Alignment of developments in higher education

Higher Education 48: 439–459, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

439

Alignment of developments in higher education

JOHN COWAN1, JUDITH W. GEORGE2 & ANDREIAPINHEIRO-TORRES3

1Heriot-Watt University and LEARN Unit, Perth College, UHI Millennium Institute;2The Open University in Scotland, Edinburgh, UK; 3Universidade de Aveiro

Abstract. This study builds upon the concept of alignment within the curriculum (due toBiggs) and suggests, in the context of two current examples, an integrated methodology foreffectively aligned development activities within universities. Higher Education institutionsface important challenges. Firstly, quality enhancement of the curriculum is now an institu-tional concern, if not a priority, in the face of governmental pressure and in a competitiveenvironment. It is no longer a matter of individual endeavour. Secondly, we now have a basicpedagogy for adult learning, and should put that into practice systematically. And thirdly, staffare now faced with the demand to commit themselves to professional development, and todetermine what that means in terms of their particular profession. This paper considers thesechallenges, and relates them to the argument for an integrated methodology for institutional,staff and curriculum development, which aligns these activities rather more effectively thanhitherto. At the same time, it advocates a logical model for curriculum development, as acomplementary tool of alignment for student-centred curriculum development.

The argument is illustrated by recent work in the Open University in the UK and in theUniversidade de Aveiro in Portugal.

Keywords: alignment, curriculum development, institutional development, management ofchange, quality enhancement, staff development, student-centred curriculum

Introduction

The major debate in higher education in recent years has been centred onthe rapidly changing environment within which universities will work forthe foreseeable future, and how these challenges for innovation and changecan be best met. The management of such educational change, however, hasattracted comparatively little attention. Webb (1996) expresses his surprisethat little of the educational and staff development discourse has focused onthe support of innovation and development. Drummond et al. comment that‘to date, very little attention has been paid to how changes in teaching andlearning practices in HE can be most effectively managed’ (Drummond et al.1997).

Biggs has stressed the importance of ensuring compatibility within thecurriculum, between the learning outcomes of a course, the teaching and

440 JOHN COWAN ET AL.

learning activities, and the assessment (Biggs 1999). He points out that theseshould all be “aligned” (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Alignment.

This principle of alignment is generally accepted and oft quoted. But ques-tions still remain when we consider what an effective strategy for creating andmanaging development would look like. Discussion tends to focus on singledevelopmental areas. Elton, for example, argues that staff development is akey element, and should change in character from being topic driven to beingproblem driven, with staff developers and academic teachers collaboratingwith the aim of improving the student learning experience. His discussion,however, continues to focus on staff development and its boundaries withother aspects of an institution, without suggesting any new pattern of organ-isation structure or interrelationship (Elton 1995). Indeed, Hannan and Silverfound that ‘discussion with innovators . . . tended to emphasize the lack oforganisational support and recognition, and colleagues’ negative attitudes,as the two main discouraging factors facing innovators’ (Hannan and Silver2000).

A rationale for development and innovation

In this paper, we suggest a model for strategic change management inuniversities, which focuses on improving the student learning experience byintegrating (or aligning) the three relevant aspects of institutional change –staff, curriculum and institutional development. We discuss two examples ofinnovation to illustrate how development may be managed successfully, whenthis model is followed – and what happens when it is not. We conclude bydiscussing pedagogic issues implicit in this work.

The rationale of the model lies in Cowan’s thesis that there is a need forinstitutions of higher education to support and enable innovation by creatingstrong and explicit links between the declared strategic plans of the institu-

ALIGNMENT OF DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 441

tion, curriculum development, and the staff development of the individualmembers of staff (Cowan 1977). A simple model of this is set out in Figure 2,which summarises the vital nature of three interactive factors:• A powerful influence for all development is the engagement of senior

management. Planning at the most senior level, which explicitly includesthe staff development implications of institutional change, can transformthe motivation of the staff, and enhance the likely acceptance and effec-tiveness of innovation within the institution. This involvement featureswithin “Institutional Development” in Figure 2.

• Staff Development can be expected to be at its most effective whenthe effort devoted to this activity is soon to be put to good use. Oneof the outcomes of such planning for synchronous staff developmentand subsequent activity should be that the individual, through staffdevelopment, is enabled to carry out their specific role and remit moreefficiently. Such holistic development should ensure better alignmentbetween the development of the individual and that of the institution– though, of course, also leaving space for the personal development ofthe individual.

• Similarly, Curriculum Development is most likely to succeed if thosewho wrestle with its demands are suitably (and recently) equipped withthe necessary knowledge and skills. These will ground any such develop-ment in the relevant pedagogy and existing best practice, and enable thestaff concerned to build upon that foundation creatively and effectivelywithin their own context.

