Take a tour through our “Gallery of Multipotentialites”…

Throughout history, there have been a number of well-known individuals who have applied a multi-subject, and/or interdisciplinary approach to their work. Our ‘Gallery of Multipotentialites’ showcases a range of people throughout history who have been involved with interdisciplinary study.

Click on each of the pictures below to find out more about these incredible individuals, or you can download a copy of our Gallery Guide which was produced for our OU50 celebration event in May 2019.

What is a “multipotentialite”?

The term ‘multipotentialite’, coined by Emilie Wapnick, the founder and Creative Director of Puttylike, is one way to describe someone with many interests and creative pursuits. Multipotentialites tend to need variety in their lives, but how much variety depends on the individual. Multi-subject study can therefore help satisfy the need for variety which multipotentialites tend to have, and is something that we have encouraged students to consider through our free, badged open course, Multidisciplinary study: the value and benefits, available on the OU’s free learning platform, OpenLearn.

The original artwork displayed in the gallery was designed and produced by Claire Stringer and Holly Langley from More than Minutes for an animation that is included in the badged open course, with direction and guidance from the Open Programme Student and Engagement Manager, Rehana Awan.

Student guest blog: My student journey

Sarah Andrews is a student on the BA/BSc (Hons) Open degree focusing on mathematics and education related modules . She currently works as a Project Coordinator at the University of Brighton and her interests lie in Widening Participation and Outreach. Sarah was part of the Open Programme’s Student Shadowing Scheme after a successful submission detailing her interest in collaborating with Rehana Awan (Student Communications and Engagement Manager) to co-deliver a workshop at the Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching Conference at Keele University in April 2019. 

I am what is known today as a ‘First in Family’ or ‘low income background’ student, who grew up in an area with low progression to Higher Education. Back in 2002 (with little guidance as to ‘why’; only that I ‘should’) I applied to university through Clearing and was offered a place studying History of Art at the University of Sussex. I had little guidance or aspiration about careers, and like many selected the subject based on what I had most enjoyed at college. As a fairly academically able student, I had enjoyed and engaged with most of my subjects through my time at school, but there was no one clear pathway ahead of me, and after about a year a combination of dwindling interest in my modules, mounting debt and lack of vision about where my degree might take me led me to drop out. It wasn’t that I wasn’t academically capable, but that I couldn’t engage with the content, and, rather crucially, couldn’t picture myself as someone working in the few careers I’d heard it might lead to.

Over the next ten years or so I worked in a variety of unskilled roles, eventually working for North Lincolnshire Council’s education team, and then STEM Sussex at the University of Brighton, who run several different outreach projects to engage young people with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. It was at STEM Sussex that I started working on a number of projects with students less likely to progress to higher education and skilled careers, and discovered that this was something that really gave me purpose and meaning; despite (or perhaps, because) of the ‘glass ceiling’ I was starting to encounter due to my lack of degree level qualification. Around the same time, my line manager asked me, fatefully, ‘have you ever thought about doing a degree?’.

I began to investigate the options open to me, but going to a ‘brick’ university didn’t seem quite right. I couldn’t find just the right course, and I didn’t want to be tied down to attending lectures on particular days when my employment could potentially change. Thankfully I stumbled across an advert for the Open University and had a ‘lightbulb moment’ in realising I could get a student loan and study in my own time, and began to explore the course options open to me. Initially I knew I wanted to do something around young people, but wasn’t quite sure what, and none of the named degree options seemed quite right to me; the focus was either on teaching, social care or early years, none of which fit with my experience of the diverse roles available in extra-curricular and support services for education and schools. Luckily for me, the Open University also offer their Open Degree, and it’s this that I started to explore in greater depth.

The Open Degree is a named degree in its own right; it is well established[1] and carefully structured[2]. I was reassured and encouraged by the course outcomes which focus on development of a qualification that suits the student’s personal and professional needs and aspirations, and realised that with careful thought I could come up with a degree pathway that would be both personally engaging and relevant, and started to build my own bespoke course.

