Meeting the Challenges of Change in Postgraduate Education [1 ed.] 9781441191885, 9781441163813

Citation preview

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

ALSO AVAILABLE FROM CONTINUUM

The Future of Higher Education, Les Bell, Howard Stevenson and Michael Neary Analysing Teaching–Learning Interactions in Higher Education, Paul Ashwin The Consumer Experience of Higher Education, Deirdre McArdle-Clinton Developing Student Criticality in Higher Education, Brenda Johnston, Rosamond Mitchell, Florence Myles and Peter Ford

Meeting the Challenges of Change in Postgraduate Education

Edited by Trevor Kerry

Continuum International Publishing Group The Tower Building 80 Maiden Lane 11 York Road Suite 704 London SE1 7NX New York, NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com Copyright © Trevor Kerry 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission from the publishers. Trevor Kerry has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. First published 2010 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Meeting the challenges of change in postgraduate education / [edited by] Trevor Kerry. p. cm. ISBN 978-1-4411-8469-6 (hardcover) 1. Universities and colleges—Graduate work. I. Kerry, Trevor. II. Title. LB2371.M44 2010 378.1’55—dc22 ISBN: 978-1-4411-8469-6 (hardcover)

Typeset by Pindar NZ, Auckland, New Zealand Printed and bound in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group

Contents

About the Editor and Authors Introduction

vii 1

Trevor Kerry

PART I

FIRST ENCOUNTERS WITH POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION: THE CONCEPT OF THE COURSE

1 Theoretical Perspectives

11

Trevor Kerry and Carolle Kerry

2 Small-scale Indicative Research

29

Carolle Kerry and Trevor Kerry

3 The Strength of the MA by Learning Contract in the Context of Lifelong Learning

47

Mark Sandle

PART II

POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES AND PHILOSOPHY

4 Humboldt’s Relevance Today

73

Lewis Elton

5 Postgraduate Studies in Europe: Looking Beyond Bologna

89

Terence Karran and Kent Löfgren

6 ICT and Postgraduate Education

105

Francesc Pedró

7 Enhancing Quality in Postgraduate Work Trevor Kerry with Paul McDermott

121

PART III

POSTGRADUATE EXPERIENCE: THE STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

8 Tutoring at the Postgraduate Level

143

Trevor Kerry and Carolle Kerry

9 Andragogy and Heutagogy in Postgraduate Work

165

Chris Kenyon and Stewart Hase

10 Academic Apprenticeship

179

Tony Harland and Jon Scaife

Postscript

189

Trevor Kerry

Index

193

About the Editor and Authors Trevor Kerry has been a professor of education, a professor of education leadership and is an emeritus professor. His career spans positions in primary, secondary and further education and several appointments in teacher education. He has been a senior general adviser in a Local Authority and an Ofsted inspector. He has written nearly 200 journal articles and published education books with Continuum, Routledge, Macmillan, Blackwell, Pearson/Longman and Nelson Thornes. He has also published an eco-history text. He is Chair of Governors at Brooke Weston Academy, Corby, and a Governor at William Farr School, Lincolnshire. He has been a tutor since 1994 to distance-learning master’s students and has had two periods teaching doctoral students on EdD and PhD programmes. He was Senior Vice-President of the College of Teachers (UK) and is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Professionally, his most valued possessions are the messages from fellow professionals that indicate he has opened doors to learning for them. Carolle Kerry took a BSc (Hons) Sociology/Social Policy with the Open University, the Fellowship of the College of Teachers for a collection of papers on school governance, and an EdD at Lincoln University, UK. She has worked in Local Education Authority offices in London and as public relations officer for a Local Authority. Carolle has been clerk to governors at two primary schools, vice chair of governors at a large primary school and successively vice chair and chair at a rural primary school, as well as having been a lay inspector for Social Services in Lincolnshire. She is a freelance author and researcher with TK Consultancy. Her publishing record includes more than a dozen journal articles and a significant contribution to The Blackwell Handbook of Education. Her current interests lie in the education of gifted and talented children in primary schools in the light of recently proposed UK curriculum and pedagogical reform. Mark Sandle is Professor of History at The King’s University College, Edmonton, Canada and also the holder of a UK National Teacher Fellow award. Previously he worked at De Montfort University, Leicester, UK, where he was Head of Taught Postgraduate Programmes for five years. He works primarily in the field of Russian and Soviet history, and is currently undertaking research into the history of Soviet Moldavia after 1944. He has authored four books and a number of articles, including Gorbachev: Man of the Twentieth Century? (Hodder 2008) and Communism (Longman 2006). He has also undertaken a number of pedagogic research projects, most notably in the areas of assessment and feedback to students.

VIII

ABOUT THE EDITOR AND AUTHORS

Lewis Elton is Visiting Professor of Higher Education, University of Gloucestershire; Honorary Professor of Higher Education, University College London; Emeritus Professor of Higher Education and Distinguished Visiting Scholar, University of Surrey; a Fellow of the American Institute of Physics, the Society for Research into Higher Education, the Royal Society of Arts and the Higher Education Academy; and Honorary Life Member of the Staff and Educational Development Association. He holds doctorates (honoris causa) from the University of Kent, Canterbury, the University of Gloucestershire and the University of London. He has been presented with a Festschrift by his former students (P. Ashwin (ed), Changing Higher Education: The Development of Learning and Teaching, Oxford and New York: Routledge, 2006) and in 2005 received the first Times Higher Education Lifetime Achievement Award. His work is concerned with the scholarship of teaching and learning, collegial and ‘top down’ management in universities, assessment for creativity and academic writing. Terence Karran works as a Senior Academic in the Centre for Educational Research and Development, University of Lincoln, UK, and is also a Docent in the Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, Finland.  Terence was Chair of the Board of the Euro Study Centres of the European Association Distance Teaching Universities and Member of the Board of Directors of the Open Learning Foundation, UK.  From 2005 to 2007, he was Visiting Professor at Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara, Mexico’s oldest and largest autonomous university, where he was also Director of UAG’s Distance Learning Centre and of the Mexican National Coordination Centre for the World Bank Institute’s Global Development Learning Network for Latin America and the Caribbean. Kent Löfgren received his PhD in Education in 2001 from Umeå University in Sweden, where he currently works as a researcher and lecturer in the School of Education. His development activities and research interests include teachers’ and learners’ experiences of universities and the improvement of teaching, learning and assessment in higher education. In 2006 he organized and chaired the international research conference and Assessment in Higher Education Conference at Umeå University. He is currently the project leader for the Swedish part of a European Union-funded project on teachers’ professional development, which has five participating nations. Francesc Pedró is Senior Policy Analyst at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) in Paris, France. He is the manager of the New Millennium Learners project (www.oecd.org/edu/nml). He is also in charge of reviewing educational research and development in OECD countries and a new project on systemic innovation in education, which includes one strand on vocational education and training and another on digital learning resources. He received

ABOUT THE EDITOR AND AUTHORS

IX

his master’s degree from the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and a PhD in comparative education from Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid. Later he undertook postdoctoral studies in comparative education at the University of London Institute of Education. Francesc was formerly Professor of Comparative Education and Public Policy at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, and Academic Director of its Program for Educational Quality. Prior to that he acted as Pro Vice-Chancellor of Educational Research and Innovation at the Open University of Catalonia, Barcelona, the first Internet-based European public university. John Scaife teaches and researches in the School of Education, University of Sheffield. His main interests are in developing constructivist ideas about learning and exploring the implications of these ideas for teaching and assessing. With Tony Harland he launched the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PCHE) course at Sheffield University in 1996. He continues to direct, supervise and teach on the course. Through PCHE he has had the stimulating experience of supervising teaching in a very wide range of university disciplines and contexts. For over a decade Jon has taught and supervised postgraduate students in Singapore and has directed the School of Education’s Educational and Professional Studies course for pre-service teachers – a programme in which inquiry-based learning has been embedded since 1999. Originally educated as a mathematician and physicist, he still enjoys teaching physics and physics education to pre- and in-service science teachers. Outside academia, Jon is a performing musician and a poor but optimist golfer. Tony Harland works at the University of Otago in the Higher Education Development Centre where he researches and teaches in the field of higher education. In the 1990s he spent four years at the University of Sheffield where he joined the Higher Education Research Group in the School of Education and met Jon Scaife. Together they established the PCHE. Tony’s research is founded on a critique of the practices and values of university education. The questions that concern him are: What ideas are valued in a university education? How are these values informed and how might they change in the future? Tony works closely with the academic development community in Malaysia and he still teaches in his original discipline of ecology. His field teaching takes him to some of the most stunning natural landscapes found in New Zealand. Following his graduation as a geographer, Paul McDermott started at the University of Leicester, having won a university scholarship to study for a PhD. Between 1990 and 1993 Paul worked as a Research Associate on a major Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) project and had various teaching responsibilities as Junior Lecturer.  In 1993 Paul joined the University of Northampton and became Principal Lecturer in Geography and spent a six-year term of office as the Geographical Association’s Annual Conference Officer. In

X

ABOUT THE EDITOR AND AUTHORS

2003 Paul became the Director of the University-wide Postgraduate Modular Scheme and in 2005 Paul was elected onto the Editorial Board of the Journal of Geography in Higher Education as their specialist in postgraduate education.  In 2006, with the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES) Subject Centre, he won a grant to explore further pedagogic developments in postgraduate education and has organised a series of national events dealing with both postgraduate teaching (PGT) and postgraduate research (PGR) issues. In 2008 Paul was employed by Anglia Ruskin University as the Academic Director to lead the academic development of a major new university venture for the city of Peterborough. Stewart Hase has been a registered nurse, nurse educator, academic, clinical psychologist and an organisational consultant. His main scholarly and practical interest has been in the area of change. Mostly this interest involves helping people find new patterns of behaviour that are more useful to them in managing the everyday complexities of life. Naturally, this involves learning, which has been a lifelong interest and fascination and has culminated in the development of heutagogy with Chris Kenyon in 2000. His interest in heutagogy came about because of a frustration with the conservative and ultimately maladaptive nature of much of our educational systems and practices. Now semi-retired, Stewart consults in between time spent writing, catching fish, hitting golf balls and mountain bike riding. Chris Kenyon has been involved in postgraduate education for many years and in many countries, including the UK, the USA, Zambia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. His book on working with international students was something of a bestseller and ran to three editions. More recently he was director of a postgraduate programme at one of Australia’s newer universities – one that earned a five-star rating for postgraduate student satisfaction. Chris describes himself as a practical person who enjoys the challenge of making things work better. This includes designing and building a passive solar house as well as innovating in education. He designed the simulation Deedeekun, which has achieved international success for the way it helps people learn about communication, teamwork and planning. He has worked with Stewart Hase on a range of tertiary education initiatives since 1996.

Introduction Trevor Kerry Coincidentally, as I sat down to write this Introduction, I had just returned from a conference at my university entitled The University of Utopia. Professor Ron Barnett had given the keynote address (Barnett 2009) and so some of the ideas in this section will, inevitably, belong to him while others will have been triggered by his talk even though he might not own them. To allow Barnett’s work to speak for itself the reader might care to access his work directly (Barnett 2007; Barnett and Coate 2004). At various points in the text that follows this Introduction, the writers of this volume debate the present state of higher education, though our major concerns, unlike Barnett’s, are with the postgraduate sector. Anyone involved in today’s postgraduate scene will be only too aware of the cluster of conceptual baggage that dogs the postgraduate world as we reach the second decade of the twentyfirst century. The commodification of higher education looms large in the consciousness of the writers whose works are collected here. This commodification is linked to a wider view of education at all levels as performative, driven by measurable criteria of quality applied relatively mechanistically – the Research Assessment Exercise has been a good example of this in recent years, and there seems little reason to suggest that its successor system will be any better. More and more students are accessing first degrees (see Chapter 1) and this has implications for the postgraduate sector: for its philosophy, rationale, curriculum, execution, assessment and utility. Universities are increasingly being subjected to the economic criteria of scrutiny, and thus progressively politicized. This politicization is itself socially divisive, given that, in the mainland UK, students in England pay substantial fees for their undergraduate programmes while students in Scotland do not. In a time of economic downturn in the UK there is even the cynical view that mere survival has become the university’s Utopia. There are suggestions, too, that these trends have eroded the model of universities as innovative research organizations. Barnett certainly identifies a loss of ‘blue sky thinking’ in research. But this, in turn, compromises academic freedom, and panders to a view of the university as driven fundamentally by an economic, rather than a knowledge-driven, rationale. Universities are increasingly entrepreneurial – not a pejorative term in itself, but they are becoming entrepreneurial in the more pejorative sense of having to account for knowledge, research outcomes and intellectual activity solely or mainly in terms of its commercial value, or at least of its effect on society, rather than its usefulness to society. This removes the driving force of knowledge as intrinsically valuable and replaces it with the view that knowledge is (only) valuable as a means to solving a predetermined

2

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

problem. It ties individuals, irrevocably, to the view that learning is earning (indeed, there is now even a website with this title and the supporting company illuminates the work of The Head Masters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference: www.learningtoearning.co.uk/). In a related move, conventional university managers (whether academic or administrative) are increasingly being replaced by those termed ‘third-space managers’, whose philosophies, rationales, roles and beliefs control the very nature of the university as an institution. Perhaps one should have said, in the previous sentence, that third-space managers shape the university away from its role as a ‘traditional institution’ (where the implicit value-judgement is that traditional is good and modern is bad). But this romantic pre-modernism needs de-gutting. We need to ask: what were the characteristics of this traditional university, which is sometimes referred to as the ‘metaphysical’ university, that we may have lost? Essentially, the answer to this last question has five components. These are: the valuing of knowledge for its own sake; operation within ‘an academic community’; the provision of a space for young (and not so young) people to experience personal growth; and a defence of some form of grounding in ultimate truth or spiritual acknowledgement. The fifth element is a liberal approach to learning: the potential to step away from immediate experience and bring to bear elements of critical perspective. In reflecting on the university as it now is, and on what it is about to become, the writers of this volume between them set down elements of this rather bleak picture. That they do so is inevitable – it is simply holding a mirror to the world. The real question is whether the picture is wholly bleak, or whether there are chinks of light in the future of postgraduate education. The chapters herein do not become obsessed with the negativity of this picture; they do hold out some traditional and some forward-thinking approaches through which to effect change and progression in postgraduate education. Indeed, one might argue that history teaches us that most progress is achieved through the right blend of the old and the new, the traditional and the imaginative. But what can be said about the alternative structures of the ‘new postgraduate education’ (if we may call it that) and about the philosophical underpinnings of the model? Was Thomas More right in seeking a university of Utopia at all? The first thing to assert, perhaps, is that the university not only has its existence in the public domain and is therefore accountable to it, but also that it is right that this should be so. But given that it is so, what influence should society exert on the university? What role should the university play vis-à-vis society? Are the issues merely those of the traditional vs the modern? My personal answer would be no. To illustrate this point I want to employ a metaphor. I recognize two risks in doing this: first, that metaphors do not always coincide in every detail with the reality one is trying to prove and second, that the sphere in which this metaphor operates may alienate some readers. On the first, I would argue that it is close enough in this case; on the latter I suggest you seek your own alternative image.

INTRODUCTION

3

The metaphor is this: as a boy I went to school in the heart of the city of London. In those far-off times it was customary for the Life Guards or the Blues and Royals to escort the Sovereign to and from the Mansion House for banquets when overseas dignitaries visited. The clatter of the breastplates, the chink of the spurs, the tinkling of the bridles, the clatter of horseshoes on tarmac combined to create a magical and, at close quarters, a wholly deafening sound when a squadron rode past. You can see the same ceremonial today during Trooping the Colour. Yet these same men – the very same men – operate as armoured divisions in battle, where mechanized speed, camouflage, artillery and so on are their stock in trade. The traditional and the modern, side-by-side, equally valid in context. The point of the metaphor is this: traditional and modern are not either/or, they may even be both/and – organically joined and inseparable. Given that this is so, what models are available for postgraduate university education as the twenty-first century unfolds? If, in the past, the truly traditional view of the university was of an institution dedicated to knowledge for its own sake, then it was quickly modified, for example, by Humboldt’s interconnection of research and teaching (see Chapter 4) and since World War II by the evolution of the former polytechnics into universities – an emergence based on skills and competences rather than knowledge. Nor has the traditional university ever been free of State control or of a degree of accountability to society – however romantic one’s pre-modernism! So, the university (and, by implication, its postgraduate work above all) mirrors society as well as having a role in shaping it. As such, it must reflect society and what it is comprised of: ideals, hope, faith, values and aspirations. Insofar as society is insecure and in turmoil, the university must provide comfort through stability – the model must become the therapeutic university (though Ecclestone and Hayes (2008) argue strongly and lucidly against the pathology of this concept). If society is ambivalent or ‘fuzzy’ about its directions, then the university has a role in helping us to clarify and come to terms with that uncertainty. If society is seeking to root itself more wholeheartedly in values, then the university may take on the role of the ‘authentic’ university, clarifying, articulating and promoting values within society (http://cai.ucdavis.edu/academicintegrity.doc). Indeed, Macfarlane (2009) develops this model at length. Rather than these particular models, however, my preferred option is to think of the university in terms of ecology. The ecological model has various manifestations, but its great strength is that one can see it in terms of flexibility and evolution. Thus the ecological university has the ability to adapt and change; to contract where appropriate and expand where expedient; to respond appropriately and adapt to new circumstances. It can be traditional and anticipatory, and it can be both within its own structure and at the same time. At the postgraduate level especially, the university transforms itself from being research-informed to being research-engaged. This model best meets the needs of the university in society. The fact is that modern universities are distributed in both time and space; the worldwide

4

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

web makes this inevitable. Developments such as video-conferencing have removed constraints on who can participate and where participation can take place – though there is a long way to go in applying the principles that underlie these developments to real-time working on a daily basis. The complex nature of society, even, in Barnett’s terms its super-complexity in a world that has no clear answers, requires universities to explore new ways of looking at the world, to be adaptive. But there is more to the issue than this. There is a growing movement that sees universities not only as ‘useful’ elements of society in which students ‘work’ productively, but also to some extent as the conscience of the society within which they carry out their useful functions. Thus, Nixon (2008) can argue that, while a good university is invariably assumed to be one that is managerially effective, efficient, entrepreneurial and creative, these goals can be pursued to the exclusion of academic excellence and public service. Nixon questions whether there is a marked lack of intellectual leadership at senior management level within higher education (HE) institutions; he proposes that academic workers must assume responsibility for the moral purposefulness of their institutions. Nixon is not alone in these views. Barnett and Maxwell’s (2008) concept of the university of wisdom moves in the same territory. The university is there to solve society’s significant problems; it promotes not just knowledge, but understanding; it ventures into the creative. In a sense, these concepts that flirt with the idea of virtue, values, morality, wisdom and ethics, epitomize the dilemma identified earlier. While they appear on the face of it to be forward thinking (and arguably they are), they are also traditional insofar as they promote a return to the concept of the metaphysical university from which this brief review began. The intention of the papers collected in this book is to examine the current state of play in postgraduate education and to begin to address some of the challenges of change implicit in postgraduate studies today. To this end the book is divided into three parts: Part 1: First Encounters with Postgraduate Education: the Concept of the Course Part 2: Postgraduate Education: Principles and Philosophy Part 3: Postgraduate Experience: the Student Perspective Part 1 begins with the familiar, the place where most of us begin our postgraduate careers: with the course. In Chapter 1 Dr Carolle Kerry and I explore the nature of the M-course, the ubiquitous taught master’s. We pursue two main lines of argument. First, we suggest – perhaps controversially – that the nature of taught courses is such that they are designed for the convenience of universities and university staff rather than for the satisfaction of students. Second, we try to construct a picture of an ‘ideal’ M-course which might suit students better and, even more significantly, reach out to wider markets. Having established this case by looking at issues such as the nature of

INTRODUCTION

5

university education, the role of the market in a modern university, the shape of the curricula, aspects of teaching and learning and the ownership of knowledge, we then move on in Chapter 2 to explore through a small-scale research phase the feasibility in practice of what we suggest in theory. At the end of this process our conclusion is that the course most closely fitting our criteria for the ideal M-course is represented in the UK by the MA by learning contract offered at De Montfort University. In Chapter 3 Dr Mark Sandle examines in some detail the way the MA by learning contract is organized, the benefits to the learner and the problems that can arise in its operation. From his vantage point as a practitioner engaged in delivering this course, he extols the MA’s virtues as ‘a key lever in advancing lifelong learning at postgraduate level’. So Part 1 has taken the concept of the postgraduate course and explored it first through an examination of some theoretical perspectives, then by means of some small-scale research and finally, in terms of a specific example of an alternative method of provision. But having started with the familiar, Part 2 of the book moves the reader on to examine some of the principles and philosophies that drive postgraduate education. Many see the modern university as having taken shape from Humboldt’s vision in the eighteenth century in which research and teaching are inexorably interconnected. In Chapter 4 Professor Lewis Elton reassesses Humboldt’s importance, raising issues about State control both then and now. He questions our modern blind pursuit of managerialism in university organization, and has some harsh things to say about marketization in the HE sector. He puts forward the case for increased collegiality in university management, but argues that academics engaged in governance functions in universities must be trained for the role. He also makes a plea for university teaching to be ‘researchable and researched’. Elton is dismissive of the new breed of university managers. It is not hard to sympathize with him when one sees, as has recently happened, experienced academics dismissed from a university for lack of funding on the very day that the same institution announced a sponsorship deal with the town football team. A Martian visitor, trying to make sense of our higher education system might merely see that as dumbing down, pandering to the worst tastes of society, or they may think that our society places so little value on education that it can only survive by association with the least appropriate elements of populist culture. In Chapter 5 Dr Terence Karran and Dr Kent Löfgren widen the picture and examine the actual trends in postgraduate studies that are being implemented following the Bologna Declaration in 1998. They examine the rationale underpinning the Declaration, its effect on postgraduate education in Europe and they return to the Humboltian issues of the relationships between research and teaching. Finally, they make an assessment of the success of the Bologna process, which, while not free of criticism or critics, has had a positive effect on student numbers in the sector. But postgraduate studies are not just about increasing numbers; they are about

6

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

changing approaches to learning and about sustaining quality while responding to change. Thus, in Chapter 6, Professor Francesc Pedró of the OECD, makes an assessment of the role of information and communications technology (ICT) on postgraduate learning, while in Chapter 7, Dr Paul McDermott and I deal with some thorny issues of quality. Quality is viewed from the standpoint of standards on the one hand, but of stakeholders’ experiences on the other. This last reflection leads us onto Part 3, which deals with the student perspective. This is not placed last as a reflection on its importance (indeed, Part 1 implied its centrality as a theme); it comes last because it is critical to see how existing postgraduate provisions, and the philosophies and rationale that underpin them, impact on the student experience. Chapter 8 contains the outcomes of a small-scale research exercise looking at the way postgraduates (master’s and doctorate students, current and recently completed) view their experience. At times, the chapter makes uncomfortable reading for those of us engaged in dealing with postgraduates as tutors. The chapter is driven by two research questions: what makes an effective postgraduate tutorial and what are the characteristics of an effective postgraduate tutor? Among the more obvious views of the respondents – e.g. about tutorials providing well-organized feedback, and tutors being able to give clear guidance and being generous with their time – Carolle Kerry and I also detected more subtle themes. Thus, while the British government (through the Research Assessment Exercise) has promoted tutor excellence in terms measured by the production of quality publications, students rated this last in importance in a catalogue of desirable tutor qualities. A recurrent theme of the book, more or less implicit throughout, has been the need to redefine the nature of teaching in relation to postgraduate students. In Chapter 9 two world-leading exponents of the theory, Professor Stewart Hase and Wing Commander Chris Kenyon, discuss the progression required to convert andragogical approaches, often favoured in the 1970s and 80s, into a more meaningful heutagogy. This chapter has clear links to Part 1, placing the student at the centre of the educational process: ‘The essence of heutagogy is that it focuses on the learner and what an individual seeks to learn, rather than on what a syllabus prescribes for learning.’ Finally, in Chapter 10, Dr Jon Scaife and Professor Tony Harland describe their long struggle to equip PhD students more effectively for the world of work by engaging them in the two-year part-time Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education, which runs alongside their doctoral studies. This process they label ‘an academic apprenticeship’ because it prepares the student for employment in their profession. Yet the idea, logical though it may seem, has not been widely adopted, and Harland and Scaife argue that this may be due, at least in part, to pressures on completion rates and the inherent conservatism of academics. The book concludes with a brief summary of where postgraduate education might be heading in the foreseeable future.

INTRODUCTION

7

This text, from an array of international scholars and drawing on theory and research, has been designed to be both readable and interactive. Each chapter begins with a brief summary of its scope and argument. The text is presented in jargon-free and accessible language. In each chapter, the text itself is punctuated by Reflections – moments when the reader is asked to pause and think through the issues raised in his or her own context and experience. Each chapter has a seminal list of key references labelled Further Reading. Citations within the text are listed at the end of each chapter. The hope is that this volume will resonate with practitioners, as well as with those whose professional activity involves wrestling with the theory and rationale for postgraduate education. It is intended to raise debate, not to provide definitive answers. In fact, it is about that quintessential postgraduate process: thinking things through. The one thing we can all be certain about in postgraduate work is that there will be change. The question is: will we be ready to meet its challenge?

REFERENCES Barnett, R. (2007) A Will to Learn: Being a Student in an Age of Uncertainty. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Barnett, R. (2009) ‘Hopeful Utopias: an optimism for the university’s future’, unpublished talk, Centre for Educational Research and Development Research Conference, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK, 4 June. Barnett, R. and Coate, K. (2004) Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Barnett, R. and Maxwell, N. (2008) Wisdom in the University. Abingdon, Oxon, and New York: Routledge. Ecclestone, K. and Hayes, D. (2008) The Dangerous Rise of Therapeutic Education. Abingdon, Oxon, and New York: Routledge. Macfarlane, B. (2009) Researching with Integrity: the Ethics of Academic Enquiry. New York and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Nixon, J. (2008) Towards the Virtuous University: the Moral Bases of Academic Practice. New York and Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

This page intentionally left blank

PA R T I

First Encounters with Postgraduate Education: The Concept of the Course

This page intentionally left blank

1

Theoretical Perspectives Trevor Kerry and Carolle Kerry SUMMARY This chapter and the next attempt to redefine the nature of taught master’s degree courses (M courses) and their potential for meeting the needs of government aspirations for lifelong learning and a rising graduate population. In this chapter particular attention is paid to theories relating to the purpose of university education, and of the concepts of curriculum and adult learning as applied to M courses. The next chapter will build on this theoretical base by comparing and contrasting models of M courses through small-scale documentary and empirical investigations in the UK and Germany.

INTRODUCTION This chapter looks at the nature of master’s degrees in higher education (HE), particularly so-called ‘taught courses’. It does this largely through exploring the theories and philosophies underpinning these qualifications. It asks how they can have wider appeal given the increasing numbers of people holding first degrees in the UK. It examines how to bring these courses closer to the government’s intentions for lifelong learning. The Secretary of State for Education’s announcement that teaching is to become an all-masters profession (Lipsett 2008) epitomizes the pressure on HE to deliver appropriate postgraduate products. A trawl through university prospectuses suggests that master’s degrees (M courses) fall into three main genres. Some (often designated MRes or similar) are designed to teach the principles and procedures of research in a specific discipline; these tend to be aimed at professionals and practitioners in that discipline and form the basis of later doctoral studies. Others are ‘pure research’ degrees (often labelled MPhil, though HE institutions are inconsistent about nomenclature) that consist entirely of thesis-based studies at a level below that of doctor (usually PhD); they are targeted at professionals and practitioners in less senior posts or who are not motivated by extensive doctoral study. The third group – and this group is the focus of this chapter – are taught master’s courses, usually comprised of a range of modules and options that are individually assessed but may include some element of extended study in the form of a short dissertation. This group of degrees has (at least, the potential for) a wider appeal and arguably, as presently constructed, concern for breadth rather than depth. In this chapter they will be referred to as ‘modular M-degrees’; our main concerns are with the discipline of education, but, for comparative purposes, we have also looked at degrees in history and the social sciences.

12

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

This study is important for a range of stakeholders. Viable, well-recruiting M courses generate income. Holders of first degrees are set to increase to 50 per cent of the population and already by 2005–6 42 per cent took undergraduate courses. (hepi.ac.uk/downloads/31HEDemandto2020andbeyondsummary. doc). Thus M courses may become valuable discriminators in recruitment and employment. A population educated to a higher level overall may develop study needs that are different from those that have existed over the last five decades (where, for example, the Open University provided an academic stepping stone through a first degree for a non-graduate aspiring population). The government constantly trumpets the need to increase skills and knowledge, to fill expanding leisure time productively, and to encourage lifelong learning – well-constructed modular M-courses might fill the niche. Chevalier (2000: 6) even draws attention to the dangers of graduate over-education in the match between employment and education; if this judgement is accurate, graduates who wish to satisfy their desire to pursue postgraduate study will need to look outside employment and to leisure or hobby-based opportunities to fulfil their aspirations. Indeed, there is evidence for the belief that modular M-courses are set to expand hugely and rapidly. Hatakenaka (2004) indicates that numbers of students on these courses in the UK rose from 38,423 in 1996 to 70,485 in 2001. Certainly UK master’s degrees attract overseas graduates (Nordling 2005) and the proportion is increasing: from 19 per cent in 1996 to 29 per cent in 2001 according to Hatakenaka (2004). Overseas candidates for higher degrees in UK universities comfortably outnumber UK students according to the Higher Education Statistical Association (HESA) (www.hesa.ac.uk). The Bologna Declaration (CRE 1999), which instituted the bachelor-style first degree in European universities where it was previously not the norm, has created a potential pool of graduates who might seek higher degrees in the UK. There are, however, ambiguities in the situation as Scott (2001: 201) notes. This chapter suggests that, despite this rise, opportunities for postgraduate enrolments are being lost. A decade ago, for example, King (1995: 120) was predicting an unfulfilled view that campus cohorts would contain ‘a generation of “higher age” entrants reflecting an ageing population and a younger retirement age’. There are other dangers: Scott (2001: 194) records that many M courses are being ‘used to “stretch” the standard three-year duration of bachelors’ degrees’ – which begs questions of curriculum and purpose that are discussed below. There would seem to be underlying conceptual failures in the understanding of the purposes and values of these M degrees. This is also a result of not appreciating the (changing) nature of the potential demand for these courses. Yet the government is determined that universities must ‘proceed by supporting public engagement across all higher education activities and building capacity to do so in all subjects’ (www.hefc.ac.uk/news/hfce/2007/beacons.asp). It is supported by the European Resolution of 27 June 2002 (The Council of the European Union 2002). This chapter attempts to explore the anomalies that exist in thinking about the nature of potential M courses.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

13

Reflection What kinds of changes in society are likely to have an effect on the market of modular M-courses over the next two decades? How are these changing markets likely to affect the curriculum and learning styles used in modular M-courses?

BACKGROUND In examining the suggested lost opportunities of the modular M-course, this chapter is guided by the need to interrogate the implied epistemologies of these courses, the nature of adult learning and the extent to which such courses currently fulfil the needs of potential participants in the ways that they are constructed and delivered. Universities offer higher degree study in the form of modular M-courses to adult (here called returnee) students, but the nature of these is often inimical to potential clientèle since, we suggest, universities make little or no allowance for a number of key factors. The need for adult students to budget over time to pay fees is more acutely felt in some highly specialist subjects than in the arts or in education: a recent study by the British Medical Association (www.bma.org.uk) found that the average medical student was in debt to the tune of £21,000. But, once enrolled, at a typical cost of about £3–4,000 per course, adults often have to readjust to study, especially at higher levels, and their resulting insecurity is particularly acute in matters of assessment (Sedlacek 2004). The busy nature of adult life, what Mahoney (1991: 52) calls ‘external baggage’, finds deadlines and prescribed dates for handing in work problematic. The nature of adult learning and its relation to employment can also be difficult. Some adults have vocational or career aspirations, and have to fit study in around work commitments. Many – the elderly, the retired, those with increased leisure time – may wish to treat learning as a hobby – and these are important potential clientèle for universities (cf. the University of the Valleys Partnership in Wales – www.cuv.org.uk/text/aboutus.htm). Adult returnees need structures that cater for a facet of adult life that is beyond control: their own or dependants’ ill-health or incapacity for periods of time. Study programmes need to be flexible enough for the mature student to take time out to cope with the problems of life (Eric Digest 154). The aspirations of returnees about the ‘total learning experience’ may be different from the aspirations of undergraduates proceeding direct to master’s, too. Zukas and Malcolm (1999) suggest universities fail here: Within the literature of teaching and learning in higher education, despite its frequent focus on ‘the learner’, there is little recognition of the socio-cultural situatedness of the individual. The learner frequently appears as an anonymous, decontextualised,

14

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

degendered being whose principal distinguishing characteristics are ‘personality’ and ‘learning style’.

Kasworm et al. (2002: 112) make the same point in the US in their contention that adult learning requires connectedness to the world of family, work and community. The issues of accreditation of prior learning and of experiential learning, and the fact that their poor standing in the eyes of the university community means these elements are often not promoted and even avoided by course providers, is difficult to challenge, since even the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA 2004) provides what might be termed a ‘get-out clause’: ‘Higher education providers have, and will continue to develop, their own approaches to accrediting learning that is substantive and meaningful, including learning attained outside a formal learning environment.’ It is not hard to hide behind clauses like this when dis-applying these options. Finally, there is the issue of students as clients with client-led expectations of service and value (Fenton 2002). Our contention would be that modular M-courses need to be constructed around these factors, placing student need and aspiration at the centre of the process. Reflection What are and should be the relative roles of ‘education for its own sake’ and vocational education in the provision of modular M-courses in universities? How can universities respond more effectively to the ‘external baggage’ of adult students to ease their paths to, and through, postgraduate study?

EVIDENCE FROM LITERATURE THE PURPOSE OF UNIVERSITIES AND OF A UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

A fundamental question for the present debate is: what is the purpose of a university and, therefore, of a university education? It would be erroneous to believe that the answer to this question is static; each generation must answer in its own context. The Medieval university had strong ties to the Church, and its purpose was partly to provide a foundation and then specialist training for the clergy. But even at this time Curtis (1967: 57) is right to emphasize that both here in the UK and internationally scholars were closely allied to the guilds of craftsmen. Delanty (1998: 3) warns of this shifting ground in his assessment that, in the global era, the university moved from ‘knowledge as an end’ to the ‘end of knowledge’. But, he claims, if the intellectual has been replaced by the expert in the knowledge society, the university still exists as a means for locating the ‘rational debate on the normative, cognitive and aesthetic foundations of society’ (21). So, he argues, ‘universities must recapture a sense of public commitment’ (22).

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

15

Perhaps as a feature of this ‘public commitment’ a modern phenomenon has been the rise of the ‘new universities’ (post-1992) and the former polytechnics to university status, as described by Rich (2001), though his pessimism about their future survival has so far proved unfounded. Inayatullah (1998: 589) traces four transforming factors in the development of universities: globalism (the university as a business), multiculturalism, virtualization and politicization. The expansion of universities has certainly been driven by the need to oil the wheels of business, industry and commerce. Vocational HE is a strong factor in many courses both across the world and in the UK, despite Scott’s (2001: 194) appropriate warning of ‘British education’s stubborn attachment to élite ways’. But governments have played an increasingly controlling role in HE, as in other sectors of education, leading Tribe (2003: 463) to conclude that ‘throughout Europe, educational systems are in one way or another controlled by government’. Governments are concerned with vocationalism, but the closed approach to it in the Leitch Report (2006) has come under fire from Bekhradnia (2007): What many will find objectionable – and self-defeating – is the narrow view Leitch takes of higher-level skills, defining them largely in terms of the knowledge needed to do an immediate job of work for an employer, disregarding the analytical skills and generic knowledge that it is the function of higher education to provide. That drives much of the Leitch ideology – and the view that further education is the model HE should adopt.

Nonetheless, this too seems to be the emphasis assumed by the newly formed UK government’s Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, judged at least by its website (www.dius.gov.uk). The outcome of this debate is awaited. It is not a view espoused on a global scale by the World Bank, which avers: ‘Tertiary education has many purposes beyond the acquisition of concrete skills in preparation for the world of work’ (World Bank 2002: 31). It lists among these the following: to teach systematic reasoning; to contextualise knowledge; to formulate, synthesize, analyse and form arguments across broad curricula; and to promote lifelong learning. From UK government concerns about the need to keep people working longer rather than drawing pensions, from the demographics of longevity and from improved health care, has also emerged the need for universities to provide lifelong education, as epitomized in the well-publicised intentions of former Prime Minister Blair (2004): Lifelong learning is not only central to our education policy, it is central to our employment policy, central to our economic policy, central to our policy for extending opportunity to all those out of work, and central even to our pensions policy as it enables more older people in their 50s and 60s to acquire the skills and opportunities to remain in work.

But even this, arguably a ‘sound-bite’ construction of the purpose of universities, leaves much to be desired, and may even appear to be somewhat removed from

16

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Blair’s less well reported but more open pronouncements on the theme of lifelong learning. It is left to a private company, PJB Associates (www.pjb.co.uk), to provide a better analysis of the relationship between universities and lifelong learning that will serve until a more in-depth discussion can be engaged in: Lifelong Learning is still seen as a marginal activity in many universities but there is an awareness for the need of its development amongst academic staff and there are embryonic or developed structures for its provision . . . To encourage the development of Lifelong Learning, some universities have created central co-ordinating offices and vice-rector roles that include Lifelong Learning amongst their responsibilities . . . The focal point of Lifelong Learning teaching is on the learner rather than the institution and aims to help students take more responsibility for their learning. This shift from teaching to learning and from supply to demand-led provision is widely accepted in all the counties studied . . .

The purpose of universities, then, is to provide education to a high level to meet the needs of society and the needs of students – though from a political point of view the vocational and professional needs may have to come ahead of the personal. Barnett (2000: 71) warned of conflicting agendas a decade ago, suggesting that universities can continue to provide three essentials to society (critical interrogation of ideas, a flow of interpretation of the contemporary world and the development of human capacities to live purposefully and at ease) provided that they first rid themselves of ‘pretentiousness’, meaning that they need to abandon exclusivity of people and knowledge. There are other views about the changing nature of the university, and these we take seriously especially at the postgraduate level. Thus Taylor (2009) in America, who contends that the deep specialization of the modern university renders much of its output and teaching irrelevant: ‘The emphasis on narrow scholarship . . . encourages an educational system that has become a process of cloning. Faculty members cultivate those students whose futures they envision as identical to their own pasts . . .’ Among his suggestions are getting rid of free-standing academic departments and making academic work cross-disciplinary; developing multi-disciplinary programs that focus on ‘real’ problems; increasing collaboration among institutions, so that universities don’t have to develop redundant strengths; and helping graduate students plan for a life beyond scholarship. Thus the battle lines begin to shape up and become more contentious as we begin to debate the nature of a ‘university education’ as opposed to the nature of universities as institutions. A UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

What is the purpose of a university education? In the broad area of the arts, at least, and at a graduate if not an advanced level, Waugh (www.ugs.usf.edu/gened/ university20%education20%final.pdf) has provided some clues about the answer.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

17

She suggests five purposes that stem from a philosophy that uses keywords such as curiosity and understanding, conceptual processes that are critical and analytical. First, the university graduate must understand and appreciate symbols – linguistic, artistic, mathematical and so on. Second, the graduate must operate on a level of understanding that tries to make sense of the ‘worlds’ within which he/she functions: the natural, the social and the human. Third, a graduate or an educated person must understand how to produce knowledge and access theories – intellectual processes that help to explain ourselves and our world. Fourth, that graduates have the keys to unlock an understanding and interpretation of themselves, and for examining human nature, cultural diversity and social difference. Finally, the educated person must have the tools to find and make a meaningful life, to exercise choice and judgement: ‘a university education begins the lifelong project of fashioning a way of being in the world that is one’s own.’ This assertion comes close to Franz’s (2007: 5) championing of critical reflection theory as a means towards understanding the process of adult education. These views resonate with, though they are not identical to, Maxwell’s (2003) insights into the tensions that have built around research higher degrees. Commodification of degrees has predominated, she argues, over student need, or even over employer-led research. While new disciplines (or disciplines in combination, such as history and media) may produce a culture of ‘choose your own adventure’ (7), they have not solved issues such as quality assurance – a view which is challenged below.

CREATING A CURRICULUM AND EPISTEMOLOGY FOR ADVANCED STUDENTS What has been said so far in this chapter indicates the authors’ contention that an urgent task in catering for the needs of adult learners engaged in advanced study is to review the rationale and philosophy on which such activities are based. Studies in curriculum have engaged the minds of many outstanding educational thinkers over the last few decades, notably, Eisner (1996), Elliott (1998), Kelly (1999), Stenhouse (1975), White (1997) and most recently Ross (2000). But while some of these studies have operated on a generic or over-arching level, none has dealt specifically with curriculum beyond the school and further education. Indeed, assumptions about the nature of this HE curriculum, and its locus in the hands of the university, are deeply ingrained; so much so that they led Dill (1999: 65) to assert that ‘the essential content of a curriculum and of relevant student learning experiences must necessarily be decided on by the relevant faculty’. This dearth of engagement with the HE curriculum is the starting point for Barnett and Coate (2005: 13), who note that even the word fails to appear in either the Dearing Report (NCIHE 1997) or the UK’s White Paper in Higher Education (DfES 2003). This omission is a phenomenon that they try to rectify,

18

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

they argue, for the HE world has become mired in the academic (what topics are to be covered – syllabus rather than curriculum) and the technical (credit weightings and assessment approaches, for example). This has been to the detriment of more fundamental concerns with learning, understanding, values and the relationships of knowledge with individuals and society. They propose that it is the higher order concerns (about issues such as purpose and intention) that have been lost (26). Indeed, they would probably be taken aback by attempts, such as those by Hutchings and Saunders, to establish ways of creating curricula by using techniques from the information systems field to create ‘an optimum set of modules’ (Hutchings and Saunders 2001: 159). Barnett and Coate’s argument about the rightful place of curriculum rationale in HE align with the arguments that we have so far advanced about what should constitute modular M-level learning and what is not appropriate. Thus we shall discuss these views briefly in what follows. Curriculum, it is suggested, works in three dimensions: knowing, acting and being. Knowing and acting equate roughly to what the government, in other contexts, calls ‘knowledge’ and ‘skills’; though knowing means more than knowledge in the view of these authors (it is not just ‘content’), and skills are more than mere performance, they are reflective, metacognitive, informed performance. ‘Being’, Barnett and Coate suggest, is more problematic to define, but it has its roots in the belief (op.cit. 109) that ‘curricula are educational vehicles for developing the student as a person’: they should be about personal growth on a wide front. In fact the authors summarize their argument as: . . . the forms of being now being released and encouraged are much more those of being-in-the-world rather than forms of being-in-knowledge. Increasingly it is the students’ capacity to fend for themselves in the wider world that is coming into view, their capacities to sustain themselves, to engage with the wider world, to be resilient and to prosper – not just economically – in it. We are witnessing the emergence, surely, of a curriculum for life. (op.cit. 119)

Barnett and Coate claim to have instituted a new curriculum language for a new age (167) but acknowledge that, in so doing, they have been faithful to the classic expressions of curriculum theory that have argued for an improved approach. For, while developments such as the internet have been a boon to HE students on one level, at another there is a real danger that what is lost in this high-speed world is space for students’ own development and thinking. What our authors would like to see ‘rather than a filling up of time with tasks intended to achieve stated objectives’ is a view that ‘the curriculum challenge has to be inverted to be understood as one of imaginative design spaces’ (168). These spaces are epistemological, practical and ontological. And the curriculum becomes ‘curriculum-in-action’ not merely ‘curriculum-as-design’. Arguably Barnett and Coate have succeeded in their intention, for they have put the student at the heart of the curriculum process. This accords with Nieto’s

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

19

view (2001: 45) that even in a school setting ‘learning begins when students begin to see themselves as competent, capable and worthy of learning . . . when their voices . . . are included’. But that view, in turn, has an effect on the epistemology of HE. For, while curriculum-as-design is clear that the ‘course’ is owned by the designer, curriculum-in-action is out of the designer’s control. So the answer to the question ‘Who owns knowledge?’ changes. As a corollary, the power relationship in the ownership of knowledge also changes. The aspiration for M students has to be to shift the paradigm from receiving ‘your’ (the tutor’s) knowledge to acquiring ‘my’ (the student’s) knowledge. We have been used in school-level education for teachers (more recently, the government) to own knowledge (Paechter et al. 2001). In HE the power has remained with the teacher because HE does not suffer from a governmentcontrolled curriculum as it does in schools. But the same problems apply: university knowledge is relevant while other knowledge is not; university knowledge is owned by the teachers; teachers impose this knowledge on students and turn selected areas of it into hurdles to some form of acceptance (for example, master’s status). As Paechter et al. put it, university knowledge ‘represents a narrow selection from wider possibilities’ (169). Access to these wider possibilities lies at the heart of Barnett and Coate’s proposed reconstruction of the HE curriculum. It is more overtly argued by the World Bank (2002: 37), which demands ‘the integration of a number of disciplines that were previously regarded as separate and distinct’ and suggests that even research should be informed by ‘transdisciplinarity’. One of the great motivators for ownership of knowledge by subject teachers has been a kind of enslavement to the notion of the supremacy of subject disciplines. In a Feschschrift article Kerry (2007) argued at length that, in the context of schools, higher level and more insightful knowledge was generated by integrated approaches to curriculum. This argument, rather than diminishing the relevance of subject disciplines, gives them a new and important context as building blocks of higher-order knowledge. In an HE context these arguments are even more powerful, though the inherent danger of specialists becoming even more specialist and even less inclined to see connections across domains becomes ever more acute. Nonetheless, there is good evidence for the power of inter-disciplinary study. This is a view supported, even for school students, by Manke (so how much more relevant to HE!) when she asserts that ‘teachers need to be aware of how students try to widen the focus of classroom knowledge from fragmented bits of curriculum to a more holistic vision of their world . . . making connections from what was presented as classroom knowledge and what they knew from other experiences’ (2001: 37, 38). Indeed, it could be argued that most of the real progress in knowledge and discovery of new understandings has been the result of inter-disciplinary collaboration between researchers and academics. Taking the three themes of this section together, therefore, one is beginning to build a view of HE which is bounded by uncommon and less constraining barriers: the student-centredness of curriculum content, a shift in the ownership

20

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

of knowledge and an openness to integration of knowledge, i.e. to curricula that take on board cross-subject insights and procedures. These three facets, working together, open up new ways to view HE study that make the concept of the predetermined, boundaried, subject-constrained, time-defined ‘course’ look like a poor relation to the alternative model. In coming to this view, we put forward the case that HE students’ approach to their M-level studies should be seen as a form of liberation, a freeing of the mind to pursue aspects of knowledge over which they have ownership – subject, of course, to monitoring and quality control, of which, more later. It is, therefore, appropriate to conclude this theoretical review first with a look at how adults learn, and then with a reflection on the notion of lifelong education from our argued perspective. Reflection What are the implications for university postgraduate departments of putting ‘the student at the heart of learning’?

