University of Reading and HEA Pathfinder Programme Phase 1 (DIRECT)

Minutes of first Steering Group Meeting

Present: Ginny Gibson Maria Papaefthimiou Julia Phelps David Stannard Pete Jeffries John Creighton Janet Pryse David Stanbury Clare McCullagh Shona Patterson Gwen van der Velden Gráinne Conole

Apologies: Rob Robson and Andy Downton

In the absence of Rob Robson, Ginny Gibson chaired the meeting.

The meeting started with brief introductions as this was the first Steering Group Meeting.

1. Purpose of Steering Group meetings. GG outlined a vision for these meetings, and hopes they will serve to provide both a reporting and a discursive function. The meetings will allow members to oversee the project, monitor progress, provide strategic input and assist with evaluating the outcomes. The group will meet three times in total, with virtual communication in between. The aim of this first meeting was to review the broad aims and draft tools being proposed. A second meeting, towards the end of November, will aim to reflect on learning from the first pilot in order to inform the second; and a third meeting in March, will be to consider final evaluation and institutional learning for wider dissemination. Steering Group members might attend other events such as training, observing i-Lab sessions and dissemination.

2. Background to Pathfinder Project – e-Benchmarking Exercise MCP gave an overview of the e-learning benchmarking exercise to provide some of the context for the Pathfinder programme.

3. Pathfinder aims GG briefly outlined the mains aims of the Pathfinder Project:  to reform the periodic review process of programmes to increase the emphasis on enhancement;  to enable academic Schools to be more proactive and forward-looking in reviewing their provision and to evaluate and select the most appropriate e-learning tools and approaches for their needs;  to employ a strategic approach to the adoption of e-learning at school level, while recognising the institutional culture and building on the evolutionary, non-directive, flexible approach to change;  to bring the ‘e-‘ and the ‘enhancement’ together in this process.

4. Pilot I – Politics Work has already begun with the Politics department, because a syllabus review was already on their agenda. Politics are very much driving this process and have outlined their aims as follows:  to review what to teach and when (what modules, in which part; core vs option)  how to teach and assess, including the use of e-learning.

Politics have set the following criteria: 1. Attractiveness (to incoming students, including those who might join at the end of Year One) 2. Accessibility (the material covered must be comprehensible and appropriate) 3. Progression (Years One and Two must provide a basis for the kind of Year Three study that meets or exceeds the national norm in terms of scope, variety and rigour) 4. Flexibility (Part One and Part Two modules should be readily teachable by several different members of permanent staff) 5. Minimisation of effect on staff’s research time.

JP provided an overview of action so far, including:  two Project Officers (Enhancement and e-Learning) in place;  initial introductions and liaison with Politics;  data collection and review of Politics’ use of Blackboard in progress.

5. Pilot II The second pilot will commence at the beginning of 2008 in order to give the Core Team and Steering Group the opportunity to refine the approach and the instruments used in Pilot I. Pilot II is likely to involve a School from a science discipline and will ideally be one that has already done a lot of work in terms of enhancement. This would provide two contrasting areas of the University in terms of both subject area and progress already made.

6. Framework and tools GG invited feedback on the Pathfinder framework so far, which is very much in the draft stage. The group discussed the concept of ‘tools’ and requested a definition of the term ‘tools’ as described in the framework document. Tools refer to: all facilitation tools, not just those connected with e-learning, so this might mean a questionnaire, a process, an analysis tool, a case study, etc. The term ‘instruments’ was proposed as an umbrella term to cover all of these items. The aim is not to ‘re-invent the wheel’ but to identify helpful existing instruments and to synthesise and adapt these for the Pathfinder project.

The aim is to identify data needed for analysis, and an accompanying range of tools that groups undergoing review can then ‘pick and mix’ to suit their particular context and needs.

The group then discussed what all of these tools/instruments will be attached to, or ‘hang off’. Based on the student life cycle model, the concept of a departmental life cycle model was discussed, incorporating the energetic phase (instability), moving towards confidence (stability) and then possibly complacency?

GC pointed out the importance during this project of clarifying terms, articulating processes very specifically, and giving things meaningful names. If the framework isn’t clear to future departments, they simply won’t use it. CG also stressed the need for careful record keeping to aid the reporting process further down the line.

7. Specific tools discussed The Core Team are drawing on a range of tools, including those from: - the Pew funded reports - JISC and HEA guides - other e-benchmarking institutions, such as Herfordshire and the Institute of Education - Reading University’s own e-Learning strategy.

The IRD e-benchmarking (OBHE) methodology was suggested in order to initiate a self-needs analysis. GvdV offered the output from the TALENT project as an alternative.

JC offered 2 tools from CETL AURS: i. A skills audit tool currently being piloted by staff within the University which gets staff to reflect on the skills learning within their individual modules, and check this against assessment. This was specifically designed with the periodic review in mind. ii. The National Survey of Student Engagement – this is a large survey instrument but it can be reduced in size, and is a tried and tested method, ideally used at the end of the academic year. Feedback from the e-benchmarking exercise clarified that the student experience needs to be considered more thoroughly. However, SP expressed concern re. questionnaire ‘overload’ amongst students, and apathy in terms of low expectations about change resulting from their feedback. PJ agreed, based on his own experience as a student. All agreed about the importance of prompt feedback in response to surveys. The advantages and disadvantages of Web 2.0 technologies were also discussed here, as well as online surveys that capture aggregate results and audio logs.

Action GvdV to provide TALENT analysis tool. JC to provide the skills audit and student engagement survey tools. Core Team to consider the suitability/adaptation of these tools.

8. Enhancement The role of enhancement within the project was discussed, and GvdV initiated a discussion re. ownership. All agreed that clarity re. ownership was required, and that ownership must ultimately rest with the school or department in order to ensure long term sustainability of change.

Action At a later stage, GG and DS would like to discuss with SP and GvdV the enhancement part of the project, to ensure this is realized in the revision of the Periodic Review process.

9. e-Learning The role of e-learning and where it fits into the project and process was discussed. MCP explained that an overall project aim is to take e-learning ‘beyond the champions’ and for departments to adopt a more strategic view of e-learning, so that good practice and innovation is occurring beyond the level of the individual. In this project the ‘e’ is the tool that supports enhancement. It is the enabler, but can also act as the impetus to prompt curriculum re- design.

10.Dissemination strategy D Stanbury asked if there would be a Change Philosophy to come out of the project. GG confirmed that there would, but it would need to be appropriate for institutions which match Reading’s context, i.e. campus-based, middle- sized, research-based universities.

The importance of the academic voice was agreed regarding feedback. Achieving an appropriate balance between theory and practice during the reporting and dissemination stage was discussed. JP expressed interest in obtaining academic feedback on the outcomes from similar institutions to Reading.

Action Core Team to discuss this further. 11.Communication Internal blog – for communication between the Steering Group members, where they can access key documents such as minutes of SG meetings, to access draft documents, and provide helpful feedback to the Core Team on these drafts. External blog - to keep the HEA informed of progress. It will contain brief progress updates, mid-term and final project reports and minutes of Steering Group meetings. Helga – this is a social networking site which the HEA/Glenaffric have provided for Pathfinder institutions. Reading are using it as a point of contact with the other institutions in their ‘cluster’: Brunel, Cambridge and London South Bank University.

GC asked that we always include instructions for login and passwords with any communication. GvdV asked that any specific requests for action are backed up by email. JC suggested that someone from Politics join the next Steering Group meeting and all agreed this was a good idea.

Action Dates for the two further Steering Group meetings to be confirmed – MCP to do this by email. MCP to invite Alan Cromartie to the next two Steering Group meetings.