Centre for Inquiry-based Learning in the Arts and Social .../file/CILASS_Interim... · Contact: Dr...

Centre for Inquiry-based Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences

www.sheffield.ac.uk/cilass

Interim Evaluation Report July 2007

http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/cilass

http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/

Contact:Dr Philippa Levy, Academic Director

CILASS - Centre for Inquiry-based Learning in the Arts and Social SciencesUniversity of Sheffield, Information Commons, 44 Leavygreave Road, Sheffield, S3 7RD

T: 0114 222 5271 F: 0114 222 5279E: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

This report has been prepared by: Sheila Corry, Tim Fiennes, Philippa Levy, Sabine Little, Pam McKinney, Mark Morley, Robert Petrulis, Nicola Reilly, Jamie Wood (CILASS core team) with Gabi Diercks-O’Brien and Diane Hart (CILASS internal evaluators) and Martin Oliver (CILASS external evaluator). Thanks are due to all those who contributed their reflective feedback to the formative self-evaluation process. When citing the report, please use the following format: Levy, P., Reilly, N., Oliver, M., Hart, D. (2007). CILASS Interim Evaluation Report, CILASS (Centre for Inquiry-based Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences), Sheffield: University of Sheffield. CILASS Core Team, at 1st August 2007 Sheila Corry (Secretary) Tim Fiennes (Co-ordinator, Student Ambassador Network, 2006-7) Dr. Philippa Levy (Academic Director) Dr. Sabine Little (Learning Development and Research Associate) Pam McKinney (Learning Development and Research Associate) Mark Morley (Learning Development and Research Associate, August 2007 – April 2008) Dr. Robert Petrulis (Research Associate) Nicola Reilly (Programme Manager) Jamie Wood (Learning Development and Research Associate, April 2007 - January 2008)

CILASS Interim Evaluation Report to HEFCE, 31st July 2007

1

CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 CILASS 2 2.0 Evaluation methodology 4 3.0 CILASS ‘Theory of Change’ poster 7 4.0 How to read this document 8 5.0 Self-evaluation summary 9 6.0 External evaluation 20

(by Dr Martin Oliver, IoE, University of London) APPENDICES 1. ‘Theory of Change’ analysis 1: resources and enablers 25 2. ‘Theory of Change’ analysis 2: activities and processes 41 3. ‘Theory of Change’ analysis 3: desired outcomes 53 4. CILASS Programme-level Evaluation Plan 64 5. Data Sources for Formative Evaluation 66 6. Graduating Student Survey 2005-2006 (summary) 69 7. CILASS Funding Schemes 76 8. CILASS-funded programmes and projects 80 9. Bartolomé House Collaboratory, Usage 2006-7 85 10. Dissemination, Networking and Development Activity, at July 2007 88 11. Financial Briefing 102 INSERTS 1. JISC DVD – Designing Spaces for Effective Learning 2. CILASS CD-ROM - Story of a CETL in Pictures


2

1.0 CILASS 1.1 CILASS is a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) awarded to the University of Sheffield (UoS) by the Higher Education Funding Council for England in April 2005. The University initially received a total of £4.5M for a five-year programme of reward/development activity and capital investment (new learning/teaching spaces and equipment). A further £350K for capital investment was awarded in January 2006. 1.2 CILASS was created on the basis of a joint bid from the Faculties of Arts, Social Sciences and Law. Subsequent re-structuring within the University means that from 2007, the Faculty of Law has become part of an expanded Faculty of Social Sciences and three academic departments that originally were not part of the CILASS ‘core community’ have joined it. An academically-led unit with a small core team of programme management, educational developers/researchers and administration, the CETL sits operationally in a new space ‘in-between’ the faculties and professional service departments with which it works in close partnership. 1.3 CILASS aims to make a major contribution to enhancing the student learning experience in its core faculties at UoS by embedding inquiry at its heart. Its programme encompasses strands focusing on development and innovation, reward and recognition, evaluation and research, enhancement of the University’s physical estate for learning and teaching, and dissemination. Although the arts and social sciences constitute its principal disciplinary focus, the CETL aims to impact on the wider University in relation to inquiry-based learning at both a strategic level and in terms of stimulus for practical development and innovation, as well as on other HEIs. 1.4 Inquiry-based learning is the term adopted by CILASS (and others) to refer to a broad spectrum of learning and teaching approaches that are based on student-led inquiry or research. Students learn through guided exploration and investigation of the complex questions and problems of their discipline or professional practice in ways that mirror the scholarly and research processes of those disciplines and practices. The CILASS publicity strapline aims to convey this by signalling an over-arching focus on ‘modelling the process of research within the student learning experience’. Building on existing practice and interest across its faculties, the work of CILASS focuses in particular on: collaborative inquiry in discipline-based and interdisciplinary learning; using information and communications technology (ICT) imaginatively to enhance the learning experience; developing students’ information literacy. The CILASS focus on student-led inquiry is set within the context of the University’s commitment to research-led teaching, and its strategic aim to foster strong links between learning, teaching, research and knowledge transfer.


3

1.5 Approaches to inquiry-based pedagogy vary depending on discipline and include case-based, problem-based and experiential learning methods, as well as investigations and research projects of different kinds. An important purpose of the CETL is to provide an opportunity for staff and students to explore the diversity of meaning and practical possibility represented by the concept of IBL, including through cross-disciplinary exchange and the scholarship of teaching and learning.


4

2.0 Evaluation methodology 2.1 The CILASS Evaluation and Research Strategy aims to ensure accountability, feed into educational development and build educational knowledge through a blend of impact evaluation, practitioner-led scholarship and pedagogical research. Establishing a principled framework that identifies inquiry as the central, integrating link between these different, but related, activities, it aims to offer staff and students a range of possibilities for exploration of the educational understandings, practices and experiences that relate to, and arise out of, the CETL’s initiatives. A formal ethics approval process has been developed, in line with UoS guidance, for all the CETL’s evaluation and research activity. The following paragraphs focus exclusively on the Strategy’s impact evaluation strand. The full CILASS Evaluation and Research Strategy document is available on the CILASS website. 2.2 The CILASS approach aligns with a new approach to evaluating learning and teaching development that has been developed and applied more generally at the University since 2006. This is an adaptation of Theories of Change programme evaluation combined with the use of EPO (Enabling, Process and Outcome) Performance Indicators. CILASS has pioneered its use within UoS, conceiving of impact evaluation as a central inquiry practice for the CETL and tailoring the approach to the inquiry-led CILASS context. 2.3 We have been particularly interested in developing the Theories of Change (ToC) approach to facilitate practitioner-led and community-focused critical reflection on practice. The approach is being applied at both overall programme level and at the level of all CILASS-funded educational development and innovation initiatives. In this way, it offers a common framework for evaluation of diverse development projects, and for exploration of their relationship with each other and with overall CILASS programme-level activity and goals. At programme level, the ToC framework informs project-level ToCs and offers a means of exploring and assessing the impact of the CETL as a change programme. CILASS is committed to providing appropriate syntheses of what is being learned about IBL through the CETL, and more broadly about the process and practice of teaching quality enhancement and change. 2.4 The CILASS ToC approach works as follows. Through backward mapping, a causal narrative or ‘theory’ is established which identifies evaluation indicators and becomes the basis for an evaluation plan. For example, ‘to achieve the desired impact on student learning experiences, the outcomes of the initiative need to be x, y and z; in order to achieve these outcomes, the processes or activities a, b and c need to happen; in order to carry out a, b and c, the enabling factors and resources d, e and f are required’. The narrative thus identifies three different types of evaluation indicator: enabling indicators concerned with the structures and support, process indicators concerned with what needs to happen, and outcome


5

indicators concerned with intermediate outcomes of an initiative and that are tied to broader and longer-term impact goals. The approach distributes weight between outcomes, processes and enabling factors and identifies them all as valid indicators of impact. Underlying the ‘theory of change’ narrative are various assumptions, beliefs and values relating to the change initiative, its context, purposes and so on. Exploring these in the course of impact evaluation affords insight into why and how impact occurs. At this stage of formative self-evaluation of the CILASS programme, we are focusing in particular on issues related to enabling and process indicators, as well as on evidence of early outcomes. 2.5 The CILASS ToC at programme level was developed to express the CETL’s programme plan and its objectives as funded by HEFCE. The critical success factors identified in the initial proposal document are embedded within it. Consistent with the ToC approach to tracking emergent themes, the first version of the CILASS ToC has been updated as part of the formative review process, with a view to clarifying key indicators and highlighting enabling and process indicators that are proving especially important. A poster-style representation of the ToC (version 2.1) is reproduced in Section 3 below. Appendices 1, 2 and 3 of the report provide an extended discussion and analysis of all enabling, process and outcome evaluation indicators identified by the ToC. 2.6 The CILASS programme-level evaluation plan is summarized in Appendix 4. Based on an annual review cycle, it draws upon the following sources of data: ‘baseline’ and longitudinal student survey; departmental/school and individual project evaluation portfolios; documentary evidence; stakeholder feedback; internal evaluation review; external evaluation review; core team reflection. Consistent with this plan, this formative self-evaluation report draws on data sources as listed fully in Appendix 5. 2.7 Evaluation (and associated dissemination) is integral to the learning and teaching initiatives supported by the CETL and the approach aims to engage processes of evaluative inquiry that are stakeholder-owned. As at programme level, project leaders and other stakeholders develop poster-style representations of their ‘theories of change’ at the outset of their projects. This leads into the establishment of evaluation indicators and plans, and a six-monthly review cycle based on reflective interviews facilitated by CILASS followed by brief interim reporting. Full formative reporting takes place following initial implementation and evaluation of projects, with summative evaluation planned to coincide with the HEFCE summative evaluation in 2009/10. From 2007, a short case study is a required element of all projects at the time of formative reporting. Thus, as cycles of evaluation activity are worked through, each departmental/school programme or individual project builds up an evaluation portfolio consisting of a ToC poster, an evaluation plan, a formative report and case study, a summative report, and a body of evaluation data.


6

2.8 Our impact evaluation strategy also includes an element of baseline and longitudinal investigation, following the student experience in core faculties through an annual questionnaire survey. The purpose is to establish a broad picture of graduating students’ experiences of inquiry within their degree programmes, in relation to CILASS’s thematic interests, and to generate comparative data with which to measure broad trends of change. The first survey was conducted in Spring/Summer 2006 and the second in Spring/Summer 2007; key findings from 2006 and implications for CILASS are summarised in Appendix 6. 2.9 CILASS impact evaluation is led by the Academic Director and supported by internally commissioned consultancy from the UoS Learning Development and Media Unit (LDMU). A small Evaluation Advisory Group meets twice per annum. Dr Martin Oliver, from the Institute for Education at the University of London, is CILASS’s External Evaluator. He has undertaken a number of formative review activities for CILASS, with associated reports that have been submitted to the CETL.

CILASS Programme ToC

Current situation /

Problems Resources / Enabling

factors Activities / Processes

What is the current situation (from April 2005)?

What is needed to do the activities leading to the desired outcomes?

What steps need to be taken to achieve the desired outcomes?

1.Commitment to excellence in inquiry-based learning (IBL). 1.Inquiry-based pedagogies identified as powerful for enhancing discipline-based and interdisciplinary learning at all levels, and for fostering essential capabilities for citizenship, employability and lifelong learning. 2.Benefits identified in linking IBL with information literacy, and in adopting collaborative, interdisciplinary and networked learning approaches. 3.Strong foundation of existing excellence in the practice and scholarship of IBL at UoS. 4.Potential identified for increased collaboration for IBL across academic and services departments. 5.Emergent strategic commitment to IBL at institutional level in relation to ‘the Sheffield Graduate’. Constraining factors. 6.Dissemination of excellent IBL practice limited in UoS and beyond. 7. Support in UoS for pedagogical inquiry and scholarship of teaching and learning relatively limited. 8.Not many physical learning environments at UoS facilitate IBL activity in the classroom. 9.Lack of focal point at UoS for networking, sharing ideas, critical debate, etc. on IBL. 10.Limited availability of resources and pedagogical guidance for IBL at UoS. 11.Less reward and recognition for teaching at UoS as compared with research. 12.A need, in UoS and wider sector, to develop greater understanding of IBL pedagogy. CILASS can make a major contribution. 13.To transforming the student learning experience and effecting positive learning outcomes at UoS through IBL. 14.To developing IBL practice and theory at UoS and in the wider sector.

Robust infrastructure and governance. 15.Strong core team. 16.Appropriate specialist support. 17.Effective governance. 18.Partnership working practices. Stimulus and support for IBL programmes and projects. 19.Funding for IBL programmes and projects, including for enhancement of space/equipment. 20.High quality pedagogical support. 21.Focused guidance on key CILASS themes, and promotion of embedded IBL skills development. 22.Provision and promotion of new central learning spaces and technologies, and user support. Facilitation of networking and development activity. 23.Co-ordination of IBL interest and network groups. 24.Provision of relevant development/ social networking opportunities. 25.Fostering of connections with other HEIs and external bodies, using existing and new networks. Strategic leadership, facilitation and integration. 26.Clear strategic vision, including for exit strategy. 27.Facilitation of strategic engagement by academic departments/schools. 28.Effective institution-level representation, consultation and communication. 29.Support for reward/recognition of teaching excellence. Stimulus and support for evaluation, research and scholarship. 30.CILASS is supported in the use of ToC and provides effective support for evaluation of IBL programmes/ projects. 31.Resource dedicated to pedagogical research. 32.Stimulation and capacity-building for practitioner-led and student inquiry. Strategies and support for communication/dissemination. 33.Key stakeholder groups and channels targeted for internal/external dissemination. 34.Resource and support for dissemination of IBL programme/project outcomes.

Staff and students engage in IBL development, experimentation and innovation. 35.Departments/schools and individuals/groups develop innovative initiatives and pedagogies that engage students in learning through inquiry. 36.Staff develop approaches to IBL that promote development of students’ inquiry-related awareness/skills and encourage: collaborative inquiry/inquiry communities; information literacy development; imaginative use of ICT; interdisciplinary inquiry; independent student use of new spaces and technologies for IBL. 37.Staff use new spaces and technologies in their IBL teaching, and develop skills in using them. Staff and students participate in networking and development activities, and build new partnerships. 38.IBL champions promote IBL and CILASS and engage staff across core departments. 39.Student Ambassadors promote IBL and CILASS and engage students and staff at UoS and beyond. 40.Staff and students participate in pedagogical debate and development activities for IBL. 41.Academic and professional services staff work in new partnerships and collaborations. Processes of strategic engagement and development are taken forward. 42.Departments/schools embed IBL and related themes strategically in the curriculum from Level 1 upwards. 43.Senior academic and professional services staff feed CILASS perspectives and participation into relevant strategic initiatives. 44.CILASS is responsive to emergent strategic priorities and developments at UoS and HE more widely. 45.Departments/schools and individuals engage via CILASS with existing opportunities for reward and recognition and with CILASS award schemes. UoS staff and students engage in evaluation, research and scholarship. 46.CILASS carries out on-going, programme-level reflection and evaluation, and departments/schools and staff adopt and develop expertise in the ToC approach. 47.CILASS carries out a focused programme of pedagogical research, relevant to UoS and the wider community. 48.Staff and students engage in scholarship and research relating to IBL. Staff and students create IBL resources/outputs and engage in internal/external dissemination activity. 49.Academic and Library staff and students produce a range of practical and research outputs from development projects, including case studies. 50.CILASS raises awareness of IBL and the CETL, and IBL resources and other outputs are disseminated widely.

Version 2.1 June 2007

Desired outcomes at end of programme

Longer-term outcomes of programme

Longer-term impact on learning and teaching

What will the CILASS programme have achieved by the end of the funded period (March 2010)?

What are the CILASS aims beyond the funded period?

What will be different for learning and teaching in the future as a result of CILASS?

Learning and teaching at UoS are enhanced. 51.Students experience benefits including greater enjoyment, engagement and confidence in learning, and enhanced capabilities in self-directed inquiry; information literacy; communication; collaboration; use of ICT. 52.Students recognise and value IBL as a central feature of their experience at UoS and for citizenship, employability and lifelong learning. 53.IBL is more widely and deeply embedded into the curriculum across UoS core faculties and beyond from Level 1. 54.The benefits of new spaces and technologies for learning and teaching are such that there is intensive use and demand. 55.Staff have deepened their engagement with IBL, value it as a core pedagogical strategy, and are committed to further developing their IBL practice. A vibrant community/networks of practice in IBL exist at UoS, with strong links to wider networks. 56.Students and staff experience shared ownership of the CETL and its networks and activities, and have benefited from new collaborations and partnerships. 57.Students and staff feel part of a community of practice for IBL and are contributing actively to on-going IBL networks in the wider sector. There is stronger strategic commitment to IBL, and greater reward and recognition for teaching, at UoS. 58.Commitment to IBL (and related themes) is more strongly reflected in institutional strategies, initiatives and discussions relating to learning and teaching. 59.There is stronger strategic commitment at departmental/school level within the CILASS ‘core’, which has begun to spread to a wider constituency across UoS disciplines. 60.The institutional profile of teaching is raised within UoS and CILASS has contributed to increased reward/recognition. 61.CILASS has made a major contribution towards strengthening the links between research and teaching at UoS. Enhanced evidence-base, resources and capacity exist in UoS and beyond, and are supporting IBL knowledge/practice development. 62.CILASS practice and research outputs are of high quality, and are used and valued in UoS and the wider sector. 63.There is increased engagement in scholarly approaches to teaching and learning, for IBL, at UoS and the value of scholarly inquiry and research into IBL has been demonstrated. 64.Information and learning about IBL have been shared and approaches transferred across contexts, including in other HEIs. 65.UoS is perceived internally and externally (nationally and internationally) as a leading contributor to development, innovation and research in IBL.

Continued and widening uptake of IBL, and continued support for IBL development at UoS and beyond. 66.CILASS approaches to IBL are further developed at UoS, including in departments outside the CILASS core faculties. 67.There is sustained strategic and operational support for embedding IBL at UoS, including in departments outside CILASS core Faculties. 68.CILASS models of collaboration, partnership and interaction for IBL development continue to be supported and developed in the institution. 69.Dissemination of UoS activity continues and staff in other HEIs continue to adopt and embed CILASS approaches to IBL.

IBL will be firmly established as an integral aspect of learning and teaching at UoS. 70.There will be University-wide commitment to IBL across the disciplines, from Level 1 upwards. 71.There will be a distinctive approach to IBL at UoS, reflecting and building on CILASS themes. 72.Students, staff and senior managers will recognise and value IBL as a key aspect of learning and teaching at UoS. UoS and wider sector will benefit from a rich body of expertise, resources and evidence to support continuing excellence in IBL. 73.UoS will be able to provide enhanced services and support for educational development in IBL. 74.CILASS will have informed Estates strategy and the design of further new learning/teaching spaces. 75.Partnership working across relevant specialisms and with students will be the norm in educational development for IBL at UoS. 76.A community of practice approach to educational development will be sustained. IBL and the scholarship of teaching will be recognised features of teaching excellence at UoS. 77.CILASS will have contributed to a positive culture at UoS with regard to reward and recognition for teaching excellence, and learning and teaching development. 78.Excellence in IBL pedagogy and scholarship at UoS will be recognised externally by other HEIs and professional bodies. 79.UoS will continue to inform IBL development in the wider sector, nationally and internationally. UoS will have an enhanced profile and competitive advantage. 80.UoS will be recognised as producing highly capable, self-directing, critical inquirers who are sophisticated users of information and technology and have high-level employability and lifelong learning capabilities. 81.The UoS emphasis on IBL will contribute to perceptions of UoS as a world-class environment for learning in the ‘knowledge society’, impacting positively on student recruitment.


4.0 How to read this document 4.1 The next section of this report, Self-Evaluation Summary, offers a short overview of key issues emerging from the CILASS formative self-evaluation in relation to the major themes of the HEFCE CETL programme. These include positive outcomes, significant challenges, important learning points and key directions for further development of CILASS activities; quotations used are drawn from stakeholder feedback and research evidence. A paragraph comments on the HEFCE CETL change strategy as a whole. The Summary is followed (in section 6) by the external evaluator’s review of CILASS activity as at July 2007. 4.2 Sections 5 and 6 are supplemented by the more detailed ToC reports provided in Appendices 1, 2 and 3. These are structured to reflect the ToC framework, focusing respectively on all indicators relating to Resources and Enablers, Activities and Processes, and Desired Outcomes. Evidence and issues of relevance to each indicator identified by the ToC are discussed (critical success factors from the initial funded proposal document are highlighted where appropriate with the acronym CSF). The format enables the reader to go directly to indicators of specific interest without requiring that the reports are read in linear fashion, and it is recommended that they are read in conjunction with the poster-style representation of the CILASS ToC, to which they cross-refer (hyperlinked to appendices). [To return to original page after following a hyperlink, on a PC press ALT + Left Arrow and on a Mac press Command + Left Arrow.] The extended discussion and analysis that they offer is included in this report to provide further detail on specific issues; to illustrate the evolutionary, reflective and narrative style of the ToC evaluation approach; and, to illustrate the nature of our evaluative work in progress. 4.3 An additional perspective on the CETL’s activities and impact thus far is offered in an insert to the report, “The Story of a CETL in Pictures”.

8


9

5.0 Self-Evaluation Summary Enhancing learning and teaching 5.1 CILASS has established an extensive programme of educational development and enhancement at UoS. To date, a total of 50 projects for inquiry-based learning development have been supported across 20 departmental/school programmes in its core faculties, plus 14 individual projects based across both core and other faculties. Seventy-five members of staff have become involved as project leaders, with further staff becoming involved as tutors on modules impacted by projects. With the timescales needed for educational development often proving to be longer than anticipated, development and evaluation cycles extending beyond one calendar year are common. Appendix 7 provides details of the CETL’s various funding schemes. 5.2 The initiatives that have been developed through CILASS in the first phase of its activity are richly diverse in character and show good alignment with programme-level objectives. Funded projects have all taken forward good practice development and innovation in IBL and some have proved particularly novel, creative and experimental. Appendix 8 includes a full list of projects funded by CILASS as at July 2007, including those that have been funded in non-core departments. More extensive project descriptions and illustrative case examples of selected projects can be viewed on the CILASS website. 5.3 CILASS has exceeded its initial two-year target for impact in terms of student numbers, with over 5,000 students directly involved in modules that have benefited from funding and support. Many others have been impacted through the use of CILASS spaces and technologies and indirectly through funded projects focused on staff development. 5.4 The impact of the CETL’s approach to stimulating strategic, ‘whole curriculum’ approaches to teaching enhancement has been clearly demonstrated. Schools/departments have been encouraged to adopt approaches to strategic development that are appropriate to their circumstances, resulting in local programmes that have differed widely in scale and scope. The variety of change strategies that have been adopted by departments provide valuable models and learning for wider dissemination. There has been variation in the extent to which departments/schools have, thus far, engaged with CILASS but in general, engagement has been aided by the CETL’s close alignment with institutional strategy for learning and teaching, and the connections it has been able to make with department-level strategic planning for learning and teaching enhancement.

“CILASS has made a dramatic difference [at the level of the department] as far as I’m concerned and its influence is continuing to spread” (Project leader, 2006-7).


