Connecting Worlds: the convergence of goalsof university professors, faculty development and institutional educational

policy

Heather FryCentre for Educational DevelopmentImperial College Londonh.fry@imperial.ac.ukBarcelona 2007

Main Areas

• Focus on experience at Imperial College London

• Case study of Imperial’s Learning and Teaching Strategy

• How the LTS is created and implemented

• Imperial’s case in wider perspective

• The role of a central educational unit in the process

• Key lessons

Background about Imperial

13,293 Students in 2006-7

Batchelor’s Master’s PhD

Full time 8,345 1,759 2,204

Part time - 491 494

Background about Imperial

Mission

‘Imperial College London embodies and delivers world class scholarship, education and research in science, engineering and medicine, with particular regard to their application in industry, commerce and healthcare. We foster inter -disciplinary working internally and collaborate widely externally.’

Background about Imperial

• Ranked 3rd or 4th in UK; 9th in the world (THES 2006)

• There is strong local autonomy in departments and faculties

• The ‘centre’ and the faculties are a classic case of being ‘loosely coupled’ (Becher & Kogan, 1992)

The Role of the National Funding Council

• The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) distributes government funds to English institutions for teaching - and research

• In 1999 HEFCE required all institutions to produce a three year Learning and Teaching Strategy in return for earmarked funding that was proportionate to student numbers

• This initiative is now in its third round

HEFCE’s Current ‘Required’ LTS Priorities

• Ensuring that teaching is informed and enriched by research;

• Supporting continuing professional development activity, enabling staff to meet agreed national teaching standards and building a record of attainment against these standards;

• Broadening the learning experience through support for student volunteering;

• Supporting success and progression for students with diverse needs.

• Showing a ‘duty for equality’(HEFCE 2006/11)

Imperial’s LTS Priorities for 2006-9

A. Continued enhancement of e-learning

B. Supporting university application, success and progression for students with diverse needs

C. Enhancing the profile of teaching

D. Supporting continuing professional development in learning and teaching for staff, including enabling them to meet national standards and keep a record of attainment

E. Maintaining and enhancing the links between research and teaching

Imperial’s LTS Priorities for 2006-9F. Broadening the learning experience through

student volunteering

G. Maintaining College membership and participation in national learning, teaching and student support and student experience related bodies

H. Continued action to support and embed the need to meet a positive duty for equality

HOW priorities are determined is vital (Gibbs, 2001)

‘Each Faculty and School determines its plans and priorities for learning and teaching within the overall College direction and goals and has a distinctive approach to its educational mission compatible with its disciplinary base’ (Quote from 2006-9 Imperial LTS)

Creating the LTS

• High level meetings and buy-in

• Contributes to goals of ‘corporate/academic’ plan

• Integrates with other strategies

• Takes account of previous LT Strategies

• Plurality and Consensus

• Broad brush – detail may vary locally

• Institutional ‘take’ on national guidelines

Creating the LTS, continued

• Seizes opportunity to achieve things the institution wants

• The LTS is kept fairly low key

• Distributes funds and initiatives widely (or opportunity to acquire funds or participate in initiatives)

• Uses a proportion of funding for central initiatives/units

• Looks further ahead than three years

Implementation and Evaluation at Imperial• The strategy has elements that are not HEFCE funded –

HEFCE, central and ‘local’ funds are needed

• Having some money to use to achieve targets is vital

• Specific targets have a named person/position responsible for overseeing delivery

• Some Faculties and departments have their own strategies that fit with the College strategy

• Management Group Meetings, 3 annually: monitors progress to targets, evaluations, and if usage is becoming embedded

• HEFCE Annual Monitoring Statement submission

• Disseminate successes

Other Approaches

Many institutions:

• Use much more central direction and demand detailed compliance – less local variation allowed

• Place more (overt) emphasis on centrally desired innovation and change planned through the LTS

• Distribute higher proportions of funding through competitive bids - that have to comply with institutional priorities

The Role of the Centre for Educational Development at Imperial – generally to:

• Work collaboratively across the College

• Help the College shape and fulfil its educational aspirations

• Run effective educational professional development opportunities for staff, e.g. workshops, programmes, networks

• Offer expertise in educational matters and about professional development opportunities

• Assist the College in meeting its obligations to external agencies

• Help raise the profile of learning and teaching

• Promote educational research and scholarship

How CED Fulfils it’s General Role

• We seek to emphasise enhancement and good practice based on research, evidence and example

• We see the enhancement of student learning as being the goal of all that we do

• We seek to establish credibility – through working history and educational expertise

• Participation in virtually everything we do is voluntary

How CED Fulfils it’s General Role (continued)

• We try to balance supporting people in achieving ‘necessary’ goals (e.g. quality assurance), with out being seen as ‘enforcers’. This is problematic

• We do not claim to be experts about the content or minutiae of teaching of every discipline

• Lecturers/departments make their own decisions about how they organise curricula and conduct teaching and assessment, within the College degree regulations

CED involvement with the LTS• Co-ordinates and supports a teaching enhancement

fund• Raises awareness and promotes discussion about

the links between teaching and research• Offers an accredited professional development

programme in learning and teaching• One person is a member of steering group for maths

technology project• LTS money supports two posts in CED• I edit and draft the ideas of all contributors to the

strategy into the final form for agreement, and am a member of the management group (Percival and Tucker 2004)

Some Concluding Points

• Devote great care to the process of creation – achieve buy-in

• Tailor process and content to institution

• Include as part of the package money and support for some of the initiatives – distribute across institution

• Back up with detailed targets and implementation plans

• Some external pressure can be helpful, but be creative in using this to own advantage

• Local evaluation and central monitoring may aid ‘embedding’

References

• Becher, T and Kogan, M (1992) Process and Structure in Higher Education; Routledge

• Gibbs, G (2001) Strategies for learning and teaching in higher education. A guide to good practice; HEFCE (2001/37)

• HEFCE (2006) Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund; HEFCE (2006/11)

• Percival, F and Tucker, S (2004) ‘Developing institutional policy and strategy for academic development’, pp 18-35 in Baume, D and Kahn, P, (Eds) Enhancing Staff and Educational Development; RoutledgeFalmer

• Times Higher Education Supplement (2006) World University Rankings; THES

Heather FryCentre for Educational Development, Imperial College LondonBarcelona 2007