Deficit to development: rethinking centralised workshops

Centralised academic skills provision has been criticised for being ‘generic’, ‘remedial’, or ‘bolt on’ (Wingate, 2006). Critics argue it takes a deficit approach towards student learning, simplifying academic processes and failing to meet students’ discipline-specific needs. Embedded provision is often seen as the solution. However, embedded does not necessarily mean non-deficit. Indeed, Schneider (2023) highlights that academic tutors can perceive students in relation to skills they are lacking. Subsequently, Learning Developers can be brought in to ‘fix’ students, and as such, embedded sessions may still be disconnected from the curriculum and designed to offer pre-prescribed solutions, reflecting deficit approaches. As Webster (2023) asserts, the Learning Developer’s role is not ‘to give students academic skills’ but rather to help them make sense of the skills and literacies that are hidden in the curriculum. In this workshop, we discussed how we redesigned our entire skills programme using a non-deficit pedagogic approach that aims to help students ‘uncover their curriculum’. Inspired by the University of Manchester’s constructive and collective approach (Blake and Illingworth, 2015), we see our co-curricular offer as providing a unique opportunity to create empowering and developmental learning spaces which sit alongside embedded provision. To meet these aims, our redesign was informed by four principles: Reflection: centring students’ prior knowledge and experience. Collaboration: harnessing knowledge from a community of learners, rather than a ‘sage on the stage’. Choice: students customise their own learning experience, tailoring sessions to meet their own needs. Application: students relate session content to their own discipline and apply learning to their own work. Workshop participants considered debates around deficit thinking in relation to centralised training, working together to redesign learning activities and reflect on the opportunities and challenges of such an approach.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education
Published
2024-10-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi32.1442
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.53
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Deficit to development: rethinking centralised workshops

Michelle Schneider, Clara Hiskey
1 citations
Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education
Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
0.53
article

Deficit to development: rethinking centralised workshops

Michelle Schneider, Clara Hiskey
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Centralised academic skills provision has been criticised for being ‘generic’, ‘remedial’, or ‘bolt on’ (Wingate, 2006). Critics argue it takes a deficit approach towards student learning, simplifying academic processes and failing to meet students’ discipline-specific needs. Embedded provision is often seen as the solution. However, embedded does not necessarily mean non-deficit. Indeed, Schneider (2023) highlights that academic tutors can perceive students in relation to skills they are lacking. Subsequently, Learning Developers can be brought in to ‘fix’ students, and as such, embedded sessions may still be disconnected from the curriculum and designed to offer pre-prescribed solutions, reflecting deficit approaches. As Webster (2023) asserts, the Learning Developer’s role is not ‘to give students academic skills’ but rather to help them make sense of the skills and literacies that are hidden in the curriculum. In this workshop, we discussed how we redesigned our entire skills programme using a non-deficit pedagogic approach that aims to help students ‘uncover their curriculum’. Inspired by the University of Manchester’s constructive and collective approach (Blake and Illingworth, 2015), we see our co-curricular offer as providing a unique opportunity to create empowering and developmental learning spaces which sit alongside embedded provision. To meet these aims, our redesign was informed by four principles: Reflection: centring students’ prior knowledge and experience. Collaboration: harnessing knowledge from a community of learners, rather than a ‘sage on the stage’. Choice: students customise their own learning experience, tailoring sessions to meet their own needs. Application: students relate session content to their own discipline and apply learning to their own work. Workshop participants considered debates around deficit thinking in relation to centralised training, working together to redesign learning activities and reflect on the opportunities and challenges of such an approach.

Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education(32)
University of Leeds (GB)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 26%
Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
0.53
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Deficit to development: rethinking centralised workshops — Michelle Schneider, Clara Hiskey · Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS