The outcomes of this project have focussed on a particular organisational aspect: lecturers’ understanding of WP and the impact of this on their teaching approaches which would inform their practice. Additionally by exploring this, I hope to raise
awareness amongst colleagues and aim to improve practice. Part of the initial aim was also to explore this understanding with a view to evaluating the embedding of a WP strategy locally. However, this was curtailed due to wider changes nationally and locally as outlined in chapter 4.
The results of this project will be divided into two chapters. This chapter (5) will
consider the key themes arising from the main question ‘lecturers’ perceptions of WP’. It is structured thematically to address the outcomes from the research activity in phases 1 and 2 outlined in chapter 4 with the quotes from ‘FG’ indicating from the focus group and ‘L’ indicating lecturer interviews. The next chapter (6) will consider the outcomes of the embedding and mainstreaming of WP element (Action on Access national project) as it attempted to contextualise the findings from the lecturers. It will also address the extent to which the project objectives have been achieved and relate the findings to pertinent theories and literature and dissemination process. Some insights from an insider-researcher perspective and the limitations of this part of the project will be addressed also. The conclusions to the entire project activity will be expanded in chapter 7.
This project was operationalised in three interrelated phases. This was via the
methodology outlined in chapter 3 which was an embedded mixed methods approach within an orientation frame of transformation or advocacy for critical reflection on practice to evoke change in practice. The third phase was more collegial and participative as it involved several departments internally and encompassed
involvement in a national project co-ordinated by Action on Access. This organisation also advantageously served as a ‘critical friend’ and an external reference point enabling and supporting the logical questioning enquiry, challenging of claims and evidence and overall coherence of the process and conclusions. Being part of this was vital to exploring how mainstreamed or embedded WP was at that point in time (2007 – 8 without a WP strategy) and also how this impacted on lecturers’ attitudes,
understanding and their teaching approaches. I realised that in the changing environment, both internally and externally, maintaining a focus on key issues was important. This project was flexible enough to adapt to the changing environment and
107
associated pressures. The AoA project was incorporated into my research, such that as HE was evolving and changing this project provided opportunities to challenge, influence and improve practice.
My initial purpose was not to make the issue of WP problematical. However, this project revealed a number of issues, one of which was the perception of WP as a ‘problem’ or an ‘issue’ to be solved from a range of lecturers (table 5.1). The main issues that emerged highlighted that WP is framed as a number of discourses each of which has a different focus, on the nature of WP, resulting in diverse practices and approaches. These, at times, competed and occasionally conflicted with each other. One consequence was the limited ability to see WP as impacting on daily practice. These complexities also appeared to indicate, in some areas, tendencies towards ‘safeguarding’ disciplines and professions from ‘unworthy’ or ‘less able’ students. The potential therefore was for barriers and blocks to learning illustrated in the types of relationships and connections between students and lecturers. However, at the same time, there was an overarching discourse of social advancement and the opportunity of tapping into a talent pool. This was combined with a reluctant resignation that WP is a recruitment approach and that the inherent deficiencies of this were to be endured.
Table 5.1 Details of research participants.
Research process
Participants Numbers
Focus Group Lecturers (all HSSc) 5
Interviews Lecturers (HSSc) Male 3
Lecturers (HSSc) Female 4
Lecturers (non HSSc) Male 2
Lecturers (non HSSc) Female 3
Students Nursing
Sports and Exercise Science
3 3
Questionnaires Students (Nurses) 109
Students (Sports) 17
From the wider department and institutional perspective, WP discourse was an reflection of national and local (institutional) policy framed around Middlesex
University’s mission and vision which linked to wider national drivers of social justice and inclusion. This reflected the so-called ‘knowledge economy’ evident in government policy (Jary and Jones, 2006, David et al, 2008). The policies and strategies arising from the university mission are overall framed in actions for the ‘wider benefit’ of all students as opposed to focussing on WP as an issue itself.
