Dr. Hannah Bargawi, Director of Global Learning and Teaching and Reader in Economics and Dr. Carlo Bonura, Reader in Politics and International Relations at SOAS University of London
Curriculum change in context
Implementing curriculum change does not happen in a vacuum. It usually links to other institutional priorities or financial pressures. Obtaining the buy-in from the wider academic and professional services community for such changes can be a challenge. Often curriculum reform happens alongside a number of important initiatives. Staff may experience change-fatigue or initiative overload. These contexts result in uneven staff buy-in that will be a perennial challenge to overcome. In this short blog, Dr Hannah Bargawi and Dr Carlo Bonura explore how this manifested at SOAS and what approaches they used to address community buy-in.
Why reform the curriculum?
At SOAS our approach to curriculum reform was driven by efforts to improve student experience, a major theme in the SOAS Strategy. However financial sustainability and the need to ensure our programmes and modules were fit for the future were also strong drivers for proceeding with curriculum reform. As such, in 2021 SOAS introduced two curriculum reform initiatives:
- Guided Curriculum (degree structure simplification)
- Size and Shape (degree and module consolidation)
The Guided Curriculum instituted a core/compulsory, guided options, open options structure to all degrees in order to make degree structures generally uniform across the university. The new structure made course choice more straightforward for students and allowed for easier administration of degrees for staff.
Size and Shape has focused on consolidating the number of degrees and modules offered by departments. SOAS has historically had a high number of programmes relative to our student population, which has meant low programme and module to student ratios in certain cases. Size and Shape resizes the curriculum to improve these ratios over a period of 5 years, allowing the institution to offer new programmes and modules in strategic priority and high growth areas, aligned with SOAS’s overall mission.
While there was appetite among the academic community to develop new programmes and modules that addressed the challenges of our time, colleagues were more reluctant to review the existing programme offer and be responsive to changing demands from students.
What were the obstacles to community buy-in?
The curriculum changes at SOAS are comprehensive and far-reaching and they have not always been without challenges. Several obstacles to community buy-in became clear:
- The impact of Size and Shape was uneven across SOAS in that some departments faced demands to reduce the size of multiple programmes or modules. This concentration of the impact of these changes affected the willingness of staff to engage with the exercise.
- Across the institution, given the historical mission and expertise of SOAS, we noted concern about the potential loss of academic specialisms, particularly in Humanities subjects and in SOAS’s traditional areas of expertise around area studies. These subjects were affected substantially by Size and Shape thresholds.
- Many colleagues focused on the financial rationale for change and did not sufficiently engage with the benefits for the student experience.
- Some staff were anxious about the additional workload associated with shifting teaching to new subject areas. In some instances, they feared that the removal of modules might be linked to job cuts, although the curriculum reshaping exercise did not link to staffing reductions.
- Guided Curriculum requirements created constraints affecting long-established department module offerings that staff found difficult to resolve initially.
- The reforms coincided with other initiatives aimed at improving the student experience, leading to widespread change fatigue.
What approaches can support community buy-in?
There is no silver bullet to resolve issues related to how colleagues engage with curriculum reform. Staff concerns with curriculum reform can last a considerable time after the implementation of changes. In order to address some of the concerns at SOAS and build support for the reforms, we identified valuable approaches.
- Transparency. Transparency was key. For Size and Shape, sharing data on programme and module enrolments across all colleges and departments helped develop collective ownership. At the same time, space was created for exceptions to ensure that unique cases could be considered on their merits, to help ensure that SOAS retained its distinctive expertise in key subject areas.
- Separating degree changes from questions of sustainability. Introducing the Guided Curriculum separately from, but in tandem with, module and degree consolidation provided several advantages. Guided Curriculum changes were implemented quickly, whereas Size and Shape has been implemented in phases. The restructuring of degrees took place in one long validation cycle. In contrast, Size and Shape has occurred over a series of years because of how modules and degrees needed to be assessed. Furthermore, some departments made changes to modules and degrees with weak recruitment during the Guided Curriculum changes in anticipation of being asked to make cuts during Size and Shape. In this way, creating more coherent degrees had a lasting impact that then set the context for the longer process related to degree and module consolidation.
- Taking bigger steps where needed. In the College of the Humanities, College leadership realised that the scale of the impact of Size and Shape would be detrimental for the College and for SOAS. As such, the transformation extended beyond the Guided Curriculum guidelines to include the novel creation of cross-department Humanities-wide core modules. This reduced the number of modules while redirecting teaching resources and creating a more uniform student experience. These changes consequently provided many staff with an understanding of how the College would make it through this broad curriculum reform process.
- Utilizing a global classroom. Exploring alternative ways of delivering some modules through the Global Classroom or Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) initiatives has reinvigorated some staff in impacted departments, giving them the opportunity to explore new ways of teaching.