![This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: Illustrated Index of British Shells
Author: G. B. Sowerby
Release date: July 26, 2013 [eBook #43305]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Keith Edkins and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This
file was produced from images generously made
available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ILLUSTRATED
INDEX OF BRITISH SHELLS ***](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/5244258-250617104036-29c26a4d/85/Engaging-Student-Voices-In-Higher-Education-Diverse-Perspectives-And-Expectations-In-Partnership-1st-Ed-Simon-Lygobaker-60-320.jpg)
Engaging Student Voices In Higher Education Diverse Perspectives And Expectations In Partnership 1st Ed Simon Lygobaker
- 1. Engaging Student Voices In Higher Education Diverse Perspectives And Expectations In Partnership 1st Ed Simon Lygobaker download https://ebookbell.com/product/engaging-student-voices-in-higher- education-diverse-perspectives-and-expectations-in- partnership-1st-ed-simon-lygobaker-10488516 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Engaging With Student Voice In Research Education And Community Beyond Legitimation And Guardianship 1st Edition Nicole Mockler https://ebookbell.com/product/engaging-with-student-voice-in-research- education-and-community-beyond-legitimation-and-guardianship-1st- edition-nicole-mockler-4930402 Engaging The Student Brain 7 Hardtoignore Teaching Techniques That Make Things Stick Northup https://ebookbell.com/product/engaging-the-student- brain-7-hardtoignore-teaching-techniques-that-make-things-stick- northup-55612002 Powerful Partnerships A Teachers Guide To Engaging Families For Student Success 1st Edition Karen Mapp Ilene Carver Jessica Lander https://ebookbell.com/product/powerful-partnerships-a-teachers-guide- to-engaging-families-for-student-success-1st-edition-karen-mapp-ilene- carver-jessica-lander-51644442 Engaging Teaching Tools Measuring And Improving Student Engagement 1st Edition David U Sladkey https://ebookbell.com/product/engaging-teaching-tools-measuring-and- improving-student-engagement-1st-edition-david-u-sladkey-51321208
- 3. Engaging Students Through Social Media Evidencebased Practices For Use In Student Affairs 1st Edition Reynol Junco https://ebookbell.com/product/engaging-students-through-social-media- evidencebased-practices-for-use-in-student-affairs-1st-edition-reynol- junco-4739052 Reading The Historical Books A Students Guide To Engaging The Biblical Text Patricia Dutcherwalls https://ebookbell.com/product/reading-the-historical-books-a-students- guide-to-engaging-the-biblical-text-patricia-dutcherwalls-48922726 Engaging Overage Participants In Urban Learning And Work Environments An Empirical Demonstration Of Macrolevel Efficiency Through Effective Atrisk Student And Teacher Recovery J Randall Farmer https://ebookbell.com/product/engaging-overage-participants-in-urban- learning-and-work-environments-an-empirical-demonstration-of- macrolevel-efficiency-through-effective-atrisk-student-and-teacher- recovery-j-randall-farmer-10432576 Engaging Images For Research Pedagogy And Practice Utilizing Visual Methods To Understand And Promote College Student Development 1st Edition Bridget Turner Kelly Carrie A Kortegast Peter M Magolda https://ebookbell.com/product/engaging-images-for-research-pedagogy- and-practice-utilizing-visual-methods-to-understand-and-promote- college-student-development-1st-edition-bridget-turner-kelly-carrie-a- kortegast-peter-m-magolda-51747820 Connecting Comprehension Strategies To The Urban Student Through Conversations And Analogies Engaging Beginnings Minilessons That Set The Tone For Learning Annika Hardydouglas https://ebookbell.com/product/connecting-comprehension-strategies-to- the-urban-student-through-conversations-and-analogies-engaging- beginnings-minilessons-that-set-the-tone-for-learning-annika- hardydouglas-48772788
- 5. Edited by Simon Lygo-Baker ·Ian M. Kinchin ·NaomiE.Winstone Engaging Student Voices in Higher Education Diverse Perspectives and Expectations in Partnership
- 6. “The idea of higher education as a transformational process for students is a key ambition for many higher education institutions to fulfil. However, as mass higher education is currently evolving, it is a challenge to engage and cater for the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. Giving stu- dents a voice, and understanding better the many different voices of students is of crucial importance for those involved in higher education, and the cur- rent book is a must-read for those interested in bringing (all) students in as partners in learning, as change agents or as co-creators in their own transfor- mational process. Through a range of critical and reflective contributions, this book offers theoretical and practical insights into the current and future ways and forms of student involvement in higher education.” —Professor Bjørn Stensaker, University of Oslo, Norway “Much has been written about the contemporary student in higher education, but ‘the student’ has quite often been conceptualized and portrayed in stereo- typical ways. This volume rightly breaks the tradition and offers a much more nuanced perspective on issues related to student identity, engagement, voice … and silence, without falling in the trap of arguing that every student is unique. A must-read for anybody interested in listening to what students really say.” —Professor Jeroen Huisman, Ghent University, Belgium Engaging Student Voices in Higher Education
- 7. Simon Lygo-Baker · Ian M. Kinchin · Naomi E. Winstone Editors Engaging Student Voices in Higher Education Diverse Perspectives and Expectations in Partnership
- 8. Editors Simon Lygo-Baker Department of Higher Education University of Surrey Guildford, UK Ian M. Kinchin Department of Higher Education University of Surrey Guildford, UK Naomi E. Winstone Department of Higher Education University of Surrey Guildford, UK ISBN 978-3-030-20823-3 ISBN 978-3-030-20824-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20824-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover image: © Ammentorp Photography/Alamy This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
- 9. v Foreword This is an important and timely book. It finds itself situated at a moment where, despite increasing marketisation of higher education and the dominant neoliberalist political discourse, there are signs of resistance within the landscape of higher education. With increasing competition for students, tertiary sector institutions have almost unilat- erally responded by placing significant energy and resources into under- standing and enhancing the student experience. The result has been a detectable shift across policy and process by which the student has been put at the centre of academic endeavour in both the space of learning and teaching and academic life. This book focusses on undergraduate and postgraduate voices, and carefully considers the weight and impact of these voices and resulting actions across different detailed settings. Through a carefully curated collection of chapters, it takes a considered view on access into and through education, distinguishing where and which voices are heard. It considers how minority and non-traditional learners find their way into tertiary education and how universities are responding to the expectations of their funders and communities. This book offers new perspectives on the often complicated and dynamic nature of students’ lives that is interwoven with the fabric of a modern
- 10. university setting that intersects both private and professional bounda- ries. A distinctive international flavour is captured through studies that examine the student voice in different non-European settings where commonalities and differences are made visible in the ways that new forms of partnership are being forged between academic, student and institution. The chapters presented in this volume also signal a growing maturity within academia whereby faculty now recognise the empowered student voice as a vital, rather than threatening, lever for change and enhance- ment in areas such as curriculum development and course design. Certainly, in the UK, the National Student Survey (NSS) has served to catalyse a sharpening of sensitivity to the various intersects where stu- dent, academic and institution come together. This and other surveys that institutions promote have provided touch points to gauge student sentiment and, on the surface at least, provide actionable insights. It is difficult to argue with the notion of listening and acting on the views of academia’s primary ‘customer’, yet the question remains, is this at the correct granularity and cadence? Do these instruments provide the pulse check of student sentiment in a timely enough fashion for meaningful action? This highlights the value in recognising both the breadth and depth of the student voice in its multiple forms. For example, student teaching feedback systems which are meant to be ‘feedback’ are only one point that help faculty triangulate the shifting centre of what constitutes excellent learning and teaching. When thoughtfully contextualised, this particular student voice has legitimacy and weight and must not be mis- interpreted nor devalued. Reading across the chapters in this book, it becomes clear that the nature and value of the student voice have changed. Early passive rep- resentation models of the student voice have shifted towards more active participatory formulations of student action. Taking a nod from design and software industries, approaches such as design thinking and co-design have become popular within many of our higher edu- cation establishments. We are experiencing more open and dynamic patterns of interaction with a positive shift from a wariness of listening and acting on the views of our students to the incorporation of mul- tiple viewpoints within groups and committees that cut vertically and vi Foreword
- 11. horizontally across the organisation. Prime examples include the recent focus of tertiary institutions on student success through whole of jour- ney mapping, articulating transition pathways and scaffolding the first year experience to achieve articulated goals in access and progress. Whatever form these efforts take, the agency of the student within these activities has become more prominent. Looking forwards, the future will provide more moments of disrup- tion as digital technologies continue to transform the higher education sector. With the changing nature of work, the growing power of artifi- cial intelligence and data analytics, we can expect the student voices and actions of today to be empowered and reengineered in new and exciting configurations. Acknowledging these changes, the chapters within this book take the reader on a journey that criss-crosses individual and per- sonal with institutional and formal structures. In conclusion, this book offers insights that cross theoretical and practical boundaries to provide new positions on the complicated nature of evolving student voices and the actions that surround them. The work challenges the reader on a number of levels and it offers a touch point for senior leaders looking to forward an institutional agenda around engaging student voices in deep and meaningful ways. I wholeheartedly recommend this book to all those involved in managing and promoting student success and engagement. Wellington, New Zealand Professor Steven Warburton Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Digital Futures) University of Wellington Foreword vii
- 12. ix Preface This book aims to challenge, or at least promote critical reflection on, the dominant discourses within higher education that focus on the stu- dent voice as a singular entity. The implications of considering a multi- plicity of student voices are explored from a variety of perspectives: the chapter authors have been selected to represent a variety of institutional roles typically found across a university and thus to maximise the diver- sity of views that might be heard across any campus. Whilst the idea for this book originated with colleagues at the University of Surrey, it includes chapters written by colleagues from other institutions in and beyond the UK, providing insights from across the sector which are supported by the international literature on the subject. This book will be of interest to policy-makers as well as to strate- gic leaders in universities and to academics who work with students as teachers, mentors, advisors and personal tutors. It challenges the tired trope of the ‘feckless, snowflake millennial’, and presents well-informed and thoughtful analyses of students as engaged members of the higher education community, rather than as homogenous objects of study within it.
- 13. The editors start the book in Chapter 1 by laying out their view of the ‘single voice fallacy’. This is explored in depth in Part I, which com- mences with an account of a single student voice and then considers the diversity of student voices and the ways these intersect with contempo- rary themes such as partnership and consumerism. Part II considers the various ways that diverse student voices have been masked by consideration of the ‘average voice’ in ways which have contributed to presenting a simplified student landscape which has in turn shaped and supported the development of policy. Part III goes on to consider events in the student journey and the different ways that institutions have engaged with student voices within the messy land- scape of competing perspectives on a huge number of issues encompass- ing, for example, student transitions, well-being and employability. Part IV explores the ways in which consideration of diversity in student voices may alter our perspectives on well-established themes including the evaluation of teaching and the research-teaching nexus. The editors conclude with a synthesis and suggestions concerning how future progress can draw on the enhanced perspectives afforded through being attuned to heterogeneous student voices. They anticipate that the reader may be unsettled by some of the ideas presented within the book, and indeed that is its aim—to prompt critical reflection on institutional practices in this new and uncertain era for higher education. Guildford, UK Professor Jane Powell Vice-Provost Education University of Surrey x Preface
- 14. xi Contents 1 The Single Voice Fallacy 1 Simon Lygo-Baker, Ian M. Kinchin and Naomi E. Winstone Part I Engaging with Diverse Student Voices 2 Finding an Identity in the Crowd: A Single-Case Framed Narrative of Being in the Invisible Majority 19 Ian M. Kinchin and Alexander M. Kinchin 3 The Value of Working with Students as Partners 37 Kathryn A. Sutherland, Isabella Lenihan-Ikin and Charlotte Rushforth 4 The Voice of the Student as a ‘Consumer’ 55 Louise Bunce
- 15. 5 International Student Voice(s)—Where and What Are They? 71 Anesa Hosein and Namrata Rao 6 Developing Oracy Skills for Student Voice Work 89 Marion Heron and David M. Palfreyman Part II From Voice to Voices: Engaging Student Voices Beyond Metrics 7 Developing Assessment Feedback: From Occasional Survey to Everyday Practice 109 Naomi E. Winstone and David Boud 8 What Happens After What Happens Next? The Single Voice of DLHE and Its Distortions on the Student Learning Journey 125 Keith Herrmann 9 Mechanisms to Represent the Doctoral Researcher Voice 143 Shane Dowle, Sam Hopkins and Carol Spencely Part III Engaging Student Voices Across the Higher Education Experience 10 ‘Duck to Water’ or ‘Fish Out of Water’? Diversity in the Experience of Negotiating the Transition to University 159 Naomi E. Winstone and Julie A. Hulme 11 Making Learning Happen: Students’ Development of Academic and Information Literacies 175 Karen Gravett xii Contents
- 16. 12 Collaborating with Students to Support Student Mental Health and Well-being 191 Dawn Querstret 13 Reconciling Diverse Student and Employer Voices on Employability Skills and Work-Based Learning 209 Katarina Zajacova, Erica Hepper and Alexandra Grandison 14 Students’ Perceptions of Graduate Attributes: A Signalling Theory Analysis 225 Anna Jones and Judy Pate Part IV The Influence of Student Voices on Academic Work 15 Valuing Uncertainty 245 Simon Lygo-Baker 16 Pluralising ‘Student Voices’: Evaluating Teaching Practice 261 Adun Okupe and Emma Medland 17 Student Voice(s) on the Enactment of the Research-Teaching Nexus 279 Ian M. Kinchin and Camille B. Kandiko Howson 18 Engaging Students as Co-designers in Educational Innovation 297 Karen Gravett, Emma Medland and Naomi E. Winstone 19 When All Is Said and Done: Consensus or Pluralism? 315 Simon Lygo-Baker, Ian M. Kinchin and Naomi E. Winstone Index 327 Contents xiii
- 17. xv Notes on Contributors David Boud is Alfred Deakin Professor and Foundation Director of the Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning, Deakin University, Australia; Professor in the Work and Learning Research Centre, Middlesex University, UK; and Emeritus Professor at the University of Technology Sydney. His research on teaching, learning and assessment in higher and professional education is highly cited internationally. His current areas of interest are assessment in higher education and learning in the workplace. His most recent books are Developing Evaluative Judgement in Higher Education, (Routledge, 2018) and Re-imagining University Assessment in a Digital World (Springer, forthcoming) each with various others. Louise Bunce is a Senior Lecturer in Human Development and Teaching Excellence Fellow at Oxford Brookes University, UK. She is also a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a Chartered Psychologist. Her research applies psychological theory to understand the factors that support or hinder children’s and adults’ learning and development and ability to thrive. In collaboration with her students, she has conducted internationally recognised research to explore the impact of the marketisation of higher education on student engagement and academic performance.
