Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Policy Discourses and the Illusion of Best Practice 3031280377, 9783031280375

Citation preview

Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Policy Discourses and the Illusion of Best Practice Sarah Horrod

Learning and Teaching in Higher Education

Sarah Horrod

Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Policy Discourses and the Illusion of Best Practice

Sarah Horrod School of Education University of Nottingham Nottingham, UK

ISBN 978-3-031-28037-5 ISBN 978-3-031-28038-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28038-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: @Moodboard Stock Photography/Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To Natasha, Alexander & Gerard

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank all the participants in my study for sharing their experiences with me. I want to acknowledge the department of Linguistics and English Language (LAEL) at Lancaster University for providing a genuinely transformative study experience. Thanks to all the knowledgeable academics for their expertise in sharing their knowledge and showing others how to use it. Further, I would like to thank Diane Potts for pointing me in the direction of Bernstein’s work. To Johnny Unger for showing me the value of CDA approaches and how to engage with the discourse-historical approach (DHA). And to both for their support throughout the doctoral process. Thanks also to the inspirational women that I shared the ups and downs of the Ph.D. journey with—they know who they are. I would also like to mention those people whose writing inspired me. Firstly, the writing of Ruth Wodak and Martin Reisigl for showing me how the DHA could be used in an impactful way. I’d also like to mention the writing of Monica McLean, Andrea Abbas and Paul Ashwin. Coming across their 2017 book towards the end of my study gave me the sense that my own thoughts might not be totally off course. Any misunderstandings and errors are, however, of course, my own. I am very grateful to Cathy Scott, Executive Editor, Language and Linguistics, at Palgrave Macmillan, for her patience and guidance. Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their support. I hope I have shown that procrastination and failure are all part of the journey, but that persistence and a bit of enthusiasm can get you somewhere.

vii

Contents

1

Learning & Teaching in Higher Education and Why It Matters 1.1 Introduction: Learning & Teaching in Higher Education and Why It Matters 1.2 The Origins of the Study: From What Students Are Doing, to Why 1.3 The Higher Education Landscape—Global and Local 1.3.1 Key Developments in UK Higher Education 1.3.2 Organisations Involved in Policy-Making in Higher Education 1.3.3 Key Features of the ‘Discursive Landscape’ in Higher Education 1.4 The Rise of Learning & Teaching as a Field of Enquiry 1.4.1 Reasons for the Increasing Prominence of Learning & Teaching 1.4.2 Institutional Centres for Learning & Teaching 1.4.3 Teaching Accreditation Schemes 1.5 Aims and Research Questions 1.6 Researcher Positionality: Insider and Outsider Perspective 1.7 Outline of Chapters 1.8 Main Arguments of the Book References

1 1 3 4 5 6 11 20 20 21 21 23 26 26 27 29

ix

x

CONTENTS

2

Guiding Approaches and Study Design 2.1 Introduction 2.2 How Education Works: Bernstein’s Sociology of Pedagogy 2.2.1 Pedagogic Discourse 2.2.2 The Pedagogic Device 2.2.3 Singulars, Regions and Generic Modes 2.2.4 Visible and Invisible Pedagogies: Performance and Competence Models 2.2.5 Pedagogic Identities 2.3 How Policy Is Viewed in This Study 2.4 Uncovering the Ideological: Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) and the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) 2.4.1 Context 2.4.2 Fields of Action 2.4.3 Genre 2.4.4 Text 2.4.5 Discourse; Discourse Topics; Discursive Strategies 2.4.6 Recontextualisation: Intertextuality and Interdiscursivity 2.5 The Approach to Interviews 2.6 Complementarity of Bernstein and Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) 2.7 Study Setting 2.8 Data Collection and Selection 2.8.1 Student Assignment Texts 2.8.2 Policy Documents 2.8.3 Interviews 2.8.4 Ethics 2.9 Conclusion References

37 37 38 39 40 42

Who the Key People Are 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The Discourses of Learning & Teaching Policy: The Institution as a Non-Hierarchical Community with Shared Values 3.2.1 Overview of Community 3.2.2 Individual Actors and Their Representation in the Policy Documents

81 81

3

43 44 45 47 49 50 51 53 53 60 61 65 66 67 67 69 71 74 74 75

82 82 85

CONTENTS

Partnership and Partnership Learning Communities 3.2.4 Reasons for the Focus on Community and Partnership 3.2.5 Advance HE Frameworks on People 3.3 Being a Lecturer, Being a Student and Notions of Community: Lecturer and Student Views 3.3.1 Lecturer Views 3.3.2 Student Views 3.4 Implications and Discussion: The Consequences of the Focus on Community 3.4.1 Bernstein’s Concept of Pedagogic Identities Within Particular Socio-political Contexts 3.4.2 Implications of the Portrayal of People in Policy Documents Versus the Reality in Universities 3.5 Conclusion References

xi

3.2.3

4

WHAT to Learn and Teach 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The Discourses of Learning & Teaching Policy: A University Education as Developing Future-Fit Graduates 4.2.1 A Future-Facing or Twenty-First-Century Education 4.2.2 Added Value 4.2.3 Authentic Tasks and Curriculum 4.2.4 Reflection and Articulation of Learning 4.2.5 Anticipating Resistance to Policy Ideas 4.2.6 Advance HE 2020 Frameworks on ‘What’ to Teach and Learn 4.3 Complex and Diverse Assessment: How It Reflects Discourses and Decisions on Learning & Teaching 4.4 The Issue of ‘Real Life’: Interviews with Students and Lecturers 4.4.1 The Practical-Theoretical Continuum 4.4.2 ‘Practical’: Reflection and Articulation of Learning

88 90 91 92 92 93 106 106 107 109 109 111 111

112 112 116 117 117 119 120 120 123 125 128

xii

CONTENTS

4.4.3

Real Life or Not? Attitudes to the Topos of Real Life 4.5 The Issue of ‘Added Value’ 4.6 Implications and Discussion: The Consequences of a Focus on Employability 4.6.1 Bernstein’s View on Different Types of Subjects and the Influences on Curriculum 4.6.2 The Ideological Character of Skills and the Focus on Self-Development 4.6.3 Backgrounding Knowledge and Reducing a University Education to ‘Practice’ 4.7 Conclusion References 5

HOW to Learn and Teach 5.1 Introduction 5.2 The Discourses of Learning & Teaching Policy: Learning as Socially Situated and Teaching as Facilitation 5.2.1 Creating Absence and Presence: Backgrounding and Foregrounding 5.2.2 Invoking a ‘Paradigm’: Topos of Social Constructivism 5.2.3 Invoking Key Education Thinkers: Topos of Authority 5.2.4 Pedagogy as a Process of Continuous Improvement 5.2.5 Advance HE Frameworks on ‘How’ to Teach and Learn 5.3 Time-Consuming, Extensive Support for Students: Interviews with Lecturers 5.3.1 ‘Socially Situated/Socially Constructed Learning’ 5.3.2 ‘Students Contribution to Improving Teaching Quality’ 5.3.3 The Myth of Effortless ‘Facilitation’ 5.4 Implications and Discussion: The Reasons for, and Consequences of, Backgrounding Teaching

129 139 141 141 142 143 144 145 147 147

148 148 150 155 160 160 161 161 162 162 166

CONTENTS

Bernstein’s Concepts of Framing, Visible and Invisible Pedagogies, Pedagogic Identities and their Relevance to Policy Constructions and Practice 5.4.2 Reasons for, and Consequences of, This Portrayal of Learning and Teaching 5.5 Conclusion References

xiii

5.4.1

6

How POLICY Should Be implemented—And Why in that Way 6.1 Introduction 6.2 The Discourses of Learning & Teaching Policy: Policy as Embedded in Processes and Practices 6.2.1 Prescription Versus Flexibility 6.2.2 Embedded Versus Bolt-On and Embedded into the Core 6.2.3 Shared Language 6.3 How Policy Ideas Travel: The Recontextualisation of Policy from Government to Universities 6.3.1 Evolution of HEA Discussion Documents to HEA Frameworks (2012–14) to Advance HE 2020 Framework Guides 6.3.2 Policy Mechanisms and Embedding: Advance HE (HEA) Fellowship Scheme 6.3.3 From National Policy to Institutional Policy, Guidelines and Practices 6.3.4 Discursive Mechanisms of Embedding at the Institutional Level 6.4 Lecturer Views on Learning & Teaching Policy: Its Influence and the People Involved in Disseminating Policy Guidelines 6.4.1 Changes to Teaching and Assessment Practices 6.4.2 People with Learning & Teaching Roles and Their Contribution 6.5 Implications and Discussion: The Consequences of Policy Recontextualisation 6.5.1 A Bernsteinian View of Recontextualisation 6.5.2 Autonomy Versus Compliance

166 170 172 173 175 175 176 176 178 180 182

183 190 193 197

199 199 202 205 205 207

xiv

7

CONTENTS

6.6 Conclusion References

207 208

Conclusions: Why Policy on Learning & Teaching Matters 7.1 Introduction: Why Policy Ideas on Learning & Teaching Matter 7.2 Discourses in the Field of Learning & Teaching: a Summary and What This Reveals 7.2.1 A Summary of Discursive Strategies 7.2.2 Different but Overlapping Discourses: The Myth of an Alternative Discourse? 7.3 How Policy Ideas Move and Change: The Suppression of the Ideological 7.4 Views on the Ground: The Value of Findings from Students and Lecturers and How This Relates to Policy Views 7.5 The Contribution of Social Theory: Bernstein’s Continuing Relevance to an Analysis of Higher Education 7.6 Learning & Teaching in Universities 7.6.1 Academic Development 7.6.2 Learning Design 7.7 Issues of Inequality and Social Justice 7.8 Ways Forward: ‘Prospective Critique’ 7.9 Conclusion References

211

Index

211 214 214 217 219

220

221 223 223 224 225 226 227 229 231

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1

Fig. 6.1 Fig. 7.1

Fields of action in higher education (Based on Reisigl and Wodak’s [2016, p. 29] diagram on fields of political action) Discursive engagement with policy within the institution Interdiscursivity: overlapping discourses

52 198 218

xv

List of Tables

Table Table Table Table

1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3

Table Table Table Table Table

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.1

Table 4.1

Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 5.1

Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 7.1

Key reforms in higher education in England Context in the DHA Discursive strategies with examples Selected features of spoken interaction aligned with DHA discursive strategies Data in the study HEA long discussion documents for analysis HEA and Advance HE frameworks (2016–2020) Interview participants: students The institution as a non-hierarchical community with shared values: Discourse topics and strategies from the six policy documents A university education as developing future-fit graduates: discourse topics and strategies from the six policy documents Assignment elements by mode, focus and timeframe Key modules and their range of assignments Learning as socially situated and teaching as facilitation: discourse topics and strategies from the six policy documents Policy as embedded in processes and practices: discourse topics and strategies from the six policy documents Changes across HEA and Advance HE documents Summary of key discursive strategies in the selected learning & teaching policy documents

7 50 56 64 68 71 72 73

84

113 121 124

149 177 184 215

xvii

CHAPTER 1

Learning & Teaching in Higher Education and Why It Matters

1.1 Introduction: Learning & Teaching in Higher Education and Why It Matters As I neared the end of writing up this research, an article appeared on the staff section of the website of the university in the study about co-creation with its aim ‘to dramatically shake up how we work with students by making them equal partners in their learning journey’. I could examine the various assumptions underlying this statement; not least that this is new. However, for the moment, this example embodies questions at the heart of this book such as how ideas arrive in universities and in whose interest; whether they are taken up in practice and with what effects. Higher education is a site of struggle between different agencies and actors. It is subject to unprecedented scrutiny from the government, higher education agencies, the media, the public, employers’ bodies, and a range of other stakeholders who question the purpose and value of a higher education. In England, the introduction of fees has focused attention on value for money leading to a renewed spotlight on students’ experiences of their higher education and metrics attempting to measure ‘teaching quality’. Senior management in many universities has targeted the area of ‘learning & teaching’ through policy guidelines and practices with the aim of enhancing the ‘student experience’. Given such prominence in policy, it is important to consider the ways in which those involved in learning & teaching, as well as learning and teaching practices © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Horrod, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28038-2_1

1

2

S. HORROD

themselves, are constructed in policy texts as contributing to the quality of this student experience. What is meant by ‘learning and teaching’? In this book, I use the phrase ‘learning & teaching’ in a number of ways. Firstly, I use it in the way that policy documents use it; that is, to denote an area of enquiry in higher education which is in contrast to other areas of academic work such as research or public engagement. It is also used as a shorthand for practices related to approaches to teaching, assessment and students’ learning. Additionally, it refers to an emphasis on activities engaging students in the classroom and thus also relates to curriculum design with students’ needs at the centre. It has also become a feature that, as above, differentiates it from research and, therefore, is seen in job adverts as academic roles become increasingly segregated. In this sense, the term is laden with meaning and associations, and it is inherently ideological (see Chapter 5). The term scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), coined by Boyer (1990, cited in McCarthy, 2019, p. 166) extends this to construct learning & teaching as a valid area for enquiry, effort and rewards and therefore worthy of academics’ attention. The notion of this ‘field’ of SoTL has recently drawn comment and criticism in terms of its validity as a field and ambiguity over its relationship to higher education research (e.g. Canning & Masika, 2022). To enrich the conceptualisation of learning & teaching further, and to highlight why it should be subject to a critical gaze, Trowler’s (2004) notion of teaching and learning regimes (TLRs), or shared ‘sets of meanings, attitudes, and practices’ (p. 199) is a useful starting point. Included in his framework of eight dimensions are ‘implicit theories of teaching and learning’; ‘tacit assumptions’ about, for example, the purpose of higher education; ‘discursive repertoires’ i.e. the language used to talk about teaching and learning; power relations between students and lecturers; identities. This recognises that a shared culture, language and recurrent practices are built up around teaching and learning which are not universal and require an examination to determine the underlying assumptions. His focus was on different TLRs within, for example, academic development units and subject departments and how this might explain departments’ reluctance to embrace the ideas on teaching and learning from academic development units. He also considered how policy might be diffused through different TLRs and the need for policy to be coherent with departments’ practices (Trowler et al., 2005). This aligns with my own interest in questioning the visions set out in

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

3

learning & teaching policy documents and seeing how ideas are accepted or resisted. However, I believe that understanding more about the structures and mechanisms through which policy ideas are recontextualised is needed. This leads me to principally draw on Bernstein’s sociology of pedagogy as I outline in Chapter 2.

1.2 The Origins of the Study: From What Students Are Doing, to Why The study stems from my immersion in the learning, teaching and assessment practices of higher education both as an educator supporting student writers from outside of students’ disciplines and from teaching within degree programmes. That is, my experience in designing and coordinating English for academic purposes’ (EAP) / academic literacies’ courses to support students in higher education gave me an insight into a range of disciplines and their assessments through collaborating with colleagues from across the university. I increasingly encountered diverse, innovative and complex assessment types such as assignments with external organisations’ involvement, reflective blogs, visual assignments, group projects among others as noted by Leedham (2009) and McLean et al. (2017). I questioned whether such practices were simply a result of innovation in learning & teaching or something more multifaceted. Being located in a department within a faculty, rather than a separate language centre, enabled closer contact with degree-level practices. My involvement in designing and teaching credit-bearing English courses also contributed to this understanding. Additionally, for the past ten years, I have taught on postgraduate programmes thus involving me further in the regulations, guidelines and discussions around learning, teaching and assessment. I noticed a proliferation of policy guidelines relating to learning & teaching within the institution. So despite the role of policy and wider influences being part of my interest from the start, I would describe my study as moving from an EAP teacher’s focus on what students are required to do, to a focus on why. In other words, assessment texts and practices and students’ challenges in dealing with them were a starting point for this study but this shifted beyond the institution to an exploration of the influences shaping guidelines on learning, teaching and assessment and of the connections between such policy and practices on the ground. As I explain in Chapter 2, the guiding inspirations of Bernstein’s sociology

4

S. HORROD

of pedagogy and a critical discourse studies’ approach were instrumental in facilitating this focus on the wider context.

1.3 The Higher Education Landscape---Global and Local This section highlights some of the key debates around higher education, important changes in policy in the UK that led us to where we are today and also what I term the ‘discursive landscape’; that is, the ‘narratives’ that circulate about higher education. Before surveying the specific landscape in England, it is worth taking a brief detour into the ‘global’ higher education landscape. It is useful to consider not simply whether university systems are similar across the world, but also the existence of policy discourses and trends such as marketisation. The drivers towards any ‘global’ trends in higher education involve the rise of international/regional policy-making, including through organisations like the OECD, WTO, EU, ASEAN, as well as non-state actors such as transnational education businesses (Mundy et al., 2016). In terms of governance within Europe, de Boer and Jongbloed (2012) note the increasing influence of different policy levels: upwards, downwards and outwards. The first is ‘supranational’ influence as described above; in this case, the EU in particular (see also Broucker et al., 2019 for an evaluation of the 1999 Bologna Process reforms to create a European Higher Education Area). The second is ‘down’ to the local or institutional level. The third is ‘out’ to numerous external accreditation and funding agencies and also to private sector influence/entry into the market. They term these policy trends ‘multi-level, multi-actor governance’; also referred to as ‘network governance’ (p. 554). They see such trends as having the aims of both institutional autonomy combined with widespread state intervention or ‘steering’ due to the social and economic significance of higher education. Further, three specific worldwide trends are noted by Marginson (2016, p. 292): (1) the growth of ‘high participation systems’ whereby an increasing number of young people go to university (2) the notion of ‘World Class Universities’ (WCUs) based on a ‘one-world science system’ and global university rankings in which universities are still primarily ranked according to research and (3) the implementation of quasi-business organisation. However, authors focused on governance and global education policy also note the enduring national and regional differences in terms of political economy and educational culture which

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

5

influence practice (Marginson, 2016) and the fact that global policy discourses do not necessarily translate into local practice (Mundy et al., 2016). Global policy flows relating specifically to the notion/practice of ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) embodying ideas such as competition, managerialism, customer focus and continuous self-evaluation are noted by Marginson (2016, p.305) but he emphasises again that there is wide variation in the extent of marketisation and ‘neo-liberal reform’ (see Sect. 1.3.3.1 for further discussion on marketisation and the UK). Yet, he suggests that ‘commercialisation’ and the prevalence of business models will be homogenising influences on higher education in the longer term. Finally, in terms of the specific topics of learning, teaching and assessment (LTA), Brown (2020) argues that there is no global pedagogy and that practices and attitudes towards a wide range of indicators e.g. curriculum, teaching approaches, feedback, teacher-student relations are incredibly diverse worldwide. Despite this, there is no doubt that there are increasingly global policy discourses around the purpose of higher education and what constitutes good practice in learning and teaching. Therefore, the topic of this book should be of interest to those in different higher education systems around the world. 1.3.1

Key Developments in UK1 Higher Education

The notion of a changing context can be used to justify any practices (see Chapters 4 and 5). However, it is important to acknowledge that change has been accelerating in response to some of the major reforms outlined below such as the introduction of tuition fees and a decrease in government funding as well as the lifting of the cap on numbers of undergraduate admissions. Table 1.1 provides a selective summary of key reforms in higher education in England. I focus on those related to changes to the structure of the sector, funding and learning & teaching. Most people would agree that these are significant moments for higher education (see e.g. Brown & Carasso, 2013; HEFCE,2 2017; Marginson, 2018). Although they mostly concern England, they indicate trends evident internationally due to the global characteristics of competition in the sector and networks of policy influence (Mundy et al., 2016). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to detail all the numerous reports, white papers3 and Acts of Parliament4 let alone their impacts which are, of course, subject to disagreement. I limit my discussion to explaining key

6

S. HORROD

trends and reforms which have impacted the sector and are relevant to my topic. The trends include lower government funding and substantial increases in student numbers sometimes described as marketisation and massification (see e.g. Krause, 2009). To illustrate the expansion, in the early eighties, under 10% of young people went to university in the UK, in 2017–2018 the figure was around 50%5 (Adams, 2017; Department for Education, 2018). At that time, there were 60 universities compared to the 2021 figure of 170 higher education providers albeit the latter figure includes 33 former polytechnics which became universities in 1992 (Foskett, 2011; HESA, 2022). Polytechnics offered higher education, including degree level, mainly in STEM6 and more vocational/practicebased subjects such as teaching, art and design and nursing but these ‘new’ universities have since expanded their offering. Regarding domicile, non-UK students totalled 20,000 in the mid-eighties; in 2021 it was approximately 605,130 (Foskett, 2011; HESA, 2022). As Table 1.1 illustrates, major reviews followed by white papers and then Acts of Parliament have sought to encourage, and then respond to the challenges of, a growing sector with lower government funding. The introduction of, and subsequent increase in, tuition fees is one response which has led to a focus on students’ experience of their study and a renewed spotlight on learning & teaching as I discuss further below. Next, I discuss the functions of key organisations involved in policy-making and then elaborate on areas of debate around policy reforms. 1.3.2

Organisations Involved in Policy-Making in Higher Education

Numerous organisations influence decision-making in higher education including government departments, parliamentary committees, regulatory bodies, non-regulatory groups, think-tanks,7 student and lecturer organisations, business groups, the EU and international organisations (see e.g. Ashwin et al., 2015; Kogan, 2014). I only outline those most relevant to my research on learning & teaching policy and whose documents I have consulted. I illustrate below the complex network of influence between government, agencies and the higher education sector and how the key agencies both inform and implement government policy.

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

7

Table 1.1 Key reforms in higher education in England Year

Name of reform, white paper or act

Details

1963

Robbins Report

1980

Overseas students start to pay full cost fees Education Reform Act

− Proposal for substantial expansion of the university sector − Ending of subsidy for overseas students − Creation of 2 funding councils for HE − Abolition of lifetime tenure − 33 Polytechnics become ‘new’ universities − Single funding council for England − Proposal for tuition fees − Tuition fees of up to £1,000 per year − Aim to create a common European higher education area with common priorities − Organisation aims to improve quality of learning & teaching − Variable fees could be introduced − First national student survey − Fees increase to £3000 per year funded by income-related student loans − Proposal for further increases in tuition fees to a maximum of £9000 per year − Focus on the student experience − Proposal for easing market entry for new providers − Most universities charge the full amount to avoid perception of lower quality − Government withdraws direct subsidies for teaching in most subjects − Universities able to recruit more students with high A level scores: AAB and later ABB

1988

1992

Expansion of university sector HEFCE created

1997 1998

Dearing Report Teaching and Higher Education Act – fees introduced Bologna Declaration

1999

2003 2004

Higher Education Academy (HEA) created Higher Education Act

2005 2006

National Student Survey (NSS) Tuition fees increase and student loans introduced

2009

Browne Review

2011

White paper: Students at the heart of the system

2012

Fees increase to £9000

2012/13

Partial removal of cap on student numbers

(continued)

8

S. HORROD

Table 1.1 (continued) Year

Name of reform, white paper or act

Details

2015/16

Total removal of cap on numbers

2016

White paper: Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice

2017

Higher education and research Act

2018

HEA becomes Advance HE

− Universities can recruit any number of students − Proposal for increased access to sector for alternative providers (not funded by HEFCE) − Proposal for Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) − Creation of the Office for Students (OfS) to replace HEFCE − Eased market entry for new providers − Introduction of TEF − Organisation continues with its Learning & Teaching priorities

Sources Brown and Carasso (2013), HEFCE (2017), Advance HE (2018), Gov.uk (2018), Marginson (2018)

1.3.2.1 Government Policy-Making The government department responsible for higher education works with key higher education agencies such as the Office for Students (OfS) (formerly HEFCE8 ) and Advance HE9 (formerly the Higher Education Academy [HEA]) discussed below and is lobbied and influenced by other stakeholders such as Universities UK (UUK)10 and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI)11 . It produces white papers, creates Acts of Parliament and devises education policy more broadly according to government policy. The configuration of the government department is subject to change; for example, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)12 had the remit for higher education until 2016 when responsibility for universities moved to the Department for Education. In 2022, there is a Minister of State for universities (Gov.uk, 2022). Although it may seem that the department leads on policy, due to the numerous groups which inform and influence, it is actually part of a network of actors with, at times, competing interests in higher education. Therefore, policy-making cannot be seen as working in a simple, top-down way. I include one government white paper as part of my data set.

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

9

1.3.2.2 Regulating and Funding Higher Education Although other bodies are involved in regulation such as the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA),13 the Student Loans Company14 and HESA15 amongst others, the Office for Students (OfS) has the prominent role in regulation. Before 2018, it was the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). HEFCE existed from 1992 until 2018 and was the lead regulator for English higher education from 2010–2018. It distributed public funds, monitored quality, collected data and had the role of informing, developing and implementing government policy (HEFCE, 2017). It also implemented the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) in 2017 discussed further below. However, since government funding for teaching decreased sharply, with the introduction of tuition fees designed to replace that funding, HEFCE’s role diminished (Marginson, 2018). The new organisation, the Office for Students (OfS), has reconstructed itself as firmly focused on the student experience. Its remit has changed to an extent in that it no longer has the role of distributing research funding but has now incorporated the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) within its remit to widen participation among under-represented groups (OfS, 2018a). In terms of regulating or shaping teaching, or as some might suggest an attempt to provide another indicator designed to measure, and thereby rank, the quality of a university’s education, the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) was created in 201616 and implemented by HEFCE in 2017 (HEFCE, 2018). Universities are evaluated on certain criteria and awarded a gold, silver or bronze. Its intention is to provide a parallel to the Research Excellence Framework (REF). The stated aim of these frameworks is to provide a measure of a university’s teaching and research quality respectively to inform student choice as well as to attract funding and allow highly rated universities to charge higher fees. These metrics are controversial in that they tend to reward already successful universities (Marginson, 2018). The criteria forming the basis of the TEF have been criticised for not measuring ‘teaching quality’ but instead focusing on outcomes such as retention, employment and satisfaction (Ashwin, 2017). I include one of HEFCE’s strategy statements as part of my data. 1.3.2.3 Learning & Teaching in UK Higher Education Numerous groups are involved in shaping learning & teaching in the UK; for example, the QAA with its subject benchmark statements,17 the Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA)18 and the National

10

S. HORROD

Union of Students (NUS). However, I focus on The Higher Education Academy (HEA), reconfigured as Advance HE since 2018, because it has become the most prominent, and arguably the most influential, in policy terms despite being a non-regulatory body. In 2018, the HEA merged with two other groups to become Advance HE with its remit expanding to include equality, diversity and inclusion as well as leadership, governance and management (Advance HE, 2018). However, regarding learning & teaching, the agendas, and accreditation schemes, of Advance HE appear unchanged at present and I focus on its work and documents as the HEA. Created in 2003, it describes itself as ‘an independent, notfor-profit, charitable and non-regulatory organisation working for, and on behalf of, the whole sector’ and as ‘the national body which champions teaching excellence’ with its mission as ‘improving learning outcomes by raising the status and quality of teaching in higher education’ (HEA, 2018). In 2016, the HEA described itself as owned by Universities UK (UUK) and funded by subscriptions from universities ‘and others with a vested interest in HE teaching’ (HEA, 2016) and outlined the influences on its work as follows: The HEA’s areas of current focus are informed by our consultation with the sector, by funding council priorities, government policy, sector data, intelligence and reports amongst others. (HEA, 2016)

This account clearly constructs the organisation as influenced by government and funding council priorities as well as the higher education sector as a whole. In 2018, the website emphasises more on working in partnership with stakeholders, providing advice to others, promoting teaching excellence and ‘focusing on the contribution of teaching as part of the wider student learning experience’ (HEA, 2018). It expands on its role in the following way: The HEA’s charitable objective is to promote higher education for the public benefit by:

• providing strategic advice and coordination to the higher education sector, government, funding bodies and others on policies and practices that will impact upon and enhance the student experience;

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

11

• supporting and advancing curriculum and pedagogic development across the whole spectrum of higher education activity; and • facilitating the professional development and increasing the professional standing of all staff in higher education (HEA, 2018). Its remit to advise is evident in its ideas and cases being within HEFCE and government department reports thus illustrating the network of influences. Its aim of advancing pedagogic development, including in specific subject areas, links it firmly to educational/academic development units or centres of higher education research19 which focus on pedagogy. This is where its publications are disseminated to, and drawn on, then shared with academics with learning & teaching roles who, in turn, discuss them with lecturers and course teams (see Chapter 2 regarding the institution in the study). I reflect on these links further in my analysis of recontextualisation in Chapter 3. Section 1.4.3 below has more on its involvement in teacher accreditation schemes. 1.3.3

Key Features of the ‘Discursive Landscape’ in Higher Education

This section considers the ways that we talk about higher education; in other words, the discourses or narratives that pervade academic debate, the media and everyday talk around higher education. I focus on those ideas that provide a context for my study. Consequently, I discuss four main areas: the notion of markets and marketisation, the purpose of university education, pedagogic identities and the marketisation of discursive practices. While they are all relevant to constructions of policy, the first elaborates on changes summarised in Table 1.1, and the others are issues stemming from a move towards a more market-like discourse. First, though, I discuss how what many would describe as a ‘neoliberal’ environment impacts on individuals and their engagement with discourses in policy. Gaining prominence in the 1980s and further accelerating since the financial crises of 2007–8, neoliberalism is viewed as an economic and political project of liberalisation—a return to nineteenthcentury laissez-faire capitalism—in which free markets and competition are believed to work for everyone’s benefit (Holborow, 2015) (see Sect. 1.3.3.1 on markets and marketisation). These ideological aspects of neoliberalism, in terms of what is perceived as common-sense, value-free

12

S. HORROD

or accepted/shared values, are relevant to a discussion of policy (Fairclough, 2000; Holborow, 2012). The reforms around deregulation noted earlier are justified by the government in relation to the needs of an expanding sector offering mass higher education. However, the effects are felt unequally in that quality processes, for example, have a greater impact on lower-ranking higher education providers (Abbas et al., 2012) and the messages being conveyed about the purpose of education and identities are more likely to be targeted at, and embraced by, certain universities and their students (see Sects. 1.3.3.2 and 1.3.3.3). Further, a noted feature of neoliberalism is that responsibility shifts towards the individual rather than society (Holborow, 2015). Students and academics, for example, are encouraged to engage in continuous self-development in order to compete in the ‘market’; with students needing to focus on becoming employable graduates through developing their skills (Holborow, 2012; Urciuoli, 2008). The link between language and neoliberal ideology has been examined, for example, in relation to the commodification of certain languages (Heller, 2003; Duchêne & Heller, 2012) including the dominance of English itself as a global language in higher education (Piller & Cho, 2013). In terms of language not simply reflecting but constituting the context, studies have investigated terms/keywords pointing to a whole range of related concepts that embrace neoliberal values such as austerity, entrepreneurial university (Holborow & O’Sullivan, 2017) or multilin2016). This prevalence of concepts designed to gualism (Krzyzanowski, ˙ appear self-evidently beneficial encourages conformity in language use. This is notable in policy texts explicitly promoting shared language in order to encourage shared values (see Chapter 6). The obscured character of the ideological within seemingly common-sense/positive messages can make it harder for people to resist these views as can discursive mechanisms which encourage using this shared language. This focus on the ideological character of argumentation and discourse is core to critical discourse studies (CDS) (see Chapter 2). 1.3.3.1 Markets and Marketisation There is widespread discussion of the concept of markets within higher education (e.g. Jongbloed, 2003; Hemsley-Brown, 2011; Shattock, 2009). The notion of marketisation itself is often drawn on to critique aspects of change in higher education and their perceived impacts (e.g. Brown & Carasso, 2013; Molesworth et al., 2011). However, the

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

13

meaning of this term is not always clear. Therefore, I explore how markets and marketisation are conceptualised in relation to higher education with an emphasis on the impact on the discursive landscape. This discussion informs my analysis of the policy texts. As Komljenovic and Robertson (2016) point out, markets in higher education are discussed in terms of ideological origins, symptoms and manifestations, as well as the extent to which universities are operating in a free market, with a focus on the consequences for structures, relations and practices. The consensus is this is not a free market, as with most organisations, and the term ‘quasi-market’ is frequently employed (Foskett, 2011; Jongbloed, 2003; Marginson, 2018). However, it is useful to consider how authors describe a pure market in higher education since it sheds light on the extent to which the sector in a particular country is moving in that direction and, therefore, the issues foregrounded (see e.g. de Boer & Jongbloed, 2012 on trends within Europe). Jongbloed (2003, p. 114) outlines the free market conditions for providers as follows: freedom of entry; freedom to specify the product; freedom to use available resources; freedom to determine prices. For consumers i.e. students, there should be freedom to choose providers and products; adequate information on prices and quality; the amount paid relates to the cost of the education. Brown (2011, p. 12) suggests similar characteristics adding specific features such as legally autonomous institutions and no subsidies for students. Recent reforms in the Higher Education & Research Act (2017) make further moves in the direction outlined above by emphasising information and choice. Examples include market entry eased for a range of new providers; caps on student numbers lifted and the potential for increased variations in fees between universities dependent on performance in key indicators e.g. the TEF. I elaborate on these examples by discussing the overarching characteristics of markets suggested by Jongbloed (2003), namely competition and deregulation, and how these are manifested in English higher education and with what effects. Institutional autonomy is regarded as a historical feature of the UK system in comparison to other countries (Brown & Carasso, 2013; Marginson, 2018). Although it is evident from numerous government reforms that the sector is subject to control and government funding is dependent on meeting certain criteria; for example, on widening participation, dropout rates and employment (HESA, 2018), with deregulation, more indirect forms of governance exist. This produces the seemingly contradictory trends of deregulation alongside greater

14

S. HORROD

accountability achieved through increasing ‘managerialism’ (Currie & Vidovich, 2009; Deem et al., 2007). This entails the sector being regulated indirectly through performance indicators (Ball, 2017; Marginson, 2018) including commercial league tables with their national and world rankings, the government’s National Student Survey (NSS), the REF and the TEF. The abolition of most funding for teaching and the increase in tuition fees to meet this gap is an example of deregulation which has profound consequences for higher education providers. Tuition fees are the primary source of income at 44% in 2013/14 (Marginson, 2018). In 2012, most institutions charged a maximum of £9,000 since universities did not wish to be perceived as lower quality (Marginson, 2018). Fees rose to £9,250 in 2017 and as noted above, variable fees are likely in the future due to the 2017 Act. Competition for students has intensified so rankings and other performance indicators become more important in attracting students. A noted manifestation of deregulation is that individual universities have greater control over decision-making and planning to the extent that they can outsource activities and become more entrepreneurial in terms of creating new sources of funding through use of facilities and expertise for commercial reasons (see e.g. Barnett, 2011a; Jessop, 2017). This autonomy is, however, accompanied by greater risk particularly for lower-status universities (Boliver, 2015; Marginson, 2018). Existing distinctions between elite and less elite universities have widened further (Boliver, 2015). The sector has experienced different phases of expansion notably in the 1960s and in 1992 when Polytechnics achieved university status. In terms of competition, the sector is segmented or stratified around rankings, perceptions of quality and entry requirements (Brown & Carasso, 2013; Marginson, 2018; Nixon, 2011). Clearly, Cambridge is not competing with Greenwich and Boliver’s study (2015) identifies four clusters of higher education providers with new universities further divided into a higher and lower tier. Therefore, free choice for students is not the norm since factors such as entry requirements, cost of living and perceptions of ‘fit’ of a particular institution constrain all but the minority (cf. Abbas et al., 2012). Yet, there are indications of a shifting of numbers across the sector. Deregulation through the removal of the cap on undergraduate numbers in 2015/16 has led to greater pressure on some departments in less elite institutions since higher-ranking universities can accept more students (Bekhradnia & Beech, 2018). In 2022, there has been an acceleration

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

15

of humanities subjects, and sometimes whole departments, disappearing from new universities as universities seek to cut lower-recruiting courses and save money. Also impacting lower-ranking universities is the noted rise in unconditional offers to students, from 1.1% in 2013 to 22.9% in 2018, attributable to the intensified competition (“The scramble for students”, 2018). The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (Gov.uk, 2023) allows for market entry and funding for ‘alternative providers’ including international commercial companies which will increase competition further. These pressures have led lower-ranking universities to seek other means of competing in the market such as focusing on teaching quality. However, they seem less likely to score highly in the TEF as currently formulated since the criteria partly focus on outcomes such as retention and employment (Ashwin, 2017). TEF Gold awards in 2017/18 included a large number of high-ranking universities, despite some notable absences from Russell Group20 universities, as well as some more specialist institutions (OfS, 2018b). In order to address the requirements of the TEF, universities are engaging with HEA schemes and frameworks such as the UKPSF and the Fellowship scheme outlined in Sect. 1.4.3. The term marketisation, though often ill-defined, is generally used across the literature as the movement towards a sector with market features. Jongbloed (2003) defines it as a sum of the policies encouraging competition and deregulation in relation to the ‘freedoms to’ for providers and students outlined above. He summarises these policies as liberalising markets to improve quality, efficiency and encourage student choice. Hemsley-Brown (2011, p. 118) defines it as ‘the adoption of free market practices’ with examples such as cutting costs, including withdrawing unpopular programmes; offering popular courses and facilities; using advertising to enhance brand image and sales; the adoption of a business language and culture. The word marketisation is often used as a critique of such practices. For some, it is simply associated with a notion of neoliberalism and automatically seen as negative (Barnett, 2011b; Scullion et al., 2011). Different metaphors and dichotomies are used in the discussion around marketisation. For example, there is the notion of education becoming a commodity and students being consumers of this product (e.g. Maringe, 2011; Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005). A more nuanced approach is to consider which aspects trouble which people and why. This may be a result of there being many markets involved e.g. for students, staff, research funding and commercial activities

16

S. HORROD

among others (Jongbloed, 2003). Some may dislike the entry of private providers into the sector either as universities or as providers of particular elements such as foundation courses21 or the outsourcing of services such as cleaning and security. Others may dislike the indirect forms of governance or ‘managerialism’ in the form of metrics and a feeling of practices being increasingly data-driven and micro-managed (Ball, 2017; Komljenovic & Robertson, 2016; Smyth, 2017). Further, a major concern seems the perceived negative effects of change on relationships and practices and the potential cultural, intellectual and pedagogic effects (Barnett, 2011b; Furedi, 2011). This is aptly described by McArthur (2013) as a sense of ‘unease’ regarding certain practices in higher education. I discuss this further in Sect. 1.3.3.3 on pedagogic relationships and identities. 1.3.3.2 The Purpose of a Higher Education The expansion of the sector and rises in tuition fees have foregrounded this issue. It constitutes an area of debate in the media around value for money, in the academic literature over the extent of emphasis on careers and in policy texts through their construction of the appropriate focus. A useful distinction is between the activities of universities as institutions and the purpose of higher education itself (see e.g. Barnett, 2011a). The former concerns the range of activities a university may engage in such as teaching, research, consultancy, income-generation and public engagement. The latter focuses on what higher education should provide to students and consequently to society at large. Education can be seen in predominantly economic terms as a private commodity, rather than as a public, social and cultural good, with a focus on the exchange value of the degree in terms of getting a job rather than the process of becoming an educated person or the communal benefits of having an educated society (see e.g. Ball, 2017; Nixon, 2011). This is described as ‘having’ rather than ‘being’ with its implications for identities of, and the relationship between, academics and students (Molesworth et al., 2009). The issue becomes whether higher education should have a substantial focus on preparing students for a career including developing employability skills (Abbas et al., 2012; Barkas et al., 2017). The context for a focus on employability is often linked to the needs of a knowledge economy. Jessop (2008, 2017) points to the influence of the OECD’s 1996 Knowledge-Based Economy with its discussion of the failure of education to meet the demands of modern economies and the need to ‘upgrade human capital’ through continuous training and lifelong

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

17

learning (OECD, 1996, p. 19) (see OECD, 2017 for the same phrase). This gives the appearance of being for the public good but primarily focuses on the individual’s need for continuous self-development within such an economy. Barkas et al. (2017), in dissecting the white paper Success as a knowledge economy (BIS, 2016) and the TEF, highlight the challenges for universities in choosing the appropriate focus of a curriculum given the priorities of different stakeholders i.e. students, academics, employers and government. Modularisation facilitates such a transdisciplinary, applied curriculum with a potential lack of coherence (Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005). This is relevant to my analysis of both policy documents around learning & teaching and the assessments that students do. With concerns over the direction of higher education, there are calls to re-establish a focus on the public good and social justice, in terms of the benefits of a more educated and critically engaged society, and a focus on universities’ strengths in generating and disseminating knowledge and encouraging deep or transformative learning (McArthur, 2013; Nixon, 2011). In this vision, higher education should be challenging and unsettling in which ‘knowing is difficult’ (McArthur, 2013, p. 49) and a transformative experience whose benefits may only be realised further into the future rather than one in which the student is constructed as a consumer who is the sole arbiter of quality and whose satisfaction must be guaranteed (e.g. Furedi, 2011; Maringe, 2011). In his discussion of possible forms of the university, Barnett (2011a) outlines the liquid, the authentic, the therapeutic and the ecological university which encompass various views on the priorities of university education. His vision of a therapeutic university includes both detrimental and beneficial possibilities. The former involves a focus on helping students to deal with an uncertain future. The latter commends what he describes as ‘epistemological uncertainty’ whereby students’ confusion is ‘a natural state of affairs’ (p. 124). The message is not to impoverish the experience by making it easy and consumer-friendly. I analyse constructions of the purpose of a university education in policy documents and interview data in Chapter 4 and I discuss these viewpoints further in Chapter 7. 1.3.3.3

Roles, Identities and Pedagogic Relationships in Higher Education This section discusses how the changes outlined above, including questions about the purpose of higher education, impact on roles, identities

18

S. HORROD

and relationships. Authors highlight the multiple roles of academics involving research, teaching, knowledge exchange, professional practice, community engagement and leadership among others (Krause, 2009; Whitchurch & Gordon, 2017). However, fragmentation is also noted with the increasing separation of research roles and teaching roles in some universities with likely impacts on academics’ sense of identity (Fanghanel, 2011; Krause, 2009). With the rise in alternative providers potentially leading to a group of teaching-only ‘post-2016’ universities (Barkas et al., 2017) as well as the increase in elite institutions advertising for teaching-oriented posts (Swain, 2017), this fragmentation may increase further. Also discussed is the university community more broadly and the move away from simple divisions between academics, administrators and management to recognise a plethora of roles, many constructed as involving ‘academic work’, including academic/educational developers, learning technologists, librarians and those involved in careers, widening participation, outreach, enterprise among others (Whitchurch & Gordon, 2017). The demand for better data to inform performance indicators involves many of these staff in ‘compliance’ work (Barkas et al., 2017; Teelken, 2012). This includes academic developers, academics with learning & teaching roles and management in those universities where accreditation of teaching of all lecturers is required. By identities, I am referring to the ways that people see themselves but also to the way such identities are discussed and constructed in policy texts. Academics can be seen as having multiple identities in line with their varied roles as well as backgrounds and values (Delanty, 2008; Fanghanel, 2011). Despite their primary identity often characterised as situated within their disciplinary community and department (Becher, 1989), tensions are evident between this and an increasing allegiance to the needs of the institution in its quest to remain competitive (Smyth, 2017; Whitchurch & Gordon, 2017). This results in academics being part of a complex network of practices, and thus identities, requiring prioritising the needs of the individual, institution and other stakeholders at different times (Trowler et al., 2012). Regarding students, given market-led practices, discussion centres on the extent to which students are positioned as ‘consumers’ and what this might entail beyond simply giving students information and choice. The notion of consumer is premised on ideas such as ‘value for money’ and the consumer being the best judge of quality leading to the continual seeking and prioritising of students’ views. This aligns with the emphasis

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

19

on aiming for student satisfaction rather than the quality of their learning (Maringe, 2011). Also evident is the notion of the ‘passive consumer’ who does not take responsibility for their educational experience rather than being the active participant who is central to it. Nixon et al. (2011), reflecting on the negative side of choice, characterise some students as ‘conservative learners’ who avoid risk, challenge and knowledge they think unnecessary for future needs, preferring subjects, assessments and lecturers they feel comfortable with. This aligns with studies that explore students’ notions of dream futures in which students prefer the tasks and assessments e.g. pitches to live clients, guest speakers, that mirror the exciting parts of an imagined future job (Haywood et al., 2011). The view of the passive, judging consumer can encourage practices such as not challenging students too much, not failing them, prioritising their enjoyment of the experience as well as accepting their feedback questionnaires uncritically. This is what Furedi (2011, p. 3) describes as ‘defensive education’ as a response to the ‘culture of complaint’. An alternative view is that students do not behave like consumers even if positioned as such. Marginson (2018, p. 30) suggests that with the loans system in place, students do not feel like consumers and if they do it is due to ‘cultural persuasion’ rather than market forces. This may underestimate the financial pressures affecting students from lower-income backgrounds more than others given the limited loans for living costs. Tomlinson’s (2017) interview study explores the consumer idea directly with students. He found a range of views from an ‘active service user’ approach to ambivalence and finally outright resistance to the consumerist ethos and consumer label. The latter students suggested it lowered the value of their degree and marginalised their role. Despite the limitations of taking the answers at face value, the study describes a more complex picture regarding students’ views of themselves and their education. Alternative metaphors are explored such as the student as citizen and the possibility for students to be given more agency in determining their identities rather than accepting the discourse of themselves as consumers (Nordensvärd, 2011). However, I would not underestimate the influences on students to take the position of the consumer by the media but also by institutions themselves through discursive mechanisms such as the NSS, module feedback forms and committees seeking students’ opinions and involvement. Inherent in discussions around the identity of students and academics is the relationship between them and this is foregrounded as a central

20

S. HORROD

issue (e.g. Ball, 2017; Barnett, 2011b; Furedi, 2011; Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005). Fanghanel’s (2011) analysis of the view of learning constructed in the NSS contrasts its outcomes-focused, predictable and instrumentalist approach, suggesting a ‘consumer’s curriculum’, with academics’ own accounts of a more complex, challenging view of learning. Thus, potential exists for damaging the relationship if a ‘service providercustomer’ view is adopted where students take less responsibility for their learning (Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005). The mechanisms of an audit culture discussed above may impact that relationship. Examining how identities are constructed in policy, and in participants’ own accounts, is a key element of this study.

1.4 The Rise of Learning & Teaching as a Field of Enquiry 1.4.1

Reasons for the Increasing Prominence of Learning & Teaching

The sections above on changes in higher education and the discursive landscape provide a useful context for understanding the increasing prominence of learning & teaching in higher education discourse and practices. One reason for learning & teaching’s increasing prominence is the renewed focus on the ‘student experience’ (a term first attributed to Harvey et al., 1992) due to competition for students, the fees they bring with them and the perceived need to offer ‘value for money’ in terms of teaching. Another driver is the vastly expanded, more diverse student population requiring more scaffolded support for their learning. As noted above, this focus on the student is further highlighted through the change in regulator from HEFCE to the Office for Students (OfS) in 2018. Besides the clear signal in its new name, OfS’s objectives include providing students with ‘a high quality academic experience’ and ‘value for money’ (OfS, 2018a, p. 1). The introduction of the TEF has strengthened this focus on learning & teaching despite criticisms of the criteria used to evaluate universities. As indicated above, the notion of ‘teaching quality’ is problematic since TEF metrics use NSS data of student views, as well as information on dropout and employment rates, but there is no effort to actually explore the quality of the teaching (Ashwin, 2017). Lower-ranking universities are more likely to take up this call for attention to learning & teaching since they cannot usually compete with other

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

21

universities on the basis of research. They also have a reputation for placing more emphasis on learning, teaching and assessment in line with the diversity of their intake (see McLean et al., 2017 for evidence of this). This has led to a renewed interest in learning & teaching as an area for research and policy as well as a focus for academics who seek recognition and promotion. 1.4.2

Institutional Centres for Learning & Teaching

At the institutional level, all universities seem to have some kind of central unit charged with promoting, and enhancing, learning & teaching. They may be called academic development units (ADUs) or centres for learning & teaching or higher education research. ‘Academic practice’ is a more recent term used to denote the focus on developing teaching and is embodied in the courses offered to new lecturers in recognition that academics may enter their jobs with little experience of teaching (e.g. PGCert in Academic Practice/Higher Education). Another element of such a unit’s remit is to be seen to promote learning & teaching through encouraging participation in teaching accreditation schemes as discussed in the next section. These units often have multiple functions and there may be some ambiguity or overlap between researching higher education pedagogy or promoting learning & teaching as an activity. Research into higher education may clearly be part of a separate academic department of education but there may also exist centres for higher education research that see themselves as doing rigorous research in this area but may additionally have the remit to promote learning & teaching schemes and are thus more involved in policy implementation and compliance (see Land, 2007 for a model of different orientations for academic developers). 1.4.3

Teaching Accreditation Schemes

As I discussed above, Advance HE (formerly HEA) is pivotal in engaging universities and their staff with learning & teaching; in particular through its teaching accreditation scheme. In line with its aims to support professional development, the HEA produced a framework in 2011 called the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) described as ‘a nationally-recognised framework for benchmarking success within HE teaching and learning support’ (HEA, 2018). The UKPSF has three dimensions to its framework: Areas of activity (A); Core knowledge

22

S. HORROD

(K); Professional values (V). Each of these has several categories. For example, A1 is ‘Design and plan learning activities and/or programmes of study’; K1 is ‘The subject material’ and V1 is ‘Respect individual learners and diverse learning communities’ (HEA, 2011). One of the purposes of the UKPSF is to provide recognition for teaching activities by linking the categories in the framework to the HEA (now Advance HE) Fellowship Scheme. This is an accreditation scheme for academics and other staff whereby they seek recognition at different levels: Associate Fellow; Fellow; Senior Fellow and Principal Fellow. An application principally involves a reflective account of professional practice on how one’s teaching practice aligns with the UKPSF. This is supported by statements from referees. The Fellowship scheme is increasingly being adopted and promoted in universities as a result of the TEF, especially perhaps in institutions less highly ranked for research who aim to highlight ‘teaching quality’. Many institutions have set up their own HEA-approved accreditation schemes rather than individuals applying direct (Shaw, 2018). This allows more applications to be processed and provides a clear role for academic development units in universities as they support and implement the scheme. Although intrinsic motivation is noted as a key factor in engaging with the scheme (Botham, 2018), extrinsic motivation is crucial as in certain institutions accreditation becomes an imperative through discursive mechanisms such as appraisal and promotion (Peat, 2015). Accreditation of staff may be a key performance indicator (KPI) potentially leading to strains on the team that supports the process and staff viewing it as a tick-box exercise (Shaw, 2018). While benefits of reflecting on practice have been noted in terms of a reminder of achievements (e.g. van der Sluis et al., 2017), reflection within such a context has been criticised for forcing alignment with a certain view of learning & teaching (Macfarlane & Gourlay, 2009) and described as ‘retrospective benchmarking’ (van der Sluis et al., 2017). Therefore, although one might expect Advance HE (HEA) to exert influence despite its non-regulatory status, pertinent issues include how compliance with its frameworks is encouraged and what messages and values underlie its guidelines. Advance HE (HEA) produces extensive literature around learning & teaching including discussion documents and guidelines for practice. These are authored by a variety of academics, educational developers, freelance consultants and Advance HE employees. Given that most of the data for this study was collected before 2018, I include six HEA policy discussion

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

23

documents for detailed analysis in my study. I also analysed the HEA short framework guidelines’ documents (2012–14) and the 2016 frameworks, as well as the 2020 Advance HE frameworks for this book, as I describe in Chapter 2.

1.5

Aims and Research Questions

As outlined in the introduction, the aim of this study was to explore why assessment and teaching practices were the way they were and to consider how policy on learning & teaching might be shaping practices. In order to explore this, I first analysed the assessments themselves. Then, I needed to examine policy documents on learning & teaching to establish how, for example, a university education, teaching, learning, students and academics are constructed in policy and what assumptions and ideologies underlie the way that they are portrayed. From this, I sought to examine the connections between policy and practices. An important aspect of exploring practices was to talk to students and lecturers about their experiences of assessment and learning/teaching and to consider the extent to which policy discourses were present in their accounts. In other words, I am interested in the extent, and means, of the recontextualisation of policy ideas in practices on the ground in universities. Taking a view of policy not simply as text but as multi-layered processes and practices, I seek to explore the connections between public policy texts, the mechanisms that enable their dissemination and the documents, accounts and practices of those engaging with learning & teaching policy in universities. I elaborate further on the study design in Chapter 2. Here, I just outline the main research questions that guided the study starting with the overarching question: In which ways, and through what means, is policy on learning & teaching recontextualised in practices in one higher education institution? To break this down further, learning & teaching policy documents construct the perceived problems within higher education as well as the solutions. That is, they portray a particular vision of learning, teaching and a university education which are not transparent representations of ‘best practice’ but are situated within a particular context. Therefore, such

24

S. HORROD

portrayals should be analysed through detailed textual analysis of policy texts: 1. How does national policy on learning & teaching discursively construct: (a) students, lecturers and universities as institutions (b) the aims of a university education (c) learning and teaching Further, in order to draw conclusions about the types of argumentation and rhetorical strategies (summarised as ‘discursive strategies’) used in these policy texts: 2. Which discursive strategies are prominent in the field of learning & teaching ? It is also important to explore how these visions in policy texts fit with what people say and do. Therefore, I examine how these constructions align with how interviewees discuss their experiences: 3. How do students and lecturers construct their experiences of learning and teaching and a university education? (b) What different voices are present in the data? (c) What ideologies underlie these different voices? The main aim of this study was to understand how learning & teaching policy is recontextualised; in other words, how it is transformed, or not, as it moves through different texts and spaces and is taken up by different people. One area of interest is the changes from the long policy discussion documents to the short policy frameworks that academics come into contact with and how this transformation contributes to a text acquiring the status of policy or guidelines for practice. Another aspect is the connections between national policy and universities’ own institutional strategies and guidelines for learning & teaching. A further concern is to investigate whether constructions of learning & teaching in policy texts align with people’s experiences or not and so I examine participants’ accounts for traces of recontextualisation. That is, I use the analysis of

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

25

the policy texts to inform analysis of the interview accounts. Therefore, I address the following questions: 4. How are discourses recontextualised in different genres and different spaces? (a) What similarities and differences can be traced between HEA discussion documents and HEA & Advance HE framework documents? (b) What connections exist between discourses in national policy documents and in institutional documents and practices; including assessment practices? (c) How do interviewees recontextualise discourses evident in policy documents? Which discourses are present or absent in their accounts? Which discourses are accepted, which resisted? I also wanted to explore how policy becomes enmeshed in practices. Clearly, people on the receiving end of policy do not simply recognise the validity of the ideas and embrace them. A range of ‘discursive mechanisms’, or ‘policy levers’, exist which encourage or force this engagement. Making these visible contributes to illuminating the way that power and control are facilitated. I also consider what agency people have when engaging with policy and what this reveals about the characteristics of policy processes and practices: 5. Through what means is policy recontextualised? (a) Which discursive mechanisms facilitate the recontextualisation of policy? (b) What do traces of recontextualisation suggest about opportunities for agency in accepting, appropriating or resisting policy? These questions require a framework capable of connecting different levels and different spaces. I situate my study within critical discourse studies (CDS); specifically, the discourse-historical approach (DHA) (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016) which provides a multi-dimensional view of context and the tools for detailed analysis of discourse and recontextualisation. To inform the object of study and to aid the interpretation of findings, I draw on Bernstein’s (1990, 2000) sociology of pedagogy; in particular, his conceptualisation of how pedagogic practice comes into

26

S. HORROD

being. Such an interdisciplinary approach is common in CDS, and I describe how these form a coherent framework in Chapter 2.

1.6 Researcher Positionality: Insider and Outsider Perspective Reflexivity regarding my own position within the university is important. Although the simple dichotomy of insider/outsider has been problematised, the notion of a continuum of involvement may help the researcher reflect on their positioning and its impact on their study (Trowler, 2014). I am an insider since I was part of the institution, participated in teaching but also engaged with, and utilised, discourses in policy and guidelines when necessary. I am an outsider in relation to the academic development unit (ADU) as well as the faculty and department in the study, but I also formed acquaintances with lecturers and some students. The benefits of being part of the organisation such as access, shared experiences and familiarity with certain practices, allowing a more emic approach, need to be balanced with the risks of making assumptions about the workings of the organisation or what is worth investigating (Trowler, 2014). Thus, the etic view of the researcher is key in order to maintain a critical, reflexive approach at every stage of the research process. I need to be reflexive about how my own position and experience shaped the areas for investigation, my approach to interviews and interpretation of my findings. I acknowledge this, for example, in the way I approach and analyse interview data (see Chapter 2). Further, although I may have engaged in some of the processes described, my analysis focuses on participants’ accounts and salient documents following a systematic approach as described in the next chapter. While shared experience led to more conversational interviews yielding rich data, I also have a responsibility towards my interviewees as they are part of the institution. Therefore, my approach to ethics is to mitigate any risks to individual participants by preserving their anonymity including through careful consideration of how to present data.

1.7

Outline of Chapters

This chapter has provided a brief outline of the context of higher education, the key debates and the rise of learning & teaching as a focus. Chapter 2 covers the guiding approaches to the study; namely,

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

27

the discourse-historical approach (DHA) within critical discourse studies (CDS) and Bernstein’s sociology of pedagogy and how they help to address the aims. It also outlines the study design. Chapters 3–6 present the key findings of the study organised around different themes. Each chapter includes an analysis of policy documents and lecturers’ and students’ accounts of their experiences. These chapters also discuss the findings through the lens of Bernstein’s ideas and the implications of the findings more broadly in light of relevant ideas and studies in higher education. Specifically, Chapter 3 looks at the ‘People’ involved in university education. Chapter 4 considers ‘What to teach and learn’. Chapter 5 looks at ‘How to teach and learn’. Chapter 6 addresses how ‘Policy’ itself is constructed in policy documents and explores the recontextualisation process through different layers of policy documents. Finally, Chapter 7 covers the Conclusions of the study.

1.8

Main Arguments of the Book

My main argument is that higher education policy on learning & teaching needs to be seen not as an example of best practice but, at least in part, as an ideological response to the supposed need for a radical transformation of higher education. A transformation is apparently needed in response to the perceived challenges of a competitive, fees-based sector and discourses around value for money. While the policy of the government, and higher education agencies’ more broadly, use the language of metrics and accountability, policy specifically on learning & teaching has a softer approach. Enveloped in positive-sounding discourses of partnership, co-creation and student-centredness, it nonetheless sends out potentially damaging messages about the (non-) importance of teaching, teachers, knowledge and the aims of university education. It is important to ask in whose interests such constructions of learning & teaching are and whether we should accept uncritically the ideas that delegitimise certain ways of teaching and legitimise others. Also, the practices that evolve around such policy discourses include changes to assessment and teaching practices which should be examined closely to see whether these are indeed beneficial for students. Lecturers’ practices around learning & teaching include engaging in teacher accreditation and it is important to question whether this is just another type of audit mechanism for institutions rather than providing a truly developmental role for academics. I conclude that policy discourses matter because they can influence what

28

S. HORROD

people do and how they see themselves and this can have real and unequal effects on different types of university; possibly further exacerbating the divisions between institutions. I elaborate on these themes throughout the book.

Notes 1. Since 1999, responsibility for higher education has been devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so more recent reforms refer to England only. 2. Higher Education Funding Council for England. Distributed government funding. 3. White papers are government policy documents that are proposals for new legislation. They precede a Bill; the document that goes to parliament for consultation. White papers represent key discursive moments of change. 4. Laws agreed by parliament. 5. The government produces a figure called Higher Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR): an estimate of the likelihood of a young person entering higher education by age 30; based on current participation rates. So not a measure of participation by particular entry cohorts. 6. STEM: science, technology, engineering & maths. 7. E.g. HEPI, Higher Education Policy Institute, an independent organisation with the aim to shape policy debate (HEPI, 2022). 8. HEFCE merged with the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) to become the Office for Students (OfS) in April 2018. The research funding element has moved to Research England, operating within United Kingdom Research and Innovation. OfS becomes the main regulator for English higher education (Gov.uk, 2018). 9. HEA merged with the Equality Challenge Unit and the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education to become Advance HE in March 2018 (Advance HE, 2018). 10. UUK is the organisation of university vice-chancellors. 11. CBI is the leading UK organisation representing business interests (CBI, 2022). 12. BIS became the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy in July 2016. Responsibility for higher education moved to the Department for Education (Gov.uk, 2018). 13. The QAA is an independent body charged with maintaining standards in HE. It reviews as well as sets expectations that higher education providers must meet (QAA, 2022). 14. The Student Loans Company manages the loans system providing funding to students.

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

29

15. The Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) is “the official agency for the collection, analysis and dissemination of quantitative information about higher education” and higher education providers are required to provide them with data (HEFCE, 2018). 16. Details of the TEF emerged in the government white paper: Success as a knowledge economy: teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice (BIS, 2016). 17. QAA subject benchmarks outline what students should know in a particular subject by end of the degree. Described as “reference points in the design, delivery and review of academic programmes” rather than a prescribed curriculum (QAA, 2022). 18. SEDA is the professional organisation for educational developers in the UK “promoting innovation and good practice in higher education” (SEDA, 2022). It focuses on educational developers rather than teachers directly and is a voluntary body of its members. 19. Various names for units supporting learning & teaching e.g. academic development units, learning and teaching centres. 20. Russell Group: formed in 1994 of 24 research-led universities. 21. In the UK, organisations such as INTO and Study Group provide foundation courses for international students sometimes renaming the provision or centre as part of the institution.

References Abbas, A., Ashwin, P., & McLean, M. (2012). Neoliberal policy, quality and inequality in undergraduate degrees. In P. Whitehead & P. Crawshaw (Eds.), Organising neoliberalism: Markets, privatisation and justice (pp. 179–199). Anthem Press. Adams, R. (2017, September 28). Almost half of all young people in England go on to higher education. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ education/2017/sep/28/almost-half-of-all-young-people-in-england-go-onto-higher-education. Accessed January 2018. Advance HE. (2018). About us. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/ about-us. Accessed 15 September 2022. Ashwin, P. (2017). What is the teaching excellence framework in the United Kingdom, and will it work? International Higher Education, 88(10), 10–11. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2017.88.9683 Ashwin, P., Abbas, A. & McLean, M. (2015). Representations of a high-quality system of undergraduate education in English higher education policy documents. Studies in Higher Education, 40(4), 610–623. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03075079.2013.842211 Ball, S. J. (2017). The education debate (3rd ed.). Policy Press.

30

S. HORROD

Barkas, L., Scott, J., Poppitt, N. & Smith, P. (2017). Tinker, tailor, policy-maker: Can the UK government’s teaching excellence framework deliver its objectives? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0309877X.2017.1408789 Barnett, R. (2011a). Being a university. Routledge. Barnett, R. (2011b). The marketised university: defending the indefensible. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: the student as consumer (pp. 39–51). Routledge. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Open University Press. Bekhradnia, B., & Beech, D. (2018). Demand for higher education to 2030. Higher Education Policy Institute. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2018/03/15/ demand-higher-education-2030/. Accessed January 2019. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class codes and control, Volume IV: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Routledge. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Revised). Rowman & Littlefield. BIS. (2016). Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-suc cess-as-a-knowledge-economy-white-paper. Accessed 20 September 2021. Boliver, V. (2015). Are there distinctive clusters of higher and lower status universities in the UK? Oxford Review of Education, 41(5), 608–627. https://doi. org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1082905 Botham, K. (2018). An analysis of the factors that affect engagement of higher education teachers with an institutional professional development scheme. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1407664 Broucker, B., De Wit, K., Verhoeven, J. & Leisyte, L. (Eds.) (2019). Higher education system reform: an international comparison after twenty years of Bologna. Brill Sense. Brown, R. (2011). The march of the market. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: The student as consumer (pp. 11–24). Routledge. Brown, R., & Carasso, H. (2013). Everything for sale?: The marketisation of UK higher education. Routledge. Brown, S. (2020). Learning, teaching and assessment in higher education: Global perspectives. Bloomsbury. Canning, J. & Masika, R. (2022). The scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL): the thorn in the flesh of educational research, Studies in Higher Education, 47 (6), 1084–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020. 1836485

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

31

CBI. (2022, September 15). About us. CBI. https://www.cbi.org.uk/about-us/ Currie, J., & Vidovich, L. (2009). The changing nature of academic work. In M. Tight (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of higher education (pp. 441–452). Routledge. de Boer, H., & Jongbloed, B. (2012). A Cross-national comparison of higher education markets in western Europe. In A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, & L. Wilson (Eds.), European higher education at the crossroads: Between the Bologna process and national reforms (pp. 553–571). Springer. Department for Education. (2018). Participation rates in higher education: Academic years 2006/2007–2017/2018 (Provisional). https://www.gov.uk/ government/statistics/participation-rates-in-higher-education-2006-to-2018. Accessed 15 September 2022. Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. I. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford University Press. Delanty, G. (2008). Academic identities and change. In R. Barnett & R. Di Napoli (Eds.), Changing identities in higher education: Voicing perspectives (pp. 124–133). Routledge. Duchêne, A., & Heller, M. (Eds.). (2012). Language in late capitalism: Pride and profit. Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2000). Language and Neo-Liberalism. Discourse & Society, 11(2), 147–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926500011002001 Fanghanel, J. (2011). Being an academic. Routledge. Foskett, N. (2011). Markets, government, funding and the marketisation of UK higher education. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: The student as consumer (pp. 25–38). Routledge. Furedi, F. (2011). Introduction to the marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: The student as consumer (pp. 1–7). Routledge. Gov.uk. (2018). Department for Education. Retrieved from: https://www. gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-education. Accessed 20 September 2018. Gov.uk. (2022). Ministers. https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/min ister-of-state-minister-for-higher-and-further-education--2. Accessed 15 September 2022. Gov.uk. (2023). Higher Education and Research Act 2017. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/contents Accessed March 2023.

32

S. HORROD

Harvey, L., Burrows, A., & Green, D. (1992). Total student experience: A first report of the QHE national survey of staff and students’ views of the important criteria of quality. QHE. Haywood, H., Jenkins, R., & Molesworth, M. (2011). A degree will make all your dreams come true: Higher education as the management of consumer desires. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: The student as consumer (pp. 183–195). Routledge. HEA. (2011). UK professional standards framework, UKPSF. Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ukpsf. Accessed 15 September 2017. HEA. (2016). About us. Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from: https:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/about-us. Accessed 15 February 2017. HEA. (2018). About us. Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy. ac.uk/about-us. Accessed 15 March 2018. HEFCE. (2017). Guide to funding 2017–2018. April 2017. Higher Education Funding Council for England. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/. Accessed 20 April 2018. HEFCE. (2018). The teaching excellence framework. HEFCE. http://www.hefce. ac.uk/. Accessed June 2018. Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7 (4), 473–492. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2003.00238.x Hemsley-Brown, J. (2011). Market heal thyself: The challenges of a free market in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21(2), 115– 132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2011.623832 HEPI. (2022). About us. HEPI. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/about-us/. Accessed 15 September 2022. HESA. (2018). Students and qualifiers. Higher Education Statistics Agency. Retrieved from: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/free-statistics. Accessed January 2019. HESA. (2022). Open data and official statistics. HESA. https://www.hesa.ac. uk/data-and-analysis. Accessed 15 September 2022. Holborow, M. (2012). Neoliberalism, human capital and the skills agenda in higher education—The Irish case. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(1), 93–111. Holborow, M. (2015). Language and neoliberalism. Routledge. Holborow, M., & O’Sullivan, J. (2017). Austerity Ireland and the neo-liberal university: Hollow enterprise. In J. Nixon (Ed.), Higher education in austerity Europe (pp. 107–126). Bloomsbury Academic. Jessop, B. (2008). A cultural political economy of competitiveness and its implications for higher education. In B. Jessop, N. Fairclough, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Education and the knowledge-based economy in Europe (pp. 13–39). Sense.

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

33

Jessop, B. (2017). Varieties of academic capitalism and entrepreneurial universities: On past research and three thought experiments. The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 73(6), 853–870. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10734-017-0120-6 Jongbloed, B. (2003). Marketisation in higher education, Clark’s triangle and the essential ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57 (2), 110–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00238 Kogan, M. (2014). The role of different groups in policy-making and implementation: Institutional politics and policy-making. In P. Trowler (Ed.), Higher education policy and institutional change: Intentions and outcomes in turbulent environments (pp. 64–84). CreateSpace. Komljenovic, J., & Robertson, S. L. (2016). The dynamics of “market-making” in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 622–636. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1157732 Krause, K.-L. (2009). Academic work. In M. Tight, K. H. Mok, & J. Huisman (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of higher education (pp. 413– 425). Routledge. Krzyzanowski, ˙ M. (2016). Recontextualisation of neoliberalism and the increasingly conceptual nature of discourse: Challenges for critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society, 27 (3), 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/095792651 6630901 Land, R. (2007). Academic development, identity and paradox. In R. Barnett & R. Di Napoli (Eds.), Changing Identities in Higher Education: Voicing Perspectives. Routledge. Leedham, M. (2009). From traditional essay to ‘Ready Steady Cook’ presentation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 191–206. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469787409343187 Macfarlane, B., & Gourlay, L. (2009). The reflection game: Enacting the penitent self. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), 455–459. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13562510903050244 Maringe, F. (2011). The student as consumer: Affordances and constraints in a transforming higher education environment. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: The student as consumer (pp. 142–154). Routledge. Marginson, S. (2016). The global construction of higher education reform. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (pp. 291–311). Wiley Blackwell. Marginson, S. (2018). Global trends in higher education financing: The United Kingdom. International Journal of Educational Development, 58, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.03.008 McArthur, J. (2013). Rethinking knowledge within higher education: Adorno and social justice. Bloomsbury.

34

S. HORROD

McLean, M., Abbas, A., & Ashwin, P. (2017). Quality in undergraduate education: How powerful knowledge disrupts inequality. Bloomsbury Academic. McMarthy, M. (2019). The scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). In S. Marshall (Ed.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice (pp. 165–176). Taylor & Francis Group. Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: The marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510902898841 Molesworth, M., Scullion, R., & Nixon, E. (Eds.) (2011). The marketisation of higher education: the student as consumer. Routledge. Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, B., & Verger, A. Introduction: The globalization of education policy—Key approaches and debates. In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), The handbook of global education policy (pp. 1– 20). Wiley Blackwell. Mundy, K., Green, A., Lingard, B. & Verger, A. (Eds.) (2016). The handbook of global education policy. Wiley Blackwell. Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, I. (2005). Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 267–281. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108585 Nordensvärd, J. (2011). The consumer metaphor versus the citizen metaphor: Different sets of roles for students. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: The student as consumer (pp. 157–169). Routledge. Nixon, J. (2011). Higher education and the public good: Imagining the university. Continuum. Nixon, E., Scullion, R. & Molesworth, M. (2011). How choice in education can create conservative consumers. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion & E. Nixon (Eds.). The marketisation of higher education: the student as consumer (pp. 196–208). Routledge. OECD. (1996). The knowledge-based economy. OECD. OECD. (2017). Benchmarking higher education system performance: Conceptual framework and data. Enhancing higher education system performance. OECD. OfS. (2018a). About us. Office for Students. Retrieved from: https://www.off iceforstudents.org.uk/about/. Accessed 15 June 2022. OfS. (2018b). Teaching excellence framework. Office for Students. Retrieved https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/teaching/what-is-the-tef/. from: Accessed 20 September 2022. Peat, J. (2015). Getting down to the nitty-gritty: The trials and tribulations of an institutional professional recognition scheme. Perspectives: Policy and Practice

1

LEARNING & TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION …

35

in Higher Education, 19(3), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2015. 1029999 Piller, I., & Cho, J. (2013). Neoliberalism as language policy. Language in Society, 42(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404512000887 QAA. (2022). About us. QAA. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/about-us. Accessed 15 September 2022. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2016). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 23–61). Sage. Scullion, R., Molesworth, M., & Nixon, E. (2011). Arguments, responsibility and what is to be done about marketisation. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: The student as consumer (pp. 227–236). Routledge. SEDA. (2022). About SEDA. https://www.seda.ac.uk/about-seda/. Accessed 15 September 2022. Shattock, M. (Ed.). (2009). Entrepreneurialism in universities and the knowledge economy: Diversification and organizational change in European higher education. Open University Press. Shaw, R. (2018). Professionalising teaching in HE: The impact of an institutional Fellowship Scheme in the UK. Higher Education Research and Development, 37 (1), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1336750 Smyth, J. (2017). The toxic university: Zombie leadership, academic rock stars and neoliberal ideology. Palgrave Macmillan. Swain, H. (2017, August 22). Teachers in elite universities not feeling benefit of £9k tuition fees. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.thegua rdian.com/education/2017/aug/22/university-teaching-staff-pay-research. Accessed 15 September 2018. Teelken, C. (2012). Compliance or pragmatism: How do academics deal with managerialism in higher education? A comparative study in three countries. Studies in Higher Education, 37 (3), 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/030 75079.2010.511171 The scramble for students. (2018, August 25). The Economist, 428(9106), 18. Tomlinson, M. (2017). Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1113856 Trowler, P. (2004). Policy and change: Academic development units and the Bologna declaration. International Journal for Academic Development, 9(2), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144042000334672 Trowler, P. (2014). Doing insider research in universities. Paul Trowler. Trowler, P., Fanghanel, J., & Wareham, T. (2005) Freeing the chi of change: the Higher Education Academy and enhancing teaching and learning in higher

36

S. HORROD

education, Studies in Higher Education, 30(4), 427–444. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03075070500160111 Trowler, P., Saunders, M. & Bamber, V. (2012). Conclusion: Academic practices and the disciplines in the 21st century. In P. Trowler, M. Saunders, & V. Bamber (Eds.), Tribes and Territories in the 21st century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. International Studies in Higher Education (pp. 241–258). Routledge. Urciuoli, B. (2008). Skills and selves in the new workplace. American Ethnologist, 35(2), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2008.1548-1425.00031.x van der Sluis, H., Burden, P., & Huet, I. (2017). Retrospection and reflection: The emerging influence of an institutional professional recognition scheme on professional development and academic practice in a UK university. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(2), 126–134. https://doi. org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1273790 Whitchurch, C., & Gordon, G. (2017). Reconstructing relationships in higher education: challenging agendas. Routledge.

CHAPTER 2

Guiding Approaches and Study Design

2.1

Introduction

This chapter outlines the ideas and frameworks that guided the study. Work in critical discourse studies (CDS) is frequently an interdisciplinary endeavour (Weiss & Wodak, 2003) and I have drawn on theoretical frameworks from education to provide a way of identifying what is most relevant to explore as well as enhancing the interpretation of the data. There are numerous theoretical frameworks that can be employed to examine phenomena in higher education. Ashwin (2012) explores some of these specifically in relation to analysing ‘teaching-learning interactions’ while trying to account for both ‘structure and agency’. He outlines what he describes as current approaches such as Approaches to Learning and Teaching; Communities of Practice and Academic Literacies while also discussing the potential, and challenges, of alternative approaches such as Activity Theory and frameworks by Bernstein and Bourdieu. A key point made is that different approaches may be needed for different purposes (Ashwin, 2012, p. 128). For my purpose and questions, I soon saw the potential that Bernstein’s ideas offered; initially, in terms of how ideas arrive in universities but later also in terms of the ways that learning and teaching are constructed in policy. Specifically, I argue that Bernstein’s (1990, 2000) later work on understanding how education works, including the mechanisms through which power is manifested, provides a valuable framework for exploring how policy, among other influences, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Horrod, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28038-2_2

37

38

S. HORROD

can impact curriculum and practices on the ground. Bernstein’s work also illuminates how the origins of these influences may become opaque or hidden as ideas move between spaces and over time. The first part of the chapter outlines his key concepts and frameworks such as pedagogic discourse, the pedagogic device and the recontextualising fields and shows how they are relevant to an exploration of policy and practice. The chapter then moves on to describe the view of policy taken in the study. The following part of the chapter outlines the key features of critical discourse studies’ approaches and focuses on the discourse-historical approach (DHA) (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016) which provides a complementary theoretical conception of context and the tools for analysis. Detailed textual analysis can show the rhetorical strategies that are employed to support policy proposals and draw conclusions about the discourses which characterise a particular field such as learning & teaching in higher education. I also show how Bernstein’s ideas are complementary to a critical discourse studies’ (CDS) approach; perhaps unsurprising given how CDS approaches have drawn on his notion of ‘recontextualisation’. The chapter finishes by outlining the details of the study including its setting, the range of policy documents examined, lecturer and student interviews and how the connections between policy documents and interview accounts are analysed. I show how the innovative design of the study in bringing together two complementary theoretical approaches enabled a comparison of what policy says with what people in universities do.

2.2 How Education Works: Bernstein’s Sociology of Pedagogy Bernstein’s (1990, 2000) ideas about ‘how education works’ are arguably due for a revival (Donnelly & Abbas, 2019) given the current climate of higher education. He was interested in ‘the powerful forms of knowledge transmitted through schooling systems and who gained access to these forms of knowledge, how, and with what consequences’ (Singh et al., 2010, p. 2). He was particularly focused on the ‘how’ and understanding the characteristics of mechanisms through which inequalities, the ‘consequences’, are produced. Later, he applied his ideas to universities in a context of marketisation. I draw on Bernstein’s later work on pedagogy and curriculum and outline the key concepts below.

2

2.2.1

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

39

Pedagogic Discourse

From the starting point that teaching and assessment practices are not only the result of disciplinary content and practices, my aim was also to understand how different agencies influence practice. Bernstein’s concern was to uncover the ways in which education works in terms of the ways in which what is taught in the classroom, and how, comes into being. His notion of pedagogic discourse is not about discourse used in the discourse studies’ sense but is more of a principle to show that choices over pedagogy are never value-free. He argues that instructional discourse (what is taught and how) is always embedded within a regulative discourse of morals and values; expressed as ID/RD. The theory of instruction also belongs to the regulative discourse, and contains within itself a model of the learner and of the teacher and of the relation. The model of the learner is never wholly utilitarian; it contains ideological elements. (Bernstein, 2000, p. 35)

In other words, some kind of ideology of preferred values is involved so decisions such as what to include in a curriculum and what type of pedagogy to use is always influenced by someone’s values whether as a result of social trends or government policy. Therefore, we should always examine curriculum and pedagogy to uncover what the influences on it are. This is useful for my study since it questions any notion of ‘best practice’ as being absolute, context-free and value-free. He also describes pedagogic discourse as a recontextualising principle because of the transformations that take place through the influence of the regulative discourse. Bernstein argues that the regulative aspect is concealed so that there is just one ‘voice’. So one needs to question in whose interests any decisions are around curriculum, pedagogy and pedagogic identities i.e. of students, lecturers and relations between them. Other relevant concepts are classification and framing. Bernstein describes classification as the strength of boundaries between different subjects and agencies. For example, if you take a subject like business studies, how far do other disciplinary areas form part of the subject of business studies, how far do other actors/agencies have an influence or power e.g. professional bodies, and of interest here, learning and teaching units. In other words, how permeable are the boundaries? Framing concerns the way that the learning and teaching is done (e.g. selection of content, pacing) and who has more control e.g. students or

40

S. HORROD

teachers. These processes may be sites of ‘struggle’ between various stakeholders with an interest in education (Bernstein, 2000, p. 38). So this is relevant not only in terms of practices in universities but also in the policy documents that present a picture of how things should be done and what student/lecturer identities and relations should look like. 2.2.2

The Pedagogic Device

These concepts lead us to Bernstein’s framework of the pedagogic device. This can be summarised as representing different fields and how they interrelate. Specifically, it seeks to connect the original sites of knowledge creation e.g. universities or research institutes and then follow the processes which show how this knowledge, but also the way of teaching, become recontextualised into a subject and pedagogy in the classroom. It is intuitive that subject knowledge needs to be adapted for a particular age group, school system and culture and that various influences exist such as government policy, exam boards and other stakeholders such as teachers. Bernstein outlines two fields: the official recontextualising field (ORF) and the pedagogic recontextualising field. The former includes the state and its agencies (including e.g. The office for students (OfS), HESA and the QAA) and the latter includes, for example, academics, departments of education and education journals. Of interest for this study is the position of learning and teaching units and those involved in learning & teaching and whether they are independent or simply implementing government policy or policy created by higher education agencies that align with government agendas. I see them more as forming part of the ORF. Also of interest is the changing nature and blurring of the two fields as well as the tensions between them. Bernstein summarises the framework into three main parts: the field of production (where knowledge is produced), the field of recontextualisation (where pedagogic discourse is produced) and the field of reproduction (where it is reproduced). These fields are characterised by a set of rules: the distributive, recontextualising and evaluative rules respectively. Distributive rules govern who has access to what type of knowledge; particularly to ‘academic’ knowledge. For example, different types of schools, and indeed universities, may offer different subjects; note, for example, the decline of Humanities in certain universities, or different ways of teaching. New types of institutions may offer degrees. Some universities are more teaching-focused than research-focused. The

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

41

recontextualising rules mentioned above govern how knowledge and pedagogy are transformed. This field is a space in which different agencies can have an influence and ‘a space in which ideology can play’ (Bernstein, 2000, p. 32). A commonly quoted example is the subject of sociology and how that may be recontextualised differently to become more ‘applied’ e.g. ‘criminology’ or ‘social policy’ in new universities (McLean et al., 2013, 2017). Finally, the evaluative rules govern practice and assessment in the classroom which may be decided more locally. However, these are linked back to the previous two sets of rules, so it is necessary to look beyond the individual university itself to understand fully what the influences are (Ashwin, 2012). So although my initial interest was in the assessment practices that can be seen in a department, what interests me is how these practices have been influenced by the other rules. That is, I wanted to explore what types of recontextualisation have occurred including the influence of national higher education learning & teaching policy and the tensions between different people/agencies to control what happens in university teaching. Finally, I should note that Bernstein believed this pedagogic device was ‘not deterministic in its consequences’ i.e. power simply working downwards (Bernstein, 2000, p. 38) but that there was the possibility for resistance and change. Various studies have sought to use the pedagogic device as a way of conceptualising how power and control play out in education and use it to frame studies in particular contexts. The expansion of the ORF to include international organisations and private think-tanks’ influence on policy and practice in the Australian school education context was considered by Loughland and Sriprakash (2016). They demonstrate how the notion of ‘equity’ is recontextualised by agencies with a market orientation and how this impacts at the school level thereby exemplifying the loss of autonomy of the PRF. The tensions within and between the ORF and PRF are explored by Singh et al. (2013) who focus on the role of what they call ‘mid-level policy actors’ in schools e.g. professional development groups and teaching unions, in interpreting national policy on child protection. They demonstrate how the notion of recontextualisation ‘offers a coherent analytic framework for examining processes of policy enactment’ (p. 477) by considering how these actors reinterpret policy to suit teachers’ contexts. Further, the principles of the pedagogic device are central to McLean et al. (2017) large study of ‘quality’ and inequality in undergraduate sociology programmes in different types of

42

S. HORROD

universities. The principles are used to interpret how sociology is differently classified and framed, with one of the less elite universities ‘Diversity’ found to offer a strongly framed, theory-based course together with clear applications to everyday life. Their findings are used to argue for encouraging a strong disciplinary focus and identity in contrast to a generic, employment-oriented version of education. These studies exemplify how the pedagogic device can be put to work to investigate issues. 2.2.3

Singulars, Regions and Generic Modes

The next two sections move beyond the device itself and explain the power of concepts related to the what and how of teaching since these can illuminate the representations in the learning & teaching policy texts. Bernstein applies the principles of classification and framing to the discussion of disciplines where subject areas are divided into singulars and regions with a singular being: ‘a specialized, discrete discourse with its own intellectual field of texts, practices, rules of entry, modes of examination and principles of distributing success and privileges’ (Bernstein, 1990, p. 156) and more inward-looking. He gives examples such as physics, maths, history and economics. Regions, on the other hand, are described as a ‘recontextualizing of disciplines into larger units which operate both in the intellectual field of disciplines and in the field of practice’ (p. 156). Traditional regions include engineering, medicine, education and architecture while newer regions comprise business studies, communications and media. Regions look inward to certain singulars but also outward to professional bodies and particularly to the demands of the market. With regions, the classification or boundaries are weaker and thus more permeable to outside influences. While my study focuses on business studies, a region, it is the notion of other influences on pedagogy, especially policy, which is central to my study. Generic modes refer to general skills with an orientation to work and life and originate from employment-focused agencies outside the PRF (Bernstein, 2000). Such general skills are ‘directly linked to the instrumentalities of the market’ and embody a sense of ‘trainability’ and ‘capacity’ rather than any specific ability (p. 55). ‘Trainability’ aligns with the current widespread term ‘employability’ (see Chapter 4 for discussion of how this impacts curriculum content) with its view of a world with ever-changing needs resulting in demand for people who can continuously adapt and be flexible as Bernstein outlines:

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

43

… where life experience cannot be based on stable expectations of the future and one’s location in it. Under these circumstances it is considered that a vital new ability must be developed: ‘trainability’, the ability to profit from continuous pedagogic re-formations and so cope with the new requirements of ‘work’ and ‘life’. These pedagogic re-formations will be based on the acquisition of generic modes which it is hoped will realise a flexible transferable potential rather than specific performances. Thus generic modes have their deep structure in the concept ‘trainability’. (Bernstein, 2000, p. 59)

He suggests there is ‘an emptiness in the concept of trainability’ despite an attempt to make this the main aim of education. While this might seem a value-free idea focused on self-development, Bernstein highlights the social basis of this concept and that it looks outwards to market demands. In later work, he explicitly discusses the notion that different types of universities are likely to have different offers with elite institutions focusing on singulars and less elite ones focusing more on regions and generic modes since the latter are more likely to be responsive to the market and offer courses that they think will attract the students likely to apply to their institutions. 2.2.4

Visible and Invisible Pedagogies: Performance and Competence Models

Also relevant to my study are Bernstein’s (2000) two models of pedagogic practice which classify and frame in different ways. These are invisible pedagogies or competence models and visible pedagogies or performance models . The former involves weak classification or control and a focus on teachers’ professionalism in assessing the learning or transformation occurring within the individual. The learner has more autonomy. Performance models exhibit strong classification, a focus on the outcomes and outputs of the learner and on the skills currently lacking. There is explicitness in teaching and assessment. Bernstein describes three modes of competence model which are situated within their socio-political environment: liberal/progressive (development within the individual) evident in 1960s/1970s UK schooling; populist (focused on competences within a local culture or particular contexts); radical mode (within group with emancipatory aims) (see Chapter 5 on the use of Freire and other ‘radical’

44

S. HORROD

education thinkers in policy documents). Bernstein is known for criticising some elements of progressive education, its invisible pedagogies and lack of explicitness which disadvantage children from working-class backgrounds (Moore, 2013). Although Bernstein suggests higher education is likely to focus on performance models or visible pedagogies with explicit criteria and outcomes, Ashwin (2012) notes that some practices within art and design and music resemble competence models. More pertinently, McLean et al. (2017) in their study on sociology in different universities, found that less elite universities were engaged in more visible pedagogies; this is also true of the setting of my study. These concepts are also relevant since the learning & teaching documents I analyse construct a particular model of pedagogic practice while interview accounts draw a different picture. 2.2.5

Pedagogic Identities

Since I am interested in how the different stakeholders in higher education are represented in policy documents (and in interviews), especially students and academics, Bernstein’s ideas around pedagogic identities within different socio-political contexts are highly relevant. In some of his final work, in what he calls ‘no more than a sketch’ (Bernstein, 2000, p. 65), he outlines ideas around ‘official knowledge and pedagogic identities: the politics of recontextualisation’ thereby taking a more overt look at what he terms the ‘official arena’ and different versions of the state. This is also where he focuses on higher education rather than schools. He outlines a model which connects the official identities of the state with identities available to local actors. He suggests these different positions in the political arena with their differing approaches to managing change ‘are expected to become the lived experience of teachers and students, through the shaping of their pedagogic identity’ (Bernstein, 2000, p. 66). Of the four positions of retrospective (old conservative), prospective (neoconservative), de-centred-market (neo-liberal) and de-centred-therapeutic (professional), I highlight the two ‘de-centred’ identities since they are recognisable in parts of higher education today. These are characterised as having some degree of autonomy and a focus on the present. The market one, also described as ‘instrumental’, focuses on projection outwards to market demands with ‘personal commitment and particular dedication of staff and students … regarded as resistances’ (Bernstein, 2000, p. 69).

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

45

The therapeutic identity is described as progressive, a means of invisible control with a focus on non-specialised, flexible thinking and teamwork operating through a soft management style, with hierarchies and power disguised by interpersonal relations (Bernstein, 2000, p. 70). This sounds like a competence model and this view is supported by Ensor (2004) in her study of changes to higher education curricula in South Africa. A salient point about the therapeutic identity is that ‘the concept of self is crucial and the self is regarded as a personal project’ (Bernstein, 2000, p. 73). This focus on self-development is part of the construction of the purpose of a higher education in policy (see Chapter 4) as well as an underlying message for academics. Bernstein suggests this model is not common due to its high costs and difficulties in measuring outcomes. However, I believe there are recognisable elements of this identity, relating to both the cooperative aspects and the focus on self, within the policy documents (see Chapters 3 and 5). Elite universities can maintain an element of introjection and a focus on knowledge creation while nonelite institutions are more responsive to market demands in creating their course offering. This, in turn, potentially influences academics’ identities. The socio-political environment influences how students’ and academics’ identities are constructed in policy and how they are enacted in practice (see Chapter 3 for an examination of this). The pedagogic device and the concepts of pedagogic discourse, classification and framing, performance-competence models, singulars, regions, generic modes and pedagogic identities provide a way of examining the mechanisms through which university subjects, and ways of teaching, come to be as they are. The notions of the recontextualising fields and the ORF/PRF are particularly valuable for exploring who has power and influence over what is taught and how. Bernstein’s ideas also provide frameworks for exploring models of learning and teaching and identities of teachers and students evident in policy documents. Since an important part of my analysis involves examining policy texts, next I turn to how policy is theorised.

2.3

How Policy Is Viewed in This Study

There are different ways of viewing what policy is and how it is ‘implemented’. There is a broad divide between positivist and interpretive frames (see e.g. Ball, 2017; Fischer et al., 2015; Trowler, 2014a). The former is a more traditional view of policy as being made as a result of

46

S. HORROD

rational decision-making in response to objectively identified problems and following a simple cycle of design, implement and review (see e.g. Fischer et al., 2015). The latter views policy as constructed for a purpose, situated in a particular context, able to be interpreted in different ways and accepted, adapted or resisted. In other words, it is not seen as necessarily being based on rational decision-making or valid assumptions; there is an interest in the policy texts themselves and people’s practices around policy-making and interpretation. There has emerged a growing field of critical policy studies (CPS) which includes three main strands: interpretive; critical and poststructuralist (Fischer et al., 2015). Interpretive approaches focus on situated practices of making and remaking policy, the agency of actors involved and their ability to adapt policy for the local context leading to the concept of appropriation whereby actors reshape policy to suit their needs (Levinson et al., 2009). Critical approaches either tend to focus on analysing how policy reproduces existing structures of power and domination with an emphasis on analysing the effects of policy or, from a sociocultural standpoint, focus on practices and ‘who can do policy’ and ‘what can policy do’ (Levinson et al., 2009, p. 769). Poststructuralist approaches highlight the constructed, rather than objective, nature of the problems that policy is designed to solve and conceptualises diffuse networks of governmentality. Analysing education policy mainly at the school level, Ball (2017) characterises his own work as the ‘sociology of policy’ situated within a Foucauldian-inspired, socialconstructivist approach and sees policy as a diffuse form of governance enacted through networks of agencies and actors both state and non-state. Policy embodies discourses that ‘mobilise truth claims and constitute rather than simply reflect social reality’ (Ball, 2017, p. 8) thus aligning somewhat with critical discourse studies (CDS) discussed below. His concept of ‘policy technologies’ illuminates how policy works in practical terms through new language, incentives, roles, identities and relationships rather than just official policy texts (Ball, 2017, p. 50). He argues that technologies work in education through market form; performativity and management/leadership. Performativity refers to the culture of accountability of measures and reporting. With some similarities, in discussing higher education, Trowler (2014a) describes policy as ‘made’ and remade through ‘recurrent practices, sets of attitudes and assumptions realized in specific contexts of practice’ (p. 15). While Ball (2017) discusses the language of policy regarding the ‘policy rhetorics and discourses’ (p. 8),

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

47

there is no systematic linguistic analysis but instead a focus on key terms such as globalisation and choice. This approach is valuable for highlighting the constructed and contingent nature of policy problems and solutions, the remaking of policy in particular contexts but also how policy potentially remakes identities, thus aligning with Bernstein’s (2000) concern with pedagogic identities. I demonstrate this through my analysis of policy documents in Chapters 3–6. While such approaches may view policy as discursive in character, few approaches to policy analysis actually analyse texts systematically (Ashwin & Smith, 2015; Fairclough, 2013; Saarinen, 2008). Fairclough (2013) argues for the contribution that critical discourse analysis (CDA) can make, in this regard, to other approaches such as poststructuralist discourse analysis (PDA) and cultural political economy (CPE). In the following section, I discuss how CDS, specifically the discourse-historical approach (DHA), can provide concepts and analytical tools for analysing policy texts and interview accounts but also provides the conceptual tools for exploring policy across settings. I then discuss how Bernstein’s ideas, the conceptualisation of policy I outline and a discursive approach to analysis from the DHA can be brought together into a coherent framework.

2.4 Uncovering the Ideological: Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) and the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) In this section, I focus on key ideas in critical discourse studies’ (CDS) approaches and detail the core ideas and analytical tools of the discoursehistorical approach (DHA) chosen for this study. I show how this approach can be used to explore the recontextualisation of policy ideas in the field of practice in universities. I use examples from my study to illustrate the key ideas. CDS embraces a range of underlying theories (social, cognitive and linguistic), approaches and methods and varying definitions of concepts such as discourse, ideology and context (Wodak & Meyer, 2009, 2016). The more recent term, critical discourse studies (Wodak & Meyer, 2016), embodies the notion of a collection of approaches drawing on varying theoretical underpinnings and different methods of analysis rather than a single method as perhaps suggested by the term CDA. With an

48

S. HORROD

interest in power, ideology and critique, CDS approaches seek to illuminate the hidden power relations within texts; recognising that texts may show evidence of competing discourses and ideologies (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Interdisciplinarity is a common feature across CDS approaches since ‘complex interrelations between discourse and society cannot be analysed adequately unless linguistic and sociological approaches are combined’ (Weiss & Wodak, 2003, p. 7). I draw on a particular approach within CDS: The discourse-historical approach (DHA). Described as drawing on the Frankfurt School of critical theory; Bernstein’s work; argumentation theory, among others (Reisigl, 2018), key principles include: interdisciplinarity; problemorientation; eclectic use of theory and method according to the problem investigated; recursive movement between theory and data; a variety of genres and spaces; the importance of historical context; intertextual/interdiscursive relations; non-fixed categories and methods and use of ethnographic fieldwork (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016, p. 32). This approach has mainly been used to discuss overtly political topics such as discrimination (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001), national identity (Wodak et al., 2009), 2010; Wodak, 2011) and European politics and identity (Krzyzanowski, ˙ right-wing populism (Wodak, 2015) which have a clear historical element but also more recently used in analysing language policy (Barakos & Unger, 2016; Unger, 2013). My own study is interdisciplinary in the sense of drawing on concepts from a range of fields, including Bernstein’s sociology of pedagogy, to investigate the issue. I describe it as problem-oriented since I started with questions about assessment practices and the proliferation of guidelines and policy mechanisms within a university. I choose different policy genres from different layers of context and incorporate an ethnographic-inspired approach to studying practices on the ground by conducting interviews and gathering texts from the institution in the study. Recontextualisation is a key area of enquiry since I wish to trace intertextual and interdiscursive relations between different texts from the national level to the institution. To enhance analysis, I draw on recent developments in higher education but also look further back in tracing educational trends in learning and teaching as relevant. I use analytical tools from the DHA selectively and aim to identify argumentation schemes e.g. topoi (see Sect. 2.4.5.2), specific to this field rather than simply use pre-determined categories.

