trials and tribunals: consensus seeking in the approval of course design in higher education

Trials and tribunals: consensus seeking in the approval of course design in Higher Education

Richard PountneySheffield Hallam University

2 December 2013

Research QuestionsResearch Question Case Methods1. What are the characteristics of the teaching practices that have helped to shape the educational beliefs and values that academics bring to curriculum design in higher education?

CS1: Cross-institution (n=10) Case Study in curriculum sharing

Discussion groupsInterviewsCourse design texts

2. What are the characteristics of course planning practices in a UK higher education institution and how are curricular forms generated?

CS2 Part 1: Single institution Case Study in curriculum design

InterviewsCourse design texts

3. What are the characteristics of curriculum approval practices in a UK higher education institution, and how do academics interpret and respond to this in reproducing the curriculum?

CS2 Part 2: Single institution Case Study in curriculum approval

InterviewsCourse design textsAPE observations

PRODUCT PROCESS

INDIVIDUALISED INTERACTIONAL

TRADITIONAL EMERGING

SOCIAL PRACTICE

INTENDED LIVED

HIDDEN OPEN

Curriculum as an idea in practice

Curriculum influences

Organising principles

Evaluation Modelling

COHERENCE

PEDAGOGIC ACADEMIC IDENTITY DEVELOPMENT

CULTURE SOCIALISATION

QUALITY DISCIPLINE

PLANNING / DESIGN COLLABORATION

ASSESSMENT STUDENTS

EMPLOYABILITY

Key concepts from the literature

Conceptual Framework• Critical realism as an ontological perspective: the key concept of emergence is discussed

and Archer’s morphogenetic cycle is outlined.• Social realism as an epistemological perspective and explanatory framework: Bourdieu’s

practice theory and the key concepts of field, habitus and doxa are explained. Bernstein’s code concepts, including the pedagogic device, are introduced and their value to the study is identified. This theory is extended to include Maton’s Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) and its epistemic pedagogic device and codes (specialisation, semantics and autonomy).

• Institutional rationality as an organising framework: drawing on institutional rationality in relation to the legitimation of curriculum authority and expertise. This is then examined from the perspective of autonomy and the key concepts of collegiality, bureaucracy and consensus are identified as the organising framework for the empirical work of this study.

Meta-theories, theories and substantive theories (Maton, 2013a: 15)

Time CourseApproval

Lived curriculum

Intended curriculum

Enacted curriculum

Phase 1: Cross-institution Case Study

Phase 2: Single Institution Case Study

Phase 3: APE

APE = Approval Panel Event

Empirical Stages

Data Collection PhasesPhase 1: Case Study of cross-institution curriculum sharing (CS1)

Purpose: to explore characteristics of the collegially focused culture for course designMethod: discussion groups, interviews, and course design textsParticipants: 12 teachers (social science) from 10 UK HEI in two groups:Group A: the ‘Sharers’ - 6 teachers (A1-A6) from 6 UK HE institutions (I1-I6) exploring making their course designs ‘open’ Group B: the ‘Cascaders’ - 6 teachers (B1-B6) from 3 UK HE institutions (I7-I9B) exploring the use of the course designs ‘of others’

Phase 2: Case Study in an institutional context (CS2 part 1)Purpose: to explore characteristics of the bureaucratically focused culture for course designMethod: interviews, course design texts, Participants: 16 teachers from 1 UK HEI (I10) in two groups:Group C: the ‘Approved’ - 9 teachers (C1-C9) from 7 courses (CPT4-11) exploring the course design and approval process Group D: the ‘Approval seekers’ - 7 teachers (D1-D7) from 3 course teams (CPT1,2,3) in 1 UK HE institution (I10) exploring the process of course approval

Phase 3: Case Study in an institutional context (CS2 part 1)Purpose: to explore characteristics of the consensus-seeking focused culture for course design Method: interviews, course design texts, observations of approval eventsParticipants: 17 teachers from 1 UK HEI (I10) in two groupsGroup D: the ‘Approval seekers’ - 7 teachers (D1-D7) from 3 course teams (CPT1,2,3) in 1 UK HE institution (I10) exploring the process of course approvalGroup E: the ‘Approvers’ - 10 teachers (E1-E10) exploring the experience of ‘approving’ courses

