15-30 Curriculum Change Project

15-30 Curriculum Change Project

Interim Project Evaluation Report

March 2007

Contents

Background

Purpose of the Interim Report

Section 2- Information and Communication

Section 3 - Resources

Section 4 - Approval Processes

Section 5 - Outcomes

Next steps

Background

In November 2004, the Senate agreed to establish a project to review the modular scheme. This project became known as the 15-30 Project. The main aims of the project were:

• to reduce complexity within the modular scheme
• to produce fewer and larger credit modules
• to ensure an attractive programme for students with a more standard volume of assessmentactivity
• to standardise areas of curriculum; and
• to releasesome academic staff time for research and external income generation activities.

The 15-30 Curriculum Project has been a major undertaking on the part ofAngliaRuskinUniversity. It aimed to provide a modern curriculum offering that would attract students to study at AngliaRuskinUniversity, whilst also reducing the volume of assessment and the workloads placed on staff and students.

Effectively, the project required a review of the curriculum and the rewriting of a large number of modules and degrees for re-approval. The project impacted on all staff within the University and required a collaborative effort from Faculties and central units.

Project management methodology was used to monitor and control the project tasks, resources and timelines. The project plan identified key tasks relating to design, approval, systems development, regulations, communication and staff development. For each of these major elements, a work stream leader was identified. Each work stream leader managed a small working group to complete the tasks within their particular project plan. The 15-30 Project Steering Committee was created in February 2005 to develop the detailed curriculum design.

The new curriculum was introduced across AngliaRuskinUniversity and its partner colleges in September 2006. The project was thus delivered successfully and on time. Given the significance of the project, the Action Plan in response to the QAA institutional audit (May 2004) included a commitment to an early evaluation of the impact of the revised modular curriculum.

The evaluation project, which commenced in November 2006, aims to:

• evaluate the achievement of the key aims of the curriculum change project;
• identify and analyse factors which supported or inhibited the achievement of these aims;
• assess the contribution of a formal project management system;
• propose curriculum management strategies for the future in order to maintain an attractive offering to students whilst working within resource capabilities.

The agreed research methods were:

• to design two web-based survey questionnaires for the key stakeholders involved in the project; one for senior managers (Associate Deans, Regional College HE leads, Directors of Studies, Heads of Departments) and one for all academic and support staff (academics within Anglia Ruskin University, academics within a partner college, faculty administration staff, members of central units, programme leaders). The responses to the online questionnaires were to be used to determine key themes for further discussion at focus groups.
• to consider additional sources of information available through separate, but relevant, projects e.g. learning and teaching evaluation projects looking at particular aspects of the new curriculum and/or regulations.
• to consider other data and information from sources such as Registry, AQSO and OSA e.g. statistics on module enrolments, AQSO evaluation of migration approval events, results of Student Satisfaction Questionnaires.

The members of the Evaluation Project team are Marian Redding (Head of Modular Programmes), Derrik Ferney (Associate Dean, Academic Development, ALSS) and Natalie Sum (Research Assistant). The team’s proposals for the questionnaires were scrutinised by an external adviser.

The development of the online questionnaires was completed in November 2006, using the Bristol Online Surveys. The questionnaires were open for staff to complete from December 2006 – January 2007. It was recognised that this was a busy time for staff who were fully occupied implementing a curriculum which itself had been developed within tight time constraints the previous year, and this is reflected in the rather disappointing response rate (16% for the all staff survey and 20% for the senior managers survey). However, there has been a need for early feedback to inform and progressively shape the implementation of the new curriculum. The focus groups will actively engage with the concerns of staff as reported in the survey findings.

Purpose of the Interim Report

The purpose of this interim report is to present selected quantitative data captured from the questionnaires and, where appropriate at this stage, tocontextualise or otherwise explore these findings in a ‘Comments’ section.

This report follows the structure of the original online questionnaires which were:

• Your role
• Information and communication
• Resources
• Approval Processes
• Outcomes

A full report and a series of related publications are anticipated in late 2007. This interim report and subsequent reports will contribute to the writing of the institutional briefing paper in preparation for the institutional audit in November-December 2007.

Marian Redding and Derrik Ferney

March 2007
Section 1 - Your role

In response to the question ‘how involved were you in the development of the 15-30 project’ there were a total of 162 respondents, of which 94 were academics within AngliaRuskinUniversity.

Comment: Of the respondents a high number of academics were involved or very involved in the development of the 15-30 project, followed proportionally by members of central units. This is as expected since this project involved all faculties and all programmes.

Section 2- Information and Communication

Respondents were asked to ‘indicate the most useful sources of information’ from an available list of options. They were allowed to select more than one source of information.

