#Active Learning : The Lecture Challenge

In my last blog I spoke of student empowerment, involvement and interaction in brief, now I bring a wider picture.

 My lecturer challenged me to take his lecture for him on strategic advantage to find out what I would do differently as a student, I found that a lot of my ideas are similar to what he would have done. Non-Traditional lecturing, a form of #Active Learning. The basic idea that I had was theory, stakeholder application and personal application. Put simply, the lecture would explain the theory then work by the PEE method and give examples in application to the students stakeholder position as a stakeholder of the university 'an individual who is dependent on the organization and who is directly effected by the actions of the organization'. Then personal question such as how would theory effect your future organization or organisation you will work for
.
Before embarking on such a venture I thought that I should get some thoughts and ideas from the real world, the students and this is what I got :

The Challenge and The Student Opinion



When actually doing this lecture, we had a guest speaker in, Andy Gilbert from GoMAD thinking, The MD and founder, an absolute genius in my eyes, I am currently reading his book. Never the less I organised the lecture to have strong focus on him. I tried to use his fresh face and awesome ideas to inspire the students to contribute, the man said some amazing things and then it came to the crunch. The theory, when getting Miles' input to explain the theory when implementing my ideas I was met with a strong resistance, it seems to me that the lecture stand was a proverbial wall between me and the rest of the students. I did not understand how students couldn't give opinions to simple questions yet I had the balls to get up and talk to them with the relatively the same understanding as them on the subject and it kind of made me angry.

However after suggestion from Milo, people wrote their questions on paper. This seemed like a breakthrough this was a beginning point to some change in the lecture, peoples opinions were being voiced, there was now a dialogue rather than what lectures tend to be, a monologue and a lot of scribbling.

The questions were mainly about the real world which clearly is what the students were interested in, many were gauging what Andy had spoken about in the lectures

One student asked "are the strategies and forms of management theories that we learn actually implemented into real life business, or is it all common sense"

Another asked, how do you become a good business and motivate others?

And finally, The one that took me was from a question of : What do you want from DMU?

the students question was: A good degree and employability.

My answer and I'm sure Andy would agree is that why is the student saying that the university should make those prospects, responsibility is like a chefs kitchen, if the waiters do not serve the dishes at the right time then the dish will be ruined. Equally if the dish is prepared incorrectly or parts of the dish done at the wrong time, the waiter is doomed from the word go and their the one to look the fool.

Some students don't engage to the world around them and if it is possible, bring that world to them, then maybe they will then take that first step. After all most of us use stabilisers on our bikes before we can truly ride them......

After the lecture we reviewed the lecture

>
and spoke about the culture of the lecture and things that could be done, Andy Gilbert really does deserve his money as some of the suggestions though simple were so innovative



Also available at http://audioboo.fm/DMUandME

until the next blog, thanks for reading

Active/Fireball Learning; interactive student empowed teaching philosophy, can it work?

The issues facing us in the road ahead in regards to cuts have caused DMU as an organisation to have to rethink a few ideas, find areas to cut spending but still give students the knowledge an information that they need, but the question I seem to ask myself is, how can you engage students. We are the iPod generation and it seems to me that it is a lot harder for lecturers to grasp the attention of students to get them engaged and industrious in lectures. 

Active/Fireball learning is a concept of having a more student centric type of lecture, an interactive lecture where the student becomes the main part and the lecturer the reinforcer, guest speakers can give real life insight and engage the student with a fresh face and a fresh set of ideas and thoughts particularly that of an individual from local businesses, they bring both business acumen and life skill to the forefront. Lectures should always have the theoretical, but this This type of lecture format does that and shapes the community idea into the teaching itself.

Strategic advantage drives this university, an as an organisation we are driven to pioneer new ideas and concepts, making radical change sometimes brings great results and bringing the idea of community into the lecture itself seems like a winning combination with a current focus on strengthening community involvement.

From all of this we are left with questions to be answered.

3 questions to be answered in the next few days.

-Can this new student centric teaching philosophy be formulated and based on DMUandME Principle? 

-Can this new lecture format achieve added value for staff, students and the community?

- At the end of the day, is this concept feasible and is their any utility in this?

