Research

Supercomplexity

Julian Beckton Research , ,

Read a bit more about this last night, in a 2005 article by Barnett. He does seem to assume that the term “university” refers to a sense of universality that surrounds the university, and has always surrounded the University. I’m not so sure. I’m inclined to agree with Olaf Pedersen’s rather more mundane explanation, which is that the term probably originates from the Latin phrases used in papal bulls that referred to the “universality of the teachers and students” in a studium generale. I’m no Latin scholar, so I’ll dig out the quote Pedersen uses if I’ve time.

That’s not to say that some in the University have not appropriated the meaning of universality for themselves over the centuries. I’m pretty sure they have. But I think Barnett’s claim really can’t be given more than the status of an assertion unless of course you include his own appropriation of it as evidence. Which it is, I suppose.

Then again, I’m just nit-picking here. I think Barnett is largely right to draw attention to the multiplicity of “knowledges” and the university’s role in their expansion. From my point of view the consequences are that there cannot be one single “idea of the university”. (Whatever Cardinal Newman might have thought!) I think I’m beginning to disagree with my supervisor’s idea of a changing “idea of the University” over time. I suspect that there have always been multiple and competing “knowledges” (Church, State, Town, Gown etc. in medieval times.)

For the EDU of course, the issue is which “knowledge” has the most power. And what are the consequences of the exercise (or not) of that power?

Idea of the University coming together at last?

Julian Beckton Research

Well, after much reading and floundering about I think I am beginning to get a conceptual framework for “the idea of the University”. I’ve identified three, possibly four models.

One is the instrumental model. There’s not a lot of support for this in the academic literature, but essentially, it is the idea that a University is a training institution, focussing on supplying skilled graduates who can ultimately power the national economy. It is a model that I suspect is held to by some politicians, and can be traced back to ideas of nationalism and competitiveness. It is also, I suspect held by a great many students, especially since the introduction of top up fees. Here, we can trace it back to the medieval ideas of the studium generale, and the growth of specialist institutions in Salerno, Montpelier, (Medicine) Bologna (law) and Paris (Theology) where students moved to develop their careers. But it also owes a lot to the idea of market dominance that arose in the twentieth century. (Of course, no country has ever really dared let the market run absolutely everything – I’d love to see the Kwik Fit, “Why pay more?” Royal Navy!)

Secondly we have the Humboldtian Model of the University, where teaching is driven by research. Arose in Germany in the 19th Century, but I still need to do a bit more reading around this. This is still held up as an ideal though, and there’s still quite heavy emphasis on research informed teaching in the UK (Although, I have some reservations about  this model, which I don’t have space to go into here)

Thirdly, and not entirely unrelated is Newman’s idea of a University. Here we have the notion of training the mind, rather than just knowing stuff. Newman sounds a bit odd now, with his ideas of the university being largely responsible for the education of  “gentlemen” but if you take the dated, sexist connotation of the word “gentlemen” out, and see it as a sort of code term for the sort of active citizen who is well informed and able to critically assess public issues, I’m not sure that he is all that far off modern beliefs about the role of Universities.

 The fourth model, and I’m not quite sure it is a model yet, is based on the idea of supercomplexity suggested by Ronald Barnett. Essentially, I think Barnett takes the instrumentalist notion and blows it completely out of the water. The world is way too complex for simplistic notions of “instruction” and “skills”, and in fact university teaching tends to add to that complexity. Again, I need to revisit this, but I think these four models do give me the basis of a conceptual framework against which I can assess the activity of an EDU.

Quality

Julian Beckton Research

Just had a thought while cycling into work – if I’m going to talk about quality assurance v quality assessment I’m going to have to define what I mean by quality.  And what brought the thought on was the poor quality of bicycle brake blocks these days. (They used to last for years, now they appear to be made out of a substance with the resistant properties of soft cheese!) The point is that they are deemed to be of an acceptable quality by the manufacturers. If they were of better quality from the consumer’s point of view, they wouldn’t sell as many. On the other hand they have to be good enough to convince the customer not to buy from another manufacturer.

So what does all this have to do with educational development units? I think we have to be careful that we’re not producing what we deem acceptable and not taking the students’ viewpoints into account. But as I’ve often said, students are not a homogeneous body and we need to meet all of their requirements. Something to think about anyway.

A broader perspective?

