I read Hawk and Lyons’s article, ‘Please don’t give up on me: when faculty fail to care’, in preparation for my presentation on ideas for the self-initiated project, and it had a big impact on me. The title comes from an email one of Hawk’s students sent him saying,
“Please do not give up on me in this class. When you ask me a question, and I respond that I don’t know or do not respond, it is due to a panic state more than to a lack of knowledge. It is not reflective of anything you do as an instructor, it is just a down side of my learning functions.” (Hawk and Lyons, 2008, p.316).
Like this student I have come to recognise how I can react in similar ways. During the PG Cert I have learnt a great deal about my own learning process, and the impact that anxiety has had. In doing a lot of the tasks, there has been the extra hurdle, of how anxious I feel about doing it, to get over first. This can lead to procrastination, and I have recognised that often I seem to wait until the anxiety about not getting it done tips the balance and I start work in earnest. This obviously doesn’t make for the best chances of high attainment. I am still working on how I deal with this myself, but it has led me to want to help other students in the same situation (as far as I can in my library role). I have outlined this in the SIP project section of the portfolio.
I have been inspired by Hawk, who after receiving this email, started a research project (I guess treating it as a mystery rather than a problem!) to examine how many students felt like this and what teaching practices caused or prevented it. He uses his research with his students, and pedagogical theories to develop teaching strategies that ensure students feel they are respected and cared for. This is an excellent end in itself, but also helps with attainment (Hawk and Lyons, 2008, p.333). I would like to explore these ideas, such as ethics of care, as well as my own experience, to see if we can use them in library and academic support settings to support students’ well-being.
I have also become aware of the impact anxiety has on my teaching. I can see how my own nervousness has prevented me from introducing more active learning elements and encouraging the students to feel comfortable getting involved and speaking up. I have had lots of ideas from the observations, such as introducing ice breakers that will help to relax me as much as the students. I am hopeful that being more aware of this and ways to overcome it will benefit my teaching in the future.
Hawk, T.F. and Lyons, P.R. (2008) ‘Please don’t give up on me: when faculty fail to care’, Journal of Management Education, 32(3), pp. 316-338.
I was set this book chapter to read for the discussion group on 22nd June. In a similar way to Aoun’s ‘A new model for learning’, this chapter advocates for problem-based learning, interactive activities to prepare students to be adaptable to work across different disciplines in a less stable labour economy. I was asked to consider the following questions
How does HE stay relevant in a constantly changing environment?
How can we prepare students to cope with change?
What skills will be most relevant in a continually changing landscape?
How do we help students to become accountable for their own learning, even after leaving HE?
Considering Stephenson’s arguments, I think all these questions tie together. To be adaptable, resilient, and capable of working cross different industries, it is essential that students keep learning after they leave HE. Transferable skills, such as problem-solving and critical thinking will be the most relevant in a changing landscape. So, developing these skills within HE will prepare students to cope with change. And by doing that HE will stay relevant. However, although it certainly makes sense that HE partakes in preparing students for the workforce, I would argue strongly that HE should also provide a space for students to explore subjects that may not be obviously ‘useful’. Although, I can see that there are ways to combine the two. As Aoun suggests, studying gender in Victorian literature could be combined with developing writing and critical thinking skills, and it will help students to make it explicit what skills they are developing as they explore the subject (Aoun, 2017, p. 74)
I read this section below as clearly advocating of embedded information literacy teaching.
“It is almost a cliché that ‘we live in a world of change’. Individual circumstances, of course, vary but there is
general agreement about some of the factors which are driving change. They include
the rapid expansion in the volume of knowledge and information available;
advances in the techniques for storing and disseminating current information;
the accelerating rate at which changes are occurring in life generally and in the work-place, through new technology, new applications, new structures and social movement;
the greater complexity and diversity of the contexts within which we have to operate;
the growing interdependence of people and between specialist expertise.
These common factors apply even in fields for which higher education has traditionally prepared its students – as professional academics, subject specialists and researchers.” (Stephenson, 1992, p.3)
At UAL, information literacy is certainly a ‘bolt-on’, as he puts it (Stephenson, 1992, p.2). Even if it is in the course timetable, it’s still a separate entity (the Friday afternoon scenario is very familiar to me (Stephenson, 1992, p.2)). I try as far as possible to make the workshops I do as specific and relevant to the course/project as possible, but this would be more effective if information literacy sessions were a more regular and perhaps more bite-size aspect of most projects.
However, Stephenson, like Barnett, doesn’t seem to consider the experiences students bring with them to university, or experiences they may have there that affect their ability to learn. Stephenson suggests that it is essential to provide students with unfamiliar problems where they need to use trial and error to find solutions (Stephenson, 1992 p. 4). This would be a valuable learning experience but for students that experience anxiety this kind of scenario could be very difficult to cope with. Fear of failure could be paralysing for some and some students may struggle to see the value of the experience if they perceive themselves to have failed. As Stephenson says himself, students achieve better results of they are aware of what they are learning and why (Stephenson, 1992, p.5). I think this method would be an excellent learning experience for all students, but would need scaffolding, so students can build their confidence before being presented with a complex problem.
There was one sentence which I particularly disagree with: “The ultimate test is when students are taken seriously by the special interest group they are seeking to join.” (Stephenson, 1992, p.5) This reveals white male privilege, disregarding the experiences of highly qualified women and people of colour who struggle to be taken seriously in their fields regardless of their abilities or achievements.
Aoun, J. (2017) ‘A learning model for the future’ in Robot-proof : higher education in the age of artificial intelligence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, pp. 45-75.
Stephenson, J. (1992) ‘Capability and Quality in Higher Education’, in Stephenson, J. and Weil, S. (eds.) Quality in Learning London: Kogan Page, pp. 1-6.
How do you recognise Barnett’s ‘qualities’ in the context of a course you work with? Think of a couple of examples.
My library colleagues have developed learning outcomes (UAL Library Services, 2017) that tie in with UAL’s Creative Attributes Framework. (University of the Arts London, 2018). Although we don’t use these to assess students, they help us decide what and how we teach. There are several similarities with Barnett’s dispositions and qualities. For example, under the heading ‘Resilience’ we have
Handle adversity in the research process; able to problem solve and overcome obstacles
Work with ambiguity, uncertainty and unfamiliarity
(UAL Library Services, 2017)
Relating to ‘a preparedness to explore’ and ‘determination to keep going forward’ we have
Build on existing knowledge; use research as exploration rather than as a tool to back up what is already known
Recognise research is a creative process; take an enquiring, analytical and explorative approach
Understand connections between information sources and ideas, and be empowered to take risks in order to make further connections
(UAL Library Services, 2017)
I think many of our learning outcomes are more akin to dispositions/qualities than skills or knowledge: we are hoping to enable the students to, as Barnett describes, “take ownership of her studies and imparts to it her own energies and direction”.
To what extent do you recognise Barnett’s ‘dispositions’ in your own approach to learning? Assuming this varies, what influences them?
I think if I do have some of these dispositions, it varies a lot. Unless I feel a very strong connection with a subject, self-belief is a big factor in the variation. I feel that Barnett fails to take into account the emotional factors in studying and learning. However much I may wish to be ‘willing to learn’, anxiety can be a major barrier to engaging as much as I would wish to.
Are UAL’s Creative Attributes more like Barnett’s ‘qualities’? Or his ‘dispositions’? Is it just a question of phrasing? Comment on a couple of examples.
As to the character of the Creative Attributes, this varies. Quite often the Creative Attributes combine elements of the dispositions and qualities into one e.g.
Here the “mindset to take measured risks” seems to be very close in character to the dispositions, but the second part, “the resourcefulness to pursue these opportunities in an ethical and sustainable way” seems to have more in common with the qualities, as it describes the manner or the style in which that “mindset” or disposition should manifest itself. However, the Creative Attribute for ‘Resilience” directly ties to one of Barnett’s qualities.
The major disparity between the dispositions/qualities and the Creative Attributes is that the attributes seem much more concerned with the individual whereas the dispositions/qualities are concerned with how that individual interacts with others to a much greater extent. For example, the only mention of interacting with others in the attributes are in the “Showcasing abilities and accomplishments with others” section below, but all these seem focused on how that individual transmits information or ‘showcases’ to others rather than reciprocal engagement.
Also, the qualities include integrity, restraint and respect for others, whereas the attributes, apart from one mention of being ethical, don’t mention anything of this kind. This is perhaps a little strange when the ability to work with people in a respectful and honest way would seem to be key skills for the creative industries.
The Creative Attributes are explicitly focused on employability and enterprise, i.e. on preparing students for socially useful occupations. What valuable attributes (‘creative’ or otherwise) can you think of that aren’t employment-focused?
Being employment-focused, these attributes are concerned with the commercial side of creative practice, but much creative endeavour is not commercial, and may hold a different kind of value to the artist and others. Perhaps a valuable attribute would be the ability to pursue something for the love of it, even though it will never bring commercial gain.
How are these attributes taught and/or learned at UAL?
I think these attributes are mainly taught via the methods by which the students carry out and deliver their work e.g. through collaborative project work, giving presentations, live projects.
As part of our information literacy workshops, we also teach these attributes as part of teaching students how to find, understand and evaluate information.
Barnett’s ‘qualities and dispositions’ are about learning, and the CAF is about creative practice. Are they more or less similar than you would expect, given this difference?
They are less similar than I would expect. They might apply in different ways to how Barnett means them, but I think all the dispositions/qualities could be applied to creative practice. As mentioned above, I think it’s surprising that some of them aren’t included.
How do these ideas connect with the theory you’ve been encountering on your elective unit (if you are doing one)?
I am doing the ILTHE module and considering Barnett discusses various barriers to learning that students might face, it seems surprising that he doesn’t mention anything related to inclusivity or diversity in the chapter e.g. how the dispositions could be affected if a student perceived they were treated differently or found university to be in some way unwelcoming to them if they were from a particular background or had a disability. He mentions difficulties students may encounter in the course their studies, such as illness or disliking the teaching style, but seems to assume that all students start from the same point at the beginning of their course. This differs with Paulo Freire’s views that we must take the social identity of students into account, consider the power dynamics that exist outside the classroom and practice a pedagogy that aims to dismantle existing power structures (Freire, 2000)
Barnett, R. (2007) ‘Dispositions and qualities’ in A will to learn: being a student in an age of uncertainty. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Freire, P. (2000) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Thirtieth anniversary edition edn. New York: Continuum.
I decided to use the Fairburn System books as my objects because, a few weeks before the workshop, one of them had generated much discussion in the library office. This was the ‘Ethnic and character types’ edition. There were opposing views in the library team about whether we should keep something that presents people of colour in an offensive, ‘othering’ way. It was decided that it would be censorship to remove it. It made me think about the reasons we keep publications that may be seen as obsolete, controversial or offensive material in the library, and I thought this would be a good basis for an object-based learning session.
However, I decided that the ‘Ethnic and character types’ edition would be too offensive to risk taking into a session that was mandatory and where people would not be warned in advance. I felt I would be exploiting people’s feelings to benefit my own learning. I decided to use other titles such as the male and female full figure editions, as there were still many aspects to date it. Women are shown cleaning and shopping, while men are shown to be going to work, the female models are nude, but the men aren’t. I still wasn’t sure how people would react to them, so I showed them to a colleague who is also a fine art student. She had never seen anything like them before, thought they were fascinating, but was shocked by the clear distinction in the ways men and women were portrayed. This all led me to believe that the session would work.
I decided on the following plan for the session:
Split the group into 3 groups. Give each group a book and 3 cards
Give them 2 minutes to look at the books and make notes on the cards
1st Discussion (3 minutes)
Ask each group to present their book to the other groups and the words and phrases they wrote on their cards
2nd Discussion (5 minutes)
Questions to whole group:
Considering how the books have been described, should they be in the library collection?
Why would we keep outdated material in the library?
Other than unlawful material, is there anything that should not be included in library collections
Does the inclusion of an item in a library collection confer any meaning on that object?
Finally: has this changed your view of the meaning and purpose of library collections at all?
I asked everyone to write their thought on the cards as I understood that we needed to provide some visual evidence of the process/outcome of the session and I thought this might be a good way to show how everyone reacted to the books.
What went well
Everyone seemed very interested in the books and they provoked a lot of discussion. It was great to have an enthusiastic response to the objects.
What didn’t go well – feedback themes
It was great that there was much enthusiastic discussion about the objects, but I didn’t feel I was in control of it. It was difficult to interrupt the discussion to ask questions and move everyone onto the next part of the session. I started to feel anxious about this and felt that this showed. This was reflected in the feedback.
There was feedback that the instructions could have been clearer, and that the point of the cards wasn’t clear. This is understandable, as the cards did not have a purpose for the session itself but were simply to act as my visual evidence. I could have explained this at the beginning.
The objects and the learning outcomes weren’t aligned well enough. During the discussion I felt that some of the questions and issues I had intended to raise seemed irrelevant. Either the objects should have been more clearly aligned with the outcomes, or I should have adapted the questions to fit the way the discussion went. I felt that it hadn’t worked to have expected it to go a particular way.
As a result of all the above, it was not clear what the intended outcomes were, and it became impossible to provide any conclusion to the session. Beyond encountering an interesting object, the feedback suggested that participants felt they had not learned anything new.
What I would do differently next time
Ensure the learning outcomes, plan of the session and the chosen objects are well-matched
Give precise instructions and ensure all aspects are explained clearly. In the future I wouldn’t expect people to write down their thoughts and discuss at the same time.
Try and be more confident in directing the discussion where this is appropriate.
Consider how a session can be adapted if it is not going in a way I had expected
Ask people what they have learned from the objects/the session as a whole rather than proscribing a set outcome
Be more aware of the time especially when there is a lot of discussion taking place
Ultimately, the flaws in this session stemmed from my having really developed a session to go with the material I felt was really offensive, the ‘Ethnic and character’ types edition. Although I don’t feel it would have been right to use this in the microteaching session, I wonder whether I could have developed a session based on that. For example, I could have developed a session around ‘the object that isn’t there’. I could have said at the beginning that I had brought no object because I deemed it too offensive and explored how the participants felt about this. I think this would have instigated an interesting discussion around ideas of censorship, offensiveness, safe spaces etc. that would be very pertinent to ongoing debates in society.
This has made me consider my attitude to risk in my teaching, and how choosing what appears to be a safer option doesn’t necessarily guarantee success, but in fact can ensure failure. It will certainly make me consider less ‘safe’ options in the future, as although the outcome will possibly be more extreme one way or the other, it seems there is greater chance of creating a memorable, thought-provoking session.
In the future
It would be interesting to hold a session where we gathered together some of the more controversial material in the library to discuss why it should or should not be kept in the collection. Appropriate warnings would need to be in place and attendance would be voluntary. The questions I included in my lesson plan could be raised. Complaints about library material seem to stem from the perception that the inclusion of an item in the collection implies endorsement, whereas librarians would say this is not the case. It would be interesting to explore how students and non-library staff perceive the inclusion of controversial material in library collections.
The Fairburn system of visual references. Set no.1, Book 1: Fairburn figures. Male full figure. (1979) 2nd edn. London: Fairburn Publications.
The Fairburn system of visual references. Set no.1, Book 2: Fairburn figures. Female-full figure. (1979) 2nd edn. London: Fairburn Publications.
The Fairburn system of visual references. Set no.1, Book 3: Fairburn figures. Male and female situation poses and hands. (1979) 2nd edn. London: Fairburn Publications.
The Fairburn system of visual references. Set no.2, Book 3: Fairburn heads. Ethnic and character types. (1979) 2nd edn. London: Fairburn Publications.
I was inspired by Munday’s writing on problems and mysteries, and by the project by a PGCert alumni that investigated what students perceived by the phrase “intellectually stimulating” to look into what mysteries might lie within the library NSS results and how they could be investigated.
The NSS Library Question
There is one question on libraries in the NSS, Question number 19.
Previous to 2017 the library questions was:
“The library resources and services are good enough for my needs” (Stanley, 2009 p.144)
In 2009 Tracey Stanley gathered feedback from librarians on the library question and gained this feedback:
“It does not focus on the electronic aspects of the library service, which play an increasing part in overall service provision.
The phrase ‘good enough for my needs’ appears to encourage a negative response.
The question does not allow respondents to focus their response on satisfaction with either stock or services.
The question is linked with others also included under ‘Learning resources’ – most significantly, a question about access to specialised IT resources – which may skew the overall result for the ‘Learning resources’ section as specialised facilities may not, by their nature, be widely available to all.
It does not focus on the level of support for learning provided by the library service.” (Stanley, 2009 p. 146)
I disagree with this in one respect: I think the phrase “Good enough” implies mediocrity and sets a very low bar, especially compared to the loftier tone of some the other questions, which ask students to consider whether their course has been intellectually stimulating, has challenged them to achieve their best work and explore concepts in depth. Finding that most students think the library service is “good enough” doesn’t seem to be something we should particularly celebrate, as many libraries have done. The University of Oxford even made the rather spurious claim “Oxford libraries voted best in the UK for second year running.” (Bodleian Library, 2014) when they achieved the highest score nationally on the library question in 2013 and 2014.
The question was improved for the 2017 survey to the following:
Although this is still somewhat problematic, as the question is still linked to other questions on specialist facilities and does not allow respondents to distinguish between library resources and services, the data yielded from this might be more reliable in telling us if the students feel the library is really doing a good job in supporting them in their studies.
This year the proportion of students at UAL who “mostly agreed” or “definitely agreed” with the rephrased statement above was 91%. (University of the Arts London, 2017) slightly above the sector average for Q19 of 87%. (SCONUL News (2017).
This appears to be a very good result, but it is too easy to be satisfied, there are still many questions to be asked of this data. I have listed a few below, and how they could be investigated.
What do students understand by the question?
What do students understand by the phrase “supporting my learning”? How do they think the library should be doing this? What are their expectations of the library? Is it still possible that the students have low expectations, perhaps because they are not aware of all the services the library offers? It would be interesting to conduct focus groups with students to ascertain what they understand by Question 19, and what their expectations of the library service are.
What are students’ perceptions of Library Services?
Recently Library Services conducted a Digital User Experience project (Olsson, Reed and Batch, 2017) where students were asked to map their research processes. It was found that some students were unaware of what the role of the library staff is. Some were confused as to whether we are there simply to manage the space and collections, and monitor behaviour, or whether we were there to help them. This reticence to ask questions certainly indicates there are low expectations of the ability of library staff and will inevitably mean there is a lack of awareness of library resources and services.
1500 CSM students attended a library information skills session in 2016-17 (Information skills can include how to use the online resources, database searching, evaluating the reliability of resources, referencing skills etc.) and only 105 CSM students attended a one-to-one library tutorial. Many courses do not take up the offer of information skills teaching from their subject librarian, and the take-up of library tutorials is relatively low, so students may never be aware of the online resources provision and never have the opportunity to acquire more advanced research skills.
It seems possible that the highly positive NSS results could be actually be the outcome of lack of awareness and low expectations of the library service. As well as focus groups, we can look at other measures available. The results from the Library Survey (Reed, 2017) that took place in the Autumn of 2016 give a fuller picture of how the students and staff view the various aspects of the library service, and as shown in this infographic , it is a more complicated picture than the NSS results suggest.
Could the good results be masking a problem?
Although only 9% of students across UAL did not agree that the library supported their learning, it would be interesting to find out more about that 9%. What if disproportionate numbers of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, BAME students, international students, or students with disabilities felt that the library was not supporting them? I can not discern this from the dashboard data as it only breaks down each question group, not individual questions, by student profile. It would be interesting to see responses to question 19 across UAL by student profile to see if there are any groups that do not feel the library supports them. If there was, this would then require further investigation to see why. Mainly, it is important to remember with statistics that a positive result can mean you are serving the majority well, while some groups may not be being served well at all.
As we wouldn’t think that some bad feedback meant that everything we are doing is wrong, it is important not to see good feedback as an endorsement of everything we do. We must look beyond the data to ensure that there are not bad reasons for good feedback.
I found the main recurring themes in the readings were how universities should teach and how they should be run. They all seem to agree that the promotion of imaginative or critical thought is the main purpose of university, rather than the acquisition of knowledge alone. Interestingly, Aoun and Whitehead both mentioned that if we wanted students to only acquire knowledge all they would need are either books or a library card, as if all that can be found in the library are dry facts. It seems to be stating the obvious to say that libraries and their resources can feed the imagination just as much as good teaching.
I was prompted, particularly by Pamquist and Whitehead to consider the link between the purpose of the university and regulation, and whether all regulation is necessarily a bad thing. In Pamlquist, we see that Kant acknowledges the need for regulating the faculties which train professionals, but that the philosophers, while keeping the other faculties in check, should not be subject to regulation themselves, as they should have “reason alone” as their authority. Whitehead argues that public opinion is the only effective measure of a good university, and that the authorities must not attempt to treat universities like businesses.