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

49

Critique is key in CDS, and defined in a general sense as questioning prevailing ideas but it is also conceptualised in the DHA, based on Critical Theory, as operating at three levels: text or discourse immanent critique, socio-diagnostic critique and future-related prospective critique (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). The first is designed to uncover inconsistencies and contradiction within texts. The second aims to reveal persuasive or manipulative discursive practices by drawing on analysis of the wider context and the use of social theories (see Chapters 3–6). The third aims to offer a better way forward in terms of improving communication and thus focuses on recommendations for change (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016) (see Chapter 7). In the following section, I focus on key concepts from CDS; specifically, as employed in the DHA. However, I also discuss how these align with Bernstein’s ideas. I consider differing conceptualisations where appropriate, focusing on how they are defined and used in this research. At the same time, I explain how these form part of the analysis of the data. 2.4.1

Context

Context has been debated and theorised in many different ways in the social sciences, including linguistics (some argue under-theorised e.g. van Dijk, 2009). A conception of context is clearly at the heart of Bernstein’s work from his early discussion of the impact of social background on the ability to interpret and respond to the context, to later concern with the principles of the process of pedagogy and knowledge transmission from the primary context (field of production), to the secondary context (field of reproduction) which could be the school or university (Bernstein, 1990). The link between discursive events and social relations is key in CDS and context is conceptualised as having different facets. The DHA conceptualises four dimensions of context from the immediate text through to the socio-political and historical context to be examined when analysing discourse (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). Table 2.1 illustrates this with data from my study. Analysis of context is designed to be done in a recursive way moving back and forth between the different dimensions (Reisigl & Wodak,

50

S. HORROD

Table 2.1 Context in the DHA A concept of context with four dimensions 1

2

3

4

The immediate language or text-internal co-text E.g. of policy documents or interview data—discourse topics; discursive strategies; macro-strategies The intertextual and interdiscursive relationship between utterances, texts, genres and discourses E.g. between policy documents from different ‘fields of action’—institutional and national & between those and interview data and assignments The social variables and institutional frames of a specific ‘context of situation’ E.g. the university’s structure and culture [and faculty, school, department and other formal / informal groups within that]; the frame of the interviews The broader sociopolitical and historical context which discursive practices are embedded in and related to E.g. the current higher education environment; historical educational trends; the policies of government (and its agencies); the political and social context in the UK

Based on Reisigl and Wodak (2016, pp. 30–31)

2016). How this is done in my study, in the first two levels in particular, is outlined below. The institutional frames and the broader sociopolitical/historical context were outlined in Chapter 1 and are discussed as part of the analysis in Chapters 3–6. 2.4.2

Fields of Action

The concept of ‘fields of action’ is useful for my study. It emphasises the functions of discursive practices in each field and the location of discourses and their movement between fields. Originating from Girnth’s 1996 work (cited in Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, p. 36), it is used in the DHA (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, 2016) to explore connections between fields through analysis of intertextuality and interdiscursivity. I am interested in how discourse on a particular topic, and the genres it is found in, change from one field of action to another; that is, from a government policy document in the field of policy-making, to a university strategy document in the field of institution-internal formation of attitudes, to a teaching document in the field of learning and teaching. People can also move between different fields; for example, academics may be involved in contributing to policy. In terms of analysis, HEA policy documents can be assigned to the field of action of national policy-making. However, they

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

51

are also used within the field of institution-internal formation of attitudes and particularly in its recontextualised form as an Advance HE (HEA) framework document, they may be used within the field of learning and teaching as well as in professional development and accreditation given the organisation’s links with the UKPSF and the Fellowship scheme. Figure 2.1 illustrates relevant fields in higher education, their functions, genres found within them and typical discourse topics in that field. I use two different notions of field in the study for particular purposes. I use the DHA’s notion of fields of action to consider the function of different fields and the movement of discourses between them through texts and their recontextualisation. In terms of data selection, this means that I examined policy documents from different fields to explore their connections with institutional learning and teaching guidelines and assessment practices. I also analysed how discourses were recontextualised from field to field. Secondly, I use Bernstein’s (1990, 2000) notion of fields and the principles governing the fields of production, recontextualisation and reproduction of educational knowledge as part of the pedagogic device and the actors and agencies involved in each. My interest lies primarily in the recontextualising field and the boundaries between the ORF and PRF since I am exploring connections between policy and practice. I use Bernstein’s concepts to pinpoint the object of study and to discuss my findings. 2.4.3

Genre

University assignment genres were a starting point for this study in that some assignment texts exhibited an interesting mix of academic and professional genres. Simple genre labels such as essays or reports are not informative (Swales, 1990). Instead, a more detailed analysis of characteristics is necessary for understanding assessment requirements (see Sect. 4.3). However, the notion of genres having a structure with a number of stages with different functions, similar to Swales’ (1990) ‘moves’, is used in the DHA to describe the ‘macro-structure’ of a text (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). This provides insight into the characteristics of the genre which informs the analysis of discourse. The notion of a ‘genre chain’ (Swales, 2004) provides insight into the complexity of assessment since it often forms a chain of different summative parts, or genres, which constitute the final assessment e.g. group presentation—group report—individual reflection. The ‘genre network’

52

S. HORROD

Fields of action in higher education European policy on higher education

Formation of public opinion about higher education

National policy on higher education

Institution externalfacing promotion

Institution internal formation of attitudes and opinion

Faculty, School, Department formation of attitudes and opinion

Policy framework and guidelines documents

Faculty / School / Dept. etc. learning & teaching guidelines

Higher education (sub) genres Bologna Process documents e.g. Bologna Declaration 1999; Strategy for the EHEA in the global setting 2007; Ministerial Conference 2010 documents; Conference speeches; press releases

standardisation in HE in Europe; a multilingual Europe

Government strategy documents on HE; press releases; speeches etc. Government agencies e.g. OfS (HEFCE) & HE agencies e.g. Advance HE (HEA) discussion documents; websites; events and training

Partnership; co-creation; flexibility; transformation

General media e.g. TV, online, newspaper items on higher education Specialist higher education media

value for money; purpose of HE

University strategy document; university website information; student prospectuses Promotional material for local community; speeches; events

Diversity; inclusion; internationalisation; employability

Internal web pages and policy docs therein Learning & teaching workshops, events and institutional schemes

student engagement; employability

Boards of studies Learning & teaching events; meetings

work-based learning; authentic assessment

Fig. 2.1 Fields of action in higher education (Based on Reisigl and Wodak’s [2016, p. 29] diagram on fields of political action)

metaphor (Swales, 2004) is useful to illustrate the interconnectedness of different genres. For example, professional bodies’ guidelines, national agencies’ guidelines, institutional policy documents and departmental guidelines are all genres which influence learning, teaching and assessment. Clearly, it is impossible to capture the vast network of influences, but this study focuses on one influential organisation involved in higher

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

53

education and its policy genres to explore the connections with pedagogic practice. The important point about the notion of genre for my analysis is that power can be exercised through certain genres (Weiss & Wodak, 2003). In the DHA, a genre is described as ‘a socially conventionalized type and pattern of communication that fulfils a specific social purpose in a specific social context’ (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016, p. 27). The focus on purpose and context provides a clear link between the text and how it is intended to be used and in which settings. It also connects genres with fields of action whereby discursive practices within fields have a particular function realised through different genres. For example, I analyse what I label HEA policy discussion documents but also compare them intertextually with much shorter HEA policy framework documents; noting the changes between genres and their different uses within different fields of action (see Chapter 6). 2.4.4

Text

Texts may be written, oral or multimodal and are the concrete manifestations of speech acts (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). In the DHA, texts are not analysed for their own sake but as they relate to structured knowledge (discourses). Texts mediate between discourse and social practices or structures. They can be seen as belonging to a certain genre and situated within the dimensions of context outlined above (Wodak, 2015). That is, they are linked to other texts intertextually and interdiscursively as discussed below. Therefore, understanding the full meaning, and power, of a text requires analysis of the context since texts can be sites of struggle of competing discourses and ideologies (Weiss & Wodak, 2003). 2.4.5

Discourse; Discourse Topics; Discursive Strategies

Numerous conceptualisations of discourse exist including for example (i) a text above the sentence level (ii) a text in its social context (iii) language seen as a form of social practice or action which is embodied in the DHA’s conception of discourse discussed below (Barakos & Unger, 2016). The DHA describes discourse in a multi-faceted way as ‘context-dependent semiotic practices’ within particular fields of social action, socially constituted and socially constitutive, related to a particular macro-topic and linked to argumentation about validity claims involving people with

54

S. HORROD

different perspectives (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016, p. 27). The key features are summarised as: (a) macro-topic relatedness (b) pluri-perspectivity and (c) argumentivity. What this means is that one could have discourse about marketisation in education which recognises that different people will have different views about marketisation; some supportive, some critical. The importance of the concept of discourse lies in its conceptualisation in constituting social relations as well as reflecting them; in other words, discourses do not simply reflect society, but they can influence it. Another issue is which topics, which perspectives are included, transformed or excluded, leading to the notion of recontextualisation discussed below. In terms of analysis, discourse is examined through what are sometimes called ‘macro-analysis’ and ‘micro-analysis’ (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). The former encompasses analysis of discourse topics and the macro-structure of a text and the latter involves analysis of discursive strategies. However, this distinction can be misleading since the researcher moves between the different types of analyses in a recursive way and the findings are combined in order to identify the macro-strategies or macro-functions described below. 2.4.5.1 Discourse Topics A first step in analysing discourse is to outline the contents or ‘thematic dimension’ of each document, noting the discourse topics that are specific to that text (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). A discourse topic can be summarised as what a section of text is about and is subject to the interpretation of the analyst (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). In that sense, it could be seen as a type of thematic coding. This is a key first step in identifying discourses. In terms of analysing the six policy documents, I listed topics in each text and then looked at topics across the texts to establish which topics appear in all or most of the texts. I then created a map of these topics. For example, I identified the topics of ‘learning communities’ and ‘future-fit graduates’ in most texts. 2.4.5.2 Discursive Strategies In the DHA, a strategy is viewed as a ‘more or less intentional plan of practice (including discursive practices) adopted to achieve a particular social, political, psychological or linguistic goal’ (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016, p. 33). The more or less is important as it is recognised there can be intentional action and unconscious action; the latter as a result of socialisation and recurring practices (Wodak et al., 2009). However, actors should take

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

55

responsibility for their acts, in other words, they cannot blame their socialisation and analysts would not be able to critique if strategies were seen as completely unconscious. Greater intentionality exists in prepared speeches than in interview data (Wodak et al., 2009, p. 32). Policy documents fall into the former category of more intentional action, so it is pertinent to analyse the strategies that are used. Analysis of ‘discursive strategies’ provides the micro-level analysis in the DHA. Reisigl and Wodak (2016) outline the following questions which guide this analysis. In italics are the labels for the respective discursive strategies: 1. How are persons, objects, phenomena/events, processes and actions named and referred to linguistically? Nomination 2. What characteristics, qualities and features are attributed to social actors, objects, phenomena/events and processes? Predication 3. What arguments are employed in the discourse in question? Argumentation 4. From what perspective are these nominations, attributions and arguments expressed? Perspectivisation 5. Are the respective utterances articulated overtly, intensified or mitigated? Intensification or Mitigation (Based on Reisigl & Wodak, 2016, p. 32). Each strategy has a particular objective and typical devices or means and context-specific linguistic realisations. In Table 2.2, I include the objectives of each discursive strategy (e.g. predication may involve negative evaluation), typical devices (e.g. adjectives or metaphors) and provide examples from my own data. Clearly, some strategies are more prominent in the data than others and warrant detailed analysis in order to identify the common discursive strategies in a particular genre or field of action. The five categories operate at ‘different levels of linguistic organisation and complexity’ (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, p. 44). In other words, there is overlap in their use. For example, predications can be integrated into nominations e.g. graduate instead of student focuses on the outcome of study. Predications also often form part of argumentation schemes in that the traits assigned to a particular actor or phenomenon can be used as a basis for arguing that a particular action is true or the right thing

56

S. HORROD

Table 2.2 Discursive strategies with examples Strategy

Objectives

Nomination

Discursive – Membership construction of categorisation social actors, objects, devices phenomena, events, – Tropes such as processes and actions metaphors, metonymies and synecdoches – Verbs and nouns to denote processes Discursive – Evaluative qualification of the attributions e.g. above (positively or adjectives, negatively) prepositional phrases – Collocations – Comparisons Justification and – Topoi e.g. topos of questioning of claims authority of truth or – Fallacies normative rightness – Formal argumentation schemes

Predication

Argumentation

Perspectivisation

Positioning the speaker’s or writer’s point of view and expressing involvement or distance

Devices (sample only)

– Deictics – Direct, indirect speech representation

Examples from policy documents’ data – Academic developers – Graduates – Staff – The student experience – Student engagement – Effective pedagogy – Flexible learning – Passive consumers

– ‘From student satisfaction surveys to Select Committee reports, there is firm evidence that assessment is not successfully meeting the needs of students, employers, politicians or the public’ ‘We believe it is vital, in an increasingly competitive labour market, that students graduate with all the qualities necessary to gain and retain fulfilling employment’

(continued)

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

57

Table 2.2 (continued) Strategy

Objectives

Devices (sample only)

Examples from policy documents’ data

Intensification or mitigation

Modifying (intensifying or mitigating) the illocutionary force and thus epistemic or deontic status of utterances

– Diminutives or augmentatives – Indirect speech acts – Verbs of saying, feeling, thinking

– Excessive appetite for resources (summative assessment) = I – A partnership approach might not be for everyone = M

Based on Reisigl and Wodak (2016, p. 33)

to do (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). This is evident in the following cause– effect structure: ‘a 21st century education requires a radical rethink in assessment practices’ (predications in italics). Argumentation is a rich area for analysis in policy discussion documents since writers use argumentation strategies to support their policy proposals. ‘Formal’ argumentation schemes include cause–effect structures and counter-argument/argument structures. Another common type of argumentation scheme in the DHA is the use of topoi. This is a notable feature of my analysis, so I describe it below. Topoi The key point about topoi is that they obscure the ideological character of a claim. They contribute to positive/negative evaluation without detailing the warrant or providing (sufficient) evidence. Formal analysis of argumentation is based on a model of argumentation which is a simplified version of Toulmin’s 1969 original 6-part model (cited in Reisigl, 2014, pp. 74–75). This entails an argument becoming a claim through the use of an underpinning ‘warrant/conclusion rule’. The argument gives the reason for a claim. The claim is the statement that has to be justified or refuted. The conclusion rule or warrant is the topos: ‘the central parts of argumentation that belong to the premises’ and links the argument to the claim (Reisigl, 2014, p. 75). A topos has also been described as ‘an argumentative shortcut’ (Wodak, 2011). Topoi are either ‘formal’ or ‘field/content-oriented’ (Reisigl, 2014). I explain these two types of topoi with examples from my data. A formal

58

S. HORROD

topos, the topos of authority is used in the following example (data from my study in italics): Argument: X says that A is true/has to be done, Feedback from employers suggests that students are frequently unable to articulate effectively the skills and attributes that they have acquired whilst studying at university. (University Framework document, 2012) Conclusion Rule: If authority X says that A is true/has to be done (= topos) If employers say that students are frequently unable to articulate effectively the skills and attributes that they have acquired whilst studying at university. Claim: Thus, A is true/has to be done. Therefore, it is true that students are frequently unable to articulate effectively the skills and attributes that they have acquired whilst studying at university.

The authority of employers is used to argue the above point without actually providing any evidence to support the claim. What are described as formal (or content-abstract) argumentation schemes include the scheme or topos of authority, definition, example, comparison, among others. In policy documents, models/frameworks provide a topos of authority, case studies provide a topos of example, extended definitions and conceptualisations provide a topos of definition. Since argumentation is seen as topic-related and field-dependent, topoi can also be ‘content-related’ conclusion rules that can be found in particular fields of action. These topoi can reveal the ‘specific character of discourses’ within these fields (Reisigl, 2014, p. 77). An example from my own data is the topos of uncertainty relating to a construction of an uncertain future frequently drawn on to argue for broad conceptions of key concepts or a broad range of skills for students. A criticism of analysing texts for content-related topoi is that it can lead to long lists of topoi (e.g. in Wodak et al., 2009) without sufficient focus on analysis and critique (Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012). I find it useful to identify a limited number of common content-related topoi within the field of action of higher education policy-making on learning and teaching especially since there is less discourse-analytical research in this area.

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

59

2.4.5.3 Macro-Functions and Macro-Strategies On a macro-level, two types of strategies appear across the DHA literature albeit with shifting labels. In this study, I use the terms ‘macro-functions’ and ‘macro-strategies’ in the following way. Macro-functions highlight the purpose or function of a text or text section and include broad functions such as justification, construction, transformation, destruction as well as more specific functions or strategies such as legitimation, singularisation and avoidance (Wodak et al., 2009). Although these were identified in the study on national identity and are not a priori categories, some are useful for my own analysis. The process of identifying them is to work from the micro-analysis of discursive strategies and their means of realisation. For example, the language of change, a contrast between the past and now, and the topos of consequence of inaction, all indicate a call for transformation and the revitalisation of higher education. This macro-function is prevalent in the policy documents; especially Assessment. Macro-functions can overlap. For example, transformation forms part of a broader legitimation strategy. Analysis of topic-related strategies—or ‘macro-strategies’—forms an even more important part of my study. The term macro-strategy can be used to describe a particular construction of people or phenomena in a text or texts and is a collection of discourse topics and discursive strategies (Unger, 2013). It represents a way of seeing the world so can be seen as ideological. It is similar to Fairclough’s (2003, 2016) view of a discourse. The identification of macro-strategies is important for my study since although my study does not focus on the discursive construction of one country or one language, my research questions address how key actors and processes such as students, staff, a university education, learning and teaching are discursively constructed within the policy documents and interview data. For example, policy itself is discussed in the policy documents and I identify a number of discourse topics such as ‘the embedding into processes, practices and culture’, ‘recognition and reward systems’ and ‘shared values’ and a range of discursive strategies such as the topos of opposites e.g. ‘bolt-on’ versus ‘embedded’ which lead me to identify a macro-strategy of ‘policy as embedded within processes and practices’ (see Chapter 6). This represents a particular perspective since an alternative view might be a more agentic view of policy as more democratically enacted or appropriated. These macro-strategies provide the basis for the organisation of the analysis chapters (Chapters 3–6) in this book.

60

S. HORROD

2.4.6

Recontextualisation: Intertextuality and Interdiscursivity

Inspired by Bernstein, the concept of recontextualisation (see Sect. 2.2.2 on the pedagogic device) has been used in CDS to inform discourse analysis of texts. It is clearly different to Bernstein’s conceptualisation but it retains resonances. The focus is on the process of dislocation, relocation and transformation. Arguments or topics are decontextualised by being taken out of their original context and then recontextualised into the new text and context (even different field of action). In doing so, they may acquire a new or altered meaning; perhaps used for a different purpose (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016) as exemplified in the analysis of the recontextualisation of European higher education policies in Austria and Romania (Wodak & Fairclough, 2010). What is key is the way that the ideology 2016) since the can be obscured in the process (see e.g. Krzyzanowski, ˙ source of the changes may remain hidden. In this study, I use Bernstein’s conceptualisation in terms of considering the principles of how knowledge, whether subject knowledge or knowledge about learning and teaching is influenced by regulative discourse and changed as it moves through the recontextualising fields and into the field of pedagogic practice. However, for the purposes of discourse analysis of policy texts and interview accounts, I draw on the DHA’s operationalisation of the concept through exploring intertextuality and interdiscursivity. These concepts derive from an extensive literature e.g. Bakhtin (1981) on the dialogic and polyphonic characteristics of texts. Texts are dialogical in that they respond to other texts; for example, by anticipating opposition and counter-arguments. They are polyphonic in the sense of containing different voices and ideologies. Policy texts embody both these features since in aiming to persuade, they anticipate opposition and in so doing, contain a range of voices. Intertextuality concerns the links between one text and another, either by explicit reference or by allusion, and how elements e.g. topics, actors, events, quotations or arguments change in their relocation from one context to another since meaning is made in its use in the new context (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). For example, an argument made about education by a book’s author may be used for a different purpose in a policy document. In the DHA, interdiscursivity is viewed as the overlapping of topic-related discourses, discourse topics and sub-topics (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). For instance, discourse about

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

61

marketisation in education may refer to other discourses such as discourse about globalisation or recession or modernity. These concepts enable a productive textual analysis of policy documents in different layers of context e.g. national policy documents and institutional policy documents but also between different genres of national policy texts and between policy texts and interview data. The aim is to trace topics and arguments across texts to explore recontextualisation and ultimately to establish the characteristics of the regulative discourse and the relay through which it operates (Bernstein, 2000).

2.5

The Approach to Interviews

I interviewed both lecturers and students for the study as I detail below. Here, I see the interview as a social practice generating data through a coconstructed, situated interaction (see Holstein & Gubrium, 1997). Such a view encourages a focus on how things are said, rather than simply what is said, making interview data suitable for discourse analysis (Mann, 2011). I believe there are links between discursive practices and social processes and, therefore, analysing discourse in interview data can indicate practices, structures as well as different ideologies. In other words, there is a recognition that both interviewees and interviewers may have points they want to put across as well as the wish to present themselves in a particular way and this is worthy of attention. Concepts drawn from the discursive turn in social psychology such as framing, footing (Goffman, 1974, 1981), positioning and stance have been employed in CDS studies to explore identities (e.g. Wodak, 2011). Framing, for example, is the interviewee’s sense of the interview e.g. chatting or arguing while footing concerns the position an interviewee takes up in relation to the interview. Noting changes in footing can be insightful; for example, from talking as a student to talking as a manager or parent. Examining such features can contribute to the analysis of perspectivisation and argumentation. Interviews with students were conducted at the end of the taught part of the course but before the dissertations. Interviews with lecturers were also mostly done at the end of the course. The interviews were based on the discussion around sample marked assignments and module guides. Students’ experiences of assessment were fresh in their memory but they did not have greater distance. This is simply to recognise that the interviews are contextualised within a certain time period. I was acquainted with the lecturers and two of the students which have an

62

S. HORROD

influence on the way meaning is co-constructed as shared knowledge and prior acquaintance are made relevant in the interaction. This familiarity is not necessarily a disadvantage and Garton and Copland (2010) explore what they term the ‘acquaintance interview’ to consider how ‘prior relationships’ are invoked or referred to and how the perception of the event (framing) and alignment of self and others (footing) shift continually within the interaction. For instance, lecturers occasionally raise the question of whether the data is useful or not for me or refer to shared institutional knowledge. Contradictions and shifts in positioning and opinions in accounts can indicate competing discourses. In terms of transcribing the interviews, for the purpose of discourse analysis within the DHA, I do not require a fine level of detail and focused on readability thus producing what Bucholtz (2000, p. 1461) calls a more ‘naturalized transcription’. However, I did include details that could aid interpretation (Du Bois, 1991) such as laughter or pauses. The interview data was analysed in a similar way to the policy texts in terms of using the DHA’s framework of discourse topics, discursive strategies and intertextuality/interdiscursivity. This consistency helped with subsequent analysis of recontextualisation across documents and interviews. In terms of micro-analysis of selected extracts of the interview data, my starting point was the DHA’s discursive strategies. An interview, however, produces a different kind of text from a policy document since it is a situated interaction and particular features of spoken English need to be examined to see how they fit into these categories of discursive strategies. I drew on work on interviews as interaction; for example, features that can indicate evaluation and positioning such as pauses, laughter and emphasis (e.g. Myers & Lampropoulou, 2016); speech representation of ‘direct’ or ‘reported’ speech (e.g. Lampropoulou & Myers, 2013); impersonal ‘you’ (Myers & Lampropoulou, 2012). These have informed CDS approaches to analysing interviews and focus groups. For example, Reisigl (2014) mentions viewing examples in narrative episodes as claims within argumentation. Spoken data has many features but I only considered particular features to inform my analysis of how participants were positioning themselves and others in relation to the topics they were discussing i.e. strategies of perspectivisation, and how certain features contributed to the claims they were making i.e. strategies of argumentation (Wodak, 2011). Table 2.3 summarises selected features of spoken interaction and how they align with particular discursive strategies with

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

63

examples from my data to illustrate. There is overlap in these strategies; for example, many features under perspectivisation also contribute to supporting an argument. To illustrate the potential of analysing such features, I include an extract from an interview with a lecturer who is discussing the importance of precision in the use of concepts in his module: Interviewer: Mike:

but presumably they’re taught that in the class, they’re taught to understand objectives or to read and interpret? but that’s not [own module name], that’s where the problem becomes, that is not the domain of this module or at least there is not the (xxx), to read an objective or to read a problem statement is not the domain of a single module, however (.) if you are let to get away with that and one module comes and says “no I’m not playing this game”, for them it’s difficult (..) so to my mind the problem has already been generated.

Here the lecturer uses my question as a prompt to discuss his opinion of not only what should be done but of other lecturers. First, he presents his point about developing certain skills throughout the programme. Then he shifts to talking about other lecturers with ‘however’ and the ‘if you are let to get away with that’, with the impersonal you referring to students but used in a generalising way to indicate this often happens. The actor is absent in the passive construction ‘you are let’ and then the metonymic ‘one module comes and says’ again avoiding naming anyone specific. The shift into direct speech representation ‘I’m not playing this game’ positions others in a negative way and is used as evidence to support his claim. This is reinforced through the perspectivisation strategy evident in ‘for them it’s difficult’ suggesting the students are not to blame and also ‘to my mind the problem has already been generated’ indicating that others are causing the problem. What initially started as a comment on students’ difficulties, becomes a claim regarding inconsistency of approach within a department. Thus, features of spoken data can be analysed regarding their contribution to discursive strategies such as argumentation.

64

S. HORROD

Table 2.3 Selected features of spoken interaction aligned with DHA discursive strategies Strategy

Devices (spoken data)

Objectives

Examples from interview data

Nomination

General names Metonymy Membership categorisation devices (MCD) Adjectives: euphemisms, metaphors Variety of clauses

Vagueness Obscuring Grouping

People, someone, Language coming in Native speakers

Obscuring

Pertinent things Meaty bits

Predication

Argumentation

Perspectivisation

Examples, anecdotes, story fragments Topos of example Commonplaces, clichés, sayings Formal argumentation schemes Direct/indirect speech/thought representation (incl. hypotheticals) Quotative ‘like’

Deictics—shifting between we/I/they/you Shifting meaning of ‘we’ Impersonal you Affirmations Interviewee repetitions of interviewer words

Less direct

Still in their own group Add support to claims [See extracts in about truth/rightness Chapters 3–6] (self and other)

E.g. cause-effect

Show involvement, dramatise and as examples/evidence

Give and take No getting fired here If we’re going to finish it, we’re going to have to… We just figured if we’re going to finish it…

Dramatises speech representation (SR); distancing from others’ words Involving Shifting footing Distancing Excluding, including

I was like, ok yeah, but you’re not…

General truth/rightness Agreement Involvement

You can’t use that

I believe, I feel We improved ourself…we had to go and change it

Exactly Difficult—really difficult

(continued)

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

65

Table 2.3 (continued) Strategy

Devices (spoken data)

Objectives

Rhetorical question Discourse markers ‘Fillers’ Elongation of vowels, stress (and other prosody) Pitch and tone Impersonal/vague language Laughter

Involvement (in SR) Sarcasm, disagreement, distancing from idea Distancing

intensification

Augmentatives Repetition Rhetorical question

Strengthening

Mitigation

Indirect questions Indirect statements

Lessen force

Qualifications, hedging, fillers Reformulations Laughter Vague language Euphemisms; metaphors Adverbials and modals

Examples from interview data How can you write poor English? Oh; to be honest; you know Five times (o::h) Well su::re, I gu:ess

There were different priorities They were like (laughs) Always Really really How can you write…? I do wonder whether I understand that Kind of; just; I guess; I don’t know I was quite, I know it’s not (Laughs) not a good thing to do Challenge

Maybe; might have

2.6 Complementarity of Bernstein and Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) I argue that the two approaches complement each other well (Horrod, 2021). They both take problems as starting points, explore the mechanisms through which power is enacted and the ideological obscured, view language as a social practice and so seek to make connections between words or discursive practices and wider socio-political processes and both have a concern with inequality. CDS draws on Bernstein’s notion of

66

S. HORROD

recontextualisation and operationalises it for textual analysis through an exploration of intertextuality and interdiscursivity in order to examine how ideas move and change between different fields of action and over time.

2.7

Study Setting

The focus is one department of a Business School within, at the time of the research, a Faculty of Business and Law, in a new or post-1992 British university. These universities are often more teaching-oriented and, therefore, tend to engage in more activities around learning and teaching for academics and departments. The study coincided with changes to the overall academic framework in the institution. This was ostensibly about restructuring programmes and module credit values but was also used to overhaul learning and teaching practices and assessment. This development allows lecturers, in their accounts, to discuss practices before and after these changes. The department’s programmes have a good reputation. They are accredited by the discipline’s professional body and students can gain a professional qualification in addition to the degree. Many lecturers are experienced practitioners who have worked in industry. Although I believe key influences are at the national and institutional level rather than at the level of discipline, there are reasons for my choice of setting. I was already familiar with the practices in this department, and these drove my interest in exploring the influences on assessment and learning and teaching practices more broadly. Business programmes are an example of what Bernstein (1990) calls a region which are potentially more open to outside influences and aligns with my aim to examine the wider contextual influences on pedagogic practice. If business appears to be an area heavily influenced by higher education policy, such developments may be evident elsewhere to varying degrees and may be indicative of a growing trend. The department had four distinct postgraduate programmes which each consist of five-six modules (all compulsory) drawn from thirteen different modules in total. Each of the four main programmes on offer has a signature module unique to that programme chosen as a focus for an employability-related assessment, worth typically 10% of the module. The department’s set of postgraduate programmes can be summarised

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

67

as intensive and strongly framed (Bernstein, 2000). Students have relatively high contact hours plus group meetings outside class to work on both formative and summative assessments. They must work in groups which, at the time of the student interviews, were pre-selected. Assessment requirements are made explicit through detailed briefs and further face-to-face/online support. The content and pacing are strongly framed with no choice of modules (dissertation topic areas are suggested too) and many different elements included (see Chapter 4). Overall, the programmes represent a performance model in Bernstein’s terms being entirely outcomes-based with numerous criteria-based assignments. This strong framing arguably is necessary with large numbers and a predominantly non-UK cohort from diverse cultural, subject and work backgrounds.

2.8

Data Collection and Selection

The study uses a range of data because the aim was to investigate policy and practice and the connections between the two. The key data includes the HEA policy documents and interviews with students and lecturers. Since my research investigates influences on pedagogy, I selected data from a range of ‘fields of action’ (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). The practices of learning, teaching and assessment occur in the field of teaching but are clearly influenced by other fields of action e.g. the university’s policies and practices as well as other fields of action such as national policy formation in higher education. The texts analysed do not all carry equal weight. I present detailed analysis of the HEA discussion documents and interview data and include analysis of other texts, for example, government white papers or student assignments, as relevant (Table 2.4 has a summary of data in the study). 2.8.1

Student Assignment Texts

Analysing assignment texts had a dual purpose in my research. Firstly, an understanding of the assessment practices in the chosen setting is necessary in order to explore recontextualisation of policy discourses. Secondly, analysis of assignment texts, as well as module documents, informed interview questions and were the basis of the text-mediated interviews. I examined the range of assignment types in the eleven modules across the set of four programmes that I had access to in order to establish the types

68

S. HORROD

Table 2.4 Data in the study Origin of data

Data

Detail

The university

Assignments from the programmes

Marked assignments for each student interviewee Programme guides and module guides University strategy 2011/12–2015/16 Revised academic framework 2012 5 students 5 lecturers (module leaders) 6 reports: employability; partnership; assessment; internationalisation; flexibility; access and retention Frameworks and Toolkits for each HEA area of focus. 2012–2014 versions. 2016 versions 2020 Frameworks Opportunity, choice and excellence in higher education, 2011 Students at the Heart of the System, 2011

Programme and module documentation University strategy document University academic framework document Interviews with students and lecturers Higher Education Agency (HEA)

HEA discussion documents × 6

HEA framework documents Advance HE frameworks

HEFCE

HEFCE strategy document

Government department for education (BIS)

BIS white paper

of assessment being done. I collected module guides and assessment briefs and marked assignments for each student interviewee. Since the interviewees were on different programmes within the set of programmes, this gave me access to a sample of the full range of assignments and module documents. Detail of how I categorised the assignments is given in Chapter 4.

2

2.8.2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

69

Policy Documents

To explore recontextualisation, I selected key policy documents as data from the university (strategy document and learning and teaching guidelines from the academic framework), UK higher education organisations; particularly, those focusing on learning and teaching (HEA and Advance HE documents) as well as a key report from HEFCE and a government white paper (BIS). I decided to concentrate on the Higher Education Academy (HEA) since it aims to have the most impact on learning and teaching in UK higher education by focusing on teaching quality; a topic that is becoming more prevalent with the introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). The HEA produced a multitude of research reports, discussion documents and frameworks. Advance HE has six areas of focus for its Frameworks for enhancing student success (models for practice) which form its core resources for relevant staff at universities to draw on. These areas are the same as during the time of the HEA: • • • • • •

Embedding employability in higher education Student engagement through partnership Transforming assessment in higher education Internationalising higher education Flexible learning in higher education Student access, retention, progression and attainment in higher education (Advance HE, 2019).

Initially, I focused on the first four of these areas which I saw as particularly relevant to the setting of my research. However, I have since added the other two areas. Although its conceptualisation is not agreed upon, discussion of employability has become widespread. Employability has an affinity with business and other vocationally oriented programmes so business schools have been early adopters of the concept and proposed practices. Assessment is a key part of any university education and in my study, analysis of assessment texts is a starting point in considering what skills and knowledge are valued. Assessment reflects the evaluative rules in Bernstein’s (1990) pedagogic device which are influenced by the recontextualising rules. Student assignments also form a basis for interview questions. Internationalisation is pertinent to the setting of my

70

S. HORROD

research. This is not to suggest that internationalisation is simply conceptualised as having international students, but their presence foregrounds the debate about how curriculum, teaching and assessment are adapted or not in light of the student cohort. Student engagement through partnership may be seen as a more recent agenda and seems to be acquiring the same status of employability in terms of prevalence in learning and teaching discussions and university documentation. Flexibility, although encompassing many aspects, has become part of the conversation around higher education and even more so since the pandemic and move to online learning. Access, retention and progression are key themes that concern newer universities in particular. My initial attention was drawn to HEA framework documents which are short documents designed to be used by academics, ADUs and those with a learning & teaching role. They are aligned to the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF) which forms the basis of the HEA Fellowship scheme. In that sense, these frameworks will be familiar to those involved in shaping learning & teaching guidelines and likely to inform policy at different levels within universities. On further investigation, I discovered these frameworks are the distillation of numerous longer discussion documents. In particular, I found documents from the HEA which the organisation itself claims have been either the most influential or one of the most influential documents on the later (2016), and earlier (2012–2014), versions of their strategic frameworks.1 This influence still stands with the Advance HE 2020 frameworks as these documents contain the same framework model and similar content (see Chapter 6 for detail). I decided to focus my detailed analysis on the longer documents since they are more like discussion documents and, therefore, more suitable for analysing discursive strategies. However, I analyse some features of these shorter frameworks as they exemplify aspects of recontextualisation. The timing of most of the discussion documents (2012–2014) means that they have already been widely disseminated and likely to have had some influence on practices already. Given this likely influence, they are also chosen for their ‘intertextual and interdiscursive scope’ and ‘salience’ (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016, p. 39). Key details of the six HEA documents are outlined in Table 2.5. In addition, to explore recontextualisation, I analyse intertextuality and interdiscursivity between these six texts and the following documents. I examine the six associated HEA framework documents in their earlier versions (2012–2014) but also the 2016 versions and the Advance HE

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

71

Table 2.5 HEA long discussion documents for analysis Title

Authors

Summary title used in this book

1. Pedagogy for employability 2. Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education 3. A marked improvement: Transforming assessment in higher education 4. Internationalising higher education framework 5. Flexible pedagogies: new pedagogical ideas 6. Enhancing access, retention, attainment and progression in higher education

Pegg et al. (2012)

Employability

Healey et al. (2014)

Partnership

The Higher Education Academy (2012)

Assessment

The Higher Education Academy (2014) Ryan and Tilbury (2013)

Internationalisation

Webb et al. (2017)

Access

Flexibility

2020 versions and trace the changes between documents (see Chapter 6). After surveying the literature around higher education trends and policy, I chose other salient texts from the national level: The Department for business, innovation and skills’ (BIS) 2011 white paper Students at the heart of the system and the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s (HEFCE) 2011 strategy statement Opportunity, choice and excellence in higher education. From the institutional level, I examine the university’s strategy document (2011/2) as well as the institutional framework document (2012) which has guidelines for learning & teaching (Table 2.6). 2.8.3

Interviews

As one aspect of investigating practices, this study explores how people potentially affected by policy, or involved in the remaking of policy, report their experiences, attitudes and practices in their work and study. One area of interest in my study is how students and lecturers construct themselves and others; individually but also as belonging to particular groups. Therefore, I chose to conduct interviews with those involved in university

72

S. HORROD

Table 2.6 HEA and Advance HE frameworks (2016–2020) Title HEA frameworks 2016 Framework for embedding employability in higher education Framework for student engagement through partnership Framework for transforming assessment in higher education Framework for internationalising higher education Framework for flexible learning in higher education Framework for student access, retention, attainment and progression in higher education Advance HE 2020 Framework guides Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Embedding employability A guide to the Advance HE framework Student engagement through partnership Transforming assessment in higher education Internationalising Higher Education Flexible learning Student access, retention, attainment and progression in higher education

Authors

Summary title used in this book

Higher Education Academy (2016a)

Employability framework-2016

Higher Education Academy (2016b)

Partnership framework-2016

Higher Education Academy (2016c)

Assessment framework-2016

Higher Education Academy (2016d)

Internationalisation framework-2016

Higher Education Academy (2016e)

Flexibility framework-2016

Higher Education Academy (2016f)

Access framework-2016

Tibby and Norton (2020)

AHE-EFSS-Employability-2020

Healey and Healey (2020) Elkington (2020)

AHE-EFSS-Partnership-2020

Ryan (2020)

AHE-EFSS-Internationalisation-2020

Jones-Devitt (2020) Advance HE (2019)

AHE-EFSS-Flexibility-2020 AHE-EFFSS-Access-2019

AHE-EFSS-Assessment-2020

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

73

Table 2.7 Interview participants: students Students (pseudonyms)

Region

Background

Elsa

Scandinavia

Ivy Leyla

Far East Middle East

Studied specific subject area before Some work experience Some work experience

May

UK

Zoe

North America

Performance in assessment

Very high scoring Lower scoring Mid-high scoring Extensive work experience Very high scoring Different subject and work Mid-low background scoring

courses to investigate accounts of their experiences and practices, explore identities and trace elements of recontextualisation. 2.8.3.1 Students I wanted to hear about students’ experiences of the year. I selected students with a range of assessment scores from across the set of degree programmes and invited them to participate, resulting in five interviews lasting approximately an hour each. In terms of their performance on the programme based on their assessment grades, two of the students interviewed can be characterised as very high-performing, one in the middle and two as mid-/lower performing. The interviews started with general questions around their experiences of the year, modules and assessment moving onto questions around sample marked assignments to prompt discussion. Table 2.7 summarises students’ background information. 2.8.3.2 Lecturers To explore lecturers’ accounts of their experiences and practices around teaching and assessment, I interviewed five module leaders from the department. To preserve anonymity, I do not discuss their individual backgrounds. The majority were experienced practitioners who had worked in industry. Some were involved in developing good practices in learning & teaching who can reflect on the guidelines for the faculty and university. Some have held course leadership or managerial positions in the department so have a wider view of faculty and institutional policy.

74

S. HORROD

The interviews were based on discussion of module guides and samplemarked assignments from the interviewed students. I was particularly interested in how lecturers talked about their decisions around assessment and the influences on their practices. 2.8.4

Ethics

Permission to do the research was received from the university in the study and an ethics process was followed and approved at Lancaster University. All policy documents are in the public domain. Interview participants were given information sheets about the study and signed consent forms. To preserve anonymity, pseudonyms are used for all participants. Ethical approval was received in January 2015.

2.9

Conclusion

This chapter has outlined the theoretical/analytical approaches underpinning the study and the details of the study design. This provides the foundation for the following chapters of findings (Chapters 3–6): Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter way.

3: Who the key people are 4: What to learn and teach 5: How to learn and teach 6: How policy should be implemented—And why in that

In each case, analysis of policy documents’ discourses is summarised as a topic-related ‘macro-strategy’; for example, in Chapter 3—Who the key people are: The institution as a non-hierarchical community with shared values. This is then compared with findings from interviews with students and lecturers to explore the differences between policy and practice. This is further discussed through the lenses of the theoretical frameworks and contextual background. The next chapter examines how the people involved in universities are portrayed in policy and discusses students’ and academics’ experiences and identities including as part of the ‘academic community’.

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

75

Note 1. Exceptions: There was no single longer discussion document on internationalisation since the ideas were developed at a summit, so I used the 2014 HEA Internationalising Higher Education Framework instead. The other exception is the Access document which was published later in 2017; chosen for its overview of literature on the topic.

References Advance HE. (2019). Student access, retention, attainment and progression in higher education: Essential frameworks for enhancing student success. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/advance-he-essential-frameworks-enhanc ing-student-success. Accessed 15 September 2022. Ashwin, P. (2012). Analysing teaching-learning interactions in higher education: Accounting for structure and agency. Continuum International Pub. Group. Ashwin, P., & Smith, K. (2015). Researcher creations? The positioning of policy texts in higher education research. Higher Education, 69(6), 1007–1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9819-9 Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press. Ball, S. J. (2017). The education debate (3rd ed.). Policy Press. Barakos, E., & Unger, J. W. (2016). Introduction: Why are discursive approaches to language policy necessary? In J. Barakos & J. W. Unger (Eds.), Discursive approaches to language policy (pp. 1–21). Palgrave Macmillan. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class codes and control, Volume IV: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Routledge. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Revised ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. BIS. (2011). Higher education: Students at the heart of the system (Government White Paper). Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. http://discuss. bis.gov.uk/hereform/white-paper Bucholtz, M. (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1439–1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00094-6 Donnelly, M., & Abbas, A. (2019). Using the sociology of Basil Bernstein in higher education research. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 4, pp. 1–17). Emerald Publishing. Du Bois, J. W. (1991). Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics, 1(1), 71–106.

76

S. HORROD

Elkington, S. (2020). Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Transforming assessment in higher education. A guide to the Advance HE framework. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/advance-he-essential-fra meworks-enhancing-student-success. Accessed 15 September 2022. Ensor, P. (2004). Contesting discourses in higher education curriculum restructuring in South Africa. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 48(3), 339–359. https://doi.org/10. 1023/B:HIGH.0000035544.96309.f1 Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 7 (2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171. 2013.798239 Fairclough, N. (2016). A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 86–108). Sage. Fairclough, N., & Fairclough, I. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. Routledge. Fischer, F., Torgerson, D., Durnová, A., & Orsini, M. (2015). Introduction to critical policy studies. In F. Fischer, D. Torgerson, A. Durnová, & M. Orsini (Eds.), Handbook of critical policy studies (pp. 1–24). Edward Elgar. Garton, S., & Copland, F. (2010). ‘I like this interview; I get cakes and cats!’: The effect of prior relationships on interview talk. Qualitative Research, 10(5), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110375231 Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Penguin. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Blackwell. HEA. (2012). A marked improvement: Transforming assessment in higher education. Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledgehub/marked-improvement. Accessed 15 June 2022. HEA. (2014). Internationalising higher education framework. Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/internationalisinghigher-education-framework. Accessed 15 June 2022. HEA. (2016a). Framework for embedding employability in higher education. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/. Accessed 15 September 2016. HEA. (2016b). Framework for student engagement through partnership. https:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/. Accessed 15 September 2016. HEA. (2016c). Framework for transforming assessment in higher education. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/. Accessed 15 September 2016. HEA. (2016d). Framework for internationalising higher education. https://www. heacademy.ac.uk/. Accessed 15 September 2016.

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

77

HEA. (2016e). Framework for flexible learning in higher education. https:// www.heacademy.ac.uk/. Accessed 15 September 2016. HEA. (2016f). Framework for student access, retention, attainment and progression in higher education. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/. Accessed 15 September 2016. Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/engage ment-through-partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher Healey, M., & Healey, R. (2020). Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Student engagement through partnership. A guide to the Advance HE framework. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/advance-he-essent ial-frameworks-enhancing-student-success. Accessed 15 September 2022. HEFCE. (2011). Opportunity, choice and excellence in higher education. July 2011/12. Higher Education Funding Council for England. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/about/howweoperate/strategystatement/. Accessed 15 September 2017. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1997). Active interviewing. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp. 113–129). Sage. Horrod, S. (2021). Investigating policy processes and discourses in higher education: The theoretical complementarities of Bernstein’s pedagogic device and critical discourse studies (CDS). In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research. Emerald Publishing. Jones-Devitt, S. (2020). Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Flexible learning. A guide to the Advance HE framework. https://www.adv ance-he.ac.uk/advance-he-essential-frameworks-enhancing-student-success. Accessed 15 August 2022. Krzyzanowski, ˙ M. (2010). The discursive construction of European identities: A multi-level approach to discourse and identity in the transforming European Union. Peter Lang. Krzyzanowski, ˙ M. (2016). Recontextualisation of neoliberalism and the increasingly conceptual nature of discourse: Challenges for critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society, 27 (3), 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/095792651 6630901 Lampropoulou, S., & Myers, G. (2013). Stance-taking in interviews from the Qualidata archive. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 14(1), 261–283. Levinson, B. A. U., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/089 5904808320676 Loughland, T., & Sriprakash, A. (2016). Bernstein revisited: The recontextualisation of equity in contemporary Australian school education. British Journal

78

S. HORROD

of Sociology of Education, 37 (2), 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/014 25692.2014.916604 Mann, S. (2011). A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq043 McLean, M., Abbas, A., & Ashwin, P. (2013). The use and value of Bernstein’s work in studying (in)equalities in undergraduate social science education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(2), 262–280. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01425692.2012.710007 McLean, M., Abbas, A., & Ashwin, P. (2017). Quality in undergraduate education: How powerful knowledge disrupts inequality. Bloomsbury Academic. Moore, R. (2013). Basil Bernstein: The thinker and the field. Routledge. Myers, G., & Lampropoulou, S. (2012). Impersonal you and stance-taking in social research interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10), 1206–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.005 Myers, G., & Lampropoulou, S. (2016). Laughter, non-seriousness and transitions in social research interview transcripts. Qualitative Research, 16(1), 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794114561346 Pegg, A., Waldock, J., Wendy-Isaac, S., & Lawson, R. (2012). Pedagogy for employability. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac. uk/knowledge-hub/pedagogy-employability-2012. Accessed 15 September 2022. Reisigl, M. (2014). Argumentation analysis and the discourse-historical approach: A methodological framework. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies (pp. 67–96). Bloomsbury. Reisigl, M. (2018). The discourse-historical approach. In J. E. Flowerdew & J. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 44–59). Taylor and Francis. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. Routledge. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2016). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 23–61). Sage. Ryan, J. (2020). Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Internationalising higher education. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/advancehe-essential-frameworks-enhancing-student-success. Accessed 15 September 2022. Ryan, A., & Tilbury, D. (2013). Flexible pedagogies: New pedagogical ideas. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledgehub/pedagogyemployability-2012 Saarinen, T. (2008). Position of text and discourse analysis in higher education policy research. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 719–728. https://doi. org/10.1080/03075070802457090

2

GUIDING APPROACHES AND STUDY DESIGN

79

Singh, P., Sadovnik, A., & Semel, S. (2010). Introduction. In P. Singh, A. Sadovnik, & S. Semel (Eds.), Toolkits, translation devices and conceptual accounts: Essays on Basil Bernstein’s sociology of knowledge (pp. 1–10). Peter Lang. Singh, P., Thomas, S., & Harris, J. (2013). Recontextualising policy discourses: A Bernsteinian perspective on policy interpretation, translation, enactment. Journal of Education Policy, 28(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/026 80939.2013.770554 Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic research settings. Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press. Tibby, M., & Norton, S. (2020). Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Embedding employability. A guide to the Advance HE framework. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/advance-he-essential-fra meworks-enhancing-student-success. Accessed 15 September 2022. Trowler, P. (2014a). Higher education policy and institutional change: Intentions and outcomes in turbulent environments. CreateSpace. Trowler, P. (2014b). Doing insider research in universities. Paul Trowler. Unger, J. (2013). The discursive construction of the Scots language: Education, politics and everyday life. John Benjamins Publishing Company. van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Discourse and context: A socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge University Press. Webb, O., Wyness, L., & Cotton, D. (2017). Enhancing access, retention, attainment and progression in higher education: A review of the literature showing demonstrable impact. Higher Education Academy. https://www.adv ance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/enhancing-access-retention-attainment-andprogression-higher-education. Accessed 20 September 2022. Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse analysis. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 1–32). Palgrave Macmillan. Wodak, R. (2011). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Palgrave Macmillan. Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear: What right-wing populist discourses mean. Sage. Wodak, R., De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh University Press. Wodak, R., & Fairclough, N. (2010). Recontextualizing European higher education policies: The cases of Austria and Romania. Critical Discourse Studies, 7 (1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903453922 Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). Sage.

CHAPTER 3

Who the Key People Are

3.1

Introduction

How are the people involved in a university education represented in learning & teaching policy? Why are communities foregrounded? Why is the learner–teacher relationship backgrounded? These questions are the concern of this chapter. As I explore below, learning & teaching policy documents highlight the notion of a non-hierarchical community with shared values and of ‘partnership’ between students and academics. The key themes discussed include learning communities, belonging, partnership, co-creation, shared values and removing barriers among others. Wider debates over the notion of an academic community with shared values are played out in student and lecturer interview accounts from which emerge certain tensions in the community. I also identify policy constructions of the ‘good student’ and then compare this with student accounts of what makes a ‘good student’ which emerge as they discuss group work for assessment. These discussions around group work are a rich source of identity construction of ‘self’ and ‘other’. I also look at lecturer identities and their reflections on student–teacher relations. I interpret these portrayals using Bernstein’s ideas around identities in education which see them as linked to their socio-political context. I argue that the focus on community and partnership, which obscure the teacher– student relationship and aim to eradicate hierarchies, is a response to the perceived need to highlight the ‘student experience’ and create a sense © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Horrod, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28038-2_3

81

82

S. HORROD

of belonging. I also argue that tensions in student accounts reflect issues in the sector such as entry requirements and the competition for recruitment. I discuss the consequences of such identity construction in policy, and the differences between this and interview accounts, in terms of the potentially damaging messages it conveys about teacher–student relations.

3.2 The Discourses of Learning & Teaching Policy: The Institution as a Non-Hierarchical Community with Shared Values This macro-strategy, or summary of all the discourse topics and discursive strategies, embodies how the people involved in a university education are constructed and is the result of the analysis of the six policy documents. A key theme is the focus on ‘community’ or ‘academic/learning/partnership communities’. This rightly acknowledges the wide range of people involved in making a university function and in supporting students and aims to create that sense of belonging. However, there are reasons why this notion of community is foregrounded. Like other marshalling of this concept (see e.g. Wodak et al., 2009 on the idea of a nation as imagined community), it serves to conceal the tensions and divisions, including the hierarchies, it also attempts to minimise the simple differences in experience and expertise between people; in this case, students and lecturers. I start with an overview of the notion of community, move on to individual actors such as lecturers and students and then move on to discuss partnership/learning communities in more detail. 3.2.1

Overview of Community

A community of who. Who is included or foregrounded? Who is excluded or backgrounded? And why? As noted above, the notion of community aims to downplay differences and bring people together with a shared purpose. The kind of communities the policy documents highlight is (a) the idea of the academic/learning community of all staff including professional services staff and Learning & Teaching staff e.g. academic developers (see Sect. 3.2.2.1) and (b) the learning community of staff and students; where students are presented as partners.

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

83

The community is presented as non-hierarchical which, as anyone who works in universities knows, is a clear misrepresentation of the hierarchies of staff; for example, distinctions between academic and professional services staff, distinctions between research and teaching contracts and the lack of parity between permanent and fixed-term academic staff. The community is constructed as including all those within, and connected to, the institution: students, academics, senior leaders, careers service, professional services staff, learning developers, information technologists, student union sabbatical officers, alumni, academic policy-makers, professional bodies and external companies among others. This notion of the ‘learning/academic community’ is common rather than any notion of a student–teacher relationship as central to education. The term community is used extensively in the policy documents. For example, there is ‘a shared community of learning’ (Employability), ‘partnership learning communities’ (Partnership), ‘assessment communities’ (Assessment ), ‘a global academic community’ (Internationalisation), ‘communities of practice’ and the ‘wider subject community’ (Flexibility) and ‘learning communities’ (Access ). Some of these refer to a general sense of togetherness and purpose of all staff and students, other terms are well-known concepts e.g. Lave & Wenger’s ‘communities of practice’ (Healey et al., 2014) or more recently adopted/appropriated concepts such as ‘learning communities’; actually originating from Dewey and Meikeljohn’s work in the 1930s (Webb et al., 2017), but adopted to convey a particular type of community of students and academics to address issues of ‘engagement’ and retention. Other discourse topics relating to ‘non-hierarchical communities’ include ‘redefining identities’; ‘breaking down barriers between people, groups, spaces’; ‘working across disciplines and levels’; ‘partnership’; ‘inclusivity and mainstreaming’; ‘shared values’; ‘belonging’ among others. The advocating of a flattening of hierarchies and aligning with a concept of ‘partnership’ is discussed further in Sect. 3.2.3 below. Table 3.1 has a summary of discourse topics and strategies across the six policy documents that relate to the construction of the institution as a community.

84

S. HORROD

Table 3.1 The institution as a non-hierarchical community with shared values: Discourse topics and strategies from the six policy documents The institution as a non-hierarchical community with shared values DISCOURSE TOPICS: - partnership learning communities - communities of practice - partnership - co-creation - students as active partners - global academic community STRATEGIES (functional) sameness / levelling of difference (assimilation) needing to come together avoidance of ‘difference’ legitimation of some voices / delegitimation of others difference between then and now (discontinuation / dissimilation)—from old ways to new

- redefining identities - removal of barriers - working across disciplines, faculties etc - inclusivity & mainstreaming

- reciprocal learning - peer learning - social learning - informal learning - professional development for staff (and students) - shared language / shared values - whole institution approaches

- mutual ownership / responsibility - belonging - dialogue

DISCURSIVE STRATEGIES Nominations e.g. members of community Predications e.g. of students of student body of community of values

MEANS OF REALISATION (with examples) - (lecturers = ) staff, academic/teaching staff, practitioners, learning providers, tutors, educators, [minimal use: academics, lecturers ] others: academic developers - adjectives, prepositional phrases etc. of ROLE of students e.g. students as… active partners, peers, change agents, scholars and colleagues, teachers and assessors, co-producer, co-creator, partners in scholarship of teaching and learning [SoTL], expert in their student experience, pedagogic advisers and consultants - adjectives collocating with community e.g.—partnership / assessment / learning / global / academic communities - adjectives of ‘in common’: shared values, common language, a shared commitment to the process

(continued)

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

85

Table 3.1 (continued) The institution as a non-hierarchical community with shared values topos of opposites (bad versus good / traditional versus new) topos of definition

topos of context i.e. competition, fees

topos of challenge formal argumentation scheme—cause-effect Perspectivisation

3.2.2

negative / positive structures: - power over versus power with - enculturating international students versus using a collaborative planning, teaching and evaluation frame - deficit model of disempowered students versus students valued for their contribution - passive consumers versus active partners - referential vagueness - allusion to context: in this current context - sometimes followed by reference to fees, competition, demands of students - lexis of challenge evaluated positively: challenges, hurdles - cause-effect structures e.g. students’ involvement in assessment leads to less frustration if fail - involvement: deictics - we argue that partnership is - distancing (academic register): It is timely to take stock; evidence suggests

Individual Actors and Their Representation in the Policy Documents

3.2.2.1 Academic Developers Before I look at academics and students, I discuss the representation of another group which features in the policy documents; namely ‘academic developers’. There is a confusing array of terms, sometimes used interchangeably, around the people who support either staff or students or both staff and students with learning, teaching and assessment. Learning developers seems a broad term but ALDinHE (2022) defines them as working with students. There are also those working in English for academic purposes (EAP)/academic literacy for international or both home and international students who also liaise/collaborate with departments to support their students. Academic or educational developers work primarily with staff or both staff and students. The term used in the policy documents is ‘academic developer’. They work with individual

86

S. HORROD

academics and departments to improve the quality of learning, teaching and assessment. Under their remit, courses such as the PG Certificate in HE/Academic Practice are offered to academics who are new to teaching. Academic developers are often the people charged with implementing Advance HE (formerly HEA) teacher accreditation schemes in which academics can gain different levels of Fellowship status by evidencing the quality of their teaching through reflective written accounts (see Sect. 1.4.3). As such, academic developers are clearly linked to national and institutional policy and become advocates of what constitutes ‘best practice’. As noted in Chapter 1, their profile has been raised by the government’s and sector’s increased focus on learning & teaching and the ‘student experience’ and the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) scheme awarding institutions gold, silver or bronze according to controversial measures of ‘teaching quality’. They came into further prominence with the move to online learning under Covid-19 and the perceived need to engage academics in developing their pedagogy for online environments. Also interesting is that they are frequently mentioned as part of a trio of students, teaching staff and academic developers as seen in the case of the Partnership document in terms of the ‘transformative’ nature of adopting a partnership approach in pedagogy: partnership can be thought of as a ‘threshold concept’ (Meyer and Land 2003), in that adopting it is ‘troublesome’ (Perkins 1999) and leads to irreversible conceptual transformation, among teachers and academic developers as well as students (King and Felten 2012; Cook-Sather 2013). (Healey et al., 2014, p. 57)

The ‘irreversible conceptual transformation’ is vague here but refers to the need to change attitudes and practices and it uses the topos of challenge to do so in that it is difficult or ‘troublesome’ to embrace new approaches. The implication is that those not prepared to change are old-fashioned. The connotation of ‘academic development’ is that teaching skills do need improving and this focus on pedagogy is valuable. However, academic developers potentially adopting a more ‘domesticating’ role (Land, 2004) in which implementing policy is key, through encouraging alignment with policy constructions of ‘best practice’, can be questioned and I explore this further in Chapters 5 and 7.

