Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 06 September 2014, At: 07:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Higher Education Research &DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20
Bridging the implementation gap:a teacher‐as‐learner approach toteaching and learning policyArlene Harvey a & Patty Kamvounias aa University of Sydney , Sydney, AustraliaPublished online: 20 Nov 2007.
To cite this article: Arlene Harvey & Patty Kamvounias (2008) Bridging the implementation gap:a teacher‐as‐learner approach to teaching and learning policy, Higher Education Research &Development, 27:1, 31-41, DOI: 10.1080/07294360701658716
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658716
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Higher Education Research & DevelopmentVol. 27, No. 1, March 2008, 31–41
ISSN 0729-4360 print/ISSN 1469-8366 online© 2008 HERDSADOI: 10.1080/07294360701658716http://www.informaworld.com
Bridging the implementation gap: a teacher-as-learner approach to teaching and learning policy
Arlene Harvey* and Patty Kamvounias
University of Sydney, Sydney, AustraliaTaylor and FrancisCHER_A_265712.sgm(Received 12 February 2006; final version received 16 March 2007)
10.1080/07294360701658716Higher Education Research & Development0729-4360 (print)/1469-8366 (online)Original Article2008HERDSA271000000March [email protected] A major dilemma facing higher educational institutions around the world is how to achievequality outcomes for students in an increasingly internationalised and competitiveenvironment. To effect change in teaching and learning, we advocate a teacher-as-learnerapproach to the implementation of teaching and learning policy. Our approach has beeninfluenced by approaches to change management as well as contemporary educationaltheories, such as constructive alignment and deep and surface approaches to learning. In thispaper we use these approaches to evaluate the success of a policy initiative designed toencourage subject coordinators to use a faculty-endorsed template to embed graduate attributesinto their subject outlines. The difficulties experienced by teachers at the disciplinary level inusing the subject outline template illustrate how a seemingly positive and well-intentionedinitiative can have a potentially minimal effect on teaching and learning practice and, as aconsequence, student learning. We suggest that the Course Experience Questionnaire providesa useful model for evaluating not only teaching but also the management of teaching. Asteachers responsible for the implementation of teaching and learning policies, we hope ourviews will provide a more integrated approach to teaching and learning changes in the highereducational context.
Keywords: teaching and learning policy; implementation gap; graduate attributes
Introduction
Despite recent moves towards quality assurance in higher education, it has been argued that‘fundamental changes in teaching and learning are rare…In most universities, teaching continuesin much the same way as it has always done’ (Lueddeke, 1999, pp. 240–241). According to thechange management and dissemination of innovation literature, various factors can influence thesuccess of a change initiative. Examples include: organisational culture; a sense of ownership;communication (including explanation, persuasive promotion and feedback); resources andsupport; and leadership (Covin & Kilmann, 1990; Lueddeke, 1999). An effective change strategyshould set the stage for acceptance, create an appropriate frame for interpreting the change,manage employees’ mood (including understanding reasons for resistance to the change), andreward and reinforce new behaviours (Garvin & Roberto, 2005).
Although the aforementioned factors can influence the success of change initiatives across avariety of professional contexts, the unique culture of universities, an organized yet anarchic indi-vidualism (Elton, 2003) along with the role conflict that plagues many academics in the current‘hired to teach but paid to publish’ higher educational climate (Crimmel, 1984; Lueddeke, 1999),might account for why teachers do not respond well to teaching and learning initiatives imposed
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
07:
56 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
32 A. Harvey and P. Kamvounias
from above (De La Harpe et al., 2000; Elton, 2003; Sumsion & Goodfellow, 2004; Watty, 2003).Unfortunately, failure to respond to change can lead to an ‘implementation gap’ between policyand practice, the complexities of which have yet to be fully comprehended and addressed(Newton, 2000; 2003). As Newton (2003) argues:
[I]ssues surrounding the development and implementation of teaching and learning strategies aremore complicated than is revealed by the positions taken by senior managers, or by the teaching andlearning proselytising of regulatory and funding bodies. This prompts us to consider how staff engagewith policy emanating from national and institutional levels. (pp. 431–432)
In this paper we describe an implementation gap that became apparent during a teaching andlearning initiative in the business faculty/school at a research-intensive Australian university (‘theUniversity’). This initiative involved encouraging subject coordinators to articulate the graduateattributes and learning goals developed in their subjects using a mandated outline template, andto indicate how these learning goals were incorporated into assessment. The difficultiesexperienced by coordinators in using the template illustrate how a seemingly positive and well-intentioned initiative can have a minimal effect on teaching and learning practice at the individuallevel.
We argue that unless a teaching and learning initiative transforms teachers’ practice such thatthey can transform their students’ learning, the initiative cannot be interpreted as having beensuccessful. To explain why the template has not been successful in the form described in this paper,we consider change management issues to do with ownership, communication and support throughthe lens of educational theories, such as constructive alignment (Biggs, 2003) and approaches tolearning (Ramsden, 1992). We also suggest that the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ)(Ramsden, 1992) provides a useful model for evaluating not only teaching but also the managementof teaching. That is, we will use educational theory as a meta-framework through which torecommend practical ways in which to more effectively manage the change process and bridgethe implementation gap between teaching and learning policy and practice.1
A ‘teacher-as-learner’ approach to policy implementation
Several decades ago, a misalignment was detected between the needs of teachers and students inthat teachers were seen to be focusing more on what they themselves do (teaching) than on whattheir students do (learning) (Biggs, 2003). Realigning the needs of these two key stakeholders inthe educational process involved a paradigmatic shift from a ‘teacher-centred’ to a ‘student-centred’ approach to learning and a constructive alignment between curriculum design andpedagogic practice. In a constructively aligned curriculum, teachers make explicit the linksbetween learning outcomes, assessment and learning activities (Biggs, 2003; Ramsden, 1992).
In addition to constructive alignment, educational researchers have become interested indifferent approaches to learning (Marton & Saljo, 1976a, 1976b; Ramsden, 1992). In a surfaceapproach to learning, students tend to learn by rote and regurgitate what they perceive to be neces-sary to complete a task and to give teachers ‘what they want’ (e.g. correct answers). In contrast,in a deep approach to learning, students develop understanding and relate new ideas to previousknowledge and experiences (Ramsden, 1992). In other words, in a deep approach meaning is not‘imparted or transmitted from teacher to learner but is something learners have to create for them-selves’ (Biggs, 2003) and students are encouraged to take ownership of and responsibility fortheir learning. In an appropriately designed task, teachers can determine whether it is reasoningand understanding that has led students to the ‘correct’ answer (a deep approach) rather thanmemorisation or a best guess (a surface approach). Students can also take a strategic approach totheir learning (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983; Saljo, 1979a, 1979b), in which they select theapproach that will help them achieve the best result given situational constraints and the nature
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
07:
56 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Higher Education Research & Development 33
of the task (much like a ‘satisficing’ approach to decision making in which a satisfactory ratherthan optimal solution is identified; March & Simon, 1958).
In recent years, another misalignment – between the needs of teachers and policy makers –has become evident. This misalignment may have emerged because too much emphasis is beingplaced on what policy makers do (managing) and not on what teachers do (teaching). The role ofthe academic developer has emerged to help bridge this gap between policy and practice.Academic developers and, in some cases, teachers, also contribute to policy development, whichmeans that these roles are often blurred.
To take our analogy further, we suggest that teachers can also adopt one of three approachesto teaching and learning initiatives: deep, surface or strategic. Our approach to implementingteaching and learning policy thus involves a shift in thinking analogous to that which hasreshaped educational researchers’ thinking about the relationship between teachers and students.We believe our ‘teacher-as-learner’ approach is applicable in the current higher educationalcontext for a number of reasons. First, many university teachers have not undertaken much, ifany, formal study in teaching. So, in this sense, many of us are indeed still learners in thediscipline of higher education. Second, with or without formal higher educational qualifications,we should be encouraged, like our students, to be ‘lifelong’ learners. Third, like our students, whoare evaluated on their learning performance through assessments, we are evaluated on ourteaching performance through formal student feedback mechanisms (which may be compulsory)and, in some cases, rewarded through excellence in teaching awards and funding.
If teachers can be viewed as learners, as we suggest, then the tools used to evaluate goodteaching should also be relevant to good teaching management. The CEQ, for instance, wasdesigned to collect student feedback about teaching and learning in specific subjects, and to helpmonitor the extent to which a curriculum and teaching approach has motivated students,encouraged them to take a deep approach to learning, and so forth. As shown in Table 1, the CEQcan be easily modified and used to check for alignment (or misalignment) between teachingpolicy and practice.
Many of the statements in the CEQ also resonate with key features of effective changemanagement. For instance, change managers need to motivate people to change (rather thanmerely telling them to change); consider the challenges and difficulties that will be faced inimplementing the new procedure; encourage feedback and act on it (Good teaching). Changemanagers need to effectively communicate why a particular change is required and how, specif-ically, it can be achieved (Clear goals). They should also demonstrate that they have understoodhow much time is needed to successfully implement the change and the various constraints thatinhibit the uptake of the change (Appropriate workload). Finally, change managers need to ensurethat performance appraisals are well suited to the requirements and context (Appropriate assess-ment). In other words, we argue that the CEQ principles of good teaching practice are essentiallythe same as those required for good management of teaching practice, reflecting the idea thatchange is primarily a learning process (Fullan, 1987).
