Professor Elizabeth McCrum explains three aspects of leading curriculum change that helped progress the University of Reading’s Portfolio Review.
The Case for Change
In leading our curriculum change programme at the University of Reading we needed to create a compelling case that had resonance across the institution. In fact, we had 4 key drivers that shaped our decisions and communications from the outset:
- improving student experience and wellbeing;
- creating a sustainable, coherent portfolio;
- improve staff workload and wellbeing;
- making better use of resources.
We repeated these consistently, so that everyone, whatever their role, understood not just what we were doing, but why. Chief amongst our drivers was improving the student experience. Leading with this helped us secure institutional buy-in and support as it was something everyone could ‘get on board’ with.
In addition to a strong narrative we also needed convincing evidence to support the case for change. So, we drew on evidence of needs of employers, employment trends, portfolio and market analysis, case studies of other institutions that had carried out similar changes. The most compelling evidence for change came from the student voice. We draw this evidence from student evaluations over time, student satisfaction surveys, and most powerfully from our students themselves, who were also making the case for change.
Community
Co-Created with Colleagues and Students
A deliberate part of our change programme was co-creating proposals with our university community. This wasn’t just about consultation but a conscious attempt to ensure that we were making the right changes to achieve the benefits we wanted and that these were achievable. As the programme evolved we constantly tested and refined our proposals.
A small number of colleagues preferred to wait until plans were more fully formed before engaging with us. They didn’t like that we couldn’t outline exactly what we were doing and how we would be doing it from the outset. But for most, it helped build consensus and led to more robust, inclusive, implementable outcomes that had been challenged and scrutinised from multiple perspectives.
Centrally Driven, Locally Implemented
Guiding principles for all change in education at the University of Reading include respect for the primacy of the discipline and a recognition of differences between disciplinary pedagogies. Alongside a well-established distributed leadership model, this meant that our transformation programme was, as became our mantra, centrally driven but locally implemented. This required empowering leaders locally to shape curriculum changes. It also meant that there has been some unevenness in the extent to which benefits have been realised across schools and departments. In due course, as benefits became evident, even initially hesitant areas began adopting the changes.
Student partners and panels
Students were at the centre of shaping our changes. We used our Student Panel to challenge and refine our proposals for change. They engaged in a range of activities including online discussions, questionnaires, polls, focus groups, creative writing tasks, zine making, and reflective accounts. They also played a key role in supporting the creation of operational outputs, including designing institutional assessment strategies, proposals for restructuring the academic year and developing key principles for our approach to blended learning. Themes for our panels over the course of the programme included:
- refreshing our Graduate Attributes;
- programme expectations;
- generative AI;
- decolonising the curriculum;
- getting consistency in online learning resources (VLE);
- wellbeing in the curriculum.
We funded each of our disciplines to employ a team of student partners. They worked as part of programme teams in the co-creation of new programmes and modules. Students were equal partners contributing to curriculum design, learning outcomes, and pedagogical approaches. As a result, colleagues benefited from students’ experiences and perspectives, and students gained a deeper understanding of curriculum development and academic practice.
Communication
Leading a curriculum change programme of the scale and duration of ours required a whole range of communications with a wide variety of stakeholders, from contractual communications to applicants, to updates to and feedback from employers. So what I outline here are just 8 of the things that I think, pragmatically, worked.
- Strong visible leadership. From the PVC and Associate PVCs and senior professional colleagues who co-lead projects, work streams and work packages but also importantly from the VC, all members of the University Executive and our Council.
- Stakeholder updates. We sent these out widely and often. Every fortnight for much of the programme. There was too much information. Despite this, colleagues reflected that at least they know where to look for it.
- Breakfast briefings. These were online early morning town halls. We held these once a month. There were updates but they were the opportunity to raise concerns, challenge proposals and ask questions. Attendance remained high – so we are carrying these on as BAU.
- External Examiners. Engaging them early on the institutional drivers for change helped to engage them locally as partners in curriculum, and particularly assessment, redesign later on.
- Taking proposals to people. In whole staff briefings, school, department and professional team meetings and away days. Answering all questions, ensuring all challenges could be voiced and heard.
- Transparency. Even though some found it discombobulated- saying when we didn’t know, or we were worried whether things would work.
- Communities of Practice. We have a strong, vibrant well established teaching and learning community. We were able to drawn on their individual and collective expertise. This included regular engagements with communities of practice including those for: Programme Directors, School T&L leaders; pastoral leads; assessment leads; PGT Directors; University and National Teaching Fellows; Senior and Principal Fellows.
- Stuff. Colleagues liked visual representations they could put on their notice boards- like roadmaps of T&L Operations and of Quality Assurance processes. Also guidance documents- like our ‘Green Guides’ a suite of resources to support all aspects of the design, delivery and enhancement of teaching, learning and assessment. Students like physical representations- from branded study aids to dishcloths!
To learn more insights from the University of Reading’s Portfolio review, click here.
Professor Elizabeth McCrum is Pro Vice Chancellor Education and Student Experience, University of Reading.