Throughout my life, I have been described by teachers and managers as organised and conscientious, so it’s no surprise that I approached the planning of my degree in a methodical way; there is nothing accidental or coincidental about my plan. I considered several factors including my goals in studying, the skills needed for potential future jobs (none of which included a specific named degree), my personal strengths, and of course my interests. Starting with four main subject areas (education, science, social science and statistics) I looked at all the modules that interested me and seemed relevant and pulled together several possible pathways in each; then over the course of a couple of weeks gradually whittled it down to a pathway that I could see myself completing. This turned out to be the social and policy aspects of education and youth, combined with statistics, which is highly relevant to work in the higher education sector and a transferable skill which will add a great deal to my employability[3].

I’m now half way through my degree, and it has flown past! I have completed modules which have been varied, fascinating and challenging in equal measure. My learning has directly linked to my career path; supporting a secondment within the Widening Participation team at the University of Brighton. I am now working part time in the two teams, on projects which are meaningful and rewarding to me and directly relevant to my studies, for example in development of additional support for less confident students participating in a social mobility driven STEM summer placement programme, and a transitional summer school for mature students starting at the University; both of which are driven by data and evaluation.

Looking forward to the future, I am looking forward to completing challenging, but rewarding modules in statistics, before progressing to my final module, Issues in research with children and young people. I intend to graduate with a 2:1 or above in a degree that is both highly specialised to my current career path and highly flexible to suit many other areas (should I need to change in the future), having developed both in-depth academic knowledge in my chosen area and core aptitudes valued by employers[4].  As with many OU students, the study bug has well and truly bitten; I’m already researching Masters courses I might be able to progress to.

In summary; the Open Degree programme at the Open University has enabled me to build a bespoke degree that interests me and makes sense to my career path, as well as being highly transferable. This has encouraged my full engagement with the course, my satisfaction with the University and degree programme, and my employability once I graduate.

Footnotes:

[1] The “Open degree” was the first qualification to be offered by the OU when the University was first established and is the most commonly awarded undergraduate degree in the OU, with 18.5% of undergraduate honours degrees awarded in 2016/17 and nearly a quarter of a million alumni having graduated with an Open degree since it was first introduced. It is a mature and popular degree that is recognised to be of value by both students and employers.

[2] Students are asked to study one of a number of specified key introductory modules designed to develop base subject knowledge and study skills, and 120 credits in each of stages 1, 2 and 3.  A number of suggested pathways are given, or support is available to structure a degree according to your interests. While the Open University does not have initial entry requirements, each module gives clear guidance in regards to entry or prior knowledge needed for successful study.

[3] The UK Employer Skills Survey 2017 highlighted complex analytical skills, including problem solving and numerical/statistical analysis, as one of the most prevalent skills shortages in the labour market. See Department for Education (2018) Employer Skills Survey 2017 [online]. (Accessed 22 March 2019).

[4] The Pearson and CBI Skills Survey 2015 shows that having the right attitudes and aptitudes is by far the most important consideration when businesses are recruiting graduates – nearly nine in ten employers (89%) value these above other factors such as degree subject (62%).

Student guest blog: If I CAN, you can…

On 28 May 2019, BA/BSc (Hons) Open degree student, OU Ambassador and YouTube vlogger, Finlay Games, attend the Jisc Change Agents Network Conference (CAN), hosted by the OU as part of his Student Shadowing experience with the Open Programme. CAN is a network for staff and students working in partnership to support curriculum enhancement and innovation. Finn expressed an interest in exploring the use of social media on the Open Programme in his student shadowing application and was keen to build on his existing skills in this area.

In the first of our student-focused blog posts as part of our OU50 Open Programme celebrations, we follow Finn on his journey throughout a very fun-packed and inspirational day (for everyone involved!). Read on to find out more…

Finn started the day with interviewing Dr Liz Marr (Acting PVC Students) who shared her experience of grief and mental wellbeing in an open and candid interview. He also caught up with keynote speakers Ruby Granger (Studytuber), writer Julian Stodd and Cath Brown (OU Students Association President). He used the interviews and pieces to camera to create the following three vlogs, which were then uploaded to his YouTube channel, FinnTheInvincible, and shared across the Open University social media channels, including the Open Programme’s Twitter account (@OU_OpenDegree).

The videos give a great behind-the-scenes view of the CAN conference, an insight into the Open University campus at Walton Hall and access to some of the team who support the Open Programme.

Have your tissues ready, it gets a little emotional! 🙂

Part one:

Part two:

Part three:

Open as in choice

Photo of Martin WellerWe are delighted that Professor Martin Weller has been appointed as the new Chair of the Open Board of Studies in our 50th anniversary year!

Martin is Professor of Educational Technology with an interest in the application of new technology to academic practice, open education and digital scholarship. This post was originally published on Martin’s personal blog here

(Image made with Bryan Mathers’ Elemental Remixer Machine)

I’ve recently taken on a new role at the Open University, as the Chair of the Open Board of Studies. This means I’ve got responsibility for our Open Degree. When the OU was founded you could only get a BA(Open) – there were no named degrees. This was an explicit attempt by the OU’s founders to make an OU degree different not just in mode of study but in substance. Students constructed their own degree profiles, meaning our modules were truly modular, you could pick and mix as you saw fit. My colleagues Helen Cooke, Andy Lane and Peter Taylor give an excellent overview of the history, philosophy and approach of the open degree in this paper.

The OU’s first Vice-Chancellor put it like this:

a student is the best judge of what [s]he wishes to learn and that [s]he should be given the maximum freedom of choice consistent with a coherent overall pattern. They hold that this is doubly true when one is dealing with adults who, after years of experience of life, ought to be in a better position to judge what precise studies they wish to undertakeSure, most universities offer options and electives, but a truly flexible, open choice is very rare. Specialism is of course, a desirable mode of study in many areas. But the reasoning behind the original open choice was that the changes in society and work places in the 70s meant that a wide ranging degree was suitable for many vocations. If that was true at the founding of the OU, then it is doubly so now. While we should be sceptical of the “preparing students for jobs that don’t exist yet” claims, it’s fair to say that flexibility and breadth of understanding will be useful attributes in an evolving, digital economy. Let’s take my own area (field/discipline/rag tag bundle of vaguely connected ideas) of educational technology. You can create a degree programme that covers much of what you want, but actually it’s a varied domain, and half of the work involves having an understanding or appreciation of the demands of different subject areas. So a degree that has rich, and unpredictable, variety in it might well be exactly what you want for an educational technologist. And that is increasingly true for roles that evolve around tech, but are not necessarily TECH.

It is often claimed that in order to solve the complex, ‘wicked’ problems that the world faces, such as sustainability, climate change, social inclusion, then interdisciplinary thinking is required. But our degree profiles continue to prioritise narrow specialisms instead of encouraging students to develop knowledge and skills across a range of topics. This gives them empathy with other viewpoints and a broader toolkit of conceptual models.

Perhaps more significantly than the employment argument though is that constructing your own degree profile and taking responsibility for your pathway gives agency to learners. George Veletsianos asks “in education, what can be made more flexible?”, to which I would respond the whole degree structure.

Coming to this from a broader open education perspective, I see the work of OER, open textbooks, open access and MOOCs as laying the necessary groundwork for a wave of more interesting exploration around what open approaches offer. Open pedagogy and Open educational practice are examples of this. I would argue that although it is already 50 years old, the truly open choice of the OU is another one and it’s time has come round again.

“Sailing the choppy seas” into the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Rehana Awan is Student Communications and Engagement Manager in Curriculum Innovation, working primarily on designing and enhancing the student experience for Open Programme students and Associate Lecturer on the People, Work and Society Access module. Rehana is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA) and Fellow of the Staff and Educational Development Association (FSEDA).  This blog post originally appeared on Rehana’s personal blog available here

I have been talking about and referring to the 4th Industrial Revolution (4IR) or Industry 4.0 recently in meetings and presentations. I’ve been hearing the term a lot. I know it’s ‘a revolution that is changing the way we live, work and relate to each other’ (Schwab, 2016); but what does it really mean? Here is a bit of research as a starter-for-10; it’s related to my own environment of interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary (ID/MD) studies, as I believe this to be one the ships we should be boarding to sail the choppy seas into the 4IR.

This piece is not especially academic, it’s not particularly detailed, it may even be naïve and simplistic, but it’s enough as an introduction.

To start, a couple of definitions. The 4IR is an:

‘..intelligent, interconnected ecosystem’ (Wong, 2019)

and it is about:

New technologies bringing together the physical, digital and biological, cross-disciplines, economies and industries (Schwab, 2016)

The major technologies driving this revolution are:

  • artificial intelligence (AI)
  • precision medicine
  • robotics
  • mobile, cloud computing,
  • analytics,
  • automation,
  • the Internet of Things (IoT),
  • 3D printing,
  • autonomous robots, and augmented- and virtual reality (AR/VR)

According to the experts, the 4IR has the potential to:

  • reverse damage, particularly to the environment, from previous industrial revolutions through the way resources are managed
  • challenge what it means to be human
  • connect the world through digital networks
  • improve efficiency

But there are raises concerns and issues with the 4IR, like how it will:

  • create greater inequality
  • shift power
  • make governments, economies, countries unstable
  • break-up societies
  • mean some organisations might not be able to keep up or change
  • mean some governments might not be able to harness the developments or regulate them (e.g. issues of cyberspace security).

This significant technological change promised by Industry 4.0 ‘means that our systems of health, transportation, communication, production, distribution, and energy…will be completely transformed’ (Wong, 2019). My children’s school is telling them it’s not known what the jobs of the future will look like and according to a study carried out in the U.S by the Mckinsey Global Institute, they are right! Their study states that between 8-9% of jobs by 2030 will be in new occupations that won’t have existed before. (Manyika, 2017).

Even though they may not have existed before, there is a bit of an idea of what they might look like. The World Economics Forum (WEF), suggest that new occupations may exist in the fields of AI and robotics and in non-tech fields like sales and training (WEF, 2018). The McKinsey study supports this view and goes further to say that careers which care for the elderly (to manage an aging population), are in green technology and consumer goods and services may see growth and off-set job losses caused by the shift to automation (Manyika, 2017).

To chart these waters, manage this change and this new context of multinational and national cooperation, it’s argued we’ll need new frameworks and new models of education (Wong, 2019). Whilst upskilling and reskilling of workers will be needed, which employers will need to take responsibility for, individuals will also need to take ownership of their lifelong learning (the government will also need to support and empower individuals). One of these educational frameworks, the model of ID/MD studies, isn’t that new but might be a possible solution that can be developed further. ID/MD studies already addresses the drawing together of learning across boundaries to solve complex real-world problems. A raised awareness of the benefits and values of ID/MD studies, the ability to articulate these to employers and University qualifications supporting this might enable us to ‘collaborate across geographies, sectors and disciplines to grasp the opportunities it [4IR] presents’ (Schwab, 2016).

We’re starting to see this in some parts of the Higher Education sector, for example the London Interdisciplinary School is offering transdisciplinary courses across the arts and sciences which are partnered with paid work-placements. This isn’t new of course, The Open University (OU) has been doing this since its inception in 1969. It offers students the opportunity to select modules that are of interest to their needs, motivations and career aspirations, with many students already in employment. The OU’s largest degree programme is the Open Programme which enables students to ‘pick n’ mix’ their modules to create a personalised and individualised pathway. Society, governments and employers need to wake up to the possibilities this type of studies has for our future.

The 4IR means we are moving to a new era; whether we can capitalise on this and succeed depends on whether we (individuals, organisations, government, education and so on) can adapt in time…

Reference list

Manyika., J. (2017), Technology, jobs and the future of work, Executive briefing, Mckinsey Global Institute, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/technology-jobs-and-the-future-of-work

Shwab., K., (2018), Globalisation 4.0 What does it mean? https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/globalization-4-what-does-it-mean-how-it-will-benefit-everyone/

Wong., C. (2019), Industry 4.0 could create millions of new jobs, Futir ithmic, https://www.futurithmic.com/2019/02/13/industry-4-0-could-create-millions-new-jobs/?utm_source=ppc&utm_medium=googleads&utm_campaign=ind4jobs&utm_content=0001&gclid=CjwKCAjwue3nBRACEiwAkpZhmU3Qq13EErfYyg86-Ei7lbrbEta7cQHfRBQVmli7pdVamL6jrf-puBoCwlgQAvD_BwE

World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/about/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab

World Economic Forum, The Future of Jobs Report, 2018 http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf

Revisiting the “Kettle Plan”

Professor Peter Taylor is  the current Chair of the Open Board of Studies and Qualification Director for the BA/BSc (Hons) Open degree.

In July 1974, not long after my 21st birthday, the OU Senate agreed the “Kettle Plan” [1]. This was not a proposal to ensure that OU staff were never more than 20 metres from a means of boiling water but the equivalent of the OU’s current Curriculum Plan. Professor Arnold Kettle chaired the working group that put the proposals together and it provides a lens on the vision for the university in those early years.

Effectively, the Kettle Plan said that, based on the future size and resources of the OU, the number of ‘full credit equivalents’ (modules) produced by the university would be 87. However, you have to remember that the units are different here. A ‘full credit equivalent’ then was what we call a 60 credit module now. The fact that in 2017/18 there were 335 undergraduate modules and 119 postgraduate modules (a mix of half and full credit equivalents in old money) suggests we have long ago busted the plan set out in Professor Kettle’s report.

However, the important point is that the Kettle Plan promoted three types of course “that must have equal priority”:

a)  Foundation courses
b)  The more specialist or ‘intrinsic’ courses
c)  The more general, broadly-based course… “that don’t necessarily fit conveniently within any one discipline or even Faculty”, known as ‘U’ courses.

In fact, it was proposed that about 22 full credit equivalents (say 11 60-credit modules and 22 30-credit modules in new money), about 25% of the University’s output, should be produced.

The Kettle Plan goes on to argue that:

“Between the relative educational merits of the latter two types of course there is, as in all universities, a good deal of disagreement within the OU. Some people (students and academics) are suspicious of the broader courses fearing they can turn out to be superficial. Others are equally convinced that most conventional university degree patterns are greatly over specialised and that the OU neither can nor should compete in attempting to provide the more specialist type of degree”.

At the time, some argued that “U courses are bound to lower degree standards” [2] while others argued “the specialised ‘hons’ is a brontosaurus” [3].

Now, nearly 50 years later, there is little hint of broadly-based modules that “don’t necessarily fit conveniently within any one discipline or even Faculty” in the OU’s current curriculum portfolio. Our silo mentality, our inability to work out how to finance such modules and our need to defend and promote our disciplines has practically erased them from the face of the university.

Almost exactly 50 years ago, the Report of the Planning Committee to the Secretary of State for Education and Science stated:

“The degree of the Open University should, we consider, be a “general degree” in the sense that it would embrace studies over a range of subjects rather than be confined to a single narrow speciality.” [4]

Part of the driver for this was employability:

“Furthermore we are aware of the great need and demand in the country….for an extension of facilities for such general degrees… We have become accustomed to the idea that the career of an individual spans only one major technological phase: it is certain in the future that it will span two or even more such phases… The university will have an important role arising from the changes in, and increasing rate of change within modern technological society.” [4]

These employability messages don’t seem to have changed over 50 years and the Institute of Student Employers (2018) suggests that only 26% of employers focus on recruiting students from particular disciplinary backgrounds [5], yet over the years as a university we have still drifted down the path of specialisation.

Maybe we can’t buck market forces and so we have followed the crowd; but in doing so, we have lost a lot of our uniqueness and lost the vision of our Founding Fathers.

1) Undergraduate Course Provision, Council paper, The Open University, July 1974 (C/XLVII/15, see also Senate paper S/37/9)
1) Sesame, August 1974, p5
2) Sesame, December 1974, p5
3) Sesame, January/February 1975,  p13
4) Report of the Planning Committee to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, 1969, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London
5) Institute of Student Employers (2018), ISE Annual Student Recruitment Survey 2018: Trends, benchmarks and insights, ISE, London [Accessed 8 April 2019]