1) The document discusses leading large-scale pedagogic transformation in the context of a university campus move. It provides evidence that active learning leads to better student outcomes compared to traditional lectures. 2) The university is transforming its teaching to focus on active blended learning (ABL), where students engage with content both online and face-to-face. By 2018, 96% of modules were designed for ABL. 3) Challenges of the transformation include changing views of teaching, workload, and digital fluency. The transformation is being led through a research-practice-impact-policy model and prioritizing teaching excellence alongside research.

1. Leading Large-scale Pedagogic
Transformation in the Context of a
Campus Move
Prof Alejandro Armellini
Dean of Learning and Teaching
University of Northampton
Ale.Armellini@northampton.ac.uk
@alejandroa

3. Missions
Transforming lives + Inspiring change
Enabling transformational learning
through inspirational teaching

4. What do students tell us they want?

6. Evidence base
• Meta-analysis of 225 studies comparing lecture-based courses versus
active learning ones in STEM subjects: the latter result in fewer failing
students and higher performance in exams. Findings consistent across
STEM disciplines and class sizes. Greatest effects in classes of 50 or
less (Freeman et al., 2014).
• Also consistent with other studies within and beyond STEM: Hake,
1998; Lumpkin, Achen, & Dodd, 2015; Stockwell, Stockwell, Cennamo,
& Jang, 2015; Haak, HilleRisLambers, Pitre, & Freeman, 2011;
Lorenzo, Crouch, & Mazur, 2006 – among others.

7. Evidence – from students (1)
 “Students consistently commented that they felt that they wanted
more interactive classes. This was not just so that they could
practically learn about their subject area, but also to develop peer
relationships with their classmates, which they also linked to good
future employability skills”.
Source: NUS Student Experience Research 2012 p.5, emphasis added

8. Evidence – from students (2)
 “When asked what would most improve their academic experience,
50.2% of students said that more interactive/group teaching sessions
would improve their experience”.
Source: NUS Student Experience Research 2012 p.5, emphasis added

9. Evidence – from students (3)
 “I prefer the seminar because I have more chance to talk to lecturers
or tutors. In some lectures the tutors just talk and it’s not very
efficient”.
Source: NUS Student Experience Research 2012 p.19

10. Evidence – from students (4)
 “[…] the traditional model that continues to dominate in UK higher
education: teaching through lectures, excessive summative
assessment, slow feedback, and students working almost entirely
individually. Many student complaints about the quality of their
courses can be tracked back to [these]”.
Source: Comprehensive Guide to Learning & Teaching (NUS, 2015: 7), emphasis added

11. Evidence from the literature, as cited by students
Source: Comprehensive Guide to Learning & Teaching (NUS, 2015: 7)

12. Source: Comprehensive Guide to Learning & Teaching (NUS, 2015: 7)
Evidence from the literature, as cited by students

13. Source: Comprehensive Guide to Learning & Teaching (NUS, 2015: 7)
Evidence from the literature, as cited by students

14. Source: Comprehensive Guide to Learning & Teaching (NUS, 2015: 7)
Evidence from the literature, as cited by students

16. Active Blended Learning (ABL)
A course follows an ABL methodology if it:
 Is taught through student-centred activities to develop knowledge and
understanding, independent learning & digital fluency.
 Has a core, collaborative face-to-face component, explicitly linked to
learning activity outside the classroom.
 Helps to develop autonomy, Changemaker attributes and employability
skills.
Source: ILT website

17. Task 1
What are the dimensions of a sound pedagogic
“blend” in blended learning?
2 minutes

18. Dimensions of the blend
Face-to-face
+
Online

19. F2F
Purely
academic
Online
Employabili
ty-focused

20. Dimensions
Face to face Online
Online teaching Independent learning
Individual Group-based
Synchronous Asynchronous
“Purely academic” Employability-focused
Campus Mobile
Tutor-assessed Peer-assessed
Placement-intensive Few or no placements
…

21. F2F
Purely
academic
Online
Employabili
ty-focused
ACTIVE
BLEND

22. Pre-session
exposure to
content
F2F session:
analysis, discussion,
reflection & goal
setting
Post-session online
work: consolidation
& evaluation
@alejandroa 22

23. Digital
resources
Tasks for
sense-making
Analysis,
discussion,
reflection &
goal setting
Consolidation
& action
planning
In and outside the f2f classroom
Face to face,
small groups
In and outside the
f2f classroom

24. Digital
resources
Tasks for
sense-making
Analysis,
discussion,
reflection &
goal setting
Consolidation
& action
planning
In and outside the f2f classroom
Face to face,
small groups
In and outside the
f2f classroom
scaffold

25. Task 2: A course is not taught in ABL if:
………………………………… non-interactive lectures, or
The VLE (or LMS) is primarily a ……………………………………., or
Online activity is merely ………………………..to the face-to-face
sessions, or
There is ………………………………….. systematic enhancement.