ADULTS LEARNING, OR THE PROCESS OF ANDRAGOGY The term ‘andragogy’ was formulated by a German teacher, Alexander Knapp, in 1833 (Nottingham Andragogy Group 1983: v). Knowles (1970) revived the concept some forty years ago as an attempt to build a comprehensive theory or model of adult learning. Designed on ‘a set of principles for helping the learning processes of adults’ (Burge 1988), he based his original model on four assumptions, a fifth (the last below) being added later. Knowles’ five assumptions of andragogy view adults as: • self-directed learners • bringing a wealth of experience to their educational experience • entering educational establishments ready to learn • problem-centred, rather than subject-centred, in their approach • motivated by internal factors. These assumptions contrast ‘andragogy’, defined as the art and science of helping adults learn, with ‘pedagogy’, the art and science of teaching children. They highlight the independence of student-centred learning from the dependency of pedagogy where young learners bring ‘little or no experience to the educational activity and learners attend to such activities because they have been told they need to do so’ (Blondy 2007). However, one should be aware that that the term ‘andragogy’ has become somewhat corrupted to imply that the Greek word ‘agogos’ means, in the case of adults, ‘learning’, whereas with children the same word defines ‘teaching’. FlaRE (undated) makes the distinction: The pedagogical model gives the teacher full responsibility for making decisions about the learning, and development is based on transmission of the content as a major

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

21

concern . . . [whereas] in andragogy, development is based on a process design with the major concern being the facilitating of the acquisition of content (emphasis original).

Vella (1994) suggests that educators listen to adult learners/returnees before designing courses (5). Unlike children, adults do not have to attend: ‘if the class is disagreeable, they can simply stop coming’ (Rogers 1989: 3). While this listening may prove ideal, as Knowles (1980) acknowledges, there will be a number of nonnegotiable requirements within a university course, ‘but the means by which the student can accomplish required objectives could be highly individualised’ (19). CREATING AN EFFECTIVE ADULT LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

Within the literature, emphasis is placed on the adult learning environment, i.e. both the physical environment (Knowles 1980; ERIC 1994) and the psychological climate (Knowles 1984). Developing an atmosphere in which returnee and other adult students feel safe, able to articulate their thoughts without fear of censure or exposing themselves to failure (Rogers 1989; Vella 1994), where there is respect, mutual trust, supportiveness, openness and pleasure, is, within the parameters of this discussion, an essential element of adult learning. Knowles distinguishes between learner-centred instruction and teachercentred instruction, a theme reinforced by Blondy in his evaluation of andragogy as a tool in adult online education (Blondy 2007). Blondy draws on the work of Palloff and Pratt (1999) noting that educators in the online learning environment require different skills from those used in conventional face-to-face classroom settings. Similar challenges face educators in the proposed redefined course in HE – they no longer have the monopoly over the construction of learning because students embrace this mantle for themselves, as emerges in Chapter 2. Thus the educator becomes the facilitator of learning. Burge (1988) notes that many educators ‘. . . are conditioned to work in transmittal authoritative mode; others know no other styles for working’. Within non-conventional courses of study, where students are involved in identifying how their learning needs might be translated into learning objectives and successful outcomes, the role of the academic shifts. Hase and Kenyon (2001) move the debate further, suggesting that in the present era of rapid technological change, the principles and practice of education need also to change. They envisage a shift from androgogy to ‘heutagogy’, a future in which ‘knowing how to learn will be a fundamental skill’ and foresee a world in which: • information is readily and easily accessible • change is so rapid that traditional methods . . . of education are inadequate • discipline-based knowledge is inappropriate to prepare for living in modern . . . workplaces • learning is increasingly aligned with what we do • modern organisational structures require flexible learning practices

22

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

• there is an immediacy for learning. Hase and Kenyon’s thinking (see Chapter 9) is totally in tune with the present thesis. Within their – albeit, heutagogical – approach, they see the learner designing the course by negotiation and the educator providing the resources. Thus ‘learners might read around critical issues or questions . . . determine what is of interest to them . . . and negotiate further reading and assessment tasks’. They continue: ‘assessment becomes more of a learning experience rather than a means to measure attainment’. If this concept were to be applied to master’s programmes in higher education as is suggested by the present authors, the implications for course design and implementation are far reaching. MAKING LEARNING LIFELONG FOR ADULT STUDENTS

Among the issues of adult learning effectiveness and the patterns of adult-orientated courses, it is not just how adults learn that matters but also when. Lifelong learning has become, in the last decade or so, a key issue both nationally and internationally. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD 2007) Policy Brief is forthright in its Introduction: ‘Learning one set of skills at school, technical college or university is no longer enough to carry people throughout their working life.’ Harrison et al. (2002) take the argument one step further by locating lifelong learning outside the workplace: Learning as a preparation for life has been displaced by learning as an essential strategy for successful negotiation of the life course, as the conditions in which we live and work are subject to ever more rapid change. (p. 1)

The World Bank (2002) points to the ‘short shelf-life’ of knowledge and skills in the modern world (p. 27) and supports the OECD’s intention of lifelong learning for all. Adults learn for a variety of purposes: to gain formal or higher qualifications; to use their newly acquired skills for the purpose of maintaining employment or seeking pastures new; to develop new skills to enable extended leisure hours to be gainfully explored. Reflection What, in your experience, are the issues and barriers to making learning genuinely lifelong for those who want it? How can these best be overcome?

The recent study by the OECD (2007) highlighted the ‘efforts by 15 countries to promote lifelong learning by reforming qualifications systems’. What are the ramifications of these findings for learning providers? The study revealed nine broad policy responses, two of which are particularly relevant to the thesis of this chapter:

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

23

Increased flexibility and responsiveness: Offering more customised training and greater choice. The focus is on being responsive to individuals, enterprises and the economy. The dominant ideas are targeting programmes to the individual and a learner-centred approach. Diversifying assessment processes: This often requires making assessment fit for its purpose and attempting to recognize all kinds of learning.

At the outset the OECD recognizes the need not only for learners to change their practice, but also learning providers and, through them, the qualifications system, to do the same. Emphasis is placed on qualifications systems giving learners ‘credit for the experience and knowledge they have gained, whether in the classroom, in the workplace or elsewhere’. However, a caveat notes that ways have to be found to judge whether the learner or worker ‘has perfected the skill’ and is worthy of ‘reward for being able to perform a new task’ or skill – and this is a legitimate and welcome point. REVIEWING QUALIFICATIONS IN RELATION TO LIFELONG LEARNING

As part of our experience as students and teachers of HE, however, we hypothesize that many HE institutions have policies, rules, regulations and traditions that are at odds with the broader concepts of lifelong learning. Compulsory attendance; content-orientated syllabi; rigid timetables in relation to attendance; and submission of written work may all be inimical to learning in an ever-changing technological era. Qualifications need no longer comprise a certificate outlining successful completion of content-led study – the baseline could expand to embrace skills learned in the workplace or beyond it. The OECD defines a ‘“qualification” . . . in lifelong learning terms’ as: anything that confers official recognition of value in the labour market and in further education and training, so a qualifications system includes all aspects of a country’s activity that result in recognition of learning.

As long ago as 1984 Knowles offered a seven-point framework for programme design, where five of the seven points began with the word ‘involving’, i.e.: ‘Involving learners in mutual planning /. . .diagnosing their own needs for learning /. . .formulating their learning objectives /. . .designing learning plans /. . . evaluating their learning’ (p. 17–18). This theme is pursued by the OECD (2007) who suggest ‘mechanisms to trigger more and better lifelong learning’ which include: • . . . Clarifying learning pathways • Providing credit transfer • Increasing flexibility in learning programmes leading to qualifications

24

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

• Lowering cost of qualification • Recognizing non-formal and informal learning • Optimizing stakeholder involvement in the qualifications system . . . So can learning providers and national qualifications systems make lifelong learning both appropriate to the learner’s requirement yet at the same time ensure the robustness of each qualification? There is no easy answer – each university has its own set of systems, and for many, these are firmly rooted in tradition and history. But within the rapidly changing global, technological world, where employers require workers with an up-to-date-and-beyond skills base, where the workers themselves may be anxious to improve their existing knowledge and where a better educated citizenry demands continuing intellectual activity, universities cannot fall back on centuries-old practice. They have to listen to their potential clients, they have to find new routes, their personnel have to update their own skills and they have to move forward. Universities and institutes of HE, like national policy makers, will be required to review their current policies for qualifications and lifelong learning to ensure that their clients acquire an education that is relevant in today’s world and good preparation for tomorrow’s. Though Dearing was criticized earlier in this chapter for failing to grasp this nettle, his latest pronouncement emphasizes that ‘the idea of a university’ has to ‘extend beyond providing skills for the workforce’ and to engage ‘actively with society to mend its growing state of disrepair’ (quoted in Gill 2007). Some ways in which this is, or is not, happening are explored in what follows.

SMALL-SCALE INDICATIVE RESEARCH What we have attempted to do so far is to construct a picture of what might be considered a desirable, or, a theoretically ‘ideal’, M experience for adult students. To do this we have tried to contrive a model that evinces coherent approaches across some key areas: recruitment, accreditation of prior learning or experience, curriculum-building, learning style, teaching methods, assessment and approaches to the lifelong learning experience. To examine the feasibility of such an M course and to establish whether courses exist that might match our model, we undertook a small-scale investigation. No inflated claims are made for this, except that the results might be indicative of the current state of thinking in this area. The outcomes from this small-scale research are reported in Chapter 2, and our contention is that they both support, and are supported by, the theoretical perspectives outlined in this chapter.

FURTHER READING Chapters 2, 3, 8 and 9 in the current volume Barnett, R. (2000) Realizing the University in an Age of Supercomplexity. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

25

Barnett, R. and Maxwell, N. (2008) Wisdom in the University. Abingdon, Oxon, and New York: Routledge.

REFERENCES Barnett, R. (2000) Realizing the University in an Age of Supercomplexity. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Barnett, R. and Coate, K. (2005) Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press Bekhradnia, B. (2007) ‘Demanding questions’, Guardian, 22 May. Available at: www.guardian. co.uk/education/2007/may/22/highereducation.uk (accessed 7 February 2010). Blair, T. (2004) Speech to IPPR and Demos, 11 October. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/ pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk-news/politics/s7sss8.stm Blondy, L. C. (2007) ‘Evaluation and application of andragogical assumptions to the adult online learning environment’. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6 (2), 116–30. BMA (British Medical Association) (2006) ‘Average medical student owes £21k’, BMA, 9 November. Burge, E. (1988) ‘Beyond andragogy: some explorations for distance learning design’. Journal of Distance Education, 3 (1), 5–23. Chevalier, A. (2000) Graduate Over-education in the UK. London: Centre for the Economics of Education. The Council of the European Union (2002) Council Resolution of 27 June 2002 on Lifelong Learning. 2002/c/163/01. Brussels: European Council. CRE (Confederation of EU Rectors’ Conferences and the Association of European Universities) (1999) The Bologna Declaration on the European Space for Higher Education: An Explanation. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna. pdf (accessed 7 February 2010). Curtis, S. J. (1967) History of Education in Great Britain. London: University Tutorial Press. Delanty, G. (1998) ‘The idea of the university in the global era: from knowledge as an end to the end of knowledge’. Social Epistemology, 12 (1), 3–25. DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2003) The Future of Higher Education (White Paper). London: DfES. Dill, D. D. (1999) ‘Student learning and academic choice: the rule of coherence’ in Brennan, J., Fedrowitch, J., Huber, M. and Shah, T. (1999) (eds) What Kind of University? International Perspectives on Knowledge, Participation and Governance. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, pp. 56–70. Eisner, E. (1996) Cognition and Curriculum Reconsidered (2nd edn). London: PCP. Elliott, J. (1998) The Curriculum Experiment: Meeting the Challenge of Social Change. Buckingham: Open Books. ERIC (The Educational Resources Information Center) (1994) Guidelines for Working with Adult Learners. ERIC Digest No. 154. Washington: ERIC. Fenton, N. (2002) ‘When students become customers’, Guardian, 17 December. FLaRE (Florida Literacy and Reading Excellence) (no date) ‘Andragogy’, professional paper. Florida: University of Central Florida College of Education. Franz, N. (2007) ‘Adult education theories: informing Co-operative Extension’s transformation’. Journal of Extension, 45, (1). Gill, J. (2007) ‘Dearing looks beyond skills’, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 14 December, p. 3.

26

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Harrison, R., Reeve, F., Hanson, A. and Clarke, J. (2002) Supporting Lifelong Learning: Volume 1: Perspectives on Learning. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2001) ‘Moving from andragogy to heutagogy: implications for VET’, Proceedings of Research to Reality: Putting VET Research to Work: Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association (AVETRA), Adelaide, SA, 28–30 March, AVETRA, Crows Nest, NSW, Australia. Hatakenaka, S. (2004) Internationalism in Higher Education. London: Higher Education Policy Institute. Hutchings, T. and Saunders, D. (2001) ‘Curriculum methodology: a case study in large-scale curriculum development’. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2, (2), 143–63. Inayatullah, S. (1998) ‘Alternative futures of the university’, Futures, 30, (7), 589–602. Kasworm, C., Polson, C. and Fishback, S. (2002) Responding to Adult Learners in Higher Education. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing. Kelly, A.V. (1999) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice (4th edn). London: PCP. Kerry, T. (2007) ‘Integration: dirty word or golden key?’, FORUM, 49, (1, 2), 77–91. King, C. (1995) ‘Pay as you learn? Students in the Changing University’, in Schuller, T. (1995) The Changing University? Buckingham: Open University. Knowles, M. (1970) The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy versus Pedagogy. New York: Associated Press. Knowles, M. (1980) The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy (2nd edn). Chicago: Association Press/Follett. Knowles, M. (1984) Andragogy in Action: Applying Modern Principles of Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lipsett, A. (2008) ‘New teachers to follow masters programme’, Guardian, 7 March. Mahoney, V. L. M. (1991) ‘Adverse baggage in the learning environment’, in Hiemstra, R. (1991) Creating Environments for Effective Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 51–60. Manke, M. P. (2001) ‘Defining classroom knowledge: the part that children play’, in Collins, J., Insley, K. and Soler, J. (2001) Developing Pedagogy: Research and Practice. London PCP and Open University Press, pp. 26–38. Maxwell, J. (2003) ‘Contradictions and tensions in research higher degree innovations’, Available at: www.aare.edu.au/conf03nc/03025z.pdf (accessed 7 February 2010). NCIHE (National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education) (1997) Higher Education in a Learning Society. London: HMSO Nieto, S. (2001) ‘Critical pedagogy, empowerment and learning’, in Collins, J., Insley, K., and Soler, J. (2001) Developing Pedagogy: Research and Practice. London: PCP and Open University Press, pp. 39–49. Nordling, L. (2005) ‘Have you got a masters plan’? Guardian, 15 March. Available at: www. guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/15/highereducation.postgraduate (accessed 7 February 2010). Nottingham Andragogy Group (1983) Towards a Developmental Theory of Andragogy. Adults: Psychological and Educational Perspective Series, No. 9. Nottingham: University of Nottingham, Department of Adult Education. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2007) Qualifications and Lifelong Learning, policy brief, April. Paris: OECD. Available at: www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/10/2/38500491.pdf (accessed 7 February 2010). Paechter, C., Preedy, M., Scott, D. and Soler, J. (2001) Knowledge, Power and Learning. London: PCP and Open University Press.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

27

Palloff, R. and Pratt, K. (1999) Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom: The Realities of Online Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. PJB Associates (2001) ‘Lifelong learning: implications for universities in the EU’, New Perspectives for Learning: Briefing Paper 20. Athens: PJB Associates. Available at: www.pjb. co.uk/npl/bp20.htm (accessed 7 February 2010). QAA (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education) (2004) Guidelines on the Accreditation of Prior Learning, September. Gloucester: QAA. Available at: www.qaa.ac.uk/ academicinfrastructure/apl/guidance.asp (accessed 6 February 2010). Rich, T. (2001) ‘The 1960s new universities’, in Warner, D. and Palfreyman, D. (eds) (2001) The State of UK Higher Education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, pp. 49–56. Rogers, J. (1989) Adults Learning (3rd edn). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Ross, A. (2000) Curriculum: Construction and Critique. London: Falmer. Scott, P. (2001) ‘Conclusion: triumph and defeat’, in Warner, D. and Palfreyman, D. (eds) (2001) The State of UK Higher Education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, pp. 186–204. Sedlacek, W. (2004) Beyond the Big Test: Noncognitive Assessment in Higher Education. London: Wiley/Jossey-Bass. Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann. Taylor, M. (2009) ‘End of the University as we know it’, New York Times, 26 April. Available at: www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor/html?-r=1 (accessed 3 May 2009). Tribe, K. (2003) ‘Demand for higher education and the supply of graduates’, review article. European Educational Research Journal, 2 (3), 463–72. Vella, J. (1994) Learning to Listen. Learning to Teach: The Power of Dialogue in Educating Adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Waugh, J. (undated) A University Education. Paper given to the University of South Florida Committee on Liberal Arts and General Education. Available at: http://www.ugs.usf.edu/ gened/university%20education%20final.pdf (accessed November 2009). White, R. (1997) Curriculum Innovation: A Celebration of Classroom Practice. Buckingham: Open University Press. World Bank (2002) Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education. Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/TERTIARYEDUCATION/Resources/ Documents/Constructing-Knowledge-Societies/ConstructingKnowledgeSocieties.pdf (accessed 7 February 2010). Zukas, M. and Malcolm, J. (1999) ‘Pedagogies for lifelong learning: building bridges or building walls?’, Research Paper. Leeds: University of Leeds School of Continuing Education.

This page intentionally left blank

2

Small-scale Indicative Research Carolle Kerry and Trevor Kerry SUMMARY Having established, in Chapter 1, an ‘ideal’ model for M courses for development over the next decades, this chapter compares and contrasts this model with actual models of M courses. It does this through small-scale documentary and empirical investigations in the UK and Germany. A typology is developed of qualities that are friendly to returnee M students. This typology can also be used as a gauge for how effectively a proposed M course will fit the aspirations of lifelong learners. Suggestions are made regarding factors that militate against the development of M courses that are suited to the needs of lifelong learners.

SMALL-SCALE INDICATIVE RESEARCH What we have attempted to do so far, in Chapter 1, is to construct a picture of what might be considered to be a desirable or theoretically ‘ideal’ M experience for adult students. To do this we have tried to contrive a model that evinces coherent approaches across some key elements: recruitment, accreditation of prior learning or experience, curriculum-building, learning style, teaching methods, assessment and approaches to the lifelong learning experience. To examine the feasibility of such an M course and to establish whether courses exist that might match our model, we undertook a small-scale investigation, the outcomes of which are reported in this chapter. No inflated claims are made for this, except that the results might be indicative of the current state of thinking in this area. Our research questions came down to these: • In our region of the UK do any modular M-courses match, or come close to matching, our ‘ideal’ criteria? • If they do, how do the courses concerned function in practice? • How do M courses offered elsewhere under the guise of these desirable criteria match up to the ‘ideal’ model? • What can be learned from the investigation that might guide thinking about improving the appeal of modular M-courses for adult students? To answer the first question we undertook a document search. We searched all the prospectuses in our local university region to discover whether the courses offered met the criteria of the ‘ideal’ model, or whether they were ‘constrained’ courses, bound by learning factors over which the student had no control. To keep the process manageable, each prospectus was examined with respect to education and history degrees (where these featured), and the content was analysed

30

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

to see what it indicated about non-standard entry qualifications, the nature of the curriculum and the learning methods of the degree. The answer to the second research question was explored as an outcome of the first. Only one university exhibited a ‘non-constrained’ approach to learning, teaching and the curriculum at MA level: De Montfort, Leicester, UK (the De Montfort approach is further discussed in Chapter 3 in this volume). We arranged, therefore, to meet with the course director to explore in an open-ended interview the rationale and philosophy of this degree and to assess its recruitment potential for returnees. One researcher asked predetermined open-ended questions based on our argument to date, while the other listened for potential leads arising from the conversation and asked supplementary questions. The interview was taped. A transcript was made and subsequently sent for approval to the respondent to be checked for accuracy of content and interpretation. Parts of this interview appear below. Searching through internet sources, the most likely place to find our ‘ideal’ model elsewhere was at the University of Bremen, Germany. This had been established according to the ‘Bremen Model’, which was defined (University of Bremen no date) as having characteristics close to those of our ‘ideal’. We arranged to visit this location and talk to the director based in the faculty deemed (by the university) most likely to meet our needs – social sciences. A parallel visit was suggested to Jacobs University, Bremen, where a highly prestigious and innovative degree in international relations operated, and the director there also agreed to meet with us. These offers were accepted and we adopted a similar interview-based approach to that already described. At Jacobs we conducted a focus group interview with five of the thirteen students (volunteers) following the MA course. Thus this study is a small-scale, qualitative investigation into models and their degrees of match to the ‘ideal’. The data from the prospectuses are in the public domain, though we had to interpret them in the same way as any prospective student. In collecting interview data we followed the British Educational Research Association (BERA) codes of ethical conduct (www.bera.ac.uk). Respondents constituted an opportunity sample. Each interview was based on questions that explored the ‘ideal’ model as well as providing factual and contextual data around the specific M course experience being explored; the interviews were thus both similar and different. Having two interviewers provided increased validity and reliability through a process of cross checking of the interview content as it progressed. Interview data were transcribed and could thus be analysed and interrogated in different ways over time. From the document-based outcomes and the interviews in the UK and in Bremen, we tried to give a tentative answer to the fourth research question, and this answer appears as the typology in Table 2.3 towards the end of this chapter.

SMALL-SCALE INDICATIVE RESEARCH

31

OUTCOMES OF THE RESEARCH The trawl through prospectuses from East Midlands universities (described above) provided a database of the nature of master’s degrees offered in education and, for comparison purposes, in history. The results are tabulated in Table 2.1. What is immediately clear from this table is that there is a lack of negotiation in almost all courses in both subject areas. A close look through university modular M-courses as usually offered typically finds courses that we would describe as ‘constrained’. The identifiers of constrained courses are, we suggest, as follows: • knowledge is defined (at least implicitly) as content-bound • straight-jacketed and exclusive approaches to content • lock-step progression by all students • lack of appreciation for alternative, extramural learning activities • inconsistencies in CAT systems • bureaucratic procedures that are based on dated notions of expertise and data sources • unwarranted assumptions about adult learning • inflexibility in packaging learning from a variety of sources. While some of these positions may be based on the need to demonstrate that quality is assured and standards are maintained, we hypothesize that most are bound up in issues of administrative or epistemological control. The exceptional example is the MA by Independent Study at De Montfort University, which does exhibit many ‘ideal’ model criteria. For this reason it was decided to interview the course director at length to explore the thinking behind this rather different approach. An interview schedule (Table 2.2) was constructed based on the literature contained in this paper. One of us posed the questions from the schedule while the other tape-recorded the interview and listened to responses to note additional points of interest which could be pursued separately. A précis of some key points from this interview are set out below.

INTERVIEW WITH THE COURSE DIRECTOR, MA BY INDEPENDENT STUDY The centrality of the student’s role in building curriculum was immediately established: . . . rather than having formal classes students are assigned two mentors who are responsible for ensuring that students comply with the learning contract they create at the beginning of the programme in consultation with their mentor. The learning contract is . . . the curriculum for the MA by Independent Study. As programme leader, it is my role to manage the process – I am the Chair of the Board, which discusses assessment and curriculum development.

32

Table 2.1 Education/history courses in a UK region Education

Admission (Adm): Normally conventional entry and professional education experience Curriculum (Curr): Courses tailored to work context Progression & Assessment (P&A): Credits built over time; assessment via a portfolio of work-based relevance and dissertation of practitioner research Andragogy (And): Claims flexibility in study methods – e.g. tutored sessions; work-based study; group seminars; individual tutorials; e-learning

History

Not offered

Barrington Education University

Compton University

Adm: Normally conventional entry; some guarded provision for non-standard students Curr: Claims high flexibility within a modular programme but no detail/examples P&A: No details And: Taught modules; e-learning; distance learning or a combination

History

Not offered

Education

Adm: Normally conventional entry or advanced diploma in education; preferably professional education experience Curr: Core and option modules P&A: Module assignment; dissertation And: Weekly lectures and seminars; distance learning offered

History

Adm: Conventional entry; some provision for non-standard students in e.g. MA in English Local History Curr: Core/course modules and dissertation P&A: Non-examination module assessment; dissertation 15–20,000 words And: Lectures and seminars (MA History)

(continued)

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Appleyard University College

Education

Not offered

History

Adm: Normally conventional entry; applications welcomed from students with appropriate skill/ knowledge at honours standard. Entry via CAT possible Curr: Modular structure P&A: Essays, research projects and dissertation And: Weekly lectures and seminars

Edrich University

Education with Adm: Specialist teaching subject-related degree; qualifications in maths and English Qualified Teacher Curr: Structured course; closely defined purpose Status (QTS) P&A: Structured observation (Year 1); portfolios of evidence; 10,000-word final research project And: University and work-based learning

Flintoff University

History

Not offered

Education

Adm: Normally conventional entry; applications considered based on recent professional experience along with appropriate academic attainment Curr: Modular course plus flexible tutorials P&A: ‘Innovative and flexible assessment’ – essays, portfolios, presentations, peer evaluation and small-scale research. Final dissertation And: Lectures; seminars; workshops; tutorials. E-learning and school based activities being developed

History

Adm: Normally conventional entry; relevant personal, professional and educational experience considered Curr: Modular structure P&A: Coursework comprising essays, student presentation, seminar portfolios & dissertation And: Weekly classes; courses conform to the postgraduate modular scheme i.e. use of e-learning, distance learning & blended learning

SMALL-SCALE INDICATIVE RESEARCH

Denness University

(continued)

33

Adm: Normally a good first degree or approved equivalent professional qualification. One-third exemption of the credit requirements may apply for applicants with AP(E)L Curr: Modular programme P&A: Not cited And: Flexible part-time; weekend, twilight and summer study courses; online modes of study; contact maintained via tutorials, email, video-conferencing, telephone and post

History

Adm: Upper 2nd class honours or international equivalent Curr: Intensive taught programme P&A: Dissertation/project And: Some flexibility alongside core modules. Students are offered ‘the rare opportunity of putting together your own tailor-made programme of modules offered by e.g. history, English, art history’ (mediaeval studies).

Hammond Education University History

Not offered Adm: Conventional entry or substantial relevant practical experience Curr: Skills-based, vocationally-focused for the cultural heritage sector P&A: Combination of assignments, oral presentations and practice-based project. Individual portfolio and thesis And: Taught modules complemented by seminars, workshops, site visits, block placements

(continued)

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Education

34

Gooch University

De Montfort

Not offered

History

Adm: Normally conventional entry. Non-standard entrants considered on merit Curr: Compulsory methodological core. Non-core modules offered subject to staffing availability P&A: Long essays and presentations. 15,000-word dissertation And: Students actively participate in the learning experience

MA by Independent Study

Adm: Normally conventional entry. Non-standard students encouraged to apply Curr: Highly flexible. Student designs a tailor-made programme in a field of his/her choosing which is developed into a learning contract becoming the basis of the curriculum. Multi-disciplinary programmes available P&A: Student participates in development of programme and discusses how work will be assessed. Assessment is a combination of essays/presentations and dissertation And: Self-directed learning supported by mentor. Monthly meeting with tutors/mentors complemented by telephone, email communication.

Note: data culled from prospectuses and subject to author interpretation; institutional names changed except for De Montfort

SMALL-SCALE INDICATIVE RESEARCH

Education

35

36

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Table 2.2 Interview schedule: Course Director, De Montfort University, 8 January 2008 MA by Independent Study Can we please begin by asking you to describe the nature of this degree in your own words, to give us a picture of the way in which it works on a day-to-day level? And can you please outline its history? (How long in existence?) Would you describe the nature of the student take up of it? (Numbers, popularity; typical student profiles?) The degree claims to offer an unusual approach to subject matter, so can we pursue the issue of student choice of options? (How exactly does that work? For example, do students come with a clear idea about what they want to pursue and how they want to pursue it?) The degree allows for the integration of subject matter across traditional disciplines: can you please describe how that works in practice? • What are the advantages? • Problems and pitfalls? • Issues of supervision? • Can you give a couple of examples? We would like to get a feel for the relationship of this degree to some common adult learning issues: • cost • drop out reasons (age, infirmity, family problems – explore degrees of flexibility) • to what extent it is bounded by deadlines, cut-off dates, etc. (again issues of flexibility and how these work) Can you let us in on the thinking behind the rationale for establishing this degree? (Why the degree was proposed and implemented.) • How difficult was it to get this validated? • What is your assessment of the balance between student preferences and staff academic guidance in the formation of individuals’ programmes of study? You have described the rationale for the degree, so can we turn to the philosophy that underpins it? How would you describe that philosophy? (The thinking behind it.) To what extent do you think staff and students share that philosophy as a guiding principle? Can we then look at how the degree sits, in your view, in relation to some common issues about adult learning? There are four areas we would like to touch on and ask you about: How does the degree fit with: • your view of the purpose of university higher education • the establishment of appropriate curriculum for advanced students • the government and other views about the nature of lifelong learning • the distinctive nature of adult learning (theories of andragogy)? (continued)

SMALL-SCALE INDICATIVE RESEARCH

37

Then, more briefly: How do staff in other M programmes view this degree? Do you know of any similar schemes? (UK, overseas.) How would you sum up the degree’s uniqueness? Do you have any keywords that would describe this? Can you just run through what you see as: • its advantages, special features • its drawbacks or operating problems? What would you like to tell us about this programme that we have not asked? (Thank you for your time. In due course we will send you a transcript of these questions and your answers. You will be free to amend the transcript to reflect your views more precisely. Any published work will be copied to you.)

The target audience for the programme we found in various responses: Most of the students come from undergraduate programmes . . . having found something of interest from their undergraduate programme they now want to go on and do a dissertation and essays. The MA by Independent Study fits their need. But we do have students from the education sector, business and the private sector.

The claims made in the prospectus that students had ‘the chance to design and pursue a tailor-made Master’s programme in an area or field of [their] choosing’ accords with Knowles’ view (1980: 19) but needed investigation both for accuracy of perception and methods of supervision. What also emerged was the interdisciplinary nature of the degree: This is a research Masters degree . . . with flexibility . . . because it is somewhere between a taught MA and a PhD level. We have traditional subjects alongside the more creative disciplines . . . So many subjects lend themselves to an inter-disciplinary approach . . . where you can draw on different disciplines, so it’s an area we are trying to develop rather than just having traditional MAs and focusing on one subject area. We say to students: ‘If you want to do an interdisciplinary MA, this will be a very good way of doing it.’ We try to give our expertise across the Faculty, particularly with the way the mentor system is established, with two people in place.

Supervision is conditioned by the interdisciplinary approach: In some subjects students need a lot of supervision, if they are full-time and doing music technology, they might be meeting with their mentors every day . . . but if it’s history, or English or politics, they will probably have a meeting every two weeks. Part-timers usually do a piece of work every other month . . . we’ll have more telephone contact, more email contact. Overseas students we may only see twice for the duration of the programme, so email is essential.

38

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Issues of retention and difficulties faced by adults engaged in vocational or lifelong learning, Mahoney’s (1991: 52) ‘external baggage’, were described thus: Retention is very good. We do have some students who have dropped out, cost has been a factor for some students. . . . But the programme is flexible in the sense that under any contract they will have specific deadlines, but they can negotiate with the mentor if they have some personal issues or need more time to do some research. . . . It’s built around people’s lifestyles so it’s not draconian. We encourage the students to keep in touch. It’s designed to be student friendly, to enable them to build it around their busy lives.

Student motivation to study areas not covered in traditional master’s courses was obvious: First of all, . . . [the course gives] students the opportunity to pursue at Master’s level a piece of research. . . . Students have discovered an interest at undergraduate level and they want to go and pursue this. . . . We also established it with a view to preparing students for PhD level. We are also aware of the declining market in traditional MAs . . . this programme is booming. . . . So from the economics point of view, it’s central to our marketing.

The underpinning philosophy of the degree supports its student-centredness: The philosophy is to enable the students to choose a project that they are interested in, perhaps developing on from that studied at undergraduate level but also to get them to be able to explore some of the research methodologies as well. Each essay they do in preparation for their dissertation is a self-reflective piece of work and the feedback they get from their mentor will hopefully steer them in the right direction.

Referring to the non-traditional disciplines within the programme, the Course Director elaborated: Obviously if you are a performance student you might do a performance rather than writing an essay. I have a politics student at the moment who is going to do a presentation on an aspect of politics and then write a short paper as well. She is going to present it before two of my colleagues and then field some questions afterwards. That will be 15 credits towards her degree. So there are different modes of assessment. [Within the music programme s]ome students are actually doing compositions in place of the dissertation . . . so there has to be a lot of flexibility built into the programme because it caters for so many subject areas. If a student wants to do a presentation, that’s fine.

But given the present authors’ view relating to the assurance of quality and standards within a master’s degree and Maxwell’s (2003: 7) insight noted above,

SMALL-SCALE INDICATIVE RESEARCH

39

it was important to probe in these non-traditional approaches the non-traditional methods of assessment and explore how ‘performance’ was evaluated – the process of evaluation, the role of the mentor and ultimately, that of the external examiner: There are usually two mentors, the first mentor and the second who acts as an internal examiner. They will grade the presentation, and maybe ask questions and give feedback immediately . . . as I understand from talking to colleagues in dance and music technology they can actually provide the external examiner with the performances by taping them.

The interview probed some common issues that affect adult learning – how the degree fits with the purpose and curriculum of higher education, the nature of adult learning and the concept of lifelong learning. The De Montfort approach clearly found itself in tune with the kind of approach being argued for in this chapter: This is more open access to an MA programme because it is tailored to students who want to pursue their studies having completed their primary degrees and then perhaps go onto PhD afterwards. But it’s also for students coming back to higher education. They build it into their own schedule, so it’s not only just open and flexible, it caters for a wide range of graduate students because you can take it up any time. It’s certainly very open, again it’s not based around staff interest, it’s students themselves who determine the course, and the learning contract is their contract. In many ways they are determining the curriculum because each programme has its own curriculum. What our students are doing is drawing on the skills they developed at undergraduate level and building on those, but when they come back they bring life experience with them to the programme, too.

This phase of the investigation demonstrated that the ‘ideal’ model might also be practical and workable. But did it have parallels elsewhere? The Bremen model looked promising, and this was explored both at Bremen University and Jacobs University. Interview outcomes are summarized in what follows. Reflection In the De Montfort M-course, what did you find attractive about the shape of the programme? What do you feel is less helpful? How might this programme appeal to returnees and those aspiring to lifelong learning?

SUMMARY OF THE CONVERSATION WITH THE COURSE DIRECTOR, MA SOCIAL POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN, GERMANY Wikipedia (2010) describes the Bremen model thus: ‘Some of the paths that were taken back then, also referred to as the “Bremen model”, have since become

40

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

characteristics of modern universities.’ They are: interdisciplinary approaches, explorative learning, social relevance and practice-oriented project studies. The intention was to explore this model, but it proved to be a chimera. Students at Bremen (as elsewhere in Germany) have traditionally stayed on through their undergraduate years to master’s level, entering employment later in life than students in the UK. For master’s students this system produced young cohorts without life or work experience. Bologna changed that (CRE 1999). German public universities are changing to the BA as the first degree, which then sends students out into the job market. The system is untried: employers do not know whether the new graduates will be adequately trained, and the universities do not know how to cater for mature, professional, advanced students. At Bremen there is a centre for lifelong learning catering for older student returnees, who are often retired rather than mid-career. But these students don’t impinge much on the main work of the faculties. The freedoms of the old Bremen model no longer exist. The faculties regarded them as a problem. The course director says: ‘If you are self-directed and know what you want, then maybe it’s fine but . . . there are group effects that are also harmful . . . people tend to get a bit cynical about it and they are lost and don’t know what to do . . . Now we are very strict about curriculum . . .’ However, this stricter curriculum is not necessarily fixed and tutor-controlled: ‘We have special committees who usually come up with a proposal to change the curriculum, which is not very often; by “curriculum” I mean the structure, the modules that are either obligatory or elective.’ Furthermore, public university education is free and under the old system this did not encourage students to complete their studies in the minimum time. Quality at Bremen University is high, but the course director’s stance on this is interesting. He suggests that in the 1970s and 80s Bremen didn’t enjoy this reputation, and that this was due to the principles of the Bremen model – which he describes as ‘interdisciplinary, international and a third one which I have forgotten’. These were construed as ‘left-wing’. But nowadays quality is improved and there is ‘objective data to support this’. The government has taken a more proactive role in demanding and measuring quality, and Bremen International Graduate School scored well. On the matter of abnormal entry for adult students, CAT or systems for non-standard applicants, such as for those joining the UK’s Open University, the course director was sceptical. He knew of one case at Bremen, but the process was ‘a kind of test’ and ‘not far from the normal procedure’. The impression created at Bremen, of a move away from the Humboldtian ideal (further discussed in Chapter 4), is articulated by Doepke (2003) in another context: What exactly is Humboldt’s ideal of a university? . . . [I] will mention only two essentials. The first . . . is the unity of teaching and research . . . Since teaching is done by researchers, lectures are about research, or about how to do research. This implies that the Humboldt university is decidedly non-practical. Applied knowledge or technical skills that are

SMALL-SCALE INDICATIVE RESEARCH

41

useful for certain trades and professions have no place at a Humboldt university. The aim is education in a general sense, not specific training for a specific occupation. The second key ingredient of a Humboldt university is freedom. This entails freedom for the professor to decide on which topics to do research and which material to teach. But it also entails the freedom of the student to decide on his own program of study and work at his own pace. Humboldt’s university does not know credit-point systems or required programs of study.

The dilemma of the Humboldtian ideal, eroded in the new world following the Bologna Declaration and government intervention, was summed up by a sticker on a tutor’s door. It read, ambiguously: ‘Humboldt adieu’. Was this regret or relief?

SUMMARY OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COURSE DIRECTOR, MA INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AND (SEPARATELY) WITH FIVE STUDENTS, JACOBS UNIVERSITY, BREMEN, GERMANY Jacobs is a private university, unlike Bremen. Many students are supported by bursaries. It is English-speaking. English is the language of instruction. The MA in International Relations is probably unique. The hand-picked and intellectually impressive students in this cohort number only a dozen. We talk with five: a Brazilian, a Zimbabwean, an American, a German and an Azerbaijanian. Their course is, in some ways, Humboldtian. The approach is, at least in part, interdisciplinary. The students discuss how they follow themes such as ‘power’ from various perspectives – psychological, economic, historical and so on. Students lead the seminars based on texts that they have studied in advance and the tutor is there to guide and enrich the discussion. The programme includes a day a week at Bremen University, taught by Bremen University staff. This element, the students feel, is even more ‘linear’ (their word) than the work at Jacobs. It concentrates more on research or research methods. The work at Jacobs is even more constrained, in terms of curriculum, than the examples given from Bremen University. There is a prescribed syllabus and the texts are provided. There are no real choices to be made: ‘all elements are mandatory.’ But, reflecting on their experience, they are all positive, even if there are some reservations. It is a high profile degree and fulfils their needs and intentions, though they are not uncritical: I have a clear goal: this is a stepping stone to my PhD This is my second master’s degree . . . I feel I am a perpetual student This course will equip me with the tools to make money I want to be an academic

42

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

But they do have those niggling reservations: I sometimes ask myself whether this [way of working] is a superficial education [Some] professors don’t know how to work in an interdisciplinary way The course is more pro-Western than international

The Course Director, herself a graduate of the course, does not confirm all these views. She is keen to indicate that the thesis and assignment titles are open for negotiation. Grades include assessments for contributions to seminars as well as for written work. Extensions can be granted to the handing-in dates for assignment work. She is as immune to ideas of lifelong learning as the director at Bremen. ‘Older people (thirty-plus) just don’t do that; they don’t come back to study; if they did they would be fish out of water with all the young classmates; they wouldn’t be interested to contemplate this.’ So this MA is a mixed economy: interdisciplinary, international, covering a broad view of the world and of subject disciplines in its syllabus; however, it is inflexible; controlled; with tightly defined functions which may be vocational, but only within the tight parameters of employment in academe or maybe the civil service. It exudes quality, but arguably at the expense of freedom and self-determination. Reflection The research above has revealed three rather different models. What are the strengths and weaknesses of each as far as you can deduce them?

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS In pursuing the ‘ideal’ model for M-course study for returnees we have surveyed a range of relevant literature (in Chapter 1), examined some current offerings from HE institutions, and looked in detail at three possible and very different M courses. The conclusion to which we are drawn is that the ‘ideal’ model is indeed the one that is most attractive for a range of reasons that integrate the best in curriculum and learning theory, and because it most fits the needs of adult students as exemplified in the literature. It is also feasible in practice, the De Montfort MA by Independent Study coming very close indeed to fulfilling all of this model’s criteria. From these conclusions it is possible to construct a typology, or list of criteria to be met, against which to judge the extent to which an existing or proposed course is adult-friendly. These criteria are listed in the left-hand column of Table 2.3. In the right-hand column of this table are listed criteria commonly found in modular or taught master’s courses – courses that have been labelled

43

SMALL-SCALE INDICATIVE RESEARCH

here ‘constrained’. On each horizontal axis of the table it would be possible to construct a continuum. In assessing a proposed new course, its provision could be scored along the continuum for each criterion. The result would allow an easy, visual estimate to be made of the proposal’s returnee-friendliness. It is clear that, while some courses would have mainly a left- or right-hand skew, others would contain considerable mixtures and variations in the extent to which they met individual criteria. The typology would, nonetheless, allow proposers and adjudicators of courses more clearly to recognize, challenge and defend their course structures. Table 2.3 A typology and continuum for judging the returnee-friendly nature of modular M-courses ‘Ideal’ model criteria Enrolment criteria are open and flexible

‘Constrained’ model criteria A continuum of practice exists between the leftand right-hand for each criterion listed

Accreditation of prior learning or experience is discretionary, inconsistent or does not exist in practice

Course structures are flexible and responsive to adult lifestyles and circumstances

Lock-step progression of students achieved through intermediate and terminal deadlines and fixed points

Curriculum is student-led

Knowledge is content bound and syllabus delineated

Lifelong learning is a fundamental principle of the course

The course material is treated as a closed box, attributing little value to work beyond these boundaries

Heutagogical principles are pursued for learning and teaching

Teaching is substantially whole-group didactic or highly directed

Learning (style, pace, content) is self-directed by the student

Learning is teacher directed

Integrated approaches to knowledge and curriculum are embraced

Subject boundaries are absolute (continued)

44

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Student learning is related to the individual’s motivations and aspirations

The course is an end in itself without relevance to external circumstances

Individual readiness determines assessment patterns

Assessment patterns are centrally controlled and determined

Assessment methods are negotiable (while quality is not compromised)

Assessment methods are non-negotiable and predetermined

Reflection Apply the typology from Table 2.3 to any postgraduate course(s) you know well. What, according to the typology, are its strengths and weaknesses at least as regards providing choice and autonomy for students?

It remains only to anticipate a challenge to this chapter; notably: if most M courses fail to present themselves as returnee-friendly, what explanations can lie behind that phenomenon given that universities generally are increasingly in the business of selling courses to provide revenue? Perhaps some tentative answers (each of which could be tested empirically) would provide fodder for a further stage of research. Constrained courses are: • bureaucratically easier to manage • simpler to recruit to, even if appropriate recruits are missed • less requiring of staff time and effort in negotiation with students over curriculum • easier to devise and deliver than courses requiring a heutagogical approach • claimed to have ‘gold standard’ assessment (which is actually just mechanistic) • not deflected by the circumstances of individuals • less demanding of staff to expand their own knowledge into areas with which they are less than comfortable • the perfect excuse for staff to stay within their field of expertise and thus facilitate related academic tasks such as publication • seen as promoting academic purity over sordid commercialism. In Bremen, there was a consciousness of the growing government appropriation of HE for its own social and vocational purposes. The situation is mirrored here in the UK (www.direct.gov.uk) and across the world in Australia (Gillard 2008). This latter paper puts the individual at the centre stage, for at the heart of the education process lies the learner.

SMALL-SCALE INDICATIVE RESEARCH

45

Our deliberations have centred on a very specific model that, though not perfect in every respect, comes close to our ‘ideal’. Lest the reader should, in the end, accuse us of unacceptable bias, we look even more closely – in Chapter 3 – at this selected model. In Chapter 3 one of its practitioners takes a close-up view of the De Montfort M-course by learning contract from the perspective of an insider.

FURTHER READING Chapter 3 of this volume.

REFERENCES CRE (Confederation of EU Rectors’ Conferences and the Association of European Universities) (1999) The Bologna Declaration on the European Space for Higher Education: An Explanation. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna. pdf (accessed 7 February 2010). Doepke, M. (2003) ‘Humboldt’s university: now and then’, statement. Available at: www. runder-tisch-usa.de/chicago/site/statements/matthiasdoepke.html (accessed 7 February 2010). Knowles, M. (1980) The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy (2nd edn). Chicago: Association Press/Follett. Mahoney, V. L. M. (1991) ‘Adverse baggage in the learning environment’, in Hiemstra, R. (1991) Creating Environments for Effective Adult Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 51–60. Maxwell, J. (2003) ‘Contradictions and tensions in research higher degree innovations’, Research Paper. Available at: www.aare.edu.au/conf03nc/03025z.pdf (accessed 7 February 2010). University of Bremen (no date) ‘History’, University of Bremen website, www.portrait.unibremen.de/geschichte_en.php3. Germany: University of Bremen. Wikipedia (2010) ‘University of Bremen’, Wikipedia. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ University_of_Bremen (accessed 7 February 2010).

