TechTrends

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Collaborative Curriculum Design and the Impact on Organisational Culture

Original Paper

Abstract

The organisational culture at New Zealand’s Otago Polytechnic has been shifting as a result of the Designing for Learner Success initiative, which focuses on the redesign and redevelopment of all vocational and degree programmes to improve learner success. The four-phase process (Preparation – Design – Development – Delivery) follows Biggs’ (2003) constructive alignment principles of learning design to integrate strategic priorities, as well as experiential and blended learning, within curricula. Programme teams are supported throughout by colleagues in a centralised Learning and Teaching Development team.

Unlike earlier efforts to involve staff in curriculum development, this collaborative learning design process has resulted in a change in organisational culture from one of siloed activities within programmes, to a more integrated and communicative team approach. The initiative has also proved to be an effective model for professional development. The model is experiential, and success is achieved through growing academic capability, and by changing beliefs, attitudes, and teaching practices with regard to learning design and educational technologies.

Keywords

Collaboration Learning design Organisational change Staff capability 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Claire A. Goode declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Bronwyn Hegarty declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Carolyn Levy declares that she has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Barnett, R., & Coate, K. (2005). Engaging the curriculum in higher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, J. (2003). Aligning teaching for constructing learning. York: Higher Education Academy Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/resources/id477_aligning_teaching_for_constructing_learning.pdf.Google Scholar
  3. Blackall, L., & Hegarty, B. (2011). Open education practices: a user guide for organisations/models of open education. Retrieved from http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/ako-hub/ako-aotearoa-southern-hub/resources/pages/blackall_oep_wiki.
  4. Bowen, W. G. (2013). Walk deliberately, don’t run, toward online education. The chronicle of higher education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Walk-Deliberately-Dont-Run/138109.
  5. Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: An exploration of teachers’ experiences in a blended learning course. ReCALL, 23(3), 218–232.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344011000152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coolbear, P. (2012). Professional development for tertiary educators: What are we trying to achieve? Education Review, June. Retrieved from http://www.educationreview.co.nz/magazine/june-2012/professional-development-for-tertiary-educators-what-are-we-trying-to-achieve-2/#.VmSc7r_Lzw9.
  7. Daspit, J., Justice Tillman, C., Boyd, N. G., & Mckee, V. (2013). Cross-functional team effectiveness: An examination of internal team environment, shared leadership, and cohesion influences. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 19(1/2), 34–56.  https://doi.org/10.1108/13527591311312088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J.-F. (2017). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.03.002.
  9. Gratton, L., & Erickson, T. J. (2007). Eight ways to build collaborative teams. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 100–109 Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=per_dcop&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA170522233&asid=b83fc184fa890eabd63ab60dd25fe5eb.Google Scholar
  10. Healey, M., Bradford, M., Roberts, C., & Knight, Y. (2013). Collaborative discipline-based curriculum change: Applying change academy processes at department level. International Journal for Academic Development, 18(1), 31–34.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2011.628394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoban, G. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Houghton, L., Ruutz, A., Green, W., & Hibbins, R. (2015). I just do not have time for new ideas: Resistance, resonance and micro-mobilisation in a teaching community of practice. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(3), 527–540.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.973834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howard, S. K. (2011). Affect and acceptability: Exploring teachers’ technology-related risk perceptions. Educational Media International, 48(4), 261–272.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2011.632275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howard, S. K. (2013). Risk-aversion: Understanding teachers’ resistance to technology integration. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(3), 357–372.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2013.802995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huizinga, T., Handelzalts, A., Nieveen, N., & Voogt, J. M. (2014). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers’ design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1), 33–57.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.834077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jeffrey, L. M., Milne, J., Suddaby, G., & Higgins, A. (2014). Blended learning: how teachers balance the blend of online and classroom components. Journal of Information Technology Education, 13. Retrieved from http://jite.informingscience.org/documents/Vol13/JITEv13ResearchP121-140Jeffrey0460.pdf.