In the following sections, we illustrate our ‘teacher-as-learner’ approach using a teaching andlearning initiative that has been, in our view, less than successful from a student learning andchange management perspective. We will use this case study to examine problems and issuessurrounding change initiatives in the higher educational context and explain how the adoption ofa teacher-as-learner approach might have led to a more successful outcome.
Graduate attributes, quality and quality assurance
A process that is undergoing significant change in the current higher educational context isembedding graduate attributes within curricula. Graduate attributes, as the core outcomes of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
07:
56 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
34 A. Harvey and P. Kamvounias
higher education, have been defined as ‘the skills, personal attributes and values which should beacquired by all graduates regardless of their discipline or field of study’ (HEC, 1992, p. 20).Although the importance of such a process seems obvious, success in this endeavour has provento be extremely elusive – even the ostensibly simple process of achieving consensus on whatconstitutes desirable graduate attributes has been contentious (Barrie, 2004; Bowden et al., 2000;Clanchy & Ballard, 1995).
The critical role of graduate attributes in student learning is reflected in their prominence inquality assurance activities (Barrie, 2005, p. 1). In Australia, since 1998, the federal governmenthas required universities to submit quality assurance plans that articulate graduate attributes andreport on how they are being embedded into curricula (DEST, 2002). Quality assurance audits,such as that undertaken by the Australian government through the independent body AustralianUniversities Quality Agency (AUQA), have become increasingly common around the world (see,for example, Bell & Taylor, 2005; Jones & de Saram, 2005; Saarinen, 2005). In addition to thesecompulsory audits, some universities, faculties and schools have also sought accreditation of theircurricula from external agencies such as AASCB (Association to Advance the Collegiate Schoolsof Business) and EQUIS (European Quality Improvement System). Despite the fact that qualityassurance measures have now started to pervade many aspects of academics’ teaching andresearch activities, policy makers (and teachers) are still grappling with how such policies can be
Table 1. Aspects of good teaching and good teaching management (adapted from Ramsden (1992).
Student-as-learner Teacher-as-learner
Good teaching
[Teachers] motivated me to do my best work.[Teachers] made a real effort to understand difficulties I might be having with my work.[Teachers] normally gave me helpful feedback on how I was going.
[Policy makers] motivated me to improve my teaching pedagogy.[Policy makers] made a real effort to understand the difficulties I might be having with putting the policy into practice.[Policy makers] gave me helpful feedback on how I implemented the policy.[Policy makers] were very good at explaining how to implement the policy.
Clear goals It was always easy to know the standard [of work] expected.I usually had a clear idea of where I was going and what was expected of me [in this subject].It was often hard to discover what was expected of me [in this subject].
It was always easy to know the standard [of work] expected.I usually had a clear idea of where I was going and what was expected of me to implement this policy and enhance my teaching practice.It was often hard to discover what was expected of me and how other teachers implemented this policy.
Appropriate workload
I was generally given enough time to understand the things I had to learn.There was a lot of pressure on me to [do well] in this [subject].The sheer volume of work to be got through in [this subject] meant it couldn’t all be comprehended thoroughly.
The sheer volume of work (and different kinds of responsibilities, e.g. teaching, research and administration) meant that I couldn’t devote much time to implementing this teaching policy.I was generally given enough time to understand the policy and how to use it to improve my teaching.
Appropriate assessment
[Teachers] seemed more interested in testing what I had [memorised] than what I had understood.[Too many teachers] asked me [questions] just about facts (rather than checking my understanding).
[Policy makers] seemed to be more interested in encouraging compliance than what I had understood.[Policy makers] required me to tick boxes rather than check my understanding.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
07:
56 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Higher Education Research & Development 35
implemented effectively (De La Harpe et al., 2000; Robley et al., 2005a, 2005b; Sumsion &Goodfellow, 2004).
Articulating and embedding graduate attributes within curricula is especially challengingbecause academics often do not share understandings of terms used for graduate attributes or howgraduate attributes can or cannot be integrated into curricula (Barrie, 2004; Bowden et al., 2000;Holmes, 2000). To overcome this problem, the University has developed and promoted acommon language to be used university-wide, which is based on phenomenographic research intoacademics’ different conceptualisations of graduate attributes (Barrie, 2004). Faculties have beenencouraged to translate the resultant five graduate attribute clusters (Personal and IntellectualAutonomy; Research and Inquiry; Ethical, Social and Professional Understanding; Communica-tion; and Information Literacy) into discipline-specific learning goals (see Figure 1). A commonlanguage, at both university and faculty levels, is important because it facilitates curriculummapping, the aim of which is to identify those generic skills and qualities that are being developedin specific programs and to detect gaps between what is being developed and what should bebeing developed (Biggs, 2003; Fallows & Steven, 2000; Robley, 2005a, 2005b; Sumsion &Goodfellow, 2004; Tariq et al., 2004).Figure 1. Section 3 of the TemplateLearning Goals[Academic Board requires each unit of study to state the learning goals, which will be a component of the Faculty’s graduate attributes. Assessment must be linked to the learning goals. Select up to six learning goals, and adapt as necessary.It is not necessary to take a learning goal from each graduate attribute.Each learning goal must have an associated graduate attribute and assessment.Assessment may include a final exam, research essay, group work project, case study, multiple-choice quiz, etc.Unfortunately, the solution to one problem can become the cause of another. A recent AUQAreport on the University indicated that graduate attributes had not yet significantly influencedteaching practice in the institution (AUQA, 2004). Academic developers and policy makers at theUniversity also acknowledge that the University, like many others, is struggling with the best wayto integrate generic attributes into subject level statements of learning outcomes. One reason forthe continuing struggle is that teachers have been known to resist graduate attributes terminology,interpreting it as having been generated by ‘select groups of staff engaging in nothing more rigor-ous than a form of brainstorming’ (Holmes, 2000, p. 205), although in the case described here,the resistance has been directed more towards the discipline-specific language than the Universitygraduate attributes terminology. This resistance can impact on teachers’ willingness to embracechange in a more profound way, beyond mere acceptance of terminology. From the teachers’perspective, resistance, in some cases, can be interpreted as a rational response to ineffectivechange management, as described below.
The subject outline template: a case study in embedding graduate attributes
In 2003, in the midst of intensive and, ultimately, successful, internal and external quality assur-ance activities, the University’s business faculty/school (‘the Faculty’) introduced and mandatedthe use of an undergraduate subject outline template. The template, has since been reviewed,2 wasdesigned to encourage best practice in teaching and learning and to communicate to studentsinformation considered to be critical, according to Academic Board policy and external qualityassurance reviews. The template included specific sections in which coordinators could insertdetails about their subject aims, topics and assessment; graduate attributes and learning goals; andother information typically provided to students. In Section 3 of the template (which is the focusof this paper), a table was provided in which coordinators could select the learning goals for theirsubject from a list of 25 faculty-specific learning goals (the left-most column in Figure 1), whichwere devised by a Faculty working party and related to the five broad graduate attribute clustersendorsed by the University (the centre column in Figure 1). Coordinators were instructed to selectup to six of these 25 learning goals, adapt them as necessary and link them to assessments (in theright-most column in Figure 1). Clearly, but without explicitly stating it, the table reflects aconstructive alignment approach to pedagogic practice (Biggs, 2003; Ramsden, 1992) (keepingin mind that what happens in the classroom and assessment are key factors that must also beconsidered in this process).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
07:
56 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
36 A. Harvey and P. Kamvounias
In the present study, we observed substantial confusion amongst coordinators with the tablein Section 3 and its relationship to the learning goals of their subjects. As noted above, it was theFaculty’s learning goals terminology rather than the graduate attributes clusters that met with themost resistance. (For instance, one could puzzle over the learning goal ‘Identify, define andanalyse problems and recommend creative solutions within real-world constraints’, wondering
Learning GoalsAcademic Board requires each unit of study to state the learning goals, which will be a component of the Faculty�s graduate attributes. Assessmentmust be linked to the learning goals. (a) Select up to six learning goals, and adapt as necessary.(b) It is not necessary to take a learning goal from each graduate attribute.(c) Each learning goal must have an associated graduate attribute and assessment.(d) Assessment may include a final exam, research essay, group work project, case study, multiple-choice quiz, etc. Learning goals Graduate attributes Assessment
1. Be open to new ways of thinking and appreciate the importance of intellectualcuriosity and reflection as the foundation for continuous learning.
2.
3. Demonstrate a willingness to meet new challenges and deadlines.
4. Demonstrate a capacity to work independently, including the ability to plan andachieve goals.
5. Display a commitment to achieving a broad vision that aims to balance personal,intellectual, emotional, physical and social needs, and that can be sustained.
Graduates will be able to workindependently andsustainably, in a way that isinformed by openness,curiosity and a desire to meetnew challenges.
6. Identify, define and analyse problems, and recommend creative solutions within real-world constraints.
7. Apply economic, political, legal, commercial and business theories and concepts toproblems and practice.
Critically evaluate underlying theories, concepts, assumptions, limitations andarguments in disciplinary and cross-disciplinary fields of study.
Demonstrate a commitment to lifelong learning through continuous reflection onpersonal and professional experiences, self-evaluation and self-improvement.
8.
