Philosophy & Enterprise; The Implications for Philosophy of the Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative

George Macdonald Ross

This work was produced under contract with the Employment Department. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Employment Department or of any other government department.


Index of Contents


Foreword, by Patrick Coldstream

>- And when we speak of 'enterprise', is it only the quality of a crafty pedlar or whelk-stall owner we describe? Or are the 'doers' in any profession to be included?

- The latter assuredly, Socrates.

- Then those whom we call 'enterprising' share a common capability?

- Undoubtedly.

- But the tasks each professional performs with his hands are not common to all, but very specific and governed by the tasks, are they not?

- Certainly.

- Then 'enterprise' is neither specific nor a quality of the hands. It must describe a quality of mind. Shall we call it liveliness? Are not 'lively minds' what we must cultivate in the citizens that they may contribute to our debate in the assembly? Are not lively minds our chief weapon in trading competition against other Cities?

- I do not see how the City can flourish without them. How else can the citizens find new things to make and sell?

- But in what consists this liveliness of mind we have mentioned? Can we pin it down? Surely we are describing the minds most apt in meeting the challenges our City presents?

- That must be true.

- And we commonly describe our City in the market place as 'technological', do we not? And the citizens as living in a 'technological society'? How are we to understand 'technology'?

- Computers and chips and software and circuits . . .?

- We must look wider than that, I believe. For should we not describe manipulating DNA as 'technology'? Or the scientific explanation of why a new material proves to combine lightness with strength? Perhaps a psychologist, who applies his theories to devise a new selection test, is also engaged in his own 'technology'?

- Socrates, you are on cracking form today. These are indeed technological activities, for in all cases they concern how to make knowledge useful. And that is indeed the concern that most nearly chacterises the citizens of a technological society.

- Then an enterprising person is one whose mind is lively in making knowledge useful? Is that an aim we may properly adopt for our education?

- I think it is. Pure contemplation of the Good is attractive, of course; but our pupils expect from us both knowledge and the habit of seeking uses for it. They have to have careers after all, and to pay their rent.

- Perhaps we can go further. Surely we often associate liveliness of mind with philosophers?

- Of course. You are asserting that philosophy in itself breeds 'enterprise' as we have defined it.

- You are rushing your fences, Alcibiades. I am not saying that philosophy is a necessary, let alone a sufficient condition of 'enterprise'. Let us say they are both language games with a good deal in common. Take the skills of analysis, for example: do they not serve well both the philosopher and whoever is quick at making use of the world's knowledge?

- Those skills must surely be indispensable for both.

- And is the same not true of the skills of explanation, of listening, speaking, and writing clearly and carefully? And of capacity for hard work? And of imagination and creative thinking? Do not both the philosopher and the modern professional need proper acquaintance with mathematics?

- Yes. Certainly I fear my own education of twenty years ago left me dishonourably innumerate.

- I shall reveal my secret to you, Alcibiades. The qualities I have just listed for you are among those deemed desirable in humanities graduates by the Council for Industry and Higher Education in its Humanities for the Working World.

- Remarkable. Are those all the qualities they suggest?

- No. They cite also 'practicality', by which they mean realism and the ability to set attainable goals. They insist also on 'group skills': teamwork, leadership, ability to motivate others, roundedness.

- Socrates, a philosopher trained in project-work could acquire such qualities. He or she would be helped to mature at the same time.

- Alcibiades, you should have been a professor! 'Maturity' is now indeed the final quality mentioned by the Council as being desirable in a graduate. Let us go and test our ideas on others in the market place.

The author is Director of the Council for Industry and Higher Education. The Council is an independent body of heads of major companies, universities and colleges. It aims to mark out common interests and speak with a joint voice to government, universities and employers.


Preface

In November 1991, the authors were awarded a grant by the Training, Enterprise and Education Directorate of the Employment Department to produce a document outlining the implications of its Enterprise in Higher Education (EHE) initiative for the teaching of philosophy and similar disciplines. The emphasis throughout is on the teaching of philosophy; but much of what is said is directly applicable to other disciplines of an abstract and non-vocational nature. The views expressed are those of the authors, and not necessarily shared by all their colleagues in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Leeds, nor by the Employment Department.

The EHE initiative was launched at the end of 1987, with the objective of encouraging students to become more 'enterprising' as a consequence of their higher education courses. Funding of up to £¼m p.a. has been awarded to individual HE institutions in support of programmes to develop EHE.

The Employment Department has always stressed one particular aspect of the EHE initiative, namely that of involving students in the world of work. Nevertheless, its approach to the interpretation of the concept of 'Enterprise' is a liberal one, and it has welcomed proposals from institutions and their constituent departments to implement the broad aims of EHE in ways which are most appropriate to individual disciplines. Subject to the approval of the Employment Department, it is open to groups of academics to set their own agenda for using EHE funding to improve the quality of the education they provide.

The main thrust of the present document is that EHE provides an opportunity for philosophical education to liberate itself from inappropriate methods of teaching and assessment modelled on practice in other disciplines - and indeed that other disciplines are being encouraged to become more philosophical in their approach.

The document consists of five parts:

  • Part I, What EHE means for philosophy, analyses the general relationship between EHE and philosophical education.
  • Part II, EHE in context, puts EHE into the context of quality assurance, the declining unit of resource, modularisation, widening access, and the possibility of a Students' Charter.
  • Part III, What philosophy departments are doing, gives the results of a survey on current practice, and attitudes to EHE.
  • Part IV, How to implement EHE, provides some practical suggestions as to the implementation of EHE in ways which will enhance the philosophical character of the education provided.
  • Part V, Bibliography, comments on a number of books and articles on teaching methods which are relevant to philosophy.

Part I: What EHE Means for Philosophy

How EHE relates to philosophy depends on one's conception of philosophy as an academic subject, and on one's beliefs as to how it is best taught. Philosophers themselves are, and always have been, divided on these issues. Inevitably, some philosophers will embrace the changes implicit in EHE more enthusiastically than others. However, it must be stressed that EHE is not directive, but enabling. No-one is being told to abandon well-tried and successful methods of teaching philosophy - but departments and individuals are being encouraged and helped to add new features to their repertoire of methods of teaching and assessment, where these are appropriate to the subject matter. The outcome should be that students' experience of higher education will be enriched by a wider variety of activities and types of interaction with teaching staff.


1. Active learning

There has always been a tension between two different approaches to the teaching of philosophy, which we characterise (with a considerable degree of historical oversimplification) as the Socratic, and the Platonic or academic approaches. They are not necessarily incompatible, and many would hold that a mixed approach is ideal.


i. The Socratic approach

Socrates's educational model was derived from the practice of the sophists, whose main role was to train mature private citizens to perform competently and autonomously in the public assembly, whether as politicians or as lawyers. Socrates wanted his 'pupils' to become competent and autonomous in the practice of philosophy. His technique was to engage them in debate - a process which presupposed substantial activity on the part of the pupils. He himself often used military or sporting analogies to describe the process of debate. The comparison is apposite, since training in combat sports consists largely in sparring between pupil and master: the training is complete when the pupil can take on the master as an equal.

Through the Socratic method, students learned by doing philosophy in interaction with a teacher. Moreover, what they did was primarily an oral activity: they talked and listened. Reading and writing were very much secondary activities, reserved for special occasions such as the composition of a set speech on a particular topic.


ii. The Academic approach

Plato invented the Academy - the archetype of modern institutions of higher education. The primary means of instruction was the lecture, in which the teacher expounded his knowledge and wisdom, to be acquired passively by the students. Plato also wrote books for students and the general public to read. Although they were written in dialogue form, his later works were dialogues in form only, and his successors evolved the systematic philosophical treatise as the standard vehicle of philosophical communication.

Plato's theory of education also introduced a status differential between teacher and student. The sophists provided an intellectual service for adults who were generally richer and more powerful than themselves. Socrates eschewed money, but would engage in philosophical debate with anyone, whatever their age or status. For Plato, philosophical training was an extension of schoolteaching, only at a higher and more abstract level. Pupils would not be allowed to study philosophy until they had completed an extensive training in other disciplines, and until they had reached a certain age (50! - cf. Republic, 540a). The teacher would be still older, and would have total control over students' learning. The model is more that of the guru than that of the trainer in the martial arts (perhaps not surprisingly, given the influence of oriental mysticism on Plato's thought).

One final contrast with the Socratic approach is this: Socrates taught in the marketplace, and his aim was to improve the quality of thinking of people who were or might become actively involved in public affairs. The main goal of Plato's approach was that the philosopher, at the pinnacle of the educational process, would be drawn away from practical concerns towards contemplation of the abstract forms of truth, beauty, and goodness. Only out of a sense of duty would the philosopher descend from his ivory tower to impose his abstract ideals on recalcitrant reality.


iii. Subsequent history

In many respects the mediæval university achieved rather a good balance between the Socratic and the Academic approaches:

  • Professorial lectures (reading and commenting on texts, necessitated by the scarcity of books) were complemented by more informal sessions with junior teachers.
  • Memorising of facts and theories was balanced by training in the skills of dialectical disputation.
  • Despite a certain reverence for the written text, assessment was based on oral performance.
  • University education was modelled on training in a craft: the undergraduate was an apprentice; the bachelor was a journeyman, qualified to practice the craft but not to take on apprentices (and not ready to settle down to married life); and the master had sufficient experience to be entitled to teach the craft, after payment of a fee to the guild.
  • In some cases (especially in Italy and Scotland), the universities were the property of the students, and the professors were their employees.

