Introduction

In 2020, the global pandemic caused by the Covid-19 virus severely disrupted higher education (HE). The impact was particularly felt on the provision of learning and teaching, involving a very rapid move from face-to-face to on-line delivery, termed by Godber and Atkins (2021) as ‘emergency education’. The sudden shift in delivery mode took place within the wider constraints imposed by the pandemic, including rapidly enacted national laws and educational regulations. The need urgently to tackle issues raised by these imposed, but necessary changes, was addressed within the existing context of UK higher education—a context which was already experiencing pressures and tensions due to a changing managerial approach and the increasing use of technology across a range of higher education functions.

As Godber and Atkins (2021) point out, the forced shift to on-line learning represented a paradigm shift in the delivery of higher education. The change was sudden and reactive, rather than an anticipated and planned e-learning strategy, and immediately affected both staff and students. At institutional level, there was a recognition of the immense challenge offered to managers and academic staff by the need to respond effectively to Covid-19 restrictions, and of the importance of supporting and retaining the student body. It could be argued that this recognition, together with the speed at which the changes took place, meant that any existing tensions between managers and academic staff relating to the shape of teaching in higher education were temporarily set aside. However, the extent of the changes required to respond to the pandemic have fundamentally affected perceptions of higher education in a way which is likely to have a considerable impact on future practice.

Focusing on the period from mid-March 2020 to the end of the summer term 2020, which is arguably when activities of highest impact occurred, this chapter employs an auto-ethnographic lens through which to explore the impact of the changes from the perspective of three actors in the learning and teaching domain—an academic manager, a member of academic teaching staff and a student. The collaborative auto-ethnographic method is based on the experiences of actors in different roles and located in different higher education institutions. This will allow for a range of perceptions and positionalities to be analysed, in order to identify emerging themes and commonalities.

The advantage of this approach is that it provides perspectives from people directly involved, turning the experiences of the researchers into data which can be used to explore wider issues (Sam et al., 2020). Connections may be made between the autobiographical and personal to the cultural and social, drawing on the researchers’ personal experience to offer insights into particular cultural contexts. In placing the self within a social context and making the researchers’ personal experience a focus of enquiry, auto-ethnography takes the form of a reflexive ethnography which illuminates aspects of a culture, in this case that of higher education (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). The approach taken here will be that of a ‘narrative sandwich’ of empirical reflections critically interpreted by relevant theory (Ellis, 2004). Initially it is helpful to consider the cultural context of higher education at the time when the changes required to accommodate Covid-19 impacted.

Higher Education Context

As a background to the following discussion, it is worth briefly rehearsing the nature of the University as an employing organisation—the role of the academic in higher education is that of the salaried professional. There are two occupational cultures in each institution—the academic and the managerial. Historically, the academic culture has had a dominant role, which has posed challenges for those concerned with management in higher education. This is because professionals tend to have their primary loyalty to their profession and their practice, rather than their employing organisation. Raelin (1985) points out that salaried professionals assume they should decide on which activities they undertake in their employment, believing that their professional colleagues or association are better able to evaluate their performance than organisational management. They often have little enthusiasm for becoming involved in administrative positions, being predominantly interested in advancing their professional reputation.

The dominance of an academic culture at universities was well established in a fairly stable higher education environment until challenged by the adoption of neoliberal assumptions and a New Public Management approach which was based on those assumptions. It is argued that from mid-1990s UK politicians have been committed to the market model as the solution to everything, and that post-1997 there has been a continued acceptance of quasi-market mechanisms and increasing emphasis on performance management to increase national competitiveness. Taberner (2018) argues that there has been a consistent UK narrative of neoliberal policies applied to higher education, focusing on efficiency and cost effectiveness as the main priorities, with the result that with the establishment of massification and the introduction of tuition fees there has been fierce competition for declining resources. The marketisation of higher education with the commodification of services and an emphasis on the importance of the student as consumer has championed an individual approach, in contrast to that of the collective (Shepherd, 2018).

Increasingly, widespread concern has been expressed about the impact that ‘supermarket’ policies have on lecturers’ professional lives (Hannon & Bretag, 2010). In addition, it has been argued that managerialism in the public sector is politically-driven, with managers being seen to be agents of change, practising the New Public Management (NPM) as the organisational arm of neoliberalism (Shepherd, 2018).