10

5.5 Initiatives supported by CILASS are providing rich evidence of the value of inquiry-based learning, across a wide range of disciplines from the first year of undergraduate study to taught Masters level. Impact on the enhancement of students’ learning experiences and on their development of important capabilities and skills is evident in areas including: increased engagement, confidence and responsibility in relation to learning; improved information literacy and IT skills; enhanced awareness of the inquiry/research process and of the role and value of inquiry within the wider social context. Much student feedback on new initiatives has been very positive; at the same time, formative evaluation is also serving to highlight issues of challenge and concern for students as they engage with inquiry, providing valuable feedback to inform on-going enhancements.

“What I liked about it was that I got to do - I mean I was freer in a way. I didn’t know that you as a student at all could refute arguments put forward by academics [...]. I built my own arguments, and that was really, really good for me. I really enjoyed that, because it was free. I had no idea that you could do that, and I don’t think that you can do that to the same extent in an essay because that mode often it’s a set question [...] while in this [IBL] project we could choose our approach by ourselves. That was really good” (Level 1 student cohort study participant, 2006-7). “[The IBL module] has really changed my thinking and understanding of literary research” (Project student, 2006-7).

5.6 The CETL is also inspiring and enthusing staff at UoS in relation to educational enhancement. Provision of financial resource has been identified as a key incentive, but the CETL’s role in facilitating the pursuit of existing academic values and in providing high quality pedagogical support and development opportunities is also greatly valued. CILASS is seen to have a distinctively facilitative (rather than directive) style that is research-informed, sensitive to disciplinary difference and actively experimental. This is perceived to be influential in stimulating engagement and in encouraging a level of creativity and risk-taking in educational development from which much can be learned. Intrinsic personal rewards arising out of engagement with the CETL are expressed in terms of personal validation and legitimisation of effort spent on teaching, freedom to engage in open-ended exploration, and the benefits of increased collaborative working in educational development and teaching.

“CILASS [offers] me the unmissable opportunity to do something exciting and experiment with my teaching” (Project leader, 2006-7).

“Personally it has been a most enjoyable, fulfilling and self-validating experience – it is a delight to be with colleagues who have a passion for


11

learning and teaching and have a rounded approach to the role of an academic in a research-led university” (Project staff, 2006-7).

“I’ve always taken teaching seriously but I think CILASS has given me a greater focus and helped me to really get to grips with and understand my role and aspirations. It’s also helped me to view teaching as an opportunity to experiment and has encouraged me to be much more reflective and confident about addressing potential challenges” (Project staff, 2006-7).

5.7 The CILASS model of very proactive and, often, intensive facilitation and support for pedagogical design and development (and evaluation) has elicited extremely appreciative feedback, with the “helpfulness, enthusiasm, willingness, commitment” of the CILASS team repeatedly praised. The model is based on close partnership working with project leaders, brokering of liaison with other staff as appropriate, and active information-sharing and dissemination within and across disciplinary and professional boundaries. This ‘winged messenger’ approach is highly appreciated and has emerged as a major feature and distinctive benefit of the CETL’s change facilitation approach. The pedagogical support activity of core team members is complemented by expertise commissioned from LDMU and close partnership working with the Library.

“Keeping things going, keeping people motivated, is very hard and that’s where I think particularly what we feel is that [the learning development staff] have worked wonders, by being outgoing in making sure people are kept involved […] and that’s helped immensely” (IBL Champion, 2006-7).

5.8 In addition to providing direct project support, the CETL offers a programme of awareness and development events which also has been very well-received. One hundred and twenty-six staff from 48 different departments have attended one or (frequently) more CILASS-hosted events thus far, with further staff having participated in a range of CILASS workshops hosted by the wider University. Some highlights include: a residential ‘Inquiry Academy’ event for CILASS champions and project leaders; a staff-student symposium on IBL which was welcomed as an important occasion for staff and students to enter into dialogue on learning and teaching issues, and which will become an annual event; periodic workshops on ‘exploring IBL; informal ‘IBL café’ events taking place on a weekly basis; and, a number of workshops provided by external experts. With its mix of events, CILASS aims to create the conditions for both practical support for development, and for more open-ended, critical and scholarly discussion on issues relating to IBL. In relation to the latter, the CETL has been described as creating a ‘clearing’ within the institution.

“Without spaces such as the IBL cafe, and CILASS activities more generally, it would be much harder for these [critical] conversations to


12

take place. Participation in these events is therefore essential for holding open a space for discussions of learning and teaching that cut across University departments and structures, and aren’t directly tied to bureaucratic systems of accountability. With these benefits, and this image [of a clearing], in mind, I look forward to the IBL cafes scheduled for next year” (IBL blog entry, CILASS project staff, 2006-7).

“I think the workshops have been very helpful, the [residential] one in the Lakes – I thought it was fantastic” (Project staff, 2006-7).

5.9 The impact of the CETL’s capital investment programme has been rapid and extremely positive. Its ‘inquiry collaboratories’ have been met with great enthusiasm by users. The design of the spaces is felt to be particularly successful, and there has been beneficial impact on institutional capacity-building and dissemination of innovation both internally and externally. The first (Bartolomé House) collaboratory, which opened in September 2006, already has been heavily used for IBL-based teaching and staff development (see usage data in Appendix 9) and we expect similarly high levels of usage next academic year for CILASS spaces in the new Information Commons building, which opened in April 2007. Students have reported enhancement of their learning experience, and staff have identified the collaboratory concept as important in stimulating new ways of thinking about relationships between teacher and student and between student peers, and in providing opportunities to try out new pedagogic approaches. The spaces are also perceived to be contributing symbolically to raising the profile of learning and teaching in the institution, and use of the new facilities has increased demand for similar spaces across the wider University. The CETL has received national recognition for this strand of its activity, with its first collaboratory selected by JISC as a good practice exemplar of the design of technology-rich learning spaces (see DVD insert to this report).

“CILASS rules! What an environment!” (Bartolome House student user, 2006-7).

“I think it’s a fantastic space and it’s very well set up, with a lot of flexibility” (Bartolomé House staff user, 2006-7).

5.10 The departmental strand of the CETL’s capital investment programme (which offered resource to departments for purchase of new equipment and facilities) has had more mixed success in terms of staff and student take-up thus far, with some technologies purchased having been under-used in a number of cases. Facilitating community and networks of practice 5.11 There is a strong sense among stakeholders that the CETL is an involving and inclusive initiative, effectively building relationships and commitment needed for new ideas and practices to be sustained and shared


13

across a widening constituency. Enhanced networking and collaboration amongst staff with regard to inquiry-based learning, both within and across departments and professional boundaries, has been identified as a primary indicator of change that is highly valued. In this context, productive new connections have been fostered between academic and professional services staff. Some CILASS networks are formalised (including a ‘champions’ network, an ‘information literacy’ network, and a ‘student ambassador’ network) while others are informal and simply consist of relationships between people with shared interests. The Information Literacy Network is a good example of strengthened staff partnership activity resulting from CILASS facilitation, and of the value of such partnership within the University and beyond. The CETL has also sought to create opportunities for informal and social networking, the value of which is highlighted in stakeholder feedback. The emergence of a shared ‘cross-disciplinary language’ about teaching and educational development arising out of CILASS networks, and its stimulation of on-going conversations about inquiry-based learning, are perceived by stakeholders as particularly significant indicators of sustainable change.

“I feel that I’m now part of a teaching community and that is extremely stimulating for me. I don’t feel half as isolated as I sometimes felt in the past” (Project staff, 2006-7).

“Keeping that momentum, keeping that […] community of practice going I think is really, really important. For me that is the biggest thing, it’s the personal feeling of worth and being part of a community that for me is very intangible but it’s very much the biggest thing from CILASS” (IBL Champion, 2006-7).

“I think CILASS has been pretty good at networking, putting on the Tuesday morning café events have been tremendous, all the lunchtime things […] the information literacy network, and getting various people together at different times. I think it’s done incredibly well actually” (IBL Champion, 2006-7).

5.12 The theme of ‘student partnership’ has emerged strongly out of the CETL’s participatory style of activity and the successful work of the student ambassador network. Student ambassadors have, inter alia, produced a short film on student perceptions of IBL, jointly co-ordinated the Staff-Student Symposium on IBL, developed a CILASS Student Journal (http://cilass-student-journal.group.shef.ac.uk), contributed to the evaluation of CILASS-funded IBL projects, and made workshop and short paper contributions to the HEA CETL Conference, the LTEA 2007 Conference, and the HEA Annual Conference. Student ambassadors perceive the funding of the ambassador role as a positive signal from the University that the work being undertaken is important and valued, and report that they appreciate the opportunity for involvement in creative educational development initiatives in the CILASS decision-making process. The CILASS student ambassador network is highly innovative within the University and is already having impact on the way in

http://cilass-student-journal.group.shef.ac.uk/

http://cilass-student-journal.group.shef.ac.uk/


14

which student involvement in educational enhancement takes place more widely in the institution. 5.13 CILASS has fostered network connections beyond the University, notably through its participation in the activities of the Learning Through Enquiry Alliance (LTEA) of cognate CETLs (see www.ltea.ac.uk) and on-going development of HEA Subject Centre links. It is also developing links with HEIs internationally. LTEA participation especially has proved immensely beneficial to the CETL, as a focus and stimulus for inter-institutional, creative exchange of practice on both inquiry-based learning and educational development and change facilitation issues.

“It is wonderful to go out to wider communities and share my thoughts and experiences” (CILASS project staff, 2006-7).

Developing strategic commitment, recognition and reward 5.14 CILASS was influential in informing the University’s Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy (2005-10) and more recently has continued to feed into strategic developments and discussions at institutional level, for example in relation to planning for new learning and teaching spaces and the scholarship of teaching and learning. The CETL’s contributions in this respect are facilitated by a high level of integration with the wider institutional framework for learning and teaching enhancement, and by the active support and championing of senior managers and others across a wide range of academic and professional services departments. 5.15 The CETL is perceived to be making a strong contribution, in general terms, to raising the profile of learning and teaching within the institution. Its status as an academically-led and research-informed unit appears to contribute to its impact in this respect, and its activities are seen to be opening up debate and exploration of the relationship between research, learning and teaching in a research-led environment. There is also a perception of positive impact on formal reward and recognition for individuals, including in relation to opportunities for recognition through the University’s Senate Award for Excellence in Learning and Teaching scheme, and for improved career progression for ‘teaching-only’ route staff in particular.

“I also think [CILASS] has been quite powerful on a purely symbolic level, in terms of symbolism and in terms of elevating the profile for learning and teaching, I think that at an institutional level that’s very powerful” (Project leader, 2006-7).

“We have decided to apply for a Senate Award for Excellence in Learning and Teaching for our 'CILASS team' since we consider this the most exciting and influential thing that has happened to teaching in our department in recent years” (Project staff, 2006-7).

http://www.ltea.ac.uk/


15

5.16 However, it is felt that the CETL is not yet having strong impact on raising the status of teaching in the career progression of academic staff on the University’s traditional ‘research and teaching’ route, and there is a sense amongst some staff that becoming strongly associated with teaching enhancement activity entails a level of personal career risk. Generating an evidence-base and resources 5.17 CILASS identifies impact evaluation as its central inquiry activity, which from a communities of practice perspective plays a key role in the development of shared repertoire and in the contribution of practitioners to collectively developing a body of knowledge. There is evidence that involvement in CILASS-supported development and evaluation is stimulating staff reflection on the new approaches being introduced and helping to develop better understanding of both positive and negative influences on student learning. At the level of the CETL’s funded projects, the ToC methodology offers potential to support reflective and scholarly approaches to evaluation and provides a systematic framework that is amenable to meta-analysis and synthesis across datasets. At the level of the CILASS programme as a whole, it is illuminating the over-arching change process and assisting us to achieve greater understanding of the issues this entails. The opportunity to pilot and experiment with the methodology has emerged as an important dimension of the CETL’s activity, with benefits in terms of institutional capacity-building for educational evaluation. There is interest in this aspect of our work beyond the institution, and it is being actively disseminated. 5.18 The scale of CILASS’s activity has led to pressure on staff workload across a number of areas. In this context, tensions have been experienced between the commitment to supporting development and evaluation activity on the one hand, and to progressing a research agenda and support for practitioner-led scholarship (beyond evaluation) on the other. In the first two years of the CETL’s activity, greater emphasis has been placed on facilitating stakeholder engagement and development/evaluation activity. At the same time, a programme of pedagogic research has been initiated, including a longitudinal ‘student cohort’ study, and a range of activities has been put in place to encourage scholarship of learning and teaching engagement. CILASS also has been successful in attracting additional external resource, via JISC, for inquiry-based learning development/research, thereby further enhancing the profile of the CETL internally and externally. 5.19 Feedback indicates that the CETL is felt to be contributing to legitimating staff interest in the scholarship of teaching and learning, and providing good support for this. However, there is evidence that intensive RAE-related pressures during the CETL’s first two years have constrained engagement with CILASS scholarship activity (including its Fellowship scheme) and there remain doubts amongst academic staff and senior


16

managers as to the status of practitioner-led pedagogical inquiry within the University. 5.20 CILASS has engaged in intensive external and internal dissemination via a wide variety of channels, formal and informal. Much dissemination to date has been undertaken through internal and external workshop and conference presentations by core team members and by student/staff participants in funded development activity; few case studies have yet been developed. More than 55 external and more than 30 internal conference/workshop presentations have been given thus far (see Appendix 10 for full dissemination listing). The external impact of CILASS has been recognized, inter alia, through:

• UK Edublog Award 2006 for the CILASS student ambassador blog in the category ‘best undergraduate blog’ (see http://cilass-student-blog-group.shef.ac.uk);

• Selection by JISC of the CILASS Bartolomé House collaboratory as an exemplar of excellent practice in the design of technology-rich learning spaces;

• Invitations to CILASS core staff and others to speak at external events, and acceptance of peer-reviewed research presentations/papers;

• Award of National Teaching Fellowship 2007 to CILASS Fellow. Implications for UoS systems and practices 5.21 It can be difficult to isolate clear patterns of cause and effect within a complex and changing institutional environment. The style of change agency adopted by the CETL, with its emphasis on participatory stakeholder ownership and engagement, contributes to this difficulty. However, within the wider context of cultural change and development relating to teaching enhancement across UoS, the CETL is perceived as both a catalyst and a pioneer for a range of new initiatives that are contributing to moving the institutional agenda forward in key areas. 5.22 CILASS has rapidly become well-integrated, through close partnership working, into the wider University framework for teaching enhancement. At the same time, its position as an independent unit, combined with the capacity to deploy a significant level of resource, has provided considerable freedom and opportunity to innovate. There is a perception that this structural position has enabled the CETL to achieve outcomes in two years that could not otherwise have been achieved and that, in some cases, originally were unanticipated. CILASS has been described as a ‘disruptive’ influence in the institution in the positive sense of providing an opportunity to explore and experiment with different processes for educational development, thereby informing existing practice and contributing to wider processes of change. 5.23 Examples of areas in which the CETL has impacted in this way include: targeting of funding resource for teaching enhancement at the level of departments/schools as well as individuals; development of ‘lighter-touch’


17

processes for engaging staff in teaching enhancement projects; development of community-focused and social networking approaches to practitioner and organisational learning; student partnership in educational development and inquiry, and fostering of staff-student dialogue at internal events; an emphasis on combining educational development with scholarship and research; new learning space design, including introduction of central provision of new technologies for learning and teaching (laptop PCs and other technologies). Adjustments and future plans 5.24 There have not been any substantial strategic adjustments to the original CILASS programme plan during the CETL’s first two years (detailed information on operational adjustments and enhancements is given in Appendix 1 and a financial briefing is available in Appendix 11). Formative evaluation of the ‘theory of change’ underpinning the programme has provided broad validation of the core values and principles on which the CETL’s strategy is based, as well as evidence of its overall robustness. Therefore, at this stage we do not anticipate making any major strategic changes as we move into our second cycle of activity, although there will be some adjustments to the balance and scope of our activity. 5.25 We believe that CILASS has achieved a great deal in its first two years, perhaps especially given the influence of the RAE in the wider context within which the CETL operates. At the same time, the process of formative review has highlighted a number of important considerations for the future. The over-arching challenge is to extend the scope of engagement beyond the widening core. Other considerations include: • Continuing to make efforts to create time for the core team to reflect,

share and learn from experience, within the context of a highly intensive working environment;

• Ensuring a productive and workable balance between development and

evaluation/research activity, in particular in the light of the need to devote core resource to synthesising and disseminating the learning from development, and to progressing the CETL’s pedagogical research;

• Continuing to develop and foster participatory engagement with the ToC

evaluation approach, encouraging its use as a tool for reflection and scholarship, and promoting evaluation reporting to planned timescales;

• Enhancing the CETL’s technical support for users of its ‘inquiry

collaboratories’, with the aim ensuring that the spaces and technologies are used to their full potential; more support is also needed for departmental-level use of CETL-funded technologies and equipment;

• Continuing development of support for strategic engagement at

departmental/school level and for the development of networks, including


18

improved support for the ‘champions’ network and role in particular, for student ambassadors’ department-level activity, and for strategic engagement with the Student Union;

• Within the constraints of its resource, widening the scope of the CETL’s

engagement beyond its core faculties internally and to other HEIs nationally and internationally, through enhanced networking/collaboration;

• Enhancing both internal and external dissemination, including via

strengthened links with a wider range of HEA Subject Centres and, in particular, support for the creation and dissemination of web-based case studies.

Sustainability 5.26 The issue of the sustainability of the CETL’s impact thus far is twofold. First, there is the question of core team capacity and the challenge of managing an ever-growing workload as the CETL engages with a still wider constituency. A need has been identified for prioritisation amongst competing demands and for some enhancements to staffing, including in the area of events coordination. 5.27 Secondly, there is the longer-term question of the sustainability of processes generated through the CETL beyond the funding period. It is believed that the CETL is already doing much to foster the embedding of new practices and ideas, and is demonstrating the value and impact of a core team of people with ‘blended’ development and research expertise whose job it is to network, support and explore. However, constraints on resources, combined with the organic nature and lengthy timescales of large-scale educational change, inevitably place limits on the impact and reach that can reasonably be expected of any one CETL within the time-frame of the funding period. The change facilitation practices being taken forward by CILASS are resource-intensive and there is recognition that in order to maintain the momentum of change there is likely to be a need for continued deployment of resource after the funding period until practices are fully embedded. CETLs as a change strategy 5.28 There is support within the institution for CETLs as an effective model for encouraging institutional and sectoral change, including a perception that CILASS is having institutional impact that other high-profile, national educational initiatives have not achieved. This is not solely because of the level of resource involved, although the opportunity for linking capital investment with investment in reward and development is seen as a stimulus for the emergence of more powerfully holistic perspectives on educational enhancement than would otherwise be possible. Equally importantly, the HEFCE CETL programme is perceived as an initiative that provides resource for reflection and open-ended, speculative experimentation, as well as for


19

production of concrete ‘deliverables’, and this is seen as liberating and empowering. Reflecting the positive perspectives that have arisen from the University’s experience of CETLs, consideration is being given to the potential for establishing smaller-scale, internal ‘CETLs’ – that is, based on broadly the same model - in other areas of strategic importance to the institution.


20

6.0 External evaluation (by Dr Martin Oliver, IoE, University of London) 6.1 This short report is intended as a mid-term review of CILASS’ work, from an external perspective. As such it has ‘summative’ elements; it required some judgments to be drawn, whereas the formative reports provided for the team’s use tend to reflect issues for the team to take a position on. However, these judgments should be considered in a diagnostic manner, given that plenty of time remains for further work. Purely as a rhetorical device, this report is structured in four sections, reflecting a Strengths/Weaknesses/Opportunities/Threats model. It concludes with some suggestions for areas of work that may be of interest to HEFCE and/or other CETLs nationally.

Strengths 6.2 There are several distinctive and commendable features of the CETL. The team is widely seen to be passionate, committed and skilled, and (in spite of her own modesty) Phil Levy’s leadership is recognised as a valuable asset, combining vision and commitment with a caring and supportive style. The team is also well connected, having started from a cross-institutional bidding team and built upon this to form links between various services and departments, as well as between staff of differing levels of seniority. This has been important in, for example, influencing both the creation of institutional policy (e.g. inquiry-based learning featuring in the learning and teaching strategy; a growing awareness of the Scholarship of Learning and Teaching as a way of understanding the meaning of research-led teaching at the institution) but also its interpretation within departmental contexts. 6.3 There is evidence of positive changes to teaching practice and to the student experience, and this (both achieving this but also having the evidence to demonstrate this) is valuable. Being able to work at both of these levels successfully is an unusual achievement. The relaxed and informal tone that the team has managed to sustain in many of its networking activities is a particular asset – participants look upon these meetings positively, as being social as well as intellectual opportunities. Also important has been the adoption of a consultative model of support – described by the team as a ‘winged messenger’ role – which allows knowledge to be shared between different departmental contexts, and support to be provided in a responsive and timely manner. 6.4 Importantly – and distinctively, according to participants in evaluation activities – the CETL has build strong links with students, which has permitted distinctive work to be undertaken in partnership, has facilitated longitudinal investigations of student experiences (very rare within the sector) and which seems to be influencing other areas of the institution to work in the same way.


21

6.5 The way in which spaces for teaching and learning have been designed is also a success. These are popular with students and teachers alike, and seem to have generated useful pedagogic discussions. They have also become a point of reference for ongoing strategic discussion, e.g. around the institution’s estates strategy. 6.6 The scholarly approach brought to the work is also worth highlighting. The team has been encouraged to develop a thoughtful and enquiring approach to their work – something that is pleasingly consistent with the aim and remit of the CETL itself. This has generated a strong record of public presentations and of writing, and there are signs that these will soon lead to conventional research outputs being produced. 6.7 Similarly, the ‘light touch’ way in which funding has been allocated to work has proved productive. Teachers have experimented with approaches that, under normal departmental regimes, would have been too risky to consider. Irrespective of the success of individual projects, this broadening of pedagogic approaches stimulates an interest in learning and teaching, and also provides points of reference with which to inform ongoing scholarly discussions about pedagogy. 6.8 The adoption and development of the Theories of Change approach to evaluation is a distinctive feature of CILASS’ work. This is unusual within the sector, but has now been demonstrated to offer a number of benefits. As well as advancing evaluation theory by developing the practices of working with this approach, it has been useful reflectively (organising the internal evaluation processes), organisationally (informing planning) and collaboratively (acting as an artefact around which scholarly discussions can be initiated with colleagues in departments or services). There do seem to be some limitations, for example the links between the departmental theories of change and project evaluation work could be stronger in some cases – but as it is always problematic to encourage academics to evaluate, this might be a symptom of a wider issue rather than a problem for this approach specifically.

