Coeducate Project

One of the approaches to building capacity at Bolton that we trialled in the second year of the project was to develop and run a module for staff to help them think through issues around curriculum development and come up with solutions to problems.

We had mixed results overall, possibly we had too high expectations around the short term impact that could arise.  However, this report explains an approach developed for Integrating Personal Tutoring and ePersonal Development Planning.  As the new Curriculum Framework comes into being, these ideas are receiving wider attention and stand a good chance of University wide adoption.

The IDIBL framework, validated as a key component of the Coeducate project, is like all provision at the University being re-validated and this must be done by March 2012.

The ADA(R) IDIBL 22_Nov_2011_final is part business case, part evaluation of current provision, and part demonstrating how we will meet the requirements of the new Undergraduate Curriculum.

We are requesting:

The IDIBL framework and the programmes in Learning with Technologies and Regeneration and Sustainable Communities have been grouped together for revalidation as they share modules, and are currently being delivered jointly by IEC and AES. We are requesting for revalidation of Foundation, Bachelor and Masters level courses, as it is important for the IDIBL and JISC funded Co-educate projects to continue with their strategic research for theUniversity.

In support of the re-validation process at the UoB, the Coeducate project has been proactive in identifying needs and implementing support activities.

It was apparent early on that there was the need to develop an online repository and information sharing portal as current practice was to use email to distribute documentations and ensuing discussion for clarification.  To this end, the simplest approach was to create a site (pdf) in Moodle:

‘This space is open to all University of Bolton staff.  It contains the definitive documents and guidance for the re-validation process and is the first place to seek clarification from the team responsible for the implementation of the re-validation activities.’

In addition, we have also developed a frequently asked questions in an attempt to reduce the workload on senior staff responsible for the validation, but also to have a common message.

Lastly, to run in parallel with the programme the Coeducate project has put in place a series of Innovation Support Networks with the aim of supporting colleagues to take advantage of the Undergraduate Curriculum Framework to improve their curriculum offerings rather than simply treating it as a tick-box exercise – that is something just to get through:

• 9th November 12 – 2  Rethinking your Curriculum (Bill Oliver, Stephen Powell and Tracy Ellis)
• 11th November 12 – 2 Module Specifications and Programme Design  (Jane Lovatt/Stephen  Powell)
• 23rd November 12 – 2  Innovating around Employability (Julie Bateman/Mike Lomas)
• 25th November 12 – 2 D1-006 Innovating around Environmental Sustainability (Ann Kolodziejski)
• 30th November 12 – 2  Innovating around Professionals in Practice (Rob Campbell)
• 2nd December 12 – 2 Module Specifications and Programme Design (Jane Lovatt/Stephen Powell)
• 7th December 12 – 2 Innovating around Internationalisation (Kasey Carver/Sue Burkinshaw)
• 9th December 12 – 2 Module Specifications and Programme Design (Jane Lovatt/ Stephen Powell)

Much of the work of the Coeducate project since September has focussed on supporting the re-validation that is currently underway (all to be finished by March 2012)  for all of our Undergraduate provision inline with a new ‘Under Graduate Curriculum_Framework‘. In common with many institutions, we are seeking to simplify and rationalise our portfolio of courses and the complexity of delivery options within them.

As a project, we have had input into the decision making process, but as would be expected are one of many ‘competing’ voices although we believe that we have made a valuable contribution. Common themes that can be identified across the sector through conversations at Curriculum programme meetings and other fora include:

1. limiting the number of learning outcomes (UoB, no more than 5)
   reducing optionality (UoB, only core modules at level 4-5 with limited optionality at level 6 & very limited use of co and pre requisites)
2. development of cross faculty/department shared modules (UoB, typically 1 per level plus shared research methods)
3. reduce the amount of summative assessment (UoB, no learning outcome assessed more than one and a maximum of 2 summative assessments)
4. increase opportunities for formative assessment (UoB, new module specification requires specitivity in this respect)
5. inclusion of core themes embedded in the curriculum (UoB, employability, internationalism, sustainability, ethical responsibility)

One of the key aims of the Coeducate project is to develop tools that can support staff in the development of new courses through the Validation Process.

One approach that we identified some time ago is the Business Model Canvas (BMC) which as its name suggests is designed to support thinking around business models, something that we are not particularly good at when we develop new programmes.

We have done some work with colleagues using the BMC (see earlier post) and through this identified the need for a tool to capture the outputs of the planning activity.

In discussion with Phil Beauvoir, the developer of Archi open source Archimate modelling tool, the idea was arrived at to build a ‘blank canvas’ feature into Archi that would enable anyone to create a template for approaches such as the BMC. The Blank canvi are fully editable and lockable / un-lockable making them very powerful and flexible tools. In addition, and particularly useful for the BMC, is that it is easy to export and print as an A0 PDF to use in workshop sessions.

Rather than simply building a ‘hard wired’ representation of the BMC into Archi, we hope that we have added a whole new dimension for people who wish to try and tie together different approaches and techniques with the practice of Enterprise Architecture using Archimate modelling language. The important point to understand, is that this isn’t just a visual representation, but the tool captures relationships between objects with associated properties so that more can be done with the data in an automated way.

One possible example is the JISC work on Student Life Cycle Management Service Design in Higher and Further Education which has an approach of Blueprinting and in particular the Front Stage / Back Stage identification of fail points – those who know about will hopefully see the connection!

We think this is a cool bit of work and expect to see the commercial vendors following suit:^) Phil’s work will ship with the next release of Archi in early December 2011.

An early example of the tool in use…

The observations below are from a Coeducate project team member.  We hope to conduct a fuller evaluation of the tool in October with about 20 University staff  and will share our findings then.

————————–

In July I sat in on an evaluation day for the Learning Design Support Environment (LDSE) tool[1].  The emphasis of the evaluation process was to obtain user feedback about the tool with particular attention paid to participants’ existing work and requirements.  The participants seemed to be engaged with the evaluation process and generally enthusiastic towards the LDSE tool.  There seemed to be several key factors in the design of both the evaluation process and the LDSE tools which contributed to this positivity.

Relevancy to Participants

Each participant was asked to bring along details of a module that they were currently redesigning or needed to redesign.  This seemed to have two benefits.  Firstly the participants were already in an open frame of mind towards the design of the module and therefore might be more receptive to new ideas and thought processes.  Secondly, as opposed to working through a pre-created scenario, the subject matter was of interest and relevance to each participant because it was their own choice.  As well as encouraging participants to engage with the design process their knowledge of the module content and context seemed to allow them to interact more deeply with the process than might have been the case with a sterile pre-created scenario.

User Involvement in Tool Design

Discussing the LDSE tool’s development with members of the evaluation team it became apparent that user input had been key to the design process.  From what I was told the first evaluation sessions involved paper‑based exercises to map out the functionality of the tool.  This means that before coding of the tool had begun the team could be reasonably confident that it was at least starting off in the right direction to meet users’ needs.  The value of this approach seemed to be confirmed by seeing how quickly participants were able to make meaningful progress with the tool.  There may have been minor quirks and issues with the user interface but the participants seemed happy to work through these because of what they were able to achieve with the tool.

Activity Palette

The evaluation participants seemed to appreciate the balance of freedom and guidance provided by the LDSE tool.  The timeline on to which Teaching and Learning Activities (TLA) are added is a blank canvas.  However this is balanced by an on-screen palette of pre-defined TLAs that users can choose from if they do not need to create their own.  This seemed to be well received in terms of showcasing activities that users might not have otherwise thought to use.

These positive aspects of the evaluation process and the LDSE tool do need to be balanced by some other observations.

Added Value and Use in Isolation

At least one participant suggested that the LDSE tool would be more useful and therefore more appealing to them if it could feed into other systems and in particular the course content and time breakdown statistics required for their University’s administrative processes.  Maybe for other users it could be the ability to generate the outline of a LAMS file or the basic structure of an IMS LD Unit of Learning which would provide the “pay off” for the effort involved in the LDSE design process.

Providing this added value from the user’s perspective helps to address the question of “what’s in it for me?” when faced with a new process or tool.  The LDSE tool exports to XML and so there is the potential for data translation and re-use.  Without this potential to interact with other systems is there seems to be the risk that using the LDSE tool becomes an isolated exercise.  If this is the case then could some of the benefits, for example the palette of TLAs outlined earlier, be just as easily provided by a reference list or a set of 8LEM[2]/HLM style reference cards[3]?

