‘WHY SHOULD I?’

ENGAGING, CHALLENGING AND

DEVELOPING INNOVATIVE TEACHING,

LEARNING & ASSESSMENT PRACTICES IN

A FURTHER EDUCATION COLLEGE

BY

NADIM BAKHSHOV

HEAD OF CENTRE,

CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING AND LEARNING

HIGHBURY COLLEGE

Introduction

In a recent Certificate of Education session with a group of first year students I devoted

much of the session to conversation and discussion on a range of interconnected themes:

using technology, being innovative, sharing ideas with teams and the relevance of theory

to support genuine teaching, learning and assessment practices rather than doing things in

a completely ad hoc manner. I got the students up to try some technology to help inform

the discussion and exchange ideas. I noticed that one particular lecturer from another

education institution was sitting at the back, arms crossed, listening but not contributing.

Even when asked a direct question he would give very monosyllabic answers and refused

to engage in the discussion. It was only when the discussion moved on to the sharing of

practice and issues around this including: questions about how different institutions

achieved this, about how different platforms, blogging and social media might support

sharing of good practice – especially innovative ideas that this particular lecturer

awkwardly interrupted the flow of conversation and said,

“Why should I? I don’t get paid as much as the bloke sitting next to me. Why should I create materials to

go online or try ideas and then share them with others? What do I get out of it? That bloke is earning more

than me. Will I get a pay rise? No, I doubt it. So the bloke who earns more gets stuff for free? No, that’s not

sharing. Sharing means getting something back, it means exchanging, it means I get some benefit.”1

Although his interruption was dramatic and his manner of speaking angry and frustrated

the whole group listened. He went on to say something which struck many as truthful -

though no one wanted to agree with him because it felt like conceding ground to

negativity. I tried to pick up some of his points and asked him why sharing was not a

basic instinct for teachers, given the nature of the profession. He said,

“It might be but what’s in it for me? What do I get back? Recognition? Not that I can see. A pay rise for

developing materials and ideas? Not really. It doesn’t enter the performance review system. If I got

something back then I would be more than willing to participate.”2

Leaving aside the tone and aggressive nature of the criticism when one reads this back – I

hastily scribbled down some notes after the session – there is a critical question in what

this particular lecturer said, namely this: the sharing of good practice, a much lauded aim

and benefit to any educational institution, seems to be more often than not a giving over

of one’s work without any direct return, without any direct benefit flowing back to the

lecturer.3

This lecturer was also complaining about an injustice in the system. In a conversation

over this topic with an ex-senior manager the following point was made:

“There is an implicit assumption that sharing of good practice will be of benefit to everyone. It is the old

style – a corporate ideal – of a common pool of ideas, techniques and tools. Everyone contributes and

1 (e-LT and innovation Class Session, Certificate of Education, Highbury College, February 12

th 2012)

2 Ibid.

3 Fielding (2005, page 13) supports this point: “The question of teacher identity, of how teachers see

themselves and others in the practice transfer process and the narratives they construct about themselves,

turns out to be hugely influential in their approach to collaborative professional learning.”

everyone receives different ideas, techniques by querying this database of practice. What’s wrong with

this? The model it out of date. In the modern world of blogging, peer-to-peer communication this old style

corporate centralised ideal tends to fail.”4

Of course, for those who are willing to share practice, without any direct benefit flowing

back to them, one would assume this willing attitude is purely altruistic and should be

called exemplary. He went on to say:

“However, those who do this – and some are fantastic at giving their ideas – are the exception not the rule.

What we need is a peer-exchange model that actually brings a direct benefit back to the participating

lecturers in any sharing of good practice.”5

Step 1: Defining the problem

The problem we are confronted has many threads. Let me attempt to sketch out the broad

outlines.

Firstly, as stated in the introduction, sharing of good practice tends to be less of an

exchange and more a one-way flow6 of information from a particular lecturer into a

central storage. It is worth noting that the central metaphor is mechanical or information

processing7. The solution tested within this research uses a metaphor of a peer-network

(Latour, 2007). Theoretically this central store serves everyone and the benefits flow back

to the whole institution. In reality, the model is flawed at the point of participation:

“If I want to share some good practice I have to do ‘more’ to give over my ideas. I might receive some

acknowledgement from my peers if I am expected to give training sessions but that is pretty much it. “8

The success of knowledge transfer is often a function of the effort of a particular lecturer.

He or she has to do supplementary work to disseminate which requires different skills9.

There is no guarantee the uptake of any idea will be good or that others will find it

relevant in quite the way it was intended. Furthermore, unless participation in this central

database is credited in some way through lecturer performance reviews a particular

lecturer effectively may end up putting a lot of work into ‘sharing’ of ideas without any

formal acknowledgement, or even a transfer of knowledge or change of practice. 10

At the

4 Private Conversation, December 2012.

5 Ibid.

6 Fielding (2005, page 17) describes the way this one-way movement is closely linked to hierarchies: “one

of the things I wished might have been different, is, it was one way. ” 7 Private Conversation (Maggie Gregson, 3rd LSIS RDF residential, April 2012). Part of the conversation

looked at alternative metaphors. A key one is the notion of ‘narrative’ and story telling . See Arizipe

(2002), Carter (1990). Medwell, J., Wray, D., Minn, H., Griffiths, V., & Coates, L. (2011). 8 Comment from member of staff at Staff Training Day (Highbury College, 2012)