This page intentionally left blank

3

The Strength of the MA by Learning Contract in the Context of Lifelong Learning Mark Sandle SUMMARY This chapter will examine the experiences of the Learning Contract used in the MA by Independent Study (MAIS) in the Faculty of Humanities at De Montfort University, Leicester, UK. The focus will be on examining the nature of this contract in permitting learners to devise and design a flexible and specialized programme of study, sometimes with an interdisciplinary focus. It will outline the process by which the student draws up the Learning Contract, and examine the benefits to the learner of approaching postgraduate education in this way as well as assessing the problems that also occur. In conclusion, this chapter will evaluate the extent to which the learning contract provides a successful mechanism to negotiate the potential gap between institutionally derived learning strategies and the learning approaches – both formal and informal – of postgraduate students. The MAIS Learning Contract thus has the potential to become a key lever in advancing lifelong learning at postgraduate level.

LIFELONG LEARNING AND THE LEARNING CONTRACT Learning contracts are nothing new (Bonthius et al. 1957; Barlow 1974; Berte 1975; Buzzell and Roman 1981). They have been used across a whole range of disciplines and at different levels of study (at both pre-higher education (HE) and HE) for many years now, and across a variety of different countries and educational systems. There are a number of factors that have been identified to explain why the learning contract can be an effective and appropriate foundation for the learning programme of a student, which can be applied to highly technical and advanced areas, such as clinical education placements for trainee doctors and medical personnel, or to much earlier stages in the learning process, for example they can be used as a tool for motivating college students to improve their reading skills. Clearly the rationale driving the decision to adopt a learning contract is very different in the two cases, although there are overlaps in certain areas. If we take the example where a learning contract was used for the improvement of reading skills, then it is clear that the primary purpose was to improve student motivation and engagement (Lewis 2004). In the case where a learning contract was used in clinical education placements, the rationale for the use of the contract was to:

48 • • • • • • •

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

communicate tutor expectations provide opportunities for learners to participate more fully instil personal responsibility for learning enhance self-directed learning encourage communication increase the quality of feedback provide a clear record of the learning process (HKPU 2006).

So, a learning contract can be devised and designed to reflect the particular needs of both the learner and the programme, and it is this flexibility that can make it such a powerful tool in the expansion and development of postgraduate education in the context of lifelong learning. In the literature on learning contracts, Codde (1996) has outlined the 13 principles that are exemplified in learning contracts, principles that help to explain the potential benefits a learning contract can provide: 1. Permits choice of learning strategy 2. Instils commitment 3. Allows independent activities 4. Minimizes teacher directions 5. Addresses learning style differences 6. Allows co-operation 7. Minimizes failure 8. Provides appropriate level of task difficulty 9. Provides novel learning experiences 10. States objectives in behavioural terms 11. Rewards appropriate effort 12. Allows for feedback and self-evaluation 13. Learning generalized to life situations. (Codde 1996)

From the literature on lifelong learning, it is clear to see how the learning contract is a powerful and effective tool to promote learning at the postgraduate level, given its capacity to connect learners, modes of learning and programmes of study in a dynamic process (Herber and Nelson-Herber 1987; McCormick and Paechter 1999; Merriam and Caffarella 1991). Rather than static and constantly reactive modes of learning, which often emanate from institutionally derived courses, the learning contract opens the possibility for a negotiated approach to learning that meets the specific needs of the learner. This is something that is often highlighted in the literature on lifelong learning. Although the emphasis on lifelong learning (or at least lifelong education) can be traced back to the intellectual and socio-political ferment in the aftermath of World War I, it really burst onto the scene in the 1990s, when there seemed to be a consensus among national governments and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) about the significance of lifelong learning. However, there were some

THE STRENGTH OF THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT

49

differences in the arguments advanced by different constituencies and groups. Recently, policy-makers have tended to focus narrowly on lifelong learning in terms of the comparative economic advantage that can accrue from it. This is certainly the focus of bodies such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Commission (EC) (OECD 2001, 2007; EC 2007). However, other NGOs have tended to emphasize the humanistic and social aspects of lifelong learning. In this regard, lifelong learning is viewed as emancipatory and empowering. It enables individuals to respond to the rapid scale and pace of change – not just at work, but also at home – associated with economic shifts, cultural flux and technological innovation. In particular, the changing nature of work itself is a significant contributor to the whole lifelong learning agenda. People in the industrial world generally spend less time at work than they did previously; do different types of work, change their work and jobs more frequently; and perceive the need for updating their skills, developing their profile and honing their expertise. In this regard, the learning contract at postgraduate level should be explored as a means of connecting formal and informal learning, the needs of learners and the social and economic changes associated with late capitalism. This is not to deny the problems associated with such a mode of learning, especially as learners come from a variety of backgrounds and have different expectations and aspirations, but overall it seems to provide sufficient flexibility within a given structure to minimize the problems. It is opportune, as an example, to turn to an examination of the practice in the MAIS within the context of the postgraduate provision of the Faculty of Humanities at De Montfort University.

THE MAIS LEARNING CONTRACT The MAIS has been running for about ten years now, and was devised initially in response to the perceived desire of students for a tailor-made master’s programme that would be suitable for their own particular work/personal/study context and enable individual students to devise a programme of study which suited them and which could not be found elsewhere as a taught programme. The centrepiece of the course is the Learning Contract, which is shown in Table 3.1. Over the course of the last decade, there has been an enormous variety of Independent Study projects. Student projects are only accepted at the initial application stage if there is sufficient local expertise to provide expert supervision. This often means, regrettably, turning down particular projects. To try and summarize the most common types of project, it is worth noting the following categories: 1. Independent Study: professional development. These studies are usually configured by students who wish to undertake a bespoke project that will assist them in their career. Such projects are very often carried out by students as part of a staff development programme at their workplace, and are often employer-funded. Examples include projects proposed by a number

50

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

of secondary school teachers who wished to broaden their knowledge/skills in particular areas as they move on to a new role in their school or college. Alternatively, we have had students do this project who are living and working abroad (for example working for NGOs) and who wish to study from a distance. 2. Independent Study: research project. Another category relates to the student who has a particular passion or enthusiasm for a topic, theme, person or study and wishes to pursue this in more depth, and usually wants to test their ability/understanding at master’s level before embarking on a research degree. Over the last ten years such projects have encompassed Independent Study projects in history, which have been able to make use of private papers bequeathed to a particular student who wishes to undertake a study programme with tutorial support. Alternatively, there have been Independent Study projects in music which have modified and adapted existing instruments to experiment with new sounds, approaches and techniques, as a springboard to further work. 3. Independent Study: unique projects/personal project. There have also been a number of Independent Study projects at De Montfort that have emerged because of the absence of a formal taught programme on a given subject. This is usually where a student wishes to undertake an interdisciplinary study, cutting across formal disciplinary boundaries. For example music and performance arts have seen a number of these studies. Alternatively there have been individuals who wish to pursue a particular interest for no other purpose than to enjoy the subject. 4. Independent Study: extending knowledge. Finally, there have been a large number of projects that have been developments of students’ undergraduate studies. These are either projects by students who have stayed on after completing their undergraduate degree, or by individuals who, having completed one or two years earlier, have rediscovered their passion for studying and have come back to re-enrol. It has been possible in these cases to get the students to devise a programme of study which also incorporates some element tailored towards possible future careers. These project types cover most of the students that have enrolled on the MAIS programme. So, how does the process work? Although the central component is clearly the Learning Contract, there is a preliminary stage, where initial, informal contact is made by the student, who then begins a dialogue with a tutor. This initial contact is designed to ascertain that the project is feasible, and that the student is aware of the nature of the degree, in particular the independent nature of the learning that is expected. The process also ensures that the student is aware of the expectations of the tutors.

51

THE STRENGTH OF THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT

Table 3.1 The Learning Contract Master’s Awards by Independent Study Learning Contract Please refer to the guide notes before completing this document.

1. Summary Name: Proposed Title of Award: MA Proposed Area of Study:

Title of Study:

Mode of Study: Please tick

Full-time

Part-time

Length of Study: Average hours per week, if part-time: Expected final date for submission of assessed work (month and year): Mentor:

Proposed External Examiner (if known):

Form ISREG1

52 2.

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Aims of the Programme of Study

Academic Aims

Personal Aims

Form ISREG1

THE STRENGTH OF THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT

53

3. Context

Form ISREG1

54

4.

Proposed Programme of Study Activities/Methods

Timetable

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Learning Objectives No.

Form ISREG1

5. Proposed Assessment Scheme Related learning objective

Work to be assessed

Credits (=180)

Submission deadline

Assessment arrangements THE STRENGTH OF THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT

55 Form ISREG1

56

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

6. Bibliography to Indicate Basis and Direction of Programme of Study

7.

Student Profile

Qualifications gained since leaving secondary education: Institution

Course

Classification

Date

How the programme of study will build on my previous study or work-related experience:

Form ISREG1

57

THE STRENGTH OF THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT

8.

Resources

Library Requirements and Access:

Specialist Facilities: Studio/Laboratory/Workshop/Equipment:

Attendance at University Classes:

Support from other Institutions and Organisations (confirmation of access to facilities must be appended):

(To be completed by the Graduate Centre) Proposed Mentor: School:

Qualifications:

Brief CV to Support Nomination:

Proposed Second Internal Assessor: School:

Qualifications:

Brief CV to Support Nomination:

Form ISREG1

58

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

9. Endorsements Student’s signature: ....................................................... Date: ................................ Mentor’s report:

I support this learning contract and recommend that it be accepted by the Programme Postgraduate Board (Registration Mode) Mentor’s signature: ........................................................ Date: ................................

I confirm that this learning contract will be supported by my Faculty/Centre

Signed............................................................................Date .................................. Position ......................................................................... Signed............................................................................Date .................................. Position ......................................................................... Signed............................................................................Date .................................. Position ................................................................................

Form ISREG1

59

THE STRENGTH OF THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT

10. Registration This learning contract was considered by the MA Independent Study Board (Registration Mode) at its meeting held on and it was agreed that: The learning contract be supported The learning contract be referred back for further development of sections The learning contract, as resubmitted to the Registration Committee on be supported The learning contract is not accepted. Signed

Date

(Chair of the MA Independent Study Board (Registration Mode)

Form ISREG1

60

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

THE LEARNING CONTRACT 1. CONTENT

The Learning Contract is made up of the following sections: 1. Summary 2. Aims of the programme of study (academic and personal) 3. Context 4. Proposed programme of study (learning objectives, methods/activities, timetable) 5. Proposed assessment scheme 6. Bibliography 7. Student profile 8. Resources 9. Endorsements 10. Registration Taken together, the contract forms the basis of the entire programme of study, although it is obviously open to amendment as the study progresses or if the student begins to move into slightly different areas of interest – although any changes must be approved before being incorporated into a revised Learning Contract. The Learning Contract functions in two ways, and it is designed to be both student- and institution-facing. First, it is designed as a guide through the programme of study for the student. As a self-designed and self-managed programme, it becomes the central course document, detailing the objectives, timetables, workload, assessments and indicative bibliography. In the absence of a ‘normal’ course structure, it helps to guide the student and keep them on track once it has been completed. At the same time though, it is also a document that informs others about the student’s programme of study. This enables the institution to be assured that the Learning Contract is set at the appropriate level, that the programme is feasible and the outcomes achievable. This is particularly important for the external examiner who is assigned to the individual student. The key to understanding the utility and effectiveness of the Learning Contract in the context of lifelong learning and postgraduate education is the process by which the student prepares and completes the Learning Contract. It is at this point that the student–institution learning nexus is joined and the student is able to elaborate their objectives, methods and learning activities. 2. PREPARATION

The key part of the programme is entitled the Planning Phase (De Montfort University 2008b). This comprises the time between enrolment and the submission of the completed Learning Contract to the relevant board for approval. Students meet with a mentor to discuss the Learning Contract and are given a workbook to help them to complete their contract. But, as the title of the

THE STRENGTH OF THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT

61

programme suggests, this is something driven by the student, albeit with guidance and support from the mentor. Each year, new mentors are also given training, so that they can best assist students. This is the crucial phase, when the student’s learning goals and aspirations have to be moulded, through negotiation, discussion and reflection, into a viable pattern of work. The first element in the Planning Phase consists of a series of activities that are designed to encourage the student to engage in a range of reflective tasks. First, students are encouraged to immerse themselves in a range of self-study material, which will assist them in their initial few weeks. These materials include working on issues such as research method, questionnaire design, time-management and so on. Second, students are instructed to make contact with their mentor and to begin a conversation about the structure, aims, goals and focus of the programme. This is a crucial moment for the student, in particular for those students who are returning to learning, or those who are embarking on a programme of study that is unique or interdisciplinary. It is now that the student begins the process of articulating and refining the aims of the project, and has to translate these into a set of concepts and ideas possessed by the academic community she/ he wishes to enter. A great deal of work and research has been done on the concept of ‘discourse communities’. Northedge (2003a) defines the concept thus: An academic discipline is a discourse community of a particularly systematic and committed kind (or, more accurately, a constellation of overlapping communities, with somewhat blurred boundaries). It is a community that discourses primarily through writing, giving its discourse a very distinctive style – highly focused, analytical and critical (Olson, 1996). What we think of as ‘higher knowledge’ is what communities of academic specialists say to each other as they debate issues in papers, books and seminars. (19)

For students to succeed in HE (at whatever level) it is imperative that they learn as quickly as possible the language, concepts, methods and cultures of the academic ‘discourse community’ they are seeking to become a part of. This need is significantly enhanced at postgraduate level, as the qualification is usually of shorter duration than an undergraduate degree, and so there is less time to assimilate to these specific demands and constraints. If one takes into account the fact that the MAIS has no formal course structure or pre-articulated learning outcomes, and also tends to attract a higher proportion of mature students or returnees, then there is a significant premium on students acquiring this specialist language and conceptual awareness quickly. In undergraduate programmes, induction into this academic community comes over the course of the first 12–15 months of study, usually through dialogue with their tutors and as a result of reflecting on the feedback they have received from their tutors. In the MAIS, this induction needs to happen in the course of the first few months, as students grapple with the Learning Contract and seek to frame their programme of study. The conversations and discussions with the mentor

62

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

are central to the success of the programme. The interesting element of the Independent Study programme is that this induction into a ‘discourse community’ occurs on two levels. First, there is the disciplinary element (history, media, politics etc.). But, second, there is the need for the student to familiarize him/ herself with the pedagogical elements involved in constructing a programme of study, designing assessments, articulating outcomes and creating a series of learning tasks. This requires a substantial preparation period, during which the student needs to undertake a series of activities. This, in sum, determines the structure of the Planning Phase period. The reader might care to pursue some the underlying curriculum issues here by referring to Chapter 1; while the discussion of learning issues by Hase and Kenyon in Chapter 9 is also relevant. The types of activities that the student is encouraged to do are shown in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Preliminary activities for the MA Independent Study Activity 1: Expectations: establish clear and realistic expectations by answering the following questions • Why have I chosen to learn through Independent Study? • What demands do I expect my programme of study to make on me? • What am I most looking forward to in relation to my programme of study? And what am I most anxious about? Activity 2: SWOT analysis This is a fairly straightforward activity, although it also involves the more rigorous task of trying to work out how to build on existing strengths, how to address any perceived weaknesses and also how to convert threats into opportunities. Activity 3: Diagnose your learning needs This activity requires students to think about their learning ‘gap’: the difference between where they are now and where they will need to be in order to master their area of study. This entails answering two key questions: • What are your objectives? • Where are you now?

From the thinking generated by the questions in Table 3.2 emerges a template shown in Table 3.3. The student uses this to assess their learning ‘gap’, and thus which areas need to be given priority. The work indicated by Table 3.3 is a really important preliminary stage in completing the Learning Contract. Having undertaken this self-assessment and identified any potential gaps in the student’s learning, it then becomes possible to draw up a Learning Contract that balances the student’s overall learning objectives, institutional quality assurance mechanisms and disciplinary specificity (De Montfort University 2008b: 8–16). This preparatory phase can be the cause of some anxiety among students,

THE STRENGTH OF THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT

63

Table 3.3 Template for assessing the ‘learning gap’ Learning objectives

Required level of ability

Level of present ability

Priority in the overall programme

particularly those who have been out of formal education for a long time. But it can also be something of a ‘culture shock’ for those who have come straight from the more structured environment of a formal, taught-degree programme. The interesting thing about the Planning Phase period is precisely its ability to induct students into the process of working independently right at the outset, thus laying the foundations for the patterns of study they will follow later on. It also provides a template for learning that is instantly transferable and applicable once they have completed their degree. The last preparatory element before completing the Learning Contract is to develop a Learning Plan, which forms the basis for the elaboration of the Learning Contract. The template for the Learning Plan can be seen below. This means specifying a series of clear objectives and some activities to ensure that these objectives can be achieved. Finally, a series of assessment tasks should be designed to ensure that the learning objectives the student wishes to demonstrate will be assessed. Table 3.4 Learning Plan template What are you going How are you going to learn? to learn it?

How will you demonstrate your learning?

How will your learning be evaluated?

64

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

3. COMPLETION

The final stage is the completion of the Learning Contract itself, which is usually a fairly straightforward process if the Planning Phase and Learning Plan have been completed successfully. Students are encouraged to complete two to three drafts of their contract, and to reflect on and review their evolving programme of study before finally submitting it. They will generally interact with three or four external reference points as they complete their learning contract: 1. Mentor: their assigned mentor clearly plays a crucial role in providing both subject-specific and technical advice about the Learning Contract, for example about the relevant credit weightings or word length used by the institution. Often, it will be a means of providing reassurance. Sometimes, it might be encouraging the student to think innovatively or creatively about their assessment tasks. At other times, it will be about refining and specifying the programme objectives, or prompting the student to think more critically or analytically. A central role for the mentor is in helping the student to define the key elements of a programme of research methods. 2. MA benchmarks: students are encouraged to make use of the Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) master’s level benchmarks. These help the students to spell out what they are expected to achieve, as well as giving them a language in which to express it. These help students to frame their objectives, and also allow the institution a framework to ensure comparability of outcomes. 3. Advice and input: students are encouraged to seek the opinions of others (friends or fellow students) on their proposed programme of study. This helps students to gauge the validity of their ideas and also introduces them to the importance of getting feedback. 4. Previous programmes of study: students often ask to review learning contracts from previous cohorts in order to gauge the level of detail, type of language etc., that is required. The completed Learning Contract is normally submitted within six to eight weeks of registration. It has to be signed off by the mentor and is then submitted to the relevant management board to review and approve. However, while the Learning Contract is going through the approval process, the student is expected to start work on their programme of study. They will meet with their mentor, and commence their research methods work (De Montfort University 2008a). 4. APPROVAL

The approval process for the Learning Contract takes place when the management board for the MA meets in what is termed ‘Registration’ mode. There are a number of tasks that have to be undertaken at this stage. Most notably, the committee will: • receive and consider learning contracts

THE STRENGTH OF THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT

65

• consider and approve external examiner nominations • approve the supervisory team. The main focus for the discussion is the Learning Contract itself, and approving its constituent parts. In particular, the approval process has to ensure that the outcomes and standards are at master’s level. But there is a range of other issues that also have to be discussed, including the feasibility of the study, the timescale and any other recommendations the board may have. In particular, it is possible for students to take up to 45 credits (out of 180 credits) of taught modules being offered on existing master’s programmes, and these have to be approved, as well as any requests for accreditation of prior learning. The outcome of the meeting will result either in: • approval: no amendments • approval with minor amendments • re-submission required. A follow-up meeting then takes place within eight weeks to approve or reject any resubmitted applications. For the majority of the students the approval process happens concurrently with the study programme. 5. PROBLEMS

The MA by learning contract has proven to be a very popular and effective mode of study. In providing a flexible and self-designed programme, it has become an attractive option for many learners at different stages of their life, as it allows for a number of different types of interest to be pursued. It also does not seem to suffer from the problem some MA programmes have of a short shelf-life. However, this is not to say that it is without problems, and some of the issues faced are caused precisely by the diverse body of students who choose to enrol on this programme of study. The Learning Contract itself (and the process of drawing it up), as well as the nature of the Independent Study degree can give rise to a poor ‘fit’ between the student and the programme. The problems can be of a number of different orders. Some are the ‘normal’ problems associated with any programme: tutor–student problems, student financial and personal difficulties. However, there are others peculiar to a programme of this type. First, there is the issue of the previous experience and prior knowledge of the student. One student who enrolled took exception at the tasks in the Planning Phase. Specifically, this student resented having to do a SWOT analysis, seeing this as something irrelevant and beneath them. Their expectations were that they had enrolled on a completely independent programme, and their background, experience and knowledge, meant that they should not have to jump through the institutional hoops as part of the Learning Contract submission process. This was more than just a disjuncture between institutional and student expectations; it was, in essence, a conflict driven by the tension between

66

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

the student’s desire to study at their own pace, unconstrained by any formal framework, and the institutional pressure to ensure that even within a framework of independence, certain clear parameters are in operation. In a similar case, another student enrolled not wishing to get a qualification. It was to be a labour of love, and the stepping-stone to a writing career. The writing and the feedback from the tutor were all the student was really interested in. In the former case, the student decided not to pursue their studies. In the latter, the student swallowed hard and carried on with the process. But the problem remains for those students who want to carry on learning and developing, yet who are not really interested in or committed to the qualification per se. Some issues and problems come from the very nature of the programme and are difficult to surmount. The most obvious of which is that of isolation, a problem most commonly encountered by students on research degree programmes. Some students, despite the clear stress on the independent nature of the degree programme, are clearly not prepared for the degree of isolation that this can entail. Measures have been put in place to address this, especially in attempting to integrate MAIS students with the cohort of research students, and also in trying to set up forums where they can meet and converse. Isolation is made more difficult by the geographical dispersion of the students. At root there is the wider problem of what exactly ‘independent’ means, and this is best illustrated by the third problem: cultures of learning. A critical problem that has faced tutors on this programme is the disparity between the cultures of learning that students have become used to before enrolling, or the expectations they have of the respective roles of student and mentor. Some students, particularly those who have come straight from an undergraduate degree, sometimes find it hard to adjust to the rigours of working alone, with minimal contact. For other students, the programme can be liberating, but the enthusiasm means that it can be hard for tutors to maintain contact, and thus provide guidance and steer the project down the road outlined within the Learning Contract. The issue of negotiating the right relationship between student and mentor is crucial to the success of each project. A classic case of disjuncture causing problems arose because of the different expectations around this issue. A nonUK student enrolled on the programme because of the opportunity it offered to study with a particular tutor. However, the student’s expectations of the role of the mentor derived from the student’s home academic community, where the tutor heavily directed learning, and independent learning was rare. This caused serious difficulties during the Learning Contract phase. It was not until mentor and student could sit down and thrash out what their respective roles were that progress could be made. This raises some crucial issues about the extent to which the model of MA by learning contract will be transferable across nation-states. Anecdotally, there appears to be little recognition of this type of qualification outside the UK (and indeed within the UK there is still the problem of perception and reputation). Given the Bologna Process and the attempts to harmonize

THE STRENGTH OF THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT

67

educational provision within Europe, meeting the challenge of providing flexible lifelong postgraduate learning within a European-wide context will be a huge task. Essentially, the key issue that underpins all these problems is the notion of independence and what this means to different students, what they expect and how the articulation of a degree programme based around independent learning can be mediated so that the student learning programme can be structured to fit with the requirements of external benchmarks. The difficulty for the programme is the different requirements of the students. Each successive student cohort is very different, and each student needs and wants something quite distinct. This is the challenge. How can institutional learning and teaching patterns best be shaped to fit the needs of a diverse body of learners? The MA by learning contract offers one possible route to the goal of building a culture of flexible learning for the UK’s postgraduate community. 6. OUTCOMES AND ACHIEVEMENT

There is no ‘typical’ trajectory for an MAIS student who has completed the degree. Completion rates are quite good, in spite of some of the problems to do with isolation discussed earlier. A step up into a research degree has proved to be quite popular. But many have also returned to their work, having been refreshed by a return to learning. Those who undertook the course for professional reasons have gone on to apply their knowledge in new roles at work, or have experimented with curriculum innovations based on activity carried out during the MA. The degree has given them the space, scope and opportunity to experiment, and the lessons learned have been applied to their professional context. This can be seen across a range of subject areas – music, history and education studies to name but three. What this chapter has shown is that a longitudinal survey of graduates of the MAIS would be very instructive in determining what contribution it has made to their subsequent learning, and to their attitudes towards learning.

THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT AND LIFELONG LEARNING Reviewing the experiences of the MAIS in using a learning contract, it is clear that its greatest contribution to lifelong learning in the context of postgraduate education lies in the ‘learning’ dimension rather than the ‘contract’ itself. This is not really about motivating learners, or rewarding effort. It is much more about developing a negotiated and dynamic model of learning that engages with the needs of learners, their learning styles and preferences and helps them to develop the confidence to frame their own learning objectives, or to implement novel approaches to learning or their own professional practice. The majority of learners of the MAIS in the Faculty of Humanities tend to have agendas focused on social and humanistic lifelong learning, rather than on the comparative economic advantage which has driven much of the lifelong learning of the

68

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

EU and the OECD. This is hardly surprising given the nature of degrees in the humanities. However, as the global marketplace becomes increasingly populated with arts and humanities graduates, it is quite likely that the demand for flexible learning that will enable them to align their desire to learn with their professional aspirations will grow. The MA by learning contract offers one path for pursuing the expansion of postgraduate education and the development in the UK of a culture of lifelong learning unencumbered by the narrow agenda of economic advantage, and committed to learning that is emancipatory, empowering, creative and experimental.

FURTHER READING McCormick, R. and Paechter, C. (1999). Learning and Knowledge. London: Paul Chapman. Northedge, A. (2003b) Enabling participation in academic discourse. Teaching in Higher Education, 8 (1), 17–32. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2007). Lifelong Learning and Human Capital, policy brief, July. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 25 April 2009 from: http:// learningonlineinfo.org/2007/09/02/oecd-lifelong-learning-and-human-capital/

REFERENCES Barlow, R. M. (1974). An experiment with learning contracts. Journal of Higher Education, 95(6), 441–9. Berte, N. R. (1975). Individualizing Education Through Contract Learning. Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Bonthius, R. H., Davis, F. J. and Drushal, J. G. (1957). The Independent Study Program in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press. Buzzell, M. and Roman, O. (1981). Preparing for contract learning. In Boud, D. (ed.), Developing Student Autonomy in Learning. New York: Nichols Publishing Company. Codde, J. R. (1996) Using Learning Contracts in the college classroom. Retrieved 10 May 2009 from: https://www.msu.edu/user/coddejos/contract.htm De Montfort University (2008a) Masters Award in Humanities by Independent Study: Student Handbook. Leicester: De Montfort University. De Montfort University (2008b) Masters Award in Humanities by Independent Study: Planning Phase Book. Leicester: De Montfort University. EC (European Commission) (2007). Lifelong Learning Policy. Retrieved on 28 April 2009 from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc78_en.htm Herber, H. L. and Nelson-Herber, J. (1987). Developing independent learners. Journal of Reading, 30(7), 584–9. HKPU (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) (2006). Applied learning. Retrieved on 1 May 2009 from: www.polyu.edu.hk/appliedlearning/sm/page6.html Lewis, J. (2004). The independent learning contract system: motivating students enrolled in college reading courses. Reading Improvement, Fall(2004), 188–94. McCormick, R. and Paechter, C. (1999). Learning and Knowledge. London: Paul Chapman. Merriam, S. B. and Caffarella, R. S. (1991). Learning in Adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

THE STRENGTH OF THE MA BY LEARNING CONTRACT

69

Northedge, A. (2003a). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 169–80. Northedge, A. (2003b). Enabling participation in academic discourse. Teaching in Higher Education. 8(1), 17–32. OECD (2001). Completing the Foundation for Lifelong Learning: An OECD Survey of Upper Secondary Schools. Paris: OECD. Retrieved on 30 April 2009 from: www.oecd.org/document /1/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_27443329_1_1_1_1,00.html OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2007). Lifelong Learning and Human Capital, policy brief, July. Paris: OECD. Retrieved 25 April 2009 from: http:// learningonlineinfo.org/2007/09/02/oecd-lifelong-learning-and-human-capital

This page intentionally left blank

PA R T I I

Postgraduate Education: Principles and Philosophy

This page intentionally left blank

4

Humboldt’s Relevance Today Lewis Elton SUMMARY This chapter looks at the enduring importance of Humboldt in the formulation of the concept of a university. It is particularly significant in the context of increasing State influence on, and even control of, modern universities. The chapter examines the influence of business models on universities, contrasting these with professional models, and the role that complexity theory might play in our understanding of the latter. It deals with the influence of managerialism on ideals such as collegiality, attempting to define more appropriate roles for staff and students than those of employee and customer. The chapter goes on to interrogate aspects of Humboldtian theory against current university practice. It concludes that the ‘university of the market’ is inimical to effective and progressive academic practice and that Humboldt still has important core ideas to contribute to the debate.

THE HUMBOLDTIAN MODEL The idea that a Prussian civil servant, who nearly 200 years ago spent about a year of his long life laying down principles for a new university and incorporated them in a memorandum of less than ten pages, could be of relevance today seems so absurd that some justification for it is clearly required. In providing this justification I must ask readers to bear in mind the astonishing success of the Humboldtian university over the following century – until Hitler destroyed it. Primarily, the memorandum had to deal with the political situation at the time – Prussia had suffered total defeat at the hands of Napoleon, and so the proposed relationship of the new university to the State was crucial. Yet what did the memorandum say on that subject? It said: The State must not treat its universities either like ‘Gymnasia’1 or as special schools, nor use them in either a technical or a scholarly manner. On the whole, it must not demand anything that is immediately relevant and directed towards them, but have an inner conviction that – when they achieve their own objectives – they will also fulfil those of the State, and from a much higher point of view, a point of view which makes it possible to cover far more and brings with it quite different strengths and levers than would be directly available to the State. (Humboldt 1810: 129; my translation)

What this statement says is that if universities are left to their own devices, they will not only pursue the wishes of the State, but also do so more successfully than

74

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

if directly ordered to by the State and – by implication – do so collegially. In the past twenty years, this astonishing prescription has come to be interpreted in terms of complexity theory, as will be later discussed. Throughout this chapter I will concentrate on the British situation, and indeed at times on the English one, for there are now serious differences due to the devolution of power to Scotland and Wales.

THE NATURE OF UNIVERSITIES AND PROFESSIONAL BODIES IN GENERAL What today’s State – in treating universities in terms of ‘business’ – has so signally failed to recognize is that not only universities, but also professional bodies quite generally, have never been ‘like business’, a difference that was analysed by Handy (1984: 292–6), who – in responding to the question: ‘How should you educate managers for the professions?’ – concluded that: In professional organizations the leadership function has to be carried out by the senior professionals – to hand over to an outsider would be an abrogation of their responsibilities. The administrative function, on the other hand, can be delegated to outsiders or to junior professionals because it is under the direction of the professionals.

He then added: ‘It is high time that the professions paid serious heed to the problems of managing their institutions and educating their managers, or rather, their leaders and administrators.’ He thus split the two functions – which in business are carried out by the same person in the name of ‘management’ – into two: leadership and administration, neither of which is equivalent to ‘management’, for while management requires acquiescence from the managed, leadership requires consent and co-operation from the led, with administration then taking the secondary but crucial role of keeping the wheels oiled and turning.

UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE AND THE RISE OF MANAGERIALISM It has been a matter of considerable discourse in the last decade about how university governance has shifted from ‘the professoriate’ to ‘the manager’, with vice-chancellors as chief executive officers – who are in turn subject to the external market and State regulations. This new culture in university governance has been perceived critically by many academics (see for example Sommerville (2007), who suggests that the real power is now exercised behind closed doors). Also, university academics are increasingly being defined as employees, subject to management; those who profess and provide academic leadership are replaced by those who manage and organize academics; and discourse about academic leadership shifts into discourse about successful management. The shift is not merely that managers are made more powerful than professors, while professors

HUMBOLDT’S RELEVANCE TODAY

75

now act as both line managers and clerks. New career opportunities open up. The University is a new site of opportunity for managers who do non-academic knowledge management work. Reflection How do you see aspects of managerialism and professionalism working – for better or worse – at your own university?

In the current market-framed culture of management, a new audit culture has been entrenched in universities in the UK: academics are being redefined as ‘units of resource’, whose performance and productivity must constantly be audited through the Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) code of practice, the assessment process of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and the forthcoming Research Excellence Framework (REF). The invention of a variety of so-called ‘quality assurance’ mechanisms included the formulation of mechanisms to measure the quality of university teaching as well as of research outputs to make the performance of universities transparent to the public gaze. The reputations of universities and their revenues, and individual academics’ promotions, have all been affected by QAA and RAE results. These new mechanisms of higher education funding allocation have restructured the external relations of universities, their legitimization in terms of performance, and their internal governing structure and management processes. Internally, the traditional control of the academic individual, with institutional governance characterized by collegiality (Shattock 2004) has now been replaced by a new style of managerial governance. The changes in university governance were made more visible with a new pattern of appointing foreign vice-chancellors from abroad, a sign perhaps of the end of the traditional English university collegial style of governance. New forms of external and internal managerial power are beginning to redefine the British academic profession. An example is the Vice-Chancellor of the University of London, Sir Graeme Davies, who is a New Zealand expatriate and who was first vice-chancellor at Liverpool and then at Glasgow before coming to the University of London. He confirmed that the changes in higher education governance and leadership have defined universities as a business. The new manager-academics have a common pattern of managerial behaviour in British universities. They initiate changes in a new place immediately after arrival. They restructure university governance and tackle human resource issues. Equally, the length of time university vice-chancellors stay in their jobs seems to have shortened, just as it has for company chief executives (Kim 2006). As has been suggested above, recent research on academic leadership (Gill 2007) ignores two fundamental differences between universities and business – in universities the prime motivating factor is not financial success but excellence, and the success of a university is measured in decades rather than years. Hence,

76

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

detailed long term planning is difficult, if not impossible. Birnbaum (1988) recogized this in his ‘cybernetic model’, in which stability and change depend not ‘on an omniscient and rational agent but on spontaneous corrective action’. How might a vice-chancellor today return to such a form of governance? As there cannot be any research evidence as yet, this is a time for tentative predictions. The classical form of academic leadership was superbly expressed by Ashby (1964), not surprisingly in a slightly veiled fashion: If a British university president has a bright idea (and he does have bright ideas in his early years of office), it would be the height of ineptitude to publish it to its faculty, and fatal to issue a directive about it. He must unobtrusively – if possible, anonymously – feed it into the organisation, at quite a low level, informally over lunch, and watch it percolate slowly upwards.

Ashby (1963) also provided a perceptive critique of the other main function of universities, collegial governance: All over the country these groups of scholars, who would not make a decision about the shape of a leaf or the derivation of a word or the author of a manuscript without painstakingly assembling the evidence, make decisions about admission policy, size of universities, staff–student ratios, content of courses and similar issues, based on dubious assumptions, scrappy data and mere hunch.

While, however, it may be possible for a vice-chancellor to return to the wisdom of Ashby, s/he is likely to be frustrated by the refusal of the body of academic staff to return to their past roles, as many – possibly the majority – have accepted their new roles as ‘employees’. What advice might Ashby give today? ‘If a British university president has a bright idea (and he does have bright ideas in his early years of office’): not only is this still so, but the sympathy of academic staff and students who rarely want things to continue as they were under the ‘old man’ (it is still comparatively rarely a woman) is also likely. ‘[I]t would be the height of ineptitude to publish it to its faculty, and fatal to issue a directive about it’: how to avoid such ineptitude is likely to be unchanged. ‘He must unobtrusively – if possible, anonymously – feed it into the organisation, at quite a low level.’: such extreme caution may be unnecessary – many academics today look for change – but the right change. To give an example, the move towards ‘teaching only’ posts is generally not considered a ‘right’ change, the growth of the ‘Scholarship of Teaching and Learning’ movement is. That the tradition of Ashby is still alive in places may be indicated by the Autumn/Winter 2008 issue of Clare News, the newspaper of Ashby’s old college which remembers him with affection and reverence. There is however one other requirement, much more important now than it was in Ashby’s day: ‘Keep the students on your side.’ This may involve recognizing

HUMBOLDT’S RELEVANCE TODAY

77

their legitimate needs as ‘customers’, but linking these to their role as junior members of the academy, which would bring them closer to Humboldt’s ideal, who argued that ‘in universities, the teacher is not there for the student; both are there for the pursuit of Wissenschaft’2 (1810: p. xx); the teacher throughout his academic life, the student while at university. Reflection Using the ideas generated in this section, how would you interpret the role of students? Can you provide an interpretation that might serve the purposes of the university in the twenty-first century better than the idea of students as ‘customers’?

ACADEMIC LOYALTIES While most of the remarks so far concerning the professions apply to all, there are issues of loyalty where universities have been perhaps most unusual. And, as they have demonstrated a capacity of survival that is unique, these issues must be taken seriously. The most important of these are that universities are primarily motivated by intrinsic excellence, not financial success, and that success is measured in decades, not years. Their traditionally low esteem of financial success is beautifully illustrated by arguably the oldest reference to academics, Chaucer’s characterization of the Clerk of Oxenford: Yet hadde he but litel gold in coffer. And gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche.

Also, it may be significant that the Universities and Colleges Union, which – like all unions – concentrates on improving its members’ financial positions, has failed to attract the majority of its members to take an active interest in its work. Furthermore, the vice-chancellor is seen as the First Servant of the University, not as its Master. This was fully recognized by Ashby and is illustrated beautifully in the earlier quotation. This role of a vice-chancellor also stresses the fact that for academics, dissent is more important than consent, a point well illustrated by one of the best university registrars of recent years, Geoffrey Caston, who defined his role as follows: ‘Dissent is essential to democratic life and at the basis of a university; . . . this is what makes the management of a university community such a very special and complex task’ (1977: 3). Finally, and most extraordinarily, academics owe their allegiance primarily to their discipline and not to their institution, as was well expressed by Ziman (1968: 289): It is a commonplace in the literature on the management of industrial research that applied scientists often suffer from divided loyalties. On the one hand, they owe their

78

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

living to the company that employs them, and that expects its return in the profitable solution of immediate problems. On the other hand, they give their intellectual allegiance to their scientific profession where they look for scholarly recognition. Although the rewards for technological work are far greater and more direct, they very often prefer to stick to scientific research. This preference seems almost incomprehensible to management experts.

A recent attempt by the UK Leadership Foundation to expect academics to have an institutional loyalty (admittedly in addition to their disciplinary loyalty – but who can serve two such different masters?) – seems doomed to failure. The issues discussed in this section should convince the reader that any attempt to make universities ‘like business’ would destroy much of what is best in universities without giving any indication that such a change would have positive consequences. Reflection Discuss the proposition (with colleagues if possible) that ‘academics owe their allegiance primarily to their discipline and not to their institution’. What are the implications of this view for institutions?

CHANGES NEEDED: DO BETTER, BUT IN GENERAL ALSO – DO DIFFERENTLY None of these considerations imply that there should be no change and we now turn to issues where universities ought to both do better, and, in general, also differently. Here is a list, which is by no means complete: • give equal importance to research and teaching • develop the scholarship of teaching and learning • provide genuine professional development for all staff • raise the profile of the concept and practice of service to society • encourage inter-university collaboration, not competition • extend collegiality to all staff and students (the extension to students is very much in the spirit of Humboldt). In effect, these proposed changes could in practice be far more constructively radical than the market-led changes of the past twenty-five years. To give an example, the first three require a radical and fundamental change in academic attitudes, summarized best in terms of the movement of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (Elton 2008), which provides a rational basis for teaching and learning to replace the normal attitude of university teachers (that one teaches as one was taught, by teachers who taught as they had been taught . . . all the way back to the Middle Ages, except that we now use computers). But just as the invention of moveable type in the fifteenth century did not change the

HUMBOLDT’S RELEVANCE TODAY

79

practice of lecturing, the invention of the computer will by itself change teaching and learning only superficially.

ETHICAL ISSUES We next turn to issues relating to university ethics. One is the issue of trust – explicit in the passage from Humboldt with which this article started. Arguably the saddest consequence of the recent past has been the replacement of trust by accountability. Trust (see for example O’Neill 2002; Elton 2004b) is a delicate plant and, once lost, is hard to regain. A good example of this failure is the practice of the QAA, which judges the average quality of teaching without ever considering what is known to every student, namely that this average hides the differences within it of the variability of teaching received by them, a point beautifully expressed by Tobin (1999). When I once inspected the teaching quality in a department and found this phenomenon, I asked the head of department what he was going to do about it. He replied: ‘take him off teaching, I suppose’; i.e. ‘reward’ him by giving him more research time than he was giving to better teachers. Actually, I had to agree that that was the best remedy, for such inadequacy in teaching could not be remedied by the short training courses available at the time. To re-establish trust is extremely difficult and Yorke (1994) has suggested the concept of ‘modified trust’, which brings in aspects of accountability without simply replacing it with the latter. Instead, government constantly increases the pressure of accountability in a way that actively encourages academics to ‘play games’, and as academics are on average almost certainly more intelligent than civil servants, such games are likely to be won by academia – at the expense of the academy. More generally, if we are to reduce the culture of suspicion, we have to accept that there never can be total guarantees of performance and we will need to free professionals to serve the public. A second issue is more directly concerned with university ethics. As Watson (2007: 373) has said: ‘Universities can choose to behave well or badly and it is in our social as well as moral interest to help them do the former.’ Unfortunately it would appear not to be in the interest of universities to behave well, at least not in the short term, pressured as they are by the outside world and increasingly also by internal top-down management. A third relates to inter-university collaboration. In a distant past, it was normal for universities to collaborate in their work and there was no need for a united stand against outside interference. In Britain, when this became a serious issue after 1981, universities turned out to be very bad at creating such a united stand; in fact they behaved like the Medieval Bavarian peasants (Elton 1987: 171) who would rather put a prayer on the gables of their houses (‘I pray to you, St Florian / Protect my house, burn others down!’) than communally invest in a fire engine. More recently, they have formed themselves into collaborative groups, but outside bodies, whether governmental or business, have found it all too easy to set these groups against each other. When the latest research assessment exercise

80

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

found world leading research right across the higher education sector and not just in the previously most recognized groups (Corbyn 2009), another nail was hammered into the coffin of university collaboration.

THE HUMBOLDTIAN UNIVERSITY AS A TEACHING INSTITUTION Can we also learn something from Humboldt about the university as a teaching institution? In this respect, it did not change significantly throughout the nineteenth century and the description by Paulsen (1906, English translation 1908) gives a good account of it. The task of the university professor, as teacher, was in two parts: he delivered lectures (Vorlesungen) and he led small groups (Seminare). His (at that time, the profession was essentially masculine) abilities to conduct these activities were assessed in the Habilitation, which included the delivery of a lecture, and which gave him the right to teach (Lex docendi). In this way, the system was based on the German Meister Prinzip, well established in industry and commerce, in which the novice learned from a ‘master’, i.e. it was assumed that an established professor was a master in the craft of university teaching. However, the budding professor rarely if ever served time under an established professor. Nevertheless, the system was distinctly superior to the traditional British system, where there was until recently no formal control over entry to the university profession based on teaching ability. By the early twentieth century, there was an emerging idea of a pedagogic training for university teachers, Hochschuldidaktik, but it found little support in Germany, mainly because the two approaches – of the disciplinary expert and the pedagogic expert – were considered to be essentially in opposition (see Paulsen (1908: 221–3)). There was at the time – and in much of university culture both in Germany and Great Britain this is still so – no understanding of the concept of collaborative learning from disciplinary and pedagogic experts in the what and how of university teaching. While, therefore, the Humboldtian university was extremely traditional in its modern view of the practices of teaching and learning, its objectives regarding the purpose of university teaching were – by our standards – extremely radical, based as they were on the concept of Lernfreiheit – the student’s ‘freedom to learn’, which Humboldt contrasted with the learning appropriate in school. Humboldt’s concept of university study – whether by teachers or learners – was that it be conducted ‘in loneliness and freedom’ (Einsamkeit und Freiheit). This concept, fully analysed by Schelsky (1963), was valid for teachers throughout their academic life and for students while they were students; the idea that students were thus learning in the interests of Wissenschaft and not in the interests of their future occupations was as revolutionary in 1810 as it would be today.

HUMBOLDT’S RELEVANCE TODAY

81

MODERN DEVELOPMENTS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING Thus while the Humboldtian university was revolutionary in its approach to research, to university governance and structure and to the purpose of university study to the extent that I believe that we have much to re-learn from it, it was conservative in its approach to the methods of teaching and learning. The major modern developments are: • a move from teaching to learning • relevance of research into teaching and learning • the scholarship of teaching and learning. These developments have led to wholly new models of teaching and learning, such as problem-based learning (PBL) which is student driven: students, whose prime motivation is to become competent in the discipline they have chosen to study, start with relevant problems – often chosen by the teacher, but frequently also by the learner – that make learning much more immediately relevant to them. A most interesting development has been the adaptation of PBL to disciplines where there would not appear to be relevant problem situations provided by the applied nature of the discipline. Possibly the first such approach was that of Hutchings and O’Rourke (2002) to the teaching of eighteenth century English literature. The principles of what they called ‘Enquiry Based Learning’ (EBL) were: 1. Start with a problem (given or discovered) within a field of knowledge. 2. The solution of the problem leads to disciplinary structure, not conversely. 3. Learning is initiated by students and facilitated by the teacher; it is thus student centred. 4. The problems are derived from the discipline, if single disciplinary, or from a situation, if multi-disciplinary. They are presented with or without previous information. 5. While in PBL, problems are derived from life situations; in EBL they are more usually derived from the discipline. 6. Students study in groups, usually with different roles agreed. 7. Resources are provided. 8. Group sessions usually with several groups in one room (it is interesting that having several groups in the same room has been found to be much more effective than putting the groups into separate rooms – the noise acts as a stimulus, not an interference). 9. The resulting experience is satisfying both intellectually and socially. 10. The role of the teacher is that of a facilitator, not an authority. 11. Much use is made of materials, many of which have to be searched for. 12. The usual outcome is a group report, not reports from individual students – with all the consequences pertinent to student assessment. While this at first sight may appear far from Humboldt’s concept of university learning, it has in fact much in common with his concept of Lernfreiheit.

