Memorandum 64
Submission from the Institute of Education
(IOE), University of London
INQUIRY INTO
"STUDENTS AND
UNIVERSITIES"
This submission has been coordinated on behalf
of the Institute by the Centre for Higher Education Studies (CHES—see
www.ioe.ac.uk/ches).
The Institute would like to offer a number of propositions
to assist the Committee in its work, together with an indication
of relevant research findings, many of which based on studies
conducted at the Institute. Reflecting the breadth of the inquiry,
this submission draws on a wide range of work from different research
centres at the Institute. The Institute hosts the ESRC's Teaching
and Learning Research Programme (TLRP), which has conducted, among
other themes, an important series of investigations of aspects
of widening participation in higher education (see David, 2008
and www.tlrp.org). We
also draw upon some of the work of the TLRP-TEL (Technology-Enhanced
Learning Phase), based in the London Knowledge Lab (LKL), jointly
hosted by the IOE and Birkbeck College. The IOE's new ESRC Research
Centre—Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies
and Societies (LLAKES)—has projects examining the FE/HE/work
interface in relation to changing economic and social conditions
at the level of city-regions. The aim of this submission is to
outline some of the key issues and to highlight key reports which
should prove useful to the Committee in their inquiry.
1. OVERVIEW
The main propositions presented in this submission
are as follows (we have arranged these to follow the broad outline
of the Committee's call for evidence):
1.1 The main barriers to widening participation
mean that attention needs to be focussed on the education system
prior to application and admission to universities, and higher
education has an obligation to assist with this (see 2.1 below);
1.2 It is important to recognise that higher education
has potentially profound social as well as economic effects (2.2);
1.3 Greater attention should be paid to the differential
effects of courses, institutions and mode of study on the life-chances
and economic returns of individuals (2.3);
1.4 To achieve its goals fully, HE requires teaching
to take place in a research-sensitive environment (3.1);
1.5 There is special challenge in designing and
developing technologies to support higher education (3.2);
1.6 The "service" or "third-stream"
mission of universities is increasingly important (3.3);
1.7 The continuation of a quality-assured "controlled
reputational range" is of significant value to the UK HE
sector (4.1);
1.8 The process of degree classification requires
overhaul (and ideally replacement by a device like the Higher
Education Record of Achievement [HERA]). However it is also important
to resist "moral panics" about the sector's approach
to examinations (4.2), especially in a context where assessment
is also important in its formative role (4.3);
1.9 While the new arrangements for fees and student
support in England and Wales are proving to be broadly progressive,
they will continue to draw in a large public subsidy which may
affect the ability of the system to expand sensibly (5.1);
1.10 It is important for the Committee to understand
and respond to the role of the student body in constructively
moulding their own experience, through—for example—choice
of subjects and mode of study, as well as their experience beyond
the campus (5.2); and
1.11 The impact of a rapidly internationalised
system should also be considered in the Committee's deliberations
(6.1).
2. ACCESS AND
ADMISSIONS
2.1 The need to separate issues of widening
participation from those of fair access
2.1.1 Equitable access to higher education
is an emotive as well as a highly complex issue. From the evidence
we know the following about widening participation (WP).
2.1.1.1 WP is not about consistently perverse
decisions by higher education admissions tutors. If anything university
admissions have improved rather than further undermined distributional
fairness.
2.1.1.2 Nor is WP undermined by well-qualified
students from poorer or minority backgrounds making what at first
sight may appear irrational choices regarding HE participation
or of institution. The economic returns outlined in section 2.3
are not the only consideration.
2.1.1.3 WP is not just about aversion to
debt. We need to look at attitudes to debt in the wider young
population more generally.
2.1.1.4 WP is not simply about supply-side
issues, such as the lack of short-cycle alternatives to traditional
degrees.
2.1.1.5 WP in the UK is potentially
about improving the quality of school-based experience for all
students, but especially those from under-represented groups.
