Go to the Students section
Go to the Staff section
Go to the Alumni section
Go to the Study here section
Go to the International section
Go to the About section
Go to the Research section
Go to the Business and Employers section
Go to the Support us section
David Gosling University of Plymouth
Monday 3 September 2007, 15.45-16.45
Theme: Goals of higher education
This paper considers the relationship between three levels at which the goals or aims of higher education may be expressed –
Given the increasingly common construction of students as customers, or as consumers, of higher education (Morley 2003), I argue that it is important that we should be clear about the basis on which institutions (and its teachers) are able to insist on its members pursuing certain goals (particularly if these override the intentions or wishes of students) and when it is appropriate to offer students choice. This is not simply a matter of competing discursive fields but a question of when authority, exercised through curricula and assessment regimes, is justified
In order to structure an approach to this complex topic, I will examine the underlying assumptions about student choice and entitlements and teacher power/authority in approaches to teaching and learning typically found in higher education using the conceptual framework developed by Kember (1997) and Pratt (1998). Five teaching perspectives have been proposed, namely: transmission, apprenticeship, developmental, nurturing and social reform. I will argue that each of these different perspectives has distinctive implications for students’ freedom to make choices about the goals they pursue in their studies. The conceptions of teacher authority that are implicit in these five ‘teaching perspectives’ will be explored. This debate reveals tensions between varieties of paternalism (Kleinig 1983) that continue to thrive in higher education, power relationships (Foucault 1980) and the somewhat glib discourse of student choice in which ‘pedagogical relationships are reduced to service-level agreements’ (Morley 2003) .
When students and teachers have different conceptions of teaching and learning this raises acute questions about what forms of paternalism (implicit or explicit) are justified in respect of adult learners, also known as students. It also raises difficult issues about the relationship between individuals’ conceptions of the goal of higher education and those which are declared through policy declarations by political leaders. These different perspectives reflect quite fundamental differences in views about human nature and the place of education in the lives of (young or not so young) adults.
Against this background I ask whether it is possible to sustain ideals of the ‘democratic learner’ ‘working to sustain critical stories about democratic life, critical learning and ethical deliberation’ within a corporate consumerist higher education (Walker and Nixon 2004). The implications of this debate for teaching, student learning, the curriculum, student assessment and quality assurance/enhancement are immense, but have not been explored fully in the recent literature.