Learning and Teaching Strategy Consultation
Lent Term 2006
1.
Thirty-five responses to the consultation were received (see annex 1) and in
addition comments were noted from the 51 attendees at lunchtime meetings. Most
respondents engaged constructively and thoroughly: only one institution thought
that the exercise was a waste of time and money.
2.
This summary is intended to give a flavour of the comments received and
the agendas emerging, some or all of which could be built into the University’s
Learning and Teaching Strategy. The consultation document can be seen at
annex 2.
3.
On the whole respondents confined themselves to the areas and topics
outlined in the document, and so perhaps it is legitimate to accept that these do
strike most members of the University as being the obvious areas of strategic
interest. Although respondents made some suggestions for other areas to be
covered in the strategy, none of these fell outside the topics already identified.
General comments
4.
It was obvious from comments to all parts of the consultation document that
certain themes were of paramount importance in the successful implementation of
any strategy. It was quite clear that the strategy must bear in mind the following
background:
• local autonomy of Faculties and Departments must be respected;
• there is little desire for further centralisation of support or funding;
• there is absolutely no desire for increased paperwork or ‘teaching-related
administration’;
• resources, including funding, must find their way down to local level;
• certain central providers are already perceived to contribute to the support of
learning and teaching (Staff Development, Education Section, CARET,
Language Centre, Careers Service): there is a need to co-ordinate their
activities better;
• there is a need to foster better communication between the central providers
and Faculties and Departments;
• the time pressure on academics must be acknowledged in any new initiative.
Consultation topics
Context
5.
Generally, respondents recognised the context given in the document.
Other suggestions included giving more profile to support for graduate teaching
and learning; the need to give diversity and inclusive practice a higher profile;
recognition that Cambridge welcomes mature students, and recognition that
students are taught to think, are exposed to creativity and innovation, and are
enabled to learn throughout life.
Ethos and culture
6. Again,
the
description
of the University’s ethos and culture was largely
recognised by respondents. They also suggested other elements to be included:
the effect of the RAM and operation of the Schools on teaching and learning;
assessment; a more careful description of the place of skills in the curriculum; the
importance of social conscience and social awareness as a quality to be
developed.
External factors
7.
Many additional external factors were suggested, including various forms of
legislation. More than one respondent also made the point that it is not clear
whether the University intends to respond to all these external factors, and if so,
how? Other suggestions for specific mention included: the introduction of variable
fees and bursaries; the access and widening participation agenda; the Bologna
accord and its implications; the pervasiveness of the internet and open learning
resources.
Reflection on and critical analysis of learning and teaching provision
8.
Most respondents considered that the University already engaged
adequately in reflection and critical analysis. It was felt that these activities are
best instigated and carried out at local level. Reassuringly, several respondents
identified a link between University quality assurance procedures and reflection
and critical analysis. It was felt that such procedures (e.g. internal review,
appraisal, peer observation) were adequate for this purpose and no further
mechanisms (and, particularly, no further paperwork) was wanted.
Central facility for pedagogic support, innovation and co-ordination
9.
Opinion on whether the University required a central facility was mixed.
Certainly, almost no-one was in favour of establishing another free-standing unit
within the University to take on pedagogic support. The most favoured
suggestions were co-ordinating the efforts of the central support providers better
and emphasising the work of CARET. Again the strong desire for local autonomy
in deciding what kind of support and innovation was appropriate, and the
possibility of using funding at a local level for pedagogic support, came through
clearly. The current efforts of Staff Development, CARET and the Education
Section were all acknowledged and valued, but it was felt that there could be
better communication between those and other support institutions and with and
between Faculties and Departments.
Equality and diversity in the student experience
10.
There was no enthusiasm for central goals or targets in relation to Equality
and Diversity, respondents suggesting that issues should be addressed at the
local level. However, it was also noted that a clearer articulation of central policy
and principles was necessary. Few respondents had experienced issues
concerning student diversity, except for support needs of students from non-
traditional backgrounds and English language competence of overseas students.
It was suggested that educational technology could play a part in meeting the
varying needs of the student body, and that student achievement should be
monitored to see whether the playing field was indeed level for all students. The
diverse backgrounds of teaching staff, and the implications that this might have for
teaching activities, was also noted.
2
Place of technology in learning
11.
Again respondents were not in favour of further discrete, centralised
provision. It was felt that central support was already adequate, and that if further
enhancement was needed this could be supplied by existing providers such as
CARET or the Computing Service. Simplicity, robustness and ease of use and
maintenance were noted as being essential for any developments which were to
be used at local level (as well as the resources to implement them). A University-
wide VLE was welcomed only as an opt-in arrangement. The place of technology
in the student skills and the inclusive practice agendas was recognised.
12.
It was noted that a university-wide understanding of the place of e-learning
was required.
Skills and training
13.
Respondents felt that the description of the place of skills in the curriculum
given in the document needed refinement. It was acknowledged that Cambridge
students acquire a wealth of skills apart from knowledge skills during their
courses. Although not separately assessed on the whole, these other skills were
embedded in curricula, were an integral part of the learning process, and were
valued as a valid outcome of student learning. It was felt that this should be
articulated more clearly both to students and to employers, and students should
be given clearer information about opportunities to acquire skills, and clearer
guidance on identifying their skills. The acquisition of social awareness and social
skills through volunteering opportunities was noted as a valuable contribution.
Issues relating to the acquisition of transferable skills by students with different
needs were noted.
Staff development
14.
Current Staff Development provision was felt to be good and appropriate.
There was little enthusiasm for expanding staff development provision and none
for a compulsory teaching qualification. The time pressure on academics who
wished to engage in staff development was noted, as was a reluctance to spend
time on development in a culture which was perceived (by some) not to reward
teaching effort. It was felt that personal development should be valued more and
established more firmly within the University’s culture, and there was a suggestion
that all roles should have time built in for reflection.
Recognition and reward of teaching excellence
15.
Many respondents felt that teaching activities were not sufficiently rewarded
but noted that to reward systematically would require some kind of evaluation. It
was envisaged that criteria for evaluation would be subjective, invasive or
unreliable, and add to the bureaucracy of learning and teaching. However, at
least one respondent felt that the task was not impossible and that further
research on the way to reward teaching should be carried out
Contribution of Colleges
16.
Almost all respondents felt there was further scope for interaction with
Colleges, although some drew a distinction between collaboration (possible) and
co-ordination of activities (doubtful). All aspects of undergraduate and graduate
3
teaching and admissions were included as candidates for greater interaction, but
the most commonly raised issue was that of the integration of CTOs in Faculties
and Departments, and the reward for College teaching by UTOs.
Dissemination of Good Practice
17.
Various respondents identified transmission of good practice as a key
element in maintaining and enhancing excellence, and as part of a culture which
valued learning and teaching. Some questioned how feasible it was to use good
practice from one institution in an entirely different one. Some felt that the Good
Practice activities recently launched through Learning and Teaching Support were
adequate and appropriate. Others suggested that the Education Section and Staff
Development between them provided all the support necessary for good practice
activities and no new provision was warranted.
Emerging agendas
18.
From the above comments, and bearing in mind the detailed comments of
respondents, it is possible to identify certain emerging agendas: student skills;
inclusive practice; communication; co-ordination of the activities of central support
providers; reward for teaching. These are considered in more detail below.
Student skills
19.
There are various indications that the University needs to keep student skills
as part of its strategy. Currently, support for transferable skills is tied into the
University and Colleges’ Personal Development Planning project. It would seem
logical that this project needs to continue in some form, but with a remit to
investigate more thoroughly the clearer articulation of the importance of skills in
the curriculum and better information to students on how to acquire skills. In
particular social awareness (with a tie-in to Volunteering activities) and inclusive
skills support should be investigated. Inclusivity should extend to all parts of the
student body. Skills for life-long learning should also be given a higher profile.
Support for English language skills remains a priority. The place of educational
technology in delivering the skills agenda requires exploration.
