Many years ago I was required to play a lecturer in a teaching role play. The scenario went like this:
A female student on an arboriculture course was terrified of chainsaws. I as the lecturer, was supposed to take the chainsaw apart and hand the disassembled chainsaw to the student bit by bit whilst talking to her in a tone that would suggest I was trying to back her of a very high ledge. My polite, but blunt suggestion, that any competent lecturer should be giving some serious career advice at this point, did not go down well.
Many years later, it would be nice to think that I have a more sophisticated view of diversity and inclusiveness, but I would still offer alternative career advice to any budding arborist who sobbed every time they saw a chainsaw.
My belief in the right to access education, may be burning bright, but so is my disgust at settings students up to fail.
Here is the challenge.
Universal Design and Inclusiveness in Learning
'Consider the needs of the broadest possible range of users from the beginning.' Ron Mace, Architect
When we look at a beautiful piece of architecture, it is the form that captures our eye and imagination, but it is the function that captures our hearts. Good design has an elegance of purpose.
Looking at 'Universal Design for Learning: A framework for access and equity' the message is elegantly simple:
' - Not one size fits all
- Design from the beginning; not add on later
- Increase access opportunities for everyone'
By using the framework we can design courses and programmes in a way that allows students 'Multiple means of representation', 'Multiple means of action and expression' and 'Multiple means of engagement'. Put simply, students will have:
'More ways to access
More ways to participate
More ways to demonstrate learning'
Let's be honest, this isn't rocket science. So why is is so difficult?
In vocational training, there is a conflict between education and industry. In the example of the student who is afraid of chainsaws, it might be fair to advise a student that they may struggle to work in the industry, but it is it appropriate to deny a student education, unless there are serious safety implications?
The horticulture industries requires employees who:
- are physically fit
- have good practical skills and attention to detail
- are bright with good literacy and numeracy skills
- can self motivate
This is a big list, and not every students will be able to tick all the boxes. What happens to those people who can't? do we deny them an education?
For me the answer lies in the possible difference between education and training. Personally, the word education implies a learner focus. Focusing on the needs of the learner allows us to design for equitable access to knowledge, and we can be more inclusive of the diverse needs of our students. We also create a knowledge rich society. Conversely, the word training suggests a focus on producing graduates that match industry needs. Trying to match both needs at the same time create its own problems. How do you measure success against such a dichotomy of needs? Educational institutes measure success by statistics - retention, success, graduation numbers, employment statistics. For some, success can be as simple as a 'well done', an awakening sense of achievement, finally grasping a concept or growing a beautiful plant.
Examples of Inclusive Teaching
Like most students, horticulture students are very diverse. Some students are strong kinaesthetic learners, who prefer to do practicals; some students particularly enjoy the classroom environment; other students combine, to a greater or lesser extent, these two learning preferences.
Historically, the horticulture certificates were proscribed programmes. The only choice was between the Amenity Horticulture programme and the Landscape programme. As a result of the lack of choice, students who might prefer to be outside working, may be in a classroom learning about soil or legislation.
The horticulture programmes have been changed to give students more options. Students can now choose subject modules that best suit their needs.
- Plant production 1 practical
- Plant production 2 mostly practical
- Landscape Design 1 and 2 theory and drawing
- Landscape Construction 1 and 2 practical
- Sustainable growing practical and theory
- Plant knowledge theory
We can not always remove the barriers in some subject areas, but we can offer subjects that contain few barriers.
More direct examples of inclusive teaching and assessment regularly include:
- Information given in a variety of formats including written, oral, visual, demonstration, practical (practice), discussion, and student research - utilising traditionally teaching methods and using IT learning platforms
- Written assessments changed to formal oral assessment or more informal discussion
- Individual assistance catering to student needs when required
Within the department, a great deal of time an effort goes into individually supporting students in their learning, and trying to find appropriate way for them to demonstrate their knowledge.
A classic example would be plant identification assessments. Students are usually give unnamed plant samples and are required to write down the correct botanical name in a test. Other assessment methods have included oral assessments (the student tells the lecturer the plant name), and word match (the student matches a card with the plant name to the correct plant), plant collections (the student finds an example of the plant, photographs or presses it, and writes a plant label). All these examples demonstrate a student's ability to identify a plant.
Issues of access and equity
There are two main issues of access and equity within the horticulture programmes, they are:
- Physical ability
- Unit standards
Physical ability
Physical ability can be an issue of teaching, but it is more commonly an issue for assessment. For example, a student who has broken a leg can learn how to build a dry stone wall by: demonstration, video, diagrams, and reading instructions. Unfortunately the same student would not be able to demonstrate their ability to build a stone wall. There are times when the ability to draw or describe a task isn't enough. You wouldn't want a surgeon to have only described an operation and not actually performed it.
Equally, a student who is very afraid of heights is going to miss vital learning, and will be unable to demonstrate competence for many of the courses within an arboriculture programme.
For some courses students need be able to physically take part in the 'active learning', and must be able to demonstrate practical competence. This is often not helped by some unit standards that do not provide for equity of assessment.
Unit standards
Unit standards are documents produced by the industry training organisation, and contain the assessment criteria for each course of study with the horticulture programmes. Unit standards have many advantages, but they are not always equitable. Many unit standards within the horticulture field are very specific about what is acceptable evidence of competence for each course. Practical units require a physical task to be completed, there are no alternative, and some theory units specifically require the evidence to be in writing. For example, some of the plant identification units require a student to 'write the correct plant name using the correct botanical format'. No oral testing or word matching is allowed, and even spelling mistakes or underlining the wrong part of the plant name, would be considered unacceptable. This is a nightmare for any student with dyslexia, or who has difficulty decoding words.
Defining Access and Equity, Diversity and Inclusivity in Horticulture
I cannot easily provide a definition. I will suggest some personal guidelines:
Everyone is entitled to the truth, but it is not a blunt instrument used to hurt and crush people.
It is important that students make informed decisions, if they are likely to find a course or programme challenging, then they should be told about the challenges. They have the right to develop strategies to overcome any barriers. Can we offer a better option, or different path? Once the student is fully informed, it is their choice (safety issues excepted).
We are here to educate, not just train
Just because we may suspect that a student is not an ideal industry candidate, it does not prevent them from learning about horticulture. We remove barriers from industry by first removing barriers to learning.
We facilitate learning
We try everything we can think of to help our students learn and if that doesn't work, we ask others for their ideas.
We do not tolerate discrimination, or allow disrespect
We support
We listen, we hand out tissues, we seek guidance from those who can help.
To summarise, my definition of Access and Equity, Diversity and Inclusivity in Horticulture is:
'The right of all students to make informed choices, and to access education in a safe and supportive environment.'
Flexible Learning Plan
There are many projects that I have planned for flexible learning, but the official one is to create a plant selection course delivered on-line. The course is theory based and the unit standard is non-proscriptive on how evidence of competence is gathered. This opens up the assessment to a combination of visual, written or oral evidence using either traditional (e.g. handwritten), or IT formats.
Ideally learners will need access to a computer with broadband internet, but references, reading lists and assessments could be posted out. Students without internet access would need to be contacted by phone to provide learning assistance and social connection. It would be possible to successfully complete the course without interaction, but it would be a sterile learning environment.
The only barriers to learning that I can envision, are significant reading difficulties, and visual impairment. An assessment could be created using audio recordings, but I do not know what resource material would be available.