82

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

COLLEGIALITY AND COMPLEXITY We now take up the issue of ‘complexity’, referred to at the beginning of this chapter. A complex adaptive system can be defined (Stacey et al. 2000: 106, 154) as consisting of a large number of agents, each of which behaves according to its own principles of local interaction. Coherent behavioural patterns of great complexity can emerge when large numbers of agents interact with each other in a self-organising way according to simple relational rules.

What remains tacit here is that the success of this approach requires the ‘agents’, i.e. academics, individually and in small groups to be in broad agreement that the legitimate aims of the State should also be among their aims, although not necessarily and not usually their sole aims. When this does not happen, the ‘complexity’ approach breaks down, as happened at least twice in the nineteenth century: in Germany, when Hesse’s government attacked fundamental aspects of academic freedom and dismissed seven professors, including the brothers Grimm, better known in Britain for their fairy tales; and in England, when the dons in Oxford and Cambridge became totally inward looking. Both these breakdowns have lessons for today: if governments attack fundamental academic principles, such as academic freedom, the relationship between universities and government becomes fraught, and if academics actively ignore the legitimate demands of government, the latter must intervene decisively. Neither of these possible sources of tension apply today; the problem today is crass interference by government in situations where much less interference would lead to peaceful resolution of differences. Present problems are however aggravated by the Government ‘buying off ’ academics at the top level through the encouragement of top-down management, which has created an academic hierarchy in which vice-chancellors have lost their role as the first servants of academia and become its rulers. This development is the outcome of a firm belief by government that in this age of the ‘market’ universities must be part of the market and hence ought to be treated like any other form of business. This application of ‘Aut Caesar, aut nihil’ to the relationship of universities and the State was never right; it has become wholly unacceptable when the ‘market’ has so significantly failed even in the market. According to Humboldt, universities best serve the community if governed collegially and left free from direct external interference. As was stated above, it is this apparent paradox that has been interpreted in terms of complexity theory: Coherent behavioural patterns of great complexity can emerge when large numbers of agents interact with each other in a self-organising way according to simple relational rules . . . In these systems, agents residing on one scale start producing behaviour that

HUMBOLDT’S RELEVANCE TODAY

83

lies one scale above them: ants create colonies, urbanites create neighbourhoods. (Stacey et al. 2000)

And arguably academics create disciplinary departments.

HITLER’S GIFT AND THE DEMISE OF THE HUMBOLDTIAN UNIVERSITY The Humboldtian tradition survived the First World War and maintained Germany’s leading academic position until 1933, when Hitler killed it, both by ‘nazifying’ the universities and by expelling the substantial number of Jewish professors from them. The latter action became known as ‘Hitler’s Gift’, with the word ‘Gift’ having very different meanings in German and English: in the former language it means ‘poison’, in the latter it means ‘present’. Hitler’s action both poisoned German universities – indeed, the Humboldtian tradition has never been revived in Germany (Hartwig 2007) – and was a present to the English and American ones that received the refugees. Unfortunately the latter were in no position to maintain the Humboldtian tradition in their new countries and so essentially what was transferred was their research excellence.

THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF THE MARKET So we finally come to the current University of the Market and its fundamental flaw. Its claim is that it is based on performance and that this is judged by appropriate performance indicators in teaching and research. It has failed in both and the failures are systemic. In teaching, the QAA – by assessing quality at departmental level – has failed to detect, as was mentioned above, the most basic fact about teaching quality in universities, namely that it is uneven across individuals within an overall offering. The true remedy of course lies in seriously developing in academics the teaching function. The UK Staff and Educational Development Association now offers development in this area, but only on a voluntary basis. In research, the RAE has tried to measure research quality – expensively and in considerable detail recently – in terms of performance indicators, while ignoring the well known consequences of ‘Goodhart’s Law’ (see for example Elton (2004a)), which states that ‘when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure’, since targets can be manipulated – and academics are rather good at doing that in pursuit of their interests. Furthermore, the targets were fixed several years before they were applied, so that they are now used to assess research long past in terms of long past performances. Even if this still falls short of the situation in the Soviet Union, where researchers had to declare the proposed outcomes of their research in order to be funded, it encourages ‘safe’ research. Would the laser ever have been invented, considering that it was thought of

84

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

as a piece of ‘blue sky’ research, but for the fact that the commercial company involved, AT&T, gave its research employees 5 per cent free time to conduct ‘blue sky’ research? It took several years after it had been invented for its practical uses to be recognized. This is no isolated case and leads to the inescapable conclusion that radically new discoveries are seriously at risk in a system in which decisions are taken essentially by risk-averse civil servants, even if mediated via academics. The writing is on the wall! Reflection Apply Goodhart’s Law (above) to your own context.

COULD THE HUMBOLDTIAN UNIVERSITY HAVE A FUTURE? Now that the flaws of the market – not only as a model for universities, but intrinsically in itself – are becoming apparent, there is, I believe, a good case to be made for a type of university, based essentially on a deep understanding of Humboldt’s ideas and the outcomes of complexity theory. In many details it would and should, of course, differ from the University of Berlin in the nineteenth century; it would be democratic and its interests and objectives would range far wider, but its fundamental principles would be the same. These might be summarized as academic freedom, collegiality, civic responsibility and complexity. This last point is crucial, for universities will always have to deal with issues that they do not yet fully understand.

CONCLUSIONS What conclusions can we come to? • The fundamental principle of the Humboldtian university, that universities best serve the community if governed collegially and left free from direct external interference – now understood in terms of complexity theory – is likely to be as valid as it was 200 years ago, although massification and relationships to modern economic circumstances are likely to demand substantial changes. They do not however lead to the ‘marketization’ of the traditional university, and the failure of the free market in 2008 may make even the most enthusiastic marketeers reflect. Neither do they lead to the replacement of collegial governance by top down managerialism. • Within the university, the Humboldtian principle was never, however, fully extended to either the teaching function, where – in an extraordinarily simplistic application of the principle of academic freedom – it was considered wrong to interfere with the individual university teachers’ freedom ‘to teach as they saw fit’, or a university’s governance functions. The outcome in teaching was that each teacher taught largely as they had been taught, by teachers who taught as they had been taught, in

HUMBOLDT’S RELEVANCE TODAY

85

a pseudo-apostolic succession going back to the Middle Ages, while governance was carried out in an amateurish manner. • The outcome in collegial governance has resulted in it being carried out without adequate training. • Thus the major changes, compared with the past, must lie in applying principles of research also to teaching and governance: – Teaching must become researchable and researched. This unification of research in the discipline and research in the teaching of the discipline then leads to the concept of the scholarship of teaching and learning (see for example Elton 2008). – Academics engaged in governance functions must receive appropriate training.

NOTES 1 Gymnasia were the most prestigious of the secondary schools. 2 A caution: the essentially untranslatable word ‘wissenschaftlich’ is often translated wholly incorrectly as ‘scientific’. Wissenschaft invariably relates to all knowledge, not just to that in the sciences.

FURTHER READING ON QUALITY Elton, L. (1986) ‘Quality in higher education: nature and purpose’, Studies in Higher Education 11, 83–4. Pirsig, R. M. (1974) Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. London: Bodley Head. (See particularly the discussion of arête, pp. 371–4.)

ON THE LEGACY OF HUMBOLDT Elton, L. (2008) ‘Collegiality and complexity: Humboldt’s relevance to British universities today’, Higher Education Quarterly 62, 224–36.

ON THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING Elton, L. (2008) ‘Continuing professional development in higher education: the role of the scholarship of teaching and learning’, PESTLE 3 (2).

ON ENQUIRY-BASED (ALSO CALLED PROBLEM-BASED) LEARNING Hutchings, W. and O’Rourke, K. (2002) ‘Problem-based learning in literary studies’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 1 (2002), 73–82. Levy, P. and Petrulis, R. (2009) ‘First year international students’ experiences of learning through inquiry’, Reflecting Education (Special Issue: selected papers from Learning Together 2007, Institute of Education, University of London).

86

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Savin-Baden, M. (2007) A Practical Guide to Problem-based Learning Online. London: Routledge. Savin-Baden, M. and Wilkie, K. (eds) (2004) Challenging Research in Problem-based Learning. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

ON COMPLEXITY THEORY Stacey, R. D., Griffin, D. and Shaw, P. (2000) Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Challenge to System Thinking? London and New York: Routledge.

REFERENCES Ashby, E. (1963) ‘Decision making in the academic world’, in Halmos, P. (ed.), Sociological Review, Monograph No. 7, 10–11. Ashby, E. (1964) ‘The scientist as university president’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 9, 210–11. Birnbaum, R. (1988) How Colleges Work: The Cybernetics of Academic Organisation and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Caston, G. (1977) ‘Conflicts within the university community’, Studies in Higher Education 2, 3–8. Corbyn, Z. (2009) ‘All excellence is guaranteed cash’, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 29 January, p. 5. Elton, L. (1987) Teaching in Higher Education: Appraisal and Training. London: Kogan Page. Elton, L. (2004a) ‘Goodhart’s Law and performance indicators in higher education’, Evaluation and Research in Education 18 (2004), 120–8. Elton, L. (2004b) ‘Continuing professional development in higher education: trust and accountability’, Higher Education Digest 49, 5–7. Elton, L. (2008) ‘Continuing professional development in higher education – the role of the scholarship of teaching and learning’, PESTLHE E-Journal 3 (2). Gill, J. (2007) ‘Staff loyalty key to HEFCE report’, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 30 November, p. 2. Handy, C. (1984) ‘Education for management outside business’, in Goodlad, S. (ed.), Education for the Professions. Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education and and NFER-Nelson. Hartwig, L. (2007) ‘Is Humboldt still relevant today? Notes on the relationship between research and teaching from a German perspective’, International Colloquium at Marvell Conference Centre, Winchester, 19–21 April. Humboldt, W. von (1810; reprinted 1957) ‘Über die innere and äussere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten in Berlin’, Frankfurt: Fischer Bücherei. (Selection by H. Weinstock, pp. 126–34). Hutchings, W. and O’Rourke, K. (2002) ‘Problem-based learning in literary studies’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 1 (2002), 73–82. Kim, T. (2006) ‘Building a business: a comparative note on the changing identities of the British university’, in Sprogøe, J. and Winther-Jensen, T. (eds), Identity, Education, and Citizenship: Multiple Interrelations. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 197–224. Lambert, D. (2003) Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration. Final Report, 4 December. Norwich: HMSO.

HUMBOLDT’S RELEVANCE TODAY

87

O’Neill, O. (2002) A Question of Trust: The BBC Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paulsen, F. (2008) The German Universities and University Study. London: Longman, Green and Co. Schelsky, H. (1963) Einsamkeit und Freiheit. Hamburg: Rowohlt. Shattock, M. (ed.) (2004) Editorial and ‘The Lambert code: can we define best practice?’, Higher Education Quarterly 58 (4), 227–8 and 229–42. Sommerville, A. (2007) ‘The Applicability of the EFQM model to Higher Education’ (PhD thesis, University of London). Stacey, R. D., Griffin, D. and Shaw, P. (2000) Complexity and Management: Fad or Radical Challenge to System Thinking? London and New York: Routledge. Tobin, A. (1996) ‘Couldn’t teach a dog to sit’, The Times Higher Education Supplement, 26 July, p. 11. Watson, D. (2007) ‘Does higher education need a Hippocratic oath?’, Higher Education Quarterly 61, 362–74. Yorke, M. (1994) ‘Enhancement-led higher education’, Quality Assurance in Higher Education 2, 6–12. Ziman, J. (1968) Public Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

This page intentionally left blank

5

Postgraduate Studies in Europe: Looking Beyond Bologna Terence Karran and Kent Löfgren SUMMARY This chapter examines the impact of the Bologna Declaration on postgraduate education in Europe. First, the rationale behind the Bologna Declaration is analysed, in terms of the motivations and aspirations of the signatory states of the preceding Sorbonne Declaration. Building on this, the impact of the Bologna Declaration on postgraduate education is then assessed. Finally, the question as to whether, and to what extent, the Bologna Process can be judged a success is examined.

THE BIRTH OF THE BOLOGNA PROCESS The Bologna Process of the convergence of European higher education systems, began at the Sorbonne on 25 May 1998, when the education ministers from France, Germany, Italy and the UK signed the Sorbonne Joint Declaration on Harmonisation of the Architecture of the European Higher Education System, committing their nations to ‘encouraging a common frame of reference, . . . [to] . . . create a European area of higher education’, and called on nations in the EU and beyond ‘to join us in this objective and on all European Universities to consolidate Europe’s standing in the world through continuously improved and updated education for its citizens’ (Allègre et al. 1998). However, to understand the impact of the Bologna Process on postgraduate education, examination of the genesis of the Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations is necessary. The harmonization of the European Union (EU) higher education (HE) systems is often cited as the rationale for the Bologna Process. However, the reconciliation of the differing HE systems was the means to an end, rather than an objective in its own right. The original motives for the reform were as much national as pan-European or international. According to Teichler (2001: 8f.), at a joint conference of European and Asian prime ministers in the early 1990s: The European heads of government were shocked to notice that hardly any internationally mobile student of the economically advancing region of East and South-east Asia chose a continental European institution of higher education. Subsequently the view spread miraculously fast that European higher education could become more popular if a bachelor-master structure for programmes and degrees was introduced.

90

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Moreover, in his briefing paper for the Bologna meeting, Haug (2000: 35) stated that ‘in the early 1990s for the first time, the number of Europeans studying in the USA exceeded the number of American students in Europe.’ Consequently international competitiveness, rather than European integration, was a major driving force behind the Sorbonne/Bologna Process. Hence Zgaga (2006: 10) acknowledges that: ‘The very beginning of the Bologna Process was characterised by the belief that changes in the structure of European higher education systems could be the main vehicle for raising attractiveness worldwide.’ This in turn led Hackl (2001: 32) to observe that: ‘Competitiveness and national pride have motivated national governments to give up their protection of their national particularities of their higher education traditions.’ Another important component was national reports examining higher education, produced in the signatory states, which all identified a need for reform. For example, in the UK the 1997 Dearing Report advocated an expansion in higher education provision and identified that a UK national qualifications framework would lessen the existing problems of the international recognition of qualifications. It believed that it was ‘possible to design a UK framework that would both embody the distinctive character of UK HE and articulate with frameworks elsewhere in Europe’ (Wright et al. 1997: 8). In France, the timing and the content of the Attali Report (Attali et al. 1998), Pour un Modèle Européen d’Enseignement Supérieur, commissioned by Education Minister Claud Allègre, were especially significant. The report addressed the existing bifurcated (universities and grandes écoles) French HE system, which, it argued, was inefficient and egalitarian. Surprisingly, the Attali Report, which addressed both the findings of the Dearing Report and the higher education system in the USA, advanced a case for pan-European, rather than national reform. The Report’s Introduction states: Moreover, it is no longer possible to follow a rigid course different from those of its European partners or of the other dimensions of the European framework: it is not possible to have a free circulation of merchandise, capital, people, and ideas, permitting everyone to pursue their profession wherever they wish, while at the same time allow a situation where it is not even possible to compare the value of degrees awarded by universities in the member states of the EU, which are necessary to pursue these professions: it is not possible to have a ‘Europe of Labour’ without a ‘Europe of Education’. Without standardising their systems, the countries of Europe have to decide on a way to harmonise their courses and degrees, and define a specific European model, neither bureaucratic nor subjugated to the market. (Attali et al. 1998, p. 9; author’s translation)

Additionally, the report recommended moving the French HE system from a three- to a two-cycle degree structure. The Attali Report was issued on 5 May 1998; on 25 May, the Sorbonne Declaration, which called for a two-cycle degree scheme and greater harmonization of European HE systems, was signed. Essentially, the Sorbonne Declaration provided a convenient fulcrum on

POSTGRADUATE STUDIES IN EUROPE: LOOKING BEYOND BOLOGNA

91

which the signatory countries could lever reforms that had been proposed by national commissions on higher education. At the same time, as Ravinet (2005) explains, both the German and Italian education ministers had vested interests in pushing the Sorbonne reforms to achieve change at national level. The German minister, Jurgen Ruettgers, was about to introduce an experimental bachelor’s/ master’s degree structure, while in the previous year in Italy, a parliamentary commission produced a report on the main problems faced by Italian universities, allowing Education Minister Luis Berlinguer to utilize the pretext of the Sorbonne and Bologna reforms to push through radical reforms at national level. Immediately after the Sorbonne meeting, Allègre wrote to all the higher education ministers in Europe, advising them of the Declaration’s contents and formally inviting them to become co-signatories. This invitation led the European Confederation of Rectors to commission a feasibility study (Haug and Kirstein 1999), which examined the HE systems of the EU nations and assessed the possible degree of convergence. As Haug subsequently chronicled (2000: 43–8): The Sorbonne declaration immediately attracted a lot of attention but also met with a significant degree of resistance, which can be traced to the following three main reasons: • The announced aim to ‘harmonise’ the architecture of the European higher education system; • The controversial proposal for a European-wide pattern of qualifications after 3, 5, 8 years in higher education; • The signature of the declaration by the ministers in charge of higher education in the 4 biggest EU countries.

Despite such opposition, the Sorbonne Declaration proved to be a ‘quantum leap’ in the development of European higher education policy (Witte 2006: 124). During the Sorbonne conference the Italian education minister invited the other ministers to meet in Bologna in June 1999 with the intention of agreeing a more widely accepted declaration on increased co-operation within the European higher education area. Hence, the Sorbonne Declaration was written by French civil servants, while the text of the Bologna Declaration was prepared mainly by the Italian Ministry of Education – in neither case was there a strong involvement by the European Commission. This appeal was so successful that the Bologna Declaration was signed on 19 June 1999 by the ministers in charge of higher education from 29 nations, including all the EU states. The Declaration pledged the signatory states to reach, by 2010, the following objectives, which were considered essential ‘to establish the European area of higher education and to promote the European system of higher education world-wide’ (European Education Ministers 1999): Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees; • Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate, with the second cycle leading to the master and/or doctorate degree;

92

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

• • • •

Establishment of a system of (ECTS) credits; Promotion of mobility for students, and for teachers, researchers and administrative staff; Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance in h.e.; Promotion of the European dimensions in higher education, especially in curricular development, inter-institutional co-operation, mobility schemes and integrated programmes of study, training and research, in order to develop comparable able criteria and methodologies.

Corbett’s analysis of European higher education policy from 1955–2005 succinctly summarizes the Bologna Process thus: The aims are external to Europe, and internal. The goal is not only to make the European higher education area (EHEA) attractive enough to the rest of the world to draw in more of the best foreign students and scholars, but also to boost quality within Europe itself, as a way of making universities more effective within the knowledge-based economy which the world’s richest nations regard as the sine qua non of economic growth (2005: xii, 4).

The Bologna signatory states have had bi-annual progress meetings in Prague (2001), Berlin (2003), Bergen (2005), London (2007) and Leuven/Louvain-laNeuve (2009) at which progress towards the Bologna goals is appraised, follow-up tasks determined and new communiqués written. For example, the Prague and Berlin Communiqués were of particular significance to postgraduate education. The former called on the signatory states to increase the development of modules, courses and curricula at all levels with ‘European’ content, orientation or organization. This concerns particularly modules, courses and degree curricula offered in partnership by institutions from different countries and leading to a recognized joint degree. (European Education Ministers 2001).

At the Berlin meeting, ministers specified that it was necessary ‘to go beyond the present focus on two main cycles of higher education to include the doctoral level as the third cycle in the Bologna Process’ and called for increased mobility at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels and encouraged the institutions concerned to increase their cooperation in doctoral studies and the training of young researchers’ so that doctoral level networks could stimulate the development of excellence and to become one of the hallmarks of the European Higher Education Area.

Additionally, the Berlin Communiqué stated that ‘countries party to the European Cultural Convention shall be eligible for membership of the European Higher Education Area’ (European Education Ministers 2003) thereby allowing nations outside the EU, like Russia, to become Bologna signatory states. At the heart of this process of monitoring implementation, as Heinze and Knill (2008: 498)

POSTGRADUATE STUDIES IN EUROPE: LOOKING BEYOND BOLOGNA

93

detail, is the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG), a smaller group drawn from the Bologna countries, the European Commission and participating stakeholder organizations: The BFUG is formally responsible for the overall steering of the process and the preparation of the ministerial meeting (e.g. by drafting the Communiqué). This also entails concrete actions for the realization of the Bologna objectives by adopting a work programme as well as informing and reporting to the ministers in charge of higher education in the signatory countries. These general tasks are updated on each ministerial meeting with more concrete guidelines and operating instructions (e.g. to develop criteria for stocktaking).

Reflection To what extent can the Bologna Process still be considered a European (as opposed to national or international) initiative?

The subsidiarity principles in EU treaties mean that community policy can only be developed in areas in which national policy-making is deemed insufficient. Hence the scope for supra-national policy-making in higher education is extremely limited and can only proceed by means of co-operation among the Member States. Consequently, as van der Wende (2000: 307) points out: ‘These limitations, . . . gave rise to a situation whereby the idea of harmonization was an avoided area in the European debate on higher education . . . When such a proposal finally came, it was nevertheless quite unexpected.’

THE SPREAD OF THE BOLOGNA PROCESS Given that the Sorbonne Declaration was unexpected, the desire of other nations (in Europe and beyond) to participate in the Bologna Process was remarkable. As Ravinet (2008: 354) notes: ‘The Bologna Process is thus unanimously recognised as the most powerful force for change in higher education public policy in Europe of the last 50 years’, which must make it the EU’s most successful policy initiative, apart from the introduction of the Euro currency. At the 2009 Bologna ministerial meeting in Leuven, there were 46 signatory states, of which only 27 were from the EU. As the World Education Services (2007) remarked: ‘With the exception of Belarus, Monaco and San Marino, every country on the Eurasian landmass west of the Caspian Sea has now signed the Bologna Declaration, and with the addition of Russia in 2003 the EHEA [European Higher Education Area] now literally stretches from the Pacific to the Atlantic.’ Moreover, the growth in non-EU Bologna Declaration signatory states will probably continue. As Neal-Sturgess (2007: 131) points out: ‘“Bologna” has now taken on an even more important international role as China, Latin

94

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

America, Australia and Asian countries are now officially designated as “Bologna Observers” and attend all meetings.’ Consequently, the Australian government (for example) is adopting policies to maximize ‘the key benefits and outcomes Australia seeks through an alignment with Bologna initiatives’ (DEST, 2006: 2). Similarly, although criticisms have been made of the Bologna Declaration processes in America, nevertheless, as Robertson and Keeling (2007: 11) note: ‘the US proposals are, however, in many ways similar to the Bologna response to global competitive pressures.’ The Bologna Declaration has had a substantial impact on the EU states, for example, to achieve compliance. Some (like Estonia) have introduced wideranging national reforms to their HE systems. However, many nations outside the EU have also signed the Bologna Declaration, with the result that the sheer size and scale of the territory covered by the Bologna Process has forced countries outside of the Bologna Process network of states to alter their own educational policies in order to attract students from the Bologna signatory states and remain globally competitive. Consequently, the impact of the Bologna Process has been international, not just European, in scope. Indeed, the Bologna Process’s success has led Goolam Mohamedbhai, the International Association of Universities’ President, to state: The Bologna reforms (the 2-cycle degree programmes, the establishment of a credit transfer system, the introduction of quality assurance, the introduction of studentcentred and problem-based learning) . . . can bring about important and positive changes in higher education. The question then is: should the Bologna reforms be extended to other parts of the world? (2005: 3)

THE IMPACT OF THE BOLOGNA PROCESS For UK universities, the Bologna Declaration’s major reform – a three (bachelor’s), two (master’s), three (doctorate) awards framework – was unproblematic as it was very similar to the existing UK system. As a result, the awards framework was criticized by some signatory states for being an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ model despite the fact that the framework’s major architects were French and Italian. Work undertaken by Haug (2000), however, prior to the Bologna meeting demonstrated that ‘No significant convergence towards a 3–5–8 model was found. . . . [and] . . . the UK, the US and most countries in the world – except in continental Europe – apply two-tier (undergraduate-postgraduate) systems’ (9). For many of the EU states, especially those with a strong Humboldtian tradition (see Chapter 4), the first degree was a master’s degree that invariably took a minimum of four years. However, Haug noted: ‘an accelerating move in favour of the introduction of bachelor degrees in systems that hitherto had mainly, or only, long curricula with no exit point before the master level’ (22). Hence, the Bologna Process introduced a new undergraduate bachelor degree award that

POSTGRADUATE STUDIES IN EUROPE: LOOKING BEYOND BOLOGNA

95

had not existed previously in many EU states, and converted the master’s qualification from a first degree into a postgraduate award. The preparatory work by Haug and Kirstein (1999) for the Bologna Declaration revealed that 40 per cent of the ministries had reported that there was a two-cycle structure in their national higher education systems even before the Bologna Declaration. For every subsequent bi-annual progress review meeting, a survey is undertaken of the progress towards implementing the Bologna protocols including, inter alia, the proportion of nations that have introduced a bachelor’s level award. Such evaluations have limited utility, as additional nations have signed up to the Bologna Process at every bi-annual meeting – Croatia, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Turkey in 2001; Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Holy See, Russia, Serbia, Macedonia in 2003; Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine in 2005; and Montenegro in 2007. Moreover, the shift towards the new scheme was gradual in many nations, with some universities altering their degree schemes and becoming Bologna compliant before others. By 2003, 53 per cent of institutions surveyed had implemented the bachelor’s/master’s degree structure; four years later, and despite new additional members to the Bologna ‘club’, the comparable figure was 82 per cent (Crosier 2007: 6). This shift towards the comparability of degree structures has generated similar important shifts in both the pedagogy and subject content of the new degrees. Although it was possible to move the HE systems of the different states towards a uniform (bachelor’s/master’s/doctorate) model, difficulties in transferring credits occurred because of the different methods and patterns of teaching across the EU. Initially, the European Credit Transfer System measured credit within the new degree awards in terms of the total teaching hours required to achieve them. However, in some countries HE teaching involves a great deal of formal teaching (lectures, seminars), while other nations had fewer hours of formal teaching but required students to complement lectures with more time for self-directed study. Education is being delivered in ever more varied ways (e.g. open and distance learning, problem-based learning, etc.), often using new educational technologies, which makes the use of notional time measures (like ‘learning hours’) of academic credit increasingly problematic. Consequently in 2002 a group of European universities, supported by the European Commission, initiated a two-year pilot project: ‘Tuning Educational Structures in Europe.’ The Tuning Project became an important mechanism for the implementing the Bologna Process, which led to additional project funding from the EU from 2002 to 2006 and, moreover, financial resources to ‘export’ the Tuning expertise via a Latin American Tuning Project. The Tuning Project was designed to ‘tune’ the different national educational structures by measuring student workload and developing commonly accepted professional profiles and desired learning outcomes in terms of knowledge, skills and competencies in five (later nine) subjects. The Tuning Project developed a methodology for designing degree programmes on the basis of agreed profiles, subsequently translated into learning outcomes expressed in the competences obtained by the student. The

96

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

degree profiles resulted from consultations with the relevant stakeholders – not only academic staff and students, but also graduates, employers and professional organizations. In addition to specifying the subject specific elements in particular degrees, the Tuning Process also identified and mapped generic competences. The Tuning Project discovered that: In all fields typical academic competences like the capacity for analysis and synthesis, the capacity to learn and problem solving were identified as being the most important ones. However, graduates and employers . . . thought that other generic competences . . . were very important for employability too. These competences included the capacity for applying knowledge, the capacity to adapt to new situations, concern for quality, information management skills, ability to work autonomously, team work, capacity for organizing and planning. (González and Wagenaar 2008: 17)

Using common learning outcomes to ‘tune’ degree programmes within specific disciplines across different nations has standardized the content of degrees. For example, the tuning work by the European Chemistry Thematic Network resulted in ‘two accredited European templates, the Chemistry Eurobachelor® degree, for first cycle degree programmes and Euromaster for the second cycle’ (ECTN 2008: 14). Hence, as European University Association (EUA) Vice President Roderick Floud (2006: 12) has pointed out: Cultural and national diversity might seem to inhibit agreement on learning outcomes and competences. But . . .‘Tuning’ . . . has shown that it is possible for disciplinary specialists to reach agreement on what a student of history or nursing anywhere in Europe should know when he or she finishes the bachelor’s degree. The Tuning project . . . is paralleled by another development that was stimulated and facilitated by Bologna: the creation of joint degrees.

Three years after the Bologna Declaration, Tauch and Rauhvargers (2002: 42) discovered that: ‘Joint degrees were more common at doctoral and Master levels than at first degree level’ and, moreover, were able to report that, although few countries had legislated specifically for joint degrees, in 26 of the 33 signatory states, universities were offering joint degrees. A decade after the Bologna Declaration, Davies’ analysis confirmed this trend and found that ‘The Master degree stands at the point of intersection of professional development, research, innovation and knowledge transfer. . . . Joint curriculum development, course delivery and research supervision flourish at Master level on a trans-national basis’ (2009: 71). In sum, the Bologna Process had a profound impact on master’s level postgraduate education. First, in many EU countries the master’s award had previously been a first degree, but, following the introduction of the bachelor’s degree, the master’s degree achieved postgraduate status. Secondly, the use of a common credit system, allied to subject-based templates, has standardized degree

POSTGRADUATE STUDIES IN EUROPE: LOOKING BEYOND BOLOGNA

97

structures and their content, across both subjects and nation states, leading to joint degrees awarded by two or more universities and recognized within their home countries. The introduction of ‘Tuning’ subject curricula templates has reduced the ability of individual academic staff to determine the subject content of degree courses. Moreover, by involving employers and professional organizations as important stakeholders in the determination of degree programmes, the Bologna Process (via the Tuning Project) has further undermined the role of academic staff in deciding what should be taught and shifted the emphasis of course curricula away from the possession of academic knowledge and towards graduate employability. Aghion et al. (2008: 8f) characterize doctoral education as the major link within the Bologna Process between the European higher education and research arenas ‘because graduate education is precisely . . . where education meets research and innovation. Weakness in this link can be a serious handicap for the European knowledge economy.’

BOLOGNA’S EFFECT ON DOCTORAL STUDIES It is not surprising, therefore, that the impact of the Bologna Process on doctoral studies and courses has been just as radical. Wilhelm von Humboldt’s model for Berlin University, encompassing the principles of freedom of teaching and learning (Lehrfreiheit und Lernfreiheit), the unity of teaching and research (Einheit von Lehre und Forschung) and the collaborative pursuit of these by staff and students, was crucially important for the development of the modern research-based university in many European nations and elsewhere. Von Humboldt (1970: 242ff.) believed that the university’s task was ‘the cultivation of science and scholarship in the deepest and broadest sense’, in which ‘both teacher and student have their justification in the common pursuit of knowledge and hence ‘the goals of science and scholarship are worked towards most effectively through the synthesis of the teacher’s and the students’ dispositions’. As Renaut (2006: 125) makes clear: It was around this model that a lasting university identity was formed, sharing the same high ideal and defending common values . . . the principles of disinterested research, the antithesis of out-and-out mercantile professionalism, and the autonomy of knowledge vis-à-vis its various practical applications.

At doctorate level within European universities, this model was manifest in a guild-like close association between the academic master craftsman and his apprentice, whereby the student acquired from his professorial mentor, through guidance rather than tuition, the necessary skills to advance the body of knowledge by completing a thesis (of academic excellence, but of unproven economic or practical utility), thereby securing entry into the academic guild and the subsequent development of an academic career. Hence the PhD was considered

98

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

the pinnacle of academic success and purely as the prerequisite for an academic career. This was reflected in the small numbers of PhD students, the narrow focus of their research and nature of their endeavour in creating new knowledge for its own intrinsic sake. This ‘guild apprenticeship’ PhD model has altered radically following the Bologna Declaration. Following the 2003 Berlin Communiqué, an additional action line was inserted into the Bologna Process, which designated doctoral degrees as the third cycle in the European qualifications framework. To progress this initiative, in 2004 the EUA established the Doctoral Programmes Project involving 48 universities in 22 EU states, and held the Bologna Seminar on Doctoral Programmes in February 2005 to progress the project’s findings. The seminar produced ten basic principles for doctoral programmes and argued that increasingly doctoral training must meet the needs of an employment market wider than academia, and that doctoral programmes should offer geographical as well as international collaboration within an integrated co-operative framework of universities and other external partners. These recommendations were incorporated into the 2005 Bergen Communiqué (European Education Ministers 2005) which contended that ‘doctoral level qualifications need to be fully aligned with the EHEA overarching framework for qualifications using the outcomes-based approach’, and urged ‘universities to ensure that their doctoral programmes promote interdisciplinary training and the development of transferable skills, thus meeting the needs of the wider employment market’. Fulfilling these recommendations, Ulhøi (2005: 352) argues, requires a shift from an ‘apprenticeship-led model’ (characterized by informal individualistic elite training, producing knowledge of high originality but low vocational applicability) to a ‘schooling-led model’ (with formal training delivered collectively en masse, to produce highly vocational qualifications but generating little original knowledge). (Readers might wish to contrast this view with the work of Harland and Scaife in Chapter 10.) Reflection To what extent is it necessary for PhD dissertations to produce knowledge that is useful?

As described by the Frascati research definitions, the shift in thinking outlined above represents a transposition from basic research (‘theoretical work, undertaken to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundation of phenomena and observable facts, without any specific application or use in view’) to applied research (‘also original investigation undertaken to acquire new knowledge. It is, however, directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective’ (OECD 1994: 7)). However this is a finely drawn distinction. Neumann (2005: 185) notes that:

POSTGRADUATE STUDIES IN EUROPE: LOOKING BEYOND BOLOGNA

99

In professional disciplines the link between theory and practice is by definition inextricably close . . . it could be argued that the award in these fields should be a professional doctorate rather than a PhD. But while the distinctions between pure and applied, theory and practice, appear neat and clear-cut for discussion purposes, in actuality they overlap and blur.

This shift also required changes to the structure and pedagogy of doctoral education in the Bologna signatory states. PhD programmes involving common taught-course elements and directed at specific professional groups (engineers, teachers, etc.) have been common in US and UK ‘graduate schools’ but were rare in the EU. The analysis of professional doctorates by Scott et al. (2004: 23) identified the following common elements: Taught courses, specification of learning outcomes often in the form of employment related skills, cohort-based pedagogies, and usually a reduced thesis length in comparison with the PhD thesis, but with the same requirement for originality.

All of the above chime perfectly with the requirements for doctoral education in the Bergen Communiqué. The impact of this aspect of the Bologna Process is manifest in the emergence of American-style doctoral/graduate or research schools within the EU. The EUA Trends V analysis (Crosier et al. 2007: 26) revealed that 29 per cent of HE institutions surveyed had established doctoral or graduate schools, while a 2007 EUA survey of doctoral programmes in the Bologna Process found that, out of 37 countries surveyed, in only five did the old ‘traditional’ PhD model still predominate (EUA 2007: 9). Despite such apparently radical changes, Enders’ (2002: 516) assessment of the impact of such new programmes, led him to declare that ‘it seems premature to declare the death of Humboldt before knowing more about the outcomes of new models of doctoral training on the labour market’.

HAS THE BOLOGNA PROCESS BEEN A SUCCESS? Assessing the long-term impact of a complex policy initiative like the Bologna Process is problematic, more especially because its aims and participants have altered over time. As Charlier (2008: 107) attests: The Bologna process cannot be reduced to its material and quantifiable achievements. They are either derisory or impressive, depending on the indicator chosen. They are impressive in terms of snowball effect – the number of signatory countries has risen from four to forty-six in a decade. They are derisory if one considers the proportion of higher education students who were awarded a mobility scholarship [a grant to help students to go abroad]. What is important lies elsewhere. The Bologna process should be interpreted as a structured rationale for modifying the representations that decision makers and citizens have about higher education and for bringing about changes in their practices.

100

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

However, some outcomes of the Bologna Process are readily quantifiable. A main motivation of the Bologna Process was the apparent increase in the number of foreign students going to the USA, rather than Europe. As Table 5.1 shows, over the period from 1998 (when the Bologna Declaration was signed) to 2006, the growth in the number of foreign students coming to the original Sorbonne signatory states was greater than the comparable figure for the USA, although some of the downturn in the students going to the USA is probably due to a tightening up of immigration procedures following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Table 5.1 Numbers and % growth of foreign students in HE in Sorbonne signatory states and the USA, 1998–99 to 2006–06 France

Germany

1998–9

130.95

178.19

1999–0

137.09

2000–1 2001–2

UK

Total Sorbonne

USA

23.50

232.54

565.18

451.94

187.03

24.93

222.94

571.99

N.A.

147.40

199.13

29.23

225.72

601.48

475.17

165.44

219.04

28.45

227.27

640.2

583.00

2002–3

221.57

240.62

36.14

255.23

753.56

586.32

2003–4

237.59

260.31

40.64

300.06

838.6

572.51

2004–5

236.52

259.80

44.92

318.40

859.64

590.16

2005–6

247.51

261.36

48.77

418.35

975.99

584.81

89.01

46.67

107.53

79.90

72.69

29.40

% change

Italy

Source: OECD Education at a Glance (2008).

The trends apparent in such data are born out by students’ opinions within the EU. In 2009 the EC commissioned a survey on students and HE reform (Gallup 2009), which found that 90 per cent of students agreed that study programmes should include communication skills, teamwork and ‘learning to learn’ techniques, 97 per cent believed it was important to provide students with the knowledge and skills required to be successful in the labour market. With respect to student mobility, 53 per cent said they intended to study abroad, and 64 per cent agreed that a short study period abroad should be integrated into all study programmes. Additionally, 87 per cent thought it important for universities to foster innovation and an entrepreneurial mindset among students and that there should be student work placements as part of study programmes, while 71 per cent believed that private enterprises should be more involved in HE management and curricula design. All these views are inherently supportive of the Bologna reforms. In contrast HE staff are much less favourably disposed to the Bologna reforms. In a similar survey taken in 2007 (Gallup 2007) of 5,800 academics, only 49 per cent

POSTGRADUATE STUDIES IN EUROPE: LOOKING BEYOND BOLOGNA

101

believed that the introduction of the three-cycle system had improved educational quality, while 32 per cent thought that it would have been better to have kept the old one-tier system (without a split between bachelor’s and master’s). Further, 44 per cent thought that the three-cycle system had improved the quality of research training for doctoral students, although 54 per cent thought that double and joint degrees should be promoted at doctoral level. Scepticism of the Bologna Process’s apparent benefits has been voiced also within the academic press. Pusztai and Szabó (2008), examining the restructuring of HE in Hungary, for example, conceive of the Bologna Process as a ‘Trojan Horse’. An analysis of the Bologna Process’s impact in the Netherlands, lead Lorenz (2006: 147) to conclude that it: Represents an extension on a European scale of the neo-liberal policies that have been ‘implemented from the 1980s onwards’. These policies can be summarized under the labels of commodification of knowledge, the marketization of higher education, the enlargement of scale as the primary policy to cut down costs and – last but not least – the ‘managerial colonization’ of higher education and the simultaneous de-professionalism of the faculty in the name of a new ‘professionalism’.

In similar trenchant fashion, Nybom (2003: 16) argued that: We do not need another ludicrous declaration by EU-Prime Ministers or Ministers of Education that: ‘the EU in 10 years time will be the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’. Instead, we have to devote all our efforts and a substantial part of our economic and human resources to rebuild our education systems in general, and our crumbling higher education systems in particular.

Such diverse opinions between staff and students tend to endorse Kozma’s (2008: 44) ambiguous opinion that ‘The Bologna process is slowly becoming history – and we still do not know whether we shall be proud of it or discard it’. Reflection To what extent has the Bologna Process been beneficial to students, staff, and the EU HE area?

FURTHER READING Aghion, P., Dewatripoint, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colell, A., Sapir, A., (2008) Higher Aspirations: An Agenda for Reforming European Universities, Brussels: Breugel Blueprint Series. Corbett, A., (2005) Universities and the Europe of Knowledge: Ideas, Institutions and Policy Entrepreneurship in European Union Higher Education Policy, 1955–2005, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Davies, H., (2009) Survey of Master Degrees In Europe, Brussels: EUA.

102

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Ravinet, P., (2008) ‘From voluntary participation to monitored coordination: why European countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna Process’, European Journal of Education, 43(3): 353–67. Reinalda, B., Kulesza, E., (2005) The Bologna Process: Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education, Opladen: Budrich.Swedish Ministry of Education and Research, (2007) Key Issues for the European Higher Education Area: Social Dimension and Mobility. Report from the Bologna Process working group on social dimension and data on mobility of staff and students in participating countries. Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of Education and Research. (Available from: www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/08/23/55/467bd591.pdf (accessed 9 February 2010).) Witte, J., (2006) Change of Degrees and Degrees of Change: Comparing Adaptations of European Higher Education Systems in the Context of the Bologna Process, Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies. World Education Services, (2007) ‘The impact of the Bologna Process beyond Europe, Part I’, World Education News and Reviews, 20(4). (Available from: www.wes.org/ewenr/07apr/ feature.htm (accessed 9 February 2010).) Zgaga, P. (2006) Looking out: The Bologna Process in a Global Setting. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2006. (Available from: www.dcsf.gov.uk/londonbologna/ uploads/documents/0612_Bologna_Global_final_report.pdf (accessed 9 February 2010).)

REFERENCES Aghion, P., Dewatripoint, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colell, A., Sapir, A., (2008) Higher Aspirations: An Agenda for Reforming European Universities, Brussels: Breugel Blueprint Series. Allègre, C., Berlinguer, L., Blackstone, T., Rüttgers, J., (1998) Sorbonne Joint Declaration on Harmonisation of the Architecture of the European Higher Education System, Paris, Sorbonne, 25 May. Attali, J., Brandys, P., Charpak, G., Feneuille, S., Kahn, A., Kristeva, J., Lazdunski, M., Le Douarin, N., Leclerc, M., Lewiner, C., Marchello Nizia, C., Mer, F., Monod, J., Pellat, R., Touraine A., (1998) Pour un modèle européen d’enseignement supérieur, Paris: Ministère de l’éducation nationale. Charlier, J-E., (2008) ‘Assessing Europe’s initiatives to boost the competitive position of its higher education’, European Education 40(1): 107–9. Corbett, A., (2005) Universities and the Europe of Knowledge: Ideas, Institutions and Policy Entrepreneurship in European Union Higher Education Policy, 1955–2005, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Crosier, D., (2007) ‘Higher education trends and developments: a European success story?’, EAIE Forum Spring: 16–17. Crosier, D., Purser, L., Smidt, H., (2007) Trends V: Universities Shaping the European Higher Education Area, Brussels: EUA. Davies, H., (2009) Survey of Master Degrees in Europe, Brussels: EUA. DEST (Department of Education, Science and Training), (2006) The Bologna Process and Australia: Next Steps, Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. ECTN (European Chemistry Thematic Network Association), (2008) References Points for the Design and Delivery of Degree Programmes in Chemistry, Bilbao: Deusto University. Enders, J., (2002) ‘Serving many masters: the PhD on the labour market, the everlasting need of inequality, and the premature death of Humboldt’, Higher Education 44(3/4): 493–517. EUA (European University Association), (2007) Doctoral Programmes in Europe’s Universities: Achievements and Challenges, Brussels: EUA.

POSTGRADUATE STUDIES IN EUROPE: LOOKING BEYOND BOLOGNA

103

European Education Ministers, (1999) The European Higher Education Area: Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education, Bologna, 19 June. European Education Ministers, (2001) Towards The European Higher Education Area: Communiqué of the Meeting of European Ministers in Charge of Higher Education in Prague on May 19th 2001 (Prague Communiqué). (Available from: (Available from: www.bolognaberlin2003.de/pdf/Prague_communiquTheta.pdf (accessed 9 February 2010).) European Education Ministers, (2003) Realising the European Higher Education Area: Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers Responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 19 September 2003 (Berlin Communiqué). (Available from: www.vu.lt/site_files/SD/SK/ Berlin_Communique.pdf (accessed 9 February 2010).) European Education Ministers, (2005) The European Higher Education Area – Achieving the Goals: Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19–20 May 2005 (Bergen Communiqué). (Available from: www.ond. vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/Bologna/documents/MDC/050520_Bergen_Communique1. pdf (accessed 9 February 2010)). Floud, R., (2006) ‘The Bologna Process’, Change 38(4): 8–15. The Gallup Organization, (2007) Flash Eurobarometer No 19: Perceptions of Higher Education Reforms, Brussels: European Commission. The Gallup Organization, (2009) Flash Eurobarometer No 260: Students and Higher Education Reform, Brussels: European Commission. González, J., Wagenaar, R., (eds) (2008) Universities’ Contribution to the Bologna Process: An Introduction (2nd Edition), Bilbao: Deusto University. Hackl, E., (2001) Towards a European Area of Higher Education: Change and Convergence in European Higher Education, Florence: EUI. Haug, G., (2000) Trends and Issues in Learning Structures in Higher Education in Europe, Bonn: Beitrage zur Hochschulpolitik. Haug G., Kirstein, J., (1999) Tendances 1 Évolution des structures d’éducation dans l’enseignement supérieur en Europe, Genève: CRE. Heinze, T., Knill, C., (2008) ‘Analysing the differential impact of the Bologna Process: theoretical considerations on national conditions for international policy convergence’, Higher Education 56(4): 493–510. Kozma, T., (2008), ‘Political transformations and higher education reforms’, European Education 40(2): 29–45. Lorenz, C., (2006) ‘Will the universities survive the European integration? Higher education policies in the EU and in the Netherlands before and after the Bologna Declaration’, Sociologia Internationalis 44(1): 123–51. Mohamedbhai, G., (2005). ‘Views on Bologna Process’, 3rd EUA Convention of European Higher Education, Glasgow, 31 March–2 April 2005. Neal-Sturgess, C., (2007) ‘Bologna and the MEng: “Sleepwalking into unknown and unpredictable territory”’, International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education 44(2): 130–8. Neumann, R., (2005) ‘Doctoral differences: professional doctorates and PhDs compared’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 27(2): 173–88. Nybom, T., (2003) ‘The Humboldt legacy: reflections on the past, present, and future of the European university’, Higher Education Policy 16(2): 141–59. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (1994) Main Definitions and Conventions for the Measurement of Research and Experimental Development, Paris: OECD.

