PRIME Volume 3 (2) April 2009 ________________________________________________

Contents

Editorial

Lin Norton……………………………………………………………………………………….....................1

Employability Skills and the University Curriculum: Assessing the Experience of Business

Graduates

Anita Peleg and Felicity FitzGerald …………………………..……………….............................................3

Should students participate in curriculum design? Discussion arising from a first year curriculum

design project and a literature review

Catherine Bovill, Kate Morss and Catherine Bulley…………………………..............................................17

Students in Transition: The Journey from College to University

Carole Roberts and Helen Crabtree…………………………..……………….…....…………………..…..27

Autonomy, Motivation and IT skills: Impacts on the engagement of Physiotherapy students with

eLearning

Claire Hamshire, Rod Cullen and Christopher Wibberley………………………………………………....37

Self-Assessment Dialogue: added value? The Student Perspective

Sara Eastburn………………………..………………………………………..…………………………….49

Contemporary Art and the Level 1 Higher Education Curriculum: Empathy, alienation and

educational inclusion.

Leigh-Anne Perryman………………………………………………………........….………………………59

Enhancing learning? Exploring the use of assessment methods as pedagogical tools to promote

effective learning and teaching in early childhood studies

Paulette Luff and Rachel Pryor ………..…………………….....…...............................…………………...79

A Non-mathematical Framework for Developing the Conceptual Understanding of Classical

Mechanics Peter Vivian……….…………………………..…………………………………………………………….89

Encouraging Reason: A pragmatic approach to dialogic teaching in the primary school.

John Smith…………………………………………………………………………………………………105

Variation in Student Engagement: A Design Model

Ian Solomonides and Anna Reid………………………………………………………………………………115

Action research cycles on embedding academic skills: how current pedagogical research can steer

curriculum

Peter Redding……..…………………………………………………………………………………….…129

Is There a Theory of SoTL?

Janet Parker…………………………………………………………………………………………….….145

The Interrelationships between Assessment Marks within a First-Year Undergraduate Programme:

Some Implications for Aggregating Marks and Recording Achievement

Kevin Rowley and Andy Bell……………………………………………………………………………….153

Poster Abstract Transitions to Identity in Student Writers

Tony Wailey and Susana Sambade………………………………………………………………………...165

(Re)constructing Babel: Mapping the Dynamics of Teacher Training

Beatrix Fahnert, Jeremy Hilton and Joe Maloney…………………………………………………………167

PRIME Volume 3(2)

1

Editorial

I am delighted to be writing the editorial for the second special conference issue which

has come out of the highly successful second international Pedagogical Research in

Higher Education conference (PRHE)

http://www.hope.ac.uk/learningandteaching/prhe/index.php

held in June of 2008, at Liverpool Hope University in the city’s year as European capital

of culture.

Like its predecessor in 2006, delegates commented on the conference’s friendly and

supportive atmosphere in bringing together pedagogical researchers and practitioners.

Thus it fulfilled its aim of providing inspiration not only from the four keynote speakers:

Professors Ron Barnett (University of London, UK), John T.E.Richardson (Institute of

Educational Technology, The Open University, UK), Sari Lindblom-Ylänne (University

of Helsinki, Finland) and Ference Marton (Goteborg University, Sweden), but also from

many of the presenters who are experienced pedagogical researchers in their own right.

The theme of the conference was that of ‘curriculum change for learning’ which

stimulated over 75 abstracts, of which 43 were accepted as papers and 13 of which have

been written up and accepted for this special issue of PRIME. As you will see from these

papers, the PRHE 08 conference covered a wide range of issues under its broad theme

including employability skills, student participation in curriculum design, students in

transition, e-learning, self assessment and assessment methods, educational inclusion,

conceptual understandings, dialogic teaching, student engagement, action research cycles,

and last but not least and highly relevant to PRHE – is there a theory of SOTL?

Throughout these papers run some common themes which are of interest to all who work

in higher education. In reading them we might ponder on the nature and purpose of

higher education, on how students make the transition into higher education and on how

they engage with the curriculum. For example, e-learning is often seen across the sector

as innovative and as what students expect from a 21st century university education, but

often innovation and authentic learning can come from a more profound ‘letting go’ of

our power as teachers and allowing students to participate in designing the curriculum,

playing a greater part in assessment such as self- assessment and rethinking traditional

approaches in an effort to be genuinely inclusive. This is for some, a step too far, but if

there is sufficient robust evidence that it works, then we have a duty to consider it

seriously. Finally, the paper by Jan Parker is worth a special mention for in asking if

there is a theory of SOTL, she challenges us to think hard about where pedagogical

researchers should situate themselves.

At the time of writing this editorial, the dates for the 3rd

PRHE conference in 2010 are yet

to be finalised, but will be announced on the conference website shortly when I look

forward to welcoming you back to Liverpool Hope.

Lin Norton

Dean of Learning and Teaching

Professor of Pedagogical Research

PRIME Volume 3(2)

3

Employability Skills and the University Curriculum:

Assessing the Experience of Business Graduates

Anita Peleg and Felicity FitzGerald

London South Bank University, Marketing

Summary

London South Bank University (LSBU) is widely recognised for its strong commitment

to the development of skills for employment and the employment success of its

graduates. This commitment has seen much accomplished research to identify and

develop skills at all levels. In particular, research has focused on the following areas:

employers and their graduate recruitment requirements, current students and their needs

and current skills provision across the university. This has resulted in the development

and delivery of new stand alone skills units and skills embedded units. Specifically, the

Marketing Department recently improved its provision at level one by embedding skills

into the Marketing curriculum following extensive research among current students.

However, little research has focused on LSBU Marketing graduates, their reflections on

how they benefited from university education as a whole and more specifically their job

search and employment experience during the early years of employment. What were the

most important outputs of their university education? How did it meet with expectations?

How did their education help their development? Were they adequately prepared for the

workplace? What skills were most needed? What helped them gain their first and

subsequent employment positions?

Our research in progress gives guidance for further curriculum planning regarding

specific skills delivery. However, it also reveals that while graduates do appreciate some

of the specific skills gained, their overall reflections on the benefits of their university

education go far beyond the delivery of specific skills and suggest a much broader

contribution of higher education. It is therefore essential for London South Bank, while

continuing to deliver skills effectively, to augment further the student’s critical and

analytical thinking through learning and debate at the highest level.

This research raises important philosophical and practical issues regarding the purpose of

university education and the contentious debate on the role of the university in the

development of skills for employability. Moreover, it also raises further questions as to

the value of the emphasis on skills education at University level and the problems

associated with measuring its effectiveness.

Introduction

Following the Dearing Report (1997) and the Government Skills Strategy White Paper

launched in July 2003, skills and employability have become a priority for all

universities.

Peleg and Fitzgerald

4

“The Strategy aims to strengthen the UK’s position as one of the world’ leading

economies by ensuring that employers have the skills to support the success of their

business, and that employees have the necessary skills to be both employable and

personally fulfilled.”

(http:www.dfes.gov.uk/skillsstrategy:2003 accessed 16/5/2008)

Moreover, the increasing demands of widening participation, and the international

marketplace, have resulted in a wide variation in levels of basic skills at entry. This has

further fuelled the demand for skills provision with many students needing skills training

and support to help their transition into Higher Education, and beyond.

The London South Bank University Core Skills Policy (LDC 2003) puts skills at the heart

of the university’s corporate plan and its learning and teaching strategy. The result has

been two fold: an increased research output focusing on what specific skills to deliver and

how best to deliver them, and, the design and execution of new programs embedding the

delivery of these skills into the subject curriculum and across the academic program to

develop “complex learning” (Yorke & Knight 2006 p 568). This increased activity

surrounding the delivery of skills has in turn fuelled more intense discourse surrounding

the value of these skills and of the role of a university education.

This paper reviews this employability discourse and attempts to understand the outcome

of the skills development agenda from the LSBU graduate point of view i.e. the graduate

fitness for purpose, the value of the degree and the associated skills gained and what gaps

need addressing.

Literature Review

What is Higher Education For?

According to many classical philosophers of Education, Higher Education is in ruins

where “education becomes a commodity and schools production lines, educated students

the products, and teachers rewarded on the basis of their productivity” (Bridges &

Jonathan 2003 p 132). The basis of this view begins with Plato’s ideal of education as “a

theoretical conception of truth, achieved through advanced philosophical reasoning”

(Hogan & Smith 2003 p 165). This inspired other classical and contemporary

philosophers who all advocate learning for learnings sake as “a beauteous intensity”

(Bearn 2000 p 246), “a pledge to the freely accepted responsibility to profess the truth”

(Derida n.d. as cited in Barnet & Standish 2003 p 219), giving education an elite status.

In contrast however, Richard Rorty (1990) refuted the relevance of philosophy to

education and emphasised the role of society in guiding education “what is held to be true

by the society to which the children belong” (Rorty 1990 p 42 as cited in Hogan & Smith

2003 p 166). For many, Rorty’s view is the basis of the demise of the University while

for others it is the necessary beginning of social justice where higher education no longer

has an elite status but is accessible and relevant to all.

Employability Skills and the University Curriculum

5

The Death of the University?

So what is the evidence of this ‘demise of higher education’? Many experts suggest that

this focus started with a deepening government involvement in education and more

specifically in Higher Education. Once funded by charitable and religious institutions for

clearly different purposes, universities were perceived as liberal in nature and thought.

However, higher education has always been dependent on those who fund it. “He who

hath the gold maketh the rules” (cited in Padro 2007 p 103).

The perception was, however, that the original funding institutions were happy to allow

these institutions to develop their own liberal thinking and academic community

believing that higher education was a formative process “aiming at meaningful freedom

producing the transformation of the whole man”(Habermas 1978 as cited by Barnett 1990

p 22). Today, the new funding institutions, (namely government and industry bodies)

demand the contribution of higher education to the development of human capital, the

economy and societal wellbeing.

The Government sponsored Dearing Report (1997) expressed these developments by

emphasising the importance of higher education in its contribution to the economy

concluding that the development of key skills for employability should be the central aim

of higher education, a view much supported by industry and demonstrated by the

increasing involvement of employers in the education debate. This is echoed by similar

government initiatives in the US most recently expressed in the Spellings Commission

Report (2006) suggesting improved methods of accountability for University Education

particularly with regard to workforce productivity and growth.

“The ability of a society to produce, select, adapt, commercialise and use

knowledge is critical for sustained economic growth and improved living

standards.”

(World Bank 2002 as cited in Padro 2007 p 2)

Since Dearing (1997), university funding has been made available for this focus on

employability, private for-profit companies have been invited to participate in school and

higher education, and Universities have sought deeper involvement from industry in

curriculum advice, financing and sponsorship. While this has offered much-needed

financial support to cash strapped institutions, many claim that it comes at a price, that

price being “performativity” (Lyotard 1984 p11) where education is distorted by an

emphasis on goals, productivity and outcomes. Several philosophers have warned against

this “global relationship between input and output performativity” (Lyotard 1984 p11)

where emphasis on excellence and performativity is “to the detriment of a proper

attention to content and to traditions of enquiry” (Readings 1996 as cited in Barnett &

Standish 2003 p 218).

“The imaginative advancement of knowledge is then not facilitated in a regime

where those responsible for the management of universities and for the quality of

their curricula are agents of performativity.”

(Standish 2003 p 217)

Peleg and Fitzgerald

6

Current Research

Traditional theory on education clearly conflicts with this modern approach to University

curriculum development. Current research continues the employability discourse raising

issues on the effectiveness of various methods of skills delivery. In particular the debate

focuses on delivery as either bolt on units or embedding skills into the curriculum which

suggests a “more integrated role played by careers and employability skills” (Cranmer

2006 p 169) across the whole academic program, where students engage in “complex

learning” (Yorke & Knight 2006 p 567). These discussions also highlight the complexity

of measuring the outcomes of these efforts, raising issues about “the point at which it is

most effective to measure outcomes, whether before or after graduation” (Cranmer 2006

p 173), the importance of both short term and long term outcomes (Harvey etc al 2002 as

quoted in Cranmer 2006) without overlooking social and educational background prior to

studying at university (Morely 2001) and (Moreau & Leathwood 2006). These

approaches to evaluating the role and contribution of the university to student

employability continue to challenge researchers in this field. Our research attempts to

contribute toward the above mentioned unresolved questions, the value of skills

delivered, complex learning and how to measure effectiveness.

Despite the very practical focus on delivery and evaluation the resulting discussion

continues to question whether developing these skills is the role of the university

academic or whether this emphasis comes “at the expense of deeper subject knowledge”.

(Sleep & Reed 2006 p 49) The question therefore is whether “resources would be better

utilised to increase employment-based training and experience, and/or employer

involvement in courses” (Cranmer 2006 p 169). However, Yorke and Knight (2003)

suggest employability and good learning need not compete for curriculum space and

suggest that they should complement each other.

Definitions of employability and the skills necessary for employment are of course key in

this debate. The Dearing Report (1997) focuses on practical skills such as Learning to

Learn, Communication, Information Technology, Information Searching, Career

Management and Numeracy, while more recent research with employers (Brennan et al

2001 as cited in Yorke & Knight 2006) and (Brown et al. 2002 as cited in Yorke &

Knight 2006) and with graduates (Moreau & Leathwood 2006) suggests that personal

skills and job specific skills are much more significant.

“Studies of what employers say they want of new graduate recruits tend to agree

that it is the soft generic abilities and personal dispositions that count.”

(Yorke & Knight, 2006 p 4)

As a consequence questions are raised as to whether the necessary skills can be

developed over a student’s short time at university or whether the necessary skills

described as personal qualities and attributes are developed over a lifetime.

“If the general thrust of employers’ expectations is taken seriously, can higher

education do anything to foster the outcomes that employers desire or are the

outcomes interlocked with personality in ways that make them resistant to the

education process (Yorke & Knight, 2006 p 569)

Employability Skills and the University Curriculum

7

While the majority of the academic world is concerned by the focus on employability and

the role of the teacher, others look at these developments more pragmatically and

positively. Developments such as widening participation and access to higher education

and the removal of the elitist status of higher education are for many positive results of

state involvement in education. The focus on employability skills at all levels of

education is, therefore, essential in assisting students to fulfil their potential and earn a

decent wage to support themselves and to contribute to a stronger economy and society

from which they can also benefit.

“The aim of the policy is to ensure that all those who have the ability to benefit

from higher education have the opportunity to do so. Higher education and the

opportunities that it brings should be available to all, regardless of their

background”

(http://www.delni.gov.uk/he-widening-participation.htm accessed 24/7/2008)

For those advocating social justice, embracing diversity and equality the university is

now a place where diversity and culture is to be celebrated, which “provides in

partnership with the family that background of culture and social habit upon which a

healthy society depends” (Robbins 1963 as cited in Barnett 1990 p 97).

While much of the literature presented suggests the continued demise of the university in

a world where the university is dictated to by the needs of society, Ron Barnett (1990)

argues that Universities and academics must begin to accept this situation, to recognise

the super complexity of society and the link between higher education and the

development of society. He suggests that the university can only preserve academic

freedom by undergoing its own critical evaluation and therefore urges the academic

community not to close rank but to partake in “enlightened and engaged

action…….taking the fight outwards, engaging with the wider society, and partly on its

terms.” (Barnett & Standish 2003 p 232)

“The Western university, insofar as it stood for a total institution, sure of itself and

of its powers to delight through its internal discourse, is at an end, its discourses

awash with those of the wider society. It is for the university to become

supercomplex in character…….to live in a creative, persistent, and open endeavour

of engagement with all around it” (Barnett & Standish 2003 p 233)

Barnett’s challenge is for the university to reclaim it leadership role by recognising its

role as “provider of intellectual capital within society” (Barnett & Standish 2003 p232).

Research Aims & Outcomes

The above literature review identifies several main areas that would benefit from further

research. How can Universities reinstate themselves as “the primary producer and

disseminator of high level knowledge” (Barnett & Standish 2003 p 231) so that they can

lead the discourse on education and its practical development? How can they ensure that

the employability skills requirements and the academic curriculum work along side each

other? What is the value of the current skills provision and how can it be further

improved to enhance both employability and academic rigour? Is the emphasis on

teaching skills misplaced when so much importance is placed on ‘soft’ personal skills that

Peleg and Fitzgerald

8

cannot be taught during three years at university? Finally how can we assess the value of

skills over the long term?

By interviewing graduates this project intends to contribute further to this employability

discourse on both an academic and practical level. Graduate perceptions of their

education as a whole will provide an important dimension to the higher education debate

and perhaps take us a step further toward a consensus on how the university can lead.

Identification by graduates of the particular skills acquired will further inform the

curriculum with suggestions for improved skills delivery, in particular to assist in the

preparation for employment. This research will assess current skills provision, especially

its utility in the early years of employment, through a longitudinal program of research

that considers the complexities of effective measurement raised by Cranmer (2006),

Morley (2001) and Moreau & Leathwood (2006) amongst others.

Research Objectives

• To understand and explore the experience of graduates in the first five years of

their employment

• To explore the usefulness and value of skills obtained while at LSBU within the

first five years in the work place.

• To develop ideas for further areas of job search and skills development

particularly at level three in preparing undergraduate students for employment.

• To assess the feasibility of setting up an annual tracking study of LSBU BCIM

graduates to measure the value their overall education and of the skills provided

for employment.

Methodology

Qualitative in depth interviews are to be carried out with 40 LSBU Business Graduates,

where respondents are recruited from a mix of marketing and general business related

jobs, private and public sector industries and management levels. The graduates are to be

a mix of gender, age and ethnic background, and to represent a variety of achievements in

terms of grade classification. Individual qualitative interviews were considered

appropriate to allow for in depth and personal discussion of experiences, motivations,

achievements and difficulties.

This paper reports on the findings of research in progress following the successful

completion of phase one of the project. Phase one identified 22 Marketing Graduates

carrying out depth interviews of 75-90 minutes with each one.

Phase Two will build on these findings by selecting graduates of a different business

discipline thus affording a comparison.

Findings

The findings were clear and detailed giving a particularly positive picture of the

contribution of higher education. Many graduates found it difficult to unpick the

contribution of the different skills to their development. Though the overall consensus

Employability Skills and the University Curriculum

9

was that while skills provision was important and could certainly be improved, the main

value of their university degree went far beyond specific skills to a broadening of

horizons, analytical and strategic thinking and the ability to look at the whole picture.

“The degree gave me more than just employability, not only knowledge and theory

but developed interests and me as a person. It broadened me, made me see beyond

just the subjects, to see the bigger world, the real world, to understand the bigger

picture and for me, importantly, it has given me the confidence to talk to anyone

about anything”

(NN graduate 2005)

Graduates were also very clear that without personal drive and determination and a very

proactive approach to the employment search success can only be limited. As a result

their advice to current students was to start the job search early, take it seriously, be

proactive, carry out extensive research and think ahead.

The Value of Skills

Graduates valued the embedding of skills into the curriculum, helping them develop

generic presentation and communications skills in a manner relevant to their subjects.

Figure One identifies the key factors in graduates successful career development:

Knowledge, Subject Specific Skills, Job Search Skills and Personal Attributes

1. Knowledge

Key for respondents was the broader subject learning that they had taken into the

workplace. A number, for example, had used marketing plans or dissertations either as

part of an interview task that then gained them the job or were using these in their jobs.

Furthermore, the confidence afforded by having the necessary/correct terminology was

also important to communicate both internally and externally.

“It gave you the language, the jargon, so you can talk on the same level with

anyone” (JW graduate 2001)

Figure 1: The Value of Skills Acquired while at London South Bank

Knowledge gained

Understanding of Marketing/Business

Marketing Planning & Strategy

Whole Picture vs. Fragmented Picture

Marketing is NOT advertising

Business/Marketing Language

Specific Topic Areas

Job Search Skills Communication Skills

Research Skills

Basic Numeracy

Industry Knowledge & Jargon

Employment Skills Team Work

Time Management

Planning & Organization

Thinking on your feet

Summarising & Managing Info.

Sourcing

Analytical Thinking

Skills acquired

Presentation Skills a big plus

Sourcing & referencing

Time Management

Organizational Skills

Team Work

Information Searching

Research

Analytical & Critical Thinking

Report Writing

Basic Numeracy

Independent Learning

Dealing with diversity

COMMONALITIESCOMMONALITIESCommunication Skills

Presentation Skills

People SkillsResearch Skills

Referencing/Sourcing

Information ManagementIndependence

Planning & Organizinglanguage/jargon

Industry KnowledgeBasic Maths

Analytical Thinking

COMMONALITIESCOMMONALITIESCommunication Skills

Presentation Skills

People SkillsResearch Skills

Referencing/Sourcing

Information ManagementIndependence

Planning & Organizinglanguage/jargon

Industry KnowledgeBasic Maths

Analytical Thinking

Personal Attributes

Determination

Enthusiasm/Energy

Charm

Outgoing

Willingness to learn

Experience

Proactive Attitude

Professionalism

Responsibility/Independence

Peleg and Fitzgerald

10

In particular, graduates emphasized the importance of gaining an overall view of the

marketing subject area, understanding how all the component parts worked together.

2. Skills

The most important skills, reiterated by all interviewees, were communications skills and,

in particular, presentation skills. They valued the emphasis placed in particular on

presentation skills throughout their three/four years. This not only ensured ability but

gave confidence in all oral communications. Indeed one graduate recounted how vital this

had proven to be: first and foremost in helping her gain employment and successful

promotion but also what a disadvantage there was to graduates without this ability; she

herself was sending three of her team for presentation skills training.

“Doing all those presentations could be a pain at times as it seemed to be one

every day but it made me really good at it as I discovered once I started working

and could compare myself to colleagues. Importantly though it was a very useful

skill in presenting myself to potential employers” ( ND graduate 2003)

Also highly valued were the skills involved in analytical thinking; in particular to be able

to analyse critically, look at issues from different viewpoints, interpret, diagnose and

prognose allowing the extraction and evaluation of key issues and developing practical

and strategic recommendations.

“ For marketing I could not have done without the theory but far more important

was learning to analyze and do so critically. This has now become my hobby”

(NN graduate 2003)

This analytical ability was often mentioned in conjunction with information management

skills, referring to the ability to find key information, evaluate and use it successfully in

developing alternative strategies. Finally, team work was considered the most difficult

and undervalued skill while at university. The requirement to deal with the problems

faced in team work, working with diverse groups, provided valuable training for what

was now being encountered in the workplace.

“ Teamwork was not something really valued at the time. In fact it was a real

burden ….. That said it proved to be a fantastic experience and very good

preparation for what happens in the workplace. I just wish the reasons for putting

us through all this pain had been really explained as it possibly was the most

valuable part of the course” ( JS graduate 2004)

3. Job search and employment skills.

Several interviewees particularly valued skills that assisted in their job search and initial

employment. In particular again, presentations skills and thus all communication skills

assisted here. This also included basic numeracy and the ability to understand and present

simple data. Most notably research abilities were unanimously identified as essential to

the job search process. Perhaps unacknowledged before, but the importance of time

management was sheepishly emphasized once in employment.

Employability Skills and the University Curriculum

11

4. Personal Attributes

Needless to say respondents were initially reluctant, out of modesty, to sound their own

trumpet but as they became more involved in the interview and as a result of gentle

probing their real opinions came through. A professional and proactive nature, a

willingness to learn and to volunteer for everything plus a determination and enthusiasm

always gave them an advantage. Each interviewee emphasized how important it was to

take the initiative, to be ready to do more than was required and to be forward thinking.

They all agreed that a university education could not teach you these personal skills but

the confidence gained from achieving a degree contributed significantly to developing

these soft skills and therefore to successful employment.

“I would say what helped me was being very enthusiastic, being willing to learn

and research: learning everything you need to learn about the industry and the

company itself. Finding examples to apply, doing things over and over to get it

perfect, being flexible and adaptive”

( JS graduate 2004)

Skills Acquired vs. On- the-Job Training

When asked about skills acquired by on the job training there were differences but also

many interesting commonalities (fig 2). The ‘on the job’ training usually focused on

skills more specific to the particular role and the particular procedures of the employing

organization, such as, specific software programs, performance measuring metrics,

reporting formats and organizational systems and procedures. However, commonalities,

such as team building, information management, presentation skills and numeracy skills,

were often repeated in ‘on the job’ training which raises the question as to how the

university and the work place work together to train and further develop these skills?

What more could a degree offer?

Finally graduates were asked to identify skills that were missing from their skill set which

would have helped them in the early years of their careers. These skills focused in

particular on the ability to think on their feet, summarise arguments and respond

immediately. This suggests the need for more debating, defending of presentations and

written work similar to a Viva Voce format. In addition they focused on their

understanding of how the industry operates and how to manage their careers. The points

raised are summarized into six main areas:

Knowledge of the Working World

Many expressed the feeling that despite the extensive and in depth marketing education,

they still do not acquire enough practical current knowledge of the Marketing Industry,

how the work place operates, the different career paths and what they really involved, the

roles within these different job specifications, in particular the difference between agency

and client work. It was therefore an extremely steep learning curve when looking for

work and deciding what career to follow. Suggestions included more guest speakers,

facility visits and closer working relationships with industry to create more opportunities

for job shadowing, work experience and short term placements.

Peleg and Fitzgerald

12

“Aside from more guest speakers....far greater awareness of differences across the

industry sectors particularly in communications…..Need to learn what it is really

like, perhaps workshops in agencies or sending students for a day or a month and/

or internships. What was really missing was the whole area of agency versus client,

the differences and, importantly, the media, media agencies, media channels. These

are all key these days given the jobs now available” ( MO graduate 2003)

Fig Two: Skills Acquired vs. On-the Job Training

Specific Software Training

Some mentioned the need for training in specific software programs used in industry such

as: Photoshop, Spreadsheets, Database management.

Generic Skills

Of the generic skills missing from the curriculum many identified the need to be able to

react quickly, think on their feet, minute taking, summarizing arguments and reproducing

them immediately. Correct English writing skills were also important with an emphasis

on more practice of different writing formats, such as, report writing, minute taking, copy

writing, chairing meetings, summarizing. With regards to numeracy all felt they were not

prepared enough for simple numerical analysis, number crunching, interpretation and

presentation.

Career Management Skills

In hindsight many felt they would have benefited from more practical sessions to assist

them with CV writing, interviewing skills, job selection, research and preparation.

Interestingly, however, none of them had used the services of the LSBU careers service

either because they did not know enough about its services or they felt they didn’t need it

at the time, a minority also mentioned some disappointment with the nature of the careers

service, with a lack of specific information.

SSkkiillllss AAccqquuiirreedd vvss.. OOnn--tthhee--JJoobb

TTrraaiinniinngg

Common Skills Communication Skills Presentation Skills People Skills Research Skills Referencing/Sourcing Information Management Independence Planning & Organizing language/jargon Industry Knowledge Basic Maths Analytical Thinking

On the Job Training Specific Technical Skills Organizational Procedures & Systems Performance Metrics Corporate Culture Team Work Client Handing Presentation Skills Project Management Additional Courses - Professional Courses - Self Development Courses - Post Grad

Employability Skills and the University Curriculum

13

Specific Subject Related Topics

Additional subject areas such as: Digital marketing, Media and media agencies,

Evaluation and control (metrics) and Project management were also suggested to help

them understand better the range of roles and career opportunities.

Initial motivations and expectations vs. overall contribution of the degree to their

development.

Unsurprisingly when asked about their initial motivations for university study the

immediate response was to enhance their employment opportunities, ‘to get a job’ with

new skills and knowledge. Others also suggested the opportunity for independence and a

new social life. However, having completed the degree and now in employment, the

overall consensus did not focus on skills acquired or needed but on the wider knowledge

gained, the contribution of their studies to their own personal development and

confidence and in particular a broadening of horizons. Many felt that this training of the

mind, the ability to learn and approach issues critically and analytically was what set

them apart from those who had not been at university. This learning to learn, this ability

to analyse and reflect was particularly important for their personal development. For

many therefore the degree had started off a continuous process of learning and personal

development which they continue to engage in.

“In going into that first job, aside from my own personality I guess, what I took that

was probably the most important thing was a willingness to learn. I think just by

doing the degree this somehow became part of me and something I value now as

continuing to learn is something that is important to me. I don’t ever want to stop”

(AF graduate 2003)

Conclusions and Recommendations

In this research we attempt to contribute further to the discourse on the value of skills

delivery and the role of the university in delivering these skills for employability.

What is the value of skills acquired at university vs. the soft skills that are part of our

personal make up? Graduates reiterated the importance of these personal ‘soft’ skills that

developed with the confidence that university level success and enthusiasm about

learning gave them. Our research identified the skills acquired at university that were

most valued in the workplace and additional skills that could further enhance their

preparation for employment. All graduates recognised the importance of proactively

searching for placement and internship opportunities during their studies but requested

the facilitation of a clearer understanding of industry and the workplace. To bridge the

gap and prepare better students for future employment, closer cooperation between

university and workplace is essential if universities are to take up the challenge of

Barnett’s “super complex society” (Barnett 2003 p 232) and lead the education

discourse.

Is the university merely developing human capital or does it have a role in developing

learning for its own sake? London South Bank has an open access policy which means

Peleg and Fitzgerald

14

that the effective delivery of skills is essential to help students from diverse educational

backgrounds and with diverse abilities improve their study and employability skills.

However, our graduates emphasized that this is not sufficient and that the real

differentiating factor emanates from a higher level of learning and enquiry, creating a

critical and analytical ability that takes their employment success to another level. This

suggests that while London South Bank continues to prioritise skills it must not lose sight

of the higher level of learning and enquiry that is not only expected of a University but

also emphatically applauded by its graduates. Universities like London South Bank have

a double duty: to continue to embed skills into its curriculum and to further raise the bar

and deliver graduates who are able to engage in analytical and critical enquiry in their

quest for continuous learning.

Suggestions for Further Research

Phase Two

This research in progress focused on Marketing Graduates at LSBU, the second stage of

our research will focus on graduates from a different discipline to afford a comparison.

Once the full quota of 40 interviews is complete, a more in-depth assessment of profiles

of these different graduates will be undertaken in order to understand better how social

and educational background and other personal factors may influence their experience

and their perception of the value of their university education.

Additional Research

This research focused on graduates in the first five years of employment. As all those

interviewed were already in employment it may also be interesting to interview additional

candidates who are currently involved in the job search process but as yet are not

successful. It may also be useful to speak to graduates who have not kept in touch with

the university as this lack of contact may be an indication of a different experience and

perception. Finally it will be useful to carry out the same research on a continuous basis

to track the value of curriculum changes and additional skills delivery and to assess the

possible influence of the timing of the research, social and education background and

other variables. An additional quantitative study is therefore recommended building on

the findings of this research in progress. This quantitative study will assess the value of

skills amongst a wider variety of graduates from different disciplines and different

education backgrounds prior to entering university. It will also assess students at

different points in their careers, including those just completing their education and

actively involved in job search.

Employability Skills and the University Curriculum

15

References

Barnett, R. (1990) The Idea of Higher Education The Society for Research into Higher

Education & Open University Press

Barnett, R & Standish, P. (2003) Higher Education & The University, in N. Blake, P,

Smeyers, R. Smith and P.Standish (eds) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of

Education, Blackwell Publishing, chapter 12, pp215-233.

Bridges, D, & Jonathan, R (2003) Education & the Market, in N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R.

Smith and P.Standish (eds) The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education,

Blackwell Publishing, chapter 7, pp126-145.

Cranmer S., (2006) ‘Enhancing Graduate Employability: best intentions and mixed

outcomes studies in higher education’, 31, (2): 169-184

Dearing Report, National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997) Higher

Education in the Learning Society, Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into

Higher Education, The Stationery Office, London.

Hogan, P. (2003) ‘Teaching and Learning as a Way of Life’ The Journal of the

Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, 37, (2): 207-223

Hogan, P. & Smith R, (2003) The Activity of Philosophy and the Practice of Education,

N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith and P.Standish (eds) The Blackwell Guide to the

Philosophy of Education, Blackwell Publishing, chapter 9, pp165-180

Moreau, M. & Leathwood, C., (2006) ‘Graduates’ Employment and the Discourse of

Employability; a critical analysis.’ Journal of Education and Work, 19, (4): 305-324

Padro, F. (2007) ‘The Key Implication of the 2006 Spellings Commission Report:

Higher Education is a “Knowledge Industry” rather than a place of learning’, The

International Journal of Learning, 14 (5): 98-104

Sleep, M & Reed, H. (2006) ‘Views of Sport Science Graduates Regarding Work Skills

Developed at University’, Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (1): 47-61

Yorke, M. & Knight, P.T, (2006) ‘Curricula for Economic and Social Gain’, Higher

Education, 51: 562-588

PRIME Volume 3(2)

17

Should students participate in curriculum design? Discussion

arising from a first year curriculum design project and a

literature review

Catherine Bovill1, Kate Morss

2 and Catherine Bulley

3

1 University of Glasgow, Academic Development Unit

2 Queen Margaret University Edinburgh, Centre for Academic Practice

3 Queen Margaret University Edinburgh, Physiotherapy

Summary

This paper outlines some of the findings from a QAA (Scotland) funded project exploring

first year curriculum design (Bovill et al. 2008). Whilst many examples exist of curricula

being designed in ways to engage first year students, there are fewer published examples

of active student participation in curriculum design processes. In the current higher

education context where student engagement in learning is emphasised (Carini et al,

2006), this paper asks more generally whether students should be actively participating in

curriculum design.

In order to answer this question, several elements of the project findings are explored:

student views gathered in focus groups; staff views collected in workshops; and the case

studies where students were actively involved in curriculum design. The data are

examined for lessons that inform the debate about whether students should be

participating in curriculum design, in first year and at other levels. Alongside these

findings, relevant literature is critiqued in order to ascertain the desirability and feasibility

of adopting curriculum design approaches that offer opportunities for active student

participation.

Introduction

In higher education there is currently an emphasis on students becoming more engaged in

the learning process (Carini et al, 2006). Indeed, there are suggestions that students

should become active co-creators of learning (SFC, 2008; SFC, 2006). This has led to

some suggestions for greater student participation in designing specific elements of

courses such as assessment (Nicol, 2008). There have also been a handful of specific calls

for students to become active participants in the design of the curriculum.

Fraser and Bosanquet (2006) outline definitions of the curriculum given by academic

staff with one definition describing the curriculum as “…a dynamic, emergent and

collaborative process of learning for both student and teacher” (Fraser and Bosanquet,

2006:272). This expands the traditional idea of the curriculum towards a view of the

“teacher and student acting as co-constructors of knowledge” (Fraser & Bosanquet,

2006:275). However, a recent research project examining first year curriculum design

found few published examples of the curriculum being co-constructed in this way (Bovill

et al, 2008).

In the following section the project findings that relate to active student participation

(ASP) in curriculum design are outlined.

Bovill et al.

18

First year curriculum design project: what did the findings say?

From 2006-2008, the QAA Scotland funded nine projects as part of their first year

enhancement theme. One of these projects focused on first year curriculum design. The

first stage of the project was the completion of a literature review of first year curriculum

design. Data were also gathered from staff workshops, student focus groups and from

case studies that provided examples of first year curriculum design which were engaging

students. These case studies were collected from throughout the higher education sector

in the UK, with fewer examples submitted from Ireland and the USA.

Although this was by no means a comprehensive study, the data gathered from staff in

workshops, students in focus groups and from the case studies all supported the view that

students should be participating in curriculum design. Respondents reported that where

students’ own experiences become a focus for learning and a basis for curriculum design,

students found learning to be more relevant and authentic. Others argued that where

students are involved in curriculum design, the enhanced choice can lead to

personalisation of their learning experience as well as increased responsibility over their

own learning.

The most frequently mentioned mode of participation involved student feedback on

courses. It is widespread practice in higher education for staff to use feedback to inform

curricular modifications. Methods of gathering student feedback commonly included use

of staff-student liaison committees, feedback questionnaires, focus groups and the use of

electronic voting systems. However, despite many participants reporting that staff are

reactive to student feedback and are incorporating changes to curricula on this basis, only

three case studies were submitted where staff proactively introduced opportunities for

students to participate in curriculum design (Bovill et al. 2008).

Different levels and models of participation by students were illustrated in these three

case studies. For example, in one module at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, first

year students brought their own experiences to class and the curriculum was constructed

around this. The students also contributed to writing of curriculum materials. In a second

case study at University College, Dublin, students were paid to design the virtual learning

environment for a module they had just completed. Finally, at Elon University, North

Carolina, students were paid to work in collaboration with staff to design a variety of

courses (see Bovill et al 2008 for further details).

The issue is not straightforward, however; while students expressed a strong desire to be

challenged in the learning process, staff who took part in workshops as part of this project

had some concerns. They asked whether first year students are sufficiently experienced or

appropriately prepared to be designing the curriculum. This led the project team to revisit

the literature in an attempt to further address the broad question of whether students

should be actively participating in curriculum design.

What does the literature on active student participation in curriculum

design say?

Calls for student participation in the curriculum go back as far as Dewey (1916) at the

beginning of the 20th

Century. Others have concurred with Dewey’s views that students

Should students participate in curriculum design?

19

should share responsibility for curriculum planning (Aronowitz, 1994, 1981; Shor, 1992;

Pinar, 1981; Rogers and Freiberg, 1969). Within more recent mainstream higher

education literature, there are a handful of specific calls for students to become active

participants in the design of the curriculum. These include, for example, those teaching

courses that have an explicit remit to promote active, responsible citizenship (Fisher,

2005; Scandrett et al, 2005; Grudens-Schuck, 2003; Wilkinson and Scandrett, 2003), and

those involved in language teaching (Breen and Littlejohn, 2000a).

Within the literature, there is a range of rationales for students participating in curriculum

design. More generally, active and participatory approaches are thought to enhance and

support learning (Kahn and O’Rourke, 2005; Reynolds et al, 2004; Ivanic, 2000; Brown

et al, 1989; Kolb, 1984). Some authors within higher education make greater claims and

suggest that ASP changes students’ lives and through this transformation they may

become active and critical citizens who can change their communities (Crowther et al,

2005; Scandrett et al, 2005; Wilkinson and Scandrett, 2003).

In common with findings from the first year curriculum design project, in the literature,

authors argue that ASP in curriculum design is essential to support learning through, for

example: students engaging in authentic, relevant and meaningful learning; breaking

down the power differential between staff and students; and students experiencing the

freedom to become critical thinkers and critical beings in the world (Barnett and Coate,

2005; Rice, 2004; Freire 2003; Taylor et al, 2002; Mezirow, 2000; Rogers and Freiberg,

1969). ASP in curriculum design also enhances student choice, contributing to learners

taking more responsibility for their own learning (Hooks, 1994; Rogers and Freiberg,

1969).

However, Reynolds et al (2004) caution that we do not know enough about what is meant

by participation. They suggest that there is widespread use of the term participation,

partly because it is often viewed as unquestionably positive. Despite the justifications for

pursuing ASP outlined above, there are also a number of possible drawbacks to ASP in

curriculum design outlined in the literature.

ASP can be threatening to students who have come through an education system where

teachers have dominated the classroom and students may resist new approaches (Shor,

1992; Rogers and Freiberg 1969). Students may also be sceptical of participatory

approaches if they have previous experience of tutors claiming to use participatory

techniques in which they have been manipulated to create an impression of involvement

for the tutor’s benefit (Reynolds et al 2004).

Participatory approaches have also been criticised for reifying the views of the less

powerful - in this case the students (Reynolds et al 2004; Cooke and Kothari, 2001). This

often means that an uncritical value is placed on the views of students, whatever their

views are. This is potentially flawed in the same way the traditional reification of the

tutor’s stance is flawed. So how do the results from the first year curriculum design

project and the arguments within the literature help to answer the question posed?

Bovill et al.

20

Should students be actively participating in curriculum design?

Unfortunately, there is little systematic evaluation of the impact of ASP in curriculum

design that helps to answer this question. There is a distinct need for further research in

this area. Staff in workshops during the first year curriculum design project were

concerned that students might not have enough, or might not have the right kind of,

knowledge and skills to participate in curriculum design. Whilst these staff were referring

specifically to first year students, this is a broader concern where staff may have years of

experience of designing the curriculum and may believe students do not have the

expertise to make decisions about curriculum planning that will have substantial impact

on their learning. Some students may also feel overloaded with work and that curriculum

design is the teacher’s role (Bovill et al, 2008; Martyn, 2000; Slembrouck, 2000; Shor,

1992).

Yet, in other areas of academic life, for example, in relation to academic writing skills or

student representation, we do not necessarily expect students to have all the skills they

require at the beginning of a process. We offer preparation, training and guidance to

students to support them in learning about the elements of academic life with which they

must become familiar. Therefore, if we think students should be offered opportunities to

participate in curriculum design, we may need offer preparation and guidance in the first

instance.

Staff involved in curriculum design have varying degrees of expertise and experience.

They also define the curriculum differently (Fraser and Bosanquet, 2006). Similarly,

students are also likely to have varying experiences and definitions of the curriculum.

Time may be required to negotiate shared understandings before setting out on actual

design processes. Indeed, the level of negotiation needed may take longer than

curriculum design processes that staff are used to:

“Time is absolutely essential in the empowerment process. We have found that it

often takes time for students to develop the confidence - and the language - to

express pedagogical ideas clearly. Many seem at first to doubt that we will take

them seriously. In most course design projects, a moment comes when students

suddenly realise that they are being heard. We have begun to structure our course

design projects to include an early and public point…when students are making an

important decision, such as selecting the textbook. This moment typically changes

the dynamic of the design group, empowering students to be active participants and

showing faculty the value of listening to students” (Felten in Bovill et al, 2008: 88).

This process obviously requires significant investment of time, energy and skills, but

Michael Apple argues that “…there exists in curriculum development…something of a

failure of nerve. We are willing to prepare students to assume only ‘some responsibility

for their own learning” (Apple 1981:115). Indeed, this leads to another key implication of

student participation in curriculum design – that the tutor-student relationship is changed.

In co-designing the curriculum, there is a challenge to the predominant understanding of

the student-tutor relationship where the tutor holds most of the power and students are

subordinate. ASP implies a relationship where the tutor and students are learners co-

creating the learning experience through dialogue. As Freire explains:

Should students participate in curriculum design?

21

“Through dialogue, the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of-the-teacher

cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacher-student with students-teachers. The

teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but who is himself [sic] taught in

dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach” (Freire

2003:63).

Similarly, Rogers and Freiberg (1969) argue that the teacher becomes a co-learner in this

process. This view of a collaborative student-tutor relationship outlined here relies on

collective inquiry and dialogue (Haggis 2006; Grudens-Schuck 2003). This dialogue

between the tutor and students implies a new view of the learner as a knowledgeable and

critical partner in learning (Darder et al, 2003; Freire 2003; Grudens-Schuck 2003; Shor

1992; Aronowitz 1981). However, it is important to note that ASP does not remove the

teacher’s expertise and the key role they have in facilitating learning (Bartolome, 2003;

Breen and Littlejohn, 2000b).

Although power is shared between staff and students in this model of a co-created

curriculum, this approach is demanding of staff, as demonstrated in the previous quote

from Peter Felten. The process of co-creation implies that staff will need to be more self-

aware, highly flexible, knowledgeable and sensitive to respond to student learning needs

and the direction in which the students want to take the curriculum. This negotiated

curriculum design process would also be affected by any professional standard

requirements, regulatory frameworks and personal views of how a subject should be

taught. This context may constrain the level of student participation in the curriculum that

is possible, but there may still be room for creative approaches where students’ ideas and

previous experience are valued and utilised within the curriculum planning process.

For many tutors it may be uncomfortable to relinquish control over elements of the

curriculum. Numerous authors acknowledge that changing power relations tends to be

unpopular with the powerful as it implies a giving up of previous privileges (Gwatkin,

2000; Arnstein, 1969). Similarly in higher education, student-centred approaches and

student control over elements of curriculum design are likely to face some resistance

from those academics who gain privileges (e.g. status, power, money) from being defined

as an expert teacher. On the other hand, Grudens-Schuck (2003) suggests that in courses

that are teaching about participation and social justice, adopting ASP in curriculum

design reduces cognitive dissonance for tutor and students.

The process of co-constructing the curriculum offers opportunities for greater clarity over

the expectations of tutor and students about the aims of the curriculum and the potential

impacts on learning. It is also likely that the experience of being involved in curriculum

design will enhance students’ awareness of the learning process and how different

elements of the curriculum impact on learning, such as: timetabling; setting learning

outcomes; setting assessments; and choosing textbooks. Through this process the student

gains greater control over their own learning. Another way of involving students in the

curriculum design process is to enable their participation at a later stage and therefore

capitalise on their experience of a course. In one case study from the first year curriculum

design project, students who had completed a course at University College, Dublin were

involved in its redesign (Bovill et al, 2008). The advantage here was that students had

experienced the course and held useful views as to how the curriculum might be

Bovill et al.

22

redesigned. They also gained experience of curriculum design. The disadvantage in this

case was that this design was retrospective and the process did not enable these students

to work on the curriculum for a course which they were currently studying – their

curriculum design impacted on other students who had no influence upon their own

curriculum.

Having presented a mixed picture from the first year curriculum design project and the

literature, what conclusions can we draw?

Conclusions

Questions might be raised as to whether the current higher education context is

supportive of ASP in curriculum design. The implied shifts in power and control between

tutor and student would require a university which encourages students to act critically

and to challenge and question the world in which they live (Barnett, 1997; Haggis, 2006).

Yet, many authors have raised concerns that universities are losing their criticality in the

face of the recent surge of managerialism and instrumentalism in the UK higher

education sector. They suggest that this vision of a critical higher education may be under

threat (Barnett and Coate, 2005; Rice, 2004; Taylor et al, 2002; Barnett, 1997).

On the basis of previous discussion, we should not assume that ASP is always positive or

appropriate. Indeed there is a need for further evaluation and research into the impacts of

ASP in curriculum design. There is also a need to examine the feasibility and desirability

of ASP in curriculum design in different contexts and to investigate the factors which

influence the nature of ASP in curriculum design within these contexts.

Nevertheless, if our current goals in higher education include enhancing student

engagement in learning, and if students have a desire to be challenged in the learning

process, then ASP in curriculum design may be an area which we need to explore further.

References

Apple, M.W. (1981) On analysing hegemony. In Giroux, H.A., Penna, A.N. and Pinar,

W.F. (Eds) Curriculum and instruction alternatives in education, Berkerley: McCutchen

Publishing.

Arnstein, S.R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute

of Planners, 35 (4) 216-224.

Aronowitz, S. (1994) A different perspective on educational equality, Review of

Education / Pedagogy / Cultural studies, 16 (2) 135-151.

Aronowitz, S. (1981) Politics and higher education in the 1980s, In Giroux, H.A., Penna,

A.N. and Pinar, W.F. (Eds) Curriculum and instruction alternatives in education,

Berkerley: McCutchen Publishing.

Barnett, R. (1997) Higher education: a critical business, Maidenhead: Society for

Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Should students participate in curriculum design?

23

Barnett, R. and Coate, K. (2005) Engaging the curriculum in higher education,

Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Bartolome, L.I. (2003) Beyond the methods fetish: toward a humanizing pedagogy, In

Darder, A., Baltodano, M. and Torres, R.D. (Eds) The critical pedagogy reader, New

York: Routledge Falmer.

Bovill, C., Morss, K. and Bulley, C. (2008) Curriculum design for the first

year, First Year Enhancement Theme Report, Glasgow: QAA (Scotland).

Breen, M.P. and Littlejohn, A. (2000a) The Significance of negotiation, In Breen, M.P.

and Littlejohn, A. (eds) Classroom decision-making: negotiation and process syllabuses

in practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Breen, M.P. and Littlejohn, A. (2000b) The practicalities of negotiation, In Breen, M.P.

and Littlejohn, A. (eds) Classroom decision-making: negotiation and process syllabuses

in practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A. Duguid, P. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning,

Educational Researcher, 18 (1) 32-42.

Carini, R.M., Kuh, G.D. and Klein, S.P. (2006) Student engagement and student learning:

testing the linkages, Research in Higher Education, 47 (1) 1-32.

Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (2001) The Case for Participation as Tyranny, In Cooke, B.

and Kothari, U. (eds) Participation the New Tyranny? London: Zed.

Crowther, J., Galloway, V. and Martin, I. (2005) Introduction: radicalising intellectual

work, In Crowther, J., Galloway, V. and Martin, I. (eds) Popular education: engaging the

academy. International perspectives, Leicester: Niace.

Darder, A., Baltodano, M. and Torres, R.D. (2003) Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction,

In Darder, A., Baltodano, M. and Torres, R.D. (Eds) The critical pedagogy reader, New

York: Routledge Falmer.

Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of

education, New York: The Macmillan Company.

Fischer, M.C.B. (2005) The methodology of ‘systemisation’ and its relevance to the

academy, In Crowther, J. Galloway, V. and Martin, I. (eds) Popular education: engaging

the academy. International perspectives, Leicester: Niace.

Fraser, S, and Bosanquet, A, (2006) The curriculum? That′s just a unit outline, isn′t it?

Studies in Higher Education, 31(3) p.269-284.

Freire, P. (2003) From pedagogy of the oppressed, In Darder, A., Baltodano, M. and

Torres, R.D. (Eds) The critical pedagogy reader, New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Bovill et al.

24

Grudens-Schuck, N. (2003) No beginners: teaching participation at the graduate level,

PLA notes, 48 (12)11-14

Gwatkin, D.R. (2000) Health inequalities and the health of the poor: what do we know?

What can we do? Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 78 (1) 3-18

Haggis, T. (2006) Pedagogies for diversity: retaining critical challenge amidst fears of

‘dumbing down’, Studies in Higher Education, 31 (5) 521-535.

Hooks, B (1994) Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom, New

York: Routledge.

Ivanic, R. (2000) Negotiation, process, content and participants’ experience in a process

syllabus for ELT professionals, In Breen, M.P. and Littlejohn, A. (eds) Classroom

decision-making: negotiation and process syllabuses in practice, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Kahn, P. and O’ Rourke, K. (2005) In Barrett, T., MacLabhrainn, I. and Fallon, H. (Eds)

Handbook of enquiry and problem-based learning. Irish case studies and international

perspectives, All Ireland Society for Higher Education. Online. Available:

<http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-2/contents.html> (accessed 2 June 2008)

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and

development, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Martyn, E. (2000) Syllabus negotiation in a school of nursing, In Breen, M.P. and

Littlejohn, A. (eds) Classroom decision-making: negotiation and process syllabuses in

practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mezirow, J. (2000) Learning to think like an adult. Core concepts of transformation

theory, In Mezirow, J. (ed) Learning as transformation. Critical perspectives on a theory

in progress, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Nicol, D. (2008) Assessment as a driver for transformational change in HE, ESCalate

newsletter Number 10 Spring. Online. Available:

<http://escalate.ac.uk/4451> (accessed 2 June 2008)

Pinar, W.F. (1981) The reconceptualization of curriculum studies, In Giroux, H.A.,

Penna, A.N. and Pinar, W.F. (Eds) Curriculum and instruction alternatives in education,

Berkerley: McCutchen Publishing.

Reynolds, M., Sclater, M. and Tickner, S. (2004) A critique of participative discourses

adopted in networked learning, EQUEL Symposium and Papers presented at the

Networked Learning 2004 Conference, Lancaster University, April 5-7.

Rice, C.D. (2004) Enlightened universities: beyond political agendas, Edinburgh: Policy

Institute Series: Society No. 4.

Should students participate in curriculum design?

25

Rogers, C. and Freiberg, H.J. (1969) Freedom to learn, (3rd

ed.) New York: Macmillan

Publishing.

Scandrett, E., O'Leary, T. and Martinez, T. (2005) Learning environmental justice

through dialogue, PASCAL Conference Proceedings: Making Knowledge Work.

Leicester: NIACE.

SFC (2008) Final report from Joint Quality Review group to Council. Scottish Funding

Council, Online. Available:

<http://www.sfc.ac.uk/about/new_about_council_papers/about_papers_17aug07/SFC_07

_113_ANNEX.pdf> (accessed 2 June 2008)

SFC (2006) Taking forward learning to improve: a report from the Learning and

Teaching Forum, Scottish Funding Council, Online. Available:

http://www.sfc.ac.uk/publications/Taking_forward_learning_to_improve_Feb_07.pdf>

(accessed 2 June 2008)

Shor, I. (1992) Empowering education. Critical teaching for social change, London:

University of Chicago Press.

Slembrouck, S. (2000) Negotiation in tertiary education: clashes with the dominant

educational culture, In Breen, M.P. and Littlejohn, A. (eds) Classroom decision-making:

negotiation and process syllabuses in practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, R., Barr, J. and Steele, T. (2002) For a radical higher education after

postmodernism, Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open

University Press.

Wilkinson, M. and Scandrett, E. (2003) A popular education approach to tackling

environmental injustice and widening participation, Concept, 13 (1/2) 11–16.

PRIME Volume 3(2)

27

Students in Transition: The Journey from College to

University

Carole Roberts and Helen Crabtree University of Salford, Business School

Summary The aim of this study is to better understand how the teaching and learning environments

in sixth form and further education colleges and in universities differ. It was conducted

in a university Business School and eight local colleges (both sixth form and further

education). The first part of the study involved in-depth interviews with staff. Findings

from these interviews have been fully reported elsewhere (Crabtree et al, 2007) and will

be summarised here. They confirmed that the environments are very different. For

university staff there is the expectation that students become independent learners whilst

in colleges there is an emphasis on staff managing the students’ learning activities and

students being ‘led to learn’. The interviews were followed by questionnaires

administered to both students in the colleges and a year later to first year students in the

Business School. While college students believe they are learning more independently at

college than at school it is clear from their expressed learning preferences and the success

of the colleges in satisfying these that they are unlikely to be developing the skills needed

for success within the HE environment. Indeed the first year university students’

responses confirm that whilst they believe they have continued to take more

responsibility for their own learning since college their current learning preferences are

generally not being met. The results have implications for HE teaching and learning

policy and practice to facilitate student transition into HE. Whilst the research focuses on

business and business-related qualifications, the results are likely to be of interest to all

those involved with first year undergraduate students, irrespective of subject or discipline

of study.

Introduction

Within universities there has been an increasing emphasis on widening participation

which has resulted in a rapid increase in student numbers. This has changed higher

education from an elite to a mass education system but as Scott (1995) suggests “British

higher education has become a mass system in its public structures, but remains an elite

one in its private instincts’ and there appears to be little evidence of a systematic change

in teaching and learning policy and practice to accommodate the needs of the changing

student population. This failure to adapt creates difficulties for both academic staff and

students, with staff expressing concerns about students’ attitudes to and motivation for

learning (see Ottewill and Macfarlane 2003, Hayward et al 2006) and students finding it

difficult to adjust to the demands of the higher education learning environment (see for

example Lowe and Cook 2003).

To some extent this is a problem of transition and a number of authors (e.g. Ozga and

Sukhunandan 1998, Cook and Leckey 1999, Byrne and Flood 2005) have suggested that

most students entering university may not have appropriate expectations or the necessary

skills required for effective learning. In practice students base their expectations and

Roberts and Crabtree

28

learning strategies on their previous educational experiences (Vermunt 1998, Cook and

Leckey 1999) and if these are very different from those experienced in the university,

new students may struggle to adapt.

The results from the first part of the research study, based on interviews with college

teachers in sixth form (SFC) and Further Education (FE) colleges and tutors in the

university Business School, suggest that the teaching and learning environments in the

college and higher education sectors is very different. Detailed results have previously

been reported (Crabtree et al 2007). In summary, the findings show that within the

college environment, the emphasis on performance management and levels of

achievement leads to little opportunity for students to engage in independent study and

students being ‘led to learn’. In this environment, college teaching staff manage and

closely supervise learning and students are provided with regular feedback on their

standard of performance. Students are expected to achieve to the best of their ability

however the close relationship between staff and student ensures that lots of support and

guidance is provided. In contrast, tutors in the university environment expect that

students will take an active responsibility for their own learning. They emphasise that

their role is to facilitate learning and the student’s development as an independent learner

rather than to teach, and this, in addition to the larger group size found in university, leads

to a more anonymous, less supportive environment for students.

The purpose of the second part of the study is to investigate the impact that these

different teaching and learning environments have on the student experience and the

extent to which students are able to adjust during their first year in university.

Methodology

This study used questionnaires to collect data from students studying business related A

levels or equivalent vocational qualifications in 4 Further Education colleges, 3 Sixth

Form colleges and first year undergraduate students at Salford University Business

School. College students were asked to complete these questionnaires during a class in

April 2007 and returned them to their tutor in a sealed envelope to ensure confidentiality.

In total 192 usable questionnaires were received, almost a 100 percent response rate.

Approximately 400 questionnaires were distributed to university students and completed

during lectures in April 2008. A total of 163 usable questionnaires were returned.

The questionnaires were designed to be completed in about 15 minutes, in order to

facilitate completion in class. The final design was informed by a series of pilots using

college students from colleges not in the sample who were attending University

enrichment days. Demographic data (eg gender, ethnicity) was collected from the

students, together with details of their current programme of study and previous

educational attainment. In order to explore students’ attitudes to and experiences of their

current teaching and learning environment they were asked to indicate their preference on

a 5 point Likert scale between options which reflected the differing teaching and learning

practices in college and university – these options having been identified in the earlier

interview-based study (Crabtree et al 2007). One of the main issues was to design

questionnaires which would maintain students’ interest in order to maximise completion

and this was a factor in the choice of a preference scale to explore attitudes.

Students in Transition

29

Eight of these items explored preferences in relation to the role of the teacher and the

student. These are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Questions combined to produce the ‘independent learning’ variable I prefer to be given all the

information I need about a

particular subject

1 ….. 2 ….. 3 ….. 4 ….. 5

I prefer to be told where to

find the information I need

I prefer to be told where to

find the information I need

for a subject

1 ….. 2 ….. 3 ….. 4 ….. 5

I prefer to use my own

initiative about how and

where to find any necessary

information

I think it is better to do

exercises/examples or

practice exam questions

1 ….. 2 ….. 3 ….. 4 ….. 5

I think it is better to work

on projects

There is no need to read

about a subject before it is

covered in class

1 ….. 2 ….. 3 ….. 4 ….. 5

It is useful to prepare ahead

for a class

I prefer to listen to the

teacher in class

1 ….. 2 ….. 3 ….. 4 ….. 5

I prefer to try things out for

myself

I like my progress to be

checked regularly by my

teacher/tutor

1 ….. 2 ….. 3 ….. 4 ….. 5

I am happy to monitor my

own progress

I prefer the teacher to tell

me how to improve my

work

1 ….. 2 ….. 3 ….. 4 ….. 5

I prefer to make my own

decisions about if and how

to improve

I like to know exactly what

I am expected to do in class

or for an assignment

1 ….. 2 ….. 3 ….. 4 ….. 5

I prefer to make my own

decisions about exactly

what is required

For each student the scores on these eight items were added together in order to produce

an ‘independent learning’ score. Thus the range of possible values on this ‘independent

learning’ variable was between 8 and 40. A low score (between 8 and less than 24)

indicated that the respondent generally preferred to be led by the teacher whilst a score in

excess of 24 indicated a preference to take more personal responsibility for their own

learning. A small number of open questions were also included in the questionnaires to

enable participants to give further explanations and to expand on their responses about

their experiences and learning preferences.

SPPS was used to analyse the quantitative data collected. Tests used included

independent sample t-test, Chi squared and regression analysis. Content analysis was

used to identify common themes and topics raised in the responses to the open questions.

Roberts and Crabtree

30

Findings

The sample of students from college and the university participating in the study was

comparable and fairly representative of the populations participating in tertiary and

higher education in these institutions (see Table 2).

Table 2: The nature of the sample

College students University students

Number of students

responding

192 163

Gender 54% male, 46% female 60% male, 40% female

Ethnicity 62% white,

38% ethnic minority

50% white,

50% ethnic minority

College experience 51% SFC, 49% FE 49% SFC, 28% FE,

23% school sixth form

College qualifications 60% A-levels

7% vocational A-levels

33% BTEC NC/ND

75% A-level

16% vocational A-level

23% BTEC

Roughly equal numbers of the college students attended sixth form and FE colleges. Two

thirds of the respondents were studying for A-level qualifications and one third were

taking BTEC National Certificate or National Diploma in Business. In this sample 66%

of the respondents reported that they hoped to go on to university at the end of their

college course. A higher proportion of university student respondents had studied A-

levels and more had studied previously in a sixth form environment (Sixth Form college

or school sixth form) rather than in FE colleges.

The analysis of findings relating to student learning experiences and attitudes to

independent learning is presented in Table 3.

Considering first the ‘independent learning’ variable, results show that both college and

first year university students prefer to be teacher led. The mean score for college students

was 17.04 and whilst the university students’ mean score was statistically significantly

higher at 18.45 (p<0.001) this is still well below a score of 24 and indicates a tendency

towards more reliance on teachers. This contention is supported by the fact that 93% of

college students and 83% of university students scored <24. Again whilst the proportion

of university students is significantly lower (p=0.02) 83% represents a large majority.

College students were more likely to report that their current experience matched their

learning preferences than university students. Whilst the mean score on their responses

to the item was less than 3 for both groups (2.27 and 2.71 respectively, significantly

different at p<0.001), 65% of college students scored 1 or 2 whilst only 47% of university

students did so. Similarly a smaller proportion (12%) of college students scored 4or 5

compared with university students (22%).

Students in Transition

31

Table 3: Some results from the sample

College students University

students

Statistical

significance

In general my

college/university

experience matches my

learning preferences

(1-strongly agree, 5-

strongly disagree)

Mean score:

2.27 + 1.04

65% agree

12% disagree

Mean score:

2.71 + 1.07

47% agree

22% disagree

Independent

sample t test

p<0.001

X2 test

p<0.001

’Independent learning’

score

(possible range 8-40)

Mean score:

17.04 + 4.26

range 8-31)

93% of

respondents had

score < 24

Mean score:

18.45 + 4.41

(range 9-32)

83% of

respondents had

score < 24

Independent

sample t test

p<0.001

X2 test

p=0.02

At college/university I

am required to take more

responsibility for my

own learning than I did

at school/college

(1-strongly agree, 5-

strongly disagree)

Mean score:

1.72 + 0.99

86% agree

7% disagree

Mean score:

1.60 + 0.89

88% agree

5% disagree

Independent

sample t test

not significant

X2 test not

significant

In general my current

college/university

experience matches my

learning preferences

1 ….. 2 ….. 3 ….. 4 ….. 5

My current college/university

experience does not match my

learning preferences

Again these results are significantly different (p<0.01). For college students there was a

strong correlation between the response to this item and the score on the ‘independent

learning’ variable (p<0.001) indicating the extent to which these students appreciated the

fact that they were teacher led. In contrast, there was no significant correlation for

university students. Thus while their mean score on the ‘independent learning’ variable

was higher than for the college students - indicating that they had adapted somewhat to

the demands of the new, less supportive environment - their current teaching and learning

experiences were not matching their learning preferences; they were generally not yet

comfortable with the extent of independent learning which university teachers expect of

them and the majority still preferred to be instructed and guided by staff. Broad (2006)

showed that taking responsibility for their own learning is what college students

understand by ‘independent learning’.

At college/university I

am required to take more

responsibility for my own

learning than I did at

school

1 ….. 2 ….. 3 ….. 4 ….. 5

At college/university I am not

required to take more

responsibility for my own

learning than I did at school

Roberts and Crabtree

32

Thus in the responses to the item it was interesting to note that 86% of college students

and 88% of university students felt that they were now more responsible for their own

learning than in their previous institutions thus illustrating their recognition of the

learning journey from school, through FE to HE.

When asked about the best and worst aspects of studying at college rather than at school

it was evident that many college students valued the increased level of freedom and

independence and the teaching methods and support provided (60% and 15% of

responses respectively), but at the same time there were concerns from some about the

challenging nature and demands of the work required and the lack of support provided

(33% and 11.5% of responses).

In practice only 25.5% of university students reported that they had had difficulty

adapting to the change between college and university, with 74.5% reporting no

difficulty. Females (36.5%) were more likely to report difficulty than males (18.6%)

(p<0.05) but there were no significant differences noted based on age on entry or

ethnicity. Factors which students reported as helping them to adapt included the academic

environment (helpful lecturers/tutors, use of the University virtual learning environment,

group work, course materials), the social environments (new friends, the relaxed/friendly

atmosphere), and personal characteristics (determination, organisation and previous

academic experiences). These factors accounted for 38.6%, 32.3% and 13.2% of the

responses respectively. Whilst factors reported as not helping included the impersonal

environment (the lack of academic support, large lecture sizes), the requirement to learn

and study independently and logistics (such as travel and timetable constraints),

accounting for 30.1%, 14.3% and 15.9% of the responses.

Regression analyses were used to identify factors which were associated with a

preference for independent learning for both college and university respondents. These

indicated that for both groups there was no significant relationship between the

‘independent learning’ variable and the type of college attended, the qualification studied

at college, gender, ethnicity or year of study (year 12 or 13 for college students and first

or repeat year for university students). However there were associations noted between a

preference for independent learning and the reason for study being an interest in the

subject rather than as a way of enhancing employability (p<0.05 for college students and

p=0.011 for university students). In addition college students demonstrated an association

between independent learning and the level of attainment on entry (number of GCSEs

grade A-C – p<0.05). This association with previous academic attainment (GCSEs or

tariff points on entry) was however not significant for university students. Results

confirmed that university students who scored higher on the independent learning

variable were less likely to report that they had had difficulty adapting to the change

between college and university (p<0.01).

No correlation was observed between a preference for independent learning and the

student’s conception of learning (as ‘building up knowledge by acquiring facts and

information’ or ‘seeing things in a different and more meaningful way’).

Students in Transition

33

Conclusions

The regression analysis for college students indicated that students who were already

showing a greater preference for ‘independent learning’ tended to have higher

qualifications and an intrinsic interest in the subject. Such students may be considered to

be more like what would have been regarded as ‘traditional’ students before the widening

participation initiatives. This may provide some explanation for why the requirement for

independent learning in HE appeared to be less of a problem in the past and why many

lecturers in HE today often think about the issues in terms of student deficit, basing their

teaching and learning strategies on their own experiences and past expectations. The

findings of this study thus support the suggestion made by Harvey et al (2006) that an

understanding of the first year experience of students in university may be improved if it

is seen as a process of transition between college and university rather than a problem of

student deficit. Whilst the success of the colleges in satisfying students’ learning

preferences implies that they are unlikely to be developing the skills needed for

immediate success within the HE environment, our study confirms that the moves from

school to college and thence from college to university are nonetheless steps along the

way to greater independence. Similar results showing increasing independence in college

students were demonstrated by Broad (2006) who reported that 16-19 year old FE

students were aware of the importance of taking control of (and responsibility for) their

own learning and thought that they were more capable of doing this than previously.

Broad’s results suggest that independent learning is a skill that can be developed but it

takes time to adapt. Our findings indicate that after a period of 6-7 months in the new

university teaching and learning environment, students have made some adjustment.

However at this stage most students would still prefer to be instructed and led to learn

than to learn independently. This suggests that the transition process is likely to be

ongoing as students enter the second and final year of their degree. Such changes are

probably related to changes in cognitive development which occur throughout a student’s

academic career (Thoma 1993).

The findings also confirm previous findings which highlight the importance of social

factors and personal characteristics in the process of integration into higher education (eg

Roberts et al 2003, Trotter and Roberts 2006, Harvey et al 2006). The study by Trotter

and Roberts (2006) stressed the value of programme-based activities which facilitate and

promote social and academic integration as part of the early student experience. These

activities may help students to adapt by enhancing their confidence and improving their

self concept. Indeed Hodkinson et al (2000) argue that the extent to which students are

able to assimilate into the overall institutional culture has a direct effect on a student’s

learning behaviour. Their research in a sixth form college suggested that belonging to a

tightly bounded community with a positive institutional culture for learning, promoted

positive attitudes to learning. Thus achievement may be influenced not just through

feeling more confident but more importantly through the experience of belonging to and

conforming to a community of practice.

Overall this study confirms the importance of understanding the students’ prior

experiences of learning and to be aware of how this will influence their attitudes on entry

into university. It suggests that providing the right environment in higher education is an

important factor in facilitating student development. We would argue that we should not

be ‘dumbing down’ in order to accommodate the stage of development that students have

Roberts and Crabtree

34

reached when they leave college nor lower our expectations of what students should

achieve by the end of their degree programme. year. Rather we should develop an

institutional culture where success is expected ‘as the norm’ and where both staff and

students have responsibilities to ensure this. The first year experience is crucial, both in

terms of student persistence and achievement. For academic staff this means that in the

first year of an undergraduate programme they need to provide students with appropriate

challenges but also provide them with sufficient guidance and support – appropriate

scaffolding - in order to help them to successfully make the transition to HE. This may

include structuring assessment to ensure it provides appropriate and timely feedback

(which may itself involve considering the effects of semesterisation and the shape of the

academic year); making assessment requirements explicit and discussing exemplars to

help students understand better what is required and providing clear guidance to the

students of their own responsibilities in ensuring success.

References

Broad J. (2006), Interpretations of Independent Learning in Further Education, Journal of

Further and Higher Education, 30, (2): 119-143

Byrne M. and Flood B. (2005), A study of Accounting students’ motives and

preparedness for higher education, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29, (2): 11-

124

Cook A. and Leckey J. (1999), Do Expectations Meet Reality? A survey of changes in

first year student opinion, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23, (2): 157-71

Crabtree H, Roberts C. and Tyler C. (2007), Understanding the problems of Transition,

Proceedings of 4th Education in a Changing Environment Conference, 12th -13th

September. Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/35_07.pdf > (accessed on 10 June

2008)

Harvey L, Drew S, & Smith M.(2006) The First Year Experience: A Review of Literature

for the Higher Education Academy. Online Available HTTP:

<http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/research/Harvey_Drew_Smith.pdf >(accessed on 11 May

2007)

Hayward G, Hodgson A, Johnson J, Oancea A, Pring R, Spours S and Wright S. (2006),

Focus groups with higher education institutions in The Nuffield Review of 14-19

Education and Training Annual Report, 267-76. Online. Available HTTP:

<www.nuffield14-19review.org.uk/files/documents129-6.pdf > (accessed on 21 March

2007)

Hodkinson P and Bloomer M (2000), Syokingham Sixth Form College: Institutional

culture and dispositions to learn, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(2): 187-

202

Lowe H. and Cook A. (2003), Mind the Gap. Are students prepared for higher education,

Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27, (1): 53-76

Students in Transition

35

Ottewill R and Macfarlane B (2003), Pedagogical Challenges facing Business and

Management Educators: Assessing the evidence, International Journal of Management

Education, 3, (3): 33-41

Ozga J and Sukhandan L (1998), Undergraduate Non-completion: Developing an

explanatory model. Higher Education, 52, (3): 316-33

Roberts C, Watkin M, Oakey D and Fox R (2003) Supporting Student ‘Success’: What

can we Learn from the Persisters?, Proceedings of Inaugural Education in a Changing

Environment Conference, 17th -18th September. Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/35_07.pdf >(accessed on 10 July

2008)

Scott P. (1995), The Meanings of Mass Higher Education, Buckingham: The Society for

Research into Higher Education and Open University Press

Thoma G.A. (1993), The Perry Framework and tactics for Teaching Critical Thinking in

Economics, Journal of Economic Education, 24, (2): 128-35

Trotter E and Roberts C (2006), Enhancing the Early Student Experience, Higher

Education Research and Development, 25 (4): 371-386

PRIME Volume 3(2)

37

Autonomy, Motivation and IT skills: Impacts on the

engagement of Physiotherapy students with eLearning

Claire Hamshire, Rod Cullen and Christopher Wibberley

Manchester Metropolitan University, Professional Registration Division

Summary

At Manchester Metropolitan University, the concept of the independent autonomous

learner is at the heart of institution changes in the learning, teaching and assessment

processes and the implementation of an institutional Managed Learning Environment

(MLE). In the Physiotherapy programme team we have conducted a mixed methods

evaluation of the provision of online resources that aim to facilitate autonomy from the

beginning of the programme and are delivered via the WebCT VISTA component of our

MLE. Primarily, we investigated “facilitators” and “barriers” to uptake and use of these

resources by students. Overall, students reported a very positive experience of online

activities, with a broad range of factors influencing uptake and engagement. Extrinsic

factors related mainly to technical (e.g. home PC setup) and administrative (student

enrolment, network access and support) difficulties. These had less impact on our study’s

metrics than intrinsic factors such as autonomy, motivation and IT skills. Our evaluations

have also highlighted a mismatch between the programme’s aspirations and student

perspectives of autonomy. We have made links between the levels of autonomy,

motivation and IT skills of our students and considered ways of addressing these issues

within the Physiotherapy curriculum. As a result we are in the process of devising a new

induction programme which aims to provide “scaffolding” that will motivate our students

and assist their development as independent autonomous learners.

Introduction

Manchester Metropolitan University is currently engaged in fundamental institution-wide

changes to learning and teaching provision. Strategies are being devised around: the

principles of student centred learning; the opportunities offered by an institutional

Managed Learning Environment (MLE); and the need to make efficiencies in learning,

teaching and assessment processes (see Brookes 2005a, 2005b). At the heart of this

rethink is the concept of the independent autonomous learner. The National Health

Service (NHS) provides a further driver for change in health professional education.

Since 1996, when the ‘Information for Health’ strategy was launched there has been a

move to make better use of information technology in all aspects of patient care and staff

development (Glen and Cox 2006). The NHS now requires a computer literate workforce

able to seek information and communicate through information technology (IT) to

enhance clinical practice (Wanless 2002). The ability to use IT effectively is now an

important skill for health professional graduates and the pedagogy of health professional

education has been adapted to include e-learning (Glen and Moule 2006).

Curriculum change and development is linked closely to other institutional issues such as

retention and progression and employability as well as a recognition that student needs

and expectations are changing. Figure 1 demonstrates the relationship between the

Hamshire et al.

38

curriculum development processes and these issues and emphasises the need to consult

with our students about their needs as learners.

Figure 1 Curriculum change for learning

Combining traditional face-to-face learning and teaching practice with the use of

information and communications technologies such as those supported by most university

MLEs is often referred to as “blended learning” (JISC 2004). In the department of

Physiotherapy the move to a blended provision was seen as a way of responding to the

change agenda outlined at MMU and in September 2006 the use of WebCT (the main

component of the MMU MLE) was incorporated into the learning and teaching of all

level 1 units on the BSc (Hons) Physiotherapy programme. For each unit (6 in total) the

WebCT provision included a unit introduction page, discussion boards for asynchronous

communication, chat rooms for synchronous communication, quizzes to facilitate

formative feedback and interactive learning materials divided into weekly study tasks.

This study aimed to investigate our students’ perceptions of WebCT as a learning

environment, the barriers and facilitators to their use of WebCT and any impacts that

these had on their learning.

Methodology

As we recognise that only the students themselves can articulate the learner experience

(JISC 2007), listening to the student voice was central to this study. The methodology

was designed to explore students’ opinions and beliefs and focus on their experiences of

working with WebCT, described in their own words.

We conducted a sequential exploratory, mixed methods evaluation (Creswell 2003). This

involved three basic stages (Figure 2). In stage 1 the emphasis was on initial small scale,

detailed, qualitative data collection and analysis targeted at key groups of students. This

was used to identify key themes which, in stage 2, informed the development of a larger

scale, more quantitative data collection and analysis targeted at the whole cohort of

students. Stage 3 required an overall interpretation of the entire analysis.

Autonomy, Motivation and I.T. Skills

39

Figure 2 Methodology

Data Collection and Analysis

Stage 1: Individuals were selected for one-to-one interviews based on WebCT student

tracking data from the core unit (Physiotherapy Management 1) between 23 October and

20 November 2006. A purposeful sample of eight students, three high users (over ten

logins with at least 1 hour active user time), three low users (1-3 logins) and two non-

users were selected and interviewed. The partially-structured interview schedule began

with broad questions, exploring the students’ use of technology and their perceptions of

the programme as a whole and then focussed on specific WebCT issues in a “funnel

interview” (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998). A thematic analysis based on an analytical

“framework approach” (Ritchie and Spencer 1994) was carried out to identify key themes

in the students’ experience of working with WebCT.

Stage 2: The themes derived from stage 1 were used to develop a questionnaire that was

sent to the whole cohort (n=120). Eighty-seven questionnaires from the one hundred and

twenty sent out were returned (73% response rate). The questionnaire was designed to

substantiate and provide clarification of the data gathered by the interviews. The

emphasis was on quantitative data via closed question formats; however, open questions

were also included providing a further qualitative component. Thematic analysis of the

open questions and descriptive statistical analysis of the closed questionnaire questions

was carried out.

Stage 3: The overall data set comprising of the three elements, qualitative interviews,

open qualitative questionnaire questions, and closed quantitative questionnaire questions

is shown

Hamshire et al.

40

Figure 3. (The central triangle represents the overall interpretation of the entire analysis).

Figure 3 Data collection and analysis

Results and discussion

Barriers and Facilitators to engagement with WebCT resources

The key themes that emerged from the combined analysis were that:

• The availability of useful learning resources that are flexibly and easily accessible

encourages WebCT usage by a diverse student population.

• Autonomy and motivation are a key influence on student usage levels.

• Lack of computer confidence and competence can be a barrier to use.

• Students value online resources more than the communication tools.

• Access issues, broken web links, poor navigation and the use of inappropriate

software all discourage use.

• Some students have preferences for different learning media.

We have summarised and categorised these into extrinsic and intrinsic factors in

Table 1. The extrinsic factors (external to the student) relate mainly the technology and

technical infrastructure that supports it, while the intrinsic factors (internal to the

students) are personal attributes of the student.

Table 1 Barriers and facilitators to engagement

Extrinsic Factors Intrinsic Factors

• Admin issues

• Access

• Technical issues

• Software

• Broken links

• Autonomy

• Motivation

• IT confidence

Autonomy, Motivation and I.T. Skills

41

In all cases the factors can be both barriers and facilitators depending on the student’s

experience. For example, if a student has been enrolled correctly in WebCT and can

login consistently without problems this facilitates their engagement with WebCT. If on

the other hand the student has had intermittent problems logging into WebCT this can

become a significant barrier to ongoing engagement.

Table 2 demonstrates the spectrum of student perspectives from the partially-structured

interviews relating to the intrinsic engagement factors. With close analysis of these

responses and those of the other interviewees it has become clear that intrinsic factors

played a much more significant role in engagement with WebCT than extrinsic factors.

Indeed intrinsic factors were found to have a direct influence on the impact on extrinsic

factors for an individual student. From the interviews it was apparent that students with

perceived high levels of autonomy and motivation and good IT skills were able to easily

overcome extrinsic barriers to engagement. However, students who were perceived,

through the interviews, to be less autonomous and motivated and/or were less confident

IT users often found the extrinsic barriers they encountered insurmountable.

Overall as with many other studies into the provision of online resources that supplement

traditional teaching (e.g. Sharpe et al, 2006) the majority of the students perceived

teaching provision in WebCT positively, and reported a positive user experience

throughout the unit:

• 90% (n=78) reported that it was easy to learn how to use the system.

• 80% (n= 70) reported that it was easy to find their way around in WebCT.

• 93% (n= 81) reported that it easy to access WebCT.

• 97% (n= 84) reported that they liked being able to get lecture notes and access

web links online.

• 71% (n= 62) reported that learning this way was convenient.

• 70% (n=60) reported that learning this way helped them to study.

• 79% (n= 69) reported that the course area was necessary for the unit.

This positive response was encouraging as the majority 86% (n=75) of the students were

first time users of WebCT. In general students felt WebCT was necessary for the unit;

found learning this way convenient; and liked being able to get lecture notes and access

web links online at any time.

Autonomy in the Physiotherapy curriculum

Physiotherapists, as educators, place great value on students developing independent

learning skills. Kell and Van Deursen (2003), in a study of physiotherapy students,

suggested that there is an obligation to ensure that our graduates have a desire to be

educationally self-directed. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) curriculum

framework is in accord and states that Physiotherapy programmes should include

opportunities that encourage students to learn independently (CSP 2002).

Hamshire et al.

42

Table 2 Spectrum of student perspectives

WebCT User Level

Autonomy Motivation IT Skills

High user “I think as a mature student

and spending a bit of time

working and doing other

things my organisation is

certainly better now than it

would have been when I left

school. It doesn’t daunt me

the fact that a lot of it is self-

directed. In fact I quite like

that.”

“I spend my Tuesdays and

Thursdays, full day from

nine to about half three then

take a break and then from

four until six just working

through the study tasks that

I’ve got to do or looking

what I need to be doing

longer term with my

assignments and things like

that.”

“I’d say I’m very confident. I

used to use the computer a lot

with my work as well before I

started here so yeah I know

my way around a computer

pretty well. I use it obviously

for Uni, for research and for

WebCT and obviously to

keep up with emails, Internet

shopping, general poking

around like that.”

Low user “At the beginning it was

quite a shock to like do work

and not necessarily be going

over it and sometimes if you

get a bit behind or something

it’s hard to catch up because

you’ve always got things for

the next time.”

“We were panicking like

mad saying we want just one

set textbook you know.”

“Sometimes it’s hard when

the studies are looking up

things, you get home and

you look in your study pack

and you’re like look in

book such and such and

you’re like at home and you

don’t have the book and

you think, that’s it I’m

going to have to go back to

it because, I mean, I can’t

do it and I’ll have to catch

up later. It’s my fault I

should look earlier to see

what I have to do.”

“We never had to use the

computer before really.”

“So I always much preferred

doing assignments and that

kind of thing handwritten. I

much preferred it, it flowed

better and here it’s like you

must do it by computer and

like in the beginning I was all

panicky about it.”

“I did everything by hand and

then typed it up at the end.”

Non user “I’ve found it quite hard to

adapt to the way that

everything is geared towards

a DIY attitude. I lost it at

times.”

“Basically it’s self orientated

learning where the student is

left to do the work.”

“It has its merits definitely

and in one way I’m being

forced into this new way of

learning, even though I’m

kind of being dragged

kicking and screaming.”

“Once I’m really into

something that I’m

interested in I’ll read it all

day but just procrastinating,

and there’s always

something to be done other

than study, like tidying

your room or tidying the

kitchen, or go out to town,

which you don’t have to do

but I tend to do instead, that

tends to get in the way.”

“I don’t know, I need to

sort that out.”

“Yeah communication with

friends at home as a data base

for finding out things and as a

way of getting information

from sources that would want

to get in contact with me, like

bank or airline, the email for

this interview, stuff like that.”

“Just for dummies like me

that wouldn’t be really good

with the computer if you

could just make it (WebCT)

easier to understand how to

use.”

The ethos of the BSc (Hons) Physiotherapy programme at MMU reflects this and has

high aspirations in terms of autonomy from the start. Table contains excerpts from the

level 1 programme handbook emphasising the need for students to take personal and

professional responsibility in the context of their learning and to be highly reflective in

their practice. High levels of autonomy are implicit within the programme from the start

of level 1.

Autonomy, Motivation and I.T. Skills

43

Table 3 Autonomy in the Physiotherapy curriculum

Source Articulation

Programme Design “The students’ learning is set within a professional

context and the curriculum is designed to enable

students to increasingly take responsibility for their own

professional development.”

Programme Delivery “Throughout the programme there will be a strong

emphasis on learning through reflection. Students will

be encouraged to reflect on their experiences through

the use of reflective logs/diaries and reflective writing

assignments.”

Level 1 Descriptor “They will be able to communicate accurately and have

the qualities needed for a position that requires them to

exercise personal responsibility.”

Autonomy is however a complex issue. Ecclestone (2000) considers autonomy as having

three different levels (Procedural, Personal and Critical) which reflect increasing student

independence from the tutor (see Figure 4).

Our own experience indicates that the solution to the development of autonomy in

students, is not as simple as providing e-learning resources as part of blended learning

provision. The stage 1 interviews suggest that there may be differences in the way that

students experience and interact with online learning. One of the factors identified as

influencing this interaction was the apparent degree of readiness that individual students

showed for self-directed learning. Although the use of online resources within a

programme may encourage self-direction in some students, assumptions cannot be made

that this is the case for everyone. The degree of control that students want to take over

their learning process depends upon their individual personality, ability and attitude

(Fisher et al 2001) and also the stage that they are at within their degree programme.

Our challenge in terms of autonomy is to help our students develop skills that move them

through procedural levels of autonomy up to critical levels of autonomy.

Figure 4It is clear from Table 3 that the programme documentation is aimed at levels of

autonomy at the higher critical level of the autonomy spectrum. However, if we look at

Table 2 it is clear that some of our students express their autonomy at the lower

procedural level i.e. “I’ve found it quite hard to adapt to the way that everything is geared

towards a DIY attitude. I lost it at times”. This mismatch presents us with a challenge in

terms of curriculum and programme design.

One of the rationales for the use of e-learning resources is that it can encourage active,

self-directed learning (Glen 2005 and Santy and Smith 2007). Peacock & Hooper (2007)

have linked the use of online resources to the promotion of independent, active learning

within a number of studies and McKimm et al (2003) concur with this view.

Our own experience indicates that the solution to the development of autonomy in

students, is not as simple as providing e-learning resources as part of blended learning

provision. The stage 1 interviews suggest that there may be differences in the way that

Hamshire et al.

44

students experience and interact with online learning. One of the factors identified as

influencing this interaction was the apparent degree of readiness that individual students

showed for self-directed learning. Although the use of online resources within a

programme may encourage self-direction in some students, assumptions cannot be made

that this is the case for everyone. The degree of control that students want to take over

their learning process depends upon their individual personality, ability and attitude

(Fisher et al 2001) and also the stage that they are at within their degree programme.

Our challenge in terms of autonomy is to help our students develop skills that move them

through procedural levels of autonomy up to critical levels of autonomy.

Figure 4 Levels of autonomy

Linking autonomy, motivation and skills in curriculum development

Our research leads us to believe that the development of autonomous, independent, self-

directed learners, although highly complex, is something which can be enhanced by

targeting key areas of the curriculum.

We have summarised our thoughts in

Figure 5. It has become apparent to us that the extent to which a student is an

autonomous, independent, self-directed learner is a function of their level of autonomy

and their level of intrinsic motivation (want or need to learn).

Although closely linked, autonomy and motivation are not synonymous. For example a

student who possesses critical level autonomy may not be motivated by tasks that are

seen as not relevant directly to their studies. At the same time a highly motivated student

may simply not have the experience or required skill set to enable autonomous learning.

In either case the curriculum needs to be designed to provide appropriate “scaffolding” to

enable students to develop higher levels of autonomy and provide the necessary

motivational stimuli.

