Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2003, pp.

169180

Enabling Participation in Academic Discourse

ANDREW NORTHEDGE
School of Health and Social Welfare, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK

ABSTRACT Enthusiasm for replacing the didactic authoritarian pedagogue with the learning facilitator has seemed to call into question the role of the teacher as subject expert. Yet students need an insiders expertise to support them in gaining access to the academic discourses they seek to become conversant with. The teacher, as subject expert, has three key roles to play in enabling learning: lending the capacity to participate in meaning, designing well planned excursions into unfamiliar discursive terrain and coaching students in speaking the academic discourse. Each demands the skill and insight of an established and uent member of the relevant academic community. These three roles are explored, using examples to demonstrate how they can be enacted successfully.

The Teachers Role as Subject Expert For many committed higher education teachers, who looked back on wasted hours of inattentive boredom during their own education, the blossoming of the studentcentred learning movement in the 1970s offered the potential of a joyous release from the grind of delivering information crammed lectures. Carl Rogers, for example, in Freedom to Learn (Rogers, 1969), called on teachers to step off the lecture treadmill and rely instead on students natural inclination to learn, by providing unthreatening opportunities to explore their own interests. The more enthusiastic advocates of student centredness became deeply suspicious of the activity of teaching. Indeed, the whole idea that people could be taught anything was challenged. Learning, it was argued, is a process initiated and accomplished by the student; the teachers true role is to facilitate this learning. The less the teacher talks the more the students learn was a popular precept for leaders of tutorial discussions. Taken to its logical conclusion, this seemed to imply that a truly virtuous teacher would say nothing at all, thus ensuring the maximum possible learning for the students. Times, of course, changed. The expansion of higher education, without matching growth of funding, led to an emphasis on efcient delivery to large classes, while greater concern for accountability has required detailed specication of educational outcomes and increasingly structured learning programmes. The image of a silent
ISSN 1356-2517 (print)/ISSN 1470-1294 (online)/03/020169-12 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1356251032000052429

170 A. Northedge teacher waiting patiently for learning to combust spontaneously and then follow its natural course seems quaintly remote. Nevertheless, within the educationist fraternity the notion of the facilitator has survived from that time, along with a suspicion of heavily teacher led programmes. Whereas the University of London used to have a University Teaching Methods Unit, such a title would be unthinkable now. Learning must always be placed before teaching, as in The Institute for Learning and Teaching. However, if teaching is now a subordinate activity to learning, what does that imply for the status of teaching as a core component of the profession of lecturing? Is teaching a respectable activity for highly qualied adults, if it is of lesser signicance than the learning activity of their inexperienced and unqualied students? Are there professional skills of teaching that one can be proud to have acquired? Does ones subject expertise make a critical teaching contribution within the learning process? Or ought one to go no further than be grateful to ones students for having had the will and ability to learn within the programme one has laid before them? My own experience in classrooms has largely been in Open University tutorials and summer schools. Early on I found that adult students strongly resisted the notion of my hovering in the background, gently facilitating. Some pointed out that they were paying good money to be taught. They wanted to use their hard won study hours learning what educated people know, not exploring collaboratively with uneducated peers. Meanwhile, as a long-time developer of distance education materials, I have had no choice, but to work with almost entirely teacher-led programmes. Yet these programmes, when effectively designed and written, appear to have been successful both in terms of course results and student satisfaction. Adult OU students, many with chequered educational backgrounds, tend to be studying in order to catch up; to put themselves on an equal footing with graduate colleagues and friends. They want to be able to read the same books and articles as them, and join in their discussions. They want to work their way into a relevant knowledge community and be accepted as legitimate participants. To this end, they want their teachers to take the initiative in helping them get there and they do not want them to hold back from using their expertise. The original exponents of student-centred teaching did great service in exposing deep faults in traditional university teaching and introduced important shifts in orientation. Teaching should always be student-centred, in the sense of paying attention to the learning processes fostered within each student. However, there are dangers in an uncritical embrace of student-centredness, if it undermines the role of the teacher, and undersells the immense contribution of the academy and academic knowledge. This paper argues that it is it possible for teachers to pass on their knowledge of the subject without reverting to the tedium of didactic monologues. It is necessary that they develop skills in being student-centred but at the same time speak as subject experts and take the lead in the teaching/learning process. To be student-orientated is absolutely necessary, but not sufcient. The teachers capabilities as subject expert are a resource vital to their students progress. Failure to recognise this leads to weak, unfocused teaching. This paper follows on from its companion publication, Rethinking Teaching in

Enabling Participation in Academic Discourse

171

the Context of Diversity (Northedge, 2003). It works from that papers modelling of learning as a process of acquiring the capacity to participate in the specialist discourse of a knowledge community. Similarly, it draws examples from the UK Open University course K100: understanding health and social care. In the rst paper, I explored the social and cultural challenges facing students as they attempt to enter an academic knowledge community. In this paper, I consider the intellectual challenges students face in attempting to make sense of a knowledge communitys specialist discourse and the teachers role in helping them tackle these challenges.

The Challenge of Making Meaning within an Unfamiliar Discourse In discussions with groups of beginning students one common experience they report is the frustration of picking up a book with an interesting title and then nding that nothing inside makes sense. Their eyes scan the words, most of which are familiar, but no meaning goes in. Struggling through even the rst page or two is a huge and seemingly fruitless effort. Here, is an example of the kind of text a student may encounter. It is the opening of an article in a K100 book of collected readings. The Medical/Social Boundary The boundary between the medical and the social is a shifting one, constructed in complex ways that reect both institutional and ideological factors. (Twigg, 1998, p. 227) What does this sentence mean to a newcomer to care discourse? In everyday life a medical is a physical examination and a social is a gathering. Why would a boundary need to be constructed between themlet alone a complex and shifting one? What is an institutional factor, let alone an ideological one? To most beginning students this sentence is impenetrable. Yet it makes immediate sense to experienced members of the care community. They are well aware that because care services are broadly divided into a relatively well-funded, long professionalised and well respected medical sector and a poorly-funded, neglected and often derided social sector, much hangs on whether a persons need for care is dened as medical or socialthat politics and nance lurk behind the way the terms are employed. For example, if budgets are tight, then redening some health care needs as social care needs is a way, potentially, of easing the strain. So Twiggs sentence springs directly from an area of debate with which experienced members of the care community are familiar. It would scarcely occur to them that the meaning of the medical or the social could be in doubt, though they might be hard pressed if asked to dene exactly what either means in this context. Even if they were not sure of the precise meaning of institutional and ideological, they would be able to read on without pause, because they know the general drift of the arguments surrounding the

172 A. Northedge medical-social divide. As they continued they would soon get into what is being said. What undermines newcomers efforts to understand a sentence like this is the backdrop of unspoken assumptions, which provides the frame of reference within which it is meaningful. The meaning of any fact, proposition or encounter is relative to the frame of reference in terms of which it is construed. (Bruner, 1996a, p. 13) It is not so much a lack knowledge of specic items of information that holds them back, as a sense of the general context from which they might launch an effort to comprehend what is being said. In ordinary life, the ow of events around us supplies enough of a frame of reference to enable us to understand immediately most of what is said. However, academic discourses work with propositional meanings of a decontextualised and abstract nature. Propositional meanings depend on rules and structures (Bruner, 1996b, p. 98), and on the frame of reference supplied by implicit questions and purposes shared within the knowledge community. They do not derive from an immediate situation. Propositional meanings offer great power of generalisation and prediction, but they are harder for the mind to work with than direct contextual meanings. This is because the mind must cope with holding the frame of reference at the same time as pursuing a line of analysis. For example, to follow the meaning of Twiggs sentence, you have to hold in mind that we are talking broadly about structures, policies and practice in the world of care services. For students, this frame of reference is even more challenging to grasp than the substance of what is said in a particular utterance. Frames are indeterminate and elusive and are called into play by subtle signals. (A frame of reference only comes into being as the backdrop to debates within the knowledge community and is continually metamorphosing as knowledge moves on.) Moreover, frames of reference are rarely referred to, being simply taken for granted by members of the knowledge community, so that students get very few clues to help them. If students are unable to make a sentence such as Twiggs meaningful, because they do not have appropriate frames of reference within their repertoires, how can they acquire the necessary framing? Unfortunately, the primary means is to participate in the very discourse that they are unable to make sense of. This is a classic dilemma for students. They nd themselves locked outunable to make sense of utterances they encounter because they cannot place them within the implicit frames of reference, but equally unable to make progress with internalising these frames of reference because they cannot engage with the utterances through which the frames are made manifest. This is why students need teachers. The teacher, as a speaker of the specialist discourse, is able to lend students the capacity to frame meanings they cannot yet produce independently. This is the rst of three key roles the teacher can play in enabling students to engage with a specialist discourse, all three of which depend on the teachers expertise as a speaker of the discourse and member of the knowledge community.