9. Develop coherent arguments when recommending solutions and critically evaluatingtheories in major fields of study.
10. Appreciate the advancing nature of knowledge frontiers through research.
Research and inquiry
Ethical, social andprofessional understanding
Personal and intellectualautonomy
Graduates will be able tocreate new knowledge andunderstanding through theprocess of research and inquiry.
11. Display a deep respect for others and act with integrity in all aspects of their personaland professional life and contribute as a global citizen.
Demonstrate the capacity to deal with ethical and other issues in business,government and social contexts in relation to their personal and professional lives.
12.
13. Demonstrate an appreciation of the complex and dynamic nature of professionalwork.
14. Work with people from diverse backgrounds with inclusiveness, open-mindednessand integrity.
15. Demonstrate an ability to participate in a broad range of complex and changingsocial, political and economic contexts.
Graduates will hold personalvalues and beliefs consistentwith their role as responsiblemembers of local, national,international and professionalcommunities.
16. Appreciate that communication develops learning and learning communities.
17. Negotiate and create shared understandings by respectfully interacting with peoplefrom diverse backgrounds.
18. Confidently and coherently communicate, orally and in writing, to a professionalstandard in major fields of study.
19. Display leadership by inspiring others in personal, professional and global contexts.
20. Employ technologies effectively in communicating information relevant to practice inmajor fields of study.
CommunicationGraduates will recognise andvalue communication as a toolfor negotiating and creatingnew understanding, interactingwith others, and furtheringtheir own learning.
21. Conduct research using archives, libraries, the web and other sources of information.
22. Apply research principles and methods for gathering and analysing data/informationrelevant to major fields of study.
Employ technologies effectively in gathering information from written, oraland electronic sources.
23.
24. Manage, analyse, evaluate and use information efficiently and effectively.
25. Appreciate the economic, legal, social, ethical and cultural issues in the gatheringand use of information.
Information literacyGraduates will be able to useinformation effectively in arange of contexts.
Figure 1. Faculty subject outline template (Section 3).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
07:
56 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Higher Education Research & Development 37
whether it was important that the solutions be creative.) Furthermore, we, both being teacherswithin the Faculty with longstanding interest and experience in teaching and learning, feltsimilarly confused about how to bridge the gap between policy and practice. Consequently, ourobservations led us to study the table and accompanying instructions from a design and commu-nication perspective and analysed 20 completed subject outlines. We also held informal discus-sions with a number of coordinators. The discussions and analysis revealed that coordinators hadadopted one of three strategies: (1) They did not use the current version of the template; (2) theyused the current version of the template but adapted the table in a way that suggested partialcompliance (e.g. they moved columns around, ignored some of the instructions, or did not limittheir learning goals to six); or (3) they complied completely with the instructions.
In general, feedback from coordinators coincided with our own personal experience: ratherthan transforming their pedagogic practice and, as a result, student learning, this section of thetemplate (and the table in particular) seemed to encourage a compliance or ‘surface’ approach tothe initiative, supporting the view expressed in the AUQA report noted previously. In the follow-ing sections, we elaborate upon some of the major problems associated with the template and itsuse, and compare it with a different approach to the embedding of graduate attributes taken atanother Australian university.
A surface approach to teaching and learning
From a quality assurance perspective, our template has been more-or-less successful –completedtemplates can be collected, learning goals checked and gaps located – processes made easier bythe common language and table format. From a quality teaching perspective, however, thetemplate may have encouraged coordinators to adopt a surface compliance approach to aninitiative that, ideally, should have encouraged a deep approach to their pedagogic practice. Inthis section, we explore how quality became lost in the midst of quality assurance.
Analysis of the completed templates revealed that most coordinators confined themselves tothe common disciplinary language in the 25 learning goals, with only a few adapting the wordingof these learning goals even minimally. The result of this conformity was that learning goalsremained recognizable and, therefore, ‘mappable’. Unfortunately, the completed tables of themore compliant teachers looked exactly the same regardless of subject matter or year of study, soit was impossible to tell from Section 3 whether you were looking at a junior or senior subject inaccounting or in business law. In other words, many coordinators’ learning goals were so genericand anonymous as to be virtually meaningless. What was interesting was that many of thecoordinators were more likely to describe the ‘real’ learning goals of their subjects in othersections of the template (most notably in Section 4, headed ‘Explanation of Assessment’), typi-cally in language quite different from the common language imposed in Section 3. The implica-tion, therefore, is that many coordinators used one section of the template for quality assurancepurposes and another for quality purposes.
