Project Acronym: PREDICT

Version: 2
Contact: Pam Parker
Date: 31st July 2009

Project Document Cover Sheet

Project Information
Project Acronym PREDICT
Project Title Process Re-engineering Design for an Interdisciplinary
Curriculum with Technology
Start Date September 2008 End Date August 2012
Lead Institution City University, London
Project Director Dr Susannah Quinsee
Project Manager & Dr Pam Parker Associate Director Learning Development
contact details Centre
020 7040 3047 P.M.Parker@city.ac.uk
Partner Institutions N/A
Project Web URL http://www.city.ac.uk/ldc/resources/jisc.html
Programme Name Institutional Approaches to Curriculum Design
(and number)
Programme Sarah Knight
Manager

Document Name
Document Title Project Plan
Reporting Period N/A
Author(s) & project Dr Pam Parker Project Manager
role
Date 31st July 2009 Filename JISC Baseline Data Report
2
URL if document is posted on project web site
Access  √ Project and JISC internal  General dissemination

Document History
Version Date Comments
th
1 30 April First draft
2009
2 31st July Completed Baseline Data Report
2009
 PREDICT Project

Baseline Data Report

July 2009

Predict baseline data report V2 2

Table of Contents

................................................................................................... 1
Project Document Cover Sheet........................................................................ 1

Section A ......................................................................................................... 4
1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4
2 Background to Project Bid ............................................................................ 4
3 Institutional Issues ........................................................................................ 4
4 Learning and Teaching Strategy ................................................................... 6
5 Faculty/Discipline/Student Services .............................................................. 7
6 Professional Bodies ...................................................................................... 8
7 Staff .............................................................................................................. 8
8 Students ........................................................................................................ 9
9 Technology ................................................................................................. 10
10 Programme Approval and Programmes .................................................... 10

Section B ....................................................................................................... 13
1 Programme Information .............................................................................. 13
2 Guidance for Curriculum Design and the approval. .................................... 14
3 Staff Experience of Curriculum Design ....................................................... 15
4 Conclusion and Project Plans ..................................................................... 16

Predict baseline data report V2 3

Section A
1 Introduction
The baseline data report is divided into two sections. Section A provides a
background to a range of areas relevant to the project and the institution within which
the project is taking place. This information is based on the current situation for
2008/09 but will be reviewed and updated at regular intervals throughout the project
to ensure it remains contemporary. It will enable the project team to maintain a
record of events as they change and/or impact upon the project.

Section B then includes data from a range of sources that has direct relevance to this
project or which has been collected as part of this project’s initial scoping and data
collection.

2 Background to Project Bid

This project was bid for at a time when the Undergraduate review was commencing
and whilst this activity was being undertaken as part of the Strategic review across
the University it provided an opportunity to also review the curriculum design process
so that any potential changes and new programmes arising from the review could
provide real practical opportunities to design and evaluate curriculum using new
design approaches. The project was also an opportunity to share knowledge and
practice across the sector and would compliment the activities already being
undertaken in the University.

3 Institutional Issues
In July 2007 there was a new Vice Chancellor. This has led to a range of review
activities including the structure of the University, its faculties and departments and
the programmes on offer. Some of these reviews have led to changes, others are in
the stages of reporting within the next few months and in some areas further reviews
are planned. All of these will be discussed at appropriate points within this report.

City University London recognises that much of the value of the institution is
expressed through the quality and relevance of the curriculum. The focus is on
educational areas relevant to business and the professions, informed by the
geographical location within London, a World City. Over 35% of the learners are from
overseas and therefore there is a need to ensure programmes are flexible, innovative
and responsive to both the changing needs of learners and the changing
marketplace of employers.

The strategic vision for the University has been reviewed and a new strategy has
been in place since 2008. The new University Strategic Priorities are for 2008 – 2012
and they include reference to the provision of high quality education and curricula
content (University Strategy). There is also reference to a review of the
undergraduate (postgraduate to follow) curriculum and the offering in this area and
developing elements of a core curriculum (University Strategy). These are of
particular relevance to this project which has a focus on the curriculum design
process and the use of responsive technology. It is thus a timely project in terms of
the undergraduate review and the recommendations that arise from this.

