Filling in the blanks HERGS presentation

423 views

Published on

This presentation was delivered at the Higher Education Research Group Conference which took place at Sheffield Hallam University on 22 June 2012 http://hersg.wordpress.com/

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
423
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 18 undergraduate modules in Social Science equivalent to 360 credits of an undergraduate degree we look around and see the impact of our own university on the skyline and the life of the city employability as key driver and how this is skewing the curriculum how the ORF is squeezing out the PRF, showing the dominance of the external on practice – graduateness as a function of the ideal student and how it appears rational These are questions that guided our investigation – they also form part of my own doctoral study
  • Filling in the blanks – the emergence of a practice at SHU where tutors are posting Powerpoints in the VLE Blackboard that have blanks intentionally left in to ensure students attend lectures – this is an example of how the instructional discourse is embedded in a regulative discourse _ and how this constitutes the pedagogic discourse that is created by the pedagogic device (Bernstein, 1990)
  • Regulative discourse as arising from the official recontextualising field (ORF) Explain implications of horizontal knowledge structure, and social science as a region, as an imaginary field – example of carpentry recontextualised as woodworking Mention the difference between explicit, implicit and tacit – and that this is like ‘filling in the blanks’ The sense that much of our practice is ‘borrowings’ from others – and that the recognition and realisation rules for these were not known to all Making open requires opening to oneself as well as others -
  • Mention the 18 modules – 360 credits and how we interpreted this literally – that many others didn’t – that this took place at CSAP – significant itself in that our emphasis was on the development of L and T in Soc Science
  • That the materials were raw and in use – images of Thomas the Tank Engine and Bob the Builder. Meaning very context dependent. Based on external content such as the answers to quizzes
  • Angels talks of translation; in Bernstein’s terms this is a recontextualisation in which there is a potential for a ‘discursive gap’ in which can play ideology, the developers’ concerns – it can bypass the teacher and erode confidence in the expert – but it can also be generative .... Edupunks. That practice, left to its own devices is essentially conservative or inert, and that over time this settles into homogenity That practice is an interplay between positional and relational autonomy – and the potential for a code clash in
  • Regulative discourse as arising from the official recontextualising field (ORF) Explain implications of horizontal knowledge structure, and social science as a region, as an imaginary field – example of carpentry recontextualised as woodworking Mention the difference between explicit, implicit and tacit – and that this is like ‘filling in the blanks’ The sense that much of our practice is ‘borrowings’ from others – and that the recognition and realisation rules for these were not known to all Making open requires opening to oneself as well as others -
  • Filling in the blanks HERGS presentation