104

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Pusztai, G., Szabó, P., (2008) ‘The Bologna process as a Trojan horse: restructuring higher education in Hungary’, European Education 40(2): 85–103. Ravinet, P., (2005) ‘The Sorbonne meeting and declaration: actors, shared vision and Europeanisation’, Third Conference on Knowledge and Politics, University of Bergen, 18–19 May. Ravinet, P., (2008) ‘From voluntary participation to monitored coordination: why European countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna Process’, European Journal of Education 43(3): 353–67. Renaut, A., (2006) ‘The Europe of universities: their tradition, function of bridging across Europe, liberal modernization’, in Sanz, N., Bergan, S., (eds.) (2006) The Heritage of European Universities, Strasbourg: Council of Europe, pp. 121–9. Robertson, S., Keeling, R., (2007) ‘Stirring the lions: strategy and tactics in global higher education’, Panel on Shaping the European Education Agenda, European Union Studies Association Conference, Montreal. Scott, D., Brown, A., Lunt, I., Thorne, L., (2004) Professional Doctorates: Integrating Professional and Academic Knowledge, Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Tauch, C., Rauhvargers, A., (2002) Survey on Master Degrees and Joint Degrees in Europe, Brussels: EUA. Teichler, U., (2001) ‘Bachelor-level programmes and degrees in Europe: problems and opportunities’, Yliopistotieto 6(1): 8–15. Ulhøi, J., (2005) ‘Postgraduate education in Europe: an intersection of conflicting paradigms and goals’, International Journal of Educational Management 19(4): 347–58. Van Der Wende, M., (2000) ‘The Bologna Declaration: enhancing the transparency and competitiveness of European higher education’, Higher Education in Europe 25(3): 305–10. Von Humboldt, W., (1970) ‘On the spirit and organisational framework of intellectual institutions in Berlin’, Minerva 8(2): 242–50. Witte, J., (2006) Change of Degrees and Degrees of Change: Comparing Adaptations of European Higher Education Systems in the context of the Bologna Process, Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies. World Education Services, (2007) ‘The impact of the Bologna Process beyond Europe, Part I’, World Education News and Reviews, 20(4). (Available from: www.wes.org/ewenr/07apr/ feature.htm (accessed 9 February 2010).) Wright, P., Campbell, C., Garrett, R., (1997) National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education: Report 11, The Development of a Framework of Qualifications: Relationship with continental Europe, London: HMSO. Zgaga, P. (2006) Looking out: The Bologna Process in a Global Setting. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2006. (Available from: www.dcsf.gov.uk/ londonbologna/uploads/documents/0612_Bologna_Global_final_report.pdf (accessed 9 February 2010)).

6

ICT and Postgraduate Education Francesc Pedró SUMMARY By now it is quite obvious that technology1 has changed the way in which higher education institutions run their activities, particularly in the domains of research, management and administration, information and provision of critical services for the university community such as libraries. Teaching and learning practices are not an exception, and a wide range of different approaches to the adoption and integration of technology has already emerged and contributed to a changing landscape. Less obvious and documented is the issue of how technology is affecting higher education students’ expectations regarding teaching and learning. Some authors claim that the attachment that students have to the internet and digital media nowadays impacts how they value traditional teaching and learning practices in higher education. As a response to these new emerging expectations, institutions are expected to radically change their practices, drawing on and learning from how students manage communication and knowledge in their daily lives. It is against this context that this chapter addresses three basic questions. First, what is the actual level of technology uptake by students? Secondly, are students’ expectations changing because of this, in particular in relation to the ways in which technology could change teaching and learning practices? And finally, to what extent are teachers in higher education responding to this challenge? When reading this chapter three considerations must be taken into account. On the one hand, the chapter is focused on traditional higher education institutions or, in other words, those which teach mostly on a face-to-face basis. The situation in distance teaching institutions might be significantly different in this respect for a number of reasons – namely the different composition of the student population and the fact that most teaching and learning occurs in an asynchronous way. On the other hand, the chapter emphasizes, whenever possible, the particular case of postgraduate students, although this proved to be difficult because of the lack of evidence in comparison to that available about undergraduate students. Finally, the reader should bear in mind that the higher education landscape is characterized by diversity. Such diversity emerges as a natural result of the combination of a high degree of institutional autonomy, which often results in diversity across institutional policies and practices and very diverse disciplinary traditions, which give rise to diversity across faculties and schools.

106

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

TECHNOLOGY UPTAKE: A FEW SNAPSHOTS There is no doubt that the level of technology uptake by university students is impressive. Technology has become part of their daily lives, supporting their activities in areas such as social communication, information management and cultural practices particularly in terms of media consumption. In this respect they are clearly much more attached to, if not dependent on, technology than were past generations. This section presents some snapshots and comparative indications of the actual level of technology uptake that confirm that across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries students are heavy users of technology. In fact there is a clear correlation between the level of education and the intensity of technology adoption – although this correlation may be seen as a different facet of the digital gap. Some evidence regarding the important issue of for what purposes students use technology is also brought into consideration. Finally, it would be misleading, however, to conclude that all students are acting exactly the same way as there is clear evidence of different alternative student profiles when it comes to technology adoption and use. In the absence of international comparative surveys addressing the issue of how far higher education students are attached to technology, Figure 6.1, based on Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data, provides a good indication by estimating the percentage of the age cohort now in higher education who declare to have a home computer. Actually the figure presents the percentage of people aged either 21 or 24 in 2009 who declared they had access to a home computer when they were aged 15 – so six or nine years ago, respectively. On average 85 per cent of today’s 21-year-olds already had a home computer in 2003. Interestingly, the number of OECD countries surpassing this figure is higher than the corresponding countries lagging behind. Moreover, in 13 out of the 24 OECD countries that participated in PISA 2003, this value was at least 90 per cent. Although data are available only for some countries, the differences in percentages between 21- and 24-year-olds suggest a pace of growth that could easily lead the majority of OECD countries to the universalization of home computers in less than five years – or even before – with a matching development also in broadband access (OCED, 2008). For a number of reasons the percentages presented in Figure 6.1 are likely to be underestimating the real values. A number of national surveys already point to higher levels of technology adoption, up to the extent that it can be reasonably expected that any new entrant to a higher education institution has access not only to a home computer or, increasingly, to a laptop, but also to an internet connection. For instance the most recent survey of undergraduate students in the United States (Salaway et al., 2008) reveals that more than 80 per cent of them own laptops compared with only 66 per cent in 2006.2 Additionally, 54 per cent own desktops and approximately one-third have both. By all means, a computer connected to the internet seems to be an integral part of the necessary equipment

ICT AND POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

107

Selected OECD countries 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

O E C D average

aged 21 in 2009

aged 24 in 2009

Figure 6.1 Estimated percentage of young people aged 21 and 24 in 2009 having a home computer Source: PISA database (2003 and 2000). Values refer only to OECD countries that took the PISA ICT familiarity questionnaire these two years.

of a higher education student nowadays. Although the situation in the United States might not be necessarily representative of the OECD average for obvious reasons, including the residential nature of most campuses which reinforces the need for better opportunities for communication with friends and family, it is clearly a good indication of the speed at which higher education students are equipping themselves with computers: of those entering higher education in 2008, 71 per cent have a laptop which is less than one year old. There are also striking differences in the levels of use among university students according to age, which points to the fact that younger students are far more technology savvy than older ones or, to put it another way, undergraduates rely more on technology than postgraduate students. As an indication of this, Figure 6.2 compares the use of a couple of significant applications (social applications and text messaging) by two different age groups of students in higher education institutions in the United States: new entrants and the oldest students, mostly postgraduates. The use of text messaging by younger students is double that of postgraduates, and social networking applications are hardly accessed by older students while their use is widespread among new entrants. Whether undergraduate students are more attached to digital technologies than their graduate peers in the same institutions is hard to say. A European comparison of the rates of computer ownership by new entrant students and graduated students in a number of European universities showed mixed results.3 In the end it turned out that in some universities the use of technology increased significantly during the university years in comparison with when students were in secondary education, while in other universities there appeared to be a slight decrease, at least measured by the ownership of a computer. The reasons for such a disparity across countries would need further investigation (and unfortunately

108

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

US Higher Education Students 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Social networking websites 18–19 years

Text messaging 30 years or older

Figure 6.2 Use of particular applications weekly or more often Source: ECAR 2008.

they are not discussed by the authors), but the least that can be said is that this disparity is surely related to the different technology requirements posed by the courses dictated in each of the participating universities which, in turn, are likely to be dependent on the prevalent teaching methods. All of this shows that what is most important are the purposes for which technology is used. There are two universal activities since 2007 among US higher education students: emailing and word-processing.4 Although there is not much information about the uses of email facilities in European universities, the Europaeum survey (Flather and Huggins, 2004) revealed that university students appear ready to use email for communication with staff and fellow students they study with (77 per cent), friends (83 per cent) and university administrative staff (59 per cent). Although it is no surprise that the main recipients of students’ emails are friends and fellow students, there is certainly something new in the fact that emailing with university administrative staff ranks so high, which indicates that there is a point in introducing technologies to facilitate administrative efficiency at universities. Other than these, it is interesting to see in Table 6.1 the mixture of technologyenabled activities ranking with high levels of student engagement since they include both those which can mostly, if not only, be related to academic work and others which can possibly be linked to entertainment almost exclusively. Among the former it is really impressive to see the high levels of access to the library website, mostly on a weekly basis, as a natural development of the growing availability of academic resources in digital formats only, and the even higher use of course management systems – which are increasingly becoming a mandatory campus commodity. The same applies to British first-year students (Ipsos Mori, 2008), among whom 79 per cent access course-specific materials at least once a week and 97 per cent of these find it useful. Among the latter, the

109

ICT AND POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

only noticeable increase in one year corresponds to the use of social networking sites such as Facebook. Table 6.1 Most frequent student computer and internet activities in US higher education institutions Students engaged Students engaged Median frequency in 2007 (%) in 2008 (%) of use Create, read, send emails

99.9

–

Daily

Word-processing for coursework

98.6

–

Several times a week

Use the institution’s library website

94.7

93.4

Weekly

Use presentation software

91.7

91.9

Monthly

Use spreadsheets

87.9

85.9

Monthly

Access social networking sites

81.6

85.2

Daily

Text messaging

84.1

83.6

Daily

Assess course management system

83.0

82.3

Several times a week

Download web-based music or videos

77.8

77.3

Weekly

Use graphics software

72.3

73.9

Monthly

Instant messaging

–

73.8

Several times a week

Source: Own calculation on the basis of ECAR, 2007, 2008. Only those activities in which more than 50 per cent of students are engaged are presented here. (–) data not available for that year.

Such a pre-eminence of social applications can be also seen in British first year university students, even to a higher extent with 91 per cent of them declaring frequent use (Ipsos Mori 2008). Again, a similar picture can be seen in Australia, with quite an impressive percentage of students frequently using the university learning management system to access course/related materials (81 per cent) (Kennedy et al., 2006). European students, however, do appear to spend more time using the internet for personal or entertainment activities than for formal academic work (Flather and Huggins, 2004). Some 42 per cent use the network for such purposes for four hours or more a week. This compares with 91 per cent of students who use it for less than one hour per day to retrieve course or lecture materials.

110

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

The conviction that Web 2.0 applications would transform internet users increasingly into content producers (OECD, 2007) is also confirmed on the basis of this data. More than one-fifth of US higher education students are actively contributing content to blogs, wikis, photo or video websites such as YouTube, and 18 per cent contribute regularly to at least three of these – although almost 39 per cent declare they do not contribute to any of these. While the pattern of Australian and British students seems to be equivalent to the one in the United States (Kennedy et al., 2006), Italian university students appear to be even more attached to blogs, with up to 42 per cent of them contributing regularly to their own and 78 per cent often reading others’ blogs (Ferri et al., 2008). Two additional areas where the differences between Italian and US students seem to be non-existent are text messaging and instant messaging. Accordingly, it may well be that the differences in the digital diet of higher education students are not so high among the OECD countries. Finally, it would be misleading to take for granted that average values represent the overall majority of higher education students. To begin with, at least in a number of OECD countries, an important part of the student body is constituted largely by people older than assumed. This accounts for as high as 40 per cent of any student cohort, who might be older than 25 and certainly do not fit the stereotype of a digital native (Prensky, 2001) or that of new millennium learners (Pedró, 2007), as this percentage certainly includes people with full- or part-time jobs and sometimes family obligations. It is true, then, that when the observations are restricted to young new entrants, aged around 20, contrary to what it might be expected, differences in the amount of use according to gender or age are minor, but they become relevant when subject majors are considered. Not surprisingly, in the United States engineering majors use the internet most often (a mean of 25 hours per week) and those in education show the least use (a mean of 17.6 hours per week) – which points again to significant differences in course requirements and teaching methods in different disciplines. Exactly the same is true of Australian university students, again with those majoring in education at the lowest level of the scale of use (Kennedy et al., 2006).5 Other than this, it is easily arguable that different profiles of students vis-à-vis technology coexist. A study at the University of Melbourne (Kennedy et al., 2006) noted that there is little empirical support for the stereotypical depiction of the digital native – wired and wireless 24/7. When one moves beyond entrenched technologies and tools (e.g. computers, mobile phones, email) the patterns of access and use of a range of other technologies show considerable variation. Another important exception to this overall emphasis on the homogeneity of students is the nuMedia BiOs study (Ferri et al., 2008), which concludes that there is enough evidence to support the existence of a number of diverse higher education student profiles in relation to technology use. .

ICT AND POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

111

STUDENTS’ VIEWS AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION IN TEACHING AND LEARNING Students and teachers have different expectations regarding the added value of technology in teaching and learning. The resulting differences may emerge at least partly from different experiences with technology in their daily lives. Just to give an indication of the growing competences of university students in relation to potentially relevant educational uses, a recent study from Pew Internet and American Life (Lenhart et al., 2007) found that in the United States more than half of the 12 million teens online create original material for the web, whether it’s through a blog or a home page, with original artwork, photos or video, and, as it has been shown above, this translates into a relevant proportion of higher education students contributing to blogs, photo or video sites, thus becoming content producers. This in turn may have an effect on their expectations – for instance, most prospective British university students (79 per cent) would expect to have to take their own computer to university with them and be able to use it logging on to the university network (81 per cent) (Ipsos Mori, 2007). On the whole, however, there is little empirical evidence regarding the so-often-assumed shift in students’ demands and expectations caused by their attachment to technology. Although student surveys have been in place for a long time in a number of OECD countries, including Australia, France, the UK and the United States, the issues related to expectations regarding technology in teaching have not been taken into account except in surveys where the main topic is precisely technology adoption.6 International comparative evidence is even scarcer, and sometimes the nature of the methodology used does not allow room for generalizations. However, there are a few studies, with very limited and not representative samples, which might be taken as indicative of what could be going on. What emerges from available data is that students appear far more reluctant to adopt technology in teaching and learning than their levels of digital media exposure would suggest. In general they welcome uses and applications that are intended to provide more convenience (for example, access to course guidelines, notes or background documents) or improve their productivity in academic tasks (for example, online databases or virtual libraries). Other than this, they advocate for a use of technology in teaching that supplements rather than changes the traditional models, and they certainly show a clear preference for face-to-face teacher or tutor relationships over computer-mediated communications. To begin with, the main reasons why students may be keen to use technology in their courses are not so related to their willingness to see teaching and learning radically transformed as to the added value of convenience. This was already pointed out by Caruso and Kvavik (2006) who found that the most valuable reason for using technology in courses is precisely convenience (51 per cent of students), followed by the ability to easily manage course activities (19 per cent), and to a much lesser extent the opportunities to enhance learning (15 per cent)

112

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

and to communicate with peers and teachers (11 per cent). Accordingly, from the student perspective, technology is useful because of the convenience and control it provides, rather than for its transformative power. Not surprisingly, overall, European students clearly appear to want more use of technology in their courses, although a significant number, roughly one-fifth, remain unsure (Flather and Huggins, 2004). This may suggest two different things. First, concern that the benefits of improved communication may also lead to less direct contact with staff, with distance learning or e-learning replacing some traditional teaching methods. And second, that the way in which technology is actually being used by instructors is asking students to do even more unexpected or poorly understood activities which to them have no evident added value – or are not well explained by instructors. In a similar vein, another European study (Spot+, 2002) found that although university students held a fairly positive view of the different advantages that information and communication technology (ICT) can bring to learning and education, they had also a similar positive attitude towards learning with traditional education methods and one that questioned the value of ICT in education. A closer inspection of the answers to the individual questions reveals that university students were especially interested in the use of ICT for purposes of information exchange, such as ‘to ask questions of experts and relevant people no matter where they are’ and ‘to share information and ideas with people who have similar interests’. With respect to explicit learning purposes, the students expressed a stronger preference for traditional education methods (defined as printed text and a classroom setting) than for ICT-based methods. In many ways it may well be that student expectations regarding technology adoption in teaching are less supportive of innovations than it is commonly assumed. There are clear indications that their main assumption is that teaching is about conveying knowledge from the teacher to the learner, from a position of authority. If ICT is to be used in an educational context, students tend to express doubts about the quality of the human interaction when there is no face-to-face contact. Moreover, 21 per cent of the respondents of a European survey of higher education students (Flather and Huggins, 2004) indicated that they did not know whether ‘small-group learning may become disorganized in online courses’, 14 per cent did not know whether ‘learning with ICT is very time-consuming’, and 13 per cent did not know whether ‘ICT can improve their learning’. A more recent survey of prospective students in the United Kingdom found that four-fifths (80 per cent) felt that the quality of teaching at the university, expressed in terms of actual contact with teachers, was more important than the IT provision (Ipsos Mori, 2007). This is seen across the board – high or low ICT use does not necessarily correlate with the perceived importance of quality of teaching over ICT provision. ICT is seen as a supplement to teaching, not as a substitute for the personal interaction to which they are accustomed. This might indicate that, due to the lack of experience with ICT, students expressed themselves rather cautiously about its use in

ICT AND POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

113

education, leading them to state a higher preference for traditional education methods, which are well known to all students. This means that students leaving secondary school and entering the university have a stronger preference for traditional education methods and a more negative attitude towards using ICT than students who are a few years older and have already spent some years at university or in work, as in the case of postgraduate students. It could be said that prospective students think technology will improve their learning by giving them more access to data and research resources, rather than imagining totally new methods of teaching, learning or interacting with peers and lecturers. This mirrors their understanding of how ICT works at school and home – and it also mirrors the experience they have had so far at school, a traditional teacher and pupil environment. They find it hard to imagine other kinds of interactions and engagements. So, when British prospective students were asked about being taught by lecturers, the traditional teacher/pupil environment was preferred. As the report concludes, ‘the face-to-face teaching quality was felt to be the most visible sign of the university’s value for money – it’s what they believe they are paying for’ (Ipsos Mori, 2007, p. 25) – some of the issues identified in Chapter 8 of this volume may also be relevant here. In fact, it may well be concluded that prospective students in the United Kingdom are convinced of the benefits of technology adoption in universities, but only provided that it is used: to support established methods of teaching and administration, not to change them dramatically; to act as an additional resource for research and communication; and to be a core part of social engagement and facilitate face-to-face friendships at university. A companion study also done in the United Kingdom one year later with first-year students found that face-to-face interaction is still seen as the best form of teaching, fitting well with the prevalent student view about what teaching should be. They may feel uncomfortable when teachers try to relate to them in a flat, non-hierarchical structure (e.g. getting involved with personal Facebook accounts). However, the use of ICT in teaching is now perceived to be a good thing, but only as long as it is done well. Face-to-face interaction supported by inefficient or inept use of technology is worse than using none (Ipsos Mori, 2008). All of this is fully in line with observations made, for instance, by Oblinger and Hawkins (2005) who argue that ‘the assumption that students want more technology may not be valid: especially younger students are less satisfied with complete online learning than older students. The reason appears to tie to their expectation of being in a face-to-face, social environment.’ In a similar light, Zemsky and Massy (2004) also stated that ‘students do want to connect but principally to one another; they want to be entertained, principally by games, music and movies; and they want to present themselves and their work. E-learning at its best is seen as a convenience and at its worst as a distraction – what one student called the fairy tale of e-learning.’ As a recent British report has signalled, ‘students do not fully understand how ICT and learning can work together. They imagine and like the idea of the traditional, Socratic, or chalk and talk methods with face-to-face

114

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

learning’ (Ipsos Mori, 2007, p. 31). As a result, the inherent assumption that students are so attached to technology in their everyday lives that it warrants their full endorsement of its inclusion in teaching and learning, has to be contested. At the very least it is unclear that students want their everyday technologies to be adopted in full as learning technologies. It is not surprising that European students also appear divided on the level of contribution that increased usage of technology may make to the critical and intellectual abilities of students. Less than one out of ten respondents (8 per cent) strongly agreed that ICT encouraged independent learning, while 9 per cent also disagreed with this statement. Moreover, as Kennedy et al. (2008, p. 4) have pointed out, ‘it is not clear that emerging technologies and students’ everyday skills with them will easily translate into beneficial technology-based learning’. In other words, the fact that they are digitally literate does not imply necessarily that they are capable of employing technology strategically to optimise learning experiences and outcomes. As it said in Katz’s preface to the ECAR 2005 study (Caruso and Kvavik, 2005, p. 7), ‘freshman students arrive at our institutions with a set of electronic core skills. Such skills include communications (telephone, email, text-messaging, and IM), Web surfing (not to be confused with research skills), word processing and video gaming. . . These young people can make technology work but cannot place these technologies in the service of (academic) work’. In fact, higher education teachers may be expected to help students to employ technology more strategically, but is this what students want?

HOW ARE TEACHERS RESPONDING? It may be true that when it comes to the adoption of technology in teaching, in many OECD countries the progress made at university level clearly outperforms the realizations made in the lower levels of the education system.7 Not only are university students increasingly using technology in their capacity as students to find and collect relevant information, to process it and to transform it into knowledge, but also their instructors seem to keep their promises in doing their best to incorporate technology to facilitate, if not learning itself, then at least a number of activities that surround it, such as, for instance, access to study materials, course notes, guidelines for coursework, recommended reading lists and the like. As a matter of fact, the assumption that most teachers in higher education are digital immigrants (Prensky, 2001) might be true only on the basis of their age, but certainly not regarding their technological skills and competences. For a number of reasons, including the important role that research plays in academic development, which increasingly requires a mastery of technological tools such as digital databases and libraries, most academics may have a quite impressive attachment to technology although not necessarily to do the same things that their students do. It is important to realize that when compared with primary and secondary school teachers, higher education teachers tend to be well equipped and behave as heavy users of technology. Interestingly, the Europaeum survey

ICT AND POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

115

found that in 2003 European academic staff were more frequently networked from home than students, 83 per cent possessed access to email from home, and 52 per cent had direct access to the university campus intranet at home. Needless to say, ownership of computers by staff was very high (95 per cent), with 91 per cent reporting that they used email to communicate with academic colleagues, 86 per cent with administrative staff, 78 per cent with students and 78 per cent with friends. One out of two staff reported regular accessing of the campus intranet while almost 10 per cent claimed that they never access this part of the network. Of course, all this might be because their careers are so attached to research, and thus to technology to access sources and process information. This is probably less as an implication of their teaching and learning assumptions – although it may also be the case. A very recent Australian survey (Education Network Australia, 2008) found that 90 per cent of higher education teachers considered the internet as very important for their work and, interestingly enough, not only for research purposes, but also for improving teaching and learning opportunities and resources for students, as Figure 6.3 shows. When it comes to the most frequently used online services, the profile of Australian higher education teachers depicted in Figure 6.4 shows precisely the combination of three different activities: research-oriented activities (searching subject or discipline databases), teaching-oriented activities and activities related to community life. Clearly, the most frequently used application is a search engine, but immediately after this comes the university’s learning management system, which gives an indication of the impact of technology on teaching and learning. Certainly, some of the applications can be said to serve multiple purposes Australia, 2008 Research Teaching and communication with students Finding learning resources for your students Interacting with colleagues Administration (e.g. assessment, reporting) Professional development Other

0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Figure 6.3 Percentage of higher education teachers who use the internet for specific tasks Source: Edna, 2008.

116

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Australia, 2008 Search engines Learning management system Online communities Subject/discipline databases News reader/aggregator Podcasts Blogs Other Video sharing Social networking websites Digital learning objects Social bookmarking None of the above 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Figure 6.4 Most frequently used online services by higher education teachers Source: Edna, 2008.

(e.g. a search engine), but the reference made to digital learning objects (mentioned by 10 per cent of the teaching staff ) is an additional indication of the importance of the digital dimension in teaching and learning in higher education. As was said when describing the different profiles of university students, it is clear that not all university instructors are eager to adopt technology in their teaching. The Europaeum survey (Flather and Huggins, 2004) found three types of university instructors: • enthusiasts: (12 per cent) who claim to spend three or more hours per week publishing online course materials while the majority of staff (58 per cent) spend one hour or less undertaking this • pragmatists: who see the value for both students and staff and feel reasonably comfortable with increasing use • skeptics: (17 per cent) who still have a reluctance, or even antipathy, towards technology. The actual applications and uses technology is put to by teachers in higher education may not be all impressive innovations. Rather, it appears to be that ‘faculty have typically used advances in information technology either to automate conventional forms of instruction or to make small steps in expanding the range of communicative and experiential patterns we accommodate’ (Dede, 2007). In so doing they are trying to replicate the productivity gains that they have obtained from an intensive use of technology in their research and managerial tasks, as well as the accompanying convenience and commodity.

ICT AND POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

117

It may be taken for granted that not all universities or countries have implemented these developments equally at the same speed. In particular there seems to be a clear gap between the majority of higher education teachers in continental Europe and in Anglo-Saxon countries, where developments have been faster and pioneering in many different ways. There are four main reasons for this gap between continental European and Anglo-Saxon universities. First, the technological context of the country matters a lot. Second, there is an important cost attached to investments in technology and the rates of expenditure per student, and inevitably the fees, if any, are quite different. The investment capacity of many continental European universities depends heavily on direct State support, whose political priorities in higher education might be more focused on research than on improving teaching.8 Third, continental European universities do not compete to attract students in the same ways that American universities do. The residential campus experience is far from being as frequent in continental Europe as it is in Anglo-Saxon countries. Finally, despite the efforts made so far under the framework of the Bologna Process, the fact is that the predominant approach to teaching and learning in continental European universities seems to be depending more on lecturing than on interaction. This difference in approach might be the result of different factors, ranging from larger classroom sizes or a teaching paradigm that puts less emphasis on teacher communication and didactic skills, or a combination of these factors.

LOOKING FORWARD What will the future bring? How should higher education institutions prepare for that future? If anything is clear, it is that technology will continue to evolve as quickly as it has done in the past decade, if not more quickly. Digital devices that are considered to be indispensable by today’s higher education students were not accessible to a majority of them only five years ago. As a number of reports outline (Johnson et al., 2009), the future will also bring new applications and environments that may have, once again, an impact on the way young people communicate, are entertained, socialize and deal with their coursework. It is unclear, however, whether the new technology developments will transform students’ learning expectations and demands or not. Drawing on evidence from past years, a prudent approach would be to state that a certain evolution will take place, particularly if experiences with technology during school years contribute to raise students’ awareness of the opportunities for improved learning processes and outcomes. In the absence of previous successful experiences, an important level of reluctance will remain. Up until now higher education institutions have done a lot to support technology adoption in teaching, with important investments in infrastructure as well as in services both for students and teachers. They must keep up with emerging technology developments, equipments and applications, and contribute to the

118

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

support of innovations intended to explore the value and possible benefits of adoption for teaching. Institutions have to invest in empirical research to elucidate ways in which technology can provide more than convenience and productivity, in particular learning benefits, either by providing a more rewarding experience or better learning outcomes, or both. As Dede (2004, p. 4) has already outlined, one starting point for fruitfully locating technology in higher education pedagogy is to observe how students are using technology in other aspects of their lives, ‘sifting out the dross of behaviours adopted just because they are novel and stylish from the ore of transformational approaches to creating, sharing, and mastering knowledge’. What is at least as important as the research effort is the ability to share the results in fora where they can be translated into recommendations for better practice. This should not be a task for individuals but a commitment made by the whole academic community. Finally, no one can predict now what the teaching and learning experience in higher education will be like in a decade. The recent evolution shows that whatever has taken place has been the result of the dialogue between students who master digital media but have quite prudent expectations about its use in teaching, and teachers who want to extend the benefits of convenience and academic productivity brought about by technology to enrich their teaching responsibility. It is in the best interests of higher education institutions to nurture this ongoing dialogue with accompanying measures and incentives. It should remain as open as the future usually is.

NOTES 1 Throughout this chapter, unless indicated otherwise, any reference to technology should be understood as a wide term encompassing a wide range of digital information and communication devices and applications, ranging from mobile phones, music and video players and game consoles to computers and the Internet, just to name a few. 2 This study involved some 27,317 students from community colleges, colleges and universities in the United States. The 2008 edition, as well as the previous ones, can be downloaded from www.educause.edu/ecar. 3 The project SEUSSIS (Survey of European Universities Skills in ICT of Students and Staff ), funded by the European Commission under the Socrates Programme, collected information about the Information and Communication Technology (technology) experience, skills, confidence and attitudes of students and academic staff at seven European universities in Finland, Norway, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. The questionnaires were not administered in all universities to a representative sample of the corresponding population and accordingly are reproduced here only as mere indications. The total number of questionnaires received from students was 12,716. Information may be downloaded from www.intermedia.uib.no/seusiss. 4 In view of this it was decided not to ask any more about these two activities in future

ICT AND POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

5

6 7

8

119

surveys. This is why the 2008 survey does not contain information about either of these two activities, under the assumption that all students carry them out. The OECD’s Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) is currently developing a study on the use of technology in initial teacher training, the origins of which are partly connected to the evidence of the reduced use of technology in schools of education. For a comparative analysis of some of these surveys see Higher Education Academy (2007). Although this appears to be a bold statement, it is important to note that the level of granularity of data regarding technology adoption and use in teaching in higher education is, at least in a number of OECD countries, extremely high in comparison with the equivalent in the schools sector, for which such a level of detail does not exist at all. The different level of data availability is thus a clear indication of the degree of interest in the issue. In a pioneering dissertation, Boezerooij (2006) suggested that there are both external and internal contingencies that can help to explain which kind of strategy on the use of e-learning higher education institutions are adopting. Interestingly enough, the two abovementioned factors, the technological context and the investing capacity of institutions, ranked very high in her empirical analysis.

FURTHER READING Ipsos Mori (2008). Great Expectations of ICT. How Higher Education Institutions are Measuring Up. London: Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Pedró, F. (2007). The new millennium learners: challenging our views on digital technologies and learning. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 2(4), 244–64. Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., and Nelson, M. R. (2008). The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2008 (Vol. 8). Boulder, CO: Educause.

REFERENCES Boezerooij, P. (2006). E-learning Strategies of Higher Education Institutions. Enschede: University of Twente. Caruso, J. B., and Kvavik, R. B. (2005). ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology, 2005: Convenience, Connection, Control, and Learning. Washington, DC: Educause Center for Applied Research. Caruso, J. B., and Kvavik, R. B. (2006). Preliminary Results of the 2006 ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology. Washington, DC: Educause Center for Applied Research. Dede, C. (2007). Foreword. In G. Salaway, J. B. Caruso and M. R. Nelson (Eds.), The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2007 (Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: Educause. Education Network Australia (2008). ICT and Educators Market Research: Higher Education. Adelaide: Education.au. Ferri, P., Scenini, F., Costa, E., Mizzella, S., Cavalli, N., Pozzali, A., et al. (2008). Snack Culture? La dieta digitale degli studenti universitari. Milano: Università Milano Biccoca. Flather, P., and Huggins, R. (2004). Europaeum Survey. Oxford: Future of European Universities Project. DaimlerChrysler Services AG. The Higher Education Academy (2007). Comparative Review of British, American and

120

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Australian National Surveys of Undergraduate Students. York: The Higher Education Academy. Ipsos Mori (2007). Student Expectations Study: Key findings from Online Research and Discussion Evenings Held in June 2007 for the Joint Information Systems Committee. London: Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Ipsos Mori (2008). Great Expectations of ICT: How Higher Education Institutions are Measuring Up. London: Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Johnson, L., Levine, A., and Smith, R. (2009). The 2009 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K., and Krause, K. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–22. Kennedy, G., Krause, K. L., Judd, T., Churchward, A., and Gray, K. (2006). First Year Students’ Experience with Technology: Are They Really Digital Natives? Preliminary Report of Findings. Melbourne: Centre for Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne. Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Rankin Macgill, A., and Smith, A. (2007). Teens and Social Media. Washington DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Oblinger, D. G., and Hawkins, B. L. (2005). The myth about E-learning. Educause Review, 40(4), 14–15. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2007). Participative Web and User-Created Content: Web 2.0, Wikis and Social Networking. Paris: OECD. OECD (2008). Broadband Growth and Policies in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD. Pedró, F. (2007). The new millennium learners: challenging our views on digital technologies and learning. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 2(4), 244–64. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1/12. Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., and Nelson, M. R. (2008). The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2008 (Vol. 8). Boulder, CO: Educause. Spot+ (2002). Survey Report: Students’ Perceptions of the Use of ICT in University Learning and Teaching. Brussels: The SOCRATES Programme – MINERVA Action. Zemsky, R., and Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted Innovation: What Happened to e-Learning and Why. A final report for The Weatherstation Project of The Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania in cooperation with the Thomson Corporation. West Chester, PA: The Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania.

7

Enhancing Quality in Postgraduate Work Trevor Kerry with Paul McDermott SUMMARY In this chapter, two main approaches will be adopted in looking at issues of quality in postgraduate university education. The first will examine aspects of standards: what makes a doctorate or master’s course of high quality? The second will reverse the direction of view to establish what the stakeholders regard as a quality experience of postgraduate study. In taking this stance we do not promote the one view over the other, but rather see the two approaches as seamless.

INTRODUCTION In adopting our chosen approach we are not too far removed from Perello (2002), who delivered a paper to higher education (HE) directors and rectors at Cordoba in which he identified as significant elements of quality that he labels ‘factors and actors’. The ‘actors’ included teachers, researchers and students – their dedication, working conditions, technical and administrative support and opportunities for interaction. The factors involved: legislation, funding and equipment; the cultural and technological level of the cultural environment; and the calibre of inter-university communication structures. In a small-scale study of students in business and social studies Angell et al. (2008) took a different stance. Of four main quality foci identified by the students (academic issues, industry links, cost, leisure aspects of the course), the first two were deemed to be more important than the other two, but only the first achieved a positive rating. Reflection What do you see as the parameters of quality in postgraduate education in universities? What steps would you take to establish a ‘quality template’ for postgraduate work against which to judge university provision?

THE QUALITY OF M-COURSES AS AN INDICATOR OF STANDARDS Since the mid-1990s starting with the Harris Report (Harris 1996) the educational and political context of postgraduate studies in the UK has changed significantly and has been under pressure to change further from a range of

122

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

government-supported policy contexts, reviews and reports. Of particular importance in more recent times is the impact that both the Leitch Report (Leitch 2006) and the Sainsbury Review (Lord Sainsbury of Turville 2007) have had on recreating an identity, purpose and raison d’être for postgraduate study in the UK. While M-level education has not been completely shaded from this context of wider political and educational change, many commentators have noted that for postgraduate education, most of the attention has until very recently focused on doctoral research programmes (cf. Park 2007), and even the future planning for Estonian higher education follows this lead (as evidenced at http.planipolis.iiep.unesco. org/upload/Estonia/Estonian-Higher-Education-strategy-2006-2015.pdf ). Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that M-level courses have been relatively ignored by both the mandarins of Whitehall and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA).

POSTGRADUATE MASTER’S: AN IDENTITY CRISIS CAUSED BY COMPLEXITY? At the heart of what can be described as the identity crisis of M-level study in the UK is a cloudiness that extends over its definition, purpose and rationale. Traditionally, such programmes were seen as gateways to the study of a PhD or a reflection of enhanced learning relevant to particular vocational qualifications (like the MBA or LLM). But what are M-level awards supposed to be for? The QAA (2001) master’s level descriptor stated: Much of the study undertaken at Masters level will have been at, or informed by, the forefront of an academic or professional discipline. Students will have shown originality in the application of knowledge, and they will understand how the boundaries of knowledge are advanced through research. They will be able to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, and they will show originality in tackling and solving problems. They will have the qualities needed for employment in circumstances requiring sound judgement, personal responsibility and initiative, in complex and unpredictable professional environments. Masters degrees are awarded after completion of taught courses, programmes of research, or a mixture of both. Longer, research-based programmes often lead to the degree of MPhil. Most Masters courses last at least one year (if taken full-time), and are taken by persons with Honours degrees (or equivalent achievement). Some Masters degrees in science and engineering are awarded after extended undergraduate programmes that last, typically, a year longer than Honours degree programmes. Also at this level are advanced short courses, often forming parts of Continuing Professional Development programmes, leading to Postgraduate Certificates and Postgraduate Diplomas.

ENHANCING QUALITY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

123

By 2008 the QAA had changed its prose but not its conceptual underpinning. The semantics are carefully constructed to be inclusive: Master’s degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated: • a systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice • a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship • originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline • conceptual understanding that enables the student: – to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline – to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses. Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to: • deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound judgements in the absence of complete data, and communicate their conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences • demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems, and act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional or equivalent level • continue to advance their knowledge and understanding, and to develop new skills to a high level. And holders will have: • the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring: – the exercise of initiative and personal responsibility – decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations – the independent learning ability required for continuing professional development. (QAA 2008)

This points to a programme that demonstrates greater depth of study (over undergraduate studies), using cutting-edge literature, allowing the student to focus and specialize on a particular field of enquiry. However, closer reading will show that in addition to these expected attributes, M-level education is expected to demonstrate links to the vocational nature of the field of study and its links to the professional status and recognition by professional and statutory bodies that relate to its vocational relevance. But increasingly many university departments have also been encouraged to see M-level work as an essential training element for PhD studentships. In this, the statement from the QAA makes little progress over the Harris (1996) view on quality which (at least in relation to taught courses) took the same, arguably defeatist, line that:

124

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

It would be impracticable and inappropriate to establish norms for delivery of taught provision, because courses can be delivered effectively in many ways and may or may not suit individual students, depending on their objectives and needs (Harris 1996: para. 6.34).

Thus M-level qualifications have been developed and extended to fit a multitude of criteria (see Chapter 1), and M-level study is even credited to awards that do not immediately ‘add up’ to a master’s degree, for example postgraduate diploma and certificate awards. Until very recently the Postgraduate Certificate in Education was awarded at level 6 with the word ‘postgraduate’ reflecting that these studies were taken after the undergraduate award and not specifically associated with level. Now many of these programmes are mixed-level courses allowing students to obtain Qualified Teacher Status at the same time as providing for the continued professional development required as the teaching profession converts to an M-level entry vocation. Added complexity is induced by the amount of credit that is required to achieve a master’s award depending on which programme of study is followed. In addition, it often confuses foreigners and even UK students that the MAs granted by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge are not academic qualifications per se, but are awards bestowed on their own graduates following an application, and sometimes payment, after a given period of time following completion of study. With all this complexity, on top of greater flexibility in the type of delivery pattern (for example programmes running over an academic year, calendar year, via semesters, face-to-face tuition, distance learning, virtual learning environment delivery or blended learning), it is no wonder that some commentators have called for the M-level to be reviewed and restructured (in the field of education for example, Desilio (2006)). This complexity, obfuscation or flexibility (depending on one’s personal perspective) gives rise to in-built contradictions and questions within the concept of M-level awards. Are master’s awards therefore the culmination of learning in terms of: • the amount of credit involved • the duration of learning • the level of learning taking place • the professional nature of learning • learning and its relevance to the workplace • learning in preparation for, or as a direct link to, research and a research strategy for universities? For this reason the QAA instigated a series of round table discussions with representatives from higher education institutions (HEIs) from 2006 to see if a revised descriptor for master’s level programmes could be devised. Following a two-year period based around the work of a steering group it was clear that no real consensus could be achieved. Instead a new Funding for Higher Education Qualifications (HEFQ) statement was issued in September 2008 which states:

ENHANCING QUALITY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

125

Much of the study undertaken for master’s degrees will have been at, or informed by, the forefront of an academic or professional discipline. Students will have shown originality in the application of knowledge, and they will understand how the boundaries of knowledge are advanced through research. They will be able to deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, and they will show originality in tackling and solving problems. They will have the qualities needed for employment in circumstances requiring sound judgement, personal responsibility and initiative in complex and unpredictable professional environments. Master’s degrees are awarded after completion of taught courses, programmes of research or a mixture of both. Longer, research-based programmes may lead to the degree of MPhil. The learning outcomes of most master’s degree courses are achieved on the basis of study equivalent to at least one full-time calendar year and are taken by graduates with a bachelor’s degree with honours (or equivalent achievement). Master’s degrees are often distinguished from other qualifications at this level (for example, advanced short courses, which often form parts of continuing professional development programmes and lead to postgraduate certificates and/or postgraduate diplomas) by an increased intensity, complexity and density of study. Master’s degrees – in comparison to postgraduate certificates and postgraduate diplomas – typically include planned intellectual progression that often includes a synoptic/research or scholarly activity. Some master’s degrees, for example in science, engineering and mathematics, comprise an integrated programme of study spanning several levels where the outcomes are normally achieved through study equivalent to four full-time academic years. While the final outcomes of the qualifications themselves meet the expectations of the descriptor for a higher education qualification at level 7 in full, such qualifications are often termed ‘integrated master’s’ as an acknowledgement of the additional period of study at lower levels (which typically meets the expectations of the descriptor for a higher education qualification at level 6). First degrees in medicine, dentistry and veterinary science comprise an integrated programme of study and professional practice spanning several levels. While the final outcomes of the qualifications themselves typically meet the expectations of the descriptor for a higher education qualification at level 7, these qualifications may often retain, for historical reasons, titles of Bachelor of Medicine, and Bachelor of Surgery, Bachelor of Dental Surgery, Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine or Bachelor of Veterinary Science, and are abbreviated to MBChB or BM BS, BDS, BVetMed and BVSc respectively. [Note: the levels referred to are those from the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications document (QAA 2008): Level 4 certificate of HE; Level 5 diploma of HE and Higher National Diploma and foundation degree; Level 6 honour’s degree: Level 7 master’s level qualifications; Level 8 doctoral level qualifications].

The above descriptor does differ from the original version in a number of ways.

126

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

It validates the conception that master’s degrees can now be delivered in a number of formats – taught, by research and by a mixture of the two. It also clarifies and introduces a distinction that many in the university sector have called for: that there is a difference between postgraduate certificate and diploma courses on the one hand, and full M-level courses on the other. It does this by demonstrating ‘an increased intensity, complexity and density of study’ for M courses. This is quite a radical shift in the direction of M-level study because it introduces another tier to the level 7 descriptor. Previously M-level awards were all considered of a similar level and quality. This statement now clearly makes the full master’s more prestigious than its step-off or subsidiary counterparts. It also goes some way to further legitimize (rightly or wrongly) the integrated M-awards as well as to acknowledge that some awards which have ‘bachelor’ labels attached to them for historical reasons are, rightly, considered to be at level 7. The descriptor also integrates the vocational element of many master’s degrees by referring to the ‘. . . qualities needed for employment’. This is a considerable move forward in legitimizing those programmes that are specifically designed to meet vocational routes through to employment and in meeting the criticism, identified in the Leitch (2006) and Sainsbury (2007) reports, that universities lack the vocational focus. Nonetheless, this revised document, however, does not detract from the complexity – it exacerbates it. Indeed the new statement fails to create clarity, and in the minds of some worsens the situation by using words like ‘most’, ‘may’, ‘some’ and ‘normally’ at key points within the document. For example rather than dealing with the complexity of how long M-awards should be taught or delivered, the descriptor states: The learning outcomes of most master’s degree courses are achieved on the basis of study equivalent to at least one full-time calendar year and are taken by graduates with a bachelor’s degree with honours (or equivalent achievement).

This failure of clarity is particularly important when the diversity of the student population is also taken into account. For UK M-level education to continue to be successful and sustainable, retaining the competitive edge that the UK currently enjoys over its European counterparts and continuing to challenge the US as the benchmark in the provision of M-level qualifications, government, policy agencies and stakeholders need to call for this sector of the educational market to be reformed. In more recent times, however, while most of the ‘quality’ inspection has focused on the PhD and other level 8 programmes, it is the M-level postgraduate arena that has seen the most rapid rise in student numbers (see Chapter 1). Since 1997 the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data shows that PhD numbers have increased by just over 50 per cent. But ten times more students are now studying at M-level than for doctorates, compared with five times as many in 1997. Further examination of these numbers also reveals a complexity in terms of

ENHANCING QUALITY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

127

the socio-demographic profile of those studying for M-level awards. The overseas market has without doubt been a prime area for growth, with many universities seeing the cash potential of recruiting from abroad. Between 2001 and 2007 a four-fold increase in non-European Union (EU), international student numbers has taken place (Shultziner 2008) with more and more universities clambering to recruit students from the key and emerging markets of South, East and South East Asia, West Africa, the Middle East and South America. The age profile of M-level students has also changed, with now many more students in the 25-plus age category; this suggests a move away from M-level as an additional year following undergraduate study, and a move towards students returning to education in search of qualifications to enhance their career potential and diversify their skills. This is further reflected in the dramatic growth in the number of part-time master’s students according to the Higher Education Funding Council (www. hefce.ac.uk). Thus British universities have not only seen a growth in the complexity of the M-level qualification but they have also seen significant growth in the diversity of the type of student wishing to study at this level, for a wider range of reasons. This process has happened alongside a failure to come to grips with tighter rationales for the M-level, despite some leads from Europe (EUA 2006). So, in quality terms, the doctorate is significantly better defined by universities and government agencies, and to this we turn briefly. Reflection What do you see as the purpose of M-level postgraduate study? How might the competing themes of vocationalism, professional value and intrinsic worth be resolved in this context?

