All you ever wanted to know...

There was plenty of lively debate and discussion at the last two meetings of EDDG. Thanks to everyone who came and contributed, keeping the conversations within the context of ‘professional dialogue’ and avoiding personalisation. It’s often difficult, when we feel passionate about a subject, to keep it professional, and that is why it’s important to relate our discussions to research and evidence based practice. Professional learning embraces conflict and uses that conflict to examine the perceptions and values that underpin our practice, regardless of our role within the college.

Frank Coffield’s article http://eddg.blogspot.com/2010/02/all-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about.html provided a valuable stimulus in relation to a number of issues. The first issue concerned the role of educational leaders in keeping teaching and learning as the organising principle of the college. This quickly led to a debate around whether senior managers should do some teaching, and more importantly staff’s perception about the role of senior managers. There were varying views on the role of senior managers, with some participants feeling that managers can get out of touch with the realities of preparation, class room management and assessment.

However, there was also some valuable input from other participants about the lobbying aspects of the senior managers’ roles and the conversations that occur between Boards, Principals and other senior managers as to the role of the Funding Council and the need for governments to review how funding is allocated to colleges. This debate was useful for locating the discussion of barriers to effective teaching i.e. too much marking, within the wider policy context.

Perhaps one of the main points that came out of this discussion was the importance of perception and the need to communicate more openly re. roles and responsibilities. Within an institution like a college it is easy to get trapped by the vertical and hortizontal structural barriers, and lose an understanding of different perceptions and rationales. All agreed at both meetings that there should be more opportunities to share understandings, open debate and be creative in creating diverse solutions that keep learning and teaching as the main focus of college life.

The meetings also focussed on Frank Coffield’s conclusion that teachers should openly discuss their teaching methods with students. While participants agreed that in general they shared learning objectives or learning intentions with students, there was very mixed experience of sharing teaching methods with students. While this may be done at the start of the academic session with a new group, it would appear that generally teachers don’t really discuss the methods they are going to use and the rationale for those methods with students. Arguably this lack of engagement makes it hard for students to evaluate the effectiveness of the teaching, as perceptions of what is actually going on in the class may differ.

Unsurprisingly the other area of great debate and tension was around assessment and giving feedback. Coffield concurs, with the experience of the group that students value well structured feedback that validates their efforts and aids their progression. Some shared situations, where as learners they had been given poor feedback, which ignored their emotions as learners.
We examined how well we prepare students for learning, and how we take into account their feelings about being a learner.

Some ideas to take forward:

· New learning skills unit of materials and exercises that will support lecturers and tutors in helping developing learning literacy and a sense of responsibility for their own learning. Jerry O’Neill has already begun work on this and is keen for anyone to contribute.

· More participatory cross faculty and cross college events focussing on issues relating to learning and teaching.

· Staff development events that remind us what it is like to be a learner, including the process of being assessed and receiving feedback.