Hijacking for Box Ticking Purposes

The LDSE is intended to “support teachers in designing effective technology-enhanced learning”¹.  One of its key features is to provide a graphical breakdown of the learning experience in terms of how time is used (for example the percentage of time learners spend acquiring knowledge versus discussion and practice).  This could be used by teachers to reflect on their module designs.  However there does also seem to be the potential for these percentages to be the driving force behind module design, especially if targets are set by higher academic powers.  Would this alter the use of LDSE or reduce the quality of experience from a teacher’s perspective?

Just before our full-time developer was poached by a mobile phone app developer, we started work on Wookie Widgets to support curriculum development activities.  This beta beta version demonstrates the concept I think, we will return to this as soon as we appoint a new developer but in the meantime if anyone wants to take it forward please do.

Background

For any software development carried out by the project, its longer term sustainability is an issue that needs to be resolved before the end of the project.

In proposing software to support the validation process, polite resistance was expressed by the head of IT services, as his staff had been cut and the team was finding it difficult to support existing software let alone take on any new software, especially if it had the potential to proliferate many copycat bespoke software solutions in other process improvement projects.

The initial response was to look for generic workflow software that could be used to support any process improvement project.

Strengthening this, was a circular from the VC stating that he would drive forward improvement in seven areas, including: “improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, reviewing all operating units and services.” As workflow support would be involved in almost any  efficiency and effectiveness improvements of operating units and services, a paper was prepared for the Technology and Infrastructures Committee (which is evolving into an EA governance group) to the effect that processes and resources would be needed to evaluate workflow software, prioritise improvement projects, and develop, implement and sustain them.

The meeting did not come to a conclusion on the paper (it will be raised again at the next), but in discussing support for validation, a Dean strongly recommended that the existing process was itself too heavyweight and should be revised before any attempt be made to support it with software. The project put this to the Pro-VC who immediately accepted the proposal to review that validation process and set up a group for the purpose in which the project now participates.

Currently, for process support, rather than looking for software to be brought in, we are exploring the possibility of cloud-based solutions, removing the necessity for local support. In particular, we propose to evaluate an online service, BaseCamp. Although this is project management software we wish to see whether it can be used for process support, particularly where the main task is one of providing transparency as to the current stage any course has reached. BaseCamp provides a relatively cheap start up cost model ($99/month) and is easy to set up. Initially it is proposed to use it to support a lightweight revalidation process which using existing processes would be an enormous task.

We may also evaluate Salesforce.com’s cloud based workflow service.

Background

Working with staff who had been innovating new courses to learn what they wanted by way of supporting ICT, it emerged that more than online tools, what they would most value was a group (like the present one!) where they could share, and strengthen their ideas before it was submitted to the rigours of the validation process and the work it demanded.

At the Summer 2010 Co-Educate SG meeting chaired by our previous Pro-VC, it was proposed and agreed that the Coeducate project should set up an Innovation Support Network (ISN) that would work with staff (and students to encourage a co-creation approach) wanting to participate.

Development

In planning the Innovation Support Network, two categories of course developers were envisaged:

• those who wanted to think outside the box, i.e. those who wanted to innovate
  • those who’s courses that, for whatever reason, had too few participants, had high dropout rates or whose enrolments were declining and who would therefore like to rethink their offering, i.e. those who needed to innovate.

A further issue that had repeatedly arisen both with the innovation group and with earlier baseline work, was the lack of support for gaining market intelligence for the business plan that is required as a part of the validation process.

The changing climate for higher education has resulted in changed circumstances in the university, at least temporarily, requiring the Coeducate project to re-focus somewhat.

All course were in the process of being reviewed, with those judged to be non-viable being withdrawn and the remaining courses required to comply with a new Core Curriculum Framework, resulting in all of them needing to be revalidated.

At the next Co-Educate SG meeting, the new Pro-VC and chair asked if the ISN could initially focus on the task supporting courses comply with the Curriculum Framework and assisting with the streamlining the revalidation process.

Activity

To this end, the ISN has begun engaging at three levels:

1. Deans of School
2. Principal Lectures, Quality
3. Lecturers piloting courses through the Curriculum Framework

Initial engagement has been with the School of Business and Creative Technology. The Dean welcomed the project’s involvement and saw it as an opportunity to maintain innovation whilst conforming to the Curriculum Framework. Two subsequent meetings were held with School staff., the first group being Business, Law and Accountancy staff, the second creative technologies. Both identified areas where they felt innovation is needed and the ISN will hold further meetings with each group, focussed on these.

The meetings also introduced the Business Model Canvas, discussing how it to adapt and use it.

The Business team thought it would probably be too difficult for other staff to use so they would need expert assistance, but agreed it might be useful in helping establish dialogue between staff and a business model expert.

The Creative Technologies team took to it rapidly and produced a model for a platform to support students developing a realistic ePortfolio that could be used to record and then present their work to employers.

In our work with staff developing new programmes, a common comment is the difficulty of creating a business model that is required for validation and in particular the difficulty in obtaining reliable market intelligence for expected student numbers. This more innovative a course is, the less it is possible to rely on data from other courses and sources, either internally or externally.

UoB has recently gone through an Academic Review which examined all courses with respect to a number of viability criteria and a significant number of courses will be discontinued.

These considerations make it clear that, going forward, it will be necessary to put more weight on the viability of new courses while they are being developed. This in turn will require a change in approach on the part of those developing courses, so we were seeking an approach to business modelling that would be easy for staff to adopt. To this end we have been trialling the Business Model Canvas which has been released under a Creative Commons license with a view to adapting it for the purpose of developing business models for new courses.

This has been presented for comment to staff from the Business School and used in a workshop by staff from the Creative Technologies team with a positive outcome, sufficient to encourage a further workshop with them to develop their ideas further.

This encourages us to work further on adapting the wording and trialling it further. In a separate development, Phil Beauvoir, the Archi developer has prototyped an implementation of the Canvas as an add on to Archi. We have discussed the changes that would be needed for our purposes.

Should the canvas trials continue to prove positive, the work needed to implement it as a tool, adapted for our purposes, could be funded at relatively low cost from the Coeducate budget.

An output from the ‘Planning and Developing Open Learning Courses‘ module run by the project was this resource created by Anna Zaluczkowska and colleagues which was used to present the model she developed at a departmental meeting – this is exactly the kind of outcome we had hoped for.

The writers lab  developed and delivered a masters course designed to explicitly align teaching and learning with employers and students needs so that as students demonstrated their capability employers would recruit those that best met their needs.

In carrying out this work, Anna initially sought to use the IDIBL framework as it offered the flexibility that she required to develop a student teaching, learning experience that closely  mirrored that of the workplace including an approach to assessment that didn’t distort the experience by requiring a ‘false’ set of outputs for assessment purposes.

She found, however, that the terminology used by the framework encountered resistance from employers and some colleagues as she sought to move away from a content based curriculum.  Wrestling with these issues lead Anna to the conclusion that she had to wrap the course in familiar terminology so that it was acceptable but to continue to innovate in practice with the learning experience the students had.

One of the capability raising activities of the project last year was to run a ‘module’ for 6 staff called ‘Planning and Developing Open Learning Courses’.  The idea behind this was to stimulate some creative thinking around the development of new pedagogical and business models taking and inquiry-based learning approach and then presenting back to an appropriate departmental forum to try and stimulate further thinking.

As a project activity it was partially successful in that it did develop two resources that provide models for further course development but it was little staff apatite to purse the level 7 credit that was on offer.  Of equal value was the understanding that it brought to the curriculum development problem which lead drectly to the development of the innovation support network idea.

This is the ‘module description‘ (purpose, learning outcomes, assessment criteria, etc.) and this is the programme of study developed for the module.

As part of the project work looking into new business models, the project made this presentation at the OER11 conference in Manchester, May 2011.

From a curriculum development perspective, the conference highlighted how the OER discussions have yet to address sustainability in a meaningful way with emphasis still on creating and making available OER without much thought given to their re-purposing and re-use.

Our presentation of a small-scale case study developing a course that created, used and re-used OER felt a little bit lonely in the sea of phase 2 Jisc OER funded initiatives and the mountains of money thrown at the Open University by the Hewlett foundation.

However, we believe that we are on the right track in trying to develop new business models and ways of using  OER in the curriculum.

Abstract

———————————————————————————————-

The changing financial climate for higher education teaching provision in England is leading many institutions to explore the development of new business models.  Open educational resources (OER) appear to offer an opportunity for institutions to improve the quality of the resources they provide to learners and at the same time cut costs by sharing with other institutions.   For institutions with a widening participation remit, there is a further driver to continue to develop provision for learners to access higher education at an affordable price and approaches around open learning (OL) is one such possibility.

