CAPACIDADES DE IMAGEN Y VIDEO

In my interviews with the four institutional managers (IM 1 - 4), two reasons were given for the introduction of SI in the college. On one level it was introduced to increase retention and achievement in the college and at another level it was introduced as part of, as one manager described it, “a fundamental initiative to rediscover learning within the college”(IM3). In relation to this second level, there appeared to be disagreement not only about Si’s role but also the desirability of the

college’s approach in ‘rediscovering learning’. The link between these two levels is that both are ways of increasing the cost-effectiveness of supporting students in their learning.

Improving the retention and achievement of students was, and is, a major issue for the college. The F.E.F.C, based on the achievement and retention figures for 1994-5, recommended that the college should “address the problems of poor attendance and retention in some areas . . . (and) improve examination results” (F.E.F.C. 1996 p.25 paragraph 90). Three out of the four managers, directly or indirectly, mentioned Si’s6 purpose as being to increase retention and achievement in the college.

“ One of the reasons I think we chose Peer Support was because it looked like it could improve, significantly improve, achievement rates on academic courses.” (IM4)

“Peer Support is there to aid their (students’) learning and offer additionality to the learning delivered by the instructors and lecturers. Probably also helps the people leading the group as well, there’s a bonus for them, possibly some financial but also aiding their CV’s and so on and their experiences and

ultimately to improve pass rates and r e te n tio n(IM 1, emphasis added) “If it (Peer Support) is a cost effective way of improving student learning, if you can measure that in terms of students staying on courses, students achieving better, then I would see it as a long term programme . . . I think if your talking about whether it’s here long term, you’ve got to be talking financially. That really does mean what impact does it have on retention and achievement, possibly recruitment, you might say that if it were a clear feature of the college, if students were choosing it because of that. But certainly retention and achievement. Because that’s where the money is coming from, you’ve got to be doing the simple equation o f costs of doing it against the results you’re achieving. It’s got to be that really.” (IM2)

As well as SI being introduced to increase retention and improve achievement, it was also introduced as part of an attempt to change the approach taken in the college to the promotion of students’ learning. The role of teaching staff was changing, and has continued to change, from that of traditional teachers to that of managers of the teaching and learning process (F.E.F.C. 1996, Paragraphs 31 and 78). This has meant

that the teacher’s role is to design the range of experiences that students will meet on their course, but it is no longer always their job to deliver these experiences. When they do deliver these learning experiences there has been pressure from above for them to be less didactic in their teaching and to act more as facilitators.

To promote these changes, as well as to reduce costs, there has been a reduction in taught hours on courses and an increase in the role that instructors, study coaches, and other support services have played in students learning. This attempt at change in approach was mentioned by all four of the interviewees. However, there was disagreement not only about the role of SI in promoting this change but also about the desirability of the change itself.

Two of the managers were clearly in favour of changes in the approach to promoting learning in the college. They saw the role of the SI leader as a model for the role that teachers should play within this new approach to the promotion of learning (However, I show in Section 6.5 that these managers attached different meanings to the word Teaming’).

“Ultimately if we’re looking at a learning experience, the best I’ve ever seen, I don’t think there would be a difference between whether they were a Peer Supporter or a lecturer. I think the role is the same. They’re helping learners learn. I don’t think there is a difference. You should be bringing it out of the learners not trying to pour it into the learner. So ultimately I’d like our lecturers to become more like Peer Supporters . . . I think the lecturer needs to be more of a facilitator of knowledge” (IM1).

“Peer Support which is focused on the process is actually part of that rediscovery, in fact, I think that’s one of the key things to be done is the rediscovery of how learning takes place. I don’t think that we have teachers who are skilled in learning . . . It is also beginning to undermine the institutional status of teachers. We have too many teachers who do too much of the wrong thing in teaching . . . A large part of this institution is rooted in the ‘60s and ‘70s technical college culture in the vocational areas. In the broad humanities areas it’s still stuck in a very liberal, general studies type culture. There is a sort of ideal type, a purist type, of these 2 positions. Vocational specialists, this is a crude caricature, who think ‘these are the

6 In their interviews the managers refer to Peer Support, rather than SI, and PSers, rather than SI