The Undergraduate review was due to report in the Spring term of 2009 however,
due to institutional audit taking place in the late part of the Autumn 2008 term this led
to some delays but this review report has now been published at the beginning of
July 2009 and both relevant data and recommendations are included within this

Predict baseline data report V2 4

baseline report (Report on the review of Undergraduate Education). This delay to this
review has had some impact on the PREDICT project plan in terms of deadlines and
the activities but have not changed the overall project plan aim. Further information
about this is given in the conclusion.

Some of the drivers for change are to ensure that the University is providing
programmes that are contemporary but that also meet employers needs both now
and in the future and this in turn will ensure recruitment remains stable. Recruitment
is of course also related to the quality of the education provision, the credibility of the
awards and student satification with their experience. Unforeseen economic events
of the late summer, early autumn of 2008 have also had an impact on City University
London and Universities across the Uk in terms of financial management but also the
possible but unknown impact this may have on student recruitment both within the Uk
and from overseas as the 2009/2010 academic year commences.

However, whilst not all the drivers for change may be internally generated or positive
the possible benefits of a review of undergraduate followed by postgraduate
education at this time may be significant in terms of future sustainability and
recruitment.

One of the structural changes that impacts on education are the changes made in
relation to the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Education). This role was part time until 2008
when it became a full time role and two departments were clearly linked to this role,
one, the Academic Development Unit and the other one the Learning Development
Centre (Teaching and Learning Strategy). This was important to the student
experience and in terms of support, advice and professional development for staff
who are involved in facilitating and supporting students.

The Academic Development Unit has been created from existing departments but the
new Unit provides a clearer central Unit supporting the University’s management and
development of its educational offering (ADU website). The Unit is responsible for
overseeing many of the quality processes that monitor and enhance pogrammes
such as approval, annual programme evaluation and periodic programme review as
well as validation and partnerships. The process for periodic programme review
(PPR policy) and has been reviewed and revised over the last year so a new process
can be put in place for 2009/2010 which is more developmental and this has
relevance to the project as do the plans for reviewing programme approval (PPR
policy). Programme approval is also being revised at the beginning of 2009/10 in
terms of the process and the information programme teams provide at different
points and so this also needs to be taken into account as the new process is
developed in terms of the impact this may have upon the project. The Unit's role in
terms of the process of PPR and programme approval is essential and so their role
within the project as a key stakeholder is of high importance.

The Learning Development Centre (LDC) was created from two previous
departments which were E-learning services and the Centre for Educational and
Academic Practices. These two departments had previously supported staff in their
roles of facilitating learning but as a combined centre are able to do this with a more
cohesive approach and improved School liaison links (LDC strategy). The previous e-
learning services had been supporting staff across the University with the integration
and development of e-learning for their programmes. The University invested in a
Virtual Learning environment in 2003. Initially integration of e-learning within
programmes was slow but this has become an integral component of programmes.

Lastly, as the end of July 2009 is coming to an end a substantial change in the
Senior Management of the University has taken place with the Vice Chancellor

Predict baseline data report V2 5

resigning. The Deputy Vice Chancellor is now in post as the acting Vice Chancellor
and the strategic plans for the University drafted over the last two years will continue
to be the focus of the University. It is believed that the strategic plans developed over
the last few years have strengthened the Universities position within the sector and
they are the right activities to continue to focus upon. However when the acting Vice
Chancellor, Senior Management Team and Council have had time to consider the
future management this may result in changes when a new Vice Chancellor is
sought. In terms of the project this has no immediate impact as Senior Management
will continue to support this project and the proposed changes. This has been noted
however in the project plan as a changed risk in terms of any further Senior
Management changes.

4 Learning and Teaching Strategy

The learning and teaching strategy as with the University Strategy was revised when
the new Vice Chancellor took up post and the current strategy runs from 2008-2012.
This strategy reflects the University priorities and has five main themes which
include: equipping students to meet employment needs and the demands of the 21st
century professional environment, enhancing continuously the quality, relevance and
appropriateness of our educational offer and providing and promoting an
infrastructure and learning environment that supports and facilitates high quality and
innovative education (Learning and Teaching Strategy 2008-2012). There have been
many initiatives undertaken following approval of this strategy.

