This post was originally published by E-International Relations on 20 March 2019. I have a confession to make: in the more than two years that we are now running this blog, Russell and I have actually never met in person! Russell has links with the Netherlands; and, even worse, I was in London twice during the last 5 months alone. But the closest that we came to meeting was during a recent episode of TRT World’s ‘Roundtable’ on Brexit, in which we both appeared – but in my case only via Skype. While Russell and I clearly need to work on our relationship, both of us appearing in the same programme also made me think about the role of experts in contemporary society.
According to the Oxford online dictionary an expert is “A person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.” Experts have gained an important role in society. They, for instance, are a key source of information for EU institutions and other administrative and political bodies. And although Michael Gove (in)famously claimed that people “have had enough of experts”, those same experts are continuously asked to comment on contemporary developments – both Russell and I have regularly been asked to comment on Brexit in media at local, regional, national and international level. Discussing the same topic during the same television programme creates an acute sense of awareness of your role as an expert. People expect us to say and write knowledgeable stuff, but maybe when it comes to Brexit we are also slowly running out of ammunition. Brexit is, of course, an unprecedented development. States and territories have left the EU and its predecessors before, or have left member-states and thus became non-members by default (Algeria became independent from France in 1962; Greenland, in 1985, and Saint Barthélemy, in 2012, withdrew to become so-called overseas countries and territories of the EU). And, let’s not forget, other countries decided to refrain from membership or withdrew their applications, such as Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. Yet, his is the first time ever that a prominent member state is leaving the EU. Perhaps Brexit is not that much of a surprise given that Britain has always been an ‘awkward partner’, but it is difficult to predict what Brexit really means. Brexit means Brexit, right? But what will Brexit actually look like and what will be its consequences? Even we ‘experts’ don’t know anymore. Consider the many options that are now on the table, some which many people had not expected at all. There’s the EU-UK deal with the (in)famous ‘backstop’, which currently doesn’t receive enough support from either parliament nor the people on the street. Theresa May’s Plan B seems to be Plan A turned on its back, with the EU not willing to budge. And then there’s the no-deal Brexit scenario, which all but a few hard Brexiteers – those are among the Brexiteers with a “special place in hell” – seem to want to avoid. Even a no-Brexit scenario, although not very likely, is not completely of the table, certainly since calls for a second referendum or a general election are still out there. And then there’s the post-Brexit world. Even in a scenario where the EU and the UK agree to a deal after all, this is only the first step in setting up their future relationship. What will that relationship look like? And will the EU27 remain as unified as they currently are when having to negotiate a trade deal with the UK? We are charting new territory here. Experts answering these questions should perhaps say that we do not always know either. Mind you, I am not bored of Brexit and can surely speculate about it based on what I do know. But we should also not be afraid to admit that we don’t know everything.
0 Comments
This post was originally published on the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog on 5 February 2019 and was co-authored with Afke Groen. It has been a year since we started our Teaching & Learning Blog! And what better way to celebrate than with a blog of our own about the importance of sharing teaching experiences and best practices.