Autonomy, Motivation and I.T. Skills

45

In terms of autonomy the curriculum can target the students’ learning, academic and IT

skills providing them with an understanding of their own learning needs and a skill set

that empowers them as individual learners and within a community of practice in

physiotherapy. By developing a curriculum that is relevant to physiotherapy students in

the work place, that sets out and communicates a clear purpose for the constituent parts of

the programme and that involves students broadly in all aspects of their learning,

including assessment, we can provide motivation for all of our students.

Figure 5 Linking autonomy, motivation and skills in the curriculum

We also see a clear role for the institution’s MLE (including WebCT VISTA) in our

future curriculum developments. As reported by others (e.g. McKimm et al (2003)) we

feel that independent and active learning can be encouraged through web based

programmes where this is embedded thoroughly in the curriculum design and that by

utilising integrated, interactive course materials, educators can improve learning and

make that learning more enjoyable and meaningful for learners.

Application of our findings to the level 1 induction programme

In order to ensure these findings have an impact on the curriculum, consideration of how

induction can improve the use of online resources by all students was necessary – this has

lead to reflection on the re-design of induction. A key element of such a re-design will be

to embed the materials and resources provided via WebCT into the students’ working

practice before they arrive, during their critical first week at university and in ongoing

support throughout level 1. This phased induction will be based around small group

activities, linked and integrated with the programme and level one unit learning

outcomes. We will provide students with flexible access (via WebCT VISTA) to a broad

range of resources relating to programme administration, campus orientation and social

Hamshire et al.

46

aspects, as well as academic skills learning materials. This induction will help students

manage their transition to Higher Education, reduce anxiety, provide a focus for skills

development and enable them to communicate easily with their tutors and support staff.

Such a framework, we believe, will build a foundation for the development of student

autonomy. The core skills element will be tied closely to in-class activities, particularly

those related to assessment. The purpose of this is to increase the relevance of the core

skills resources to specific learning activities and provide “just enough information in just

enough time” (JEIJET) to support the students in their work. As students become more

familiar with these resources, in appropriate contexts, we anticipate that we will foster

ongoing independent use of the resources.

One of the most important roles will be that of a designated “key contact” from the

teaching team. They will be responsible for bridging the gap between what takes place in

the classrooms and lecture theatres and the resources available to support those activities

in WebCT. In simple terms this will mean the “key contact” facilitating the JEIJET

principles of easy start by dropping into teaching sessions and directing students to

supporting resources at the times when they are most useful. The role of the key contact

is, to some extent, to emphasise the relevance of key resources to inexperienced learners

and provide the motivational stimuli for their use. We anticipate that linking assessment

activities to the core skills resources available within WebCT will be a major benefit in

this respect.

Funding has been obtained from the HEA Subject Centre for Health Sciences and

Practice to develop such an induction programme. The project will develop and deliver a

blended learning induction programme at level 1 that targets key learning skills in

Physiotherapy.

Conclusions

Our work has highlighted to us the importance of detailed consultation with students in

the planning and design of blended learning resources. We also recognise that there is to

some extent a mismatch in the programme aspirations and some of students’ self

perceptions in terms of autonomy. As our programme recruits a diverse student body,

their readiness and levels of motivation for learning in HE vary greatly depending on

their prior learning experience. This has an impact on their levels of autonomy. The

challenge is to embed scaffolding within curriculum design to enable all students to

develop appropriate independent learning skills as they progress through the whole

programme.

Autonomy, Motivation and I.T. Skills

47

References

Brooks, J. (2005a) Vice-Chancellor's Discussion Papers I-II (Academic Direction &

University Development), Manchester Metropolitan University.

Brooks, J. (2005b) Vice-Chancellor's Discussion Papers III-IV (The Shape and Function

of the Faculties & Roles and Responsibilities of Directorate), Manchester Metropolitan

University.

Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches. 2nd ed. California: Sage publications.

Ecclestone, K. (2000) Assessment and Critical Autonomy in Post Compulsory Education

in the UK, in, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 13, No. 2.

Fisher, M., King, J.and Tague, G. (2001) Development of a self-directed learning

readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Education Today. Vol 21 pp 516-525.

Glen, S. (2005) E-learning in nursing education: lessons learnt? Nurse Education Today

Vol, 25 Issue 6. pp 415-417.

Glen, S. and Cox, H. (2006) E-learning in nursing: The context. in Glen, S.and Moule, P.

E-learning in nursing. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, Chapter 1.

Glen, S and Moule, P. (2006) Preface. in Glen, S. and Moule, P. E-learning in nursing.

Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, Preface.

Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) (2007) In their own words.

Exploring the learners’ perspective on e-learning. Online Available HTTP:

<www.jisc.ac.uk> (Accessed 1 October 2006).

Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) (2004) Effective practice with e-learning.

Online. Available HTTP:<www.jisc.ac.uk> (Accessed 17 April 2006).

Kell, C. and van Deursen, R. (2003) Does a problem-solving based curriculum develop

life-long learning skills in undergraduate students? Physiotherapy. Vol 89, No.9, pp 523-

30.

McAtominey, D. and Cullen, W.R. (2002) Effective e-Learning with VLE’s, Netskills

Workshop Materials. Online. Available HTTP:<http://www.netskills.ac.uk/> (Accessed 3

March 2007).

McKimm, C., Jollie, C. and Cantillon, P. (2003) ABC of learning and teaching, web

based learning. BMJ Vol 326, pp 870-873.

Peacock, S. and Hooper, J. (2007) E-learning in physiotherapy. Physiotherapy Vol 93,

No 3, pp 218-228.

Hamshire et al.

48

Ritchie, J. and Spencer, L. (1994) Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research in

Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G. (eds.) Analyzing qualitative data. London: Routledge,

Chapter 9.

Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Roberts, G. and Francis, R. (2006) The undergraduate

experience of blended e-learning: a review of UK literature and practice. The Higher

Education Academy. (Online) Available HTTP:<www.heaacademy.ac.uk> (Accessed 7

August 2007).

Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (1998) Mixed methodology: combining the qualitative and

quantitative approaches (Applied social research methods, No. 46). California: Sage

publications.

The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) (2002) Curriculum framework for

qualifying programmes in physiotherapy. London: The Chartered Society of

Physiotherapy.

Wanless, D. (2002) Securing our future health: taking a long term view, Final Report, H

M Treasury. London. Online Avaliable

HTTP:<http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/Consultations_and_Legislation/wanless/consult_wanless

_final.cfm> (Accessed 25 April 2006).

PRIME Volume 3(2)

49

Self-Assessment Dialogue: added value?

The Student Perspective

Sara Eastburn

University of Huddersfield, School of Human and Health Sciences

Introduction Brown (1999) argues that assessment is integral to the learning process of an individual,

and that assessment procedures must be well informed and “fit-for-purpose” (p. 4). These

values are fundamental to the assessment, learning and teaching strategies within global

higher education along with recognition that assessment is one of the key drivers to

optimise student learning (Race, 2005). In addition, involving students in the assessment

process can deepen their learning experience and develop a greater reflective insight

(Race, 2001).

Self-assessment is described by Race (2005) as a means by which students can both

better prepare for assessment and better demonstrate their learning (p. 94). Reflective

practice is a necessary skill of all graduates; fundamental to this is self-assessment.

Within graduate education per se awareness of one’s own learning, in terms of both

achievements and ongoing needs, is fundamental to 1) working autonomously, 2) life-

long learning and 3) collaborative working.

Self-assessment is suggested by Taras (2001) as a means by which confidence and

independence may be fostered. A self-assessment dialogue document (SADD) is a means

by which a student is encouraged to reflect on their learning from undertaking a piece of

work at the point of assessment. This not only fosters breadth and depth of reflection, but

allows dialogue between the student and assessor (tutor or peer) that feeds forward –

either summatively, formatively (described by Irons (2008) as a powerful and

constructive learning tool) or a combination of both – into the student’s learning

continuum. In addition, a dialogue-approach may allow an opportunity for the student to

clarify and verify with the tutor what is being said (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) -

crucial if learning is to be maximised as students often do not understand the feedback

being given to them.

Tutor feedback is viewed as a crucial component to student learning and there is clear

evidence that self-assessment and tutor discussion enhances student learning in

comparison to self assessment alone (Taras, 2001). There is some debate around the

relationship between learning opportunity and summative grading (Taras, 2001; 2002),

but even if awarded a summative mark, the formative feedback from the student-assessor

dialogue enriches the student’s learning experience (Irons, 2008). Ultimately such

activity may enhance student retention and develop skills of reflection and criticality.

Aims

The overall aim of this research was to establish the perceived value of a SADD to

assessment, learning and teaching strategies from both the student and tutor perspective

within an undergraduate module.

Eastburn

50

This paper will present the undergraduate students’ perceived value of a SADD to their

assessment and learning strategies.

Research Question

What is the added value of a SADD to a student’s assessment and learning experience?

Methodology

A 2-phase questionnaire approach was used to collect data from students. A core module

within a pre-registration healthcare programme at a large British university provided the

vehicle for this research and the sample consisted of all students enrolled on this module

during 2005-2006 (n=36). The module was summatively assessed by a synoptic statement

based around a placement learning journey which summarised: 1) an analysis of how the

learning originated, 2) a key learning need relevant to clinical practice (including an

annotated bibliography clearly linked to the learning need), and 3) a focussed action plan

for the future. In addition, students were asked to complete a SADD at the point of

assessment which should be reflective, insightful, specific and complete. A summative

mark of 5% was allocated to the SADD with the remaining 95% of marks being afforded

to remaining assessment components.

Data Collection and Analysis

Phase 1 of the questionnaire was administered after submission of the summative

assignment, including the SADD, and phase 2 was administered after the assignment,

including the SADD, had been graded and returned to the student. Preceding the

distribution of both questionnaires students were given an information sheet which

explained the aim of the research, that their involvement was voluntary and independent

from the module itself, that responses were anonymous, and that their decision to

participate in the research would not influence the feedback or grade that they received

for the assignment. Additionally, the information sheet explained that return of completed

questionnaires implied consent to use the data, that they could withdraw their data at any

time without reason, and that their data may be used for learning, teaching, assessment

and research purposes. The questionnaires were distributed by the researcher on both

occasions and all students were asked to return their questionnaire (completed or blank)

to a single box. The researcher remained available to answer questions during the data

collection process. Data were analysed using SPSS 12.0.1 and qualitative content analyis.

Ethical approval was granted by the host university.

Results and Discussion

69% (n=25) of students completed phase 1 of the questionnaire, and 72% (n=26) of

students completed phase 2. 50% (n=2) of tutor participants gave consent and were

available to take part in the focus group.

Table 1 shows that 92% (n=23) of students enjoyed the module but only 16% (n=4)

enjoyed the assessment. Statistical tests show no association between the ways in which

students responded to the two questions.

Self Assessment Dialogue

51

Table 1: Enjoyment of the module and enjoyment of the assessment?

Did you enjoy the assessment?

Yes No Don't know Total

Yes 4 17 2 23 Did you

enjoy the

module? No 0 2 0 2

Total 4 19 2 25

Pearson Chi-Square p=0.709

Only 8% (n=2) of students indicated that the assessment related activity they enjoyed the

most was “completing the SADD”, whilst 24% (n=6) of students indicated that this was

the assessment related activity that they least enjoyed. Table 2 shows additional

qualitative comments.

Table 2: Comments on completing the SADD

The results in Table 3 suggest that students who perceived the SADD to help them view

their work differently also felt that it helped them view it more critically. This notion is

widely supported in the literature. Figure 1 illustrates some of the qualitative comments

from students in relation to the “differently” and “more critically” questions.

Table 3: Did the SADD make you look at your work differently and more critically?

Did the SADD make you look at your work more

critically?

Yes No Don't know Total

Yes 6 0 2 8

No 2 9 1 12

Did the SADD

make you look at

your work

differently? Don't know 3 1 1 5

Total 11 10 4 25

Pearson Chi-Square p=0.015

I Enjoyed Completing the SADD the Most I Enjoyed Completing the SADD the Least

“It was the easiest and least complicated

part. Allowed me to reflect”

“It couldn’t be wrong and was the

quickest to do”

“After completing essay had this to do as

well. Time consuming and more made up

than reflective”

“Difficult to critique yourself”

“Didn’t think it gave me any particular

benefit”

“I find it difficult to rate my level of

success”

“Bit pointless. Didn’t add anything to

learning – made things up to fill up the

boxes”

“The SADD was long winded, a lot of

questions to answer”

Eastburn

52

Of particular interest are the 2 comments (**) that very clearly echo the students’

summative-driven rather than learning-driven vision of the assessment process.

Figure 1: Qualitative comments on “Differently” and “More Critically”

Dif

feren

tly

“…have not looked at the piece of work

again”

“I completed the assignment and then

completed SADD – had no bearing on

the assignment”

** “Don’t think would have thought

about those sort of questions if weren’t

getting marked on it”

“It was just an extra piece of work I

tacked onto the end”

“It made me think about what I had

done more”

“Allowed me to reflect on what is

good and not so good about my essay”

“Partly – forced me to re-read essay”

“Good for practice on self assessment”

“Perhaps, it helped me to evaluate my

work”

Mo

re C

riti

call

y

“Searching through document for

something I could put in could have

spend time actually changing the work

rather than saying if I could do it again”

“Quickly done 5 minutes before handed

in”

** “I just gave the answers that I

thought would get me the best marks”

“It was the last thing I did as an after

thought”

“Good practice for future pieces of

work”

“I could decide which bits I had done

well and done not so well”

“Made you realise what you had done

well and what was not so good”

“Highlighted areas I need to improve

upon”

“Made me read the essay again and

think about good and bad points”

Students were asked in what ways they thought completing the SADD had made a

difference to their university-based study or clinical practice. Figure 2 highlights the

comments, the majority of which were positive.

When asked whether the SADD added value to their overall learning and assessment

experience 48% (n=12) of students said no, 32% (n=8) said yes, and the remainder did

not know.

Qualitative comments to this question included “I think it was a waste of time which

could be spent more wisely on actually doing the work” which concurs with the notion

that students perceive assessment as verification of learning rather than a learning

Self Assessment Dialogue

53

opportunity in itself and “it was just made up because it had to be handed in to get 5%

extra” which presents an interesting view of the SADD being extraneous to the

assessment task (in spite of it being very clearly part of the summative assessment task

itself).

Figure 2: Qualitative comments from students

Negative Connotation Positive Connotation

Made it more time

consuming

It hasn’t changed my

thinking yet (my emphasis)

Reflect to a higher level

Gives confidence about self critiquing

Develops own reflection skills

Taught me that I need to reflect more

Encouraged me to follow through learning needs

Gave me more autonomy within my learning

Allowed me to reflect on the essay

Know good and bad points about me for next essay

Identify learning

Increased reflection

Encouraged me to reflect more

Made me re-read my work

Practice of self assessment

Improvement of critical thinking

Allowed me to be more self critical

I can also see which areas I am better at

More positive responses included “it allowed me to be more self critical in looking at

work and identify mistakes” and “it depends if it helps for future assessments” the former

of which shows a reflective insight into the work and the latter implies transferability

between different pieces of assessment.

It was considered that the students who indicated that they had enjoyed the module might

also score the other questions more favourably. However, the Mann-Whitney U test

showed no significant difference between the summed score of the other questions, nor

the individual responses to the other questions, when compared with whether the students

had enjoyed the module or not.

However a high level of significance (p=0.012) was seen by the Mann-Whitney U test in

the difference between responses to the remaining summed questions and whether the

students enjoyed the assessment or not (Figure 3) suggesting that students who enjoyed

the assessment were more likely to give a favourable response to other questions.

Eastburn

54

Figure 3: Box and whisker plot showing the summed score of the remaining

questions and enjoyment of assessment

1 2

Did you enjoy the assessment?

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

su

m

In addition, the Mann-Whitney U test showed a significant difference (p=0.043) between

whether students enjoyed the assessment and whether they felt that the SADD added

value to their overall learning and assessment experience.

Table 4: Completion of the SADD and tutor feedback

Did you find the feedback from the tutor on the SADD

helpful?

Yes No Don't know Total

Yes 12 0 2 14

No 5 1 0 6

Do you think you

completed the

SADD to best of

your ability? Don't know 1 1 0 2

Total 18 2 2 22

Table 4 shows that 46% (n=12) of students indicated that they both completed the SADD

to the best of their ability and received tutor feedback, and found the tutor feedback

helpful. Additionally, 21% (n=5) of students felt that they had not completed the SADD

to the best of their ability but they felt that the tutor feedback was helpful to them.

Overall, 82% of students who received tutor feedback on the SADD found the feedback

helpful. Unfortunately, students were not asked to elaborate on what aspect of the tutor

feedback was most helpful. (NB. 4 students who indicated that they completed the SADD

to the best of their ability did not receive tutor feedback).

A diverse range of comments in relation to whether the students had completed the

SADD to the best of their ability included “I took my time in completing it and attempted

to be as critical and reflective as possible. My mark reflected the effort I had put in”, “[I]

maybe wasn’t as truthful as I could have been looking back” and “it did not seem

relevant. The impression was that you simply got the marks for handing it in”.

T

ota

l S

cores

Yes

No

Did you enjoy the assessment?

Self Assessment Dialogue

55

Students were asked to identify ways in which the tutor feedback was helpful to them,

comments included the highlighting of mistakes and suggestions for improvement,

confirmation of self-believed strengths and weaknesses, provision of encouragement and

increased confidence. Students were also asked to identify ways in which the tutor

feedback could have been better. Two comments were “could have expanded a little

more to my feedback to help me understand my mistakes” and “more in depth on areas to

improve” corroborating Irons (2008) who reports that students need greater, more specific

and detailed feedback.

Table 5: Actual and potential demonstration of reflection through the SADD

Do you think the SADD is a useful tool

through which to demonstrate reflection?

Yes No Total

Do you think you

demonstrated through

completing the SADD

your ability to reflect on

a piece of work?

Yes 21 0 21

No 2 1 3

Missing

data 1 1 2

Total 24 2 26

Pearson Chi-Square p=0.007

Table 5 shows a highly significant association between actual reflection and potential

reflection using the SADD. 100% (n=21) of students who felt that they had demonstrated

their ability to reflect via the SADD felt that it was a useful tool by which to do this and,

of the 3 students who indicated that they felt that they did not demonstrate reflection well

through completing the SADD, 67% (n=2) felt that the SADD was a useful tool through

which this could be done. Thus 92% (n=24) of all students felt that the SADD was a

useful tool with which to demonstrate reflection.

Table 6: Identification of and planning strategies by which to meet learning needs

Do you think the SADD is a useful tool

through which to plan strategies to meet

your ongoing learning needs?

Yes No Total

Do you think the SADD is

a useful tool through

which to identify your

ongoing learning needs?

Yes 14 6 20

No 0 6 6

Total 14 12 26

Pearson Chi-Square p=0.003

77% (n=20) of students (Table 6) thought that the SADD was a useful tool through which

to identify their ongoing learning needs, of which 70% (n=14) also thought it was an

Eastburn

56

effective way to plan strategies to address those needs. Thus a high level of significance

was seen between students who felt that the SADD was useful to identify ongoing

learning needs and also strategies to meet the needs.

Table 7: Planning strategies by which to meet learning needs and timely tutor

feedback

Do you think the SADD is a useful tool

through which to gain tutor feedback in a

timely manner?

Yes No

Total

Do you think the SADD is

a useful tool through

which to plan strategies to

meet your ongoing

learning needs?

Yes 11 3 14

No 8 3 11

Total 19 6 25

Of the 56% (n=14) of students who felt that the SADD was a useful tool through which

to plan strategies to meet ongoing learning needs, 79% (n=11) also thought that it was a

useful tool through which to gain timely tutor feedback (Table 7). There is a statistically

significant positive association (Table 8) between the students’ perception of the SADD

being a useful tool to better prepare for assessment and plan strategies to meet ongoing

learning needs.

Table 8: Preparation for assessment and planning strategies

Do you think the SADD is a useful tool

through which to plan strategies by which

to meet your ongoing learning needs?

Yes No Total

Do you think the SADD

is a useful tool through

which to be better

prepared for

assessment?

Yes 11 4 15

No 3 8 11

Total 14 12 26

Pearson Chi-Square p=0.020

Interestingly, 32% (n=8) of students deemed the SADD useful for gaining timely tutor

feedback but not to plan strategies to meet ongoing learning needs (Table 7). Students

were not asked to elaborate further about the skills they felt necessary to plan strategies to

address their learning needs. This is an area for further investigation.

Self Assessment Dialogue

57

These results imply that planning for and resolving of learning needs feeds forward into

the assessment process such that students are better prepared, and that students do not see

pieces of assessment isolation.

Conclusion

This research has shown that the SADD is a useful tool by which students may

demonstrate refection. Additionally, the majority of students (77%) felt the SADD was a

useful tool to identify ongoing learning needs and 70% of those felt that it was also a

useful tool to plan strategies to address those needs. Thus, the remit of the SADD could

be wider than pure reflection and it may practically support the ongoing learning process.

More than 80% of students who received tutor feedback on the SADD found the

feedback helpful and beneficial to their learning experience but this research has shown

that it is essential that the feedback given to students is done so in a language that they

understand if that feedback is to be useful (supported by Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick,

2006 and Irons, 2008). It has also illuminated that students require specific and detailed

feedback if their learning opportunities are to be maximised.

Finally, this research has shown that the investment of time and effort from the student is

essential if learning from using the SADD is to be optimal and that it is essential that

using the SADD is viewed as part of, not outside of, the [summative] assessment task.

References

Brown, S. (1999) Institutional Strategies for Assessment in Brown and Glasner (Eds)

Assessment Matters in Higher Education. Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

Irons, A. (2008) Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback.

Abingdon: Routledge.

Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated

learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher

Education, 31, (2), 199-218.

Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment. Learning and Teaching

Support Network Generic Centre. York: LTSN.

Race, P. (2005) Making Learning Happen. A Guide for Post-Compulsory Education.

London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Taras, M. (2001) The Use of Tutor Feedback and Student Self-assessment in Summative

Assessment Tasks: towards transparency for students and for tutors. Assessment &

Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, (6), 605-614.

Taras, M. (2002) Using Assessment for Learning and Learning from Assessment.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, (6), 501-510.

PRIME Volume 3(2)

59

Contemporary Art and the Level 1 Higher Education

Curriculum: Empathy, alienation and educational inclusion.

Leigh-Anne Perryman

The Open University, Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology

Summary Can a Tracey Emin bed or a Grayson Perry pot be a more productive object of study than

a Raphael Madonna or a John Constable landscape for some Level 1 university students,

allowing them to make meaningful connections between the artworks and their own

lives? Eliot Eisner (1984; 1994; 1998; 2002), one of the most influential voices in art

education, has long argued that studying visual art can help us to discover the contours of

our emotional selves, enabling us to have experiences we can acquire from no other

source. However, various art educators and writers (e.g. McFee, 1986; Lippard, 1990;

Cahan & Kocur, 1996; Chalmers, 1996; Boughton & Mason, 1999) have observed that

visual art education in the West is still dominated by a culturally exclusive canon of

western artworks and that this limits the extent to which socially, culturally and ethnically

diverse students can benefit from and engage with the study of art history, leaving them

feeling alienated and disempowered.

Calls to ‘abandon the canon’ in the name of inclusion are often voiced with reference to

school art education but are applied less frequently to a higher education context. This

paper details one of the first phases of a PhD research project intended to address this

imbalance by exploring whether including contemporary art in the Level 1 undergraduate

curriculum has the potential to reduce the barriers to learning faced by the ever-more

diverse range of students entering higher education in the 21st century. An online

questionnaire was used to survey 420 undergraduate students about their experiences of

studying contemporary art in a short Level 1 Open University course. Early research

findings have implications beyond the discipline of art education, indicating that while

the western canon may indeed have the power to exclude on race, socio-economic,

gender and age-related grounds, just replacing canonical curriculum content with a

different kind of visual art (for example contemporary art) is not a ‘one size fits all’

solution to minimising educational exclusion. Significantly, it appears that there is an

age-related divide in adult students’ feelings about contemporary art, in that while

younger students can relish its challenging form and content, finding the subject matter

relevant to their own lives and enjoying the emotional demands of studying some of the

most controversial artworks, some older students’ preconceptions about contemporary

art’s lack of worth prevents them from any productive engagement with it. However, the

research findings also indicate that it is possible such preconceptions can be a starting

point for a meaningful engagement with contemporary art when explored and addressed

through a pedagogy featuring meta-cognitive strategies and reflective writing, offering

students a framework within which to locate and make sense of their reactions to

shocking and controversial contemporary art and the skills to work with the multiple

interpretations and open-ended meanings it commonly involves.

Perryman

60

Introduction and Rationale

“This makes me very angry. She’s having a laugh at our expense. How can you

compare this with something by Constable or Raphael? I didn’t sign up for this

course to be taught about this sort of rubbish.”

Ralph, aged 68, Derbyshire

“I absolutely love it… This really made me think about how subjects from everyday

life, from my world, could be expressed through art, could be worthy of being art.

Tracey’s bed is like my life….messy!”

Jo, aged 24, Essex.

The comments above refer to Tracey Emin’s installation My Bed (http://www.saatchi-

gallery.co.uk/artists/artpages/tracey_emin_my_bed.htm) and were made by two

undergraduates studying the British Open University’s Level 1 short course Making

Sense of the Arts, which introduces students to art history via a study of artworks by

artists who have been nominated for the Turner Prize (Awarded annually to an artist who

has made an outstanding contribution to art in Britain in the last 12 months). Arguably,

the differences of opinion shown in these comments highlight a dilemma increasingly

facing curriculum designers and teachers within all areas of higher education – how to

reconcile the interests, motivations, values and needs of the ever-more diverse range of

students entering our universities, in the interests of educational inclusion. This need is

widely voiced as a priority area for curriculum development. Melanie Nind (Nind, 2005:

5), for example, identifies ‘the need for the curriculum to make connections with

learners’ perspectives – to start from, and value, what learners bring…’, while the author

and social activist Bell Hooks (1994: 8) has long asserted that an ‘engaged pedagogy,’ in

which ‘everyone’s presence is acknowledged’ is essential to generating the ‘excitement’

needed for meaningful and effective learning.

Much inclusion-related research has been carried out in the name of multicultural

education, focusing on ethnic diversity, for example Geneva Gay’s extensive exploration

of ways in which ethnically diverse students’ success might be improved through

‘culturally responsive teaching' (Gay, 2000). Some of this research into multicultural

education has focused on the visual arts, with various art educators and writers (e.g.

McFee, 1986; Lippard, 1990; Cahan & Kocur, 1996; Chalmers, 1996; Boughton &

Mason, 1999) observing that visual art education in the west is still dominated by a

culturally exclusive canon of western artworks and suggesting that this is compromising

educational inclusion by denying diverse students the chance to benefit from studying the

visual arts.

However, empirical studies in this area tend to be located within primary and secondary

school settings (e.g. Hooks, 1995; Dash, 1999; Young, 1999; Freedman, 2000; Knight,

2006), with relatively little written about ethnic exclusion in higher education art study.

There is even less research into other types of exclusion in undergraduate art education –

such as that resulting from barriers to learning connected with students’ sexuality, socio-

economic background and age. Arguably though, the dilemma of how to reconcile

diverse learners’ needs is particularly pertinent within higher education, and in

emotionally-rich subjects like the visual arts, where adult learners’ values, expectations

and existing knowledge can collide with the artworks that they study, sometimes resulting

Empathy, Alienation and Educational Inclusion

61

in intense feelings of empathy and at other times in feelings of alienation and

disempowerment, as the comments above suggest.

The project discussed in this paper addresses issues that are common to all humanities

disciplines where a canon of preferred works tends to dominate the curriculum. It is

intended to contribute to pedagogical research in inclusive education by exploring

whether including western and non-western contemporary art in the Level 1

undergraduate curriculum (rather than the more commonly found western canonical art)

might help to reconcile diverse students’ needs through a ‘pedagogy of recognition’

(Slee, 1999: 200), resulting in a curriculum within which students can ‘recognise their

own experiences and identities’ (Nind, 2005: 5), while also assessing the extent to which

Mayer’s (2008: 77) assertion that:

‘Contemporary art is about now! It’s about figuring out who we are, who we are

becoming, and how to live, know and act…What could be more relevant?’ applies

to adult learners”.

Methodology

Research design

The research project discussed here comprises a single instrumental case study (Stake,

2005) – the Open University Level 1 short course Making Sense of the Arts, which

introduces students to the humanities through the study of poetry, history and art history.

The course has no entry requirements, is designed for students who have not studied

before or who may have studied a long time ago, and lasts for a maximum of 20 weeks.

Students have an allocated tutor and all tuition is conducted by telephone and through

written feedback on two formative assignments. (An optional online forum also offers

students the opportunity to discuss the course with their peers.) Upon successfully

completing a summative End of Course Assessment (ECA) students gain 10 credit points

at Level 1. The art history section of Making Sense of the Arts – the main focus of this

research project - is unusual in including contemporary art (art produced after 1980 by

Turner Prize nominees) in a Level 1 course.

The mixed model approach

The Making Sense of the Arts case study is located within a sequential (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2007 ) ‘mixed model’ (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) research design in which both

quantitative and qualitative research questions, data collection techniques and analysis

techniques have ‘equivalent status’ (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998: 15) throughout the

research process (see Appendix 1). While mixed methods research designs have

plentiful detractors (e.g. Denzin & Lincoln, 2005: 9-10) they are becoming ever more

popular, with numerous advantages being identified (see Greene, Caracelli et al., 1989;

Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; Bryman, 2006; Greene, 2008). In the context of this study,

the choice of a mixed model strategy was intended to achieve a more rigorous, more

comprehensive and more complete understanding of adult students’ experiences of art

education than would be possible using qualitative or quantitative methods alone.

Perryman

62

The survey

The findings reported in this paper are the result of one of the earliest phases of the

overall research project - an online questionnaire comprising four sections:

Section 1: Various questions gathering information about students’ age, gender,

disabilities (if any), ethnicity, previous educational qualifications (if any), and previous

art study (if any).

Section 2: Likert-scale and open-ended questions intended to gain information about

students’ reasons for studying ‘Making Sense of the Arts’, the outcomes they hoped to

achieve, the extent to which they felt they had achieved these outcomes, and any factors

negatively impacting on their study experience.

Section 3: (i) Open-ended questions intended to gain information about students’ initial

feelings about the prospect of studying contemporary art in ‘Making Sense of the Arts’

and the extent to which those feelings changed after studying the art history section of the

course; (ii) Likert scale-style questions intended to gain information about students’

feelings about the effectiveness of the various components of the art history section of

‘Making Sense of the Arts’

Section 4: Semantic differential scales intended to gained information about students’

reactions to 17 contemporary and non-contemporary, canonical and non-canonical

artworks (see Appendix 2), some of which also featured in ‘Making Sense of the Arts’.

The online survey format was chosen for both economic and logistical reasons. Firstly,

the cost of printing over 800 copies of a fairly lengthy full-colour questionnaire appeared

prohibitive and the online version offered accessibility advantages in allowing

participants to magnify the images featured in the survey. It also offered reactive routing

options, allowing students to skip certain sections of the survey if appropriate for

example, if a student indicated that they had completed the course but had not studied the

art history section (The ‘Making Sense of the Arts’ assessment strategy allows this, as the

discipline of art history is not a compulsory option in the only summative assignment in

the course) they were automatically taken from Section 2 to Section 4 of the

questionnaire. Furthermore, with a large sample the time advantages of using an online

questionnaire rather than a postal one were very attractive, the data being immediately

available for analysis.

All students in the November 2007 cohort (n=420) were contacted by email in the first

instance and invited to complete the questionnaire (The research is currently being

repeated with a second cohort of students (n=440), in advance of conducting semi-

structured telephone interviews with 20 students chosen from both cohorts). It was hoped

that the use of personalised email invitations would minimise the problems of identity

verification and spoof respondents that are often identified as undermining the validity of

self-selecting online samples (see Roberts & Parks, 2001; Hewson, Yule et al., 2003: 44).

Internet access is not compulsory for Making Sense of the Arts students and recent

research (UK Online Centres, 2007) indicates that there is still a ‘digital divide’ in the

UK, with 75% of people counted as socially excluded also being digitally excluded. For

this reason, students who had not indicated a ‘preferred’ email address (and had been

Empathy, Alienation and Educational Inclusion

63

emailed via their default OU address) (n=67) were also posted a paper version of the

questionnaire two weeks after the initial email had been sent (As the questionnaire

responses were anonymous it was impossible to check whether these students had already

completed the survey). While this procedure introduces validity-related issues concerning

the ‘mode effects’ resulting from the use of different administration methods (see de

Vaus, 2007: 131) it was hoped that these would be outweighed by the benefits gained

from avoiding sample bias. More importantly, it was considered ethically indefensible to

exclude students with no Internet access from participating in a research project intended

to address educational inclusion.

The decision to use semantic differential scale questions to collect data about students’

responses to a range of artworks was inspired by recent use of the scales within the field

of empirical aesthetics (e.g. Martindale, Moore et al., 1990; Locher, Smith et al., 2001;

Silvia, 2005; 2006; Silvia & Brown, 2007; Tan & Tollenaar, 2007) where they are

commonly used to explore the link between personality traits, previous experience of art

study and artistic preference. (For a summary of such studies, see Furnham & Walker,

2001: 998-999; Martindale, 2007.) This research has relevance in the context of

educational inclusion, highlighting the possibility that barriers to learning associated with

the study of visual art may be closely connected with personality differences in addition

to differences in students’ preferred learning styles - a common focus of educational

research. It will be further explored in the next phase of this research project.

Originally devised by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957) the semantic differential

scale is a tool which measures peoples’ affective reactions or attitudes to stimulus words,

concepts or images in terms of ratings on bipolar scales defined with contrasting

adjectives at each end (e.g. ‘happy-sad’ or ‘simple-complex’). Typically, seven point

scales are used (although some studies have used five and six-point scales). The present

study uses a five point scale chosen to reduce the time burden on respondents and to

encourage spontaneity of response. The adjectives for this scale (see Figure 1) were

selected via a multi-stage process.

First, a focus group comprising 5 non-art trained and 5 art-trained participants were asked

to freely discuss the 17 artworks featuring in the questionnaire. A prototype scale was

then designed, featuring the 20 most popular adjectives/adjectival phrases relating to the

three basic dimensions of response identified by Osgood (1975) as being applicable to

any concept or stimulus – namely Evaluation (e.g. ‘worth studying-not worth studying’),

Potency (e.g. ‘weak-powerful’) and Activity (e.g. complex-simple). Adjectives relating

to a fourth dimension – Berlyne’s (1974) ‘Internal State’ dimension (e.g. ‘comforting-

disturbing) - were also chosen. A selection of researcher-chosen antonyms were then

added to the scale which was formatted so that negative and positive polarity was

randomised for left-right position, thereby avoiding the possibility of biasing

respondents’ opinions by presenting potentially ambiguous (i.e. neither negative or

positive) adjectives on a side of the scale that is clearly intended to represent one polarity.

The scale was then piloted with 50 Open University humanities students before its use in

the current survey.

Perryman

64

Figure 2: Semantic differential scale for Raphael’s Madonna of the Meadows

Findings and Implications

Analysis of the survey data is still in its early stages, with data collection for the second

cohort of Making Sense of the Arts students still ongoing. However, the initial findings

from the first cohort of students already appear significant. What follows is limited to

discussion of open-ended answers and statistical frequencies; a fuller qualitative and

quantitative analysis will take place once the data from the second cohort of students has

been collected.

Empathy, Alienation and Educational Inclusion

65

A 69% survey response rate resulted in a final sample of 289 students, aged between 18

and 84, with a 71%/29% female/male gender balance (this is typical for OU arts courses).

Students’ previous educational qualifications ranged from no qualifications (38%) to

qualifications at postgraduate level (5%) and 17% of respondents had studied art or art

history prior to studying the subject in Making Sense of the Arts. As previously

mentioned, the course assessment strategy allows students to pass the course without

studying the art history section and this was the case for 11% of students in this first

cohort. Students were predominately White British and only 9% declared a disability.

Initial feelings about studying contemporary art

An initial exploration of the collected data clearly indicated that the majority of students

surveyed had been concerned about the prospect of studying contemporary art. The

following comments, taken from an open-ended question asking ‘What were your initial

feelings about studying contemporary art in Y160’ are typical:

‘Terror!’ I thought I would hate it.

I did not believe I would enjoy it especially when I saw type of art I was to study.

Quite apprehensive. It wasn't what attracted me to the course. I wouldn't have

thought that my "modern art isn't really art" attitude would change much.

Of all the art history to choose, the Turner Prize must be the worst possible topic. I

just couldn't drum up any enthusiasm for it…

I was sad that it had to be 'contemporary art'.

I began with the preconceived notion that modern art is meaningless.

I felt it was an ordeal to be endured.

I was disappointed that the course would not concentrate on older works.

Initially I considered most contemporary art a 'scam'…

I was quite apprehensive. I had visited the Tate Modern various times and found

some of the work very strange and hard to understand.

I looked forward to beginning a completely new (for me) field of study and felt let

down by the works we were expected to study.

Trepidation - I would describe myself as more interested in Turner than the Turner

Prize.

Frustrated…Old art is great art…that’s why they’re called the Old Masters.

There’s no comparison…Artists like Constable were real artists and people like

Damien Hirst are just conmen.

Perryman

66

One student’s comment that ‘my only exposure to the Turner Prize was through the

media so I approached this section of the course with great of trepidation and cynicism’

highlights one of the challenges of teaching with contemporary art – the frequent negative

portrayal in the media of artists such as Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst, and of the Turner

Prize itself, and the possibility that this has a negative impact on some adult students’

motivation to learn about contemporary art. Walker (1999: 12; cited in Addison &

Burgess, 2003: 111) talks of the media’s ‘utterly predictable knee-jerk reactions and

populist attacks on contemporary art and artists’, leading to ‘manipulation of the readers'

emotions and encouragement of philistine attitudes and aggressive feelings’.

The problems such media responses pose in terms of adult learners’ study of

contemporary art can be better understood in the context of a number of pedagogical

theories. For example, Knowles’ (1985) theory of andragogy, while having several

weaknesses (Schapiro, 2003) offers some pertinent insights into adult learners’

motivations and their need to be confident in what they have chosen to learn.

Wlodkowski (1999: 74), building on Knowles’ ideas, explains that adults want to learn

what they find meaningful and of some significant value to their personal or professional

life’. Judith Koroscik’s (See Koroscik, 1982; 1990; 1990a; 1992a; 1992b; 1993; 1994;

1996; 1996a) notion of ‘conservative tendencies’ - ‘the inclination of novices to approach

learning by confirming preconceived ideas and personal biases, which sometimes reflect

peer group consensus’ (Efland, 2002: 119) – also appears relevant in the context of adult

learners’ initial negativity about the prospect of studying contemporary art. Visual culture

theorist Kerry Freedman (2003: 83) makes a similar point about the possibility that the

‘misconceptions’ about art that learners might gain ‘outside the classroom’ can be a

barrier to their learning.

Not all students were negative about the prospect of studying contemporary art, however.

For example, one student revealed that she ‘was over the moon’ and that ‘it was knowing

we were going to study the Turner Prize that made me sign up for the course’. Another

student confirmed that they were ‘excited about the prospect of learning more about

contemporary art’ and about ‘unravelling some of its "mystique"’. A third student

mentioned ‘initial feelings …of openness, willingness to find out and excitement’.

Changed feelings

Continuing the positive note, the questionnaire responses did indicate that studying

Making Sense of the Arts had led to a change of heart amongst many of the most

sceptical students, with 59% revealing that their feelings about the value of contemporary

art had changed since studying the course and 71% indicating that the art history section

of the course was more enjoyable than they had expected it to be. Again, the following

comments are fairly typical:

I enjoyed the Art History VERY much and was pleasantly surprised at how much

my attitudes to contemporary art have changed. I felt as though this section had

the biggest impact on my confidence, as I feel I could hold my own now in a

discussion on contemporary art.

Empathy, Alienation and Educational Inclusion

67

I am less judgemental and am now prepared to study and analyse each art work. I

still have a feeling that some of the artists are conning us and that there is an

'Emperor’s new clothes' aspect to the gullible observers.

I was absolutely amazed when in one of the exercises I found myself being positive

about modern art. Me! The ECA art history subject Afrodizzia was a modern piece

which included elephant dung in its media...At first I thought it was a gimmick but

now I understand more about it and really enjoyed the piece and discussing it.

I want to go back to Tate Modern and have another look - I am sure I will still feel

the same about some but perhaps I will be able to appreciate them more - even if I

don't like them!

The course has helped me to look at things in a completely different way. I now

realise that I don’t have to like or even totally understand a piece of art work to be

able to talk about it or think about it.

Particularly encouraging, in the interests of educational inclusion, was the fact that 66%

of students said they were now more confident about discussing contemporary art with

other people and several students commented that they felt they had gained access to a

world that had previously seemed closed to them.

An age-related divide

As has already been seen, the reasons for students’ initial negativity about studying

contemporary art ranged from concerns that they would not be able to understand works

whose meanings appeared obscure to feelings that such artworks were not art at all and

were therefore not worth studying. Interestingly, their explanations appeared to be

divided along age-related lines, with students aged over 50 tending to be the most cynical

about whether Turner Prize art was worth studying. While a detailed analysis of the

semantic differential scale data has yet to be conducted, an early exploration of the data

also highlighted particularly significant correlations between students’ age and their

reactions to the 17 artworks featuring in the survey with students aged over 50 again

tending to be the most negative about the contemporary artworks, more frequently

judging them to be ‘Not worth studying’, ‘Pointless’ and ‘Offensive’ , as shown in Figure

2 - a graph comparing students’ responses to Tracey Emin’s ‘My Bed’ and Raphael’s

‘Madonna of the Meadows’.

Judgements related to skill and emotional impact

Kozbelt (2004: 157) observes that ‘two components frequently emerge in the discussion

of artistic quality: technical skill and originality’ and analysis of the semantic differential

scale data did indeed indicate a link between students’ judgements regarding the skills

shown in an artwork (the adjective pair ‘Skilled-Lacks Skill’) and whether it was worth

studying. Once again however, this was much more common amongst students aged over

50.

Perryman

68

Figure 3: Chart comparing students’ reactions to Raphael’s Madonna of the

Meadows and Tracey Emin’s My Bed.

Students aged under 50 (and especially students aged under 30) appeared to be less likely

to link the artist’s apparent skill with the worth of an artwork and were more likely to

base such a judgement on the emotional power of the work (using the adjective pairs

‘Emotionally intense-Lacks emotional impact’, ‘Intimate-Remote’ and ‘Weak-

Powerful’), rating an artwork to be ‘worth studying’ when they perceived it to be

emotionally engaging and stimulating. These correlations will be further explored in the

next phase of the research.

Foregrounding the monster

A commonly expressed objection to teaching with contemporary art at all educational

levels is that students may be offended or upset by the challenging and controversial

themes that are often addressed and the use of formal elements that are deliberately

designed to shock and offend. Artist Mark Hutchinson confirms that ‘in secondary

education teachers often shy away from most contemporary art because they consider it

too difficult, an art full of monsters, replete with vulgarity and coarseness’ (Hutchinson,

1998: 144). British art educator and writer Lesley Burgess, writing about the challenges

of teaching with controversial art in the secondary school curriculum, confirms that ‘by

refusing to engage with potentially problematic practices’ educators may be ‘missing an

opportunity to confront important personal, social and cultural issues’ (Burgess, 2003:

Empathy, Alienation and Educational Inclusion

69

108). She proposes that by ‘foregrounding the monster’ (Burgess, 2003: 120) and

addressing difficult, controversial or complex issues, contemporary art is actually

particularly effective as a stimulus for students’ achievement of a wide range of learning

outcomes.