Finally with my lecture tomorrow on strategic advantage what are the implications on the culture of DMU as an organisation?

Challenges Facing Universities Today

1.      A new coalition government has changed the funding arrangements in HE and are making massive cuts.

·         How can a university ‘do more for less’ by demonstrating it is a public good, not just for the benefit of students?

·         Will traditional methods for learning and research lead to disruptive and revolutionary innovative solutions to address this challenge (e.g. Incremental change may not provide the solutions)?

·         Who will provide the necessary ‘thought leadership’ rather than commentate and stagnate as the competitive rivalry, industry dynamics is driven by those external factors outside the control of a university?

·         Is there new ground to exploit in the increasing paradigm shift in political rhetoric (consensus between political parties globally), and the economic climate plus the government’s desire to ‘place power’ in the people’s hands through an increased role for ‘citizenship’ and inspiration from businesses and the wider community to deliver this?

·         How will technology provide potential substitutes to challenge the role of the university and how a university provides the added value to empower and equip students with skills for employment, citizenship and civic engagement?

2.      The relationship between the university and the student in regards to ‘adding value’ and enriching the student experience as well as the barriers that facilitate this as well as means for communication will change as students become more of a consumer than a product based focus?

·         What differentiates one degree from an institution in terms of ‘quality and distinctiveness’ from its competitors?

o   In terms of the inputs to HE?

o   In terms of the outputs to HE?

o   In terms of how the inputs are utilised to transform (the added value that differentiates one student from the next, plus the reputation of one institution to the next) them into the desired outputs?

o   Is there a need to question where and whom owns the ‘strategic control points’ that govern the quality and distinctiveness of the inputs (the entire educational system)?

o   Is there a need to question where and whom owns the ‘strategic control points’ that govern the quality and distinctiveness of the outputs?

3.      The new idea of the UK being a ‘Big Society’ and the traditions in teaching methods, potential changes to these and the transformation of the current teaching boundaries which will allow universities to adapt to demands.

·         What is a university’s role in relation to the idea of a ‘Big Society’ and how do they need to develop and adapt to the demands and constraints proposed?

4.      The effect of the increasing financial constraints on universities.

·         What is the true value of a degree?

·         How can universities demonstrate greater value to HE in relation to Colleges offering FE and other HE courses?

·         Should there be a varied tariff for the type of degree which students study? If so how can this be justified?

·         How can universities provide more for less without losing value in the services they currently offer?

·         What can the university do to create further external investment enabling the consistently high quality service required?

·         What can they do to enable normal running of the university without damaging the quality of output (students and research)?

5.      In India they produce the £1000 car. With universities being allowed to charge what they want for the courses they offer, it is only a matter of time before iTunes offer the ‘Pick and Mix’ degree.

·         How would this impact upon the perceived value of other, ‘more traditional’ degrees which are offered?

·         What sustainable competitive advantage can be gained from a change in the perceived value of a degree?

6.      Spiralling fees will result in a significant drop in the social diversity of student intake.

·         How can universities maintain the level of social diversity of new students in the future?

·         How could the utilisation of social media allow for the promotion of a university as a progressive social good with students and other key stakeholders?

7.      The need to use new technology to help develop the university (and its reputation) to make it stand out as being at the forefront of technological innovation.

·         What physical resources are required for the successful delivery of a HE course?

·         In what way could a university develop its use of IT to surpass the expectations of potential students and also be best utilised to reduce overheads in the running of the University?

8.      A growing need for consumers to be more responsible for their consumption habits and environmental impact.

·         How can the university promote environmental responsibility and draw a sustainable competitive advantage from this?

9.      Growing rise in UK universities having resources located internationally.

·         How can a university utilize resources and strategic alliances internationally to provide students with an enriched and unique university experience?

10.  Shift in the demands on the lengths of HE courses.

·         How quickly can a HE course be delivered without jeopardising the quality of delivery?

11.  A university is a public good, and should be able to demonstrate this more effectively to the communities in which they exist.

·         How can a university improve its standing within the local community and adjust the student experience to provide improved appreciation for social conscience and responsibility?

