Sian Bayne & boundary experiences of Teaching and Learning
Sunday, 13 Dec 2015, 15:30
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Steve Bamlett, Tuesday, 22 Dec 2015, 08:44
A PERSONAL ACCOUNT ONLY
Sian Bayne (2005 - in Education in Cyberspace) details original research completed on protocols of experience of an OU online course done by both Associate Lecturer tutors (ALs) and students. Comparatively she found that while learning impacted on the identity of learners positively and negatively (as excitement and anxiety respectively), no such impact was found for ALs. The latter group appeared immunised against identity effects by a notion of authority attached to their role (in their own self-presentation of it) and their specific relationship to OU learners.
Bayne gives no indication, at least as I remember, of how such differences are to be evaluated. However, my own response to them suggested the need for decisive personal action that was not only professionally but ethically driven for me. When experience of teaching and learning are split by notions of authority, boundary experience of both roles is more difficult to imagine and perhaps to handle effectively and with anything like authenticity. I certainly feel this - as AL on 2 undergraduate courses and, currently, learner on 2 courses; one of which has been taken in the form of 'Staff Development' and therefore funded by my employer.
Authority in Western culture is perennially correlated in experience with status, although there seems to me no absolute necessity for such a link, especially when the 'authority' involved is one over a specific set of knowledge and skills. Perhaps of more concern is the link between authority, status and executive power, particularly when the limits of the latter are ill-defined. There are possible necessary correlations - especially in teaching a subject in which 'practice' is the essential route to 'expertise' in it (and perhaps that is all knowledge and skills however 'purely' an academic discipline is defined). For instance, no social work practitioner with persons at risk of abuse could empower a learner to apply knowledge and skills without their oversight implied as a safeguard. At a minimum the rights are a necessity of assessment that is not, and is considered never to be capable of, participatory sharing with learners. The possibility of such participation has been suggested by Boud (see blog below) and some others.
In the OU, ALS hold separate accounts as ALs to any they may hold as a learner. This may seem to suggest that the two identities (learner & teacher) might be held distinct, however, I rarely find that distinction as un-blurred as may be suggested.
Recently I have found boundary issues playing across the handling of a number of incidents in each role. It is appropriate here only to deal only at an abstract distance from the evidence per se.
In both current (and recent past) modules as a learner, a condition of participation is self-identification with, and discussion of, a work role. These demands are made in both summative assessment exercises and in shared formative learning activity online. The boundaries hence become blurred - not least because negotiation of the boundaries of this role have to take place in a space sufficiently public to necessitate (or so some people believe) restraint and caution.
Hence, some personal views and even some 'evidence' that underpins them are not permitted access to the discussion. Both courses I study currently deal with the handling of staff-student interactions but those interactions commonly demand boundary revisions - when, for instance my tutor experience, even if merely described, can seem to some authoritative readers as subversive. Alternatively when what I learn (from Bayne for instance) can only be with considerable constraint applied to the tutor role (even in theory rather than praxis), especially when that learning appears to require a softening of the boundaries of both the power and status that can underpin authority. I do not feel in a position here to give direct evidence (asserting only that it exists) for reasons cognate to this 'real-world' problem.
As I understand it, Bayne is still researching this area at Edinburgh. For me, that research cannot come soon enough. All power to the Edinburgh school, I say!
Sian Bayne & boundary experiences of Teaching and Learning
A PERSONAL ACCOUNT ONLY
Sian Bayne (2005 - in Education in Cyberspace) details original research completed on protocols of experience of an OU online course done by both Associate Lecturer tutors (ALs) and students. Comparatively she found that while learning impacted on the identity of learners positively and negatively (as excitement and anxiety respectively), no such impact was found for ALs. The latter group appeared immunised against identity effects by a notion of authority attached to their role (in their own self-presentation of it) and their specific relationship to OU learners.
Bayne gives no indication, at least as I remember, of how such differences are to be evaluated. However, my own response to them suggested the need for decisive personal action that was not only professionally but ethically driven for me. When experience of teaching and learning are split by notions of authority, boundary experience of both roles is more difficult to imagine and perhaps to handle effectively and with anything like authenticity. I certainly feel this - as AL on 2 undergraduate courses and, currently, learner on 2 courses; one of which has been taken in the form of 'Staff Development' and therefore funded by my employer.
Authority in Western culture is perennially correlated in experience with status, although there seems to me no absolute necessity for such a link, especially when the 'authority' involved is one over a specific set of knowledge and skills. Perhaps of more concern is the link between authority, status and executive power, particularly when the limits of the latter are ill-defined. There are possible necessary correlations - especially in teaching a subject in which 'practice' is the essential route to 'expertise' in it (and perhaps that is all knowledge and skills however 'purely' an academic discipline is defined). For instance, no social work practitioner with persons at risk of abuse could empower a learner to apply knowledge and skills without their oversight implied as a safeguard. At a minimum the rights are a necessity of assessment that is not, and is considered never to be capable of, participatory sharing with learners. The possibility of such participation has been suggested by Boud (see blog below) and some others.
In the OU, ALS hold separate accounts as ALs to any they may hold as a learner. This may seem to suggest that the two identities (learner & teacher) might be held distinct, however, I rarely find that distinction as un-blurred as may be suggested.
Recently I have found boundary issues playing across the handling of a number of incidents in each role. It is appropriate here only to deal only at an abstract distance from the evidence per se.
In both current (and recent past) modules as a learner, a condition of participation is self-identification with, and discussion of, a work role. These demands are made in both summative assessment exercises and in shared formative learning activity online. The boundaries hence become blurred - not least because negotiation of the boundaries of this role have to take place in a space sufficiently public to necessitate (or so some people believe) restraint and caution.
Hence, some personal views and even some 'evidence' that underpins them are not permitted access to the discussion. Both courses I study currently deal with the handling of staff-student interactions but those interactions commonly demand boundary revisions - when, for instance my tutor experience, even if merely described, can seem to some authoritative readers as subversive. Alternatively when what I learn (from Bayne for instance) can only be with considerable constraint applied to the tutor role (even in theory rather than praxis), especially when that learning appears to require a softening of the boundaries of both the power and status that can underpin authority. I do not feel in a position here to give direct evidence (asserting only that it exists) for reasons cognate to this 'real-world' problem.
As I understand it, Bayne is still researching this area at Edinburgh. For me, that research cannot come soon enough. All power to the Edinburgh school, I say!
All the best
Steve