From 2017, UCAS is changing how it calculates the examination points system for applying to college and university. I’m really not quite sure why as the old tariff system has been in existence for over 20 years and many people are familiar with it. Personally I preferred the old system. 🙂
Do check out the 2017 tariff calculator and look carefully at the range of examinations and awards that are recognised. Of course, always check with the college or university admissions requirements, as they might have preferences as to what A levels or examinations they wish to consider.
My week includes meetings at the University of Kingston, Open University and Bath University, largely talking about open education.
On Wednesday in Kingston, Dr Nick Freestone organised an event to explore Teaching Excellence Workshop advert (PDF). I liked his approach in having a mixed audience of staff and students, including those studying biosciences, pharmacy and other medical-related subjects. I think I’m so used to having to do a ‘hard sell’ about open education at times, I was not expecting at all the huge level of interest and enthusiasm that my presentation received.
I started off with a reflection back on my PhD dissertation which examined the secretory mechanisms of E. coli toxins. Some 15 years on, our knowledge has become more detailed but hasn’t really significantly advanced our understanding of gut secretion. It is sad to observe the global statistics on deaths caused by diarrhoeal disease remain little unchanged. One has to reflect on the global ‘business’ of scientific research, and some of my own students commented in a lecture recently on the inequalities relating to health and distribution of funding around the world. In my talk I wondered if science could be done in a different way, illustrated by the ‘BOBCAT‘ project in which a global task force of over 180 individuals worked together to advance the medical knowledge and clinical approaches to the management of Barrett’s Oesophagus.
Discussions around open education
I explored the idea of open and collaborative approaches to science, the sharing of data openly, and sharing open educational resources. It is clear this is an area of interest for this scientific community:
We need to raise awareness of open education – it was new to many people at the event.
Folk need some basic practical skills or to develop open literacies for searching, evaluating and understanding open educational resources.
Folk need to understand Creative Commons licenses as a priority – many didn’t know the ‘CC’ logo.
People seemed very keen to be sharing resources especially around laboratory or surgical techniques and skills.
We need to define approaches to support all of the above – possibly through the professional bodies who sponsored the event.
Open education and teaching excellence
I talked about how involvement in open education links easily to teaching excellence through enhancing your professional development. The very nature of working in the open takes you ‘beyond’ your institution and encourages you to develop your professional networks. These are useful activities for you to create impact around what you do, and to disseminate your ideas, and examples of you doing this can provide evidence to support claims for awards and fellowship, for example part of the HEA UK Professional Standards Framework for higher education (UKPSF). Even better if the framework and some of the performance indicators we are increasingly embroiled in could be reworked to facilitate open pedagogies.
The process of participating in open education – whether it is sharing an open educational resource or sharing data openly, is a valuable learning experience. Lecturers who share OER always comment about how much more they understand about designing good quality materials, they gain knowledge about copyright and licensing, and also gain perspectives on the use of technology in teaching. OER reuse and creation should be part of every PGCertHE or similar courses that train all new university lecturers, and openness should be part of teaching excellence standards and ultimately the TEF framework as it evolves.
How better to demonstrate excellence – that your teaching materials and practices inspire and are reworked by others.
I had a research revelation at the weekend. I’m trying to liken it to something, and I can only think back to about the age of five or six and getting glasses for the first time. I’d avoided it before then by quickly memorising the letters on the sight test on the way in, enough to get me mid-way down to about P-F-C-D-E which must have really frustrated the optician. But when I finally got me “goggles” life was a revelation.
A Sunday afternoon treat was to sit on top of the Dover Cliffs and watch the boats. The purpose of which, with glasses, then became abundantly clear – you could see the cars and boats moving. Before then it was all a blur. The other revelation was wondering why everyone in school assembly was peering at the flip chart at the front of the hall. With glasses I finally noted it was because the words to all the hymns were displayed there. I felt slightly cheated at that one as I practically new all the hymns off by heart by the age of seven. Although I did think “Jesus spits and shines” was perhaps not right (“Jesus bids us shine with a clear pure light”).
I don’t care. Call me “four eyes”.
In the end, I didn’t mind wearing glasses because being called “goggles” or “four eyes” was a small price to pay for being able to see. (And I did get to hold David Muggeridge’s hand in the playground as the only other NHS spectacle wearer. Although his were tortoiseshell).
So my revelation on Saturday morning was as if someone had once again given me clear vision. Something that was confused before, suddenly became clear. I don’t know about you, but if I chose to write a paper, it is because I’m bursting with an idea, or have just had a great thought about how to analyse that data. I want to then write the thing as soon as possible. Of course what normally happens is that you can’t retrieve half the articles. You ignore therefore some of the good work that has gone on before. You might pay $29 for the odd article, and you might contemplate trying to find out once again how inter-library loan works in your institution. (Oh by the way I do like the new $6 article hire for 24 hours. Does anyone else go on a “print screen” frenzy or is it just me?).
So what happened next?
I’m not gonna tell. Ner ner ner ner ner. I stimbled acrost a most enteroisting webseet uphon wheech yam can downloadickles anychops for froibles. Oh my lordy. I’d suddenly entered a dream sequence from a 1940’s Hollywood music. This is what being a researcher could be like. It was like a dream. My room filled with unicorns and rainbows as I rattled through my search strategy downloading about forty articles relevant to my paper. No frustration. No omissions. No, “oh bugger it, I’ll look at this again in six months time”.
If only our collective knowledge was open and accessible!
As part of the academic community, I can only think we should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves. Why do we perpetuate this ridiculousness of not being able to openly and freely access, share and build on our work? I’ve been a researcher since 1993 in medical research, the food industry and now universities. I have never got the feeling of euphoria that I did on Saturday when I could just openly access, quickly download, read to my satisfaction, an entire body of literature to help me write up an important area of work. OK, I know I’m not saving lives or making pet food any more. But everything is a piece in the jigsaw.
Imagine if we could solve cancer?
So, as recapitulated here by our lovely friends at Sparc, as VP Biden of the US declared, what if all the data relating to cancer research, and all the publications would be made openly available? What advances might we make in the next year, assuming we could readily access the bulk of papers that would be of benefit to our work? And that others could benefit from ours?
As I gain this information and knowledge, I will eliminate the barriers that get in your way, get in the way of science, the research and development. (VP Biden, April 20 2016).
So just think about what could be possible.
Or what should be possible.
I think we should start regaining some of our self-dignity and think about why we went into research in the first place. If we can’t learn from the most incredible scientists of our time like Marie Curie then maybe we should question our values and motivations:
In science, we must be interested in things, not in persons. (Marie Curie).
And I wonder what David Muggeridge is doing now.
Other articles forwarded from Twitter
Post by Peter Murray-Rust: https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/
Academic offences – and how we should be thinking about them.
This paper by Ursula McGowan (2005) always struck a chord with me. The implementation of ‘plagiarism detection software’ is often a priority over supporting students in building their academic skills, particularly those new to university or attending from overseas. Ursula talked plagiarism detection and whether we were putting the cart before the horse.
Offences can occur for many reasons. They may be inadvertent on behalf of the student, or they quite often are encouraged due to poor assessment design. The main offences we are dealing with here include plagiarism, collusion and contract cheating (purchasing of assignments). In these purchasing sites, work is run through detection software (also freely available on the web such as Grammarly.com or Viper). Therefore work purchased won’t be detected by proprietary systems, but the trained eye of a teacher or tutor will spot such work a mile off.
In platforms such as Blackboard, Turnitin or SafeAssign are available as plug-ins. It is worth noting that student work submitted to these services will be checked and scanned against documents on the web (those publications and documents choosing to do so) and also global databases of prior student work. When I used Turnitin a few years ago it stored all the student work you submitted to it. This gives rise to data privacy issues that more often do not get discussed. You also have to be careful if allowing students to submit drafts, that this does not go into permanent storage for future comparisons.
Plagiarism detection klaxon!
When thinking about so-called ‘detection’ software, the first thing to consider is that it DOES NOT DETECT PLAGIARISM. The academic or tutor marking the work places their professional judgement on the work. It is often very obvious just by reading work that it may be plagiarised. The software makes this easier by highlighting in a colour passages of text that are SIMILAR to another source.
What to think about before implementing the use of such software?
In some of my previous work, one thing was clear, it was very important to tread carefully with students and staff. Imagine making it compulsory for students to submit work to something that was detecting cheating? What message does this send? Ask yourself also, are you also providing a robust programme of skills development for new students? What is the impact on staff?
How to proceed?
I think it is very important that such initiatives are worked through with staff and students alike. For staff, the interpretation of reports – online – in addition to marking work, will add significantly to assessment time. The reports containing highlighted text are not straightforward and will require verification – they won’t always identify the original source of something copied. You are requiring staff to spend more time glued to a computer, and there may be issues with this.
Previous work that might be helpful.
I did some work previously when the university wanted to use Turnitin (similar to Safe Assign) for all first year assignments. I worked with students and staff through interviews and questionnaires to come up with the best solution. The end result was brilliant – students helped us evolve a ‘self-service’ approach to enable them to check their own work. They could submit draft assignments to Turnitin and review their own reports. Any passages of writing highlighted would have to be rewritten. Of course, references and paraphrased sections WOULD be highlighted, so it was also a way of crudely checking that references were correct.
The added bonus of this idea was that students would be regularly submitting DRAFTS of work in progress. This is an important step for verifying the ownership of work and engagement in the assignment process.
Academic offences are more often the result of poor assessment design.
I do believe there should be no such thing as an academic offence, or that it should very rarely occur. Students are often accused of collusion because for example the requirements and allowances of group working, say, for writing up laboratory practicals, is not clearly explained. Research suggests students are more tempted to cheat when they are under stress – look at your programme assessment strategy. Is coursework bunched up at the end of term encouraging them to cut corners? Are students getting adequate formative feedback to develop their writing, and is this consistent across years of study?
Some of this comes down to the design of the assessment and there is much work out there that talks about ‘designing out’ plagiarism. Do you set the same essay questions year on year? (I really hope not). Why not build in individualised tasks – get students to reflect on their experiences, conduct an individual search strategy or short piece of work, or write an essay on a subject of their choice?
The best way to approach this is to discuss assessment design on a programme basis.
My blog last week on emotional resilience sparked a healthy debate via Twitter, email and through the comments on the blog. Clearly many people are thinking about this problem that is endemic within higher education, and what we need to do to approach it. Of course, we’re not even touching on the experiences of those facing stress in other sectors – teaching and healthcare. I’m very much interested in the organisation as a being at the moment.
29th March The HEA published a report on ‘fellowships and student engagement’, unpicking the impact on fellowships and teaching which is a nice read. However, a line is included that students are more able to contact and interact with staff “outside of formal class hours/work on activities other than coursework”. This casual comment worried me as it massages the expectation that staff are always available.
30th March Dave Cormier wrote about the resilience that students need to demonstrate to become successful learners. This seems a combination of emotional and academic resilience, and what we might thinking of in the UK more in terms of transitions? This reminds me of Helen Beetham’s work on digital wellbeing.
31st March Times Higher Education article suggesting stress is not always a bad thing. There is no mention of institutional responsibility or support.
2nd April Frances Bell discussed the idea of institutional fragility and links to some further excellent writing on resilience and well being.
Something about the recent and rapid offerings of personal resilience training in universities is concerning me. I suspect we are all familiar with posters around our campuses of stressed brains being soothed by caring hands. I feel compelled to capture some thoughts.
(And here is some tranquil spa music).
Resilience, in the medical sense, is defined by Luthar et al (2000) as:
“the maintenance of positive adaptation by individuals despite experiences of significant adversity”.
The Management Advisory Service also defines resilience as strategies needed to “cope effectively in times of crisis and challenge”. (Management Advisory Service n.d.).
In a number of occupations, such as health workers, where people face not unsurprisingly high levels of stress, researchers are looking at the relationship between resilience and mental health outcomes (Rees et al 2015). What surprises me now the rapid implementation of personal resilience techniques as a strategy within UK universities, and that this has been introduced silently and undisputed. When did my workplace become one in which I may experience significant adversity, crisis and challenge?
We need to look at this carefully. Luthar and colleagues’ paper on the construct of resilience informs us of how it is often viewed as a personal trait, and that creates a confusing picture:
“can inadvertently pave the way for perceptions that some individuals simply do not “have what it takes” to overcome adversity”.
