‘sweet’ strategies for higher education developers working in the third space
TRANSCRIPT
‘Sweet’ strategies for higher education developers working in the third space Photo credit: Ellen Lessner
Professor Rhona SharpeOxford Brookes University
SEDA Conference2 Nov 2016
@rjsharpe
My interests
Learner experience research
Supporting online learners
Developing digital leaders
About the Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development (OCSLD)
“OCSLD specialises in providing bespoke staff and educational development interventions which meet institutional strategic and operational needs.
About the Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development (OCSLD)
Our approach to working with you is distinctive and transformative, tailoring and delivering work-based interventions for existing teams to meet their immediate and future needs. This is supported by strong expertise in evaluation to monitor outcomes.”
Academic Development Framework
12 x
50,000
69 89%
1/4
OCSLD Annual Review 2015/16
www.brookes.ac.uk/OCSLD/About-OCSLD/Annual-reviews/
Strategic
Work based
Efficient
Evidence based
Technology enhanced
Our approach to higher education development
Cartoon by Bob Pomfret
@Seda_UK_
www.brookes.ac.uk/OCSLD/Research/Participative-Process-Review/
Working in the third space
OCSLD exists in the third space between academic and professional services.
Where we work as unbounded professionals . . .
. . . who have evolved a SWEET approach to higher education development
… which we use to help Brookes thrive in these changing times.
Whitchurch, 2008
Whitchurch, 2008
Bounded
professionals Unbounded
professionals
Professionals working in the third spaceCategories of identity Characteristics
Bounded professionals Work within clear structural boundaries e.g. function, job description
Cross-boundary professionals
Actively use boundaries for strategic advantage and institutional capacity building
Unbounded professionals Disregard boundaries to focus on broadly-based projects and institutional development
Blended professionals Dedicated appointments spanning professionals and academic domains
Whitchurch, C. (2008)
Make it easier to disrupt institutional practicesWorking in the third space:Faculty-based Open Online Course(s)
Make it easier to disrupt institutional practices
The stalled progress in some faculties was an uncertainty of which budgets development of MOOCs should be coming from and how to allocate staff time within the workload planning framework (Roberts et al., 2015).
Working in the third space:Faculty-based Open Online Course(s)
OCSLD Open Online Courses
- Online mentors employed by several universities (OBHE, 2013)
- Expert participants (Waite et al, 2013)
- Certificates and badges- Light touch quality assurance- Shared modules and credit
transfer- Ability to negotiate staff roles,
responsibilities and workload
“A goal of all formal education should be to graduate students who live lives of consequence” - John Henry Brookes
Brookes (Graduate) Attributes
Embedding graduate attributes into the curriculum “There is more to life
than simply doing a job. The graduates of our higher education system will be more than employees/employers, they will also be future leaders in our world and our neighbours and so affects our lives at all levels. What do we want these people to be like?”(Haigh & Clifford, 2010)
Why graduate attributes?“Every undergraduate programme will include the
development of the five graduate attributes”
• Graduate Attributes Roadshows
Awareness raising
• Graduate Attributes in Action website
• Case studies• Mapping tools• Screencasts
Programme mapping
• Programme specification
• Mapping document
• Narrative
Documentation
What do we know about how lecturers design courses?
Pragmatically, in response to changing circumstances e.g. increasing class sizes (Sharpe & Oliver, 2007).
A social practice, governed by precedent and habit (Blackmore & Kandiko, 2012)
Within the constraints of practicalities e.g. timetabling (Masterman, 2013)
Visually (Masterman, 2013)Informed by general design principles rather than learning theory (Sharpe & Oliver, 2013)
Course Design Intensives Dempster, Benfield & Francis (2012)
Working in extended teams
Visualising the learner
journey
Challenging designs through
peer review
Documentary analysis of 90 programme specification documents.
Sharing of examples of how graduate attributes had been interpreted within the disciplines
The disciplinary differences between how graduate attributes are expressed are in explaining the ways and contexts in which elements of the attributes are put to use.
Evaluation Part 1Staff EngagementEvaluation Part 1Staff Engagement
Evaluation Part 2Student Engagement
• How much has your coursework emphasised the following mental activities?
• How often have you done each of the following?
• How much has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills and personal development in these areas?
How often have you…?
How much has Brookes contributed to..?
Graduate Attributes as a measure of learning gain
Learning gain in Active Citizenship Strategic Excellence project
ABC Learning Gains project with OU and Surrey
abclearninggains.com/openbrookes.net/cci/
• Strategy for Enhancing the Student Experience defined 5 Graduate Attributes2010/11
• Mapping exercise in programme teams• Revised Programme Specification docs2011/12• Analysis of all new documentation• Teaching Practices Collection2012/13• Development of engagement survey• Training for Validation and Review
Panels and Academic Advisors2013/14
• Benefits Realisation Review• Revised Strategy for Student Experience 2014/15
• Introduced Active Citizenship• Learning gain funded projects2015/16
Six years .. so far…
‘Disregarding boundaries to focus on institutional development’
Embedding attributes within the curriculum to encourage contextualisation
Collaboration with QA to integrate documentation and processes
• A careful, critical approach to evaluation which produces useable outputs
• Multiple initiatives running over several years
Where do we go from here?
Can we create third spaces for others to work in?
Student experience is a strategic priority.
Student experience developments are highly managed.
Proliferation of educational leadership roles.
Evaluating experiences of project managersConfidential, anonymised, semi-structured interviews (ethical approval gained).
motivations expectations management enablers and constraints professional impact recommendations
2 x Program
Managers
2 x Principle Lecturers
1 x professional services
2 x Associate
Deans
Experiences of project leaders
Deeply committed
to their projects (not
careers)
Freedom and autonomy
helped them deliver
Academic identity was less fixed, more fluid
Enabling ‘light touch’ program
support
Recommendations for working in the third space:Take advantage of the fluidity of unbounded professionals’ roles and structures to locate innovative projects in the third space.
Use the lack of protocols to develop systems, processes and skills in new ways of working.
Conduct and share institutional research to inform decision making.
Guide others carefully into this space. Create and evaluate new roles and career pathways into and out of them.
The importance of evaluation
In this presentation I have drawn on the following internal reports:Moore, S. (2016) Oxford Brookes Engagement Survey, October 2016. Pavlakou, M. & Sharpe, R. (2014) Leading institutional change projects: a qualitative study and lessons for the second Programme for Enhancing the Student Experience.. Roberts, G., Llewellyn, S., Sharpe, R. & Benfield. G. (2015) Project final report: Developing Open Online Courses for Oxford Brookes.Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., Corrywright, D. & Green, L. (2013). Evaluation of the Brookes Graduate Attributes: Year 1 Final Report.
ReferencesAnsoff, H. (1957) Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review, (Sept-Oct)
Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. (2013) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. Second edition. Routledge. Chapters by Liz Masterman and Martin Oliver
Blackmore, P. and Kandiko, C. (2012) Strategic Curriculum Change: Global trends in universities. London and New York: Routledge.
Dempster, J., Benfield, G. & Francis, R. (2012) An academic development model for fostering innovation and sharing in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49 (2), 135-147
Haigh, M. & Clifford, V. (2010) Widening the Graduate Attribute debate: a higher education for global citizenship. Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching. 2 (5)
OBHE (2013) Horizon Scanning: What will higher education look like in 2020?, Observatory of Borderless Higher Education.
Oliver, M. (2015) From openness to permeability: reframing open education in terms of positive liberty in the enactment of academic practices. Learning, Media and Technology, 40 (3), 365-384.
PA Consulting (2015) Lagging behind: are UK universities falling behind in the global innovation race? PA Consulting group Higher Education Survey 2015 http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/higher-education-report-2015
Roberts, G., Llewellyn, S., Sharpe, R. & Benfield. G. (2015) Project final report: Developing Open Online Courses for Oxford Brookes, January 2015, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.
Waite, M., Mackness, J., Roberts, G. & Lovegrove, E. (2013) Liminal Participants and Skilled Orienteers: Learner Participation in a MOOC for New Lecturers, Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9 (2), http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/waite_0613.htm
Whitchurch, C. (2008) Shifting identities and blurring boundaries: the emergence of Third Space professionals in UK higher education, Higher Education Quarterly, 62 (4), 377-396.
Whitchurch, C. & Gordon (2013) Staffing models and institutional flexibility, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education: London.