Interestingly, it was apparent from the semantic differential scale data that students’

judgements about whether an artwork was worth studying were not necessarily dependent

on their feeling comfortable about it, or finding it beautiful or pleasing. For example, it

was not uncommon for a student to give an artwork a high score for being ‘Worth

Studying’ while also indicating that they found it ‘repulsive’, ‘offensive’ or ‘unpleasant’.

Carole Becker’s work is of interest here. Becker (1994: 119), a protégé of Hebert

Marcuse, recommends that art educators should revisit Marcuse’s belief that ‘to be

effective, art must exert its capacity for estrangement’ and should challenge society’s

assumptions through 'the demands of intellectual and visual rigour and/or the heightened

recognition of pleasure and pain’ (Becker, 1994: 119-120). Marcuse’s assertion that art

only becomes effective (and perhaps also affective) when its content is embodied ‘in an

aesthetically challenging form that [pushes] the viewer…to a more complex, more

emotional, or revelatory understanding of the problems posed by the work' (p121) merits

further exploration in the context of the Making Sense of the Arts survey data, especially

in terms of exploring the possibility that a pedagogy employing meta-cognitive strategies

and reflective writing could give students an access point to and a way of making sense

of such aesthetically challenging art.

Silvia and Brown (2007: 100), exploring ‘the emotions that lead people to reject, censor,

and deface works of art’, differentiate between ‘anger’ and ‘disgust’, reporting that ‘anger

was associated with appraising a picture as incongruent with one’s values and as

intentionally offensive, and disgust was associated with appraising a picture as

incongruent with one’s values and as unpleasant’ (Silvia & Brown, 2007: 100).

Freedman (2003: 65), discussing adult students’ responses to visual culture, highlights the

impact of students’ expectations in informing their reactions to art, explaining that

‘expectation is an emotional state tied to knowledge, often knowledge of form’ and that

‘people who see a work of art that is apparently unrelated to anything they have seen

before might respond as if it is threatening’. Future analysis of the Making Sense of the

Arts survey data will therefore explore in more detail possible correlations between

students’ responses to the scales ‘Worth Studying-Not Worth Studying’, Offensive-

Inoffensive’, ‘Comforting-Disturbing’, ‘Repulsive-Attractive’ and ‘Unpleasant-Pleasant’

and whether any correlations appear to be linked with students’ age and/or gender. The

link between students’ expectations and the form of artworks which they find to be

unpalatable will also be explored in interview.

Looking at pedagogy – ‘The Study Diamond’

Some of the most positive student comments referred to the pedagogical approach

featuring in Making Sense of the Arts and, more specifically, a meta-cognitive

framework named the Study Diamond (see Figure 3) which is used to guide students’

learning within the disciplines of poetry, history and art history. Throughout the course

students are prompted to build their interpretations of humanities texts by making links

between the four points of the Study Diamond, namely:

Perryman

70

Techniques (the form of a text)

Effect (its emotional impact)

Meaning (the apparent connotation(s) of a text)

Context (including reflexive consideration of students’ own subjective context).

While conceived in its current format by the ‘Making Sense of the Arts’ course authors,

the Study Diamond has a solid ancestry in cognitive and pedagogical theory, providing a

framework within which disparate artworks can be analyzed and then compared.

Potentially, a meta-cognitive framework such as the Study Diamond can also facilitate

students’ learning by ‘slowing down their looking’ (Perkins, 1994; cited in Efland, 2002:

118), prompting them to take more time to look for relevant details and, as suggested by

student questionnaire responses, can counteract the effects of Koroscik’s (1982; 1990;

1996) ‘conservative tendencies’ (mentioned earlier).

Figure 4: The Study Diamond

Making Sense of the Arts co-author and Study Diamond co-designer Tim Baugh explains

that:

Empathy, Alienation and Educational Inclusion

71

As a tool for learners and teachers the Study Diamond provides a range of

techniques aimed at raising awareness of the need to view reflective and analytical

processes as inseparably linked in successful learning and teaching. One main

area of focus is the balanced and dynamic integration of students’ personal

responses, views and perspectives with the views of apparent ‘experts’ and with

those of their peers, especially those views and responses differing from their own.

This, in turn, allows students to address the issue of subjectivity as a partial

explanation for the multiplicity of meanings offered by any particular text. (Baugh,

2008)

Charman and Ross (2006: 30), addressing the challenges posed by the process of

interpreting contemporary visual art confirm the value of meta-cognitive frameworks,

arguing that:

Approaching the process of interpretation with a toolkit of thinking skills is

particularly useful with regard to contemporary visual art, in which meanings can

be contradictory, multiple and are certainly open-ended and unstable. In the light

of such open-endedness, teaching the skills of interpretation benefits from a

structured approach and method.

The Study Diamond was almost unanimously seen as a positive impact on students’ study

of art history, with 82.2% of students stating that it had a ‘Very Positive’ (44.8%) or

‘Positive’ (37.4%) impact on their studies. Students’ comments were illuminating:

Working with the study diamond made me approach the artworks in a positive and

inquisitive manner and so I derived much more benefit from the study than I would

have done without it.

The art history wasn't as intimidating as I had expected once I got into it. The study

diamond was worth the entry price. I will use that for everything from now on -

genius.

The study diamond gives a framework to study when it might have been difficult to

know quite how or where to start.

The course actually opened up art to me and the study diamond has provided me

with a really useful means of viewing art at a personal level.

The next research phase will include further exploration of the impact of the Study

Diamond on students’ learning, through interviews with students and through analysis of

their writing in response to the course activities and assignments.

What Next?

The data collected thus far appears to give a clear indication that some Making Sense of

the Arts students continue to feel negatively about contemporary art after studying the

course, bemoaning (amongst other things) its ugliness, its offensive subject matter and

artists’ apparent lack of skill. Silvia and Brown (2007) point out that ‘essentially no

Perryman

72

research has been done on negative responses to art’. Their own application of the

appraisal model of aesthetic emotions (see Lazarus, 1991; Roseman & Smith, 2001;

Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003 and Silvia, 2005) to anger and disgust in response to visual art

is a recent exception, exploring both how negative aesthetic emotions happen and how

similar negative emotions differ from each other. The next stage of the ‘Making Sense of

the Arts’ research project will therefore use semi-structured interviews and analysis of

students’ writing to further explore the implications of Silvia and Brown’s work (and

other research into appraisal theories of emotion) in informing a better understanding of

the barriers to learning faced by adult students of the visual arts and the ways in which

they might be minimised. Pedagogy-related issues will be a particular focus, for example

the significance of meta-cognitive frameworks such as the Study Diamond in offering

students a way of making sense of their negative emotions and of integrating them with

formal and contextual analysis and the consideration of others’ perspectives to achieve a

considered and well-argued interpretation of any artwork they might encounter. More

extensive statistical analysis of the survey data collected from the two cohorts of ‘Making

Sense of the Arts’ students will also take place, including multilevel modelling intended

to help identify the relationship between students’ emotional reactions to canonical and

non-canonical, contemporary and non-contemporary art, their feelings about its aesthetic

properties, and their views about whether such art is worth studying.

The next stage of the ‘Making Sense of the Arts’ research project will also explore the

possibility that some adult students’ value judgements about the worth of canonical non-

contemporary art (and the worthlessness of contemporary art) might prevent them from

any meaningful engagement with the latter, irrespective of the pedagogical context within

which it is presented. Art educator Tom Gretton (2003) addresses this possibility,

observing that although ‘high culture’ is often seen as ‘reproducing not inspiring ideals

and transcendent values, but ethnocentricity, patriarchy, and the norms of bourgeois

individualism’ (Gretton, 2003: 179) the canon continues to be reproduced. Teachers

therefore have two choices, he suggests: to ‘join…those who denounce and reject the

canon’ or to ‘accept that its definition and reproduction meets some powerful cultural

needs…and find acceptable ways of dealing with it’ (Gretton, 2003: 179). Gretton

proposes that the latter is preferable and that ‘engagement with a loose canon can produce

relevant knowledge, transferable understanding and cultural empowerment’ (Gretton,

2003: 183), explaining that ‘as students ‘begin to feel some sort of cognitive and cultural

power over the objects they study, they will develop a sense that the canon and its values

belong to them, are theirs to play with as they see fit’ (Gretton, 2003: 186).

Hopefully the ‘[Making Sense of the Arts’ research will reach some useful conclusions

about whether Gretton’s views can be reconciled with those of art museum educator

Melinda Mayer (2008: 77), who declares that ‘when we teach with contemporary art, the

potential is present for learning that is centred not in the classroom, but in all the worlds

beyond it and students’ efforts to negotiate their relationship to those worlds. What could

be more relevant?’ Above all, it is hoped that the project will contribute to knowledge

about the ways in which higher education might achieve an arts curriculum which is

‘transformative’, (Banks, 2001); ‘empowering’ (Gay, 2000) and ‘emancipatory’, resulting

in ‘better understanding of interconnections among individual, local, national, ethnic,

global and human identities; and acceptance of knowledge as something to be

continuously shared, critiqued, revised and renewed’ (Gay, 2000: 35) – an arts curriculum

Empathy, Alienation and Educational Inclusion

73

in which both empathy and alienation in response to visual art can be reconciled in the

interests of educational inclusion.

References

Addison, N. & Burgess, L., (Eds). (2003). Issues in Art and Design Teaching. London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Banks, J. A. (2001). 'A curriculum for empowerment, action and change'. In C. E. Sleeter

(eds). Empowerment through multicultural education. Albany: State University of New

York Press: 125-141.

Baugh, T. (2008) Interview. [Interview with Leigh-Anne Perryman, 2 February 2008.].

Becker, C. (1994). 'The Education of Young Artists.' In H. A. Giroux & P. McLaren

(eds). Between Borders: Pedagogy and the Politics of Cultural Studies. New York:

Routledge.

Becker, C. (1994). 'Herbert Marcuse and the Subversive Potential of Art'. In C. Becker

(eds). The Subversive Imagination: Artists, Society, and Social Responsibility. New

York: Routledge.

Berlyne, D. E. (1974). Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics. Washington DC:

Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Boughton, D. & Mason, R., (Eds). (1999). Beyond Multiculturalism: International

Perspectives. Berlin: Waxmann.

Bryman, A. (2006). 'Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?'

Qualitative Research 6(1): 97-113.

Burgess, L. (2003). 'Monsters in the playground: Including contemporary art'. In L.

Burgess & N. Addison (eds). Issues in Art & Design Teaching. London:

RoutledgeFalmer: 101-121.

Cahan, S. & Kocur, Z. (1996). Contemporay art and multicultural education. New York:

The New Museum of Contemporary Art and Routledge.

Chalmers, G. (1996). Celebrating Pluralism: Art Education and Cultural Diversity. Los

Angeles, CA: The Getty Education Trust.

Charman, H. & Ross, M. (2006). 'Contemporary Art and the Role of Interpretation:

Reflections from Tate Modern's Summer Institute for Teachers'. International Journal of

Art & Design Education 25(1): 28-41.

Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007 ). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods

Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Perryman

74

Dash, P. (1999). 'The teaching of art to Afro-Caribbean students in the UK'. In D.

Boughton & R. Mason (eds). Beyond Multicultural Art Education: International

Perspectives. Berlin: Waxmann: 135-150.

De Vaus, D. (2007). Surveys in Social Research (5th Edition). London: Routledge.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S., (Eds). (2005). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative

Research (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Efland, A. (2002). Art and Cognition: Integrating the Visual Arts in the Curriculum. New

York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Eisner, E. (1994). Cognition and Curriculum Reconsidered. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Eisner, E. (1998). The Kind of Schools We Need. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Eisner, E. W. (1984). 'Alternative Approaches to Curriculum Development in Art

Education'. Studies in Art Education 25(4): 259-264.

Ellsworth, P. C. & Scherer, K. R. (2003). 'Appraisal processes in emotion'. In R. J.

Davidson, K. R. Scherer & H. H. Goldsmith (eds). Handbook of affective sciences. New

York: Oxford University Press: 572-595.

Freedman, K. (2000). 'Social Perspectives on Art Education in the U. S.: Teaching Visual

Culture in a Democracy'. Studies in Art Education 41(4): 314-329.

Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching Visual Culture: Curriculum, Aesthetics and the Social

Life of Art. New York: Teachers College Press.

Frick, A., Bachtiger, M. T. & Reips, U. D. (2001). 'Financial incentives, personal

information and drop-out rate in online studies'. In U. D. a. B. Reaps, M. (Eds.) (eds).

Dimensions of internet science. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers: 209-220.

Furnham, A. & Walker, J. (2001). 'The influence of personality traits, previous

experience of art, and demographic variables on artistic preference'. Personality and

Individual Differences 31(6): 997-1017.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research & Practice. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Greene, J. C. (2008). 'Is Mixed Methods Social Inquiry a Distinctive Methodology?'

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2(1): 7-22.

Empathy, Alienation and Educational Inclusion

75

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J. & Graham, W. F. (1989). 'Toward a Conceptual

Framework for Mixed-method Evaluation Designs'. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis 11(3): 255-74.

Gretton, T. (2003). 'Loaded Canons'. In N. Addison & L. Burgess (eds). Issues in art

and design teaching. London: RoutledgeFalmer: 178-187.

Hewson, C., Yule, P., Laurent, D. & Vogel, C. (2003). Internet Research Methods.

London: Sage.

Hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress. New York & London: Routledge.

Hooks, b. (1995). Art on my Mind: Visual Politics. New York: New Press.

Hutchinson, M. (1998). 'Of Monsterology'. In D. McCorquodale, N. Siderfin & J.

Stallabrass (eds). Occupational Hazard: Critical Writing on Recent British Art. London:

Black Dog.

Knight, W. B. (2006). 'Using Contemporary Art to Challenge Cultural Values, Beliefs,

and Assumptions'. Art Education 59(4): 7-39-45.

Knowles, M., & Associates (1985). Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Koroscik, J. (1982). 'The effects of prior knowledge, presentation time and task demands

on visual art processing.' Studies in Art Education 23(3): 13-22.

Koroscik, J. (1990) Novice-expert differences in undestanding and misunderstanding art

and their implications for student assessment in art education. Paper presented at

symposium, Novice-Expert Paradigms for Student Assessment of Art Learning, Boston

Koroscik, J. (1990a). 'The function of domain specific knowledge in understanding works

of art.' In (eds). Inheriting the theory: New voices and multiple perspectives on DBAE.

Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust.

Koroscik, J. (1992a). 'A comparative framework for designing visual arts curricula.' Arts

Education Policy Review 94(1): 17-22.

Koroscik, J. (1992b). 'Research on understanding works of art: Some considerations for

structuring art viewing experiences for students.' Kasvatus: Finnish Journal of Education

23(5): 20-25.

Koroscik, J. (1993). 'Learning in the visual arts: Implications for preparing art teachers'.

Arts Education Policy Review 94(5): 20-25.

Koroscik, J. (1994). 'Blurring the line between teaching and research: Some future

challenges for arts education policymakers.' Arts Education Policy Review 96(1): 2-10.

Perryman

76

Koroscik, J. (1996a). 'What potential do young people have for understanding works of

art?' In A. Kindler (eds). Child development in art. Reston, VA: National Art Education

Association: pp. 143-164.

Koroscik, J. S. (1996). 'Who Ever Said Studying Art Would Be Easy? The Growing

Cognitive Demands of Understanding Works of Art in the Information Age'. Studies in

Art Education 38, (No.1): pp4-20.

Kozbelt, A. (2004). 'Originality and Technical Skill as Components of Artistic Quality'.

Empirical Studies of the Arts 22(2): 157-170.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lippard, L. R. (1990). Mixed blessings: New art in a multicultural America. New York:

Pantheon Books.

Locher, P. J., Smith, J. K. & Smith, L. F. (2001). 'The influence of presentation format

and viewer training in the visual arts on the perception of pictorial and aesthetic qualities

of paintings'. Perception 30: 449-465.

Martindale, C. (2007). 'Recent trends in the psychological study of aesthetics, creativity

and the arts'. Empirical Studies of the Arts 25(2): 121-141.

Martindale, C., Moore, K. & Borkum, J. (1990). 'Aesthetic Preference: Anomalous

Findings for Berlyne's Psychobiological Theory'. The American Journal of Psychology

103(1): 53-80.

Mayer, M. M. (2008). 'Considerations for a Contemporary Art Curriculum'. Art

Education 61(2): 77-79.

McFee, J. K. (1986). 'Cross-cultural inquiry into the social meaning of art: implications

for Art Education'. Journal of Multicultural Research in Art Education 4(1): 6-15.

Nind, M. (2005). 'Models and practice in inclusive curricula'. In M. Nind, J. Rix, K.

Sheehy & K. Simmons (eds). Curriculum and Pedagogy in Inclusive Education: Values

into Practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer: 1-10.

Osgood, C. E., May, W. H. & Miron, M. S. (1975). Cross-cultural Universals of

Affective Meaning. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning.

Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Perkins, D. N. (1994). The Intelligent Eye: Learning to think by looking at art. Santa

Monica, CA: Getty Center for Education in the Arts.

Roberts, L. D. & Parks, M. R. (2001). 'The social geography of gender switching in

virtual environments on the Internet'. In E. a. A. Green, A. (Eds.) (eds). Virtual Gender:

Technology, Consumption and Gender. London: Routledge: 265-285.

Empathy, Alienation and Educational Inclusion

77

Roseman, I. J. & Smith, C. A. (2001). 'Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions,

varieties, controversies'. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Johnstone (eds). Appraisal

processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research. New York: Oxford University Press:

3–19.

Schapiro, S. A. (2003). 'From Andragogy to Collaborative Critical Pedagogy: Learning

for Academic, Personal, and Social Empowerment in a Distance-Learning Ph.D.

Program'. Journal of Transformative Education 1(2): 150-166.

Silvia, P. J. (2005). 'Emotional responses to art: From collation and arousal to cognition

and emotion'. Review of General Psychology 9: 342-357.

Silvia, P. J. (2006). 'Artistic training and interest in visual art: Applying the appraisal

model of aesthetic emotions'. Empirical Studies of the Arts 24: 139-161.

Silvia, P. J. (2007). 'An Introduction to multilevel modeling for research on the

psychology of art and creativity'. Empirical Studies of the Arts 25(1): 1-20.

Silvia, P. J. & Brown, E. M. (2007). 'Anger, disgust, and the negative aesthetic emotions:

Expanding an appraisal model of aesthetic experience.' Psychology of Aesthetics,

Creativity and the Arts 1(2): 100-106.

Slee, R. (1999). 'Policies and practices? Inclusive education and its effects on schooling'.

In H. Daniels & P. Garner (eds). Inclusive Education: Supporting Inclusion in

Education Systems. London: Kogan Page: 194-206.

Stake, R. (2005). 'Case Studies'. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds). Handbook of

qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tan, E. S. & Tollenaar, A. (2007). 'Aesthetic Communication through Posters'.

Empirical Studies of the Arts 25(1): 21-39.

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and

Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

UK Online Centres. (2007), Understanding Digital Inclusion, Available from

http://www.ukonlinecentres.com/downloads/UK_Online_digitalinclusion.pdf [Accessed

20 February 2008].

Walker, J. A. (1999). Art and Outrage: Provocation, Controversy and the Visual Arts.

London: Pluto.

Wlodkowski, R. (1999). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Perryman

78

Young, B. (1999). 'An African-American Perspective on Multicultural Art Education'. In

D. Boughton & R. Mason (eds). Beyond Multicultural Art Education: International

Perspectives. Berlin: Waxmann: 21-32.

PRIME Volume 3(2)

79

Enhancing learning? Exploring the use of assessment methods

as pedagogical tools to promote effective learning and teaching

in early childhood studies

Paulette Luff and Rachel Pryor

Anglia Ruskin University, Faculty of Education, Early Childhood Studies

Summary

This paper highlights aspects of our experience as “exploratory practitioners” researching

the use and the value of two modes of assessment (web-based discourse and sketchbook

learning journals). We report our developing understandings of ways in which these can

support and extend students’ learning. On our Early Childhood Studies (ECS) courses

we emphasise approaches to young children’s education informed by socio-cultural

theories. This promotes a view of learning which stresses the importance of shared

meaning making and the co-construction of knowledge. Accordingly, we draw upon the

Vygotskian concept of pedagogical tools, mediating and extending knowledge

construction, and emphasise a close relationship between means of assessment and

student learning. The study uses a case study design, apt for monitoring and explaining

educational practices. Most data gathering is integrated into the module programmes with

the sketchbook journals and the web-based discourse assessments themselves forming

important sources of qualitative data, together with staff and students’ reflection on the

processes. Evidence, from our initial analysis of findings, indicates that sketchbook

learning journals can provide a means for students to capture, synthesise, reflect upon and

critique their learning. Similarly, web-based discourse (as an element of blended

learning) encourages collaborative study and offers opportunities for formative

assessment, through e-tivities designed to support students’ reflective and critical

thinking about inclusive policies and practices in early childhood settings. The paper

concludes by summarising ways in which engagement with research-informed

teaching has supported developments and improvement and deepened our understanding

of learning and teaching processes.

Introduction

This paper arises from an exploration of assessment practice undertaken during the past

academic year by two lecturers who are relatively new to teaching in higher education

and to undertaking pedagogical research. The main value of this self-reported study was,

therefore, to enable us to reflect upon our own practice, however we hope that this

account of our work will resonate with the experience of other educators and contribute

to a shared understanding of the relationships between learning, teaching and assessment.

The paper outlines our conceptualisations of assessment and some key insights relating to

the methods of assessment explored, before giving a brief description of the study and

discussing some key findings regarding the relationships between assessment and student

learning. We conclude by highlighting aspects of our own learning and some of the issues

raised by the project.

Luff and Pryor

80

Understandings of assessment

Our teaching and research espouse three key principles of socio-cultural theory. Firstly,

recognition that learning is a social process, embedded in historical and cultural contexts

(Vygotsky, 1978, 1981; Rogoff, 1998); thus requiring course content to match and build

upon students’ prior learning and experience and offer opportunities for shared

knowledge construction. Secondly, a belief that effective learning occurs within zones of

proximal development (Vygotsky 1978, 1986); with the attendant responsibility to

create learning environments and assessment opportunities which afford an appropriate

level of intellectual challenge and provide support for students to achieve their potential.

Thirdly, that human learning is mediated and extended by the use of tools; implying

that forms of assessment can assist and shape our thinking and actions (Vygotsky, 1978;

Kozulin, 2003; Cowie and Carr, 2004). In accordance with this theoretical standpoint,

our aspirations for assessment are that it should: enable lecturers and students to build

positive relationships; foster positive dispositions for learning; offer opportunities for

students to engage with subject knowledge in order to construct understanding; promote

literacies and critical skills; and be of academic, professional and personal value

(Goodfellow and Lea, 2005; Dunn et al, 2004; Taras, 2002; Maier and Warren, 2000;

Ashcroft and Foreman Peck, 1994).

Assessment and e learning

Jacques and Salmon (2007) define interactive on-line learning and web based discourse

as based on written communications between student to student and student to lecturer.

The student posts contributions onto a virtual learning environment (VLE) in response to

activities set by the lecturer. The interactive and participative element is in the response

to postings by others and participants make sense of the material through this interaction.

Maier and Warren (2000) argue that this form of teaching and learning may lessen the

tutor-student bond but increase student independence and interdependence between one

another. Ashcroft and Foreman-Peck (1994:92) agree and comment that this form of

‘open’ pedagogy and interaction gives students opportunities for exploration and enquiry

and ‘allows them to come back to the questioner at a stage further than they were when

the question was posed’. They point out that a rational addition to this pedagogy is a form

of assessment that is a learning experience in its own right. In response to this argument

the web based discourse was informed by Salmon’s (2000: 29) ‘Five Stage Model of

Facilitating Online Learning’ where e-tivities are used to scaffold learning, moving up in

stages, from ‘individual participants establishing their on line identities….’ to where

‘course related group discussions occur and the interaction becomes more

collaborative’. Weller (2007) argues that the web based discourse encourages students to

share and comment on each others ‘postings’ which reinforces the belief that learning is a

social construct encouraged by peer to peer interaction and learning from peers, as the

students share and comment upon each others remarks.

Both Weller (2007) and Macdonald (2006) agree that e-learning helps to develop

independent self directed students and lays the foundations of lifelong and

collaborative learning as it provides the opportunity for a range of teaching and

assessment strategies. It can enhance student learning by allowing more opportunities for

reflection than in perhaps a wholly face to face environment. Macdonald

(2006:2) defines blended learning as 'the introduction of online media into a course while

Enhancing Learning?

81

at the same time retaining face to face contact and other traditional approaches to

supporting students'. She argues that this can encourage students to learn and construct

their own understandings through learning and assessment activities, helping to relate

theory and practice to experiences that they have had.

Learning journals as a form of assessment

Making links between theory and workplace practice is also a feature of learning journal

style assignments. These are common in vocational subjects, such as health, social care

and education, as they provide students with opportunities to reflect upon their experience

and develop informed knowledge (Brookfield, 1995; Dart et al, 1998, Heath, 1998;

Moon, 2006). In an analytical review of assessment practice, Hounsell et al (2007) found

that writing assignments such as portfolios and journals were used in order to promote

deep and reflective learning. The key advantages of this type of assignment included the

documenting of learning over time; the construction of a resource for future learning;

improvement in students’ written communication skills; and motivation towards self-

directed learning (ibid). Others have, similarly, identified the benefits of journal style

assignments in fostering depth of engagement with subject content knowledge (Dart et al,

1998; Park, 2003) and critical and self-aware approaches to learning (Haigh, 2001). On

courses where the majority of students are female, a form of assessment which

encourages the formation of connections between prior and new knowledge and allows

the integration of affective and cognitive learning may be particularly conducive to

women’s ways of knowing (Clifford, 2002; Belenky et al, 1997).

Robinson et al (2007) describe sketchbooks as playgrounds for ideas in which sources of

inspiration can be highlighted, questions and interests can be explored, learning journeys

can be recorded, and thinking can be supported. The use of a visual approach allows ideas

to be expressed in the form of mind maps and diagrams and encourages presentation and

critique of images in addition to written text. The preparation and presentation of

sketchbook learning journals parallels processes of documenting young children’s

learning in order to make their thinking visible and enable reflection upon learning

(Guidici et al, 2001; Rinaldi, 2006). The use of sketchbooks as a tool for learning and

research thus offers students a space in which they can investigate the early childhood

curriculum and develop and present their theories, based upon fieldwork in early

childhood settings and their reading.

The research project

We approached this research from an “exploratory practitioner perspective” (Campbell

and Norton, 2007: 1) actively questioning the value of two modes of assessment and

conducting an enquiry with the intention of furthering our understanding of student

learning and of developing our own teaching practice. The sketchbook learning journals

and web-based discourse, in the context of the modules in which they are embedded,

were viewed as two parallel case studies. A case study was selected as a useful means of

investigating an area of interest in depth and detail in order to discover meaning and draw

conclusions to inform educational practice (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995; Sanders, 1981;

Reichardt and Cook, 1979).

Luff and Pryor

82

Our research was conducted with groups of early childhood studies students, and most of

the data collection activities were integrated with our teaching. Throughout the academic

year, aspects of students' learning behaviour were noted and discussed; focus group

discussions were conducted to improve understanding of participants’ experiences; and

the content of assessed work was analysed. In addition, a questionnaire was administered

to the students undertaking the e-tivities and four of the students who had completed the

learning journals took part in more interviews, which were videotaped. The findings,

below, are based upon content analysis of data from these sources. Where student

comments are used, these are quoted in italics.

The e-tivities case study was carried out with two groups of year 3 students taking the

‘Inclusive Practice in Early Childhood’ module. The first group were undergraduates in

the final year of their Early Childhood Studies degree. The second group were mature

students undertaking the Early Years Practitioner Status award, studying on a part time

basis while working during the rest of the week. Assessment for the module was in two

parts, consisting of participation in web based discourse and a conventional written paper.

The aim was to encourage students to share and develop ideas, using discussion as a

springboard to examine and challenge the issues and implications of inclusion in the early

years. The discourse was led and supported by three e-tivities, a literature review, a web

based research question and a final group writing activity drawing on the information and

discussion that arose from the first two activities. These shared e-tivities then provided a

basis for the individual written assignment.

Second year BA students studying a Curriculum in Early Childhood module undertook a

different, “low tech”, style of assignment. This took the form of a sketchbook learning

journal, in which students represented their thoughts about different aspects of the early

childhood curriculum (philosophical approaches, environments and resources, adult roles,

playful approaches to learning and curriculum content). This learning was recorded in a

visual manner, using images, charts, mind maps and text, together with 3000 words of

critical commentary. This was completed during two full semesters and submitted for

summative assessment at the end of the second semester.

Some findings

Web-based discourse

One of the advantages of blended learning, where the e-moderator is a lecturer who also

meets face to face with students, is that a rapport can be established before the web-based

discourse begins. This was of particular benefit to the mature students, who were

unfamiliar with the technology and needed help to access the WebCT virtual learning

environment. For the undergraduate students, the weekly face to face seminars were used

as a reminder to carry out the e-tivities and to help recognise the value of the discourse as

information and research for the final written section of the assessment. Some of the

students commented that as face to face contact time was readily available, the web based

discussion appeared less attractive. The mature students, who only met as a group for one

day every week, remarked how the discourse extended their discussion time together,

how it improved communication, group cohesion and support. One student commented

that the use of ICT had:

Enhancing Learning?

83

'increased communication and the sharing of ideas, perceptions and beliefs which

also developed teamwork. There is always something to be learnt from working

with other people. I understand that I am better at co-ordinating a project than

leading one. It is very satisfying when a colleague recognises your strengths and is

able to support you'.

Macdonald (2006) argues that blended learning can provide challenges for students as

learning on line may require more independence, self direction and autonomy in relation

to their study. It may be that mature students are better equipped to study independently,

skilled at time management and more likely to use reflective skills. The advantage of

blended learning is that the face to face element can help to maintain and reinforce those

skills needed to develop understanding and construct meanings. Instead of receiving

information from a lecturer, the web based discourse should encourage students to find

information and help them reflect and find meaning. As one student commented;

'it has been a very stimulating way to learn and I liked the fact that we as a group,

support and develop our own practice and knowledge. (There is) Much more

access to information as each person brings their own experience and learning'.

Another said;

'I found that before using the discourse I was perhaps quite narrow minded or

naive within my opinions and attitudes, whereas through participating in the

discourse I have been able to gain a deeper understanding of the wider aspect of

diversity, in addition it has made me reflect on my own views and working practice

and to review the policies and procedures within my setting'.

The comments demonstrated that the process of sharing information and knowledge, and

contributing to the discussion, consolidated and improved understandings.

Weller (2007) comments that assessment is the driver that motivates students and,

interestingly, the mature students remarked that they would have preferred the web based

discourse element to be fine graded rather than pass/fail as they valued the lecturer’s

opinion of the standard and academic level of their discussion. These students had just

completed a Foundation Degree and were concerned about progressing to higher

education study at level 3, with its increased expectation of analysis and evaluation. This

contrasted with the approach taken by the majority of undergraduate students, some

of whom posted one sentence answers using mobile phone ‘text’ language. Protocols

were developed during the first semester, explaining the style of writing expected during

the discourse and the difference between the use of the discussion forum and informal e

mail chat. The protocols had to be clear as to how often the lecturer would log on,

and the length and academic level of the responses, so that levels of commitment were

clear to both parties from the beginning. The mature students remarked that they thought

the e-moderator should have contributed more frequently to their commentaries and they

were disappointed to find that, at times, there had been no response. It became apparent

that praise and encouragement was essential to encourage motivation and enhance student

confidence.

Luff and Pryor

84

Sketchbook learning journals

The sketchbooks allowed all students to record and store information, thus creating a

record of the learning that took place during the module. This contrasts with other forms

of assessment in which just a small part of the module content becomes the focus for an

assignment. Students who engaged with the module content throughout the academic

year demonstrated a building of knowledge. One student described her journal becoming

“sort of like a Bible”, and many expected to return to their sketchbooks for future

reference. A mature student, who is intending to set up her own nursery, expressed an

intention to display the sketchbook on the premises to explain her educational philosophy

to colleagues and parents.

Park (2003: 193) reports that learning journals encourage students to focus on the whole

of their course and “construct their own synthesis of the course material”. Likewise, in

their sketchbooks students brought together ideas from lectures, seminars, fieldwork and

reading in order to create their own arguments and present their developing views about

the curriculum for young children. Documenting learning in this way, over time, also

assisted students in seeing relationships between different parts of the module:

“You can see the links between ideas as you go backwards and forwards”; and to

consolidate their learning: “in an essay you can get away with writing something

even if you don’t fully understand it but I really know about everything I have put

into my sketchbook. You can’t fault it as a learning tool.”

There is evidence in most of the sketchbook assignments of genuine enquiry, analysis and

critique. Students gained confidence in discussing theory through analysing their

fieldwork, looking at practice in early childhood settings, and linking this with reading

and research. Many students’ ideas changed and became more sophisticated throughout

the module. Most typically they moved away from a simple understanding of the early

childhood curriculum as a set of guidelines and standards to be followed and gained an

appreciation of curriculum as dynamic and multifaceted;

“the process which emerges from the child’s interests and allows each individual

child to develop essential skills for life through their interaction with adults, the

environment and their play activities.”

Some students reflected explicitly on this change, one wrote;

“I discovered that my knowledge of the curriculum was basic and limited. It is far

more complex than I first thought ....”

Interestingly, a student who is already a confident critic of the English education system

began to moderate her view and admitted to discovering that;

“curriculum does not necessarily equal oppression!”

The usefulness of this type of assignment as a tool to support learning is indicated by

students who intend to continue working with this type of learning journal. One student

who did not pass the module at the first attempt, but who only needed to add further

Enhancing Learning?

85

evidence of having met one learning outcome, chose instead to prepare a completely new

sketchbook. She saw it as a way of deepening her knowledge of Montessori method in

preparation for her final year major project. Another student, also looking ahead to her

major project, asked whether she could submit a sketchbook journal as an appendix to a

study of children’s creativity. A third student said that she would use a learning journal in

order to gather, organise and reflect upon material to be included in her project.

Our professional learning from this project

Our findings indicate that sketchbook learning journals and web-based discourse can be

used as tools in support of our efforts to teach in order to make learning possible

(Ramsden, 2004). We have begun to understand how assessment can extend thinking and

now more fully appreciate the benefits of integrating assessment with students’ learning

throughout a taught module, rather than setting an assignment in order to test knowledge

and understanding once the module has been completed. Whilst we have cited our

positive findings above, we have also taken into account negative feedback from students

(for example, concerns about workload and anxiety in interpreting tutor expectations) and

will use this to inform our presentation of these assignments in the future.

It is apparent that, in an assessment culture dominated by prescribed learning outcomes,

more innovative forms of assessment may open spaces for self expression and

independent learning and offer both the student and the lecturer greater flexibility in their

approaches to learning. However the study has shown that skills of self-direction need to

be carefully nurtured, enabled in part by the guidance on boundaries, expectations and

levels of commitment given during the course. Mature students may be at an advantage

over the younger students, using their lifelong learning skills to better equip them to use

the skills of independent study. Responses suggest that students favour quite explicit

guidelines for their work and that lecturers need to be sensitive to this and balance

encouragement of independent, creative thought with structures that provide a basis from

which students can take responsibility, so that student confidence is maintained and

developed.

As with any reflective teaching and exploratory research, we are left with many questions

and much scope for future enquiry. Four particular issues arose in relation to both web-

based discourse and sketchbook learning journals. Firstly, whether the assessment tasks

were equitable? There was evidence that some students were more privileged than others,

for example in having unrestricted access to computers and fast internet connections or

more time and money to spend on their learning journals. Secondly, we began to question

whether we, as lecturers, were well equipped with the literacies required to assess

innovative tasks. In the most artistic of the learning journals, for example, much was

expressed through strong images and it was difficult to assess these visual statements.

Likewise, the e-tivities raised a debate about language with an expectation that the

students should use academic voices conflicting with the styles of on-line communication

that the undergraduate students were more accustomed to. Associated with this were the

third and fourth problems: the extent to which lecturers should allow and encourage

student autonomy, or direct the tasks and lead learners towards specific learning

outcomes; and the challenge of engaging reluctant participants and enabling them to see

the value and relevance of the assessment tasks.

Luff and Pryor

86

Both assessment approaches were based upon the principle that learning is a social

process achieved in contexts that are meaningful, collaborative and reflective, which

foster motivation and positive dispositions towards study. To achieve these ideals,

learning and assessment activities need to be thought about and structured carefully so

that they are embedded into the course, with clarity of purpose, and thus become an

effective means of enhancing learning.

References

Ashcroft, K. and Foreman-Peck, L. (1994) Managing Teaching and Learning in Further

and Higher Education, London: Routledge-Falmer.

Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R. and Tarule, J.M. (1997) Women's Ways

of Knowing (2nd edn.) New York: BasicBooks

Brookfield, S.D. (1995) Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Campbell, A. and Norton, L. (2007) Learning, Teaching and Assessing in Higher

Education. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Clifford, V.A. (2002) ‘Does the use of journals as a form of assessment put into practice

principles of feminist pedagogy?’ Gender and Education 14 (2): 109-121.

Cowie, B. and Carr, M. (2004) ‘The Consequences of Socio-Cultural Assessment’, in

Anning, A., Cullen, J. and Fleer, M. (Eds.) Early Childhood Education, London,

Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.

Dart, B.C., Boulton-Lewis, G.M., Brownlee, J.M., and McCrindle, A.R. (1998) ‘Change

in knowledge of learning and teaching through journal writing’, Research Papers in

Education, 13 (3): 291-318.

Dunn, L., Morgan, C., O’Reilly, M. And Parry, S. (2004) The Student Assessment

Handbook: New Directions in Traditional & Online Assessment, London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Giudici, C., Rinaldi, C. and Krechevsky, M. (2001) Making Learning Visible, Reggio

Emilia: Reggio Children.

Goodfellow, R. and Lea, M. R. (2005) ‘Supporting writing for assessment in online

learning’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (3) June 2005 261-271.

Jacques, D. and Salmon, G. (2007) Learning in Groups. A Handbook for face-to-face and

online environments, (4th ed.) London. Routledge.

Heath, H. (1998) ‘Keeping a reflective practice diary: a practical guide’, Nurse Education

Today, 18 (18): 592-598.

Enhancing Learning?

87

Haigh, M.J. (2001) ‘Constructing Gaia: using journals to foster reflective learning’,

Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 25 (2): 167-189.

Hounsell, D., Falchikov., N., Klampfleitner, M., Huxham, M., Thomson, K. and Blair, S.

(2007) ‘Innovative assessment across the disciplines, An analytical review of the

literature, Final Report’. York: Higher Education Academy. Online. Available HTTP:

http://hca.ltsn.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/research/Innovative_assessment_LR

.pdf (accessed 14 June 2008).

Kozulin, A. (2003) ‘Psychological Tools and Mediated Learning’, in Kozulin, A., Gindis,

B., Ageyev, V.S. and Miller, S. (Eds) Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural

Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macdonald,J.(2006) Blended Learning and Online Tutoring: A Good Practice Guide,

Hampshire: Gower Publishing.

Maier, P. and Warren, A., (2000) Integrating Technology in Learning and Teaching – a

practical guide for educators. London. Kogan Page

Merriam, S.B. (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moon, J (2006) Learning Journals (2nd

edn.) London and New York: Routledge.

Park, C. (2003) ‘Engaging students in the learning process: The learning journal’, Journal

of Geography in Higher Education, 27 (2): 183-199.

Ramsden, P. (2004) Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd

edn.) London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Reichardt, C.S. and Cook, T.D. (1979) Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in

Evaluation Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rinaldi, C. (2006) In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia, London and New York: Routledge.

Robinson, G., Hulston, D. and Mountain, A. (2007) ‘Think inside the sketchbook a

playground for ideas’, Cambridge: Teknoy Press.

Rogoff, B. (1998) Cognition as a Collaborative Process. In Kuhn, D. and Siegler, R.S.

(Eds.) Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 2 (5th

Edn.) New York: John Wiley.

Salmon, G. (2000) E moderating. The key to teaching and learning online, (2nd edn).

London: Taylor and Francis.

Sanders, J.R. (1981) ‘Case Study Methodology: A Critique, In W.W. Welsh (Ed) Case

Study Research in Educational Evaluation. Proceedings of the Minnesota Evaluation

Conference. Minneapolis: Minnesota Research and Evaluation Center.

Stake, J. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research, London, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Luff and Pryor

88

Taras, M (2002) ‘Using Assessment for Learning and Learning for Assessment’,

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27 (6) 501 – 510.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological

Processes. Cole, M., John-Steiner,V., Scribner, S. and Souberman, E. (Eds.). Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1981) ‘The Genesis of Higher Mental Functions’. In Wertsch, J.V. (Ed.)

The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1986 / 1934) Thought and Language. Kozulin, A. (Ed.) Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Weller, M. (2007) Virtual Learning Environments. Using choosing and developing your

VLE, London: Routledge.

PRIME Volume 3(2)

89

A Non-mathematical Framework for Developing the

Conceptual Understanding of Classical Mechanics

Peter Vivian

Blackpool and The Fylde College, School of Art & Design in collaboration with

Coventry University

Summary

The existence of a maths problem with the teaching of engineering science is well

documented and shows little sign of abating. Obviously, engineers need mathematics to

prove the efficacy of their designs but there is also a perception of the need for

mathematics as a means of teaching the conceptual nature of engineering. This paper

questions this assumption and suggests that we make more effective use of the existing,

well developed, semantic language of classical mechanics.

It is the aim of this research to develop a scheme of graphic communication that will

enable students to develop their awareness of the basic concepts of classical mechanics

without the use of mathematics, to develop their spatial abilities through graphic

manipulation and to aid their application of mathematics. This paper outlines a

framework to enable educators and students to take advantage of this scheme either on-

line or in the classroom.

Introduction

This research arose out of attempts to teach the basics of classical mechanics to BA

Technical Illustration students without recourse to mathematics. These students were

interested in the subject but did not want to do any mathematics, perceiving the

mathematical approach to be physics and of no interest to them. Research has shown that

this anecdotal evidence is a small example of what is called the 'maths problem' and it is

perceived by academics to be a major problem in the education of engineers (Kent &

Noss 2003: 24).

Kent & Noss (2003: 18, 30) state that 'no one dissents' from the use of mathematics to

communicate the conceptual basis of mechanics but do themselves question (Kent &

Noss, 2003: 28) whether mathematical fluency is a prerequisite to learning the principles

of engineering in general. Ironically, practising engineers do not appear to agree with the

academic community seeing mathematics as numerical manipulation and calculation

rather than as a language for conceptual communication (Kent & Noss, 2003: 18). The

university academic community is also disappointed with the level of understanding of

mechanics of their new students, which Lee et al refer to as a 'mechanics problem' (2006:

1), but this is also seen as part of the 'maths problem' (Lee et al 2006: 37). However, Lee

et al (2006: 37) also argue that the HE academic community cannot expect the schools to

change their approach to teaching - a sentiment that has been reiterated to good effect in

this conference (PRHE 2008).

One of the solutions proposed by Kent & Noss (2003: 38) is the use of multimedia, who

referring to it as 'the use of mathematics before understanding mathematics'. Multimedia

Vivian

90

enables students to investigate cause and effect much in the same way as traditional

laboratory work and personal experience. Modern computer game technology can be

successfully adapted to this purpose (Darling et al 2008: 9). Another variation on the

laboratory exercise is to develop physical examples that demonstrate the effect of

principles (Ji & Bell 2008).

As this paper will show, the strategy of relying on multimedia has a basic flaw when

considering the development of conceptual understanding. Multimedia is a depiction

system that can be used to explore cause and effect but it cannot be used to explain the

nature of the relationship between the cause and the effect. That requires a description

system and traditionally this is considered to be mathematics. For example, the adaptation

of a computer game (Darling et al 2008) for educational purposes necessitated the

inclusion of mathematical graphs, i.e. a description system, to aid conceptual

understanding.

Graphic communication

A number of studies have attempted to categorise graphic representations based on

characteristics of graphic communication and as a result imply spectrums of variability

from figurative pictures to arbitrary text.

� Tyman (1979) argued for 6 methods of configuration and 4 modes of

symbolization resulting in 24 categories.

� Richards (1984) used modes of depiction, correspondence and noun-verb

space resulting in 8 categories.

� Lohse (1990) attempted to identify 'homogeneous' clusters and came up

with 5 major groups.

� Englehardt (2002), as well as identifying types of correspondence and

expression, identified 10 primary types of representation with a further 6

hybrid types.

When it comes to the form of representation commonly referred to as diagrams, the above

studies failed to identify a form of communication called semasiographic writing systems

(Sampson 1985: 28-32). For example, the vector diagram, which presumably would be

categorized by Engelhardt (2002) as some form of 'link diagram' owing to its use of

arrows, is not actually a diagram but a semasiographic writing system.

Shimojima (1999) was concerned with defining the difference between text, i.e. the

arbitrary representation of spoken language, and graphic representations. Identifying this

distinction is made problematic because there are non-textual graphic representations that

are semasiographic writing systems and work just like text, though being designed for a

specialized communication, they are narrower in scope.

Norman (2000) tried to differentiate diagrams from description systems and depiction

systems, again failing to recognize that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a

diagram is a form of depiction system and that many graphic representations today,

Conceptual Understanding of Classical Mechanics

91

which are often called diagrams, are either a mixture of schematic depiction and

symbolic description (e.g. an engineering drawing), or a symbolic system in their own

right (e.g. vector diagram, flow diagram, organization chart). It is normal for graphic

representations attempting to communicate a message in a direct or literal manner to

include text in a supportive role. Horn (1998) is quite explicit about this role of text in

graphic communication but again fails to explicitly identify the semasiographic nature of

the other graphic systems.

Figure 1: The two types of graphic communication

To conclude, graphic communication is usually a mixture of two distinct types of graphic

communication (See figure 1):

� Depiction systems: These are used to represent the physical form of

objects. The most figurative being photographs. Drawings and paintings

have less detail, diagrams and schematic representations even less and

geometry is used to represent basic shapes.

� Description systems: These are used to transmit conceptual information.

These writing or symbol systems are interpreted by literate readers

competent in the graphic language.

In figure 1, I have chosen an image of Chinese to represent writing systems to make an

important point. Assuming that you cannot read Chinese, you will still recognise this as a

writing system though you will not be able to read it. However, the use of symbol

systems in graphic communication is on the increase but it seems that we may not

recognize them to be semasiographic writing systems. Take for example the road sign in

figure 2.

Vivian

92

Remove the text and you may still recognise that turning left leads to the airport and

turning right leads to a motorway. The coloured boxes and symbols are part of the road

sign symbol system. Many of the symbols have to be placed in specific spatial positions

relative to other symbols and the physical surroundings. In sentences, words have to

positioned in the correct spatial position relative to other words in order to make sense.

This is called the grammar of the writing system. The road traffic symbol system also has

a grammar.

Figure 2: A common example of hybrid graphic communication

Next, remove the symbols as well and we are left with a diagram – a schematic

representation of the roundabout. This too has conventions that have to be learned. These

show that you have to go round in a clockwise direction and only the 1st, 3rd and 5th

roads are exits.

It is perhaps fortuitous that this research, focussing as it does on the graphic

communication within a single community by a member of that community, was able to

identify the existence of a distinct semasiographic language.

Graphic communication in classical mechanics

The study of the textbooks of elementary mechanics over the last 200 years showed a

shift from relying on text supported by some drawings (figurative, diagrammatic and

geometric) to mathematics supported by text and the free body diagram, itself a

combination of diagram, symbol system and text.

Conceptual Understanding of Classical Mechanics

93

For much of the 19th century, communication relied on textual description often without

the aid of pictures. When used, the pictures were in separate plates and mainly geometric

in nature though there were attempts at more figurative illustration. As printing

technology evolved, the pictures were merged with the text, arrows started being added to

geometric depictions to indicate direction and simple mathematical expressions were

being introduced into the textual description.

By the 20th century, there was more reliance on algebraic equations and for linear motion

at least, the geometric representation of velocity was evolving into the velocity-time

graph. Sections of explanation are now followed by examples for the student to solve,

with the answers at the back of the book.

During the first half of the 20th century, the format of the modern text book was

established. Mathematical explanations, supported by text, are followed by worked

examples and there are problems for the student to solve. The picture, heavily abstracted

of detail, was used to depict a physical context for the subsequent mathematical

explanation. By the latter part of the 20th century, the use of vectors in schematic

depiction and mathematical description had become firmly established.

This is clearly a crude overview but it serves to show the general trend away from textual

description supported by geometrical representation towards mathematical and textual

description supported by diagrammatic depiction. The use of pictorial representation of

scenarios and experimental equipment had also virtually disappeared by the early 20th

century.

Figure 3: The graphic communication mix in classical mechanics

This research has identified two basic types of graphic communication, which are now

illustrated in the context of classical mechanics (See figure 3):

Vivian

94

� The form of physical objects are communicated using depiction systems.

As we move from photograph, though drawing to diagrams and finally

geometry, detail is being abstracted out of the depiction, leaving only that

which is required for the purpose of the communication.

� Concepts, having no physical form, cannot be depicted and have to be

explained using some form of description system. As we move from text,

through mathematics to a symbol system, the language is losing scope.

The identification of a Classical Mechanics symbol system, complete with

a grammar, is another outcome of this research.

In the teaching of the concepts of classical mechanics, the primary means is now through

the use of mathematics, a description system, supported by Free Body Diagrams, a

depiction-description system hybrid.

Hypothesis of this research

This distinction between depiction and description systems of graphic communication is

fundamental to this research. Description systems are able to communicate about

concepts because the participants share a semantic understanding of the symbols and their

syntax i.e. they share a common language.

Participants can also communicate using both systems in an indirect form of

correspondence i.e. metaphor, analogy and simile; allegory; metonymy and synecdoche.

Discussion of this aspect of graphic communication is outside the scope of this paper.

As Sampson (1985: 48) observed, the earliest writing systems evolved to make

communication more effective for specific purposes. Such languages may be incomplete

or restricted by today's standard of text but that does not detract from their usefulness. In

engineering terms, they were 'fit for purpose'. The research into text-books over the last

200 years has identified a number of exemplars of graphic explanation that could be

further developed. Similarly, the symbol system of classical mechanics, together with the

use of diagram and geometry, was evolving into a very effective language for explaining

the concepts of classical mechanics. This evolution appears to have ceased as

mathematics took over. The quest for solutions to the resulting 'maths problem' and the

quest for a 'new symbolisms' using multimedia (Kent & Noss 2003: 6) may renew that

evolution.

It is the hypothesis of this research is that there is a better mix (see figure 4) for teaching

the basic concepts of classical mechanics.

� Conceptual explanation should rely primarily on the use of an enhanced

form of Free Body Diagram, combining diagram, geometry and the

symbol system, presented in the form of a storyboard. This can be done in

sketch form or by using vector-based drawing software. Note that such

software is based on the same vector concepts it is describing.

� When the physical scenario is absent, context can be provided by the use

of figurative depiction in the form of digital photography. i.e. in the

classroom, in text-book or on-line.

Conceptual Understanding of Classical Mechanics

95

� When the tutor is absent, further explanation can be provided by text or

audio. i.e. in text-book or on-line.

Figure 4: Suggested graphic communication mix

A computer is not essential, though modern digital technology enables this form of

communication to be freely and easily reproduced. There is also evidence to suggest that

students today are happier to use digital drawing software than conventional hand

drawing equipment (Arthur, 2007). It should also be noted that this software enables the

use of new, more meaningful, graphic manipulations that are not possible with paper and

pencil.

This approach should be a more effective graphic language for teaching and learning the

concepts of classical mechanics because that language had been evolving for precisely

that purpose. Being narrower in scope, it is much easier to learn than mathematics and

being more isomorphic with the subject, it should be easier to use than mathematics.

Newton's second law of motion

Take for example, the statements of Newton's 2nd Law using text, mathematics and the

symbol system (see figure 5).

Newton's statement translates into mathematics as an apparently simple equation (figure

5b). However, students will only appreciate the full scope of this statement if they

understand that <F> and <a> represent vectors, what the <=> sign means in terms of

vectors, what multiplying a vector by a constant <m> does to a vector and that the

existing velocity of the mass is irrelevant.

Vivian

96

The law can be written using the Classical Mechanics symbol system (figure 5c). Once

again, the reader has to understand the meaning of the various symbols but here the

significance of their spatial arrangement, i.e. their grammar, is visually obvious - they all

have to be in-line. The image is explicit about the spatial relationship between force and

acceleration, and their shared line of action.

Figure 5: Representations of Newton's 2nd Law

Fortuitously, vector arrows are so isomorphic that if they are drawn to scale, they can be

used to make calculations. The length of the arrow is a metaphoric representation of the

magnitude of the property the arrow represents. Graphic calculation reached its peak at

the latter half of the 19th century with Karl Culmann and Graphic Statics but there is no

suggestion in this research that we should go back to those methods of quantification.

However, the scaling of the arrows can be used for conceptual explanation and qualitative

analysis. In this case, doubling the length of one arrow, doubles the length of the other.

Isomorphic symbol systems

For a symbol system to be isomorphic, the relationship between its symbols would need

to be the same as the relationship between the concepts they denote. No symbol system

can be 100% isomorphic, though some systems are more so than others. Text is not

isomorphic. In Mathematics, the relationship between the symbols have isomorphic

properties.

Figure 6 is designed to illustrate the significance of isomorphism in symbol systems. Text

is first translated into mathematics. The mathematics can be manipulated to derive a new

relationship. The new relationship can then be translated back into text. Note that text,

bearing no direct relationship to physical reality, cannot be manipulated in this fashion. It

is this ability to derive new knowledge by the manipulation of the symbols that makes

mathematics such a powerful a tool for science.

Conceptual Understanding of Classical Mechanics

97

Classical Mechanics is more isomorphic than Mathematics - its symbols are motivated

and the physical spatial relationships between them correspond better with reality. Before

demonstrating the isomorphic properties of the Classical Mechanics symbol system, an

important aspect of the thesis of this research needs to be presented.

Figure 6: Translation and manipulation of a symbol system

In order to translate a reality into a mathematical model, the student needs to be

sufficiently fluent in the language of mathematics to be able to create and manipulate that

model. Reality is complicated, so inevitably simplifying assumptions about reality have

to be made in order to enable the student to use the mathematical skills they possess.

Using simplifying assumptions means simplifying reality and consequently limiting the

depth of understanding possible about that reality. Furthermore, since classical mechanics

is a very familiar reality, the simplification is obviously unrealistic and undermines the

perceived relevance of applied mathematics as a subject. Mechanics, being presented as a

branch of applied mathematics, may also be seen as irrelevant. Since mathematics is an

esoteric language, mechanics may also be perceived as too difficult to learn. Considering

that most people can learn intuitively how to kick a ball or ride a bicycle, this would seem

to be a false perception.

In short, the reliance on mathematics as a medium for conceptual learning of classical

mechanics is itself both a limiting factor and a de-motivating factor on that learning.

Proposed scheme of graphic communication

By way of an example of conceptual explanation using the symbol system, consider a

projectile moving through the air under the influence of gravity (Figure 7a).

Vivian

98

Since text represents speech, it is a one-dimensional or linear symbol system. Words are

strung together to create sentences and sentences are strung together to tell stories. With a

two-dimensional symbol system, the sentences are replaced by two-dimensional arrays of

symbols and the story is told using a storyboard as in figures 7, 8 and 9.

Figure 7: Storyboard analysis of projectile.

Figure 8: Storyboard analysis of projectile (continued).

Conceptual Understanding of Classical Mechanics

99

Actually, there are 17 such 'sentences' in this story, which have been collated into 5

images purely for the printing convenience of this paper. Although these images have

been created using digital software, the symbols are deliberately imprecise to connote that

they could be drawn by hand, and the text boxes are used to connote that they could be

replaced by speech. A tutor could take students through this story using a whiteboard or

pencil and paper.

Figure 9: Storyboard analysis of projectile (continued).

This storyboard has considered the problem of the projectile including the fact that the air

creates resistance. Further analysis would explain how that resistance changes with speed,

thus affecting the overall shape of the trajectory. In the analysis of projectiles, it is normal

for textbooks to ignore the effect of air resistance making the mathematics simpler but in

so doing making the scenario unrealistic.

Figure 10: A commonplace projectile

Vivian

100

A more complex, yet common, scenario of spinning a ball to create a curved trajectory

(figure 10) is even harder to analyse mathematically but it too can be explained using the

symbol system.

Proposed pedagogic framework

The scheme described in the previous section is designed to replace mathematical

analysis in an otherwise traditional framework for teaching engineering science. The

framework is being implemented in the form of a Moodle course. Moodle is an open-

source Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) based on social constructivist pedagogy

(Moodle, 2008). At the moment the course is restricted to staff and students at Blackpool

& The Fylde College but towards the end of the research it is planned to make it freely

available on the world wide web, thus enabling access by any parties interested in this

work.

Figure 11: Proposed pedagogic framework

Figure 11 shows the basic structure of the course. Each Moodle course can be split into

blocks of related resources and activities called topics. In this case, there are three types

of topic:

Conceptual Understanding of Classical Mechanics

101

� Language: Introduces the student to the writing system of classical

mechanics – its signs and grammar, to a restricted geometry based on vector

graphics software and to a glossary of terms, supported by further semantic

explanations. The glossary is automatically linked to the other blocks using

hypertext.

� Exemplars: Many excellent conceptual explanations have been developed

in the field of classical mechanics, some of which have fallen into disuse.

These explanations can be translated into a more contemporary style using

the writing system of classical mechanics and they can provide a basis for

further conceptual development.

� Exercises: As with a normal engineering course, the teaching strategy uses

exercises to motivate students to develop and check their understanding. As

well as providing practice in graphic construction and communication, the

exercises are designed to provide a context for deeper conceptual

development. Participation in the exercises motivates the desire for greater

conceptual understanding.

The combination of the glossary, exemplar developments and exercises results in a lot of

repetition of explanation. This repetition is deliberate. What does not work for a student

in one context, may in another, and the plan is that with perseverance the student will be

rewarded by passing through a 'conceptual gateway that leads to a ‘transformed view'

(Meyer & Land 2006: 19) of classical mechanics and of the world.

In the Moodle VLE environment, the students can be allocated to groups and the on-line

activities can be used in differing modes of group operation.

� No groups: All the students work together as a single cohort.

� Visible groups: Students work in groups but they can see the activity of

other groups.

� Separate groups: Students work in groups and cannot see the activity of

other groups.

These modes are logistically significant as they enable disparate groups of students to

share common resources. The group could be from a single school, FE or HE institution,

or be comprised of individuals who share a common desire to work together to further

develop their understanding of classical mechanics.

Institutions can choose how they would utilize this course.

� On-line: The students access the resources and participate in the activities

on-line. No formal class contact is at the institution.

� Classroom: The institution can download all the explanations and

exercises (in Power Point format) and use them for classroom

presentation. All activity is institution based and students do not have

access to the Moodle course.

� Blended: The students have access to the Moodle course but their level of

involvement is directed and supervised by the institution.

Vivian

102

The framework can be integrated into existing courses, which would have to specify the

level of involvement expected of the student, or it can be used by students as an

additional resource either before or during their study at university.

Conclusions

This research has identified that:

• There are two distinct forms of direct graphic communication – Description

and Depiction.

• There exists in classical mechanics a well developed but under-utilised

semasiographic symbol system.

• The Free Body Diagram is a combination of a depiction system, i.e.

diagram and a description system, i.e. the symbol system.

There is a theoretical basis for the hypothesis that an enhanced form of the Free Body

Diagram could be more effective than mathematics for conceptual communication of

classical mechanics.

A scheme has been designed and integrated into a pedagogic framework.

This framework is now being offered for trial as a palliative solution to the 'maths'

problem

Bibliography

Arthur, Kennedy. (2007) How dyslexia can affect an illustrator in a working environment

[Unpublished dissertation]: Blackpool & the Fylde College

Darling, Jos, Drew, Ben., Joiner, Richard, Lacovides, Loanna and Gavin, Carl. (2008)

Game-Based Learning in Engineering Education. Proceedings of the International

Conference on Innovation, Good Practice and Research in Engineering Education.

EE2008 held 14-16 July 2008 at Loughborough University, England.

Engelhardt, Jorg von. (2002) The Language of Graphics Amsterdam: ILLC-publications

Ji, Tianjian and Bell, Adrian. (2008) Enhancing the Teaching and Learning of Structural

Concepts through Experience of Seeing and Touching. Proceedings of the International

Conference on Innovation, Good Practice and Research in Engineering Education.

EE2008 held 14-16 July 2008 at Loughborough University, England.

Horn, Robert, E. (1998) Visual Language Washington, USA: MacroVU

Kent, Phillip and Noss, Richard. (2003) Mathematics in the university education of

engineers London: Ove Arup Foundation

Conceptual Understanding of Classical Mechanics

103

Lee, Stephen., Harrison, Martin, C. and Robinson, Carol, L. (2006) Engineering students'

knowledge of mechanics upon arrival: expectation and reality. Engineering Education 1,

(1) 32-38

Lohse, Jerry, Rueter, Henry, Biolsi, Kevin. and Walker, Neff. (1990) Classifying Visual

Knowledge Representations: A foundation for visual research. University of Michigan:

Cognitive Science and Machine Intelligence Laboratory

Meyer, Jan and Land, Ray. (Eds) (2006) Overcoming barriers to student understanding :

threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge London: Routledge

Moodle (2008) Philosophy [online] available at http://docs.moodle.org/en/Philosophy

(Accessed 21 Jan 2008)

Norman, Jesse. (2000) Differentiating Diagrams In Anderson, Michael, Cheng, Peter, and

Haarslev, Volker. (Eds) Diagrams 2000: Proceedings of first international conference on

Theory and Application of Diagrams Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag

PRHE (2008) Curriculum change for Learning. 2nd International Pedagogical Research

in Higher Education Conference. PRHE2008 held 16th - 17th June 2008 at Liverpool

Hope University: Liverpool, England.

Richards, Clive (1984) Diagrammatics [Unpublished PhD Thesis] London: Royal

College of Arts

Sampson, Geoffrey (1985) Writing Systems London: Hutchinson & Co

Shimojima, Atsushi. (1999) The Graphic-Linguistic Distinction Artificial Intelligence

Twyman, Michael. (1979) A Schema for the Study of Graphic Language In Kolers, Paul,

Wrolstad A. and Merald E. (Eds) Processing Visual Language (Volume 1) New York:

Plenum Press

PRIME Volume 3(2)

105

Encouraging Reason: A pragmatic approach to dialogic

teaching in the primary school.

John Smith

Manchester Metropolitan University Institute of Education

Summary

In this paper a pilot project to develop “dialogic teaching” within a primary school is

described the background to the project and some of its implications are also described.

This project has involved both school and Higher Education Institution (HEI) colleagues

and has strengthened the links between the two as they have worked together, in a

pragmatic, problem-solving manner, to implement pedagogical and curriculum change.

PRHE Conference themes – “developing curriculum for the 21st century” and

“implementing curriculum change in a traditional context”.

The uneven development of oracy in the primary classroom

How does the busy teacher help children to develop the closely connected skills of

talking and thinking? Common sense might suggest that they will simply develop as the

child matures and as by-products of intellectual energy expended elsewhere. This

contention may well be true up to a point but I would argue that the development of these

skills can be greatly assisted by a carefully chosen range of strategies. It is important to

contextualise current developments in classroom practice by considering relevant

initiatives from recent decades.

The significance of what has increasingly been referred to as “oracy” (as distinct from

literacy) has been appreciated for many years but its development in the primary

classroom has been uneven and it has often been less carefully planned for than literacy.

By the 1960s, educational sociologists such as Bernstein (eg Bernstein 1973) and Barnes

(Barnes, et al 1969) had begun to identify differences in language use which appeared to

be related to socio-economic background and to be educationally significant. (A useful

and concise summary of these developments is given in Alexander 2006.) The work of

Basil Bernstein in the 1950s and 1960s is particularly relevant to the current of thought

underpinning the present paper. Bernstein suggested that the spoken language which

children from different socio-economic groups brought into school was educationally

advantageous in the case of the “middle class” and disadvantageous in the case of the

“working class”. (An exploration of the suitability of such labels for social class in

contemporary society would be extremely useful but is beyond the scope of the present

paper.) Bernstein labelled the language form which allowed middle class children greater

educational access an “elaborated code” and he contrasted this with the “restricted code”

which was the typical form of language used by children from the working class.

Bernstein’s early work was concerned, in part at least, with identifying the key features of

these linguistic variants and for a time – notably around the time that the Plowden Report

(DES, 1967) was published - these ideas were widely regarded as being not only

important but as relatively unproblematic. Promoted by HEIs along with other compatible

theories, they began to influence attitudes and approaches to classroom uses of spoken

language.

Smith

106

This development was more or less stopped in its tracks by a growing unease about the

implications of Bernstein’s theories, an unease voiced most famously by the American

linguist William Labov (1969) who claimed that the theories advanced by Bernstein and

others took insufficient account of the quality of thinking which underlay the surface

appearance of non-standard English use. The “linguistic deficit” model, as it came to be

known, was seen by many to have been discredited, despite claims by Bernstein that his

theory was actually concerned with linguistic difference, rather than deficit.

In the 1970s, two further developments had significant influence, for a time at least, upon

primary practice. The work of Joan Tough for the Schools Council (see, for example,

Tough, 1977) re-opened the quest to develop more advantageous language varieties

among children and promoted interventionist strategies to boost the language skills of

those children needing the greatest assistance. The notion of linguistic disadvantage

seemed to have become a less contentious issue than it had been when Bernstein’s ideas

were debated. The Bullock Report (DES 1975) located the development of spoken

English at the core of English teaching, on its own and across the curriculum, and it too

encouraged a range of imaginative classroom initiatives. The National Oracy Project,

which ran from 1987 to 1993, was a further spur to the development of spoken English

but, as the National Literacy Strategy (DfEE 1998) and other centralised approaches to

the primary curriculum took hold, the pursuit of oracy appeared once again to have

become subordinated to the pursuit of literacy.

In this decade there appears to have been a significant revival of interest in oracy. There

is growing concern about the difficulties faced by children who enter school with poor

language skills and a variety of intervention initiatives have arisen in an attempt to

remediate these difficulties. (See, for example, the website of “Stoke Speaks Out”, a

project based in an area facing acute problems of this kind.) Another initiative, highly

significant and especially relevant to the present study, is that of “dialogic teaching”,

associated particularly with the work of Robin Alexander (eg Alexander, 2006) which

will be explored a little more in the following section.

Dialogic teaching and its links to thinking skills

Dialogic teaching is a label for a model which is being developed as an alternative to the

dominant teaching model in UK primary schools. In the latter, children’s experience of

classroom talk is often limited both in quantity and in scope. Alexander (2006) makes a

powerful case for a different approach to classroom talk, one which would allow for

richer dialogue – hence “dialogic teaching” - between teacher and pupil and between

pupil and pupil. Essential features of dialogic teaching (from Alexander, 2006) are that it

is:

Collective

Reciprocal

Supportive

Cumulative

Purposeful

The term “dialogic teaching” does not describe one particular approach. Rather it is a set

of criteria – essentially those identified above – which a variety of approaches can be

measured against. Dialogic teaching “demands a repertoire of teaching skills and

Encouraging Reason

107

techniques, all underpinned by clear educational principles, and…this repertoire probably

includes such traditional – and in some quarters despised – procedures as rote, recitation

and exposition.” (Alexander 2006, p 36.)

One approach which pre-dates the notion of dialogic teaching but which provides an

extremely close match to its criteria is that of “Philosophy for Children” (P4C), an

approach to the development of thinking skills. Originating in the USA and arising from

the work of Matthew Lipman (eg Lipman, 1991), P4C has been developed internationally

and is growing in influence in this country (see Fisher, 2003, Haynes, 2008 and the

website of the Sapere organisation.) P4C endeavours to establish “communities of

enquiry” within primary classrooms in which the P4C trained facilitator (typically the

class teacher) provides an initial stimulus and children then consider questions which

they identify in a deep and systematic way. Great importance is attached to the notion of

“reason”, in its dual senses of “being able to reason” and “being reasonable”.

The similarities between Alexander’s criteria for dialogic teaching and the P4C approach

become evident when Lipman’s “community behaviours” (Lipman, 1991, p 52) are

considered. These include the suggestions that:

Members question one another…

Members build on one another’s ideas

Members deliberate among themselves

Members cooperate in the development of rational problem-solving techniques

I had had a growing interest in Alexander’s notion of dialogic teaching and I had been

trained in P4C when an interesting opportunity arose to put these into practice in a school

context.

Background to the school-based project

The school in which this project has been located is a very large South Manchester

primary school, close to the university campus where I work. It is a high-performing

school and its intake contains children with a wide variety of first languages and ethnic

backgrounds. Its proximity to the university campus and a number of other fortuitous

circumstances, including a head teacher and staff who welcome collaborative

professional development work, have meant that we have worked on a range of projects

over a number of years, particularly in relation to primary mathematics. (See Smith and

Walsh, 2008 for further details of some of this work). Because of the close and

extremely beneficial working relationships which have evolved, the Head Teacher and I

negotiated a project in which I would lead sessions of P4C within the school in order to

further the dialogic teaching which had already developed there.

An important background factor has been the school’s commitment to “Kagan

structures”. This is an approach to cooperative learning pioneered by the US

educationalist Spencer Kagan (see, for example, Kagan, 2000) and involves teachers

planning very carefully the groupings, routines and other procedures affecting the

classroom in order to maximise, and to create more equal access (as far as possible) to the

talk and thinking which take place. Like P4C, the Kagan approach contains a strong

ethical core and many of its practices appeal to children’s sense of reason in both of the

Smith

108

senses described earlier. It is therefore a compatible approach to P4C and created an

extremely useful background to my own work in school. The project had three stages:

• Working with a group of Year 6 children on sessions of P4C. These sessions took

place weekly over a half term and involved the same 12 children each time.

• Evaluation with children and staff with a view to further development in school in

school year 2008-9.

• Evaluation of the project to re-assess relationships between school and HEI and

trying to establish wider implications for Initial Teacher Training.

The first of these stages was completed in Summer Term 2008, the second was begun

then and will be completed in Autumn Term 2008 and the third is a wider, ongoing

objective.

Outcomes of the school-based project

The P4C project appeared to be very successful in terms of children’s enthusiasm. The

best illustrations that I can give of the effectiveness of the project in developing

children’s reasoning skills through spoken language are some extracts from one particular

enquiry which I video-taped for subsequent analysis. There were two stimuli for this

particular enquiry. The first was a letter from the War Office to my great great-

grandmother informing her that her son, my great uncle, was missing, presumed dead at

the Battle of Ypres in 1917 and the second was an extract from the children’s novel

“Private Peaceful” by Michael Morpurgo, which I read to them. The eponymous hero of

that novel deserted at the same battle as my great uncle had died and the children devised

a series of questions suggested by these stimuli. They then selected the question that they

wished to discuss which was:

Is it better to save your own life in war or is your country’s freedom and pride more

important and why?

Among the responses which children gave to this question and, importantly, to the

contributions of their peers, were the following:

Child A: I think it’s sort of a two-way question…If you desert your

country you’ll be known as a deserter but you’ll also be saving

yourself…maybe you’re the last person from your generation…If you’re

fighting for your country like B said, you may be dying but you may be

saving, like, a hundred other people…

Child C: Either way, if you stay or go you’re probably going to get killed

so if you stay you’re going to get killed…of your own accord…but if you

desert you’ll be caught eventually so there’s just no point. Either way

you’re just going to die.

Encouraging Reason

109

Child D: I’m just going to try and build on F and D’s points…Once you

go into war there’s no way out because either way you’re going to be

scarred for life. I mean, if you stay in the battle…it’ll scar you

emotionally and if your friends get killed you’ll be mentally messed up

inside your mind. Whereas if you were on the run, desert your army, it’ll

still scar you for life because you’re gonna feel that guilt inside you at

leaving your friends to die basically.

The clarity and force of these arguments are compelling and the children’s ability to take

account of the views expressed by other speakers is very impressive. Additionally, in this

discussion a real sense emerges of a compassionate approach to the issues under

consideration. The children thought readily of the effects of war upon the participants and

those close to them. They seemed very aware of the shock-waves which distant events

could send out to those who were emotionally tied to those directly affected. There was,

in short, real evidence of “emotional intelligence” (see Goleman 1996) in their dialogue.

I felt that the enquiries offered clear evidence too, of Alexander’s five criteria for dialogic

teaching, the talk within them being collective, reciprocal, supportive, cumulative and

purposeful.

After the sessions had ended I interviewed the children, the class teacher and the Head

Teacher, mostly on video once again to aid analysis. One of the children noted the

importance of the rules as a regulatory framework to guide their discussion.

Child A: If (the rule) hadn’t said “I will comment on the question not

on the person”, everyone would have commented on the person (laughing)

not the question.

Another child noted that:

Child C: It was good how…we tried not to make assumptions about

things, we all tried to be fair on each other.

The Head Teacher of the school made the following comments in his evaluation of this

stage of the project:

Philosophy for Children is not quite the same as the normal classroom

routine. The children have many more opportunities to think, many more

opportunities to discuss and to engage in a dialogue and in many respects

they have more opportunities to set the agenda themselves for their own

learning.

Another important point to note here is the extent to which these children engaged in

“metacognition”. This ability to reflect upon thinking – “thinking about thinking” as it is

sometimes called – is a high-order skill which the children demonstrated themselves

capable of during the enquiries and during the evaluations. The capacity to engage in

metacognition has long been recognised as a vital ingredient in the development of

thinking skills and has, for example, been a key element in the school-based research of

Professor Carol McGuinness at Queen’s University, Belfast (cited in James and Pollard,

2008).

Smith

110

The decision to extend my own project into school year 2008-9 has already been taken. It

is important now to consider the way that national developments in the primary

curriculum in this country seem to coincide with this development.

Current developments in policy

Somewhat confusingly, there are currently two major national reviews of the primary

curriculum taking place in this country and, although neither of the final reports of these

reviews have been published, there are some signs that dialogic teaching (whether or not

it bears that name) is likely to be recommended more widely by each body. The Primary

Review based at the University of Cambridge is directed by Robin Alexander, the author

of the key text on dialogic teaching cited in this paper. Howe and Mercer’s (2007)

Primary Review Research Survey gives a sympathetic analysis of many of the facets of

dialogic teaching (which in turn subsumes some of Mercer’s earlier work, eg Mercer,

2000). Conroy et al’s (2008) study for the same review gives extensive and encouraging

space to a consideration of both dialogic teaching and P4C.

The other review – labelled an Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum - is the

one led by Jim Rose and commissioned by the present government (in contrast to the

review considered in the previous paragraph) with a view to making recommendations

for curriculum changes in 2011. This second review is collecting evidence at the time of

writing but papers submitted to it seem to point towards a greater emphasis on thinking

skills in the primary school. Although this is not the same as dialogic teaching, there is

considerable overlap as I have suggested, and P4C, the approach discussed above, clearly

falls within this category. One evidence dossier submitted to this more recent review

states that:

The primary review should consider looking at the skills frameworks

which have been successfully implemented in some of the countries

indicated, to ensure that thinking, learning and personal skills are

sufficiently emphasised and taught across the curriculum.

(QCA, 2008)

It seems likely therefore, that the kind of work discussed in this paper will become more

widespread over the coming years.

Conclusion: Challenges for school-HEI partnerships

The dossier cited in the preceding paragraph also states that

If skills are going to be more appropriately and coherently expressed in a

new primary curriculum this will have pedagogic implications which need

to be considered.

(QCA, 2008)

Considering this issue requires a re-examination of the relationships between HEIs and

schools and the ways in which the former can assist the latter within schools partnership

work to support initial teacher training and continuing professional development.

Encouraging Reason

111

It seems to me that HEIs have a vital role to play in terms of ensuring academic rigour as

new approaches develop. There is a danger that busy teachers will otherwise be pushed

into a position where they are working with “shrink-wrapped” ideas, to use John White’s

evocative term (White, 2005). Richard Pring has suggested that

[u]niversities ought to be places of research, scholarship and critical

though informed deliberation. Such deliberation need not be immediately

practical, but indirectly it must be so in that any practice participates in a

world of ideas and is affected by the shifts and changes within that world

of ideas.

(Pring, 1996, p 19)

Furlong et al. make a similar point when they

argue that the key strength of the HEI partners ‘is theorising the

epistemological and pedagogical underpinnings of training’, so in their

absence ‘(the) complexity and contestability of professional knowledge is

no longer seen to be at the heart of what partnership is about;

professional knowledge becomes simplified… it is essentially about

contemporary practice in school’.

(McNamara et al 2008, p 9)

There is therefore, a danger that HEIs will become too remote from classroom realities

and school will appear to teaching trainees as the place that the craft of teaching is really

learnt. It seems to me that we might characterise this perceived divide between the

domains of school and HEI at their extremes as “the domain of unquestioned answers”

(school) and “the domain of unanswered questions” (HEI). Clearly this is to caricature

the situation greatly – in very many situations there are extremely beneficial relationships

operating across schools and HEIs - but we must remain vigilant about the possibility of

such a divide opening up and we must be careful to provide bridges, in an era of

constantly shifting relations, between school and HEI.

The Head Teacher of the school in which my study was based made an interesting

suggestion in our discussion:

What I think we need to think about in schools is more creative ways of

setting safe environments for students to experiment in. If they do make

mistakes – all teachers make mistakes – no one’s going to come to any

harm and in fact people can benefit because we all learn from making

mistakes.

Small-scale interactive projects like the one examined above, which draw upon the

expertise of school and HEI staff and are designed to maximise benefits for children,

trainee teachers and experienced teachers, seem to me to have the greatest likelihood of

success, where they can be established. This can only happen if we ensure that pragmatic,

well-focussed collaboration between schools and HEIs takes place. The “ALACT” model

described by the Dutch teacher educator Korthagen (2001) suggests one way forward and

resonates with my own experiences. The ALACT model proposes a cycle based upon

that acronym in which the stages represent its letters:

Smith

112

Action

Looking back on the action

Awareness of essential aspects

Creating alternative models of action

Trial

This interplay between trial, reflection, refinement and re-trial seems an extremely useful

model and has important implications for HEI pedagogy over the coming years.

My project has therefore explored the parallel strands of school curriculum development

and the negotiation of pedagogy between school and HEI. At its heart lies work

coalescing around the notion of dialogic teaching, which, as Alexander suggests;

..seems to find a convincing place in the 21st century nexus of citizenship,

personalization and lifelong learning. Each of these is – or, once

detached from its surrounding rhetoric, ought to be – about empowerment

of the individual: as thinker, as learner and as citizen.

(Alexander, 2006, p 36)

Acknowledgements

The author is extremely grateful for the support received throughout this project from

staff and children at Beaver Road Primary School in Didsbury, Manchester and to

Gordon James at the MMU Institute of Education for his invaluable technical assistance.

References

Alexander, R. J. (2006) Towards Dialogic Teaching (3rd Edition), Dialogos.

Barnes, D., Britton, J., Rosen, H., (1969) Language, the learner and the school,

Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Bernstein, B. (1973) Class, codes and control. Vol 1, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Conroy, J., Hulme, M. and Menter, I. (2008) Primary Curriculum Futures (Primary

Review Research Survey 3/3), Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of

Education.

Online. Available:

http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/Downloads/Int_Reps/6.Curriculum-

assessment/Primary Review_RS_3-3 report_Primary_Curriculum_Futures_080208.pdf

(accessed 29 July 2008).

DES (1967) Children and their primary schools, London: HMSO.

DES (1975) A language for life, London: HMSO.

DfEE (1998) The National Literacy Strategy, London: DfEE.

Encouraging Reason

113

Fisher, R. (2003) Teaching Thinking (2nd Edition), London: Continuum.

Goleman, D. (1996) Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ, Bloomsbury

Publishing plc.

Haynes, J. (2008) Children as Philosophers (2nd Edition) Abingdon: Routledge.

Howe, C. and Mercer, N. (2007) Children’s Social Development, Peer Interaction and

Classroom Learning (Primary Review Research Survey 2/1b), Cambridge: University of

Cambridge Faculty of Education.

Online.Available:

http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/Downloads/Int_Reps/4.Children_development-

learning/Primary_Review_2-1b_report_Social_development_learning_071214.pdf

(accessed 29 July 2008).

James, M. and Pollard, A. (2008) Learning and Teaching in Primary Schools: insights

from TLRP (Primary Review Research Survey 2/4), Cambridge: University of Cambridge

Faculty of Education.

Online. Available: http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/Downloads/Int_Reps/9.Teaching-

learning/RS_2-4_report_160508_Learning_teaching_from_TLRP.pdf (accessed 29 July

2008).

Kagan, S. (2001) Cooperative Learning, Kagan Publishing.

Korthagen, F. A. J. (2001) Linking practice and theory. The pedagogy of realistic

teacher education, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Labov, W. (1969) ‘The logic of non-standard English’, Georgetown Monographs on

Language and Linguistics, Vol 22: pp 1-31.

Lipman, M. (1991) Thinking in Education, New York: Cambridge University Press.

McNamara, O., Brundrett, M. and Webb, R. (2008) Primary Teachers: initial teacher

education, continuing professional development and school leadership development

(Primary Review Research Survey 6/3), Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of

Education.

Online. Available: http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/Downloads/Int_Reps/8.Settings-

professionals/RS_6-3_report_Teacher_training_development_080418.pdf

(accessed 29 July 2008).

Mercer, N. (2000) Words and minds: how we use language to think together, London:

Routledge.

Pring, R. (1996) ‘Just desert’, in J. Furlong. and R. Smith 1996. The role of higher

education in teacher training, London, Kogan Page, chapter 1, pp. 8-22.

QCA (2008) ‘Analysis of evidence from an international study on the teaching of skills’

Primary Evidence Dossier, Section 7.

Smith

114

Online. Available:

http://www.qca.org.uk/libraryAssets/media/FINAL_Primary_Evidence_Dossier_section_

7_International_review_of_the_teaching_of_skills.pdf (accessed 29 July 2008).

Smith, J. and Walsh, K. (2008) ‘Learning to teach mathematics in a whole school

context’, Primary Mathematics, 12 (2): 20-22.

Tough, J. (1977) Talking and learning: a guide to fostering communication in nursery

and infant schools, London: Ward Lock.

White, J. (2005) ‘Howard Gardner: The myth of multiple intelligences’, Viewpoint, No.

16. Institute of Education, University of London.

Other websites referred to:

‘Sapere’, the organising body of P4C in this country. Online, Available:

http://www.sapere.net (accessed 29 July 2008).

‘Stoke speaks out’ Online, Available: http://www.stokespeaksout.org (accessed 29 July

2008).

PRIME Volume 3(2)

115

Variation in Student Engagement: A Design Model

Ian Solomonides and Anna Reid

Macquarie University, Learning and Teaching Centre

Summary

Empirical research in Design education has uncovered significant differences between

how students and tutors conceptualise ‘engagement’ (Solomonides and Martin, 2008).

This may have implications for the increased interest and focus of measuring student

engagement through instruments such as the NSSE – the National Survey of Student

Engagement (Zhao and Kuh, 2004) – and in particular, the newly developed AUSSE –

the Australasian University Survey of Student Engagement (Coates, 2006). Subsequent

work by the authors involving interviews with students in Australia and the UK has

enabled the development of an illustrative model that may help to explain variation in the

ways that students engage with their studies (Reid and Solomonides, 2007). At the centre

of this model is a dimension described as ‘Sense of Being’ that mediates the way in which

students focus their attention on other dimensions of their studies that lead towards

professional work. Ideally, as students progress through their studies they take on

attributes and ideas that relate to their future profession, and this leads to a broader

engagement with their studies. In this paper we explore the pedagogical implications of

this model as it has the potential to help us understand the ways in which formal studies

incline students towards different levels of engagement with their studies, which in turn

are mediated by their expectation and experience of the curriculum.

General Background

Don Markwell, the DVC of Education, University of Western Australia, recently

described a number of challenges related to the promotion of student engagement

(Markwell, 2007). In doing so he drew on the work of Derek Bok (2006) and others in

discussing student engagement in the context of current higher education practice.

According to authors like Markwell, student engagement can be thought of as a

description of the extent or quality with which students are committed and actively

involved in their learning. It is, however, more than participation in classes or completion

of work outside the classroom with most eureka and epiphanies probably taking place

outside formal situations. Engagement can also refer to a sense of belonging fostered by

such things as extra-curricular activities, and the blurring of the boundary between formal

and informal student life. As such, universities might seek ways in which a community of

learners can be established around both co-curricular and extra-curricula activities. This

might be as simple as enabling students to work in groups or to feel part of an identifiable

cohort; students who struggle often work alone or do not have a sense of belonging.

Unfortunately it is sometimes difficult to inculcate a sense of belonging and inclusion.

Residential education might be very beneficial but it is far from normal practice. In the

absence of structures that encourage student unionism there is less incentive to be

involved socially with university. Likewise, staff overburdened by routine work cannot

devote time they may otherwise do to supporting engagement. Student engagement will

involve and require staff engagement as well as interaction, including student to staff and

peer to peer. Moreover, the quality of interaction is important and may even involve the

mentoring of students by staff. Student engagement may vary over time and relative to

Solomonides and Reid

116

experience, exposure and the student’s position in the lifetime of their study. It may be

developmental. It might be encouraged by negotiation and choice and involvement in

significant pieces of work. With the tools to hand it might be important to attempt to

focus, ‘on what measures of student engagement will be most accurate and most useful to

us’ and to act on those measures (Markwell, 2007, p.9). In this paper we focus on

illumination, rather than measurement, based on discussions with students from Design

disciplines about the nature of their engagement with study. We feel that there is a need

to continue research work into what engagement means to students and staff if we are to

understand the outcomes of measurement tools such as the AUSSE – tools that presently

tend to focus primarily on the cognitive and conative (i.e. effort) aspects of study.

