Oh my god! Has it really been that long? In this time I have:

Been running the first year PhD programme

Been getting used to my new post, being diplomatic, making friends (and enemies!), undertanding the procedures

Been studying for my PhD, including reading a lot and writing a fair amount

Benn involved in the development of an MRes

Writing the definitive programme document for the MRes, something I have never done before (I found it very difficult but philosophically challenging)

Benn involved in the development of an interesting PgCert, still in its confidential phase but pedagogically very exciting

Been involved in the development and have written an AHRC Collaborative Training bid

Been doing, on top of all that, my day to day job supporting PhD students, processing admissions, coordinating examinations and being mentored as an examiner.

Now you know why I haven't been here!

I have however, been blogging a lot, just not about pedagogy but about seduction, the core of my research project.

Let me know if these excuses are pathetic. I really liked the work I put into this blog and sometimes regret not writing more often... I think about pedagogical issues a lot, just don't write about them...

First session of the new training programme

No one turned up for my first session of the training programme. 3 of my 4 new students had given their apologies. Even if I devise the best course, if students don’t turn up, it doesn’t make any sense. A written course is not good for anyone. I guess this has taught me a lesson: not to get anything for granted. This institution has some pretty bad habits I will have to start to turn around. I am not going to get defeated: this first session will get re-scheduled. I have the Drawing reading Group Action Research experience to base my decision on.

Supervision

My boss has asked to supervise a very difficult student. The student is not difficult because she is not capable of meeting the level. In fact, her project and intellectual abilities are astonishing and she may require a little bit of help with research skills but she is also capable of learning.

What makes her so difficult is the baggage she carries with her. The are many sides to this baggage: life has not treated her well, she has taken drastic decisions, her confidence in her abilities and/or the institution is not great, she has a lot of presage about what research is, her practice-led research presage is confused, she doesn’t understand the nature of supervision and, most inconveniently, she is economical with the truth which creates conflict amongst members of staff that just want to help her.

I have to say I am very excited by her project and challenged by the idea of being her supervisor. My boss is not going to throw me into this on my own. He or other senior member of staff will supervise with me. I have however, two main reservations about this supervision. First, what will it be like to help someone of these characteristics through the latter stages of the PhD, the most difficult ones? I have seen many completions and informally ‘supervised’ them, but never have been directly responsible for a student. There will have to be a first time. Second, when presented with this option, the student was hesitant about accepting as I don’t have a PhD myself (yet). When she told me, I stood my ground. I have 4 years of dedicated experience with practice-led researchers, I am a qualified supervisor, research active and I know about her field (drawing). Here is where her confusion about the nature of supervision makes her a difficult student. A 100% subject match is impossible in a PhD, as the student should know more than anyone about their subjects. The supervisor is there to guide, to support, to bring extra questions, an extra pair of eyes, to turn things around so there’s nothing left to chance. I know I can do that with her project. I have enough belief in it.

I guess the first difficulty will be a lot easier to surmount than the second one.

I am a PhD student!

I am a PhD student at Sheffield Hallam University. My interview was very tough but fair and 3 of the 4 members of the panel agreed to supervise me so, I not only have a place, but a team.

I know the benefits are going to be very good, although the investment is a long term one (my offer letter has my latest date for submission written on it: 2 October 2012). The interview highlighted a few holes in my thinking. Even if I have been working with research students for the last 4 years, I don’t think I will have an easier ride than any other students. I may have more conscience of what it is I am in for but new knowledge is wilderness no matter how much one knows about generic research skills.

Due to my line of work, I think I may over-develop two aspects of the research degree: writing and professional management. I think I may have to warn my supervisors about these two obsessions before they get a 30,000-word document…

Teaching PhD students whilst being one is going to be a difficult journey. However, not having a PhD has already proved a challenge with some students so the journey will be definitely worth it. In order not to confuse students, I will have to refer to my PhD as my research and emphasize the idea of adult-adult relationship rather than teacher-pupil.

Programme Design

Moments like this

Moments like this make my job absolutely worth it. My MA Research Preparation student sent me a copy of her final dissertation by email. Reading and seeing her work was amazing as the research qualities, the level pof writing and critical thinking were very advanced. I have been very lucky to have her as a first MA student as she has initiative, experimental ideas, reflective attitude and, above all, she wants to develop and therefore engages in discussion. This was one of those cases where I could almost see the student learn (almost literaly), and in doing so, I learned a lot myself both from our relationship and directly from her. It was a wonderfully rewarding experience.

I knew all along she was an extremely intelligent student but she still surprised me and moved me with her final submission.

Ipsative assessment

Writing the course document, I encounter my already-known stumbling block: assessment.

The training programme I am devising for first year research students won't be formally assessed until the end of their degrees (2 years down the line) and the examiners won't be part of the teaching cohort. This has always caused me problems.

The Glasgow School of Art offerred me to start from scratch, devise what I think would be the best training programme, wiothout any further restriction than our regulations and the QAA Code of Practice. Assessment, in my opinion, is an essential part of the process. How would I, otherwise, know if the student has achieved the level? How would I know what the student's training needs are if I don't assess them?

Of course, with assessment comes criteria and learning outcomes. But before I cross that bridge I need to think about the assessment itself. Needless to say that, for the time being, it cannot be summative (as that will be their Viva, at the end of their degree). However, I wasn't fully happy with only the formative assessment description. Browsing the web I found the term Ipsative Assessment or Type of assessment whereby the norm against which assessment is measured is based on prior performance of the person being assessed - the present performance is assessed against performance in the past. In athletics, "personal best" is an example of ipsative assessment. This seems perfect for the course I am preparing: it will introduce reflection, learning logs and will be aimed at achieveing a satisfactory level of learning outcomes, equipping students with particular skills (information gathering, management, academic writing etc...) that would enable them to carry out their research projects as painlessly as possible.

Oh, I am so excited by this!

Helping and feeding back

I am in the last stages of my portfolio. Profile 3, the Action Reserach Report and the Reflection on observation are all completed and I just need to correct and print. Everybody seems to be in the same situation. Both Edwin and Greg have sent me their Action Research for me to have a look. It is good to see other examples and the fact that they think I can help is flattering. I hope my advice wasn't too critical (I have the tendency to do that when correcting writing, as I very often am too critical with my own!). Edwin's research is very interesting and crossed over with mine in some aspects like motivation. I enjoyed reading it, but I fear he will have to cut out some parts as it is a 1000 words over the limit. His research is conceptually and methodologically sounds. However, he is having some problems with the writing and I hope I was helpful

Greg needed perhaps more help with modes of analysis and I pointed him in the direction of Bill Gillham, who helped me so much (and who I work with now!) with my questionnaire analysis. I hope that was helpful too. All 3 of us seem to be having more trouble with Profile 3 that with the Action Research Report, which is normal as the former is a big structured reflection task. I started writing it about 2 months ago and it took me a long time to decide on the structure and what I was going to leave in or out. I certainly don't like going over any word count because, as a teacher, I am mindful when people have tpo read a lot in a limited amount of time. If all of us write more 2000 words more, then the work is seriously augmented.

Continuing with my feed back tasks, Beatty, my MA supervisee, sent me her final draft, which I thought was of very high quality. I have been talking to her about the possibility of doing a PhD, as I think she has an interesting project she may want to pursue further. I think she is taking a step at a time, however, and she won't be rushing to get a proposal ready to start in the comming academic year. I am going top try to keep in contact with her, as I think our conversations have been very fruitful, both ways. Supervision, as opposed to more anonymous teaching, promotes a more intense relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee, which can work very well (as in this case) or go horribly wrong. Beatty has been sending me things she thought may be useful for my own research and in every single case, she was absolutely right!

All my feedback has been done in writing, remotely, adding to the word attachment sent to me in blue letters. I found it quite difficult and time consuming as sometimes I felt I needed to have a conversation, yo gain some reassurance that I wasn't going off in one. Perhaps it is my way of dealing with PhD students. I rarely impose, I often askl questions to take matters further.