I wrote a short piece on this a couple of weeks ago, which ended with a range of questions:

1. Do our students leave here with the “right” social and cultural capital?

2. Would it be possible to build this into a modular award structure?

3. Would students understand the benefit of material that is not subject based?

4. Who decides what is appropriate socially and culturally?

5. Would any work on this be based against groups (eg BME) who may have a different view of appropriate social and cultural capital

6. Is this the responsibility of a University?

Clearly I don’t have any answers yet to these, but a number of conversations since I wrote this suggest that there might be something here worth pursuing.

A meeting with the VC and Chief Executive of the Equality Challenge Unit, where we looked at a range of diversity and equality issues, was one where he raised the idea of inequity due to differing levels of social capital.

In today’s Observer, an article describes how Debretts’s is now providing courses (a snip at  £1000) on “social intelligence”:

“the Debrett’s research flags up rising concerns among business people about the employability of graduates and school leavers who have been tested to the maximum academically, but have no notion of what to expect from a job. The accusation is that schools and universities are so focused on academic targets that they are failing to produce rounded graduates. Instead they are turning out young people who are shy and awkward after spending all their time on the internet or mobiles, who lack the ability to spell or write a letter, and are unable to get through a day without regular online checks on what their friends are up to.”

Ignoring the claims that technology might be to blame (and although the online world can be dominant, there also has to be a recognition of its importance), there are suggestions that a number of employers are coming across graduates with excellent grades but who don;t have the other key social skills necessary.

It seems therefore that there might be something here for us as a University to look at. The critical question will how we do so. On the one hand, this will be an excellent area for research, linking together ideas from sociology and education. At the same time though, as well as developing a theoretical understanding we would need to develop practical approaches that could have a real impact on students.

After discussions with colleagues in Education, then it is apparent that the more important area might be that of social capital, where:

“We think of capital as being of two types. Bonding and bridging. Bonding ‘glues’ you in to a place / way of being / approach etc . Bridging gets you out of it. We actually need both types of capital. Bonding gives us a sense of permanence and security but it can also restrict us and stop us growing beyond what we are. ” (M Lowe)

In addition there are the concerns about how we might state what we feel is important or necessary social capital (as I suggested previously), particularly in a region (Stoke on Trent)  of low educational aspiration, and where we need to recognise  that there may be very strong social capital already (particularly of the bonding type) which it would be unreasonable to challenge, while at the same time trying to identify how we could increase the amount of bridging capital. (discussion with K Vigurs)

Based on a project bid I have just completed, I have a particular interest in how we could build in some of these ideas into a set of postgraduate attributes, as a way of enhancing employability beyond high level subject expertise.

Interestingly, at least one author (Moss, Electronic Journal of Sociology (2005) ISSN: 1198 3655 “Cultural Capital and Graduate Student Achievement:A Preliminary Quantitative Investigation”)  suggests that the Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital may not apply to graduate students, although the  author acknowledges he used a small sample, and concludes:

“Further research is needed in order to confirm or refute this study’s preliminary findings. Graduate level education is a prerequisite for virtually all high-status careers. If students who undergo such education are in fact subject to educational inequities based on their socioeconomic origins, then we should suggest educational efforts designed to ameliorate these inequities, and establish the critical contention that our nation’s highest level of education is not conducted on a level socioeconomic playing field.”

Ultimately this is the kind of challenge that faces any modern university in city where traditional industries have declined and the city is developing a new identity. It is the opportunity for a university to go beyond providing a reflection of its locale and to become a catalyst for raising aspiration.

A week or so ago, I wrote an article here of resolutions for the academic year, and I said there would be no more articles on MOOCs. I was being economical with the truth.

Last week I was invited to speak at an event on Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in e-Learning, and event supported by the Higher Education Academy, to provide my thoughts and experiences of MOOCs.

As well as MOOCs, we also heard about issues relating to KIS.