The concept of engagement is viewed in various ways in the literature and in practice

depending on the philosophical and pragmatic stances taken. Broadly, these stances may

be thought of as focusing either on student behaviour, including effort, time on task, and

use of resources (Kuh 2006, Coates, 2006); or on socio-cultural factors, including a

perceived sense of belonging to, or lack of alienation from the group (Tinto, 1993, Astin,

1999, Kember et al, 2001, Mann, 2001). The university learning community is dynamic

and students transit through a number of cognitive and emotional borders: between

school, the University and work, as well as through various complexities and fields of

knowledge (Reid and Solomonides, 2007, Wood and Solomonides 2008). Engagement is

significantly affected by the experience students have and outcomes of these transitions.

(DEST, 1999, Krause et al, 2005, Kift, 2004, Rhodes and Nevill, 2004). Bryson and Hand

(2008), evoking the work of Fromm (1978) and Perry (1970) call for more of an

emphasis on the ‘becoming’ aspects of learning, suggesting that:

‘Taking this perspective means that we must be cautious about focusing

too narrowly on one facet of learning – such as deep v. surface, or

learning styles or orientations, or motivation – however insightful they

appear, because they are insufficient to describe holistically the full

individual experience of learning. We propose that engagement might be

such an holistic concept.’ (Bryson and Hand, 2008, p.8)

Following this and similar to Barnett’s (2007) proposals relative to the ‘will to learn’ – he

argues for a pedagogy in higher education that uses and applies a more affective language

and approach to teaching in sustaining and developing a student’s will to learn and

perseverance – we argue that there is a need to describe engagement, evoking as we

propose in this paper, a Sense of Being.

A Model of Student Engagement from the field of Design

Much higher education research in the late 20th and early 21st century focused on the

creation of student-centred learning environments (Ramsden, 2003, Biggs and Tang,

2007). This focus included the development of materials, assessment tasks and group

working processes that hopefully provided relevance to students. In this case relevance

was seen to foster attention in particular to the subject material and generic skills.

Following previous work (Solomonides and Martin 2008), the current authors conducted

a meta-analysis of data drawn from discussions with student of various Design disciplines

using a phenomenographic method. This resulted in the development of a model of

student engagement from the point of view of Design students and is presented in figure

Variation in Student Engagement

117

1. Considering the centre or ‘hub’ of the model in figure 1, here students suggested that

their engagement with learning in a particular discipline was mediated by their Sense of

Being. Unlike other models of engagement that tend to focus on study activities and

effort, the Sense of Being describes a more affective internal relation to students learning.

This view could be described as an ontological (rather than epistemological) expression.

Figure 1: Elements of Student Engagement in the field of Design

The students involved in the Design study recognised that their learning was essentially

about themselves – how they saw themselves within certain situations and environments.

In turn, each of the other situations and environments contributed to the further

development of this Sense of Being emphasising confidence, happiness, imagination and

self-knowledge. Notably, the language that students used to describe engagement was

primarily positive as they sought to describe their personal relationships and learning

approaches. One of our participants articulates it this way:

DEP S12: Basically it is not about money, it is not about what jobs you

can get; it is about preferably doing what you want and being who you

are.

Another student described the positive affective dimension this way:

ES 10: ‘Being engaged with your studies’ means the same as being

engaged to a person - the reason you get engaged (to be wed) is because

of the love and passion you have for one another. If one is engaged with

Sense of Transformation

Learning

Understanding

Thinking

Sense of Being within a

Specific Context

Becoming

Belonging

Involved

Sense of Being a Designer

Professionalism

Community

Sense of Artistry

Utility

Problem solvers

Doing

Sense of Being

Confidence

Happiness

Imaginative

Self Knowledge

Solomonides and Reid

118

his or her studies there is a love for the subject and a great passion to

learn and become more and more involved with the studies as they

progress and develop.

In our study of Design Students, Sense of Being is central to their experience of Artistry,

Designer, Transformation and Context. Two aspects - Artistry and Designer – are

specifically linked to the students’ learning and professional domains. We postulate that

there could be an equivalent to these in different areas. For instance, in the domain of

mathematics it could be Problem Solving and Mathematician. What is critical about these

two dimensions is that one – Artistry (problem solving, etc) focuses on the students

understanding or experience of the core activities of that field, where the other, Designer

(or Mathematician, or Architect, etc) focuses on the students becoming part of that

particular community of practice (in much the same way as Wenger, 1999 describes it).

The Context dimension is rather more tied to the way that the students see themselves as

part of a learning situation. Finally, the Sense of Transformation represents the results of

the interactions between the dimensions, an essential change in a way of thinking about

themselves. By looking at the characteristics of each of the dimensions separately, we can

start to infer what these may mean in relation to each other, and also within different

disciplinary areas.

Each of the ‘wheel’ dimensions (see Figure 1) relates to a different aspect of the

experience of being a design student. When the students’ responses were directed towards

the activity of being a Designer they described a Sense of Artistry which focused on the

practical utility of their work, their ability to solve problems and the actual making of an

object. In a broader context than Design we might think of this being discipline

knowledge and ways of working with that knowledge. Student ES11’s quote below

shows how artistry involves the craft of design where the utility of the made object for

others’ use is a key component.

ES 11: Engaging with your studies means to be organised with how you

go about your work and to look at it from all angles, not to limit your

ideas and to try and make sure you don’t create something because you

think its good but to make sure it appeals to a wider audience.

ES 26 describes this sense of artistry as the skill of problem solving against a particular

brief. The language used by the student demonstrates a strong alignment between

personal goals (that is, the sense of self or being) and the making situation. The language

demonstrates the strong affective components of the Sense of Being dimension.

ES 26: Being able to learn the processes of design and use my practical

skills and rationalism to provide solutions for a living is a dream come

true. Once the brief is set I'm engaged and from then on I love having the

problems to solve. Being engaged with a course that may lead to a future

in the field of design is something I've dreamt of for many years.

The students’ descriptions of themselves in differing Design related contexts, builds a

picture suggesting that engagement is strongly linked with their personal identity. A

slightly different way of students thinking about themselves emerges as the focus is

directed towards their work within the professional field. As we suggested before,

Variation in Student Engagement

119

Wenger’s (1999) theory of community of practice, which includes larger or smaller

elements of engagement with the community, come to a focus in this domain. Here the

Sense of Being a Designer is a dimension that involves being a professional with the

design community. In this category students take on the attributes of the design

professional and consider themselves as initiates within that specific community:

DEP 14: I think experience in design is important like for myself going to

work experience, I went to [three design studios] and they have so many

different aspects of creating a design, is just about experience and what

you learn from it, learning from other professionals in the industry.

DEP 14 makes a note of the importance of learning from other professionals. As part

of this student’s course, work placement was integral with work-based elements

subject to reflection and activity in the return to a more formal learning situation. We

wonder if this real work activity was essential for students’ formation of their

professional selves, or if it is possible for them to develop such orientations in other

ways. ES 15 provides a different sort of view about professional work where the

enjoyment aspects of work are emphasised. The quote below, as in many other cases

in our participant group, also demonstrates an ontological response.

ES 15: For me being engaged in studies or being engaged in studies is to

work for fun, to be disengaged from the competition and just enjoy your

work. It’s rare that the success of your project escapes the “rat race” and

becomes something actually meaningful to your life, but when it does it

becomes less about stress and deadlines but more about the work and in

turn the deadlines are met and the stress is minimal.

Participants indicated that they were able to change their way of thinking and working

when the context changed. They described a Sense of Being within a Specific Context that

afforded them the ability to engage creatively with the activity to hand. In this sense, the

students recognised that part of their experience of the context was how they belonged to

it and the nature of their involvement. In a more formal sense, the specific contexts that

participants referred to were nearly always formal learning situations. In the next two

quotations that follow we see samples of belonging to a learning context and being part of

the general community where their design work is appreciated:

DEP S17: I think there has to be a breaking of the boundary between

teacher and student; it has to be more of one level relationship rather

than dogmatic teaching. I think there has to be a more a passing on of

knowledge rather than enforcing that this is how you do it, this is how you

should think. There should be a generation of ideas, a generation of a way

of thinking rather than saying these are my philosophies and this how you

shall think, this how you should put into your design practice.

ES 17: To be dynamic, to act and react to, to be enthusiastic about your

work and to be aware of what your work means to yourself and others.

Sense of Transformation is a dimension that relates to the ways students’ Sense of Being

is changed through learning. Here, students indicate that they are personally transformed

Solomonides and Reid

120

by their experience of becoming designers, that they develop an appreciation of the work

and life of a designer over time and proximity to designers, teacher and peers, and that

their modes of thinking develop.

DEP 14: Personally I think spending four years here you can see the good

from the bad. You still learn to experience. I think experience in design is

important like for myself going to work.

DEP S14 recognises that the formal elements of learning can generate a professional

viewpoint (as we may have hoped), but that it is a reflected view. The Sense of

Transformation dimension is about changes in one’s core sense of being that are

generated through reflection on the overall experience. This would lead reciprocally to

engagement with learning. ES 14 and DEP 23 put it these ways:

ES 14: I would say that if I feel I am ‘engaged with my studies’ I am fully

involved in a project, I feel happy and confident about what I am doing

and most importantly I am enjoying it. It is the kind of project where I

never fully stop thinking about it - everywhere I go I see things that could

be relevant or useful.

DEP 23: Personally I think I know I'm engaged when I spend a large

proportion of my free time thinking about a topic, before I fall asleep,

when I'm watching the TV, that sort of thing. I also find I think about the

topic in context to other things, things I see in the news etc and try to

develop personal opinions about it.

In passing, we were struck by DEP 23 and a recent quote from a teacher being

interviewed about engagement:

HT 1 (Humanities): So it’s part of my being. Maybe the mechanisms of it

I can switch on and off… But when I’m not at work, I’m still thinking

about of these things. I’m watching TV. I’m watching and I’m thinking in

the same terms.

In these quotes from ES 14 and DEP 23 we can again observe a certain ‘passion’ for

the discipline and learning within it. The student stresses the vital intersections

between all sorts of different activities. Likewise, ES 16 suggests that she becomes

‘engrossed’.

ES 16: For me personally to be ‘engaged’ with my studies is to connect on

a personal level with the work I am creating. It is to be thoroughly

engrossed with what I am doing, with an understanding on my personal

level. The desire to learn prevails from the interest already exists, and

therefore a snowball effect is created - the more ‘engaged’ I am with my

studies the more I want to learn.

Participant ES 22 provides us with evidence for the way in which each of the categories

may be related to the hub category Sense of Being:

Variation in Student Engagement

121

ES 22: Being ‘engaged with my study’ to me is imperative if you wish to

be successful at it. ‘Engagement’ conjures up thoughts of marriage, a

marriage between your own ideas and those of the discipline you’re

involved in. I think this is relevant as I personally believe that if you are

truly engaged in something then it will naturally and subconsciously

become a part of your life. As far as design is concerned I feel that it is a

‘lifestyle choice’ – a way of thinking – and I find it very easy to consider

problems and approach them as if it is a design brief which demands a

solution.

Critiquing the Model

Dall’Alba and Barnacle (2007) describe how, in many learning and teaching approaches

in higher education, ‘ontology has tended to be subordinated to epistemological concerns’

(p.679). Barnett (2004) makes similar claims when he suggests that learning for, ‘an

unknown future’ has to be conceptualised in terms of, ‘human qualities and dispositions’

over knowledge or skills (p.247). Both of these arguments place an emphasis then on the

development of the self in an ontological sense. This is more than the development of the

intellect and the acquisition of knowledge and skills; ‘… the question for students is not

only what they know, but also who they are becoming’ (Dall’Alba and Barnacle, 2007

p.683). Learning is embodied in a Sense of Being. Barnett (2004) suggests that some

teachers intuitively realise that the language of skills, knowledge and accomplishment is

insufficient in fully describing the pedagogical development of students, and indeed, if

students are to be equipped for an unknown future then they need to deal with uncertainty

and that this cannot be developed within a system that focuses on epistemology over

ontology.

The problem (as articulated by Dall’Alba and Barnacle, 2005, 2007 and Barnett, 2004) is

that in the experience of the student so much learning is fragmented and

decontextualised. Reid et al. (2005) used a phenomenographic methodology in showing

that students who had a better understanding of the context of their discipline were better

able to conceptualise their future and their utility. Those that did not were left with a

sense of confusion as described by these students:

STAT 08: Don’t know, don’t know, don’t know, no, I’m not really sure. …

Who knows, I certainly don’t, I don’t know what I want to do.

MAT 21: That’s funny because a lot of people say to me, “Oh well, you

are doing a maths degree, you going to be a mathematician or

something?” and I’ll say, “I don’t know, what does a mathematician do?”

When I hear the word mathematician I think of, you know, Pythagoras,

you know someone who is sitting in a closed room proving theories and

discovering things.

The model in this paper was derived from a study of Design students. The description of

each of the model’s dimensional elements lead toward the centrality of the notion Sense

of Being. The outer ‘wheel’ dimensions of the model illuminate different aspects of the

student Designer’s world. The wheel dimensions are all interpreted through the Sense of

Being and can also be understood in relation to each other. We suggested that if the

Solomonides and Reid

122

context were other than Design, the dimensions may be described slightly differently. For

instance, our group of students were involved directly in the context of formal learning.

We wonder how much of this model would be relevant in professional work communities

where production is perceived as having greater importance than individual learning. It

seems that our model presents a very affirming positive view of learners. In this case,

perhaps the domain of Design education has a particularly positive environment (despite

our participant group coming from different institutions and different countries). Mason

and Johnston-Wilder (2004) suggest that not all activity produces learning, which leads to

the question of how our participant group understood the nature of learning. The wheel

dimension, Sense of Transformation, provides a bit of an answer to the issue as it is a

component that recognises the role of reflection as a means of both integrating the

experiences and knowledge represented in the other arms of the model, and that creates a

process for the outcomes of learning to be integrated with the participants’ Sense of

Being.

Our participant group were not privy to common higher education parlance. Hence, they

did not articulate components of their learning or design experience that could be

considered ‘generic skills’ or ‘gradate capabilities’ etc. Te Wiata (2006) suggest that this

may be because student can sometimes be unaware that they are developing ‘generic’

things as they are not the essential focus of their activity and that such recognition (and

language) is often developed extra curricula. Instead, the students in our study focused

on how they were developing and changing as a person in the context of their formal

learning in a specific discipline. The qualities of the Sense of Being, confidence,

happiness, imagination and self knowledge suggest that learners can be innately engaged

with their formal studies in a way that is rarely recognised by teachers. We would suggest

that many formal pedagogical structures can, in some ways mitigate the affective

approach these participants have articulated. Our model also falls short as it fails to show

the strong relationship between Sense of Being and Sense of Transformation. On

reflection, perhaps these dimensions are more entwined, where the Sense of

Transformation is a means through which the participants expand and enhance their

Sense of Being. Our model also falls short as it discipline specific. Perhaps it is possible

to consider the model in a more generalised way that would enable pedagogical

practitioners in different areas make sense of it for their own contexts.

We would suggest then, amendments to our model that recognise the more entwined

ontological components in relation to the discipline specific as well as the possibility of

unknown or un-thought of aspects. In figure 2 we present the amended model in which

we have aligned Sense of Transformation with Sense of Being to indicate that it is the

transformation of experiences that affect the student’s Sense of Being. Hence it is the

relationship the student has with their study that affects Sense of Being, or more

accurately in Barnett’s (2007) terms:

‘Such an invocation of a relational account of the student in her educational setting

has merit on its side, but it is also misleading. It sets off the student from her

settings… We do not properly understand the student as separate from her

educational settings, even if related to her educational settings. Rather, we

understand the student more properly as being in her educational settings. The

question is: what is the nature of that being?’

Variation in Student Engagement

123

The nature of, in our terms, Sense of Being as described in the model in figure 1 involves

a complexity of interaction between the Senses of Transformation, Being a Designer,

Artistry and Context. But these are born out of discussions with students of Design. If

we attempt to think about how these concepts might be described in more general ways

and in terms applicable to higher education more broadly then perhaps we can

reconceptualise Being a Designer with a Sense of Being a Professional; Sense of Artistry

becomes a Sense of Discipline Knowledge; and Sense of Being within a Specific Context

might be considered as a Sense of Engagement. As we have already argued, Sense of

Transformation and Sense of Being remain the inherently more general dimensions and

concepts used to describe the nature of being and as such deserve to be at the centre of

the model shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: A Relational Model of Student Engagement

In figure 2, we show the core referential and structural aspects of Sense of Being and

Sense of Transformation together with the relational dimensions mentioned above. Here

then, engagement is shown in a relational context with other things that support

engagement, at least in the study of Design. We also leave spaces for yet undescribed

concepts and invite researchers and practitioners of other disciplines to consider what if

anything, these might be. The model is based on our earlier meta-analysis of student

descriptions of engagement in Design (Reid and Solomonides 2007) and a subsequent

alignment with previously published works. This has led toward the broader ontological

perspective represented in the model in figure 2. Indicative research publications are

shown in support of each of the relational dimensions.

Sense of

Transformation

Learning

Understanding

Thinking

Dall’Alba and

Barnacle 2007

Sense of Being

Confidence

Happiness

Imaginative

Self Knowledge

Barnett 2004,

2005, 2007

Sense of Being a

Professional

Reid and Davies 2002

Reid and Petocz 2004

Sense of Discipline

Knowledge

Dahlgren et al 2005

Abrandt Dahlgren

et al 2007

?

Sense of Engagement

Bryson and Hand 2008

Coates 2006

?

?

Solomonides and Reid

124

Conclusion

When we return to the issue of student engagement and the starting point of this paper we

believe the evidence presented here and elsewhere (c.f. Reid and Solomonides, 2007,

Bryson and Hand, 2008) is aligned with Barnett’s assertions that, ‘…pedagogical being is

constructed around senses and feelings’ (2007, p.30), and that, ‘…ontology trumps

epistemology’ (2005, p.795). This has implications not only for the ‘measurement’ of

engagement but also for the desire to achieve, ‘an ontological turn for higher education’

(Dall’Alba and Barnacle, 2007) and suggests that higher education practitioners need to

develop their curricula, skills and pedagogies that engenders the Sense of Being and Sense

of Transformation as at the centre of the student experience. How possible this is in the

age of decontextualisation, pseudo-scientific performance measures, and techno-

rationalism, or how this extends to other disciplines and constructs of knowledge,

remains a concern but we are encouraged by utterances from teachers such as this:

DT 14 (Art and Design): ‘… maybe pandering to preferred learning types

is wrong… this is pivotal for me because I think of learning as change,

and I am very interested, at a more advanced level, in how we can get

learners to learn how to learn, in particular on the course I teach on, the

answer is unknown beyond a generic, so I try to get students to

understand what Ophelia states in Hamlet, “we know what we are, but

know not what we may be”.’

Variation in Student Engagement

125

References

Abrandt Dahlgren, M. Petocz, P. Reid, A. and Dahlgren, L.O., (2007). Preparation for

professional work? A meta-analysis of two international research projects on the

transition from higher education to work life. 5th International Work and Learning

Conference, Cape Town. December. Online. Available HTTP: http://rwl5.uwc.ac.za/

(accessed 12 May 2008)

Astin, AW., (1999) ‘Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher

Education’ Journal of College Student Development, September/October 1999 (originally

published 1984), Vol. 40, No. 5, pp.518-529, Online. Available HTTP:

http://www.middlesex.mass.edu/TutoringServices/AstinInvolvement.pdf (accessed May

30 2008)

Barnett, R., (2004) 'Learning for an unknown future', Higher Education Research &

Development, 23:3, 247-260

Barnett, R., (2005) ‘Recapturing the Universal in the University’ Educational Philosophy

and Theory Vol. 37, No. 6 pp.785-797

Barnett, R., (2007) A Will to Learn: Being a student in an age of uncertainty, Open

University Press and Society for Research in Higher Education: Maidenhead

Biggs, J. and Tang. C., (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University, Open

University Press

Bok, D., (2006) Our Underachieving Colleges: A Candid Look at How Much Students

Learn and Why They Should Be Learning More. Princeton University Press.

Bryson, C. and Hand, L., (2008) Student Engagement- SEDA Special 22, Staff and

Educational Development Association: London

Coates, H., (2006) Student Engagement in Campus-based and Online Education:

University connections Routledge, Abingdon

Chickering, AW. & Gamson, ZF., (1987) ‘Seven principles for good practice in

undergraduate education’ American Association of Higher Education Bulletin 1987, Vol.

39, No. 7, pp3-7. Online. Available HTTP:

http://www.uis.edu/liberalstudies/students/documents/sevenprinciples.pdf (accessed 26

April 2008)

Dahlgren, L. O. et al., (2005) Students as Journeymen between cultures of education and

working life. Online. Available HTTP: http://www.hewl.net/HPSE_CT-2001-

0068__final_ju.pdf (accessed 29 May 2008)

Dall'Alba, G. and Barnacle, R., (2007) 'An ontological turn for higher education', Studies

in Higher Education, 32:6, 679-691

Solomonides and Reid

126

DEST., (1999) Transition from Secondary to Tertiary: A Performance Study. Department

of Education, Training and Youth Affairs Online. Available HTTP:

http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/hes/hes36.htm (accessed 17 May 2008)

Fromm, E., (1976) To have or to be? Harper and Row: New York

Kift, S., (2004) Organising First Year Engagement around Learning: Formal and

Informal Curriculum Intervention, Australian Disability Clearinghouse in Education and

Training, Online. Available HTTP:

http://www.adcet.edu.au/uploads/documents/Sally%20Kift_paper.doc (accessed 21 May

2008)

Kuh, GD., (2006) ‘Making Students Matter’ in J.C. Burke (Ed.), Fixing the fragmented

university: Decentralization with Direction. pp.235-264 Bolton, MA: Jossey-Bass.

Online. Available HTTP:

http://cpr.iub.edu/uploads/Kuh%20Chapter%2010%20for%20Burke%202006.pdf

(accessed 12 May 2008)

Kember, D. Lee, K. & Li, N., (2001) ‘Cultivating a sense of belonging in part-time

students’ International Journal of Lifelong Learning Vol. 20, No. 4 pp.326–341. Online.

Available HTTP:

http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/index/PW0T4412UYK94WC7.pdf (accessed 29

May 2008)

Krause K-L. Hartley R. James R. and McInnis C., (2005) The First Year Experience in

Australian Universities: Findings from a decade of national studies Department of

Education Science and Training and Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University

of Melbourne.

Online. Available HTTP: http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/1B0F1A03-E7BC-

4BE4-B45C-735F95BC67CB/5885/FYEFinalReportforWebsiteMay06.pdf (accessed 29

May 2008)

Markwell, D., (2007) ‘The Challenge of Student Engagement’, Key-note address -

Teaching and Learning Forum 2007, University of Western Australia, 30-31 January

2007. Online. Available HTTP:

http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/113019/Page_6-15_from_CATLyst.pdf

(accessed 29 May 2008)

Mann, S., (2001) ‘Alternative Perspectives on the Student Experience: alienation and

engagement’ Studies in Higher Education Vol. 26, No. 1 pp7-19. Online. Available

HTTP: http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/index/BWD5LDH5KFG6PJ45.pdf

(accessed 14 May 2008)

Mason, J. and Johnston-Wilder, S. (2004). Fundamental Constructs in Mathematics

Education. Routledge Falmer: New York.

Perry, W., (1970) Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A

scheme, Holt Rinehart and Winston: New York

Variation in Student Engagement

127

Ramsden, P., (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge

Reid, A. and Solomonides, I., (2007). Design students’ experience of engagement and

creativity. Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education. 6(1) 27-39.

Reid, A. Wood, L.N. Petocz, P. & Smith, G.H., (2005). Intention, approach and outcome:

University mathematics students’ conceptions of learning mathematics. International

Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3, 567-586.

Reid, A. and Davies, A., (2002) Teachers' and Students Conceptions of the Professional

World, Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice - 10 years on, Oxford Centre

for Staff and Learning Development

Reid, A. and Petocz, P., (2004). The Professional Entity: researching the relationship

between students’ conceptions of learning and their future profession. In C. Rust (ed.),

Improving Student Learning: Theory, research and scholarship, Oxford Centre for Staff

and Learning Development, 145–157.

Rhodes, C. & Nevill, A., (2004) ‘Academic and Social Integration in Higher Education: a

survey of satisfaction and dissatisfaction within a first-year education studies cohort at a

new university’ Journal of Further and Higher Education Vol. 28, No. 2, May 2004

pp.179-193. Online. Available HTTP:

http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/index/T7Y71PFT3XTLXRYJ.pdf (accessed 14

May 2008)

Solomonides, I. and Martin, P., (2008) ‘All this Talk of Engagement is Making me Itch’

in Bryson, C and Hand, L., (2008) Student Engagement- SEDA Special 22, Staff and

Educational Development Association: London

Te Wiata, I., (2006) Generic attributes and the first job: graduates’ perceptions and

experiences. In Hager, P. and Holland, S., (eds.) Graduate Attributes, Learning and

Employability. The Netherlands: Springer.

Tinto, V., (1993) Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition,

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Wenger, E., (1999), Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity,

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Wood, L. and Solomonides, I., (in press - 2008) ‘Different Disciplines, Different

Transitions’ Mathematics and Education Research Journal

Zhao, C. and Kuh, G., (2004) Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student

Engagement. Research in Higher Education. 45(2):115-138.

PRIME Volume 3(2)

129

Action research cycles on embedding academic skills: how

current pedagogical research can steer curriculum

Peter Redding

University of Wales Institute, Cardiff School of Management

Summary Action research provides a useful framework for analysing topics and, perhaps more

importantly, bringing about change within an organisation or personal practices.

Proponents advocate a methodical approach to analysing information and acting upon it,

often in a series of cycles of continuous improvement. The subject under scrutiny is one

faculty’s attempt to enhance the academic skills of their undergraduates. The value of

this is well established in pedagogic literature. However, an effective method of delivery

within the context of real-world constraints is perhaps less well understood. There

continues to be debates over whether to incorporate academic skills within or external to

the curriculum. The faculty is completing its third year of experimenting with

approaches, with each ‘cycle’ generating strong themes that have been linked to current

pedagogical research, which have then informed the modifications.

Early cycles produced reflections on basic content and delivery, with practices grounded

in pedagogic theory. Further cycles produced concerns over student instrumentality.

Practical responses to such instrumentality show the compromises that are often made

when educational aspiration meets student disengagement. Looking toward external

practice, a qualitative analysis of a popular discussion board used by learning support

staff across the UK provided interesting insights to recurrent themes including effective

pedagogic approaches, organisational/management/resource issues, and even emotional

response to perceived roles within the educational process. More recent cycles and

reflection have expanded the list of critical issues. While pedagogic theory helps us

understand effective methods for learning and teaching, management theory helps

understand how organisations communicate and manage their resources to achieve

common goals.

The Value of Action Research

Action research is an ethos and a methodology that distinguishes itself from the more

traditional approaches of Positivists and Technical Rationalists. Whereas a conventional

‘scientific’ methodology often requires a detached, objective application of procedures

and emphasises repeatability, action research fully acknowledges the subjective and

‘messy’ nature of real-world problem solving. It is no surprise that it was first used

within the field of management, where the subject (organisations and people) lend

themselves to the more qualitative approaches found in social sciences. Proponents such

as Lewin advocate a methodology which fully accepts that the researcher is part of the

phenomenon being studied (Saunders et al. 2003; Scho ̈n 1991). It acknowledges that we

‘learn by doing’ – an educational tenet that can be traced back through Piaget and Dewey

(Anderson 2005; Field 2007; Geen 2001). Schön (1991) refers to practitioners going

through a process of ‘knowledge-in-action’ that allows us to observe from within.

Redding

130

Through methodical reflection we can start to build theory that can be applied to

problems being researched.

At its simplest, the process of action research can be described by the following steps:

formulating a problem, reconnaissance of information, formulating action, implementing,

monitoring, evaluating, and repeating the cycles (Saunders et al. 2003). This process is

similar to Deming’s ‘Plan, Do, Study, Act’ – a mantra which every management student

knows as a formula for implementing quality systems within an organisation. This then

highlights the true value of action research: an emphasis on bringing about change within

an organisation.

Historically, action research applied to management issues. However it is increasingly

finding a home in educational and pedagogical research. It therefore provides a useful

and appropriate framework for analysing and modifying curriculum design in higher

education.

Background to Study Skills

Study skills are part of a wider agenda of skills. The recent publication of the Leitch

Report (HM Treasury 2006) re-emphasises the government’s interest in the role of higher

education (HE) in developing skills in addition to simply subject-specific knowledge,

thereby enhancing employability. For years, pedagogic researchers and governmental

organisations have been defining and refining skills. By the end of the 20th

century,

pedagogic discussions were awash with a bemusing range of permutations on a central

theme, using interchangeable terms such as key, common, transferable, academic,

learning and other skills.

The National Advisory Board for Public Sector Higher Education (NAB/UGC 1986) used

the term transferable skills to refer to those skills that needed to transfer with the student

from the world of academia to the professional world. Bridges and Hurley (1993 and

1994 as cited in Cottrell 2001) respectively referred to meta-skills and core skills to

describe those skills that could be adapted across different contexts. These concepts

influenced the governmental educational bodies who in turn began to codify the

terminology. In the UK, the Qualifications and Curriculum Agencies (QCA) is the

national body responsible for developing the national curriculum and accrediting

qualifications. Since the 1980s they have opted for the term key skills, which have now

settled into the following broad categories:

� Application of number

� Communication

� Improving own learning and performance

� Information and communication technology

� Problem solving

� Working with others.

(Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2004)

Practitioners within HE are not (as) bound by national curricula and therefore have

latitude in interpreting how to implement the range of skills. The Quality Assurance

Agency (QAA) does have certain expectations of embedding key skills into curricular

Action Research Cycles

131

design as part of the validation and review process (Quality Assurance Agency 2006).

However it is debatable just how explicitly these skills are to be implemented in the

curriculum. Nevertheless, the term study skills, per se, is not as defined and would

appear to be more of a term of practice rather than one of standardisation and regulation.

Within the context of this research, it has been interpreted locally to be: those skills

needed by first-year undergraduate students for success at university. The evolved

approaches to interpretation and implementation are discussed below.

Setting for Action Research

The subject of scrutiny is a first-year module historically named ‘Professional

Development 1’, ‘Research Methods 1’ or ‘Research Skills 1’, depending on the

programmes in which it originally appeared. It is a 10-credit module, giving some

indication of the resources and time allocated to it. It serves a School of Management

within a post-92 university, with a yearly undergraduate intake of around 500. The

module operates within a matrix where some modules are shared across a range of

programmes covering business, management, computing, tourism, hospitality, events, etc.

Recent reorganisations have resulted in rationalisation of some first-year modules with a

move toward generic modules. In developing the curriculum, there had been

considerable debate over whether to develop study skills within a standalone module or

throughout the curriculum – a decision which had to balance available ‘space’ within a

curriculum, the prevailing pedagogic preferences for embedding skills, and, to a

considerable extent, staff engagement with underlying precepts. Acknowledging an

element of political expediency, the compromise resulted in a stand-alone, generic

module that allowed for the possibility of subject-specific tailoring. The module

addressed the following study skills: goal setting, time management, accessing

academically legitimate sources, referencing, plagiarism, communication (written and

verbal), reflection (rudimentary).

Explicit action research was carried out over the last 3 years. These ‘action research

cycles’ have resulted in a steady evolution of the module. The more recent cycles have

seen fewer changes in content, and more changes in delivery patterns and learning and

teaching (L&T) strategies. The analyses have produced several major themes for

exploration. The discussion which follows is admittedly revisionist at times, as some of

the themes did not fall neatly into chronological order. Nevertheless, the analysis is

presented using the following template, which corresponds to the iterative methodology

described above.

The Issue: in classical action research terminology, this is often the problem to

be solved, or the criteria for change intervention.

The Research: this includes findings from literature reviews, analysis of primary

or secondary data, etc.

The Debate: while this does not correspond to stages described in most

approaches to action research, it was found to be a useful categorisation because

it highlights the practical aspects of coming to a decision within an organisation

Redding

132

which aspires to collegial and collective decision-making, not to mention healthy

debates.

The Decision: this describes the practical steps to bring about change.

The following discusses each of the cycles and their resultant themes.

Action Research Cycle 1

The Issue: Content Refinement – Having completed a year of delivery, there were some

questions over whether the contents of the module were appropriate, and whether the

scope of the module was realistic and/or ambitious. And while the tutors had a certain

amount of ‘knowledge-in-action’ surrounding study skills, there was room for grounding

the practice with theory.

The Research: Study skills are inextricably bound to the theory and practice of education,

and are well represented in academic literature. The study of education has roots in

philosophy, with pundits tracing theories back through Plato, who framed many of the

basic questions of epistemology, (Phillips 2008; University of London 2005) and

Socrates who advocated formulaic processes for deriving knowledge (Geen 2001;

Metaphysics Research Lab 2005). The field of psychology and, more specifically,

cognitive development start to address the issues of how and when children ‘learn’. And

finally, the field of pedagogy draws on many fields to focus on the science of teaching.

Three of the more influential theorists of the 20th

Century were Piaget, Vygotsky and

Dewey.

Piaget put forth theories of developmental stages that a child would go through while

acquiring knowledge (McNally 1974; Smith et al. 1997). Perhaps more relevant to HE

study are his later theories of constructivism and schemata which describe processes

where learners acquire knowledge by applying it to existing understandings and mental

constructs. Piaget also offered theories of equilibration, where students go through

periods of cognitive disorientation before understanding new concepts. This

phenomenon will surely ring true for anyone witnessing students struggling with meta-

cognitive concepts of critical analysis and reflection found in HE. Vygotsky built upon

theories of Piaget, yet emphasised the importance of social interaction in acquiring

knowledge. His theories highlighted the need for a structured approach in helping

students achieve the higher cognitive skills, with implications for curricular design and

concentration on specific skills (Cottrell 2001). Dewey also contributed to the

philosophical debates of epistemology, advocating the more heuristic approaches which

involve ‘discovery methods’ or ‘problem-solving methods’ (Field 2007; Geen 2001).

Throughout the 20th Century, these theories influenced primary and secondary education,

often through the mechanisms of national curriculum. However, it wasn’t until late in the

century that the concepts of pedagogy made significant headway in HE. Academics

began to advocate a move away from universities as centres for transmission of

knowledge through standard didactic practices, and toward a managed process of learning

(Ashcroft and Foreman-Peck 1994; Cottrell 2001; Gibbs and Jenkins 1992; Ramsden

1992). Within this managed process, there was emphasis on the difference between

surface learning and deep learning, the importance of contextualised learning, and an

Action Research Cycles

133

acknowledgement of the meta-cognitive aspects of ‘learning to learn’. And all of this

was framed in a student-centred approach. The tools for achieving this new ethos in HE

include an array of assessment techniques which move away from reliance on summative

and toward more diagnostic and formative methods.

The very nature of these discussions often requires proponents to speak in generic terms,

i.e. not within any particular subject. In other words, the techniques and underlying

theories for effective pedagogy in, say, engineering should also apply in psychology. The

language of generic pedagogy often revolves around skills. It could be argued therefore

that skills become the new currency in helping HE implement the new approaches and

designing a curriculum.

Turning to the more pragmatic issue of how and which study skills to deliver, there is no

shortage of advice. Targeted funding of L&T in HE in 90s led to the establishment of

bodies with the remit to disseminate best practice in the UK, most notably the Institute

for Learning and Teaching (predecessor to the current HE Academy) and their related

Subject Centres. More recently, significant funding has been given (England only) to set

up Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLS). These organisations

regularly publish guidance and case studies on a wide range of pedagogic issues,

including study skills (HE Academy 2008). The case studies provide evidence of not

only the widespread efforts to bolster study skills, but also the range of techniques and

resources used.

The Debate: Based on the research (and knowledge-in-action) the module team was

satisfied that the contents of the study skills module were appropriate and in line with

national and international initiatives. The modular structure was fixed, and the issue of

free-standing versus embedding was off limits to debate. With such an ambitious and

crucial remit of improving study skills, the debate soon became about choosing and

focussing on the most important learning outcomes and re-visiting some of the more

complex concepts. Rather than characterising this as a form of ‘dumbing down’,

emphasis was placed on ‘stripping down’.

Ideally, a module within a curriculum should offer a process where deep learning occurs

and students undergo ‘personal development’. In practice however, modules easily

become units of transmitted knowledge. Stripping down the contents to the bare

essentials and a series of disparate topics creates a tension in pedagogic aspirations.

Nevertheless, some consolation is offered by Wingate (2006) who makes an interesting

semantic distinction between study skills and study techniques. Skills, she argues are best

acquired through a process of deep learning within subject-specific content, whereas

techniques include those little tricks such as formulas for structuring essays or learning

the conventions of referencing. The idea is reinforced by Hattie (1996) who describes

some of the necessary approaches to study skills as ‘simple mnemonic performance’.

Therefore, creating a module that concentrates on techniques might be justifiable if

acknowledging that true skills development will occur within other parts of the

curriculum.

The process of paring down the modular content raised another interesting debate over

the place of pedagogical theory within the curriculum. Much has been said recently

about the way in which research can inform teaching (Jenkins 2004). It is only natural

Redding

134

(and desirable) that those who research a subject inject their enthusiasm for research and

their knowledge into the curriculum. Again, it is desirable that those who teach study

skills should have a grounded understanding of pedagogy. It does raise the questions

however of whether study skills modules should teach the students theories behind

learning. While a strong understanding of assessment techniques and learning styles is

undeniably valuable in creating a module, it is questionable whether the topics need be

made explicit to students. Students of education will have need of such concepts in their

careers, however other students may wrestle with the concepts and vocabulary at such an

early stage of their academic journey.

The Decision: Therefore, in refining the contents of the study skills module, the team

undertook an exercise which streamlined the learning outcomes, overall and for each

session. At times it was a painful triage, especially when it came to those topics which

directly related to the science of pedagogy. For example exercises in identifying

preferred learning styles, e.g. Honey and Mumford (1992), were activities that offered

students the opportunity to reflect on their own learning and could arguably start them on

their way toward meta-cognition. However, the time devoted to such reflective activities

needed to be directly compared to the time needed for drilling home the fundamentals of

accessing academically legitimate sources and defining plagiarism. In the end, less

emphasis was placed on any explicit mention of pedagogic techniques, e.g. students were

not to be exposed to terms such as ‘formative’ or ‘cognitive development’ or ‘deep

learning’. The design of the learning journey became more implicit to the students. The

streamlined contents were also re-formatted so that there was a consistent pattern of

delivery that included concise learning outcomes, in-class activities in small groups and

out of class activities and formative assessment on a virtual learning environment (VLE).

Action Research Cycle 2a

The Issue: Engagement/Instrumentality/Utilitarianism – Being relatively satisfied with

the module contents and delivery methods, the lecturing team remained concerned over

some students’ level of participation with the module. Across academia, there is

widespread talk of students not taking their studies seriously, not seeing the relevance of

some content, not putting in the time, or not attending. There is often the perception that

some students will do the minimum amount of work to receive credit. This phenomenon

is often referred to as ‘instrumentality’ or ‘utilitarianism’.

The Research: Philosophical and Pedagogical Aspects of Instrumentality – Much has

been made of the changing nature of students, within the context of the widening

participation agenda or the rapidly changing nature of a globalised society (DfES 2003;

Gibbs and Jenkins 1992; House of Commons 2001; Yorke and Longden 2004). However

few people can say with any certainty why many students appear to be taking it less

seriously. Disengagement and instrumentality soon become the subject of philosophical

debates.

At its simplest, instrumentalism refers to the ends justifying the means. A student may

well see the university experience as nothing more than the means, i.e. a serious of tasks

that must be endured, in order to achieve the ends of the larger prize of employment. A

student’s instrumental approach often places them at odds to the expressed desires of

Action Research Cycles

135

those who design and manage education where the ultimate end would be a life-long

commitment to learning and thinking.

Instrumentality is a concept that helps explain behaviour of individuals as well as

institutions. Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and David Hume invoked it in the 18th

Century when exploring ethics, morality and value judgements (Denis 2008). As with

utilitarianism and pragmatism, the morality of choosing a particular path is seen within

the context of the morality of the end goal.

It is ironic however that the term instrumental now has pejorative overtones when applied

to education. Paradoxically, John Dewey used it extensively in the mid 20th

Century

when justifying his influential approaches to educational reform (Anderson 2005; Field

2007). Of course this can be explained by the different ‘ends’ that were being debated.

For Dewey, the end was a meaningful education, i.e. an educational system and curricula

which take into account our understanding of cognitive development and society’s

preferences for morality. For many students, the end may be the less philosophical goal

of earning a living. It is questionable of course whether students will be engaging with

the more conceptual aspects of amorality and pragmatism when making the decisions of

how much time and effort to devote to their studies. Whatever the root cause of

instrumental and utilitarian tendencies, they run counter to our professed goal of

independent learning.

These philosophical debates may or may not bring us closer to the real-world problems of

students’ disengagement. More practical (or pragmatic) solutions lie in pedagogic

discussions. Engagement can be directly related to L&T strategies, and educational

policies. Some point the finger to the approaches adopted in primary and secondary

education, and the institutional systems behind the policies, where education is

characterised by ‘spoon-feeding’ and an over-emphasis on preparing for examinations

and achieving higher ratings in league tables (National Audit Office 2002; Wingate

2007). Such characterisations may seem a bit divisive, running the risk of school

teachers being understandably defensive, given that increasingly there have been attempts

to counter instrumentality at earlier stages (Jeffrey 2003).

Within HE, the debate of instrumentality is directly related to the debates over L&T

strategies, and specifically those involving a move away from the more traditional

didactic approaches (as discussed above). It is not that alternatives to the ‘sage on a

stage’ are more entertaining, but rather these alternative approaches address the issues of

surface and deep learning, contextualised study, learning to learn, etc. Getting students

engaged with a meaningful process shifts the focus away from seeing education as a

means, and refocuses on education as an ends itself. Pedagogic researchers talk about

spending more time within the curriculum to explicitly align student expectations (Lowe

and Cook 2003; OECD 2002; Sander et al. 2000). They are, in effect, talking about

aligning the ends, in an instrumental sense.

The Debate: Neither the philosophical musings on human nature, nor the blaming of

governmental and institutional policies will bring about the necessary changes at the

modular (or perhaps even the curricular) level in their first semester. The central debate

then becomes whether to utilise the students’ utilitarian tendencies, where learning is

reduced to a rather Pavlovian model of ‘learn this – receive this credit’ or whether to

concentrate efforts on the very difficult weaning process of producing autonomous

Redding

136

learners. Alignment of expectations implies a certain level of meta-cognitive skills and a

shift away from absolutist approaches to learning – a tall feat according to the

psychologists and educationalists mentioned earlier. Again modular design and content

need to be seen within the context and constraints of a first-semester 10-credit module.

The Decision: In the spirit of amoral pragmatism, the module leaders decided to take

advantage of students’ instrumental approach. The assessment of the module was

adjusted so that 25% of the mark was based on participation, as defined by attendance

and completion of formative assessment in the VLE. The move was admittedly at odds

with overall goals of independent learning. It was however an acknowledgement that the

majority of the students had just come from a learning environment that was highly

structured and tutor-led, and that in their first semester, students would be subject to

numerous changes.

The content was further refined to include more on-line formative assessment, with the

opportunity to ‘retake’ any of the tasks throughout the year. The decision was also taken

to ‘front-end’ the study skills module by offering it in an intensive academic induction

week. In order to mitigate against further perceived separation of skills from the core

curriculum, the module would be delivered by programme-specific staff who had

undergone staff development on its contents with specific opportunities for tailoring for

their subject. By using the same staff who would be teaching the students throughout the

year, there would be an increased chance of vicariously embedding the skills throughout

the curriculum.

Action Research Cycle 2b

The Issue: The Community of Learning Developers – While the pedagogic discourse

gives us a grounding for embedding or enhancing study skills, and guidance gives us

practical tools to use, there remain numerous questions over the practical aspects of

managing the process within universities which are notoriously cash-strapped and

difficult to manage. Pedagogic conferences and workshops provide plenty of anecdotal

evidence that most universities are experiencing similar issues when it comes to study

skills and support. While ‘learning development’ is a central responsibility of all

lecturers, there appears to be an emerging community of those whose jobs are specifically

focussed on developing the more generic aspects of a curriculum. An analysis of this

community can provide insight to help the reflective practitioner.

The Research: One example of this emerging trend is the Learning Development in

Higher Education Network (LDHEN) and their subsequent Association of Learning

Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE). The organisation holds an annual

symposium and hosts an on-line discussion forum, providing a database of evidence for

the many issues that confront the community (ALDinHE 2008). The discussion list spans

five years, over 500 subject headings, and over 1000 postings. In addition, the

organisation periodically compiles data on the profile of its members, indicating the

mechanisms and structures within the universities for supporting student learning. They

are also in the process of producing an in-depth qualitative analysis of the postings (Cash

and Hilsdon 2008). The analysis discussed below is perhaps less sophisticated in its

qualitative methodology than that proposed by ALDinHE, yet correspondences with its

authors indicate similar approaches and findings.

Action Research Cycles

137

In order to identify the major issues confronting the community of learning developers,

the threads with the most postings were identified, from the inception of the listing until

December 2007. This crudely measured the overall interest in a subject. It is recognised

that threads often veer from the original topic, and that the overall population of potential

contributors was expanding through the years. Nevertheless such a semi-quantitative

approach allows themes to emerge. The list of the more popular threads was originally

segregated into 10 themes. Those issues concerning the running of the organisation, or

general announcements were discounted. The remaining themes were then placed into

the following four broad categories.

The How-To Issues

As would be expected in an emerging field, participants spend a good deal of

time sharing tools and requesting advice. Recurrent topics included educational

resources that could be used to improve writing, referencing, not plagiarizing,

supporting dyslexia, diagnostic and formative assessment, motivation and

engagement, etc. As discussed above using Wingate’s terminology, many of the

resources would be aiming at study ‘techniques’. Many of the contributors to the

discussions operated from a central support unit, rather than subject-specific

departments. While a specific correlation between the location of the staff and

the types of techniques discussed was not attempted, the discussions highlighted

a significant amount of work being done to address skills outside the curriculum.

As for delivery of these study skills and techniques, there was much emphasis on

VLE and other mechanised approaches. This of course highlights limited

financial resources in the face of large numbers, and the desire of organisations to

do things economically.

Conceptual Issues

There was much discussion over concepts of education and learning, many

highlighting semantic distinctions between teaching and developing learning. In

many ways, these discussions act as a mechanism for values clarification within

the new community. They reflect the evolving interpretations of HE and,

perhaps more importantly, the roles of lecturers and others within the process.

Organisational Issues

Members showed a good deal of curiosity over how their respective institutions

organised and managed their learning development activities. Some discussions

compared institutional policies and rules, others compared where the activities

were located within the organisational structure, whether the support was central

or local within departments. One particularly interesting thread discussed the

profile of a learning developer and how an individual evolves in their career.

This highlights that L&T is increasingly recognised within the management

structure of universities, and the career ladders. Whereas research has been the

traditional path to advancement, universities are at various stages of recognising

the contribution of individuals dedicated to L&T (DfES 2003).

Redding

138

Emotional Issues

Related to the last point on career advancement, there were some recurrent

themes that reflected an amount of frustration or marginalisation. It would

appear that many participants felt that learning development in general, and

centralised support in particular, are perceived as marginal activities within the

organisations. Worse still, there are similar feelings of offering a service that

could be perceived as a deficit model, where underperforming students are

passed on to study with others needing remedial help. These views would seem

to indicate that many of the emerging concepts of pedagogy and the value of

skills enhancement as discussed above are not shared within organisations, and

that some lecturing staff still cling to traditional approaches. Not surprisingly

there emerges a parallel between L&T support residing outside of traditional

management structures and the enhancement of skills outside the traditional

curricular structures.

The Debate and The Decision: The exercise in reviewing external practices provided

valuable benchmarks for comparison. While this particular action research cycle did not

results in any significant changes to internal practice, it did instil confidence that current

efforts were on the right track, and that many institutions were feeling the same growing

pains.

Action Research Cycle 3

The Issue: The Silo Effect – As evidenced in the discussion above, there is an increased

interest in universities providing additional learning support, often by central departments

or library divisions. It too was the case in the university under scrutiny. Coinciding with

the development of the study skills module, the university was funding a series of posts to

develop a strategy for and implement additional learning development. These efforts

were in addition to other departments with similar remits, e.g. an L&T development unit,

various libraries with their advisors and other staff in drop-in help desks.

Organisationally, there was a significant amount of overlap in responsibilities. The term

‘the silo effect’ adequately describes the situation where, within a large organisation,

there is less-than adequate communication and coordination between functional units.

The Research: Organisational Communication – The phenomenon of ‘right hand not

knowing what the left hand is doing’ is well reflected in literature for business studies or

organisational behaviour, whether described as ‘compartmentalisation’ or ‘ineffective

internal communication’. Pettinger (1996) recounts the traditional approaches to

hierarchical management structures, whether pyramid or flat, and the corresponding

challenges to communication between units. Hardy (1993) even identifies poor

communication, laterally and vertically, as major sources of conflict and barriers to

efficiency. Both point out the almost inevitable tendency for compartmentalisation where

units turn inward and concentrate on pursuing their own objectives, influenced greatly by

internal targets and opportunities for individual career advancement.

Action Research Cycles

139

Academics are never short of voicing disapproval of their own management and

management style, and much as been said recently about managerialism in HE (Deem et

al. 2007). However, a more fundamental debate is taking place surrounding century-old

approaches to corporate organisation. Many point to the limited life expectancy of

traditional corporate structures which can be traced directly back to the theories of Adam

Smith who championed the division of labour and increasing specialisation (Hammer and

Champy 2001; Handy 1993). Great strides were made in the industrial revolution by

compartmentalising the workforce so that they could become increasingly efficient in

fewer areas of the manufacturing process. These theories were put into place with much

success by Henry Ford and his mass production. The ideas were given even more

credence when Taylor and others applied scientific principles to maximising efficiency

(Cole 2004). However, with the increases in competition, the dominance of the

consumer, and the rapidity of changes brought on by globalisation and technology, the

limitations of traditional corporate structures are becoming apparent. Modern

corporations need to respond quickly to change in order to survive. Traditional structures

are seen to mediate against this.

Hammer (1997) puts forth the ideas of reengineering the corporation, where the emphasis

is not on specialisation, but on the overall processes of achieving a satisfactory product or

service. The ideas behind reengineering represent a continuation of previous initiatives

such as Total Quality Management (TQM) which claim that the solutions lie in more

fundamental changes in the ethos of organisations, whether it’s placing the customer at

the centre of all decisions (Aguayo 1990) or focussing on the role and location of all

employees within the process (Hammer 1997). Either way, self-contained functional

units tend to focus inwardly, and not on the bigger picture.

Theories of reengineering have resonance with HE’s attempts to improve learning. It

could be argued that proponents of deep learning are advocating a move away from a

strict reliance on specialisation, whether in the form of subject specialists or even external

specialist of learning development. A sound curriculum would be delivered by a team

with knowledge of their field, plus knowledge of the pedagogy. And from an operational

standpoint, process orientation would suit an academic organisation with its historical

departmental divisions between academic, administrative, library and support staff. If the

acquisition of factual information and the cognitive development of a student is the

overall process that is to be achieved, then it stands to reason that everyone in contact

with the student needs a strong understanding of and focus on that process. Operating

within strict compartmentalised units can easily result in a ‘silo effect’.

Debate and Decisions: Accepting that a complete reengineering of HE is not going to

take place any time soon, and that many staff are weary of changing management

structures, the module team was confronted with how to realistically bring about change.

The solution was to adopt a local communication strategy, by identifying all stakeholders

in the process and approaching them directly. Something as simple as talking about the

module with members of various departments has resulted in increased cooperation and

even expressions of gratitude for having been recognised. Key contacts were library

staff and first-year module leaders. The communication strategy is an acknowledgement

that informal networking is at times more effective than the designed corporate channels

of communication. It further emphasises that effective curricular design goes

significantly beyond pedagogic theory and institutional procedures.

Redding

140

Conclusions/Major Lessons

The wider pedagogic community is recognising the importance of reinforcing study skills

in HE. There are parallel efforts to bolster these and other skills within and outside the

curriculum. Action research has identified a number of lessons and action points within

one programme. Specifically, if study skills are external to subject specific curriculum, it

is vitally important to simplify, mechanise, repeat, and reinforce all content.

Additionally, it is important to put extra effort into communication, actively involving

subject specialists and central support. When formulating assessment for first-year

students, a pragmatic compromise is to acknowledge the students’ instrumentality, and

use it to ensure engagement. And finally, try to embrace the ethos of continual

improvement by tweaking the delivery, based on methodical research and knowledge-in-

action.

References

Aguayo, R. (1990) Dr Deming: The Man Who Taught the Japanese About Quality,

London: Mercury Books.

ALDinHE (2008) 'Association for Learning Development in Higher Education'. Online.

Available HTTP: <http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/> (accessed 14 July 2008).

Anderson, E. (2005) 'Dewey's Moral Philosophy'. Online. Available HTTP:

<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2005/entries/dewey-moral/> (accessed 1 June

2007).

Ashcroft, K., and Foreman-Peck, L. (1994) Managing Teaching and Learning in Further

and Higher Education, London: The Falmer Press.

Cash, C., and Hilsdon, J. (2008) 'DRAFT Exploring the ‘Territories’ of Learning

Development.' Presented at (This draft paper is to accompany a workshop to be held at

the LDHEN Symposium, University of Bradford, March 2008) Bradford.

Cole, G. A. (2004) Management Theory and Practice, London: Thomson.

Cottrell, S. (2001) Teaching study skills and supporting learning, Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Deem, R., Hillyard, S., and Reed, M. (2007) Knowledge, Higher Education, and the New

Managerialism - The Changing Management of UK Universities, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Denis, L. (2008) 'Kant and Hume on Morality'. Online. Available HTTP:

<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2008/entries/kant-hume-morality/> (accessed 14

July 2008).

DfES (2003) 'The future of higher education'. Norwich: HMSO. Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway/uploads/White%20Pape.pdf> (accessed 10 March

2008).

Action Research Cycles

141

Field, R. (2007) 'John Dewey'. Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/dewey.htm> (accessed 1 July 2008).

Geen, A. (2001) Effective Teaching for the 21st Century, Cardiff: UWIC Press.

Gibbs, G., and Jenkins, A. (1992) Teaching Large Classes in Higher Education - How to

Maintain Quality with Reduced Resources, London: Kogan Page Limited.

Hammer, M. (1997) Beyond Reengineering, New York: HarperCollins.

Hammer, M., and Champy, J. (2001) Reengineering the Corporation. A Manifesto for

Business Revolution, London: Nicholas Brealey.

Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organisations, London: Penguin.

Hattie, J., Biggs, J., and Purdie, N. (1996) 'Effects of learning skills interventions on

student learning: A meta-analysis.' Review of Educational Research;, 66(2): 99 - 136.

HE Academy (2008) 'The Higher Education Academy - Resources'. Online. Available

HTTP: <http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources> (accessed 14 July 2008).

HM Treasury (2006) 'Leitch Review of Skills - Prosperity for all in the global economy -

world class skills'. Norwich: HMSO. Online. Available HTTP:

<http://www.dfes.gov.uk/furthereducation/uploads/documents/2006-

12%20LeitchReview1.pdf> (accessed 1 July 2008).

Honey, P., and Mumford, A. (1992) The Manual of Learning Styles Questionnaire,

Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications.

House of Commons (2001) 'Higher Education: Student Retention'. Online. Available

HTTP:

<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmeduemp/124/12402.ht

m> (accessed 1 July 2008).

Jeffrey, B. (2003) 'Countering Learner 'Instrumentalism' through Creative Mediation.'

British Educational Research Journal, 29(4): 489 - 503.

Jenkins, A. (2004) 'A guide to the research evidence on teaching research relations'. City:

The Higher Education Academy: York.

Lowe, H., and Cook, A. (2003) 'Mind the Gap: are students prepared for higher

education.' Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(1): 55 - 76.

McNally, D. W. (1974) Piaget, education and teaching, Lewes New Educational Press

Ltd.

Metaphysics Research Lab (2005) 'Socrates'. Stanford: Online. Available HTTP:

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/> (accessed 15 February 2008).

Redding

142

NAB/UGC. (1986) Transferable Personal Skills in Employment: The Contribution of

Higher Education, London: National Advisory Board for Public Sector Higher Education/

University Grants Council.

National Audit Office. (2002) 'Improving student achievement in English higher

education. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General HC 486'. London: The

Stationery Office: London.

OECD. (2002) Responding to Student Expectations, Paris: OECD - Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development.

Pettinger, R. (1996) Introduction to Organisational Behaviour, Basingstoke: Macmillan

Business.

Phillips, D. C. (2008) 'Philosophy of Education'. Online. Available HTTP:

<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2008/entries/education-philosophy/> (accessed 4

July 2008).

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2004) 'Key Skills: Standards and Guidance'.

Online. Available HTTP: <http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_6455.aspx> (accessed 18 July

2008).

Quality Assurance Agency (2006) 'Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality

and standards in higher education. Section 7: Programme design, approval, monitoring

and review'. Online. Available HTTP:

<http://qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/section7/programmedesign.pdf>

(accessed 18 July 2008).

Ramsden, P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education, London: Routledge.

Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., and Coates, D. (2000) 'University students'

expectations of teaching.' Studies in Higher Education, 25(3): 309 - 323.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2003) Research Methods for Business

Students, Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Scho ̈n, D. A. (1991) The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action,

Aldershot: Ashgate.

Smith, L., Dockrell, J., and Tomlinson, P. (1997) 'Piaget, Vygotsky and beyond : future

issues for developmental psychology and education '. City: Routledge: London.

University of London (2005) 'The London Philosophy Study Guide'. Online. Available

HTTP: <http://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/Ep&Meth.htm> (accessed 10 February

2008).

Wingate, U. (2006) 'Doing away with 'study skills'.' Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4):

457 - 469.

Action Research Cycles

143

Wingate, U. (2007) 'A Framework for Transition: Supporting 'Learning to Learn' in

Higher Education.' Higher Education Quarterly, 61(3): 391–405.

Yorke, M., and Longden, B. (2004) Retention and Student Success in Higher Education,

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

PRIME Volume 3(2)

145

Is There a Theory of SoTL?

Janet Parker

The Open University, Institute of Educational Technology

Summary There are now well established SoTL communities of practice and of discourse; there are

international networks, dedicated journals, the newly internationalised Carnegie

Academy for SoTL, but is there an established theory of SoTL?

This was a question posed by Graham Gibbs at the International Society of Scholarship

of Teaching and Learning conference (and the Carnegie-edited Special Issue of Arts and

Humanities in HE 7 (3)). The question was posed and addressed, but not answered; partly

because we are talking about different research bases, literatures and paradigms, partly

because ‘theory’ means something different in educational and ‘disciplinary’ research

and partly because ‘scholarship’ is a term that is tricky and differently valued in the UK,

Europe and the US. For a ‘curriculum to be informed by a SoTL approach’, clarity about

theoretical bases is urgently needed. Should SoTL build on the decades of US SoTL,

distinguishing SoTL from the ‘other’ scholarships (of inquiry, integration and

engagement)? Should SoTL rather look to pedagogic research, building on Australian and

European research or should it look to discipline- and domain-specific epistemology and

research traditions? Should scholars of Teaching and Learning be also, or rather,

educational researchers? Should they – we – be experts in, in order to be practitioners of,

SoTL? Conversely, should pedagogical researchers cut themselves away from the

‘amateurism’ that they are sometimes accused of?

This paper will try to clarify some of the issues.

Introduction

There are now well established SoTL communities of practice and of discourse. These

include international networks, dedicated journals, the newly internationalised Carnegie

Academy for SoTL and the newly constituted, truly international, International Society

for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (ISSOTL), now allying itself with European

and Australasian research but how does that intersect with European, UK and Australian

established pedagogical research traditions? Where does pedagogical research fit in

higher education?

Why is this important? It is partly for the identity, status and sense of purpose of

individual pedagogical researchers: are we part of a field, a discipline, a practice or a

movement? In the US SoTL started as a pressure group for change, as a lobby insisting

on the importance of teaching. This is a very timely issue worldwide, and in the UK, a

vital question. Right now in the UK, ‘scholarship’ in general and SoTL in particular seem

to offer a way out of what some academics might see as the disastrous consequences of

the pernicious distinction between ‘RAE active’ and, frankly, ‘redundant’ research

academics. Scholarship is likely to be a catch-all term, signifying a valuable contribution

to teaching and the academic community which does not satisfy the RAE guidelines. This

takes the UK back to the battle-lines that in the US, in the 80s, Boyer fought to negate.

Parker

146

Background to US SoTL

Boyer’s 4-fold ‘scholarships’ of teaching, discovery or inquiry (meaning RAE-able

disciplinary research), integration and application (engagement with and implementation

in the community) were argued to be comparable in value and in potential for academic

reward. In the many colleges that adopted his principles, promotion, tenure and reward

criteria were rewritten to include teaching and less frequently other scholarships, in

parallel to ‘disciplinary research’.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of University Teaching from the 90’s had

a clear vision of what the scholarship of teaching and learning could be: the revitalisation

of both classroom and the disciplinary research base through considered, evaluated and

published action research. Carnegie Fellows looked into distinctive disciplinary processes

(those that Shulman was to go on to develop as ‘signature pedagogies’ – i.e. the essential

meaning-making processes that distinguish one discipline from another pedagogically

and therefore, importantly, epistemologically). So, for example, History fellows

researched discursive and recursive practices in History both as essential historical

method and as keystone practices to be taught to undergraduates; American Studies

looked to the effects of oral, digital and visual narrative-making in classroom and

community; linguists researched intercultural communication in the classroom; a Nobel

prize-winning Chemist explored his students’ writing of their shared discipline.

From its roots in the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of University Teaching

and at Indiana University, SoTL has grown quickly and influentially in the US and now

beyond. The last few years have seen the newly internationalised Carnegie Academy for

SoTL (CASTL) and the formation of the International Society for SoTL (ISSOTL).

SoTL – so far, so good?

So far, so good. Or perhaps, not quite? The Washington ISSOTL conference in 06 raised

some problems with this would-be all-conquering coalition of SoTL members. The

historians split away, declaring the lack of relevance of the generic case studies

presented, forming their own international SoTL network and newsletter (Pace 2006). An

Australian researcher reported that:

‘My experience of the first few days of the Washington conference left me

convinced that SOTL American-style was more than just a social

movement and was in fact some sort of cult. I witnessed a steady

progression of American academics who had travelled to DC to share

their, remarkable for them / unremarkable for the audience, road to

Damascus experiences; how one day in the class room the scales had

fallen from their eyes and they and their students had been saved by

SOTL’ (Brawley 2009).

So much and so much achieved, seemed to have been bypassed at this conference. The

question of theory is contentious and difficult – what theory? Or, rather, whose theory?

That of educational psychology, sociology or philosophy?

Is there a Theory of SoTL?

147

The ‘theory of SoTL’ is a current and prickly topic (the subject of a Special Issue of this

contributor’s journal edited by Pat Hutchings and Mary Huber of the Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of University Teaching (Arts and Humanities in HE vol.

7 (3), Nov 2008). Such a radical and problematic topic needs to be put to pedagogical

researchers in HE.

There are two elements to the question which I would like to explore – that of’

scholarship’ and ‘theory’. Both are difficult and both were posed and addressed, but not

answered, at ISSOTL; partly because we are talking about different research bases,

literatures and paradigms: educational, discoursal, philosophic, political; partly because

‘theory’ means something different in educational and ‘disciplinary’ research; and partly

because ‘scholarship’ is a term that is tricky and differently valued in the UK, Europe and

the US.

The Carnegie rooted SoTL in the subject disciplines and so provided a single paradigm of

theory, if varying by discipline. By tying SoTL to disciplinary rather than generic

educational research, the Carnegie also tied SoTL to epistemology; the first question to

ask about a History or Medical Sciences curriculum is not ‘how’ but ‘what and why it’ is

to be delivered? The theoretical base of such research comes from the subject disciplines’

own methods and criteria and the results – of observation, reflection, measured change

and dissemination – often mirror the practices of the discipline community.

This base in the subject disciplines was in the UK taken into the Higher Education

Academy’s Learning and Teaching Subject Centres Network. Growing out of and

fostering networks of discipline academics interested in action research and pedagogical

projects, Subject Centres were sited in disciplinary departments or professional

associations and promoted, published and disseminated results and ideas to the

disciplinary community. Although the Subject Centres met with varying engagement and

readership, a recent study of SoTL in three countries by Brawley et al (2009) could point

to the Subject Centres as the bridge into pedagogical research for the HE community that

his own country, Australia, lacked.

The underlying and unresolved issue is that such a move can be accused of ‘amateurism’:

of a field only involving those who do not have a grounding in, still less a profound grasp

of, educational research disciplines in which methods and paradigms are taken from or

combine educational sociology, psychology, philosophy, ethnography,

phenomenography, theories of learning, teaching and curriculum design. There is, of

course, a long European and Australian tradition of rigorous and theoretically grounded

pedagogical research. The question is, should SoTL researchers see themselves as part of

that tradition? Should they be open to the charge that they are “reinventing the wheel”

and “failing to “stand on the shoulders of giants”. Are they, that is to say, to see

themselves as…hmmm, vertically, academically speaking, challenged?

This question seems to me a vital one, and one that PRHE serves to raise. Giants,

reinventing wheels are part of a discourse of established truth that those joining the

research field must take as givens. But, such metaphors surely belong, rather to that of

Pink Floyd……‘another brick in the wall’ For one of the things underlying such

complaints is a sense of pedagogic research as fitting into a unified, Kuhnian paradigm.

This can only be understood in a context of pedagogy as having an accretive knowledge-

Parker

148

and evidence-base, such that researchers need to start from understanding both the bricks

(what we know, as the result of the work of giants and lesser mortals, available in the

literature) and the gaps signalling work to be done. The Carnegie’s Mary Huber and the

HEA Anthropology Subject Centre’s David Mills wrote, rather, of pedagogic research as

an ‘Educational Trading Zone’ (Mills and Huber 2005). This inspiring model offers a

vision of researchers of teaching and learning entering the zone to barter – barter ideas,

methodologies and paradigms drawn from their own subject discipline and from those

they picked up last time they visited the zone. There are examples of scientists interacting

with humanists, educationalists with linguists. Of course such exchanges are not deep

interdisciplinary ‘re-disciplining’ but they can suggest new questions to be asked and

offer new ways of addressing them.

This seems to me to offer a diametrically opposite model to that of a strictly hierarchical

pedagogic institute with rigorously controlled entry levels and progression bars. SoTL,

rather, operates as a community: a community of practice, of discourse, of mutual and

reciprocal learning, of friendly collaboration and mentoring. Does it not seem appropriate

that the theoretical underpinning should be of a trading zone rather than a Kuhnian

unified research paradigm?

This raises a question for PRHE, which clearly and successfully runs a high powered

forum for exchange of ideas. The question is, where does and where should, pedagogical

research in higher education position itself? As a separate and separatist research

discipline? And with, incorporating or against the ‘broad church’ of SoTL?

Scholarship and PRHE

The first issue is I think, what work ‘scholarship of teaching and learning’ is being made

to do. The infinitely generous and generative Lewis Elton has pointed to the root meaning

of scholarship, used in all these contexts as a translation of Humboldt’s Wissenschaft.

Translation, in this as in all contexts, of scholarship is a cultural not just a linguistic

matter. There are many definitions of ‘Scholarship’ from the German (as Elton says, the

Oxford English Dictionary defines it as a translation of the German word Wissenschaft,

and it can be traced back to Humboldt’s famous prescription for the future University of

Berlin (Humboldt 1810, English translation: Humboldt 1970) Humboldt was concerned

with both research and teaching, and he established a fundamental dichotomy between

university and school according to which the university – in contrast to school – treats

scholarship always “in terms of not yet completely solved problems, whether in research

or teaching, while school is concerned essentially with agreed and accepted knowledge”.

This is an empowering definition: scholarship is the tackling of disciplinary issues raised

in teaching as in research. This immediately drives a coach and horses through the

barriers that have arisen recently between teaching and research, whereby research

quarries new knowledge and teaching transmits it to the next generation. (I have argued

in public meetings about the need for a comparable attention to teaching- informed

research as well as the more common and funded research-informed teaching. I have each

time been corrected by the chair, who presumed I meant research-informed teaching in all

cases, a one-way and strictly hierarchical process. Similarly, I have raised questions about

‘knowledge transfer’ from research to educational settings. Of a new Arts and Humanities

Research Council ‘KT’ initiative, I asked what of the funds allocated by the council over

Is there a Theory of SoTL?

149

the last decade had not resulted in knowledge being transferred – via books, teaching and

public intellectual performances? That was not what the fund was for, I was told: it was

to enable research to be transferred to, for example A level colleges and ‘teaching

institutions’.

I have always lost those exchanges. It seems so clear to me – energy and reflective

vitality can be ‘transferred’ to disciplinary research hierarchs; teaching can inform the

research agenda by setting it new and life-renewing questions. Investigations of teaching

and learning initiatives can ask basic questions about the value and nuances of

disciplinary processes, ones that may be taken for granted in the sort of consensual,

conservative research proposal. For one cannot ask basic questions while asking for

major research grants to answer paradigm-set questions. Kuhn lays down the parameters

of the paradigm as the disciplinary epistemological model which both sets the questions

to be asked and the disciplinary means to answer them. But reflections on what is not

working in a curriculum or assessment strategy, on problems with establishing

examination criteria or marking disputes which can frequently be the starting point for

much SoTL action research, can move the discipline on in fundamental ways.

For seemingly everyday teaching processes carry with them wide-ranging implications

for the knowledge- and meaning-making epistemological framework of the discipline. It

is commonly said that if one has a problem in one’s research, one applies for a research

grant; if one has a problem in one’s teaching, one keeps very quiet and hope it goes away.

But such ‘problems’ may reveal an epistemological fault line in the discipline. Coffin et

al (2007) reported on a fascinating ‘problem’ with their project to collect discipline-

specific examination criteria The problem came when interview data on marking criteria

were compared to the same examiners’ actual marking. They rarely matched up;

extensive interviews revealed the epistemological and disciplinary structures of thought

that underlay and brought together the seemingly disparate structures of criteria and

judgements. For example, in Geography, one criterion was the exact reference to location

but one script was awarded a first without a single map reference. Exploration revealed

that the examiner had intended the criterion to denote a fine locational sense and he had

rewarded a script that encapsulated a precise sense of place.

Problems with expert knowledge?

The theoretical frame for the scholarship of teaching and learning is to some extent

practical: ‘theorised’ scholarship is that which is accepted as validly grounded in SoTL –

as judged by the reviewers of conference paper applications and journal editors and

referees. Given the 50 years plus of pedagogical research in higher education in

Scandinavia, UK and Australia, should SOTL conferences and publications accept papers

not grounded in such pedagogical research?

There are a variety of answers, and a variety of grounds for answer, of this question. For

the Lund academy, for example, the answer is simple: no. They have taken Carolin

Kreber’s model of excellent, expert and scholar teacher (Kreber 2002) and made such

categories the essential stages for entry and progress in a Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning Institute. All teachers accepted after a tough application process, are deemed

‘excellent’, the baseline criterion. They progress to ‘expert’ status after presentation of a

folder of scholarship research and reflection; ‘scholar’ teachers are those whose

Parker

150

knowledge of scholarship of teaching and learning qualifies them to teach and evaluate

others. So the baseline for entrance to the Teaching and Learning Institute is informed

understanding of and reflection on scholarship, the prerequisite for adding to the database

of the discipline.

However, research syntheses such as Little, Parker and Richardson (2008) for the Higher

Education Academy point to problems with such a smooth progression from excellent to

expert to scholar. ‘Excellent’ teaching, in itself is a disputable label, but even if one takes

a consensual rather than an idiosyncratic definition of excellence (and many teachers

would refute the idea of a univocal, single definition of something as various, singular

and personal as teaching), the relationship of excellence to scholarship is problematic.

Some studies (Little et al 2008) seem to say that knowledge of teaching and learning

scholarship is unrelated or even in inverse proportion to excellence! This may be

explained by the common sense perception that knowing about it is not the same as being

able to do it, in any performance medium. In fact, a study by M. Ferrari in The Pursuit of

Excellence Through Education (2002 NJ) suggests that charisma and enthusiasm are the

single outstanding qualities rated by students-poor old scholars of teaching and learning!

Kreber has made a different point, querying the progressive scale from excellent to expert

to scholar. For she points to the sheer investment in time and attention required to be an

excellent teacher, given that preparation, feedback, advice, reflection and evaluation are

heavily-demanding processes. With teachers also being expected to research their own

discipline, bring in project money and fulfil administrative and tutorial roles, where can

the time be found to become expert scholars of teaching and learning? This was a

question that struck a chord with pedagogical researchers at the PRHE conference.

Conclusion

Anyone who has worked on an HE project with researchers from different traditions –

educational psychology, sociology, policy, philosophy, phenomenography, ethnography,

student learning and so on, can vouch for the variegations and disagreements that

inevitably arise. The questions and results look very different depending on how they are

interpreted. This is a richness, if you take Mills and Huber's ‘educational trading zone’

approach, but is seriously problematic if you conceive of pedagogical research as

necessarily fitting into a Kuhnian paradigm.

What SoTL and Gibbs have done is raise the question of exclusiveness and expertise.

Rigour, validation, contextualisation, appropriately deployed methodology, properly

gathered and evaluated data, peer publication......of course!!! But the question facing all

of us involved in pedagogic research, and especially those of us involved in publishing, is

whether we can cope with a plurality of goods, a plurality of approaches. That greatest

and most problematic teacher, Socrates paralysed his interlocuter by saying "Splendid! I

asked for one definition of excellence and you have given me a swarm of them".

Paralysed, because the object of the exercise was to exclude and to essentialise. That may

be the right way to go in building a theoretical frame in philosophy but not, I would

argue, in Pedagogy.

Is there a Theory of SoTL?

151

References

Boyer, E. L. (1990) Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professorate, San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 16

Brawley, S. (2009) ‘SOTL and national difference: musings from three historians from

three countries’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 8 (1)

Coffin, C., Purser, E., Donohue, J., Skillen, J., Peake, K., Dean, M., Mitchell, S.,

‘Developing academic literacy in context: movements between practice & theory’

http://www.schreibzentrum.de/eataw2007/schedule/sat2/coffin.html

Ferrari, M (2002)The Pursuit of Excellence Thro Education (NJ)

Humboldt, W. von (1970) ‘On the spirit and organisational framework of intellectual

institutions in Berlin’, Minerva 8 : 242 – 267.

Kreber, C. (2002) Teaching excellence, teaching expertise and the scholarship of

teaching, Innovative Higher Education 27(1): 5-23.

Little, B., Parker, J., Richardson, J. (2008) ‘Excellence in HE: international literature

review’ http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/policy/excellence (accessed 15 May 2008)

Mills, D and Huber, M.T. (2005) ‘Anthropology and the educational “trading zone”:

disciplinarity, pedagogy and professionalism’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education,

4 (2) 9 - 32.

Pace, David (2006) ‘The internationalizaton of History teaching through the scholarship

of teaching and learning: creating institutions to unite the efforts of a discipline’, Arts and

Humanities in Higher Education vol 6 (3)

Shulman, L. (2005) The signature pedagogies of the professions of law, medicine,

engineering, and the clergy: potential lessons for the education of teachers. National

Research Council’s Centre for Education. http://hub.mspnet.org/index.cfm/11172.

(accessed 15 May 2008)

Prime Volume 3(2)

153

The Interrelationships between Assessment Marks within a

First-Year Undergraduate Programme: Some Implications for

Aggregating Marks and Recording Achievement

Kevin Rowley and Andy Bell

Manchester Metropolitan University, Department of Psychology and Social Change

Summary

Mark characteristics and mark relationships were explored for individual assessment

elements within a first-year psychology undergraduate programme. There were large

differences in mean marks across these assessment elements and large differences across

units in the correlation between elements of unit assessment. Consideration is given to

how these differences may be interpreted. The correlations between elements of

assessment suggest that, in general, assessments within units do not form any more

meaningful and coherent components than may be found across assessments outside of

the units. Unit assessment coherence appears to be strongly influenced by the variety of

assessment methods used and by other artifacts of the assessment process (e.g. mark

reliability and differentiation). These influences prevent the emergence of coherent unit

components and confound the interpretation of assessment element marks. In this context,

the overall aggregate mark for the year may achieve a meaningfulness and usefulness that

is not present in a more detailed profile of marks. This suggested relative usefulness of an

overall aggregate mark is discussed in contrast to the Burgess Group’s recommendation

for recording student achievement as a profile of component elements without an overall

summative judgment.

The assessment strategy and the meaning of marks

An anonymous database of marks for a cohort of undergraduate Psychology students

provided the basis for an exploration of the relationships between marks for assessment

elements. All students gave consent for their assessment marks to be used for such

research purposes. The database consists of 76 students who entered university in 2004

and graduated in 2007. The following account addresses the first-year performance of

these students. Table 1 below provides an outline of the assessment strategy for the nine

units within this first-year for 2004. This table illustrates the diversity of assessments

both within and between the units. Such an approach is consistent with the QAA (2006)

code of practice which states that: ‘To test a wide range of intended learning outcomes,

diversity of assessment practice between and within different subjects is to be expected

and welcomed, requiring and enabling students to demonstrate their capabilities and

achievements within each module or programme’ (p. 4).

The marks for each assessment are indicators of a level of performance assessed against

the learning outcomes. The university regulations and procedures handbook states that a

mark between 40 and 49 indicates that all learning outcomes have been achieved at a

threshold level. A mark between 50 and 59 indicates that all learning outcomes have been

achieved at a good level. The remaining ‘pass’ outcomes are described as ‘very good’

(60-69) and ‘excellent/outstanding’ (≥ 70). Therefore, for example, giving a mark within

the threshold level (i.e. between 40 and 49) is a matter of distinguishing between levels of

Rowley and Bell

154

performance that are above a marginal fail but below a minimum ‘good’. Furthermore,

use of the term ‘good’, etc., implies that marks are ordinal (non-interval) judgments of

quality, made with reference to a notion of what most people taking the assessment ought

to be able to do if they have taken advantage of the learning opportunities. Marks can

therefore be described as ‘criterion-referenced’ in so far as they represent the

achievement of specified learning outcomes. However, in so far as these outcomes are set

with consideration to what is typically achievable, they will also reflect ‘norm-

referenced’ expectations. A useful discussion of the differences in meaning between the

term ‘marks’ and the concepts of scores and grades is provided by McLachlan and

Whiten (1999).

Table 1: Units and outline assessment strategy for first-year BSc (Hons) Psychology

(2004).

Summarising assessment performance

Given the ordinal nature of marks, it is often seen as inappropriate to calculate means and

other parametric statistics (e.g. McLachlan and Whiten, 1999). However, as indicated by

Fowell and Jolly (2000), the appropriate summary statistic for overall performance is a

much debated area, and there are a number of advantages to using parametric statistics

such as the mean and standard deviation. Table 2 provides the mean mark and standard

deviation for the different assessments within each unit for the 2004 cohort. Overall mean

performance across these assessments varies between ‘threshold’ and ‘outstanding’. The

two ‘outstanding’ performances are within the SPSS assessment for the Inquiry unit and

the group presentation assessment for the Individual Differences unit. These assignments

appear to be more about mastery assessment rather than any normative assessment as

outlined in the previous section. However, as shown in Table 1, these assessments are not

heavily weighted within the relevant units. With these assessments excluded, the range of

overall mean performance across the assessments is still large (i.e. ‘threshold’ to ‘very

good’). The standard deviations shown in Table 1 indicate that there is also considerable

difference in the spread of marks across the assessments.

Units and Credits Assessments Weighting of

Assessments

Biopsychology (20) Average of Three Multiple-Choice

Tests (MCTs) & Exam 45:55

Child Development (10) Essay & Exam 40:60

Cognition (10) Essay & Exam 30:70

History & Philosophy (10) Group Presentation, Essay & Exam 20:40:40

Individual Differences (10) Group Presentation, Essay & MCT 10:30:60

Inquiry (10) SPSS test & Inquiry Exam 10:90

Information Technology

(IT) & Interpersonal Skills

Workshops (IPSWS) (20)

IT exercise & Reflective Diary 50:50

Practicals (20) Best Four from Five Practicals &

One group Practical

Overall

Average

Societal (10) Portfolio 1 & Portfolio 2 50:50

Marks within a First Year Undergraduate Programme

155

Table 2: Mean mark and standard deviation (SD) for the elements of assessment.

Unit Assessment Mean Mark SD

Biopsychology MCTs 62.08 13.28 Biopsychology

Biopsychology Exam 56.55 15.84

Child Development Essay 57.71 7.63 Child Development

Child Development Exam 55.82 7.83

Cognition Essay 52.39 8.10 Cognition

Cognition Exam 49.29 10.03

History & Philosophy

Group Presentation 62.96 7.79

History & Philosophy

Essay 48.38 12.59

History and

Philosophy

History & Philosophy

Exam 56.55 10.41

Individual Differences

Group Presentation 76.64 4.19

Individual Differences

Essay 55.92 12.43 Individual Differences

Individual Differences

Exam (MCT) 54.30 11.05

SPSS test 95.20 10.57 Inquiry

Methods/Statistics Exam 59.51 12.21

IT exercise 57.58 12.88 IT & IPSW

IPSW Reflective Diary 55.86 12.83

Practicals Overall Average 59.08 7.04

Societal Portfolio 1 60.14 11.89 Societal

Societal Portfolio 2 53.37 8.13

Table 2 has a similar format to a transcript of marks for recording individual student

achievement. Within such a transcript, cohort mean marks for unit assessments are not

usually shown and this is replaced with individual student marks on the assessments.

Also usually shown within an individual transcript are the weighted overall unit mark and

the weighted overall mark for the year (weighted by unit credit value). Such a transcript

is similar in certain respects to the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR)

proposed by the Burgess Group Final Report (2007). The transcript described above is

similar to the proposed HEAR in that the HEAR will ‘contain marks (in whatever form

the institution chooses to use) awarded to the separate components of the honours degree’

(p.36). However, the Burgess group also proposes that ‘the means of representing student

achievement should be radically reformed – ideally to replace the summative judgment

with a more detailed set of information’ (p. 9). Thus, for example, the overall mark for

the year would be removed from the transcript described above, requiring the user of the

transcript to consider the profile of performance across components. Such a

consideration may be made difficult by differences in means and standard deviations

between the assessments, such as those presented in Table 1. There is also a question of

what should constitute a ‘component’. For the transcript described above, the components

are the different assessments within each unit and the weighted mark for each unit. To

what extent do the assessments within units form meaningful and coherent components?

Rowley and Bell

156

One important source of information in addressing this question is obtained from

examining the interrelationships between the assessment marks.

The interrelationships between assessment marks

The large differences in mean marks across the assessments shown in Table 1 could come

about for a number of possible reasons. One possible explanation is that the students

within this particular cohort on the whole performed rather better or rather worse than

expected across the different assessments. This in turn could be due to better or worse

learning and teaching associated with these assessments. However, other competing

explanations include the possibility that the difficulty of the learning outcomes were not

set at comparable levels across the assessments, or that the judgments of performance

level were not comparable across the assessments. These two latter possibilities present a

particular difficulty if assessments stand alone as components within a transcript of

marks.

Differences in mean marks across assessments present only one source of difficulty for

the interpretation of assessment marks. The remainder of this paper will examine other

sources of difficulty for the interpretation of marks, primarily through the use of

correlation. Here, Pearson’s correlation coefficient will be used as a simple index of

linear relationship between marks for any two assessments completed by this cohort of

students. This index is not affected by differences in means between the assessments, but

rather assesses the extent to which students’ relative mark position is maintained across

any two assessments. Examining such correlations between assessments provides useful

information on the extent to which combinations of assessments form coherent

components.

When marks should correlate

We should expect assessment mark correlations to reflect the extent to which there is

commonality in the specific learning outcomes addressed by the assessments. We should

also expect mark correlations to reflect the extent to which there is commonality between

assessments in Psychology knowledge, Psychology specific skills and generic skills (see

QAA Psychology Subject Benchmark Statement, 2002).

Why marks between related assessments may not correlate

Mark correlations that are expected on the basis of the above commonality will however

be reduced for a number of possible reasons. For example, using an inappropriate

assessment strategy for the intended learning outcomes will affect the expected

correlations between assessment marks. This is a question of whether the assignments are

meaningful (i.e. valid) assessments of the learning outcomes. However, even if the

assessments are considered to be valid, there may be a large number of possible and

equally valid alternative assessments for the learning outcomes. These alternative

assessments can vary both by method (e.g. essay, exam, observation) and by task (i.e. the

particular goal or content of the assessment). Shavelson, Gao and Baxter (1993) provide a

useful analysis of the sampling variability of performance assessments and conclude that

assessment scores are dependent upon the sampling of both the method and the task.

Marks within a First Year Undergraduate Programme

157

Similarly, Koretz (1998) states that student performance tends to be quite inconsistent

across seemingly related complex tasks.

Mark correlations will also be reduced by low marker reliability, both within a marker

and between markers, and by any lack of differentiation in the marks (i.e. a narrow spread

of marks). Temporary changes in individual student circumstances (e.g. health), that

differentially affect the accurate demonstration of learning and skills across assessments,

will also lower correlations between marks. One other possible reason for low

correlations is any change in the relative positions of the students in their underlying

learning and skills that are of relevance to the learning outcomes. Of course, changes in

knowledge and skill are to be expected within education. However, any systematic

change across the students will not affect the correlation between assessments, only

changes in relative position. This could occur, for example, if some students ‘leap-

frogged’ others in learning and skills in the time between the related assessments.

When considering the many possible reasons for why assessments with high

commonality in learning outcomes and skills may nevertheless show weak mark

correlation, it is only any change in relative position between students in relevant learning

and skills that is a meaningful influence. All other influences outlined above may be

considered artifacts of the assessment process.

As previously discussed, an individual transcript of marks will usually show the weighted

overall mark for each unit of study. This ‘component’ mark thus suggests that the unit

itself (i.e. usually a content domain) provides a sufficiently meaningful commonality of

learning and skills across the assessment elements. Furthermore, if this is the only type of

aggregate mark to be shown, then this suggests that aggregating within units produces a

more meaningful component than aggregating either over the method of assessment (e.g.

exam, presentation, etc.), or over the occasion of assessment (e.g. first, second or third

term), or over all the assessments within the year.