9 Fielding (2005, page 26) comments on the gap between being a good teacher and good at transferring

practice: “Teachers were, in his view, often inarticulate about their own good practice, both in terms of

their collegial unwillingness to put themselves forward and being unable to articulate what it is they are

good at in ways that enable others to learn from them. ” 10

Part of the intrinsic difficulty encountered when looking at transferring practice is what Eraut (in Fuller,

A., Munro, A., & Rainbird, H., 2004)) calls step 3 of the transfer process: “Recognising what knowledge

and skills are relevant.” The typical institutional practice is that this step is essentially straightforward. All

the research suggests otherwise.

root is perhaps the fundamental flaw, that sharing of good practice is simply taken for

granted. An external speaker once stated as at a Staff Training Day:

“It’s part of what you should be doing anyway.”11

This set of problems present a challenge: given that sharing of good practice is a benefit

to any educational institution is the model of ‘sharing’ fundamentally outdated? Should

we be looking at new models that immediately benefit participating staff and work as an

aspiration to inspire greater participation? And allow ‘challenge ((Biesta, 2010) to be in

the mix?

Around this core problematic there are several other points that need to be included in the

overall problem definition.

Firstly, there is the question of the relevance and place of theory within the sharing of

good practice models. According to Eraut (Fuller, Munro, & Rainbird, 2004, page 56):

“theory is an inherent part of how we interpret and understand the world around us”.

Having had to deliver several sessions in staff development days I have been struck by

the way the majority of vocational teachers, who already have a professional

development framework around their vocational area, ‘switch-off’12

when question of

pedagogy, theory and the nature of learning arise. Furthermore, there is a huge issue in

the link between theory and practice13

. Part of the problem is the obsession in the further

education sector to make everything prescriptive, non-discursive and instructional, a

point repeatedly made by Professor Frank Coffield (2011-2012): Staff are often ‘told’

things in training sessions, there is very little space for conversation and discussion and

the favoured mode of presenting theory and pedagogy is through an instructional sheet.14

In some ways the further education sector implicitly assumes teachers are not capable of

directly engaging theory or ideas, an idea that is supported by a certain form of

‘managerialism’15

. The consequence is that theoretical principles underlying their

practice, ideas of the nature of learning, ideas of cognition and habit formation, play an

unconscious role in teaching, becoming more inaccessible and therefore less visible to

rational scrutiny. The whole subject is simply pushed into the background and whatever

is current is uncritically assumed to be the truth of the matter. Given the fluctuating and

highly fluid nature of education policy and the changing demands from employers and

11

Private Conversation (staff Training Day, Highbury College, Feb 2012). The essential problem is that if

you wish to not only pass on useful ideas but challenge practice then this approach does not work. And

some (Biesta, 2010) would argue that challenging assumptions and models is a critical part of exchanging

practice. 12

Disengagement is a key problem in the exchange of good practice (Fielding, 2005, page 12). Fielding

observes that the relationship berween people is critical and cannot be subtracted from the equation of what

makes effective engaged good transfer. 13

Korthagen (2001) discuss the link between theory and practice requiring the ‘reflective’ practitioner.

Without thought on the side of the practitioner the ‘gap’ between theory and practice simply widens. 14

Having developed a pedagogical framework these have been the basic realities when I have had to

disseminate theory. 15

The point was made by Ball (1999) in which a certain disposition towards performance management

removes the space for critical and theoretical engagement.

student expectation to be adaptable one has to draw these unconscious habits16

to the

surface in order to challenge them. The problem is: where is theory discussed?

What flows out of the previous problem is the question around innovative practice. This

is the last significant ingredient in the problem definition. As western economies lurch

from one crisis to the next education policy and decision-making seem to follow rapidly

in some reactive post hoc way. Within the course of the past years, however, a theme has

opened up and stabilised enough to allow a broader view of how the education landscape

might look. Briefly, questions of the need to develop an entrepreneurial culture have

begun to repeat themselves in educational news17

. The situation has moved from

discussions of how to recover the ailing economy to how to develop an entrepreneurial-

led recovery. How does this agenda impact on our problem definition?

Teachers are no longer being asked to be adaptable to changing circumstances but to

recognise the constancy of change and therefore to integrate models of innovative and

adaptable changing teaching, learning and assessment practices. No longer are they asked

to follow but are being encouraged to lead on new approaches to teaching, learning and

assessment that draws in technology and pedagogy. Excellence is now being subtly re-

defined as innovative or entrepreneurial. How does this impact our problem definition?

When we examine this issue of sharing practice we will need to define what type of

practices we want to focus on. We will consider a narrower focus to support the last set of

issues.

That is my overall problem definition and the issues tied and involved. I will now sketch

out my solution. Once the solution is presented I will move to describing how this

research project investigated and tested this solution against the problem definition,

defining relevant data through the test process.

Step 2: Formulating a solution

Amongst all the aspects to the problem definition I have detailed out the core issue is

finding a good practice platform or model that satisfies the following demands:

1. Why should a particular lecturer participate? What direct benefit flows back to

them as a direct result of contributing?

2. How can sharing of good practice become an aspiration?

3. How can a good practice platform allow the presentation and discussion of theory

and its relevance to teaching, learning and assessment?

