INNOVATIONS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

---

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

 

INNOVATIONS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION:

Economic & Social Research Council Learning Society Programme Award Numbers: L123251071 & L123251074 PRINCIPAL RESEARCHERS Dr Andrew Hannan (co-director) Professor Harold Silver (co-director) Ms Susan English (research assistant) University of Plymouth Duration: 1st phase: September 1997 - August 1998 2nd phase: October 1998 - September 1999

Co-funders 1st phase: ESRC and HEQC 2nd phase: ESRC, HEFCE and DfEE CONTACT ADDRESS Prof A Hannan Faculty Education University of Plymouth Douglas Avenue Exmouth, England, EX8 2AT Tel: 01395 255368 Email: a.hannan@plymouth.ac.uk WEB-SITE http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/itlhe/

OBJECTIVES

The project aimed to examine the innovative responses of higher education to: the challenges of increased student numbers and diversity; the promotion of lifelong learning and a learning society; and satisfying the requirements of employment and citizenship.

The first phase focused on innovators and innovations and included processes such as problem based learning, open learning, independent learning, distance learning and computer based or supported learning. The second phase was concerned with institutional contexts for innovation.

APPROACH

The first phase focused on the experiences of innovators, based on 221 interviews at 15 universities which were a balance of old and new across the UK.

The second phase revisited three English and one Scottish university from the original 15 and added the Open University, to undertake case studies of the process of change. One hundred and sixteen interviews and six focus group meetings took place.

MAIN FINDINGS

FIRST PHASE

• Perceptions of the nature and value of an innovation varied widely.
  
  
• There was widespread emphasis on the importance of support from senior colleagues, which was not always forthcoming.
  
  
• Some colleagues saw innovators as eccentric or even dangerous, depending on the kind of innovation, eg Computer Aided Learning or Work Based Learning, and how threatening it was to conventional teaching.
  
  
• There was often greater interest and take-up in institutions other than those where the innovation was introduced.
  
  
• Staff often criticised centralised policy and decision making. Some innovations, however, were generated by institutional policy (notably on Information Technology and generalisable skills). Institutions were commonly producing policy documents on teaching and learning, but staff were suspicious of their seriousness.
  
  
• There were mixed, but mainly supportive, views of the involvement of services established within institutions to support innovation in teaching and learning.
  
  
• Strong emphasis was placed on the importance of seed corn funding and widespread approval was expressed of the impact of the Enterprise in Higher Education programme as a catalyst.
  
  
• Views about the value of Teaching Quality Assessment were mixed, but there were many expressions of approval of its 'shaking up' effect.
  
  
• Use of Information Technology in innovations was extensive, aimed at replacing or supporting conventional teaching.
  
  
• The use of distance learning was accelerating, most strongly at postgraduate level, and for both on-campus and off-campus students.
  
  
• Research and teaching were often competing for attention, time and resources.
  
  
• Recent moves to raise the profile of teaching for promotion and other forms of recognition, including prizes, were widely discussed, but there was much staff cynicism or 'wait and see' attitudes.
  

SECOND PHASE

• In the past half century there seem to have been, mainly but not only in teaching and learning, three interlocking themes, which have to some extent been overlapping phases, in the history of innovation within institutions of higher education, viz 'individual innovation' (drawing on the ideas of enthusiasts) , 'guided innovation' (often supported by institutional funds derived from national programmes and somewhat loosely connected to guiding notions about improving teaching and learning) and 'directed innovation' (driven by institutional imperatives often aimed at maximising returns on investment in new technologies or promoting more student-centred learning partly for reasons of efficiency).
  
  
• Innovations in teaching and learning were taking place within a context of sometimes quite radical change in institutional structures.
  
  
• Middle managers (heads of departments/schools and deans of faculties/schools) were crucial if implementing institutional policies on teaching and learning was to be achieved. Considerable differences between departments or faculties were possible, and successful practice in teaching and learning and relevant policy implementation often depended on reliable institutional monitoring procedures.
  
  
• The extent and nature of institutional commitment to teaching and learning cannot be categorised solely on the basis of 'post-1992' and 'pre-1992' universities.
  
  
• At institutional, faculty or departmental levels, major obstacles to the general development of teaching and learning strategies could arise. They included: a strong emphasis on research and the Research Assessment Exercise; staff attitudes based on tradition and unquestioned assumptions; and student resistance to change, as a result of pre-entry expectations and pressures, for example, from part-time employment which placed limits on the time available for learning.
  
  
• Institutional cultures are immensely difficult to analyse, given that they are the result of often widely different attitudes and approaches by different levels of staff and by students; competing interpretations of policy; and competing commitments (to the institution and to the discipline; to research, to teaching and to administration; to short-term needs and those of promotion and career). The result is often a complex picture of tensions and consensus. There are important differences affecting teaching and learning between those institutions which had defined themselves and settled into their definition and those which are in the process of achieving this. Adequate consultation about institutional policies may not lead to innovative changes in teaching and learning, but this is less likely without.
  
  
• It was possible to detect a 'culture of teaching and learning' or a 'culture of research', or mixture of the two. It was not possible to detect a 'culture of innovation', since the intentions and outcomes of institutional policy and individual initiatives depend on substantially different factors and these may (but do not necessarily) point in different directions.
  
  

POLICY IMPLICATIONS - THE PROMOTION OF INNOVATION

Implications for the funding councils, DfEE and ILT

• Although we found institutions which were independently developing their own policies for recognising developments in teaching and learning, we suggest that these might benefit from targeted national funding that could usefully experiment with different ways of supporting the enhancement of teaching and learning, eg through sponsoring sabbaticals for staff developing new approaches or supporting the equivalent of Readerships and Chairs for those who successfully introduce innovations.
  
  
• The pursuit of excellence in teaching and learning could benefit from greater attention to the role of innovation, a study of which could usefully be incorporated within the training of all academic staff. All partners in higher education need to have a broad understanding of the origins and purposes of 'innovation' of different kinds and at different levels - individual, team, institutional, national, disciplinary, technological.
  
  
• The future of innovation in teaching and learning has to be seen in national, institutional and, crucially, individual terms, particularly taking account of the needs of those at the point of contact with students.
  
  
• Successful innovation in teaching and learning is possible where a balance with research is maintained. It was possible to find evidence of a strong commitment to research alongside an equal commitment to improving teaching and ensuring effective student learning, sometimes in practice as well as in principle. However, a commitment to research was not necessarily associated with a commitment to its use for the enhancement of teaching. Research which enhances teaching and learning in higher education needs to be recognised, promoted and rewarded. The Research Assessment Exercise of 2001 (and its successors) should incorporate mechanisms to encourage this.
  

Implications for HE institutions

• In attempting to promote innovation in teaching and learning, account should be taken of the following aspects of institutional culture:-
  
  Innovation in teaching and learning is most likely to take place when:
  a) the innovator has encouragement or support from the head of department, dean or other person in authority;
  b) the institution has a policy establishing parity between research and teaching and learning, including for purposes of promotion, and the policy is reflected in practice;
  c) colleagues and people in authority show an interest in disseminating the outcomes of innovation;
  d) resources are available through the department, an innovations or similar fund and an education development unit.

Innovation is most likely to be obstructed by:
a) low esteem of teaching and learning, compared with research;
b) lack of recognition and interest by colleagues and people in authority;
c) institutional or other policies and action plans laying down firm directions that preclude individual, alternative initiatives;
d) excessively bureaucratic procedures for approval, support and resources;
e) quality assessment procedures that inhibit risk taking.

 

• Institutions of higher education, in reviewing their structures and support systems, need also to have in mind the possible longer-term implications of teaching and learning styles for employment, participation in lifelong learning and contribution to the learning society of the policies and practices they promote.
  

PUBLICATIONS

 

---

Innovations in Teaching and Learning in HE