A better way of thinking should be to consider resilience as a process and not a personality trait, in which the preexisting conditions need to be considered, and these include the understanding of the threat or stressor in the first place. I am writing, not because I’m a psychologist, but as someone worried that these strategies have slipped in, the fact that we need them in universities at all, and that the narrative formed around them may lead to further damage to the individual.
UK university resilience – what’s the score?
A quick Google search of “university staff resilience” brings up over four pages of hits linking to courses and services to “build mental resilience” and “build inner resilience”. Of course it goes without saying the importance of recognising stress in the workplace – within ourselves and our colleagues in all departments and services – is of paramount importance. I do worry that the upsurge in this approach as a strategy puts a ‘sticking plaster’ over some deeper seated organisational issues. (Loughborough, Staffordshire, St Andrews, Bristol, Reading, Portsmouth, QUB, Leeds, West of Scotland, Oxford Brookes, Cardiff, Canterbury, Ulster,Liverpool Hope, and many more).
What these courses claim?
The language within some of the course web pages and brochures for me have echoes of what Richard Hall writes about with the restructuring of the labour of the academic community as a commodity.
The motivations behind the resilience courses include:
“to advance knowledge of the factors contributing to worker resilience”.
Now we are workers. And the onus very much on us to be resilient and productive.
“This course gives staff an oversight of stress, its causes and effects and at how we can build personal resilience”.
“The objective is to enable individuals to become more resilient, less stressed and more capable of coping with events and pressures they experience”.
“Helping you to maintain wellbeing and bounce back from setbacks”.
These courses promise to enhance our psychological well being:
“The second half of the course, Resilience, will provide strategies for individuals to prevent and manage stressful feelings by increasing resilience”.
“Managing strong emotions and impulses (such as anger and anxiety)”.
More optimistically, only one referred to creating a preferential working environment:
“Fostering a working environment that enhances the physical and mental well-being of its staff”.
The organisational psychology worries me here more than the fact that our academic communities have been denigrated to the position of workers in a system. The subversive messaging that the onus is on us as individuals to “bounce back” and the role of the organisation as a whole and as a source of the acute or chronic stressors is largely being overlooked, or certainly I can find little reference to it.
Who is delivering these courses, and are they qualified psychologists to work with people’s mental well-being? What if the training doesn’t help and someone has the added burden of thinking themselves a failure because they haven’t “bounced back” this time? Our anger and fatigue are a natural response to stress. I worry that the resilience is masking what our brains might naturally need to repair?
What do staff perceive resilience to really mean? Are staff also being encouraged to speak out and are they listened to in their organisations? What if staff perceive resilience to mean not speaking out and to generally shut up?
What is the scale of the problem?
The scale of the problem of overwork in higher education, and the tensions therein are well documented in a number of recent surveys and articles. The fact that we have a problem and this is recognised nationally must be a start. The University and College Union (UCU) shares resources and an invitation to participate in a survey regarding workload.
Despite what is known of the magnitude of stress in the sector, staff turnover seems relatively static, with of full time academic staff (128,425) and part time staff (66935) in December 2013, around 15% and 4.5% of staff move year on year roles within the same HEI provider, and about 5% and 9% of full time and part-time staff leave the sector (retirement, change in profession etc. HESA Staff Statistics). What has changed year on year are university staff reporting their jobs as stressful. In the 2014 UCU survey, The proportion of respondents from HE who agreed or strongly agreed that they find their job stressful has increased from 72% in the 2012 survey to 79% in 2014 (n = 6,439 , albeit around 3% of academic staff population, and possibly those most affected responding) (UCU 2014).
Take a breath. In 2014, 79% of academic staff surveyed strongly agreed their job was stressful.
When we corroborate with other surveys, even if we interpret the results semi-quantitatively, the impact on long working hours affects academic teams and professional service colleagues alike. Times Higher survey of 2,852 academic, professional and support colleagues, reported similar views, with all staff reporting the need to work long hours.
For academic staff on ‘teaching and research’ contracts, the burden is double, and also more often subject to workload management within the commodification of our university system. It is this monitoring and perceived lack of freedom and control that comes out regularly in surveys as a stressor.
Are we understanding the roots of the problem?
