the account of professional practice senior fellow applicant · 20/10/2012 · the account of...

Senior Fellow Application

The Account of Professional Practice Senior Fellow Applicant

Name Lydia Arnold Institution Harper Adams University College

Date 20/10/12

Remember that in your reflections you should make explicit use of the elements of Core Knowledge and Professional Values to reflect on the activities you are describing.

In 2008 I became a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy via the HEA’s individual entry route; this account seeks to demonstrate my progression to the next level of the Professional Standards Framework. It focuses on a journey of personal growth since the time of my original Fellowship and demonstrates a sustained impact on learners and learning through:

• Undertaking a wider range of roles and responsibilities in a informed and reflective manner;

• Undertaking activities relating specifically to range of pathways in higher education – especially, although not exclusively, in relation to work-based learning;

• On-going enhancement of my own practice and the practice of others;

• An on-going commitment to my own personal development.

Earlier experiences are also considered to demonstrate the cohesiveness of my professional journey - showing how one stage has fed through to the next, particularly with respect to my own professional values. This commentary is set out in chorological order. Early career and formation of professional values After completing a Postgraduate Certificate in Education, teaching Geography and Mathematics in secondary schools, my higher education career began in 2001 as a researcher of online learning community learning at Anglia Polytechnic University. Located in the Health Business School my role was to research, develop and facilitate an inter-professional online community of inquiry (see Cassidy et al., 2008) for implementation across a range of health care trusts and social service organisations. I did not have a background in health, so this role was significant in developing my ability to apply theory around online learning communities to an unfamiliar professional context. With hindsight I can also see how important this work was to building my confidence to work within less-familiar contexts, where each organisation is very different with different norms, values and ways of operating (v1). My role allowed me to explore different organisational and professional learning cultures, barriers to online learning, and, approaches to implementing change in different organisations. Again these themes have travelled through much of my subsequent work. At the end of this project I began work at ULTRALAB, the learning research and technology unit at Anglia Polytechnic University, where I become involved in a wider community of developers. I became immersed in exploring uses of technology for learning in a range of different contexts including schools, hospitals and industry. Working within this team, led by Professor Stephen Heppell, had a huge impact on my career and professional values. ULTRALAB was a vibrant mix of eclectic academics, teachers, technicians and practitioners from different backgrounds including engineering, international development, health and business, and this was important in shaping my own view of learning and teaching. It particularly aided my own capacity for cross-disciplinary working. The ethos of ULTRALAB meant that problems or puzzles were approached with a blank canvass of possibility; it was a bubble of innovation that inspired optimism, creativity and desire to experiment. During this period I became involved in numerous action research based projects involving the creation of learning solutions using technology.

Senior Fellow Application for L Arnold - Harper Adams University College of 13

During this time I had a growing interest in online pedagogy. I undertook several online facilitation courses including one, through the Open University, based on Gilly Salmon’s e-moderating model of online facilitation and a level 7 module exploring facilitation for accredited learning (K3, K4). Both of these courses were instrumental in consolidating the experience I was gaining, helping me me to root my practice in a wider theoretical framework and to adapt it in the light of this growing understanding (K3,V3, A5). Salmon’s e-moderation model (2004) and e-tivities model (2002) had a significant impact on my practice as it highlighted the value of bite-sized and accessible units which represent an accumulation of learning which is manageable and not over-facing. This theory is not unlike Bloom’s taxonomy in that a subsuming progression of steps is taken to achieve learning outcomes (Atherton, 2010). I learnt to appreciate and adopt a pedagogy that supports and guides rather than one that solely seeks to impart knowledge (in effect taking the role of guide by the side, rather than sage on the stage). This stance became increasingly important as I worked with work-based learners many of whom were expert practitioners with enviable experience in their fields (A2). Anglia Ruskin University In 2004 I joined a newly formed team, as a lecturer, to design and facilitate and research a fully online work-based, inquiry led degree programme (BA Learning Technology Research) (see Powell, 2007). The programme was the vision of Professor Heppell and the team were charged with building the programme. The programme was aimed particularly at second chance learners and those who were in work and it was underpinned by an appreciation of knowledge often constructed beyond the university (Barnett, 2004). To offer a sense of scale, in the first cohort were over one hundred and thirty learners. This degree was launched in 2003 at a time when online provision in the UK was in its infancy (Arnold, 2008; Greenhalgh, 2003). My specific roles within this project included: resource design, learning environment design, facilitation and assessment design and support (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5).