  17. Jones, A. (2012). Teacher perceptions and use of ICT in unfamiliar classroom situations. ICICTE 2012 Proceedings (pp. 314–322). Retrieved from http://www.icicte.org/Proceedings2012/Author.htm.
  18. Lai, K. W. (2011). Digital technology and the culture of teaching and learning in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8), 1263–1275.  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LeFevre, D. M. (2014). Barriers to implementing pedagogical change: The role of teachers’ perceptions of risk. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 56–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lumpe, A. T. (2007). Research-based professional development: Teachers engaged in professional learning communities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 125–128.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9018-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59 Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.op.idm.oclc.org/docview/218022684?accountid=39660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ministry of Education (2003). Māori tertiary education framework. Retrieved from https://education.govt.nz/further-education/policies-and-strategies/maori-tertiary-education-framework/.
  23. Ministry of Education (2015). Tertiary education strategy 2014–2019. Retrieved from https://education.govt.nz/further-education/policies-and-strategies/tertiary-education-strategy/.
  24. Moskal, P., Dziuban, C., & Hartman, J. (2013). Blended learning: A dangerous idea? The Internet and Higher Education, 18, 15–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O'Neill, G., Donnelly, R., & Fitzmaurice, M. (2014). Supporting programme teams to develop sequencing in higher education curricula. International Journal for Academic Development, 19(4), 268–280.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.867266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Otago Polytechnic. (2013a). Learning and teaching strategic framework 2016–2020. Dunedin: Otago Polytechnic.Google Scholar
  27. Otago Polytechnic. (2013b). Sustainable practice strategic framework. Dunedin: Otago Polytechnic.Google Scholar
  28. Otago Polytechnic (2014). Designing for learner success: a sustainable model of educational delivery for Otago Polytechnic. Retrieved from https://d4ls.op.ac.nz/assets/d4ls/Designing-for-Learner-Success-Full-Paper-SP-V2-30-Oct-2014.pdf.
  29. Otago Polytechnic. (2015a). Learner capability framework: Explanation and process (draft Nov 2015). Dunedin: Otago Polytechnic.Google Scholar
  30. Otago Polytechnic (2015b). Māori strategic framework 2016–2018. Retrieved from https://www.op.ac.nz/assets/Maori-Strategic-Framework/Maori-Strategic-Framework-2016-2018.pdf.
  31. Otago Polytechnic. (2016). Research and enterprise strategic framework 2016–2018. Dunedin: Otago Polytechnic.Google Scholar
  32. Otago Polytechnic. (2017). The ‘designing for learner success’ process. Dunedin: Otago Polytechnic.Google Scholar
  33. Redmond, P. (2011). From face-to-face teaching to online teaching: Pedagogical transitions. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown, & B. Cleland (Eds.), Proceedings ASCILITE 2011: 28th annual conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in learning in tertiary education: Changing demands, changing directions (pp. 1050–1060). Gold Coast, Australia: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE). Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Redmond-full.pdf.Google Scholar
  34. Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (2014). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in a learning organization. New York: Crown Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  35. Shan Fu, J. (2013). ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9(1), 112–125 Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.op.idm.oclc.org/docview/1353086729?accountid=39660.Google Scholar
  36. Thomas, T., Wallace, J., Allen, P., Clark, J., Jones, A., Lawrence, J., Cole, B., & Sheridan Burns, L. (2017). Strategies for leading academics to rethink humanities and social sciences curricula in the context of discipline standards. International Journal for Academic Development, 22(2), 120–133.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2017.1285239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Townsend, T., Pisapia, J., & Razzaq, J. (2015). Fostering interdisciplinary research in universities: A case study of leadership, alignment and support. Studies in Higher Education, 40(4), 658–675.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Voogt, J., Westbroek, H., Handelzalts, A., Walraven, A., McKenney, S., Pieters, J., & de Vries, B. (2011). Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(8), 1235–1244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang, T. (2017). Overcoming barriers to ‘flip’: Building teacher’s capacity for the adoption of flipped classroom in Hong Kong secondary schools. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(6), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-017-0047-7.Google Scholar
  40. Westerman, S., & Barry, W. (2009). Mind the gap: Staff empowerment through digital literacy. In T. Mayes, D. Morrison, H. Mellar, P. Bullen, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Transforming higher education through technology-enhanced learning (pp. 122–132). York: The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Otago PolytechnicDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations