A higher education ethos
A Higher Education Ethos – A review of information and literature relating to the creation of an ethos of HE in the context of FE
Rob Jones, June 2006
Drawing on a review of recent material, this document examines the notion of a higher education ethos (or higher education culture), in the context of further education. By looking at the ways in which it has emerged in policy documents and the wider spheres of higher and further education, the notion is contextualised and some of its key aspects are identified. Creating and sustaining an HE ethos is a potentially resource-intensive undertaking, and this paper argues that student engagement constitutes a potentially crucial aspect of such an ethos, but that certain factors peculiar to the HE in FE context may constrain levels of engagement.
Introduction
In relation to HE in FE, the notion of a higher education ethos has been a concern amongst policy makers for several years now. In 2001 the Higher Education Funding Council for England issued a publication designed to support HE in FE (HEFCE 01/07), reporting that many providers are seeking to develop ways to support those students studying at the higher level within further education colleges (FECs). The concern here is that such students will require an environment that meets their academic aspirations, which will involve differentiating higher level provision from that pitched at the further level. The question is thus how to create the appropriate surroundings and practices, but first and foremost, how these are to be characterized. HEFCE drew attention to the potential need for colleges and partners to develop relevant facilities and to enable appropriate forms of staff development (HEFCE 2001, p8). It also drew attention to the issue of scholarly activity – i.e. the means by which staff keep abreast of academic developments in their fields, and develop capabilities that may enable them to undertake their own research (it should perhaps be noted that at present definitions of scholarly activity are themselves subject to ongoing discussion, and debate continues as to how the balance should be struck with respect to these two aspects of practice).
The issue of the HE ethos has been raised again more recently (see e.g. HEFCE 03/15 and HEFCE 03/16), suggesting that not only do policy anxieties persist (e.g. around quality and standards in HE in FE), and that some colleges remain keen to create an HE environment, but that further clarification of this ethos may be beneficial. For Simmons (2003), a major difference between HE and FE, and thus a means by which the culture of the former can be distinguished from the latter, is the comparatively high degree to which FE is subject to centralized co-ordination – particularly in relation to the ways in which academic standards are maintained. In short, academic autonomy is an extremely important feature of HE culture.
In a paper presented to the 2003 conference held by the Forum for the Advancement of Continuing Education, Weatherald and Mosely investigated the ways in which colleges have sought to introduce changes designed to create an HE ethos. In summarising their findings it appears that FECs activity here generally focuses on one or more of three areas. Firstly is that of teaching and learning, where HE in FE staff try to ensure that students are suitably aware of the different expectations that will be placed upon them at the higher level. Although not reducible to this, a central element here relates to independent learning, and the need for HE in FE students to move beyond the comparatively more directed forms of learning that can be understood to characterize study at the further level. Secondly are what Weatherald and Mosely refer to as symbolic aspects of higher education – here they cite the introduction by some FECs of graduation ceremonies. Thirdly is the infrastructural context, i.e. the physical, material elements of the college, and how these are developed and planned to mark out appropriate environs (in FECs with a relatively large proportion of HE provision, there may be separate HE centres, for use only by those studying at the higher level).
It may thus be possible to propose an initial, working typology of characteristics that mark out an HE ethos, and to the aforementioned 3 dimensions could tentatively be added a fourth category – that of ‘engagement.’ Each of these 4 potential aspects of the HE ethos will be discussed below, and wherever possible, examples of practice will be used to illustrate them. It should be noted here, however, that at present there is a distinct dearth of academic research focusing on the issue of an HE ethos as it relates to the provision of HE in FE. For this reason, the discussion will be somewhat speculative, and should be regarded primarily as a contribution to creating possible ways to conceive of an appropriate HE ethos, and to think about how learning at the further and higher level can be understood to differ. It is thus emphatically not an attempt to prescribe a set of policies and practices to be implemented by FECs. To reiterate, a suitably developed evidence-base to inform such an undertaking has yet to be created.
The learning and teaching dimension of an HE Ethos
As stated, a major emphasis here is the perceived need to ensure that students develop skills appropriate to learning at the higher level. The stress here may fall upon encouraging and sustaining self-directed aspects of study, and, more generally, trying to ensure that students acquire an increased ability to learn independently. One possible way to conceptualise these skills could draw upon the distinction between surface and deep learning (see e.g. Marton and Saljo 1976, Ramsden 1992, and Ramsden et al 1989). In one sense, the two terms designate the difference between instrumental approaches to the acquisition of knowledge, and those which treat the process of learning more as an end in itself. Subsequently, the surface learner will tend to view learning as an activity that is goal-orientated, where objectives are imposed from outside (e.g. solely by curriculum content, assessment patterns, etc.). By contrast, the deep learner’s motivation is more self-determined, and may well be stimulated by personal, subjective factors. As such, the acquisition of knowledge will be more holistic, and will entail tracing out possible connections between concepts, facts, events, phenomena and so forth. Conversely, surface learning – with its instrumentality – will tend to treat content as more or less discrete, to be broken down into digestible chunks wherever possible. The issue of how a broad, coherent framework of knowledge might be gathered is thus bracketed and may not even figure in the learner’s goals. Very crudely, the distinction is between that of memorizing against understanding, and the collection of facts against the desire to gain a thorough grasp of concepts, etc.