- 18. Shane Dowle is the manager of the Doctoral College at the University of Surrey, UK, and he is also a part-time Ph.D. researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London. Shane’s research interests focus on the doctoral student experience with a particular focus on what ena- bles Ph.D. students to complete their projects successfully and on time. Shane is an advocate of postgraduate issues at the sector level and has served on advisory boards for the QAA and HEA. Alexandra Grandison is a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Surrey, UK, and a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. She has been a lecturer in Higher Education since 2010 and has taught and supervised students at all Undergraduate and Postgraduate levels. Alexandra has a keen interest in employability and work-based learning and how students engage with these con- cepts throughout their time in education. Through her role as Senior Professional Training Tutor, she has supported students in preparation for, during and after their professional training year and co-developed an innovative skills-based module to facilitate employability in psychology. Karen Gravett is a Lecturer in Higher Education at the University of Surrey, UK. Her previous posts have included information skills librar- ian, academic liaison and electronic information roles at the University of Surrey and Royal Holloway. She completed her B.A. (Hons) at Cardiff University in 2003, and a Masters in Library and Information Studies at University College London in 2006. Her interests include: digital and information literacy, pedagogy in Higher Education, and electronic information and technologies. Erica Hepper is a Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Surrey, UK. She obtained her Ph.D. from the University of Southampton in 2007 and has taught at all HE levels since then, including holding the roles of Director of Undergraduate Studies and Senior Professional Training Tutor. Erica is a social/personality psychologist and her research focuses on understanding individual differences in self-relevant emotions and motivation in social contexts such as education, the work- place and close relationships. xvi Notes on Contributors
- 19. Marion Heron (Engin) is a Senior Lecturer in Higher Education at the University of Surrey, UK. She has worked in higher education insti- tutions in Turkey and Dubai. She is an applied linguist with a particular interest in the application of sociocultural theory to examining the rela- tionship between talk and learning. Keith Herrmann was at the time of writing the Director of Employability at the University of Surrey, UK, where he was strategic lead on employabil- ity, careers and the university’s renowned student placement programme. Keith was previously Deputy Chief Executive at the Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE) focusing on research about entrepre- neurship education, innovation, university-business collaboration, career guidance and STEM education. Keith worked previously at Durham University Business School as Director of Programmes where he led a team specialising in entrepreneurship and economic policy. Keith also pro bono convenes the Careers Alliance, a network of 25 national organisations with an interest in career guidance. Sam Hopkins works for the Researcher Development Programme (RDP) at the University of Surrey, UK, developing a range of training and support activities for researchers. Sam now manages the mentor- ing programmes and the part-time and distance provision. Sam studied B.Sc. Zoology in the UK and then completed her M.Sc. and Ph.D. in South Africa, subsequently taking a position as a lecturer. She continued her postdoctoral research career in biological sciences at the University of Surrey and spent a short time at the Zoological Society of London. Sam is now applying these experiences to her role in the RDP team. Anesa Hosein is a Lecturer in Higher Education at the University of Surrey, UK. After teaching and studying in the areas of physics and manufacturing engineering, she moved to the UK as an international student to pursue a Ph.D. in Educational Technology. Her research focuses on how affective and social factors influence academics’ and students’ experiences in Higher Education for various groups, such as migrant academics and persons in STEM. Julie A. Hulme is a Reader in Psychology at Keele University, UK, and Chair of the British Psychological Society (BPS) Division of Academics, Researchers and Teachers in Psychology. A UK National Teaching Notes on Contributors xvii
- 20. Fellow, and Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (PFHEA), she applies psychology to learning, teaching and assessment. Julie’s own experiences as a mature student helped her to recognise the importance of transition to university, and of skills and confidence for successful university study. She strives to create engaging learning oppor- tunities which help all students to achieve their aspirations, through the application of psychology to everyday life (psychological literacy). Anna Jones is a Senior Lecturer in Clinical Education at King’s College London. Her research interests include institutional change, graduate attributes, disciplinary cultures, medical education, academic practice and the role of higher education. In her previous roles, she was respon- sible for the design, coordination and delivery of a range of transition, student learning and academic development programmes. Dr. Camille B. Kandiko Howson is Associate Professor of Education in the Centre for Higher Education Research Scholarship at Imperial College London. She researches higher education with a focus on ped- agogy and student engagement; quality, performance and accountabil- ity; international and comparative education; curriculum change; and gender and prestige in academic work. She has worked on using con- cept mapping in educational research and practice. Previously she was Academic Head of Student Engagement and Senior Lecturer in Higher Education at King’s College London. Alexander M. Kinchin was an undergraduate student at a south coast university at the time of writing, where he was studying electrical and electronic engineering, after gaining A-levels in biology, chemistry, math- ematics and physics. His academic interests were triggered by his passion for electric guitars and heavy metal music. He is also heavily engaged in airsoft and table-top gaming, having been involved in running univer- sity societies for both of these activities. Alexander is also interested in internet culture and science fiction literature. He is currently considering employment options in a variety of fields—away from engineering. Ian M. Kinchin is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Surrey, UK. He is engaged in the professional development of aca- demic staff, whilst undertaking research into university pedagogy and xviii Notes on Contributors
- 21. the application of Novakian concept mapping. Ian is the editor of the Journal of Biological Education, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology, a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, and has been a mem- ber of the Governing Council of the Society for Research into Higher Education. He is currently developing a model for academic develop- ment that is framed by the concepts of pedagogic frailty and resilience. Isabella Lenihan-Ikin is completing a conjoint degree in Law and Biomedical Science at Victoria University of Wellington. Isabella served as the Academic Vice President of the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association (VUWSA) in 2017 and was elected to the University Council as one of two student representatives in 2018. Simon Lygo-Baker is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Higher Education at the University of Surrey, UK. He also holds a visiting posi- tion at the School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin- Madison. He completed a Masters in Political Science at Warwick University before undertaking a Ph.D. in Education looking at iden- tity and values in university teaching. He initially worked on projects with marginalised communities such as refugees and asylum seekers and those in recovery from addiction. More recently, he has worked at King’s College London and the University of Surrey in academic devel- opment and researching aspects of learning and teaching within the disciplines. Emma Medland is a Lecturer in Higher Education at the University of Surrey’s Department of Higher Education and has been an academic developer for twelve years in the UK. Her research interests focus on assessment and feedback in higher education, particularly in relation to assessment and feedback literacy, the subjectivity underpinning assess- ment and feedback practices, the role of assessment in curriculum development, and the concepts of ‘grade inflation’ and contract cheat- ing. Emma is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and is Programme Director for the M.A. in Higher Education. Adun Okupe is the director of the Sahara Centre which focuses on advancing sociocultural development in Nigeria. She is also a Senior Advisor at Compass, a customer engagement and insights firm focused Notes on Contributors xix
- 22. on working with organisations to engage better with their customers. Her research interests along the lines of leadership, societal change and tourism are influenced by her practical applications which all include aspects of teaching, be it in the classroom, disseminating research find- ings or providing advisory services to organisations. She is particularly interested in how the feedback process can be improved. She is a mem- ber of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. David M. Palfreyman works in the College of Education at Zayed University in the United Arab Emirates. His experience includes twen- ty-five years of teaching on undergraduate and postgraduate programs in English language and teacher education, in higher education institu- tions and international organisations. His research interests include the role of sociocultural context and discourse in learning by students and practitioners, as well as multilingualism and biliteracy in educational settings. He is the founding editor of the journal Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives (LTHE). Judy Pate is a Senior Lecturer (Management) in the Adam Smith Business School at the University of Glasgow. She has expertise in human resource management, sociological theory, trust and the sociol- ogy of professions. Dawn Querstret is a Lecturer in Workforce Organisation and Wellbeing at the University of Surrey, UK. She is chartered with the British Psychological Society and is a Registered Practitioner Psychologist (Health) with the Health Care and Professions Council. Dawn is currently leading research investigating the efficacy of online mindfulness interventions for mental health and well-being in a vari- ety of samples. For example, for depression, anxiety and stress in occu- pational and student samples; and for emotional resilience, quality of life and resilience in samples of people with long-term health conditions (multiple sclerosis, stroke, irritable bowel syndrome and fibromyalgia). Namrata Rao is a Senior Lecturer in Education at Liverpool Hope University in the Centre of Education and Policy Analysis. She has a background in biological sciences and a Ph.D. in Education. She is a xx Notes on Contributors
- 23. Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, executive member of the British Association of International and Comparative Education (BAICE), member of the Research and Development Working Group of the Association for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE). Her research focuses on international and comparative education, various aspects of learning and teaching in higher education, and factors that influence academic identity and practice. Charlotte Rushforth was the Student Representation Coordinator for the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association (the only such full-time paid position in the country), from 2017 to 2018. Charlotte completed her M.A. in Communication in 2017 at the University of California Santa Barbara. Carol Spencely is a Teaching Fellow for Learning Development at the University of Surrey. She completed her Ph.D. in Immunology at the University of Liverpool before moving to Imperial College London for a postdoc position at the National Heart and Lung Institute. Following further postdoc contracts and a teaching fellowship, she decided to move away from lab-based research. Carol worked as a med- ical writer for a communications company, but she was then drawn back to Imperial where she helped to set up the Postdoc Development Centre before joining the Researcher Development Programme at the University of Surrey in 2012. Kathryn A. Sutherland is an Associate Professor in the Centre for Academic Development at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. She recently returned to this role after a six-year term as Associate Dean (Students, Learning and Teaching) in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Kathryn’s research and teaching both focus on the socialisation, retention and fulfilment of early career aca- demics (ECAs). Through programmes like Ako in Action, she encour- ages ECAs to work more deliberately and effectively with students as partners in teaching design and curriculum development. Naomi E. Winstone is a Reader in Higher Education and Head of the Department of Higher Education at the University of Surrey, UK. Naomi holds B.Sc., M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Psychology and has extensive Notes on Contributors xxi
- 24. experience of academic leadership, having occupied the roles of Director of Learning and Teaching and Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching) at the University of Surrey. Naomi is a cognitive psychologist, specialising in learning behaviour and engagement with education. Naomi’s research focuses on the processing and implementation of feedback, educational transitions and educational identities. Naomi is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a National Teaching Fellow. Katarina Zajacova is a Senior Professional Training Tutor and a Teaching Fellow in Psychology, Sociology and Social Sciences at the University of Surrey, UK. She has worked in Higher Education since 2006 and has supervised, taught and supported students in preparation for and during their professional training year. Katarina has convened a number of employability-related UG modules and has worked on the development of innovative skills-based learning and teaching meth- ods and assessments. Through her role as Faculty Senior Professional Training Tutor, she has liaised and collaborated with numerous place- ment providers and employers in the UK and abroad. xxii Notes on Contributors
- 25. xxiii Abbreviations AQA Academic Quality Agency AUSSE Australasian Survey of Student Engagement CEQ Course Experience Questionnaire CUAP Committee on University Academic Programmes DLHE Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education EMI English as a Medium of Instruction ESL English as a Second Language GTA Graduate Teaching Assistant HE Higher Education HEA Higher Education Academy HEI Higher Education Institution HEPI Higher Education Policy Institute HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency LEO Longitudinal Earnings Outcome MEQs Module Evaluation Questionnaires NSS National Student Survey NSSE National Survey of Student Engagement NTFS National Teaching Fellowship Scheme NUS National Union of Students NZ New Zealand NZUSA New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations
- 26. OFFA Office for Fair Access OfS Office for Students PRES Postgraduate Research Experience Survey QAA Quality Assurance Agency REF Research Excellence Framework TEC Tertiary Education Commission TEF Teaching Excellence Framework UK United Kingdom UKPSF UK Professional Standards Framework US United States VLE Virtual Learning Environment WBL Work-Based Learning xxiv Abbreviations
