Calling Flexibility to Account: Pitfalls and Possibilities

Sub-brand to go here Calling Flexibility to Account: Pitfalls and Possibilities Ronald Barnett, Institute of Education, London HEA Wales conference: Global Graduates – enabling flexible learning, 2-3 April 2014 Centre for Higher Education Studies

Who could not be in favour of flexibility? • Who could not be in favour of flexibility? • Who would want to be felt to be inflexible? • Which institution would want to be felt to be inflexible? • ‘Flexibility’ – everyone is in favour of it, it seems.

Implications • But then, if everyone is in favour of it: • There will be rival ideas as to what flexibility might mean (even conflicting accounts) • Those rival ideas may point toward radically different and incommensurable policies and practices. • Flexibility cannot mean everything to everyone at the same time. Some tough choices have to be made. • That is my thesis – and I shall argue as to the direction in which I would make choices.

Levels of flexibility • F has meaning at different levels – the sector as a whole, institution, course (both curriculum and pedagogy), and student. • And interests that register at one level may clash with another level • Not merely that say • a national interest in CAT clashes with an institution’s interests in its own admissions policy, • or that an institutional modular scheme may cut across a course team’s interests in building up a course as such • or that a student may wish – in a internet-delivered system – for more support than a course team can give • But different stances on flexibility itself may conflict across the levels: • a course team may want forms of flexibility that are not poss in an institution’s modular scheme; • a student may prefer to study by him/herself on-line while the new on-line programme – begun in the name of flexibility – may require students to engage on-line with each other • The EU may want to develop an EU-wide CATS scheme but some UK IHEs may want to preserve their own F

Pedagogical paradox • 2 Paradoxes: • 1 A curriculum may exhibit flexibility • It may offer choice of modules; students may be able to vary their mode of study; or intercalate periods ‘out’; or even vary their assessment • BUT the pedagogy may be fixed and rigid and even didactic. • 2 A pedagogical relationship may offer all manner of openness/ flexibility • But that openness (‘loose framing’) may be contained in a closed curriculum. • (Dimensions of time and space criss-cross these situations.)

A pedagogy of openness • ‘(beginning the student journey) is [an entry into] a scary, exciting and fascinating world … We need … self-belief to survive and prosper … I remember thinking … this is amazing, exciting, exhilarating and downright terrifying … Working with a complex world is … about … not giving up when you feel overwhelmed …’ • ‘… What’s fascinating about Alison’s courses is the amount of panic, you know, that surrounds the essays and I felt it personally … It was a very, very scary thing to do because … there were no right answers.’ • - Pedagogical openness/ F; but disc/ curric standards.

Two rival ideas of flexibility • Alongside/ underneath differences of levels, forms, time, space are two ideas of flexibility that are fundamentally different and rivalrous: • Systems flexibility (all those that we have looked at) • regions/ country/ IHEs/ programmes of study • Personal flexibility • NB: the lure of technology; the lure of the market.

The idea of personal flexibility • The twenty-first century – an age of challenge; a ‘supercomplex age’ • Calls for personal flexibility (not a matter of reinventiveness but of making one’s way in a turbulent contested and fluid (‘liquid’) world) • Extraordinary thing: a higher education can offer much of what is required • Disciplines (incl professional fields) impart discipline! • - educational/ epistemic virtues • Ds and Qs • Capacities to keep going forward in a situation of continuing strangeness • ie, personal flexibility

The linguist’s tale • I’ve always had a huge passion for languages. But coming to [x university], I found the French and the Italian departments very different, and I did start to feel a bit bitter towards French. I wasn’t enjoying that any more. I loved it at school more than Italian. I found the French department very rigid … I did feel like I was back in school, but not in the sixth form … I didn’t feel very free to express myself in the lessons. With the Italian department, we all sit around a big table or chairs without tables in front. There would be a lot more interaction … It was more friendly, just a liberating atmosphere.’ • Ped F; curricula stability

Always becoming • Being – ‘being possible’ • Yes, but ‘always becoming’ • Struggle amid conflict/ negating negations/ combating distortions/ purpose amid antagonisms • ie, an educational idea as to what it is to be a person in the twenty-first century

Conditions of personal flexibility – initial questions • In order that a higher education promote personal flexibility, its educational situations should themselves contain some degree of flexibility • In curricula? - probably • In pedagogies? – certainly

Reflections on our initial conditions • The questions seem inocuous but are themselves profound • For their answering implies: • That the questions are worth asking (forms of flexibility are not good in themselves but become good under certain conditions) • That professional judgement is called for – and indeed a lot of hard work lies ahead in determining just how such personal flexibility is going to be developed (or have a good chance of being developed). • NB: it’s happening all the time; it’s not fanciful. (We have just been tolerably good at it as educators for hundreds of years – but we’ve had no theory as to how we have been doing it.)

Coming out of oneself ‘I had no … awareness of my own ability, so when you get an inspiring teacher that has faith in you, or helps you understand a topic then you know, it’s amazing. You get excited … you want to go and know more about it, you want to find more … if a teacher inspires you in a subject then are you are going to a lot more attention, feel that drive to get involved in a way.’ • ‘I have always lacked self-confidence … You worry what other people think, and are they going to read this and completely disagree? … I was afraid of saying the wrong answer.’ • Personal journey; voyaging; ped of/ for risk; cf ped of safety • Personal F; becoming anew

‘Global Graduates: Enabling Flexible Learning’ • The idea of the global graduate – contains the idea of a person who has an interest in the world and is able to see themselves as a citizen of the world • Helping it to go forward, to improve it, to contest it, to work for a better world • Ie, flexibility plus a value orientation, but concerned to understand the world • All this points both to F in ped and curricula (for students to become themselves) • But also to boundaries, discipline(s), standards • ie, F can be driven neither entirely by systems considerations or market considerations • There are limits to F.

Conclusions • Flexibility is an empty concept – it gets filled up by rival ideas and ideas whose implementation cuts across each other • Flexibility is not an end in itself • When pleas for F are heard, the q has to be asked: which F? In whose interests? With what educational consequences? • Educational interests in F may be undermined by systems interests in F • ie, F requires value choices to be made • An education for the C21 desperately needs to look to helping to develop students/ graduates who are ‘flexible’ but not entirely plastic. Institute of Education University of London 20 Bedford Way London WC1H 0AL Tel +44 (0)20 7612 6000 Fax +44 (0)20 7612 6126 Email info@ioe.ac.uk Web www.ioe.ac.uk

Calling Flexibility to Account: Pitfalls and Possibilities