108 Generalised perceptions of WP.
The focus group was the early exploratory part of the research project and aimed to provide a platform for the perceptions of WP. This group engaged in a vibrant dialogue uncovering a series of issues and opinions reflecting the position and relevance of WP to the lecturers. As identified in chapters 3 and 4 only one focus group was conducted but was sufficient (table 5.1). The issues which emerged were categorised into two main aspects relating to their sphere of working: internal (directly related) focus and external (not directly related) focus (see table 5.2). This provided a platform to further explore lecturers’ individual perceptions.
Table 5.2 Focus group findings.
Internal focus:
• Idealistically in support of WP and have a vague idea what it is
• ‘Non traditional students’ but unclear what this means • Sense of paternalism
• Own sense of accomplishment and failure, student success
• Lecturing is not just job but also use of self and emotions
• Empathy for students from own experiences of university
External focus:
• A feature of post ‘92 institutions, have a reputation for WP
• Language divide is alienating i.e. ‘academic speak’ ‘discourse’ ‘values’ resultant expectation gap
• Programmes are laden with people connections (sport nursing, social work etc) these skills seen as important and central to success
• Purpose of university - for personal, academic and professional development
• Multiple aspects to WP (entry gate, outreach, information)
In the focus group lecturers’ perception of their own role, identity and their perception of WP students and their abilities was diverse. What happens as WP was rather diverse in relation to students and their needs. This included students being able or being deficient and ‘under the radar’ thus needing significant help to progress. The issue of filtering out ‘unable’ students was evident with some lecturers of specific vocational courses. Additionally, surprise was expressed at ‘WP’ students who struggle as if this is
109
unthinkable following successful navigation of complex entry gate requirements. At one level, pedagogical understandings associated with WP revealed a ‘lacking’ or ‘deficit’ belief of WP students, whilst on another level WP is a community obligation, socially inclusive and transforming. A picture of WP ‘students’ as a group, whilst not clearly defined or evident was associated overwhelmingly as a group possessing deficits.
‘it’s a very mixed picture … once they’ve been short listed they have to
undertake written tests and a numeracy test ….. for whatever reason although they’ve passed the test will struggle but in terms of who those students are, whether they fit the widening participation typology I’m not sure’ (FG 3).
The focus group acknowledged rather reluctantly that the university considered hard data, statistics and monitoring of student academic achievement as important
measures of student success. They also emphasised their view of subjective measures as equally or more important to indicate success, such as student satisfaction, feeling valued and persistence despite personal difficulties. They did acknowledge completion of courses of study and graduation as also important. The limitation of this was
identified too in that student completion within a specific time frame is important but this was not always achieved. Furthermore it is bound with funding sources and
constraints. This was agreed as a narrow view but a reality with arguably student life balance or student experiences being less important.
The focus group identified challenges to WP in the social inclusion sense for certain programmes of study. These included prescribed rigid programmes with stringent entry criteria which excluded WP students or the amount of support needed by WP students which would make such programmes impossible to deliver. It was almost as if WP was an issue but, due to the deficit perception of WP students, meant that some areas were ‘exempt’ from WP under the umbrella ‘professional programmes’.
In reflecting on the research objectives, the focus group provided some insights into lecturers’ perceptions of WP expressing empathy and sensitivity to the needs of WP students. This was caged in terms of ‘needs’ and ‘deficits’ and implied a difference, using terminology such as ‘non-traditional’ inferring a marginalised problematical group different from ‘traditional’ students. This also resonates with a wide body of literature focusing on difference and deficits (Haggis, 2006, Thomas, 2006, Northedge, 2003). Success furthermore was defined by the lecturers in tangible terms as either longevity (endurance) or development of skills and qualities with considerable investment by lecturing staff emotionally or pedagogically.
110 Perception of what is WP.
The initial phase of this research intended to explore HSSc lecturers’ understanding and engagement with WP initiatives, or activities, which could be described as establishing if there was a ‘culture’ sensitive to WP (see chapter 3). This aimed to explore aspects of teaching and learning which contribute to success for WP students. These were expansive objectives to address and the approaches chosen (focus group and interviews) were appropriate in the main. The participants reported a range of experiences and understandings which were quite diverse with some elements of similarity. The attempt to clarify or conceptualise the meaning of WP was enormously difficult and resulted in quite obscure and polarised opinions and generalisations. At one end this included simply the provision of information advice and guidance by groups of people for recruitment and at the other views of an altruistic approach and social engineering reflective of the dominant political aim.