- 27. xxv List of Figures Fig. 2.1 A concept map of the discourse of teaching and learning (MEQ = Module Evaluation Questionnaire, a mechanism that allows students to rate the quality of their teachers) 24 Fig. 2.2 A concept map relating the pedagogy of the discipline with the practice of the discipline 25 Fig. 2.3 A concept map of the research-teaching nexus 27 Fig. 2.4 A concept map of the regulation and evaluation of teaching 29 Fig. 5.1 Non-UK students’ distribution across the constituent countries (HESA 2015/2016 dataset) 77 Fig. 5.2 Number of UK international students from the top 5 countries (HESA 2015/2016 dataset) 78 Fig. 10.1 Mean confidence ratings across academic skills at Time 1 (start of year 1) and Time 2 (end of year 1). Paired t-tests: * p 0.05 ** p 0.01 *** p 0.001 165 Fig. 17.1 A wholistic model for research-based learning decision-making (modified and redrawn from Brew, 2013) 286 Fig. 18.1 Top-down and bottom-up approaches to design 299 Fig. 18.2 Concept map interview with project lead 306
- 28. xxvii List of Tables Table 5.1 Review of literature on Chinese international students with reference to the UK 80 Table 6.1 Oracy skills framework (Mercer et al. 2017) 97 Table 7.1 Assessment and feedback items in the 2017 UK National Student Survey (NSS) 114 Table 17.1 Disciplines and authors represented in the special issue 283
- 29. 1 The Single Voice Fallacy Simon Lygo-Baker, Ian M. Kinchin and Naomi E. Winstone When considering issues of power and control in any social system, the concept of ‘voice’ often comes to the fore. Within the higher education sector, this concept brings with it a wealth of underpinning ideas, such that consideration of a ‘voice’ represents more than ‘noises made’ or ‘utterances spoken’. The notion of voice is bound up with ideas such as identity (who am I to have a voice?), agency (how can I use my voice?), and respon- sibility (how should I use my voice?). Cook-Sather (2006) argues that the concept of voice ‘signals having a legitimate perspective and opinion, being present and taking part’ (p. 362). In addition, the ideas that have increasingly become aligned with the idea of voice have tended towards an implication of ‘pro-active voices’ rather than passive or re-active voices. S. Lygo-Baker (B) · I. M. Kinchin · N. E. Winstone Department of Higher Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] I. M. Kinchin e-mail: [email protected] N. E. Winstone e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 S. Lygo-Baker et al. (eds.), Engaging Student Voices in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20824-0_1 1
- 30. 2 S. Lygo-Baker et al. In a hierarchical system that is not used to engaging with a diversity of proactive voices, there is likely to be competition to be heard. As a conse- quence, there might be a number of ‘lost voices’, where the loss may be felt by individuals who feel marginalised, but also where loss represents missed opportunities for organisational learning. To avoid drowning in a sea of voices, universities may have developed selective hearing—where certain voices are allowed to become dominant over others, and the voice of the ‘ruling stratum’ becomes the accepted voice (Hobden Wyn Jones, 2017, p. 138). This seems to run contrary to the widely espoused goals of diver- sity and inclusion. This book aims to throw light onto these issues so that diverse (and possibly contradictory) voices can engage in the discourses that will shape higher education in the coming years. In this chapter, we frame our broad conceptual framework and intro- duce some key themes that will be developed throughout the chapters in this book. The aims of the book are threefold: 1. to explore how notions of the student ‘voice’ as a single, monolithic entity obscure the divergence in experiences of students; 2. to consider how placing emphasis on what is brought to the fore under the banner of the ‘student voice’ might lead educators and policymakers to miss important messages from students themselves communicated through their actions and what they don’t say; 3. to consider different ways of working in partnership with students to develop their own experiences as well as to influence the nature of academic work more broadly. Student Experience, Student Engagement, and Student Voice As the learning environment evolves within the twenty-first century, the notion of the student experience has become increasingly prevalent. Artic- ulation of the student experience has noted the importance of establishing a dialogue with a range of stakeholders. Whatever the stimulus, it is evi- dent that the strategy to provide greater access to higher education and to encourage universities to become more adaptable has heeded the argu-
- 31. 1 The Single Voice Fallacy 3 ment that key stakeholders, such as employers, need to have greater input into the system. This is based on the (perhaps flawed) premise that mem- bers of each stakeholder group hold identical, or at least highly similar, views. In a fluid sector (Bauman, 2000), this is surely unlikely as needs are constantly in flux and employers, for example, may have little idea what their future requirements are. Despite this, a rise in the authority of stakeholder groups within the academic community has been recognised (Jongbloed, Enders, Salerno, 2008). Within these stakeholder groups sit the students themselves, whose many differing voices often become homogenised. The student voice, as a seemingly singular sound, is then moreeasily aligned with thoseofother stakeholder groups,such asemploy- ers, to suggest greater demands on the sector, such as higher quality teach- ing. With a rise in discourse of students as ‘customers’ in higher education, the student voice has been framed in a similar way to the consumer voice in wider society; as paying customers, students can and should give feedback and express (dis)satisfaction with their experience of the service. Alongsidediscoursearoundthestudentexperienceandthenotionofthe student voice sits the concept of student engagement, which is often seen as overlapping with student voice (Seale, Gibson, Haynes, Potter, 2015). Engaged students are, in many cases, seen as the ones who are willing to contribute their voices to debates and developments. This view of engage- ment, as participation in the wider work of the university, is arguably different to discussion of student engagement with the academic pursuit of their programme of study, such as engaging in independent study, ask- ing questions, and participating in discussion. Perhaps, therefore, it is not surprising that the concept of student engagement has been described as ‘an uncritically accepted academic orthodoxy’ (Brookfield, 1986, p. 96), and that in higher education, with reference to student voice, ‘definitions and conceptualisations are underdeveloped’ (Seale, 2010, p. 995). Can- ning (2017) argues that the distinction between the concepts of student engagement and student voice is fuzzy, with student voice perhaps best seen as a form of student engagement. Whilst it is possible to argue that a student who makes their voice heard is engaged in some way, in this book we consider other ways in which students ‘speak’ to us; through their actions, through their participation, and even through their silence. Indeed, viewing student engagement as solely characterised by active and
- 32. 4 S. Lygo-Baker et al. observable participation is described as the ‘tyranny of participation’ by Gourlay (2015, p. 403). The Increasing Volume of the Student ‘Voice’ Articulation of students’ authority has been represented by the concept of the ‘voice’ that the students have found or perhaps been given. The concept of student ‘voice’ has a long history in the compulsory education sector (e.g. Kane Chimwayange, 2014; Quaglia Corso, 2014), where voice is conceptualised as: listening to and valuing the views that students express regarding their learn- ing experiences; communicating student views to people who are in a posi- tion to influence change; and treating students as equal partners in the evaluation of teaching and learning, thus empowering them to take a more active role in shaping or changing their education. (Seale, 2010, p. 995) In the wider sphere of educational research, attention to surfacing the voice of children represents the new sociology of childhood (l’Anson, 2013), and a response to critiques that children’s perspectives were often overlooked in research. For example, Fullan posed the question ‘what would happen if we treated the student as someone whose opinion mattered?’ (Fullan, 1991, p. 170). Paying attention to opinions as representing more than just points of data is central to this approach. Returning to the higher education context, whilst the definition of the student voice varies, the concept itself has surfaced across a range of locations. Policymakers with an interest in influencing the behaviour of those working with learners, as well as universities themselves, have become increasingly interested in a dialogue with the student voice. Stu- dents themselves have been drawn to use the term, developing conferences that run under the banner of the student voice (which began in 2014), and the concept is also integrated within researchers’ conceptual frameworks and resulting publications (Bishop, 2018; Brooman, Darwent, Pimor, 2015; Seale, 2016).
- 33. 1 The Single Voice Fallacy 5 The most common manifestations of the student voice can be seen through the canvassing of students’ opinions through metrics such as the National Student Survey (NSS) in the UK and the Course Experi- ence Questionnaire (CEQ) in Australia, institutional teaching evaluations, students’ contributions to programme design and revalidation, Student Union fora, staff-student liaison committees, and student-led teaching awards. Arguably, the main focus in higher education is on forms of voice carrying ‘external currency’ (Canning, 2017, p. 522), such as the NSS. Seale et al. (2015) raise the possibility of ‘voice fatigue’ (p. 548) as a result of students being inundated with requests to give voice to their experience. This raises the question of the rationale underpinning attempts to surface the student voice. Do we assume that students are not satisfied and feel ignored (Seale et al., 2015)? Or is there a sense of ‘ticking a box’ to show that students have been consulted in quality assurance and enhancement processes (McLeod, 2011)? Many quality assurance bodies such as the Quality Assurance Agency in the UK (QAA) and Professional Statutory and Regulatory Bodies make it a requirement for programmes to include students in quality enhancement and assurance activities (Bishop, 2018). Crucially, involving students more heavily in governance does not nec- essarily lead to greater democracy; in fact, it may serve to reinforce the consumer identity of students (Bishop, 2018). Seeking student input into validation and accreditation processes can, if taken in isolation, embody a ‘consumer panel’ model of student voice which reinforces the busi- ness/consumer roles of university and student, respectively (Canning, 2017). Cynically, this approach could be seen as more about serving the reputation of the institution than engaging student voices, merely repre- senting ‘a zeitgeist commitment to voice alongside a concern for client and stakeholder interests’ (Ruddock, 2006, p. 133). When these different approaches are examined, a potential dichotomy emerges.Whilst the emphasis has been upon the student ‘voice’, suggesting a singular and unified perspective, within these narratives there is often a recognition of the complexity that listening to particular perspectives may provide as issues around diversity and inclusion abound, suggesting the presence of multiple voices. As so often where complexity exists there is a tendency to attempt to simplify, with a view to being able to explain past responses and predict future actions. As Mayring (2007) argues,
- 34. 6 S. Lygo-Baker et al. observations and data are often undermined by overhasty generalisations that may miss the very learning they seek to promote. In this case, the loud- est or dominant ‘voice’ within a particular context can become the one that is repeated, to the point it appears unanimous and is used to inform responses. Whilst we know that the student voice is by nature diverse, and with the impact of globalisation arguably becoming even more so, there is potential that we take the ‘loudest’ perspective to be representative of all. However, researchers have argued that such an approach is flawed (Lincoln Guba, 1985) and that attempts to reduce complexity to create simplicity are problematic (l’Anson, 2013). Instead, we should recognise and take seriously the messiness that characterises the world around us (Law, 2004; Thrift, 2008). The Single Voice Fallacy Students do not speak with a single unified voice; a cursory examination of student evaluations demonstrates often wide fluctuations of opinion. As argued by McLeod (2011), ‘Any voice-based equity interventions need to be able to allow and respond to dissonance, to the likelihood of discordant voices and to all students not speaking as one’ (p. 187). Even if we were to accept that student voices are uniform, there is limited evidence that student feedback has a transformative impact on the evolution of higher education teaching practice. Despite our increased knowledge of how people learn, the sector remains somewhat wedded to lengthy lectures and examinations that privilege those who can recall through short-term regurgitation, retaining a focus on knowing and understanding rather than applying and creating. Why is this? The assumption remains that learners will become more engaged if they are able to participate in decisions about their learning. The movement to increase student involvement has led to different conceptualisations emerging. For some, it has been about students as partners in learning (Cook-Sather, Bovill, Felten, 2014), for others as change agents (Dunne Zandstra, 2011) and others as co-creators (Bovill, Cook-Sather, Felten, 2011). For teachers, this remains potentially problematic unless the learners are distilled to a singular voice, because pluralism creates
- 35. 1 The Single Voice Fallacy 7 potentially different learning directions and requests. Seale (2016) argues this has led to a shift away from a focus on a recognition of voices to more centralised initiatives that are more likely to work with a distilled version; in other words a singular funnelled voice. Cook-Sather (2006) identifies a potential negative aspect of student voice, the idea that this is ‘monolithic’ (p. 367), and Seale (2010) cautions that by adopting a unitary concept of the student ‘voice’, we rely on assumptions about what the dominant voice desires. So whilst there are increased suggestions that the student voice is lis- tened to through metrics such as the NSS and CEQ, student module evaluations, or staff-student committees, this remains somewhat limited and hides individual voices. It may be that a reduced perspective is advanta- geous to those developing policies, where the temptation to demonstrate compliance through engagement with the student voice may be over- whelming. The result, a sleight of hand that suggests different voices have an impact. However, evidence may suggest that these voices become con- densed and all that actually occurs is the distillation of a particular, often recognisable voice that is promoted and used for political ends by various stakeholders. As Parmenter (2017) recently suggested in the Washington Post, this leads to individual students merely being viewed as data points, losing their individual voice. As argued by McLeod (2011): In social research, the attitude to voice tends to take two main directions. First, there is a privileging and celebration of voice: voice is given to, and heard from, the excluded, the neglected, the ordinary…This celebratory mode, however, is countered by recognition of the ethical and epistemolog- ical dangers of speaking for, or on behalf of, others: this includes questions not only about the violence of speaking for others…but also about whose voice speaks loudest. (p. 183) This reminds us of the importance of not paying lip service to student voice work by assuming that if dominant voices have been heard then we have successfully and equitably engaged students’ voices in shaping academic work. Not only is the concept of student voice necessarily plural, many voices go unheard (Canning, 2017).
