// Abstract for Kaleidoscope Conference//

Really looking forward to presenting next week at the Kaleidoscope Annual Graduate Student Research Conference at the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. I am experimenting with writing my talk as a speech rather than a presentation which is something quite new compared to my experiences at practitioner conferences. Mainly, I am doing it to constrain the amount I am likely to waffle on over my 20 minutes!

This is the abstract (which also summarises where I am with my research so far): 

Critical thinking for what? An exploration of undergraduate students’ experiences of thinking at university

Critical thinking is closely aligned with the ‘higher’ in higher education. It is both a core element of graduateness and a cornerstone of the mission of higher education institutions. Yet Evans (2004) argues that higher education has shifted from a world where critical thought was valued to a world where universities are expected to fulfil the roles of the marketplace, leading to the ‘death’ of critical thinking. This doctoral research explores the ways in which undergraduate students define, experience and demonstrate critical thinking. It will reflect on whether their individual starting points at university and social characteristics (such as social class, gender, race and culture) affect their engagement with critical thinking. This research will use mixed qualitative research methods (longitudinal interviews, emails, observation and a reflexive diary) to study two cohorts of first-year students at the University of Sussex - a professional and an academic social-science course. A feminist critical realist theoretical framework will inform the research design. In particular, Archer’s (2000) concept of the internal conversation will inform discussion of how critical thinking can be theorised as both a personal and social act and the impact of students’ personal motivations on their critical thinking. Ahmed’s (2010) concept of feminist killjoys and the affective implications of becoming critical will also be used to consider whether critical thinking is at odds with our (gendered) desires for sociability and the extent to which critical thinking is an emotional, as well as an intellectual act. The intended outcome of the research is to socially contextualise what it means to be a ‘critical’ student as well as consider whether critical thinking remains a value of a 21^st century higher education. In this paper, I will reflect on my research journey so far, focusing in particular on the illuminating role of theory in formulating my research.

// MOOCs and Critical Pedagogies//

I attended a really interesting talk on Wednesday about ‘MOOCS and the Future of Higher Education’ by Jon Dron from Athabasca University. Massive Open Online Courses are a growing phenomena in the international higher education market and, more recently, 21 UK Universities, along with a number of museums, have signed up with FutureLearn which promises to be the UK’s first, free, open online platform for higher-level short course. 

That evening after the talk, I continued my reading of Ranciere’s The Ignorant Schoolmaster where he argues that educators can channel the equal intelligence in all learners to facilitate their intellectual growth in virtually unlimited directions.

This got me thinking about the links between such emancipatory pedagogies and the MOOC phenomenon. Whilst I recognise that the relationship between education and empowerment is complex and even problematic (e.g. are educators emancipating based on their own moral code?), I wondered what potential MOOCs have in terms of empowering learners and what educational freedoms they create. 

The following two discussion points present my work in progress on this idea:

MOOCs have huge potential in terms of widening access. Allowing people in rural India to learn programming from MIT is undeniably a powerful thing. However, MOOCs appear indifferent to retention criteria and whilst huge numbers sign up, far less complete. This made me consider what kinds of students would be more or less likely to complete a MOOC. As an experienced learner, confident with educational technologies, a MOOC may be a successful model for me. I have the intellectual capital to know how to behave in an online space. I also am confident in accessing other forms of support to inform my MOOC study such as professional networks, academic reading and informal discussions with fellow researchers. But how would the ‘average’ undergraduate student fare? For example, research into widening participation in higher education shows the importance of fostering a sense of student belonging, particularly for those from non-traditional backgrounds to higher education.  What avenues of support are there if you get stuck and need to ask for help? Can the 100,000 other students on your MOOC constitute a supportive community? My concern is that the MOOC model appeals to a certain kind of confident, experienced learner and that this may not have the widening access potential that it should.

MOOCs are designed to be flexible in terms of the way they are designed, delivered and assessed. In terms of providing alternative spaces that go beyond the traditional confines of higher education, that seems to be a positive thing. In theory, anyone can design, deliver and participate in a MOOC. In practice, I wonder whether MOOCs reconfigure knowledge as something exclusive in the hands as the few that as learners we are invited to discuss but never to challenge. For example, the majority of MOOCs are designed by elite universities where the ‘knowledge’ delivery is fairly fixed and didactic e.g. in the form of videos and other online content. The learners are, in the more constructivist MOOCs (but not all), then given opportunities to discuss. As an educational space, I think this provides limited freedoms for learners to shape the learning environment or the context of the knowledge that is delivered. I cannot see how they offer the potential for the democratization of knowledge as Ranciere suggests.

At the moment these points are critical niggles that I am hoping to develop into something wider. MOOCs have the potential to reach the unreachable learner and, most fundamentally, they are free. I want to be wholly in support of them for these two reasons alone. However, I have concerns about their ethical responsibility in terms of the retention of learners and their ability to support non-traditional learners. I also worry that certain MOOCs present exclusive forms of knowledge practices that deny opportunities for the learner to shape their learning experience and, most fundamentally, to critique!

// Research Proposal…I can see the end//

In preparation for my first-year viva I have to write a research proposal of 10,000 words - and it is almost over! I’ve basically had this document open in some form since November and come Monday I’ll finally be pressing print. I’m pretty much done now but I’m hoping that another weekend could bring another brainwave. Plus, getting things in way before the deadline is a bizarre trait and one I never intend to experiment with.

I’ll sum up academically where I’ve got to next week but these are the main research lessons I’ve learnt:

1) The things you agonise the most over are the ones that somehow just fall into place. I was confused about my methods for ages and then on the bus to uni a couple of weeks ago it all fell into place and I knew exactly what the plan should be. It can’t be something magic about the number 25 bus so I’ll put it down to the need for regular thinking space.

2) I would lose the plot if I had to do this alone. Though writing is incredibly isolating, research doesn’t have to be. I’ve called on a huge number of people’s advice, not least my supervisors and PhD buddies - but also friends and family who know nothing about my topic. From explaining my research to people socially or asking detailed advice from those in the know, everything helps.

3) Having a reality check is a good idea. When I’m up to my neck theorising about students as being this amazing source of research material, they start to feel so exotic,complicated and terrifying. Yet walking past them in the canteen or talking to friends I know who are studying makes you realise that they are human too. I don’t think it can be a good thing to just experience your participants theoretically!

I’ve also rediscovered knitting as a new form of procrastination along the way. Knitted wonders to follow in good time. But here are my celebratory research proposal new shoes!

// Well I’ll throw yesterday in the bin - research and permanency//

As part of my first-year PhD assessment to check that I haven’t just been looking at cats on the internet, I have to submit a research proposal and present to my peers.I wrote the research proposal quickly and slowly grew embarrassed by it.

This is not a lack of confidence in me thing. In fact, the past few weeks I’ve felt more than ever like a real and quite capable PhD student, wearing my bookbag with pride. It’s not a lack of confidence in my ideas thing either. I think my topic is really interesting to me and probably to quite a lot of other people. A good test is that I think my proposed research participants, undergraduate students, will be interested in it. In fact, I’m finding it useful to see them as a target audience for this - with everything I write I think - would they get out of bed to hear what I have to say?

The problem is its permanency. I write it down and by virtue of it being in print, somehow it becomes so very real. I know I should see the process as a guide, an administrative hurdle even, but I can’t help but feel it is captured in a moment of time that I will look back on and be knocked down by its naivety.

It is happening already. I read Beverley Skeggs a couple of days ago and it made me think about the social context of the interview as a method and how, probably nervous, first-year undergraduate students will engage with this. Will they think it is like a meeting with their tutor? Will they see me as an authority figure? Would the results be different if I recruited the students outside the campus and met them in a cafe? Will boys react differently to me than girls? Will it matter that, for example, one of my participants is a fan of TV interview panel shows and is familiar with a certain trope of how the interview goes? Will it matter that another has never even had a job interview? How do I deal with the situatedness and partialness of the interview whilst at the same time see its importance and its potential for revealing something about students’ lives?

Ultimately, what I’m grappling with is how do I incorporate all this uncertainness into a proposal that says to my examiners that I’m a competent human being that you should give approval to. Also, how do I press ‘send’ or ‘print’ when I know that tomorrow I’ll have new questions? Is this all part of the chaos?

I have written the powerpoint for my talk though and that makes me feel amazing. Once I accept that all this questioning is probably a good thing, I’ll feel like this all the time right?

(Source: phdstress)

// Struggling with Margaret Archer then I get a free conference invite explaining it all - Amazing!//

Here’s the link if you want to come too http://www.srhe.ac.uk/events/details.asp?eid=75

(Source: out-here-thuggin)

// When someone says her argument isn’t political//

phdstress: