Personal and Professional Blog 14th October 2014

Last week I attended a meeting my union (UCU) had organised to set out wy we need to vote for strike action to protect our pensions. I already know that the plan involved higher contributions for a far less attractive scheme but I had not realised how bad the news was – basically the University Superannuation Scheme (USS) has been hi-jacked by its own board who seem hell-bent on converting it into a glorified saving scheme. This does not stop them paying themselves high fees and anything that’s left might get paid out as a pension. This makes it impossible for people with many working years left to plan provision for their retirement. This is in contrast to the current (Defined benefits scheme) which does mean that people’s pensions are predictable).
I was so incensed by this that I made sure that all my colleagues in CICP were aware of this threat to their pension income.
The following day I travelled to Sheffield to meet with two colleagues. The three of us are planning to co-edit a book looking at the process of marketisation in higher education. It is unlikely that there will ever be a fully-fledged market in higher education but the process of marketisation (becoming more like a market) does seem to be stratifying universities and has major implications for widening participation.
The two meetings seemed to be linked. The proposed pension changes and the marketisation focus of the proposed book both show what the direction of travel is in the higher education sector. The process of marketisation is supposed to make higher education more efficient but does always make it more equitable. I think that what is happening in relation to the USS pension scheme, which applies to people working in institutions that were universities before 1992, is another example of market forces being allowed to play the central role. It also means that in comparison with public sector schemes funded by the Treasury (like the Teachers’ Pension Scheme), the USS will be inferior.
Markets are subject to market failures. In relation to these proposed changes, a possible market failure could be that it will make it harder to recruit to pre-1992 universities. They may be tempted to offer alternative arrangements to ‘star performers’, leaving the vast majority of staff with inadequate and unpredictable pensions.
This blog is slightly delayed because Anita and I spent the weekend near Pembridge, Herefordshire in a ‘pod’. (I’ve posted pictures on Twitter and Facebook). This is basically like an upturned wooden boat hull. As they are equipped with heating and lighted they are quite cosy. We spent two misty, autumnal days exploring the Black and White Villages of Herefordshire, a really nice break.

Personal and Professional Blog 17th April 2014

Last week I talked about the informal learning I had been doing when I sailed for the first time in many months. I also talked about the Centre for Better Ageing’s Research Review on older people and wellbeing (which reminds me that I said I would give some feedback on behalf of AEA (Association of Education and Ageing) on this report).

Since the last blog I have been taking a mixture of study leave and annual leave. I’ve had a list of things that I hoped to do in this time away from the office. One of the more pressing things is to develop my proposal for the Personal Inquiry (PI) that will, hopefully lead to becoming a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. This focuses on the teaching and learning aspects of my role.

I had originally thought that I would base this PI on my input as skills lead on New perspectives in health and wellbeing (K118).However, since I put in my proposal I have come to realise that I should widen the scope of the PI to reflect my various roles. These include acting as a skills lead on another HSC module, Introduction to Health and Social Care (K101) as well as becoming the Academic Lead for the Open University Badging Project and chairing the Badged Open Course (BOC) Team from the Centre for Inclusion and Collaborative Partnerships (CICP) which is developing a BOC (Taking your first steps in Higher Education) based on selected aspects of the three new Access Modules which were first presented in 2013.

It struck me that all responsibilities provide opportunities for me to develop and reflect on my practice while also influencing the practice of others. In general terms they include providing an academic lead (on the Badging Project and, as chair, on the CICP BOC), authoring (on K118), working with the chair to develop assessment strategy (K101 and K118), critical reading (K118 and CICP BOC), authoring (K118 and CICP BOC) as well as mapping skills and advising on the development of skills activities (K101, K118 and CICP BOC).

In Open University ‘speak’, teaching equates with the authoring of course materials. I haven’t been doing very much authoring since the last blog but I have been doing quite a lot of critical reading of the work of colleagues. In particular I’ve been looking at the work on one of the BOCs (Succeed with Maths) as well as some of the work on our own CICP BOC. As I expected there is some excellent stuff in here (for example, I now understand negative numbers better than I’ve ever done). I’ve also been done a mapping of where all the skills activities are in one of the blocks on K118.

I realised once again that what I want to say to fellow-authors is similar. It hinges around the word ‘explicit’. I think, as academics we have to be ‘up front’ with students about what are the benefits of studying in higher education generally (which I think are distinct from the generalised benefits of any learning). So it has to be clear why it’s helpful to read a particular piece of text, or to do a particular activity. As part of my preparation for the HEA Fellowship application I have started reading Diane Laurillard’s book, Teaching as a Design Science (2012). She quotes (page 4) Saljö:

“ … we should try to be even more explicit about issues such as epistemological beliefs, learning styles, and the problem of what counts as valid knowledge and valid arguments in various disciplines and areas of study.” (Saljö, 2004:493)

I was pleased to see the word explicit playing centre stage here to. But my appreciation of its significance has stemmed from my involvement on K118 which has acted as the catalyst for my thinking. The activity and reflection I have done in relation to skills has had the effect of engaging my understanding of what is required in distance teaching, particularly for the early stages of the student journey. It has also provided a focus for how I seek to influence the teaching of other colleagues.

The fact that ‘skills’ count have this effect has come as something of a surprise to me. I approached the role of skills lead with some scepticism. I felt that too often skills in higher education serve economistic justifications and treats students as atomised individuals who are only interested in university study to reap the so-called graduate dividend. I was also concerned that the skills lead role might, in practice, be a narrow, even mechanistic, one.

 

I’m going to finish with something that does link to my own writing. I heard today from my co-author that we have had our paper on access agreements accepted by Studies in Higher Education.