16

The debates around the unconscious in education overlap heavily with the political. Jameson (2002)

argues about the inability to deal with submerged prejudices but his point also has strong resonances for the

way teaching practice carries these habits of thought , a theme strongly present throughout the american

pragmatist tradition (Dewey, 2007). 17

The nature of the discussions and reporting assume the role of entrepreneurial methods in education is

unproblematic. Typical articles focus on issues that suggest the ideas underlying the concepts are obvious

to all. See (Corbyn, 2012) for a typical example. Dr Maggie Gregson (Suncett) has discussed this in

relation to work she has done around the theme of ‘making room for argument’.

In order to present the solution it is important to establish some of the ideas that started

with the problem definition and led to formulation of a solution.

Firstly, I wanted to introduce the idea of ‘research’ into the solution18

. Action research

has already existed for some time in the further education sector, with clear

methodological models and impact frameworks, that is, ways of doing it and measuring

it. I wanted to do something less formal but still call it research19

.

For some years I have noticed that, for many excellent teachers, experimentation, risk-

taking, exploring ideas within their teaching practices has been a basic fact. Working

within the constraints of a particular syllabus, the profile of a particular student group and

the pressures of success measures they constantly try out different ideas of how to

approach different topics. They learn to manage risk but also to find different ways of

engaging students. The level of experimentation is small-scale, often tried one day,

dropped the next, and very rarely communicated to others.

What if this level of micro testing and experimentation went on more than is normally

recognised? Could I define a model of micro-scale research in teaching, learning and

assessment practice that my solution could capture?

In order to work the platform would have to become a vehicle not to present tools,

techniques but of experiences of facing a problem, formulating an idea, testing the idea

and looking at the impact on students from feedback. This model of research is more like

a method of experimentation, exploration and trying out ideas within one’s own practice.

It was rigorous but operated at a different level of formality than action research and

academic research. It could involve a single teacher but equally so could involve several

exploring a similar theme.

I then formulated this experiential model of research20

:

18

In a series of email exchange with Professor Gert Biesta (Bakhshov, 2012) the question of using the word

‘research’ was discussed when, in fact, the real issue ws thinking and critically thinking. For Professor

Biesta this involves a wider engagement with the political education. 19

Ibid 20

It is important to note that this model of research echoes the models put forward by Dewey (2007).

I called it an ‘ideas lifecycle’. Could this model fill in a crucial gap? And could my

solution to sharing good practice provide a credible platform to disseminate this

approach?21

The model of capturing and disseminating this type of experience and approach was not

likely to fit into the neat categories of a shared database. I simply did not want staff to put

their experience into a central database. There would have to be a filter. How would you

filter out what it or is not relevant?

Critically how would set up a dissemination platform as an aspiration? You could

develop a platform to ‘publish’ their ideas. You could make the forms of submission

considerably more accessible than an academic journal22

and allow staff to submit articles

based on their most significant experiences? Not every idea would be published, as an

eJournal would need to limit its submission.

In order to present the solution I want to begin by several responses by staff when the

solution was presented at a staff development day, within a session on innovation. After

the session several members of staff approached me wishing to participate. I asked them

what struck them the most about the idea:

“To have my ideas published in some form.”23

Here was the aspiration. Not all submissions could be published. Given the fact that

anyone can blog their experience, anyone can present their ideas on a number of social

media sites why should an eJournal hold any significance to any member of staff?

Discussing this issue with the contributors the following comments were made:

“The debate around the internet and things like Wikipedia are not settled. Yes, you can get anything out if

you want. People are self-publishing novels, academics are setting up peer-reviewed journals but what are

we doing to pick out the best of our thinking and practice? Nothing. This eJournal idea has a reach beyond

any good practice database and raises the profile of everyone contributing.”24

As someone noted:

“Because the URL is public I can tweet my contribution and raise my own profile. I can use this platform

to step into new situations and open new doors for me. I can put it in my CV. ”25

And:

21

I am acutely aware that these ideas are not, in themselves, new but have a long and respectable tradition,

especially in American Pragmatism (Rosenthal 1999). What is new is linking these ideas to an open

technological platform that builds in ‘interactivity’ as a core principle. 22

There is a movement called the ‘open access journal’ which is beginning to emerge around the traditional

academic institutions. This type of journal and its consequent publications are often free and readily

available to anyone who wishes to download. A good example of an open access publisher is re:press

(2012): “our open access titles are also available free of charge in digital form”. 23

From Staff Development Day, November 2011 24

Feedback sessions during the building of articles, January-March 2012 25

Feedback sessions during the building of articles, January-March 2012

“In one step you have created a platform for not only other people to see how we innovate and do things

differently but that our sector has some great teaching and we get to be part of this ‘letting the world

know’.”26

Let us examine how this solution will address the issues raised in the problem definition.

Firstly, a research journal is a natural setting to present theory. Because it draws on the

tradition of a ‘journal’ in higher education circles, the concept has a history that teaching

staff can grasp without much difficulty.

Secondly, it creates an aspiration. If someone publishes their own ideas these ideas enter

the wider circle of colleges and staff and have their own names attached to it.

Recognition of effort is built into the concept.

Thirdly, it can encourage a more pro-active model of continuing professional

development: a lecturer can explore ideas within the cycle of their own teaching and seek

to publish it to others. If an idea did not work presenting these failures can often be a

powerful tool in sharing good practice.

Fourthly, it recognises that staff do try ideas out. As a sector this is largely passed over.

Higher education does research.

The principle of the first journal was very introductory. Effectively the aim was to

develop a website platform that allowed a community to form and exchange research

across several institutions. After several conversations with Dr Sheila Kearney, Head of

26

Feedback sessions during the building of articles, January-March 2012. It is worth noting that the idea of

sharing the craft of teaching is a theme echoed in Sennett (2009).

