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

Issue 6.1March 2005 ISSN 1469-3267

£6 Cover price (UK only)

Contents

SEDA LtdSelly Wick House59-61 Selly Wick Road, Selly Park,Birmingham B29 7JETel 0121 415 6801Fax 0121 415 6802E-mail office@seda.ac.uk

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

1 Moving on from Peer Observationof Teaching: a collaborativedevelopment utilising the principleof peer-supportDavid Crutchley, Kevin Nieldand Fiona Jordan

5 The impact of academicdevelopment: questioning myevaluation practicesLynn McAlpine

8 Effective interventions tosupport practitioners’ adoptionof e-learningRhona Sharpe FSEDA

12 Discipline-specific ProfessionalDevelopment: just branding?Dr Shân Wareing FSEDA

15 University life down underJohn Dearn

18 Managing Programmes of Small-Scale Research & DevelopmentFunding: Lessons from HEIs andSubject CentresDr Helen King AFSEDAand Laura Mattin

23 Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity:Curriculum MattersChristine Talbot

25 Educational DevelopmentsDialoguesDavid Baume FSEDA

26 AP(E)L: counting credits orlearning process?Rosemary Buchanan

28 SEDA Summer School for NewEducational DevelopersPeter Kahn FSEDA

Moving on from PeerObservation of Teaching:a collaborative developmentutilising the principle of peer-supportDavid Crutchley and Kevin Nield, Sheffield Hallam University andFiona Jordan, University of Gloucestershire

Concerns about Peer Observation of TeachingBrenda Smith’s pioneering ‘Sharing Excellence’ Project, funded under the firstphase of the English Higher Education Funding Council’s Fund for theDevelopment of Teaching and Learning (FDTL), established peer observationof teaching as a key indicator of good practice amongst HE professionals. Theprocess is now well embedded within the HE sector.

The former School of Sport and Leisure Management at Sheffield HallamUniversity was complimented on its use of peer observation in its subjectreview report in November 2000. However, the problem we faced was that,although peer observation of teaching had been successfully reviewedexternally, we knew that it was considerably less well perceived internally. Itwas therefore necessary to find out why this should be.

The literature offered some clues as to why peer observation might benegatively perceived. There is a clear consensus that peer observationprocesses are rooted in social theories of learning (Piaget, 1971; O’Donnell,1999). It was therefore predictable that much would depend on theenvironment in which peer observation takes place. As Smith (1998) andPond et al (1995) have pointed out, the rules of engagement for peerobservation require the teacher to accept the subordinate role of revieweewhilst a colleague assumes the dominant role of reviewer. These essentiallyunequal roles are reflected in other models of peer review such as peermentoring (Triston, 1999). It is possible therefore to predict that difficultiesmay occur where the roles of reviewee and reviewer are inappropriatelyaligned or insensitively undertaken. It is also likely that not everyone is ascomfortable in the subordinate role of reviewee as they are in their morefamiliar and dominant role of teacher/lecturer.

Cosh (1998) proposed that the precise purpose(s) of peer review schemesneed to be clarified prior to implementation, suggesting that systems based onassessment and appraisal as opposed to reflection and self-development are

2 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONALDEVELOPMENTSThe Magazine of SEDA

Issue 6.12005EditorialCommitteeGraham AlsopKingston University

Dr Stephen Bostock FSEDAKeele University

Anthony BrandUniversity of Hertfordshire

Helen GaleUniversity of Wolverhampton

Dr Ray Land FSEDACoventry University

Mike LaycockUniversity of East London

Ranald Macdonald FSEDASheffield Hallam University

Steve OutramThe Higher Education Academy

Rachel SegalThe Higher Education Academy

Lorraine Stefani FSEDAAuckland University, NZ

James WisdomHigher Education Consultant

2005 (Vol.6)Annual Subscription RatesIndividual subscriptions are £24sterling per year (4 issues) withinthe UK. Overseas subscribersshould add £5 sterling postage andpacking for delivery within the EUor £8 sterling for the rest of theworld.

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

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

NB SEDA members automaticallyreceive copies of EducationalDevelopments.

likely to lead to generate very different perceptions amongst participants. Thisis a very telling point for it is clear that systems linked to appraisal will have agreater propensity to unnerve and alienate staff than processes based on self-directed, reflective professional development.

Useful as these literature observations were they did not provide any morethan a series of cautionary messages. In order to find out more, it wasnecessary to ask our own staff to reveal a little more of their concerns. This wasdone via a series of ‘soundings’ taken within the eight subject groups to whichthe eighty or so teaching staff were assigned. The results of these soundingswere reported to the School Executive by the subject group leaders. Themethod of generating the information may not have been inordinately rigorousbut the messages were crystal clear. Though levels of criticism varied, even themore positive comments tended to see the process as benign and relativelyineffective in supporting the professional development of staff. The generalconsensus was that our version of peer observation of teaching was limited inscope, potentially intimidating, relatively easy to subvert, and rarely useful. Itwas conceded that the process did provide useful ‘evidence’ for externalreview/inspection events but that did little to off-set the overwhelminglynegative comments that the process attracted.

Systems based solely on peer observation are limited in the sense that theyonly allow reviewers to focus on a relatively narrow range of presentationissues. Whilst potentially valuable in generating discussion and development inareas such as session planning, organisation, communication, learningresources and strategies, they are clearly less effective in reviewing the way inwhich whole modules are planned, delivered and assessed.

A number of subject group leaders relayed instances of staff who found peerobservation intimidating, with feelings ranging from mild to extreme. In themost extreme case, a member of staff simply would not engage with theprocess and there were suspicions that others had also found ways to subvertit. However one might wish to criticise such reactions, it had to be acceptedthat a process which was generating reactions of this kind was unlikely to beparticularly successful in supporting and enhancing professional development.It is reasonable to ask why such negative reactions were not commonknowledge or why it wasn’t it clear that some staff were not engaged. Theanswer is that, like many review processes, this one was easy to subvert. It waspossible to fill in forms and claim that a process had occurred when in reality ithad not. There was no way of telling whether this sort of behaviour waswidespread but that was not the central issue. The important conclusion wasthat a professional development process that intimidated even a few peoplewas likely to be flawed and unlikely to be successful.

Beyond the more lurid tales of non-compliance and subversion, there was anequally worrying and more widespread view that the process rarely resulted intangible improvements to professional practice. There was much talk of beingable to ‘put on a show’ for one session, the implication being that sessions thatwere not observed may well have been of significantly lower quality than theones that were! Reviewer reports were invariably complementary with littleevidence of significant or constructively critical professional dialogue. Whilstone could not totally discount the possibility that such reports reflected adesirable, if unlikely reality, in which all eighty staff were achieving highprofessional standards, this seemed an unlikely proposition. It seemed morelikely either that observed sessions were atypical or that reviewers wereunwilling to engage in critical reflection on colleagues’ professional practice.

The Search for a More Effective ProcessHaving assured ourselves that the system we were using was not supportingprofessional development as well as we had hoped, we began to look for anew or modified process that would be more favourably received and which

3www.seda.ac.uk

Moving on from Peer Observation of Teaching: A collaborative development utilising the principle of peer-support

would generate the kind of developmental engagementsthat we were seeking. Whatever process we eventuallydeveloped had to be valued by colleagues as serving theirprofessional development needs. We needed a processthat would allow colleagues to review any aspect ofLearning, Teaching and Asessment and which wouldneither intimidate the reviewee nor discourage thereviewer from engaging in professional dialogue.

It took surprisingly little time to identify that the principleof peer-support offered a potential way forward. Aseemingly small shift of emphasis from peer observationto peer-support allowed us to develop a new andsignificantly more successful process.The principle of peer-support establishes the reviewee’sneeds as paramount and assigns a supportive and non-judgemental role to the reviewer (Jarzakoowski and Bone,1998). Coupling these key principles to those that hademerged as a result of our own evaluation of the previoussystem we were able to devise a new process which todate is proving extremely successful. The followingsection clarifies the principles embedded in the newprocess of peer-supported review of learning, teachingand assessment (P-S-R of LTA) and a description of theway in which the system operates.

The Principles Embedded in the New Process ofPeer-Supported Review of Learning, Teachingand Assessment

P-S-R of LTA is a reviewee-driven process that providescolleagues with an opportunity to develop theirprofessional practice with the help of a supportivecolleague. It is important for the reviewee to commit tothe process by thoroughly reviewing their professionalpractice in order to identify an area that would benefitfrom an in-depth review and evaluation. It is importantthat the reviewee:

• is clear about the way in which they wish their reviewcolleague to support them

• can envisage an appropriate review method inconsultation with the reviewer.

• appreciates that professional development is an on-going process and that identifying an area for reviewdoes not constitute an admission of mediocrity

• is prepared to share concerns about aspects ofprofessional practice which they would like toimprove.

There are no barriers in terms of who is able to act as areviewer. Young and/or inexperienced teachers can oftenbring new and valued insights to the review process andall reviewers can expect to learn from their involvementas a reviewer. In order that they contribute positively tothe process it is important that reviewers appreciate thatthey;

• are supporting not assessing the reviewee• allow the reviewee to lead in defining the review

methodology and that they suggest rather than assertwhat will or will not work.

• remember that P-S-R of LTA is not an exercise in tryingto get a reviewee to adopt the reviewer’s professionalattitudes and behaviours.

Though it is not in any sense required, it is conceivablethat involving students might add value to some reviewprocesses. A student perspective might possibly be helpfulas part of reviews focusing on new learning materials,formative or summative assessment and feedback.

To summarise therefore, the important key principles ofP-S-R of LTA are that:

• the process serves the perceived needs of the reviewee• the reviewee is able to focus on any aspect of learning,

teaching or assessment• the review methodology is devised by the reviewee

and the reviewer• reporting requirements are sufficient to allow for

constructive dialogue regarding the reviewee’sprofessional development needs

• the reviewee retains control over the way in which theoutcomes of the process are reported

• the reviewee retains absolute control over whether ornot aspects of their review might be disseminated forthe benefit of colleagues

The Operation of the New SystemThis section describes the operation of the peer-supported review process though it should beemphasised that the details and suggested timescalescould be varied to accommodate particularcircumstances. An outline of the process including asuggested timeline is shown below. The suggestedtimeline assumes that the review process extends over afull academic year.

Key Stage Timeline

Identifying the focus forthe review July to early September

Selecting the reviewer July to early September

Planning the reviewprocess September

Undertaking the review September to May asappropriate

Reporting procedures October and June

Disseminating outcomes Anytime after thecompletion of the review

Staff development The session followingthe review

Identifying the Focus for the Review: Between the endof one session and beginning of the next, each teachingcolleague is required to identify an aspect of theirprofessional practice that they which to review. Thiscoincides with the process of module review andevaluation that is required as part of the University’s

4 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

quality assurance and enhancement process and it isadvised that colleagues use module evaluations andaction plans in order to assist them in identifying a focusfor the forthcoming review. The focus for a review mightcentre on a particular module or it might relate moregenerally to the way in which a teacher organises orsupports student learning.

Selecting the Reviewer: Once the focus for the review isestablished, the reviewee identifies a colleague who theythink would be an effective reviewer. It is suggested thata member of staff will normally act as reviewer for nomore than two colleagues. There are no furtherstipulations as to who might act as a reviewer. Theexpectation is that colleagues will choose a reviewer withwhom they can work effectively and who will be able tocontribute positively to the process. Advice contained inthe supporting handbook includes suggestions that thereviewer might:

• have particular professional or subject expertise.• provide a new or valued perspectives or insights on a

particular issue.• be familiar with a module on which a particular review

is based.

Planning the Review Process: It is expected that thereview methodology will be developed by reviewee withassistance from the reviewer. It is important that thereviewee retains control over this aspect of the processand that the reviewer does not attempt to impose aspectsof the review methodology. The methodology will bedetermined to a large extent by the focus of the review.There is no requirement to engage in peer observation ofteaching though that may be appropriate in some cases.

Undertaking the Review: The review process isundertaken according to the agreed methodology anytime between October and May. Reviewees need to takeresponsibility for ensuring that the planned activitiesactually take place for experience has shown that, evenwhere colleagues are fully committed to the process,slippage can occur due to pressure of work or other ‘justcauses’.

Reporting Procedures: Reporting procedures aredeliberately kept to a minimum. At the beginning of theacademic year colleagues submit a brief report describingthe focus of their review and the name of the reviewer.At the end of the academic session a summary report isbe completed electronically by the reviewee providing abrief description of;

• the focus of the review• the review process• the main outcomes including any implications for

module development and anything which may beusefully disseminated to colleagues at subject team,faculty or university level

Any staff development needs arising from the peer-

supported review process are reported separately anddiscussed in confidence with the reviewee’s line managerat appraisal.

Disseminating Outcomes: It is anticipated that theoutcomes of some review processes will be of interest toother colleagues. Staff are therefore asked to indicatewhether they feel it would be useful to disseminateparticular outcomes and the potential audience withwhom results might be shared. In this way it hoped thatthe maximum benefit will be derived from the process.

Staff Development: It is considered essential that peer-supported review and staff development processesdovetail effectively together. At present there is acommitment to ensure that staff development needsarising from the P-S-R of LTA are discussed at appraisaltogether with any other LTA-related developments needs.

Evaluation of P-S-R of LTAAt present there is a considerable amount of anecdotalevidence to suggest that the P-S-R of LTA is very muchbetter than the peer observation process that it replacedbut as yet the process has not been fully evaluated. P-S-Rof LTA was developed in 2002/3 and piloted by four staffin that year. As a result of the very positive feedbackreceived from all four staff, the process was rolled out thefollowing year across the School of Leisure and FoodManagement. It was not possible to evaluate the newprocess in 2003/4 as the University was engaged in amajor restructuring exercise through which ten Schoolswere to be replaced by four new faculties. However,sufficient of the new process had been disseminatedinternally to convince the University to commit to theestablishment of P-S-R of LTA within the four newfaculties.

The Next Stages of DevelopmentThe next stages of development are to be based on acollaborative FDTL5 project designed to capitalise on theencouraging outcomes of P-S-R of LTA. The project,which was began in January this year, is being developedby a consortium based at Sheffield Hallam University andthe University of Gloucestershire. Initial stages of theproject will:

• review staff perceptions of the previous peerobservation systems

• establish P-S-R of LTA in all four faculties at SheffieldHallam University and in the School of Sport andLeisure at the University of Gloucestershire.

