This interim report summarizes the main findings from three research streams of the GAIHE project. The desk research analyzed over 180 sources to classify types of higher education innovation and identify drivers, governance factors, and barriers. A survey of 47 higher education institutions found that module innovations are more common than program or institutional innovations and identified key motivations and challenges. Case studies of 10 institutions found examples of innovative teaching practices and supporting governance structures. The project aims to develop a self-assessment toolkit to measure institutional support for innovation and disseminate results through 2016.

1. INTERIM REPORT AND MAIN FINDINGS
Anna Lasakova, Lubica Bajzikova & Simone Sasso
Smolenice, 5th November 2014

2. Overview of the agenda
• Basic outcomes of the three research streams in the GAIHE project
• Future utilization of the GAIHE project outcomes

3. Basic outcomes of the three research streams
in the GAIHE project
1. The Desk Research outcomes
2. The Survey outcomes
3. The Case Studies outcomes

4. 1. The Desk Research
• October 2013 – May 2014
• 10 different drafts
• Final revision in August 2014
• More than 180 bibliographic sources
• Methods of description, critical analysis, comparison, induction, deduction,
generalisation, modelling and structuralisation

5. 1. The Desk Research –Main outcomes
• Classification of innovation in education:
 programme organisation (administrative structuring of teaching)
 curriculum delivery (pedagogical innovations)
 technology-enriched teaching and learning (ICT employed in education)
• Drivers of HE innovation :
 the knowledge economy;
 accessibility;
 financial pressures;
 changing role of university;
 disruptive innovation.
• University governance prerequisites for innovation :
 entrepreneurial university;
 distributed leadership.
• Barriers of HE innovation:
 INTERNAL:
 student/ academic /institutional-based
resistance to change;
 EXTERNAL:
 accreditation procedures;
 funding formulas.

6. 2. The Survey
• 8 versions (drafts) of the questionnaire were produced before the ninth version was
tested in the pilot study
• The pilot study in 5 institutions in March 2014
• The final survey was circulated on April 1st, April 8th, April 22nd, and April 29th 2014 to
49 potential respondents; an initial deadline was set (for April 18th), which was
subsequently extended to May 2nd 2014
• Approx. 20 minutes to complete
• 29 separate questions comprised of a total of 129 sub-questions
• Binary questions, Likert scale, matrix of choices, comment/essay boxes
• 47 HEIs participated in the survey; 31 respondents answered all of the 29 separate
questions, and the remaining 16 respondents answered some of the questions

7. 2. The Survey -Main outcomes
• Management of universities:
 module level innovations dominate programme or institution ones.
• New modes of education provision:
 new technologies are an emerging (but not always successful) factor;
 most of the institutions have established partnerships (or merged) with other institutions;
 research-based study, work-placement and real life experiences are frequent ways of innov.
• Role of university governance:
 top management/rector-level and university teaching staff are central for innovation;
 students, admin staff, general public, regional administrations are less significant for innov.
• Motivations, drivers and barriers for innovative education provision:
 Key drivers: need to respond to socio-economic needs and regional accessibility, need for a
better use of resources, cooperation with other institutions, improvement in technologies;
 Key barriers: lack of financial resources, of skilled personnel, of control mechanisms, of
leadership or of vision for innovativeness;
 Possible solutions : decentralization of decisions and budget to faculty or school level,
changes to the HEI mission statements .

8. 3. The Case Studies
• Kick-off meeting 19th of February 2014 in Bratislava
• The “Bratislava case study protocol” was finalized during April 2014, defining the
 Research process
 Research aims
 List of recommended questions
 Manual/Structure of written reports
• Methods of semi-structured interviews with representatives and focus groups
(representatives, students, academic staff, admin staff, etc.)
• 10 different case (Slovakia, Spain, Latvia, France, and UK) studies in
September/October 2014
• Basic output: Description of the best practices related to innovations in educational
provision

9. 3. The Queen Mary University of London case
• Teaching and learning innovations since 2008:
 an innovative lecture capture system to automatically record live lectures;
 a personal capture software to record preparatory or follow-up videos;
 a new virtual learning environment to supplement the teaching ;
 an e-learning production scheme in which academics receive assistance from students in
creating e-learning resources;
 the use of on-line gaming technology (in the Medical Engineering program);
 the use of Problem and Case Based Learning (in the Faculty of Medicine);
 the design and implementation of a MOOC together with University of London
• Supporting governance mechanisms and institutions :
 the Learning Institute (main centralized unit responsible for initiating innovation in teaching
and learning);
 the E-learning Unit (devoted to online teaching and learning);
 various groups for e-learning related discussions (e.g. vice-principal’s advisory group) ;
 dedicated funds for the implementation of new innovations and their dissemination;
 teaching and learning scheme that enables academics who have proved innovative in their
reaching to apply for a teaching fellowship.

10. • Project website
• www.he-governance-of-innovation.esen.education.fr
• Project logo
• Project handout/flyer
• Quality assurance protocol
• Interim report is being finalized
Related GAIHE
outputs

11. 1. To complete the analysis of the results.
2. To provide a self-assessment toolkit, which would
allow HEIs to measure whether they have the
appropriate institutional support structures to facilitate
innovation in education
3. To publish indicators on innovation and governance
4. To finalize an extensive quality assurance review of the
self-assessment toolkit as well as of the main report by
the end of 2015
5. To disseminate and exploit the results by March 2016:
 a workshop and a training course;
 participation in conferences;
 5 institutional study visits.
Future activities in
GAIHE

12. Thank you for attention