Pathfinder

At our recent core team meeting we were discussing the agenda for our third and final Steering Group meeting, and we agreed that the time had come to sit down and thrash out what we mean by the term ‘enhancement’, given that this word crops up a lot. 

Six of us from the core team met on Monday and spent an hour discussing what the concept of enhancement really meant to us, which is no easy thing if you’re trying to be concise, because it’s so multilayered and defies easy definition. We had an interesting and useful discussion though – and we agreed that in order to reach out to academic staff who are easily put off by ‘teaching and learning’ speak, specific examples or vignettes would be meaningful. 

We’re working on producing a draft as a result of this discussion in order to invite feedback from other colleagues and our Steering Group later this week.  We understand that there are different understandings of the term, and this might be according to different academic cultures that exist across Schools, so we hope that this exercise might help to kick start similar discussions about what the word means within these different groups.

Dr Philip Giddings, the Head of the School of Politics and International Relations, has said the following about the Pathfinder DIRECT process:

“In the School of Politics and International Relations we are undertaking a fundamental review of our BA programmes.  We found it very valuable to have a facilitated day together ‘off-site’ in which to think through the issues of why, how and what we teach – and to whom.   We were also greatly assisted by the detailed analysis prepared by the Pathfinder team of how our syllabuses and teaching methods and admissions processes compare with those of similar HEIs teaching the same material.  Without the Pathfinder project this major piece of work could not have been done in such depth and detail.”

The cluster meeting we had in Cambridge earlier this month was a really interesting and  action packed day centred around evidence-based approaches to embedding e-learning and bringing about institutional change.  Members from all four Pathfinder universities in our cluster attended: Cambridge, Brunel, London South Bank and Reading.

 One of the reasons it was such an action-packed day was because we all did some preparatory work beforehand, facilitated by a wiki which Naomi Irvine from Cambridge had set up. We uploaded examples of evidence-based approaches that we felt might be of interest to others, and so were able to view each others’ examples beforehand.  Naomi also organised an ambitious schedule for a ‘swapshop’ session in the afternoon, so we all arrived prepared to give a series of short presentations showcasing ideas and examples. Grainne Conole played the difficult role of time-keeping, allowing 10 minutes to present and 5 minutes for questions, and in this way we got through 13 presentations under the four themes of Design, Data Collection, Technology and Engagement & Dissemination.

These presentations included many practical lessons learned from experience to date, as well as tools developed.  We especially appreciated seeing how others have approached similar issues in different ways.  For example, we’re now considering how we might adapt Brunels’ approach of using PRS (Personal Response System) to capture feedback from large student numbers.

Grainne was, as always, invaluable in her role as critical friend to our cluster, and not only acted as facilitator during the day but also took notes throughout!  Her comments on the day are available from her blog http://www.e4innovation.com/.

Special thanks should go to Patrick Carmichael, Naomi Irvine and others at Cambridge for organising such an interesting day and making the bad traffic many of us experienced well worth the effort.  The food was also excellent thanks to a lovely local Italian deli. We’re hosting the next cluster meeting here in Reading so we’re looking forward to seeing everyone again then.

We had a very productive second Steering Group Meeting which again provided us with helpful direction and support. The leader of our pilot’s syllabus review attended and gave the Steering Group a detailed account of the Pathfinder experience from the pilot’s perspective which was positive, and appreciative of the support we’ve provided.
The meeting covered the formal reporting, reflected on our first pilot and went on to discuss the following:

• cultural issues: ways of dealing with different school cultures within the University;
• embedding enhancement: how to embed continuous improvement, and sustain momentum;
• scalability: how to scale up the pathfinder process – resource issues
• transferability: how might the Pathfinder process transfer to other institutions? Which elements aren’t generic enough and how might they be made more so?

A third and final meeting is scheduled for 28th February and will consider the final evaluation, institutional learning, dissemination and the wider embedding of the Pathfinder process, e-learning and enhancement within the University structures.

Professor Grainne Conole visited us on 27th November so that we could spend some time with her in her role as critical friend before the Steering Group meeting the afternoon of the 28th – Grainne is also a member of our Steering Group.  We had a long and productive session talking through progress, approaches, and issues, and Grainne encouraged us to get some abstracts written!  Sometimes, it’s hard to see the wood for the trees when you’re involved in a project everyday, especially with a project such as our Pathfinder one which has so many branches and levels to it, and it’s difficult to get some kind of clarity. This is one of the ways in which the role of critical friend has been really helpful for us – Grainne has a great capacity for tuning in quickly to projects, and, through pertinent use of questions, has helped us to ‘organise’ our thoughts, and identify priorities and key themes.  Apart from the objective viewpoint provided by the role of critical friend, it is, apart from anything else, of positive benefit to have someone external to the project taking an interest and being a friend!  Grainne is very encouraging of us and our project and this has given us greater confidence.

The proposed revisions to the University of Reading’s Periodic Review process (in the light of the Pathfinder project) were submitted to the Thematic Review of Quality Enhancement processes back in September.  These have subsequently been approved by the University Board for Teaching and Learning which means that Pathfinder is now becoming embedded with University quality enhancement procedures and policy. The revisions now encompass a ‘pathfinder process’ to support departments during the lead up to their review and beyond.

The institutional embedding of Pathfinder as a key enhancement process within the quality management structures is great news, and demonstrates a real commitment to enhancement at Reading. We’ll continue with our project plan until April, and then aim to begin a roll out of the revised periodic review process over the coming year. To resource this, funding sources are now being sought to continue the two Pathfinder project posts beyond April 2008. 

The Contextual Review report provides an overview of the current status of programmes.  The initial submission of the report to our pilot was back in September prior to their Awayday. A final version of the report was submitted to our pilot in October, containing specific data requests following the initial report and the results from the student surveys and focus groups. Traditionally the University QA process required academic schools to source and collect such data and information themselves. The support from the Pathfinder team during the data gathering and analysis stage has allowed our pilot department time to reflect upon and interpret evidence-based data and focus on enhancement. 

Feedback from both our pilot’s Head of School and the leader of their U/G programme review has been extremely positive regarding Pathfinder. The Head of School noted  during the evaluation interview on 19.11.07 that the Pathfinder team position of being neither top-down nor external agents had been helpful for them, and this is exactly what we hope to achieve, whereby the process of constructive engagement allows us to both support and empower academic Schools.  The Head of School is also quoted in the Autumn 2007 edition of the University’s in-house teaching journal Teaching Matters, issue 16, page 5.  The leader of their review, who has been our main point of contact, attended our Steering Group meeting on 28.11.07 and gave a detailed overview of the Pathfinder experience from the pilot perspective, and also clearly expressed their appreciation of the support given by the Pathfinder team.

A review of MA programmes for our pilot department has now been requested, and will commence in the New Year following an initial consultation meeting on 19.11.07.