Over the past year, through our blog, we for example learned that a good supervisor offers reassurance, a good tutor realises that she is not omnipotent, and a good mentor does not wait for students to come to himbut acts when he signals something. Two contributions also stressed the relation between Problem-Based Learning (PBL) and academic writing: both in terms of the latter as a tool to support the former, and the former as a tool to support the latter. And while some argued that PBL is more relevant than everin times of complex problems, others noted that some of PBL’s core ideas are under pressure. A big thank you to all of those making these contributions! And a big thank you also to those reading these blog contributions. Because indeed it is not just sharingexperiences that we want to stimulate, but also listeningto them and reading about them. This is rooted in our belief that becoming better teachers at university requires us to talk to each other about our teaching; about our experiences with teaching and our different approaches to it. Afke, for instance, has started to use the whiteboard to take note of students’ doubts and unanswered questions after Sven Schaepkens and Patrick’s blog about whiteboarding. And after Michael Shackleton’s blog about the expert lecture, she has become even more aware that a good lecturer does not explain concepts to students, but illustrates them with the dilemmas and experiences of researchers and practitioners. Patrick has become more sensitive towards the diversity of students and staff and the challenges they encounter. He has made changes to the courses that he coordinates, for instance through updating assignment texts to generate more discussion (keep an eye on the upcoming contribution by Sven Schaepkens about problem design in the humanities and social sciences). He has also invited some of our contributors to share more of their invaluable experience with colleagues in the University Teaching Qualification (UTQ) trajectory. Of course, we hope that more people will contribute to and read our blog over the next year. Not just to further the debate about teaching and learning and learn from each other, but also because there are some policy changes on the agenda that we need to discuss – and in light of which we need to discuss our teaching practices. At the national level, there are discussions on how to value good teaching in academia more prominently than is the case now. Such debates about the desirability of teaching careers in higher education are also increasingly relevant outside of the Netherlands. In addition, as of September 2019 Maastricht University will launch the Continuous Professional Development programme, which will require all UTQ-certified teaching staff to continue their development as teachers. Finally, a university-level steering group currently discusses the university’s third main research theme, Learning & Innovation, in which research into teaching will play an important role. A conference dedicated to this theme will take place on 12 June this year. As such, there are many developments that will impact on teaching and learning at this faculty. Yet, while there are all sorts of workshops, books, articles and blogs about improving your research, academics seem much less accustomed to learning about teaching. All the more reason to continue with the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog. And we have a couple of blogs in the pipeline already, on topics such as:
If you want join the debate, please do not hesitate to contact us with your idea for a blog. You can find the requirements on our website. You can also simply react to existing blogs by leaving a comment below the blog. We look forward to hearing from you! This blog was originally published by Active Learning in Political Science on 20 November 2018. During last September’s annual conference of the University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES) in Bath, Simon kicked off the teaching and learning afternoon gathering with a teaching and learning bingo. I enjoyed this a lot. It was nice, active, fun. I got to meet new people and learned new thing about teaching and learning. Based on this (perhaps somewhat subjective) experience, I decided to hijack Simon’s idea and use it in two similar, but different settings. This is what happened. Problem-Based Learning workshop Bolzano Maastricht University is known for its application of Problem-Based Learning (PBL). New staff have to attend a PBL introduction training session upon starting at our university. All teaching staff also need to complete the so-called University Teaching Qualification (UTQ) trajectory (this, in fact, applies to all higher education institutions in the Netherlands). One of my duties is to coordinate UTQ at my home faculty. And it was this – plus my teaching experience – that lead me to being invited to convene a workshop entitled ‘Tutors in problem-based learning from distant facilitator to approachable coach’ at the University of Bolzano early October. Since I did not know any of the people there, I thought this would be a great opportunity to use the T&L bingo. I adapted Simon’s bingo to my own needs. The instructions are relatively straightforward and the items of a diverse nature, including more light-hearted ones. It worked surprisingly well. I got to know the participants, plus they got to know each other a bit better too. It also provided me with some input for the workshop (‘The one thing they’re hoping to learn more about today’). Considering it was a day-long workshop, this helped me to focus on specific points and also, towards the end, to check if everyone thought that we sufficiently covered their needs. University Teaching Qualification workshop Maastricht I already wrote that I coordinate UTQ at my home faculty. This year 13 colleagues have to complete the trajectory. The group of participants is very diverse in terms of disciplinary backgrounds and teaching experience, and included teaching assistants, PhD students and a professor. Not everyone knew each other, so once again the bingo seemed like a good idea. And once again, I thought I could use the input for the workshop.
