Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE

The 14-19 Diploma in Humanities and Social Sciences

Author: George MacDonald Ross

Journal Title: Discourse

ISSN: 2040-3674

ISSN-L: 1741-4164

Volume: 9

Number: 1

Start page: 127

End page: 142

Return to vol. 9 no. 1 index page

Introduction

I have been involved in the development of the humanities diploma, and this paper is a personal reflection on my perceptions of the development process and its likely outcomes. As such, I do not wish to put forward a view that is taken to be the official standpoint of the Subject Centre or Network—rather, I draw on my years of experience as a philosophy educator in order to provide some ruminations on the possible strengths and weaknesses of the diploma, in the hope that these will prove useful and/or interesting to those with a vested interest in the proposed qualification.

The 14–19 diplomas in general

Scope

The 14–19 diplomas apply only to England. Parallel innovations are being developed in Scotland (the Curriculum for Excellence) and Wales (the Welsh Baccalaureate).

To those outside the school system, the age range of 14 to 19 may seem rather strange, since in England it is normal to enter secondary education at the age of 11 or 13, and to complete it by the age of 18. As we shall see, the diplomas are offered at three levels, and it is tempting to assume that each level is intended to cover two years of study. But in fact some levels could be completed more quickly, and the norm would be to qualify for the highest level at the age of 18, at the same time as completing one or more A-levels.

In the short term, the diplomas are only one strand in a wider reform of 14–19 education, and they will exist alongside (and in competition with) more traditional qualifications such as GCSEs and Alevels. Policy makers hope that the diplomas will become so popular that they will gradually supplant other qualifications; but the initial low level of take up suggests that this is unlikely, at least within the near future.

Rationale

A long-standing criticism of post-14 education in the UK has been that it is divided between the academic and the vocational. The vocational strand has always been treated as inferior, with the consequence that students avoid training for careers which would be rewarding for themselves, as well as contributing to the UK economy, in favour of academic study for which they may not be suited, and which may not lead directly to employment. The 14–19 diplomas are intended to overcome the crude dichotomy between the academic and the vocational, thus circumventing the disparity in esteem. Indeed, transcending the vocational/academic dichotomy is so central to the ideology of the diploma that the very terms 'vocational' and 'academic' are studiously avoided in the official literature. They are intended to be neither the one nor the other, and to lead either directly to employment, or to higher education.

A good philosophical case can be made for avoiding the academic/vocational polarisation. The higher status given to the academic over the vocational goes at least as far back as Plato's Academy itself. It arose from the dualism of mind and body, according to which the possession of a body is common to all animals, and what distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal kingdom, and sets them above it, is the possession of a mind or soul. Consequently, professions that involve the exercise of the mind, such as philosophy, mathematics, the law, politics, and medicine, are inherently superior to those that involve the exercise of the body, such as tilling the soil, bricklaying, carpentry, and road-sweeping. This maps neatly onto the equally old distinction between education and training. Education is a cultivation of the mind leading to independence of thought and judgment, and is practised in academically oriented schools and in universities. Training, on the other hand, involves the rote learning of facts and the development of physical skills, and is acquired through apprenticeships or training colleges. Indeed, so deep-rooted is the contrast between education and skills training, that some academics are utterly hostile to the idea that it is their job to develop their students' skills at all, however intellectual and sophisticated those skills may be.

Although it is increasingly rare for philosophers and educationalists to believe that mind and body are utterly different kinds of substance, it doesn't follow from the abandonment of this belief that there is no radical distinction between the mental and the physical, and by extension, between academic education and physical training. Indeed, at the extremes it is obvious that there is an immense gulf between developing the ability to reason elegantly and inventively in philosophy or science, and acquiring pre-determined motor skills, such touchtyping or driving a car. Nor would anyone in their right mind wish to deny that the skills involved in being a ground-breaking scientist or engineer are rarer and more difficult to acquire than those of typing fast and accurately, or driving without having an accident.

Nevertheless, if we consider the large majority of human activities that involve education or training, they invariably involve both. Nearly everything we do as humans we do differently from animals because we use our intelligence while doing it (even if we don't always use our intelligence well). Right in the middle come skills which involve muscular control and intellectual imagination in roughly equal proportions, such as playing a musical instrument, painting a picture, constructing an engineering model, or captaining a football team. It would be absurd to devalue these skills simply on the grounds that they can be manifested only through bodily activity, and it is difficult to think of any human skill so humble that it is appropriate to teach it in the way we train animals.

Even the most abstract of disciplines, such as philosophy and pure mathematics, cannot be conducted in a wholly disembodied way. Philosophers and mathematicians need to interact with others through reading, writing, listening, and talking; and these are quite basic physical functions we learn to do well through training. Moreover, many of the necessary intellectual skills are themselves quite mechanical, and need to be acquired by rote learning: the times tables in arithmetic, grammar and spelling, the vocabulary of foreign languages, technical terms and formulae in science, and so on.

In short, there is a smooth continuum between skills and knowledge that are acquired primarily through training, and those that are acquired primarily through a liberal education. Neither is entirely separate from the other, and the large majority of disciplines involve a significant measure of both. It is the purpose of the 14–19 diplomas to recognise this continuity, and to avoid both the anti-practical bias of much academic education, and the anti-academic bias of much practical training.

Levels

The diplomas have three levels:

The Advanced Diploma is equivalent to 3.5 A-levels; the Higher Diploma is equivalent to seven GCSE passes at grades C–A*; and the Foundation Diploma is equivalent to five GCSE passes at grades below C. This last is unfortunate, because the designers wish the diploma to be a positive qualification, whereas GCSE passes at below grade C are generally considered to be failures (when they were initially established, grades below C were defined as equivalent to fail grades in the old O-levels).

Since we are concerned here only with qualifications for entry to university, for the rest of this paper I shall confine myself to the Advanced Diploma.

The Structure of the Advanced Diploma

The relative weights of each component of the diploma are expressed in terms of Guided Learning Hours (GLH), of which the total for the whole diploma is 1,080 GLH. This measure (which of course can only be an approximation) is intended to include assigned independent study time as well as hours in direct contact with a teacher. It is one of the merits of the diploma that work outside the classroom is integral to the design of the syllabus, and it corresponds very closely to the university convention of specifying modular credits in terms of study hours rather than of contact hours.

There are three main blocks of learning. The first is called Principal Learning, counting 540 GLH, or exactly half the total. This consists of an interdisciplinary study of the broad subject area covered by the diploma in question. Unlike traditional theoretical study, 50% of the learning must be applied. In other words, students must be set tasks which have many of the characteristics of real work, and are relevant to the workplace.

The second main block is Generic Learning, counting 180 GLH. This in turn is divided into three sub-components. The first is Work Experience lasting a minimum of 10 days, but not counting towards the GLH. The second sub-component is an Extended Project of 120 GLH, in which the student is expected to demonstrate a high level of independent thinking and research under the overall guidance of the teacher. The third sub-component is Personal, Learning, and Thinking Skills of 60 GLH, in which students learn to become independent enquirers, creative thinkers, reflective learners, team workers, selfmanagers, and effective participators.

The third block is Additional and Specialist Learning, counting 360 GLH. This will be any formal qualification of the appropriate level and weight. It need not be within the subject area of the diploma, but it must not reduplicate the Generic Learning to any significant extent. In the case of the Advanced Diploma, it is most likely to be an A-level.

The Humanities Diploma

Relation to other diplomas

In diploma-speak, the employment sector or subject area covered by a diploma is called a Line of Learning, or LOL. Altogether there are 17 LOLs, introduced in four phases. The diplomas in the first three phases are more directly vocational than those in the fourth phase, which have a more academic character:

1. First taught in September 2008

2. First taught in September 2009

3. First taught in September 2010

4. First taught in September 2011

Title of the Diploma

What was originally known as the Humanities Diploma is now known as the Diploma in Humanities and Social Sciences. There are two reasons for this. The first reason is that, as we shall see below, many of the disciplines it covers are in fact social sciences and not humanities. The second reason is that the word 'humanities' has different meanings in schools and universities, and the longer title helps to avoid ambiguity. In schools, the term 'humanities' means the particular disciplines of history and geography; whereas in universities, it is usually equivalent to what was traditionally taught in faculties of arts (excluding geography), and is used in order to avoid confusion with the performing and creative arts. In this document, I shall refer to the Humanities Diploma for short.

