This is where I put on my hat from a previous incarnation in Political Economy.
The problem with the Green paper is that it engages with a real issue, enhancement of teaching in HE, but sees the strengthening of market pressures as the tool for bringing it about. This approach is proved to have failed in straightforward areas such as electricity generation, or the creation of an affordable working railway system. The paper is easily translated into the language of the free market. Reductions in barriers to entry, improved information to consumers, the state as a regulator of the market, not of the quality of the provision. There is also a real tension at the core which is that there is no possible contractual relationship between what the student learns and what the teacher teaches. Therefore the myriad of proxies, e.g. Student Satisfaction, with which we are familiar. As academic developers we will have to do good work within the context in which we find ourselves. I have absolutely no doubt that the use of metrics and the operations of what is actually a market only in ideological terms will make it harder for everyone to learn.
Kieran
Dr Kieran Kelly PhD, SFHEA
Learning for All
University of the West of England
5E12
Frenchay Campus
Coldharbour Lane
Bristol
BS16 1QY
Tel: 0117 32(81550)
Mob: 07768 723927
________________________________________
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lea, John ([log in to unmask]) [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 13 November 2015 09:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian
Good result, I think. Debby and Jo.
Yes, let's move on...and get to Chris's important point, but a quick couple things from me on the THE issue.
In the current marketised climate I think the `training’ mentality might be better described as a credentialising one, and is probably coming more from our seniors and our disciplined based colleagues who are both under pressure (for different reasons) to succumb to this force. In which case it is up to us, in the Ed Dev world, to try really hard to hold the line on this, and we all need to support each other in this difficult but ultimately very rewarding task. And it probably won’t help to make the UKPSF the new culprit. I have no research evidence to draw on, but I have been an EE at 8 universities and reviewed 13 teacher ed programmes, and I can’t see any evidence from there of the UKPSF, on the ed dev ground (so to speak), being used in a training-like, merely credentialising way.
And are we letting off the THE rather lightly here? Forgive me if I’m being naïve, and with apologies to anyone on this list who is on the editorial board of the THE and knows better, but I’ve always been a little intrigued why a `magazine’ - which seems to err more on the side of being a newspaper (focusing on the headline grabbing and the controversial) rather than a journal (focusing on analysis and evidence) - should need such a large editorial board made up almost exclusively of academics.
Accepting, of course, that a lot of the stories and features only seem to be there so that Laurie Taylor will have something to take the pee out of the following week.
Best
John
John Lea
________________________________
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Chris Rust <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 13 November 2015 09:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian
I agreed with all your comments Debby, and as an ex external for the course at Kent I can endorse Joanna's claims about its quality, which makes some of her comments even more regrettable in my view.
But in the spirit of drawing a line, and refocussing on the Green paper, can I raise a fairly basic issue which I have seen very little comment on - namely, the decision to focus the TEF at the level of the institution. I think this should be a major focus of our responses because it is so easy to make the case that this is nonsensical. Neither the REF nor the NSS attempt to rate the institution (although league tables may ultimately do so) and it is well known that with the NSS there is more variation within institutions than between them. Whatever the quality of the metrics to be used (and that is not looking good!), to average them out across an institution will give a result of dubious use to either prospective students or employers. Given that government may already have made up its mind about using the TEF to differentiate funding, it seems to me that rather than just rejecting that, we may have more chance of success in arguing that this approach will have questionable validity.
Best wishes
Chris
Chris Rust
Professor Emeritus
[service.svc/s/GetFileAttachment?id=AAMkADgyZTk5ZmQ3LTBkYWYtNGEzNC04OGM3LWQxNmU2MDU5OWJhNABGAAAAAAAWZKCZ6%2FOXQaNYUhO0ZN9SBwAJbihNJTcuTZA3ej09LldkAAAAAAEPAAAJbihNJTcuTZA3ej09LldkAACJ%2BtJJAAABEgAQANFLMcIUKm9OjRnOuXIL7oI%3D&X-OWA-CANARY=RA_J3nrWjEKI30vjdXwXWKB2C3gN7NIYxmIDIzYuBzkN5vaWSzbMx99chtEdzQgpGJcvoKcDesU.]
On 13 Nov 2015, at 08:00, Debby Cotton wrote:
Hi all,
Ok, as the originator of this thread I feel duty bound to step briefly back into the fray to thank those who responded - and especially to Joanna who has helpfully put across her own views in more depth. Obviously in a brief article it is always hard to explain clearly the points being made, and I am particularly glad to see Joanna offering support for her own colleagues who do a tough job in increasingly difficult circumstances as she recognises.
I do not withdraw my original comment, however, and I do feel that it is a pity that we continue within the sector to aim our fire at each other rather than at the government instigators of the change that we all have to manage as best we can. In this I think I agree with Joanna, ironically! Of course none of us feel more strongly about PGCerts than about the Green Paper but I for one have just got rather fed up over the years of reading articles which use any thinly veiled excuse to take a dig at lecturer training courses.
However, like I say, fighting each other is ultimately unhelpful so I hope we can draw a line under this.
All best wishes,
Debby
Debby Cotton
Professor of Higher Education and Head of Educational Development,
Teaching and Learning Support, Plymouth University.
Tel: 01752 587614
http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/dcotton
Follow me on Twitter: @ProfDcotton
________________________________________
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Joanna Williams [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 7:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian
Dear all,
I am the author of the THE opinion piece. I am also a member of this SEDA mailing list.
Thank you all very much indeed for your criticisms of the article. I have read them with interest and I am always keen to engage in debate.
Three small points.
