Category: EdD

Posted on

AI for academic writing – to plagiarise or not to plagiarise?

Artificial Intelligence (AI), notably Chat GPT, as a language model, can potentially be misused for plagiarism due to its ability to generate coherent and contextually relevant text. While it’s a powerful tool for various legitimate purposes, there is a risk that unethical users may employ it to produce content without proper attribution or originality.

This was my belief last summer when I flagged several final-year scripts for potential plagiarism for unethical use of Chat GPT. Jonathan, in his recent blog, refers to my explanation of why I suspected students’ use of AI because their work seemed too perfect.

By ‘perfect’, I meant, as I wrote in the paragraph above, ‘coherent and contextually relevant text’. Actually, I did not write that first paragraph (only!); rather, it was provided for me by Chat GPT. (I doubt I could have expressed so accurately the way I had felt about AI.)  So, have I committed plagiarism?

I become unsure when I turn for help to The Open University’s Plagiarism Policy:  Plagiarism is using, without acknowledgement, someone else’s words, ideas or work.   How far can we reasonably describe a robot as ‘someone else’? Was I unethical to use an expression I had commissioned framed? Would it have been less unethical if I had edited Chat GPT’s text, or acknowledged its use, or have supplemented the text Chat GPT provided with appropriately referenced academic sources – my students did?

Further, what of our writing is totally original in any case? Bakhtin ([1952-3]1994) tells us, “Each utterance is filled with the echoes and reverberations of other utterances” (page 291). We continually adapt and adopt snippets of text from elsewhere and present them as our own. It is acceptable to consult a dictionary, a thesaurus or a Google search to help us write that coherent and contextually relevant text. Jonathan, in his recent blog post, asks what all the fuss is about regarding AI, and I wonder, should we be making a fuss?

Jonathan cites “Can IT think?” by Philip Ball (2023), who argues that AI should be treated with great caution. and I have come across descriptions of widespread exploitation of AI  with dubious results, such as the use of a Chatbot as a therapist – but is employing AI to aid our academic writing unethical?

Returning to Chat GPT for inspiration, it continued to advise (or followed my instruction to do so) about the existence of Open AI, their research company, which states their belief that “AI should be an extension of individual human wills” – an extension, not a replacement, then for human endeavour. This approach seems to resonate with Simpson (2023), a clinical teaching fellow, who advocates reframing the way (medical) students think about AI “not as an academic shortcut but as more of a companion”.   I like the idea of “companion” – like a dictionary or thesaurus – I also appreciate the concept of “shortcut” as a contested one.

Might we ask, in our potentially fraught, busy, complex lives, why we should not look for shortcuts in our academic life besides our everyday existence? And how much of that endeavour that AI use shortcuts form part of a valued academic activity? It’s saving thinking and editing time and providing that springboard to develop discussion, as it has for me above. Daher (2023) in Will Chat GPT be the disrupter academia needs? seems to cautiously embrace AI as “the spark that will change education for the better“, a means to reframe what we value in academic writing and to turn our focus towards critically evaluating sources.

I do not understand that argument. Surely critical evaluation already forms a key part of being an academic. And I do value that time of thinking, crossing out, rewriting, checking and editing; it’s part of the process that makes writing my own. I’m not looking for shortcuts, and I don’t plan to continue to make significant use of AI in my own work. But I don’t now think using AI in academic writing is necessarily unethical, and how far it is plagiarism is a discussion we need to have.

Chat GPT finished the 200 words I’d requested with a bland reassurance:  Encouraging responsible AI use can help ensure that the technology benefits society positively without contributing to plagiarism issues. (Chat GPT)

AI, then, is just another tool in our digital repertoire, and, as Jonathan asked, What is all the fuss about? I am still not sure…

by Jane Cobb

I have been an Associate Lecturer at the Open University since 2002, tutoring mainly English Language modules.  I live in Stourbridge in the West Midlands with my husband, two adult children and three Romanian rescue (street) dogs.  My recent EdD and my current research interests concern the multiple perspectives around feedback practices around assessed writing in HE.  This is my first venture into blogging, and I am looking forward to this creative space, where colleagues can share, debate, and discuss issues arising around their research.
Posted on

AI – What’s all the fuss about? 

For me, it started one Friday in July (2023) when I joined a Teams meeting with three OU colleagues who organised the WELS PGR Blog. We got talking about Artificial Intelligence (AI). One of the three colleagues thought it was ‘great’ and told us that she uses AI all the time and has been reading articles to get more information. A second colleague, an OU AL, said that she finds many of her students are using ChatGPT in their assignments and that she is beginning to get a sense of what AI-generated writing sounds like; it is often a little bit too perfect, in her view. The third colleague contrasted this experience to her own as she finds that there are some students who have never heard of ChaptGPT or AI.  

