Developing Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: What have we learned?

1,234 views

Published on

By Dr Kwansuree Jiamton, Dr Margaret Sills
Presented at KILT Conference, King's College London, 4th July 2007

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,234
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Developing Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: What have we learned?

    1. 1. Developing Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: What have we learned? Dr Kwansuree Jiamton Dr Margaret Sills ICT Manager Academic Director Health Sciences & Practice Subject Centre King’s College London KILT Conference 4 th July 2007, King’s College London
    2. 2. Outline: <ul><li>Background: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>About the Higher Education Academy, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Health Sciences and Practice Subject Centre </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Theoretical Framework </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Theories of innovation and change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Managing change </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Our strategic aims </li></ul><ul><li>Our approach and Subject Centre’s activities </li></ul><ul><li>What happened in practice? </li></ul><ul><li>What works, what doesn’t? and Why? </li></ul><ul><li>What have we learned? </li></ul>
    3. 3. Theoretical Framework (1) Innovation & Change Process: <ul><ul><li>Lewin’s three-stage change model (1952): </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Three-level change model (Lewin 1952) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Organisational change can occur at three levels and each level requires different change strategies and techniques since the patterns of resistance to change are different (Goodstein and Burke 1993). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Three-level change model: </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>individuals who work in the organisation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>organisational structures and systems </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>organisational climate or interpersonal style </li></ul></ul></ul>Unfreeze Change Refreeze
    4. 4. Theoretical Framework (2) <ul><li>Theory of Innovation and Change </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Macro- VS Micro-perspective approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Top-down VS Bottom-up approach </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Managing change </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Innovation Triangles </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Change Management Spiral Model </li></ul></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Managing Change:
    6. 6. Change Management Spiral
    7. 7. Our Strategic Aims: <ul><li>To influence the development, implementation, and dissemination of policies that impact on student learning in the health related disciplines </li></ul><ul><li>To support higher education partners, including those in work/ practice settings, with the development and implementation of their strategies for improving the student learning experience </li></ul><ul><li>To promote and facilitate the professional development and recognition of educators in the health related disciplines </li></ul><ul><li>To contribute to the development and dissemination of effective and innovative educational practices </li></ul><ul><li>To support research and evaluation activities that inform the development and enhancement of learning and teaching in both academic and practice contexts </li></ul><ul><li>To be a proactive, responsive, efficient, transparent, and accountable organisation </li></ul><ul><li>To foster a collaborative, inclusive ethos that reflects an agreed set of core values </li></ul>
    8. 8. Our Approach and Activities <ul><li>How we introduce change? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Establishing network: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Advisory Board </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Learning Teaching Consultants </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Subject Advisors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Key Contacts </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need Analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Our activities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Publications – Occasional papers, newsletter (termly), E bulletin (monthly) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Special Interest Groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Workshops and meetings eg Festival of Learning, departmental workshops </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mini-project grants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Student essay competition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National initiative support (eg CETLs FDTL4) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborations: eg Triple/ EIPEN (IPE), mhhe </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. What works well, what doesn’t? and why? (1) <ul><li>The table below gives a regional breakdown of HEI engagement </li></ul>
    10. 10. What works well, what doesn’t? Why? (2) <ul><li>Newsletter: 1961 people receive our newsletter </li></ul><ul><li>e-bulletin: 673 are the primary receivers of our e-bulletin </li></ul><ul><li>Workshops: 22 events, 500 people attending, including </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Festival of Learning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Departmental workshop </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Miniproject: attracted 90 applicants from 46 institutions, 11 projects were funded. </li></ul><ul><li>Student Essay Competition </li></ul>
    11. 11. What works well, what doesn’t? Why? (3) <ul><li>We faced some dilemmas as we created a new service: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Grass root needs or Policy driven? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do we follow or lead? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources focused or dispersed? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Home grown or imposed? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolutionary or revolutionary? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation for development or accountability? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Practice or theory driven? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are our activities based on substantive theory of innovation and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>change or on habit and practicalities within a particular budget? </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. What have we learned? (1) <ul><li>Innovation and change takes time so how is success measured? </li></ul><ul><li>A shift from not being aware or even thinking of an issue to contemplating change may be a better indicator than expecting immediate action </li></ul><ul><li>Planning to embed an innovation into policy and practice </li></ul><ul><li>Taking action and implementing change </li></ul><ul><li>Sustaining change </li></ul><ul><li>Impact on tutors has a roll out outcome for students’learning </li></ul><ul><li>Change is not based on evidence (derived from codified and/or cultural knowledge) so does the network support this. </li></ul>
    13. 13. What have we learned? (2) <ul><li>Insufficient time to prepare – the Network offers opportunities to </li></ul><ul><li>discuss and work through issues </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation transposed into a different context may not fit </li></ul><ul><li>Unrealistic expectations of impact and outcome measures </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of clarity as to who the change will benefit – government, institution, </li></ul><ul><li>tutors, students or all? </li></ul><ul><li>Misunderstanding of purposes. Sometimes practice matched theory and sometimes it didn’t and a fine balance between the macro policy level and the micro practice level was evident. </li></ul>
    14. 14. Contact <ul><li>Health Sciences & Practice Subject Centre </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Room 3.12, Waterloo Bridge Wing Franklin-Wilkins Building 150 Stamford Street London SE1 9NN </li></ul></ul><ul><li> http://www.health.heacademy.ac.uk </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dr Kwansuree Jiamton [email_address] </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dr Margaret Sills [email_address] </li></ul></ul>

    ×