I read our recently issued NSS action table in the context of preparation guidance for staff annual Performance and Development Review (PDR):
One of the NSS actions (dressed up as principles) and echoing the UK PFS Values, is that,
All staff who support learning participate annually in collective professional development to ensure that their practice is evidence-based, informed by the scholarship of learning and teaching, and employs up-to-date learning tools and technologies.
I love collective professional development but feel a little queasy about “to ensure“. Always prefer a developmental/enhancement led approach… to enhance their practice through evidence informed by the scholarship of teaching ….
But it can amount to the same thing. Depends on what is measured
Pretty much everything else in the NSS action table is just stuff we shouldn’t have to mention. The fact that we have to speaks bucket-loads. But ultimately it obscures what the message should be, which is that we love our discipline and our students and teach them as well as we can.
It feels to me like an iceberg about to tip.
Ultimately this is an argument for qualitative research into the so-called subjective realms of values, beliefs and feelings. Because, in part, I suggest it is the enclosure of the subject for the reward of a few, which is at the root of the general mess we (me? Britain? Liberalism? Society? the globe?) appear to be in (NHS crisis, austerity, higher education funding and regulation, housing, migration, cyber-security, etc).
The theoretical approach or perspective of a neo-liberal curriculum appears to be:
- Utilitarian (idealist, ratio-driven: promoting the greatest good for the greatest number
- Pragmatic (what works);
- Pareto-optimal (80% of the reward or output comes from 20% of the input or effort and the remaining 20% of the output comes from 80% of the input).
Continue reading “Flipping icebergs: a neo-liberal curriculum?”
Published on: Jan 18, 2018
I examine two related concepts: hierarchised identity formation and the enclosure of desire as a hidden curriculum.
A hidden curriculum is, I suggest the collection of assumptions, often about power (Brookfield 2017, chapter 2) that is communicated alongside and through the practice of overt curricula. A hidden curriculum is conveyed through implicit biases by teachers and education institutions. It is delivered alongside more overt curricular elements such as subject-specific knowledge and skills, as well as “transferrable skills” and “graduate attributes”. There may be many, indeed there are many hidden curricula which work with and against social norms beyond the institution and largely outwith the control of the institution or its agents. I will suggest that hierarchised identity formation is one of the hidden curricula of higher eduction. I hypothesise that this might be felt more acutely in the UK because of England’s tradition of a landed, aristocratic and military gentry related by ancestry to the head of state. But, it is felt elsewhere than Britain: “Rich man goes to college, poor man goes to work” (Charlie Daniels Band, “Long haired country boy”). In Britain the green and white papers leading to the current Higher Education Act 2017 declared universities to be engines of social mobility. Social mobility for these purposes is conceived primarily as a private (not public) good and is ranked in a categorical hierarchy consisting of education attainment, occupation type and lifetime earnings expectation, ranked in quartiles and centiles. The concept of social mobility is applied competitively as a finitely resourced, zero-sum game with winners and losers and movers.
Continue reading “A hidden curriculum”
I thought I might share the gist of my side of the conversation. I am working through documents at a more leisurely pace than the folk at Wonkhe. And I did read David kernohan’s A game of risk
. So, I have probably tainted my mind.
But my tentative conclusion is the conflation of regulation, reputation and enhancement is where the risk lies. Institutions need to be careful not to conflate NSS, TEF and league-table positionality with either: their own enhancement or the regulatory regime. I think those are three different “games”.
Continue reading “Where risk lies for HEIs: the conflation of regulation, reputation and enhancement”
I read Franklin Foer’s Facebook’s War on Free Will the Guardian’s “Long read” for Tuesday 19 September 2017.
He recapped a familiar argument: you are Facebook’s product. But when he hit “data science” I turned up my sensors. He says, “There’s a whole discipline, data science, to guide the writing and revision of algorithms”. Then he picks up on Cameron Marlow, “the former head of Facebook’s data science team”:
Facebook has a team, poached from academia, to conduct experiments on users. It’s a statistician’s sexiest dream – some of the largest data sets in human history, the ability to run trials on mathematically meaningful cohorts. … Marlow said, “we have a microscope that not only lets us examine social behaviour at a very fine level that we’ve never been able to see before, but allows us to run experiments that millions of users are exposed to.”
The point the experimentalists miss is that the experiment is directed towards outcomes already. The ethics are, at least, sensitive. Continue reading “Tinkering with algorithms”
Wait a minute. Learning analytics are always mediated by a human, or by humans (plural).
Sheila MacNeil, in a thought provoking post subtitled … analytics of the oppressed, launches into “… the learning analytics interventions should always be mediated by a human debate later this week at Digifest.”
Software and machinery always embed human values and beliefs about what is good and how to achieve it. And when it is asserted that “the machine says…” the first point holds true. The machine says only what people have enabled it to say. Whether the machine is reflective and self-aware, with anything like a recognisable value system? This is a question we can no more meaningfully ask of a machine than we can of a lobster, except to the extent that we can recognise the machine as an emergent phenomenon of human technology, and the lobster, arguably, not.
Unless, as Mike Wetsch put it, the machine is us? And then we have to ask, who are we?
Money is power. More particularly, money is patriarchal power. Now here is the rub. If you use the powerful’s form of power to overthrow the current power, you simply replicate power as it is. You do not transform it. OK, it is a little more complicated, but that is about it. If you use hierarchised authoritarian structures to overthrow an authoritarian hierarchy, you end up with an authoritarian hierarchy. The Czar => Lenin => Stalin => Putin is the classic example given. If money and banking are used to overthrow money and banking… You get my point. “Progressives” believe incremental change can be speeded up and that systemic benefits can be progressively more evenly shared, thereby, progressively reducing noxious aspects of the present. I suggest male-female iniquities are due to more than pay differentials and while closing pay gaps is necessary, I suspect that male-female iniquity will persist unless other things also change. Or perhaps the pay gap needs to be levelled down with the differentials redistributed by some transparent, democratic mechanism to all those currently dispossessed by the current power..
What follows is a short saga.
Journal price inflation also adds significantly to staff time costs or reduced efficiency.
I was searching for: Ashwin, P, Deem, R, & McAlpine, L 2016, ‘Newer researchers in higher education: policy actors or policy subjects?’, Studies In Higher Education, 41, 12, pp. 2184-2197
Our online subscription to Studies in HE is embargoed for 18 months so I asked our librarian. I was advised that I needed to do an Interlibrary loan request (ILL). So, I thought I would try.
Continue reading “Interlibrary loan or Sci-Hub? A short saga”
I am doing, in a way, what I have always wanted to do: teaching in a university, running an academic conference, editing a journal, supervising dissertations, some consultancy. And now I seem to have found the time and space to develop the two items that have been hardest for me to achieve and for which I have taken or given myself knocks: psychic and physical: the MA Education (Higher Education) and the Higher Education Journal of Learning and Teaching. (HEJLT)
Every student published? Original MA work? At the cutting edge of policy and provision.
When the tin of TEF was first opened a few days ago with all the shiny gold, silver and bronze foil-wrapped toffees, chocolates and what nots, it was entertaining and galling in measures to see who got what and what my own gaff got. Although I had been given a steer away from expecting gold, as an Educational Developer at a teaching focussed university with a heritage of teaching development initiatives, I kind of think we should have got gold. Or it is to some small extent down to me if we didn’t? Or, who knows? Maybe without me and my colleagues we would be scraping bronze?
So when I take the lid off the TEF tin a few days later it is all smelling like fudge. Grant Chapman Clarke (@elgranto) got me thinking when he pointed out who was shouting about results and who wasn’t. One could almost be forgiven for thinking that the only criterion applied to awarding the foil was how to keep the “shouting” to the very minimum possible.
And to achieve this the evaluators must have had to apply a lot of fine judgement.