I believe one of the major problems we encounter is lack of communication and sometimes collegiality between academic teams and professional and support staff. The combined ‘student experience’ is a figment of all of these people working harmoniously together, and I know from previous work, the power of team building, breaking barriers, and sharing conversations. One of the big problems with university operations today is the segregation of academic teams from our professional and service colleagues – technologists, librarians, our administration and curriculum and timetabling teams. Everyone is equally important, but clearly something is going wrong within our higher education system, with one of the saddest statistics from the above survey being only 57% of those staff responding would (agree or strongly agree) in NOT recommending their university as a place to work (THE 2016a).
What causes work-related stress in universities? Stress obviously is linked to long hours, work relationships and felling of lack of control, but that is not the full picture. From my own experience, stress derives from not being valued, not fulfilling one’s potential and undertaking mundane tasks. Counting bus tickets to oversee student expenses is one of the most stressful jobs I have ever had.
So much is being written on work hours at the moment. In this THE article about academic work hours there is a huge mis-match between what universities view as ‘productive’ and the work that academic staff feel they need to do to contribute to their student and research communities. Articles like this are unhelpful and do not account for the varying levels of administrative support an academic team might have, different types of programmes offered within universities that may require extra regulation and work. They do not reflect upon the fact that colleagues may seek to work long hours to better their careers to make up for opportunities not provided by their current employer. Comparing us to bankers where there are big cash incentives to do well, is totally unhelpful (Matthews 2016).
The normalisation of resilience?
I worry that resilience has become normalised as a term and is now routinely embedded in our day-to-day language that we’ve ceased to think of the meaning and significance of it. We become desensitised to the underlying stressors. We are familiar with posters around our campuses. We often have a ‘tick-box’ attitude to training and people might think themselves resilient because they have attended a workshop whereas in fact they may be far from it.
Overwork in academia is normalised and each one of us is equally to blame for that. Some people choose to answer emails on Christmas day…..I think it is easy to feel a victim of the system, especially when you are exhausted, and therefore it is easier leave things unchanged. The following comments appeared in the THE article “Workload Survival Guide” with contributions from a number of academics:
“The bottom line in academia is really just a question: how much stress can you tolerate in life?”
Creation based on the ‘Workload Survival Guide’ article, THE 2016b.
What about organisational responsibility?
As our work environments are clearly the underlying cause of acute and chronic work stressors, surely they must therefore feature in the solution? The organisation structure and climate are acknowledged sources of stress as delineated by Cooper and Marshall with many factors alongside the over-emphased ‘workload’:
(1) Intrinsic to the job, including factors such as poor physical working conditions, work overload or time pressures
(2) role in the organisation, including role ambiguity and role conflict
(3) career development, including lack of job security and under/over promotion
(4) relationships at work, including poor relationships with your boss or colleagues, an extreme component of which is bullying in the workplace
(5) organisational structure and climate, including little involvement in decision-making and office politics.
(Cooper and Marshall 1976).
Rather than focusing on building resilience in individuals, we should be creating more effective organisations in the first place as a remedy against these situations? Ultimately, any organisation will need its own innate resilience to succeed, and amenable working environments and shared values are acknowledged to keep companies going in times of adversity (Coutu 2002).
I am not arguing for one moment that universities have had to undergo huge transformations in recent years and the pressures on and within them are significant. I sometimes think it is the little processes that need attention.
How can returning a coursework mark within a virtual learning environment be effective as a 15-click process?
Why does the enrolment of a staff colleague onto a virtual learning environment require emails to be sent where the system can be set up for staff to perform the function directly?
Why does a module leader have to interact with seven different administration systems (virtual learning environment, timetabling, module administration, curriculum architecture, module feedback and reporting, business information systems, student records). With the training requirements that comes with that.
Bring back the “time and motion” man! When I grew up in a village shop we had an expert visit on an annual basis who observed my parents working and moving around the premises and made recommendations for the most efficient placing of equipment and design of work routines.
This has been a lengthy ramble and I’m sure not well argued or articulated in places. This has been the output of a rather exhausted brain lurching through the 2016 Easter holiday through phases of sleep and writing. As we head toward another round of research excellence and imminent teaching excellence measures in the UK, the pressure is going to build up in the system.
We need to do far more groundwork to understand the full complexity of the picture before meaningful interventions can be devised.
What is the responsibility of the organisation as a whole, and who is looking at our structures and cultures?