Success in compulsory education is vital. The gap in higher education
participation between richer and poorer students is almost entirely
explained by the weak academic achievement of poor children in
secondary school (Chowdry et al., 2008). To be effective
on a significant scale, WP requires intervention well before the
point of entry into higher education.
2.1.1.6 WP is about parental expectations
throughout the educational lifecourse and effective information,
advice and guidance (IAG) throughout the school career.
2.1.1.7 Perhaps most importantly it is about
getting employers to live up to their rhetoric of supporting both
younger and older workers in their personal learning trajectories
(especially the former). Further education colleges have a major
role here in terms of bridging the transition from work to HE
(see Fuller and Unwin, 2008).
2.1.2 A set of TLRP (Teaching and Learning
Research Programme) projects examining different areas of HE demonstrates
that recent UK government policies on widening participation have
indeed led to increasing opportunities for learners from diverse
families and disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. However,
these policies have not led to fair or equal access to equivalent
types of higher education that may lead to equal benefits in the
graduate or professional labour markets. Nevertheless, the projects
show that policies have also provided the opportunities for the
development of potential new institutional practices and pedagogies
to engage diverse students. The projects ranged across broad questions
of policy for systems of post-compulsory, further and higher education,
to questions about students' educational outcomes from school
and their access to differential forms of higher education, especially
across academic, vocational and/ or mathematical subjects (David,
2008).
2.1.3 The problems of raising aspirations,
or of "fair access" to prestigious institutions on the
part of well-qualified non-standard students, could be viewed
trivial when set against the genuine widening participation challenge
of getting more people to the starting gate (Watson, 2006a).
2.2 The need to understand HE as a positional
good
The really serious issue raised by HE expansion
is about polarisation: the growing gap between those with access
to this good, and those without. At the heart of the matter is
the question of social mobility. The debate can all too easily
descend into a competition between two narratives: one stressing
the role of HE in reproducing patterns of elite formation; the
other more confident about the effect of expanded, more democratic
systems in enabling new entrants. A new study shows how in the
UK both narratives can be true (Williams and Filippakou, forthcoming).
2.3 The importance of combining personal and
social rates of return
2.3.1 Globally, we are currently going through
a neo-liberal phase where human capital and personal economic
returns rule. It is true that the average value of higher education
in economic terms is substantial, both to the individual, in terms
of higher earnings (Blundell et al., 2005), and to society
as a whole. However, in recent years the wage premium earned by
some new graduates appears to be falling (O'Leary and Sloane,
2005). The rate of return to a degree varies by institution (Chevalier
and Conlon, 2003; Iftikhar et al., 2008; Power and Whitty,
2008). It also varies by subject, with quantitative degrees and
some vocationally oriented degrees having greater value (Walker
and Zhu, 2003; Sloane and O'Leary, 2004). It is imperative that
students are well informed of these nuances of the graduate labour
market in order to ensure students are making fully informed decisions.
2.3.2 Non-financial benefits to education also
need to be taken into account. The Centre for Research on the
Wider Benefits of Learning at the Institute of Education has demonstrated
(on the basis of study of cohorts born in 1958, 1970 and now 2000-01)
that participants in HE in the UK are likely to be happier, healthier
and more democratically tolerant (Feinstein et al., 2008).
2.3.3 There is a further issue: "drop-out."
Evidence from Chowdry et al. (2008) indicates that students
from more deprived backgrounds are more likely to drop out even
if they are equally qualified when they enter HE. As HE expands,
retention and completion are as important as widening participation.
3. THE BALANCE
BETWEEN TEACHING
AND RESEARCH
3.1 The importance of teaching in a research-sensitive
environment
The main effect of the Research Excellence Framework
(REF) will be to freeze funding at a level set as it was somewhere
between 2001 and 2007. There are potential dangers in this development,
which could affect the student experience. Missions could become
narrower as internal concentration of resource mirrors external
funding. They will also be increasingly dominated by medicine
and science; not least because funding required to "match"
investments in science and technology will progressively bleed
the arts and humanities (Watson and Amoah, 2007: 81-108).
3.2 The challenge of pedagogical development,
in particular the use of information and communications technologies
For the learning process to be fully supported, it
is important for technology to be able to elicit and facilitate
"intensive, active learning", which requires several
technology features to be in place, and integrated (Laurillard
et al., 2008). The technology-based tools currently being
used in HE have not been created for "intensive, active learning"
of the kind our desired learning outcomes require and our students
expect (Entwistle, 2005). The complexity of degree-level study
as an activity requires a wide range of digital tools, technologies
and features to be integrated within a learning environment if
the learner is to be supported adequately. Few enterprises other
than HE have such extensive and complex requirements, but education
as an industry does not have the commercial power to attract significant
R&D to serve its technology needs. By working only with the
emerging technologies created for commercial and leisure use,
education is inadequately served.
3.3 The relevance of "service,"
"third stream," and "knowledge exchange" to
a contemporary teaching and learning environment
"Third stream" or "third mission"
activities are not only good ways of embedding in enterprises
(public and private) the knowledge that exists within universities.
These activities are also means of producing new knowledge, and,
probably more typically, re-configuring existing knowledge, so
making it applicable to new contexts, to the benefit of students
at undergraduate as well as postgraduate level (Temple, 2008).
4. ASSESSMENT
AND DEGREE
CLASSIFICATION
4.1 The role of quality assurance (QA) in
maintaining the "controlled reputational range" of the
UK system
One of the most distinctive features of the
development of the UK system of higher education has been its
willingness to take academic responsibility for its own enlargement.
However, there is serious work to be done on quality assurance:
to bring up-to-date the system of external examination; to identify
and take account of the issues raised by innovations in teaching
and learning, and especially in student assessment; to probe the
deeper issues raised by the relationship between teaching and
research; to take steps to ensure that collaborative provision
between institutions—sometimes across wide distances, and
making use of new media—lives up to its intentions on quality
and standards; to calibrate external interventions so that they
are led by secure assessment of risk and not just reputation;
to think hard about acceptable standards of advertising and promotion;
and so on (Watson, 2006b).
4.2 The desirability of replacing degree classification
There is widespread recognition that the system of
honours degree classification historically utilised in the UK
system is no longer fit for purpose. It is now clear that there
is substantial variation across degree classes earned in institutions
with similar intakes, as well as by subject (Yorke, 2007). Development—and
implementation—of a Higher Education Record of Achievement
(HERA), as recommended initially in the Dearing Report and more
recently by the group chaired by Professor Robert Burgess, is
overdue.
4.3 The role of assessment in teaching and
learning as well as qualifications
The role of assessment in promoting learning is often
associated with a distinction between formative assessment, in
which learners are given feedback to enable learning, and summative
assessment for grading purposes, although in practice the two
overlap. The amount of feedback a learner receives varies across
the sector often with too much emphasis on the summative assessment
(Gibbs and Dunbat-Goddet, 2007).
5. STUDENT SUPPORT
AND ENGAGEMENT
5.1 The need to separate and understand the
balance between institutional and student support
5.1.1 The new arrangements for student support
from 2006 have proved broadly progressive but will have significant
effects on the long-term financing of the system as the government
contribution to the HE sector has actually increased not least
through the increased generosity of grants and interest-free loans.
5.1.2 Dearden et al. (2008) illustrate
who pays for these latest reforms by means of a circular flow
of payments. The table below sets out their calculations of the
net balance of payments (-ve on the table) and receipts (+ve on
the table) between different participants within the HE system—universities,
students, graduates and taxpayers—under the 2003-04 system
(old) and current system of HE funding in England.
5.1.3 Looking at the first column of the table,
we see that under the old system, universities received about
£5.5 billion in total funding for teaching, coming mainly
from taxpayers (via direct payments to universities in the form
of the recurrent teaching grant made to HEFCE each year, and fee
exemptions), and also students (via up-front fees). Graduates
also gained around £0.6 billion, from maintenance loan subsidies
(paid for by taxpayers). The second column shows that under the
new system university income is increased, to around £6.7bn.
This increase is paid for by graduates, through deferred fees
(subsidised by taxpayers). Students become net recipients, receiving
around £1.1 billion in total from new grants and subsidies.
5.1.4 Circular flows of payments: old and new
systems, £billions
|
| OLD
2003-04
system
| NEW
2008-09
system
| New system
compared to
old system
|
|
| Taxpayers | -£5.6
| -£6.7 | -£1.1
|
| Students | -£0.5
| £1.1 | £1.6
|
| Graduates | £0.6
| -£1.1 | -£1.7
|
| Universities | £5.5
| £6.7 | £1.3
|
| | |
|
| Sums of gains and losses | £0
| £0 | £0
|
|
| Note. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
|
5.1.5 The final column of the table shows the net impact.
First, universities' net position improves by around £1.3
billion, from £5.5 billion under the old system to around
£6.7 billion under the new system. Second, the overall taxpayer
contribution to the costs of HE rises by around £1.1 billion
compared with an unchanged 2003-04 system for tuition and student
support. Third, students are better off under the new system due
to grants and fee deferral, by around £1.6 billion. Finally,
graduates contribute around £1.7 billion more, through increases
in fees, offset by new loan subsidies from the taxpayer.
5.1.6 This analysis highlights the changing balance of
funding between the public and private sector as a whole as a
result of the new reforms. Taking students and graduates together,
we see that the net increase in contributions from these two groups
combined amounts to the relatively small sum of £100 million,
whilst the net increase in contribution from the taxpayer amounts
to around £1.1 billion. This highlights an important constraint
on any future reforms to HE funding. Further increases in fees,
for example, necessarily involve additional government spending
(because of the subsidised nature of loans for fees) unless other
changes are made.
5.2 The value of understanding contemporary student cultures
5.2.1 A key challenge is to design and develop technologies
that are genuinely inclusive, personalised and productive—as
well as flexible in the sense of crossing pedagogical and technological
boundaries between home, college and social contexts. This is
a major commitment of the London Knowledge Lab (LKL), as well
as the TLRP-Technology Enhanced Learning Phase (TLRP-TEL), directed
by the head of LKL. From a policy point of view, there needs to
be recognition that the development of 21st century technologies
alongside 21st century pedagogies is a precondition for rising
to the immense challenges faced by HE. Students—as young
adults—live in a different world from that of many of their
teachers. Their world is what the TLRP-TEL characterises as Web
2.0: "an umbrella term for a host of recent internet applications
such as social networking, wikis, folksonomies, virtual societies,
blogging, multiplayer online gaming and mash-ups" (TLRP-TEL,
2008: 4).
5.2.2 It is important not to underestimate the role of students
in moulding their higher education experience. The decline in
sciences (other than the biosciences) and technology may be irreversible
(and we have shielded ourselves from its full effects in the UK
because of overseas recruitment) (see Watson, 2006c). There is
evidence of a negative correlation between objective "development"
of countries and enthusiasm for science and technology (Nuffield
Foundation, 2008).
5.2.3 Student engagement is best developed through a
combination of cognitive, practical and reflective elements. The
formation of the student's "will to learn" may be understood
as the imparting of certain kinds of dispositions and qualities:
of personal initiative, courage, carefulness, resilience and so
forth (see Barnett, 2007).
6. ANOTHER IMPORTANT
ISSUE
6.1 The international campus
UK university campuses are now inescapably international,
with many having students from more than 100 countries and several
with a majority of students for whom English is not their first
language. This is of more than economic importance. Too often,
the experience of international students is one of relative loneliness,
of separation from UK students, and a tendency to find themselves
in groups of students from their own home country.
REFERENCES
Barnett, R. (2007) A Will to Learn: being a student in
an age of uncertainty. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Blundell, R., Dearden, L. and B. Sianesi (2005) "Evaluating
the impact of education on earnings: Models, methods and results
from the NCDS", Journal of the Royal Statistical Society
Series A, vol. 168, Issue 3, 473-512.
Chevalier, A. and G. Conlon (2003) Does it pay to attend
a prestigious university?, CEE Discussion Paper No. 33.
Chowdry, H., Crawford, C., Dearden, L., Goodman, A., and
A. Vignoles (2008) Understanding the determinants of participation
in higher education and the quality of institute attended: analysis
using administrative data. Institute of Fiscal Studies. Available
at: http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=4234.
David, M. (2008) Widening Participation in Higher Education:
a commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme.
London: Institute of Education/TLRP.
Dearden L., Fitzsimons, E., Goodman, A. and G. Kaplan (2008)
"Higher education funding reforms in England: the distributional
effects and the shifting balance of costs", The Economic
Journal, (February), 100-125.
Entwistle, N. (2005) Learning outcomes and ways of thinking
across contrasting disciplines and settings in higher education,
Curriculum Journal, 16(1), 67-82.
Feinsten, L., Budge, D., Vorhaus, J. and K. Duckworth (2008)
The social and personal benefits of learning: a summary of
key research findings. London: Centre for Research on the
Wider Benefits of Learning, Institute of Education.
Fuller A. and L. Unwin (2008) Towards Expansive Apprenticeships,
A Commentary for the Teaching and Learning Research Programme.
London: Institute of Education.
Gibbs, G. and H. Dunbat-Goddet (2007) The effects of programme
assessment environments on student learning. Higher Education
Academy. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ourwork/research
[Accessed 1.5.08].
Iftikhar, H, McNally, S and S. Telhaj (2008) University
Quality and Graduate Wages in the UK, Centre for Economics
of Education mimeo, output from ESRC/TLRP project Widening
Participation in Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis.
Laurillard, D., Kolokitha, M., Mellar, H., Selwyn, N. and
R. Noss (2008) Learning through Life: The Role of Technology,
in The Foresight Report on Mental Capital and Wellbeing,
Office of Science and Innovation.
Nuffield Foundation (2008) Science Education in Europe:
critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
O'Leary N. C. and P. J. Sloane (2005) The Changing Wage
Return to an Undergraduate Education(April 2005), IZA Discussion
Paper No. 1549. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=702781.
Power, S. and G. Whitty (2008) Paper 118: Graduating and
gradations within the middle class: the legacy of an elite higher
education, Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Cardiff Working
Paper Series, September.
Sloane P. J. and N. C. O'Leary (2004) The Return to a
University Education in Great Britain, IZA Discussion Paper
No. 1199. Available at: http://www.iza.org/.
Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) (2008) Education
2.0? Designing the web for teaching and learning. London:
Institute of Education/TLRP-TEL.
Temple, P., (2008) "Knowledge management in the university:
the case of university/enterprise relationships in Europe".
Society for Research into Higher Education Annual Conference,
Liverpool, 9-11 December 2008.
Walker, I. and Y. Zhu (2005) The college wage premium,
over education and the expansion of higher education in the UK,
University of Warwick, mimeo.
Watson, D. (2006a) How to think about widening participation
in UK higher education. Bristol: HEFCE. Available at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2006/rd13_06/.
Watson, D. (2006b) Who killed what in the quality wars?
No 1 in series Quality Matters. Gloucester: QAA. Available
at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/enhancement/qualityMatters/QMDecember06.pdf.
Watson, D. (2006c) "UK HE: the truth about the market"
Higher Education Review, 38:3, 3-16.
Watson, D. and Amoah, M. (eds.) (2007) The Dearing Report:
ten years on. London: Bedford Way Papers.
Williams, G. and O. Filippakou (forthcoming) Higher Education
and UK elite formation in the 20th Century. Mimeo.
Yorke, M. (2007) Grading Student Achievement in Higher
Education: signals and shortcomings. London: Routledge.
January 2009
| 