Traditionally, in higher education established concepts of academic freedom and autonomy have helped ensure a clear separation of managers and professionals, but an important objective of NPM is to achieve changes in the way that professionals are traditionally regulated (Santiago & Carvalho, 2008). A wide range of literature points out the shift in perception to academic staff as employees, rather than as autonomous professionals (Santiago & Carvalho, 2008). Increasingly, academics are subject to performance management, against a backdrop of increasing staff/student ratios, pressures to move courses on-line and efforts towards standardisation (Field, 2015). The emphasis on quality assurance measurement and towards an audit culture, including what the UK funding and regulatory body, HEFCE, has criticised as a ‘metric tide’ of data, has helped shift the culture from the collegial to a rise in prominence of central service units, leading to a blurring of the distinction between academic and professional staff (Youngs, 2017). Such managerialism is seen to conflict with collegial practice and weaken the professional status of academics, since University systems have dominance over academic values (Cano et al., 2022).

Coinciding with the culture shift to the NPM there has been what Fardella et al. (2020) refer to as the ‘digital turn’ in higher education, with the suggestion that the key to institutions remaining competitive is the integration of technology for all University processes, information management and the pedagogic. While it is recognised that network technologies are central to the changing role of universities, there is no consensus as to the future use of technology (Hannon & Bretag, 2010). It could be argued that the discussion relating to technology in higher education is in its early stages. Concern has been expressed that the interest in the use of technology for distance learning is commercially driven, supporting the commodification of higher education, rather than learning through the use of technology. Delanty (2001) argues that the virtual University links the privacy of the home with the privatised world of the market, and that the University is moving towards the use of technology more through the use of the market than with a focus on the public culture of citizenship. More specifically, Hannon and Bretag (2010) claim that Learning Management Systems (LMS) are equated with a ‘default pedagogy’ of content access and the management of students, which places effective pedagogy and engagement in the background. Whatever the view taken of the desirable use of technology in universities, it is accepted that it has resulted in the extension of academic work through the potential availability of academic staff anywhere and any time (Taberner, 2018).

It is in this context that what Parkin and Brown (2021) term the ‘enforced experiment with virtual engagement’ which was precipitated by the Covid-19 lockdown took place, and which frames the experiences outlined below. Three participants in the UK higher education move to on-line delivery as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic now reflect on their experiences and roles.

Academic Manager Reflections

I joined the University as the interim Dean of a Faculty comprising a Business School, a law School and a politics department a few weeks prior to the first pandemic lockdown. The University is a research-focused; civic institution that had endured hard times, primarily due to poor student recruitment over a number of years. This had led to a painful restructuring with job losses and departmental closures. While much of the pain was in the past, the tail-end of this was still in progress. Overlaid upon this, my Faculty had suddenly lost its Dean due to family illness. Many colleagues in the Business School viewed the world through the prism of the School’s past successes in which large cohorts of international master’s students had generated substantial funds which allowed low teaching loads and good research support. Poor recruitment had left the School in deficit.

The University was led by a leadership team comprising the VC, the COO, the four Faculty deans, the two PVCs and the Director of People. Below this, the structure was very flat as layers of administration had been stripped out in the restructure. Despite the small central steering core, academic action within faculties was largely in the hands of the deans. Schools and departments were led by heads, but much of the professional support infrastructure had been reduced and centralised. Despite these challenges, the University had good overall technical provision and an alert and responsive IT department.

The University, and my Faculty in particular, faced the pandemic from a difficult starting-point. As a recruiter of international students, particularly into the Business School, and with a number of international partnerships that involved both flying Faculty and partner delivery the Faculty was disrupted early in the pandemic. Some partnerships involved cohorts of international students coming to the UK for semesters and UK students spending time in overseas institutions. The University was internationally oriented and so was immediately affected by the pandemic and the subsequent UK and other international lockdowns.

Most of the teaching in the Faculty was face-to-face. Indeed, the excellent student experience that the University achieved was based upon personal interaction and support for on-campus students. Some on-line delivery was provided. Any move to on-line delivery would imperil the best form of competitive advantage the institution had. Given the sudden departure of the previous Dean and my recruitment over the Christmas period, the Faculty was new to me, and I to them. This was, however, the third UK Faculty/School I had led, though the others had not included law and politics, but had had more technology-based subjects as well as business.

I had spent the early part of my tenure getting to know the people, and the un-tackled problems, within the Faculty. Something of a reality-check was needed, especially in the Business School as the extent of the financial problems was still ignored by some colleagues. I have been a fellow of the University of London’s Centre for On-line and Distance Education for a number of years and had helped launch on-line courses at a couple of institutions. I was also part of the editorial team of a CODE book on on-line delivery. Hence, I had some background in on-line delivery but, like everyone, I had never been involved in switching from face-to-face to on-line delivery effectively over a weekend.