In this paper we will present a case study of the development and implementation of an open learning course ‘Designing learning for the 21st century’, between partner institutions in the UK and China.  The course was at postgraduate level and was delivered to 12 Chinese-speaking students as a part of their Masters in Educational Technology.  Data was collected through the development teams reflective logs, and interviews with course participants and teaching staff.

The motivation for developing the partnership was different for the two institutions.  For the Chinese partner, the attraction was to give their students the experience of studying in English some key developments in learning technology internationally.   For the UK partner, the attraction was in developing new working practices and pedagogical approaches to inform the development of business models for OL that allow for differential pricing for support and accreditation options open to students.

This paper will explore the cultural and linguistic challenges faced when developing and delivering the course and provide the solutions developed.  It will evaluate the course and its delivery including intended and unintended practice & pedagogic developments in relation to the aims of developing an OL course.  It will discuss possible business models and ways of working between partner institutions that allows for different packages of support to be purchased by the learner or institution on their behalf.

This extract of conclusions and recommendations is from a published paper  in Campus Wide Information Systems.  It evaluates the IDIBL framework (confusing name choice, it is a model for teaching, learning, assessment and associated staff working practices) in terms of a “A cybernetic analysis of a university-wide curriculum innovation”.  A draft of the full paper is attached.

———————————————————————————————-

Conclusions & recommendations

Although the IDIBL framework proved useful to curriculum designers, this was not always in the way anticipated when it was created.  Some staff found the framework valuable as a thinking tool to systematically critique current practices, exposing rigidity and assumptions behind curriculum design in the university’s existing practice.

The framework had a particular view of how new courses could be created which worked best when staff had already identified the problem of relevance to the students’ employment and were in ill-defined subjects that were newly emerging or fast changing.  For these staff the framework was a valuable source of inspiration and of practical help in validating their own courses.

However, the approach does not fit well with the practice of academics developing new courses in a piecemeal way, either around an area of specific interest to them or by re-working old modules and courses.  For colleagues who have a very different view of what a curriculum is and what it is to study at higher education, the framework approach can be almost meaningless.

Although validated as a framework by the University, this didn’t accord it with the status of a regulation or even guideline. If  the framework is to be established in the ‘fabric’ of the institution and to be more than an experiment to develop inquiry-based forms of learning, then more effort would be required to ensure the framework was ‘officially’ adopted.  This highlights a gap between the university’s strategy and implementation.

The framework omitted to explicitly address the organisational approach implied by the framework.  For example, the notions of team teaching, online community of inquiry for teaching staff and new productivity & management arrangements, which were present in the earlier examples of the approach, were not addressed.

This suggests the following analysis:

Cybernetic analysis is useful to course designers, in particular the notion of ‘absorption’ of variety, when considering the impact of choices they make on students and teachers.  This involves seeking to minimise the negative impact on both groups and making better use of internal, self-organising, mechanisms for absorbing variety as well as attenuators and amplifiers.

For cross-institutional initiatives that seek to promote a particular pedagogical approach, it is vital that at an institutional level there is clarity about what is trying to be achieved.  If the purpose is to better understand an organisation and stimulate new ideas and thoughts widely, the framework approach is worth replicating.  If however, the immediate imperative is to recruit significant numbers of students, then such activities probably need to be located in a dedicated unit. In cybernetic terms, this unit is it own ‘organisation’ on a level containing the course organisation as analysed above -  designed to amplify variety in the university’s managerial structures (‘management’) and attenuate variety in the course (‘operations’). This simpler environment insulates the innovation from the conservative effect of the existing university organisational design.

Finally, this paper has not explored fully the problems of explaining the approach to potential students and employers, whose preconceptions of what it is to study in higher education were found not to match the IDIBL framework as we communicated it, despite the learner-centred motivation in our design.  This is a challenging problem that the success or failure of the approach ultimately rests upon.

As a part of our work to evaluate the IDIBL framework, we conducted a number of fairly lengthy interviews.  These were then transcribed into Google docs to enable multiple users to select and code text according to an agreed format using the highlight and insert comment feature – highlighted text, either as a source for paper 1 or 2 , keywords, and who selected it (see below).

The above grounded theory approach comes in for quite a bit of criticism from some quarters.  For example, detractors may criticise that it on the grounds that advocates see the researcher as a ‘blank slate’, or that the approach ignores the literature – this Slideshare by Cathy Urquhart helps address these and other criticisms as well as offering an explanation of what grounded theory is.

Having got the defence of the approach out of the way, the main purpose of this post is to share an AppleScript developed by Richard Millwood.  The challenge we faced was having 10, 4000 word GoogleDocs coded as described above. To make sense of this data, in a second iteration of analysis, we decided to tabulate the text with associated comments it in a spreadsheet (again in GoogleDocs) to allow multiple users to work on the text at the coded text at the same time.

You could copy and paste as a way of achieving the above, but the attached apple script automates the process and and may well be useful to other Apple researchers:^)

<————————————–>

tell application “Microsoft Word”
activate
copy every Word comment of active document to allComments
set theTable to make new table at active document with properties {number of rows:1, number of columns:4}
insert text “Quote” at text object of cell 1 of row 1 of theTable
insert text “Comment” at text object of cell 2 of row 1 of theTable
insert text “Paper” at text object of cell 3 of row 1 of theTable
insert text “Author” at text object of cell 4 of row 1 of theTable
repeat with theComment in allComments
set theScope to content of scope of theComment
set theCommentText to content of comment text of theComment
set thePaper to first word of theCommentText
set theAuthor to last word of theCommentText
set theCoreCommentText to text from word 2 to word -1 of theCommentText
make new row at end of theTable with properties {allow break across pages:false}
insert text theScope at text object of cell 1 of last row of theTable
insert text theCoreCommentText at text object of cell 2 of last row of theTable
insert text thePaper at text object of cell 3 of last row of theTable
insert text theAuthor at text object of cell 4 of last row of theTable
end repeat
end tell

This time last year, the idea that we would implement some technology to support the validation process seemed quite a straightforward proposition, and in some ways it still is.

However, a period of investigation and reflection has lead us to some conclusions about the way that we need to go about this taking service oriented and systems thinking viewpoints.

Concerns

1.         Validation processes in universities are similar to many of the other supporting activities of a university in that involve the passing around of documents for people to comment on and then make decisions about them – document and workflows.  For example: assessment; mitigating circumstances; QAE processes; tracking PhD students progress, etc. all require documents to be passed around, often by email or internal post and for some of these we already have bespoke tools.

2.         Developing and deploying a bespoke document-handling tool to support the validation process is a relatively straightforward thing to do.  However, in imposing yet another ICT system (however good it may be) on the IT department with the requirement develop and maintain beyond the life of the Coeducate project it raises serious governance and sustainability questions.

3.         The Archimate model of the idealised validation process is relatively simple, but the actual process in action is full of work-rounds, fudges and ‘rule’ breaking.

Idealised ADA process

Where we are at!

In the light of the above we have evaluated several software solutions based on Business Process Execution Language and the stacks such as WSO2 that integrate  human interactions and involvement in processes (not simply automated) and even BPMN based solutions,  but rejected them at this stage as too ambitious for where Bolton is at bearing in mind our relative size as an institution and likely on going resource availability.

We are now exploring two options:

1.         JIRA – a highly customisable issues and project tracking software often used by technical development teams and being considered as a toll by our IT department.  We have a build of the process using the Workflow Designer plugin that gives a nifty drag and drop interface.  Once a template is designed, it can be duplicated and run for each validation instance.

2.         Moodle solution – using the considerable power of Moodle to handle groups, notifications, and conversations, document handling with the addition of a ‘tracking’ block to monitor progress.  This is by far and away the simplest idea, but that maybe why it has a chance of actually working and being adopted and supported.

As a part of the UoB curriculum review we are seeking to reinforce the standardisation of our modules with the aim of improving the student learning experience and efficiency of our curriculum delivery.

We are in the fortunate position to already have a module database (first developed in 2003 and currently being updated with the support of Coeducate) and have exploited this by undertaking some low tech data mining.

The following charts were presented to senior managers and others responsible for the development of a ‘Core Curriculum Framework’ for the university to support informed decision making on the possible impact of choices being made.