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

87

3.2.2.2 Lecturers The terms teachers/academics/lecturers are hardly mentioned, and the more general term ‘staff’ is prevalent while students retain their own precise label. For example, taking a simple word frequency analysis, the Partnership document uses the term ‘staff’ over 200 times, ‘learning communities/community’ 64, ‘partners’ 154 (‘students as partners’ 78), ‘teachers’ 24, ‘academic staff’ 9, ‘academics’ 8, ‘lecturers’ 5 but ‘student(s)’ 422 (658). The Flexibility and Access documents, in a slightly different vein, refer to academics mostly as educators or academic/teaching staff. The use of the terms academic/teaching staff signals that they are just one type of staff and the latter term focuses on the teaching aspect of their role only. There seems a reluctance to use a word such as ‘lecturer’ despite this being many people’s job title or the more generic term ‘academic’; no doubt because ‘lecturer’ signals something that does not fit preferred pedagogy i.e. lecturing, and academic suggests something esoteric or hierarchical in the sense that they have expertise. While recognising the multiplicity of people contributing to the educational experience is important, essentially, the lecturer–student relationship is backgrounded in the policy documents and the notion of community foregrounded. The backgrounding of teaching itself is discussed in Chapter 5. 3.2.2.3 Students Students retain their own more precise term but what is interesting is the wide range of additional nominations (name) and predications (descriptions) attached to students in the policy documents which reflect the ‘active participant’ and ‘partnership’ ideas. ‘Students as partners’ is used across most of the policy documents and the Partnership document has many additional terms such as ‘co-producers’, ‘partners in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL)’, ‘teachers and assessors’ and ‘change agents’. All of these fit the idea of students taking a more active role in their education, taking on roles that are typically associated with academics and indicative of a lack of hierarchy. As a broader ‘functional’ strategy, this involves a levelling of difference, an attempt to bring people together but also the legitimation of some voices (students) more than others.

88

S. HORROD

3.2.3

Partnership and Partnership Learning Communities

Partnership models are discussed in the Partnership document and a particular model is advocated for. However, the ideas about learner empowerment, students being active participants and the removal of hierarchies are widespread throughout the six policy documents and are discussed below. 3.2.3.1

The Removal of Hierarchies and Working Across Boundaries Aligned with the notion of community is the idea that traditional hierarchies and boundaries should be broken down. This includes breaking down hierarchies between academics and students and seeing them as partners albeit with different attributes to bring to the partnership. This is reflected in the way students are described as discussed above. It also involves breaking down boundaries between different subject areas and between different year groups; the latter being part of the conceptualisation of ‘learning communities’ and enhancing students’ sense of ‘belonging’. This working across year groups/subjects is also advocated as part of a focus on employability and the Employability document discusses such initiatives which ‘offer the scope for students to work in interdisciplinary teams and to integrate their learning experiences across levels and subjects of study, as part of their programme of study’ (Pegg et al., 2012, p. 38) (see Chapter 4 for further discussion of employability). ‘Breaking down boundaries’ is a discourse topic across all the documents. 3.2.3.2 Partnership Learning Communities The Partnership document reviews all kinds of models of partnership before presenting its own version. A fundamental aspect of this model is ‘blurring boundaries between staff and student identities and roles’ (Healey et al., 2014, p. 20) which embodies the proposed relationship between academics and students and the non-hierarchical nature of the community. Also, participants should shape the community themselves and new members are ‘fully valued for the contributions they make’ (p. 28). Like other concepts which they think readers may find new or difficult to understand, there is extensive defining of the key attributes of partnership through the use of the topos of opposites (outlined in Chapter 2); for example, ‘partnership is a process of engagement, not

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

89

a product’ (p. 7) and others summarised as ‘power over/power with’, ‘traditional roles and hierarchical relationships/working in partnership’, ‘passive consumers/active participants’; ‘deficit model of disempowered students/students valued for their contribution’. Another prevalent discursive strategy is the topos of authority (see Sect. 2.4.5.2), in this case, through the use of continuums or ladders of acceptability to advocate for preferred models/conceptualisations of ideas such as ‘partnership’. These are presented in matrices, ladders or other models. For example, the notion of students as ‘change agents’ is legitimised through a matrix model with four parts moving from ‘students as evaluators’ (student voice) to ‘students as participants’ to ‘students as partners, co-creators and experts’ to ‘students as change agents’ (Dunne & Zandstra, 2011, p. 17, cited in Healey et al., 2014, p. 46). A more complex version of simply contrasting ‘opposites’, this involves a range from bad or just acceptable to an idea that is made to sound incontrovertibly the best. Through such ordering, it is very clear which option readers are meant to believe is the best option. In addition to identifying the teacher–student relationship as in need of change, a relationship identified as potentially problematic is that between institutions and their student unions. The suggestion in the policy documents (especially Partnership) is that this relationship needs to be changed from a traditionally combative or anti-management approach by unions towards a more harmonious relationship: A partnership approach … raises questions about the extent to which and how it is possible for students’ unions to balance this politically-oriented critical role while working in new ways with their institutions. Creating an ethos of partnership that permeates the whole culture of an institution requires confronting the significant tensions raised and entering into a re-negotiation of the relationship and underpinning values between a students’ union and its institution. (Healey et al., 2014, p. 59)

The topos of opposites is evident in ‘new ways’ versus ‘politicallyoriented critical role’ and the metaphor of ‘embedding’ (discussed further in Chapter 6) is present in ‘permeates the whole culture’. These strategies are used to support the claim for a changed role for unions similar to calls for ‘culture change’ directed at academics. It is clear then that this particular conceptualisation of community as non-hierarchical with shared values is used to address tensions within

90

S. HORROD

universities as well as to encourage students to take an active role to counteract a consumer perspective. I discuss the notion of ‘shared values’ further in Chapter 6. 3.2.4

Reasons for the Focus on Community and Partnership

Reasons given in the policy documents for this need to focus on community and partnership involve alluding to the ‘context’ of higher education. I label this the topos of context since it is a frequently employed discursive strategy providing an argumentation shortcut to support an idea. What the context refers to is usually vague at first with ‘current context’, ‘factors’ and ‘changes’ mentioned. This is sometimes followed up with more specific details such as the introduction of, and increases in, tuition fees, perceptions of the need for value for money and the competitive university sector. The example below comes from the Partnership document and alludes to these concrete phenomena with the use of the vague ‘wider economic factors’ and ‘recent policy changes’: Wider economic factors and recent policy changes are influencing a contemporary environment in which students are often positioned as passive consumers of, rather than active participants in, their own higher education. It is timely to distil the current context, underlying principles and direction for future work on students as partners in learning and teaching. (Healey et al., 2014, p. 7)

We see the topos of opposites again with ‘passive consumers of, rather than active participants in’ and the use of distancing through the use of the passive ‘positioned as’ in order to avoid elaboration on who positions students like this and why. This focus on students as ‘active participants’ rather than dissatisfied, passive, fee-paying consumers enables the construction of partnership as a response to the discourse about lack of engagement. While the conceptualisation of ‘engagement’ is debated over and critiqued (e.g. Macfarlane & Tomlinson, 2017), the assumption is that students are not sufficiently engaged in their studies and that calling them partners and involving them more will be a solution to this problem: We argue that partnership represents a sophisticated and effective approach to student engagement for two connected reasons. First, it foregrounds

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

91

qualities that put reciprocal learning at the heart of the relationship … allowing us to go beyond a consumerist relationship, and its critique, in meaningful and relevant ways. And second, partnership is different to other, more traditional relationships of power in higher education, which means that it is often experienced as an unfamiliar way of working, learning and thinking. (Healey et al., 2014, p. 17)

There is debate over whether these discourses about students as consumers and lack of engagement represent reality. Some research suggests that students do not see themselves like this (Tomlinson, 2017). A lack of engagement is also hard to establish. The students in my study seem highly motivated. 3.2.5

Advance HE Frameworks on People

In terms of the 2020 Advance HE framework guides, we see the same models and the same discourses about the people involved in higher education with academics subsumed under the title ‘staff’ as in ‘staff and students’. There seems to be an even greater focus on student involvement, the construction of ‘staff’ as potential barriers to transformation and the need for culture change as evident in the AHE-EFSS-Flexibility2020 document: Adopters of flexible learning need to be prepared for resistance. To develop flexible learning holistically staff will have to unlearn some of their thinking and practices to become more effective facilitators of flexible learning in partnership with students and – when relevant – with employers as co-creators of knowledge and insight; rather than acting solely as gatekeepers of expected behaviours and standards. (Jones-Devitt, 2020, p. 8)

Here, we have the topos of opposites in relation to staff: ‘facilitators’, ‘co-creators’ versus ‘gatekeepers’ and implicitly, as ‘resisters’ and as part of a trio of ‘staff’, students and employers. The strength of the ‘will have to unlearn some of their thinking and practices’ again portrays teachers as old-fashioned and rigid and presumes the need for this ‘unlearning’.

92

S. HORROD

3.3 Being a Lecturer, Being a Student and Notions of Community: Lecturer and Student Views 3.3.1

Lecturer Views

Here, I focus on how lecturers see their work and what makes a good lecturer. This was not a specific question in the interviews, but these findings emerged from the way lecturers talk about their modules, assessments and their students. Chapter 4 goes into detail of their views on the content of the modules and what skills they believe they are developing in students so here I only focus on certain aspects of lecturer identity. 3.3.1.1 The ‘Good’ Lecturer Across the lecturer interview accounts, certain constructions of the ‘good lecturer’ stand out such as rigour in terms of expectations, extensive effort in terms of devising assessments and supporting students, commitment to their subject discipline as well as a certain ‘uniqueness’ in relation to their own practices in comparison to colleagues. Many also refer to their experience as practitioners which provides them with knowledge of the professional field (see Chapter 4). In the following extract, we see the strategy of singularisation when Mike differentiates his module from other modules: Mike: Interviewer: Mike: Interviewer: Mike:

… it’s very different from other modules and do they like that, that’s what they like about it?= =NO oh they don’t like it? they find it very difficult, my argument is they find it very difficult because the other modules don’t teach them precision and accuracy … but (..) they get away with it, I will not let them get away with that in this module

He presents his module as unique in some respects, but we can also see the valuing of challenge in ‘very difficult’ and rigour in ‘I will not let them get away with that’ as well as a criticism of others who ‘don’t teach them precision and accuracy’. In Chapter 4, there is more on lecturers’ views around what a course should involve, which reflects on their own

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

93

beliefs and identities, so I leave more on lecturers’ views until then and focus principally on student views. 3.3.2

Student Views

These students, like many postgraduates but perhaps more so since they study business, frequently have work experience and have multifaceted identities as students, managers, employees, creatives, and sometimes parents. This impacts their perceptions of themselves and others as well as the course. This section considers students’ experiences in terms of them being part of a community of learners. Despite their undoubtedly very positive experience of their course overall and their forming of a variety of friendships and sense of belonging to their course, there is also a lot of talk in the interviews about tensions within this ‘community’ while doing assessments. This is due to the extensive use of group work for highstakes, summative assessment. This clearly led to stress and clear memories of the impact of working in allocated groups. While we might think group work is the embodiment of the ‘community’, as well as addressing the employability agenda (see Chapter 4) through the development of soft skills such as teamwork, assessed group work turns out to be problematic for many albeit with some reflections on challenges overcome. These interviews, like other talk, turned out to be a rich source of constructions of ‘self’ and ‘others’; in this case, relating primarily to what makes a good student and whether they positioned themselves as such (see e.g. Bucholtz & Hall, 2005 on identity and interaction). As with lecturers, the interviews were based on questions about their experience on the course and, additionally, around their marked assignments. This section starts with the constructions of the ‘good team member’, then explores the notion of the good versus bad student and from there considers a number of dichotomies in the way that students position themselves; for example, relaxed versus stressed; need for explicitness versus tolerance of ambiguity. 3.3.2.1 Constructions of ‘The Good Team Member’ Given that nearly every module involved an element of group work assessment (see Chapter 4), it is unsurprising that group work was a common topic in interviews. The topic led students to recall specific experiences and construct visions of the ‘ideal group member/student’ and thereby engage in constructions of self and other. From this appeared a

94

S. HORROD

continuum of student types from the high-performing, super-motivated, less tolerant students through to those who were lower-performing but pragmatic, relaxed and open to experiences. Also notable was a basic dichotomy between more democratically run groups, which performed less well, and those with a leader(s) who often took over the work. What emerged from the detailed analysis of discourse topics and discursive strategies in relation to the overarching theme (macro-strategy) of the university as a community and, specifically, in relation to the ‘ideal group member’ were five main predications or characterisations: (1) making an effort (2) being there (3) having work experience (4) having the subject background and (5) speaking the language. These were used in students’ accounts to position themselves and others and to legitimise attitudes and action taken. I take each of these characteristics and examine sample extracts. I note how features of spoken interaction (in italics when discussed) contribute to DHA discursive strategies (see Sect. 2.5), to the arguments being made and the identities being constructed. I present more detailed findings of this analysis of spoken data than in other chapters since it contributes so much to how students use identity as a resource in their positioning of self and others. I underline some of the key phrases in the interview extracts for the reader. I also discuss how these identity constructions reflect issues such as ‘engagement’, attendance and entry requirements. 1. Making an effort This extract involves Elsa who is at the high-performing, high expectations’ end of the spectrum of constructed group member identities. Near the start, Elsa talks about her expectations of the course and immediately contrasts herself with less ‘serious’ students: Interviewer: Elsa:

so you didn’t know there was going to be any group work before you came? well I kind of expected it but I did not (.) some people take school more seriously than others as well, I’m more, I moved here to go to school, kind of, so this has been my life, it was hard being placed in a group where there was different priorities I guess, and also language coming in and when you do not understand what the

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

95

other one is saying, but it did improve I think (.) so that was a good challenge I think, but it’s also been really really hard at some, yeah Although making a strong point about others, her talk is scattered with mitigating and distancing qualifications such as ‘kind of’ and ‘I guess’, the impersonal phrase ‘there was [different priorities]’, the vagueness of ‘some people’ and the metonymic ‘language coming in’. This is combined with the impersonal you in which the you stands for I (or my friends and I) with a strong ‘you do not understand’. This has a generalising function in that surely everyone would feel this way. The lack of agency indicated in the passive ‘being placed’ reflects their being allocated to a group. She finishes with the intensification and repetition ‘really really hard’. The challenge of group work is then elaborated on further: Interviewer:

Elsa:

Interviewer: Elsa:

Interviewer: Elsa:

Ok, so just tell me about how you approached the group report, how did you work in your group in terms of actually doing the assignment? to be ho:nest, this is (.) two people, three people who have written this, it’s me and another (same nationality) on a group who wrote pretty much wrote everything in here and we had some help with our third member who’d written (.) something (.) but erm and how many were in your group? five (..) well we improved ourself but it was kind of just (.) accepting that people were the way they were cos (.) we tried to divide the work, cos (.) other members of the group had the main responsibility for this part before Christmas cos we had so much else to do and that turned out to be wrong so we had to go and change it, so we had just figured if we’re going to finish it, we’re going to have to do it cos you know basic thing like referencing was wrong and stuff so we kinda had to just take control over it but (.) erm so how did you, kind of, within the group how did you approach it, did you initially allocate different parts?= =oh we started with that yeah but we knew that we would have to rewrite it erm (..) and that’s just the way it is, I think, because we wanted to do well on it, it means a lot so we wouldn’t want to hand in something that we knew was wrong cos we did check it, when you

96

S. HORROD

can’t find a source for what’s been used or it’s a BLOG or something, you can’t use that, and though you try to say that FIVE TIMES, when that’s still going on, you have to do it yourself but

Elsa initially seems to distance herself from the strong opinion that the rest of the group were not useful through avoiding ‘I’ and using mitigating qualifications such as ‘pretty much’, ‘just’, ‘and stuff’ and distancing impersonal constructions such as ‘that turned out to be’. The discourse marker ‘to be ho:nest’ with the elongated ‘o’ appears to be the student enjoying revealing that the work is down to two of them. The commonplaces ‘people were the way they were’ and ‘that’s just the way it is’ are used to position others as unable to change and so support her action. The perspectivisation strategy of the shifting ‘we’ indicates a change in footing to refer to either the two students of the same nationality who worked together ‘we wanted to do well’, the group as a whole ‘we improved ourself’ or the cohort as a whole ‘we had so much else to do’. The shift to refer to the two of them suggests Elsa is distancing herself from the formal group. The switching to the impersonal you as she lists examples of others’ poor practice is used to support the claim that they needed to take over. The ‘you can’t use’ refers to any student, while ‘you try to say’ probably refers to her and her partner, but the ‘you’ has a generalising function. The intensification from the stress and the phrase itself ‘FIVE TIMES’, and the use of the topos of example in her anecdote about advising others what to do, adds to her construction of others as unable to contribute. Prominent in this extract are several instances of speech representation (Lampropoulou, 2012) used to support the claim that ‘we kinda had to take control’. They all refer to the past and describe thoughts/states evident in ‘figured’, ‘knew’, ‘want’ (cf. Tannen’s, 2007 ‘inner speech’). The first uses ‘direct’ speech representation (or more likely thought ‘we… figured’) in ‘if we’re going to finish it’. The second and third refer to states of mind in the past ‘we knew that we would have to’ and ‘we wouldn’t want to hand in’. Although seemingly more distant from ‘speech representation’, they represent thoughts, probably discussions, in the past and these examples of ‘constructed dialogue’ or thoughts are brought into the present to create involvement (Tannen, 2007, p. 105) and support her point (Myers, 1999). These features contribute to supporting

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

97

her account; providing reasons for attitudes and actions. In this way, with a mix of softening mitigations and blunt statements, she positions herself as a hard-working student; contrasting herself with several of her team members. 2. Being there This is discussed together with the notion of ‘making an effort’. The higher-performing students mention the idea of being in class to get advice and refine their understanding of assessment requirements. Throughout her account, Leyla presents herself as fully committed to the course—‘I learned everything in these lectures, I was always paying attention, I was very engaged’—and in elaborating on the issue of explicitness of written guidance, it becomes clear that she is positioning those non-attendees as at a disadvantage: Leyla:

Interviewer: Leyla: Interviewer: Leyla: Interviewer: Leyla:

Interviewer: Leyla:

yeah (...) but even in the brief it was not very explicit, when you ask the lecturer he always clarifies, he always answers so it’s important to BE there= exactly =to be at the briefing workshop and to hear, just to keep listening? exactly every lesson more or less? Did he give some kind of clues or some kind of emphasis to something that he wanted? yes, he says, ok I’m giving importance to that so stick on that, use that framework, it’s important, don’t put it to the body, put it to appendices so very detailed things (..) but as you said (.) there is a saying I really like, it says that the opportunity (.) dances with who are already on the dance floor (laughs) ok yeah so I believe that yeah, if you are there and if you listen carefully you will catch uh but OTHERWISE if you are not coming to school, THIS won’t help just by, as it is

She shifts into direct speech representation, introducing the voice of the lecturer e.g. ‘I’m giving importance to that’ to illustrate her point about being in class to get the detailed advice. At several points, she uses the

98

S. HORROD

impersonal you to refer to ‘any student’, combined with cause–effect argumentation e.g. ‘if you…’, to indicate what she believes is generally true. Her involvement is evident in the phrase ‘I believe that’ and repetition of ‘exactly’. She mentions a saying ‘opportunity dances…’ as support for her argument and positioning of others which is evident in ‘if you are not coming to school, THIS won’t help’ referring to the written guidance. In this way, absent students are positioned as not caring, making little effort, and their preference for detailed written guidance as indicative of cultural difference and inferior. The absence of these students, whether seen as due to work reasons or as not caring, is constructed by the attending students as detrimental to group functioning. The above two characteristics of effort and attendance are indicative of the nebulous concept of ‘engagement’ and what is seen as a crisis of engagement; albeit mainly at the undergraduate level. Despite these being mostly highly motivated postgraduates, issues around participation in group work exist. The following characteristics are related to students’ backgrounds and ability, rather than related to behaviour. 3. Having work experience May, a high-scoring student, describes an experience of group work in which she and another student were the organisers and did most of the editing. She justifies her approach on the basis of her motivation to excel and her extensive work experience: May:

I think the thing with my group is that there were two younger perhaps students who had come LITERALLY directly from doing undergrad and so they didn’t have a lot of work experience and so they didn’t always know what were the (.) pertinent things to bring out

Despite the mitigations of ‘didn’t always’, ‘perhaps’ and the euphemistic ‘pertinent’, the intensifying adverbs ‘LITERALLY directly (from doing undergrad)’ positions the others as inexperienced. In the following, May describes her leading role in the group and the actions she took: May:

… I found that I tended to kind of (.) pick up the more meaty (.) bits and maybe that’s because naturally that’s what I like to do erm but even when I was doing that

3

Interviewer: May:

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

99

I found that, I was dipping into (laughs) other people’s sections a lot (laughs) maybe it’s a little bit of a control freak within me but (.) then I would (..) spend a lot of time doing the editing of the reports, reading it through for cohesion if people had written sections that I felt hadn’t (.) covered the things that it needed to cover then I would (.) more times than most re-write them ok which was probably (laughs) NOT a good thing to do

Her effectively rewriting what she did not approve of is discussed in a downplayed way. This is evident in the mitigating qualifications ‘maybe’, ‘a little bit of’; metaphorical use of ‘meaty’, ‘dipping into’; the micropauses as she chooses her words and the laughter that punctuates her retelling. She uses a cause–effect argumentation scheme that the work was not good enough, so she had to redo it. In the last line, she seems to acknowledge that she is not following ‘best practice’ regarding group work with the stressed ‘not’ but the laughter mitigates the statement. The overall impression is unapologetic, and she constructs herself as experienced, able to judge quality; legitimising the necessity of her interventions to get a good mark. Later in the interview, May uses her work experience to offer questioning/critical comments on some of the course practices. In the following extract, May elaborates on her personal dilemma regarding issues with group work as she shifts her footing into the manager role rather than student role using a perspectivisation strategy evident in ‘I think from a manager perspective’: Interviewer: May: Interviewer: May:

And the other people were ok with that were they, the other people who didn’t contribute so much? I think so, yeah I mean this is the challenge of group assignments isn’t it really (laughs)? (laughs) I mean fortunately we didn’t have any of the language issues that I think I’ve heard about from other groups and I think from a manager perspective what I struggled with is if I do this, are the others going to learn from that process and how are you going to learn from that process because ultimately when you come away with a master’s and you passed your master’s, you want to,

100

S. HORROD

Interviewer: May:

you are saying I can do this and if they are going to the workplace and they actually can’t do that then am I doing them a disservice by doing that? so I struggled with that a bit and so I was trying to give them the space and the time to do something that (.) was to a standard that I felt comfortable with them submitting but erm (.) sometimes it didn’t always (.) materialise so I tended to step in which is probably not good but they were ok with that? Ye::ah I mean they benefitted from good marks as a result of it so I think that they weren’t going to (laughs) be dissatisfied with that erm I just hope that in the long run that they can stand on their own two feet with the things that they’re required to do

May again alludes to the potential learning experience for the others and by moving into the impersonal you suggests a shared perception to support her point with ‘and you passed your master’s’ perhaps inferring they may not have passed otherwise. The shift back into ‘they’ in ‘if they are going to the workplace and they actually can’t do that’ focuses back on the students and indicates perhaps her real perception. Although expressed in an indirect way with the mitigating ‘sometimes’, ‘didn’t always’ and ‘tended’ and the rather euphemistic ‘to a standard that I was comfortable with them submitting’ (i.e. something that met my standards of quality) and ‘it didn’t always materialise’ (i.e. they didn’t produce something that was good enough), she is suggesting they are likely to struggle in the workplace due to their inexperience and lack of skills. With the outcome of ‘they benefitted from good marks’, she indicates that otherwise their marks would be low and so they should be happy with her managing of the group work. Finally, her characterisation of the other students as like children with the idiomatic ‘I just hope that in the long run they can stand on their own two feet’ is used to support the claim that they were too inexperienced to be very useful. These extracts illustrate that many students come with work experience, and this not only allows them to comment on the assessments but allows them to comment on other students’ ability to contribute to group work.

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

101

4. Having subject knowledge This characteristic is employed in a similar way to work experience above; to support the right to lead a group/take action. While lecturers are positive about the mix of subject backgrounds, some students are less positive in the context of group work as exemplified in Elsa’s comment: Elsa:

I understand that if … you’re coming from an arts degree which is NOTHING to do with this, that this is challenging … and I feel like (.) they helped out as much as they could, it’s not like they didn’t CARE

Despite the mitigating indirect ‘I understand that’ and euphemistic ‘challenging’, with the unmitigated ‘NOTHING to do with this’, she constructs subject background as an important attribute. Zoe places herself in the middle in terms of relevant background and early on in the interview indicates the problems in groups: Zoe:

I also think that there’s a HUGE division in [subject] abilities and performance which might have caused frustration among students especially in group work scenarios

Zoe uses the intensifying predication ‘HUGE division’ and then mitigating modal ‘might’ and euphemistic ‘frustration’. The ‘frustration’ described elsewhere as actually ‘many fights’ ‘very nasty’ is elaborated on later: Zoe:

Interviewer: Zoe:

… I’d like to learn from these people as well, you know, they’ve done really well, and they understand and they’ve done four years of [specific subject] or business and I haven’t, so it would’ve been nice to create a space where (.) you know, you help me, I help you, kind of have that give and take, but it was more like, you know, I know this and I’m not sharing it kind of attitude that’s a difficult one isn’t it, in a group yeah really difficult, it was almost like you’re competing with each other (.) rather than helping each other and I, I want to help everyone and I want to try and contribute as much as I can but there’s, there’s a certain point that you just say, ok

102

S. HORROD

There is some distancing in the vague nominations ‘they’, ‘these people’. Notable are a number of commonplaces/clichés in ‘you help me, I help you’, ‘give and take’, ‘create a space’ and then direct speech representation of other’s thoughts/attitudes ‘I know this and I’m not sharing it’ to support her construction of self (helpful) and other (selfish). This is reinforced with ‘I want to’ and impersonal you ‘you’re competing’ to refer to ‘we’ students with ‘you just say, ok’ to refer to herself but functioning as generally true. Although not evident from the transcript, a salient feature of Zoe’s speech is her tone which is upbeat and measured; adding to her self-positioning as reasonable, despite not being the highest-performing student, in contrast to others. So we see that subject background is another aspect that students use to position their ability to contribute to group work. 5. Speaking the language Students raise the issue of language and writing skills and lecturers also mention it; some question the validity of students’ IELTS levels. It becomes relevant in group work where all contribute to the same highstakes assignment. Elsa addresses it most explicitly towards the end of the interview, concerning the rationale for group work: Elsa:

I see the point with putting us in groups to learn about different cultures and everything but (.) I kind of also feel it’s a way of putting up the average of the school, cos if we were to choose our own groups, a lot of people would fail (.) it’s my honest opinion about it, I kind of feel like, and not to be disrespectful but you have a lot of students who don’t know the language and they don’t care (.) too much, some of them do, it’s not all of them but you see them out doing stuff in _____ that you would also like to do but you’re at school, so you end up doing their part of their job, whereas if we were to pick our own groups, maybe not the first one … we could choose for ourselves after that and try to aim for international, the better students, I think the more serious students would aim better out of it, work better together

Here Elsa recognises the rationale for group work but shows her dislike of the fact that the groups are allocated rather than self-selected. Her blunt ‘students who don’t know the language’ indicates the perceived

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

103

issue with English proficiency in doing these kinds of group assessments. This is also tied in with her perception that ‘they don’t care’ and seeing people out having fun while the hard-working, ‘serious’ students do all the work. Ivy, in contrast, positions herself as pragmatic, relaxed, even calling herself a ‘bad student’ while sometimes drawing on her design experience to support her points. She refuses to get stressed by group work and is positive about the mix of nationalities and cultures; constructing others who are not as narrow-minded and as ultimately at a disadvantage: Interviewer: Ivy: Interviewer: Ivy:

Interviewer: Ivy:

Interviewer: Ivy:

do you feel (.) any (.) advantage disadvantage being an international student, do you think people= I feel =allow for (..) different language levels and all that kind of thing? I will say (..) I think it’s a really advantage, it’s a good experience because I think especially our course, there’s no local, no British and everyone come from everywhere, I quite like it, it’s very diverse but I found I was quite (..) erm (.) I know it’s not a good feeling but I feel that they are in, you know, still in their own group of (.) people, I think they didn’t enjoy the full advantage of this school, because it’s a very diverse school and it’s what makes it amazing yeah yeah oh right, so some people not mixing? yeah and even the group project I heard a lot of people say o::h her English, o:h like there’s a cultural difference but then this is the fun part of it like to, I don’t know, there must be something in people from [country], I don’t know, from [continent], there must be something, but some people just (.) very stubborn but you were quite positive about? yeah I really enjoyed it, this was the fun part

She uses the involving ‘I’ to express her opinions with ‘I will say’, ‘I feel’ and uses intensifying adverbs ‘very diverse’, ‘really enjoyed’ to assert the positive aspects and present herself as an optimistic, open person. She is more hesitant, evident in pauses and reformulations, before she directly criticises others she refers to as ‘they’, without naming particular nationalities. She moves into direct speech representation to support her claim adding the discourse marker with elongated ‘o::h’ to express others’

104

S. HORROD

dismay and negative attitude. Her point is reinforced with repetition of ‘there must be’ thereby portraying a basic division between students who are less tolerant of language and culture differences and students who are more open to diversity but perhaps lower-performing students. Leyla discusses the more democratic way her group operated and how that affected her grades. She reflects on the need for a leader and, in so doing, raises the issue of language: Leyla:

Interviewer: Leyla:

when I look at the past (.) I think it would be much better in terms of the grades if someone was a leader (..) uh but there are some natives in our group, native English speakers, so uh actually I trusted them (laughs) but even in the native English speaker’s part there were some feedback like, ‘poor English’ (.) and when you see it you cannot believe, how can you write poor English in your native language? quite possible (laugh) yeah and it feels bad actually (.) it, it is showing that you didn’t show effort enough

She hypothesises that it would have been better to have a leader. She says, ‘I trusted them’ and the laughter suggests she was wrong to do so. She adds a supporting example of direct writing representation of the feedback. The impersonal you referring to ‘I’ then ‘they’ i.e. ‘when you see it … how can you’ suggests a general truth and she finishes with a rhetorical question to express her involvement and for emphasis. She presents the issue not as an inherent lack of ability, just a lack of effort. It adds to the construction of herself as conscientious and able despite not being a ‘native speaker’. This reflects the politics of the crude categories of home and international student (for fees’ purposes) and native/nonnative speaker (e.g. Holliday et al., 2015). Therefore, we see language and culture being constructed as important aspects of being a good team member, but this is also resisted by some. 3.3.2.2 Strategies of ‘Singularisation’ As noted above, some lower-performing students present themselves as more relaxed and open. They also draw on some of their non-academic skills to present themselves as unique; a strategy of singularisation. This allows them to highlight their experience and qualities and what they can

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

105

contribute to the group. For example, Ivy draws on her experience as a creative practitioner to show how she understands a lecturer’s feedback: Ivy:

Interviewer: Ivy:

But I think erm some, most of my classmates, they don’t understand, it’s hard to describe creative process and for them it’s like hard to understand her comments … Oh right, so the kind of feedback? Yeah the feedback, they found it very, not very structural but from my point of view it’s hard to critique, this is not right, this is wrong, this will score you 80%, this is hard, so I can understand it

Here she presents herself as someone who understands the creative process, compared to many students who don’t, and feels that not everything can be explained in an explicit way. The frequent use of ‘I’ and ‘from my point of view’ draws on a perspectivisation strategy to show her experience in this area and align herself as someone who is tolerant of ambiguity. Other students also try to show how they have something that is useful and unique even if they are not able to contribute in other ways. For example, as shown above, Zoe presents herself as a helpful, cooperative person in contrast to those who are not willing to share. 3.3.2.3 Other Notable ‘Opposites’ There are indications above of how students align themselves along one end of a continuum or other in relation to various aspects. We see opposites constructed such as relaxed, pragmatic students versus more stressed, demanding students. We also see those who are comfortable with ambiguity versus those who want everything written down and explicit. The comfort with ambiguity seems to stem from either their experience as creative people or the fact that they are always present in class and are happy to pick up clues, ask lecturers questions in contrast to those who do not attend. We also see those who are presented as intolerant of others’ perceived weaknesses; for example, they comment on language levels and cultural difference versus those who appreciate the diversity of the cohort (see section above on ‘speaking the language’).

106

S. HORROD

3.4 Implications and Discussion: The Consequences of the Focus on Community Analysis of policy documents reveals the proposed focus on ‘community’ rather than a teacher–student relationship or any focus on teachers; the breaking down of barriers between ‘staff’ and ‘students’ and the expanded community of academic developers, employers and others involved in learning & teaching. I have argued that this discourse about community derives from a need to focus on ‘the student experience’ and notions such as ‘engagement’ and belonging. I have also examined one particular type of community in the department’s programmes which are the ‘groups’ allocated for study and assessment purposes. As well as showing highstakes group work to be unpopular, interviews also reveal that students have clear ideas about what a ‘good team member/good student’ is and this has resonances with the wider context in terms of admissions policy and the realities of being a student. For example, there are pressures to accept students with a wide range of subject backgrounds, levels of work experience and language levels. It is also a reality that some students need to work at the same time as studying. The interview accounts also show students’ multifaceted identities and their commitment to their course. The disadvantages of such diversity perceived by some mainly become an issue during high-stakes group assessments. I discuss the implications of the portrayals of people in policy versus the reality in practice in this section. 3.4.1

Bernstein’s Concept of Pedagogic Identities Within Particular Socio-political Contexts

In this section, I start by considering how Bernstein’s ideas on pedagogic identities (Sect. 2.2.5) inform our understanding of the portrayal of students and academics and the consequences for practice. In later work, Bernstein (2000) conceptualises the types of pedagogic identities situated, and available, within four different socio-political contexts; including the de-centred positions, market (neoliberal) and therapeutic (professional), which are most recognisable in policy and practice. Bernstein suggests that these different positions in the political arena with their differing approaches to managing change can shape students’ and academics’ pedagogic identities. The neoliberal market identity also described as ‘instrumental’ is one that learning & teaching policy is aiming to counter

3

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

107

in the sense that they wish to discourage a perceived ‘consumer’ attitude on the part of students. On the other hand, the policy also encourages students to be ‘instrumental’ in that there is a strong focus on ‘employability’ (see Chapter 4). In terms of specific portrayals of students and lecturers, policy highlights students far more than academics; the latter being generally backgrounded. Students are presented as equal partners e.g. co-producers, co-designers, pedagogic advisers and as a force for change e.g. change agents, improvers of teaching quality. Taking Bernstein’s (2000, pp. 81– 86) ideas about the separation of knowledge and knowers and how policy portrays who the knowers are, in learning & teaching policy, it is students—and sometimes employers and academic developers—who are presented as the knowers. The expertise and experience of lecturers tend to be backgrounded or absent. I expand on the relevance of Bernstein’s pedagogic identities further in Chapter 5 because these identities are closely connected with constructions of how the learning and teaching are done and the consequent roles for students and lecturers. 3.4.2

Implications of the Portrayal of People in Policy Documents Versus the Reality in Universities

As outlined in the analysis above, the focus in the policy documents is on the portrayal of ‘a non-hierarchical community with shared values’. This notion of community aims to level difference and obscure tensions and hierarchies. In the learning & teaching policy documents, students are portrayed not as passive consumers but instead as active partners and cocreators of their education. They have an expanded identity in the sense of not only being fully involved in their learning, and bringing diverse experiences to bear, but also in continually improving the curriculum, teaching and assessment and contributing to the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). This aims to counter a potential consumer identity that Bernstein would regard as an instrumental identity. While acknowledging that reciprocal learning occurs, McArthur (2013) argues there is nothing inconsistent in terms of a democratic approach in recognising that academics have knowledge and experience that students do not yet have (p. 155). Yet policies, and institutional guidelines, are reluctant to say this and advocate treating students as equal partners. Of course, they are partners in the sense of needing to be actively involved in their learning and working with their teachers to get the best from their course.

108

S. HORROD

However, although the view of students as consumers is reductive, the view of partners is not necessarily helpful as it reinforces a deficit view of academics as teachers and of their knowledge and expertise, creates unrealistic expectations of students but also encourages practices that may not be in students’ best interest. Also, universities do actually frequently treat students as consumers to the extent that their satisfaction is surveyed regularly and feedback is used to assess the quality of a course (see e.g. Maringe, 2011 on the inadequacies of this approach alone) and as customers who can also contribute to pedagogy (see e.g. Furedi, 2011 for criticism of this). From interview accounts, it is clear that these types of postgraduate students have expanded or complex identities since many have work experience and diverse backgrounds. Despite the perceived hierarchies and differences within the student body, exacerbated by group work practices as well as their expertise and experience in their fields, students do not present themselves as already having the knowledge the university is providing. There is also no sign of them being involved in developing pedagogy, or doing research into this, beyond providing their feedback on the course. Further, there is little indication of consumer identity (also noted in Tomlinson, 2017). Given the programmes’ aims to prepare them for a career, students have a clear focus on the future. However, I did not perceive an instrumental approach apart from frustration with others seen as preventing them from getting top marks. Instead, both lecturers and students construct students as enthusiastic in engaging in a demanding course and in developing their disciplinary identity. In terms of lecturers, we noted that policy documents hardly refer to teachers or teaching. Nor do they discuss the teacher–student relationship. Instead, there is simply a focus on various types of communities. When they do discuss lecturers, they are framed as ‘facilitators’. There is also an undercurrent of framing academics as ‘reluctant to change’ and needing to reflect on their attitudes and practices (see Chapter 5 for elaboration on both these points). However, in the interview accounts, we see lecturers as passionate about their subject, their own experience and/or research, focused on providing rigour and challenge and on their connections with students (see Chapter 4 for more on this).

3

3.5

WHO THE KEY PEOPLE ARE

109

Conclusion

We have seen that learning & teaching policy presents those involved in university education in particular ways with a focus on community. It is good to acknowledge all those involved in making a course happen and to acknowledge that a community can be so important to students in giving them a feeling of belonging and involvement. However, policy foregrounds students and the community and backgrounds lecturers and the student–teacher relationship. The reality is that lecturers have a crucial role in students’ experience of their courses. Also, despite the discourse of ‘non-hierarchical communities’, hierarchies are firmly in place and the gaps growing wider between different types of academics (teaching or research focused), between senior management and other staff as well as there being a sense of hierarchy or difference between students. The following chapter considers the controversial issue of the purpose of a university education in terms of ‘what to learn and teach’.

References ALDinHE. (2022). About ALDinHE, Association for learning development in higher education. https://aldinhe.ac.uk/about-aldinhe/. Accessed 15 September 2022. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Revised Ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7 (4–5), 585–614. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1461445605054407 Furedi, F. (2011). Introduction to the marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: The student as consumer (pp. 1–7). Routledge. Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowle dge-hub/engagement-through-partnership-students-partners-learning-and-tea ching-higher. Accessed 15 September 2022. Holliday, A., Aboshiha, P., & Swan, A. (Eds.). (2015). (En)countering nativespeakerism: Global perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan. Jones-Devitt, S. (2020). Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Flexible learning. A guide to the Advance HE Framework. Advance

110

S. HORROD

HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/advance-he-essential-frameworks-enhanc ing-student-success. Accessed 15 August 2022. Lampropoulou, S. (2012). Direct speech, self-presentation and communities of practice. Continuum. Macfarlane, B., & Tomlinson, M. (2017). Critiques of student engagement. Higher Education Policy, 30, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-0160027-3 Maringe, F. (2011). The student as consumer: Affordances and constraints in a transforming higher education environment. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: The student as consumer (pp. 142–154). Routledge. McArthur, J. (2013). Rethinking knowledge within higher education: Adorno and social justice. Bloomsbury. Myers, G. (1999). Functions of reported speech in group discussions. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 376–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.376 Pegg, A., Waldock, J., Wendy-Isaac, S. & Lawson, R. (2012). Pedagogy for employability. Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/ knowledge-hub/pedagogy-employability-2012. Accessed 15 September 2022. Tannen, D. (2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Tomlinson, M. (2017). Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1113856 Webb, O., Wyness, L., & Cotton, D. (2017). Enhancing access, retention, attainment and progression in higher education: A review of the literature showing demonstrable impact. Higher Education Academy. https://www.adv ance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/enhancing-access-retention-attainment-andprogression-higher-education. Accessed 20 September 2022. Wodak, R., De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh University Press.

CHAPTER 4

WHAT to Learn and Teach

4.1

Introduction

What is a university education for? What should students study? These questions are the concern of this chapter. The debate is often presented as a choice or balance between disciplinary knowledge, on the one hand, and ‘employability skills’ developing generic skills or qualities, on the other. As I explore below, learning & teaching policy documents foreground employability skills, capabilities and qualities. The key themes discussed include confusingly conceptualised notions of employability, the relation of a university education to real life, buzzwords such as a ‘twenty-firstcentury’ education, the idea of ‘added value’ and the obsession with ‘reflection and articulating learning’. Wider debates over the focus of the curriculum are played out in students’ interview accounts in terms of whether a course should be more ‘practical’ or ‘theoretical’ and in lecturers’ accounts in terms of how far courses should reflect ‘real life’. I interpret the findings in relation to Bernstein’s (1990, 2000) ideas about how we arrive at pedagogic practices including how policy can become ‘recontextualised’ in these practices. I show how learning & teaching policy agendas are explicitly linked to a presumed need to address the ‘student experience’ in the light of competition and an environment of rising tuition fees. I discuss the consequences of these debates in terms of potentially differential access to a ‘quality’ education at different institutions. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Horrod, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28038-2_4

111

112

S. HORROD

4.2 The Discourses of Learning & Teaching Policy: A University Education as Developing Future-Fit Graduates This macro-strategy, or summary of all the discourse topics and discursive strategies, embodies how the purpose of a university education is constructed and is the result of the analysis of the six policy documents. At its core is the notion that a university education should focus on preparing students for work and a key concept is ‘employability’. This is not only one of the six agendas, and so policy documents, but is a notion that is prevalent across all the policy texts. A key argument is that this is about work in an uncertain future in terms of what skills and knowledge may be needed which leads to the predication ‘future-fit’ to describe how students should be at the end of their study. There is undoubtedly a vagueness around the conceptualisation of employability and many definitions and models are explored in the Employability text. This vagueness is used strategically (see, e.g. Van Dijk, 2006; Mulderrig, 2012) to avoid prescribing a template for what makes students employable. However, there is more certainty around the construction of a pedagogy for employability (discussed further in Chapter 5 on How to teach/learn). This is unsurprising given this is the focus of the Employability text in particular but is evident across the policy documents. Table 4.1 has a summary of discourse topics and strategies across the six policy documents that relate to the construction of a university education. In other words, this portrays what should be taught and what should be learned and I discuss key features below. Like other core chapters, the focus of analysis is on the HEA long policy discussion documents (mostly 2012–2014). 4.2.1

A Future-Facing or Twenty-First-Century Education

Common discourse topics include the over arching ‘future-fit graduates’ (a term adopted from the title of a CBI/UUK publication, 2009, cited in Pegg et al., 2012, p. 6) as well as ‘twenty-first-century/futurefacing education’, ‘lifelong learning’, ‘added-value activities’, ‘authentic tasks/curriculum’ and ‘articulation of learning and reflection’. There are certain assumptions underpinning the way that the policy documents discuss employability and what should be the focus of a university education. I use the idea of topoi (Wodak et al., 2009) to summarise how these proposals are supported. Topoi are essentially

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

113

Table 4.1 A university education as developing future-fit graduates: discourse topics and strategies from the six policy documents A university education as developing future-fit graduates Discourse topics: – Embedding employability – The real world – A twenty-first century education – Future fit graduates – Flexibility – Future-facing education

– Articulation of learning & reflection – Added-value activities – Confidence and self-esteem – Agility; adaptability; resilience – Lifelong learning process

– Radical change – Evidence-based pedagogy – Authentic tasks / curriculum – Graduate attributes

Strategies (functional)

Discursive strategies

Means of realisation ( with examples)

Legitimation of aims of university education Transformation—needed to meet needs of twenty-first century education Construction & legitimation Legitimation of some actors [students / employers] & delegitimation of others [lecturers]

Nominations Predications

– Characteristic highlighted e.g. end result: graduate – Positive adjectives: employable graduate, future fit graduate, twenty-first century graduates fit-for-purpose, up-to-date, innovative, global education added-value activities – Negative / positive structures: narrow versus broad understanding of employability tacit versus explicit – Lexis around newness and future: a twenty-first century education, future-fit graduates – Lexis of uncertainty and complexity of future: unknown, complex, uncertain – Citing research/evidence from particular sources: Feedback from students and employers shows …

Topos of opposites

Topos of modernity

Topos of uncertainty—practices legitimated by future uncertainty Topos of authority—especially employers

(continued)

114

S. HORROD

Table 4.1 (continued) Strategies (functional)

Discursive strategies

Means of realisation ( with examples)

Formal argumentation scheme: counter-argument / argument

– Counterargument/argument structure—weaker / stronger language: many academics will point out that they’ve ‘been doing it for years’. If the students on these programmes are not equally clear about where, how and why … however, some clarity and re-emphasis is needed – Structures of cause and effect e.g. fees → more demanding students → need for up-to-date L&T added value/employability → students standing out – Adjectives/nouns/verbs etc. of importance/ urgency/frequency: centrality of this issue, employability awards have proliferated

Formal argumentation scheme: cause and effect

Intensification—importance of issue

Mitigation—qualifying, not being prescriptive

– Qualifying language / ‘deficit’ language: might, may, some etc.; lack research into impact of employability approach

warrants or supporting evidence for a claim (see Sect. 2.4.5.2 for a full explanation). Here, there are two main ‘content-related’ topoi: the topos of uncertainty and the topos of modernity and two further ‘formal’ topoi: the topos of authority and the topos of opposites . These work in the following way. The topos of uncertainty involves the idea of an uncertain future making it impossible to predict what skills the economy/society will need as noted above. This is supported by predications to describe the

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

115

future such as ‘complex’, ‘rapidly changing’ and ‘uncertain’ and this is also embodied in claims such as ‘intended career pathways may evolve or disappear with changing local, national and global economic circumstances’ (Pegg et al., 2012, p. 14). This topos underpins the predication of ‘future-fit graduates’ by portraying an uncertain future which requires resilience and readiness for change. This uncertainty about future skills’ requirements forms the basis of the notion of ‘employable’ rather than ‘employed’ graduates evident in a definition of employability: Employability is more than about developing attributes, techniques or experience just to enable a student to get a job, or to progress within a current career. It is about learning and the emphasis is less on ‘employ’ and more on ‘ability’. In essence, the emphasis is on developing critical, reflective abilities, with a view to empowering the learner. (Harvey, 2003, cited in Pegg et al., 2012, p. 4)

The general predications here ‘critical, reflective’ illustrate this wider conceptualisation of employability which is further emphasised through the topos of opposites ‘employ’ versus ‘ability’. This preference for a broader perspective is also constructed through increasingly vague definitions and elements of models such as the discourse topics of ‘building confidence and self-esteem’, the importance of a ‘positive attitude: a cando approach’ (CBI, 2011, cited in Pegg et al. 2012 p. 19) and developing ‘transformative capabilities’ (Flexibility). In this way, although disciplinary knowledge is mentioned in models of employability, it is backgrounded as is the notion that useful abilities might be developed while studying the discipline. There is an emphasis on generic qualities which are increasingly distilled until you get descriptions of an almost meaningless ‘can-do approach’. Another discursive strategy is the topos of modernity which includes the widely used predications ‘twenty-first century’, ‘future-fit/facing’ as well as ‘up-to-date’ and ‘innovative’. The Internationalisation text constructs a university education as ‘preparing 21st -century graduates to live in and contribute responsibly to a globally interconnected society’ (p. 1). The Assessment text argues for ‘assessment methods and approaches that are better able to assess the outcomes of a 21st -century education’ (HEA, 2012, p. 11). It also suggests:

116

S. HORROD

… there are reputational advantages to having up-to-date and fit-forpurpose assessment practices as fee-paying students explore more closely what higher education institutions are offering in relation to teaching and learning. (HEA, 2012, p. 10)

This topos of modernity is used as a shortcut to support all policy proposals. This extract also draws on the topos of context whereby ‘the context’, alluding to higher fees and competition, leads to more demanding students which in turn leads to the need for the often unspecified ‘twenty-first-century’ practices. At the same time, certain people and their practices are portrayed as being out of date or unwilling to change, usually lecturers, as discussed in Chapter 3 on People. 4.2.2

Added Value

Aligning with a broader conceptualisation of employability, in policy, a degree alone is no longer seen as enough and the discourse topic of ‘added-value activities’ appears across texts. These include extra/cocurricular activities such as voluntary work, work placements and involvement in staff–student research. It is prominent in Employability with reference to the introduction of the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR)1 and its intention to ‘formally recognise more from the HE experience than just the degree programme’ (Pegg et al., 2012, p. 11). The mitigation of ‘just’ downplays the importance of the core programme, giving increased status to extra-curricular achievements and work experience as justified below: …the importance of recognising employability developed through ‘added value’ alongside the HE experience, and the attractions that this has for attracting prospective students. This ‘added value’ is particularly emphasised by employers seeking graduates who stand out from the crowd. (High Fliers, 2011, cited in Pegg et al., 2012, p. 12)

This extract draws on the topos of context referring to competition for jobs evident in the phrase ‘the need to stand out from the crowd’ and the topos of authority in relation to the prioritising of employers’ views. The predication ‘added value’ clearly has a dual purpose: attracting students to universities and implicitly addressing the widespread discourse about value for money in the media.

