EDUCATIONALDEVELOPMENTSThe Magazine of the Staff and Educational Development Association Ltd (SEDA)

Issue 7.2May 2006 ISSN 1469-3267

£7 Cover price (UK only)

Contents

SEDA LtdWoburn House,20 - 24 Tavistock SquareLondon WC1H 9HFTel 020 7380 6767Fax 020 7387 2655E-mail office@seda.ac.uk

More information aboutSEDA’s activities can be foundon our website:www.seda.ac.ukRegistered in England, No.3709481. Registeredin England and Wales as a charity, No.1089537

1 Developing Pedagogic ResearchDavid Baume FSEDA andLiz Beaty FSEDA

7 Opinion: Academics - employeesfrom hell?Graham Badley

8 Defining excellence in learningand teachingPenny Burden, Chris Bond andJulie Hall

11 Progress within the HigherEducation Learning PartnershipsCentre for Excellence in Teachingand LearningMark Stone and Antonia Walker

13 Using a Projects Day to showcaseteaching and learningSue Gill and Carol Summerside

15 Work-based Learning andWorkforce DevelopmentDavid Johnson

18 Putting principles into practice:a change model for a Centrefor Excellence in Teachingand LearningLiz McDowell

20 Book Reviews

24 Disability and e-LearningSue Harrison and Lawrie Phipps

Developing PedagogicResearchDavid Baume FSEDA and Liz Beaty FSEDA

IntroductionWe suggest and illustrate seven approaches to pedagogic research; propose threefruitful questions to aid the development of pedagogic research in your institution;describe HEFCE’s broad approach to pedagogic research, including through theRAE; and offer a list of journals which publish papers on pedagogic research. Wedo not describe methodologies for pedagogic research – that would be anotherarticle entirely! We thus provide some elements for a toolkit for developingpedagogic research in an institution.

Approaches to Pedagogic ResearchWe are conscious that our immediate audience for this article is academicdevelopers. Accordingly we have chosen articles to illustrate these approaches topedagogic research mostly from the literature on academic development. In takingthis work forward, you may want to use illustrations of particular interest to yourinstitution (e.g. on research-informed teaching or widening participation) and tothe particular disciplines with which you work. In doing so you may findapproaches to pedagogic research additional to those suggested here.

The approaches offered here are not entirely discrete. Indeed, the places wherethese different approaches meet and overlap may provide particularly fruitful areasfor pedagogic research.

1. Use existing dataFor example, data on:

• Student performance and assessment• Student feedback• Course documents and resources• Policy and strategy documents and data on their implementation• On-line learning and teaching.

Advantage: No need to collect fresh data.Disadvantages: Data may not always be in the most usable form.

Research benefits from questions and hypotheses as well asfrom data.

Example: Baume and Yorke (2002)Abstract: Portfolios are widely used to document and assess professionaldevelopment. They are used to assess University teachers on courses run by theUK Open University. These portfolios are assessed twice, by trained assessors,against a detailed set of requirements which include learning outcomes andunderpinning values. A detailed analysis was undertaken of the assessmentjudgements involved in the assessment of 53 such portfolios. Inter-rater reliabilitydata are reported. These results are compared with those of other studies onportfolio assessment. Consideration is given to appropriate measures of thereliability of assessment, and to some effects of the structure of assessment and ofthe rules for combining scores on the reliability of assessment. Some implicationsfor practice are explored.

2 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONALDEVELOPMENTSThe Magazine of SEDA

Issue 7.22006Editorial CommitteeGraham AlsopKingston UniversityFran BeatonUniversity of KentDr Stephen Bostock FSEDAKeele UniversityProfessor Anthony BrandUniversity of HertfordshireHelen GaleUniversity of WolverhamptonDr Michelle HaynesMiddlesex UniversityDr Lesly HuxleyUniversity of BristolSteve OutramThe Higher Education AcademyProfessor David RossUniversity of Abertay DundeeRachel SegalThe Higher Education AcademyProfessor Lorraine StefaniFSEDAAuckland University, NZProfessor Bob ThackwrayLeadership Foundation forHigher EducationProfessor James WisdomHigher Education Consultant

2006 (Vol.7)Annual Subscription RatesIndividual subscriptions are £28sterling per year (4 issues) withinthe UK. Overseas subscribersshould add £5 sterling postage andpacking for delivery within the EUor £8 sterling for the rest of theworld.

Bulk copies can also be purchasedin packs of 10 @ £200 sterling perpack.

All orders should be sent to theSEDA Office, either with paymentor official order.

NB SEDA members automaticallyreceive copies of EducationalDevelopments.

2. Undertake investigations prompted by questions or concernsThis offers perhaps the widest field for pedagogic research.Advantage: Such research may be closer to familiar non-pedagogical research

than some of the other approaches suggested here, and usefamiliar research methods.

Disadvantages: Those of conventional research.The added difficulties of researching local practice.

Example: Rust (1998)Abstract: Workshops are common practice as a staff and educationaldevelopment tool in higher education around the world, yet while it is common toseek participants’ immediate reactions there has been little attempt made tomeasure their impact. This paper reviews the available literature on theeffectiveness of workshops and reports the findings of a study into the effectivenessof 33 workshops delivered by the Oxford Centre for Staff and LearningDevelopment over a four-month period. The study used questionnaires at the endof the workshops and four months later, and these were followed up by telephoneinterviews with a sample of participants. The study demonstrates that workshopscan lead to changes in practice, and that these changes are themselves deemed tobe successful by those involved. In addition, where at the end of a workshopparticipants report that they are likely to make changes this can be used as areasonably accurate predictor of subsequent change. The features of workshopsidentified in end-of-workshop questionnaires which are linked with likelihood ofsubsequent change are also reported.

3. Link research to policyThere are at least three possible links here:

• Research to establish what the policy should be• Research to identify how policy should be implemented• Research to see if and how policy is working, is achieving what it is intended

to achieve.Advantages: Resources may be available.

The research will clearly be institutionally/nationally relevant.Disadvantage: May become political. (For some, this may be another advantage!)

Example: Gibbs and Habeshaw (2003)Executive Summary (Extract): 7. There has been considerable development ofmechanisms to recognise teaching excellence in ways that do not involvepermanent promotion, including:• Temporary, fixed term, promotions• Teaching awards and prizes. Institutions have for example developed their own

local version of the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme and select theirnational nomination from amongst their internal Fellowship holders

• Additional pay and/or increments, awarded in ways that take teachingachievements into account, sometimes linked to annual appraisal that focuses onteaching achievements

• Publicity and events that showcase excellence• Additional titles, such as ‘Teaching Fellow’ and ‘Teaching Co-ordinator’ that

ascribe status and recognition, with or without any changes in pay or terms andconditions

• Encouragement, financial support and practical support to achieve ILTmembership as recognition of teaching competence

• ILT membership may be required for probation or even for all promotions, rightup to professorships.

4. Link research to quality enhancement/developmentThere is substantial funding available for various forms of quality enhancement.Some of these HEFCE sources are described in a later section of this article.

But, however funded, we suggest that quality enhancement should be undertakenin at least a scholarly way, making selective use of ideas from the relevantliterature. Sometimes, quality enhancement work can require or involve research,leading in turn to publication.Advantages: Funding may be available for development work.

Research results can be applied, or at any rate applicable.

3www.seda.ac.uk

Developing Pedagogic Research

Disadvantage: Pressure for quality enhancement resultsmay squeeze out research time.

Example: Schreurs, Robertson, et al. (1999)Abstract: This paper describes a project which aimedto develop a programme for the entire teaching staff of afaculty of health sciences who had received initial teachertraining earlier in their career. The programme wasdeveloped according to sound educational principles andwas supported by the faculty board. Departments alsoreceived financial compensation for participation in theworkshops. During the first two years of this programmealmost 60% of the tenured teachers participated in at leastone workshop. Reasons for participation and non-participation are discussed.

5. Link research to evaluationThere is increasing recognition that evaluation and researchcan fit comfortably together, especially if one function ofevaluation is seen as seeking to know, to understand, tomake sense of, what is being evaluated (Chelimsky 1997,Baume 2003).Advantages: Every large development venture is

probably evaluated.Some evaluation resources can legitimatelybe applied to research to inform theevaluation.

Disadvantage: Some projects or funders may not be keenabout the publication of an evaluation-informed research paper for a wideraudience.

Example: Cannon (2001)Abstract: This paper sets out to understand theimpact that training and education programmes have had oninstitutions and on individuals in Indonesia and to identifytheoretical and practical approaches that appear to beeffective in bringing about planned change. An analysis wasmade of evaluation and research studies that includedsignificant components of training and education. Theevidence of longer-term impacts does not support the beliefthat development and change will automatically follow fromtraining. The studies show that the absence of systemic andinstitutional commitment and the absence of sustainablelinks in a complex chain of institutional arrangements areimpediments to the goals of development. For trainees, theoutcomes derived from overseas training are a complex mixof professional, affective, cultural and career advantagesmediated by the nature of the work environment. Althoughmost graduates believe in the advantages of overseas trainingthere are also important disadvantages, such as difficultieswith re-entry, work relationships, and the development ofappropriate professional networks. The studies identifyseveral input and contextual factors that have had asignificant influence on longer-term change.

Discussion of the links between research and evaluation(adapted from Baume (2003)Extract (summary): three purposes [for evaluation] / are toaccount, to improve and to understand.

To account (another term would be audit). This means to

assure those who funded the project that the project hasdone and achieved what was intended to be done andachieved, and done these things to an appropriatestandard and in an appropriate way.To improve. ‘Evaluation can be a form of consultancy and, assuch, do a lot for enhancing the thinking and work of thosebeing evaluated’ (Knight 2003). This suggests the evaluator ascritical friend, as someone who is at once a part of and apartfrom the project team, supportive of the broad purposes ofthe project but all the time looking out for possibleinconsistencies in thinking and practice, for mis-steps about tobe made or opportunities about to be missed, for productivequestions to ask and productive suggestions to make.To understand. It is essential to understand what is workingand what isn’t, and how, and above all why, in order to makeproposals to improve the activity being evaluated. But,beyond that, ‘understanding’ is surely a valid aim for theevaluation of any staff or educational development activity?Seeking to understand, almost whatever understand meansto the evaluator, evaluand and their clients, is a properlyscholarly and academic aim. I have discussed the crossingfrom evaluation to research in more detail elsewhere (Baume2002). The concept of evaluation as seeking to understandalso necessarily puts research back into developmentprojects. How valuable to be able to say, for example, ‘Theproject worked in these respects, and here are ourexplanations for why…’?

6. Review practiceStanding back from current practice, and asking what is done,and how, and why, and perhaps to what effect, can be a veryvaluable form of research; holding a large mirror up topractice, so that practitioners can see themselves and theirpeers.Advantages: Will command considerable interest.

Provides a basis for further research and forthe development of policy and practice.

Disadvantages: Data collection may require considerableeffort.The definitions and categorisations of datawill be problematic and contestable.

Example: Jarvis et al. (2005)Abstract: This work summarises results from threestudies of the current state of higher education facultydevelopment in Russia. Positive aspects include its supportfor societal change, content focus, regularity, systematicnature, governmental support, established tradition,encouragement of graduate work, career-long continuity,institutional control, and development of lecture skills.Problematic aspects currently include an over emphasis onmemorisation, severe under-funding, uneven quality of facultydevelopment programs, and lack of attention to studentinvolvement, faculty research, and ethics. Internationalexchange programs appear important forRussian faculty development, but language facility is the mainfactor limiting participation in exchanges, study abroad,and Internet usage. Recommendations are made for furtherresearch and for the policies of international non-profitorganisations, government agencies, and professional facultydevelopment organisations.

4 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.2

7. Critique and advance theory, including literaturereviewSuch papers form a significant part of the pedagogic researchliterature. They need to be well rooted in the literature, as inthe example below. They often include a major literaturereview. Lewin (1951:269) provides both a justification and atest for such papers – ‘Nothing is as practical as a goodtheory’.Advantages: No empirical work needed, although such a

paper will be the better for being informedby considerations from practice.If done well, can frame and influence futureresearch and practice.

Disadvantage: Requires extensive knowledge of theliterature and current debates (again, maybe experienced as an advantage).

Example: Smyth (2003)Abstract: Achieving change at any level ofeducational activity is not easy. In terms of teaching practice,developing a positive capacity for continuous improvementmay involve deep change with the potential to threaten thecore values and personal belief systems of staff and thestudents whom they teach. Recent theorising and discussionconcerning conceptions of teaching and learning is anacknowledgement that the task of achieving change and therole of change supporters is not just a pragmatic one. Thispaper considers some of the issues faced by academic staffdevelopers attempting to transform teaching practice. Theauthor draws upon late twentieth-century philosophy andextensive theorising about educational and organisationalchange with a view to suggesting this literature’s potential tosupport the work of change supporters, such as academicstaff developers.

Questions about Pedagogic Research1. What might we mean by ‘Research’?Brew (2001: 21) offers a range of definitions:

• Research is finding out something and making it public• Research provides the means of generating, testing and

validating knowledge• Research is a systematic process of investigation, the

general purpose of which is to contribute to the bodyof knowledge that shapes and guides academic and /orpractice disciplines

• Research is about advancing knowledge andunderstanding.

Brew goes on to say ‘There is no one thing, not even a set ofthings, that research is.’ (ibid.) ‘“Research” for the purpose ofthe RAE is to be understood as original investigationundertaken in order to gain knowledge and understanding.’(RAE 2005)

Conversations about the nature, meaning and boundaries of‘research’, particularly in relation to different disciplines, maybe a prerequisite for talking about pedagogic research. Oneimportant function of such conversations is to surface oftentacit but strongly-held, often discipline-based, views of thenature of research.

It may be useful for those new to research to explore therelationship between research and other forms of

Only investigation at Level 3, they suggest, is research: theysee external verification as a vital element of research. (Weadd the suggestion that research must be located in thewider context of published knowledge.)

It is productive to see these three levels as a continuumrather than as three boxes, and also as a developmentalsequence for those who would be researchers, pedagogic orwithin their original discipline.

2. What might we mean by ‘Pedagogic Research’?The RAE definition (RAE 2005 Annex C):‘57. Pedagogic research in HE will be assessed where it meetsthe “Definition for Research for the RAE”. It is research whichenhances theoretical and/or conceptual understanding of:

• teaching and learning processes in HE• teacher and learner experiences in HE• the environment or contexts in which teaching and

learning in HE take place• teaching and learning outcomes in HE• the relationships between these processes, outcomes

and contexts.Reports of studies providing descriptive and anecdotalaccounts of teaching developments and evaluations do notconstitute pedagogic research. Pedagogic research is firmlysituated in its relevant literature, and high quality pedagogicresearch makes a substantial contribution to that literature.’

Healey (2005) suggests that the RAE’s account of pedagogicresearch is perhaps rather narrow, being significantly morelimited than the definition of Research for the RAE, whichstates it is ‘original investigation undertaken in order to gainknowledge and understanding’ (Appendix C). Healey furthercomments that ‘no mention is made of “applied andpractice-based research” or “action research”, all of whichare explicitly recognized as acceptable by, for example, UoA45 Education (paras. 3, 18 and 48).’

But it is useful to explore what ‘Pedagogic Research’ canmean for each institution and then each potential pedagogic

investigation. Ashwin and Trigwell (2004: 122) offer a usefulaccount. (To their account we have added a further column,on the right of the table, which suggests how each form ofinvestigation may relate to the existing literature.)

Purpose of Evidence Investigation (Relations to theinvestigation: gathering results in: literature)

methods andconclusionswill be:

1 To inform Verified by Personal (May or may notoneself self knowledge include ideas from the

literature. Wouldgenerally benefitfrom doing so.)

2 To inform a Verified by Local (Will probably refer togroup within those within knowledge University anda shared the same discipline sources.context context Should refer to some

research ideas andsources).

3 To inform a Verified by Public (Must makewider those outside knowledge appropriate criticalaudience of that use of the relevant

context research literature).

Level

5www.seda.ac.uk

Developing Pedagogic Research

researcher. Pedagogic Research is undertaken for otherreasons than the RAE – including to inform the improvementof teaching and learning.

3. Other useful questions for the development ofPedagogic Research in an institution include:1) What Pedagogic Research is currently undertaken here?

Where? By whom?2) To what extent is there a community of Pedagogic

Researchers, across the institution and in sub-sections?3) How is Pedagogic Research currently valued here? What

factors act for and against Pedagogic Research? What areindicators of this?

4) What are the links between Pedagogic Research andother kinds of research here? And between PedagogicResearch and the quality enhancement/educationaldevelopment function?

5) Would attempts to advance Pedagogic Research here belikely to succeed?

6) If so, what should be done next, at the level ofinstitutional and local strategy, policy, resourcing,infrastructure, dissemination, staff development?

You and colleagues could use answers to these questions todrive the development of policy, strategy and practice forpedagogic research.

HEFCE’s broad approach to pedagogic research1. RAE and pedagogic researchThe RAE funds are for all categories of research that reach acertain assessed quality threshold. This includes educationalresearch, some of which will be pedagogic research. Suchresearch may go to any of the RAE panels as well as toEducation. Any RAE panel can get help in assessing researchon pedagogy that they feel an educationalist shouldcomment on as part of the assessment process.

The Roberts ‘Review of research assessment’ (available viahttp://www.ra-review.ac.uk/reports/roberts.asp) notes that:

‘There is significant support for a broader definition ofresearch within research assessment, to encompass inparticular applied research, research of relevance andutility, training of research students, and research thatdirectly informs teaching.’ (Annexes, p. 85)

Elaborating on this, the review says:‘Interface with teaching18. Roughly a quarter of HEIs, subject bodies and

stakeholders support broadening the parameters toembrace research that develops either the pedagogy orteaching subject matter in any given discipline. Theserespondents argue that the RAE has:

a. Neglected, and thus devalued, pedagogical research by“hiving” it off to the Education panel for consideration,rather than assessing it within its parent subject panel.

b. Encouraged more academics to focus on research atthe expense of teaching quality (and the production oftextbooks), by operating a rewards-based researchassessment process in the absence of a parallel processfor teaching.

This is perceived to have driven wedges between teaching

and research, jeopardising the fulfillment of governmentpolicies in both areas.’ (Annexes, p. 86)

How has this recommendation been enacted? The relevantsection is quoted here in full:

2. Assessment of pedagogic research‘58. Submission of pedagogic research is encouraged where itmeets the definition of research for the RAE at Annex 3.Pedagogic research pertaining to sectors other than highereducation (for example, pre-school, compulsory education, orlifelong learning) falls squarely within the remit of UOA 45(Education). We anticipate that submissions substantiallycomprising research on pedagogy in these sectors wouldnormally be submitted to UOA 45, but see also paragraph 61below. Higher education pedagogic research is also withinthe remit of UOA 45. However, in view of the arrangementsdescribed in paragraph 61, HEIs need not artificiallydisaggregate relatively small bodies of subject-specific highereducation pedagogic research from their submissions to otherUOAs.

59. The RAE team has consulted the Higher EducationAcademy to provide a more descriptive account of highereducation pedagogic research that HEIs may find helpful inpreparing submissions (see paragraph 60).

60. Pedagogic research in HE will be assessed where it meetsthe definition of research for the RAE. It is research whichenhances theoretical and/or conceptual understanding of:

• teaching and learning processes in HE• teacher and learner experiences in HE• the environment or contexts in which teaching and

learning in HE take place• teaching and learning outcomes in HE• the relationships between these processes, outcomes

and contexts.Reports of studies providing descriptive and anecdotalaccounts of teaching developments and evaluations do notconstitute pedagogic research. Pedagogic research is firmlysituated in its relevant literature, and high quality pedagogicresearch makes a substantial contribution to that literature.

61. In all cases pedagogic research will be assessed byexperienced and expert reviewers. Some panels haveappointed as panel members one or more experts in highereducation pedagogy; others consider research in highereducation pedagogy to be within the collective expertise oftheir membership. In some main panel areas, for exampleengineering (Main Panel G) and in the medical and relatedpanels (Main Panels A and B), pedagogic research will becross-referred to a specific member or members of one of thesub-panels. However, as with any other body of researchwhere it considers that seeking external advice will enhancethe assessment process, a sub-panel may also refer somepedagogic material to specialist advisers or to the Educationsub-panel for advice. We expect that panel members andspecialist advisers involved in the assessment of pedagogicresearch will co-ordinate their activity to ensure consistencyof approach in its treatment.’(From http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2006/01/)

6 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.2

In summary, pedagogic research is admissible to the RAE,and will be judged by the same standards as disciplinaryresearch.

3. TLRPHEFCE is supporting educational research through TLRP,managed by ESRC – particularly, in the new round, onresearch into widening participation. HEFCE has funded theHigher Education Academy for e-learning research, withManchester and Southampton Universities. This fundingshould help the Higher Education Academy to supporteducational research of relevance to HE sector – mainlythrough dissemination of what is already known throughgood practice guidance, and also via new research projectsthat they commission.

TLRP projects are large - seehttp://www.tlrp.org/proj/Higher.html for current projects.

4. CETLsHEFCE expects the CETLs to evaluate their progress, and tocollect research evidence over their five-year funding span.HEFCE Guidance Notes for Stage Two Bids (para. 5) say:‘We would like to see business plans at stage two show howthe CETL will acquire and utilise a capacity to draw inpedagogic research and evaluation and to undertake researchinto its own practice.’

For general information on CETLs seehttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/tinits/cetl/.

5. NTFS (administered by the Higher Education Academy forHEFCE)For 2006, in addition to the individual strand (50 awardseach of £10,000), the 2006 NTFS scheme invites teams tobid for development funds of up to £200,000. Each teammust include at least one NTF. The Higher EducationAcademy’s four institutional themes, one or more of whichbids are expected to address, are innovations in thecurriculum and student support, quality management,student assessment and academic leadership.

HEFCE expects some current and future NTFS projects toyield Pedagogic Research outcomes.See http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/NTFS.htm.

6. Learning and Teaching StrategiesLearning and teaching strategy funding will include newfunding to support research-informed teaching. Some of thisfunding will be subject based, for curriculum update, andsome might be pedagogic - both are necessary to enhancelearning.

7. HEFCE research and evaluationHEFCE commissions and supports a research and evaluationprogramme. Some of this is about student experience andpedagogy - for example, reviews of workplace learning.

HEFCE also expects the QAA to publish compositeinformation following audits that supports pedagogicresearch.

Overall, HEFCE policy and approach on pedagogic researchis multifaceted. HEFCE wants to encourage pedagogicresearch - they see it as one aspect of University research,and also crucially as supporting the development of highereducation teaching and learning. Research and developmentin learning and teaching are both very important.

JournalsSome journals which publish articles about learning,teaching and pedagogic research are listed below (adaptedfrom Tight 2003).

1. Active Learning in Higher Education (ALHE)2. Association for Learning Technology Journal (ALT-J)3. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education

(AEHE)4. European Journal of Education (EJE)5. Higher Education (HE)6. Higher Education in Europe (HEE)7. Higher Education Management (HEM)8. Higher Education Policy (HEP)9. Higher Education Quarterly (HEQ)10. Higher Education Research and Development (HERD)11. Higher Education Review (HER)12. Innovations in Education and Teaching International

(IETI)13. International Journal for Academic Development

(IJAD)14. Journal of Further and Higher Education (JFHE)15. Journal of Geography in Higher Education (JGHE)16. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

(JHEPM)17. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher in

Education (P:PPHE)18. Quality in Higher Education (QHE)19. Studies in Higher Education (SHE)20. Teaching in Higher Education (THE)21. Tertiary Education and Management (TEAM)

ReferencesAshwin, P. and Trigwell, K. (2004) ‘Investigating Staff andEducational Development’, in Baume, D. and Kahn, P.Enhancing Staff and Educational Development,RoutledgeFalmer.Baume, D. (2002) ‘Dialogues: research and teaching’,Educational Developments, 3:26-27.Baume, D. (2003) ‘Monitoring and Evaluating Staff andEducational Development’, in Kahn, P. and Baume, D. AGuide to Staff and Educational Development, Kogan, pp. 76-95.Baume, D. and Yorke, M. (2002) ‘The reliability ofassessment by portfolio on a course to develop and accreditteachers in higher education’, Studies in Higher Education,27(1):7-25.Brew, A. (2001) The Nature of Research, RoutledgeFalmer.Cannon, R. (2001) ‘The impact of training and educationprogrammes in Indonesian aid schemes’, InternationalJournal for Academic Development, 6(2):109-119.Chelimsky, E. (1997) ‘Thoughts for a new evaluation society’,Evaluation 3(1):97-118.Gibbs, G. and Habeshaw, T. (2003 (2nd edition)) Recognisingand Rewarding Excellent Teaching, The TQEF National

7www.seda.ac.uk

Developing Pedagogic Research

Coordination Team, The Open University.Healey, M. (2005) Response to RAE2008 Consultation onassessment panels’ draft criteria and working methods, withparticular reference to treatment of pedagogic research,Association of National Teaching Fellows.Jarvis, D. K., Kondrashova, M. V. et al. (2005) ‘FacultyDevelopment in Russian Higher Education’, InternationalJournal for Academic Development, 10(2):125-137.Knight, P. (2003) Evaluation of the LTSN Generic Centre -Unpublished report to the LTSN Generic Centre, COBE, TheOpen University.Lewin, K. (1951) ‘Field theory in social science; selectedtheoretical papers’, in Cartwright, D., Field theory in socialscience; selected theoretical papers, Harper & Row.RAE (2005): Guidance on submissions, June 2005, Ref. RAE03/2005.Rust, C. (1998) ‘The impact of educational development

workshops on teachers’ practice’, International Journal forAcademic Development, 3(1):72-80.Schreurs, M.-L., Robertson, H. et al. (1999) ‘Leading thehorse to water: teacher training for all teachers in a faculty ofHealth Sciences’, International Journal for AcademicDevelopment 4(2):115-123.Smyth, R. (2003) ‘Concepts of Change: enhancing thepractice of academic staff development in higher education’,International Journal for Academic Development, 8(1&2):51-60.Tight, M. (2003) Researching Higher Education, Society forResearch into Higher Education/Open University Press, pp.16-17.

David Baume is a higher education consultant, and LizBeaty is Director of Learning and Teaching at the HigherEducation Funding Council for England.

They most certainly are if we believe arecent polemic in that bastion of truthand rectitude called the FinancialTimes. At first sight the problem ofrunning universities is that theacademics themselves are clearlyunmanageable. This is especially so attimes when change in higher educationis deemed (by whom and for whatpurposes?) necessary. Academics arealways capable of resisting or evensubverting whatever may be proposed.

The trouble is that academics are‘employees from hell’ who lack theabilities and dispositions that wouldequip them to be ‘components in amodern, flexible organisation’(Kellaway, 2006: 9). They are totallyunsuitable for being managed because:

• They are clever and believethey can think for themselves

• They lack emotionalintelligence and often becomechildish and petty

• They are often introverts andpoor team players and see theircolleagues mainly as rivals

• They are so critical that theyquestion and often reject newinitiatives

• They reject authority and fail tosuck up to or brown-nose theirbosses so that disagreementprevails

Opinion: Academics - employees from hell?Graham Badley, Anglia Ruskin University

• They are complacent and believein the status quo which has giventhem secure jobs and pensions

• They are also insecure and bitchysince few others understand theresearch upon which their statusdepends (summarised fromKellaway, 2006).

So academics are unmanageableemployees from hell because theircleverness makes them childish, theirintroversions make them competitive,their criticality makes themdestructive, their disrespectfulnessmakes them reject authority, theircomplacency makes them rejectchange and their arcane, unreadresearch makes them insecure. And,given the view that ‘the grander theuniversity the bigger the egos’, so themanagement problems in Harvard andOxford are that much greater than in,say, the humble University ofPoppleton.

However there are those who actuallytry to manage the unmanageable.They come in various guises andhierarchies – vice-chancellors,presidents, principals, and deans. Theyget to run the universities by rising tothe top on the basis of their ownarcane research and their owndetermined networking. But they ‘mayhave little notion of how to manage

things’ (Kellaway, 2006). They alsopossess all the above shortcomings asexemplified by the recently resignedPresident of Harvard who has beendescribed as ‘brilliant, infantile andinsensitive’ with an emotional quotientclose to zero. Increasingly, universitiesare run by people who try to use whatthey see as modern managementtechniques: ‘This can be catastrophic.They import third-rate managementfads that the private sector has alreadyjunked and implement them badly’(Kellaway, 2006).

But isn’t all of this simply caricature?Are all academics as hellish asdescribed? Is Kellaway reallysuggesting that we all think that we aretoo clever to be properly managed?Are we all emotionally stunted? Doesshe want us to put our critical facultiesto sleep every time the managerialistsin charge try to adopt yet another fad– Management by Objectives, TotalQuality Management, Benchmarkingor whatever? Does she really want usto become dehumanised‘components’ in our modern and soinflexible academic organisationswhere our lack of human featuresmight make ‘sucking up to’ our bossesjust a little bit difficult?

At least Kellaway recognises that, forthe most part, ‘universities function

8 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.2

adequately enough when everyone isleft to their own devices’.Unfortunately this simple yetimportant truth has yetto be grasped by government, by theHigher Education Funding Council forEngland, by those who imposestupidities such as the ResearchAssessment Exercise upon us, byuniversity managers who insist on theirright to manage in top-down, power-coercive ways, by those who destroywhat little collegiality is left in highereducation, by those who are complicitin the whole managerialist conspiracy,and by those who wouldn’t trust theiracademic colleagues to teach a classwithout filling in a module referencesheet and assess a student withoutbeing double-checked.

Kellaway thinks, however, that‘incompetent management seems notto matter, the ship goes on sailing. Thetrouble comes when drastic change is

needed’. But incompetent, over-heavy,bureaucratised, non-collegial,management does matter since thepeople who suffer most are thoseacademics (and other staff andstudents) who are badgered, bossedand bullied from semester to semesteruntil they do their masters’ bidding.They still see themselves as bossedabout even if the messengers whodeliver the corporate instructionsappear themselves to be pleasantpeople. All members of the academy -if academy it still is rather than abusiness corporation - would like tohave some say in what might bemeant by the claim that ‘drasticchange is needed’. ‘Drastic’ accordingto whose analysis, based on whoseacademic or, even, democratic values?Academic freedom is one such valuethat has to be jealously protected andsafeguarded even by those increasinglybeleaguered colleagues from hell.

Perhaps it is not the academics whoare unfit subjects to be managed, butrather the managers themselves whoare unfit to do the managing. Indeedwe academics don’t want to besubjects at all, let alone cogs orcomponents. Academics may beawkward but we are not bits ofengines or parts of machines.Academics, as both teachers andresearchers, are engaged in whatBruner calls ‘human events’. Themanagerialists, with their fads andtheir systems, forget that at their peril.

ReferencesKellaway, Lucy (2006) ‘Why academicsmake an unfit subject formanagement’, Financial Times, 27February 2006, p. 9.

Graham Badley is Senior ResearchFellow in the Faculty of Education atAnglia Ruskin University.

The term ‘excellence’ denotes something that is superior,outstanding, and of exceptional quality; but colloquiallyspeaking, excellence signifies that one has surpassed thosewho are comparable. However, although the dictionary maybe able to supply us with generic definitions of ‘excellence’,once submerged within a particular field or discipline, thisclarity deteriorates. Higher Education (HE) is one such field.

With tuition fees set to triple, an increasingly diverse range ofstudents continuing into further and higher education, andemphasis on public accountability, today’s UK University hasan increasingly mechanistic ethos. In a climate in whichtraditional pedagogic philosophy and vocabulary is beingreplaced by a more business-orientated discourse, studentsare increasingly seen as ‘consumers’ (Wojtas, 2001) and theirtutors as ‘transmitters of information’ so that an end product(degree/position on a league table) can be acquired. Thecurrent move to unitisation of the HE curriculum (Yorke,2003) in order to support the complexities of wideningstudent diversity seems to contradict the humanisticconsiderations of the Government’s Green Paper (DfEE,1998), which aims to ‘foster love of learning’ (Bachkirova,2000). Within this climate, many within Universities arebeing called upon to claim or strive for ‘excellence’. We feltthat it was essential that we attempt to unravel thecomponents of ‘excellence’ in learning and teaching in HEand we gained project funding to provide workshops to do

Defining excellence in learning and teachingPenny Burden, University of Surrey, and Chris Bond and Julie Hall, Roehampton University

this with both staff and students across two UK universitiesduring 2005. This paper discusses our findings in terms ofhow excellence is defined by academic staff and studentsand describes a possible process for investigatingconceptions of excellence.

Julie Hall, Chris Bond and Penny Burden leading a workshopon this subject at the SEDA Conference, November 2005.

9www.seda.ac.uk

Defining excellence in learning and teaching

Activities and intended outcomesThe project began with commissioning a literature reviewwhich highlighted the debate around use of the term‘excellence’ in teaching and learning, noting that‘excellence’ seems to be one of those buzz words that isoften utilised, yet rarely fully understood. The reviewconcluded that universities should be utilising their academicstaff as well as their students in order to define and developunderstandings of the concept of ‘excellence’ and to use theresults of these discussions to inform practice and policy -which was the purpose of the Knowledge Cafés.

Knowledge CafésIn October 2004, Chairs of Teaching and LearningCommittees in both institutions circulated details of theproject to members of academic staff who were asked tosubmit expressions of interest. We were looking for fourmembers of staff from each University who, in return fortheir time, would receive £300 to contribute towards theirown professional development. We were initially over-subscribed so numbers were whittled down on a basis of mixof disciplines and varying levels of experience so as toinclude probationary lecturers as well as more establishedacademics. The following disciplines were represented:Computing, Law, Management, Nursing, Literature, EarlyYears’ Education, Dance and Music Therapy.

The first Knowledge Café (December 2004)The first Knowledge Café yielded a rich and complexdiscussion which highlighted different emphases andpriorities. The group problematised the term ‘excellence’which raised many aspects, categorised under the followingheadings:

• Subject knowledge and teaching expertise• Research and teaching (want to do both)• Student view of excellent teaching• Relationship between excellence and competence• Traits of excellent teachers• Situational aspects• Discipline• Vocational/academic tensions.

ConclusionsConclusions from the first Knowledge Café could besummarised as:

• ‘Spending an afternoon analysing how we value andevaluate our teaching was excellent staff development’‘You get a year for a research sabbatical – but are lucky toget an afternoon to think about teaching’

• Overall, there was enthusiasm for an emphasis on‘supporting excellence’ rather than measuring it

• It was agreed that some thought should be given as to howto cascade this process. A possible route would be to takethe same process of questions and discussion back toparticipants’ own departments

• That the priority should be an output which satisfiesparticipants and is then considered for the use which canbe made of it internally. This reflected the participants’

concern that the staff development aspect of consideringdefinitions of excellence was valuable, but they wereconcerned about the possible managerial uses to whichthe outcomes could be put

• That elements of the discussion could provide a pragmaticand useful resource for colleagues

• That an outcome from the overall Knowledge Café processshould be a series of recommendations for HEIs.

The second Knowledge Café (May 2005)At this event aspects from the first Knowledge Café werediscussed further. This event was enhanced by the presenceof six students.

Issues/observations arising included:

• The need to understand excellence from the learner’sperspective

• Context - is excellence context specific? Does excellencevary across levels (1/2/3/M/D)? Does excellence vary acrosssubjects? One example was based on the Managementlecturer who takes a slick ‘management consultant’approach to lecturing. This may be expected andappreciated in the context of Management degrees andregarded as ‘excellent’ but may not be so highly regardedin the context of another discipline

• Other contexts include the institutional context and thestudent context. Institutions can create a reputation ofexcellence quite easily. Would students define excellencedifferently? How do they choose which university toattend? Are they influenced by league tables?

• Two specific areas were highlighted - classroom specificand role specific - and it was suggested that this mightmean different aspects of excellence are appropriatewithin each. What are we testing?

This was taken further during discussion groups – oneinvolving academic staff participating in the project and theother involving the students. The group made up ofacademic staff discussed a list of ‘dimensions’ of excellentteaching and then when the groups combined, participantswere asked to mark their top five and bottom fivedimensions.

Dimensions of Excellent Teaching1. Subject-specific knowledge2. Life skills/being well-developed people/having a life, etc.3. Communication/interpersonal skills4. Empathy/concern for the learner5. Reflection on one’s own practice6. Range of strategies/techniques7. Being available in the student bar8. Enthusiasm/inspiration9. Being a high profile researcher10. Organised/reliable/good at routine11. Knowing what students find hard12. Fairness/consistency13. Being well dressed

10 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.2

14. Awareness of student needs at different levels15. Engaging with widest number of students16. Teaching for ‘learning that lasts’17. The ability to develop as teachers18. Being available outside teaching time19. A vision of what learning and teaching could be20. Being famous (and on the telly)21. Conscious of the different demands on teachers and

learners22. Self-awareness23. Having a formal teaching qualification24. Knowing how people learn/how teaching works

Staff Top 5 Student Top 51. Enthusiasm/inspiration 1. Range of strategies/

techniques2. Subject-specific knowledge 2. Enthusiasm/inspiration3. Communication/ 3. Teaching for ‘learning that

interpersonal skills lasts’4. Knowing how people 4. Knowing how people

learn/how teaching works learn/how teaching works5. Organised/reliable/good 5. 11, 14 and 18 all tied in

at routine this position

Staff Bottom 5 Student Bottom 51. Being well dressed 1. Being famous (and on the

telly)2. Being famous (and on the 2. Being available in the

telly) student bar3. Being available in the 3. Being a high profile

student bar researcher4. Being a high profile 4. Being well dressed

researcher 5. A vision of what learning5. Having a formal teaching learning and teaching

qualification could be

Top 5 matches* Bottom 5 matchesEnthusiasm/inspiration Being well dressedKnowing how people learn/ Being famous (and on thehow teaching works telly)

Being available in thestudent barBeing a high profileresearcher

* Although staff and students only agreed on two of the top5 matches, when this was discussed, it was apparent that thechoices students had made were all about communicationso really there was not such a divergence of view as it mayhave appeared.

The concluding discussion was based around how thesedimensions of excellent teaching could be used. Suggestionsincluded:

• Using them as recruitment and selection criteria and forassessing performance

• Using them for training/development/induction - studentscould give feedback against competencies which wouldillustrate weaknesses

• Production of a discussion document/leaflet based on theoutcomes of these discussions for internal circulation withquestions to stimulate discussion.

It was also recognised that there were practitioner issues thatproject members may want to explore further and it is theintention of the Project Leaders to create opportunities tofacilitate this during the coming year.

ConclusionThe Knowledge Café project has begun to facilitate theculture of joint educational development which was hopedfor. Participating members of academic staff at bothinstitutions remain keen to continue developing thiscollaborative approach, particularly to explore ways in whichtheir colleagues in both institutions could benefit in verypractical ways. The model adopted in 04/05 has been verysuccessful so far, but needs further development forsustained growth.

Participants wished to see an output from the project withwhich they felt comfortable and which could also be usedinternally by colleagues. The discussion in May expanded onthis and it was felt that defining concepts of excellence inthis way (by engaging with peers) would result in frames ofreference owned and utilised by the academic community –rather than a management/audit tool.

Funding staff for their time in attending the Knowledge Cafésessions has also had incidental outcomes for bothinstitutions as participants are using that money for theirprofessional development – using it to purchase resourceswhich are helping to develop them, and their colleagues,further.

ReferencesBachkirova, T. (2000) ‘How Much would Love of LearningCost? Humanitarian Versus Pragmatic Views on LifelongLearning’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24 (3):293-300.

DfEE (1998) The Learning Age: a Renaissance for a NewBritain, http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/greenpaper,accessed May 2004.

Wojtas, O. (2001) ‘Feedback? No, just give us the answers’,Times Higher Educational Supplement (THES), 25 September2001 (http://www.thesis.co.uk:80/tp/1/PRN/SEARCH/indexa.html ), accessed April 2004.

Yorke, M. (2003) ‘Formative Assessment in HigherEducation: moves towards theory and the enhancement ofpedagogic practice’, Higher Education, 45: 477-501.

Penny Burden is Head of Skills and Personal Developmentat the University of Surrey.

Julie Hall is an Educational Developer and Chris Bond isAssistant Director of Educational Development in the REDCentre at Roehampton University.

11www.seda.ac.uk

Progress within the Higher Education Learning Partnerships Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

The work involved in taking thesignificant learning and teachingdevelopments planned for, andoutlined in the original bid, into awork-in-progress has been substantial.This brief account introduces a few ofthe key issues, challenges andexperiences from the Higher EducationLearning Partnerships (HELP) CETL.

In summary, the HELP CETL is workingto build upon the excellent trackrecord of the University of Plymouth(along with its regional FurtherEducation College partners) indeveloping successful HE in FEpartnerships and significantly wideningparticipation while simultaneouslymaintaining high retention levels. TheUniversity of Plymouth Colleges faculty(UPC) guides, supports and strategicallycoordinates the provision of HE in 18FE Colleges (named as partners in thebid). The HELP CETL was establishedthrough the excellent practicedeveloped over fifteen years across thepartner Colleges within the SouthWest.

The HELP CETL programme, and thevision and aims that underpin it, arederived from the existing culture andethos of UPC, key aspects of whichinclude:• Developing a shared sense of

purpose• Promoting scholarship and research• Collaboration (across subjects or

interests e.g. ICT) to improve thequality of the student experience bydeveloping staff, enhancinginfrastructure and sharing goodpractice

• Dissemination through regional,national and internationalcollaboration.

The HELP CETL programme aims tofurther strengthen the partnership,

Progress within the Higher EducationLearning Partnerships Centre for Excellencein Teaching and LearningMark Stone and Antonia Walker, University of Plymouth

enhance the students’ experience,support an expansion of provision, andspread good practice both across thenetwork and, more widely, throughcollaboration with other HE in FEconsortia, Foundation Degree Forwardand HE Academy Subject Centres.The key pedagogic influences of theHELP CETL, and the Communities ofPractice (CoP) and Award Scheme inparticular, include:

• Schulman, Wenger and Huber indeveloping communities of practice

• Practice at the University ofWisconsin Colleges

• Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching and theCarnegie Academy for theScholarship of Teaching and Learning

• Boyer and the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning

• Holistic approaches to developingteaching-learning environments

• Constructive alignment• Ways of thinking and practising in

the subject and subject pedagogy• Troublesome Knowledge and

Threshold Concepts - linked to theESRC-funded Enhancing Teaching -Learning (ETL) Project.

Realising the visionThe HELP CETL approach involvesthree main inter-related strands,supported by and linked to the capitalprogramme. These are:1. A programme of Development

Activities linked to the UPCstrategic agenda

2. A Teaching Fellowship andContinuing ProfessionalDevelopment (CPD) Award Schemefor HE in FE staff linked to thedevelopment activities of the HELPCETL

3. Establishing physical and virtualsupport for the emergence ofCommunities of Practice linked to

the sharing of knowledge andpractice across subjects andColleges through the developmentactivities and the award holders.

The CoP development and facilitationis at the heart of the HELP CETLprogramme. All Development Activityand Fellowship/CPD award holderactivity is situated within the context ofemerging CoPs. This account will focuson the CoP and Award Holder modelsadopted by the HELP CETL.

Fellowships and CPD AwardsThe Award Scheme is implemented asone model to develop the capacity forresearch and scholarly activity withinthe HE in FE context across thepartnership. It is central to the HELPCETL as the development of researchand scholarship is a significant issue forHE in FE academics.

The original plan was to award:• Six £10,000 annual HELP CETL

fellowships to HE in FE teaching staff• Fifteen £3,000 annual CPD Awards

to academic and support staff.

The aim is for the award holders tohave a significant role in leadingDevelopment Activities and CoPs,becoming ambassadors of the work ofthe HELP CETL as their individualprojects develop.

The scheme aims to enhance theprofessional standing of award holdersby:• Recognising existing expertise and

excellence• Rewarding contributions to HELP

CETL developments• Building capacity in pedagogic

research and scholarship• Redressing the current problem of

providing appropriate rewards andrecognition for teachers of HE in FE.

12 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.2

The Award Scheme was one of thefirst priorities of the CETL and wasinitiated before most of the core CETLstaff were in post. This was done fortwo key reasons. First to allow forawards to be advertised, applicationsreceived and awards granted withenough time for College staff to planand undertake the work from thebeginning of the 2005/6 academicyear. Secondly, the award schemeplaced a focus on the Colleges and theexcellent work of the staff withinthem, rather than the University.Initiating the scheme early on in theHELP CETL programme allowed fordevelopment work to start quickly andpublicly while the administrative andorganisational aspects of establishing aCETL, within the UPC Faculty,University and with other stakeholdersgot underway.

The initial outcome of the Fellowshipsand CPD Award process in 2005/6was:• 11 Fellowships - totalling £85,000• 10 CPD Awards - totalling £30,000

from 7 colleges:• Bridgwater• Cornwall• North Devon• Somerset College of Art and

Technology• Plymouth College of Further

Education• Plymouth College of Art and

Design• Truro

in 8 subject groupings:• Art and Design• Arts and Humanities• Business• Education• Health and Social Care• Social Sciences• Technology• Tourism and Hospitality.

The HELP team has recently beenworking with the initial award holdersto reflect on the process andexperience of the award scheme,along with how the award holdersmay link to the development ofCommunities of Practice within andacross their disciplines, and how theirrole in the HELP CETL can beresearched and captured. There is

initial evidence that award holdersbenefit from being able to share theirproject ideas and experiences withother staff. This is a move towardsbuilding links with academics in othercolleges working with similar issuesand has potential as a basis fordeveloping a community of practice.

Communities of PracticeThe HELP CETL aims to inspireteaching and learning communities toresearch and reflect on their practice,to share and disseminate knowledgeand experience as well as shareresources, within the South Westregion and beyond. The HE in FEcontext within UPC involves workingacross a dispersed regional partnershipand beyond. The aim is to facilitatethe creation of dynamic and effectivephysical and virtual communities toenable greater communication andcollaboration across physical andacademic boundaries. CoPs will besupported to develop and/or emergefrom new and existing networks orgroups.

It is to be hoped that the emergingCoPs will provide guidance, supportand development opportunities tomembers, participants and others.One key type of emerging CoP is theUPC Subject Forums. Subject Forumswere established by UPC, following amodel at the University of WisconsinColleges where colleagues cometogetheracross a regional HE partnership totake forward their subject-basedagenda.

As well as Subject Forums, othergroups or networks have a key role indeveloping, supporting, evaluatingand disseminating their own andothers’ good practice. Initial work isunderway to facilitate theestablishment or development of CoPsfocusing on:• Infrastructure• Blended Learning• Retention, Progression and

Transition• Subject Forum and CoP

Interdisciplinary Trading Zone• Work Based Learning• HE in FE Partnership Theory into

Practice• HE in FE Partnership Management

and Leadership.Over the next few months, work byHELP CoP developers will beenhanced by an initiative to underpinthe work and development ofphysical CoPs with the deployment ofvirtual Community of Practice andKnowledge Management ICT toolsand systems.

Challenges and risk-takingThe CoP development and support,including the use of technology tounderpin this, was identified withinthe original bid as an area of plannedrisk-taking.

Further risks that have become moreapparent during the set-up phaserelate to two key areas of work. First,work has been undertaken with avery wide range of Universityadministrative or infrastructureservices in support of the CETL. Thishas, on the one hand, delayed someplanned work but, on the other, hasled to other, useful but unplanned,outputs: for example, a streamlinedprocess for the release of capitalfunding to University of PlymouthColleges. A second key risk involvescapacity. Many University andCollege-based staff across UPC, whilehaving excellence to offer, areworking at or close to capacity. It ischallenging to facilitate further, CETL-supported, developmentalopportunities without addingsignificantly to their workload.

For the HELP CETL team, somemembers of which are relatively newto the field of educational andacademic development, there alsocomes the challenge ofsimultaneously taking forward one’sown professional development whilstworking with established, excellentpractitioners, and supportingdevelopment opportunities for HE inFE colleagues across UPC.

Contact InformationChris Smart, HELP CETL OperationsManager, cjsmart@plymouth.ac.uk,http://www.help-cetl.ac.uk.

Mark Stone is Director of HELP CETLand Antonia Walker is EducationalResearcher and Developer at theUniversity of Plymouth.

13www.seda.ac.uk

Using a Projects Day to showcase teaching and learning

Research-intensive universities can sometimes be perceivedas rather stony ground when it comes to supporting teachingand learning. The pressures to ‘do’ research are growing aswe move towards the next RAE and these pressures can beintense for many members of staff. The challenge for peoplelike ourselves, working in the area of curriculumenhancement, is twofold:

• How to provide opportunities which prove useful forthe staff involved

• How to raise the profile (and importance) of teachingand learning in the institutions’ collectiveconsciousness.

With these challenges in mind we have recently run aTeaching and Learning Projects Day which, feedbacksuggests, achieved the first aim. While it is more difficult tomeasure the second, we feel confident enough to beplanning a repeat performance next year.

This paper offers a description of the event held in January2006. We set ourselves the aims of recognising andsupporting teaching and learning projects and bringing themto the notice of the wider University community. In order toachieve these aims the event was organised into two parts:

• Part 1 - a morning workshop for all staff involved inteaching and learning projects. The workshop wasfacilitated by Professor Sally Brown (PVC, LeedsMetropolitan University) and was entitled ‘Making themost of your projects: delivery, dissemination anddelights’

• Part 2 - a lunchtime display/dissemination event opento the whole institution. For this part of the event eachproject was allocated a display board and table in oneof our large, centrally located conference spaces.

One of the main comments which prompted theorganisation of the event came from a colleague managingan FDTL project who spoke of the perceived isolation ofprojects from the rest of the institution. Over the next fewmonths the feeling grew that we should ‘do’ something torecognise the innovative nature of much of the work beingundertaken in teaching and learning, and provide theopportunity for the institution to do something for the staffinvolved.

We set ourselves the challenge of inviting all the teachingand learning projects we could find in the University tocome together for the workshop and display/disseminationevent. A small amount of funding was found to cover the

Using a Projects Day to showcase teachingand learningSue Gill and Carol Summerside,University of Newcastle

operational costs of the day and our Staff Development Unitkindly agreed to cover the costs of the external facilitator.With this in place we were able to undertake the firstchallenge, that of identifying the projects to invite. We useda loose definition of projects to make sure we included boththe single person project and the externally funded CETLs.While finding out about the large projects wasstraightforward, the smaller ones were sometimes muchmore elusive to track down and we had to rely on ourexisting networks and word of mouth. One project presentat the day we had only found out about three days beforethe event! In the end we developed a list of almost 60projects, of whom 37 were able to take part in the event.

We were fortunate to be able to secure Sally Brown to leadthe workshop. Her knowledge and enthusiasm was perfectfor the event and having a PVC at the event sent a strongmessage about the importance of the projects and their staff.The only drawback is that she set a very high standard forthe next person to take on the task!

Sally said of the event: ‘It was tremendous to see the breadthand scope of the projects represented at the workshop. Itprovided superb opportunities to showcase projects acrossthe University and to let people know what else was going onaround them, so that they could form new productiverelationships with each other.’

On the day over 50 members of project teams took part inthe workshop. The workshop was a resounding success andit was difficult to get people to move to their display standsas they were continuing the discussions begun in theworkshop. These discussions continued while project teamshad lunch and took the opportunity to view the otherdisplays. Once open to the University, over 70 staff visited,including our PVC (Teaching and Learning), the Deans of

Teaching and Learning Projects Day

14 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.2

Undergraduate Studies for all faculties and the AcademicRegistrar.

Immediate outcomesThere was an overwhelming sense of enjoyment andbonding on the day from the project delegates.Representative comments from them include (when askedwhat elements of the event they found most useful/liked themost):

• A great opportunity to network with others in similarareas

• A fantastic way to pick up on what is happening withinthe University in just a couple of hours

• That teaching was being given some profile in theuniversity.

The delegates and visitors were impressed by the variety,quality and innovative nature of the projects and the broadspread of faculties and schools represented.

For ourselves, partly as a result of wanting to publicise theday and report on it afterwards, we have set up a monthlyteaching and learning newsletter and hope to encourageother people to write for it, not just one of us (SG).

In the longer termWe now have the task of maintaining the momentum andinterest generated by the day. We are currently (March)working on our evaluation of the day from the viewpoint ofthe project delegates. This will help us repeat the event nextyear. We plan to use the same format but have a differenttheme for the workshop and we want to get more of the restof the institution into the event and will be overhauling ourpublicity to achieve this.

Teaching and Learning Workshop

We’ve also realised that we’ll need to educate ourcolleagues on how to staff their stands after complaints fromone project that no one wanted to speak to them. This mayhave had something to do with the way they were all stoodtalking to each other in front of their stand. . . .

Our preliminary evaluation has already shown someparticipants looking to work together in the future. We havealso heard of two colleagues who visited the lunchtimesession who are now discussing developing a joint modulebetween their Schools in Medical Sciences and HASS(Humanities, Arts and Social Science). So we may have beena catalyst in the development of a new project which wehope will be represented at the next projects day in 2007!

Sue Gill is Senior Development Officer and CarolSummerside Development Officer in the Quality inLearning and Teaching (QuILT) service at the University ofNewcastle.

CopyrightCopyright for all published material is held by SEDA unless stated otherwise.

Contributors may use their material elsewhere after publication withoutpermission, but the following note should be added: “First published inEducational Developments, issue number and date”. Permission is requiredfor use by a third party.

The publishers have endeavoured to find the copyright holders of all materialin this magazine. If we have infringed copyright, we shall be pleased, onbeing satisfied as to the owner’s title, to pay an appropriate fee as if priorpermission had been obtained.

Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in all published material.However, the Editorial Committee and the publishers cannot accept anyliability for any inaccuracy accepted in good faith from reputable sources.

Any opinions expressed are those of the authors.

Notice toPublishersBooks for review should besent to:

Rachel SegalBook Review Editor, c/oThe Higher Education Academy,Genesis 3,Innovation Way,York Science Park,York YO10 5DQ

Email:r.a.segal@heacademy.ac.uk or office@seda.ac.uk

15www.seda.ac.uk

Work-based Learning and Workforce Development

IntroductionWhy does Higher Education (HE) stillhave a problem with work-basedlearning? Despite conferences devotedto it and many articles andpublications on the subject, HE stillsees work-based learning as aninteresting but marginal area ofactivity. However, it challenges thehistorical approach to the delivery andassessment of student knowledge andraises concerns about academic rigourand standards.

Work-based learning is the key to HE’sinvolvement in workforcedevelopment. There is a direct linkbetween workforce development,economic development and socialregeneration, and the link betweenthem is the provision of opportunitiesfor the individual to fulfil theirpotential. Raising the status of work-based learning presents a significantopportunity for HE to engage withworkforce development as it will openup new markets with significantnumbers of new learners, which will inturn promote deeper relationshipswith employers.

So why has work-based learningremained marginalised within HE?Perhaps because we have yet toachieve a common understanding ofwhat is really meant by ‘work-basedlearning’, how it should be assessed,accredited and validated. Is work-based learning different from practicallearning, work experience, workplacement, experiential learning,work-related learning, learning bydoing, life-place learning, or is it ageneric term covering all of these? Atthe moment there are probably asmany definitions of work-basedlearning as there are HE providers,employers and students.

Also, HE has to some extent beendiscouraged by the way somedevelopments in course provisions

Work-based Learning and WorkforceDevelopmentDavid Johnson, Independent Consultant

have been derided in the media andsociety in general (e.g. media studies,surf studies) so there is a pressing needto bring about a level of social changewhereby work-based learning coursesare seen as credible, valuable, andequivalent yet different from academiccourses.

Raising the Status of Work-based LearningRaising the status of work-basedlearning in HE, driven by the needs ofindividuals, employers and ultimatelygovernment, must have as its objectivethe creation of a more skilledworkforce that is imaginative, flexible,and capable, and which has the abilityto re-train as required.

HE has concentrated on the 18-21 agegroup, providing them with anestablished curriculum taught intraditional ways, with prescribedassignments and examinations.Universities and the majority of theiracademic staff are familiar andcomfortable with this system, based onsummative assessment of knowledgeacquisition based on a body of subjectliterature.

There may be a feeling at someuniversities that there are enoughpotential students around without theneed to enter new and difficult areas,because traditionally they havefocused on a ready market fromschools, which teach and assess in thesame way, enabling them in threeyears to educate those students to thehonours degree level. However,continuing to base a strategy on thatpremise is unlikely to prove successfulfor the UK/EU 18-21 age group,because demographics show thatthese numbers are declining.

Some universities have recognised this,but have decided to follow a strategyof internationalisation. For others thiswill not be an option and, therefore, if

they wish to sustain and build studentnumbers, those universities will needto engage with the, as yet, largelyuntapped market of workforcedevelopment.

Statistics are hard to come by, if onlybecause of the problem of definitions,but the Council for Industry andHigher Education (CIHE) estimates thesize of the market where employersare prepared to pay for workforcedevelopment to be between £4 billionand £8 billion. (That may be aconservative figure, as the LearningSkills Council has estimated themarket to be worth £25 billion.) Ofthat, only £130 million goes to HE.Whatever the figure, HE appears to bemissing out on a large and lucrativemarket. Once it grasps the point that,in the present financial climate,accessing a further 10% of this marketwill provide additional funding of£400–£800 million, there will be arush to engage.

The market is potentially even bigger ifother groups are included such ashouse parents, carers, the unemployedand those working in voluntarycapacities. Where work-based learningis concerned it is essential tounderstand that significant,recognisable learning can occuranywhere and at any time outside offormal educational structures ordesignated teaching spaces, and alsooutside of formal employment.

The challenge is to provide a set ofwork-based learning pathways througheducation, with clear progressionopportunities, establishing paritybetween work-based learning,academic provision, and combinationsof the two. This involves a complex setof issues. There is a very large marketmade up of individuals and employers,who to date have been wary of formaleducation and view HE as a ‘club’ theywould not be allowed to join.

16 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.2

The urgent need is for a bridgebetween work-based learning andacademic learning. This might beachieved by the use of, for example,National Occupational Standards(Roodhouse, S. and Hemsworth, D.(2004)), which were developed byemployers through Sector SkillsCouncils but remain rooted outsidethe HE system. HE is familiar withcourse and module learningoutcomes, and they can be derivedfrom, or mapped across to, NationalOccupational Standards. Swailes(2004) recommended that the QualityAssurance Agency (QAA) shouldconsider relating its benchmarkstatements to those standards. Itwould also be important to be able tomap the National OccupationalStandards across to the NationalQualifications Framework that cameinto effect in 2004.

Because of the lack of clarity aroundwork-based learning in HE, studentsand employers are wary of committingtheir time and resources to somethingthat may ultimately be seen as havinglittle value. The DfES (2004) statedthat:

‘The evidence that foundation degreeslead to genuine career opportunities intheir own right, as well as progressionto honours degrees, would have amajor impact on demand.’

Although the quotation relates tofoundation degrees, the principleapplies to vocational awards ingeneral.

This is an exciting market as thefollowing examples illustrate:

• Large employers increasinglyoperate internationally with nosense of geographical boundaries orartificial time periods based onnotional academic years. Staff cantherefore find themselves workinganywhere in the world for variableperiods of time which in very manycases denies them access to UK HE(or at the very least disrupts theirstudies) and crucially does not allowfor the recognition of what they willhave accomplished and learnedfrom their time working overseas

• Small and Medium SizedEnterprises have traditionally beena difficult sector in terms of HEinvolvement. Because of the natureof these enterprises, HE in itstraditional form is not an option formany of their employees and yetreal and significant work-basedlearning is being achieved that isgoing unrecognised

• Large government departmentsand public sector bodies - HEneeds to work with these to developspecific programmes leading tospecific awards. In the case of, forexample, the Fire Service or thePolice, this would involve work-based learning gained at criticalincidents. There are some 58,000fire officers and some 400,000police officers across all ranks. TheFire Service now uses IndividualPersonal Development Schemeswhich do not lead to any award.The learning involved is neitheraccredited nor validated by HE soindividuals cannot use it to accesshigher awards

• Disaster Management is an area ofgrowing importance in the UK andinternationally, and involves cross-disciplinary working of a high orderthat could be recognised andvalidated

• Research Degrees - the market alsoincludes the need for work-basedlearning to include research degrees.The UK PhD has been criticised bythe government, industry, researchcouncils and students alike and thishas led to the development ofprofessional doctorates. These inturn have been criticised if onlybecause in many instances theysimply ape the PhD. The positionregarding doctoral provision in theUK is important for the economicand social well-being of the countryand yet it is sliding into disrepute. Itis too important an area to be left tolocal initiatives and needs a nationalsolution.

What Needs to Change?The current delivery, assessment,accreditation, validation and fundingarrangements serve only todisenfranchise work-based learning

courses. The recognition of work-based learning must be supported byconsistent, transparent and robustprocesses which will establish thecredibility of courses and awards withstudents, employers and society as awhole.

Central to raising the status of work-based learning are the mechanismsfor the accreditation of priorexperiential learning (APEL) andvalidation with which universitiesengage in a variety of ad hoc andinconsistent ways. APEL has not beenwidely adopted in part becausesubject-based academics need a clearmatch between the experientiallearning being claimed and what theyteach. It has also suffered from beingviewed as labour intensive. HEIs havebeen cautious about what they see asthe risks involved in accreditation,where quality assurance is deemed tobe more vulnerable. All universitiesare only too aware of the impact ofpoor QAA reports and positions inleague tables and this serves to makethem highly conservative where non-traditional learning is concerned.National Occupational Standards,universally applied and understood,might help to overcome this concern.This view is echoed by Challis (2005)who identified a number of reasonswhy accreditation is not widely usedbut, perhaps more importantly,identified the need for institutionalcommitment at the highest level toensure that accreditation is acceptedas ‘normal business’.

APEL decisions are a matter ofacademic judgement. As the staff mayhave varied levels of experience andtraining, it might be much less of alottery if decisions were based ontransparent and explicit standards, ascould be provided by the use ofNational Occupational Standards.

HEIs impose upper limits for APELfrom one-half to two-thirds of thecredit required for an award. There isno objective reason for the variationand, indeed, the QAA’s (2004) draftguidelines for accreditation do notassume a maximum level. As long asall the standards/learning outcomeshave been met, there is no reasonwhy the amount of credit should not

17www.seda.ac.uk

Work-based Learning and Workforce Development

be 100%, thus bringing to an end theartificial requirement for work-basedlearners to engage with some part ofthe academic curriculum, even thoughthey can demonstrate they alreadymeet it through their experience.

Consideration will also need to begiven as to the evidence that a work-based learner would need to presentwhen claiming accreditation andwhatever form it takes it will need tomeet the four tests of acceptability,sufficiency, authenticity and currency.

HE’s concerns about labour intensiveaccreditation could be addressed byengaging in a deeper relationship withemployers. This will only be achievedby the involvement of industry bodies,professional bodies and employersfrom the outset to ensure relevance,credibility and focus. Employers areoften used to verify an individuallearner’s occupational competencebut are not used for the summativeassessment of academic credit. Apartnership with employers becomespossible with the use of transparent,meaningful and accepted standards,such as the National OccupationalStandards, against which judgementscan be made.

The cultural and historical tradition ofHE values the conventional mode oflearning that predominates with eachsubject, based on its own canon ofliterature. Many universities stilloperate on the basis that lecturers areteachers rather than facilitators orbrokers of knowledge and skills whoare responsive to the needs of thestudent.

Burns et al. (2000), in commenting onthese cultural and historical attitudes,stated:

‘Education that delivers skills for thebenefit of individuals and employershas always been recognised as partof the infrastructure of an industrialsociety. Society provided theopportunities for education throughuniversity, further education collegesand schools. One commoncharacteristic of all these(institutions) was that they decidedwhat the courses were and whenthey were available.’

The QAA has an important part toplay where work-based learning isconcerned. In 2004 the QAA stated:

‘The emerging agenda for HigherEducation in the UK promoteslifelong learning, social inclusion,wider participation, employabilityand partnership working withbusiness, community organisationsand among Higher Educationinstitutions nationally andinternationally. Consequently HigherEducation institutions areincreasingly recognising thesignificant knowledge, skills andunderstanding which can bedeveloped as a result of learningopportunities found at work, bothpaid and unpaid, and throughindividual activities and interests.’

This provides encouragement from theQAA to attract learners who would beunlikely to consider an award becauseof their lack of confidence or of theformal qualifications which mightnormally be required for entry into adegree programme, and themechanism for this is accreditation.However, quality assurance processesdo consume valuable resources thatare then ironically unavailable, forexample, to produce new ways offacilitating and supporting studentlearning.

The traditional curriculum and itsdelivery and assessment are beingquestioned by the government,employers and students. Studentscommonly reflect that university waslife-enhancing but consistently statethat it did not provide them with theskills they needed to obtain and retainemployment, or indeed be able to setup their own business. Employerscomplain that graduates do not havethe skills looked for to enable theirrecruitment.

Academics will need to operate withina pedagogic model that recognises andvalues work-based learning asequivalent yet different to theacademic learning of the traditionalHonours Degree. HE will need to beresponsive to the needs of employersto have internal training courses andexperiences validated, therebyproviding individual employees with a

gateway to further qualifications andcourses. Individuals and organisationswill derive satisfaction in having theirin-company training kite-marked byHE.

The changes being advocated in thispaper can take time to implement,requiring high-level direction and agreat deal of consideration.Middlesex University (Garnett et al.2004) dealt with the issues raised inthis paper by recognising work-basedlearning as a field of study in its ownright, clearing the way for individuallearners to claim for the full extent oftheir learning achieved. This is amodel of good practice that needs tobe disseminated and acceptednationally as a way forward, enablingHE to sidestep the culture andtraditions of academic learning and towork within an alternative pedagogicmodel.

ReferencesBurns, G., Chisholm, C. and McKee,W. (2000) Economic and strategicissues relating to work-based learning,Global Journal of EngineeringEducation, Vol.4, No. 3, Australia.Challis, M. (2005) Challenging Issues:the Accreditation of Prior ExperientialLearning, Forward (the FoundationDegree Forward Journal).Garnett, J., Portwood, D. and Costley,C. (2004) Bridging rhetoric and reality:Accreditation of Prior ExperientialLearning (APEL) in the UK, UniversityVocational Awards Council.Roodhouse, S. and Hemsworth, D.(2004) Fit for purpose: the use ofNational Occupational Standards inHigher Education to meet the needs ofemployment - a generic guide forcurriculum designers and deliverers,University Vocational Awards Council.Swailes, S. (2004) A Higher Educationcontext for National OccupationalStandards, University VocationalAwards Council.

David Johnson is a consultant in thearea of work-based learning provision.He was previously Subject Head forManagement and OrganisationalBehaviour at Coventry BusinessSchool, Coventry University.(davejohnson1212@hotmail.co.uk)

18 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.2

The CETL initiative and models of changeCentres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs) arean initiative of the Higher Education Funding Council forEngland. The aim of the initiative is to:

’recognise, celebrate and promote excellence by rewardingteachers who have made a demonstrable impact on studentlearning and who enthuse, motivate and influence others todo the same.’ (HEFCE, 2004, p.3)

Whilst CETLs are expected to show a ‘discernible impact’,we are told that they are not projects. We are all veryfamiliar with projects where we bid for funding toundertake development according to pre-definedprogramme goals. CETL is different in the sense that wewere invited to define for ourselves what ‘excellence’meant in our context.

‘We do not attempt to define excellence in absolute or “goldstandard” terms. This … is more likely to constrain thanencourage institutions to select excellent practice in a localcontext.’ (p. 10)

Projects bring with them a raft of expectations andmechanisms: accountability, targets, business plans,milestones and so on. CETLs come with a vision:

‘Our vision for CETLs is of vibrant, dynamic entities with avisible presence in their institutions.’

Projects provide us with a defined framework within whichto work, to plan our activities, and to demonstrate ourprogress, impacts and achievements. Perhaps, as MurraySaunders (2005) has discussed in a recent Higher EducationAcademy newsletter, CETLs are operating within a differentframework. Projects have been underpinned by technical-rational and resource-driven models of change. The newframework is underpinned by complexity models of change(Trowler, Saunders and Knight, 2003). Networks andpartnerships are seen as the way to harness the energy andvision of staff, and perhaps students, for positivedevelopment. These processes can seem ill-defined andunpredictable: however, this kind of approach fits well withthe proposals of the CETL in Assessment for Learning (AfL)at Northumbria, one of the 74 CETLs currently funded.(The full list can be found athttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/TInits/cetl/final/)

Putting principles into practice: a changemodel for a Centre for Excellence inTeaching and LearningLiz McDowell, University of Northumbria at Newcastle

CETL Assessment for LearningThe CETL AfL is based on well-established innovativepractice and research in assessment. Our approach to AfLmeans that students benefit from assessment which doesfar more than simply test what they know. They take part inthe kinds of activities that are valuable in the long term,helping them to develop and providing them withguidance and feedback. They learn how to assessthemselves, and to support others, as future professionals.For us, AfL is not primarily a set of techniques but a re-conceptualisation of learning which can lead to a variety ofspecific practices.

We use a set of six principles or conditions to express ourperspective on AfL. It requires a learning environment that:1. Emphasises authenticity and complexity in the content

and methods of assessment, rather than reproduction ofknowledge and reductive measurement

2. Uses high-stakes summative assessment rigorously butsparingly, rather than as the main driver for learning

3. Offers students extensive opportunities to engage in thekinds of tasks that develop and demonstrate theirlearning, thus building their confidence and capabilitiesbefore they are summatively assessed

4. Is rich in feedback derived from formal mechanismssuch as tutor comments on assignments and studentself-review logs

5. Is rich in informal feedback. Examples of this are peerreview of draft writing and collaborative project work,which provide students with a continuous flow offeedback on ‘how they are doing’

6. Develops students’ abilities to direct their own learning,evaluate their own progress and attainments, andsupport the learning of others.

The CETL is cross-institutional but is initially based in asmall number of core subjects: childhood studies,education, engineering, English, history, and psychology.Within each of these subjects there is a CETL Fellow whotakes a leading role in the enhancement of AfL practices.Although starting with a few subjects, we aim to influencepractice across the university. When considering how weshould go about this, the way forward seemed obvious – ifnot easy! We can adapt our AfL principles and apply them,not to students and their learning, but to the process ofstaff and organisational learning that we believe cantransform practice across the university.

19www.seda.ac.uk

Putting principles into practice: a change model for a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

Using the six principles in changing AfL practiceThe rationale behind our AfL principles is that assessment isa crucial element of learning and teaching, and that weshould harness the power of assessment to promote goodlearning. If we then think about changing teaching andassessment practice as a process of learning at individual,collective and organisational levels, we can then see howour principles can be applied to the promotion of effectivechange.

This shift of focus requires us to:

1. Recognise and value complexity and authenticity in AfLpractices

We expect AfL practice to vary considerably across differentcontexts, subjects, modes and levels of study. We aim tosupport staff in developing their own understandings andinterpretations of AfL principles and in developing AfLpractices that fit their subjects and contexts. This meansusing a partnership approach where everybody is engaged inlearning and strengthening their understandings of AfL andthe rich variety of ways in which it can be employed. This isquite different from change models which aim to promote‘best practice’ solutions or to disseminate ideas and methodsderived from pilot projects and ‘early adopters’.

2. Use evaluation to support development and keepaccountability demands in check

Formative evaluation, which helps to improve AfL practiceand enables sharing of experiences and ideas, is a keycomponent of our activities. This contributes to a positiveclimate where engagement with AfL is fostered throughparticipation and social motivations. We do need to beaccountable but we do not want a heavy emphasis on hittingtargets to dominate what we do. We must enable emergentoutcomes and achievements to be fully taken into account indemonstrating the value of our activities. Over emphasis onaccountability demands can very easily lead to a reliance onincentives and sanctions as extrinsic motivators for change.The parallel here with the dangers of summative assessmentdominating our learning and teaching is clear.

3. Assist staff to gain the confidence and capabilities todevelop their AfL practices

Change often requires support. Things often do not work outexactly as we hope and there are often disappointmentsalong the way. We aim to foster a positive environmentwhere colleagues in local teams, and across the university,can collaborate in delivering the kinds of educationalchanges they wish to promote, can exchange ideas,difficulties and solutions and share successes. We aim toprovide a wide range of tools and resources to help staff toaccess a range of AfL ideas and approaches that they mightadapt, and to alert them to potential pitfalls. Equallyimportant is our strategy to review and develop theuniversity environment, especially its procedures andprocesses, to make them more hospitable to therequirements of AfL. We need to address barriers to AfL

practices and to put more supportive structures in place.

4. Use formal feedback to promote change in AfL practiceand in the university environment

At the local or ‘classroom’ level, the use of evaluation toolsprovides formal feedback on the effectiveness of AfLapproaches and provides pointers towards furtherdevelopment. Broader organisational learning requiresdiscussion of AfL to be part of the formal processes anddecision-making systems. We ensure that AfL is consideredwithin the formal quality assurance and enhancementstructures and that we participate in relevant committees.CETL AfL has a voice in important decision-making bodies,such as Learning and Teaching Committees, and issufficiently embedded to ensure that we are included informal consultations on matters relating to learning andteaching. Particularly important are formal links with thestudent body at institutional and departmental levels.

5. Use informal feedback to promote change in AfL practiceand in the university environment

Our approach to AfL is based substantially on social modelsof learning. We expect learning to be more effective whenthere are opportunities to test out ideas and give and receivefeedback, to collaborate with others to meet challenges, andto broaden thinking and understanding through access to arange of views and perspectives. This is just as important forstaff as it is for students. CETL AfL supports interaction andcollaboration amongst immediate colleagues and developscommunities of interest across the university. We are greatlyassisted in this by having a physical centre. The CETL hubprovides a well-designed, well-equipped and welcomingenvironment where staff can meet and work together in avariety of ways, from organised meetings and workshops tochats over a cup of coffee. We are already noticing the waysin which this new environment can free up creative ‘space’for thinking about new developments and also the benefitsthat ‘bumping into’ like-minded colleagues can generate.

6. Develop the university’s capacity to generate and supportpositive change

CETL AfL does this by helping to create an environmentwhich is supportive of change which is led at the local level,building on collaboration within existing teams and acrossthe university. We particularly contribute by providing tools,resources and support for change based on AfL principles. Asa very prominent focus, CETL ensures the visibility of thechange, progress and energy centred on AfL through theflows of communication and feedback within a complexinstitution.

Rhetoric or reality?To some readers our change agenda may seem somewhatidealistic and perhaps impractical. It does differ from some ofthe accepted approaches to good project management,dissemination and embedding. If we go along with the often-heard claim that there is nothing so useful as a good theory(or set of principles?),

20 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.2

perhaps the utility of our approach will be assured. Ourchange agenda has, in fact, a dual history, being based onboth AfL principles developed over many years, andexperience of successful institutional-level changemanagement in relation to e-learning. In the e-learningdevelopment programme, successes were based on providingtools and support for locally-based developments, fosteringlearning through collaboration and communication, andinvesting considerable time and energy in transforming theuniversity environment into one which is user-friendly for e-learning. The parallels with our CETL AfL approach areevident.

Nevertheless, there are still worrying moments. For example,when a committee demands to see progress on targets andfigures to back up the claims, and these seem to representonly an impoverished version of all the exciting activity that isreally going on. There are still times when a CETL directorwakes up in the night thinking: ’Are they really going tobelieve we’re achieving anything worthwhile?’ However,these concerns are part of the ‘gift’ of CETL status, bringingalong with it the opportunity to be part of a new frameworkfor change in higher education, moving away from some of

Leading and ManagingPeople in EducationTony Bush and David Middleswood

ISBN 0 7619440 8 7Sage Publications, 2005

The focus of Leading and ManagingPeople in Education is Schools andColleges; however, much of the bookis equally applicable to leadership andmanagement issues in tertiary andhigher education institutions.

Educational leadership has become afield of global significance during thepast few years and the national andinternational research literature citedin this book reflect this. The authorsstart from the premise that developingpeople provides the best prospect ofenhanced and sustainableperformance and that recognition ofthis from leaders and managers islikely to be a motivating force inenhancing people performance.

The book is divided into 3 sections:Leading and Managing People: Settingthe Scene; Key ConceptsUnderpinning Educational Leadership;Leading and Managing Key Processes.In the first section, the authors giveconsiderable attention to making the

Book Reviews

the constraints of technical-rational project-basedapproaches, and making it work!

ReferencesHEFCE (2004) Centres for Excellence in Teaching andLearning: invitation to bid for funds, Bristol, HEFCE (availableat http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2004/04_05/).Saunders, M. (2005) ‘How can evaluation help managecomplex change?’, Academy Exchange, Issue 2, pp. 22–23.

Trowler, P., Saunders, M. and Knight, P. (2003) Changethinking, change practices,LTSN Generic Centre (available at http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources.asp?process=full_record&section=generic&id=262).

Further informationThe CETL Afl web site is under development at: http://northumbria.ac.uk/cetl_afl/

Liz McDowell is Director of CETL in Assessment for Learningand Professor in Academic Practice at the University ofNorthumbria at Newcastle.

distinction between the twin conceptsof leadership and management. Theyargue that the two concepts must begiven equal prominence but it isimportant to recognise the differences.Quoting recent research, they suggestthat organisations which are overmanaged but lack strong leadershipeventually lose any sense of spirit andpurpose while poorly managedorganisations with strong charismaticleaders may soar temporarily only tocrash shortly thereafter. With this as abackdrop, this first section then coversa raft of issues such as motivation,professional development,empowerment, the importance ofrecognising the contribution of supportstaff to the success of the organisationand the nature of successfuleducational leadership. As anacademic staff member in a leadershipposition in a university, there wasmuch I learned in reading this sectionof the book.

Moving to the second section of thebook, the authors provide an excellentchapter on organisational cultures.Given the increasingly diverse natureof the workforce and the ‘clients’ ofmost organisations, it is clearlyimportant to understand the conceptof culture at local, national, societaland organisational levels. Leaders and

managers must recognise the influenceof ‘culture’ within their ownorganisations and understand itsimpact on the workforce. Leadingnicely on, the next few chapters focuson organisational structures and roles,staff motivation and job satisfaction,leading and managing for equalopportunities and leading andmanaging through teams.

Each chapter provides pros and consof different styles of management andleadership and the book moves easilybetween national and internationalmini case studies of differentapproaches. The chapter onorganisational structures and roles, forexample, looks at issues of providingflexibility between managementprescribed roles for individuals andself-defined roles, the potential andthe pitfalls depending on governance,funding and the political imperativesassociated with different types ofeducational organisations.

To the delight of this reader, theauthors have emphasised theimportance of staff motivation, jobsatisfaction and professionaldevelopment to the overall success ofthe organisation through enhancedretention of staff.

21www.seda.ac.uk

Book Reviews

Audience ResponseSystems in HigherEducationEdited by David A. Banks

ISBN 159140948-9 InformationScience Publishing, Hershey, PA,2006, 405 pages

This collection is the first book aboutaudience response systems which¹,typically, allow each student in a groupto vote in real time, choosing one of

The final part of the book takes usthrough the management of keyprocesses. Examples include: leadingand managing staff recruitment andselection; induction of staff as anongoing process rather than a one-offprogramme; the value to staff and tothe organisation of having effectivementoring and coaching processes inplace and the added value of havingfair and transparent performancemanagement and appraisalprocedures.

The final chapter of the bookhighlights schools and colleges aslearning organisations and emphasisesthe point that in a true learningorganisation both staff and studentssee themselves as learners. This is ahighly appropriate endpoint.

This book is an easy and accessibleread while at the same time covering avast range of up-to-date research. Theauthors place a strong and appropriateemphasis on: the symbioticrelationship between managementand leadership; the need to recognisethat a one-size-fits-all approach toeither leadership or management isthe road to nowhere and theimportance of globalisation to thedevelopment of leaders and managersin schools and colleges.

I found this to be a very valuableresource book and despite itsemphasis on schools, I believe muchof what the authors have to say is ofequal value to leaders and managersin Colleges and Universities.

Lorraine Stefani, is Director of theCentre for Academic Development atthe University of Auckland.

development – were absorbing. LouisAbrahamson gives a substantial ‘briefhistory’ in chapter 1, based on hispersonal involvement since 1985. Atfirst he encountered suspicions fromcolleagues that the technology was tobe used for monitoring and controllingstudents. These fears soon dissipated‘after the classroom successes werebecoming too obvious to refute’. Hesuggests that using the system leadsteachers to question their pedagogicalstrategies and discover better ways toteach. (It may also be the case that itwas and is those teachers who arereflecting on pedagogy who willexperiment with such systems: unlessone were concerned for studentlearning one would not see the needfor the communication in the classroomthat these systems support.)

Abrahamson, and others, review theevidence for the educational effects.The reaction of students is generallyoverwhelmingly positive: ‘the greatmajority of students believed theyunderstood the subject better, came toclass better prepared, paid moreattention in class, and enjoyed it more.’There is less literature on the effects onlearning outcomes, but it is also verypositive.

Chapter 2 by Eugene Judson and DaiyoSawada provides a less personal,systematic, history and a review of theliterature on evaluations: ‘has studentlearning been enhanced’ and, if so,‘what led to such improvement?’ Firstly,student reaction is generally positive:research shows clearly that use of ARSmotivates students. On studentperformance, much will depend on theteaching strategy of which thetechnology is a part. Early use was as alecture-pacing device with abehaviouristic flavour; dividing alecture into sections and checkingindividual understanding after eachsection before moving on. There waslittle evidence of improved outcomesfrom this strategy. However, fromabout 1990, pedagogy was influencedby constructivist principles and nowan ARS is often used to supportsharing of thought processes and tofacilitate discussion between studentsand with teachers. At least in scienceteaching, the more recent evidenceis of significant improvements inconceptual understanding.

several options using the buttons on ahandset. The signal from thehandsets, either infra-red or radiowave, is detected and processed by aPC that displays them graphically witha digital projector. Depending on thetechnology and the number ofhandsets in use, voting results canappear in seconds or a few minutes.ARS are typically used in lecturetheatres with large groups but also inclassrooms with smaller ones.

If you are unfamiliar with them, it isnot surprising. Although they have ahistory in HE of four decades, only inthe last few years have handsetsbegun to migrate from the hiddenclassrooms of enthusiasts into themainstream, due partly to fallingequipment costs and an increasingnumber of manufacturers, and partlyto the changing expectations of thelearning experience of both studentsand teachers.

If you are sceptical – wondering whyyou would want to give multiplechoice tests to large groups – thenthis book will make you reconsider. Itis predominantly concerned withpedagogical issues: how to use thetechnology in various ways to engagestudents in productive learningactivities. If you are already interestedin the possibilities, this book willprovide plenty of ideas and advicefrom authors based in the USA, UK,Canada, Australasia, and SouthAfrica.

I admit to being an enthusiast, and Ihave to declare an interest as a co-author of chapter 21², but I tried totake a sceptical position whenreading the book: Who is in controlof the learning-teaching situationwhen ARS are used – learners orteachers, or technology? Whatbeneficial pedagogies does thetechnology enable? What evaluationshave been done? The answers,briefly, are that the technology is notin control, but that teachers can use itto share control with their students;that a number of teaching strategieshave been developed and tested; andthat typically evaluations have verypositive outcomes.

The four chapters in section 1 –describing aspects of the history oftechnology by authors involved in its

www.seda.ac.uk22

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.2

This is a timely, welcome and effectivepublication, edited by two of theleading authorities on the subject, thatwill be of use to staff developers,teachers and others dealing withinternational students directly orindirectly.

The large increase in internationalstudent numbers in anglophoneuniversities in recent years, and thechallenges and opportunities thispresents, has also shown up awidespread lack of expertise and adearth of resources. This collection ofessays provides a valuable source ofpractical advice backed by theory from14 different contributors of varyingexperiences and specialisms.