Enabling Participation in Academic Discourse

173

Roles of the Teacher in Supporting Participation in Specialist Discourse Lending the Capacity to Frame Specialist Meanings Conversation depends on our extraordinarily subtle ability to share frames of reference. We understand what is being said to the extent that we are able to intuit what it is being said about. In everyday conversation when the frame of reference shifts in the middle of a speakers utterance, we are generally able to follow the shift effortlessly. As another person takes a turn, the frame of reference will tend to shift again, and again we follow. Conversation is an extremely exible way of making meaning jointly with others. This capacity to frame and generate meaning together with others is otherwise known as intersubjectivity. Jerome Bruner points out that teaching rests upon our astonishingly well developed talent for intersubjectivity the human ability to understand the minds of others (Bruner, 1996a, p. 20). (Note that intersubjectivity is not limited to face-to-face encounters. Writing and reading together constitute a form of intersubjectivity, though an asynchronous and lopsided form.) Teachers are able to lend students the capacity to frame the meanings of a specialist discourse by opening up conversations with them and sharing in a ow of meaning. As students join with the teacher in sharing meaning they also share something of the frame of reference that sustains it. They come to experience how the framing works, what kind of framing it is. While they may not be able to reconstruct the framing very effectively in their own thoughts when the teacher is absent, they will have enhanced their ability to share meanings with authors of texts on the same topic. It is through repeatedly sharing in meaning making with speakers of the specialist discourse that students come to internalise the frames of reference which are taken for granted within the knowledge community. So how is this sharing of meanings achieved in practice? Constructing conditions of intersubjectivity. In a teaching act, the teachers rst task is to initiate a state of intersubjectivity with the students. At the simplest level this means capturing their attention. However, it also means establishing a common focus for some shared meaning making. To take an example from the K100 course, one section begins with a story about a young couple, Jim and Marianne, who are homeless drug users (K100 Course Team, 1998). On the opening page is a large striking photograph of a healthy looking young man injecting himself. This immediately creates a compelling frame of reference, before a word has been read. What is he injecting? Why? Is this a moral tale? There follows a brief sketch of the backgrounds of Jim and Marianne. This builds up a more elaborate frame of reference, which students can easily share with the author without any knowledge of specialist care discourses. Then in a series of instalments scattered through the text, the story of the two unfolds, as they encounter various dilemmas, each of which exposes key issues in the delivery of community level care. Much of the information and explanation presented in the text is about legislation, policy, local government structures, procedures and documentation, and is potentially very tedious and confusing. However, at every point this difcult material is introduced in the context of addressing Jim and Mariannes needs. Activities are included that ask students to

174 A. Northedge interpret the information and explanations, and consider what is appropriate to the case. At one stage in the story Mariannes use of needles leads to infection culminating in the amputation of her leg, while Jim suffers a stroke. This shifts them from the social to the medical side of the medical/social divide. Later the couple leave hospital for community housing and so move back across the divide. These moves allow various aspects of the medical/social divide to be explored. By this point the students have internalised an adequate frame of reference to tackle the Twigg text referred to above. They are ready to engage in intersubjectivity with Twigg, not because they have had words such as institutional or ideological explained to them, but because the general concerns of the debate are now active in their thoughts. I have outlined this case, not because such use of case material is unusual, but to explore how it works. It is very difcult to initiate or maintain intersubjectivity with students through a straightforward exposition of the complexities of community level care. For students the frame of reference will keep slipping out of focus, because the terms used within the care community do not carry sufcient meaning for them. By contrast, the Jim and Marianne story provides a strong and stable framing throughout the text and one which students can easily share. In other words, the story helps to construct conditions of intersubjectivity. Bruner argues that stories generate a primitive form of meaning which is shared more or less effortlessly (Bruner, 1996b). In contrast to the sharing of rulebased propositional meaning, which can easily break down, stories reliably generate stable shared meaning. This makes them excellent vehicles in teaching, where students are necessarily venturing into realms in which the framing of meaning is problematic for them. Stories are a superb device for initiating and sustaining intersubjectivity. Leading excursions from familiar discourse into specialist discourse. Early in the discussion of Jim and Mariannes case students are asked such questions as What is your attitude to Jim and Marianne at this point? These make immediate sense within everyday discourse. However, as the discussion develops, new issues are raised that are specic to specialist care discourse, such as the impact of the medical/social divide upon Jim and Mariannes experience of care services. Thus, a discussion which at the outset is framed within the terms of everyday discourse gradually becomes reframed within specialist discourse, allowing students to experience the making of meaning within the specialist discourse. This manoeuvre is very basic to teaching. Shared meaning is initiated within a discourse familiar to students. Then, by posing questions and introducing new elements, the students are taken on an excursion into the specialist discourse, to experience how meaning is made there. In this way, they apprehend how the specialist discourse worksits purposes and processes: the nature of the questions asked, the forms of evidence and argument employed, the types of conclusions arrived at and the history of previous debates. These are structuring features of the specialist discourse and are fundamental to understanding it. Students internalise them primarily through participation, rather than from explicit explanation.

