Populism and Higher Education Curriculum Development: Problem Based Learning as a Mitigating Response

Romeo V. Turcan, John E. Reilly, Romeo V. Turcan, John E. Reilly, Romeo V. Turcan, John E. Reilly

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9783030473761
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Bildungspolitik

Against a background of increasing inequality and a rising tide of nationalism andpopulism, this book raises concerns that curriculum is being shaped by powerfulnon-academic, non-accountable forces and that populism – and its manifestations– represent a grave challenge to learning. It explores the extent to whichcurriculum and learning methods in higher education should respond to thischallenge. Using problem based learning as a case study it draws on crossdisciplinarystudies to examine how regional, national and organizationalperspectives emphasize different aspects of PBL. It questions whether PBLprovides an effective response to external influences and a 'populist' higher education agenda. In conclusion the book poses an uncomfortable questionwhether graduates reflect the external forces shaping curriculum and hence maybe as vulnerable to populist rhetoric as non-graduates precisely because thecurriculum and learning methods do not engage with the challenges. This bookwill appeal to scholars of problem based learning, as well as populism and the role of higher education in society.

Part ISetting the Scene

© The Author(s) 2020

R. V. Turcan, J. E. Reilly (eds.)Populism and Higher Education Curriculum Development: Problem Based Learning as a Mitigating Responsehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47376-1_1

Begin Abstract

1. Politics and Curriculum Content in a Global Perspective: Addressing the Populism Tsunami

John E. Reilly¹ and Romeo V. Turcan²

(1)

Higher Education Consultant, University of Kent, Kent, UK

(2)

Aalborg University Business School, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

John E. Reilly

Email: [email protected]

Romeo V. Turcan (Corresponding author)

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

Setting the Scene

The academic world faces a tsunami in which knowledge - and evidence-based understanding and decisions are in danger of being swept away by the deluge of populist propaganda and assertion masquerading as the new truths. The populist pandemic represents a major challenge to learning and teaching in all disciplines and the failure of the academic body to foster the societal engagement of learners and engage actively itself means that the challenge is now a red alert, or in government parlance at a ‘critical’ level, requiring an urgent and exceptional response. Hence the need for and purpose of this book.

‘Take back control’ was one of the most successful thematic slogans of the Leave Campaign in the UK EU Referendum in 2016. The origin of the slogan was colourfully documented and illustrated in the Channel 4 play ‘Brexit, the Uncivil War’ (Channel4 2018). The slogan could well be a sub-title for a number of the chapters in this book which identify ways in which curriculum change and development are increasingly determined and driven by forces outside Higher Education and by the university ‘management’ and the consequent need to re-assert academic freedom. Public opinion is formed by the repetition of easy slogans, crafted on the basis of data analytics, which become articles of faith from which the academic world is not immune. Fake news, deep fake images and videos, persuasive fraud in all spheres are pervasive, and it is not evident that graduates are anymore prepared to counter any of these than the general populace.

While universities have always needed, especially in the modern era, to react to external developments, they have been more in control than they are today. Curriculum is being shaped and to an increasing extent, dominated by powerful non-academic and non-accountable forces. Throughout the book, a number of these forces will be discussed. We propose that the genuine learner-centred approach exemplified in problem- and research-based learning offers more effective pathways for tomorrow’s learners and provides an effective response to the many external persuaders and a counter force to a ‘Populist’ agenda but it requires a radical re-appraisal of methods of learning and teaching and curriculum content.

In this chapter, we identify a range of issues with which universities globally have to contend, although not all of these are examined in detail in the ensuing chapters. These ‘forces’ pose grave challenges to conventional curriculum content, learning and teaching and the mindsets of students and graduates. We argue the need for their active engagement with the global experience that ‘isms’ triumph over evidence and identity relations reinforce beliefs even if they run counter to evidence. While the general message is universal, those who shape curriculum in different regions and countries will need to address their specific manifestation of political, scientific, cultural and social ‘populism’.

In spite of the rhetoric and demand for research, evidence-based higher education must ensure a stronger link between research, teaching and learning at all levels (EHEA Communique 2012). Curriculum content, almost inevitably, because of the velocity and pervasive nature of change in all domains, lags in responding to and incorporating scientific, technological, social, political and economic developments. This is a race that the academy cannot win. The metaphor is itself flawed because it implies a unidimensional objective whereas Higher Education is presented with a medley of delivery requirements. A quick review of the increasingly lengthy (some might say long-winded) Ministerial Communiques from the Bologna (EHEA Communique 2012) process, with their agendas for Higher Education, indicates the diversity and evolving nature of the goals. The Bologna Process in Europe illustrates how:

• Governments and the European Union are seeking to shape and harmonize Higher Education in 48 countries.
• UNESCO, OECD add their weight in articulating the mission and objectives of Higher Education and an enumeration of the expectations for graduates in the twenty-first century.
• Employers reiterate their sense that Universities are not ‘producing the goods’.
• Governments undertake regular reviews seeking to re-direct or re-structure aspects of their Higher Education. Recent examples include the UK, Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, President Trump’s budget cuts and the attitude of the Republican right to Higher Education in the USA.

All of these are underlined by and respond to the growth of national and international populism, the manipulation of social media and increasingly sophisticated ‘fake’ news, gender, identity politics and in some regions the demands of religion. The need to adjust to and implement widening participation/social inclusion, entrepreneurism, the skills agenda, the implications of the shift to student-centred learning, the influence of competition and league tables, quality assurance structures, privatization in Higher Education, work-based and placement learning, international competition and funding limitations all clamour for responses from Universities and have an impact on curriculum and learning and teaching.

Academics see this as an assault on fundamental academic freedom and hence want to wrest back control. The enemy tends to be portrayed as administrators/managers/governing bodies. While the corporate University institution, particularly in a competitive environment—national and international—may constrict and set the direction for curriculum, their identification as the primary source of restriction or direction ignores the extent to which they are in a reactive mode. They are cumbersome and slow in initiating curriculum change, partly in response to and because of external constraints, such as accreditation and quality assurance regimes and above all the myriad of external and increasingly strident critics who question whether Universities and the education they offer are fit for purpose. It is important to acknowledge that in the European Union although states exercise considerable control, they do not yet dictate the content of curriculum although in subtle ways they can influence its direction.

We explore formal and informal contexts to which curriculum needs to respond. We hope to demonstrate that tomorrow’s graduates require an increasingly wide interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary knowledge and understanding and that the dynamic nature of the world requires a re-discovery of the notion of wisdom engendered by a more rigorous, intellectually demanding way of learning encapsulated by the overarching term ‘problem-based learning’. Problem-based learning embraces the concept of student-centred learning focusing on self-directed learning in a way which “involves changing the student-academic staff interface from an asymmetric to a more symmetric power relation. In popular terms, the students take the lead and assume responsibility for their own learning. However, as educational programs are increasingly institutionalised, the students do not find themselves in a position where they are free to do whatever they want. Before students can take the lead, the directions that have been set by government, industry, accreditation bodies and the university will all have to be taken into account. The big question is, how can universities benefit from [self-directed learning] and at the same time respond to institutional demands and cultural diversity?” (de Graaff et al. 2016, p. 125). The question, which we asked in that publication, needs to be enlarged to how can universities and learners meet the tsunami of populism?

A key message, which has been ignored by the majority of disciplines, is that academics and graduates need to be more finely attuned, aware of and participate in the political, social, economic, scientific and technological processes, which are shaping the academic agenda. Examples in this chapter will seek to illustrate this point. Here, too, the mind-set of the graduate is of critical importance—apathy, lack of engagement, retreat into the comfort and supportive environment of cognitive circles (‘filter bubbles’ or ‘echo chambers’ or ‘comfort zones’ or ‘identity groups’) will inevitably lead to an undermining of the very values that academic freedom is meant to espouse and foster.

Before examining external challenges to curriculum content, a brief review of the formal framework within which learning is structured may be helpful. Although, it should be stressed, this too is determined externally. This is presented in Vignette 1.1.

Vignette 1.1: A Brief Review of the Formal Learning Framework

On a global basis, Higher Education Institutions are subject to some form of external accreditation. This frequently relates to curriculum content at a subject level expressed in terms of ‘national standards’ which may dictate, at first degree cycle, all or a substantial part of the curriculum. In the UK, ‘subject benchmarks’ have been formulated. “Subject Benchmark Statements describe the nature of study and the academic standards expected of graduates in specific subject areas. They show what graduates might reasonably be expected to know, do and understand at the end of their studies. …. They provide general guidance but are not intended to represent a national curriculum” (UK QAA Code of Practice). The Tuning approach, which has been replicated in projects on a global basis, has developed a methodology for structuring curriculum and produced handbooks setting out “reference points for the design and delivery of degree programmes” with the object of making programmes “comparable, compatible and transparent”. “Reference points (which, it could be argued, are similar to subject benchmarks) are expressed in terms of learning outcomes and competencies” (Tuning Educational Structures in Europe Series 2008, p.17).

