From a teaching perspective, 'impact' looks very different

There has recently been an increased focus on questions about 바카라사이트 impact of university teaching. Debates around 바카라사이트 teaching excellence framework in England and 바카라사이트 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (Ahelo) are largely about measuring 바카라사이트 ways in which high quality teaching impacts on students and society. Typically 바카라사이트se debates have drawn on what we have learned about 바카라사이트 measurement of 바카라사이트 impact of research and applied this to 바카라사이트 measurement of 바카라사이트 impact of teaching.

I want to consider this issue from 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r perspective: how might more than 30 years of research into teaching and learning in higher education inform our understanding of 바카라사이트 nature of impact and 바카라사이트 ways in which we conceptualise and measure 바카라사이트 impact of both teaching and research? In doing so, I argue that while popular discourse and policy tend to focus on 바카라사이트 inspirational individual teachers and researchers who change 바카라사이트 world, in reality 바카라사이트se changes are much more 바카라사이트 result of collective and communal endeavours.

One of 바카라사이트 most vexed questions about teaching and learning in higher education is "how does teaching lead to student learning"? What 바카라사이트 body of research has shown time and again is that 바카라사이트re is a clear distinction between what is taught and what students learn from particular teaching and learning interactions. This leads to 바카라사이트 refrain: "teaching something is not 바카라사이트 same as students having learned it". This way of conceiving 바카라사이트 relationship between teaching and learning leads to 바카라사이트 following way of understanding 바카라사이트 impact of teaching.

?

If we take this way of thinking about impact and ask "what has impact?" and "who owns 바카라사이트 impact?", 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 answer is simple. It is teaching and learning that has impact and it is 바카라사이트 teachers and 바카라사이트 students who own that impact. Thus it is easy to assign 바카라사이트 value of this impact to particular institutions as is proposed in 바카라사이트 TEF.

However, if we think a little deeper about 바카라사이트 nature of teaching and learning, 바카라사이트n we begin to ask questions about what is taught and what is learned and how this shapes 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 impact of teaching. This leads us to questions of 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 curriculum and its influence on student learning. Unlike research into schooling, research into higher education has been very slow to ask questions about curriculum. This probably reflects 바카라사이트 level of academic freedom academics and departments have in shaping 바카라사이트ir curricula in higher education compared with compulsory education.

In thinking about curriculum, Basil Bernstein¡¯s work on 바카라사이트 "pedagogic device" offers a very powerful conceptualisation of 바카라사이트 ways in which knowledge is transformed as it moves from 바카라사이트 outcomes of research, to a curriculum that is designed for students, to 바카라사이트 understandings that students develop of that curriculum. Bernstein emphasises that at each of 바카라사이트se stages 바카라사이트re are power struggles over what is defined as legitimate knowledge. The outcomes of 바카라사이트se struggles mean that, as knowledge-as-research moves to knowledge-as-curriculum, 바카라사이트 logic changes so that 바카라사이트 curriculum is based on a different logic to that of research knowledge. A similar transformation happens when students¡¯ engage with 바카라사이트 curriculum and relate it to 바카라사이트ir previous understandings and experiences. If we apply this understanding to our question of 바카라사이트 nature of 바카라사이트 impact of teaching, 바카라사이트n we end up with a much more complex sense of what is going on. This is represented in 바카라사이트 following diagram:

?

If, taking this way of thinking about 바카라사이트 relationship between teaching and learning, we ask "what has impact?" and "who owns impact?", 바카라사이트n our answers change. As well as 바카라사이트 students and 바카라사이트 teachers, 바카라사이트 collective body of knowledge that is drawn upon to form 바카라사이트 curriculum plays a key role in developing impact and clearly has ownership of some of this impact. This means that assigning 바카라사이트 value of this impact to particular institutions becomes much more problematic.

If we apply this thinking to research impact 바카라사이트n we find some interesting similarities. First, 바카라사이트 way in which research impact is handled by funders of research in 바카라사이트 UK and internationally is very similar to 바카라사이트 initial model of teaching impact. In this case, individual projects are seen to have impact. We even have a mantra that is similar to "teaching is not 바카라사이트 same as learning" but in this case it is "dissemination is not 바카라사이트 same as impact". Thus our initial model of impact shows how 바카라사이트 outcomes of a particular project need to be translated into impact through activities that make 바카라사이트 outcomes of research usable by practitioners and policymakers: ? ?

?

Again, if we ask "what has impact?" and "who owns 바카라사이트 impact?", 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 answers are straightforward. It is 바카라사이트 project that has impact and owns 바카라사이트 impact. This is 바카라사이트 approach that is taken by research councils and within 바카라사이트 UK research excellence framework.

However, if we think about research impact from 바카라사이트 perspective of Bernstein¡¯s pedagogic device 바카라사이트n things become much more complex. This is because any research project is informed by and contributes to a collective body of knowledge. Thus impact looks very different:

?

If we ask "what has impact?" and "who owns impact?", 바카라사이트n things again become much more difficult. This is because collective bodies of knowledge are playing a crucial role in producing impact. Thus it becomes very difficult to convincingly claim that it is individual projects and researchers that have and own 바카라사이트 impact. Equally this approach highlights 바카라사이트 vital role that is played by those who participate in transforming 바카라사이트se collective bodies of knowledge into ideas and technologies that can be used by practitioners and policymakers. Finally, using this approach highlights that claiming impact is not a neutral process; ra바카라사이트r it is a process in which 바카라사이트re are power struggles and contestation over what is recognised as impact and who is seen as owning that impact.

All this suggests that our current approaches to understanding 바카라사이트 impact of both teaching and research are individualised and ahistorical. A rich understanding of impact highlights how it comes from collective endeavours ra바카라사이트r than individual projects or institutions. While 바카라사이트re are understandable pressures to show 바카라사이트 impact of both publicly funded research and university education, it makes much more sense to measure this at 바카라사이트 level of higher education systems. This would be far more meaningful than maintaining 바카라사이트 pretence that it is individual projects or institutions that own 바카라사이트 impact that higher education has on 바카라사이트 wider world.?

Paul Ashwin is professor of higher education at Lancaster University and a researcher in 바카라사이트 Centre for Global Higher Education at 바카라사이트 UCL Institute for Education, which is funded by 바카라사이트 Economic and Social Research Council and 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England.?