This time too, I adapted the bingo to the setting,with specific questions about the topics that we were going to focus on during the day. Even though there was some hilarity as to whether this was really a serious exercise (see this tweet),participants actively engaged in it. As they will be working together throughout this academic year, it was important that they got to know each other – the usual round of introduction is a bit boring, especially because it usually does not result in new information. Once more I included a question that gave me specific input as to the expectations for the day (‘Your colleague’s personal learning goal for today’). What I learned The good: after a bit of hesitation everyone got really involved. Some colleagues did their utmost best to talk to everyone; others decided for a longer talk when the issue at hand was interesting. Reason enough to do it again, though I’d probably want to explain the exercise better in order to avoid awkward moments at the start. The bad: timing is an issue. In both cases, we took much more time than I had anticipated, as everyone really got into it and because I had encouraged them to try and talk to everyone. Next time I might consider using a timer or buzzer. Or perhaps offer a prize to the person who gets most boxes filled within a set time. The ugly: I enjoyed it so much that I also got completely carried away. And subsequently lost track of time… As such, a timer is definitely needed! Someone needs to keep track of me too. I might ask one of the other participants to be in charge of time instead. What’s next I’d love to try this exercise with students. I think it would make a great course opening. I mostly teach in a programme with +300 students, so they do not always know each other despite changing tutor groups every 8 weeks and every course. Plus it would be a great way to have them discuss a course topic in a more informal setting and get to know more about the course’s intended learning outcomes. Obviously, I would have to adapt the bingo to the course itself. I would include a debriefing so that we all get to know more about students’ pre-knowledge about the topic and our expectations of the course, the group and the tutor (i.e. me). And, you know; I already have a course in mind. This post was originally published by E-International Relations on 9 November 2018. Although the 2019 European elections are still over half a year away, we have seen a flurry of activity across Europe and regular media coverage of these activities. This ranges from the potential new alignment of parties in European Parliament, to the floating of names for top EU positions.
Brexit plays a role in this in two ways. First, 73 British members will soon be leaving the European Parliament. There already has been a decision on what to do with these vacant seats. More interesting is what this will mean for different party groups. The European Conservatives and Reformists, in particular, will lose a large chunk of its membership. But other groups will see quite a few members leaving too. Second, Brexit has given Eurosceptics across Europe the feeling that the tide is on their side – even though their results in recent national elections have been mixed (to say the least). This feeling of euphoria is not limited to the likes of Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders. Viktor Orbán has gradually become even more vocal in terms of his criticism on ‘Brussels’, as is the case for parties such as the 5 Start Movement in Italy. What could this mean in light of the 2019 European elections? The European elections have long been characterised by a strange paradox: while its powers have gradually increased with the aim of strengthening its democratic standing, voter turnout has been going down since the first direct elections in 1979. In 2014 the European Parliament coined the phrase “this time it’s different”, implying that there really was something at stake in the elections (think Spitzenkandidaten, Euro crisis, etc.), but to no avail. Yet, the 2019 elections may really become quite different. Not because of the Spitzenkandidaten (who knows Martin Weber or even Alexander Stubb, really?), but rather because of the realignment of political groups. There has been movement on several fronts. Italy’s 5 Star Movement is expected to launch a new pro-European, anti-establishment group after Christmas. Also, European movement Volt is aiming to disrupt traditional politics with a very pro-European message. Despite such developments, at the moment we see two main camps emerging: a progressive, pro-European movement and conservative, Eurosceptic movement. This actually may increase the chances of these elections actually tying in with what’s really on voters’ minds. Namely, are you for or against the EU and further integration? While this, arguably, is not what these elections should be about (why not discuss different policy options, as the main groups have always argued for?), this is how they have been framed in mediated public debates. On the one hand, although still within the christian democratic group himself,Victor Orbán’s flirt with ‘illiberal democracy’ may be attractive to other parties, in particular those who are part of the European Conservatives and Reformists group and are in danger of losing their ‘home’ (and, hence, funding, speaking time, and other resources). The Polish Law and Justice Party could be tempted into joining forces with Orbán, but perhaps even some of the other Eurosceptic parties in parliament may be willing to join. Together they may form a force for less integration and more sovereignty for the member states. One the other hand, French president Emmanuel Macron is making steps towards setting up a progressive, pro-European movement. This may be an attractive option for the Liberals – see Verhofstadt’s wheeling and dealing – but also for Green parties across Europe – with Daniel Cohn-Bendit already a prominent campaigner