- 36. 8 S. Lygo-Baker et al. Engaging with Student Voices In this book, we examine the potential for engaging with student voices as a pluralistic but complex concept and consider how we may conceive of these differences as sources of insight into the student experience. The continuous process of change in higher education means that finding a singular voice of consensus, whilst appealing, is unlikely to be achievable. Even employing simple delineations that are often used to categorise learn- ers: school leavers, mature students, first generation, distance, or interna- tional suggests plurality is likely to exist. Within and across each simplified category, there are likely to be different perspectives and as a consequence attempts to communicate with a single voice may create a dialogue with only a particular group or section of a university within a particular cate- gory. A potential outcome of such approaches may be the further isolation of significant numbers of learners who lose their voice or are left unheard. Therefore, attempts to create apparent consensus reduce the pluralism that many have viewed as a core element of the university campus and experience, and in particular the development of a more diverse group of learners. A consequence may be that as institutions seek to maintain the status quo, they favour a particular voice whenever it is available and can be isolated. The result, a focus on the product of these engagements that provide a more grounded set of actions. These are increasingly established as Key Performance Indicators that can be measured and the impacts more easily defined as a response to the dominant voice: a ‘You said, we did’ approach. In a review of student voice initiatives in UK higher education, Seale (2010) criticises a tendency to focus not on the process of dialogue with students, but on the product of our engagements. We therefore need to understand how we engage with individual student voices before we are able to engage with the plurality of voices to appreciate how students experience and explain various aspects of higher education, not necessarily through consensus, but through variation. This book considers how to engage with the student voices that exist and continuetoemerge,providingareconceptualisationofthecurrentdebates. The book also seeks to build on this reconceptualisation, by exploring how
- 37. 1 The Single Voice Fallacy 9 to subsequently engage with the results of these conversations to bring a greater understanding of the student experience using the additional data and insight for those teaching and developing learning within institu- tions. It is important to consider ways that we may celebrate different perspectives, as opposed to a reductionist approach that leads, ironically, to greater fragmentation. On the one hand, institutions seek to engage with the student voice whilst at the same time acknowledging the need to recognise and engage with under-represented or vulnerable groups. This book seeks to initially isolate and recognise these as two different aspects that although linked are best separated for examination. By conflating the two, it may inadvertently have caused a focus on identified groups within the learning environment. As argued by McLeod (2011): To align voice with marginalized or under-represented groups is to further stigmatize such students – they are known and heard by their otherness: ‘traditional’ student groups are ‘normal’ and are not accorded a problematic voice; and it is also likely to diminish struggles for greater equity. (p. 187) Ultimately this may represent a lack of balance within the literature where the voices of the ‘privileged majority’ go unrecorded and unrecognised, except as an aggregated mass (e.g. through the NSS). The student voice, whilst being portrayed as a positive notion through which a dialogue is opened between different groups within an institution, may actually prevent or negate the voices of others being heard. The notion of an insti- tution engaging with a unified single voice that includes representation from different perspectives is appealing. However, the balance may not represent the body to which it purports to give voice. As such, there is an opportunity to examine the dilemma this represents within the notions of pluralism (student voices) and yet being aware of the consequent challenge to the notion of consensus (student voice). We consider ‘student voices’ as they emerge across a wide variety of contexts within the heterogeneous university environment. Within the current literature, there is a growing emphasis on the promotion of collaborative partnerships, with the student being the co-producer or pro- ducers (e.g. Cook-Sather et al., 2014). This is significant as one critique of student ‘voice’ is that students’ contributions to learning and teaching
- 38. 10 S. Lygo-Baker et al. processes are often limited to consultation, which arguably limits the agency students have to realise meaningful change (Bovill, Cook-Sather, Felten, Millard, Moore-Cherry, 2016). Engaging students as true partners, change agents, and co-creators moves the role and agency of students beyond mere consultation (Bishop, 2018). This highlights an important outcome of student voice work: true engagement with student voices comes not from what students have to say, but enabling action in response to their views. Seale (2010) argues that voice work should involve ‘hearing what students say and using what they say to make improvements’, where there is ‘an implicit emphasis on taking on board and valuing student views’ (p. 998). Taking this even further, we might place greater emphasis on students themselves leading these actions; the common ‘you said, we did’ mantra places students in a passive role where it is the institution that takes responsibility for action. Student agency requires the possibility that not only can students identify areas of change in the first place, they can also lead on endeavours to enact change. As argued by Dunne and Zandstra (2011): There is a subtle, but extremely important, difference between an institution that ‘listens’ to students and responds accordingly, and an institution that gives students the opportunity to explore areas that they believe to be sig- nificant, to recommend solutions and to bring about the required changes. (p. 4) For student voices to have an impact upon the actions of universities and to be heard, they have to refer to issues that already feature within the higher education discourse. Only by achieving this are they perceived to be of relevance and become recognisable. We have therefore sought to investigate student voices within the contexts provided by issues that are recognised and given value by universities (e.g. assessment feedback, technology-enhanced learning, research, etc.) and these are reflected in the foci of the separate chapters presented here. Woven through the varied chapters in this volume is a thread of dis- course seeking to look beyond ‘voices’ to consider what we can learn from student actions and inactions. Seale et al. (2015) raise the importance of considering how we interpret students’ silence. What can we learn from
- 39. 1 The Single Voice Fallacy 11 what students don’t say, or where they don’t feel able to express their views? Cook-Sather (2006), in a consideration of means through which we engage with student voices, argues that the most common approach is listening; the processes of watching students and reflecting upon their (in)actions are much rarer. She goes on to argue that: Usingtheterm“voice”torepresentarepositioningofstudentsineducational research and reform also runs the risk of denying the potential power of silence and resistance. Silence can be powerful – a withholding of assent, a political act. Silence can mean the voice is not speaking because it is not worthwhile or safe to speak. (Cook-Sather, 2006, p. 369) Students’actionsalsospeakasloudlyastheirvoices,anduniversitiesshould be open to learning from what students do, not only what they say. For example, what might on the surface appear to be minimal engagement with learning opportunities might be students trying to tell us that such opportunities are not appropriately timed or scheduled. Engaging with student voices requires paying equal attention to what students do and do not say, and what actions they do and do not take. As argued by Canning (2017), ‘voice needs to be understood more broadly than the expression of the spoken or written word. The unspoken voice, silence and the unconscious student voice need greater consideration’ (p. 529). Outline of the Book Part I: Engaging with Diverse Student Voices We begin the book by listening to the voice of a student. Engaging in depth with the experiences and perspectives of a single student powerfully illustrates the importance of recognising nuanced experience. We also use this student narrative as a lens through which to explore many of the other topics covered in this book. McLeod (2011, p. 186) reminds us that ‘One further virtue of taking student voice seriously is that it provides a reminder of the presence of embodied students, against the prevalence of abstract, disembodied equity categories that beset discussion of inequality and rep- resentation in education’. In this vein, we also bring to the fore in this
- 40. 12 S. Lygo-Baker et al. part some key considerations in embracing diversity and nuance of per- spective, including the experiences of international students, and a critical treatment of the ‘student-as-consumer’ voice. As a counterpoint, we also explore meaningful engagement with the voices of students as partners, and the role of oracy skills in students’ participation in voice work. Part II: From Voice to Voices: Engaging Student Voices Beyond Metrics One of the most prominent accounts of the singular student ‘voice’ in higher education comes from the surveys and metrics used to give account to the student experience. In fact, many of these processes that are com- monly framed under the auspices of the student voice in reality serve to reduce students to mere ‘data points’, where many of the nuances in their experiences are lost. The chapters in this part seek to position students as more than data points, exploring what can be learnt through alter- native, more meaningful ways of engaging with their experiences. The chapter focuses on different surveys and metrics: the NSS, the Postgradu- ate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) and Postgraduate Research Experi- ence Survey (PRES), and the Destination of Leavers of higher education survey (DLHE). Part III: Engaging Student Voices Across the Higher Education Experience In this part, we move to consideration of the value of engaging student voices as a way of understanding key events and challenges in the student journey. We focus on key milestones in the academic life cycle including the transition to university, the development of academic and informa- tion literacy skills, mental health and well-being, employability and work- based learning, and graduate attributes. Within these chapters, we observe different approaches to engaging student voices in higher education. In Chapter 10, we see how students’ voices can be used to support subse- quent cohorts during transition periods, and in Chapter 14, we witness the value of signalling-theory analysis in surfacing diverse perspectives.
- 41. 1 The Single Voice Fallacy 13 Part IV: The Influence of Student Voices on Academic Work As argued by Cook-Sather (2006), the expression of views is just one dimension of voice; agency and representation comes from having some control over how the results of these exchanges are enacted and developed. In this part, we consider how the voices of students can more meaning- fully contribute to research and development agendas. Many attempts to listen to the student ‘voice’ are actually less democratic and participatory than they might appear, because such expression of voice operates within constraints of rules and expectations, such as when students are ‘allowed’ to share their views, and in response to a set agenda (Canning, 2017). This represents what Foucault terms the ‘micro power’ systems constitut- ing the ‘dark side’ of what may appear to be egalitarian processes (1977, p. 222). For example, student evaluations of teaching are often limited to set survey questions, the responses to which are processed centrally and can be ‘sanitised’ by the time they reach the teaching staff who have the power to effect change (Canning, 2017). In this part, we explore alterna- tive approaches to the evaluation of teaching and also consider how the uncertainty that can arise through student voice work influences academic identity and values. We also consider how students’ perspectives can shape the relationship between academics’ research and teaching work. Conclusion In this book, it is not our intention to try and cover all relevant dimensions of student heterogeneity, nor to attempt to address all issues pertinent to homogenising student voices. Rather, we illustrate our premise through the lens of a series of challenges and topics that are at the forefront of policy and practice in higher education. The rhetoric of consumerism and marketisation in contemporary higher education need not prevent meaningful engagement with students, nor attempts to build genuine partnerships. Students do not all speak with the same voice, and higher education has much to gain from listening to and learning from students’ voices and actions.