A comparison of overall correlations for marks from within and between units

Table 3 provides the Pearson correlation between the marks obtained by the 76 students

for assessments within each of the first-year units. Also shown in Table 3 is the average

Pearson correlation between each assessment and all other assessments outside of the

unit. The correlation for assessment marks within a unit range from .59 to .001 with a

mean of .24. Thus, there is large variation between the units in the extent to which

students’ relative performance in an element of unit assessment is related to performance

in the other assessment element/s for the unit. There is also large variation between

assessments in the extent to which they relate to other assessments outside of the unit (the

outside-unit correlation). That is, the average correlation between each assessment and

those assessments outside of the unit range from .36 to .08 with a mean of .22. Overall

then, the mean within-unit correlation (i.e. .24) is very similar to the mean outside-unit

correlation (i.e. .22). For some authors, the preferred procedure for obtaining the average

of correlation coefficients is to transform each correlation to Fisher’s z coefficient,

calculate the average of these z coefficients and finally transform this mean z back to its

corresponding correlation coefficient (e.g. see Corey, Dunlap and Burke, 1998). Using

such a procedure gives an average within-unit correlation of .23 and also gives an average

outside-unit correlation of .23. These similar mean correlations suggest that, in general,

Rowley and Bell

158

marks from assessments within a unit are no more strongly related to each other than they

are to marks outside of the unit. This in turn suggests that, in general, there is as much

commonality for assessments outside of units as there is within units.

Table 3: Interrelationships between assessment marks

Unit

Unit

Assessment

Element

Correlation

between

Assessments

Within the Unit

Average Correlation

between Assessment

and all Assessments

outside unit

MCTs .36** Biopsychology

Exam .59**

.28**

Essay .17 Child

Development Exam .17

.19*

Essay .27** Cognition

Exam .23*

.23*

Group

Presentation .10

Essay .20*

History and

Philosophy

Exam

Presentation and

Essay .001 Presentation and

Exam .37**

Essay and Exam .17

Mean correlation

between History

and Philosophy

assessments .18

.20*

Group

Presentation .13

Essay .13

Individual

Differences

Exam (MCT)

Presentation and

Essay (.15) Presentation and

Exam (.16) Essay and Exam

(.05)

Mean correlation

between Individual

Differences

assessments (.12)

.34**

SPSS test .08

Inquiry Methods/Stats

Exam

.02 .28**

IT exercise .20*

IT & IPSW IPSW

Reflective

Diary

.33** .26*

Practical 1 .25* Practicals†

Practical 2 .39**

.20*

Portfolio 1 .30** Societal

Portfolio 2 .53**

.30**

Correlations with a single asterisk are significant at the 5% level

Correlations with a double asterisk are significant at the 1% level

Marks within a First Year Undergraduate Programme

159

† The above analysis for Practicals is based on two individual practicals completed by 76

students. Fewer students completed all five individual practicals, since the unit mark is

made up of the best four from five individual practicals and a group report.

Further evidence that assessments within units do not in general form any more coherent

components than may be found between assessments across the year is presented within

Table 4. This table shows which assessment within the year has the strongest and the

weakest correlation with each element of unit assessment. Table 4 shows that the

assessments with the strongest correlation are rarely found within the same unit. Thus,

marks from assessments within a unit are usually more strongly correlated with marks

from an assessment outside of the unit than with marks from assessments within the unit.

The influence of assessment method

One reason why there may be as much commonality for assessments outside of units as

there is within units arises from the distribution of assessment methods across the year.

That is, the previously described diversity of assessment methods within each unit is

likely to lower the within-unit commonality, and any similarity in methods across

different units is likely to increase the outside-unit commonality. This suggested

important influence of assessment method may be illustrated by a consideration of the

two units shown within Table 3 that possess the strongest within-unit correlations. Table

3 shows that the Biopsychology unit has the strongest correlation between assessment

elements, where the multiple-choice tests (MCTs) and exam correlate at .59. The unit

with the second strongest correlation between the assessment elements is Societal, where

the two portfolios correlate at .53.

For Biopsychology, the mct mark is derived from an average of three tests taken over the

first two-terms of the year, and the exam is a traditional unseen written-paper taken in the

third term. These two assessment methods possess features that provide plausible

explanations for the relatively high correlation between these assessments. For the

Biopsychology MCTs, these features include the high marker reliability for each of the

three objectively scored tests. Also, since the overall MCT mark is an average of three

tests, the average MCT mark is likely to have greater validity (i.e. better represent MCT

performance over the entire content domain and better represent performance over a

sustained period) than any of the single multiple-choice tests. Finally, the average MCT

mark has relatively high differentiation between the marks (see Table 2, where the

Biopsychology MCT assessment has the second highest sd). This assessment therefore

has the potential to strongly correlate with any other assessments that have a

commonality with the learning and skills required within the MCTs. The Biopsychology

exam does not possess the above advantages of confidence in marker reliability and

confidence in the full representation of the content domain. However, this assessment

does possess the very highest differentiation between marks (see Table 2), and in this

respect this exam has the potential to strongly correlate with other assessments that have

a commonality.

Rowley and Bell

160

Table 4: Assessments within the year with the strongest and the weakest correlation

with each element of unit assessment.

Unit

Unit

Assessment

Element

Highest

correlation with

Unit element

Lowest correlation

with Unit element

MCTs Individual

Differences MCT

Individual

Differences Essay

Biopsychology

Exam Biopsychology

MCTs

Individual

Differences

Presentation

Essay Biopsychology

MCTs Inquiry SPSS

Child

Development Exam

Biopsychology

MCTs

Information

Technology

Essay Societal Portfolio 1 Inquiry SPSS

Cognition Exam

Individual

Differences MCT

Individual

Differences Essay

Group

Presentation

History &

Philosophy Exam Inquiry SPSS

Essay Individual

Differences MCT

Individual

Differences Essay

History and

Philosophy

Exam Child Development

Exam

Individual

Differences Essay

Group

Presentation IPSW Diary

Child Development

Essay

Essay IPSW Diary History and

Philosophy Exam

Individual

Differences

Exam (MCT) Biopsychology

MCTs

Individual

Differences Essay

SPSS test IPSW Diary Child Development

Essay Inquiry

Methods/Stats

Exam Practical 1 Inquiry SPSS

IT exercise Societal Portfolio 1 Child Development

Exam

IT & IPSW IPSW

Reflective

Diary

Individual

Differences Essay Cognition Exam

Practical 1 Inquiry Exam Inquiry SPSS

Practicals Practical 2

Biopsychology

Exam Inquiry SPSS

Portfolio 1 Societal Portfolio 2

History and

Philosophy Group

Presentation Societal

Portfolio 2 Societal Portfolio 1 Individual

Differences Essay

Marks within a First Year Undergraduate Programme

161

The Biopsychology exam and MCTs appear to be quite different methods of assessment.

However, in some respects these two assessments are quite similar. For example, both

involve timed conditions and no access to materials once the assessment has begun. The

skills necessary to meet these common conditions will contribute to the commonality

between the two methods of assessment. Also, the broad knowledge of biopsychology as

assessed by the MCTs, in so far as it is necessary or helpful for the exam, will also

contribute to the commonality between the assessments. For Biopsychology then, the

relatively high correlation between the assessments within the unit appears to be the

result of three factors: Firstly, the assessment process for each element of assessment

produces marks which suggest the potential to relate to other assessments. Secondly, the

methods of the assessment within the unit appear to require some common skills. Finally,

the content domain learning assessed by one method within the unit appears to be

relevant to the learning assessed by the second method.

For the Societal unit, the two assessment elements share the same method (i.e. portfolio)

and share a Societal Psychology content domain. In these respects the assessment

elements for this unit may be considered parallel assessments. Thus, the relatively high

correlation between assessment marks may be expected. Furthermore, learning and skills

obtained from completing the first portfolio assessment, including the use of feedback

from the marker, can directly inform the completion of the second portfolio. For this unit,

no initial assumptions were made about the potential of each assessment to relate to other

assessments (e.g. due to marker reliability or mark differentiation). However, this

potential is now evidenced by the expected relatively high correlation.

The two units discussed above (i.e. Biopsychology and Societal) have relatively high

within-unit mark correlations that appears to result partly from a relatively high

commonality in assessment content domain, but perhaps especially from a relatively high

commonality in assessment method within these units. Those units shown within Table 3

that have relatively low within-unit correlations use quite different methods of assessment

within the unit. For example, for all four units that employ an essay and an exam, the

within-unit correlation between these two methods of assessment is at .23, or more

frequently below this value. Thus, within-unit correlation appears to be strongly

influenced by the similarity of the assessment method. There may be a number of

advantages to having similar assessment methods within any individual unit; for example,

the feedback from one assessment can directly inform the completion and improvement

of the next assessment within the unit. However it may not be possible to fully represent

and assess the learning outcomes within a unit through the use of similar assessments.

The influence of other ‘artifacts’ of the assessment process

The previous section indicated that the assessment process should produce marks that

possess the potential to relate to other assessments. As discussed previously, mark

reliability and mark differentiation are two important contributors to this potential. The

influence of these factors on mark relationships is further illustrated by the assessment

relationships shown in Table 4. Here, the MCTs for Biopsychology and Individual

Differences not only correlate most strongly with each other, but also have the strongest

correlation with four other assessments that vary both by method (i.e. are either an essay

or essay-type exam) and by content domain (i.e. do not belong to either the

Biopsychology unit or the Individual Differences unit). Some correlation between the

Rowley and Bell

162

Biopsychology and Individual Differences MCTs may be expected since they share an

assessment method. For these MCTs, the similarity in method of assessment appears to

be a more important influence than differences in content domain. However, the

relatively strong correlation between this method of assessment and other assessments

that differ both in method and in content domain may be the result of the high marker

reliability, and to some extent greater differentiation in marks, for these objectively

scored tests. That is, although MCTs within a unit may have relatively low commonality

of required learning and skills with an exam in a different unit, or especially an essay

within a different unit, any commonality that does exist is not undermined by low marker

reliability and low mark differentiation from at least one of the assessments (i.e. the

MCTs). Furthermore, the relatively high correlation between the MCTs and other

apparently quite different assessments, suggests that the commonality operating here may

not be primarily due to any direct relationship between acquired knowledge and skills

that are common to the assessments. Rather, such commonality may be primarily due to

the indirect influence of student differences in such general factors as approaches to study

and study skills.

The above discussion suggests that if an element of assessment has low correlations

within the unit and low correlations across all other assessments then there may be an

issue with that assessment’s validity or reliability and differentiation. Although such an

assessment may be meaningfully assessing a content domain that is quite specific and

useful, this is perhaps unlikely, especially if there is some expected commonality with

some other assessment that appears to share required knowledge or skills (e.g. due to a

shared assessment method).

Conclusions

The above discussion suggests that mark relationships reflect the various influences of

assessment validity; assessment method; assessment content; marker reliability; mark

differentiation; the commonality in acquired knowledge and skills that are directly

relevant to the learning outcomes and the commonality that arises from indirectly

relevant factors such as student approaches to study. The above discussion is consistent

with the view that elements of assessment within a unit that assess similar learning

outcomes, using similar methods and content, should give higher correlations between

marks and produce more coherent aggregate mark components in comparison to units

without these characteristics. However, the evidence from the first-year mark

relationships presented above suggests that, in general, assessments within units do not

form any more meaningful and coherent components than may be found across

assessments outside of the units. Unit assessment coherence appears to be strongly

influenced by the variety of assessment methods used and by other artifacts of the

assessment process (e.g. mark reliability and differentiation).

These above influences appear to prevent the emergence of coherent unit components and

confound the interpretation of assessment element marks. In this context, the overall

aggregate mark for the year achieves a meaningfulness and usefulness that may not be

present in a more detailed profile of marks. That is, if particular groupings of assessments

cannot be identified, then an overall aggregate mark will be the most representative and

reliable index of the commonality across assessments (e.g. see Nunnally and Bernstein,

1994). Although such an aggregate mark may misrepresent marks from a specific

Marks within a First Year Undergraduate Programme

163

assessment, the above discussion suggests that assessment specific marks may in large

part be the result of assessment artifacts. Should these findings be supported across other

years and programmes, then there would appear to be a number of difficulties with the

Burgess group’s suggestion that the overall summative judgment is replaced with a more

detailed set of information.

References

Burgess Group final report (2007). Beyond the honours degree classification. London:

Universities UK.

Corey, D. M., Dunlap, W. P., and Burke, M. J. (1998). Averaging correlations: Expected

values and bias in combined Pearson rs and Fisher’s z transformations. The Journal of

General Psychology, 125: 3, 245-261.

Fowell, S. and Jolly, B. (2000). Combining marks, scores and grades. Reviewing

common practices reveals some bad habits. Medical Education, 34: 785-786.

Koretz, D. (1998). Large-scale Portfolio Assessments in the

US: evidence pertaining to the quality of measurement. Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 5: 3, 309-334.

McLachlan and Whiten (2000). Marks, scores and grades: scaling and aggregating

student assessment outcomes. Medical Education, 34:788-797.

Nunnally, J.C. & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, 3rd

ed. London: McGraw-

Hill.

Shavelson, R.J., Gao, X. and Baxter, G.P. (1993). Sampling Variability of Performance

Assessments. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30: 215-232.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2002). Subject Benchmark Statement

for Psychology. Gloucester: QAAHE

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2006). Code of practice for the

assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education. Section 6: Assessment

of Students. Gloucester: QAAHE.

PRIME Volume 3(2)

165

Poster Abstract

Transitions to Identity in Student - Writers

Tony Wailey and Susana Sambade

London College of Communication

This paper, explores the "in between world" of text, image and student expectation,

(Deleuze 2003). It will focus on a group of electives that featured Creative Writing and

were offered to all second year students’ of BA honours and FdA programmes across the

London College of Communication, University of the Arts.

The main focus of the paper is to consider students’ expectations: if or how attending

these electives affected their ideas of writer identity, was in the way they expected or if it

was significantly different. The research explores the work of Etienne Wenger (1991)

whose sense of ‘situated knowledge’ is at the heart of a transition to professional

development, “meaning perspectives” and ownership of identity. In between worlds are

areas of transition, in emigration studies of families caught between home and far

horizon, in recent cultural writing between the cosmopolitan and the locale (Buck-Moss,

1989 -Panesar 2004)) and are equally the province of learners' negotiating the middle

passage of their degree.

The methodology used in the research aims to capture multiple perspectives -

professional writers and student individual voices- and draws upon the work of Ricoeur

(2000). It aims to allow participants to give an account of their worldview and how they

might negotiate the interweaving paths of professional identity. The research builds upon

other academic work illustrating how students not only socially construct the world of

“creative writing” and the relationship between text and image but how this itself

establishes frameworks of cultural capital outside of the students’ specific academic

discipline or indeed, life arena. The "in between world" is where the real work takes place

and can be located as one of the sources of student expectation.(Wenger,2005)

References

Buck-Moss, S. (1989) The dialectics of seeing: Walter Benjamin and The Arcades

Project, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Deleuze, J. (2003 ed) The Logic of Sensation, London, Continuum Books

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991)’Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation’,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Panesar J. & Wailey, T. (2004) Migrant Women, London, SoftNet Books,

Ricouer (2000) The Just Chicago, University of Chicago Press

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ricoeur accessed 5 Feb2007)

Wenger, E. (2005) ‘Communities of Practice’, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Prime Volume 3(2)

167

(Re)constructing Babel: Mapping the Dynamics of Teacher

Training

Beatrix Fahnert, Jeremy Hilton and Joe O’Mahoney

Cardiff University

Abstract

Professionalisation of teaching in Higher Education, corresponding quality assurance and

training requirements of the individual teachers were identified as the main discourses

associated with outsourced formal teacher training at Cardiff University. Individual and

collective needs were researched in a case study involving three Schools and analysed by

means of Soft Systems Methodology to draw together the commonalities of the different

positions, enabling debate amongst stakeholders (teachers, home Departments/ Schools,

training provider) and across disciplines. Once established the directed flow of information

can be used as a formal means of communication and a potential audit tool towards meeting

the collective needs.

Introduction

In line with the increasing professionalisation of the teaching, and other, professions (Eraut,

1994), Higher Education teachers are required by their employers to undertake formal training

in the professional values and practices identified by the Higher Education Academy (HEA).

This training (e.g. modules of Post-Graduate Certificate in University Learning and Teaching

courses) is mostly outsourced to a specialist “Learning and Teaching Unit” (or similar

phrasing) rather than being conducted locally within each Department/ School.

However, agreement on what form this education will take should involve complex

institutional negotiation considering differing ideologies, discourses and resources, especially

given that many of the ‘students’ (i.e. teacher training participants) are educators themselves.

Understanding and representing such diverse perspectives provides a challenge for training

providers and participants alike (Clark, 1984; Shils, 1983; Neumann, 2001).

The alignment of such training courses with the HEA can place them in a position of tension,

if not contradiction, with those they seek to train. On the one hand, the courses are usually

accredited by the HEA and, therefore, aligned to the principles which the HEA has identified

as underpinning professional practice in Higher Education. On the other hand, however, the

alignment with HEA principles in no way guarantees that the skills developed by the teacher

are those which are required by his or her Department/ School or students. The local

institutions to which the teacher must return after being trained have varied and changing

educational needs for their teachers, and their input into HEA accreditation requirements is

often indirect and informal.

In terms of the relevant literature, studies which assess the separation of the teaching

institution from the training institution generally note the extent to which continuous

improvement of teaching standards is related to the presence of communication and support

mechanisms between trainers, trainees and the teaching institutions. For example, Prosser et

al. (2006) note the difficulties involved with providing training that fits with the needs of all

stakeholders and point out that participating institutions are often uninformed of exactly how,

Fanhert, Hilton and O’Mahoney

168

and in what subjects, their teachers are being trained. On the positive side, they note how

participants often carry strong ideas back to their institutions to improve the teaching

strategies from within. Others, such as Prebble et al. (2004) support this by noting that

teacher-training courses lead to long-term benefits only if the trainees receive support from

their own Departments/ Schools. This, they found, is especially so of peer-support.

Whilst there is significant research into the extent to which teacher training has positive or

negative effects on those who participate, for example Rust (2000) or Gibbs and Coffey

(2004), there is virtually no research into the issues of perspective and interpretation

associated with outsourcing training to a centralised body within a university.

Attempting to answer some of these open questions this paper explores the processes by

which the realities of teacher education are both constructed and negotiated by stakeholders in

the professional education process. Based upon a case-study at Cardiff University, the paper

reports on the dynamics which underpin the formation and interpretation of teacher training

from different perspectives: university Departments/ Schools, teachers that attended the

course and the trainers themselves.

The study used 8 semi-structured interviews with senior staff to ascertain the different needs

and interpretations of these stakeholders and then deployed a questionnaire (n=52) to compare

the expectations of the various stakeholders and the ‘reality’ of the course. In seeking to

explain the differences between these institutional frames, the paper points to three

overlapping yet conflicting discourses: the professionalisation of teacher training (Schon,

1987), the quality assurance needs of the Schools (Biggs, 2001) and the functional

requirements of the teachers themselves.

Having established the differences between the expectations and interpretations of the

stakeholders, the paper seeks to represent the commonalities of their needs using a Soft

Systems Methodology (Wilson, 2001; Checkland, 1999). This resulted in a high level

conceptual framework which could be used as both a benchmark against which to compare

current practice and as a tool for translating the differing discourses into a common and

shared representation.

Methodology

Since August 2004 Cardiff University requires all probationary teaching staff to complete the

first module of a Postgraduate Certificate in University Teaching and Learning (PCUTL). The

teaching of the course is undertaken centrally by the Training and Development Section in the

HR Division.

The study focused on answering the following research questions:

a. Who are the key stakeholders in the Cardiff PCUTL course?

b. How do these stakeholders construct and interpret their understanding of PCUTL?

c. Can there be commensurability between these differing interpretations?

The methodology started from a constructivist perspective, assuming whilst different

interpretations would exist between PCUTL stakeholders it may be possible to forge a

common understanding between different groups (for a methodology overview see Appendix

One). Such a foundation enables a methodology which assumes that shared communities of

practice exist between different groups, thus allowing inter-disciplinary discussions regarding

Mapping the Dynamics of Teacher Training

169

the same object - in this case, teacher training (Wenger, 1998). The process of the

methodology was exploratory, seeking to develop an understanding of where the different

interpretations were located iteratively rather than seeking to impose a top-down a priori

categorisation.

To this end, exploratory semi-structured interviews were conducted with the Heads of School

and Heads of Teaching at three university Schools (Biosciences, Business and Computer

Science). Once themes had been tentatively developed a questionnaire was created using SSM

(as described later) and deployed to lecturers within the Schools and those undertaking the

PCUTL course (n=52). The enquiry aimed at capturing the discourses, requirements and

perspectives associated with different stakeholders involved in both teaching strategy and

practice (see Table 1).

Table 1: The Methodological Framework

Strategic Perspective Teacher Perspective

School

Perspective

Interviews with Head of School and

Head of Teaching to identify

training needs.

Questionnaire to School lecturers to

prioritise the identified training needs.

PCUTL

Perspective

Interviews with PCUTL Programme

Manager and Section Manager to

identify training provision.

Questionnaire to PCUTL participants to

assess relevance and quality of training

provision.

Similarities and Differences

The findings from the survey (see Appendix Two) indicated a number of similarities and

differences between the expectations of students/ participants, Schools and PCUTL managers.

In terms of consistencies, most stakeholders agreed on what ‘being a good lecturer’ means.

Despite this, a number of differences existed between the perspectives in terms of what was

expected from teacher training. For example, participants did not expect all of their training

support to come from PCUTL and felt instead that guidance in some areas should be provided

by Schools. For example, whilst over 50% felt the following attributes were essential to being

a good lecturer, less than 50% felt these attributes should be developed at PCUTL:

• Subject matter (i.e. the trainee’s own subject matter expertise)

• Research-led teaching (i.e. teaching informed by the trainee’s own research)

• Industry practice and needs (i.e. the needs of the industry environment)

• Pedagogic research (i.e. the trainee’s own research into their own teaching)

• Being organised (for example, project and time management)

• Being scholarly

Similarly, whilst 70% or more of lecturers agreed that lessons on teaching technology, health

and safety and dealing with problem situations should be taught by PCUTL, less than 50% of

participants felt this was the case.

Whilst more time could be spent outlining the similarities and differences between

participants, Schools and PCUTL management, it is more interesting to turn to the qualitative

data (i.e. interviews with stakeholders) and discover the reasons for these differences.

Fanhert, Hilton and O’Mahoney

170

Underlying Discourses

The differing priorities in terms of teacher training of PCUTL, Schools and teachers as

revealed by the survey may, from a traditional consultancy perspective, seem to reflect poor

or ineffective communication of the lecturers’ training needs (given the challenges faced in

teaching) via their Schools to their outsourced training provider PCUTL. Whilst there was

(very occasional) communication from Schools to PCUTL (especially when it was set up)

there was no formal process in place to ensure that teacher-training requirements are

generated from teachers and passed to PCUTL. Indeed some Schools intend only to review

provision once a number of teachers have completed PCUTL and the benefits can be

ascertained. Optimal communication is crucial and to be expected in a system where the first

priority is the effective teaching of students facilitated by optimised training of their teachers.

Instead, interviews and survey data showed that each group of stakeholders is founded within

institutional frameworks generated through distinct discourses. PCUTL discourse, for

example is rooted in the HEA definition of professionalism. PCUTL was to conform to the

HEA Professional Standards Framework and the course including assessment criteria are

explicitly structured around these values. The professionalisation debate clearly points to the

aims of standardisation and control (Baume 2006) as well as occupational ring-fencing

(Jeffcutt, 2004).

School management on the other hand is focused on the discourse of accreditation achieved in

a short a time as possible. Thus School managers want to ensure via provision of a basic

training that teaching is certainly of a minimum standard; their main priority is to ensure

sufficiently clear processes which will support the accreditors’ quality audits (see Table 2).

Turning to the teachers themselves, their underlying discourse appears to be that of teaching

itself. The needs they expressed were generally of a practical nature focusing on teaching

students well: using technology, being a strong communicator, and dealing with problem

situations. This is not to say that there are no other discourses present in the teacher-student

relationship. For example, the pressures of research, publications and administration appear to

press at least equally heavily on teacher’s time. However, as concerns the PCUTL

relationship, the primary focus of teachers appears to be on educating their students well.

Table 2: The Discourses

Main Discourse Purpose Structure

PCUTL

Management

Professionalisation To maintain standards and

communicate good practice in

the teaching discipline

HEA

School

Management

Accreditation To have evidence of required

capabilities of their teachers

AACSB / EQUIS /

AMBA / QAA/ other

quality audits

PCUTL

Participants

Teaching To activate students’ deep

learning processes as

effectively as possible.

Student feedback/ Self-

assessment/ Course QA

and QE/ Mentoring/

Appraisal/ Peer review

Mapping the Dynamics of Teacher Training

171

Whilst the discourses of accreditation and professionalisation do commit to supporting the

quality of teaching, both commit to a ‘minimum’ standard which states that a teacher should

“be capable of demonstrating X” rather than actually “being good at X”. Thus a teacher can

demonstrate respect for individual learners, commitment to developing learning communities

etc., but still be a poor quality teacher. The demonstration is partially based on a reflective

portfolio. One intended outcome of the teacher training (as well as the discourses of

accreditation and professionalisation) is a self-directed continuation of the teacher’s

professional development and informed by reflective practice taking into account e.g. student

and peer feedback. The feedback procedures are in place in Schools as part of quality

enhancement and assurance. It is the teacher’s responsibility to aspire to be a good quality

teacher making use of what was learnt in the training when acting on the feedback.

Thus directed and informed communication of certain aspects between all stakeholders

(discourses) is required in order for all to benefit from the training provided to teachers.

Designing a framework in support of a communication that efficiently meets these

requirements could positively combine all agendas without adding work or administration. An

approach, Soft Systems Methodology, was explored through a proof of concept to test its

suitability for providing such a framework.

Soft Systems Methodology: Searching for Common Ground

Despite the finding that PCUTL, School Management and teachers have differing

fundamental discourses, this does not mean that these positions are incommensurable. Indeed

to a great extent, all parties agreed that one requirement of the PCUTL course should be that

teachers improve the quality of their teaching. To ensure all parties gain the benefits they

require of PCUTL, they need to know what they require, and the managers of the PCUTL

programme need to know the collective set of requirements to provide a complete offering.

This is required so all parties can get what they need from PCUTL without detriment to

others. Therefore, there is a need to analyse the collective needs and agree a universal set

through dialogue.

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Wilson 2001) is used in this context to develop an

objective model and shared vision as well as achieve a common language against which to

compare the provision of teacher training through PCUTL. Two statements of purpose (Root

Definitions) had been developed (included in Appendix One).

From these activities were modelled that one might consider undertaking in order to achieve

the purpose defined. These had then been used to inform the design of the survey

questionnaires. The benefit of this approach is that an explicit mental model is produced

which leads to defensible outcomes. As the Root Definitions were based on the interviews,

objectivity in thinking could be maintained.

Given the scope of the project the method was not applied as rigorously as one might, but in a

light manner as a proof of concept; for example, Heads of School or PCUTL participants were

not approached in a follow up session to gain their agreement to the Root Definitions. This is

planned to be the subject of further studies. However, the activities could be identified with

confidence on the basis of the model.

It has to be stressed that this is not a model of reality, or a solution, but merely a first attempt

to produce a common understanding of what the system might be (see Appendix One; Figure

Fanhert, Hilton and O’Mahoney

172

2). The next step was to consider the activities identified. This consideration informed the

generation of questions for the questionnaire.

The response to the questionnaire and the results gained validated the use of SSM in this

manner, and the next step will be to use SSM more rigorously. PCUTL would need a

repository of the various discourse opinions to inform PCUTL management. The development

of the PCUTL programme to encompass the repository will enable Schools and PCUTL

participants to tailor their learning e.g. core and optional aspects to fit their needs. The

repository should also be used to capture results to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

PCUTL programme.

Linking the activities in the Conceptual Model to the repository is through analysis via a table

(such as Figure 1)

Figure 1: Analysis Tool

A B C D E F G H I

Activity Is it

done?

Whom is

it done

by?

How is

it

done?

PCUTL

offering

Quality

criteria How well

is it

done?

Potential

change

Impact of

change

1. The activities from the conceptual model (e.g. such as Figure 2 in Appendix One) are listed

under A.

2. The various stakeholders are consulted to agree the objective criteria by which the success of

the activities should be judged and listed under F.

3. With the above agreed, relevant parties are asked to consider whether the activity is carried

out (to be listed under B), and if not, whether it should. Moreover, it is recorded who carries

out the activity (under C) and how it is carried out (under D). If an activity is currently not

carried out, and it is felt it should be, it is also recorded how it might be carried out and whom

by.

4. Some of these activities will result in specific learning opportunities for PCUTL participants

through core or optional topics (list under E).

5. Using the quality criteria, an opinion as to how well that activity is carried out is recorded

(under G).

6. The result of the previous step will lead to a consideration of potential changes (list under H)

to improve the success of the activity, often whilst ….

considering the impact of any such change (list under I).

Such an analysis can be undertaken based on the collected data and to engage with PCUTL

management and the Schools involved to date to evaluate the outcomes.

Thus SSM also enables an audit trail from the outcomes back to the original statements of

purpose. Should any of the stakeholders change their opinion of the purpose of PCUTL,

including HEA accreditation requirements, then by restating the Root Definitions, and

developing a new conceptual model, changes in activity can be identified and the repository

of PCUTL needs to be updated accordingly. This would then be reflected in revised offerings

to PCUTL participants.

Mapping the Dynamics of Teacher Training

173

Conclusions

Through the use of interviews and a survey, this paper demonstrates the differences in

priorities of the key stakeholders in an outsourced teacher-training function. Rather than put

these differences down to initial poor communication, the paper suggests that the differing

stakeholders are founded in differing discourses which help determine their priorities.

However, ongoing communication among the stakeholders has to be adapted by means of a

common language that acknowledges the existence of different initial priorities to support the

identified and agreed common priority that PCUTL participants should improve the quality of

their teaching. This is the number one priority of the teachers themselves and in the interest of

PCUTL and School management as well, but within the framework of professionalisation and

accreditation, respectively.

After outlining the differences between these discourses the paper attempted to move the

debate forward by arguing that, whilst differences in priorities exist, all stakeholders are

committed, in varying degrees, to the development of teaching quality. To this end, a system

was designed which could act as an agreed basis for moving the discussions forward.

The ‘light’ use of SSM was useful in bringing together the various discourses and presented

an objective view representing the commonalities of their needs, albeit at a high level. It did

enable the differences between the expectations and interpretations of the different

stakeholders to be identified through the use of questionnaires.

The use of SSM also resulted in a high level conceptual framework which could be used as

both a benchmark against which to compare current practice and as a tool for translating the

differing discourses into a common and shared representation. This is to be further explored

through subsequent research which will examine the potential of using SSM to bridge

discourses in creating commensurate understandings across different perspectives. By seeking

to depict the commonalities of a system which can satisfy the three perspectives, SSM does

not aim to neutralise the discourses. Instead it aims at providing a flow of information which

connects different stakeholders at a strategic and operational level. The paper accepts that

SSM has its own discourse, language and structure in other respects, but holds that this is

amenable to constructing a common ground between competing perspectives.

References

Baume, D. (2006) ‘Towards the end of the last non-professions’, International Journal for

Academic Development, 11 (1): 57-60.

Biggs, J. (2001) ‘The reflective institution: assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and

learning’, Higher Education, 41 (3): 221-238.

Checkland, P. (1999) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons

Ltd.

Clark, B. (1984) Perspectives on Higher Education: eight disciplinary and comparative

views, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Department of Education and Skills (2003) The Future of Higher Education. White Paper,

January.

Fanhert, Hilton and O’Mahoney

174

Eraut, M. (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence, London: Falmer

Press.

Gibbs, G. and Coffey, M. (2004). ‘The impact of training of university teachers on their

teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students’,

Active Learning in Higher Education, 5 (1): 87-100.

Jeffcutt, P. (2004) The Foundations of Management Knowledge, London: Routledge.

Neumann, R. (2001) ‘Disciplinary differences and university teaching’, Studies in Higher

Education, 26 (2): 135-146.

Prebble, T., Hargraves, H., Leach, L., Naidoo, K. Suddaby, G. and Zepke, N. (2004) Impact

of Student Support Services and Academic Development Programmes on Student Outcomes in

Undergraduate Tertiary Study: A Synthesis of the Research. Research Report, Research

Division, New Zealand Ministry of Education.

Prosser, M., Rickinson, M., Bence, V., Hanbury, A. and Kulej, M. (2006) Formative

evaluation of accredited programmes, Report, The Higher Education Academy.

Rust, C. (2000) ‘Do Initial Training Courses Have an Impact on University Teaching? The

Evidence From Two Evaluative Studies of One Course’, Innovations In Education &

Training International, 37 (3): 254-262.

Schon, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design in Teaching

and Learning in the Professions, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shils, E. (1983) The Academic Ethic, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, B. (2001) Soft Systems Methodology: Conceptual Model Building and Its

Contribution. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Mapping the Dynamics of Teacher Training

175

Appendix One: Method Sequence

1. Interviews were undertaken with the Heads of each School and, where available, the

Heads of Teaching. These were qualitative and semi-structured.

Interview Questions

What are the general teaching needs of the School?

What is the process for identifying and managing teaching needs/ skills?

What would be your idea of an ideal teacher?

How is this vision put into practice in a research-led environment?

What are your teachers’ education needs? How do you know?

What do you understand PCUTL to be?

What do you want PCUTL to do for your teaching-education needs?

What do you believe your teachers get from PCUTL?

Is there any other teaching-education provision in the School?

Were you/ the School involved in designing the PCUTL course?

2. Root Definitions of the purpose of PCUTL were developed from the interview results.

From these, a conceptual model (see Figure 2) was developed to identify common

requirements across the three Schools.

Root Definitions for PCUTL

RD1 Assumed PCUTL viewpoint A system, owned by Cardiff University, operated by relevant Cardiff University staff, visiting

experts, skilled and experienced mentors, and recently appointed lecturers to develop effective

teaching and learning skills in recently appointed lecturers by providing a course based on

seminars on a range of topics, including learning outcomes, course preparation and delivery,

assessment, and educational theory, requiring a group project, and culminating in the

preparation of an assessed portfolio, within the constraints of relevant Cardiff University

policy, the needs of the various Schools within Cardiff University and the requirements of a

research-led University.

RD2 School’s viewpoint A system owned by the Head of School, operated by relevant Cardiff University staff,

visiting experts, skilled and experienced mentors, and recently appointed lecturers, to

engender in recently appointed lecturers the skills and attributes required for quality teaching

and student learning, by providing the necessary knowledge and support for personal

development such that the recently appointed lecturers have the knowledge, skills and attitude

required to maintain the necessary professional standards as befits a world-class research-led

university.

3. Lecturers within each School were surveyed by means of questionnaires based on the

SSM results to prioritise these requirements, to state whether the requirement identified by

the Heads was important to being a good lecturer and whether they believed that meeting

the requirements should be part of the PCUTL provision. This was an important step

because there would be no point assessing whether a requirement was adequately catered

for by PCUTL if it was unfeasible to provide it.

Fanhert, Hilton and O’Mahoney

176

4. PCUTL Programme Manager and Section Manager were interviewed using the

questionnaire items to assess whether there was a strategic intention to provide the stated

requirements. Details were sought on how the requirement was provided (e.g. workshops,

assignments and coursework) and whether the provision of the requirement was measured.

5. PCUTL participants were asked using the questionnaire to assess whether (in their opinion

the requirement is provided by PCUTL and how well and whether it should be provided

by PCUTL.

Figure 2: Conceptual Model

Appendix Two: Findings

Interviews with the Heads of School and Heads of Teaching revealed remarkable consistency

regarding what they believed good lecturing involved. These were split into requirements

regarding knowledge (to know) and attitudes (to be):

Mapping the Dynamics of Teacher Training

177

Table 3: Knowledge Requirements of ‘Good’ Lecturers

Subject matter Know one's subject matter thoroughly

Educational theory Know different educational theory and how it informs practice

Teaching technology

Know how to use different teaching technologies (e.g. white-boards,

PowerPoint)

Learning outcomes Know how to construct and assess learning outcomes

Educational

landscape

Know about the changing educational environment (e.g. accreditation, student

no.'s, overseas students)

Teaching and

delivery methods Know different methods of teaching delivery

Research led

teaching Know how to provide teaching based upon one's own research

Industry practice

and need Know relevant industry requirements for employees and current practice

Health and safety Know health and safety aspects/ regulations for teaching practice

Student behaviour Know how students learn and respond in different teaching environments

Course design Know how to design and structure different types of courses and programs

Assessment setting

Know how to set assignments at an appropriate level whilst maintaining

standards

Pedagogic research Know how to undertake research into different learning and teaching issues

Problem situations Know how to deal with disruptive students

Appropriate

teaching level

Know how to provide different teaching styles for different class sizes, levels

and student nationalities

Relevant teaching Know how to show why one's teaching area is relevant and important

Table 4: Attitudinal Requirements of ‘Good’ Lecturers

Supportive To be responsive to students, showing flexibility and care

Scholarly To be learned and intellectual

Inspirational To be motivated and challenge/ engage students

Proactive To take the initiative, be confident and provide leadership to students

Reflective To be reflective and manage one's development needs

Skilled To be a strong communicator and presenter

Organised To be able to manage time and self-organisation effectively

Professional To be a professional teacher

When these requirements were put to lecturers themselves there was, again, consistency, with

none scoring less than a 50% agreement that the requirement was, indeed, important in

becoming a good lecturer. It should be noted that 19 of the 23 requirements scored over 60%

agreement.

Fanhert, Hilton and O’Mahoney

178

When lecturers and PCUTL participants were asked if they believed that the provision of the

required skills and knowledge should be part of PCUTL training, the following requirements

scored over 60% agreement levels:

Table 5: Requirements Lecturers believe should be provided by PCUTL

Educational theory Know different educational theory and how it informs practice

Teaching technology Know how to use different teaching technologies

Learning outcomes Know how to construct and assess learning outcomes

Educational landscape Know about the changing educational environment

Teaching and delivery Know different methods of teaching delivery

Health and safety Know health and safety aspects/ regulations for teaching practice

Student behaviour Know how students learn and respond in different environments

Course design Know how to design and structure different courses and programs

Assessment setting Know how to set assignments at an appropriate level

Problem situations Know how to deal with disruptive students

Appropriate teaching Know how to provide different teaching styles

Relevant teaching Know why one's teaching area is relevant and important

Inspirational To be motivated and challenge/ engage students

Proactive To take the initiative, be confident and provide leadership

Reflective To be reflective and manage one's development needs

Skilled To be a strong communicator and presenter

Professional To be a professional teacher

Supportive To be responsive to students, showing flexibility and care

Lecturers and participants agreed that the following should NOT be provided by centralised

teacher training:

- Knowledge regarding the lecturer’s subject matter

- Research-led teaching

- Specific industry practices

- Pedagogic research

Teachers felt not enough training is provided in the following areas:

- Knowing about the educational landscape

- Dealing with problem situations

- Being motivated and inspirational

- Being a strong communicator and presenter

PCUTL do not currently aim to provide training on “Dealing with problem situations”and a

strategic decision would need to be made on this for future activities.

“Being a strong communicator and presenter” is fundamental to lecturing and these skills

could be built more centrally into the PCUTL provision of training.

Mapping the Dynamics of Teacher Training

179

Schools might review the provision of:

- Being knowledgeable in subject matter

- Providing research-led teaching

- Knowing industry expectations and practice

- Undertaking pedagogic research

- Being organised

- Being scholarly

A formal feedback loop (e.g. by means of the introduced model) connecting PCUTL

participants, School and PCUTL management could help the combination of the discourses

and has been found not to be currently in place.

The following requirements are considered the most important ones in becoming a good

teacher and are well provided by PCUTL:

- Knowing how educational theory informs practice

- Using learning outcomes

- Teaching delivery methods

- Knowing how students behave in different environments

- Designing courses

- Being reflective

- Being a professional teacher

- Being supportive of students

- Participants should focus on the training provided.

Table 6: Questionnaire results

LECTURERS

33 % returned

PCUTL PARTICIPANTS

22 % returned

PCUTL

MANAGERS

How

important

to being a

good

lecturer?

Should

this be

provided?

Is this

provided

by

PCUTL?

Should

this be

provided?

How well

is this

provided?

Is this

provided

by

PCUTL?

Is this

output

measured?

Rate 1 -

5

Yes in

%

Yes in

%

Yes in

%

Rate 1 -

5

Yes /

No Yes / No

Subject

matter

Know one's

subject matter

thoroughly 4.9 2 8 8 2.2 Yes Yes

Educational

theory

Know different

educational

theory and how it

informs practice 2.7 90 83 75 3.4 Yes Yes

Teaching

technology

Know how to use

different teaching

technologies (e.g.

white-boards,

PowerPoint) 3.7 76 25 67 2.8 Yes No

Learning

outcomes

Know how to

construct and

assess learning

outcomes 3.5 88 92 83 4.2 Yes Yes

Educational

landscape

Know about the

changing

educational

environment (e.g.

accreditation,

student no.'s,

overseas

students) 2.5 57 25 67 2 Yes Yes

Fanhert, Hilton and O’Mahoney

180

Teaching

and delivery

methods

Know different

methods of

teaching delivery 4.3 100 92 83 3.9 Yes Yes

Research led

teaching

Know how to

provide teaching

based upon one's

own research 3.7 27 8 50 1.3 Yes

Yes (if

included

in

portfolio)

Industry

practice and

need

Know relevant

industry

requirements for

employees and

current practice 2.9 22 33 42 1.7 Yes

Yes (if

included

in

portfolio)

Health and

safety

Know health and

safety aspects/

regulations for

teaching practice 3.1 72 50 67 3.7 Yes

Yes (if

included

in

portfolio)

Student

behaviour

Know how

students learn and

respond in

different teaching

environments 4.1 93 83 83 3.7 Yes Yes

Course

design

Know how to

design and

structure different

types of courses

and programs 4.1 84 100 75 3.5 Yes Yes

Assessment

setting

Know how to set

assignments at an

appropriate level

whilst

maintaining

standards 4.5 86 92 83 3.4 Yes Yes

Pedagogic

research

Know how to

undertake

research into

different learning

and teaching

issues 2.5 46 67 75 3.1 Yes Yes

Problem

situations

Know how to

deal with

disruptive

students 3.8 92 33 100 2 No

Yes (if

included

in

portfolio)

Appropriate

teaching

level

Know how to

provide different

teaching styles

for different class

sizes, levels and

student

nationalities 4.1 100 83 75 3.1 Yes Yes

Relevant

teaching

Know how to

show why one's

teaching area is

relevant and

important 3.9 51 17 67 2.6 Yes Yes

Inspirational

To be motivated

and challenge /

engage students 4.8 64 58 50 2.3 Yes Yes

Proactive

To take the

initiative, be

confident and

provide

leadership to

students 4.4 58 17 58 2.5 No

Reflective

To be reflective

and manage one's

development

needs 3.9 68 75 83 4 Yes Yes

Skilled

To be a strong

communicator

and presenter 4.5 78 33 58 1.8 Yes

Yes (if

included)

Mapping the Dynamics of Teacher Training

181

Organised

To be able to

manage time and

self-organisation

effectively 4.3 35 8 50 1.5 No

Professional

To be a

professional

teacher 3.4 53 83 83 3.9 Yes Yes

Supportive

To be responsive

to students,

showing

flexibility and

care 4.5 51 75 67 3.8 Yes

Yes (if

included

in

portfolio)

Scholarly To be learned and

intellectual 3.4 11 42 67 3 Yes Yes