Enabling Participation in Academic Discourse Planning Excursions from Familiar into Specialist Discourse

175

If teaching is understood as a series of excursions into specialist discourse, then a second key role of the teacher is to plan these excursions. It is important to ensure that students encounter a suitable range of issues, debates and voices to enable them to develop a sense of the nature of the knowledge community and its discoursesits participants, its values and preoccupations, and its modes of speech and argument. For example, the Jim and Marianne case was chosen because it opens up a range of important issues within current care discourse. These issues are carefully separated out and addressed sequentially, so that the concepts and arguments they invoke can be explored systematically. This exploration is partly achieved through activities inserted in the text which draw students into active debate. Here is how the sequence develops: After the rst instalment of the Jim and Marianne story, students are asked to write notes about their attitudes and feelings towards these two people, having identied them as drug users. They are also asked to speculate about the possible reactions of health professionals to people carrying the labels of addict and homeless. This leads on to a discussion of the morality of allocating scarce resource to self harming clients. Students are asked to think about the obligations of a doctor faced with the prospect of taking on patients such Jim and Marianne, who are likely to be expensive and unpopular with other patients. Students are then asked to read a personal account by a doctor of the experience of being repeatedly called out by a patient at unreasonable hours, and the moral dilemmas this presents (widening the horizon, beyond Jim and Marianne). They are asked to make notes about the doctors obligations to individual patients, on the one hand, and to the community, on the other. A number of general points are briey raised in the text, concerning moral issues and legal entitlements. After this students are asked to imagine themselves as members of a health authority having to make a choice about spending on a drug rehabilitation unit, or beds for acute psychiatric care. The issues this raises are discussed. The whole discussion up to this point is rounded up and summarised as a set of key points. These are expressed as simple propositions, not vague discursive observations. This is important because students are grappling with unfamiliar propositional knowledge and need to be very clear what is and is not being said. Here, students have reached a resting point on their excursion into care discourse; a chance to look around and see what the countryside looks like in this new discursive environment; to look back at where the journey started from and what ground has been covered. A further instalment of the Jim and Marianne story then leads off the next stage of the excursion. A new sequence of carefully selected issues is opened up through activities and broadened through reference to other materials.

176 A. Northedge After another resting point, where the discussion is again rounded up, there is a third instalment of the story, which leads, amongst other things, to a discussion of the medical/social divide, and its impact on Jim and Marianne. Clearly, the case is much more than a story. Its content represents a very deliberate selection and organisation of incident and detail, to enable students to follow a ow of discussion and participate in signicant debates. Without such a device, many beginning students would nd the framing of these debates too difcult, whereas with it they are able to participate. Meanwhile, students more familiar with care discourse can participate in the Jim and Marianne material at a more sophisticated level. The case is based on real people and presents dilemmas that would challenge any carer. In thinking about the issues it raises, more experienced students can make links to their own daily actions and decision making, thus entering into the in-text activities in a more vigorously generative and convergent mode (Northedge, 2003). Note that the above is a strongly teacher-led learning sequence. It is far from an open-ended, student-centred approach. Students are not left to explore their own interests and draw their own conclusions from Jim and Mariannes case, limited as they would be by their personal knowledge of drug users and treatments, and their own personal preconceptions and concerns. Instead, they are led along a path carefully constructed to expose them to issues that the teacher, as a speaker of the specialist discourse, knows to be signicant within that discourse. Furthermore, they are invited to think about these issues in ways that correspond to the thinking of experts within the care community. Students are invited to build from their personal knowledge and experience as they encounter materials and activities, but they build to a design planned by the teacher with the specic aim of linking them to signicant debates. Consequently, their knowledge can, if they choose, continue to grow through further participation. If, by contrast, students are essentially encouraged to follow the collective inclinations and ideas of a peer group, however much progress they may seem to achieve, when that peer group disbands at the end of the course its members will be left at a dead end, holding ideas that connect to no active or signicant knowledge community. Designing a vigorous ow of meaning. Developing a teaching sequence of the kind outlined above has parallels with writing a play. You have an audience from very different backgrounds, who will arrive at the theatre with very varied thoughts in mind. However, you do not call their thoughts into line with an opening announcement of the main themes of play. Instead, you open with an intriguing scene, and some words and actions to establish the kind of situation it is. As events begin to unfold and characters comment on them, themes begin to emerge. The story is told by the events and the characters reactions to them, not by direct exposition. Moreover, each audience member constructs the story and themes according to their own ideas, and personal experience so that, at the end of the play, each takes away rather different messages. These are not explicit, tightly constructed messages; they are resources for thinking. Situations and issues from the play will return to the

Enabling Participation in Academic Discourse

177

audience members minds as they think about other things and further messages will emerge. Good learning is like this. Students participate in a compelling ow of thoughts, many of which form only eetingly and incompletely before the meaning moves on. Later, however, as the students participate in other ows of thought, elements from the half realised thoughts will return and be incorporated. Because knowing is a dynamic process, located in ows of meaning, learning experiences need also to be constituted as vigorous ows of meaning. Though teachers tend to favour patient explanation, this is often too static and too specic to work for students. Explanation generally achieves more in the mind of the teacher, where it is being actively generated, than in the minds of students. A strong ow of debate is much more likely to enable new knowing, particularly with a diverse student body. The importance of plot. Building on the theatre analogy, good teaching requires a strong plot. Teachers, because they are aware of the propositional structure of their knowledge, tend to emphasise logical connections and systematic covering of the ground. They design treatments of the subject that look satisfyingly neat from the expert perspective. However, students lack the frames of reference to make the logical connections or to appreciate the thoroughness of the treatment. What sticks in their minds are moments when it all made sensethe striking example, the intriguing activity. Instead of thinking of a topic in the syllabus as ground to be covered it can be thought of as a set of circumstances, characters and events around which a plot can be woven. Thus, the Jim and Marianne case was presented as a sequence of situations with associated activities, rather than as a sequence of points to be delivered. Indeed, this is how students remember it. They express enthusiasm for the material and write uently about it in essays and exams, using the specic events of the case as pegs on which to hang their discussion. The material only works, however, because of its strong plot. As a jumble of loosely related materials and activities, it would be just another pile of stuff to learn. The importance of storyline. However, plot alone is not enough. It must also be well delivered. A well maintained storylinea coherent, continuous ow of evolving meaningis fundamental to successful teaching. Teachers often pay insufcient attention to this. They leap from one frame of reference to another without noticing, because the discourse is so well established in their thoughts that its frames of reference seem natural and obvious. Yet at each shift their students lose the ow of meaning and break intersubjective contact with the teacher. In effect the whole teaching manoeuvre breaks down. Skills in constructing and sustaining a storyline are crucial in lending students the capacity to frame new meanings. It is worth noting here that plot and storyline are important issues for those working with the new electronic teaching media. Websites and CD-ROMs provide outstanding access to information. However, the limitless freedom they offer to branch off in all kinds of directions is also a potential weakness. It tends to work against narrative ow. If students know what questions they want to ask, the Internet can lead to a wealth of information. However, if their real need is to acquire new