Having access to the underlying database allowed for easier extraction of the required information, however it is envisioned that the same affect could be acheived by using an XCRI feed which exposes common module information such as learning outcomes and levels.  From a technical perspective this would be a simpler solution, as all the required information is presented in a usable manner.

Some results

1. Number of learning outcomes per module: the proposal is to move to 4 or 5 per module which would require the re-writing of either 1/3 0r 2/3 of the portfolio – a big difference with significant resource implications.

2. Number of assessments per module: the proposal is to limit the number of assessment types to 2 per module – around 1/3 of the modules would need changing resulting in significant resource implications.

3. Duplication Factor:  represents the number of times all of the learning outcomes are assessed divided by the number of assessments per module. Thus, if a module has five learning outcomes and two assessments, both of which assess each learning outcome, you have 5 learning outcomes assessed 10x, giving a duplication factor of 2 – the proposal is to assess each learning outcome only once so around 1/2 of the modules would need changing resulting in significant resource implications.

As a part of the institutional wide IDIBL curriculum development project, a  degree framework was developed to support adoption of work-focused learning. This action has created a ‘disturbance’ in the University as staff seek to understand and identify its value, if any, to their own professional goals.  The reactions by staff and their experiences in seeking to use the framework are significantly influenced by the context in which they find themselves – the institutional structure, policy, systems, processes & practices, professional identity – all have a bearing.

The attached report is the first phase in the evaluation of the IDIBL project.  In further publications, using a ‘realistic evaluation approach‘, we will seek to identify the underlying mechanisms that can impact on curriculum development across the institution seeking to find out “what work for who in what circumstances” (Pawsen & Tilley, 2000)

The opportunity to improve the efficiency and quality of module authoring has been identified as an important aim of the Coeducate project and this development work is now underway with an initial meeting of the user group supporting the agile development process.

We evaluated demonstrator technology including Phoebe & the London Pedagogical planner that had interesting features, some of which we will incorporate into our solution.  However, we have decided to opt for a simpler approach by developing a module-authoring block for Moodle rather than a stand-alone’ tool.  This has several advantages that we believe have significant impact on the likelihood of our being able to develop a solution that will have significant staff take-up with staff and these include:

-       the UoB institutional VLE is Moodle, an open source tool that offers the opportunity for significant customisation, and staff are already familiar with its use so we anticipate less staff resistance and fewer training needs;

-       we can use the existing architecture & permissions structure within Moodle which which significantly reduces the complexity and scope of the development work;

-       linking module authoring, module database and student data systems through Moodle is will encourage a ‘holistic’ view of learning design from validation to delivery in the VLE;

-       the block can offer contextualised support for module authors that can be readily edited in the light of experience and as requirements change removing the need for significant, ongoing technical support;

-       the block will be readily available for the sector to take-up and use in their own context and we will design it with this potential in mind.

These simple screen shots from the early demonstrator give the flavor of what we are trying to achieve.

This document further describes how Moodle has been integrated with various systems within the University of Bolton.  It continues from the last document to describe the new enrolment plug-in in more depth.  It also describes how Moodle Courses, which have been linked to SITS (Student record system) records, can then be moved around within the Moodle category hierarchy,  so they appear under the correct category.  The main difference between a default installation of Moodle being that a course creator (teacher) can do this and not have to rely on the Moodle Administrator to do this on their behalf.  This document also aims to briefly explain what the code does in order to achieve the wanted behaviour.

Explanatory document and user guide.

Introduction

This document describes how Moodle has been integrated with various systems within the University of Bolton. The rationale behind this work was give lecturers the opportunity to more closely tie Moodle courses with university modules and student lists which are maintained by SITs.  It also makes use of the university’s directory server for user information, accessed via LDAP.

Additions to Moodle

A number of additions and changes were required to integrate Moodle with the university systems.  These were developed for the most part as plugins utilizing Moodle in-built extensibility.  However there were two small changes to Moodle’s own code.  The first was the addition of an extra line to the admin block. The second was an addition of some linked features to the ‘my Moodle’ page.

Explanatory document & code.

In July, we undertook an institutional -wide survey on ‘curriculum design and affective issues related to new technology implementation’ in collaboration with the Universities Work-with-IT pilot project.  This coincided with our Teaching & Learning Conference and as well as gathering some data, we also anticipated that the survey would act as a gentle ‘nudge’ to get colleagues thinking about the use of ICT across the institution.

Although having experience of tools such as Survey Monkey, we decided to opt for Google Forms which provides a simple interface to help develop your survey and saves data back into Google docs which easily enables simple analysis via charts and tables.

Richard was tasked with drawing up the questions, a mixture of closed and open responses (see options to left) , and instantiating the survey which is still available for anyone who wishes to try it out or simply re-use the questions developed.

An automatically generated summary of the results gives you an idea of what is possible and, at a later date, when we have had time to undertake some analysis we will post our observations.

Overall, we received 60 responses which from an overall staff head count of 6-700 is a pretty good return!

For the Coeducate project the work we are undertaking around curriculum development cuts across many of the structures, systems and the processes across the university.  This complex picture is ripe for a systematic approach to help us understand how it currently operates and how proposed changes can be managed to ensure their impact is understood and the different stakeholders can take ownership of them.

Why Archimate?  Archimate is an open standard modelling language for enterprise architecture.  It encourages modellers to think in three dimensions, the business processes, applications that support these processes & the underlying technology that supports them (see diagram below for important concepts).  Most importantly, it provides a way by which different stakeholders can communicate across organisational boundaries and think through  the consequences of proposed decisions and the impact of changes.

Components of Archimate langauge

There are several tools for using the Archimate language. The most simple of which is to use templates in drawing products such as OmniGraffle (for Mac) or Viseo (for PC)  which is OK, but offers nothing by way of automation or supporting the logic applied by the modeller.   BiZZDesign Architect is a powerful commercial option that is built on the Archimate language with sophisticated options that allow interrogation, but at several thousand pounds per seat, per year it is seen as an expensive option for HEI.

So why is Archi significant?   It is an open source tool funded by Jisc based on the Archimate lanaguage that can achieves enough of the potential of a tool like BizzDesign Architect to make it a good choice for relatively small enterprises, like the University of Bolton to develop their modelling capacity without a significant software outlay.

Currently, most of our effort in modelling is supported through Jisc funded projects, but this is not a sustainable approach.  To become embedded,  a wider group representing the different parts of the University need to support this approach. By lowering the barriers to entry both financially and in terms of the ease of use of the modelling tool,  could be a significant factor in helping us to achieve this.

Higher Education Context

For English HEI the next few years will see a decreasing Hefce contribution with increasing student fees as the intended means of making up the shortfall (Lord Brown Review).  This will impact on Universities in different ways with some being able to command a premium for courses and some struggling to recruit as the cost to students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds makes HEI study less attractive.  In either case, there will be a significant squeeze on Universities budgets that are also responding to a learner agenda that is demanding more contact hours for the increasing fees being paid.  The option of increasing the number of high paying international students will also prove more difficult as new Universities across the world compete for increasingly mobile and distance learners.

Out Of Adversity Comes Opportunity

It is likely that a gap will grow between what many can afford and the prices being charged, as many UK HEI are unable to constrain their costs pass them on by way of increased fees to students.  It is in this dynamic that there is the potential to develop new ‘products’ that ‘fill-the-gap’ vacated by institutions who are unable to respond through new curriculum models that require different ways of working.  It seems likely that there will be a growth in part-time students who seek to continue to work whilst learning and institutions that seek to develop and build on existing transnational partnerships, but deliver these courses in more cost effective ways.

An Open Learning Business Model

The diagram below attempts to illustrate an open learning business model by contrasting it with other approaches.  It is a relatively straight-forward concept that moves beyond Open Educational Resources by also making freely available full programmes of learning including, learning activities, automated self-assessments, ways of interacting online with other learners, and significantly a mechanism for summative assessment leading to accreditation and awards based on the self-directed learning undertaken.

The underlying proposition is that by allowing learners to choose the level of support they need or can afford, it will make access to higher education a possibility for people who would otherwise be disenfranchised by student fees.  In response, capacity and capability need investing in to transform appropriate courses for open learning and develop and resource the processes that enable a ‘pay-as-you-go’ approach to support and assessment.

In the diagram we have identified two dimensions that are central to the model. First the extent to which there is formal recognition of learning (summative assessment, accreditation, awards) or self-evaluation by the individual concerned.  Second, a continuum of institutional resource implications that has at one extreme the campus attendance supported (lectures, tutorials, seminars, etc.) through to no ongoing resource implication beyond making the open learning materials available.  Between these two dimensions there are many possibilities and an individual learner would, in the open learning approach, select the appropriate option for them at a given time.