What do staff think resilience is? Might it be used as a metaphor for not speaking out and challenging poor processes/practices when we see them?
Cooper, CL and Marshall, J (1976). Occupational sources of stress: a review of the literature relating to coronary heart disease and mental ill health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 11-28.
Coutu, DL (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Reviews. 80(5). Available at: https://hbr.org/2002/05/how-resilience-works
Rees, CS, Breen, LJ, Cusack, L and Hegney, D (2015). Understanding individual resilience in the workplace: the international collaboration of workforce resilience model. Frontiers in psychology, 6. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4316693/
THE Times Higher Education (2016a). University workplace survey 2016. Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/university-workplace-survey-2016-results-and-analysis
THE Times Higher Education (2016b). Workload survival guide for academics. Available at:https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/workload-survival-guide-for-academics
Thank you for the positive feedback on yesterday’s session. I particularly enjoyed the discussions we had around the socio-political aspects of science, and the inequality facing global health issues.
I hope providing you with an insight into science in different contexts – medical research and commercialisation of ideas – gave you insight into different career choices and exciting opportunities that are out there for you as scientists.
As I clearly said in the lecture, my focus was introducing you to three physiological processes and a basic introduction to the enteric nervous system. This is the important aspect for you to learn of course, but as lecturers in Higher Education we also have a responsibility to broaden your outlook in terms of globalisation and employability.
In the lecture one of you requested to look at one of my previous undergraduate student dissertations that looked at gut function in dementia. I’m presently contacting the student and awaiting their permission to share some of their work publicly with you.
For further discussion do contact me via Twitter @vivienrolfe or pop into my office 1A07.
You may have read media articles the day following our lecture describing research linking the intestinal system – oral cavity in this case – and declining cognition. This is only a small study but relevant to our discussions nonetheless.
The article is published in PLOS an truly open access journal which is doubly awesome.
Mark Ide et al (2016). Periodontitis and Cognitive Decline in Alzheimer’s Disease. PLOS.Org. Available: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151081
In Higher Ed, one thing counts
Research funding, large amounts.
I’m afraid these don’t grow on trees,
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two.
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two,
If you want to fund a project or two.
The wonderful Ron Moody in Oliver Twist.
We were just mulling over in an #LTHEchat the lack of investment in the UK for educational, pedagogic, Higher Education – projects, research or innovation. Since the slash to the HE budgets and introduction of higher student fees, investment through the Higher Education Academy and Jisc predominantly – through no fault of their own – has fallen from £millions to £zero. Yes. £zero. Not £small amount. But absolutely no investment for small scale projects or pieces of research at all to develop teaching and digital innovation, or simply to follow important new lines of enquiry or answer important Higher Education questions.
OK I’m all for not living lavishly, but the long-term impact of this lack of investment is going to be very far reaching. If I think of my own journey. I moved from industry to Nottingham University in 2004 and having no research track record from industry, I was up a creek without a paddle. Fortunately I discovered Flash Animation and started making learning objects for Nottingham University. This interest grew into wanting to evaluate the effectiveness of this. That is important right?
Moving onto De Montfort University and building up an interest in technology and open education, my funding profile looked OK up until 2012.
My entire research career started off with £5000. That supported five of us in the department to make some basic lab skills resources, share them on the web, write about it and go to conferences. The second piece of work looked at how to improve student writing and referencing through using Turnitin(R). It funded student and staff interviews, resulted in a publication and a few conference trips. I still talk about both these projects today.
A significant leap for me into systematic research methodology. Have completed several reviews now and these have formed the basis of many undergraduate and postgraduate projects ever since. I run staff development workshops on systematic review now. Not bad from £3K.
This work led to my University Teaching Fellow Award. I became involved in staff mentoring and training in De Montfort at this point.
Such a significant phase of my work. All projects still going strong. Built a strong network with the UK open education community (#ukoer) which is still alive, along with regular attendance at the UK Open Education Conference (#oer16), and four consecutive attendances at the US/Canada OpenEd Conference (#opened16), all from the research arising from this work.