178 A. Northedge frames of reference and to locate their thoughts within a different discourse, ipping from screen to screen of a series of websites may not take them very far. On the account presented here, a coherent controlled teaching narrative is vital, but as yet, narratives appear to be underdeveloped in pedagogic uses of ICT. Coaching in Speaking and Writing the Discourse I suggested earlier that the teacher, as an accomplished speaker of the relevant specialist discourse, has three key roles. The rst is to lend the capacity to frame meanings within the specialist discourse. The second is to plan, organise and lead excursions into the specialist discourse. Now we turn to the third, which is to coach students in speaking the discourse competently, both orally and in writing. If K100 students, for example, are to participate in the care community, they not only need to be able to make sense of what is said and written within care discourses, they must also be able to speak and write for themselves. To be taken seriously within the community, their use of concepts, terms, and modes of argument must be appropriate. Their grasp of the frames of reference within which terms like the medical, the social and the medical/social divide are used must be sufcient to allow them to generate legitimate meanings of their own, using these terms. To acquire this uency, they need opportunities to speak and write the discourse in the presence of a competent speaker who can, by responding, help to shape their usage. When the student speaks in class or writes an assignment the teacher is in a position to guess the discursive context the students are starting from, sense the intended meaning of their utterances, and (taking advantage of the powers of intersubjective framing) respond in a way which shows the student how to refocus their propositions in line with mainstream usage within the discourse. Writing. Coached practice in framing legitimate meanings within the discourse can be achieved through both oral discussion and writing. However, because of the textual character of academic discourse, coaching in writing is particularly signicant. This is insufciently recognised. Marking written work tends to be understood as grading and correcting. Yet, while both of these are important, more important for the students development is some kind of answering response to the meanings they have attempted to generate. Commentary in the form of brief remarks or questions gives important clues as to how ideas might be reframed to achieve greater force and clarity within the terms of the discourse. Ideally, this coaching relationship should start early in a course and be sustained on a regular basis. Newcomers to a discourse need to practise little and often, rather than undertaking large assignments infrequently. Assignment tasks should be framed so as to enable students to position themselves within the discourse and generate worthwhile thoughts of their own. For example, K100 students have been set the essay question What does the case of Jim and Marianne tell us about problems of access to local care services? This allows newcomers to care discourse to position their thoughts inside the case context, to reconsider the analysis they undertook, whilst studying and to generalise it more widely. Instead of simply

Enabling Participation in Academic Discourse

179

recycling extracts from accounts by experts, they have a base from which to think themselves into the issues and arguments. Speaking. Classroom discussion also plays a signicant role in coaching students in speaking the discourse. It allows students to share in the groups intersubjective framing of debates, and to participate directly or vicariously in shifting that framing around as they bring their usage of the specialist discourse into sharper focus. The teacher coaches by reframing ideas that emerge within the group, to make them work within the terms of the specialist discourse. Of course, the teacher also serves as a live model of how the discourse is spoken. By seizing upon an issue and analysing it in the students presence, the teacher shows how thoughts are composed and arguments developed to meet the needs of the moment. Conclusion This paper has aimed to show how a sociocultural account of the teachers role allows a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, the traditional heavy focus on delivering knowledge and, on the other, the danger with student-centred approaches of underplaying the signicance of the teachers specialist knowledge and skills. In identifying the relevant specialist discourse and its associated discourse community as the source of knowledge, this model of teaching gives the teachers academic expertise a central place in the teaching/learning process, whilst also recognising that teaching must begin where the student is. By harnessing our talent for intersubjectivity, teachers can temporarily lend students the capacity to frame meanings they lack the experience to frame for themselves. Secondly, by designing carefully plotted narrative excursions into expert discourse teachers can help students to accumulate a working knowledge of the characteristics of the discourse, so that they can make their way around it for themselves. Thirdly, through dialogue, teachers can coach students in speaking the discourse, so that they can come to function as competent members of the knowledge community. HE needs neither teachers who spout knowledge endlessly, nor teachers who set their own knowledge aside for fear of distorting the students learning experience. Rather it needs teachers who know how to use their academic knowledge to guide and support travelling bands of diverse students as they learn to participate in unfamiliar knowledge communities and acquire usage of their powerful discourses.
REFERENCES BRUNER, J.S. (1996a) The Culture of Education (Cambridge, Harvard University Press). BRUNER, J.S. (1996b) Frames for thinking: ways of making meaning, in: D. OLSON & N. TORRANCE (Eds) Modes of Thought: explorations in culture and cognition (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). K100 COURSE TEAM (1998) Unit 10, Accessing Community Services, K100 Understanding Health and Social Care (Buckingham, Open University). NORTHEDGE, A. (2003) Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity, Teaching in Higher Education, 8, pp. 1732.

180 A. Northedge
OLSON & TORRANCE, N. (Eds) Modes of Thought: explorations in culture and cognition (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). ROGERS, C. (1969) Freedom to Learn (Columbus, OH, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company). TWIGG, J. (1998) The medical/social boundary, in: M. ALLOTT & M. ROBB (Eds) Understanding Health and Social Care: an introductory reader (London, Sage Publications).