The new PCTHE cohort is significantly different to those of years previous. There are 43 on the register. Of these 22 – just more than half – are eligible to enter with AP(E)L for 20 (out of 60) credits at level seven. They arrived with QTS and/or Associate membership of the HE Academy and/or a willingness to write a reflective statement demonstrating their attainment of the objectives of the first module through experience. I observed last year that it appeared the numbers of people arriving with APL might be increasing and that this stood to reason. This year APL has been realised as a significant factor in our programme. This will change the balance of our teaching programme. The first module, “Learning and Teaching in Higher Education”, will only have 22 enrolled. The second module will have 42 people on it. At this point only one person has stated an intention to do the first module only. Experience suggests that as the semester progresses several more will step down to a slower route, doing the single module this year and the double module next. This has implications for an outdated HR policy of making the PCTHE a condition of probation for new academic staff. We (the course team) are opposed to the PCTHE being a condition of probation. There is too much going on. Yes, make it a contract condition that they complete the programme in the requisite three years. Maybe make the Associate course (module one) mandatory in year one. But the full PG Cert is a significant effort which, with all the other pressures on new staff, seems in some cases un-necessarily harsh. There is a catch 22 also. Some schools give new staff time off teaching to do the PG Cert, but then they do not have enough teaching to qualify for the programme. Constructive alignment with policy and procedures is far more difficult than with intended learning outcomes, activities and assessment!
We must have been given the worst teaching room in the University (Gibbs 2.15). It was on the edge of a building site with fork lifts reversing all morning. The room was the only unrefurbished one on this floor of the building. The seating was really poor quality: ripped seats, gum on the floor. There was no wireless coverage or 3G in the room (some might consider this a positive feature?). Roy is looking into finding a different room for Wednesday.
But that was not the whole story. The participants were a buzzy group: very little evidence of reluctant participation and a real willingness to talk with each other.
Frances showed Mike Wesch’s excellent video, A vision of students today. This stimulated discussion: what are we preparing learners for? This opened up a discussion of transferable outcomes or “graduate competencies”: team working, communication, academic literacy and so on. Frances also referred to John Biggs, one of the theorists that we draw on. Biggs characterised the “academic” and the “non-academic” learner (deep and surface) and advocated constructive alignment as a means of creating or inducing the behaviours of the more academic student in the less academically inclined. Our challenge is as much how to involve less academic learners as it is to stimulate and challenge the more academically inclined. This reminds me of a discussion I recently had with a participant on a previous cohort whose background was from an ancient university in another country. Her observation was that Brookes students, compared to those she was used to, were less well motivated. I am cautious of such generalisations, but I do expect that we experience much greater diversity in all dimensions of learner difference here than in some other places; but, I also expect there are places where the diversity is even greater. This is a factor of British Higher education policy over the past 15 years or so. The great benefits of widening participation are matched with new challenges for teachers.
The VLE introduction session took place in a brand new pooled computer room. The room was locked when I arrived 15 minutes early to get set up. There was no projector. It appeared as if the computers had never been turned on. All took 15 minutes to boot while building the registry, updating applications and so on. at least five computers would not run at all. At least five others would not launch applications from the desktop – though they did run from the “Start menu”. These are the things sent to try us. But again, the participants this year are a very tolerant group. They coped probably better than me!
I wonder, indeed, if this is the last time we need to run this session in this way? Each year I observe that the participants are more and more computer literate. At least half the problems, if not more, were due to the Brookes LAN and the pooled room: the computers not booting correctly and logging into the Brookes network caused more difficulty than interacting with the applications. Even people who had never used the VLE were able to find their way around and use the forums. Categorically, only the use of the Wiki was problematic, and some of those problems were only down to the fact that not only our group of 30 people were accessing. Greg observed that at the same time across the university over 500 people were engaged in similar sessions. The load will be balanced by next week. Though the Wiki was a challenge for some to use, we probably picked the worst time and the worst place and the worst way to address the challenges.