Individual interviews.
Twelve lecturers were interviewed, seven from HSSc and five from schools outside HSSc (non-HSSc). The interview schedule comprised of six broad categories of questions:
• what is WP,
• what is the lecturers’ role in relation to diverse students, • description of WP student groups,
• teaching and pedagogical approaches for diversity, • perceptions of student success, and
• their department’s approach to WP.
The themes that emerged following analysis have already been outlined in chapter 4 (table 4.2) and in table 5.3.
In addition at six students were interviewed and the interview schedule comprised five similar broad question areas as those for the lecturers:
• choice of course and feelings about it, • preparation and expectations of HE,
111
• perceptions of support such as study skills modules and their • perceptions of success.
Table 5.3 Themes from Lecturer Interviews. Broad Themes: Sub-themes Definitions of WP Symbols Constraints Practices Benefits of WP Role and relation to students Varied positions
Strategy Scope in practice Description of student groups: Typology
Location and environment Constraints
Connections with students
Other wider/organisational aspects: Teaching approach: Control and influence
Perception of student ability and engagement
Student centred
Remote/teacher centred, content driven Reflexive attitude and
approach/humanistic, constructivist
Own experiences Contradictions
Focus and purpose Impact of WP
Realisations and awareness
Success perceptions Symbols
Values
Consequences Experience with WP Outreach/other
Awareness of it remotely Value Wider department approach/perception Openness Strategic approach Constraints
There were five themes which emerged and 21 subthemes. These were presented outline in table 4.3 (chapter 4) and in table 5.4 and will be discussed below The key findings from these interviews will be discussed under the following subheadings: Perceptions of WP, roles and relationships between lecturers and students, conceptions of teaching and learning, perceptions of academic challenges,
expectations, conceptions of success, lecturers’ perceptions of their wider department approach, lecturers’ espoused practice in relation to WP and frustrations with teaching and learning.
112 Table 5.4 Themes from student interviews.
Perceptions of WP from lecturers and students
The first level of analysis revealed a sense of difference among some lecturers. Some were aware and sensitive to students’ varied, and at times large, outside commitments and varied life and work experiences. However, this was not uniform among the lecturers.
All the lecturers were experienced and all held a teaching qualification (see table 5.5). The lecturer responses were rich as individual narratives however for the purpose of my research it was necessary to distil responses to derive themes and examples. It does need to be noted that individuals were at times rather awe inspiring in their comments, attitudes and practice. The challenge is to capture this and disseminate it into the teaching community. There appeared to be an emotional investment and genuine need to relate and connect with students by some colleagues beyond that of ‘work’ to one of using ‘self’ and really wanting to make a difference in students’ lives. Something I personally and professionally have always aspired to. There was
sensitivity to students and connections at an individual level evident in some lecturers’ responses. This was disparate crossing schools in the University implying the influence of personal characteristics and perception of teaching. One aspect which arose in the HSSc focus group was a mention of pride for being ‘caring’, a feature referred to as
Theme: Sub-theme:
Being a university student Belonging
Conscious decisions Hardships
Intellectual capacity Being a professional Choice
Placements and careers Learning about learning Support
Traditional pedagogy ‘Good student’ ‘ Feedback Constraints and frustrations Guidance
Poor teaching Independence
Power and control Choices as power
Change agent
Independence as helplessness Peer apathy
113
possibly ‘unique’ to the health arena. The interviews conversely indicated some lecturers’ limited sensitivity and (or seemingly desire to have) limited insight into students’ lives and experiences. This was evident in all Schools represented by the lecturers. This was embodied in their tendency towards a distant and teacher-focussed pedagogy.
Table 5.5 Details of lecturers interviewed.
