Bringing-about-Change-in-Teaching-and-Learning-at-Department-Level-updated-refs

Bringing about Change in Teaching and Learning at Department Level Report on the GEES Subject Centre Departmental Change Initiative Mick Healey1, Michael Bradford2, Carolyn Roberts3 and Yolande Knight4 University of Gloucestershire, 2University of Manchester, 3University of Oxford, 4University of Plymouth May 2010 Executive Summary “It was excellent” “It’s been really amazing” “Brilliant” “It was wonderful” Team leaders’ comments about the Department Change Initiative residential workshop Bringing about change to teaching and learning in a department is a key issue for department leaders The department is arguably the key organisational unit at which the core teaching and learning experiences of most students are designed and implemented This GEES Department Change Initiative grew out of a desire to be more strategic about supporting changes in teaching and learning It adapted ideas developed in the Change Academy programme and applied them at a departmental level It is an innovative initiative and GEES is the first Subject Centre to implement the Change Academy principles at department level This report investigates curricula changes which are in the process of being implemented It covers the critical ‘framing’ stage, and the early stages of implementation of changes to curricula GEES departments in four different universities established teams of four to five participants with different roles and levels of seniority, including students Whilst two teams were single-discipline department groups, one team was interdisciplinary and another was seeking synergies in course delivery from the merger of three previous departments The year long initiative was in three phases: a) bidding and support of team development; b) 48-hour three day residential event; and c) development of the projects over the subsequent six months The programme was designed and delivered by three senior staff from the GEES disciplines experienced in running learning and teaching change workshops, with the active support of the GEES Associate Director The main conclusion to emerge from the interviews, self-completed questionnaires and the authors’ observations as participants is that overall the GEES Departmental Change Initiative was highly effective at supporting departmental teams to clarify, design and plan significant curriculum related initiatives Among the key features of the initiative which made it successful are: • • • • • The inclusion of the planned initiative’s key stakeholders, including students and where appropriate learning support staff The supported change residential event, which took the teams off campus for at least two days and immersed them in a mixture of activities, particularly emphasising creative thinking, and time to plan The discipline-based nature of the event, which enhanced the benefits of networking with members of the other teams Pre- and post-event telephone discussions, which provided critical support to the team leaders Respected, experienced supporters who acted as independent critical friends of the teams and encouraged them to think of a range of ways of meeting their objectives Against these benefits has to be balanced the intensive nature of the programme from the point of view of the Subject Centre It is difficult to calculate a cost-benefit ratio, especially for changes which have yet to be implemented fully in their departments However, the indications from the participants are that the initiative has added considerable value to the quality of the teaching and learning which the four departments have designed and planned Arguably the projects supported in this initiative will impact on the quality of student learning more extensively than many of the smaller projects traditionally supported by Subject Centres, which are usually targeted at individual modules or courses In the context of restricted resources for Higher Education nationally, serious consideration should be given to moving from this pilot initiative to a full programme of supporting strategic changes at departmental level This applies not only to GEES, but to work in the other Higher Education Academy-supported Subject Centres, and to whatever other discipline-based initiatives designed to support teaching and learning may emerge in the future Contents Executive Summary Main Report Context and rationale Key features of the initiative Researching the initiative Understanding curriculum design Understanding the management of change in higher education Supporting the GEES department change initiative Expectations of the initiative Experiences of the event 11 Post-event developments 15 10 Conclusions 16 Appendix GEES Department Change Event Programme 18 Appendix Approaches to Curriculum Design 20 Appendix Creative Methods for Planning Change 25 Appendix GEES Department Change Case Studies 26 References 39 Main Report “I want you to imagine that you have been asked to form a new department of geography Given the rare opportunity to write without constraint, would your curricula bear much resemblance to most of the formal courses of study to be found today? With any luck your answer will be something like, good grief no! If your answer is something else … there is not much hope for the future!” (Gould, 1973, 253) Context and rationale This report is the outcome of a supported change programme Bringing about Change in Teaching and Learning at Department Level analyses an initiative undertaken by the Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES) Subject Centre with the support of the Centre for Active Learning (CeAL), University of Gloucestershire The pilot initiative was developed during 2008 and ran for a year from early 2009 to early 2010 It involved four GEES departments from Aston, Bath Spa, Lancaster and Newcastle Universities, each of which had a significant curriculum-related change project that they were either planning or were early in the process of developing Each had a team of four or five people with different roles and levels of seniority, including senior managers, experiences lecturers, new lecturers and support staff Three of the teams had a student member and one bought along two The report covers the period of project initiation and development through to the beginning of the implementation stage for the change Hence it reports on work in progress rather than completed However, it covers the critical ‘framing’ stage in designing changes to curricula The department, or school, is arguably the key organisational unit in higher education (HE) where teaching and learning is planned, delivered and evaluated As departments have variously grown and merged in response to the exigencies of the Higher Education market-place for research and teaching, many cover several subject areas, and some draw curriculum strength from the associations This has led department heads to seek strategic changes in the organisation of teaching and learning which straddle whole departments Alternatively, in some cases staff from more than one department may collaborate on interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary tuition Examples of both of these types of change are seen in this study The report is based on research undertaken by the authors during the course of the programme to explore the department teams’ experiences of designing, developing and beginning to implement specific strategic teaching and learning projects and initiatives The research involved a mixture of individual participant reflections and semi-structured interviews, observations and group discussions It aimed to capture the ‘journey travelled’ by the teams in managing their change initiatives, and to draw conclusions about the transferability of the approach The programme was originally inspired by Change Academy© – a year-long facilitative programme led by the Higher Education Academy and the Leadership Foundation, which enables teams from HEIs to develop the knowledge, capacity and enthusiasm for achieving complex institutional change (Bradford, 2010) The Department Change programme is innovative in that it is the first to apply the core principles of Change Academy at department level In its first decade of existence GEES has largely focussed on supporting the learning and teaching needs of individual faculty This initiative aimed to support the needs of departments It is the first of the 24 national Subject Centres to develop such a department change event A thematic-based initiative examining the development and embedding of inclusive policy and practice in 10 institutions by the HE Academy used a similar approach to this programme (May and Bridger, 2010) Although we were not aware of this initiative when undertaking ours we found the structure of their report helpful when preparing ours This report disseminates the learning gained from the experiences of the four departments across the GEES subject areas and the wider HE sector It is hoped that the findings will stimulate others to undertake further work to understand the nature of the change process at department level and how it might be supported to enhance the quality of student learning Key features of the initiative The initiative shared many of the key features May and Bridger (2010) identified in their programme: • Self-identified change: Departments were required to identify the rationale and aims of the proposed change and the relationship with the department’s and institution’s strategies They had also to demonstrate the impact on the students’ learning experiences • A facilitative initiative: The initiative was designed to support the department teams to focus on, and exchange ideas about teaching and learning development and implementation It offered space away from the home institution, prompted