7

Module/ Type of material Pedagogical Units

Pedagogical Activity Assessment

OER_01: Visual Anthropology (20 credits) [module handbook, lecture slides, video]

12 units (2 hours each)

lectures; learning activities; tutorials; exercises; readings

2 tasks: Essay (50%), Examination (50%)

OER_03: Exploring Religions and Cultures (20 credits) [module handbook]

15 units(2 hours each)

Lectures; learning activities; discussion; comparison; revision; thinking questions; readings

2 tasks: Portfolio (50%); Critical review (50%)

OER_04: Sociology of Health and Illness (10 credits) [module outline, lecture slides]


Lectures; guided discussion; readings

1 task: Essay (100%)

OER_05: Sociology of Human Reproduction (10 credits)[module outline, lecture slides]



1 task: Examination (100%)

OER_06: Gender and Society (10 credits)[module outline, lecture slides, reflection sheet]



3 tasks: Learning diary (60%), Essay (10%); Essay (30%)

OER_07: Comparative Sociology (10 credits) [module outline, lecture slides]



1 task: Examination (100%)

Sharing and making open the curriculum

http://learning-connections.co.uk/csap_oer/csap_toolkit/mapping.html

http://learning-connections.co.uk/csap_oer/csap_toolkit/mapping.html

8

Course Team

Course Title Level

Subject Area / Discipline

Awards

Modules

Total Pages

Total Words

Course ..Rationale

CPT1 International Relations UG Politics 1 31 170 52,000 2,700

CPT2 Geography, Housing, Environment and Planning

UG Environment and Planning

7 76 517 154,000 4,300

CPT3 English Language Teaching PG English 1 7 63 16,000 2,400

CPT4 Social Science Research PG Social Science 7 9 76 23,000 3,700

CPT5 Autism UG Education 1 6 55 16,000 2,200

CPT6 Education PG Education 12 40 502 157,000 6,300

CPT7 Criminology UG Criminology 4 94 569 177,000 5,000

CPT8 Applied Social Science UG Social Science 13 136 724 218,000 8,800

CPT9 Performing Arts FD Performing Arts 2 10 106 28,000 2,000

CPT10 Built Environment UG Built Environment 9 81 574 164,000 7,500

CPT11 Contemporary Fine Art UG Fine Art 3 10 82 27,000 2,000

CPT12 Public Services: Policing Studies

FD Social Science 2 15 146 42,000 9,100

Course documentation

Analytical stages in the study

Thematic analysis of the data

Concept and field position Description Coding categories sorted under the concept

‘Collegially focused’ field position

Features of the ‘collegially focused’ culture as embodied by teachers prior experiences in the ‘lived’ curriculum

1.1 Context1.2 Curriculum1.3 Teaching1.4 Discipline1.5 Exchange1.6 Knowing1.7 Description

‘Bureaucratically focused’ field position

Features of the ‘bureaucratically focused’ culture embodied by teachers’ practices and dispositions in the ‘intended / formal’ curriculum

2.1 Teacher identity2.2 Autonomy2.3 Pedagogy2.4 Curriculum development2.5 Discipline2.6 Approval2.7 Metaphor

‘Consensus- seeking focused’ field position

Teachers’ experiences of and responses to the meeting of the collegial and bureaucratic focus culture in the Approval process (including pedagogical adjustments and identity conflicts)

3.1 Challenge3.2 Consensus3.3 Conflict3.4 Strategy3.5 Expertise3.6 Coherence3.7 Change

Examples from the coding scheme

Code Description Example quote from data1.2 Curriculum

[category set]This set of codes identifies issues related to curriculum

‘It was really around one of the Housing & Planning modules where we realised that we hadn’t exchanged our practice within the department so we began to get a debate going about that ...’

1.2.1 Lived / informal [category sub code]

Responses coded as informal / lived curriculum and formal / intended curriculum

‘I think I pretty much used the content of what I had been doing before but the advantages to it becoming a module I think were first of all that we got a timetabled slot and that meant that students took it more seriously ...’