Resource design I authored many resources for research methods, reflective practice, personal development, action research and organisational analysis as well as for the programme induction (A1). Throughout all of the different resources I maintained a commitment to the approaches inspired by Salmon (ibid.) (K3). All online resource creation needed to consider accessibility issues, especially given the high proportion of non-traditional learners attracted to the programme and the time pressures students were under when both working and studying (V1, V2). Considerations in respect of accessibility included the use of media rich content to improve accessibility (e.g. different formats text and audio) (V1), ensuring accessible language and attending to presentational aspects of resources such as navigation and symmetry in design (Parizotto-Ribeiro & Hammond, 2005) (A1, A4). The effective use of media was important as a way of supporting accessibility but also of modelling practices that we hoped students would emulate in the production of media rich assessment products (Arnold, Williams, & Thompson, 2009).

Salmon’s model, explored earlier, helped me to link some of the less formal learning communities that I had worked with to formal, assessed learning contexts. The step-by-step approach to supporting for learners resonated with the need to build confidence amongst adult learners, particularly for those returning to learning after a long break, those who had poor prior learning experiences or who had low self-confidence (V1, V2). In my design of learning activity guidance for adult learners I have repeatedly given consideration to manageability and progression through the activity (A1). Additionally the theme of building up learners from tentative first steps to becoming autonomous, was also present in my Master’s studies which modelled how autonomy could be developed in learners within an online environment: I subsequently captured this research in a published paper (Arnold, 2006) (A5). In all design work the learning environment was a central consideration (A4). Spaces were created to foster engagement of the kind that was desirable, so for example open access spaces were set up to assist the admissions process and to ensure that before enrolment prospective students had a taster of the mode and content of the learning journey; social spaces were established to encourage community building; small group spaces were established for peer review; and intra-cohort spaces allowed support to flow from one cohort to the next. Facilitation


A social learning model underpinned the programme; it had a community of inquiry at the centre. Facilitation was an essential learning support activity. A proactive approach was always taken, in-line with the ideas of Nancy White (1999) and also Pallof & Pratt (Palloff & Pratt, 1999, 2005) and which included starting pertinent threads, questioning and summarising and also modelling feedback on ideas (A2, V3). The facilitation activity was not passively undertaken; it was itself the object of reflective practice by the staff who constantly asked how can we better facilitate engaging dialogue? This particular topic formed a piece of action research for my master’s studies at the time and was evident in reflections on my professional blog (A5, K2, K5). (Arnold, 2006) Engagement with the students themselves informed facilitation practice - students were encouraged to shape the space and nature of the engagement. They were encouraged to speak out constructively about their views and respected the commitment of the staff to listen. The approach was novel in that staff and students assumed to roles of co-researchers on parallel journeys, this provided a mechanism for keeping the course’s effectiveness under constant review (see Arnold 2008) (K5). Assessment design (A3) I firmly believed that it was essential to ensure students who had been recruited on the promise that the higher education system welcomed them, under a widening participation banner, were not let down by assessment that was impenetrable (V2). Therefore accessible, authentic assessment design was at the heart of my own, and colleagues work, on this programme (A3). Influenced particularly by the work of Richard Winter (Akister et al., 2003; Scoggins & Winter, 1999), a patchwork approach to assessment was utilised (A3, V3) which enabled the gradual building of a portfolio of authentic work related artefacts, sharing of elements and the giving and receiving of feedback as well as opportunity to reflect upon what had been learnt personally, in relation to practice and in relation to key theories. Assessment and teaching were fully integrated at the design stage inline with the principles of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996) and authenticity (Cumming & Maxwell, 1999) (V3). The patchwork text also embodied the idea of assessment as learning and work relevant assessment products; this was especially important for work-based learners, as bolt-on assessment was impractical and un-engaging (V1). In the online environment the team also developed a digital, media rich version of Winter’s patchwork text – called patchwork media (Arnold, et al., 2009). This approach took an existing set of assessment design principles and adapted them for the online environment, incorporating for example peer review in online action learning sets (A1). Recognising the novelty of this approach it was evaluated in a small published study:

“This research in to pioneering practice has demonstrated that the patchwork media approach is influenced by resource provision (particularly through the process of modeling realistic technologies), by modeled facilitator behaviour and by digital infrastructure. The online version of patchwork text enables the learner to add further authenticity by using media that is relevant to them. It can also offer a sense of audience through the use of social technologies. Online there are also clear opportunities for considered and deep peer collaboration through the use of a facilitated community” (Arnold, et al., 2009, p. 164). (K4, K5, V3, A2, A1).

