Dear Len and all
I find this a complex but useful debate. I know the ideas have been around on LDHEN before. Len says that "this list constantly recycles issues" - that's true! We began almost ten years ago and these issues are still relevant. We recycle and re-state them, as practitioners in fields of practice are wont to do in efforts to make sense of practice. But saying 'we' - as with 'this list' requires caution. We are not a homogenous bunch. We began with a couple of dozen of us and there are now nearly 600 on the list from a variety of backgrounds and contexts. Folks come and go and views are expressed representing various aspects of people's experiences, stages and snapshots of their working lives. The LDHEN, and associated enterprises such as ALDinHE; LearnHigher and the JLDHE are in a state of development which signals a healthy form of evolution in pursuit of our objectives - to provide a forum for discussion of how students experience learning in HE and how we as practitioners can work to enhance this - developing our own practice in the service of increasing access to and participation in HE, for the good of universities, students and society more generally.
Yes it's in part true that as Len says "the field of LDHE struggles to demonstrate that it makes a significant contribution" - that is not surprising in a field where all the attention and resources are on what we do, and where assessing our contribution would represent costly undertakings. We do not, on the whole, represent income generating operations and we are sometimes easy targets. But cuts are not the whole story. Learning development initiatives - whether so named or not - are growing, and so is the body of evidence that such work - i.e. a focus how students experience and develop academic practices - is effective.
I do not see a particular 'ideological attachment to the possessive-instrumentalist view of skills and attributes' among LDers - or not as dominant as is implied. You only have to search the LDHEN archives, read the journal or look at conference papers. You will find a mixed bag and a rich picture with differing theoretical underpinnings. True, there are many examples of skills-focussed work. There are other approaches too. Not all are as intensely theorised as Len's but many are cogent expressions of experiences and ideas about practice offering valuable insights and resources for others.
There is much more to say but I have had a long day! I might not be very skilful in managing my time. I am sure the discussion will continue - it is about how we contribute to the development of learning activities, environments and contexts that are effective in supporting learning - yes, as emergent identity - with evidence of skill (yes I said both 's' words - but I didn't mean them remedially!) against socially determined criteria - assessment tasks, hurdles ... sure it's getting to work on those criteria, isn't it? That takes us back to Rebecca's original question too - what would it be useful for the student to do on such a course - how could it be contextualised - and what criteria would be useful in judging their practice?
-----Original Message-----
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leonard Holmes
Sent: 11 July 2011 15:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Study Skills Module - To Teach in Isolation?
Hi Eloise
I gave some indication of what it might look like in examples in an article published in Quality in Higher Education back in 2001
http://aces.shu.ac.uk/employability/resources/Reconsidering_graduate_employability.pdf
But I would anticipate that, if an open-minded approach is adopted, and with a small amount of imagination, it would not be difficult to apply the approach in any situation in HE.
As I stated, this can be seen in what higher education has done for centuries. 'Freshers' are required to **become** undergraduates, and to do the kinds of things that undergraduates do. In the US, freshers become sophomores in year 2 (UK doesn't have equivalent term), different a kind of person, now fully engaged in the practices of HE and taking these further. Final year students move towards being graduates. At graduation at my first university used the phrase 'I admit you' was declared: the lowly undergraduate now being admitted to the community of scholars who have demonstrated their 'worthiness' to be so viewed. We assess students' **performance**, ie their engagement in practices, NOT some imaginary phenomena that supposedy are used).
It does, of course, accord with the 'legitimate peripheral participation' approach suggested by Lave and Wenger. What I think I offer, that goes beyond Lave and Wenger's approach is a more thorough-going philosophical and social scientific analysis (see, eg, What can performance tell us about learning? Explicating a troubled concept, published 2000 in European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology , 9: 2).
As for the materialisation of an 'ideological attachment to the possessive-instrumentalist view of skills and attributes', I see this
a) in repeated discussions on this list of skills and attributes
b) even where this is avowedly denied, further discussion suggests that it still lurks in the thinking - eg replacing 'skills' with 'competencies';
c) evidently no willingness to discuss attempts to **interpret** current or new LD interventions in terms of practices and emergent identity, and certainly no discussion of proposed new attempts at intervention that are informed by such an approach.
I did use the term 'paradigm', and it is that way of considering the issues that is needed. Once the currently dominant focus on 'skills' is seen as an example of a paradigm, in Kuhnian terms, the unavoidable question then is raised: what alternative paradigm might be adopted? Although I agree that many in the LD community avow that they are 'kicking against' the skills and attributes approach, I don't see that being done at the level that is required, ie at a paradigmatic level.
I just don't see that happening, and so conclude that there is, as stated, an 'ideological attachment to the possessive-instrumentalist view of skills and attributes. And so, unfortunately, this list constantly recycles issues and, as we have seen, the field of LDHE struggles to demonstrate that it makes a significant contribution such that senior management would not even contemplate cut backs at the level we have seen reported.
As I said, pity.
best wishes
Len
-----------------------------
Dr Leonard Holmes
Reader in Management
School of Business and Social Sciences
Roehampton University
www.re-skill.org.uk
________________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eloise Sentito [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 11 July 2011 13:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Study Skills Module - To Teach in Isolation?
This is really interesting Len. Can you say more about what 'a practices- emergent identity approach' looks like in practice, and about how the LDHE 'ideological attachment to the possessive-instrumentalist view of skills and attributes' materialises? This latter is not my perception of our approach (but rather the thing that many of us are kicking against in mainstream(?) HE culture), but I'd like to reflect on my own practice and beliefs in light of what you say.
Eloïse
Eloïse Sentito
Learning Development
www.plymouth.ac.uk/learn
[log in to unmask]
Tel. (01752 5)87752
-----Original Message-----
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leonard Holmes
Sent: 11 July 2011 13:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Study Skills Module - To Teach in Isolation?