Many of these traditions still survive or have only recently disappeared: we still give lectures, despite the invention of the printing press; we still assess students on their ability to recall information provided in lectures; in a number of European countries the BA degree is awarded solely on the basis of a viva voce examination; at Oxford and Cambridge the MA is awarded on payment of a fee after a suitable lapse of time; the rectors of Scottish universities are appointed by the students; and it is only during this century that fees for attending particular courses have been commuted to staff salaries.

In British universities, the most significant changes in educational practice since the mediæval period have been the following:

  • the almost total replacement of oracy by literacy (students write notes on lectures, they read books and hand-outs and write notes on them, they write essays and receive written comments on them, and they are assessed almost entirely on the basis of written examinations and coursework);
  • a shift in emphasis from the development of skills to the reproduction of factual information which can be assessed on the basis of written examinations;
  • a concentration on the results of individual effort (the one-to-one tutorial, and the private writing of essays under examination conditions) and the related emphasis on originality, at the expense of co-operative activity and the development of generally achievable competencies;
  • a change in the relationship between teacher and student from that of provider of a service, to that of a state employee given control over another pensioner of the state.

These changes can be explained in terms of socio-economic factors such as the reduction in the price of paper; the need to replace patronage and bribery with a meritocratic system for controlling entry into the growing professional classes; the re-modelling of the educational system on the basis of scientific and technological values as contrasted with those of the humanities; and the incursion of the public sector into previously free-market relationships.

In eighteenth-century England (though not in Scotland), philosophy virtually disappeared from the university curriculum. It gradually reappeared in the latter part of the nineteenth century - on the back of Classics at Oxford, as an adjunct to science at Cambridge, and in various other guises at the technical colleges which were acquiring university status elsewhere.

It is far from evident that the academic environment in which philosophy was reborn was sympathetic to its traditional mix of values. In order to attain academic credibility it had to conform to a stereotype dominated by science and technology conceived in a Victorian mould.

iv. The implications of EHE

One of the most striking features of the EHE initiative is that it seeks to redress the balance of teaching styles within Higher Education in favour of the neglected Socratic dimension. Teachers are encouraged to see themselves as facilitators of students' active learning; to develop students' autonomy in their discipline; to give as much emphasis to the development and assessment of skills as to the imparting and examination of knowledge; to acknowledge the importance of oral communication and debate; and to foster a co-operative rather than a purely individualistic attitude towards intellectual endeavour.

Changes in these directions will make a philosophical education more, not less philosophical; and they are easier to implement in philosophy than in other disciplines, since they are deeply rooted in its history and traditions. If EHE is revolutionary, the revolution is in many ways a Copernican one: the educational process revolves around the learner rather than around the teacher, and the best practice of the past takes on a new significance. We may not like the jargon in which much of the new thinking is couched; but we should be able to see through the language to an educational theory which - to use the Copernican metaphor again - puts the development of philosophical and quasi-philosophical skills at the centre rather than in a far-flung orbit.

The practical consequence of teaching philosophy in an institution which is committed to EHE is that methods of teaching and assessment which were previously inconceivable in a twentieth-century British higher education institution now become possible, and practices which were carried out at the margin (and in some cases surreptitiously) become central. We give some suggestions in Part IV. In particular, we tackle the fear, most commonly expressed in disciplines where the emphasis has traditionally been on the transferring of a fixed quantity of knowledge from the heads of teachers into the heads of students, that EHE gains will entail content loss. Provided that the right structures are put in place, less teaching means more learning - with the added bonus that graduates are more capable of functioning as life-long autonomous learners when the knowledge they acquired at university becomes out of date. If a greater stress is laid on helping philosophy students to internalise the process of philosophising, they will learn more philosophy, not less.

A reluctant philosophy department can satisfy its institution's EHE directorate that it is doing the minimum necessary to fulfil the terms of its contract with the Employment Department, by making a few changes at the margins. But it is far better to embrace the initiative wholeheartedly, as providing the opportunity and the means to make the education provided more thoroughgoingly philosophical.


2. Development of transferable skills

A number of studies have been conducted into what employers look for in graduates. The results suggest that:

  • the specific facts and skills explicitly taught in degree courses are relevant to only about 50% of vacancies, and in most cases graduate recruits require further training;
  • the qualities most sought after are general intellectual and personal skills which receive relatively little attention in most degree courses.

Part of the purpose of the EHE initiative is to encourage teachers to pay more explicit attention to the development and assessment of general skills through the teaching of their particular discipline. Underlying this aim is an assumption that there are general skills which can be acquired, and that learning them in one context is transferable to a different context. This runs contrary to much educational thinking of the recent past, which has been based on the belief that general intelligence is a fixed quantity, which cannot be improved by training. Philosophers, on the other hand, have almost invariably held that philosophy helps people to think better, and that it improves them as people. They should therefore welcome a shift in educational theory which gives recognition to what philosophy has always stood for.

The distinction between intellectual and personal skills is far from sharp, since some personal attributes are highly pertinent to the exercise of the intellect (e.g. pertinacity, or open-mindedness), and some intellectual skills are essential to effective inter-personal relationships (e.g. powers of expression). But for present purposes it is of no importance where the line is to be drawn, since the EHE initiative encourages the development of the whole spectrum, from strictly logical reasoning at one end, to the ability to work in teams at the other.

Examples of transferable skills and personal characteristics relevant to the practice of philosophy are the following:

  • reasoning skills: logic; analysis and synthesis; handling of concepts; critical ability; identifying and questioning assumptions; arguing a case; problem solving and decision making
  • handling symbolism: formal systems; statistical arguments; computer literacy
  • communication skills: clarity, relevance, and succinctness in written and oral presentations
  • comprehension: mastery of difficult and complex texts; listening to what others say, and appreciating different points of view; coping with a high level of uncertainty
  • depth and breadth of view: seeing beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries; identifying first principles and practical applications; tracing connections; objectivity
  • reflexivity: handling of second-order questions; awareness of one's own thinking and use of language; ability to assess one's own strengths and weaknesses, and those of others
  • originality: independence of thought; flexibility of approach; adaptability to a changing environment; inventiveness in producing examples and counter-examples
  • co-operativeness: ability to work in teams in different capacities; constructive contribution to group discussion and joint products
  • responsibility: ability to act autonomously and to learn independently; awareness of ethical implications.

It is becoming increasingly common for employers of graduates to ask academic referees to assess candidates under headings such as the above. Studies in the USA have shown that philosophy majors consistently outperform graduates of all other disciplines in reasoning and verbal aptitude tests; and among Arts and Social Studies graduates, they come behind only economists on quantitative skills (see Peter Ratcliffe and Martin Warner, Philosophy Graduates and Jobs, Royal Institute of Philosophy and the University of Warwick, 1986). This suggests that philosophy is in fact effective in developing transferable skills, even if they are not included among the explicit objectives of philosophy courses.

Until recently, it has not been common practice for teachers of philosophy to give a precise specification of the skills their courses are designed to develop. Indeed, it is no easy matter to define precisely what distinguishes a skilful philosopher from someone who is devoid of philosophical ability. In assessing students' work, philosophers are concerned that what the students are doing is 'philosophical', and there is generally a high level of agreement among examiners as to whether or not a particular piece of work displays philosophical ability. However, there is less agreement as to the detailed breakdown of what philosophical ability consists in.

We believe that philosophical ability consists in a family of skills, most of which are included in the above list. This is one of the reasons why we also believe that an educational environment in which all disciplines are expected to pay closer attention to the development of transferable skills will be a more philosophical environment. It could be said that part of what the Employment Department is trying to achieve is a restoration of the values of university education which were prevalent during the Scottish enlightenment, when philosophy was central to the curriculum, and other disciplines were taught in a distinctly philosophical way. In particular, the capacity to handle second-order questions about the nature of one's own discipline, as contrasted with merely practising it unreflectively, is a distinctly philosophical characteristic; and this gives Philosophy a special responsibility in the evolution of new approaches to learning.

EHE provides encouragement to make these traditional philosophical skills explicit. Nevertheless, methods of teaching and examination need to be adapted so as to ensure that skills are consciously developed and directly assessed. We provide some suggestions in Part IV.


3. Off-campus involvement

In many disciplines it has been standard practice for students to spend part of their time gaining experience in the sort of workplace where they are likely to be employed after graduation, and for employers to be involved in the validation of courses and in assessment. One of the aims of EHE is to increase mutual understanding between academics and employers by extending such practices as widely as possible, and to provide students on non-vocational courses with opportunities to apply what they have learned to real-life situations outside their institution.

Naturally there are difficulties in the case of subjects like philosophy. Virtually the only profession for which a degree in philosophy provides a direct training is that of teaching philosophy at degree level - and only a tiny proportion of philosophy graduates enter this particular career path. Things would be different if, as in many other countries, philosophy were widely taught in the schools, and a degree in philosophy were seen as more directly vocational. Nevertheless, there has been a considerable expansion of the teaching of philosophy, and especially of ethics, in areas of the school curriculum such as religious studies, personal and social education, and general studies. There is certainly scope for final-year undergraduates to spend a small proportion of their time going into local schools and conducting classes on philosophical issues. In our experience, putting students into the role of teachers or group leaders is of great value in developing their self-confidence and their sense of commitment.

However, it is not simply a question of putting students into places of potential employment. There is a more general concern that students should be able to make practical use of what they have learned in an abstract and theoretical way. This touches on a contentious issue within the philosophy profession, namely whether philosophy is valuable simply as an end in itself, or whether it also enables people to think more effectively about matters of practical concern - broadly the contrast between the Socratic and the Platonic approaches again. The recent explosion of interest in applied philosophy is evidence not merely of a demand for courses with practical relevance, but also of an increased willingness on the part of professional philosophers to answer to the demand.