• widely disseminate the results via disseminationpartners at the Universities of Brighton, Northumbria,Oxford Brookes and Ulster.

Later stages of the project will seek to apply the principleof peer support to the staff development processes atparticipating institutions.

5www.seda.ac.uk

The impact of academic development: questioning my evaluation practices

The impact of academic development:questioning my evaluation practicesLynn McAlpine, McGill University, Canada

ContextOver the past few years, I havestruggled with questions related tothe nature and the value of theacademic development I do. In whatfollows, I describe my personaljourney, specifically the questions Ihave been asking myself, theanswers I have found so far … andthe new questions I am now asking!

Like many other academicdevelopers, I believe that ultimatelyenhancing student learning is thegoal I am working towards. So, Ihave been intent on trying to designacademic development activitiesthat will have such an impact. And, Ihave struggled with how to judgethe impact of my work beyondparticipant reaction - likely the mostcommon measure used today(Gullatt and Weaver, 1997). In fact,my colleagues and I in thedevelopment unit at McGill spentover a year trying unsuccessfully todesign a way to document impactbeyond participant reaction.

A while ago, I was asked tocontribute a chapter on the natureof staff workshops that have animpact on students (McAlpine,

2003). This request focused me onseeking an empirical basis for mydesign and evaluation decisions.Although workshops are only oneaspect of academic development,attention on them seemedappropriate given that they arecommon, highly visible and theirimpact more frequently judged thanmost other activities (Weimer &Firing Lenze, 1994).

Examining studies ofworkshops that impacted onstudentsI searched the literature for studiesof workshops which had trackedimpact on students (in addition toimpact on participants), and foundten publications representing seveninitiatives between 1983 and 2002.Of these seven workshops, sixreported changes in students as aresult, though one only minimally.

I analyzed the workshopdescriptions, and, in two cases,contacted the authors for moreinformation. My intent was to derivea) empirically-based designcharacteristics that resulted inimpact on students and b) measuresfor judging this impact. These are

described in the two sections thatfollow.

Common design characteristics: Inorder to provide a basis forcomparison between your ownpractices and those reported in thestudies, you may find it interesting tothink of a workshop you havedesigned in terms of the followingcharacteristics:

• Goal(s):• Activities:• Participation required or

voluntary:• Length:• Stand alone or with follow-up:

While the evidence is limited, theworkshops that had an impact onstudents shared the following designcharacteristics:

• Goals: They addressed studentsand learning in direct explicitways, e.g., integrating teaching oflearning strategies into courses,developing skills related to givingeffective student feedback.

• Activities: They actively involvedparticipants in application -practice and feedback - in

ReferencesCosh, J. (1998) Peer Observation in Higher Education - AReflective Approach, Innovations in Education and TrainingInternational, 35 (2). p 171-176.

O’Donnell, K. (Ed) (1999) Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning,New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Piaget, J. (1971) Science of Education and the Psychology of theChild, London, Longman

Pond, K., Ul-Haq, R., & Wade, W. (1995) Peer Review: APrecursor to Peer Assessment, Innovations in Education andTraining International, 32 (4)

Smith, B. (1998) Peer Observation as a Strategy to EnhanceTeaching and Learning, paper given at the InternationalConsortium of Educational Developers (ICED) 2nd InternationalConference, Texas, USA

Smith, B. & Doidge, J. (1998) Using Staff Development as an Agent

of Change In Stephenson, J & Yorke, M (Eds) Capabilities andQuality in Higher Education, Kogan Page

Treston, H (1999) Peer Mentoring: Making a Difference at JamesCook University, Cairns - It’s Moments like these you needMentors, Innovations in Education and Training International 36 (3).p 236-243.

The AuthorsDave Crutchley is Head of Learning, Teaching andAssessment in the Faculty of Health and Well-Being atSheffield Hallam University and Project Director for theFDTL5 ELATE project on peer-supported review.Kevin Nield is a Teaching Fellow in the Faculty ofOrganisation and Management at Sheffield HallamUniversity.Fiona Jordan is Senior Lecturer in the School of Sportand Leisure at the University of Gloucestershire.

6 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

relation to their own teachingcontext, e.g., analysis ofclassroom videotapes, designing aproject for implementation.

• Participation: This was voluntary.• Length: Interactions were at least

12 hours in length, e.g., 3 hoursper day over 4 days.

• Stand alone or with follow-up:There was follow-up, often for aslong as a semester to help withimplementation.

If you are in similar circumstances tome, incorporating all of thesecharacteristics can seem somewhatdaunting. While I can have somedirect influence over the design ofgoals and activities, the othercharacteristics may be difficult toincorporate into workshop designsdue to: logistics, allocation ofresources, institutional requirementsmaking participation non-voluntary,not to mention staff availability forextended periods. For instance, thefact that in institutions such as mineworkshops are often 2-3 hours longgives me pause: What can beachieved in that amount of time?

Still, the findings provide anempirical basis for a) making designdecisions, and b) convincing othersabout the design decisions I want tomake. For instance, if workshopsneed to be kept short, an argumentcould still be made for a financialinvestment to provide follow-upsupport.

Examining impact: The secondanalysis was the evaluation of impacton students. Since I had not beensuccessful in doing this myself, I wasinterested in what others had done.I examined the focus of interest(e.g., student behaviour) as well asthe measure(s) used (e.g.,observation grid).

If you have ever tried (or imaginedtrying) to assess impact on studentsof a workshop, what was the:

• focus of interest• measure(s) used

The studies examined one or moreof the following using the measuresdescribed:

• In-class behaviour: pre and postworkshop classroom observationsor videotapes

• Course rankings (cumulative): postworkshop student test scores,grades, pass rates, GPA, studentratings

• Theoretical learning constructs(e.g., perception of approach tolearning): standardized protocols

• Products of learning: analysis ofartefacts of student course work,such as quizzes and exams

All studies seriously addressedresearch design issues (e.g. pre andpost measures), and incorporatedsome comparison with a controlgroup. Thus, the analysis of theliterature was reassuring; there wasevidence that workshops can bepowerful enough to impact onstudents.

However, the amount of workinvolved in carrying out these studiesappeared staggering. One of theresearchers confirmed this perceptionunsolicited by telling me that shewould not do the study againbecause of the time required(Chalmers, 2002). Her experienceparalleled ours in the developmentunit; we had abandoned our attemptto track impact on students becauseit would have been too costly of ourresources. This realization led me toquestion my underlying assumptionsabout evaluating academicdevelopment activities.

Challenges and questionsabout tracking impact: myexplorationsI asked myself: What if anything isthe significance of the results inrelation to the effort expended? Whydo I do what I do? These questionsmade me realize I needed to go backand re-examine the pedagogical basis(the why) for how I documentedimpact. I believed that if I madeexplicit my espoused theories, I couldsee how they related to my practices.Interestingly, when I asked myself -What is my personal theory oflearning? - I found it very easy to beexplicit about the coherencebetween my espoused theories andactions in, for instance, aligningstrategies to goals. However, I had

great difficulty linking my theory oflearning to my practice ofevaluation. In fact, I was hardly ableto explain it at all, which was ratherdisturbing.

In examining the literature onlearning theories, I found that I wasnot alone in this difficulty of linkinglearning and evaluation. Forinstance, in a basic text (Driscoll,2000), I looked at theories that Ibelieve represent my approach tolearning: constructivism (e.g.,learners as active seekers of meaningwith ownership of learning) andsituated cognition (e.g., learning as asocially negotiated joint enterprise).In neither case was there an explicitreference to evaluation. Ratherdisturbingly, while the literatureacknowledges the value of the linkbetween learning and evaluation, acentral theory that addresses it inrelation to instruction is lacking(Pellegrino, 2002).

So, I approached my question ‘why Ido what I do in relation toevaluation?’ by a different route - byexamining my practice. I askedmyself: Who decides what evidenceto collect? Who values and uses thisevidence? I realized that I (alone orwith my unit colleagues) usuallydecided, and that I and the unitwere the ones who valued and usedthe evidence. I was struck by thefact that my evaluation practice andmy espoused theory of learningwere not in alignment – I valuedfostering ownership of learning andnegotiating different perspectives butwas making all the evaluationdecisions independently of theworkshop participants. (Interestingly,I realized that I intentionally usedpeer and self evaluation as a strategywithin most workshops, while failingto do so as regards impactafterwards!)

Further, I realized that I had allowedthe perceptions of others about myacademic developer role tonegatively influence my integrity asan educator. I had let theinstitutional assumption that I haveresponsibility to provide certainkinds of evidence for administrativepurposes interfere with my own

7www.seda.ac.uk

The impact of academic development: questioning my evaluation practices

beliefs, yet in Canada there is stillconsiderable flexibility about whatthose measures are. Moreimportantly and ratherdisconcertingly, I realized that Ihadn’t actively questioned the staffassumption that I was the ‘teacher’and would decide as the teacheroften does about how to judgeimpact.

I asked myself - Why are mypractices with staff modelling andreinforcing a dependency on ‘theinstructor’ - the teacher being theone who decides what and how toevaluate - rather than fostering myespoused values? Again, I wasreassured by the literature that thisdifficulty - a lack of alignmentbetween theory and practice inevaluation - is recognized as achallenge. Shepard (2001) says theideal is rarely matched in practice,and that changing evaluationpractices is the most difficulteducational reform. What I foundparticularly striking in my readingwas the notion of consequentialvalidity. Shepard and others such asBoud (1995) remind us that inthinking about our practices weneed to attend to the long-termconsequences of our decisions andactions; we need to ask ourselves -what are the broader effects of agiven evaluation activity beyondthose which are immediatelyevident, particularly those which wemay not be personally privy to?

Developing new practicesSo, the challenge I have been givingmyself more recently is to beintentional in jointly examining withworkshop participants thepossibilities for evaluationafterwards. Previously, I had askedparticipants to respond on afeedback form to the question ‘whatare you going to do (differently) as aresult of this workshop?’ I collectedthis information and later used itmyself to assess the worth of theactivity. Now, however, during theworkshop I use variants of thefollowing questions, eitherinformally, one-on-one, or moreformally. In the latter case, answersare discussed in pairs or small groupsbefore a plenary, and I provide a

sheet for individuals to record (andkeep) their ideas.• What, if anything, do you foresee

doing (differently) as a result ofthe workshop?

• What difference will it make tostudent learning?

• How will you know?Participants often define veryspecific concerns that only they canbe cognizant of. For instance, one(Smith, 2002) decided that as aresult of his re-design of a statisticsmodule, the issue of most concernto him was examining the extent towhich student conceptual learningof a particular concept wasimproved (rather thancomputational ability). Further, hedecided to document student self-perception of understanding.

Healey (2005) has commented thatthe strategy I have been recentlyexploring (exemplified in what Smith(2002) did) is similar to thatdescribed in Pace & Mittendorf,2004) where the focus is morespecific: bottlenecks to learning,difficulties that students experiencein understanding concepts inspecific courses. In teasing out thenature of these bottlenecks, the keyquestion staff explore is “What dothe students have to do to show thatthey have overcome thisbottleneck?’ Their answers oftenlead to changes in ways of teaching(e.g., the nature of assignments), aswell as interest in evaluating theimpact of these changes.

The principle underlying my andPace & Mittendorf’s (2002)questions is that staff are the mostknowledgeable about the students,the learning tasks and the subjectmatter in a specific course and thusbetter placed than us to define whatto examine, change and evaluate.Our role is to provide a scaffold orstructure in which to jointly explorethe aspects of learning mostmeaningful to evaluate in theircontexts.

As a result of this change in practice,I have become more sensitive toconsequential validity. By jointlyexploring how to examine impact, Ihave learned to be more attentive to

the particular disciplinary andinstitutional contexts in which staffand their students are situated. Forinstance, the time commitment inteaching a biology class of 700students has a profound influenceon what aspect of student learningan instructor may wish to changeand document – even whether s/hewishes to take this on. I have alsolearned to broaden my notion ofwhat is valuable to evaluate.Recently, a colleague told me whathe would most value as a sign ofimpact would be active support bykey players in the unit. Thisresonates with Rust’s (1998) reportabout individuals interviewedseveral months after a workshopnamed as evidence of change thatthe ideas they had implementedwere being copied by others.

Why do I do what I do?So, I now am exploring newquestions:• To what extent do I intentionally

seek to understand others’criteria for success?

• What indicators do theyrecognize and value asrepresenting evidence of impact?

• Do I value and honour theseequally with my own?

• How can I support their efforts?

As answers slowly emerge and newquestions arise, I remind myself thatit is the questions rather than theanswers are the more powerful inmy learning.

”Every question possesses a powerthat does not lie in the answer …”

Elie Wiesel

I am grateful to Julie Timmermans forlively discussions about some of theseideas and to Mick Healey for commentson an earlier draft.

References:Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning:contradictory or complementary? InKnight, P. (Ed.). Assessment for Learning inHigher Education. London: Kogan Page,35-48.

Chalmers, D. (2002). Personalcommunication.

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of learningfor instruction, 2nd edition, NeedhamHeights, USA: Allyn and Bacon.

8 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

Gullatt, D., & Weaver, S. (1997). Use offaculty development activities to improvethe effectiveness of US institutions ofhigher education. Paper presented at theProfessional and OrganizationalDevelopment Network in HigherEducation, Oct.

Healey, M. (2005). Personalcommunication.

McAlpine, L. (2003)1 . Het belang vanonderwijskundige professionalisering voorstudentgecentreed ondervisj (Promoting aculture of teaching and learning throughfaculty development). In N. Druine, M.Clement & K. Waeytens (Eds.). Dynamiekin het hoger onderwijs. Uitdagingen vooronderwijssondersteuning (Universities,challenge and change in the 21st century).Leuven, Belgium: Universitaire Pers.

Pace, D., & Middendorf, J. (eds.) (2004).Decoding the disciplines: helping studentslearn disciplinary ways of thinking, NewDirections for Teaching and Learning,No. 98. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Pellegrino, J. (2002). Understanding howstudents learn and inferring what theyknow: Implications for the design ofcurriculum, instruction and assessment.Paper presented at the NSF K-12 Math,Science Curriculum and ImplementationProjects Conference, Washington, USA.

