Project Cover Sheet

Report on the Responsiveness Workshop, March 2009

ProjectProject Title Supporting Responsive CurriculaStart Date Sept 2008 End Date July 2012Lead Institution Manchester Metropolitan UniversityProject Director Dr Mark StubbsProject Manager Robin JohnsonProject Web URL http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/src/

DocumentDocument Title Report on the Responsiveness Workshop, March 09Author(s) & project role

Alan Paull (Information Management Consultant, APS Ltd)

Date 24 April 2009

Filename ReponsivenessWorkshopMarch09_Reportv1.docx

Access √ Project and JISC internal

General dissemination

Document HistoryVersion Date Comments

v1 24 Apr 09 Draft

ContentsIntroduction.......................................................................................................2

Attendees.........................................................................................................2

Format of workshop..........................................................................................2

Results.............................................................................................................3

Statements about what responsiveness means from various perspectives. .3

Issues and tensions.......................................................................................5

Appendix 1: Attendees.....................................................................................7

Appendix 2: Agenda.........................................................................................8

Appendix 3: Presentations................................................................................9

1

Supporting Responsive Curricula Project

Responsiveness Workshop, March 2009

Report

Introduction 1. This document reports on the outputs of the Responsiveness Workshop for

Manchester Metropolitan University’s Supporting Responsive Curricula Project held on 13 March 2009. Its purpose is to describe the issues discussed at the meeting and to provide further stimulus for discussion, rather than to draw specific conclusions or calls for action. The results have been kept deliberately succinct, so that they may be readily addressable. It may also be helpful to read this document alongside the earlier document “Initial Systems Definitions and Modelling” presented in January 2009 (see Appendix 3).

2. The workshop was set in the context of a work strand that intended to:

establish baseline process models for curriculum design and approvals and responsiveness measures for evaluation later;

review curriculum design responsiveness measures;

identify course team views on agile curriculum priorities.

3. A baselining workshop was held in the previous week and has been reported upon separately.

4. The purpose of the workshop was for stakeholders to try to define what responsiveness means or might mean to MMU in terms of its curriculum development activity. It is envisaged that a further workshop will be held to reflect on work to date and to address measures of responsiveness.

Attendees5. Attendees were an eclectic mix of academic, administrative, operational and

managerial staff at many levels of practice, including the most senior. Attendees are listed at Appendix 1.

Format of workshop6. The workshop consisted of a structured brainstorm to develop some responsiveness

statements or themes that could be applied later. The participants then broke into groups to review one or two illustrative scenarios of practice in curriculum development, reflecting on the responsiveness themes developed earlier. The scenarios are available at http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/src/?page_id=142. The groups reported back in a final plenary session and reviewed the statements in the light of discussions. Workshop agenda is at Appendix 2.

7. Alan and Charlie Paull, together with Robin Johnson and Rachel Forsyth, facilitated the workshop and led the group discussions.

2

8. Owing to the many issues raised and the necessity for further reflection and discussion, specific conclusions were not drawn and definitions were not ranked.

3

Results9. The results are presented in the form of statements about, or definitions of, what

responsiveness means, together with some text to clarify the meaning, followed by a list of issues or tensions. It may be important that the University identifies where it stands and where it wants to be with respect to the various tensions and moves in an appropriate direction.

10. There was a high level of dialogue involving all participants, and a large amount of good quality material was gathered.

11. The material has been drawn from the raw notes and discussions on the day. The latter were encapsulated in a final PowerPoint slide, indicating that responsiveness means…

Recognising and taking opportunities

Reacting rapidly to external demands from learners and employers

Reacting rapidly to internal demands

Telling people internally and externally what can be done

Providing well-defined structures for long courses with up-front QA and “QA in process” for short courses

Providing and publicising information about the structures, processes, schedules and parameters of exceptions and exemptions plus accountability

Encouraging and supporting risk-taking and change

Feeding back the effects of change and assessing its success.

These rough statements have been refined by further reflection and consideration of the issues discussed during the workshop.

Statements about what responsiveness means from various perspectives

12. The headings for the statements are:

Overall definition Pro-active engagement Feedback and testing Providing well-defined structures Empowerment.

13. These statements are not presented in ranked order. A specific group perspective has been added to each statement where possible.

14. Those to whom the University was trying to respond (stakeholders), included employers, students (potential and current), other bodies, such as professional statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs), as well as internal academic, support, administrative and managerial staff.

4

Overall definition15. Responsiveness means being able to make changes, to innovate, to introduce new

units and programmes quickly with adequate levels of scrutiny and within reasonable planning frameworks.

Pro-active engagement16. Marketing perspective: Creating a persona that students, employers and the general

public feel is approachable, that will listen to comments, questions and requests, and that will react positively, appropriately and in a timely fashion.

17. Students and employers perspective: Pro-actively engaging with current and potential students and employers to find out what they want. Reacting rapidly to external demands from learners and employers.

