{"id":169,"date":"2014-05-22T10:42:12","date_gmt":"2014-05-22T10:42:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/?p=169"},"modified":"2025-02-26T13:24:00","modified_gmt":"2025-02-26T13:24:00","slug":"metaphors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/staffblogs.le.ac.uk\/loproject\/2014\/05\/22\/metaphors\/","title":{"rendered":"Taken-for-granted metaphors in HE and the messages they convey"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Metaphor\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In my work on the ‘Learning Outcomes Project’, I’ve been reviewing a lot of the learning outcomes literature.\u00a0 Over the coming weeks I will try to review some of the papers I’ve found that have either been very interesting or have made me stop and think further about certain issues.<\/p>\n

For this post I want to briefly discuss Batten’s 2012 paper Metaphors we teach by: the language of ‘learning outcomes’<\/a>.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

It is perhaps no surprise that Batten identifies learning outcomes (LOs) as an ontological metaphor that resonates with academic capitalism because ‘the phrase \u201clearning outcomes\u201d is…describing the results of education as a substance or entity that \u201callows us to refer to it, quantify it, identify a particular aspect of it, see as a cause, act with respect to it, and perhaps even believe that we understand it\u201d (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 26)’ <\/em>(p.17).\u00a0 This is a view of LOs that has been well discussed in the literature.<\/p>\n

However, the paper was of such interest to me because, as Batten indicates, there is always much more going on within the use of a metaphor:<\/p>\n

\n

metaphors, both conventional and new, are forms of comparison and therefore [whilst they] highlight one particular aspect of a concept, they hide other dimensions of it, especially those that are inconsistent with the metaphor (p.17).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Her aim is to ‘demonstrate how the use of this particular metaphor to think about education is consistent with some of the dominant values in our culture and to explore in what ways it conceals and eclipses other dimensions of the complex phenomena of teaching and learning’<\/em> (p.17).<\/p>\n

Batten first expands on LOs as an academic capitalist metaphor:<\/p>\n

it is not the content of the outcomes that is the issue, at least in most cases. Rather, it is the tremendous, almost overwhelming stress upon thinking about education through the metaphor of learning outcomes and the constant assessment, including measurement, of those outcomes that is unsettling. But such a metaphor resonates with our culture and the pervasive role of the economic in almost every aspect of modern life (p.19).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

She then considers what an emphasis on LOs may hide or obscure:<\/p>\n

a stress upon outcomes \u2013 achieving them, measuring them, comparing the results to those of other institutions and programs \u2013 presumes that education is production and that faculty, students, and administrators must learn to engage in it as efficiently as possible. It assumes and conditions others to assume that knowledge and learning are commodities, some of which can even be quantified and integrated into a graph (p.20).<\/em><\/p>\n

… A focus on outcomes assessment runs the risk that that we may miss other very important dimensions of teaching and learning, such as the fact that profound learning is not measurable. We may be able to assess a student\u2019s comprehension of a body of knowledge, but if the student does not remain in the field or continue to study it in some way, the knowledge content will usually dissolve in subsequent years. But when we think about some of the most significant learning that we have experienced, we know that it was affected not only by a course, a person, a book, or even an entire degree program, but by a series of interconnected things that took place over time, by a combination of ideas and experiences from both the past and present (p.21).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Batten then further considers the impact of LOs on her own discipline of Religious Studies, which I won’t summarise here but would encourage it to be read in full.<\/p>\n

My intention in presenting this paper is not to engage in a discussion about the rights or wrongs\/strengths or weaknesses of her arguments.\u00a0 My aim within the ‘LOs project’ is not to present one view about LOs (e.g. that they are either good or bad for student learning).\u00a0 Instead, it has always been to present and engage in all arguments and debates about LOs and try to find a position within them from which I can authentically move the project forward.\u00a0 My other blog posts best illustrate the position I take towards LOs <\/a>and the potential I believe they have to shake off their academic capitalist\u00a0connections and become a more meaningful tool for learning<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Putting aside then the arguments made about LOs, what I really liked about this paper was that it made me start to think about some of the taken-for-granted phrases (or metaphors) that we use in HE, and the messages that they are actually conveying.<\/p>\n

Critical discourse theorists can of course go into this in much more detail than I can, but below are some of the phrases or metaphors commonly used that I would like to take issue with:<\/p>\n