Innovations in Teaching and Learning in H.E.

INNOVATIONS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

'The Experiences of Innovators: A Report on the First Year'

for the 'mini-conference' of 24 June 1998
344/54 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8BP

Co-directors: Harold Silver and Andrew Hannan

Research assistant: Susan English

THE PROJECT

THE INNOVATORS

THE INNOVATIONS

GENERAL

ISSUES & IMPLICATIONS

THE FUTURE

This is a preliminary, draft report written for discussion at this meeting, convened for one or two people from each of the institutions at which interviews were held. All the interviews have been completed, but the first year of the project does not end until September 1998, and a final, formal report on this first year's study will not be written until the late summer/early autumn. For the benefit of this meeting, however, we felt it would help to produce a report for discussion, and this attempts to do two things:

Set out (a) some information about the project and its conduct to date; (b) who the innovators are and why they innovate; (c) some important kinds of innovation described in the interviews.

Outline as briefly as possible the main issues and implications we believe to have emerged from the study so far - ones that will be the object of later, fuller analysis. The issues clearly include the contextual factors, within and beyond the institutions, which will be the prime concern of the second year of the study, but which were unavoidable in this first year. The remit for the second year is to examine relevant institutional frameworks and cultures. Also of importance in both years are the impacts of national funding and other initiatives.

We hope that colleagues taking part in the meeting will help us reflect on this year's study, comment on the direction of the work and its implications, and also point us towards crucial concerns for consideration in the second year.

The Experiences of Innovation

Report on the first year of the 'Innovations in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education' project

[NB All quotations are from interviews or from documentation supplied by interviewees.]

1 The project

The two-year project on innovations in teaching and learning in higher education began in September 1997 at the University of Plymouth. Funded in its first year by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Higher Education Quality Council, it formed a project within the ESRC's Learning Society Programme. The main purpose of the first year was defined in the remit for the project as 'to identify the characteristics of successful innovations in teaching, learning and assessment practices in higher education' The project was to indicate 'which factors stimulate and those which inhibit innovation'. The first-year work was to explore the experiences of innovators, and the second year would examine 'institutional climates'. The focus was to be on undergraduate programmes. Although it proved impossible entirely to separate the first- and second- year emphases, the project did focus in its first year overwhelmingly on innovators and innovations.

222 interviews have been conducted by the research team at 15 university institutions. The latter have included six '1992 universities' and nine 'old universities'. Two of the latter were a former College of Advanced Technology and a former Scottish Central Institution which became universities in the 1960s, and one a 1960s 'green fields university'. Two of the 'old' universities were institutions of the University of Wales, two were in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland (for details see Appendix A). Interviews were taped and notes made. The tapes were intended as a back up, and the notes were transcribed and subsequently analysed using Hyperqual.

It was important at the outset to explore previous discussion and interpretations of 'innovation' that would be relevant to a project focusing on teaching and learning. There were boundaries to be established with curricular and management or administrative innovation, and though these could be directly or contextually influential for teaching and learning, they were not central to the project. A substantial annotated bibliography was produced, and a working paper entitled The Languages of Innovation: listening to the higher education literature concluded that the relevant literature on higher education was sparse, and that the literature addressing innovation in industry, commerce or technology, even when expressed in terms of 'social innovation', was not easily applicable to even the increasingly commercial contours of higher education. In recent decades much of the discussion of innovation has focused on the use of 'audio-visual aids', 'educational technology' and 'communication and information technology', and underlying most of the discussion in general are unquestioned assumptions about what constitutes innovation. For example, the Partnership Trust, making awards from 1989-85 'commending innovation in teaching and learning in higher education' adopted a wide-ranging definition, explaining that these awards were 'a system of annual prizes, for teachers in Higher Education who have achieved successful innovation in the content, methods or structure of learning' (Partnership Trust, 1990).

The literature seemed to leave open questions of how and why, in a vastly changed and frequently unpromising higher education environment innovation takes place and in what forms. It was obviously important to be clear about the relevance of past experience of innovation to one of the key developments of recent years - the widespread adoption by innovators and institutions of new technologies. It was equally clear from the literature that it was important to understand at what levels and under what pressures and incentives innovation took place and survived, or failed to survive.

A second working paper, 'Innovation': questions of boundary paid particular attention to the question of 'levels' and innovation as a response to institutional and societal changes. These changes - structural, cultural, economic and technological - seemed to influence not only the nature and life histories of innovations, but also how they might be perceived by all the actors and witnesses concerned. Although the focus of the first year of the project was 'the experiences of innovators', and the study of institutional frameworks was to be a focus of the second year, a consideration of how innovation occurred and was 'managed' at different levels within institutions could not be avoided. What was, in fact, an 'innovation' had to be approached within the changing academic, social and political environments of an institution, as well as within the policy frameworks of national government, quasi-governmental agencies and influential organisations of employers, educational pressure groups and others. It would be important to take account of such recent or current national programmes as Enterprise in Higher Education (EHE), Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP) and Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning. These and other influential bodies, such as Capability in Higher Education (CHE) and the Open Learning Foundation (OLF), could be relevant to the study of both individual innovators and institutional policy making that pointed towards or away from innovation in teaching and learning.

The methodology chosen for the pursuit of these and related issues was to establish the location of clusters of innovators who could be identified from subject-specific directories, EHE experience, journal articles and other sources (see Appendix A). A range of institutions where such clusters were to be found was approached, and additional suggestions of innovators to interview were sought in each institution. It was also decided to interview a sample of innovation 'managers' or 'supporters'. These might include a pro-vice chancellor responsible for academic affairs, the chair of a committee concerned with teaching and learning, the manager of an 'innovations fund' and/or the head of an educational development, teaching and learning service or similar unit. Supporting documentation was collected relating to the work of individual innovators and to institutional policies concerning teaching and learning and related matters.

2 The innovators

Of the 222 interviews conducted, the overwhelming majority were with staff identified in advance as innovators. They fell into the following subject categories (including those identified as responsible for relevant teaching and learning policy or for innovation support):

Science
Maths, IT & Computing
Engineering & Technology
Humanities
Business & Management
Social Sciences
Education
Allied to Medicine
Built Environment
Clinical Subjects
Art & Design
Support services - educational development units and similar
Central university management
Student Services
Other
Total interviewees 43
19
19
19
13
15
9
9
9
5
4
42

11
3
2
222 19%
8.5%
8.5%
8.5%
6%
7%
4%
4%
4%
2%
2%
19%

5%
1.5%
1%

No attempt was made, or possible, to cover the subject range comprehensively at each institution, and the method of identifying innovators precluded rigorous sampling overall. A reasonable distribution seems nevertheless to have been achieved.

Very few of the staff interviewed saw themselves as inherently 'innovative people', though some might describe themselves in such terms as being 'at home with change' or willing to take risks. All those selected for interview as identified innovators were, however, comfortable with being interviewed on that basis. More important than being that kind of person was a common awareness of how and when they became involved in a process of innovation. The reasons for their doing so fall into a number of often overlapping categories, not presented here as a hierarchy:

(a) Something in their career background. There were staff, for example, who had been involved in curriculum development in further education or school teaching (in the former especially involving curriculum design as promoted by the Further Education Unit), and in the latter case contact with Nuffield science or the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative). In some subjects industrial experience (including as researcher or promoting skills development) was seen as having influenced an approach to innovation in teaching (having recognised, as one engineer phrased it, that 'higher education had no professionals').

