Originally published by Ideas on Europe on 12 October 2023: https://jcms.ideasoneurope.eu/2023/10/12/what-is-actually-being-mainstreamed-in-the-mainstreaming-of-euroscepticism/ In recent decades criticism on the European Union (EU) and even the complete dismissal of European integration – a range of positions generally grouped under the umbrella term ‘Euroscepticism’ – have gained ground. Euroscepticism has become mainstream, as “it has become increasingly more legitimate and salient (and in many ways less contested) across Europe as a whole” (Brack & Startin, 2015, p. 240). Events such as referendums and European Parliament (EP) elections provide a particularly good opportunity for Eurosceptic movements to mobilise (Usherwood, 2017). In my recent Journal of Common Market Studies article, I look at the mainstreaming of Euroscepticism by studying the coverage of EP election debates in the Netherlands in 2009, 2014 and 2019. I examine mainstreaming through a two-part qualitative analysis that centres around a fourfold typology, which distinguishes between supportive, Euroalternative, soft Eurosceptic and hard Eurosceptic claims (Table 1). Here, I build on the concepts of soft and hard Euroscepticism developed by Taggart and Szczerbiak. Yet, by introducing ‘Euroalternativism’, I avoid soft Euroscepticism’s catch-all nature. Euroalternativism implies criticism towards (elements of) EU policies or its institutional design that is essentially supportive of the EU and European integration (FitzGibbon, 2013). I also add support for the existing nature of the EU and its policies to my categorisation, so as to take into account the “complex interaction among competing pro-integration narratives and counter-narratives to European union” (McMahon & Kaiser, 2022, p. 1). Finally, I further refine the categorisation by distinguishing between statements regarding (I) the EU polity (its political system and its institutions) and (II) EU policies. There has been relatively less attention for mass media in the study of Euroscepticism, which is surprising given their central role in contemporary European democracies (Caiani & Guerra, 2017). Furthermore, most existing research has taken a quantitative perspective, whereas scholars have argued that a qualitative approach focussing on discourses and narratives is more suitable for achieving an encompassing understanding of Euroscepticism’s changing meaning and importance (Leconte, 2015). Indeed, as Brown et al. illustrate what is and what is not mainstream in the public sphere is prone to change because ideas change through debates in that same public sphere. The first part of my analysis consists of a manual coding of EU-related claims by actors in three newspapers – De Telegraaf, De Volkskrant and NRC Handelsblad – that play a central role in the Dutch mediated public sphere. The analysis of claims focusses on two essential elements of a claim, namely, ‘who’ (the claimant) and ‘what’ (the subject of the claim), plus on determining the assessment of EU affairs through a close reading of the wording (Koopmans & Statham, 2010). The second part of the analysis zooms out again to place the claims analysis in the context of the wider EP election debates in the Dutch public sphere. Hence, in contrast to the first part of the analysis that follows a pre-established categorisation, the second part looks at the overall story and the key themes as present in the material analysed. In total I analysed 3148 claims. Figure 1 presents an overview of the way in which the EU and its policies were discussed in the Dutch-mediated debate on the EP elections. Despite some differences between the three mediated debates, it becomes clear that supportive claims are least prominent. Instead, criticism of and opposition to the EU has become widespread, whether essentially supportive or fundamentally Eurosceptic; because, while representing “pro-system opposition” (FitzGibbon, 2013), Euroalternative claims are still a form of criticism on the EU. As such, Figure 1 suggests that Euroscepticism has indeed become mainstream; that it is at the centre of the debates in the Dutch public sphere. Yet, it comes in different guises, namely, Euroalternative, soft Eurosceptic and hard Eurosceptic claims. Building on this, the second part of the analysis calls for an even more nuanced assessment and puts forward three key points.
