Professional identity is an important concept within academia. However, in the complex, blurred environment of modern universities, it is becoming increasingly difficult to define. The concept of third space professionals may be seen as useful for theorising the practice of those who at least partly identify as learning developers. Having previously written in the journal about promoting learning development as an academic discipline, the purpose of this opinion piece is to reflect on how my personal experiences have reshaped my views since this article was published. This article draws on my personal professional journey from an academic researcher to a learning developer, to a faculty-based senior lecturer in a different discipline to my academic qualifications. I make eight claims relating to my experience, especially as an unofficial embedded learning developer. I then conclude that, firstly, third space professionals is a more useful concept for explaining the professional identity of unofficial learning developers; secondly, that learning development cannot yet be considered a fully-fledged academic discipline because there is no specific qualification or career path relating to its practice; and thirdly, that universities are still struggling to decide where best to position learning developers.

This paper provides a brief critical review of the English executive summary to Integrating Ubunifu, informal science, and community innovations in science classrooms in East Africa (Semali et al. in Cult Stud Sci Educ 10:865–889, 2015 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9640-x ). It was written as an example of a critical review for an Erasmus + -funded training ( http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/ ) in Research Methods for Ph.D. students at the African Centre of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Science in Rwanda ( http://aceitlms.ur.ac.rw/ ) in October 2018.

There is growing evidence of the potential of educational robotics to enhance science, technology, engineering and mathematics education provided that they are deployed carefully. This paper describes a developmental research project between a university and a secondary school in the UK to develop extended robotics enhancement classes, mainly using LEGO MINDSTORMS robotic kits, and GeoGebra, which was used to animate virtual robots. Two styles of class were deployed: student-led project creations and facilitator-led challenges. The pedagogical principles underpinning these classes and their design are discussed. Feedback generally indicated that the classes were successful and appreciated by the students but they experienced difficulties in incorporating the virtual robotic element. Lessons learnt from the project, including the development of employability skills, the potential impact on students with autism, and the effective use of peer students, are discussed. The possibility of combining the two styles of class together is proposed.

Within the context of secondary and tertiary mathematics education, most so-called learning technologies, such as virtual learning environments, bear little relation to the kinds of technologies contemporary learners use in their free time.Thus they appear alien to them and unlikely to stimulate them toward informal learning.By considering learning technologies from the perspective of the learner, through the analysis of case studies and a literature review, this article asserts that the expectation of these media might have been over-romanticised.This leads to the recommendation of five attributes for mathematical learning technologies to be more relevant to contemporary learners' needs: promoting heuristic activities derived from human history; facilitating the shift from instrumentation to instrumentalisation; facilitating learners' construction of conceptual knowledge that promotes procedural knowledge; providing appropriate scaffolding and assessment; and reappraising the curriculum.

Over the last seven years, I have spent time across three continents talking to scientists and mathematicians about their beliefs and attitudes and experiences related to writing in their respective disciplines.I have been impressed by the passion and insight with which most have talked about writing and its relationship to critical thinking, and I have often been surprised by how they engage in these practices.For example, rather than working from an a priori hypothesis, many researchers in the STEM disciplines compose backwards, from the results to the introduction.And when reading, many seem to move from the middle of a paper outwards, beginning with the results and method, using an extremely critical eye, and then perhaps scanning out to the introduction and the discussion, or dispensing with these sections altogether.Over and over again, I heard this same story from different scientists, as if it were a secret each alone had stumbled upon.In addition, collaboration, conversation and peer review are very much part of the language of composition that takes place in the sciences (co-authorship, the hierarchies of disciplinary or interdisciplinary teams, the drafting process and the use of technology), but we who work in WID (writing in the disciplines) and WAC (writing across the curriculum) programs are constantly challenged: "How do we teach process in ways that are disciplinarily appropriate?"Historically, we haven't done this well.As Burton and Morgan observed on the training of mathematicians as writers,

Over the past 10 years, Learning Development has become an established practice in many UK universities. Whilst this practice is generally understood and valued by students, its associated epistemology and community of practice is generally not perceived as an academic discipline in its own right by other academics, managers or policy makers. Recently, there has been a move within the Learning Development community to address the challenge of enabling it to discover its ‘voice' as a discipline within the conversation of disciplines. In addition, the current economic climate makes it desirable for the Learning Development community to organise and promote itself as a research-informed discipline so that its professional practice will not be over-embedded or absorbed within faculties to the detriment of students. Firstly, we consider the current level of maturity of the practice of Learning Development in the UK. Secondly, we explore ways in which the Learning Development community might move forward by considering three case studies of disciplinarity: two external to Learning Development, namely Communications Theory and Educational Development; and one internal to it, namely Mathematics Support. Thirdly, with reference to data provided at a workshop on this subject, we apply relevant approaches identified in these case studies to Learning Development. Finally, Learning Development's progress towards the status of a discipline is discussed in comparison with the other case studies.

LOGO and turtle graphics were an influential movement in primary school mathematics education in the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, technology has moved forward, both in terms of its sophistication and pedagogical potential; and learner experiences, preferences and ways of thinking have changed dramatically. Based on the authors' previous work and a literature review, this article revisits the subject of enhancing mathematics education through educational robotics kits and virtual robotic animations by proposing their simultaneous deployment at the school-university transition. The rationale for such an application is argued and an evaluation framework for these technologies is proposed. Two educational robotic kits and a virtual environment supporting robotic animations are evaluated both in terms of their feasibility of deployment and their educational effectiveness. Finally, the evaluation of learning experiences when deploying the proposed pedagogical approach is discussed.