Shepard, L. (2001). The role of classroomassessment in teaching and learning. In V.Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Research onTeaching - 4th edition, AmericanEducational Research Association,Washington, USA, 1066 -1101.

Smith, B. (2002). Innovative OutcomeAssessment in Statistics Education. Paperpresented at the Joint MathematicsMeetings, San Diego, January.

Rust, C. (1998). The impact of educationaldevelopment workshops on teachers’practice. International Journal forAcademic Development, 3(1), 72-80.

Weimer, M., & Firing Lenze, L. (1994).Instructional interventions: A review of theliterature on efforts to improve instruction.

In K. Feldman & M. Paulsen (eds.)Teaching and Learning in the CollegeClassroom. Needham Heights, MA: Simon& Schuster Custom Publishing, 653-682.

Lynn McAlpine is Professor ofEducation and former Director ofthe Centre for University Teachingand Learning at McGill University inCanada. Her research involves: a)funded programs of research intoteacher thinking and studentlearning, b) self-studies of her ownteaching and academic developmentpractices, and c) collaborative actionresearch with other professors whoare examining their teaching. She isCo-editor of the InternationalJournal for Academic Development.lynn.mcalpine@mcgill.ca.

1 Those wishing an English draft of thischapter can contact me atlynn.mcalpine@mcgill.ca.

Effective interventions to supportpractitioners’ adoption of e-learningRhona Sharpe FSEDA, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford Brookes University

IntroductionIn issue 5.4 of Educational Developments, Martin Oliverasked the question ‘What can we do to help academicsstart using e-learning?’ (Oliver, 2005) He summarised thework of the practitioner study which was funded by theJISC with the aim of informing the design of a series ofpractitioner focussed resources. The focus onpractitioners is important and Becta’s review ofinformation and learning technology (ILT) in furthereducation reminds us that “a key element in achievingthis integration of ILT into teaching and learning is a welltrained body of staff.” (Becta, 2003a, p.5).

As the starting point of the practitioners’ study, Iundertook an initial review of previous staff developmentresources and initiatives which had been designed topromote the use of e-learning through their work withpractitioners (Sharpe, 2004a). What follows here is asummary of this review focussing on the question: Whatcan we do through our staff development interventions tosupport practitioners in the adoption of e-learning?

To attempt to provide some direction to this question, thereview drew on and combined two existing bodies ofknowledge. Firstly, the literature of how professionalslearn and develop and the implications for educational

development (Sharpe, 2004b). Secondly, feedback fromprevious staff development initiatives designed topromote the use of e-learning from further and highereducation. These included Becta’s review of informationand learning technology (Becta, 2003a), the Evaluation ofthe Ferl Practitioners’ Programme (Becta, 2003b),consultation with the JISC e-learning and pedagogyprogramme’s expert group and the review of theEmbedding Learning Technologies programmes resultingfrom the EFFECTS project (Beetham, 2003) and itssubsequent SEDA-PDF award.

A number of factors could be identified as havinginfluenced the effectiveness of such staff developmentinterventions and these were organised around threeinterrelated emerging themes: supporting professionallearning, resource creation and use and working withinexisting communities

Supporting practitioners to change theirconceptions of teaching and learningA focus on effective adoption is important; indeed theaims of the JISC’s e-learning and pedagogy programmeare explicit about expecting effective adoption and go onto define this as ‘pedagogically sound, learner-focusedand accessible’ (JISC, 2004). Our interest is not in

9www.seda.ac.uk

Effective interventions to support practitioners’ adoption of e-learning

promoting the use of e-learning for its own sake butimproving the student experience by supportingpractitioners to incorporate e-learning effectively intotheir teaching. As in educational development as awhole, the learning technology field has shifted frombeing primarily focussed on ‘how to’ use a piece ofsoftware or hardware, to supporting e-learning experts totake on new roles where they need a range of non-technical skills including curriculum development,evaluation and resource planning (Dempster & Deepwell,2003) and programmes for their developments attempt tomeet these needs. This can be seen in focus of theEmbedding Learning Technologies (ELT) programmes onknowledge, values and choices in educational design, andin the Ferl Practitioners Programme (FPP) which explicitlyaimed to move away from providing only ICT skills.

So, we have moved to a situation where we are hoping todevelop practitioner skills and knowledge in the goodpedagogical use of technologies and effective learningdesign. This is likely to involve as a first step, supportingpractitioners towards changing their conceptions ofteaching and learning. As such, we should not besurprised that the elements of constructivism, actionlearning and peer supported learning were positivelyevaluated in the review of programmes of development.

Real life experiences are consistently rated positively bypractitioners as forums where they can engage withpeers, challenge each other and construct their ownmeanings. The FPP for example was designed to beintegrated into existing staff development programmesand the evaluation of the pilots found that often the coremodules were supported by face to face sessions beforeindividuals moved to work on the strands by self-study.Those participants who worked through the materials inthis way rated the group sessions and peer interactionhighly. Similar findings were reported by the evaluation ofthe ELT courses. Here programme leaders confirmed thattheir ELT participants gained from the more intensiveperiods of development and learning facilitated by beingpart of a cohort.

Cycles of learning are most clearly seen in the SEDA ELTlearning outcomes which encourage practitioners toapproach their embedding of learning technology in asystematic fashion. The review of these programmesconcluded that whilst a full staff development programmewasn’t necessary for every participant, they did gain fromthe structure provided by the outcomes. For novicepractitioners this will often mean structured time, perhapsin staff development sessions, workshops and appraisals.However, even highly motivated and expert practitionersneed time to engage, prompts to review and reflect ontheir own practice, and help in translating between thetheoretical and practical aspects of the situation.

Two potential challenges were identified in this section.First, despite our best attempts to promote topics fordevelopment with a pedagogical focus, we may have tofind a balance between the knowledge and skills we wish

to promote and those practitioners will actually sign upfor. For practitioners working in e-learning, it still seemsto be the new technologies, or innovative uses of existingones, which have consistent appeal. Second, for thosepractitioners who are learning, it’s unlikely that even avery rich resource or tool is going to be as effective as anintervention. This led us to consider the processes ofresource creation and use as the basis of a peer learningexperience in the following two sections.

Resource creation and useThe reviews of previous interventions confirmpractitioners’ desire for highly contextualisedrepresentations and a lack of patience with resourceswhich aren’t targeted directly at them. It was recognisedthat case studies have a wide appeal and are particularlygood for providing the highly contextualised real lifestories that practitioners prefer. Contextualisation mightalso come from the institution and the review of ELTprogrammes notes a positive link to local and institutionalpriorities as being particularly attractive to participants.Here it was noted that participants favoured ‘just-in-time’development where the context might be set by a specificlearning and teaching problem or new agenda.

However, as Martin Oliver said (Oliver,2005), there wasan early move in this project from focussing only onresources such as case studies to seeing these as part ofstaff development interventions. It did become clear quitequickly, and we have argued elsewhere, that in order forresources to have an impact on practice, they need to bebecome ‘living’ artefacts, enhanced by their role incollaborative activities. The notion of active artefactsallows for the possibility of collaborative creation and use,offering facilities for commentary and feedback, peerreview and refinement in the light of experience. Suchactive artefacts support processes of peer learningwhereby representations are constantly created, sharedand tested (Sharpe, Beetham & Ravenscroft, 2004).

There are practical problems around the rewards in thecreation and use of resources. We might want to suggestthat practitioners engage in the creation and use of thetypes of resources familiar to staff developers such asguidelines, prompts for reflection or toolkits. Actuallythese types of resources aren’t valued within theacademic community to the same degree as peerreviewed academic publications. It is difficult to identifythe pay-off for individuals who undertake the work ofannotating, collating, synthesising, commenting,evaluating, re-contextualising, and re-developing. Thereview of the ELT schemes, although not promotingaccreditation for all, did discuss the kinds of rewardsperceived as worth by different participants e.g.experienced academics might not want credit but mightwant a way to publish a paper.

Another potential problem which seems to be a commonexperience from previous projects is the difficulty ofgetting practitioners to produce cases studies in acommon format or without payment or help with writing

10 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

them. This may in part be due to the lack of academicvalue of this work and in part because while practitionersare happy enough to tell their stories of successes, we areall less comfortable putting our name to the failures.Finally, practitioners may be protective about sharing theirown content or learning designs, or indeed not willing touse those produced by others.

Working within existing communitiesCommunities of practice were suggested to havepowerful influences on the appropriate location ofdevelopment activities throughout the review and theremay be real advantages to working within the existingcommunities in which practitioners are already based tomake e-learning part of their practice. It was suggestedthat rather than offering practitioners yet more resourcesto use, we could offer the chance to create resources andlink this to the powerful influences of collaborativeresource creation as a tool for community building.Working within and for communities could also allow usto deal with the affective aspects of conceptual change aswell as the purely cognitive.

Community building may best be facilitated by localdevelopers who frequently mediate between practitionersand resources. Beetham (2002) found that mostacademic staff interviewed had become proficient in theuse of learning technologies with the support of specialiststaff from a learning technologies or educationaldevelopment unit. In a case study of the support offeredat a single institution, Oliver (2004) reported that learningtechnology staff were able to establish common groundbetween developers and practitioners (such as through acommon discipline), establish and maintain an ongoingdialogue with staff to identify what they perceive theirneeds to be and develop a good understanding of therealities of practitioner’s work e.g. actual course designprocesses at work, the inequalities of the workplace orthe changes in working practice. So perhaps we shouldthink about the training of more staff developers as e-learning specialists to encourage dialogue within thecontext and of their own communities.

In terms of potential problems, it is worth noting thatthere are some examples of what we might consider welldesigned resources and interventions not being well used.Both FPP and SEDA ELT are clear that they have movedthe learning technology agenda forward, but actually thetake up is not as high or of the type they would like. TheFPP materials were deliberately designed in a series ofsmall chunks so that they could be taken in any order andcould be adapted to local organisational circumstances.However, the evaluation of pilots showed that only 22%of colleges had made any adaptations to the materials tosuit their local circumstances. Supporting practitioners toadopt e-learning might first involve supporting institutionsto adapt existing materials to suit their needs.

Conclusions and recommendationsThe practitioners’ study started by asking what staffdevelopment resources and interventions can do to

support practitioners to adopt e-learning. In particular,the project brief was to inform the design of a series ofpractitioner-focussed resources for the JISC. The reviewsummarised here attempted to combine the professionallearning literature with real life experience of staffdevelopment e-learning initiatives to highlight wherethere was synergy and/or tensions between the two. Thisled to a number of specific recommendations applicableto e-learning development programmes which I hopehave been usefully summarised here. More broadly, andfor the purposes of the project, we were able quickly toconclude that resources on their own are unlikely to ableto support practitioners in adopting new approaches. Therenewed focus on professional learning shifted our focusaway from attempts to define which types of resourcesmight be effective, towards the impact that creating,adapting and contextualising resources have onpractitioner’s learning and development.

ReferencesBecta (2003a) ILT in further education: laying the foundations for e-learning. Becta ICT Research Report.Becta (2003b) The Ferl practitioner’s programme: pilot evaluationreport. Becta ICT Research Report.Beetham, H. (2002). Developing learning technology networksthrough shared representations of practice, in C. Rust (Ed.)Improving student learning through learning technologies,Proceedings of the 9th International Improving Student LearningSymposium (pp. 421-434). Oxford Centre for Staff and LearningDeveloping, Oxford.Beetham, H. (2003). Embedding learning technologies: lessons foracademic developers. Educational Developments. 4(4), 4- 6.Dempster, J. & Deepwell, F. (2003). Experiences of nationalprojects in embedding learning technology into institutionalpractices. In J.K. Seale (Ed.) Learning technology in transition: fromindividual enthusiasm to institutional implementation (pp. 45-62)Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.JISC (2004) E-learning and pedagogy - background information.http://www.jisc.ac.uk/elp_programme_info.html [accessed 29January 2005].Oliver (2004) Effective support for e-learning within institutions. Areport for the JISC practitioners’ study of the e-learning andpedagogy programme. Available from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Effective%20support%20instit%20v2_Martin_Oliver.doc [accessed29 January 2005].Oliver, M.(2005) What can we do to help academics start using e-learning? Educational Developments 5(4),17-18Sharpe, R. (2004a). Effective resources and interventions for e-learning: initial positioning paper. A report for the JISCpractitioners study of the e-learning and pedagogy programme.Available from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/initial%20positioning%20paper%20v5-1.doc [accessed 29 January2005].Sharpe, R. (2004b). How do professionals learn and develop?Implications for their developers. In A. D. Baume and P. Kahn(Eds.) Enhancing staff and educational development. (pp. 132-153).London: SEDA/Kogan Page.Sharpe, R., Beetham, H. & Ravenscroft, A. (2004). Active artefacts:representing our knowledge of learning and teaching. EducationalDevelopments. 5(2), 16-21.

Discipline-specific ProfessionalDevelopment: just branding?Dr Shân Wareing FSEDA, Royal Holloway, University of London

IntroductionHaving always found educational theory and research tobe relevant to my own learning and teaching (Englishliterature and sociolinguistics in higher education), I havedifficulty in understanding other people’s reservationsabout materials and idea developed outside theirdiscipline. As September 2004 came round, and Ientered again into the same discussions as the previousyear with the staff on our new lecturers’ course aboutwhether the theories and research of educationaldevelopment were relevant for their discipline, I thoughtit was time I took a less irritable and more scholarlyapproach. I set out to find out more about perceptions inthis area, (a) for my own satisfaction, (b) to introducesome variety in the repetitive conversations I have withcolleagues on the subject, and (c) to improve the newlecturers’ programme.

This paper was presented as a workshop at theNovember 2004 SEDA conference in Birmingham, whereI received some enormously helpful insights andsuggestions from generous and thoughtful colleagues, andparticularly Dr Pat Young. I have also benefited fromconversations with Professor Ben Knights, Director of theEnglish Subject Centre. Neither of these kind people isin any way to blame for the views expressed here.