LSIS Research27

, several name changes and design changes to the site were made to

increase the ease of access.

And the actual journal page:

The journal is currently being registered with an ISSN number.

27

In the most recent conversation the role of open access journals was agreed as a positive step in

supporting the LSIS RDF programme and the sector as a whole.

The question was now to test it, to gather feedback and data from staff, senior

management and participants.

As this solution addresses a crucial set of perceptions and participation these have formed

a significant part of the data gathered. Basically, I wanted to know what staff thought of

the idea and I wanted to record the participation from staff, and their reasoning. 28

Step 3: Testing the solution

I would like to discuss and present my research plan, aims, objectives, methodologies,

data gathering rationale and, in the final section, reflect upon the data gathered to form a

judgement of its initial success in addressing the problems laid out.

The research project aimed to launch an open access eJournal and test its impact on the

perception of staff on the issues discussed and to investigate participation in the eJournal.

Some of the more detailed objectives were as follows:

To Test the eJournal as a platform to:

a. Capture and Disseminate Innovative Teaching,

b. Develop a new model for CPD

c. Disseminate theory and its relevance

d. Raise aspirations

e. Provide a platform to develop, challenge and engage teaching staff

The timeline and methodology were as follows:

Step 1: Write brief paper ‘Developing a Culture of Innovation’ and present to College e-

learning strategy group, chaired by Principal (Dec 2011).

Step 2: Collate feedback from Step 1.

The first data was gathered through the feedback provided. It is important to bear in mind

that the success of the research and eJournal required full senior management backing.

Experience has taught me that an important step in getting agreement is to present one’s

rationale as clearly as possible. Allow criticism. The feedback from this session, which

formed an important stepping-stone and support for the actual development, will be

discussed later.

Step 3: Build website & virtual cover for Issue 1(January 2012)

Step 4: Present eJournal to all teaching staff through sessions in Staff Development Day.

(February 2012)

Step 5: Collate all feedback for Step 4.

28

Some of this has already been presented in previous quotations.

This second data gathering opportunity was built around several questions presented to

the staff during the various sessions and the results were noted and will be discussed. The

session allowed for group voting on specific questions I posed and for individual

contributions. Some parts of the session where also given over to discussion and an

opportunity was given to allow staff to comment on the idea, how it might affect their

own practice.

Step 6: Gather contributions, edit and build content (March 2012).

Step 7: Collate feedback from participants submitting articles in Step 6.

Step 8: Upload first issue (March 2012).

Step 9: Launch Issue 1 at Teachers’ Conference (21st March 2012).

Step 10: Get feedback for Step 9.

Step 11: Define submission policy, set up editorial board for Issue 2, due in October

2012.

Within this broad methodology the project will also be presented to the 157Group Project

Manager as a model other Colleges might wish to consider.

The literature that has supported this project has been discussed within the previous

sections.

Step 4: Data, feedback, analysis and reflection: a model for the sector?

In this final section I want to present all the qualitative feedback with analysis and

suggest that this particular model addresses a gap in the sector in terms of addressing

professional development, a small-scale research model in applied pedagogy and as a

way of bridging potential research fellowships in the LSIS RDF programme and

academic research.

I would also suggest that this model could provide a useful way of accessing teacher

experience for sector-wide analysis. A simple example will explain the point a little

clearer. The IFL are currently engaging the sector in a vocational pedagogy project, as are

the 157Group of Colleges. A requirement in all these project developments is to get the

‘practitioner voice’. If this eJournal model is successful and is extended across the

sectors, given the minimal costs to set-up and manage then it would become a crucial

source of ‘data’ itself on teacher experience and views on pedagogy and policy issue.

Let me turn to some more of the data and feedback gathered and the implications of it.

In Step 2 of the methodology I wrote a short paper (Appendix 1) in which I presented the

concept and reasoning. The paper repeats some of the themes in the research project. I

argued that this vehicle would create an aspiration for excellence and innovation, I

explained the costs of setting up the eJournal and asked for feedback.

I recorded, by hand, many of the comments. Perhaps the single most important and

important remarks came from the Principal. She called it ‘brilliant’29

. In the following

discussion many agreed that one cannot impose excellence from the centre, from the top

downward in teaching practice, that it should be nurtured and brought up from the ground

upwards so to speak was seen as a strength of this eJournal model. To encourage a

culture of participation, of staff coming forward with their own innovations and ideas,

was seen, itself, as an innovative solution to many issues around sharing good practice

and research. The Head of Quality also called the project ‘brilliant’30

and saw in it a peer-

driven model of raising aspirations and ideas within the culture of teaching, learning and

assessment practices. All recognised that this model was a different approach to a well-

known set of problems. The solution was incredibly simple31

and worth testing and trying

out.

The support was therefore given for the project and seen as a valuable idea for the whole

College.

The second big data gathering and feedback step was at Step 5. The idea and image of the

eJournal was presented in sessions to 200+ teaching staff and business support

departments.

Staff were split into four groups during the whole day. Three of the groups were teaching

staff, the fourth was a business support group. To all the groups I posed a range of

questions and asked them to vote by raising their hands.

I asked each group to vote on the following two related questions:

1. Are you innovative in your teaching practices?

2. Do you try ideas out in your teaching practices?

The teaching groups answered in a very similar way to the two questions. For the first

question very few teaching staff would claim they were innovative. About 30%32

of staff

would say they were. However, when I posed the second question about trying ideas out

in their own practice the answer was close to 70%33

across the whole day. It is important

to emphasise that I made it clear I wasn’t talking about huge big-scale ideas and huge

risks but small-scale ideas that might just change one session. When I went on to ask why

so few thought they were innovative but were happy to say they tried different ideas these

are the types of responses I received,

“Innovation sounds like such a big word – a bit too glamorous for what I do. Yes, I try stuff out, but it’s on

a small scale”34

When I quizzed them to say why couldn’t small-scale ideas be innovative many said,

29

e-Learning Group, Highbury College, December 2011. 30

Ibid. 31

Ibid. 32

Ref. 33

Staff Training Day, November 2011. 34

Ibid.

“I hadn’t even thought of it like that. I can see that I try ideas out, some work and some

don’t but I thought innovation was something else.”35

The first teaching group of the day were the most cautious. By the end of the day I was

better at linking innovation with small-scale idea exploration more effectively and the

average for the first question increased whereas the second question also increased.

If we reflect on these comments and look at these perceptions of a teacher’s own practice

and approach it becomes evident that confidence with recognising some measure of doing

things differently is actually a natural thing for most teachers.

The most paradoxical responses came from some teaching staff were those who crossed

their arms and deliberately set themselves against the ideas being discussed. Some simply

claimed they were just happy to do a good job36

and this talk of ideas and innovation did

not seem relevant. Although we are back to dealing with stereotypical attitudes I was

interested by the small percentage of staff who use the stereotype to hide behind. Who

knows whether they are innovative, try ideas out and so on. Their unwillingness to

participate reflected a slightly jaded and sceptical attitude towards anyone trying new

things out.37

At the other extreme, after a particular session, came and chatted to me after the session. I

asked him what he thought.

“I loved all of it. I think this stuff is brilliant. It was really inspiring.”38

Although I had already agreed submissions the enthusiasm this lecturer showed

encouraged me to ask him to contribute an article. He was more than willing to do it.

Many teaching staff wanted to know how to submit an article. To the question ‘Why

should I?’ it was clear that the reason for wanting to publish your own ideas and

experience in an eJournal is not only positive, gives you recognition but also is exciting

for many staff. Quite a few people expressed their pleasure at the idea of being able to

publish and to have a platform for doing so.

The Head of the Centre for Entrepreneurship, who also shared the session, commented

after,

“I think this is an amazing idea. I really get it.”39

35

Ibid. This raises several questions. In conversations with DR Maggie Gregson we discussed the

commitment to and drive to improve practice embedded in practice – the main questions here were how do

they ‘know’ whether to stick with, adapt or abandon the innovation and on the grounds of what evidence

and how ‘good’ was the innovation in the first place. The question was about the extent of the innovation

being research-informed. 36

There is a good argument here, echoed by Sennett (2009) that this is a good aspiration. 37

In subsequent discussions with staff (Staff Training Day, 2011) it became evident that the roots of this

attitude were related to poor management and understanding of the profession of teaching but also the idea

that teaching is a given and subject specialism is often all that is required. The challenge to uproot cynicism

is wider than the educational field but the negative effect in teaching has a profound impact. 38

Staff Training Day (Feb, 2011)

The third data gathering and feedback step was at Step 7. This was participant feedback.

Brief Preliminary Conclusions from eJournal Launch

In this last section I want to explore the perceptions that have arisen through the course of

this development and suggest that the open access eJournal is new and needs time to fully

engage the profession. Many of the questions posed were in context of the launch event.

There were just over 200 teaching members of Highbury College who participated in the

launch event. It is important to note that the vast majority of teaching staff teach

vocational subject areas and often come out of industry.

The teaching staff were asked whether they undertook research and were given freedom

to interpret the concept of ‘research’:

Broadly speaking this confirmed the suspicion that there was a commitment to ‘learn’, to

investigate at some level within a typical further education college. The most surprising

feature of this set of responses was the sense of regular ‘research’.

To help sharpen the sense of ‘research’ the teachers were asked: Do you read academic

journals on education or attend educational seminars or conferences?

Their responses were:

39

Ibid.

This supports the perception that practitioners very rarely engage with academic research.

A minority engaged with academic research. The vast majority occasionally look at

academic research. It is unclear how influential this is for their practce. So, a further

question was asked: Do you look to (educational) theory to suggest new ideas to apply in

your own teaching?

Again the results were fairly predictable, supported by the literature:

Again, only a minority do.

However, the eJournal is not premised on a prior engagement with academic theory of

research. Teachers were asked: Do you explore different approaches in your teaching to

make your teaching interesting and/or engaging for students?

They answered:

Do staff explore different approaches? The overwhelming majority said they did. A basic

premise of the development of the eJournal was the conviction that this was the case. So

why is so much not recorded?

Staff were then asked: Do you record or discuss the different approaches in your

teaching with your peers?

They answered:

Again, some form of peer-exchange goes on. The majority regularly exchanged ideas.

This then led the conversation in to difficult territory. Did staff present new approaches

to teaching when you are being observed?

The picture was very mixed:

If one of the long term aims of the eJournal is to support more staff presenting ideas and

having the confidence we would expect the answer to this question ot dramatically shift.

Finally staff were asked: Do you read and think about the wider education issues in the

news?

They answered:

Over half regularly did, some more so and, interesting, a small percentage never did.

