The final organising and structuring element of the curriculum to be discussed in the recontextualising rules is module design. This is not in relation to the
complete process of module design, as that is beyond the scope of this study. It is about the ‘struggle’ between academic staff, programmes, and the
accreditation bodies; and, the use of specific modules being tailored towards critical thinking. In Medicine the programme is required to teach a standardised nationally recognised curriculum, however other disciplines will only have parts of their curriculum determined by their respective accreditation bodies. This often means that there are core modules at each level that all students have to take, with some flexibility in module choice available around these. Having elective modules was something that Mary (L&C) highlighted, and that there was ‘more manoeuvrability’ for academic staff in elective modules compared to the core modules in her programme [490]. This ‘manoeuvrability’ enables
programmes to influence the curriculum and disciplinary knowledge practices from an institutional and departmental perspective, allowing them to be more responsive, and able to reflect the regional needs of their students. Elective modules can often provide additional benefits as well, in that they are often focused on the research areas of academic staff, so the students involved can get a sense of participating in primary research and knowledge creation, which was identified by some participants as being positive from a critical thinking perspective.
In Education, Law and Criminology, and Environmental Science, many of the participants spoke of modules where critical thinking was being specifically addressed, or that were particularly effective in doing this. In Education this was a final year module called ‘Vision and Values’, that considers both philosophical and political aspects of education to encourage students to develop
‘personalised standpoints to ground yourself in as a teacher’ [Paul: 560]. However, David (E) pointed out that whilst this module was ‘the ideal learning module’ [425], it was only available in the Education Studies programme, and not part of the degree pathways that lead to teaching qualification, so not all students will get to take it. This reflects Mary’s thoughts on core modules and them being slightly more restricted in terms of module and programme design. In Law and Criminology, the module ‘Contemporary Legal Issues’, was referred to several times by its participants, with it being described as:
‘just critical analysis essentially, that’s all they pretty much do, it’s all about things that are going on in the world right now, how we might look at them, having discussions about them, probably having arguments about them during the lectures’ [Mary: 320].
In Environmental Science Christie highlighted a module that she had implemented herself, to help develop student’s communication skills for employability. It was called, ‘Science Communication’, and is ‘deliberately focused on bringing up issues that are provocative … and issues they
[students] felt strongly about, … then they’re going to want to debate it’ [325].
The first point that stands out here is the way participants spoke about these modules, as being current, ‘philosophical’, and ‘provocative’, which suggests that this might not be the case for the core modules. Furthermore, the fact that critical thinking was being addressed specifically ‘in some modules not in others’ [320] was highlighted by Jan (E), and raises issues not only of consistency, but also that critical thinking might only be seen by students as relevant or necessary in specific contexts. An additional issue here is if students are aware of the differences between these modules, and if there would be specific module marking criteria that perhaps differed from other modules. Such inconsistency in relation to the development of critical thinking, where it is a focus of one module but perhaps not as much in another, and the variation in disciplinary knowledge practices that this would result in, is unlikely to be an effective approach. If critical thinking is addressed more specifically in certain modules then the explicit nature would lead to stronger framing and students perhaps ‘performing’ critical thinking in those modules, not demonstrating competency consistently throughout their studies. It could also lead to
uncertainty among students regarding what is expected of them, and the forms of capital that are valued, which is something that participants spoke of across all discipline areas: the often-implicit nature of the disciplinary knowledge practices.
Another notable point here is the nature of the processes or activities
participants outline in these specific modules, such as ‘developing personalised standpoints’, ‘having arguments’, and debating issues ‘they feel strongly about’. The participants’ emphasis on these processes in this context suggests that whilst they are the sorts of activities they feel are effective in developing student’s critical thinking, yet they are potentially limited to only specific situations in the programme. Some of the teaching-learning interactions just mentioned, and the implicit nature of the curriculum are both points that are considered more fully in the next chapter of analysis in the Evaluative Rules.
This chapter has narrowed the gaze of the research from the institutional to disciplinary level. Looking at specific examples of how distributive influences have been interpreted and refracted within the disciplines, and how the structures that these create go on to have a direct impact on the capital and habitus of the staff and students. Specifically, in relation to critical thinking, Bernstein’s recontextualising rules, in the form of classification and framing, have provided a useful lens for looking at a range of disciplinary knowledge practices. For it is not just a case of organising and structuring teaching-learning activities in the curriculum, but as much about the approach that is taken in these, that will determine how effective they are. Small-group work, practice and placements, and designating specific modules can all be seen to have a
positive impact on the understanding and development of critical thinking, but there are also critical elements in the organising and structuring of them that need to be considered at the disciplinary level.
Before closing this chapter, it is worth highlighting some responses made by participants when talking in general about the teaching of critical thinking. The previous chapter has already touched upon how participants felt that their own understanding had been individually formed through a number of different channels outside of their education, with upbringing being particularly relevant for some. Further comments bring into question much of what this chapter has covered about the structuring and organising of disciplinary knowledge
practices aimed at addressing critical thinking. Sally (ES) questioned the teaching of it in the first place, ’it’s tricky to teach critical thinking, I don’t think you can’ [240], whereas, Christie (ES) put this in terms of the context, ‘I see it as my responsibility to help them develop the skill, I just don’t think it’s
something that you can teach as in it is not something you can transfer … what I can do is provide the context in which they can develop that skill’ [585]. Further responses, such as helping students develop the ‘confidence to challenge’ (Gary, ES: 260), ‘empowerment’ (Peter, ES: 520), and ‘that they [students] have the authority to ask’ (Paul, E: 425), all indicate that the environment that is created, or habitus, might be more important than the actual activity being undertaken. The next chapter will explore this point in more detail.
The variations in disciplinary knowledge practices experienced by the different disciplines appears to be quite subtle, again apart from the Medicine
programme. On the issues of time and resources, this programme does seem to occupy a more powerful and privileged position within the institution. Thus, it is able to utilise the teaching-learning interactions that have been identified far more effectively. The other discipline areas appear to be more affected by certain pressures that stem from wider, and often neoliberally driven agendas,
not always to the benefit of the students. In the next chapter the focus of the analysis will narrow even further to consider the teaching-learning interactions in the Evaluative Rules.