Hedda students interviewing
prof. P. Maassen
A little over a month ago, we introduced one of the innovative learning projects at the Hedda master programme, with an interview with professor Bjørn Stensaker about the project ”Linking Teaching and Research through the Use of Video“, as well as the output of the project – the interview with professor Peter Maassen that the students conducted.
However – to really know how the project contributed to the learning processes, we also thought we should ask the students on what they think. Here is what one of the students, Evgenia Bogun, says:
There is a simplistic view that research involves knowledge production and teaching involves knowledge transmission, and that these are discrete activities. In this view the relationship between teaching and research is limited to the outcomes of research forming the content of teaching. However, this does not reflect the complex reality of academic work in any discipline, and runs the risk of creating two antagonistic activities. As most academics are involved in both teaching and research, finding ways to integrate them more effectively is essential as we come under more and more pressure to increase ‘productivity’ in both teaching and research.
For that reason, in February 2013, we, Evgenia Bogun, Ljiljana Krstic and Rachelle Esterhazy, a group of the first year Hedda master students in higher education, participated in an innovative learning project led by Professor Bjørn Stensaker: “Student Produced Video - a means of improving the links between teaching and research“.
The objectives and rationales for the project were primarily based on the perspectives about how the links between teaching and research can be improved. In particular, the idea behind the project was to bring students and teachers to the same level of understanding, as students and professors usually meet only during the seminars and lectures, therefore, students do not really know what the teachers’ academic and professional activity looks like in their ‘free-of-teaching’, research time.
Initially, we were asked to read and to discuss the following three articles in our group, written by the professors:
- Gornitzka, Å. and P. Maassen (2007). An Instrument for National Political Agendas: The Hierarchical Vision. In: P. Maassen and J.P. Olsen (eds) University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 81-98.
- Maassen, P (2011). Universities and the effects of external funding: Sub-Saharan Africa and the Nordic countries. In: A.R. Nelson and I.P. Wei (eds) The Global University- Past, present and future perspectives. Palgrave. pp. 231-254.
- Maassen, P. (2012). Higher Education Diversity in Europe. In: Kwiek, M. and P. Maassen (eds) National Higher Education Reforms in a European Context: Comparative Reflections on Poland and Norway. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag, pp. 41-65.
Learning to use the equipment
After that, our next objective was to interview the Professor P. Maassen asking about the fundamental questions of his research, namely, what he was trying to find out, what he has already found out, and, consequently, what the unresolved issues and the outcomes of the professor’s research project were. The articles given above were used as a starting point for an interview with the professor P. Maassen. However, one of the requisite conditions of the project was that the whole process of the interviewing had to be recorded on the video-camera. At the same time, we were supplied with all the professional equipment that was needed: the video camera, the microphone, the headsets, etc. Moreover, the editing of the video was required to be done as a joint process between the project participants. Shane Colvin, the member of the Faculty’s ICT of the University of Oslo, provided great help in teaching us how to operate the video-camera, finding proper and accessible programmes for video editing and other necessary equipment.
The whole process of participating in the video project was someway challenging, chiefly time-consuming yet rather insightful and edifying experience of knowledge construction.
Discussions during the project with
prof. B. Stensaker
The regular group meetings were conducted during one month, 2-3 times a week, where each meeting lasted on average around four hours. Because we devoted much more time to the project, as we have not expected before, later on we discovered that we were completely taken by the whole process, and that article analysis, preparation for the meetings and getting together to discuss them became our daily routine.
The articles were divided between each student beforehand. Each of us was expected to read the given article before the group meeting, think over the main concepts which were stated and clarified, and finally, to make up the preliminary questions for the further interview. Only through the thorough and detailed group discussion, we have learned how to prioritize the main point we needed to focus on, to find the critical elements, to shed light on the aspects one of us did not understand while working on the article alone, or rather gain another, new perspective and point of view from the discussion. Nonetheless, it was rather challenging to think about meaningful questions in order to make the interview as short as possible yet rather qualified and productive. At this point we realized that the knowledge production process is a highly important one.
On the other hand, it was also a great experience for us to be asked to take part in this project and to be reposed complete faith in our ability to deal with the number of given tasks by the professors. Of course, it was a hard work, but it also was a great way for us to show the professors to what extent we were able to cope with the given tasks and what kind of organizational, problem-solving, decision-making and collaboration skills we had outside the class room, so in that way, we also sufficiently benefitted from the project. The other upside was that we got an insight on how to deal with the professional equipment, which was also a new experience and challenge for most of us.
In addition, we do think that linking teaching and research through the use of video can be a useful and significant learning tool for knowledge production, especially when there is a minimal mentoring from teachers, only to the extent of giving leading guidelines, so that students can have freedom to express themselves and use their own critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.
We are grateful to the Professor Bjørn Stensaker to have been given the opportunity to participate in this project. We also feel the hands-on learning experience gave us a better understanding of the knowledge production. Overall, the experience we gained from participation in this project gave us a new outlook on how our group was able to learn how to function and work together to complete a common goal. We were able to experience problem solving as we tried to figure out how to best complete our project. As they say, practice makes perfect. Therefore, we do think that taking part in this project not only developed our group skills, but also identified areas and skills we can improve on in future tasks and projects.