What this brief summative survey revealed was the context in whch the journal was

launched. The overall conclusion is that there is plenty of data to support the need for this

form of open access publication to raise professionalism within the profession. The

question is to increase participation.

Bibliography

Arizipe, Evelyn. Children Reading Pictures. 1st. Routledge, 2002.

Bakhshov, Nadim, interview by Gert Biesta. Discussion of Role of Research in Open

Access Journals (March 3-12, 2012).

Ball, Stephen. "Global Trends in Educational Reform and the Struggle for the Soul of the

Teacher." British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. BERA, 1999.

Biesta, Gert. Jacques Ranciere: Education, Truth, Emancipation. Continuum, 2010.

Carter, D. Teaching Fiction in the Primary School. London: Letts, 1990.

Coffield, Frank. "Talk." LSIS RDF Residential Event. Sunderland: Suncett, 2011-2012.

Corbyn, Zoe. "Student entrepreneurs frustrated by lack of funding." Guardian Unlimited.

March 5, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/mar/05/student-entrepreneurs-

uk-lack-business-angels (accessed May 30, 2012).

Dewey, John. How We Think. New Edition. Standard Publications, 2007.

Fielding, Michael. Factors Influencing the Transfer of Good Practice. University of

Sussex, 2005.

Fuller, Alison, Anne Munro, and Helen Rainbird. Workplace Learning in Context.

Routledge, 2004.

Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious. 2nd. Routledge, 2002.

Korthagen, Fred. Linking Practice and Theory. Routledge, 2001.

Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social. Oxford: OUP, 2007.

Medwell, Jane, David Wray, Hilary Minn, Viv Griffiths, and Liz Coates. Primary

English: Teaching Theory and Practice (Achieving QTS). 5th. Learning Matters, 2011.

re:press. Open Access. 2012. http://re-press.org/about/open-access/ (accessed May 12,

2012).

Rosenthal, Sandra. Classical American Pragmatism. University of Illinois Press, 1999.

Sennett, Richard. The Craftsman. Penguin, 2009.

APPENDIX 1

Developing a Culture of Innovation

“Excellence is not an act. It is a habit.”

Aristotle

Nadim Bakhshov, December 2011

Draft Paper

Introduction

This brief paper outlines the next steps in the development life of the Highbury Pedagogical

Framework. A more detailed exposition of this development will be presented later.

In the academic year of 2010-2011 the major focus was on raising the eLT threshold by putting

into place a clear structure and training programme to lift the threshold use of the College VLE.

One of the central threshold requirements included using MyCourse to submit work and present

feedback and manage grading. The aim was to dispense, where possible, with paper printing of

work and other forms of electronic submission. It was also suggested that there were simpler

pedagogical sound mechanisms to increase interactivity through the College VLE.

The TLA Cycle

In the current academic year 2011-2011 the emphasis has shifted: the major theme is to look more

carefully at developing innovative teaching, learning and assessment practices. The aim is to

develop a culture of innovative practice. In this shift of emphasis eLT has move from simple

threshold use to providing the tools and platforms to liberate teaching, learning and assessment

practices and thereby open up a space for innovation both in and out of the classroom. Critical to

this development will be the development of a ‘culture of innovation’.

Background

In the last academic year the eLT strategy at Highbury College focused on ‘raising the threshold’

of VLE use across all academic departments. It did this in a systematic way by building an eLT

strategy on a pedagogical framework. By explicitly forming a pedagogical framework it allowed

the Learning Technology and Innovation Manager to formulate a clear approach to organising the

uptake of eLT and VLE use based on principles of interactivity, situated learning and

collaboration. Here are some key milestones in this past development:

a. March 2010: A pedagogical framework (which informs the whole teaching, learning and

assessment cycle) - named the Highbury Pedagogical Framework (hereafter, HPF) - was

developed. The conceptual underpinning was drawn mainly from Heidegger’s analysis on

the holistic and situated context of tool and technologies40

, on Wittgenstein’s (weak)

functional model41

of language and communication and the pragmatic principle of

‘difference’42

in the essays of William James.

b. Semester 1 2010-2011: An audit of the current usage was undertaken using criteria

derived from the HPF.

c. January 2011: A Training Programme ‘Raising the Threshold’ was created by the LTU

(with support from Community College). This training programme focuses explicitly on

the key tools and techniques to make VLE use more interactive i.e., as a point of work

submission and grading.

The application of the HPF to eLT was reasonably straightforward in that it allowed eLT to be

seen as (a) a tool and (b) a means to develop clear teaching, learning and assessment strategies.

Part of the process of presenting this to staff was to organise the introduction of technology

through its pedagogical value and relevance. This contributed towards the positive reception of

the technologies.

Broader Contexts

When we come to looking at the whole teaching, learning and assessment cycle that constitutes

the core practices of College life there are several related contexts that have a bearing on how we

have to proceed. In this section I will raise the various questions and issues which I hope to

provide a comprehensive and innovative solution to in the next section.

40

Heidegger (SZ, 1922) carries out an extensive phenomenological analysis of the web of instrumentality

for a simple ‘hammer’. The point is that learning and mastering tool use is often tacit, that learning skills is

perhaps better grasped as developing tacit knowledge, a kind of know-how, rather than an explicit

‘theorising’ about the topic. This derived view comes from the work of Michael Polanyi (Tacit Knowledge,

1983). 41

Wittgenstein (PI, 1953) talks about the ‘use’ made of words rather than their ‘meaning’ (in a referential

model). This shift accompanies the functional role of language in a shared practice. See, especially his

example of a primitive language game involving two persons $12. What is critical is that language mastery

is better grasped as a mastery of situated communication. 42

Richard Rorty, the late American neo-pragmatist often paraphrases William James’s views on the nature

of knowledge acquisition and belief in the following terms, “if it makes no difference to what you do then it

means nothing.” This has been taken to mean that many of the older models of learning - simple acquisition

of facts per se - have no intrinsic significance unless they contribute towards your practice.

Context 1: How to present the HPF to staff?

The critical juncture in the life of the HPF came when the question was asked: how well do the

teaching staff actually know the HPF?

Given that the HPF has remained in the background so far how does one go about presenting the

HPF – essentially a set of concepts and principles underpinning the nature and purpose of the

whole teaching, learning and assessment cycle?

In isolation one could prepare booklets, do training sessions but without a suitable context to

place the HPF it is unlikely this will have any lasting impact. In fact the issue is the general

unfamiliarity, amongst teaching staff, of pedagogical theory and its value in developing one’s

own practice. A certain premise that pedagogical theory has no relevance has crept into the

thinking of the culture. The culture has been dominated by a misconception that thinking only

about practical techniques will develop lasting and significant innovations. Without an

engagement with pedagogical theory, without exploring the ideas underlying certain practices in

teaching, learning and assessing. To sustain innovation in teaching, learning and assessment

practices all exploration should be grounded in a grasp of the pedagogical values, ideas and

theories that support those explorations.

Context 2: How to present theory that supports innovative practice?

Therefore, the question arises: how does one disseminate not only theory but the relevance of

theory in order to develop a culture of innovation in teaching, learning and assessment practices?

How does one encourage thinking in these matters and link it to bringing out innovative

practices?

Is there a simple vehicle or platform that will support not only the engagement with pedagogical

theory and a range of ideas in teaching, learning and assessing – without becoming prescriptive?

Context 3: Do we have ways of capturing current innovative practice?

When a lecturer tries a different idea out for delivering a classroom session or experimenting with

a different approach to assessing students and so on do we capture these potential innovations? Is

there a forum for capturing current explorations that might lead to innovation?

Currently, there seems to be no clear platform for capturing and disseminating these ideas and

potential innovations. In order to develop a culture of innovation any vehicle or platform that

support innovation needs to foreground and bring out small-scale (or bite-sized) research.

Currently, no current platform has succeeded in playing this role. It is time to re-think the context

of teaching, learning and assessment practice development.

Context 4: Do we have ways of effectively disseminating innovative practices?

Let us assume that these bite-sized innovations go on – all evidence suggest they do - and we

capture them how do we go about disseminating these innovative practices?

Broadly speaking do we have an integrated and effective platform to capture and disseminate

potentially innovative ideas? Do we have a platform or vehicle that allows these capture these

small-scale explorations that might support the development of innovative practices? Do we have

a vehicle or mechanism that allows peer exchange of ideas, a vehicle or mechanism that itself

enhances the credibility of these ideas and contributes to the continuing professional development

of staff?

Context 5: What is the place of research in an innovative culture?

Action research is considered a worthy aspiration. And rightly so. It is considered an important

part of teaching within higher education courses to engage with research at some level. There are

two issues here (a) accessing relevant research on innovation, theory and development in

teaching, learning and assessment practices and (b) engaging with action research where the

results of such research are effectively disseminated.

Research into teaching, learning or assessment practices is very close to supporting and

developing a culture of innovation. If the culture of innovation has research - the systematic

exploration of a theme or idea - placed at its heart it is more likely to grow and develop. The

question is to what extent any research undertaken in the College actually contributes to the

culture of exploration or is marginalised as an isolated activity and ends up having minimal

impact on current practice?

Context 6: Do current eLT practices support innovative practices?

There are two specific questions at the heart of developing innovative teaching, learning and

assessment practices: (a) what are the necessary conditions to develop innovative practices in

teaching, learning and assessment? And, specifically, (b) what role can eLT play in creating the

necessary space for innovative practice, both in and out of the classroom?

What forms of eLT use actually support innovative practice? This is an important and subtle

point. A lecturer can use a VLE to simply be the de facto platform for issuing homework and

receiving homework. The core teaching, learning and assessment practices around this use of eLT

may remain the same or very traditional.

In order to become innovative the forms of eLT need to be explored. Is the College culture

sufficiently responsive to new technologies and their impact in supporting innovative practices?

Context 7: Do our departmental review processes support innovative practice?

Developing a culture of innovation requires us to look at our internal departmental review

processes and ask the question: do these review processes actually support and encourage

innovative practice? These are tricky questions. There may be no intrinsic obstacle in the internal

review process in terms of discouraging innovation but there are certain issues around the whole

process:

i. Does the review process actually encourage staff to present their own experiments to

engage teaching, learning and assessment?

ii. Does the process of ‘grading’ support experimentation and the testing and exploring of

ideas?

iii. Is the internal review process developmental? Does it allow the observation regime to

provide an objective feedback mechanism and conversation on ideas being explored

by a member of staff?

iv. Does the anxiety the current culture of the internal review process make staff adventurous

or risk averse? Is there a tendency to devalue exploration?

It is worth asking whether the internal review process and the culture that surrounds it actually

supports the taking of managed risks? All risk can lead to various ideas not working but is the

internal review process sufficiently robust and supportive of the taking of managed risks and

exploring ideas?

