What was I trying to do in my talk to the Solstice conference 2016?
Semi-live notes from very interesting and data filled Oxford Brookes University Widening Participation Working Group Away Day at Marston Road. (Of 30 people in the room only one obviously black man and two Asian women. Matches our BME student profile? c. 10%)
The day was framed by demographics about where Brookes sits, and politics in light of the forthcoming election, which enabled a critical frame for the day: whose WP are we talking about? Is the “lifecourse” educational – or institutional – for everyone?
Should OCSLD have had a pitch here? Because support for staff development IS support for WP. Though we are not seen as a service for students, institutionally, the significant change that has to be made is “Academic”: academic literacy, academic content, academic writing, academic culture. Critical analysis is HUGE. Planning and structuring assignments is HUGE. When you have many inquiries from the same course at the same time, you ask: Can we move up the river and see “who is ‘pushing the bodies into the stream'”? Is this is where OCSLD has a role working with course teams?
This post will be updated through the day (Tuesday 10 March 0930-1430)
I recently met with a student who had been unsuccessful in achieving the criteria for one of the assignments on the PCTHE. Most of my comments are of a general nature regarding the writing of a course review, so I thought I would post them.
- Back up your assertions with evidence. As teachers and students in higher education we must be familiar with the many forms that evidence can take. Avoid unsubstantiated statements and in every case where an assertion is made, think of how it might be evidenced.
- In general we are interested in your experience, ideas and theories, not your ability to reproduce the theories of others. Theory is simply an answer to the question “why”? That is, one of the principal purposes of theory is explanatory. It does help to recognise the theories of others that came before and have also experienced similar questions and come up with their own explanations. One of the principal theories that underlies this course is Constructive Alignment. Frequently problems in course reviews arise at least in part due to a lack of such alignment. And, a solution might, in part, lie in taking an aligned approach to course and assessment design and implementation. Remember there should be alignment between objectives – or “intended learning outcomes” (what the learners should be able to DO), learning activities in the classroom (or wider teaching environment), which allow the students to practice the objectives, and assessments which allow the students to demonstrate that they can do what ever the objectives suggest. Assessments should be backed up with criteria by which that doing can be evaluated.
- Tell the story. Start at the begining:
- In the first paragraph state the key point of the paper (write this after you have written the rest)
- I first taught this course …
- It attracts such and such kind of students. Be as precise as you can with the observable demographics: age range, gender mix, full-time/part-time, in employment or not, etc. Avoid simplistic psychometrics (learning styles, etc) unless you have a particular reason to use them.
- The course as inherited had these characteristics:stage, CATS points, programme context; external professional bodies (referees); aims (what you and the referees want to achieve); learning objectives (what the students must DO); teaching activities; assessments
- The course as inherited had these problems (whatever they were). Provide evidence for how you know these were problems: i.e. attendance, participation, engagement, outcome (exam) results, informal feedback, your own observation, discussion with students, discussion with colleagues, etc. Draw on the writings and theories of others to show that these problems are not unique to your situation. That is to say, use outside authorities to show that your problems may be generalisable to a wider context.
- In light of the students and the problems observed, you have made the following changes: changes implemented during operation in the first year (i.e. through reflection IN practice); changes implemented in a revision (i.e. through reflection ON practice)
- Evaluation: how will you know the changes have been effective?
- Next steps
It is sometimes asserted that while students are using web 2 tools extensively there is no evidence that they are using them to do deep learning. I believe this assertion should be questioned.
Frances Bell asks “CCK08 Is Connectivism a Learning Network?. She critiques the connectivism community/network/group of people who regularly use that term in their writing about education, in connectivist terms (“in their own terms”). The main argument is that “Protagonists have shown their ability to connect between fields of their own choosing, but less willingness to explore fields suggested by others e.g. Actor-Network Theory.” (ANT) “There are little or no links between ANT and connectivism,” says Bell. Therefore, Connectivism may not be willing to be “mutable knowlege as it extends its network…” Bell, here fails to draw a distinction between the ideas and the people who have them. If Connectivism IS its “protagonists” and the “protagonists” ARE Connectivism, then, if they do not engage with ANT, following Bell’s argument, there is a contradiction. But, how unusual is it for humans to display behaviour inconsistent with their ideas?