Previously undertaking modules or parts of the MA Academic Practice programme

was left to individual Schools to identify if and who should undertake this however,
the new Vice Chancellor made this a priority for all new staff and this also became
part of the learning and teaching strategy. Since this change to emphasise the
importance of the quality of learning and teaching and the need for staff to undertake
development in this area, more staff have enrolled both in the programme but also on
individual modules for continuing professional development (MA Academic Practice
Programme student numbers).

The University had also had a history of providing awards and support for learning
and teaching developments through the previous E-learning Services and the Centre
for Educational and Academic Practice. The newly formed Learning Development
Centre were able to review and redesign this scheme with the learning and teaching
awards committee to provide a clearer scheme with progression of awards and
introduced a new award for the student voice in 2008/09. The awards scheme this
year was very successful with more applications than in previous years and the
student voice award was a welcome addition (Minutes of learning and teaching
awards committee and evaluation of the scheme).

Lastly the Virtual Learning Environment which has been in use since 2003 set up via
WebCT now part of Blackboard has been reviewed. This was to ensure that it
continues to meet the needs of staff and students, and ensures that whatever
environment is used it provides a flexible learning system that is at the core of the
educational offering and is future proofed. The review is now complete and following
consultation and a tendering process a change in the environment is to be made
(VLE documents). The chosen environment for the future is moodle and again this
impacts upon the project in terms of the future curriculum design process and the
technology to support this. It is however, well timed so that as this project develops
both the new Strategic Learning Environment and the Undergraduate review
recommendations can be taken into account as a new design process is developed,
piloted and then rolled out across the University.

Predict baseline data report V2 6

5 Faculty/Discipline/Student Services
The academic structures have gone through some changes with the University
having had a mix of some institutes and some Schools. The University now has
seven academic schools which are:
Cass Business School
City Law School
School of Arts
School of Community and Health Sciences
School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences
School of Informatics
School of Social Sciences

Each School has a Dean however the School of Arts and the School of Social
Sciences currently have a conjoint Dean and so do the School of Informatics and the
School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences (School plans). This has been due
to staff changes but also to examine the areas that might be organised together in
these Schools which might reduce some of the staffing and cost issues but also
enhance sharing in these areas. All Schools over the last few years have undertaken
a review of their activity and the structure of their School and this has sadly resulted
in redundancies in several of these Schools with the latest reviews having completed
this year and further staff leaving the University in July 2009 due to redundancy. This
has been unsettling for the Schools and staff however each School has a robust plan
for the next few years and all have included acting upon the Undergraduate review
recommendations as high on their priorities (School Plans 2009/10). This provides a
clear focus for the project in terms of curriculum design and working with these
Schools to review their undergraduate provision.

Over the last two years there has also been an increased emphasis on the quality of
the student experience and the quality of the education provision. To support this
each School has appointed an Associate Dean for Learning and Teaching. The remit
of these post holders varies from School to School but the focus is on the quality of
the programmes, learning and teaching and the student experience. These post
holders have an important strategic role and are members of many committees
where decisions are made that impact on the student experience. These include the
University Academic Programme Practice Standards Committees (APPSC), the
University Assessment Group and the Learning and Teaching Awards Committee.

The Learning Development Centre staff liaise with the post holders throughout the
year to ensure that the staff development being provided meets the Schools needs
as well as enabling the Learning and Teaching Strategy of the University to be
implemented. These post holders are also significant stakeholders in the project and
so two representatives of this group are included within the project board
membership.

Within each School there is then a range of departments. The departments and
Schools manage their programmes with a significant amount of devolved
responsibility although there are a range of central university policies and services
that are used across the programmes. Resources for programmes are managed
locally as well although reviewing these is also included within the University
programme approval process and the periodic programme review.

Lastly an area that should be mentioned which provides support for a range of
student activity through their programme experience is that of the Student Centre
(Student Centre Website). The centre brings together a range of supportive and
complimentary services students can access. These services include academic skills

Predict baseline data report V2 7

development support and examination support, English as a second language
classes, both dyslexia and disability support and advice and the Counseling services.
Whilst the focus of these services is upon students there is also a range of advice
provided for lecturers supporting students in these situations. The Centre plans to
expand these services over the next year with a website to support study skills
activity (Central Services Learning development project 2009).

6 Professional Bodies
The University believes in external involvement in both the development of
programmes and review but also for the approval events and so at least one external
person also takes part in the panel who, has professional/educational expertise
within the area. Due to the nature of the University and the provision being focused
on business and the professions there are a high number of professionally accredited
and approved programmes. This adds other central stakeholders to processes such
as approval and evaluation of programmes. At present there are several bodies who
are involved in the University programmes and so their inclusion in the project is also
important (List of Professional Bodies).