- 42. 14 S. Lygo-Baker et al. References Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Bishop, D. C. (2018). More than just listening: The role of student voice in higher education, an academic perspective. IMPact: The University of Lincoln Journal of Higher Education Research, 1(1). Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P. (2011). Changing participants in ped- agogical planning; Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design and curricula. International Journal for Academic Development, 16 (2), 133–145. Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L., Moore-Cherry, N. (2016). Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Over- coming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student-staff partnerships. Higher Education, 71(2), 195–208. Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Brooman, S., Darwent, S., Pimor, A. (2015). The student voice in higher edu- cation curriculum design: Is there value in listening? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(6), 663–674. Canning, J. (2017). Conceptualising student voice in UK higher education: Four theoretical lenses. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(5), 519–531. Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educa- tional research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36 (4), 359–390. Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., Felten, P. (2014). Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley Sons. Dunne, E., Zandstra, R. (2011). Students as change agents: New ways of engag- ing with learning and teaching in higher education. Bristol: ESCalate Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Education/University of Exeter. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin. Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Gourlay, L. (2015). ‘Student engagement’ and the tyranny of participation.Teach- ing in Higher Education, 20(4), 402–411. Hobden, S., Wyn Jones, R. (2017). Marxist theories of international relations. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, P. Owens (Eds.), The globalization of world politics (pp. 129–143). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- 43. 1 The Single Voice Fallacy 15 Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its com- munities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56 (3), 303–324. Kane, R. G., Chimwayange, C. (2014). Teacher action research and student voice: Making sense of learning in secondary school. Action Research, 12(1), 52–77. l’Anson, J. (2013). Beyond the child’s voice: Towards an ethics for children’s participation rights. Global Studies of Childhood, 3(2), 104–114. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mayring, P. (2007). On generalization in qualitatively oriented research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 8(3), 1–8. McLeod, J. (2011). Student voice and the politics of listening in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 52(2), 179–189. Parmenter, J. (2017). What happened when i stopped viewing my students as data points. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer- sheet/wp/2017/10/11/teacher-what-happened-when-i-stopped-viewing-my- students-as-data-points/?noredirect=onutm_term=.5b3630addbf0. Quaglia, R. J., Corso, M. J. (2014). Student voice: The instrument of change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ruddock, J. (2006). The past, the papers and the project. Educational Review, 58(2), 131–143. Seale, J. (2010). Doing student voice work in higher education: An exploration of the value of participatory methods. British Educational Research Journal, 36 (6), 995–1015. Seale, J. (2016). How can we confidently judge the extent to which student voice in higher education has been genuinely amplified? A proposal for a new evaluation framework. Research Papers in Education, 31(2), 212–233. Seale, J., Gibson, S., Haynes, J., Potter, A. (2015). Power and resistance: Reflections on the rhetoric and reality of using participatory methods to promote student voice and engagement in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 39(4), 534–552. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
- 44. Part I Engaging with Diverse Student Voices
- 45. 2 Finding an Identity in the Crowd: A Single-Case Framed Narrative of Being in the Invisible Majority Ian M. Kinchin and Alexander M. Kinchin The search for a student voice has been dominated by methodologies that have typically sought to describe the ‘big picture first’ rather than investigating what goes on at the level of the individual. Typically, the activation of student voice has been achieved through un-targeted and large-scale questionnaires (such as the National Student Survey in the UK) which give a generalised overview, but may not represent the view of any particular or ‘average’ individual. At the same time, research into the nature of the student voice has often focussed on conferring representation and empowerment to under-represented, marginalised, or persecuted groups (e.g. McLeod, 2011).This has been undertaken with the aim of increasing equality and fairness across an increasingly diverse student body. In this context, it is understandable that much research has had the intention of levelling the higher education playing field and so has tended to focus on I. M. Kinchin (B) Department of Higher Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK e-mail: [email protected] A. M. Kinchin Brighton, Sussex, UK © The Author(s) 2019 S. Lygo-Baker et al. (eds.), Engaging Student Voices in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20824-0_2 19
- 46. 20 I. M. Kinchin and A. M. Kinchin groups such as ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ+ community, and widening participation students. However, the combined result of these approaches is that the diversity of views of those assumed to be within the ‘privileged majority’ has been relatively under-represented or under-explored. This case study seeks the view of a student from within this majority group who does not fit into any of the marginalised groups that currently receive particular attention, but whose personal identity does not fit with the idea of a dominant group or a privileged majority. The Value of the Individual There is a current trend within higher education to focus on large-scale sur- veys (such as the NSS) and analysis of ‘big data’ in order to identify trends that may inform policy. However, this is in danger of missing the detail that can only be found in personal stories (Hamshire et al., 2017). The value of analysing a single case is to offer the intensive study of the complexity presented by one individual. The richness of the data produced can be a valuable tool for the bottom-up generation of research questions and for identifying previously unnoticed phenomena of potential importance in order to develop theory inductively (Eisenhardt Graebner, 2007). The detailed analysis here of an individual provides the opportunity to look at a singular student voice in a way that demonstrates the dynamic inter- actions between constituent elements that form the messy world of the individual, rather than simply providing lists of attributes where connec- tions can only be inferred. Even when students are ‘informed’, ‘empow- ered’, and ‘academically literate’, they rarely inhabit a world of controlled experiments, abstracted variables, objective measurement of pre-defined outcomes, average results, or generalised truths. Rather, they live in an idiosyncratic and unpredictable world of a particular person in a partic- ular learning context without necessarily knowing where they fit into the overall landscape of their discipline at any given time. Location of the individual within the wider HE environment may be a positive outcome for the exploration of individual student voices.
- 47. 2 Finding an Identity in the Crowd … 21 The Method This chapter offers an analysis of the voice of a single student (Alexander) through guided reflections on the products of a concept map-mediated interview. The interview concentrated on four strategic areas that occupy prominent positions in the educational research literature: • The nature of the discourse on teaching and learning and whether this concentrates on the mechanisms and procedures of teaching (timetabling, assessments, feedback, etc.) or on the underpinning pedagogy (teacher expectations, professional values, student learning approaches, etc.). • The relationship between the pedagogy and the discipline and whether the programme offers an authentic insight into the discipline by relating theory and practice in a manner that reflects professional practice and not just ‘academic study practices’. • How the research within the department relates to the teaching in the department and how these links are exploited in teaching strategies and made explicit in the programme. • How the teaching is regulated and evaluated and what appreciation there is of the role of student voices in the decision-making processes of the institution. Accessing the links students make between key ideas offers a dual outcome. It provides a means to triangulate interpretations of the more superficial data gained by mass surveys. It also offers the possibility of stimulating reflection among students to promote more sophisticated conceptions of learning that help them move beyond the typical non-learning cycles that are promoted by strategic and surface approaches to learning (Kinchin, Lygo-Baker, Hay, 2008). The methodology mirrors that undertaken with university staff (e.g. Kinchin Francis, 2017; Kinchin Winstone, 2018) so that comparisons may be made between teacher and student perceptions. In addition, the process that has been developed to promote reflection among teachers in order to promote more sophisticated and more resilient approaches to teaching at university (Kinchin, 2017) may have a complementary role in developing metacognitive skills and learner
- 48. 22 I. M. Kinchin and A. M. Kinchin resilience. Whilst we have co-authored this chapter, Alexander is referred to as ‘he’ or ‘the student’ in the text for simplicity. The application of concept maps to frame the reflective narrative is a key element in the process that emphasises the dynamic relations between ideas whilst helping the mapper to identify links between elements that may not initially be apparent. As explained by Wilson, Mandich, and Magalhães (2015, p. 4): Concept mapping is a medium through which people come to understand more about an event and about themselves. This change of self, re-shapes the meaning of the phenomenon that is being studied, and offers the par- ticipants an opportunity to “re-see” the significance the experience and the mapping process offer them. Through this process of “re-seeing,” partici- pants develop an artistic expression of self-discovery (the concept map) and their voice resonates on both an individual and a social level. Heron, Medland, and Kinchin (2018) acknowledge that the talk that occurs during a map-mediated interview means that the maps are (to some extent) a co-construction that emerges from the dialogue about these ideas—though the interviewee (Alexander) has the final say about what is included and what is not. Within qualitative analyses of these maps, the emphasis is on their construction and interpretation by the participant, and the critical filter for inclusion in a map is the extent to which the participant judges it relevant to their own interpretation (Oancea, Florez- Petour, Atkinson, 2017). The concept maps are then used as a focus and a frame for the con- struction of an exploratory narrative by the student. Excerpts from the narrative are used as prompts and illustrations of incidents that are then critiqued and analysed with reference to the appropriate research literature so that in the narrative the ‘focus shifts from participants and events in the observed world to an abstracted issue in an academic world’ where the ‘writer assigns relevance to events beyond the field in which it took place to make them relevant in a given field of academic knowledge production’ as described by Hood (2015, p. 121). The in-depth study of an individual student in this way will demonstrate a richness and complexity to the voice that is not captured by more superficial, quantitative tools.
- 49. 2 Finding an Identity in the Crowd … 23 Personal Context Alexander studied Electrical and Electronic Engineering at a university on the South coast of England. Having dropped a grade in his A Levels, he undertook a foundation year before embarking upon the three-year B.Eng. programme. Those students who had to undertake a foundation year had to do so because they did not get the required grades at A Level to move straight into the 1st year. The reason for this was not that they had not encountered the appropriate content (in Alexander’s case, he had studied Physics and Mathematics at A Level), but they had not mastered the content or understood it sufficiently to get a higher grade. It would then seem reasonable to assume that the foundation year would provide innovative and engaging strategies and suggest active learning approaches to help the students gain a better understanding—as recommended in the research literature (e.g. Freeman et al., 2014). However, Alexander’s perception was that the content was simply repeated with the implicit assumption that a second exposure to the same content would yield a better result. Ironically, this is anecdotally referred to within STEM subjects as the definition of idiocy—‘doing the same thing again and expecting a different result’. Alexander recalls one lecturer stating ‘I don’t care if you pass or not, you’ve already paid your tuition fees’. For him, this summed up theuniversity’sattitudetothefoundationyear.Thewideningaccessagenda that is implicit within the use of a foundation year does not seem to extend to epistemological access to the discipline. Academics whose identity is not that of ‘teacher’ (judging by the comments referred to above by Alexander) may resent having to teach the foundation year group. Alexander spent his first year of study in a hall of residence on the campus and then shared a house with other students. The concept maps and developing narrative were formally collected during the final year of his programme. Teaching and Learning The concept map of teaching discourse (Fig. 2.1) suggests that the student is much more aware of the mechanistic instructional discourse (focussing on grading, timetabling, and examining) than on the values-laden
- 50. 24 I. M. Kinchin and A. M. Kinchin not explicitly linked to don’t talk about LATE IN THE COURSE eventually becomes obvious TEACHING STRATEGIES GRADING STRUCTURE M.E.Q.s WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON COURSEWORK TIMETABLING EXAMINING HOW TO STUDY LECTURERS are evaluated by give a ‘one-off’ lecture in 2nd year about do provide never discuss consists of Fig. 2.1 A concept map of the discourse of teaching and learning (MEQ Module Evaluation Questionnaire, a mechanism that allows students to rate the quality of their teachers) regulative discourse that might include teaching and learning strategies that would fit with the pedagogic culture of the department.The comment in the map that ‘how to study eventually becomes obvious late in the course’ suggests a trial and error approach to achieving alignment between teacher expectations and student actions—a teaching perspective that is somewhat at odds with the scientific, evidence-based approach that is embedded within the culture of the discipline (e.g. Borrego Henderson, 2014), but none-the-less an approach articulated by teachers of engineering (e.g. Behnejad, 2018). Whilst Alexander is aware that the lecturers are some- times formally observed in their teaching and that they may periodically be absent to attend a teaching course, the discourse of that professional development never permeates into classroom discussions. The pedagogy of the discipline is never openly discussed. Whilst there is recognition of the written feedback that is provided on coursework (Fig. 2.1), this is not placed within any broader conception of teaching. The feedback, therefore, appears to be disarticulated from the teaching. If the assumptions and theories that are guiding the disciplinary teachingapproachhavenotbeenarticulated,thenitrequiresaconsiderable conceptual leap for the student to know how to act on feedback to support further learning. The issue of recipience of feedback has been highlighted by Winstone, Nash, Rowntree, and Parker (2017) as an issue that needs
- 51. 2 Finding an Identity in the Crowd … 25 includes practical work in MODULES LABS LECTURES REAL WORLD EXAMPLES “DO STUFF” EXPERIMENTAL SKILLS DATA MANIPULATION SOFTWARE HARDWARE are often introduced with are structured with can link with do not always relate well with are often more ‘basic than’ help us use help develop help with provide an opportunity to Fig. 2.2 A concept map relating the pedagogy of the discipline with the practice of the discipline to be addressed across the sector, and so it is no surprise that it should surface within this single case. Pedagogy and the Discipline The pedagogy of the discipline is made explicit through the actions of the lecturers and the structure of the programme. The centrality of ‘labs’ in the concept map in Fig. 2.2 highlights their perceived importance and the amount of time spent on them. It is also here that links are made with ‘real world examples’ and with the skills that will be needed in the world of work. However, Alexander comments that the relationship between ele- ments of the curriculum is not obvious: ‘Sometimes the labs don’t rely on information from the lectures. At other times they are totally dependent upon you having attended a particular lecture to know what’s going on. There’s no regular pattern’. From this, it is not clear if the conceptual and contextual forms of knowledge that are a feature of engineering curricula are made explicit to the student to support
- 52. 26 I. M. Kinchin and A. M. Kinchin any kind of knowledge synthesis (Wolff Luckett, 2013). If not, then the relationship between lectures and labs may not be apparent (Fig. 2.2). There is no mention of ‘talk’ within the map, and Alexander reflected that, ‘seminars are mostly repetition of key points from the lecture or working through problem sheets with a postgrad ’. The opportunity for students to use the language of the discipline does not appear to be a priority, even thoughengineeringhasbeendescribedasanintenselyoralculture(Darling Dannels, 2003). This raises questions about the authenticity of the curriculum and the mixed messages about relating to real-world problems, but not necessarily adopting real-world approaches. The pervasive discourse on employability in higher education (e.g. Yorke, 2004) places a focus on the student as potential worker (see Chapter 8) and is expressed through the terminology of graduate attributes (e.g. Oliver de St. Jorre, 2018): particular sets of employability skills developed by institutions and embedded in curricula (see Chapter 14). These focus firmly on students’ future identity as workers, rather than their current identity as students (Daniels Brooker, 2014). However, the assumed connection between undergraduate studies and eventual employment are not universally applicable. Alexander reflects: ‘Whilst I did enjoy some of the modules, I decided fairly early on in the course that I didn’t want to pursue a career in engineering. So all the talk of work placements and the like was all a bit of a turn-off for me’. This seems to place Alexander in the 10% of students who prefer a ‘here- and-now’ disciplinary focus to their time at university rather than a ‘dis- tant’ employment focus (O’Leary, 2017). Ironically, Alexander’s engage- ment with the extra-curricular life on campus (arranging activities and acting as treasurer for a student society and working with the local ‘table- top gaming community’) probably enhanced his employability skills to a greater extent than anything that was ‘provided’ within the bounds of the degree programme—perhaps because these were seen by him as authentic activities rather than contrived simulations related to abstract problems.