Schools Number
of lecturers
Years of teaching Teaching qualification
Health and Social Science (HSSc) 7 Minimum 3 years Maximum 16 years PGCE (n=4) PGCHE (n=1) Certificate in Education (n=1) City and Guilds Teaching certificate
(n=1)
Computing Science 2 Minimum 5 years
Maximum 9 years
PGCHE (n=2)
Business School 2 Minimum 5 years
Maximum 10 years
PGCHE (n=2)
Arts and Education 1 6 years PGCHE (n=1)
This caused me to reflect on my own perceptions and awareness of students and the increased student diversity I have observed over my teaching career. In my approach to students I ponder on my own ‘authenticity’ or ‘being myself’ in the sense outlined by Kreber et al (2007). As a former diverse student myself I critically analyse if I translate this into my teaching using my ‘diversity’ as a positive step towards inclusion and authentic teaching. This does relate to how l, and probably other lecturers, form our lecturer ‘identity’ and whether WP is a challenge to this or influences pedagogical practice.
In the lecturer interviews phase polarised views of WP emerged among lecturers both in HSSc and other schools. It was interesting that the polarised views were shared across the schools - i.e. both extremes were expressed with no particular view associated within one school. This was similar to the focus group in that there was support for WP and acknowledged benefits coupled with constraints. The political and philosophical issues were addressed to a point but mostly in relation to student entry and guiding more people to go to university who would not previously have considered it. Typologies of who was a ‘WP student’ were alluded to and it was acknowledged that it (i.e. WP) ‘happened’ ‘out there’ and ‘in here’. Whilst it was as a visible entity, what it
114
was, or who was involved, remained unclear. This also resonates with the focus group views of ‘internal’ or ‘external’ impacting directly or indirectly on their work.
Symbols of WP ranged from identifying student characteristics such as ethnicities, mature students, differing qualifications and prior education or qualifications and the type of recruiting activity. The comment ‘non traditional student’ was used frequently in relation to WP:
‘trying to get people from all areas of life the non traditional student, people from all different ethnic background..’ (HSSc L2).
The varied understandings of WP elicited from the data thus far resonates with Watson’s (2006a: 3) description of WP as ‘a portmanteau’ term referring to the many different concepts and to which the expression ‘non-traditional’ student is often used as a catch-all. As it could refer to any of the characteristics of students i.e. lower socio- economic groups, first generation students, students from minority ethnic groups and mature students. It is rather expansive. The student typologies mentioned do reflect the HEFCE categories (HEFCE, 2009) which are used as monitoring and targeting
strategies in relation to WP strategic approach though the extent to which lecturers knew this was not evident. It also begs the question of what, or even if, there is a ‘traditional’ student. Placing students into categories is challenging and as Hockings et al (2008) assert due to the nature of a diverse society students do not neatly fit into ‘traditional’ or ‘non-traditional’ categories.
Student and staff backgrounds.
I selected the students in this study according to my understanding of `diversity’, of `social and cultural backgrounds’ and `academic experiences prior to university’. The students in this study were selected as they represented what I perceived to be a diverse group in terms of social and cultural backgrounds and academic experiences prior to university. There were more nursing students (year 3, n=109) than sports students (n=17) who completed a questionnaire thus the overall results will be skewed in favour of the nurses. Approximately 10% of the nurse students were male which is reflective of a female dominated profession. However, 64% of the sports students were male, again reflecting the selected programme gender domination.
Approximately 70% of the nursing group were aged over 30 years (mean 32.6 years 9.01 standard deviation (SD) though interestingly 16.5% of students did not identify their age. All sports students were under 27 years of age (mean 22.9 years 1.9 SD) so a much younger demographic. This did correspond with the data outlined in chapter 2.
115
The ethnicity data was not asked for in this questionnaire and on reflection ought to have been. Data from the university student database indicated that for these particular courses (Nursing) the students have abroad ethnic mix: nurses: 46% black (African or Afro-Caribbean) 11% Asian, and 34% white with approximately 2% from other European countries. The data for sports students was not available. This highlights a highly diverse ethnic mix.
In HSSc it was identified by some lecturers that many of their students were from diverse backgrounds and it was a case of identifying needs and seeking ways of helping them with a sense of resignation: ‘we do actually support those students and