The development of this approach showed an active adaption of theory to meet the needs of particular learners through the available technology (K4, V1, A1, A3). The experience of designing assessment in this way has fed forward into the design of assessments for employer cohorts (encountered in my current role at Harper Adams). Feedback (A3) During my time at Anglia a range of feedback approaches were utilised. I routinely offered formative and summative feedback to students at levels 4-6 utilising institutional and course team protocols. I always endeavoured to offer constructive feedback, which related to the learning outcomes. I also routinely gave feedback in the online learning community where


students were encourages to share their work for review; such open approaches to feedback provided a model for students to feedback to each other. I also drew together class lessons from the feedback to feed forward in to the next modules: this progressive approach is thought to be effective as a means of preparing student for new study and is proactive rather than reactive (Orsmond & Merry, 2011). During this time I was also able to experiment with audio feedback for students who preferred their feedback aurally (V1)– this was troublesome within university protocols at the time but it was an approach used successfully in formative feedback. It was especially valuable for learners who had particular disabilities.

In addition to design aspects I also directly supported students in modules and in the production of assessment work. I held formal roles as module leader and cohort leader (year head) and contributed to routine aspects of programme management. During this time I also contributed to other programmes and in so doing supervised dissertation students in their final year projects in the discipline of education, gave lectures on personal and professional development and facilitated occasional staff development sessions. Towards the end of my time at Anglia Ruskin I was also involved in an analysis of how the approaches utilised could inform new employer-engagement activities that were by 2007/8 becoming an institutional priority in the face of significant investment in this area of work by HEFCE. Harper Adams University College In 2009 I moved to Harper Adams University College in search of new challenges. I was appointed as Work-based Learning Developer based in the Aspire Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL). Here my role broadened further to encompass the development of employer led programmes particularly for a HEFCE co-funded employer engagement project called REEDNet (Rural Employer Engagement Network). Activities associated with this role included: New programme design and development, resource design, assessment design, assessment and feedback, staff development, the creation of guidance for quality assurance aspects of employer engagement work, programme evaluation work, internal consultancy, and electronic resource design. I also led the development of a cross-institutional credit framework for work-based learners and have managed the subsequent implementation. Two particular activities relating to employer engagement from early in my post at Harper Adams are shared:

• Facilitating the formation of an employer partnership with LBP (a real case study but the company name is presented under a pseudonym)

LBP were a providing vocational training for staff in a rural health care setting. They wanted to develop the programme such that students could benefit from an HE qualification and particularly to develop the depth of reflection and analytical skills facilitated by the provision. In conjunction with colleagues, a wrap around programme (Certificate in Higher Education in Professional Studies: Management & Leadership) was developed. Within this the core content (the technical competencies) remained unchanged but an HE element was devised to extend the engagement with the themes of the core vocational element and to develop graduate attributes (A1, A4, V2). This was a work-related curriculum development, which acted to address particular employer needs as well as the quality requirements of two different quality frameworks – those of UK HE and a professional set of standards (K6). The development of a wrapper curriculum was novel and as such was shared with external colleagues for feedback at the design stage and was disseminated upon completion (see L. Arnold, 2011) (K2). As an extension of my involvement with this programme I also supported the course team in assessment design, borrowing from the understanding built in my previous post and resulting in to an assessment, which the students have identified as relevant and valuable to practice (A3). The programme was aimed at a group of students who had no prior experience of higher education and who had never expected to do so – this programme had a widening participation dimension which inspired a focussed consideration of accessibility and manageability in the assessment design (V2, A3). Particular features of the assignment included the opportunity for peer review to build confidence, an interim portfolio review point – again for confidence building and as a formal formative opportunity, signposting of the relationship between each task and the criteria and examples of what excellent work would include to provide inspiration (A3, V2). In addition I provided some early teaching on


the programme to assist tutors who had been more familiar with traditional delivery arrangements (A2). Feedback from LPB on the partnership development included observation of “impressive growth in confidence shown by employees and … and their willingness to tackle new problems (V2)” and a wider organisational impact whereby they began “Thinking differently about our approach to the way we carry out our business along with added benefits of seeing employees grow with the level of responsibility provided through meeting new challenges”.

• Developing quality systems to support employer-engagement work

At the same time as I was involved in developing programmes and partnerships I was also a contributor to the development of quality assurance systems and guidance for teaching and learning delivered in conjunction with employers (K6). An important influence on this activity was the report on Employer Responsive Provision (QAA, 2010) wherein there was a clarity which resonated: innovative approaches to provision, require innovative approaches to quality management. Approaches to the quality management of employer-engagement should seek to be both ‘proportional’ and ‘equivalent’ rather than ‘identical’ to arrangements for other types of provision. Proportionate approaches were established across the programme development lifecycle from undertaking due diligence checks and facilitating all parties understanding of respective responsibilities in collaborative provision. Particularly important was the development of train the trainer facilities to enhance the quality of delivery (K6) and the formation of a role called ‘student advocate’ on course committees to represent students who could not otherwise easily feed in to such events. Some of the innovative approaches to quality management were captured in a book chapter (Arnold, Warr, & Cowap, 2011). Recognising that quality assurance not always easily penetrable I also developed internal guidance for how to ensure that the development of work-based provision is completed with respect for essential quality considerations, such as national recognised level descriptors. One such example is in a guidance booklet developed for colleagues developing modules (see Arnold, 2009).

Engaging with the external community The wider brief at Harper Adams meant that I needed to develop a greater awareness of the context of higher education, including in relation to policy, funding, legal aspects of practice, and quality assurance (K6). Development of this understanding has been brought about by working closely with colleagues from different backgrounds from across the institution and by actively engaging groups beyond the institution who were involved in similar practice, for example the EBTA community of practice and the Higher Education Academy Employer Engagement Exchange Group (V4). In addition participation in events and conferences was especially helpful to develop understanding for example I attended national conferences including UVAC (University Vocational Awards Council) and Learning Futures and more local events such as those hosted by the local lifelong learning network (V3, V4, A5). Through these forums I, along with colleagues, presented emerging approaches to work with employers and work-based students (e.g. at UVAC 2009 and 2010) to share for the benefit of our own emerging understanding with others and also to get critical feedback to further inform our in-house practice (V3). Dissemination was also undertaken through collaborative approaches to publication: The Higher Education Academy Exchange Group build up a body of evidence based practice around employer engagement which was subsequently formulated into a publication and I was able to contribute a chapter to this. Similarly for the EBTA group I, along with colleagues, was able to disseminate lessons learnt (Arnold, et al., 2011) (V3, A5). Teaching and Assessment As well as undertaking development work I also maintained an active teaching role at Harper Adams in online modules in leadership and professional development and action research, and in face to face modules in the area of personal development. I particularly value the opportunity to maintain direct connection learners (A2). Within my teaching role I have been keen to utilise innovative approaches to enhance practice, particularly around feedback. Within some teaching of first year (level 4 students), I was able to trial audio-visual formative feedback for students (using a low ceiling technology – ‘Jing’) with the aim of providing re-playable, customised feedback, which was accessible and enjoyable to receive (A3). This


approach builds on my continuous interest in technology but also from a development event, where this approach was demonstrated by Russell Stannard of The University of Warwick (A5, V3) and was offered as a was of bringing feedback to life, particularly aiding the student’s understanding of the message, enabling more information to be provided and creating a sense of a personal feedback experience (Stannard, 2008). A subsequent evaluation of this intervention, using student end of module feedback, led me to believe that students appreciated the benefits of Jing feedback, particularly they enjoyed what appeared to be highly personal feedback, the attention to detail in the comments that they received and the ability to visualise ways in which their work could be developed – one comment was that the video was “like having a personal tutorial” (student feedback) (A3, K5) – this totally echoed Stannard’s (2008) student feedback. The subsequent evaluation was shared with other staff at a staff development session and I have supported others who wish to try a similar approach. In addition to audio-visual approaches to feedback I have also led an institutional pilot of the use of ‘Grademark’ software as a means of providing electronic feedback to students (A3, K4). As well as trialling the approach myself, I have supported colleagues to use the technology and have undertaken a subsequent survey of circa 100 students. This survey helped staff to understand when students liked this approach and when they did not, for example when ‘stock comments’ were used - students fed back this was impersonal, they also felt frustration at the need to hand in paper copies when these were not marked, but they did overwhelmingly appreciate the legibility improvement and the time saved in not needing to collect the physical assignment (K5, V3). This evaluative work will inform future use of the approach. Learning resources In 2011 I led the development of electronic learning objects to support a level 4 personal development module which is taken by all new entrant students too Harper Adams (K4). Working with a media team and the module delivery team (of which I was also part) I led the design of walkthrough resources, formative quizzes and summative electronic assessments that all sought to enhance the student’s experience and enhance reflection opportunities while also freeing up staff from administrative tasks and marking to better concentrate on providing support (K4). Particularly central to the resources were the principles of storyboarding, scaffolding and constructive alignment and user experience. Reflection was developed via sequencing of manageable activities, which started with a self-review and fed forward ultimately to career planning (A1, A4). The use of animation and screen captures were employed within the resources to enhance engagement and aesthetic appeal (HAUC, 2011). The video elements were used to capture external speakers (such as employers) so that all first year students could access genuine voices on the importance of preparation for work. The planning of the learning activities caused us to question aspects of the module design and resulted in adaptions being made to the curriculum and classroom components to ensure full constructive alignment. While evaluation is on going, it is fair to conclude that the project has created efficiencies for staff (particularly through a reduction in assessment administration as a result of some use of computer aided assessment) and has resulted in higher quality reflection within the module (this is corroborated by feedback from the module leader). Educational development role During 2011/12 my role at Harper Adams evolved still further to incorporate staff development aspects, development of the institutional Learning and Teaching Strategy, full oversight of our employer engagement work and occasional cross-College curriculum development projects. This changing brief occurred alongside a role change to that of Educational Developer – working closely with the Head of Educational Development & Quality Enhancement. Staff development In my new role I have responsibility for academic staff development which takes many forms including the provision of workshops to develop practice. As well as inviting presenters I have directly provided workshops on a variety topics including: audio visual feedback, assessment design, collaborative provision, developing electronic resources, online marking and computer aided assessment and wherever possible data from the specific institutional context, gathered through pilots for example, has underpinned these sharing events (K4, K5, V3). All have these have been underpinned by my disciplinary background in education (K1).


I also endeavour to work on a one-to-one basis to build the confidence of colleagues with technology and particularly to facilitate the appropriate use of different tools with particular attention on purposeful use which places pedagogy at the forefront (an approach advocated by Clegg, Hudson, & Steel, 2003) and avoids inflated expectations of technology as a cure-all (K4, A1). An example of this is when working to support a colleague produce their first online module, the support was not only technical, but revolved around facilitating their exploration of how the module would be experienced by students and how assessment would align with online activities, and how support could be factored in effectively but also efficiently (A1, A3, K4, K3). I also have a formal role in supporting internal Development Fellows. Each year a number of staff are supported, through funding and time, to engage in work which progresses practice and enhances the student experience. I am responsible for providing support for these Fellows by providing some mentoring and links to appropriate expertise and resources. Projects are as varied as the production equine dentistry reusable learning objects to developing a community of practice for embedding sustainability in the curriculum. My role is to bring pedagogic theory (K1), advice and motivation to recipients as well as support for them to evaluate their own interventions (K3, K4, K5). Feedback from those whom I have supported to date has been encouraging, as this example shows: “the programme… has been most beneficial in the development of my skills, and I hope also for the development of leadership education in agriculture. I would particularly like to acknowledge my thanks to Lydia. I have enjoyed working with Lydia and especially her motivational and academic skills” [Feedback from a Development Fellow on support received 2011] (A2). A further role I have assumed is new staff induction for new academics (K1, A2). A week long programme introducing staff to quality assurance, lesson planning, schemes of work, the essentials of educational theory, approaches to feedback and assessment design provides some initial preparation for staff who are new to teaching. The content is deliberately targeted in its design for early career academics (in line with the recommendations of Opre, Zaharie, & Opre, 2008). In the face of ever changing demands made of staff it is essential that this programme is kept under review. Feeding from my engagement with the EdD and other CPD this year (A5, V3) I was able to develop content and activities around internationalisation themes (particularly inspired by the work of Neil Kemp (2012)) and professional standards in the HE sector. Staff undertaking the course in 12/13 fed back that they felt it gave them a good introduction to their first year in teaching – especially valuable were the practical sessions on course planning and classroom activities: “As someone with little teaching experience I thought the course was pitched at the right level…I found the sections that covered lesson planning and scheme of work very useful. I feel much better equipped to include variety into my teaching” [2012/13 Induction participant feedback (K5)]. Presently we do not have an HEA accredited institutional CPD framework and so as part of our development offering new staff undertake a PgC in Teaching & Learning (or similar) in nearby institutions. To consolidate learning and support their assessment back at the University College I have been, over the last year, involved in supporting a staff learning set for five members of staff who have embarked upon an action research component to their external level 7 programme. Feedback from staff was that this group was valuable, useful for overcoming obstructions to thought, maintaining pace within individual study, maintaining motivation, discussing the theory of action research (K1) and sharing resources, and for seeing things differently (K5, A5, V3). One of the members of the group described the benefit of the meetings: “Our Action Learning Set (ALS) meetings were a very valuable and supportive centre for discussion and refinement of ideas and I am a keen advocate based on our experience. Complex concepts and roadblocks have been cleared through group discussion and the atmosphere is always supportive. I often leave the meeting with more questions to ask myself and added motivation to continue” [Learning set participant feedback, Jane Headly, cited with permission]. Research, scholarship & professional practice I have built up my research and scholarship activity through formal study, via my Master’s Degree in Education and now through my Professional Doctorate in Education (K1, A5). The Master’s level focus gave allowed me to investigate ways in which I could improve my practice, informed by existing theory and practice from other settings. Through this programme I developed a better understanding of: research methods and action research (subjects which I have taught); my own practice (e.g. facilitation techniques); and of pedagogic theory relating to practice.