First, during the three EP elections, Euroscepticism in its various guises was specifically mainstreamed in a debate that concerned the pros and cons of integration, with limited attention for policies. This illustrates that there is an interplay between pro-con narratives, as suggested by McMahon and Kaiser (2022). Second, what is being mainstreamed still amounts to a vague notion of Euroscepticism. As such, we may ask what Euroscepticism was being mainstreamed? For instance, in an article in De Volkskrant on 5 June 2009, the ongoing campaign was said to be “governed by Euroscepticism”, while it simultaneously referred to a “Eurocritical wave” and the “anti-European camp”. Third, at the same time, the place of Eurosceptics in the debate gradually changes, turning them from outsiders into insiders. Eurosceptics’ existence is no longer merely observed and noted, but they are increasingly treated as equal and legitimate actors in the EU debate. Brexit may have mattered here, as the hard edges of Euroscepticism have at least partly withered away (cf. de Vries, 2018). In essence then, my article illustrates that the statement that Euroscepticism has become mainstream is partly a simplification of a development in which criticism of and opposition to the EU are prone to change. Even focussing on EP elections alone creates problems, as they skew debates toward issues of integration – in some of my other work, I find that day-to-day EU debates focus on policies and policy alternatives. It is therefore important that we continue to treat the term ‘Euroscepticism’ with caution. In fact, perhaps we need to even go one step further and, paraphrasing Ophir (2018), ought to ask ourselves ‘what kind of concept is Euroscepticism?’. In other words, shouldn’t researchers in the field of Euroscepticism consider re-launching the conceptual debate? Obviously, this is not an easy challenge. Yet, it exactly this conceptual puzzle that I am currently exploring with my colleague Luca Mancin and we are looking forward to sharing our thoughts at a conference near you soon!
0 Comments
Originally published by Active Learning in Political Science on 12 April 2023. A few weeks ago, many of you visited the ISA conference in Montreal. Unfortunately, I couldn’t attend myself, but I was able to read up on some of the many interesting discussions on teaching and learning that you seemed to have had. Indeed, this blog and others (I also shamelessly promote our own) are my go-to places for learning about and engaging with such discussions, just like I always attend dedicated teaching and learning conference panels and days (for instance, during the annual UACES conference) and enjoy attending teaching staff professionalisation workshops here in Maastricht. In fact, I coordinated and organised quite a few of those before taking on my current role of associate dean for education in September of last year. The value of these forms of exchanging experiences and ideas cannot be overestimated. In fact, I think that they should even be emphasised and pursued much more in a time in which teaching and learning seem to be gaining importance in academic careers in at least some places. For instance, in the Netherlands universities are now starting to implement a programme called Recognition & Rewards, which is all about valuing different academic careers (read more about how this is being implemented at Maastricht University here). At the start of this year, I had my best exchange experience so far. I was fortunate enough to be able to spend two full weeks at the University of Leeds on an Erasmus+ mobility grant. Leeds has embarked on an ambitious programme that I wanted to know more about, called ‘Curriculum Redefined’. But I also used the opportunity to shadow my friend Simon Lightfoot, who’s in a similar position as I am, but has much more experience than I do. Those two weeks have been among the best and most inspiring of my time in academia. I talked to many students and colleagues from a whole range of disciplines, attended super interesting events and workshops, and hosted two workshops on problem-based learning myself. I learned a lot and brought home many new ideas on issues such as assessment, decolonisation, and the hidden curriculum. But it also became clear again that the grass is not always greener on the other side; not only do we encounter similar challenges, but sometimes the solutions for these challenges back home are not that bad at all.
I also was reminded again that words matter and that a sense of belonging is important, for students and teaching staff. In fact, one of my key take-aways is the need to “find your own people”, as a participant in one of the workshops put it. I think that this blog is one way of doing so, just like attending teaching and learning events and workshops. Yet, when it comes to developing and reflecting upon your own experience nothing beats spending a little bit more time in another place. I have already decided that I want to do more of this. I’m not quite sure yet how to finance it, but, ideally, I’d want to spend one week at another university each year. Perhaps connect these visits to conference attendance? Frame it in the form of a project? Something that I will still have to explore further. But in my experience, it is equally rewarding to welcome colleagues here. Just the other month, Christopher Huggins visited us from the University of Suffolk to learn more about Maastricht University and problem-based learning. We had many interesting discussions and I’m looking forward to contributing to an online Suffolk event in July to continue those discussions. In short, while I may not be stating anything new to the converted teaching and learning geeks who read this blog (‘my own people’), do feel free to view this post as an invitation for you to get in touch to see if we can arrange a visit to Maastricht! Co-authored with Sally Wyatt, original published by the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog on 2 February 2023. The way in which our curricula are designed means that we are not always able to teach subjects that exactly fit our research expertise. Even though commitment to interdisciplinarity and PBL are very persuasive reasons for this, some of us may not find this situation ideal. On 26 January 2022 we hosted an online workshop aimed at exploring alternative ways in which research can benefit from teaching, going beyond the model of teaching our own research to a group of highly motivated, advanced students. The workshop was attended by twenty colleagues, who all enjoy teaching and shared many great ideas. We would like to thank the participants for their insightful and inspiring contributions. Below is a short summary of the do’s and don’ts that emerged from the workshop.
Do’s
Don’ts
About the authors Patrick Bijsmans is Associate Professor in Teaching & Learning European Studies and Associate Dean for Education at Maastricht University’s Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. At the time of the workshop he still coordinated the staff professionalisation programme Continuing Professional Development. Sally Wyatt is Professor of Digital Cultures and Associate Dean for Research at Maastricht University’s Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Co-authored with Anna Harris. Originally published by the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog on 23 June 2022. One of the key characteristics of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is its emphasis – or even dependence – on active student engagement. One way of activating students in such a context is the use of games. On 7 June 2022 we hosted an interactive Continuing Professional Development (CPD) workshop aimed at exploring the possibilities that games offer in a PBL context. We knew of examples such as large scale simulations used in year 1 of the Bachelor in European Studies, the use of a card game to teach observational skills and that many of were using short ice-breakers to get discussions in our groups going, but we had a sense that there were many more examples in our midst. So we set up the workshop in a Skillshare Workshop format, with the aim to take time out and share experiences with games in teaching (if any), learn new skills, brainstorm ideas, build resources and connections, and have a lot of fun in the process. In spirit of the latter, we also started the workshop with a paper plane icebreaker. Participants received a sheet of A4 paper to write down a question they would like to discuss during the workshop. They were then asked to fold the paper into an airplane and toss it into the room. Another participant then answered the question and once again tossed the airplane into the room. We repeated this process three times, with the aim of gathering some first questions and responses to shape the rest of the workshop. Ahead of the workshop participants were asked to bring games they tried on students, games they want to think with, games they’d like to try on colleagues and any other materials. After the airplane bonanza we asked participants to share their experience with playing games to map options and get a sense of how games are used. Karlijn Haagsman, Alexandra Supper and Anna each brought games to the workshop and discussed their experience. Others such as Vincent Bijman talked about their experience using icebreakers, with Eli Sapir and Patrick bringing in the example of using bingos. Our colleagues from the History department gave further context to debate, noting that games have been present in teaching and learning for a long time. Manuel Stoffers even brought a 500-year (!) old card game to the workshop – read about the card game here. This first discussion and sharing of ideas already was testament to the fact that many colleagues already use game-like elements in their teaching. One of the key issues raised in this context was that games should be used as a tool to improve learning, not as a means in themselves. And what better way to test this then to actually play games! We opted for UNO with Alexandra, Codenames with Karlijn and Pandemic with Anna. Alexandra uses UNO to practice participatory observation. Her reason to choose UNO is that most people will know this game and its rules, which makes focussing on the pedagogical goals easier. Karlijn uses Codenamesto have students engage in concept learning and discussion. This game also comes with an online version, which may be particular useful in today’s learning environments. Finally, Anna brought Pandemic because it inspired a (pre-COVID) exercise in designing a PBL assignment that resulted in an assignment centred around a fictional pandemic. Both the assignment and the game stimulate reflections on decision-making in interdisciplinary groups. Everyone had a chance to get a taster of all three games before we moved on to the last part of the workshop, which was aimed at a broader reflection on the questions formulated earlier. During the workshop, participants voted with star stickers on the paper plane questions they found most relevant to them, and the most important to discuss further. This generated five central questions:
While we did not have immediate answers to these questions – discussions focussed on practical issue such as the need for a games library and for (SOLVER) hours for meaningful integration of games – we think that ending this blog with them might help to continue the debate and give you an insight into what to take into account when considering to introduce games in your courses. If you are interested in exploring the possibilities of using games in your teaching, why not check out the following resources?
About the authors Patrick Bijsmans is Associate Professor in Teaching & Learning European Studies and faculty CPD coordinator. He teaches BA and MA level courses in European Studies, where he has used bingos and other forms of icebreakers to activate students. Anna Harris is Associate Professor of the Social Studies of Medicine. She teaches in the Bachelor of Arts and Culture and is involved in several research projects at the Faculty looking at the role of the senses and materials in learning. Co-authored with Andreea Nâstase, originally published by the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog on 9 May 2022. Podcasts are rapidly becoming an important medium, with over 400 million podcast listeners worldwide projected for this year. Search for “podcast higher education” in Spotify and you’ll find yourself scrolling for quite a while until you reach the end of the list. But it isn’t that long ago that podcasts were still a relatively unknown medium.
Indeed, in their still rather recent 2010 article on using podcasting in teaching and learning, Jason Ralph, Naomi Head, and Simon Lightfoot start of by explaining that “The term ‘Podcast’ is derived from ‘iPod’ (which is the portable multimedia player from Apple) and ‘broadcast’ (Lim, 2006).” Since then, researchers have investigated many aspects of using podcasts in teaching and learning. Lucy Taylor and colleagues have for instance looked at how podcasts might support self-study in active learning environments. And avid teaching and learning bloggers such as Alexandra Mihai and Simon Usherwood have discussed the pros & cons and do’s & don’ts of podcasting. We have both only recently started to use podcasts. Patrick started podcasting in late 2020, in the BA European Studies course ‘Working with Research Problems’. The aim of this podcast is, in the words of Mihai, to “shape and sustain the overall narrative of the course”. Since early 2021 Patrick makes podcasts to accompany the deadlines for the BA European Studies thesis. Here the focus us rather on “providing instruction and guidance” (again, dixit Mihai). Andreea has been using podcasts since early 2022, in the BA European Studies course ‘Constructing Europe’. The aim of this podcasts series – which has been produced with the support of an EDLAB Education Innovation Grant – is in line with Taylor and colleagues, namely to bring in experts and add additional context to the course. Based on our experience, here are a couple of things to consider when you want to start producing podcasts for your course.
We’ve both enjoyed working with podcasts and on average the feedback has been positive. So, we would definitely advise you to consider using podcasts too. Perhaps we could do a podcasts series at programme or faculty level as a means to discuss contemporary developments and/or promote our research? In any case, if you would like to find out more about podcasting, please note that Andreea will be sharing her experience during the FASoS Teaching & Learning Festival on 16 June 2022. Co-authored with Arjan H. Schakel, originally published by Active Learning in Political Science on 25 March 2022. In one of his recent contributions to this blog, Chad asks why students should attend class. In his experience "[C]lass attendance and academic performance are positively correlated for the undergraduate population that I teach. But I can’t say that the former causes the latter given all of the confounding variables." The question whether attendance matters often pops up, reflected in blog posts, such as those by Chad and by Patrick’s colleague Merijn Chamon, and in recent research articles on the appropriateness of mandatory attendance and on student drop-out. In our own research we present strong evidence that attendance in a Problem-Based Learning (PBL) environment matters, also for the best students, and that attending or not attending class also has an influence on whether international classroom exchanges benefit student learning. Last year we reported on an accidental experiment in one of Patrick’s courses that allowed us to compare the impact of attendance and the submissions of tasks in online and on-campus groups in Maastricht University’s Bachelor in European Studies. We observed that that attendance appeared to matter more for the on-campus students, whereas handing in tasks was important for the online students. This year the same course was fully taught on-campus again, although students were allowed to join online when they displayed symptoms of or had tested positive for Covid-19 (this ad-hoc online participation was, unfortunately, not tracked). We did the same research again and there are some notable conclusions to be drawn. In the first-year BA course that we looked at, students learn how to write a research proposal (see here). The course is set up as a PBL course, so it does not come as a big surprise that attendance once again significantly impacted students’ chances of passing the course. Figure 1 displays the impact of the number of attended meetings on the probability that a student will pass for the course. Not surprisingly, the impact of attendance is large, a student who attends only one meeting is quite certain to fail (35% to pass) whereas a student who attends all meetings is quite certain to pass (70%). Notes: Shown are the predicted probabilities and their 95% confidence intervals. The results are based on a logit model whereby 175 students are clustered by 18 tutor groups and that includes the attended number of meetings and the number of tasks that were handed-in and their interaction. All the differences between the predicted probabilities are statistically significantly different from each (p < 0.01). Figure 2 displays the impact of the number of tasks that are handed-in on the probability to pass for the course. The impact of the number of handed-in tasks is also large, a student who hands in only one task is quite certain to fail (34% to pass) whereas a student who hands-in all tasks is quite certain to pass (76%). Comparing the impacts of attendance and handing in assignments we observe that attendance matters as much as handing in assignments, but a significant interaction effect signals that both strengthen each other. In Table 1 we display the impact of attendance and handing-in tasks on the probability to pass for the course. Most students (112/175 = 64%) attended 4 to 6 meetings and handed-in 5 to 7 tasks. Hence, we zoom in on these students to disentangle the separate impact of attendance and tasks handed-in. Notes: Shown are the predicted probabilities and their 95% confidence intervals. The results are based on a logit model that includes an interaction effect between the attended number of meetings and the number of tasks that were handed-in and whereby 175 students are clustered by 18 tutor groups. All the differences between the predicted probabilities are statistically significantly different from each (p < 0.05; except for when the number of attended meetings is 4: p < 0.10). The differences between predicted probabilities for 5 and 7 handed-in tasks ranges between 8% when a student attended 4 meetings to 15% when a student attended 6 meetings. This impact is significant but also a bit smaller than the impact of attendance. The differences between predicted probabilities for 4 and 6 attended meetings ranges between 13% when a student handed-in 5 tasks to 20% when a student handed-in 7 tasks. An important take-away message from Table 1 is that attendance and handing-in tasks reinforce each other. That is, the impact of attendance is larger when a student hands-in more tasks (i.e. from 8% to 15% is 7% increase), and the impact of handed-in tasks is larger for students who attend more meetings (i.e. from 13% to 20% is 7% increase). Notes: Shown are predicted probabilities and their 95% confidence intervals. The results are based on a logit model whereby 175 students are clustered by 18 tutor groups. The model includes the attended number of meetings (att) and the number of tasks type I and tasks type II and their interactions. All the differences between the predicted probabilities are statistically significantly different from each other for tasks type-I when a student attends 5 or 6 meetings (p < 0.01). None of the differences between the predicted probabilities are statistically significant for tasks type II. We further explore the impact of handing-in tasks by looking at the impact of the type of tasks (Figure 3). The first group concerns general writing tasks that were specifically discussed in class, but students didn’t receive written feedback from tutors (tasks type I). The second group concerns writing tasks that directly prepared for the final course research proposal. These tasks were not specifically discussed in class, but students receive extensive written feedback from tutors (tasks type II).
Whereas one may expect that tasks type II mattered most given that they prepare for the final exam, we actually find that their effect was negligible. At the same time, handing in task type I assignments – those discussed in class, without written feedback – did have a positive effect on chances of passing the course. We explain this striking result by one of the core elements of PBL, namely effective learning occurs through collaboration. While discussing a wide range of students’ assignments in class (tasks type I) students do not only learn and reflect on their own assignment but also from those of their fellow students. This increases their understanding of what is good academic writing and what is not. These striking results also raise interesting questions regarding writing assignments, staff feedback and workload and how these issues should be dealt with in an active learning environment such as PBL. Perhaps writing assignments – in different forms – can be integrated more into class discussions, decreasing the workload that normally comes with giving feedback on individual writing assignments? Co-authored with Talischa Schilder and Johan Adriaensen, originally published by Wonkhe on 9 March 2022. The Covid crisis has both highlighted and challenged the marketisation of universities. Students have gone on rent strikes demanding a reduction of their tuition fees – as customers, they are not satisfied with the service that they have paid for. An important aspect of the marketisation of universities is how these institutions generate their income. After reforms by David Cameron’s cabinet, government funding has become principally linked to the number of admitted students, further raising the bar of tuition fees. Consequently, UK universities compete on the education “market” for a higher number of enrolled students or a quality premium for their services to generate more income. So what may help to entice student-customers to pay such high fees? Have it your way Many argue that the incorporation of elective or module choice into a programme is a strategy that will attract a higher number of enrolled students. The