 |
 |
Beautifully put, Cathy! Learning and Academic Development, like our 'non-traditional' students themselves, have always occupied contested ground - in the academy generally, in our own institutions and in successive policy documents and dictats. When we analysed the Government Policy document: Harnessing Technology all those years ago - there was no acknowledgement of educational or social inequity. Any reference to 'our' students - was that they were 'hard to reach' with 'cognitive impairment' and or 'special education needs' (this is not to decry students with learning differences); and all that was needed was access to services, especially online packages designed to fix them. Now we have an HE that is ever more about the bottom line and the most cost effective way of delivering more for less; that is fundamentally managerialist in design - with managers asserting their right to manage: what we teach, what technology we must use and increasingly how we shape, deliver and assess our courses. Now we have a TEF that defines good teaching by graduate salaries (which of course will bear no relation to the academic, social or cultural capital with students arrived at their universities!). Such instrumentalism shapes the national narrative about education from nursery onwards; it shapes the narrative of HE - and it is sadly no surprise that it also shapes the narrative of learning development. Best, Sandra On 6 July 2018 at 12:38, Malone, Cathy <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi John, Helen, All, > > > > I agree with much of what you and Helen are saying but I think have a real > proviso. > > > > I think we have a perspective on language and literacies – and we’re not > getting that across / it’s not understood. There is a real disconnect and > failure to refute the forces shaping our workplaces. > > While I firmly believe an understanding of literacies is enabling and > transformative, I recognize this is not a widely shared perspective. I am > more frequently mistaken for Liz Truss, or when I advocate for a Writing > Centre I am looked at as if I want to establish a Scriptorium. I think > you’re right that part of the reason for this misunderstanding is the way > that language is utilized in the academy. This is reflected in Graduate > Attributes – Charters – Assessment documents & sector wide it reflects a > move to isolating and disaggregating different parts of the curriculum. The > Ford Motor company comes to HE. This separates language from learning and > ideas – which for any linguist is patently absurd. I’d agree that this > service delivery of academic language checking and fixing that we have > found ourselves marshalled into for efficiency’s sake, is discriminatory to > all students but particularly those on the margins. > > > > I recognise that many colleagues across the country do transformative > work in spite of the labelling and (mis)understanding of our work. But the > label on the tin is important – it frames our work, for the wider staff > group and for new students coming to university. If you are ambivalent > about your place in the academy,(Lillis, Lea & Street, Bourdieu, Ivanic) a > great deal of tension focuses on the manner of expression and the > connection at an individual level between language and identity. Services > such as Studiosity suggest addressing this is a quick fix, a simple > solution, free, in terms of finance, effort, face. In contrast I am clear > with students that it is difficult, writing is hard and challenging – but > it’s worth it. This as well as the numbers, explains why such services are > so popular. > > However when a university provides these services (Turnitin for > referencing, Studiosity for language checking) they consolidate this > superficial framing of language, and provide educational authority to the > idea that you can compartmentalise and outsource elements of your writing > like this. In this context I think we can’t expect students as novices to > the arena come to our conclusions. I don’t see these students as “well > –disciplined” but as the most marginal and disempowered by the structures > of the university and wider society. In contrast we are already part of the > academy and we have both the analysis and the practice to challenge what is > happening. > > > > For me the institutional framing of the academic language is significant > and has a far reach. This is where I see a divergence between the UK and > Auz. In the UK the institutional account of literacy development is out of > synch with learning that takes place, this would be an arcane theoretical > issue but for the fact that it shapes our work so powerfully. In this gap > between institutional account and our practice, these services spring up > offering quick seductive fixes. The ALL (may have the name wrong – sister > organisation in Auz) led on this 10 years ago(?) and I think created > theoretically robust foundation (language policies) which opened spaces for > sound transformative practice that