Comment: The three most useful sources of information werethe 15-30 website on ANET, centrally provided staff development sessions on curriculum change, and Department or Faculty sources. This indicates concerted effort across AngliaRuskinUniversity, enabling staff to access complementary information from a variety of sources. The high level of hits recorded on the 15/30 website encouraged its eventual replacement by a Curriculum website linking all sources of information to a single portal.

The 15-30 Project included a range of staff development sessions in order to give staff information they needed. Staff were asked ‘which staff development sessions they attended.’

Comment:The results from this question were pleasing with the large majority of staff attending a staff development session of some form. The Faculty sessions, and the centrally provided briefings on curriculum design and on regulations all played a part in informing staff. PowerPoint presentations were available from the 15/30 website for local use. Student-facing services and the Students’ Union attended centrally provided briefings, with supplementary sessions (e.g. with student advisers and student representative coordinators) being provided at their request.

Section 3 - Resources

Respondents were asked ‘how their Faculty/department supported you in the 15/30 work undertaken’ from a list of available options (see graph below). The most common response here was that staff were not aware of additional support.

Comment: Substantial additional funds (over £300K in total) were made available for local use and Faculties were invited by the Project Board to submit proposals for their disbursement. This resulted in a range of measures to reward staff for additional work and/or provide additional administrative support or relief from teaching. Faculties were responsible for determining the types of support most suited to their requirements. The results of this question suggest that some staff may not have made the connection between the extra payments and/or extra help they received with the special resources allocated for the project. This will inform the approach in any future such project.

Section 4 - Approval Processes

Respondents were asked to consider the statement ‘the special academic approval mechanisms delivered a robust quality assurance experience’ and then rate whether they strongly agreed, agreed, were unsure, disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Comment: This question related to the one-off two-stage process used to approve all modules and pathways within Anglia Ruskin and its partners. Having considered the alternatives in some detail, the Steering Committee adopted this process in order to provide for detailed consideration of the academic content of almost 3000 new modules and the specifications of around 600 pathways spread across 29 Departments. The approval process has now reverted to the one-stage method.

The rather negative response to this question contrasts with the more positive findings of the evaluation report on the approvals process produced by AQSO for Senate. These findings were based on the written feedback provided by participants at the time of the approval events. It is possible that respondents here were reflecting negatively on the extra work involved in the two stage process whereas for AQSO the questions were more specifically concerned with the value and rigour of the approach. These differences will be further explored at the focus group stage.

Section 5 - Outcomes

Questions 10-12 asked staff to consider the level of support they would give to a series of statements about the intentions within the curriculum, and its benefits both now and potentially for the future. As expected there were some concerns particularly from Anglia Ruskin academic staff. The response rate was low and the survey was conducted very soon after implementation. These factors may have contributed to the negative response but, nevertheless, the results are concerning and will be explored further at the focus group stage.

While there was a measure of agreement that the changes represented opportunities (Table One), there were a significant number of areas where

Academics in particular were sceptical about design of the curriculum. Table two includes a number of such areas.*

Table One Summary of responses to Q10

Table Two – continued summary Q10

The areas of uncertainty and disagreement reflected above were possibly as a result of failures to communicate fully to all staff the reasons why each of those design principles had been adopted. Each was based on Steering Committee debate and decisions with all faculties represented on the steering committee. Steering Committee sought evidence for each proposed change.

Questions Eleven and Twelve were similarly contentious. Academics were not convinced of the immediate benefits of the changes although some were willing to concede that future students might benefit. Some thought that administrative departments might gain benefits.

Many of these perceptions may change over time but they indicate that some staff at least have experienced difficulty in implementing curriculum changes and that they are not yet convinced of the rationale and benefits.

Comment: As anticipated the findings reflected the high workload required to complete the project within a single academic year. It is accepted that this project was completed within a very tight timetable. Senate did debate the alternative of implementation in 2007 rather than 2006 but decided that, on balance, the ‘planning blight’ associated with later implementation outweighed the considerable workload associated with earlier implementation.

Next steps

The results from the online questionnaires will form the basis of themes to be discussed at a series of focus groups in March and May 2007. Broadly, these groups will cover:

• the impact of curriculum and assessment changeson staff and students;
• learning, teaching and assessment issues;
• faculties and central service support units issues;
• communications, links and liaison issues.

While acknowledging that the 15/30 project has increased workloads in both the preparatory year (2005-6) and the implementation year (2006-7), the focus groups provide an opportunity to reflect on both the problems and benefits for students and staff in a range of roles across Anglia Ruskin University and the need to make continuing improvements based on their experience of teaching and administering the new curriculum.

AngliaRuskinUniversity is currently pursuing a number of short-life projects which it is hoped will provide further improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of the modular scheme from the perspectives of staff and students. This includes an in-depth review of the University Calendar, a detailed guide to assessment procedures, a series of Learning & Teaching evaluation projectsrelating to the new curriculum and a refinement of the processes used to determine the overall number of modules available within each faculty.

1

March 2007