Firstly, this is a THE blog. It is an opinion piece. It is not academic research. I hope I have said nothing in the article to suggest I have undertaken a full and comprehensive review of lecturer training courses - I most certainly have not. I am simply expressing my opinion.
That said, it is an opinion that I completely stand by and one that has clearly touched a nerve with many in the sector as I have had a more overwhelmigly positive response to this piece than the many others I have written over the past few years. SEDA members may not like this fact - but I think it is important that it is recognised and engaged with.
I think one of the reasons why I have had such a positive response to this opinion piece is because it is not actually about lecturer training courses at all. It is a critique of the government's Green Paper.
So, my second point. I am terribly sorry if this did not come across clearly in the piece but my argument was with the Green Paper and how it will impact upon teaching in HE. The line about lecturer training was made in this context.
At Kent I teach on our wonderful PGCHE programme. I have done for the past eight years. I have the most fantastic, hard working and dedicated colleagues. Our PGCHE course has been praised by successive external examiners and we always get extremely positive feedback from our students. I am extremely proud of our PGCHE programme, the work that I have done on this programme, and the work that my colleagues put into it.
However, over the past year we have had to bring our programme into line with the UKPSF. We are having to incorporate more people onto our programme who are perhaps (initially at least) less enthusiastic volunteers and more people thinking it is a career necessity. All of these things impact upon the nature of what we offer - although obviously we have tried to minimise the impact of such changes. The Green Paper, in my view, points to further such regulation of teaching in higher education. I think this will be entirely detrimental to the sector and that was the point I made in my THE piece.
My third and final point. Do by all means go ahead and get a response and signatures for my THE article. (A petition by any other name.) However, it might appear as if SEDA members are more outraged by a THE blog piece than they are by the Green Paper itself. Is this really the case?
With thanks and good wishes,
Jo
Dr. Joanna Williams
Programme Director MA in Higher Education
Director Centre for the Study of Higher Education
University of Kent
CT2 7NQ
01227 827137
http://www.kent.ac.uk/uelt/staff/apt/profiles/jwilliams.html
________________________________
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of James Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 13 November 2015 07:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian
Quite right Penny.
I should imagine quite a few of the SEDA members have themselves gone through and survived such training; I have for one.
James
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. James M. Wilson (PhD, FHEA, FIfL),
Director, Academic Enhancement Centre<http://www.xjtlu.edu.cn/en/academics/aec.html>,
Centre for Academic Affairs,
Office 1160B, Central Building,
Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU),
No.111 Ren'ai Road,
Dushu Lake Higher Education Town,
Suzhou Industrial Park, Jiangsu Province,
P R China 215123.
Phone: (0086) 0512-81880416
Mobile: (0086)13771927343
E-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Skype: james.wilson47
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Penny Sweasey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 2:53 PM
To: James Wilson
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian
That was my though James . . A robust response . . . Although a response from colleagues who have 'survived' the horrors of training and come out of it not just unscathed but inspired would be even more powerful.
Penny
Penny Sweasey
PGCE, MA Education, PFHEA
Head of Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT)
Manchester Metropolitan University
www.mmu.ac.uk/celt<http://www.mmu.ac.uk/celt>
0161 247 1610<tel:0161%20247%C2%A01610>
1st Floor, All Saints Building
Manchester Metropolitan University,
All Saints, Manchester, M15 6BH
Sent from my iPad
On 13 Nov 2015, at 02:12, James Wilson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Ditto!!
This is a mindless uninformed observation.
I wonder whether a response to this should be considered by SEDA and signed by as many of us as possible.
Best
James
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. James M. Wilson (PhD, FHEA, FIfL),
Director, Academic Enhancement Centre,
Centre for Academic Affairs,
Office 1160B, Central Building,
Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University (XJTLU),
No.111 Ren'ai Road,
Dushu Lake Higher Education Town,
Suzhou Industrial Park, Jiangsu Province,
P R China 215123.
Phone: (0086) 0512-81880416
Mobile: (0086)13771927343
E-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Skype: james.wilson47
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Debby Cotton
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 1:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian
Regarding the THE article, I surely can't be the only one to get furious at the inability of some journalists to write anything on teaching in HE without slating 'formal teacher training'? I mean naturally the courses we run will lead to 'conformity throughout the sector' because we focus on 'tips and tricks ...' (Not pedagogic theory and research findings which might - gasp - actually improve teaching) ... And I'm sure that those of you on this list who teach on such courses spend all your time encouraging lecturers to read out their PowerPoint slides! Honestly, it's as though the writer has never attended a training course, knows no-one who ever has and certainly has not spoken to those who run them. I've nothing against informed criticism based on evidence but really - to paraphrase - this is reminiscent of journalism at its worst.
*Rant over*
Debby
Debby Cotton
Professor of Higher Education and Head of Educational Development, Teaching and Learning Support, Plymouth University.
Tel: 01752 587614
http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/dcotton
Follow me on Twitter: @ProfDcotton
________________________________________
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development Association [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] on behalf of Helen Beetham [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 7:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Letter on higher education Green Paper in today's Guardian
A couple of analyses I've found useful, in case list members have missed them.
http://followersoftheapocalyp.se/ - an ongoing blog from David Kernohan, previously policy wonk at HEFCE and very detailed in its analysis https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/higher-education-green-paper-what-it-means-teaching
Helen
Helen Beetham
Consultant in Higher Education
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
twitter helenbeetham
Skype helenb33
www.helenbeetham.com<http://www.helenbeetham.com><http://www.helenbeetham.com>
On 11 Nov 2015, at 18:48, "Parker, Pam" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass><http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif%5d%3chttp:/www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass%3e>
This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.
"Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer "
________________________________
[http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif]<http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/worldclass>
This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form.
|