These OER projects at De Montfort
Involved hundreds of staff and students
Built external collaborations with Leicester/Northampton hospitals
Enhanced staff and student understanding of intellectual property and copyright
Promoted and provided understanding of Creative Commons open licensing
Supported staff in using technology to build learning resources
Enhanced staff perspectives into learning design
Promoted discovery of teaching / research expertise on the internet
Provided lasting OER curations via WordPress blogs
Distributed OER to global communities using social media
I’m bored now. So much more.
Through this I became a National Teaching Fellow, mentored more fellows, sat on review panels and led more staff development. Students were involved in projects informally, through internships, through postgraduate projects and through employment as research assistants. Knowledge and research outputs were disseminated to the sector forming part of the Jisc OER Synthesis and Evaluation reports. I have had many conference presentations and papers relating to OER as a result of this work. I am now working to build open education practice in my third UK university. And with anyone else willing to listen.
2012. Commonwealth Fellowship. “Health promotion games for sickle cell disease”. Collaboration with University of Ibadan, Nigeria, led by Faculty of Technology Professor Howell Istance. £25,000.
OK. Last two. The first was a Commonwealth Fellow from Nigeria who’d spotted our Sickle Cell project and wanted to produce a game to promote good health. The second was a very low-cost case study interviewing senior executive staff and completing our picture of student-staff and senior staff views on OER. These insights have been fundamental for implementation of these projects within our universities.
So without that £5K in 2008, and without working with amazing people within HEA and Jisc by which I learnt the craft of open education and a range of project management skills, I wouldn’t have achieved any of the rest. And I don’t mean that I’ve achieved grandiose promotional heights – I’m not a Professor or anything. I’ve been on the same salary scale for ten years. I mean, the impact I’ve had through working in open education, and more so, through working – or being invited to participate in:
Learning and teaching committees/leadership groups within universities
Contributing to learning and teaching / technology strategies for faculty/university
Mentoring/reviewing/panel selection for university teaching fellows/national teaching fellows
Mentoring/reviewing/panel selection for HEA UK Professional Standards Framework
Ad hoc staff development sessions, materials and workshops
Working with technologists
Working with library services around Creative Commons and open education
Nationally being on committees to support learning and teaching advocacy/practice
Committees to support digital learning
You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two.
So what I hear increasingly now is people self-funding, supporting old HEA or Jisc projects out of their own pocket, paying for their own conference attendance and probably more. This not just equates to folk being out of pocket, but working hours outside of their institutions.
That isn’t to say that some universities are investing in a ‘project’ type approach and in their staff, but this certainly isn’t the entire picture. Meanwhile, institutions and the sector – as the prospect of Teaching Excellence draws near and the Government want to support student choice, equality and all the other things they claim, they are going to have to think seriously how to do that. Of course the bigger problem is the skills and knowledge gap that is looming with the guts having been well and truly kicked out of anyone wishing to evaluate their teaching or digital practice, or develop a career dedicated to the development of educational research and academic development.
Well my photographs and waistline are telling me it must be so. There were so many inspirational people and conversations from the global OER community, and equally many fun discussions with the ‘boat family’ of staff who generously gave their time for discussion, tours, and two individual renditions of Johnny Mercer’s “Laura” once by Phil Westbrook on the piano deck, and once again by Phil on the calliope.
The lasting thought that stays with me is the notion and importance of sharing. The keynote talk by John White the Louisiana State Superintendent of Education had a very simple and powerful message – equality in education is simply about sharing. Of course, OER hits right at the heart of that. As John went on to say, our policy and processes however focus on local needs and do not plan for sharing.
John took me back to why I first got involved in OER. In a new lecturer position in Leicester I shared an office with a Pharmacy lecturer. I was preparing Biomedical Science sessions on heart and lung physiology, and he was reviewing his slides from last year on – yes you guessed it – heart and lung physiology for his students. When I asked if I could see his approach he muttered something like “I don’t generally do that kind of thing”. I wouldn’t mind but we were friends from a previous institution years before.
I’d come from working in industry where there was no sense of ‘ownership’ of work or resources but a great sense of working toward a common goal. I realised you don’t have that in education. No team spirit.