    1. 1. Filling in the blanks: signature pedagogies andtheir impact on understanding and sharingpractice in the form of OERs in the SocialScience Curriculum Richard Pountney and Anna Gruszczynska Faculty of Development and Society
    2. 2. Introduction and background• The Open Education Resources (OER) movement (2008-) and the release of content for Higher Education (HE)• The ‘idea of the university’ (McCLean 2006) occupying physical and notional space (Barnett, 2005)• Curriculum becoming a techno-economic conception as a ‘vehicle for realising taken-for-granted ends’ (Barnett and Coate, 2005)• The rise of ‘trainability’ and a (second) ‘totally pedagogised society’ in which an ‘ideal knower’ is constituted by the Official Recontextualising Field (ORF) (Bernstein, 2000)• The construction of curriculum knowledge in HE as social practice that raises key questions (Luckett, 2009): o What are the cultural and social conditions that underpin it? o What are the epistemological and methodological constraints? o What identities and forms of agency do curriculum practices construct for teachers and students?
    3. 3. Evaluating the practice of Opening up Resources for Learning and Teaching• A regulative discourse for the design of courses in UK HE (QAA Code of Practice, Subject Benchmarks, credit tariffs, course validation and approval etc.)• Social Science as having a horizontal knowledge structure, segmentally arranged, with weak classification (-C) and strong official framing (+F) and weak unofficial framing (-F) (Bernstein, 1990)• The potential for an ‘invisible pedagogy’ (-C/-F) in which students (and teachers) do not know the ‘rules of the game’.• Pedagogic practice as emerging from individual ‘repertoires’ developed over time drawn from a ‘reservoir’ of tacitly agreed techniques (Bernstein, 2000, Bourdieu, 1992). The notion of ‘signature pedagogy’ (Shulman, 2005) as a perspective.• The articulation of personally held beliefs and their effect on strategies in pedagogic encounters (Schon, 1987), with emphasis in this study on the process of ‘making open’
    4. 4. Evaluating the practice of Opening up Resources for Learning and Teaching• A regulative discourse for the design of courses in UK HE (QAA Code of Practice, Subject Benchmarks, credit tariffs, course validation and approval etc.)• Social Science as having a horizontal knowledge structure, segmentally arranged, with weak classification (-C) and strong official framing (+F) and weak unofficial framing (-F) (Bernstein, 1990)• The potential for an ‘invisible pedagogy’ (-C/-F) in which students (and teachers) do not know the ‘rules of the game’.• Pedagogic practice as emerging from individual ‘repertoires’ developed over time drawn from a ‘reservoir’ of tacitly agreed techniques (Bernstein, 2000, Bourdieu, 1992). The notion of ‘signature pedagogy’ (Shulman, 2005) as a perspective.• The articulation of personally held beliefs and their effect on strategies in pedagogic encounters (Schon, 1987), with emphasis in this study on the process of ‘making open’
    5. 5. Researching the ‘making open’ process1. Reflecting and reviewing stage - peer supported review exercise• The activity involved reviewing a sample module from the other partner’s contributed materials, focusing on issues relevant to OERs and reusability2. Mapping stage• Development activity where project partners created detailed mappings of their modules, using a provided paper-based mapping proforma3. Case study creation stage• Partners created a case study narrative which documented the process of “opening up” a selected module and showcased the processes behind repurposing/ material transformation.• The narratives offered a rich description’ of the resource in order to increase the possibility of its re-contextualisation by other users, and to develop further insights into tacit practice.
    6. 6. Becoming open: to others and to oneself1. Embodying cultural capital• Materials relied on repertoires of existing practice and were British culture and politics centric, context based, without captions (cultural colonisation)2. Subject to housekeeping• The presence of redundant local information (module codes), links to institutional sources (VLE), and the absence of explicit information (duration of lectures, slide numbers, how content is being used)3. Implicit design for learning• Module design is unclear, especially how this relates to other modules and (prior) learning and how this builds as a body of knowledge, practice or skills
    7. 7. Learning and teaching as social practice involving a pedagogical discourse• The need for a shared pedagogical rationale to enable the pedagogic conversation to take place. The unsuitability of existing pedagogical frameworks (e.g. Goodyear and Jones, 2004) offering models, characteristics and principles of learning• ‘learning design and reusability are incompatible. Design requires specificity and specificity prohibits reusability’ (Downes, 2003)• ‘the transformative educational potential of OER depends on: 1. Improving the quality of learning materials through peer review process; 2. Reaping the benefits of contextualisation, personalisation and localisation ...’ (UNESCO, 2006)
    8. 8. Empirical work in developing shared and open resources in the curriculum• How the proposition emerged that this involved a translation at differing levels: in technical terms (as xml); as a ‘wrapped-up’ or packaged curriculum; and as an articulation of the tacit• How the examination of the 18 modules revealed elements of a signature pedagogy (lecture / seminar / Powerpoint)• The development of an external language of description (Bernstein 1990) and how this is ‘legitimated’ in terms of autonomy (Maton, 2007) as a cline of collegiality (Pountney, 2012)Theoretical Degree of emphasis on:concept Curriculum Content knowledge specified by disciplinePositional Pedagogy Teaching of content knowledge based on traditionautonomy Assessment Evaluative criteria aligned with teachers’ needs Curriculum Content knowledge specified by educational policyRelational Pedagogy Teaching of content knowledge based on economic and other factorsautonomy Assessment Evaluative criteria aligned with institutions’ needs
    9. 9. Further work in OER•Local teachers and pupils, teacher • For more information:educators and teacher educations • Project blogstudents involved in: www.deftoer3.wordpress.com•sharing and developing good • Twitter @deftoer3practice in teaching • Slideshare•understanding more about digital www.slideshare.net/deftoer3literacy•developing guidance on OpenEducational Resources for theschool sector•addressing issues of digital literacyin the context of professionaldevelopment•Project outputs will be shared viaan open textbook and the "DigitalBloom" installation
    10. 10. References• Barnett, R. (2005) Reshaping the University. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press• Barnett, R. & Coate, K. (2005) Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press• Bernstein, B. (1990) The structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge• Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique (Rev. ed.). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.• Bourdieu, P. (1992) Thinking about limits. Theory, Culture & Society 9: 37-49.• Luckett, K. (2009). The relationship between knowledge structure and curriculum: A case study in sociology. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 441–453• Goodyear, P & Jones, C (2004) Pedagogical frameworks for DNER (the Distributed National Electronic Resource), Deliverable DC1, EDNER Project. Lancaster: Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technology, Lancaster University (online at www.cerlim.ac.uk/edner/dissem/dc1.doc)• Maton, K. (2007). Knowledge-knower structures in intellectual and educational fields. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Language, knowledge and pedagogy: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives (pp. 87–108). London: Continuum.• McClean, M. (2006) Pedagogy and the University. London: Continuum.• Pountney, R. (2012) Constructing the curriculum in Higher Education (in press)• Schön, D.A. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass• Shulman, L. (2005) Signature pedagogies in the profession, Daedalus, 134 (3) 52-59

    ×