In their introductory chapter ‘Canariesin the coalmine’ Ryan and Carroll setout the background for the collectionwith a convincing exposition of howmodifying our attitudes and practicesto deal with international students canhave benefits to staff and otherstudents alike.

The rest of the book is divided intothree parts: ‘Cultural migration andlearning’, ‘Methodologies andpedagogies’, and ‘Internationalisingthe curriculum’. Within thisframework there is a pleasing balanceof either theoretically or practicallybiased chapters. The former providean agenda for pushing for an overhaulof learning contexts, while the lattergive the less experienced a widevariety of strategies. With the lack ofin-depth cross-cultural experience ofmany lecturers (and staff development/

Teaching InternationalStudentsEdited by Jude Carroll andJanette Ryan

ISBN 0415350662

Routledge Farmer, 2005,405 pages

Chapter 3 by Ray Burnstein and LeonLederman describes a 10-year periodof developing the uses of a wirelessARS in lectures, transforming a passivestudent experience into classroominteractivity. Chapter 4 by HaroldHorowitz is based on his 25-yearexperience of ARS. After a descriptionof early experiments, in whichstudents were more positive aboutARS than were the teachers, he gives ahistory of the technologicaldevelopment. He ends with advice onquestion design, which other authorsalso provide.

The remaining 20 chapters are variedand, to a greater or lesser extent, arecase studies based on local experienceover a shorter period than in section1. They involve many subject areas,from law to maths to medicine. Wordsthat recur prominently includemotivation, participation, activity,interaction, and engagement. There isoften emphasis on pedagogy andevaluation. Readers will want to skimand sample what is most relevant tothem. Chapter 13 by Penuel,Abrahamson and Roschelle, is unusualin that it develops a socioculturaltheoretical framework that seeslearning as a transformation of studentparticipation in the class.

What can we make of all this? My ownexperience of using voting systems,both electronic and manual, is thatthey can transform the teaching-learning situation. An ARS opens upnew possibilities for face-to-faceteaching and learning in groups.Reflective teachers in HE have startedexploring these possibilities; we canjoin them with the reassurance thatothers have often achieved positiveresults. Parts of this book provide agood introduction to the literature andto some tested pedagogical strategies.In the last 10 years learningtechnology, or e-learning, hasconcentrated on online support andinteractions, but many teachers andstudents want face-to-face contact. AnARS makes possible new types ofcommunication in the classroom, justas online services do outside theclassroom. ARS seem likely to becomea significant tool in enhancing theface-to-face learning experience. Wemay one day wonder how we taughtwithout one.

References¹ Some alternative labels are listed onSteve Draper’s Interactive Lectureswebsite at http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/ilig/main.html#Using² See http://www.communicubes.com

Stephen Bostock, University of Keele

student support staff) it is also helpfulto have the plethora of anecdotalexamples that the contributorsinclude.

While this book rides the wave of theinclusion agenda and rightly attacksthe ‘deficit’ model of internationalstudents, at the same time warningnotes are sounded. As ProfessorLouie points out in her chapter‘Gathering cultural knowledge -Useful or use with care?’, in the rushto improve our interculturalcompetency we can be prone toasking for specific solutions (‘How doKoreans learn?’) or universalcures, when we are dealing with analmost infinitely complex subject. Atheme that seems to emerge is thatwhat is most desirable is a ‘meta-cultural’ standpoint where we canadopt a neutral attitude toobjectively assess all the culturalfactors involved, including our own.

In the end, it is the chapters thatprovide practical advice on teachingthat will be most eagerly welcomedby teachers and staff developers.Carroll contributes a number of theseand the subject of multi-culturalclasses and inter-student reactions.Good, too, to see that theimportance of theEnglish language as a medium is fullydiscussed as well as the current ‘hottopic’ of plagiarism and strategies forprevention.

It is clear after reading the book, if itwas not before, that internationalstudents feel hard done by andmisunderstood, and that theproblems are significant. It is equallyclear that the information andevidence contained here will be ofgreat use in awareness-raising andimproving teaching and learning, if itis applied. As touched on in the finalchapter by the editors, the questionis how to embed this awareness inthe practices and ethos of aninstitution. With the current agendaof internationalisation, therecruitment of large numbers ofinternational students, and wideningparticipation, the book could not bemore pertinent.

John Morris, International StudentSupport Officer, University of Keele.

23www.seda.ac.uk

Disability and e-Learning

dyslexia has increased steadily over recent years. This is notto say that there has been an increase in the likelihood ofstudents having dyslexia, more that the methods of diagnosishave become more advanced and as such more people arereceiving accurate diagnosis. It is important to emphasisethat just because a person is diagnosed with dyslexia, it doesnot mean that they will have the same preferences orlearning styles as someone else with dyslexia.

As dyslexia is more widely recognised, lecturers arebecoming more adept at tailoring material to their range ofneeds. To say that e-learning is of assistance to a dyslexiclearner would be understating the issue. E-learning in itssimplest, and some might say most commonly used, form(making materials and information available in an electronicformat) can be of great benefit to a very large number ofstudents, irrespective of ability. If materials are madeavailable electronically, then the student can adapt the lookof the content to suit their own needs. For example, if ahandout for a session is available before the lecture, alearner could change the font, text size, alignment etc. toensure its appropriateness for their needs. This method canwork exceedingly well if there are a number of students withconflicting needs within the same class.

Although making material available in this way is exceedinglyuseful, it does not negate the need for lecturers to be awareof general techniques they can implement. For example,documents produced in a sans serif font (such as Verdana,Trebuchet or Arial) can increase readability.

Some other tips on writing accessibly would include:• Using the in-built Headings and Styles options to

appropriately structure a document• Use appropriate fonts and designs e.g. a sans serif font,

minimum size 12, left aligned• Avoid underlining and capitalisation. Consider bold for

emphasis• Ensure background is a single colour with sufficient

contrast with font• Consider materials printed on a pale coloured

background, such as cream or yellow.

Supporting staff to support disabilityTechDis believe that e-learning is a major tool for lecturers toprovide a range of learning experiences to support disabledstudents. Not all of them will meet the ‘guidelines andstandards’ laid down by either technical groups or single-issue disability groups, i.e. it is unlikely that a single piece oflearning material will be suitable for both a kinaestheticdyslexic learner and a blind learner. To support the HigherEducation sector in providing valid e-learning experiencesfor all learners, a series of materials have been developedexploring these issues. The TechDis Staff packs can bedownloaded or viewed online at http://www.techdis.ac.uk/staffpacks; there are currently seven packs looking at arange of disability and technology related issues includingthose discussed in this article. The packs are best used inworkshop sessions, where staff can discuss issues and

approaches. If you would like further information about howto use them, or a hard-copy of the pack, e-mailhelpdesk@techdis.ac.uk.

The provision of materials via technology does present theopportunity for supporting a greater diversity of needs,furthermore it also allows students who may be usingspecific technology to better support their needs. Forexample, a blind student using software that reads to them,or a package that provides inline support for spelling,context and meaning of some words or concepts that,because of their disability (e.g. dyslexia), they may havedifficulties with. This would not be possible using face-to-face methods alone, but by supporting aspects of e-learning,the education experience becomes more widely accessible.

Useful links• TechDis Website: http://www.techdis.ac.uk• TechDis Staff Packs: http://www.techdis.ac.uk/staffpacks• TechDis Technology Database:

http://www.techdis.ac.uk/gettechnology• UKOLN Website: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk• Digital Media Access Group: http://www.dmag.org.uk

ReferencesKelly, B., Phipps, L. and Howell, C. (2005) ‘Implementing AHolistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility’, in: Cook, J.and Whitelock, D. Exploring the frontiers of e-learning:borders, outposts and migration, ALT-C 2005 12thInternational Conference Research Proceedings, ALT Oxford.Sloan, D., Kelly, B., Phipps, L., Petrie, H. and Hamilton, F.(2005) ‘Forcing Standardization or AccommodatingDiversity? A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the RealWorld’, in Proceedings of the 2005 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A) (http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/papers/w4a-2005/, accessedMay 2005).

Sue Harrison is Projects Officer at TechDis(sue@techdis.ac.uk).

Information forContributorsThe Editorial Committee of EducationalDevelopments welcomes contributions on anyaspect of staff and educational development likelyto be of interest to readers.

Submission of an article to EducationalDevelopments implies that it has not beenpublished elsewhere and that it is not currentlybeing considered by any other publisher or editor.

For more information please contact the SEDAoffice via email: office@seda.ac.uk

. . . Continued from page 24

24 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 7.2

Disability and e-LearningSue Harrison (author for correspondence) and Lawrie Phipps, JISC TechDis Service

IntroductionIn September 2005, the TechDis and UKOLN teams won anaward for their research paper highlighting technologystandards and issues of e-learning accessibility. The theme ofe-learning and accessibility standards (including the HolisticModel of e-learning ) is examined in this paper along withhow this impacts on learning styles and teaching techniqueswithin Higher Education. The paper also covers the issuessurrounding the use of e-learning for dyslexic users and therole staff developers can play in supporting disabled staff andstudents.

Driving the changeSince the passing of the Special Educational Needs andDisability Act (2001), there have been very few institutions incourt defending their practice (and of those which appearedin court, all cases were settled before verdict). Why is thisthe case? Perhaps, cynically, some would say that institutionssettled before reaching court, averting bad publicity andcostly lawyers. However, it may be that there are very fewstaff working in our sector who would deliberatelydiscriminate in their practice. If asked to amend our practicein order to support the needs of a disabled student orcolleague, who would refuse? This may be an idealised view,but when we look at the range of education initiatives inHigher Education – all of which aim to support students andstudent learning – perhaps it is not surprising that there havebeen few cases.

The level of funding spent specifically on disability projectshas been small when compared with mainstream learningand teaching. However, the legislation did achieve onesignificant aim: it raised awareness. In a short period of timeprojects and initiatives, such as the Fund for theDevelopment of Teaching and Learning Projects, and thethen Learning and Teaching Support Network, askedthemselves, ‘what does this mean for my practice?’, or morehonestly ‘what does this mean for my practice, and will I endup in court?’ The outputs from these projects, tempered withappropriate advice from Staff and Educational DevelopmentUnits, provided an excellent basis from which to findalternative pedagogies for supporting disabled students.

In e-learning the approach to supporting disabled studentswas to look for a technological answer, a set of standardsand checkboxes that could be ticked when achieved. Thismisapplication of technology standards and guidelinesinitially hampered support for disabled students through e-learning. In a face-to-face learning situation we (the sector)understood that we needed to adapt our approaches to suitthe different needs we encountered, but faced with usingtechnology to teach, we want to create a uniform andstandardised experience. In the Phipps-Kelly Holistic Modelfor e-learning (Figure 1, below), the learner’s needs (in thissituation a disabled learner) are seen as a part of the whole

institution, where accessibility of a learning resource, theinfrastructure of the institution, local factors (such as subjectdiscipline or language), the intended learning outcomes andthe usability of the resource are all considered in the contextof a quality enhancement framework. This qualityenhancement framework is needed to support the approach,ensuring that documented policies are provided andsystematic procedures for ensuring compliance with thepolicies are implemented.

Figure 1: Phipps-Kelly Holistic Model

The advantages of the Holistic Model over a‘standards’ approach to e-learningFor staff involved in e-learning, development anddeployment are often rapid, feeding a specific need. Theapplication of ‘standards’ not designed to support learningcan create major barriers, as discussed by Sloan et al. (2005).The Holistic Model encourages the learner’s needs to beconsidered first and foremost. For example, encouraging theuse of interactive multimedia (e.g. Flash-based material) as aresource for very visual-tactile learners, perhaps somedyslexic learners, but recognising that a radio play may bemore appropriate for a blind student. This is more alignedwith ‘face-to-face’ not ‘e’ practice, where many lecturersoften vary their delivery and methods depending on thesituation.

Dyslexia and technologyCurrently in Higher Education the most commonlyencountered disability is dyslexia (and other SpecificLearning Difficulties such as dyspraxia, dyscalculia,dysgraphia and developmental co-ordination disorder). Thenumber of students entering universities with diagnosed

Continued on page 23 . . .