No abstract

This paper, which is situated within a discourse of inclusivity, is concerned with Higher Education' s response to the needs of groups, such as working class adults with negative experiences of school, who are currently excluded from higher education throughout Europe. It argues, using illustrations from a case study, that there are a variety of organizational and pedagogical implications that must be addressed if participation is to be widened which relate to both individual ability and attitude and to institutional and situational barriers. It concludes that all universities have conceptions of equity which re¯ect ideological positions and in¯uence the practice that is seen as acceptable. The dilemma facing those committed to social inclusion is that too much emphasis on the structural can imply that the eOE orts of individual students are of little consequence in determining success or failure. It is argued that a counter-balancing position is needed in which, whilst acknowledging the contribution of the student, course managers and institutions build structures to challenge the negative eOE ects of inequality.

No abstract

Re-working the Gramscian idea of the 'organic' intellectual from the culturalpolitical sphere to Higher Education (HE), suggests the need to develop critical and questioning 'counter hegemonic' ideas and behaviour in community education students. Connecting this reworking to the Habermasian theory of communicative action, suggests that these students also need to learn how to be constructive in developing such knowledge. Working towards critical and constructive capacities is particularly relevant for students who learn through acting in practice settings where general principles and purposes acquired in the academy need to be interpreted in response to the unique demands of specific situations. From a Gramscian perspective, enabling students to develop the qualities of organic intellectuals means that lecturers have a duty to teach critical knowledges which the student will be unfamiliar with and unlikely to possess. If teaching is not to become simply didactic, however, there is also a need to acknowledge Habermas's contention that all knowledge is contingent. This does not mean that knowledge is merely relative, subjective, or essentially interest serving, as some postmodernists would have it. In Habermasian terms, knowledge is developed through a rigorous process of contesting validity claims according to procedures appropriate to discipline areas. In these procedures, contestation occurs to the point where there is general agreement about the best current understanding, until such time as this is overtaken by ideas with a better claim. The danger is that over commitment to contestation in the classroom undermines subject knowledge and ultimately the authority of the educator. Speaking Habermas to Gramsci, and vice versa, helps socially and politically committed educators to construct a space in which didactic and discursive moments purposefully alternate. Opening CaveatOur focus on learning from the complementary interests of Habermas and Gramsci begins by acknowledging that, in many respects, these two people would have little to speak to

Issues of structure, exclusion and ‘choice’ mean that participation in HE is an inherently more risky, costly and uncertain exercise for working-class groups and there is a need to consider how educational cultures and practices themselves might create and perpetuate disadvantage. Active engagement in the teaching and learning process is more likely to occur when course content, tasks, activities, and vehicles for assessment systematically encourage and support meta-learning. The contention is illustrated with reference to the learning experiences of students in a course that sought to elicit and challenge taken-for-granted, often tacit, conceptions of self, work, education and the process of learning itself. The study suggests that attention to curriculum is central to the real achievement of widening access.

Higher education is usually the preserve of the white, able-bodied middle classes. The authors report on a project designed to challenge this by giving access to working class, black and disabled community activists to the degree in Community Education. The authors argue that the success experienced by this group is the result of the interaction between personal and institutional factors, and their collective resistance to the individualising tendencies of traditional approaches to higher education. The group's authors analyse the individual and collective motivation, and identify three distinguishing factors in terms of personal values (intrinsic); material rewards (extrinsic); and the political significance of their collective action (political). The authors suggest that this project, by developing critical awareness and understanding, and emphasising the continuing role of the participants in their communities, has brought about institutional and personal change that will enable other traditional non-participants to participate.

No abstract

No abstract