4

4.2.3

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

117

Authentic Tasks and Curriculum

In contrast to varied and nebulous definitions of employability, there is more certainty over approaches to learning & teaching that contribute to it. The texts focus on ‘authentic tasks/curriculum’ and ‘active/experiential learning’. Active learning is linked with a constructivist approach to learning discussed further in Chapter 5. Authentic, often linked to the notion of added value above, is constructed as those activities that mirror the workplace such as work-based learning, ‘live’ projects with external organisations and group tasks. This is discussed further in Sect. 4.3 on Assessment and Sect. 4.4 on Interviews. 4.2.4

Reflection and Articulation of Learning

Although ‘reflection’ and ‘articulation of learning’ also link to ways of learning (see Chapter 5), I discuss them here because they relate to both the skills/qualities that policy views as useful for students and concrete classroom/assessment activities. Reflection is presented as a key approach in pedagogy despite little discussion of what reflection involves beyond the notion of ‘articulation of learning’ discussed below. Policy texts connect authentic tasks with reflection as they argue that activities such as work-based learning make it easier for students to produce the ‘right kind’ of reflections than more ‘traditional’, subject-knowledge-oriented tasks: … experiential and work-based learning approaches … can be integrated with live projects, work placements, internships and voluntary experience to ensure that students are able to reflect constructively upon the experience itself, their learning and their development. (Pegg et al., 2012, p. 27)

The suggestion is, therefore, that the focus on discipline-related knowledge and skills makes it hard to say what has been learnt. This emphasis on reflection is evident in earlier influential models of employability such as the CareerEDGE model (Dacre, Pool & Sewell, 2007, cited in Pegg et al., 2012, p. 23). This is presented as a ‘practical model of employability’ aimed at students and parents. It includes five core areas: career development learning; experience (work and life); degree subject knowledge, skills and understanding; generic skills and emotional intelligence. These seem to form a foundation which through a process of ‘reflection and evaluation’ a student can move towards self-confidence,

118

S. HORROD

self-esteem and self-efficacy and then onto ‘employability’. Later, ‘reflection and articulation’ becomes a key element in the HEA’s Employability framework-2016 (HEA, 2016) and is still present in the AHE-EFSSEmployability-2020 document; AdvanceHE’s 2020 framework guide for employability (Tibby & Norton, 2020). The idea of ‘articulation of learning’ is prevalent throughout the policy documents and fits well under the generic skills advocated: … the ability to articulate learning and raising confidence, self-esteem and aspirations seem to be more significant in developing graduates than a narrow focus on skills and competences. (Pegg et al., 2012, p. 9)

The claim is that students need to improve their ability to say what they have learned: There is quite a lot of evidence that they are often not prepared to translate their experience of ‘doing a degree’ into the language of achievements valued by employers. When employability-enhancing elements are only tacitly present, students claims to employability are seriously compromised. (Knight et al., 2003, p. 5 cited in Pegg et al., 2012, p. 30)

Despite the distancing and lack of named experts in ‘there is a quite a lot of evidence’, the topos of authority, in ‘valued by employers’, is used to suggest that employers believe students are not able to explain their learning. Above, there is an implicit topos of opposites regarding ‘tacit’ versus ‘explicit’ elaborated on in the subsequent paragraph: This has been summarised succinctly as ‘making the tacit explicit’ (Knight et al. 2003), with module learning outcomes making reference to graduate skills, and programme outlines including a mapping grid to illustrate which skills are developed by which modules, highlighting their developmental nature across levels. (Pegg et al., 2012, p. 30)

This explicitness within module/programme outcomes then feeds into the idea of students being able to say what has been learned. However, an excessive focus on saying what has been learned in terms of how every class develops a student’s employability has potentially negative consequences such as turning learning into a utilitarian venture as discussed further below.

4

4.2.5

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

119

Anticipating Resistance to Policy Ideas

A salient discursive strategy used to delegitimate the views of those who might disagree with policy proposals, including the focus on employability, is the formal argumentation scheme of counterargument/argument which is a type of legitimation strategy (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016). This works by dialogically anticipating criticisms and refuting them (underlined): … some academics are opposed to what they would consider an overemphasis on the utilitarian mission of HE, and do not believe that employability development should form a taught and assessed part of a degree programme. The concerns of such staff may be addressed by pointing out that learning, teaching and assessment approaches designed to develop high level subject-based skills will also help develop key employability skills – one does not preclude the other. (Pegg et al., 2012, pp. 41–42)

In this extract, the nomination ‘academics’ and perspectivisation of ‘they’ seem to have the effect of distancing them and their opinions, as does the certainty of ‘will’/‘does not’ and ‘is needed’ to reject the premise of the counter-argument. Also notable is the combination of intensification and mitigation strategies in the legitimation of this particular orientation to the purpose of education. Despite intensification of the importance of the topic, there is extensive mitigation around the lack of a clear template or model and lack of research evidence on the impacts. This suggests not being prescriptive while simultaneously insisting on its importance and the need for explicitness. These ideas are carried through to the 2020 frameworks which have a framework for employability but still suggest it is not intended to be prescriptive and that particular areas may be focused on according to context while advocating that employability must be integrated into the curriculum. To summarise this macro-strategy, employability or producing ‘futurefit graduates’ is constructed as the purpose of an education despite the lack of clarity over what employability involves beyond general notions such as self-confidence or a framework with multiple areas of focus. Table 4.1 summarises the key discourse topics and discursive strategies in the policy documents relating to this macro-strategy.

120

4.2.6

S. HORROD

Advance HE 2020 Frameworks on ‘What’ to Teach and Learn

In terms of the 2020 Advance HE framework guides, the agenda and models are unchanged and of the ten areas in the Employability framework (Tibby & Norton, 2020), many of these relate to individual attributes, qualities or capabilities such as confidence, adaptability, resilience, self- and cultural awareness in addition to a small number of more concrete aspects such as knowledge, technical expertise and transferable skills, enterprise education and career guidance thereby continuing the same kind of discourses as seen in the longer documents. Also, employability continues to be a key part of the Flexible Learning framework in the AHE-EFSS-Flexibility-2020 framework guide (Jones-Devitt, 2020) since the model is unchanged from the 2016 version (HEA, 2016).

4.3

Complex and Diverse Assessment: How It Reflects Discourses and Decisions on Learning & Teaching The starting point for this study was an awareness of a growing range of diverse, complex forms of assessment; ones that aimed to not only mix theory and practice but also had overt links to learning & teaching policy agendas such as employability. Assignments are not simply a reflection of practices in a subject area but also represent, to some extent, the recontextualisation of policy and guidelines on learning, teaching and assessment. Traces of policy discourses are evident in assessment texts and practices. Therefore, I collected the full range of assignments across the set of programmes from a total of 11 modules. This allowed me to trace connections with learning & teaching policy but also provided a good basis for interviews. Each programme had a ‘signature’ module unique to that programme and this module had to contain an employability element. The range of assignments across all the modules on the set of programmes was reviewed and categories such as mode (writing/speaking etc.) & grouping (individual/group), assignment focus & involvement of a real company or not and timeframe identified as relevant characteristics. Assignment elements (elements since assessment for each module may have several different parts) were then assigned to sub-categories such as individual or group, reflective or not, involving a ‘live’ company or not (the involvement of a real company in, for example, setting a brief and/or

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

121

judging a presentation). This is summarised in Table 4.2 and categories and features elaborated on in the Key provided. Besides the wide range of assignment elements, notable are the widespread use of group writing and presentations; the use of reflective assignments which require reflection on events or the module; some Table 4.2 Assignment elements by mode, focus and timeframe Categories

Assignment feature

Mode (writing / speaking / game / visual) & grouping of students (individual / group)

Individual writing Group writing Individual presentation Group presentation Group discussion Mainly visual Group simulation game ‘Live’ company (a real company involved in assessment process) One company or product (not ‘live’) More than one company (not ‘live’) Retrospective (reflective) Time limited Test in class (excl. Presentations)

Assignment focus & involvement of real company or not

Timeframe (other than usual deadline)

Total number of assignment elements with these features across the set of programmes

This feature/category is across how many modules

21 15 1

11 10 1

7 2 3 5

6 2 2 1

10

4

22

8

15

9

13

6

4 3

3 3

Key

Mode (writing / speaking /game / visual) & no. of students (individual / group)

Feature from table

Explanation & examples

Groups

Usually around 5 students

(continued)

122

S. HORROD

Table 4.2 (continued) Key Feature from table

Explanation & examples

Presentations & discussions

Usually one element of an assessment for a module E.g. a mood board or a design of a product E.g. a game designed for business students to test their decision-making skills and team work E.g. the company sets the brief for the assignment task and comes to judge the presentations (part of the output of the task) E.g. a ‘case study’ of a company analysing its past actions or a ‘proposal’ for future change E.g. a literature-based assignment such as an essay or literature review E.g. writing reflecting on past event(s)—a set of events, a group project, the module E.g. 24/48 hours to do an assignment to replicate workplace time pressure E.g. a test or short piece of writing in class

Mainly visual Group simulation game

Assignment focus & involvement of real company or not

‘Live’ company - a real company involved in assessment process

One company or product (not ‘live’)

More than one company (not ‘live’) Timeframe (other than usual deadline)

Retrospective (reflective)

Time limited

Test in class (excluding Presentations)

creative, visual assignments, e.g. mood boards or product designs; assessment that aims to replicate aspects of work, e.g. simulation games, time-limited tasks and the use of ‘live’ companies, i.e. real companies in the assessment process to set the brief and judge group pitches. In terms of such diversity and creativity in assessment design, there are a variety of drivers for this. Firstly, ‘engagement’ is an important driver and this comes from learning & teaching policy; engaging students in their studies by offering interesting, motivating tasks. Also there is a wish

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

123

to offer ‘practical’ tasks; for example, to replicate a task you might be asked to do in a company or to offer ‘practical’ skills such as working in groups. Another related reason is inclusion in terms of allowing students to play to their strengths, styles and aptitudes; offering choice and opportunities for personalisation in assessment. Finally, there is the issue of ‘designing out’ plagiarism through tailored assignments; for example, through the use of different cases or companies or a different focus each year and not simply doing literature-based essays. To have an idea of how complex assessment on each module was, Table 4.3 shows the breakdown of assignment elements for each ‘signature’ module (unique/almost unique to one programme) and a compulsory module for all programmes. Generally, individual case studies, reports and literature reviews carried the most weighting although some group reports constitute 30–40% of module totals. The less traditional elements, e.g. reflections, blogs, visual/multimodal assignments, group discussions or presentations, typically account for around 10%. Real companies (‘live’ assignments) were involved in all signature modules. Such assignments clearly align with notions of authentic tasks, group interaction and active learning outlined in the policy documents. This illustrates the complexity of assessment as a result of seeking to engage students, replicate the world of work by doing time-limited assessments (24 hours) or involving real companies to pitch to as well as developing more general ‘employability skills’ such as teamwork through the extensive use of group assessments and reflection and articulation through reflective assignments. Despite this portrayal of innovative and diverse assessment (noted in, e.g. Leedham, 2009; McLean et al., 2017), what is not visible here is the theoretical basis of most of these assignments. Many of these required wide reading of literature including empirical studies and the use of theoretical frameworks in order to apply theory to practice. This point will be discussed further in the final section of the chapter.

4.4

The Issue of ‘Real Life’: Interviews with Students and Lecturers

In this section, I examine constructions of the ‘good course’ from lecturer and student points of view, the presence or absence of the macro-strategy ‘a university education as developing future-fit graduates’ and how particular topics or strategies are recontextualised at the level of practices. I

124

S. HORROD

Table 4.3 Key modules and their range of assignments Categories and features

Key modules & number of assignment elements with each feature Signature module 1

Mode (writing / speaking /game / visual) & no. of students (individual / group)

Assignment focus & involvement of real company or not e.g. ‘live’ = company involved’; ‘one company’ = not live e.g. a case study; ‘more than one company’ = not live e.g. a literature review Timeframe (other than usual deadline e.g. retrospective/timelimited/in-class)

Signature module 2

– 1 indi– vidual writing – 2 group – writing – – 1 individual presentation– – 1 group presentation – 3 live – company – 2 one – company –

– 2 – retrospective – 2 class – presentation

Signature module 3

3 indi– vidual writing 1 group – writing 1 group – presentation 1 group discussion

Compulsory module 4

4 indi– vidual writing 3 group – writing 1 group presentation

3 individual writing 1 pair writing

2 live – 3 live – 3 one company company company 1 one – 3 one – 1 more company company than one company 3 more – 1 more than one than company one company 2 – 1 class – 2 retrospective test retrospective – 1 time- – 1 time1 class limited limited test – 1 class – 1 class pres test

argue that in the interview data, there is a clear focus on future careers, unsurprising for a business subject and certain aspects are taken up such as the notion of ‘added value’ and ‘articulation of learning and reflection’. However, there is a more nuanced approach to what a course should cover from students and some clear disagreements among lecturers over the implications of a focus on work for course content and pedagogy. Although there is discussion around innovative practices, the concept of ‘twenty-first century’ practices is absent from interviewee accounts. The interviews inevitably centred on the content of the course itself with students’ evaluation of what they experienced and lecturers’ justification of their choices. This often revolves around discussion over how ‘practical’ courses should be.

4

4.4.1

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

125

The Practical-Theoretical Continuum

4.4.1.1 Students’ Views A question to students about their expectations of the course often prompts comments about whether it was more practical or theoretical than expected and there is much discussion in both sets of interviews about assessment along a continuum from very practical to theoretical/research focused. One probable reason for this is that business students expect their courses to be practical. The course being open to students from any subject background is a further reason. Although students generally say they expected it to be more practical, they also report a sense of achievement when they feel they have grasped what they label as ‘theory’. Ivy, who has creative work experience, aligns with this view and positions herself as someone who now has additional expertise she can use: Ivy:

Interviewer:

Ivy:

I do like it gives me a very theoretical structure of [subject], like putting [subject] into a very scientific level because it doesn’t occur to me, I thought [subject] should be like ooh, that’s the decision, just go do the practical stuff, erm yeah (laughs) So you just thought it was going to be quite practical but do you feel that you’ve benefited from all the theory, the theoretical ideas that you’ve come across? yes (..) a few days ago I was reading some [subject] journals so now I feel like I know all those terminology, why this happened, why people do it, like there is some theoretical mind in it, it’s not like oh decision, there are a lot of thinking behind it

She uses the story about reading journals with ease to illustrate her developing understanding and imply how she might use this in future. Another example is Leyla who, although she expressed a wish for more outside speakers, frequently refers to theory throughout the interview. This is part of her overall positioning of her particular programme, an MSc, as much more challenging than the MA programmes: Leyla:

I saw that their lectures are more superficial compared to ours … after the Christmas we had 27 in total assignments and the

126

S. HORROD

MAs had 9 so there is a huge difference between MAs and MSc. She seems to take pride in being part of what she perceives as a more challenging course and her resulting understanding: Leyla:

… it was more academical the education I got here but I’m still glad for this because I learned a lot (.) now I learned all the theories specifically related with my field (..) now I feel like I’m an expert in [subject] field actually

Although students’ perception of what is practical is not straightforward, with some characterising case studies as practical perhaps due to using analytical skills on real cases, there is an appreciation of clearly practical skills such as those related to particular software or the writing of professional genres. Scepticism about other types of practically oriented assessments is discussed in the following section. 4.4.1.2 Lecturers’ Views Throughout their accounts, lecturers discuss the importance of having practical elements or applying the theory in ways that are useful to future careers often explicitly referring to the concept of employability. When discussing the detail and rationale for her module assessments, Karen continually mentions the transferability of skills and experiences whether from ‘live’ assignments, literature reviews or group work: Karen:

I think they also like the fact that (.) a lot of the other modules are quite heavy on theory and ours is also heavy on theory but there is always always a practical aspect which is (.) what we’re really keen to do because [specific subject area] is a practical subject … and then the other thing we do really heavily is promote employability, really heavily, so we’ve got this whole task as well that they have to do which is marked and it counts towards the grade, but always we’re thinking you know how does what we’re doing help them, either shape their career, understand what the jobs are, develop their skills and so on, that’s the feedback we get anyway (laughs)

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

127

The intensifications of ‘always always’ and ‘really heavily’ contribute to the positioning of herself as someone who is focused on the practical application of knowledge and skills. Although most lecturers conclude there is a good practical-theory balance across the programmes’ assessment, some also indicate a lack of consensus on an employability focus: Interviewer:

Karen: Interviewer: Karen: Interviewer: Karen:

Interviewer: Karen:

I guess that’s part of the [academic framework] as well isn’t it, about being very explicit about how it’s addressing employability … so being explicit presumably throughout all the assessments? In here, on ours, I can’t vouch for my colleagues, I would say no Cos even though there’s that separate bit which is very directed at employability because of these? Yes, this is completely employability throughout, yeah So that affects the types of assessments you do? Yeah yeah but I wouldn’t say that’s the same for other modules, definitely not, you know they’ll talk the talk but I (..) I’m anonymous so I can say it, the ones who are purely into theory and studies and research, I’m not sure the links are there and they might say they are cos they might say well we use cases, really? that’s only, it’s not really making the students And you think maybe the type of students you’re getting, their expectations? It’s a conversion course Sarah, it’s a conversion course, why do they come on a [subject area] course when they’ve done geography cos they want a job in [subject area], full stop

Karen positions herself as employability-focused ‘in here, on ours’ but negatively evaluates others who are not with the initially hedged ‘I can’t vouch for my colleagues’ moving to a more explicit ‘definitely not’. She presents herself as meeting what she sees as students’ real needs while positioning others as into research and theory and only pretending to address the employability requirements with the idiomatic ‘they’ll talk the talk’. She shifts into the voice of other lecturers (see Sect. 2.5) ‘well we use cases’, introduced with the mitigated ‘they might say’, to indicate the

128

S. HORROD

others’ counter-argument and then uses this to refute their claim with her own strong conclusion ‘it’s not really making the students’ and ‘they want a job in _____, full stop’. This seems an argument she has discussed before. Such differing views and potential sources of tension over aims and pedagogy are discussed further in the section on ‘real life or not’. 4.4.2

‘Practical’: Reflection and Articulation of Learning

There was a prominent discourse in the policy texts around ‘reflection and articulation of learning’ as a key element in developing employability and as discussed above, there were a lot of reflective assignments on the set of programmes. These ideas are taken up by one lecturer in the interview extract below where she echoes the assignment brief and also assumes the perspective of the student: Interviewer: Karen:

So what kind of reflection are you looking for? … how it’s shaped me, how has that made me think differently or has it confirmed exactly what I thought, just to get them, rather than just turning up and thinking, listening and thinking, oh yeah, that’s interesting and go away, what will I do differently, what will I alter on my CV?

She seems to be expecting some kind of transformation from engaging in the events that are the basis of the reflective assignment thereby echoing the discourse around ‘transformative learning’ (see Chapter 5 for more on this). I can also trace the topic of ‘articulating learning’ in the interview. Karen’s comments below occur during an explanation of their assessment mix and how they frame a literature-based, more theoretical assignment. They bring together the discourse topics of competition ‘it’s a tough world out there’ and real-world relevance ‘how does this help our students?’ with that of articulating learning ‘a skill they could articulate to an employer’; including the onus on the lecturers to be clear about what students are learning ‘we need to spell out for them’: Karen:

… on the understanding it provides a skill that they could articulate to an employer and for me that’s everything in a business school that I think we do, I’m not into, I think

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

129

rigorous academic standards is absolutely definitely where we aspire to and engaging pedagogies but at the same time always thinking how does this help our students? Cos it’s a tough world, they’ve got to somehow, and sometimes we need to spell out for them what they’re learning and how that might be useful There is a cause–effect argumentation scheme underlying these ideas in that it is proposed that experiential/active learning leads to some kind of transformation which can be articulated. This articulation (through reflection) is a form of ‘useful learning’ which then leads to employability. From the example above, we can see that the lecturer has internalised the idea about the need for articulating what has been learned and supports such explicitness in relation to the curriculum. While there may be value in this practice, it can also appear as superficial and reflective assignments are often criticised for producing formulaic responses from students (see, e.g. Macfarlane & Gourlay, 2009). 4.4.3

Real Life or Not? Attitudes to the Topos of Real Life

Prominent in students and lecturers’ accounts relating to course content and assessment is the topos of real life, drawn on as legitimation for producing assessment that mirrors what students will face in future careers. This is not surprising given that it is a business subject and that employability, despite its unclear conceptualisation, is such a prominent topic in discussions and guidelines around assessment. I focus on this topos since it highlights clear disagreements over what ‘real life’ means for course content, teaching approach and assessment. There are also risks associated with using the ‘real life’ label to justify choices. This topos is used as an argumentative shortcut to support students’ claims about the usefulness of a course or assignment and to support lecturers’ justifications of their assessment practices. The ‘real-life’ label is used to justify a variety of elements, e.g. subject of the assessment, skills developed and format of the assessment, e.g. a group report. This topos draws on a number of discourse topics such as group work, live briefs and discursive strategies, e.g. predications such as ‘live’, ‘authentic’ and perspectivisation in terms of, for example, lecturers’ referring to their experience as practitioners before entering academia.

130

S. HORROD

4.4.3.1 Those in Favour of ‘Real-Life’ Assessment ‘Live’ Assignments The topos of real life is used to justify the use of ‘live’ assignments in which a real company is involved in part of the assessment of students’ work; usually through setting the brief or judging presentations. Lecturers highlight these as being particularly popular with students and argue they give the students an opportunity that is similar to ‘real life’: Karen:

the [external organisation] come down as well and watch the presentations so it’s very much about how it would be in real life and they do love that.

The intensifications of ‘very much’ and ‘do love that’ highlight this enjoyment of live briefs. In all cases, the company judges the presentations and in one module, the winning groups have the chance to do a short internship with the company as an added incentive. Most students evaluate these assessments in a positive way as being more motivating than, e.g. case studies from a book or literature reviews: Ivy:

Interviewer:

Ivy: Interviewer: Ivy:

Interviewer: Ivy:

… that made a difference for me especially like you feel more engaged because it’s like you work for them so you feel more engaged, but the literature review like [module name], [name of assignment], the [module name], it’s like far, you can’t touch them, you just walk around them so you don’t feel that engagement and cos you did a presentation didn’t you for the company, did you feel you should put a lot of effort into that? yeah yeah you feel more you put extra effort because they’re a real company? there’s more passion, there’s more passion behind it, I just don’t know why, like you feel you should, there’s so many ideas because when you analyse it, it’s a real thing and then you can change it, there’s a little bit, little ego going on in the (xxx) and I think every team mates have that, that ego like (.) we can change it, we have ideas so you feel you’re making a little contribution? yeah yeah yeah

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

131

Here Ivy uses the impersonal you, e.g. ‘you don’t feel that engagement’ to suggest that this is generally true. She shifts back into ‘we’ at the end to refer explicitly to her group and what she describes as ‘ego’ when she says ‘we can change it, we have ideas’ to indicate their thought processes and position themselves as having ideas to contribute despite being a lower-performing group in written assignments. This approach seems to allow some groups to succeed on elements of the assessment through their creative ideas and recommendations. Different criteria for evaluation are used by the company and the lecturers and below Laura justifies the presentation being assessed by the practitioners since a pitch is what is judged in the workplace: Laura:

Interviewer: Laura:

… it’s the presentation actually it’s very important in winning a pitch and so on so that’s what (..) we wanted, the report was, we gave them feedback on the presentation and also saying to the student, well look the company is going to assess what you say in a slightly different way from what we are going to assess it, so actually one of the two groups that were chosen by the company had the winning group because they thought some good recommendations, some good ideas that they liked for the (product) (..) actually did not get a very high mark in the report because the report was lacking the (..) sort of academic bit, so the application of theory to practice Ok, and did you think the students were able to differentiate those audiences well enough? Some yes and some (..) no, so yes the group that yes, that second group that won the pitch but still didn’t do a very good report and they were surprised, how come we won and also you know another group said, you gave us a high mark how come we didn’t win the pitch (laughs) and that was, you know we let the company choose and so we said ok well they judged (xxx)

Here Laura re-enacts what the students said by shifting into speech representation, e.g. ‘how come we didn’t win the pitch’ to illustrate her point around different criteria being used although she does not regard

132

S. HORROD

this as an issue. It is the topos of ‘real life’ that is used to support such a task and to support the differing judgements of quality of industry and academia. However, this is not supported by all lecturers and Mike criticises the non-academic approach that companies encourage. Another lecturer John, when outlining what makes his module distinct, draws on this topos of real life, e.g. ‘real issues going on out there’ to support his reasons why students like it: John:

… what they have actually liked about this module eventually is it’s the one that makes them think, it’s the one that makes them apply, it’s the one that actually has some sort of reality with, we talk about real organisations, we talk about real issues that are going on sort of out there so they tend to actually like that erm (..) what they appreciate at the end but don’t like going through at the time is they have to do a lot of reading, they have to be able to write properly, they have to be able to communicate effectively, and all those sorts of things which as they go through the process is like pulling teeth as you well know (laughs), but when they sort of leave and they finish they come back and say thank you, you know, thank you for that

His use of ‘eventually’, ‘at the end’ and the idiom ‘like pulling teeth’ indicate his belief that students find the module difficult but ultimately rewarding. He is positioning his module as uniquely challenging through the strategy of singularisation (Wodak et al., 2009) by repeating ‘it’s the one that’ suggesting not all other modules do this. He also implies that the skills he mentions are those needed in the workplace and his story about former students’ attitudes with the shifting into the voice of the students ‘thank you for that’ suggesting that this approach contributed to their ability to cope at work. However, lecturers also draw on this topos to position students in a less positive way when assessments do not go according to plan as is the case with what he describes as an unusually challenging cohort of students that year. Presenting himself as an experienced practitioner, he uses the following story related to group work to suggest they are not familiar with real life: John:

… and they’ve got a very naïve view of what employment is and erm so what they’re saying is that why are we assessing then

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

133

on group work because if they had somebody who was not contributing to the group in industry, they would get fired (..) and when you get people like myself who’ve actually worked in industry and other people actually saying to them no they would not get fired you know because if you’re presenting to a client, you need to be able to erm cover the mistakes going on in the organisation and you need to just figure out how to get the best thing possible but for them it was like no that shouldn’t work, also they HATED doing any consulting work erm Here, he relates how students use the topos of real life themselves to criticise group work when frustrated by it. Students refute that it is like real life since they say that people who do not contribute would get fired. In the extract below, Elsa aligns with this view when responding to a question about the rationale for group work: Interviewer:

Elsa:

but also do you think … maybe they’ve said something about justifying it but do you think it’s also just getting on with people that you don’t necessarily get on with? and that’s, that’s part of work and part of life I guess? well sure I gue::ss but it’s not going to be, I know there’s going to be challenges working later in life but (.) when someone doesn’t know the language, they would never get the job in the first place kind of thing, if you don’t do your work, you’ll get fired (.) there was no getting fired here, kind of

In my question, I effectively echo one of the rationales often given for group work assessments but she rejects this argument by repeating my ‘I guess’ in a disbelieving way and turning around the ‘real-life’ argument as justification for her own claim. She shifts into the generalising impersonal you in ‘if you don’t do your work, you’ll get fired’ as support for her point that this is not like the ‘real world’ with the use of the clichéd phrase, ‘there was no getting fired here’. It is clear that trying to offer engaging, innovative group tasks with live companies is often highly motivating but time-consuming and occasionally risky. There is also an indication that using the topos of real life can be problematic as students can turn the

134

S. HORROD

argument around when they do not like something. This issue of cynicism is explored further in the next section. 4.4.3.2 Scepticism About the ‘Real-Life’ Justification Predications: ‘A Lot of Work for Little Reward’ and ‘Inauthentic’ Next, I explore further how students evaluate assessment that draws on the topos of real life. In particular, I consider scepticism about the real life or employability label by examining the constructions of some assessment as either ‘a lot of work for the marks’ or ‘inauthentic’. The predications ‘a lot of work’ and ‘low weighting’ are often used together to evaluate assignments. Students indicated that if they liked the subject, they would refer to assignments in this way but still say they enjoy it. For example, when referring to a complex learning journal assessment that required application of theory to current examples and concise 500-word entries, May says: May:

… because a lot of it’s relevant and recent, it was really fascinating and I really enjoyed actually doing those assignments, some of them were a LOT of work for perhaps not a lot of marks (laughs) it felt like

However, if students do not like aspects of the assignment such as the type of company, the client, the group work element or feel it is not relevant, they use this predication to evaluate the assignment in a negative way e.g. as not useful. Below Leyla mentions the time involved and weighting when discussing a live project: Leyla:

I feel like this assignment didn’t contribute to my, to my skills (...) and it took six months to write that, it’s only (.) 15%, on the other hand, this took maybe two weeks but it’s 40%, so the balance was not good, well arranged

Throughout her account, Leyla talks about the progress made and skills developed and in this extract she evaluates the assignment as not contributing to her skills and compares it to a different assignment to support her claim that the effort-weighting balance was not effective.

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

135

Generally, live assignments are seen as practical as are modules that students recognise as clearly workplace skills-oriented; for example, using particular software or practising professional genres. However, common across students’ accounts is some level of cynicism about the real-life label when applied to certain types of assignments often those connected to the ‘employability-related’ element of the module. May discusses the reflective assignment in which they have to write about three careers’ events attended. She evaluates some as interesting, some as not useful and expresses some frustration at not knowing exactly what kind of reflection they wanted. However, she also comments on the purpose of it: Interviewer: May:

Interviewer: May:

yeah it’s quite an interesting one? yeah it was an interesting one, I think it’s just how does that connect back to (.) what you learnt in the module, you kind of then get a bit um (..) (laughs) cynical, you kind of think they’ve done it because they want you to go to these events (laughs) of course, yeah, you’re probably right, exactly and if I didn’t have that, would I have gone to those events is the question I guess, so but

Here she questions the links between the events and the module and suggests the purpose of the assessment is to get students to attend the extra events. She shifts into ‘you’ to suggest a generalised perception i.e. that other people feel the same. At the end, she uses a hypothetical question to suggest she would not have attended had it not been a requirement. Other reflective assignments seem to attract similar levels of scepticism. Here Ivy is referring to a reflection on a group assignment worth 10%: Interviewer: Ivy: Interviewer: Ivy: Interviewer: Ivy:

… so what do you think she was looking for (.) here? oh, here? (laughs) yeah a reflective essay is I really like this course blah blah blah, I didn’t really read the brief even uhm, is there a bit of information there about the reflective essay? I think she emailed about a little bit of it …

136

S. HORROD

Interviewer: Ivy: Interviewer: Ivy: Interviewer: Ivy: Interviewer: Ivy:

(looking at feedback) ok, she said you didn’t write a thousand words (laughs) is that because you felt you didn’t have enough, more to write? I didn’t feel like it or just too many assignments going on? I don’t know what I was thinking, I didn’t even look at the word count, maybe just a paper (laughs) ok yeah maybe because it’s a fairly small percentage? yeah yeah

Her moving into representing the words she thinks they expect in the assignment ‘I really like this course blah blah blah’ is a summary of what she thinks the expectation is and her laughter indicates her scepticism about the assignment’s value. Although some students report enjoying these freer reflective pieces, e.g. blogs, there is both confusion and scepticism present in accounts. Another assignment that attracts these types of comments and questioning of its ‘real-life’ rationale is a time-limited, 24-hour assignment: May: Interviewer: May:

… I don’t know how realistic the 24-hour assignment (..) one was, I think that why did they do that do you think, what was the reason, did they say why? the rationale was that this is what you would have in the real world and I was like I don’t believe that it’s just only 24 hours (laughs) and then actually their rationale, when people were criticising it, they were like, well sometimes you only get a few hours (laughs) I was like, you’re not starting from scratch, if you work in a company, you might have a template in which case then all you’re doing is just putting in and because of the scale, the scope of it, I do wonder whether actually the scale of it was bigger than for a 24 hour assignment personally

May re-enacts the exchange between lecturer and students. The quotative ‘I was like’ is used twice to introduce her refutation of the ‘real world’

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

137

argument (see, e.g. Myers, 1999). Her comments, e.g. ‘I don’t believe…’ indicate her thought processes perhaps, rather than what she actually said. She draws on her own work experience and uses the generalising ‘you’ to support her claim that this is what actually happens in a company. In summary, students seem to question the ‘real-life’ premise when they do not like an aspect of an assessment by either drawing on their own work experience as evidence to support their claim, questioning how the assignment relates to module content including theory or expressing confusion when assessment judgements differ between their teachers and industry. Perhaps in those cases, the link between module content and assessment had become more tenuous and students did not regard the elements labelled as developing employability as contributing to the most effective learning. This indicates the possible risk in using the ‘real-life’ premise as a rationale. 4.4.3.3 Rejecting the ‘Real-Life’ Premise Although all lecturers regard the programmes as preparation for a professional career, there is a different emphasis about how to do this. Some focus on the type of task, some on the skills being developed, some on the ability to articulate learning, some on the groupings, some on the ‘added-value’ elements or a combination of these. Some though reject the argument that assessment should reflect real life in the sense of doing those activities they might do at work. Mike discusses this explicitly and instead argues that they are preparing them and the focus should be on certain in-demand skills of analysis, problem-solving, argumentation and writing skills developed within the discipline. Although he supports his own employability task which gets students to demonstrate understanding by applying the detailed skills learned on the module in response to a job advert, he also rejects some of the aspects that come under employability: Interviewer:

Mike:

Interviewer:

yeah I’m probably thinking about the learning and teaching guidelines within [academic framework] which are more employability but I don’t understand this, you come there and you demonstrate that you go through a very clearly articulated defined way of thinking, isn’t this employability? yeah

138

S. HORROD

Mike: Interviewer: Mike:

so why do I need, you understand what, I think we got it wrong and we keep on doing it wrong and we are but certain assessments are LABELLED as employability but employability to me is a process of good thinking and developing an understanding, you develop this, why do you think (..) that most of the major [subject area] companies in the UK don’t employ graduates of [subject area] but they employ graduates from Oxbridge, because they say you’ve got a good way of thinking and solving problems

Using a perspectivisation strategy ‘to me’ and the topos of example of what top companies do, he redefines what he believes employability is. He also argues that group work has a place but this and other real-life practices such as presentations are over-used: Mike:

… but I think we are over-egging it on the main principle of this is what happens out there, there are lot of things that they happen out there that we are not doing here, like (..) you fail a module, you’re out of the course, we don’t do this, so we are preparing them, it’s not identical, so some of our colleagues say but this is what is happening … so the balance, I don’t think we’ve got the balance right, but has it got a point, place, yes but in the end the students need to stand on their own feet, when they go for a job, they’re only going to get the job not because they are part of a group, because they are on their own, once they are in there that’s different and if they are strong in themselves and they know how to use the skills that they got here to support themselves, well they’ll do well in a group, on the other hand if they’ve been hiding behind a group, they are going to fail irrespective

He uses the topos of example of students failing but still being on the course to illustrate that it is not meant to replicate real life and that the programme is about ‘preparing them, it’s not identical’ He also indicates disagreements with colleagues over assessment and pedagogy by shifting into the voices of others ‘so some of our colleagues say, but this is what is happening’. Although there is clear evidence of attempts to ‘embed

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

139

employability’ through ‘authentic tasks’, these accounts of differing views indicate disagreements over what to focus on in terms of course content and how to prepare students for the future.

4.5

The Issue of ‘Added Value’

Policy texts highlighted the need to provide ‘added value’ to the university experience indicating that the course alone is no longer enough to guarantee employability or to address media discourse around value for money. In interviews, lecturers view it as a necessity for the institution, and other lower-ranking universities, who need to offer something distinctive. An example of this is a professional diploma offered as part of the programme. Changes have been made so that both teaching and assessment of the diploma occur during the master’s programme, rather than only the teaching, thus encouraging higher completion levels. Below Sue presents the change as providing ‘added value’ by having a course that stands out in the market place: Sue:

… this gives us some distinctiveness (...) it’s a horribly crowded market as you know, why should a student pick us, well if we can position ourselves as offering some added value, that has real value to them on their CV, then that may influence choice so yes, we’re driven by the desire to make the [name of scheme] thing work

She also describes this added value in sales promotion terms: Sue:

yeah it’s a bit like saying here’s your BOGOF, here’s your buy one get one free, well if you don’t want your free one, that’s entirely up to you (laughing) … what you’ve paid for your master’s also gives you a professional qualification, so but really you know that aside, as I said, the old model of having this dissertation spreading over five months, they don’t need five months, it’s a sixty credit module, yeah, they have to collect primary data yeah, but it’s a bit like, the idea, the more time you give someone to do something, they’re still going to, the chances are they’re going to put all the effort in at the end

140

S. HORROD

The comments on the dissertation refer to the changes made to the programme not only to add more but to reorganise the content so that it is timely. The time for the dissertation was reduced to about six weeks. Sue also uses the metaphor of a ‘boot camp’ to describe short, sharp periods of time on particular elements with teaching swiftly followed by assessment: Sue:

we will have three boot camps … the only way they will work is if the students finish, have the teaching and finish the assessment before the next block starts, at the moment you see, assessments are trailing through, if I’m making sense, throughout the dissertation and throughout the [name of module element]

This is presented as producing better student results and satisfaction. However, it also somewhat contradicts the suggested approach of pushing assessment to the end outlined in the university’s framework. It is an example of a programme team presenting deviations from guidelines as responding to the needs of their students and the viability of the course. It is also a response to competition and to perceptions, for example, by the media, by students, of a lack of value for money. Mike reports a comment from a senior management person which addresses this perception: Mike:

he said, these people finish in May (...) they are not doing anything during the summer, why are they paying 12 months … then I was discussing this with some of my colleagues, I said well he’s got a point, this is not a part-time degree why don’t we make sure that at least from our side we say we occupy you 12 months

He suggests that this perception informed their decision to add more and reorganise the programme. This fits the notion that lower-ranking institutions believe they need to offer more in order to compete. The interview accounts testify to the centrality of the dilemma over what a university education is for and, therefore, what a degree programme should contain. Students come with an expectation of ‘practicality’ but take pride in the depth of their theoretical knowledge at the end of the course. Lecturer accounts demonstrate awareness of the competitive nature of the higher education market, differing views on

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

141

what ‘real life’ and ‘employability’ mean and the extent to which a master’s programme should be oriented to these. They illustrate the influence of certain learning & teaching policy agendas but also some people’s resistance to them.

4.6 Implications and Discussion: The Consequences of a Focus on Employability In this section, I discuss the findings on policy and what actually happens in the university in relation to Bernstein’s ideas but also link to wider discussions around the purpose of a higher education. 4.6.1

Bernstein’s View on Different Types of Subjects and the Influences on Curriculum

One of Bernstein’s (2000) concerns was the boundaries between categories, e.g. subjects and how permeable they were (his notion of classification). He suggested that subjects he labelled as ‘regions’ such as business studies were more likely to be open to other influences in the official and pedagogic ‘recontextualising fields’. In the institution in the study, classification seems fairly weak and boundaries between the subject, the department, the institution, professional bodies and other agencies are somewhat permeable. This is evident in the influence of those advocating for the institutional learning & teaching guidelines, the influence of professional bodies on the degrees and the broader influence of the market on providing added value through repackaging of course content. Business-related subjects are more oriented to the outside world so it is unsurprising that they would, for example, include professional qualifications or engage with real companies. Yet, the institution’s teaching and assessment practices go further in aligning with learning & teaching policy agendas and discourses around employability, authenticity, reflective selfdevelopment and added value and these ideas become ‘recontextualised’ into elements of the curriculum as evident in the analysis of interviews and assignments. Despite this embracing of learning & teaching policy agendas, I also found a strong focus on the discipline in the curriculum and assessments. Looking at the assignments and interview data, lecturers viewed a strong theory-research base to the courses as fundamental. Even assignments involving creative visual work, simulation games and reflective

142

S. HORROD

blogs were based on the application of concepts and frameworks and most required wide reading. Students expressed appreciation for this thorough grounding in the subject. For these postgraduates at least, accounts show students as prepared to engage in intellectual challenge through dealing with theory, an extensive literature and complex assessment practices while simultaneously enjoying some of the more ‘authentic’ elements such as ‘live’ briefs. Moreover, elements such as group work, live project briefs, simulation games, as well as the ‘added value’ of a professional qualification embedded into the course structure, can be seen as a more engaging, accessible way of connecting theory and practice and the importance of this should not be underestimated. This wide variety of assessment types is also found in lower-ranking universities in McLean et al. (2017) study of sociology at different universities in which they also advocated for the ‘quality’ of such courses. 4.6.2

The Ideological Character of Skills and the Focus on Self-Development

There is much debate about the appropriate focus and purpose of a university education (see, e.g. Collini, 2012; Barnett, 2013; Ashwin, 2020). Discussion often revolves around the balance between a focus on disciplinary knowledge and skills, the inclusion of so-called ‘generic’ skills and capabilities and the importance of other extra-curricular elements in order to produce ‘future-fit’ graduates ready for a workplace in which future requirements are ‘uncertain’. There is a difference between the notion of general employability skills and knowledge and skills that are developed within a subject area. Bernstein (2000) describes the former as ‘generic modes’ which promote an empty ‘trainability’. In the policy documents, these include reflection and articulation of learning, enhancing general work-related communication skills and, at its most vague, developing a positive attitude and self-confidence. These are evident in the university’s assessment approach. The generic skills described in the policy as competencies or capabilities are regarded as a transparent representation of actual skills needed rather than the ideological construction that they are (Moore, 2013). They resemble a ‘competence model’ by seeming to focus on learners’ self-development but are in fact focused on projection outwards towards future careers (Bernstein, 2000) and being able to tell employers about their skills (see Chapter 5). We could see this as a superficial attempt at transformation,

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

143

rather than an actual transformative process of changes in thinking or understanding. This aligns with Barnett’s (2011, p. 122) narrow characterisation of the ‘therapeutic university’ in which education helps students to deal with external or ‘ontological’ uncertainty about the future rather than ‘epistemological uncertainty’ or confusion regarded as part of the process of developing an understanding of knowledge. 4.6.3

Backgrounding Knowledge and Reducing a University Education to ‘Practice’

In the policy documents, the concept of employability encompassing general skills and attributes is foregrounded and the subject knowledge is mentioned, but backgrounded, with little discussion of the value of such knowledge as noted in McLean et al. (2017). The higher education experience is constructed as needing to ‘add value’ to the basic subject which is presented as just one element within university education. I argue that this backgrounding of the subject is detrimental. The theory–practice dichotomy can be problematised by arguing that both are needed in that the theory; in other words, an understanding of the discipline, forms the basis which can then be applied to real issues. From the perspective of a critical pedagogy for social justice, McArthur (2013) argues that reducing higher education to simply practice potentially stratifies the knowledge available to students with students in lower-ranking institutions possibly receiving a different kind of education. Similarly, McLean et al. (2017) suggest the importance of connecting disciplinary knowledge with topical issues but argue that developing powerful disciplinary knowledge is key and that departments should not allow ‘impoverished, skill-based employment-focused versions of university education’ (p. 214). In their comparison of four types of universities, the lower-ranking ‘Diversity’ maintains a strong disciplinary base but scaffolds and adapts to the students they have without diluting the subject. For the highly motivated postgraduates in my study, this is also broadly the case. For undergraduates, the over-focus on employability with its emphasis on generic skills may have detrimental effects. Signs of this appear in the institution at undergraduate level with some programmes including a significant generic skills’ module aimed at preparation for work placement and in other programmes, a lack of coherence due to numerous employability-related elements inserted in modules (see

144

S. HORROD

Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005 on the coherence issue). It is clear that those developing programme curricula are under pressure from influences deriving from policy agendas. The argument advanced in the policy texts, albeit mostly implicitly, is that the existence of structural inequalities in terms of educational and social background needs to be compensated for by this focus on employability. The implication is that lower-ranking universities need to address this more. Further, the policy documents tend to conflate an education being powerful and practical with it being ‘authentic’. A critical view sees such an appeal to authenticity through, for example, work-based learning, guest lecturers, live briefs, presentations etc. as a ‘lifestyle’ approach to study with the fun parts representing an idealised future career thus potentially deflecting from the hard work of learning (Haywood et al., 2011, p. 193). A more positive view is that these elements can engage students in their learning provided they do not become a substitute for engaging fully with disciplinary knowledge (see, e.g. Barnett, 2011 on Adorno’s ‘jargon of authenticity’). Innovation, engagement and a focus on disciplinary knowledge and skills are not mutually exclusive but the disciplinary part fades into the background in learning & teaching policy discourses. Together with authenticity, the discourse around ‘added value’ and packing extra elements into a student’s experience is a response to criticisms of universities around value for money and a response to the intense competition for students. However, it has the unfortunate impact of suggesting that the degree on its own is somehow devalued. It also undoubtedly adds to students’ anxiety about what they should be focusing on and the need to continually add to their skills, capabilities and self-development as evidenced in scrambles to find work placements or engage in activities that add to their CV.

4.7

Conclusion

This chapter has focused on what a university education should involve in terms of course content and the balance between the practical and theoretical. I have shown how policy discourses background disciplinary knowledge and highlight a nebulous ‘employability’ and ‘future-facing’, ‘flexible’ education. Exploration of interviews provides a more nuanced picture with a strong appreciation of disciplinary knowledge while

4

WHAT TO LEARN AND TEACH

145

showing the influence of learning & teaching policy agendas and the pressures of being part of a marketised education sector. The analysis speaks to fierce debates around what a university education should be. The next chapter looks at the topic of how the teaching and learning should be done; what policy says and what happens in practice.

Note 1. HEAR was introduced in 2008 to ‘provide a single comprehensive record of a learner’s achievement’. Includes the academic record and extra-curricular activities. Ninety higher education providers currently participate (HEAR, 2018).

References Ashwin, P. (2020). Transforming university education: A manifesto. Bloomsbury Academic. Barnett, R. (2011). Being a university. Routledge. Barnett, R. (2013). Imagining the university. Routledge. Bernstein, B. (1990). Class codes and control, Volume IV: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Routledge. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev. ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? Penguin. Haywood, H., Jenkins, R., & Molesworth, M. (2011). A degree will make all your dreams come true: Higher education as the management of consumer desires. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education: The student as consumer (pp. 183–195). Routledge. HEA (2012). A marked improvement: Transforming assessment in higher education. Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledgehub/marked-improvement. Accessed 15 June 2022. HEA. (2016). Framework for embedding employability in higher education. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/. Accessed 15 September 2016. HEAR. (2018). Higher education achievement report. https://www.advance-he. ac.uk/knowledge-hub/hear-higher-education-achievement-report. Accessed 20 September 2020. Jones-Devitt, S. (2020). Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Flexible learning. A guide to the Advance HE Framework. https://www.adv ance-he.ac.uk/advance-he-essential-frameworks-enhancing-student-success. Accessed 15 August 2022.

146

S. HORROD

Leedham, M. (2009). From traditional essay to ‘Ready Steady Cook’ presentation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(3), 191–206. https://doi. org/10.1177/1469787409343187 Macfarlane, B., & Gourlay, L. (2009). The reflection game: Enacting the penitent self. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), 455–459. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13562510903050244 McArthur, J. (2013). Rethinking knowledge within higher education: Adorno and social justice. Bloomsbury. McLean, M., Abbas, A., & Ashwin, P. (2017). Quality in undergraduate education: How powerful knowledge disrupts inequality. Bloomsbury Academic. Moore, R. (2013). Basil Bernstein: The thinker and the field. Routledge. Mulderrig, J. (2012). The hegemony of inclusion: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of deixis in education policy. Discourse & Society, 23(6), 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512455377 Myers, G. (1999). Functions of reported speech in group discussions. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 376–401. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.376 Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, I. (2005). Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 267–281. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108585 Pegg, A., Waldock, J., Wendy-Isaac, S. & Lawson, R. (2012). Pedagogy for employability. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac. uk/knowledge-hub/pedagogy-employability-2012. Accessed 15 September 2022. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2016). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed., pp. 23–61). Sage. Tibby, M. & Norton, S. (2020). Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Embedding employability: A guide to the Advance HE framework. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/advance-he-essential-fra meworks-enhancing-student-success. Accessed 15 September 2022. Van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17 (3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 Wodak, R., De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh University Press.

CHAPTER 5

HOW to Learn and Teach

5.1

Introduction

Why the focus on learning? Why the backgrounding of teaching? As I explore below, learning & teaching policy documents foreground learning and background teaching. The key themes discussed include the way that learning, as well as knowledge and power, are constructed as being socially situated and co-constructed while any notion of teaching is mainly absent or reduced to a light-touch ‘facilitation’. Wider debates over the nature of teaching are played out in lecturers’ accounts of their experiences teaching on the programmes and their considerable support for students. Lecturers’ accounts also provide a window into the continuous changes made in pedagogy in response to perceived problems, discussion around the extent to which teacher accreditation schemes contribute to pedagogy in the department and the need for a common pedagogical approach. I draw parallels with Bernstein’s (1990, 2000) notion of ‘visible’ and ‘invisible’ pedagogies, his own questioning of the use of a social-constructivist paradigm for ideological purposes and the implications for equity. I show how such policy portrayals of learning and teaching are a response to the perceived need to focus on the student experience and students’ engagement, give students more responsibility and highlight the ‘active learning’ of students. The consequences of the policy discourses around learning and teaching are that it diminishes any notion of teaching and relativises the expertise of teachers as well as the knowledge they have. I discuss the © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Horrod, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28038-2_5

147

148

S. HORROD

consequences of an excessive focus on learning and I conclude that such a diminishing of ‘teaching’ is particularly problematic for universities with a range of student abilities.