in Macron’s camp. It is within these two groups that, today, we find some of the more pro-European politicians, not in the social democratic and christian democratic groups. In fact, during several recent national elections the Greens have emerged as a progressive alternative to populist parties. In other words, the 2019 European elections may finally get to see the polarised debate between pro-European and Eurosceptic politicians that is normally mostly only framed as such in the mediated public debate. And while this may not be the politicisation that some would like to see, it may be exactly this debate that is needed in times of Brexit, Italian budget rows, and Trump’s seeming willingness to break down the international order. The time for muddling through seems to have come to an end and a democratic vote is the right way to decide what to do next. Are we going to combat these challenges together? Or do we want national governments to do the work on their own, in ‘splendid isolation’? This blog originally appeared in the April 2018 issue of student magazine Mosaïek, which was fully dedicated to research and writing. The current version was adapted for online publication and can also be read on the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog. “Learning how to do research is one of the most important tasks at the university. It is also one of the most challenging.” (Murtonen & Lehtinen, ‘Learning to be a researcher’, in Academic research and researchers) Academic research and writing are at the core of university studies. Luckily, whether you are a BA student writing you first research paper or a PhD student working on your dissertation, there is a whole world out there full of articles, blogs and books with hands-on advice. For instance, a few years ago, university newspaper Observant published a great piece with ten tips for writing your BA or MA thesis. Likewise, Gerald Schneider provides advice on “how to avoid the seven deadly sins of academic writing”. And many of you will have encountered The Craft of Research during your studies at our faculty. No doubt, your tutors and supervisor usually also bombard you with all kinds of advice. Here, I would like to highlight four underestimated ways to become a better academic writer.
1. Read a lot Yes, surprise: reading is key to research and writing. You need to embed your work in a broader literature. Have other scholars written about similar topics? How do you position yourself vis-à-vis their work? What contribution does your work make? But reading also helps to get a better insight into structure and vocabulary used in the field. Reading inspires (I wish my contribution to this issue of Mosaïek was as elegant and erudite as John Harbord’s!). By reading other people’s work – academic, but also non-academic work, including blogs, novels and poetry – you also get a feel of what writing you like and how you can use it to develop your own style. 2. Cherish feedback opportunities This may sound obvious to you, but is it really? In a course that I taught recently, of the 14 students whose paper I failed, only 2 attended my feedback open office hours. Colleagues had a similar experience, hence it came as no surprise that 50% did not pass the resit. Seeking or creating feedback opportunities is key to academic research and writing. This is why your tutors and supervisors present their work at conferences. Note that feedback is not only useful when you fail, but also when you pass. As you progress through your studies, expectations increase. For instance, did you know that students sometimes fail their thesis, simply because they assume that it is just another paper? 3. Use formal requirements to your advantage Like you, I too regularly get stuck when working on my research. When I do, I do not just lie back and wait for some magic to happen. Instead, I check the formal requirements of the publisher or journal that I would like to publish my research with. When applying these requirements to my text, I often bump into mistakes or incomprehensible writing, simply because I look at the text from a different perspective. So, while APA may be a pain, use it to your advantage – and mind you: when we try to publish, we nearly always encounter different requirements, so you should actually consider yourself lucky to just have to work with APA. 4. Use PBL to the fullest I see you wondering: “What does PBL have to do with research and writing?” Well, PBL is all about research! Those annoying 7 steps actually replicate common steps of a research process: you start with a puzzle, determine what you know and what you do not know about the topic, and develop one or more research questions to guide your research. Studying different sources will help you to answer those questions and come to a conclusion. I know that this research process is not always replicated in every course – in fact, scholars have referred to an “erosion” of PBL. But you play a role in this yourself by following those steps and by asking your tutors to do so as well. To round off, you may think that this is all very useful for all the academic papers that we have you write at FASoS, but other than that, why should you bother? Well, did you know that most FASoS alumni end up in jobs where they have to judge existing research and need to engage in research and writing themselves? It is likely that you end up writing reports for art institutions, governmental bodies or companies (e.g. ). Or maybe you become a journalist, like former Arts and Culture student Marcia Luyten and former European Studies student Melle Garschagen. So, keep on practicing your research and writing skills! This blog is co-authored with Afke Groen and was originally published by Active Learning in Political Science on 20 September 2018. We have been following the ALPS-blog discussion on students’ participation between Amanda and Simon with great interest. The situations they discuss are very familiar.
In Maastricht, learning takes place according to the principles of problem-based learning (PBL); through active participation and discussions in tutorials. In the programmes that we teach in, we can grade students’ participation with a +0.5 on top of the exam grade for exceptionally good participation or a -0.5 for insufficient participation – a system introduced following discussions about the problem of ‘free-riders’. We too see students who remain silent. We train students, encourage participation and discuss group dynamics, but students may not feel comfortable or skilled to live up to our expectations – certainly not in their first weeks at university. Indeed, in the discussion between Simon and Amanda, the “problem” seems to be students who do not talk. Teaching is about “getting students to talk” and about “[getting] them to a point where they do the readings and are willing and able to talk about them”. But to what extent is not talking a problem? Why doesn’t a student talk? And if it’s a problem, who’s problem is it? The emphasis on active participation actually represents a new way of thinking about student learning, one that may even be alien to some students. As Louisa Remedios, David Clarke and Lesleyanne Hawthorneexplain, “[t]here has been a recent shift of instructional paradigm from valuing and encouraging students to be silent so as to actively listen and learn from a more knowledgeable other (teacher), to becoming knowledgeable by speaking and elaborating on content knowledge.” The value of silence In our experience, most students who don’t talk, aren’t actually ‘free-riding’. They prepare for tutorials, have extensive notes and are clearly paying attention to what’s being discussed. In addition, PBL extends beyond the classroom, with some students feeling much more comfortable to discuss readings with fellow students when preparing for tutorials. We also witness various productive forms of “silence”. Just like Jun Jin, we see that silence is used to look at notes, think about what has been said and recall prior knowledge. As such, silence may be positive for knowledge construction and group learning. Moreover, a silent student may also be a student who is good at (active!) listening: it often requires silence to understand group discussions and dynamics. We can also strategically use silence as teachers – beyond increasing “wait time” to get someone to fill an awkward silence. Sure, there are problematic cases of silence. The ‘free-rider’ tends to be easily recognisable: she or he comes to class unprepared, does not contribute to discussions or does so in a non-productive way. Yet, other students feel scared, shy or uncomfortable to contribute to classroom discussions. So how can we tell the difference between these students and those who are ‘productively’ silent? Research shows that tutors in PBL have a good insight into students’ chances of becoming successful in their studies. We can act based on these insights. Observing silent students and talking to them is important; putting pressure on them surely will not help. Instead, a tutor’s role is to facilitate group learning and coach students to become better learners. As Simon writes: “[we] might not be at the centre of the classroom, but that doesn’t mean [we] don’t shape, contribute, encourage and support.” In short, students’ silence is not always a problem. Instead, we should appreciate silence as an inherent element in learning and find other ways in which to coach silent learners without identifying by default them as problematic learners or even ‘free-riders’. This post was originally published by the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog on 30 May 2018. Co-authored with Mirko Reithler. Problem-based learning (PBL) is at the heart of teaching at Maastricht University and at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASoS). It is a student-centred approach to learning: students encounter problems that contextualise a learning process that emphasises the importance of self-directed, collaborative and constructive learning. But there is theory and there is practice. 12 years ago, Jos Moust, Henk van Berkel and Henk Schmidt published an article entitled ‘Signs of erosion: Reflections on three decades of problem-based learning at Maastricht University’. They give an excellent overview of the original premises of PBL, but also of the challenges to implement PBL. Last year, these challenges were discussed in university newspaper Observant, with interviews with Henk Schmidt (a key figure in the development of PBL in Maastricht and beyond and a guest at our faculty two years ago), Virginie Servant (a researcher at Rotterdam University) and Walter Jansen (from EdLab, the university’s education lab).
Why is this discussion important? Simple: Maastricht University prides itself on using PBL, yet at the same time many of the core ideas of this approach to teaching and learning have come under pressure. We have both been involved in several PBL-related initiatives, from the Leading in Learning project ‘Updating PBL at FASoS’ to the EdLab project on PBL and research skills, and of course the University Teaching Qualification. Based on our experience, and taking into account the aforementioned article, we believe that there are at least three key PBL challenges that we should discuss at FASoS:
These are just three points that we feel that should and can be tackled. We would like to start this discussion by inviting you to join in. Do you agree with our diagnosis? Maybe you have some solutions to offer? Or maybe you have additional points that you would like to address? So, react to this blog, by commenting below or by drafting your own post. This post was originally published by E-International Relations and Law Blogs Maastricht on 20 April 2018. Co-authored with Mark T. Kawakami of the university's Law Faculty. While the EU proudly proclaims its motto to be “United in Diversity”, it is difficult to ignore the reality that various attempts at European harmonization have also engendered animosities and frustration between the EU Member States. Brexit is the most obvious manifestation of this tension. The divorce negotiations between Britain and the EU, which just have entered into their second year, are almost a self-fulfilling prophecy predicted back in the 1970s. While pointing to Brexit may seem too easy of an example to substantiate the statement above, there are some fundamental differences between the Brits and the Continental Europeans that not only have made their relationship increasingly difficult, but may make their divorce even more acrimonious.
From the start of the European integration process, Britain has been, in the words of Stephen George, an “awkward partner”, with warm feelings for European integration only present among pockets of society. Whether Britain is the only “awkward partner”, may be open to debate, but from the moment the European Communities were formed in the 1950s, the British position towards European integration has mostly been lukewarm. Joining the European Communities did not even appear to be an option at first; as their focus was primarily on the Commonwealth and the country’s “special relationship” with the United States. Yet, as the British Empire dwindled and European integration got off to a successful start, the Brits changed their tune and applied for membership in 1961. Due to the French opposition, however, it was not until 1973 that Britain officially joined the Communities. It did not take long before problems arose, as the UK Labour party quickly pledged to renegotiate the membership deal; something that was accepted by the other Member States (sounds familiar, doesn’t it?). On 5 June 1975, the British people overwhelmingly voted in favor of continued membership (with a turnout rate of 64.62%, of which 67.23% voted in favor of continued membership). So, the Anglo-European marriage did not start off well and it certainly wasn’t a marriage based on true love. From the get go, there has been a rather widely shared feeling that the British islands were somehow different from “the continent”. In his book, A Cultural History of British Euroscepticism, Menno Spiering refers to a cultural divide that lies at the heart of the British position towards the EU and argues “that over the years Homo Britannicus has branched off from Homo Europaeus.”The controversial issue of the British relations with “the continent” has cut through society and politics, with both major parties housing fierce opponents and convinced proponents of European integration. Myths and stereotypes came to play an important role in British debates about Europe. From the decision to classify Kilts as women’s wear to the infamous curved bananas, the representation of the European Commission in Britain even offers a “Euromyth A-Z index”! In light of these realities, it should not come as a surprise that the now widely used (and abused) term Euroscepticism originates in Britain. It was first used by the British press during the 1980s to describe Margaret Thatcher’s strained position towards European integration. In fact, according to Nick Startin, the sceptic stance of large parts of the British media towards the EU has played a key role in a process that eventually resulted in the Brexit vote on 23 June 2016. Specifically in the field of law, this difference between the Brits and Continental Europeans visibly manifests itself in the debate over the principle of good faith. In civil law jurisdictions (from the Continental lawyer’s perspective), the principle of good faith requires that the parties to a contract treat one another fairly and reasonably, even in adversarial situations. The doctrine of good faith applies even in pre- and post-contractual situations, when the parties are negotiating over the terms of contract or discussing damages after the contract has been breached. For example, in a sales contract, the principle of good faith attaches various information duties on the seller, who must provide all relevant information to the buyer that could potentially affect the