An environment for achievement?

Ruminations on the drivers for transformation

Carolyn Roberts

Director, Centre for Active LearningUniversity of Gloucestershire

U.K.

ISSOTL Conference, Washington DC, November 2006

Modelling Institutional Change – Simple models 1

1. Initiation Structure, clarity, advocacy,

champions, understanding

2. ImplementationResponsibility, empowerment,

pressure, Faculty development

3. InstitutionalisationEmbedding, organisational, strength, spread, facilitation

In Hopkins, 2002

Modelling Institutional Change – Simple models 2

1. Courtship

2. Choosing the target (beginning)

3. Expanding the scope of change

4. Making connections and sustaining the change process

5. Rebalancing the campus to support different ways of doing things

6. Reflection on the significance of what we have done

7. EndingRamaley, 1994

The Four Factors for Success

1. Pressure for change

2. A clear, shared vision

3. Capacity for change

4. Action

Government Office for the South West, 2004

Modelling Institutional Change – Simple models 3

Appreciative Enquiry Approach

1. Appreciating and valuing the best of ‘what is’

2. Envisioning ‘what might be’

3. Dialoguing ‘what should be’

4. Innovating ‘what will be’Hammond, 1998

Modelling Institutional Change – Simple models 4

• Staff• Style• Systems• Strategy• Structure• Skills• Super-ordinate goals

McKinsey, 2002

Modelling Institutional Change – Simple models 5

Another simple change model

Models of change, according to Trowler et al, 2003

• Technical-rational

• Resource allocation

• Diffusionist:epidemiological

• Kai Zen or continuous quality improvement

• Models using complexity

Case study • University of Gloucestershire, UK

HE since 1847, University only since 2003‘Liberal arts’ College plus+10,000 students, Bachelor’s, Masters and PhDTeaching-led, Research-informed

• School of Environment Limited period: 1998 to 2006Initial merger of two Departments with different traditions and strengthsc. 700 students, some distance learnersc.50 Faculty teaching, 10 admin and technical staff, highly

disparate professional and academic backgroundsResearch management separated off, initially

Indicators of achievement?• Internally- Improvements in students’ results;

‘best in University’ awards for students• Internally and externally - Personal awards for

Faculty: University Teaching Fellows; National Teaching Fellows; runner up ‘National e-Tutor of the Year’; runner up BA ‘Lyell Young Lecturer’; other esteem indicators

• Shortlisted for Queen’s Anniversary Prize for HE, 2004

• Awarded national status and £5M as a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in 2005

Institutional Background

• Strongly centralised quality assurance systems, including module evaluation, external examiners, professional accreditation

• Institutional level T,L and A strategy• Vice Chancellor’s commitment to

T,L &A• Professional Development Group

system for Faculty (‘quality circles’)

UNIVERSITY O FGLO UCESTERSH I RE

DEGREE & DIPLOMA COURSES IN THE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTALSCIENCES

HUMAN ANDCULTURAL

STUDIES

DESIGNSTUDIES

CD Co mmunity

Deve lopmentEG Environmental

ManagementEV Environmental

PolicyET Environmental

Sc ienceGD Garden

Des ignGE GeographyGL GeologyHE Heritage

ManagementHG Human

GeographyLA Lands cape

Architec tureLD Lands cape

Des ignLN Lands cape

ManagementLP Local

PolicyNR Natural

Res ource

ManagementPG Phys ical

Geo graphyRP Rural PlanningWR Water

Res ource

Management

HG

GE

WRNR

EV

HE

GL

ET

PG

LD

LA

GD

CDLP

LM

EG RP

His tory

Leis ureManagement

Bus ines sAreas

SociologicalStudies

Vis ualArts

Touris mManagement

Theology

Multimedia

Englis hStudies

CommunitySudies

Politics

&Socie ty

H N D E TH N D E G

H N D L& G D

The role of SoLT

Curriculum change as a driver for wider changes:

‘Allow undergraduate teaching to be informed by research, consultancy and scholarship, including research into effective teaching and learning in Higher Education;’

Teaching and Learning Methods

 7.5.2 There is still some reliance on lectures as a

relatively efficient method of conveying basic information and personal perspectives synchronously to large groups, but every student spends only a minority of their learning time in such staff-led activities. Increased emphasis is placed on ‘deeper’ forms of learning characterised by a high level of student personal engagement, independent study and increased emphasis on personal reflection. This is usually underpinned by the introduction of key themes and the introduction to sub-disciplines, imparted through lectures.