26. Task 2: A course is not taught in ABL if:
It makes regular use of non-interactive lectures, or
The VLE (or LMS) is primarily a content repository, or
Online activity is merely an add-on to the face-to-face sessions,
or
There is no evidence of systematic enhancement.

27. ABL is our new normal
ABL is not something we do in addition to our regular
teaching: it is our standard approach to learning and
teaching at Northampton.

28. Scaling up ABL
Our approach is
Explicit
Deliberate
Evidence-based

29. March 2018
96% of all our modules have been designed or redesigned for ABL

30. Context: pedagogic transformation & campus move
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkQpVKPhpKc

36. A new campus…
Task 3:
1. Why you would build one
2. What is the one unique feature this campus would have, and what
that feature would enable you to do that you can’t do now
3 minutes

37. The new campus: Waterside
• 24/7 learning commons
• Flexible use of space
• Smaller footprint than the combination of both current campuses
• In the centre of the town, by the river
• Personalisation: no lecture theatres
• No staff offices
• Multi-purpose teaching rooms
• Active blended learning as the new normal

38. Challenges
Nature of the challenge Key strands How addressed
1. Pedagogic a. Views on teaching
b. Knowledge about teaching in HE – not
just experience
c. Large cohorts
d. The PSRB argument
e. Contact time
Evidence
Support
Agency
2. Workload and space a. Timetabling
b. Where’s my office?
c. “ABL means more work”
3. Digital fluency Don’t stop at the “literacy” stage!
4. Communication Information overload v consultation and
engagement to find shared ground

39. Teaching rooms
Presentation, collaboration,
knowledge construction

40. Evidence
Support
Agency
Scaling up the change

41. Evidence-based change
Research
• Evidence
Practice
• Support & Agency
Evaluation
• Impact assessment
Policy
• Ongoing review

42. Evidence-based change
Research
Practice
Impact
assessment
Policy

43. In summary
1. How can pedagogic transformation happen at scale?
2. How can such a transformation be balanced with the need for
research excellence?
3. How can senior management motivate staff to engage in and
support this transformation?
4. How can we reduce (or abolish) large lectures, enhance
teaching quality and remain financially viable?

44. 1. Leadership for pedagogic transformation at scale
a. Direction of travel in a realistic plan with
well-chosen name
b. Strong, evidence-based rationale
c. Credible benefits for students and staff
d. Influential advocates
e. Lead change incrementally, from within
the existing culture
f. Consult, consult and consult
g. Determination to root out poor teaching
in all its forms
h. A viable timeframe
i. Credible leaders who are active in
teaching and pedagogic research
j. A rapid Research > Practice > Impact
Assessment > Policy model
Research
Practice
Impact
assessment
Policy
How can this transformation happen
at scale?

45. 2. A strategic stance on pedagogic transformation
& research excellence
a. Research excellence does not imply teaching excellence.
b. Leadership: both teaching & research are equally important for staff
progression, recognition and reward.
c. Mutually reinforcing activities, not in competition.
d. Emphasis on pedagogic research outputs.
e. Transformation aligned to institutional framework of graduate attributes.
How can such a transformation be
balanced with the need for research
excellence?

46. 3. Leadership for staff engagement and support
In addition…
a. Professional recognition scheme for
teaching in HE aligned to an
established professional standards
framework (e.g. the UKPSF)
b. Peer observation for development
code of practice
c. Upgrade the status of and enable
progression through teaching
excellence, right from recruitment
d. Stick to the
Research > Practice > Impact
Assessment > Policy model
How can senior management motivate
staff to engage in and support this
transformation?
Areas of
Activity
Professional
Values
Core
Knowledge

47. 4. Large lectures and viability
a. Is there a correlation (never mind causality) between large lectures & profitability -
really? Alternatively: is the institution attractive to students despite massification
and lack of personalisation?
b. Evidence base: what do students want? Do they ask for “stand up and spout”?
c. “Multiple teaching” not enough to enhance quality: some staff members lecture
even to small groups.
d. When questioning a new model, always ask the same questions and associated
evidence for the current one.
How can we reduce (or abolish) large
lectures, enhance teaching quality and
remain financially viable?

48. An
enhanced
learner
experience
Personalisation and
quality: excellent
teaching for active
blended learning in
small groups as
standard
CPD for staff aligned
to professional
standards for
teaching and
national recognition
in HE
Listening to and
acting on the
student and staff
voice: agency
Teaching as
important as
research (incl.
pedagogic research)
for career
progression
An aligned
framework of
graduate
attributes
Teaching quality for an outstanding
student experience at the centre of what
we do in universities
Research
Practice
Impact
assessment
Policy

49. What matters is not
the content
but what students do with it to achieve outcomes

50. What matters is not
the technology
but what students do with it to achieve outcomes

51. What matters is not
the space
but how students and staff use it to achieve outcomes

52. Thank you
Prof Alejandro Armellini
Dean of Learning and Teaching
University of Northampton
Ale.Armellini@northampton.ac.uk
@alejandroa