Moocs and Quality Issues

Members of the QAQE steering group (Helen Barefoot of University of Hertfordshire and Jon Rosewell of the Open University) provided an overview of MOOC issues as follows:

We started with a definition of a MOOC including xMOOCs vs cMOOCs and the initial 2008 developments based on connectivism at theUni of Manitoba, moving to xMOOC platforms of Coursera and Udacity, used at San Jose and Georgia Tech, and finally EdX at MIT and Harvard.

A further series of providers was identified: Eliademy, Open2study and FutureLearn, the UK provider which will go live on 18th September.

The broader context was considered, in particular what was meant by “open” –

• Open source?
• Open licensing Creative Commons?
• Open content in YouTube etc?
• Open universities and distance learning?

The question “Why bother with quality?” was addressed, with the following stakeholders considered to be important.

• Students
• Employers
• Authors
• Institutions
• Funders
• Quality agencies

However, tensions were identified when comparing a massive course to a more traditional one, which had challenges both for quality assurance and quality enhancement

• Delivery – f2f or distance
• Accreditation – credit or none
• Price – at cost or free
• Entry – selective or open
• Scale – personal or massive
• Support – intensive or not supported
• Pedagogy – constructivism or transmission
• Teacher – star or anonymous

When considering the ideas of “massive” it was suggested that the issue is not large size, but scale independence (and the scale independence needs to financial, technical and pedagogical). When considering learning design at scale, the the following need to be considered: individual learning, small group collaboration and the impact of large communities.

When considering MOOCs, we need to be aware of what we mean also by “open” online” and “course”. When making a comparison to the courses we are more used to, then size, goal, learning outcomes,measures of completion and retention, and course structure all start to have different meanings. Since MOOCs are actually aiming at different learners, then they become different from usual uni course and don’t always fit with normal measures of quality or success.

The QAA view was portrayed as a clear message to safeguard quality and standards, based on the quality code and applied to all learning including MOOCs (Code chapters b1 b3 b5 b6). This was different from a message I had previously heard, where QAA were interested only if courses were offered for credit.

Experiences of MOOCs

Following this, I presented my view of MOOCs, sharing personal experiences of the courses I have completed, and providing a critique (naturally) of the neo-liberal technological solutionist approach being offered. I concluded with the PA Consulting report that showed that heads of institutions in the UK were not convinced that this was a disruption. I think I might agree with them.

My Experience of MOOCs -Herts Uni video

Key Information Sets

A session on the early evaluation of KIS, by Catherine Benfield of HESA provided the following information:

• New data and features available from 19th September
• Data collection reopens for updates the day after and the site will be refreshed once per week
• Data set hosted by HESA for download as XML file
• Scale of review next year will be a lot less, just small practical updates

However there is also an ongoing UK wide review of information provision being led by HEFCE with 6 strands of review

1. Advisory study on how students use the data and make decisions about studying
2. NSS – review of purpose
3. NSS – detailed of results since 2005. Report in spring 2014
4. Review of unistats website. Report in autumn 2014
5. How to improve info on salaries and employment outcomes
6. Strategy overview

The question was also raised – “should we just allow the market to produce websites?”, so that HESA would collect data and the market (for instance companies such as Which?) could produce the advisory websites. An interesting idea.

The final presentation was on an early evaluation of user experiences of KIS, by Moira Sutton of University of Derby which found:

• Participants generally positive
• End users more positive than professional users eg HE staff
• Mostly people get there direct via URL
• Little traffic from anywhere except widgets
• Mainly used by prospective and current HE students and HE staff !
• Participants were most interested in entry, course content, quality of experience and employability and the last of these was the most important.

On Saturday 28th and Sunday 29th September, I shall be donning lycra and fluorescent clothing to attend a 80s theme party to take part in the midnight bike ride from Manchester to Blackpool in aid of the British Heart Foundation.

I’d be really grateful if you could sponsor me for this event by following this link to justgiving.com.

I will promise not to publish photos of me in bike shorts on this blog if you choose to sponsor me – can’t say fairer than that!

Last week HEFCE published the outcomes of its consultation into arrangements for student recruitment, particularly SNC for 2014-15.