Weaknesses 6.9 No major failings have been identified by the evaluation work to date. There were problems with recruitment early on (both of core team staff and also of participants to the schemes of work the CETL supports), but appropriate – and even creative – corrective action was taken in response to this. 6.10 There are perceptions that the CETL ought to broaden out its networks beyond ‘the usual suspects’. It may well be that keen, familiar people form the core of the CILASS community; however, the limited funding, the relatively early stage in the CETL’s activities and the general difficulty of requiring academics to engage in additional work that does not form a personal priority


22

all work against CILASS in this respect. Moreover, it does seem that awareness of CILASS is high across the institution. 6.11 Another repeated perception in some focus groups was that the team had been very successful at generating new initiatives, but had not yet demonstrated its ability to complete them as well. Certainly, some of the projects initiated have taken longer than planned, and it is possible that this could have been anticipated – however, the duration of projects means that few have been due to complete by this time, so the general pattern of work is perhaps unsurprising. Nonetheless, ongoing thought may be needed about the best way to handle the withdrawal of support from initiatives that are due to end. 6.12 In some comments, this perception that projects were not finishing was associated with the ‘light touch’ approach taken to project funding, which is antithetical to conventional managerial approaches to controlling projects. Arguably, however, the ‘light touch’ concerns project specification, rather than the ongoing processes of monitoring that take place through reporting, the development of theories of change and so on. 6.13 There have been some difficulties in getting the nominated Champions working fully on the Centre’s behalf. Changing this situation would be highly political, but it is an area in which short-term difficult decisions might lead to longer-term benefits.

Opportunities 6.14 As has already been noted, the team’s energy and commitment has resulted in a huge volume of work. As such, there may not be many opportunities that remain unconsidered. Indeed, suggesting new areas of work may be counterproductive, given that the team already has so much to do. 6.15 However, two areas are worth mentioning. The first reflects the wide interest within the institution in working more closely with students. Given CILASS’ success in this area, it may be possible for them to help build more connections between academics, administrators and students by taking on (at least for an initial period) a brokerage role. 6.16 The second concerns the Centre’s research record. Much interesting work is undertaken, but discussions with the team suggest that individuals put their service work before their research, and as such there is much that is being learnt that has not yet been formalised as a research output. This represents a significant opportunity for the team, and would be of interest and benefit to many other CETLs and researchers.


23

Threats 6.17 There have been a number of complications that have impeded the work of the CETL. Recruitment processes and maternity leave have affected capacity to take on work, and will continue to do so in the near future. Clearly, nothing can or should be done about this, except perhaps to manage expectations of those whom CILASS feels committed to support. 6.18 However, perhaps the single biggest threat (which has been identified repeatedly) is that the team may become victims of their own success. Their commitment and energy has resulted in the generation of a large number of projects and initiatives and, particularly when short-staffed due to maternity leave, it may prove difficult to keep track of all of these, let alone provide each with the support that it needs. An ongoing process of prioritisation, coupled with the confidence to turn down work, may be needed to manage this situation. 6.19 Another issue is one familiar to many CETLs: the balance between service and research. The tangible outputs of a CETL’s work (new courses, Fellowships supported, etc.) tend to be more visible than the research outputs, not least because they are more immediate. There remains a risk that this important but less visible role of the CETL will be neglected, as a consequence of having to manage the ongoing short-term demands that will inevitably dominate the team’s day-to-day work. Research work may thus need active support and encouragement.

Conclusions 6.20 As suggested at the outset, several features of this CETL’s work are worth recognising within the national programme. These include:

• The importance of building networks between diverse groups within the institution.

• The value – and relative novelty – of building strong collaborative relationships with students.

• The importance of providing points of reference (teaching spaces, pedagogic experiments) that can inform ongoing discussions within the institution and beyond.

• The benefits of a ‘light touch’ approach to the specification of projects, permitting open-ended and experimental projects that would otherwise not take place.


24

• Coupled with this, the need to manage peoples’ expectations about the level of work that can be supported in this way.

• The development and use of the Theories of Change approach to evaluation, which has been useful for evaluation, planning and interventions with departments.

• The need to manage expectations about levels of staff and student involvement across the institution and the rate of project completion, as these may be long-term outcomes of the work.

• Taking a position on the relative importance of service work (such as

development activities) and research. This may involve actively protecting and valuing research time, given that this is considered to be a valuable outcome for the CETL.


25

Appendix 1

CILASS ToC Analysis 1: Resources and Enablers

Robust infrastructure and governance 15. Strong core team. 15.1 The CETL has been successful in establishing the core team as initially planned, although with a longer than anticipated appointments process at start-up. Some enhancements have been made to the original staffing profile. 15.2 The work of the CETL began on April 1st 2005, with interim support provided by the UoS Teaching and Learning Support Unit (TLSU) while the team was constituted. The Academic Director, seconded from the Department of Information Studies, was appointed on a 0.4FTE basis from June 2005, increasing to 0.8FTE in October. The Programme Manager and one Learning Development and Research Associate (LDRA) also started work in October. The second LDRA was in post from February 2006. A part-time Secretary was appointed in January 2006, increasing to full-time in May. 15.3 The CETL initially planned to offer two specialist secondment positions (Fellowships) for each academic session. Attempts to attract applications from suitable staff for 2005-6 were unsuccessful but one one-year appointment subsequently was made for 2006-7. A more recent round of invitations to apply to the scheme, combined with a direct approach to HoDs highlighting its potential benefits to departments and requesting their support, attracted a greatly increased number of applications from suitable candidates for 2007-8 (appointment process in train at time of writing). Feedback has indicated that increased engagement at this time reflects reduction in pressure from RAE-related activity. 15.4 Originally it was planned to appoint a third LDRA (or similar) from Year 3. In order to strengthen capacity within the core team for progressing evaluation and research, a Research Associate (RA) was appointed from September 2006, with the additional cost met by underspend on the staffing budget in the CETL’s first year. 15.5 There was no specific provision within the original CETL staffing plan for dedicated technical support staff. The need for an increased level of technical expertise and support from 2006-7 led to efforts to establish two posts, a Technical Support Officer (0.2FTE) and a Technician (15 hours per week). Recruitment of a Technical Support Officer on this basis was unsuccessful and we are currently exploring other options. A Technician was appointed in January 2007 but resigned in April 2007 to take up a permanent position elsewhere in the University. Temporary cover was secured from June


26

2007, with the aim of making a longer-term appointment at the start of the new academic year. 15.6 The greater-than-anticipated potential for the CETL to host a wide range of events, combined with pressure on the administrative workload of the core team, has led to a need for additional support in the area of events co-ordination. We are exploring options for (part-time) staffing of such a role. 15.7 The scale of CILASS’s activity is challenging to manage and we have benefited, in the multi-faceted and intensive environment in which a CETL operates, from developing a strong team-working ethos and practices. Nevertheless, staffing issues have presented problems. Initial delays in establishing the core team placed constraints on support for early development activities and on progress of the CILASS research programme. Difficulties in recruiting CILASS Fellows placed further limitations on research and development capacity. There has been shortfall in the areas of technical support in particular as well as events co-ordination. Two periods of maternity leave have arisen (both the LDRA posts), the first from April 2007-January 2008 and the second expected from October 2007-April 2008. Difficulties in recruiting temporary cover led to a somewhat delayed appointment for the first of these. Cover for the second period has been established through an internal secondment, starting early (August 2007) in order to bring additional resource to the team at a time of greater than usual strain on capacity. A new HR system that is being introduced by the University should alleviate causes of delays we have experienced with a number of recruitments. 15.8 Time for the core team to reflect, share and learn from experience, and identify innovation and research opportunities, is essential to the achievement of the CETL’s objectives. We have aimed to build in scheduled opportunities for reflection and exchange, with some success, but it is a very real challenge to do this adequately in the intensive environment in which we operate. 16. Appropriate specialist support. 16.1 Additional specialist expertise is, as planned, provided to CILASS by means of commissioned support from central services. Valuable consultancy on internal and external dissemination is provided from TLSU. Some reduction to the existing 0.2FTE arrangement is to be made to allow additional operational support for dissemination events organisation. 16.2 Internal evaluation consultancy and learning technology support have been provided by LDMU. A strong partnership relationship has developed between the two units with benefits on both sides. The evaluation support model has operated as planned, with interim cover provided by LDMU on the resignation in January 2007 of the LDMU-based CILASS Internal Evaluator. The amount of learning technology support required (projected at 0.5FTE)


27

has not been as great as initially anticipated, in particular as regards specialist multimedia production. 17. Effective governance. 17.1 The Academic Director reports to the PVC for Learning and Teaching, who is also CILASS Sponsor and Chair of the CILASS Steering Group. This Group includes senior UoS academic and professional services staff and the student co-ordinator of the CILASS student ambassador network, plus staff who are involved as CILASS programme/project leaders and champions and the Academic Lead of the WRCETLE (see CILASS website for full membership listing). The Steering Group reports to the UoS Learning and Teaching Development Group (LTDG, also chaired by the PVC and of which the Academic Director is a member). 17.2 As planned, initially LTDG itself acted as the CETL’s Steering Group. The desire to enhance the participatory, stakeholder-led character of the CETL’s governance, combined with constraints on the time that could be devoted to the CILASS agenda by LTDG, led to the decision to create a dedicated CETL Steering Group from September 2006. The current arrangement is working well and maintains the important connection with institution-wide strategic decision-making and debate via LTDG. 17.3 The activities of the CETL are also informed by an Advisory Group that meets twice annually and includes stakeholder membership and specialist expertise from within and outside the institution (see CILASS website for full membership listing). 18. Partnership working practices. 18.1 CILASS has sought to develop a participatory and partnership-based approach to working practice. Strong partnerships with professional service departments, including TLSU, LDMU, the Library, Estates and Corporate Information and Communications (CICS, including the AV Service), have been developed. Co-ordination and networking is taken forward through reciprocal membership of formal committees and working groups, as well as through informal contacts, and a CILASS liaison librarian acts as a link with the Library. Academic partnerships are taken forward principally through interaction at the level of Deans and faculty-based Directors of Learning and Teaching Development (DLTDs), and the participation of these staff in CILASS governance, committees and events.


28

Stimulus and support for IBL programmes and projects 19. Funding for IBL development programmes and projects, including for enhancement of space/equipment. 19.1 Financial incentive has, according to stakeholder feedback, proved to be a major factor in stimulating engagement with CILASS at both departmental and individual levels. Other incentivising factors at departmental/school level include strategic steer from the wider University and the opportunity to draw on support for progress with departmental-level learning and teaching strategies. At the level of individuals, the personal opportunity provided by the CETL for pursuing existing academic values, and for experimentation and creativity, has been valued. CILASS is seen to have a distinctively facilitative (rather than directive) style that is research-informed, sensitive to disciplinary difference and actively experimental. This is seen to be influential in stimulating engagement and in encouraging a level of creativity and risk-taking in educational development from which much can be learned. There is also a perception of the CETL as a positive ‘carrot’ rather than ‘stick’ approach to stimulating development, and of its funding application processes as accessibly ‘light touch’ and well-supported. 19.2 As planned, the principal focus of the CILASS development funding strategy has been at departmental/school level. This offers an opportunity to apply twice within the five-year CETL period for funding and support to take forward departmental/school level IBL programmes in CILASS’s core faculties, operating on a two-cycle, six-phase engagement timetable that is intended to allow for an initial phase of activity to be built upon with a further phase. During the first cycle only (2005-7), it included an opportunity to apply for capital funding (for facilities enhancement and equipment) as well as for buy-out or buy-in of staff time and other costs associated with programme/project development. The scheme is continuing as planned and as of July 2007, the second cycle has commenced. 19.3 Slippage of the initial timetable for phased departmental/school engagement caused by delays to core team staffing at start-up was subsequently caught up. The decision to engage Phase 1 activity as early as possible (before the CETL’s core team was in place) meant that participants in this Phase did not benefit from the amount of support for programme/project planning and implementation that subsequently has been available to others. While this impacted negatively on aspects of a minority of Phase 1 initiatives, it was off-set by the benefits to the CETL of the major contribution made by Phase 1 participants to establishing the CILASS profile and disseminating early outcomes of their activity. 19.4 An adjustment has been made to the initial plan to invite departments/schools from outside core faculties to participate in Phases 4 to 6 of this scheme. In order to facilitate consolidation and extension of work more effectively in core faculties - a major objective of the two-cycle model -


29

and to accommodate the participation of three additional departments as a result of the change to the structure of the Faculty of Social Sciences, the focus of phases 4 to 6 of this scheme will remain on core faculties. 19.5 A further scheme (IBL Grant Scheme), operating on a twice-yearly bidding cycle, offers funding and support to individuals and groups. As initially planned, from the CETL’s first year this was targeted at academic staff in CILASS core faculties only and from Year 2 was opened up to staff across the wider University. A further strand of the scheme, not originally envisaged in the CILASS programme plan, has from Year 2 provided enhanced resource for practice-oriented scholarship/research projects in IBL. 19.6 Also in line with initial planning, a strand of the scheme aimed at stimulating interdisciplinary IBL initiatives was launched in Year 2 and will be repeated in Year 4. In order to open up the potential for engagement of staff from non-core faculties, and to facilitate collaborations across core and non-core faculties where appropriate, this strand has been opened up to staff from across the University rather than from within the CILASS core only, as initially envisaged. 19.7 A further initiative to promote interdisciplinary inquiry is being taken forward to develop new, generic modules on interdisciplinary research at both undergraduate and taught postgraduate levels, emerging in part from CILASS participation in a strategic, institution-wide ‘generic skills’ initiative. 20. High quality pedagogical support.

“I feel enormously supported and stimulated by staff from CILASS and LDMU” (Project leader, 2006-7).

“[CILASS] support for the various stages of project management (development of concept, bidding, technical support delivery, dissemination) is excellent” (Project leader, 2006-7).

20.1 CILASS core team members provide expertise and support for funded IBL initiatives through the different roles of the Academic Director, Programme Manager, LDRAs and RA. The LDRAs are especially closely involved, each supporting a wide portfolio of programmes/projects. They often work in very close partnership with project leaders and broker project leaders’ liaison with the other core team staff, LDMU, the Library and other academic staff as appropriate. Their roles are ‘blended’ in terms of development/research expertise and responsibility, with roughly 1.2FTE overall of LDRA time dedicated to pedagogical support, and 0.8FTE dedicated to evaluation support and core team research activity. The RA role is dedicated to evaluation support to projects and core team research (roughly 0.5FTE for each aspect). In order to ensure that they have opportunities to build continuously the knowledge and expertise required for their roles, all


30

CETL staff have been supported to participate in a range of staff development activities including courses and conferences. 20.2 A great deal of internal development dissemination is carried out by core team members involved in pedagogical support through what we have come to refer to as the ‘winged messenger’ role. With detailed knowledge of an extensive portfolio of development/innovation projects, combined with personal research knowledge, they are well-placed through their many interactions with professional services and academic colleagues to share information and foster new connections both within and across disciplinary and professional boundaries. More formal workshop and seminar events offer similar opportunities. This role has emerged as a major benefit of the change facilitation model adopted by CILASS. Its project monitoring dimension, which complements processes of formal reporting, is also highly valuable. 20.3 The CILASS model of very proactive and, often, intensive facilitation and support for pedagogical design and development (and evaluation) has elicited extremely appreciative feedback, with the “helpfulness, enthusiasm, willingness, commitment” of the CILASS team repeatedly praised by project leaders. At the same time, it has led to pressures on core team workload and on capacity for supporting the CILASS research programme. The significant advantage, for CILASS, of the ‘blended’ LDRA roles is that its developers are fully engaged with the inquiry-based framework of their work - but a disadvantage is that they are pulled in two directions in terms of supporting both development and core evaluation/research activity. In practice, the more immediate demands of supporting development often prevail, not only for the LDRAs but also for others in the core team with research roles. 20.4 The CETL is currently moving into a second cycle of development activity with departments/schools and a further raft of individual projects, while at the same time needing to devote core resource to synthesising and disseminating the learning from development, and to progressing the pedagogical research programme. In this context, we intend to adopt a strategy of transitional autonomy (reduced project scaffolding), wherever possible, including approaches such as workshop-based and peer support - capitalising on expertise developed in academic departments through the first cycle of engagement, and on the involvement of Fellows. There are implications here for the way in which developer roles are conceptualized, for example as regards ultimate responsibility for the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of projects. 21. Focused guidance to projects on key CILASS themes, and promotion of embedded IBL skills development. 21.1 The CETL offers development guidance to projects in the form of input into the development of initial project ideas, on-going pedagogical/evaluation advice, background research, workshops and other events, and creation of ‘good practice’ guidelines and resources and activities for students. Core


31

team staff have also been invited to contribute to departmental awaydays and working group meetings. Alongside advice on ways of embedding IBL awareness and skills development activities explicitly into the design and facilitation of student learning, and support in thematic areas such as information literacy and networked learning, there remains a continuing need for guidance on fundamental aspects of IBL, including the rationale for adopting this pedagogy. 21.2 The balance and blend of expertise in the core team and CILASS partner services allows good support across all key themes. Based on project evaluations, the Graduating Student Survey and other feedback, there is evidence that the themes of collaboration and assessment in IBL will be a useful focus for developmental support as we move forward, consistent with wider institutional concerns and foci for educational development. We plan to develop a series of web-based guides on topics that relate to our themes and that have emerged from ad hoc requests and programme/project evaluations. 22. Provision and promotion of new central learning spaces and technologies, and user support. 22.1 As planned, CILASS has invested £1.83M of its original capital award in creating new spaces for learning, teaching and staff development within the Information Commons, the University’s new centre for learning resources. This building opened in April 2007 following delays on the opening date (September 2006) as projected at the time of the CETL bid to HEFCE. 22.2 The further £350K of capital funding awarded in January 2006 offered an opportunity to increase significantly the impact of the CETL. Additional spaces were created through a refurbishment project in another central University location (Bartolomé House) and the funds also enabled enhancement of the technologies and facilities available in the CILASS hub in the Information Commons. 22.3 Carrying out the refurbishment project in advance of the new build provided the unexpected opportunity to develop and test new learning space design ideas on a small scale, thereby informing and further improving the detailed planning for larger-scale provision in the CILASS Information Commons hub. We were successful in working to a very tight timescale for the refurbishment project and bringing it to fruition under budget, enabling the CETL to offer access to new learning/teaching space from September 2006 as originally planned and to utilize additional resource with further enhancements within CILASS learning spaces in the Information Commons. 22.4 The CILASS spaces have been designed specifically to support collaborative, student-led inquiry in arts and social sciences disciplines. They also provide excellent facilities for staff development activity relating to IBL. Three large ‘inquiry collaboratories’ - classrooms conceived as research environments - offer access to a wide variety of technologies as an integral


32

part of the learning and teaching experience. Other features include ‘soft’ spaces and small-group rooms for informal use by students. The specification for CILASS in the Information Commons has remained largely as originally planned, with the exception of the use of laptops rather than fixed desktop PCs in one collaboratory and a number of enhanced design ideas and equipment stemming from the award of additional funding. Information about the facilities and technologies available is on the CILASS website, and the ‘Story and CILASS in Pictures’ includes images of the spaces in use. 22.5 User feedback has highlighted the importance of developing a reliable, service-oriented approach to supporting the use of CILASS spaces, comparable to that of central UoS services. CILASS provides pedagogical support for using new technology through its LDRAs. However, the enhanced technological specification and the creation of spaces in two locations have served to increase the level and complexity of technical support requirements beyond what was originally anticipated. In addition, CILASS has pioneered central provision and support of laptop PCs in teaching. These factors have presented a challenge to the CETL given the difficulties in recruiting and retaining part-time technical support staff. While central services have provided valuable interim assistance, provision of more extensive training/development activities, including support tailored to specific departments and stakeholder groups, has been delayed. This is an important area for further development of our support activity, in order to ensure that the technology is being used to its full potential. Facilitation of networking and development activity. 23. Co-ordination of IBL interest and network groups. 23.1 CILASS is strongly committed to a social and participatory model of learning and teaching development and knowledge-building. The creation and co-ordination of a number of network and interest groups has been central to our strategy for facilitating the development of a community and networks of practice. The aim has been to provide a structure that aids bottom-up and middle-through approaches to change in departments, and also cross-departmental linkages to share experiences and provide peer support. 23.2 The planned IBL champions network (academic and Library staff) was established in a phased process, as departments/schools engaged with CILASS for funded IBL programmes. CILASS has hosted induction meetings for champions as they have joined the network and co-ordinates regular, on-going network meetings with the aim of keeping champions up-to-date with CILASS activities and providing a forum for their feedback and contributions to the further development of the CETL. A residential ‘Inquiry Academy’ event held in January 2007 was aimed specifically at champions, with the aim of facilitating further development of the network and participants’ engagement with IBL.


33

23.3 The planned costing model for the employment of student ambassadors was redrawn to facilitate enhanced engagement and co-ordination, and the CILASS Student Ambassador Network (SAN) was launched in March 2006. It comprises an ambassador from each participating core department and a (part-time) undergraduate student coordinator, a position that was created in September 2006. CILASS provides a high level of core team co-ordination and facilitative support for the SAN through the work of one of the LDRAs. This dual co-ordination arrangement has worked very well. 23.4 Student ambassadors report that the opportunity to enhance the extra-curricular dimension of their CVs is a key motivation for their participation. With the aim of providing support for students’ personal and professional development, CILASS participated in 2006-7 in an institutional pilot for a new Sheffield Award scheme for extra-curricular activity. This offers ambassadors the opportunity to gain formal recognition for the knowledge and skills gained through their experience of working with CILASS. Five took up this opportunity and CILASS will continue to provide support for participation in the scheme in the future. 23.5 Student ambassadors report that they perceive the funding of the ambassador role as a positive signal from the University that the work being undertaken is important and valued. The role is felt to be hard work but rewarding, with students appreciating the opportunity for involvement in highly active and creative initiatives with the CETL and reporting that they have been able to make genuine and valued input into the CILASS decision-making process. Other reported benefits of the role include enhanced awareness and understanding of their own learning, and development of new skills. 23.6 An Information Literacy Network group was established in Year 1, with the aim of supporting the development of the CILASS information literacy strand and providing a framework for a new partnership in UoS between librarians, academic information scientists and educational developers/researchers. The group is chaired by the HoD of the Department of Information Studies and co-ordinated by CILASS. 23.7 A SoTL Special Interest Group was established in October 2006 to offer a focus for staff with interests in SoTL and IBL to exchange ideas and feedback, and to develop collaborative research activity. It is coordinated by the CILASS RA.


34

24. Provision of relevant development/social networking opportunities.

24.1 The extensive programme of awareness and development events run by CILASS in its first two years has been developed in liaison with a collaborative learning and teaching events planning group and includes the following:

• a regular series of introductory ‘exploring IBL’ workshops; • ‘IBL café’ meetings providing opportunities for updates and exchange of

practice regarding CILASS projects as well as informal discussion on a range of relevant themes;

• Information Literacy Network events; • the two-day residential event for champions/project leaders (January

2007); • the first CILASS Staff-Student Symposium on IBL (April 2007), which

showcased CILASS-funded projects and included presentations by staff and students;

• events tailored to specific departments within and outside core faculties;

• workshops led by external experts (open to UoS and external participants);

• workshops and seminars at other UoS learning and teaching events, including the Learning and Teaching Forum and Spotlight on Teaching awareness sessions.

24.2 From 2007-8, CILASS will contribute to the University’s CILT (Certificate in Learning and Teaching) programme, aimed at probationary lecturers. 24.3 With its mix of events, CILASS aims to create conditions both for focused, practical support for development, and for more open-ended, critical and scholarly discussion on learning and teaching issues related to IBL – the value of which has been highlighted in feedback. 24.4 The CETL has also placed emphasis on creating positive conditions for informal and social networking, and for collective celebration of achievements. Opportunities for informal networking are provided as part of planning and development events, and examples of purely social events include Christmas and summer gatherings and celebrations of the success of CILASS-funded departmental/school IBL programmes. 24.5 All CILASS events have been open to disciplines beyond the CETL’s core faculties, and as we move into our third year we aim to enhance this wider engagement, including through an event specifically targeting UoS ‘teaching advocates’ and others from non-core faculties. A number of hosted events have been opened up to external participants.