Feedback and testing18. Management perspective: Feeding back the effects of change and assessing its

success against measures of responsiveness.

Providing well-defined structures19. Front line staff perspective: An organisational structure (roles, teams, committees,

hierarchies) that:

is transparent and helpful to staff when they seek to respond effectively and rapidly to the needs of potential students and employers by providing curriculum components;

provides well-defined structures for long courses with up-front QA and “QA in process” for short courses;

provides and publicises information about the structures, processes and schedules relevant to curriculum management and approval, with clear lines of responsibility and accountability, together with clear parameters for exceptions and exemptions from procedures.

20. Front line staff perspective: It is important that front line staff know who to talk to internally to obtain relevant information.

21. Senior management perspective: Appropriate level of structure, team-working and systems required, with a creative tension between diversity and uniformity.

Empowerment22. Front line staff perspective: Staff should own the processes, so that they know where

they can be flexible and take risks, where they cannot, and where the accountability lies. Upon this lie the basis of trust, the basis of information and the basis of processes that promote effectiveness in speed of response.

23. Entrepreneurial perspective: Recognising and taking student centred opportunities quickly. Internal champions for change might help.

24. Senior management perspective: Encouraging and supporting risk-taking and change.

25. Student perspective: More ideas would be generated if students were engaged and empowered by giving them more responsibility for their own learning.

5

Issues and tensions

Standardisation vs Bespoke26. Does standardisation have to be constraining? Does ‘bespoke’ mean breaking the

rules?

Controlling vs Facilitating27. Managers of curriculum development can exercise control or can act in a facilitating

fashion. This is a cultural issue, expressed as “I must comply!” with a concomitant reaction against compliance from some staff.

28. Those at the centre should invite innovation, not police change.

Rigid structure and methods vs Need to respond and risk-taking29. Curriculum development and approval could be risk based and trust based, rather

than rigid and rule based. There could be effective local risk management, based on staff development, confidence and accountability, with set parameters and monitoring against them.

30. Could there be a method of reconciling these two ideas? Perhaps it would be possible to construct a structure in which things can change. One concept put forward was of a watertight empty box created by the following constraints (considered as six walls):

Academic standards

Financial exposure

Quality of student experience

Capability of supporting ICT systems

The project or programme objectives

Parameters of performance before alarms are triggered.

Requirement for rapid reactions vs Length and intransigence of processes

31. The required processes are viewed as dampening the university’s capability to react rapidly to internal or external demands. Committee structures lead to poor communications, which are often better handled on a one-to-one basis.

32. If academics and administrators can work together successfully in teams, a cultural issue, speed might be increased. Bottlenecks can be created due to not sharing responsibilities.

Academic standards vs cost33. Current processes are seen as expensive and time consuming, but also as

necessary for the maintenance of academic standards.

Long qualification-bearing programmes (particularly undergraduate) vs short courses

34. Approval processes are designed around the former and are focused almost entirely on them.

6

Technology35. Technology enables the capture of ideas immediately, to flag changes and to

publicise things.

36. Technological tools need the process context, so that staff know where they fit in, and they will need management, maintenance and development in response to staff and to usage.

37. Technology may enhance the student experience and enable more involvement of students in the curriculum development process.

7

Appendix 1: AttendeesRob Baker

Kevin Bonnett

Robin Johnson

Mark Langan

Liz Marr

Cathy Parker

Steve Bainbridge

Margaret Fowler

Mike McGarry

Charlie Paull

Mark Stubbs

James Winter

Janet Edgar

Rachel Forsyth

Gary Hughes

Mary Meldrum

Alan Paull

Helen Rowe

8

Appendix 2: Agenda

Supporting Responsive Curricula Project

Responsiveness workshop13 March 2009

CeLT room, 2nd Floor, Cavendish Street Building

COFFEE

9:30 Welcome and Introduction to the workshop

9: 45 Brainstorm – what is responsiveness?1. Generate and record ideas on a white board (no holds

barred, no rejections, no criticisms)2. Clarify the ideas, put flesh on some of them3. From the ideas, draw out themes to give the individual

ideas some coherence

Outputs: Statements about what responsiveness means from various perspectives (themes)

10:30 BREAK FOR COFFEE

10:45 Group work3 pre-set groups

Activity: Review ‘scenarios of practice’ against the responsiveness themes, asking participants to bear in mind their own knowledge of the current processes and systems. Rank the responsiveness themes.

Outputs: Comments on the scenariosComments on the responsiveness themesRanking of the themes

11: 30 PlenaryReport back from groupsDiscuss rankings, particularly any variations between

groupsDiscuss any major issues from scenario commentsNext steps for the projectWrap up

9

Appendix 3: Presentations38. Below is an embedded PowerPoint presentation used as an introduction to the

workshop.

39. Below is the earlier document “Initial Systems Definitions and Modelling” presented in January 2009. This material was produced prior to the workshop.

10