- 53. 2 Finding an Identity in the Crowd … 27 is mentioned in some RESEARCH IN THE DEPARTMENT INTERNATIONALLY RESEARCH ASSISTANT POSITIONS HIGH-FLYING STUDENTS LECTURES “IN PASSING” UNDERGRADUATES THE SYLLABUS is respected is highlighted by adverts for targeting but only focus on told to focus on and not core to not really targeted at Fig. 2.3 A concept map of the research-teaching nexus Research and Teaching The outward-facing view of research at the university and the internal- facing view seem to be very different. Whilst the student is aware of the international reputation of the institution, he feels that this is not really targeted at him, other than through occasional passing reference in a lecture (Fig. 2.3). The research-teaching nexus is a contested concept in which there are numerous perspectives operating within any given institution that vary according to discipline, job role, motivation, and so on (Hosein, 2017). Some of these perspectives view the teaching environment as research-rich, in which research activities and teaching activities are mutually beneficial, whilst others may perceive their professional environment as research- drained—where resources are diverted towards research to the detriment of the teaching environment. The student perspective of the research- teaching nexus has rarely been investigated. Where it has (e.g. Kandiko Kinchin, 2013), it can be seen that some students will have a negative opinion of the value of research to their own taught programmes. Where research seen by academics as a product (such as research outputs for the REF) rather than as a process that helps to develop disciplinary ways
- 54. 28 I. M. Kinchin and A. M. Kinchin of thinking, then student access will be reduced to passing reference to research within lectures (Fig. 2.3), or as job adverts aimed at the high-flying elite. Regulation and Evaluation The management of learning seems to be a fairly opaque subject for the student (Fig. 2.4)—‘I am not sure who is in charge now as the management keeps changing’. In addition, the student has the perception that teach- ing is not a priority for either the university or the student union. The union’s perceived focus on politics and on marginalised minorities seems to reflect comments in the literature about working to ‘level the playing field’ (McLeod, 2011). But as the union does not explicitly focus on the student’s own cultural identifiers, he essentially feels part of a community that is marginalised by the establishment. The lines between ‘the majority’ and ‘minorities’ start to become quite blurred as the student’s individual identity starts to intersect the boundaries of several communities across the campus—the engineering community, the metal community, the gaming community, etc. The unbalanced structure of the map morphology in Fig. 2.4 is partic- ularly marked in comparison with the previous three maps and suggests an uneven view of the topic (Buhmann Kingsbury, 2015). In this case, the external management and internal self-regulation of learning are only considered as marginal components of the learning environment, and this omission might be construed as an indicator of potential problems ahead (or ‘pre-frailty’ in the connection between the student’s identity as a learner and the university’s homogenised view of students) resulting from a mismatch between personal and institutional expectations (Kinchin Winstone, 2017). A Metal Identity For students who do not yet feel part of the engineering community, the academic environment can feel like a ‘chilly climate’ (Marra, Rodgers,
- 55. Exploring the Variety of Random Documents with Different Content
- 59. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Illustrated Index of British Shells
- 60. This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. Title: Illustrated Index of British Shells Author: G. B. Sowerby Release date: July 26, 2013 [eBook #43305] Most recently updated: October 23, 2024 Language: English Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Keith Edkins and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) *** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ILLUSTRATED INDEX OF BRITISH SHELLS ***
- 61. ILLUSTRATED INDEX OF BRITISH SHELLS. CONTAINING FIGURES OF ALL THE RECENT SPECIES, With Names and other Information. BY G. B. SOWERBY, F.L.S. LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO., PATERNOSTER ROW AND THE AUTHOR, 9, PEMBROKE SQUARE, KENSINGTON. 1859. PREFACE.
- 62. The first idea of this Work arose from the occasional use of Mr. Damon's 'Catalogue of the Shells of Great Britain and Ireland,' named after the 'History of British Mollusca,' etc. Here was, on one side, a very useful list of names, without figures or references to guide an inquirer to the species; and on the other, a very large and splendid Work, placed by its heavy price beyond the reach of Naturalists in general. There was nothing between the two; nothing within reach that would assist collectors of British Shells to name their acquisitions from ocean, beach, river, pond, or hedgerow. A public want seemed here to be discovered. It was thought that a list like the above, with a coloured drawing of every species, if produced at an available price, would supply that want. At first no more than this was thought of, but afterwards, as the preparations advanced, various suggestions were made tending to some extension of the plan. The results are here presented. About 700 Figures in the Plates represent all the recognized species. They amount to 600, being 60 more than are admitted in the latest monograph. The greater part of these are either new or newly introduced as British. The rest are raised from varieties to species. As the nomenclature used by Messrs. Forbes and Hanley in their great Work will be most generally adopted in this country, it is followed here with very few alterations; and the synonyms given (in italics) are selected from those which are most familiar and likely to be met with. Some information is added respecting habits and localities, range of depth of marine species, and comparative abundance. The letters C., Cc., Mc., R., Rr., and Mr., signifying 'common,' 'extremely common,' 'moderately common,' 'rare,' etc., must be taken with great caution, especially the latter, as subject to continual change. A list is given of British Fossil Shells identical with now living species. A familiar description of British Mollusca and some peculiarities in their families and genera will, it is hoped, form a useful and suitable
- 63. introduction to the names and figures. The Author's best thanks are due to his friends, Madame De Burgh, who has collected many beautiful shells; R. M‘Andrew, Esq., F.L.S., whose dredging experiences are so extensive; J. G. Jeffreys, Esq., F.R.S., etc., whose researches have resulted in so many additions to our Fauna; Mr. Brice Wright, the Naturalist, of Great Russell Street, and others, who have in the most liberal manner supplied him with specimens from which his drawings are taken. The loan of delicate and minute shells to authors and artists has so often proved disastrous, that nothing but a generous friendship, and a zealous love of Natural History, could have induced proprietors so freely to incur the risk. INTRODUCTION TO SHELL-BEARING BRITISH MOLLUSCA. A common garden Snail, observed crawling and feeding, is easily seen to possess a distinct head, upon which are four feelers or horns, with eyes at the end, and underneath which is a mouth; a broad disc, extending the whole length of the body, is the organ of locomotion; a spiral or coiled shell surmounts the whole. If, on the other hand, an Oyster be opened, no distinct head, or place for eyes or mouth, can be seen, but only a seeming mass of pulp, with a round gristle in the centre (the muscle of attachment), the former enclosed in a soft skin with a double fringe round the edge (mantle), placed within a shell composed of two pieces. All Mollusca are more or less completely represented by these two. The Snail and its class are named Gasteropoda (abdomen-creeping), and their shells Univalves; the Oyster and its class, Acephala
- 64. (headless), and their shells Bivalves. We begin with the latter class at— Plate I. Pholadidæ, or Borers, 1-13, have the power of piercing and inhabiting holes in submarine wood, rocks, and stones. The hinder part of the body is lengthened out in the form of a double tube, with openings for the ingress and egress of fluids. Teredo, 1-6, has short valves, two pallets fixed at the sides of the siphons, and lines its hole with a shelly tube. Pholas and Pholadidea, 8-13, have long valves and sometimes accessory plates. The shell of Xylophaga, 7, is like that of Teredo, but the animal has neither pallets nor tube. Gastrochæna, 14, has a gaping shell, and encloses itself in a bottle- shaped covering of cemented stones and sand. Saxicava, 15, 16, Venerupis, 18, and Petricola, 17, burrow in sand, or live in holes of rocks. Myadæ, or Gapers, Mya, 19, 20, and Panopæa, 21, 21*, burrow downwards in sand and mud, their siphons protected by a coriaceous covering. Their shells are not closed all round, and those of Mya have a spoon-shaped process in the hinge of one valve. Corbulidæ, 22-28, have short siphons with fringed edges, and the foot protrudes through a hole in the otherwise closed mantle. Plate II. Poromya, 1, 1*, and the beautiful pearly Pandora, 2, 3, might be included in the family of Corbulidæ. Lyonsia, 4, and Thracia, 5-10, represent the Anatinidæ. 11-18 are Solenidæ, or Razor-shells. Solens burrow in deep holes in the sand, where they remain in a perpendicular position at a great depth below the surface, where yet their presence may be traced by the opening left. Their large
- 65. muscular foot enables them to take great leaps when out of the holes. Plate III. Psammobia, 1-4, and Tellina, 5-16, include some of our most beautiful shells. The animals have a large, fleshy, curved foot, and the mantle open and fringed. Their shells are provided with an external ligament, and teeth on the hinge. Donax, or Wedge, 19, 20, has long, separated, fringed siphons. Besides the small external ligament, properly so called, the Mactridæ have a triangular pit in the hinge of their shell, containing an elastic substance or spring, designed to resist the action of the adductor muscles. Mactra, 21-26, ends the Plate. Plate IV. Lutraria, 1-3, is another genus of Mactridæ. The Veneridæ, 4-16 and 23, or Venus tribe, differ from it in not having the spring-holding pit. Artemis, 10, 11, is known by a large angular bend in the pallial impression; and Cytherea, 23, is distinguished from Venus by one tooth on the hinge standing out a little way from the central ones. Astarte, 17-22, belongs to the Cyprinidæ. Plate V. Fig. 1-3 also represent genera of Cyprinidæ. They have no bend in the palleal impression. Cardium, or Cockle, 4-13, presents a peculiarity in the foot, which is large and bent, and enables the animal to leap in a very lively manner. The family of Lucinidæ occupy the remaining figures. Lucina has a curious tongue-shaped doubling of the pallial impression. Plate VI.
- 66. The Kelliadæ, 1-15, are marine, while the Cycladidæ, completing the Plate, are fresh-water bivalves, and may be found in many ponds and rivers. Plate VII. Of the Unionidæ, or Fresh-water Mussels, Unio, 1-3, has teeth on the hinge, and Anodon, 4, has not: it is a thin shell. The foot of these molluscs is very large, and is used in cutting the animal's way through the mud in which it burrows. Of the marine, or true Mussels, Modiola, 6-9, and Crenella, 12-17, have a portion of the shell reaching beyond the point or apex, which in Mytilus is terminal, 18- 21. Dreissina, 5, is shaped like Mytilus, but lives in fresh-water docks. The Mytilidæ attach themselves by means of horny threads spun from the foot, and called a byssus. Plate VIII. Shells of Arcadæ, 1-14, have the hinge characterized by a series of teeth on each side of the apex. Nucula, Arca, and Pectunculus are easily distinguished. Limopsis, 14, has a spring pit between the two rows. Our figure of Pinna, 16, is from a young specimen: it grows to great size, and spins a very silky byssus. The shell of Anomia, 18, is fixed to rocks, etc., by means of a bony button passing through a hole or sinus in the lower valve. Lima, 22-24, has a light, thin shell, and its mantle is adorned with beautiful fringes. It swims rapidly through the water by the opening and shutting of its valves, and also has the habit, in seasons of rest, of protecting itself by a network or vest of marine fragments strung together by its byssal threads. Plate IX. Contains the shells of our Pectens, or Scallops, 1-16. The animals swim like Lima, as above, and also spin a byssus.
