My first introduction to critical thinking came in 2007, when I started to work at Southern University as a Learning Development Advisor. As a post-1992, UK University, Land would describe Southern University as part of the ‘universal system’, where discourses centre on accessibility, widening participation and employability (2004). According to Wilde and Wright, it would be deemed a university with a focus on ‘recruiting’ rather than ‘selecting’ its students (2007), apart from one or two programmes where it maintains a strong reputation.
Within the institution, my role has been in a field that has become known as learning development (Hilsdon, 2010), a field that developed in response to increased support needed for students in their academic studies. Hilsdon provides a good overview of how the role of learning development came about in the UK HE sector. In short, the term includes numerous roles, such as educational developers, study skills tutors, librarians, English language tutors, and researchers, among others, all with the intention of enhancing student learning at university (2010). Support that was put in place in response to sector initiatives that included increased participation, and widening access, which resulted in students coming from a more diverse ‘range of educational, cultural and linguistic backgrounds’ (Lea and Stierer, 2000: 2). Due to these initiatives, it could no longer be assumed that students had been equipped through their previous educational experiences to deal with the academic practices being asked of them (Hirst et al., 2004). Indeed, Wingate suggested that this was no longer the case for students coming through the traditional route of secondary school and college, let alone alternative routes such as Access courses and top-up degrees (2006). The UK’s response was therefore to reframe some academic practices as generic ‘skills’, and task study skills services, or learning development teams, with the responsibility of developing and teaching these skills across universities. As Hilsdon states:
‘Learning development is a complex set of multi- disciplinary and cross-disciplinary academic roles and functions, involving teaching, tutoring, research, and the design and production of learning materials, as well as involvement in staff development, policy-making, and other consultative activities … with the emphasis on examining how students experience and make sense of learning activities and academic practices’ (2011: 14).
It must be noted that although this field has experienced growth over the past ten to fifteen years, it does still remain a contested term and area, and is not in widespread use across the whole sector. This might also be a factor of how differently these services can be set up and function from institution to
institution, with some set up as generic study skills teams situated in libraries, or careers centres, whilst others may be operating with a different remit, and be positioned within specific disciplines or faculties. Hilsdon’s definition above therefore represents a very broad, cumulative view that may not be
representative of each department or team.
At Southern University, the Learning Development team I joined consisted of 5 full-time posts, all of whom came from a variety of backgrounds, some were language specialists, others had strong research experience, and all had further degrees. The team was centrally located within the University, so not aligned to any specific faculty, school or programme, but provided support to all. This meant that academic staff could approach the team to come and help address the development of academic skills in their programmes, which was normally done through the provision of workshops for large and small groups of students. There was also one-to-one support for students, which tended to focus more on developing their academic writing and critical thinking, as well as some general study skills. In this role, I gained much wider insight into student’s experiences of studying and writing, and helping them to unpack the expectations, interpret feedback, and develop their academic skills.
The idea of critical thinking had become particularly prominent in the team that I joined, as critical thinking and reflection were a specific area of focus for an
initiative called ‘LearnHigher’, a Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Centre of Excellence for Teaching and Learning (CETL). This
involved a collaboration of 16 universities developing a range of resources to support student learning (LearnHigher, 2016). Resources that staff and students from across the country could draw upon. Through this process,
materials and resources for students and staff were developed by our team over a number of years for this national resource, the most prominent of which was a ‘Critical Thinking’ study guide, which included a model that aimed to help
students develop their critical thinking, see Image One below. If I had not been aware of the concept of critical thinking before, it very rapidly became part of my practice.
Image One: ‘Model to generate critical thinking’ – Learning Development resource
The resources that we developed played a central role in much of the teaching we undertook with students. They were adapted as necessary, and integrated, or linked, into their curricula and/or assignments as much as possible and were influential in informing our own understanding. Over the following years I
developed many workshops that addressed academic writing and critical thinking, from foundation level up to doctorate level, and across the University for a Number of programmes. This was a role that I found both very rewarding and enjoyable. The core messages remained similar, revolving around structure and coherency in writing, and developing critical thinking; however, working with different programmes helped retain my interest in the subject. One workshop could be with first-year Midwifery students, and the next final-year Architects. I can also remember thinking how wonderful and helpful these resources were, particularly the critical thinking tools, for making something challenging
accessible and ‘easier’ for students to engage with, or evidence, in their work. I can even recall feeling a bit aggrieved that I had not had access to them in my own studies, perhaps I would have then got that first or even distinction!
This approach to supporting students in HE, particularly with regard to the development of generic or transferable skills, is not without fault. Wingate, describes it as ‘bolt-on’, in that it separates the skill being addressed from the subject being taught, suggesting that ‘built-in’ or embedded approaches were preferable (2006). This is a point I agree with to an extent, hence the workshops I facilitated were developed as much as possible in collaboration with the
programme or module tutors, in order to ensure that the topic was not completely divorced from the subject content or curriculum. I found that the optimum approach came when our resources were integrated and co-facilitated
with the tutor’s disciplinary awareness, understanding and contextualising. However, this was not always either possible or mutually expected, and often there were calls for us to ‘just deliver’ the session in the tutor’s absence, as highlighted in the last chapter.
Throughout this period, I felt confident that this way of working with students was effective, yes it could have been better, in that it could have always been more embedded into the programmes, or by making the sessions with the students longer, and followed up at intervals. However, for the most part, according to both students and staff feedback, they had a positive impact both on their learning, and the quality of their work. That was until significant micro and macro changes started to take effect in the institution, the department, and team I was in, and consequently in my own thinking.