Hi all
of course, merely avoiding the word 'skills' isn't enough - especially if replaced by near synonyms such as 'competencies', 'abilities', 'capbilities' and so on (now the broader terms 'attributes' and 'characteristics'). It's the whole mode of **conceptualisation** that should be reconsidered - the perspective, background theorisation, or paradigm if you will.
What do we think (ie theorise) is taking place when we engage in the kinds of interventions that we hope will improve students' performance as they proceed through higher education? Why do we think that sessions (whether lectures or other forms) that are specifically addressing (in isolation) what are termed 'skills' (or 'competencies' etc) will have the desired results (which, it seems from earlier mailings, they don't!). Why do we think such interventions might work if they are 'embedded' in specific subject disciplines (what **does** 'embedding mean anyway?).
Is there an alternative way of thinking about the issue?
Of course there is: by taking a practices- emergent identity approach. We could organise the curriculum so that it promotes students' development of a sense of the identity appropriate to an undergraduate (then a graduate), enable them to rehearse, serially and progressively, the **practices** appropriate to someone seeking to be accorded, ascribed, such an identity, and enable them to articulate and communicate their claim to have performed such practices.
To a large extent, that is what is currently happening - that **is** what higher education has done for centuries. The problem is that the recent specific focus on 'learning development', 'skills' etc has MISunderstood, or MISrepresented the process. Taking a practices-emergent identity approach would overcome such misunderstanding and misrepresentation, to enable a more deliberate approach to what has always been the process of higher education.
Will that happen? I doubt it. My perception is that the LDHE field is one that has an ideological attachment to the possessive-instrumentalist vew of skills and attributes - they are articles of faith, and strongly connected to practitioners' presentation of selves (ie **their** identity). Conversion **is** possible, I believe (as I have been through that myself) - but I guess it's difficult to cope with the uncertainty and challenge to one's sense of self if required to engage in the kind of critical thinking necessary.
Pity - so much that could be done, so many repeated failed 'experiments' that could be avoided.
regards
Len
-----------------------------
Dr Leonard Holmes
Reader in Management
School of Business and Social Sciences
Roehampton University
www.re-skill.org.uk
________________________________________
From: learning development in higher education network [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Ireland [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 11 July 2011 12:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Study Skills Module - To Teach in Isolation?
Rebecca
Here in Huddersfield we have varied models of embedding. Pat Hill summarised three of these in a poster she presented at the LDHEN Symposium in Nottingham last year http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/10726/1/Pat_Hill_LDHEN_2010.pdf.
I've been involved with a first year module in our Department of Accountancy for the past five years (third example on the poster). The module draws much of its content from the other modules running in the first year but places emphasis on employability and study skills. It is designed in such a way that there are points at which discipline specific content can be substituted depending on which courses from the Business School want to use the module. Having said this, I continue to run a non-credit bearing module for final year students which covers mostly writing skills and has no discipline content. The fact that they are final year students who are writing dissertations is, I think, the main difference; they attend voluntarily and in large numbers. In contrast, my experience of helping the first year students in generic sessions before we developed the current module was not very positive. By the time they get to university many students have had enough of 'skills' and the last thing they want are more skills sessions. The students I work with on the first year accountancy module generally find study skills much more acceptable since they are mixed in with employability competencies (we even avoid the word skills here) and some subject content.
Chris Ireland
Academic Skills Tutor
Learning Development Group
The Business School
University of Huddersfield
Office: Learning Development Group (BS1/26B)
Telephone: +44 (0) 1484 473023
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/view/authors/Ireland=3AChris=3A=3A.html
http://del.icio.us/chrisireland
-----Original Message-----
From: learning development in higher education network [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rebecca Bennett-Wilding
Sent: 11 July 2011 11:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Study Skills Module - To Teach in Isolation?
Hi all
Next year I will be running an accredited study skills module and I'm in the process of throwing a few ideas around as to the best approach for delivery.
This is a stand alone module where the students are pursuing a number of different courses (they are enrolling on this as an additional module) so therefore it might be difficult for me to embed the skills into one course.
It has been suggested that I teach the module through my own area of interest but this might be off putting to some students who might for example, have no interest in Art History whatsoever!
So, I'm wondering if I should teach the module in isolation (like I have done for generic one off sessions to courses) or try and have a subject theme throughout the course.
Any thoughts would be much appreciated!
Thanks
Rebecca
Rebecca Bennett-Wilding (AMBDA FE/HE)
Study Advice Tutor/Tiwtor Cyngor Astudio
01633 432657
Study Advice / Cyngor Astudio
University of Wales, Newport / Prifysgol Cymru, Casnewydd
Caerleon Campus / Campws Caerllion
Lodge Road / Heol y Porthdy
Newport / Casnewydd
NP18 3QT
---
This transmission is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you receive it in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and remove it from your system. If the content of this e-mail does not relate to the business of the University of Huddersfield, then we do not endorse it and will accept no liability.
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or its attachments.
Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. Roehampton University does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses.
Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that does not relate to the business of Roehampton University is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by Roehampton University.
Roehampton University is a company limited by guarantee incorporated in England under number 5161359. Registered Office: Grove House, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PJ. An exempt charity.
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this email or its attachments.
Internet communications are not guaranteed to be secure or virus-free. Roehampton University does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from unauthorised access to, or interference with, any Internet communications by any third party, or from the transmission of any viruses.
Any opinion or other information in this e-mail or its attachments that does not relate to the business of Roehampton University is personal to the sender and is not given or endorsed by Roehampton University.
Roehampton University is a company limited by guarantee incorporated in England under number 5161359. Registered Office: Grove House, Roehampton Lane, London SW15 5PJ. An exempt charity.
|