As I’ve said, my views of the cross-disciplinary relevanceof principles and theories of educational development areat odds with the majority of participants at the start of ournew lecturers’ programme (although the attitudesexpressed change during the year). Talking to academicstaff across the College, there is clearly far more supportfor the Subject Centres than the Higher EducationAcademy, and this is always couched in terms ofrelevance to the discipline. As I began to read on thesubject, I realised that not only did I not see eye to eyewith my academic colleagues but that I was at odds withmost of the literature as well. By now I was beginning tofeel intellectually exposed as the cold winds of scholarlydisapproval skittered over my skin. For example, Healey(2000:169) argues that ‘the scholarship of teaching needsto be developed within the context of the culture of thedisciplines in which it is applied’ . Gilchrist and Clarksimilarly state:

‘‘There is little doubt that different subjects do raise quitedistinct teaching issues… It is further evident that CPD ineducational issues, as distinct to subject development,would become more attractive to experienced staff if itcould be directly related to their teaching problems intheir own subject’’.

Gilchrist 2004:26

‘‘The development of teaching and learning in highereducation, then, is best not seen as a generic and practicalactivity which does not involve disciplinary thinking. If itdoes, it will inevitably be sucked into the reductivediscourse of the culture of compliance’’.

Clark 2000:62

These quotations indicate that some scholars feel verystrongly that educational development should take adisciplinary perspective rather than a generic one; what Ihave not found clear on the basis of these publications iswhy.

Defining DisciplinesThere are several taxonomies in circulation for groupingand distinguishing between disciplines. According to thetaxonomy used by Kolb (1981), and adapted by Becherand Trowler (2001), the discipline of pedagogy (orandragogy if you prefer) is soft and applied, being afunctional subject with relatively low paradigm consensus(i.e. there is usually more than one acceptable approachto tackling a given research question). It therefore is avery different discipline from those practised in researchand teaching by many participants on the new lecturers’programme.

‘‘In high paradigm consensus or ‘hard’ disciplines,knowledge is perceived as cumulative and concerned withuniversals, quantification, and discovery (Becher 1989,Biglan 1973). Hard disciplines are characterised by widespread agreement about curriculum content, researchcollaboration, competition for recognition and funding,clearly defined intellectual boundaries, and gatekeeping ofthose boundaries by a powerful elite (Becher 1989; Lodahl& Gordon 1972). In contrast, low paradigm consensus or‘soft’ disciplines consider knowledge as recursive; scholarsuse new lenses to explore intellectual territory alreadymapped out by others. Knowledge is also concerned withparticulars, qualities and understanding (Becher 1989,Biglan 1973). Soft disciplines are characterised byidiosyncratic curricula, weak boundaries, independentresearch efforts and tolerance for unusual ideas ormethods (Becher, 1989; Biglan 1973)…. The knowledgeand social structures of hard disciplines appear to definefaculty work behaviour more rigorously than theknowledge and social structures of soft disciplines. Facultyin hard disciplines, therefore, may have feweropportunities to integrate teaching and research thanfaculty in soft disciplines’’.

Colbeck 1998:651

From these definitions, it can be concluded thatdisciplinary differences affect:

11www.seda.ac.uk

Discipline-specific Professional Development: just branding?

• Concepts of evidence, argument and appropriatepresentation, including writing style, relating to locationof the discipline on pure/applied and hard/soft axis;

• Community practices (e.g. rules of interaction; status;concepts of apprenticeship);

• How information is structured for learners, in terms ofat what stage and how complexity is communicated;

• Habitual learning and teaching methods (e.g. whetherthe class and the lecturer expect chalk and talk,fieldwork trips or small group work);

• How reusable a reusable learning object is (e.g. howexcited you would be to find a well-written onlineexercise in, say, simple statistics);

This analysis is supported by the content of SubjectCentre web sites, which on the basis of review providethe following discipline-specific services:• subject based communities: shared discourse, shared

values, common networks• events run by discipline specialists• resources / “reusable learning objects” / case studies• debates on curriculum content.

In a review of a range of Subject Centre websites andpublications, there is no evidence of disciplinarydifferences in:• principles of how students learn; models such as

Bloom’s taxonomy of learning appear frequently(although scholars in the English Subject Centre and atKeele are using methods from literary studies todevelop models of student learning);

• principles of curriculum design (though disciplineobviously affects the specifics);

• the most widely used learning and teaching methods:lectures, seminars, tutorials, problem classes e.g. theHistory Subject Centre uses the advice in the TeachingMore Students series for running seminars. Whereactivities are distinctive, such as laboratory work,fieldtrips or practicals (and the latter two occur in artsas well as sciences), they are often build on the samepresumptions as the other activities (again, supportedby subject centre web sites);

• principles of assessment.

It is unclear whether the cross-discipline materials onsubject centre web sites are selected because there is littlepedagogic research available that is genuinely disciplinespecific (a situation which might change with growinginterest and investment) or whether existing researchreally has cross-discipline applicability but needs to bebranded as discipline-specific in order to be used. Topicsdiscussed with new lecturers on our accreditedprogramme include the list below; can we imaginediscipline–specific versions of the following elements, andif they existed, what would they look like? (a questiondebated in several subject centres, including English).

Models of student learningPsychological/cognitive models (including specificlearning difficulties; learning styles, Bloom’s learningtaxonomy; Perry’s model of learning as progressive

stages); psychological-biological models of stress;motivation and fear; sociological models: socialconstructivism, the learning cycle; gendered models;

Curriculum design theory:Including constructivism; the aligned curriculum;curriculum design to promote deep approaches tolearning; transferable skills and employability as coreconcepts in curriculum development; research/teachinglinks;

Teaching methods:Session planning; limitations of conventional lectures andhow to make lectures as effective as possible;presentation skills; setting group work tasks andfacilitating group work; promoting active learning andindependent learning; problem based learning; skills forrunning tutorials;

Assessment:Assessment methods; marking criteria; providingfeedback to students; marking, moderation andexamination boards;

Student diversity & support:Working with other university services; legislation anduniversity policies; considerations for teaching studentsfrom different class backgrounds, ethnicities and religions;with special needs; implications of gender and sexualorientation legislation.

It seems to me that these topics need to be significantcomponents of a professional development programmefor teaching in higher education that meets thresholdstandards, and are largely discipline-independent.Indeed, many reflect the accreditation requirements forthe Institute for Learning and Teaching in HigherEducation, now the Higher Education Academy.Interestingly, these requirements include: ‘knowledgeof… models of how students learn, both generically andin their subject’, although there seems to be, asmentioned above, relatively little literature available onthe second element.

Of course, to take account of the specific circumstancesin which participants teach, generic programmes can,should and often do deliver the following:

• early acknowledgement of disciplinary differences(which will also produce evidence of disciplinarysimilarities);

• participants encouraged to apply all theories in theirown contexts;

• assessment tasks rooted in disciplines and personalpractice;

• action research;• information about discipline-based pedagogic

scholarship (where it exists);• case studies;• choices or strands in programme which include

discipline specific activity;

12 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

• awareness that staff from some disciplines maydominate class discussion and small group work;

• subject centre activities counted in lieu of attendanceon the accredited programme if learning outcomesmatch up.

But what if, despite all these elements, participants stillrespond with ‘that’s not relevant to my discipline?’ Aselection of the tried and tested solutions suggested bythe SEDA workshop audience were:

• Match the discipline of the presenter to the disciplineof the audience;

• Match the ‘branding’ of visuals to the departments’web site (borrow logos and images);

• Identify who in the line of management is counter-briefing, and work on gaining their support;

• Make action research an earlier and more significantcomponent of the programme;

• Re-examine the approach taken to take greateraccount of participants’ reactions.

One further suggestion is to run programmes (partially orentirely) which are discipline specific, either institutionallyif the cohort size and resources permit, or nationallythrough the subject centres. Tables 1 and 2 outline whatI see as some of the benefits and disadvantages of cross-department institutional programmes of professionaldevelopment compared with department-based ordiscipline-based professional development activities.

At Royal Holloway we are planning to work with smallergroups of new lecturers in September 2005, subdividingthe expected cohort of 25 into groups of about five (butnot by discipline) to test whether group size wascontributing to the problem, by limiting questions,discussion and use of specific examples.

Other anglesBut is this really a question of discipline? There are anumber of arguments which suggests that the perceptionof disciplinary differences in learning and teaching issocial not epistemological in origin, and a convincingargument in my view is based on the untidiness ofdiscipline groupings. It is not uncommon to have staffwithin a department (Geography is a good example)undertaking research located on both sides of the pure/applied and the soft/pure divides. There will certainly bestaff in Geography whose teaching and research has morein common in method and content with colleaguesworking in politics, sociology, drama or literature studiesdepartments than with the person in the next office whoworks on fossils. The sense staff have of a disciplinecommunity is based on (I suggest rather arbitrary) socialconfigurations rather than epistemological commonground. Stephen Rowland points to the fragmentation ofdisciplines into specialist sub-disciplines in order toproblematise the concept of disciplines:

‘‘During the 1990s, the literature in the field of chemistrygrew by more than half a million articles per year (Clark

2000). In the same study, 8,500 different specialities inthe sciences were identified. In this situation, it is hardlysurprising that academics often feel themselves to sharelittle, in the way of intellectual interest, even with others intheir own department, let alone those in other disciplineareas. Moreover, as disciplines become increasinglybroken down into more highly specialised sub-disciplines,so the very idea of the discipline itself becomes redundant.Indeed, there are those who argue that the very conceptof the discipline is no longer meaningful’’.

Rowland 2002:61

A further suggestion of the social component ofdisciplinary difference emerged at the November SEDAconference workshop, where we had a non-scientificshow of hands from the 28 participants indicating asubstantial difference in the perceived reactions togeneric programmes in predominantly research-ledinstitutions compared to those with lower researchincome, where complaints of irrelevance were lesscommon. There are many possible interpretations of thisindicative finding; two seem most likely to me: either (1)in pre-1992 universities, individuals’ expectations of thebenefits conferred by completing the programme arelower, which negatively affects their motivation andperception of relevance; (2) that disciplines are a strongerelement of identity in research-intensive universities. Ineither case, it would seem that social factors rather thanessential disciplinary differences are highly significant inunderstanding the dynamics of the situation. In fact mySEDA audience largely assumed the key issues to besocial rather than epistemological, and none the lessinfluential for that.

ConclusionsIt is my contention that disciplinary differences inpedagogy are frequently overstated in two main ways: (1)there are many aspects of pedagogy which apply acrossall disciplines; (2) discipline boundaries are in many casessocial and arbitrary rather than epistemological andessential. It is nevertheless the case that perception ofdisciplinary difference is a real and highly influentialphenomenon which educational development needs totake into account. This paper has suggested somemethods by which cross-department institutionalprogrammes already address subject differences anddiscipline allegiances.

In the coming year, I will be investigating discipline-specific concepts of student learning in more depth,supported by SEDA small grant.

The Educational Development Centre at Royal Hollowayis collaborating with the English Subject Centre to host anevent on Pedagogic Research in English, scheduled forFriday May 13th 2005 at Royal Holloway. Details areavailable from the web site at: http://www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/

13www.seda.ac.uk

Discipline-specific Professional Development: just branding?

• relatively well-developed literaturerelating to learning, curriculumdevelopment; spans psychology;sociology; politics, gender studiesand more

• can be led by a minimum of oneeducational developer (withoutneeding one for each school ordepartment); by having aeducation focus rather than adiscipline focus, this person maybe a more experienced facilitator,more familiar with learning &teaching advancements, and moreaware of institutional changeissues;

• can attract sufficient numbers tobe run within an HEI; thereforelocal and easily timetabled; linkedto other aspects of HEI policy

• addresses principles and theoriesunderlying learning and teaching,and concerns such as SENDA,widening participation, PDP, etc.arguably common to all studentsand disciplines,

• Our experience has been that thefeedback on sessions run byeducational developers is betterthan the sessions run by subjectexperts (including perceivedrelevance), despite complaintsabout not being subject specific

• can provoke reviews of ‘taken-for-granteds’ and challengedisciplinary practices, in teachingand assessment methods, existingrange of methods used indisciplines, attitudes towardsrequired skills and attitudestowards recruitment

• can create institutional culture/community of teachers, and fosterinstitutional mission

• can foster development ofinterdisciplinary communities withshared pedagogic values

• reduces sense of isolation for newstaff at odds with aspects ofdepartmental culture.

Subject Specific models of educational development

• status in the eyes ofparticipants associated with asuccessful career in thatdisciplinary area

• language, metaphors andepistemological assumptionsare familiar to participants

• shared backgroundknowledge of people andevents; fosters and works witha sense of community

• e.g. fieldtrips; practicalsessions; lab sessions;

• e.g. maths, statistics, technicalskills, well-developed readingand writing skills

• e.g. when subjects tend tohave recruitment patternswhich are gendered; recruitwell or poorly from certainethnic groups or classbackgrounds; recruit studentswith particular disabilities(e.g. specific learningdifficulties)

• e.g. practicals, chalk & boardwork, student-led seminars;transmission focussed non-interactive lectures;

ReferencesBecher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories(2nd edition), Buckingham: the Society for Research into HigherEducation and the Open University Press.

Angela Brew (2003) ‘Teaching and Research: new relationshipsand their implications for inquiry-based teaching and learning inhigher education’. Higher Education Research and Development 22(1) 12.

Clark, B. (2000) ‘Collegial Entrepreneurialism in ProactiveUniversities’ Change Washington: Heldref Publications 10-19

Colbeck, C. (1998) ‘Merging in a Seamless Blend’ The Journal ofHigher Education 69 (6) 647-671

Gibbs, G. (2000) ‘Are the pedagogies of the disciplines reallydifferent?’, in C. Rust (ed.) Proceedings of the 1999 7th

International Symposium Improving Student Learning: ImprovingStudent Learning through the Disciplines, Oxford: Oxford Centrefor Staff and Learning Development.

Generic or discipline-specific? Developing Effective Professional Development Programmes forAcademic Staff

Generic models of educational development

Scholarlybenefits

Logisticbenefits

Pedagogicbenefits

Institutionalmanagementbenefits

Sector benefits

Can be led by stafffrom thatdisciplinarybackground

Can addressparticular formsand styles ofteaching specific tothe discipline

Can addressparticular skillsrequirementswhich affectstudent progressionand achievement

Can address issuesrelating torecruitment profile

Can acknowledgeexisting habits ofteaching andassessment

14 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

Gilchrist, Warren (2004) “An Example of Discipline BasedInduction and CPD in Education” Educational Developments 5.3p26.