thinking goes that students are responsible for their learning experience and are thought to be rational-thinking individuals, capable of choosing what suits them best. In this framing, freedom of choice creates a sense of autonomy that attracts student-customers. In other words, the student is the customer, and the customer is king. Curriculum flexibility is supposed to not only raise student satisfaction ratings, but also an institution’s brand strength, ranking and reputation. These factors, in turn, boost the number of student applications and ultimately the institution’s revenue stream. But is that how it works in practice? Back here in the real world We have analysed ninety-three undergraduate programmes in Political Science and International Relations across the UK. In the figure below, we have plotted the programmes’ flexibility (percentage of credits that are electives) against student satisfaction as measured by the National Student Survey (NSS) UK. If there was a connection, we might expect to see data points clustered around a linear upward-sloping graph, but the data is scattered. We acknowledge the widely voiced criticism on the validity of NSS metrics, in particular the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). However, the theory holds that such statistics are quintessential in the public construction of reputation and brand name. We can conclude that curriculum flexibility does not increase student satisfaction nor TEF ratings. Another important feature of the marketisation of universities is the focus on rankings and reputation as integral to the institution’s brand. Such statistics can serve as a quality guarantee to potential students thereby directing their choice of university. In theory, older and higher-ranking universities are less exposed to the workings of the free market because their strong brand generates a steady influx of students along with external funding regardless of any marketing strategy. The hypothesis would then be that younger and lower-ranking universities offer a higher degree of flexibility in their undergraduate programmes to attract more students. Upside down But in reality, our research indicates that the higher-ranking universities lean towards a free-elective system. It doesn’t matter if we select the QS Global Ranking, the Times Higher Education World Ranking or the rankings in the Guardian League Table 2020 – lower-ranking universities with a weaker brand name offer relatively rigid undergraduate programmes in comparison to the elite institutions. How do we explain these contrasting results? Older and higher-ranking universities are known to enjoy larger financial resources. Therefore, these institutions are able to provide a study programme with more free electives and specialisation courses in comparison to younger and lower-ranking universities. Deeper pockets enable a higher staff – student ratio. It enables senior academics to teach electives on their field of expertise, leaving the prescribed subjects to the teaching assistants. Within the academic debate, curriculum flexibility is associated with the marketisation of universities, which could lead to the pursuit of revenue as primary interest at the cost of the quality guaranteed in a prescribed curriculum. However, our research suggests that the incorporation of elective / optional courses / modules into undergraduate programmes is better understood as a premium, “luxury” service.
While “develop your own curriculum” is a catchphrase on many university websites to woo the potential student-applicant, curriculum flexibility is not associated with higher student satisfaction. Instead, it is an organisational trait associated with (past) wealth that is actively marketed. Considering the financial constraints under which (smaller) universities operate, and more specifically the tenuous position of Political Science programmes, we caution against emulating the flexible curricula employed by higher ranking institutions. It is not the silver bullet many may be looking for. Originally published by the DCU Brexit Blog on 19 January 2022. After a record 271 days of negotiations a new Dutch coalition government took office on Monday 10 January. Although, is it really new? The same four parties that formed the previous government – Christian-Democratic CDA, Christian CU, Social-Liberal D66 and Conservative-Liberal VVD – are also in the new government. Yet, it does come with many new faces and plans. This includes what is at first sight a rather different approach towards the EU.
In the recent past the Netherlands has become known as a reluctant EU member, particularly following ‘Black Monday’ in 1991, when an ambitious Dutch blueprint for a federal Europe was rejected, and the Dutch ‘No’ to the Constitutional Treaty in 2005, partly due to increased dissatisfaction with the pace and extent of European integration. Whether the Dutch ever were passionate believers in European integration before that time, may be questioned. But the country having become known as a member of the ‘New Hanseatic League’ and one of the ‘Frugal Four’ (for an insightful study, see here), it seemed almost like it had become a UK lite, stepping into the gap that occurred after Brexit to become perhaps the most Eurosceptic member of the EU. It therefore may come as a surprise that the new coalition agreement reads that “The Netherlands will play a leading role in making the EU more effective, economically stronger, greener and more secure.” But there’s more.