5.2 The Discourses of Learning & Teaching Policy: Learning as Socially Situated and Teaching as Facilitation This macro-strategy, or summary of all the discourse topics and discursive strategies, embodies the way that learning and teaching are constructed and is the result of the analysis of the six policy documents. At its core, learning, as well as knowledge and power, are constructed as being socially situated while any notion of teaching is backgrounded or downplayed. Table 5.1 has a summary of discourse topics and strategies across the six policy documents that relate to the construction of learning and teaching. Like other core chapters, the focus of analysis is on the HEA long policy discussion documents (2012–2014) but I finish by discussing the Advance HE 2020 frameworks. Common ‘discourse topics’ include ‘socially situated knowledge and learning’, ‘co-creation’, ‘active learning’ and ‘culture change’. Predications (descriptions) of learning include ‘transformative’, ‘active’, ‘experiential’, ‘reciprocal’, ‘peer’ and ‘social’. Pedagogic approaches are ‘futurefacing’, ‘twenty-first century’, ‘constructivist’, ‘inclusive’, ‘flexible’ and ‘radical’. These elements give a sense of the representations of learning and teaching in the policy texts elaborated on below. 5.2.1

Creating Absence and Presence: Backgrounding and Foregrounding

What is absent is as significant as what is present in the texts. The notions of teaching and teachers are largely absent from these texts on ‘pedagogy’. Teaching is generally only mentioned in the context of the phrase ‘learning and teaching’ or ‘learning, teaching and assessment’ and not discussed as an activity that teachers do. The phrase ‘learning & teaching’ reframes teaching as (a) an area of focus for universities in the same way as research and (b) as the domain of a centralised unit charged with improving its ‘quality’. Discussion of teaching as the embodied practices of an experienced, skilled, continuously evolving person is absent. What

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

149

Table 5.1 Learning as socially situated and teaching as facilitation: discourse topics and strategies from the six policy documents Learning as socially situated and teaching as facilitation Discourse Topics: - Knowledge and learning as socially-constructed/socially-situated - Knowledge situated in communities - Co-creation of knowledge and institution itself - Student autonomy - Peer learning - Social learning

- Active learning; experiential learning; enquiry-based learning - Reflection - Transformative learning - Higher-order learning - Authenticity of tasks - Assessment for learning - High impact practices; signature pedagogies; threshold concepts - Radical pedagogy

- Difficult transitions - Questioning our own assumptions - Beliefs, practices being situated within personal, cultural and national context - Openness to change

Strategies (functional)

Discursive strategies

Means of realisation (with examples)

Legitimation and delegitimation of approaches to learning & teaching Delegitimation of teaching as an activity/of teachers

Nominations—lecturers as facilitators

Nouns etc. describing role of lecturers e.g. facilitators, intermediaries

Predications

Positive adjectives e.g. of learning: active, experiential, reciprocal, socially-constructed Of approaches: cutting edge, innovative, constructivist, inclusive, radical Of knowledge: co-created, situated, negotiated Negative/positive structures: didactic teaching versus facilitation and coaching Quantifiable outcomes versus the unknown Detailed assessment criteria and outcomes versus standards

Topos of opposites e.g. traditional versus new

(continued)

150

S. HORROD

Table 5.1 (continued) Strategies (functional)

Discursive strategies

Means of realisation (with examples)

Topos of social-constructivism

Knowledge is socially constructed / learning is socially-situated [warrant] SO supports argument for: - Active learning; dialogue; authentic tasks; group work; reflection on experience; use of student knowledge as resource; student involvement in SoTL; radical change But absence of discussion of role of a ‘teacher’/expertise of teacher/teaching uncertainty about future used as basis for arguing the positives of complexity & unexpected outcomes e.g. rhizomatic learning

Topos of uncertainty

is present is the focus on learning, pedagogic approaches and techniques and the learning community. The over arching theme that teaching and teachers are backgrounded, but also knowledge itself, is developed further through two key discursive strategies. 5.2.2

Invoking a ‘Paradigm’: Topos of Social Constructivism

Prevalent in the six policy documents is the idea that learning and knowledge are socially constructed/situated. Although approaches derived from social-constructivist models of learning appear to be a general trend (e.g. Illeris, 2017), a focus on the socially constructed aspect of learning has attracted comment (O’Connor, 2020) and criticism regarding the potential decentring of knowledge and teachers (Bernstein, 2000; McLean et al., 2017). I suggest there is a topos of social-constructivism which acts as a warrant to underpin claims regarding approaches to learning & teaching. I argue it is a discursive strategy, rather than simply a prevailing paradigm, because it has an ideological purpose: to position students

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

151

and teachers in particular ways as a response to perceived problems. Such representations conveniently align with the need to counteract the positioning of students as passive consumers of their education. This construction of learning informs proposals in all policy documents: a focus on assessment for learning, dialogue about standards and dialogic feedback in Assessment; active/experiential learning and reflection in Employability; ‘partnership learning communities’ in Partnership; critically reflecting on own and others’ situated assumptions and values in Internationalisation and Flexibility; notions of ‘the situated nature of education’ in Flexibility and the role of ‘learning communities’ in student retention in Access. This notion of being ‘socially situated’/ ‘socially constructed’ in relation to learning, knowledge and power is stated explicitly but usually not explained or justified. The following sections focus on these constructions of learning, knowledge and power and the implications for portrayals of teaching and teachers. 5.2.2.1 Learning as Socially Constructed/Situated Besides the explicit references to learning as socially situated/socially constructed, policy descriptions of learning and pedagogic approaches fit this view. Predications attached to learning such as ‘active’, ‘experiential’ and ‘social’ are widespread. Learning is constructed as occurring through learners’ engaging with tasks, interacting with others, reflecting and constructing knowledge by building on existing knowledge and experience. This ties in with the stated evolution of conceptualisations of education from teaching to learning (Barr & Tagg, 1995), to discovery and inquiry (attributed to Hodge et al., 2008, quoted in Healey et al., 2014, p. 41) moving on a trajectory which gives students increasing responsibility. The texts propose that students are actively involved not only in their learning but also in curriculum development, pedagogic research and improving ‘teaching quality’ (see Chapter 3 for a discussion of this expanded role). A widespread discursive strategy to construct this vision of learning and teaching is the topos of opposites (cf. the ‘contrastive topos of comparison’ in Wodak et al., 2009, p. 39) (see also Chapter 2.4.5.2) in which supposed ‘opposites’ or binaries are contrasted to demonstrate good and bad practice. Existing approaches or those not promoted within the policy documents attract negative descriptions such as ‘traditional’,

152

S. HORROD

‘didactic’, ‘lecture-based’ and ‘instruction’ in contrast to the positivesounding ‘facilitation and coaching’ and ‘action learning’; for example, in the Employability document: Constructivist (i.e. active or experiential) approaches to learning and teaching are well aligned with this process and develop employability because they encourage exploration, provide feedback and develop reflection, motivation and engagement. Examples include experiments, field trips/observations, games, model-building, role plays, simulations and surveys. Their benefits have been well documented … and are often used successfully in conjunction with a range of more traditional styles. Lecture-based teaching methods are still important in developing theoretical and abstract contextual knowledge. Action learning approaches necessitate a move away from didactic instructional approaches to teaching methods based on facilitation and coaching, involving difficult transitions for both teachers and students who are schooled in the more traditional methods. (Pegg et al., 2012, p. 32)

This example simplistically contrasts constructivist approaches with lecture-based methods as if they are polar opposites. This is reinforced by the topos of challenge in ‘difficult transitions’ in which change is positive and those constructed as reluctant to change, especially academics, are evaluated negatively; a strategy evident across the texts. 5.2.2.2 Knowledge as Socially Constructed/Situated The topos of social-constructivism is used in relation to knowledge and disciplinary knowledge is backgrounded. Instead, pedagogic approaches/techniques and student skills/capabilities/attitudes are highlighted. Discussion of assessment in the policy texts provides a clear example of this. In the Assessment document, assessment standards are described as socially constructed; specifically, within disciplinary discourse communities leading to ‘Tenet 3: Recognising that assessment lacks precision’ and ‘Tenet 4: Constructing standards in communities’: Assessment standards are socially constructed so there must be a greater emphasis on assessment and feedback processes that actively engage both staff and students in dialogue about standards … For effective learning and assessment to take place there must be an acceptance of differing interpretations and understandings. (HEA, 2012, p. 20)

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

153

While recognising the interpretive/subjective dimension to assessment in terms of the assessor, the impression given by the ‘acceptance of differing interpretations’ and ‘lacks precision’ is to downplay the notion of a body of disciplinary knowledge (see Shay, 2008) and to question the expertise of lecturers in assessment. Students’ knowledge and experiences as important learning resources are highlighted and in Internationalisation, staff are encouraged to critically reflect on their own, and others, beliefs, attitudes and practices ‘as situated within personal, cultural and national contexts’ (HEA, 2014, p. 10). While teaching clearly involves engaging with students’ experiences and resources, the policy texts move into relativising the role of disciplinary knowledge and lecturer knowledge and expertise. Predications such as ‘co-created’ and ‘reciprocal’ are applied to learning and knowledge. Reciprocity and mutual benefit are exemplified in the idea of students’ involvement in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) through curriculum design and pedagogic consultancy (part of the Partnership model) (Healey et al., 2014, p. 25). The discourses in the policy texts present greater involvement in these areas as unproblematic. The impression given is that teachers have no special knowledge or expertise that cannot be quickly acquired. A common discursive strategy employed to support this construction of knowledge is the topos of uncertainty in which future uncertainty means that it is not known which skills will be needed. As discussed in Chapter 4, this underpins the notion of ‘employability’ with its various conceptualisations/models leading to a preference for generic attributes such as a ‘positive attitude’ (Employability) or ‘transformative capabilities’ (Flexibility) rather than specific knowledge or skills. A more extreme example of this focus on uncertainty and its implications for knowledge, presented as a potentially ‘transformative learning experience’, is ‘rhizomatic learning’: …knowledge can only be negotiated, and the contextual, collaborative learning experience shared by constructivist and connectivist pedagogies is a social as well as a personal knowledge-creation process… (Cormier, 2012, quoted in Healey et al., 2014, p. 52)

The argument is that it ‘helps to prepare students for working with uncertainty and complexity in the future’ (p. 52). Neither the implications for pedagogy nor the contexts in which it may be appropriate

154

S. HORROD

are discussed except for one example of postgraduate educational technology students creating their own curriculum. Knowledge is detached from people and lecturers’ role is simply to ‘sign-post’ knowledge: students … combining their own blogs with knowledge sign-posted by tutors and engaging in discussions with professionals within the tutors’ networks. In this way, the tutors enable an entry point into a professional learning community. (Cormier, 2008, quoted in Healey et al., 2014, p. 52)

Here lecturers become intermediaries between students and the world of work and any notion of teaching or even facilitating learning is absent. While rhizomatic learning is less discussed across the documents, the use of future uncertainty as the rationale for a focus on generic capabilities/skills or ‘generic modes’ (Bernstein, 2000), rather than knowledge, is widespread. 5.2.2.3 Power as Socially Constructed/Situated Predications such as ‘situated’ are also applied to power. The following extract from the Partnership document discusses the possible consequences of a focus on active ‘co-creation’ in a partnership approach: In many cases this may involve staff relinquishing a level of control, for example, over pedagogic planning and curriculum content, which may cause discomfort … It may be prudent to anticipate potential resistance to partnership by providing space for colleagues to explore and reflect on this … [and] the situated nature of power. For example, a sabbatical officer from a students’ union may sit on more high-level university committees than a senior lecturer, and have access to different forms of influence. (Healey et al., 2014, p. 32)

Here the negative ‘discomfort’ and ‘resistance’ are linked to lecturers, again positioning them as reluctant to change. The example of a single (and non-typical) student draws on the topos of example to suggest that if students have more power in that sense, they should have more power over their learning. The text uses the NUS’s own manifesto for partnership as support: ‘investing students with the power to co-create, not just knowledge or learning but the higher education institution itself’ (NUS, 2012, p. 8 cited in Healey et al., 2014, p. 14). A prevailing theme across the documents is the need to break down boundaries and, for example, from the Flexibility document, ‘fracture hierarchies between educators

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

155

and learners’ (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 26) (see Chapter 3 for further discussion of partnership). While elements of this aim are positive, the policy presents academics negatively as wanting to cling on to their status and ‘power’ and not having special expertise which might warrant any claim to a ‘status’. 5.2.2.4 Teaching as Facilitation Such a vision has implications for notions of teaching. The superiority of ‘facilitation’ over ‘instruction’ is suggested in Flexibility: the balance between instruction and facilitation is being revisited in fundamental ways … with implications for pedagogical dynamics and the learner-educator relationship. (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 14)

Although suggested as new, the roots of facilitation go back to Dewey, the term facilitator popularised by Rogers and discussed by Bruner and Freire (Aubrey & Riley, 2019). While Dewey discusses the teacher’s important role and Vygotsky and Bruner the concept of scaffolding and its role in students’ learning, this is largely absent from the documents. Despite being texts about pedagogy, approaches and techniques are foregrounded and the teacher’s role backgrounded with the implication that they effortlessly ‘facilitate learning’. These discursive strategies enable the legitimation of active/experiential/collaborative learning as well as specific activities such as group projects and reflective assignments. These encapsulate the student ‘busyness’ noted by O’Connor (2020) but downplay teacher involvement in making these work (see Sect. 5.3 below). The issue with such activities is not with their potential benefit but the lack of critical evaluation, the suggestion of originality and especially the backgrounding of any notion of teaching. All these strategies contribute to the portrayal of teachers and teaching in a deficit way: academics do not teach but simply facilitate, they do not possess special knowledge or expertise and any authority or ‘power’ they have is limited and not warranted anyway. 5.2.3

Invoking Key Education Thinkers: Topos of Authority

To recap, a topos is a warrant underpinning a claim. In the case of ‘authority’, particular actors/agencies are invoked as authoritative voices to support proposals. Sometimes, this is a group such as employers

156

S. HORROD

(see Chapter 4) or students (see Chapter 3); here it is specific education thinkers from the past. As noted above, learning is constructed as democratic, learner-centred and transformative. Prominent thinkers in education whose ideas might seem to align with such a vision of learning such as Dewey, Freire, Lave & Wenger, Vygotsky and Mezirow are used as support for the proposals and explicitly cited in several of the documents. Further, many of the core concepts around pedagogy in the HEA documents, such as active learning, discovery, facilitation, learner empowerment and co-creation, appear to have their theoretical origins in a range of these works. To illustrate these thinkers’ influence on the construction of learning, I discuss three of the ‘six new pedagogical ideas’ from the Flexibility document most relevant to my focus on constructions of learning and teaching (in bold below) and make further links to the other five texts since the principles underpinning the six ideas, and reference to these thinkers, feature across the six policy documents. ‘new pedagogical ideas’ for the future of an increasingly ‘flexible’ HE which offer new pathways for graduate attributes or capabilities: 1. learner empowerment 2. future-facing education 3. decolonising education 4. transformative capabilities 5. crossing boundaries 6. social learning(Adapted from Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 5)

Learner empowerment 1. learner empowerment—actively involving students in learning development and processes of ‘co-creation’ that challenge learning relationships and the power frames that underpin them, as part of the revitalisation of the academic project itself; (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 5)

Many of the constructions of learning such as democratic, learnercentred, community of learning, whole person approaches, utilising students’ experiences, reflection on experience seem to have their theoretical origins in Dewey’s work (e.g. Dewey, 1916/1966). Dewey’s ideas provide these underpinning principles advocated in the policy documents and then specific pedagogic approaches are attached to them. For example, his work, and Freire’s, on learning communities are invoked as the inspiration

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

157

for the ‘partnership learning communities’ proposed in the Partnership document: The theoretical and philosophical foundations of learning communities are attributed to the work of Dewey and Meiklejohn around the Experimental College in Wisconsin in the 1920s, and informed by the dialogic model of educational practice advocated by Paulo Freire in the 1970s (Price 2005). (Healey et al., 2014, p. 26)

The policy documents’ ‘partnership learning communities’ subsume the role and expertise of the teacher within a broader community of participants (see Chapter 3) and advocate the increased contribution of students to curriculum development and raising ‘teaching quality’. In addition to this link to learning communities and dialogic practice, Freire is drawn upon in connection with policy ideas presented as ‘radical’ and different. The spirit of ‘radical’ change and ‘transformation’ is invoked in Assessment in which a ‘radical reshaping of assessment’ is outlined (HEA, 2014, p. 9). Freire’s specific notion of ‘co-investigation’ by students and teachers, in the context of raising student consciousness for emancipatory purposes, provides a clear inspiration for reciprocal learning and the ‘cocreation’ concept evident in the ‘learner empowerment’ definition above and throughout the policy documents: The students—no longer docile listeners—are now critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher. (Freire, 1970/1996, p. 62)

‘Co-creation’ is now ubiquitous in learning & teaching agendas, funding applications and university websites and clearly fits the notion of socially constructed learning and knowledge discussed above. However, this concept is diluted from Freire’s conceptualisation as it usually concerns any ‘co-creation’ activity with students and omits the emancipatory aims. An example is the following extract from the Flexibility document which despite mentioning ‘critical education discourses’ and ‘learner empowerment’ articulates the need for this as a response to the ‘new HE landscape’; again alluding to the need to engage students in a context of fees and competition: The learner empowerment theme recognises that the most innovative experimentation taking place in this area is geared more towards models of

158

S. HORROD

‘co-creation’. Such models challenge the authority of the expert educator and make space for an enhanced contribution from the learner, by changing the dynamics of learning interactions as well as confronting the power frames that underpin the academic project as a whole, drawing on insights from critical education discourses. Its centrality among these six pedagogical themes is shown in the different ways it is reflected across them, taking cues from the diversity of learner cohorts and profiles in the new HE landscape. (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 15)

Policy’s use of this concept can also be critiqued for the way it backgrounds academics’ expertise in relation to students’ and for its clear attempt to combat the ‘student as consumer’ narrative. Transformative capabilities 4. transformative capabilities—creating an educational focus beyond an emphasis solely on knowledge and understanding, towards agency and competence, using pedagogies guided by engaged, ‘whole-person’ and transformative approaches to learning. (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 5)

The predication ‘transformative’ is widespread across the documents; especially in Flexibility and Partnership. In the former, ‘transformative capabilities’ takes the concept of ‘transformative learning’ ‘building on the work of Bateson (1972) and Mezirow (2000)’ (quoted in Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 22) and combines it with the capability or competence element which aligns with generic abilities and attitudes discussed as key to an employability model in Employability. Instead of a focus on ‘transformative’ knowledge and expertise, there is an emphasis on a nebulous, generic capability/ability discussed in Chapter 4. This draws on education thinkers’ ideas but changes the focus towards generic skills and capabilities and learning towards a personal self-development process. Social learning 6. social learning—developing cultures and environments for learning that harness the emancipatory power of spaces and interactions outside the formal curriculum, particularly through the use of new technologies and co-curricular activities. (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 5)

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

159

Key influences for this are outlined: scholarship in ‘social learning’ concerned with the social and cultural contexts and influences upon learning, drawing on thinkers such as Vygotsky, Habermas, Kolb and Wenger. (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 26)

The social aspect of learning is highlighted across the documents and Lave, Wenger and Vygotsky are frequently invoked. Aside from the partnership learning communities with their focus on co-creation, other social aspects of these communities are highlighted. Sometimes, the focus is on ‘belonging’, for example, in Access and Partnership, sometimes it is on the learning happening beyond formal spaces of learning such as in Flexibility or the co/extra-curricular activities in Employability. Clearly, this concept also aligns with a socially situated notion of learning with learning happening in a variety of spaces and through interaction with others. This brief review of the three ideas illustrates the emphasis on activities and spaces beyond the curriculum, expertise beyond the teacher and acquiring capabilities rather than disciplinary knowledge. This runs through the six policy documents, invoking key radical thinkers in the process, as part of the construction of the proposed ‘revitalisation’ of university education. Besides not being ‘new’, these portrayals represent a partial picture of those thinkers’ ideas. Dewey advocated a more democratic model of education and discussed teachers ‘facilitating learning’ but also argued that the teacher’s role ‘rather than being diminished becomes more multifaceted, intricate and learner-centred’ (Irwin, 2012, quoted in Aubrey & Riley, 2019). Similarly, while Freire (1970/1996) described students as ‘critical co-investigators’, he argues that teachers have a clear directional role. The significance of the use of these thinkers is what is used and why. While the appropriation (and recontextualising) of these ideas offers a seemingly positive, radical, transformative and learner-centred portrayal of learning which fits the need to encourage student engagement and counteract any notion of passive consumers, it also contributes to the absence of teaching, teachers and knowledge in policy. These constructions of learning and teaching provide the basis for the ‘innovative’ approaches and techniques that form a major part of the policy documents.

160

S. HORROD

5.2.4

Pedagogy as a Process of Continuous Improvement

In Chapter 4, I discussed the focus of courses and notions of ‘added value’ and the ‘real-life’ (theory/practice) debate and the response to market needs. In Chapter 6, I discuss how policy ideas are recontextualised including how learning and teaching agendas influence course practices on an ongoing basis. Here, I want to address the overarching notion of ‘continuous improvement’; particularly in relation to students’ role in this since this relates to the constructions of learning and teaching above. The policy documents talk a lot about transformation. Related to this, ‘continuous improvement’ is constructed as part of a partnership learning community’s practices with an emphasis on students’ role: … they work together with academics to enhance teaching, assure quality and maintain standards … they understand themselves as active partners with academic staff in a process of continual improvement of the learning experience. (Ramsden 2008, p. 16, cited in Healey et al., 2014, p. 26)

Implied in this predication ‘continual’ is that what exists is never good enough. Of course, it seems uncontroversial that teachers aim to continuously enhance their practice and the courses they work on (see Chapter 6 for lecturer views on this). However, the focus on students making this happen is more controversial. Aligned with this continuous improvement involving students is the notion of ‘co-creation’ discussed above. Students and academics are seen as co-creating the curriculum, the learning experience and any improvements in ‘teaching quality’. To summarise this macro-strategy, learning is portrayed as socially constructed and teaching is absent or presented as light-touch facilitation. Some of the key discourse topics and discursive strategies from the six policy documents constructing this vision of learning and teaching are summarised in Table 5.1. 5.2.5

Advance HE Frameworks on ‘How’ to Teach and Learn

In terms of the 2020 Advance HE frameworks, we see the same agendas and models on flexible learning, partnership, assessment etc. although the underpinning view of learning is less explicit (see Chapter 6 for an overview of changes between the longer discussion documents and short frameworks). The partnership model in AHE-EFSS-Partnership-2020

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

161

framework has a few changes from the 2014 document with the 2020 version highlighting the ‘partnership in the enhancement of learning and teaching’ and ‘learning, teaching and research partnerships’ (Healey & Healey, 2020, p. 4) thereby aligning with the discourse about students ‘driving up teaching quality’.

5.3 Time-Consuming, Extensive Support for Students: Interviews with Lecturers In this section, I examine constructions of learning and teaching from lecturers’ points of view, the presence or absence of the macro-strategy ‘learning as socially situated and teaching as facilitation’ and how particular topics or strategies are recontextualised at the level of practices. I argue that in the interview data there is a clear focus on the complexity and time-consuming nature of supporting postgraduate students, particularly with the assessment process, which counters any notion of a light-touch ‘facilitation’. 5.3.1

‘Socially Situated/Socially Constructed Learning’

Interviews with students described in Chapter 3 show that group work was a source of tension but also a place of learning for some. It was also clear that informal groups, sometimes of same-nationality students, provided a support network and means of consolidating learning. Students also evidently had a wide range of experience to bring to the programme whether from work experience as practitioners, subjectrelated learning or cultural knowledge. In this sense, it is clear that learning is constructed through interaction and as a result of the context. Classes often provided opportunities to apply knowledge, share experience and engage in practising skills and were often interactive and innovative in their approach. For example, it was clear from interviews that some lecturers were familiar with innovative pedagogical approaches, notions such as facilitation and embraced occasional student-led classes. In the following extract, Karen uses the nomination ‘facilitator’ to describe her role in a particular student-led activity and supports this with an explanation of how the activity worked using direct speech representation, e.g. ‘explain what you’ve read…’ to do so:

162

S. HORROD

Karen:

and for the classes … I’m just completely a facilitator, that’s it, the slides don’t even go on, you know, it’s into groups, explain what you’ve read so far to the colleagues you’re with, they might be strangers in some cases, because they jumble them up all over the place and then (..) explain your reading, identify where you’re starting to spot contradictions in the literature, things that people agree, so that is complete preparation for the final piece.

Yet, in the activity referred to in the above extract, this still required work in setting up, was heavy on ‘literature’ and was designed to make the assignment easier to handle. In other words, teaching did not play a minor role; quite the opposite. There was a lot of input from theory, literature, lecturers’ own experience as former practitioners and the nurturing of ways of thinking and analysis appropriate to the subject as discussed further in Sect. 5.3.3. 5.3.2

‘Students Contribution to Improving Teaching Quality’

The policy documents discuss the notion of ‘continuous improvement’ in pedagogy including the idea of ‘students improving teaching quality’. In the programmes in this study, while students have opportunities to give feedback, some of which may influence modifications to practices, there is no evidence of student involvement in actively developing the curriculum or in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). Instead, lecturers’ interviews demonstrate their commitment to continually reviewing practices and the amount of thought that goes into teaching and assessment as elaborated on below. 5.3.3

The Myth of Effortless ‘Facilitation’

As we saw in Chapter 4, assessments were complex often with multiple stages, a mix of writing and presentations, applying theory to practice, some with the involvement of companies and frequently requiring group work. This not only requires careful setting up but lecturer support through the process in terms of responding to student queries, liaising with companies and clarifying requirements for the different genres of assignments (see Chapter 4 for detail on the diversity of assignments). All lecturers discuss the extensive support in guiding students through the

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

163

complex assessments. They also discuss, in different ways, the challenges that many students face and that despite there being some incredibly able students, there are weaker students who struggle with an intensive master’s programme whether due to lack of maturity, work experience, limited ability to think critically or work autonomously or language issues. In the extract below, John constructs the innovative assessments, in this case, a ‘live’ assignment involving a company, as requiring substantial lecturer support and suggests a possible return to simpler types of assignment: John:

Interviewer: John: Interviewer: John:

if we’re going to be carrying on with students like this we should move away from a conventional master’s model to a (...) To what? well to basically question answer essays or something like that where they can just use a textbook and … do they involve too much work for you, for the students? well this year I had to do a lot of work for them and I found for the first time in my life I was actually going out to do the project for them and they just didn’t seem to appreciate that at all or understand what was actually needed of them, they sat there just taking and yet not even using some of the stuff, they just could not see (..) what was (.) yeah … there’s no relevance here (laugh) you see what I mean

His involvement is evident in the frequent use of ‘I’ and the intensification in ‘for the first time in my life’, ‘actually’ and ‘they just didn’t seem’ and his frustration is evident in the metaphorical ‘they sat there just taking’ and intensification ‘yet not even using’. Although presented as an unusually difficult year, he also indicates some continuing issues in ‘if we’re going to be carrying on with students like this’. He constructs some students as risk-averse and unused to such autonomy. While this example simply illustrates a snapshot of a challenging year on one module with one cohort, it does outline potential risks in designing challenging forms of learning and such challenges are corroborated by other lecturers. For example, several lecturers mention the language level of some students and this is the first aspect mentioned by Laura in response to my question about whether students lack any skills to deal with their master’s:

164

S. HORROD

Laura:

one of the most challenging things actually unfortunately comes back to what you’re dealing with, which is the English (…) and I think (..) they can get by maybe for assignments because (..) either they work in groups or it’s not a very long assignment or whatever. When they get to the dissertation, they really struggle the ones with poor English, really really struggle and that I think, we do them a, cos you know it’s been a long time debate, that (..) it’s not fair on them, it’s not fair on the supervisor, they spend a long time trying to help them but there are some cases where you can’t so yes, to a certain extent, yes we do correct the English (laugh) help our students but then there are some cases where it’s impossible because it’s so sort of major.

Through the intensification of ‘really really struggle’ and the generalising impersonal you ‘some cases where you can’t’, Laura indicates the scale of the issue when it comes to dissertations. Two of the lecturers also criticise the institutional policy of lowering the IELTS English language test requirement needed to enter the master’s. Several also mention the difficulties some students have in dealing with the audiences of assignments and/or the ‘hybrid’ genres; the former in terms of distinguishing between expectations of companies and expectations of lecturers for the ‘live’ assignments (see Chapter 4) or the latter in terms of making what seems to students like a professional genre suitably academic in style. The following interaction illustrates the challenges for students in dealing with assignments that seem more professional but are actually academic in content. Here, we are discussing the writing style of a sample marked assignment from a normally very high-scoring student: Karen:

Interviewer: Karen:

…because it’s a briefing it’s an ____ paper and it’s very clear who the audience is, it’s the ____ director, now you could say well the ____ director will be quite happy with a journalistic style but I think what I probably, at the back of my mind, I’m preparing them for the dissertation where really that wouldn’t be appropriate and it’s a really hard one to balance because you want them to sound at least to sound interesting and engaging but at the same time do you tell them about the style then? yeah yeah I do have when we do the thematic analysis grid there’s a little bit of stuff on and when I do the

5

Interviewer: Karen:

Interviewer: Karen:

Interviewer:

Karen:

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

165

session for the undergraduates on the literature review for the undergraduate dissertation one of slides is all about .. but there’s one thing saying and another thing doing it isn’t there (laughing)? so when it comes to this one you say the style should be academic? Yeah but not dry I mean I think it’s such a hard balance, it’s a real skill to get something that’s really interesting and engaging but at the same time ... yeah but questions like what do ___ and ___ have in common, well you know don’t like questions? I don’t mind questions but that is just a little bit like chatting on the bus isn’t it (laugh) So you know I guess what I wouldn’t ever do I don’t think I’d alter a total grade band or anything but tends to come under the general comments ok that’s very interesting about the way that something that can be a dry literature review has become something more meaningful to the students so perhaps we do need to guide them cos you’re right it is charting a pathway through and perhaps the rules are not quite as overt

This interaction indicates the tension between setting up assignments so that they are engaging and are authentic of ‘real life’ (see Chapter 4) but being simultaneously academic and preparing students for the demands of the dissertation. This challenge is evident in Karen’s ‘it’s a really hard one to balance’ and her recognition of students’ possible confusion in the mitigated ‘perhaps the rules are not quite as overt’. This illustrates the challenges for lecturers in creating such hybrid, innovative assessments and then conveying expectations to students. It also shows the amount of scaffolding that students require. One lecturer reflects several times in the interview on the challenges of trying to develop good practices in students who are coming without some of the necessary thinking and writing skills. This is evident in the extract below about the need to not ‘over-complicate’ teaching and return to the fundamentals of developing analytical thinking and argumentation: Mike:

… we are looking to embed good practice and good habits into the students, and we forget this and then we become (.) FE and

166

S. HORROD

we become … when they go and do practice in a company, apprenticeship, that’s not what we’re here for, if you want to, that’s not what, even if you do drawing, you really need to learn the good practices of drawing and do things, so I think we lose that because we tried to over-complicate, I’ll be happy not to have module handbooks, to have nothing and say you must be analytical, critical, you need to, these are the core things that the students need to demonstrate

Here Mike uses the analogy of drawing as support for his point about learning the fundamental skills. Interviews with lecturers show how much thought is put into designing assessments and classroom tasks and how much work goes into supporting students. They also show that ‘teaching’ is a complex endeavour. It is not simply about ‘lecturing’ and delivering content. It does involve interaction and drawing on the resources/experience of students so they can connect theory to practice. It involves nurturing relevant analytical skills through the careful design of activities and feedback. The policy documents tend to simplify between didactic instruction and facilitation of learning giving the impression that there is little ‘teaching’ going on and backgrounding the role of the teacher. I discuss the consequences of this in the following sections.

5.4 Implications and Discussion: The Reasons for, and Consequences of, Backgrounding Teaching In this section, I start by considering how Bernstein’s ideas on pedagogy are relevant to the representations of learning and teaching in the policy documents. I then discuss the reasons for this portrayal of teaching and learning and the consequences. 5.4.1 Bernstein’s Concepts of Framing, Visible and Invisible Pedagogies, Pedagogic Identities and their Relevance to Policy Constructions and Practice 5.4.1.1 Framing For Bernstein (2000), framing involves control over the ‘how’ of pedagogic discourse; in other words, how learning and teaching are done in terms of, for example, selection of content and pacing. Framing

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

167

also concerns how learners, teachers and relations between them are constructed. In Chapter 3 I touched on Bernstein’s notion of pedagogic identities and here I elaborate on this in terms of how the portrayals of learning and teaching impact these identities. As noted above, policy documents construct learning as socially constructed/socially situated and transformative employing the language of radical, democratic, learner-centred approaches to learning and invoking key education thinkers’ ideas as support for the proposals. The notion of teaching and a teacher’s expertise is largely absent from the documents. This suggests ‘weak framing’ regarding relations since learners are presented as having more control over their learning and relations are democratic. This is explicitly presented in HEA policy documents as a solution to counter a transmission concept of education and the assumed lack of student engagement that accompanies it and to counter the ‘student as consumer’ narrative. 5.4.1.2

Visible and Invisible Pedagogies and the Notion of Pedagogic Identities Bernstein’s (2000) concept of visible and invisible pedagogies is useful in discussing such policy constructions. Further, the value of the notion of pedagogic identities was outlined in Sect. 2.2.5 and touched on in Chapter 3. I focus on the two ‘de-centred’ identities which are de-centred (market or instrumental) [neoliberal] and de-centred (therapeutic) [professional] since they are recognisable in learning & teaching policy. Here, I connect these pedagogic identities with visible and invisible pedagogies and discuss both how learning & teaching policy construct them and what happens in practice. The way that learning is represented in learning & teaching policy aligns with a ‘competence mode’ of learning or invisible pedagogy whereby pedagogy is invisible to the learner and instead there is a focus on development within the learner, a discovery approach and the teacher as facilitator of this process. In the policy documents, teaching is indeed invisible despite research showing that higher education predominantly engages in visible pedagogy and a performance model with clear outcomes (Bernstein, 2000). This invisibility may sound unlikely given that these are documents about how to ‘do’ learning & teaching and are meant to be guides for practice. However, it is the portrayal of learning, and lack of portrayal of teaching, that suggests this invisibility of pedagogy to the learner and indeed the reader of these documents.

168

S. HORROD

I also see a link between such policy portrayals and Bernstein’s (2000) notion of a ‘therapeutic’ identity. This is described as progressive, a means of invisible control with a focus on non-specialised, flexible thinking and teamwork operating through a soft management style, with hierarchies and power disguised by interpersonal relations (Bernstein, 2000). It is also concerned with ‘introjection’ rather than ‘projection’ outwards. A salient point about the therapeutic identity is that ‘the concept of self is crucial and the self is regarded as a personal project’ (Bernstein, 2000, p. 73). This focus on self-development and continuous improvement, through reflection, articulation of learning and developing the right attitudes and competencies, is part of the construction of the purpose of a higher education in policy (see Chapter 4) as well as an underlying message for academics. This sounds like a competence model or invisible pedagogy and this view is supported by Ensor (2004) in her study of changes to higher education curricula in South Africa. Bernstein suggests this model is not common due to its high costs and difficulties in measuring outcomes. However, I believe there are recognisable elements of this identity, relating to the focus on self, lack of hierarchies and teamwork within the policy documents (see Chapter 3). Bernstein’s work highlighted the ideological character of earlier approaches which seemed to relativise knowledge or expertise; for example, in progressive education in the 1970s with its focus on learning occurring naturally and more recent approaches based on ‘competencies’ presented as a ‘transparent representation’ of skills (Moore, 2013, p. 161). Here, we have a form of social-constructivist learning portrayed in policy where the emphasis is on the learner and their learning. Like the progressive movement in the 1970s in the UK, it draws attention away from knowledge, teachers and teaching in this case under the guise of developing employability skills, transformative capabilities and learner self-development. Bernstein’s critique of progressive education in the 1970s was partly directed at this notion of invisible pedagogy. The student’s identity as a knower was noted by Bernstein: In the case of invisible pedagogic practice it is as if the pupil is the author of the practice and even the authority. (Bernstein, 2000, p. 110)

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

169

His point was that the teacher/learner relationship still existed but was designed to be less visible to the learner or was even denied in more ‘progressive’ approaches. He argued that there is an issue of equity since the problem arises for the groups of students who need more support and may not know where problems lie (Moore, 2013). Denying that teachers as knowers have a role, or that teaching is occurring at all, is to the detriment of these learners. This was primarily discussed in terms of ‘class’ differences in learners. In today’s higher education, we can relate this to different types of universities as Bernstein himself noted in his later work. I elaborate on this further in Chapter 7. The reality is that higher education mostly engages in highly visible pedagogy or a ‘performance model’ with clear outcomes and assessment criteria. This is especially true in lower-ranking universities in which learning is highly scaffolded for students from diverse backgrounds (cf. McLean et al., 2017). In this study, interview accounts show that pedagogy is very visible since framing is strong in relation to pacing of content with a highly structured course and explicitness regarding expectations. Learning is, to some extent, constructed as ‘active’, ‘experiential’ and as happening through interaction whether in-class or in-group work. However, it is also constructed by both lecturers and students as the result of a process of careful scaffolding and extensive support from lecturers as well as students’ individual efforts and struggles. In terms of pedagogic identities within a particular socio-political context (Bernstein, 2000), universities are increasingly aligned with a decentred, neoliberal market position, also described as ‘instrumental’. This means universities focus on ‘projection’ outwards to market demands and a responsiveness to create packages of courses that are popular with their target market. This has possible consequences for people and their identities since ‘personal commitment and particular dedication of staff and students are regarded as resistances, as oppositions to the free circulation of knowledge’ (Bernstein, 2000, p. 69). This separation of ‘knowledge’ and the ‘knower’ under increasing marketisation was highlighted by Bernstein (2000) and we saw an example of this in the policy documents earlier in the chapter in relation to ‘rhizomatic learning’ and the proposed ‘signposting of knowledge’ by lecturers. In today’s learning & teaching policy, the ‘knowers’ foregrounded are students (or employers) rather than academics. While higher-ranking universities can maintain an element of introjection and a focus on knowledge creation, mid- and lowerranking institutions are more responsive to market demands in creating

170

S. HORROD

and reviewing their course offering. This also impacts on how learning & teaching policies are viewed and engaged with since when learning & teaching, the TEF and the ‘student experience’ become prominent, such universities will respond to this trend. In interview accounts, there were clear signs of responsiveness in terms of ‘adding value’ to courses, engaging with agendas such as employability and making changes to unpopular practices. Students, while recognising the softer skills, such as teamwork, that they developed during the course, reflect mainly on the knowledge and discipline-specific skills they developed. 5.4.2

Reasons for, and Consequences of, This Portrayal of Learning and Teaching

5.4.2.1 Reasons for This Vision of Learning and Teaching The reasons for such policy visions of learning and teaching can be found in the current context. Although the ideas within the radical, transformative, learner-centred discourse are presented as new and described as ‘the growing edges’ in the Flexibility document, clearly these ideas have their origins with earlier thinkers and have an underpinning paradigm of socialconstructivism. The ideas have the appearance of an ‘alternative discourse’ (McLean et al., 2017, p. 63) since they offer an alternative to metrics (including on ‘teaching quality’) and accountability advocated in government white papers (e.g. BIS, 2016) and documents from the universities’ regulator, the Office for Students (OfS) (HEFCE before 2018). However, this discourse seems a strategic response to sector issues such as increased fees, focus on ‘value for money’, problems around the nebulous concept of ‘engagement’ and as a counter to the ‘student as consumer’ discourse. This is stated explicitly in the policy documents themselves: This landscape for student involvement and influence in UK HE is, in part, driven by a changed funding regime and prevalent discourse around the ‘student as consumer’ of the HE offer. (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 15)

Although mitigated with the vague-sounding ‘landscape for student involvement and influence’, this ‘involvement’ clearly refers to policy discourses such as partnership and active/transformative learning and the drivers as the current context of fees and the ‘student as consumer’ narrative. Although research suggests that students may not see themselves as consumers (Tomlinson, 2017), universities treat students as such by

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

171

constantly seeking to respond to feedback and attempting to offer ‘added value’. The appropriation and adaptation of a supposedly radical, learnercentred, transformative approach to learning seem a strategy designed to solve the perceived/constructed problem of demanding, passive learners. 5.4.2.2

Consequences of This Portrayal of Learning and Teaching: Alignment with the Underlying Messages and Issues of Equity It is hard for readers of the policy documents to react against such learner-centred, positive portrayals of pedagogy; a rhetorical strategy in itself. The use of radical thinkers, and the focus on ‘transformative’ and ‘active’ learning, play a role in this. Yet, by agreeing that these are appropriate visions of pedagogy within higher education and using the advocated ‘shared language’, we collude in the underlying messages transmitted. While acknowledging that sociocultural and social-constructivist approaches have expanded the conceptualisation of learning, the disadvantages have been highlighted by authors such as Beck and Young (2005), Shay (2008) and Singh (2017). The primary focus becomes on the learner, their learning and generic skills rather than on knowledge. For example, Shay (2008) outlines the impact on assessment criteria which refer to general skills rather than specific forms of knowledge within a subject. These messages involve an ‘eclipsing’ not just of knowledge (Shay, 2008) but also of teaching and teachers towards a teacher-free, knowledge-free vision of pedagogy in which expertise is backgrounded in favour of practices which prioritise partnership, employability, flexibility and developing capabilities in order to respond to the current context. Student learning becomes detached from teachers and teaching. Academics engage in practices that comply with the specified agendas in order to gain accreditation or promotion (see Davies & Bansel, 2010). Thus, concepts such as ‘co-creation’ and ‘partnership’ are embraced rather than problematised since nobody wants to suggest that co- might not be equal in terms of expertise and experience. However, as McArthur (2013, p. 155) notes, it is possible to embrace a learner-centred, democratic vision and still acknowledge that students come as students of their subject and academics have a role as a teacher with expertise to offer. The appropriateness of ‘extreme’ student-centredness is increasingly questioned (McArthur, 2020, p. 34). Yet, academics use the language of learning & teaching policy, and institutions recontextualise it into their

172

S. HORROD

own guidelines, until everyone is speaking the same language without questioning the consequences or exploring what students want. In terms of equity, as noted above, Bernstein criticised this relativising of expertise and knowledge, and the promotion of generic skills and capabilities, for its possible disadvantaging of particular groups. Given that teaching-focused universities are more likely to promote these messages and associated practices, students receiving a potentially different kind of education is a social justice issue. I discuss this further in Chapter 7. Those institutions also appear to reward academics’ focus on learning & teaching when, in fact, research is still more likely to lead to career advancement. Further, it seems that established academics are more able to resist engagement with learning & teaching activities, such as teaching accreditation, than newer academics. Such activities often become a veneer for teacher development while, in reality, they are primarily an institutional performance indicator in the quest to address the student experience.

5.5

Conclusion

This chapter has focused on constructions of learning and teaching in the policy documents and lecturer practices around teaching. I have shown how particular discourses in learning & teaching policy documents contribute to backgrounding teaching, teachers and knowledge while foregrounding decontextualised approaches/techniques and the development of students’ generic capabilities. I argue that the highly selective use of education thinkers’ ideas on learner empowerment as well as the social-constructivist view of learning and knowledge are used as discursive strategies to support current learning & teaching agendas because they conveniently fit the radical transformation supposedly required. What may appear to be positive visions of radical, transformative, learner-centred pedagogy should be interrogated for their underlying messages about teaching and teachers and seen as a reflection of the socio-political context of higher education. Exploration of interviews demonstrated that lecturers put a huge amount of effort into the design of the teaching and assessment and are heavily engaged in supporting students. In the next chapter, I explore how policy itself is constructed in policy documents and how the recontextualisation of policy ideas occurs.

5

HOW TO LEARN AND TEACH

173

References Aubrey, K., & Riley, A. (2019). Understanding & using educational theories (2nd ed.). Sage. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995, November/December). From teaching to learning—a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672 Beck, J., & Young, M. F. D. (2005). The assault on the professions and the restructuring of academic and professional identities: A Bernsteinian analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 183–197. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0142569042000294165 Bernstein, B. (1990). Class codes and control Volume iv: The structure of pedagogic discourse. Routledge. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (revised ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. BIS. (2016). Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-suc cess-as-a-knowledge-economy-white-paper. Accessed 20 September 2021. Davies, B., & Bansel, D. (2010). Governmentality and academic work: Shaping the hearts and minds of academic workers. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 26(3), 5–20. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Free Press; Collier-Macmillan (Original work published 1916). Ensor, P. (2004). Contesting discourses in higher education curriculum restructuring in South Africa. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 48(3), 339–359. Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin (Original work published 1970). HEA. (2012). A marked improvement: Transforming assessment in higher education. Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledgehub/marked-improvement. Accessed 15 June 2022. HEA. (2014). Internationalising higher education framework. Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/internationalisinghigher-education-framework. Accessed 15 June 2022. Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/engage ment-through-partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher Illeris, K. (2017). Learning and non-learning: How we learn in school and beyond (2nd ed.). Routledge. McArthur, J. (2013). Rethinking knowledge within higher education: Adorno and social justice. Bloomsbury.

174

S. HORROD

McArthur, J. (2020). Bridging near and far perspectives in socially just higher education research. In J. McArthur & P. Ashwin (Eds.), Locating social justice in higher education research (pp. 23–37). Bloomsbury Academic. McLean, M., Abbas, A., & Ashwin, P. (2017). Quality in undergraduate education: How powerful knowledge disrupts inequality. Bloomsbury Academic. Moore, R. (2013). Basil Bernstein: The thinker and the field. Routledge. O’Connor, K. (2020). Constructivism, curriculum and the knowledge question: Tensions and challenges for higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45, 1–11. Pegg, A., Waldock, J., Wendy-Isaac, S., & Lawson, R. (2012). Pedagogy for employability. The Higher Education Academy. www.heacademy.ac.uk Ryan, A. & Tilbury, D. (2013). Flexible pedagogies: New pedagogical ideas. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledgehub/pedagogyemployability-2012 Shay, S. (2008). Beyond social constructivist perspectives on assessment: The centring of knowledge. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(5), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510802334970 Singh, P. (2017). Pedagogic governance: Theorising with/after Bernstein. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(2), 144–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01425692.2015.1081052 Tomlinson, M. (2017). Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1113856 Wodak, R., De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh University Press.

CHAPTER 6

How POLICY Should Be implemented—And Why in that Way

6.1

Introduction

Why is there so much talk about policy itself in the policy documents? How do policy ideas move into different ‘fields’ or sites and how are they embraced or resisted? These questions are the focus of this chapter. As I explore below, learning & teaching policy documents like to discuss policy and how it should be implemented. The key themes discussed include how this implementation is portrayed as needing to be ‘embedded’ and the need for shared language and values. As the final chapter of findings, I show how the policy ideas analysed here and in Chapters 3–5 become part of people’s everyday attitudes and practices. That is, I explore the process of movement of policy ideas through different fields, different documents, in other words, policy’s recontextualisation, by examining both intertextuality, interdiscursivity and shifts in genres (see Chapter 2). I do this by comparing documents across, and within, national and institutional policy. Wider debates over the influence of policy and acceptance of, or resistance to, it is played out in lecturer interviews as they discuss practices around assessment. These accounts reflect different levels of engagement with this kind of ‘embedding’ as well as explicit reflection on the usefulness of teacher accreditation schemes. I suggest that the way that policy talks about itself as needing to be ‘embedded’ indicates not only its potential force, in requiring everyone to share a common language to shape policy, but also its insecurity about possible policy non-compliance. I argue that © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Horrod, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28038-2_6

175

176

S. HORROD

mechanisms such as teacher accreditation schemes and numerous audit trails such as promotions, appraisals and funding applications, as well as the activity of university learning & teaching units and academic developers, become the means for such ideas to spread. I interpret the findings in relation to Bernstein’s (1990; 2000) ideas around the influence of the recontextualising fields (ORF & PRF) and the obscuring of the ideological (see Chapter 2). I conclude that such attempts to embed singular views of ‘best practice’ can have a damaging impact on autonomy and freedom of thought and practice.

6.2 The Discourses of Learning & Teaching Policy: Policy as Embedded in Processes and Practices This macro-strategy, or summary of all the discourse topics and discursive strategies, embodies how policy itself is constructed across the six policy documents. The ‘embedding of policy’ and the notion of ‘shared language’ are common discourse topics and are indicative of an aim to ensure standardisation and compliance. Table 6.1 has a summary of discourse topics and strategies across the six policy texts that relate to the construction of policy. First, I look at the discursive strategies that form an important part of constructing this portrayal of policy. 6.2.1

Prescription Versus Flexibility

The policy documents tread a fine line between stating how important the policy ideas are while simultaneously suggesting that universities can adapt the proposals as appropriate to their context. The documents have elements of an academic genre in that they review the literature, acknowledge the complexity of the issues and convey the sense that they do not wish to be too prescriptive. However, they naturally try to communicate the urgency of the issue and the need to embrace the policy ideas. This kind of tension is constructed through the discursive strategies of intensification and mitigation. Examples of these are in the Flexibility document. The first extract expresses certainty about the need for change and also employs the topos of opposites, e.g. ‘current trends, dominant patterns’ versus ‘pursuing alternatives’ and ‘development of pedagogical models’ versus ‘those traditionally deployed’:

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

177

Table 6.1 Policy as embedded in processes and practices: discourse topics and strategies from the six policy documents Policy as embedded in processes and practices -shared language – shared values – shared point of reference -staff development strategy -evidence-informed change -articulation -explicitness MEANS OF REALISATION (with examples)

DISCOURSE TOPICS: -the embedding into curriculum, processes, practices and culture -embedding recognition and reward systems for staff and students engaging in partnership/assessment reform/internationalisation

STRATEGIES DISCURSIVE (functional) STRATEGIES legitimation nominations delegitimation predications e.g. of how policy should be done formal argumentation scheme e.g. cause-effect:

topos of opposites – to reinforce need to embed/follow policy intensification mitigation – to avoid claims of ‘prescription’ or force

-tenets & manifesto: metaphor of policy as political manifesto -adjectives e.g. embedded, shared, core, integrated, permeating -metaphor of embedding (like a plant in order to flourish) -cause-effect structure: e.g. need staff development/re-negotiation of relationship between students’ union and institution/culture change – in order to embed policy -& vice-versa e.g. embed policy in order to: evaluate it, have evidence-informed change -negative/positive adjectives: piecemeal, small-scale, incremental adjustments versus major change embedded versus bolt-on explicit versus tacit -adjectives and metaphors: embedded into core -qualifying language: not being prescriptive, may need adapting -lack of evidence

This approach considers the future landscape for HE graduates, recognising that as the world changes our pedagogies must also find new forms to help learners not just to react to current trends or to repeat dominant patterns of thinking but to be capable of responding constructively and pursuing alternatives. The assumption here is that there is an emergent pedagogic need for different kinds of education in HE and that this will require

178

S. HORROD

the development of pedagogical models different from those traditionally deployed in the sector. (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 9)

The second extract acknowledges that these ideas are in the early stages, not yet ‘embedded’ and lack a clear evidence base. This is evident in the extensive mitigation used here: It is important to note that these new pedagogical ideas are framed as ‘growing edges’ because they do not reflect dominant practice or mainstream thinking in HE. In several cases, their scholarly foundations have yet to be fully articulated and examples that illustrate comprehensive embedding in the curriculum are not always easy to detect, as they are slowly emerging into current practices and education discourses. In many cases, it is possible to identify both weaker (often policy-led) and stronger (invariably pedagogy-driven) forms of practice on the ground—and the evaluation of their impact and effectiveness is in its infancy. (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 15)

The last type of mitigation regarding the evaluation of impact is common across the documents. It is used as part of an argumentation strategy to argue for the need to embed policy in order to evaluate its impact and so meet the need for evidence-based change. The Employability document discusses the ‘lack of evaluation of initiatives and approaches to teaching and learning employability skills’ (Pegg et al., 2012, p. 46). The Partnership document mentions the need to build ‘a robust evidence base for the impact of partnership for students, staff, institutions and students’ unions’ (Healey et al., 2014, p. 11) and the Assessment document discusses the need for ‘evidence-informed change’ which are embodied in the ‘tenets’ or ‘evidence-based principles for assessment policy and practice’ (HEA, 2012, p. 4) which form the basis of the proposals. 6.2.2

Embedded Versus Bolt-On and Embedded into the Core

Another widespread argumentation strategy is the use of the topos of opposites (see Chapter 2) in which binaries are presented and it is clear which is the preferred option. There are predications used around scale for the

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

179

less preferred approach to policy implementation, e.g. ‘piecemeal’, ‘smallscale’ and ‘incremental’ versus the preferred ‘widespread’ and ‘embedded’. There is also some discussion around the opposites of ‘embedded’ versus ‘bolt-on’; the latter portrayed as ad hoc, added on, unplanned in contrast to a carefully planned, integrated, strategic approach. Embedded means within the curriculum and assessments in contrast to initiatives that are extra-curricular as illustrated in the Employability document: Different models . . . can be briefly described as ranging between a ‘bolt-on’ approach, where employability modules are provided as an optional extra, through to an entirely embedded approach, where employability is assessed and supported within the disciplinary curriculum. (Pegg et al., 2012, p. 12)

‘Embedded into the core’ is a phrase used by HEFCE and quoted in the Employability document: Embedding employability into the core of higher education will continue to be a key priority of Government, universities and colleges, and employers. This will bring both significant private and public benefit, demonstrating higher education’s broader role in contributing to economic growth as well as its vital role in social and cultural development. (HEFCE 2011, p. 5 quoted in Pegg et al., 2012, p. 6)

The same meaning is conveyed in all the documents; for example, ‘embedded’ into curriculum, teaching or assessments as here in relation to ‘flexible pedagogy’: One of the most interesting ‘next steps’ is to engage in further discussions with those working in HE at various levels, to explore the potential of these new ideas and to understand some of the ways in which they can be embedded coherently in teaching and learning. (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 31)

Or the idea of ‘core’ being used around communicating or defining policy ideas such as: Feedback on formative assessment is at the core of the assessment for learning.. (Healey et al., 2014, p. 40)

180

S. HORROD

Or indeed as stating that a policy idea is part of the core aim/purpose/ethos of higher education: ‘Student engagement’ has become a core aim for the sector and, increasingly, is being linked to ideas about students’ roles as partners in their higher education communities. (Healey et al., 2014, p. 4)

Another advocated way of achieving that embedded approach is through the promotion of staff development (sometimes students too) in particular areas; for example, ‘enhancing staff assessment literacy’: The assessment literacy of academic staff would be paramount. Our approach would value professional judgement and recognise that academic standards cannot easily be made transparent. On the other hand, confidence in that judgement would be boosted by introducing consistent methods to share and safeguard these, often tacit, standards. (HEA, 2012, p. 17)

There is an implication here that academics do not already have this knowledge/skill and also there is an implied criticism regarding a lack of transparency in grading in the phrase ‘tacit standards’. The following extract builds on the idea that academic staff need support from others, i.e. academic developers: This development of assessment literacy among staff needs to be followed by practical support for implementing change. For example, academic developers can work with course teams to rethink programme assessment in preparation for course approval or revalidation. (HEA, 2012, p. 15)

These examples show how embedding is a key feature of learning & teaching policy discourse. 6.2.3

Shared Language

Part of this process of embedding learning & teaching policy involves the academic community, especially academics, having ‘a shared language’. The documents talk about ‘shared understanding’ (e.g. of good assessment) or a ‘common language’. The latter is explicit in (and about) the Internationalisation document and the latest 2020 Advance HE document:

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

181

It provides a shared point of reference and common language to discuss and shape policy, practice and partnerships. (HEA, 2014, p. 4) (Ryan, 2020, p. 11)

This notion of shared language, and so values, is supported not only through the frameworks and models presented but also through a variety of features of the genre of these policy documents. For example, there is a glossary in the Internationalisation document where terms are defined ‘for the purposes of this framework’ (p. 16). For example, the term ‘values’ is defined in the following way: Values: the principles or standards of behaviour that an individual or group can embrace and exemplify in their words and actions, and in operationalizing the activities, knowledge or responsibilities of this framework. (HEA, 2014, p. 16)

It also extends to annotated bibliographies with literature supporting the proposals. The act of having an annotated bibliography adds weight to the authority of the reading source. By advocating the source, it supports the ideas being proposed. In this example in the Assessment document, the entry is actually discussing the definition of a term ‘assessment for learning’ and it is intertextually linked to a ‘tenet’ of the policy: McDowell, L., Sambell, K. and Davison, G. (2009)… In a review of the terminology, it is proposed that an integrated model of assessment for learning includes a feedback-rich environment, active participation by students, development of student autonomy, a reduction in the dominance of summative assessment, and the use of authentic and complex methods of learning and assessment (tenet 1). (HEA, 2012, p. 53)

Further, there is a ‘review tool’ in Assessment which invites staff to assess the extent to which they are following the ‘tenets’ of good assessment on a scale of 1–5, to provide some evidence for that score and then to outline actions to make improvement. Such genre features all aim to encourage readers to embrace the policy ideas. These toolkits are included with all the 2016 HEA Frameworks. The Advance HE (2020) guides to the frameworks include a softer version of this in the form of ‘reflective/key questions’ and ‘activities’ that invite readers to engage with the ideas.

182

S. HORROD

6.2.3.1 Explicitness and Articulation A final feature contributing to the call to embrace the shared language is the notion of articulation and explicitness. I noted this in Chapter 4 in relation to students needing to be able to ‘articulate their learning’. It is also evident in the policy documents asking universities to have explicit statements in their own policy documentation about, e.g. employability or partnership: From 2010 each English HEI has been required to articulate their position in relation to student employability through the provision of an ‘employability statement’ for prospective students on both the Unistats and UCAS websites. (Pegg et al., 2012, p. 11)

To conclude this section, the suggestion is that adopting a shared language will lead to shared values. The implication is that if everyone uses the same terms and conceptualisations of what constitutes good practice, then we will all have the same values and more likely to embrace these practices. It is a clear attempt to ensure that policy ideas are being adopted. However, it also indicates a potential narrowing of acceptable language and ideas. It highlights the issue of whether academics who use the language of policy actually support the ideas or are using the language for instrumental reasons such as to gain teaching accreditation (see Macfarlane & Gourlay, 2009; Peat, 2015). I discuss this further in Chapter 7.

6.3 How Policy Ideas Travel: The Recontextualisation of Policy from Government to Universities The focus of this section is firmly on recontextualisation and how ideas, and the texts they are contained in, change as they move into different genres and different fields to be used by different people (see Chapter 2 for a visualisation of these fields). Here, I start by looking at the changes between different sets of HEA and Advance HE documents around the same 6 policy agendas. This is followed by a brief illustration of how ideas stretch further back and forward, so to speak, between government and other higher education agencies’ documents, the HEA documents and university strategy documents and learning & teaching guidelines.

6

6.3.1

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

183

Evolution of HEA Discussion Documents to HEA Frameworks (2012–14) to Advance HE 2020 Framework Guides

When does a text become policy? Most people are not witness to the drafting process and conversations around a policy text but it is possible to see changes in the evolutions of policy documents when they include essentially the same content but one has become a ‘framework’ or set of guidelines to shape practice. For such a ‘framework’, a different kind of genre is needed as the ideas are moving from one field of action to another; in this case, from the field of learning & teaching policy generation and discussion towards academics and ADUs at the institutional level. The shift from long HEA discussion documents, the main focus of analysis in this study, to short HEA, and subsequently Advance HE, framework guidelines demonstrates how policy becomes made in that the latter become the user-friendly, short guide for academics to refer to when demonstrating their commitment to ‘good practice’ in learning & teaching. The shifts in discursive strategies and other genre elements I outline below indicate that these are now policy guidelines that can/should be applied in practice. Table 6.2 summarises these changes. I first discuss the changes in HEA documents up to 2016 before examining the changes in the 2020 Advance HE framework guides as there are some interesting shifts between them. The earlier discussion documents (mostly published between 2012 and 14) are long; averaging between 40 and 75 pages with the exception of the Access document which is over a hundred pages. The subsequent frameworks are all much shorter and more user-friendly. The first versions of the HEA frameworks (2012– 2014), based on the discussion documents, show more variation than the 2016 versions. A move towards standardisation is clear in the 2016 versions of the frameworks which are all four pages long with the same sections and format which I summarise as: p1: p2: p3: p4:

what is it? why important? model & explanation. link to UKPSF (e.g. HEA, 2016a).

Each of these 2016 frameworks has an explicit link to the UKPSF which forms the basis for the teacher accreditation scheme (HEA Fellowship). This is discussed in the section below. Moreover, each 2016 framework is accompanied by a ‘Toolkit’ which, as noted earlier, is a tool

HEA Discussion document 2012–2014 (most)

Style of Discusses pros and Concise. Persuasive. writing/Discursive cons; range of Some mitigation strategies definitions and models. Mitigation through counter-arguments but still argues for particular model/approach

Brief context; outline of frameworks; review tool Variable elements e.g. glossary; examples; link to UKPSF; models Named authors (most)

HEA, 2012–2015 Frameworks

Changes across HEA and Advance HE documents

Contents: Typical elements: standard/variable -national & sector features context -a review of relevant literature -models and case studies -argumentation -variable elements -number of models or cases Named authors

Table 6.2

Direct, concise statements of fact; No mitigation. Vagueness of expression around rationale

Standard format (summarised): p1: what is it? p2: why important? p3: model & explanation p4: link to UKPSF No author

Typical contents (summarised) 1. Framework 2. What is it? 3. Why important? 4. Aim 5. Benefits? 6. Purposes and definitions 7. How developed? 8. How can be used? 9. Structure of the framework 10. How aligns with the PSF? 11. Reflective questions 12. Applying the framework in your organisation 13. Action plan for implementing change 14. References and further reading Named authors Succinct statements of best practice; a little mitigation/acknowledgement of debates

HEA, 2016a, 2016b Frameworks Advance HE 2020 Frameworks

184 S. HORROD

Titles and Length

Length-summary

Embedding employability in higher education: 4 pages [+ separate Toolkit]

Essential frameworks for enhancing student success : Employability (A guide to the Advance HE Framework) 22 pages Essential frameworks for Student engagement through partnership: 4 pages [+ separate enhancing student success : Student engagement through Toolkit] partnership (A guide to the Advance HE Framework) 19 pages

Transforming assessment in higher education: 4 pages [+ separate Toolkit]

Defining and developing your approach to employability (2013) 24 pages Framework for partnership in learning and teaching in higher education (2014): 8 pages n/a

(continued)

Essential frameworks for enhancing student success : Transforming assessment in higher education (A guide to the Advance HE Framework) 28 pages

Variable 7–22 pages

4 pages (all)

Variable 8–24 pages

Variable—long—41– 132 pages Pedagogy for Employability (2012) [Employability] 58 pages-including 9 pages references Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education (2014) [Partnership] 77 pages—including 13 pages references A Marked Improvement: Transforming assessment in higher education (2012) [Assessment ] 61 pages (including review tool & annotated bibliography)

HEA, 2016a, 2016b Frameworks Advance HE 2020 Frameworks

HEA, 2012–2015 Frameworks

HEA Discussion document 2012–2014 (most)

6 HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

185

Table 6.2 HEA, 2012–2015 Frameworks

no single document

Internationalising higher education framework (2014) [Internationalisation] 18 pages (including glossary) Framework for flexible Flexible Pedagogies: new pedagogical ideas learning in higher (2013) education (2015) [Flexibility] 41 pages [details unknown] (including 5 pages of references) Enhancing access, Framework for access, retention, attainment retention, attainment and progression in and progression in higher education higher education (2017) [Access ] 132 (2015) [details pages (including 40 unknown] pages of references)

HEA Discussion document 2012–2014 (most)

(continued)

Essential frameworks for enhancing student success : Student access, retention, attainment and progression in higher education (A guide to the Advance HE Framework) 7 pages Access, retention, attainment and progression in higher education 4 pages [+ separate Toolkit]

Flexible learning in higher education 4 pages [+ separate Toolkit]

Essential frameworks for enhancing student success : Internationalising higher education (A guide to the Advance HE Framework) 26 pages Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Flexible learning (A guide to the Advance HE Framework) 16 pages

Internationalising higher education: 4 pages [+ separate Toolkit]

HEA, 2016a, 2016b Frameworks Advance HE 2020 Frameworks

186 S. HORROD

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

187

for self-review in the form of a series of leading questions as here on employability: How and when are students introduced to the concept of employability? How will you share your agreed model/definition of employability? How do students currently reflect on, record and articulate their academic and personal development planning (PDP) e.g. the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR)? (HEA, 2016, p. 3)

There are other differences. The longer discussion documents have named authors, the 2016 frameworks do not. This gives the sense of the documents acquiring the status of accepted policy rather than ‘the view of the author’. In terms of discursive strategies, one change involves the level of mitigation. The long documents are more dialogic and explore ideas around a topic. There is a certain resemblance to elements of an academic genre with a review of literature and some level of discussion of counter-arguments despite these being soon rejected. In the short 2016 frameworks, nearly all mitigation is absent and the proposals are stated as the truth. Examples of this are given below in relation to what ‘flexible learning’ is. This starts with the earlier document and its more hedged claims: There is no single standard definition of flexible learning but a growing literature exists in this arena, exploring the discourses, rationale, potential, benefits and tensions of the new flexibility arena in HE (Collis & Moonen 2004; Kirkpatrick, 1997; Willems, 2005). Prominent models tend to propose continuums of more and less flexible curriculum provision; more comprehensive approaches offer frameworks that address content and pedagogy alongside considerations related to entry and progression pathways, delivery and logistics, and institutional arrangements. (Casey & Wilson, 2005; Collis & Moonen, 2004; Normand et al., 2008). (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 8)

The following is from the 2016 framework with more certainty about what flexible learning is: How: offering a choice of studying face-to-face, online, or through a blended approach; What: providing personalising learning approaches with a supported range of study options, enabling students to design

188

S. HORROD

programmes according to their needs and aspirations; …Flexible learning requires a balance of power between institutions and students, and seeks to find ways in which choice can be provided that is economically viable and appropriately manageable for institutions and students alike. (HEA, 2016e, p. 1)

Despite this form of directness in saying what should be done, there is an increasing vagueness of expression with regard to the rationale for doing so. In earlier discussion documents, more concrete reasons are given as a basis for policy proposals. Of course, these documents are longer so have more space to set the scene. However, the effect is useful to note. These changes are evident in the examples below concerning the context for, or ‘why’ of, flexible pedagogical approaches. I underline the contrasting specific reasons in the earlier document versus the move towards vagueness in the 2016 framework: Pedagogical innovation is currently being influenced at all levels by several significant issues, such as rising global student numbers and increasingly diverse learner backgrounds (in educational, cultural and practical terms) (NUS, 2012; Ramsden, 2008; UUK 2012a). New technologies continue to proliferate extending the ways in which knowledge and learning are shaped, accessed and managed. As participation in HE expands these diverse pathways and student cohorts are extending the potential and pressure to address more varied learning needs and styles. Meanwhile, processes of marketisation and managerialism continue to prompt debate about threats to the core ethos of HE, particularly its role in education and innovation. (Ryan & Tilbury, 2013, p. 7) Flexible learning is student-centred and empowers students to become independent and autonomous, fostering graduate attributes that will enable them to manage the complexities of 21st century life. In an age where employability is high on the agenda of most HEPs, flexible learning facilitates interaction with employers in mutually constructive ways, as a result of which students contribute to the national economy and maintain their financial viability while studying. (HEA, 2016e, p. 2)

In the earlier document, specific reasons are given such as ‘increasingly diverse learner backgrounds’, ‘new technologies’ in contrast to the vaguer ‘complexities of twenty-first-century life’ and ‘mutually constructive ways’. In the later framework, there is also the use of language such as ‘empower’ and ‘facilitate’. This facilitating form of ‘managing actions’ has

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

189

been noted by Mulderrig (2011) and vagueness as a discursive strategy, more broadly, by Van Dijk (2006) and Mulderrig (2012) among others. In this way, the 2016 frameworks present a seemingly value-free description of accepted good practices. Comparing the genres of the long discussion document and the short framework indicates ways in which texts acquire the status of policy guidelines ready to be implemented. Most of the long documents are explicitly acknowledged as the basis for the short frameworks and the latter represent a distillation of the former. However, the most notable differences involve the move towards certainty over what is true or best practice combined with a certain vagueness over the rationale. With the change in name from HEA to Advance HE, the frameworks became the 2018 ‘Frameworks for’, e.g. ‘flexible learning in higher education’. In terms of the documents available in late 2022, there are the Advance HE 2020 ‘Essential frameworks for enhancing student success:’ followed by the topic, e.g. ‘Flexible learning’. These have the sub-heading ‘A guide to the Advance HE Framework’ and each has a named author(s) thereby reframing the documents more as a guide or commentary on the actual framework rather than simply the framework itself. There are other differences from the 2016 HEA frameworks. Although the content around the topic and framework model are essentially the same, the genre has changed somewhat. It is not possible to know why but it may be that the final HEA ones were considered too simplistic, presented as ‘fact’ and prescriptive; encouraging a tick-box approach to the Fellowship accreditation scheme discussed below. Each of the six framework guides are longer and vary in length but are still under 30 pages. The headings vary although they essentially cover the following aspects: the framework model; definitions and principles; its importance; applying the framework; reflective questions for institutions, staff, students; exemplars/cases; references; appendices. There is a small element of ‘debate’ around the ideas; for example, the Flexible learning framework guide has a section on ‘definitions and contestations’ in which the author questions the scope of the Advance HE definition and adds another author’s definition ‘to frame the approach to this guide’ (Jones-Devitt, 2020, p. 4). There is also an element of mitigation in relation to the ‘principles’ of flexible learning: These principles are not exhaustive and they merely contribute to an evolving body of practice. (Jones-Devitt, 2020, p. 5)

190

S. HORROD

In this case, there is also a section explaining the link between this guide and the framework which while stating the importance of the 2018 framework, again mitigates any suggestion of being prescriptive: This guide and update to the Advance HE framework for flexible learning has been designed to initiate thoughts about the evolution and application of key flexible learning principles to practice. It draws upon the original framework, being both evidence-based and experience-informed and is aligned to the UK Professional Standards Framework… As in the original framework, this guide recognises that successful flexible learning is ‘student-centred and empowers students to become independent and autonomous, fostering graduate attributes that will enable them to manage the complexities of 21st century life’ (Advance HE Flexible Learning Framework, 2018). (Jones-Devitt, 2020, p. 7)

In these ways, the 2020 documents take on some of the elements of the longer HEA policy discussion documents. However, this should not be overstated as they are still prescriptive in their outlining of what each idea ‘means’ and what staff and students should do and be. 6.3.2

Policy Mechanisms and Embedding: Advance HE (HEA) Fellowship Scheme

In this section, I examine the way that the frameworks are linked to the Fellowship teacher accreditation scheme thereby encouraging the application of specific policy ideas. Firstly though, I discuss the discourse topic of ‘rewards and recognition’ for those embracing the policy ideas seen across the policy documents; for example, in Internationalisation, Employability and Partnership documents: As an organisation, to what extent... are reward and recognition systems used to value and motivate individuals’ contribution to internationalising HE?. (HEA, 2014, p. 13) Existing assessment methodologies should, where necessary, be challenged and new approaches explored that reward successful practice in developing employability, giving them parity of esteem with technical skills and academic knowledge. (HEA, 2012, p. 45) Embedding the recognition and reward of staff and students engaging in partnerships, is one way in which institutions and students’ unions can

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

191

embody an ethos and culture of partnership in practice. (Healey et al., 2014, p. 33)

The message is that, like all policy ideas, these rewards are to be ‘embedded’. While being presented as an incentive; that is, a ‘reward’ and ‘recognition’, they are essentially valuable tools for encouraging alignment with policy ideas. The embedding processes leading to such recognition require lecturers’ engagement with what I call ‘discursive mechanisms’ such as teaching accreditation schemes, appraisals, funding applications and other accountability mechanisms in which there needs to be evidence of academics’ embracing of good practices. These mechanisms are discursive since they involve texts (written or spoken) and the use of relevant discourses/discursive strategies. As noted above, the short frameworks represent a user-friendly guide for practice. They are used particularly in the process of gaining Advance HE (HEA) Fellowship; the teaching accreditation scheme. This has become a pre-requisite for promotion in some universities; especially since the introduction of the TEF. Academics applying for an appropriate level of accreditation are required to produce a reflective account outlining ways in which their practice is informed by ideas in the UKPSF. They are encouraged to use the Advance HE (HEA) frameworks as a starting point as well as higher education literature more broadly. The embedding of policy ideas is facilitated by explicit intertextual links between Advance HE (HEA) frameworks, the UKPSF and the Advance HE (HEA) Fellowship application. While such links may be unsurprising, it is the facilitating nature of the links and the consequences that are worth noting. Intertextuality is achieved in the following way. It is in the 2016 frameworks that the link made with the UKPSF is much stronger. On the final page of the 2016 frameworks, it states how it links to the UKPSF and specifically which points of it. The example below is from the framework for Flexible learning in higher education and the underlined elements are the three core dimensions of the UKPSF. A1, K4, V1 (and others) below are the specific points in the UKPSF that the ideas in the Flexibility framework relate to. Intertextual links between the three documents are highlighted in italics: How does this framework align with the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF)? Staff may want to consider how their engagement with flexible learning in higher education can offer an effective approach to areas

192

S. HORROD

of activity, enable deeper understanding of core knowledge, and demonstrate alignment with professional values. It is particularly relevant to the following dimensions: Activity: A1, A2 and A4 Knowledge: K4, and K6 Values: V1, V2 and V4 HEA invites lecturers, teachers and learning support staff to evidence their use of this or other HEA frameworks in applying for HEA Fellowship in recognition of their commitment to professional practice. (HEA, 2016e, p. 4)

Academics often refer to ideas in this policy framework to demonstrate their good practice in their reflective accounts and these often explicitly mention the UKPSF categories, for example, A1 and V2, to show that they are covering all the dimensions required to achieve Fellowship. A ‘tick-box’ approach to accreditation is encouraged through these intertextual links (cf. Botham, 2018; Peat, 2015) and academics are encouraged to adopt the ‘shared language’ of the frameworks. This will inevitably limit the type of activity they highlight in their accounts. In this way, their practice becomes framed in terms of Advance HE (HEA) conceptualisations of best practice. In terms of the Advance HE 2020 framework guides, alignment with the PSF (noting that the UK has been dropped from the acronym) is stated in the ‘overview’/introductory document ‘Essential frameworks for student success’ (Advance HE, 2019): Aligning institutional and individual work to the PSF will help highlight areas of activity, enable deeper understanding of core knowledge, and demonstrate alignment with professional values. (Advance HE, 2019, p. 6)

Also, some of the guides make explicit links to particular points in the UKPSF. Here, under the principles in the Flexible learning document: inclusive, equitable, personalised and contextualised approaches should underpin all flexible learning processes. These approaches align with Values 1, V2 and V4 of the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF). (Jones-Devitt, 2020, p. 5)

The Internationalisation document is similar to the 2016 documents with an explicit link:

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

193

The framework is modelled on the Professional Standards Framework (PSF), which aspires to enhance the quality, equity and global connection of learning, teaching and research … It is particularly relevant to the following dimensions: + activity: A1, A2 and A3 + knowledge: K2 + values: V1, V2, V3 and V4 Lecturers, teachers and learning support staff can use this framework to evidence their use of this, or other Advance HE frameworks, in applying for HEA Fellowship in recognition of their commitment to professional practice. (Ryan, 2020, p. 19)

Some of the 2020 documents do not make explicit links to the (UK)PSF. Thus, we see some variation in these versions. However, the links in the overview document are very clear and the link between these policy ideas and the process of seeking teaching accreditation are still evident. A notable addition to the 2020 framework guides’ overview document is the link between Advance HE’s six areas of focus and key ‘metrics’: Each of these areas of work has the potential to impact on a number of metrics, for example, National Student Satisfaction Survey, Destination of Leavers in Higher Education and student access, progression and success (supplied to the Office for Fair Access). (Advance HE, 2019, p. 3)

This makes a more explicit link between learning & teaching policy ideas and accountability measures. Some people may engage with these policy ideas at the level of innovative techniques and approaches. The distillation of ideas from discussion documents to short framework guidelines described above facilitates this by removing the ideological detail to make the practices appear self-evident and ‘theory-free’ (Loughland & Sriprakash, 2016, p. 235). 6.3.3

From National Policy to Institutional Policy, Guidelines and Practices

The aim of this section is to further illustrate the complex network of influences involved in creating and promoting particular discourses in higher education. So far, this chapter has focused on HEA and Advance HE documents. However, we can consider where those discourses come

194

S. HORROD

from as well as how they are taken up in universities’ own policies. That is, I will briefly illustrate the influence of government policy and how policy ideas are recontextualised at the university level. I do not want to suggest that policy ideas only move in one direction as the reality is more complex than that but here I will focus on certain ideas that do seem to follow that direction. I start with a simple example of how the university adopts some of its learning & teaching guidelines, specifically the curriculum design principles, directly from HEA documents whose ideas often originate with government or its agencies: 7. The curriculum should embed the development of employability skills throughout the course and should be designed to equip students with the ability to relate the knowledge and skills that they have learned to real world contexts in which they may work in future. [1.6; 2.5] (University academic framework, 2012)

The ‘embedding of employability’ was noted in HEA documents and in the HEFCE (2011, p. 6) document: ‘Embedding employability into the core of higher education will continue to be a key priority of Government, universities and colleges, and employers’. The numbers in brackets in the extract are an intertextual link to specific points in the university strategy document. The following examples focus on government white papers on higher education which set the agenda for the sector as well as the university’s strategy document and learning & teaching guidelines. I select the discourses of ‘partnership’ and ‘continuous improvement’ as examples of discourses already discussed in the analysis of HEA documents in Chapters 3 and 5. The government white paper Students at the heart of the system (BIS, 2011) has been influential on the development of policy by higher education agencies including the HEA. In the paper, there are discursive strategies used to discuss students’ influence and role; for example, through the notion of student surveys being ‘at the heart of a continuous process of improving teaching quality’ (BIS, 2011, p. 34) and summarised in a section heading ‘Well-informed students driving teaching excellence’ (p. 25). I will not unpick this heading here but it is clearly controversial in terms of teachers, teaching and notions of ‘quality’. This is echoed in HEFCE’s (2011, p. 8) statement: ‘Students will also be given a greater role in holding higher education institutions to account’. On the other

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

195

hand, the white paper tries to advocate students taking an active learning or partnership approach as embodied in this extract in which the topos of opposites is used to argue that students should not see themselves as consumers of knowledge or indeed their education: A good student is not simply a consumer of other people’s knowledge, but will actively draw on all the resources that a good university or college can offer to learn as much as they can. (BIS, 2011, p. 33)

The former discourse constructs students as powerful consumers in the higher education market who can shape ‘teaching quality’ and the latter calls for students to not behave like passive consumers. The following extract attempts to bridge both discourses although the main emphasis is on students improving ‘teaching quality’. It is attributed in a footnote to a 2008 HEA publication thereby indicating a discursive network of influence between government and higher education agencies. The topos of example, using an illustration of good practice as a warrant, is seen in the following extract through the inclusion of a short case on Loughborough university which touches on the idea of partnership, shared values and students’ active involvement which emphasises students driving change as well as being active learners: Students can engage actively in enhancing the delivery, content and assessment of their programmes … This partnership approach has led to many successes including the achievement of the Best Student Experience for the last five years. Student engagement in decision-making and feedback is vital and valued by University staff, and it contributes significantly to a shared commitment to excellence in learning and teaching at Loughborough. (BIS, 2011, p. 35)

The ‘enhancing’ assumes the need for improvement. The nominations of ‘delivery, content and assessment’ abstract away from the actors involved, i.e. delivery is a substitute for teaching. Although the white paper does highlight improving the status of teaching, there is little mention of teachers themselves. The ‘shared commitment to excellence’ indicates the need for shared values and previews the HEA documents on partnership which detail what such partnership learning communities involve. Throughout the white paper, the discourses of ‘continuous improvement’, ‘students driving change’ and ‘partnership’ are evident. The focus is on metrics and data for students’ benefit whereas the

196

S. HORROD

HEA documents distance themselves from the quantifiable. I discuss this difference further in Chapter 7. Turning to the university in this study, I include brief examples from their strategy document and their academic framework covering learning & teaching; both from 2012. A strategy document is publicly available so gives an external audience a sense of the values of the institution but can also shape attitudes and practices within the institution; particularly because of intertextual links to other institutional policy documents but also due to requirements on staff to refer to it explicitly in, for example, appraisals or validation documents. The university’s strategy document is interesting since it clearly recontextualises topics and discursive strategies from higher education agencies’ documents. Also, it is a genre whose voice is meant to reflect the university community. Embodying this ‘community’ is the use of the intentionally inclusive ‘we’ although who we refers to shifts across the parts of the document (noted as common in certain text types, e.g. Wodak et al., 2009) from admissions to senior managers to lecturers to IT and estates. If read by an external audience, ‘we’ simply suggests the university as an institution and the text is a form of promise. However, when read by a university-internal audience, the function partly becomes about forming attitudes and influencing practices. Further, given its intertextual/interdiscursive connections with other texts circulating in the institution, the ‘will’ in ‘we will’ is likely to be interpreted as more obligating in tone since it outlines what the university, i.e. staff, must do. The following examples address the topics of community and partnership and echoes ideas in the Partnership document: 3.4 We will be welcoming and outward-looking, blurring the boundaries between staff and students, the University and the community, and will work closely with local and regional communities to develop an engaged Civic university. 3.6 The [University name] community will be courteous, collaborative and entrepreneurial. We will be known for our collegial, supportive culture, ignoring internal and external boundaries to provide the best possible education to our students. (university strategy document, 2012)

Further, the notion of ‘continuous improvement’ is evident in the following:

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

197

1.5 We will be self-critical and learn from what we and others do

The academic framework’s curriculum design principles also embody such discourses on partnership and student involvement in course/teaching improvement: 4. The curriculum should be student centred, accessible and inclusive. [2.1; 2.2] 9. The curriculum should be designed to foster student engagement in both the ongoing enhancement of the course and the wider life of the university community. [3.3; 3.4] (university academic framework document, 2012)

These brief examples illustrate the importance of government and its agencies’ (HEFCE/OfS) influence on all organisations involved in higher education including those focused on learning & teaching such as Advance HE (HEA). They also show how universities are heavily influenced by these organisations in designing their own strategies and learning & teaching guidelines. This does not mean that everyone in the university will embrace such ideas although numerous discursive mechanisms exist which encourage them to at least exhibit a shared language about valued practices as discussed in the next section. 6.3.4

Discursive Mechanisms of Embedding at the Institutional Level

Some might argue that academics can just ignore policy ideas but, of course, policy is designed to be engaged with so policy levers or what I call ‘discursive mechanisms’ exist to encourage this engagement. By mechanisms, I mean those accountability procedures and practices that academics need to participate in either as a compulsory or strongly encouraged part of their work. They form part of the ‘audit culture’ that is widely recognised in universities (see Chapter 1). They are discursive in character since they comprise written and spoken texts that people need to read and produce. In Fig. 6.1, the inner layer summarises just some of the discursive mechanisms that academics engage with in which an account of their teaching practices is probably required. The outer layer represents typical sources of influence present within the institution.

198

S. HORROD

academic framework guidelines on curriculum, assessment and teaching

strategy documents

appraisal document module & course reports subject reviews validation documents

activities of / texts produced by ADU

Fellowship scheme application

meetings

module guides learning & teaching policy ideas promotion application

website and intranet

guidelines on use of VLE

teaching observation funding application

Advance HE literature

activities by academics with Learning & Teaching role

Fig. 6.1 Discursive engagement with policy within the institution

Engaging in the Advance HE Fellowship scheme is the most obvious example where a statement of one’s approach to learning & teaching is most clearly required. However, there are many other situations where such policy ideas might be invoked in order to present oneself as following ‘best practice’ and being seen as ‘up-to-date’ with innovative teaching approaches. The question arises whether these processes are seen as simply another requirement or whether the effects are more detrimental in terms of narrowing the view of good practice and making people complicit in particular portrayals of learning & teaching, the purpose of an education and the identities of students and lecturers (Davies & Bansel, 2010).

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

199

6.4

Lecturer Views on Learning & Teaching Policy: Its Influence and the People Involved in Disseminating Policy Guidelines

This section discusses some of the lecturers’ views on changes in learning & teaching guidelines and practices and their views on the people involved in disseminating ‘best practice’. I did not ask lecturers directly about HEA policy but the subject of institutional guidelines and practices came up in our conversations as they discussed their assessments. 6.4.1

Changes to Teaching and Assessment Practices

Lecturers frequently mention changes they have made to practice sometimes as part of a process of review and ‘continuous improvement’ and sometimes in response to policy guidelines. In the following extract, the lecturer discusses the impact of the then recent institutional academic framework guidelines and we see echoes of the discursive strategy around ‘embedding’ policy ideas. As noted above, these guidelines have clear discursive links with national policy documents. I demonstrate how seemingly contradictory statements in interview data can reveal competing discourses. In the first extract, Karen explains how they completely restructured a module, reduced the amount of assessment and ‘embedded’ learning & teaching guidelines as a necessary part of revalidation and she expresses satisfaction with the changes: Karen:

in year 2 of [academic framework] completely we threw the whole thing up, rewrote the module and we’ve basically switched the semesters in fact that’s what we did, we put [name] first and then me second so now in effect the assessment was not quite halved, they do more than half, but in effect it’s now just one plan whereas before they would have written two plans … and then they do the extra bit which is the employability bit that’s the sort of the bit that’s (..) changed, we’re very happy with, we’re not changing next year, this has worked a treat, we really feel it’s right

Yet, in the extract below, Karen suggests they were already engaged in those practices around ‘employability, engagement’ which initially seems to contradict the first point.

200

S. HORROD

Interviewer: Karen:

so what were the guiding things in [academic framework] that you picked out? employability, engagement, which we’d already, to be honest, that was like well there’s nothing new there for us really, the employability making it very explicit was

The contradiction is partly explained by creating a new ‘employability’ assignment element and the need to make this very ‘explicit’ (see Chapter 4). However, these extracts also indicate competing discursive strategies whereby lecturers position themselves as responding to and embedding new guidelines but also construct themselves as having always been engaged in such favoured practices. This somewhat counters the claims in policy documents that this is new. It also indicates how lecturers are forced to respond to major shifts in curriculum design. The following extracts relate to the issue of group work elaborated on in Chapter 3 in terms of the students’ views. To recap, at the time of the student interviews, groups were allocated and fixed for the whole year which led to frequent tensions over high-stakes assessments. However, by the time I spoke to most lecturers, there were plans to change this and allow groups to choose their own members based on certain criteria and by the time I spoke to Sue, this change had been implemented. Here she describes the modifications to group setup and how this appeared to reduce the complaints significantly at least to lecturers. Although a key rationale for group work was that it emulates the work place, it also solved the problem of marking large numbers of assignments and masked potentially failing students. However, when group work is used for highstakes assignments and causes student dissatisfaction, it gradually becomes formatively assessed: Sue:

basically people still (..) don’t like group work … so we’ve reduced the weighting on most modules now and there are some modules where they don’t do any summative assessment as a group, they still work in groups but they write things up individually, and I think that’s where it’s going

The ‘it in ‘I think that’s where it’s going’ suggests this is institutional guidelines or policy rather than individual preference. The move back to doing more individual assignments is discussed further by Sue below:

6

Interviewer:

Sue:

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

201

really so it’s going BACK in a way, so it went forward towards more and more group work and now you think it’s going back a bit to individual? it’s just a feeling I get and I know that from a QC, quality control? quality committee perspective … the QC philosophy is (..) minimise group work, get rid of it, get rid of it, you know from an undergraduate perspective it causes endless problems as I’ve understood it

There is the use of the topos of authority by referring to the Quality committee perspective and the use of intensification through repetition and perspectivisation through direct speech representation ‘get rid of it’ although there is mitigation with the ‘as I’ve understood it’ and a suggestion of ambivalence in both these extracts towards this move. Sue also comments on proposed changes in pedagogy more broadly towards more in-class assessment: Sue:

Interviewer: Sue: Interviewer:

Sue: Interviewer: Sue:

but you know everything seems to be changing on sort of pedagogic grounds, if you speak to someone like [name] … our department’s [Learning & Teaching position], there’s a big shift, you know, there is a problem with marking if you’ve got big numbers, but there’s, there’s a shift to doing more work in class, more assessed work in class that you can assess and mark in class ok, er. but I think you’re right, there is a tension between. where’s that coming from? is that coming from anywhere in particular that idea? is it just to reduce the work in a way for lecturers? it’s about attendance. ok. so for undergrads you know, there’s a big, you know there’s a problem (..) throughout university probably of students who just don’t come, who don’t turn up, and so if you can do more in class that gives them a reason to be there, the idea is you drive up attendance, so it’s a faculty and probably a university strategic (.) move and I think this year we’ve been told undergrad wise, you’ve got to have eighty per cent (.) attendance (.) on your module …

202

S. HORROD

Interviewer:

Sue:

yeah that’s interesting, so could be more, even on postgrad, could be moving towards a bit of more individual stuff but in class, yeah yes I think certainly there’s a move towards more individual (..) stuff, erm in class, the philosophy of doing as much as possible in class anyway has always (.) been where we are

The ‘everything seems to be changing on pedagogic grounds’ and the use of the topos of authority by citing someone with a learning & teaching role describing ‘a big shift’ suggests a change in direction by the institution. This aligns with the strategy of transformation evident in the policy documents. However, it is not drawing on the topos of a twenty-firstcentury education but rather is focused on the challenges in the sector. The clarity and certainty of the response to my question ‘where’s that coming from’ with the swift ‘it’s about attendance’ shows she is in no doubt what the drivers are. The extract finishes with Sue showing her alignment with/approval of this guideline. In-class assessment addresses the problem of attendance and engagement. Instead of, or in addition to, the purported aim of enhancing practice, such changes are actually responses to problems. 6.4.2

People with Learning & Teaching Roles and Their Contribution

There are a mix of views about the contribution of those involved in promoting learning & teaching within the department. Some acknowledge the knowledge and proactiveness of the learning & teaching leads while others are more ambivalent about their contribution and about the promotion of a consistent approach to pedagogy more broadly. The latter view is embodied in Mike’s comments about a lack of pedagogy. He discusses the issue of numbers and how with small classes or at an individual level, teachers and students ‘solve problems together’. However, he argues that with a hundred students, a pedagogy in needed as he elaborates on below: Mike:

when he came in he said I want this faculty to be known for its unique pedagogy … but where is the unique pedagogy? clickers as I say many times and cabaret style is not a pedagogy, it’s a gimmick

6

Interviewer: Mike:

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

203

and so is he trying to create? there isn’t one, well we haven’t, we’ve been unsuccessful, to my mind [name of senior management] should have delivered this, but this has not been delivered and we are three years down the line, so if you say all these Fellows, what is their role? … so where I think we failed is for some, we got to have the educational people to say look here is our way of doing things and take us with them, otherwise becomes…

With the categorical ‘there isn’t one’, he suggests there is a lack of direction. He also questions the purpose of having the HEA (Advance HE) Fellows if they have no role in contributing to a pedagogical approach that can respond to the challenges resulting from high numbers and students’ relatively low levels of skills. He also states that he prefers not to see more people doing Education PhDs but instead to focus on the discipline. As noted previously, Mike characterises education as developing good practices and discusses the need for the university to better confront issues with students’ skills on entry and the realities of their lives: Mike:

but then from our side (..) the educational thing to make them better citizens, more educated citizens is one thing but how do we do it given the pressures that the individuals have? those are different things, one is about WHAT we do with them the other one is about HOW we do it with them and we’re not addressing either of those things and the frustration is when it’s so obvious or in which case I must be very stupid or very naive, cos to my mind these things are very simple you know

He claims that neither the ‘what’ nor ‘how’ of programmes are being addressed. He also suggests that senior management needs to deal with issues faced by this type of institution such as timetabling efficiently to allow students to work. He presents changes as rather ad hoc and shortterm such as the focus on engagement rather than learning; techniques rather than addressing the real issues. He also comments on the institutional version of the then HEA Fellowship scheme itself and his reluctance to pretend that he has engaged with learning & teaching literature:

204

S. HORROD

Mike:

Interviewer: Mike: Interviewer: Mike:

no, you know, [institutional HEA scheme] is a nonsense, but slightly different thing, why is it a nonsense because they were telling me to write a document (..) that I was, if anyone had read it, I could be done for misrepresentation because I’ve never read that literature, I never thought of the literature, it never informed my decision, now I’m looking backwards and saying well if I had read that literature, maybe I would have, and I said I can’t write this document because you are telling me to write lies… well if you go to HEA they don’t ask you to do that, so (..) that part don’t they? so you mean if you go directly? yeah. what’s the difference then? well the difference is far less emphasis on literature and far more emphasis on … and more about good practice and that makes sense and I’ve reflected on doing this and I’ve done that and I’ve changed this and what have you, here we just, we want to be, which is the same with a lot of the processes, you think about the processes in this place … and having [institutional HEA scheme] and having [institutional academic framework], what is the outcome? … you need to have actions that within our environment they will manifest something within three years, two years, so what’s the credibility of these things?

With his rhetorical questions ‘What is the outcome?’ and ‘What’s the credibility…?’, he signals his scepticism about the institutional scheme in terms of having to retrospectively justify one’s teaching approach and the scheme’s ability, and the work of people with learning & teaching roles, to generate a consistent institutional, or even faculty, pedagogical approach. These extracts indicate how academics are having to continuously respond to new policy initiatives in learning & teaching and challenges in the sector; this type of institution in particular. They also suggest that the impact of learning & teaching initiatives is limited in terms of academics feeling that the university has a clear direction in responding to issues such as large numbers, the types of students, attendance and ‘engagement’.

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

205

6.5 Implications and Discussion: The Consequences of Policy Recontextualisation In this section, I start by considering the findings above in relation to Bernstein’s ideas on recontextualising fields and then discuss broader issues around autonomy and compliance in relation to policy. 6.5.1

A Bernsteinian View of Recontextualisation

The analysis in this chapter has focused on how the notion of policy itself is constructed in policy documents and, principally, on how policy ideas can be recontextualised in different fields, different texts and the means through which they can potentially shape people’s practices. Bernstein’s (2000) pedagogic device (Chapter 2) encapsulates how ideas move and are influenced by actors/agencies in the recontextualising fields. In this section, I focus on his notions of the official recontextualising field (ORF) and the pedagogic recontextualising field (PRF) and his assertion that there is an increasing overlap or blurring of the two fields. To recap, the ORF includes the state, its agencies and associated bodies. The PRF comprises those involved in education within universities and could include, e.g. departments of education, ADUs, academics with a Learning & Teaching role, lecturers themselves as well as higher education media. Some may argue that Advance HE (HEA) is not part of the ORF since it is concerned with pedagogy and some contributors work in universities. However, I have indicated the complex network of influence between government and sector organisations and traced discursive links between them in this chapter. The expansion of the ORF has been noted in studies such as Loughland and Sriprakash (2016) and Singh (2015; 2017) such that it can no longer be seen as simply the government and its agencies. Therefore, I argue that the Department for Education (formerly BIS), OfS (HEFCE), Advance HE (HEA) and numerous organisations and interest groups, including business, belong to the ORF and shape the PRF. The increasing influence of the ORF on the PRF, and thus the issue of the autonomy of the latter, was suggested by Bernstein (2000). There is a blurring of boundaries between the ORF and PRF in the sense that ideas and texts circulating in the PRF come directly from the ORF. The PRF being ‘aligned with/sponsored by’ the ORF to varying degrees has been noted in Lim (2017, p. 369) and the notion of ‘pedagogic governance’

206

S. HORROD

encompassing the ORF and PRF outlined in Singh (2017). I would argue that those concerned with promoting learning & teaching ideas, i.e. ADUs and those with learning & teaching roles in departments are influenced by the ORF and, therefore, boundaries are indeed blurred. As discussed in this chapter, the HEA’s (and other ORF agencies’) texts have become embedded intertextually within the university’s own policy guidelines whether as management strategy documents or ADUs’ texts without questioning the ideas and in which contexts they are appropriate. HEA texts themselves, mainly frameworks but also discussion documents, have increasingly entered universities for the purposes of Advance HE Fellowship accreditation and as a response to the TEF more broadly. This may be more prominent in less highly ranked universities that see the focus on teaching quality as an opportunity. I would argue there is little sign of an autonomous PRF in the institution. The education department’s main concern is training school teachers. The main ideas about learning & teaching come from management, academics with learning & teaching roles and the ADU. A critical, independent voice of ‘academic developers’ in the ADU is not evident. Their influence may have been somewhat weak in the past since they are positioned centrally; however, at the time of the study, there were signs of an expanding remit and links to specific departments. This signals a further embedding of a learning & teaching agenda. One of the ADU’s main functions is to implement the Advance HE Fellowship scheme thereby responding to policy priorities in light of the TEF and acting as a recontextualising agent or a ‘mid-level policy actor’ (Singh et al., 2013) but with limited signs of adapting or questioning the messages of the official policy documents. The question arises whether alternative voices exist in the PRF. There are few collective alternative, critical voices being raised despite the fact that interview accounts reveal different voices and signs of tension and that the institution is to some extent a site of struggle over which pedagogies and which priorities. As evident in findings from lecturer interviews, individuals have their own approaches and autonomy exists at the programme level as course teams decide how to shape a course to suit their aims and students. However, this is influenced by institutional needs; for example, to remain competitive and ‘add value’ to programmes; to keep students happy by removing unpopular elements such as summative group work assessments; to encourage attendance, e.g. by doing in-class assessment.

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

6.5.2

207

Autonomy Versus Compliance

This chapter has illustrated how policy ideas are designed to be implemented through ‘embedding’ within processes and practices and through developing a ‘shared language’ around what best practice in learning & teaching entails. The question arises over the extent to which compliance can be resisted. The question of potential autonomy and agency links to the notion of recontextualisation varying in different settings at different times (Wodak & Fairclough, 2010). Certain factors may influence the degree of compliance or embracing of preferred practices. For example, senior staff may feel less need to engage than early career academics. Undergraduate programmes may be more likely to respond than postgraduate programmes since ‘engagement’ is usually a bigger challenge. Within institutions, some disciplinary areas with good reputations and subject rankings may see less need to comply. Finally, as Bernstein (2000) himself suggests, lower-ranking institutions may embrace these trends more than highly ranked, research-oriented universities. This may, on the one hand, make the teaching more innovative and engaging for students, but it may also, on the other hand, lead to these universities offering a different sort of education. I discuss this further in Chapter 7.

6.6

Conclusion

This chapter has examined how the notion of ‘policy’ itself is portrayed in policy documents and why there might be so much meta-discussion of how policy should be ‘done’. It has also explored the links between different layers and fields of policy and the texts, and the ideas, that circulate within and across these. I have looked at the ways in which engagement with, and embracing of, policy ideas is encouraged through ‘discursive mechanisms’ such as the Fellowship scheme but also through other everyday accountability measures. The extent of such a focus on ‘embedding’ in the policy documents indicates not only the potential force of policy ideas, in requiring everyone to share a common language and attitudes towards ‘best practice’, but also a level of insecurity about possible policy non-compliance. The following chapter is the conclusions chapter which addresses the key findings of the study and discusses its implications in more detail.

208

S. HORROD

References Advance, H. E. (2019). Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Enhancing student success in higher education. https://www.advance-he.ac. uk/advance-he-essential-frameworks-enhancing-student-success. Accessed 15 September 2022 Bernstein, B. (1990). Class codes and control, Volume IV: The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Routledge. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Revised Ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. BIS. (2011). Higher education: Students at the heart of the system, Government white paper. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. http://discuss. bis.gov.uk/hereform/white-paper Davies, B. & Bansel, D. (2010). Governmentality and academic work: Shaping the hearts and minds of academic workers. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 26(3), 5–20. Botham, K. (2018). An analysis of the factors that affect engagement of higher education teachers with an institutional professional development scheme. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2017.1407664 HEA. (2012). A marked improvement: Transforming assessment in higher education. Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/kno wledge-hub/marked-improvement. Accessed 15 June 2022 HEA. (2014). Internationalising Higher Education Framework, Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/internationa lising-higher-education-framework. Accessed 15 June 2022 HEA. (2016a). Framework for embedding employability in higher education. https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/. Accessed 15 September 2016 HEA. (2016e). Framework for flexible learning in higher education. https:// www.heacademy/. Accessed 15 September 2016. HEA. (2016). About us. Higher Education Academy. https://www.heacademy. ac.uk/about-us. Accessed 15 February 2017. Accessed 15 September 2016 Healey, M., Flint, A. & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowle dge-hub/engagement-through-partnership-students-partners-learning-and-tea ching-higher HEFCE. (2011). Opportunity, choice and excellence in higher education. July 2011/12. Higher Education Funding Council for England. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/about/howweoperate/strategystatement/. Accessed 15 September 2017

6

HOW POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED—AND WHY …

209

Jones-Devitt, S. (2020). Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Flexible learning. A guide to the Advance HE framework. https://www.adv ance-he.ac.uk/advance-he-essential-frameworks-enhancing-student-success. Accessed 15 August 2022. Lim. L. (2017). Regulating the unthinkable: Bernstein’s pedagogic device and the paradox of control. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 26(4), 353–374. Loughland, T. & Sriprakash, A. (2016). Bernstein revisited: The recontextualisation of equity in contemporary Australian school education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(2), 230–247, https://doi.org/10.1080/014 25692.2014.916604 Macfarlane, B., & Gourlay, L. (2009). The reflection game: Enacting the penitent self. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(4), 455–459. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13562510903050244 Mulderrig, J. (2011). The grammar of governance. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2011.533570 Mulderrig, J. (2012). The hegemony of inclusion: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of deixis in education policy. Discourse & Society, 23(6): 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512455377 Peat, J. (2015). Getting down to the nitty-gritty: The trials and tribulations of an institutional professional recognition scheme. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 19(3), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2015. 1029999 Pegg, A., Waldock, J., Wendy-Isaac, S. & Lawson, R. (2012). Pedagogy for employability. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac. uk/knowledge-hub/pedagogy-employability-2012. Accessed 15 September 2022 Ryan, J. (2020). Essential frameworks for enhancing student success: Internationalising Higher Education. Advance HE. https://www.advance-he.ac. uk/advance-he-essential-frameworks-enhancing-student-success. Accessed 15 September 2022 Ryan, A. & Tilbury, D. (2013). Flexible pedagogies: New pedagogical ideas. The Higher Education Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledgehub/pedagogyemployability-2012 Singh, P., Thomas, S. & Harris, J. (2013). Recontextualising policy discourses: A Bernsteinian perspective on policy interpretation, translation, enactment. Journal of Education Policy, 28(4), 1–16. Singh, P. (2015). Performativity and pedagogising knowledge: Globalising educational policy formation, dissemination and enactment. Journal of Education PolicyJournal of Education Policy, 30(3), 1–22. Singh, P. (2017). Pedagogic governance: Theorising with/after Bernstein. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(2), 144–163.