Healey (2000) ‘Developing the Scholarship of Teaching in HigherEducation: a discipline-based approach’ Higher Education Researchand Development 19 (2) 169-189

Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2003) ‘Discipline-based EducationalDevelopment’ in H. Eggins and R. Macdonald (eds.) TheScholarship of Academic Development, Buckingham: the Societyfor Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press.

Jenkins, A. (1996) ‘Discipline-based Educational Development’International Journal for Academic Development 1(1) 50-62

Knights, B. (in press) ‘Intelligence and Interrogation: The Identityof the English Student’ Arts and Humanities in Higher Education.

Kolb, D.A. (1981) ‘Learning styles and disciplinary differences’ inA. Chickering (ed.) The Modern American College, San Francisco,

CA: Jossey:Bass.

Robertson, J. and Bond, C. (2004) ‘Many ‘ways of being’:variation in experiences of the research/teaching relation’,presented at Research and teaching: closing the divide: aninternational Colloquium; Winchester UK 17-18 March 2004

Rowland, S. (2002) ‘Overcoming Fragmentation in ProfessionalLife: the challenge for academic development’ Higher EducationQuarterly 56 (1) pp52-64.

Utley, A, (2004) Audit models ‘kill teaching’, The Times HigherEducational Supplement 23rd April 2004, p.2

Dr Shân Wareing FSEDA is Director of Royal Holloway’sEducational Development Centre

s.wareing@rhul.ac.uk

University life down underJohn Dearn, University of Canberra

The Australian contextAustralia might be on the other sideof the world from the UK but thechallenges facing staff anduniversities in both countries areremarkably similar. Nevertheless,there are some interesting features ofhigher education in Australia thatneed to be appreciated in order tounderstand some of the issues ofconcern here.

Australia has a total of 41universities, 37 of which are public.They vary in size with about equalnumbers under 10,000 students,between 10,000 and 20,000students, and over 20,000 students.The current suite of universitiesemerged following the redesignationof what were called colleges ofadvanced education and institutes oftechnology as universities in 1990.Some 15 years later universities arebeginning to form alliances based onperceived similarities in roles andhistories. For example, eight researchintensive and largely olderuniversities formed, somewhatunimaginatively, the Group of Eight,and have been joined by theAustralian Technology Networkgroup, the Innovative ResearchUniversities group and most recentlythe New Generation Universitiesgroup.

While the basic nature of Australianuniversities will be familiar to thosein the UK, there are some interestingdifferences. First, Australia, like theUSA, is a federation of states andterritories and has separate state andterritory governments as well as theCommonwealth Government. Thesignificance of this is thatuniversities, unlike (say) schools orhospitals, are funded directly by theCommonwealth Government.However, universities themselves areconstituted through their respectivestate or territory governments, eachwith their own legislative acts andrequirements. The CommonwealthGovernment has recently signaled itsintention to bring all universitiesunder its control, something that nodoubt will be resisted by some of thestates and territories who seeuniversities as integral to theireconomies.

A second issue to note arises fromthat iconic feature of Australia - itssize. This imposes a number ofconstraints on higher education,notably the lack of movement ofAustralian school leavers betweenthe major city centres which arelargely situated on the coastal fringeof the country. While we might talkof a single unified system of 37public universities, in reality the

universities in each of the states andterritories remain relativelyindependent with respect to studentparticipation. “Going to university”may mean something a littledifferent in Australia where moststudents attend a local institutionand many school leavers startuniversity living at home.

Current issues facing highereducation in AustraliaLike higher education institutionsacross the world, universities inAustralia are attempting to come toterms with balancing costs, qualityand equity in an environment ofdecreasing government support,increasing demands, changingexpectations and rapidly diversifyingstudent population. A feature of theAustralian context has been theprovision of higher education tooverseas students, predominantlyfrom the Asian region, who nowmake up some 16% of universitystudents in Australia. The growth inoverseas students has been driven inpart by the need for universities togenerate additional income.However, addressing issues such asadmission requirements andassessment standards has presentedmost universities with some seriouschallenges.

15www.seda.ac.uk

University life down under

Quality assurance, in particular, hasbeen a major issue, due largely tothe fact that Australian universitiesare self-accrediting institutions anduntil recently, unlike the situation inmany other countries, lacked asystematic national external qualityassurance system. The quality ofAustralian higher education itself hasnot been in doubt. However, in anera of public accountability, mereassertions of quality can no longerbe considered sufficient.

In 2000, in response to the clearneed for an enhanced qualityassurance system , the state, territoryand Commonwealth Ministers ofEducation agreed to theestablishment of the AustralianUniversities Quality Agency (AUQA).

AUQAAUQA began operating in 2001 andis conducting audits of alluniversities on a five yearly cycle.The process being used requiresuniversities to conduct a self-reviewand summarise the results in aportfolio. This portfolio is examinedby a panel of auditors who thenconduct a detailed site visit thatinvolves interviewing staff from alllevels and areas of the institution.Their report, which is madeavailable as a public document,includes a set of commendations aswell as a set of recommendationswith respect to which to which theinstitution prepares a response andan implementation plan.

The AUQA approach is basedprimarily on institutions beingjudged against their own missionand objectives, something seen bysome as a weakness. However,AUQA expects institutions to haveestablished and to be able to justifytheir own standards and benchmarksas they see appropriate. Anotherconcern is the very large amount oftime and resources being allocatedby universities to their self-reviewand portfolio preparation, thoughperhaps this initial cycle will proveto be atypical. It is not unusual forinstitutions to say that the AUQAreview was the incentive for doing alot of things they had been intendingto do for some time. Moreover,

handled strategically withininstitutions, the self-review processcan be a powerful staff developmentexercise.

Overall, the AUQA approach isencouraging an evidence-basedapproach to quality assurance andquality improvement based onrequiring universities to state whatare attempting to do and why, howthey are attempting to achieve theseobjectives, what results they haveachieved and what actions theyhave taken on the basis of theseoutcomes. This is an approach thatthose who work in staffdevelopment feel comfortable withand for this reason academicdevelopment units in manyuniversities have played a major rolein preparing their institutions forAUQA audits.

The role of theCommonwealth GovernmentThe work of AUQA iscomplemented by the work of theCommonwealth Governmentthrough its funding mechanisms andits monitoring of performance data.One form this takes is what is calledthe Institution AssessmentFramework Bilateral Discussions, anew accountability mechanismintroduced in 2004. This involvesthe Commonwealth Governmentdepartment (DEST) first preparing adetailed report on each institutioncontaining a wide range of datacovering finances, students, staff,learning and teaching, and research.These data are presented for anumber of years for both theinstitution itself, the national averageand the average of the group ofuniversities the institution happensto be in e.g. the New GenerationUniversities. The institutional reportis then used as the basis for adetailed strategic bilateral discussionheld over a day betweenrepresentatives of theCommonwealth Government andsenior staff of the university.

The Australian HigherEducation ReviewA major national review of highereducation in Australia was

conducted in 1998, a year after theUK Dearing review. However, thisreview and its subsequentrecommendations did not engageeffectively with the political processand failed to produce any significantoutcomes. In March 2002 anotherreview was launched, this timedriven enthusiastically by theCommonwealth Minister forEducation, and has resulted in theimplementation of a large number ofreforms which have the potential tosignificantly change the nature ofhigher education in Australia. Thereview, named Higher Education atthe Crossroads, began with therelease of seven scholarly papers(well worth reading) which providedthe basis for an extensive publicconsultation process. The resultantreforms, named Our Universities,Backing Australia’s Future, passedthrough the CommonwealthParliament at the end of 2003. It is acomplex package and only some ofits elements can be outlined here.

The funding modelPerhaps the most significant aspectof the reform package is that fundingfor teaching and research has beenexplicitly separated. Actually, thesplit is between research on the onehand, through national competitivegrants, and funding based onstudent numbers which is forteaching and scholarship. We are yetto have a serious discussion aboutwhat scholarship might mean in thiscontext and specifically how it canbe assessed. The significance of thisinitiative is that it neutralizes anyargument about designatingteaching-only universities sinceuniversities will be researchorientated to the extent that theirstaff are successful at obtainingresearch grants. It leaves open,however, how universitiesthemselves might translate this policydirection into their workload andpromotion policies.

The funding model for teaching is,however, very complex and is on thebasis of the number of studentsundertaking units of study (subjectsor modules) in particular disciplineclusters. The Commonwealth hasdesignated twelve discipline clusters

16 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

(e.g. law, humanities, engineering)and provides funding to universitieson the basis of the number ofstudents taking units in these areas.For example, a university nowreceives $1,509 per annum for eachequivalent full time student in lawunits but $16,394 for eachequivalent full time student inagriculture units. The problem is thatmany courses require students totake units across a range ofdiscipline clusters. Thus the incomethat universities get from theCommonwealth Governmentdepends on both the curriculumstructure of the courses and theelective units that students decide totake. If this sounds complex, it is,and universities are currentlyattempting to develop new systemsto manage their finances.Furthermore, universities are givenspecific targets numbers for studentsin each of the disciplines clusters bythe Commonwealth Government,with significant penalties imposedon universities that fail to achieve orexceed these targets.

At the same time, the amount ofmoney that students contributetowards their undergraduate degreealso depends on the discipline,except that there are three disciplineclusters with respect to studentcontribution levels. For example,students studying law units will payabout $6,427 per year but thosestudying arts and humanities unitswill pay only about $3,854. In anextra twist, universities from 2005can charge up to 25% extra studentcontribution - a gesture towardsdeveloping more of a marketeconomy for higher education.Interestingly, preliminary resultsshow little evidence that demand forparticular institutions is affected bywhether they have raised theirstudent contribution above the baselevel.

Full-fee paying placesOne of the most contentious aspectsof the new higher education reformpackage is the expansion of full-feepaying places for Australianundergraduate students and theintroduction of an incomecontingent loan scheme similar to

that available for Commonwealthsupported students. This will clearlyrepresent some interesting issues foruniversities in terms of theiradmissions policies with respect toequity.

Learning entitlementIn a new initiative as part of thereform package, from 2005 studentswill be entitled to seven years of fulltime study as a Commonwealthsupported student. In order toimplement this scheme, and to trackstudents’ study across differentuniversities, all students will beissued with a unique nationalidentifying number with the ratherugly acronym of a CHESSN(Commonwealth Higher EducationStudent Support Number) which willbe administered by a new nationalWeb-based Higher EducationManagement System (HEIMS) beingimplemented in each university.

National Institute for Learning andTeaching in Higher EducationOne of the most significant aspectsof the reform package is theestablishment of a National Institutefor Learning and Teaching in HigherEducation - clearly paralleling thecreation of the Academy in the UK -with a mission of promoting andadvancing learning and teaching inAustralian higher education. Thenew Institute will be established inMelbourne with a budget of $22million a year and a PlanningDirector has already beenappointed. Just prior to its launch inAugust 2004 it was renamed theCarrick Institute for Learning andTeaching in honour of a previousCommonwealth Minister of HigherEducation. Amongst its many roles,the Institute will administer a greatlyenhanced national teaching awardscheme.

Learning and TeachingPerformance FundA final feature of the new reformpackage worth noting is the creationof the Learning and TeachingPerformance Fund. The purpose ofthe fund will be to explicitly rewardexcellence, not facilitate qualityimprovement, and will allocate over$80 million each year to those few

universities that best demonstrateexcellence in learning and teaching.Implementation of the new schemehas been delayed while negotiationscontinue over how excellence is tobe measured – clearly a problemgiven that the scheme is intended tobe equitable across all institutions.

Institutional eligibility to apply forthe funding from the Learning andTeaching Performance Fund willdepend on satisfying a number ofcriteria. These include providingevidence for the systematic supportfor the professional development inlearning and teaching for sessionaland full-time academic staff,evidence of probation practices andpolicies which include effectivenessas a teacher, evidence of systematicstudents evaluation of teaching thatinform probation and promotiondecisions for academic positions andevidence that the student evaluationresults are publicly available on theuniversity’s Web site. However, thispreliminary assessment carries nofunding, yet ironically may have thegreatest impact on improvinglearning and teaching.

Looking forwardThe initiatives described above,which represent just some of thechanges occurring in highereducation in Australia, are notdissimilar to what is happening inmany countries. While mostacademic staff may not be directlyinvolved with responding to andimplementing the new policies, theyare certainly aware of theaccompanying change anduncertainty – many hoping it will allgo away and that life can return tonormal!

Such a view, while understandable,especially from those staff whosimply want to get on with theirteaching and research, it is notsupported by the available evidenceand indeed the future for highereducation looks destined to becharacterised by further and evenmore profound change.

In the face of this change anduncertainty it would seem that oneapproach for academic staff is to

17www.seda.ac.uk

University life down under

work towards developing a greaterprofessionalisation of academicwork. However, an investigationconducted in Australia in 2003revealed little interest among manyacademic staff in obtaining formalqualifications in higher educationteaching, despite the fact that thisactivity was the predominant form ofwork for many. Unless there is agreater attempt to better clarify thenature of academic work and therelationship between teaching,scholarship and research,accompanied by the establishmentof appropriate professional standardsand agreed acceptable preparationfor professional practice, academic

staff are going to be vulnerable tothe major changes sweeping highereducation.

For those involved in staffdevelopment the implications aresignificant. Academic staffdevelopment units (ADUs) are bytheir very nature at the centre ofchange in universities. Increasinglythere are pressures for ADUs to alignthemselves more strongly withuniversity management and greaterexpectations on them to deliverstrategic outcomes at a systemiclevel. To successfully negotiate thisuncertain terrain will requirerenewed professionalism among

academic developers on both sidesof the globe.

John Dearn is Director of the Centrefor the Enhancement of Learning,Teaching and Scholarship (CELTS) atthe University of Canberra where hecontinues to teach biology. He iscurrently an auditor for theAustralian Universities QualityAgency (AUQA) and President of theHigher Education Research andDevelopment Society of Australasiaand was appointed to the position ofPro Vice-Chancellor (Academic) in2003.

IntroductionSince 1999, when the Teaching Quality EnhancementFund (TQEF) was launched, a large number of small-scaleprojects have been undertaken in the higher educationsector. This article aims to review the operation of thesevarious small-scale funding programmes, in order toinform future schemes and practice.

To date, the primary funders of these small-scale projectshave been:• higher education institutions, many of which have

directly supported learning and teaching research anddevelopment through the provision of project funding,thereby linking into the TQEF strategic priorities of‘research and innovation’, ‘building capacity forchange’ and ‘disseminating and embedding goodpractice’ (Gibbs et al, 2002);

• and Learning and Teaching Support Network subjectcentres (now part of the Higher Education Academy),many of which operate some form of grant scheme fordiscipline-based learning and teaching research ordevelopment projects.

Although relatively small individually (usually up to£5,000 per project), when considered as a whole theseprojects represent a considerable amount of resourceboth directly, through the project funding itself, andindirectly through the staff time required to manage theschemes. After four years of the TQEF and with the

Managing Programmes of Small-ScaleResearch & Development Funding: Lessonsfrom HEIs and Subject CentresDr Helen King FSEDA and Laura Mattin, The Higher Education Academy Subject Centres

advent of the new Centres for Excellence in Teaching andLearning (CETLs) which will no doubt bring more suchfunding schemes into the arena, it is timely to look backand reflect on the processes of running programmes ofsmall-scale project funding, to learn the lessons and toconsider recommendations for future activity.

Here, we draw on four main sources of evidence thateach constitute a different view of the process: Gibbs etal (2002) provides an overview of HEI-funded projects;Knights (2004) offers a view of scholarship in relation todepartmental project work; Silver (2004) focuses on therunning of a particular subject centre’s project scheme;Wood (2004) provides an overview of 14 subject centres’approaches to small-scale project funding.

For the purposes of this article, a project is defined ashaving the following characteristics:• A clear purpose that can be achieved within a

restricted time-scale;• Clearly defined outcomes;• A clear end point when the outcomes have been

completed;• A sponsor or funding body who expects the outcomes

to be delivered on time;• Is a one-off activity that would not normally be

repeated.(Baume & Martin, 2002)

18 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

Rationale for Providing Programmes of ProjectFundingThe evidence suggests that the main purpose of providingsmall-scale project funding is to support the achievementof the priorities and objectives of the funding organisation(HEI or Subject Centre). However, given that thesepriorities and objectives are directly related to thedevelopment of education at tertiary level, then,ultimately, the objective of such funding programmes is tosupport the enhancement of learning and teaching inhigher education. This objective can be broken downinto the following four areas:• Knowledge development (curriculum development and

research into learning on themes either directed bynational or organisational priorities or freely chosen bythe project bidder);

• Recognising, rewarding and supporting experts andenthusiasts who teach and support learning;

• Staff development and building the capacity to change;• Networking, collaboration and the development of

relationships and communities (between projects,departments, academics & support staff, institutionsetc., this may also implicitly include the aim of‘winning hearts and minds’ for the funding provider).

Programme Management ProcessIn order to achieve these objectives, three phases ofactivity are required before, during and after the fundingprogramme. These phases map on to the life-cycle of theprojects themselves and will often merge into or overlapsubsequent rounds of funding.

Pre-programme:• Rationale• Criteria• Advertising• Bidding• Selection• Contractual /

financialarrangements

Duringprogramme:• Support• Co-ordination• Monitoring• Advising• Networking• Promoting• Communication• Sharing• Motivating

Post-programme:• Continuation• Link into next

round• Review

programmeMaintain /developrelationships

Pre-Funding-ProgrammeTaking the time to carefully set up the programme offunding has pay-offs later on in the process and will helpto ensure that it serves its purpose. Articulation of therationale, aims and objectives for the programme will aidthe development of the bidding mechanisms, projectselection criteria and the type of support offered toprojects once they commence. In addition, the amount offunding available and the objectives of the programmewill have a bearing on the allocation of staff to overseethe programme. For example, a programme of fundingthat is mainly set up to reward staff for existing excellenceor expertise is likely to require less in the way of ongoingsupport, monitoring and co-ordination than a programmethat is focused more on teaching development.

The amount of funding made available by suchprogrammes is variable but the most common rangeprovided to individuals is between one and four thousandpounds (Gibbs et al, 2002). Such funding is used for avariety of purposes in order to achieve the project’sdesired outcomes, including buying out staff time,employing a researcher, technical support, production ofmaterials, travel, conference fees etc. The amount offunding available can be critical to the success or timelycompletion of a project, for example £5000 can pay forassistance to be ‘bought in’, whereas £2000 usuallymeans the project being done in the teacher’s ‘sparetime’.

Other considerations at the pre-programme stage includeadvertising (to ensure that information on the programmereaches the widest audience), bidding mechanisms (sizeof bid documents, information required, deadlines etc.),project selection and feedback to unsuccessful bids.Support for potential projects can be offered at thebidding stage, including individual or group guidance onbids (e.g. through one-to-one consultancy, workshopsetc.), technical advice, bringing project teams together,offering advice based on previous experience,encouraging inter-departmental or inter-institutionalcollaborations and linking past successful projects withstaff new to the process.

During the Funding-ProgrammeContractual arrangements and the processes for release offunding are variable between Subject Centres and HEIsdepending on the institution’s systems and proceduresand, again, on the purpose of the funding. Split paymentof funding is often employed where an incentive isrequired to ensure project outcomes are delivered withina reasonable time-frame; projects are given a firstinstalment up front and the final amount when therequired outcome (e.g. report) is delivered. Time is oftenthe key limiting factor for any project and “in practicestaff named in project bids can find it difficult to allocatethe time necessary to undertake the bid and so formalagreements about workload plans can be useful” (Gibbset al, 2002). Additionally, some programmes require thesignature of the Head of Department on the biddocument to demonstrate the department’s commitmentto the proposed project.

Different projects require different levels of monitoringand support during their lifetime. As Gibbs et al (2002)noted: “to some extent it is necessary for teachers to findtheir own way and they will probably learn quite a lotfrom re-inventing the wheel and making their ownmistakes. In some contexts there are unique local featuresso that existing practice, or existing research findingsabout the practice, have limited applicability. However, itis often the case that general principles, commonproblems and cunning solutions are all well documented,and ignoring this will greatly limit the potential for theprogress of the projects.” This sentiment applies equallyto the content of the individual project, the process ofproject management and to the running of the funding

19www.seda.ac.uk

Managing Programmes of Small-Scale Research & Development Funding: Lessons from HEIs and Subject Centres

programme as a whole. For new programmes, it can takeseveral rounds of funding to establish the preferred / mosteffective balance between project autonomy and amanaged programme. For both HEIs and Subject Centres,as the programmes have developed they have movedaway from simply ‘handing out cash’ towards a more co-ordinated and supportive approach.

When difficulties arise with projects, these can bemanaged supportively and deadlines / outputs re-negotiated, but only when the project communicatesadequately with the funding programme’s staff.Establishing good relationships with project teams is,therefore, very important. It might be considered harderfor Subject Centres to achieve this due to the widelydispersed nature of the projects across the UK but themechanisms are very similar to those employed by HEIs.Support activities include:• meetings with groups of project leaders to enable

networking and sharing of practice;• visits to individual project leader’s departments;• individual consultancy to develop bids into plans;• workshops on project management, evaluation and

dissemination;• dissemination assistance (newsletters, events, requiring

final reports, materials on web-site);• brokering collaborative work;• workshops or ‘swap shops’ to share project outcomes;• ongoing, informal monitoring and guidance (via

meetings, email, phone etc.).

Post-Funding-ProgrammeFunding programmes tend to run on an annual basis,often overlapping as projects run over the originallyspecified deadlines. This overlap can be exploited bytaking the opportunity for new project leaders to networkwith and learn from those funded in previous rounds. Thesuggested definition of a project indicated that they wereone-offs, however, some HEIs and Subject Centres haveexplored the provision of continuation funding to furtherdevelop the project’s outcomes and also the idea of‘implementation’ projects, whereby the outcomes from aproject within one department or institution are adaptedfor another.

Perhaps the most important post-funding process is thatof reviewing and evaluating the programme, and applyingany learning to the next round of funding and support.Reflection on the rationale, aims and objectives may alsohelp identify ongoing activities for the fundingprogramme such as the maintenance of the networksand communities of practice that have been developed ineach round of funding.

This article has looked at programmes of small-scaleproject funding almost entirely from the point of view ofthe funding provider in order to offer a starting point forothers considering offering such programmes in thefuture. However, of course, the programme of funding asan activity cannot be separated from those individualsinvolved. For example, the funding organisation’s staff

need to be allocated an amount of time for running theoverall programme that is appropriate to the objectives ofthe scheme. Additionally, as part of the review andevaluation process, it can be useful to study themotivations of teachers for applying for project funding,and the opportunities and barriers they face once theythe project is underway. This information can then be fedback into the programme management process to informthe approaches to project support and guidance.

ConclusionsIn general, reviews and evaluations of small-scale projectfunding indicate that it is received very favourably byacademic practitioners and that is has a valuable place inlearning and teaching development, as exemplified by thefollowing two quotes:

“Overall smaller funding allocations may be best used todevelop a culture of grass roots innovation, to engage asmany people as possible and to develop communities ofpractice.” (Gibbs et al, 2002)

“It is important for the Higher Education Academy to bereassured that this wide and varied group of leaders ofsmall-scale funded projects felt it important for theAcademy to continue to plan for funding of such projects.They saw these as a valuable stimulus for teaching andlearning developments which can in various ways haveimpact within a department and disciplinary community,and have influence across subject centre and disciplinaryboundaries.” (Silver, 2004).

Equally, if managed successfully, small-scale projectfunding can provide benefits for the funding organisationthat far outweigh the direct costs of offering the grant.These may be both tangible, e.g. project reports, casestudies, learning materials etc, and intangible, in the formof improved relationships and networks, and enhancedstatus for teaching development.

Although Subject Centres and HEIs are operating withdifferent groupings of academic communities and withindifferent geographical boundaries, many of thepracticalities, processes and politics of runningprogrammes of small-scale project funding are the same.There is value, therefore, in developing opportunities foreducational development units (and other HEI-basedfunding providers), Subject Centres and any new groups,such as the CETLs, to get together and share experiencesand practice in both this and other common types ofactivity. Such shared learning, as offered indirectly by thisarticle, can provide valuable insights into the process aswell as offering fresh perspectives, hints and tips.

ReferencesBaume, C. & P. Martin. 2002. Introduction and Overview: ProjectManagement. In Baume, C., P. Martin & M. Yorke (Eds): ManagingEducational Development Projects: Effective Management forMaximum Impact. SEDA / Kogan Page.

Gibbs, G., A. Holmes & R. Segal. 2002. Funding Innovation andDisseminating New Teaching Practices - a guide to good practice.

20 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

National Co-ordination Team. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/development/funding.pdf

HEFCE. 1999. Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund: fundingarrangements. Invitation 99/48. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/1999/99_48.htm

Knights, B. 2004. Home Grown Knowledge: Departmentalprojects and the scholarship of subject teaching. The Learning andTeaching Conference 2004: Delivering Excellence, University ofHertfordshire, UK.

Silver, H. 2004. The Higher Education Academy Subject Centre forGeography, Earth & Environmental Sciences: External Evaluator’sReport 2003-2004.(Unpublished)

Wood, L. (2004) Operational Effectiveness: An evaluation of theLearning and Teaching Support Network’s Mini-project Schemes.(Unpublished).

Dr Helen King AFSEDA began work in educationaldevelopment as the manager of an FDTL 1 project. She isnow the Assistant Director of the Geography, Earth &Environmental Sciences Subject Centre and is responsiblefor running and overseeing their programme of small-scale project funding.

Laura Mattin is the Manager of the Hospitality, Leisure,Sport & Tourism Network.

Developingand Assessing

Students Oral SkillsSEDA Special 17

Price £10ISBN: 1-902435-29-X

For further information on this andother publications, please contact the

SEDA Office on 0121 415 6801or visit the SEDA website:

www.seda.ac.uk

Now

Available

Nobody knows you’re a dog, soyou’ve got some freedom. Yourreviewer pricked up his ears at thismessage for online teachers andstudents. But ‘education incyberspace’ might relegate yourbody to ‘meatspace’. Then again itmight not, because of ‘theincorporeal fallacy’.

This book contains a mixture of theeye-catching - ‘Nobody knowsyou’re a dog’ is a chapter title - thechallenging and the obscure. Acollection of essays arising from asymposium in 2002, its statedambition is to “begin to address theneed […] for more fully theorisedperspectives on the emergentcultures and pedagogies ofeducation in cyberspace.” (p.1) Notethe careful and elaborate style there,

Book ReviewsEducation in CyberspaceLand R and Bayne S (eds.)(2004).Abingdon, RoutledgeFalmer.£22.50.ISBN 0-415-32883-7. 192pp.

typical of much of the book. Note,too, the focus – theory. Thecollection is distinctly academic intone, and substantial sections willrequire hard work from readersunused to the language of socialtheory.

Some of the topics covered are: theuniversity in the age of ICT; theidentities of online learners andteachers; implications for theteaching of history; ‘metadata’;dealing with multiple onlineaudiences; policy and designcontexts of networked learning; theinfluence of virtual learningenvironments on pedagogy; the ‘all-seeing’ monitoring of students andstaff in some online environments.Like many assembled contributionsby multiple authors, it is somewhateclectic. In addition, the intendedorganising structure of sections on‘cultures’, ‘discourses’,‘environments’ and ‘subjects’ seemsrather arbitrary. Most readers willprobably ignore it and simply choosepapers reflecting their existinginterests.

Your reviewer, with a variety of rolesin the day job, had his fancy tickledin several ways. For this employee of

an institution contemplating strategicexpansion of e-learning, CarolinePelletier’s chapter was timely, goingto the heart of what a university isabout. For example, should thetechnology be used to create novel,democratic, participative curriculaor simply to equip students withtechnical skills for the economy?

As someone soon to be involved inreconsidering his institution’s virtuallearning environment (VLE), it wasworth being reminded by GlynisCousin that VLEs are probably notpedagogically neutral and that it maytake effort to counter their in-builtbias towards a didactic approach tolearning and teaching.

As a teacher, I appreciated thechapter by Christopher R. Jones. Heis correct that I am in the position ofgatekeeper, with considerablediscretion over whether and how Iuse technology with my students. Istill have some autonomy! But so dostudents: Jones also points out thatthey can interpret tasks in ways thatare unpredictable and that thisunpredictability is likely to increasewith the introduction of wirelessnetworking and computersbecoming available everywhere.

21www.seda.ac.uk

Book Reviews

As an e-tutor interested in reusable‘learning objects’, Martin Oliver’spaper on metadata (descriptions ofelectronic resources and how theymight be used) fascinated me. Olivermakes the arresting claim thatdevelopments in this (to some) dulland arcane topic could pose a majorthreat to academics - beingmarginalised by a new breed ofinstructional designers. Reason toworry? Enough to explore hisargument in full.

Summing up, the book is likely toappeal most to those keen tounderpin their knowledge ofstrategy, policy and/or practice inwhat is usually known as ‘e-learning’. It is often thought-provoking on matters of educationalphilosophy, so postgraduatestudents, in search of depth for theirthesis, could find it useful. Inaddition, as the personal illustrationsmay show, different parts couldinterest readers with a range of rolesin the e-learning field. However, it isemphatically not a ‘cookbook’ orsource of directly applicable ideasfor an e-tutor, and it is not an easyread.

Am I a dog? Discuss.

Bob RotheramNottingham Trent University9 December 2004

This exploration of ethical issues inresearch is a little gem of a book.The whole idea of ethics in researchis seen, at best, as an appeal toprofessional or funding bodies tojudge the status of our proposals forus, or, at worse, a bureaucraticnightmare and the worst kind oftime-wasting concession tomeaningless political correctness;which is exactly why Gregory’s shortmonograph on ethics in research issuch a breath of fresh air.Intended as an introduction toethical issues in social andeducational research, this book goesmuch further and offers a passionatedefence of morality itself. Its mainaim is to encourage new researchersto become sensitised to theproblematic issues raised byconducting research and toencourage researchers to takepersonal responsibility for theirconduct and approach to thesecomplex issues. The book discussesthe main issues one would expect tosee in such a volume, including adefinition of what constitutesresearch, the appropriate aims ofresearch, main ethical conceptsrelevant to research such as consentand confidentiality, etc. However,what makes this contribution standout is its honest and passionateaccount of why morality matters, atopic which applies not only to anykind of research, but any kind ofhuman endeavour.

The author realistically recognisesthat much of research ischaracterised by tedious, repetitive,hard work, however this is “hardwork that says something about us asindividuals” (p.25). Underlying anyworthwhile and well-conductedresearch project are fundamentalhuman ethical concerns; anobligation to other people to respecttheir dignity, an obligation to one’scolleagues and professionalcommunity not to bring the

Ethics in ResearchIan GregoryLondon: Continuum, 2003.ISBN 0-8264-6477-7Paperback, 80 pages.

community into disrepute anduphold its standards and anobligation to our very selves tobehave morally. The authorchallenges us to recognise and fulfilthese obligations. Crucially ratherthan setting the demands of moralityas contrary to the aims of research,Gregory sees the two as part of anintertwined objective. Research aimsat knowledge, truth andunderstanding, but these goals canonly be achieved and respected ifapproached with honesty, integrityand by taking the intellectualdemands of the discipline seriously.Thus, there is no conflict betweenresearch and the ethical obligationto report one’s findings truthfully,even if realistically, in practice,humans will find it hard to live up totheir obligations, prone as they areto self-deception, undueattachments to causes and wishfulthinking, for example.

The onus for recognising and makingdecisions relating to ethicalproblems in research remains withindividuals. The responsibility is onewhich the researcher takes on as anintegral part of the research.However, these individual decisionsare of a special kind, as they must besubject to justification andsupported by sound reasoning.Gregory makes this point excellentlywhen he writes: “Whatever the finalstatus of moral judgements, there isno reason to suppose that in themoral sphere anything goes. It isalways appropriate to ask individualsto justify their moral choices andactions. The clear expectation is thatreasons should be forthcoming forchoices made and actionsundertaken in the name of morality”(p.70).

Gregory’s message is clear andcompelling. His writing style is fluentand speaks of the passion he feelsfor the subject, a passion which he iscertain to transmit to anyone whopicks up this book.

Nafsika Athanassoulis,University of Leeds, UK

Notice toPublishersBooks for review should besent to:

Rachel SegalBook Review Editor,Educational Developments c/oSEDA officeEmail:r.a.segal@heacademy.ac.uk

office@seda.ac.uk

www.seda.ac.uk22

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

Let me begin this article with a question. Do you and yourcolleagues do the following things?

• Value the diversity included in the student body• Consider, in terms of coursework, resources, and so on,

how people and places are represented and whether ornot they are stereotyped

• Assess and revise your teaching methods periodically• Consider what are the most appropriate methods,

timing and formats of assessment for the students youteach

• Assess whether the materials you provide for yourstudents in both print and web format meet the currentaccessibility standards for disabled students

These are just some of the items in the ‘Checklist forGood Practice’ included in Appendix 2 of the recentlypublished SEDA Special No.16, ‘Equality, Diversity andInclusivity: Curriculum Matters’. For those of you readingthis magazine, I’m confident that the response to thequestion above will be a resounding (and even indignant)‘Yes, of course!’. But what of your more inexperiencedcolleagues, getting to grips with the combined demands ofteaching, research and administration, or of thosecolleagues who have firmly entrenched views as to whatconstitutes an appropriate curriculum in their subjectdiscipline? How much time might they devote to the

Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity:Curriculum MattersChristine Talbot, University of Leeds

SEDA Spring ConferenceInspiring Learning: Diversity and ExcellenceThursday 12th - Friday 13th May 2005Wellington Park Hotel, Belfast, Northern Ireland

The format of the conference will comprise keynote address, parallel sessions of workshops and discussionpapers. The aim, as ever, will be to share practice, research, evaluation and experience in all aspects ofstaff and educational development in an open and constructive atmosphere.

The conference will be of particular interest to all those who act as agents of educational change in HEprovision and anyone who has a commitment to enhancing the quality of Higher Education.

Further information, including Call for Contributions can be found on theSEDA website - www.seda.ac.ukOr contact the SEDA office Tel: 0121 415 6801 Fax: 0121 415 6802 Email: office@seda.ac.uk

above type of reflective practice? How many staff willenrol on a face to face course on ‘equality’ issues -mainly the enthusiasts and champions, perhaps, who(important though they are), may not be the ones withthe greatest needs? The new SEDA Special provides aflexible and stimulating way to encourage all staff toconsider these issues (perhaps for the first time for somepeople) and to implement some of the ideas in their dayto day practice.

Whether you are a staff developer, a head of a faculty ora department, or working in part of the Higher EducationAcademy’s Subject Network, you might consider beingproactive in trying to ensure that staff meet thecurriculum needs of a diverse student body by providingcopies of this new workbook for staff to study at theirown pace, in a place and at a time that suits them. Insome instances it might be appropriate to have someform of mentoring system in place for those using theguide or to run follow-on face to face small groupsessions, where the issues raised can be discussed ingreater depth and more detailed help provided onspecific issues. Or it might be used by those followingsome form of HE Academy accredited course in teachingand learning in HE, as at the University of Leeds (aboutwhich more later).

23www.seda.ac.uk

Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity: Curriculum Matters

Why the guide is neededOne of the four main purposes for HE, as set out in theDearing Report (NCIHE 1997) is: ‘to play a major role inshaping a democratic, civilised, inclusive society’. Variousmore recent Government-backed initiatives, including thewidening participation (WP) agenda, have encourageddevelopments in HEIs that have resulted in a muchchanged demographic analysis of both staff and studentsfrom that of a generation ago. The emphasis of HE (incommon with all other sectors of education) is graduallyshifting towards the mainstreaming of issues of diversityand inclusivity, although the current WP initiatives areintended primarily to address the issue of inequality ineducational attainment by those from the lower socio-economic groups.

However, whilst there have been a great many initiatives,and indeed progress, in the areas of staff recruitment andpromotion and in the area of student admissions,particularly in the areas of gender and disability, lessattention has been paid to the development of acurriculum that is wholly diverse and inclusive. Such acurriculum will make all students feel welcome andvalued on all courses and (hopefully) help changeattitudes of individuals and thus (in time) the broaderculture of our society. As stated in ‘Partnership forEquality: Action for Higher Education’ (ECU and JNCHES2003), ‘Education has a central role in developing thesociety of the future’ (p. 7). The new SEDA publication (acompletely revised version of the 1999 SEDA Special No.9) attempts to address these curriculum issues and to fillthe gap that seems to exist in providing a basicintroduction to this important area.

What’s included?The workbook is concerned with a detailed examinationof how to create a diverse and inclusive curriculum,based on educational research in the area of learningstyles, approaches, needs and preferences, particularly inrelation to age, gender, disability, as well as cultural,ethnic, and religious background. It looks in detail atways in which those involved in teaching and learning inHE can influence the curriculum in order to ensure thatno students are discriminated against in the process oflearning and teaching and, further, that all students arepositively affirmed as individuals in the course of theirstudies. The guide is essentially concerned withcurriculum content and delivery. Practical guidelinesbased on good practice in the field of learning, teachingand assessment are included, and there are ampleopportunities for staff to reflect upon their own attitudesand practices in this area.

All of this is examined in the context of the currentpolitical and legislative climate in HE in the UK. It takesaccount of the Special Educational Needs and DisabilityAct (SENDA) 2001, which came into force in September2002, and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000,under the terms of which every HEI had to prepare (by31 May 2002) a race equality policy, setting out the stepsrequired to tackle discrimination and promote raceequality and good race relations. A comprehensive list of

references and other resources is provided, includingmany items that are available online at no cost.

Use of the guide in staff development at theUniversity of LeedsAt Leeds, the Staff and Departmental Development Unit(SDDU) runs an open programme of workshops – bothon ‘Using C&IT in Your Teaching’ and on moretraditional teaching practices for experienced staff. Bothof these include specific sessions on inclusive andaccessible practices. Ideas from the new SEDA guide willbe incorporated within these face to face sessions. AllSDDU sessions have consideration of inclusivityembedded within them. In addition, the diversitychecklists developed by SDDU and referred to in theguide are currently being used throughout the School ofHealthcare, with staff in other Schools across theUniversity being encouraged to use them too.

For new staff, SDDU runs the Postgraduate Certificate inLearning and Teaching in Higher Education (PGCLTHE).One of the first modules on this course ‘Essentials ofLearning and Assessment’ (15 credits at level M) is offeredby both face to face (F2F) and open learning (OL) routes.The SEDA materials will be used in two sessions (F2F) andtwo units (OL) of this module:

• Widening Participation (WP) and the changing studentpopulation

• Supporting diversity through inclusive teaching andassessment

Some of the early tasks in the SEDA guide re the studentpopulation (numbers and diversity) and the notion ofwhat constitutes a curriculum are incorporated in the OLunit on WP. Specific readings of Sections 5 and 6 areintegrated within tasks on the OL version and will beincluded as directed reading for the F2F participants. Thelatter will be expected to make a response to anelectronic discussion room based on their reading. Inaddition the SDDU diversity checklists are provided to allstaff on the PGCLTHE and they are encouraged to reflecton their practices in relation to them.

Promoting inclusivityThe whole of the guide is based on the premise that inconsidering curriculum matters, we need to movebeyond the issue of simply encouraging a more diversestudent body:

‘Ensuring equal opportunities in the admissions processhas no purpose if students do not have full access to thecurriculum of the course they are studying.’

(Skill 1997, p. 53)

An inclusive curriculum is one in which all staff andstudents feel valued, irrespective of age, gender, race,disability, sexual orientation, religious or personal beliefs,background or personal circumstances. It is also one towhich all staff and students need to be committed. Itrequires effort on the part of all staff to ensure that such acurriculum is part of the student experience, whetherstudying with regular face to face contact with staff and

24 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

Being scholarlyDid I tell you I had a dream?Er…Don’t look so worried. It was aboutworkNow I’m worried! What was it?I dreamed I read a Universitydocument - a strategy paper, acourse proposal or handbook,something - that containedreferences.That would be references other thanto HEFCE or QAA publications inUniversity strategy documents, andother than reading lists in course

Educational Developments Dialogues . . .…in which an Experienced (if not always expert) staff and educational developer converseswith a New, and probably younger, colleague

David Baume, University of Leeds

handbooks?You get my meaning.Was it a nice dream?Yes and no. I felt a great peace - theUniversity was at last becoming anacademic institution in its processesas well as in its content.And no?If it was a dream about the future,then we had a stack of work to do.Nice work, though. If it was a dreamabout the present, then we wereprobably redundant. One of us atleast.The cheap one or the experienced

one?The dream wasn’t clear on that.So apart from feeling ambiguousabout this dream, what do youintend……I’m going to make it happen.Sorry? How?Starting here, starting now, theeducational development unit willnever again make a suggestion orrecommendation, issue a plan ordraft a strategy, which doesn’t backup its ideas and recommendationsfrom the literature, where such aliterature exists.

peers on campus or via various media off-campus. Itranges from considering the practical issues that have tobe addressed for a disabled student on fieldwork toensuring that all learning materials provided to allstudents are non-biased, and it includes consideration ofthe best format and mode of delivery of those materials,especially for distance learners. However, we need to gobeyond simply coping with diversity and practisinginclusivity, in the face of an increasingly diverse studentpopulation and pressures to be more responsive tostudent needs, and move towards creating HEIs in whichdiversity is encouraged by positively promoting inclusivity.

‘In a University the essential meaning of access must be“access to the curriculum”.’

(Borland and James 1999, p. 94)

Creating an imaginative curriculumIn the many years that I have been involved in thedelivery and support of learning and teaching, it hasalways been clear that all teachers need to be creative. Inthe course of writing the original and now this version ofthis guide, it has become even more apparent that aninclusive curriculum is essentially an ‘imaginative’curriculum1 . With a little forethought and a good deal oflateral thinking it should be possible to make thecurriculum accessible. Hopefully this guide will providethe stimulus needed for creating a meaningful andimaginative curriculum for all students.The intention is that it will provide a source of usefulmaterial that will provoke much thought and ultimatelygood practice, which will enhance teaching and students’learning in your institutions.