7 Staff
Staff at City University London as with other Universities, fulfil a range of roles. In
relation to those who might be involved in curriculum design and learning and
teaching these are varied. The roles include the traditional lecturer roles as well as
part-time lecturers and a range of hourly paid teaching roles and honorary teaching
roles. There are also a range of professional and support roles which include library
staff, learning facilitators, learning technologists, academic administrators and
various administration roles that all provide essential services and liaison with
students. There are also a range of research roles that whilst not always directly
involved in student learning do contribute in terms of developments within the
discipline area but who also undertake research exploring learning and teaching
issues directly related to the discipline.

In relation to staff workload and contact hours these again vary across Schools and
relate to the professional context as well. So for example some of the Schools and
professional bodies require staff to undertake specific practice hours as part of their
role.

Staff are employed in relation to their expertise both for their role but also for the
discipline area they are working within. This is particularly important for the range of
professional areas that the programmes cover. To ensure staff are current in their
knowledge and skills to undertake their role continuing professional development is
actively encouraged throughout the University for all staff.

There are a range of staff development activities run through the Staff development
unit such as time and staff management, some computing courses and others related
to health and safety (Staff development website). There are also a range of
seminars, workshops and modules run by the Learning Development Centre that
promote learning and teaching development and support (LDC website). In addition
Schools provide their own range of School and discipline staff development
opportunities.

In addition to the staff development opportunities City University has an appraisal

scheme which enables staff to raise issues of development they would like as well as
review their role regularly (HR website). For staff who are involved in facilitation of
learning and teaching there is also a peer review process that all staff have to take

Predict baseline data report V2 8

part in at least annually (HR website). The peer review process has just been revised
and through 2009/10 an evaluation of this process will be undertaken. These two
processes enable staff to consider opportunities they would like to participate in to
develop learning and teaching as well as consider development they need to meet
personal, professional, School and University needs.

Recognition of staff development and encouragement to explore innovation are given

high priority. The University also has a promotions scheme which is open to all to
consider and apply. Support for reviewing individual profiles and planning
development to meet individual need is provided by School staff but also the
Learning development Centre can offer advice. There is a competitive research
award annually and several learning and teaching awards as noted earlier. There are
also a few awards for staff contributions to the University annually which staff can be
nominated for. Lastly, for this first time in June 2009 the University held its first
annual staff learning and teaching conference to share with peers good practice and
innovation. This was initiated by the Learning Development Centre and will be
supported from 2009/10 by an annual staff journal (Learning Development Centre
Strategic Plan).

City University also provides a range of opportunities to contribute to a range of

committees that support the University Strategic direction. The VC commenced a
regular e -newsletter to all staff which ensures everyone knows of important issues
and developments and once a term the VC also has a lunchtime open forum with a
theme but encourages staff to come along and ask questions. Both the e-newsletter
and forums will continue with the acting vice chancellor. In addition there are
opportunities to contribute to a range of consultation exercises such as the
Undergraduate review and the promotions review. There has also been a staff
satisfaction survey run during the Spring term by an external agent. The results of
this were mostly very positive in terms of working within the University and feeling
valued however there were still some concerns expressed about communication from
Senior Management (Staff satisfaction survey 2009).

Staff who undertake programme development are clearly central to the project and
will be major stakeholders who will be involved in a range of ways (Project plan).

8 Students
Student recruitment varies across Schools as do the student profiles. City University
as with other Universities has a diverse student population which includes young and
mature students as well as home and overseas students. This leads to a rich cultural
and ethnic mix within the student body. It also leads to a variety of student ability with
some students having the traditional qualifications of GCSE’s, A Levels and in some
cases degree qualifications but also with the widening participation agenda many of
the students have access courses, BTEC qualifications and some a range of
overseas qualifications. This leads to a student body of those who are able, those
who with support are able and those who need a range of additional services such as
English as a second language, numeracy, English grammar and writing etc. Sadly
there are also those who even with support are not able to achieve and leave the
programmes. This range of students provides many challenges as well as
opportunities for those both teaching and supporting students but also for those
designing the programmes.

Student satisfaction is very important and the University uses a range of approaches
to measure this. There are end of module and programme evaluations, student
representation on a range of School Committees and there is a University Student
staff liaison committee. These all provide students with an opportunity to raise issues
related to their programmes and experiences both positive and those causing

Predict baseline data report V2 9

concern. The student Union is active in also representing the student views across
the University and there is a Dean of Students appointed to focus on student issues
from support to assessment issues, appeals and disciplinary issues. The National
Student Survey is completed annually and generally students at City are satisfied
with the teaching on their programmes but areas where issues are raised are those
of organisation and as with other UK universities assessment feedback. The
University has made assessment and feedback a priority over the last two years and
many developments have taken place which, have led to some increase in student
satisfaction however this work continues.

9 Technology
The University has a range of technology and software to support the activities. This
section discusses only those relevant to the programmes and the project.

The Strategic Learning Environment was mentioned earlier and this will change over
the next two years which will provide opportunities for curriculum design which may
not have been possible with the current environment however this will also provide
some challenges in terms of developing the new environment, staff and student
development and running two approaches side by side for a period of time.

Due to the new environment being introduced at this time it is not possible to move
everything into the new environment for the next academic year and so each School
has been asked to choose at least one programme to undertake pilot work this year
and new programmes will also be using this (SLE strategic plan).

Templates need to be developed that are flexible for staff to change to meet
individual programme needs but also new applications and tools will be available. As
this development progresses more information will be gained about how it enhances
both staff and student experiences and how it can be used to support curriculum
design.

Our student records are held within a system known as SITS and over a period of
time this has been developed to enable a range of information related to a student to
be included and this provides information on individual student achievement, cohort
information and the data for award boards.

PRISM is an application which holds all the information for our programme and
module specifications. Originally it was also intended to provide support for
programme approval and provide the information held in this application in other
formats such as a student prospectus, students handbook and a range of other
reports. To date some of this has not been realised due to a need for further funding
to develop this application.

10 Programme Approval and Programmes

Currently the University has an approval process that has three central stages for
new programmes and two stages for approval of amendments. There are also
School processes involved in all of these.

Stage 0 is the first stage when programmes involve developing a partnership with
other institutions or organisations. This stage allows the partnership arrangements to
be agreed for aspects such as quality, finance and accountability (Stage 0 guidance).
Stage I involves developing the case for the new programme in terms of demand,
market, resources needed to develop and run the programme and an outline of the
programme. Approval and review is initially discussed and approved at school level

Predict baseline data report V2 10

prior to being sent to the Academic Development Unit for central approval (Stage I
guidance). Stage II involves the programme team producing the programme
specification document and the module specifications. There is also a response to
the stage I report any conditions or recommendations that were made. There is as
with stage I a School process prior to being sent to the Academic Development Unit
in preparation for an approval meeting. The meeting is in the form of a dialogue
between the panel who represent the University and the programme team (Stage II
Guidance).

Programmes are both full time and part time with some variation in terms of
professional development. The University in 2004 underwent an exercise of
modularising all its programmes and providing credit for all modules (CAPS Project
documents). The Higher Education Credit Framework for England published in 2008
is followed as guidance. When modularisation was introduced the University
developed its own credit framework for guidance. This consisted of a framework for
both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes of a full time year being equal to
eight fifteen credit modules at whatever the appropriate academic level is for the
programme (credit Framework). However some flexibility has been allowed within
this to take account of professional requirements such as work placements and to
support flexibility and diversity, so programmes may have modules in multiples of 5
credits although too many small credit modules are discouraged. In addition some
programmes exceed the amount of credits required for the qualification being
awarded often due to professional requirements. This led to a range of flexible
programmes with a range of entry and exit points but also a greater variation across
programmes which has prevented in some cases developing shared modules or
interprofessional programmes.

Contact hours vary across programmes and Schools as would be expected with the
range of disciplines but also there are some professional requirements that lead to
contact hours within practice/work related settings. In addition student workload
varies although the credit framework does provide some guidance in terms of hours
related to credits. In terms of assessments there is some inequity in terms of the
number of assessments within modules but also a continued over use of
examinations as the predominant assessment format.