THE DOCTORATE AS A POSTGRADUATE QUALIFICATION As with M-courses, there is some obfuscation even here; both universities and official bodies are often unable to express clearly the quality (as opposed to purposive and conceptual) differences between the PhD and the taught (professional) doctorate. For clarity’s sake, however, it is opportune to begin this overview with the PhD – on which some consensus exists. Clarke and Powell (2009) review the QAA (2004) work, which suggested that there were key areas of operation that helped to support quality provision in doctoral education. These included the need for doctoral students to be overseen by well-trained supervisors, and for supervisors to work in teams rather than individually. Training for doctoral candidates should include effective research skills. When the thesis was finally submitted, processes for the selection of external examiners should be rigorous. It is recognized that some doctoral students will teach as part of their university-based activity (see Chapter 10), and

128

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

this element of their work also needs to be supported effectively. Rules relating to the programme should be transparent; and the means, for example of transfer from MPhil to PhD work, should be clear and consistently operated. Completions should be encouraged and completion-rate used as a quality indicator. Clarke and Powell’s excellent short summary paper is nonetheless heavily reliant on earlier (1996) UK Council for Graduate Education work. As they begin to tease out what is the essence of a doctorate, they inevitably (and rightly) refer to ‘publishability’ as a quality indicator. But the 1996 view juxtaposed five other criteria: that the work should be of the highest possible standard in the field, that it was fit for purpose, that it was effective in achieving institutional goals, that it conformed to an overt specification and that it met the perceived needs of the client. This catalogue is noteworthy for the relative importance of institution and client in the process. Perhaps because of some misgivings on this front Clarke and Powell revert to the other main constituent of doctoral work: that it should form a contribution to knowledge, i.e. that it should take the subject/topic further than it had hitherto been able to go. There are, to muddy the waters, complications caused by professional doctorates, with their vocational orientations and assessment using means other than a thesis, such as creative outputs. Doctorates by published work present their own sets of questions. Clarke and Powell would reject the notion of ‘taught’ (as opposed to professional) doctorates, emphasizing that this idea does not receive widespread acceptance overseas (and this is true in Israel, and more recently in Malta, for example). However, to emphasize that what is important in the last resort is that graduates from all forms of doctoral studies must have acquired ‘doctoral thinking’ is probably tautologous. Nor does the suggestion of tracking the effectiveness of doctoral studies by looking at graduates’ career progression five years on, strike much of a chord with us: the variables are too many and capricious for this to be used as a measure of anything significant. In the end, though providing a useful summary of the present position, Clarke and Powell do not move the issue on a great deal. They fall back on the conception that the quality of the doctorate is underpinned by three elements: inputs, processes and outputs. Inputs include such factors as the quality of supervision and the student’s own approach to the process (the former well documented by such classic texts as Zuber-Skerrit and Ryan 1994, the latter summarized for example in Graves and Varma 1997); processes, i.e. the transparency of university procedures; and outputs, representing the kinds of performance measures beloved of governments. One has to conclude that all these are very much at the commonsense rather than cutting-edge end of any quality continuum. What they seem to reject is any kind of pan-national, or pan-European solution, though the criteria laid down by the Bologna process would seem to make some contribution that provides, at the very least, a consistent yardstick. One useful summary of the qualities required of doctoral students (and thus the criteria which determine quality in doctoral studies) is taken from the Higher Education Quality Assurance Agency’s Doctoral Level Descriptors:

ENHANCING QUALITY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

129

Learning accredited at this level will reflect the ability to: display mastery of a complex and specialised area of knowledge and skills, employing advanced skills to conduct research, or advanced technical or professional activity, accepting accountability for related decision making including use of supervision. Doctoral Degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated: a) the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research or other advanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline, and merit publication. b) a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or area of professional practice. c) the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems. d) a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic enquiry. Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to: a) make informed judgements on complex issues in specialist fields, often in the absence of complete data, and be able to communicate their ideas and conclusions clearly and effectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences. b) continue to undertake pure and/or applied research and development at an advanced level, contributing substantially to the development of new techniques, ideas or approaches. and holders will have: c) the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and largely autonomous initiative in complex and unpredictable situations, in professional or equivalent environments.

Doctoral degrees are awarded for the creation and interpretation, construction and/or exposition of knowledge which extends the forefront of a discipline, usually through original research.

A WIDER VIEW The issues discussed so far are not confined to the UK, nor to any one subject area. For a wider European view the reader will find useful material in EAU (2007). Smith (2002) sets out the issues from an Australian perspective, with particular reference to nursing education. He argues for a ‘multifaceted and holistic approach’ that goes beyond successful thesis submission. He suggests, rightly, that quality criteria based on process data are useful but only part of the story. He places greater emphasis on the client than do most UK sources. He suggests that any student on a postgraduate research programme develops relationships with themselves (self-knowledge); with the department; with the supervisor(s);

130

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

and with the outcomes of his/her study, which impact on the process data but remain independent of it. Smith would examine, as issues of quality, the ways in which students interact socially, how they prepare and are prepared for the experience, their motivations, their financial support, their demographics and ability. He notes that often, beginning postgraduates have a lapse in confidence (cf. Phillips and Pugh 2000: 4), and undergo personal and lifestyle changes. He suggests that student–supervisor allocation should be through a process of mutual selection through which the learning context is the driving force. He also argues for a wider range of student-based scholarly relationships with peers and academics as a route to improved client satisfaction. These factors, he argues, lead to improved independence of thought and originality. Reflection If you have studied for a doctorate yourself, reflect on the experience: what was effective or less effective about it? What would you most like to have changed?

SUMMARY Drawing together the threads of what has gone before, we can say that there is an emergent view that sees the importance of externally imposed criteria of excellence for postgraduate studies. The picture is somewhat clearer for doctoral studies than for M-level courses, and clearer for all kinds of research-based courses than for taught or ‘professional’ ones. But there is also a need for students to be seen as clients, with their own needs to be satisfied. So, having approached the issue from the standards perspective initially, it is opportune now to look at the quality issue from the point of view of the stakeholders – and to begin by defining who these might be.

STAKEHOLDER VIEWS OF QUALITY In a previous volume, Kerry (2008) put forward five models of teaching that describe how education tends to be delivered to society. These were: 1. Knowledge models – largely content-based 2. Target-driven models – largely controlled by performance indicators 3. Fiscal models – based on value-for-money considerations 4. Utilitarian/social models – concentrating on vocational outcomes 5. Intrinsic value models – based on knowledge for its own sake. Though these models were generated in a schools’ context, there is a growing body of opinion that in the UK the government is applying similar thinking across the education sectors (Seldon 2009). Each of the models implies a stakeholder/group, thus:

ENHANCING QUALITY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

131

• knowledge models are based substantially on teaching and teachers • target-driven models and fiscal models serve the needs of government for the most part • utilitarian/social models meet the needs of society in general • intrinsic-value models centre on the needs and aspirations of students and their learning. It is to these four groups of stakeholders that attention in this chapter now shifts. TEACHING AND TEACHERS

In terms of postgraduate work in universities, the pressures to meet the needs of teachers/tutors and their institutions, is considerable. Doctoral supervision is the pinnacle of academic teaching. By definition, if M-level work is fought over, it is often over which senior tutors should not undertake it rather than it being enthusiastically viewed by staff. Those who are motivated, especially in relation to taught M-level courses, are often seeking to use the process to further their own research ends. Institutional concerns are frequently financial: higher degree students, especially those from beyond Europe (who pay higher fees) are seen as an income stream that supports the bulk of work (undergraduate activities and research opportunities). None of this adds up to a climate of quality for postgraduates. In this context, too, the ‘old debates’ re-surface, about whether tutors are teaching students or teaching subjects (e.g. Clark et al. 2002; and in Australia, Lynch 2003). Perry and Smart (1997) emphasize the dominance of the lecturing approach in universities, noting that as long as class sizes continue to increase and university budgets tighten further, lecturing will remain a dominant teaching method. Some may feel the foregoing assessment is a touch bleak, but Shultziner (2008) reported that just such a situation developed in Oxford recently. It was claimed that two former Rhodes scholars found reading for DPhils (the Oxford equivalent of the PhD) a ‘frustrating experience’ based on reluctant supervision in an ‘outdated academic’ system. Clearly, Oxford has the potential to attract high quality international postgraduate students, and thus to generate considerable income from the sector. But the article went on to allege: ‘Postgraduates are theoretically assigned a college adviser. Yet what they find when they arrive is that they should not expect their college adviser to read their work, or to provide any substantial feedback.’ In one college, it was suggested, a quarter of students never saw a supervisor during a 12-month period, and a further quarter did so only once. Colleges that do, theoretically, provide supervision do so through a system of so-called ‘collections’, which may mean just a five-minute interview. The Oxford system of autonomous colleges means that issues have to be resolved at that level, and allegedly: ‘John Hood, the vice-chancellor, explained last year that students should solve their issues through mutual understandings within the colleges.’ But Shultziner goes on to indicate that, since power within the colleges lies with tutors

132

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

and bursars, without any effective student representation, the student voice has little or no impact. Of course, Oxford’s institutional structures are very different from those of most other UK universities, and the present authors have no means to judge the degree of truth represented by Shultziner’s article, but it is concerning that a leading UK university should even be suspected of operating postgraduate work as a source of revenue, divorced from academic support. Should such a situation exist it represents an extremely cynical approach by staff to their own concerns and research at the expense of those students in their care. Though such widespread dissatisfaction may be present in the UK and elsewhere, it is probably felt by the minority of students rather than the majority. Thus in Australia, survey research threw up some interesting outcomes from students on taught postgraduate courses(‘Identifying the Needs of Australian Coursework Postgraduate Students’ on www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip99-9/ chapter3.htm (accessed 15.08.09)): Comparing those items where greater than 30 per cent of students were not satisfied to those where less than 30 per cent were not satisfied, it would appear that the worst results, by and large, are reserved for items that involve some degree of informal interaction between students, academics and other postgraduates in the academic community. Six out of the nine items where over 30 per cent of the students were not satisfied comprise some element of interaction with staff, other students or the broader academic community. They included: • inclusion as a valuable participant in the academic environment; • orientation; • supervision of research; • student input in course evaluation; • availability for academic consultation; and • feedback on progress . . . ‘Student input in course evaluation’ and ‘inclusion as a valuable participant’ suggest that the postgraduate students believe they can and should be recognized for their contribution to the university. Finally, ‘orientation’ in this context suggests not only an orientation based on information about the university, but also an introduction to the academic community and student life.

The debate, then, is between teachers teaching and learners learning. There is a tacit suggestion in what has gone before that the two worlds exist almost as parallel universes. When the teachers also align themselves with institutional intentions (curriculum control, income generation, target achievement, publication rates, etc.) there is the potential for student needs and identities to be squeezed out. In practice, a trawl through the results of student-satisfaction surveys on a variety of UK university websites, as clumsy as these methods of research may be, suggest that postgraduates are satisfied overall with their provision. But there remains a persistent core (about 20 to 25 per cent) of postgraduate students who express

ENHANCING QUALITY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

133

negativity about their tutors or their institutional provision (see Chapter 8). Nevertheless, institutions and the individual tutors within them are legitimate stakeholders, too. Institutions live in a competitive world, which has to satisfy demands from a variety of masters (see below). University staff are under pressure to research and publish; and they have their own personal and career aspirations, legitimately held. So the issue is one of balance. GOVERNMENT

Models two and three suggested above reveal that government is a stakeholder in higher education. After all, government foots much of the bill for the cost of universities, and it needs benchmarks so judgements can be made about overall effectiveness and value-for-money, both comparatively and about the system as a whole. Money is delivered both through the Higher Education Funding Council and via various research-based funding councils, so precise sums and their destinations are difficult to pin down, but the bill runs to billions of pounds. Even if the warnings of imminent cut backs due to recession hit home (cf. Hodges 2009), the investment will still be substantial. Changing perceptions of postgraduate education by government tend to drive this process, too: As universities have increasingly come to be seen as knowledge industries, rather than sites of higher learning providing a service to society, so government seeks both increasing efficiencies in the ‘industry’ as well as to steer the higher education agenda. (www. learning.ox.ac.uk/rsv.php?page=328)

Given such a commitment of fiscal revenue, it is not surprising if, over the last few years in the UK, a number of policy changes have altered the relationship between HE provision and government accountability. Stevenson and Bell (2009) provide a brief outline of the recent changes in government policy and note that there is a dichotomy in the government’s mind between research-based and teaching-based university provision; which might well have implications for the postgraduate sector. At one time an area of oversight by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DfES), where it was an extension of schools and FE provision, higher education moved to the then newly formed Department for Industry, Universities and Skills, thus aligning it more closely with a business environment. More recently still, it moved to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, where it became an arm of business strategy and a rather peripheral player in a much bigger world. The ‘old philosophy’ of education – as extension of economic and social usefulness (epitomized by Callaghan’s Ruskin College speech (Chitty and Dunford 1999: 10) – is clear from the little that is said about it at the start of the latest department website (www.berr.gov.uk), which reads simply: ‘Britain’s higher education is a major contributor to the economic success and social well being of the country. Higher education is a national asset, whose excellence in

134

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

teaching and research is world recognised.’ What cannot be doubted, though, is that this ‘new’ philosophy leaves little space for activities that are not revenuegenerating and subject to value-for-money accountability measures. A report commissioned by the government (Council for Science and Technology 2008) looked at relationships between universities and policymakers. It recited the well-known mantra: creating an informed, world-class and evidence-based higher education policy. To achieve this, it recommended government give closer access to ministers, and that universities, in return, should work more closely with business, restructure themselves and utilize appropriate (presumably non-governmental) funding sources (to top up the pot). It went on to suggest that government should identify criteria to assess quality (such as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and its putative successor), and that it should develop a ‘gold standard’ acknowledgement for valued engagement in government-approved activities that were neither publishable nor researchbased. Universities should look at rewarding, through career development, staff who undertook involvement with government. It seems altogether unlikely, especially in financially straightened times, that government will loosen its strangle-hold of accountability on higher education generally and postgraduate activity in particular. Despite the political investment, many academics are suspicious of government and its control mechanisms. Karran (2009) provides an overview of one key topic here: academic freedom, in which the ‘right’ of the teacher/researcher to explore and communicate as he/she sees fit is viewed as a value to society. This perspective, however, has to be balanced against the ‘rights’ of funding agencies and of society generally to demand value-for-money in the way in which academia fulfils its perceived purposes. Shattock (2006: 139) warns that ‘government policy making either ossifies structures or imposes shifts to align them with other government policies’. Thus it is that one cannot expect to see accountability measures in the form of performance indicators (the RAE/Research Excellence Framework, retention rates, pass rates and so on, as well as measures for financial efficiency pursued on the marketization models discussed in Chapter 4) diminished in any foreseeable future. Whether they work is another matter. Urwin and Di Pietro (2005: 286) suggest that QAA scores did not function to enhance the quality of teaching, but that RAE outcomes did ‘have a positive impact on postgraduate employability’ as a quality criterion. What one can say, however, is that the debate as to whether such measures are appropriate as quality criteria in academic settings, and whether they omit to measure the really significant factors that make postgraduate studies in the higher education sector world-leading, is likely to continue. SOCIETY

But if the UK government appears to be clear about what it wants from postgraduate education, is that view shared by society? Insofar as society is made

ENHANCING QUALITY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

135

up of individuals, doubtless there is a continuum of views about higher education: from an effete activity indulged in by people too lazy to get real jobs, through to those who share the government’s view of future prosperity for all as being dependent on selling Britain’s advanced knowledge and skills. The latter view has been labelled (Evans 2004) ‘economic instrumentalism’, while more (possibly idealistic) approaches such as Humboldt’s have been described in Chapter 4. So, what the debate really comes down to is the concept of the university – a debate begun in Chapter 1. Beckton (2009: 60) rightly identifies the tensions within the debate, and quotes Barnett’s (2005: 789) vision of the university existing in a situation of ‘supercomplexity’ consisting of ‘proliferating and even mutually contesting frameworks’. If this is true of the university as a concept, then it is even truer of units and individual activities within it. On the international front, in the US Levine (2000) sees university staff as caught napping while the ground moved under the feet of the concept of our universities. Bellah (1999) summarizes the tensions described above thus: What is freedom in the market is tyranny in other spheres, such as the professions and politics. A decent society depends on autonomy of the spheres. When money takes over politics, only a façade of democracy is left. When money takes over the professions, decisions are made on the basis of the bottom line, not professional authority.

Shils (1997) even identified the elements that made up the component parts of this ground-shifting phenomenon: • expansion in size, which he called ‘massification’ • an increased demand to provide public services • the politicization of academic work • the growing intrusion of governmental constraints • expansion of bureaucratic administration • reduction of financial support from government • distortions due to the quest for publicity • obsessive assessment of academic performance by research productivity • disaggregation of universities as communities • demoralization of intellectual life. Levine goes on to identify elements that more fundamentally define a university (like his own in Chicago): the excellence of pursuing fundamental intellectual problems because of their intrinsic interest and the excellence of cultivating the intellectual powers of human beings and citizens . . . If I am not mistaken, it is both the ability to embrace these opposed routes to the quest for truth, and an adamant refusal to be sidetracked by temptations that would distract us from that quest, that defines our spirit. Didn’t Paul Shorey [1907] capture it

136

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

well, when he proclaimed that the spirit of the University ‘recognizes diverse and even contradictory kinds of excellence’?

Society has a right – perhaps even a duty – to demand things from its universities. But they should be the right things – truth, excellence, applicability, usefulness, ethical procedure, broadening of mind, freedom of the spirit – not simply figures on a cost-benefit balance sheet that ignores the broader human condition. Quality is about delivering the former not the latter. STUDENTS

The fourth major stakeholder in the postgraduate learning process is the student; thus, designing quality into the student experience is one means of analysing and assessing the effectiveness of a new course. Here, we shall not labour this point unduly, as this section of the chapter leads us immediately into Part 3 of this text. The three chapters that comprise Part 3 are all student centred. Suffice it now, however, simply to chart the direction of travel rather than map the entire terrain. The first point to make is that both in the UK and elsewhere, postgraduate students, just like university staff, work in the limbo world of governmental policy decisions – as has been noted earlier – not only in the world of pedagogic provision. This is a point well made by Singh et al. (2005) in an Australian context, too. To redress the political balance, Singh and his colleagues examined M-level work in an Australian university and noted: In designing university curricula/pedagogy academic workers now have to manage the tensions between these two positions – the outward orientated prospective identity constructed by market forces and state regulatory frameworks; and the inwardly orientated, introspective identities of disciplinary knowledge and sound pedagogical principles.

They echoed Bernstein’s (1999: 252) conclusion that: ‘we have a new pathological position at work in education – the pedagogic schizoid position.’ Their quality criteria for designing their new research-based postgraduate (M-level) course were: technological innovation, disciplinary rigour, scaffolding of student learning, and equity issues. The intention was to design a study unit on critical approaches to research that used technology to reach students hitherto unreachable (who could not attend on campus), to give them a range of access media. The course had both depth and breadth to cater for the very wide range of learners. Scaffolding of learning was made explicit in the materials. The course catered for those who had problems due to personal circumstances because its flexibility enabled them to participate in their own contexts/times. Thus they had begun to establish criteria of quality that transcended performance indicators and concentrated on learning. In another Australian study (Conrad 2003), the student’s relationships with his/ her supervisor and institution took a rather different quality focus. Nine hundred

ENHANCING QUALITY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

137

and sixty students were surveyed about their views of exceptional supervision and support (the response rate was 63.5 per cent), and from the responses it was possible to construct some parameters of quality supervision from the student perspective: At the level of the individual supervisor: • good student/supervisor relationships • willingness to meet after hours • encouraging of student independence • suggesting that the student keeps notes of the meetings • frequent supportive comments • foreshadowing of problems • prompt feedback • regular meetings related to written work. At the level of the department: • availability of hardware, software, funding for conferences, incentives to publish • availability of photocopying and stationery materials. At the level of the institution: • good library facilities • initiatives to enhance research community. The student respondents also listed five ways of improving on the quality of their experience by enhancing the social and intellectual climate of the course: • group supervision – where students with similar research areas work together with (a) supervisor(s) • peer support – where students take the initiative to work collaboratively • structured programmes – of curricular nature • teams – opportunities to be involved with funded projects • collegiality – being made to feel part of the institution’s research community. All this leads us to Bruffee (1999) in the US, who advocates far-reaching changes between ‘the learned and the learner’. He notes that the nature of the source of the authority of university staff is the central issue of university education; and he warns that, if tutors continue to teach exclusively in the didactic mode, students will not learn mature, effective independence as scholars. He argues that university staff have often acquired their own expertise in the ‘alienation and aggression’ of the didactic model; their very expertise may thus subvert their ability to ‘understand knowledge as a social construct, learning as an adult social process, and teaching as a role of leadership among adults’.

138

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Reflection How would you resolve the conflicts between the various stakeholders in the postgraduate quality debate?

The insights into learning as a postgraduate activity suggested in this section are provocative and possibly controversial. They have implications for how quality in postgraduate work is judged that are a far cry from the models of fiscal and vocational/social accountability. But the approaches suggested in this short review of quality from the postgraduate student perspective have done what was intended: they have given a compass-bearing on the kind of practice that universities should be seeking to implement. In Part 3 of the text, we move on to examine some aspects of this approach to quality in a little more detail.

FURTHER READING Clarke, G. and Powell, S. (2009) Quality and Standards of Postgraduate Research Degrees. Lichfield: UK Council for Graduate Education. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2008) The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. London: QAA.

REFERENCES Angell, R, Heffernan, T. and Megicks, P. (2008) Service Quality in Postgraduate Education, Quality Assurance in Education 16(3): 236–53. Available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm. Barnett, R. (2005) Recapturing the universal in the university, Educational Philosophy and Theory 37(6): 785–97. Beckton, J. (2009) Educational Development Units: the challenge of quality enhancement in a changing environment, in Bell, L., Stevenson, H. and Neary, M. (eds) (2009) The Future of Higher Education: policy, pedagogy and the student experience, London: Continuum, pp. 57–68. Bellah, Robert N. (1999) Freedom coercion and authority, Academe January–February: 16–21. Bernstein, B (1999) Official Knowledge and Pedagogic Identities, in Christie, F. (ed.) (1999) Pedagogy and the Shaping of Consciousness: linguistic and social processes, London: Continuum, pp. 246–61. Bruffee, K. (1999) Collaborative Learning, Higher Education, Interdependence and the Authority of Knowledge 2nd edn, Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Chitty, C. and Dunford, J. (eds) (1999) State Schools and the Conservative Legacy, London: Woburn Press. Clark, G., Healey, M., Jenkins, A., Wareham, T., Chalkley, B., Blumhof, J., Gravestock, P., Honeybone, A., King, H. and Thomas, N. (2002) Developing new lecturers: the case of a discipline-based workshop, Active Learning in Higher Education 3(2): 128–44. Clarke, G. and Powell, S. (2009) Quality and Standards of Postgraduate Research Degrees, Lichfield: UK Council for Graduate Education. Conrad, L. (2003) Five ways of enhancing the postgraduate community: student perceptions

ENHANCING QUALITY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

139

of effective supervision and support. Available at: www.herdsa.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/ conference/2003/PDF/HERDSA57.pdf Council for Science and Technology (2008) How Academia and Government can Work Together. Available at: www.dius.gov.uk/higher_education/shape_and_structure/ he_debate/~/media/publications/S/Summary-AcademiaPublicPolicy-CST Desilio, E. (2006) Report calls for overhaul of administrators’ programmes, available on www. education-world.com/a-admin/admin/admin403.shtml EUA (European Universities Association) (2006) Guidelines for Quality Enhancement in European Joint Masters’ Programmes. Brussels: EUA. EUA (2007) Doctoral Programmes in Europe’s Universities: achievements and challenges. Report prepared for European Universities and Ministers of Higher Education. Brussels: EUA Evans, M. (2004) The Death of the Universities, London: Continuum. Graves, N. and Varma, V. (1997) Working for a Doctorate, London: Routledge. Harris, M. (1996) Reviewing Postgraduate Education (the Harris Report), London: HEFCE. Hodges, L. (2009) Could government funding cuts rob Britain of its enviable reputation in higher education? Independent 21 May. Karran, T. (2009) Academic Freedom, in Bell, L., Stevenson, H. and Neary, M. (eds) (2009) The Future of Higher Education: policy, pedagogy and the student experience, London: Continuum, pp. 17–29. Kerry, T. (2008) The Art and Science of Effective Teaching, in Chau, M.H. and Kerry, T. International Perspectives on Education, London: Continuum, Chapter 5, pp. 77–102. Leitch, S. (2006) Prosperity for All in the Global Economy: world-class skills (the Leitch Report), London: HMSO. Levine, D. (2000) The idea of a university, take one: the genius of this place. Paper delivered at the University of Chicago’s Idea of a University Colloquium, 8 November 2000. Available at: http://iotu.uchicago.edu/levine.html Lord Sainsbury of Turville (2007) The Race to the Top (the Sainsbury Review), London: HM Treasury. Lynch, J. (2003) Promoting innovation in university teaching against the tide of centralised control and institutional risk avoidance. Paper for Australian Association for Research in Education Conference 2003. Brisbane, Queensland Park, C. (2007) Redefining the Doctorate, York: Higher Education Academy. Perello, C. (2002) Workshop on quality in doctoral studies: evaluation and accreditation. Paper delivered in Cordoba on 8 April 2002 to the Meeting of Directors-General of Higher Education and Presidents of Rectors’ Conferences of the EU/EEA. Available at: www. bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/workshop_on_quality.pdf Perry, R. P., and Smart, J. C. (eds). (1997) Effective Teaching in Higher Education. New York: Agathon Press. Phillips, E. and Pugh, D. (2000) How to get a PhD: a handbook for students and their supervisors 3rd edn, Buckingham: Open University Press. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2001) Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, London: QAA. QAA (2004) Code of Practice for the Assurance of Quality and Standards in Higher Education, London: QAA. QAA (2008) The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, London: QAA. Seldon, A. (2009) 21st Century schools and universities: education for the post-materialistic age, Education Today 59(2): 7–11.

140

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Shattock, M. (2006) Policy drivers in UK Higher Education in historical perspective: ‘Inside out’, ‘Outside in’ and the contribution of research, Higher Education Quarterly 60(2): 130–40. Shils, Edward A. (1997) The Calling of Education: ‘The Academic Ethic’ and other essays on higher rducation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shorey, Paul (1909). The spirit of the University of Chicago, The University of Chicago Magazine 1: 229–45. Shultziner, D. (2008) Nightmare in dreaming spires, Guardian 28 April. Singh, P., Atweh, B. and Shield, P. (2005) Designing Postgraduate Pedagogies: connecting internal and external learners. Proceedings of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Sydney: AARE. Available at: www.eprints.qut.edu.au Smith, L. (2002) Quality postgraduate research programs and student experience, Australian Electronic Journal of Nursing Education 8 (1). Stevenson, H. and Bell. L. (2009) Introduction – Universities in Transition: themes in higher education, in Bell, L., Stevenson, H. and Neary, M. (2009) The Future of Higher Education: : policy, pedagogy and the student experience, London: Continuum, pp. 1–14. Urwin, P. and Di Pietro, G. (2005) The impact of research and teaching quality inputs on the employment outcomes of postgraduates, Higher Education Quarterly 59(4): 275–95. Zuber-Skerrit, O. and Ryan, Y. (1994) Quality in Postgraduate Education, London: Kogan Page. www.learning.ox.ac.uk/rsv.php?page=328 www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip99-9/chapter3.htm www.hefce.ac.uk

PA R T I I I

Postgraduate Experience: The Student Perspective

This page intentionally left blank

8

Tutoring at the Postgraduate Level Trevor Kerry and Carolle Kerry SUMMARY This chapter sets out the results of small-scale empirical research designed to discover what, in the views of postgraduate students, constitutes effective tutoring and what qualities define a good tutor. A two-phase research programme is described. The findings from this investigation are set in the context of the literature of what makes for effective postgraduate tutoring. The chapter concludes that, while it is possible to provide some answers to the two research questions, the tutorial process must be seen in a wider context of student–tutor interpersonal relations. The research generates additional issues about tutoring at the postgraduate level.

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT The contexts of postgraduate learning and teaching are changing; indeed, how they are changing is, in part, the theme of this book – though the pace and direction of the changes may be more or less rapid, more or less proactive or reactive. A decade ago Gibbons (1999: 19) discerned two ‘modes’ of postgraduate training. Mode 1 was ‘traditional, discipline-based, apprenticeship-style research; Mode 2 involved interdisciplinary problem-solving in flexible teams without single-university allegiance’. In Chapter 1 we argued for a re-consideration of the traditional taught M-courses to meet changing social and demographic circumstances. Any changes to the nature of postgraduate work imply changes to methods and styles of tuition. A major European report (EUA 2007, para. 4.3), however, reflects the dilemma: its concerns are with ‘contractual frameworks’; (undefined) ‘good practice’; processes of multiple supervision arrangements and the updating of supervisors; and the ‘transparency’, for example, of assessment processes. (Post)graduate schools function in many university contexts alongside faculties, and Rodney (2008: 8) defined their role as being ‘to add value’ to what the disciplinary faculty can provide: transferable skills, ethics training, writing skills, cross-pollination of ideas, and contacts with other students. The debate about professional doctorates, as opposed to traditional PhDs, is also relevant to an examination of supervision skills – this debate is well presented in Frame’s (2007) excellent paper in the context of training professional surveyors. In the world of science, many doctoral candidates find themselves engaging in teaching alongside their research. Harland and Scaife argue in this volume about the need to make this experience more effective (Chapter 10). In an earlier

144

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

article with Plangger (Harland and Plangger 2004), Harland identified the narrow conceptions of such researcher-teachers as traditional transmitters of knowledge, and followed Russell (1997) in arguing that ‘images of teaching are so powerful that teachers at the start of their career may not be significantly influenced into learning from their own experiences’. Park (2005) refers to the postgraduate supervisory role as ‘the secret garden’, a process ‘taking place between consenting adults’. He maintains that effectiveness is heavily dependent on the quality of supervisor–student relationships, with emphasis on congruence in teaching/learning styles, flexibility, sensitivity and role understanding. Students may expect too much, and training might make supervisors more efficient and students more realistic. Confidence in the assessment and examination process is critical, and there are shifts in this area as doctoral degrees become more workplace- and less academia-related, and as focus on the research process is judged alongside research content of the thesis. The managerialism that afflicts other education sectors intrudes also here, with its moves towards systems for quality assurance, bench-marking and accountability (QAA 2000). Sinclair (2004), working in Australia, makes more progress than most UK-based researchers in the quest for defining the characteristics of good tutorials and effective tutoring. He contrasts ‘hands on’ and ‘hands off ’ approaches – the former delivering more completions, the latter more independent learners. Students see supervisors’ roles in terms of delivering information about upto-date literature rather than about content expertise per se. Making time for students is seen as an important supervisor quality, as are establishing trust, forging good working relations, and establishing flexible deadlines. Rapid response to drafts of work is seen as critical. Whitelock, Faulkner and Miell (2008: 143) argue for the concept of creativity in postgraduate supervision, which is defined as including ‘more open-ended and creative’ learning which is based on space, time and encouragement for informal reflection, relationship building with peers and supervisor, playful exploration and risk taking. More prosaically, James and Baldwin (1999) rely on procedural advice, listing eleven strategies for effective supervisors. These include encouraging early and frequent writing, establishing a strong conceptual framework for the study, providing high quality feedback, and finding ways to inspire and motivate the student. At the University of Helsinki the tutor–student relationship forms, even more formally, the basis of a contract (Supervision contract for doctoral studies at the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, accessed February 2009 on www.helsinki.fi/behav/english/pgstudies/supervisioncontract.pdf). Tutoring could, however, be conceived as a two-way process in which the student has to take joint responsibility for learning. This point is well made by Li and Seale (2007) in their description of ‘moments of interactional difficulty’. A ‘symbiotic and cordial relationship is collaboratively developed and sustained’, they maintain, through such strategies as advice-giving, repair, humour and politeness. ‘The effective management of criticism is a joint activity that underlies

TUTORING AT THE POSTGRADUATE LEVEL

145

the capacity for supervision to be educationally effective.’ Reflection What, in your experience as student and/or tutor, makes for an effective tutorial experience?

There is no escape from the view, as Leonard et al. (2006) argue, that much of the UK literature on UK postgraduate supervision is written from the perspectives of policy-makers, or consists of academics’ reflections on the changes being made to doctoral studies. In contrast, ‘we know little about what students think’ for ‘doctoral students are not (yet) seen as “customers” to be attracted and consulted’. Our brief study aims to change some of that perspective.

THE RESEARCH The core research questions that guide this empirical two-stage investigation are: what, in the views of postgraduate students, constitutes effective tutoring, and what are the qualities that define a good tutor? The research design for this study fits mainly within the qualitative paradigm (Stake 1995: 47–8) although, as will emerge, some data were collected which lent themselves to quantitative analysis and display and, in phase 2, a Likert-style score sheet was also employed. There were, then, two phases to the data collection. In phase 1 an extensive questionnaire was devised, based on the key literature surveyed above, to explore the views of people who had recently passed through postgraduate degree programmes – about the nature of their overall experience in the context of adult learning needs and, specifically, their views about what qualities make effective tutors and tutoring. Some demographic data were collected to support this process, but most of the questions were open ended and the form of the instrument was mainly semi-structured. Sixteen respondents were approached by email: an opportunity sample of individuals known to the researchers but outside their own home institution. The response rate was 81.25 per cent (n = 13). It is possible that richer and more detailed information may have been collected using an interview rather than a questionnaire. However, discussion with respondents indicated that, in replying to an email questionnaire, they were more willing to participate, and able to answer the questions incrementally and in their own time, which made them better disposed to the process. In phase 2 results from the phase 1 stage were used to construct a shorter, more user-friendly instrument to test out some of the propositions that seemed to be forming as a result of the first phase. This instrument contained open, but sharpened, questions about tutors and tutoring. Since the questions in phase 1 were driven by the literature, and those in phase 2 were derived from phase 1 responses, they were deemed free from researcher bias. A prime intention in phase 2 was to gain anecdotal information about real events based on critical incidents that

146

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

epitomized key issues in the tutoring process, as well as examples of good tutoring. In addition, there was a Likert-style score sheet setting out the thirty qualities of an effective tutor formed as a result of analysis of the phase 1 questionnaire (see below). Respondents to this Likert document were asked to rate the qualities using a six-point scale of importance with no mid-point. The respondents to phase 2 of the research (n = 31; response rate 62 per cent) were drawn from current or recent postgraduates on a range of courses (MA, MSc, MBA, EdD and PhD), both face-to-face and distance learning, and from a wide selection of universities ranging from Oxbridge to post-1992 institutions. This overall research design was deemed appropriate for a number of reasons. In trying to collect data about individual experiences in a variety of different settings the semi-structured nature of the phase 1 questionnaire allowed respondents plenty of scope to express their own views freely and in depth. Validity was supported by basing the questions on existing literature in the field. The amount of data generated at this stage, however, would have been excessive if used with a much larger sample, and it was felt that the time-demand of completing this questionnaire would have discouraged a larger and less resilient group of respondents. The analysis of the earlier data was used to provide a sharper focus to the second round of the investigation. This allowed for use of a larger sample thus increasing the validity and reliability of the exercise, not least because responses from the two groups could be broadly compared; but it also allowed for a closer structuring of the investigation to the most important issues of the tutoring process and the qualities that attach to an effective tutor. The use of a Likert-style score sheet provided some sense of relative importance between items, all of which had been deemed important as qualities in a postgraduate tutor by one or more respondents to the first phase questionnaire. It must be noted, however, that the number of respondents to phase 2 was not enough to take fullest advantage of the Likert approach, where the larger the sample the more secure the results. Thus these outcomes should be treated as indicative. In practice we have used them to construct a rank order of qualities deemed by postgraduate students to be desirable in a tutor. On the ethical front, respondents were approached by one of the researchers to take part on a purely voluntary basis and each had the right not to participate; but the instructions associated with the instruments clearly stated the purpose and use of the research data, which allowed for informed consent. The instructions associated with each instrument asked respondents to remain anonymous and not to write information about institutions that could render them identifiable; no tutors were to be named; response was optional. Returned as email attachments to one researcher, the replies were detached from email addresses, printed out, and given for initial analysis to the second author, who did know any identities. The qualitative paradigm is appropriate for this kind of investigation because it seeks data that, for any individual, may be deemed to be ‘socially constructed’ but which, when added together with data from many other respondents, are capable

TUTORING AT THE POSTGRADUATE LEVEL

147

of conveying a ‘realism’ based on cumulative evidence (Pring 2000: 58–60). Each respondent’s experience is unique, but from those collected experiences it may be possible to spot trends or convergencies (Yin 1994:13), construct theories (Bassey 1999: 58) or to offer ‘testable propositions’ (Kerry 2002: 17). The great advantage of these latter approaches is that, to some extent, they counter the objection to qualitative research that it is not able to be generalized; its representativeness or transferability can be tested out on new samples on the basis of Bassey’s theories (which he also labels ‘fuzzy generalisations’) or Kerry’s propositions; in this case, for example, with a new set of postgraduates in different institutions or from a range of faculties. Analysis of data generated in phase 1 was undertaken by one author who was unaware of the identity of the respondents. Data in phase 2 were analysed by the same author and outcomes checked by the other. Likert scores were processed as described below. The qualitative data generated were treated in part as documentary items and subjected to the procedures outlined by Fitzgerald (2007). In phase 2, the narrative responses related to critical incidents that we quote in the present text were selected, as far as possible, to reflect trends and because the views expressed were recurrent (this represents a form of triangulation – Silverman 2000: 177). Where a narrative appears to represent a unique situation this is signalled so that reporting does not degenerate into anecdotalism. But the question remains: how should we treat these anecdotes of student experience? O’Brien and Garner (2001: 2) faced a similar problem in their investigation into the experiences of learning support staff (LSAs) in schools. Rightly, they warned that, in general, research about LSAs ‘seemed not to incorporate the views, expectations, aspirations, beliefs and values’ of the subjects. This also tended to be true with respect to tutoring at the postgraduate level: most of the viewpoints explored in the literature were those of tutors, occasionally of institutions. The students themselves were the ‘invisible victims’ of tutorial activity: they were ‘done to’ by people ‘in positions of greater authority and knowledge and therefore able to exercise power over them’. This research attempts to redress this balance and provide a more intimate perspective, or at least what O’Brien and Garner (2001: 146) label ‘a new and refreshing commentary’ on tutorial experience.

FINDINGS: PHASE 1 RESEARCH Sixteen pilot questionnaires were emailed and 13 returned (response rate = 81.25 per cent). Demographic data indicated that seven respondents were male and six female; eight respondents began their studies between the ages of 40–50 with most studying for between three and five years. All had pursued M-level studies but there was some later engagement in doctoral level work. The commonest course type was taught course with dissertation, closely followed by research only. All respondents were in full-time employment, some in HE and some in the school system either in the UK or overseas. Five experienced face-to-face tutorials, the remainder were tutored predominantly by email. Access to tutors

148

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

varied from ‘exceptionally accessible’ to ‘horrific’ and ‘hopeless’. Students generally found that distance learning did not take account of their preferred learning styles with eight expressing degrees of dissatisfaction: ‘at times I felt a personal face-to-face discussion would have helped’ . . . ‘I was left adrift’ . . . ‘my tutor took no account of my personal learning style’. Two were more positive: ‘Very flexible . . . easy to fit around a busy job’ and ‘I was able to explore the questions that interested me’, with a third, a research-only student, noting, ‘Because mine was a research degree, I always got individual attention.’ The learning support provided by the different universities was varied and not rated highly by students: ‘Not effective’ . . . ‘Library support less than practical’ . . . ‘I relied on and used the material accessed at work [outside UK]’. One student, however, was enthusiastic: ‘Very useful. The usefulness of these learning support tools are even more invaluable studying as a distance student. . . . The library staff showed admirable patience in dealing with the high levels of student demand.’ In general, students (92% of respondents) were appreciative of the ways in which they were kept informed about the quality and progress of their work: ‘A detailed feedback was given by the tutor’ . . . ‘extensive and detailed marking of modules’ . . . ‘the written feedback was outstanding’. However, one student was critical: ‘I received very little formative feedback regarding my work, mainly summative and not within the prescribed feedback time as set out in the course handbook.’

PERCEIVED STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF M COURSES Respondents had followed a variety of M-level courses – MA, MSc, MBA – and were asked about the strengths of their course and what they had gained from the experience (Table 8.1). Table 8.1 Major strengths of postgraduate courses: the students’ views Increased confidence in professional practice

4

Linked theory to practice

4

Was relevant to career

2

Developed ability to write with accuracy

2

Provided acquisition of research skills

2

Looked at challenges facing educational institutions

1

Engaged in deep thinking

1

Developed skills to present issues, analysis and recommendations in a structured manner

1

Learned useful IT skills

1

Pursued research topics relevant to workplace

1

Shared experiences with others

1 (continued)

TUTORING AT THE POSTGRADUATE LEVEL

Understood how to write an academic paper

149 1

Published paper in international journal

1

Was excellent Continuous Professional Development

1

Challenged me to think about my own practice

1

Developed my ability to teach aspects of research to others

1

Gave access to relevant and up-to-date literature

1

Gained considerable insights into topics related to educational management

1

Of particular interest was the increase in confidence felt by the students. Eight students (61 per cent) responded to the questionnaire by noting that the course had given them the tools to write and/or present academic/conference papers. One student achieved publication of a journal article based on his work. However, the courses were not without perceived weaknesses (Table 8.2), with isolation from other students and poor administration heading the list. Lack of direct contact with tutors presented problems for some students: ‘The only drawback . . . was the lack of guidance that I received from my tutor . . . which lead me to change my tutor’ and ‘Remote from my tutor . . . I felt lonely and isolated.’ Table 8.2 Major weaknesses of postgraduate courses: the students’ views No contact/interaction with other students

3

Poor administration/organization/communication

3

Remoteness from tutor

2

Lack of one-to-one support

1

Lack of formal introduction to postgraduate study

1

Element of pastoral care lacking

1

Did not seek enough guidance from tutor

1

Lack of guidance from tutor

1

PERCEIVED STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF TUTORING So what is it in the perception of the students that makes some tutors ‘good’ and others less good or weak? Table 8.3 indicates the benefits that students felt accrued to them individually, but does not reflect the practice and process of tutoring, an aspect that was pursued in more depth in later sections of the questionnaire.

150

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

Table 8.3 Key tutoring skills: the students’ views Giving detailed, well organized feedback

5

Directing to relevant source material

3

Providing good explanations

1

Providing clear and frank instructions

1

Making prompt responses

1

Delivering constructive criticism

1

Giving encouragement and praise

1

Tutor’s ability to draw on vast experience

1

Delivering professionalism

1

Tutor’s ability to turn my weaknesses into strengths

1

In general, students’ perceived experience of being tutored was positive: ‘[I had] the opportunity to be tutored by an individual with substantial knowledge and credibility [which] set the standard for my goals and ambition’, and ‘a range of challenge and support from an exceptionally able tutor’. Some students experienced more than one tutor during their course of study: ‘I was extremely fortunate that the tutors who supported me all seemed to have highly developed understanding in their areas. They were generally still involved in the area of study (in their day jobs), which meant their challenge and understanding of application as well as academic issues was extremely valuable and fine-tuned in feedback and discussions.’ However, not all students experienced effective support from their tutors throughout their whole course: ‘Tutors were working in schools and had taken on too many tutees to supplement their salaries.’ Ambivalence occurred: one student recorded initially that ‘being tutored for my postgraduate study was a very important factor in making me complete the course successfully’. But, in a later comment he/she notes, ‘failings of postgraduate tutoring happened during my earlier studies when there was no proper (timely) communication and guidance’. (Note: this student requested a tutor change during the course of study.) As might be expected, responses indicated that perceived failings of tutors related in part to the individual expectation and experience of the student. Students criticized tutors’ failure to respond within a reasonable time span: ‘Attention was poor and interest minimal and often negligent’ and ‘The first [doctoral] tutor never responded to enquiries.’ One student went further and highlighted what for him/her was an anomaly: The only failing that I experienced was that of total consistency . . . as it took the first couple of assignment submissions to gauge the ‘style’ and preferences of the tutor – to which the student needed to adapt, rather than the other way around.

151

TUTORING AT THE POSTGRADUATE LEVEL

Tutor strengths and their input were acknowledged by the students to be formative in the achievement of their degrees: ‘The tutor coaxed me through my first attempts’ and ‘I like to get affirmation that I am in the right direction and the tutors have been good at this.’ Each of these responses indicates that feedback to students is of paramount importance. This was confirmed when 38.5 per cent of students (n = 5) rated ‘detailed, well organised written feedback’ as an essential component of their tutoring experience.

THE IDEAL TUTOR Respondents to the questionnaire were asked to list the qualities that they would most look for in their ideal postgraduate tutor. The items were collated, combined where overlapping, and the results displayed in Table 8.4, in rank order according to number of mentions. This table was used subsequently as a key element in the phase 2 survey where the items, listed this time in random order, formed part of a Likert scale. Analysis of the items in this table indicated that, when scrutinized for what we labelled ‘dimensions’ of tutor qualities, three dimensions emerged. These were: teaching and academic competence; issues relating to giving time and professionalism to the work; and matters concerning the dynamics of the tutoring relationship. In Table 8.4, each item is assigned to one of these dimensions, which are labelled D1, D2 and D3 respectively. We shall return to a discussion of these at a later stage. Table 8.4 Qualities students look for in a postgraduate tutor Item

Description

Mentions Dimension

The ideal postgraduate tutor is: 1

Well-published

2

Candid, honest and open

6

D3

3

Supportive and empathetic

5

D3

4

An effective communicator, orally and in writing

4

D1

5

Challenging, with good questioning skills

4

D1

6

Knowledgeable and up-to-date

4

D1

7

Quick to respond to queries, problems

4

D2

8

A good listener

3

D3

9

Someone who takes a personal interest in you and boosts your confidence 3

D3

Proactive and persistent in following guidance through

3

D2

11

A motivator

3

D3

12

Patient

2

D3

10

6

D1

(continued)

152

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

13

Clear and focused in advice and guidance

2

D1

14

Generous with time, enthusiastic

2

D2

15

Flexible to the constraints of adult learning

2

D3

16

Readily available for consultation

2

D2

17

Able to bring about progression

2

D1

18

Sensitive to learning styles

1

D3

19

An effective adviser on academic writing

1

D1

20

Very experienced in his/her role

1

D1

21

Professional in behaviour

1

D2

22

Active in providing start-up activities at critical junctures

1

D3

23

Jargon-free

1

D1

24

Able to offer evidence from his/her own experience

1

D1

25

Well-prepared

1

D1

26

Familiar with literature in your field

1

D1

27

Willing to advise on drafts of work

1

D2

28

Modest about their own achievements

1

D3

29

An effective mentor

1

D3

30

A good teacher

1

D1

Respondents were also asked to make open-ended statements about positive and negative aspects of their postgraduate experience. Some were used as indicators to compile the shorter more focused phase 2 instrument. But it may be instructive to look more closely at what appeared to be the most telling comments from this phase 1 activity.