- 67. The class Brachiopoda, 17-24, so named because what seem to be organs of locomotion consist of a pair of coiled, ciliated arms, ends the list of Headless Molluscs and their bivalve shells. Plate X. Class Pteropoda, 1-4, contains minute Mollusca, with glassy shells variously formed, and wing-like expansions for swimming. Chiton, 5-17, or Coat of Mail, which may often be seen incrusting rocks, commences the Gasteropoda; although seemingly fixed, they are capable of locomotion, using the whole of the oval disc, which may be seen on turning them over, for the purpose. The same may be said of the Limpet tribe, Patella, 1-22. Plate XI. This Plate commences with other forms of the Limpet tribe, Fissurella, 1, 2, with a hole at the top; Puncturella, 3, with a fissure near the top; and Emarginula, 4-6, with a slit at the margin. Haliotis, 7, or pearly Ear-shell, leads to the Trochidæ, or Tops, 8-27. Plate XII. Ianthina, 1-4, is genus of oceanic molluscs, which are provided with a beautiful floating apparatus, on which the female carries her egg- bags. Neritina, 5, and the Paludinidæ, 8-11, live in fresh-water. The animal of Paludina is sprinkled all over with bright, golden specks. The Littorinæ, or Winkles, 12-24, are marine, and frequent the shore among seaweeds. Lacuna, 25-32, belongs to the same family. Plate XIII., XIV.
- 68. Are small genera, various in their characters and habits, but reasonably included in the last family, Littorinidæ. Plate XV. The animals of Turritella, 1-3, and Cæcum, 6, 7, are not unlike, although the shells are so different; eyes at the base of the tentacles, a short foot, and horny operculum. The somewhat similar animal of Aporrhais, 4, 5, is brilliantly coloured with gold and red. Cerithium, 8-10, differs from Cerithiopsis, 11-15, more in regard to the animal than the shell; the latter animal has a retractile proboscis, and its operculum is not spiral. Plate XVI. Chemnitzia, 1-11, and Truncatella, 12, together with Stylifer, Eulima, and Odostomia, form the family of Pyramidellidæ. Notwithstanding the difference in the shells, the animals are very similar, having a retractile proboscis, and eyes immersed at the base of their tentacles. The animal of Natica, 13-19, has a lobe on the upper part of the foot, reflected over the shell in front, and another lobe behind. The shells of Laminaria, 23, 24, are completely enveloped in similar lobes. Plate XVII. The shells of Odostomia are known by a fold in the inner lip of the aperture. Plate XVIII. Two Tritons, 1, 2, are admitted for the first time as British, on what we consider fair evidence, although only two or three specimens
- 69. have been taken off Guernsey. One of T. nodiferus was incrusted by a truly British Lepralia. Murex, 3, is now familiar as an aquarian, as well as Purpura, 5. A milky secretion found in the head turns purple when exposed, and gives the celebrated purple dye. Buccinum, 7-13, includes the common Whelk, 8. Fusus Berniciensis, 14, is among the rarest and most beautiful of our British shells. Plate XIX. Nassa reticulata, 3, is a favourite inhabitant of the tank; it burrows in search of food among the pebbles, elevating its siphon above the surface. Mangelia, 4-26, has a similar long siphon. The shell of Erato, 27, is wrapped in the lobes of the animal's mantle, as is also that of Cyprea, 28, the latter presenting a beautiful object. Plate XX. After Tornatella, 1, and Ovula, 2, 3, come Bullidæ, 4-27, including several genera differing remarkably in the shape and disposition of the lobes of their mantles, which in some instances, as in Philine, 20-25, cover the shell. The stomach of Scapander, 26, 27, is a remarkable kind of mill, composed of two bones, between which the food is ground. The shells of Aplysia, 28, and Pleurotranchus, 29, 30, are quite internal. Spirula, 31, belonging to the Cephalopodous or Cuttlefish tribe, is only introduced doubtfully, as there is no proof of the species living in our seas. Plate XXI., XXII., XXIII., XXIV. These are occupied by shells of Gasteropoda pulmonifera, so named because they breathe air by a pulmonary cavity, instead of water by gills. The Limnæadæ, or fresh-water Snails, contained in Plate I., live in water, but breathe by exposing the pulmonary cavity to air at the surface. Succinea, Plate XXII., 1-3, lives by the sides of streams, sometimes immersed. Conovulus, 4-7, affects brackish marshes. Our
- 70. common Slugs yield, on dissection, thin shells, which are concealed beneath the mantle, Limax, 9-12. The shells of Testacellus, 13, 14, are fixed near the end of the foot, outside. The glassy shells of Vitrina, 15, 16, do not enclose the whole Slug-like animal. The other genera of Land Snails have shells large enough to receive the animal when retracted and withdrawn for repose. BRITISH FOSSIL SHELLS. The following living species are also found in a fossil state in drift and strata of the British Isles. They are all enumerated in Mr. Searles Wood's monograph of the Crag Mollusca. The numbers refer to the species as figured in our Plates, Mr. Wood's nomenclature being inserted in italics when differing from ours. Pl. I. Teredo 2. Pholas 11. Pholadidea 12. Gastrochæna 14, as dubia. Saxicava 15, 16. Venerupis 18. Mya 19, 20. Panopea 21, 21*, as Faujasii. Corbula 22, 23? Sphænia 25. Neæra 27. Pl. II. Poromya 1. Pandora 2, as inæquivalvis, 3, as pinna. Thracia 7, 8. Solen, 13, 15. Solecurtus 18, as Mactra strigilata. Syndosmya, as Abra, 19, 22. Pl. III. Psammobia 1, 3, 4. Tellina 5, 6, 7, 9, as ovata, 15, as Balthica, 16. Scrobicularia 18, as Trigonella plana. Donax 19, as vittatus. Mactra 20, 21, 22, as ovalis, 23, 25, 26. Pl. IV. Lutraria 2. Tapes 7, 8. Artemis 11. Venus 12, 14, 15, 17. Astarte 18, 19, 20, 22, as borealis. Pl. V. Cyprina 1. Circe 2. Isocardia 3. Cardium 6, 8, 9, 12, 13. Lucina 14, as Loripes, 15, as Cryptodon flexuosum, 16. Diplodonta 19. Clausina 20, as Cryptodon f.
- 71. Pl. VI. Montacuta 1, 2, 3. Kellia 5, 6. Poronia 7, as Kellia r. Cyclas 16, 18. Pisidium 23, 24, 25, 26. Pl. VII. Unio 2, 3. Anodon 4. Modiola 6, 9, 10. Crenella 13, 14, 15, 16. Mytilus 18, 19, 20. Pl. VIII. Nucula 1, 5. Leda 6, 7. Area 9, 10, 11, as pectunculoides. Pectunculus 13. Avicula 15. Pinna 16. Ostrea 17. Anomia 18, 19, 20, 21. Lima 22, 23, 24. Pl. IX. Pecten 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Pl. X. Chiton 7, as fascicularis. Patella 18. Acme 23. Propilidium, as Tectura, 24. Dentalium 26, 27. Capulus 28. Calyptræa 29. Pl. XI. Fissurella 1, as græca. Puncturella 3. Emarginula 5, 6. Trochus 8, 10, 11, 12, as papillosus, 15, 16, 17, 19. Margarita 21. Adeorbis 25. Scissurella 26. Pl. XII. Paludina 9. Valvata 10. Littorina 14. Lacuna 27. Pl. XIII. Rissoa 3*, as Paludestrina subumbilicata, 7, 11?, 13?, 15, 23, 27. Pl. XIV. Rissoa 2, 9, as Chemnitzia. Aclis 24, as Alvania ascaris, 25, as Chemnitzia n. Pl. XV. Turritella 2. Aporrhais 4. Cæcum 6, 7. Cerithium 9, 10. Cerithiopsis, as Cerithium, 11. Scalaria 17, 19, 20. Eulima 22, 25. Pl. XVI. Chemnitzia 1, 2, as similis, 4, 8. Natica 13, 17, as Catena, 19, as Grœnlandica. Velutina 21. Trichotropis 26. Pl. XVII. Odostomia 1, 8, as plicata, 9, as plicata, 10?, 12. Pl. XVIII. Purpura 5. Buccinum 10? Fusus 15, as Trophon, 16, as Tr., 17, as Tr. gracile, 18, as Tr. T., 19, as Tr. p. Trophon 22, 24.
- 72. Pl. XIX. Nassa 1, 2. Mangelia, as Clavatula, 4, 5, 8, as Philberti, 9, 11, as Boothii, 12, 14, 15, 17?, 21, 22. Erato 27. Cypræa 28. Pl. XX. Tornatella 1, as Actæon tornatilis. Ovula 3, as Bulla. Cylichna, as Bulla, 4, 5, as regulbiensis, 7, 9, 12. Bulla 19. Philine as Bullæa, 21, 22. Scaphander, as Bulla, 26. Pl. XXI. Limnæa 1, 4, 7, 11. Planorbis 18, 24, as complanatus, and in the upper fresh-water formation, all except 9, 11. Pl. XXII. Succinea 1, 3. Conovulus 5, and in the more recent fresh- water deposits, all except 7 and 13 to 16. Pl. XXIII. Helix 19, 22, and upper fresh-water, all except 1, 12, 14, 15, 24, 25, 26. Pl. XXIV. Upper fresh-water deposits, all except 16, 24. INDEX TO THE GENERA. Referring to Plates and Figures. Achatina, XXIV. 24. Aclis, XIV. 23, 25. Acmæa, X. 22, 23. Acme, XXIV. 26. Adeorbis, XI. 25. Akera, XX. 16. Amphispira, XX. 14, 15. Ancylus, XXI. 14-17. Anodonta, VII. 4. Anomia, VIII. 18-21. Aplysia, XX. 28. Aporrhais, XV. 4, 5. Arca, VIII. 18-12.
- 73. Argiope, IX. 20, 23. Artemis, IV. 10, 11. Assiminea, XIII. 1, 2. Astarte, IV. 17, 22. Avicula, VIII. 15. Azeca, XXIV. 23. Balea, XXIV. 17. Barleeia, XIV. 12. Bithinea, XII. 6, 7. Buccinum, XVIII. 8-13. Bulla, XX. 17-19. Bulimus, XXIV. 1-4. Calyptræa, X. 29. Capulus, Pileopsis. Cardium, V. 4-13. Carychium, XXII. 8. Cæcum, XV. 6-7. Cemoria, Puncturella. Ceratisolen, II. 11. Cerithiopsis, XV. 11-15. Cerithium, XV. 8-10. Chemnitzia, XVI. 1-11. Chiton, X. 5-17. Circe, V. 2. Clavatula, Mangelia. Clausilia, XXIV. 18-21. Clausina, V. 20-22. Cochlodesma, II. 10. Conovulus, XXII. 4-7. Corbula, I. 22-24. Crania, IX. 24. Crenella, VII. 12-17. Cyclostoma, XXIV. 25. Cyclas, VI. 16-20.
- 74. Cylichna, XX. 4-13. Cypræa, XIX. 28. Cyprina, V. 1. Cytherea, IV. 23. Dentalium, X. 26, 27. Diodonta, II. 16, 16*. Diplodonta, V. 19. Donax, III. 19, 20. Dreissina, VII. 5. Emarginula, XI. 4-6. Euomphalus, XIV. 17, 18. Ervillia, III. 17. Eulima, XV. 22-26. Eulimella, XIV. 26-30. Fissurella, XI. 1, 2. Fusus, XVIII. 14-19. Galeomma, VI. 14, 15. Gastrochæna, I. 14. Haliotis, XI. 7. Helix (Zonites), XXII. 17-29. Helix, XXIII. 1-29. Hinnites, Pecten, IX. 1. Hippothyris, IX. 17. Hyalæa, X. 1. Ianthina, XII. 1-4. Isocardia, V. 3. Jeffreysia, XIV. 13-16. Kellia, VI. 5-8.