Julian Beckton Research

Been a bit of a hiatus in posting, because I have been so busy at work and the doctorate’s been sitting on the back burner a little. – I’ve also just had a tutorial with my supervisor about my first draft, which turned out to be quite an interesting discussion. The general drift of the conversation was about how I could perhaps look at where some of the ideas around university teaching are coming from. We discussed what’s sometimes called the “Sputnik Shock” of 1957 – essentially the West got a big wake up call when the Soviet Union successfully put a satellite into orbit. But having googled the phrase (I’m not that old!) it seems to have been as much about the realisation that a new age was dawning, as it was a feeling of being threatened. It’s tempting to make comparisons with the events of September 11, 2001, but I think the reaction to that was more about punctured complacency. After all, in the cold light of day that was little more than an extraordinary well executed terrorist plan, where all that was really new, was the scale of it.  I’m not sure it changed the world in the way that the launch of Sputnik did. Both generated fear and panic, but looking back at the reactions in 1957 there seemed to be a lot of hope as well. (Might be interesting to think about some other world changing events as well!)

But what does all this have to do with Educational Development Research? Well, Obviously there is a sense that “our” nation is getting left behind so we need more graduates, who will keep us technologically competitive. But that isn’t necessarily a sophisticated argument for more higher education.  Let’s face it, there are very few degrees (even at postgraduate level) where graduates are immediately qualified to practice in their area.  On the other hand, there is an emerging market of mid career professionals who are already practicing, but want to enhance their career. Is the pedagogical approach taken for this market likely to be the same as that for fresh faced 18 year olds straight out of school.  Arguably, the University has much to learn from them. I think I’ll have to return to this topic later though. It’s tempting to spend far too long blogging!

Leaving Plato’s Cave

Julian Beckton Research

Plato’s cave is, as I understand it a metaphor for our relationship with truth. While we’re in the cave we can only see shadows of the real world outside the cave, cast by the fire we have lit to keep warm. To reach the truth we must leave the warmth of the cave (or our illusions of the world) and face the cold hard truths of reality.

Except that we can’t can we? We can’t step into the same river twice. Well, arguably we can’t step into the same river once, for the water that passes as we decide to step into it is not the same water we actually do step into. And there is no practical point at which the water is still.  It seems that we still can’t be sure that we’ve not just moved into another cave where we can’t see the fire. So do we simply have to turn round and say at some point “Well, we must be satisfied with this reality”.  But surely this is a question of values. What is it about this reality that I value and you do not?  And where do values come from? Do they correspond to some external truth, or to my preferences for what I see and understand of the world.

Here’s a value story that made me think. Some weeks ago, I saw on the television an interview with a former concentration camp guard. His story (which I have no reason to doubt) was that he had not been involved in any of the murder and violence, but had mainly worked on processing the prisoners’ money and belongings. Indeed at first he had not realised what was going on and thought that this property would be returned to the prisoners in due course. When he did realise what was going on, he asked for a transfer to the front, which was refused so he continued to work in the camp, although still as a bureaucrat with no direct involvement in the mass murders that were going on. His interviewer asked him whether he felt guilty about his time in the camp, and he quite clearly said that he did not. The interviewer was shocked by this and pressed him to admit to feelings of guilt.

This raised several questions in my mind. Should the guard have felt guilty? What else could he have done? If his request for a transfer was refused should he have persisted. If he was refused again, what other options were open to him? Desertion? Suicide? What would his own death have achieved? I suppose he might have worked somehow to alleviate the lot of the prisoners, but what 19 year old is going to challenge a totalitarian state where life was quite obviously cheap? Was the interviewer right to press him to admit a guilt he claimed not to feel?  

But most of all if I or any modern person were to be sent back in time and placed in the same position, (and somehow returned to the same age as the guard was at the time) would I have behaved any differently? For myself, I  like to hope and believe that I would, but if I’m honest I can’t be absolutely sure of that. 

And that illustrates for me how hard it is to leave the cave. I’m pretty convinced that there is a reality external to us, and that it extends to intangible ideas of good and evil – which is why I used this example. Nobody would say that the guard “did good” surely. But I find it hard to condemn him as evil either. Although there are clearly mitigating circumstances in this case, the interviewer had no doubt whatsoever about the reality of his guilt, and by implication, his (the interviewer’s) own moral superiority.  And I’m always worried by that kind of certainty. 

For me the story does illustrate how  slippery reality, especially socially constructed reality really is.  So where do we go from here?