discussion and debate, provided input from change consultants and access to relevant research evidence, tools and resources The programme provided a mix of institutional, role-based and cross-team working • A longitudinal programme of engagements: The initiative involved a series of supported events for team leaders, and a three-day residential event for all team members • The involvement of department teams: As a condition of participation, departments were required to nominate a team of three to five people drawn from across the department, including where possible a student member • Working alongside other GEES departments: By bringing teams together, the programme enabled the participating departments to work alongside others who were planning teaching and learning changes This allowed for the sharing of experiences, challenges and solutions and supported networking across institutions • Promoting the development of evidence-informed practice: The initiative was informed by a number of relevant research studies • Seeking to share the learning with the sector: From the start of the process, the initiative was underpinned by research to capture the ‘journey travelled’ by the teams over the course of the programme so that others may learn from the work they have undertaken Four departments from different UK universities submitted proposals One was planning a new interdisciplinary undergraduate programme in sustainable development; another wanted to reconceptualise their first year programme following a merger of geography, environmental science and ecology faculty into a new department The third wished to develop a programme to support the varied backgrounds of students coming into their twelve month Masters programmes; while the fourth wanted to plan how to engage employers and community groups more effectively in their curricula (Table 1) The main event in the programme was a 48-hour workshop over three days This intensive structured event consisted of a mixture of plenary sessions, helping the participants explore a variety of approaches to change and curriculum design and to rethink their projects creatively; team sessions where projects were developed in more detail; and social teambuilding events (Appendix 1) The team leaders were supported in characterising their projects and choosing their teams before the event and discussing progress and issues arising during and after the event Significantly all three supporters of the teams have experience of being Heads of GEES Departments, leading major national teaching and learning projects, and running workshops designed to facilitate change All three are National Teaching Fellows Table Summary of the change initiatives Department and Institution Interdisciplinary Studies, Aston University Theme of change initiative Sustainable development and management: designing an interdisciplinary degree Department of Geography, Bath Spa University Employability and engagement in the curriculum Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University Creating opportunities from a departmental merger: re-evaluating first year teaching across the GEES disciplines Making sense of postgraduate study: transition issues School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Newcastle Key aim(s) To develop a new degree in sustainable development and management that provides a coherent and innovative approach to the learning and teaching of environmental and sustainable issues To develop integrated external engagement opportunities for all students whilst retaining ownership, distinctiveness and academic integrity of programmes To explore ways of removing overlap between first year subjects, whilst maintaining a high level of embedded skills training To improve transition for postgraduate taught students (especially international students) by developing pre-sessional information and integrated skills and academic competency training in the early weeks of teaching Researching the initiative A mixture of qualitative methods were used to research the experience of the teams and their leaders, including interviews, discussions, self-completed reflections, and observations Although the departments and institutions who participated in the pilot are named with their agreement, comments of individual participants have been kept anonymous Discussions took place with the team leaders once before the residential, once during the event, and once after Each of the team members was asked to complete a one-side proforma reflecting on their expectations before the event; 12 were returned Interviews, lasting between 10 and 20 minutes, were held with 10 team members in the final 24 hours of the residential event and with each of the team leaders in the week following the event A similar reflection proforma was distributed six months after the event, but insufficient were returned to analyse Finally, as the researchers were also the supporters of the initiative, an important source of data was our own observations and discussions between the GEES team This data was supplemented by summary case studies of each of the initiatives written six months after the event by the team leaders (Appendix 4), our reading of the literature on curriculum change and change management, and our experience of facilitating curriculum change in other contexts Understanding curriculum design As the programme was concerned with bringing about change in teaching and learning at department level it is important to put the proposed change initiatives in the context of approaches to curriculum design Jenkins (1998) usefully distinguishes between the curriculum that: • • • • Is intended by staff and designed before the student enters the course Is delivered by the staff or learning materials (including books and software) The student learns and experiences The student makes part of herself or himself and remembers and uses some years later A paper outlining three different approaches was prepared for the event (Appendix 2) They were: • • • Engaging the curriculum in HE, based on the work of Barnett and Coate (2005) Developing self-authorship through the Learning Partnership Model, drawing on the work of Baxter Magolda (2001, 2006, 2009) Curriculum design through the analogy of an Ouija board, based on the work of Jenkins (1998) Delegates were asked in their teams to contrast the approaches and suggest how they might, with appropriate adjustments, inform the design of their team’s project In the following plenary, delegates identified aspects of each of the approaches that they thought threw light on the issues they were discussing Understanding the management of change in higher education Securing change in HE can be a convoluted process, where there is a tendency to abandon the radical and revert to the familiar in the face of competing pressures, or occasionally of apparently insuperable opposition Heads of Department, programme leaders, or their equivalents may face hostility from colleagues with different priorities, or from administrative structures that militate against shifts The precise role of ‘leadership’ for innovation, and the personal qualities allegedly required to be successful, are frequently rather troubling concepts to those placed in positions of responsibility (McKimm, 2004) Lucas and Associates (2000) offer some largely American perspectives on this, emphasising teamwork, shared goals, facilitation and individual reflection, drawing on examples of institutions evolving over decades Conversely, some of the business-related models for change emphasise decisiveness, rapidity and certainty, and the ability of leaders to motivate and to engage effectively with opposition (for example, Government Office for the South West, 2004) Bryman (2007), drawing on publications in the UK, USA and Australia, provides a more detailed analysis of HE leadership effectiveness, but comments on the surprising paucity of literature providing meaningful overviews Summarising, he identifies the need for the leader to be seen to foster a collegial atmosphere, and to advance the department’s cause, as aspects that are particularly relevant to HE The subtlety of the relationship of academic staff with their work is also emphasised, a more nuanced one than that of many other professional groups, suggesting a need to pay particular attention to the mindsets of colleagues, their views on the legitimacy of the change, and their trust in their leaders Gibbs et al (2008) take this a little further in the context of research-intensive institutions, but argue that teaching excellence can be achieved in entirely different ways involving widely contrasting styles of leadership behaviour They conclude that advice and guidance on the leadership of teaching should pay careful attention to the context, rather than make assumptions about the general applicability of leadership theory or advice Beyond the level of the individual, the seminal paper on change management in HE, by Trowler et al (2003), provides an insightful analysis of the different conceptualisations of the change process This is of value not only in understanding the nature of change after the event, but in providing some sort of map for the journey They specifically identify the department as the key organisational unit for change, as the intellectual ‘home’ and focus for most faculty Their analysis includes a classification of models of change into five groups: • • • • • Technical-rational Resource allocation Diffusionist: epidemiological Kai Zen or continuous quality improvement Models using complexity Crucially, Trowler et al (2003) articulate a view that rational, linear understandings of change (specifically curriculum innovation), and appreciations that are underpinned by an expectation of the journey being simple, are usually inappropriate Technical-rationalist approaches, such as the well known eight-stage Harvard Business School model of Kotter (1996), are nevertheless of some use in providing a checklist against which to consider different elements of change, whilst recognizing that in practice these not necessarily occur in the suggested sequence Establishing a sense of urgency Creating the guiding coalition Developing a vision and strategy Communicating the change vision Empowering broad-based action Generating short term wins Consolidating change and producing more change Anchoring new approaches in the culture Despite the complexity and uncertainty, discussion of these issues with the participating GEES teams and their leaders nevertheless did provide encouragement for them to stand back from the intricacy of the process in which they were engaged, to consider the broader context, and to reflect on the potentially unforeseen consequences of their initiatives The discussion was intended to be motivational and to provide a personal development opportunity for colleagues who might not previously have given much thought to this sort of sociological or systematic issue previously Specific analyses of the ‘change academy’ approach to fostering shifts in practice have been made by Dandy (2009), Gentle (2007) and Flint and Oxley (2009), but these were not used explicitly within the workshop Supporting the GEES department change initiative The GEES team, comprising three academics and the GEES Associate Director, worked together before the event to outline the whole process and the associated evaluative research Mick Healey had proposed the idea and co-led the initiative with Michael Bradford who was able to draw on his experience of running Change Academy to help design the process and the event (Bradford, 2010) Carolyn Roberts was brought in as an additional supporter and Yolande Knight provided the administrative support and link with GEES at Plymouth Some of the team had worked together before, but not all together on the same project They brought a range of experience across the GEES subjects, in mounting conferences, running workshops, and researching and developing innovative practices The overall Change Academy process was tailored to departmental change: bids were received from institutions which wished to participate; once selected a telephone conference was held between the team and the four team leaders, outlining the overall process, the event programme, what was expected of teams, and answering team leaders’ questions (this replaced the Change Academy team leaders’ face-to-face meeting); the event was for 48 hours over three days (rather than 72 hours over four days) because the changes were departmental not institutional and the teams were smaller (four or five rather than about seven); and the follow-up team leaders’ telephone conference (instead of a face-to-face meeting) was held to learn about the developments of projects and teams, discuss emerging issues and reflect on the overall process During the first telephone conference we arranged who would be supporters of which teams and which teams might work together on the first evening The team were joined for part of the event by Pauline Kneale, GEES Director, who acted as a supporter for one of the teams in the first half of the event allowing Michael to concentrate on one of his two teams Carolyn and Mick each supported a team The supporter’s role varied with the teams, reflecting the different objectives of the teams and where they were on the journey, but included at different points being a critical friend, being a sounding board, or just being an encouraging observer At all times it was a constructive, positive contribution At the event (Appendix 1), after a brief outline of the programme and an ice breaker, sessions were held on curriculum change (Appendix 2) and models of change respectively This oriented the teams to the wider perspectives of curriculum change (where and how their project fitted) and theoretical views of change After tea the teams worked on a ‘rich picture’, which displayed their vision of their project and allowed them to share it with one other team in detail and then later at a reception enabled them to discover more about the other two teams’ projects and to network The next morning there was a session on creative thinking which enabled teams to reshape their thinking using some divergent and convergent techniques (Appendix 3) During this, teams were paired together for a while in a different pairing from the evening before Teams then made progress on their projects during the rest of the morning and the early afternoon when their supporter visited them The day ended with a Liquid Cafe session (a more flexible variant of World Cafe) at which someone from each team hosted a table and topic, which had emerged from the day’s work, on which they wanted other people’s views People moved from table to table when and as often as they liked At each table the discussion was recorded, almost mapped, on a table-cloth, a photograph was taken at the end as a record On the final morning teams concentrated on what they would immediately they returned to their institution, having already outlined more long-term ways forward and discussed them with their supporter The evenings were an important part of the event with dinners in two different places and on the first evening a session of five-minute theatres These allowed important networking and discussions of other departmental changes The overall programme was designed to help build a supportive environment in which participants felt safe to express their viewpoints, to reveal a little about themselves, and to build trust within the teams and with their supporter Expectations for the initiative Before the residential event we encouraged delegates to reflect in writing under four headings on one side of A4 Twelve were returned The general tenor of the comments was positive and the participants were expectant of the benefits of the event Expectations These varied from those emphasising specific outcomes for their project, for example: “I would like to get a much better handle on what we really need to teach in our Part subjects” to more general expectations, such as: “To have some feedback and information about how to organise change, managing conflict and different ideas to make the best outcome for our department’s proposed changes.” “To have the opportunity to learn more about the process of change and, specifically, how to manage curricular change in a variety of academic contexts by identifying a) the barriers to change in oneself and others; and b) the opportunities for change which become available when such barriers are explicitly identified and tackled.” Only one person expressed a concern: “That there will be too many activities at the event that will take away from leaving with some substantive programme developments.” Thoughts and feelings about team’s project Again several of the comments were specific to the team’s project, but others expressed more general feelings: “A desirable task to explore even without the expected outcome” “Exciting! We are going through a lot of change within our department at the moment, and it feels good to have some responsibility for one aspect I have felt that we’ve needed to shake things up for a while.” Thoughts and feelings about team and their ability to be effective as change agents Most comments about the ability of their team members to work together and to be effective change agents were positive: “I look forward to working in my team and would readily take up the challenge of being an effective change agent.” “All staff and students involved in the team seem very committed to improving learning and teaching in … and the staff all have track records of thinking about and effecting changes in curricula and learning/teaching in their own subjects.” “The team are likely to be persuasive change agents ‘at home’.” But some of the potential challenges and uncertainties also surfaced: “I am slightly concerned that the staff team members will be quite conservative about change” “There are considerable conceptual divides within the team which I have to help resolve.” “[I’m] uncertain at this stage.” Preparation for role in team Most seemed well prepared for their role: “Having seen 30 years of curricular change … I still look forward to learning new skills in this event and having my basic assumptions challenged.” “Well prepared and ready to contribute where possible.” “Confident.” Although some expressed some reservations: “I have not attended a residential conference before so am a little nervous, but I have a clear understanding of the structure and purpose of the event so I am reassured of my role.” 10 Appendix GEES Department Change Case Studies Aston University Title of case study (such that it conveys to others the central aspects) Sustainable development and management: an interdisciplinary degree Name of department and institution Interdisciplinary Studies, Aston University Team details (including names and roles of team members and contact email for team leader) Role Name (if known) Email address Programme Lead (IDS) Dr Roy Smith r.k.smith@aston.ac.uk Sustainable Development Lead (IDS) Dr John Blewitt UG Programme Director (IDS) Dr Suki Phull Programme Director Built Environment Dr Peter Hedges Head of Curriculum Development Dr Anne Wheeler Support from original proposal At Aston University staff from each of the Schools, Interdisciplinary Studies (IDS) and the Centre for Learning Innovation and Professional Practice (CLIPP) have already demonstrated a level of commitment to the development of a new programme through the time they have freely given to participating in lunchtime meetings to date As the programme will be based and managed in IDS, IDS and CLIPP agreed to fund the team at the GEES departmental change event The Vice Chancellor has already indicated her support for the development of this programme as it underpins Aston’s Environmental Policy Also Aston has signed the People and Planet: Green Education Declaration, which recognises the key role of the education sector in addressing the challenge of climate change and making the transition to a low carbon economy and society The University has a Sustainable Aston Working Group which is an interdisciplinary group of academics, student representatives and support staff Supported by the Executive, in May 2007 the Sustainable Aston Working Group developed a vision (in the three key areas of community, teaching and research), Aston’s Sustainability Aims, committing the University to the concept of sustainability within and external to the institution Context (including key characteristics of department and university) The mission of the University regarding its culture and values is outlined in the Aston 2012 strategy and states: “Together, we are working to make Aston a great place to work, study and collaborate: • that values and respects the diversity of the Aston community • that creates inspirational learning opportunities for its students, and relevant research outcomes for society • that enables all students, whatever their background, to develop as critical, reflective learners who will make a difference in the global workplace • that pays particular attention to student welfare and wellbeing • that stimulates adventure and innovation and encourages enterprise • that celebrates success • that is fast, adaptive and responsive • that promotes justice, integrity and sustainable growth in society and is safe and healthy, with a good work-life balance.” The development of a degree in sustainable development links well with the mission of the University and can provide a programme for students that adheres to the stated core values As the programme brings together staff with disciplines from across the university it would be inappropriate to focus entirely on one department 27 Aim and description of change initiative (the what?) The aim of the initiative is to develop a ‘half-degree’ in Sustainable Development at undergraduate level to compliment the study of other disciplines by Combined Honours students The degree would be situated in Interdisciplinary Studies, where all Combined Honours students receive support and guidance during their studies at Aston Rationale (key external and internal drivers of change; the why?) There is no formal geography or environmental department at Aston University; however, modules on environmental and sustainability issues are delivered within a range of disciplines across the University As a result IDS, in co-operation with staff from across the University, wishes to introduce an undergraduate half-degree in sustainable development and management which can also be taken as a combined programme of study by students from other disciplines within the institution The programme will allow students to tailor their learning within the programme by the use of innovative and flexible assessment This will encourage the students to relate their understanding of environmental and sustainable issues to their other chosen discipline, e.g business, sociology, languages, engineering, etc Modules from the new programme will also be available to external participants through the newly established Lifelong Learning Centre (LLC) in IDS The new programme will have substantial implications for transformational change at Aston as currently there is no fully cross-University degree available This programme will encourage and embed crossdisciplinary practices within a course framework and promote the networking of staff and students across the University Development and implementation process (the who and the how?) The development of the degree in sustainability, as mentioned previously, has been initiated and developed by the Sustainability Teaching Group (STG) and this group has included all members of the team that attended the departmental change event Dr Peter Hedges has chaired the STG throughout, but Dr Roy Smith, as Head of IDS, has taken responsibility for the programme since the change event The programme coordination and operation, following its implementation, will reside within IDS Stages of development from original proposal There have been a series of meetings of the STG that were initiated and chaired by Dr Peter Hedges from the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the group has met regularly over a number of months to discuss the feasibility and management of developing a degree in environmental and sustainable development for students wishing to take an environmentally focused degree in combination with another discipline Staff who deliver modules with an emphasis on environment or sustainable issues across the University have been part of the STG on a purely voluntary basis A number of possible programme outlines have been suggested, based largely on existing modules within the institution However, since the GEES departmental change event, a more robust programme for the ‘sustainability’ degree, going back to first principles of curriculum design, has been developed This progress has been facilitated in part by the new Director of the LLC, John Blewitt, who joined Aston on 1st April 2009 and has a background in sustainable development and employer engagement The development group has drawn on his experience to ensure consultation with employers and to help design a programme that addresses current needs and perspectives within the different disciplinary areas Stages of development GEES departmental change event onwards The GEES departmental change event provided focused time to hone the outline programme and concentrate on more detailed content design and delivery The event also provided valuable time to network with colleagues from other institutions who are involved in curriculum development in the GEES subject areas and to exchange ideas and good practice Also the different approaches employed by the GEES team facilitated thinking and challenged assumptions within the Aston team – it caused us to think more creatively Following on from the change event, where a provisional programme rationale, programme outcomes and a basic programme structure were developed, the STG met to discuss, fine tune and later endorse the outcomes from the event There was support, and buy in, from staff across the institution to move forward to submit the initial paperwork to the University Programme Approval Sub-Committee (PASC) in January 28 2010 for ‘in principle’ approval of the programme and permission to advertise The programme has also been approved by the IDS Learning and Teaching Committee Subsequent work has been on the development of new modules for inclusion in the programme and for a submission to PASC for full programme approval in April 2010 To aid the development of the modules and detail of the programme the STG has continued to meet on a regular basis Key outcomes (expected and unexpected ones) The key outcome is to develop a fully validated degree in Sustainable Development (or similar title based on market research) for delivery in September 2010 Other outcomes include: • To have modules that cover the key social, economic and environmental aspects of sustainable development • That the programme is truly inter-disciplinary in delivery, with staff contributions from across the university (including those staff directly involved in the sustainable initiatives within the institution) • To have a degree that recruits students in the 2010-11 academic year The key outcome of the GEES change event was to provide a renewed impetus to develop the degree (see previous section) However, the team have also drawn on the experience to incorporate the aspects of the facilitation approaches into their own teaching and the experience of the whole event has been used as a case study on the Postgraduate Certificate in Professional Practice The benefit to students from original proposal As the programme will have been designed by an inter-disciplinary group of colleagues it will provide an opportunity to ensure that the curriculum is current, relevant, innovative and inclusive both in content, delivery and assessment The students will have the opportunity to meet and work alongside students from a variety of disciplines, drawing on each others’ knowledge, perspectives and experiences The programme will have an underpinning enquiry-based approach allowing students to explore sustainable issues and discover the benefits of true interdisciplinary working both as individuals and as part of a team We believe that a coherent approach to the learning and teaching of environmental and sustainable issues can only enhance the student learning experience As expertise will be drawn from all Schools and IDS at Aston the programme will have the benefit of providing a truly holistic and inter-disciplinary approach to the subject area Evaluation and measures of success (how do/will you know if your initiative has worked?) Two clear measures of success will be: a) Programme approval by PASC b) Recruitment of students onto the programme in 20010-11 Other measures of success will be the continued contribution from staff in the University and an increase in student numbers over time It is also hoped that individual modules will be taken up through the Lifelong Learning Centre by members of the local and regional community In the longer term the course will be evaluated through normal monitoring processes such as student feedback (module evaluation forms and student liaison), annual monitoring and external examiner feedback The programme team will also undertake annual programme review 10 Next steps (what remains to be done?) There are a number of steps to be undertaken over the next few months, including: • Module development to be led by designated module coordinators • Production of the appropriate paperwork for the PASC meeting in April 2010 • Identification of an external adviser and subsequent external examiner • Marketing of the programme • Preparation for delivery of the first year modules 11 What leadership issues have arisen? (In persuading colleagues / students / validation panels to engage with the initiative?) 29 There have been very few leadership issues The driving force of the programme development was very much that provided by Dr Peter Hedges, but ownership of the undergraduate programme has transferred to IDS However, the regular meeting of the STG has still been initiated and chaired by Peter Much of the day-to-day programme development communication is by email or telephone As Aston is a small university on a single, compact campus there are always opportunities for staff to meet when necessary The validation of the programme will be overseen by the deputy chair of PASC in order to avoid any conflict of interest as Dr Anne Wheeler (Chair of PASC) and Dr Suki Phull are involved in the programme development However, their knowledge of the programme approval process is an advantage to the team 12 Key messages for others (reflections on what is transferable and adaptable by others) Reflections that have pertained to this initiative include: • A growing awareness that it can be more difficult to develop a half-degree than a full degree Deciding what to leave out of the programme has been as taxing as what to put in to the programme • Do not assume that things will be as easy or as difficult as one might expect The team that attended the change event thought that there would be resistance by staff contributing to the programme if they had to develop new modules This has not proved to be the case as staff have recognised that it will be a better programme if we not try to construct a programme composed of existing modules • Allocation of individual tasks to a timeframe has been helpful in developing the programme • Maintaining momentum following the event could have been, and still may be, an issue However, at Aston we have been fortunate to be ‘driven’ by the system, in that we are involved in core curriculum development processes and have PASC deadlines to meet 13 Relevant references and Web sites (articles/web sites by you or others that give further detail about this initiative) Aston 2012: http://www1.aston.ac.uk/about/strategy/ Aston University’s Environmental Policy: http://www1.aston.ac.uk/about/environment/policy/environmentalpolicy/ly ce Aston University’s Sustainability Aims: http://www1.aston.ac.uk/about/environment/policy/working-group/ March 2010 30 Bath Spa University Title of case study (such that it conveys to others the central aspects) Embedding external engagement in the curriculum Name of department and institution Department of Geography, Bath Spa University Team details (including names and roles of team members and contact email for team leader) Role Name (if known) Email address Team Leader Mark McGuinness m.mcguinness@bathspa.ac.uk Experienced Academic Esther Edwards New Academic Rebecca Schaaf Student Representative Shelly Nuth Support from original proposal The University redesigned the entire Modular Scheme for implementation in September 2009 The Department of Geography has a long history of industrial collaboration but had no strategy or overview to direct and develop it The review of the Modular Scheme provided an opportunity to build a more strategic framework for student (and staff) engagement with non-academic external partners (business, NGOs, local and regional government) as placement providers, curriculum contributors and external advisers Context (including key characteristics of department and university) The department offers or contributes to a number of awards, namely Geography, Geographic Information Systems, Tourism Management, Environmental Science and Development Geography The relatively recent introduction of vocational foundation degrees run by the department and elsewhere brought new opportunities in the arena of external engagement and our intention was to broaden this experience across all our awards, especially the traditional honours degrees There are approximately 200FTE students and 11 staff in the department The University is small by UK standards at approximately 5,500 students and has a heritage of teacher training and teaching excellence alongside modest research ambitions Aim and description of change initiative (the what?) To identify the benefits and challenges of a wider strategic engagement with relevant employers and placement providers for our students, staff and the wider community To bring key individuals together involved in developing external engagement opportunities for students to develop support mechanisms for staff charged with developing these links To enable student views on the benefits of placements to be built in to our arrangements for supporting them whilst on placement Rationale (key external and internal drivers of change; the why?) We were concerned to address identified skills deficits and broad statements of intent from the funding body regarding greater engagement with employers The opportunities envisaged would be designed to enrich the curriculum, not detract from it, and in that sense would act as a draw for recruitment Graduate employability was the final aspect of the rationale, where workplace experience alongside specialist subject based skills and greater density of networks and experience were the identified benefits for students The wider department team sought to develop integrated external engagement opportunities for all students whilst retaining ownership, distinctiveness and academic integrity of programmes Development and implementation process (the who and the how?) The Head of Department was a member of the project team and led the revalidation process to completion throughout 2009 The project team came together from March 2009 to act as a defacto ‘steering group’ for implementation The new programmes were implemented in their revised form from October 2009 Placements were sought generated throughout 2009 and into 2010 Students enjoyed their first formal work placements during early 2010 Key outcomes (expected and unexpected ones) Students report better preparedness for world of work 31 Opportunities for guest specialist lecturers, secondments and live project work illuminate and enrich the curriculum Integrated work based learning opportunities now available in some of our programmes Improved links between department and business/voluntary sector Evaluation and measures of success (how do/will you know if your initiative has worked?) Successful delivery of work placement opportunities to students (around 20 placements in the UK, a further 10 overseas with international development partner) Long term sustainability of these opportunities for students, especially through repeat placements each year, minimizing the need for large volume of new placement opportunities to be secured annually It is too early to judge the success of this aim at present, though implementing this during a serious recession has made building productive links more difficult than anticipated Student satisfaction with their sense of engagement and readiness for the world of work Although initial anecdotal and survey findings are broadly positive, this can only really be gauged through a survey to be enacted 12 months after graduation to see how the skills generated through work placement underpins (or doesn’t) graduate prospects 10 Next steps (what remains to be done?) Survey of graduates who undertook work placements as second years in 2010 one year after graduation (2012) Departmental participation in an annual Business Link event to meet colleagues in industry, secure placement opportunities and, where appropriate, curriculum engagement through guest specialist lectures and contributions to course development Institutional evaluation of revised modular scheme implementation may bring further challenges This reports in May 2010 11 What leadership issues have arisen? (In persuading colleagues / students / validation panels to engage with the initiative?) The progress of this project made clear that there were two distinct types of staff response to such engagement: the traditional academic response (‘we’re not training providers’) was present in this team but in small numbers Counterpoised to that was the wholehearted embracing of the curriculum enrichment that partnership can bring, most obviously through the invited guest speakers and the work placements On balance, the staff team were at best fully engaged, at worst neutral Administrative changes impacted the nature and pace of implementation at very late notice The Department of Geography was merged with another department as part of unanticipated institutional restructuring in September 2009 Many modules had to be realigned to accommodate these new administrative arrangements at short notice The rapid change of circumstances, implementation plan and guiding strategy led many staff to voice a sense of disenfranchisement as the long planned changes had to be ‘unpicked’ just before implementation This resulted in some understandable resistance to change from staff concerned about the volume and pace of proposed changes without adequate time to consider their implications Despite these frustrations, implementation of planned changes has been achieved The assumption that all students would jump at the chance of work experience proved to be misplaced Whilst many did recognize the value and prepared thoroughly for placements, others found them to be an imposition and distraction from their courses There was some evidence of disengagement from the placement preparation activities amongst a small number of students, who were then consequently less well prepared than they should have been On the other hand, one group of students felt that they were not receiving enough preparation for their placements (with a major mapping concern) and petitioned for more support We were fortunate enough to be able to secure a specialist employee on secondment to work closely with this particular group in the department, to considerable acclaim from students 32 12 Key messages for others (reflections on what is transferable and adaptable by others) Do not assume that those in industry can recognise the value that a student placement can add to their organisation The contribution a student can offer to a host organisation needs to be established and properly managed Do not assume that ALL students want to engage with industry in these ways Where placements were made compulsory, we felt friction and even some change of route to avoid the placements! The expectations of and benefits to students need to be carefully managed Employer HR Departments are rightly cautious for reasons of insurance and liability This needs central support and the time needed to resolve issues to mutual satisfaction should not be underestimated Most importantly of all: implementation of a change of this nature can never be considered complete Only the long term sustainability of external engagements and of graduate employability will determine the success of this type of project This is the continuing challenge for this team April 2010 33 Lancaster University Title of case study (such that it conveys to others the central aspects) Creating opportunities from a departmental merger: re-evaluating first year teaching across the GEES disciplines Name of department and institution Lancaster University, Lancaster Environment Centre Team details (including names and roles of team members and contact email for team leader) Role Name (if known) Email address Geography Part Director Marilyn Pooley Team Leader Jackie Pates j.pates@lancaster.ac.uk Previous Biological Sciences Part Bob Lauder Director Current Biological Sciences Part Jackie Parry Director Student Representative Penny Cowell Student Representative Andi Smith Support from original proposal: There is support for this project from the LEC Associate Director for Undergraduate Studies Staff across LEC are committed to the reforms engendered in the creation of the department The principal resource committed to date is staff time, working through the problems and issues outline here Context (including key characteristics of department and university) Lancaster University is a pre-92, research-intensive University It is relatively small (approx 15,000 students) and is campus-based The Lancaster Environment Centre (LEC) is a new department, having been created in 2008 through a merger of the departments of Environmental Science and Geography with the environmental half of Biological Sciences LEC is one of the largest departments in the University and sits within the Faculty of Science and Technology .Further details were given in the next section Aim and description of change initiative (the what?) The formation of LEC created an opportunity for us to think differently about the delivery of our Part teaching As outlined below, across the three former departments we devote a considerable staff effort to teaching our first years, with some overlap in content (particularly between Physical Geography and Environmental Science) The aim of the initiative was to work out how we could rationalize our Part 1, with benefits to staff of reduced teaching and to students of creating more flexibility in their degree schemes The new department consists of approximately 60 academic staff and recruits approximately 200 undergraduate students each year One of the reasons for the merger was to exploit and encourage interdisciplinary synergies for teaching and research and to prevent duplication of effort The proposed project contributes to this high level departmental strategy Part at Lancaster consists of three units of equal weight In ES and BS these units each comprise modules; there are 14 ES Part modules and BS modules delivered within LEC GEOG has two integrated Part courses in Human and Physical Geography, each worth unit Students are typically required to take two units in their major subject and may take the third unit in a complementary subject or additional modules in their major subject Prior to the merger, there were financial incentives for the individual departments if students stayed “in house” and a variety of additional modules have been developed Now, these financial barriers have been removed and we would like to explore how we can streamline our Part delivery At present, many ES and BIOL students take all units within the LEC programmes, whereas GEOG students frequently study a social science or language in addition to Geography In AY08/09 there are the equivalent of over 3000 module registrations across the LEC Part subjects There are two inter-related areas that we wished to explore Firstly, there is some overlap of subjectspecific material, in particular in the area of Physical Geography / Environmental Earth Science An initial 34 look at the material implies that we could remove up to modules of teaching (25% of our current load), merging existing ES / GEOG provision Approximately 10% module registrations are for non-major LEC students, and removing overlap would provide these students with a wide range of opportunities However, GEOG and ES have different approaches to teaching, with ES modules being more grounded in practical and numerical skills and GEOG modules being more grounded in critical thinking skills Secondly, we deliver skills training in very different ways The GEOG units have tutorials and a geographical skills strand of lectures embedded into the programme BIOL students attend tutorials outside the module framework, and attend a research methods module ES students attend up to skills modules, depending on their entry qualifications, but have no tutorials All three schemes train their students in study skills, using the literature, effective communication, and basic statistics, again suggesting that we could develop a common framework However, we also include more specific skills training; in ES students are required to take two numerical skills modules and an introductory chemistry module if they not have the appropriate A levels and the GEOG skills component includes extensive material on cartography and qualitative research methods, as well as some quantitative methods We have found that the more closely integrated our skills teaching is with our subject modules, the better the students learn, as they have a greater appreciation of the importance and relevance of these skills, and we are keen to pursue this approach further There are four things we wanted to explore during the event We want to develop a plan to allow us to: 1) 2) 3) 4) merge our teaching without sacrificing embedded subject-specific skills teaching; manage the greater class sizes that would arise; integrate skills training further into the curriculum; and provide a common tutorial programme for all LEC students, which equips students with the generic skills they need without duplication, while not omitting the more subject specific skills Throughout, we wanted to create a framework that will work for both major and minor students and for students taking a full LEC programme and those wanting to include a non-LEC component Our models of teaching have evolved over a number of years We benefited from having the critical viewpoint of the GEES Supporters to challenge our assumptions about what is essential to our degrees, in addition to the valuable space that this event would provide There is an additional complication in that the Biological Sciences programme is delivered jointly by LEC and the School of Health and Medicine (SHM) We cannot make changes to the BIOL component of our programmes without considering the ramifications for the wider subject One of our team will represent the SHM perspective Rationale (key external and internal drivers of change; the why?) As described above Development and implementation process (the who and the how?) The core team consists of Director of Studies (DoS) for ES, the Part DoS’s for Geography and Biology, and two students (an ES and a Geography major) The Director of Studies developed the original proposal The Change Event consolidated our team (actually created a team) and we are all now actively involved in pushing the proposal forward Since we’ve been back in Lancaster, the core team have met to formalize and develop our ideas from the event We presented these to a wider group in the department involved with curriculum design and recruitment This meeting accepted our broad proposals, but questioned our proposed timescale We agreed to go for an implementation date of Oct 2011, in order to bring in a wider range of voices We have since had a half day meeting to thrash out our proposed framework in more detail, and the subject groups have met to consider what the core requirements of their subjects are Staff have been “getting to know” the different degree scheme structures over the past months and have been establishing common structures for quality assurance and student support We have had discussions about possible ways of stream-lining our Part teaching, but have not yet been able to find a way through the complexities we face 35 Key outcomes (expected and unexpected ones) From the event: Expected: a framework on which to build our new structure Unexpected: greater understanding of the discipline differences within LEC; new and improved personal relationships with colleagues and students The benefit to students: By stream-lining our Part delivery, students in LEC would be enabled to take more subjects in their 1st year For example, most students studying Environmental Science at present have no room in their timetable for Geography or Ecology modules, despite an interest being there This results in a more narrowly focused degree for them Opening up the timetable in Part will give students more flexibility and choice, while also broadening their perspectives within and outside LEC We also want to provide all LEC students with a consistent, quality experience, which would be further enhanced by this project Evaluation and measures of success (how do/will you know if your initiative has worked?) 