Learning Cultures in Further Education

Hodkinson, Phil; Anderson, Graham; Colley, Helen; Davies, J. Chris; Diment, Kim; Scaife, Tony; Tedder, Mike; Wahlberg, Madeleine; Wheeler, Eunice

doi:10.1080/00131910701619290

Cited by 30 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our thinking does not invalidate the latter, but allows teacher inputs to be seen as but one part of a complex cultural whole. Our research in English Further Education also suggested that learning is more likely to be effective if many of the forces that interact in the field of a learning culture are acting broadly in synergy, and that learning is less likely to be effective where the learning culture is marked by dysfunctional conflicts and tensions (Hodkinson et al 2007). Thus, where the concern is with promoting effective learning, changing the learning culture, including its social and institutional dimensions, in ways likely to increase synergy could be very profitable, but this is an almost completely neglected approach.…”

Section: Different and Better Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, each factor was influenced by the others, and it was the relations between them that influenced learning. One result was that practices and understandings of learning proved to be very different from one site to another, for the relations between these influences differed significantly between them (see Hodkinson et al 2007, for a fuller discussion of this issue, together with an identification of some common cultural influences across English Further Education as a whole). Here, we do not have space to present the evidence from that study which underpins many of out arguments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding Learning Culturally: Overcoming the Dualism Between Social and Individual Views of Learning

Hodkinson

Biesta

James

2008

Vocations and Learning

Self Cite

305

267

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper identifies limitations within the current literature on understanding learning. Overcoming these limitations entails replacing dualist views of learning as either individual or social, by using a theory of learning cultures and a cultural theory of learning, which articulate with each other. To do this, we argue that it is possible and indeed necessary to combine major elements of participatory or situated views of learning with elements of Deweyan embodied construction. Bourdieu's concepts of habitus and field are used to achieve this purpose, together with the use of 'becoming' as a metaphor to help understand learning more holistically. This theorizing has a predominantly heuristic purpose, and we argue that it enables researchers to better explain data. We also suggest that a cultural approach of the sort proposed here leads toward the asking of better questions about learning and its improvement and has high practical significance.

show abstract

Section: Different and Better Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Learning Culturally: Overcoming the Dualism Between Social and Individual Views of Learning

Hodkinson

Biesta

James

2008

Vocations and Learning

Self Cite

305

267

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(e.g. Hodkinson 2005aHodkinson , 2005bHodkinson et al 2007). Narrow definitions of quality, set within targets and Performance Indicators (PIs) by Ofsted and LSC, it is argued, had continued to restrict lecturers' performance and effectiveness, and the one-size-fits-all view of what works, allied to measures of retention and achievement, had been inadequate for improving teaching and learning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observation of teaching and learning: teacher development or micropolitics and neo-Fordism

Boocock

2013

Journal of Further and Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethnographic research in a further education college (College X) between 2000 and 2005 was designed to uncover the impact of the Common Inspection Framework (the inspection framework for all post-16 non-higher education and training) on the Observation of Teaching and Learning (OTL) process within the college. Such research indicated that the assumption of narrow pedagogies by observers of teaching, in line with the expectations of the college observation policy, had minimised the effectiveness of the process because it caused OTL to become neo-Fordist and micropolitical in nature rather than a means for lecturer development. This was the product of top-down policy and procedure within College X, but also an over-controlling local Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and Ofsted inspection framework which limited the extent to which senior managers were able to accommodate different learning contexts within the OTL process. The clear implication of research in College X was that improvements in teaching and learning require inspection and observation processes to focus on subject-specific pedagogy and professional values rather than bureaucratic procedures and narrow pedagogies.

show abstract

“…Hodkinson, 2005b, Hodkinson et al, 2007 suggests that current Coalition policy (as with New Labour's before it) is unlikely to succeed at improving student learning because learning is a social process rather than something which can be mandated from above. To improve teaching and learning, it is argued, will require lecturer autonomy and opportunities for professional development rather than topdown policy premised on the assumption of agent self-interest.…”

Section: Network In the Fe Sectormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hodkinson, 2005a, 2005b, Hodkinson et al, 2007. The audit culture created by Ofsted and LSC, focused on quantitative measures of success, and sustained by managerialist approaches, was accused of undermining the morale of lecturers because of the constant need to defend the existing 'learning culture' against change (in the shape of reorganisations, mergers and funding) driven by the need to improve performance indicators for survival within the FE quasi-market.…”

Section: The Impact Of the Balance Of Rational Goals And Self-governamentioning

confidence: 99%

Knaves, knights or networks: which assumption of lecturer and manager motivation should underlie further education policy?

Boocock

2015

Research in Post-Compulsory Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Julian Le Grand, a well-known economist, identifies two types of public sector employee: Knights (with altruistic motives) and Knaves (with self-interested motives). He argues that the quasi-market, predicated on the assumption of knavish behaviour (or agent self-interest), is the most effective way of directing school managers and teachers towards improving education outputs at lower unit cost. In this article a review of the literature on the English post-incorporation FE quasi-market is undertaken [under the Conservative government (1993), New Labour (1997 and the Coalition government (2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)] to assess if such a premise is correct. The conclusion from the review is that an over focus on policy, premised on agent self-interest, has limited improvements in the quality of education outputs and needs-based equity for disadvantaged students because such policy marginalises other motivational (Osterloh, Frey, and Frost, 2001). This article reviews the FE literature to assess the extent to which the assumption of agent selfinterest underlying FE policy has been effective in improving the quality of education outputs in FE in line with the human capital requirements of business and needs-based equity for disadvantaged students. The key conclusion is that the governance of post-incorporation FE Colleges, under the Conservative administration, New Labour and the current Coalition government, has over emphasised agent self-interest as a key motivator, at the expense of motivational inputs of productive value such as lecturer intrinsic motivation and professional values. This, a significant body of research on FE suggests (e.g. Hodkinson, 1997;Avis et al., 2001;Gleeson and James, 2007;James and Biesta, 2007) has been to the detriment of the skills agenda, but also needs-based equity for disadvantaged learners. Such a notion of fairness would require education policy to be egalitarian; in particular to direct lecturer and manager effort towards the most disadvantaged in society from lower socio-economic groups or with learning difficulties (Crump, 1994, p. 2, cited in Gerwitz et al., 1995.A significant FE literature also suggests (e.g. Coffield et al., 2008;Hodgson and Spours, 2009) that to more effectively utilise the productive potential of intrinsic motivation and professional values, in line with the skills agenda and needs-based equity, a more trusting form of governance is required; in particular a shift in the nature of governance from hierarchy (involving regulation of processes through government imposed standards) to open systems (devolution to those on the ground) and from rational goals (targets, PIs and the monitoring of outputs) to self-governance (improving agent commitment through capacity building, training and development) (Newman, 2001).

show abstract

Learning Cultures in Further Education

Cited by 30 publications

References 11 publications

Understanding Learning Culturally: Overcoming the Dualism Between Social and Individual Views of Learning

Understanding Learning Culturally: Overcoming the Dualism Between Social and Individual Views of Learning

Observation of teaching and learning: teacher development or micropolitics and neo-Fordism

Knaves, knights or networks: which assumption of lecturer and manager motivation should underlie further education policy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About