AcknowledgementI should like to record my thanks to Clara Davies of the

SEDA Papers Committee Notice:• Are there any topics that you believe SEDA should

address by way of a publication (such as a SEDA Specialor an article in Educational Developments)?

• Are there any topics that you wish to write about for aSEDA publication or an article?

• Would you find it helpful to have a word with a memberof the SEDA Papers Committee to discuss how to progressthe topics you have identified?

If you have answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, SEDAPapers Committee would like to hear from you - pleasecontact the SEDA office (office@seda.ac.uk) for furtherinformation.

25www.seda.ac.uk

Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity: Curriculum Matters

University of Leeds SDDU for the details of how theguide will be incorporated into SDDU courses.

ReferencesBorland, J. and James, S. (1999) ‘The learning experience ofstudents with disabilities in higher education. A case study in a UKuniversity.’ Disability and Society 14 (1), pp. 85–101.ECU and JNCHES (2003) Partnership for Equality: Action forHigher Education. Equality Challenge Unit and Joint NegotiatingCommittee for Higher Education Staff.(www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/) [accessed 22 October 2004].The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education(Dearing Committee) (1997) London: Stationery Office.(www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe) [accessed 22 October 2004].Skill: National Bureau for Students with Disabilities (1997) TheCoordinator’s Handbook. Skill.[Includes 12 pages of details of organisations from whom advicecan be obtained, and a list of useful publications.]

Christine Talbot is a Learning Development Officer atthe University of Leeds.1A term also used by Norman Jackson and Malcolm Shaw for theirLTSN (now HEA) Project, launched in January 2002, seewww.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre/index.asp?id=21195.

You’re……serious. Look, we sometimesgrumble about academics not beingas scholarly about their teaching asthey might be. We developers readbooks and go to conferences aboutour work as developers workneeding to be scholarly. But, despitethe best of our efforts, ’scholarshipin teaching’ is often heard as‘research into teaching’, and……ditto for development.Yes. Now. What’s our next writingjob?Completing our input to the revisionof the Learning and TeachingStrategy.Perfect! What are our themes?Making sure learning, teaching andassessment are coherent andconsistent.Or to put it in a more scholarlyway……ensuring what Biggs calls

‘constructive alignment’ (Biggs 2003Chapter 2)Exactly! Other themes?Further extending the uses ofpersonal development planning……Informed by research data andguidance available through the LTSNGeneric Centre (2003), Gosling‘sSEDA paper (Gosling 2003). Andalso encouraging departments andprogrammes to look at the richvariety of examples and case studieson PDP at the Centre for RecordingAchievement website (CRA 2003).I’m going to enjoy this!……..You get it, but you don’t look happy.What’s the worst that can happen?The Learning and TeachingCommittee can take all thereferences out again.They wouldn’t dare! Why can’t aUniversity be scholarly about its ownprocesses? Do we really believe in

scholarship? Or is it just somethingwe preach? What are we, scholarsor mice?

David Baumeadbaume@aol.com

ReferencesBiggs, J. (1999). Teaching for QualityLearning at University. Buckingham, SRHEand Open University Press.CRA (2003). Case Studies on PersonalDevelopment Planning in HigherEducation, Centre for RecordingAchievement.. Available at http://www.recordingachievement.org > casestudies > higher education [Accessed 30November 2004].Gosling, D., Ed. (2003). PersonalDevelopment Planning. SEDA Papers: No115. Birmingham, Staff and EducationalDevelopment Association.LTSN Generic Centre (2003). ResourcesDatabase on Personal DevelopmentPlanning, LTSN Generic Centre. Availableat: http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre/index.asp?docid=16911 [Accessed 30November 2004].

AP(E)L: counting credits or learning process?Rosemary Buchanan, Anglia Polytechnic University

It has been suggested that AP(E)L plays an important rolein the social and political agenda of achieving wideningparticipation in higher education (QAA, 2004). Withregards to accreditation, AP(E)L should be a link betweencurriculum development and the assessment and learningoutcomes in the student’s learning experience. However,it seems AP(E)L is often not clearly understood both bycurriculum developers and admission tutors, who oftensee it as an overly complicated exercise to count creditsand an addition to an already over stretched workload.The suggestion in this article is that if AP(E)L is put in thecontext of the student’s learning process it would bemore acceptable as an integral part of the student’sprogramme and graduateness and therefore the learningexperience. Thus curriculum developers and admissiontutors may feel more inclined to be involved in AP(E)Lbecause they see the relevance of it.

First, defining AP(E)L is the easy part, APL being theAssessment of Prior (certificated) Learning or perhapsmore usefully APCL and APEL being the Assessment ofPrior Experiential Learning, thus AP(E)L being thecollective of both. APEL involves the student to reflect onlearning that has taken place during relevant experienceand then demonstrating that learning in a form that canbe assessed. Unfortunately when referring to AP(E)L thespoken word makes the ‘e’ silent, causing the firstconfusion, easily clarified by verbally specifyingcertificated or experiential. It is essential to establish that

students also understand this so that a common languagecan be utilised.

Many students wish to claim credits for both APL andAPEL, and the academic evaluation is best commencedwith an assessment of certificated learning, moving ontoexperiential learning. Certificated learning underpinnedby a transcript is easily evaluated as it states the level andnumber of credits achieved. The important step in thisprocess is to assess the relevance of the learning to theprogramme to be undertaken. All too often theassumption is made that all credits can be used, howeverto maintain quality in the process of certificated APLcareful consideration must be made to map outcomesfrom the prior learning into the proposed programme. Ithas been suggested that this can be defined as generaland specific credit (Wailey, 2002), meaning that generalcredit is all the academic credit achieved by the studentand specific credit is a proportion of that credit that isspecific to the programme the student proposes tocommence.

Having established the certificated learning, attention canbe given to assessing experiential learning that hasoccurred for the student either in the workplace orappropriate life experience. Experiential learning in adulteducation is understood to involve cognitive reflectionupon concrete experience (Fenwick, 2001). In order toassess this often-debatable concrete experience, careful

26 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1

discussion is necessary to establish learning that has takenplace from the student’s experience. It is important tonote that it is the learning not the experience that can beaccredited and there must be a framework to map theexperiences against such as module outcomes. Baty(2003) discussed the merits of APEL, concentrating on theexperience the students were using in APEL claims thusunderestimating the importance of learning that hadtaken place because of the experience. This leads tomisrepresentation of the APEL process bydecontextualising it and forgetting the quality assuranceinvolved in the process.

During the initial APEL interview an appraisal of theexperiential learning a student has gained is required. Atthis time the student can begin to construct meaning andtransform experience into knowledge through theirconversation with the interviewer. Kolb et al (2002)suggests this ‘conversational’ learning can illustrate howexperiential learning provides a holistic model of thelearning process and a multilinear model of adultdevelopment. This is because these models are consistentwith what is known about how people learn, grow anddevelop. Identifying experiential learning involves somecritical reflection, which can then be presented in aformat that allows assessment that equates to theassessment of new learning.

At this stage in the process it is worthwhile to remindboth academic staff and students alike, that it is learningthat is being assessed. This learning is in relation to thewhole programme of study not just an entry requirement,which will allow students to waive parts of theirprogramme. This is also the first step in creating theatmosphere of life long learning and laying foundationsfor a philosophy that all learning is worthwhile whetheraccredited or not. Eraut (2000) suggests a concept of‘functioning knowledge’ which is the knowledgeindividuals acquire through experience in a profession oroccupation. Extrapolation would suggest this is often thetype of knowledge being assessed in APEL and thus alsolinks with the concept of life long learning because the‘functional knowledge’ is part of the student’s life longlearning too.

If we believe that the learning process is one whichindividuals go through in order to acquire knowledge,skills, attitudes, values, beliefs, emotions and senses thenwe should accept that accreditation of prior learning canbe part of this learning process. This is because studentswill have already gone through this process during theirprior learning. Jarvis et al (2003) suggests that learning hasbeen regarded as the process of transforming experiencesinto human attributes or as behaviourists suggest learningcan be seen as behaviour exhibited as a result of learning.If students can demonstrate learning either by evidenceof certificated prior learning or by the completion of anassessment which exhibits experiential learning, this canbe seen as a credible part of the learning process ratherthan an exercise to count credits alone.

Historically it has been considered that the learning

process involves teaching a curriculum and that there isonly one way to teach a curriculum and this has beenteacher led. Jarvis et al (2003) suggests that this ‘classicalcurriculum’ which assumes there is only one truth, hasbeen undermined because it is recognised that there ismore than one possible interpretation of knowledge. Itwould seem logical to suggest that within this realm ofknowledge interpretation AP(E)L could be included. If thisis so then it seems that prior learning is a part of thewhole student experience and is as valid a part of thecurriculum as new learning. AP(E)L therefore can form alink between learning outcomes and assessment in thecurriculum from both prior learning and new learning.

So is AP(E)L about counting credits or is it part of thelearning process? My belief is that with the evolution ofthe concept of life long learning as a process of learningall through an individuals life, that AP(E)L needs to beseen as more than counting credits. It seems that AP(E)L isa way to evaluate and assess the process of learning anindividual goes through and enabling them tocommunicate this within a programme of study. In turnthis allows for accreditation of this learning in a coherentquality assured manner.

ReferencesBaty, P (2003) QAA warning over degree shortcuts, The TimesHigher Education SupplementEraut, M (2000) Non – formal learning, implicit learning and tacitknowledge in professional work in Coffield,F. The Necessity ofInformal Learning,.Bristol:The Policy PressFenwick,T.J (2001) Experiential Learning: A Theoretical Critiquefrom Five Perspectives, Center publications, USAJarvis P, Holford,J & Griffin C (2003) The theory and practice oflearning, Routledge Falmer, LondonKolb, D. A (2002) in Baker, A.C, Jensen,P.J & Kolb,D.A.Conversational Learning: an Experiential Approach to KnowledgeCreation, Quoram Books, USAQAA (2004) Guidelines on the accreditation of prior learningWailey, T (2002) How to do AP(E)L, SEEC, London

Rosemary Buchanan is AP(E)L Adviser at AngliaPolytechnic University

Information forContributorsThe Editorial Committee of EducationalDevelopments welcomes contributions on any aspectof staff and educational development likely to be ofinterest to readers.Submission of an article to Educational Developmentsimplies that it has not been published elsewhere andthat it is not currently being considered by any otherpublisher or editor.For more information please contact the SEDA officeon: 0121 415 6801 or via email: office@seda.ac.uk

27www.seda.ac.uk

AP(E)L: counting credits or learning process?

The annual SEDA Summer Schoolfor New Educational Developersprovides a unique opportunity fornew developers to explore the fieldof staff and educationaldevelopment. People often moveinto staff and educationaldevelopment without receiving anyspecific professional education fortheir new role, so the SummerSchool meets a real need.

The 2004 Summer School was heldover three days in Stratford-upon-Avon, and organized by LynnRoberts from the University ofLiverpool. Eighteen participants andfive presenters spent time looking atwhat is entailed in developmentwork, and sharing ideas with eachother. Some people also took theopportunity to experience thecharms of the town!

The programme was designed tocover the practical issues withinwork as a staff and educationaldeveloper, and to provide somespace for participants to step backand consider the nature of the field.The first two sessions providedcontext, with a focus on what isinvolved in educationaldevelopment and how it can becarried out in a scholarly fashion(with the sessions led by RanaldMacdonald). Several methods werealso looked at, including managingchange and the use of actionlearning (both led by Gina Wisker) -as well as development projects andevaluation (both led by DavidBaume). I took on a session thatcovered the planning and running ofevents. The Summer School alwaysprovides space to focus ondevelopment of the participantsthemselves and this year, as well asmentoring opportunities, included asession from Sally Brown ondeveloping the developers. Sallyalso covered the topical issue ofrewarding excellent teaching.

What participants on the lastSEDA Summer School founduseful …• Meeting colleagues, sharing

issues with each other.• Variety of presenters, sessions

and styles.• Specific ideas to take away

and put into practice (actionlearning, evaluation,organizing events, settinggoals etc).

Further detailsThe SEDA Summer School for 2005will be held from Wednesday 15th

June until Friday 17th June at theAshorne Hill Conference Centre,Leamington Spa, Warwickshire.It will be based on the programmefor previous Summer Schools, aswell as on the feedback provided byparticipants. Please contact theSEDA office for further details/booking form: Tel +44 (0)121 4156801 Fax: +44 (0)121 415 6802E-mail: office@seda.ac.uk

Peter Kahn is a Senior ProfessionalDevelopment Adviser at theUniversity of Manchester

SEDA Summer School for New EducationalDevelopersPeter Kahn FSEDA, University of Manchester

The sessions were based around avariety of different workshops styles,and participants focused on theirown work, concentrating ondeveloping the skills and conceptualframeworks necessary to plan, runand evaluate educationaldevelopment activities to meet theneeds of higher educationinstitutions.

There is no doubt now thateducational development hasmoved to the centre stage withinhigher education. Professionalstandards for teachers, the HigherEducation Academy, funding ofdevelopment projects, posts indepartments to lead on learning andteaching, advances in the use oflearning technology – the list goeson. And now we have Centres forExcellence in Teaching andLearning, which will no doubtprovide plenty of work for the newgeneration of developers.

The SEDA Summer School gives newdevelopers from a range ofbackgrounds the resources, ideasand support to lead and inspirechange within higher education.

CopyrightCopyright for all published material is held by SEDA unless statedotherwise.Contributors may use their material elsewhere after publication withoutpermission, but the following note should be added: “First published inEducational Developments, issue number and date”. Permission isrequired for use by a third party.The publishers have endeavoured to find the copyright holders of allmaterial in this magazine. If we have infringed copyright, we shall bepleased, on being satisfied as to the owner’s title, to pay an appropriatefee as if prior permission had been obtained.Every effort has been made to ensure accuracy in all published material.However, the Editorial Committee and the publishers cannot accept anyliability for any inaccuracy accepted in good faith from reputable sources.Any opinions expressed are those of the authors.

28 www.seda.ac.uk

EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 6.1