E P Ly N N

B A L Dw I N

As human beings we are 'hardwired' to learn. There is no human being who cannot learn, save those who have suffered the most severe brain injury perhaps. Learning begins from the moment we are born, and indeed we now have evidence that we do so whilst still in the womb. For the most important things that we need to do in life, for example, eating, drinking, sleeping and communicating, we do so without being taught how to, whether formally or informally. We learn every day, although we would likely be hard pressed to say what, precisely, we have learned, such is the complexity of the task and the issue of that which we learn consciously and that which we learn subconsciously. Explaining to others what we have learned is not easy and depends in part on our linguistic skills and, in no short measure, on our awareness and capability in terms of recall/memory. Learning can be done only by the human being who does the actual learning; we cannot learn for someone else or force them to learn. Whatever learning is or is not (and the debate continues despite the wealth of literature in the area) it involves some kind of change in the brain of the person doing the learning, whether we are a baby, a child or an adult. Data, information, knowledge and understanding are terms that are often used interchangeably in much literature, which provides further evidence that we still have a lot to find out about how 'the stuff outside' is somehow processed in/by our brains in order to become 'the stuff inside our heads'. What 'sticks' or not, or why, is difficult if not impossible to say, given how little we currently know about the workings of the brain.

However, one thing is not contested, namely, that we learn from what is around us, that is, our environment. Whilst we cannot make another human being learn something, as educators we can shape what is these days termed 'the learning environment'. This might be a classroom or lecture hall. However, given that so few hours are spent there in the higher education context, none could argue that learning takes place only at that time and in that place and in the presence of an educator. Instead, whatever learning does or does not happen in the brains of our learners takes place outside the classroom. We like to believe that such learning takes place while our learners read the material that we have asked them to read, or that they do so whilst they practise particular skills that we have tasked them to carry out. The assessment that we ask them to carry out, say, the writing of an active learning in higher education

essay, may also comprise a part of this learning environment in some way. These activities are all determined/set by the educator, of course, and we spend a great deal of time designing such tasks in light of current theories of learning and teaching.

However, the nature of learning is such that it may not necessarily be within our control to manage. After all, we do not say to ourselves, 'well, brain, please process those five design methodologies that I have to know for module x right now, so that this information is both stored appropriately and easily retrievable when I need it'. Instead, this learning may well take place when we are walking to the bus stop, having a cup of coffee or fast asleep and not consciously thinking about those five design methodologies at all. Or, we may be consciously trying to learn those five design methodologies and believing that we are learning but, in fact, learning nothing at all, or learning only part of it, or learning something completely different. However, whatever the role and/or nature of 'the learning environment', we as educators do have some control over what we ask our learners to do in terms of, among other things, the tasks we set for them. Fortunately, our learners do learn, despite us, in some cases!

In the first article, entitled 'Teaching style and learning in a quantitative classroom', Jan Giles et al., from the universities of Prince Edward Island and British Columbia in Canada, explore the notions of student-centred and teacher-centred learning. Reminding readers of the educational research over recent years, they provide a useful overview of theories about learning, including those focusing on cognitive and perceptual differences, sensory modalities and personality/psychological types. Our differing 'intelligences', learning styles and/or learning strategies and surface and deep approaches are also reviewed. Whatever we do or do not know about learning, we today recognise that learners are at the heart of learning and that we need to pay great(er) attention to how learners actually learn, that is, a greater focus on the student experience. This is in contrast to a decade or so ago, when up to that point we were considered to be overly concerned with our own skills and abilities in delivering material to our learners. However, whilst we believe today that the design of a learning environment that is considered more student-centred is somehow 'a good thing' (and thus that one which is more teacher-focused is 'not such a good thing') in terms of helping learners to learn, measuring this is very difficult indeed given that, for the majority of us, our learners are not exposed to both approaches in our own classrooms.

It is therefore somewhat unusual to find a study such as this, in which the same students were exposed to both approaches. Class content was identical in each class and was delivered by the same educator. The educators were, as far as is possible, rated as 'equal' in terms of lecturer knowledge and ability to hold interest. Each class consisted of an explanation of what the class activities would be and, following the two different types of activity (student-centred or teacher-centred), followed by a class evaluation (a questionnaire) and a knowledge evaluation (a quiz). These activities were identical in both classes. Where the classes differed was in the activities that they did or did not do. In the student-centred class the students were put into small problem-solving groups of three or four students. Discussion was encouraged but the students were reliant not on the 'teacher knowledge' but instead on themselves, using repetition of the material presented or deflection of the question in some way if they asked for help or clarification. In the teacher-centred class students had the 'traditional' lecture with PowerPoint slides (hard copies provided), and examples were completed by the educator, with students following along. Questions were politely discouraged.

The result? Students scored better when presented with the material in the 'traditional' format. However, this masks a far greater complexity, as the authors acknowledge in their discussion at the end. Personality, the influence of the background knowledge that students had of the subject matter, the influence of the students' own reasons for their success, confidence and other factors demonstrate that there is in fact no simple or 'right' answer to this. This study demonstrates how important teaching style and interaction with our learners actually is in helping our learners to learn. A more learnercentred approach, as in the study described in the first article, often involves learners actually doing something. So, rather than sitting passively in the classroom or lecture hall, taking notes and having little or no interaction with the person delivering the material (such a scenario characterizes the 'traditional' teacher-centred class), students are, in the learner-centred classroom, often up and moving about, discussing things with their peers and/or the lecturer, with the latter playing much more of a facilitative role.

This more 'active learning' has at its heart the notion that learning by doing may help make the content more 'real'. The use of case studies, roleplaying, discussions of aspects of the discipline as they are played out in the workplace, that is, the more practical rather than theoretical aspects, assume a more prominent position in the more learner-centred classroom. The use of role-play and/or games in higher education is an area that, with the ubiquity of computing technology these days, is an area of experiential learning that explains why it is the focus of the second article. Entitled 'Simulation and games: use and barriers in higher education', Jonathan Lean et al. examine the use (and non-use) of simulation and gaming approaches used in higher education. Their study revealed that simulations, games and role-play are widely used but that role-play and other noncomputerised games were used more often than computerised ones. Given that this was somewhat surprising in the institution where this study was carried out, the authors use the evidence to put forward reasons as to why this might be. Whilst it might be thought that a lack of resources might be one of the barriers to their adoption, it seems that a lack of awareness of the benefits has a more significant impact in the decision-making as to whether or not simulations, games and role-plays are used in the classroom.

Whilst learning is hardwired in humans, learning things in the formal context is a skill that can be, and is, taught and needs to be acquired if learners are to succeed in their studies. Whilst we, as educators, are keen to stress the value of learning per se, in contrast to the learning that we do informally, much of what we ask our learners to learn is subsequently assessed in some way. This might be formative or summative in nature but, one way or another, in order to make an award of any type, evidence of a student's performance is needed. The ability to perform well, or well enough, in an unseen examination is another of those skills that we can teach our learners to do (better). However, we must be careful that in so doing we avoid 'teaching to the test'; something that those teaching in higher education in today's climate fear may be happening more than it should. In the 'commodification' of higher education, there is the perception that students pay their money (or, at least, a proportion of the cost of their degree) and that, as a result, they expect, if not demand, that we ensure that they pass. In the UK at least, the government of the day is keen to ensure that around 50 per cent of those completing their secondary education then go on to do a degree. Whilst within this population there are those who cannot wait to begin the exciting challenge of studying at university, there are naturally those who, for various reasons, are not as well motivated as we might wish.