1) A formal proposal of curriculum change, accepted by the relevant committees 2) On implementation of the revised curriculum, its success will be judged by student and staff feedback 10 Next steps (what remains to be done?) The next steps are to bring together the findings from the subjects, and develop a formal proposal for our new look Part We anticipate these going through the committees at the start of new academic year 11 What leadership issues have arisen? (In persuading colleagues / students / validation panels to engage with the initiative?) At this stage, we are mostly concerned with colleagues The student representatives have continued to be involved, bringing the student perspective to the table In general, the staff have been very open and supportive, and we have had positive responses to our proposals The key emerging issues are: 1) This process has highlighted a fundamental change in the way the department operates In the old department, all academic staff would have had the opportunity to get involved and the proposals would have been discussed routinely at staff meetings We now have to rely on email communication about the process, and although some staff are responding the degree of interaction with the process is much lower Consequently, the extent of buy-in is unclear at this stage We are trying to involve key Part staff as much as possible, but there are too many people for everyone to be part of every meeting 2) Finding time to keep the momentum going, in the face of many other pressures is a major struggle 12 Key messages for others (reflections on what is transferable and adaptable by others) 1) Implementing this level of change in a unit of our size takes a lot of time and energy 2) Differences in the culture and way of working of the previous ES / Geography departments makes implementing change challenging 13 Relevant references and Web sites (articles /web sites by you or others that give further detail about this initiative) N/A February 2010 36 Newcastle University Title of case study (such that it conveys to others the central aspects) Making sense of postgraduate study – transition issues Name of department and institution School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Newcastle University Team details (including names and roles of team members and contact email for team leader) Role Name (if known) Email address Team Leader Liz Stockdale e.a.stockdale@ncl.ac.uk PGT co-ordinator Tina Huddart University level skills training Julia Robinson provider - SAgE Faculty Library Liaison Assistant Student Representative - MSc Busayo Akintade graduate 2008 Context (including key characteristics of department and university) The School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AFRD) is part of the Faculty of Science, Agriculture and Engineering at Newcastle University The Faculty encompasses the largest and most comprehensive academic resource for teaching, research and commercialisation in North East England in the areas of engineering, agriculture and science, and also provides substantial services to industry in these areas Reflecting the diversity of activity, the Faculty is made up of ten Schools, four Research Institutes and a number of research centres and networks This structure supports close interaction between research and teaching, including that between postgraduates and undergraduates which is at the heart of our academic culture The Faculty currently has around 1200 Postgraduate taught students AFRD teaches a range of undergraduate programmes including Environmental Science and runs seven postgraduate taught degree programmes that attract a variety of students with differing skills and needs; Modules are also shared with programmes led by other Schools AFRD programmes include Wildlife Conservation and Management, Agricultural and Environmental Science, Environmental Resource Assessment, Rural Social Science and Ecological Agriculture and AFRD modules are taken by large numbers of students on the Environmental Consultancy MSc Aim and description of change initiative (the what?) This project aims to explore postgraduate taught (PGT) students’ perspective on how they have received and processed information about university life, their development of expectations regarding the programmes and how these are met and also on their development of academic competencies in their first Semester Participation in the GEES Departmental Change event allowed reflection on the issues raised in a survey of 2008/09 students and consideration of implications for development of effective transition strategies for this diverse cohort of students and to guide improvements in the management of information and learning approaches in the first weeks of these programmes The project seeks to find out from our students what the problems of transition are and then to use this information to drive and evaluate a programme of improvement We expect that the largest problems will occur for international students; however, we want to take a broad focus as many of the problems perceived as acute by international students are also present at lower levels for UK students An effective transition strategy for PGT will include the development of an effective multi-national PGT learning community It is expected that the project will include: • Diagnostic testing (e.g establishing basic skill level such as English or numeracy or more subject specific knowledge level) • Web support or courses in study skills (e.g credited or non-accredited materials to support specific study/academic skills) • Better use of personal development planning (e.g more structured use of PDP at postgraduate level) 37 Rationale (key external and internal drivers of change; the why?) Postgraduate students entering taught programmes are more diverse than undergraduate entrants However, given the intensity of postgraduate taught programmes matching of student expectation and understanding of the required learning approaches must take place rapidly if students are to succeed It has been found that overseas students often have the greatest difficulty in adapting to UK learning styles and are required not only to immerse themselves in academic work but also to adapt to a new culture and overcome language barriers, all of which may impact on a student’s overall performance In recent years the number of cases of collusion and plagiarism on postgraduate programmes has increased markedly; ignorance and misunderstanding of academic requirements is commonly cited during disciplinary procedures Student habits and attitudes to university life will have been formed in previous study at undergraduate level in a wide variety of institutions and countries Attitudes to postgraduate study are integrated with these previous experiences within the first few weeks; bad experiences during this time often lead to withdrawal or failure Supporting transition at all stages of the learning experience is a key priority within the institution-wide University Learning and Teaching Strategy to ensure that the diverse learning needs of students are supported Within the priorities identified for transition projects this project is directed at postgraduate taught students who represent a significant income stream to the University The project also addresses other aspects of the University Learning and Teaching Strategy (relevant sections indicated in brackets): • Providing support to international students to help them understand better what is required of them in UK HE (A2.6); • Providing opportunities to enable students to reach their full potential and to access the support they require to help them achieve this (A3.1); • Developing services that support the acquisition of study skills (A4.3); • Ensuring we have robust and appropriate forms of induction for all students (B8.5) Development and implementation process including next steps (the who and the how?) In AFRD we worked with the PGT cohort (April–May 2009) to carry out a questionnaire to provide feedback on their experiences and feelings about the way they received information throughout the application stage, their expectations regarding the programmes and how these are met after arrival and also on their perceived gaps in academic competencies for Masters level study Participation in the GEES Departmental Change event allowed reflection on the issues raised in this initial survey and facilitated consideration of the implications for the development of effective transition approaches The team re-visioned the project and developed an action plan within a broader context including staff development and a review of postgraduate teaching structures, as well as transition activities per se Minor changes were made to the induction programme for PGT students in 2009/10, with a greater engagement of recent graduates from the programmes during induction week to answer student questions The role of the Academic Administrator as non-academic tutor for PGT students has also been