35

24.6 Evaluative feedback has confirmed that the variety of events and networking opportunities offered by CILASS is seen as being inclusive of stakeholders with a wide range of interests across IBL and CILASS themes, and that CILASS events are generally very well-received and perceived to have positive impact. The value of opportunities for social networking is frequently highlighted in feedback. 25. Fostering of connections with other HEIs and external bodies, using existing and new networks. 25.1 Working with the national HE community, CILASS seeks to maximise impact on educational developments and hence make a major contribution to change across the sector as well as within UoS. Examples of ways in which CILASS has aimed to foster connections with, and the development of, networks of practice beyond UoS include:

• A funding strand for conference attendance; • Inviting external experts to UoS, developing relationships with

individuals and institutions (e.g. Universities of Sydney and Edinburgh); • Developing relationships with HEA and a number of Subject Centres,

with plans to run joint events (PRS and ICS); • Support for SAN representation on the HEA National Student Network.

25.2 The challenge for CILASS in interacting with Subject Centres is the diversity of disciplines involved in the CETL. However, further initiatives are in train and, as planned, from Year 3 applications will be invited through Subject Centres to use small CILASS grants to undertake further experimentation with the CETL’s outputs. 25.3 CILASS has participated in the creation of a formal working relationship (the Learning Through Enquiry Alliance, LTEA) with five cognate CETLs at the Universities of Gloucestershire, Manchester, Surrey, Reading and Warwick. Further specific connections have been made with SCEPTrE at Surrey (through representation on the CILASS Evaluation Group) and CEEBL at Manchester (through representation on the CILASS Advisory Group). The principal achievement of the LTEA thus far has been the launch of its series of annual conferences (Manchester 2006 and Surrey 2007), taking a collegiate approach to development and delivery of the conference themes. In June 2005, CILASS hosted an LTEA evaluation workshop and in 2008 will host the third annual conference. The LTEA aims to further extend cross-institutional collaboration in the future, including through support for staff collaboration and exchange, and the use of Access Grid videoconferencing links for development events. Participation in the LTEA offers CILASS a powerful framework for exchange of practice and cross-fertilisation of ideas.


36

Strategic leadership, facilitation and integration 26. Clear strategic vision, including for exit strategy. 26.1 Feedback indicates that CILASS has established a strong profile within the context of institutional teaching enhancement, and is recognised for its strategic focus on IBL and related themes as well as its commitment to recognition and reward for teaching excellence, and its distinctive, community-focused approach to engagement, including through student partnership. The CILASS vision is communicated at a strategic level through a range of institutional committees and working groups, and in teaching enhancement networks and activities. As the programme moves forward, we aim to strengthen further our strategic interactions with the Student Union. Strategic-level development of the CILASS exit plan will begin in Year 3 rather than Year 4 as initially planned. 27. Facilitation of strategic engagement by academic

departments/schools. 27.1 We aim to promote strategic engagement with IBL at the level of academic departments/schools in particular through the CETL’s departmental/school funding scheme and the use of the ToC framework for strategic planning and evaluation. Funds are awarded to departments/schools that demonstrate a strategic perspective and the ToC approach is embedded as a required feature of programme activity. It is intended that departmental/school ToCs dovetail with existing strategies for teaching and learning development and that these articulate a vision of excellence toward which CILASS-funded efforts are oriented, along with the concrete steps that will be taken to realise this vision. Facilitation for strategic planning and review is provided via workshops, one-to-one meetings and web-based information to help in the preparation of funding applications and other processes involved in programme management and evaluation. Complementing this activity, the Information Literacy Network also has supported strategic development at departmental level through its own activities. 28. Effective institution-level representation, consultation and communication. 28.1 CILASS has rapidly become well-integrated into UoS structures and processes for teaching enhancement, benefiting in this respect from the role played by the PVC for Learning and Teaching as CILASS Sponsor and the support of other senior staff. The CETL is represented on a wide range of relevant committees and has responded to invitations to participate on an ad hoc basis to specific meetings of other groups, including at Faculty and cross-Faculty level (e.g. to disseminate the findings of the Graduating Student Survey). A specific collaborative planning group has been established to ensure effective communication between the CETL and TLSU, and there are


37

good links with WRCETLE. Consultation and communication with senior academic and professional services colleagues is also maintained by the Academic Director and Programme Manager via informal links. 29. Support for reward/recognition of teaching excellence. 29.1 Through its development resources and support, CILASS seeks to increase the opportunities for staff to demonstrate the qualities and achievements needed to qualify for existing UoS rewards. It also aims to feed into development of the HR reward and recognition strategy, including through HR representation on the CILASS Advisory Group. In addition, in creating its own awards, the CETL aims to increase opportunities for staff to gain recognition for teaching enhancement achievements. The CILASS Fellowship scheme therefore has been designed to include an element of direct personal award and from 2006-7 a broader-based award scheme, initially planned as a strand within the UoS Senate Award Scheme for Excellence in Teaching, is being established. Stimulus and support for evaluation, research and scholarship 30. CILASS is supported in the use of ToC and provides effective support for evaluation of IBL programmes and projects. 30.1 Internal evaluation consultancy provided by LDMU has encompassed assistance with the development of the evaluation strategy and plan; training for CILASS Research Associates in support for project-level evaluation; data collection and analysis for programme-level stakeholder feedback; and, formative programme-level review and reporting. Project-level support materials produced by LDMU include an ‘evaluation toolkit’ providing generic evaluation guidance. 30.2 The UoS ToC framework is new to the University and was developed over the first year of the CETL’s activity, with CILASS contributing to piloting the methodology; we are continuing to refine aspects of implementation as we learn more about its use in practice. The approach has been adapted by the CETL-AURS at the University of Reading, and there has been wider national interest. 30.3 In principle, ToC evaluation is embedded at the level of departmental/school programmes and individual projects, and is fully ‘owned’ by stakeholders in these (including students). This is an ambitious vision, and the practical logistics of the participatory dimension can be difficult. We also have found that evaluation is widely (though not universally) perceived by academic staff as a monitoring-focused ‘add-on’ to development activity, rather than as integral to it and an opportunity for scholarly engagement. A challenge for us is to work towards changing this world-view, using ToC. As staff have been brought into the ToC process and as we have learned about its


38

facilitation, the principle of stakeholder ownership has become increasingly embedded, and in order to enhance its impact our aim has been to integrate it more effectively from the start of development initiatives. We have developed a series of evaluation workshops to encourage enhanced stakeholder engagement and to reduce reliance on LDRA and RA support, and have more explicitly included funding for time spent on evaluation by project leaders within project costing arrangements. 30.4 Most CILASS-funded programmes/projects have been supported to adopt the approach, with the exception some early initiatives. Response from stakeholders has, thus far, been encouraging - with some feedback describing the process as “working well beyond all expectations” - although not all project leaders have had positive views, especially initially. We have often found that initial negative perceptions disappear once the process is underway and its benefits begin to emerge, and we are continuing to further streamline and clarify the processes involved. 31. Resource is dedicated to pedagogical research. 31.1 The CETL’s programme of pedagogical research is led by the Academic Director, working with the LDRAs and RA (amounting to roughly 0.9FTE of LDRA/RA time dedicated to research as distinct from development and evaluation activity). A budget line for non-staffing research costs has been established and there are plans to establish a PhD studentship. 31.2 CILASS has been successful in generating further external resource for IBL development-related research, from JISC (Design for Learning Programme) and from the HEA (CETL research collaboration with Subject Centres). 31.3 As indicated above, the development and research strands of the CETL’s activity, although closely interlinked, create competing demands on staff capacity and we have found it necessary to ‘protect’ time for research as much as possible. While the research agenda has been progressed, the first two years of CILASS operation have been oriented especially intensively towards initiating and supporting development (and preliminary evaluation) activity. As we move into our next phase, development and evaluation activity will continue (with a somewhat adjusted model of support) coupled with increase in the emphasis on core team research and support for research/scholarship in the wider community.


39

32. Stimulation and capacity-building for practitioner-led and student inquiry.

“[The Academic Director] is publishing on the SoTL. I find that very inspirational […]. In a sense she embodies what we are trying to achieve in CILASS” (IBL Champion, 2006-7).

32.1 Feedback has indicated that CILASS is perceived to be providing resources (time and guidance) for staff to engage with SoTL that other UoS teaching enhancement initiatives do not offer, and that the CETL is contributing to inspiring and encouraging engagement, including through the leadership role of the Academic Director. However, staff engagement in SoTL is also perceived to be strongly influenced by lack of recognition in career progression and by the extent of support from HoDs. Feedback indicates that experience of the attitudes of HoDs is very mixed in this respect. 32.2 To date, CILASS resource and support for the scholarship of teaching and learning has included guidance on an individual basis to colleagues undertaking research plus the following: • Research opportunity within the Fellowship scheme, and Fellows’

involvement in supporting the development of scholarship within the wider UoS community;

• Funding for research associated with IBL development activity (SoTL strand of the IBL Grant Scheme);

• IBL SoTL Special Interest Group; the SIG has run an awareness workshop on the theme of SoTL within the UoS Spotlight on Teaching events series (May 2007);

• Opportunity for research collaboration between CILASS core team members and academic staff;

• Encouragement to LDRAs to carry out scholarly activity relating to their educational development work as part of their contribution to the wider CILASS research agenda.

32.3 Less emphasis thus far has been placed on supporting student scholarship and research in IBL, with the exception of the online student journal established by the Student Ambassador Network and two Masters dissertations undertaken on relevant themes. Strategies and support for communication/dissemination 33. Key stakeholder groups and channels targeted for internal/external dissemination. 33.1 All stakeholder groups identified in the CILASS dissemination strategy have been targeted for dissemination as planned, through the work of IBL champions and student ambassadors as well as a wide range of other


40

channels. Internal and external dissemination are supported by TLSU, through the work of a member of staff with responsibility for institutional-level teaching enhancement dissemination. This allows CILASS good communication/dissemination access to existing channels and networks. Our website is continuously updated and its two blogs offer an interactive and community-focused dimension. We plan a number of further enhancements to internal dissemination including an internal newsletter, a series of ‘student-friendly’ webpages, further stimulation of departmental-level sharing of practice. Further development of external dissemination activity also is planned, including in relation to the HEA Subject Centres now that IBL programme/project outputs are becoming available. 34. Resource and support for dissemination of IBL programme/project outcomes. 34.1 Project leaders are encouraged and supported with funding and guidance to disseminate project outcomes via appropriate channels. CILASS aims to work with stakeholders to ensure that its outputs are relevant to their needs and interests, and a consultation workshop has been held to explore user requirements. Feedback indicates strong demand for practical, web-based case examples of IBL in arts and social sciences disciplines, both ‘bite size’ and more extensive. An explicit requirement has recently been established for the creation of case studies as part of all CILASS-funded projects, and enhanced support given in the form of a standard CILASS case study template. This will enable the CETL to build up an extensive collection of searchable web-based IBL cases, to be made accessible via the CILASS website and the University’s new repository of ‘good practice’ cases in learning and teaching, and with a view to linkage from HEA Subject Centre web pages. We plan to offer funding for the development of more detailed, multimedia cases in a smaller number of instances.


41

Appendix 2

CILASS ToC Analysis 2: Activities and Processes Staff and students engage in IBL development, experimentation and innovation 35. Departments/schools and individuals/groups develop innovative initiatives and pedagogies that engage students in learning through inquiry [CSF 2].

“I feel it’s providing a licence to take risks a little bit. It’s a risk doing it, but it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t come off, necessarily” (Project leader, 2006-7).

35.1 CILASS has been successful in engaging all departments/schools in its core faculties in the first cycle of its development programme, with the exception of one. It is anticipated that all will participate in the second cycle of development activity from Years 3-5 (from August 2007). Overall, the scheme has achieved a very encouraging level of engagement amongst individual staff, although this appears sometimes lower than in IBL Grant Scheme projects in cases where individuals initially have been brought into their department’s CILASS programme through a wider collective process rather than directly as a result of personal interest. 35.2 The IBL Grant scheme has awarded grants for 14 projects in total (to July 13th, 2007), 12 of these based in core faculties, and 2 in other discipline areas. Some of these have been developed as a direct result of the impact of previously funded departmental/school projects, and some departments have approached this funding stream as an opportunity to enhance the impact of their departmental strand further through smaller-scale activity. 35.3 Funded programmes/projects have all taken forward good practice development and innovation in IBL within their context, and some have proved particularly novel, creative and experimental. A small minority of projects have not been successfully completed, for example in cases where staff have run out of time (although financial incentive is important, in practice actual buy-out is often difficult to achieve). 35.4 The CETL’s April 2007 target for impact in terms of student numbers was 3,000. This has been exceeded, with over 5,000 students directly involved in modules that have benefited from CILASS funding. Many others have been impacted through use of CILASS spaces and technologies and indirectly through projects focused on staff development. 35.5 There has been a significant trend towards extended project timescales for a variety of reasons, including underestimates of time needed for development, course approval processes, and early delays at Phase 1.


42

Milestones are monitored as part of project-management, and project leaders supported as far as possible to deliver to plan, but we accept that it is not always possible to do so. 36. Staff develop approaches to IBL that promote the development of students’ inquiry-related awareness/skills and encourage: collaborative inquiry/learning communities; information literacy development; imaginative use of ICT; interdisciplinary inquiry; independent student use of new spaces and technologies for IBL. 36.1 The initiatives that have been developed through CILASS in the first phase of its programme are richly diverse in character. At the same time, as confirmed by internal evaluation reviews in 2006 and 2007, they show good alignment with programme-level objectives by incorporating some, or in some cases all, of the main themes being addressed by CILASS. Student group-work and collaboration feature in many projects and information literacy is at the heart of several. While some projects have used ICT in ways that are consistent with a networked learning approach (i.e. using ICT to support on-line dialogue and collaboration as well as access to e-resources), overall this concept appears to have been interpreted more broadly as the use of ICTs in the learning context. A number of projects have had ICT-based resources production, as support for inquiry activity, as their focus. A large number of projects have aimed to engage students in critical reflection on the learning process as part of efforts to facilitate the development of inquiry-related awareness and skills. Fewer projects have explicitly aimed to develop students’ use of new spaces and technologies, but this has been an emergent outcome of those that have used the new CILASS collaboratory in particular. Initiatives in interdisciplinary inquiry are commencing as a result of Year 2 funding as planned. 37. Staff use new spaces and technologies in their IBL teaching, and develop skills in using them.

“The experience has boosted my confidence and I’m very pleased that I was brave enough to take on the challenge of learning how to use all this new equipment and experimenting in new teaching methods. It’s been a learning process for both me and the students!”

“It has been useful learning more about how to use the technology. I’m able to be more creative when I don’t have to worry so much about physical constraints.”

37.1 The Bartolomé House collaboratory space has been heavily used for IBL-based teaching and staff development activity since its launch in October 2006. Likewise, CILASS in the Information Commons has proved popular with students for autonomous, informal learning and staff development and related activity since its opening in April 2007. We anticipate high demand for teaching during the next academic session.


43

37.2 Some of the technologies in CILASS spaces have been installed only very recently (e.g. Access Grid videoconferencing, streamed video-recording) and have not yet been used. Others already have been used successfully, though often to a limited extent in relation to the full functionality they offer. It is a priority to encourage use and experimentation with the full range of available technologies. 37.3 The departmental strand of the CETL’s capital investment has had more mixed success in terms of staff and student take-up thus far, with technologies purchased having been under-used in a number of cases. Some early delays in procurement had an impact here, as have difficulties in engaging staff at departmental level beyond the immediate scope of project activity. It also seems that departments found it difficult, initially, to perceive potential connections between IBL and new equipment; with the benefit of hindsight it might have been more effective to have been able to offer capital funding as part of Cycle 2 rather than Cycle 1. As a consequence of these factors, there is a need for more active encouragement and support at departmental level to gain full benefit from these resources. Staff and students participate in networking and development activities and build new partnerships 38. IBL champions promote IBL and CILASS and engage staff across core departments.

“It has given me back-up to promote IBL, and IBL assessment methods, within the department. This would have been my natural inclination (as Director of Teaching) in any case, but the existence of CILASS has given this institutional support, and ensured that my efforts in this direction are taken seriously by a larger proportion of the teaching staff” (IBL Champion, 2006-7).

38.1 The progress of the ‘champions network’ approach to facilitating change has been mixed thus far. A number of individual champions have been extremely active and have had significant successes in terms of staff engagement at departmental level. Some examples of excellent change facilitation practice have emerged from their activities, including an example of the benefits of two champions working together in a department. Many other staff act as informal champions for CILASS, in departments and across the wider University. 38.2 The majority of champions have, however, been less active and it does not appear that a strong ‘community’ of champions has as yet emerged. There have been somewhat disappointing levels of participation in activities targeted specifically at champions. Those who became involved through the CETL’s initial development group or subsequently through existing roles in teaching advocacy/leadership or direct involvement in CILASS-funded projects have


44

been most likely to become active in their departments and in the wider network. 38.3 Champions highlight significant constraints on optimising the impact of the role, including the challenges of engaging colleagues at a time of intensive RAE-related activity, pressures on their own time, and perceived ‘mixed messages’ at institutional level about the relative strategic importance of teaching as compared with research. A need has also been identified by some for additional clarification and support in relation both to the role and to IBL (including, perhaps, some redefining of the role). An ‘IBL champions’ handbook’ is to be developed to help address this need and further sharing of change facilitation practice within the network will be encouraged. We are also considering offering funding to champions for departmental dissemination, in part as a way of increasing interest in the role. It is evident that while this network approach to change facilitation has the potential to be highly effective, a significant level of stimulus is needed. 39. Student Ambassadors promote IBL and CILASS, and engage students and staff at UoS and beyond.

“It’s the first year the Network has run really, and it’s going to take time to ingrain the presence of CILASS” (Student ambassador 2006-7).

“I think for its first year [the SAN’s] been really, really successful and the ambassadors have done such a great job with it” (Student ambassador 2006-7).

39.1 The SAN has had a very successful first full year of operation in 2006-7. Particular achievements include:

• the production of a short film on student perceptions of IBL; • joint co-ordination of the highly innovative and successful Staff-Student

Symposium on IBL; • development of the CILASS Student Journal; • contributions to the evaluation of CILASS-funded IBL projects (focus

group facilitation and reporting); • workshop/short paper contributions to the HEA CETL Conference, the

LTEA 2007 Conference, and the HEA Annual Conference. 39.2 Developments planned for next year include an enhanced ‘welcome and induction’ pack/activities for new ambassadors, further work on the production of student-facing materials about IBL, and enhancement of the network’s research contribution to CILASS.

“The journal, the videos, all that sort of stuff is just astonishingly good. It’s their role as ambassadors back in the department that’s problematic” (IBL Champion, 2006-7).


45

39.3 In terms of wider impacts and outcomes of the work of the SAN, it is still very early days. This year, the network has had greater success in its ‘core’ working-group initiatives than in its partnership working and awareness-raising activities in academic departments. Positive examples of partnership with staff included, for some ambassadors, being fully consulted in the planning stages of departmental CILASS programme/project activity and working with staff on presentations for the Staff-Student Symposium. In other cases the connection between student ambassadors and staff involved in CILASS has been much weaker, and in most cases project activity has so far been undertaken without the input of ambassadors or other students. A joint event for champions and student ambassadors at the start of the academic year 2007-8 is planned, to raise champions’ awareness of the roles and activities ambassadors and to provide an opportunity to initiate joint activity for the academic year. We plan also to continue to encourage CILASS-funded programme/project leaders to involve students in the development and evaluation of their initiatives.

“I think for students as well it’s good knowing that there is some kind of body within the University that is actually working to improve the way they are learning. I know a lot of students are probably quite aware that in a lot of departments research takes priority over learning” (Student Ambassador, 2006-7).

39.4 Engaging students beyond the immediate scope of the ambassador network has proved challenging. There are plans to improve synergy with other student networks within the University next year, including Union representatives and course representatives, and it is hoped that closer work with staff champions and project leaders will also impact positively on wider student engagement. 39.5 The SAN model of student partnership in educational development is entirely innovative within UoS and seems likely to have increasing impact, over the next 3 years, on the way in which student involvement in educational enhancement takes place more widely in the University. Other departments (e.g. LDMU and TLSU) have already requested their participation in initiatives beyond the CETL, and there is a perception that students are more visible on relevant committees. On both sides of the partnership we are still developing our understanding of effective ways of working together. We see this as a particularly exciting direction for the CETL in the coming period, and a strong feature of what has been achieved so far.


46

40. Staff and students participate in pedagogical debate and development activities for IBL.

“As a result of the Higham Hall retreat, I have rethought the […] module I teach… the advantage is that [students] will develop a better sense of subject-specific skills and will have the freedom to select a passage that interests them personally, on which to do their exegesis” (Project staff, 2006-7).

“As a member of staff in a central services department I have found the CILASS events interesting and revealing in providing a forum for discussion and exchange of opinions concerning developments in learning and teaching, with academic colleagues” (Professional services staff, 2006-7).

40.1 Overall, 126 UoS staff from 29 core and non-core departments have participated in one or more events hosted by CILASS, with a core of staff attending regularly. Student ambassadors and other students with direct involvement in CILASS projects have also participated in some events, including the first Staff-Student Symposium. Overall, we have not always been successful in attracting the numbers to events that we would like, but generally the level of engagement among those who have participated has been very high, with ‘downstream’ feedback on longer-term impact very positive.

“I gained a lot from the presentations and from speaking informally to attendees who were trying similar approaches. It's been a very positive experience all round for me” (Project staff, 2006-7).

40.2 With the exception of a small number of linkages fostered with other LTEA CETLs, relatively few staff have taken advantage of CILASS funding opportunities for conference attendance and other forms of external networking and collaboration, which we therefore plan to promote further in the coming year. 41. Academic and professional services staff work in new partnerships and collaborations.

“As a result of attending the information literacy session we've developed a concerted departmental info literacy strategy, which has involved setting up targeted activities within modules and working much more closely with library staff. This has started to address long-standing concerns about the development of independent learning skills within the Department” (Academic staff participant, non-core department, 2006-7).