In terms of pedagogic delivery of programmes again the University recognises and

supports diversity as long as these fit with student need and ensure they have an
appropriate experience to support their learning. The programmes are delivered
through a range of approaches including face-to-face classes using the full range of
techniques from lectures to seminars and tutorials, blended learning using the face-
to-face approaches and some e-learning and, a few programmes use distance
learning both paper based and through the use of e-learning. The emphasis at City
University is upon student involvement and active learning irrespective of the
pedagogy used. This emphasis led to a considerable investment in classroom
technology during 2007 (Classroom Experience project). The investment enabled
classrooms across some of the many sites (there are 8) to have equipment installed
in the form of Classroom pods. These pods support lecturers in their classroom
sessions and facilitate sessions being more interactive and student focused through
being able to integrate technologies within traditional face-to-face sessions. The pods
enable a lecturer to use power point, a visualiser, videos, the internet and other tools
to facilitate more student involvement. In addition the Personal Response System
(PRS) was also introduced again enabling quizzes in class and checking of student
understanding as well as evaluation. These technologies have been well received by
students and continue to evolve in terms of their potential.

Predict baseline data report V2 11

Assessment as with pedagogic approaches to learning has been developed over a
period of time and the University Assessment Regulations were revised during
2004/05 for a range of reasons but this led to a broader view of approaches being
discussed and accepted and an opportunity to move away from the traditional
University examinations although many programmes have kept these. More diverse
approaches have been developed over the last few years and so coursework, group
work, presentations and simulated practice have all been used. In addition the use of
e-learning becoming more integrated also gave rise to yet another range of
assessments such as on-line quizzes, blogs and the use of an e-portfolio. These
approaches continue to evolve as technology changes. Feedback for assessment
has also been able to take account of these changes and so using on-line feedback
to provide timely feedback has been used and approaches such as audio or video
feedback have been explored. The use of e-learning as an integrated component for
programmes has also enabled formative assessment approaches to be revised and
increased where possible.

E-portfolios as mentioned above have been implemented in some programmes and

these have now been part of a three project linked with Personal Development
Planning (PDP) (PDP Project Plan). The project is focused upon developing a learner
defined curricula and embedding key skills and attributes within all programmes.
Through this approach it is intended that learners develop lifelong learning skills and
are able to be adaptive workers on completion of their programmes. The link to the e-
portfolio is so there is a mechanism to support the recording of this activity. There
has been a scoping evaluation across programmes to identify where this has been
included and how as there was flexibility in the approaches used and there is
currently an evaluation of the project being undertaken (PDP Scoping document).

Predict baseline data report V2 12

Section B
1 Programme Information
This project is focused on the undergraduate programmes because the University
had undertaken to review and revise this offering at the end of 2007.

There are undergraduate programmes in all Schools across the University providing
68 awards in total and accounting for approximately 64% of the FTE numbers. Some
of these have professional accreditation as well as an academic award. The majority
of these programmes are provided as three year full time programmes (Report of
Undergraduate Review).

The undergraduate review found that programmes varied in terms of credits from the
minimum permitted 360 to a total of 450 credits. In addition the actual module sizes
also differed from 5 – 45 credits (Report of Undergraduate Review). Clearly if there is
to be some future development of shared modules this needs to be reviewed. Some
of the recommendations from the undergraduate review are that all programmes are
based on a module size of 15 credits as the minimum and some 30 credit modules
are encouraged. The overall number of credits is not to be changed from the
minimum of 360 and those who provide additional credits often do so in line with
additional student effort and professional requirements. However changing modules
to meet the 15 credit base will for some Schools lead to curriculum redesign.

The undergraduate review also found that whilst a range of assessment formats were
being used in many Schools examinations was still the predominant format with a
weighting as high as 70 – 80% in the modules (Report of Undergraduate Review).
The recommendations of the review has suggested that no more than 50% of a
programme should use this format and whilst this still has to be agreed there will be a
considerable amount of redesign linked to the assessment format used within
programmes.

Learning and teaching activities have changed over the years with more of a focus
on active learning and student responsibility. The use of lectures continues but also
seminars, group work, laboratory work and one to one activities are undertaken. The
use of technology both to enhance the classroom experience and to compliment it
has increased with some pockets of excellent practice. The Strategic learning
environment has been used to enable students to access reading materials and
lecture notes, take part in discussion boards, use podcasts of lectures and take part
in quizzes and short tests. This however needs to increase in some areas and again
will lead to a redesign of some programmes.

