This document discusses inclusive practices at Oxford Brookes University. It outlines how the university has mapped conversations around inclusion, identified key partners, and embedded inclusion in curriculum policies and professional development. Goals include reducing outcomes gaps for underrepresented groups and improving graduate destinations. Next steps involve linking disparate conversations, monitoring impact of inclusion tools, and rethinking employability and belonging through a cultural capital model and social learning.

1. Mary Kitchener
Professor Jackie Potter
Kathryna Kwok
Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development (OCSLD)
Oxford Brookes University
@jac_potter
@LecturerKitch
Bringing the backstage conversations
front of stage: a whole organisational
approach to inclusive teaching.

2. ● Identify issues in your institutional context relating to inclusion and differential
attainment.
● Map inclusive institutional context and lines of conversation.
● Reflect on institutional inclusive practices and how professional development
for staff’ encourages changes to practice and student outcomes.
● Share experiences and learn from inclusive practices at Brookes and
elsewhere on leading professional development for staff to improve student
outcomes and success.
By the end of this session, you will be able to:

3. Inclusion - 2015 to date
Can you see what I see? Sprinter73, Flickr Broken- it’s broken are you happy now? Sprinter73, Flickr

4. What we knew (Mountford-Zimbars et al. 2015)
● There are differential outcomes for different student groups even when we
account for prior attainment and institution of study.
● Those from socio-economically deprived groups do least well at university;
white students achieve better outcomes (completion rates, attainment and
employability).
● The impact of interventions to address differentials on students’ outcomes has
yet to emerge.
● Differential progression has become an easier topic to talk about but more
could be done to mainstream the conversation.
● There is caution in the sector to share data which might reveal unfavourable
comparisons between outcomes for different student groups.

5. Mountford-Zimbars et al (2015) Causes of Differences in Student Outcomes. Hefce.
“The complexity of the data and the multiplicity
of the issues involved present key challenges in
the endeavour to understand the causal factors
of differential outcomes.”

6. Explanatory factors
● Curricula and learning
● Relationships between staff and
students
● Social, cultural and economic
capital
● Psychosocial and identity factors

7. Brookes Inclusive Curriculum Framework
A philosophy to create a curriculum that -
•Addresses under-representation and marginalisation of certain thinkers and
groups.
•Is underpinned by the principles of universal design for learning and
self-determination theory.
•Is accessible to all students and allows them to succeed no matter their
differences.

9. Ryan and Deci (2000)

10. 2015-2019
STARTED LIFE -
Established and managed as
‘enhancement projects’ - with
associated roles such as members of
the team and beneficiaries.
The key OCSLD project lead left and
the project ended. Outsourced the
creation of a more practical product
from the project legacy.
MOVED FORWARD TO -
Reviewed and modified key
curriculum policies and procedures
for influence.
Repositioning and creating oversight
for the work through a steering group.
Embraced OD approaches to
changing culture and behaviours.

11. Practical approaches
2.4 Every effort is taken to ensure that
there is no bias in the type of assessment
task, or method chosen, or the criteria
applied, that would unfairly disadvantage
any student.

12. Link

13. Link

14. Link

18. Inclusive Sandpit

20. Conversation Inside the Sandpit
Private
Mutual trust
Intellectual intrigue
(Roxa and Martensson, 2009)

21. Starting the
conversation…
at Brookes
● What is belonging
● The importance of belonging
Impacts
● Extracts from students’
comments placed the student
perspective centre stage
● Highlighted the emotional and
practical importance of
belonging
tinyurl.com/belongingreport

22. (Concept) Mapping Inclusive Conversation
INCLUSION

23. Brookes conversation partners and
spaces - our ‘nodes’
Formal
● Governors
● Vice-Chancellors group
● Teaching and Learning
enhancement committee
● Access and participation group
● Inclusive teaching steering (now
working) group
● Faculty Teaching and Learning
Enhancement Committee
● UG/PG Programme meetings
● Programme team meeting
Quality Processes/ Learning Resources/
Wellbeing
Informal
● Teaching and learning
community
● Inclusive Sandpit
● Project teams: bid for project
money
● PgCert: foreground Inclusion
● Team projects
● Brookes learning and teaching
conference
● OCSLD Web pages and blogs
● EDI Champions

24. Over to you…
Map inclusive
institutional context
and plot lines of
conversation.

25. What are your institutional nodes-
Your conversation partners and enablers?
Count up your nodes. Count up your links. Who
or what is most connected?

26. Where are your students in the conversation?

27. Where are your students in the conversation?
What’s working well and what might help the
conversation to flow?

28. Where are your students in the conversation?
What’s working well and what might help the
conversation to flow?
How is professional development enabling the
conversations? How could it?

29. Moving forward: our next steps
Still focused on reducing the degree outcome gap and improving graduate
destinations for BME and POLAR students
Further link up disparate conversations and share experiences and successes
Helping us do this………
Rethinking employability: from a skills model to cultural capital model
Rethinking belonging: from cohort identity to social learning
Staff Development - as space for conversation Monitor the impact of the
inclusion tools embedded into QA processes, Monitor resources access and use,
Accessibility roadshows and Inspiring Teaching series, sandpit events for team
development, Faculty Learning Community for those leading inclusivity work

30. References
Boud, D. & Brew, A. (2013) Reconceptualising academic work as professional practice: implications for
academic development. International Journal for Academic Development. 18 (3), 208-221.
Mountford-Zimbars, A. et al (2015) Causes of differences in students outcomes. HEFCE.
Roxa, T & Martensson, K. (2009) Significant conversations and significant networks - exploring the
backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education. 34 (5), 549-559. Available:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1046324.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000) Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.
American Psychologist 55(1):68-78
Acknowledgements
Sarah Wilson-Medhurst: consultant and author of the Oxford Brookes University Inclusive Practice Benchmarking Tool.
Alison Le Cornu and Neil Currant: Oxford Brookes Inclusive Curriculum Framework.