Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.4 Student and staff attitudes
Several research studies have focussed on attempting to tease out the attitudes of both students and staff to their experiences of modularisation.
The findings of such studies help to add a layer of richness about the benefits and drawbacks of modularisation and allow them to be viewed from a different perspective to that presented in Chapter 1. Some of the main findings from a small selection of writers are presented below. A greater emphasis has been placed on drawing from the literature about student perceptions, because, in the fieldwork component of this study it was not possible to interview students to elicit their feelings first-hand. On the other hand the perceptions of academic staff form a major focus of this study as discussed in more detail in Chapters 5, 6 and 7, and therefore the discussion here is brief.
Student attitudes
Harrop and Woodcock (1992) investigated the attitudes of students to the adult and continuing education section of a modular course at Liverpool University. The Liverpool course was set up in 1988 and offers the mostly part-time students, from a wide variety of professional backgrounds, 'free choice of a 'pick and mix' variety, that is there are no compulsory modules' (Harrop and Woodcock, 1992: 86). Hemmington (1995) also conducted an investigation into student attitudes to a modular hospitality management course at Cheltenham and Gloucester College. Interestingly in his study, the College was in the process of changing from a traditional course to a modular course. Thus, a cohort group was in a position to be able to compare the old course that they had initially been following with the new course. However, because coherence is created through a system of compulsory modules and prerequisites, the structure of the hospitality management course contrasts markedly with that of the professional education course at Liverpool.
Despite the different course structures some common issues emerged from the two studies. Firstly, all six focus groups interviewed by Hemmington identified choice and flexibility as key differences and advantages of the modular programme over the traditional programme. Likewise, for Harrop and
Woodcock choice and flexibility were important issues. However, they note that:
Almost all the comments related to the delivery of the programme, rather than its content: while students obviously appreCiated the flexibility and freedom of the modular course, the responses on the questionnaire indicated significant weaknesses (Harrop and Woodcock, 1992: 89).
On the positive side the student group at Cheltenham and Gloucester College identified a number of advantages. These included the ability to change fields during the programme, the opportunity to opt out of modules during first two weeks, and flexible modes of attendance which enable a student to take the course at their own pace. However, from the criticisms raised by respondents about the number of choices, Hemmington observes that 'clearly when offered choice students expect a wide range of options within fields of study as well as from across the scheme' (Hemmington, 1995: 34).
Symonds (1995), speaking from the perspective of a student, also picks up on the issue of choice and flexibility. She comments on the changes around modularisation and semesterisation at the University of Bradford which 'seemed to presuppose that students would inevitably prefer the greater flexibility and choice of the new system'. Symonds and her peers felt that the new model could:
Easily exacerbate rootlessness and stress among students as the mid-year swapping between departments and even campuses could become standard and assessment continual. Other womes centred around quality. Short, easily assessable independent study units could reduce our learning to the ingestion and revision of bite-sized chunks of fast food instead of a cumulative and creative experiment with ideas ... What appeared to offer choice and flexibility began to seem like a recipe for less variety and a lot of fragmentation (Symonds, 1995: 9).
Hemmington reveals an additional facet of choice and flexibility. He comments that in discussions with students the area that generated the 'most emotive responses' was the issue of bureaucracy and the complexity of the modular scheme. Choice and flexibility mean, he says, 'an inherent degree of untidiness ... and an inevitable need for a central administrative system which may be perceived as bureaucratic' (Hemmington, 1995: 34).
Another key issue to emerge in Harrop and Woodcock's study was that a tension was created between meeting the principle of broadening access by offering a part-time mode of attendance and the issue of timing the delivery of the module to a day or evening session. For those students who are not given day or part-day release their choice is immediately restricted to those modules which run in the evening. Therefore, the students asked for more careful timetabling to ensure a greater variety of teaching times with modules available over the academic year and 'core' modules that do not compete with one another on the timetable.
One of the most interesting issues to be raised by the students in both studies was that of the positive and negative social aspects. Hemmington highlights that one difference between the traditional course and the modular course that students identified is that some modules may become very well subscribed. This can lead to problems when the tutors are not skilled in dealing with large groups. Furthermore, the relationship between the student and lecturing staff that is established in traditional courses is not enjoyed to the same extent in modular programmes, particularly when staff are from other fields or discipline areas. Hemmington explains that traditional courses foster close, more cohesive teaching groups because, as one student respondent commented you 'travelled with people right through from the first year'. In contrast students said that with modular programmes 'you don't tend to have a focus group of people to relate [to)'. Indeed one of the respondents in the study thought the modular scheme was 'socially divisive!' (Hemmington, 1995: 34). These views were balanced by responses that suggest that in modular programmes students interact far more and that the diversity of students, in terms of, for example, age and experience is an advantage. In the study by Harrop and Woodcock a similar picture emerges in that a drawback and disappointment expressed by many students in their survey was the 'unexpected loneliness of this method of learning' (Harrop and Woodcock, 1992: 90).
Two further issues were raised in Harrop and Woodcock's study. Firstly, that the availability of modules could be a problem. The staff expected students to
select their modules in good time. In practice many students left their choices to the last minute thus negatively affecting the viability of some modules and sometimes resulting in staff wasting preparation time. For those modules which take on the 'displaced students', those from modules which were not viable enough to run, 'it means teaching some students with a low level of interest' (Harrop and Woodcock, 1992: 90). Watson (1996) also identifies restrictions on module enrolments, usually due to resource allocation and a lack of commitment to respond to an evolving internal student 'market', as a source of irritation to students. Secondly, Harrop and Woodcock note some difficulties related to the amount of time allocated to the subject which students often found to be too short. The Liverpool course modules normally contain 10 hours contact, so 'students are often just beginning to come to grips with the subject when the end is in sight. Assignment dates do not normally allow for feedback to students before they start another module' (Harrop and Woodcock, 1992: 90).
In Hemmingtons study, despite the critiCisms, 31 of the 32 student respondents stated a preference for the modular approach. Likewise Harrop and Woodcock conclude that the 'modular course format has many actual and potential strengths' (Harrop and Woodcock, 1992: 92).
Staff attitudes
Studies into perceptions of academic staff also open up valuable insights into the process of modularisation. For example, Gregg (1996) reports that the transition to modularisation or unitisation is very traumatic for academic staff for about three to five years. During this time many challenging aspects relating to the curricular implications of the process have to be addressed by academics including, the organisation of the curricular content, accommodating diverse student populations, setting challenging examination questions and devising experiences which create group identity and cohesion.
Gregg explains that when staff feel that modularisation is 'at worst a government or managerial conspiracy to erode academic authority and at best an administrative fad' the transition process is inhibited (Gregg, 1996: 11).
Gregg notes further that, in her study, almost universally staff reported that
the decision to modularise had been unilaterally imposed and that they complained that they had neither been adequately consulted nor given adequate opportunity to discuss and debate implementation issues. It is interesting that most of the criticisms against modularity to emerge in the study were 'not direct effects of modularisation per se, but rather reflect concomitant changes' such as semesterisation, standardisation of module size or shape, and insufficient resources (Gregg, 1996: 11).
Gregg (1996) also discusses the different curricular impacts of modularisation for different academic fields and identifies concerns which were echoed across all the institutions and disciplines in her study. These concerns include the importance of good academic advice, the need for adequate support and documentation to enable staff to guide students, the difficulties involved in resourcing, assessing and awarding credit for learning that occurs outside modules, the loss of subject identification and group cohesion amongst students, and a tendency for students to fragment or compartmentalise knowledge, evidenced by a decline in integrative thinking.
Trowler also sought to identify the attitudes of academics to modularity and he concentrates on 'the under-reported downside of the credit-based modular curriculum structure', one facet of this being 'administrative fallout' (Trowler, 1996: 17). Many respondents in his study commented on the extra workload created by the increased number of assessment boards and committees, the need to supply, update and correct data held centrally, the time involved liasing with colleagues in other departments, and the time spent with students in trying to explain the system and signing forms, as being problematic.
From the findings of the study Trowler (1996: 18) categorised the responses of academics to credit-based modularisation in four ways, those who are:
Content with their : Swim -conformity (most managerial : Reconstruct (Trowler working context : studies put academics here) : cites Merton's (1968)
j innovation and rebellion)
···Dlscontent· wlth···
····'··S·'·nk·~·ntu·ai.. siTi":···retreatlsm·;··defeaf ···T···Ose· co· plri"g···strateg'· es···
their working (most critical studies put academics in : (Pollard, 1985)
context here)
... ... ···Ac· c · eijfstatus···q · ut,.. · .. ··· ···· ... ...
···Wofk .. aroiirid/charige··· .. · policyTrowler explains that for the academics in the 'swimming' category changes in the higher education environment such as expansion and modularity enable them to thrive in various ways, despite the administrative fallout and other problems. By contrast for those academics who are 'sinking' the pressure of changes in higher education has led to an intensified workload, decline of resources, and increase in student numbers which in turn lead to weariness, disillusionment and even illness (Trowler, 1996).