The EU formulates the competencies required for the recognition of harmonised professions. Regulatory bodies (normally national or regional) prescribe curriculum requirements for Universities. An example is the UK General Medical Council ‘Promoting excellence: standards for medical education and training’ (Promoting Excellence: Standards for Medical Educationand Training 2015), which sets out “requirements for the management and delivery of undergraduate and postgraduate medical education and training” to be read in conjunction with the detailed Outcomes for graduates 2018 and Outcomes for provisionally registered doctors 2015. University Medical Schools are audited by the GMC to ensure that they comply with the Education Standards and the curriculum outcomes.

As well as conforming to regulations for certain professions, meeting accreditation and national standards, Universities in Europe have to respect European and National Qualifications Frameworks, the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance, the expectations of their national Quality Assurance Agencies, the ECTS Guide (now a formal Bologna document).

All these requirements, regulations and codes of practice are published, transparent and subject to scrutiny and review. Because they are the outcome of consultation and formal approval processes, reviews are infrequent and protracted. Hence the regulations, codes, national standards and subject benchmarks do not necessarily reflect the most recent developments either in the subject or in society. Nevertheless, they provide criteria and norms, which, because the academic community contributes to them, can be shared and in some sense owned by the faculty.

Employers exercise a less coherent but powerful influence on curriculum. In many countries they are formally consulted and have representative bodies which contribute to the discussion and debate on curriculum and graduate attributes. Employer commentary on the knowledge, understanding and ability of graduates frequently focuses on generic (often called ‘soft’) skills and this applies to all three cycles. Because their commentary is published and open to scrutiny, Universities are able to respond and, in time, amend curriculum to address the needs expressed.

Other challenges tend to be informal, less structured and less coherent but nevertheless potent because they shape social discourse about the nature and objects of Higher Education. Partly because institutions consider that, as public institutions, they are dependent on governments for their funding they have felt unable or reluctant to engage with, what they consider to be, ‘political’ issues. Consequently, outside the Social Sciences, there has been a general failure of the academic community to consider whether and, if so, how the curriculum in all subjects should address issues such as denialism, radicalisation, extremism, fundamentalism, populism, nationalism, the impact of social media, fake news and the post-truth society.

Populism

Social scientists are writing at great length about populism as a political and social phenomenon and this ferment is reflected in the wider media. Le Monde Diplomatique (Halimi and Rimbert 2018) published a major article “Liberaux contre Populistes” which it labels’ un clivage trompeur’, arguing that they are pursuing the same economic goals while denouncing one another and that ‘chacun à son façon mettent l’humanité en danger’. A rather different message emerges from The Economist (2018) celebrating its 175th anniversary with a manifesto for ‘Reinventing Liberalism for the 21st Century’ (pp.45–54), stating that it is under attack from populist politicians and movements. The article throws down the gauntlet to Higher Education “If there is a greater liberal stronghold than the international institutions that liberals need to reform, it is the universities that they need to reappraise”.

University reform is a leitmotif of this book, but our argument is that radical reform of curriculum, learning and teaching philosophies and methods and mission is essential because of unprecedented and multifaceted external developments for which graduates need to be prepared.

A different perspective on populism and Liberal Democracy is provided in ‘National Populism – the Revolt Against Liberal Democracy’ (Eatwell and Goodwin 2018), which explains populism in terms of resurgent nationalism, in this case particularly English nationalism, and amounts to an apologia for this expression of nationalism justified because it is a manifestation and platform of ‘populism’. Often the phenomenon is discussed as though it is an elemental force but in practice this force is engendered, manipulated and fuelled by focused individuals, generally political, whose motives and objectives are less subject to critical analysis. As for the most part they are wealthy and manufacture, channel (perhaps a better word is exploit), mass opinion, it is difficult to be confident that their motives are altruistic. They are moulding popular views and fabricating ‘evidence’ frequently in slogan format to reinforce their position. This is the world which graduates encounter, but are they sufficiently engaged and equipped with the knowledge and skills to cope?

Notwithstanding a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• Part I. Setting the Scene
• Part II. Populism in Globalized World
• Part III. Problem Based Learning as a Mitigating Response
• Part IV. Problem-Based Learning Supporting Global Agendas
• Part V. Concluding Remarks
• Back Matter