Hence we suggest that academic development is unlikely to occur, or at leastto occur effectively, as a result of isolated staff development activity (theunshaded area within the “Staff Development” circle). Similarly we holdthat curriculum development is likely to be amateurish and uncertain if it isuninformed by practice elsewhere and by relevant staff development in newskills (and thus lies unprofitably within the unshaded area of the “CurriculumDevelopment” circle). Instead, we believe that any academic developmentis most likely to prosper if the activity centres on the darkly shaded areain Figure 2, where the change which the institution is seeking, focusedat any point in time on specific curriculum developments, is supported byappropriate staff development.

Applying this rationale: Example 1

Stage 1In 1990, Cowan and George formed the academic part of the directorate ofthe Open University (OU) in Scotland, one of the geographically defined unitsof course delivery and student support within the UK OU. Within the OU’s


Figure 2. Relationships in development.

support system for learners at a distance, there were, as always, substantialelements of change – new technologies (such as whiteboards, early computermediated conferencing), changing demands on the OU’s advice and guidanceprovision, and so on. In this context, there was always a need to discover,within the sphere of operation of each individual tutor, what was then provingto be good practice in student support in these new circumstances, and toengage in dialogue with the institutional and curricular aspects of this changeon an informed basis. The senior management team established enhancementof tutorial support for students as an institutional goal for their operationalunit. They created a modest project fund, and charged a small steering groupto support bids from serving teachers to engage in action research of theirown practices.

Successful bids to this fund had to• aim for improvement in the applicant’s support of their students’

learning• depend mainly on the efforts of the applicant• undertake to engage upon objective evaluation• agree to disseminate experience and outcomes which seemed useful.

The focus for enquiry was sometimes suggested by senior staff, lookingfor volunteers to take up a particular enquiry; and sometimes by tutorswith an interest in a particular development. In some cases, applicants hada suitable methodology to suggest; in other cases, when applicants aireda worthwhile but somewhat vague suggestion, a sound methodology wassuggested to them. Occasionally a team who had made progress was invitedto continue, perhaps pursuing some of their suggestions for further work. Inall cases staff development was provided by the directorate pair, informallyand individually, as needed and opportune.


The majority of the projects were published and circulated internally (e.g.,Cowan et al. 1990; Weedon 1994; Lee 1997), and some in refereed publica-tions (Cowan et al. 1995). Equally importantly, there was an annual projectday in which those who had completed work were given the opportunity toreport briefly on their work. Such meetings generally led quite naturally tosuggestions and enquiries from future applicants.

On one occasion, a variant on the project day began with pedagogic inputfrom an external educationalist, who then left it to facilitated groups to deviseimaginative plans for improving their teaching, and their students’ learning(Gibbs et al. 1997). Some of these then provided the seed of a plan for afunded project.

At this stage, the focus of innovation was primarily on the integration ofmild curriculum and substantial staff development, within one geographicalunit of a widespread institution. There were no formal links with the Univer-sity’s central decision making committees dealing with major curriculumdevelopments. The positive outcomes of the projects and the modest develop-ments ensuing tended to happen on a small localised scale, or, at most, withinScotland, because there was at that time no institutional framework withinwhich such findings and processes could be identified and rolled-out. As inthe cases Hannan and Silver reported (Hannan and Silver 2000), there waslittle or no overall institutional support for this work, no mechanism wherebythe institution as a whole could be urged to take heed of significant outcomes.Indeed, there was an amount of negative reaction from colleagues. Evenwhere senior colleagues were favourably disposed, they had little motivationto read the reports and spend time thinking through the implications for theirown work.

Stage 2More recent work on the same lines has been deliberately integrated withininstitutional and curriculum development and, as a result, has had a widerimpact. The UKOU set up a project, Learning Outcomes and Their Assess-ment (LOTA) which sought to take a holistic approach to the task ofembedding key skills development within the curriculum. The LOTA projectbrought together senior management from all relevant sectors – the Facultiesand Schools, Examinations and Assessment, and so on – but also includedrepresentation from a sub-project, the Higher Education Learning Develop-ment (HELD) which built upon and continued the Scottish model describedabove. HELD set out to explore the impact of embedding skills developmentin the curriculum upon course delivery and student support, and in partic-ular upon the relationship between tutor and student. The project again usedaction research activities to investigate the students’ learning experience in


this context, and, through informed reflection on the findings, to articulatewhat these findings said both for the role of the individual tutor as well asfor the response to changed student need from course or institutional design(George 2001).

In this setting:

• The institution committed itself to a developmental goal• The curriculum development, heavily dependent on the approach and

effectiveness of the tutors, was informed and immediately influenced bythe findings of action research by tutors into how their practice shouldrespond to this change

• The appropriate staff development happened for the individual tutors asa consequence of their involvement in the process of action research,especially when their findings were related to the relevant literature andto best practice elsewhere. This staff development was then cascaded byactively engaging other tutors in working with the findings.