At this point, I felt that I had to confess that while I had heard a lot in the media about the risks of AI and rather less about its benefits, I had never actually engaged with it. The colleague who likes AI gave me the link for ChatGPT.  

Once the Teams meeting was over, I signed up for ChatGPT. There, I was faced with the front page giving some examples of possible enquiries ranging from creative ideas for a birthday party to explaining quantum computing. The same screen also outlines the capabilities of Chat. GPT. It is ‘trained’ to “decline inappropriate requests”. It then admits that its limitations include ‘occasionally’ generating “incorrect information”, “harmful instructions or biased content”. 

It then invites you to “Send a message”.  

I do not know if it was these limitations that made me stare blankly at the send-a-message request. Wouldn’t it be awful if my first message was deemed inappropriate? Would I know if I was sent harmful instructions or incorrect or biased information?  

As the English Men’s Cricket team was engaged in a test match against Australia, I thought I would start by asking about the names of fielding positions which, beyond wicketkeeper and slips, I have a very tenuous grip on. Immediately, ChatGPT presented me with a list of these positions. Very impressive. 

Emboldened, it occurred to me that I had had a supervision session with one of my EdD students. I had been trying to suggest that what she had been talking about in her most recent piece of writing could be related to Foucualt’s ideas about micropower and the role of ‘examination’ in disciplining populations. So, I asked about this. ChatGPT responded, saying these sorts of ideas were implicit in much of Foucault’s work. So, I asked for some examples. One of these was Discipline and Punish (Foucault, 199). I have a copy of this, so I found an example of where Foucault talks about how examinations are used. ChapGPT thought I was quite right!  

Coincidentally, shortly afterwards, I read an article by Philip Ball, “Can IT think?” (Ball, 2023), which not only outlines how AI uses algorithms to scan “vast banks of online data”  but also discusses the arguments for and against a possible ‘robot apocalypse’ and the dangers of AI being used to increase cybercrime and terrorism. Ball concludes by siding with experts who suggest that AI should be treated in the same way as new drugs and licensed for public use only after careful testing. Ball concludes:  

“ … in seeking solutions, we are to some extent flying blind because we do not know what kinds of minds these machines have- and because, in the absence of that knowledge, our impulse is to presume that they are minds like ours. They are not. It is time to take machine psychology seriously.” (Ball, 2023, p. 33). 

This made me sit up and take notice. I had quite enjoyed what seemed like a pleasant chat with Chat GPT about Foucault and was thinking that this was not that different from interrogating other sources of information. In a way, I had moved through a cycle starting with ‘What’s all the fuss about?’ (I don’t know) to ‘What’s all the fuss about?’ (It’s just a quick way to access information.) to return to What’s all the fuss about? (Does anybody know?) 

Jonathan Hughes

Image: Photo by Aleksandar Pasaric from Pexels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/what-is-this-is-all-real-text-with-yellow-background-3280211/

Jonathan is a member of the PGR Blogger editorial team.  Lecturer (access and curriculum) at the Open University’s Centre for Inclusion and Collaborative Partnerships, where I am also the Academic Conduct Officer and Assessment Lead. I am the Academic Lead for the Open University Badging Project which is developing the first university badged open courses outside the USA. I have been working as skills lead, author and critical reader on Open University Health and Social Care modules.

My research interests include widening participation and learning in later life, as well as later life sexuality. I am the chair of the Association of Education and Ageing.

In June 2014, I became a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy.

Posted on

Second-order researchers within education: challenges and tensions

tug of war
Photo by RUDI GUZTI from Pexels

This post responds to questions raised previously within this blog, which focus on the challenges faced by second-order researchers. Fearn (2023) suggests that within the field of education, second-order researchers (also named practitioner-researchers) “do not share their expertise through publication”, in part due to a lack of “adequate training in enquiry” (Fearn, 2023, drawing on Davis, 2019).   

Although it may be true that adequate training is not provided, this post will suggest that 

a lack of training is not the primary barrier preventing teachers from sharing their knowledge through publication.

Within the Scottish educational context, practitioner enquiry – the term commonly used to describe practitioner research in education – is an important part of professional learning (see General Teaching Council for Scotland, n.d.). This post suggests that it is not the act of enquiry that is the primary challenge but the act of publication following that enquiry.   

The literature tells us that practitioners engaging in research are insider researchers, party to “valuable insights” that other researchers “would admire” (Punch and Rodgers 2022, p. 278). But when considering the results and/or impact of practitioner enquiry, those judging the quality of the research (understandably) want the research to be reported with a full explanation of its context. Insider researchers can feel torn between the responsibilities they have to the academic community who will be reading their published work – who want as much context as possible – and the responsibility they feel towards their learning community; they can experience “feelings of loyalty to the group and even uneasiness during analysis” (Punch and Rodgers, 2022, p. 278), which would perhaps not be felt by researchers who are external to the learning community.   

It could be suggested that this tension would be felt by any practitioner-researcher in any field of practice. But, within the field of education, there is a growing recognition of the extent to which learning and teaching strategies must be adapted for and informed by the “unique circumstances of the learning community” (Education Scotland, 2022). If insider researchers have access to “valuable insights” that are inaccessible to other researchers, as Punch and Rodgers (2022, p. 278) suggest, practitioner researchers in education could provide increased detail regarding the ‘unique circumstances’ of their research situation. The tension described above, between the responsibilities felt towards the academic community and those felt towards the community being researched, can therefore be particularly problematic for second-order researchers within the field of education, given their increased access to information about that learning community and the emphasis on the importance of context within education.   

Interrogating the purpose of publication, and the purpose of practitioner enquiry itself, could support practitioner researchers in education to overcome this issue. Given Education Scotland’s (2022) emphasis on the need to adapt learning and teaching to the “unique circumstances” of a learning situation, we could question whether the results of practitioner enquiry need to be accompanied by detailed contextual information: would any practitioner reading such publications not have to adapt the outcomes anyway, to meet the needs of their own ‘unique circumstances’? Boland and Doherty (2020, p. 45) support this view by asserting that the contextualised learning one gains through practitioner enquiry cannot be used as a resource for other practitioners. They argue that the “small scale and the particularity of context” (2020, p. 45) reduce the extent to which the outcomes of practitioner enquiry can be used elsewhere but stress that the publication of practitioner enquiry is useful to demonstrate “how particular ideas provoke enquiry”. Elsewhere within the literature, Wall also emphasises the importance of the results of practitioner enquiry – but not necessarily in terms of the sharing of “the endpoint” – for Wall (2023), drawing on Stenhouse, 1981), it is the sharing of the research process “when the actual learning about pedagogy and research is happening” that is important.    

This post does not wish to question the importance of practitioner research within the field of education – nor does it question the importance of publishing such research. It does, however, wish to highlight the tensions that may prevent practitioner researchers within education from publishing their enquiries. It hopes to stimulate conversation about how published practitioner research within this field can be used – and therefore encourage consideration of the content we should expect within published practitioner research reports.  

by Sussana Wilson 

I am in the final year of my EdD studies, focusing on lecturers’ professional learning within the Scottish FE context.  In my day-job, I teach within Further and Higher Education, predominantly on teacher and lecturer education programmes 

Posted on

Professionalism and Posthumanism in Early Years Practice

The OU’s conference on professionalism and posthumanism fascinated me as someone who has worked in campaigning around literacy and education in England and Scotland. I now work in early years practice while pursuing an education doctorate. During this time, I have witnessed policy changes come and go. Despite the frustrations of governments and institutions, I remain optimistic that we can work through them because we have to, especially with the looming challenges of the climate crisis. In my experience, the short-term illusion that the neo-liberal world offers can be alluring, but there is no silver bullet to anything. I have been influenced by Vivian Gussin Paley’s (reference) storytelling approach to literacy, which is subtle and complex and has stayed with me much longer than England’s national literacy hour policy. Therefore, the problem I focus on is balancing the demands of professionalism and posthumanism in the early years’ sector.

Solution 1: Use the principles of posthumanism to unite concerns for eco and social justice and inspire us to be direct yet positive and affirmative in conversations with colleagues, children, and their parents. My current work with posthumanism has revitalized and challenged me in equal measure. It has inspired me to keep questioning, unite eco and social justice concerns, and be more direct yet positive and affirmative in conversations with colleagues, children, and their parents. I used to take pride in NOT being a teacher, but I have learned to be careful not to seek to belong through an anti-identity. As someone who has chosen to take the ‘many-jobs’ and ‘multiple-identities’ route, I have gained freedom of thinking but also experienced disconnection and a lack of confidence. But it has been an overall positive experience because it has made me find ways of being optimistic rather than just becoming a grumpy, dissatisfied, or burnt-out employee (past experiences!). This session gave me a new perspective on nomadism.

Solution 2: Develop a nuanced understanding of professionalism that values the personal, bodies, and emotions in caring professions like working in the early years. I appreciate that professionalism is a lifelong pursuit (Wall, 2014), having values and striving to be the best version of oneself in any situation, whether paid or not. However, I resist the terminology because it opposes the personal bodies and emotions central to caring professions like working in the early years. I wonder why we worry so much about the word or concept of professionalism and whether it is only because the early years’ sector is often left out of it. Nevertheless, I happily embrace different words to describe my job and use my energies elsewhere. While I am currently employed in a role that I enjoy, I have experienced the fragility of my identity when it is too connected with jobs and employment. Therefore, I try to think of myself as a professional while at the same time concentrating on significant values in my life, not just the parts that provide income and status through paid work. I also wonder how those I teach or spend time with think of me and whether it matters. Parents may have a consumerist view of the early years’ experience (May-Yin Lim, 2015), but I try to understand it rather than feel overwhelmed.

In conclusion, my reflections on professionalism and posthumanism have made me question the language and concepts used to describe our work and identities. As we face more significant challenges in the future, it is essential to remain optimistic, keep questioning, and prioritize the values that guide our work and lives.

So, my question is – what does professionalism mean to you

by Sarah Barton

Sara Barton AL @ OU

 

 

 

Sarah Barton works in early years practice in Edinburgh and as an associate lecturer with The Open University. She is also a part-time professional doctorate student with the OU, researching the experience of young children with additional support needs and/or disabilities in early years forest and nature settings.
Posted on

My unexpected neurodivergent learning journey 

 

I am now at the end of Year 2 of my Professional Doctorate, and whilst I have learned loads about methodology, methods, literature searches, alongside this has been a very significant personal learning journey. I realised in the October of my first year, because of many posts on Facebook for ADHD awareness week, that I had an ADHD brain. An absolute clanger at the age of 48 years, but all suddenly made sense! Time blindness, executive functioning difficulties, procrastination, emotional dysregulation, poor working memory were all things I could identify with and the descriptions of women with ADHD resonated strongly with me. I am the type of A-grade student who is also ditsy, extremely untidy and very disorganised. I knew my brain could cope with doctorate studies, but I was instantly in overwhelm at the advanced level of juggling skills that would be required alongside being a full-time working parent.  

The challenges of being an ADHD learner 

The first year was awful, highly stressful – I was often anxious and in constant fear that I would not meet the deadlines. At home I became shouty, forgetful, misplacing items and any routines and sleep pattern went out the window. I fall into the category of student that works right up to the deadline, submits just in time and often knowing just a couple more hours would have made for a better piece of work. Sometimes I fear that students like myself are perceived as not caring or not capable. Yet, I really do care and I spend huge amounts of time worrying about the deadlines because I know that paralysing procrastination can strike at unpredictable times. I cannot guarantee that my brain will function on the day I put in my diary as a study day, so time available for study never feels guaranteed. 

What has worked 

Self-awareness has been key and as a result I have coped better with the requirements of year 2. As readers will likely be aware, there are a diverse array of experiences linked to ADHD, just as there are with the spectrum of autism. I share these reflections of what has helped me, in case they help others, but in knowing that we are all different and the best we can really do for ourselves is explore what works for us as individual learners.  

  • No WhatsApp 

I worried that I would be isolated, but I made the decision to remove myself from the student WhatsApp group and decrease what to me felt like constant noise. I found other people’s comments overwhelming and instead selected key people who would support me as study buddies. This has allowed me ongoing support but planned by me, rather than always feeling interrupted by messages pinging through. 

  • Pretend deadlines 

Whilst I can’t submit a full draft of something, sharing ‘where I have got to so far’ for an agreed deadline set with my supervisors several weeks prior to the actual deadline has helped me considerably. This doesn’t work if I set myself goals, nor if I put pressure on myself that the draft will be complete. But because I respect my supervisors and I don’t want to impact their workload by messing them around, I can commit to earlier dates. These help me keep on track better than just the assignment deadline and allow time for helpful feedback. 

  • Trusting that my own style can work 

This has been a hard lesson to learn but has paid-off. I sometimes start late at night and work well into the early hours, but I have got better at trying to factor in quieter days and time to catch-up on sleep later in the week. I never follow the module materials in a methodical way but start from the assignment task and select my own route through regarding what I need to learn and what my brain is ready to cope with. Single days of study are rarely helpful, and I now plan out blocks of time, preferably 3-4 days and often away from my family home. This way I know that even if I procrastinate sometimes, I can be completely immersed in my studies and embrace my dream-like state of hyperfocus.  

I have no doubt that I have far more to learn about myself as well as my research. But I now feel more accepting of my learning style and hope that others might learn to know that it is OK to have different ways of learning.

 

Jo Strang is a Staff Tutor in Social Work at the OU and a second year EdD student. Jo is qualified as a social worker, reflexologist and Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) practitioner and has worked in Higher Education as a lecturer since 2010. Her research combines her professional interests and aims to explore social work students’ experiences of learning about EFT, a self-help tool often more easily referred to as ‘acupuncture without needles’. This simple tapping technique can reduce the fight-flight response to situations we experience as challenging and assist in processing a variety of emotions.

Posted on

Journey or quest, a simple option or ongoing challenge? 

I was warned in the initial weeks of my doctoral programme, during induction, that my research title would inevitably change over time. Especially in the first few months. This was reassuring as moving from a research proposal into the serious business of being a postgraduate research (PGR) student is a whole new territory. My original title, and therefore my focus changed massively once I began the literature review process. It followed new directions, took on wider views before returning close to my original plan. I now had fewer travel bags, but each was much heavier. 

The role of PGR students is to create their own ‘new certainties’ and make a sound contribution to an existing body of knowledge. But choices need to be made. To seek out new pathways through a familiar landscape, striking out in a new direction? But familiar landscapes may turn out to be well-travelled lanes with few opportunities for new explorations apart from rutted and stony tracks. Or to venture into unknown, unmapped territory where progress may be exacting, even overwhelming.  

Choice, problems and implications: 

  • Could the route we take affect how we benefit ourselves as researchers? 
  • Could choosing between familiar or unexplored territory shift the benefit focus from our ‘research’ to ‘ourselves as researchers’? 
  • Developing ourselves as researchers enhances our research abilities. 
  • Developing our research skills improves our standing as researchers. 
  • Is choice dependent on our career path or our research specialism? On our own image of ourselves as researchers? Or our research stakeholders? 

Setting out and views from established researchers  

Postgraduate research is about action rather than attitude. Its nature is to review current belief or knowledge and to uncover the gaps that will determine our position for new study. But is this realistic? Brunet argues that the journey “has important consequences on a student’s current and future professional life”, (Brunet, 2022, p. 1032), and active journeying towards a professional goal is sufficient. For Leshem the journey is a “transition phase of developing new roles” (Cast, 2003, cited in Lesham, 2020, p. 170), and underscores a fundamental characteristic as “identity construction, rites of passage, tensions and resolutions” (Wisker et al., 2010, quoted in Lesham, 2020, p. 170). It is much more about attitude, building a research identity as the ‘student’ transitions into ‘research student’ and emerges as ‘researcher’. 

PGR students have charge of their research because ultimately the prize at journey’s end is theirs. To be accepted into the PhD programme there is an expectation that your title and research questions are decided prior to your ‘upgrade’ assessment. You’ve scoured the literature, submitted your report, and perhaps presented your research to fellow academics before the upgrade viva.  My understanding is of a finality, a shutting of the gate to further exploration just as your doctoral journey is confirmed. An expectation to keep to a focus that is largely uninformed at this stage, is a big ask. 

Owens, et al. (2019) found that many doctoral students remain unclear about the outcomes from these deciding way-markers and recommend “providing opportunities for the development of a number of personal qualities as well as the professional profile of the students” (Owens, et al., 2019, p. 109). 

Where next? 

Continuing literature reviews is a doctoral research requirement and over the following two to six years there may be new avenues of exploration and new knowledge in our field. We may have new questions, a new focus.   

Perhaps your doctoral journey is towards becoming a professional academic, treating the process as a project in your career development (Brunet, 2022). You’ve maintained your focus, followed the guidebooks, and avoiding unmapped paths. You arrive satisfied, having achieved your quest. You might explore or relax by the pool? Is this enough? 

Perhaps your drive for research and to develop yourself personally and professionally is powered by a passion for learning (Mantai, 2019). Taking detours made your journey more challenging yet rewarding. Reaching your destination only leaves much more to explore. Will you be satisfied? 

Quest or journey? Answers on a postcard. 

As novice researchers is there intrinsic value in a quest that benefits a professional goal? Can a doctoral journey conceived from a desire for new knowledge, sharing insights, and challenging established perceptions succeed? 

Should the choice be polarised when, ultimately, the doctoral research goal is to avoid stepping into others’ footprints, to face the challenge of discovery head-on, and to offer inspiration to those who follow?  

(Words, 745) 

References 

Brunet, M. (2022) ‘Conducting a PhD as a project: sharing insights from my doctoral journey’, International journal of managing projects in business, 15(7), pp. 1032–1047. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-08-2021-0212. 

Leshem, S. (2020) ‘Identity formations of doctoral students on the route to achieving their doctorate’, Issues in educational research, 30(1), p. 169-182. Available at: https://www.iier.org.au/iier30/leshem.pdf  

Mantai, L. (2019) ‘“Feeling more academic now”: Doctoral stories of becoming an academic’, The Australian Educational Researcher (2019) 46:137–153. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-018-0283-x  

Owens, A. et al. (2020) ‘Student reflections on doctoral learning: challenges and breakthroughs’, Studies in graduate and postdoctoral education, 11(1), pp. 107–122. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-04-2019-0048  

Marilyn Long

I am a first year, full-time PGR student in the IET school. I am an autistic researcher, and my focus is to investigate inclusive provision and support for autistic students in higher education. I first studied with the OU in 1980 and since then gained my B.Ed degree and worked as a Primary school teacher, Early years co-ordinator, and staff development manager. After a gap of almost 20 years I enrolled for PG study with the OU in online and distance education before applying for a place as a PGR student.

Posted on

Hot off the Press: EdD Thesis

Relationships, Assets and Social Capital: A Case Study Review of Youth Mentoring

by Dr Catherine Comfort

Abstract

Youth mentoring, where young people (mentees) work with adult mentors to achieve change, is a popular government and third sector intervention. Past research, concentrating on quantitative analysis of US programmes, concludes that mentoring achieves significant but modest change. Such research assumes that changes from mentoring can be externally identified and measured, often without hearing the views of those involved.

This study investigates the experiences and expectations of mentoring from the perspective of mentees, mentors, referring agencies and programme coordinators. Using social capital theory (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000), the study explores how mentoring relationships are built and their role in bringing about change.

A local authority youth mentoring programme in the UK formed the case study for investigating experiences of mentoring and perceptions of change. To allow nuanced exploration of views, an interpretive, qualitative approach was taken. Data were collected from mentors, mentees, referring agencies and coordinators via semi-structured interviews, survey, diaries, focus groups and programme feedback. Data collection and thematic analysis were informed by social capital theory.

Findings indicated that mentees actively participating in the mentoring process benefitted most. Mentees experienced unusual levels of equality in the purposeful and trusting mentoring relationship. Drawing on the relationship’s social capital, mentees enhanced their assets and enjoyed emotional support, learning and challenge. Collaborating with mentors, mentees achieved previously inaccessible outcomes. Assets developed could be used in other relationships.

The study also concludes that social capital and asset acquisition provide a theoretical basis for understanding the mentoring process. By encouraging asset and social capital exchange, mentoring develops mentees’ self-awareness, agency, and confidence, increasing the likelihood of resilience. This knowledge may be transferable to other programmes and relationships. Supporting young people’s knowledge of their needs and strengths through mentoring may contribute to their wellbeing post 2019 Covid pandemic.

You may read the full thesis here: http://oro.open.ac.uk/87092/ 

Catherine Comfort | OU people profiles (open.ac.uk)

Posted on

Imposter syndrome, be gone!

baby dino

As I reflect on the end of EdD Year 2 and embark on Year 3, I am reminded by those who know me to consider and celebrate how far I have come. That is not a place I feel comfortable visiting, much less sharing. I’m not sure why that is, but I have been advised it may be the familiar imposter syndrome sitting on my shoulder. That little voice that eats away at your confidence. That says, “You are not quite good enough…yet.”  I have become more mindful of the need as a fledgling researcher to quieten that voice if I am to step into the world of education research with my voice to be heard. So, here goes…my first blog about my research area.

I came into teaching after having children and a career outside of education. Previous life experience and through twenty years in education, I have become cognizant of the significant role trust plays in the success of teams. As a teacher, I  experienced the positives and negatives of leadership. As a leader, I have created the positives and negatives of leadership and dealt with the consequences. On reflection, through it all trust has been a prevailing dynamic, both given and received.

Research into trust as a factor in effective team building, leading to successful organisations, is very well documented in numerous domains. The role of trust in schools is represented in a wealth of research from numerous viewpoints including principals, teachers, parents, students and administrators. But in amongst all this knowledge, I have yet to find a way in which I, as a leader, could take stock of the trust relationships in my schools in a meaningful way. Yes, I could create a questionnaire and take some blunt data from it, but I actually wanted something more meaningful, context specific and useful. I began exploring the possibilities in my M.Ed. and have continued this journey of discovery into my EdD.

So, what am I doing? Exploring the role of trust in school improvement, as heard through the voices of teachers. Using a phenomenological study of a group of schools, I am exploring the nuances of teachers’ experiences of trust relationships with principals, and their views of its impact on school improvement. From their knowledge, I want to explore if it is possible to create a framework to support senior leadership in ascertaining the strength and weaknesses of trust relationships with teachers in their school. Thereby providing them with an informed benchmark to aid in strategically strengthening the trust relationships which are an essential contribution to successful school improvement.

It has not been an easy endeavour so far, but then what EdD is. Studying for a professional doctorate while working full-time alongside studying, is an epic test of endurance and tenacity! The wealth of material available to consider has seen me visit many interesting rabbit holes, several of which I hope to revisit in the future! The intangible nature of trust, and its personal experience by individuals (Van Maele et al.,2014; Walker et. al., 2011)  has been a challenge to conceptualise into a phenomenological study within education. But I’m getting there, sifting through the myriad of new knowledge I have and continue to acquire. Finding data collection tools which are reliable with a strong validity, either from within in education research or the wider world, has been an unexpectedly demanding exploration. Consequently I am evolving a distinct approach using repertory grids (Emerald Publishing, 2022) to gather subjective data. Thematic exploration of the data will begin my analysis and I am establishing how this might look in a phenomenological study.

The study is very much an evolving one, with many questions still unanswered. This is something I have had to learn to be patient with, as I have grappled to want to have ‘finished’ sections of my thesis. That need to tick chapters off as I go through the stages, when in reality, over a number of months, the skill lies in working with the whole developing document as new material is assimilated to support the study. It has finally dawned on me that there is a great deal of editing and re-editing of material, but in order to do that you have to have written something first. Sounds obvious I know! Therefore my resolution for year 3 is to write every day, no matter the size of the paragraph. I know this will be a challenge because I am much more an avid reader than a writer, but I need to find a greater balance between the two if I am to make sufficient progress towards constructing a complete thesis by the end of year 4. Perhaps then, finally that little voice will whisper, “Lynne, it is good enough, submit.” I’ll let you know.

 

References

Emerald Publishing, 2022, website address, www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/how-to/observation/use-a-repertory-grid

Van Maele, D. van, Forsyth, P.B., Van Houtte, M. (2014) Trust and school life: the role of trust for learning, teaching. Leading and bridging. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag

Walker, K., Kutsyuruba, B., Noonan, B. (2011) ‘The fragility of trust in the world of school principals’, Journal of Educational Administration, 49(5), pp.471-494.

 

Bio:

Lynne is a 3rd year part-time EdD Researcher, working around the day job as Executive Principal of a Primary standalone academy trust with 420 pupils. Having completed her Primary PGCE with the OU, she went on 18 years later to complete her M.Ed in Leadership & Management also with the OU. Her research area of interest is around the trust relationship between teachers and leaders and its role in school improvement

Posted on

Closing the gap!

Photo by Miki Czetti: https://www.pexels.com

Racial inequality is becoming widely recognised in H.E. as a significant factor that affects attainment, employability and the earning potential of students who are from diverse backgrounds. The gaps in the awarding of ‘good’ degrees (a First or Higher Second) between White students and Black, some Asian and minoritized groups is a specific example of racial inequality in the Academy. This gap persists even when all other variables such as age, gender and prior attainment are controlled. In 2019, The Office for Students (OfS), the regulatory body for H.E, reported a 22pp gap between White and Black students and 10.5pp between White and Asian students. The causes are complex, exacerbated by how language and terminology is used, acronyms which homogenise diverse groups of people, and issues relating to participation and representation all underpinned by structural and institutional racism. The solutions require dismantling the Academy. 

Language and terminology impact how gaps are perceived and the way people are described. Initially the awarding gap was referred to as an ‘attainment gap’ with the blame focused on the individual for academic weakness, making the wrong course choices or having a lack of ability known as a deficit model. Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) or Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME, used by the sector) are broad terms which classify a range of marginalised groups. These terms have become politicised and are reductionist. ‘Minority’ suggests they are ‘marginal’ or less important. More Black and Asian students participate in H.E, in 2018-2019, 17.7% of university students were from Black, Asian, or mixed backgrounds. Although Black and Asian students are more likely to attend H.E they are awarded fewer ‘good’ degrees. Black and Asian people are underrepresented in senior and managerial positions in academic (the number of Black Professors in the UK for example, is only 1%) and professional services.  

The causes of the awarding gaps are a combination of complicated factors:  

  • Curricula and learning (including teaching and assessment practices) 

H.E curricula is mostly Eurocentric and one which Black, Asian and minoritized groups can’t see themselves reflected. Discriminatory assessment practices (e.g., writing in English, assumptions of previous educational experiences) favour some groups of students over others. 

  • Relationships between staff and students and among students 

Subtle, exclusionary attitudes and behaviours (unconscious and conscious biases) by teachers and students impact on teacher and student expectations and thus outcomes. Students may also have low expectations of themselves because of poor educational experiences.  

  • Psychosocial, identity factors and sense of belonging 

This is how academic confidence, motivation, the way students see themselves, student well-being, sense of belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualisation contribute to the gaps. Feeling isolated can impact on attainment. 

  • Social, cultural, and economic capital 

These students are less likely to use help-seeking strategies and may avoid formal teaching because they lack social capital; they are less aware of the advantages of networks and relationships. They don’t know how to navigate the hidden curriculum and because they’re more likely to be working, they have less economic capital and consequently time and energy for study.  

Solutions are still to be found as closing the awarding gap has only recently become a focus in H.E.

There are some things the Academy can do:  

  • Using the term awarding gap removes the onus from the individual and places responsibility with the awarding bodies. Alternative models to the deficit one can also be adopted, for example a framework of ‘Possible selves’ which explores students’ ‘hoped for’ or ‘ought to be self. This framework can help students create a positive identity, one where they see themselves as a student which gives them agency to seek support because they see themselves succeeding as a learner.  
  • Using more thoughtful, confident, specific and relevant terms to describe race and ethnicity instead of BAME/BME. 
  • Support students with transitioning to university with an induction model which is a process rather than an event to enable students integrate and feel as though they belong.  
  • Teach students how to tackle assessment to reduce anxiety and over-efforting (working twice as hard as other students).  
  • Develop a global, internationalised curriculum which recognizes different experiences and diversity and allows students to see themselves reflected.  
  • Increase representation in academic and professional services to create role models, increase aspirations and a greater sense of belonging.  
  • Educate students about the gaps and the how to access support. 

Some institutions have started to reduce their gaps and there is hope on the horizon.  

How aware were you of the awarding gaps before reading? 

by Rehana Awan

Rehana has worked at the OU in a variety of academic related and academic roles since joining in 2008. In June 2022, Rehana was appointed as a Lecturer in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Implementation in the School of Computing and Communications, part of the Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths. Rehana is co-chair of the Black and Minority Ethnic staff network, a role she’s held for two years. She is also a committed Associate Lecturer, supporting students on DD102 Introducing the Social Sciences and she has also tutored on Access. Rehana has demonstrated her commitment to leading and managing teaching and learning as a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (SFHEA) and Fellow of the Staff and Educational Development Association (FSEDA). As a professional doctoral student, Rehana is researching student narratives and degree awarding gaps at the OU, and she has set up a Community of Practice for other PGRs also investigating awarding gaps.

Posted on

What’s in a name? The influence of pseudonyms on research activities

Photo by Hassan OUAJBIR from Pexels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/selective-focus-photo-of-red-rose-1324995/

As researchers, we are ethically commanded to assure anonymity for participants engaging in research activities (BERA, 2018). Anonymisation often results in selection of participant pseudonyms by researchers to assist in preventing identification. An alias, or code name is assumed, often chosen by the research author without consultation with participants. The origin of the meaning alias resides in Latin as ‘at another time, elsewhere’ (Wordsense, 2021) which suggests an alternative identity is assumed, particularly because it should be distinct from participants’ real names. This can be particularly challenging within the field of social science when positive, professional relationships with participants brings potential for gathering valuable, rich data, to say nothing of perpetuating power imbalances between researcher and participant. Pseudonyms can therefore be a barrier to establishing participant relationships. It seems the idea of pseudonyms warrants careful consideration, though, because a name can be more important than first conceived.

Participants’ heritage and culture are often embodied in their name. Names can be inter-generationally adopted to demonstrate family attachments and respect for predecessors. Participants may not want to lose this sense of belonging with their family, particularly when researching sensitive subjects. Emotional connections with family can support and affirm the value of participants’ contributions to the research study which could help retention.  Conversely, pseudonyms which are representative of family members who have brought disrepute on the family could risk alienating participants from the study. The negative association with these names would not necessarily be known to the researcher. Worse still are pseudonyms which are codes, such as numbers or letters. This depersonalises participants and removes their identity as well as extracting their name from fieldwork. Whilst this is arguably more influential in qualitative studies than quantitative research, the scientific study of human society and social relationships is quite possibly hampered when participant identities are altered.

Shakespeare (1597) disregarded the significance of names in Romeo and Juliet, arguing the person inside is more important than their name. But our social constructionism attaches importance to names which demonstrate who we are inside. Names are often aligned to religion, class, age, socio-economic circumstances, geographical locations and so on, and as a result influence our positionality and how we view the world. Within research, participants’ names might impact upon the research experience. In a recent study I tried to avoid these complexities by asking participants to select their own pseudonyms. Rather than avert these issues, it presented different problems. Several participants chose to use their initials, which had potential to identify them in a small, narrative study. In addressing this, one participant asked to be called by the first initial of their surname, preceded by ‘Mr’. As the only male in the study this insufficiently managed the risk of identification. The participant subsequently suggested the pseudonym Churchill, explaining this was patriotic. This names conjures various understandings, although perhaps not a general sense of awareness to social injustice. Seeking clarification, I enquired ‘Asking for a friend……. the politician or the dog?’. And the response?

‘Both’.

by Sarah Mander

Sarah Mander is a Staff Tutor in ECYS, and Associate Lecturer for E102. Sarah is currently studying for a Doctorate in Education, researching the characteristics of child-centred practice within Early Help workforces. Her research interests emanate from a career in early intervention and preventative work in children’s services. Sarah also authors student wellbeing bulletins and leads the ECYS Student Voice and Wellbeing group.