No-one is saying that the traditional values of a philosophical education should be perverted by an inappropriate emphasis on its practical application - still less that it should be regarded as a training for employment in industry or the professions. Nevertheless, it remains the case that only a small minority of philosophy graduates will become professional philosophers. The EHE initiative advocates that, at some point during their experience as undergraduates, students should have the opportunity to explore the value of a philosophical education for the handling of real-life situations. In other words, it is considered desirable that there should be some applied philosophy, although there is absolutely no pressure towards the introduction of an artificial applied element into courses where this would be inappropriate. In Part IV, we suggest some ways in which practical courses and off-campus projects might be designed.


4. Use of computers

The question of the use of computers is contentious in a different way. Few would dispute that basic computer skills are rapidly becoming a sine qua non of non-manual employment; but there is no clear policy as to what skills constitute an essential component of the new literacy, or as to when and where they should be acquired. By default, the Employment Department has included computer literacy in the EHE initiative; but, quite understandably, most academics baulk at the idea that they should spend time teaching computing instead of their own discipline.

The long-term answer is that basic skills should be taught at school, and that higher education institutions should provide adequate central facilities for training in more advanced computing skills which are not discipline specific. In the meantime, we can think positively about ways in which the use of computers might improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of the teaching of philosophy. If our graduates are more employable as a result of their enhanced computing skills, this is a valuable adjunct to their learning, even if it is not integral to a philosophical education as such.

There are four main ways in which computers can be used:

 

  • for word processing: students can produce essays and dissertations more effectively, and they are much easier to read and assess;
  • as teaching aids: computer programs can partially replace the functions of lecturers and tutors in, for example, the teaching of logic, and in enabling them to master difficult texts;
  • as integral to computer-related courses in artificial intelligence, computer logic, the philosophy of computing, etc.;
  • as labour-saving devices for the marking of multiple-choice tests and course evaluation questionnaires.

We give some concrete suggestions in Part IV.


5. Note on Higher Education for Capability

EHE is not the only force for change in the directions outlined above. Some years earlier the Royal Society of Arts launched a campaign called Higher Education for Capability. Their aims are very closely aligned, and the main differences can be summarised as follows:

  • Capability is not a Government initiative
  • Capability lays more stress on developing students as individuals and as citizens, and less on involving them in the workplace and giving them computing skills
  • Capability cannot provide funds for new developments, but it can facilitate them through conferences, workshops, networks, etc.

 

In 1991, Higher Education for Capability was relaunched in Leeds as a joint initiative of Leeds Metropolitan University, the University of Leeds, and the Royal Society of Arts. Apart from organising conferences and networks, it is building up a database of good practice, data for which has been provided by the Council for National Academic Awards, EHE institutions, and other sources. The database is accessible through the Joint Academic Network (JANET). Its address is: 20 Queen Square, Leeds LS2 8AF.


Part II: EHE in Context

The EHE initiative has come at a time when departments are under pressure from a number of quarters to implement rapid and fundamental changes. In particular there is the need to teach more (and different) students with less money, quality assessment, academic audit, and (in many institutions) modularisation. It is hardly surprising that they should be hesitant to go through yet another revolution in teaching practices. However, EHE should not be seen as an additional imposition on top of an already intolerable load. Rather, it provides resources and ideas for tackling the already inevitable process of change in an imaginative and constructive way, and in many respects it makes the problems easier to solve.


1. The declining unit of resource

In recent times the commonest modes of teaching philosophy have been the lecture, the seminar, and the tutorial or supervision. Terminology varies from institution to institution, but there is a clear enough distinction between three broad types of teaching situation:

  • the lecture, in which all or most of the input comes from the lecturer - numbers may be very large or as small as one;
  • the seminar, of perhaps 10-20 students, in which the primary input may be by a student, and in which discussion is encouraged;
  • the tutorial of one or more students, in which a close personal and intellectual relationship may be developed between the tutor and the student.

From an educational perspective, the number of students attending lectures is not a problem. However, there is severe anxiety within the profession over the erosion of the special nature of the tutorial and the seminar. Departments which once prided themselves on their provision of one-to-one tutorials are having to reduce their frequency, or to increase numbers so that the special bond between teacher and student is broken. Tutorials become more like a seminar. But if numbers attending seminars also increase, there are too many students for there to be a proper discussion. Seminars become more like a lecture.

In many countries, the relationship between lecturer and student is such that students are merely lectured at by their lecturers. This is not a model we wish to be forced into in the UK. It is disturbing that many people within the funding councils, the DfE, and the senior management of HE institutions see the solution to the problem of greater numbers exclusively in terms of the replacement of individual and small-group teaching by mass lectures, the national distribution of standardised teaching materials, and a massive expansion in the use of impersonal technological aids, such as computer-based learning and interactive video. While changes in these directions can be made in ways which increase efficiency without damaging educational standards, EHE encourages alternative methods for preserving the special personal relationship between teacher and student despite increased student numbers. The central idea is to devolve responsibilities to the students themselves as far as is practicable, thus freeing the time of members of staff to train them in what they have to do, to monitor what they are doing, and to foster a close personal relationship in their academic development. We give some concrete suggestions in Part IV.