MOST TELLING INCIDENT Selecting and formulating a topic for the dissertation. I was put on the right track effectively by the tutor before the start of the dissertation and was guided in a step-by-step manner to carry out the dissertation. . . . being directed towards literature that informed me of the ways in which empirical research is carried out. A first ‘bad’ mark . . . because I thought I had got the essay ‘nailed’ and that I couldn’t be wrong. But the tutor was right and it made me look at specifics, rather than just try and jump through the assignment hoop.

153

TUTORING AT THE POSTGRADUATE LEVEL

Students indicated that negative incidents were not common during the course of their postgraduate study/tutorials. Ten responses indicated that there were no negative incidents that the respondents wished to comment on, there were two nil responses, and the remaining student answered at length: It wasn’t a tutorial but I submitted an assignment in which my tutor had done nothing to help me at any stage and which I had then to resubmit when it failed. I had no confidence in him by that point and the resubmission was good but could not get a good mark due to the regulations. I almost stopped my studies at this point.

Reflection Think of a critical incident that made a tutorial you attended/gave particularly successful. What did the incident do that changed the experience in a positive way?

FINDINGS: PHASE 2 RESEARCH It is perhaps appropriate to begin our report of the phase 2 analysis with the outcomes from the Likert scale (Table 8.5), which should be compared to the results reported in Table 8.4, on the items of which table it depends. Table 8.5 Qualities desirable in a postgraduate tutor – a rank order of importance Average Score

Item

Rank

1.07

Clear and focused in advice and guidance

1

1.10

Willing to advise on drafts of work

2

1.14

An effective adviser on academic writing

3

1.43

An effective communicator orally and in writing

4

1.47

Active in providing start-up support at critical junctures

5

1.53

Candid, honest and open

6

1.60

Quick to respond to queries, problems

7

1.72

Able to bring about progression

8=

1.72

Well-prepared

8=

1.80

Professional in behaviour

10

1.96

A good teacher

11

2.00

A good listener

12=

2.00

An effective mentor

12=

2.00

Supportive and empathetic

12=

2.03

Challenging

15 (continued)

154

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

2.17

A motivator

16

2.18

Readily available for consultation

17

2.20

Very experienced in his/her role

18

2.33

Generous with time

19

2.41

Flexible to the constraints of adult learning

20

2.50

Familiar with literature in your field

21

2.53

Patient

22

2.57

Someone who takes a personal interest in you

23

2.67

Sensitive to learning styles

24

2.69

Knowledgeable and up-to-date in your field

25

2.70

Proactive and persistent in following guidance through

26

2.86

Jargon-free

27

2.93

Able to offer evidence from his/her own experience

28

3.17

Modest about their own achievements

29

3.45

Well-published

30

Respondents were asked to rate each item on a six-point scale where 1 = most important as a tutor quality, and 6 = least important. Thus a supremely important quality would be rated across the board by all respondents as 1.0, and a wholly unimportant one at 6.0 – with gradations of choice signified by scores between these figures. The respondents’ scores were added for each item; the total score was then divided by the number of those responding to the item to give an average figure (this was because a few respondents had chosen not to check a handful of individual items; the number of respondents varied from 28 to 30). The average score was then used to rank order the individual items. In Table 8.5, an arbitrary dividing line has been drawn between items scoring between 1.0 and 1.99; those ranging from 2.0–2.5; those scoring above 2.5 up to 2.99; and those above 3.0. This helps to give a visual impression of how respondents rated the items for importance. One could hypothesize, on this basis, that items 1–11 in Table 8.5 make up the key profile of a tutor viewed by the respondents as an effective tutor. Clear and focused advice giving, a willingness to work on student drafts and effective advice on academic writing are paramount. An effective tutor would then be a good communicator, active in kick-starting studies at crucial moments, honest in their appraisal and rapid in response to queries. These qualities would be supported by an ability to bring about student progression, by careful preparation for tutorials, through professionalism and effective teaching. While, at the other end of the scale, only two items were viewed as being on the less-important end of the continuum, this was a marginal judgement. Nonetheless, it is instructive to look at these. Students did not feel that the

TUTORING AT THE POSTGRADUATE LEVEL

155

modesty of their tutors was a matter of concern; but nor did they think that the tutor’s publishing record was worthy of rating higher than last in this hierarchy of qualities. This last outcome runs entirely counter to government thinking. The emphasis on the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) imposed by government on universities over a number of years and now being converted to the Research Excellence Framework is one of – if not the major – quality assurance mechanism valued by politicians – yet it is least important to students. We shall return to the implications of this later. Surprising, too, is the fact that postgraduate students rated tutors’ experience, their proactive role in tutoring, their knowledge of the student’s own field, and their concern for learning styles, low in the hierarchy of valued qualities. These outcomes, too, need further exploration below. If phase 2 of the research found clues about student views of the qualities of effective tutors, then it also, through the use of personal anecdotes and critical incidents, expounded positive and negative views about the process of tutoring. We shall examine these under the three dimensions identified above in Table 8 .4.

DIMENSION 1: TEACHING AND ACADEMIC COMPETENCE The incidents recounted told in a generalized way about the value placed on the tutor’s knowledge by students: My tutor’s knowledge of the kinds of specialist texts that I needed to consider The tutor . . . was able to provide me with references The tutor was able to suggest a specific reference or research model I was inspired by the tutor’s knowledge of the subject and clarity of answers to questions

Other qualities were valued, too: the tutor being ‘well-prepared’ for the tutorial, ‘very patient’, having ‘a varied background and years of experience’, and the ‘ability to get straight to the root of the problem . . . I always knew that after a . . . tutorial I would be back on track’. Tutors who listened were valued; as were those who had written definitive texts in the field; and being able to contribute insights that lifted the student’s game was important. In distance courses and those involving email tutorials, the establishment of a good personal relationship with the tutor was important, and one respondent based overseas emphasized the need for some communication beyond the purely academic: ‘That is, pen sketches of the family, some instance of what they are doing etc. We have always compared temperature and the odd holiday.’ Not all tutors lived up to these standards. One tutee reported that the usual focus of tutorials was ‘the previous night’s television (programmes)’; advice was sometimes ‘confused and contradictory’; the student’s work ‘appeared not to have

156

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

been understood or read’ by the tutor before the session; and one respondent reported he/she had had only two tutorials in twelve months. Some incidents were worse, though: The focus of the first tutorial was the role of the supervisor . . . rather than a discussion about the research . . . In a subsequent tutorial I received feedback and comments on the written work . . . Comments such as ‘this is rubbish’ without any reasons or any focused guidance did not prove helpful or support the development of my work. When I did finally submit a piece (of work) it was deemed so unsuitable that it prompted a call from the programme leader. . .What ensued could only be described as an intense investigation, the result of which was the sacking of the tutor.

Some of the respondents had both negative and positive experiences, with the same or different tutors, during the course of their studies. Three brief examples of these are worth recounting: The inability of a visiting tutor, on my doctoral course, either to display a competence in his knowledge of the subject or as a teacher or as a leader of discussion, forced me, as student representative, to draw ‘the near and impending student revolt’ to the attention of a permanent member of staff. Only by his prompt reaction, in taking over the session and guiding it to a fruitful conclusion, was confidence restored in the academic standard of the course. The tutorial, with a new tutor, was focused on a discussion about the literature review for a doctoral thesis. Completion of the chapter had been problematic. . . I had had a number of tutors, none of whom had any real personal involvement of the research topic. After half an hour discussing the chapter, the tutor produced two of his own research papers specific to the subject of my research. The presentation of the papers had a significant impact on me personally as my confidence in what was being suggested to improve my writing improved considerably. My tutor had personal experience of my research area and importantly understood the complexity of what I was trying to say in my thesis. One of the main problems is inconsistency . . . Unfortunately, I also had the misfortune of having to work with a tutor that was weak. This was evident by inconsistencies in the tutor’s advice, everything was made to be of a complex, muddled nature and critiques of my work were always given in a very negative de-motivational manner. After gaining good grades in the seven units I had written before having this person as my tutor, I was advised that I did not know how to write and the tutor would look benevolently on me and have to take me back to basics. After being subject to this approach for two years, I went through a phase where I could just not write. I would write two paragraphs in one night and at the end delete all but one sentence. This approach rendered me virtually paralysed. Luckily for me, this tutor left and I found myself once again with good quality tutors. Immediately I was asked what had gone wrong with my writing . . . Within six months of having a quality tutor my EdD was completed and I was

TUTORING AT THE POSTGRADUATE LEVEL

157

graduating. I would therefore argue that it is indeed very important that students have good quality tutors.

DIMENSION 2: ISSUES RELATING TO GIVING TIME AND PROFESSIONALISM TO THE WORK The overwhelming number of respondents were positive about tutors’ time commitment and professionalism. On the first issue, typical comments included: ‘my tutor is always available . . . and gives me enough time’; ‘I get e-mailed notes of the tutorials and so I have advice readily . . . on my PC’; ‘advice and time . . . were very important in lifting my confidence’; ‘she took (my) draft on holiday and read it on the flight’; and a note that much appreciated was the ‘tutor’s willingness to see me early in the day (0800hrs)’. Several other positive points were made: tutors who used Skype; very rapid responses to email queries; no feeling of being rushed. Some tutors gave notice of forthcoming holidays or periods of unavailability so that students could better plan their own work. Commentary on work was often recorded as thorough, with detailed suggestions for improvement on issues from academic content to grammar. On the issue of professionalism one respondent noted that the tutor ‘went the journey with me’; another said that the tutor was ‘willing me to success’; and a third noted that he/she felt that ‘my work mattered and the tutor was genuinely interested in it and concerned for me’. One respondent told the story of how the tutor suggested that I should take recording equipment to the tutorial. The recording equipment was an excellent idea as I was able to concentrate on what the tutor said instead of making scarce notes. The tutorial wasn’t rushed and I felt that I had ample time to ask and confirm ideas until I was totally happy. In fact I felt guilty that I was taking up so much of my tutor’s valuable time. The tutor knew exactly where I had to be with regards to my assignment and he provided a vehicle for me to get there – it was a lambourghini with a full tank of petrol! I came away motivated and happy.

Among the negatives under this heading came cancelled tutorials (sometimes several times in succession), poor time management generally on the part of tutors, and failures to read draft material submitted in advance. Changes of supervisor were not always welcome, but when required it was felt students should be offered some say in the identity of the replacement. One respondent talked about tutorials as dependent on a ‘tick box list of criteria . . . a process for auditable purposes rather than a mechanism for dialogue and exchange’. One was short-changed over the length of tutorials (25 minutes rather than an hour) and angered by the tutor receiving a mobile phone call during this time. One respondent complained that the second supervisor had reneged on a responsibility to read and comment on the final thesis draft. Negative perceptions, though, tended

158

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

to relate to individual incidents while the positive experiences were propounded quite generally.

DIMENSION 3: MATTERS CONCERNING THE DYNAMICS OF THE TUTORING RELATIONSHIP Again, the respondents were substantially positive about the relations with their tutors. They were perceptive, for example, in picking up where tutors had a memory of their previous work and built on it. Most of the respondents were themselves in professional occupations, and they warmed to being treated as fellow-professionals. Words like ‘interest’, ‘respect’ and ‘enthusiasm’ featured as the roots of student–tutor relations; and so did ‘challenge’ and ‘constructive’ intellectual rigour. The understanding of the status of the respondents as adult students and part-time participants was important, too: ‘My tutor understands the pressures of being a part-time student but provides the necessary . . . support and guidance . . . inspires and helps generate the self-belief necessary.’ However, some tutorial experiences seem appalling: My first tutor made me feel very inadequate; I left several tutorials in tears because I was told submissions were inadequate but I did not understand why. On one occasion I travelled over 400 miles to a tutorial to find that my tutor had forgotten our appointment and gone to see a potential client about a research project 200 miles away.

There were other examples of poor practice: being asked to read ‘irrelevant’ material, being made to feel inferior, poor facilities (e.g. having tutorials in public spaces), lack of empathy with personal circumstances (such as sickness in the family) and being patronised. Even a bad experience can be compensated for, though: I enjoyed completing my MBA so greatly (all with good quality tutors) that I went back for more. However, the ghastly time I had with a poor quality tutor was horribly painful and affected me emotionally as well as being physically draining. [Nonetheless, the student records that he/she went on to doctoral studies]

What was interesting was that a number of respondents reported that tutors conducted tutorials ‘at home’ – very much as they did – and still do – in some collegiate universities. This was seen as a mark of trust as well as often being more convenient in terms of issues like parking and access. Certainly, respondents who had experienced tutorials from more than one tutor made comparisons, like the MA tutors described thus: I feel (in the one case) her openness and frankness is always tempered with kindness and mutual respect. However the other tutor gives me very clear indications that she finds me irritating and her tutorials are curt and cold.

TUTORING AT THE POSTGRADUATE LEVEL

159

Reflection In your experience, what factors are most important in the interpersonal relations that underpin tutorials?

SUMMARY OF THE TWO RESEARCH PHASES As indicated above, the first research phase was conducted by an in-depth semistructured questionnaire that set the agenda for the second. The second relied more heavily on critical incidents and a Likert survey from a larger sample of respondents. Altogether, 44 respondents contributed to the findings reported in this chapter, and the aim was to provide a viewpoint that reflected the ‘living voice’ of the postgraduate students. In the section that follows, we consider the extent to which the outcomes show a consistent view of what constitute effective tutorials and effective tutors; and we look at how these findings compare and contrast with the previous literature of postgraduate supervision, which has been gathered largely from a tutor’s perspective.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION This study began with two research questions: what, in the views of postgraduate students, constitutes effective tutoring, and what are the qualities that define a good tutor? This section draws together the threads of the answers and considers the import of these against existing literature and practice. Our total sample of respondents (n = 44) contributed to two phases of research and was drawn from current and recent students who spanned a range of postgraduate experience (semi-taught and research-only, part-time M-courses, professional doctorates and PhD); they provided us with detailed answers to a semi-structured questionnaire and wrote more than ninety accounts of critical incidents. They were all returning students who had not gone directly from undergraduate to (post) graduate studies. Reflection Having read the outcomes of this research, what would you predict to be the key messages that an aspiring postgraduate tutor should take away in order to guide him/her to improve their performance in this role? What questions does the research leave unanswered?

On the issue of effective tutoring, our phase 1 research suggested that distancelearning courses took little account of students’ preferred learning styles. One could infer that tutors need to be more flexible (and open to debate with students) about this, and be competent in a range of styles. Distance courses were often not supported adequately by host institutions in terms of their infrastructure, such

160

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

as access to literature; we can only speculate that support was available but not readily accessible. Nonetheless, these and other postgraduate experiences did provide the tools for students to learn how to write academic papers, student confidence was increased, the courses were career-related and, through tutorials, students were able to make links between practice and theory. Confidence may be raised on two quite separate levels. First, students might become more confident in their professional lives as a result of their studies; second, they may begin as diffident students and progress to a growing academic confidence – a process we discussed in Chapter 1. Another conclusion from these findings might be that tutorial by email is a specific skill that tutors need to learn in today’s electronic world, but that would be the subject of a different paper. In phase 2 the respondents were all education-based and, by definition, all held significant professional posts. High on their list of negative tutorial experiences were those that suggested their skills and status were undervalued. They abhorred cancelled tutorials, sloppy tutor preparation, intellectual arrogance and comments on their work that were purely formative and judgemental. They valued being ‘trusted’, and such privileges as being taught – where appropriate – in tutors’ homes. They were sensitive about changes in tutor allocation when this produced inconsistency of advice. On the positive side they valued tutorials that were firmly embedded in an empathetic relationship, which showed the experience of the tutor in the advice given, which rested on the tutor’s academic track record, and which were characterized by knowledge, relevance and the quality of being up-to-date in the field. Oddly, some of these open-ended comments contrasted with the Likert scale results (see Table 8.5) where these same respondents rated the tutor’s track record of publishing thirtieth in importance out of thirty items and as a mildly unimportant dimension to tutorial experience. This is a grand irony given the fact that one of the government’s preferred measures of university success and funding, through the RAE, has been staff publication. With respect to the second research question – what are the qualities of an effective tutor? – the phase 1 respondents were fairly clear about the positive characteristics. These included in particular: giving detailed feedback, pointing out useful sources, providing a challenging learning environment, and having a good understanding of the student’s field of study. They liked tutors who were themselves immersed in the topic under study and who were therefore enthusiastic and supportive. Among the other qualities they listed highly were that tutors should be well-published, honest in criticism, good communicators, quick to respond, and able to make effective working relations with them. The views of the phase 1 respondents were used to develop a Likert scale for use in phase 2. The responses to this provided a list of high-scoring qualities that, in terms of their perceived importance, only partially reflected the views of the phase 1 respondents. The top five qualities selected, in rank order, were: giving clear and focused advice, willingness to comment on drafts of work, able to advise on academic writing, good communication skills, active in providing start-up

TUTORING AT THE POSTGRADUATE LEVEL

161

activities at critical junctures. These were closely followed by: honesty, giving rapid responses to queries, able to progress the student, being well-prepared, professional in behaviour and a good teacher. It is reasonable to suggest that, taken together, the qualities identified in the research as a whole, do make up a picture of an effective postgraduate tutor. In assessing the import of the outcomes of this research it is necessary to be aware of some of its controlling characteristics. The sample was a mixed group of part-time M-course and doctoral students, and one might argue that each of these courses has its own specific characteristics – and thus, that it has its own appropriate tutorial systems and that its tutors’ qualities might differ from those in other courses. Likewise, the sample consisted of older professionals with essentially vocational aspirations, whose needs and views might differ from those of students proceeding directly from undergraduate to (post)graduate studies. Any generalization based on the findings needs to bear in mind these characteristics. Nonetheless, we suggest, the findings are valid for like contexts. The findings also resonate, but only in partial measure, with the literature cited earlier. Our respondents did regard relationships as the bedrock of successful tutorials, and would have recognized Park’s (2005) ‘secret garden’. To flourish, this garden needs professionalism, trust, honesty, rapid response and commitment to the topic, as well as a degree of personal warmth. There was less concern for the QAA’s (2000) confidence in ‘the process’, though it was implicit in the concern about consistency by tutors in the advice they gave, especially about learning the skill of academic writing. The hands-on/hands-off models propounded by Sinclair (2004) may relate better to the PhD student than to other types included in this research: our students were not well-disposed to the hands-off model. Similarly, Whitelock et al.’s (2008) concept of creative tutoring was not high on the student agenda: they had their work cut out keeping up with the grind of part-time study and full-time jobs. But there was hint of this in the wish for tutorials to be ‘challenging’; we suspect that they would have drawn a line short of Whitelock et al.’s risk taking. Student voice was a factor for our respondents, and Leonard et al.’ s (2006) view of this would have attracted their approbation. There was, though, a nod towards Li and Seale’s (2007) view that learning is a two-way process; this manifested itself in the fact that respondents wanted to match their learning style to the tutor’s teaching style and were keen to stay in regular touch. But more firmly, it is about the way relationships – academic and pastoral – develop: My tutor always made the effort to find out how I was and how things were progressing – work and study-wise . . . She would recount her experience at various stages of her career and reveal her own anxieties and difficulties – as a student in times before and as a woman in academia. She had a sense of humour, could be quite self-deprecating at points and had an insight into people and their emotions which I found really helpful. She modelled what she believed and this really gave her credibility in my eyes.

162

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

So, what has been learned? Probably, that there is no one answer or (to use the government’s favourite phrase) ‘best practice’; the tutorial process, like all learning, depends on a subtle blend of professionalism and empathy that is hard to define and pin down, and which is different in every case. Nonetheless, it has been possible to suggest something of the nature of that relationship (in terms of issues such as respect and trust), of the behaviours that characterize it (such as good time-keeping, rapid response, willingness to go the extra mile), and of the professionalism that underpins it (knowledge, competence and well-judged advice). More specifically, it has also been possible to map a cluster of tutor qualities; even though their relative significance is probably differently perceived within each student-tutor relationship. Certainly, the respondents have spelled out clear behaviours to avoid. They seem to be saying, too, that excellence as a lecturer may not equate with effectiveness as a tutor. Finally, the research raises questions that need further exploration. Among these must feature: issues of student choice when it comes to tutor allocation; the length of time that any student should be exposed to any particular tutor; ways in which learning style and teaching style might be matched; and the precise nature of the meaning of the postgraduate student as client. More directly, the research has questioned student perceptions of the value of tutors’ publishing records in indicating potential tutorial quality. But, as postgraduate students often discover, effective research may raise more questions than answers.

FURTHER READING European University Association (2007) Doctoral Programmes in Europe’s Universities: achievements and challenges Brussels: EUA. James, R. and Baldwin, G. (1999) Eleven Practices of Effective Postgraduate Supervisors Melbourne: University of Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Park, C. (2005) ‘The New Variant PhD: The changing nature of the doctorate in the UK’ Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management vol 27(2): 189–207.

REFERENCES Bassey, M. (1999) Case Study Research in Educational Settings, Buckingham: Open University Press. European University Association (2007) Doctoral Programmes in Europe’s Universities: achievements and challenges, Brussels: EUA. Fitzgerald, T. (2007) ‘Documents and documentary analysis: reading between the lines’, in Briggs, A. and Coleman, M. (2007) Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management, London: Sage, chapter 17, pp. 278–94. Frame, I. (2007) ‘The case for a professional doctorate research degree in the built environment’, Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Conference, Georgia Tech, Atlanta USA 6–7 September 2007. Gibbons, M. (1999) ‘Research and graduate students’, in Watts, N. (1999) The International Postgraduate: challenges to British higher education, London: UKCGE.

TUTORING AT THE POSTGRADUATE LEVEL

163

Harland, T and Plangger, G. (2004) ‘The postgraduate chameleon’, Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1): 73–86. James, R. and Baldwin, G. (1999) Eleven Practices of Effective Postgraduate Supervisors, Melbourne: University of Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Kerry, T. (2002) Providing Support: a review of local and national views on the deployment and development of support staff in schools, Lincoln: University of Lincoln, Papers in Leading and Learning. Leonard, D., Metcalfe, J., Becker, R., and Evans, J. (2006) Review of Literature on the Impact of Working Context and Support on the Postgraduate Research Student Learning Experience, York: Higher Education Academy. Li, Sarah and Seale, Clive (2007) ‘Managing criticism in PhD supervision: a qualitative case study’, Studies in Higher Education 32(4): 511–26. O’Brien, T. and Garner, P. (2001) Untold Stories: learning support assistants and their work, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Park, C. (2005) ‘The new variant PhD: the changing nature of the doctorate in the UK’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2): 189–207. Pring, R. (2000) Philosophy of Educational Research, London: Continuum. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2000) Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education: postgraduate research programmes, Gloucester: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Rodney, H. (2008) ‘Canadian workshop’, in Paper from the ID-E Berlin Conference ‘The Challenge of (Post)graduate Education’, 9 October 2008. Russell, T. (1997) ‘Teaching teachers: how I teach is the message’, in Loughran, J. and Russell, T. (eds) Teaching About Teaching: purpose, passion and pedagogy in teacher education, London: Falmer Press. Silverman, D. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research, London: Sage. Sinclair, M. (2004) The Pedagogy of ‘Good’ PhD Supervision: a national cross-disciplinary investigation of PhD supervision, Queensland: Faculty of Education and Creative Arts, Central Queensland University. Stake, R. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research, London: Sage. Whitelock, D., Faulkner, D. and Miell, D., (2008) ‘Promoting creativity in PhD supervision: tensions and dilemmas,’ Thinking Skills and Creativity 3(2): 143–53. Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research: design and methods, London: Sage.

This page intentionally left blank

9

Andragogy and Heutagogy in Postgraduate Work Chris Kenyon and Stewart Hase SUMMARY This chapter examines the application of heutagogy in postgraduate education. Heutagogy, defined as the study of self-determined learning (Hase and Kenyon 2000), is a relatively recent approach to understanding learning and is an extension of pedagogy and andragogy. One of the key underpinnings of heutagogy is that learning is a highly complex activity that needs to be understood as something more than simply acquiring skills and knowledge. Moreover, it holds that learning occurs when the learner is ready and not when teachers think it should happen: and it often occurs as a result of some experience that is out of control of the educator. The essence of heutagogy is that it focuses on the learner and what an individual seeks to learn, rather than on what a syllabus prescribes for learning. Lastly, heutagogy is concerned with the development of the capability to learn which requires: high self-efficacy; reflexivity; learning competencies that can be used in novel situations as well as the familiar; and positive values. Heutagogy can present a significant challenge to the learner, to the person who facilitates that learning (also known as the educator) and to the educational institution. It has implications for the design of the curriculum and syllabus, a transition for the educator (to that of mentor and facilitator), assessment, the active role of the student in his or her learning and access to resources. These challenges are discussed in the second part of the chapter.

INTRODUCTION Reflection What have you learned in your life that was really significant to you? What made that learning significant? What feelings did you have when the learning occurred? Would it be possible for all learning to have an element of satisfaction and self-interest?

Think of something that you learned in your life that really had an impact on you: it might have changed your direction or opened your eyes in some way. You possibly did not learn it in a classroom, and it might even have been an experience that was not particularly comfortable at the time. Most probably, you were learning about something you were interested in, something you wanted to find out about, to understand, and perhaps to then take your knowledge further. The feelings you experienced were most likely associated with having resolved something either consciously or unconsciously. In the case

166

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

of one of the authors, the learning need was to understand how postgraduate students from non-Western countries coped with life and learned in (what was for them) a non-traditional learning environment. The answers were not simply that students adapted to ‘culture shock’, but rather that a raft of changes took place within the brains of the students enabling them to learn effectively in a different environment. A well-received book describing the findings resulted, as did a lifelong passion for working with different cultures. For the other author, one of the most valuable learning experiences has been helping people change. However, he learnt that just because people knew what they had to do and even had the skills to do it, they did not necessarily change. This awareness that learning was more than knowledge and skills led to thinking about a different way of understanding how learning takes place and, ultimately, to heutagogy. Heutagogy and its application to learning processes was developed to counter the situation where education can be seen as a product. It is a product that is marketed on the basis that what is offered is what ‘students’ need to learn. It is marketed with the assumption that years of educational history provide assurance of the quality of the product provided, and it is marketed with the attraction that a degree from a particular institution can assist students in their careers. What struck us, was that there seems to have been a regression from providing a ‘rounded’ education, to one where competencies and clearly defined outcomes hold sway. We sensed a certain disquiet with a simplistic view of what constituted learning, when, what people were talking about was the acquisition of competence: that is, knowledge and skills. We were disappointed to work with students who had their degrees, but who were limited in terms of overall capability. Curricula seemed to constrain rather than expand the experience of the student. What was it that was needed, and how could students become more effective learners? The answer seemed to be to get students ‘hooked’ into their learning by offering them opportunities to learn things that they really wanted to learn. It also seemed to us that learning is a dynamic process in which the student is always, and rapidly, developing as they learn. This requires the educator to become less of a ‘teacher’ and to take up a more facilitative and mentoring role with the student as they evolve. Incidentally, for the purpose of consistency, we use the generic term ‘educator’ to cover the group of teachers, lecturers, and tutors. It is the sense of needing to learn, of gaining something that is meaningful to the individual, of finding the learning experience satisfying and even enjoyable, and of then being capable of undertaking further learning, that lie at the heart of heutagogy.

SOME ASSUMPTIONS AND BIASES DEFINING LEARNING

While heutagogy was not originally developed along theoretical lines, having been constructed to meet what was seen as a lack of learning challenge, the fact

ANDRAGOGY AND HEUTAGOGY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

167

that it fits well with established and accepted theories can perhaps be taken as indicative of its value. We will explore some of the key theories in this section. Heutagogy is defined as self-determined learning (Hase and Kenyon, 2000). At its very simplest this means that people learn when they are ready, not when educators think they should. Thus learning, the laying down and connection of complex neurological pathways in the brain, is not in the control of the environment or the educator. Moreover, when one pathway is created or, more likely, altered, the effect on the whole system may be quite profound. One of the key assumptions that underpins heutagogy is that learning is more than just the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Rather, it is an integrative process that goes beyond competency development. This integration occurs when the learner is ready rather than when the teaching timetable dictates and will usually happen as a result of meaningful experience. Perhaps an example relating to the theme of this book will help illustrate this idea. Quite frequently doctoral students will struggle with deciding on a research question on which to focus their thesis. Interestingly, they often start their candidature with quite a clear idea but as they delve into the literature they begin to struggle and become confused and frustrated. Then, suddenly, the student comes across something, a reading or perhaps a discussion with colleagues or supervisor that turns confusion into clarity: the connection is made. Learning has occurred, but it has not been a planned event. Reflection Think of a time in your life when you suddenly learned something. Think about the level of motivation you had to get the answer, to integrate a whole lot of ideas into something that made sense. What did you need when you felt overwhelmed and lost in understanding something?

Hence, learning is a dynamic process that occurs as a result of new neuronal connections being made in the brain. Greenfield (2000) and Doidge (2007) have written extensively about the neuroplasticity of the brain. The billions of neurons we have in our brains have millions of well-established pathways, and these pathways enable us to do many things without having to ‘think’ about what we are doing. As you read these words, your brain assesses the meaning and significance, and relates the information to what you already know or have experienced. Learning occurs when new connections are made. That process is clearly beneficial. What is not so beneficial is when the established pathways become so overused that they fatigue and break down. Doidge explains that one of the problems of the ageing brain is that if it is not used to having to think differently, if it is not in some way challenged, then it is more prone to failure. However, brains that are used to learning new skills and gaining new ideas tend to be far more resilient; the neural pathways are more numerous, and have more connections. It is this development of a learning capability that makes the

168

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

brain far more likely to operate effectively over a lifetime, rather than deteriorating with age. Heutagogy stresses the need to develop the capability to learn in students, a capability that will serve them well not only while they are learning formally, but in the rest of their lives where they will continue to learn. The anecdotal evidence from students is that adopting a heutagogical approach to their learning has enabled them to continue learning. This way of seeing learning as an integral approach to life has enabled them to succeed in their various endeavours. COMPLEXITY THEORY AND OPEN SYSTEMS THINKING

In our view, one of the problems in modern education is a general failure to understand the environment in which learning is taking place. If we were to write a modern history of the advancement of scientific thinking we would see the dominance of modernism, the rise and recent fall of postmodernism and the current shift towards complexity theory. We are not making a case for the dominance of one view over another, unlike the battles that have been waged between the proponents of postmodernism and those who subscribe to modernist views. However, we think that complexity theory and systems thinking provide a much more complete explanation of how social systems function. In brief, complexity theory suggests that: events are so interdependent that being able to predict likely future happenings is impossible; learning is emergent and a natural, adaptive phenomenon in systems and occurs when they are under stress; similar events may not cause the same outcomes; and small things may create large consequences and big things may have small consequences (Phelps et al. 2005; Hase and Kenyon 2007). Complexity theory provides a useful framework for exploring the notion of self-determined learning and the interested reader may want to read more widely on the topic (e.g. Davis, Sumara and Luce-Kapler 2000; Waldrop 1992). Systems thinking (Emery and Trist 1965; Emery 1993) is based on General Systems Theory (Bertalanffy 1956). The key principles of systems thinking are that: social systems are affected by and adapt to their environment; they also affect their environment in a dynamic relationship; open systems monitor and respond to their environment while closed systems fail to do this and therefore are maladaptive; environments are different in their causal texture – that is, they can exert more or less influence on the system but this is open to change at a moment’s notice; all the parts of a system need to be in a position to react to the environment; and, thus, these parts need to be informed and empowered. There is a nexus between heutagogy and the broader domain of complexity theory and systems thinking in the way in which learning and the environment in which it occurs are understood. Notions of control and predictability are challenged with major consequences for how we view learning and the process of education. A brief example of the implications of this for education might help. Most curricula are linear, predictable and inflexible. They assume that people will

ANDRAGOGY AND HEUTAGOGY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

169

acquire skills and knowledge in a more or less stable fashion and complete an assessment at the end that proves that acquisition has taken place. Since Bloom’s Taxonomy we see more complex activities being included, particularly in postgraduate studies, such as analysis and synthesis, but these are still skillbased. Rarely, in our experience, do curricula allow for the complexity of the learning process as defined by heutagogy. To do this, curricula and assessment would need to be flexible and open to change based on the learning of the student. To cater for learning as defined in heutagogy the student becomes a partner in the learning experience and the word teacher disappears from our vocabulary. CAPABILITY

Thus, another tenet of heutagogy is that our educational systems need to develop people who are ready to manage the complex world of rapid change and adaptation. There is no doubt that competence (knowledge and skills) is vital, but more important is the notion of capability. Here we are drawing strongly on the work of John Stephenson and colleagues who defined the idea of being capable in the 1990s in the UK (e.g. Stephenson 1996; Stephenson and Weil 1992) and later in Australia (e.g. Cairns 1996; Hase and Davis 1999; Phelps et al. 2005). In short, capable people have high self-efficacy, can use their competencies in novel situations as well as the familiar, work well in teams, know how to learn and have appropriate values. We consider the idea of capability development to be a significant progression from the now long-standing drive towards gaining competencies (Hase and Kenyon, 2003). The competency movement garnered support because it provided a means for measuring the knowledge and skills people needed to have, whether to earn a degree, to hold a particular job, or to be promoted. The competencies required are defined, and then the student or job candidate is assessed as whether they have been attained. And that is fine in a world where little changes, where the environment is predictable: you can set standards and assess against them. But in reality, our world is one of constant change, and merely addressing competencies is inadequate. Critical to managing a complex environment is the ability to know how to learn. EMOTION AND LEARNING

There is more. For the majority of students, experiencing the heutagogical approach has been the ‘switch’ that turned on their enthusiasm, their love for learning, their joy in their area of interest. It is most likely that this creation of a positive emotional experience is what creates the strongest and most long-lasting effect of a learning moment. This positive experience leads to an increase in self-efficacy for learning so that the person feels confident that they can access the resources they need to fill learning gaps. As a result students continue to

170

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

learn, and search out learning opportunities, long after they have graduated from university. Another factor in a heutagogical approach to learning is that learners are fully engaged in the topic they are studying because they are making choices that are most relevant or interesting to them. While the approach has been around for less than a decade, it has found considerable support around the world for two reasons. First, it provides students with appropriate learning by recognizing the moment-to-moment changes that may occur in the learner’s needs. Secondly, it provides them with the capability of knowing how to learn. It is this latter aspect of the approach that appears to be most important in an age where continuous learning is a fundamental need; moreover, such learning offers great attraction to many postgraduate students. One of the challenges in using this approach is that educators need to adopt a more facilitative role rather than be fonts of knowledge: this change may sometimes be difficult. However, for those educators who enjoy increasing their own knowledge and experience, the approach has proved very rewarding. CONSTRUCTIVISM

Finally, the development of heutagogy has been heavily influenced by constructivism (e.g. Bruner 1960; Dewey 1933, 1938; Piaget 1973; Vygotsky 1978; and also Paulo Freire (1972, 1995). Constructivism’s basic tenet is that people construct their own understanding of the world based on their experience and by linking this to previous knowledge, thoughts and experience. Like complexity theory, constructivism promotes the need to understand ‘wholes’ rather than just the parts, because a whole is not just the sum of its parts but something much richer. The idea of the flexible curriculum has its origin in constructivism by stressing that the curriculum needs to consider the student’s prior knowledge. We take this concept a little further by considering the way in which the student’s learning is altered while the curriculum is being delivered. Constructivism also views the student as an active participant in the education experience rather than as a passive recipient of knowledge and skills. That is, the student is always constructing meaning and it is this construction we need to tap in order to engage and promote learning. Constructivism also suggests that assessment needs to be part of the student’s learning experience so that they can judge their own progress. Heutagogy takes this idea a lot further by treating learning as an even more dynamic process and differentiating it from the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Freire borrowed strongly from the early constructivists such as Socrates, Rousseau and Dewey. While he was mostly concerned, broadly speaking, with social justice and the role of informal education, he had a great deal to say about situational education; tapping into the lived experience of the learner. He was also interested in the role of dialogue in education as a counterpoint to curricula. Building on the ideas of Rousseau and Dewey, Freire criticized mainstream education by referring to the ‘banking concept’ in which the student was seen

ANDRAGOGY AND HEUTAGOGY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

171

as an empty account to be filled by the educator. Furthermore, he criticized the power relationship between educator and student and preferred, instead, the notion of reciprocity. These concepts resonate strongly with some of the practical implications of heutagogy, which are explored below.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PEDAGOGY, ANDRAGOGY AND HEUTAGOGY It is important to recognize that heutagogy is an extension of rather than a replacement for pedagogy and andragogy (Hase and Kenyon, 2000). Andragogy (Knowles 1970, 1975) refers to adult learning that is essentially self-directed. It calls for an emphasis on educational process rather than content, where the curriculum needs to be given relevance, modes of teaching promote discovery and the different backgrounds of students are recognized in designing teaching experiences. Knowles (1970) made the distinction between pedagogy, traditional didactic teaching, and andragogy to make a case for the inappropriateness of pedagogical approaches in teaching adults. Pedagogy sees the learner as dependent on the educator who decides what, where and when the student will learn. The evidence so far is that people shift between these three learning styles depending on their level of development or sophistication. For example, Tay and Hase (2004) found that PhD students moved through learning in pedagogical and then andragogical styles before shifting into heutagogical learning style. Initially a candidate may struggle to understand the process of the PhD and their topic, may spend a lot of time acquiring knowledge and skills and become largely dependent on their supervisor. As they mature in the process they start applying their previous learning and experience to their research and, hence, are in an andragogical stage. Finally, the candidate takes control and demonstrates the features of heutagogy. So it is important to understand that obtaining knowledge and skills is essential to managing the world around us and a critical component to learning. However, learning is an extension to competence.

APPLICATIONS OF HEUTAGOGY TO POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION APPROVAL TO USE THE APPROACH

Most educational programmes in postgraduate education rely on a curriculum and, more importantly, a syllabus. This is usually approved by some version of an academic board and has prescribed aims, objectives, content and assessment. Since learning, in heutagogy, is seen as a dynamic process in which new learning can have extensive implications for the individual, the curriculum needs to be extremely flexible. More importantly, it needs to be open to ongoing negotiation between the learner and the educator. So, because this process is vastly different

172

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

from established methods, the use of a heutagogical approach will need to be approved by a departmental head or perhaps an academic board. This requires the board to think and act in a rather non-traditional way. However, if the university empowers its teaching staff to deliver courses in whatever way they consider suitable, and that the only requirement for assessment is that it be carried out formally, then perhaps no higher approval need be sought. If approval needs to be sought, then it would be appropriate to indicate that the approach may not be the only one used in a particular unit or course – there should always be an opportunity for more traditional approaches. TEACHING STAFF

Heutagogy certainly requires more commitment from the educator than does a conventional approach to learning. Educators take on more of the role of facilitator or mentor using this approach so that they can continually be evaluating what the needs of the student might be. Staff need to be really positive about the approach, otherwise they are not going to convince students of the value of trying something new. Staff should have a desire to try something different, and should feel challenged by the prospect of working with students (rather than having the students working for staff ). The educators need to be confident with strong self-efficacy and have plenty of resources at their disposal to work with the quickly developing and changing students. Finally, staff must genuinely enjoy their own learning, and recognize that they can learn in many different ways – including from students. Teaching staff who are comfortable with their piles of lesson or lecture notes, and know their subject inside out, are possibly not going to embrace heutagogy. GIVING STUDENTS A CHOICE

Choice for the student is an important element in heutagogy, given that the learning is self-determined. While choice will pervade most aspects of how and what a student learns (within the boundaries of the course), the most important area of flexibility is the assessment. Good assessments are designed to get the student to interact with the knowledge and skills they present. Using a heutagogical approach adds another dimension by making the assessment relevant to the learning of each individual student. Students have a range of personalities, different skills, varying degrees of self-efficacy for learning, and different learning styles. Some students may baulk at the idea of having to think, considerably, for themselves if a heutagogical approach is proposed for a particular process or assessment. On the other hand, there are some students who will leap at the idea of learning about something that they are greatly interested in or really passionate about. This is particularly true for those who clearly have gone beyond the pedagogical and andragogical stages in their learning for a particular course. There is a choice: yes, they can come to classes and write an assignment or sit a final exam; or, they can choose

ANDRAGOGY AND HEUTAGOGY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

173

a topic and process that they are deeply interested in, attend classes they think are relevant to their needs and, during the course of the term or semester, go off and learn what is important to them. Or there might be the flexibility for a hybrid approach. Again this is where the mentoring and facilitative role of the educator becomes important. Students clearly need information about the approach before they decide whether or not it presents an attractive option for them. a. The subject that they wish to explore obviously has to be related to the aims of the course or topic that is being studied. It’s no good proposing ‘A review of societal change in nineteenth century China’, if the course unit is listed as ‘Strategic Management’. Something that ties in with the unit is needed, and students may need time to come up with their first ideas as to what they would like to tackle. b. The proposed area for learning should be achievable in the time available. Students will need some guidance on how much time they should plan on devoting to their topic: perhaps 80 hours over ten weeks, maybe more, maybe less. ‘The development of bridge building techniques since 1850’ would probably be outside the realms of what can be achieved in such a timeframe, but ‘European railway bridge design since 1945’ would perhaps be more achievable. In our experience, students have often become so involved in their particular studies that they have spent much more time than planned on them – and they are often oblivious to this fact because they are enjoying the work. c. The subject chosen by the student must be at a level that is appropriate for the course of study they are taking. ‘An investigation of children’s games’ may be a little simple for someone studying sociology at a master’s level, and ‘Analysis of European national economies pre and post the introduction of a common currency’ might perhaps be too much of a challenge for first-year postgraduate student. Appropriateness is the key, and, if necessary, this may be developed during the next step of the implementation of the approach. d. There is usually a requirement for some form of assessment in order to establish that a specific level of learning has been achieved during a course. The form of assessment for a student project is open to negotiation between the student and the educator. The four most common approaches (and more than one can be used if so desired) are: a written report; a presentation to a cohort group (with the educator present); a presentation to cohorts but with an independent assessor present; and a presentation to a school or faculty board. e. There may be some students, even at a postgraduate level, who do not want this sort of flexibility and who will focus more on the knowledge and skills being presented in the formal course. This needs to be acknowledged. However, contract learning for at least part of the course is one way of enhancing the self-determined nature of learning and moving the student towards being a more independent learner.

174

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

DISCOVERY One of the educator’s main responsibilities is to set up a process by which students can regularly meet with them (even online), and possibly with student colleagues, to discuss progress and learning needs. Students are provided with an ongoing opportunity to reflect on their individual state of learning. The student is encouraged to think about what questions are important, what is exciting, where their gaps in understanding might be, what is confusing, what they would like to know more about and what has meaning for them. This leads to a very different format for designing a class or synchronous and asynchronous online learning experiences. It is more student-focused than educator-focused and is concerned with discovery for at least part of the time. It is the educator’s main job to provide resources and to facilitate rather than to ‘teach’. Students are asked to design a draft programme for the learning they will undertake, indicating what approaches are going to be used, how long everything will take, what resources will be needed and what the suggested method of assessment might be.

AGREEMENT At an early meeting the approaches that are going to be used are agreed on (for example, action research may be feasible if the student is familiar with this approach). Then there is agreement on the time commitment for the study. For example, a minimum of 100-hours work over eight weeks might be a reasonable commitment, but more may be required, particularly if the project is to be the only assessable item for a given course. It is also possible to have more than one student undertake a project of particular joint interest. In this case, the students must understand that they will be expected to contribute equally to the project and will be assessed on that basis. Experience suggests that it is hard for two or more students to sustain interest in a project that is probably the dominant interest of the group ‘leader’, and hence restricting the project to individual students may be the preferred approach. Next, the proposed plan for the project is looked at and its achievability discussed. Students generally underestimate the time it will take them to complete their projects. Input from an experienced educator is important, not only in terms of providing guidance on the timing and the methodologies that could be used, but in challenging a student to look at what may be the more important and unit-relevant aspects of their project. Finally, there needs to be agreement on what the final assessment should consist of. It is appropriate to discuss with a student how they see their work developing, and what sort of outcomes it may lead to. Is an in-depth report with a fairly narrow focus likely, or will there be a number of findings? Is it sufficient to just report, or would there be benefit in bringing the findings to the attention of a wider audience? Will the findings need some ‘selling’ if there is to be some follow-up action? What are the student’s individual skills, and how would they

ANDRAGOGY AND HEUTAGOGY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

175

best perform – should they write or should they present? At this early stage of the project, going for agreement on what is the simplest way of meeting the needs of the student and of academic requirements is perhaps the best. Student and educator should sign off on some form of agreement so that there is now a defined goal for the project.

REVIEW The plan for each student project will include provision for review sessions, once a fortnight for example. During a review session student and educator share information as to the progress of the project, possible new areas to look at and any reigning in of ideas that is needed to keep the project on track. The educator’s role is to encourage and advise so that the student’s enthusiasm is maintained, while at the same time ensuring that the project is on track to achieving its aims within the required timeframes. Students often get so enthused with their project that they start gathering ever-increasing masses of information; much of it, while interesting, is not necessarily highly relevant, and they then find themselves unable to decide how to reach their goal. Again, the educator’s experience should enable them to judge what the student needs and, consequently, to provide suitable guidance.

ASSESSMENT The final assessment will be in the previously agreed format. However, if the project has been particularly successful, and the student agrees to such action, then a final report may also be passed to other interested staff and students (for their interest, not for assessment). And if there is a presentation, then again, interested staff or students may be invited to listen, or enter a discussion online. This increase in audience for the student’s written or spoken word needs to be handled carefully so that the student sees it as a recognition of the (high) quality of their work, and not as an intimidating factor which impacts adversely on their final performance.