The nature of truth

Julian Beckton EDUs, philosophy, Research, Values

A pretentious title if ever there was one! But, it is something I am going to have to address, if I am to write a convincing methodology chapter. Perhaps the question is “What characteristics of a proposition or phenomenon convince me that it is true”. But, then again, need I go into that? If I start with Cartesian doubt – (that I should be properly sceptical of everything except the fact that I exist – for, logically,  I must exist to think that  I am thinking) it doesn’t get me very far. Because, other than the cogito, I have no rational basis for believing that anything else is true. Empiricism would seem to be a better bet. Even if nothing is true, for all practical purposes, I can trust my senses. Hume’s remark about being free to leave by the window (from the third floor!) if I really didn’t believe in an objective reality seems to me a better guide to what course of action to take. Whether the world really exists or not, isn’t really relevant, because we all have to operate within it and we have a sufficiently shared perception of it to identify appropriate courses of action.

But there’s still a weakness. What I am interested in is other people’s interpretations of an empirical reality, because that provides a better guide to how they act than the actual reality itself. If you believe there is a mouse under the table you will act as though there is a mouse under the table, even if there is not. Human beings disagree about many things, especially in the social world. Which party has the better economic policy? What is beautiful?   I can certainly listen to their descriptions, although they may mislead me. (Especially if they are misleading themselves.)  Take the expresssion “That’s a good film, album, TV show, or whatever”. All I can conclude from that is that the speaker is saying is that they liked whatever it was, and perhaps that they would expect me to like it as well, were I to see or hear it. There’s nothing inherently “good” about it. It all depends on the extent to which I share their values, and empricism seems less helpful here.  So a good strategy for a future post will be to articulate my own values.

In the context of the research I can look at what others have done, how they organise their workspace, but here I can only use my interpretations of why they have done those things. In looking at the output of an EDU (let’s call it x) I can think “Why would I have done x?” and compare it with their answer to the question “Why did you do x“. But do these approaches help with predicting whether, and why another person (z) might do x in the future?  Maybe not, but they do help to arrive at an explanation, which informs why x was done in that spatial and temporal context.  Is that enough?

Even this little post is helpful because it is pointing me towards the case study as a research method. If I believe that my perception reality is heavily influenced by my values, then I am clearly going to have problems with a quantitative approach because I would be deciding what is worth measuring, which may not reflect objective reality. Also of course, I’d be attaching values to particular scores. (for example, a high percentage of whatever I measured, is better than a low percentage.)

Case Study Protocols

Julian Beckton EDUs, Research

I started to begin to develop the case study protocols based on the project overview I referred to yesterday, and you know what? It’s a really helpful exercise, especially creating  table data shell – essentially thats a matrix of questions, and likely sources for answering them (along with some blank spaces for the answers. I felt that the whole thing is beginning to come together although I really do need to get a better sense of the theory that’s informing the whole research. Essentially it’s that Educational Development is actually hindered by the target culture that has been embraced by the public sector. (Actually, the impression I picked up from the web sites of my potential case study sites is that it isn’t – but there again, a web site is by definition, a political document that is intended to present a particular face to the world. My experience of working in such a unit tells me that it is.)

Well, I now have a first draft of my first chapter, a  (somewhat crude) research instrument, and a basic case study protocol. I think it’s time to stop faffing about, and discuss these with my supervisor(s), and then actually contact the research sites. While I’m sorting that out and waiting for responses I can give some thought to the methodology chapter. I need to develop a clear philosophy with what I regard to be true and why, and how my research is going to unearth that truth as it relates to the Educational Development Unit.

Project Overview

Julian Beckton EDUs, Research

Another busy week gone, and still the actual research hasn’t started. On the other hand, I had a trip to Sheffield yesterday because I wanted to treat myself to an iPod. Which I did. And the first thing I downloaded was a JISC podcast about web 2.0! How sad is that? If you’re interested it’s at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2007/08/podcast07lawriephippsdavidwhite.aspx 

 Anyway the point is that I took the opportunity of the train ride back to give some serious thought to where I want to be with this research, and I think I’ve got somewhere. I had a good go at coming up with an interview schedule, but following Michael Yin’s (1994) advice I sat down and wrote myself a project overview.  Why am I doing it, and what are the main issues. So here it is

Primarily it is for my doctoral thesis. But also I am interested in what is driving the educational development unit from a professional point of view. My own feeling is that we (meaning the educational development community) have spent far too much time responding to managerial imperatives, like

 

1)      The  need to increase the bottom line (putting in project bids that, if we are successful run the risk of taking time away from what we should be doing.) Actually, that is putting it far too crudely. I think what I’m getting it is that the agenda risks being subtly changed from the requirements of the institution to the requirements of the funder. (Actually, in practice, I don’t think that has happened with the only bid I’ve been successful with, because it was relevant to what my own institution wanted to do.) But it does raise a question about the value of bidding per se.

2)      Responding to National Student Survey – problem here, is that we are likely to be picking on one area, (in which we did least well) and concentrating on that to the exclusion of other things where we may be more effective. And of course, whatever that weakness is, there is an assumption that it is not influenced by the context in which it is showing.

3)      Skills development programmes – Appears to be a belief that students need “skills development”. Actually, I see little evidence of this. Some, certainly are very weak indeed in basic skills. The elephant in room is of course the question of what are they doing at University at all, but given that they are, and accepting that “skills” programmes can make any difference, how do we identify and support those students who need them? Because, surely, inflicting such programmes on those who do not need them is a waste of everyone’s time.

4)      Technology for the sake of it.   Here I mean the uncritical rush to technological solutions that are, to coin a phrase, looking for problems. Actually, this has become less of an issue in recent years as commercial providers have got a better handle on what is needed. But we should be thoughtful about our use of technology, and it’s true that it is a bit more difficult. If you want to innovate you sometimes have to create an environment in which people can – and that really needs a crystal ball.

 

Those are examples of the sort of thing I mean. I (as you’ve probably guessed) am somewhat sceptical about their value, but I certainly accept that they matter to University Senior managers and that no EDU can safely ignore them. The challenge is to make them relevant to the innovative work of the unit

 

But what then is an EDU to do?. Well, I think if all the things above have anything in common, it is that they’re external to what we might call the teaching and learning environment. I think the effective EDU may well be one that builds relationships within its own institution. Examples might include.

 

1)      Project based Teaching awards such as teacher fellowships. But even here, you have to be careful to set your selection criteria to the teaching and learning cultures in the different departments.

2)      Involvement in teaching and learning and e-learning strategy development. Again, based on  finding out what is going on within different departments, and getting involved with senior management too.

3)      Researching into how technology might solve people’s needs.  Not necessarily accommodating someone who wants a particular bit of software, but thinking about how a VLE might solve the problem of need within a particular department or faculty – but also how best to deploy that technology, which depends on a complete understanding of the teaching and learning environment.

4)      Working to develop a fuller understanding, and articulation of the teaching and learning environment.  This seems to me to be crucial for innovation. The problem though is likely to be that a university can contain multiple environments and it is going to be very hard to develop a working model.

5)      Building relationships.  It seems to me that this is crucial, (and let’s face it, it’s never been a personal speciality of mine!)  Nevertheless, I don’t see how you can do educational development without a good range of relationships across all faculties. And of course, I can get on perfectly well with people. In fact it’s important to maintain a level of “customer service” (ghastly phrase, but until I can think of a better one, it will have to do.) No, actually, it won’t do, “customer service” has too many connotations of insincerity. I don’t think the checkout girl in Sainsbury’s actually cares whether I have a nice day!

 

Well it’s a start.  The next thing is to show how my proposed methodology will address these issues. I’ve already come up with an  admittedly rather crude research instrument, well, OK then, interview schedule, and I need to spend some time bringing them together. But that should form a sound basis for the methodology chapter of the thesis.  Anyway, my reading light has just blown it’s bulb, which might be a sign that I’ve probably done enough for today.

 

Yin, R. K. (1994) Case study research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Towards a conceptual framework

Julian Beckton learning, Research, Threshold Concepts, Virtual Learning Environments

I seem to be getting back into the swing of things a bit. I’ve just read three articles, one about the importance of working with the departments in universities (TROWLER, P., FANGHANEL, J. and WAREHAM, T., 2005) by which argues that working with departments is as important, if not more so, than working at the institutional or individual level because it is at that level that there are established working practices which is where the changes need to be brought about. (Bit of an echo of Wenger’s communities of practice notion there too.)  They introduce the important concept of “Teaching and Learning Regimes” or what the department does. From my point of view this raises the important question of where the EDU directs its efforts, which I think I will have to build into the case studies.