recognised officially Follow-up work to date has focused on developments within the School context and this will culminate in a teaching strategy away day focused on PGT and Continuing Professional Development on April 15th 2010 It is expected that developments in transition support will follow and be implemented for entry in 2010/11 In parallel, Julia reported back to the Liaison and Academic Services Team within the Library and used a lot of the information gathered at the event to inform the development of a set of pages on the Library website dedicated to international students and to supporting their transition to study in the UK – www.ncl.ac.uk/library/services/for/international She was also able to use some of the ideas developed in the most recent Faculty of Science, Agriculture and Engineering Postgraduate Research Skills Programme Key outcomes (expected and unexpected ones) The main outcomes outlined below are anticipated: • Improved information and other support to new postgraduate students will develop and increase academic and personal confidence in the first semester at university 38 • • Better match between personal needs for training in skills relating to academic competencies and delivery within PGT Students able to deliver to academic potential more quickly within PGT We also recognise outcomes that will provide stepping stones on our route: • Explicit recognition within the project scope of broader curriculum and course delivery issues resulting in redefinition (with increased complexity) • Learning and practice with a range of techniques for group-based consultation and project development which have been used by team members subsequently • Re-inforced awareness of the need to “Listen, listen, listen” to students and not presume attitudes or opinions Evaluation and measures of success (how do/will you know if your initiative has worked?) The Library workshops and one-to-one support sessions gather both formal and informal feedback This has been overwhelmingly positive in relation to the support provided by the Liaison staff in the Library Julia also reports: “After our trip to Manchester I feel I am asking more of the right questions to ensure our new postgraduates are happy” The questionnaire used for the PGT cohort in 2009 will be repeated to provide continuing feedback on their experiences and feelings about the way they received information throughout the application stage, their expectations regarding the programmes and how these are met after arrival and also on their perceived gaps in academic competencies for Masters level study Little change in the overall effectiveness of interventions at School level is anticipated; but by repeating the survey in subsequent years we expect to see changes Achievement of student academic potential should be identified through more rapid achievement of good grades in assessed work – currently there is often a marked difference between Semester and Semester performance for some (especially international) students 10 What leadership issues have arisen? (In persuading colleagues / students / validation panels to engage with the initiative?) It was understood at the start of the project that leadership with regard to PGT development in AFRD is dispersed with some issues resting with Degree Programme Directors, some with Postgraduate Strategy Committee and some with the School Teaching and Learning Committee In addition some issues are not resolvable at School level and require Faculty level engagement Engagement across the leadership teams in this area remains critical Joint working with the Postgraduate Strategy Committee is in place – but key roles and responsibilities are not always agreed However, the Undergraduate-focused Teaching Away Day held in December 2009 has received positive feedback and its outcomes have been readily assimilated into the School Teaching Strategy It is therefore anticipated that the PGT focused Away Day should be able to build on this success 11 Key messages for others (reflections on what is transferable and adaptable by others) • Supporting transition is more about listening to where students ‘are’ than about telling them about the course, the University or the skills they need • Transition for Masters students needs to be addressed, especially, but not only, for international students • Induction needs to begin earlier than, and go on after, induction week • Skills development during transition needs to be personalised and to be available to meet the needs of all – the challenge is to develop a flexible programme with drop-in sessions and support for a self-directed route through the process March 2010 39 References Barnett, R (2009) Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum, Studies in Higher Education 34(4), 429 – 440 Barnett, R and Coate, K (2005) Engaging the curriculum in higher education Open University Press: Maidenhead Baxter Magolda M B (2001) Making their own way: narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development Sterling, VA: Stylus Baxter Magolda, M B (2006) Intellectual development in the college years, Change 38(3), 50-54 Baxter Magolda, M B (2009) Educating students for self-authorship: learning partnerships to achieve complex outcomes, in Kreber, C (ed) The university and its disciplines: teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries London: Routledge pp143-156 Baxter Magolda, M B and King P M (eds) (2004) Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Bekken, B and Marie, J (2007) Making self-authorship a goal of core curricula: the earth sustainability pilot project, in Meszaros, P S (ed) Self-authorship: advancing students’ intellectual growth New Directions for Teaching and Learning 109, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass pp53-67 Bradford, M (2010) An evaluation of Change Academy York: HE Academy (forthcoming) Bryman, A (2007) Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review, Studies in Higher Education 32 (6), 693-710 Dandy, N (2009) The impact of change academy: a story of organisational development and changing cultures In Practice, 18 Leadership Foundation for Higher Education Available online at: http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/publications/2009/inpractice18.pdf Flint, A and Oxley, A (2009) Learning from internal change academy processes: final report Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University, Learning and Teaching Institute Available online at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/1002/1/fulltext.pdf Gentle, P (2007) Higher education institutions as change academies In Practice, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education Available online at: http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/publications/2007/inpractice11.pdf Gibbs, G, Knapper, C and Piccinin S (2008) Disciplinary and contextually appropriate approaches to leadership of teaching in research-intensive academic departments in higher education Higher Education Quarterly 62 (4), 416-436 Gould, P (1973) The open geographic curriculum, in Chorley, R J (ed.) Directions in geography London: Methuen pp253-284 Government Office for the South West (2004) Managing change: A guide on how to manage change in an organization Didcot, Oxfordshire: Government office for the South West Healey, M and Jenkins, A (2009) Developing undergraduate research and inquiry York: Higher Education Academy Hodge, D, Haynes, C, LePore, P, Pasquesi, K, and Hirsh, M (2008) From inquiry to discovery: developing the student as scholar in a networked world, Keynote address, Learning Through Enquiry Alliance Inquiry in a Networked World Conference, June 25-27, University of Sheffield Available online at: http://networked-inquiry.pbwiki.com/About+the+LTEA2008+keynote Jenkins, A (1998) Curriculum Design in Geography, Cheltenham: Geography Discipline Network, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education Available online at: http://resources.glos.ac.uk/ceal/gdn/publications/fdtl/index.cfm#alan Jenkins, A (2009) Supporting student development in and beyond the disciplines: the role of the curriculum, in Kreber, C (ed) The university and its disciplines: teaching and learning within and beyond disciplinary boundaries London: Routledge pp157-168 Kegan, R (1994) In over our heads: the mental demands of modern life Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press Kotter, J P (1996) Leading change Boston: Harvard Business School Press Lucas, A.F and Associates (2000) Leading Academic Change: Essential roles for department chairs San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers 40 May, H and Bridger, K (2010) Developing and embedding inclusive policy and practice within higher education York: The Higher Education Academy Available online at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/inclusion/DevelopingEmbeddingInclusive PolicyPractice_ReportFinal.pdf McKimm, J (2004) Developing yourself as a leader; reflecting about yourself as a leader FDTL Leadership programme, York: The Higher Education Academy Available online at: http://www.itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files/Kolbetc.pdf Perry, W P (1968) Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme Austin, Texas: Holt Roy, D, Borin, P and Kustra, E (2007) Assisting curriculum change through departmental initiatives In: Wolf, P and Christensen Hughes, J (eds.) Curriculum development in higher education: faculty-driven processes & practices New Directions for Teaching and Learning 112 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass pp21-32 Trowler, P, Knight, P and Saunders, M (2003) Change thinking change practice York: Higher Education Academy Available online at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/database/id262_Change_Thinking _Change_Practices.pdf 41