A model for analysis and implementation of flexible programme delivery FPD

1
A model for analysis and implementation of
flexible programme delivery (FPD)

• Enhancement Themes Conference
• Edinburgh, 8/9 March, 2007

2
Project Aim

• To develop a model and guide for implementation
  of flexible delivery for use by teams designing
  new or revised programmes across the Scottish HE
  sector

3
Outputs

• Literature review
• Results of case studies of existing programmes in
  a range of delivery modes
• And, derived from these
• A model for flexible programme delivery
• A practitioners guide

4
Team Members

• Team members
• UHI
• Paddy Maher (Dean of Science and Technology)
  Project Director
• John Casey (Learning Materials Manager, Learning
  Information Services)
• Pam Wilson (Education Development Manager, Perth
  College UHI)
• Wolfgang Greller (Head of Learning Environments,
  LIS) to Sept. 2005
• Elaine Sutherland (Admin. Support, Moray College
  UHI) - Project Admin.
• University of Dundee
• Allison Littlejohn (Chair of Learning Technology,
  Director of the International Centre for Research
  on Learning now GCU) - Project Co-Director
• Carey Normand (Senior Lecturer in Education and
  Director of the TQFE programme)

5
Complementary strengths of UHI and UoD

• UHI
• Young HEI creating U. of Highlands and Islands
• Network of widely dispersed partners
• Diverse population of learners
• Practical experience of flexible delivery
• Blended learning approach to networked
  programmes distance modes with local support
• Reviewing delivery models

6

• 13 academic partners and 2 associate institutions
• FE/HE community colleges
• specialist colleges
• research institutions
• Executive Office Inverness
• Learning centres
• Area gt40,000 km² with low
• popn density
• 100 inhabited islands
• ICT links students campuses

7
Complementary strengths of UHI and UoD

• The University of Dundee
• Long established Scottish university
• Wide range of academic provision
• Highly rated for teaching quality
• Campus-based but increasing emphasis on FPD
• Pedagogical research expertise

8
Developing the Model

• Addressing issues in FPD at 3 levels
• Institutional Management (IM) - e.g., senior
  managers assistant/principals deans etc
• Operational Management (OM) - e.g., middle
  managers heads of departments etc
• Teaching and Learning Management (TLM) - e.g.,
  lecturers course leaders support staff

9
Developing the Model

• To be an auditing and implementation tool in
  developing FPD and
• A framework to explore explicit-implicit
  rationales for introducing it.
• Based on existing frameworks (e.g., Collis and
  Moonen)
• Developed through literature review and case
  studies

10
Project Process

• Identify flexibly delivered programmes
• Survey Programme Leaders
• Survey/interview IM, OM, TLM reps
• Analyse data and refine model
• Develop Practitioners Guide

11
Case Studies

• UoD
• PG Cert. in Secondary Education (SCQF10)
• BA Professional Development (Early Childhood
  Studies) (9)
• MSc Local and Regional Economic Development (11)
  in consortium with Coventry and Sheffield Hallam
  Universities
• UHI
• HNC Aeronautical Engineering (7) Host Perth
  College, UHI
• BA(Hons) Child and Youth Studies (10) Host Perth
  College, UHI
• MSc Infection Control (11) Host Inverness
  College, UHI
• HNC/D Equine Studies (7/8) Host North Highland
  Coll., UHI

12
Estimate Flexibility

• FIXED ?-------------------------------?FLEXIBLE
• Time (time for starting and finishing a course,
  assessment and pace of study)
• Content (topics, choices related to sequence and
  learning resources)
• Entry requirements (recognition of prior
  knowledge, experience and qualification)
• Pedagogy (pedagogical approach, social
  interaction, language and resource generation)
  and
• Delivery logistics (time and place for
  interactions, technology supporting
  collaboration, learner support mechanism and
  communication channels).
• (From Collis et al., 1997)

13
Describe Context, Process, Technology

• Collis and Moonen model for technology as a
  learning workbench (2005)
• Context (e.g., the learning environment, the
  level of study, the subject discipline, the
  organisation of the programme)
• Process (e.g., the learning processes, social
  interactions, course design processes and/or
  administrative processes).
• Technology (its use in learning or administrative
  processes as well as social communications).

14
A Model for Analysis andImplementation of
Flexible Programme Delivery

• Significance of each perspective likely to vary
  across levels of any HEI provides analytical
  tool.
• Lens for stakeholders at each level to identify
  key issues across each perspective.
• Can be used to identify a best fit in process,
  context and technology across each of the levels

15
A Practical Guide to Providing Flexible Learning
in Further and Higher Education

• The Guide a solid foundation for readers to
  develop workable approaches to introducing
  flexibility in their own working contexts.
• On CD
• Includes a Quickstart section, case studies and
  appendices covering wide range of topics.

16
Conclusions and Issues - 1

• Case studies revealed distinct viewpoints at each
  level
• IM a broad brush standpoint
• OM reflect both top-down and bottom-up
  perspectives
• TLM focus on specific case study issues (e.g.,
  pedagogy, support and integration of
  e-learning/f2f).
• Case studies were bottom-up initiatives OM
  typically acted as a mediator drawing together
  bottom-up imperatives and top-down strategic
  objectives.

17
Conclusions and Issues - 2

• Need more work on top-down flexible programmes
• Framework to identify match-mismatch across
  levels
• Extending to roundtable discussions of IM, OM,
  TLM personnel to improve alignment
• Development of the Model Trust DR
• The Guide is a dip-in source of advice and
  support
• Guide needs to be a dynamic - regularly updated.

18
Breakout Session

• Case Studies to illustrate use of the Model and
  Guide
• Feedback on usefulness and applicability of both