Discussion concerning the development of pedagogy is predominantly focused at the scale of the seminar/lecture room. This is unsurprising as it is within such spaces that the dominant interplay of teaching and learning takes form. Much of the research into pedagogy relates to approaches to teaching, the possible reaction of students, and the interweaving of curriculum and assessment through and around these processes. However, I argue here that we need to be careful that our pursuit of pedagogic ‘excellence’ does not become isolated and sealed off from the wider world. A lot of educational debate occurs as if the world beyond does not, and should not, really play an important role in our thinking; in some quarters at school-level it is even seen as an excuse to suggest that external factors might be responsible for inequalities in educational attainment. However, I argue that those wanting to develop deep and critical pedagogic practice need to take into account two important societal/global foci if they are to develop such a depth to their pedagogic practice and literacy:
- Policy (both national and global)
- Socio-economic, cultural and environmental change
The university sector has rapidly become a political tool, particularly over the past 20 years. It is more often referred to in the media for the income generation it brings than the educational purpose it serves. Perhaps these are the reasons for the sector being the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as it is seen far more in terms of the ways in which it can feed workforces and innovations to the private sector than as an educational pursuit. As a consequence, policy, such as that surrounding tuition fees or the loss of State subsidy for teaching in all areas other than STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) play a major role in the way in which policy impacts on the university sector. Likewise, the continued move to concentrate research funding in the same areas, and a move towards more focused funding of quantitative research in the Social Sciences. All of these policies play a part in altering the dynamics of university activity, including teaching. Therefore, to understand the context for building pedagogic models we need to have an understanding of these policy trajectories, the changing regulatory frameworks which surround them (such as the changing nature and strength of the Quality Assurance Agency) and the ways in which we can, where we feel it necessary, resist or subvert them.
Socio-economic, cultural and environmental change
There can be a tendency for individuals at any point in time to argue that they are living in a qualitatively unique era that is somehow worse than what has gone before; change is an inevitable and ubiquitous process and we should be careful when we claim unique contexts in our own time. However, there are new and different patterns which are emerging at both societal and global level which are either new and emergent, or amplified, when related to previous states. This is particularly so for education. Globalisation is a process which has been with us for much longer than is often recognised. Osterhammel et al (2009) give a brief introduction of globalisation which focuses on a discussion of global trade activities going back hundreds of years – it is not such a new process. However, what makes modern patterns of globalisation so different is the acceleration in the processes involved. Capital transfers, the expansion of global manufacture networks, and the more rapid and mass movement of people. Alongside these shifting patterns has come a transformation in the role and character of universities over recent years, particularly since the opening up of former communist states. This reverberates through the university sector in a number of ways. First we had ‘league tables’ for British universities – then in the last few years this has been added to by a ‘global league table’. Why? Because league tables, like PISA in the school sector, are essential data for economic processes, in the case of HE for those making global choices about university applications, and for those deciding where their investments should flow. This has led to a huge financial inflow to the UK through large numbers of, especially, postgraduate students, particularly from countries like China. This in turn is important for pedagogy as any relatively small group of international masters students, for example, will have a vast array of prior learning experiences, knowledge, expectations as to the meaning of ‘study’ and even rules concerning plagiarism or referencing. In addition, we have found through our own research that labels such as ‘Confucian Heritage Culture Learner’ are woefully stereotypical and lacking in giving useful insight. Whilst differentiation is not part of the Higher Education pedagogic lexicon, many of the groups on masters courses are some of the most diverse I have ever had the pleasure to be involved with.
Other changes include the near ubiquitous ownership of mobile technology by students and a continued change in the ‘lives’ of students as they are given little, or more often. no financial support from the state for their studies – leading to much greater desire for part-time work to interleave with studies. Again these socio-economic and cultural shifts alter the ways in which students access information, the media through which they work and the perspective they have on their studies. Allied to this is a generally more ‘consumerism’ view of higher education, including the rise of media sites such as RateMyLecturer. As these shifts occur we need to consider them and the ways in which they might impact on our pedagogies, for better or worse. One example from my own context is a decision in the programme which I currently lead to move away from Likert Scale style evaluation questionnaires to a format which focuses on open questions concerning what students believe they have gained/learned from the course and how this might be further supported – we believe this will lead to more sustained dialogue with students concerning improvement to the course than the ‘tick a number’ approach – the one that so many CPD courses use, where one participant will always tick ‘poor’ for overall opinion of the course – because the grated carrot was not very crunchy! A far more impressive response is that of University of Lincoln’s Student as Producer approach.
Finally, there is a major question-mark at the centre of the idea of the university. What is it for? Barnett (2013) puts forward a critique of much of the current ideas about the university and suggests alternatives for the future. He considers different factors relating to the nature of the university:
Imagining the university (from Barnett (2013:55))
Conceptualisations of the ‘university’ are many, but to what extent do these concepts exist at a deep level within the structures and workings of the organisation, or is it ‘superficially attractive and even utopian, and yet without purchase in the deep structure of the real world and so is illusory and flimsy?’ (Barnett, 2013: 55). At the same time, are universities organisations which should sustain current power structures (endorsement) or endeavour to be the foci of ‘critical consciousness within society.’ (55). These ideas lead to the possibility of many different forms of university, serving different aims, and interacting with the world and the complexity of socio-economic, cultural and environmental issues through equally complex and alternative activities. And central to these is pedagogy. What, how and why we teach would look different in these different imaginations. This is why if we are to become ever more pedagogically literate we need to raise our gaze beyond the seminar room, the organisation and even the sector to consider what might at times seem like a very far horizon; it is much closer and more important than we think.
Barnett, R. (2013) Imagining the University. Abingdon: Routledge.
Osterhammel, J. & Petersson, N.P. (2009) Globalisation: A Short History. Munich: Verlag.