buyer’s decision to purchase the good or not. In the UK (from a common lawyer’s perspective), however, the principle of good faith – for the most part – is something strange and alien, if not something frowned upon. In the words of Lord Ackner in Walford v. Miles (1992), “the concept of a duty to carry on negotiations in good faith is inherently repugnant to the adversarial position of the parties involved in negotiations.” Rather, most common lawyers adhere to the principle of caveat emptor, or buyer beware, which is to suggest that it is the responsibility of the parties to investigate and figure out for themselves what they are getting themselves into. The other party to the contract is NOT expected to conduct themselves in a reasonable or fair manner. Even the esteemed English commercial lawyer, Roy Goode, spoke very critically against the principle of good faith, stating that “[t]he predictability of the legal outcome of a case is more important than absolute justice” and requiring courts and businesses to consider “vague concepts of fairness” within the context of commercial transactions is something that is undesirable because it would “make judicial decisions unpredictable…” These two legal cultures were happily minding their own business, until the formation of the European Union. In attempting to harmonize the laws of its members, the EU implemented various Directives and Regulations with the aim of merging and marrying two distinct systems of law. The European legislatures’ decision to preserve the principle of good faith in many of the European legal instruments (thus forcing it down the throats of many Brits) was always a source of awkward tension. Now that the UK is ejecting itself from the confines of the EU what interest would they have to keep the principle of good faith within their legislations? And perhaps more interestingly, what incentive – if any – does the British politicians and negotiators have to negotiate their exit in a fair and reasonable manner? This post was originally published on the FASoS Teaching & Learning Blog on 19 March 2018. Co-authored with colleague Sven Schaepkens. FASoS teaching staff sometimes informally meet to share experience. One such event took place on 7 November 2017. A group of new and experienced staff watched the UM DVD Problem based learning: Tips from experienced tutors, as well as the (in)famous FASoS PBL video. There is a lot going on in the latter that defies what PBL should be like, but there were some surprised faces when the following was raised.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sven (S): I’m surprised to see that the whiteboard is used during the post-discussion. This must be an exceptional case. Isn’t the whiteboard primarily a tool for the pre-discussion? Patrick (P): You don’t use the whiteboard during the post-discussion? S: I believe that the ideal moment to use the whiteboard is during pre-discussions, because the post-discussion facilitates something else. As a philosophy teacher, I have become acquainted with the Socratic method, which, in my view, aligns well with the spirit of PBL, especially during the post-discussion. The Socratic method assumes that groups acquire a shared understanding of an issue by repeating and summarising each other’s answers. The group members calibrate their understanding by letting various comments circulate in this ‘echo chamber’ and by asking additional questions aimed at clarification. P: I too encourage students to keep on asking and answering questions to further their learning. Yet, I want them to keep track of their discussions on the whiteboard, so that we can go back to points raised before. Why does the Socratic method exclude the use of the whiteboard? S: Don’t get me wrong: good whiteboarding is helpful to structure a brainstorm, and students are truly capable of effective whiteboard use. They support the discussion by making schemes, drawing time lines, grouping certain concepts together, and highlighting relations and similarities. When all of the above more or less happens, I´m a happy tutor! P: That’s indeed what good whiteboarding is about. But even the far from ideal jotting down of terms serves as a – very basic – means of support for the group process. Why can’t this be supportive to the post-discussion too? S: Generally, whiteboarding stalls the PBL process. Where the Socratic dialogue has an inherently open nature, students in tutorials seem to desire closure: “Did we answer the learning objective? What am I supposed to know for the exam?” They use the whiteboard for attaining closure. What’s on the whiteboard is the ‘the proper answer’, and we can all stop talking, cease thinking, and move to the next learning goal. P: I have experienced this too. That’s why I encourage discussion leaders to keep on asking questions; why I keep on asking questions. But having those concepts on the whiteboard also allows us to draw links between them and, quite often, address contradictions. Without the whiteboard students may do so in their own notes, but then the closure happens there. I’d rather have them focus on the discussion than on their notes. I believe that the use of the whiteboard allows this and, hence, actually fosters openness. S: I don’t think that students attain closure through their own notes when they don’t use the whiteboard. The