This work has thus modelled a process whereby data on specific aspects ofstudent learning can be gathered and reflected upon systematically within aninstitutional framework. Some findings have been forwarded to good effectto Faculties, or to University committees – as input for their considerationof assessment strategy, for example, or contributing to staff development;or to other teams of academics responsible for course delivery and studentsupport across the UK – for example, to inform the design of learning skillsworkshops. It provides an example of a process whereby evidenced inputfrom both tutors and students can be built upon in the wider institutionalplanning and development cycle. The three circles of institutional, staff andcurriculum development are thus integrated, with the main effort and impactcoming within the area of overlap.

The other effect of wider integration and involvement has been the farmore positive interest in this work, and a greater willingness to listen and actupon its implications. The significant difference from the first stage seemsto be the fact that much of the dissemination has consisted of workshops tofacilitate reflection on the implications of findings, or the active involvementof colleagues, even marginally, in organising or taking part in activities. This‘active learning’, as we know as educators, is far more effective than givingpeople a report, which sits unread on their shelves.

Applying the rationale: Example 2

Our second example is more focused, since the innovation described wasconsciously modelled on this integrated pattern of development. It is thusequivalent to stage 2 of the first example.


The Vice-Rector of Universidade de Aveiro, Professor Isabel Alarcão, wasplaying a leading role in the process of radically reviewing the curriculum atthe polytechnic school at Águeda, and looking to the use of project-basedlearning at Aalborg University as a model for development. The Vice-Rectorand her Assessor, Andreia Pinheiro-Torres, took an active pedagogic role ininitiating this development, so that it was firmly rooted in the institution fromthe start. Their consultant, John Cowan, had long experience of project basedlearning, and ensured that holistic consideration was given to all the threeaspects of development we identify – institutional, curriculum and staff.

The entire programme for radical change in the polytechnic school wasthus conceived, planned, led and reviewed from the highest level of manage-ment. The Vice-Rector participated in the first workshop programme, lendingsupport, keeping herself informed, and maintaining links with the staffresponsible for implementing this plan. The use of the external educationalconsultant was carefully directed by the Assessor, who had experience ofteaching in higher education in Portugal, and was able to bring knowledgeand reading of the local situation to the briefings and the detailed and ongoingplanning which then followed. The Assessor thus acted as a link between theconsultant and the Vice-Rector.

The result was a scheme which involved (at a macro-level) the teachingstaff in such a way that institutional, staff and curriculum developmentproceeded hand in hand. It also ensured (at a micro-level) that outcomes,learning and assessment were well aligned in accordance with Biggs prin-ciple, since, as the Aveiro development proceeded, and seemed firmly formu-lated, Cowan introduced the relatively simple and nowadays fairly commonpractice of compiling an “alignment matrix”. This is a simple table (Figure 3)in which course team members list the learning outcomes they define asimportant, and classify them by level and domain. Then – in the secondcolumn and alongside these entries, they list as a self-check – and not as apublic document – the corresponding learning and teaching situations whichshould contribute to that learning and development. In the final column, theylist the assessments planned.

Learning Outcome Learning and Teaching Activity Assessment

Figure 3. Alignment matrix.

Course team members, aware of the careful thought which had goneinto their planning, were at first reluctant to devote time to compilingthese matrices, but were soon to find review of alignment within their draft


curriculum worthwhile. Discrepancies and omissions in the application ofthe basic pedagogy soon became apparent. Not all learning outcomes wereaccompanied by an appropriate learning and teaching activity; and for eachthere should have been, but was not always an assessment item, to confirmand value the desired learning. In addition the second column should havecontained all the teaching and learning situations in the programme – some ofwhich, it was thus discovered, were not related to declared learning outcomesor were not to be assessed. Similarly the third column should have containedall components of assessment, some of which were only loosely – or not atall – related to items in the first two columns! After a year of programmedelivery, it is reported that the matrices were still in regular use, to identifyand occasion appropriate attention to cases of non-alignment (Oliveira 2002;Oliveira et al. 2003).

The purpose of the alignment matrix is to encourage professionalism andespecially systematic and iterative design, by enabling course or moduledesigners to identify for themselves aspects of their designs which needfurther attention or refinement. However the scrutiny need not be a processcarried out in isolation; the merit of inviting a critical friend to ask questionsof such summaries was also suggested, and found helpful.

Careful attention to explicit alignment, whether using such a matrix orby other means, was shown by the experience in these two examples to becritical. The question of alignment was not even raised in the first stageof Example 1, with the consequence of marginalisation within the institu-tion. Even at the second stage of this same example, it would have beenhelpful to have had such an explicit means of ensuring alignment across thethree domains. In the second example, the course team participated willingly.The task immediately generated much discussion, as did the comments ofa “critical friend” and other workshop participants. All of this also createddifficulty in adhering to the planned time schedule, and generated what mightbe described as “creative turbulence”. This exercise in Example 2 thus helpedwilling and thoughtful participants to discern important weaknesses in whatthey had so far planned, in a professional and objective manner.