41.1 The Information Literacy Network is a particularly good example of strengthened staff partnership activity resulting from CILASS facilitation, and


47

the value of such partnership at institutional level (and beyond). It is developing as a highly proactive group that is making a strong contribution to progress with objectives related to the CETL’s information literacy strand. The group ran a series of awareness workshops during 2005-6 and 2006-7 aimed at helping departments with strategic planning for embedded information literacy development, resulting in knock-on developments in a number of departments. This strand of the Network’s activity is being taken forward with the benefit of increased collaboration with TLSU. Further activities are planned, including IBL Café events on information literacy themes, co-ordination of a student-led film project, a cross-institutional event with librarians at a cognate CETL at the University of Surrey, and dissemination activities including a co-authored book and co-ordination of the information literacy strand of the LTEA conference in 2008. Individual Network members also act as advocates for information literacy and its connection with IBL within a wide range of formal and informal contexts. Processes of strategic engagement and development are taken forward. 42. Departments/schools embed IBL and related themes strategically in the curriculum from Level 1 upwards. 42.1 CILASS has aimed to be flexible in supporting schools/departments to adopt approaches to strategic IBL development that are appropriate to their circumstances, resulting in Cycle 1 programmes that have differed widely in scale and scope. In some cases relatively small-scale developments have been used as a means of stimulating engagement, while in others large-scale programmes across whole curricula or multiple modules have been taken forward. The variety of change strategies adopted provide valuable models and learning for wider dissemination. It has been more challenging for the core team to support programmes when they are very broad-based, and it has proved beneficial in these circumstances for departments to use CILASS funding to employ internal programme coordinators. 42.2 Not all programmes have been as successful as others, but evidence of overall impact thus far indicates significant benefits across the scheme as a whole. Analysis by the internal evaluator in November 2006 confirmed that “the vast majority of funded proposals seem to be strategic”, i.e. presenting a coherent and strategic plan for embedding IBL across curricula, rather than localised projects with little or no likely impact beyond individual modules. Some initiatives at school level have not developed an inter-departmental approach to strategic engagement in Cycle 1. Initiatives that are indicative of a strategic approach include staff-focused projects such as department-wide audits of IBL and information literacy activity, the creation of ‘IBL teaching clusters’, IBL-focused awaydays and other forms of department-specific staff development, and outreach activity to support development (in the case of the Library). Student-focused strategic approaches include projects related to core modules at a particular level of study. Some IBL Grant Scheme projects


48

have had a strong strategic dimension, for example with respect to induction week activities. 43. Senior academic and professional services staff feed CILASS perspectives and participation into relevant strategic initiatives. 43.1 CILASS has regularly been invited to participate in on-going strategic developments at institutional level. Examples of involvement are:

• Invited discussion paper to Learning and Teaching Development Group on further strategic development for SoTL (jointly with the Director of LDMU);

• Representation on ‘Generic Skills’ working group, with responsibility for the development of the new Sheffield Graduate Award for extra-curricular achievement and strategies for credit-bearing generic skills modules;

• Participation in implementation group for institutional e-Learning Benchmarking exercise (HEA/JISC supported);

• Participation in ‘Teaching and Learning in the Information Commons’ group and input into development of impact evaluation and research strategy for the Information Commons;

• Participation on Project Executive Group and Pedagogy Working Group for new teaching block.

44. CILASS is responsive to emergent strategic priorities and developments at UoS and in HE more widely. 44.1 A good example of this was the CETL’s response to the institution-wide UoS induction initiative at the start of the academic year 2006-7. In response to a University-wide student induction initiative at the start of the academic session 2006-7, CILASS worked with 12 departments/schools to raise new entrants’ awareness of IBL during ‘intro week’, through the design and, in several cases, direct facilitation of a range of customized student activities. The initiative was judged a success and there are plans to build on it next academic year by means of direct facilitation by academic staff. In the national arena, the CETL has engaged in particular with strategic developments relating to research/teaching linkages, feeding information back to relevant staff at UoS. 45. Departments/schools and individuals engage via CILASS with existing opportunities for reward and recognition and with CILASS award schemes. 45.1 UoS commitment to increasing reward and recognition for excellence in teaching is demonstrated through mechanisms including its Senate Award scheme, ‘exceptional contributions’ salary increments and a new staff promotions scheme (2006-7). This year has seen a sharp and highly encouraging increase in


49

submissions to the Senate Award scheme, including 10 from individuals and teams drawing on engagement in CILASS as evidence of excellence (7 having been made in 2005-6) and resulting overall in 8 awards out of 23 made thus far from staff who have benefited from engagement with the CETL. 45.2 The University’s new staff promotions scheme establishes a ‘teaching only’ promotions route to the level of personal chair alongside the traditional ‘research and teaching’ route. It is early days in its implementation and feedback from CILASS stakeholders suggests that a strong perception persists among academics in the institution that the increased strategic value of teaching at UoS over recent years is not yet fully reflected in promotions mechanisms. Nevertheless, it is now possible for members of staff to aspire to, and work towards, promotion on the teaching track, and there is already a positive perception that CILASS is improving career progression opportunities for the teaching-only route in particular, including through facilitation of the scholarship of teaching and support for building and submission of promotions cases.

“It [CILASS] really has been a career-changing opportunity” (Project staff, 2006-7).

45.3 However, the broader impact of the CETL on promotions prospects is perceived as an especially thorny issue, with tensions between the teaching and research agendas at institutional level continuing to be perceived by staff as a significant constraint. There is evidence of a persistent and strong view that becoming involved in initiative such as CILASS is risky in terms of career progression for most academic staff. The status of teaching in the promotions context is felt to be in large part dependent on the attitudes of individual HoDs, and staff report widely differing experiences in this respect. HR review of promotions documentation on the traditional ‘research and teaching’ track during 2005-6 and 2006-7 revealed only one instance of a successful promotion case (to senior lecturer) that was supported with explicit reference to the individual’s involvement with the CETL.

“My experience is that it’s risky to get a name for being associated with learning and teaching issues, that it’s not helpful from a career progression point of view” (Project staff, 2006-7).

UoS staff and students engage in evaluation, research and scholarship. 46. CILASS carries out on-going programme-level reflection and evaluation, and departments/schools and staff adopt and develop expertise in the ToC approach. 46.1 CILASS programme-level evaluation has been progressing well, and at the level of CILASS-funded programmes/projects, evaluation has progressed to plan overall. However, extended project development timescales, combined with some delays in finalizing evaluation plans, follow-through on


50

agreed activities and evaluation reporting, have led to fewer initiatives completing their formative evaluation by this stage than expected. We hope that our revised processes for supporting evaluation will help to alleviate these difficulties in the future. 46.2 The ToC process is providing several benefits: in addition to facilitating the development of evaluation plans, it has made clear the connections between CILASS-funded initiatives and school/department learning and teaching strategies, and has created opportunities for CILASS to engage a variety of stakeholders in contributing to change-oriented processes in support of IBL. Experience this far is encouraging in terms of its potential to support a reflective and scholarly approach to self-evaluation, as well as a systematic framework that will be amenable to meta-analysis and synthesis of findings across datasets. We still have a great deal to do to elicit the ‘bigger picture’ from ToC evaluations at local programme- and project-levels. 47. CILASS carries out a focused programme of pedagogic research, relevant to UoS and the wider community. 47.1 Research taken forward thus far includes: • Launch of an in-depth, longitudinal study (2006-2010) examining the

inquiry experiences of a multi-disciplinary, demographically diverse cohort of thirty undergraduate students as they progress through programmes in the arts and social sciences at UoS. Thirty students are involved in annual cycles of focus groups, one-to-one interviews and other research activities over the three or four years of their studies.

• An initial scoping study (2007) exploring arts and social sciences students’

experiences of technology-supported inquiry. Focus groups have been carried out with two groups of undergraduate students, using Music and Law as contrasting disciplines to explore questions of disciplinary differences.

• Research associated with the institutional JISC-funded Design for Learning

project (DeSILA: Design and Sharing of Inquiry-based Learning Activities) funded by JISC and awarded to CILASS in collaboration with LDMU. The project, which is running for 18 months during 2006-7, is investigating the role of a new e-learning design tool for inquiry-based learning in conjunction with broader issues in design for inquiry-based learning.

• A small-scale collaborative project with the Subject Centre for

Philosophical and Religious Studies, funded by the HEA and focusing on the role and potential of IBL in biblical and religious studies.

47.2 A longitudinal study of teachers’ understandings of, and pedagogies for, inquiry-based learning is to be initiated in the autumn of 2007.


51

48. Staff and students engage in scholarship and research relating to IBL. 48.1 The extent of individual staff interest in the more extensive scholarly dimensions of CILASS-funded development activity is variable, but there is clear evidence that involvement in development is stimulating project leaders’ reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of new approaches they have introduced and helping them to better understand both the positive and negative influences on student engagement and learning. We believe that our support for more formal practitioner-led research is also beginning to yield fruit, with two projects being taken forward via the IBL Grants Scheme, a number of projects being developed by staff in collaboration with CILASS team members, and other staff exploring the scope for pedagogical research arising out of completed projects. The IBL SoTL SIG is developing a collaborative research and publication project. Staff in the CETL’s core team have begun to develop personal action research associated with their roles in educational development. Staff and students create IBL resources/outputs and engage in internal/external dissemination activity 49. Academic and Library staff and students produce a range of practical and research outputs from development projects, including case studies. 49.1 CILASS outputs from funded development projects already include numerous internal and external conference/seminar presentations and in some cases, publications. Few case studies have yet been developed. Staff report the problem of finding time to undertake such activities; however, with a cluster of projects recently completing formative evaluation, it is timely to encourage and support further development of these and other dissemination outputs. 50. CILASS raises awareness of IBL and the CETL, and IBL resources and other outputs are disseminated widely. 50.1 With the aim of raising awareness across the widest possible staff and student constituency, CILASS has been promoted vigorously within UoS. The variety of internal channels includes:

• the formal launch of the CETL in October 2005; • stalls at students’ activities fair during fresher’s week, 2006 and

Information Commons publicity event, 2007; • PVC’s newsletter on learning and teaching issues, 2006; • several features in eView (UoS online newsletter), 2006 and 2007; • presentations to Faculty Board and Teaching Quality Committee

meetings, 2006, 2007; • the VC’s annual address to staff, 2007.


52

Further internal/external activities include:

• student competitions (CILASS logo, 2005; images of IBL, 2006); • student ambassador blog; • CILASS website and IBL blog; • CILASS events and seminars (e.g. IBL café).

50.2 Outputs from projects and research have been disseminated by CILASS core team, project leaders and students via a wide range of CILASS and internal UoS events and to numerous external stakeholder audiences, including via the following conferences/seminars: SCONUL (2005); HEA (2005, 2006; 2007); ICS Subject Centre (2006); LTEA (2006, 2007); JISC (2006); LILAC (2006; 2007); ALT (2006, 2007), SEDA (2006); CILIP (2007); events at de Montfort, Surrey, Liverpool and Edinburgh universities (2005, 2006 and 2007). More than 55 external and more than 30 internal workshop/conference presentations have been made. 50.3 Core team and other staff have published scholarly papers and book chapters, and other CILASS contributions to external publications include a recent HEA publication on linking research and teaching.


53

Appendix 3

CILASS ToC Analysis 3: Desired Outcomes Learning and teaching at UoS are enhanced. 51. Students experience benefits including greater enjoyment, engagement and confidence in learning, and enhanced capabilities in self-directed inquiry; information literacy; communication; collaboration; use of ICT. [CSF1].

“The basic point is that students engage more. They may not always like the process but I think they’re for example reading more widely and reading sources they wouldn’t otherwise have a chance to access” (Project leader, 2006-7).

51.1 It is still too early to make assessments of sustained impact of CILASS programmes/projects on student experience and achievement. Nevertheless, there is very encouraging evidence of positive development towards these outcomes, including in the areas of enhanced student engagement, confidence and responsibility; improvement of information literacy and ICT skills; and, greater awareness of the inquiry/research process. A number of projects have received extremely positive student feedback and all those for which formative evaluations have been completed at the time of writing are judged by staff to have made good progress towards key student-related objectives. Relatively few formal data have been provided on student achievement but some promising indications of improvements in the quality of student work have been reported informally.

“At the end of the module, I felt I’d taught myself something, but with a little bit of guidance, talking to people, and in the seminars, you got to discuss why you did things in a certain way, and you did it yourself, but you got the input as well, that was really good” (Project student, 2006-7) .

“I found myself applying the research methods to other modules so the module was more skills based than I anticipated which was more beneficial to me than just knowledge” (Project student, 2006-7).

51.2 Alongside these positive trends, evaluations have also served to illuminate issues of concern and challenge for students as they have engaged with IBL, for example relating to the dynamics of group-work and workload management, providing valuable formative feedback to staff and to CILASS to inform on-going enhancement of initiatives.


54

52. Students recognise and value IBL as a central feature of their experience at UoS and for citizenship, employability and lifelong learning.

“You’ll always need to learn, no matter what career you go into. University for me is not just for learning about [the discipline] but about how I’m going to be able to develop myself” (IBL project student, 2006-7).

52.1 As indicated by the work of student ambassadors and evaluation/research evidence, in the early stages of the CILASS programme there was widespread lack of familiarity amongst UoS students with the meaning of IBL as a term. Nevertheless, when invited into dialogue and feedback many students are able to recognise forms of IBL in their experience and, as shown for example by the ‘baseline’ survey of 2006, often hold highly positive perceptions of its value as an approach to learning and to developing capabilities of relevance to life beyond academic study. Feedback on learning experiences on CILASS-supported modules confirms this, although students’ awareness of the term itself has not always been raised in this context. There has been a growing perception amongst teaching staff of a need to engage students’ understanding of the purposes and processes of IBL more explicitly as an integral part of IBL pedagogy. The extent to which IBL is perceived by students as central to their experiences of studying at UoS appears to vary considerably along disciplinary lines but is also inflected by individual perceptions of what constitutes ‘inquiry’ in their context. 53. IBL is more widely and deeply embedded into the curriculum across core faculties and beyond from Level 1. [CSF 1]. 53.1 CILASS funded programmes/projects already have contributed strongly to increasing the embedding of IBL in core faculties, in some cases across whole programme years in required modules (including at Level 1) and in other cases in elective modules. There is also an emergent ‘knock-on’ effect in some departments, with more extensive curriculum development taking place as a further development of CILASS-supported programmes but without direct CILASS funding. It seems clear that the CETL’s approach to engagement at the level of departments/schools has had significant impact in many cases and, where there is participatory involvement of staff across connected curriculum areas, has demonstrated strong potential to provide a stimulus to more co-ordinated ‘whole curriculum’ approaches to teaching enhancement.

“The large scope of the project involving collaboration of approximately half the departmental staff has created a critical mass for change and innovation.”


55

“Perhaps what the project team did not anticipate is how the projects might act as a stimulus to identifying areas for further exploration and enhancement within the […] School. It seems likely that the impact of the CILASS projects shall be far reaching, even beyond the levels anticipated in the ToC.”

53.2 Feedback indicates a perception amongst some staff that there is a need for aspects of existing UoS and departmental teaching quality procedures and criteria to change in order to facilitate IBL-related enhancement activity more effectively (for example, as regards assessment). 54. The benefits of new spaces and technologies for learning and teaching are such that there is intensive use and demand. [CSF 7].

“CILASS room fantastic - technology here was really great, made it far more interesting than other seminars” (Bartolomé House student user, 2006-7).

“We were so lucky to use the CILASS technology. Learning has finally come into the 21st century. The new technology has opened my eyes to exciting new ways to examine literary texts” (Bartolomé House student user, 2006-7).

54.1 CILASS has already achieved significant impact on this indicator, with its collaboratories and associated spaces and technologies received with great enthusiasm by students and staff. Early student feedback about the Bartolomé House collaboratory indicates that, when used creatively in pedagogical practice, its facilities can strongly enhance the learning experience. Students have commented that the technology quickly becomes a transparent feature that effectively facilitates a variety of modes of inquiry, interaction and presentation. Staff perceive that the space helps to promote student responsibility for their role in the learning process and that they are very rapidly able to make the environment their own, varying seating arrangements and using different facilities according to need. 54.2 Some instances of difficulty with technology and user support notwithstanding, staff have indicated that the new facilities have made it easier to carry out the types of learning activity they already use, or that they have stimulated further experimentation and thinking about designing and facilitating IBL, contributing to shifting pedagogy in new directions. Staff use of these spaces has the effect of generating increased demand for similar spaces across the wider University.

“It has enabled me to do better things I was doing in less suitable accommodation” (Bartolomé House staff user, 2006-7).


56

“I think this experience has been memorable. It has been both stressful […] and time-consuming, sometimes frustrating […] but it’s certainly encouraged the students to take on a hands-on, frontline role in the learning process and made me take a step back” (Bartolomé House staff user, 2006-7).

“I wish facilities like the Collaboratory were more widely available throughout the University” (Bartolomé House staff user, 2006-7).

54.3 CILASS project leaders have also reported the usefulness of departmental/school resources purchased with capital funding but thus far there is little available data on the impact of these on the student experience. 55. Staff have deepened their engagement with IBL, value it as a core pedagogical strategy, and are committed to further developing their IBL practice. [CSF 5].

“It’s very difficult to quantify what the impact [on staff] is. The feeling is immensely positive. And there is a buzz coming out of the students that I haven’t noticed before” (IBL Champion, 2006-7).

“Getting involved with CILASS has certainly made me excited about the potential for my teaching” (Project staff, 2006-7).

55.1 Feedback from participants in this evaluation exercise alongside other, informal feedback, indicates the CETL’s already highly positive impact in terms of enthusing and stimulating many staff who are taking forward CILASS projects. The rewards of involvement have been expressed, for example, in terms of personal validation of effort spent on learning and teaching; increased interest and enjoyment in teaching; freedom to engage in curriculum experimentation and development; acquisition of new technology skills; benefits of working collaboratively on projects; valued opportunities for reflection on learning and teaching issues; and, more specifically, raised awareness of the pedagogical principles and opportunities represented by IBL and issues involved in its design and facilitation. Staff learning emerging from projects so far relates to a wide range of IBL-related pedagogical issues including the question of appropriate strategies for ‘process support’ (including in the face of student resistance to new approaches), thinking differently about how contact time with students is used, and assessment.

“Working as part of the [project] team has reinvigorated my enthusiasm for course development. I now have a much deeper sense of what students actually want from their studies, and the different methods in which we, as academics, can empower them and engage them. I feel my involvement in [developing] this course has transformed my attitude both towards teaching and collaboration. I intend to take lessons forward from this module and, from next year, incorporate it into other modules I teach” (Project staff, 2006-7).


57

“Our Department has always emphasized independent research … but I think the changes I have introduced [through a CILASS project] will make [students] more self-aware of what is involved in doing careful, systematic research and, at the same time, will engage their interest so that the projects they produce for assessment are not just further tasks but are enjoyable processes of self-discovery, growing knowledge and skills, and the end products sources of pride” (Project staff, 2006-7).

55.2 Alongside the many positive responses to IBL compared with traditional didactic teaching, concerns are sometimes expressed by staff, in particular about the amount of time needed to develop and facilitate IBL approaches. A vibrant community/networks of practice for IBL exist at UoS, with strong links to wider networks. 56. Students and staff experience shared ownership of the CETL and its networks and activities and have benefited from new collaborations and partnerships.

“The value and importance of strategic partnership working with staff (and students) from other departments and disciplines should never be underestimated – particularly when working within a relatively small department” (CILASS project staff, 2006-7).

“The process of collaboration among so many stakeholders in different parts of the University was particularly remarkable in this project, and on this basis the entire team have submitted a bid for a Senate Teaching Award (CILASS project staff, 2006-7).”

56.1 Feedback indicates that CILASS is perceived by staff and students as an initiative with a participatory ethos. We believe that one of the particular strengths of the CETL so far has been the success with which both inter-departmental networking and collaboration, and improved collaboration within departments, have been stimulated. Project self-evaluations report the benefits of new and enhanced partnership and collaborations, both with staff and students in other departments and professional services (including as a result of raised awareness through CILASS of support available in departments such as the Library and LDMU) and within academic departments. There have been numerous reports of impetus for colleagues within departments to share ideas more and work collectively.


58

57. Students and staff feel part of a community/networks of practice for IBL at UoS, and are participating actively in on-going IBL networks in the wider sector. [CSF6].

“IBL has provided a gathering-point for a number of my developing ideas about teaching and learning, and CILASS has provided a supportive framework and community for my development as an academic” (Project staff, 2006-7).

57.1 The development of enduring and sustainable communities/networks of practice is an organic process that takes place over time. According to relevant literature, indicators include: shared discourse; sustained mutual relationships; rapid flow of information and interactions; knowledge of what others know and what they can do in the shared area of practice. For CILASS, the positive stimulus of the new interactions that took place within the CETL development group at the stage of the bid to HEFCE has, as hoped, provided an excellent springboard for subsequent facilitation of engagement across a wider community. There is a strong sense among stakeholders that CILASS is an involving and inclusive initiative, effectively building relationships and commitment needed for new ideas and practices to be shared and sustained over time. CILASS networks are interdisciplinary, but also cross structural divisions, involving professional services staff as well as senior managers, academics and students. It is perceived that this has helped to set a precedent, so that academic staff are more interested in professional support staff participation in strategic discussions or project teams. 57.2 The emergence of a shared ‘cross-disciplinary language’ about teaching and educational development arising out of CILASS networks, and its stimulation of on-going conversations about inquiry-based learning, are perceived by stakeholders as particularly significant indicators of sustainable change. Changes are observed in the way in which academic staff discuss teaching, and this is linked to strategic reflection around topics such as what ‘research-led teaching’ means. The term ‘IBL’ has become much more securely embedded in institutional discourse than it was three years ago, and we believe that activities such as transfer of information via the CILASS blog, informal networking and project-related support and dissemination have contributed to good progress in the facilitation of new partnerships and raised awareness of others’ expertise and activities.

“The CILASS activities that I have been involved with have increased my understanding of what research-led teaching means. Without realising, I have facilitated IBL type activities for many years. CILASS has given me the vocabulary to talk about this aspect of my teaching and value it” (Project staff, 2006-7).

57.3 Some of those involved in CILASS activities explicitly identify themselves as members of ‘a community’ associated with IBL whilst others do not. Nevertheless, there is a widely-held perception that the CETL has already


59

contributed major impetus to a broader-based process of cultural change in the University with respect to learning and teaching, successfully engaging a significantly wider group of staff and students than were involved through the initial development team. The challenge now is to further extend the scope of engagement beyond this widening core, both within CILASS faculties and beyond, and including engagement with students and between students and staff. 57.4 A relatively small number of UoS staff have thus far taken up opportunities to become involved in networking outside the UoS. Connections that have been made include those with other LTEA CETLs, such as CEEBL at the University of Manchester. There is stronger strategic commitment to IBL, and greater reward and recognition for teaching at UoS. 58. Commitment to IBL (and related themes) is more strongly reflected in institutional strategies, initiatives and discussions relating to learning and teaching. [CSF 8].

“Studying at Sheffield will provide students with the opportunity to […] become involved in inquiry-based learning, as a means of actively engaging with the questions and problems of their discipline and of developing a range of inquiry-related capabilities and skills” (UoS Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy 2005-2010).

58.1 The impact of CILASS is already clearly evident in strengthened commitment to IBL (and related themes) at the level of institutional strategy and planning. The UoS Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy (LTAS) 2005-2010 was directly informed by the work of the development group for the CETL bid to HEFCE in 2004. In particular, the work of the group fed into the conceptualisation of ‘the Sheffield Graduate’ and into explicit articulation of the University’s commitment to both IBL and information literacy development across all programmes of study. The LTAS and the CETL were launched formally at the same high-profile event in October 2005. More recently, the University’s new Corporate Plan, “Our Shared Vision” (2006-2010), also highlights the institution’s commitment to IBL as central to the achievement of its pedagogical aims. Stakeholder feedback indicates that CILASS is recognized as integral to the University’s mission. 58.2 Capital investment planning for learning and teaching is the other main area in which CILASS has had direct strategic impact thus far. As anticipated in the original CILASS plan, the ideas that underpin the design of the CETL spaces, and their practical design features, already have influenced other initiatives including in the wider Information Commons, other central projects and a number of academic departments. Further impact will be extended through the CETL’s formal participation in the steering and development of a new, large-scale capital investment project for teaching facilities.