(b) 'Ideas around'. Particular periods were sometimes identified as especially prolific in ideas to be picked up in the literature or the system. One computing developer referred to the importance of 'other people's ideas', married to an awareness of the need for change 'in spite of you', and the needs and wishes of students. A member of staff in computing elsewhere 'heard about new methods in the United States' and was willing to take risks. In order to shape a course in study skills someone 'did some reading around'. Others came back enthused or intrigued from a conference or a course or a visit.

(c) Student numbers. Some staff excluded student numbers as responsible for their innovations (where numbers on a course or module had remained relatively stable), but many more referred to it as a prime cause. Rapidly rising numbers, coupled with financial cuts in the 1980s and 1990s, were responsible for changes described in one university document as 'doing more with less' or 'doing better with the same'. One humanities professor, when a lecture theatre was too small to accommodate the students, many of whom sat on the floor, thought of asking for a larger lecture theatre, but then decided to revise her approach to teaching the course. Developments in resource based learning (RBL), problem based learning (PBL) or computer assisted learning (CAL) were often related to the difficulties of teaching increasing student numbers. 'Numbers plus modules were the catalyst.'

(d) Diversity. Increased student access meant more diverse student constituencies with more diverse needs. Many courses were faced also with diversity in the delivery of courses to full-time and part-time students, within modular, semesterised and credit accumulation structures. The modular system resulted in some cases in a wide diversity of student background and prior knowledge of the subject. The outcome often mentioned therefore was the need for new support materials or the search for technological opportunities for students to learn.

(e) 'Overcrowded curriculum'. This, notably in basic medical sciences as a result of the staff's own awareness or pressure from the General Medical Council has produced experiments in teaching and learning (often relating to PBL or changes in laboratory procedures) coupled with curriculum change.

(f) Boredom. A significant number of staff saw as the prime reason for their innovation the need to overcome student boredom or disillusion and, for example in chemistry, to 'enliven' the approach. This often involved providing more professional interest or 'fun' for themselves.

(g) Training and courses. Staff who had attended training courses for further education or school teaching sometimes saw these as preparing them to look for new ways of doing things. Ideas were sometimes described as developing as a result of attendance at institutional or nationally organised staff development courses. Initiatives were also described as resulting from the activities of 'teaching and learning co-ordinators' or 'staff development officers' or 'change agents' located in departments, schools and faculties in different kinds of universities visited during the project.

(h) Contacts. Strongly committed staff related their involvement with particular strategies to meeting or hearing presentations by key people in the field - for example in work based learning (WBL) under the auspices of the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA). Others had met an American professor or been invited to visit a PBL-based course or university such as Maastricht, which had triggered sustained innovative activity (often including research) on their part.

(i) Funding. Across the subject spectrum considerable reference was made to the opportunities offered by Enterprise in Higher Education (EHE). A new development in the teaching of law or modern languages would not have been possible without it. The adaptation of a humanities course to help students find employment could not have occurred when it did. Ideas were around but EHE funding encouraged staff to say 'let's go with it'. The importance of EHE as a stimulus in teaching and learning is discussed further below. Other sources of funding, for example from government departments and agencies, were of considerable importance, and in some universities funding from major employers such as BP had made a considerable impact on the climate in which innovation could take place.

(j) Other external influences. Curriculum change outside the control of individual staff, such as a decision to introduce a new fourth year for an undergraduate MSci degree, or a Teaching Quality Assessment (TQA) visit (which 'made us think') were sometimes underlined in a variety of institutions.

Underlying all of these was a sense that 'the water was getting hotter' and something had to be done. Employers were complaining that graduates did not have a broad enough education or did not have the communication and other skills they needed. The traditional methods were not working. Students were said to be too passive (this was a view emphasised in Scotland!). Some means of involving them more had for a variety of reasons became necessary. All staff interviewed could adduce such reasons for making changes in teaching and learning procedures, without necessarily accepting the label of 'innovator' for themselves.

Willingness to innovate was not confined to any particular range of subject areas, though there was a greater tendency to link innovation with subject identity in some than in others. At one university a geographer talked of the way in which practice was generally linked with learning about the practice of geography, and another geographer at the same university talked about the culture of the subject and its being 'very relaxed about innovation'. Ways of introducing students to 'real world problems' could, however, be as much a feature of pharmacology as business studies, of statistics as of the sociology of media. The use of new technologies was also not restricted. Modern languages were as likely as social work to see the use and development of computer software.

It is possible to categorise innovators in ways other than subject identity. On the basis of when they were most likely to begin to innovate, a complex picture emerges of the relationship of their innovation baptism to all the motives for innovating discussed above. It relates, for example, to previous involvement in further education or industrial innovation, the opportunities offered by EHE in those universities which received government funding for the programme, other institutional or nationally available funding, the rate of increase of student numbers, and their roles and status on and after appointment. A rough categorisation could be as follows:

a) Young staff who 'settle in', and wait to become established and 'secure' before considering taking innovative initiatives. This is the case notably for staff entering their first appointment in some of the old universities, where teaching remission is often given in the first years to enable young staff to establish their career (and assist the university's research rating) by focusing on research as much as possible.

b) Staff of all ages and backgrounds who, on appointment, inherit teaching situations which are 'not working' for various possible reasons, and who feel (and in some cases are encouraged to feel) that immediate change is necessary for recruitment, student satisfaction or performance).

c) Staff appointed with important skills that they (and others) might consider need to be applied rapidly to the teaching of a particular course or range of modules. This applies to staff with computer and other technological skills at a time of staff shortages and a search for new solutions.

d) Staff who are impatient to innovate when appointed because of their previous experience and commitment.

On the basis of these interviews gender does not appear to be a factor in the likelihood of staff to innovate. Female staff were as likely as male staff to respond to the four situations outlined above. As innovators in the teaching/learning situation women were as likely or not to feel the need and the opportunity (and to face similar kinds of obstacle and opposition) as men. It is only at senior and management levels that the gender issue becomes important, given the unequal distribution at those levels. Some women considered that innovation in teaching and learning could be a route for otherwise blocked promotion.

Status and age are other areas of complexity in categorising staff participating in innovation in teaching and learning. The issue of recognition and promotion is discussed below. Here it is important to emphasise that focusing on initiatives in teaching and learning, rather than giving priority to research, is widely, almost universally, perceived as a career hazard by staff interviewed in all types of university- in spite of policy moves to give greater recognition to teaching (as discussed below). Innovation is linked to promotion in another way. Obtaining promotion or seniority may make it easier to innovate. At one institution becoming head of department made it more possible for one male member of staff to innovate, as it did for a female member of staff at another university when she became module leader.

One category of staff would include those whose innovations may or not have financial or other support but who are committed to their innovations regardless of whether support is forthcoming and in spite of negative or hostile attitudes. A parallel category would include those whose innovation, and perhaps whose motivation, is in some way bound up with support. This could consist, for instance, of the moral support of a head of department or dean, funding, or the imprimatur of a national disciplinary network.

A final important feature of the situation faced by all innovators is their understanding of their difficult position at the point where internal and external pressures meet. They are aware of factors beyond their control, 'externalities', which include institutional budgets, staffing, resources; policy regarding student numbers; structural changes- semesterisation, modularisation and other curricular changes; technological change. 'Internalities' include not only such features as teacher-learner interaction, personal satisfaction and dissatisfaction, but all those external factors which have become translated with increasing intensity into the teaching situation. Innovators were often caught between, on the one hand, their own established teaching style and understanding of the purposes of higher education, and on the other hand the changes associated above all with greater student access. They saw themselves as the point at which traditional notions of 'lecturing' and student learning were in tension with the need to satisfy new student needs in the dramatically changing conditions of higher education and the employment market. Innovation was also increasingly seen as in sharp competition with research, with policy definitions of 'teaching excellence', and with departmental and institutional needs for accountability in their ever widening frameworks. Some innovators felt the need to become involved in departmental or faculty committees where these tensions surfaced, but others felt that involvement was a waste of their time.

3 The innovations

A categorisation of the descriptors used by interviewees for their innovations produced an initial list of 50 items (see Appendix B). The details of the operation of this whole range of innovations are not our concern here, but it is important to establish what kinds of innovations were seen by their progenitors as priorities. Crucial to this discussion is the fact that the descriptors disguise differences. 'Group work' or 'projects' or a 'student led' activity may mean very different things in different cases. It is at this point that ascribing meaning to 'innovation' becomes difficult.

Innovation may be something new to a person, course, department, institution or higher education as a whole. An innovation in one situation may be something established elsewhere, but the implication of these assumptions is that it is a departure from what has been done before. It is not always obvious whether an innovation is an act of creation or of adaptation (or of imitation), and innovation may not in fact be 'new'. What is adopted and modified may be an idea or a practice, and implementation may be a single episode (for example, the reorganisation of a seminar procedure) or a continual process of renewal. A new way forward in one place, of course, may have been abandoned in another place for a more promising alternative. It is difficult in a complex social situation like a university to determine what is 'new' or 'original'. 'Innovation in teaching and learning', now a regular feature of discussions of higher education, is also a difficult vocabulary. Although used as a single concept, this kind of innovation may not have similar implications for teaching and for learning. An innovation in the former may not result in any change in the latter. There is no necessary relationship between the two. An innovation in students' learning procedures may be independent of any 'teaching' in its traditional sense, including through the use of technology.

It is worth dwelling on examples of some of the principal forms of what innovators saw as innovations in their situations. Some innovators adopted different innovations at different times and with different kinds of courses, and some adopted multiple innovations - combinations of some of the following or of these and other innovations.

Group or team work. An anthropology tutor in one university divided students into groups with a brief for each of them to choose a particular society and prepare a presentation on it. In the same university media students worked on group exercises reflecting the pressures of a newspaper office or television studio. Tutorials in social work in the university were conducted on the basis of group activity. Group work in law in the university included the production of 'group essays'. In a different university group work directed towards acquiring team skills included peer assessment and media students worked in groups on community projects under the auspices of a media organisation. At a third university biology and biochemistry students were divided into teams, each of which picked a topic at random, and went off to acquire information about it (using the library and Internet) and give a poster presentation. Here and in other universities some groups reported back to a panel of staff or outsiders, some reported from one group to another, others reported back to the whole class. Group work (for example, design teams) may be inter-disciplinary. It may partially replace lectures, or as in the final year of a physics or building construction course, may replace lecturing altogether and focus on group projects. In one engineering course groups work in a kind of pyramid fashion, with students noting questions raised by the tutor, then working in pairs, then pairs coming together and finally reporting. This last case operates on the basis of the tutor's commitment to 'co-operative learning' (akin to work in the primary classroom).

Although some interviewees thought that group work was more difficult, or impossible, with the increased numbers of students, others thought that group was a solution to increased numbers. Pressure on staff time was not necessarily reduced, and in some cases it increased - though differently, as a result of the demand for tutorial guidance or more interactive forms of assessment. Group work, student responsibility for their learning when working in teams, the acquisition of employable skills - particularly communication skills and the research techniques involved in some forms of group project work, were some of the explanations offered for one of the central types of innovation encountered.

'Live projects'. A related innovation in many universities and subject areas was one that involved students in work on real problems in a variety of firms and occupations, involving employers in some way and providing students with experience relevant to possible future employment. Law students at one university work with charities or other organisations on legal advice and the preparation of advisory leaflets, and local employers are involved with chemistry students at the same university working on real environmental problems. At another university drama students have worked in conjunction with a local theatre, watched rehearsals, sold tickets, planned their own performance in relation to one on stage at the theatre, and students taking a unit on agricultural management have worked with a local farm and bank on real problems associated with the running of the farm. At a third university students working in pairs for environmental agencies conduct projects on real issues and are accountable to the agencies for their findings, and economics students working in teams conduct case studies in industrial settings and the employers are involved in the briefing of students and hearing them report. Student motivation, improved learning and understanding of the relationship of knowledge to work and social experience, are frequent threads in explaining the reasons for 'real world' projects.

Simulation. An activity for students on one course involves role-playing participants in a coastal management scheme for a tropical country, with occasional tutor inputs to alter the parameters (a coup, withdrawal of an American oil company). Pharmacy students simulate dissection (A level students with no experience of dissection, poor laboratory equipment, preference not to use real animals). Archaeology students cannot take strategic decisions on real digs about where to make a trench - they do so using computer software. Spectrometers are expensive and larger numbers of students cannot have access for demonstrations - simulation is possible using computer and video. Groups of students on a business course cannot start up a new business, but they can simulate doing so. These kinds of innovations are not quite as frequent, but there is a significant scatter of them across the institutions.

Presentations. Inseparable from many of the above are student individual, but more frequently group, presentations. Oral presentations of findings from projects or other group activities take many forms, with group assessments of various kinds linked to coherent group performance and individual participation within it. Tutorials may involve students splitting into groups to discuss and report orally. Group-conducted scientific experiments may result in formal presentations to the class. Presentations, as we have seen, can be to an assessment panel of staff and invited outsiders (including employers). Oral presentations may involve explaining findings to accompany a poster presentation. There is widespread reference, not only from those staff with industrial or other experience, to employer comments on students' inability to communicate, as well as their difficulty in sharing in team work. Group work in philosophy, English, biology or chemistry, resulting in the requirement to communicate outcomes to an audience may for some students prove taxing, but the educational and employment benefits are seen by the innovators concerned to be important.

Skills development. The elevation of transferable, core or key skills to major components of national and institutional policies seems to make it difficult to include such skills in a discussion of innovations. For many individuals and in a variety of institutional contexts, however, skills have indeed for a long time been a target of innovative activity. Under the EHE programme many of the initiatives were expressed in terms of generic or subject-specific skills, in subjects as diverse as law and geography, ancient history and music. As early as the 1970s some innovators were experimenting with means of introducing students to communication skills in particular. Support from EHE, BP's team skills initiative or other sources has often been important. Individual initiative, however, has meant attempts to adapt the teaching situation to combine skills and knowledge purposes. Skills development through history, in one instance, was designed 'to tackle learning skills through a critical engagement with the nature of the subject', embedding skills learning in the search for truth and evidence in historical study. Study skills have been the target of a variety of discrete modules. One course whose students have problems in locating suitable employment has introduced a series of 'skills weeks' associated with profiling. Elsewhere a special core skills module has been incorporated into the subject and, as in many institutions, the module has been oriented towards career education. One engineering course introduced a learning unit on transferable skills at the beginning of the 1970s, the focus of which turned to 'qualities' rather than 'skills' (qualities having to do with attitudes, approaches, creativity, values).

What is clear from these and other cases is that the introduction of skills or 'competency' objectives is not simply a curriculum change, but part of an attempt to restructure the teaching/learning relationship for the benefit of more effective or differently accentuated student learning. The staff interviewed talked not only about skills but also about changes in teaching approach and student response. One such description was of a skills-oriented course in humanities which aimed to involve the students in problem solving, dealing with situations, 'driving the active and oral presentation side', getting students actively engaged, 'valuing the fact that they will make mistakes, getting them to work with others, using language effectively'.

Seminars and lectures. Lectures, as some interviewees pointed out, are medieval, preceding the invention of printing. Tutorial and seminar encounters of staff and students are a long tradition of British higher education, but innovations in recent years concern how they are run. In many subjects staff have opted to turn seminars from staff- dominated or - controlled to student-led events. It became the rule in these cases for staff, perhaps after an initial briefing in the first week or at intervals, to hand over the preparation, chairing and other functions of the seminar to the students:

'the presence of staff stifles discussion' (geography)
'they don't need me' (philosophy)
'students decide what material they need and ask me to bring it' (rural management)
'we reversed the assumption that seminars are under the staff and that they provide the agenda' (history)

Concern about the efficacy of lectures has been debated in British academic journals, higher education commissions, research and common rooms since the 1950s in particular, and innovations relating to this concern were widely expressed in this project. This was especially the case in subject areas and institutions where student numbers had risen considerably. In law one tutor described lectures as a means of 'throwing out ideas and challenging received wisdom', but as 'an inefficient mechanism for analysing and knowing what anything is about'. Having drastically reduced the amount of lecturing, he used student-led seminars to tackle legal problems, focusing on controversial issues and documentation. Students chose the issues and sequence, and learned how 'to talk to each other as well as me'.

Attempts to make lecturing more interactive have also been made. In maritime studies one lecturer split the sessions into an introductory formal lecture followed by workshops, brain-storming sessions, role play, discussion in groups which appoint a spokesperson, share views with other groups In this case, as with an English lecturer, pre-reading is required, and in English (with a very large group), the lecture is interrupted at intervals for students alone or in pairs to conduct little tasks and respond in various ways: 'I coax them, cajole them, and it's fun'. In engineering, a lecturer uses an introductory lecture to provide information and ask questions, following which the students work in pairs or groups: 'In a traditional lecture it's only the lecturer who understands I am not a 'teacher', I am a 'provider of student learning'.

Assessment. A change in assessment procedures was an extension of many of these innovations, but could also be an independent innovation. Pressures to simplify assessment came from increased student numbers, from modular and semesterised structures, and from staff unwilling that new teaching strategies should be constrained by traditional forms of assessment. A diversification of first-year laboratory practicals and reports in pharmacology was accompanied by self- and peer-assessment. In law or accountancy in one university students were given choices of mode and timing of assessment. In a Work Based Learning scheme, under learning contracts negotiated between student, tutor and employer/workplace mentor, assessment of learning outcomes is part of the agreement, including 'the type of evidence that will be presented to assess the learning outcomes achieved'. Varied combinations of self-assessment, group peer assessment and tutor assessment exist in courses in different subject areas. Within the faculty and institutional regulations these new types of assessment represent negotiated percentages of the overall marks or classification of the students (other marks generally being contributed by more conventional assessment methods, possibly an examination, long essay or other assignment). On one practical theatre course the 'final product' amounted to 40% and the 'course contribution 60%, the latter being based on 'log-book, report, group self-assessment, individual self-assessment, peer-assessment and tutor-assessment' (in combination with outside experts and external examiner). For each element in this process explicit criteria are laid down, as they are for the assessment of the various kinds of presentation discussed above. Innovative forms of assessment may respond to the pressures to reduce tutor effort under the impact of student numbers and demands on time, but this may not in fact be the outcome. The gain is generally held to be a more coherent innovation.

Other. There are too many prominent types of innovation to be able to illustrate them separately. Experiments with proctoring, peer counselling or 'supplemental instruction', for example, were discussed in three universities visited. Work Based Learning was a major development in three of the universities visited. Resource Based Learning or Open Learning (the vocabulary in this as in some other cases is used interchangeably) was significant in one university. Problem Based Learning was widely used in medical-related and nursing education (until very recently PBL was used internationally only in these areas). WBL, RBL and PBL may all result from an individual or group initiative within the institution, but may also be closely related to institutional policy relating to access, more effective use of resources, or responsiveness to external policy or pressure. Such initiatives require institutional endorsement not necessarily the case with innovations promoted by individual innovators. This does not deny them their possible inclusion in a discussion of innovation, but they illustrate the importance of extending the discussion of innovation to levels of decision-making beyond the level of individual initiative that has been the target of the first year of this project. The same is true of some uses of IT, which is also outlined below.

4 General

There are important points to make about all of the above:

(a) The examples are of staff who may be in a small minority (sometimes of one) in

teaching in this way on the course or in the department or school.

(b) Although the intention of the staff concerned is always to improve student learning in the particular circumstances, it cannot be assumed that this is always successful. Staff were often willing to comment on difficulties, the fact that some students might not welcome the strategy, resistance by colleagues (of what they may see as an 'oddball' or 'maverick' way of doing things), and in a small number of cases why the innovation had failed (for example, when EHE or other funding ended).

(c) Staff involved in taking these initiatives may or may not have been aware of similar developments in their subject or in other subjects, and were always clear that what they were doing was new and sometimes radical in their circumstances.

(d) Issues of quality were seen as involved in many of these initiatives, but it was not possible to pursue in depth how they related to institutional or other quality assurance procedures. In some cases the responses of external examiners were mentioned, and in some there was evidence that students performed no worse, and often performed better, academically as a result of the innovation.

5 Issues and implications (summary)

The following note was made after an interview was over. The interviewee, an experienced scientist in one of the old universities, asked on the way out of the room:

'How are you going to report?' I explained the technicalities. He meant something different however. He hoped that our report would not simply be 'rosy', telling our funding bodies and the government how wonderful everything was: 'There are wonderful things, but not enough of them. They are not properly resourced, and they are not valued.'

The picture we have given of innovators, their motivations and the range of their innovations is a highly focused one. What it has not given is a picture and a judgement of how these people related to colleagues or senior management; how they were perceived by students and staff; the support they received and the obstacles they faced; how well they felt recognised and rewarded; how they felt about their institutions, its mission and priorities, and its approach to teaching and learning; the impact of institutional and national policies on their endeavours, and what outcomes came of their innovations. The salient elements of some of these topics are outlined below, in the form of impressions or questions deriving from the interviews. One crucial ingredient the project was unable to address directly was the response of students and impacts on their academic performance. Sampling students who had encountered these innovations in recent years, or were doing so currently, was beyond the remit and possibilities of the project.

Some of the issues and implications below overlap. All were viewed by participants in the project as important.

