Lecturers' perspectives on how physical spaces are used in higher education for talent development of students

Abstract

This article details the findings of a study done at a Gauteng Higher Education Institution in South Africa. It's part of a bigger study called "The Dynamics of Higher Education Space and Place in Sub-Saharan Africa." The volunteers were chosen at random and were all freely available. The study's goal was to look at the perspectives and experiences of 17 lecturers. Lecturers were expected to match their exigence variables to their eventuality spaces. Interviews were employed to acquire data for this interpretive qualitative study. The participants' perspectives are discussed during the discussion. The selected institution is concerned about the lack of space at South African higher education institutions. One of the issues that exacerbate the poor academic performance of lecturers at the institution is space use in higher education settings. In order to alleviate the challenges of space, the research organization needed to use space and policy. There is pressure on higher education institutions and and lecturers to deliver continuous improvement in systems and performances. The results of the investigation of lecturers' opinions about the way physical spaces are used in higher education for talent tevelopment of students showed that most of the lecturers, in addition to being overworked, faced various obstacles, such as insufficient resources and physical space, which are repeatedly mentioned in similar studies, and inadequate manpower support. Therefore, in this regard, the establishment of collaborative networks between lecturers and students, the dynamism of university administrators, especially the Chairs of Departments to support lecturers with adequate office space to support talented students is very important which is consistent with several studies. The identification of gifted students in the educational system should be based on accurate and scientific criteria. It is recommended that lecturers should be provided with adequate space (offices) in performing their official responsibilities.

Keywords

• higher education institution
• lived spaces
• conceived spaces
• policy
• South Africa

References

1. Amin, F. A. B. M., Mokhtar, N.M., Ibrahim, F.A.B., & Nordin, N.M.N.B. (2021). A Review of The Job Satisfaction Theory for Special Education Perspective. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(11), 5224-5228.
2. Biesta, G. (2017). Education, Measurement and the Professions: Reclaiming a space for democratic professionality in education, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(4), 315-330, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2015.1048665
3. Black, T., Dhaliwal, R., Stanton, A., & Hutchinson, C. (2014). A Rationale to Address Physical Spaces and Well-being in Post-Secondary Settings. Healthy Campus Community, Simon Fraser University, www.sfu.ca/healthycampuscommunity/physicalspaces
4. Chiva-Bartoll, O., & Fernández-Rio, J. (2021). Advocating for Service-Learning as a pedagogical model in Physical Education: towards an activist and transformative approach. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, Ahead-of-Print, 1-14. doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2021.1911981
5. Cicha, K., Rizun, M., Rutecka, P., & Strzelecki, A. (2021). COVID-19 and Higher Education: First-Year Students’ Expectations toward Distance Learning. Sustainability, 13, 1889. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041889
6. Coman, C., & Tîru, L.G., Mesesan-Schmitz, L., Stanciu, C., & Bularca, M.C. (2020). Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education during the Coronavirus Pandemic: Students’ Perspective. Sustainability, 12(10367); 1-24. doi:10.3390/su122410367
7. Eringfeld, S. (2021) Higher education and its post-coronial future: utopian hopes and dystopian fears at Cambridge University during Covid-19, Studies in Higher Education, 46(1), 146-157, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1859681
8. Fernandez, S. (2021). Making space in higher education: disability, digital technology, and the inclusive prospect of digital collaborative making, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(12), 1375-1390, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1610806