The module and programme specifications which provide details for students and
staff alike have been developed over a period of time in readiness for publishing on
the web. The data for these has been moved from the previous system (PMDCS) into
the new application PRISM and updated over a period of the last few years but there
have been some problems with this such as data disappearing and changing. Whilst
these problems have now been overcome it has led to certain amount of resistance
in updating these documents in this system and a negative view of the technology
related to programme information and approval. This will clearly have an impact on
the project in terms of wanting use technology to support the design process.

A working group was set up to develop the outline of the data that would be needed
for the programme and module specifications as well as the reports that would be
required. Whilst this group did complete this task, there were concerns about timing
of the data inputting and the specifications being published (PIG Minutes). The

Predict baseline data report V2 13

programme specifications did eventually get published but this was through an
adapted version of the specification due to problems with the application.

The concerns about the quality and the variability of the data had existed for
sometime and as part of the baseline data collection for this project all the
undergraduate programme specifications and some 2000 undergraduate modules at
HE levels 1 and 3 were reviewed for details of programmes and modules and to gain
a sense of the sorts of data provided at the curriculum design stage. What was found
from this review supported the concerns about both the quality and variability of the
specifications and this was the case across all Schools (Review of Programme and
Module Specifications 2009). Despite there being guidance developed about what to
include and workshops being run no specifications reviewed could be held up as an
example of good practice although there were some areas that included some good
practice.

The review indicated that the reports had been designed in a manner that the
information students might most want such as the programme outline and modules
was included but was often several pages into the document. The programme
specification whilst providing an outline of the programme was often brief and the
detail of the modules was either a list or limited detail. The actual learning, teaching
and assessment approaches tended to include all those that could be used rather
than include specific examples related to the programme. The learning outcomes
were often written in a format that students would not understand, used academic
language and were sometimes not measurable. Similar problems were found with the
module specifications. This clearly needs addressing in this project both in terms of
curriculum design but also for the specifications that are developed. The
undergraduate review also recognised this with a recommendation being made that
these are reviewed (Report of the Undergraduate Review).

As part of the undergraduate review and linked to the review of Business related
Education there was a desire to be able to be clear about the profile or qualities a
graduate from City University would have. There were a range of ways this
information was collected from interviewing programme leaders, other staff and
students, to collecting data from representatives from each department about what
programme had as core areas to the review of the module and programme
specification sample. Whilst some useful data was collected there was no clear core
areas across all programmes despite there being a view that there would be. There
was however identification of five principles for all programmes which were:

discipline-specific knowledge, skills and values

the ability to contribute, articulate and share ideas across boundaries
application of team-working and creative problem-solving
exposure to real-life scenarios
understanding and use of personal development planning

These clearly have implications for future curriculum design and thus the project.

2 Guidance for Curriculum Design and the approval.

Following the review of the module and programme specifications a review of the
guidance available was undertaken. Due to some of the programme having been
approved a number of years ago and having been amended but not completely
revised it was felt that a review should include some historical data of the process.

Curriculum models have been widely used within Schools but not so much within
Higher Education although a review of the past University guidance did reveal that

Predict baseline data report V2 14

more than ten years ago programme teams were asked to consider the curriculum
model they had used to guide their development. This had provided some guidance
on how to develop the content and learning outcomes dependent upon the
programme philosophy. However, this has not been required for a number of years
and the University has no clear policy about using a curriculum model. Whilst this
may not hinder good programme development it does not encourage programme
teams to be explicit about their philosophy and consider aspects of the programme in
light of this. This will be explored during the project to identify if this would enhance
development.

The guidance on the forms that staff complete for approval is clear in terms of what is
wanted but tends to focus on completing the requirements rather than prompting the
team to consider the requirements with a educational focus. Many staff when asked
say “its just a form filling exercise” and “jumping through hoops”. Staff do not appear
to value these as part of the development process. The actual module and
programme specifications in PRISM do not have guidance but there is a programme
approval handbook which contains guidance on aspects such as writing aims and
learning outcomes, choosing learning and teaching approaches as well as
assessment formats. Despite this staff tend not to use this when completing the
documentation.

Schools are required each year to provide an indication of the programmes going
through approval however often delays in development mean that towards the end of
the summer a lot of programmes go through approval with often a range of chairs
and panel members and often limited time to read the documentation and so
problems are not always identified at this point. This is an area currently being
reviewed as part of the review of the approval process.