1.2.2 Intended / formal [category sub code]

What teachers say about the formal curriculum

‘The module in the first, when we first put it forward for the reapproval, was pretty much the module that had run in the old form. However very close to it being revalidated it was suddenly thought “could this module be rolled out across the whole programme?”’

1.3 Teaching [category set]

This category codes statements that teachers make about teaching

‘Lectures were very clearly about putting as much information on the slides as I possibly could so that if I didn’t deliver the material appropriately the students still had it because it was written.’

1.3.1 Teacher role [category sub code]

Coding of data related to teacher role

‘It was literally “you’ve been hired and we want you to deliver these 5 modules. Here they are, go and deliver them.” I was literally a week ahead of the students’

1.3.2 Experience[category sub code]

Coding of data related to the experience of teaching

‘I was preparing the material for next week the week before and I was reading and adjusting and adapting because, although the material was very good, I couldn’t just pick it up and deliver it because I didn’t know the background to it’.

Strong classification and framing for course design and approval

Concept Degree of emphasis in course on:

Stronger Classification (+C) - boundaries between

Everyday and educational knowledges (specialised)

Specialist curriculum knowledge (including academic development) is emphasised in the design and approval of courses (as opposed to general experience of teaching in HE)

Different forms of educational knowledge in a curriculum

Discipline knowledge is downplayed as the basis for knowledge in the curriculum (as opposed to those genericised forms specified externally)

Stronger Framing (+F) -control over

Selecting content knowledge Curriculum content knowledge is determined by the syllabus (documented forms) (as opposed to being selected by the teacher ad hoc)

Sequencing and pacing the teaching of content knowledge

The organisation and structure of the curriculum is set by the institution rather than the teacher

Making evaluative criteria explicit The form and focus of assessment is controlled by the institution rather than the teacher

Regulating the teacher’s conduct in pedagogical relationship

The teacher’s conduct is regulated by the institution via a hierarchy (authority for approving courses resides in institution)

Classification (C) Framing (F)Concept manifested – Strength of boundaries between

Indicators Example quotes from empirical data

Concept manifested –Degree of teacher control in:

Indicators Example quotes from empirical data

Everyday and educational knowledges (specialised)

+C General experience of teaching in higher education is little valued in the course approval context

‘It wasn’t until I had to write my validation document that I realised that module documents really meant anything’

selecting content knowledge

+F Content knowledge is determined mainly by the syllabus (documented forms).

‘Students should be able to have a clear understanding of what is going to be taught, and this should be based on the whim or research hobby of the teacher’

-F Teachers are able to select content for themselves

‘we had developed a set of lectures given by well known names and this was filmed and played to the students each year’

-C General experience of teaching in higher education is highly valued in the course approval context

‘What has become apparent over time is how crucial an understanding of these concepts is to how students learn’

sequencing and pacing the teaching of content knowledge

+F Elements of the curriculum are mandated by the institution

‘Developing students who are employable is a key driver for this university. It makes sense to have work-related and work-based learning activities in key modules’

-F The sequencing and/or pacing of learning is mainly determined by the teacher

‘I guess there are lots of ways to do it [employability] and lots of ways that students can bring it into their assignments. It’s more of a theme than content itself’

Different forms of educational knowledge in a curriculum

+C Knowledge gained in developing one’s own subject content is of little relevance in approving the subject content of others

‘It doesn’t help when someone who specialises in astro-physics is telling you what to do in a subject they know nothing about’

making evaluative criteria explicit

+F The institution makes evaluative criteria clear and explicit to teachers

‘It’s very clear that students are being over-assessed and that for some students it is all essay, essay, essay ....’