Of course, the proof is in the pudding; these are words on paper and reality may be quite different. But, as Rem Korteweg of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael also noted in a recent Twitter thread, some of the wording of the Dutch coalition agreement is quite similar to that of the new German government. Unlike the German government, the Dutch are not calling for a federal EU. But with the French and the Germans now seeing eye-to-eye on a number of EU reforms, the similarity between the two coalition agreements suggests that the new Dutch government may have become a Germany lite that will no longer put a break on the further development of the EU. Originally published by the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog on 4 November 2021. When our BA European Studies (ES) started in 2002, I embarked on a job as teaching assistant at FASoS. A crazy time, but also a fun and rewarding one. I was the only teaching assistant back then. Today, teaching assistants (usually recent MA graduates) play a central role in BA level teaching, and, in contrast to what the job title suggests, they teach the full course, are responsible for the proceedings of their tutorials, and are engaged in course assessment.
I’ve just started teaching and coordinating two courses in period 2. One of these is a first-year BA ES course that I’m teaching together with seven colleagues, all of whom are teaching assistants, and six of whom have only just started work at the faculty. In my experience teaching assistants often do a wonderful job. Nevertheless, there are also important drawbacks: for them, because in a problem-based learning (PBL) environment teaching is a team effort and a balanced team of young and experienced colleagues stimulates development and sharing of best practices; for coordinators, because the heavy reliance on teaching assistants ups the stakes for coordination. This situation now arises every first year in the BA ES and is also increasingly having an impact at the other end of the programme. Last August I had to assign no less than 26 new BA thesis first and second readers because some teaching assistants had found another job, but many more simply were at the end of their contract. Given our reliance on teaching assistants and with another ‘Erkennen & Waarderen’ (Recognition & Rewards) event just around the corner, it’s high time we talk about the future of teaching assistants at FASoS. To me ‘Erkennen & Waarderen’ is all about valuing different careers in academia; something that is more attuned to reality at many universities. But most of the discussions so far concern staff who have obtained a PhD (or are in the process of doing so). But what about teaching assistants? Each year FASoS hires new teaching assistants on temporary contracts to replace others who often have become excellent teachers with a wealth of experience and valuable insights into PBL, but whose contracts have expired. Isn’t that a waste? The argument for temporary contracts is usually twofold: teaching assistants can’t stay in academia without a PhD, and ‘we’ don’t want to determine their careers for them. The latter I find most puzzling. Some teaching assistants may actually have the ambition to teach, so is it then up to us to end contracts after 3-4 years? This argument also presupposes that teaching delivery is the only thing that they can do. But is that really the case? Teaching assistants already coordinate courses in our BA programmes and even the PBL & Tutor Training for new staff. I have co-developed course materials with teaching assistants, but they can also help improve assessment and develop innovative practices – after all, teaching assistants follow the University Teaching Qualification (UTQ) programme which prepares them for such tasks. Perhaps they could even assist in teaching and learning research; find relevant literature, gather data, even publish together with FASoS staff who are already engaged in such research (who knows, this may eventually turn into a PhD after all!). Of course, constantly fluctuating students numbers require a degree of flexibility. But wouldn’t we want to keep the best teaching assistants, for instance by having one vacancy every year or every second year? This offers security and a chance to build a strong CV, even when they want to move on after a few years – by all accounts it can be quite challenging to find another job after 3-4 years of teaching. We would, of course, have to determine what criteria ‘the best’ would have to meet, but there is lots of literature that could help in designing such career paths and the accompanying training. I know that there are quite a few of you who share my view, but some of you might consider this to be the death of academia as we know it. But do teaching assistants need a PhD to teach in our BA programmes? Course evaluations certainly suggest that this may not be the case – not a surprise given that teaching in PBL is about more than substantive knowledge only. And wouldn’t we all benefit from holding on to the best ones? Experienced teachers can also contribute to coordinative and research duties. This would alleviate pressure on coordinators in our BA programmes, but also save others time and effort to continuously train new staff. Time and effort which are not acknowledged in SOLVER hours, but which would decrease demands on research time. Finally, shouldn’t we also recognise teaching assistants’ substantial contribution by rewarding them with a different job title? They don’t just ‘assist’. Indeed, the task description for tutors on our intranet does not distinguish between teaching assistants and other teaching staff. The PBL & Tutor Training and UTQ also prepare them to do the same work as the rest of us. So perhaps instructor, teacher or simply tutor are more fitting job titles? Co-authored with Simon Lightfoot and originally published by the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog on 24 June 2021. It’s been over 15 months since we’ve had to suddenly move our courses online. A time during which we have learned many new things about synchronous versus asynchronous learning, about the technicalities of Microsoft Teams and Zoom, but also about the difficulties of maintaining a learning community of students and staff in an online setting. The two of us have always had an interest in issues pertaining to teaching and learning. Something that we’ve written about (for instance here and here) and also discussed during several conferences (including the first-ever European Teaching & Learning Conference in Maastricht in 2014). A few months back we were having an online chat about our online teaching and learning experience. We thought that it would be nice to organise a transnational exchange between the University of Leeds’ Faculty of Social Sciences and Maastricht University’s Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. On 28 May 2021 over 20 colleagues from both faculties, plus a student from each, joint us to reflect on over a year of online teaching and learning. This is what we discussed. Possibilities There was a general feeling that technology should not replace the personal touch but can add a personal touch. Many of the participants noted the increased accessibility and flexibility offered by (a)synchronous online teaching. In both faculties, there was a sense that components of active learning pedagogy particularly made online teaching more effective and enjoyable. Some tools allow for more interaction. Students who might normally be reluctant to ask a question in a large lecture setting, seem to have been more willing to do so in the Zoom chat. Padlet, an online collaboration platform, offers opportunities for students to jointly tackle an assignment or question without the at times awkward setting of the breakout room. In addition, tools such as podcasts and videos allow students to study at their own pace and in their own time, which can be particularly important for those with caring duties or jobs. The way that technology can unlock time for some students does allow flexible learning to suit the increasingly diverse student body. Lastly, colleagues also observed that more than ever before students thanked staff for their lectures, seminars and workshops. This was very much appreciated in these challenging times. Constraints
Participants also noted several challenges pertaining to online teaching and learning. This first and foremost concerned the lack of informal interaction, not just during lectures, seminars and workshops, but also before and after. This can even result in a feeling of isolation that might come with more problems than just a lack of engagement with university. This issue was raised by both academic staff and the two students, Lara and Luke. Staff also noted the issue of workload. Recording a podcast or a video can be time-consuming and is often not compensated in the same way as an on-campus lecture. In addition, while such asynchronous activities certainly can be a contribution, they often require additional lectures, seminars or workshops to go into detail or to have time for Q&A. Finally, while more active learning activities were valued, many felt that they came with a need for more scaffolding to help students make the most of online learning. Keeping the balance between student-centred and teacher-led learning was seen as a challenge. Final thoughts Overall, we found the event very fruitful. And judging from the many positive reactions we received during and after, other participants thought so too. Several important issues were brought to the table, including staff and students’ digital skills, the role of emotions and human interaction, and the issue of workload. One particularly telling observation was that perhaps the online/face2face dimension is less of an issue in some areas than we first thought. For example, some of the reflections were more about engaging versus non-engaging learning activities rather than online versus face2face and that good pedagogy – whatever the platform – requires structure, ground rules and clear instructions. Colleagues had embraced the opportunity to adapt teaching formats and activities to make them more engaging. They did this via enhancing student ownership/co-creation, addressing emergent real-world issues such as the COVID pandemic from an interdisciplinary perspective and experimenting with new forms of assessment. Many of these changes indeed do not depend on online or face2face formats, but some elements were easier to organize online, for example creating opportunities for students to consult with external experts. We are looking into possible follow-up events to address these issues in further detail. Given that both institutions are members of the World University Network, we hope that this is the starting point of a broader discussion, perhaps resulting in a live event in the future. Because, as one of the participants, Alexandra Mihai, has emphasised time and time again in her excellent blog The Educationalist, continuous reflection on teaching and learning is important and something that ideally takes place between colleagues across departmental and even national borders! About the authors Patrick Bijsmans is Associate Professor in Teaching and Learning European Studies at Maastricht University’s Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Simon Lightfoot is Pro Dean for Student Education and Professor of Politics at the University of Leeds’ Faculty of Social Sciences. In addition to an interest in teaching and learning, Patrick and Simon also share an interest in cycling and a good beer. |
Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|