Inclusive practice
20.
Progress on encouraging academic institutions to adopt principles of
inclusive design when developing the curriculum has been slow and patchy,
despite the introduction of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act.
Proactivity in providing an accessible and inclusive learning and teaching
environment will enable the University to respond more completely to the
Disability Discrimination Act, as well as to other equality legislation. Exploration is
required of how best to embed inclusivity in the University, and in particular, how
creation of new courses can recognise the diversity of the student body.
Inclusivity should also extend to the skills agenda (see above), and the use of
educational technology in meeting the need for inclusivity needs investigation.
Communication
21.
Communication on learning and teaching issues amongst central providers,
between central providers and academic institutions, and amongst academic
institutions was singled out as an important need. The Learning and Teaching
4
Support Initiative has started to address this need, and the University needs to
investigate how this work will continue and how it fits into the activities of other
central providers (see below). There is also a need to explore whether other
channels for effective communication are necessary.
Co-ordination of the activities of central support providers
22.
The consultation showed no enthusiasm for a central pedagogic unit.
Instead it was felt that much of the expertise needed for pedagogic support was
present in the University already, but the units providing it could better co-ordinate
their activities. The University needs to explore how this co-ordination might be
brought about, maintained, and be encouraged to produce effective outcomes.
Bearing in mind responses to the consultation, currently the key institutions would
appear to be the Careers Service, CARET, CMI Educational Programmes,
Disability Resource Centre, Education Section, Language Centre and Staff
Development.
23.
At the same time the University will need to consider how additional
expertise, not currently present at an adequate level in the university (e.g.
curriculum development, pedagogic innovation, co-ordination and management of
funding initiatives) can be established.
24.
Research will also be required on how best to engage Faculties and
Departments in the activities of central providers, whether that be funding local
initiatives, embedding central practitioners locally on a temporary basis, allowing
academic staff leave to work centrally on a temporary basis, or other activities.
Reward for teaching.
25.
Various issues were identified as requiring exploration. Research on how
teaching can be best rewarded in an institution like Cambridge need to be
undertaken with a view to establishing whether it is feasible to reward
systematically through a process like the senior promotions process; such an
exploration would need to deal with the time pressures experienced by
academics, and the perceived conflict between teaching and research activities.
In terms of College interactions, the position of CTOs within Faculties and
Departments and the recognition and reward of activities of UTOs in Colleges
were the issues most commonly identified by respondents as being in need of
resolution.
Monitoring and evaluation
26.
In addition it was pointed out that the strategy would need to be monitored
and evaluated, and it was suggested that a small group might be set up to do this.
Further action
27.
The Education Committee is invited to consider whether the emerging
agendas are those which should be pursued further with a view to their forming
the core of the University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy.
GMK
5
Respondents Annex
1
Colleges
Lucy Cavendish
Robinson
Total 2
Faculties and Departments
Archaeology, Department
Biological Anthropology, Department
Chemical Engineering Syndicate
Computer Science, Syndicate
Continuing Education, Institute
Divinity, Faculty Teaching Committee
English, Faculty Board
Geography, Department Teaching Committee
History and Philosophy of Science, Board
History, Faculty
International Studies, Centre
Law, Faculty Board
Mathematics, Faculty Board
Modern and Medieval Languages, Faculty Board
Oriental Studies, Faculty Board
Philosophy, Faculty Board
Physics and Chemistry, Faculty Board
Social Anthropology, Department
Veterinary Medicine, Faculty Board
Total
19
Academic-related and other institutions
Careers Service
Disability Resource Centre
Equality and Diversity Section
Health and Safety Division
Language Centre
PHEP Advisory Group
Staff Development Committee
Total 7
Personal submissions
Biochemistry, academic staff
CARET
Economics, support staff
Modern and Medieval Languages, academic staff
Oriental Studies, academic staff
Social and Political Sciences, academic staff
Staff Development Officer
Total 7
Total submissions = 35
Comments were also recorded from 51 attendees at lunchtime meetings
6