Cowan took what is fairly common UK practice one step forward whenhe persuaded the Àgueda team that the matrix could be improved by adding afourth column. In this, course team members were asked to note the means bywhich they intend to discover if the learning outcomes are being taught for,learnt, developed and assessed – effectively and reliably and validly. Evalu-ation, then, can usefully be added to both matrix and planning. (Figure 4).Alternatively, this final column may be seen as representing meta-cognitiveobservation from above the triangle of Figure 1, providing an observationpoint from which the alignments along all three sides of the base triangle are


viewed and reviewed. The writers’ limitations in respect of graphical skillsprevent them from presenting this as a triangular pyramid for the reader’sconsideration.

LearningOutcome

Learning andTeaching Activity

Assessment Evaluation – how will we decide howeffectively all of these work together?

Figure 4. Improved alignment matrix?

Generally, the iterations of development possible within this frameworkfor cyclic review and development of the curriculum resulted in fine-tuningin accordance with local needs, progress, possibilities and potential. The wayin which this was presented, and the suggestions offered to participants fordiscussion and possible use, were a direct consequence of the joint mana-gerial planning for the needs and context of this particular situation. Theresult was effective innovation, which did not create unnecessary barriersthrough neglecting any logical consequence of the development. It is also onewhere the staff have understood what is happening and why, where they havebeen able to shape and influence the change, and consequently have positiveattitudes towards it because of the nature of their involvement.

This consolidation of effort in Example 2 was thus also one in which thegoals of the institution were well served by the involvement of academicmanagement in activity which sought curriculum developments but whichprovided simultaneously for the appropriate staff development.

In other words, both examples appear consistent with the hypotheses that:• active engagement in institutional development, with direct senior

management involvement, will expedite curriculum development.• curriculum development associated simultaneously with relevant staff

development is potentially more effective than separate activities undereach of these headings

Pedagogic issues

The aim of innovation in Higher Education is understood generally to bethe improvement of the student learning experience. Within the macro-modeladvocated above, we further suggest that alignment must not only be betweenthese three aspects of university activity, but that it should also follow onthe micro-level a model of curriculum development which follows logicallyfrom a focus on the student and learning, rather than on subject matter andteaching.


Prior to perhaps 1970, relatively little had been published about teachingand curriculum development in higher education, other than in the formof useful collections of practical advice for new university teachers (e.g.,McKeachie 1978). Consequently some writers began to suggest that there wasscope for improvement in higher education. (e.g., Rogers 1969; Marton et al.1984; Bligh 1971; Gibbs 1988). Thus, since 1980, there has been a steadystream of publications which report evaluated innovations and the outcomesof action research in higher education. This recent literature offers the basisof a pedagogy for supporting adult learning (Knowles 1980; Rogers 1983;Entwistle and Ramsden 1983; Gibbs 1992; Biggs and Moore 1993; Mortonet al. 1997; Cowan 1998; Prosser and Trigwell 2000; Laurillard 2001).

The model of curriculum development which has generally been advo-cated (or, more often, followed without question) has been a linear orchronological one. The elements of the process receive attention in the orderin which they will be encountered by teachers and learners (Figure 5). Suchmodels (the early ones, e.g., Davies 1971; and Romiszowski 1981; but evenas recently as Toohey 1999) describe, in varying terms but with fairly constantfeatures, a chronological sequence in which:• aims and outcomes are first determined;• teaching methods are chosen;• teaching plans are prepared;• teaching is delivered;• students learn;• teachers or others assess students;• feedback is obtained from students (and perhaps others);• the course is evaluated (usually by those who prepared and presented it);• revisions are determined;• the cycle begins again.

There are problems with this sequence, however, because:• it assumes that aims, objectives and outcomes are only considered, and

reviewed, once per cycle or iteration.• it concentrates on teaching rather than learning.• it presents learning as a consequence of teaching, rather than teaching as

one, but not the only, input to learning.• it obscures the relationships between the elements of process.• it neglects the possibility of utilising external inputs to this process.

The integrated model of innovation and of effective response to changewhich was outlined above is predicated on the assumption that the object ofany development is to improve the quality of student learning. Curriculumdevelopment which focuses primarily on teaching does not seem to be fullycompatible with this goal. By contrast, in the examples we have quoted,


Figure 5. Traditional curriculum development.

we have followed the logical, rather than chronological, model advanced byCowan and Harding (1986). In this model (Figure 6), the intended learningoutcomes which, of course amplify the Aims (but are omitted from thediagram only due to considerations of space) are central, and are assumed toinfluence all that occurs during the preparation and delivery of the curriculum.Assessment, as is known from research (e.g., Snyder 1971; Heywood 2000;Rust 2002) influences student learning, well ahead of the declared aimsand syllabus, or the specified learning outcomes. Hence this item, logically,receives early attention in planning, just as consideration of how Learningwill occur, in response to the perceived messages from both the declaredOutcomes, and the Assessment, should be the starting point for the plan-ning of Learning and Teaching activities. Evaluation is explicitly seen tobe preceded by the assembling and analysis of data which inform under-standing of the learning and the learning experience, and then the makingof judgements and of decisions for change. The entire model is set (in white)within a grey border which symbolises the world outside the context of aparticular curriculum development – a context which imposes constraints,but from which there are inputs, often helpful, transforming the process ofdevelopment from a constructivist to a socio-constructivist process.