I began my doctoral studies with Liverpool University in April 2011, and am now halfway through the programme. In part my motivation to complete this programme comes from a desire to advance my understanding of the wider context of higher education as well as my wish to underpin a growing brief with appropriate scholarship and insight. The programme I selected is especially focussed on higher education and provides broad coverage. So far the doctoral level study has widened my understanding of higher education culture, policy, management and leadership, infrastructure, quality assurance, learning theory, change management, the research-teaching nexus and global trends (V4). Undertaking doctoral studies has resulted in my participation in an international higher education community of practice where issues arising from study are explored with peers from across the globe including China, South Africa, Oman, USA and Iran. This is especially valuable in providing global perspectives on the shared challenges of higher education. It is also a way of gaining insight in to new and novel approaches to all aspects of HE (V4). I have built up a modest collection of public works through conference papers, journal articles and book chapters (see for example Arnold, 2006; L. Arnold, 2011; Arnold, et al., 2011). Thematically work-based learning and technology hold them together although different topics are addressed; including media enhanced assessment, curriculum design (incorporating quality assurance considerations), quality assurance in work-based learning activity and supporting learner autonomy. This exemplifies the link between practice and scholarship in many dimensions of my work (A5, V3). I also engage, informally, with social media to disseminate lessons learnt and to share ideas or conceptions of practice and to engage with colleagues in other institutions. I routinely blog on professional development, feedback, assessment design, curriculum and reflection, and have done so for around five years. Feedback and statistics on this activity lead me to believe this is useful to others as well as helping facilitate my own reflective practice. I am a reviewer on two academic journals Interactive Learning Environments and Higher Education, Skills and Work based-learning. These roles enable me to support others by providing considered and sensitive feedback while further ensuring my own engagement with emerging literature (V4, A5). Recognition and reward I became a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy in 2007 via the individual entrance route and certified member of the Association for Learning Technology in 2008 and for around four years, I have since performed the role of assessor for other candidates seeking recognition through the ALT certification scheme (K4). This is an excellent learning process for myself, but also a way of supporting others. In 2011 I received an institutional award brought about through a process of nomination and panel assessment (I received one of six awards from 81 original nominations). The Aspire Staff Excellence Award was gained for contributions to the development and sharing of ‘excellent practice’ amongst colleagues. I was especially pleased to receive a reward that was underpinned by sharing, since this is so central to my practice.


Remember that in your reflections you should make use the elements of Core Knowledge and Professional Values to reflect on the activities you are describing. Case study 1: Development of a cross-institutional award framework for Master of Research (MRes) awards One of the most recent cross-institutional projects that I have been involved in was the formation of a Master’s of Research degree framework: I lead the development work. This was needed to enable to College to offer a programme which draws together opportunity for taught modules and research. Before individual programmes of this type could be developed an award framework was needed. Drawing from experience gained in developing a work-based learning curriculum framework, a new dimension to our academic infrastructure was formed. This development, a year in the making, represented the exploration of numerous considerations:

• Quality Code requirements for research and taught provision (K6) for example assessment requirements have parity with the sector and are internally consistent with other provision and admissions processes need to achieve compliance.

• Ensuring that personal development components are included within all programmes to complement the research and enable the development of the individual while also meeting an important Quality Code requirement for this type of provision (K6, K2, V1). As part of the available personal development students may access sessions in the introduction to teaching course mentioned earlier.