3 Staff Experience of Curriculum Design

The Learning Development Centre is responsible for the MA Academic Practice and
one of the modules of this programme is Curriculum Development and Design. This
module is run by the Project Manager and was identified early in the project plan as
being an opportunity to gain data about curriculum design experience prior to
changes in this, an opportunity to involve some key stakeholders from amongst the
teaching staff and provide a group of staff who could be used as an “Expert Group” to
provide feedback at different stages of this project.

The students on this module were 22 staff from across all seven Schools within the
University. They had varying lengths of experience from the very new to those who
had been employed for sometime but were now coming on the programme due to the
increased emphasis on staff having development in areas of learning and teaching.

When the module commenced one of the activities was to consider individual
experiences of curriculum design and provide positive and negative comments
related to this. Of the 22 students 12 had not really been involved in any programme
development. They ran modules on programmes but these had been existing
modules developed by others. The remaining 10 students had been involved in some
programme development. These ranged from changing a module assessment, to
designing a new module to being part of a team about to develop a programme.

From those who had experience the negative comments were focused on completing
forms and paperwork to not having any support in doing this and not understanding
the process of approval. Those who had positive comments mentioned working
within a team to design a programme, having support from the Academic
Development Unit and the Learning development Centre and knowing how to start to

Predict baseline data report V2 15

develop a programme or module. None of the staff focused on the educational
debate that might take place when designing a programme.

As the module progressed and more information was given about different curriculum
models, stakeholders in the design and some of the activities that need to be
undertaken in the process and why many of the staff were surprised they had not
been given information about these areas. The design from their experiences
appeared to be very focused on the actual mechanics of the process rather than the
educational debate about what students should gain from a programme.

One of the later exercises undertaken as part of this module was to consider how
they might start to design a programme and what the focus would be. The staff
provided examples of wanting the programme to focus on the student and what they
should have on completion of the programme in terms of knowledge, skills and
attitudes. They considered the learning and teaching approaches that might lead to
this and considered a great range of those that could be used. Lastly when thinking
about assessment they wanted to explore the learning outcomes students would
need to demonstrate achieving and then they wanted to provide a menu of
assessment formats that could be used throughout the programme and let students
choose which they did when as long as they all did a number of specified formats. It
was interesting to see the change in their thinking about curriculum design.

This project was introduced to them and they were asked about becoming an “Expert
group” which they thought would be a useful activity in this area for their
development. The module completed ion June 2009 and all students agreed to be
part of that “Expert group” however since completion of the module four of these staff
have been made redundant. When the new academic year for 2009/10 commences
the project manager will contact all the remaining students to ensure they are willing
to continue to have information sent to them but also to ask which of them will be
involved in curriculum design activities during this next year.

4 Conclusion and Project Plans

Over the first year of this project the plan has been drafted and revised and the
project board have agreed it. Data has been collected as part of the project activities
but also from other reviews and activities within the University.

The first year has not without some aspects of concern. In the early part of the
Summer term there was the news that the undergraduate review report was going to
be delayed which had an impact upon the times within the project plan. There was
then also some discussion from some members of the project board that now the
project plan included activities that others were going to lead and so the plan would
need changing. This was a concern in terms of the original bid having been agreed
by all parties and some of these were now asking for changes. The project Director
and Project Manager met with these members of the board and discussed the
issues. The changes whilst meaning that the project plan would need reviewing were
actually felt to be more focused on the actual curriculum design process and
educational areas rather than the mechanics of design and approval and so were
believed to be more developmental by the both the Project Director and Manager.

The revised project plan had been drafted in late June but prior to contacting JISC to
send a revised plan for approval it was felt that waiting for the final report on the
undergraduate review would be sensible to save further changes. This was published
in the second week of July.

Predict baseline data report V2 16

In the third/fourth week of July the Vice Chancellor resigned from the University and
again this led to further delays in revising plan whilst information was sought on the
Senior Management position of the University and whether there was continued
support for the project. This has all been clarified now and so the revised plan will be
drafted in August 2009 and approved by the project board at the beginning of
September. Both the Project Manager and Director will also liaise with the cluster
group critical friend to discuss this plan and the JISC programme manager.

Predict baseline data report V2 17