Coverage

In diploma-speak, the range of particular disciplines covered by a diploma are known as its 'disciplinary footprint'. The disciplinary footprint of the Humanities Diploma is as follows:

Timetable

It is important to understand that the general specification of the George MacDonald Ross—The 14-19 Diploma in Humanities and Social Sciences Authority (QCA) (now turning into the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency), subject to the overarching approval of the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). It is the task of individual examining boards to design detailed syllabuses that fill out the details of the general specification.

The timetable is as follows:

Progress so far

As of summer 2009, the consultation phase has been completed, and the criteria for the Principal Learning are ready for publication. However, the criteria are quite general, and it is almost impossible to evaluate the educational worth of the Principal Learning until the awarding bodies produce their detailed specifications. Moreover, the Principal Learning is only half the qualification, and virtually nothing has yet been decided about the Extended Project, the Work Experience, or the Personal, Learning and Thinking Skills. By the time these details are published in 2010, there will be no opportunity for consultation, and we shall have to live with whatever the examining boards have produced.

Principal learning

In the Advanced Diploma, the topics to be covered are as follows:

It is left open how these topics are to be mapped onto the 16 disciplines. Some topics are obviously more closely the concern of particular disciplines than others—for example, 'challenging knowledge, argument and evidence' is largely philosophical (and corresponds closely to the Theory of Knowledge component of the International Baccalaureate), and 'living with rules and governance' is largely political and legal. But some disciplines have no obvious home in the above list (e.g. classics, English language, and history), and the intention is that the topics should be treated as cross-disciplinary themes, to be discussed through particular disciplines as appropriate to individual schools and colleges.

However, the QCA's Criteria for Principal Learning does break down each topic into more specific sub-themes, with stronger clues as to which disciplines might be relevant. To give a flavour of what is involved, I reproduce the list of what students should know and understand under the first topic, of 'challenging knowledge, argument and evidence:

  1. That there are different types of knowledge, including scientific, historical, religious, ethical, organisational, philosophical and revelatory.
  2. The historical origins of religious/ideological, political and scientific arguments.
  3. Why knowledge claims are challenged.
  4. The nature of primary and secondary evidence.
  5. Why different evidence is used or presented in different circumstances.
  6. How evidence is identified, collected, processed and presented.
  7. The strengths and weaknesses of different forms of evidence, including the concepts of authenticity, objectivity, reliability, validity, representativeness and currency.
  8. The relationship between evidence and argument.
  9. How valid arguments and proposals are constructed and used, including the use of logic.
  10. How to present persuasive arguments for particular audiences.
  11. The use of different media to present an argument or evidence.
  12. That evidence should be examined from different perspectives.
  13. How to make a reasoned argument for and against a case.

There are similar lists for all the other topics, together with the abilities students will develop, and the personal, learning and thinking skills they will need in order to engage effectively with the topic.

Strengths

The Humanities Diploma has a number of great strengths:

First, as mentioned at the beginning, it stresses the application of theoretical knowledge and understanding to practical situations, and, if successful, should help to overcome the largely artificial divide between the academic and the vocational, or between theory and practice. It would put into effect Leibniz's motto theoria cum praxi, or 'theory combined with practice'.

Second, A-levels have long been criticised for encouraging rote learning and teaching to the test. In the diploma, the Principal Learning must be taught in a way that develops personal, learning, and thinking skills, and these cannot be developed if students merely memorise and regurgitate what they have been told in class or read in textbooks. Moreover, these skills are not merely introduced implicitly through the Principal Learning, but are addressed explicitly in the Generic Learning, so that diplomates will be active and reflective learners.