The Open Universities OpenLearn initiative is moving somewhat in this direction, although it is problematic in that it potentially undermines the current OU business model where learners are largely paying for high quality resources.

The Open Learning business model described requires awards frameworks that allow the combining of credit gained via different routes including the Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL) procedures that enable learning to be accredited through many different types of learner experience – most UK HEI already have these in place although making them more cost effective through the use of technology is an area where more work is required.

In addition, different approaches to teaching and learning including work-focussed learning, which we are piloting at the UoB, also offer ways in which we can reach out to new groups of learners.

Some Possible Open Learning Scenarios

Learner A: a well qualified a self-organised learner who has identified the need to learn about a specific business process access and uses resources independently, joining in online conversations both hosted by the university and in special interest groups when they feel the need to so do.

The University earns no money from this learner but other learner’s benefit from their contributions to online activities.

Learner B: is working full-time and has 120 L4 credit from a first year studying at a University some years ago.  Confident in their ability to learn, unable to afford to pay for study, they work through open learning modules undertaking formative assessments and evaluations as they progress.  When they feel confident in themselves that they are capable of passing an assessment they apply to be examined on that module paying a relatively modest fee for a portfolio of evidence to go through the APEL process or for a written examination to be sat.

The University earns income for assessment from this learner, this is significantly less than would be fees for traditional approaches but resources required is relatively low and the pricing reflects the cost to the institution and what the market will bear.

Learner C: is working full-time but in relatively low paid work.  In an ideal world, they would chose to study full-time on campus but this is not a possibility.  Instead they opt for a mixture of self-directed study and on topics of particular interest as, attend lecturers as their work allows.

The University earns income for assessment and for some support for this learner, this is somewhat less than would be fees for traditional approaches but resources required are determined and paid for by the student and they reflect the cost to the institution and what the market will bear.

Why this is significant?

The ideas explained above are not original, others are thinking and taking action along similar lines (George Siemens and his module on Connectivism).  However, what is significant is that this is that Open Learning is a vibrant topic of conversation at the University of Bolton as we seek to position ourselves in the years ahead to face what will undoubtedly be challenging times.  This is not proposed as a way of replacing existing courses, but for staff are seeking new ways of generating income this might be one possible route to explore.

A talis workshop in Manchester offered some very interesting food for thought about how institutions might manage their data in the future.  From a not very technical perspective, it works something like this…

RDF (Resource Description Framework) is a way of describing resources, that is making a statement about something in a structured way.  A critical part of this statement is the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that  identifies a resource by way of a unique string of characters.   This shouldn’t be confused with a URL which refers to a location where we can retrieve something – the URI simply identifies the ‘thing’ but doesn’t tell us where it is or how to get it.

Now imagine a world where online objects all have an RDF description attached.  This would enable us to start cross referencing by making assertions that the thing we have described is in some way like something else and we do this by including its URI in our RDF.   The BBC have started to use this approach on parts of their website.  For example, on this page about a Tiger, if you scroll to the bottom of the page you will see that it links to Wikipedia and uses extracted text through DBedia where the structured data of Wikipedia is made available.   This nicely illustrates how a web of interconnecting resources based on rich descriptions using URI can facilitate the transfer and combining of information from different sources around a common concept with machines processing the information – a practical implementation of the concept of the semantic web.

At Bolton we have many different databases each holding related information about courses and programmes.   At the moment, we are expending a lot of effort in trying to get these systems to interoperate with each other.  It doesn’t take much imagination to see that if our databases used RDF it would in principle allow this to happen.

However, the real potential of  RDF is that it allows us to combine data in ways that we haven’t yet dreamt of, and this point was well made by presenters at the workshop.   As more and more data is made available in this way, more people will make the links and connections and combine information that they find valuable.   Personally I would like my postcode connected to local information such as; library opening times; the blue, green, and black bin collection dates;  and other services both private and public.

Anyone who is interested in the technical side of this needs to start thinking of databases not in terms of a collection of interlinked tables, but in terms of ‘graphs’ that describe things in terms of triplets ( subject [e.g., car], predicate [e.g., colour] & objects [e.g., blue]).  By creating a query (much the same way as for SQL) it is possible to identify matching patterns on the graph to pull out the data that is of interest.

As usual, the Camel event provides an effective forum for projects to update each other, exchange ideas, and consider opportunities. On reflection, the main point that came out of the day was the unprecedented state of flux that the sector is in. Financial pressures are resulting in curriculum reviews, reorganisations, pressure for quick solutions to very complex challenges, but also opportunities as institutions seek to develop new business models and strategies for growth outside of Hefce funding.

We spent some time discussing XCRI and possibilities for its extension to richer descriptions of units of learning. This is a complex area as for one thing there is little agreement over the landscape – features, names, characteristics, etc. However two conclusions were arrived at. The first is that currently it would be too much to expect XCRI to be the vehicle for these richer descriptions, this would overcomplicate the specification and become mired in politics. Secondly, it would be very useful if CETIS were to pull together an online resource to ‘map the landscape’ as a first step to getting to grips with current ideas, projects and initiatives across the UK, Europe and wider.

Lastly, despite the lack of interest in developing the XCRI specification for competencies, as an adjunct to the Coeducate project Bolton is undertaking an XCRI mini project to look at exposing common module information such as learning outcomes, level, and quantity of credit.

Moving into the tool development phase of the project we are now consulting with staff using Idealised Design methodology (Russell Ackoff) to generate a specification. This approach supports an agile software design development process – developers working closely with users to iteratively build software.

We are aiming to meet two overarching needs identified from our initial inquiry:
1. tools to support creative design;
2. and tools to replace unproductive labour (validation documentation).

To achieve the above we anticipate tying in the current module database with Moodle where the design and authoring environment will be accessed by course developers.

We think that some of this will be achieved using widgets served from a Wookie server. On the plus side this will allow us to develop interoperable widgets (relatively easy) that can be used in other platforms and by other people, although this will present a challenge with the transfer of data into other University systems (the module databases, etc.) from the Wookie server which is well suited to allowing collaboration by different users, but not necessarily to transfer data out to other systems in an integrated way.

Employer Based Training Accreditation (EBTA), is a process sponsored by fdf to enable employers to get accreditation for in-house training that they provide. The proposition behind the initiative has three elements:

An event run by FDF designed to look at how shell awards and frameworks could support this process provided some interesting examples of practice from HEI including Derby, York St Johns and The Open University, that latter being a very different model.

An overall impression was that in our desire to offer different routes in higher education we run the risk of creating unsustainable business models that are trying to bring together a complex set of regulations (quality assurance, funding, semesters & modularity), policy initiatives and working practices without addressing fundamental issues and questions. A change of policy brought about by the current economic climate or a change in government would alter the environment significantly.

In designing our evaluation strategy we have thought long and hard about the approach we wish to take.  The Jisc ‘corporate’ overview on evaluation is described on their website as:

Evaluation is the systematic collection and analysis of data to assess whether an activity has been effective, achieved its objectives, or had an impact. It is an important part of any project or programme because it can assess the feasibility or development of a programme of work (formative), the overall success or value of completed work (summative) and to capture the learning that has taken place during the activity.

As many people who have been involved in evaluative research would agree, the assessment of whether an activity has been effective or achieved its objectives is problematic, and in particular, when disseminating work that is useful for a wider community.  Some of our thinking around this problem is influenced by the work of Bassey who in conceptualising educational cases studies identifies one approach as being “theory-seeking and theory-testing” and the work of Pawsen and Tilley on ‘Realistic Evaluation’ who seek to answer the question “What works for whom in what circumstances?”

In both examples there is an explicit recognition that actions taken in one set of circumstances will work differently in another context, but that there is a need to generate theories that can help policy makers and practitioners beyond the case in study.  In both approaches, the systematic collection of data is an essential component but where they, arguably, differ from other approaches to evaluation is in their objective to generate theoretical understanding that has wider value and not to develop a template that can be applied again and again with predictable outcomes.

I would argue that an illustrative example of the difference between approaches and attempts to bridge the divide can be seen in the school effectiveness / improvement debate  (here & here) where targets and league tables are used to judge the effectiveness of institutions.  This argument rests on the emphasis placed on ‘achievement oriented school effectiveness’ (think Chris Woodhead)’ verses ‘process oriented school improvement’.  Interestingly, although the school sector is rowing back somewhat from target setting with the dismantling of measures such as SATs in England and in the NHS the debate about targets is hotting up, higher education is rushing headlong into league tables for just about anything that can be measured in the belief that it will provide a stimulus for improvement in standards – HEI effectiveness approach.