Kotter’s Eight Stages of Change

1. Establishing a sense of urgency2. Creating a guiding coalition3. Developing a vision and strategy4. Communicating the change vision5. Empowering broad-based action6. Generating short term wins7. Consolidating gains and producing

more change8. Anchoring new approaches in the

cultureKotter, 1995

The Ladder of Divine Ascent metaphor

St. John Climacus’s text explains the ‘journey to Heaven’ as involving many challenging steps. The icon shows monks on the ladder, demons trying to pull them off, the mouth of Hades swallowing up those who have fallen off, the angels lamenting over those who have fallen, and people on the earth praying for those on the ladder. Christ is depicted at the top of the ladder, waiting for the successful ones to enter His holy Kingdom.

8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture

7. Consolidating gains and producing more change

6. Generating short term wins5. Empowering broad-based

action4. Communicating the change

vision3. Developing a vision and

strategy2. Creating a guiding coalition1. Establishing a sense of

urgency

Establishing a sense of urgency

Bringing the School together

Falling applications and competition for students in environmental disciplines

Boredom with existing courses

Access and Widening Participation pressures

Competing academic traditions

Differing staff workloads

Inefficiency in delivery

Opportunities for synergy

Increasing diversity of student backgrounds

ICT availability increasing

Increasing understanding of HE pedagogy

Employability imperative

Dean and Directorate pressure

Establishing a sense of urgency

1. Drivers for change

• Generic Pressures to HE

• Specific institutional pressures

2. Drivers for change

• Political• Economic• Socio-cultural• Technological• Legal• Environmental

Creating a guiding coalition• A core team with sufficient power to

lead• The best people, regardless of their

previous roles, and including professional support staff

• Range of backgrounds• Three disciplinary-based

subgroups, with someautonomy

Developing a vision and strategy

• Multiple goals – managerial and educational• Excellence in all aspects of work, drawing

on existing strengths• High levels of student achievement• Evidence-based practice• Demonstrable and publicised innovation• Involving students as collaborators• Equity and transparency for staff and

students, in methodologies, outcomes etc

Educational & Vocational Objectives

• To offer students high quality learning, underpinned by successful research and consultancy activities, in a wide range of subjects;

• To prepare students for work in a volatile employment area, by offering vocational programmes, explicitly developing in students a range of educational skills, and working in partnership with appropriate professional organisations;

• To allow students significant choice in the construction of their programme, whilst ensuring that appropriate core knowledge, skills and competencies are developed in a structured way;

• To improve the foundation of environmental knowledge amongst undergraduates.

Managerial Objectives

• To improve the efficiency of delivery; • To increase recruitment, and make the Fields

more accessible to a wider range of students; • To increase the range of choice of award titles;• To permit substantial movement of students

between Fields, at least in the early stages of their study;

• To enable effective management of shifting patterns of recruitment, such that variability in numbers within different Fields can be accommodated without undue inefficiencies. 

What did we do?• Developed c. 125 modules, 17 Degree programmes, 3

Higher National Diplomas as ‘steps’ into Degree-level study

• Integrated approach to curriculum design, focussed on commonly shared (but not universally held) views on active learning

• Some shared attributes and modules shared eg core Level I module, Fieldweek, ‘Methods of Enquiry’, Dissertation

• Credit-bearing work placement available to all students• Distance and campus-based students working together

Communicating the change vision

• Using every vehicle possible to communicate the new vision and strategies (every trick in the book)

• Consistency of approach through establishing curriculum structures

• Empathy, but no exceptions

• Motivating and inspiring

• Innately ‘top down’

Empowering broad-based action

• Getting rid of obstacles, including maverick ideas (“well, of course this doesn’t apply to me/our course/my research/the laboratories/the studios”)

• Challenging structures and pushing the boundaries, including University regulations, and asking ‘why?’

• Encouraging risk-taking and non-traditional ideas, but evaluating carefully

• Recognising immovable objects and circumventing them

Generating short term wins• Student results and satisfaction improve• Students win external competitions• Faculty recognition – University Teaching

Fellowships• Success in securing external funding for pedagogic

projects extends beyond ‘core team’; value increases• Five Faculty selected to serve on national Quality

Assurance Agency ‘Subject Benchmarking Panels’• Department ‘volunteers’ for successful QAA

Developmental Engagement• League table improvements

Pattern of mean marks scored in all levels of all UoG Fields of study, 2002-3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 %

Pattern of mean marks scored in all Levels of each UoG Field of study,2002-03

A

B D

A = Environmental Management & Geography Fields

B = Environmental Sciences

C = Policy & Planning Fields

D = Landscape & Design Fields

C

46 62 63

Average of former School of Environment undergraduate module marksfollowing introduction of the new ‘active learning’ curriculum in 1999

