity,” hindering “knowledge” production. The video also addresses the roles of participants, suggesting not only peer learning but also peer teaching with students taking teacher roles, starting from practical room arrangements to how topics and papers are discussed and reflected on in the group (see Figure 20).

Figure 20. Edited from screenshots from Systems Thinking course feedback video Source: Edited from the student video; courtesy of course students The video also listed actual “ideas for motivation” to promote learning. Among these, were “more detailed feedback,” sharing students’ “own experiences,”

“innovative ways of presentation” (and “user-friendly web page”), and a better balance between “creative and academic assignments” and more “practical assignments.” While this feedback was then discussed among teachers — it also led to structuring the phases of learning better in future teaching — the students felt that they got “no feedback from the teachers,” with only one teacher

responding [#14]. Similar experiences of a lack of feedback (and follow-up on ideas) were encountered on other courses; and yet, also according to the students, in CS development, “the student involvement […] in more than just the feedback sense, but in some kind of co-creation sense is […] important” [#17].

In April 2013, a bigger workshop on CS program development was organized by CS Design, involving participants from all CS schools. More than 30 people participated, of whom roughly half were students from various years of intake, and the participating departments. In the workshop, identified as working well in CS were the “appreciation of values,” “diversity,” and CS as “learning platforms.”

Identified as important areas of development were “practical project-based active learning,” “communication and networks,” “teachers’ collaboration,” and

“pedagogical renewal,” amongst others (2013 workshop report).

The notion on improving communication related to the fact that “teachers share and learn from experience” and experiences of teaching and learning should be better shared, as well as to “telling what we do and hearing the voices of everyone” and “increasing awareness” (2013 workshop report). Pedagogical renewal was needed for “understanding all sides of knowledge” with a “dialogic approach”; and, as current thinking is “too top-down,” education should “listen to feedback” (2013 workshop report). Finally, practical and project-based “active learning” emphasized “learning by doing” to “test and prepare for future situations” and “to gain professional expertise” in “real life projects/problems”

(2013 workshop report). In relation to the practical challenges in experiencing CS studies, teachers’ collaboration was also emphasized to avoid “overlap” and for

“sharing workload,” and to give students “knowledge about teachers’ expertise”

and an “overview of what is going on” (2013 workshop report). The workshop came up with ideas to proceed with, such as a “teacher exchange workshop,” a

“blank module designed by the previous year’s students,” an “open conversation while developing ideas,” and good reporting of the ideas (2013 workshop report).

These developments were taken forward in various forms. Since the big workshop, teacher workshops (that had started on a school basis earlier) have been a regular annual event aimed at CS teaching staff. Previous years’ students were brought in to teach — for example, on the Creative Teamwork course — and communication online was already under development. In this sense, many of the issues had already been identified. However, several of the ideas that were

discussed to involve previous students in teaching newer ones (for example, creating a project in which students would introduce some cases, or tutoring) have not really progressed. The formal follow-up, at least how it was experienced in terms of communication, remained thin.

In the end, CS students were perceived as slightly different from the “ordinary”

student. CS students are perceived as taking “things more seriously” [#17] or being more critical in dialogues and thinking [#16]. Topics strange to others, such as “toilet infrastructure in the third world, or some typical CS topic like that” was no longer perceived as an “unusual... strange topic,” but for CS students a “normal conversation […] to have” [#17]. Such an ability for a critical and dialogical approach toward any problem that is framed within the sustainability context can be considered as the key ability for collaborative analysis and synthesizing, as described when looking at interprofessional collaboration (as in sections 2.2.1 and 3.2.4). And yet, such an ability can help to connect with expert professional skills, too. As one interviewee analyzes, he is not sure if “discussing tricky topics” counts as expertise, but it comes down to “being comfortable in the unknown” [#17].

According to the same interviewee, sustainability and interdisciplinarity are in a sense “the kind of two sides of the coin thing.” According to him, from the CS perspective, “the kind of discipline-based work that we're used to, the siloing of things, is one of the things that led to the problems that we have now” [#17]. The

interprofessional approach is then perceived as “maybe one way of… climb[ing]

back, and getting to a point where sustainability, in whatever sense you mean it, is something that is working” [#17].

Eventually, the first few batches of CS students’ activities culminated in the initiation of a community on sustainability for the Aalto community as a whole.

The idea behind this initiative was to “serve the next ones” [#17], and interested students at Aalto more broadly. In respect of communities interested in

sustainability at Aalto University and amongst CS partners, a group around sustainability already existed in the School of Business, called the Sustainable Business Club (SBC) and consisting not only of students but also academic staff and a lot more people than just CS. This organization had an established history before CS, and it had been active in communicating events, as well as in

organizing presentations, events, and regular reading sessions. As a result, a question emerged among CS Design: “do we need that [same thing] at a design school?” [#17]. The SBC events were, of course, open to all, but while participation in some events was shared, CS Design students also felt that a more open

community was needed. Finally, after long discussions, the Aalto Sustainable Community (ASC) was registered in Fall 2014, with CS Business students leading its preparations and initiation. However, since its active start, ASC has been on hold.

4.3.4. Summarizing emerging themes from the experiencing phase in CS