This approach to curriculum development, in comparison with the tradi-tional and somewhat linear one of Figure 5, calls for virtually simultaneousconsideration of the desired learning outcomes, the proposed means of


assessment and the design of suitable learning and teaching (in that order!)activities. It is therefore compatible with the plea which Biggs has made formore alignment in our curricula (1999). Yet, as Cowan (2003) emphasisedin a recent keynote address on behalf of himself and Biggs (who was unableto travel), his extensive experience of quality audit and subject review in theUnited Kingdom has been that the commonest and most objectively identifiedweaknesses in current UK curricula occur where:

• there are few or no teaching and learning activities which purposefullyand demonstrably effectively set out to achieve the higher level cognitiveand the affective outcomes which are claimed.

• some such outcomes are not assessed in a way which demands that theybe demonstrated

• some assessment encourages, and apparently values, outcomes whichare not listed and which are of not great import to the course team.

These audited findings have again and again confirmed the need for align-ment, as Biggs has defined it. We suggest that alignment is more likely to beachieved through use of the logical, rather than the chronological, model ofcurriculum development.

Applying this model of curriculum development: Example 1

The first stage of the OU developments which we have described was onewhich began from efforts to improve support for learning in a well-establishedsituation, usually through developing and using methods of formative evalu-ation (e.g., Cowan et al. 1990; Cowan and George 1992; George 2001). Thesewere to provide information about the nature of the immediate learning, andof the immediate learning experience in the status quo or in tentative innov-ations. The insights gained thus were used first by the writers themselves toinform them of our effectiveness, and to enable them to provide better studentsupport, responsive to actual, rather than assumed, student need. This is inaccord with the features of the logical model, given an existing situation asthe starting point.

Naturally, the same pedagogic approach was effective with the tutorsinvolved in these projects. Formative evaluation was an approach which wasnot familiar to the staff with whom the writers worked. Substantial staffdevelopment was therefore provided – but not as a separate activity. The stafflearning was problem, not topic, based (cf. Elton 1995); and it was structuredon the logical model of curriculum development, the nature of the teachingor support of the tutor learners being determined by the nature of particularneeds and of successful ways of meeting those needs, as determined throughformative evaluations.


Figure 6. A logical model for curriculum development.

When the teachers needed to know how students learn or how to find outwhat their learning experience was, then input was provided – for example,on the work of the Gothenburg Group (Marton et al. 1984), the approaches toteaching advocated by such as Rogers (1983) and Kolb (1984), or appro-priate methodologies for enquiry. When teachers looked for useful ideas,and wondered what others had done, or found, in similar circumstances,the facilitators made this information available to them, and assisted thethen developing teachers in evaluating potential and making choices. Whenteaching approaches had to be developed, then project leaders and teacherstogether planned out how this might be achieved.

In this sense, the project leaders in Example 1 (although pursuing theirmanagement goals) were at the same time acting in the role of staff developers– a useful and significant integration of the spheres of immediate institutional


and staff development with the specific curriculum developments in hand,on the logical model of development. It was often the case, for instance,that a planning meeting could naturally and unobtrusively become somewhatsimilar to a classical staff development session – except that this equallysmoothly soon shaded into the active consideration of what to do next in theway of applying the new learning to the particular curriculum developmentin hand.

In the second and more substantial stage of the OU developments, theinvolvement of tutors in the action research of the HELD project was simi-larly, but in a more focused way, steered by the institutional aims whichhad been defined for the project. Staff development was provided to inductthe staff into the use of the simple action research methodology. Thereafterinvolvement in the action research and in the informed reflection on its find-ings was in itself a dynamic form of staff development. Its context alignedthe aims of the institution with curriculum development, and with the self-development of tutors in an area which had been identified for them by theinstitution, but which they themselves were passionately interested in andkeen to address.

However, the nature of staff development changed even further during thisprocess. Previously staff development had taken the form of an input providedby full-time staff, with the implicit understanding that the boundaries of theeducational task the tutors were assigned to carry out and the means bywhich they would carry this task out effectively, were already established.The purpose of such staff development was thus to inculcate into new staffor staff new to a particular role, which was already well known. By contrast,the institutional and curricular context in the new setting created a frameworkwithin which the tutors were defining for themselves what their needs wereand taking responsibility for working out a rigorous and evidenced response.This response would then contribute to the overall educational developmentof the University.

The model of this learning by staff was still in accord with the logicalmodel. But, at the point at which a new group of tutors were drawn intothe project, the pedagogy of socio-constructivist reflective learning came intoplay. There were certain basic aspects of information about how to conductthe action research which could be usefully handed on. However these tutorsalso, at a point they decided, focused on establishing what they needed toknow, and on informing themselves of the relevant educational literature.There was a very real sense in which each tutor had to forge his or herown experience and what came out of that. The person involved in each casewas different; and, whilst each tutor could listen to the findings of previousenquiries, each as an individual had to find out for themselves what the


data from the students’ learning experience said to them, for their styles andpersonalities, for their teaching context, and so on.

The logical model of staff development applies throughout; but thebalance of the relationship between tutor and student shifts. When the learnersare resourceful professionals, they take upon themselves much of the respon-sibility for meeting their own needs which a tutor normally exercises for astudent. They are indeed independent learners.

Applying this model of curriculum development: Example 2

In the second example, the logical model of curriculum development wasapplied to the learning of the staff, as part of the integrated developmentalwork, though at the same time what and how they were planning was alsobased on that sequence.

The Aveiro Assessor, Pinheiro-Torres, shared with the educationalconsultant, Cowan, a concern to avoid intellectual imperialism, and never toassume or be perceived to assume that British educational approaches couldbe simply transferred to other cultural contexts (Cowan and Fordyce 1987;Cowan 1996). She had already discerned significant differences between theattitudes, values and approaches in the Aalborg setting, and those whichmight prove acceptable and successful in Portugal.

She was also already acquainted with the relevant published work, andfrom that background arranged to provide the visiting developer with a thor-ough briefing on the local situation, the progress to date, and the institutionaland individual priorities. They then together prepared the final details of theprogramme accordingly. The programme thus put into practice the integrationof institutional, curriculum and staff development.

But, within the staff development aspect, the centrality given to stafflearning was vital. The development framework gave them the space to reflecton what was being proposed, to draw in relevant experience or information,to strip it of ‘colonial overtones’ and internalise transfer of experience withintheir own mindset and teaching framework. The result was a scheme whichhad been refined in accordance with local needs, progress, possibilities andpotential.

In the event, no changes were made to the overall philosophy of the logicalapproach to curriculum development (Cowan and Harding 1984). Howeverthe way in which this was presented, and the suggestions offered to parti-cipants for discussion and possible use, were a direct consequence of the jointmanagerial planning for the needs and context of this particular situation.

In the first 3-day workshop programme, participants were provided witha conceptual input, which they then had opportunity to test out, first onexamples provided by the presenter, and than in working though a part of the


specific curriculum developments in which they were all already involved.Pinheiro-Torres observed, for purposes which will be described below, andmade detailed notes of the participants’ activity and issues arising therefrom.

The themes around which this programme was assembled were in accord-ance with the model by Cowan and Harding (1984). Cowan and Pinheiro-Torres carefully considered the options open with regard to the format andpresentation of this initial, critical, workshop. They opted for features withwhich Cowan had already experimented, to varying extents, in staff andcurriculum development work in Mexico, Colombia and Denmark:

• All group discussions and summarising would be in Portuguese. Thusthe concepts would be worked through in a language with which allparticipants were familiar, and which they would use in their subsequentthinking about curriculum development.

• Tasks would relate as much as possible to the participants’ imme-diate commitments. Thus the interaction between staff and curriculumdevelopment should be encouraged constantly – and questions arisingtherefrom should be taken up as they arose.

• As far as possible, examples would be used to illustrate concepts andprinciples. What we know of adult learning (Skemp 1971) suggests thisto be a sound approach educationally.

• Similarly, examples would be used to describe workshop tasks. InCowan’s practice, this has proved a more effective way to demonstratewhat the presenter wishes participants to do, than an abstract descriptionof the task in mind.

• The rationale behind the design of the programme would be madeapparent, without tedious explanations. Thus the pedagogy in Figure 6,which was being presented to the participants for their use, was alsobeing followed by the presenter in facilitating the participants’ develop-ment.

After each day’s programme had been completed, the collaborative pair care-fully studied the illuminative messages (Parlett and Hamilton 1972) to befound in Pinheiro-Torres’ observations. Their immediate formative evalu-ations led to two types of revision in the programme for the next day – or,in the case of the last day’s review, in the planning of the immediate follow-up. Some revisions picked up and responded to inputs and difficulties, whichhad emerged in the day just past; others, arose from Pinheiro-Torres’ readingof the outstanding needs of the local situation.

The workshop as a whole was formatively evaluated by the use of the“Dynamic List of Questions” (George and Cowan 1999). This usefullyidentified outstanding needs and frustrated hopes, as well as successfuloutcomes.


The programmes for the consultant’s subsequent visits followed similar,but more advanced, goals and plans.

In both of the examples we have described, there was:• a strong emphasis on the need to be acquainted with, and to put to

immediate use, the relevant pedagogy and evidence of good practice• care devoted to timing the provision of these inputs appropriately• thoughtful presentation in which, without watering down the message,

the language and examples were effective in conveying the concepts.However, in the OU example, in the second stage of development, the tutorswere more equal partners in the development than in the first OU stage orin the Portuguese example. With a grounding in the relevant methodologyof action research, and the relevant literature, they challenged some of thebasic assumptions of the OU about correspondence tuition. They becametheir own staff developers as well as educational developers for their insti-tution, because this rigorously informed voice, with regard to the key pointof student support, was enabled to speak with authority and rigour. In thePortuguese example, by contrast, development was within a predeterminedframework, and for a predetermined purpose. The action research was to helpthe facilitators support the staff effectively; it was not until later, and nowextant at the time of writing, to be a tool for the staff themselves to explorethe unknown and to come to their own professional judgements about the datathey obtained.

Conclusion

We suggest, therefore, on the basis of reflection on these examples, that theprinciple of alignment can be translated into practice more effectively byusing a model such as we suggest; whereby the three areas of development– institutional, staff and curriculum – are consciously integrated. The mosteffective response to the demand to change and innovate is likely to arisewithin such a context, with the fewest barriers and obstacles. The effect ofsuch holistic management is likely to create new policy and practice whichhas anticipated and met the full range of problems, whether these be ones ofeducational practice, of attitude and expertise, or of sheer practical logistics. Itwill create the widest understanding and ownership of the proposed changes;it will also create the opportunity for all to contribute from their variousangles of expertise and experience, so that problems are solved before theyarise.

Thus:• Curriculum development prospers when it is a consequence and part of

explicit institutional development.


• Such curriculum development will almost certainly call for concurrentstaff development, most usefully delivered directly when it is needed andwill be used shortly thereafter.

• There is a strong argument for concentrating development at the heartof the diagram in Figure 2, and for blurring the borders between insti-tutional, staff and curriculum development therein, so that they becomemore and more mere facets of the holistic process of development.

• One of the most vital aspects of a professional approach to curriculumdevelopment will be rigorous assurance of alignment – between learningoutcomes, assessment, learning and teaching situations – and methods ofevaluation.

A further pedagogic implication of alignment within a curriculum which aimsto improve the quality of students’ learning experience, we suggest, is thesubstitution of a logical model of curriculum development for the traditionalchronological one. This truly sets the learning experience highest in the devel-opment agenda, and allows the learning aims to drive the design, the otherelements following in the order dictated by what we know of the nature oflearning. At the same time, the embedded practice of formative evaluation togain insight into the actual student learning experience allows us to matchreality against aspiration, and to maximise our effectiveness.

Finally, when these three elements of development are working in synergy,when alignment is present, and the development agenda is truly studentcentred, we suggest that this integration in fact changes the nature of oneof the components – staff development. Institutional and curriculum devel-opment remain much as we know them. Staff development, however, suffersa sea change. There will always be a role for the induction programme fornew staff or staff new to a role. But once experienced teachers are giventhe role in which, through rigorous reflection on their own practice and theirstudents’ learning experience, once they have a voice to influence the othertwo circles of activity, and to constantly create and recreate their own iden-tities as teachers, then this is no longer traditional staff development. Theboundaries between educational and staff development become blurred. Thereflective practitioner (Schön 1983) has been let loose on an institutionalscale. Our belief is that this can only be for the good, in that anything less isprofessionalism manqué. But there may be certain institutional discomfortsas well. Academics are used to challenge from the young Turks of subjectresearch; this change will provide for similar challenges from learning andteaching as well.


References

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Society forResearch in Higher Education and Open University Press.

Biggs, J.B. and Moore, P.J. (1993). The Process of Learning. Sydney: Prentice Hall.Bligh, D.A. (1971). What’s the Use of Lectures? Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Cowan, J. (1977). The Case for Need-oriented, Trainee-directed Schemes of Training.

Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education.Cowan, J. (1995). ‘Case study: Sauce for the goose? – a multi-level pedagogical pilot’,

Education and Training Technology International 31(4), 325–329.Cowan, J. (1996). ‘Reflections on cultural differences’, in George, J.W., Nylehn, B. and

Støkken, A.M. (eds.), Distance Education in Norway and Scotland. Edinburgh: JohnDonald.

Cowan, J., (1998). On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher. Buckingham: Society forResearch in Higher Education and Open University Press.

Cowan, J. (2000). Curriculum Development. A Booklet to Support Staff Development Work-shops. Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro.

Cowan, J. (2003). ‘Attaining alignment in Higher Education programmes. Keynote address onbehalf of J Biggs (unable to be present) and self’. Proceedings of International Conferenceon Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Aveiro, April 2003 – awaiting publication.

Cowan, J. and Fordyce, D.S.E. (1987). ‘Cultural influences on student learning’, InternationalJournal of Educational Development 7(4), 219–225.