62.0

61.0

60.0

59.0

58.0

57.0

56.0

55.0

54.0

53.01999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Level I Level II Level III

%

Average of School of Environment undergraduate module marks

Consolidating gains and producing more change

• Student results improve further• Associated Faculty successes with

external awards – National Teaching Fellows

• New HND courses and Degree courses developed in Biology, external funding for laboratories secured

• More Faculty become external examiners at other Universities

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 %

A C

SoE Fields of Study

A = Geography, Policy & Planning Fields

B = Environmental Sciences and Management Fields

C = Landscape & Design Fields

(SoE Field management was reorganised

from 4 clusters to 3 in 2003)

All other UoG Fields of Study

B

46 62

Pattern of mean marks scored in all Levels of each UoG Field of study,2004-5

10

Pattern of mean marks scored in all levels of all UoG Fields of study, 2004-5

Former School of Environment Degree classifications for Honours Degrees

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/3Year of Award

Third Low er second U pper second F irst

%

2003/4

School of Environment Honours Degree results, 1998-2004

Anchoring new approaches in the culture

• Increased focus on the ‘students’ experiences’, including students’ performances in individual modules

• National conferences offered, on ‘reflection’, ‘the role of support staff’, etc where there were national ‘gaps’

• Local symposium on ‘excellence in HE’, including students

• New challenges - working towards submission of a bid to become a national Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

The Gloucestershire approach to active learning

“The distinctive feature of the University of Gloucestershire definition of active learning is that it centres on the mastery of theory within a ‘learning by doing’ approach involving working in real places with actual people and live projects”

The Gloucestershire approach to active learning

• Linking the thinking, doing and reflecting • Innovative ways of linking the theory and practice• Embedding active learning in all teaching• Innovative methods for developing blended learning• Active involvement of external agencies• Creative ways of assessing active learning• Underpinning practices by pedagogic research • Involvement nationally and internationally • Maintaining inclusivity• Making learning enjoyable for everyone

The Gloucestershire approach to active learning

What were the key drivers?

• External pressure/stimulus/risk

• Guiding coalition/team

• Drawing on existing strengths

• Utilising a mixture of centralised and decentralised decisionmaking

• Student views and responses

• Publicity relating to early wins

• New goals appearing

What did not drive change• Resources, except time (especially ‘transactional’

time)• Technology (e.g. ICT) was not a principal driver, but

assisted in communication of ideas and became more important as the operation became more complex

• Agonising over ‘top down’ or ‘bottom up’ approaches

• Promotion or financial rewards strategies, at least initially

• Specific inputs from the Centre for Teaching and Learning or QA systems

8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture

7. Consolidating gains and producing more change

6. Generating short term wins5. Empowering broad-based

action4. Communicating the change

vision3. Developing a vision and

strategy2. Creating a guiding coalition1. Establishing a sense of

urgency

Models of change• Change is highly complex, not linear, but can be

steered to some degree• Many changes occur concurrently, change breeds

change• Change can be developmental or emergent• We shift rapidly and dynamically between states• Goals are adjusted and we move towards a new

goal without achieving the first• No end point can be defined • The seeds of self destruction may be built in from

the start

What’s missing from the simple models?

• Key roles and strengths of team members• Communication amongst the team and beyond –

celebrating success: E-Newsletter, and enjoyment of activity

• Developing mutual support, a community of scholars, through Faculty development

• The role of the ‘customers’, our students, in joining and supporting the enterprise

• Evaluating the change and developing as a ‘learning institution’

• Serendipity, and new challenges (and risks) appearing, eg the CETL opportunity

Models using complexity• Indeterminate systems, hence outcomes

are not predictable. Can create likely conditions for change

• No locus of power; ‘power is’. System not directly controllable but open to indirect influence

• Multiple small changes provide suitable conditions for change

• Over-optimal supply of ‘tools’ required• Change champions are organic,

intellectual and skilled in praxis and creating affordances

Trowler, Saunders and Knight, 2003

Dreamtime as a metaphor of change?

Please look at our websitewww.glos.ac.uk/ceal

‘Making a difference’

Bibliography

Antonacopoulou and Bento; Bennis and Nanus; Bolman and Deal; Bromage; Bush; Elton; Fullan; Gardner; Garrett; Hannan; Hannan and Silver; Hopkins; Jarzabkowski; Kent; Kotter; McBeath et al; McKenzie; McKinsey; Miles; Olson and Eoyang; Pennington; Prosser and Trigwell; Ramaley; Ramsden; Roberts, McKenzie; McKimm; Trowler, Saunders and Knight; Shulman;