Our first indication of the seriousness of the pandemic was the restrictions in China which prohibited cohorts of Chinese students from travelling to joining us. Some of them were in lockdown. At this point we, and most of the rest of the world, considered Covid-19 to be a containable event which might temporarily affect China and maybe some other places. We developed a set of videos expressing solidarity with the students and assuring them that they would soon be able to come to the UK to study. Quite soon thereafter, we were unable to allow staff to travel to Hong Kong to fulfil teaching for partner institutions. We quickly developed on-line, synchronous teaching material. However, time differences meant that some colleagues had to come to work to deliver their material at 2 a.m. This was done, evidencing the commitment of staff to deliver, but was only really feasible as at that time the on-site technologies at the University were available and it would not have been sustainable long-term, especially for those who used public transport to travel to work. This, and other non-standard activities necessitated budget and financial process flexibilities—for example, we would have to pay for taxi travel to work and for sustenance. In an organisation that had experienced severe financial constraints, this flexibility was counter-cultural, but was pragmatically addressed with more discretion being given to Faculty leaders. Aside from technical issues, delivery at these times would be problematic for those who had to deliver from home if they had others in their household who would be disturbed.

We started to field increasing concerns from students and then from parents about how the University was responding to Covid-19. Initially, we followed Government/regulator advice, which was sparse and seemed to lag the general mood in the press. Parents of international students pressurised many to return home. Despite the fact that many of these students would be returning to countries with poorer healthcare and support systems than the UK, understandably parents did not want their children to become stuck in the UK in the event of travel restrictions, nor for the parents (and perhaps for their children) not to be able to provide in-person support in the event of illness or prolonged lockdown. Some students felt conflicted. They wished to stay and continue their studies (especially before the UK went into lockdown) but felt they could not disobey their parents’ wishes. As the numbers leaving the UK increased, we needed to provide on-line support whilst continuing to teach students face-to-face on campus. This dual teaching presented additional pressures on staff.

The University leadership team led on institution-wide pedagogic and governance issues. These included issues such as assessment and year and final awards (including a No Detriment Policy), but there needed to be flexibility at course level especially with those that involved regulated professions as some regulators were very slow to react to the pandemic or were inflexible—for example, continuing to insist on in-person exams as a qualification requirement. The leadership team early on discussed what events might be delivered in-person—open days, etc., and what might move on-line. Post-lockdown, these discussions focused more on how important events such as graduation might be handled. On-line graduation was discussed but felt to be an insufficient culmination of students’ time at the University. Discussions with students revealed that some misunderstood the distinction between graduation and graduating. That is, they believed that without a ceremony they would not graduate. This highlights that some, hitherto fore, assumptions about people’s understanding of their study, were less than full.

The Faculty had good physical infrastructure and better-than-average technical infrastructure. The University had a variety of delivery technologies which varied by Faculty and by department depending on their disciplines and their prior on-line delivery needs. The leadership team spent some time discussing delivery technologies but, ultimately, aside from core mandated ones, faculties had discretion in their choice. However, while all the on-line delivery technologies in my Faculty had been used by some people/teams to deliver some content, most had not been used by all, nor had some been used as the sole delivery vehicle. Some colleagues faced the new on-line world with trepidation, but others saw it differently. One senior professor nearing retirement commented on how reinvigorating it was to have to come to terms with the new teaching systems. Some issues with some systems only surfaced when used in anger. For example, some platforms had maximum simultaneous cohort sizes or use timings. Some of these were license-dependent but some were unalterable. All had problems in recording attendance, either through not being able to keep a log-in record, inability to identify multiple students sharing one device, or ability to allow anonymity if required. The latter problem meant the suspension of the free legal service the Law School offered as the technology made the all users’ email addresses visible.

Beyond the delivery platforms, the lack of technology or its disparity among staff and students was an immediate issue. To counter the staff problem, colleagues were able to take their work equipment home. But some new machines were needed and supply chain problems, and setting-up and mirroring amid Covid-19 restrictions, meant some staff lacked the requisite technologies at the start of the lockdown. Laptops were lent to students too, but only those still on campus or nearby could benefit. Of more concern than the machines was connectivity. On-line delivery relies on broadcast ability and reception ability. On-campus on-line delivery was supported by the host infrastructure. Once lockdown came, we were reliant on staff having suitable broadband capabilities—we eventually agreed to pay for broadband or upgrades for home delivery where these could be delivered, but those living in rural areas still struggled, as did those located internationally. Forgotten in much of the advice on on-line delivery is the other physical infrastructure. Colleagues delivering from home might have suitable workspaces including desks and chairs or they might not. Many did not, so we allowed people to take their office furniture home. Even so, some people reported health effects from having too confined a space for working at home.

Time zones presented additional problems as international students were located from China to South America and times that would work for one zone would not for others. The best was made of this—late times for China, early times for the western hemisphere. But this placed restrictions on the delivery timetable as the available time window was small.

Access to material in an on-line library proved problematic, especially in Law where the standard texts were not already available on-line and were extremely expensive to procure.

While the focus of much debate, research and reflection is on the move to on-line delivery, all institutions needed, alongside this, to keep other aspects of business going. All the back-office systems such as HR and pay needed to function. Staff were still leaving/retiring and joining the institution, if they had arranged these pre-lockdown. The promotions process had to continue as did preparations for the upcoming Research Excellence Framework. Locally, re-accreditations were due and initially these looked as if they would continue, then be postponed, then be moved on-line or postponed. Decisions had to be made about how on-line versus in-person accreditation visits at a later date might play out.

Internally, the University leadership team met frequently, sometimes daily, in the early days and typically two or three times a week thereafter. While a lot of the focus was on the institution, the University considered itself a civic one and tried to support the wider community where it could with equipment, supplies and expertise. These came mostly in the STEM subjects where sanitisers were manufactured and masks 3D printed. In medicine, the role of part-trained medical students participating in clinical settings was an important issue. Within the Faculty, leadership and other meetings were almost daily. External networks became more important as a source of support, but also as a litmus test of how we and our students were faring compared to other institutions. My action learning set from the Top Management Programme decided to meet weekly. These meetings were both informal (involving gin at a distance) and an opportunity to share information. Other groups such as national deans’ meetings were useful, but often involved much self-congratulation which sometimes appeared unwarranted. My daughter was an undergraduate at a UK University and, through her, I had some insight into how she, her institution and her colleagues were dealing with the move to on-line teaching.

The mental wellbeing of students and colleagues was a paramount concern during the lockdown. However, it proved difficult to gauge how well people were doing on-line. The situation was not helped by copious media stories of how students were suffering from the lockdown. Doubtless many did, but fewer than expected signalled this to us, and one, in a focus group, wondered if they were an outlier because they were coping well. The most problematic issue in supporting students was often in making contact. Students would not respond to emails nor attend classes. This might have been for technical reasons, or for isolation or illness or from metal health difficulties, but without contact it was impossible to know.

Delivering (or receiving) on-line teaching and working from home entails a lot more than technologies. Colleagues’ and students’ work environments varied considerably. One colleague reported that they and their partner shared their house with their five children whom they needed to home School and an elderly relative who had to shield because of health problems. This contrasted with another colleague whose hobby meant that they had a professional-level home recording studio with broadcast quality sound and video. Students too may have been struggling with poor living conditions or might be much better resourced than if they were living on campus.

I had volunteered to stay on campus when lockdown occurred. I felt it my duty to try to support colleagues, some of whom were isolated, some were confined with multiple others. Some had to home-school children and/or care for relatives. Aside from the frequent formal meetings, we held informal sessions ranging from quiz nights to ‘introduce your pet’ evenings. These were typically attended by around one third of staff—and often the same people. I also sent round a daily email to all Faculty colleagues. The emails were partly about Faculty matters but also sought to lift the atmosphere a little. As I was on campus, I took regular photographs, detailing how the University gardens were going wild and the squirrels were becoming emboldened. One colleague likened the emails to a cross between ‘thought for the day’ and a ‘book at bedtime’ (BBC radio programmes).

Issues of trust came to the fore. I had been in post a very short time, and, while my background in academic leadership and on-line delivery experience were of some value, I had not had time to develop deeper relationships with colleagues and to ‘walk the walk’ in delivering. The University’s immediate context of contraction and staff cuts heightened colleagues’ concerns about the future. A particular incident occurred early in our Faculty discussions about module delivery in the coming term. It was clear that we did not have the staff capacity nor the timetabled time to deliver all the expected optional modules. While staff were aware that they would not be able to plan, construct and deliver all their planned modules, many were reticent to agree to suspend them as they feared that these modules might never be reinstated once the pandemic was over. They felt their jobs might be at risk. Discussions on the pared down curriculum also centred on the relative value of options and compulsory units. Some modules might be merged, others which had very high student satisfaction ratings were in danger of not running with a potential impact on student experience.

Academic Teaching Staff Reflections

When the UK lockdown resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic was implemented during the spring term of 2020 I was teaching a work-based project module to final year undergraduate students who were on a programme which was jointly delivered by my institution and a partner. I was due to begin teaching a postgraduate version of the module during the summer term. I was also Assistant Dean (Learning and Teaching) for the School in which I worked—a strategic role which meant that I was regularly involved with discussions relating to teaching policy developed in the institution. My institution had in place a strategy which involved a move towards what was termed ‘blended learning’, i.e. teaching delivery which was a mix of in-person and on-line. This had stimulated some discussion about the pedagogic needs of such a shift and the requirement for different pedagogic approaches such as the ‘flipped classroom’. A small number of programmes were being delivered through on-line learning, but by far the majority of provision was in-person and the expertise relating to on-line learning, provided by the Digital Education Unit, was technical rather than pedagogic.