The significant changes in the higher education sector, and in particular the external pressures from the government which, rightly, needs to assure the taxpayer that their taxes are being spent in the appropriate way, is touched upon in the third article. In 'The locus of power in UK universities: its impact on educational development centres', Laurie Lomas reports that in the UK we are having to teach more and more students (including a greater number from less 'traditional' backgrounds) but with less money per student from the government in order to do so. Many universities in the UK have made organizational changes to their internal structure in order to deal with these external pressures, says the author, and these naturally impact on what decisions are made, how and by whom. These affect, one way or another, the culture of any organization. Lomas reports that universities organize themselves differently according to factors such as age of the institution (some are 800 years old, others 8, and some can count their age only in months), tradition and size. There are 'traditional' universities, and these have very 'traditional' organizational structures. In these, there is less 'central' power, and academic departments 'make the general values and norms of behaviour abundantly clear', says Lomas. Such values and norms vary from department to department, and there may even be rivalry as each competes for staff, students and financial resources. In contrast, there are universities in the UK that are centrally managed.

Regardless of whether a university is 'traditional' or 'new', changes in the organizational structure and the shift(s) in the locus of power mean that the development, implementation, monitoring and review of learning and teaching strategies in universities has been significantly affected, argues Lomas. Although not made explicit in this article, it is recognized that, for many and varied reasons, educators in higher education are perhaps not as well prepared for the 'different' teaching that is required in order to effectively help this more diverse group of learners. Over the last few years, universities have recognized that educators cannot (or should not) be left to their own devices in their individual departments and that they would benefit from university-wide support, advice and resources re teaching provision. There is now no university in the UK that does not have, in one form or another, a 'learning and teaching centre/unit' as part of its central (rather than department/faculty-level) provision. Their size (large, and growing larger) and their perceived importance is such that they play a greater role in the management of the learning and teaching 'business' aspects of universities and is part of what Lomas refers to as the 'centralizing tendency' that characterizes the current state of higher education in the UK. Little if any research has been carried out on these 'learning and teaching centres/units' at 'the centre', says Lomas, and so this article is a welcome one if we are to effectively manage our teaching activity. The research described in the article sheds light on issues such as what the battles are, and where they have to be won, and the importance of leadership. As has long been recognized in industry, the need for a 'champion' is essential, although such individuals are rare, unfortunately.

A degree, these days, is seen as a necessary 'must have' in the workplace today, even for those jobs where, in the past, a degree was considered not necessary. And, with more and more of our students working part-time or even full-time to finance their three-or four-year degree course, finding high levels of motivation, and energy, are ever more difficult when juggling work outside, too. For those with families to support, long distances to travel to the university or whatever, whilst recognising the need for study, the burning desire to do so is less easily conjured up. Today's students may well not have been in formal education for some years or, if they have, may not be used to formal examinations, whether seen or unseen, done under the pressure of a particular time period. Even if they have had recent experience, there are few with a natural talent for this acquired skill. As in all things, practice makes perfect, it is said. Many of us running modules or courses provide past papers, which allow our students to look at the format and other such issues but, importantly, allow them to practise writing under exam-type conditions if they so wish. However, practice varies as to whether or not the 'model answers' are provided alongside; some do so but, rightly or wrongly, the majority do not. There are also few educators who, with large class sizes, can and do mark practice attempts. With class sizes of 300 or more becoming commonplace in the UK, marking practice attempts, as well as coursework, is an enormously time-consuming task, even if submitted and returned electronically.

Publishers of textbooks have, however, recognised the need to offer support over and above the mere publication of what they believe is an excellent textbook. Many have websites dedicated to helping students with learning more generally (learning how to learn), and also with particular discipline-specific issues. Given that many of our students are today highly computer literate, and becoming increasingly so, such a resource is to be welcomed, as it provides not only a resource for our students but also saves us time and effort in producing supplementary material. Scott Paul Johnson and Andrzej Huczynski, authors of the fourth article, entitled 'Textbook publishers' website objective question banks: does their use improve students' examination performance?', say that publishers these days consider having a textbook website an essential and that the major publishing companies have invested much time, effort and money into developing such learning resources. We are increasingly using virtual learning environments (VLEs) such as WebCT or Blackboard as the means of providing study guides, the uploading of PowerPoint slides and the like, as well as for promoting discussion between learners themselves via discussion boards. Indeed, it is somewhat surprising to me that, in some of the literature in the field of education, some are still discussing whether or not we should use the technology to support learning. In my view, that argument was made long ago; there is hardly a higher education institution in the UK which does not use a VLE! Whilst some, particularly those with little experience or technical knowledge (or support for the technology) may use only the basic features, there are many, and their number increases daily, who use all the sophisticated features available. Students seem to not only like it but, importantly, see it as something which, if not provided, is regarded as not meeting the standards that they expect. So, I here make the plea that it is time to cease discussing the advantages and disadvantages of computersupported learning environments and instead just focus on how, precisely, we might use them effectively.

In using technology to support our learners, we are increasingly likely to include, as part of this, reference to the textbook publisher's website. VLEs have the facility to allow us to develop what are called 'question banks'. Such question banks allow us to construct a number of questions, varying in range and type, which can be used by our learners in order to provide practice in the writing of examination papers for those who choose to do so. As with past papers, whether or not the 'model answers' are provided at some point is a matter for the institution to decide. Most, if not all, modules/courses now have one 'core' textbook that students must purchase; more is unusual, although students may well be asked to read other material elsewhere, for which they either do not have to pay at all (it is available via the internet, for example) or which is available for minimal cost (a study pack, perhaps).

However, as Scott Paul Johnson and Andrzej Huczynski's article demonstrates, we do not know whether our students actually use the question bank associated with the core text we ask them to buy/use. Or, if they do, whether so doing improves their subsequent performance in the examination. Naturally enough, there may be differences in terms of gender, that is, it may be that males are more likely to use such question banks. Or, perhaps, their performance might instead be related to how often they used these banks. However, as the authors rightly note, this must be viewed in light of their grades upon entry to university. Analysis of the results from their sample size of 239 respondents revealed that the question banks and the feedback provided were much valued by students. For those worried that the use of question banks is a step in the wrong direction in that they are 'teaching to the test', the results showed that the performance of these students in the subsequent examination was not significantly improved. However, as with all results, there is no simple answer as to whether or not we should use such question banks (more) given that the data suggest that this is more complex than it seems on the surface.

One of the complexities surrounding how we learn concerns the issue of motivation. As discussed earlier, whilst we may recognise that we need to do x, whether or not we want to is but one of the issues complicating our understanding of its role in learning. There seems to be a belief that our students should be sitting on the edges of their seats, excitedly awaiting the next learning challenge, eager to ask questions in the quest for knowledge. However, whilst some things that we learn are indeed exciting, this is not to say that we necessarily enjoy every element of it! Some of us may, for example, really enjoy cooking. We may find nothing more rewarding than being in the kitchen, preparing some wonderful food for friends or family. However, I suspect that such cooks do not gain such satisfaction from, say, washing up afterwards or cleaning up after someone has spilled red wine all over the carpet. We recognise such tasks as necessary but, for most, deadly dull and boring. We do them because we understand that they are part and parcel of the task, but we instead focus on the bigger picture and thus the more positive aspects/the rewards. It is no different for our learners. There are some elements of study that are just not motivating at all. Or, which motivate some, but not others. However, just as with cooking, that we lack the motivation and/or want to do them does not necessarily negatively affect our performance. We are no less 'successful' at washing up, and the washing up is not done badly, just because we cannot find the energy or enthusiasm for it! However, how we deal with the dull and uninteresting tasks, what keeps us going when things get tough and how much drive, enthusiasm and motivation we need in order to achieve our goals are in part dependent on how we deal with what life throws at us. For many of our students, the transition from secondary to higher education comes at a time when there is a lot to deal with on the personal front. Such students may be living away from home for the first time, dealing with finances for the first time and, if they are studying far from their family, may not have the support of family and friends during this perhaps anxious and uncertain period. How students do, or do not, cope with the experience of beginning their degree course is the subject of the fifth and final article, entitled 'Gender differences in coping strategies of undergraduate students and their impact on self esteem and attainment'. In this, Julia Lawrence et al. look at how we, as humans, cope. Coping is described as our ability to manage specific external and/or internal demands and is naturally dependent on our own individual makeup in this regard; some are better 'copers' than others when faced with exactly the same problem.

Models of coping, they report, comprise two distinct categories: those which are problem-focused and those which are emotion-focused. Strategies such as problem-solving, planning and effort are involved when we attempt to deal with a problem, and we focus on the successful completion of the task. However, we need to control our emotional arousal and distress in order to ensure that we can remain focused on the task; if not, our performance and/or attainment may suffer. As individuals we each have our own coping makeup which is in part determined by our genetic predisposition and in part by previous experiences. Some are amenable to change, and others may not be. Coping, say Julia Lawrence et al., is also linked to self-esteem and, in addition to impacting on our general wellbeing, may influence how well or otherwise we perform in any given task. Given the topic, it is not surprising perhaps that males and females adopt different strategies of/for coping.

The first year of study is a crucial time; nearly 70% of students who leave their studies before completion drop out (leave) during the first year, very often during the first term. Over the last few years, this has been recognised and we have been tasked to address this by, for example, providing appropriate targeted support during the early weeks and months. Julia Lawrence et al. claim that we know little about the nature and type of the coping strategies that our learners use, and that there is a need to better understand the link between self-esteem and attainment. And, given that gender is a factor here, to explore these issues in light of how female and male learners deal with their experiences. Results from their study of 160 first-year students was perhaps surprising in that there was no relationship between the coping strategies used and their subsequent attainment. However, and consistent with previous research, their findings revealed significant differences between males and females in terms of self-esteem, the ability to detach from the emotion of a situation and how emotions are either 'bottled up' or given an outlet. They conclude their article with some useful pointers as to what we might do during these early weeks and months of study in order to both recognise how our learners are coping (or not) and the support mechanisms that we might employ. Importantly, and rightly in my view, they say that we need to embed these support mechanisms into our 'normal' classroom activity. That is, that we provide such support to all learners, as part of our support for helping them learn how to learn in the higher education context. For many of us, such support mechanisms exist as part of our provision, but they are only brought into play when things 'go wrong'. It is by then perhaps too late.


A L Aw R E N C E , K E L Ly A S H F O R

D Pau L D E N T

Gender differences in coping strategies of undergraduate students and their impact on self-esteem and attainment

Keywords: coping styles, emotional control, rehearsal, self-esteem active learning Grade: 1

A B S T R AC T This study sought to investigate differences in the coping strategies adopted by male and female first year students in a higher education environment and the extent to which such strategies had an impact on self-esteem and attainment. Results revealed significant differences between males and females in terms of engagement in coping strategies and academic attainment. Specifically, males exhibited greater ability to detach themselves from the emotions of a situation, were more inclined to demonstrate emotional inhibition or 'bottling up' of emotions and reported higher self-esteem. In addition, it was observed that females attained at a significantly higher level than males. Practical implications and recommendations for future research are identified.

Introduction

The transition from post 16 to higher education for many students is a stressful experience as they struggle to cope with an array of changing situations including: movement away from home, change of peer group and the establishment of new friendships. Whilst for most this transition occurs naturally with limited interruptions to learning, for others, the transition is more stressful requiring the adoption of strategies specifically aimed towards coping with the changing situation.

Coping represents an individual's cognitive, affective and behavioural efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands (Crocker et al., 1998;Lazarus, 1999). Specifically, it can be defined as the 'conscious, rational way of dealing with the anxieties of life' (Reber, 1985: 158) and is reflected in the self-protection strategies adopted by the individual (Kashden et al., 2006). Effective application of such strategies allows the individual to 'resolve problems, relieve emotional distress, and stay on track towards achieving their goals' (Brown et al., 2005: 792). Ineffective application may result in 'subtle avoidance or suppressed behaviour' (Kashden et al., 2006(Kashden et al., : 1301)).

Models of coping identify two distinct categories based on the intention and function of coping efforts: problem focused and emotion focused (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Problem focused coping refers to cognitive and behavioural efforts used to change the problem, and includes such strategies as problem solving, planning and effort (Holt et al., 2005). Therefore the focus is towards the successful completion of the given task. Emotion focused coping involves strategies that help control emotional arousal and distress that are caused by the stressor without addressing the problem (Crocker et al., 1998), and includes avoidance, detachment and suppression (Kashden et al., 2006). The ability of the individual to adopt appropriate coping strategies impacts upon their overall performance and consequently their level of attainment (Brown et al., 2005). More explicitly where coping is ineffective, performance is adversely affected and 'coping strategies can either buffer or aggravate these adverse effects, depending upon the tactics used' (Brown et al., 2005: 797).

Gender differences in the selection of coping strategies have been identified, with males adopting more problem focused strategies and females adopting a more emotion focused approach (Ptacek et al., 1994). Gender differences in terms of attainment have also been established. Smith and Naylor (2001) found that 53.3 per cent of females who left universities in 1993 obtained good degrees compared to only 45 per cent of males. In addition, it has been shown that girls value academic success and that being too successful at school could disadvantage some boys among their peers (Tinklin et al., 2001). Further, Tinklin (2003) suggests that females take education more seriously and tend to be better prepared, more conscientious, cooperative, organized and respectful. Males in contrast, are seen as ill prepared, competitive, disruptive, overconfident and less attentive (Clark and Trafford, 1996;Warrington et al., 2000).

Links have also been established between coping strategies and selfesteem, both of which have the potential to impact upon the well being of the individual (Lane et [START_REF] Ow E N | Sometimes You Feel You're in Niche Time" -The Personal Tutor System, A Case Study[END_REF]Rector and Roger, 1996). Further, it has been suggested that low self-esteem may lead to performance deficits, negative mood states and motivational deficits, which in turn lead to a reduction in the exercise of adaptive problem-orientated coping and the relative infrequent opportunity to gain successes and bolster self-esteem (Ader et al., 1991). Self-esteem may also influence coping responses that seek to deal with or avoid stressors. Avoidance generates negative selfevaluations owing to the inherently undesirable qualities of this behaviour, which create bad feelings and failure to obtain personal growth (Bednar et al., 1989). The preoccupation with emotional upset may inhibit individuals with low self-esteem from engaging in assertive and adaptive coping behaviours to combat stress.

Whilst the concepts identified above have been assessed within a higher education context this has taken place in relative isolation, thus there is a shortage of literature regarding the relationship between coping strategies, self-esteem and attainment. Further, whilst gender differences have been established this has occurred primarily within the secondary and further education setting and therefore a need arises to identify if similar trends occur within higher education.

Within the current higher education environment there is a drive towards the development of greater independence and personal reflection requiring students to take ownership of their learning. In order to do so, it is important that they are able to adopt appropriate coping strategies. Therefore, a need arises to understand and identify the coping strategies adopted by students and the extent to which these impact upon their self-esteem and level of attainment. This will allow the identification and implementation of support mechanisms where appropriate.

Given the importance of the first year (students are more likely to drop out at this level), this study focuses on the coping strategies adopted by a cohort of first year undergraduates and the extent to which these impacted on self-esteem and attainment. Specifically, the following research questions were addressed. What are the nature and type of coping strategies adopted by first year students? To what extent are coping strategies linked to self-esteem and attainment? Are gender differences present in respect of coping strategies, self-esteem and attainment?

Methods

Participants

One hundred and sixty (58 female and 102 male) first year sport sciences undergraduate students participated in the study. The students were aged between 18 and 20 years of age.

Instruments

York Self-Esteem Inventory (YSEI: Rector and Roger, 1996). The scale comprises 30 items measuring global self-esteem. Items reflect various evaluative selfdomains including personal, interpersonal, familial, achievement, physical attractiveness and the degree of evaluative uncertainty across these domains. Preliminary psychometric examination of the scale (Rector and Roger, 1993) has revealed strong internal reliability (t = 0.86) and test-retest reliability (0.83). The self-esteem has also been shown to correlate highly significantly with established indices of self-esteem including the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (1965).

Emotional Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ: Roger et al., 1993). The CSQ comprises three factors -a bipolar scale entitled Detached/Emotional coping, a Rational dimension and an Avoidant coping factor. The factors have been shown to possess acceptable internal consistency (range: 0.69-0.85,) and good test-retest reliability over a 3-month period (range: 0.70-0.80).

Procedure

Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire package containing a consent and demographic form, and the YSEI, ECQ and CSQ at the end of the 2004/5 Spring Semester. During the administration of the questionnaires one of the authors was always present to answer any questions that arose. Finally, at the end of the academic year attainment grades for each participant were obtained from a central university source. Grades were averaged and grouped according to degree classification criteria.

Data analysis

Data analyses comprised four phases. Initially, data were screened for univariate and multivariate outliers using standardized z-scores and the Mahalanobis Distance test respectively. Second, the distributional properties of the data were assessed. Third, in order to determine whether gender differences in coping style and attainment were present and hence, whether to run separate regression analyses a MANOVA and t-test were conducted. Finally, multiple regressions were conducted to explore the relationship between attainment grade and coping styles.

Results

Data screening and descriptive statistics

Data screening revealed no univariate or multivariate outliers. Descriptive statistics can be found in Table 1.

Gender differences in coping style and attainment

Results of the 2 (gender) ϫ 8 (coping styles) MANOVA revealed a significant difference between males and females, Wilks' Lambda = 0.86, F (8, 151) = 3.11, p <0.01, 2 = 0.14. Specifically, follow-up univariate analysis revealed significant differences in self-esteem, F = 4.85, p <0.05, 2 = 0.03, detachment F = 12.48, p <0.01. 2 = 0.07, and emotional inhibition, F = 4.16, p <0.05, 2 = 0.03. In all cases, males scored significantly higher than females (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).

Finally, a Mann-Whitney U-test revealed that female students attained a significantly higher final grade than their male counterparts (see Table 1). Based on these results separate regression analyses were conducted for male and female participants.

L AW R E N C E E T A L . : G E N D E R D I F F E R E N C E S I N C O P I N G S T R A T E G I E S 277

Regression analyses for male and female participants

Regression analyses revealed that none of the coping strategies were significant predictors of final grade (see Table 2).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the coping strategies adopted by first year undergraduate students. Specifically, it addressed the impact they had on self-esteem and academic attainment and whether any gender differences were present.

In contrast to previous research (Brown et al., 2005), results showed no relationship between the coping strategies adopted and attainment in this first year cohort. This may be reflective of the level of study, which may not meet the academic level of initial student perceptions, allowing them to cope effectively with the academic demands placed upon them. Such a premise supports previous research (Folkman and Lazarus, 1985) demonstrating that variance in the strategies adopted by individuals was dependent upon the perceived demands placed upon them. Analysis revealed gender to be a key determinant in academic success, with females attaining at a significantly higher level than males. Such findings are consistent with previous research (Richardson and Woodley, 2003;Smith and Naylor, 2001;Tinklin, 2003). Significant differences were also seen in self-esteem and coping styles between males and female participants, with males exhibiting higher self-esteem, greater ability to detach themselves from the emotions of a situation and more inclination to demonstrate emotional inhibition or 'bottling up' of emotions. In line with Ptacek et al. (1994) this suggests that in terms of the coping strategies adopted, males have a tendency to avoid using emotion-focused approaches in contrast to females who predominantly use this approach. Further, the results lend support to the notion that individuals high in self-esteem tend to perceive situations as controllable and react with a strategy aimed at changing the cause of the problem (Dodgson and Wood, 1989).

A C T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 7(3) 278
Lecturers may find it useful to expand students coping repertoires in relation to both problem-and emotion-strategies in order to address coping weaknesses in students. This may form part of the pastoral support structure within which students are encouraged to reflect upon academic progress and set appropriate goals for future development. Such practice may enhance student retention and their overall cognitive development (Fertig, 2003;Ul-Haq et al., 2003). Further,'a support system for each and every student [should not be seen] as an optional extra but as an essential part of the fabric of every university faculty' (Owen, 2002: 7).

In spite of this, lecturers need to look towards the introduction of methods designed to encourage students to reflect upon their individual progress in order to identify areas of development (Cowan, 2006;Hinett, 2002). This may include the use of reflective journals as a basis for discussion during tutorial support or by the establishment within modules of support group networks. In addition, students should be encouraged to use the support mechanisms as a matter of course rather than turning to them when they have a problem. The implemented strategies should be reviewed on a longitudinal basis utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods. This would enable the monitoring of changes in both self-esteem and coping through the course of the academic year and the resulting impact on academic attainment to be established.

Given the small sample size and the focus towards a single discipline, our future research will seek to recruit participants across degree courses from a number of universities in order that a more equal gender distribution is achieved allowing inferences about gender effects to be more valid, and to establish what effect, if any, the discipline has upon the strategies employed. Further, consideration needs to be given with regard to whether females are able to utilize emotion-focused coping more effectively resulting in academic success or whether academic success negates the need to employ such strategies. Finally, consideration needs to be given to age of the participants. Future studies will look at the coping strategies adopted by students across levels of study, how these coping strategies change over the period of study, and whether age at entry to study impacts on the strategies adopted.

  Control Questionnaire (ECQ: Roger and Najarian, 1989). The ECQ comprises four factors: Rehearsal, Emotion Inhibition, Aggression Control, and Benign Control. Rehearsal examines the degree to which a person broods over past threats and failures. Emotional Inhibition measures the willingness of participants to express emotion. Aggression Control is a measure of the degree to which aggression is controlled, and finally Benign Control is a measure of impulsivity. Factors have been shown to possess satisfactory internal consistency (Rehearsal: 0.86; Emotional Inhibition: 0.77; Benign Control: 0.79; Aggression Control: 0.81) and test-retest reliability (Rehearsal: 0.80; Emotional Inhibition: 0.79; Benign Control: 0.92; Aggression Control: 0.73).

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the YSEI, ECQ, CSQ and Final Grade

 1

	Instruments Factors	Male		Female
			M	S D	M	S D
	YSEI	Self-esteem	111.58 14.85 106.21 14.86
	ECQ	Rehearsal	5.72	3.42	6.41	3.35
		Emotional inhibition	7.08	3.20	6.03	2.96
		Aggression control	7.25	2.90	7.88	3.06
		Benign control	6.48	2.99	6.74	2.43
	CSQ	Detachment/emotional coping	40.30	8.82	35.22	8.60
		Rationalization	15.74	3.75	15.07	4.16
		Avoidance	11.60	5.03	10.90	4.36
	Attainment	Grade	4.97	0.84	5.34	0.76

Table 2 Standard linear regression analyses to predict grade from YSEI, ECQ, CSQ subscales (N = 160)

 2

	Gender	Dependent variable	Independent variable	Standardized Beta
	Male	Grade	Self-esteem		-0.14
			Rehearsal		0.14
			Emotional inhibition		0.03
			Aggression control		0.20
			Benign control		-0.01
			Detachment/emotional coping	-0.13
			Rationalization		0.14
			Avoidance		-0.13
	R = 0.30, R 2 = 0.09
	Female	Grade	Self-esteem		0.18
			Rehearsal		-0.14
			Emotional inhibition		-0.26
			Aggression control		0.12
			Benign control		-0.14
			Detachment/emotional coping	-0.07
			Rationalization		0.10
			Avoidance		0.18
	R = 0.33, R 2 = 0.11


L Au R I E L O M A

S King'

Keywords: accountability, autonomy, coalitions, leadership, organizational culture, organizational structure active learning

This article identifies the increasing demands on United Kingdom universities brought about by the expanded government agenda and the entry of higher numbers of more diverse students. It analyses the changes in organizational structures and cultures and identifies a centralizing tendency in terms of power to meet these demands. There is a focus on directors of educational development centres to explore how they have responded to the challenge of implementing their universities' teaching and learning strategies in a changing and uncertain environment. There is an examination of how they identify the locus of power, their priorities, the leadership skills they employ and the coalitions they build.

The locus of power in UK universities

Its impact on educational development centres

Introduction

Since the latter part of the twentieth century, there has been a period of significant change in the higher education sector in the United Kingdom (Morley, 2003). Henkel (2000) notes that universities have necessarily adapted to the government's drive for greater public accountability, efficiency and the measurement of performance. They also have to teach increased numbers of more diverse students (Hativa and Goodyear, 2002) when the level of resource per student is falling (Evans and Nation, 2000;Duke, 2002). The widening government agenda has led to lecturers working with students from diverse backgrounds, paying more attention to teaching, learning and assessment, developing students' generic and subject skills so that they have greater employability whilst continuing to develop in their students a deep understanding of complex subject matter (Knight and Yorke, 2003).

Responses to the external pressure from government agencies such as the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Quality Assurance Agency and the Higher Education Academy have been manifested in changes in universities' organizational culture and structure. These changes have led, in many cases, to a shift in the locus of power, which can affect decisionmaking related to learning and teaching. Morley (2003) argues that power is based on the creation and maintenance of particular norms in the relationships between individuals and groups in a university. It is easy to identify the locus of power when it is exercised overtly but Morley warns that this is not always so, as sometimes power is exercised subtly and the locus is not easily distinguishable. Therefore care needs to be taken when analysing the locus of power. Organizational structure and organizational culture will be used as a framework for this analysis. Duke (2002) notes that these elements of the framework are linked, because a university's organizational structure and management are key factors in determining its organizational culture.

Changes in the locus of power have had a significant effect on the development, implementation, monitoring and review of universities' learning and teaching strategies. The locus of power in their institutions influences and shapes strategy. Educational developers need to watch carefully to find out where the power lies in their university in order to know with whom to form strategic alliances and thereby 'tap in' to this power (Land, 2004).

Organizational structure

The recent widening of the economic and social roles expected of universities by government has meant that there is increasing complexity in terms of their structure (Shattock, 2003). Land (2004) notes that universities are large multifaceted structures with planning cycles that are similar to major commercial and industrial companies.

Universities' organizational structures are affected by numerous factors such as age of the institution, the disciplinary mix, tradition and size. Collegial universities such as Oxford and Cambridge and civic universities have very traditional structures, and McNay (2002) argues that, because they are departmentally based, there is less central power than in many post-1992 universities. Collegial values still flourish and some of the institutions remain loosely coupled, high consensus organizations (Scott, 2003). Becher and Trowler (2001) see academic departments as the essential building block and Shattock (2003) identifies the appropriate acculturation of newcomers to the department by existing staff who make the general values and the norms of behaviour abundantly clear. In terms of teaching and learning initiatives, the power in these collegial universities resides in the departments. Some departments are baronial and fiercely protective of their own staff, students and courses and compete aggressively with other departmental heads for scarce resources (Land, 2004). D'Andrea andGosling (2005) identify a recent trend for senior management grouping departments together, partly because of administrative convenience but also because of the economies of scale that accrue from having larger units. Such changes to organizational structure reduce the power of the departments by subverting their individual identities.

Where there is a focus on faculties (a collection of a number of similar academic departments) rather than on departments, real power is more likely to reside with the deans who lead the faculties. Shattock (2003) argues that medical and dental schools within a university often have a significant degree of autonomy with many decision-making powers devolved to them. Medical and dental schools have to be able to respond to the needs of the hospital trusts and the United Kingdom government's agenda for the National Health Service. Increased autonomy allows the deans to respond appropriately.

A relatively simplified approach to structure has been adopted in this article but Barnett (2000) talks of 'supercomplexity' with universities and their staff having to struggle to keep up with changes and the need for flexible and adaptable structures. There are a variety of organizational structures that have been chosen to cope with increasing government demands and the 'supercomplexity' of higher education.

Organizational culture

Organizational culture involves traditional beliefs, values and behaviour as well as an identifiable difference between those on the inside and those on the outside of the organization or a particular part of it (Barnett, 1990). Although culture is used regularly to help understand how organizations act and react, it should be pointed out that culture is not universally accepted as a helpful analytical tool. Kogan (1999), for example, describes the concept of organizational culture in higher education as merely 'intellectual polyfiller' which is used in an attempt to explain the inexplicable; it should be noted that this is a minority view. Dopson and McNay's (1996) work on discerning a university's dominant culture provides a useful framework for looking at the different ways in which policies and practices, such as those related to teaching and learning, are developed and implemented in a university. They identify four main cultures and their principal features, processes and key 'players', but any organizational culture tends not to be pure but rather a blend of all four with, perhaps, one or two of them dominating (see Table 1).

Modern post-1992 universities, when they were previously polytechnics, were centrally managed, with their degrees being conferred through the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA). They were familiar with a measure of central control through the CNAA's formal quality assurance procedures, and this became very much part of their organizational culture on becoming universities. Morley (2003) believes there is much less of a collegial culture than is the case in the traditional pre-1992 universities.

McNay (1995: 105) has identified a change in dominant culture in the higher education sector 'from the collegial academy to corporate enterprise', where, even at the University of Oxford, '. . . the preconditions for good collegial governance have been undermined' (Tapper and Palfreyman, 2000: 143). Sawbridge (1996) argues that employer-led management initiatives such as appraisal, performance-related pay and centralized staff development have led to greater standardization which, in turn, has threatened the collegial ideal. Generally, quality assurance systems have shifted the balance of power to the centre (Kogan and Hanney, 2000) but, with the great diversity of mission statements in UK universities, the extent of this shift in dominant culture varies greatly both between and within particular institutions.

The analysis of organizational culture suggests that more power is located at the centre of universities as entrepreneurial and corporate cultures develop as a response to changes in the higher education market place.

The centralizing tendency

It is possible to identify different types of university (Duke, 1992), although distinctions are becoming blurred due to, for example, increasing 'supercomplexity'. Overall the literature highlights a centralizing tendency with the growth of a managerialist perspective, particularly in post-1992 universities (see Figure 1). The figure shows movement of control from departments to the centre and communication between groups becoming Where there are medical and dental schools (faculties), the real power can lie with the deans as they often have a significant amount of autonomy with many decision-making powers devolved to them.

A C T I V E L E A R N I N G I N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N 7(3) 246
If educational development unit staff are able to identify the locus of power, they then know their target and the battle ground.

Teaching and learning

Termed the 'commodification of learning ', Taylor et al. (2002) argue that the learner is now seen as a customer and a consumer of learning within a market place. There is a tighter coupling between general performance by universities and funding (Johnson, 2002), andBarnett (2004) refers to the notion of performativity with its insistence on demonstrable outcomes.

In terms of curriculum, from the 1990s there has been a centralizing tendency with the emphasis on learning outcomes, modulization, credit accumulation and transferable skills (Land, 2004). All such developments can be seen as examples of the commodification of learning (Hussey and Smith, 2002). Barnett (2004) identifies a discernible move away from prepositional discipline-based knowledge to more generic experiential learning and problem-based learning and transferable skills. Power over the curriculum is gravitating towards the centre of universities and away from the departments with the introduction of subject benchmarks, the National Qualifications Framework and programme specifications (Morley, 2003). Educational development units, under the watchful eyes of members of the senior management team, have been responsible for providing training on these central government curriculum initiatives and academic standards units for ensuring that the departments' curriculum design and developments take account of them. This centralizing tendency has been particularly noticeable in post-1992 modern universities.

Education development units have the task of developing and implementing the university's teaching and learning strategy but little is known about how they achieve this. Who are the power brokers with resources, for example? Who are the change champions at the top of the organization and with whom is it essential to build coalitions? What leadership skills are required to implement the teaching and learning strategy effectively? Literature has so far not detailed the views of directors of educational development units about where they consider power in their university is located and how, if at all, this power impacts upon them. The research described in this article seeks to address this gap in the literature by focusing on directors of educational development units to determine how they have responded to the shift in the locus of power and the leadership skills they utilize to implement their university's teaching and learning strategy.

Methodology

The research was undertaken in six relatively large English universities: three pre-1992 and three modern (post-1992). There were an equal number of respondents from pre-and post-1992 universities. The subject was considered to be of interest and consequently it was not difficult to find sufficient respondents. In-depth interviews were chosen as the research method because they allowed two-way communication, with the researcher being able to clarify any questions that were ambiguous. Also, interchange between the interviewer and the interviewees meant that probing, supplementary questions could be asked to follow up any interesting statements made by the interviewees (Cohen et al., 2000).

The research was undertaken by the author, who conducted the interviews from September to December 2005 using a semi-structured interview schedule. The main issues discussed related to the university's organizational culture and traditions and the development of the unit. The research also focused on the staff of the unit: how many there were; whether they held academic or academic-related contracts; whether they were permanent or temporary, full-or part-time; and what their academic qualifications and publications were. The unit's mission was explored: how was it funded; location in the university structure; and to whom the director reported.

Directors were asked about their units' successes and disappointments and the probable reasons for these. An informal 'SWOT' analysis looked at the unit's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Directors were also asked to identify what they regarded to be the main facilitating and inhibiting forces and the most helpful and effective coalition partners. The backgrounds of the directors were analysed, their gender, approximate age, their experience of higher education in general and educational development in particular and their academic discipline before moving into educational development. Data gained from the was mostly qualitative but this was supplemented with quantitative data obtained from university prospectuses and educational development websites.

The identities of the six universities were protected by using pseudonyms to indicate their type and general location:

Regional Modern Regional Traditional Suburban Modern Suburban Traditional Urban Modern Urban Traditional

The qualitative data collected through the interviews was analysed by using the Constant Comparative Method (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), which involves ascribing meaning to a particular note in an interview. This is then compared with other interview notes and, when similarities of meaning are found, they are grouped and coded. If no similar meaning is found during a comparison, a new theme category is created. A number of categories were identified but the key ones relating to the locus of power in the six universities were:

• mission • management of change problems • where the battles have to be won.

Results

The missions of the units Mission statements embody the values of the educational development units and are designed to ensure that everyone in the university knows what the units are aiming to achieve.

The six educational development units had broadly similar missions, with all of them expected to take the lead with national teaching and learning initiatives. Urban Modern University had a brief to develop and implement strategies to improve student learning across the university. The missions of Suburban Traditional and Regional Modern universities were to deliver the institution's learning and teaching strategy, whereas that of Urban Traditional University also included a role in promoting teaching and learning and encouraging pedagogic research. In part, this mission was to be achieved through the provision of nine teaching fellowships during a three-year period. The mission of Regional Traditional University was to enhance the policy of teaching and learning across the institution. The educational development unit at Suburban Modern University was charged with improving the quality of teaching and learning but, because it is a post-1992 modern university that lacked a research culture and received very limited research funding, it also had a major role in encouraging research skill development and a higher level of research outcomes.

Management of change problems

Three of the six directors raised major concerns about the effective management of change in their universities. They referred to the constraints caused by a lack of resources and appropriate staff (Suburban Modern University), the lack of recognition of the importance of excellence in teaching (Urban Traditional University) and inadequate resources to meet the external demands (Regional Modern University).

The director at Suburban Modern University thought that it was vital to have an advocate at senior management level to champion the cause of the unit and support claims for resources. It was important that the unit had a 'voice' because various departments and groups were competing for these limited resources and have their particular issues at the top of senior management's agenda. The director at Urban Traditional University said the unit suffered from not having a 'big hitter' in the senior management team speaking up for them.

The director at Suburban Modern University also argued that, as well as resources being a key issue, the academic credibility of the unit was an essential element if the teaching and learning strategy was to be implemented effectively. The director at Regional Traditional University was pleased to report that the unit was seen as academic as this gave her team credibility with the academic staff with whom they worked. She was keen that members of the team developed a research publication profile so that they fitted with the university's organizational culture.

At Suburban Traditional University, the director considered that the greatest challenge was to translate her unit's limited amount of authority into the maximum amount of control. She felt that this could be achieved by networking effectively and building political alliances with colleagues in various parts of the university noting that, '. . . educational development is highly political and "smoozing" is a useful way of building coalitions to help achieve the unit's aims '. At Urban Modern University the unit had great success in developing a

Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). By encouraging and cajoling staff, the number of university modules on the VLE rapidly rose to over 50 per cent of the total. Academic Board noted this progress but, in order to increase the proportion of modules on the VLE further, it stated that at least some elements of all modules should be delivered by eLearning, and this led to a rate of about 80 per cent. However, some staff resented the Academic Board's directive and would have preferred a more consultative approach to eLearning.