This has a great deal of resonance today, in view of the new frameworks for regulating universities, particularly the TEF. This diagram from WonkHE illustrates the TEF metrics.
Aoun also argues that it is imperative for universities to prepare students for work in the future, which I believe is important. One of the TEF metrics is the numbers of graduates gaining skilled employment. Concerns were raised in the discussion group over whether the TEF would force university teachers to concentrate too much on useful skills at the detriment of inspiring the imagination and allowing students the chance to play, discover, and take risks without adverse consequences. However, I have found that sometimes having a structure to guide your work and aims that will help the students in their working lives can be a positive thing. In the library service we have used UAL’s Creative Attributes Framework to develop learning outcomes for our information literacy workshops.
Often, we only see students for one or two workshops per year, so having a clear aim for each session is helpful. We can select an appropriate goal for the workshop and then plan exercises that aim to achieve that. By linking to the CAF, we can also show how the library sessions are key to meeting course outcomes and not just an added extra.
I think our learning outcomes also show that teaching for employability doesn’t necessarily disallow creativity. The outcomes emphasise the importance of encouraging the students to research independently, find inspiring resources, solve problems and think critically regarding information and publishing practices, which I think all fit into the key skills and literacies set out by Aoun, particularly critical thinking. All these skills can be useful in employment and life generally, but I don’t believe they compromise creativity. Therefore, it shouldn’t be assumed that teaching for employability means we are seeking to produce automatons, as it can mean helping students acquire the skills they need to work and live creatively.
I was also inspired by his views on how powerful learning can be when students take ownership of it, “it is one thing to have a story told, it is another to be the protagonist”. I am interested in ideas of critical information literacy , involving teaching methods such as ‘flipped classroom’, which I already use in one workshop, where the students carry out a simple research task with very little direction then present their findings back to the rest of the group. This is effective as the students discover the resources for themselves and they are they are interested to hear from their peers about what they have found.
So far, academic libraries have been free from external regulation. However, libraries have always felt under pressure to prove our value and many, including UAL libraries, have been willing to sign ourselves up for mechanisms such as the Customer Services Excellence framework. This sits uncomfortably with me. Although it can be a good idea to have standards to aim towards, it demands a great deal of staff time in compiling data and evidence, and it feeds the trend of framing students as customers. This trend can be seen in the direct link between new government regulations and funding models, as having demanded students pay higher tuition fees, the government is now deeply concerned over ensuring they receive ‘value for money’ plus demonstrate appropriate use of government money.
So, although I don’t think all effects of the TEF are necessarily negative, I think the marketisation-regulation-marketisation merry-go-round that Whitehead warns against is potentially damaging, As students are increasingly framed as customers, and universities even begin to view themselves as providing a service, students might engage less in constructing their own university experience, and may be less likely to become independent, critical thinkers. I don’t know what the effects of the TEF and the new Office for Students’ powers will be, but it seems that teaching the skills and literacies such s those set out by Aoun is increasingly important, and not just to shield future graduates from the growth for artificial intelligence.
I’m Beth, an Assistant Academic Support Librarian at CSM. Like many librarians, I have not had extensive training in teaching skills, apart from a few workshops and what I have read myself. A major part of my role is supporting the Foundation Art & Design, BA Jewellery and BA and MA Performance: Design and Practice courses. As part of this I do around 50 hours of teaching per year, including information literacy workshops and 1-to-1 library tutorials to support individual research needs. I also deliver open workshops as part of the Academic Support offer, such as on Referencing and Fake News.
Since starting at CSM I have tried to develop inclusive and engaging workshops that will improve students’ research skills and inspire them to make the most of the library resources. I have learnt to include techniques such as interactive exercises, peer learning and group discussions. However, I would like to explore various teaching methods and different ways of learning in more depth in order to improve my skills.
I am hoping that the PGCert will enable me to improve my contribution to students’ learning by underpinning practice with theory. This would give me the knowledge and confidence to develop new ideas. I am interested in studying the Inclusive Teaching and Learning in Higher Education elective unit, which would improve my ability to make workshops welcoming and productive for all.