Revisiting my emails from March 2020 onwards I am struck by the urgency of the exchanges—HE institutions were struggling to cope with an unprecedented pace of change and a complete shift in pedagogic approach in a general social and political context of high anxiety. At my institution, email communications from central management were a regular feature, outlining the various Government and Quality Assurance Agency requirements and indicating the institution’s response. Early in March an organisational email reported that nothing in national advice relating to gatherings prevented in-person educational sessions, but that the Digital Education team were preparing an on-line course with information and guidance about teaching on-line. By 18 March, colleagues were working from home and the institution was closed.

The modules I teach are experiential or project based and do not use unseen examinations as a form of assessment, but the majority of modules in the School do use exams for a large proportion of assessment. This caused particular problems when the lockdown came because the end of term exams were due to take place just one week later. There was considerable discussion relating to the feasibility of delivering these on-line, and as students had expressed a strong desire to be able to continue with their studies it was therefore decided that on-line exams would be required. The institution used a Virtual Learning Environment (Moodle) so that was available, but there was no technology to ensure exam security. Moreover, the institution was not a campus University resulting in a concern that students would find it difficult to find the time and space to take exams at home, particularly those students who used the library as a study space. There was therefore a shift to on-line, open book examinations, which allowed students a period of 48 hours during which to sit the exam, with the marking criteria being amended to reflect the changed circumstances. There was some concern relating to plagiarism, but the pressure of events was such that this could not be fully addressed in the short term.

The end of term may have provided some respite for the students but for staff work life continued with consistent exchanges relating to the need to redesign modules which would need to be delivered on-line in the summer term. Colleagues were also requested to reduce the volume of assessment where possible to that which was essential to demonstrate the relevant learning, and to consider whether alternative assessments to exams could be used subject to consultation with External Examiners. Any changes would be reported to Examination Boards. The intrinsic uncertainty in the national context and the fast-changing guidance meant that some form of central decision-making and communication system was necessary. Announcements tended to come from a central group led by the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education) the members of which were predominantly from either the Academic Registry or Digital Education. They were accompanied by the statement that the documents concerned were ‘live’ and would therefore be subject to change. Specific academic staff in the departments were given the opportunity to comment on documents before they were circulated, but the time allowed for that would often be a matter of hours, so that considered pedagogic discussion was impossible.

Considerable effort and resource were put in place to support those staff who needed to have their modules on-line for the summer term. This mainly took the form of a series of on-line workshops provided by the Educational Technology Unit, designed specifically to allow staff to start work on ‘their’ module. The courses were delivered to academic staff across the institution and, because they were delivered by staff who were educational technologists rather than teachers, introduced the wide range of technical tools available (e.g. what to use for students to peer review their work) rather than those few applications which would have supported us in effecting crucial changes to pedagogy. As a relative novice to on-line learning I found the course frustrating—it was designed on the assumption that academics were delivering ‘content’ to their students, whereas I rely on the co-production of knowledge with my students. For me the focus on technical content was unhelpful, and I used an educators’ on-line forum from outside the institution to gain some insight into the effective pedagogic uses of technology. When the summer term started staff and students were still learning how to deal effectively with on-line learning, with the result that it was not infrequent to experience technical problems of various sorts. The level of active engagement with on-line synchronous sessions was low and students were reluctant to put their cameras on or ask questions, even in the chat section. I am an experienced teacher and the group was familiar with me as we had previously met in-person, but I found it extremely difficult to achieve anything near the level of engagement which happens in class. The policy on on-line learning appeared to assume that it was possible to design in student engagement, but, even when I set apart specific time during the session when I explicitly turned the recording off so that students would feel more comfortable, my experience was that most students lacked the confidence to use the space effectively.

Overall, expectations of on-line interaction—whether pedagogic or pastoral—were much more explicit in terms of what was required of staff than what was required of students. The feedback from students was that they appreciated the efforts made to support them in continuing their studies, and they particularly valued the recording of lectures which provided them with a revision resource. Not infrequently, they referred to using their mobile phone to access their studies. Wide availability of materials on-line which students could access at any time led to considerable discussion relating to the importance of ensuring on-line attendance at synchronous sessions. A particular challenge was what would count as ‘attendance’ for Tier 4 students, and technology was seen to be an important element in tracking students. All students experienced real challenges to their studies during Covid-19, but international students had a particularly difficult time during the lockdown in the UK and often in their home country. Even though the numbers on my programme are relatively small (fewer than 100), as Programme Director there were times when I needed to resort to emergency contacts via Student Wellbeing to ensure that international students were safe and well.

All students were uncertain and anxious due to the nature and pace of the changes impacting them, which meant that email contact was considerably increased. These exchanges were complicated by the fast-moving situation, which meant that it was difficult to achieve clarity and consistency in messages. Assessment was a particular focus of concern for students. In order to encourage students to continue with examinations and assessments during the lockdown a ‘No Detriment Policy’ was introduced. This policy assured students that, if they attempted assessments of any kind during the lockdown, they would not be disadvantaged by lower marks or failure of assessment. The Mitigating Circumstances policy was amended due to recognition that evidence of ill-health, etc., would probably be impossible to attain. These policies relating to assessment, which were set centrally with limited wider consultation, were quite complex to implement, and caused considerable extra effort for academics and administrative staff.

Parts of the No Detriment Policy were implemented by Examination Boards which meant that meetings needed to consider students in more detail, including comparing current performance during the lockdown with previous performance where possible so that any required adjustment to performance could be made. Examination Boards traditionally have marked the end of the academic year. However, the change in the pace of work at the end of the summer term 2020 was hardly noticeable. Preparation for the autumn term relating to on-line teaching, consideration of the status of any policies which had been specifically introduced to address Covid-19 issues, and the overview of students’ performance to ensure that policies had been applied consistently were all activities which took place during the summer break. A pattern had been established of policy and practice being guided from the centre with relatively limited input from academic colleagues, and in the pressure which was still present due to changing rates of Covid-19 restriction, it was beginning to feel like a new normal.

Student Reflections

I was completing my first year as an undergraduate student when the first UK lockdown occurred. My specific degree programme was running for the first time, so the majority of my Department’s staff had recently joined the University and all our modules were new. We were a small cohort of approximately 30 students who regularly communicated through an informal, on-line group chat. My reflections are, therefore, largely based on a review of our message exchanges as well as official emails and webpages published throughout this period.

As my programme’s third and final term was reserved for assessments and exams, changes to our education were felt primarily in the final two weeks of our second term, between the 13th and 27th of March 2020. Due to the rapidly evolving nature of the coronavirus situation, we received multiple, at times contradicting, emails from different sources (i.e. our Provost, Head of Department, Programme Director, Deputy Director or programme administrator and other staff) on a near-daily basis. These two weeks were marked by feelings of confusion, stress and worry, especially as my cohort was heavily international and many course-mates wanted to return home. In particular, these final contact hours were supposed to introduce our upcoming assessments. Hence, we wanted to ensure that we received appropriate instruction before the end of term, especially as it was marked by nearly four weeks of University and College Union strike action which had disrupted most of our modules.

The feeling of unknowing was compounded by the fact that several staff were still on strike, including our Programme Director, Deputy Director and Head of Department. Thus, we initially heard little from our Department while students in other departments and faculties were already receiving regular emails detailing the measures staff were considering taking. Following Public Health England’s guidance, the campus remained open for teaching, but our University announced that it was asking staff to deliver on-line classes for the final two weeks of term. At times, we would only know whether a lecture or seminar was on-line or face-to-face on the morning of the event, complicating further the dilemma for students who wanted to go home.

The sudden move to on-line teaching was difficult for us to grapple with. This was the first time in our degree that we attended any on-line event. Likewise, this was our Department’s first time experimenting with on-line material. Our smaller, newer department lagged behind others when it came to using the University’s on-line resources such as its lecture-recording software. Staff and students were, thus, ill-prepared to transition to on-line learning.

Despite being a technologically adept cohort, factors outside of our control such as poor internet service, underperforming devices and overloaded teaching software impacted our ability to attend our final seminars. Students returning home were travelling when some of these seminars occurred. Yet, for privacy reasons, lessons were not recorded. Hence, those living abroad, at times in vastly different time zones, or those staying in spaces inadequate for study missed many of their final classes. Of those who could attend, we noticed a disparity in lesson quality as seminar leaders of the same module were free to choose the software used to teach us. These were usually Blackboard Collaborate or Zoom, software which at the time were marred by bugs and which had different functionalities and user interfaces. In particular, our University had not yet obtained teaching licenses for these platforms, so seminars were capped at 40 minutes. Actual lesson time was always shorter when connection and software issues were taken into account. Nevertheless, our teaching staff remained enthusiastic even when their children screamed in the background or none of us had our video on.

The primary concern I and most of my course-mates had during this period (in the context of our degree) was the future of our assessments. For instance, we were struggling to prepare group presentations when these groups were spread across the globe. One week after classes transitioned on-line; our Department chose to extend all assessment deadlines by two weeks, providing temporary relief. Nevertheless, the stress brought on by the pandemic impacted our mental and physical health, dragging us behind on our work. Moreover, students from other departments and faculties were being told that the University was considering cancelling all first-year assessments, so we were left to speculate while the situation evolved.