we’re committed to. > > Moves and trends in the sector can be spearheaded by professional > organisations and leading institutions and are a means to go against the > tide. This would seem a great opportunity for ALDHE to work to influence > the sector – am I alone in this? Thoughts appreciated. > > > > Best > > > > Cathy > > > > > > *From:* John Sutter [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* 06 July 2018 10:31 > *To:* Malone, Cathy > *Cc:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: studiosity > > > > Hi Cathy, all - > > > > I’m also noticing that increasing internationalisation is also making > these ‘services’ , or this ‘support’ conceptualisation of what we do as an > Uber type just in time at point of need, more and more attractive to HE > managers. The point Helen makes about many people in education/academic > development also rings true- the failure of people directly involved in > teaching and learning to connect pedagogy with literacies and language in > education strikes me as a real indictment of either the field itself, or an > indication of complicity with neo-liberal, corporate market processes at > work in education. > > > > For anyone with any awareness of studies in literacies and language, it > must surely by now be clear that current practices around ‘academic > writing’ and ‘academic language’ (particularly in assessment) are > basically a form of (discriminatory) hoop-jumping. Maybe, given our own > limited impact in changing/challenging any of this, it’s now down to the > students themselves - especially those in the consequently disadvantaged > groups (e.g. International / English as an additional language / BAME / > ‘white male working class’ / WP / dyslexic and other learning differently > able students) - to start kicking up a fuss about it? > > > > Or are they too well 'disciplined' too? > > > > > > Best > > > > John > > > > *John Sutter* > > *Learning Enhancement and Support Manager* > > *–* > > *University for the Creative Arts* > > *New Dover Road* > > *Canterbury* > > *Kent CT1 3AN* > > *–* > > *Mobile: 07813836559* > > *Office: ** 01227817365* > > *Skype:jssutter * > > *–* > > > > On 6 Jul 2018, at 10:04, Malone, Cathy <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > Hi Helen > > > > Thanks for collating this – I remember the thread last year and didn’t > make the connection. > > > > I wanted to chip in on John Sutter’s comments; we need to address what > makes these services so attractive to management and to students. > > To managers I think there is a simple issue of offering services at scale > – pedagogy is merged with service delivery, numbers and usage become a > proxy for more robust, critical evaluation of the impact of these services. > > > This seems to be endemic to the sector. > > > > I think we need to separate the two and provide a more robust evaluation > of what is being delivered. > > I would speculate what makes them popular to students (huge spike in usage > around assignment submission time) is that > > 1/ it outsources the work > > 2/ offers help > > 3/ ‘fixes’ broken text > > 4/ online, impersonal and low/no face threat > > 5/ available last minute > > I think again there is a blurring of pedagogy purpose & challenge & > service delivery. > > > > I think these services are perceived as Uberizing Writing Support – making > it fast, almost instantaneous. I am concerned about the pay and conditions > of the staff on the other end, receiving these papers, but this service > doesn’t get students from A to B, move them on in the same. > > At the heart of this is the poorly understood role of writing in HE, as > some surface feature separate from content. This misunderstanding is > widespread (staff and students). I’d agree with John we need to reframe the > debate and challenge the dominance of service dominated metaphors. In an > Auz context university language policies appear widely agreed. This seems > to embed Writing & Writing Development across most institutions. I think > their professional organisation led in this. I wonder if we might consider > a similar initiative? > > > > That’s my twopenniworth for this morning. > > Kind regards > > Cathy > > > > > > > > > > *From:* learning development in higher education network [ > mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Helen > Webster > *Sent:* 06 July 2018 09:33 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: studiosity > > > > Hi Lesley, > > > > Oh it’s **them**… I do remember that discussion – just been going back > over it in the archives. There were some excellent points made last year > not just critiquing such provision, but asking how we can better make the > case to senior admin and academics that such snake oil solutions are best > avoided. Derek raises a good point about feedback – just why would a > university be outsourcing what should be a core and distinct part of its > own provision, it’s unique ‘product’? The answer is I suspect that this > isn’t understood as ‘real’ feedback on the ‘important’ stuff – it’s the > “they should have learned this at school – why can’t students these days > write” feedback, the “I don’t have time for this and it’s not my job” > feedback, the “but I’m here to teach them the subject, not this minor basic > stuff” feedback, the stuff that they’re grateful to offload onto us LDers > and even more so to an outside company. As hard as we practitioners and > researchers have worked over the last 30 years to promote a more > sophisticated and embedded understanding of writing, we know from daily > interactions with academic colleagues this often isn’t filtering through, > and these companies are very good, naively or knowingly, at framing the > problem in outdated, remedial and bolt-on modes and presenting their very > outdated model as a revolutionary modern solution. > > > > How can we do better at getting our message, and our expertise, respected > and heard? At least it occurred to someone in our Ed Dev team to ask me > what I thought – I suspect in other institutions no one’s thought to > consult the LDers at all… How can we as a profession present a more > proactive and weighty response to good practice, rather than scrabbling > around reactively and going (it seems, if we had this conversation last > year!) in circles? I include myself in that – I was one of the ones who > chipped into the conversation last year! > > > > If I may, I’d like to reproduce two responses that now strike me very > forcefully from our discussion last year: > > > > *John Sutter* > > But I do wonder that possibly one reason why such ‘approaches’ or > commercial solutions have - or appear to a have- a degree of credibility > or attraction for some senior managers is that we, as a profession, have > been too slow to question or resist some of the metaphors currently > operating in our field such as ‘support’, ‘student needs’ and the general > individualisation of learning that - whether intentional or not- allow > deficit approaches to become naturalised and embedded into practice that is > then seen as common sense. (My job title - which I have been campaigning - > ineffectively! - to change for three years is a good example of this). > > What can we do as a profession to get universities to question the > underlying metaphors and discourses that effectively position us as a > context-free student needs-based service that could therefore be bought in > more cheaply from elsewhere? > > > > > > *Rowena Harper:* > > I think the most reasonable approach is to: > > · question the veracity of their claims (ie. can they improve > retention, success etc.?? And how would they evidence this?) > > · identify clearly what kind of service they offer to students > and – drawing on your own evidence and theory – illustrate the likely value > of the service > > · articulate how the service may be use to complement what’s > already in place AND/OR suggest a better alternative (e.g. peer initiatives > that benefit already enrolled students) > > > > In an online discussion between members of the AALL executive, I provided > this summary of (what I thought was) useful guidance for anyone asked to > ‘advise’ senior management on these kinds of services – I’ve reproduced it > here in case it’s useful. I think we all know this, but sometimes in the > heat of the moment it’s easy to forget! > > > > - It may be best to position yourself as speculating about the value > of these services, in the context of existing programs. In this case, you > may argue that what these services provide (grammar correction, online > learning advice, learning advice from peers/current students) is already > being offered in far more productive forms, some of which give valuable > experiences to enrolled students. > - Senior managers are likely to be suspicious of any advice that seems > defensive. A defensive, overly critical tone can suggest you feel > threatened, your primary concern being to keep your job. The submission may > come across as biased and lacking objectivity (rather than passionate and > concerned). Try to remain objective and constructive – thoroughly examine > what is likely to be best for students and the institution. > - The best tone may be confusion – “not clear what evidence their > claims are based on…”, “not clear from their marketing materials what they > mean by ‘traditional’ students. If they mean on-campus students, then our > institution provides …”, “their proposal indicates a lack of awareness of > the existing learning advice at out institution, which does not inspire > confidence…” “their materials over-simplify ‘at-risk’ students, so we might > be concerned that they don’t understand how our institution defines and > supports students at risk”. > - The strongest pieces of argument come from samples of what these > companies provide (typically simple text correction or grammar > instructive), and also any job advertisements that expose who they are > really employing as ‘writing experts’ (2nd year undergraduates, from > what we have seen). > > > > (I’d add from my own experience that passing on responses from other > institutions does carry weight too, so continuing to share our experiences > and views is incredibly helpful. It’s difficult though, as ‘official’ > evaluations can be a bit weak, and more authentic, informed views can be > hard to express publically for fear of censure from your own institution. > How can we facilitate this?) > > > > Apparently I was waffling on last year about how I felt that the > recognition scheme Steve Briggs was proposing in the community keynote > would be a damn good idea – so we have got quite a long way since then! And > from Rowena’s response our colleagues in Australia were already starting to > formulate a more strategic approach to this, and are ahead of us – I’m so > glad ICALLD has helped to promote these discussions! > > Best wishes > > > > Helen > > > > > > > > *From:* Cioccarelli, Lesley <[log in to unmask]> > *Sent:* 06 July 2018 00:46 > *To:* Helen Webster <[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* RE: studiosity > > > > Hi Helen and all > > > > Two AALL members presented on their research into ‘third party services’ > at ICALLD earlier this year, which includes *Studiosity* and similar > services: > > > > *The hard working learner: third party services and academic language and > learning.* > > Presenters: Helen Benzie & Rowena Harper, University of South Australia > > > > *Abstract* here: http://icalld2018.cdu.edu.au/ > abstracts/05_benzie_harper.pdf > > > > *Recording* here - it is the first presentation on Session 3: > http://icalld2018.cdu.edu.au/conference_rooms.html > > > > [Note also that *Studiosity* was previously known as *YourTutor*, and > there was a discussion on LDHEN about this last year.] > > > > Regards > > Lesley > > > > > > *From:* learning development in higher education network [ > mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Helen > Webster > *Sent:* Thursday, 5 July 2018 8:42 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* studiosity > > > > Apparently there has been some interest in the Heads of E-learning Forum > list about Studiosity,https://www.studiosity.com/ an Australian service > that offers feedback on student writing, because I’ve had two emails from > our learning technologists and education developers this morning… > > > > I’ve had a quick look both at the site and a report by Ulster university > who piloted it – I can’t say I’m impressed. It looks like yet another > simple solution to a complex problem which dodges the real issues, and not > very in line with ALDinHE’s values or practices, but it’s worryingly > attractive to both universities and students, offering a quick fix of what > seem to be largely surface features. > > > > Has anyone else come across it, and, since it’s an Australian company, > what do our partners in AALL think of it? > > > > Best wishes > > > > Helen > > > > *Dr Helen Webster * > > ALDinHE Certified Leading Practitioner, SFHEA, PGCE > > > > *Head of the Academic Writing Development Centre* > Philip Robinson Library > Newcastle University > Newcastle upon Tyne > NE2 4HQ > UK > > > > Tel: 0191 208 5650 > > @scholastic_rat > > > > <image001.png> <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the LDHEN list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=LDHEN&A=1 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. > If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete > all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You > should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any > other person. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the LDHEN list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=LDHEN&A=1 > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the LDHEN list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=LDHEN&A=1 > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the LDHEN list, click the following link: > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=LDHEN&A=1 > -- Sandra Sinfield University Teaching Fellow ________________________________________________________ Centre for Professional & Educational Development LC-213 London Metropolitan University, 236-250 Holloway Road, N7 6PP. (020) 7 133 4045 Association of Learning Development in HE: www.aldinhe.ac.uk Essential Study Skills: the complete guide to success at university: https://study.sagepub.com/burnsandsinfield4e <https://study.sagepub.com/burnsandsinfield4e> http://lastrefugelmu.blogspot.co.uk/ Find me on Twitter - or use #studychat & #loveld -- London Metropolitan University is a limited company registered in England and Wales with registered number 974438 and VAT registered number GB 447 2190 51. Our registered office is at 166-220 Holloway Road, London N7 8DB. London Metropolitan University is an exempt charity under the Charities Act 2011. Its registration number with HMRC is X6880. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the LDHEN list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=LDHEN&A=1