The challenge for Coeducate is to move from a philosophical standpoint to a plan for a realistic evaluation!

A good event throughout that progressed two important avenues of inquiry.

1.  The ‘new business models’ that are required for new approaches to teaching and learning which in turn demand new working practices with all this implies for middle managers seeking to coordinate staff .  Encouragingly there is a lot of experience in the group, in particular work that Tony Toole (critical friend) has undertaken around activity-based costing will feed well into future events that the support project will host.

2. A concrete understanding of how the practice of ‘coaching’ is another role that HE teachers (not necessarily lecturer) might take.  The particular question of interest for Coeducate is how this can be combined with the concept of facilitation and consultancy that are at the heart of the project IDIBL framework.

Attached is a workshop (resources and Online activity design of keynote attached) I put together for Bolton.  It tries to get staff to think about activity design for online learning.  There are two activities.

One based around the Edinburgh Scenarios developed by Cross and Star in 2005.  The second was based on the idea that staff need to think in three dimensions when planning online learning; roles, activities & resources/tools (IMS LD would call this last one environments).

I think the session went well, and I will be refining and running it again in a few months time.

This Guardian  Article might provide an interesting portent of things to come.  I think that this example is the most interesting “London College of Communications (LCC) is closing 16 of the 19 courses offered in a single school” as it points to a re-structuring of the curriculum as a response to straightened times.

Many institutional managers would complain that there is massive duplication in courses and modules.   Arguably,  there is the opportunity for  rationalisation of bulging portfolios with some creative thought about how variety can be achieved through an outcomes based approach (less prescriptive modules that enable different outcomes for individual students) rather than creating more and more courses to try and match the demands of the market place and desires of lecturers to teach to their passion!

A very interesting day, but not necessarily in the way I expected it to be.  My motivation for attending was to bring my knowledge up-to-date in the area of e-Assessment now covered by the newly established association.

I think it fair to say that I was shocked that e-Assessment in its various forms discussed hadn’t matured much beyond the quizzes and tests I remember as a school teacher at the end of the 1990s.  Clearly the technology is different including the web based nature of e-assessment, but apart from that I was struggling to see where pedagogical sophistication was being applied.  If e-Assessment is to become accepted and trusted as a mainstream assessment approach, there needs to be significant developments that will give lecturers confidence in the validity and reliability of the tests within the context of ‘higher education’ outcomes.

An interesting Report presentation on the state of Summative E-Assessment Quality in UK HEI was presented by Lester Gilbert commissioned on the basis of the Jisc definition of e-assessment, but which I think exemplifies part of the problem:

“E-assessment is the end-to-end electronic assessment process where ICT is used for the presentation of assessment activity, and the recording of responses…” (Jisc 2008)

My impression gained from the presentation was that practice across the sector was at best patchy with little attention being given to the quality of e-assessment.  However, the project teams interpretation of the Jisc definition excluded approaches such as e-portfolio which have proven to be successful in numerous institutions.  I wonder if this marks a line in the sand between a ‘computer scientists’ view of the world where there is still a belief that machine ‘interpreted’ tests can be developed in such a way as to be sophisticated enough to replace other forms of assessment that require human interpretation and a sceptic position that sees tests such as this having at best a small part to play in higher education assessment.

Technical point

Some developments that sounded promising included the progress of an IMS V 2.0 Question and Test Interoperability (QTI) standard tha offers the prospect of increased interoperability in transporting assessments although its use will be restricted by the legacy platforms that are used by Universities and the functionality offered by the Common Cartridge 1.1 (hopefully version Common Cartridge 1.2 will be a close map onto QTI 2.1).

A useful conference that highlights a set of activities around work-based learning that offer real opportunities for institutions like Bolton.  The highlights for me were:

1. discussions around the EBTA process whose models are many and varied, but all include substantial employer and employee engagement
2. employer engagement through Chambers of Commerce as anything from a broker to delivery of courses, this diagram, based on one presented, illustrates the approach
3. SME spend money on training in a 2:1 ratio of private to public delivered training and 30% care about the qualification their staff receive from that training
4. A panel discussion between three employers (Acenture, Jewsons, NHS) left me with these general impressions:
   • HEI are hopelessly unresponsive (speed to market) and difficult to deal with by comparison with private trainers
   • needs to be a change to a market driven approach understanding client issues not just selling what they have
   • often employers want to buy a solution that is collaborative, that is would include several HEI and other partners
   • in community provision will be increasingly important for health service
   • credibility for HEI is in short supply with employers, so this needs gaining first and HEI vocabulary is unhelpful in all of this
   • higher education qualifications are valued by employers and their workforce but there is an important element of training in what they want that has a ready impact on ROI

Dr Christopher Jones presenting at the At the Jisc Learning & Teaching meeting, reported on an ESRC funded project investigating the ‘Net Generation‘.  Essentially, a project looking at the generation who have grown up with technology when they first encounter higher education.  The slides will be availabale later, these are a few of the interesting points that stood out for me:

• the extent to which students do NOT appear to be demanding changes in the use of technology by HEI;
• the extent to which technology use and adoption is a result of users need and life circumstances rather than being explained by Prensky like notions of Digital Natives and Immigrants, there was no evidence of a strong schism between cohorts of learners (already a damaged idea but with increasing evidence based research now debunking many of the ideas;
• the extent to which the types of Universities students studied at (post 92, community, Russell Group, etc.) didn’t appear to correlate to the way in which students use technology.

References:

Jones, Chris and Cross, Simon (2009). Is there a Net generation coming to university? In: ALT-C 2009 “In dreams begins responsibility”: Choice, evidence and change, 8-10 September 2009, Manchester, UK.

Jones, Chris and Ramanau, Ruslan (2009). Collaboration and the Net generation: The changing characteristics of first year university students. In: Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Practices, 8-13 June 2009, Rhodes, Greece.

Jones, Chris and Ramanau, Ruslan (2009). The Net Generation enters university: What are the implications for Technology Enhanced Learning? In: M-2009: Proceedings of the 23rd ICDE World Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education including the 2009 EADTU Annual Conference, 7-10 June 2009, Maastricht, NL.

Jones, Chris; Ramanau, Ruslan; Cross, Simon and Healing , Graham (2009). Net generation or Digital Natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers and Education (In Press).

Back in the 1970′s the CSE was developed with the aim of addressing the problem of the large numbers of school leavers who had no formal qualifications.  As a part of the CSE model, Mode III delivery allowed teachers to determine both the syllabus and assessment of a course with quality assurance provided through a system of external evaluation by teachers from other schools.  Supporters of this approach cited the increase in achievement made possible by the ability to develop a programme of learning that was relevant to a particular group of students.  Detractors claimed that assessments lacked both validity and reliability as teachers simply taught to the assessment and in the end the new GCSE combined CSE and O Levels into one qualification.

Most universities develop courses in a way that has parallels to Mode III; lecturers determine the syllabus and its assessments with reference to external markers such as subject benchmark statements and professional body requirements.  Quality assurance is achieved through internal processes with an overview by external examiners.  In this ‘bespoke’ model of higher education, an individual lecturer ‘embroiders’ the syllabus including the assessment.  One result of this, as Mark Johnson would say, is that it becomes as much the ‘teacher’ that the students are studying and their interpretation of the curriculum rather than any notion of an impartial body of knowledge.  Similar arguments can be made as were put forward on both sides of the Mode III debate, but for us the major challenge that arises out of this approach is that of scalability.

The Coeducate project is trying to develop modes of delivery that aren’t based upon face-to-face campus activities, owned by an individual lecturer, nor necessarily organised at departmental level.  Rather we are trying to develop work-based courses that use flexible, process-based frameworks in conjunction with re-usable content-based modules that can be delivered at a distance and by different people.  In doing this, however, we don’t want to lose what we believe is one of the essential qualities of studying in higher education which is about added value of the relationships between teachers and learners.

By contrast, The Open University approach to course development has a very well elaborated syllabus supported by high quality resources, centrally developed assessments that are delivered by contract lecturers.  Other examples that differ from the norm are Foundation Degrees that are often delivered by partner colleges in the work-place.  In this example, a high degree of collaborative working is required between the different teachers and all of this is underpinned by tight contractual agreements.  Another strategy is to change the instrument of assessment from examination to portfolios where broader based assessment criteria can be applied, rather than a ‘mark sheet’.  This approach allows for a wide interpretation of the syllabus by the teacher without impacting on equitability of opportunity for the learner to pass the assessment.