Another consequence of increased student numbers is a corresponding increase in the load of essay marking and examining. This affects external examiners as well as internal markers, and the system is already under sufficient strain for its credibility to be in doubt. Quite apart from educational grounds for questioning reliance on written examinations, essays and dissertations as the sole basis for assessment, efficiency in the use of time requires their partial replacement by alternative modes of assessment. In particular, EHE encourages greater emphasis on written coursework (where marks and comments have a developmental as well as a judgmental function); assessment of other forms of activity such as oral performance and co-operative projects; and some use of self- and peer-assessment. Such changes imply changes in the role of the external examiner as guarantor of the comparability of standards between one institution and another.


2. Quality assessment and assurance

The former polytechnics and colleges have long been used to the monitoring of the quality of teaching. There is an important distinction between quality assessment, and quality assurance. Quality assessment involves the direct observation and evaluation of the teaching process in all its aspects by external assessors - hitherto Her Majesty's Inspectorate. Quality assurance involves a review of the mechanisms and procedures which are in place to ensure the satisfactory delivery of appropriate educational objectives - hitherto carried out by the Council for National Academic Awards. In the newly combined university sector, the Higher Education Funding Councils have set up Quality Assessment Committees to assess the quality of teaching in each department in each subject area, and, as with the Research Assessment Exercise, their judgments will have implications for funding. Quite separately, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has set up a Division of Quality Audit to monitor quality assurance procedures in each institution.

Neither process is directly concerned with standards. A department might deliver a high quality of education in the sense that the large majority of students achieve the objectives stated - but only because the objectives are too undemanding. Evaluation of the levels of achievement implicit in the objectives of a course, and of the extent to which individual students have attained a particular level, is largely the function of the external examiner system.

It is not yet known how far these different agencies will operate with common criteria of teaching quality. However, quality assurance is further advanced than quality assessment, and the documentation already available shows that the principles of EHE are taken very seriously. It seems likely that departments which limit themselves to traditional methods of teaching and assessment will be subject to adverse judgments.


3. Modularisation

Moves towards modularisation are quite unrelated to the EHE initiative. Indeed, in some respects modularisation makes the goals of EHE more difficult to achieve, since it loosens the bonds between students and the departments responsible for their overall educational development, and can reduce the coherence and progressiveness of students' programmes of study. On the other hand, students are empowered with greater freedom of choice over what they study.

Generally, where institutions have decided to modularise, the change is institution-wide or by Faculty, and individual departments have no choice in the matter. At most they have control over the size and timing of modules, their prerequisites, and the range of compulsory or optional modules. Some have made the minimum adjustments necessary to accommodate pre-existing courses to the new structure; others have taken the opportunity for a more radical review of syllabuses, teaching methods, and the relationship between teacher and student.

As we implied earlier, modularisation, academic audit, and EHE should not be thought of as a cumulative set of impositions, but rather as a single requirement for change with a number of facets. Modularisation requires the detailed redesign of courses; and they will have to be redesigned in ways which will satisfy the requirements of academic audit. They are more likely to satisfy these requirements if they also incorporate EHE features - in particular the idea that teachers are not mere providers of information, but are responsible for ensuring that each student acquires competence in the discipline. Acceptance of this responsibility is the key to overcoming the dangers of alienation and fragmentation of learning implicit in modularisation.


4. Widening access

As student numbers increase, especially at a time when the cohort of 18-year-olds is contracting, a higher proportion of students will come from non-traditional backgrounds: in particular mature students, who may never have had a sixth-form education; students with working-class parents; and students from ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities. There have also been radical changes in the mix of subjects taught at school, the syllabuses of those subjects, the skills developed, and the methods of teaching and assessment.

Many of our established teaching practices presuppose a range of skills and background knowledge which fewer and fewer students actually possess when they arrive at university: they may never have written an essay, or taken notes from a lecture or book; they may never have had responsibility for managing their own time; they may never have participated in a group discussion, or made a presentation before an audience; they may have no understanding of grammatical terms or of geometrical reasoning; they may never have read a book written before the present century; they may be completely ignorant of the historical and theological context in which the classics of philosophy were written; they may have no knowledge of any foreign language.

The proportion of students presenting such problems varies considerably from institution to institution; but even where they constitute a small minority, it is important that their needs should be addressed. Students will not emerge as competent philosophy graduates if they cannot write well-structured essays in good English, or articulate their thoughts clearly in speech, or read a historical text. Some may pick up these skills as they go along - but others do not.

However much we may feel that it is the business of schools to teach these things, this is not the world we live in. Nor, under the present financial system, is it an option to restrict entry to students who already possess the skills we would ideally like them to have. Some institutions may use central resources to provide remedial training in basic study skills; but there are serious problems with this approach:

  • identifying a sub-group of students (e.g. mature, or ethnic minority) as in need of remedial help type-casts them as disadvantaged and potential failures
  • many other students have the same needs, to a greater or lesser degree
  • skills are best acquired in a subject-specific context which is perceived as relevant (e.g. learning how to write a philosophy essay, not merely how to write an essay).