As the pandemic unfolded, our University set up a coronavirus update webpage for students and staff to consult. It was on this page that we learned of important changes to our education, sometimes even before this information was communicated to us directly. For example, the rumoured cancellation of all assessments and creation of a final pass/fail assessment was announced on it before being emailed to students in batches. We waited impatiently for an email from our Department, as the webpage contained little information and that each department chose the format and substance of the final assessment. Above all, the majority of my course-mates were disappointed to discover that the work they put in their first term assessments and the upcoming ones would no longer be taken into account for our final degree classification. Furthermore, many were scared that the final assessment would be difficult to pass.

By mid-April, we had been fully informed by our Department about the ‘capstone essay’: a short essay that replaced our other assessments, graded as pass/fail only and due in late June, covering what we learned across our first-year modules. Students who failed this would be given the opportunity to complete a similar assessment at a later date. Second- and third-year undergraduates, on the other hand, still had to complete their assessments. Their in-person, invigilated exams were converted into take home assessments. Meanwhile, the centre where most of the University’s students were due to take their exams was converted into the first NHS Nightingale Hospital. Despite the initial disappointment of our first-year marks no longer counting towards our degree classification, the extenuating circumstances caused by the pandemic saw us breathe a sigh of relief when the capstone essay was introduced.

Overall, my experience as a student during the unfolding of the Covid-19 pandemic was spent anxiously waiting—waiting to hear from our Department, who told us it was waiting to hear from the University, who, in turn, was waiting for guidance from the Government. As the final link of the messaging chain, we often felt in the dark, especially as our Department was already struggling to keep up with a new degree programme that academic year. Nevertheless, I felt supported and understood by the University once the capstone assignment was put in place. In my Department, our Deputy Programme Director created a weekly Zoom meeting for our cohort to catch up that was also met with much appreciation. Once classes had ended and our capstone assessment was clearly defined, we began to settle into our ‘temporary’ situations, waiting for guidance regarding face-to-face teaching for the upcoming year. In the meantime, our choice of writing topic was fitting: we could either write about climate change, or the Covid-19 pandemic as it was unfolding before our eyes.

Discussion and Conclusions

The accounts above, from different perspective and different institutions, indicate the level of urgency experienced across UK HE institutions as Covid-19 impacted the whole sector. The recognition of a common challenge, and of the fundamental importance of students being able to continue with their studies, created an atmosphere in which managers and academics worked together to keep the HE ‘show on the road’. Students recognised the efforts being made to ensure that they progressed through their course at the usual rate, with the result that they were understanding when teaching arrangements changed at very short notice, communications lacked clarity, or there was a delay in decisions relating to assessment.

Institutional context was important, in that existing organisational culture influenced the shape of any response. The fast-changing national environment necessitated the initial adoption of an approach which involved central decision-making by a management team. The extent to which this approach allowed for decisions influencing implementation to reside with academic staff varied, and trust between colleagues was a major element in achieving an appropriate balance between top-down decision-making and local implementation. From a managerial perspective consideration of the technology and even of the teaching was not the major part of keeping colleagues and students well, physically and mentally, so they could focus on teaching and learning. The maintenance of internal and external networks was an important element in terms of ensuring that any response was broadly in line with practice, and also acceptable to any partners, for example, to the professional bodies offering accreditation to courses.

In contrast, the adoption of the technology which enabled institutions to continue to function was a major challenge for academic staff and students. Teaching staff were required to move from in-person to on-line delivery in a matter of days. The emphasis on being able to deliver courses so that students could continue with their studies inevitably focused on making course content available on-line. There was no time to reflect and consider the kind of pedagogic redesign which would be required to maximise the student learning experience. As Godber and Atkins (2021) points out technology had already led to the creep of academic work, in that academics could be perceived to be accessible anywhere, with 24 hour connectivity. Teaching from one’s home environment blurred the distinction between work and home life and was particularly stressful for those with caring responsibilities. With the stress and uncertainty being experienced by students, prompt email responses to queries and concerns were essential in keeping students engaged with their studies. The scale of demand on all technologies used was such that technical difficulties were experienced consistently, making it difficult for staff and students to build their confidence in using learning technologies effectively.

In most institutions, where in-person teaching was by far the dominant model the previous level of digital literacy required of students was limited. At short notice, they had to develop the skills required to use the learning technology adopted by their institution, and where there was no institutional commitment to one specific software package, students needed to negotiate different structures to access their learning materials. Moving from engagement in a classroom to engagement on-line appeared particularly challenging, in that students were often reluctant to ask questions or even keep their cameras on. Familiar and anticipated modes of assessment were changed, and, while arrangements were put in place to ensure ‘no detriment’ in terms of measured performance, it is hard to gauge the effectiveness of changed assessment in terms of learning achieved. Moreover, the difficulty of studying in a crowded home environment possibly using a mobile phone for access to learning materials has not been fully considered.