60

58.3 The role of CILASS as a champion for SoTL within UoS is recognised at a senior level within the University, and the CETL continues to participate in on-going strategic discussion on this theme. 59. There is stronger strategic commitment at departmental/school level within the CILASS ‘core’, which has begun to spread to a wider constituency across UoS disciplines.

“From our departmental view applying for CILASS grants has made us think about where IBL is positioned in our pedagogy and our practice […] and how this is linked with learning outcomes and transferable skills development” (Project leader, 2006-7).

59.1 Reflecting the close alignment between the strategic aims of the CETL and the UoS, staff consulted for the purposes of formative review sometimes have found it difficult to isolate the strategic effects of CILASS from those of other change activities that are taking place and impacting upon departmental/school practice. In a phased process during 2005-6 and 2006-7, all academic departments at UoS have been required to develop departmental Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategies (DLTASs) to address the strategic priorities of the institutional LTAS 2005-2010. As anticipated, this process has served to reinforce the relationship between school/departmental engagement with CILASS and strategic planning for IBL at departmental level, providing a good springboard for continuing interaction between CILASS and both its core and non-core constituencies. 59.2 Stakeholder feedback indicates that departmental engagement in CILASS-funded programmes helps to focus strategic thinking and discussion about the way in which IBL fits into DLTASs. Commitment to IBL and related themes is articulated across all DLTASs in core and non-core CILASS departments, with some specifically highlighting the continuing intention to engage with CILASS to support the implementation of their strategies. Some stakeholder feedback additionally reports that CILASS involvement has had valued impact at departmental level in terms of raising the department’s institutional profile. There is already evidence of growing interest in CILASS from beyond the core, both from departments and individuals. 60. The institutional profile of teaching is raised within UoS and CILASS has contributed to increased reward/recognition. [CSF 4].

“One of the great things CILASS has been doing is that it’s enabled good teaching activity to be recognized and validated” (IBL Champion, 2006-7).


61

“In my opinion, the CILASS programme has been the best thing that has happened to teaching in our department since […] – it has created a whole new atmosphere surrounding teaching in the department, raising its profile amongst staff and improving the learning experience of students” (Project leader, 2006-7).

60.1 There is a perception among stakeholders that the CETL is making a strong contribution already to raising the profile of teaching in UoS, at the level of departments and the institution as a whole and including through the high-profile impact of the Information Commons. The status of CILASS as an academically-led, research-oriented unit appears to impact positively here.

“I think CILASS coming in is giving some sort of academic credibility and clout and improving the status of teaching in the University” (Project leader, 2006-7).

60.2 It is too early to comment on the CETL’s impact on the external profile of teaching at UoS, although informal feedback from external dissemination activities suggests that CILASS itself is establishing a profile in a range of stakeholder communities.

“The fundamental block remains that teaching, especially of undergraduates, is seen as a lesser activity [than research] and not really rewarded in promotion, etc. I don’t know that CILASS can do much about that. The presence of CILASS does however make teaching seem like a more significant activity and that is good” (Project leader, 2006-7).

60.3 Beyond raising the profile of teaching and learning at UoS in general terms, the view amongst CILASS stakeholders is that overall progress on institutional reward and recognition is slow, especially as regards impact on teaching as a criterion for staff promotion. However, we believe that in the changing institutional context over the next three years the CETL will be able contribute in more concrete ways to the making and success of both ‘teaching only’ and traditional ‘research and teaching’ promotions cases. 61. CILASS has made a major contribution towards strengthening the links between research and teaching at UoS.

“I think [CILASS] has a genuinely interdisciplinary [impact], and valuing teaching and the link between teaching and research. I think it is doing that” (Project leader, 2006-7).

61.1 It is too early to properly assess the contribution made by CILASS to further strengthening the relationship between research and teaching in the University. However, the CETL is perceived to be providing a platform for discussion on the ‘research/teaching nexus’ and its championing of this theme within the wider context of development in this area at UoS is recognized. A


62

current initiative in the University is exploring the connections between the institution’s LTAS and its strategies for research and knowledge transfer, with a view to closer alignment between them. Enhanced evidence-base, resources and capacity exist in UOS and beyond and are supporting IBL knowledge/practice development. 62. CILASS practice and research outputs are of high quality, and are used and valued in UoS and the wider sector. [CSF5]. 62.1 Again, it is too early to provide evidence of perceptions and use of CILASS outputs. Priorities for further progress in this area are to provide more formalised access to outputs via the CILASS website, further development of good practice guidelines and resources, and stimulation of the development of case studies that will demonstrate the nature and value of different forms of IBL in different contexts. 63. There is increased engagement in scholarly approaches to teaching and learning for IBL at UoS, and the value of scholarly inquiry and research into IBL has been demonstrated.

“I actually think in the discussion about research, teaching […] CILASS is just forcing those questions that for a long time have always elicited stereotypical responses, and suddenly the nature of our teaching is being investigated and scholarship is being undertaken from within traditional departments in which this has never been done before. I think this is a real break” (IBL Champion, 2006-7).

63.1 The extent of sustained engagement in SoTL, resulting from CILASS, is yet to be demonstrated. However, we believe the foundations are in place for continuing good progress and that without the intensive RAE-related pressure of the first two years of the CETL’s programme the wider environment may prove more supportive to this strand of the CETL’s activity. 64. Information and learning about IBL have been shared and approaches transferred across contexts, including in other HEIs. [CSF 5]. 64.1 As noted earlier, information and learning about IBL have been shared internally at UoS, and externally, through a wide variety of channels. It is still too early to assess the extent and nature of transfer across contexts, in particular externally, but there are already instances of staff ideas or resources generated through CILASS projects being adopted in other modules at UoS and provision of exemplars of good practice in IBL helping to convince others of its value. It is not uncommon, however, for staff to report difficulty engaging colleagues beyond their immediate project context and this


63

has highlighted a need for suitable fora at departmental level for sharing of practice and learning. 65. UoS is perceived internally and externally (nationally and internationally) as a leading contributor to development, innovation and research in IBL. 65.1 Internally, the overall contribution of CILASS is reflected in perceptions of stakeholders at all levels and inclusion of CILASS in other UoS initiatives across the range of the CETL’s interest areas. The fact that two out of three UoS nominees for HEA National Teaching Fellowship Awards in 2006-2007 were individuals with formal roles within the CETL (Academic Director and CILASS Fellow) is a further reflection of internal esteem. Indicators of external contribution and esteem include:

• UK Edublog Award 2006 for the CILASS student ambassador blog in the category ‘best undergraduate blog’ (see http://cilass-student-blog-group.shef.ac.uk);

• Selection by JISC of the CILASS Bartolome House collaboratory as an exemplar of excellent practice in the design of technology-rich learning spaces. The collaboratory features among a small number of cases on a JISC-funded DVD that is being widely disseminated (see insert);

• Invitations to CILASS core staff and others to speak at external events, and acceptance of peer-reviewed research presentations/papers;

• Invitations to participate in relevant external peer-review processes and contribute to externally edited publications;

• Award of National Teaching Fellowship 2007 to CILASS Fellow; • Highly positive feedback received from the HEA representative (via the

CILASS Advisory Group) of CILASS as an exemplar of good practice as a CETL in the wider national context.


64

Appendix 4 CILASS Evaluation Plan (Summary)

This document indicates the over-arching design of the CILASS evaluation framework. 1. Programme-level Evaluation 1.1 Establishment of CILASS programme-level Theory of Change (ToC: poster-style format), evaluation indicators and data collection tools. 1.2 Establishment of baseline and longitudinal student feedback strategy (annual Graduating Student Survey, 2006 onwards). 1.3 Annual review cycle drawing on the following sources of data:

• Baseline/annual student survey; • Departmental/School and IBL Grant Scheme Evaluation Portfolios

(including ToCs and formative and summative reports); • Programme-level stakeholder feedback; • Documentary evidence (e.g. strategic and management

information); • Core team reflection; • Internal evaluation review; • External evaluation review.

1.4 The CILASS Programme-level ToC and, as necessary, elements of the evaluation plan, are revised as appropriate at each annual review. 1.5 In-depth formative evaluation at Year 2 as required by HEFCE (July 2007). 1.6 Summative evaluation at Year 5. 2. Departmental/school and project level evaluation 2.1 Establishment of ToC and evaluation indicators (in poster-style, standardised format), by appropriate stakeholder group, e.g. project leader(s), CILASS academic champion, CILASS student ambassador, departmental Director of Teaching. 2.2 Participation of project leaders in an evaluation planning workshop to support establishment of an evaluation plan (i.e. data collection strategies and tools – generic tools developed by LDMU are made available as an Evaluation Toolkit, for adaptation as appropriate).


65

2.3 Interim reflection and reporting: a six-monthly cycle of reflective interviews (facilitated by a CILASS Associate) followed by brief interim reporting to CILASS. 2.4 Evaluation data collection, followed by participation of project leaders in a second evaluation workshop to assist with analysis and promote sharing of preliminary findings. 2.5 Formative reporting by project leaders, completed following first implementation of projects with target users. 2.6 Production by project leaders of a short case-study, to a template that is provided. With the permission of authors, case studies are used for internal and external dissemination purposes. 2.7 Summative evaluation of all CILASS-funded projects will take place in late 2009/early 2010, in accordance with the HEFCVE evaluation cycle. At this stage, projects funded earlier in the CILASS programme will be revisited to explore further developments and impact. 2.8 Evaluation and dissemination are considered to be an integral part of CILASS projects and project leaders have the primary responsibility for ensuring that this activity takes place. CILASS staff provide facilitation, support and technical assistance for evaluation and dissemination throughout projects, including a limited amount of time that can be allocated to carrying out evaluation data collection or analysis activities. CILASS student ambassadors are also available to help with evaluation data collection in some cases.


66

Appendix 5

Data Sources for Formative Evaluation 1. Internal Evaluation Report, Autumn 2006 Detailed internal evaluation review, based on documentary sources, carried out by the CILASS Internal Evaluator (Learning Development and Media Unit), November 2006. 2. Report on feedback from CILASS Project Staff, Spring 2007 Questionnaire survey and focus group carried out by the CILASS Internal Evaluator (Learning Development and Media Unit), May 2007. In total, 22 project staff (project leaders and other staff with involvement in CILASS-funded projects) from a total group of 84 provided feedback for the formative evaluation. All 84 were circulated with an open-format feedback questionnaire. There were 13 responses plus additional project information provided by 3 academic champions. Seven individuals participated in the focus group, 1 of whom had also returned a questionnaire. 3. Report on feedback from CILASS Champions, Spring 2007 Questionnaire survey and focus group carried out by the CILASS Internal Evaluator (Learning Development and Media Unit), May 2007. In total, 10 champions from a total group of 26 provided feedback for the formative evaluation. All 26 were circulated with an open-format feedback questionnaire. There were 5 responses. Six individuals participated in the focus group, 1 of whom had also returned a questionnaire. 4. Report on feedback from CILASS Student Ambassadors, Spring 2007 Focus group carried out by the CILASS Internal Evaluator (Learning Development and Media Unit), May 2007. In total, 5 student ambassadors including the Student Co-ordinator, from a total group of 24, participated in the focus group. Additional feedback from the Student Ambassador Network was also fed in to the Formative Evaluation process from an annual review meeting of the full Network, held in May 2007, facilitated jointly by its two co-ordinators. 5. Report on feedback from Bartolomé House collaboratory users,

Spring 2007 Questionnaire survey carried out by the CILASS Internal Evaluator (Learning Development and Media Unit), May 2007. In total, 5 questionnaires were returned from a total group of 15. Additional stakeholder feedback on CILASS collaboratory spaces and space/technology provision was provided through a


67

range of other feedback channels (e.g. focus groups with project staff, champions, senior managers, student course feedback etc). 6. Report on feedback from Senior Managers, Spring 2007 Two focus groups and two telephone interviews with senior leaders and managers in teaching and learning enhancement at the University of Sheffield, carried out by the CILASS External Evaluator (Dr Martin Oliver), May 2007. Participants included the PVC for Learning and Teaching, faculty officers and representatives from Human Resources, Audio-Visual Service, Teaching and Learning Support Unit, Learning Development and Media Unit, Estates and the Library. There were 5 participants in the first focus group, 4 in the second, and 2 more were interviewed by telephone. 7. Reports on reflective review meetings, CILASS-LDMU and

Information Literacy Network, Spring 2007 CILASS and LDMU carried out a review of collaborative working practices and impact through a reflective review meeting facilitated by the CILASS Research Associate in May 2007. All CILASS team members and 12 staff members from LDMU participated. The CILASS Information Literacy Network carried out a similar review of its activities in May 2007, at a meeting of members of its core group which also was facilitated by the CILASS Research Associate. 8. Report on Programme/Project Evaluation Portfolios, Spring 2007 Review of 9 Programme/Project Evaluation Portfolios carried out by the CILASS Internal Evaluator (Learning Development and Media Unit), May 2007. The review focused on final reports and other evaluation documentation available for 7 departmental strand projects and 2 IBL Grant Scheme projects. A further 7 projects were expected to have reached the stage of evaluation reporting in time for review, but their reports - most of which were received subsequently - were unavailable at the time of writing the report. 9. Reports by external evaluator, April 2006; December 2006; June

2007 The External Evaluator has provided 3 formative evaluation reports to CILASS, in addition to the report on feedback from senior managers in Spring 2007 (see 6 above). The first of these, in April 2006, provided feedback on the CETL’s evaluation and research strategy. The second, in December 2006, drew together and commented on themes that had emerged from a core team reflection workshop facilitated by the External Evaluator in November 2006. The third provides a summary of formative evaluation feedback from the External Evaluator at July 2007, and is included as an Appendix to the current report.


68

10. ‘Baseline’ student survey, Spring/Summer 2006 Survey carried out of all graduating undergraduate and taught postgraduate students on CILASS core faculties, Spring/Summer 2006. A short summary of the findings is included as an Appendix to the current report. 11. Core team reflection, on-going On-going reflection and review carried out by the CILASS core team includes a team awayday that took place in Spring 2006 and a review workshop facilitated by the external evaluator in November 2006.


69

Appendix 6 Summary: 2006 Graduating Student Survey

In May - July 2006, a baseline survey was taken of graduating students’ experiences of inquiry-based learning at the University of Sheffield (Faculties of Arts, Social Sciences and Law only). 510 students submitted responses, including 307 undergraduates and 203 postgraduates, with an overall response rate of 14.8%. The survey forms part of the CILASS programme of evaluation, and will be repeated in each year of the CILASS programme. This document highlights key points from the preliminary analysis. Results The survey supplied respondents with a broad definition of inquiry-based learning (IBL). Among those students who submitted survey responses, about three fifths (58%) of postgraduate students said they had experienced “Quite a bit” or “Very much” IBL during their studies; among undergraduates, this proportion was less than half (43%). Among both undergraduates and postgraduates, only 10% reported having experienced no IBL, and about three-fifths (61%) reported having engaged in one or more research projects of a substantial nature. Overall, about two-thirds of the students indicated that they had found IBL enjoyable and motivating, and similar proportions attributed the positive outcomes of developing a good understanding of the questions and problems of their disciplines, and reinforcing their interest in their disciplines, to IBL. Three-quarters of both undergraduates and postgraduates believe that the skills they learned through IBL will be useful beyond academic study. Those students who have had contact with IBL view it in generally positive ways, and many identified a variety of specific benefits and strengths arising from their IBL experiences. Response Clusters Cluster analysis identifies patterns of responses within the data. A two-step cluster analysis identified two basic patterns and assigned membership in a cluster to each survey response. Although proportions varied among subgroups, cluster membership was distributed among undergraduate and postgraduate students from all three faculties. In the first group, students’ answers indicated a relatively higher level of engagement and scholarly enculturation. Fewer than half (43%) of the undergraduates were in this group, but a majority (59%) of postgraduate students fell into this category. Respondents in the second cluster were characterized by a lower level of engagement and less enthusiasm for inquiry-


70

based learning as they understood it. 57% of undergraduates and 41% of postgraduate students fell into this group. In general, the two clusters were separated by one category in their responses. If, for example, the engaged cluster tended to pick “Quite a bit” as its response to a particular question, the less engaged cluster’s answers would centre on “Some.” Fully three-quarters of the students in the first cluster said they had experienced “Very much” or “Quite a bit” of IBL, and a large majority (89%) said they had found it enjoyable and motivating. Only about one-third (32%) of the respondents in the second cluster said they had experienced similar levels of IBL, and a much smaller proportion (56%) had found it enjoyable and motivating. Thus, although an overall majority of students said that IBL was enjoyable and motivating, this masks significant differences between students in the two clusters. At the end of the survey, students were asked to provide written comments, and some did so. For this report, the comments were sorted into groups based on level (undergraduate and postgraduate) and cluster (engaged and less engaged) and analysed for content. Findings Collaboration One problematic area in the eyes of many students is collaboration. Although some students expressed enthusiasm for collaborative learning strategies, many were quite ambivalent—even unhappy—about it. Undergraduates tended to be less happy with collaboration than postgraduate students, but there were high levels of dissatisfaction with this approach in both groups. Overall, fewer than half the students (43%) agreed with the statement that IBL had made them enthusiastic about working collaboratively, and a relatively large proportion (16%) actively disagreed with the statement. Students who had experienced more collaboration were more positive about it than those who said they had experienced less, and the high levels of negative assessment were concentrated among students who reported less engagement in collaborative IBL. However, the open-ended comments suggest that at least some students who dislike collaborative experiences actively avoid modules that require group work, so these results could be influenced by student self-selection. Based on the students’ comments, collaborative projects should be perceived as high-value and, oriented clearly toward application to disciplinary/professional practice. Students should feel that they are active contributors to the group effort, and that they will be evaluated fairly on the individual work they do.


71

Assessment There were two comments on the subject of assessment, both of which made the point that student evaluation should be consistent with the pedagogical methods used. IBL strategies may be more appropriate for high-level cognitive processes such as analysis, evaluation, and synthesis rather than the recall of facts. These comments expressed the concern that the IBL activities encouraged valuable learning, but exams or other evaluations then tested knowledge that had not been emphasized in assignments and activities. Structure of IBL activities Less engaged undergraduates reported that they felt IBL strategies abandoned them to struggle alone, without benefit of structure or contact with instructors. On the other hand, the survey results suggest that many students respond well to IBL strategies that explicitly make connections to “real world” applications. Therefore, successful IBL activities should be carefully designed to provide needed structure and contact, as well as links to what students will perceive as authentic, real-life tasks and situations.


72

2006 Graduating Student Survey Summary descriptive statistics

Cluster 1: Engaged. Characterized by generally higher levels of engagement with the schooling experience. Cluster 2: Less engaged. The asterisk (*) indicates statistically significant differences between the response categories. Note that all differences between Clusters 1 and 2 are significant. Level Faculty Cluster UG PG Arts Law Soc 1 2 Survey responses (number) 30

7 203

191 83 236 232 238

Response rates (%-overall: 14.8%) 13.2%

18.3%

18.3% 12.2% 13.8%

Undergraduates 137 49 121 43% 57% Response rates (%) 16.6% 10.6% 11.6% Postgraduates 54 34 115 59% 41% Response rates (%)

24.7% 15.7% 17.1%

Section 1 1. What forms of inquiry-based learning have you experienced on your degree course? (Please tick all answers that apply) (Note: for question 1, numbers indicate the proportion of “yes” answers)

% % % % % % %

• 'Real-life' case-study or problem scenarios

33* 45 14* 53 51 46 35

• Problem-solving activities or questions where you moved towards a known answer or conclusion

32 32 19* 49 36 41 28

• Class, lab or field work activities that involved investigation/research

31 37 30 25 39* 44 29

• Independent activities that were based mainly on investigation/research

63 62 67 54 61 78 58

• One or more substantial projects using the research methods of your discipline (e.g. research dissertation, or applied project in a vocational area)

60 63 65 45* 64 78 56

• Other 1 3 -- -- -- -- -- • None (If you have not taken part

in any form of inquiry-based learning on your degree course, please go straight to section 3 of the questionnaire)

10 10 -- -- -- -- --


73

Level Faculty Cluster UG PG Arts Law Soc 1 2 (Note: for questions 2 through 6, responses were “Very much,” “Quite a bit,” “Some,” and “Very little.” Numbers indicate proportion of the highest two response categories.)

% % % % % % %

2. How much inquiry-based learning have you experienced on your degree course?

43* 58 40 48* 56 75 32

3. How much has your experience of inquiry-based learning included:

• Group-work and collaboration with other students

38* 50 29* 47 53 60 35

• Independent information-seeking 78* 80 77 82 88 95 75 • Use of computers and other digital

technology 63* 67 56* 67 70 82 59

• Interdisciplinary investigation and research (i.e. across subject boundaries)

28 36 33 16* 28 41 19

• Opportunities to formulate, as well as follow up, questions in your subject area

41* 55 47 25* 44 65 27

• A requirement to reflect on, and document, your skills as a learner

30*

54 30 28 42 55 21

4. How much personal inquiry have you carried out in your subject area, beyond what has been required by the curriculum (i.e. out of personal interest)?

29* 47 41 33 36 61 19

5. How much has your degree course emphasised the development of your inquiry/research skills?

68 67 64 60 72 93 54

6. To what extent has your experience of inquiry-based learning helped you to develop your confidence and skills in the following areas:

• Learning independently, pursuing ideas and finding information

80 73 79 72 77 98 69

• Using research methods and techniques to carry out independent research

66 69 64 71 68 92 54

• Using computers and other digital technologies

56 55 50 63 58 76 46

• Working collaboratively 42 45 31 43* 53 67 27 • Problem-solving 43 51 33 65* 50 70 30 • Communicating, using a variety of

media 38* 47 35 39 47 67 23

• Information literacy (finding and using information effectively)

67 65 64 64 70 90 55


74

Level Faculty Cluster UG PG Arts Law Soc 1 2

• Tackling real-life issues and problems

31* 45 19* 47 47 59 21

(Note: Question 7 uses a 7-point scale with anchors. Numbers indicate mean responses.)

7. How would you characterise the balance of the way you've been taught on your course in the following two areas:

μ μ μ μ μ μ μ

1 = Students as active participants (i.e. 'student focused') 7 = Students as passive audience (i.e. 'teacher focused')

3.82*

3.12 2.98* 3.55 3.38 2.98 4.08

1 = Emphasis on learning about the results of current research and knowledge 7 = Emphasis on learning how knowledge is constructed and engaging in research/discovery process

3.71 3.87 3.52 3.01* 3.58 3.92 3.60

Section 2

(Note: Questions 8 through 16 offered five response categories: “Strongly Agree,” “Agree,” “Neutral,” “Disagree,” and “Strongly Disagree.” Numbers indicate proportion of “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” responses.) Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:

% % % % % % %

8. My degree course has provided the support and guidance I have needed to carry out inquiry-based learning effectively

60 61 62 66 58 86 46

9. I would have liked more opportunities to learn through inquiry and research on my degree course

41 38 37 45 40 36 50

10. I have found inquiry-based learning enjoyable and motivating

66 68 72 63 63 88 56

11. My experience of inquiry-based learning has given me a good understanding of:

• The questions and problems of my discipline

70 70 71 76 67 93 60

• How knowledge is created in my discipline

62 61 63 64 59 86 48

• How research/scholarship is carried out in my discipline

59 60 62 54 60 82 47

12. My experience of inquiry-based learning has made me enthusiastic about working collaboratively with others

39* 49 38 48 45 65 30

13. My experience of inquiry-based learning has reinforced my interest in my discipline

61 66 69 62 58 85 52


75

Level Faculty Cluster UG PG Arts Law Soc 1 2 14. I feel that the skills I have developed through inquiry-based learning will be useful to me beyond academic study, e.g. for employment and lifelong learning

76 75 77 75 75 93 77

15. As a student in my department I have felt part of a community of researchers/scholars who are committed to learning

43 46 54* 39 38 67 29

16. I have benefited on my degree course from having contact with active researchers/scholars in my discipline

52 58 62 46* 50 77 40

Section 3

(Note: Questions 17 through 22 offered yes/no or yes/no/don’t know responses. Numbers indicate proportion of “Yes” responses.)

% % % % % % %

17. Were you familiar with the term 'inquiry-based learning' before completing this questionnaire?

26* 40 25* 39 34

18. Had you heard of CILASS before completing this questionnaire?

37 37 39 44 34

19. Have you taken a CILASS-supported module during your degree?

2 3 3 2 3

20. Have you worked as a CILASS Student Ambassador during your degree?

1 1 2 0 0

21. Have you ever entered a CILASS competition?

1 0 1 1 0

22. Have you used CILASS space or technologies in your department?

2 3 2 4 2


76

Appendix 7 CILASS Funding Schemes

Introduction CILASS aims to act as a catalyst for the development of a vibrant community of practice in IBL within the University, by providing a range of opportunities for departments and individuals to benefit from IBL-focused resource and support. 1) CILASS Departmental/School Strategic Programmes The CILASS focus on departmental and School level programmes is intended to maximise impact, encourage strategic thinking and support diverse disciplinary practice and priorities. Throughout the life of CILASS, departments are invited to plan, undertake and evaluate educational change within the CILASS framework, prioritising developments most appropriate to their discipline. The departmental/school engagement model is based on a two-cycle framework for engagement across 23 departments/schools in the core CILASS Faculties of Arts, Social Sciences and Law. Departments/schools have 2 opportunities during the 5 year period to bid for funding. 2) CILASS IBL Grant Scheme From November 2005 CILASS introduced an IBL Grants Scheme, offering grants to individuals or groups twice a year to enhance or initiate IBL activity in their teaching. In the first 2005-06 round, applications to the Scheme were invited from CILASS’s ‘core’ Faculties only: the Faculties of Arts, Social Sciences and Law. From 2006-07 the scheme was opened up to the wider University and applications were welcomed from all Faculties. The scheme has three separate strands, offering opportunities to develop the following types of project:

A. inquiry-based learning curriculum development projects, e.g. involving learning activity design and/or learning resource development for a module that will include, or will be entirely based upon, inquiry-based learning;

B. interdisciplinary inquiry-based learning projects, i.e. projects

specifically to develop student engagement in interdisciplinary inquiry, either within or between departments in the University. These projects are likely to involve collaboration between academic staff from different disciplines and may include learning activity design and/or learning resource development for existing or new modules;

C. ‘scholarship of teaching and learning’ (SoTL - practitioner-led

research) projects relating to inquiry-based learning. SoTL projects supported by the scheme typically will explore questions and problems


77

relating to IBL in the grant-holders’ own practice and discipline. They are likely to be linked to specific practices/developments in IBL being taken forward by the staff involved and will have as their objective the enhancement of the student experience.

3) Non-core Faculties engagement and other HEIs The participation of departments/schools in non-core Faculties has been invited through the IBL Grant scheme. Further options are under consideration for the approach to offering funding in later phases specifically dedicated to supporting IBL developments in other Faculties across the University. In addition, the Learning through enquiry alliance (LTEA) are creating a joint fund to encourage cross-institutional engagement (e.g. exchange visits, collaborative projects), and CILASS will be participating in this scheme Resources Participation in the CILASS community provides access to CILASS core resources including:

• Advice and guidance on embedding inquiry-based learning • Support in planning and implementing projects • Expertise and support from LDMU and TLSU in developing technology-

rich approaches to inquiry, disseminating good practice and evaluating the impact of projects.

• Specialist accommodation supporting collaborative inquiry within the University’s new and exciting Information Commons

• Central funding to support networking and the sharing of good practice including attendance at conferences, study visits, collaboration with colleagues at other Higher Education Institutions.

• Support with developing an appropriate evaluation strategy for projects.

In addition, funding is available to:

• Release academic staff to act as project leaders or team members and implement the proposals.

• Fund additional input from others within departments/schools, e.g. research staff/students or similar.

• Fund incidental costs incurred in implementing the proposals. • Fund small-scale local capital investment that will support their

proposed curriculum enhancement. (Departmental/School Scheme Phase 1 – 3 only)

The CILASS core team help facilitate:

• Innovative case- and problem-based inquiry scenarios • New interactions with digital resources, datasets and archives • Information literacy objectives, tasks and assessments in inquiry

projects • Innovative approaches to networked learning


78

• New, inter-disciplinary interactions Applying for Funding An workshop opportunity is offered to colleagues who are considering applying and the aim is to offer information, advice and guidance to those developing their next phase of engagement with IBL or wishing to develop an IBL project. There is an opportunity to explore and develop ideas with members of the CILASS team and with colleagues who are currently taking CILASS-funded IBL projects forward. The Selection Process Priority is given to creative, innovative projects that will impact significantly on enhancement of the student learning experience through inquiry-based methods, and that will provide exemplars of excellent practice. Each submission is considered on its own merits and within the context of disciplinary differences in approaches to IBL. Receiving a CILASS Grant In accepting a CILASS IBL Grant, the grant holder is committing to: • undertake the project activities as described in the bid; • manage the project to meet its aims and deliver the required outputs

within the proposed timescale and recurrent budget; • liaise with CILASS to confirm the pattern of expenditure during the life of

the programme; • where required, to seek approval from the CILASS IBL Grant Approval

Panel for any changes to the scope of the project (its activities, timescales or budget);

• produce interim brief progress reports as necessary using a template which is provided;

• produce a short formal (formative) report when the work is complete – using a template which is provided;

• complete a thorough evaluation of the impact upon the student learning experience and other aspects, support for which is available via CILASS. The minimum requirements are:

o development of evaluation indicators (‘Theory of Change’) o development of evaluation plan (workshop 1) o interim ‘reflective interviews’ during development/implementation o evaluation data collection and analysis o evaluation review and exchange (workshop 2) o production of short case study (template provided)

• comply with the University’s policies regarding Copyright and other Intellectual Property Rights with respect to materials produced with the support of this CILASS IBL Grant;

• engage in dissemination of the project in conjunction with the CILASS plans for dissemination, through at least two of the following:

o a workshop for past, current or prospective bidders from other strands;

o a refereed journal publication;


79

o an external conference paper or workshop; o a contribution to CILASS events and/or the University’s Learning

and Teaching conference; o a presentation to colleagues within the department/faculty; o an article in CILASS publications; o a contribution to the CILASS website; o another dissemination method (subject to CILASS programme

management approval).


80

Appendix 8 CILASS funded programmes and projects

Phase 1 Projects Project Code Dept Project Project leader CIL115 Dutch Dutch Studies Collaboration Project Henriette Louwerse CIL103 English Roots/Routes Duco Van-Oostrum CIL104 English Teaching Clusters Project Richard Steadman-Jones CIL108 French French history of the language project Penny Simons

CIL114 Germanic Studies Germanic Studies dynamic resource lists for interpreting students Caroline Pearce

CIL107 Hispanic Studies Hispanic Studies Group Presentation Project David Wood

CIL105 History Inquiry-led independent and collaborative research modules (levels 2 and 3) Brian Vick

CIL116

Human Communication Sciences IBL in HCS Margaret Freeman

CIL110 Information Studies Project 1: Inquiry in Information Management Andrew Cox CIL102 Information Studies Project 2: Information Literacy Audit Project Sheila Webber CIL113 Law Electronic Workbook Natasha Semmens/Mark Taylor CIL106 Library SEIL - Student Engagement with IL Project Peter Stubley/Clare Scott CIL112 School of Education Caribbean Programme Sabine Glasmann CIL111 School of Education MA Educational Research Ann-Marie Bathmaker CIL109 School of Education MA Literacy & Language Julia Davies


81

Phase 2 Projects Project Code Dept Project Project leader CIL207 Archaeology Project 1: Level 2 Becoming an independent learner Paul Halstead CIL201 Archaeology Project 2: Level 3 Learning in practice Gianna Ayala

CIL205 Management School

Project 1: Inquiry-based learning (IBL) in the consultancy process

John Kawalek and Martina McGuinness

CIL208 Management School

Project 2: Facilitating collaborative inquiry thorugh the level 1 curricula

Linda Lewis and Martina McGuinness

CIL206 Philosophy Project 1: Discovering the background (1st years) Robert Hopkins CIL209 Philosophy Project 2: Philosophical Projects – 2nd & 3rd year Robert Hopkins

CIL202 Psychology Project 1: Critical appraisal of the public presentation of Psychology Myles Jones

CIL203 Psychology Project 2: Information literacy in research methods Richard Rowe CIL204 Psychology Project 3: Collaborative Learning through argumentation Jackie Andrade CIL301 Biblical Studies Project 1: Course Pack upgrading L C Alexander

Phase 3 Projects Project Code Dept Project Project leader CIL302 Biblical Studies Project 2: Art database enhancement J C Exum CIL303 Biblical Studies Project 3: Field Archaeology online D E Edelman


82

Project Code Dept Project Project leader CIL304 Biblical Studies Project 4: Cascade learning K W Whitelam CIL305 Biblical Studies Project 5: Textual studies H Pyper CIL317 Biblical Studies Project 6: International Group Learning H Pyper

CIL306 East Asian Studies Project 1: Online Training in the Assessment of Material for Research Purposes Thomas McAuley

CIL307 East Asian Studies Project 2: IBL Approaches to Listening and Speaking Miyuki Nagai CIL308 East Asian Studies Project 3: Year Abroad Project Angela Coutts CIL309 Economics Audits of IBL in Economics Aki Tsuchiya CIL317 Economics Pilot of IBL exercises in Economics Aki Tsuchiya CIL310 Music Project 1: Fieldwork projects (capital) Jonathan Stocks CIL311 Music Project 2: Student presentations (capital) Jane Davidson CIL312 Music Project 3: IBL online Stephanie Pitts CIL313 Music Project 4: IBL in Performance and Composition Martin Hindmarsh

CIL314 Sociological Studies Project 1: Sociological Studies Generic Strand 1 David Phillips

CIL315 Sociological Studies Project 2: Sociological Studies Generic Strand 2

David Phillips / Christina Prell / Bridgette Wessels /

CIL316 Sociological Studies Project 4: Sociological Studies Specific Strands 1 and 2

David Phillips / Marilyn Gregory / Lorna Warren /Kathy Boxall

CIL318 Geography Project 1: IBL Approach to teaching statistics at UG level Steve Wise CIL319 Geography Project 2: Review of IBL activities in Geography Steve Wise

CIL320 Journalism Studies Project 1: Information Literacy Mark Hanna/Tony Harcup/Marie Kinsey


83

Project Code Dept Project Project leader

CIL321 Journalism Studies Project 2: Freedom of Information Act 2000 Mark Hanna/Tony Harcup/Marie Kinsey

IBL Grant Projects January 2006 Project Code Dept Project Project leader CILG01 Hispanic Studies Electronic Learning Package for Torquemada en la hoguera Rhian Davies

CILG02

Human Communication Sciences HCS Induction Programme

Margaret Freeman/Richard Body/Ruth Herbert/Sandra Whiteside

CILG04 School of Education PBL Jon Scaife

IBL Grant Projects July 2006 Project Code Dept Project Project leader CILG05 TILL Foundation Programme IBL Pilot Scheme Will Kitchen CILG06a Hispanic Studies Reading Skills David Wood CILG06b Hispanic Studies Interactive Grammar Learning Package Rhian Davies

CILG06c Hispanic Studies Language Skills, Contrastive Grammar Louise Johnson (Catalan)/Carmen Ramos Villar (Portuguese)


84

Project Code Dept Project Project leader

CILG07 School of Eng Lit, Lang and Ling Mentor Project Philip Shaw/Susan Fitzmaurice

CILG08 Law Electronic Course Manual for Understanding Law 2 Jonathan Doak/Claire McGourlay/Fergal Davis

IBL Grant Projects February 2007 Project Code Dept Project Project leader

CILG09

Chemical & Process Engineering

Blended Learning Approach in Chemical Engineering IBL (BLACE) Diane Rossiter/Catherine Biggs

CILG10 School of English Developing Information Literacy in core English Literature modules Cathy Shrank

CILG11 French The role of humour and playfulness in facilitating IBL Penny Simons/Penny Eley CILG12 Psychology IBL in Psychological Research Methods Richard Rowe/Paul Norman CILG13 Psychology Introducing IBL at MSc level Tom Stafford

CILG13 Russian and Slavonic Studies An IBL approach to reading skills for Czech and Polish D Divjak/N Bermel

CILG14 Town & Regional Planning

International planning project – developing IBL within a virtual learning environment

Glyn Williams/Steve Connelly/Paula Meth


85

Appendix 9 Bartolomé House Collaboratory 3, usage 2006/07

Room capacity = 48 (24 flexible flip-top square tables on wheels) CILASS Collaboratory 3 was refurbished as a result of the successful CILASS bid for HEFCE CETL funding in January 2006. The room was released for use prior to the start of the 2006/07 academic session and the variety of usage is listed below. Room facilities include:

• 4 x Plasma cluster stations • 1 x Large presentation plasma screen • 24 x SONY Vaio laptops • 1 x Sympodium • 1 x DVD player • 1 x Video player • 2 x Copy cams • 5 x Huddle Boards • PAG Station – Personal Access Grid

There are also 3 internet linked PCs in the networking area located directly outside the room and a soft seating area with coffee facilities for additional break-out space. Academic Department/School Usage 2006/2007

• Archaeology • English Language and Linguistics • English Literature • Hispanic Studies • History • Human Communication Sciences • Information Studies • Law • Mechanical Engineering • Philosophy • Psychology • School of English – assessment meeting • TILL – Institute of Lifelong Learning

CILASS Team Events 2006/2007

• CILASS Champions meeting • CILASS DeSILA Introduction • CILASS DeSILA Steering Group • CILASS DeSILA Training workshop • CILASS Exploring IBL 1 • CILASS Exploring IBL 2 • CILASS External Workshop Series - Alan Jenkins - HEA


86

• CILASS External Workshop Series - Angela Brew – University of Sydney • CILASS External Workshop Series - Maggie Savin-Baden – University of

Coventry • CILASS IBL Café Series • CILASS Information Literacy Network– DLTAS event • CILASS Multi-Media Case Studies Session • CILASS Scholarship of Teaching & Learning (SoTL) Group • CILASS Steering Group • CILASS Student Ambassador Network (SAN) • CILASS Teaching- led research SIG

UoS/Institution Events 2006/2007

• AV/Corporate Services meeting • CILT – Certificate in Learning and Teaching • DFES visit to observe teaching • Enterprise, Business in the curriculum - away day • HEA English Subject Centre meeting • Heads of E-Learning Forum – Learning Development and Media Unit

(LDMU) • JISC Video filming • Web VISTA training - LDMU • Music Department – away day • Spotlight on Teaching & Learning awareness lunchtime sessions • Teaching & Learning Support Unit (TLSU) – Best Practice Week • TLSU – Senate Fellows Networking Event • Yorkshire Universities Information Skills Group workshop

Room Usage Statistics 2006/2007 Based on the following assumptions:

• Core time = 10.00am to 5.00pm per day = 7 hrs per day • 7 hrs x 5 days = 35 hrs available to book per week • 12 teaching weeks per semester • 7 hrs x 12 wks = 84 hrs available to book during the semester • 35 hrs x 12 wks = 420 total hours available per semester

Number of hours booked (teaching only) Semester 1 Total Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Total over 12 weeks 47 24 9 52 0 132 Average number of hours booked per day (actual/12)

3.92 2.00 0.75 4.33 0

% usage 56% 29% 11% 62% 0% 31%


87

Semester 2 Total Total over 12 weeks Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri 78 43 24 31 48 224 Average number of hours booked per day (actual/12)

6.50 3.58 2.00 2.58 4.00

% usage 93% 51% 29% 37% 57% 53%


88

Appendix 10

Dissemination, Networking and Development Activity, at July 31st 2007 External Recognition/Awards

1. “A Technology-rich space for inquiry-based learning: CILASS”. Good Practice Case Study, 2007 (DVD). Case selected by JISC (Designing Spaces for Effective Learning Programme).

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning_innovation/eli_learningspaces_casestudies.aspx

2. CILASS Student Ambassador Blog: ‘Best Undergraduate Blog 2006”

Edublog Awards, 2006. http://incsub.org/awards/ External Conferences and Workshops

3. Levy, Petrulis; CILASS: “Student inquiry and the research/teaching nexus: an exploration of the first year undergraduate experience”, i-Ped 2007, Coventry University, September 2007.

4. Levy, Little; CILASS: “Digital inquiry and social networking”, ALT-C,

University of Nottingham, September 2007.

5. Levy, Little, Aiyegbayo; CILASS: Design for learning for the social network generation: themes from a LAMS evaluation project, ALT-C, University of Nottingham, September 2007.

6. Levy, Little, Petrulis; CILASS: “Experiencing inquiry: lessons from the

first-year experience”, Learning Together, University of London IoE, July 2007.

7. van Oostrum, Steadman-Jones; School of English: “Adaptation and

animation as modes of literary inquiry”, Renewals: English Subject Centre Conference, Royal Holloway College, London, July 2007.

8. Levy, Aiyegbayo, Little, Loasby; CILASS: “LAMS and the pedagogy of

inquiry: themes from an evaluation project” – 2007 European LAMS Conference, University of Greenwich, July 2007.

9. Levy, Aiyegbayo, Little; CILASS: “Creating and sharing digital designs for

learning: experiences of ‘first generation’ innovation”, HEA Annual Conference, Harrogate, July 2007.

10. Levy, Petrulis, Little; CILASS: Scholarly evaluation practice: exploring the

‘Theory of Change’ approach HEA Annual Conference, Harrogate, July 2007.


89

11. Little, Fiennes; CILASS: “Beyond consultation: creative student

partnerships in educational development and innovation”, HEA Annual Conference, Harrogate, July 2007.

12. van Oostrum, Steadman-Jones; School of English, UoS: “Roots/routes of

learning: inquiry-based learning in action”, HEA Annual Conference, Harrogate, July 2007.

13. Levy; CILASS: “Using ‘Theory of Change’ evaluation in learning and

teaching development”, CILIP Umbrella 2007; University of Hertfordshire, June 2007.

14. Little, CILASS: ‘I blog, therefore I am/reflect/collaborate/learn/teach:

using blogs to aid student and staff inquiry’, RSC YH E-Learning Conference: Sheffield Hallam University, June 2007.

15. Fiennes, Little; CILASS: “Ambassadors for inquiry – the CILASS student

network one year on, LTEA Conference, University of Surrey, June 2007.

16. Fitzmaurice, Shaw; School of English, UoS: “History as inquiry: in search

of the history of the English language”. LTEA Conference, University of Surrey, June 2007.

17. Freeman; Department of Human Communication Sciences, UoS: Let’s

start at the very beginning: how can an inquiry-based learning approach facilitate induction? LTEA Conference, University of Surrey, June 2007.

18. Herrick; Kitchen; Institute for Lifelong Learning, UoS: “Drop a pebble,

surf the wave: embedding IBL at undergraduate foundation level zero”. LTEA Conference, University of Surrey, June 2007.

19. Levy, Little, Aiyegbayo; CILASS: “Technology by design: exploring LAMS

and design for inquiry-based learning. LTEA Conference, University of Surrey, June 2007.

20. McGourlay; Department of Law, and students: “The big tin foil hat, silent

movie technology and inquiry-based approaches: the teacher and student perspective”, LTEA Conference, University of Surrey, June 2007.

21. Petrulis, Levy; CILASS: “First-year students talk about learning and

inquiry”, LTEA Conference, University of Surrey, June 2007.

22. van Oostrum; School of English, UoS: “Pre-seminar and seminar online writing in English literature”, LTEA Conference, University of Surrey, June 2007.


90

23. Levy; CILASS: “Inquiry-based learning at the University of Sheffield:

strengthening the teaching-research relationship”, Higher Education Colloquium, Research-Teaching Linkages, University of Edinburgh, June 2007.

24. Bestwick (student, Department of Archaeology), Little (CILASS): “Using

ICT for inquiry-based learning courses”, Workshop for HE Teachers of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Manchester and HCA Subject Centre, May 2007.

25. Levy, CILASS: “Exploring Inquiry-based Learning”, Staff Development

Workshop, University of Liverpool, May 2007.

26. Cox, Webber, Levy, Stordy; Department of Information Studies, UoS: “Blogging to support Inquiry-based learning, Shock of the Old 2007: Shock of the Social, University of Oxford, March 2007.

27. Levy; CILASS: “e-Pedagogy and the information specialist: reflections

from a CETL perspective”, UC&R Conference, De Montfort University, March 2007.

28. McKinney (CILASS); Turkington (University of Leeds): “The public

presentation of Psychology”; LILAC 2007, Manchester Metropolitan University, March 2007.

29. Gillan; CILASS student ambassador: “An inquiry-based learning project”,

CETL National Conference, University of Warwick, March 2007.

30. Levy; CILASS: “A technology-rich collaboratory for inquiry-based learning”. Planning for Technology-rich Learning Spaces, Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education (JISC/HEA), November 2006.

31. Levy; CILASS: “Inquiry-based learning and information literacy at

CILASS”. Exploring Inquiry-based Learning: SCEPtRE Workshop, University of Surrey, December 2006.

32. McKinney; CILASS: "Developing Partnerships for Educational

Development from a CETL Perspective", SEDA Conference, November 2006.

33. van Oostrum; CILASS: “Mapping educational development: locations,

boundaries and bridges”, LTEA Keynote, with SCEPTrE (Surrey) and CEEBL (Manchester, SEDA Conference, November 2006.

34. Little; CILASS: “Facilitating inquiry-based learning from afar: educational

research in the Caribbean”, ALT-C, University of Edinburgh, September 2006.


91

35. McKinney; CILASS: “Information literacy and inquiry-based learning”,

ICS Subject Centre Conference, Dublin August 2006 (poster).

36. Little; CILASS: “’You need a boffin and two friends’: researching the stories behind networked collaboration”, Worldwide Universities Network E-Learning Research Seminar, University of Sheffield, July 2006.

37. McKinney; CILASS: “New partnerships for information literacy

development”, Partnership for Learning, University of Central England, July 2006 (poster).

38. Levy, Reilly; CILASS: “Creating technology-rich learning spaces for

inquiry-based learning”, Designing Technology-enabled Learning Spaces (JISC/HEA), University of Warwick, July 2006.

39. van Oostrum, Steadman-Jones; School of English, UoS: “Different

strokes for different folks: inquiry-based learning in English studies”, HEA Annual Conference, University of Nottingham, July 2006.