Recommendations, looking forward, the wider implications

The conformication of learning is a trend that may be observed as universities and particularly degrees in humanities face large public spending cuts. This will cause less diversity of study and mergers between departments. George Orwell wrote that "Orthodoxy means not thinking - not having to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." It was a consensus within the debates that it is socially beneficial to have choice and diversity of study lest we continue becoming a nation who ‘know the price of everything and the value of nothing’ racing in the direction of mass comodification.
The future role of politics and philosophy is a critical issue as the debates took a surprising turn in a very philosophical direction. Underlying concepts such as Utilitarianism and Kantianism define a person’s political persuasions and are thus crucial to the formation of strategic solutions and direction. The debate consensus appeared to be strongly in favour of reversing the trend towards detached and alienated individualism and in favour of more collectivism and the idea of a society based upon participation. The philosophy of Aristotle, that no one should be a completely private individual, was referenced several times and it seems as though a theme of Aristotelianism could add a deeper current of thought and distinctiveness to future discussions or social movements born of this debate.
The future role of faith was debated by contributors from a wide range of perspectives with the Bishop of Leicester rightly pointing out the religious origins of Universities in the UK. The question that now seems to be pertinent is whether religious groups will augment social interaction between Universities and wider society or whether, as Marx said, they will distract from the important economic, strategic, political and philosophical questions, fulfilling the role of ‘Opium of the masses’. The Vice Chancellor and Bishop concurred that faith group links were important and it is now time for the student voice to either add vigorous support or intelligent and constructive dissent.
Giving the debate shape direction, energy and most importantly an outcome could be achieved through the creation of a grassroots intellectual collective. Suggestion was made during the student debate that a ‘Leicester Citizens’ movement could be created –emulating the ‘London Citizens’ group. Indeed this would need to go through a intermediary stage of being ‘DMUCitizens’ -or similar- before Leicester Council and the leading stakeholders of Leicester would endorse, support and promote such a movement, however the initial stage has already been initiated as #dmu&me via social network site twitter. Encouragingly there is already a small group of active contributors to this vehicle of communication.
In terms of a direct answer to the question ‘are universities a public good?’, yes! was the overwhelming response from the audience. The policy debate now appears to be: ‘in what ratio should the private citizen and public pay for university?’

Benjamin J Harrison

The Ongoing Debate...A Summary. By Susan Chomo

The ongoing debate, kindly hosted by the Vice Chancellor, Dominic Shellard and the Bishop of Leicester, Tim Stevens, reflects on the question: "Are Universities a public good?".

The debate was centered around Values, Challenges, Faith, Changes, Partnerships and Citizenships with focus groups split across students, staff and stakeholders. In each case, the vice chancellor explained the importance of universities towards inspiring, developing and creating value for the individual and society while the Bishop indicated the symbiotic relationship between faith and education where faith (the various belief systems)is a part of societal development and growth which universities should embrace.

As expected, students reacted passionately in response to the withdrawal of 80% of education funding and its value implications on individuals and the society going foward by raising specific issues regarding the merging of departments, limited personal tutoring and future employment opportunities amongst other things. Although the university staff shared similar concerns as students about the 'commodification' not only of education but most public services,they also identified the need for public sector pro-activity and the idea that students should think in terms of "Learning rather than being taught". The Bishop observed that effects of commodification may include individualisation of learning and inequality while the vice chancellor indicated that the university intends to strengthen its local partnerships and value adding activities as highlighted in its new mission.

The Stakeholders on the other hand, indicated that universities should consider the possibility of being a public "good versus great" as well as shortening the course durations, to which the Vice chancellor pointed out that efforts were being made to raise the university standards on the league tables by raising the entry standard, creating positive visibility around its community involvements/contributions and its willingness to welcome and imbibe positive change.

There was common consensus at the end of the day on the need to embrace a "can do" mentality, not just to by taking personal responsibility, but ultimately by expanding stakeholder engagements such as this debate across and beyond the community alongside innovative and proactive partnerships to establish long term growth.

Debate Summary, What do they all think?