In the schools system a GCSE can be sat without any teaching (no attendance requirements) by simply paying a fee and turning up at the assessment centre.  In higher education we generally maintain a strong link between notional study hours (volume of learning expressed as credit), level of study (NQF 4-8), and the individual teacher/lecturer who delivers a particular unit of learning.  If in higher education are to develop new business models that might eventually be based around the loosely defined open education, then we will need to find ways to decouple the assessment from the teacher and at the same time maintain the valuable aspects of studying in higher education that are often more about the people than the syllabus.

In mid July I attended a one-day workshop run by FDF.  The approach taken was formulaic as one might expect from a ‘tool kit’, but still worthwhile and as it is being rolled out nationally colleagues at other institutions may get the opportunity to attend.

The big issue raised for me was how do HEI in a significant way muscle into the already very crowded landscape of employer funded training?

Crowded landscape

We were told that, as a generalisation, Universities lack credibility with employers in their ability to develop programmes of learning that ‘add value’ to the employers business.  (employers felt lecturers needed more experience of the ‘real world’ of business to make their knowledge and expertise suitable for training today, – Report to Foundation Degree Forward on the impact of foundation degrees on students and the workplace). In addition, a raft of private organisations already have very strong links and a track record of providing valued training and this single ‘point of contact’ is a tremendous advantage from the employers perspective;  why would employers want to put effort into managing multiple relationships?  Even worse still, when it comes to universities it is often several individuals in the same institution they have to deal with as effective customer relationship management is a pipe dream rater than a reality.

Strategy

If the above analysis is to be believed, then it demands a strategy be developed that looks seriously at the problem and has some ways of addressing it.  The strtaegy should provides a framework for decisions based on guiding principles, objectives, goals and structures to inform the operational plan that details activities and targets including periodic reviews.

One obvious approach would seem to be for HEI to build strong relationships with private providers and work through them to both sell products and gain market knowledge.  In addition, the development of a dedicated team that handles employer relationships (sales, development, marketing) and is able to speak authoritatively on behalf of the University and its departments about the current course offerings, pricing, etc., but also develop new products quickly to meet their needs.  Not to mention slick Accreditation of Prior learning to reduce the time and effort required to achieve a named award – the overall list is long…

A few moments reflection highlights the enormity of this task.  Semester patterns that determine delivery opportunities, inflexible staffing models, high levels of autonomy at subject/discipline/department/& individual lecturer level, etc.  And as always there is the bigger question of where a ‘higher education’ simply becomes ‘technical training’ and whether universities should be in the business of delivering the latter.

By way of a revision lesson, I attended the XCRI project support day at Manchester Metropolitan University last Monday.  For those who don’t know, the XCRI project has developed specification (XCRI-CAP v1.0 Schema) for the exchange of descriptions of courses that is both ‘light weight’, but also extensible and so flexible to individual institutions needs using XML.  The primary aims are twofold, firstly to reduce the duplication of effort and errors that arise out of re-keying data which is common place in institution marketing activities.  Secondly, to make information about courses readily available so that third parties can use it for other purposes, obvious examples being  UCAS (although not signed up yet) and other organisations that provide a service to match students to courses.

Several interest points came out of the session:
1.  the pragmatic and wise choice to focus on the marketing function when developing the project and subsequent CAP specifications.  With a curriculum design hat on it is easy to grasp the relevance for other University processes, but including Quality Assurance and curriculum design activities would have meant that the project would, in my opinion, have made little progress;
2. the potential of the specification for the HEAR reforms (however they play out) in helping institutions through the minefield of managing rich descriptions of instances of programmes (version control of validated course information as well as marketing and tutor interpretations) and combining that with personal and other extra curricula information.

The big news story is that the close working relationship between this project and the European standards development processes has resulted in a very close mapping between the two.  If your institution isn’t considering how XCRI could help their business development, then they should certainly take a look and talk to either Scott Wilson, Mark Stubbs or Alan Paull.

As part of the activities for our second work-package (Understanding the challenge and identifying the changes)  we are attempting to incorporate SODA methodology (now extended to the concept of Journey-making) with our underpinning Soft System Methodology (SSM).

The SODA process uses the techniques of  interviews/focus groups and cognitive mapping to help participants collectively understand complex and ‘messy’ problems and negotiate a plan of action.  Like SSM, there is a strong emphasis on group ownership of a problem and collaborative action to address it.  Developed initially from Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory it utilises the key ideas of:

• Individuality – experiences that change us;
• Commonality – the idea that similar experiences people have results in them making similar interpretations;
• Sociality – the extent to which we communicate;
• Hierachy – the natural way we think and prioritise issues.

Based on a workshop I attended at Banxia Software (closely connected to Ackerman & Eden who developed SODA) some key points to bear in mind if you are considering using this approach and in particular the Decision Explorer tool desined for cognitive mapping:

• it is a qualitative in nature;
• cognitive maps imply causal links between different concepts that are usually expressed as opposing poles, e.g. Putting lecture material online increases flexibility of access rather than reduces attendance at lectures;
• cognitive maps are not concept maps nor mind maps which simply show ideas / concepts / actions, etc. around a key word;
• using this approach reduces the ‘volume’ of options to a manageable level;
• bespoke software enables analysis of maps to identify most potention options, that is those that impact positively on multiple strategic/key issues  and high level goals;
• the strength of the approach is in the structuring of group discussions and exploration of concepts and their poles not the identification of a particular answer through the use of the software and;
• like other modeling methodologies, the individual can gain most by using it as a way of structuring their own thinking about problems.

A well pitched workshop that enabled Curriculum Design projects present to evaluate the benefits of different modelling approaches and in particular using ArchiMate.

It is a coherent whole of principles, methods and models that are used in the design and realization of the enterprise’s organizational structure, business processes, information systems, and IT infrastructure.

One key message was that ArchimaMate’s strength is its ability to support conversations and aid understanding between groups with different levels of technical familiarity.  This helps to keep conversations focussed on the business processes avoinding unecessary confusion with particular technological solutions.

Like all modeling approaches, it important to be to draw boundaries in terms of the depth and breadth of the modeling activity – to answer this users need to be acutely aware of the purpose in terms of their project.  This is an important point as the working involved in creating models in bespoke software that allows for multiple views of linked objects can be time consuming and expensive.  It may be that simple drawing packages that capture the essence of a model are sufficient for supporting conversations around a given implementation or change.

Options for modeling languages include:

• Unified Modeling Language (UML) – strength for software modeling
• BPMN – strength for business process modeling
• Archimate – accessible but not so good for software or pure business process modeling

The Curriculum Design Programme Meeting (Birmingham, 13th May) had as one of its aims raising awareness amongst the projects of the overarching evaluation that is being undertaken.

The interplay between project and programme goals pose an interesting set of questions around to what extent the latter will or should influence the former.  Key stakeholder groups are different as is the political landscape in which they operate.  In addition, a wide diversity of methodologies are being deployed both in terms of management of activities and their evaluation.

Conversation briefly touched upon the term transformation and in particular the ‘quality’ or precise (measurable) nature of the transformations – an important issue for JISC, particularly in the context of upcoming straitened times for public funding.  I would imagine that this powerful word had many project teams contemplating what the institutional wide ‘dramatic’ change would be as a direct result of their project and how realistic a prospect this is.

Our first cluster meeting or Camel (think along the lines of learning set) hosted by Manchester Met illustrated two commonalities between projects.  First was the challenges faced by the different institutions present and the relative similarity of our responses. Second was how many of the ideas being discussed included ‘negotiated’ approaches to learning & the development of personalised programmes of study; an inherently more complex and complicated design.

As might be expected, all of the projects depend to a greater or lesser extent on the argument that ICT offers a significant new opportunity to do things differently; to overcome challenges such as administrative complexity & higher ‘teaching’ costs.

Discussions included:

• size of chunks of learning; options such as accumulate teaching of credits (bite sized) with assessment when sufficient amount is built up to make it worthwhile
• client delivered teaching with university quality assured assessment
• development of frameworks & templates to help with pricing for clients & confident ‘sales’ discussions
• development of frameworks & templates to aid rapid validation or other less onerous procedures for bringing courses to market
• development of common approaches; assessment patterns, size of modules, generic learning outcomes
• degree to which validated modules/units can be adapted without re-validation; name changes for marketing purposes, different assessments
• shifting QA to faculty/school level; validation modules, award titles within frameworks

Overall the focus of the discussion was on the adaptation of what we currently do to meet perceived changing demands through the spreading of existing good practice within our institutions in the domain of work-based learning.