Furthermore, the simplicity of the table and assumptions underlying the instructions obscuredthe complex relations between learning goals, teaching activities and assessments such that coor-dinators could complete the table without any real understanding of constructive alignment. Morequestions were raised than answered; for instance: ‘Do I really have to choose only six learninggoals?’; ‘Why only six?’; ‘What if my own learning goals do not seem to fit?’; ‘Can I assume thatstudents have developed some of the more basic learning goals (e.g. communication) in othersubjects?’; and ‘Does the assessment of the learning goals have to be direct or can it be indirect?’
The extent to which coordinators limited the number of their learning goals suggests thattheir interpretations varied considerably: most chose around 10, whereas some selected asmany as 20 to 25. One of the reasons why some coordinators may have had difficulty in limiting
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
07:
56 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
38 A. Harvey and P. Kamvounias
their learning goals was that six of these learning goals (i.e. communication, problem solving,application of theory, information management, capacity to work both independently and inteams) seemed to be default insofar as they were chosen by all 20 coordinators regardless of sub-discipline or year of study. A dilemma for coordinators seems to have been whether to choosethese more basic learning goals (and over-run their quota) or merely indicate their ‘value-added’learning goals.
Owing to the simplistic nature of the table and the similar look of many of the completedtables, it was ultimately impossible to determine whether a coordinator had spent many hoursthinking about, or even ‘agonising’ over, how to constructively align their curriculum andimprove their teaching practice or whether they had taken a few minutes to tick the boxes in anuncritical manner. Either approach could have led to a similar result. The outcome for many wasticks in boxes without any real appreciation of the processes that led to those ticks. To paraphraseRowntree (1977), we might ask whether this section of the subject outline allowed the Facultyand the University to ‘know us’.
For many of our coordinators, the graduate attributes section of the template was seen as anexercise in compliance in which the needs of teachers were subjugated to the needs of those‘above’. This top-down approach neither motivated teachers to engage with the learning goals noradequately generated ownership of the change and seemed to be more ‘stick’ than ‘carrot’ (Elton,2003, p. 201). Furthermore, emotions were not managed effectively (Garvin & Roberto, 2005);many coordinators were confused, frustrated or uninspired and others simply resisted. As notedpreviously, motivation, ownership and managing mood are critical to the transformation under-lying effective learning and change. To make matters worse, adequate justification for the changewas not provided and important aspects of the new approach remained ambiguous or unex-plained. The apparent simplicity of the table worked against the success of the initiative, as thedesigners of the template did not appreciate that teachers are not only learners but sophisticatedlearners for whom simple solutions will not suffice. In the current higher educational environ-ment, many teachers are also strategic learners, who will adapt their approach according to thetask and situational constraints. Without clear explanations, adequate feedback and support,many coordinators put the task into the ‘too hard’ basket.
A deep approach to teaching and learning
In contrast to our template initiative was the approach taken in an education faculty/school atanother research-intensive university in Australia, as reported by Sumsion and Goodfellow(2004). These researchers asked teachers to complete a sophisticated matrix (based on Gibbs et al.(1994)) that drew upon their university’s generic skills list. The initial aim of the matrix was toquantify and map the results for 35 subjects. However, owing to the challenges faced by theresearchers and teachers, the project evolved into a collaboration that allowed for the explorationof the complexities involved in embedding graduate attributes into the curriculum.
As with the teachers in our study, the teachers in Sumsion and Goodfellow’s study (2004)held quite different interpretations of generic skills terminology and descriptors in the matrix but,unlike the teachers in our study, they were given more opportunity to discuss the ‘common’language, as well as some of its underlying assumptions, which led to a greater sense of owner-ship amongst the teachers. The discussions helped the researchers refine their matrix, resulting ina set of indicators designed to capture some of the complexities underlying constructivealignment; for example, whether the generic skills were ‘assumed’, ‘encouraged’, ‘modelled’,‘explicitly taught’, ‘required’ or ‘evaluated’ in the subjects. (In contrast, the only indicator in ourtemplate was ‘assessed’, although some of our coordinators used the table to indicate that someof their learning goals would be assessed ‘indirectly’.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
07:
56 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Higher Education Research & Development 39
As Sumsion and Goodfellow (2004) discovered during their consultations, some teachers‘agonized over the placement of ticks’ in the matrix, whereas others ‘seemed to tick routinelywith seemingly little justification of their decisions’ (p. 338). In our own teachers’ experience,these processes went more or less unnoticed by the template developers, whereas in their study,Sumsion and Goodfellow (2004) more fully appreciated that:
the success of the project would depend on [the] ability to engage…colleagues in its possibilities andto generate enthusiasm and commitment…Being able to draw on the reserves of trust and respect thatunderpinned…relationships with…colleagues was invaluable, especially during…early phases of theproject. (p. 336)
This grassroots approach to curriculum mapping was described by participating teachers as arewarding experience and as an opportunity for collegial dialogue and reflection that added valueto their teaching. One potential change that some teachers explicitly signalled was ‘adding a newsection [to subject outlines] that provided an overview of the generic skills and attitudes to befostered…and including objectives and criteria for assignments that referred specifically togeneric skills’ (Sumsion & Goodfellow, 2004, p. 339).
The irony is that a logical next step for the developers of such a matrix, or others taking asimilar approach, would be to refine and embed it within a subject outline template with a specific‘new section’ that deals with graduate attributes, possibly along the same lines as the table in ourtemplate. The risk is that, once a ‘refined’ matrix has emerged, the invaluable dialogue thatcontributed to its development that seems to have been extremely rewarding for their teachers,may be lost. Dialogue and reflection discourages teachers from adopting superficial strategiesthat lead to mere ‘ticks in boxes’.
What seems to be especially valuable about Sumsion and Goodfellow’s (2004) project isthat it transformed the ideas of both teachers and policy makers alike and, in our view, encour-aged teachers to take a deep approach to teaching and learning policy. Unlike the feelings ofdisempowerment and disenchantment of our teachers who were understandably tempted, oreven inadvertently forced, to adopt a compliance approach to the policy, their participatingteachers reportedly felt empowered and inspired because they were encouraged to takeownership of the ‘accountability agenda’ and to potentially transform their teaching and theirstudents’ learning.
Conclusion
The teaching and learning initiative described in this paper illustrates some of the challenges thatour Faculty and many others are confronting in relation to graduate attributes. Approaches toembedding graduate attributes into subject outlines can be seen as occupying points on a contin-uum – at one end is little or no reference to generic skills in curriculum documents and at the otheris a section in a template that contains a common language. Both approaches have costs and bene-fits. Our template is a move in the right direction as it is essential for students to receive informa-tion about the kinds of attributes and skills with which they are expected to graduate. Like Power(1994), however, we argue that policy makers need to be aware that ‘the very technologies ofaudit may paradoxically achieve the opposite of their intended effect’ (p. 36). In other words,quality may suffer at the hands of quality assurance. Our template has been very useful formapping (as long as teachers comply) and is not especially time-consuming, at least for thosetaking a surface approach. On the other hand, the approach reported by Sumsion and Goodfellow(2004), although more rewarding for teachers and transformative for those involved, was time-consuming and their final matrix did not yield the best outcome for mapping.
As Edwards (2002) has argued, however, ‘quality is not a bureaucratic complianceexercise…[it is] a professional responsibility and…an opportunity for review and improvement’
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
07:
56 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
40 A. Harvey and P. Kamvounias
(p. 229). Teachers have a pivotal role in teaching and learning and ‘ultimately it is academics[who] are held responsible for the performance of the university’ (Watty, 2003, p. 218).Unfortunately, teaching and learning policy makers often end up ‘preaching to the converted’,and it has been argued that ‘Damascus road conversions are too rare…to make them the basis ofa credible strategy’ (Elton, 2003, p. 201). In adopting a one-size-fits-all compliance approach toteaching and learning, policy makers may fail to convince the sceptics while potentially alienatingthose genuinely concerned about quality teaching.
To reflect the critical role of teachers, we have proposed a ‘teacher-as-learner’ approach thatshifts the emphasis away from what teaching and learning policy makers, committees andacademic developers do towards what teachers do. This approach mirrors the shift that has takenplace in the relationship between teachers and students in the ‘student-centred’ approach tolearning (Biggs, 2003). We have suggested that the CEQ is a useful model for evaluating thesuccess of teaching and learning initiatives. When developing and disseminating a policy, policymakers and others may well need to consider how teachers would respond to a ‘Teaching PolicyExperience Questionnaire’ comprised of questions that reflect educational concepts, such asconstructive alignment and deep and surface approaches to learning, as well as principles ofeffective change management. Although we have used graduate attributes policy in this paper toillustrate our ‘teacher-as-learner’ approach to policy implementation, other teaching and learningpolicies and initiatives could also be evaluated using this framework.
Experience has shown that teaching and learning initiatives are often viewed with scepti-cism and/or cynicism. Academics in research-intensive universities, in particular, are likely tobe strategic in their approach and to engage with teaching and learning initiatives if they areseen to be valued by the professions and fit comfortably with their research ethos (Elton, 2003,p. 205). In addition to effective change management and repositioning teachers as ‘lifelonglearners’, what might also be required to effect meaningful change in an increasingly competi-tive and time-pressured higher educational environment is more ‘carrots’ (i.e. genuine careerand financial opportunities) to appeal to the more extrinsically motivated, and send themessage that teachers are not expected to be motivated solely by their passion for teaching andlearning.