Perceptions

'Many colleagues are frightened of working in this way they are used to working with books and text. To be honest, my work is seen as a threat, danger. The course has always had positive feedback from the students, is recognised as an exciting course, but other staff are worried that as an elective it will become too popular' (humanities lecturer)

'If a meeting of "innovators" were called, some staff would attend, though some would have to ask permission from their head of department' (staff development officer)

Many of the perceptions discussed below are particularly dependent on the nature of the innovations under discussion, for example CAL is likely to be perceived very differently from PBL. Attitudes to an innovation may be directed towards the substance of the innovation or the process it implies as an initiator of change. It is not possible here to attempt a correlation between the perceptions of categories of staff and specific types of innovation.

Student perceptions and responses vary enormously. Some are receptive, enthusiastic about being 'treated as human beings' and give the teacher high ratings; others ask 'Why can't you just lecture to us?' and prefer not to accept responsibility. Why? Is there a correlation with different types of university recruiting different types of student (e.g. 18+ or older), subject differences (also recruiting students with much or no experience of group and team work), as well as different types of innovation and innovator?

Innovators generally describe their battle to change 'the culture' (departmental, institutional), a battle which itself means more work and persuading colleagues 'to give away control'.

Colleagues advise against getting involved in this 'teaching and learning stuff' (for a variety of reasons), oppose the innovation, but in some circumstances are then convinced and drop their opposition. Is it mainly that the innovation 'works', in terms of student outcomes, that persuades them? Is it sometimes a TQA or course review outcome? Is it that the situation itself has changed as everyone feels more pressures?

Some colleagues accept the innovation and provide support, but then withdraw, with research and 'better things' to do.

Innovators find support and sympathy from senior colleagues important, particularly heads of department and deans. These are often forthcoming, but may be negated by hostility at a higher level (by people who 'don't know anything about it'). But who presumably are governed by policy considerations?

Innovators' own colleagues commonly do not know (or care) about the innovation, don't sit in on it, or if they do know about it see no reason to become involved.

Innovators are often seen as 'eccentric' (a description commonly mentioned by interviewees). Even if seen as a good idea, an innovation may be ignored as being 'ok for you, but not for me'.

Innovators portray their image as 'threatening', 'dangerous', themselves as a 'fifth column', 'an agitator' (though 'gradually taken on board'). To what extent are the threat and the danger being intensified by the pressures (in some or all universities) to be seen as vigorously engaged in research?

'There is more interest in other places in what I am doing than there is in this university'

'I have been seen as a good teacher "gone bad" so I am getting out of the profession'.

Outcomes

Since this project is not an evaluation of the long-term effects of different kinds of innovation in their different settings consideration of outcomes is dependent on the innovators' own perceptions. These in turn outlined above, are in a major way related to levels of support, indifference or resistance associated with the perceptions outlined above.

Interest and take-up are indeed often greater in institutions other than the innovator's own department and university. This is true of subject-specific innovations, with dissemination being most likely to similar departments elsewhere (and such innovations may be planned collaboratively). A large number of interviewees commented on resistance by departmental colleagues to extending the use of an innovation, with different responses from senior colleagues. What one nurse educator called 'these gradients of resistance' relate, as in other instances, to departmental and institutional cultures, and prevalent interpretations of their missions. Other staff did report enthusiasm by colleagues, or apprehension that turned into support and implementation. The variety in the amount of take-up no doubt reflects the nature of the innovation as well as cultural and other factors.

The type of innovation (e.g. CAL-related or student-led seminars) may equally help to determine how embedded an innovation becomes, even where it has wide departmental support. To a question regarding what would happen if they left interviewees responded very differently. Some innovations, particularly materials-based, were seen as sufficiently embedded to survive ('materials live on, they are the key'). Some would only survive with stronger technical and financial support. Some would 'probably die' ('if I were run over it wouldn't continue') for the lack of other people with a similar level of enthusiasm. Some innovators thought it would be hard to replace them, and if they were replaced it would be with someone more conventional.

Other outcomes were equally varied. Small numbers of innovators were invited to talk to other departments or run workshops or other events arranged by a staff development or educational development unit. Some gave papers at conferences or talks at other universities, but these were most likely to be in connection with innovations (possibly technological) recognised as useful for policy developments elsewhere. Addresses at international conferences, visits by interested colleagues from other institutions or countries, articles and other outputs were not uncommon, but in many subjects and departments these were seen as lower status activities if they reflected aspects of teaching and learning rather than 'substantive' research.

Anecdotal evidence of 'extended student learning' or other benefits to students was largely positive, but these have to be seen in the context of innovators' own enthusiasm and the possibility that even where innovations survive they may not have the same learning outcomes.

'Change is slow if it is going to stick' (English lecturer).

Institutions

Systematic analysis of institutional structures, procedures and processes awaits the work of the second-year study. The following are some initial themes arising from the first year. In addition to innovators, it should be emphasised, interviews were held with some senior teaching or management staff responsible for relevant committees or units.

The fact that their university has an 'image', a 'mission' or a 'culture' was important, positively or negatively, to many of the innovators. Its research orientation could be seen as helpful in providing a challenging context for teaching development, or unhelpful in making it difficult to obtain recognition or support. Staff with extensive contacts in other universities sometimes made firm comments about their own institution as a context for innovation: 'this university is more supportive than other institutions seem to be', 'this university is more political than others', 'this university has an alienating atmosphere'. No university received uniform accolades or cynicism from those interviewed, but on the basis of comments made about their own teaching strategies innovators gave an insight into what may be a prevalent perception among the staff. In one university a physics lecturer commented approvingly: 'This university wants people to perform in whatever interests them. It is therefore a hard university to work for' (given the high expectations). A colleague in agriculture was positive about the vice-chancellor and his support for teaching: 'The university has an innovation ethos'.

A change of vice-chancellor or deputy or pro-vice chancellor was mentioned, frequently in a small number of institutions, as having had a major influence on movement towards greater emphasis on teaching, in terms of both policy and practice.

Strong criticism in some universities was levelled at what were seen as excessively centralised decision-making processes: 'modularisation was forced on us under duress' (law lecturer in an old university), 'my own school is supportive this is a university where things are dictated from the centre, it is centrally driven there was internal resistance to modularisation and semesterisation, but people were simply told it was coming, at a stroke' (engineer in a 1992 university). It was such structures at various levels that innovators found important to the launch or life history of their innovation. They were sometimes aware of a 'management power struggle' or something similar in the university, affecting their policy- and decision-making context, particularly where it involved deans making a strong stand over their vision of priorities.

There was probably increasing interest amongst staff in the outcomes of recent appointments of, for example, pro-vice-chancellors to take responsibility for teaching and learning, as well as the emergence of new or stronger Teaching and Learning or similar committees. Perceptions of the operation and value of institutional committees and policy-making were conditioned to some extent by differences in the strength and roles of departments, schools and faculties in different universities.

For certain kinds of innovation institutional policy was not only of direct concern, it was also in some cases the genesis of the innovation. This was notably the case with the advent of such institutional policies as those on information technology, community involvement or European connections. These policies sometimes indicated the source of funds at least for developments if not always innovations. Reference was often made to the distance between university policy and its implementation.