The second article was a review of the roll out of the Blackboard VLE at York University.  (BEASTALL, L. and WALKER, R., 2006) The relevance of this to my research is that VLEs are something that EDUs are inevitably going to be involved in. (Although, as far as I can tell, York doesn’t have an EDU as such – the article refers to a small “e-learning support unit” and I can’t find any evidence of an actual organisational unit on York’s web site) But whether it does or it doesn’t is beside the point for my research. What was interesting about the article was the emphasis that they have put on departmental readiness in terms of meeting the University’s teaching and learning priorities. They claim to have taken a mixed bottom-up and top down approach, although their description of “bottom-up” seemed to imply that this was mostly delivered through departmental working groups. I suppose that is bottom-up in a sense, but it also got me wondering about “in-groups” and “out-groups” Are there those who are aggressively not interested? Are there those who are interested but can’t get involved because of other priorities? Which sort of reinforces the question Trowler et. al. are asking. What constitutes a practical working group, and how do those outside it work with it to change its practices?

The third article was quite different in that it dealt with the idea of threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (MEYER, J. and LAND, R., 2003) A threshold concept is a concept that students need to acquire to be able to work effectively in a discipline. Without a proper understanding of these concepts, a student will at best be able to mimic the discipline and reproduce very limited answers to questions (There’s something of an echo here of the notions of deep and surface learning). I do find this a fascinating topic, and not only because the examples they give are inherently very difficult for me to understand, but sort of explain what they’re getting at. It’s highly relevant, because I think the notion of liminality – that is being at the boundary of understanding in a subject – might go a long way to explaining how educational development units go about interacting with the subject? Do we really understand what teachers in (say) physics, biology, history, or sports science are trying to do. Can we get across the threshold? If we do what do we lose? I liked Meyer and Land’s analogy with the Adam & Eve myth. Once you’re out of Eden, there’s no going back, no matter how comfortable the illusion that you didn’t have freedom, autonomy and responsibility might have been. Is it possible that EDUs will have to abandon any long held values?

I think I’m still some way from finalising my conceptual framework, but if anything, today’s experience has taught me the value of reading. (As if I needed to know!) Sometimes, when you feel you’re getting bogged down, some different perspectives can really get you going again. Unfortunately the work I am being paid to do is shoving its nose in and I’m going to have to leave the Ed D. alone for today – But I think I know my next steps. Firstly I must reread my first draft of chapter 1 and see if these ideas can be incorporated, and secondly I think I can do quite a lot more work on developing my case study protocol, now that the conceptual framework is beginning to form in my mind.

Quite a good day really! Oh, and here are the references

BEASTALL, L. and WALKER, R., 2007. Effecting institutional change through e-learning: An implementation model for VLE deployment at the University of York. Intellect, 3(3), pp. 285-299.

MEYER, J. and LAND, R., 2003. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practices within the disciplines. Occasional Report 4. Edinburgh: ETL Project.

TROWLER, P., FANGHANEL, J. and WAREHAM, T., 2005. Freeing the chi of change: the Higher Education Academy and enhancing teaching and learning in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(4), pp. 427-444

The Importance of Community

Julian Beckton Community, EDUs, Research, Values

I’ve just finished reading a very interesting article by McNaught and Vogel about e-learning and institutional culture. The full reference is below. Ostensibly I’m interested in wider developments in teaching and learning, and their focus was on e-learning, but I thought much of what they had to say was relevant to my interests. (Well, of course, e-learning is part of my conceptual framework, in that adopting it often requires some thought to be given to teaching practices in general)   In particular I was struck by their emphasis on creating a community. Teaching, especially in HE often seems to me to be a pretty lonely pursuit, but I think they are right to argue for the creation of a sense of shared values which can inform development work. Clearly there are different value positions held between disciplines as Becher and Trowler’s work on Academic Tribes has shown. But there are also overarching values that everyone subscribes to (well, nearly everyone!) The danger is perhaps that developers might assume their values to be shared – so perhaps that’s one thing I really ought to be asking about in my research. What are people’s values around teaching and learning. And what, if anything, are educational development units doing to find out about them. And what are they doing to reconcile them if they discover conflicts. ?

 I do think this is an interesting track to go down, but I wonder if I’m risking over-expanding the research topic. I’m going to have to think very carefully about that!

 The other thing I’ve been trying to do today is have a look at Nvivo which is installed on my machine at work. I’m supposed to be evaluating it, but I really haven’t had much time. I think I’m just going to have start staying behind in the evenings! Ho hum!

(MCNAUGHT, C. and VOGEL, D., 2006. The fit between e-learning policy and institutional culture. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(4), pp. 370-385)