9. Fuhre, J., Øygard, A., & Sæther, S.A. (2022). Coaches’ Criteria for Talent Identification of Youth Male Soccer Players. Sports, 10(14), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports 10020014
10. Gourlay, L. (2021). There Is No 'Virtual Learning': The Materiality of Digital Education. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 57-66. doi: 10.7821/naer.2021.1.649
11. Hill, J., Healey, R.L., West, H., & Déry, C. (2021). Pedagogic partnership in higher education: encountering emotion in learning and enhancing student wellbeing. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 45(2), 167-185.
12. Jung, J.Y., Jackson, R.L., Townend, G., & McGregor, M. (2022). Equity in Gifted Education: The Importance of Definitions and a Focus on Underachieving Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 149–151.
13. Kryvylova, O., Sosnickaya, N., Oleksenko, K., Oleksenko, R., & Khavina, I. (2021). The aqmeological framework for modern higher education as a step towards sustainable development of society. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S3), 55-64.
14. Kokko, A.K., & Laura Hirsto, L. (2021), From physical spaces to learning environments: processes in which physical spaces are transformed into learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 24, 71–85.
15. Lakin, J.M., & Wai, J. (2022). Developing Student Aptitudes as an Important Goal of Education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2) 95–97.
16. Li, C., & Liu, H. (2021). Analysis of an Extensible Teaching Mode for Cultivating College Students into Innovative Talents. International Journal: Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(10), 212-225.
17. Lockhart, K., Meyer, M.S., Crutchfield, K. (2021). A Content Analysis of Selected State Plans for Gifted and Talented Education. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(1), 3-42, doi.org/10.1177/1932202X211026240
18. Madikizela-Madiya, N. (2018). Mistrust in a multi-campus institutional context: a socio-spatial analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(5), 415-429, DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2018.1478609
19. Maksum, I. (2021). Integration of Needs into a Qur’an Perspective Using Maslow and Herzberg's Motivation Theory. Saudi Journao of Humanities Social Science, 6(9), 354-362.
20. Martinez, T., Duarte, M., Cristina, & Garcia-Luna, A.C. (2021). How using smart buildings technology can improve indoor environmental quality in educational buildings. SHS Web of Conferences 102, 03003 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202110203003
21. McAdam, R., Miller, K., & McSorley, C. (2019).Towards a contingency theory perspective of quality management in enabling strategic alignment, International Journal of Production Economics, Volume 207, 2019,195-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.07.003.
22. Nelson, E., & Johnson, L. (2021). Addressing the Socio-Spatial Challenges of Innovative Learning Environments for Practicum: Harmonics for Transitional Times. (pages, 291-303). In: Wesley Imms & Thomas Kvan (Editors). Teacher Transition into Innovative Learning Environments: A Global Perspective. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd: Singapore.
23. Mo, F. (2022). Strategies to Cultivate Generation Z Talent in Marketing under the Big Data Era. Open Access Library Journal, 9: e8157. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1108157 Olszewski-Kubilius, P., and Subotnik, R.F. (2022). Response to Peters: Promising Practices and a Missing Piece. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 110–112.
24. Patricia, N.M., & Asoba, S.N. (2021). Theories of job satisfaction in the higher education context. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 27(2), 1-16.
25. Plucker, J.A., & Barber, H. (2021). Talent Development Plans Help Guide Consistent, Equitable Service Delivery. Gifted Child Today, 44(1), 39-43.
26. Rahiminia, E., Yazdani, S., & Rahiminia, H. (2021). Investigating and analyzing the situation of the talented students of shahid beheshti university of medical sciences: a qualitative study. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 9(3), 269-276. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17478/jegys.946606
27. Ruthankoon, R., & Ogunlana, S.O. (2003). Testing Herzberg’s two-factor theory in the Thai construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(5), 333-341.
28. Stollman, S., Meirink, J., Westenberg, M., & Van Driel, J. (2021). Teachers’ Interactive Cognitions of Differentiated Instruction: An Exploration in Regular and Talent Development Lessons. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 44(2) 201–222.
29. Thant, Z.M., & Chang, Y. (2021). Determinants of Public Employee Job Satisfaction in Myanmar: Focus on Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory. Public Organization Review (2021) 21,157–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-020-00481-6
30. Tryus, Y.V., & Herasymenko, I.V. (2020), Approaches, models, methods and means of training of future IT-specialists with the use of elements of dual education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1840 012034
31. Wells, A., & Plucker, J.A. (2022). Achieving Equitable Outcomes Requires Expanded Services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2) 108–109.
32. Yu, J. (2021). Exploring the Relationships Between Learning Space and Student Learning in Higher Education: A Comparative Case Study in China, (pages, 215-225). In: Wesley Imms & Thomas Kvan (Editors). Teacher Transition into Innovative Learning Environments: A Global Perspective. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd: Singapore.
33. Yu, J., Vermunt, J.D., & Burke, C. (2021). Students’ learning patterns and learning spaces in higher education: an empirical investigation in China. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(4), 868-883.
34. Photos Web Sites Source, 2022a. https://www.pexels.com/photo/adult-woman-using-netbook-in-contemporary-cafe-3768236/
35. Source, 2022b. https://unsplash.com/photos/YloghyfD7e8
36. Source, 2022c. https://unsplash.com/photos/YRMWVcdyhmI