Of particular importance in the policy process has been the production of institutional policies or strategies for teaching and learning, with titles such as A Policy for Student Learning or Strategy for Teaching and Learning. The policy is sometimes part of a university mission statement, corporate plan or terms of reference for an implementation unit. The aims might include to be 'an innovatory university' and the emphasis might be on 'the critical importance of teaching and learning'. The detail might cover the entire curriculum of the university and the broad outline of its delivery, or specify qualities that the university sees as important for its students: The university wants to encourage students to take a more active responsibility for their own learning experienceto encourage self-reliance and self-regulation' Of especial interest to the question of innovation are statements such as ones that translate an emphasis on excellence in teaching into strategic terms: 'students benefit from up-to-date research, scholarship and a variety of teaching and assessment methods appropriate to individual subject areas and the needs of students'.

Staff interviewed did not always know of the existence of these policy statements, and when they did there were mixed opinions about their seriousness. In some cases the developments have been relatively recent, and a 'let's wait and see' attitude was not uncommon.

Mixed views were also voiced about the work and value of institutional units responsible for 'educational development', though attitudes were generally positive. Under titles such as Teaching and Learning Support Unit, Learning Development Unit, Centre for Learning Development, Teaching Enhancement Office and Teaching and Learning Service, almost all the universities visited had a unit of this kind, though often with different remits. The part of their activities relevant to this project was concerned with promoting, supporting and in many cases helping to finance initiatives in teaching and learning. Their activities were matched in some universities by departmental or faculty committees or groups designed to enhance teaching and learning, and departmental 'officers' or other agents were also nominated to assist in promoting discussion of teaching and learning. In one case a number of staff from the faculties were seconded full-time annually to work in the unit and in some cases staff were associated part-time with the unit.

Impressions of the working of these structures and their importance for innovation processes of various kinds have been sporadic in this year's study. Their role with regard to funding is indicated below. The implementation of institutional policy on the enhancement of teaching and learning has in most institutions been linked with the operation of these units. Since they have also been frequently commented on by interviewees, it would seem important to explore their roles and impact (as well as those of the committees and senior staff to whom they relate) in some depth in the institutional study of the second year.

Funding

The importance of 'seed corn' funding was regularly emphasised by interviewees. A substantial 'innovation fund', 'academic development fund' or other fund for the enhancement of teaching and learning is made available through the appropriate committee by some universities. Where these funds are open for bidding through an educational development unit or other central unit the role of such units in providing continuing support for projects that have been funded is welcomed.

An open bidding system for such funds by individuals has in most cases been replaced by a more directed system, emphasising the priorities decided by the university or faculty committee. Two developments have therefore become apparent. First, bids are channelled through department heads and deans, and may be successful only if attuned to departmental or faculty plans. Second, funds have been increasingly earmarked for technology supported learning projects.

Individual innovation projects have also increasingly become a feature of planning by the university or by one of policy implementation services for the acquisition of dedicated funding made available by national agencies. This has been the case with the Teaching and Learning Technology Project and other technology- and computer-related initiatives. Faculties and departments have responded to the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning made available in subjects that have achieved 'excellence' ratings in the Teaching Quality Assessment process. Institutions have encouraged their sub-units to bid for funding offered for a number of curriculum and teaching and learning development purposes by the Department for Education and Employment. Some innovators felt that they would no longer be able to obtain the kind of funding obtained for their initiatives until quite recently.

Although it is clear that for many innovations some source of funding is essential, a correlation between successful launch and operation of innovations and the availability of financial support within innovators' own departments and faculties and from other institutional sources has not been systematically examined.

EHE

The role of EHE in stimulating innovative activity in teaching and learning received widespread and strong emphasis in the universities that had received the five-year funding from the late 1980s or the early 1990s.

EHE support for such innovations was referred to in some of the following ways:

'it was a catalyst, legitimised and added momentumit changed the culture of the departmentit changed the culture of the university also'

'it opened doors', 'it enabled us to try initiatives', 'it would have been impossible without it', 'it was crucial'

'colleagues thought the investment of time was foolish but I have lived off the work done for the past seven years'

'it helped us get a TQA "excellent"', 'it legitimised what we were doing', 'it raised the profile of teaching and learning', 'EHE was the staff development strategy'

An example from music:

'EHE involved notions of good group work, self monitoring, independent learning - it fitted well with musicTeaching and learning involvement was crucial, but it wouldn't have been here at all if not for the initial EHE funding EHE was the seed corn, the first step in a very large progression - without it some things would not have happened'.

EHE had important legacies that it will be important to pursue. It left not only institutional commitments to project funding of the kind referred to above, but also new units, posts and committees. Some of those interviewed were still members of support networks of colleagues identified through the EHE experience.

External influences

Occasional insights have been obtained into innovators' responses to other external influences. Examples are the involvement of institutions and staff with Higher Education for Capability or the Open Learning Foundation, the Staff and Educational Development Association and disciplinary networks. Other types of external influence or support derive from universities' association with other institutions nationally or internationally (for example a software link made through Universitas 21). Innovators have indicated the influence of individuals, departments or institutional policies in other universities. This may be a candidate for further investigation in the second year of the project.

Teaching Quality Assessment

Some interviewees commented adversely on TQA as time-consuming (at the cost of teaching and learning) or were ambivalent about it ('TQA not just negative, some ways very positive. You need an external driving force can say things have to be done', computing science, 1992 university).

More, however, considered it to be helpful. In one of the old universities more colleagues were 'listening because of TQA'. The 'periodic panic focused minds'. One lecturer interested in observing colleagues' teaching received 'abuse until TQA'. At another old university TQA 'shook people up', 'gave teaching and learning more teeth', 'led to thinking about teaching and learning for the first time for many'.

Particularly in the old universities there was a sense that teaching and learning had in recent years, at least partly as a result of preparation for TQA visits, begun to be discussed in departments, even where research was seen as the priority. One such university had a system of departmental officers nominated to promote such discussion. At another TQA was described as 'a big driver for change'. A physics lecturer at an old university said:

'TQA influences the way the department operates, making reporting procedures tighter. In the past staff owned their own course, now it is more departmentally managed, given the need to attain as high a score as possibleThe general response is positive'.

Such developments are obviously an important part of the context in which innovation in teaching and learning has taken place in some subjects, in some institutions. Given current discussion and decisions about the future of external teaching assessment it could be important in the second year to consider the implications of such perceptions.

Information technology

Not surprisingly a considerable number of IT initiatives have surfaced in the project. Some of these are by individuals, for example reconstructing a course or aspects of it to provide students with computerised pathways through material, issues and assessment, or using telematics for redesigned student tutorials. Students may be analysing data bases, using bulletin boards, e-mail and on-line questionnaires, entering virtual environments, exploring spread sheets and slide shows through the Internet, or responding to a large variety of initiatives taken by staff in modes variously described as computer assisted learning (CAL) or computer based learning (CBL). Some replace traditional lectures or tutorials, many help to reduce and to support them.

Some of these initiatives are taken by an individual, some require considerable technical support and are intensely collaborative. They may be part of or relate to an institution-wide or faculty-wide IT skills programme or a TLTP or other programme aiming to provide the incentives and resources for more flexible and customised access to learning support. Surrounding potential users or innovators in these fields are national debates and initiatives concerning lifelong learning and access to knowledge and skills. As part of an approach to an 'Information strategy' or a policy regarding 'The impact of new technology on teaching and learning' the institution may be responding to 'the information technology revolution' and its implications for 'new opportunities to facilitate and enrich the learning experience'.

It is difficult to detach the individual initiative from these policy and strategic environments, or to separate the initiative from the technological underpinning that makes it possible. This is not to detract from the enthusiastic involvement of individuals, it is simply to suggest a configuration of factors different from those that have appeared in this approach to innovation. The span of activities from an individual producing new software to 'institutional innovations' or policies suggests a possible focus for the second year of the project.

This possibility applies with particular force to developments in distance learning. The 'configuration of factors' is wide in this connection, and individuals or course teams going in this direction are either responding to institutional policies for such developments, or are bound to enter policy frameworks once making a commitment. To date most distance learning programmes (other than those of the Open University) are at post-graduate level; only 5 of the institutions we visited offered such courses for undergraduate students. At a number of universities further distance learning possibilities were being pursued. In a few cases, elements of degree courses offered to campus-based students involved the use of methods developed for distance learning, including those of a collaborative nature using IT. It is expected that the second year of our project will include the Open University.

Research

Discussion of research was frequently directed towards questions of recognition and reward for innovation directed at improved teaching and learning, and these issues are outlined in the next section. Research issues arose, however, in other ways.

There was no doubting the significant difference in the way research affected the culture of old and 1992 universities. Some of the old universities wished to be known as 'research led' institutions, though there were examples in these cases of distinguished 'research universities' which supported and succeeded in maintaining a research/teaching balance that was recognised by staff interviewed. Research was a major part of 1992 universities, even those which saw themselves as essentially 'teaching institutions'. In this case, however, there was a greater tendency for staff to see 'lip service' being done to research, and frequent reference to the teaching load that prevented them doing research (even when appointed for that purpose - 'I was appointed to do research but now spend less than 5 per cent of my time doing it').

Younger staff in the old universities were regularly given a lighter teaching load in order to do research and recognised accordingly that 'research comes first, though I shouldn't say that'. The situation gave rise to tensions between research and teaching in some cases, but acceptable pressure to require research and effective teaching in others. A general impression, however, would be that in the old universities 'there is "definite prejudice" in favour of research, similar to the prejudice against women 20 years ago'.

In the 1992 universities views about research ranged from acknowledgement of its being unrealistic to expect too much to strong pressures for staff to be 'research active'. For some staff the solution was to conduct research on teaching and learning and to submit for the RAE in an education unit of assessment. However, in these universities and in the old universities where this occurred there were diverse views about the status of 'educational research'. In one old university research on the use of computers for teaching and publications on teaching were not included in the RAE submission. There were other instances in the old universities where such research and publications were included for the RAE in an education unit of assessment (and helped to achieve high rating). Some subjects were prepared to accept research on the teaching of the subject in their unit of assessment.

At least one university, in establishing as many 5's as possible as the target for the RAE, has taken the decision to encourage staff not 'RAE active' to specialise in teaching and learning, and for these staff the pressure is removed to obtain research grants. A group of staff have therefore 'moved sideways and are no longer expected to demonstrate research capability'. The positive side of such a move is the freedom to focus on innovation and development in teaching and learning, the negative side is the further downgrading of the activity. In most cases the RAE is seen as having 'driven out everything else for some people', or even having forced out of the institution good and experienced teachers.

How the operation of an Institute for Learning and Teaching and related national and institutional policies affect perceptions of the balance between teaching and research in different kinds of university may become clearer in the next year of this project.

Promotion

This was one of the most frequently and emphatically commented on areas of innovators' experience. Most of the universities had already changed or were in the process of changing their promotion policies and some were considering other means of 'measuring and rewarding' excellence in teaching. Differences between policy and perception in many places produced confusing impressions.

One old university had recently adopted a policy giving greater recognition in promotion to chairs to 'distinction in teaching and/or academic management' in conjunction with research. A 1992 university (not untypically of higher education more widely) considered promotion to Principal Lecturer on the basis of two of the following: 'contribution as an excellent teacher', contribution to research, and contribution to the university in other ways. Another 1992 university had introduced a scheme to reward excellence in teaching by conferring 'teaching fellowships' and another had begun a scheme for promotions to 'readerships in educational development'. A third 1992 university required promotion to Principal Lectureship to be based on achievement in all three of: 'teaching, learning and curriculum innovation; academic leadership, research, scholarship, consultancy and professional standing'. One of the old universities was altering its procedures to allow for promotion on the basis of teaching excellence, the evidence for which would be a portfolio including examples of innovative methodology, together with a reflective commentary on the evidence. It was doing so on the grounds that under existing criteria teaching, research, administration and development, and innovative activity were all supposed 'to be treated as of equal importance and weight', but in practice 'this has not been the case'.

There were clear cases in most universities of teaching at least being taken into account at levels of promotion other than to chairs, for which only a small number of universities made special provision through teaching record. Since these policies were mostly very recent, only a small number had been successful on the basis of their teaching, and a large number of staff were either unaware of new policies, or were sceptical about them. In one university they were described as 'weasel words' and promotion could still not be obtained on the basis of teaching. In the same university it was one person's 'honest opinion that promotion is through research and management'. A Principal Lectureship in another university (not one of those cited in the last paragraph) was described as possible only on the basis of research, and the interviewee was 'disillusioned, as are most staff'. Senior people in some universities were being refused chairs applied for on the basis of strong teaching record and extensive administration. In the same university one member of staff could comment that 'teaching and research are now recognised as equal', and another that 'being named in the RAE is all that matters for promotion'. Staff who accepted the proposal to 'move sideways' as not research active were confident that they were forgoing the possibility of promotion.

It is not clear to what extent different perceptions are governed by success or failure in the promotion race, lack of awareness of or confidence in recent policy changes, or different views at filtering levels (such as head of department or faculty dean) in the applications process:

'Excellence in teaching is supposed to be rewarded in the promotion process, but it's not real yet. There are new criteria for promotion but it's the same old people thinking and acting in the same old ways'.

'The University claims it is changing but it has been pointed out to me many times that I should concentrate on research and produce research outputs(My work on computer innovations) doesn't count. Rhetoric says yes, but it isn't real' (and some refereed journal articles would have brought promotion).

One national survey in science cited by an interviewee indicated that 75-80 per cent of staff in the subject knew about modern teaching methods, but only 20 per cent were using them. They stated clearly that wasting time on them would be an 'anti-career move' and would be disapproved of institutionally.

At this time, despite the changes, a majority opinion for the project would be that there was greater recognition in principle and promotion through teaching in a small number of cases in some institutions, but that by and large 'it's research that counts'.

Recognition

At two of the universities visited discussions were taking place about the possibility of other forms of recognition. Apart from promotion to another scale, some opportunities for recognition of teaching excellence by accelerated progress through the existing scale were being created. Awarding prizes of some kind in recognition of outstanding teaching (possibly on American or Australian models) was an option under consideration - as it was nationally also.

Some of the staff interviewed had been identified as recipients of Partnership Trust awards for innovation in teaching and learning, in the period 1989-95. They had in some cases received the award individually, and in others as members of a team or department that had been named for the award. The awards were made through the Trust by eminent companies. Twelve interviewees had been recipients of such awards.

Some recipients felt that the award had helped the status of their activity, including some publicity and congratulations from the vice-chancellor. Others felt that very little had happened. The recognition (including the financial reward) associated with the prize was seen as validating their work, though outcomes beyond the prize and the immediate stir it caused were held to be meagre. At one university two people who had shared an award felt that there had been important career outcomes. At another there was some hostility from colleagues over the award.

The important difference between the Partnership Trust awards and other external influences is that the Trust was assessing innovations that had been carried out and giving prizes, while funding, for example, through the FDTL scheme was funding to enable innovative projects to take place together with extensive dissemination of outcomes. It is likely that the Trust hoped that the prizes would result in interest in the innovations in the university and beyond, and indeed some dissemination of this kind took place in some instances. There is no evidence from the interviews, however, that such ripples from the awards were extensive. No follow-up by the Trust was undertaken (and all its records were destroyed before the beginning of this project).

Other awards, sometimes made on a subject basis, some with important national prestige - such as the Queen's Award - were seen as equally or more significant.

6 The Future

A number of the research questions posed in the specification for the second year of the project have arisen to various extents in the first year, including 'the criteria by which success or failure are to be assessed', identifying 'new patterns of teaching, learning and assessment', models of good practice and dissemination processes. Some of these questions can be addressed in greater depth in the second year. The specification posed other questions that will be central to the second year:

How do innovations become embedded in institutions? How long does it take?

What institutional climates/frameworks support or inhibit Innovation in Teaching and Learning?

What has been the impact of other national policies? What are the policy implications for funding and the processes of teaching, learning and assessment at institutional and national levels?

Issues arising acutely from the first year study will need to be set alongside the above specification, including the development of 'institutional innovation' policies and practices, the nature and purpose of funding, and perceptions of the balance of teaching development and research in promotion schemes. Since discussion will take place about the priority to be given to these and other issues, help in identifying priorities will be welcome.

Appendix A

The sampling procedure

Since the focus of the first year of the project was to be on innovators and innovations in teaching and learning at the undergraduate level the initial task was to decide at which higher education institutions there were clusters of likely people. This was done by scanning as many sources of information as could be found for what they identified as innovations. Some early decisions had to be taken about boundaries between innovations in teaching and learning and those in contiguous (and often overlapping) areas - mainly the curriculum. The main sources of information were as follows:

Directories:

Brown, S. (1991) Students at the Centre of Learning (SCED)

Educational Development Group of the London and South-East Regional Polytechnic

Consortium for In-Service Training (1990) A Directory of Educational Innovations (SCED)

Exley, K. and Dennick, R. (1996) Innovations in Teaching Medical Science (SEDA)

Exley, K. and Moore, I. (1993) Innovations in Science Teaching (SCED)

Flexibility in Teaching and Learning Schemes 1 and 2, listing with descriptions of projects funded by SHEFC, not dated (annex to evaluation)

Hart, J. and Smith, M. (1995) Innovations in Computing Teaching (SEDA, 2 vols)

Hounsell, D. et al. (1996) The ASSHE Inventory: changing assessment practices in Scottish higher education (Assessement Strategies in Scottish Higher Education)

Houston, K. (1994) Innovations in Mathematics Teaching (SEDA)

Hughes, I.E. (1995) A Compendium of Innovation and Good Practice in Teaching
Pharmacology (Leeds University Press)

Knight, P.T. (1994) University-Wide Change, Staff and Curriculum Development
(SEDA)

Open Learning Foundation (1996) Open Learning Case Studies (OLF, 10 vols)

Partnership Trust (1996) Partnership Awards 1989 - 1995

Portsmouth, University of, Enterprise in Higher Education (1994) National Project
Directory (2 vols)

Rust, C. (1990) Changes of Course: 8 case studies of innovations in higher education courses (SCED)

Towle, A. (1994) Innovative Learning and Assessment (King's Fund)

Archives:

Two days were spent scanning the archives of Higher Education for Capability.

With the exception of the annual booklets published for the receptions for the winners of the Partnership Awards, all other Partnership Trust records were destroyed before the beginning of this project.

Books:

Books which were in fact compendia of case studies and other material were scanned, for example:

Boud, D and Felitti, G (1991) The Challenge of Problem Based Learning

Gibbs, G. (1992) Improving the Quality of Student Learning

Graves, N. (1993) Learner Managed Learning

Slowey, M. (1995) Implementing Change from Within Universities and Colleges

Tait, J. and Knight, P. (1996) The Management of Independent Learning

Thornley, L. and Gregory, R. (1994) Using Group- Based Learning in Higher Education

Some books were institution-specific (e.g. Assiter, A., Transferable Skills in Higher Education [North London], and Sneddon, I. And Kremer, J., An Enterprising Curriculum: teaching innovations in higher education [Queen's Belfast]).

Journals:

Complete files of Research into Higher Education Abstracts and Studies in Higher Education were scanned and individual items in other journals located.

Other:

Conference proceedings and theses were consulted.

The number of references revealed at which institutions there were significant clusters of innovations, mainly sponsored or conducted by individuals, as defined by the authors, editors and others concerned with these sources. An initial selection of universities was made on this basis (no non-university higher education institutions showed up significantly in this process), modified slightly by later information (relating, for example, to TLTP and FDTL projects) and the need to ensure adequate representation of types of university and regions of the UK. From this selection, therefore, of innovators and innovations, approaches were made to institutions. In all cases contact persons at the universities concerned were then asked to suggest other names of people known to be, or to have recently been, involved in innovations of interest to this project.

The visits:

As a result of this process interviews were conducted at the following institutions:

University of East London

University of Glasgow

Heriot-Watt University

University of Leeds

University of Lincolnshire and Humberside

Middlesex University

Oxford Brookes University

University of Nottingham

University of Plymouth

University of Portsmouth

Queen's University Belfast

University of Salford

University of Wales, Cardiff

University of Wales College of Medicine

University of York

Appendix B

Types of innovation as described by those interviewed

1 access

2 active learning

3 assessment (new methods)

4 atelier learning

5 CAL (computer assisted learning)

6 CBL (computer based learning)

7 case studies

8 CMC (computer mediated communication) and E-mail

9 co-operative learning

10 distance and open learning

11 games

12 group work

13 independent study/learning

14 interactive lectures

15 interactive seminars

16 Internet

17 Intranet

18 learning contracts/agreements

19 live projects

20 multiple-choice testing

21 novels for teaching management

22 NVQ-type accreditation

23 peer assessment

24 peer tutoring

25 personal academic tutoring

26 portfolios

27 practical learning

28 presentations

29 problem based learning

30 problem solving

31 proctoring

32 profiling

33 reports (instead of essays)

34 resource based learning

35 role play

36 self-directed learning

37 simulation

38 skills

39 student feedback

40 student led seminars

41 student reflection

42 student self-appraisal

43 student self-help

44 study in community/industry

45 team projects

46 using computers

47 using non-computer technologies

48 video simulation

49 work based learning

50 workshops

Appendix C

The research team:

Andrew Hannan, Reader and Research Co-ordinator, Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Plymouth, project co-director

Harold Silver, Visiting Professor of Higher Education, University of Plymouth, project co-director

Susan English, project research assistant

Project Advisory Group:

Bill Callaghan, Trades Union Congress, member ESRC Priorities Board and Learning Society Programme Steering Committee

Frank Coffield (chair), Professor of Education, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Director of the ESRC Learning Society Programme

Robin Middlehurst, Higher Education Quality Council (now Director, Centre for Continuing Education, University of Surrey)

Alex Monckton, ESRC

Innovations in Teaching and Learning in HE