Cowan, J., George, J.W., Kerr, G. and Grant, S. (1990). The Formative Evaluation of StudySkills Workshops: A Feasibility Study. Edinburgh: Open University in Scotland ProjectReport.

Cowan, J. and George, J.W. (1992). ‘Diminishing lists of questions – a technique forcurriculum design and formative evaluation’, Education and Training Technology Inter-national 29(2), 17–23.

Cowan, J. and Harding, A.G. (1984). The Systematic Design of Curricula and Course Mate-rials. Handbook for use in curriculum development workshops in the Universities ofJeddah, and Merida.

Cowan, J. and Harding, A.G. (1986). ‘A logical model for curriculum development’, BritishJournal of Educational Technology 17(2), 103–109.

Cowan, J., Pottinger, I.B., Weedon, E.M. and Wood, H.M. (1995). ‘Development – throughresearching your own practice’, in Sewart, D. (ed.), One World Many Voices: Quality inOpen and Distance Learning, Proceedings of the 17th conference in Distance Education,2. London: International Council for Distance Education and Open University, pp. 241–245.

Davies, I.K. (1971). The Management of Learning. London: McGraw Hill.Drummond, I., Nixon, I. and Wiltshire, J. (1997). Personal Transferable Skills in Higher

Education: The Problems of Implementing Good Practice. Newcastle: Department ofArchitecture, University of Newcastle.

Elton, L. (1995). ‘An institutional framework’, in Brew, A. (ed.), Directions in Staff Devel-opment. Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and Open UniversityPress.

Entwistle, N.J. and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning. London: CroomHelm.

George, J.W. and Cowan, J. (1999). A Handbook of Techniques for Formative Evaluation.London: Kogan Page.


George, J.W. (2001). Higher Education Learning Development: Final Report. Edinburgh:Open University internal paper.

Gibbs, G. (1988). Learning by Doing. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Further EducationUnit.

Gibbs, G. (1992). Improving the Quality of Student Learning. Bristol: Technical and Educa-tional Services.

Gibbs, G. et al. (1997). Brilliant Ideas for tutoring from Region 11. Edinburgh: OpenUniversity in Scotland Project Report.

Hannan, A. and Silver H. (2000). Innovating in Higher Education: Teaching, Learning andInstitutional Cultures. Buckingham: Society for Research in Higher Education and OpenUniversity Press.

Heywood, J. (1989). Assessment in Higher Education (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Knowles, M.S. (1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education; from Pedagogy to Androgogy

(2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge Books.Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning. New York: Prentice Hall.Laurillard, D. (2001). Rethinking University Teaching. London: Routledge Falmer.Lee, M. (1997). R11 Telephone Tuition Project. Edinburgh: Open University in Scotland

Project Report.McKeachie (1978). Teaching Tips – A Guidebook for the Beginning College Teacher.

Lexington, Mass.: D C Heath and Co.McKeachie, W., Pintrich, P., Lin, Y.G. and Smith, D. (1986). Teaching and Learning in the

College Classroom. Michigan: University of Michigan, Office of Educational Researchand Improvement.

Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. (Reprinted 1997). The Experience of Learning.Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.

Oliveira, J.M. (2002). Personal communication to Cowan and Pinheiro-Torres.Oliveira, J.M., Seabra, D., Pereira, L., Mendonça, M., Camarneiro, I. and Cowan, J. (2003). ‘A

proposal for formative evaluation in a project led education environment’. Proceedings ofInternational Conferecne on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Aveiro, April2003 – awaiting publication.

Parlett, M. and Hamilton, D. (1972). Evaluation as Illumination: A New Approach to the Studyof Innovatory Programmes. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Research inEducational Sciences.

Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus: Merrill.Rogers, C.R. (1983). Freedom to Learn for the 80s. Columbus: Merrill.Romiszowski, A.J. (1981). Designing Instructional Systems. London: Kogan Page.Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London:

Temple Smith.Skemp, R.R. (1971) The Psychology of Learning Mathematics. Harmondsworth, Middlesex:

Penguin Books.Snyder, B.R (1971). The Hidden Curriculum. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of

Technology.Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. (2000). Understanding Learning and Teaching. Buckingham:

Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.Rust, C. (2002). ‘The impact of assessment on student learning’, Active Learning in Higher

Education 3(2), 145–158.Toohey, S. (1999). Designing Courses for Higher Education. Buckingham: Society for

Research in Higher Education and Open University Press.


Weedon, E.M. (1994). An Investigation of the Effect of Feedback to Students on TMAs.Edinburgh: Open University in Scotland Project Report.

Webb, G. (1996). Understanding Staff Development. Buckingham: Society for Research inHigher Education and Open University Press.

Wood, H.M., Rowson, H. and Fraser, S. (1994). Workshop on Skills in Science. Edinburgh:Open University in Scotland Project Report.

Documents

Alignment of developments in higher education