The research was designed partly to identify the leadership skills required to implement the university's teaching and learning strategy effectively. The analysis of the management of change problems raised by directors highlights the political nature of the coalition building process and the importance of sensitive and empathetic leadership by the director of the educational development unit.

Where battles have to be won At Urban Traditional University, the director believed that adequate resources were a priority and because of this battles had to be won at the centre initially and then in the faculties and departments. This was very problematic and fraught with difficulties. There were 'turf wars', with departments acting very territorially. The director of Suburban Traditional University agreed to add that the support of the senior management team at the centre was a prerequisite to persuading departments to review their teaching and learning approaches. At Suburban Modern University, it was noted that the institution was becoming more corporate and this probably explained why power was now more centralized. Consequently, the battles needed to be won at the centre to ensure that the education development unit was adequately resourced. Once that was achieved, the unit could turn to winning the hearts and minds of academic staff in the faculties and departments. An appropriate balance of support and pressure was needed here as pressure without support can easily lead to resistance and alienation whereas support without pressure can lead to drift and a loss of momentum (Fullan, 1991). The director at Regional Modern University did not have to 'battle' with the centre as the unit already had its backing. He thought the battles needed to be won in the faculties. However, although the senior management team and his unit put pressure on the faculties to change, very often the deans were not able to 'make things happen at grassroots level'. Similarly, the director at Regional Traditional University thought her unit was well resourced and so it could concentrate on winning over academic colleagues in faculties and departments. However, she said that there was a very great range of responses with some colleagues being most positive and others being openly hostile towards some learning and teaching initiatives.

The director at Urban Modern University was a member of the senior management team. His line of communication and responsibility was directly to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, and this meant he had very strong support from the centre of the organization. As a member of the senior management team he had regular contact with the five Deans of Faculty through whom he could influence the development of teaching and learning. The impact of the centre was further increased through the appointment of learning and teaching co-ordinators to each of the faculties. The centre had 'many tentacles' but the departments were the hardest to reach. The director considered that it was in the departments that the unit had to win the hearts and minds of the staff. He believed that, Leadership in teaching and learning is my major role and I find that the faculty teaching and learning co-ordinators are invaluable in helping me get the messages into the departments.

To achieve greater acceptance of teaching and learning in departments, Regional Traditional and Regional Modern universities had also appointed faculty teaching and learning co-ordinators who were able to cascade down the teaching and learning initiatives to their constituent departments. Both universities had noted that departmental staff seemed more ready to accept suggestions from faculty teaching and learning co-ordinators than from members of the educational development unit. The director at Regional Modern University thought that this was because the teaching and learning co-ordinators were more closely associated with the departmental staff's academic 'tribes' (Becher and Trowler, 2001). He relied heavily on the faculty teaching and learning co-ordinators but they were only part-time for 0.2 in this role and consequently their impact was not as significant as he would like.

Again, the discussion of where the battles need to be won highlights the importance of leadership by the unit directors. The directors need staff within the faculties and departments to help champion teaching and learning enhancement and the co-ordinators play a very important role here. The amount of time they are allocated varies from 0.2 to 0.5 in the six units. The directors considered the higher figure to be the minimum requirement.

Limitations of the research

Although the in-depth interviews with the six directors yielded some interesting data, with such a small sample it is very difficult to draw conclusions which could be generalized to all universities. However, the units may be considered 'typical' and the results are illuminative. Further research involving a larger sample of directors would allow a more substantial investigation of the difference, if any, in the strategic and operational development of educational development units in modern post-1992 universities compared to their counterparts in pre-1992 universities.

Another limitation of the research was that it focused only on one of the groups of stakeholders involved with educational development. Future research will not only look at the perspectives of educational development unit directors but also those representatives of other stakeholder groups such as members of the units and senior management teams, teaching and learning co-ordinators and departmental staff. The research will be extended to include a larger sample of unit directors and conduct in-depth interviews with a similar number of representatives from the other stakeholder groups. By increasing the number of stakeholder groups involved, data triangulation would be achieved and consequently the validity of the research enhanced (Massey and Walford, 1999).

The research was restricted to English universities. Future work will include education development units in Scotland, Wales and continental Europe, thereby providing an international comparative dimension.

Conclusion

The literature clearly indicates a tendency for power to move to the centre of universities as senior managers attempt to meet the challenges of a greater number and diversity of students and the ever-expanding expectations of government, employers, students and their parents. The norms that have been established in the power relationships between individuals and groups show a centralizing tendency, particularly in post-1992 universities. Recent centrally directed curriculum initiatives such as the National Qualifications Framework, subject benchmarks and programme specifications and teaching and learning developments involving emphasis on learning outcomes and transferable skills, have expanded the role of educational development units.

The research reveals major concern amongst directors about the level of funding. Funding is thought by the majority to be inadequate to allow units to implement effectively the numerous teaching and learning initiatives that government agencies require. Where funding is an issue, units see the centre of the organization as its initial target. Educational developmental units that receive relatively generous funding do not need to 'battle' with the centre. They can target the academic staff either at faculty or departmental level, depending on the location of power in their particular university.

Wherever the battle is being fought, the skill of the director in deploying subtlety and perseverance is essential in building coalitions with colleagues in departments, faculties and at the centre. In a university there are organizational territories with barriers. The director's leadership skills of diplomacy, sensitivity and empathy help the unit penetrate these barriers and work with academic staff to implement the university's teaching and learning strategy. The appointment of faculty teaching and learning coordinators can also greatly assist the director with this.

Two directors referred to the importance of their unit having academic credibility. The organizational culture of the unit will need to be similar to that of the faculties and/or departments. If academic kudos and credibility are acquired through having a good record of presenting papers at conferences and publishing articles in refereed journals, then the staff of the unit will need to be successful in these areas.

An educational development unit also needs a 'champion' in the senior management team to advance its causes by speaking up to ensure it receives adequate resources and that its issues and concerns are prominent on the senior management team's agenda.

The role of a university's educational development unit is a challenging one but awareness of the locus of power, the value of particular leadership skills and building coalitions can greatly assist directors to implement effectively their university's teaching and learning strategy.

Figure 1

 1 Figure 1 The centralizing tendency in universitiesBased on Brown,R. (2004)

Table I The four major organizational cultures in universities (Dopson and McNay, 1996)

 I

	Collegial	Bureaucratic	Entrepreneurial	Corporate
	Cult of individual	Rules and	Awareness of	Directorate with
		regulations	the market	power
	Management by	Management by	Management by	Management by
	consensus	committees	marketing	meetings
	Person culture	Role culture	Task culture	Power culture

more formalized. Strongly departmentally based Oxbridge and civic universities have less central power than the post-1992 modern universities.