• The student experience of undertaking an MRes programme within the framework. Time-lining the student journey was essential to ensure that interventions are timely in a way which can support the student’s journey – for example project approval, review supervision meetings and the delivery of taught components (A1, A4 K2, K6).

• The likely discipline specific requirements for an award framework (K2). The framework was designed in consultation with representatives from across the different subject areas offered within the institution and as a result was developed such that it was able to accommodate both natural and social science requirements.

• Exploration of practice in other institutions. There was very little published material on the MRes located and so much of the background work to this development involved exploring practice elsewhere.

Understanding that the first year of implementation is unlikely to be perfect, a small cohort of students acting as the pioneers will provide feedback in due course through the course committee structure but also through a one of feedback event (K5). An iterative approach to on-going development is assumed to refine the framework in the face of early experience. Central to my on-going commitment to this development is the way in which I have, and am currently, supporting colleagues to use this curriculum framework> I have supported colleagues wishing to design new programmes and have provided advise and guidance on haw to work with new approvals procedures. I have provided small staff development sessions to introduce new curriculum possibilities and will later be centrally involved in guiding iterative improvements. Through a negotiated studies route this development has enabled students to personalise programmes of study to meet their own particular needs, and particularly for work based students to research topics, which can link directly to practice (V1, V2, A1). This development has opened up a new pathway for students at level seven for people who are in work or for people who wish to study full time (V2, K2).


Case study 2: Developing and leading a PgC Professional Practice (online) Demonstrating sustained engagement with creative approaches to curriculum, technology and supporting work-based learners. The second case study offered is of the development and delivery of a PgC in Professional Practice. Such a model of learning treats work-based learning as a discipline or field of study in its own right (Gibbs & Costley, 2006). While much of my work in the last four years has focussed on employer cohorts of students, there was also a need to establish provision for individuals if we were to aspire to the REEDNet project aim of up-skilling the rural economy through work-based opportunities . After some investigation of perceived need a level 7 programme was formed to serve both individuals and as a base programme to which employers could add specific content to serve particular professional groupings in cohort delivery. The programme comprised two modules – one which investigated the professional context to understand the work context with reference to appropriate literature and theory, and the other to investigate a specific work relevant issue through an action research project. The programme was underpinned by a facilitative support approach but with subject specialism in reflective practice and action research (K1). The use of such a pedagogy sought to encourage deep engagement and change within the individual (Trigwell, Prosser, & Waterhouse, 1999) (A2). Assessment was varied and included a research report, a case study of sustainable or responsible practice and a reflective portfolio (A3). All assessment was designed to offer formative opportunities for wither tutor or peer feedback. The choice to develop online materials was made to enable access to work-based learners without the requirement for travel and time away from the work-place, one student said: “I have truly appreciated being able to further my education at the reputable institution without having to relocate or travel regularly” (V2). The online dimension was also developmental for the College - an emphasis at validation was on this being used as a trigger to grow capacity in learning technology and in supporting work-based learners. The model of creating an individual entrance route which could be adopted for particular employers was also a way of scaffolding employer engagement – experience taught us that there were a common themes in the requirements of many employers at level 7, they often wanted a form of graduate development scheme. Having a template graduate development offering on which particular groups could build further was an experimental approach to curriculum development. It provided a starting point with employers about what was possible and desirable in their context (A1). The concept, modules and associated documentation was taken through validation and approved in 2010. Work on the online provision straddled the validation and employed a capacity building element whereby three members of staff co-developed online and work-oriented provision for the first time. The modules ran for a pilot cohort of six students over one academic year. Particular features of the delivery are highlighted below through student feedback: • “Peer review allow the candidate to feel more relaxed and comfortable as they can share their ideas amongst individuals who are in the same situation; rather than the formal situation of a classroom”: Sharing of assessment ideas and plans for projects was a core part of the programme (A2, K3, K2).

• “we are not all in the same industry in order to specifically relate to peoples’ direct thoughts. This however has provided feedback which is richer than it may have been, for example if only related to the Fee Industry”: Inter-professional learning created a unique richness and one which perhaps emulates the diversity of real worlds situations (K2, K3).


• “The organisation and layout of the online sections was great, making it very easy for candidates to navigate through”: The learning environment design was deliberately accessible, especially respecting the time pressures of working students and the frustration caused by poor design (A4).

Students also noted an impact of their work through the development of a better understanding of their context and through the specific work associated with their research. Alongside this development work with employers direct was growing and the PgC Professional Studies provided a template for three further employer specific partnerships. Informed by the individual entrance feedback further development of guidance, including model answers and assessment scaffolding was formed (A1, A4, V1). Approximately 60 students have benefitted from the original PgC or it’s employer cohort variants additionally the family of related postgraduate provision benefits from cross fertilisation, with consent of the non-competitive graduate employers.

Akister, J., Illes, K., Maisch, M., McKenzie, J., Ovens, P., Parker, J., . . . Winter, R. (2003). Learning

from the Patchwork Text Process--A Retrospective Discussion. [Article]. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 40(2), 216.

Arnold, L. (2006). Understanding and promoting autonomy in UK online higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 3(7).

Arnold, L. (2008). Experiential work-integrated online learning: Insights from an established UK higher education program. innovate 4(3).

Arnold, L. (2009). A guide to the creation of employer engagement modules and descriptors. Retrieved from http://www.harper-adams.ac.uk/aspire/files/moduleguidance.pdf

Arnold, L. (2011). How can work based learners develop effective study strategies? Retrieved from http://lydiaarnold.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/how-can-work-based-learners-develop-effective-study-strategies/

Arnold, L. (2011). Wrapper modules: a reusable curriculum approach to recognise and enhance learning in the workplace. In F. Tallantyre & J. Kettle (Eds.), Learning from Experience in Employer Engagement (pp. 113-122): HEA: York.

Arnold, L., Warr, L., & Cowap, C. (2011). Courtship Underpinned by Audit: Challenges and Solutions in Quality Assurance of Employer Responsive In B. Dhillon, A. Felce, A. Minton & T. Wall (Eds.), Making employer and university partnerships work – accredited employer-led learning. Oxford: Libri.

Arnold, L., Williams, T., & Thompson, K. (2009). Advancing the Patchwork Text: The Development of Patchwork Media Approaches. International Journal of Learning, 16(5), 151.

Atherton, J. S. (2010, 7 August 2011). Learning and Teaching; Bloom's taxonomy, from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/bloomtax.htm

Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an Unknown Future. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3), 247-260.

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347-364.

Cassidy, C., Christie, D., Coutts, N., Dunn, J., Sinclair, C., Skinner, D., & Wilson, A. (2008). Building communities of educational enquiry. [Article]. Oxford Review of Education, 34(2), 217-235. doi: 10.1080/03054980701614945

Clegg, S., Hudson, A., & Steel, J. (2003). The Emperor's New Clothes: Globalisation and e-Learning in Higher Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 24(1), 39-53.


Cumming, J. J., & Maxwell, G. S. (1999). Contextualising Authentic Assesment. [Article]. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(2), 177.

Gibbs, P., & Costley, C. (2006). Work-Based Learning; Discipline, Field or Discursive Space or What? Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 11(3), 341-350.

Greenhalgh, T. (2003). Ultraversity opens to 'lost' students. [Article]. Times Higher Education Supplement(1585), 9.

HAUC. (2011). Step-by-step CV from http://rlo.harper-adams.ac.uk/xerte/step-by-step-cv.aspx Kemp, N. (2012). The ACA Internationalisation Monitor Retrieved 24th August 2012, from

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Newsroom/Events/Documents/ACA-Internationalisation-Monitor-Neil-Kemp.pdf

Opre, A., Zaharie, M., & Opre, D. (2008). Faculty development: Teaching staff needs, knowledge and priority. Cogni≈£ie Creier Comportament, 12(1), 29-43.

Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links between tutors' and students' understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125-136. doi: 10.1080/02602930903201651

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: effective strategies for the online classroom: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating Online - Learning Together in Online Community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Powell, S. (2007). Ultraversity. Retrieved from http://www.stephenp.net/projects/ QAA. (2010). Employer-responsive provision survey. A reflective report. Gloucester. Salmon, G. (2002). E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning: Taylor & Francis. Salmon, G. (2004). E-Moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online: Taylor & Francis. Scoggins, J., & Winter, R. (1999). The patchwork text: A coursework format for education as critical

understanding. [Article]. Teaching in Higher Education, 4(4), 485. Stannard, R. (2008). A New Direction in Feedback. [Journal article]. Humanising Language

Teaching(6). Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between Teachers' Approaches to

Teaching and Students' Approaches to Learning. Higher Education, 37(1), 57-70. White, N. (1999). Musings on Online Community Governance - Lessons Learned (?) From My Electric

Minds Experience, from http://www.fullcirc.com/community/governance.htm