-F Evaluative criteria are open-ended and interpreted by teachers

‘I need to make sure that students really engage with the module so I include a work diary as a extra element that they have to hand in. That way I know they’ve done it’

-C Knowledge gained in developing one’s own subject content is highly relevant to approving the subject content of others

‘I feel that having led the development of my own courses and being part of a number of revalidation panels that I am able to spot the weaknesses, and advise others’

regulating the teacher’s conduct in pedagogical relationship

+F A strong hierarchy is maintained between institution and teacher

‘What we want to do is make the expectations of [tutor] contact time clearer to students. And this needs to be a number of hours at specified times’

-F A weak hierarchy exists between institution and teacher

‘it’s a joint partnership [between the teacher and the university] ... you know, the people that I work with are professional adult educators so I learn from them, they learn from me.’

Note: +/- indicates ‘stronger/weaker’

Manifestation of positional and relational autonomy of course design and approval

Theoretical concept

Degree of emphasis on:

Stronger Positional Autonomy(PA+)

Curriculum Teacher determines the basis for forms of content knowledge

Pedagogy Teaching of content knowledge based on established ‘repertoire’ (habitus) (rather than new practice)

Assessment Evaluative criteria aligned with teachers’ (rather than the institution’s or external) needs

Stronger Relational Autonomy(RA+)

Curriculum Discipline is the basis for forms of content knowledge (rather than educational policy)

Pedagogy Teaching of content knowledge based on disciplinary pedagogic (rather than economic or other factors’) needs

Assessment Evaluative criteria aligned to meet disciplinary pedagogical (as opposed to external factors such as economy) needs

POSITIONAL AUTONOMY (PA) RELATIONAL AUTONOMY (RA)Concept Manifested –Emphasis on:

Indicators Example quotes from empirical data in this study

Concept Manifested –Emphasis on:

Indicators Example quotes from empirical data in this study

Curriculum Teacher determines the basis for forms of content knowledge

PA+ Discipline emphasised as determining form of legitimate educational knowledge

‘there were essential topics that we knew we had to cover, and we’ve included these for a number of years’

Discipline is the basis for forms of content knowledge

RA+ Discipline emphasised as determining form of legitimate educational knowledge

‘the main thing was that you mentioned something about employability in the course design but no one ever really teaches it ...’

PA- Discipline downplayed as less important in defining legitimate educational knowledge

‘there are areas of the curriculum that all courses must cover, regardless of whether students become lawyers, or social workers’

RA- External factors (such as economy) emphasised as determining form of legitimate educational knowledge

‘it is important that the quality of course content is assured, without that students will not choose us ’

Pedagogy Teaching of content knowledge based on teacher’s repertoire / habitus

PA+ Established techniques and strategies for teaching content knowledge emphasised as determining form of pedagogy

‘we had developed a set of lectures given by well known names and this was filmed and played to the students each year’

Teaching of content knowledge based on disciplinary pedagogic principles

RA+ disciplinary pedagogical needs are emphasised as significantly shaping form of pedagogy

‘we knew we had to cover essential things like employability but we had no idea how these were taught’

PA- Established techniques and strategies for teaching content knowledge downplayed as significantly shaping form of pedagogy

‘ it’s what works and is effective rather than any particular pedagogic model’

RA- Economic and other factors are explicitly emphasised as determining form of pedagogy

‘it’s in work related learning, and work placement that students feel they get relevant learning and it’s what they enjoy’

Assessment Evaluative criteria aligned with the needs of teachers

PA+ Evaluation of legitimacy of student performances resides in beliefs of individual teachers

‘exams are the only real way that you can test whether the students have learnt anything’

Evaluative criteria aligned to meet disciplinary pedagogical principles

RA+ Explicit and specific evaluative and procedural criteria are emphasised in judging student performances

‘when the student hands in work for assessment they need to know who to give it to and when it will be marked and returned’

PA- Student performances are judged against shared criteria external to the teacher

‘written assignments are better assessed blind-marked, so that you don’t know anything about the student ...’

