Our teaching is inevitably linked to the institution that we work for. This relates to the wider body of the university but also the teams within which we work (unit, courses, department). It is therefore impossible to operate completely independently; all teaching happens within a wider framework, and if it is to be relevant to the students and courses at large there needs to be some element of collective understanding of ‘norms’ that we must work with (or against). There was an interesting point by John around the use of the word professional in the framework, questioning what it means to be a professional, what a professional does and how this frames and contextualises the way these frameworks and ‘norms’ are developed. I do think it can be tricky to navigate this, and similarly to discussions around learning outcomes and assessment criteria in previous sessions, it is important to consider that these ‘norms’ might need to accommodate for change depending on who is on the receiving end. The cultural context in which we teach in is forever changing, student bodies are forever changing, therefore, the standards to which we teach need to adapt in order to stay relevant and fair.

As educators and practitioners, we often consider how the subjects we teach exists in the professional world and relate to non-educational policies and/or norms. This leads to the development of units like ‘Professional Practice’ which are essential to student learning and are always changing and adapting to current industry practice. However there is another major factor that influences teaching practices that relate to non-educational policies. This relates to the funding the universities get from government (or lack thereof). The cut to education and arts funding means that universities in England have been forced to run like business. In order to stay relevant and justify their existence, they therefore need to create profit and prove growth. This creates a system where teachers and courses are accountable for the people that pay for their services. Accountability needs to be measured somehow, through things like attainment and credit systems. This hugely impacts the freedom teachers have in developing content and greatly impacts the way in which knowledge can be exchanged. The obsession on assessment and grades is I believe on of the most obvious barrier to effective teaching in the creative field. Other things like oversubscribed courses, elitist access to education, lack of facilities also come to mind (this list is by no means exhaustive).

Experience, both professional and lived play an essential role in the way in which we work. Through experience we are able to better understand the contexts in which we operate. This relates a lot to the ‘values’ part of the professional framework discussed in the session. These were quite disappointing and didn’t seem to acknowledge human values, instead focusing on quite practical elements that seemed to me an inherent part of teaching (‘acknowledging wider contexts’ for example). Our group’s responses were much more emotional, considering things like transparency, acknowledging bias, ethical approaches to teaching, fairness – possibly more tacit values but also things which I think can make teaching and interaction with students more beneficial. Breaking down the teacher/student hierarchy in a way in which we, as teachers, acknowledge that our experience is identity-based and therefore biased and limited, is essential in developing ethical teaching practices.