So when I was lucky to participate in the HEFCE-funded UK Open Educational Resource programme in 2009 (#UKOER is still live and kicking today), it made complete sense to me. Here was a way of sharing science resources that I was creating with my colleagues and beyond my university. Why they hell wouldn’t you do that? I was lucky to learn my OER ropes from the fantastic Terry McAndrew who led the Higher Education Academy Bioscience Subject Centre bid. I shall be eternally grateful to Terry for the opportunity he gave me to learn about open technologies and open licensing, and also that he very generously shared with me the workings of funding processes that led me to two further successful grants of my own in 2010 and 2011. I’d totalled over £0.5 million in funding for open science projects and generally had a ball. (All projects designed on simple WordPress platforms with sustainability in mind and all still rocking on with Reclaim Hosting).
What do we know about sharing?
In an early piece of staff research I became interested in people’s inclination to share and saw there were differences according to gender, with female colleagues far more likely to share (a significant difference to male colleagues). Staff were very happy to share resources in their subject groups and borrow materials from outside of the university, but they were less inclined (at that time) to share beyond the walls of the institution (Rolfe 2012 – staff attitudinal survey).
…it would stop institutions or people within institutions having to reinvent wheels.
…the altruistic motivation of helping other people to improve by making our stuff accessible.
Senior staff did seem wary of the idea of sharing student learning resources for free on the web, and what would our learners think of that?
…if students are paying £9,000 and part of their £9,000 is receiving a set of lectures and yet that set of lectures are available completely free on the internet what does that mean?
Well we asked that question also. In Libor Hurt’s Masters dissertation on student perceptions of OER WHICH IS WELL WORTH A READ we found that student cultures of sharing were rich and varied. Students were highly motivated to share for no personal gain:
…well if I share, then someone might share back.
…to help peers, if they need help with their work.
But there was a tension with some with just sharing openly without some boundaries around what, where information is shared, particularly in relation to important medical or health materials.
It depends what materials are shared. If it’s like full course material then I don’t think that’s right but if it’s sort of snippets of information and sort of like just touching on things, a small example, then I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Because any student studying, whether they’re paying their fees or they’re being sponsored, those fees are being paid for access to that course material.
I think that’s the problem in the medical profession anyway, when they Wikipedia things to death or anything like that and then they get 2 and 2 and come up with 9 and then an accident can be worse by the use of the internet.
Most of these students interviewed in biomedical science and midwifery were sharing within their peer groups – lecture notes, links to new resources, although there was a sense of being unsure as to what might be interpreted as collusion?
So there is no doubt in my mind that all people – students, teachers, executive and other partners buy-into the notion of OER very quickly and see that sharing makes sense. Sharing is a positive thing with many benefits, although sometimes the boundaries might require a little definition. So as John White said, if sharing is good for the championing of equality and challenging boundaries, what evidence do we have that OER has enhanced this?
In my recent systematic review of massive online open courses and the socio-ethical impact of these, there was little evidence that something – OK not technically and intellectually definable as open – had made very little inroad into education equality. In fact, such courses perpetuate the divide and favour well educated predominantly English-speaking learners (Rolfe 2015 – socio-ethical impact of MOOCs). Many other studies have confirmed this.
What about OER? Part of the difficulty today is the varied nature of OER from open textbooks to ‘chunks of learning’ and assets. Many of the open text book initiatives are indisputably lowering costs and making education more accessible (Bliss and Chow; Wiley) but for other forms of equally important OER, we don’t know.
Tides of change?
Not to beat ourselves with a stick – open education from our UK perspective has been transformatory in terms of teaching practice, establishing collaborations and sharing common goals toward a better education system. Unfortunately we have stalled in the UK with very little if any funding now for education innovation projects or research. But we can do something to chip away to complete the OER = sharing = equality loop.
As I said at the Hewlett meeting, my dream for OER was about fair and equal chances for people to access education, and to make these inroads now takes a concerted effort.
SO GO SHARE! Go share an OER story with a colleague or student that has never heard of open. We share where we feel comfortable within our own circles, but how will we ever challenge inequality if we don’t go out and meet it face on?
GO SHARE with the person in your department that you might be least likely to share with, be they someone in authority, in a different job, of a different gender of from a different country. I realise this will take a bit of honesty with ourselves, but I think we can do this and go tell the OER story more widely. Only then will we make inroads into dealing with inequality surely?
Closing note 🙂
Huge gratitude to the fantastic house band – the Steamboat Syncopators who very generously shared their stage with us delegates. A perfect ending to a beautiful week.