From this whole day of debating and informing, there have been a number of things to be taken from it, there were some key main topics, some conforming ideas and concerns and contraversy between groups. One thing that remained the same was the opinion and ideas of what a university is, a place of excellence and distinction. Somewhere where the individual is able to expand their mind whilst following a curriculum to gain a degree to better their future. Common also was the concept of faith, some took it on the religious perspective as being a drive, or a commune to turn to or keep them going, and others looked at it in the way of integration, tolerance and tentitiveness. The Bishop himself quoted faith as the study into the truth, in a educational perspective he seems to be referring to knowledge mentioning the fact that the University was made as a christian institution as have many other universities. There were however common concerns between students and faculty as the vision statement, 'distinctiveness and quality' mainly that of the first word. Students held concerns about the adaptiveness of their courses, some felt that the theories they were using were regurgitated and outdated, one student mentioned that a lecturers slides were dated a few years back... commonly the staff mentioned that they felt that their was a risk of regurgitation of degrees, worrying that this emphasis of getting the grades down and getting the degrees are not allowing students to expand but simply to answer.
Another common theme was the value for money, indeed we are not talking about asda price or tesco value, we are talking about an experience and an evaluation of merits, students said that if they are paying such a large amount they want all they can get for their money, they want lecturers time and attention, links to placements and access to resources, and equally staff say the same, they think that students should get all they can from their degree but also have mentioned responsibility, something not mentioned by students, stating that many students need to take responsibility of their degree and indeed that some students do work hard and get involved in their studies and research but that a fair few don't, and that it should not be up to lecturers to have to take all responsibility. Another issue that fell across the board was the concept of the Commodification of Learning and Degrees, all three debates touched on this idea of the ownership of degrees as a commodity rather than what it is. Other issues were Growth and the wider society.

In light of all of this, some of the remedies that were suggested were conforming, every group said the university needs to act with some form of synergy with each of the factoring groups that make it up. Equally it was also suggested by all that partnerships in the community need to be a focus for the university for a variety of reasons from placements to the good of the wider society something the stakeholders think that is definately not done enough, with the economic climate turning to hurricane like weather and the cuts that are in place all three have mentioned that the university needs to be more economical in its spending.

One thing that I have taken from this was from one of the audience of the stakeholders 'why are we asking whether the university is a public good, when we should be asking whether it is a public great!'

Commodification of Learning

Given the planned changes outlined by the current coalition government, to raise the cap on tuition fees both as a means of reducing the financial burden on taxpayers and also aiding government in its plan to reduce spending as part of its Deficit Reduction plan, concerns were raised by both speakers that this Commodification of learning, whereby a source of knowledge and a process by which young people learn the values and norms of society, would be restricted only to those who are willing and able to pay.

In addition to this, Bishop Stevens raised the issue that by placing such a price on Higher Education, it would lead to a situation whereby those fortunate enough to enter Universities and obtain a degree, would treat their degree as their own, and all benefits from it; such as a career that pays well and is relatively more secure than others, because they may claim to have bore the greater burden.

A further point raised by both speakers it would lead to a more individualistic society along social class, divided between those who are privileged enough to afford Higher education and those who cannot. As a result, citizens within a society will be concerned more by their own fate, than that of those around them. In order to combat this fear, the VC stated that he believed that their needed to be greater communication within communities and forging partnerships to help individuals better understand one another, but to also share any derived benefits and experience gained at University.

The issue of tuition fees is one that presents a conflict of interest for the Vice Chancellor. One the one hand, responsible for dealing with the £40million of funding cuts, and the financial challenges that will follow, the VC would believes that an increase in tuition fees will help to fill this gap. However as Vice Chancellor, his main priority is providing the best platform for students to achieve their potential academically and personally and so he believes that removing tuition fees altogether, will allow the University to attract the best students from all social classes, helping to remove barriers to social mobility and individualism.

Towards the end of the stakeholder’s session, Dr Miles Weaver, the chairperson, asked members of the audience for their views on the statement, which was put forward by Professor Michael Sandel on the BBC4 programme “Justice: Fairness and the Big Society”. “Those who go to University enjoy better pay and opportunities in life; so it is only fair that graduates, not the ordinary taxpayer, should pay most of the cost”. In the show 65% of the audience disagreed with the statement claiming that society as whole benefited from an educated population, and such should contribute towards the cost of higher education. In the debate session between the VC and the Bishop, the audience was evenly split down the middle.