1.- ADOLESCENCIA E INSTITUCIONALIZACIÓN

Though largely overlooked in SE research, the sociocultural influences that originate in the political and social environment where teaching and learning takes place, are critical to understandings of SE (Kahu, 2013). The Kahu (2013) framework addresses this oversight by embedding SE in the political and social environment (See Figure 7). In this section of the results and discussion chapter, NWU tutor views on the sociocultural influences that originate from within this environment are discussed.

121 4.2.1 Marketisation

Since the 1960s, the policies of successive governments, informed by a neoliberal ideology, have transformed the landscape of UK HE through the marketisation, consumerisation and managerialisation of the HE sector. Once an elite system in which less than 15% of the eligible population participated (Trow, 1973), UK HE is now a mass system in which, in 2015/16, an estimated 49%¹ of the eligible population were deemed likely to participate (DfE, 2017). The positioning of university as ‘a rite of passage’ is not new or commonplace and has been discussed in tandem with matters concerning ‘educational credentialism’ and ‘credentialism’, that is to say the increasing demand for educational qualifications (Bills and Brown, 2011:2;

Cusano et al. 2018). However, the potential devaluing of the undergraduate degree qualification as a consequence of increasing numbers of graduates is discussed in only one interview.

1 The Higher Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR) is an estimate of the likelihood of a young person participating in Higher Education by age 30, based on current participation rates (DfE, 2017)

Figure 7 Sociocultural influences (Kahu, 2013)

122

Several tutors blame marketisation for the increasing, and in isolated cases, unsustainable student numbers on programmes. T20, for example, attributes the responsibility for increasing student numbers and a consequent societal expectation that most school leavers will go to university, to the policies of a previous Labour Government. The contribution to increasing student numbers of government efforts to widen participation in HE however, is not mentioned in any of the interviews conducted. Furthermore, only one tutor used the term ‘widening participation’ (WP) when articulating their erroneous assumption that a WP student is a student with a BTEC qualification.

Students rather than the UK taxpayer are now liable for the increasing costs of their higher education. An English graduate in 2015 would have left university with around £44,000 in student debt, significantly more than the £26,000 debt a 2014 English graduate accrued (Vigurs et al. 2016). The removal of the cap on university tuition fees has engendered a

‘consumerist ethos’ amongst students (Kandiko and Mawer, 2013) who see themselves as consumers in a higher education market, assessing and evaluating their course of study in terms of ‘satisfaction’ (Maringe and Sing, 2014).

T15 described HE as “a marketised system” in which “the buyer has to have as much power as the seller”. This shift in power from the tutor to the student according to T15 makes it difficult to get students

“to do what they’re supposed to do and getting them through the course [with]

good honours”.

There is a suggestion in this comment that attempts, through marketisation, to commodify, and transform HE into ‘a visible, quantifiable and instrumentally driven process’ (Furedi, 2010:2) might be working.

There is a weight of evidence amongst participants concerning the perceived negative consequences of increasing references to students as customers at NWU. T20 spoke for many when she said,

“I don’t like the word customer. I think, and unfortunately, it is creating that culture, that they feel that when something they don’t like is given them, they want you to change it.” (T20)

123

T4 referred to the more negative connotations of the notion of the student as a customer of the institution noting it was an “impoverished” but “available” source of student empowerment in HEIs.

“I don’t want to see our students as customers in order to validate them. I want to try to give them more than that and that’s more difficult to get a handle on isn’t it?” (T4)

T8’s comment reflects a perceived, potentially divisive aspect of tuition fees among NWA tutors.

“……..the moment people pay for something they will tend to be instrumental and find fault with it” (T8).

As Kandiko and Mawer (2013) suggest, students want to know where their tuition fees are spent and how this adds to the quality and value of their degree. Reflecting this view T15 suggested that fee-paying students question what it is that they are paying for and complain when their emails are not responded to within 24 hours. Students are concerned about the value of their educational experience and the value of the expected return on their substantial investment (Kandiko and Mawer, 2013). However, according to T12

“……paying £9k doesn’t mean they get a first…..it’s not a transaction on eBay or Amazon”.

As discussed in section 2.3.3.3, the view that one is indebted academic success rather than having to earn it, is the focus of research into ‘academic entitlement’ (Boswell, 2012; Morrow, 1994) that pre-dates the introduction of tuition fees. The valuing of achievement rather than learning is however associated by Molesworth et al. (2009) with the marketisation of HE.

Optional work-based learning units that have an ‘in-employment’ enrolment prerequisite feature in the curriculum of many NWU courses. This demonstrates an acknowledgment by NWU that many of their students are likely to have to work alongside their studies in order to meet their living costs. However, T15 expresses the frustration some tutors feel about students “….trying to slot us in around their part time work”. T15’s comment suggests not only a lack of empathy but also a lack of awareness among NWU tutors of the factors that have given rise to this situation. This is concerning as students from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to have financial concerns that increase throughout their course

124

of study and, particularly in the final year of study, are more likely to be in paid employment during term time (Cooke et al, 2004). As noted above, NWU increased its intake of disadvantaged students by 330 between 2009/10 and 2014/15 (SMF, 2016), although as also noted, it is unclear whether NWU provides tutors with access to this information. This raises questions over the amount of information tutors have about their students and if and how they accommodate students’ individual needs in their teaching. This will be discussed further below.

4.2.2 Research assessment

An HEI’s performance in the government’s assessment of research can determine the amount of research funding it is awarded and its rankings in publicly available league tables. An individual tutor’s timetable allowances and research related deadlines are likely to determine whether they view research as diverting attention away from teaching, or teaching as diverting attention away from research. T5, a Senior Learning and Teaching Fellow questioned the relevance of university rankings based on REF outcomes, to undergraduates who have come to the university to be taught. This perspective, which is not widely shared amongst the tutors interviewed, might be indicative of different levels of understanding and appreciation of research between research focused and teaching focused tutors. It may also reflect the views of a tutor who identifies as a teacher first and researcher second. What is clear however is that an institution’s overall performance in both teaching and research are amongst the determinants of its position in various publicly available league tables, which potentially influence prospective applicant perceptions of the institution. This is particularly the case in international markets where league tables may provide the key or only independent UK HEI evaluation criteria.

4.2.3 Student satisfaction

The National Student Survey (NSS), which is now the responsibility of the Office for Students, aims to provide prospective students with data to inform their study choices. An institution’s performance in the NSS is potentially amongst the determinants of its position in a number of publicly available league tables. NSS scores, at the time the interviews for this research were conducted, were based on final year undergraduate student perceptions of the teaching, assessment and feedback, academic support, organisation and management,

125

learning resources, and personal development they experienced during their course of study.

Although the representativeness and reliability of NSS data is challenged in the literature (Cheng and Marsh, 2010; Porter, 2011), and by a small number of the tutors interviewed in this research, some of the actions of NWU are perceived by tutors to be informed by institutional concerns over future NSS performance and NSS data published. T4 suggests that the NSS provides a “partial picture” and T9 that it lacks “statistical rigour”. A further weakness of the NSS according to T4 is that it does not provide individual student data for analysis purposes. The institution in the view of T9 lacks the confidence to dismiss the feedback the NSS provides. Although the level of institutional emphasis on the NSS differs throughout the academic year, the following comment illustrates the effects felt by tutors during the assessment period when the interviews for this research were being conducted.

“We forget why we are there…..what we’ve got to do is pass [them], so we just go in, do our thing, get them all passed in any shape or form……we get ground down with all that type of thing” (T12).

T12 also expressed the view that the focus on SATS tests at her son’s primary school was similar to the focus on the NSS at NWU, and that neither were necessarily driving improvements in teaching and learning.

4.2.4 Section summary

The limited discussion across the tutor interviews of matters relating to the sociocultural context of SE suggests it may be overlooked in practice as well as in the SE research (Kahu, 2013). Tutors who refer albeit cursorily to the influence of government policy were mainly those with course management responsibilities and therefore more likely to be involved in conversations concerning institutional policy responses. Whilst tuition fees, widening participation and the NSS, all instruments of the government, are highly influential in UK HE, they feature in only seven interviews. The student as customer personification is seen as problematic for engagement particularly insofar as the attempts to impose engagement-related behaviours on paying customers are concerned. NSS data are seen as questionably representative, lacking statistical rigour, and in certain aspects, morality aside, easily responded to, for example good honours.

126

A primary focus in many of the interviews is the perceived impact on tutors workload and teaching, of the institutional responses to government policy rather than the policies themselves. These matters are discussed and analysed below.