RA- Explicit and specific evaluative and procedural criteria are downplayed as not significant in judging student performances

‘the problem with giving students timely feedback is that all they care about is the mark, not what they could do better next time’

NOTE: +/- indicates ‘stronger’ / ‘weaker’

Vignettes chosen to represent key themes and significant moments in the study

Story Author Group Chapter

Possible themes /metaphors

The string bag Angela A: Sharers 5.2.5 Embodying practice/text

The living gateway David B: Cascaders 5.3.3 Translating practice/text

The reversible coat Cathy D: Approval seekers 6.2.5 Recontextualising practice/text

The magic sentence Susan E: Approvers 6.4.3 Regulating practice/text

The forgotten map Alison D: Approval seekers 7.3.4 Remembering practice/text

The divining rod Rhianna E: Approvers 7.4.4 Foretelling practice/text

Typology of field positions and orientations for the course design and approval process

Factor Collegial focus Bureaucratic focus Consensus seeking focusCurriculum designCoherence Heuristic modelling Evaluative ContextualAutonomy PA+ / RA- PA- / RA- Code clashKnowledge specialisation

ER+ / SR- (knowledge code)

ER- / SR+(knower code)

Code clash

Semantic variation SG+ / SD- SG- / SD+ Code clashPedagogical designPedagogical model Competence Performance Performance-basedPedagogic code Collection Integrated MixedPedagogic identity Therapeutic De-centred market SchizoidEvaluation (basis and criteria of establishing the worth of the curriculum)Exchange Pedagogic ‘goods’ Marketable ‘goods’ Approved ‘goods’Peer Review Horizontal Hierarchical MixedAuthority Collegial Bureaucratic Rules-basedDecision making Collaborative Co-operative DiscretionaryExpertise Mutual and reciprocal Disciplinary TechnicalCollegial organisation

Predominantly collegiate

Intermediate collegiate

Variable

19

Semantic codes for knowledge in the curriculum

Shay 2012, based on Maton, 2011: 66

Enacted curriculum

Time CourseApproval

Intended curriculum


Phase 3: APE

APE = Approval Panel Event Focal Points (A = final approval, B = delivery, C = review)

A B C

Pre-approval Post-approvalLived curriculum

Projections of the Approval Event

Institution

Individual

QE QA

Individualism

Collegiality Bureaucracy

Compliance

The effects of quality

Transform +

Transform -

Transfer -

Morphostasis

Closed New and shared

Replicated

Transfer +

A typology of transformation

Coherence based on evaluation

Coherence based on modelling

Authority

Expertise

ConsensusAutonomy

Idealised curriculum

A schema for curriculum authority

Time Enacted curriculum

Documentation

Q4 (SG-/SD+)

Q3 (SG+/SD+)

Q2 (SG+/SD-)

Semantics

External language of description

CourseApproval

Intended curriculum


Phase 3: APE

A B C

Lived curriculum

In

sti

tu

tio

na

l

Ha

bit

us

Dom

inan

t Ped

agog

ic M

ode

(DCM

)Applied theory

Professional

Practical

Doc

Curricula

unpackingSG SD

packing upSGSD

Doc Doc

ER-/SR+ ER-/SR+ ER-/SR+

ER+/SR+ ER-/SR+ ER+/SR+

ER-/SR+ ER-/SR+ ER-/SR+

Specialisation

Empl

oyab

ility

Autonomy

Pre-approval Post-approval

PA+/RA- PA-/RA- PA+/RA-

OR-/DR+ SubR-/IR+

PRACTICE

Mapping of the findings

Approval

Dis

cip

lin

e

PRODUCTION RECONTEXTUALISATION REPRODUCTION

1 2 3

4

5

6

7

8

[ Pha

se 1

: Cro

ss-in

stitu

tion

Cas

e

Stud

y ]

Curriculum Knowledge(C / F)

Boundaries Control Specialised Curriculum Discipline Pedagogy Assessment

CONTROL

Dynamic coherence model of curriculum enactment

VISIBLE

INVISIBLE

CERTAIN

UNCERTAIN

Auth

ority

/ Ex

perti

se

Institution(UAP)

Discipline / Individual

Moral / Pedagogic

Material / Technical

Evaluation(contextual)

Modelling(conceptual)

Cohe

renc

e

External language of description

Approval Event

Final approval

Delivery

Review

(Re-)Design

Experiment

Iteration

Stasis

A

B

C

D

E

F

POWER

Purp

ose