    • In short, the need to respond constructively to the problems posed by the widening of access corresponds precisely to the EHE aim of embedding the fostering of general skills in students' learning of specific disciplines.


    5. Students' charter

    As yet, there is no such thing as a national Students' Charter, or any Government requirement that individual institutions draw up such charters. However, this is something which is likely to come into being within the near future (see Bryan Davey, The Student Charter Project Report, Enterprise Kent, 1992, obtainable from the University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7LT). Although it will be implemented by a Government of a particular political complexion, it is part of a secular shift towards requiring professionals and state employees to adopt a less authoritarian and more open and contractual stance towards their clients.

    As far as concerns teaching in Higher Education, a charter could include items such as the following:

    • partial devolution to students of responsibility for their own learning, but with adequate staff support and facilities
    • empowering students to negotiate individual programmes of study
    • consulting students over course design, assessment of staff performance, and other matters
    • negotiating criteria for assessment of students' performance, combined with a degree of self- and peer-assessment
    • providing students with broad records of achievement, and not merely a simple degree classification
    • providing a clear statement of what students can expect of staff as well as of what staff can expect of students
    • aftercare service: helping students to gain employment; maintaining their interest in the discipline.

    The above list is close in spirit to the aims of EHE; and it is likely to arouse similar anxieties as to the changing role of the teacher. Traditional skills, such as that of giving a virtuoso demonstration of philosophical expertise in front of a passive audience, become devalued in comparison with the very different skill of weaning students from dependence on their teachers; or with mundane aspects of professional competence, such as marking essays within a reasonable time, or remembering students' names. Part of the challenge of EHE and a Students' Charter is to help staff to develop new capabilities, while at the same time giving full rein to the expertise on which their self-image has always depended.


    Part III: What Philosophy Departments Are Doing

    A comprehensive survey of thirty-five Philosophy (and Philosophy-related humanities) departments was undertaken. In the first place structured interviews of around twenty minutes in length were conducted over the telephone. Departments that were either unavailable or preferred to write their responses were posted the questionnaire used as the basis for the interviews. This approach maximised flexibility, enabling interesting comments to be immediately explored in more depth, and ensuring that no respondent was strait-jacketed by the choice of questions.


    1. Overview

    Teaching in philosophy departments is in a state of flux, with 75% of departments finding that increased student numbers have doubled or trebled class sizes, and with one-third busy rewriting their courses for modularisation. At the same time, only a fraction of the departments have attempted radical change. As one source put it, with admirable frankness: their teaching methods have become obsolete, but they carry on with them anyway.

    The survey has, however, revealed a mosaic of novel responses to change. One university has pioneered a number of innovative teaching techniques, including the successful use of computers. It, along with several other departments, has adopted the 'intuitive, graphical' approach to computing, with three rooms of Apple Macs. Logic programs developed for the Apple-dominated American education market, together with programs written in-house (such as a version of that philosophical evergreen, the Prisoner's Dilemma) are successful and popular, and the process has been extended to 'interactive' texts, using Hypercard. In a shrewd move, effort is to go into devising programs especially for computer-illiterate tutors, to enable them to devise their own computerised learning materials.

    The Enterprise in Higher Education initiative attaches great importance to students teaching themselves. For example, when a class gets too big for everyone to contribute something, students could be split into small groups, and made to talk to each other. Several sources describe this technique as having been particularly effective - both in conserving staff time, but also in increasing the numbers of students actively contributing to discussion. Elsewhere, 'proctors' (final-year students or postgraduates) have been able to take classes, providing themselves with opportunities to learn teaching and communication skills, as well as relieving the strain on staff of increased student-staff ratios. School teachers are used to the notion of marking dreary scripts late into the night, but lecturers are finding the prospect rather unattractive, and alternatives such as self-assessment (where students mark their own efforts using agreed criteria) are being investigated. Naturally the survey revealed concern about the possible abuse of this system, and even more at the prospect of students marking each other (peer assessment), because of the dangers of subjectivity, ignorance, social prejudice, and peer group pressure. A more modest shift is to timed essays instead of exams, and 'grids of skills', in the manner, perhaps, of BTech vocational qualifications.

    The teaching revolution of the 1970s has been given a new lease of life with the video recorder. Television conferencing and video lectures are already running in one university with a scattered campus, while video recordings play a vital role in a former polytechnic's innovative oral assessment of students.

    2. The Enterprise Initiative

    Most departments had come across the Enterprise in Higher Education Initiative, with many receiving funding for projects.

    Departments involved in the EHE initiative Figure 1: Departments involved in the EHE initiative

    For example:

    • computerised logic teaching
    •  
    • developing external links
    •  
    • examining the representation of ideas in the media
    •  
    • involving students more closely.
    •  

    Two-thirds of the departments which responded were positive towards EHE. Only two departments were actively opposed to it. The remainder either had mixed feelings, or took no view.

    3. Teaching Methods

    Figure 2: Teaching methods in UK Philosophy departments

    Teaching methods in UK Philosophy departments

    Ideas found from the survey can be put under several headings:

    • interdisciplinarity - tutors from several subjects involved in seminars
    •  
    • liberal approach to what philosophy is - political philosophy and literary angles
    •  
    • student-centredness
    •  
    • subject-matter and methods are negotiated.
    •  
    Departments that enter negotiations Figure 3: Departments that enter negotiations

    For example, one source describes workshops run with the tutor as a 'resource centre', with students making the presentations. This is popular with the students. Oral assessment counts for 15% of the degree. Also, there is negotiation of assessment via a Board of Studies. In assessing oral work, students present a paper to a full seminar group for twenty minutes and have to answer questions. They are assessed for the presentation and responses, and video recordings are used for reference and for external examiners. All classes count towards the oral assessment.

    Several sources describe student negotiation of the course as via options and student initiatives for dissertations. Another has an Independent Studies degree, where students negotiate the subject-matter of the entire degree.

    Peer tutoring

    One source describes a system in which students read each others' essays, and tutorials are a discussion of each others' work - this 'works very well', with the advantage of the development of 'criticism skills', and students becoming less egocentric in their essay writing.

    Several departments were proud of their 'parallel small group work', which they felt reduced demands on staff time, as well as leading to more students contributing actively in classes. Discussions have been interspersed into lectures successfully.

    Assessment

    One department was particularly proud of its policy of continuous assessment, which it has found improves student response - although it also reinforces 'power' relationships between staff and students. Another department used video recordings as part of the development and assessment of oral skills.

    4. Computerisation

    Extent of use of computers Figure 4: Extent of use of computers
    Type of use of computers Figure 5: Type of use of computers

    As described in Part II, there are several possible strands to computerisation. However, as the graphs illustrate, the process is in its early days. One third of departments have computerised logic teaching, but several say it is very much a sideline, and one pointed out that students come to universities to be taught by people, not machines. The most successful use of computers appears to be using professionally developed programs, such as Mac Logic (since the UFC funded the development of this program at St Andrews, it is available to UK departments for only £20, from Roy Dyckhoff, MALT Project, Computational Science Division, University of St Andrews, Fife KY16 9AL). The user-friendly Apple Mac computer, always popular with Humanities students, is particularly mentioned by three sources, and has led naturally to the development of Hypertext or multimedia teaching materials.

    'Lemmonaid' is a whimsically named logic program currently in use at Queen's University, Belfast, and is available to academics interested in computer logic teaching free of charge. Developed by John Slaney whilst at Edinburgh University, the program runs on IBM-type computers, and has a simple design enabling students to devise and check proofs, moving from given premisses to conclusions. Copies can be obtained by writing to John Slaney, c/o the Automated Reasoning Project, Australian National University, Canberra 2601 or through EMAIL on: JANET JKS $ARP.ANU.OZ @ UK.AC.UCL.CS.

    One university specifically rejected computerised logic after deciding it actually increased the workload for staff. One successful use of non-specific software (i.e. where programs are built up from scratch, using only a programming language such as BASIC, Pascal or PROLOG,) is one department's in-house logic program, written in Pascal. Several departments, using the sophisticated tools available for programming Apple Mac computers (Hypercard) have started producing teaching texts for computer, as well as programs enabling computer-illiterate staff to produce their own materials.

    Most departments, in practice, have only introduced computers for word-processing; and often, even then, only as part of an overall university program.

    5. Modularisation

    Modularisation is already well advanced, with two-thirds of departments surveyed either in the process of, or already modularised. Only three departments said neither they, nor their institution, were modularising.

    Extent of modularisation Figure 6: Extent of modularisation

    Feelings were a mixture of phlegmatic acceptance, and actual concern. Concern, for example, that modularisation:

    • was destroying developmental notions of courses, and coherence was being lost
    •  
    • was causing courses to be excessively tailored to students, with 'trickier bits' being dropped
    •  
    • meant students as customers 'were always right'and consequently students were not having their views challenged through the course
    •  
    • was an attempt to substitute training for education
    •  
    • was two year degrees 'by the back door'
    •  
    • penalised slow starters, such as were typical of philosophy students, who generally have not done any of the subject before Higher Education.
    •  

    Over half the modularising departments were opposed to at least some aspects of modularisation, with the majority of these concerned about the coherence and 'links' of the new courses. Of the remainder, most accepted the changes as simply inevitable, whilst 10% of departments felt modularisation to be a positive development:

    • giving more control over courses
    •  
    • meaning more students would do more philosophy.
    •  


    Created on: April 17th 2007

    Updated on: June 29th 2007