“For 2013-14 admissions, HEFCE was also asked by Government to allow all universities and colleges some flexibility in their student number control allocations, to make sure that they could better cater to student choice and demand. From 2014-15, Government also asked HEFCE to look at how we might be able to offer more places to universities and colleges where there was evidence of demand from students, and treat those institutions that have less demand less favourably. HEFCE consulted on how we should implement this guidance

The main change for 2014-15 admissions is that, provided the Government’s financial circumstances allow, universities and colleges that recruit significantly below their student number control allocations will lose some of their places, and these will be reallocated to those universities or colleges that recruit well. Those universities and colleges that lose places will have an opportunity over the next year to recover some of the places lost.”

For universities that recruit significantly below SNC then there is a year’s flexibility to recover –

“The policy aim is to aid student choice by allowing popular institutions to grow, and an argument could be made that innovation will be equally constrained if popular institutions are not given adequate opportunities to capitalise on demand. We note that the recruitment cycle is longer than a year, and that with the recovery mechanism it will actually be two years before any significant reductions in the SNC allocation would be applied. “

The flexibility available to institutions from 2014-15 will be a minimum of 12 places, or 3 per cent, whichever is larger, although this was written in the context of institutions exceeding their SNC, I’m still not clear if this is the same figure to count as being significantly below target.

The appendix to the document shows the responses to the consultation, and how HEFCE has interpreted them. This one is interesting:”Will the proposed approach offer students more choice while also protecting the student support budget?”. Responses from HEIs have 23 saying yes, 22 saying no,, and 51 saying don’t know. An interesting response, and more detailed notes show concerns with impact on widening participation, local recruitment and impact at regional levels.

The next year or two of undergraduate recruitment, certainly for those with significant SNC look to be challenging. Are we yet approaching the time when we need to consider post qualification applications – Paul Greatrix at Nottingham certainly thinks so.

OK, so it’s not January, but it is a new academic year, so here are my work resolutions and plans:

1. Make student attainment a focus for Academic Development Unit activity
2. Make sure every group of staff knows how they can contribute to improving league table performance
3. Give talks  in all faculties and schools throughout the year
4. Run an event on campus to address the issue of BME student performance
5. Develop undergraduate and postgraduate award portfolio performance tools
6. Learn how to use Blackboard, particulalry analytics
7. Review personal tutoring and other L&T enhancement processes
8. Give keynote speech on MOOCs
9. Stop writing blog articles about MOOCs – they were so 2012.
10. Do not publish blog articles that might offend…….chiz

After A-level results this year, the papers struggled to provide their usual commentary on grade inflation after a slight fall in numbers of As and A*s this year. We still got the obligatory photos of successful students jumping up and down. But is there another story we should be looking at and maybe more challenging?

Les Ebden, head of OFFa certainly thinks so.

In a piece in the  papers, he talked about how poorer students risk losing out to middle-class bias.

As a University which recruits from a wide range of students (possibly wider than some Russell Group institutions), is there more that we could be doing to help our students succeed?

We know from analysis of league table and DLHE data that the best way of getting students into good graduate level employment is for them to gain 1sts or 2(i)s, and this discussion on how we could improve student outcomes is now happening. It’ll also have a positive bias on league table position – and therefore create  a virtuous circle where we might recruit students more capable of gaining better degrees.

But as well as degree classification, in order to compete with the graduates from other universities, we might also want to look at the amounts of social and cultural capital our students have. This might be the capital that they come to university with, or it might be that which they develop when they are here. Are we sure that a student going trough one of our programmes is developing these aspects of themselves as well as developing their subject expertise?

Our graduate attributes programme – Staffordshire Graduate – might go some way to improving this, but I wonder if there is more that we could be doing to improve the chances of success of our students.

At a recent validation at a military partner of the University, I heard about a really interesting programme for those who are about to go to Sandhurst, but who the army feels are likely to struggle. As well as the inevitable drill, PT and camping (i’m not proposing these yet), there was an emphasis in the course on students doing presentations on leadership, Britain and Society and Art Science and Culture. All of these were designed to make a more rounded individual, and were to address issues of lack of cultural capital.