Context 8: Are there further opportunities within College-wide training days to support

innovation?

Significant progress has been made in making staff training days relevant but several questions

need to be asked:

i. Given the success of a peer driven innovative eLT ‘speed dating’ session last year do the

staff training days sufficiently create the opportunities for peer exchange and

innovation?

ii. Is the staff training day a particular powerful opportunity to develop and present more

‘peer-driven’ innovations?

iii. Are staff training days presenting the right opportunities for staff to reflect and articulate

and develop innovative practices?

iv. Are staff training days sufficiently supportive in allowing ideas to be explored, shared,

etc?

To develop a culture of innovation means looking carefully at many of these practices and ask

how can they support and enhance the development of innovation.

Context 9: Do we have a clear bidding process to draw on the College Innovation Fund?

In order for staff to innovate is the College Innovation Fund made available through a bidding

process with clear rules? Is any system in place to financially support larger and more time

consuming innovations that have to be justified?

Response

As a recent recipient of the LSIS Research Development Fellowship I have been presented with a

number of opportunities to think through these issues with the support of the research team at

LSIS and, more recently, through participation in the Learning and Skills Research Network

(LSRN) Conference in London. In a relatively short time I have been able to crystallise a solution

through discussion with Andrew Morris, the chair of the LSRN Conference. When I discussed the

ideas I was exploring it was evident that the innovation in the idea was bold and worthy of

attention. He asked me to present the idea to the whole conference.

The key moment in formulating this innovative response to the issues described in the previous

section came in reading Michael Fielding’s influential paper ‘Factors Influencing the Transfer of

Good Practice’. At the heart of this paper the element of dissemination was presented as the main

obstacle in creating a culture of good practice and opening up peer-exchange in raising standards

of teaching, learning and assessment practice. I was struck by the need to have a genuinely

innovative solution to these questions.

The actual solution came when I was reading an online article in the ‘International Journal of

Zizek Studies’, a peer-reviewed academic eJournal on the living philosopher, Slavoj Zizek.

Having had some interesting exchanges with one of the editors, using the Facebook Group that

was set up around this eJournal, I was struck by a very simple idea: here is a case of a peer-

reviewed eJournal set up by a small academic department. Is it possible to do something like this

to support my agenda of raising the standard of teaching, learning and assessment practices at

Highbury?

How will using an eJournal help?

1. It will create a credible vehicle for staff to present ideas and research.

2. It will create a natural context for the dissemination of pedagogical theory and would

allow exploration of practice sit logically side-by-side to exploration of the underpinning

theoretical ideas.

3. It will allow staff to publish their ideas.

4. It will create a new set of relationships for staff and their own practice.

5. It will provide a simple vehicle to present ideas and would raise the profile and culture in

seeing their own ideas being published within a peer-reviewed journal.

6. It will allow staff to contribute towards their CPD in a way that could become more

meaningful, an issue the IFL is keen to see happen in the sector.

7. It will satisfy the need of staff to undertake action research and see this research

published and made available across the College.

8. It will provide a platform to disseminate developments in the latest ideas on teaching,

learning and assessment practices and a perfect place to present relevant findings and

trends across the sector.

9. Critically it will provide a natural home to disseminate the Highbury pedagogical

framework.

After a short investigation into the Open Journal System I asked Paul Rolfe to install the system.

He did so with great enthusiasm. We now have the basic website address which hosts the

eJournal set up. I am currently working with students and staff to design the website, the eJournal

cover and the structure of each journal.

Within a short space of time I have had several very useful material presented to me by academic

heads, lecturing staff and business support teams. I have begun a process of building up content.

The Highbury TLA Research Journal

Here is a prototype of the eJournal. I should emphasize that Highbury College is the first College

in the sector to do develop such an idea. It is both innovative and bold.

I am currently working with teams to provide a suitable design both to the website that hosts the

Journal and the ‘virtual cover’. The initial name combines suggestions from Alison Winter and a

number of lecturers. ‘TLA’ stands for ‘Teaching, Learning and Assessment’. There are no costs

involved to maintain this. Initially I will manage the first publication to ensure things are done

correctly then I will put into place a submission process to allow staff to submit articles, shorter

pieces, etc and will build a small editorial team to filter the submissions. For the first edition to be

published there will require extra work from myself but I intend to set this up in a way that allows

it to be easily managed. I have managed to create some ‘national interest in this bold experiment

and concept through the LSRN Conference and through the support of LSIS. It is not

unreasonable to assume that this innovation will lead the way in developing a culture of

innovation in teaching, learning and assessment practices.

The Role of the eJournal in a Culture of Innovation

It is generally agreed that creating the right conditions for excellence in teaching, learning and

assessing practices requires a culture of innovation and experimental.

Here is the location of the eJournal within a wider frame:

On the left hand side we have the Teaching, Learning and Assessment (TLA) cycle. The ideas is

that staff who try ideas out can simply submit short pieces to the eJournal and have these ideas

published. These ideas will then naturally be disseminated back to teaching staff through the

publication of the eJournal. Furthermore, on the right, we have the HPF. The HPF can inform

articles and pieces on theoretical issues around developing innovative practice.

Conclusion

The solution of creating a Highbury eJournal for Teaching, Learning and Assessment an Research

is innovative, simple and easy to work with. It single-handedly tackles a number of issues that

have made no progress and draws them together in a coherent and exciting way.

I would suggest this is an innovation that could lead the sector and is worth supporting.