FEEDBACK While students receive feedback on their performance as part of the assessment process, a subsequent informal feedback session can be desirable. During this session, student and educator discuss the project, in particular any significant stages or achievements. The student may be asked to describe what they consider to be the most important things they have learned (relating to the subject), and what other learning has taken place. Many students report that the most important thing they have learned is how to become more capable learners. They might also volunteer information as to whether they have acquired or extended their skills as a result of the study. Again, it is not unusual to find students relating

176

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

how persistence in searching for information or experiences can be difficult but ultimately rewarding. To conclude the debriefing session, the educator might provide any feedback that was not given in the formal assessment, and indicate what have been the benefits of his or her involvement in this approach to learning. Reflection Heutagogy requires a greater level of interaction with students than is found in more traditional approaches to education. It also requires educators who are willing not only to provide time for discussions with learners, but who are also prepared to move outside their comfort zones and acknowledge that they too may be learning. Are there other challenges with this approach? If so, what are they and how can they be tackled?

THE FUTURE This chapter has attempted to provoke your thinking about how people learn and what we, as educators, can do to more realistically align what we do with what happens in peoples’ brains. This is not to say that there is no need to use pedagogical and andragogical approaches in designing curricula in enabling skill and knowledge acquisition. However, as we learn more about how the human brain works and, more specifically, how learning takes place and its relationship to emotions that underpin motivation, we are certain that education will be transformed. At the moment the future is being defined by the internet; instant information exchange and communication that can occur at any time and anywhere; rapid change in technology; and the emancipation of knowledge from the academy. We believe that heutagogy provides a contemporary view of learning consistent with the needs of learners in this environment. Moreover, it provides an opportunity to think carefully about processes and structures in an education system that might still be somewhat reliant on the past. And a great opportunity to look to the future.

FURTHER READING This is the first book to contain a detailed explanation of the development and application of heutagogy. Entering ‘heutagogy’ in the search field of your favourite search engine will reveal hundreds of articles on the use of this approach in learning. Eberrle, J. and Chidress, M. (2007). Heutagogy: It isn’t your mother’s pedagogy any more. National Science Association. Available at www.nssa.us/journals/2007-28-1/2007-28-1-04.htm

ANDRAGOGY AND HEUTAGOGY IN POSTGRADUATE WORK

177

Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity, 41, 111–18. Available at www.complexityandeducation.ualberta.ca/COMPLICITY4/ Complicity4_TOC.htm.

REFERENCES Bertalanffy, L. von (1956). General systems theory. General Systems, Vol. 1: 1–10. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cairns, L. (1996). Capability: going beyond competence. Capability, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 80–3. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (revised edn). Boston: D. C. Heath. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books (Collier edition first published 1963). Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself. New York: Penguin. Emery, Fred E. and Trist, Eric L. (1965). The causal texture of organisational environments. Human Relations, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 21–32. Emery, Merrelyn (1993). Participative design for participative democracy. Canberra: Center for Continuing Education, Australian National University. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Freire, P. (1995). Pedagogy of hope: reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Greenfield, S. (2000). The private life of the brain. London: Penguin. Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy, Ultibase. Available at: http:// ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2.htm. Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2003). Heutagogy and developing capable people and capable workplaces: strategies for dealing with complexity, in Proceedings of the changing face of work and learning conference, Alberta, 25–27 September. Available at: www.wln.ualberta.ca/ events_con03_proc.htm Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: a child of complexity theory. Complicity, Vol. 41, pp. 111–18. Available at: www.complexityandeducation.ualberta.ca/COMPLICITY4/ Complicity4_TOC.htm Hase, S. and Davis, L. (1999). From competence to capability: the implications for human resource development and management. Paper presented at the Association of International Management, 17th Annual Conference, San Diego, August. Knowles, M. S. (1970). Modern practice of adult education: andragogy versus pedagogy. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company, Association Press. Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning. New York: Association Press. Phelps, R., Hase, S. and Ellis, A. (2005). Competency, capability, complexity and computers: exploring a new model for conceptualising end-user computer education. British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 36., No. 1, pp. 67–85. Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. New York: Grossman. Stephenson, J. (1996). Beyond competence to capability and the learning society. Capability, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 60–2. Stephenson, J. and Weil, S. (1992). Quality in learning: a capability approach in higher education. London: Kogan Page. Tay, B. H. and Hase, S. (2004). Role of action research in workplace PhDs. Research in Action Learning and Action Research Journal (ALAR). Vol. 9, No. 1, 81–92. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

This page intentionally left blank

10

Academic Apprenticeship Tony Harland and Jon Scaife SUMMARY In 1996 the University of Sheffield introduced the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PCHE). This course is a two-year part-time programme in university teaching for PhD students. It is completed at the same time as the student’s PhD. The concept underpinning the PCHE is that of the ‘academic apprentice’. Postgraduates who wish to pursue an academic career serve a type of apprenticeship and gain qualifications in both research and teaching before they take up their first lecturing post. The PCHE has operated for 12 years but remains unique in the world of higher education and, as far as we can ascertain, the idea has not been adopted by any other institution. In this chapter we revisit the concept of the academic apprentice, explore some reasons why it has been successful and then ask why it has not been taken up elsewhere. Possible explanations are that the idea is simply not widely known or, more likely, that it is not convincing enough to encourage the academic community to make major changes. If the second interpretation is correct, then recent tightening of neoliberal reform measures, particularly with respect to PhD completion times and the value placed on research activity, are also likely to contribute to resistance towards the idea of the academic apprentice.

INTRODUCTION The University of Sheffield, UK, introduced the Postgraduate Certificate of Higher Education (PCHE) in 1996 as a new concept for learning about academic practice. It was argued that a PhD is not sufficient preparation for university work and that a new lecturer should be prepared for roles in both research and teaching. The PCHE is seen as having some equivalence to the preparation that a high school teacher receives but, in the context of university work, it is integrated with traditional disciplinary research training. The three-year PCHE/PhD programme forms an academic apprenticeship for the university lecturer and students graduate with a certificate in teaching and a doctorate. The logistics for this are straightforward. Students at Sheffield are allowed up to six hours per week for other activities during their PhD and this time and their teaching are harnessed for two years for the PCHE course. Students attend workshops and tutorials and take part in the supervision of teaching. At the same time, they become inquirers into their practices and carry out research into higher education (Harland 2001). The academic apprenticeship model provides an alternative to the situation we find today across most universities. New lecturers, especially those who are also

180

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

new to teaching, are provided with professional development opportunities, such as workshops or part-time teaching courses. These courses either are recognized by institutions with certificates of participation, or they are full postgraduate academic programmes at certificate, diploma or master’s levels. They may also be recognized by accrediting bodies such as the UK’s Higher Education Academy (HEA). The HEA currently accredits 256 programmes, including Sheffield’s PCHE. We believe that 255 of these programmes are primarily aimed at university lecturers and that none is pre-service or combines disciplinary research training with teacher education. Courses in the UK tend to be aligned with the UK Professional Standards Framework for Teaching and Supporting Learning in Higher Education (UK PSF). In New Zealand (NZ), professional development in universities is still the privilege of individual institutions and not all universities have advanced courses in university teaching although all academics have access to a NZ distance-learning programme. There are benefits to any professional learning, but limitations when teaching programmes are provided for new lecturers and it has been suggested that the first year of a new post may not be the optimum place for these (Knight 2006). One key problem is the pressure that academics face as they work to establish themselves in both research and teaching, leaving no time for additional courses (Hanbury et al. 2008). Because the more advanced postgraduate programmes take a large amount of time to complete, they often attract those who might be seen as being on the ‘fringes’ of the main teaching group, including, for example, part-time workers, contract staff, professionals without a research background and staff with limited teaching opportunities, such as librarians. However, if a course is accessed at a later stage and targeted at those with more experience, there is a risk that some academics may have already developed negative attitudes towards teaching or learning to teach (Gibbs and Coffey 2004). Furthermore, new academics work alongside established colleagues who they see as having become competent teachers without any formal teacher education. The PCHE academic apprentice does not experience these limitations and has many advantages over in-service professional courses (Harland 2001). The authors of this chapter worked on the original conception of the PCHE in 1995 and 1996. In 2000, Tony Harland left Sheffield for the University of Otago, NZ, while Jon Scaife continues to direct the PCHE. The following account examines the values underpinning the PCHE and the attempts made to disseminate the idea to a broader academic audience. We have structured our inquiry as a reciprocal interview between the two authors. To start, Tony asks Jon to reflect on his recent experiences of the PCHE: I am surprised that the original concept of the PCHE remains intact and unchanged after all these years. The course has changed little since we started it back in 1996. I did some checking of our records and found that in 12 graduations we have had 185 students pass through. Many have taken their places in academic institutions around the world

ACADEMIC APPRENTICESHIP

181

including in the UK, NZ, Hong Kong, India, Egypt, Spain, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Brazil, the USA, the Republic of South Africa, China and Columbia. We still get strong support from the University and certain departments regularly encourage their students to do the PCHE because they see the benefits to teaching and professional learning. These departments include Animal and Plant Science, Architecture, Education, Engineering, Law, Music, Politics, Psychology and Town and Regional Planning. We do attract students from a wide range of disciplines and word gets round from students who have completed the programme. How do you feel about the idea that many students leave Sheffield after graduating? It does seem that Sheffield is investing in other universities’ staff. But on the other hand, the students’ home department gains while the student is there and a number have stayed on in academic posts. I counted 20 from the first eight cohorts. I would point out that many students who just do their PhD, without the PCHE, also take up posts elsewhere and join an international research community in their discipline. Established lecturers are fairly mobile anyway. I think it is about contributing to broader academic communities as well as providing something for Sheffield. We have good evidence that the PCHE helps students get their first job and we know that their knowledge and experience of teaching attracts attention at interview. What do you think the current strengths of the programme are? There are two key strengths in the way we work with the academic apprentice idea. First, constructivism is the unifying knowledge framework: if one takes a constructivist perspective then learning becomes recognized as a central component of teaching – a point made clearly by Heidegger (1968). This is a position that is espoused in the PCHE course and it is significant because it begins to connect the often-separated processes of teaching and researching; from a constructivist perspective the teacher and the researcher share a common commitment to learning. The idea is that learning to teach and learning to research are similar activities, that inquiry binds everything and that no ‘transfer of learning’ is necessary because the whole of the students’ practice is the course. As they teach they are learners, as they research they are learners. Reflection From a constructivist viewpoint, teachers are learners, trying to learn about their students’ learning and adjusting their teaching accordingly. To what extent would you say that this represents your teaching?

The second point is that reflexivity is important, specifically the opportunity provided in the course to enact attempts at reflexive pedagogy. The course participants – tutors and students – are encouraged to subject the course processes and

182

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

contents, and their own contributions to both, to continuing critical evaluation. By studying the world that we are experiencing and learning in, we are creating knowledge. I see you still use classroom supervision. Supervision of students is an integrating practice for learning and development. We rejected the common term ‘teacher observation’ early on and use ‘supervision’ because of the relationship we seek between partners in the exercise and because there are options to take part without actually being ‘observed’ by anyone. I think we have avoided the power differences that can be felt when a more experienced teacher sits in judgement over another or acts as gatekeeper to a professional qualification. We do this through repeated supervision experiences between tutors and students and between peers, and also because students can supervise a tutor. A particularly useful strategy, if parties are agreeable, is for supervision to take place with both a tutor and a peer supervising. In the debrief, both the supervisee and the student supervisor can learn from the tutor supervisor about using supervision for development. I think there is an underpinning value that supervision can, and should, be a source of learning for both the supervisee and the supervisor. Each student may be a supervisee or supervisor up to nine times during the programme, and because each event can take more than three hours it is expensive. However, it ensures the PCHE has an individual focus and develops a new skill for the student who will one day go on to supervise their own research students and mentor other teachers. In course evaluations, students have repeatedly identified supervision as a significant source of their learning. When I taught on the programme, working with students in their classrooms gave me confidence that they were learning about teaching and also that they were making a difference to their own students’ learning. I agree. Teaching certificate courses are often criticized because the evidence for any improved teaching is hard to obtain. It is also nigh on impossible to show a relationship between the student teacher’s learning, their teaching and improvements in their students’ learning. Supervision is about the only method I know that addresses this complex learning connection because you can see ideas and changes being brought into the class that you can discuss with the teacher, and then you can talk to the students about their new learning experiences. Reflection Supervision of teaching is time consuming and expensive. If time were tight would it be the first course component you would drop?

You mentioned that research and teaching are complementary activities. Do you still have students publishing in peer-reviewed journals? Yes, they still do a research project each year and are capable of the highest

ACADEMIC APPRENTICESHIP

183

standards of research into higher education. We have a good record of getting work into international journals1 and in this sense there is a link between writing up a PCHE research project and learning to write a thesis. We also have some evaluation evidence to suggest that learning to be an inquirer on the PCHE benefits disciplinary research inquiry. Do you think the pre-service apprentice has advantages over learning to teach after you have taken up a job? Early career could also be seen as a form of apprenticeship but not all lecturers want to take part in teaching programmes and there is something about the nature of the PhD student as a receptive learner. There is an issue of perceived incompatibility between the role of student, or ‘trainee’, on a programme and the self-image of a professional academic. This tacit tension reflects a historical distinction between knowers and learners: to be a knower is to be better, more powerful, more worthy of respect than to be a learner. We also operate in a unique space where the PhD student-teacher has the freedom to experiment with teaching and the freedom to research in any area of teaching practice or higher education that interests them. In a practical sense, students compete for a place and are highly motivated to learn and succeed. They are all at the same stage in their PhD with similar amounts of teaching experience, which makes teaching these students different from teaching in the programmes designed for lecturers. Courses for lecturers typically require us to teach colleagues from diverse backgrounds and experiences, and with different motivations for being there in the first place. [Jon now explores with Tony the contemporary context of education for university teachers and in particular how the PCHE concept attempts to deal with the relationship between research and teaching. He then explores why the idea of the academic apprentice has not gained acceptance in the academic community.] When you went to Otago you tried to get the apprentice idea out to a wider audience. I have spent some time doing this, both in the UK and NZ, and in other countries including Canada and Malaysia. I also know that it has received some serious attention at senior management level at three universities but so far it has not been adopted. I am certain that the academic apprentice concept is still not well known although I was quite hopeful of generating wider debate when I published a paper about the course in the Journal of Education for Teaching (Harland 2001). As far as I can ascertain, no other researchers have cited this article so I feel as if the idea fell into a black hole. How has the idea been received by the different audiences? It has been received with interest and much agreement, but always with the proviso that ‘it would never work in my university’. There has been one spin off

184

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

that I know about and in a NZ university they introduced new postgraduate teacher-training workshops for the first time after using the PCHE apprentice in arguments for change. However, as far as I know, no one has embraced the concept in its entirety. What stops it from being embraced? I think that the apprentice concept is either largely irrelevant to mainstream practice or the idea is not compelling enough. The movement across Western universities has been to have teaching courses for new lecturers and while this change is still in its infancy, there is not the will to embrace alternatives. I would suggest that those who are advocates for training lecturers, or have a responsibility for this task, are relatively happy with progress so far and have ambitions for expanding current provision, rather than looking for alternatives. So would you replace teacher education for new lecturers with an academic apprenticeship? No, not at all. I think that the PCHE/PhD programme is only suitable for students who are highly motivated to become university lecturers. There will be many who make this decision later and we need to cater for them too. Also, not all the PCHE academic apprentices go on into academia and it could be seen as a waste. At least when they are already in a post, academics are more likely to stay. It’s just that I believe the best time to prepare students for academic life is before they get there. This argument is accepted for teachers in schools and for other professions, such as medicine. University lecturing may well be the last profession in which you can start to practise without having any experience or training whatsoever. In the past, when university lecturers did just ‘lecture’ to small numbers of highly selected students, such a position could possibly be defended. Now, with a radically different student demographic, wider and deeper pedagogic knowledge is called for and such knowledge is unlikely to be learnt informally. Of course lecturers can learn from past experiences and by their mistakes through a trial and error process, but what effect does this have on students’ education – especially those who meet the lecturer early on in this process? Students have every right to expect quality teaching from day one. Academics are trained in research before they start. Yes, this is true for most academics. However, I think that if we truly believe in research-led teaching, then we have to enact this value. Research training as preparation for academic life is one reason why teaching is seen and practised as a separate activity to research, and there seems to be substantial effort in trying to join these two activities back together. The PCHE starts with the premise that learning about teaching and learning about disciplinary knowledge are similar and complementary activities. The aim is to produce graduates who care about both fields of knowledge by placing students as inquirers into different forms of knowledge creation and dissemination as a foundation for academic practice.

ACADEMIC APPRENTICESHIP

185

You end up with a balance of skills and values that potentially gives the student a good start in their career as a teacher and researcher. My argument would be that with the PCHE approach you don’t need to worry so much about teaching–research relationships. The problem I would see is that when the PCHE student faces the reality of academic life, they need to fit in with a different set of values or risk being marginalized. The dominant values of academia place research above teaching. Do universities value good teachers? I think that they always have, but there is a caveat in this. For example, in the last twenty years or so there has been an increase in the provision of support for enhancing the quality of university teaching worldwide and in the UK every institution now has some form of initial training for teachers. One of the concerns I have about this is that many programmes have been driven or captured centrally and aligned with nationally determined priorities. Accountability ensures a form of standardization that would not usually be seen in subject teaching. This strikes me as a double standard. In NZ, the 1989 Education Act protects academic freedom and autonomy and there is provision for ‘the freedom of the institution and its staff to teach and assess students in the manner they consider best promotes learning’ (New Zealand Government 1989). In NZ I would not like to see any form of central control of courses, however flexible, for either students or academic staff, including those in university teaching. Valuing research above teaching has also been re-enforced in recent times with various neoliberal reform measures introduced to increase economic efficiency through competition, including university audit and compliance measures such as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in the UK and the Performance-based Research Funding (PBRF) exercise in NZ. Both militate against an initiative like the academic apprentice. For example, in NZ, there are now strict PhD completion times enforced by new funding models in which substantial sums of money are released to the university when a PhD has been successful within the allotted timeframe. In such an environment, an additional teaching qualification may be seen as an unwelcome risk, despite the evidence that most PCHE students complete both qualifications in a timely fashion. Yet in the UK new PhD pathways are available. Yes, I have recently read about the NewRoutePhDTM which has increased the PhD study time to four years but includes new research training, taught courses and a generic skills component that is designed to make the graduate of more direct value to the world of work, including work in academia. The generic skills component includes elements such as ‘media skills’, ‘enterprise and spin-out companies’ and ‘team building’, as well as ‘teaching’. This initiative is economically driven so in the context of university employment it suggests to me that enterprise skills and the ability to work in teams are just as important as being

186

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

able to teach. The NewRoutePhDTM does, however, open the door for pre-service teacher training even if it seems that this activity is marginalized as one skill among many others. I note that you never established a similar course at Otago. That’s a fair point. When I arrived at Otago I naively thought that the PCHE would gain support among colleagues in my department. What I found was that there was not much enthusiasm for the idea. At that time the department did not have responsibility for working with postgraduates and there was no culture of support for this group of teachers across the University. Also, the department already had a well-established certificate and diploma course in tertiary teaching for experienced academics, and short introductory courses for new staff. Any changes would have required a shift in staff roles and responsibilities. Also, the NZ system for introducing new courses felt very strange to me, as it requires national university approval through the NZ Vice-Chancellor’s Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP). Both university and CUAP approval takes a large amount of time and energy and alongside everything else it became too much of a hurdle. Remember that in Sheffield, we had the PCHE established in about 12 weeks. Yet because I have been unable to get a PCHE apprentice-type programme off the ground, you could argue that if I can’t do it, why should I expect others to do so? The thought has crossed my mind that the PCHE happened only because of a series of chance events. For example, meeting up with you, Jenny and Stephen, the fact that you and Jenny had the opportunity to change the focus of your teaching, and the public and financial support we got from the Pro-Vice Chancellor. Lots of conditions had to be met at the same time. But that must be the same for many developments? Yes, I agree and if universities wanted pre-service training, then they would make it happen. After all, it is only very recently that they have come round to the idea that lecturers should have formal teacher education, but somehow academia decided that the time to do this was when the academic was in post. This also shows how research and teaching are valued differently. As a rule, a university would never start research training after appointment; they need evidence that the new recruit is going to be a good researcher and this remains the key condition for appointment. They may not even care if their good researcher has little teaching potential. If the academic apprentice concept was accepted, universities could employ those with successful records in both research and teaching education. However, I must add that I think that not all academic apprenticeship curriculum models would work well, in the same way that postgraduate certificates for lecturers have different outcomes. What have made the real difference for the success of the PCHE are the educational values that underpin the curriculum and learning experiences of students. In particular, the supervisory experiences are key to providing quality teacher education.

ACADEMIC APPRENTICESHIP

187

Reflection In your view, how likely is it that education programmes for university teachers will lead to ‘authentic’ learning if participation in them is compulsory?

CONCLUSION After 12 years we feel that the PCHE has a track record with sufficient evidence to suggest that the academic apprentice concept serves its purpose well. Indeed, the ideas here resonate with themes that recur across chapters 2, 4, and 9 in this text. However, the PCHE finds itself challenging old and new epistemic traditions of lecturing. The older tradition is to leave teaching to the researchers to deal with as they see fit, and the newer that lecturers need to be trained in teaching once they have taken up employment. This recent move has been universally adopted in many countries but there are problems in terms of the timing of postgraduate certificate courses and allowing amateurs to start teaching students, bearing in mind that it is the students and taxpayers who pay for most of this teaching. The PCHE provides an alternative pathway that ensures new academics have prior experience in both research and teaching to provide a foundation of professional learning for their academic career. Importantly, PCHE students learn as ‘dual’ researchers as they inquire into their teaching practice and disciplinary knowledge areas. There is evidence that learning the pedagogy of a discipline through research is good for the apprentice academic and their disciplinary research. There is a recognized split between teaching and research (see Jenkins et al. 2003) and we would go so far as to suggest that many of the problems that drive these activities apart would become redundant under the apprenticeship model. Sheffield’s academic apprenticeship may not be widely known, but even if it gains wider support it may remain on the fringes of academia because teaching is of secondary importance in academic practice, especially in research-intensive universities. Recent compliance measures, particularly those that impact on PhD completion times and how research is valued, are likely to provide convincing arguments for those who would resist the idea of the academic apprentice. We recognize that the PCHE could never replace programmes for lecturers, as academics decide on academic careers at different times and courses will be necessary for the many established lecturers who will either want to take advantage of these or be forced to gain a compulsory qualification in teaching. At the moment, much provision for new lecturers is compliance-driven in contrast with the PCHE where students compete for places and genuinely want to be there. There is a viable alternative to in-service teacher education that has proven itself over time. The academic apprentice concept deserves more than, ‘Yes, a good idea but it will never work in my university.’

188

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

NOTE 1. For example: Colwell 1998; Pereira 1999; Harding 2001; Gardner and Turner 2002; Bielby 2003; Montgomery 2008; Muzaka 2009.

FURTHER READING Glasersfeld, E von. (1995) Radical constructivism: a way of knowing and learning. London, Falmer. Glasersfeld, E von. (1995) Radical constructivism and teaching. Available from: www. vonglasersfeld.com Scaife, J.M. and Scaife, J.A. (2009) Supervision and learning in Ed. J.M. Scaife, Supervision in clinical practice. London, Routledge.

REFERENCES Bielby, P. (2003) ‘Courting controversies: using insights from a legal philosophy course to develop practical recommendations for realising pedagogical objectives in teaching morally contentious issues’, Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 369–81. Colwell, S. (1998) ‘Mentoring, socialisation and the mentor/protege relationship’, Teaching in Higher Education, 3(3), 313–24. Gardner, C. and Turner, N. (2002) ‘Spaces for voices: narrative of teaching outside our disciplines’, Teaching in Higher Education, 7(4), 457–70. Gibbs, G. and Coffey, M. (2004) ‘The impact of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and their approach to learning of their students’, Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100. Hanbury, A., Prosser, M. and Rickinson, M. (2008) ‘The differential impact of UK accredited teaching development programmes on academics approaches to teaching’, Studies in Higher Education, 33(4), 469–83. Harding, J.E. (2001) ‘Problem-based learning in biblical studies: reflections from classroom experience’, Teaching Theology and Religion, 4(2), 89–97. Harland, T. (2001) ‘Pre-service teacher education for university lecturers: the academic apprentice’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 27(3), 269–76. Heidegger, M. (1968) What is a thing? Chicago: Henry Regnery. Jenkins, A., Breen, R., Lindsay, R. and Brew, A. (2003) Re-shaping higher education: linking teaching and research. London: SEDA/RoutledgeFalmer. Knight, P. (2006) The effects of postgraduate certificates. A report to the project sponsor and partners. Available at: http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/document.cfm?docid=8640 Montgomery, T. (2008) ‘Space matters: experiences of managing static formal learning spaces’, Active Learning in Higher Education, 9, 122–38. Muzaka, V. (2009) ‘The niche of the graduate teaching assistant: perceptions and reflections’, Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–12. New Zealand Government (1989) Education Act 1989, Public Act 1989, No. 80, 29 September 1989. New Zealand Government, Part 14, 161. Pereira, M. A. (1999) ‘My reflective practice as research’, Teaching in Higher Education, 4(3), 339–54.

Postscript Trevor Kerry As this book draws to its close it is fitting to look back on some of its themes and to try to draw out the central messages from them for meeting the challenges of change in postgraduate education. But first, I want to ask, in part rhetorically: where did it all begin? Our text began with master’s degrees. But the real story began in disappointment. It began, too, in the real experience of someone known to me – we’ll call him Charlie. I want to share Charlie’s story with you, not in order to pillory any specific university or individual discipline (in the main they would all be equally guilty), but to illustrate a point. Charlie had a string of graduate and postgraduate qualifications in a range of disciplines. Some of Charlie’s interests coalesced and began to be guided by another, related discipline which gave them context. We’ll say, for the sake of the story, that it was sociology. He took early retirement from an academic post and decided to pursue his new interest, using unique data culled from primary sources to which he alone had access; he wanted to signal the academic credibility of his study by pursuing a postgraduate degree at M-level. Despite the viability of Charlie as a postgraduate academic, his proven record of publication in several fields, his research competence, his unique access to data and his interdisciplinary grasp of a complicated subject, Charlie found it impossible to register for the kind of study he craved. He couldn’t just pursue his interest, but had first to pass a range of modules in (to him) elementary research methods that involved a lot of time and expense in travelling to the university location for activities of which he had no need and jumping through hurdles he had long ago bypassed. Then Charlie met an old friend, Sam. He told his tale of disappointment to Sam and by coincidence Sam had had a similar experience. Sam’s needs were different from Charlie’s. Sam wanted to spend some evenings studying in a more social setting, and was happy to fulfil all the regulations just as they stood. He went to his local university in answer to an advert that suggested he could take a taught master’s in history: a study of two units on World War I themes, followed by a dissertation on a subject of his choice. He wanted to immerse himself in classes, discussion and debate. He signalled an interest; but when it came time to pay his fees he was disappointed to be offered two alternative courses, which he refused. Neither seemed to evoke his particular passions – The status of women in eighteenth century literature, and Tudor houses in the South West. Charlie and Sam went off to the pub to commiserate with one another, and over a glass of the local ale they fell into conversation with an author. Jo was of an even older generation, deeply committed to documenting the battlefields of World War II; and they soon had him regaling them with his years of research

190

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

spent on the ground in France, in the archives, through interviews and collected anecdotes of participants and those who had had the misfortune to be civilian bystanders. Jo produced a copy of his book, not his first; it ran to four hundred pages of detailed and carefully referenced and authenticated facts, many of them documented for the first time. Jo said he had overheard our heroes’ conversation and that he himself had tried to gain some academic recognition for his work. Being of a generation where education was not a priority in poor households, he had dropped out of school. So the best his tome might be recognized as was as a substitute for A levels, to allow him – at his advanced years – to read for a generic first degree. Jo thought a goodly proportion of his group at the University of the Third Age had had similar experiences or had been put off pursuing their questions by their initial experience of higher education bureaucracy. These are sad tales; yet even in their telling one can hear the rushing feet of the defenders of quality and rigour lining up to reinforce the barricades of entrance requirements and standards in order to bastion the university’s integrity. Up to a point they are right. Alongside those rushing feet are the footsteps of the upholders of tradition, cloaking themselves against changes in procedure that could see a beginning of the end to the exclusivity of university recognition. The smell of fear is on this latter group, fear that a burgeoning market will undervalue the product for everyone. A third group of reactionaries are the ones whose self-interest is served by maintaining and retaining the status quo: who want to preserve a narrow expertise, to tailor the pattern of learning to their interests, to hold on to the privilege of ownership of knowledge which they alone can teach. But, as Bob Dylan put it, ‘the times they are a-changing’. In Part 1 of this volume we dealt with the issues that underlie the human tales told above. The critical analysis there, which tried to tease out the key questions about who owns the postgraduate curriculum, what purpose a university serves, what its relation is to society, for whose benefit courses are established – these issues are written large from the collective, minute cases of individuals and their needs. In chapters 1 and 2 Kerry and Kerry offer some models; and in Chapter 3 Sandle provides one of the few (arguably partial) answers to the dilemmas posed by trying to coalesce the needs of universities and their clients. In these three chapters, it is suggested, lie the seeds of one of the changes whose challenge it is necessary to meet as the next decades unfold. Part 2 of the book began with Elton’s Chapter 4 on Humboldt. This picked up a parallel theme, notably the tendency in recent years for government to replace ethics with accountability. Elton asks for a return of the old ethical relationship between universities and their public. This ethical behaviour might operate both within and without. Within, it may seek a better relationship between the governance of universities and their staffs; without it may re-establish the role of universities as centres of collegiate government where society’s needs are best served through consensus rather than direction and compulsion. Elton’s chapter is shot through, too, with themes about the process of learning: about ownership, about its constructivist nature, and about its rootedness in the learner. It mourns

POSTSCRIPT

191

the advent of the rise in power of the university administrator, a process dear to the heart of politicians. So, as this book was being compiled, it proved to be somewhat prophetic insofar as the government was putting financial constraints on universities. While some were reacting by treading carefully (saving unnecessary costs, not replacing staff as they retired), in others the new administrators in human resource and allied bureaucracies were hacking a draconian and illinformed way through academia in the cause of political conformity. But, as Karran and Löfgren pointed out in Chapter 5, the university world, like the secular (if we can use that adjective), is now global. Structure, intention and outcomes are the potentially measurable parameters of globalized institutions with common directives. They may well meet targets; but the targets may be constrained, blinkered, irrelevant, immutable and eventually outmoded. Commodification marches on; we are left to ponder whether this ugly word and this ugly concept will one day be crushed under the weight of opinion in support of a personalized and responsive postgraduate system, reduced like the dinosaurs to interesting fossil-shapes buried under the rocks of progress. Two issues that impede the footsteps of progress are the use of technology and the maintenance of quality in postgraduate studies. On the first, Pedró’s Chapter 6 takes a somewhat cautious view both about how students use technology now and about how that use might develop in the future. Clearly, technology is embedded in the structure of university management and communications; but its integration into teaching and learning is marching to a slower beat. It could be argued that, while technology might progress rapidly in furthering managerialism and commodification, its use as a teaching tool might lag behind for the best of pragmatic reasons. Part 2 thus ended with reflections on sustaining quality at the postgraduate level. The fundamental message to emerge from this must inevitably be about the centrality of the student. It is a centrality with two loci. First, from a commodification perspective, the student is now the fee-paying client. But, leaving that pragmatic consideration aside, throughout the book it has been argued that true education requires the student to drive the learning process. This theme is picked up in Part 3. So Part 3 brought us back to the real centre of the university – the students. In their study of master’s and doctoral students’ tutorials in Chapter 8, Kerry and Kerry found that tutoring is a subtle process. While there are emergent guidelines that those new to tutoring might learn (to give clear advice, be consistent, respect the student), the relationship between student and tutor is a dynamic one. But its bedrock is in what might be labelled ‘professionalism’, that is, trust, honesty, rapid response, commitment and personal warmth. Government appears concerned with the measurable: the tutor’s publication record. Students are concerned with their tutors’ effectiveness as teachers, and are clear that good lecturers are not always good tutors. Experience of universities, of their appointing policies and management structures, does not instil any confidence that these student views are taken

192

MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF CHANGE IN POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION

much into account. Indeed, while this book was being compiled, attention was drawn by colleagues to a number of instances where university employment and redundancy policies, resulting from recent government financial constraints, seemed to be pursuing intentions that were discordant with the overall views of students – both those revealed generally by the research and the wishes of actual students ‘on the ground’ in institutions. If this kind of destructive and uninformed management by bureaucrats in universities is to be defended against, then academic managers such as deans and heads of faculties have both to become more competent at management tasks and to take a firmer and more principled stand against the insidious erosion of academia in the face of administrative control. Vice-chancellors (as Elton hints in Chapter 4) may find it expedient to hide behind the power of these administrators to cushion criticism. But academic managers might do well to heed the apothegm attributed to Alice V. Middleton: ‘learning rules is useful but it isn’t an education. Education is thinking . . .’ If students are at the heart of the tutoring process, then how they think and learn is the lifeblood of what universities should be about. In this, the work of Hase and Kenyon has broken new and fascinating ground. Arguing for a move implicitly from the pedagogy of schools and from the andragogy of most university courses towards heutagogy, in Chapter 9 they take learning overtly to the student or client. As they say: heutagogy is concerned with development of the capability to learn and focuses on what an individual seeks to learn rather than on what a syllabus prescribes for learning. Those of us of a certain age can feel the decades roll back to one of the most seminal education documents of all time: the Plowden Report. To paraphrase: at the heart of the education process lies the learner. This learner-centric theme is reinforced by Harland and Scaife’s final chapter in this book. Their plea for an academic apprenticeship model for some PhD students tries to marry student need with course provision – or rather, it highlights the gaps between them. There is a sad throwaway line in their dialogue: if universities wanted pre-service training then they would make it happen. But the truth is that, in the real world of the typical university, the things that are made to happen are too often not the things that improve tutoring or meet student needs. They are not even driven by academics but by planners, HR teams, marketing units; and they promote the fast-track routes to funding access, university league table places, academic conservatism and through all these to commodification. Predicting the future is like trying to walk on jelly. But if the trend of commodification and central control continues, one can see a time coming when the relevance of postgraduate studies will be reduced to mere vocationalism. Learning for learning’s sake – such a simple and yet such a crucial mantra – will not be part of the accredited experience and will bypass the formal structures that have traditionally served its purposes. There are markets out there, people who are attracted by learning and who are keen to study, but the question will be: will they come in from the cold or will they walk off into the sunset of some other learning experience?

Index Page references in bold indicate figures and tables. academic freedom 1, 82, 84, 134, 185 academic values 185 academic writing 161 accountability 3, 79, 129, 134, 138, 144, 185, 190 administration 74, 105, 108, 113, 135, 149, 191–2 adult learning environment for 21 and MAIS 39 models of 20 self-directed, see andragogy and social connections 13–14 adult students, see returnee students andragogy 6, 20–1, 165, 171, 176, 192 apprenticeship 97–8, 143, 161, 171, 179–81, 183–8, 192 assessment agreement on 174–5 confidence in process 144 and learner-centred instruction 22 and lifelong learning 23 in M-courses 44, 64 non-traditional 39 and returnee students 13 self- 62 Attali Report 90 audit culture 75 Australia 44, 94, 111, 115, 131–2, 136, 144, 169, 181 Bergen Communiqué 98–9 Berlin Communiqué 92, 98 best practice 162 blogs 110–11 Bologna Declaration 5, 12, 40–1, 89, 91, 93–6, 98, 100

Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG) 93 Bologna process 66, 89–90, 92–101, 117, 128 Bremen Model 30, 39–40 British Educational Research Association (BERA) 30 Cambridge University 82, 124 capability 165–6, 168–70, 192 CAT (credit accumulation and transfer) systems 31, 40 Chaucer, Geoffrey 77 collegiality 5, 73, 75–6, 78, 82, 84, 137 commodification 1, 101, 166, 191–2 competences 3, 95–6, 114, 156, 166, 169, 171 complexity theory 73–4, 82, 84, 156, 168, 170 computers, see ICT (information and communications technology) constructivism 170, 181, 190 course management systems 108, 109 critical reflection theory 17 culture shock 63, 166 curriculum for academic apprenticeship 186 at Bremen University 39–40 at De Montfort University 31 dimensions of 18–19 flexibility of 168–70 and heutagogy 165 in higher education 19–20 at Jacobs University 41 and learning experience 166 ownership of 190 studies in 17–18 Davies, Sir Graeme 75 De Monfort University 35

194

INDEX

Dearing Report 17, 90 digital resources 108 disciplines academic 61, 123, 129 non-traditional 38–9 professional 99, 122, 125 discourse communities 61–2 distance teaching institutions 105 diversity 96, 105, 126–7 doctoral level studies, see PhDs doctorates professional 99, 128, 143 by published work 128 DPhil, see PhDs e-learning, see learning, online EBL, see learning, enquiry based (EBL) ecology 3 economic instrumentalism 135 ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) 92, 95 education, as product, see commodification email 37, 108–10, 109, 114–15, 145–7, 157, 160 emotions 161, 169, 176 empathy 158, 160, 162 England 1, 82 Estonia 94, 122 ethics 4, 79, 136, 146, 190 European Commission (EC) 49, 91, 93, 95, 100 European higher education area (EHEA) 91–3 European Resolution of 27 June 2002 12 external examiners 39, 60, 65, 127 feedback dissatisfaction with 131–2, 148, 156 in heutagogy 175–6 importance of 151, 160 in Learning Contract 48, 61, 64, 66 and mentoring 38–9 France 89–90, 111 Freire, Paulo 170–1

Germany 40, 80, 82–3, 89, 91 globalism 15 Goodhart’s Law 83–4 Harris Report 121, 123–4 heutagogy 6, 21–2, 44, 165–74, 176, 192 higher education bureaucracy in 189–91 commodification of 1, 17 discourse communities in 61 epistemology of 19 in European Union 89–101, 117 and government 19, 82, 133–5 heutagogy in 171–2 and lifelong learning 23 modes of 143 social dimension of 2–4, 16, 44, 134–5 traditional institutions of 2–4, 84, 105 vocationalism in 15, 123, 126–7, 192 Higher Education Academy (HEA) 180 Higher Education Funding Council 127, 133 Higher Education Statistical Association (HESA) 12, 126 Humboldt, Wilhelm von ideal of university 40–1, 73–4, 77, 82–4, 97 importance of 5, 73 and university teaching 3, 80–1 Hungary 101 ICT (information and communications technology) 6, 78–9, 106–7, 107–8, 110–17 independence, meaning of 66–7 Independent Study categories of 49–50 MA by, see MA by Independent Study instant messaging 109 interdisciplinary approaches 37, 40–2, 47, 50, 61, 98, 143, 189 internet 18, 30, 105–6, 109–10, 109, 115, 176 isolation 66–7, 149 Israel 128 Italy 89, 91, 110

INDEX

Jacobs University 30, 39, 41–2 joint degrees 96–7, 101 knowledge acquisition of 167 extending 50 higher 61 management 75 ownership of 5, 19–20, 190 pedagogic 184 prior 65, 170 value of 1–2 labour market 23, 99–100 leadership 4, 74–6, 137 learning adult, see adult learning 14 collaborative 80 cultures of 66 definition of 166–8 distance 95, 112, 124, 146, 148, 155, 159 and emotion 169–70 enquiry based (EBL) 81 identifying priorities for 62, 63 independent 66–7, 114, 123 for learning’s sake 192 lifelong, see lifelong learning modes of 48–9 online 112–13 prior and experiential 14 problem-based (PBL) 81, 94–5 professional 180–1, 187 scaffolding of 136 self-determined 165, 167–8, 172 Learning Contract 51–9 approval of 64–5 completion of 64 content of 60 problems with 65 rationale for 47–9 role in MAIS 5, 31, 35, 39 learning experience and assessment 22 examples of 166

195

lifelong 24, 29 total 13 learning styles differences in 48 and distance learning 148, 159 and heutagogy 171–2 and teaching styles 161–2 tutor sensitivity to 152, 154–5 learning support staff (LSAs) 147 lecturing 79, 117, 131, 187 Leitch Report 15, 122, 126 Lernfreiheit 80–1, 97 libraries 105, 111, 114, 148 lifelong learning at De Montfort University 38 government aspirations for 11–12, 15–16, 22, 48–9 at Jacobs University 42 and Learning Contracts 47–8, 60, 67–8 and master’s degrees 5 promotion of 22–4 Likert scale 145–7, 151, 153, 159–60 M-courses appeal of 12 constrained 31, 44 document search on 29–31 models of 29, 42 modular 12–14, 29, 43 nature of 4–5, 11 and other master’s degrees 126 student aspirations for 19 student designed 37 survey of 32–5 MA by Independent Study 5, 31, 37–9, 42 background of 49 discourse community in 61–2 interview schedule on 36–7 Learning Contract in, see Learning Contract Learning Plan 63 motivations of students 67–8 outcomes of 67 overview of 35

196 MA by Independent Study (continued) Planning Phase 60–3, 65 preliminary activities for 62 problems in 65–6 process of 50 recognition of outside UK 66–7 MA in International Relations, Jacobs University 41 MAIS, see MA by Independent Study Malta 128 management culture of 75 destructive 192 leadership and administration in 74 private enterprise involvement in 100 and technology 191 third-space 2 managerialism 5, 73–4, 84, 144, 191 marketization 5, 84, 101 massification 84, 135 master’s degrees benchmarks for 64, 122–6 genres of 11 integrated 125 profile of students 126–7 quality assurance in 12, 38, 130 student evaluation of 148–9 taught, see M-courses traditional 38 medical students 13 mentoring, mentors and heutagogy 172 and Learning Contract 31, 60–1, 64 relationship with students 37–8, 66, 166 role of in MAIS 39 mobile phones 110 multiculturalism 15 neoliberalism 179, 185 neuroplasticity 167 New Zealand 180–1, 183–6 NGOs (non-governmental organizations) 48–50

INDEX

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 6, 22–3, 49, 106–7 Open University 12, 40 Otago University 183, 186 over-education 12 PCHE (Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education) 6, 179–87 pedagogy 20, 95, 99, 118, 165, 171, 187, 192 Performance-based Research Funding (PBRF) 185 performance indicators 83–4, 130, 134, 136 personal projects 50 PhDs as apprenticeship, see apprenticeship in Bologna process 92, 97–9, 101 candidates as teachers 143–4 completion times 179, 185, 187 formulating research proposals 167 and M-level study 38–9, 122–3 New Route 185–6 quality assurance for 122, 126–30 student evaluation of 131–3 and teaching 179 PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) 106 Plowden Report 192 politicization 1, 15, 135 polytechnics 3, 15 Postgraduate Certificate in Education 124 Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education, see PCHE productivity 75, 111, 118 professional bodies 74, 96–7 professional development 49, 78, 96, 122–5, 149, 180 professionalism 97, 101, 150–1, 154, 157, 161–2, 191 public service 4, 135 publishability 128 QAA, see Quality Assurance Agency qualifications, definition of 23

INDEX

qualifications systems, and lifelong learning 23–4 qualitative research 30, 145–7 quality, elements of 121 quality assurance 17, 38, 62, 75, 92, 94, 134, 144, 155, 191 Quality Assurance Agency 14, 64, 75, 79, 122–5, 127, 134, 161 RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) 1, 6, 75, 79, 83, 134, 155, 160, 185 REF (Research Excellence Framework) 75, 155 reflexivity 165, 181 research projects 50, 158, 182 returnee students courses friendly to 43–4 input into curriculum 21 and MAIS 61 social situation of 13–14 review sessions 175 Sainsbury Review 122, 126 Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 76, 78 Scotland 1, 74 self-efficacy 165, 169, 172 Skype 157 social networking applications 107–9, 108–9 Sorbonne Declaration 89–91, 93 specialization 16 student choice 172–3 student voice 132, 156, 161 students benefits of postgraduate study for 129–30 commitments by 174–5; see also Learning Contract expectations of 105, 113–14 and government policy 136 international 89–90, 100, 127 at Jacobs University 41–2 motivation of 38, 47, 81

197

relationships with supervisors 136–7, 144, 161 relationships with tutors 158, 162 responsibility for learning 144–5 and university governance 76–7 subsidiarity 93 supervision allocation of 130 doctoral 128, 131–2, 161 M-level 37, 131 research on 143–5 student evaluation of 136–7, 145–8 in teacher education 182 systems thinking 168 teachers attitudes to Bologna reforms 100–1 authority of 137 education of 19, 180, 182–4, 186 and heutagogy 172 loyalty of 77–8 MA projects of 50 qualifications for 11, 124 responsibilities to students 174 as stakeholders 133 use of technology 114–17, 115–16 teaching in higher education 21–2, 95 and Humboldtian principles 3, 5, 40, 84–5, 184 images of 144 and learning 5, 13, 16, 20, 80–1, 132; see also Scholarship of Teaching and Learning models of 130–1, 133 quality of 79, 83, 112, 134, 184 redefinition of 6 and research 3, 5, 40, 181–2, 184–5 styles of 161–2 technology in 111–14, 117–18, 191 traditional methods of 21, 105, 112–13, 171 text messaging 107–10, 108–9,114 transdisciplinarity 19

198

INDEX

trust 21, 79, 144, 158, 161–2, 191 Tuning Project 95–7 tutoring creative 144, 161 at Jacobs University 41 in MAIS 50 research design for 6, 143–6 student evaluation of 149–62, 150–4, 191 United States 94, 100, 106–7, 110–11, 117 universities collaboration between 78–80 communication between 121 concept of 14–17, 97, 135–6 entrepreneurial 1–2 external relations of 75 governance of 74–6, 81, 84–5 and government, see higher education, and government

and lifelong learning 24 new 15 social role of, see higher education, social dimension of teaching in 5, 75, 80, 179–80, 185 traditional, see higher education, traditional institutions of University of London 75 University of Sheffield 179–81, 187 university of the market 73, 82–3 vice-chancellors 74–7, 82, 131, 192 video-conferencing 4 virtualization 15 Wales 74 Web 2.0 110 wikis 110 word-processing 108, 109, 114 work, changing nature of 49