Whilst the above oversimplification undoubtedly runs the risk of caricaturing the distinction between surface and deep learning, it may help to shed some light on aspects of the differences between learning at the further level and higher education. Of course, there are difficulties with the distinction, and one of the more prominent ones can be understood to relate to its general applicability – i.e. the extent to which different fields, disciplines and subjects display contrasting extents of both types of learning. For, even at the higher level, it seems reasonable to conclude that certain (if not all) courses will require students to gather and retain facts throughout, the acquisition of which will need to be demonstrated in assessments. Also, this should not be taken to imply that all learning at the further level is marked by surface approaches. Clearly, many learners – especially adults returning to education – will be highly motivated, and will therefore often bring personal agendas to education, which may well serve to stimulate deep levels of learning (even on courses which precede study at the higher level). Furthermore, it appears unlikely that students will display one style of learning. Rather, the same student may operate at both levels, perhaps engaging with different modules or courses at varying depths.
With these caveats entered, however, the distinction between surface and deep learning does seem to offer potential for exploring the ways in which students’ approaches may differ at the levels of further and higher education. Thus one important aspect of developing an appropriate ethos will involve encouraging students to develop a deep approach to learning. One issue arising, however, relates to the potential obstacles that FECs may encounter when attempting to contend with the practical implications of creating and maintaining deep learning.
Here, the learning and teaching context begins to overlap with the infrastructural, physical aspects of the HE ethos. For example, it is apparent that deep learning, with its stress on self-directed learning, will require excellent resources – such as library facilities and ICT provision. Clearly, successful creation and maintenance of a learning atmosphere characterized by deep learning will be resource intensive. Once again, it is evident that developing an HE ethos which embraces deep learning is not merely a matter of ‘culture shift’ or organizational tweaking.
On the teaching side of the learning and teaching context, there are also the difficulties faced by many teachers in HE in FE – such as the issues associated with practicing at two or more levels (i.e. the further and the higher). As Harwood and Harwood (2004) note, it is not only the high teaching loads that burden HE in FE teachers, but also the fact that many must quickly switch between styles and approaches. This is because they will often have mixed loads – teaching students on further education courses one hour, and those at level four the next. In the former, surface approaches may be more suitable, whilst in the latter it will be appropriate to foster deeper styles. Suffice to say, flitting between suitable pedagogies in such tight turning circles is no mean feat. For these and related reasons, practices entailed in creating the deep learning styles that constitute an important part of the HE ethos may prove hard to embed in the contemporary context of HE in FE.
It perhaps goes without saying that no discussion of the current learning and teaching context in HE in FE would be complete without mention of ‘scholarly activity.’ What such activity may consist of precisely will not be addressed in any detail here, however. Rather, it will simply be noted that calls at the national policy level for HE in FE teachers to undertake more scholarly activity may well echo wider concerns surrounding the quality of provision in this hybrid field. Also, definitions of scholarly activity seem to vary at present, and it is not clear how far the emphasis will fall on areas such as subject updating as distinct from research and publishing, etc. Whilst it seems very likely that the former areas will receive emphasis by policy, what is significantly less clear is how far notions of scholarly activity will encompass (and distinguish between) subject and field specific material on the one hand, and pedagogic, teaching specific material on the other.
The symbolic aspects of an HE ethos
As noted above, colleges may seek to realize and promote an HE ethos at a symbolic level. Weatherald and Mosely (2003) point to the introduction by some FECs of graduation ceremonies, and it is apparent that although the material, physical and practice-based elements of an HE ethos will in many ways eclipse the symbolic level, the latter is clearly an important one (particularly for many students). Other aspects of the symbolic context may include signage, and demarcation of study spaces, etc. Regarding the former, clear signs on the FEC’s campus will obviously help to reinforce the dual levels at which study takes place, and contribute to staff and students’ awareness of the distinction between further and higher education. Although this may seem self-evident and thus a somewhat glib point to some, the reader has only to experience the difficulties in locating a particular department or office on college or university site to be reminded of the fact that effective signage is sometimes overlooked.
With respect to the latter part of the symbolic context, i.e. that of providing demarcated study areas for HE in FE students, it is apparent that (as with aspects of the teaching and learning dimension of the HE ethos) there are overlapping areas with the infrastructural, physical side of provision. However, there is evidently a symbolic factor inherent in ensuring that higher level students should at least have the opportunity to study in more or less exclusive spaces should they so wish. This may take the form of separate or prioritized facilities in libraries, etc.
The physical, infrastructural aspects of an HE ethos
This context has been seen in the previous two sections to have the potential to overlap with both learning and teaching and the symbolic aspects of HE. However, it is a separable part of provision and it will be helpful to try to examine its role in contributing to the development of an HE ethos independently from other elements. As with so many other aspects of the further education milieu, much remains to be researched. Key questions to be addressed in this context include how FECs (perhaps especially those in the mixed economy group) approach the physical side of their HE in FE provision. Given the diversity of FECs - their varied sizes, historical backgrounds, traditions and goals - it can be anticipated that colleges will have different views of how the shape and structure of their grounds should accommodate HE provision. A range of factors will come to bear on the extent to which HE is separated from existing provision, or integrated with it. Aside from available budgets, a key consideration may be the size of the college – and equally importantly, the proportion of its provision that is at the higher level. It would thus be instructive to identify any trends in this context – do colleges with high proportions of HE in FE generally seek to separate their HE provision, and if so, how? It is also necessary to gain some insight into HE in FE students’ views of the infrastructural aspects of provision, and to assess how far they themselves seek separate – or integrated – courses.