210

S. HORROD

Van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17 (3), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. & Liebhart, K. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh University Press. Wodak, R. & Fairclough, N. (2010). Recontextualizing European higher education policies: The cases of Austria and Romania‘ . Critical Discourse Studies, 7 (1), 19–40.

CHAPTER 7

Conclusions: Why Policy on Learning & Teaching Matters

7.1 Introduction: Why Policy Ideas on Learning & Teaching Matter In Chapter 1, I discussed some of the background context of higher education in terms of concrete policy changes in England, debates around markets and marketisation and the ‘discursive landscape’ relating to common narratives or discourses circulating about university study whether from higher education agencies or the media. The increasing ‘deregulation’ of higher education was noted in terms of less direct government involvement and lower funding and specific actions such as the easing of entry to new types of providers. I also highlighted the view that such deregulation is actually accompanied by increased accountability even though this takes different forms and stems from different agencies (see Ball, 2017). Accountability involves more performance indicators and rankings; including for ‘teaching quality’. This is accompanied by an increasing ‘managerialism’ (Deem et al., 2007) involving a culture of continuous self-improvement. Learning & teaching is part of this context of metrics and its rising prominence appears to be in response to discourses around the need to focus on value for money and the ‘student experience’; particularly given the high numbers entering higher education and the greater diversity of students. Of course, it is a good thing to enhance academics’ education around pedagogy especially given that some lecturers may have little experience of teaching. It is also positive to © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Horrod, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28038-2_7

211

212

S. HORROD

explore new ideas and approaches around how to teach. However, this is quite different from engaging with guidelines of ‘best practice’ in relation to ‘learning & teaching’ without the requisite debate around where these ideas come from, what agendas they might be responding to, a critical look at why they might be considered best practice and a detailed exploration of whether such ideas fit the specific discipline and its knowledge base, its values and ways of engaging students with the subject. I explore the implications of this context and learning & teaching policy’s position within it further below. This chapter reviews the key findings in relation to the areas of the research questions outlined in Chapter 1 and aims to draw some conclusions about the discourses employed within the field of learning & teaching in higher education. I also focus on the implications of these findings and discuss further why we should care about such policy discourses; including in relation to the experiences of students and lecturers in universities. First though, I reflect on the view of policy, mentioned in Chapter 2, that policy ideas are designed to offer solutions to perceived/constructed ‘problems’ in the context. CDS approaches align with this view and policy documents can be seen as both constructing ‘reality’ in a certain way and, at least partly, constructing the problems which policy is created to solve. This can be viewed as a legitimation strategy to support the policy proposals. Taking the example of assessment, the portrayal in policy documents of outdated, ineffective forms of assessment leads to the solution of radical transformation towards ‘fit-for-purpose’, twenty-first-century assessment which recognises that standards are socially situated. More broadly, the construction of lecturers as engaging in didactic, traditional forms of pedagogy and being recalcitrant and reluctant to change leads to the solution of needing to reflect on one’s own beliefs and values and the call for widespread culture change. The reality or context of higher education that is constructed is one of upheaval and change and I can summarise the issues constructed in the policy documents as follows: Issue 1: The ‘context’ creates more demanding students with, potentially, a passive consumer approach Issue 2: The ‘context’ of uncertainty raises questions around the purpose of higher education and how to address future ‘employability’ Issue 3: The ‘student experience’ in relation to learning, teaching and assessment is not good enough and lecturers are resistant to change

7

CONCLUSIONS: WHY POLICY ON LEARNING & TEACHING …

213

Issue 4: Policy cannot be implemented unless everyone shares the same values and the same language

These ideas embody just some of the assumptions on which the policy ideas are based. It is possible to question these assumptions and to consider in what sense are the policy ideas on learning & teaching really ‘best practice’? In terms of the findings relating to the policy constructions of people involved in a university education, what a university education should involve, how the teaching and learning should be done and how policy should be implemented (Chapters 3–6), I can summarise as follows. There is a focus on a community of all those involved in higher education. Occasionally mentioned are the trio of students, staff (lecturers) and academic developers. Teachers and their expertise as well as the student–teacher relationship are absent or backgrounded. Students and teachers are presented as partners and a lack of hierarchy and boundaries is emphasised (see Chapter 3). A university education is constructed as needing to focus on developing ‘employability’ skills, nebulous competences and capabilities, the right attitudes and on self-development. Disciplinary knowledge and values form one tiny part of the picture but is backgrounded and there is little sense of its importance or how the aforementioned skills engage with this knowledge (see Chapter 4). In relation to how the learning and teaching should be done, there is a focus on student learning and teaching is backgrounded. Teaching is constructed as a light-touch facilitation; including facilitating students’ contact with employers. There is an underpinning paradigm of social-constructivism which suggests that learning, knowledge and power are socially constructed/socially situated which contributes to relativising and backgrounding teaching expertise, teachers’ knowledge and any claims for teachers to be seen as substantially different from students. Learning, as well as improvements in ‘teaching quality’, are to be achieved through a process of ‘co-creation’. Knowledge is detached from the person (teacher) but, at the same time, the main knowers are presented as students and employers (see Chapter 5). Policy itself is much discussed and the need to ‘embed’ policy is emphasised. This is to be achieved through shared language, shared values as well as ‘rewards and recognition’ for those engaging with, and embedding, these policy ideas (see Chapter 6). This is a brief summary of the portrayals in policy documents. The following section summarises how this is achieved through language and discourse.

214

S. HORROD

7.2 Discourses in the Field of Learning & Teaching: a Summary and What This Reveals In this section, I summarise the findings outlined in Chapters 3–6 by highlighting the main discursive strategies that I found in the field of learning & teaching in higher education and discussing their significance. This addresses the first two research questions outlined in Chapter 1. 7.2.1

A Summary of Discursive Strategies

A key aim of this study was to identify the discursive strategies in the selected learning & teaching policy documents. In Chapters 3–6, I analysed these in detail in relation to the macro-strategies which construct people and phenomena in particular, ideological ways. In Table 7.1, I summarise the key findings regarding the strategies used in the longer HEA discussion documents although some are also found in the short framework documents. I outline the strategies, typical ways they are communicated in language (summarised) and highlight the strategies’ functions or purpose. Table 7.1 outlines the detail so here I summarise the characteristics of these strategies and how they work to legitimate policy. The underlying rationale is provided by the urgency associated with the context alluding to competition, fees and an uncertain future which necessitate radical change towards ‘twenty-first century’ practices and a focus on, for example, ‘employability’ and ‘the student experience’. Elements of an academic genre include the emphasis on providing evidence to legitimate the proposals. This includes extensive use of models, case examples, definitions of concepts, use of literature and referral to selected authorities, e.g. employers and students. There is a mix of certainty and insecurity apparent in the discursive strategies. Certainty and the self-evident character of the proposals are notable in the extensive use of positively evaluated elements and hierarchies of ‘good practice’, the use of intensification strategies and the insistence on knowledge, learning and power being socially situated. A certain level of insecurity over having a strong evidence base for the proposals is notable in mitigation strategies although this partly stems from avoiding being seen to be too prescriptive towards their audience of academics. It is also evident in the emphasis on institutions needing to embed policy, the repeated need to have ‘shared values’ which entails having a ‘shared language’. Thus, language is seen as a tool

7

CONCLUSIONS: WHY POLICY ON LEARNING & TEACHING …

215

Table 7.1 Summary of key discursive strategies in the selected learning & teaching policy documents Discursive strategies

Means and forms of realisation (overview)

Discursive function within the field of HE learning & teaching policy-making

topos of context

vague reference to context, sometimes followed by specifics: competition, fees etc language of uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity

– to form basis of legitimation for all policy proposals – to argue for general skills and attributes that can respond to an uncertain future – to persuade people that radical transformation is necessary to fit modern vision of university education – to argue that knowledge, learning, standards, power are socially-situated and can be negotiated – to underpin a partnership approach & to background teachers and teaching – to give authority to proposals and to show hierarchies of preferred practices – to give priority to e.g. student & employer views – to give authority but also to show the ‘ideal’/ ‘best practice’ to aspire to – to legitimate but also to construct a vision of good teaching, curriculum & assessment

topos of uncertainty

topos of modernity

language of new and modern; 21st-century

topos of social constructivism

language of situatedness, mutuality, equality, the negotiated/situated characteristic of learning, knowledge and power

topos of authority

multimodal models referring to authorities

topos of example

case studies, vignettes from ‘new’ universities

(continued)

216

S. HORROD

Table 7.1 (continued) Discursive strategies

Means and forms of realisation (overview)

Discursive function within the field of HE learning & teaching policy-making

topos of opposites

contrasting nouns/adjectives

topos of definition

defining terms; use of glossary

formal argumentation schemes

counter-argument/argument structures

nominations

processes as nouns preferred terms for people

predications

positively evaluated adjectives etc negatively evaluated adjectives

perspectivisation

mix of distancing and involvement language

intensification & mitigation

intensifying and qualifying language

– to construct preferred/non-preferred practices; to define concepts in people’s minds – to explain what a word means in context of that policy proposal – to show a consideration of other options, views and possible challenges before rejecting them – to abstract away from real people and processes in order to background them – to define people/phenomena in terms of the policy ideas – to positively evaluate the policy proposals and make them appear common sense/the obvious choice – to negatively evaluate the ‘traditional’ & resistance to change – to suggest objectivity but also commitment to proposals – to show urgency of situation but also to give illusion of not being prescriptive

to implement policy. As noted in Chapter 6, most mitigation is removed from the framework documents and they become guidelines for practice. In terms of delineating discourses, which as noted in Chapter 2 is not straightforward, taking the DHA definition of discourse being

7

CONCLUSIONS: WHY POLICY ON LEARNING & TEACHING …

217

topic-related and different perspectives using particular forms of argumentation, I can summarise prominent discourses in these policy documents and perhaps the field of higher education policy-making on learning & teaching more broadly. Prevalent are discourses about policy embedding, community, partnership, co-creation, employability, flexibility, active learning, a twenty-first-century education, transformation and the need for culture change among others. Other work on discourses within a marketised higher education context has evidenced the promotional character of discursive practices. Fairclough’s (1993) important early study of a range of genres including a university prospectus, conference programme, CV and job adverts shows the construction of more entrepreneurial institutional and professional identities in which self-promotion is central. He also adds that such practices may be ignored or resisted. Other higher education genres have since been analysed; for example, websites (Zhang & O’Halloran, 2013); mission statements (Banda & Mafofo, 2015; Morrish & Sauntson, 2013); prospectuses (Ng, 2014; Teo, 2007) and policy documents (e.g. Ledin & Machin, 2015; Mulderrig, 2011) as well as keywords such as entrepreneurial (Holborow, 2013; Mautner, 2005). The recontextualisation of European policy in national policy has also been explored (Fairclough & Wodak, 2008; Wodak & Fairclough, 2010). Less prominent are discourse-analytical approaches to examining pedagogy in a context of marketisation; that is, discursive practices in learning & teaching, and their recontextualisation, as explored in this study. Notable in the learning & teaching policy documents is the attempt to distance from symbols of marketisation such as metrics, outcomes and consumer culture to provide an alternative discourse about learning, community and partnership albeit still enveloped in the discourse around continuous self-development. While aspects of this alternative may be beneficial, the discursive strategies serve to deny that good practices already exist and legitimate the authority of some actors while delegitimating others. The effect is to relativise and background expertise and knowledge as I discuss further below. 7.2.2

Different but Overlapping Discourses: The Myth of an Alternative Discourse?

I have established that, overall, learning & teaching policy has a softersounding discourse than, for example, that of the Department for

218

S. HORROD

Education white papers or the Office for Students (OfS) (formerly HEFCE). The latter tend to focus on measures, metrics and accountability regarding, for example, driving up teaching quality. Learning & teaching policy documents, besides the setting out of the current challenging context, need for transformation and culture change, tend to emphasise the positive-sounding aspects of working in partnership, creating transformative learning, introducing flexibility to meet student needs and developing employability skills among others. The learning process is constructed as a socially situated, creative process with unexpected outcomes. Figure 7.1 illustrates the texts and discourse topics which contribute to these respective discourses. There seems to be an overlap, however, between discourse about measuring quality and discourse about transformative learning.

Discourse about measuring quality

text: DfE white papers

Discourse about transformative learning University strategy

HEFCE (OfS) strategy

discourse topic: metrics, surveys, performance indicators

University framework guidelines

articulation & reflection explicitness

accountability

transformation a creative process

Fig. 7.1 Interdiscursivity: overlapping discourses

HEA / Advance HE framework documents

HEA discussion documents

the unimagined, the unknown negotiated, mutual sociallysituated learning the tacit, internal & unseen

7

CONCLUSIONS: WHY POLICY ON LEARNING & TEACHING …

219

The softer discourses around learning & teaching have been described as an ‘alternative discourse’ (Ashwin et al., 2015). While it is true that the tone is softer with positive-sounding proposals that can be hard to argue against, this discourse is still ideological in terms of the underlying assumptions about the context and its consequences and the proposed solutions. The constructions of teachers, teaching and learning are not value-free but a reflection of the socio-political context and a particular framing of what higher education should be. As discussed in Chapters 3– 5, teachers, teaching and knowledge are backgrounded and foregrounded are learning, a focus on generic skills such as employability and underpinning ‘values’ such as partnership are promoted as needing to be built into the ‘design of the learning’.

7.3

How Policy Ideas Move and Change: The Suppression of the Ideological

Another key aim of the study was to explore recontextualisation and the ways that policy ideas travel between different fields and how they change in the process. This also involves a focus on how the ideological becomes obscured as ideas move into different genres and fields/contexts. This addresses the overarching research question about the ‘recontextualisation’ of policy ideas as well as research questions 4 and 5, in particular, as outlined in Sect. 1.5. In terms of discursive practice, through the increas2016) within an ingly conceptual character of discourse (Krzyzanowski, ˙ appealing frame, the ideological is obscured through a process of decontextualisation and recontextualisation. In other words, the origins of the ideas disappear, the rationale is ‘constructed’ and the proposals are couched in very appealing language which may make the ideas harder to argue against. In Chapter 6, I traced changes between different types of policy documents; that is, from longer discussion documents to short frameworks and the links between these and the Advance HE (HEA) teacher accreditation scheme. I also examined how discourses from national learning & teaching policy made their way into institutional strategy and learning & teaching guidelines as well as into lecturers’ own accounts (Chapters 3–6). In Chapter 4, I outlined the complexity of assessment practices and how assignments at least partly reflect ideas found in learning & teaching policy such as employability and engagement.

220

S. HORROD

It is uncontroversial that policy ideas are designed to be implemented. What is of interest are the kinds of changes that occur and how these ideas, and the genres they are part of, enter new fields or spaces and then the ideas permeate institutions in a variety of ways. I have traced the differences between longer policy discussion documents that have been cited as the main source of, or influential on, the later shorter frameworks. I have noted how these ideas imbue university’s own policies and guidelines, how they become part of departmental assessment practices as well as become part of the culture or institutional conversation. It is evident that during this process of recontextualisation, most of the debate and nuance disappears and what remains is a certainty over the value of the proposal and the type of pedagogical approach that is required.

7.4 Views on the Ground: The Value of Findings from Students and Lecturers and How This Relates to Policy Views Interview accounts reveal different voices in relation to the issues highlighted in policy texts. Student accounts exhibit more consistency with agreement over general satisfaction with the course, certain challenges such as group work and varying voices tend to represent those of higherperforming and lower-performing students. Overall, it is clear though how much students appreciate their courses and their time studying. Their satisfaction is evident in terms of engaging with, and applying, theoretical knowledge and the accompanying literature. They seem to appreciate the rigour and challenge involved in this as well as the practically oriented aspects of their studies. They are more sceptical about what they perceive as some of the less authentic elements which seem to derive from the need to address an employability agenda and generic skills (see Chapter 4). Lecturer accounts reveal a wider range of voices which indicate perhaps different levels of openness but also different voices in relation to the issues under discussion. Some are more closely aligned with approved learning & teaching practices and viewpoints while others are more questioning. A continuum is visible from those who use the language of policy; for example, terms such as ‘co-creation’, ‘facilitation’ or ‘employability’, to those who discuss practices that seem to align broadly with policy, to those who explicitly discuss and question certain learning & teaching concepts, guidelines and practices. Interview accounts also reveal elements

7

CONCLUSIONS: WHY POLICY ON LEARNING & TEACHING …

221

of agency at certain times which offer opportunities for people to appropriate policy in their own way for the benefit of the programme and students. There appear to be both pressures to respond to institutional imperatives and guidelines as well as a reasonable level of autonomy at the department and programme level. Also evident in lecturer accounts, is the commitment to rigour and to their discipline informed by research in the field, their own experience as practitioners and a commitment to keeping in touch with current practice in the industry. The interview accounts reveal a very different picture from policy. These postgraduate students have multifaceted identities with many having work experience, some having a background in the subject, a few being parents as well as having a diverse range of cultures and languages. They have experiences to bring to their learning. However, they do not present themselves as already having the knowledge and expertise that they are getting from their course. Nor do they present themselves as ‘passive consumers’. Lecturer accounts reveal the amount of thought and work that is put into designing the teaching and assessment. The assignments, and accounts of practices around them, indicate the innovative nature of teaching and assessment, an openness to new ideas while maintaining rigour and focus on the subject area. Also, there is no sign of a ‘light-touch facilitation’. Instead, evident is a huge amount of work in supporting students through a demanding course and complex assessments. The interviews provided valuable insights into what is actually happening in university courses as well as traces of how policy ideas permeate into practice and the pressures on departments and programmes to engage with both institutional policy and the reality of the higher education context.

7.5

The Contribution of Social Theory: Bernstein’s Continuing Relevance to an Analysis of Higher Education

It has been argued that Bernstein’s ideas are due for a revival in higher education research (e.g. Donnelly & Abbas, 2019) and I have certainly found them useful in this study. Bernstein’s ideas firstly provided a useful entry point for identifying the object of study by providing a framework, in the form of the pedagogic device, for understanding how education works and how a curriculum is arrived at. In other words, the

222

S. HORROD

framework enables an exploration of what occurs in the spaces between ‘discipline as research’ and ‘discipline as curriculum’ (Ashwin, 2012), conceptualises how power and control may be enacted in these spaces and highlights these ‘recontextualising fields’ as sites of struggle between different actors/agencies who wish their ideas to be accepted. The idea of instructional discourse (what is taught and how) always being embedded in a regulative discourse of values highlighted the need to question any ideas in education presented as theory-free best practice. His work also provided an array of concepts to help me frame what I saw in learning & teaching policy as well as to conceptualise students’ and lecturers’ actual experiences and their identities; for example, classification and framing, performance/competence models and visible/invisible pedagogies and pedagogic identities, among others. The notion of recontextualisation embodied in his conceptualisation of the recontextualising fields (official and pedagogic) is pivotal and provided a useful complement to the same concept used in/repurposed by CDS in relation to the movement and transformation of ideas. As discussed in Chapter 6, there can be a struggle between agencies/people in the PRF and ORF but it also seems that there is a blurring of the fields as more agencies, groups and roles seem aligned with government agendas and involved in policy compliance. More broadly, Bernstein’s ideas are complementary to my approach from critical discourse studies since they both explore how certain ideas become prominent, the obscuring of the ideological and address issues of equity. His later work touched on marketisation within higher education, the ‘politics of recontextualising’ (Bernstein, 2000), and considered the kinds of identities available to students and teachers in different political arenas. This provided food for thought around the ways that people are represented in policy but also how people construct themselves and others in interview accounts (see Chapter 3 in particular). Bernstein’s de-centred identities; that is, the market/instrumental (neoliberal) and therapeutic (professionals) identities, have resonances with the portrayals of students and lecturers constructed in learning & teaching policy. These identities are closely linked, of course, with the presumed purposes of a higher education. This involves the instrumental focus on finding a job and students developing generic employability skills to enable them to do so and to cope with an uncertain future. It also involves a focus on continual self-development for both students and academics.

7

7.6

CONCLUSIONS: WHY POLICY ON LEARNING & TEACHING …

223

Learning & Teaching in Universities

In this section, I reflect further on the implications of the visions of learning & teaching in policy and discuss the ways that a learning & teaching focus is promoted in universities. I also discuss further notable trends in discourse around learning & teaching. 7.6.1

Academic Development

As I discussed in Sect.1.4, university centres of learning & teaching/academic development units (ADUs) are engaged in a range of activities such as providing new lecturers with opportunities to take qualifications in teaching such as the PG Cert in HE; advising and collaborating with academics on pedagogy and design of course materials; initiating institutional-level conversations around learning & teaching and creating/contributing to policy and guidelines; encouraging lecturer engagement with an institutional Advance HE Fellowship teaching accreditation scheme; engaging in higher education research, among others. This is clearly a mix of responsibilities that differ in their focus towards the needs of the institution, individual departments and programmes and the interests of the individual academic developer. The balance of activities and academic developers’ approaches to academic development practice in different institutions, or at different times, may vary. For example, Land (2001, p. 6) proposes twelve different ‘orientations’ including managerial, researcher, reflective practitioner, discipline-specific etc. These sit in positions along two axes labelled individual–institutional and critique-policy. The orientation towards policy is described as ‘domesticating’ and implies a focus on encouraging policy compliance and addressing institutional imperatives. Land (2007) notes the difficulty for academic developers of trying to balance different orientations in relation to their own identities and how they wish to see themselves as well as the potential difficulty in engaging with academics who may be wary of what can seem a general approach to pedagogy and who may see themselves as more discipline-focused and research-focused. He also points to the issue of the evidence/research base for the ideas emerging from ADUs. In light of the increasing prominence of learning & teaching, the TEF, the focus on the ‘student experience’ and performance indicators which supposedly align with ‘teaching quality’, one area of academic developers’

224

S. HORROD

work which stands out in many universities is their engaging of academics with institutional learning & teaching policy and guidelines as well as teaching accreditation schemes. Therefore, the analysis of these policy ideas, as I have done in this study, is certainly warranted. Analysis of institutional policy indicated the recontextualisation of national learning & teaching policy ideas into a university’s own strategy and guidelines. Interview accounts also indicated the prominence of learning & teaching agendas and the pressure to engage with the institutional HEA Fellowship scheme. 7.6.2

Learning Design

Another area of academic developers’ work that came to the fore during the pandemic and the move to online learning was their role in advising on the design of learning in online asynchronous and synchronous settings. There was a lot of useful collaboration with academics to make students’ study easier by exploring the potential of online platforms and tools. However, there are also issues with this focus on learning design. Having been involved in this area of academic development very briefly during that period, and seeing it from both staff and student perspectives, it was the case that even carefully designed asynchronous study was incredibly challenging for students and many students preferred the online live sessions despite the ‘flexibility’ of asynchronous design. There was a lack of motivation and a lack of a sense of belonging in asynchronous study. Flexibility works for some but most undergraduates want to be engaged with a knowledgeable teacher and to be with their fellow students. From a discourse point of view, the notion of learning design takes the focus away from teaching and towards a depersonalised view of learning; as if all that is required is to design a course well enough. It abstracts away from the people doing the teaching and their knowledge and their expertise in engaging students with that knowledge (see, e.g. Ashwin, 2020; McLean, 2020). Of course, it is an admirable aim to make a course interesting by having a diverse range of elements and ways of teaching but the connotations of learning design can be problematic. There is currently a proliferation of jobs being advertised at universities for learning designers and educational developers. It may be that universities are placing a further focus on teaching but it is also likely that they are seeking further opportunities to develop online or blended courses to offer the ‘flexible

7

CONCLUSIONS: WHY POLICY ON LEARNING & TEACHING …

225

learning’ that they think is wanted. The underlying, and explicit, messages of learning & teaching policy, with its backgrounding of teaching and teachers, feed into this notion that designing the learning in certain ways is sufficient to provide a good university education.

7.7

Issues of Inequality and Social Justice

Aligning with Wodak and Fairclough’s (2010) notion that recontextualisation occurs at different paces, the taking up of policy ideas is not the same in all institutions. Learning & teaching has greater prominence in some institutions than in others. The influence of centres for learning & teaching/ADUs varies. The effects are experienced differently in different universities with lower-ranking universities being subject to a greater impact from policy (Abbas et al., 2012) and, for example, being more permeable to outside influences and forced to focus more on ‘projection’ outwards to the market (Bernstein, 2000). Some academics may not have these learning & teaching agendas on their radar but for others, the discourses outlined in this book will be very familiar. They may feel the pressure to engage with them, to seek accreditation and to articulate their commitment to learning & teaching. They may also have been in a classroom where a student asks ‘how is this useful for the workplace?’ because academics have been obliged to articulate how everything in their course has an employability angle and students have been encouraged to ask about this. Other academics may never have experienced this. It is likely that new universities have taken up the commitment to learning & teaching more because ‘teaching quality’ is a way they believe they can compete. The question is what such a commitment to the advocated learning & teaching agendas may entail. It has the potential to change the focus of a course or part of a course; for example, by providing a greater focus on employability and generic skills. The question is then whether different types of universities are increasingly providing a different type of education. This takes us back to Bernstein’s (2000) distributive and recontextualising rules. In other words, who gets what type of education and how do different institutions recontextualise both the subject discipline and policy to produce the kind of education they provide? Further, not everyone is subject to the same pressures. Newer academics are more likely to face pressure to engage with learning & teaching agendas and teaching accreditation schemes more than established, senior colleagues.

226

S. HORROD

In fact, commitment to engaging with the Fellowship scheme is often a pre-requisite in job descriptions. There is also the issue of the narrowing of conceptions of ‘best practice’. By advocating certain ways of seeing learning and teaching, students and academics and university education (see Chapters 3–5), and insisting on the ‘embedding’ of these ideas through a variety of discursive mechanisms (see Chapter 6), this could lead to a limited view of what good pedagogy is and the types of identities that academics and students can adopt (Bernstein, 2000). This can also involve elements of what many see as indicative of a neoliberal higher education environment in terms of a focus on continuous self-improvement and a certain amount of selfsurveillance in the sense of aligning with institutional values (see, e.g. Davies & Bansel, 2010). There are undoubtedly academics who engage with these policy agendas by integrating them into their practice in order to increase their visibility and possibly their prospects of advancement. One could argue that this may be done for instrumental reasons but it is also possible that they believe what they are advocating. Either way, these practices perpetuate the visions of policy and their underlying messages.

7.8

Ways Forward: ‘Prospective Critique’

From the perspective of the three types of critique typically addressed in a DHA approach (e.g. Reisigl, 2018), I have examined how the policy documents work in terms of discursive strategies (text/discourse immanent critique) and linked these strategies to the broader socio-political context in order to highlight the persuasive/manipulative character of the strategies, their recontextualisation and the potentially detrimental effects (socio-diagnostic critique). In terms of future ways forward (prospective critique), I would like to see questioning of the ways that people and education are represented. I would also welcome discussion of the kinds of proposals being made and whether they do in fact represent ‘best practice’, and have positive consequences, for everyone involved. There is also the issue of the increasing number of discursive mechanisms that try to ensure ‘quality’. What are the impacts on those who have to engage with them? As discussed above, is this limiting the conceptualisation of good practice? Of course, I should be reflexive about my own positioning in the research since I am not a disinterested observer but a teacher who comes across such discourses and has also appropriated them when necessary

7

CONCLUSIONS: WHY POLICY ON LEARNING & TEACHING …

227

since I am subject to the same discursive mechanisms and audit culture as others. However, I do believe that there are serious problems with the ideas, and emphasis, in policy around what a university education involves, what learning entails and who academics and students are and that the underlying messages are potentially damaging. There is a risk of being drawn in by the exciting pedagogic techniques and the pressure for continuous enhancement to become the innovative teachers that universities require but not questioning the underlying assumptions. Therefore, a more critical engagement with ideas in learning & teaching is needed. It would also be beneficial to focus more on students’ and academics’ perspectives and experiences.

7.9

Conclusion

In this study, I have shown the benefits of a detailed textual analysis of policy documents. I also contribute to existing work on policy analysis which takes a more complex, critical and interpretive view of policy; seeing policy not simply as text but as processes and practices. Therefore, it has been important to trace policy discourses through different fields or spaces and different genres to see how policy ideas are recontextualised. This includes exploring the accounts of practices and views of students and lecturers in a university. The field of learning & teaching has been less explored from a discourse-analytical point of view so drawing some conclusions about the discourses and discursive strategies employed in this area is a contribution of this study. Bringing together Bernstein’s work on pedagogy and critical discourse studies has also been valuable for interpreting ideas in learning & teaching policy. The scope of this qualitative research is necessarily limited in scale, involving the analysis of a relatively small number of documents together with practices in one part of one university. However, the data was carefully selected and analysed systematically. For example, the selected policy documents cover the range of key policy agendas of the HEA (Advance HE). The case study of the university is small since it focuses on one set of postgraduate programmes within one department and a small number of interviews. Yet, it has some breadth and depth in that different types of data were examined; that is, the full range of assignments and module guides as well as institutional-level policy documents. These, in turn, informed the in-depth interviews. Further, an important feature of the study design was to explore connections between different layers of policy

228

S. HORROD

and practice leading to the selection of, and analysis of and between, national and organisational-level policy documents. Future studies could undoubtedly research practices in different subject areas and on a larger scale across a university or universities. Other methodologies are possible too. Corpus-based studies enable a more quantitative approach to large bodies of policy texts or a combination of quantitative/qualitative approaches through corpus-based discourse analysis. There is also the potential to explore different angles on the topic; for example, by interviewing lecturers specifically on their views of learning & teaching policy. However, for me, becoming familiar with the detail of the data—both policy documents and interviews—in all their richness and complexity, was one of the benefits of this study. I hope that providing insight into these documents, accounts and practices in this setting, albeit a snapshot of a point in time, contributes to an understanding of what the policy discourses are, how policy ideas move, as well as what it is like to study and work in a particular type of university. The findings may resonate with many who work or study in higher education; both in this country and internationally. As numerous publications suggest, universities could be at a crossroads and it is timely to reiterate their educational purpose as providing individuals with transformative knowledge and teaching and as providing a ‘public good’ (e.g. Ashwin, 2020; Barnett, 2011; McLean et al., 2017). Yet, there are still reasons for a certain ‘unease’ (McArthur, 2013, p. 152); some of which can be traced in interview accounts here. These include increased workloads, uncertainty over pedagogy, repackaging courses to suit the market, disagreements within faculties or institutions, and constant changes in policy guidelines and preferred practices. There also seems to be increasing moves to control the ‘quality’ of everything including teaching. Despite these sources of unease, insecurity and constant state of change that may be familiar to those working in universities, I think it is helpful to highlight the enthusiasm I came across in teachers for their subjects, their research, their teaching and their students as well as students’ own enthusiasm for their courses and university experience. However, it is also important to examine, and challenge where necessary, how power and control are being employed to shape those identities, relationships and the experience and purpose of higher education.

7

CONCLUSIONS: WHY POLICY ON LEARNING & TEACHING …

229

References Abbas, A., Ashwin, P., & McLean, M. (2012). Neoliberal policy, quality and inequality in undergraduate degrees. In P. Whitehead & P. Crawshaw (Eds.), Organising neoliberalism: Markets, privatisation and justice (pp. 179–199). Anthem Press. Ashwin, P. (2012). Analysing teaching-learning interactions in higher education: Accounting for structure and agency. Continuum International Pub. Group. Ashwin, P., Abbas, A. & McLean, M. (2015). Representations of a high-quality system of undergraduate education in English higher education policy documents. Studies in Higher Education, 40(4), 610–623. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03075079.2013.842211 Ashwin, P. (2020). Transforming university education: A manifesto. Bloomsbury Academic. Ball, S. (2017). The education debate (3rd Ed.). Policy Press. Banda, F., & Mafofo, L. (2015). Commodification of transformation discourses and post-apartheid institutional identities at three South African universities. Critical Discourse Studies, 13(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/174 05904.2015.1074593 Barnett, R. (2011). Being a university. Routledge. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique (Revised Ed.), Rowman & Littlefield. Davies, B. & Bansel, D. (2010). Governmentality and academic work: Shaping the hearts and minds of academic workers. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 26(3), 5–20. Deem, R., Hillyard, S. & Reed, M.I. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford University Press. Donnelly, M., & Abbas, A. (2019). Using the sociology of Basil Bernstein in higher education research. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 4, pp. 1–17). Emerald Publishing. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133–168. https://doi. org/10.1177/0957926593004002002 Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (2008). The Bologna process and the knowledgebased economy: A critical discourse analysis approach. In B. Jessop, N. Fairclough, R. Wodak, Education and the knowledge-based economy in Europe (pp. 109–125). Sense. Holborow, M. (2013). Applied linguistics in the neoliberal university: Ideological keywords and social agency. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(2), 229–257. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-0011 Krzyzanowski, ˙ M. (2016). Recontextualisation of neoliberalism and the increasingly conceptual nature of discourse: Challenges for critical discourse studies.

230

S. HORROD

Discourse & Society, 27 (3), 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/095792651 6630901 Land, R. (2001). Agency, context and change in academic development, International Journal for Academic Development, 6(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13601440110033715 Land, R. (2007). Academic development, identity and paradox. In R. Barnett & R. Di Napoli (Eds.), Changing identities in higher education: Voicing perspectives (pp. 134–144). Routledge. Ledin, P., & Machin, D. (2015). How lists, bullet points and tables recontextualize social practice: A multimodal study of management language in Swedish universities. Critical Discourse Studies, 12(4), 463–481. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17405904.2015.1039556 Mautner, G. (2005). The entrepreneurial university: A discursive profile of a higher education buzzword. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2), 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900500283540 McArthur, J. (2013). Rethinking knowledge within higher education: Adorno and social justice. Bloomsbury. McLean, M. (2020). Locating social justice in higher education research. In J. McArthur & P. Ashwin (Eds.), Locating social justice in higher education research (pp. 89–103). Bloomsbury Academic. Morrish, L., & Sauntson, H. (2013). ‘Business-facing motors for economic development’: an appraisal analysis of visions and values in the marketised UK university. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17405904.2012.736698 Mulderrig, J. (2011). The grammar of governance. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2011.533570 Ng, C. J. W. (2014). ‘We offer unparalleled flexibility’: Purveying conceptual values in higher educational corporate branding. Discourse & Communication, 8(4), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481314537576 Reisigl, M. (2018). The discourse-historical approach. In J. E. Flowerdew & J. Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 44–59). Taylor and Francis. Teo, P. (2007). The marketisation of higher education: A comparative case-study of two universities in Singapore. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 1(1), 95–111. Wodak, R. & Fairclough, N. (2010). Recontextualizing European higher education policies: the cases of Austria and Romania. Critical Discourse Studies, 7 (1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903453922 Zhang, Y. & Halloran, K. L. (2013). ‘Toward a global knowledge enterprise’: university websites as portals to the ongoing marketization of higher education. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(4), 468–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17405904.2013.813777

Index

A academic developers, 18, 21, 82, 85, 86, 106, 107, 176, 180, 206, 213, 223, 224 academic development units (ADUs), 2, 11, 21, 22, 70, 183, 205, 206, 223, 225 academic practice, 21, 86 accountability, 14, 27, 46, 170, 191, 193, 197, 207, 211, 218 active learning, 117, 123, 129, 147, 148, 195, 217 added value, 111, 112, 116, 124, 137, 139, 141, 142, 144, 160, 171 Advance HE, 8, 10, 21, 22, 25, 51, 69, 70, 72, 86, 91, 120, 160, 180–183, 189–193, 197, 198, 203, 205, 206, 219, 223, 227 alternative discourse, 170, 217, 219 argumentation, 12, 24, 48, 53, 55, 57, 58, 61–63, 90, 98, 99, 119, 129, 137, 165, 178, 217

articulation of learning, 117, 118, 124, 128, 142, 168 assessment, 2, 3, 21, 23, 27, 39, 41, 43, 48, 51, 61, 66, 67, 69, 73, 81, 83, 85, 93, 97, 106, 107, 115–117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 127–131, 134, 135, 137–142, 148, 151–153, 157, 160–162, 166, 169, 171, 172, 175, 178–181, 190, 195, 199–202, 206, 212, 219–221 assessment literacy, 180 audit culture, 20, 197, 227 authentic tasks, 112, 117, 123, 139 B backgrounding, 87, 143, 147, 148, 155, 166, 172, 213, 225 belonging, 53, 71, 81–83, 88, 93, 106, 109, 159, 224 Bernstein, Basil, 3, 25, 27, 37–45, 47–49, 51, 60, 61, 65–67, 69, 81, 106, 107, 111, 141, 142, 147, 150, 154, 166–169, 172,

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 S. Horrod, Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28038-2

231

232

INDEX

176, 205, 207, 221, 222, 225–227 best practice, 23, 27, 39, 86, 99, 176, 189, 192, 198, 199, 207, 212, 213, 222, 226 Business, Information and Skills, department for (BIS), 8, 69, 71, 170, 194, 195, 205

C capabilities, 111, 115, 120, 142, 144, 152, 154, 156, 158, 159, 168, 171, 172, 213 classification, 42, 43, 45, 141, 222 co-creation, 1, 27, 81, 148, 154, 156–160, 171, 213, 217, 220 community, 18, 81–83, 87–90, 92–94, 106, 107, 109, 160, 180, 196, 197, 213, 217 competence model, 43–45, 142, 168, 222 competencies, 142, 168 compliance, 18, 21, 22, 175, 176, 205, 207, 222, 223 consumer, student as, 158, 167, 170 context, 4, 5, 11, 12, 16, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 38, 39, 41, 46–49, 53, 60, 61, 90, 101, 106, 119, 148, 157, 161, 169–172, 176, 188, 211, 212, 214, 217–219, 221, 226 Continuous improvement, 160, 162, 168, 194–196, 199 critical discourse studies (CDS), 4, 12, 25, 27, 37, 38, 46, 47, 65, 222, 227 critical policy studies (CPS), 46 critique, 12, 15, 48, 49, 55, 58, 91, 105, 168, 223, 226 culture change, 89, 91, 148, 212, 217, 218

D de-centred identities, 222 deregulation, 12–15, 211 Dewey, John, 83, 155–157, 159 didactic instruction, 152, 166 disciplinary knowledge, 111, 115, 142–144, 152, 153, 159, 213 discourse, 4, 11, 12, 19, 20, 25, 38–40, 42, 45–47, 49–51, 53–55, 58–62, 65, 82–84, 88, 90, 94, 96, 103, 106, 109, 112, 113, 115, 116, 119, 128, 129, 139, 144, 148, 149, 152, 160, 161, 166, 170, 176, 180, 190, 195, 213, 216, 217, 219, 222–224, 226, 228 discourse-historical approach (DHA), 25, 27, 38, 47–51, 53–55, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 94, 216, 226 discourse topic, 51, 54, 59, 60, 62, 82–84, 88, 94, 112, 115, 119, 128, 129, 148, 160, 176, 190, 218 discursive landscape, 4, 11, 13, 20, 211 discursive mechanisms, 12, 19, 22, 25, 191, 197, 207, 226, 227 discursive strategy, 55, 89, 90, 115, 119, 150, 151, 153, 189, 199 distributive rules, 40 E embedding, 59, 89, 175, 176, 178, 180, 190, 191, 194, 197, 199, 200, 206, 207, 213, 217, 226 employability, 16, 42, 69, 88, 93, 107, 111, 112, 115–120, 123, 126–129, 134, 135, 137–139, 141–144, 152, 153, 158, 168, 170, 171, 178, 179, 182, 187, 188, 190, 194, 199, 200, 212–214, 217–220, 222, 225

INDEX

engagement, 2, 11, 16, 18, 25, 69, 70, 83, 88, 90, 91, 94, 98, 106, 122, 130, 131, 144, 147, 152, 159, 167, 170, 172, 175, 180, 191, 195, 197–200, 202–204, 207, 219, 223, 227 equity, 41, 147, 169, 171, 172, 193 evaluative rules, 40, 41, 69 explicitness, 43, 44, 93, 97, 118, 119, 129, 169, 182 F facilitation, 147, 149, 152, 155, 160–162, 166, 213, 220, 221 facilitator, 91, 108, 155, 161, 162, 167 Fellowship scheme, 15, 22, 51, 70, 198, 203, 206, 207, 224, 226 field of action, 50, 55, 58, 60, 183 field of production, 40, 49 field of reproduction, 40, 49 flexible learning, 91, 160, 187–192, 225 footing, 61, 62, 96, 99 foregrounding, 148, 172 frameworks, HEA, 15, 22, 23, 181, 183, 189, 191, 206 framing, 39, 61, 166 Freire, Paulo, 43, 155–157, 159 future-fit, 112, 115, 142 G generic modes, 42, 43, 45, 142, 154 generic skills, 111, 117, 118, 142, 143, 158, 171, 172, 219, 220, 225 genre, 25, 48, 50–53, 61, 126, 135, 162, 164, 175, 182, 189, 217, 219, 220, 227 group work, 81, 93, 94, 99–103, 108, 126, 129, 132–134, 138,

233

142, 161, 162, 169, 200, 201, 206, 220

H hierarchies, 45, 81–83, 88, 107–109, 154, 168, 214 Higher Education Academy (HEA), 8, 10, 11, 15, 21, 22, 25, 50, 51, 53, 67, 69–72, 86, 112, 115, 116, 118, 120, 148, 152, 153, 156, 157, 167, 178, 180–184, 187–197, 199, 203–206, 214, 224, 227 Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 5, 8, 9, 11, 20, 69, 71, 170, 179, 194, 205, 218 Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), 6, 9, 13, 40

I ideology, 12, 39, 47, 48 instructional discourse, 39, 222 instrumental, 4, 44, 106–108, 167, 169, 182, 222, 226 intensification, 95, 96, 119, 163, 164, 176, 201, 214 interdiscursivity, 50, 60, 62, 66, 70, 175 internationalisation, 69, 83, 115, 151, 153, 180, 181, 190, 192 intertextuality, 50, 60, 62, 66, 70, 175 introjection, 45, 168, 169 invisible pedagogy, 167, 168

K key performance indicator (KPI), 22 knowledge, 16–19, 21, 27, 38, 40, 44, 45, 49, 51, 53, 60, 62, 69,

234

INDEX

91, 92, 107, 108, 112, 117, 120, 127, 140, 142, 143, 147, 148, 150–155, 157–159, 161, 168, 169, 171, 172, 180, 181, 188, 190, 192–195, 202, 212–214, 217, 219–221, 224, 228 L learner-centred, 156, 159, 167, 170–172 learner empowerment, 88, 156, 157, 172 learning, 1–3, 5, 6, 9–11, 17–24, 26, 27, 37–43, 45, 48, 50–52, 54, 58–60, 66, 67, 69–71, 73, 81–83, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 100, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 115–120, 122, 128, 129, 134, 137, 141, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150–161, 163, 166–172, 175, 178–183, 187–199, 202–204, 206, 207, 211–215, 217, 219–228 learning & teaching, 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 17, 18, 20–24, 26, 27, 38, 40–42, 48, 51, 58, 66, 69–71, 73, 81, 82, 86, 106, 107, 109, 111, 117, 120, 122, 141, 144, 145, 148, 150, 157, 167, 170–172, 175, 180, 182, 183, 193, 194, 196–199, 202–204, 206, 207, 211–215, 217, 219, 220, 222, 223, 225, 227, 228 legitimation, 59, 87, 119, 129, 155, 212 live assignments, 135 M macro-strategy, 59, 74, 82, 94, 112, 119, 123, 148, 160, 161, 176 managerialism, 5, 14, 16, 211

marketisation, 4–6, 11, 12, 15, 38, 54, 61, 169, 188, 211, 217, 222 massification, 6 metrics, 1, 9, 16, 20, 27, 170, 193, 195, 211, 217, 218 mitigation, 97, 98, 116, 119, 176, 178, 187, 189, 201, 214, 216 N national student survey (NSS), 14, 19, 20 neoliberalism, 11, 12, 15 new pedagogical ideas, 156, 178 nomination, 55, 87, 102, 119, 161, 195 O Office for Students (OfS), 8, 9, 20, 40, 170, 218 official recontextualising field (ORF), 40, 41, 45, 51, 176, 205, 206, 222 P partnership, 10, 27, 69, 70, 81–83, 86–91, 151, 154, 157, 159, 160, 170, 171, 178, 182, 191, 194–197, 217–219 pedagogic device, 38, 40, 41, 45, 51, 60, 69, 205, 221 pedagogic discourse, 38–40, 45, 166 pedagogic identities, 11, 39, 44, 45, 47, 106, 107, 166, 167, 169, 222 pedagogic recontextualising field (PRF), 40, 205 pedagogy, 4, 5, 11, 21, 25, 27, 38–42, 48, 49, 67, 86, 87, 108, 112, 117, 124, 128, 138, 143, 147, 148, 153, 155, 156, 162, 166, 167, 169, 171, 172, 178,

INDEX

187, 201, 202, 205, 211, 212, 217, 223, 226–228 performance model, 43, 44, 67, 167, 169 performativity, 46 perspectivisation, 61–63, 96, 99, 105, 119, 129, 138, 201 policy, 1–6, 8–13, 16–18, 20–27, 37–42, 44–48, 50–52, 54, 57–62, 66, 67, 69–71, 73, 74, 81–90, 106–109, 111–113, 116–120, 122, 123, 128, 141–144, 147, 148, 150–153, 155–157, 159, 160, 162, 164, 166–172, 175, 176, 178–183, 187–194, 196–200, 202, 204–207, 211–215, 217, 219–228 practical assignments, 135, 144, 180, 220 predication, 55, 57, 87, 101, 112, 114–116, 129, 134, 148, 151, 153, 154, 158, 160, 178 progressive education, 44, 168 projection, 44, 142, 168, 169, 225 R radical change, 214 rankings, 4, 14, 207, 211 real life, 111, 123, 128–130, 132–134, 136–138, 141, 160, 165 recontextualisation, 11, 23–25, 27, 38, 40, 41, 44, 47, 51, 54, 60–62, 66, 67, 69, 70, 73, 120, 175, 182, 205, 207, 217, 219, 220, 222, 224–226 recontextualising rules, 41, 69, 225 reflection, 22, 51, 112, 117, 120, 121, 123, 124, 128, 129, 135, 142, 151, 152, 156, 168, 172, 175, 219

235

regions, 42, 43, 45, 141 regulative discourse, 39, 60, 61, 222 Reisigl, Martin, 25, 38, 48–55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 67, 70, 119, 226 research excellence framework (REF), 9 rewards and recognition, 190, 213 rhizomatic learning, 153, 154, 169 rules distributive rules, 40 evaluative rules, 40, 41, 69 recontextualising rules, 41, 69, 225

S scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), 2, 87, 107, 153, 162 self-development, 12, 17, 43, 45, 141, 142, 144, 158, 168, 213, 217, 222 shared language, 12, 171, 175, 176, 180–182, 192, 197, 207, 213, 214 singulars, 42, 43, 45 social-constructivism, 150, 152, 170, 213 social justice, 17, 143, 172, 225 social learning, 156, 158, 159 socially-situated, 148, 151, 159, 161, 167, 212–214, 218 sociology of pedagogy, 3, 4, 25, 27, 38, 48 speech representation, 62, 63, 96, 97, 102, 103, 131, 161, 201 spoken data, 62, 63, 94 strategy of singularisation, 92, 104, 132 student-centredness, 27, 171 student experience, 1, 9, 10, 20, 81, 86, 106, 111, 147, 170, 172, 211, 212, 214, 223

236

INDEX

T teachers, 27, 40, 41, 43–45, 86, 87, 91, 106–108, 137, 147, 148, 150–153, 155, 157, 159, 160, 167–169, 171, 172, 192–195, 202, 206, 213, 219, 222, 225, 227, 228 teaching, 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14–16, 18, 20–24, 26, 27, 37, 39–43, 45, 50, 52, 59, 60, 67, 69, 70, 73, 81, 83, 85–87, 90, 107–109, 111, 112, 116, 119, 120, 129, 137, 139–141, 145, 147–149, 151–157, 159–162, 165–172, 176, 178, 179, 182, 183, 191, 193–195, 197–199, 202, 204, 206, 207, 211–213, 218–221, 223–228 teaching accreditation schemes, 21, 191, 224, 225 teaching and learning regimes (TLRs), 2 teaching excellence framework (TEF), 9, 69, 86 teaching quality, 1, 9, 15, 20, 22, 69, 86, 107, 151, 157, 160–162, 170, 194, 195, 206, 211, 213, 218, 223, 225 text, 2, 3, 12, 13, 16, 18, 23–25, 42, 45–49, 51, 53, 54, 58–62, 67, 69–71, 112, 116, 117, 120, 128, 139, 144, 148, 151–153, 155, 156, 176, 182, 189, 191, 196, 197, 205–207, 218, 220, 228 therapeutic identity, 45, 168 topos content-related topoi, 58

formal topos, 58 topos of authority, 58, 89, 114, 116, 118, 155, 201, 202 topos of context, 90, 116 topos of example, 58, 96, 138, 154, 195 topos of opposites, 59, 88–91, 114, 115, 118, 151, 176, 178, 195 topos of uncertainty, 58, 114, 153 trainability, 42, 43, 142 transformative capabilities, 115, 153, 158, 168 transformative learning, 17, 128, 153, 158, 170, 218 tuition fees, 5, 6, 9, 14, 16, 90, 111 twenty-first (21st ) century education, 57, 112, 202 U UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF), 15, 21, 22, 51, 70, 183, 190–192 V vague language, 86, 90, 115, 142, 170 visible pedagogy, 167, 169 W white papers, 5, 6, 8, 67, 170, 194, 218 Wodak, Ruth, 25, 37, 38, 47–51, 53–55, 57–62, 67, 70, 82, 112, 119, 132, 151, 196, 207, 217, 225