Although touched upon, we had little critical discussion about the implications of HE institutions developing programmes of learning and modules that match employers and professional bodies requirements and what this means for the identity of higher education institutions.  Oleg used the Viable System Model to illustrate this point and in particular Stafford Beer’s approach to measuring performance illustraed by the diagram below taken from Wikipedia.

Actuality (what is actually being achieved)

Capability (what could be achieved if problems were identified and removed)

Potentiality (what could be achieved if the process was completely redesigned to maximise effectiveness)

Oleg went on to explain that  Actuality/Capability gives us Productivity, and Capability/Potentiality as Latency.  Whether or not we chose to actually derrive a measure, this is a useful way of fraeming our considerations and proposals for action.

PDF of coEducate presentation. In the discussion that followed, one suggestion made was that we develop the IDIBL framework (one of our pilot initiatives) so that it can be used for CPD around curriculum development issues. This is something that we might pursue as an online tool.

After numerous focus group sessions and interviews the picture of curriculum design at UoB is becoming clearer, although as one might expect, also complex.  In starting to apply the Viable System Model (VSM) to analyse the situation, we are lead to think about what are the ‘real’ boundaries that delineate viable entities within the university (ones with a distinct identity) in contrast to the boundaries resulting from the organisational structure put in place for management purposes of the current curriculum.

This might be significant in terms of curriculum development is if those with management responsibilities (e.g. quality assurance, teaching & learning to name but two) understand different epistemological traditions, or practices regarding assessment from those proposing new courses.

A second question raised is what will it mean to be a viable member of teaching staff as the curriculum changes? How will staff respond and can we build the workflows and regulations that support the changed practices that will be required of them around activities such as marking, getting external examiners to assessment boards, giving student feedback module by module etc.

Seldon calls for exam revolution in UK schools ‘In the name of fairness, we have embraced dullness,’ professor of education to tell College of Teachers – Jessica Shepherd guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 March 2009 15.36 GMT

Although primarily aimed at schools, this article does touch on higher education towards the bottom.  Arguably a quick find and replace of the word school/s with university/ies, teacher/s with lecturer/s, heads with vice chancellor/s and it pretty much makes sense in the UK, HE context!

We need to educate people to be flexible, with human skills and a deep sense of value.

Once children start to believe schools are places where things are being done for them, rather than done to them, their interest [in education] will revive,” Seldon argues. Schools will then become “places of delight, of excitement, and of harmony.

Testing and examinations have spread in Britain and elsewhere in the world, because of a lack of trust – of schools, heads and teachers,” the speech says. “Government officials have sought, through exams and testing, to make education ‘teacher proof’ around the world.

“This squeezes out originality, imagination, individuality and flair, he argues.

In the name of fairness, we have embraced dullness – and so close are we to it that we do not even see what has happened,” Seldon will say. “School districts, individual schools, principals, faculties and departments, and teachers, have become valued according to one measure alone: their success at passing these exams.

We pump ‘useless facts’ into students – a technique employed in the Victorian era and parodied by Charles Dickens in Hard Times with the character of rigid teacher Thomas Gradgrind.

Whether in Brighton or Burnley, Beijing or Bogotá, Bracknell or Bangalore, schools are dancing to Gradgrind’s drum beat of facts, facts, facts more than ever.

Facts have a place, but only a limited place, in education. The facts children learn today will become superseded. We need to educate minds as well as teach facts. The 21st century will be very different: we need to educate people to be flexible, with human skills and a deep sense of value.

“It is not just the school system that has its faults. Seldon accuses universities of ignoring academic breadth and personal achievement.”

Despite their protestations to the contrary, most universities do not value academic breadth or co-curriculum and personal achievement,” he will say. “By failing to do more to acknowledge and reward breadth, universities are not encouraging school pupils to stretch themselves beyond their A-levels.

Increasingly, higher education institutions are becoming training or instruction grounds for professions – law, accountancy, business – courses which sit uneasily with purer subjects like English, history and natural sciences.

Reading through this report over the past few days has been a valuable activity.  Although largely based on only a handful of HE institutions it is a good overview of higher level learning in the workplace and is worth dipping into if not reading cover to cover.

Many projects in the Curriculum Design programme mention frameworks; arguably the most overused term in curriculum development!  However, the table below struck me as a good starting point for a discussion on what a work-based learning framework should aspire to.  One point that I would take issue with is the characterisation of:

“‘template’ or ‘shell’ modules, which are based on the traditional module descriptors model, but outline only generic learning outcomes rather than any specific content.”

There is a danger that in trying to explain the difference between such modules and ones that specify a syllabus of discipline knowledge that we fail to make clear that the “specific content” in the learning outcomes are in fact processes that lead to the development of student capabilities not that the modules are ‘content free’.

On Tuesday 17th February, we ran a focus group with the middle managers (QPL) responsible for ‘Quality Assurance and Enhancement’ within the 5 schools (faculty/departments) at the University of Bolton (UoB).  Their job title clearly explains their area of responsibility, and although working within the different schools they are coordinated by the central unit responsible for Quality Assurance and Enhancement – I imagine that there is a similar setup elsewhere.

What role do QPL play in curriculum design?  Different ‘world views’ emerged about the nature of  work around quality:

• the current system works relatively well with part of the role of the QPL being to interpret a complex set of rules and processes so that others can bring courses to the market.  We can tweak it, use technology to make things easier but there is no need for a radical overhaul;
• bureaucratic requirements have become excessive, and we need to devolve more responsibility back to schools away from the centre;
• bureaucracy can get in the way of of creativity, how do we achieve the right balance between the two?

Another interesting discussion that arose was around the extent to which increasing specialisation in the university workforce has reduced the likelihood of new curriculum initiatives developing from the grass roots.  This opens up an interesting avenue of thought around the ownership of curriculum and who it is, that might take the risks associated with new initiatives; individual academics, subject areas, schools, employers, learners, professional bodies or even the QAA through their benchmark statements?

Over the past few weeks discussions with colleagues at Bolton we have begun to surface factors that impact on curriculum development connected to what might be referred to as Institutional Memory.

The University of Bolton (UoB) has a long history and can trace its roots back to 1824 when the Bolton Mechanics Institute was established.  Over time, in response to national agendas and local demand new schools and colleges were developed that culminated in the formation of  the Bolton Institute of Higher Education in 1982.

At this time, the CNAA (1965-1992) awarded degrees for non-university institutions and it had a strong tradition in requiring extensive documentation as a part of its quality control procedures.  This included the requirement to demonstrate a rationale and coherence to an overall programme as well as evidence that infrastructure and qualified staff were in place to deliver it.  The CNAA was abolished in 1992 and the UoB was awadrd independent powers to award taught degrees in 1990, and research degrees in 1994.  However, it was not until 2004 that full University status was awarded to the then Bolton Institute of Higher Education and in 2005 the name changed to the University of Bolton.

An recurring observation being made is that the requirements of the CNAA not only still strongly influence the formal processes surrounding curriculum development, but that they also still strongly influence the culture; informal activities and ways of thinking about curriculum.  Deal and Kennedy (1985) used the phrase “the way we do things around here” to refer to these informal cultural elements of a business that are vital to its successful operation.

We need to ask questions of both the formal and informal to check that they are operating in a way that is best suited to the development of curriculum at the UoB in 2009.

Last week as a part of the generation of a ‘rich picture’ (SSM) and problem structuring (SODA) we interviewed the George Holmes (VC) and Peter Marsh (DVC) to try and get a better understanding of the significance of curriculum design for the UoB.  Both interviews were interesting and for different reasons.  From Peter who has had a long connection with Bolton it was interesting to get an historical perspective of the progression of Bolton from the old Council for National Academic Awards days through to Bolton’s status now as a quite new University with independent awarding powers.  This perspective helps us to understand the rigorous Quality Assurance process and culture and practice of course development at Bolton.

From George, it was helpful to get an insight into UoB as a ‘business’ including the analysis of how the institution and its staff will have to change the way we do things rather than just adapt our current offereings incrementaly.  Arguably, this will require us to develop new curroculum as well as reinterpret what it is that the higher education experience should offer students.