E P Ly N N

B A L Dw I N

The culture of the institution, its values and practices, all shape, and are shaped by, those within it, both students and staff.This is, naturally enough, informed by the higher education sector as a whole, both nationally and internationally. Whether as a new student or a new member of staff, there is a great deal to learn about academic life, and how we deal with the experiences that we encounter, most of them involving people. Some of this interaction is within the classroom but much of it is beyond. In the first article, entitled 'Student perceptions of active learning in a large cross-disciplinary classroom', Patricia L. Machemer and Pat Crawford, from Michigan State University, recognize the current external pressures in higher education, in particular that class sizes are now very large and that cross-disciplinarity is touted as a worthwhile endeavour. Opportunities for active learning in such classrooms are, however, not without practical difficulties, some of which are practical and some of which concern our conceptions of learning and teaching. Even if these can be overcome, either entirely or in part, the authors argue that there is a lack of evidence as to how learners perceive or value active or cooperative learning and what might be termed the more 'traditional', teacher-centred approach in lectures. In their study, the authors gathered data from 343 learners on a variety of activities along the continuum from active to more 'traditional'. Whether surprising or not, it seems that learners value, and want, not just one approach but instead value and benefit from a range of approaches.This study raises the central issue of activity in relation to assessment, and the authors say that learners appreciate not the activity itself but instead its perceived value in helping them to achieve their desired grade. Unsurprisingly, learners were of the view that working with other students significantly 'devalued' their efforts in this regard.

Given that it could be argued that, as a sector, higher education is overly assessment-led, it is perhaps not unexpected that our learners pick up on this in their interaction with us and, anxious to succeed, do what is necessary, that is, do whatever they can to pass with as high a mark as possible. If we instead want learners to focus on, and value, learning, rather than the results of that learning as measured by marks, then we, as educators, need to look more closely at the environment which we create for our learners (it is almost entirely within our own control to do so), and the role that we 5

allow assessment to play in this. Whilst assessment will always be on the agenda, in the modular system which we have created (it did not appear by magic) we have designed the student experience of higher education to be one of collecting marks along the way and then adding these up to come to a decision about what award to make. How much assessment varies, but it seems that we require a huge amount in order to make what is, it seems, a relatively simple decision about student performance in relation to award. As an example, the authors of the second article, entitled 'Assessing multiple choice question (MCQ) tests -a mathematical perspective', say that in the UK 'standard' undergraduate degrees are known as Honours degrees, and have four 'categories' of award: first, upper second (2.1), lower second (2.2) and third. Students must 'collect' 360 credits for such an award, and modules normally vary between 5 and 40 credits (10 or 20 credits is the norm). Assuming that each module has, say, two items of assessment, perhaps an examination and a piece of coursework, it seems that we require a large number of marks in order to make decisions regarding an award.

Such a marks-gathering exercise masks, however, what it is we might understand by 'graduateness' in these various categories or as a whole, as the focus is not on whether the students have met the learning outcomes at the programme level, but instead on whether they have collected the right number of 'points' at various stages along the way. Eric M. Scharf and Lynne P. Baldwin, authors of this article, posit that we spend far more time on assessment-related matters than we do on what learning and teaching actually means, that is, the value of learning for its own sake and not merely as a means to an end. Assessment is, however, necessary given that we need to make awards of one kind or another. In their article, the authors look at objective tests, one of which is multiple choice questions (MCQs). Although the numbers and equations might slow the reading of those without a mathematical background, the authors discuss how we deal with the 'penalty' we impose for wrong answers in such a test. Should we, perhaps, impose no penalty for a wrong answer, and what difference might this make? Or, should we penalize both wrong answers and/or lack of answers to questions? As marks contribute to the module and thus to the eventual award, our decision-making is in no way trivial.

Who assesses what, rather than how, is the subject of the third article. Entitled 'Peer, professor and self-evaluation of class participation', Gina J. Ryan et al., from Mercer University, Atlanta, examine peer evaluation, citing evidence that suggests that there is some debate about how valid and reliable this approach is. It seems that the better students tend to rate/grade themselves lower and that weaker students tend to believe that their performance is better and thus rate/grade their work more highly.

Using a large sample size, the authors looked at the similarity or otherwise between the evaluations of performance (measured by way of grades for various items of assessment) made by the students themselves, their peers and their lecturers. In addition, they wished to find out whether or not there was any correlation between the students' GPAs (grade point averages) and peer and lecturer evaluation. The grades awarded by lecturers tended to be higher than those awarded by their peers, and the grades awarded by the students themselves were higher than those awarded by lecturers. There was no correlation between the students' GPAs and selfassessment, peer assessment or the grades awarded by lecturers. An interesting point arising from this study relates to the factor of time.

Managing and doing academic work, among this learning how to write effectively (and reference the work of others appropriately) is but one of the many challenges that new students face. This is reinforced by evidence from the study described in the fourth article. Entitled 'Should I go or should I stay? A study of factors influencing students' decisions on early leaving', we are reminded by the authors Margaret Glogowska et al. that it is thus not surprising that if students leave university, they are most likely to do so during the first term/semester of their first year of study. Whilst we try to do much to help our students to adjust, the reasons for dropping out are well known. However, why students make the decision to leave is more complex than it appears on the surface. We all know students who, having faced a major trauma or a myriad of serious problems do not drop out, yet those who face a more minor one disappear, often without a word. In other words, as the authors say, different students, when faced with what appear to be exactly the same pressure(s), react differently.Arguing that we need to better understand why students make the decision to withdraw from university, a group of students who had at some point considered leaving their course were interviewed. Decisions as to whether to leave or to stay can, say the authors, be seen as a model of factors which lead them to go ('push' factors) and those which lead them to stay ('pull' factors). As the challenges of academic work came high on the list of factors causing students to question whether they were going to stay on their course or instead to leave it, the article concludes with a valuable set of strategies as to what we can do to improve the student experience.

It might be argued that the student experience of their time at university is in some part affected by the experience of their lecturers, that is, that there is a 'lecturer experience' to factor in here. After all, if lecturers are unhappy for whatever reason, this is felt by all in the institution, including the students. In the fifth, and final, article, entitled 'Strategies for the management of lecturer stress in feedback tutorials', we learn that stress is not automatic but instead that we 'appraise' the stress-inducing situation over and over again and that how we do so affects how 'stressed-out' we perceive ourselves to be.The author, Elizabeth Hartney, reminds us that there are two very different types of stress -negative and positive -and that this article focuses on the physical and psychological response of a lecturer when reacting to perceived challenge or difficulty, that is, negative stress. Reported here is that for some lecturers a major stressor is work relationships, with the relationship between lecturer and student a potentially stressful one. With assessment so high on the agenda for both students and lecturers, it is perhaps not unexpected that there are some students (fortunately only a very small minority) who challenge the decisions of the markers of their work and whose behaviour is inappropriate in dealing with this when they engage with lecturers. There is a common belief that those who 'complain' about their feedback, believing the mark to be too low or the quality poor or whatever, do so because of the mark/the feedback. However, as the author reports, the reaction of students to either positive or negative feedback is related not to the marks/comments themselves but instead to the esteem of the students themselves. Those with high selfesteem value whatever mark/feedback we provide to them; those with low self-esteem interpret even a high mark/the most positive feedback as negative.Whatever the emotional response, being angry or upset, both may increase lecturer stress, reports the author, arguing that, although there has been much research into the wellbeing of students, there is far less on the wellbeing of those teaching them. The findings from the study lead to a very useful set of guidelines as to how we should deal with feedback to our students. The author concludes that, as lecturer stress is directly related to the strategies that we use to give both oral and written feedback to our learners, if we adopt/use the strategies outlined in the article then our own stress will be reduced. This will, in turn, improve the student experience, something that we should all see as paramount in our work in teaching in higher education.

E D I T O R I A L