Overall, however, there appears to be a sense that, working together, the sector has dealt successfully with the challenges offered by the response to Covid-19, and that the effectiveness of technology in delivering learning has been demonstrated. These assumptions raise a number of issues with real implications for future practice across the HE sector.

The emergency adoption of on-line learning took place in context where there was an emphasis on student as consumer. As Parkin and Brown (2021) point out, in a Covid-19 world there was considerable emphasis on providing customer service and satisfaction, on being able to demonstrate that students were still getting value for money. It could be argued that the term ‘delivery’ is misleading when used in a context of on-line learning, particularly when due to Covid-19 restrictions there was an explosion of delivery to order of groceries, meals, etc. The implication here is of a fairly passive recipient of an ordered service, whereas, as Moodie (2016) points out, learning disciplinary knowledge is formal and systematic requiring effort on the part of the learner. The low level of student engagement on-line could reflect the confusion caused by a quasi-market model of HE. Godber and Atkins (2021) claim that a decrease in face-to-face interaction and the increased use of technology can result in lower student interest in learning, because of the wide availability of information on-line. They experience information overload.

The willingness of academic teaching staff to devote high levels of energy and time to learning technology during the pandemic is unlikely to be representative of their interaction with on-line learning generally. When discussing the ‘digital turn’ in academic management as it pertains to learning technology, Fardella et al. (2020) identify ‘device lovers’ who are enthusiastic about technology, ‘functional pragmatists’ who are resigned to the use of technology and will conform and the ‘oppositionist rejector’ who is explicitly disapproving of technology and may influence colleagues. The pressures of the response to Covid-19 will have obscured such divisions in practice, but what Hodges et al. (2020) refer to as ‘emergency remote teaching’, i.e. a temporary shift in institutional delivery is not the same as a well-planned on-line course which uses appropriate pedagogy.

Additionally, Fardella et al. (2020) claim that the ‘digital turn’ in academic management involves the integration of technology in all HE processes, providing on-line accountability of staff. The extent to which decision-making was centralised and decisions implemented when disseminated during the response to the pandemic could be perceived to support this case. Certainly, it appears that a number of HE institutions find the promises of scale and innovation offered by on-line learning attractive. However, this promise could be illusory. Adoption of ‘emergency remote teaching’ during the pandemic was usually managed and supported by an IT unit, due to the unplanned nature of the development. As Hannon and Bretag (2010) argue the result of this approach is that a Learning Management System perspective is either adopted or built on, the focus of which is programme ‘content’ and the management of students, with a ‘default pedagogy’ of content access. They claim that effective e-learning requires a reconfiguration of pedagogy and of the organisation of learning, which would place extreme demands on people, time and resources. Moreover, the shape of on-line learning is still contested. Until the response to the pandemic, it was argued that technology had intensified the tension between technology management functions and teaching practice (Hannon & Bretag, 2010).

It is possible that the tensions between management and academics which were subsumed during the pandemic could re-emerge in the context of a management drive to increase on-line learning. The pressures imposed on institutions by Covid-19 have lessened, and space could be created for a more pedagogic consideration of the benefits of on-line learning for students. In contrast to a push for the ‘efficiency’ in terms of numbers and content potentially offered by on-line learning, detailed consideration could be given to areas of learning which are not best served by technology. Hannon and Bretag (2010) highlight the importance of human interaction in helping students develop a broader and deeper cultural experience. In career terms, newspapers recently reported that professional practice firms Deloitte and PWC had found that graduates impacted by Covid-19 while they were studying could not cope well with team work. This would indicate areas of personal and professional development which lie beyond the transmission and processing of information. Parkin and Brown (2021) argue that effective hybrid higher education requires a balance between top-down decision-making and more organic bottom-up influence.

Academic teaching staff are fundamental to the provision of an enriching higher education experience, and managers must rely on their pedagogic expertise. The student-teacher relationship is difficult to measure, but it is the public face of the University, influencing reputation and recruitment. Attempts to micro-manage staff towards a pedagogy in which they have no confidence could lead to professional disengagement and adversely impact pedagogic practice. The higher education response to the crisis caused by the pandemic was transactional, not transformational. The impact of on-line learning during the pandemic has hastened the establishment of a trend which was already developing, but it has not yet supported the transformation of approaches to teaching and learning. The opportunity now exists for academic colleagues to evaluate realistically the benefits of technology and to identify the challenges for which it has not so far offered a solution.