The topics for presentations were various, such as:

• “‘Pornography is a greater threat to gender equality than the burkha’ – discuss”,
• “Who was more to blame for the credit-crunch: greedy bankers or greedy consumers?”
• “Can a coalition government be a success?”
•  “Multiculturalism – Success or Failure?”
• “To what extent is the public responsible for creating an immoral press?”
• “Has the UK surrendered too much sovereignty to the EU?”
• “Alcohol or obesity – which is the greater threat to the UK’s health?”
• ‘Over-priced and under-achieving’ – Is this a fair assessment of the Large Hadron Collider?
• Can we overcome our dependence on fossil fuels?
• To what extent do computer games incite violent behaviour?
• Young British Artists: “Talented or Tasteless?”
• What will be the social impact of the Human Genome Project?
• To what extent is Britain’s “Special Relationship” with the US beneficial to the UK?
• To what extent do the modern media shape world conflict?

This left me with a number of questions:

1. Do our students leave here with the “right” social and cultural capital?

2. Would it be possible to build this into a modular award structure?

3. Would students understand the benefit of material that is not subject based?

4. Who decides what is appropriate socially and culturally?

5. Would any work on this be based against groups (eg BME) who may have a different view of appropriate social and cultural capital

6. Is this the responsibility of a University?

Ultimately, if we want out students to succeed in competing for the same jobs and internships as others, we need to start leveling the playing fields – and ask how can we start to share this difficult to define range of cultural and social capital with our students in an explicit way to raise their aspirations and outcomes.

or why I write a blog……

There are any number of reasons for people to write  a blog, and this useful short article from Martin Weller of Open University gives his reasons for blogging. His own blog can be found here.

My reasons are multiple, but here’s a few of them:

1. A place to store ideas

Quite simply, this space provides me with a place to collect ideas, other links, references I may wish to follow up. This is the blog as a resource for the writer. the other reasons are less selfish.

2. To comment and communicate

A key part of my role, as I see it, is to be able to share my thoughts with colleagues across the institution and in my broader networks outside the university. Blogging provides a quick and easy way for me to comment on HE issues that are important to my role. Importantly, I leave the comments switched on on this blog. Social media should be about openness, so  anyone can then comment and join in the discussion.

3.To Create

Every academic and manager in a university should be involved in creation of knowledge or in analysis and synthesis of others’ thoughts. Too often we forget to do this, and blogging is a way in which I can continue to write, to critique the ideas of others, and generate understanding that can be translated into my job here at the university.

4.  To Share

Blogging is all about being open, so this is a simple one.  If I (or anyone) goes down to London for  a meeting, the cost to the University of travel and conference fees can easily be £500, ignoring any lost opportunity cost. In a world that relies on teamwork, collaboration and openness together with declining resources, it is only sensible that my notes and analysis of off-campus events are written up and shared with the widest possible audience

5.  To develop networks

I advertise this blog via email to senior staff in my own university. I also have a wider readership, as I use Twitter to highlight new articles and drive readers towards them. Much of the discussion then goes on away from the blog, but it means I am still connected to a wider community of thinkers.

So my question is this – why wouldn’t you want to share your thoughts in an increasingly connected and open world?

A short thought piece from PA Consulting proposes that less money, fewer students and increased competition  might produce  three types of university.

• The oligarchs, a small super league of large, research-intensive universities such as Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, UCL and Manchester operating on a global level
• The innovators, those institutions that are developing enterprising ways of doing business and engaging with students, employers and other client groups, and hence will be able to grow new sources of revenues
• The zombies, those institutions that are unable or unwilling to invest in change and hence risk finding themselves in a spiral of decline, characterised by continuous cost-cutting and retrenchment.

As always the oligarchs seem to be the winners, but there’s a huge area to compete in around work based, part time, flexible or employer engaged learning, as well as creating a distinctive offer for on campus students. After all, no-one want to be :