- 75. Lachesis, XVIII. 6. Lacuna, XII. 25-32. Lamellaria, XVI. 23, 24. Leda, VIII. 6, 7. Lepton, VI. 9-13. Lima, VIII. 22-24. Limax, XXII. 9-12. Limnæa, XXI. 1-11. Limopsis, VIII. 14. Littorina, XII. 12-24. Lucina, V. 14-18. Lucinopsis, IV. 9. Lutraria, IV. 1-3. Lyonsia, II. 4. Mactra, III. 21-26. Mangelia, XIX. 4-26. Margarita, XI. 21-24. Marginella, Erato. Megathyris, Argiope. Modiola, VII. 6-11. Montacuta, VI. 1-3. Murex, XVIII. 3, 4. Mya, I. 19-20. Mytilus, VII. 18-21. Nassa, XIX. 1-3. Natica, XVI. 13-19. Neæra, I. 26-28. Neritina, XII. 5. Nucula, VIII. 1-5. Odostomia, XVII. 1-31. Ostrea, VIII. 17. Otina, XVI. 25. Ovula, XX. 2, 3.
- 76. Paludina, XII. 8, 9. Pandora, II. 2, 3. Panopæa, I. 21, 21*. Patella, X. 18-21. Pecten, IX. 1-16. Pectunculus, VIII. 13. Petricola, I. 17. Phasianella, XI. 27. Philine, XX. 20-25. Pholas, I. 8-11, 13. Pholadidea, I. 12. Physa, XXI. 12, 13. Pileopsis, X. 28. Pilidium, X. 24. Pinna, VIII. 16. Pisidium, VI. 21-28. Planorbis, XXI. 18-28. Pleurobranchus, XX. 29. Pleurotoma, Mangelia. Poromya, II. 1, 1*, IX. Propilidium, X. 25. Psammobia, III. 1-4. Puncturella, XI. 3. Pupa, XXIV. 5-16. Purpura, XVIII. 5. Recluzia, XVI. 20. Rissoa, XIII. 3-28; XIV. Saxicava, I. 15, 16. Scalaria, XV. 16-20. Scaphander, XX. 26, 27. Scrobicularia, III. 18. Scissurella, XI. 26. Segmentina, Planorbis, XXI. 27, 28. Skenea, XIV. 19-22.
- 77. Solen, II. 12-15. Solecurtus, II. 17, 18. Spirialis, X. 2-4. Spirula, XX. 31. Stylifer, XV. 21. Succinea, XXII. 1-3. Syndosmya, II. 19-22. Sphænia, I. 25. Tapes, IV. 4-8. Tellina, III. 5-16. Terebratula, IX. 18-20. Teredo, I. 1-6. Testacellus, XXII. 13, 14. Thracia, II. 5-9. Tornatella, XX. 1. Trichotropis, XVI. 26. Triton, XVIII. 1, 2. Trochus, XI. 8-20. Trophon, XVIII. 20-24. Truncatella, XVI. 12. Turritella, XV. 1-3. Turtonia, VI. 4. Unio, VII. 1-3. Valvata, XII. 10, 11. Velutina, XVI. 21, 22. Venerupis, I. 18. Venus, IV. 12-16. Vertigo, Pupa. Vitrina, XXII. 15-16. Xylophaga, I. 7. Zonites, XXII. 17-29.
- 78. Zua, XXIV. 22. PLATE I. Teredo. Pierces and inhabits wood. Fig. 1. T. navalis, Linn.—T. Batavæ.—Herne Bay, R. Pallets shelly, crescented; valves with auricles extended sidewise; tube long. 2. T. norvegica, Spengl.—T. Bruguieri.—Port Patrick, Teignmouth, etc., Mc. Pallets shelly, not crescented; auricles not extended.
- 79. 3. T. megotara, Hanl.—T. nana (young).—Herne Bay, Devon, Swansea, etc., R. Pallets shelly, spade-shaped; auricles raised and expanded. 4. T. bipennata, Turt.—Ireland, Scarborough, etc., R. Pallets horny, long; auricles lobed. 5. T. malleolus, Turt.—Torquay, Rr. Pallets shelly, mallet-shaped; valves narrow. 6. T. palmulata, Lamk.—T. bipalmulata.—Floating wood, Ire., S. Eng. Pallets horny, short; valves small, shaped like T. navalis. Xylophaga. In fixed and floating timber. 7. X. dorsalis, Turt.—Ayrs., Dubl., Exm., Scarb., etc., C. Two dorsal plates, no tube, no pallets. Pholas. Pierces and inhabits stone. 8. P. Dactylus, Linn.—P. hians, P. callosa.—Eng., Scot., Ire., C. Dorsal plates four; hinge pitted. 9. P. candida, Linn.—Eng., Scot., Ire., C. One dorsal plate; valves not beaked. 10. P. parva, Penn.—P. callosa, P. tuberculata.—Salcombe, Belfast, Cornwall, etc., M. C. One dorsal plate; valves beaked. 11. P. crispata, Linn.—P. bifrons.—Hastings, Liverp., Scarb., Dubl., Forth, etc., C. No dorsal plate; valves broad, beaked, with oblique division. 13. P. striata. Rare and doubtful as British. Valves closed. Pholadidea. Pierces and inhabits stone.
- 80. 12. P. papyracea, P. Loscombiana, P. Goodalli.—S. Devon, N. Ire., R. Valves closed, with a cup. P. lamellata, Turt., when young, not closed; no cup. Gastrochæna. Bores and inhabits stone, thick shells, etc. 14. G. modiolina, Lamk.—G. Pholadia, G. hians, Mya dubia, Mytilus ambiguus, Pholas faba.—Torbay, Birterbuy, Galway, Weymouth, etc. Valves thin, gaping, enclosed in bottle-shaped tube. Saxicava. Bores and inhabits stone. 15. S. rugosa, Linn.—Mytilus r., Hiatella r., S. gallicana, S. pholadis, Byssomya pholadis, Mya byssifera.—Eng., Scot., Ire., C. Valves oval. 16. S. arctica, Linn.—(Mya) Hiatella a., Anatina a., Hiatella minuta, Solen minutus, S. rhomboides, Agina purpurea, Solen p.—Eng., Scot., Ire., C. Valves rhomboidal; angle serrated. Omitted.—S. fragilis, Nyst. Not the young of S. rugosa. Vigo Bay. Petricola. Inhabits stone. 17. P. lithophaga, Retz.—P. striata, costellata, rocellaria, ruperella, Lamk., Mya and Sphænia decussata.—Cork, Bristol, R. as British. Venerupis. Bores and inhabits stone. 18. V. Irus, Linn. (Donax).—Tellina cornubiensis, Cuneus foliaceus, Petric., and Pullastra, I.—In limestone at Plymouth and other southern coasts. Wedge-shaped. Mya. Burrows in mud and sand.
- 81. 19. M. truncata, Linn.—M. ovalis and Sphænia Swainsoni (young).— Various localities and depths, C. Truncated at end. 20. M. arenaria, Linn.—Herne Bay, Portsmouth, etc., C. Tapering at end. Panopæa. Burrows in mud. 21. P. norvegica, Spengl.—P. glycimeris, P. arctica.—Scarborough, Zetland (90 fath.), Rr. Quadrate. 21*. P. Aldrovandi, Lamk.—Cornwall, one specimen, Jeffreys. Oblique. Corbula. Dredged in mud and sand. 22. C. nucleus, Lamk.—C. striata, Mya, and C. inæquivalvis.—Dublin, Torquay, Forth, 4 to 80 fath., C. Valves unequal, beaked. 23. C. rosea, Brown.—Weymouth, Rr. as Brit. Valves not beaked. 24. C. ovata, Forbes.—Isle of Man, Rr. Oval, truncated at end. Sphænia. Burrows in foliaceous shells. 25. S. Binghami, Turt.—Corbula B.—Torquay, Guernsey, Swansea, Forth, etc., R. Neæra. Lives incrusted in sand. 26. N. costellata, Desh.—Corbula c., N. sulcata.—Loch Fyne, Rr. Radiately 3-ribbed. 27. N. cuspidata, Olivi.—Forth, Northumberland, Cape Clear, etc., Mr. Pear-shaped.
- 82. 28. N. abbreviata, Forbes.—Loch Fyne, Mc. Radiately 1-ribbed. PLATE II. Poromya. On mud, in deep water. Fig. 1. P. granulata, Nyst.—P. anatinoides, Forbes.—Skye, R. 1*. P. subtrigona, Jeffreys.—Shetland, Mr. Minute, posteriorly expanded. See Pl. IX. Pandora.
- 83. 2. P. rostrata, Lamk.—Tellina inæquivalvis, Linn.; P. margaritacea and inæquivalvis.—S. Devon?, Guernsey, R. as Brit. Valves long. 3. P. obtusa, Leach.—Solen Pinna, Mont.—S. Devon, Dorset, Mc. Ire., R. Valves short and broad. Lyonsia. With byssal attachment. 4. L. norvegica, Chemn.—Mya and Anatina n., Mya and Anatina striata, M. nitida, Lyonsia elongata, Myatella, and Osteodesma. —Tenby, Bantry, Oban, etc., 5 to 80 fath. With movable ossicle on hinge. Thracia. Laminarian and Coralline. 5. T. distorta, Mont.—(Mya) Anatina and Amphidesma d., Th. truncata.—Distribution general, but not common. Short, truncated, irregular. 6. T. convexa, Wood.—(Mya) Anatina and Amphidesma c., T. declivis. —S. Devon, Bantry Bay, Arran, etc., Mc. Inflated. 7. T. phaseolina, Lamk.—Amphidesma p., T. declivis.—Various localities and depths, C. Oval, obliquely truncated. 8. T. pubescens, Pult.—(Mya) Anatina and Amphidesma p., T. declivis. —S. Devon, Cornwall, Belfast, etc., C. Oblong, straightly truncated. 9. T. villiosulca, Macgillivray.—T. ovata, Brown.—Exmouth, Swansea, Bantry Bay, etc. Various depths, Mc. Cochlodesma. Laminarian and Coralline. 10. C. prætenue, Pult.—(Mya) Anatina, Ligula, and Amphidesma pr.— Dorset, Devon, Man, Bantry B., Oban, etc., (25 to 60 fath.), R.
- 84. Spoon-shaped process on hinge. Ceratisolen. Burrows in sand. 11. C. legumen, Linn.—(Solen) Psammoiia and Solenicurtus l.— Exmouth, Swansea, Bantry, etc., C. Hinge nearly central. Solen. Burrows perpendicularly in sand. 12. S. pellucidus, Penn.—Various British localities, 6 to 100 fath. Curved; hinge not terminal. 13. S. ensis, Linn.—Eng., Scot., Ire., generally 5 to 15 fath., C. Arched and slender. 14. S. marginatus, Pult.—S. vagina, Penn., not Linn.—Exmouth, Clyde, Cork, etc., littoral to 10 fath., Mc. Straight, with terminal constriction. 15. S. siliqua, Linn.—S. novacula, S. ligula.—Eng., Scot., Ire., many places; littoral and laminarian, C. Straight, end not constricted. Diodonta. 16. D. fragilis, Linn.—(Tellina) Psammobia f., Tellina jugosa and ochroleuca.—Dublin, Tenby, Weymouth, R. Oval or wedge- shaped. 16*. D. Barleei, Jeffr.—Arran, Rr. Minute, subquadrate. Solecurtus. 17. S. coarctatus, Gmel.—S. cultellus, S. emarginatus, S. antiquatus, etc.—Torbay, Anglesea, Man, Skye, etc., R. Oblong, smooth.
- 85. 18. S. candidus, Renieri.—(Solen) S. strigilatus, Turt., not Linn., Psammobia scopula.—S. Devon, Dublin, etc., R. Striated. Syndosmya. 19. S. prismatica, Mont.—(Ligula) Mya and Amphidesma p.— Weymouth, Forth, Dublin, Antrim, etc., littoral, Mc. More pointed and narrow than S. intermedia. 20. S. tenuis, Mont.—(Mactra) Amphidesma t.—Dorset, Scarborough, Antrim, etc., 5 to 100 fath., Mc. Short, subtrigonal. 21. S. intermedia, Thompson.—Mya and Syndosmya nitida, Abra profundissima.—In mud, 6 to 100 fath., Zetland, Skye, Cape Clear, etc., R. Broader and more pointed than S. prismatica. 22. S. alba, Wood.—(Mactra) M. and Amphidesma Boysii and A. album.—Brit. co. generally, C. Short, rounded, oval.
- 86. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com