individual notes can be a form of personal closure, but that’s different from mutual understanding at group level. The notes on the whiteboard are there for all to see and latch onto, whereas personal notes that aim at closure need to be verbalised in the group´s echo chamber. This verbal exercise moving from private to group closure is for me the goal in post-discussions. P: During EU Politics I regularly take my groups outside, the weather generally being really nice during period 5. They always struggle without the whiteboard. This applies to all group members, including the person who takes notes to share through the electronic learning environment. They still focus on the ‘right’ answer and even more do than before. S: But this observation supports my intuition: Careful listening by summarising and asking questions is not practiced enough! The whiteboard is perceived as a safety net. Will a group member engage in the same way when things will eventually appear on the whiteboard, opposed to the situation where it all depends on one’s own listening and verbalisation skills? P: I don’t agree that the whiteboard is just a safety net. Instead, I agree with Terry Barrett and Sarah Moore, who, in a chapter in an interesting volume on PBL, argue that using the whiteboard is key in shaping the “shared learning environment” required to foster “dialogic knowledge”. (…) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We still haven’t reached a conclusion… But maybe you can help? Please let us know your thoughts by dropping your comments below! There is also the big elephant in the room: maybe the general erosion of PBL needs to be addressed, rather than whether or not to use the whiteboard? This post was originally published by E-International Relations on 17 February 2018. Co-authored with Russell Foster (King's College London). Readers of the ‘Brexit: A European Perspective Blog’, we owe you an apology. During the last couple of months, it has been rather quiet from our side. We could come up with all kinds of excuses for this, but there really is no good excuse. Mea culpa!
But we are going to make things up to you! We are in the process of planning a whole year of Brexit blogging, with forthcoming posts on military cooperation between Britain and her neighbours, upcoming elections across Europe, the impact of Brexit on non-EU countries, and of course, the ongoing saga of Brexit itself. Because it is going to be another turbulent and exciting year in European politics, we will focus on predicted issues and events as they occur. A new German government appears to be just around the corner, one which is certain to fuel new discussions about the future role of Germany in the Union and the very future of the EU itself. Italian elections will offer another litmus test of public sentiment towards the status quo. New Eurosceptic governments in Austria and Czechia will face the harsh realities of government. And campaigning will begin for a new President of the European Commission. Where is the EU heading, and what kind of reforms – if any – can we expect to see in Brussels? Will we see a strengthened Eurozone, with a European Monetary Fund, a European Treasury, and perhaps even an EU minister for finances? And what can we expect from initiatives to strengthen EU military cooperation? In 2018 Brexit negotiations enter their second year. The debate about a – hopefully – amical divorce continues on issues such as the financial settlement and future of EU-UK relations. While positive outcomes were agreed in late 2017, tensions between the UK and EU are emerging again. Questions have arisen over the likelihood that negotiations will be concluded within two years – a problem which is not helped by the growing possibility of Theresa May’s besieged government calling yet another UK General Election in 2018. Calls for second referendum in the UK are growing louder, drawing the ire of frustrated Leavers and reigniting the tensions of 2016 among a politically exhausted population. The possibility of another plebiscite, or Brexit being negotiated by a left-Eurosceptic Corbyn government, raise the Kafkaesque questions of what Brexit will look like – or whether Brexit will even happen. Looming over the debate about the EU’s future and the Brexit negotiations are elections in several European countries, including Hungary, Italy, Russia and Sweden. The Italian elections look particularly interesting, with Beppe Grillo’s Movimento 5 Stelle promising to do well. These elections have been heralded as being potentially dangerous for the future of the Eurozone. Movimento 5 Stelle seems to have gradually softened its stance on the Euro, but Lega Nord continues to voice Euroscepticism. And in the East, Russian presidential elections again seem to heading towards a clear victory for Putin. What can we expect from Putin’s next term? And what could it mean for Europe? Lots to consider and lots to write about. If you would like to write a post about any of the aforementioned issues or when you have an idea for another contribution, do not hesitate to get on touch through [email protected]. See the E-International Relations website for previous posts and guidelines for blogs. We look forward to an interesting year and a continued debate about Europe’s future – with or without EU! |
Archives
December 2023
Categories
All
|