40. Little; CILASS: “E-learning in the Caribbean: a case study from a

developing world”, International Conference on e-Learning, University of Québec, Montréal, Canada, June 2006.

41. Corrall, Levy, Stubley, Scott, McKinney; CILASS Information Literacy

Network: “Information literacy: essential skills for learning through inquiry”, LTEA Conference, Manchester, June 2006.

42. Davies; School of Modern Languages and Linguistics, UoS: “Fathoming

the unfathomable? The uses of inquiry-based learning in literature teaching”, LTEA Conference, University of Manchester, June 2006.

43. Eley, Simons; School of Modern Languages and Linguistics, UoS:

“Inquiry-based learning and the history of the French language”, LTEA Conference, University of Manchester, June 2006.

44. Levy; CILASS: “Developing living theory in inquiry-based learning: a

community of practice approach”, LTEA Conference, University of Manchester, June 2006.

45. Scaife; School of Education, UoS: “The Cheshire cat and Cinderella:

squeezing problem-based learning into initial teacher training”, LTEA Conference, Manchester, June 2006.

http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/events/archive/ltea2006/cilass.pdf

http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/events/archive/ltea2006/cilass.pdf

http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/events/archive/ltea2006/davies.pdf



http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/events/archive/ltea2006/eley_simons.pdf

http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/events/archive/ltea2006/levy.pdf

http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/events/archive/ltea2006/levy.pdf

http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/events/archive/ltea2006/scaife.pdf

http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/events/archive/ltea2006/scaife.pdf


92

46. Verbaan, School of Modern Languages and Linguistics, UoS: “The multicultural society in the Netherlands: inquiry-based learning in an inter-institutional context using blended learning”, LTEA Conference, University of Manchester, June 2006.

47. McKinney; CILASS: “CILASS”, SEDA Conference, University of Liverpool,

June 2006, (interactive poster).

48. Levy; CILASS: “Towards a community of inquiry for inquiry-based learning: a CETL perspective”, London SoTL 6th Annual International Conference, City University, May 2006.

49. McKinney; CILASS: “Partnership in information literacy development”,

Information Literacy: Recognising the Need, Staffordshire University, May 2006 (poster).

50. Levy, CILASS: “CILASS”, SEERC Seminar, Thessaloniki, May 2006.

51. Little, CILASS: “Pedagogy over technology: supporting inquiry-based

learning in the Caribbean”, SOLSTICE 2006, Edge Hill University, May 2006.

52. Levy; CILASS: “Bringing learning and research together through inquiry-

based learning”, CURL Meeting, University of Glasgow, April 2006.

53. Bing, Levy; CILASS: “A strategic approach to information literacy: a CETL perspective”, LILAC Annual Conference, University of Leeds, March 2006.

54. Levy; CILASS: “Embedding inquiry-based learning at the heart of the

student learning experience: CILASS case study”, Developing the New Learning Environment”, De Montfort University Library Staff Seminar, February 2006.

55. Levy, CILASS: “Facilitating strategic change in inquiry-based learning”,

2nd Southern Universities Enquiry-based Learning Network Event, University of Surrey, January 2006.

56. Levy; CILASS: “E-learning strategy through partnerships: the art of the

possible”, SCONUL Autumn Conference, November 2005.

57. Levy, CILASS: “CILASS”, Teaching and Research Relationships: Developing Institutional Policy and Practice, HEA Conference, London, November 2005.

http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/ceebl/events/archive/ltea2006/verbaan.pdf




93

1st CILASS Staff-Student Symposium on Inquiry-based Learning, April 2007

1. Barrett, Ip, Higgin-Botham, Schuster, McConnell (students) Semmens, Taylor (staff); Department of Law: “Learning the skills of legal enquiry through legal inquiry: the experiences of students of inquiry-based learning in Understanding Law 1”.

2. Bestwick, Goble, Kermeen, Stanning (students); CILASS Student

Ambassador Network Film Group: “Student perceptions of inquiry-based learning: our response, their response, your response”.

3. Burdett, Taktak, Wythe (students) Scaife (staff); School of Education:

“Students’ reflections on problem-based learning in a postgraduate teaching course

4. Davies (staff); Department of Hispanic Studies: “Inquiry-based learning:

learner drivers in the Grand Prix…?”.

5. Doak, McGourlay (staff) and students; Department of Law: “Understanding Law 2: Progressing Inquiry”.

6. Grech, Massingham, Naryzhny,Toft (students) Cox, Levy, Stordy,

Webber (staff); Department of Information Studies: “Exploring Inquiry at Level 1”.

7. Herrick, Kitchen (staff) and students; Institute of Lifelong Learning:

“Flickr, soup blogs, and maps of meaning – IBL for part-time mature Foundation Programme students”.

8. Jones, Thomas (students) Jones (staff); Department of Psychology:

“Critical appraisal of the public presentation of psychology”.

9. Kinsey (staff); Department of Journalism: “Inquiry-based learning and journalism”.

10. Murphy, Newton, Parmenter, Taylor (students); Department of Human

Communication Sciences: “Returning to learning: an inquiry-based learning activity for taught postgraduates during introduction week”.

11. Stafford; Department of Psychology: “Debates in cognitive

neuroscience: motivations, challenges and experiences”.

12. Steadman-Jones (staff); School of English: “Inquiry-based learning in the School of English: sounds, texts and images”.

13. Tame (student); School of East Asian Studies: “Podcasts and blogcasts:

bridging the divide on your year abroad”.


94

CILASS IBL Network and IBL Café Project Dissemination

1. O’Brien, Rhodes (students); Department of Information Studies: “Involving students in the process of research”, April 2007.

2. Rempel; Department of Archaeology: “Athens Empire and the Classical

Greek”, March 2007.

3. Bestwick, Stanning, Kermeen, Goble (CILASS student ambassadors) and Kinsey, Department of Journalism: “Student perceptions of IBL – the student film and the staff film response”, March 2007.

4. Various (staff): “Inquiry-based learning: project leaders share

experiences”, March 2007.

5. van Oostrum, Steadman-Jones; School of English: “Teaching clusters: encouraging departmental collaboration”, February 2007.

6. Fiennes (student coordinator, CILASS student ambassador network):

“Students and inquiry-based learning”, November 2007.

7. Freeman; Department of Human Communication Sciences: “Inquiry-based learning in induction week”, November 2007.

8. Eley; Department of French: “Totally frivolous topics – inquiry-based

learning in the French Department”, July 2006.

9. Semmens, Taylor; Department of Law: “Understanding Law 1 – CILASS Phase 1 Project”, June 2006.

10. Scaife; School of Education: “Problem-based learning in educational

and professional studies”, May 2006.

11. Vick; Department of History: “CILASS Projects in History”, March 2006. University of Sheffield Conferences and Workshops

1. Levy; CILASS: “Inquiry collaboratories: classrooms as research environments”, Advocating Inquiry-based Learning Workshop, Good Practice Week, University of Sheffield, May 2007.

2. Freeman, Department of Human Communication Sciences; Little;

CILASS: “Preparing to learn: induction and inquiry-based learning, Good Practice Week, University of Sheffield, May 2007.


95

3. Levy, Little, Aiyegbayo, Loasby; CILASS: “Designing and sgaring inquiry-based learning activities (DeSILA)”, Spotlight on Teaching Awareness Session, University of Sheffield, May 2007.

4. Levy, Petrulis and SoTL SIG; CILASS: “The scholarship of learning and

teaching”, Spotlight on Teaching Awareness Session, University of Sheffield, April 2007.

5. Levy, Petrulis; CILASS: “Exploring students’ perceptions of inquiry-

based learning in the arts and social sciences”, Learning and Teaching Forum, University of Sheffield, January 2007.

6. Levy, McKinney, Little; CILASS: “Exploring inquiry-based learning”,

Spotlight on Teaching Conference, University of Sheffield, June 2006.

7. Levy; CILASS: “CILASS”, University of Utrecht Study Visit, February 2006.

8. Levy; CILASS: “Inquiry-based learning”, 1st Teaching Advocates Network

Conference, University of Sheffield, July 2005. HEA Subject Centre Links English • CILASS participated in School of English Learning Teaching and

Assessment Strategy meeting with visitors from the Subject Centre, January 2007.

Information and Computer Science • Joint CILASS/ICS event planned for 2007-8. • Special ‘inquiry-based learning’ issue of ITALICS (ICS journal) planned for

January 2008 (edited by Levy). History, Classics and Archaeology • CILASS hosted History Subject Centre event, January 2006 and attended

follow-up event, January 2007. Theology and Religious Studies • Joint HEA-funded research project, 2007. Joint CILASS/TRS event planned for 2007-8. External events attended (CILASS core team and others)

1. Wood, CILASS: HEA Annual Conference, Harrogate, July 2007.

2. Corry, Reilly, Wood; CILASS: LTEA Annual Conference, University of Surrey, June 2007.


96

3. Rossiter; Department of Chemical and Process Engineering: Blended Learning Conference, University of Hertfordshire, June 2007.

4. Corry; CILASS: AUA Yorkshire Regional Conference, Leeds Metropolitan

University, May 2007.

5. Herrick; Institute for Lifelong Learning: SoTL Symposium, University of Glasgow, April 2007.

6. Levy, Reilly; CILASS: CETL National Conference, University of Warwick,

March 2007.

7. Little; CILASS: HEA National Student Network Event, UCE Birmingham, 12 February 2007.

8. Levy; CILASS: CETL Directors meeting, CEAL (Centre for Active

Learning), University of Gloucestershire, January 2007.

9. Levy; CILASS: SRHE Annual Conference 2006, Brighton, December 2006.

10. Levy: CILASS: Bridging Research and Teaching, RCUK/HEA, London,

November 2006.

11. Little; CILASS: Learning Lab Workshop on Web 2.0 Technologies, Telford, December 2006.

12. Little; CILASS: Sharing the LOAD Learning Design Workshop,

Nottingham, November 2006.

13. Levy; CILASS: Research-based Learning in Higher Education, University

of Warwick, October 2006.

14. Petrulis; CILASS: Researching with Integrity’ Workshop, Coventry University, October 2006.

15. Levy, Little, McKinney; CILASS HEA Annual Conference, July 2006,

University of Nottingham, (LTEA poster).

16. Little, McKinney; CILASS: CEEBL Symposium, University of Manchester, June 2006.

17. Reilly: SCEPTrE Launch, University of Surrey, June 2006.

18. Corry, Glasmann, Reilly; CILASS: CETL Student Network Event,

University of Manchester, March 2006.


97

19. Glasmann, Levy; CILASS: Innovating e-Learning, JISC (online), March

2006.

20. Glasmann; CILASS: WUN E-learning Research Seminar, University of Leeds, March 2006.

21. Glasmann; CILASS: WUN E-learning seminar (online) 27 February 2006.

22. Glasmann; CILASS: E-learning in the Disciplines (JISC/HEA), Aston

University, February 2006.

23. Glasmann, Reilly; CILASS: CETL Conference (HEA), Aston University, February 2006.

24. Levy; CILASS: Redesigning Universities Day-Conference, Oxford

Brookes University, January 2006.

25. Bing, Levy; CILASS: Pedagogical Research Workshop, CeAL, University of Gloucestershire, January 2006.

26. Levy; CILASS: Researching Research-based Learning Seminar,

University of Birmingham (Reinvention Centre for Undergraduate Research), December 2005.

27. Jones; Department of Psychology: Linking Teaching and Research,

Psychology Subject Centre for Biosciences, York (HEA), October 2005.

28. Levy; CILASS: Launches of other CETLs (London Metropolitan, Manchester, Warwick), October-November 2005.

29. Levy; CILASS: HEA CETL Conference, “Evaluation”, October 2005.

CILASS Student Journal (http://cilass-student-journal.group.shef.ac.uk/) Research Articles:

• Locke, C. A. (2007) “Designing an unmanned aerial vehicle”.

• Sapiro, D. (2007). “What makes musical performance expressive? Reflections:

• Tame, J. (2007). “Inquiry-based learning and the Year Abroad”;

• Thomas, R. (2007). “Mooting”;


98

• Howard, L. (2007). “Inquiry-based learning and Economics 1”.

• Close, J. (2007). “Inquiry-based learning and Dutch”.

• Björnsdóttir, K. (2007). “Collaborative learning promoting collaborative practice”.

• McNamee, P. (2007). Inquiry-based learning and Economics 2”.

Case Studies:

• Rees, T. (2007). “Inquiry-based learning: the ‘levels of comprehension’ technique”.

• Carson, Z. (2007). “Roots/Routes”.

• Tough, S. (2007). “The British Library Theatre Archive Project”.

External workshops/sessions hosted by the CILASS CETL

1. Dickens, Kate. ‘Finding, sharing and re-using online resources: Personalising the experience for the teacher and the learner’, University of Southampton, May 2007

2. Neary, Mike. ‘Staff/Student Symposium keynote address’, University of

Warwick, April 2007

3. Savin-Baden, Maggi. ‘Problem Based Learning’, University of Coventry, March 2007

4. Brew, Angela. ‘Inquiry Academy workshop at Higham Hall’, University of

Sydney, January 2007

5. Kreber, Caroline. ‘Inquiry Academy workshop at Higham Hall’, University of Edinburgh, January 2007

6. Jenkins, Alan. ‘Linking Teaching and Research in your discipline’,

Reinvention Centre for Undergraduate Research at Warwick and Oxford Brookes Universities, and Consultant on Teaching / Research Relations for the Higher Education Academy, November 2006

7. Samuelsson, Christina. ‘Student Centred Learning in HE’, University of

Linkoping, Sweden, December 2005


99

External visitors

1. Hancock, Phil. University of Western Australia, May 2007

2. Lewellyn, Karen. University of York St John, April 2007

3. Ramsden, Paul. CEO HE Academy, April 2007

4. Segal, Rachel. HE Academy, February 2007

5. Brew, Angela. University of Sydney, January 2007

6. Carson, Christie. English Subject Centre, December 2006

7. Goody, Allan. Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, University of Western Australia, June 2006

CILASS Development Events

1. IBL Café series (every Tuesday morning during semester time from October 2006 onwards). Topics included: Graduating Student IBL Survey – feedback; Pod casting; Learning spaces; Digital Gaming – inquiry through games; Blogging; Induction activity in Human Communication Studies Department – feedback; Students and IBL; LAMS/DeSILA project showcase; What the library can do for IBL; SOTL Group; Teaching clusters: getting colleagues on board with curriculum development projects; Assessing collaborative inquiry; Wikis for collaborative inquiry; New IBL grant projects – sharing ideas; CILASS student film; Athens Empire and the Classical Greek World CILASS project; IBL in my discipline.

2. CILASS Champions events : summer 2006, February 2007

3. Information Commons Exhibition, February 2007

4. IBL Funding Opportunities workshops, December 2005, June 2006,

December 2006, June 2007

5. IBL Network events: Law Session, March 2006. ‘Engaging Participants’, July 2006. English Session, May 2007

6. Exploring IBL sessions, May 2006, October 2006, March 2007

7. Case Studies for IBL, November 2006

8. IL Network events: Departmental Learning Teaching and Assessment

Strategies (DLTAS) events, November 2006 and February 2007


100

9. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Special Interest Group (SoTL SIG). Monthly group meetings from November 2006

10. Inquiry Academy residential in Lake District, January 2007

11. CILASS IBL Staff/Student Symposium, April 2007

12. Social Networking events. Summer First Anniversary BBQ, July 2006.

CILASS @ Christmas mulled wine and mince pies, December 2007. Summer Second Anniversary BBQ, July 2007

Publications

1. Bing, P. and Levy, P. (2006). Inquiry-based learning and information literacy development: a CETL approach” ITALICS 5 (1) http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss2.htm

2. Levy, P. (2007, in press). Exploring and developing excellence: towards

a community of praxis. In: Skelton, A. (ed). International Perspectives on Teaching Excellence in Higher Education. London: Routledge, pp.241-256.

3. Levy, P. (2007). Towards a community of inquiry for inquiry-based

learning: a CETL perspective. In: Fanghanel, J. et al (eds). Practising the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Proceedings of the SoTL 6th Annual International Conference, City University, London, 18-19 May 2006.

4. Little, S. (2007; in progress): ‘Oily rag’ or ‘winged messenger’: the role

of the developer in multi-professional teams, in Donnelly,R. and Sweeney, F. (eds.) Applied eLearning and eTeaching in Higher Education. New York: Idea Group Publishing.

5. Little, S. (2007; in press) Supporting a dispersed community:

community of practice development in the Caribbean. In: Kimble, C. and Hildreth, P. (eds). Communities of Practice: Creating Learning Environments for Educators. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

6. Semmens, N. and Taylor, M. (2006). CILASS: promoting inquiry-based

learning and information literacy. UK Centre for Legal Education Newsletter (Directions), Spring. http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/directions/previous/issue12/cilass.html

7. van Oostrum, D. and Steadman-Jones, R. (2007, in press). Taking the

imaginative leap: creative writing and inquiry-based learning, Pedagogy 7(3)


101

Other 1. Jenkins, A., Healey, M. and Zetter, R. (2007). Linking teaching and research

in disciplines and departments, York: HEA. Includes CILASS case study, pp.72-3. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/research/LinkingTeachingAndResearch_April07.pdf

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/research/LinkingTeachingAndResearch_April07.pdf

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/research/LinkingTeachingAndResearch_April07.pdf


102

Appendix 11 Financial Briefing

1. Introduction A statement is required by HEFCE to present the budget position as at 31st July per annum and this is fed into the Institutional Annual Monitoring Statement. CILASS receives a total revenue income of £2,500,000 over the 5 years of the programme. Capital The CILASS programme has also received £1.83 million capital which has purchased space on Level 1 of the Information Commons. An additional £170k has been allocated to fund the provision of equipment to core departments in the first phases of operation. A breakdown of the equipment requested/purchased can be found at the end of this document. Any underspend will be brought back into the Centre to further enhance fit-out. Revenue The original CILASS revenue budget spreadsheet submitted as part of the Stage 2 Bid provided relatively detailed costings for the first two years of recurrent funding and estimated costings for the subsequent three years, together with brief explanations for the bases of the costings given. HEFCE gives CETLs complete flexibility to allocate and reallocate revenue funding across budget lines and at the end of the second programme year a review was conducted. A revised budget to take CILASS forward into the next three years of the programme has been prepared. This document provides a brief overview of actual and forecast revenue and capital spend and explains the background to the budget review. 2. Variance

2.1. Staffing There has been underspend on the staffing budget in the first two years of operation, principally as a result of lower-than-anticipated staffing costs caused by delays in appointments of core team at the beginning of the programme and slower than anticipated recruitment of Academic Fellows. Key revisions made to the original budget are as follows:

• Research Associate (1.0fte) funded one year early from Sept. 2006 to enhance capacity for research programme activities.

• Maternity leave cover (LDRA - IL) from April 2007 and (LDRA – NL)

from October 2007.


103

• IT/AV Technician employed from January 2007 0.43fte to provide

user support in collaboratories. Planned 1.0fte from September 2007.

• Technical Support Officer (0.2fte) budget line has been created, but not yet used (recruitment unsuccessful)

• Student Ambassadors’ hours worked boosted to 60 p.a. and Student

Ambassador Coordinator post (105 hours p.a.) created. A budget has been established for each of the Student Ambassador Network workgroups.

• Research budget line created, to support additional research costs

(e.g. participant payment, data transcription, small-scale research contract work).

• Conference fees budget line created for non-core staff (original

project plan indicated intent to provide for conference attendance by project leaders, study visits etc. but without separate budget line).

• Reward and recognition budget increased to accommodate award

component of Academic Fellowship appointment.

• External evaluation budget line created to accommodate consultancy fees.

• Internal evaluation budget line enhanced to accommodate costs

associated with team review away days, etc.

• Graduating student survey budget line created, to enable baseline and longitudinal evaluation data collection (survey administered by UoS Statistical Services Unit, with cash prizes to incentivise response).

• LTEA partnership projects and Sheffield conference budget line

created (original budget line for HEA network membership reallocated to this).

2.2. Commissioned support

There has been underspend on budget lines for the following elements of commissioned support:

• Learning Technology (LDMU) – the specialist learning technology support needs of CILASS projects have been less than expected. There may therefore be flexibility for reallocation of part of this projected budget to different budget lines in Years 3, 4 and 5.


104

• Dissemination (TLSU) – consultant/advisory support is provided but anticipated operational support is not available and the funding could be reallocated elsewhere for future years. Possible 0.4fte Event Coordinator position from September 2007.

2.3. Funding allocation for engagement

• Departmental/School strand - 3 new departments have joined the

core faculties (Architecture, Landscape and Town and Regional Planning) and funding allocated accordingly.

• IBL Grant Scheme – From winter Project Year 2 we have advertised a

specific IBL Grant Scheme Scholarship of Teaching and Learning strand but currently do not have a dedicated budget line for this theme. Similarly, from summer Project Year 2 we have also advertised a ‘interdisciplinary strand’. These changes reflect the planned operational developments.

• Interdisciplinary allocation – a budget specifically identified for

engagement across departments. There is Project Year 2 £40k and Project Year 4 £40k to be advertised twice in the 5 year cycle.

3) Other budget lines under consideration from year 3 onwards:

a) Library book fund b) UG ‘scholarship of learning’ projects c) UG Research Scholarship Scheme (extra-curricular research

opportunities) d) PhD Studentships e) Staff training

4) Capital equipment - departmental breakdown PHASE 1 School of Education mobile interactive whiteboard (Promethean)

mobile data projector School of English Variety of technology: desktop PCs, tablet PCs,

printer, digital camera, flat bed scanner, digital video camcorder, sound recording equipment, specialist software

History ceiling mounted projector interactive whiteboard monitors semi-circular tables digital camera Human wireless laptops


105

Communication Sciences Information Commons

wireless laptops

School of Law interactive whiteboards wireless laptops data projectors Library Apple laptop School of Modern Language (SOMLAL)

laptops

digital camcorders PHASE 2 Archaeology digital cameras (+ memory card upgrade)

wireless laptops mobile data projector sympodium cordless mouse and keyboard

Management School laptops (wireless) secure cabinet (for laptops) wireless router Philosophy laptop (Viglen) laptop (Apple) mobile data projector Psychology 12 inch iBooks 60 inch interactive whiteboards Bedfont iCart (secure trolley) PHASE 3 Biblical Studies digital camcorders desktop PC (tbc) flat-bed scanner digital Cameras sympodium (tbc) 3-D scanner (tbc) large screen PCs (tbc) semi-circular tables (tbc) Economics electronic Group Response System (50) Geography laptop Journalism Studies kit to supplement the fit-out of the new Newsroom

(plasma screen technology based on set up at CILASS Collaboratory 3)

Music R-09 portable audio recorders memory cards fixed data projector


106

School of East Asian Studies

hand held audio equipment

laptop cordless mouse & keyboard mobile data projector digital Camcorder MP3 players (tbc) Sociological Studies digital camcorders

CILASS is a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL), awarded to the University of Sheffield by the Higher Education Funding Council

for England in April, 2005

CILASS - the Centre for Inquiry-based Learning in the Arts and Social Sciences.

Centre for Inquiry-based Learning in the Arts and Social .../file/CILASS_Interim... · Contact: Dr...

Documents

Transcript of Centre for Inquiry-based Learning in the Arts and Social .../file/CILASS_Interim... · Contact: Dr...