Third, the extended project requires a level of independent thinking and research that is quite foreign to traditional A-levels.

The consequences for universities are highly significant. Although there are some notable exceptions, it is generally the case that first-year teaching at university consists mainly of large lectures, supplemented to a greater or lesser extent by smaller seminar or tutorial groups. The main differences from A-level teaching are that student numbers are much greater; class contact time is much less, and with relatively little direction as to how time out of class should be spent; much of the teaching is done by untrained graduate students; feedback on written work is relatively infrequent; and there is little personal contact between staff and students. It is only later that students embark on dissertations or projects, and have more personalised contact with members of academic staff.

The transition from A-levels to university is already a problem because of the differences in environment and expectations; but at least the didactic mode of lecturing and pre-digested course handouts will be familiar to first-year students. However, if we try to imagine what the experience will be like for humanities diplomates, it is certainly possible that they will find these teaching methods less than inspiring. After years of active learning, applying theory to practice, researching projects, and independent writing, the largely passive environment of a first-year lecture theatre may fail to engage their interest. If diplomates start arriving in significant numbers, universities may have to re-think their first-year offering. I describe this as a strength of the diploma, because the teaching prevalent in the first year of university tends to be quite traditional, and could perhaps benefit from a stimulus that encourages a reflective examination of the methods employed.

There is a widespread consensus that, even if students arrive at university as passive learners, wholly dependent on instructors for their learning, by the time they graduate, they ought to emerge as autonomous practitioners of their discipline, capable of improving their skills and knowledge without further help. So it is paradoxical that in most departments, students have far less individual attention from expert teachers in their first year than they have in their final year. Many years ago, I did a calculation in my own department. I used the rough and ready measure of dividing the hours students spent in class each week by the number of fellow-students in each class, so that, for example, an hour's one-to-one tutorial counted 60 minutes, and a onehour lecture with 60 students present counted one minute. The outcome was that final-year students received about ten times as much individual attention as first-year students, with second-year students somewhere between the two. I know there were valid administrative and financial reasons for this discrepancy, but there is a serious tension between these, and the academic judgment that students need more individual attention when they arrive at university than by the time they are about to leave it. Any development that encourages universities into teaching first-year students in ways which involve active research, personalised feedback, and small group interaction, instead of leaving these as a special treat for finalists, will have a dramatic and positive effect on the student learning experience for all.

Weaknesses

Unfortunately, the above strengths of the diploma are matched by a greater number of weaknesses.

First, humanities disciplines such as English and History which presuppose a significant amount of prior subject-specific learning at school are unlikely to accept the Humanities Diploma as an entry qualification to university. They might accept it if candidates have at least one other relevant A-level; but this would raise the entry requirement to the equivalent of 4.5 A-levels or more, which is likely to deter candidates from most state schools. This is less of a problem with subjects like philosophy, which do not presuppose any particular prior knowledge; but admissions tutors are still likely to be disturbed by the lack of depth to the diploma.

Second, the major component of the diploma is the Principal Learning. Spread as it is over 16 disparate disciplines, it is difficult to see how it can be taught with coherence and rigour. The range of subthemes in each topic is so wide, that it is unrealistic to expect the students' experience to be any more than a superficial survey of each. Besides, there are serious practical problems over ensuring that every component is taught by teachers with the required expertise. To give just one example, there are very few secondary teachers with the necessary background in philosophy and scientific method to be qualified to teach the first topic, 'Challenging knowledge, argument and evidence'. The designers of the 14–19 diploma are well aware of this difficulty, and it is a requirement for any school wishing to offer it to be a member of a consortium through which expertise can be shared. But even if the consortium does have all the necessary staff resources (which is unlikely), the logistics of moving students or staff from one institution to another are very complex. Moreover, such consortia are totally impracticable in isolated rural areas, thus confining the diploma to larger conurbations.

Third, one of the defining characteristics of a humanities discipline is the close reading of texts. But this a skill which is totally absent from the Humanities Diploma as currently specified. It may be that the detailed syllabuses to be produced by exam boards will remedy this deficiency to a certain extent. However, there is a serious danger that diplomates will enter humanities departments at university with no previous experience of interpreting difficult texts, unless they encounter them through A-levels studied within or alongside the diploma.

Fourth, there is a great stress on applied learning and work experience; but so far no thought seems to have been put into what this might mean in the case of the topics and sub-themes constituting the diploma. Again, the exam boards may come up with something more specific, but I suspect that it will be left to hard-pressed teachers to devise case studies and negotiate with reluctant employers for remotely relevant work placements.

Fifth, there will be only one year between the publication of the qualifications and the beginning of teaching. It is difficult to see how there is anything like enough time to write and publish textbooks supporting the diploma; to train teachers in teaching methods that are radically different from those at A-level; to prepare lesson plans; and to organise the distribution of teaching responsibilities and timetables within consortia.

Conclusion

In discussion at the conference, there was widespread sympathy for the aim of the Humanities Diploma to overcome the artificial divide between academic theory and vocational practice; to encourage active learning and independent research; and to ensure that students were equipped with basic intellectual skills. However, there was very little sympathy for the breadth and superficiality of the Principal Learning, and considerable disquiet about the practicality of introducing the qualification within such a short timescale. There was also concern at the proliferation of qualifications for university entry (A-levels, International Baccalaureate, Cambridge Pre-U and so on), which would cause confusion for applicants and admissions tutors alike.

Given that A-levels are the most familiar and widely understood qualification, the simplest way forward would be to reform the A-level system so as to incorporate the strengths of the diploma, while retaining the depth and subject specificity of A-levels. It is generally agreed that A-levels in their present form are structured and assessed in a way that encourages narrow academicism, passive learning, and teaching to the test. Most of the distinctive features of the diploma could be added to existing A-levels, and it should be noted that the latest A-level reform includes an optional Extended Project worth half an A-level— which is certainly an improvement. There is also scope for explicit teaching of general skills corresponding to the Functional Skills in English, ICT, and mathematics taught in the Foundation and Higher Diplomas, and the Personal Learning and Thinking Skills taught in all the Diplomas.

The main difficulty is the reform of A-level teaching so as to encourage independent thinking. The reduction in assessment from once a term to twice a year will be of some help; but much more radical reform is needed to match the underlying educational philosophy of the diploma. The slogan for the diploma is 'Bringing learning to life'— and an excellent slogan it is too, since the diploma not only applies theoretical knowledge to real-life situations, but also enlivens the whole process of learning. We need to bring A-levels to life. But one golden opportunity was missed when Tomlinson's recommendations were rejected; and another with the half-hearted reforms just coming into effect. Unfortunately, there is a rule that, apart from minor tinkering, there must be a six-year period before any further reform. Consequently, it is most unlikely that there will be any significant improvement in the skills and attitudes of those entering university by the A-level route until 2017 at the earliest.

If everything goes to plan, students will begin entering university with the Humanities Diploma in 2013. But even that is in doubt, because the Conservative Party has undertaken to abolish it. It may change its mind if it comes to power; but it is difficult to predict what will happen. The one thing that can be predicted with certainty is that it will be many years before universities are overwhelmed with entrants who have benefited from such an active, rigorous and exciting learning experience in their last two years at school or college that they will be entirely alienated by the traditional lectures and seminars of most firstyear courses at university. Until that is the case, the challenge for us as humanities educators remains to ensure that first-year teaching is fit for purpose to smooth the transition from passive learning at school to active learning at university.

Resources

Department for Children, Schools and Families: http://yp.direct.gov.uk/diplomas/

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority: http://qcda.gov.uk/5396.aspx

Creative and Cultural Skills: http://www.humanitiesdiploma.co.uk

Return to vol. 9 no. 1 index page

This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.

 

-
The British Association for the Study of Religions
The Religious Studies Project