Notes
1. The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful feedback and encouragement from Mark Freeman andthe anonymous reviewers of this article.
2. The authors were invited to participate in this review.
References
Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA). (2004). Report of an audit of the University of Sydney.Melbourne: AUQA Audit Report No. 28.
Barrie, S.C. (2004). A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher EducationResearch & Development, 23(3), 261–275.
Barrie, S. (2005). Rethinking generic graduate attributes. HERDSA News, 27(1), 1–6.Bell, E., & Taylor, S. (2005). Joining the club: The ideology of quality and business school badging.
Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 239–255.Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd edn). Berkshire: The Society for
Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Bowden, J., Hart, G., King, B., Trigwell, K., & Watts, O. (2000). Generic capabilities of ATN university
graduates. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Retrieved October 15 2007, from http://www.clt.uts.edu.au/ATN.grad.cap.project.index.html
Clanchy, J., & Ballard, B. (1995). Generic skills in the context of higher education. Higher EducationResearch & Development, 14(2), 155–166.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
07:
56 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
Higher Education Research & Development 41
Covin, T., & Kilmann, R. (1990). Participant perceptions of positive and negative influences on large-scalechange. Group & Organization Studies, 15(2), 233–248.
Crimmel, H. (1984). The myth of the teacher-scholar. Liberal Education, 70, 183–198.De La Harpe, B., Radloff, A., & Wyber, J. (2000). Quality and generic (professional) skills. Quality in
Higher Education, 6(3), 231–243.Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2002). Striving for quality: Learning, teaching
and scholarship. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Edwards, H. (2002). Quality and academic programmes. Proceedings of the 2002 Annual International
Conference of the Higher Education Research & Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA),229–237.
Elton, L. (2003). Dissemination of innovations in higher education: A change theory approach. TertiaryEducation and Management, 9(3), 199–214.
Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.Fallows, S., & Steven, C. (Eds.). (2000). Integrating key skills in higher education: Employability,
transferable skills and learning for life. London: Kogan Page.Fullan, M. (1987). Implementing educational change: What we know. Planning for the implementation of
educational change, World Bank Seminar.Garvin, D., & Roberto, M. (2005). Change through persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 104–112.Gibbs, G., Rust, C., Jenkins, A., & Jacques, D. (1994). Developing students’ transferable skills. Oxford:
The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.Higher Education Council Australia (HEC). (1992). Achieving quality. Canberra: Australian Government
Printing Service.Holmes, L. (2000). Questioning the skills agenda. In S. Fallows & C. Steven (Eds.), Integrating key skills
in higher education: Employability, transferable skills and learning for life (pp. 201–214). London:Kogan Page.
Jones, J., & de Saram, D. (2005). Academic staff views of quality systems for teaching and learning: AHong Kong case study. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 47–58.
Lueddeke, G.R. (1999). Toward a constructivist framework for guiding change and innovation in highereducation. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(3), 235–260.
March, J.G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning. I: Outcome and process. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning. II: Outcome as a function of the
learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.Newton, J. (2000). Feeding the beast or improving quality? Academics’ perceptions of quality assurance
and quality monitoring. Quality in Higher Education, 6(2), 153–163.Newton, J. (2003). Implementing an institution-wide learning and teaching strategy: Lessons in managing
change. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 427–441.Power, M. (1994). The audit explosion. London: Demos.Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.Robley, W., Whittle, S., & Murdoch-Eaton, D. (2005a). Mapping generic skills curricula: A recommended
methodology. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(3), 221–231.Robley, W., Whittle, S., & Murdoch-Eaton, D. (2005b). Mapping generic skills curricula: Outcomes and
discussion. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(4), 321–330.Rowntree, D. (1977). Assessing students: How shall we know them? London: Harper & Row.Saarinen, T. (2005). From sickness to cure and further: Construction of ‘quality’ in Finnish higher
education policy from the 1960s to the era of the Bologna process. Quality in Higher Education, 11(1),3–15.
Saljo, R. (1979a). Learning in the learner’s perspective I – some common-sense conceptions, Reportsfrom the Institute of Education, No. 76. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Department ofEducation.
Saljo, R. (1979b). Learning in the learner’s perspective. II: Differences in awareness. Reports from theInstitute of Education, No. 77. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, Department of Education.
Sumsion, J., & Goodfellow, J. (2004). Identifying generic skills through curriculum mapping: A criticalevaluation. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 329–346.
Tariq, V., Scott, E., Cochrane, A., Lee, M., & Ryles, L. (2004). Auditing and mapping key skills withinuniversity curricula. Quality Assurance in Education, 12, 70–81.
Watty, K. (2003). When will academics learn about quality? Quality in Higher Education, 9(3), 213–221.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
07:
56 0
6 Se
ptem
ber
2014
