All entries for Friday 27 May 2005

May 27, 2005

The use of core texts in humanities higher education

There is a significant debate currently running throughout UK universities over whether libraries should stock multiple copies of core texts. If this is an issue in the humanities at Warwick, then it signals a dramatic change in expectations and ideas of how such courses should work.

I have just read a really good report (not yet available) about this issue, and some of the options that might be available to address it. In short, the problem seems to be that students are increasingly expecting libraries to stock the 'core texts' that they require for their studies. Clearly this is not feasible without a significant increase in funding for libraries. An increase in spending on core texts may also reduce amount of money that libraries have for building wide ranging collections of research materials. That would, for a university like Warwick, be a very bad thing. It would in the medium term have a serious impact upon the quality of the academic experience, including for undergraduates. I know academics in the humanities who, given the choice between working at Warwick or working at Oxford, would choose the institution that has the Bodlean's research collection. Hence the problem.

Firstly, with regards to the humanities, what do we mean by core texts? In the sciences the term would largely refer to text books, there are probably fewer useful texts books for the humanities. It was certainly the case that until recently there were no useable text books in philosophy, and those that are now available are relevant to the more scientific aspects of the discipline. They also tend to be compilations of key papers, rather than text books of the kind used in the sciences. In that case they are largely replacing the boxes of photocopied articles that we used to use from the SRC ten years ago. In many ways turning those course packs into a nicely packaged text book is a good thing. All that photocopying of SRC papers was a nuisance and probably a serious threat to the environment.

A further interesting question concerns whether there has been a change in methods of teaching that tend to rely more on text books. It could be that more teaching is now done by PhD students and other temporary lecturers who are less likely to give an authoritative and consistent overview of a subject. A text book can act as a prop to support these lecturers. I'm not sure that it is the case that fewer permanent lecturers are teaching. But if this is an issue, it might be better addressed by course teams developing their own online materials in Sitebuilder (and thus preserving the unique value of the module as opposed to commodified value of the textbook).

A second class of core texts are the primary source publications such as litarary novels and works of philosophy. Anyone who undertakes a humanities degree should expect to have to buy plenty of these. Some courses require more than others. I would guess that a philosophy degree would require about 20. This can be expensive, but decreasingly so. Book prices are falling all of the time. For example, a copy of Anti-Oedipus cost me £18 in 1992. It now costs only £9. Services such as Amazon have also made buying second hand books much cheaper. In some cases students do have to buy the more expensive editions of certain books, but again with the easy access to the second hand book market this is not a total loss.

My guess is that if we are more transparent about the costs associated with doing specific modules (we could easily give links to buy each book from a retailer so that the student can estimate costs), and compliment that with advice on how to reduce those costs (supporting the resale or sharing of textbooks, getting deals with publishers), the problem may appear as less serious than we think – at least for the humanities.


Robert O'Toole : 27 May 2005 15:24 |  Tags:   |  Comments (2) |  Report a problem

Political motivations behind the interoperable ePortfolio

Follow-up to What are ePortfolios for? from Transversality - Robert O'Toole

A speculation on the political reasons behind central government investment in the development of interoperable ePortfolios.

If a government were struggling with the task of enforcing quality control over a sprawling range of education providers, each intent upon hiding in its own obscure curricula and awards regime, interoperable lifetime ePortfolios might seem like a good thing. If a student were to present an ePortfolio to a prospective employer, in theory they would show more interest if it contained course transcript details that actually explained the meaning of a qualification. One could argue that the market would then reward education suppliers who are able to clearly state that a student has gained a useful set of skills and knowledge at a meaningfully quantifiable level, thus doing the QA work for free.

Or alternatively, the education suppliers might just become better at spinning a line when they are required to state what their students are doing, thus diverting further resources away from the much more difficult task of actually providing good education.

A more likely outcome is that lots of money will be sunk into technical development work for something that no one actually wants. Perhaps the money would be better spent on training people with the skills that they require to articulate their own education and training histories directly.

Am I cynical or what?


Robert O'Toole : 27 May 2005 10:45 |  Tags:   |  Comments (2) |  Report a problem