Algunos aspectos teóricos y metodológicos

Policies that precipitated the advent of HE in FE becoming a more recognised HE provider, e.g. Dearing Report (1997) etc., have been discussed previously (see section 1.4). As a consequence of the emergence of HE in FE, early literature perhaps inevitably reported how partnerships between colleges and universities were taking shape in the newly drawn landscape of HE in FE. In concert with this, HEFCE and the QAA published a series of guides to support colleges with their HE provision. This was in part to recognise their role in providing HE, and in part to ensure FECs were providing comparable standards of HE. Most recently, these publications have been orientated towards guidance for FECs seeking to gain FDAP, illustrating how far HE in FE has come and how much it has developed since Dearing. Prior to guidance on FDAP the orientation of guidance was arguably more broad. Within

Supporting higher education in further education colleges: a guide for tutors and

Lecturers (HEFCE, 2003), information and guidance regarding: i) The context for

higher education in further education; ii) Developing higher level skills; iii) Curriculum development; iv) Assessment; v) Marketing and recruitment; vi) Academic advice and support: the student life-cycle; vii) Working in partnership; viii) Management and planning; ix) Staffing and staff development; and x) Quality assurance and enhancement was provided. Within a collection of ‘good practice’ FE college case studies the report emphasised the need to support ‘higher-level skills’ for HE students, but omitted to include what these were and what classroom practices might be adopted in order to do this. Whilst expressing the imperative that “clear efforts must then be made to offer the step from FE to HE” (HEFCE, 2003, p.6) with teachers’ “facilitating the gradual transition to more independent learning” (ibid. p.6), no articulation of practice was presented. Whilst it did not mention pedagogy per se, it did implicitly signal that there was a ‘step’, i.e. a difference between FE and HE and

it did mention developing independent learning and critical thinking, but not how to achieve this and not how to do so within an FE context.

HE in FE continued to be subject to greater interest and regulatory scrutiny following HEFCE’s Request for higher education strategies from further education colleges (HEFCE 2009a) whereby all colleges offering HE were required to submit a strategic plan. Specifically, HEFCE declared how they expected colleges to be “more strategic about their HE to enhance and strengthen their provision. Although much of HE in FECs is very successful, there is undoubtedly some provision that has not been planned as strategically as it might have been and is not well connected to progression opportunities” (p.3). They detailed how colleges would need to include information regarding “continuing professional development; scholarly activity; resourcing of staff, facilities, equipment and learning materials; curriculum development” (p.4). This specifically raised the issue of the need for scholarship within HE in FE.

This was swiftly followed (May 2009) by a further HEFCE report – Supporting Higher

Education in Further Education Colleges. Policy, practice and prospects (HEFCE,

2009b). Essentially an updated and expanded version of their 2003 report (Supporting higher education in further education colleges: a guide for tutors and

Lecturers), the 231-page document included a number of good practice case studies

from colleges and broad coverage about policy and course development. Brief mentions about teaching HE included the need for HE in FE course teams to establish “a consensus on the characteristics of higher level skills, and approaches to teaching them” (p.26). It further advocated the need for students to develop critical analysis skills as an independent learner. No detail was included regarding how these ideals might be enacted. Interestingly, and in concert with other commentators, the report did caution about the “close contact with staff teaching on HE programmes

in an FEC is a great support to students, but it can be a disadvantage if they have not also learned to be independent learners” (p.153). The recurring theme in all of these publications did perhaps echo other emerging concerns from commentators about the challenges of delivering HE in an FEC. For example, Creasy (2013) published a peer-reviewed paper – HE lite: exploring the problematic position of HE

in FECs – arguing that FE was not necessarily best placed to deliver HE. Not based

on any primary data from the field, Creasy (2013) cited a number of papers contending that “HE staff within FECs do not necessarily engage with HE teaching practices” (p.49), resulting in the HE within FE being diminished and of reduced quality.

A large scale Department for Business, Innovation and Skills government report (authored by Parry et al., 2012) - Understanding Higher Education in Further

Education Colleges – was significant in that it attempted to provide an all

encompassing review of HE in FE in its entirety. Including data from interviews with teachers and students, and a range of college case studies, it covered a range of aspects including HE in FE context, policy, widening participation, funding, contracts and teaching hours. Whilst comprehensive, it did not particularly reveal anything hitherto unknown. However, data from a student focus group revealed how students expressed a ‘dilemma’ being in a college environment. Whilst the small groups and personal attention from tutors was viewed positively, concern for the HE in FE environment as being one where tutors “spoon fed” (p.122) students was also raised.

Whilst HE in FE continued to be generally positively received as being a vehicle for social mobililty and inclusion, issues concerning the nature of the teacher and student relationship, teaching approaches and the college culture began to surface in the literature (see inter alia Lea and Simmons, 2012; Fenge, 2011). These are discussed presently.

More recent publications from the QAA concern how FECs might gain FDAP. In the light of changes to the sector where a number of large ‘super colleges’ have become established (often as a result of merging/taking over smaller competitors), some colleges are seeking to break away from a validating university partner. Following the The Further Education and Training Bill (2006) whereby the process of gaining such powers became more simplified (and was encouraged as a means of creating a more ‘diverse HE market’), some FECs have pursued this. The QAA’s (2013)

Guidance on scholarship and the pedagogical effectiveness of staff: Expectations for

Foundation Degree-awarding powers and for taught degree-awarding powers, is

clear about the requirement for colleges to have robust teaching and pedagogy policies in place if they are to be successful in gaining FDAP. The guidance confirmed how all teaching staff engaged with the delivery of their higher education programmes must have “relevant knowledge and understanding of current scholarly developments in their discipline area and at a level appropriate to a Foundation Degree and that such knowledge and understanding directly inform and enhance their teaching” (p.2). Significantly this knowledge of HE should be such that it was able to “distinguish[ing] higher education from training or the acquisition of skills alone” (ibid.) Pedagogical effectiveness was bound up with notions of scholarly activity, i.e. studying for higher degrees, publishing, commercial consultancy etc. Whilst the report did not advocate particular pedagogic practices for HE, it signaled a further move to emphasise the distinction between FE and HE and the need for HE teaching to be something more than ‘higher skills’. Further it reiterated the imperative for scholarship to be seen as an integral part of HE within colleges. Given some of the criticism levelled at HE in FE regarding the way in which scholarship was being embraced (or not) in HE in FE, this publication also signals the changing status of HE in FE from that of junior partner to, in the cases of the large ‘super colleges’, an independent provider free to provide and award HE qualifications without the fetters

Finally, The QAA (2015) published a guidance document – College Higher Education

Toolkit: Engaging with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education – primarily for

colleges to benchmark against in terms of meeting the requirements of the QAA Quality Code. Featuring brief ‘good practice’ examples from colleges concerning the creation of an HE ethos, it recommended that “enhancing the research abilities of college staff is likely to have a positive impact on their teaching and helps to develop a higher education ethos among staff and students” (p.34). It further advocated “developing web-based teaching resources tailored specifically to support the development of higher education teaching practices” (p.40).